Nuclear Blackmail and America’s Fantasy War with China

Peter Lee

Another day, another piece of US think-tankery poo-pooing the prospects for a nuclear confrontation with the PRC.

RAND came up with a new report on the economic costs of war with China, Thinking the Unthinkable.  In RAND’s view the war won’t escalate beyond a limited conventional war fought in the West Pacific and over Chinese territory, China gets devastated beyond its ability to resist and keep military forces in the field, we win, the world economy staggers but carries on, The End.

I beg to differ, for reasons given in my current piece for Asia Times, RAND’s ‘Unthinkable’ War with China.

It’s always possible that I’m out of line here, but I think RAND’s public confidence is borderline delusional.

The PRC is narrowing the conventional military disparity with the US and it seems most likely sooner or later, maybe around 2025, the US is going to have to bring nukes into the equation to make sure it can win a war with China.

That’s what we had to do with the Soviet Union—that’s why we’ve still got those nukes at Incirlik in Turkey—and I don’t see any reason why this wouldn’t happen in Asia.

My personal theory is that Thinktankistan has been put on notice not to provide any oxygen to the nuclear narrative right now because, if a nuclear exchange is seen as feasible, then Japan, South Korea, and even Taiwan are going to want to have their own nuclear deterrent.

Faith in the technical capabilities of Raytheon missile defense ain’t gonna cut it, in my opinion, if we’re talking about a clutch of Chinese missiles making it through the shield to take out US bases in Japan and that nice THAAD installation in South Korea…and they might be nuclear-tipped.

If everybody’s got nukes, they not only don’t need the US nuclear umbrella; they’ve got their own defense and security policies and the US, instead of acting as the maestro of the China-containment orchestra, is just the fat guy with the tuba in the back row who provides some extra oompah to support the front line players.

The PRC therefore has two incentives to abandon its old fashioned No First Use/MAD deterrent based on a few ICBMs.

First, naturally, is that the threat of a nuclear deterrent based on first use or launch on warning becomes more useful, maybe necessary, as the US packs offensive capabilities, including dual use (nuke as well as conventional) enabled fighter-bombers and cruise missiles into the East Asian theater.

Second, triggering a nuclear arms race in Asia shreds the US nuclear umbrella that underpins US leadership of the pivot, fragments the alliance, and allows the PRC to target—and intimidate—US allies bilaterally and bring its local superiority to bear.

Interesting element of PRC leverage, isn’t it?  Evaluations of PRC current and future nuclear policy (and the US dance of provocation and accommodation with China) should probably weight this factor pretty highly.

China isn’t the only country with the ability to upset the US nuclear applecart.

If the genuine history of US strategy for East Asia is written, it will of course cover the multi-decade effort to d*ck with China.  But it will also include the secret history of the US effort to direct and control Japanese rearmament as an asset for US hegemony, while keeping a rein on Japanese geo-strategic ambitions…and keeping Japan from turning the nuclear assets covertly gifted by the Pentagon into a declared nuclear weapons capability (Joseph Trento can write that section).

This is not a theoretical issue.  Shinzo Abe is a dyed-in-the-wool anti-American revisionist Japanese nationalist who is determined to exploit the US eagerness to remain the official East Asian hegemon to extend Japan’s geopolitical sway into East Asia and restore its dignity as a full-fledged regional power.

For Team America, keeping a leash on Japan and the US in the driver’s seat for Asian security policy is Job One.  That means the pot has to keep boiling enough to keep the US in control of the pivot polarization narrative and development of security alliances with the Philippines, Vietnam, et al.  while  keeping things calm enough that Japan stays on rez as a nominal junior partner of the coalition, whose military adventurism is still officially circumscribed by the principle of “collective self defense” in support of US operations.

As it pays lip service to US leadership, Japan has used the US pivot to develop its own bilateral security ties down ASEAN way and with India—and is reaching out to the Tsai Ying-wen government on Taiwan, which probably gives US planners a distinct case of the collywobbles.

Japan is, in other words, edging toward the full formal resumption of a “normal” role in overseas military affairs, one in which it officially pursues its own interests and doesn’t just follow US policy.

If Japan goes nuclear, it’s pretty much game over.  The US becomes just another passenger on the pivot bus.  So Japan can also use its nuclear weapons potential as leverage over the US to shape policy and extract concessions.

Which means, in my opinion, RAND has to pretend, at least publicly, that nuclear weapons are not a factor in Asian strategy in order to defend the status quo of US leadership and nuclear monopoly.

Privately, I suspect, it’s another matter entirely, and US strategy is shaped both by Chinese and Japanese nuclear blackmail.

Democratic Revolution Sweeps Ethiopia

Graham Peebles

After being frightened into silence for over two decades, the people of Ethiopia are finding their voice and calling for fundamental political change.

Thousands have been taking to the streets in recent weeks and months to peacefully protest against the ruling party. Expressing their collective anger at the injustices and widespread human rights violations taking place throughout the country and calling for democratic elections.

The People are Rising Up

The people have awakened, and overcoming fear and historic differences are beginning to unite. The two main ethnic groups are rallying under a common cause: freedom, justice, and the observation of their constitutionally acknowledged human rights. And the two major opposition parties, the Oromo Democratic Front (ODF) and Patriotic Ginbot 7 for Unity and Democracy (PG7) have formed an alliance in the fight to overthrow the incumbent regime, and are seeking to bring other opposition groups together.

The protests are dominated by people under 25 – 30 years of age; young people, connected to the world via social media who are no longer prepared to live in fear, as Seyoum Teshome, a university lecturer in central Ethiopia told the New York Times, “The whole youth is protesting. A generation is protesting.”

At the moment demonstrations are largely confined to Oromia and Ahmara, but as confidence grows there is every possibility that other regions could become involved, swelling numbers of protestors, overwhelming security forces.

When there is unity, and consistent, peaceful collective action, governments are eventually forced to listen (as has been demonstrated elsewhere in the world), and the attention of the international community is garnered. Ethiopia receives between a third and half of its federal budget in various aid packages from international donors; irresponsible donor countries which see Ethiopia as an ally in the so-called ‘war on terror’, a stable country in a region of instability – the illusion of stability maintained by keeping the populace suppressed.

To their shame utter the countries shame primary donors – America, Britain and the European Union – have repeatedly ignored the cries of the people, and turned a blind eye to human rights abuses perpetrated by the ruling party, which in many cases constitute state terrorism. It is neglect bordering on complicity.

Remain peaceful

This is a historic moment that could result in the overthrow of the government – a day longed for by the majority of Ethiopians – and usher in what activists and opposition groups have been campaigning for; democratic fair elections, and open political debate. None of which, despite the false pronouncements of Barack Obama and the like, have taken place under the EPRDF. Indeed Ethiopia has never known democracy.

It is essential that protestors remain largely peaceful, in spite of the government’s brutal response – and it has been brutal – and this does not turn into an ethnic conflict, with Tigrayan military forces loyal to the government pitched against groups from Oromo, Amhara, Ogaden and elsewhere. To take up arms on any significant scale would not only risk large numbers of casualties and national chaos, but would also allow the regime to propagate false claims of terrorism, attribute the uprising to destabilising influences and ignore the demands of protestors and opposition parties.

The government owns the sole telecommunications company as well as virtually all media outlets in the country, and seeks in every way possible to condition reporting by international media. They regularly close down the Internet in an attempt to make it difficult for protestors to communicate, and will no doubt attempt to manipulate the narrative surrounding the protests. But given the coverage flooding social media – much of which shows so-called ‘security personnel’ indiscriminately beating protestors – as well as first hand accounts, they will not be able to suppress or contaminate the truth.

Government’s Brutal Reaction

Ethiopia is made up of dozens of tribes and a variety of ethnic groups. The people of Oromo and Amhara (at 35% and 27% respectively of the population) make up the majority, and rightly feel they have been ignored and marginalised by the Tigray (6% of the population) TPLF dominated government – who also run the military. And it is in Oromia and the city of Gondar in Amhara that the protests have concentrated in recent weeks and months. Protests that the government has responded to with predictable violence.

It is impossible to state the exact numbers of protestors killed by government forces over the last week or two; Al Jazeera reports that “between 48 to 50 protesters were killed in Oromia,” but the satellite broadcaster, ESAT News, says that “several sources revealed that in the last few days alone [up to 10th August] at least 130 people have been murdered in the Oromo region…while 70 others have been massacred in Amhara.” No doubt the actual figure is a great deal higher than either of these.

Residents of the city of Bahir-Dar told The Guardian that, “soldiers fired live rounds at protesters. Hospitals have been filled by dead and wounded victims.” Thousands have been arrested, and ESAT reports, security forces have been demanding ransom payments from the families of young people who were detained after protesting in the capital Addis Ababa.

Despite the fact that freedom of assembly is clearly spelt out in the Ethiopian constitution (Article 30), the Prime Minister, Haile Mariam Dessalegn, announced a blanket ban on demonstrations, which, he said, “threaten national unity”. He called on the police – who need no encouragement to behave like thugs – to use all means at their disposal to stop protests occurring. The Communications Minister Getachew Reda chipped in, and called the protests illegal. All of which is irrelevant and of course misses the point completely.

Shocked and appalled at the ruling regime’s violent reaction to the protests, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights urged “the government to allow access for international observers into the affected regions to be able to establish what exactly transpired.” The spokesperson described information coming out of Amhara and Ormoia as “extremely alarming”, saying there had been “no genuine attempt at ensuring accountability” since reports of abuses by security forces began emerging back in December. The government’s arrogant, not to say cowardly reply was to reject the request; Getachew Reda, without a whiff of irony, told Al Jazeera that “the UN was entitled to its opinion but the government of Ethiopia was responsible for the safety of its own people.” Perhaps if Ethiopia’s main benefactors began to do their donor duty and apply pressure to the regime, they would be more conciliatory.

Refusing to engage with opposition groups and believing totally in the power of force and fear to control populations, dictatorships like the EPRDF instinctively respond to calls for freedom and justice by intensifying the very suppressive measures that are driving the popular uprising: The days of such totalitarian regime’s is fast coming to an end, it is a disintegrating body moving towards certain extinction.

Unstoppable Momentum for Change

For years the Ethiopian government and the country’s major donors have been propagating the lie that democracy and social development were flowering inside the country. As the people march that myth is now beginning to totally unravel.

The plain truth is that the EPRDF government, in power since 1991, is a vicious, undemocratic regime that has systematically suppressed the population for the last twenty-five years. There is no freedom of expression, the judiciary is a puppet of the state, political opposition leaders as well as journalists and anyone who openly expresses dissent are imprisoned (often tortured), their families persecuted. Humanitarian aid, employment and higher education opportunities are distributed on a partisan basis; and what economic growth there has been (dramatically downgraded by the IMF recently) has largely flowed into the coffers of government officials and supporters.

A social protest movement has been building with growing intensity since the 2010 general election (which like the ones before it, and since, was stolen by the EPRDF), and now the momentum appears to be unstoppable.

No matter how many courageous protesters the police and military shoot – and they will no doubt continue killing – arrest and intimidate, this time there is a real chance that the people will not be put down; they will no longer be denied their rights. They sense, as large numbers of people do everywhere, that an energy of change is sweeping through the world, that they are in tune with the times, and that this is the moment to unite and act.

Beginning in Oromia in March 2014 and intensified last November, large demonstrations were staged in opposition to government plans to expand the capital Addis Ababa onto agricultural land in Oromia. They began in Ginchi, a small town southwest of the capital, and spread to over 400 locations throughout the 17 zones of Oromia. At the same time demonstrators were marching in Gondar demanding, amongst other things, academic rights.

The ERDF reacted by deploying armed police and military that used “excessive and lethal force against largely peaceful protests.” Human Rights Watch (HRW) states that over 400 innocent people were killed; ESAT, however, puts the number even higher, saying that “at least 600 protesters were killed in the last nine months” in the Oromia region.

The protests in Oromia and Amhara have been ignited by specific issues – territory, land use, the stolen 2015 elections and the EPRD’s paranoid undemocratic hold on power – however these are not the underlying causes, but triggers, a series of final straws laid on top of two decades of violent suppression and injustice. Such violations are not just confined to these major regions, but are experienced more or less throughout the country; in Gambella, and the Ogaden region for example, where all manner of State-sponsored atrocities have been taking place.

The EPRDF government has attempted to rule Ethiopia through intimidation and fear. Such violent, crude methods will only succeed for so long: eventually the people will unite and revolt, as they are now doing, and all strength to their cause, which is wholly just.

The Inequalities of Health

Devan Hawkins

The Occupy movement and the insurgent campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn  have brought inequality to a central stage in the political conversation on both sides of the Atlantic. For the most part this conversation has focused on the social and economic impacts of inequality. However, research over the last four decades has shown that some of the most persistent and destructive impacts of inequality are on health. A new book The Health Gap by the Australia-trained physician Dr. Michael Marmot seeks to describe these impacts and lay out ways by which they may be mitigated.

With this large goal in mind, The Health Gap should really be calledThe Health Gaps. In laying out how inequalities lead to different health outcomes for different populations, three significant gaps become clear. The first, and probably most famous gap, is that between low and high income countries. Low income countries lag behind higher income countries in almost all health measures. The lack of money and resources necessary to have a strong health infrastructure has a lot to do with this, but as countries become wealthier, this link between money and health outcomes begins to disappear. As Marmot notes, “Even more money does not guarantee good health. Above a national income of about $10,000 there is very little relationship between national income and life expectancy.”

This central point is illustrated by a graph shaped like the top half of a ‘C’ showing that as a nation’s GDP on the x-axis increases, life expectancy on y-axis also increases, but this relationship rapidly flattens as the GDP becomes higher with essentially no relationship between GDP and life expectancy even in the wealthiest countries. So yes money does matter in poor countries, but not so much in wealthy countries.

This leads to the second health gap—that between different ‘developed’ countries. Those countries located further down that GDP curve. Despite there being no 
difference in health outcomes based on income in these countries, there are indeed differences. The U.S., for instance, has a life expectancy of 84 while Japan has a life expectancy of 76, despite the U.S’s much greater GDP.

While it may be easy to explain what accounts for the differences in health between developed and less developed countries, it is more difficult to explain differences between developed countries. It is clear that one explanation we might think of—health care spending—does not account for all of it. As was stated ad nausea during the debate around Obamacare, the U.S. spends more than almost any industrialized nation on health care, bus as we have already seen, this does not lead to better health outcomes.

So what does account for these differences? Marmot states his answer: “The pollutant is poverty, or more generally lower rank in the social hierarchy (111).” As he makes clear throughout the book in chapters about role of childhood, working life, and old age, societies that provide for more equality during these periods also tend to have better health outcomes.

Of course this does not account for all the differences in health. It is not as though inequality alone is a magic wand creating poor health. It is instead the case that economic and social inequalities have a tendency to create health gradients within societies. Therefore, if a society is more unequal there will be more individuals who fall at lower ends of these gradients. This gap within society, the health gradient as one moves from the top of the socioeconomic ladder to the bottom, is the third gap described in Marmot’s book.

These conclusions are not speculative. They are backed up by years of research. For Marmot, they began with his research into the Whitehall cohort of British Civil Servants where he identified a clear gradient in cardiovascular mortality by occupational grade, with those of lower grade in employment having more cardiovascular disease mortality than those in higher grades. Since then evidence has been amassed by Marmot and other health researchers around the world about how social factors, ranging from income to racisms impact our health.

With these huge volumes of evidence in mind then the question remains—why do most of us when we discuss health focus on factors like lack of exercise and unhealthy diet. These factors certainly affect health, but they tended to be found disproportionately among poor individuals—why is this?

Marmot refers to socioeconomic factor as “the cause of causes” saying “My argument is that tackling disempowerment is crucial for improving health and improving health equity. “To Marmot if we want to do anything about health behaviors, we must alter the socioeconomic factors that cause them in the first place. Otherwise it’s just like trying to stop a leak in a roof while it’s still raining. You might plug a few holes, but more are just going to open back up. In the same way, structural factors like our occupations, our neighborhoods, and how much control we have over our lives, what are usually termed the social determinants of health, must be confronted if we want to do anything about these wider problems.

Marmot’s early research into these important issues was conducted in the United Kingdom and that is important. The U.K. has always had a well-defined class system making it easier to talk about how these class differences can cause health differences. In the United States where we often imagine that there is no hierarchical class structure, this conversation is more difficult. But this seems to be changing. Hopefully as inequality becomes an ever more persistent topic, so will health inequities.

The Olympics: Nationalism at its Worst

Robert Fantina

Once again the world is being subjected to the periodic nationalist orgy known as the Olympics. Here, we are told, participating nations around the globe are all equal, and send their best athletes for a friendly competition, where nothing but sportsmanship counts, and any and all other differences are not even considered. After trying their very best in each of many different sports, the top three are honored with a gold, silver or bronze medal, something he or she can look proudly on for generations to come.

This writer hates to burst such a pretty balloon (actually, he doesn’t hate doing so at all), but once one has passed the age where Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy have all been relegated to the status of pleasant childhood memories, the same should be done with the farce of the Olympics.

Let’s look for a minute at a few examples.

Thirty-one-year old U.S. citizen Michael Phelps has now won more gold medals in Olympic games than any other athlete in history. Americans are so proud of his ability to swim faster than anyone else, and his savings account will no doubt increase greatly, as ever more companies seek his endorsement. This is certainly a success story; a young man who grew up in a middle class neighborhood in Maryland, and who began swimming after being diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity disorder, as an outlet for his energies. We will forget for the moment his multiple arrests for impaired driving; what on earth does that matter, when he can swim so fast?

Now let us look at another Olympic swimmer, Yursa Mardini, age 18. Ms. Mardina is a Syrian refugee, who, perhaps, didn’t have the same advantages as Mr. Phelps. She refers to being in the Olympics as a ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity; please note that the current games are Mr. Phelp’s fifth foray into an Olympic pool. And training was sometimes difficult for Ms. Mardini, not because she didn’t have sufficient energy or motivation, but because of other factors. Said she: “…sometimes we couldn’t train because of the war. Or sometimes you had training but there was a bomb in the swimming pool.” Mr. Phelps, once caught with a bong in his mouth, never had a bomb in his pool.

But perhaps Ms. Mardini did have an advantage. When fleeing Turkey for Greece, along with nineteen other people in a boat designed to hold six, the motor failed. She and two others, the only people on the boat who could swim, entered the cold water and pushed the boat for three hours until reaching safety. Think of the lessons in endurance, stamina and determination! Poor Mr. Phelps was probably out getting high when Ms. Mardini was involved in this rigorous practice session.

Early on, it was reported that athletes from Lebanon riding a bus from one venue to another, refused to allow Israeli athletes to board. Is this not a lack of sportsmanship? Should not the Lebanese athletes have allowed representatives from a brutal, murderous, apartheid regime in violation of countless international laws to have ridden with them in the sacred name of sportsmanship? After all, aren’t there times when civilized people just put the thought of slaughtered children, blown apart when playing on a beach, or of families bombed when taking refuge in United Nations shelters, behind them? Shouldn’t there be occasions, such as sporting events, when such trivial things as carpet-bombing residences, hospitals and houses of worship should just be ignored?

Swimming and bus rides; where else should one ignore violations of human rights? Well, how about martial arts? Egyptian Olympian Islam Shihabi was defeated by an Israeli, and after the Judo match, refused to shake his hand. Again, shock and outrage by nationalists who, every few years, become enamored with the athletic world, and couldn’t countenance this breach of etiquette.

Why, one wonders, could not Mr. Shihabi ignore the barbarity of Israel in the name of sportsmanship?

Well, let’s move on a bit, and look at the glittering city of Rio de Janeiro, hosting the Olympics. Yes, the police said they couldn’t offer adequate protection, and yes, some athletes participating in sporting events in the water were told not to submerge their heads, but we’ll overlook those things and only watch the exciting competitions.

Oh, and should we bother to even think about the 60,000 Brazilians who were driven from their homes so the Olympic stadium, parking and other structures required for this penultimate sports activity could take place? Some received some compensation for their loss, but none of them had any choice in the matter. So what if they lived in a house built by a grandparent, where three generations had been raised? It only took a bulldozer a short time to make their cherished home nothing but rubble.

The Olympics, for some bizarre reason, attract the attention of people for whom watching an athletic event, let alone ever participating in one, does not occur outside of this periodic spectacle. But these are people who never let an opportunity pass for a flag to be waved, and to rejoice in anything that, in their narrow little minds, sets their nation above all the rest. There is no thought of the deadly, murderous horrors their country may inflict on innocent people (see: USA, Israel), no thought to the exploitation and abuse of the poor (see: USA, Brazil), no thought of blatant racism (see: USA, Israel). No, if a swimmer from one’s own country swims faster than the swimmers representing other countries, one’s country is the greatest! For such people, seeing an athlete representing their country stand atop the highest pedestal, accepting a gold medal, brings a tear to the eye as the chest swells with pride!

Ah, sportsmanship! Another distraction from reality! Just what the U.S. needs.

Hillary Clinton’s War Policy

Brian Cloughley

As a result of Trump’s stumbles, Hillary Clinton seems to be on course to become next president of the United States and it is depressing to reflect on what some of her policies might be if she achieves that office. Unfortunately, the future looks bleak for peace and stability around the world.

She is one of the Washington-Brussels war-drum beaters who planned the 2011 aerial blitz on Libya to destroy the government of President Gaddafi, about whose murder she giggled that “We came; We saw; He died.” The US-NATO attacks on Libya caused massive suffering and destruction, opened the way for feuding bands of militants to fight each other for control of parts of the country, and created a haven for the lunatic extremists of Islamic State.

Immediately after Gaddafi was brutally slaughtered Clinton went to Libya and declared she was “proud to stand here on the soil of a free Tripoli and on behalf of the American people I congratulate Libya . . . this is Libya’s victory, the future belongs to you.”  Her sentiments were echoed by the US-NATO Secretary General of the time, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who expressed pride that the seven months of rocket, bomb and missile attacks on a defenceless country had been “one of the most successful [operations] in NATO’s history.”  Both of them were talking nonsense, but have never given the slightest indication that they regretted for a moment their energetic role in creating the Libyan catastrophe.

(Rasmussen was hired by Goldman Sachs when he left his NATO job in 2014, just after Hillary was hired by Goldman Sachs for $225,000 to give a speech to a Goldman Sachs meeting at the Ritz Carlton Dove Mountain Resort in Arizona.  NATO’s Code of Conduct requires its former officials to refrain from using “non-public information obtained through our official position for private gain, either for ourselves or others.”  Hillary doesn’t have a Code of Conduct.)

It is apparent that Clinton will be uncompromising about continuing Obama’s policy of international confrontation from the Baltic to the South China Sea, and that she, too, firmly believes that “America remains the indispensable nation.”  It is open to doubt, however, that this self-imposed mantle of indispensability has done anything to further peace and stability around the globe.

The armed forces and intelligence agencies of the indispensable nation have carried out thousands of airstrikes all over the world over many years.  From Pakistan in the east to Libya on the Mediterranean, by way of Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria there have been attacks by F-15 Strike Eagles, B-52 bombers, helicopter gunships, the A-10 Warthog, the even more terrifying Hercules AC-130 Spectre gunship (one of which destroyed that hospital in Afghanistan last year), Tomahawk cruise missiles, and drones firing Hellfires.  The amount of explosives delivered cannot be calculated, but as one indicator of quantities, in the two years of attacks on various groups in Syria and Iraq, “coalition” aircraft delivered about 50,000 bombs and missiles.  All of these blitzes were supported by Hillary Clinton.

On July 1 the White House released a statement about its worldwide drone war, and the Washington Post noted its admission that “the United States has inadvertently killed between 64 and 116 civilians in drone and other lethal air attacks against terrorism suspects in non-war zones,” and commented that “in releasing only aggregate figures that did not include when or where the strikes occurred, the administration shielded those claims from meaningful public scrutiny, even as it sought to bolster its own assertions about the accuracy and effectiveness of the operations.”

Even the Post could not praise the drone war, and recorded that “The New America Foundation and the Long War Journal, which have tracked drone strikes since the George W Bush administration, each put the number of civilians killed under the current administration at just over 200.”

President Obama rejoiced that his aerial onslaughts around the globe are increasing and in June declared that  “I’ve authorized a series of steps to ratchet up our fight against ISIL [Islamic State]: additional US personnel, including Special Forces, in Syria to assist local forces battling ISIL there; additional advisors to work more closely with Iraqi security forces, and additional assets, including attack helicopters; and additional support for local forces in northern Iraq.  Our aircraft continue to launch from the USS Harry Truman, now in the Mediterranean.  Our B-52 bombers are hitting ISIL with precision strikes.  Targets are being identified and hit even more quickly — so far, 13,000 airstrikes.  This campaign at this stage is firing on all cylinders.”  And that was before he attacked Libya, yet again.

President Obama fired on a few more cylinders when, as reported on August 4 by the US military journal Stars and Stripes, “American warplanes attacked Islamic State group fighters in northern Libya on Wednesday, marking a third consecutive day of US airstrikes in the war-torn nation.”  It can be expected that the attacks will continue for the last remaining months of Obama’s war-promoting presidency — and that his likely successor will pay as little regard as he has to international and domestic laws concerning such gung-ho forays.

Hillary Clinton has not criticised or questioned Obama’s years of aerial bombardment around the world and her foreign policy adviser, Jeremy Bash, told London’s Daily Telegraph that she will order a “full review” of US strategy on Syria as a “first key task” of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the “murderous” nature of the Assad regime. He said that Mrs Clinton would work to get Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, “out of there.”

President Assad has been selected as another target for the Clinton policy of “We came; We saw; He died” and his country appears doomed to a rerun of the Libya fiasco.

If Hillary Clinton becomes president of the United States, as seems only too likely,  there will be even greater emphasis on global airstrikes and confrontation in general.  Greater turmoil, chaos and catastrophe lie ahead.

The Fight for a Six Hour Workday

Alex Richardson-Price

“The labouring man will take his rest long in the morning; a good piece of the day is spent afore he come at his work; then he must have his breakfast, though he have not earned it at his accustomed hour, or else there is grudging and murmuring; when the clock smiteth, he will cast down his burden in the midway, and whatsoever he is in hand with, he will leave it as it is, though many times it is marred afore he come again; he may not lose his meat, what danger soever the work is in. At noon he must have his sleeping time, then his bever in the afternoon, which spendeth a great part of the day; and when his hour cometh at night, at the first stroke of the clock he casteth down his tools, leaveth his work, in what need or case soever the work standeth.”

– James Pilkington, Bishop of Durham, 1570.

How long should we work? Jeremy Corbyn’s proposal of a 6-hour working day policy shows the answer to this question is not a god-given fact. In reality each society makes a deliberate decision, and the answers are subject to massive historical fluctuation and social struggle, which we continue to see today. When Francois Hollande announced this year that the 35-hour week would be increased, he was met with the #LoiTravail strikes, which were fierce enough to see the exhausted French police begging the trade unions for a ceasefire. With the biggest social-democratic party in Europe putting 6 hours forward, this is now a move which could feasibly take place. But what are the arguments for and against it? What did the working day look like in the past? And how could it look in the future?

First let’s look at the history. One of capitalism’s myths is that it’s reduced the burden of human toil, but what it’s actually done is create a vast potential for that reduction. The profit motive hamstrings and misdirects technological innovation under capitalism – but nonetheless progress drives forward at a breakneck pace. We can produce more than previous generations dreamed of, using only a fraction of the labour-power. Keynes famously predicted that by the dawn of the 21^st century, this trend would leave us working just 15 hours per week. But what has capitalism actually done, historically, to the working day? During the industrial revolution, it averaged 12-14 hours, sometimes stretching to as much as 16 hours. This was a change on an almost unimaginable scale from the pre-capitalist world.

We often imagine the life of serfs under feudalism to have been one of misery and hardship, and this is not without an element of truth. But one of the hardships we tend to imagine, the image of a peasant farmer toiling wearily from dawn to dusk in the field, is a myth. According to Oxford Professor James Rogers, the medieval workday was not more than eight hours. The worker participating in the struggle for the eight-hour day during the late nineteenth century, therefore, was “simply striving to recover what his ancestor worked by four or five centuries ago.” This persisted into the early modern period, where workers refused to venerate their work beyond its due, and held fast to breaks in the working day that made their lives more tolerable, as James Pilkington’s remarks demonstrate. It was the advent of industrial capitalism that saw workers plunged into extreme working days, by what were, in Eric Hobsbawm’s phrase, “quite plainly the forces of hell”. Working class resistance gradually pushed the length of the working day back, first through the Ten Hours Bill (an achievement of Chartism) and eventually through to the famous demand “8 hours for work, 8 hours for rest, and 8 hours for what we will”. From this we might presume that capitalism has been historically tamed on the issue of working hours. But what has happened since then? British workers now stay on the job nearly 9 hours a day, and we work the longest annual hours in Europe. We’ve gone backwards. What are the arguments for changing course?

First the arguments against, which in truth are now thin on the ground. Even a Google search of ‘Arguments against the 6-hour day’ gets you a long list of articles singing its praises, including employers and other sections of the elite. They point to the success of particular companies or regions such as Gothenburg, Sweden, in implementing it.

But eventually you find the critics. Maria Ryden, deputy mayor of Gothenburg, objects on the grounds that “the government should not intrude in the workplace”. Perhaps Ryden has missed the thousand intrusions that governments already make on the workplace; the minimum wage, equal pay for women, mandatory breaks, and of course, the existing 8 hour day. Kyle Smith wrote in the New York Post comparing the 6 hour day to a demand for “pet unicorns for all” and pointing out “every hour you aren’t working is costing you money”. But the 8 hour day is itself the result of a deliberate reduction, and Smith offers no explanation for why that is realistic where 6 hours is a utopian fantasy. As for loss of pay, in Gothenburg they implemented the 6 hour day with no change in wages.

The typical arguments in favour of a reduction are simple. Commentators point to proven productivity increases, reduced absenteeism and improved worker health. These are all valuable, but they are only the relatively narrow benefits of improved workplace efficiency, and we should look beyond them. We should look to the massive reduction in our carbon footprint, to the improved mental health we’d enjoy, and to the increased time we would have to spend time with our families and friends. We should ask hard questions about work as a whole. What do we do that is necessary, and what is superfluous?

Clearly, there are large sections of the global economy which are frankly waste industries that should be dropped or massively scaled back. David Graeber is happy to name names in his essay “On Bullshit Jobs”: financial services, telemarketing, the unprecedented expansion of sectors like corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources, and public relations. Graeber points out that even the workers employed in these industries tend to think their jobs are bullshit – that they are “utterly meaningless, contribute nothing to the world, and in their own estimation, should not exist”.

The packaging industry, much of which is devoted to marketing products, is the biggest industry on the planet after energy and food. Packaging costs an average of 10–40 percent of non-food produce items purchased, and the packaging of cosmetics items can cost up to three times as much as the contents. Advertising costs come to a similar amount. The US alone spent a trillion dollars on advertising in 2005; the total cost of ending extreme poverty is estimated at 3.5 trillion dollars. We’re putting colossal effort, resources and labour-power into activity that helps nothing but profit margins. And we’re doing it in a world hurtling towards the precipice of irreversible climate change, in a world where half of us say overwork damages our relationships with our children and partners. By eliminating superfluous work, automating existing jobs where possible, and reducing the length of the working day, we would free up a massive amount of time for the global workforce, giving us an early glimpse of the world of FALC – Fully Automated Luxury Communism.

That time could be spent on leisure, on self-improvement, or simply on more meaningful and satisfying projects of work. To fight for a reduction in working hours is not to take a stand against labour itself, but against the compulsion towards work that is unnecessary, and for its replacement with something better. We should fight for a 6-hour day – and then we should go much further, and fight, in James Butler’s phrase, for “a world where we’re left to sit around sharing newly discovered cheese varieties, creating ever more niche club nights and exploring the oceans – or whatever makes for a happy, fulfilled humanity”.

Dangerous Seas: China and the USA

Conn Hallinan

A combination of recent events underpinned by long-running historical strains reaching back more than 60 years has turned the western Pacific into one of the most hazardous spots on the globe. The tension between China and the U.S. “is one of the most striking and dangerous themes in international politics,” says The Financial Times’longtime commentator and China hand, Gideon Rachman.

In just the past five months, warships from both countries—including Washington’s closest ally in the region, Japan—have done everything but ram one another. And, as Beijing continues to build bases on scattered islands in the South China Sea, the U.S. is deploying long-range nuclear capable strategic bombers in Australia and Guam.

At times the rhetoric from both sides is chilling. When Washington sent two aircraft carrier battle groups into the area, Chinese defense ministry spokesman Yang Yujun cautioned the Americans to “be careful.” While one U.S. admiral suggested drawing “the line” at the Spratly Islands close to the Philippines, an editorial in the Chinese Communist Party’s Global Times warned that U.S. actions “raised the risk of physical confrontation with China.” The newspaper went on to warn that “if the United States’ bottom line is that China has to halt its activities, then a U.S.-China war is inevitable in the South China Sea.”

Earlier this month China’s Defense Minister Chang Wanquan said Beijing should prepare for a “people’s war at sea.”

Add to this the appointment of an extreme right-wing nationalist as Japan’s defense minister and the decision to deploy anti-ballistic missile interceptors in South Korea and the term “volatile region” is a major understatement.

Some of these tensions go back to the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco that officially ended WW II in Asia. That document, according to Canadian researcher Kimie Hara, was drawn up to be deliberately ambiguous about the ownership of a scatter of islands and reefs in the East and South China seas. That ambiguity set up tensions in the region that Washington could then exploit to keep potential rivals off balance.

The current standoff between China and Japan over the Senkakus/Diaoyu islands—the Japanese use the former name, the Chinese the latter—is a direct outcome of the Treaty. While Washington has no official position on which country owns the tiny uninhabited archipelago, it is committed to defend Japan in case of any military conflict with China. On Aug. 2 the Japanese Defense Ministry accused China of engaging in “dangerous acts that could cause unintended consequences.”

Tokyo’s new defense minister, Tomomi Inada, is a regular visitor to the Yasukuni shrine that honors Japan’s war criminals, and she is a critic of the post-war Tokyo war crimes trials. She also has called for re-examining the 1937 Nanjing massacre that saw Japanese troops murder as many as 300,000 Chinese. Her appointment by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe seems almost calculated to anger Beijing.

Abe is also pushing hard to overturn a part of the Japanese constitution that bars Tokyo from using its military forces for anything but defending itself. Japan has one of the largest and most sophisticated navies in the world.

Over the past several weeks, Chinese Coast Guard vessels and fishing boats have challenged Japan’s territorial claims on the islands, and Chinese and Japanese warplanes have been playing chicken. In one particularly worrisome incident, a Japanese fighter locked its combat radar on a Chinese fighter-bomber.

Behind the bellicose behavior on the China and U.S. sides is underlying insecurity, a dangerous condition when two nuclear-armed powers are at loggerheads.

From Beijing’s perspective, Washington is trying to “contain” China by ringing it with American allies, much as the U.S. did to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Given recent moves in the region, it is hard to argue with Beijing’s conclusion.

After a 20-year absence, the U.S. military is back in the Philippines. Washington is deploying anti-missile systems in South Korea and Japan and deepening its military relations with Australia, Vietnam, Indonesia and India. The Obama administration’s “Asia pivot” has shifted the bulk of U.S. armed forces from the Atlantic and the Middle East to Asia. Washington’s Air Sea Battle strategy—just renamed “Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons”—envisions neutralizing China’s ability to defend its home waters.

China is in the process of modernizing much of its military, in large part because Beijing was spooked by two American operations. First, the Chinese were stunned by how quickly the U.S. military annihilated the Iraqi army in the first Gulf War, with virtually no casualties on the American side. Then there was having to back down in 1996, when the Clinton administration deployed two aircraft carrier battle groups in the Taiwan Straits during a period of sharp tension between Beijing and Taipei.

In spite of all its upgrades, however, China’s military is a long ways from being able to challenge the U.S. The Chinese navy has one small aircraft carrier, the U.S. has 10 enormous ones, plus a nuclear arsenal vastly bigger than Beijing’s modest force. China’s last war was its disastrous 1979 invasion of Vietnam, and the general U.S. view of the Chinese military is that it is a paper dragon.

That thinking is paralleled in Japan, which is worrisome. Japan’s aggressive nationalist government is more likely to initiate something with China than is the U.S. For instance, the crisis over the Senkaku/Diaoyus was started by Japan. First, Tokyo violated an agreement with Beijing by arresting some Chinese fishermen and then unilaterally annexed the islands. The Japanese military has always had an over-inflated opinion of itself and traditionally underestimated Chinese capabilities.

In short, the U.S. and Japan are not intimidated by China’s New Model Army, nor do they see it as a serious threat. That is dangerous thinking if it leads to the conclusion that China will always back down when a confrontation turns ugly. Belligerence and illusion are perilous companions in the current tense atmosphere.

The scheduled deployment of the U.S. Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile systems has convinced Beijing that the U.S. is attempting to neutralize China’s nuclear missile force, a not irrational conclusion. While anti-missile systems are billed as “defensive,” they can just as easily be considered part of the U.S.’s basic “counterforce” strategy. The latter calls for a first strike on an opponent’s missiles, backstopped by an anti-ballistic missile system that would destroy any enemy missiles the first strike missed.

China is pledged not to use nuclear weapons first, but, given the growing ring of U.S. bases and deployment of anti-missile systems, that may change. China is considering moving to a “launch on warning” strategy, which would greatly increase the possibility of an accidental nuclear war.

The AirSea Battle strategy calls for conventional missile strikes aimed at knocking out command centers and radar facilities deep into Chinese territory. But given the U.S.’s “counterforce” strategy, Chinese commanders might assume those conventional missiles are nuclear tipped and aimed at decapitating China’s nuclear deterrent.

According to Amitai Etzioni of Washington University, a former senior advisor to President Jimmy Carter, “China is likely to respond to what is effectively a major attack on its mainland with all the military means at its disposal—including its stockpile of nuclear arms.”

A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that if China moves to “launch on warning,” such a change “would dramatically increase the risk of a nuclear exchange by accident—a dangerous shift that the U.S. could help to avert.”

President Obama is said to be considering adopting a “no first use” pledge, but he has come up against stiff opposition from his military and the Republicans. “I would be concerned about such a policy,” says U.S. Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James. “Having a certain degree of ambiguity is not necessarily a bad thing.”

But given the possibility of accidents—or panic by military commanders—“ambiguity” increases the risk that someone could misinterpret an action. Once a nuclear exchange begins it may be impossible to stop, particularly knowing that the U.S. “counterforce” strategy targets an opponent’s missiles. “Use them, or lose them” is an old saying among nuclear warriors.

In any case, the standard response to an anti-missile system is to build more launchers and warheads, something the world does not need more of.

While China has legitimate security concerns, the way it has pursued them has won it few friends in the region. Beijing has bullied Vietnam in the Paracel islands, pushed the Philippines around in the Spratly islands, and pretty much alienated everyone in the region except its close allies in North Korea, Laos and Cambodia. China’s claims—its so-called “nine dash line”—covers most the South China Sea, an area through which some $5 trillion in trades passes each year. It is also an area rich in minerals and fishing resources.

China’s ham-fisted approach has given the U.S. an opportunity to inject itself into the dispute as a “defender” of small countries with their own claims on reefs, islands and shoals. The U.S. has stepped up air and sea patrols in the region, which at times has seen Chinese and American and Japanese warships bow to bow and their warplanes wing tip to wing tip.

The recent decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague that China has no exclusive claim on the South China Sea has temporarily increased tensions, although it has the potential to resolve some of the ongoing disputes without continuing the current saber rattling.

China is a signatory to the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty, as are other countries bordering the South China Sea (the U.S. Senate refuses to ratify the Treaty). China has never tried to interfere with the huge volume of commerce that traverses the region, a trade that, in any case, greatly benefits the Chinese. Beijing’s major concern is defense of its long coastline.

If the countries in the region would rely on the Law of the Sea to resolve disputes, it would probably work out well for everyone concerned. The Chinese would have to back off from their “nine dash line” claims in the South China Sea, but they would likely end up in control of the Senkakus/Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea.

But to cool the current tensions Washington would also have to ratchet down its military buildup in Asia. That will be difficult for the Americans to accept. Since the end of WW II, the U.S. has been the big dog on the block in the western Pacific, but that is coming to an end. According to the International Monetary Fund, China surpassed the U.S. economy in 2014 to become the world’s largest. Of the four largest economies on the globe, three are in Asia: China, Japan and India.

Simple demographics are shifting the balance of economic and political power from Europe and the U.S. to Asia. By 2015, more than 66 percent of the world’s population will reside in Asia. In contrast, the U.S. makes up 5 percent and the European Union 7 percent. By 2050, the world’s “pin code” will be 1125: one billion people in Europe, one billion in the Americas, two billion in Africa, and five billion in Asia. Even the CIA predicts, “The era of American ascendancy in international politics that began in 1945—is fast winding down.”

The U.S. can resist that inevitability, but only by relying on its overwhelming military power and constructing an alliance system reminiscent of the Cold War. That should give pause to all concerned. The world was fortunate to emerge from that dark period without a nuclear war, but relying on luck is a dangerous strategy.

Terrorism In Pakistan And South Asia

M. Mohibul Haque

The recent bout of terrorist attacks in Pakistan reminds us once again that it is one of the worst victims of terrorism perpetrated by religious extremist groups claiming their adherence to what they call the puritan Islam. According to Global Terrorism Index the top 5 countries affected by terrorism include Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria accounting for 78 percent of global terrorism related deaths in 2015.  In fact, Pakistan is paying the price of fighting the US’s proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The madrasas established in Pakistan during 1980s for indoctrination of Afghan refugees to fight a ‘holy war’ allegedly against the so-called ‘Soviet infidels’ who had started ruling the country through their puppets in Kabul have played a very important role in developing a cult of romanticized violence in Pak-Afghan region.  The cult of gun and suicide bombings has significantly marginalized a vibrant progressive community in Pakistan and the country is on the verge of virtual collapse thanks to a sinister nexus between the ruling elite in the army and political circle on the one hand and the religious zealots on the other. In the present circumstances, seeing the public space occupied by the sectarian Islams and their violent followers hell bent destroying each other and significantly undermining the authorities , it seems quite difficult a task for Pakistan to de-Islamize the cult of violence.

It is not only in Pakistan alone but the rise of religious extremism in India, Bangladesh, Myanmar posing real threat to minorities inhabiting these countries is a matter of concern for all peace-loving people of this region. It seems that if effective counter narratives to the religious extremist forces are not developed and strengthened, the region will become a hot bed of terrorism and violence resembling the today’s Middle East. We should remember that the globalization has not only made the export of goods and services very easy but it has also made it easier to export ideas and narratives, problems and grievances. Therefore, an ideology of hate and bloodshed near ones borders must ring an alarm bell for all. The reign of terror unleashed in India by the self-declared cow protectors and other rightist groups, horrible attacks on minorities and independent bloggers in Bangladesh, genocide of Rohingyas in Myanmar by Buddhist extremists are all examples of marking the rise of ‘Majoritarian  Right’ in South Asia. The impending threat posed by the rise of these forces should not be underestimated as it has the potential of blowing into a major crisis of our time. There are signs of legitimization of these forces through a dangerous narrative of violence and counter violence which has already given birth to a kind of competitive terrorism in India.

Coming back to the threat of terrorism in Pakistan one has to accept that the cult of violence has been legitimized and made attractive by applying a carefully designed ideology. The ideology unfortunately is based on the appropriation and manipulation of teachings of Islam. An Islam that may not have the support of the majority of its adherents but it is implemented through guns and bombs. Those who try to question or counter the ideology of hate are mercilessly killed in broad day light. The deep penetration of the religious zealots in the administrative machinery of Pakistan makes it easier for them to fix targets and achieve them with horrifying rate of success. It is to be pointed out that these religious extremists target mostly Muslims disagreeing with their version of Islam and therefore, this terrorism should not be termed naively and fashionably as ‘Islamic’. They have targeted even those who have nothing to do with politics of repression and oppression. For instance, one of Pakistan’s legendry singers, Amjad Sabri, was gunned down in Karachi for committing the crime of singing qawwali which is prohibited by a particular brand of Islam.

Attack on Educational Institutions

Tahreeke Taliban Pakistan terrorists attacked an army-run school in Peshawar city of Pakistan on 16 December 2014 killing more than hundred children. The motive of the barbaric attack on innocent children studying in school became clear only when the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan spokesman claimed that its suicide bombers attacked army school as a revenge for the Pakistan’s army operation against militants in the North Waziristan. The spokesman said that “we want them to feel our pain.” If we take the statement of the spokesman of the Taliban terrorists on its face value, the attack will seem as a revenge for the alleged atrocities committed by Pakistan’s forces during the recent bout of counterterrorism. However, the fact is different from what Taliban wants to make us believe.

While analyzing the cause of the attack we should also take into account the fact shared by the organization called the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack. According to its report there were 838 or more attacks on schools in Pakistan during 2009-2012. In fact, for the hot-headed religious zealots the modern education is a source of corruption and therefore it must be countered. The attack on Nobel Laureate Malala for championing the cause of female education must be in our mind. This attack is not only revenge but it reflects a typical mindset of highly motivated, radicalized, and indoctrinated band of hot-headed religious zealots. This is evident from the fact that more than three million children mostly girls were forced out of schools since the Taliban came to power leaving a majority of present generation Afghan women illiterate.

There is no doubt that the government of Pakistan has also been discredited due to various movements and protest marches against it. The drone attacks by the USA resulting in heavy civilian casualties for killing terrorist suspects have also alienated people from the government. The United Nations has warned the countries against gross violation of human rights during counter terror operations. The ongoing army operation Zarbe Azb against Taliban militants must ensure that innocent people are not made the target by the army.  The power-politics played by the regional actors in the region is also responsible for this current bout of terrorism in Pakistan.

The worst crime is that which is committed in the name of religion. It is unfortunate the violent forces in Pakistan are misusing Islam for legitimizing their barbarism and delegitimizing the democratic dispensation. The fight against terrorism in Pakistan is more ideological in nature than the military. Therefore, an Islamic narrative based on peaceful coexistence must be developed and strengthened to delegitimize these forces of evil.  The best solution for developing such a narrative or discourse is to accept all existing sects among Muslims as the diversity within Islam and finding compatibility between Islam and democracy.