Philippine President Duterte threatens martial law

Joseph Santolan

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, speaking on January 14 before the Davao City Chamber of Commerce and Industry, threatened to declare martial law in the Philippines.

Duterte has made this threat in the past and, as part of his murderous drug war, has already invoked a state of national emergency, granting significant extra-constitutional powers to the police and military. The recent remarks, however, are a further escalation of the danger of dictatorial rule in the country.

Duterte began publicly threatening to declare martial law in August, during the second month of his presidency. With each renewed warning, he has further elaborated the grounds for his dictatorship, and manner in which it would be implemented.

The Philippine constitution, drawn up in 1987 following the ouster of the Marcos dictatorship, established that a president may declare martial law only in the event of an invasion or rebellion, and subject to congressional review within 60 days.

In his speech, Duterte rejected both legal limits for declaring martial law, as well as any judicial or legislative review of his dictatorial powers. He stated that any declaration would be to escalate his war on drugs, adding: “If I have to declare martial law, I will declare it. Not about invasion, [or] insurrection … Wala akong pakialam diyan sa Supreme Court [I don’t care what the Supreme Court says] … I will declare martial law if I want to. Walang makapigil sa akin. [No one can stop me] … If you ask for the basis, you son of a bitch, I don’t care.”

Duterte doubled down on these statements in a speech on January 18, making his murderous intentions clear, insisting that the 60-day legislative review gave him too short a period to “complete the slaughter.”

Solicitor General Jose Calida defended the legality of such measures, declaring that Duterte, as “father of the nation,” would use martial law to take power away from “certain functionaries” in the legislature and judiciary, and calling Duterte “a political genius actually.”

During a press conference on January 24, US Ambassador to the Philippines Sung Kim articulated the perspective of the newly-installed Trump administration toward the Duterte government. He declared Washington’s endorsement of Duterte’s war on drugs, citing behind-the-scenes support for this campaign from the Obama administration’s Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) over the past six months as one of the “bright spots in bilateral relations.”

The ambassador stated that these relations had gone through a “rough patch,” as the Obama administration had publicly raised human rights concerns over the campaign. However, he admitted Washington had secretly continued funding and supporting the campaign.

Washington used the pretext of human rights to pressure Duterte to pursue an aggressive policy against China in the South China Sea, but Duterte responded by denouncing the Obama administration and seeking improved economic and diplomatic relations with Beijing and Moscow.

Duterte hailed Trump as someone with whom he is eager to work, and repeatedly declared that Trump endorsed his war on drugs during a phone call held in early December.

Ambassador Kim, asked by the press about the Trump administration’s position on the drug war and the explosion of extrajudicial killings under Duterte, cited Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who declared that he “wanted more information before passing judgment” on the matter. Washington would continue its support for Duterte’s war on drugs, Kim declared.

Questioned about Washington’s response to Duterte’s repeated threats to declare martial law, Kim said he would not comment on “hypothetical situations.”

Duterte announced on Tuesday that Trump had sent regards and a statement of support for the Duterte administration’s policies via the head of the Miss Universe pageant, which is currently being staged in Manila, and which was owned by Trump until 2015.

The official body count from Duterte’s war on drugs has risen to more than 7,000 in the past seven months. Over 2,000 of those killed were shot by police on unsubstantiated charges that they were somehow part of the drug trade. The remaining victims have been killed by vigilantes and paramilitary forces.

Duterte has used the drug war to increase the powers of the executive branch over all aspects of government via the police and military. He released a list of mayors throughout the country whom he claimed were involved in the drug trade, ordering local police chiefs two weeks ago to “shoot-to-kill” anyone on the list.

Throughout all of this murder, and as his preparations for military dictatorship advance, Duterte has enjoyed the warm support of the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its front organizations. On the basis of nationalism, they have endorsed his policies as progressive and have entered into an alliance with his administration. They appointed four of his cabinet members from their ranks, including the secretaries of agrarian reform and social welfare and development.

The CPP and the Duterte administration have just concluded their third round of peace talks in Rome, where both parties worked to end the 48-year-old armed struggle of the CPP’s New People’s Army (NPA). Joma Sison, founder and head of the CPP, declared that the party and the government could reach an agreement to achieve a “progressive” national economy and conclude a complete peace deal by 2020.

During his prepared remarks, delivered on January 19 at the opening of the third round of negotiations, Sison said Duterte “can prove in real and concrete terms that he is truly a patriotic and progressive president and fights against the imperialists and oligarchs for the benefit of the people.” Sison made these declarations several days after Duterte’s most recent threats to declare martial law and carry out “slaughter” in the Philippines.

Report reveals deepening poverty in West Virginia

Joe McGee

Last month, the West Virginia Center for Budget and Policy and the American Friends Service Committee released their annual report on economic conditions in the state. Titled “2016 State of Working West Virginia: Why is West Virginia So Poor?,” the report reviews the history of the lumber, coal and extraction industries, as well as the severe impact of the 2008 financial crisis on working people.

The release of the study coincides with the inauguration of coal magnate and Democrat Jim Justice as governor and the convening of the Republican-dominated legislature. It also occurs within the context of a fiscal crisis which finds the state facing a budget shortfall possibly greater than $400 million, according to outgoing Revenue Secretary Bob Kiss. The previous governor, Democrat Earl Ray Tomblin, has already instituted cuts of $400 million over the six years of his administration, including a two percent across-the-board cut ordered last November.

Contributing to these dire numbers, according to the WVCBP report, is the continuing steep decline in the West Virginia economy. Employment in the state fell by 0.5 percent from 2012 to 2014 when massive layoffs began in the coal mining industry. Employment declined an additional 0.7 percent in 2015, leaving the state with 9,000 fewer jobs than in 2012.

The overall unemployment rate was 6 percent in November 2016, the fourth highest among the 50 US states. An additional factor in the job losses was the fall in natural gas prices, affecting capital investment in the Marcellus Shale fields which cut across northern West Virginia.

Compounding the impact of the layoffs is that many of the jobs lost over the past few years have been in relatively high-wage positions in what was already a poverty-stricken state. In fact, the report points out, the state has lost 11,200 high-wage private sector jobs since 2000. Of these, 7,000 were in mining and 1,500 in heavy construction.

At the same time, the state has actually added 3,700 low-wage jobs since 2012. Of these, 1,300 are low-paid food service workers, whose average full-time earnings would amount to $13,000 a year—provided an employee works on a full-time basis, which is a rarity in this highly exploitative industry.

In a particularly telling observation, the report notes the median wage is unchanged since 2012, at $16.01 an hour. Adjusted for inflation, this amounts to $1.01 less per hour than a median-wage worker earned in 1979. Additionally, jobs that provide health coverage or a pension are increasingly scarce. In 1979, 73 percent of West Virginia workers were covered by an employer-sponsored health plan, and 57 percent were covered by an employer-sponsored pension. This declined to 52 percent and 42 percent respectively in 2014.

West Virginia also has the lowest labor force participation rate in the nation for the section of the population that is defined as prime-age adults, those aged 25 to 54. The labor force participation rate for this group is 72 percent, compared to the national average of 80 percent. This translates to 193,000 prime-age adults in West Virginia who are not working or looking for employment. Additionally, of those prime-age adults, only 33.2 percent have more than a high school education.

The WVCBP report attempts to provide a historical context for these devastating statistics on human misery. A section called “A Brief Economic History of West Virginia” is devoted to the conception of a “culture of poverty,” promoted by right-wing groups, suggesting that impoverished residents of the state know little beyond their own borders or material conditions, and thus accept their plight and have passed it down from generation to generation. These right-wing arguments were deployed to block the limited reforms of “anti-poverty” programs enacted in the 1960s.

Liberal media commentators now echo these views, portraying West Virginia, which voted heavily for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and Republican Donald Trump in the general election, as a bastion of racism and sexism, with pseudo-left and liberal commentators suggesting that white workers deserve to be attacked and punished for rejecting the establishment-vetted Hillary Clinton.

In reality, the poverty, high rates of disability, and record rates of addiction that affect the residents of Appalachia cannot be separated from the rapaciousness of the capitalist system. The WVCBP report traces the economic development of West Virginia from the middle of the nineteenth century beginning with the extraction of timber that left the state almost denuded as early as 1920. This in turn required extensive reforestation.

The expansion of railroads went hand in hand with the increase in the tonnage of coal in the 1880s, leading workers to populate relatively isolated Appalachian towns, often set up by the coal operators. In order to maintain profitability, operators tried to increase the rate of exploitation of miners through various means, such as defrauding workers on their hauls or confining them to the use of company scrip at company stores. Efforts to organize labor unions led to great struggles on the part of the miners in the early twentieth century and made them some of the most militant members of the working class, resulting in the formation of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA).

One section of the WVCBP report reviews the automation of coal mining and the UMWA’s role in bringing this about. The report notes that 125,000 miners were employed in West Virginia in 1948. The UMWA leader John L. Lewis offered a deal to industry that, in exchange for abandoning the union’s opposition to mechanization, the UMWA would establish a health and welfare fund tied to the tonnage of coal produced. As the report correctly points out, such an arrangement tied to production depended on a strong and consistent market for coal. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, production declined, eliminating many of the benefits for miners. Meanwhile, the mechanization of the industry continued with the advent of the longwall miner, which greatly benefited the operators. This resulted in the loss of 100,000 coal mining jobs.

Today, the UMWA—a shell of its former self, exclusively concerned with enriching a layer of union bureaucrats and bolstering the Democratic Party—continues to play a shameful role in betraying the working class, along with the AFL-CIO. As mine after mine closed and coal companies shed their pension and health care obligations in bankruptcy court, the union stood by with little more than a few mildly disapproving words. In the 2016 gubernatorial election in West Virginia, the UMWA plumbed new depths with the endorsement of coal magnate Jim Justice.

Like the unions, the two big business parties offer no solution to the situation confronting the West Virginia working class except cuts in education, health care, and other vital social infrastructure. The working class is not represented by the capitalist parties. Indeed, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton described many of these people as “deplorables.” Donald Trump, for his part, offered the hollow promise that he would “bring coal back.” The only way to resolve the crisis in West Virginia, across the US, and in the world economic system as a whole, is an independent movement of the international working class based on a genuine socialist program.

Poland “faces tragic decision” after Trump election

Clara Weiss

Poland’s leading conservative newspaper Rzeczpospolita (Republic) believes the country “faces a tragic decision” in the wake of Donald Trump’s inauguration as US president. Given the rapidly intensifying tensions between Washington and Europe, Poland must, according to the newspaper, make a “devilish decision” between an alliance with Washington and an alliance with Germany. The comment provides an indication of the conflicts taking place within Polish ruling circles over foreign policy.

In the January 19 comment, Jędrzej Bielicki summed up the radically changed situation in which the Polish ruling elite finds itself since the Trump election: “For the first time the [interests of] the United States and Europe are in conflict. Should we rely on an alliance with the US or prefer Germany? What is more important, NATO or perhaps the EU? Poland will certainly soon have to answer these fundamental questions. And all of this because of Donald Trump.”

Bielicki referred to the interview that Trump gave to the Bild newspaper and Britain’s Times, in which he became the first US president to openly question the EU’s existence, openly attacked Germany and welcomed Brexit. The newspaper then cited German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who answered Trump’s radical statements by declaring, “We Europeans have our fate in our own hands.”

Bielicki warned of a possible deal between Washington and Moscow at Europe’s expense and predicted Ukraine, a close Polish ally, would be the first victim of a US foreign policy reorientation towards the Kremlin. Bielicki surmised that the choice between Germany and Europe, on the one hand, and the US, on the other, posed the Polish ruling elite with a practically irresolvable dilemma. The situation, according to Bielicki, was “tragic.”

Bielicki emphasised the importance of the EU for Poland and wrote that a decision between Washington, Brussels and Berlin was “not easy and requires detailed consideration.” Significantly, Bielicki then indicated that an alliance with Germany would make more sense.

Although the US had in the past been the only country capable of protecting Poland militarily from Russia, it may no longer be prepared to do so under Trump for political reasons. By contrast, according to Bielicki, Germany is much less inclined to “leave” its neighbour “to Putin.” His argument amounts to the view that Germany, with the vast expansion of its military and plans for a European army, could soon be in a position to replace the US as Poland’s protector.

He concluded by criticising the monopolisation of all foreign policy decisions by the PiS (Law and Justice) government under Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz. According to Bielicki, this had excluded the foreign ministry. He ended with the remark, “It is certainly realistic that the dilemma posed to Poland by Trump will [now] be decided for decades, over a period of time in which PiS will no longer be in power. One must always consider that.”

The article exposes the tensions within the Polish ruling class over foreign policy. The Polish bourgeoisie has always been dependent upon imperialism, especially that of the United States. Between the two world wars, the regime of Josef Pilsudski sought to manoeuvre between the great powers, above all Germany, the Soviet Union, Britain and France. This attempt ended with the occupation of Poland by the Nazis in World War II, which, when one excludes the numerous deaths of people from other countries on Polish territory, claimed the lives of some 8 million Poles.

With the intensification of the conflicts within Europe and in particular between Germany and the US, the Polish bourgeoisie is once again objectively in the same position. As a deputy of the liberal opposition Nowoczesna party (Modern), Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus, remarked, “I fear that the geopolitical situation recalls what happened in the 1930s.”

Since capitalist restoration, the bourgeoisie has been united on a close orientation to the United States. In 1997, Poland joined NATO. In 2004, it was—not least thanks to pressure from the US—brought into the EU. Washington has systematically developed the country over the past quarter century into a bulwark against Russia and provided it with military supplies. The stationing of the first contingent of US troops took place on Russia’s doorstep in eastern Poland this month, with a total of 3,500 soldiers to be sent to the region.

In this context, a break with the US would be a radical step, which would not only have huge consequences for Poland, but for the entire balance of forces within the EU.

Along with the fear of a deal between Washington and Moscow at Warsaw’s expense, hard-nosed economic interests and dependencies are playing an important role in the foreign policy conflicts. Poland’s most important economic relations are with EU countries, above all Germany, the largest trading partner by far. Compared to this, trade ties with the US, apart from the military sector, are minimal. Since Poland’s entry into the EU in 2004, the volume of German-Polish trade has more than tripled.

At the end of 2015, foreign direct investment in the Polish economy amounted to €159 billion. Of this, €30.3 billion came from the Netherlands, €27.3 billion from Germany, €19.3 billion from Luxembourg and €17.9 billion from France. The largest share of foreign investment goes to the industrial sector (€53.8 billion in 2015), followed by the finance and insurance sector (€31.4 billion). According to the central state statistics office (GUS) there were 26,464 firms with foreign capital. In 2014, 89.7 percent of foreign capital came from the EU. In the industrial sector, 45.8 percent of all workers were employed in firms with shares held by foreign capital.

PiS has begun to “re-Polandise” the banks with a new law, but German, Italian and Swiss capital continues to play a crucial role in the financial sector. Of particular importance are Kommerzbank, Raiffeisenbank and the Italian bank Pekao. Germany also plays an important role in the media. Many influential media outlets, including opposition newspapers like Newsweek Polska, are owned by the Springer company.

In addition there is the substantial amount of EU funding, which helps in Poland to secure minimal standards in social infrastructure and maintain low levels of unrest among the impoverished population. The single market is not only important for selling products, but also with regard to the several million Polish workers who earn money in other countries and make it easier for their families in Poland to survive.

PiS is currently pursuing a future foreign policy alliance with Britain, which is soon to exit the EU, and the US government under Trump.

Over recent months, the PiS government has undertaken deliberate efforts to expand these ties and at the same time establish close ties with the Brexit government of Theresa May. In November, the first bilateral conference took place in London at which high-ranking officials of both governments participated to discuss a Polish-British alliance.

Marek Magierowski, from the chancellery of the president Andrzej Duda, told Wpolityce.pl, “The better the military and political relations between the US and Britain are, the better the relationship we can expect between Poland and the United States.” At the same time, PiS hopes that an improvement in US-Russian relations will not materialise, not least because of the opposition from both Democrats and Republicans to Trump’s position on this.

The news portal also cited politicians who noted that Barack Obama’s period in office had begun with pledges to “reset” relations with Russia, but these had very rapidly deteriorated.

But PiS is also opening the door to a closer alignment with Germany, with which relations have worsened under the PiS government. Party leader Jarosław Kaczyński, who has emerged as one of the sharpest critics of Germany and of the pro-German orientation of the liberal opposition, has in recent times, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, adopted a more conciliatory tone.

Leading party representatives have repeatedly expressed the hope that German Chancellor Angela Merkel will be re-elected this year. President Andrzej Duda has met with outgoing German President Joachim Gauck more often than with any other head of state.

The FAZ commented that, given the threatened break-up of the EU and the coming to power of the Trump government, Germany was just as dependent on an alliance with Poland as Warsaw was on securing its partnership with Berlin. The German government was therefore working to, according to the FAZ, “summarise points of dispute.” Referring to an upcoming meeting between Merkel and Jarosław Kaczyński in February, the FAZ wrote that “pragmatic progress” in the bilateral relationship was possible.

Was the Berlin Christmas market attacker an undercover agent?

Dietmar Henning 

A report published just over a week ago by the Federal Criminal Office (BKA) raises the question of whether Anis Amri was an intelligence agent.

Amri allegedly drove into a Christmas market with a lorry on December 19 and killed 12 people. He is also accused of shooting and killing the lorry’s Polish driver.

Just days after the attack, it was already clear that Amri had prepared the attack under the noses of the police and intelligence agencies. He had been under constant surveillance over the previous two years and was in contact with an agent with the North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) state intelligence agency.

On the basis of the BKA’s confidential report, it is possible to reconstruct Amri’s activities in Germany quite precisely. The police and intelligence agencies concentrated on Amri almost weekly and followed all of his actions.

Amri came from Italy to Germany in the summer of 2015. He had already received a four-year custodial sentence. He was initially sent to a refugee accommodation centre in Emmerich (Kreis Kleve), NRW.

Already at that time, the 22-year-old was noticed because he had pictures of ISIS fighters on his mobile phone. In December 2015, other refugees reported to the immigration authorities in Kreis Kleve that he “supposedly maintained contact with Islamic State.” Eventually, the authorities were aware of 14 identities used by Amri.

Amri became involved with the Salafist movement, into which the NRW state intelligence agency had embedded at least one agent. He reported repeatedly to the police about Amri. “The source spilled over,” wrote the Süddeutsche Zeitung, which saw the BKA report. These reports filled entire files.

On the basis of these reports, the state prosecutor ordered Amri’s phone to be tapped in November 2015. Somewhat later, Italian intelligence agencies sent photos and detailed personal information to Germany.

In February 2016, the intelligence agent reported that Amri was becoming more withdrawn and reading the Koran, as if he wanted to be purified as some suicide attackers do prior to an attack. He was designated as a “threat” by the NRW state intelligence agency.

At the same time, the state BKA in NRW sent their intelligence about the Islamist network in which Amri was involved to the state prosecutor in Karlsruhe. The top German prosecutor took up an investigation against the group for supporting terrorism and recruitment for a terrorist organisation and in November ordered the arrest of its leader, Abu Walaa, as well as the hardcore members of the group. However, Anis Amri was left at large.

A variety of intelligence agencies were now watching him as he travelled regularly between Dortmund and Berlin. He was driven at least once by the intelligence agent. Between March and September, the Berlin state prosecutor conducted an investigation into Amri. He was intercepted and observed, but allegedly not for terrorist planning but for petty drug trafficking. According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the BKA report alleges that “religious questions” supposedly fell into the background during Ramadan.

On July 30, police arrested Amri on a bus at the border with Switzerland because drugs and false identities were found on him. After two days, he was released from the justice detention centre in Ravensburg after consultations with the immigration authorities in Kreis Kleve and the NRW Interior Ministry.

The head of the justice detention centre in Ravensburg told Westdeutsche Rundfunk that if everything had been known at the time that was known by the authorities in NRW, they could have held Amri longer. But the authorities kept the information to themselves.

Then on September 19, Morocco’s intelligence agency warned the BKA and the foreign intelligence service (BND) that the Tunisian could carry out an attack. Two days later, on September 21, 2016, the Berlin police ended their observations, allegedly because there was no evidence of an impending criminal act.

A new warning was sent from Morocco to the German intelligence agencies in October. The NRW state intelligence agency was warned on several occasions by the Moroccan and Tunisian intelligence agencies about Amri, the last time on October 26. The NRW state intelligence agents merely checked the location of his phone and found he was residing in the Berlin-Brandenburg area.

The Joint Terrorism Defence Centre (GTAZ), in which 40 security agencies at the state and federal levels are represented, held a total of seven meetings about Amri. But nobody allegedly saw any risk.

Nonetheless, the authorities entered Amri’s name into a nationwide police Inpol database as a “foreign fighter”—i.e., as a terrorist—last October. This information was sent to all 26 countries party to the Schengen agreement.

Amri was not arrested due to a lack of legal means, even though this is how it is portrayed. The authorities could have filed an application for deportation or security detention with a court and held Amri for up to 18 months as a “threat.” They could have then arrested him under a charge of terrorism. But none of this occurred. Amri remained concealed and on December 19 was able to carry out his attack.

The BKA in particular played down the threat posed by the young Tunisian. In December 2015, the BKA deemed it “very unlikely” that Amri would carry out an attack. At one of the GTAZ meetings, an official of the BKA stated that the agent reporting about Amri had been part of a previous case in which he had provided “exclusive intelligence.” (“Exclusive means in general: there was nothing to it,” the Süddeutsche Zeitung explained.)

The BKA designated Amri as a standard petty criminal to whom religious rituals meant nothing. “In the course of the measures, indications of planning for religiously motivated acts of violence did not arise.” The BKA report stated further, “The impression emerged of a young man on the move, erratic and appearing quite unstable.”

As is now known, Amri prayed at a mosque in Berlin-Moabit shortly before the attack.

Who was responsible for playing down the threat of Amri is one of the open questions in the case. Was he even perhaps an agent for one of the authorities? This suspicion was even held by some police authorities, because all pending investigations against Amri were halted, even an investigation for social welfare fraud in Duisburg. Additionally, there was no inquiry against him for grievous bodily harm and drug trafficking. Based on historical experience, this is a clear sign that someone is under the protection of a senior police or intelligence authority.

Amri cannot comment on these latest details. The 24-year-old was shot and killed by Italian police on December 23 in Milan.

The insistence by all state intelligence agencies that they were unaware that Amri was preparing an attack is worthless. This is well known from numerous previous attacks—the terrorist attacks of November 13, 2015, in Paris; April 15, 2013, in Boston; and September 11, 2001, in New York City. In every case, the security services had the attackers under surveillance for a long time and did not intervene to stop them from carrying out their plots.

Each attack provided the justification for a huge build-up of the state apparatus, and the latest attack on the Berlin Christmas market is no different.

Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière (Christian Democrats—CDU) responded at the beginning of January with the demand for the restructuring and centralisation of the security apparatus. The BKA had to be strengthened and the state intelligence agencies dismantled in favour of a federal administration and the construction of a “genuine federal police.” He published these demands under the headline “Guidelines for a strong state in difficult times” in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

CDU chair Thomas Strobl, interior minister in Baden-Württemberg, subsequently called for unlimited detention pending deportation for threats and criminals.

On Tuesday, the federal government decided to appoint a special investigator or initiate a parliamentary investigatory committee into the December 19 attack. Merely an internal investigatory group of the Parliamentary Control Commission (PKGr) will shortly present a report. The question must be asked: Who has an interest in this cover-up?

French presidential candidate François Fillon calls for alliance with Germany against US

Alice Laurençon

François Fillon, the right-wing Republicans’ (LR) candidate in the French presidential elections, travelled to Berlin on Monday to meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Also present were German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen.

The aggressive stance taken by President Trump towards Europe, and in particular towards Germany, is causing panic among the European powers over the consequences of Trump’s “America First” policies for their economic and military position. Fillon’s visit to Berlin, aimed at strengthening France’s economic and military ties with Germany, Europe’s dominant economic power, underscored that the European powers are moving rapidly toward conflict with Washington.

The meeting reaffirmed the geostrategic orientation outlined by Merkel and French President François Hollande after the UK’s vote to leave the European Union (EU) last June, when Paris and Berlin proposed to create a European military alliance, independent of NATO and the UK. Much of Merkel’s discussion with Fillon centred on his call for a “European defence alliance.” This is a proposal for increased military cooperation between France and Germany to assert their imperialist interests independently of NATO, which Trump recently declared to be “obsolete”.

Fillon’s statements made quite clear that the purpose of this policy is to prepare to forcefully counter, with military power if necessary, hostile moves by the US government.

In a long interview jointly conducted by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and French newspaper Le Monde the day before the Berlin meeting , Fillon described Trump as a threat to Europe: “Europe has been warned. It must organise itself in the face of an American policy that will do us no favours. This means more than ever European initiatives. What Trump has announced began before Trump.”

Fillon pointed to multi-billion-euro fines imposed by US financial authorities on Germany’s Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas in France.

Fillon also called for closer ties between Germany, France and Russia, based on finding a settlement of US-instigated wars in Syria and Ukraine. Washington and the European powers led a bloody proxy war for regime change against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad starting in 2011, and installed an anti-Russian Ukraine regime in a fascist-led coup in Kiev in 2014. Fillon made clear that he sees these interventions as mistaken and based on deception by the NATO powers, including France.

Russia, he said, “is an immense country that one can’t treat lightly, it’s a country without a democratic tradition that has nuclear weapons. … Who can reasonably want to enter in conflict with Russia?” Asked whether Putin is a reliable partner, he replied: “Was the West always reliable? Did it never mislead the Russians about [the war in] Libya, Kosovo, on economic partnership with the EU? Russia has a lot to answer for, but it is not the only one.”

Calling France’s alliance with Germany “fundamental,” and denouncing Hollande for having initially sought the “encircling” of Germany in the initial years of his presidency, Fillon called for the “reinforcing” of the Franco-German alliance. However, he also insisted that this alliance be a “partnership between equals,” despite France’s “economic weakness and lack of structural reforms.”

Fillon outlined proposals for an economic government in the Eurozone, lead by Paris and Berlin. “I propose to first of all revive the Eurozone”, stated Fillon, by setting a “harmonised programme of tax... on businesses”. Fillon also proposed to lessen the supremacy of the dollar in the world economy and “make the euro an international reserve currency”, by creating a European Monetary Fond as a potential counterweight to the International Monetary Fund.

The aims of Berlin and Paris in developing such military and financial collaboration are reactionary. In response to Trump’s threats and the imminent danger of the breakup of the European Union (EU), the European ruling class is trying to hold the EU together with militarist and police-state policies.

These strategies, which escalate the danger of outright military conflict between the NATO powers, are predicated on devastating attacks on workers’ social and democratic rights. Fillon’s call for “structural reforms” in France is linked to his campaign pledge to cut 500,000 public sector jobs and eliminate much or all of the Social Security system’s publicly-funded health care in France.

On immigration, Fillon stated that he would ignore the theoretically open borders of the Schengen Zone and called for increased security on Europe’s internal and external borders. “France doesn’t have to accept refugee quotas. That’s a concern for each state”, said Fillon, criticising Merkel’s refugee policy and stating that France would “make a different choice” from Germany under his leadership.

Fillon’s proposed alliance with Berlin, which strongly recalls the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis that emerged as several of the European powers criticized the illegal US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, point to deep and lasting inter-imperialist rivalries that twice in the last century erupted into world war.

The relative stability of relations between the US and Europe after World War Two rested on the vast economic superiority of the United States, and the fact that the Soviet Union provided the imperialist powers in NATO with a common enemy. The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 therefore transformed relations between the United States and Europe. Conflicts rapidly re-emerged among the imperialist powers over war policy and the struggle for oil, resources, markets and access to cheap labour.

Global geostrategic tensions are even sharper today than 25 years ago, as US economic decline accelerates and the European powers, including Russia, develop ever closer ties with China, which Trump has designated as one of the main targets of his administration’s foreign policy.

The German minister for economic affairs, Sigmar Gabriel, stated that Europe and Germany should not react to Trump by being “afraid or submissive”, but rather “firmly” pursue their own interests. Germany is “a strong country” and Europe “a strong continent, which must stick together.” According to Gabriel, Germany and Europe needed a new orientation toward China and Asia. If the United States “starts a trade war with China and throughout Asia, then we are a fair partner,” he added.

Were an alliance of the capitalist regimes of Germany, France, Russia and China against the US to emerge—a threat that will increasingly spur Washington to military action in order to prevent it from occurring—it would prove to be utterly reactionary. What is emerging is that the international bourgeoisie is again showing itself to be incapable of overcoming the fundamental contradictions between the integrated character of the global economy and the division of the world into antagonistic nation states.

The only force that can prevent the explosion of a new world war is the international working class, by struggling against the capitalist system that is its root cause.

Indeed, the increasingly bitter and intractable divisions tearing apart capitalist Europe were clearly on display during Fillon’s visit, even as he tried to lead Paris towards closer ties with Berlin.

Trump’s hostility towards Germany, including his threatened sanctions on its auto industry and labeling of the EU “a vehicle for Germany”, is seen as a threat by Germany’s ruling class, requiring a more independent and aggressive European foreign policy, including coordination with Paris.

Nonetheless, there were significant conflicts between Merkel and Fillon, not just over the question of immigration, but on Fillon’s proposal for a unified European economic government, which Berlin had already rejected when it was proposed by then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Also, Fillon aims to “rebuild” relations with Russia by establishing closer military ties and lifting economic sanctions imposed during the Ukraine crisis—which Merkel has opposed.

Social, economic and political tensions are already extremely sharp in Europe, and Fillon has declared that he wants France to become Europe’s dominant power—in a barely veiled challenge to German hegemony in Europe. In both countries, right-wing, nationalist forces are on the rise, and Brexit last year only exacerbated tensions in Europe. London no doubt sees calls for more military integration on the European continent as a threat, particularly as, post-Brexit, UK Prime Minister Theresa May is moving closer to Trump.

British Supreme Court rules only Parliament can trigger Brexit

Robert Stevens

Britain’s Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Parliament must agree to begin the process of exiting the European Union.

The decision followed an appeal to the Supreme Court by the government of Prime Minister Theresa May challenging a November High Court decision. The High Court had likewise ruled that only Parliament has the right to invoke Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, under which a member state can begin the process of exiting the EU.

A pro-EU group of claimants led by Gina Miller, a London-based investment manager, brought the legal challenge at the High Court. Miller won the support of all three High Court judges, who submitted that when the UK passed the 1972 European Communities Act paving the way for Britain to join the EU’s predecessor organization, rights were conferred on citizens via that act of Parliament. Therefore, it was not within the powers of Royal Prerogative—enacted by a government minister, as proposed by May—to take away those rights.

The Supreme Court dismissed the government’s appeal by an 8-3 majority. Reading out a statement, Lord Neuberger, the Supreme Court president, said that because of the UK leaving the EU and ceasing to be party to EU treaties, UK domestic law will change and the rights of UK residents will be affected. “Therefore,” the statement declared, “the government cannot trigger Article 50 without Parliament authorising that course.”

The statement concluded, “The Supreme Court holds that an act of Parliament is required to authorise ministers to give notice of the decision of the UK to withdraw from the European Union.”

The ruling was widely anticipated. In response, the government stated that it planned to proceed with a timetable of triggering Article 50 by the end of March. In a statement to MPs, Conservative Brexit Secretary David Davis said a bill allowing the government to trigger Article 50 would be introduced “within days.” This would be “the most straightforward Bill possible...”

While the Supreme Court came down in favour of Parliament, nothing has been resolved politically by its verdict. Indeed, it lays the basis for the schism within ruling circles over Brexit to deepen and for the conflict to be fought out on the new terrain dictated by the ruling.

Given these divisions, the pro-EU wing does not want to be seen as seeking to overturn a Leave vote made by more than 17 million people.

The Supreme Court justices were careful to stress that their ruling would not overturn the decision to leave the EU. Neuberger said, “The issues in these proceedings have nothing to do with whether the UK should exit from the EU, or the terms or timetable for that exit.”

The ruling was crafted to make possible the government putting the briefest bill forward in order to allow Article 50 to proceed on the basis of its timetable. The pro-Remain Guardian newspaper commented, “Ministers will…be reasonably happy: the Supreme Court ruled an act of Parliament was required to trigger article 50, but it made no statement on what that act should look like, allowing a very brief bill to be put before MPs.”

The central concern on which no compromise is possible for the Remain forces is to ensure that UK corporations and financial institutions maintain access, post-Brexit, to the strategically vital European Single Market and Customs Union.

On this score, the judgement in favour of Parliament still ensures that pro-Remain MPs can make amendments to whatever Bill the government proposes. Even more importantly, the decision serves to ensure that MPs can vote on—and seek to substantially amend or even block—whatever agreement the government reaches with the EU at the conclusion of negotiations expected to extend over the course of two years.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn plans to hold Labour MPs to a three-line whip to ensure that Article 50 is passed, but he responded to the judgement by insisting on Single Market access for British corporations and a final vote on the deal that is eventually reached.

“Labour will seek to build in the principles of full, tariff-free access to the Single Market and maintenance of workers’ rights and social and environmental protections,” he said. “Labour is demanding a plan from the Government to ensure it is accountable to Parliament throughout the negotiations and a meaningful vote to ensure the final deal is given Parliamentary approval.”

Even so, a minority group of 39 cross-party MPs, led by 18 (mainly Blairites) within the Labour Party and supported by six Liberal Democrats and 13 from the Scottish National Party, are pledged to vote against triggering Article 50. One of the Labourites, Owen Smith, challenged for party leadership against Corbyn to spearhead last year’s attempted coup, centring his campaign on accusations that Corbyn lost the vote for Remain because he was not sufficiently enthusiastic in his backing for the EU. Smith pledged in a Guardian article Tuesday to oppose Article 50 in any parliamentary vote.

His first argument for doing so was to reject May’s assertion of a “buccaneering Britain striking advantageous trade deals across the globe,” accusing her of placing “party politics over the national interest.” He predicted “a protracted and painful withdrawal from the Single Market and Customs Union...”

The ruling is also meant to oppose the danger of Brexit leading to the breakup of the United Kingdom, but fails in this respect too.

All 11 Supreme Court justices rejected the argument made by claimants representing the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that they should be consulted before the government triggers Article 50. The judges’ summary decision said that the various acts of devolution creating the devolved administrations “were passed by Parliament on the assumption that the UK would be a member of the EU, but they do not require the UK to remain a member.”

The Scottish National Party (SNP) have repeatedly threatened to hold a second referendum on independence—less than three years after the previous one—if Scotland loses access to the Single Market as a result of the EU exit. Only a week ago, after Prime Minister May confirmed that the UK would leave the Single Market in a “hard Brexit,” the Scottish parliament passed an SNP motion stating that “Alternative approaches within the UK should be sought that would enable Scotland to retain its place within the Single Market and the devolution of necessary powers to the Scottish Parliament.”

In response to the Supreme Court ruling out any veto rights over Article 50 for the devolved powers, SNP leader and Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon declared, “It is becoming clearer by the day that Scotland’s voice is simply not being heard or listened to within the UK.”

She added, “Is Scotland content for our future to be dictated by an increasingly right-wing Westminster government with just one MP here—or is it better that we take our future into our own hands?”

The SNP, who have 56 MPs at the Westminster Parliament, plan to put forward 50 amendments to the Article 50 legislation of a “serious and substantive” character.

The situation is made more fraught still by the fact that Northern Ireland voted in favour of Remain and the pro-EU Sinn Fein has precipitated a general election. Having brought to the forefront the prospect of a united Ireland, it will contest bitterly against the pro-British and pro-Brexit Democratic Unionist Party.

Syrian government, “rebels” meet for talks in Kazakhstan

Bill Van Auken

For the first time in six years of the bloody conflict provoked by the US and its allies in pursuit of “regime change” in Syria, representatives of the government of Bashar al-Assad and those of the armed “rebels” backed by Washington met face-to-face this week in Russian and Turkish-brokered talks held in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan.

The US was conspicuous by its absence, declining to send any official delegation and present only in the person of the US ambassador to Kazakhstan, who acted as an observer.

While the talks accomplished little beyond an agreement between Russia, Turkey and Iran to establish mechanisms for monitoring the cease-fire that was declared at the end of last year, the fact of the meeting itself was an expression of the debacle suffered by Washington in its strategy to overturn the Assad regime and of the strategic reversal inflicted upon the “rebels” by the Syrian army, backed by Russia and Iran, in retaking the former Islamist stronghold of east Aleppo.

The face-to-face meeting took place between a Syrian government delegation led by Bashar al-Jaafari, Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations, and a “rebel” contingent headed by Mohammed Alloush, the leader of Jaysh al-Islam, a virulently sectarian Islamist militia backed by Saudi Arabia that even former Secretary of State John Kerry referred to as a terrorist “sub-group.”

Each side denounced the other as “terrorist” and the same question that has stymied previous attempts at peace talks, the future of Syria’s President Assad, emerged early in the talks, with the “rebels” demanding his ouster as a pre-condition for a peace settlement, and the government insisting that his status is not up for discussion.

Both sides accused the other of violating the Russian-Turkish-brokered cease-fire initiated on December 30. Like earlier abortive cessations of hostilities negotiated between the US and Washington, the agreement does not cover either the Islamic State (ISIS) or the Fateh al-Sham Front, which was formerly known as the Al Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.

Jaafari insisted that the Syrian army would continue to carry out combat operations in the strategic Barada River Valley to break the grip of Al Qaeda forces over the village of Ain al-Fijah, which is the source of the water supply for the 7 million inhabitants of Damacus. The Islamist militia has cut off water to the city since December 23.

The final statement issued by the meeting was signed by Russia, Iran and Turkey, the sponsors of the talks, but not by either the “rebels” or the Assad government. It commits the three countries to “establish a trilateral mechanism to observe and ensure full compliance with the cease-fire, prevent any provocations and determine all modalities of the cease-fire.”

The communique signed by the three countries expressed support for the armed “rebel” groups participating in UN-sponsored peace talks set to take place in Geneva on February 8.

While declaring their commitment to “the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic,” the document omitted the previous definition of Syria as a “secular” state. Ambassador al-Jaafari said that the reference to secularism was taken out at the insistence of both Turkey, which is ruled by an Islamist party but claims itself to be secular, and the armed groups, which virtually all call for the establishment of an Islamic regime.

Despite the absence of an official US delegation, Moscow has expressed optimism that it will reach a rapprochement with Washington over Syria following the inauguration of Donald Trump as US president.

Moscow’s Special Envoy for Syria Alexander Lavrentyev, who led the Russian delegation at the talks, told reporters Tuesday: “Trump’s recent statements on him prioritizing not only the issues of internal policies, but also fighting terrorism, give hope. We think that the US leadership will take the right decisions towards coordination of efforts on the international level, to coordinate efforts to fight terrorism.”

At the beginning of the week, Russia’s Ministry of Defense claimed that the US military had provided targeting information for a joint US-Russian airstrike against ISIS positions in Syria. The Pentagon, however, vigorously denied any such collaboration. US Air Force Col. John Dorrian, chief spokesman for the US-led coalition in Baghdad, called the claim by Moscow “rubbish.”

Earlier this month Russia did carry out joint airstrikes with Turkey against ISIS in the area around al-Bab, a strategic town in northern Syria that Turkey is determined to capture as part of its military campaign to prevent Syrian Kurdish forces from consolidating a contiguous enclave on Turkey’s border. The unprecedented joint action by Turkey, a NATO member, with Russia underscored the sharp tensions between Ankara and Washington, which has utilized the Syrian Kurdish militia, the YPG, as its main proxy ground force in the campaign against ISIS.

Russia’s hopes for improved relations with Washington appeared to get a boost on Monday when Sean Spicer, Trump’s White House press secretary, answered a reporter’s question on potential US-Russian collaboration in Syria by declaring, “I think if there’s a way that we can combat ISIS with any country, whether it’s Russia or anyone else, and we have a shared national interest in that, sure, we’ll take it.”

At the same time, however, both Trump and his key cabinet appointees, including his recently confirmed defense secretary, Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis, have signaled the incoming administration’s intentions to ratchet up tensions with Iran, including through the possible withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal concluded between Tehran and the so-called P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany) last July and the re-imposition of sanctions lifted as part of the deal.

Such a provocative action could lead to Iran resuming its nuclear program and the reigniting of the threat of a far wider war in the region, including possible US-backed airstrikes by Israel, which could draw in Russia as well.

Significantly, the Syrian “rebel” representatives in Astana voiced their acceptance of Russia’s role as a mediator in the Syrian conflict, but strongly opposed that of Iran. Whether or not this stance was worked out in collaboration with their CIA and Saudi patrons, its apparent aim is to harness the incoming Trump administration’s anti-Iran policy to further their own drive for regime change in Syria.

In a further indication that the incoming administration’s “America First” policy is one not of isolationism, but rather an explosive escalation of global militarism, in his remarks Saturday at the CIA headquarters, Trump reiterated the statement he made during the 2016 presidential campaign that the US should have “taken” Iraq’s oil after the 2003 invasion.

In his rambling address to the assembled CIA functionaries, Trump declared: “The old expression, ‘to the victor belong the spoils’ —you remember. I always used to say, keep the oil. I wasn’t a fan of Iraq. I didn’t want to go into Iraq. But I will tell you, when we were in, we got out wrong. And I always said, in addition to that, keep the oil. Now, I said it for economic reasons. But ...if we kept the oil you probably wouldn’t have ISIS because that’s where they made their money in the first place. So we should have kept the oil. But okay. Maybe you’ll have another chance [emphasis added].”

Asked to clarify Trump’s statement, Spicer, the White House press secretary, stated, “We want to be sure our interests are protected. We’re going into a country for a cause. He wants to be sure America is getting something out of it for the commitment and sacrifice it is making.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi issued a fairly subdued reaction to Trump’s implicit threat, declaring that “Iraq’s oil is constitutionally the property of the Iraqis,” and claiming he had commitments from the new administration for increased aid.

Whether Trump’s offhand comment about “another chance” for seizing oil was directed at Iraq or is an indication of the threat of new and even bloodier wars of aggression against Iran or even Russia is unclear.

Xiamen University Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018:China

Application Deadline: Application starts from 1st February to April 30, 2017 (annually)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Xiamen University, China

Accepted Subject Areas: Most undergraduate, master’s and doctoral programmes are taught in Chinese. However these courses are offered in English language and are eligible for the scholarship among other Chinese taught courses.

Undergraduate programme: Economics

Masters Programme: Chinese Philosophy, Civil and Commercial Law, International Relations, International Business, Marine Affairs, Chemical Engineering, Physical Chemistry (Electrochemistry), Finance (Applied Finance), Financial Engineering, Western Economics

Doctoral Programme:Archaeology & Museology, History of Specialized Field, Chinese Modern and Contemporary History, World History, Anthropology, Statistics, World Economy, International Trade, Energy Economics, Western Economics, Finance, Quantitative Economics, Statistics, Labor Economics, Regional Economics, International Law, Intellectual Property Law, English Language and Literature, Electromechanical Engineering, Condensed Matter Physics, Radio Physics, Electromagnetic Field and Microwave Technology, Basic Mathematics, Computational Mathematics, Probability & Mathematical Statistics, Analytical Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, Chemistry and Physics of Polymers, Materials Physics and Chemistry, Physical Oceanography, Marine Biology, Marine Chemistry, Marine Physics, Marine Geology, Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Marine Biotechnology, Environmental Science, Environmental Management, World Economy, Theory of Political Science, History of Specialized Field

About Scholarship

The Xiamen University in China offers scholarships for doctoral, master’s and undergraduate candidates. The first-class scholarship for doctoral and master’s candidates will have their tuition fees covered (a maximum of 3 years for doctoral programmes, 2-3 years for master’s programmes). Meanwhile, the University provides monthly living allowance for outstanding doctoral and master’s candidates in accordance with the Chinese Government Scholarships (RMB 2,000 /month /person for doctoral students; RMB 1,700/month/person for master’s students). Bachelor’s candidates will not be provided with the first-class scholarship.

The second-class scholarship will have the awardees’ tuition fees covered (a maximum of 3 years for doctoral programmes , 2-3 years for master’s programmes ; 4-5 years for bachelor’s programmes).

By what Criteria is Selection Made?

Scholarship assessment will be on the basis of application documents, applicant’s academic performance and overall quality, and their supervisor’s opinions. The recipients’ academic performance will be assessed each year and only those achieving the required standard will have their scholarship renewed for the following year.

Who is qualified to apply?

• Applicants must be non-Chinese citizens and in good health.
• Applicants for undergraduate studies must hold a high school diploma and be under the age of 25.
• Applicants for master’s studies must hold a bachelor’s degree and be under the age of 40.
• Applicants for doctoral studies must hold a master’s degree and be under the age of 45.

Number of Scholarships: 24 (including 8 for doctoral candidates, 11 for master’s candidates and 5 for undergraduate candidates)

Value of Scholarships: Scholarship awardees will have their tuitions covered. Two kinds of scholarships exist:

The first-class scholarships for doctoral and master’s candidates will have their tuition covered (a maximum of 4 years for doctoral programmes, 2 or 3 years for master’s programmes) and offer monthly living allowance (RMB 3,500 for each doctoral student; RMB 3,000 for each master’s student). Undergraduate candidates will not be provided with the first-class scholarship.

The second-class scholarships will have the awardees’ tuition covered (a maximum of 4 years for doctoral programmes, 2 or 3 years for master’s programmes,  4 or 5 years for undergraduate programmes).

How long will sponsorship last?

• Bachelor’s degree students         4-5 years
• Master’s degree students            2-3 years
• Doctoral degree students            4 years

How to Apply: Applicants will be eligible for scholarship assessment only after they are admitted to the undergraduate, masters or doctoral programme of Xiamen University.

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for details

Sponsors: Xiamen University, China Government

Important Notes: The result is expected to be out in early June and will be published on the website of the Admissions Office. Awardees will be notified via email and their certificate of award will be sent out as soon as possible.

UNICEF Voices of Youth Blogging Internship 2017

Application Deadline: 10th February 2017 at 12am (EST).

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Online

About the Award: The internships will have a partial focus on climate change and the environment – one of the world’s most pressing issues. The 3-month internship (February- June 2017) offers you (young people aged 14-25) an opportunity to receive personalized feedback on your blog posts, a series of live interactive sessions with subject matter experts, weekly lessons and tips on blogging, access to a network of international youth bloggers, and the opportunity to have your pieces published on notable digital media platforms.

Type: Internship

Eligibility: To be eligible, candidates must be young people aged 14-25

Number of Awardees: 10-15

Value of Internship: At the end of the internships you will have improved your blogging skills with the help of your peers and the VOY Community Coordinator who supervises your work, gained new insights into environmental and climate issues, and been connected to a network of international young bloggers. The internship is done by remote participation, which means that interns are not required to travel anywhere.

Upon successful completion of the internship, you will receive a certificate of merit by UNICEF – definitely a great addition to your CV!

Duration of Internship: 3-month internship (February- June 2017)

How to Apply: If you are interested to be part of the interns batch that starts in February, please apply to the internship by submitting this Google form:

• English: http://uni.cf/2jt6OWl
• Spanish: http://uni.cf/2khptrg
• French: http://uni.cf/2j29nwA

Visit Internship Webpage for details

Award Provider: VOY, UNICEF

Important Notes:  Due to the high demand and limited number of spaces available, Voices of Youth will only contact candidates that were selected for the internship.