8 Jun 2017

Deaths from drug overdoses see largest increase in US history

Genevieve Leigh 

Deaths from drug overdoses jumped by the largest margin ever recorded in US history in 2016, according to preliminary data compiled by the New York Times. While the precise number will not be available until December due to the months it takes to certify an overdose death, the Times estimates that in 2016 more than 59,000 people died from drug overdoses, a 19 percent increase from 2015.
The scope of this public health crisis is immense. Drug overdoses now far surpass both the annual death toll from HIV/AIDS at the peak of the US epidemic in the late ’80s and early ’90s and the number killed in the country’s peak year of gun violence, 1993. It is now the leading cause of death among Americans under the age of 50.
The primary drugs responsible for deaths in recent years, accounting for more than half, are opioids. More Americans have died from opiate overdoses in the last two years than in the entire Vietnam War. Opiates include illegal drugs like heroin and drugs that are often legally prescribed for pain, such as hydrocodone and oxycodone (known by the brand names Vicodin and OxyContin, respectively).
Fentanyl, a synthetic pain killer, is the deadliest opioid and the drug that many blame for the rising death toll. Since 2014, fentanyl and its cousin, carfentanil, have proliferated dramatically. These drugs are extremely lethal. Less than half a teaspoon of pure fentanyl is enough to kill 10 people. Carfentanil, which is used as an elephant tranquilizer, is 5,000 times stronger than heroin. For a human, an amount of carfentanil equal to a few grains of salt can be a lethal dose.
Opioids, like many other highly addictive drugs, often sweep through entire towns and regions. In Ohio, fatal overdoses more than quadrupled in the past decade, according to the data analyzed by the Times. In Dayton, Ohio the number of overdose deaths reported in the first 33 days of this year is already more than half the yearly totals for the past two years. The coroner’s office for the county, overwhelmed with corpses, was forced to use refrigerated trucks to store bodies for up to a week on three separate occasions.
Kenneth M. Betz, director of the coroner’s office in Montgomery county, Ohio, told the Times, “Our staff is, quite frankly, tired. The doctors are tired. The investigators are tired. We’ve never had volumes like this.” These workers, along with rehab clinicians, youth counselors and emergency room staff witness the horrors of the epidemic on a daily basis.
Emergency responders on the front lines often see scores of overdoses in a single day when a “bad batch” of one or another drug arrives in a town. Social service workers in places like West Virginia and Florida have been flooded with cases of children who need homes due to the circumstances of their parents’ addiction. The overall psychological toll of these experiences on workers is devastating.
Drug abuse is a problem confronting all types of people regardless of skin color, gender, nationality or even income. However, the most devastating consequences of addiction are felt by the working class and poor.
Economically depressed areas with high poverty and unemployment, including regions devastated by deindustrialization, have become breeding grounds for drug abuse. Workers who suffer from job injuries and other physical ailments that come with poor health insurance and bad living conditions often become addicted to prescription drugs first before turning to the less expensive street versions.
Those whose prescriptions no longer suffice, or who have been cut off from their health insurance, are forced to buy drugs on the streets in communities often wracked by crime and violence.
The class character of the drug epidemic is most evident in treatment options. Rehab clinics that accept state insurance are scarce, overcrowded and always have long wait lists. Many have “one strike” policies in which an addict may not return if he ir she does not complete the program, despite the fact that experts put the relapse rate for opioid users as high as 80 percent.
Efforts to combat the drug epidemic have largely been limited to impotent local- and state-level measures. Many states, including Maryland, Arizona and Florida, have declared states of emergency over the crisis.
Pharmaceutical companies have played a decisive role in fostering the opioid epidemic. Prescriptions for opioids such as Percocet, OxyContin and Vicodin have skyrocketed, from 76 million in 1991 to nearly 259 million in 2012. This is enough to supply each American adult with “a bottle of pills and then some,” as US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy put it last year. A report issued in 2013 found that hydrocodone, the generic version of Vicodin, had been prescribed to more Medicare patients than any other drug in existence.
Drug companies go to great lengths to incentivize doctors to prescribe dangerous addictive painkillers to patients. Companies like Purdue Pharma have gone as far as creating promotional videos for advertising their drugs in waiting rooms, and doctors are given incentives for reaching a certain number of prescriptions.
The state of Ohio filed a lawsuit last week accusing five drug companies of abetting the opioid epidemic. However, no major drug companies have faced any serious consequences for their actions.
The most significant attempt to prosecute a pharmaceutical company was against Purdue Pharma. In 2007, three of the company’s executives were charged with misbranding the drug OxyContin and massively downplaying the possibility of addiction. All three pleaded guilty due to the sheer amount of evidence against them. The company settled with the US government for $635 million, a mere fraction of what was made off the drug, which brought in over $30 billion in sales over the two decades it was on the market.
The prosecution did nothing to curb the profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies or help the millions of people whose lives were destroyed by the drugs. A former sales representative for drug company Insys Therapeutics recently spoke out against almost identical practices. The whistleblower, Patty Nixon, said the company developed a scheme to get the highly addictive drug Subsys to patients who never should have had it. Subsys, which costs anywhere from $3,000 to $30,000 for a 30-day supply, contains fentanyl.
Nixon told NBC news that her job was to make sure Subsys got into the hands of “as many patients as possible.” The drug was designed to be used on cancer patients, but like many other opioids it has been widely pushed as a painkiller. One victim of the scheme, Sarah Fuller, was prescribed the drug for chronic neck and back pain from two car accidents. Sarah’s father told NBC News that when her doctor prescribed Subsys, an Insys sales rep was sitting in the room with them.
After Fuller’s prescription was tripled within the course of a month, she was found dead in her house. Prosecutors involved in Fuller’s case say the company paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to doctors in exchange for prescribing Subsys, a standard practice. Insys founder Dr. John Kapoor is a billionaire and among the wealthiest Americans.
The profiteering of giant drug companies mirrors that of every other corporate conglomerate, from the giant energy enterprises to agriculture and technology companies, all of which subordinate human need, and sometimes human life, to private profit.
Beyond the role of drug companies, the opioid epidemic is produced by a coalescence of the ills of capitalism. It is the expression of a profound social illness—the consequence of inequality, poverty, unemployment and a general feeling of hopelessness that afflicts broad sections of the population, combined with an economic and political system that leaves those most severely impacted by the social crisis to fend for themselves.

Britain’s crisis election and the tasks facing the working class

Chris Marsden

Britain goes to the polls tomorrow at the end of an election campaign like no other. In the space of a few weeks, a predicted Conservative landslide has given way to speculation about a reduced majority, a hung parliament or even a Labour victory.
Two brutal terror attacks have claimed dozens of lives and maimed many more. Armed police patrol the streets in large numbers. The army was despatched to key strategic locations under secretive emergency measures.
Prime Minister Theresa May called the snap poll because the financial oligarchy and the military-intelligence apparatus she serves decided they could not afford to wait two years until the next scheduled election, as they would be in the midst of major political and social convulsions. It has turned out that they could barely afford to wait two months.
May had hoped to utilise the internal warfare in the Labour Party and a savage media campaign against Jeremy Corbyn to secure a de facto parliamentary dictatorship and impose an agenda of stepped-up austerity and military intervention in Syria and elsewhere. Instead, the election campaign has seen an outpouring of hatred of the Tories and all they stand for from workers and young people, who have rallied in support of Corbyn and his promise to end austerity.
May’s disgusting attempt to capitalise on the terror outrages has blown up in her face. Overwhelming evidence that MI5 and the police knew Manchester bomber Salman Abedi and at least two of the three London killers is proof that numerous Islamists are protected assets to be used as proxy forces in the wars waged by Britain alongside the United States in Libya, Iraq and Syria.
The “hard Brexit” threats on which she staked her future have instead alienated large sections of big business and the City of London. Estimates that post-Brexit trade with the European Union may fall by 40 percent, and foreign investment by 20 percent, have led to warnings of a financial disaster.
Her plan to rely on the Trump administration to force the hand of Germany, France and other EU states has had the opposite effect. The response of Germany’s Angela Merkel to Trump’s “America First” threats was to declare that the US and post-Brexit Britain were no longer to be trusted as allies. In the face of the growing global tensions between the US and Europe, Britain’s entire foreign policy strategy of resting on US military and economic power to magnify its own influence has collapsed.
However, the brutal truth is that a Corbyn-led Labour government offers no genuine alternative to the austerity, militarism and war policies of May.
Millions of workers want to see the back of the Tories and are ready to excuse Corbyn’s constant retreats before the Blairites in his party, hoping that he will honour his commitments to defend the National Health Service, raise the minimum wage and build new homes. But his manifesto’s efforts to marry minimal social reforms to an acceptance of the militarist agenda of British imperialism is a circle that cannot be squared.
Britain is being destabilised economically, politically and socially as world capitalism descends into its deepest crisis since the end of World War II—one that is reproducing all the horrors of fascism and war associated with the first half of the 20th century. The attempt to ensure Britain’s “global competitiveness” under conditions of trade war and military conflict demands an escalation of the destruction of jobs, wages and essential services.
This is deepening the gulf between the working class and the super-rich to the point of a social explosion. The clash of interests between the oligarchy and the working class is so acute that it cannot be reconciled through Corbyn’s appeal for “fairness ... for the many not the few.” Rather, Labour’s nationalist policy of creating a form of “industrial patriotism” through government “working in partnership with business and trade unions” is a means of subordinating workers to the trade war agenda pursued by May at the cost of their own jobs and living standards.
It is now almost two years since Corbyn was elected party leader thanks to hundreds of thousands flooding into the Labour Party with the aim of pushing it leftwards. Instead, it is Corbyn who has shifted ever further to the right.
His opposition to driving out the right-wing MPs who sought his removal, agreeing to free votes on military action in Syria and the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons, and then incorporating these retreats into his manifesto, all point to the real role a Labour government under his leadership will play.
A stark warning must be taken from how Corbyn has reacted to the terror attacks in Manchester and London.
The Conservatives are seeking to use the attacks to win the election by reinforcing their efforts to portray Corbyn as soft on terrorism and a threat to national security, based on his previous statements criticising NATO and his refusal to state categorically that he will authorise the use of nuclear weapons. They are preparing a sharp turn to state repression after June 8.
May’s four-point strategy for “fighting terrorism”—including Internet censorship and policing measures to eliminate “safe spaces” for “extremism” in the public sector—will be used to clamp down on political discontent, alongside existing measures to further limit the right to strike. Its authoritarian core was epitomised by her declaration: “And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
She also used her speech on the London attacks to reaffirm her pledge of stepped-up military intervention in Iraq and Syria.
Corbyn remains silent on all of this. Instead of explaining that the terror attacks are blowback from British imperialism’s criminal interventions in the Middle East, he has chosen to denounce May for cutting police numbers, while declaring his own readiness to do “whatever it takes” in the fight against terrorism.
In this way, he is positioning himself as the candidate not of social change, but of law and order. His promissory note to the ruling elite that they have nothing to fear from his government means that his “left” rhetoric has barely survived an election campaign, let alone Labour taking office.
Britain’s pseudo-left groups have all sought to overcome workers’ deep mistrust of the Labour Party by exploiting popular illusions in Corbyn as an individual. The Socialist Workers Party writes, “We don’t support those who have repeatedly tried to shift Labour rightwards. But the only way to show support for Corbyn is to vote for all the Labour candidates.” The Socialist Party avoids all mention of Labour and simply calls “For a Corbyn-led government.”
Events have confirmed the insistence of the Socialist Equality Party that the Labour Party cannot be changed by installing a new leader. Labour today is the same party it was under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Whatever the outcome on June 8, the British working class, like its brothers and sisters throughout the world, faces a life and death struggle against the descent into social and political reaction and the ever-growing danger of war. The only way forward is through the adoption of a new, revolutionary socialist and internationalist perspective. The task placed before the most advanced workers and youth is to join the SEP and build it as the new leadership of the working class.

6 Jun 2017

Lewis-Clark State College Undergraduate Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadlines:
  • 15th April 2017 for Fall (August)
  • 1st December 2017 for Spring (January)
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Idaho, USA
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility: The International Out-of-State Tuition Scholarship is a renewable semester award. You are eligible to receive this award for the duration of your enrollment at LCSC if you meet these conditions:
  • Maintain a 2.5 semester grade point average
  • Complete 12 or more credits each semester
  • Volunteer a minimum of 10 hours per semester
  • Are not fully funded by a sponsoring agency
Number of Awards: Unlimited
Value of Program: $1750 the first semester. Up to 2500 per semester after first based on GPA.
  • 2.5 GPA = $1,750 per semester or $3,500 per year
  • 3.0 GPA = $2,125 per semester or $4,250 per year
  • 3.5 GPA = $2,500 per semester or $5,000 per year
How to Apply: Applicants will  be considered automatically upon admission
Award Provider: Lewis-Clark State College

TWAS-DBT Postgraduate Research Fellowship for Developing Countries 2017/2018 – India

Application Deadline: 25th July 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Fields of Study: 
01-Agricultural Sciences
02-Structural, Cell and Molecular Biology
03-Biological Systems and Organisms
04-Medical and Health Sciences incl. Neurosciences
05-Chemical Sciences
About Scholarship: The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) of the Ministry of Science and Technology, India, and TWAS, Italy have instituted a postgraduate fellowship programme for foreign scholars from developing countries who wish to pursue research towards a PhD in Biotechnology, tenable at key biotechnology research institutions in India for a period of up to five years. The language of instruction is English.
Who is qualified to apply: Applicants for these research fellowships must meet the following criteria:
  • Be a maximum age of 35 years on 31 December of the application year;
  • Be nationals of a developing country (other than India);
  • Hold a Master’s or equivalent degree in science or engineering;
  • For SANDWICH Fellowships: Be registered PhD students in their home country and provide the “Registration and No Objection Certificate” from the HOME university (sample is included in the application form);
  • For FULL-TIME Fellowships: be willing to register at a university in India;
  • Must not hold any visa for temporary or permanent residency in India or any developed country;
  • Be accepted at a biotechnology institution in India (see sample Acceptance Letter included in the application form);
  • Provide evidence of proficiency in English, if medium of education was not English;
  • Provide evidence that s/he will return to her/his home country on completion of the fellowship;
  • Not take up other assignments during the period of her/his fellowship;
  • Be financially responsible for any accompanying family members.
Number of scholarship: Several
Value of Scholarship: DBT will provide a monthly stipend to cover for living costs, food and health insurance. The monthly stipend will not be convertible into foreign currency. In addition, the fellowship holder will receive a house rent allowance.
Duration of Award: Up to five years.
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries
To be taken at (country): Applicants may be registered for a PhD degree in their home country, or may enrol in a PhD course at a host laboratory/institute in India.
How to Apply: Before applying it is recommended that applicants read very carefully the application guidelines for detailed information on eligibility criteria, and other key requirements of the application procedure.
Sponsors: The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) of the Ministry of Science and Technology, India, and The World Academy of Science (TWAS), Italy
Important Notes: Applicants may be registered for a PhD degree in their home country, or may enrol in a PhD course at a host laboratory/institute in India. However, candidates are free to choose an Indian biotechnology institution that does not appear on the list.

The Saudi Hand in British Foreign Policy

Binoy Kampmark

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia always knows when it’s onto a good thing. That particular “thing”, in the few days left before the UK elections, is the May government. That same government that has done so much to make a distinction between policy and values, notably when it comes to dealing with Riyadh.
The United Kingdom has been a firm, even obsequious backer of Saudi Arabia’s war against Yemen.  In the traditional spoiling nature of British foreign policy, what is good for the UK wallet can also be good in keeping Middle Eastern politics brutal and divided. The obscurantist despots of the House of Saud have profited, as a result.
The Saudi bribery machine tends to function all hours, a measure of its gratitude and its tenacity.  According to the register of financial interests disclosed by the UK Parliament, conservative members of the government received almost £100 thousand pounds in terms of travel expenses, gifts, and consulting fees since the Yemen conflict began.
The Saudi sponsors certainly know which side their bread is buttered on.  Those involved in debates on Middle Eastern policy have been the specific targets of such largesse.  Tory MP Charlotte Leslie was one, and received a food basket totalling £500.
Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond is another keen target of the Kingdom’s deep pockets, having shown a willingness to defend mass executions in the past. “Let us be clear, first of all,” he insisted after consuming the Kingdom’s gruel on why 47 people were executed in January 2016, “that these people are convicted terrorists.”  Four of them, including Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, were political protesters as well, but terrorists come in all shades.
Hammond, instead of going red on the issue, found another Islamic regime of comparable worth to point the finger at. Iran, for instance, “executes far more people than Saudi Arabia”. Best, then, to drop the matter and do such things as accept a watch from the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the value of £1,950.
Such a sweetly disposed attitude stands in the annals of the British approach, a matter not so much of sentiment and institution.  The Blair government of New Labour fluff was similarly keen to smooth the pathway for the British arms market, while making sure that Riyadh, whatever its policies, was courted.
Attempts to shine a strong, searing spotlight on corrupt practices, notably those linked to BAE, have been scotched, blocked or stalled.  One such example, a chilling one given the recent spate of attacks on civilians in the UK, involved a disgruntled Prince Bandar, head of Saudi Arabia’s national security council, threaten Prime Minister Tony Blair with “another 7/7” should a fraud investigation into BAE-Riyadh transactions continue.
High Court documents in February 2008 hearings insisted that the Prince had flown to London in December 2006 to give Blair a personal savaging laced with ominous promise: stop the Serious Fraud Office investigation, or expect London to witness a terrorist inflicted bloodbath.
Blair complied, leaving Robert Wardle, the SFO’s director, stunned.  “The idea of discontinuing the investigation went against my every instinct as a prosecutor. I wanted to see where the evidence led.” Not, however, obliging Tony and the happy executioners in Riyadh.
In yet another interesting turn ahead of the June 8 election, Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn has decided to bring the Saudi role behind that policy into full view.  Corbyn’s rebranded Labour approach is more hard-nosed on the issue of UK arms sales to the Kingdom.  Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry wished for a return (was there every one?) to an “ethical foreign policy”, one fashioned on the approach taken by former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook.
Cook’s ethical thrust, if it could be termed that, came to view in 2003 when he resigned over the Iraq War.  “Labour does not accept that political values can be left behind when we check in our passports.”
Not so, according to Blair, whose sense of ethics was always muddled by a contaminating mix of evangelism and fakery. But times are different from Corbyn’s perspective.  This is Labour rebooted on Cook’s original objectives: “We will strive,” promised Thornberry, “to reduce not increase global tensions, and give new momentum to talks on non-proliferation and disarmament.”
Thornberry’s words would have sent a true tingling through the Saudi security establishment. In line with the Labour party manifesto, the shadow foreign secretary promised to pursue an independent UN investigation into alleged war crimes in Yemen.  Arms sales to the Saudi coalition engaged in that conflict would be suspended.
The picture is not a pretty one when shoved into the electoral process. But then again, the May wobble and turn may well justify such a relationship on terms that Saudi security and power is preferable to other authoritarian regimes. These big bad Sunnis are the good Muslims of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Such splitting of hairs doesn’t tend to fly well from the stump and the Tories might well attempt to keep things as quiet as possible. The Saudis, on the other hand, will be wishing for business as usual, praying that the threat of a Corbyn government passes into the shadows of back slapping Realpolitik.

ISIS’s Message: We Are Still Deadly

Patrick Cockburn

The indiscriminate slaughter of ordinary members of the public on London Bridge and in Borough Market on Saturday night is fully in keeping with the operational methods of Isis. They have yet to claim responsibility, but it is extremely likely that they were ultimately behind an attack that bears so many Isis hallmarks.
The killings were probably triggered by a pre-arranged instruction to a cell or individual in Britain, the order coming from within the Isis apparatus, and not in response to a more generalised call to its sympathisers to make attacks in Europe and elsewhere. Isis is more professionally organised than is generally supposed, going by its track record over the last five years; its military and terrorist tactics traditionally involve those in charge deciding overall objectives and timings, but leaving local operatives to determine everything else.
Mass murder by Isis of defenceless civilians is frequently carried out in well-known or iconic places to ensure maximum publicity and to spread as much fear as possible. The perpetrators, for the most part, die along with their victims or soon afterwards, making a deliberate public demonstration of their religious commitment. The latest killings in London have all these characteristics, and are very similar in this respect to previous atrocities on Westminster Bridge carried out by Khalid Masood, and in the Manchester Arena by Salman Abedi.
The timing of these three acts of terrorism is most likely connected to Isis setbacks and retreats on the battlefield in Iraq, Syria and Libya. Its fighters have lost most of Mosul – the centre of the self-declared Caliphate since Isis captured the city in 2014 – which Iraqi security forces have been assaulting for seven months. The US-backed Syrian Kurds and their Arab allies have said in the last few days that they are about to storm Raqqa, the isolated Isis de facto Syrian capital on the Euphrates River.
Isis uses terrorism in a deliberately sadistic and attention-grabbing way to counter-balance any perception that it is weakening or is fought out. In return for minimum expenditure of men and resources on its part, it can demonstrate to the world that it is still in business despite its loss of territory. It welcomes denunciations because its savagery is geared to topping the news agenda. For this purpose, Isis films its own massacres, ritually decapitates journalists, burns captives alive or drowns them in cages. Last week, a bomb exploded outside an ice cream shop thronged with children in Baghdad killing at least 15, with some reports saying 30 people were killed and dozens more injured.
It has been suggested that the Western mass media plays into the hands of Isis or al-Qaeda by the wall-to-wall coverage of their crimes. But self-censorship is unrealistic since there is overwhelming and understandable public demand for information about terrorists and terrorism which needs to be satisfied. Where authoritarian governments censor or play down Isis and al-Qaeda acts and capabilities, as they do in much of the Middle East, the result is simply to create a vacuum of news and to discredit any media outlet that is silent.
The terrorist tactics used by the three men shot dead in Borough Market in the midst of their killing spree, have been developed by Salafi-jihadi movements over the last 20 years. The most notorious example of a suicidal terrorist attack of this nature was 9/11, when the World Trade Centre was destroyed, but they were used on a mass scale from beginning of the war in Iraq in 2003, though they were not pervasive in Afghanistan until later.
The effectiveness of this sort of terrorism is that the entire population is the target and cannot all be defended. Fanaticism but no great amount of military expertise is necessary, so Isis is not depleting its limited number of experienced fighters. Many of the untrained Isis supporters who arrived in Syria and Iraq in recent years, who did not speak Arabic and had no other useful skills, were deployed as suicide bombers, with more than 600 being dispatched, often in vehicles packed with explosives, in the first weeks of the Iraqi security forces’ advance into Mosul last year.
A further aim of the suicide bombings in Iraq and Syria is to spread out the security forces and to discredit the government in the eyes of its own people, on the grounds that it cannot defend them. In these countries, the ability of bombers to pass through numerous checkpoints without being stopped is often blamed on corruption, but, even when they are stopped, they can cause heavy casualties by blowing themselves up at a crowded security post.
The emphasis in Britain on seeking to stop Isis attacks by monitoring and neutralising some 23,000 Salafi-jihadi suspects can never be more than partially successful. Only five people are known to have been directly involved in the Westminster, Manchester and London Bridge killings, and these may have been selected, or self-selected, because they were not on a list of prime suspects. But the real key to preventing terrorist attacks lies not in Britain at all, but in eliminating Isis sanctuaries in Iraq and Syria which remain the inspiration and guiding hand for Isis worldwide.

London Terror Attack: It’s Time to Confront Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia

John Wight

It is time for an honest conversation about Wahhabism, specifically the part this Saudi-sponsored ideology plays in radicalizing young Muslims both across the Arab and Muslim world and in the West, where in the UK people are dealing with the aftermath of yet another terrorist attack in which innocent civilians were butchered and injured, this time in London.
The US, British and French governments can no longer credibly claim to be serious about fighting terrorism or religious extremism while cosying up to what is a medieval kleptocracy in Riyadh. Just days prior to the attack in London it was reported that a UK government inquiry into the role of Saudi money in funding terrorism is likely to be shelved, due to the sensitive nature of its findings. The report was originally commissioned at the behest of the Liberal Democrats, while in coalition government with the Tories back in 2015. It was sanctioned by then Prime Minister David Cameron in return for Lib Dem parliamentary support for British airstrikes in Syria. Given that the British government just signed £3.5 billion worth of arms export licences to Saudi Arabia, the suppression of the report’s findings is a scandal.
The Saudis have long enjoyed diplomatic and political support from successive British governments, based on its largesse as the biggest customer of UK arms sales, which according to the UK-based organization, Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT), has been worth £4.1 billion since 2015. Some of the weapons sold to the Saudis are being used in its on-going war in Yemen, where its forces have been engaged in war crimes and crimes against humanity.
There are also the billions in Saudi investment into London, especially in the city’s lucrative property market. Money, as everyone knows, buys influence, including political influence, which is where we discern the pristine and unalloyed hypocrisy involved in demonizing Russia, Syria, and Iran, the countries that are in the front line against this medieval poison, while courting Saudi, Qatari, and other Gulf State business and money, where state-sanctioned imams spew out hate speech against ‘apostates’ and ‘infidels’ on a regular basis.
The most concerning development in recent years, however, vis-à-vis Saudi influence in the West, is the extent to which Riyadh has been funding the building of mosques as a way of promoting its ultra-conservative and puritanical interpretation of Islam, one completely incompatible with the 21st century.
In 2015 Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel came out in public and accused the Saudis of funding mosques in which extremism is regularly promoted. In an interview with the German magazine Bild am Sonntag, Mr Gabriel said, “We have to make clear to the Saudis that the time of looking away is over. Wahhabi mosques all over the world are financed by Saudi Arabia. Many Islamists who are a threat to public safety come from these communities in Germany.”
Religious sectarianism and rigid adherence to an anti-human 7th century doctrine underpins what passes for justice in the kingdom itself. We are talking a country in which people are regularly and ritually beheaded, flogged, and even crucified for transgressing the law. In 2016 alone Saudi Arabia carried out 154 executions, many of those for non-violent crimes. Yet, regardless, for those who claim the mantle of democracy and human rights, slavishly defending the kingdom and its vile and barbaric practices has long been a received truth.
Let us be clear: Britain’s longstanding alliance with Saudi Arabia benefits nobody apart from UK arms companies and their shareholders. It is undeniably an alliance inimical to the country’s security, bringing its entire political establishment into disrepute as a consequence.
Three terrorist attacks in the space of three months carried out in the UK, in which civilians have been slaughtered, is an unacceptable price to pay for a foreign policy which at best is informed by cognitive dissonance and at worst sheer unadulterated mendacity.
Western governments cannot have it both ways; they cannot expect to defeat terrorism and protect their citizens while continuing to refuse to grasp the issue by its roots. The world is dealing with a malignant ideology, one that whether associated with Daesh, Nusra, or Saudi Arabia is the same. That this ideology has grown in traction in recent years is now self-evident, thus begging the question: what are we going to do about it?
People have the right to go out and enjoy themselves without being slaughtered. It is a fundamental right that unites people in London, Moscow, Paris, and Damascus. Those who would seek to deny them this right are the enemy of humanity and must be regarded and treated accordingly.
Make no mistake: the head of this Salafi-jihadi snake resides in Riyadh.

New evidence for life-capable environments on Saturn’s moon Enceladus

Bryan Dyne

The Cassini spacecraft, now in the 13th and final year of its explorations in orbit around Saturn, has discovered molecular hydrogen in the plumes of gas and ice erupting out of the south pole of Saturn’s moon, Enceladus. This is further evidence of a mineral-laden and warm ocean benearth the moon’s ice-covered surface. It indicates for the first time that this ocean likely has hydrothermal vents and thus, similar to Earth, the geochemical energy necessary to support communities of microbial life.
The stripes across Enceladus' surface are deep crevasses that are most likely a result of tidal forces on the moon from Saturn. Credit: NASA
To be clear, this is not evidence that Enceladus is inhabited even by the smallest of life-forms. None of Cassini’s twelve instruments would be able to detect the life that exists on Earth if the satellite were orbiting planet Earth, much less on an icy moon more than one 1 billion kilometers away. What the spacecraft has shown is evidence that Enceladus is yet another Solar System body—alongside Jupiter’s moon Europa, potentially the dwarf planet Pluto and others—which has all three ingredients that astrobiologists think Earth-like life needs: liquid water, chemicals such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen and a source of energy.
Cassini has conducted 21 flybys of Enceladus as part of its broader mission to study Saturn and its system of 62 moons. The moon was initially targeted by astronomers after data sent back by both Voyager spacecraft suggested that one of Saturn’s rings was the result of material being vented from Enceladus’ surface. This hypothesis was verified during Cassini’s first three flybys, which confirmed the initial observations of Voyager that a great deal of material—mainly water vapor—is erupting from geyser-like plumes at the moon’s southern polar region.
This hexagon shaped storm at Saturn's north pole is the result of different wind speeds across different latitudes. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute
Those initial results also revealed that certain parts of the moon’s south pole were more than 80 degrees Celsius hotter than the surrounding ice, much too warm to be explained by any external heating from the Sun or Saturn, indicating that parts of Enceladus are heated from the moon’s interior. The most likely sources of warmth are from the tidal friction generated between Enceladus and Saturn or (less likely) some radioactive source in the moon’s core.
What the surface temperatures also hinted at, and which has now been confirmed, is the presence of a liquid water ocean several kilometers below the surface of Enceladus. At first, it was thought that the ocean was only located near the moon’s south pole, but gravity mapping by Cassini has shown that the ocean covers the entire moon. This was the first indication that Enceladus might have the possibility of supporting Earth-like life.
As a result of those initial measurements, Enceladus became a priority target for Cassini flybys, second only to Saturn’s largest moon Titan, which has been the target of 127 flybys and of the Huygens lander, and Saturn itself.
The data sent back to Earth from the Enceladus flybys has built up more and more evidence that the moon has the necessary ingredients to support life. Observations by Cassini’s spectrometer over the course of seven flybys revealed that in addition to water, Enceladus’ southern plumes consist of trace amounts of hydrocarbons such as methane, propane, acetylene and formaldehyde—similar to the composition of most comets.
The most recent piece of the puzzle was uncovered in 2015, during Cassini’s last flyby of Enceladus. Rather than analyzing the plumes from a distance, the spacecraft was directed to undertake the more dangerous path of flying directly through the plumes to analyze the erupting particles directly. Thanks to this manueuver, astronomers discovered that the plumes also contain molecular hydrogen.
Cassini flew through the plumes at Enceladus' south pole in December 2015 to further understand the composition of the moon's subsurface ocean. Credit: Credit NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute
This led directly to a new question: What on Enceladus could make molecular hydrogen inside an ocean? In Earth’s oceans, it is produced through interactions between the salty ocean, rocky minerals and hot hydrothermal vents. After months of testing and ruling out other possibilities, it was determined that this is also the most likely scenario for Enceladus as well. The hypothesis fits both the amount of molecular hydrogen found on the moon as well as the geological activity that is likely making hot spots on the moon’s surface.
The similar chemical and thermal properties of the oceans of Enceladus and Earth do not tell us that there is life on another world. Rather, it shows that the conditions required to produce life are not that uncommon. On Earth, the microbes around hydrothermal vents form the root of our planet’s tree of life.
On Enceladus, these are places that deserve careful study in the search for extraterrestrial life.
Since 2006, there have been 11 proposed missions have been proposed to follow-up and deepen Cassini’s observations, the most recent being the Enceladus Life Finder. These are alongside the proposals to have a mission to study Jupiter’s moon Europa, which was last visited in the late 1990s. As a result of budget cuts, NASA has been forced to choose between the two mission concepts, ultimately focusing on developing the Europa Clipper mission, which is slated to launch in 2022. Both missions combined would cost less than one of the US Navy’s new aircraft carriers.
Until a new Saturn mission is launched, there will be no new up-close data of Enceladus. Cassini’s 2015 flyby of the moon was the spacecraft’s last, as part of the final series of flybys of every object it has studied before it runs out of fuel and crashes into Saturn. That event is scheduled for September 15 of this year and will mark the end of a remarkable era of planetary exploration.

Australian media renews campaign against Chinese “power and influence”

James Cogan

Nine months ago, Peter Hartcher, the international editor of the Fairfax-owned Sydney Morning Herald, published a provocative article calling for action against “foreign manipulation” in Australia by alleged pro-Chinese government “rats, flies, mosquitoes and sparrows.” Under conditions of immense war dangers on the Korean peninsula and flaring tensions between China and the US and its allies over strategic influence in Asia, last September’s anti-Chinese campaign is resurfacing to the centre of Australian political life.
The state-owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Fairfax’s newspapers—the so-called “liberal” wing of the Australian media—are conducting a joint “investigation” into “how China’s Communist Party is secretly infiltrating Australia.” Last night, the ABC’s current affairs’ program “Four Corners” was dedicated to sensationalist claims that the Chinese regime is seeking to exert clandestine “power and influence” over Australian politics and foreign policy.
Top journalists from both outlets, including Melbourne Age foreign affairs’ writer Daniel Flitton, a former intelligence analyst, and the ABC’s political editor, Chris Uhlmann, are conducting the investigation. And they make no secret of the fact that they are serving as the direct conduit for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), which is repeatedly cited as their primary source of information.
In introducing “Four Corners,” Chris Uhlmann directly compared purported Chinese government activity in Australia with the unsubstantiated allegations that the “Russian government and its agents sought to subvert the US election and, possibly, help deliver the presidency to Donald Trump.” Paralleling the campaign in the US to portray Trump as a puppet of Moscow, the program was laced with anti-communist overtones, reminiscent of the hysteria that characterised the Cold War.
The ABC and Fairfax news media are churning out what can only be described as anti-Chinese propaganda, not investigative journalism. The “evidence” presented of Chinese “subversion” in Australia is even more threadbare than the claims in the US of Russian interference.
“Four Corners” made great play of the case of Sheri Yan, a businesswoman with political connections in Beijing, who specialised in arranging meetings between Chinese political and corporate leaders and their Australian and American counterparts. In 2015, she was arrested in the United States and pleaded guilty to taking part in bribing the late John Ashe, then president of the UN General Assembly.
Yan is married to former Australian intelligence official Roger Uren, who retired in 2001. At the time of her arrest in New York, ASIO raided their apartment in Canberra and purportedly found government documents dating back to the period of his employment. But Uren was never charged with any crime, nor has Yan been charged with any attempt to bribe Australian politicians.
ASIO, however, according to the ABC/Fairfax investigation, has linked the Yan case with its “serious concern” over the activities in Australia of two Chinese billionaires, Huang Xiangmo and Chau Chak Wing. Chau at one time was employed Yan.
Much of the “Four Corners” program dwelt on the fact that companies owned by the two businessmen have made substantial, entirely legal and publicly disclosed donations over the years to Australia’s major establishment parties, Liberal and Labor. Huang, who immigrated to Australia in 2011, also donated $1.8 million to help establish the Australia China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney.
Set to ominous background music, more befitting a crime movie, “Four Corners” showed images of a host of current and former Australian politicians, who have received political donations from these men, or appeared at public events beside them. A partial list includes former Liberal Party trade minister Andrew Robb, prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and foreign minister Julie Bishop, and Labor Party senator Sam Dastyari and shadow treasurer Chris Bowen.
In the course of the “Four Corners” ‘investigation,’ the ABC chose to interview Peter Jennings and Rory Medcalf, strategic commentators well-known for their fulsome support for the US-Australia military alliance; Peter Mattis, a former CIA agent, now “China-watcher;” and, directly on behalf of the American state, Mike McCaul, the multi-millionaire Republican who serves as the chairman of the US House Committee on Homeland Security.
Each expressed agreement with ASIO’s “concern” that such donations could be aimed at buying influence for the Chinese Communist Party in the corridors of power in Canberra.
McCaul told the program that Australia was “allowing a foreign government to influence your elections, and in this case, China is the biggest offender.” Coming from a representative of the US state, which has never shied away from wielding its influence on political and economic life in Australia—including taking part in conspiracies to remove at least two prime ministers who fell foul of its agenda—this was nothing short of absurd. Moreover, the donations by American-linked corporations to Australia’s establishment political parties runs into the millions each year.
The “evidence” of so-called “Chinese Communist Party influence” consisted of remarks made by Labor Senator Sam Dastyari, one day after Huang Xiangmo cancelled a large donation to the Labor Party. Dastyari differed with Labor’s announcement, during the 2016 federal election campaign, that it would support the Australian navy conducting a “freedom of navigation” operation against Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea.
Far from influencing Australian foreign policy, Dastyari’s statement opposing such an operation only became front page news after the federal election, in late August 2016. Just days later, Labor’s powerbrokers compelled him to resign from the party’s shadow cabinet.
The Fairfax media utilized Dastyari’s comments to initiate a hysterical anti-Chinese vendetta in its newspapers. Hartcher, in his Sydney Morning Herald article, labelled Dastyari as one the most prominent of the pro-Chinese political “rats” in Australia, but insisted that “many more” would be exposed. Implicit in last night’s “Four Corners” program was that the politicians it portrayed could well fall into the “rat” camp, if they do not take steps to prove their allegiance to Australia’s alignment with Washington.
Echoing Hartcher in 2016, “Four Corners” insinuated that many of the one million Australians of Chinese background, along with the 140,000 Chinese students currently studying in the country, constituted a virtual fifth column, loyal to, and spying on behalf of, the Chinese state. In the most sinister fashion, the program showed footage of a 2016 demonstration by several thousand Chinese students, opposing US actions against Beijing’s territorial claims in the South China Sea. The implication was that the ABC considers such protests an illegitimate challenge to US and Australian foreign policy.
In April 2017, “independent” senator Nick Xenophon, seemingly in possession of insider knowledge, delivered a rare foreign policy speech, on the eve of the visit to Australia by vice-president Mike Pence—the first by a top official of the Trump administration. Xenophon spoke, with great concern, of the prospect of Australia joining the US in provocative actions against China, which could result, he said, in a full-scale war with the country’s largest export market and trading partner. He declared that such a war would “rip … Australia’s social fabric apart” and could lead to the establishment of “internment camps” for hundreds of thousands of Chinese-Australians and Chinese citizens.
Since Xenophon’s statements and Pence’s visit, the US-Australia alliance, directed above all against China, has been repeatedly reaffirmed by both the Turnbull government and the Labor opposition. This was underscored last week by prominent Trump critic, Senator John McCain, and yesterday, during the Australia-US ministerial talks involving Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis.
Nothing in bourgeois politics can be dismissed as simply coincidental or accidental. The Australian political and military-intelligence establishment is seeking, through its major media mouthpieces, to generate nationalist and anti-Chinese sentiment within the population, aimed at intimidating and silencing the widespread opposition in the Australian working class and among young people to the US-led preparations for war.

Uncertainty grows over US Fed’s interest rate moves

Nick Beams

While it remains very likely that the US Federal Reserve will lift its base interest rate by a further 0.25 percentage points when it meets later this month, there is growing uncertainty about where monetary policy might be headed after that.
The Fed’s agenda is to return to a more “normalised” policy after almost nine years of ultra-low interest rates and the pumping of trillions of dollars into the financial system following the crisis of 2008. However, conditions in the US and the world economy are far from what was considered previously to be the norm.
This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the economic “model,” on which the Fed and other capitalist economic institutions have based their decisions in the past, has to all intents and purposes broken down.
One of its key components was the so-called Phillips curve, first advanced in 1958. It maintained that there was a relationship between the level of unemployment, wages and inflation. When near-full employment conditions were reached, the model held, this led to an upward movement of wages and prices.
Consequently, monetary policy should be directed to ensuring that interest rates were kept at low enough level to ensure that the economy continued to grow, but sufficiently high to ensure that wages and prices were kept under control.
Before the eruption of the financial crisis, the so-called neutral rate at which the economy would remain in “balance” was regarded as being around 3 percent. Since the financial crisis, however, all the assumptions on which this model was based have gone awry, pointing to far-reaching changes in the very structure of the economy.
The stated aim of Fed policy is to keep inflation at or near 2 percent, while ensuring at or near full employment. According to the Phillips curve, as the unemployment rate comes down so inflation should start to rise. Yet this has not taken place.
According to official figures, the core inflation rate has been below the Fed’s target of 2 percent for 58 months in a row, while the US unemployment rate has halved. And the inflation trend is down, with the rate of 1.5 percent for April, below the figure for a year ago.
Commenting on the inflation data, Lael Brainard, a member of the Fed’s policy-setting open market committee and regarded as somewhat of a “dove” on interest rates, said: “That reading marks a considerable shortfall from the committee’s 2 percent objective. And there does not seem to have been any progress over the past year or so.”
While indicating during a speech in New York that she favours a further interest rate rise “soon,” Brainard said that if soft inflation data persisted “that would be concerning and, ultimately could lead me to reassess the appropriate path of policy.”
Wages are showing the same pattern as inflation. According to the Phillips model, wages should start to rise with the fall in unemployment. This is also not taking place. The 2.5 percent annual growth in average hourly earnings is no higher than this time a year ago and well below the growth of 3.5 percent before the financial crisis.
The wages data point to an underlying structural change in the US economy—the replacement of better paid full-time jobs with part-time and casual employment.
A study by Harvard economist Lawrence Katz and Princeton economist Alan Krueger released in December last year found that 94 percent of the 10 million jobs created during the Obama administration were temporary, contract or part-time positions. The proportion of workers engaged in such jobs rose from 10.7 percent to 15.8 percent, with 1 million fewer workers engaged in full-time jobs than at the start of the recession of 2008-2009.
This trend was underscored in the latest jobs data released last Friday. The US unemployment rate dropped to 4.3 percent from 4.4 percent but this was due in no small measure to a 429,000 decline in the size of the labour force as workers dropped out of the jobs market.
Non-farm payrolls increased by 138,000 in May, while jobs growth figures for March and April were revised down by 66,000. The number of retail jobs fell for the third month in a row amid a spate of store closures by the major retail chains.
There are, however, some shortages in areas of skilled labour. In an indication of the class character of all its policies, the Fed noted that it would be prepared to lift interest rates if wages growth began to rise unexpectedly.
Another significant factor in the shattering of what was previously regarded as the “normal” pattern of economic development is the rise of financial parasitism. In the days when the Phillips model was first advanced, increased profits by corporations led to further productive investment, increased economic output and rising wages. That is no longer the case.
Profits are now increasingly not used for new investment. They are deployed in support of “financial engineering,” involving share buybacks and increased dividends, as corporations operate under continuous pressure from hedge funds and investment funds to increase “shareholder value.”
The trends in the US economy are being repeated elsewhere. In Britain, workers’ wages are still some 10 percent below where they were before the global financial crisis, while Australia is showing the lowest growth in wages since records started to be kept. This is despite official data in both countries showing relatively low unemployment levels.
One of the main factors at work in all the advanced economies is the falling levels of investment in the real, as opposed to the financial, economy, which has depressed productivity growth.
The international character of these tendencies was underscored in the Global Economic Prospects reported issued by the World Bank on Sunday. It pointed to a “fragile” recovery in the global economy but warned that a slowdown in investment was threatening productivity growth in emerging economies and that long-term damage might already have been done.
According to the report: “Even if the expected modest rebound in investment across [emerging and developing economies] materialises, slowing capital accumulation in recent years may have already reduced potential growth.”