6 Jul 2017

‘The World Is (Not) Flat’: ‘Trumpism’ Is Symptom of Decades-Long Imperial Arrogance

Ramzy Baroud


No matter how hard White House officials try, they cannot construct a coherent ‘Trump doctrine’ that would make sense amid the chaos that has afflicted US foreign policy in recent months.
However, this chaos is not entirely the making of President Donald Trump alone.
Since 1945, the United States has vied for total global leadership. The 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent disintegration of the Eastern Bloc, gave it complete global hegemony.
The US became the force that stabilized and destabilized any region in the world, as it saw fit – which always served the interests of the US and its allies.
Political opinions and ideological strands in the US, but also globally, were formulated around this reality. Often unwittingly, we are all pushed into one of two categories: pro- or anti-American.
For decades, many critical voices warned of an uncontested unipolar world. Conformists fought back against the ‘un-American’, and ‘unpatriotic’ few, who dared break rank.
In the late 1980’s, Francis Fukuyama declared ‘the end of history’, now that the US and its western allies managed to defeat communism. He prophesized the end of ‘sociocultural evolution’, where a new form of a single human government can be formed.
It appeared, however fleetingly, that all the obstacles before the American vision of total domination have been subdued. Thomas Friedman of the ‘New York Times’ imagined such a world in his bestselling book, ‘The World is Flat’.
He wrote, with the wisdom of a sage and the triumphalism of a victorious war general, “Communism was a great system for making people equally poor – in fact, there was no better system in the world for that than communism. Capitalism made people unequally rich.”
But history never ended. It just went through a new cycle of conflicts, problems and alliances of enemies and foes. Unchecked consumerism was hardly a triumph for the neoliberal order, but a defeat of a delicately balanced planet, where global warming emerged as the world’s greatest enemy. American military power could hardly wait to rearrange the Arab world, as once promised, by former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Since then, the so-called ‘New Middle East’, has become a horrifying nightmare that traversed many countries and destabilized the entire region.
Worse still, the US economy has crashed, taking down with it the global economy and reducing some of the smallest, most vulnerable countries into abject poverty.
The rise of Donald Trump to power is, in fact, an outcome of the chaotic years that preceded his advent.
By the end of his second term, former President Barack Obama spoke of his success in stabilizing the economy and creating more jobs in a process of swift recovery, contrary to real evidence.
A US Federal Reserve survey last year concluded that nearly half of all Americans “did not have enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense.”
Americans did not elect Trump simply because they are ‘racist’, as some have presumed, but because they are desperate.
He knew how to exploit the many woes of his people with ‘Making America Great Again’ type of mantras.
For most Americans, Friedman’s ‘unequally rich’ paradigm seemed like detached, intellectual nonsense.
Expectedly, the greatest backlash to Trump’s chaotic politics emanates from the liberal and neoliberal forces in politics and economy that had assiduously defended the failing American order for many years.
They continue to rebrand the failures of the past as either astounding success, or well-intentioned but unsuccessful endeavors to make the world a better place.
Read this self-delusional discourse in the Brookings Institute to understand the complete lack of introspection.
“No American president since 1945, whether Republican or Democrat, has broken so decisively with the American stewardship of the postwar liberal global order,” wrote Constanze Stelzenmüller recently, with reference to Trump’s policies towards Europe and the rest of the world.
She opines: “In the service of the higher good of world peace, even the victorious superpower was willing to be bound to universal rules—a concession that admitted the existence of a worldwide community of humanity based on shared values rather than the principle of ‘might makes right.'”
It is a view that is largely inconsistent with history. Immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US ‘might makes right’ became the new doctrine that was championed by every US administration.
In fact, Iraq was bombed by all US Presidents since George H. Bush in 1991.
Trump represents a strange amalgamation of American military power, business monopoly and media savviness. He seems smart enough to understand that his country requires a change of course, but neither has the will, the wisdom nor skills to guide it into any other direction.
After six months in the Oval Office, he is presiding over the same old power struggle between the neoconservative-type ideologues, who want to see more interventions to rearrange the world as they see fit, and the military brass, who want the US military to reign supreme, but on a steady and predicable course.
While Trump himself rejected the idea of regime change during his campaign for office, Politico reported on June 25 that his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, “appeared to endorse subverting the Iranian regime,” and the “philosophy of regime change.”
Meanwhile, the ideologues vs. the military brass battle, which had defined both terms of the George W. Bush administration, is back.
Foreign Policy described that ongoing fight in details in a revealing report on June 16.
Top White House officials, led by senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council, Ezra Cohen, want to expand the Syria war, taking the focus away from defeating ISIS to target American foes involved in that proxy war. Defense Secretary, James Mattis, wants to stay the course. The impulsive way in which Trump makes his decision, the pendulum could swing in any direction without warning or logic.
Contradictions in US foreign policy emerge almost daily.
US United Nations Ambassador, Nikki Haley, seems to be running a show of her own, independent of Trump’s administration. She recently declared that Muslim sites in Occupied East Jerusalem are part of “Israeli territory“, before stressing that she is ‘unclear of official US policy on the issue.’
While chaos and contradictions abound, Trump’s allies are simply unable to sum up the ‘Trump doctrine.’ A top administration official told the Time that it is a “combination of  very good personal skills – one-on-one … defeating ISIS and  … commitment to people that there are certain things that the United States isn’t going to put up with.”
While such ‘doctrine’ lacks any serious substance, previous doctrines are equally useless, for none offers a real vision that is predicated on achieving a multipolar world, which is based on mutual respect and adhering to an equitable frame of reference, such as international laws.
This chaos will continue to bode badly for the Arab world and Middle East region, in particular. Since Bush’s disastrous war in Iraq, Obama’s ‘pivot to Asia’ and the onset of the current turmoil, the region has been in flames.
Unable to offer a courageous diagnosis of the violence, the Trump administration is parroting the same old jingoism of defeating ‘Islamic terrorism.’
Lacking a vision for peace and unable to win the war, the US administration seems to have no plan, except inconsistent, self-contradictory policies – while blaming everyone else, but never once introspecting.
It turns out that the world is, indeed, not ‘flat’ at all and that history remains in motion, moving beyond the jurisdiction of a single country.
But until the US leadership – Trump’s or any other – realizes such a notion, the world, in general, and the Arab world, in particular, will continue to suffer the consequences wrought by imperial arrogance and impulsive politicians.

Women And Wages: A Capitalist Reality In The Industries of Entertainment And Sports

Omar Raad Chowdhury


Known worldwide as the champion of human rights and gender equality, the United States of America, it seems, has failed miserably to live up to its own standards when it comes to the issue of gender pay gap. A report by PayScale Inc., published on July 5, 2017 said that for equal work women in the U.S are paid less than men in all industries.
The report by PayScale Inc. was compiledby analyzing data from a poll of 1.4 million full-time employees.
Reuters report quoted Aubrey Bach, senior editorial manager of PayScale Inc.: “The gender pay gap is absolutely real. Half or more of our workforce is made of women but we are still not progressing at the same level as men.”
Male executives tend to earn “many times more” than female executives, the report found.
The report found that largest pay gaps exist in mining, quarrying and gas exploration industries. It was also noted that the gender pay gap is widest among men and women with PhDs, followed by MBA holders.
Recent media reports reflect the reality presented in the PayScale Inc. report. And, quite ironically Wonder Woman would bear evidence to that.
According to a Variety report, Gal Gadot received only $300,000 for starring in the massive Hollywood hit movie Wonder Woman which has so far earned almost half a billion dollar. Compared to that Henry Cavill earned $14 million for starring in the movie Man of Steel.
The culture of such discrimination also prevails in case of women directors in Hollywood. In a Washington Post report, headed “For women directors, ending discrimination in hiring is just the start” Alyssa Rosenberg wrote: “And it’s not as if discrimination necessarily ends when a shoot is over and a film has been edited. As Rebecca Sun reported in the Hollywood Reporter recently, a new report commissioned by the Female Filmmakers Initiative found that “whereas companies that handed distribution deals to male-directed films were roughly evenly split between studio specialty divisions/mini-majors (43.1 percent) andsmall indie companies (56.9 percent), the vast majority (70.2 percent) of female-directed films that landed distribution went to the latter, which have fewer financial resources and industry clout to offer.” You can get your directing job, hire a gender-and-racially-balanced cast and crew, practice pay equity, and then still end up with a deal that won’t let you realize your vision nearly as well as if you were a man.”
But probably the most bizarre picture of gender pay gap exists in U.S soccer.
The U.S Women soccer team has three World Cup championships and four Olympic championships. In women soccer, it is the best in the world. For winning the World Cup the women team received $1.8 million.
Guess how much the men’s team earned just for reaching the World Cup?
$2.5 million.
The average salary in the U.S. men’s soccer league, Major League Soccer, is $305,000 while for women, the average salary is $14,000, media reports said.
Not only has the women’s team outperformed the men and has a higher popularity in the USA, but also, although arguably, they drive far more revenue to the U.S. Soccer Federation than they are compensated for.
The international football regulatory authority FIFA has been no exception in this gender discriminatory scenario. According to media reports the total prize money for men’s World Cup is $576 million while for women it is only $15 million.
Why does such discrimination exist in one of the world’s most modern economy?
A 12 April, 2016 dated World Economic Forum report, titled “The simple reason for the gender pay gap: work done by women is still valued less” says: “…there is no country in the world where women earn the same as men.
“One of the arguments used to explain – and sometimes justify – this stubborn gap is the idea of choice. Women simply choose to study less lucrative subjects, enter lower-paying professions and stay towards the bottom rungs of the career ladder. While these choices might give them shorter working hours and greater flexibility, it also negatively affects their earnings.”
But as mentioned earlier the pay gap exists in equal work for men and women. The PayScale Inc. report thus comes as no surprise as the World Economic Forum report further added: “The fact is that even within those lucrative, male-dominated professions, the gender pay gap is still there. ‘There is a belief, which is just not true, that women are in bad occupations and if we just put them in better occupations, we would solve the gender gap problem,’ Claudia Goldin of Harvard University told the New York Times.
“As her research has shown, even when men and women do the same work, there’s still a gender pay gap – particularly in higher-paying jobs.
gender-wage-gap
“What can possibly explain this persistent pay gap?
“Paula England, a professor at New York University and an authority on the gender pay gap, thinks it’s obvious: ‘It’s not that women are always picking lesser things in terms of skill and importance. It’s just that the employers are deciding to pay it less’, she explained in a different New York Times piece.
“She’s not just saying this based on a hunch: along with Paul Allison of the University of Pennsylvania and Asaf Levanon of the University of Haifa, England has carried out one of the most exhaustive studies on the issue. Their findings suggest that women are not necessarily kept out of or choose not to enter high-paying and prestigious professions. Instead, when a job is dominated by women, it’s just not seen as important, and therefore pays less, even if it requires the same skills and education. The New York Times uses the example of janitors versus maids, jobs that are identical in every aspect except gender composition – and pay.
same-job-different-pay
“And as women start moving into traditionally male-dominated positions, the pay falls: ‘A 10% increase in proportion female is associated with .5% to 5% percent decrease in hourly wage in each decade’, the three researchers found.
“The world of computer programming is the perfect example. Historically a female-dominated field, men started to take over in the 1980s. And as they did, things changed: ‘When male programmers began to outnumber female ones, the job began paying more and gained prestige’, Claire Cain Miller of the New York Times writes.”
Back in 2015 a study by nonprofit LeanIn.org and management consulting firm McKinsey & Company said that gender equality in the corporate sector of America is happening so slowly that it could take more than a century for women to have the same number of top executive jobs as men.
But some women, as intransigent as they are, are refusing to give in to this unjust system. As of yesterday, according to a Reuters report, five leading stars of the US national women soccer team, announcedon NBC’s “Today” show that they have filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against U.S. Soccer, claiming wage discrimination relative to the men’s national team.
The players in the filing are: co-captain and reigning world player of the year Carli Lloyd, goalkeeper Hope Solo, striker Alex Morgan, playmaker Megan Rapinoe and central defender and co-captain Becky Sauerbrunn.
In a statement released to The New York Times, Lloyd said: “We have been quite patient over the years with the belief that the Federation would do the right thing and compensate us fairly.”
Although it is unknown whether these soccer players were inspired to take legal actions by former cheerleaders of NFL and NBA.
In 2014 a former NFL cheerleader sued the Oakland Raiders claiming it violated minimum wage laws. Similar suits against the Buffalo BillsNew York JetsTampa Bay Buccaneers and the Cincinnati Bengals followed.The Tampa Bay Buccaneers paid $825,000 to settle the claims. The Oakland Raiders had to pay $1.24 million in a suit brought by Raiderettes while the claim against the Cincinnati Bengals cost it $255,000
In 2015 a former NBA cheerleader Laurren Herrington sued the team Milwaukee Bucks for which she used to dance on claims that she and other dancers were underpaid in violation of federal and state labor and wage laws.A Journal Sentinel report on the case said: “Herington’s suit claimed that Bucks dancers spent hours in training, wardrobe maintenance, practice and dancing at games. In addition, they appeared at charity events and posed for a calendar. It said the payments — $65 for games, $30 for practice and $50 for special events — often led to the dancers earning less than minimum wage some weeks.
The settlement proposal would pay Herington $10,000, her attorneys $115,000 and give her and 40 other women who were employed as dancers from September 12, 2012, to July 31, 2015, the chance to “opt in” to the settlement and receive payments based on their particular hours worked during the covered period.”
Women in Hollywood are also raising their voices for equal pay. Meryl Streep, Salma Hayek, Jennifer Lawrence, Jessica Chastain are among the few who have taken a strong stand for equal pay for women in the cinema industry. Whether they would follow their sports counterparts and take similar firm course of action, remains a question.
But it is without any doubt that women’s demand for equal pay is just and the present economic system has failed to ensure that.
Today, after analysis by Marxbased on science, it is known to all that capitalists constantly try to reduce wages, one of the main items of production cost, which results in pushing down wages below the value of labor power. Marx’s Capital discusses the issue in detail. So, the working people struggle to raise wages, and result of this struggle is ultimately defined by the balance of class forces in the society within which the working people wage their struggle. The information cited in the article show condition of the women in the United States, an advanced capitalist economy.

The Saudi-American-Iranian-Russian-Qatari-Syrian Conundrum

Dilip Hiro


The Middle East.  Could there be a more perilous place on Earth, including North Korea?  Not likely.  The planet’s two leading nuclear armed powers backing battling proxies amply supplied with conventional weapons; terror groups splitting and spreading; religious-sectarian wars threatening amid a plethora of ongoing armed hostilities stretching from Syria to Iraq to Yemen. And that was before Donald Trump and his team arrived on this chaotic scene. If there is one region where a single spark might start the fire that could engulf the globe, then welcome to the Middle East.
As for sparks, they are now in ample supply. At this moment, President Trump’s foreign policy agenda is a package of contradictions threatening to reach a boiling point in the region. He has allied himself firmly with Saudi Arabia even when his secretaries of state and defense seem equivocal on the subject. In the process, he’s come to view a region he clearly knows little about through the Saudi royal family’s paranoid eyes, believing staunchly that Shia Iran is hell-bent on controlling an Islamic world that is 85% Sunni.
Trump has never exactly been an admirer of Iran. His growing hostility toward Tehran (and that of the Iranophobic generals he’s appointed to key posts) has already led the U.S. military to shoot down two Iranian-made armed drones as well as a Syrian jet in 12 days.  This led Moscow to switch off the hotline between its operational center at the Khmeimim Air Base in Syria and al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the major American military facility in the region.  According to the Russian Defense Ministry, at the time the Syrian warplane was hit by the U.S. fighter, Russia’s Aerospace Forces were carrying out missions in Syria’s airspace. “However,” it added, “the coalition command did not use the existing communication line… to prevent incidents in Syria’s airspace.”
At the same time, the incorrigibly contradictory Trump has not abandoned his wish to cultivate friendly relations with Russia whose close economic and military ties with Iran date back to 1992. The danger inherent in the rich crop of contradictions in this muddle, and Trump’s fervent backing of the Saudis in their recent threats against neighboring Qatar, should be obvious to all except the narcissistic American president.
No one should be surprised by any of this once Trump inserted himself, tweets first, in the violent and crisis-ridden Middle East.  After all, he possesses an extraordinary capacity to create his own reality. He seems to instinctively block out his failures, and rushes headlong to embrace anything that puts him in a positive light. Always a winner, never a loser.  Such an approach seems to come easily to him, since he’s a man of tactics with a notoriously short attention span, which means he’s incapable of conceiving of an overarching strategy of a sort that would require concentration and the ability to hold diverse factors in mind simultaneously.
Given this, he has no problem contradicting himself or undermining aides working to find a more rational basis for his ever changing stances and desires on matters of import.  These problems are compounded by his inability to connect the dots in the very complex, volatile Middle East where wars are raging in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, or to assess how a move on one diplomatic or military front will impact a host of inter-connected issues.
The Iran Factor
Let’s examine how complicated and potentially treacherous all of this is.  In the early days of the Trump administration, an outline of its Middle Eastern strategy might have appeared something like this: the White House will pressure the Sunni Arab states to commit their cash and troops in a coordinated way to fighting the Islamic State (ISIS) under the leadership of the Pentagon. Along with this, the State Department and the Pentagon would explore ways to break Moscow’s military and diplomatic alliance with Tehran in a bid to end the Syrian conflict and bolster the fight against ISIS.
This reflected a lamentable ignorance of the growing strength of the ties between Russia and Iran, which share borders on the Caspian Sea.  This relationship dates back to August 1992 when Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s government signed a contract to construct and operate two nuclear reactors near the Iranian city of Bushehr. The two countries then inked an agreement to build two new reactors at the Bushehr site, with an option for constructing six more at other locations later. These were part of a partnership agreement signed in November 2014 and overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Military cooperation between the Kremlin and Tehran can be traced back to 2007 when Iran inked a $900 million contract for five Russian S-300 long-range missile batteries. Because of United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program in 2010, those missile deliveries were suspended. However, three months before Tehran signed its landmark nuclear deal with six world powers, including Russia and the U.S., in July 2015, Moscow started shipping an upgraded version of the S-300 missiles to Iran.
In September 2015, the Kremlin intervened militarily in Syria on the side of President Bashar al-Assad.  By then, Iran had long been aiding the Syrian government with weapons and armed volunteers in its five-year-old civil war. This led Moscow and Tehran to begin sharing military planning over Syria.
Two months later, Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in Tehran for a summit of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum and met with Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who praised him for “neutralizing Washington’s plots.” Khamenei also suggested that economic relations between the two countries could “expand beyond the current level.” To the delight of Iranian leaders, Putin relaxed an export ban on nuclear equipment and technology to their country.
In August 2016, Tehran let the Kremlin use Hamadan Air Base in western Iran to launch air strikes on a wide range of targets in Syria, thereby enabling the Russian air force to cut flying time and increase payloads for its bombers and fighter jets. Just as Donald Trump entered the Oval Office, Moscow-based Sputnik News reported that Tehran was considering buying Russian fighter jets, while the two countries were discussing a joint venture that would allow Iran to manufacture Russian helicopters under license.
Next, let’s turn to Donald Trump.  In his 2016 campaign run, Trump’s animus toward Iran sharpened only after he imbibed the apocalyptic and Islamophobic views of retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn who would become his first national security adviser. In Flynn’s fixation on the threat of “radical Islam,” with Iran as his linchpin nation in plots against the West, he conflated Iranian-backed Shia radicalism with Sunni jihadism.  In the process, to fit his rabid thinking he ignored the theological and other differences between them.
Though Flynn was soon pushed out of the White House, President Trump mirrored his views in a speech at an anti-terrorism summit of 50 leaders from Arab and other Muslim countries during his May visit to Riyadh.  In it he went on to lump Iran and the Sunni jihadis together as part of the same “evil” of terrorism.
On June 7th, Trump’s claim visibly shattered.  On that day, six ISIS gunmen and suicide bombers, dressed as veiled women, attacked the Iranian Parliament complex and the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, killing at least 17 people and injuring more than 50. These attacks were in line with a video ISIS operatives in eastern Iraq had posted in Persian on their social media networks three months earlier, containing the threat: “We will invade Iran and return it to Sunni control.”
Less than two weeks later, Iran fired six Zolfaghar ballistic missiles from its western provinces over Iraqi airspace at an ISIS command center and suicide car-bomb making facility near Syria’s eastern city of Deir el-Zour, 370 miles away. It coordinated the attack with Iraq, Syria, and Russia.
ISIS Targets Shias, Whether Iranian or Saudi
Within months of declaring its caliphate in Mosul, Iraq, in June 2014, ISIS sent operatives into Iran after gaining recruits among the predominantly Sunni ethnic Kurds of that country. And well before the Obama administration geared up to help the government in Baghdad fight ISIS, Iran had trained, funded, and armed Iraqi Shia militias to push back that group.
When it came to selecting targets in the Saudi kingdom, the ISIS branch there chose mosques of the Shia minority.  The first of these suicide bombings occurred in May 2015 in al-Qadeeh village in Eastern Province during Friday prayers, and left at least 21 people dead and more than 80 injured. In an online statement, ISIS took credit, claiming that “the soldiers of the Caliphate” were responsible and forecasting “dark days ahead” for the Shias.
Recently, Shias in Saudi Arabia have been alarmed by the incendiary speeches of the preachers of the Wahhabi version of Islam, the official faith of the kingdom. This sub-sect is named after Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab (1703-1792), who vehemently opposed the Shia practice of praying at the shrines of their saints and calling on such holy spirits to intercede on their behalf with Allah. He was convinced that there should be no intermediaries between the believer and Allah, and praying to a human being, dead or alive, however holy, was tantamount to polytheism, and therefore un-Islamic. He and his followers began demolishing Shia shrines. Today’s ISIS ideologues agree with Wahhab’s views on this and denounce Shias as apostates or heretics who deserve to be killed.
Within Shia Islam, there are four sub-sects, depending on how many of the 12 Imams — or religious leaders of the highest rank — a Shiite recognizes as such. Those who recognize only the first Imam Ali are called Alawis or Alevis (and live mainly in Syria and Turkey); those who do so for the first five Imams are known as Zaidis (and live mostly in Yemen). The ones who recognize seven Imams are called Seveners or Ismailis and are scattered across the Muslim world; and those who recognize all 12 Imams, labeled Twelvers, inhabit Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, and Lebanon. Twelver Shias also believe that the last Imam, the infant Muhammad al-Qassim, who disappeared around 868 AD, will return someday as al-Mahdi, or the Messiah, to bring justice to the world.
It was this aspect of Iranian Shiism that the 29-year-old Saudi Defense Minister Prince Mohammad bin Salman, recently anointed Crown Prince and successor to his 81-year-old father King Salman, focused on in an interview with Dubai-based, Saudi-owned al-Arabiya TV. When asked if he saw a possibility for direct talks with Iran, which he regards as the puppet-master of the Zaidi Houthi rebels in Yemen against whom he launched an American-backed war two years ago, he replied, “How can I come to an understanding with someone, or a regime, that has an anchoring belief built on an extremist ideology?”
Only a clueless person would bet on President Trump parsing Shia Islam or grasping the basic doctrine of Wahhabism.  By contrast, nobody would lose a bet on him instantly tweeting the latest thought that crosses his restless mind on any Middle Eastern subject.
The Saudis Target Qatar
To complicate regional matters further, the first crisis of the post-Trump visit involved not Iran or Shias but Qatar, a tiny Sunni emirate adjoining Saudi Arabia.  Its transgression in Saudi eyes? It has had the temerity to maintain normal relations with Iran across the Persian Gulf.  It is worth recalling that during his trip to Riyadh, President Trump had met with Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, the emir of Qatar.  And before that meeting, he had even proudly bragged: “One of the things that we will discuss is the purchase of lots of beautiful military equipment because nobody makes it like the US,” adding, “for us, that means jobs and it also means, frankly, great security back here, which we want.”
A couple of weeks later, the Saudis suddenly severed Qatari diplomatic and economic ties, with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt following suit. Saudi royals were clearly hoping to engineer a regime change in that country as a step toward the destabilization of Iran.  In response, Trump promptly rushed to tweet: “During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar — Look!”
Soon after he accused Qatar of being a “funder of terror at a very high level” and, backing the Saudis to the hilt, demanded that the emirate should cut off that supposed cash flow.  A rejoinder came from none other than the American ambassador to Qatar, Dana Shell Smith, when she retweeted a U.S. Treasury Department statement praising Qatar for cracking down on extremist financing.
In the ensuing welter of statements and rebuttals, as the Trump administration fell into disarray over policy on Qatar, one thing remained solid: the sale of “beautiful military equipment” — up to 72 Boeing F-15 fighter jets to that emirate for $21.1 billion, a deal approved by the Obama administration in November 2016. On June 15th, Defense Secretary James Mattis signed off on a $12 billion deal for the sale of up to 36 of those fighter jets. “Our militaries are like brothers,” declared a senior Qatari official in response.  “America’s support for Qatar is deep-rooted and not easily influenced by political changes.”
In fact, military cooperation between Doha and Washington began in early 1992 in the wake of the First Gulf War. A decade later the Qatari-American military relationship received a dramatic upgrade when the Bush administration started preparing for its invasion of Iraq. Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler at the time, Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, refused to let the Pentagon use the state-of-the-art operations facility at al-Kharj Air Base it had built up for air strikes against Iraq.
That was when Qatar’s emir came to Washington’s rescue.  He allowed the Pentagon to transfer all its equipment from al-Kharj to al-Udeid Air Base, 25 miles southwest of Doha, the Qatari capital.  It would become the U.S. military’s key facility in the region. At the time of the latest crisis, al-Udeid held no less than 10,000 American troops and 100 Royal Air Force service personnel from Great Britain, equipped with 100 warplanes and drones. Air strikes on ISIS targets in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq are launched from this base.
In his rashness, Trump has imperiled all this, despite mediation efforts by Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.  His enthusiastic backing of the Saudis in their perilous quest to take on Iran, which may end up destabilizing Saudi Arabia itself, also holds the possibility of armed conflict between the planet’s two leading nuclear powers.
The Saudis’ Big Problem With a Tiny Neighbor
Worse yet, policymakers in Washington failed to notice a fundamental flaw in the sectarian terms in which Saudi Arabia has framed its rivalry with Iran: a stark Sunni versus Shia clash. Tehran refuses to accept such a playbook. Unlike the Saudis, its leaders constantly emphasize the common faith of all Muslims. Every year, for instance, Iran observes Islamic Unity week, a holiday meant to bridge the gap between the two birthdays of Prophet Muhammad, one accepted by Sunni scholars and the other by Shia ones.
On this issue, Iran’s record speaks for itself. With cash and weapons, it has aided the Palestinian group Hamas, which is purely Sunni since there are no Shiites in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. It has maintained cordial relations with the transnational Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic movement that originated in 1928 in overwhelmingly Sunni Egypt.  The Saudis, once its prime financial and ideological backer, fell out with the Brotherhood’s leadership in 1991 when they opposed the stationing of U.S. troops on Saudi soil on the eve of the First Gulf War.
Since then, the Brotherhood has renounced violence. In June 2012, its candidate, Mohamed Morsi, won the first free and fair presidential election in Egyptian history. His overthrow by Egypt’s generals a year later was applauded by Riyadh, which promptly announced a $12 billion rescue package for the military regime. By contrast, Tehran condemned the military coup against the popularly elected president.
In March 2014, Saudi Arabia declared the Brotherhood a terrorist organization, something the U.S. has not yet done (though the Trump administration is engaged in a debate on the subject). Riyadh’s hostility toward the Brotherhood stems largely from the fact that its followers are anti-monarchical, believing that ultimate power lies with the people, not a dynasty.  As a result, the Sunni Brotherhood has cordial relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which held parliamentary and presidential elections even during its eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s. In the latest presidential election, conducted on the eve of Trump’s arrival in Riyadh, the incumbent moderate Iranian President Hassan Rouhani won, decisively beating his conservative rival.
Riyadh has recently issued an aggressive list of demands on Qatar, including the closing of the influential Doha-based al-Jazeera media network, the limiting of its ties to Iran to trade alone, and the withdrawal of Turkish troops from a base on its territory. This ultimatum is set to fail on economic grounds alone. Qatar shares the North Dome-South Pars natural gas field with Iran. It is the largest field of its kind in the world.  Its South Pars section, about a third of the total, lies in Iran’s territorial waters. The aggregate recoverable gas reserves of this field are the equivalent of 230 billion barrels of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia’s reserves of conventional oil. Income from gas and oil provides Qatar with more than three-fifths of its gross domestic product (GDP) and most of its export income. With a population of 2.4 million, Qatar has a per capita GDP of $74,667, the highest in the world. Given all this, Doha cannot afford to be adversarial towards Tehran.
Qatar’s 12-year-old sovereign wealth fund, operating as the Qatar Investment Authority, has assets worth $335 billion.  A third of these are invested in the emirate, but the bulk is scattered around the globe. It owns the Santa Monica-based film production company Miramax. It’s the fourth largest investor in U.S. office space, mainly in New York and Los Angeles.  It also owns London’s tallest building, the famed Harrods stores, and a quarter of the properties in the upscale Mayfair neighborhood of London. Its Paris Saint-Germain Football Club has won four French soccer league titles and it’s the largest shareholder in Germany’s Volkswagen AG. Little wonder that, in response to the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar, no Western leader, aside from Trump, has sided with Riyadh, which has been stunned by this diplomatic setback.
Tellingly, Riyadh failed to persuade even the neighboring smaller monarchies of Kuwait and Oman, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, to follow its lead in boycotting Qatar. In addition, no matter what Trump tweets, Riyadh has a problem increasing its pressure on Doha because of the massive American military presence in that country, a crucial element in the Pentagon’s campaign against ISIS, among other things.
A Formula for Disaster
In retrospect, it’s clear that the four members of the anti-Qatar axis rushed into their drastic action without assessing that tiny country’s strengths, including the soft power exercised by its pan-Arab al-Jazeera satellite TV network. Unsurprisingly, their governments banned al-Jazeera broadcasts and websites and closed down its bureaus. Elsewhere in the Arab world, however, that popular outlet remains easily accessible.
As a littoral state, Qatar has a large port on the Persian Gulf. Within a week of the Riyadh-led boycott of Qatar, three ships, carrying 350 tons of fruit and vegetables, were set to leave the Iranian port of Dayyer for Doha, while five cargo planes from Iran, loaded with 450 tons of vegetables, had already landed in the Qatari capital.
So far nothing has turned out as the Saudis (or Trump) anticipated.  Qatar is resisting and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has flatly refused to withdraw his troops from the emirate, increasing the Turkish military presence there instead.
From all this, an overarching picture emerges: that the impulsive Donald Trump has met his younger counterpart, Prince Muhammad bin Salman, equally impulsive and blind to even the medium-term consequences of his aggressive initiatives.  In addition, in an autocratic monarchy without free speech, elections, or representative government (and with an abominable record on human rights violations), he lacks all checks and balances.  The shared obsession of the prince and the president with Iran, which neither of them is able to comprehend in its complexity, has the potential for creating a true global crisis. If anything, the pressure on Trump in his imagined new world order is only increasing to do the Saudis one better and push a regime-change agenda in a big way when it comes to Iran.  It’s a formula for disaster on a breathtaking scale.

Studies reveal stark health divide in Australia

John Mackay

The life expectancy of people living in low socioeconomic status areas of Sydney, Australia’s most populous city, is up to 19 years less than residents in wealthier areas, preliminary analysis from the 2017 Social Health Atlas has shown. The median age at death in Mount Druitt, a western suburb with high levels of poverty and public housing, is 68, compared to 87 in affluent northern suburbs.
This gap is about double that officially reported between the indigenous and non-indigenous population across the country, pointing to the underlying class character of the stark divide in health.
Other recent reports shed some light on that inequality. People living in working class areas of major cities have almost double the rates of poor health compared to richer suburbs, according to Australia’s Health Tracker, compiled at Victoria University using Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data.
Indicators of poor health, which include obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease death rates showed consistent trends across Australia’s capital cities.
In Sydney, the rates of childhood obesity (ages 2–17 years) in the poorer western municipalities stood at 9 percent, nearly double that of the wealthier northern suburbs at 5 percent. Blacktown, which covers Mount Druitt and other working class areas, had a rate of 10 percent, compared to 4 percent in Mosman, one of the richest suburbs. Similar trends were evident for overweight children.
Childhood obesity has significant long-term health consequences. Obese children are at higher risk of obesity in adulthood, as well as future cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory conditions, cancer, depression and reduced life expectancy.
The Health Tracker report found similar trends for adult obesity. In western Sydney it was 27 percent, compared to the more affluent northern suburbs at 18 percent. Blacktown had the highest rate at 31 percent, while Mosman’s was 15 percent. Likewise, adult diabetes rates peaked in Blacktown at 7 percent, compared to Mosman’s 3 percent.
Other capital cities recorded similar figures. In Melbourne, Australia’s second largest city, the municipality of Stonnington, which features one of the nation’s wealthiest suburbs, Toorak, had childhood and adult obesity rates of 5 percent and 25 percent respectively, and an adult diabetes rate of 3 percent. Poorer municipalities saw up to a doubling of these rates, with Dandenong’s childhood obesity at 11 percent, adult obesity at 37 percent and adult diabetes at 6 percent.
In Sydney’s western suburbs the cardiovascular disease death rate of 61 deaths per 100,000 was double the rate of 30 per 100,000 in the northern suburbs. In Melbourne, Dandenong had a rate of 72 per 100,000, more than double the 35 per 100,000 in wealthy Stonnington.
A growing income divergence is driving this health gap. Earlier this year, Australian Tax Office data showed residents of Toorak taking home on average almost five times as much as people in Melbourne’s poorest suburb, Springvale, near Dandenong. Eleven years ago, the difference in earnings was 3.5 times. Over that period, income in Toorak rose by 82 percent from $95,416 to $173,808, but in Springvale only by 35 percent, from $27,047 to $36,421.
The Heath Tracker study found a lower level of physical activity among adults in poorer suburbs. Sydney’s wealthier eastern and northern suburbs had shorter commuting times, permitting greater “incidental exercise.” As Sydney’s house prices and traffic congestion reach impossible levels, residents in far-distant suburbs sit for hours in traffic jams or overcrowded public transport, reducing daily activity and increasing fatigue.
In addition, as one of the report’s investigators, Professor Rosemary Calder, explained to the media, people in western Sydney “may not have the resources for a bicycle or live in an area where it’s not very safe for children to ride to school because of distance, busy roads or industrial centres.”
The planning of cities is increasingly subordinated to the profit system. Governments have abandoned their responsibility to build and upgrade urban infrastructure and handed it to major corporations. The result is poorly planned suburbs and substandard public transport. The privatised motorways that crisscross major cities can cost commuters hundreds of dollars a week in tolls.
Rising costs of fresh and nutritious foods are also a key factor. Fast food outlets become a compelling alternative, due to lower prices and rapid access, when there is little time or money to cook healthy meals.
A study at Melbourne’s Deakin University published in 2016 in the Journal SSM  Population Health found fast food outlets in the state of Victoria were concentrated in more socioeconomically disadvantaged areas.
Up to 80 percent of areas classified as the most disadvantaged had at least one fast food restaurant, compared to only 29 percent in wealthier areas. These outlets were also more likely to be close to primary and secondary schools in the most disadvantaged areas. In the richer suburbs, the nearest fast food restaurant was up to 2 kilometres from schools, double the distance in disadvantaged areas.
This confirmed previous studies in Melbourne, which showed the lowest-income postcodes had 2.5 times more fast food restaurants per person than the highest-income postcodes. The findings also supported evidence from studies in New Zealand and Britain.
Australia’s obesity and overweight rates are among the highest rates in the world, and worsening fast. The ABS 2014–15 National Health Survey found the total rate was 63 percent in adults, or 11.2 million people, up from 56 percent in 1995.
This is a global trend. Authorities such as the World Health Organisation say obesity rates have doubled since the 1970s and are now epidemic.
Delivering a series of lectures in Australia last year, epidemiologist Professor Michael Marmot provided overwhelming statistical data that established direct links between social inequality and health outcomes.
The latest reports underscore Marmot’s conclusion that wealth inequality is directly responsible for the poor health outcomes of capitalist society. They challenge the media-propagated myth that obesity is due to individual gluttony or laziness.
The immense and complex problems produced by poverty and social inequality can be addressed only from a social standpoint. What is required is a total socialist reorganisation of life so that food production and distribution, as well as health and education, are undertaken for human need, not corporate profit.

German Christian Democrats’ election programme calls for increased state powers

Ulrich Rippert

On Monday, the leaders of the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union government parties presented their election programme in Berlin. Chancellor and CDU Chair Angela Merkel and CSU leader Horst Seehofer gave brief statements about the 67-page document and affirmed their political unity at a joint press conference.
All of the parties represented in the Bundestag (parliament) have now presented their programmes for September’s general election.
The most significant thing about the CDU/CSU programme is that it does not for the most part differ from those of the other parties. Asked on Monday what distinguished the CDU/CSU manifesto from those of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Greens, ARD correspondent Tina Hassel replied, “Good question. The consensus is undoubtedly greater than the differences.” 
Under the heading, “For a Germany in which we live well and happily,” the so-called “Union” parties said they aimed to achieve full employment by 2025. They wrote that they wanted to cut taxes for average income earners by 5 billion euros in total. They pledged to gradually abolish the “solidarity surcharge” over the period 2020 to 2030. They also called for a “Baukindergeld”a government grant scheme to help families to build homes. Under this scheme, a family that buys a property will receive a yearly subsidy of 1,200 euros per child over a period of ten years. The manifesto also pledged to increase child benefits and children’s tax allowances.
The Social Democratic Party (SPD) election programme similarly pledges to abolish by 2020 the solidarity surcharge (introduced in 1991 following German reunification) and provide relief for those with mid-level incomes by imposing a higher tax rate on people with incomes above 76,200 euros instead of the current level of 54,000 euros. In place of the CDU/CSU’s Baukindergeld, the SPD is calling for the introduction of a “family tax rate” as an additional option to taxing spousal income.
These social promises, which can also be found in the election platforms of the Greens and the Left Party, are all subject to an “affordability criterion.” They are essentially a cover for a massive increase in military spending and a tightening up of domestic security. This is clearly reflected in the almost identical calls for the “recruitment of 15,000 new police officers” and better police equipment and training.
As in the SPD election programme, military rearmament stands at the centre of the CDU/CSU programme. This is justified with the words: “The world seems to be out of joint in many places. Authoritarian state systems are on the rise, seemingly stable states are broken.”
Even in Germany’s “neighbourhood,” the platform goes on to say, the territorial integrity of Ukraine is “jeopardized by Russian aggression.” Noting that the new American administration has not yet defined its position on many foreign policy issues, it adds, “The times when we could completely rely on others are quite a way past.”
Then comes the crucial formulation: “We Europeans must take our fate into our own hands more consistently than before. That is why the CDU and CSU want a strong, self-confident and dynamic Europe: A Europe able to protect its interests and meet its international responsibilities; A Europe that can also defend freedom, security and prosperity…”
After a few clichés about the EU as a “peace project” that emerged as “the lesson of the disastrous man-made catastrophes of the First and Second World Wars,” it states: “We must understand our shared geo-strategic responsibility for freedom and peace and for dealing with conflicts in our neighbourhood. That is why the EU engaged in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and why we are fighting together for the Paris climate accord.”
This reference to the defence of the Paris climate agreement is directed against the US government and the decision of the Trump administration to withdraw from the agreement. Growing opposition to Washington also shapes the following point in the programme: “We support the proposal for a European Defence Union and a European Defence Fund. We are committed members of NATO and work for its success. But the EU must arm itself independently if it wants to survive. Europe must provide an effective security guarantee for the internal and external security of its member states.”
Then follows a demand for the defence of fortress Europe. “Europe must protect its external borders effectively against illegal migration, strengthen the Frontex border protection agency and complete the European asylum system. Until the protection of EU external borders works, we will maintain internal border controls.” This is linked to the establishment of a European police force. “The EU urgently needs a better exchange of information between the security services of its member states,” the platform states.
The SPD, the Greens and the Left Party agree with this expansion of the state’s powers at home and abroad. Their criticisms of the Union parties are directed against its social programme, which they call excessive and unrealistic. The SPD, the Greens and the Left Party are attacking the Union parties from the right.
Martin Schulz, SPD chairman and the party’s candidate for chancellor, described the Union parties’ election programme as a “superficial mish-mash of ideas” that was completely unrealistic and could not be for paid for. The promise to bring full employment to Germany by the year 2025 was not to be financed and therefore irresponsible, he said.
The Left Party also accused the Union parties of “unaffordable electoral promises.” Party leader Katja Kipping declared, “All these promises are blank cheques that will bounce after the election.” The CDU/CSU manifesto lacks any information on funding, she said.
This right-wing criticism of the Union parties makes clear that there is no choice in the Bundestag election in September. On the important question of increasing the internal and external powers of the state, all of the parliamentary parties agree. In any case, all of the parties are already working together in various coalitions at state and local level. The time when workers could vote for better living conditions and social justice is long gone.
The Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (SGPSocialist Equality Party) is the only party to advance a socialist programme in the Bundestag elections. It declares openly that poverty, oppression and war can be overcome only if their cause, capitalism, is eliminated. The SGP is not seeking ministerial office in an SPD or “left” government, but fights for the establishment of an international movement of the working class to expropriate the large banks and corporations and reorganize society in accordance with egalitarian, i.e., socialist, principles.

Disputes sharpen in Canadian ruling elite over its China policy

Roger Jordan

Canada’s Liberal government has come under increasing fire from the media, the Conservative Official Opposition, and the trade union-backed NDP over its pursuit of closer relations with China, including a free trade deal.
The dispute is fueled by divisions within the ruling class over how it should respond to Donald Trump’s “America First” protectionist policies and Washington’s fanning of geopolitical tensions with Beijing, particularly over the South China Sea and North Korea. .
Canada’s so-called newspaper of record, the Globe and Mail, has run numerous articles in recent months raising concern about Beijing’s economic and political influence in Canada. But this campaign reached an entirely new level last month after the Liberal government approved the takeover of Vancouver-based Norsat International by a Chinese company, Hytera Communications.
A manufacturer of satellite communications devices, Norsat’s clients include the militaries of Canada, the US, and NATO.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has defended that Norsat takeover, saying a government review concluded that there was no risk to national security. But the Globe and the opposition have taken the government to task, saying a more comprehensive review should have been conducted. “Where other governments are wary of Chinese companies trying to take over their domestic technology firms, ours,” complained a Globe editorial, “is happy to facilitate a quick and easy sale.”
The Globe has trumpeted adverse reaction to the Norsat takeover from the military-security establishment in both Canada and the US, including two former directors of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Pentagon. Mac Thornberry, chairman of the US House Armed Services Committee, criticized Ottawa in a statement to the Globe, declaring, “I have growing concern that countries like China are investing in various projects, exploiting the seams of regulatory structures, and using other methods to obtain key defence technologies.”
The new Conservative Party leader, Andrew Scheer, has been quick to chime in, vowing that if he were elected Prime Minister, there would be no free trade agreement with Beijing. “There are so many concerns with the Chinese government–their human rights record, the way their economy works. We don’t want to see Canadian manufacturers, Canadian workers put on a completely uneven playing field,” Scheer told Global News. The invocation of human and workers’ rights by Scheer, who boasts about his political affinity with former Primer Stephen Harper and his hard-right policies, could not be more cynical.
The New Democrats have also denounced the Norsat “giveaway” and are opposing a free trade deal with Beijing from an economic nationalist standpoint.
Scheer’s comments prompted a swift rebuke from the pro-government Chinese daily Global Times. It accused the Conservative leader of “faulty logic” and “blindness” to the benefits of a bilateral free trade agreement.
Canada’s ruling elite remains fully committed to its long-standing strategic partnership with the United States. Trudeau won the support of a substantial section of the ruling elite in 2015 on a pledge to improve and expand Canada-US relations. Over the past two years, his government has augmented Canada’s role in the US-led war in the Middle East and the NATO military build-up against Russia, and worked to establish a close partnership with the Trump administration, the most right-wing government in modern American history.
In a major foreign policy speech last month, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland praised Washington for its outsized expenditure of “blood” and “treasure” in upholding the capitalist world order since the Second World War and identified Russia and China—countries targeted by US imperialism as the principal obstacles to consolidation of its global hegemony—as key threats to Canada.
Canada is already deeply implicated in Washington’s military-strategic offensive against China. Stephen Harper’s Conservative government joined in the Obama administration’s anti-China “Pivot to Asia” by signing a secret military agreement with the US in 2013 to expand Canadian-US naval cooperation in the Asia-Pacific. Until Trump scuttled it, Canada was also set to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a US-led trade bloc aimed at economically isolating China.
Under Harper, Canada secured agreement for forward military bases in Singapore and South Korea in case of a need to deploy Canadian troops to the region. In April, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan raised precisely this prospect when he said that Canada’s international “obligations” could cause it to go to war with North Korea in alliance with the United States, a move that would be principally aimed at weakening China and could trigger a nuclear conflagration.
Vice Admiral Ron Lloyd, the commander of Canada’s navy, warned late last month that Canada is becoming more heavily involved in the Asia-Pacific, above all due to US-China tensions, including over the South China Sea. The navy is being drawn “deeper into the Pacific than we would have typically in the past,” Lloyd said, as he lauded the Liberal government’s decision to acquire 15 new warships–an increase from the 12 ships planned by the previous Conservative government.
Lloyd also stressed, in line with government’s new defence policy, that Canada’s navy must be able to deploy “hard power” in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Traditionally, Canada’s navy has concentrated on the Atlantic, in line with Canada’s NATO commitments. But, said Lloyd, a turn to the Asia-Pacific is now necessary.
Even while Canada’s military has become increasingly integrated into US war planning in East Asia, corporate Canada, or at least powerful sections of it, have been pursuing closer economic ties with Beijing, hoping to profit from China’s significantly higher growth rates.
Trump’s threats to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Washington’s imposition of punitive tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber exports have given added impetus to the push for expanded trade with China. Advocates of a Canada-China free trade deal argue Canada is overly reliant on the US market, which is the destination for 75 percent of its exports and 99 percent of oil exports.
The Trudeau government quietly began a review of Canada’s relations with China early last year. Trudeau spent a week there last September on an official visit, meeting with President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Li Keqiang to discuss trade opportunities. During the visit, Trudeau announced that Ottawa would hold exploratory free trade talks with Beijing. These were launched in the spring. A second round of talks is planned for the summer and an announcement on whether formal free trade negotiations will proceed is expected in the fall.
Trudeau and Li also agreed to establish a high-level national security dialogue. At the latest meeting, held in Ottawa last week, Canada and China signed a non-hacking agreement committing both countries not to target each other’s trade secrets and business information in cyber-attacks.
At the beginning of June, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr spent five days in China meeting with investors. In a reversal of the Harper government’s policy of restricting Chinese investment in Alberta’s tar sands, Carr stated that Chinese capital is welcome in Canada’s energy sector. With its approval of the expansion of the Transmountain pipeline, which terminates at the Pacific coast, the Liberal government hopes Canada can become a major supplier of oil to China and other Asia-Pacific markets.
Clearly, powerful sections of Canada’s see the potential for huge profits to be made in China. But others are wary of becoming too closely aligned with China, for fear it will jeopardize what is far and away their principal economic and military security partnership, that with Washington and Wall Street.
Both sides in this increasingly fractious debate are pointing to the example of Australia.
Supporters of the government’s orientation to China note that Australia, although a key US military ally, signed a free trade agreement with Beijing in 2014. Opponents claim there are increasing calls in Australia for that agreement to be discarded and that, in any event, Canberra is taking a much tougher line than Ottawa when deciding whether Chinese investments are in the “national interest.”
The reality is the Australian ruling elite’s strategic orientation has been the source of major tensions and explosive political shifts, as Canberra, in line with the interests of the most powerful sections of Australian capital, has assumed a leading role in American imperialism’s war drive against China.
In 2010, Washington, working with Labor Party apparatchiks, organized a back-room coup to oust then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who had proposed that Australia act as a mediator between Beijing and Washington. His replacement, Julia Gillard, promptly offered Obama a stage to announce his anti-China “pivot to Asia” and agreed to the stationing of US troops in northern Australia.
Events are not yet so far advanced in Canada, but the tone of the dispute has noticeably grown more shrill. The Globe, which speaks on behalf of the Bay street financial elite, provocatively titled its editorial on the Norsat sale “Why are the Liberals doing Beijing’s bidding.”

China and Russia forge closer ties against US

Peter Symonds

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s two-day state visit to Moscow this week underscored the growing economic and strategic ties between China and Russia as they try to counter the US military build-up in North East Asia and Eastern Europe, its military intervention in Syria and threats of trade war measures.
The two governments’ hardening stance against Washington was underscored by the joint response of Xi and Russian President Vladimir Putin to US demands that all countries, particularly China, impose crippling economic sanctions on North Korea following Pyongyang’s test launch of a long-range missile on Tuesday.
Putin threw his weight behind China’s proposal that the US and South Korea end major joint military exercises if Pyongyang freezes its missile and nuclear tests, in order to establish the basis for negotiations. The Trump administration has already flatly rejected the proposal and declared it will hold talks with North Korea only under “the right circumstances”—that is, if Pyongyang agrees in advance to US demands to denuclearise.
Putin and Xi also called for the US to remove the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile battery being installed in South Korea, saying it “seriously damages [the] strategic interests of regional powers, including Russia and China.” The THAAD’s powerful X-band radar is capable of peering deep into Chinese and Russian territory to detect missile launches, undermining their ability to retaliate against a potential US nuclear attack.
While Russian and Chinese opposition to Washington’s aggressive stance against North Korea was on display in yesterday’s UN Security Council meeting, Xi’s visit to Russia was also significant in strengthening their economic and broader strategic relations.
Speaking at a joint press conference on Tuesday, Xi enthused that relations between the two countries were “the best they have ever been.” He continued: “Whatever the changes in the international situation, our determination and confidence in developing and deepening our strategic partnership remains unwavering.”
Putin declared: “Russia and China really have very close or identical opinions on all major international issues.” A joint statement called for “respect of Syria’s sovereignty and independence”—a remark directed against Washington’s illegal military intervention aimed at ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a Russian ally.
Xi provided a significant boost to Putin by extending more than $11 billion in funding to the Russian Direct Investment Fund and Vnesheconombank, Russia’s state development bank. While both entities are under sanctions by the US and its allies, the funds from the China Development Bank are denominated in renminbi and thus skirt around US-led bans.
The funds are primarily for investment in cross-border projects as part of China’s ambitious One Belt One Road (OBOR) scheme, which seeks to establish an extensive network of transport, communication and other linkages connecting Asia and Europe across the Eurasian landmass. Other investment will go into energy, industry and transport inside Russia.
The OBOR plans have the potential to cut across Russia’s efforts to establish its own Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) dominated by Moscow. The focus of China’s plans on the Central Asian Republics has led to Russian criticism that Beijing is seeking to undermine Moscow in what it regards as its traditional sphere of influence.
Xi attempted to assuage such concerns by calling for an “Ice Silk Road”—that is, transport and other infrastructure that would run through Russia. He said the two countries should boost economic cooperation, launch major manufacturing projects and strengthen rail cooperation, including an early start to a high-speed rail link between Kazan and Moscow.
Significantly, however, no agreement was reached on how to marry China’s OBOR plans with Russia’s EEU, even though Putin attended China’s OBOR forum in Beijing in May. Putting the best possible face on what remains a major bone of contention, Putin said “an in-depth exchange of opinions” had opened up “a highly promising direction” that could lead to the formation of a broad Eurasian partnership.
Russia has been increasingly reliant on China economically in the wake of US-led sanctions over Russia’s annexation of Crimea. While Putin and Xi both pointed to the growth of trade between the two countries, there is an obvious imbalance. China is Russia’s top trading partner, but Russia does not rate in China’s top ten.
Moreover, Russia depends heavily on energy exports, which have been hit by falling prices, leading to nearly two years of recession. Putin emphasised that the expansion of oil and gas sales to China, sealed in a landmark 2014 agreement, was going ahead and a gas pipeline from Siberia was on track for completion by the end of 2019.
The 2014 deal, however, was long in the making, due to protracted haggling over prices in particular. It was only after US-led sanctions were imposed on Russia that Moscow turned to China as its markets in Europe began to dry up.
While military cooperation was not openly discussed during Xi’s visit, it is evident in the growing number of military exercises between the two countries and also involving Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) members. The SCO was established by Russia and China in 2001 to draw in the Central Asian Republics and block US efforts to extend its influence in the resource-rich region.
The Russian and Chinese navies are planning a joint maritime exercise in the Baltic Sea later this month. A group of Chinese warships—a destroyer, a frigate and a support vessel—will join Russia’s Baltic Sea fleet just weeks after the US joined its European allies in a major annual drill there. In 2015, Chinese warships conducted drills with the Russian Black Sea fleet in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.
China has obtained greater access to advanced Russian military technology and weapons as it seeks to modernise its armed forces due to growing tensions with the US and its allies in Asia.
The conflicting economic and strategic interests that have produced sharp tensions between Russia and China in the past remain. However, confronted with an aggressive and unpredictable Trump administration, Xi’s visit points to a strengthening partnership that is prepared to openly oppose the US over North Korea, Syria and potentially other dangerous flashpoints.