Why We Should Fear the ‘Washington Establishment’ Figures Who are Pulling the Strings in the Trump Administration

Patrick Cockburn

People sitting in cafes in Baghdad under the rule of Saddam Hussein used to be nervous of accidentally spilling their cup of coffee over the front page of the newspaper spread out in front of them. They had a good reason for their anxiety because Iraqi newspapers at that time always carried a picture of Saddam on their front page. Defacing his features might be interpreted as an indication of disrespect or even of a critical or treasonous attitude towards the great leader.

Saddam Hussein invariably got star billing in the Iraqi press, but he would be impressed at the astonishing way in which it has become the norm in the US media for the words and doings of President Trump to monopolise the top of the news. Day after day, the three or four lead stories in The New York Times and CNN relate directly or indirectly to Trump. And, unlike Saddam, this blanket coverage is voluntary on the part of the news outlets and overwhelmingly critical.

Trump’s outrageous insults and lies have succeeded in keeping the spotlight firmly on him ever since he declared his candidacy for the presidency in 2015. Whatever else he may be, he is seldom boring, unlike so many of his defeated rivals and opponents who believed that his obvious failings must inevitably sink him.

One day they may be proved right, but that day is a long time coming; the open loathing for Trump on the part of much of the American media is curiously ineffectual because it is repetitious and no great disaster has so far hit America one year into his presidency. Commentators note that, for all his bellicose rhetoric, he has yet to start any wars – unlike all his Republican predecessors going back to President Ford.

The constant demonisation of Trump carries another danger that is under-appreciated and may produce a real-world disaster. The US media blames everything on him and respectfully portrays the bevy of generals who populate the upper ranks of his administration – Chief of Staff John Kelly, Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis and National Security Adviser HR McMaster – as the only adults in the room. Yet it may turn out that they and other business and political figures, such as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the CIA chief Mike Pompeo, are more likely to bring about a war than Trump himself.

Just how poor is the judgement of the very people who are meant to be a restraining force on Trump was shown last month when Tillerson made a classic blunder that may have negative results for the US for years to come. On 17 January, he announced the US military forces would stay in Kurdish controlled north-east Syria after the defeat of Isis in order to weaken Iran and President Bashar al-Assad. Just three days later on 20 January, Turkey, predictably enraged at what it saw as a US territorial guarantee of a de facto Kurdish state, sent its forces across the Syrian border to invade the Kurdish enclave of Afrin.

Tillerson had unwittingly initiated a new phase in the Syrian conflict in which the US is self-isolated and Turkey, Russia, Iran and Assad had been brought closer together. The Kurds in Afrin, one of the few places in Syria not devastated by war, have to hide in caves as the direct result of the new US initiative.

Trump’s isolationism may be less risky than the neo-interventionism of his senior advisers. Reports from Washington suggest that the decision to get more fully engaged in the Syrian civil war was contrary to what Trump himself wanted. By this account, he would have preferred to use his State of the Union address to announce that the US mission in Syria had ended in triumph with the defeat of Isis and that he was withdrawing US ground forces. Instead, the decision went the other way as McMaster and Mattis supported by Tillerson successfully argued for keeping US ground forces in Syria and Iraq.

These senior officials were only advocating the consensus opinion of the US foreign policy establishment, as was swiftly illustrated by media commentators. Even as Turkish tanks were rolling into Syria, an editorial in The Washington Post was applauding Tillerson for having “bluntly recognised a truth that both President Trump and President Barack Obama attempted to dodge” – which is that the US needs a political and military presence in Syria.

What Trump and Obama were really dodging was repeating the post 9/11 US mistake in pursuing open-ended military ventures against multiple enemies in fragmented countries like Afghanistan and Iraq where it could not win. In the case of Obama, this sense of caution and ability to see what might go wrong was carefully calculated; in the case of Trump, the caution is instinctive and not always operative, but the end result was often the same.

Despite all Trump’s condemnation of Obama’s supposed weakness, his strategy in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria did not differ much from his predecessor – that is until his chief security officials switched to an interventionist policy in Syria last month.

Traditional policy of relying on force to overcome all obstacles or what Obama nicknamed “The Washington Playbook” looks as if it is back in business. He privately condemned the US foreign policy establishment for being wedded to dubious allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in pursuit of over-ambitious objectives

American strength in the world was ebbing before Trump, though the divisive and mercurial nature of his presidency is speeding up the decline. In every continent a power vacuum has opened up which is being filled by many eager candidates. They generally have the same ingredients of populism, demagoguery, authoritarianism and nationalism, though the quantities of each may differ, and they are certainly making the world a more dangerous place because they do not know the limits of their own power.

From Manila to Warsaw, there has been the rise of the mini-Trumps who tend to know the politics of their own country well, but be dangerously ignorant of that of other countries. It is in the nature of arbitrary rulers, who have suppressed domestic criticism, such as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, that they pursue exaggerated ambitions moving over ice that is always thinner than they imagine.

US power in the world is declining, having reached its peak between the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the start of the Iraq war in 2003. Two dangers are emerging: one is the feckless nature of Trump administration which acts as a sort of out-of-control wrecking ball, though the damage done is limited by Trump’s low attention span and divisions in Washington.

A second danger is the US foreign policy establishment. which has learned nothing new from past failures, which would like to restore US power to what it once was and is does not understand that this can no longer be done. This is “the Washington Playbook”, which Obama came to deride and ignore and is just as dangerous as anything Trump may do.

When The Poor Are Made Guinea Pigs

Moin Qazi

India has long been a testing ground for several western products, particularly in agriculture and medicine—making the most of loose regulations and genetic diversity of a huge population. It is done to help cut research costs dramatically for lucrative products to be sold in the West. The relationship is highly exploitative and many believe it represents a new colonialism.

Encouraging vulnerable and poor people to take risks raises ethical questions. Especially when it is they, and not the outsider, who will pay the price of failure. A painstaking reflection of such interventions needs to be demanded. New agricultural practices are being propagated with enticements of extravagant promises. By manipulating the choices of consumers at the low-income pyramid, they are being disempowered. The damage to the economy and ecology of these already fragile societies is now starkly visible.

In their book Poor Economics, development economists Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee list hundreds of “common sense” development projects—crop insurance, food aid, microcredit—that either don’t help poor people or make them poorer. Many of the serious problems of farmers and the rural poor are largely a result of our misguided projects that have severely impaired the local ecology, leading to soil degradation, acute shortage of water, and resistant pests. Monsanto’s hybrid seeds are just one of many such cases.

The social impact and life-improving technologies provide abundant affordable products like solar lanterns, non-electric water filters, and smoke-reducing stoves, but often the greater challenge is servicing them in a systematic and scalable way. There could be a rock-star engineer from a top university who might have invented the sexiest gadget for use in villages; however, they don’t have ecosystems for immediate local servicing of failed products. For a rural customer, a broken product isn’t as devastating as no one coming to replace or help with it.

Jatropha cultivation was the new bandwagon wherein the Cinderella plant was promised to deliver gold out of barren lands. An entire generation of development literature proliferated with tall promises of wealth out of waste. Today Jatropha cultivation has become a discredited practice and in areas like Chhattisgarh, there has been a huge backlash from the tribals who feel they have been cheated and their habitat has surfed damage.  The loss is in terms of “ecosystem service value”—the economic value derived from agricultural products, fresh water, clean air, and fertile soils. It has also jeopardized the livelihoods of millions of tribals who depend on forests and natural resources..

A similar monumental failure of alternative energy model was the disastrous end to the National Biogas Plan of India. In what was termed a revolutionary idea that would transform India’s hinterland, huge targets were allocated for the installation of biogas plants and soft loans were doled out like hot snacks. No effort was made to train masons or create a pool of service agents to ensure proper construction and maintenance. The entire program proved to be a financial tsunami for poor villagers who were left with a legacy of unpaid loans and branded as defaulters.

The loans were written off, but in accordance with the banking norms, the borrowers were no longer entitled to any new loans as they fell into the category of defaulters. They had to pay the penalty for the over-enthusiasm of the staff of development machinery whose promotions were directly linked to the achievement of targets. The National Biogas Plan is the most glaring example of how a top-down approach can play havoc with the life of people whose lot it proposes to improve.

I remember a village called Visakha in remote Gadchiroli district where all households falling within an eponymous Gram Panchayat (comprising about 5 villages) were covered under the programme. There was a recommendation at our zonal headquarter in Nagpur that the concerned development officer should be publicly felicitated. The proposal was almost carried through when a senior officer with vast experience in grassroots programmes strongly insisted that all such recognitions must wait for two years so that a dispassionate evaluation is possible. And after two years, the ghost of National biogas plan was haunting the villages like the spectre of drought that sucked hundreds of farmers in its vortex of mass suicides.

In one of the banks in Chandrapur, hundreds of loans were written off as if a mountain of rotten potatoes was ploughed just to clean the balance sheet and get rid of the toxic assets. In chasing targets, the quality of lending was completely undermined. Working for the poor does not mean indiscriminately thrusting money down their throats. Unfortunately, the world’s largest poverty alleviating programme—the Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) did precisely that. The abiding legacy of the programme for India’s poor has been that millions have become bank defaulters for no fault of their own. Today, they find it impossible to rejoin the formal credit sector.

 “The authorities seldom study the likely impact of their programmes on the villagers. They never even look at their real needs. They show little concern for the poor,” would say the village sarpanch. “The officials just have to fulfil targets: So many loans given out, so many beneficiaries.” How did it help Manik? The flawed planning that had landed Manik in a debt pool set the local economy tottering on the brink.

A borrower who has defaulted on a loan becomes financially untouchable to the bank. The ripple effect of the default status is still worse. Apart from the borrower, the entire family is deprived of the chance of accessing the formal financial system. Some banks have stretched the definition to include families of those who had stood as a guarantor for the defaulting borrowers. The word “default” is a highly disputed term in the banking lexicon. Even the distinction between a willful defaulter and a bonafide defaulter is so blurred that the banks can use their interpretative acumen to use the way it suits them.

Since the participants in these experiments are often poor, ill-educated and unable to read and write, they have little possibility of redress. Development experts must have the humility to accept a fault when it becomes convincingly clear that the logic behind a particular strategy is flawed; unreasonable risk in innovation can sometimes have serious consequences for the poor. Poor households live by the edge; they do not have financial surpluses to experiment with any new programme or innovation. They are a good subject for donor-funded research studies; development practitioners should exercise great caution in introducing and marketing financial services or agricultural inputs for this class. We must realise that the poor have already paid a great price for development projects. What has been done cannot be undone. The Monsanto evolution has been cited by many experts as the prime driver of farmer suicides.

When conventional wisdom fails and its predictions turn out to be ridiculous and when hopes become cruel illusions, respectable people do not, as a rule, hold up their hands and admit their mistakes. They cannot accept a loss of face and the subsequent denudation of their privileged positions. However, the point to bear in mind is the nature of the beast. Even the most meticulous and conscientious managers will make mistakes. No one is error-proof. In case of the bonafide bloomer, big or small, we must be open. The first instinct of managers is to try and cover up, pretend it never happened and hope it will go undetected.  If you have made a mistake, acknowledge it. However, if you are defiant and unapologetic, you are in big trouble. Remember credibility is like virginity; it can be lost only once.

Negligence: The Iran Regime’s Passive Weapon To Eradicate Ahwazis

Rahim Hamid

Since seizing power in the wake of the 1979 revolution, Iran’s theocratic regime has worked  tirelessly to effectively make the Ahwazi Arab population ‘non-people’ and eradicate their history, culture and existence.   This is achieved through what are effectively apartheid policies of racial discrimination, importing large numbers of ‘superior’ ethnically Persian settlers to the region; these policies are, of course, familiar, mimicking and often exceeding those of Iran’s rival Israel in brutality and persecution.

In the 39 years since 1979,  the regime has fabricated charges against thousands of Ahwazis to justify their arrest, imprisonment and often their summary execution as  way of  justifying the expropriation of their homes and land;  once the indigenous Ahwazi Arabs are dispossessed, regime authorities ‘gift’ their stolen land and homes to the aforementioned ethnically Persian settlers, who receive generous subsidies and grants for moving to the region from other parts of Iran, and  are given jobs denied to the native people.  Ahwazis are denied the right to compensation or to take any legal action to protest against this grotesque colonialist injustice.

The stolen homes are often razed, with the land used for the construction of ethnically homogenous ‘Persian-only’ settlements provided with the modern amenities denied to the local population, who are forbidden from entering or living there; again, this mirrors the settlement policies of Israel on Palestinians’  land which  Iran’s ‘resistance’ regime claims to be morally outraged by.

Another, less obvious but equally lethal, tool used by the regime in its efforts to crush the Ahwazi people is straightforward, very deliberate negligence; despite the Arab region housing over 95 percent of the oil and gas reserves claimed by Iran, which should make it one of the richest areas in the Middle East, Ahwazi communities live in conditions of near-medieval poverty and destitution.

The infrastructure in Ahwazi areas is largely notable only by its absence, with many areas left without clean water by the regime’s very deliberate decision to dam and divert the region’s once-bountiful rivers to other, ethnically Persian areas of Iran.  This has also led to choking air pollution as larger and larger areas are desertified by the resulting water shortages, causing massive sandstorms. These sandstorms are in turn made more lethal by the airborne pollution from the oil and gas wells. The refineries are often built on riverbanks, using much of the remaining water in the refining or manufacturing process and pumping untreated toxic chemicals directly back into the water supply, the only source of drinking water for the Ahwazi people, although clean filtered water is pumped to the Iranian settlements, which are carefully maintained.

In  a video that  has been widely circulated over social media; spreading across Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other platforms, an Ahwazi citizen in the city of Falahiyeh complained bitterly about the grotesque inhumanity of the regime’s water policy, saying, “In this area there are around ten thousand people, and the regime has cut off water services!  We don’t know where the water has gone.”

The interviewee added that the regime’s damming and diversion program isn’t only harming the Ahwazi people but also devastating the natural environment, with the once-lush farmland, along with the marshlands, trees and date plantations, being destroyed by chronic drought and desertification, which is in turn leaving countless former fishermen and farmers destitute.  “Look at us! Look at these guys – they’re unemployed” he said, gesturing hopelessly at men nearby.

After decades of enduring the regime’s systematic racist injustice and oppression, with any objection ignored or met with further persecution, anger is growing amongst Ahwazis who increasingly have nothing left to lose, with protesters recently attacking electricity and water facilities supplying the Iranian settlements.  Ahwazis accuse the Iranian authorities of very deliberately pursuing a policy of racist discrimination and ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, asserting that its negligence is very much part of a conscious policy, a passive weapon being used, in one analyst’s words, to exterminate the people.

Unsurprisingly, these practices, along with the dilapidated and often collapsed sewage and sanitation networks, which are again reserved for ethnically Persian settlements, have led to widespread serious health problems amongst Ahwazis who are the poorest minority in Iran; heart problems, cancer and respiratory diseases are endemic.   Despite this, the health services provided for the Ahwazi people are rudimentary and massively inadequate, with many villages and towns lacking even a doctor or clinic, forcing residents to walk for miles simply to obtain basic healthcare.

The ageing and derelict conditions of the  decades-old sewage networks which often overflow and are left  unrepaired and uncovered by regime authorities  lead to regular horrendous tragic accidents in which young children literally drown in sewage after falling into the open drains whilst playing in the street. Two such accidents have happened in the region in the last week, with two young children dying needlessly after falling into the uncovered manholes.

In one case in December 2017, tragedy was narrowly averted by the father of a four-year-old boy named Amir Hussein after the child fell into an open manhole in a desperately poor area of the town of Khor Mousa to the southeast of the regional capital, Ahwaz.

Local people said that their repeated requests to authorities to cover the open sewers for public health and safety had been ignored.  Although they immediately called the local emergency services when the accident happened, the locals said, their calls were again ignored, with the boy’s father climbing into the fetid sewer to rescue his son.

Another young boy, a three-year-old from the Thawra neighbourhood of Ahwaz was, tragically, less fortunate, drowning in the putrid sewage despite desperate efforts to retrieve him after falling in whilst playing in the area outside his family’s home.

Accompanying Honduras

Ken Jones

As the bus was taking our accompaniment delegation to Honduras to the airport for our return home, it stopped by the offices of Radio Progreso. Piling on to the bus came some twenty staff members of the station to bid us goodbye. Each of them greeted us with an embrace, a kiss, or a clasp of hands expressing heartfelt gratitude for our having come to be with them at this dangerous and chaotic time in their country. It was a striking gesture of affection that deeply touched us, the visiting delegates.

We came to this country at the urgent request of SHARE El Salvador, a humanitarian aid organization with a long history of solidarity work in Central America. Police and military repression in Honduras since the overtly fraudulent elections in November 2017 has been getting worse, with over thirty people killed and more than one thousand in jails. Death threats aimed at those who are raising their voices the loudest are getting more overt and intense.

In particular, the life of Jesuit priest and native Honduran Father Ismael Moreno, known as Padre Melo, is in danger. Possibly as well known as the assassinated Berta Caceres, Melo is the director of Radio Progreso, an independent station that reports on human rights violations, police and military abuses, and the work of dissidents and protectors of the land and waters. A humble and soft-spoken man, he is a spiritual and political leader who has not minced words as he has pointed to the illegal and brutal behaviors of the Honduran government and elites. He has also denounced the United States for its support of the regime, and for its hypocrisy in certifying Honduras as having an acceptable human rights record. Now his picture is featured on a flyer being circulated purporting to depict terrorists in El Progreso, in what could well be a prelude to his assassination.

The organizers of our delegation had originally hoped that a handful of faith leaders could come on very short notice to accompany and protect Padre Melo, as well as others, and to witness and report on what is happening on the ground as the cycles of demonstrations and police repression escalate. Surprisingly, fifty people – mostly clergy – got on a plane and arrived on January 24 to spend a week meeting with Radio Progreso staff and grass roots activists, listen to stories from family members of victims of the repression, attend street demonstrations, marches, and vigils as observers, take part in religious ceremonies, and generally listen and observe.

Most of us knew the history we were walking into: the 2009 coup when President Zelaya was arrested in his pajamas by the military and flown out of the country; the immediate support of the U.S. for the new coup regime; the subsequent mass repression of the people; the corruption of political leaders as they have colluded with multinational corporations to steal land and exploit mineral resources; the assassinations of dissidents such as Berta Caceres; the impunity of the police and military; the flagrant violation of domestic and international law.

Then came the elections of 2017. Salvador Nasralla of the opposition Libre party was well ahead in the count when the ballot count was halted, supposedly by a glitch in the computer system. Twenty-one days later, the Supreme Electoral Tribune announced that Juan Orlando Hernandez, the incumbent, had been re-elected.

It was a transparently fraudulent election. Not only was the process full of so-called “irregularities,” the very fact that Orlando Hernandez was running for a second term was expressly forbidden by the Honduran constitution. Ironically, the rationale used for the ousting of Zelaya in 2009 was that he was conspiring to run for a second term. And here was Hernandez, the chosen one of the elites, doing exactly that and getting away with it.

In this context, one might expect demonstrations of dissent in any democratic society. But Honduras can scarcely be called a democracy at this point. People in the streets are understandably carrying signs calling their government a dictatorship. They are denouncing Hernandez and endlessly chanting for his ouster with the cry of “Fuera JOH!” They take roads and block traffic. They stand face-to-face with integrated forces of counterinsurgency-trained police and military in their riot gear with their armored cars, shields, water cannons, and seemingly endless supply of tear gas. All financed and supplied by the U.S.A.

It is breathtaking to see the courage and tenacity of the people. They know the dangers they face because so many of their loved ones have been victimized by this regime. When we listened to the families of the victims, we heard one story after another. Jose Luis was trying to leave a protest when he was shot in the face. He lost an eye. Maria’s husband was walking home from work in an area near where a protest was happening when he was shot, near his home. He is now paralyzed and brain damaged. When his son ran out of the house to help him, he was arrested, and bathed in pepper spray. A woman in tears told us how her husband was shot and taken to a hospital. He was judged to be in good condition. But then he was visited in his room by two military men who accompanied him to the operating room, where he died on the operating table. His wife has filed denunciations with the police and says she is now persecuted and followed.

As members of our delegation attended a street demonstration one evening, they got a ride home from a former legislator, Bertolo Fuentes, who is known for speaking out against the government. Fuentes is living in dangerous circumstances – his picture is in the center of the flyer that also targets Padre Melo, calling him a terrorist. As he was driving our fellow delegates home, Fuentes got a call that four uniformed policemen were invading his house. The police had pointed guns at the heads of his wife and son and had dragged his son from the house and kicked and beaten him. Fuentes immediately turned around and sped to his house. When the delegate group arrived, the policemen quickly left.

Some of our delegates, including a journalist, traveled to Pajuiles, where there is a small encampment of people next to a hydroelectric project being built, at the entrance to their community. Nearby are two squads of fully integrated military, police, and military police that have been at this post since before the elections. There our delegates learned that on Tuesday, January 23 around 4 am, a 35-year old agricultural worker and father of five was dragged out of his home and executed by the police. He was shot more than 40 times in the back of his head and torso, by a military/police patrol, his mother and brother watching from nearby. The police and military post is less than 300 meters from where the man was killed. There has been no investigation or even mention by the police of the incident. Thursday night, the same day of the funeral, the police threw gas bombs into the community. This was confirmed by one police officer who spoke to our group.

At the end of the week, our delegation was able to meet with staff at the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa, including Chargé d’Affaire Heide Fulton, the acting head of the embassy since President Trump has not filled the ambassador position in Honduras. We told them these stories and more.

We explained how the violence of the state is causing people to flee. How, in fact, the U.S. sponsorship of this regime is a cause for the migration that so concerns politicians in our country, to which we have responded with our militarized border, walls, and prisons. And we pointed out that revoking the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Honduran refugees would only worsen the situation in Honduras, causing more and more suffering and deaths in Honduras.

We explained how these very same conditions in Honduras were the same conditions many of us saw in El Salvador in the 1970s and 1980s. How Honduras could be looking at a much worse problem in the near future. How, in fact, the people we talked to in Honduras very much fear this will be the case after the inauguration of Hernandez, when the eyes of the world are no longer on Honduras. They fear the hammer will come down on them for their opposition.

We urged the State Department officials to hear us and to take the following immediate actions:

1. Protect the lives of dissenters, in particular Padre Melo;
2. Insist that the government stop using militarized policing to repress demonstrators;
3. Release political prisoners who are being dragged off to jails for dissenting;
4. Acknowledge that this was a fraudulent election and call, as the OAS has recommended, for a new election, conducted under international supervision.

We certainly had little expectation of a favorable response from these State Department officials, but we were nonetheless surprised at the tone deafness and bureaucratic defensiveness of Ms. Fulton’s reply. She instructed us that the State Department mission there is to “improve security, fight corruption, increase prosperity, and strengthen historically weak institutions.” She said that the country does not have enough police to provide security and that the U.S is remedying this. She said she would like to see factual evidence of what we were telling her we had seen and heard, and she stated that “there are two sides to every story.” She said she had not heard about any illegal detentions. And she said that since the Honduran constitution does not provide for a new election option, the U.S. could not do anything other than work for reforms that improved the process next time.

Of course, Fulton did not acknowledge the historic role the U.S. has played in Honduras, and indeed throughout Latin America and the world, in fostering the very conditions of destabilization that we witnessed, supporting repressive regimes, and undermining democratic structures and institutions. She didn’t blink when she said there was nothing the U.S. could do about the fraudulent election in Honduras, its client state. In the face of hearing the heartfelt testimony and pleas from this largely religious delegation, the trained diplomat came back with the expected dispassionate company line. As one delegate said, it showed the typical U.S. government “heart of stone.”

The next day, we got on the bus and headed to the airport. When we were thanked and so warmly sent on our way by the staff of Radio Progreso, we were reminded how remarkable the people of this country are. They continue in their courageous struggle with good humor, graciousness, and resilience, despite the grim repression they face. Many of us expressed our gratitude to them in return, for inspiring us to call on these inner strengths ourselves, even in the hardest of times, for protecting us, and for giving us a glimpse of the dictatorship our government supports.

On the plane home, still feeling the embraces of solidarity, I recalled the saying that is attributed to Lila Watson, an indigenous Australian: “If you have come here to help me you are wasting your time, but if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.”

How can we be free when our sisters and brothers are not? La luche sigue.

Budget 2018 : The Opportunity Cost of a Failed Fiscal Deficit

Yadul Krishna

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley just gave away his  fifth and final Budget speech at the parliament this thursday. This budget, for the country and the BJP led NDA government, has remained to act a crucial one. Couple of factors determines this – Firstly, its the first budget that the country is witnessing after having one of its major economic move getting rolled out – the change of taxation to the Goods and Service Tax(GST) system. Even though the change to GST, albeit the need to wait for further improvements and clarifications, has given an uncertainty on tax mobilisations, providing it with that of the practise of an year of demonetisation had made the FY17-18 become a complete economic disaster. We have already witnessed a steep decline in the GDP count after the third quarter of last financial year to a nearby 2%. Thus, the two policy moves has its own stake in forming the budget policy weather it be on the allocation side or on the understanding of the revenues to be generated. So it becomes an important factor in the planning of the fiscal policy as well as the fiscal deficit expectations accordingly for the upcoming financial year.

Secondly, due to the harsh repercussion that the government had to face on grounds of the aforesaid reasons and the elections to the lower house is getting geared, the BJP government had to wrap the scene up and come up with an election-friendly budget that is ‘seemingly’ more to the welfare side.

As for a simple read, one might find, provided with the eloquent rhetoric skills of the finance minister, the budget presentation a better one that has gone through and addressed all the sectors, but it is the nuances that gives you the facts and whereabouts of how much it is and will have effect on our daily lives.

The government has started presenting the budget with programs that are not just impossible to get implement with the available resources, but also will have an adverse effect on the budget deficit targets even if it gets implemented in one go. It is very much visible in this budget that, by hurting the funding for the common people’s welfare, the government hasn’t forgotten to discharge its duties on fulfilling the needs of the rich and corporates through formulating the budget accordingly. But, this assault has, however, came up taking the form of a populist budget, giving them a inclusive face, whereas there is nothing much to ponder about in actual terms of effect, other than it being negative.Despite the fact that the total expenditure has come down to a 13.04% share of the GDP compared to the former year, the term contractionary budget has itself become a cliche in analysing the budgets of India in the recent years.

This year, the government has come up with a desolating budget that doesn’t take care of certain sectors of the economy. The government further boasts of making the rural sectors and farmers well off with the budget. But the actual facts just tells you the contrary. For the rural sector, the budget states that more efforts will be given in building infrastructure rather than addressing their critical concerns. This need not be what the people are wishing for given their present condition of socio-economic disparity. As for the farmers, only minimal efforts has been taken to address their issues. Till the past years, as all the past economic surveys have always warned, the condition of the farmers has always kept on deteriorating and has seen no increase in their development, except the development of the numbers in farmer suicides.

However, suddenly, as the last year of the ruling term, the budget is trying to project the proposals for the upliftment of the farmers and the aged. For that the budget put forwards the idea of Minimum Support Price(MSP) in terms of cost of production. In this light, it is also to be noted that the government has not yet made any clarifications as to which cost they are going to take in account, provided that the term cost in economics is very broad, which again puts a concern as to if the farmers are actually entitled to any benefits. Same case goes with the youth population and on the education sector. There is nothing in the budget on how new jobs are to be created except stating that it will.

The funding for education has also been reduced from the percentage share of the GDP with respect to school as well as higher education, not to mention the drop in UGC funding. It is also depressing to see the government initiating the move to replace black board to digital board across schools in the name of digital technology while there are thousands of children in the country who are still failing to get access to schools, of which even the schools doesn’t have the basic facilities to occupy them. The budget is also trying to portray with statistics of having certain fundings kept stagnant or increased with that of the former budget, whereas they haven’t exhibited that it’s not in real terms.

It is practically impossible to have all these  goals in the budget achieved with the fiscal deficit target, which even now is itself higher than the expected target, making the policy announcements a mere promise to be faked. ie, the schemes proposed in the annual budget will only make the GDP look more unfeasible with the 3.3% projected fiscal deficit. Also, as asserted by the finance minister in his speech, the target to attain a hike in economic growth of 7.5% in GDP by the next fiscal also becomes impossible to achieve.

Since the economy is yet to recover from the disastrous effects of demonetisation, the budget should have had proposals about investing in the needed sectors, thus creating demand in the economy and to solve those issues that came as a byproduct of demonetisation like revival of those in the informal sector and providing people with more employment opportunities. But none of this has happened except that they have come up with proposals of drastic cuts in the payments that were to be spent on education, social welfare and development of youth, women and children. So, as aforesaid, if the government fails to create demand for goods and services in the economy, like what have always happened in the past, the move can even drive the Reserve Bank of India in cutting down the interest rates which will become difficult to catch up.

This budget has high complications with respect to fiscal consolidation. The government has allowed for fiscal slippage and this failure will have huge effects on the economy. The deficit for FY17-18 was kept higher to 3.5% than the target of 3.2% and this year also it fails in keeping it to the target of 3%, raising it to 3.3%. Also, the move of the government to increase Rs 50,000 crore worth further market borrowings of dated government securities will also leads to elevated fiscal slippage which will hinder economic growth recovery by conserving higher yields and getting the lending of rate cuts delayed.

There are several consequences if the targeted fiscal deficit gets failed. For instance, the investors who buys bonds will yield higher rates if there is a increased amount of borrowing.This in turn, in all respects, will affect the interest rates. Another such problem relating to this is the emergence of credibility risk. As of raising capital receipts in the present form is concerned, the government’s assurance need not be taken seriously by the investors, which for them can be costly, and in turn effects planned investments.

Having a high fiscal deficit also means that the government is not able to generate more than that of what it is spending. Therefore, this propels the government to increase the taxes in any ways that best suits them so it’s debts can be payed-off in the future. This process can, however, not just be concerned with higher taxes, but can also be with higher inflation. And if the expenditure increases up from the present target, as in cases of rise in international oil prices, it again will lead to further widening of the fiscal deficit.

Perhaps, there is even a bigger issue with having a high deficit. It minimizes the possibilities of retrieval of the economy if we are to face any kind of unanticipated economic changes in the future that can happen rapidly, even if such event occurs in the global economic scenario.

Anyways, whatever it be, those who always get affected are the common working people of the country. This budget is a clear gesture of reconciliation shown by the ruling class towards the rich neglecting the actual problems of the commons and the working class. The retortion made by the workers wing of the ruling BJP, the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, stating that the budget is disappointing and has totally neglected the workers, speaks volumes on how anti-people the present budget is.Keeping in mind the factors stated above, yet again, the government, through its regressive budget, has showed its apathy towards the people of the country.

Is Sri Lanka Going To Be The Next China Town In Indian Ocean?

Punsara Amarasinghe & Eshan Mandara Jayawardane

Chinese presence in Sri Lanka was not emerged out of the blue in the island’s recent political past.  Having located in a crucial geographic location in maritime silk route Sri Lankan history claims a long standing affinity with China in its rich history. However Sino Sri Lankan relations in the post independent era had mainly shaped through the roots of Non alignment movement and Sri Lankan Prime Minister Sirmavo Bandaranayake in 1962 played a pivotal role in mediating between China and India after the month long Indo Sino war though her stupendous effort did not reap its harvest.

21st Century China Sri Lanka relations began to enhance in a different strategic manner during former Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapakshe’s period whose policy was decisively favorable upon Beijing during his second tenure in the presidency. Especially China provided sufficient military support for Sri Lankan armed forces in fighting with LTTE and after the end of war when Rajapakshes’s government got beaten down the hatches before human rights issues in UN, Chinese support was given to the island nation. This political scenario opened the path to China to involve in Sri Lanka’s economic development projects in a larger scale. During the last three years of president Rajapakshe China had a strong grip over the investments in Sri Lankan development projects. The impeccable strategic position of Sri Lanka’s Hambantota harbor had allured Beijing to pump some $5 billion into Sri Lanka in an effort to turn it into a pivot of its ‘Maritime Silk Road’. Intensity of Chinese romance in Sri Lanka was suddenly decelerated when Rajapakshe was confronted by an unexpected defeat in 2015 Presidential election to MaitreepalaSirisena who arose as the common candidate of joint opposition with the fullest blessings of India. The sudden regime change gave a heavy blow to Beijing; especially the major setback came when newly appointed president MaitripalaSirisena ordered to investigate over the mega projects in Hambathota harbor and Colombo Port City which happened to be another exclusive project funded by Chinese investors.

Three years after the decline of Rajapakshe China has reaffirmed their position in Sri Lanka in a good move which reached its climax when government of Sri Lanka completed the formal handover of the strategic port of Hambantota to China, which will take control of the facility on a 99-year lease.Despite having envisaged a heavy pressure from nationalist forces and joint opposition present government in Sri Lanka continues to play the same cards played by Mahinda Rajapakshe with China in handling the port issue in Hambatota. In order to stabilizethe relationship with New Delhi, Sri Lankan prime minister made it clear that none of the ports in Sri Lanka would be allowed to use by foreign powers, but in truth before the current government entered power in 2014 two Chinese nuclear submarine surfaced in Colombo port. Apparently India has grown an interest in controlling the Eastern port Trincomalee which is located in the Eastern marine belt of the island. India’s ardor in Trincomalee was palpably demonstrated when Carnage(India)  hosted an event titled “ Trincomalee Consultation in 2017 February and Indian ministry of external affairs announced that the concern over controlling the oil tanks in Trincomalee harbor was emphasized during the official visit of Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickrmasighe to New Delhi in late April 2017. Nevertheless present circumstances have clearly manifested Chinese presence in Sri Lanka grows more solid in action than India’s diplomacy to become a part in this strategic game over island’s port resources. Though Colombo has  assured the Chinese acquisition of Hambatota is purely for civilian intents  Beijing  could operationalize Hambantotta as an ideal resupply node for the military base of first oasis  military base of Chinese people’s liberation army navy in port Doraleh in Djibutti which was formally opened in2017 August. According to the agreement between Sri Lankan government and China Merchants Port Holdings Co., the state-owned Chinese port operator, China has agreed to pay $1.12bilion for 70% share of Hambatota port for 99 years.  China Merchants has also agreed to invest an additional $600 million into the development of the struggling Hambatotaport, which has so far incurred $300 million in losses.

On the other hand the ongoing project of Colombo Port city project is the largest foreign investment in Sri Lanka’s history. The construction of Colombo Port city has been taken over by China Harbor Engineering Corporation, a subsidy of China Communication Construction. In fact this company has been blacklisted by World Bank on allegation of corruption. The planned mini city will be built on a land reclaimed from the sea and Chinese investors have planned to transform into a luxurious city of skyscrapers, luxurious hotels and shopping malls would inevitably change geopolitical landscape of Sri Lanka. With all this ongoing Chinese projects in the island Sri Lankans have developed a sneaking fear towards prolonged Chinese presence in Sri Lanka. Especially the Chinese workers who came to work for projects in Sri Lanka have settled in the rural areas of the country and this has caused an emerging unrest in Sri Lankan society. The larger problem was erupted when the lands nearby Hambatotta port were offered to sell for the Chinese project, most of the residents vehemently opposed to it. Many of them participated in a protest against the Chinese investment hub in Hambatotta. However island total debt stands at $64BN and as a result of country’s failure to improve its export revenues, Chinese debts and investments projects have become a tempting factor for Sri Lanka. Remaining question is has Chinese loans increased the debt crisis in the island from bad to worse with its high interest rates. As a strategy of Belt and Road initiative China has spread many investments in the region such as Nepal, Bagladesh, Pakistan and Nepal. In such a context Sri Lanka is not in a win win situation to compromise with country’s wounded economic conditions. It is certain that debt crisis has put Sri Lanka smack in the middle of the deep and blue sea. Hobson’s choice given by China to Sri Lanka has left island nation in a dilemma whereas Sri Lanka will have to play a prudent game while ensuring the national interest and the external interests of its closest neighbor India.

11 Pakistani Soldiers Killed By Taliban Gaining Strength In Afghanistan

Abdus Sattar Ghazali

A suicide bomber killed at least 11 Pakistani army soldiers and injured 13 at an army camp in Sawat Valley on Saturday (Feb 3). An army Captain was among those who died in the bombing.

Army officials in Swat told the press that the soldiers were playing a volleyball match outside their base camp in Kabal in lower Swat valley when a young suicide bomber managed to enter the restricted area and blew himself up near the soldiers.

The Afghanistan-based Pakistani Taliban immediately claimed responsibility for the suicide attack on Pakistan’s military camp. Mohammad Khurasani, a spokesman for Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), claimed they had sent a young suicide bomber, Siddiqullah to conduct the suicide attack on the military camp in Swat.

The Swat attack happened few days after the four back-to-back attacks in Kabul and Jalalabad that killed nearly 200 persons, including 14 foreigners, among them four Americans, 11 soldiers and scores of cops, government officials and civilians.

Two of those attacks in Kabul were claimed by the Afghan Taliban and two by Daesh in Kabul and Jalalabad.

In Afghanistan, the writ of Ashraf Ghani’s government is apparently limited to big cities only while the rural areas are mostly controlled by the Taliban. But now it appears that even cities such as Jalalabad and Kabul are at the mercy of militants, who can target hotels, hospitals, schools, universities, or military bases at will. So the urban centers are gradually slipping out of the government’s control just as the terrorists started their spring offensive – in winter.

The Taliban are openly active in 70 percent of Afghanistan’s districts, fully controlling 4 percent of the country and demonstrating an open physical presence in another 66 percent, according to a BBC study published on January 30.

The BBC estimate, which it said was based on conversations with more than 1,200 individual local sources in all districts of Afghanistan, was significantly higher than the most recent assessment by the NATO-led coalition of the Taliban’s presence.

However, the coalition said on January 30 that the Taliban contested or controlled only 44 percent of Afghan districts as of October 2017.

The BBC study said the Afghan government controlled 122 districts, or about 30 percent of the country. Still, it noted that did not mean that they were free from Taliban attacks.

“Kabul and other major cities, for example, suffered major attacks – launched from adjacent areas, or by sleeper cells – during the research period, as well as before and after,” the report said.

NBC: The Taliban is gaining strength and territory

According to NBC more than 16 years after the U.S. helped overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, the metrics kept by U.S. and Afghan officials and security experts show the Taliban is gaining territory and strength.

As Kabul reels from a deadly wave of terror attacks, the numbers tell the tale. The percentage of the Afghan population under the control of the central government has slipped, the land mass under the control of coalition forces is shrinking, and the number of Taliban fighters may have doubled in the past four years.

In 2014, U.S. officials told NBC News that the number of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan was about 20,000. Four years later, one U.S. defense official said the current Taliban strength is at least 60,000.

According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan (SIGAR), Resolute Support asked SIGAR not to make public the U.S. military’s most recent internal estimates of Taliban control.

The appendix to SIGAR’s January 2018 quarterly report, released Tuesday, says that Resolute Support asked SIGAR not to release either its estimate of Taliban territorial control or its estimate of the percentage of the Afghanistan population under Taliban control. The appendix quoted Resolute Support as saying the figures are “not releasable to the public.” Both metrics are unclassified.

“This is the first time SIGAR has been specifically instructed not to release information marked ‘unclassified’ to the American taxpayer,” said SIGAR in a cover letter to the report.

Newsweek: The U.S. is losing badly in Afghanistan

The U.S. and allied local security forces have failed to secure most of Afghanistan, according to a recent investigation that came shortly after the Pentagon refused to release unclassified data on the conflict for the first time ever, the Newsweek said Wednesday (Jan 31).

Despite waging nearly 17 consecutive years of war and spending up to $1 trillion, the U.S.-led attempt to defeat the Taliban has left the insurgents openly active in up to 70 percent of Afghanistan, according to a BBC study published Tuesday. The report also found that a rival ultraconservative Sunni Muslim organization, the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), controlled more territory than ever, further complicating the beleaguered effort to stabilize the country.

What a federal watchdog chief found particularly “troubling” and a “worrying development,” however, was that none of this information could be included in its mandatory quarterly report on the war. John Sopko, head of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), said he was instructed by the Department of Defense (DOD) “not to release to the public data on the number of districts, and the population living in them, controlled or influenced by the Afghan government or by the insurgents, or contested by both.”

A letter preceding SIGAR’s report added, “SIGAR was informed this quarter that DOD has determined that although the most recent numbers are unclassified, they are not releasable to the public.”

SIGAR said it is the first time the watchdog was blocked from releasing this information, on which it has reported since January 2016, and it was the first time ever “that SIGAR has been specifically instructed not to release information marked ‘unclassified’ to the American taxpayer” since it was created by Congress in 2008 to monitor the already extensive U.S. role in the conflict. SIGAR was deeply critical of the Pentagon and said the public should be especially concerned because trends had historically painted the picture of an increasingly unsuccessful and costly war effort.

Trump rules out talks with Taliban

However, President Donald Trump on Monday (Jan 29) ruled out quick talks with the Taliban, following a wave of bloody large-scale attacks in the Afghan capital Kabul.

“I don´t think we are prepared to talk right now,” Trump said, throwing into question Washington´s strategy of pushing the group toward the negotiating table.

“We don´t want to talk with the Taliban,” Trump said. “They are killing people left and right, innocent people.”

He added: “There may be a time but it´s going to be a long time.”

Commenting on Trump’s statement, Pakistan reiterated that Islamabad supports all peace initiatives to resolve Afghan problem as there is no military solution to Afghan conflict.

Foreign Office spokesperson Dr Muhammad Faisal said “all sorts of weapons and ammunition were used in Afghanistan during the last 70 years but no substantial achievement was made in achieving peace.” “Afghan and other issues can only be addressed through dialogue as military solution has totally failed.”

The spokesman said Quadrilateral Consultative Group involving Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and the United States is the most appropriate forum to help take the Afghan owned and Afghan peace process forward.

“Pakistan’s concern about Afghan issue should also be addressed,” the spokesman asserted.

About the possible outcome of the Kabul process next month, Dr. Muhammad Faisal said it depends on the attitude of the Afghan government.

He said there are issues like repatriation of Afghan refugees to their homeland with dignity and honor, exponential rise in drugs and poppy cultivation and use of the drug money to fuel the war economy and attacks on Pakistan side from Afghan soil.

The Taliban responded to Trump’s comments, a Taliban statement said: “The true authority of war and peace is not with the Kabul regime, but with the American invaders.”

“Their main strategy is to continue war and occupation,” Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman said in a statement reported by Reuters. “Donald Trump and his war-mongering supporters must understand that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you insist upon war, our mujahideen will not welcome you with roses.”

New Defense Strategy: War With Great Nations And Arms Race

Kevin Zeese & Margaret Flowers

This week, following the recent announcement of a new National Defense Strategy that focuses on conflicts with great powers and a new arms race, the Pentagon announced an escalation of nuclear weapons development. The United States’ military is spread across the world, including several dangerous conflict areas that could develop into an all-out war, possibly in conflict with China or Russia. This comes at a time when US empire is fading, something the Pentagon also recognizes and the US is falling behind China economically. This is not unexpected considering that one year ago President Trump sought an inaugural parade that put tanks and missiles on display.

New National Defense Strategy Means More War, More Spending

The new National Defense Strategy announced last week moves from the ‘war on terror’ toward conflict with great powers. Michael Whitney, writing about the conflict in Syria, puts it in context:

“Washington’s biggest problem is the absence of a coherent policy. While the recently released National Defense Strategy articulated a change in the way the imperial strategy would be implemented, (by jettisoning the ‘war on terror’ pretext to a ‘great power’ confrontation) the changes amount to nothing more than a tweaking of the public relations ‘messaging’. Washington’s global ambitions remain the same albeit with more emphasis on raw military power.”

The move from military conflict against non-state actors, i.e. ‘terrorists’, to great power conflict means more military hardware, massive spending on weapons and a new arms race. Andrew Bacevich writes in American Conservative that war profiteers are popping open the champagne.

Bacevich writes the ‘new’ strategy is placed in the false caim that the US is “emerging from a period of strategic atrophy.” The claim is laughable as the US has been in never ending war with massive military spending throughout the century:

“Under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump, U.S. forces have been constantly on the go. I’m prepared to argue that no nation in recorded history has ever deployed its troops to more places than has the United States since 2001. American bombs and missiles have rained down on a remarkable array of countries. We’ve killed an astonishing number of people.”

The new strategy means more spending on weapons to prepare for conflict with Russia and China. Not bothering with reality, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis claimed, “Our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare—air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace. And it is continually eroding.”  He described the Pentagon’s plans for ‘procurement and modernization’, i.e. the arms race that includes nuclear, space and traditional weapons, cyber defense and more surveillance.

The Pentagon announced its Nuclear Posture Review on February 2, 2018. The review calls for updating and expanding the nuclear arsenal in order to respond to perceived threats, in particular by “great powers,” e.g. Russia and China, as well North Korea and others. Peace Action described a review written by Dr. Strangeglove, adding “the expansion of our nuclear arsenal called for in the Nuclear Posture Review would cost the American taxpayers an estimated $1.7 trillion adjusted for inflation over the next three decades.”

Bachevich concludes “Who will celebrate the National Defense Strategy? Only weapons manufacturers, defense contractors, lobbyists, and other fat cat beneficiaries of the military-industrial complex.” To further the glee of weapons makers, Trump is urging the State Department to spend more time selling US weapons.

Escalating Conflicts Risk War Globally

In his first year as president, Donald Trump handed over decision-making power to “his generals” and as expected, this  resulted in more “warfare, bombing and deaths” in his first year than the Obama era. There has been “an almost 50 percent increase of airstrikes in Iraq and Syria during Trump’s first year in office, leading to a rise in civilian deaths by more than 200 percent compared with the year before.” Trump has also broken the record for special forces, now deployed in 149 countries or 75 percent of the globe. So much for ‘America First.’

Many areas risk escalation to full-scale war, including conflict with Russia and China:

Syria: The seven-year war in Syria, which has killed 400,000 people, began during Obama’s presidency under the guise of destroying ISIS. The real goal was removal of President Assad. This January, Secretary of State Tillerson made the goal clear, saying that even after the defeat of ISIS the US would stay in Syria until Assad was removed from office. The US is moving to Plan B, the creation of a de facto autonomous Kurdish state for almost one-third of Syria defended by a proxy military of 30,000 troops, mainly Kurds. Marcello Ferrada de Noli describes that in response, Syria aided by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah “continues victorious and unabated in its pursuit to retake the full sovereignty of its nation’s territory.” Turkey is moving to ensure no Kurdish territory is created by the US.

North Korea: The latest dangerous idea coming from the Trump military is giving North Korea a “bloody nose.” This schoolyard bully talk risks a US first strike that could create war with China and Russia. China has said if the US attacked first it would defend North Korea. This aggressive talk comes when North and South Korea seek peace and are cooperating during the Olympics. The Trump era has continued massive military exercises, practicing attacks on North Korea that include nuclear attacks and assassination of their leadership.The US did take a step back and agree not to hold such war games during the Olympics.

Iran: The US has sought regime change since the 1979 Islamic Revolution removed the US’s Shah of Iran. The current debate over the future of the nuclear weapons agreement and economic sanctions are focal points of conflict. While observers find Iran has lived up to the agreement, the Trump administration continues to claim violations. In addition, the US, through USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy and other agencies, is spending millions annually to build opposition to the government and foment regime change, as seen in recent protests. In addition, the US (along with Israel and Saudi Arabia) is engaged in conflict with Iran in other areas, e.g. Syria and Yemen. There is regular propaganda demonizing Iran and threatening war with Iran, which is six times the size of Iraq and has a much stronger military. The US has been isolated in the UN over its belligerence toward Iran.

Afghanistan: The longest war in US history continues after 16 years. The US has been hiding what is happening in Afghanistan because the Taliban has an active presence in about 70 percent of the country and ISIS has gained more territory than ever before resulting in the Inspector General for Afghanistan criticizing DoD for refusing to release data. The long war included Trump dropping the largest non-nuclear bomb in history and resulted in allegations of US war crimes that the International Criminal Court seeks to investigate. The US has caused devastation throughout the country.

Ukraine: The US supported coup in the Ukraine continues to cause conflicts on the Russian border. The US spent billions on the coup, but documents outlining the Obama administration’s involvement have not been released. The coup was complete with Vice President Biden’s son and John Kerry’s long term financial ally being put on the board of the Ukraine’s largest private energy company. A former State Department employee became Ukraine’s finance minister. The US continues to claim Russia is the aggressor because it protected its Navy base in Crimea from the US coup. Now, the Trump administration is providing arms to Kiev and stoking a civil war with Kiev and western Ukraine against eastern Ukraine.

These are not the only areas where the US is creating regime change or seeking domination. In another strange statement, Secretary of State Tillerson warned Venezuela may face a military coup while winking that the US does not support regime change (even though it has been seeking regime change to control Venezuelan oil since Hugo Chavez came to power). Tillerson’s comment came as Venezuela negotiated a settlement with the opposition. Regime change is the mode of operation for the US in Latin America.  The US  supported recent questionable elections in Honduras, to keep the coup government Obama supported in power. In Brazil, the US is assisting the prosecution of Lula, who seeks to run for president, in a crisis that threatens its fragile democracy protecting a coup government.

In Africa, the US has military in 53 of 54 countries and is in competition with China, which is using economic power rather than military power. The US is laying the groundwork for military domination of the continent with little congressional oversight — to dominate the land, resources and people of Africa.

Opposition to War and Militarism

The anti-war movement, which atrophied under President Obama, is coming back to life.

World Beyond War is working to abolish war as an instrument of foreign policy. Black Alliance for Peace is working to revitalize opposition to war by blacks, historically some of the strongest opponents of war. Peace groups are uniting around the No US Foreign Military Bases campaign that is seeking to close 800 US military bases in 80 countries.

Peace advocates are organizing actions. The campaign to divest from the war machine kicks off from February 5 to 11 highlighting the economic cost of war. A global day of action against the US occupation of Guantanamo Bay is being planned for February 23, the anniversary of the US seizing Guantanamo Bay from Cuba through a “perpetual lease” beginning in 1903. A national day of action against US wars at home and abroad is being planned for April. And Cindy Sheehan is organizing a Women’s March on the Pentagon.

There are many opportunities to oppose war in this new era of “Great Power” conflict. We urge you to get involved as you are able to show that the people say “No” to war.