21 Jun 2018

Rolls-Royce to shed nearly 5,000 jobs in the UK

Barry Mason

Rolls-Royce, the UK-based aero engine manufacturer, is to reduce its worldwide workforce by around 10 percent, cutting 4,600 jobs over the next two years. The firm said it would not be able to avoid compulsory redundancies.
It is the biggest round of redundancies announced by the company since 2001. The company, which has been in existence more than 110 years, said job losses will take place across its international operations, with the majority in the UK.
The UK losses, approximately 3,000, will be concentrated at its headquarters in Derby, which currently employs around 15,700 people. Other jobs, particularly in corporate and support roles, will take place at the company’s second-biggest UK site in Bristol.
Instead of a campaign to mobilise its 22,000 members employed by Rolls-Royce to fight the cuts, Unite will facilitate whatever restructuring the company demands, as it has in the auto industry.
The Unite union is pledged to doing nothing to prevent the job losses, only stating its main concern was to prevent any damage to the functioning of Rolls-Royce: “There is a real danger that Rolls-Royce will cut deep and too fast with these job cuts, which could ultimately damage the smooth running of the company and see vital skills and experience lost.”
In its press release, Unite explained, “As part of a recent collective agreement with Rolls-Royce, Unite secured a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies. Unite said it would be seeking similar guarantees for its members affected by today’s announcement who were not covered by that collective agreement.”
Unite Assistant General Secretary for Aerospace Steve Turner said, “Over the coming days Unite will be working with Rolls-Royce, relevant agencies and other employers to find people affected alternative employment and to retain skills in the aerospace sector.”
Rolls-Royce said the cuts were “the next stage in our drive for pace and simplicity with a proposed restructuring that will deliver improved returns, higher margins and increased cash flow.” It would “support our long-term ambition to be the world’s leading industrial technology company.”
The cuts will “simplify the Group into three customer-focused business units,” and the “proposed restructuring will create smaller and more cost effective corporate and support functions and reduce management layers and complexity, including within engineering.”
This would allow a “healthier and dynamic organisation with clearer accountabilities, greater productivity and quicker decision-making.”
The company said that about a third of the announced job cuts will go by the end of 2018, and the jobs cull will “gain further momentum through 2019, with full implementation of headcount reductions and structural changes by mid-2020.”
The job cuts are the latest in a series at Rolls-Royce that have seen the loss of around 5,000 jobs in recent years.
In line with recent announcements by other companies, particularly in retail, the job losses will mainly hit middle management and support roles. In May, UK telecom company BT announced it would cut its workforce by around 12 percent, slashing 13,000 jobs in management and back office roles. A third of the losses will be overseas in BT’s Global Services division. Retail supermarket giants Tesco and Sainsbury’s, among others, are pushing through cuts in middle management to slim down their operations.
Warren East, on a £1.7 million salary, was appointed as Rolls-Royce CEO in April 2015 to reverse the company’s fortunes. He brought in turnaround specialists Alvarez and Marsal to carry out a six-month appraisal of the company. They examined every single part of the firm’s labour force productivity. The Financial Times quoted East saying, “Out of 18,000 job functions examined, 2,000 could simply be stopped. And there were 4,500 posts in a corporate centre that had ‘almost endless . . . rights’ to meddle in the business divisions, imposing extra cost for services they neither needed nor wanted.”
The restructuring plan, according to JPMorgan analysts, is expected to cost around £400 million to implement over three years but is projected to bring annual savings of around £200 million by 2020. It is also expected to allow a near £2 billion cash flow over the next five years to be able to invest in leading technology. Following the assessment, East confirmed the restructuring, first mooted in March, including the job losses.
Speaking to reporters, East said, “Rolls-Royce is at a pivotal moment in its history. We are poised to become the world leader in large aircraft engines. But we want to make the business as world class as our engineering and technology. We are proposing the creation of a much more streamlined organisation. We have to significantly reduce the size of our corporate centre, removing complexity and duplication that makes us too slow, uncompetitive and too expensive.”
The company’s job loss announcement immediately boosted its share price, with the stock market recording a 14 percent increase the day after. Share prices increased to over 1,000 pence a share, a level not reached since May 2015.
The UK aerospace industry is the fourth largest in the world, while Rolls-Royce is the world’s second-largest manufacturer of defence aero engines. Rolls-Royce faces stiff competition on an international scale, with America’s General Electric being one of its major competitors.
Rolls-Royce has had problems with its Trent 1000 engines manufactured for Boeings 787 Dreamliner planes, with turbine blades cracking and corroding, and other issues with compressors. This has forced airlines to ground the aircraft for checks to be carried out. With the busy summer holiday season beginning, some airlines have had to resort to leasing planes to make up the shortfall.
The problems with the Trent 1000 engines cut across the business model employed by Rolls-Royce. As Rolls-Royce has never made a profit on the sale of engines, it is forced to rely on long-term maintenance contracts to generate returns. It has poured massive resources into building reliable, highly technically efficient aero engines with the prospect of being able to earn an ongoing regular income through the monitoring and maintenance.
The Fina n cial Times noted that the restructuring is aimed at facilitating this strategy by “bringing down the costs of engine production and servicing by eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy.”
An Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) news article of November 14, 2017, featured an analysis by IMechE’s vice president, Ian Joesbury, explaining how the aerospace industry has become much more complex and competitive. He explained: “You’ve got to be leading edge in terms of your technology and really strong in terms of cost base and ability to deliver high quality, on time and in a cost-effective way.”
The article continued: “Another major change was the increasing focus on the aftermarket, with companies increasingly selling maintenance support as well as parts. Rolls-Royce was one of the first companies to explore this business model—rather than selling engines, its sells ‘time on wing’, with customers paying for the number of hours engines are actually operational.”
Joesbury added: “A lot of profit sits in the aftermarket, and a number of players are going aggressively after that. … [The] whole market has become much more dynamic. … It’s a much more complex environment now, which is much more challenging in terms of the margins that are available. …”
While not citing the problems with the Trent 1000 engines as part of the rationale behind the latest job cuts, it is obviously part of the mix.
Commenting on the record £4.6 billion loss announced by the company in 2017, the BBC reported in February 2017, “Many of Rolls-Royce’s older engines are being taken out service faster than its new engines are being taken up by newer planes. … [T]he newer engines will take longer to make a profit as the costs of development, testing and launch overshadow the early years of an engine’s life. The real gravy is the money to service them, which comes rolling in for many years at little additional cost. With several new engines launched recently those days are some way off.”

Fox accepts Disney takeover bid

Barry Grey

Control of the media and telecommunications industries by a handful of mega-monopolies received fresh impetus Wednesday with 21st Century Fox’s announcement that it had agreed to a revamped takeover offer from Walt Disney Company.
Disney, which already owns a film studio, the Disney Channel, ABC television, the ESPN sports network and other media holdings, upped its previous offer from $52.4 billion in stock to $71.3 billion in stock and cash, in response to a counter-offer by the cable TV giant Comcast estimated at $65 billion, all in cash.
21st Century Fox Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch (net worth $15.9 billion) said Wednesday morning that Disney’s proposal was “superior” to that of Comcast, while making it clear that he would still consider bids from other companies, including a revised Comcast proposal.
Under the Disney-Fox agreement, Disney would acquire Fox’s 20th Century Fox film and TV studios, Fox’s FX cable channels and regional news stations, Fox’s stakes in international networks such as the UK’s Sky broadcaster and the Star India TV channel, and Fox’s one-third stake in Hulu, making Disney the majority owner of the streaming service.
Fox would retain Fox News, the Fox Sports national cable channels and the Fox broadcasting network. Those would be spun off into a company called “New Fox.”
Disney has $98.5 billion in total assets and a market value of $159.48 billion. It made $8.98 billion in profits in 2017. Its CEO, Bob Iger, received $36.3 million in compensation.
21st Century Fox has a market value of $89.7 billion. It made a $2.95 billion profit in 2017.
Comcast has a market capitalization of $151 billion. It took in $22.7 billion in profits and its chairman and CEO Brian Roberts received $32.5 million in compensation in 2017.
The Disney-Fox announcement comes a week after a federal judge in Washington rejected a suit by the Justice Department’s Anti-Trust Division to block or substantially pare back the takeover of Time Warner by AT&T. The judge refused to place any conditions on the $85 billion merger of the world’s largest telecommunications company with the owner of TV networks CNN, HBO, TBS and TNT, creating the largest vertically integrated content and distribution company on the planet.
The two firms closed the deal later in the week and the Justice Department has not indicated that it intends to appeal the ruling.
These massive moves toward consolidating control over every aspect of communications, entertainment and news—including the Internet, social media, film, TV and radio—and fusing control of content and distribution, have come in the wake of the termination of net neutrality. That sweeping attack on democratic rights enables Internet providers such as AT&T to legally discriminate against certain communications and websites.
These gigantic monopolies are closely integrated with the government, including the military and intelligence agencies. Their increasing stranglehold on communications heralds a vast intensification of the corporate-state censoring of the Internet that is already well underway.
The AT&T-Time Warner merger is a so-called “vertical merger,” involving firms that do not directly compete against one another, as opposed to the merger of Disney and 21st Century Fox, which is called a “horizontal merger.” Comcast, like AT&T a distribution company, made its bid for 21st Century Fox the day after the AT&T-Time Warner ruling, which is seen as a green light for similar vertical mergers in the telecom/media sector as well as other sectors.
Telecom giants and traditional cable companies are scrambling to acquire content producers to ward off a growing challenge from digital companies such as Facebook, Google, Amazon and Netflix, which are increasingly producing their own programming.
The AT&T-Time Warner merger and the pending takeover of 21st Century Fox are the latest of a wave of telecom/media mergers in recent years. Comcast acquired NBC Universal in 2011. In recent months, Verizon has purchased the digital media companies AOL and Yahoo. T-Mobile and Sprint have announced a merger.
Together with a further monopolization of communications, the wave of mergers is increasing the control of the banks over the industry. In taking over Time Warner, AT&T incurred a huge debt, raising its total debt load to more than $180 billion. Last Friday, the ratings firm Moody’s announced that it would lower its rating on the merged company.
Comcast, which is widely expected to sweeten its offer for 21st Century Fox following Wednesday’s announcement, was already prepared to raise its debt burden to $170 billion to pay $65 billion in cash for the company.
This level of leveraging increases the dependence of the corporations on Wall Street and accelerates the process of financialization of the US and world economy, bringing with it a growth of parasitism and financial swindling. Wall Street banks are expected to take in $200 billion from the AT&T-Time Warner merger alone.
The entire process inevitably leads to major job cuts and intensified exploitation of the working class. Disney said Wednesday that it expected to realize “at least $2 billion in cost synergies by 2021 from operating efficiencies” resulting from the planned merger.
The wave of mergers in telecommunications and entertainment is part of a much broader process. The first quarter of this year set a quarterly record for mergers and acquisitions, and 2018 as a whole is expected to outstrip all previous years. Reuters reported Wednesday that so far this year up to and including June 15, M&A “mega deals,” those worth $5 billion or more, totaled $1.22 trillion, up 64 percent on the same period last year. They comprised a record 76 deals.
A huge vertical merger on the horizon is the takeover of insurance giant Aetna by the drug store chain CVS.
This rush of mergers is being fueled in part by the multi-trillion-dollar Trump administration tax cut for corporations and the rich passed last December. The increased profits flowing to US corporations are being used not to create good-paying jobs, raise wages or rebuild infrastructure, as promised, but rather to finance an explosion in stock buybacks, dividend increases and mergers and acquisitions. These parasitic operations increase the private wealth of the corporate-financial oligarchs at the expense of society’s productive forces and the living standards of the working class.

India-Indonesia and Sabang Port: A Game Changer?

Angshuman Choudhury


During Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s May 2018 visit to Indonesia, New Delhi and Jakarta announced that they would set up a Joint Task Force to “undertake projects for port related infrastructure in and around” the Sabang island, located off the northern tip of the Sumatran islands at the northwestern entry point to the Malacca Strait. This came two weeks after Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs, Luhut Pandjaitan, who, during his official visit to New Delhi, stated that the port is fit to dock both shipping vessels and submarines. Pandjaitan’s statement, viewed in the context of Modi's Indonesia visit, has spurred well-founded speculations that India’s ‘acquisition’ of the Sabang port is driven not just by geoeconomic motivations as New Delhi has argued in its statements, but also from geostrategic ones.

The port, owing to its inherent geo-strategic location, cargo handling infrastructure, and the regional maritime trade setup, is better poised to be a strategic port than a full-fledged commercial one. Nonetheless, while the port is a crucial addition to India’s expanding footprint in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), but it cannot be viewed as a game changer yet. 

Strategic or Economic?
According to India’s Ministry of External Affairs, collaboration vis-a-vis the Sabang port flows from the primary impetus of “enhancing tourism, addressing issues of the blue economy including fisheries sector and [...] in terms of connectivity.” These are critical sectors of cooperation that could, theoretically, facilitate India's efforts to develop durable partnerships not just in the IOR but also in the Indo-Pacific region. 

However, it would be smarter for India to use the Sabang port for strategic objectives than mere commercial ones. The port, owing to its small size and distance from the core Indonesian hinterland and ASEAN economic powerhouses, is not conducive for long-haul maritime trade. On the other hand, Sabang’s distinct location, merely 90 nautical miles below the southernmost tip of India's Andaman & Nicobar (A&N) islands, gives it a critical strategic advantage of facilitating broader maritime reconnaissance in and around the Andaman Sea during peace time; preemptive blockading of the Malacca Strait during war time; and as a proximate base for additional strategic maneuvering in the eastern IOR flank. 

New Delhi would have to invest heavily to develop the current port into a full-fledged commercial port (than into a naval base) for heavy tonnage vessels. Moreover, the costs of transporting offloaded goods to high-value markets in the Indonesian and ASEAN hinterlands would be high. Developing Sabang into a transshipment node for Indian ships too would be a redundant venture as India already transships its goods in Colombo and Singapore, both of which collectively cover this trading sector optimally. However, the island already has an operational airport, which could simply be upgraded to allow military aircraft to land and refuel, thus ensuring functional strategic linkages with the Indonesian mainland. 

A Critical Maritime Node
The Sabang port venture is a timely boost to New Delhi’s geostrategic posturing across the IOR, and can serve as a crucial node for India’s geostrategic interests both in the IOR and the wider Indo-Pacific region. The 'acquisition' coheres with the joint blueprint that New Delhi and Jakarta have proposed, based on the idea of building a rules-based maritime order of regional security and stability. It also fits with Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR)–New Delhi's initiative aimed at turning India into the prime multilateral facilitator and security guarantor in the IOR.

Needless to say, Sabang is also aimed at counterbalancing the rapidly growing Chinese influence in the IOR, at least along the eastern sectors. Beijing's acknowledgement of Sabang's strategic value was reflected in a Global Times editorial, which reiterated the significance of the Malacca Strait to China’s “economic and energy security” and warned of “disastrous consequences” if India develops Sabang into a strategic base. China's presence in the IOR has rapidly proliferated over the past five years in the form of strategic and dual-use port deals in Djibouti, Tanzania, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and the Maldives. India’s deal with Oman for military use of Duqm port does not compare with similar deals China has with other countries. However, Sabang port can particularly complement India's A&N Command's capabilities in deterring Beijing’s power projections (through potential dual-use of ports in Hambantota, Sri Lanka, and Kyauk Phyu, Myanmar) across the Bay of Bengal and Andaman sea sectors. 

A Game Changer?
At present, Sabang is not posited as an anti-China entity in the IOR and its stated purpose is restricted to connectivity and trade. In that sense, the Sabang port deal is hardly antithetical to Beijing’s own stated idea of “reciprocity and mutual benefit” in the IOR.

Nonetheless, the port's real strategic value would depend on the level of cooperation other South and Southeast Asian IOR littoral states like Thailand, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia provide to India during times of crises. In this context, New Delhi has made some headway by promoting a nascent framework of strategic convergence in the IOR through inter-force coordination, joint maritime patrols, naval exercises, and real-time intelligence sharing with littoral states. Yet, New Delhi must not presume that smaller littoral countries would unconditionally back India in an event of confrontation with Beijing in the IOR. 

Moreover, given the absence of any extraterritoriality component in the port deal, India’s wartime activities from Sabang would be contingent on Jakarta’s sovereign oversight. Indonesia has already demonstrated its cautious geopolitical balancing act between New Delhi and Beijing, evident through overtures to both sides; and in terms of political, military, and economic leverage, the balance of power is tilted against India’s favour.

Finally, Sabang does have the potential to serve as a key nodal point for strategic collaboration within the India-US-Australia-Japan ‘Quad’ grouping. However, not much can be expected from this quasi-alliance in the near future. India’s interest in the Quad seems to be waning rapidly, and differences in views between other members on how to maintain status quo in the Indo-Pacific have hampered full-spectrum collaboration. 

Overall, it is too early to flag the Sabang port deal as a game changer in the current geostrategic landscape. However, it is a good start that could pave the way for a more constructive Indian presence in the IOR and by extension, in the Indo-Pacific. 

20 Jun 2018

OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID) Internship Programme for International Students 2018

Application Deadline: 1st October 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Austria

About the Award: In-line with the particular activities of the departments/units/group within OFID, the area of the program will include developmental economy; project financing; grants; financial management (investment/treasury and accounting/control); human resource; administration and protocol; public relation and information; legal; as well as information technology.

Type: Internship

Eligibility: The program is open to all applicants, between 20 and 30 years of age, university students who are about to graduate or who have just graduated from  university (undergraduate program), with preference given to citizens of OFID’s Member Countries (Please see the full list of OFID Member Countries).

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: As the program is intended to be a learning experience, the interns will not receive any remuneration whatsoever, including reimbursement of costs of visas, travel, accommodation and living expenses, as well as any transportation costs incurred in connection with their commuting to OFID’s Headquarters during the program.

Duration of Program: 3 months.

How to Apply: The selected candidate must be able to present a valid health or medical insurance policy in Austria or a similar arrangement under or in accordance with which the candidate will be fully medically covered during the duration of the program. S/he must also be requested to supply the following documents to be sent to personnel[at]ofid.org:
  • An up-to-date curriculum vitae
  • Copy of University Degree or equivalent OR an original letter of confirmation from a university/school certifying the enrolment of the applicant as an undergraduate student at the said university/school
  • Copy of up-to-date university transcripts showing the cumulative GPA
  •  A short essay in English (about 150-250 words) outlining the applicant’s motivation for seeking internship under the Program.
For the purpose of effectiveness, OFID will only accept applications from qualified candidates who complete the official online Internship Application Form.
You may find it helpful to print out a copy of the relevant Instructions for Completing the Internship Application before proceeding.
Complete and submit the online Internship Application.
All applications must be completed in English.


Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID)

U Revolution Media Fellowships for Health Journalists 2018

Application Deadline: 15th July, 2018 (11.59pm New York time).

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Fellowships can be done from anywhere in the world.

About the Award: U Revolution Media Fellowships are meant to support up-and-coming media talent, giving them a launchpad for their future careers. Pitch your ideas for raw, authentic stories about any health condition: from cancer, HIV/AIDS, and heart disease; mental illness, addiction or eating disorders; to MS and other mobility-affecting illnesses.

Type: Fellowship (Career)

Eligibility: A total of 4 Fellowships will be offered: one in each of the following categories.

> Revolutionary Writing Fellow: Do you just have a way with words? Can you make people laugh, cry, die slowly inside, or scream when you string words together? If yes, then the Revolutionary Writing Fellowship is for you. We are looking for a budding literary artist or journalist to join our first cohort.

> Revolutionary Visual Art Fellow: You see the world in pictures, and you think an image tells the story best. Whether through photos, cartoons, illustrations, paintings or graphic design, you know how to inspire emotion in people through imagery. If that’s you, you might be our next Revolutionary Visual Art Fellow.

> Revolutionary Podcast Fellow: You were most likely labeled “chatter-box” at school. And then one day, you realized that you really have a gift for telling narratives in innovative ways. You’ve been dying to create a health podcast that’s awkward, quirky, and real. Sound like you? Welcome to the cohort as our first Revolutionary Podcast Fellow.

> Revolutionary Video Fellow: You love creating pictures that move. You probably spend hours watching movies and documentary films, and have been thinking about creating something of your own. If you’re a budding videographer, be revolutionary and apply for our Video Fellowship.

Number of Awards: 4

Value of Award: Fellows will receive a €2,000 stipend (for the full period) to develop a creative work on the theme of awkward conversations that arise from chronic illness or disability to be published on urevolution.com. Fellows are required to specify how they will use their stipend in pursuit of their stories.

Duration of Programme: Fellowships last for a total of 6 months.

How to Apply: Apply for any 4 of the categories in the Programme Webpage (see link below)

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: U Revolution

Norway: Just Withdraw From NATO

Gary Leupp

Norway has announced that it has invited the U.S. to expand the contingent of Marines it sent to the country last year to 700, and to post troops closer to the Russian border. Russia protests that this undermines trust between Oslo and Moscow. Why is this important?
In 1949 Norway joined NATO pledging to the USSR that it would not accept the stationing of foreign troops in the country unless threatened with attack. However, last year 330 U.S. troops were stationed there and there are now plans to more than double the number. Moscow wonders why. Why the relentless expansion of NATO, to include even little Montenegro last year? Why the provocative exercises in Poland? Why the enduring mutually damaging sanctions on Russia?
Norway is losing billions on lost seafood exports to Russia, and oil and gas deals in the Arctic are held up by the sanctions. Norwegians indeed don’t necessarily agree that events in Ukraine in 2014 warranted the ongoing sanctions.
So why now, does Norway—a progressive, peaceful, affluent nation of well-educated rational people—break with the long time understanding with Moscow and send such an unfriendly signal to its powerful neighbor, with which it shares a 120-mile border?
I shouldn’t feel this personally. But nevertheless. I feel embarrassed.
My mother was half-Norwegian, half-Swedish. My paternal grandmother half-Norwegian. (That makes me 3/8 Norwegian.) I know how to make lefse. I am proud of my Viking heritage, and the mainly Norwegian-led campaigns that led to the settlement of Iceland and Greenland, and the “discovery of America” by 1000; produced the Viking-ruled province of Normandy in France in the 910s; led to the Norman invasion of England in 1066 establishing the House of Normandy dynasty, and to the Norman conquest of Sicily from the 1060s. (It was those amazing dragon-headed longships that didn’t just ply the North Sea, Atlantic and Mediterranean but the rivers of Central Asia, trading peacefully with many peoples.)
I am proud of the global sweep of my ancestors, brutal that I assume they were (if I am indeed descended from Vikings, as opposed to mere thralls or full-time peasants). I am proud of the very progressive playwright Henrik Ibsen (The Doll’s House), the tenderly psychological painter Edvard Munch (The Scream, The Sick Child, Madonna), and the romantic nationalist composer Edvard Grieg (Peer Gynt, based on Ibsen’s play).
My wife and I named our son Erik, with a deliberate K since a C would be Anglo-Saxon and wimpy.
I am proud of that fact that while no coffee is grown in Norway and it was only introduced in the late seventeenth century, and was intensively opposed by the Lutheran clergy, its consumption became prevalent in the 19th century and now Norwegians drink more coffee daily than any people on earth. I remember the strong smell of perk coffee every morning at my Grandma Nelson’s apartment in Minnesota in my childhood. Park of ethnic identity, like lutefisk. All of this good and positive.
In my youth Scandinavia meant some sort of “socialism” or at least welfare state; distance from the U.S. on foreign policy, especially the Vietnam War; rational secularism in the face of a declining Lutheran establishment; and ideals of sexual liberation. The Sami liberation movement made progress, led by people like the amazing joik singer Mari Boine. The Nordic countries had a reputation for charitableness and disproportionate donations to aid organizations. They had an independent often joint foreign policy; for example, all Nordic countries including Norway recognized the DPRK in 1974 and established embassies in Pyongyang. Norway has played a role in negotiations between the DPRK and Washington. And between Israel and its backers and the Palestinians; remember the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995?
By tradition the NATO Secretary-General (as opposed to its military chief) is not a U.S. officer. Since the establishment of the position in 1952 it had been held by four Italians, three Netherlanders, three Britons, two Belgians, one German, and one Spaniard up to August 2009. Then the former Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen became the first Scandinavian to hold the post. He was followed in October 2014 by the former Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg. Meanwhile, the Norwegian/Finnish aerospace and “defense” group Nordic Ammunition Company (Nammo) has become one of the world’s top 10 weapons exporters, mostly supplying NATO.
Suddenly the Nordic peoples are embracing the beast with new fervor. The Nordic countries have grown closer to the U.S. in terms of common response to Russian behavior (which is to say, Russia’s response to NATO expansion). Rather than note that U.S. policy in the Balkans and the Middle East for the last three decades have produced horrible suffering for the world, readily apparent on the faces of the 300,000 refugees currently in Norway, they cozy up further to the source of the problem. Oslo says; send us more troops to defend us against Russia!
Uff da! as my mom and her mom would said. (This means WTF in Norwegian.)
Sweden and Finland are of course not members of NATO. But as a NATO website notes: “Sweden is one of NATO’s most active partners and a valued contributor to NATO-led Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan and the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS/Daesh – it is one of five countries that has enhanced opportunities for dialogue and cooperation with NATO.” And: “Finland is one of NATO’s most active partners and a valued contributor to NATO-led operations and missions in the Balkans and Afghanistan – it is one of five countries that has enhanced opportunities for dialogue and cooperation with NATO.”
This is not good. What has NATO ever done for Norway? Or maybe one should ask, what has Norway ever done for NATO?
In 1999, in the first-ever deployment of NATO forces in war (something that had never occurred during the Cold War), the Royal Norwegian Air Force dropped bombs on Belgrade from F-16s. Norwegian troops were the first of the NATO forces to arrive at Pristina (following the Russians). Norway has had about 500 troops in Afghanistan since 2001. Norway contributed 150 soldiers to the criminal attack on Iraq in 2003 withdrawing them three years later, but 50 Norwegian military but officers are again in Iraq, working as trainers. In March 2014 after NATO had decided to destroy Libya, the Royal Norwegian Air Force deployed six F-16AM fighters in conjunction with Danish fighters, carrying out about 10% of the bombing missions during the campaign, dropping about 600 bombs and attacking Gaddafi’s residence in Tripoli.
That is, Norway has committed war crimes for NATO. Norway has paid deference to Washington, despite the fact that its trade is overwhelmingly with the EU. It has a strong economy and reasons to strengthen ties with neighboring Russia rather than provoking Moscow with a dumb gesture.
At a certain point the Viking leader Rollo broke with his brother Ragnar Lothbrok, to free himself and assert his own identity. I am not suggesting that Norway invade France as Rollo did, or anywhere else, but that it do the opposite, and tell the U.S. that Oslo won’t bomb for you anymore. And why host U.S. troops?

USA’s “Soft” Coup In Ethiopia

Thomas C. Mountain

The USA has launched a “Soft Coup” in Ethiopia in an attempt to relieve growing revolutionary pressure from the Ethiopian people after 3 years of failed martial law rule.
These past three years had seen brutal repression with thousands killed and tens of thousands thrown into regime dungeons with no end in sight. The devil was taking his due, with a growing foreign currency shortage, unemployment and hunger and disease stalking the land, and to top it off the decades long divide and conquer ethnic warfare strategy of the regime has come home to roost.
Lead by pressure from the Oromo’s, over 40 million strong and Africa’s largest nationality, the old Abyssinian empire, Ethiopia, is coming apart at the seams. Most of the population, mainly Muslim, want independence or some sort of self rule from the Orthodox Christian “Abyssinians” of Haile Sellasie and Menelik infamy continued by today’s ethnic minority Tigrayan regime.
In this “Soft Coup” the ruling regime, former Marxist-Leninist-Hoxha-ite guerrilla fighters from the province of Tigray turned 100% democratic (they won 100% of the seats in the Parliament the last election) have seen themselves pushed into the back seat with a 42 year old Oromo, the country’s and Africa’s largest nationality at 40 million strong, now installed as Prime Minister.
To understand just how unprecedented this is you have to understand a little Ethiopian history. Ethiopia, or Abyssinia as it used to be known, is an African Empire created with Italian supplied firearms during the late 19th century. The biggest victims of the Ethiopian Empire were the Oromo peoples who until the Abbysinians of Menelek and later Haile Sellasie got their hands on Italian machine guns and artillery had used their legendary cavalry to sweep back all previous
attempts to enslave them. And enslave them the Abbysinians did, for after gunning down their warriors on the battlefield, the Amhara ethnic minority empire went on a rampage against their new subjects, enslaving, murdering and massacring across Africa’s largest nation in a wave of terror and destruction unprecedented in African history, overstanding even the African slave trade in brutality and extermination in such a short period. It has been estimated that millions of Oromo were wiped out in the decades immediately after their defeat by the Abbysinian Empire, many starving to death as their cattle and graineries were looted. The Abbysinian soldiers were not paid salaries and took their livelyhood by being freely allowed to loot and pillage after victory on the battle field, guaranteed thanks to Italian supplied firepower.
When the Abbysinian brigands were done Africa’s largest nation was reduced to beggary and bondage with their Oromo town of Finefine annexed and renamed Addis Ababa, capital of a Christian Abbysinia.
So to have a Muslim, Oromo Prime Minister is no small matter in Ethiopia marking how much and quickly the times are a changing. Of course Don Yamamoto is behind all this, he hasnt been the Ambassador to Ethiopia all these years and now Assistant Secretary of State for Africa and not learned a few things. Any one can see that the old guard regime die hards werent going to keep a lid on the Ethiopian social pressure cooker much longer and if the USA didnt act quickly it may find itself a day late and a dollar short in terms of influence.
For the USA this is a nightmare in the making for Ethiopia has been the main recipient of US military investment and the center of US intelligence gathering in Africa and a local policeman on the beat in service to Pax Americana in the Horn of Africa, through which flows the commerce of Asia and Europe, the worlds biggest trading partners.
To avoid this the USA has ordered a change in course for their regime henchmen with new faces being installed and promises of peace and prosperity in the wind, especially peace with Ethiopia’s number one nemesis and former colony, Eritrea.
To accomplish this veteran Horn of African “diplomat” Donald Yamamoto, now Assistant Secretary of State for Africa has instituted a “soft coup” approach starting last year when the decision was made that the old Tigrayan ethnic minority regimes usefulness was now a liability. Brute force and the iron fist had only made the masses of Ethiopian more resolute in their hatred of the regime and something pretty quick had to be done or the situation could begin to spiral out of control.
Hard cash from mainly the USA and the UK began to dry up, and the squeeze was on. With a $13billion trade deficit buying critical imports has become a robbing peter to pay paul strategy, and the resultant shortages and inflationary pressures have only increased the Ethiopian regimes isolation.
Under Trump the USA has seen reproachment with former arch foe North Korea (arguably Asia’s only socialist country) and it seems Eritrea, Africa’s only socialist country, is finding a much more friendly reception at the US State Department these days.
The United Arab Emirates, who have built military and naval bases in Eritrea (in open defiance of UNSecCouncil Sanctions) are said to have Trumps ear and have been pushing for lifting sanctions and the economic embargo against Eritrea, with peace with Ethiopia and an explosion of trade for the Eritrean economy being a major incentive.
Now that the new Ethiopia regime leadership has announced, though not yet implemented, adherance to the Algiers peace treaty and border demarcation agreement the Crown Prince of the UAE has arrived bearing $1billion of hard cash and $2billion in “investments”, an emergency injection of liquidity for a hard currency strapped Ethiopia regime.
As for peace with their neighbors Eritrea has stuck to our demands as detailed in the peace deal and border demarcation after the last aggression by Ethiopia and until the letter of the deal is in place Eritrea has said it has nothing to talk to Ethiopia about.
Buying time is what the USA supported by the UAE is counting on with its new “soft coup” scheme for Ethiopia and the 90 million person question is whether the Ethiopian people, lead by the Oromo’s, Africa’s largest nation, will bite the American/UAE bait or tell Pax American to go to hell and decide to break free from the Abyssinian empire and declare themselves independent.
The next few years could see a leopard change its spots, as in the old regime changing its coat. Or it could see a bust up of Africa’s only indigenous empire, todays Ethiopia.
With the disaster called South Sudan to learn from so called “independence” could be jumping from the frying pan into the fire, with small, ill organized countries easy pickings for the circling sharks lead by the United Snakes of Amerikkka, all to willing to incite “black on black, African tribal violence” rather than allow any truly independent African countries brought to birth.

End the Wars to Halt the Refugee Crisis

Ramzy Baroud

Europe is facing the most significant refugee crisis since World War II. All attempts at resolving the issue have failed, mostly because they have ignored the root causes of the problem.
On June 11, Italy’s new Interior Minister, Matteo Salvini, blocked the Aquarius rescue ship, carrying 629 refugees and economic migrants, from docking at its ports.
A statement by Doctors without Borders (MSF) stated that the boat was carrying 123 unaccompanied minors and seven pregnant women.
“From now on, Italy begins to say NO to the traffic of human beings, NO to the business of illegal immigration,” said Salvini, who also heads the far-right League Party.
The number of refugees was repeated in news broadcasts time and again, as a mere statistic. In reality, it is 629 precious lives at stake, each with a compelling reason why she/he has undertaken the deadly journey.
While the cruelty of refusing entry to a boat laden with desperate refugees is obvious, it has to be viewed within a larger narrative pertaining to the rapidly changing political landscape in Europe and the crises under way in the Middle East and North Africa.
Italy’s new government, a coalition of the anti-establishment Five-Star Movement and the far-right League party, seems intent on stopping the flow of refugees into the country, as promised on the campaign trail.
However, if politicians continue to ignore the root causes of the problem, the refugee crisis will not go away on its own.
The disturbing truth is this: Europe is accountable for much of the mayhem under way in the Middle East. Right-wing pundits may wish to omit that part of the debate altogether, but facts will not simply disappear when ignored.
European politicians should honestly confront the question: what are the reasons that lead millions of people to leave their homes? And fashion equally honest and humane solutions.
In 2017, an uprising-turned-civil-war in Syria led to the exodus of millions of Syrian refugees.
Ahmed is a 55-year old Syrian refugee, who fled the country with his wife and two children. His reason for leaving was no other than the grinding, deadly war.
He told the UN Refugees Agency: “I was born in Homs and I wanted to live there until the end, but this vicious war left us no other choice but to leave all behind. For the sake of my children’s future we had to take the risk.”
“I had to pay the smuggler eight thousand US dollars for each member of my family. I’ve never done anything illegal in my whole life, but there was no other solution.”
Saving his family meant breaking the rules; millions would do the same thing if confronted with the same grim dilemma. In fact, millions have.
African immigrants are often blamed for ‘taking advantage’ of the porous Libyan coastline to ‘sneak’ into Europe. Yet, many of those refugees had lived peacefully in Libya and were forced to flee following the NATO-led war on that country in March 2011.
“I’m originally from Nigeria and I had been living in Libya for five years when the war broke out,” wrote Hakim Bello in the Guardian.
“I had a good life: I was working as a tailor and I earned enough to send money home to loved ones. But after the fighting started, people like us – black people – became very vulnerable. If you went out for something to eat, a gang would stop you and ask if you supported them. They might be rebels, they might be government, you didn’t know.”
The security mayhem in Libya led not only to the persecution of many Libyans, but also millions of African workers, like Bello, as well. Many of those workers could neither go home nor stay in Libya. They, too, joined the dangerous mass escapes to Europe.
War-torn Afghanistan has served as the tragic model of the same story.
Ajmal Sadiqi escaped Afghanistan, which has been in a constant state of war for many years, a war that took a much deadlier turn since the US invasion in 2001.
Sadiqi told CNN that the vast majority of those who joined him on his journey from Afghanistan, through other countries to Turkey, Greece and other EU countries, died along the way. But, like many in his situation, he had few alternatives.
“Afghanistan has been at war for 50 years and things are never going to change,” he said.
“Here, I have nothing, but I feel safe. I can walk on the street without being afraid.”
Alas, that sense of safety is, perhaps, temporary. Many in Europe are refusing to examine their own responsibility in creating or feeding conflicts around the world, while perceiving the refugees as a threat.
Despite the obvious correlation between western-sustained wars and the EU’s refugee crisis, no moral awakening is yet to be realized. Worse still, France and Italy are now involved in exploiting the current warring factions in Libya for their own interests.
Syria is not an entirely different story. There, too, the EU is hardly innocent.
The Syria war has resulted in a massive influx of refugees, most of whom are hosted by neighboring Middle Eastern countries, but many have sailed the sea to seek safety in Europe.
“All of Europe has a responsibility to stop people from drowning. It’s partly due to their actions in Africa that people have had to leave their homes,” said Bello.
“Countries such as Britain, France, Belgium and Germany think they are far away and not responsible, but they all took part in colonizing Africa. NATO took part in the war in Libya. They’re all part of the problem.”
Expectedly, Italy’s Salvini and other like-minded politicians refuse to frame the crisis that way.
They use whichever discourse needed to guarantee votes, while ignoring the obvious fact that, without military interventions, economic exploitation and political meddling, a refugee crisis – at least one of this magnitude – could exist in the first place.
Until this fact is recognized by EU governments, the flow of refugees will continue, raising political tension and contributing to the tragic loss of lives of innocent people, whose only hope is merely to survive.

US becomes first nation to quit UN human rights body

Bill Van Auken

The United States Tuesday formally withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council, the first nation in the world to voluntarily quit the organization.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced the decision at the State Department late Tuesday afternoon, delivering prepared remarks and turning on their heels and leaving as the assembled press shouted out questions, including about Washington’s own egregious trampling of human rights on the US southern border.
The decision came one day after opening of the session of the council in Geneva in which its outgoing chief, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, delivered a farewell speech warning against the rise of “chauvinistic nationalism” and denouncing governments for implementing “policies intended to make themselves as inhospitable as possible by increasing the suffering of many already vulnerable people.”
He specifically issued a sharp condemnation of the Trump administration’s immigration policy and voiced concern over the US-backed war against Yemen.
“The thought that any state would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable,” he said, demanding that Washington call an immediate halt to its “zero tolerance” immigration policy and the “forcible separation of these children.” He quoted the president of the American Association of Pediatrics, who declared that locking the children up separately from their parents constituted “government-sanctioned child abuse.'”
Turning to Yemen, where the Pentagon has been providing arms, mid-air refueling for Saudi warplanes and intelligence and logistical support without which the near-genocidal war against the Yemeni people could not take place, al-Hussein stated: “I emphasize my grave worry regarding the Saudi and Emirati-led coalition's ongoing attacks in Hodeidah—which could result in enormous civilian casualties and have a disastrous impact on life-saving humanitarian aid to millions of people which comes through the port.”
Just days earlier, Washington and London had joined in killing a Swedish-proposed resolution calling for a ceasefire in Yemen and a halt to the Saudi-UAE offensive.
The developments on the US-Mexican border and the effective torture of children for the purpose of deterring refugees from coming to the US, as well as Washington’s criminal role in Yemen, expose the rank hypocrisy of Washington’s pretense of quitting the Human Rights Council out of some moral outrage over the body’s failure to pursue abusers.
It is clear, however, that the plan to quit the council had been made well in advance, announced nearly a year ago by Haley, and justified in the name of defending Israel and the failure of the body to bow to Washington’s demands that it serve as an instrument of US policy of aggression against Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba.
A year ago, Haley delivered a speech in Geneva that amounted to an ultimatum to the Human Rights Council to implement US-dictated “reforms” or face Washington’s withdrawal.
Chief among the changes demanded by Haley was the abolishing of Agenda Item 7, which makes the “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied territories” a permanent part of the UNHRC’s agenda. The Trump administration and Haley have argued that the existence of the agenda item is evidence of “anti-Israeli bias,” rather than the recognition of the unique status of the Palestinian territories, which have been under permanent occupation for over half a century, with their population denied elemental human rights.
Haley reportedly attempted to blackmail Palestinian representatives at the UN to support the repeal of the agenda item, threatening that unless they did so, Washington would not renew its funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which supports 5.9 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
Haley has been a consistent voice in defense of Israeli impunity in the oppression of the Palestinians. Earlier this month she used the US veto on the UN Security Council to kill a resolution calling upon Tel Aviv to avoid “excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force” in its repression of the “Great March of Return” demonstrations in Gaza, where 128 unarmed protesters have been killed with live ammunition, and another 14,600 injured.
In their remarks at the State Department Tuesday, both Pompeo and Haley made sanctimonious references to “God-given” human rights, that only the Trump administration, presumably, was prepared to uphold.
Pompeo indicted the Human Rights Council for “shameless hypocrisy” in that it had “some of the world’s most serious offenders sitting on the council itself.”
Haley called the council a “cesspool of political bias,” while claiming that Washington’s participation had provided “the last shred of credibility that the council has.”
In reality the biggest human rights criminal on the face of the planet is US imperialism itself, which in the last quarter century of uninterrupted aggressive wars has killed and maimed millions and decimated entire societies. The departure of the US representatives from the council is only another step in the repudiation of international law in the pursuit of an “America first” agenda that points towards new and more catastrophic wars that the UN is incapable of opposing.
The Trump administration will lose influence for the United States and the leverage to affect diplomatic outcomes if it goes ahead with its decision to leave the UN Human Rights Council, US Congressman Eliot Engel said in a statement on Tuesday.
“By withdrawing from the council, we lose our leverage and allow the council’s bad actors to follow their worst impulses unchecked, including running roughshod over Israel,” Engel, the ranking Democrat on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, said.

Assets of world’s “high net wealth” millionaires surged to $70 trillion in 2017

Barry Grey

The concentration of the planet’s wealth in the hands of a narrow financial elite is growing by leaps and bounds. A new report published Tuesday reveals that the wealth of the world’s 18.1 million “high net worth individuals”—those having investable assets of $1 million or more—shot up by 10.6 percent last year to top $70 trillion for the first time ever.
The “World Wealth Report 2018,” issued by the consulting firm Capgemini, revealed that the combined wealth of the world’s millionaires rose for the sixth consecutive year in 2017 to reach $70.2 trillion. It is on target to surpass $100 trillion by 2025.
Capgemini defines a high net wealth individual (HNWI) as someone with assets above $1 million, excluding his or her primary residence, collectibles, consumables and consumer durables. This defines a wealthy elite that owns more than $1 million in stocks, bonds, real estate or other investments.
The number of HNWIs grew almost 10 percent, or 1.6 million. The United States, Japan, Germany and China are the four largest markets for millionaires, accounting for 61 percent of the world’s HNWIs. The US tops the list with 5.3 million HNWIs, a 10 percent increase from 2016.
However, the Asia-Pacific region has most of these millionaires overall and accounted for the bulk of the increase in both the number of HNWIs (74.9 percent of the total) and the rise in their global wealth (68.8 percent). Economic inequality appears to be rising faster in this region than any other. Japan saw a 9 percent increase in HNWI millionaires, China an 11 percent rise and India a stunning 20 percent increase.
The financial oligarchy itself resides within what the report calls “ultra-high net wealth individuals,” those with $30 million or more in investable assets. They comprise only 1 percent of HNWIs, or 174,000 individuals, but they account for a vastly disproportionate share of the overall wealth of HNWI millionaires, as well as the increase in HNWI wealth. These ultra-HNWIs own some 35 percent of total NHWI wealth. In 2017, their ranks grew by 11.2 percent and their wealth by 12 percent, reaching $24.5 trillion.
The main factor driving the rapid enrichment of the financial aristocracy is the record rise in stock prices. “High net worth individuals around the world enjoyed investment returns above 20 percent for the second year in a row,” Anirban Bose, head of Capgemini’s financial services global strategic business unit, wrote in the report’s preface. The report noted that global market capitalization grew 21.8 percent in 2017.
The stock market has served as the primary mechanism for central banks and governments around the world to increase the wealth of the financial oligarchy, which dominates the world economy and all of the official institutions of society and dictates the policies of governments. For decades, the central banks, led by the US Federal Reserve, working in tandem with governments of the nominal “left” no less than the right, have deliberately engineered a vast transfer of wealth from the working class to the ruling elite by pursuing policies designed to pump up the financial markets.
These polices have been intensified since the 2008 financial crash. The Fed and the US government, first under Bush and then Obama, responded to the Wall Street meltdown by enacting measures to ensure that the oligarchs recouped all of their losses and were able to exploit the crisis to further enrich themselves. In addition to bailing out the banks and hedge funds with trillions of dollars in tax-payer money, they provided virtually free credit to Wall Street by means of near-zero interest rates and used “quantitative easing”—a euphemism for money-printing—to offload the banks’ bad loans onto the Fed’s balance sheet.
From the low-point of the post-crash recession in March 2009 to the present, US stock prices have risen four-fold, stoking a similar stock bonanza internationally.
This stock market boom and the entire process of social plunder have depended on the suppression of working class opposition and a savage attack on workers’ living standards by means of austerity and wage-cutting. The throttling of the class struggle has been contracted out to the trade unions, the industrial police agencies of the ruling class.
One of the most significant findings in the Capgemini report is that the total financial wealth of the world’s HNWIs more than doubled between 2008 and 2017, rising from $32.8 trillion to $70.2 trillion. This same period has seen, in the world inhabited by the vast majority of humans, a growth of poverty, hunger, homelessness, disease and, in the United States, a decline in life expectancy, a surge in infant and maternal mortality, and record rates of suicide and drug addiction.
This attack has continued and intensified under Trump, as well as governments in Europe, Latin America and Asia. Just last week the Federal Reserve raised interest rates and announced a tightening of monetary policy in response to the growth of workers’ strikes and protests. The oligarchy is petrified that lower unemployment and a tight labor market will encourage a militant wages movement that would undercut the entire basis of the stock market surge. It is moving to slow the economy and drive up unemployment.
To place the wealth of the world’s multi-millionaires and billionaires in perspective, the total of $24.5 trillion owned by “ultra-high net wealth individuals” is almost one-fifth of the world gross domestic product of $135 trillion.
$24.5 trillion is more than the GDP of the United States. It is more than the combined GDPs of the next three countries—China, Japan and Germany.
Just the global increase in ultra-HNWI wealth in 2017, $2.6 trillion, is larger than the GDPs of countries such as Italy, Brazil, Canada and Russia.
What could this money be used for were it not squandered to satisfy the demands of the rich and the super-rich for mansions, private jets and yachts? To give an example, the United Nations estimates it would cost $30 billion a year to eradicate world hunger. That means the money currently controlled by the world’s ultra-HNWIs could eliminate world hunger for 817 years.
The “World Wealth Report 2018” is only the latest in a wave of studies documenting the ever tightening grip of a tiny financial oligarchy and its ultra-wealthy periphery over the world’s resources. Wealth concentration on such a scale makes it impossible to seriously address a single social issue. The staggering diversion of resources into private wealth accumulation by the financial oligarchy starves society of the resources it needs to deal with the most basic problems.
The working class has no choice but to confront head-on the problem of economic inequality. The financial elite enforces its social interests through the wholesale buying of political parties and politicians, making democracy under capitalism nothing but a hollow shell. Any attempt within the framework of the profit system to carry out a modest reallocation of resources to ensure that all people had the basic rudiments of nutrition, health care and education would provoke a furious response from the oligarchy, which has at its disposal not only the courts, politicians and mass media, but, even more decisively, the police and the army.
When social reform becomes impossible, social revolution becomes inevitable. There is no avoiding the conclusion that it is necessary to expropriate the wealth of the financial oligarchs.

Battle rages for Hodeidah as Yemen faces threat of mass starvation

Bill Van Auken

A nightmare is unfolding in Yemen’s Red Sea port city of Hodeidah, with civilians attempting to flee a siege mounted by US-backed forces led by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia as bombs and shells explode around them.
The plight of the city, where the United Nations warned that 250,000 could lose their lives to the onslaught, is overshadowed by the threat posed to the entire country by the shutting down of the port, which is the lifeline for food, fuel, medicine and other vital supplies upon which at least two-thirds of the country’s population of 27 million depend.
With 8 million already on the brink of famine and 22 million dependent upon food aid, the paralysis of Hodeidah for any length of time threatens to claim millions of lives from hunger and disease.
Opening a three-week session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the head of the UN’s human rights department, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, stated on Monday: “I emphasize my grave worry regarding the Saudi and Emirati-led coalition’s ongoing attacks in Hodeidah which could result in enormous civilian casualties and have a disastrous impact on life-saving humanitarian aid to millions of people which comes through the port.”
Even before the latest siege began, the UN had warned that given the existing conditions and the stranglehold imposed by the Saudi-UAE blockade, another 10 million Yemenis could be facing famine by year’s end.
Efforts by United Nations special envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths to broker a ceasefire were scuttled Monday, after the foreign minister of the UAE, Anwar Gargash, rejected anything outside of an unconditional surrender by the Houthi rebels who hold the port and their immediate evacuation
“There can be no conditions in any offers to withdraw,” said Gargash at a press conference in Dubai. “If the rebels wanted to set conditions, they should have thought of that a year ago. … Now is not the time to negotiate.”
The UAE ultimatum follows last week’s decision by the UN Security Council, meeting in secret session, to reject a call by Sweden, a non-permanent member of the council, for the body to demand an immediate ceasefire and a halt to the Saudi-UAE offensive. The proposal was killed by the US and Britain, both permanent members of the council with veto power, and both heavily involved in arming and supporting the Saudi-led forces.
A third permanent member of the Security Council is France. The French daily Le Figaro, citing senior military sources, reported on Saturday that French special forces are deployed in Yemen along with forces from the UAE.
The United States gave the green light for the offensive on the port city, despite warnings by aid organizations and the UN that the military action could lead to the starvation of millions. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a brief statement acknowledging that Washington had assured the UAE regime that it understood its “security concerns,” while urging it to maintain the “free flow of humanitarian aid.”
This is rank hypocrisy, given that the strategic aim of seizing Hodeidah is to cut off supplies to the territory controlled by the Houthis in order to starve the population into submission.
It has since been reported that US military personnel are working together with Saudi and UAE forces to select targets in the port city, supposedly to avoid civilian casualties.
The siege has already triggered a deepening of Yemen’s humanitarian catastrophe, with the UN reporting that nearly 5,000 families have been displaced by the action, with many of them fleeing villages south of Hodeidah into the crowded port city of 600,000, which itself faces imminent bombardment and has little resources to support internal refugees.
A local aid worker told the British daily Independent Monday: “People are trying to leave with rockets and mortars over their heads. Other people are besieged in their homes. They don’t know if their family members managed to escape or who survived. It’s hot and there is no water and we are scared. Please stop what is happening.”
In the Dubai press conference, the UAE foreign minister said, “Our approach is one of gradual calibrated and methodical pressure designed for unconditional withdrawal of [the] Houthis.”
Behind these words it is apparent that the ground force besieging Hodeidah, made up of UAE troops, Sudanese forces and Yemeni mercenaries, have made little progress in their attempt to take the city.
Yemen’s Ansarullah movement, as the Houthi rebels are officially known, dismissed reports that Saudi-led forces had seized Hodeidah’s airport and said that they were in retreat. The airport itself, however, has been completely destroyed by bombardment.
“A battle of attrition awaits the Saudi alliance which it cannot withstand. The Saudi coalition will not win the battle in Hodeidah,” Ansarullah spokesman Mohammed Abdulsalam told the Lebanese-based al-Mayadeen TV.
Given the lack of progress on the ground, the Saudi-led force can be expected to place ever greater reliance on air power, raising the threat that Hodeidah will face a similar fate as Mosul and Raqqa, which were largely reduced to rubble by US bombs, missiles and shells, killing and wounding tens of thousands of civilians.
This air war against the Yemeni people would be impossible without US approval, in terms of political support, arms supplies, the mid-air refueling of Saudi and UAE warplanes and the Pentagon’s staffing of a joint command center in Riyadh that relays US intelligence for targeting airstrikes.
The Trump administration in the US and May’s government in Britain are, together with the reactionary oil monarchies that they arm and support, guilty of massive war crimes in Yemen.
For Washington, Yemen is seen as a means of countering Iranian influence in the region. US officials have claimed, without presenting any credible evidence, that the Houthis act as a proxy for Tehran and are armed and trained by Iran. In reality, both Riyadh and Washington oppose any government in Yemen that is not a servile puppet of Saudi and US interests.
To press its campaign against Iran and for US hegemony in the region, US imperialism is willing to sacrifice the lives of millions.