World markets brace for impact of Turkish lira crisis

Nick Beams

The key question in major financial markets when they open for trading today will be the impact of the ongoing Turkish financial and currency crisis amid warnings that it could have far-reaching global implications.

The New York Times economics columnist Paul Krugman, in a piece published over the weekend, said that the Turkish lira plunge was a re-enactment of the Asian financial crisis of 20 years ago.

One of the world’s largest bond trading companies, Pimco, has warned that the Turkish crisis is the outcome of a shift in the global financial environment resulting from the increase in US interest rates by the Federal Reserve and the winding down of its holdings of financial assets.

The increase in interest rates heavily impacts on countries, like Turkey, that took out dollar-denominated loans when they were low. As US interest rates and the dollar start to rise, the cost of servicing those loans increases, raising the prospect of bankruptcy for borrowers.

Turkey has been a major borrower on international markets with a total foreign debt of $467 billion.

In a note issued on Sunday, Joachim Fels, global economic adviser at Pimco, wrote: “This looks like another example of how a combination of bad domestic economic policies turning worse and deteriorating global liquidity that makes bloated dollar-funded balance sheets vulnerable can produce high volatility and contagion.

“Who said shrinking the Fed’s balance sheet and raising the funds rate in a gradual fashion wouldn’t have global implications?”

The European Central Bank has put on watch major European banks that are heavily exposed to Turkish debt. They include Spain’s BBVA, which has lent Turkey $83.3 billion, Italy’s Unii Credit, $38.4 billion, and France’s BNP Paribas, $17 billion.

With the inflation rate running at more than 16 percent, international financial markets are demanding that the central bank lift interest rates to bring about financial stability and step up attacks on the working class. But this demand has so far been refused by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In a series of speeches over the weekend, Erdogan continued with his populist rhetoric, declaring that there was an “operation” by other countries to bring down the Turkish economy.

Speaking to rally of members of his ruling Justice and Development Party in the city of Rize, Erdogan said an increase in the interest rate was a “vehicle of exploitation that will make the rich richer and the poor poorer.”

The Turkish lira plunged by as much as 18 percent in trading on Friday, its sharpest fall since a financial crisis in 2001, and is set to fall even further when markets open. It dropped by another 12 percent in initial early morning trading in Asia, down to the 7 lira per dollar mark, with predictions that it could quickly go to 10.

In an interview with the Hurriyet newspaper published online on Sunday, Turkey’s Finance and Treasury Minister Berat Albayrak, the president’s son-in-law, said he had a new action plan to stabilise the economy, describing the plunge in the value of the lira as an “attack.”

“From Monday morning onwards our institutions will take the necessary steps and will share the announcements with the market,” he said, without providing any details of what the measures could involve. A plan had been prepared for the banks and the economy at large and the government would take “the necessary steps with our banks and banking watchdog in a speedy manner.”

Erdogan has dismissed suggestions that Turkey was in a financial crisis like that which took place in Asia in 1997–98, sparked by a fall in the Thai baht, which ripped through the region with an economic impact equivalent to the effects of the Great Depression of the 1930s.

He said the fall in the lira did not reflect the fundamentals of the Turkish economy. “What is the reason for all this storm in a tea cup? There is no economic reason for this. … This is called carrying out an operation against Turkey.”

The lira plunge is being exacerbated by the drive by the Trump administration to utilise the financial crisis to force Turkey into line with its foreign policy objectives in the Middle East.

Last week it doubled the tariffs imposed on Turkish steel exports in response to the lira plunge and the Turkish government’s refusal to release evangelical pastor Andrew Brunson, who was arrested on espionage and terrorism charges in connection with the attempted coup against Erdogan in July 2016.

The conflict over Brunson is only the latest in a series of conflicts between Turkey and the United States. Turkey is opposed to the backing provided by the US to Kurdish militia groups in Syria, which it denounces as terrorist organisations. Turkey has also come into conflict with the US and other NATO allies over its turn to seek closer relations with Russia and China.

These issues were set out in an opinion piece authored by Erdogan and published in the New York Times on Friday, along with criticism of the US position in the attempted coup. Erdogan said two key aides had been killed by death squads and he would have suffered the same fate had the coup been successful.

But instead of denouncing the coup in the name of “democracy” the US had only called for “stability and peace and continuity within Turkey.” Erdogan did not mention it in his comment piece, but it has been reported that he only escaped death because he was tipped off by Russian intelligence sources.

The opinion piece pointed to the long strategic alliance between Turkey and the US, warning that continued unilateral action could only “serve to underline America’s interests and security” and “failure to reverse this trend of unilateralism and disrespect will require us to start looking for new friends and allies.”

Whatever the immediate course of events, the Turkish crisis and the warnings of its far-reaching implications, not only for so-called emerging markets but also for major international banks, have underscored the fact that the measures enacted by the US Federal Reserve and other major central banks did not resolve the contradictions of the global capitalist economy which erupted in the global meltdown of 2008.

The lowering of interest rates to record lows combined with the pumping of trillions of dollars into the financial system produced a bonanza for the global corporate and financial oligarchy in the form of rising financial assets and stock prices. The US stock market has risen four-fold since its low point of March 2009.

But this has only created the conditions for the eruption of another global crash even more devastating than that of a decade ago—a crisis which, as the experience of the past 10 years has shown, will lead to an immediate stepped- up assault on the international working class.

Challenges to Securing India's Borders

Tim Walpot 


The pace of border security projects in India has accelerated over the past two years. A prime example of this has been the implementation of a Comprehensive Integrated Border Management System (CIBMS) pilot project along two 5.5 km and 5.3 km stretches of the International Boundary (IB) in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). Theoretically, CIBMS a robust system that works by integrating human resources, weapons, and high-tech surveillance equipment. This commentary summarises India’s border threats and shortfalls in the current border system that could have resulted in the decision to implement CIBMS. 

Securing and managing its 15,106 km long land border and 7,516 km long coastal boundary is one of India’s national priorities yet remains a major challenge for the country. The Department of Border Management, managed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), is tasked with securing most of India’s borders, with some of their key objectives being to prevent infiltrations and drug smuggling as well as as facilitating trade and the safe movement of people. 

The border security scenario in India is marked by many threats, with different sectors of the border posing different challenges and complexities. The threats to India are arguably increasing, with principal threats coming from Pakistan, Bangladesh and China, and noteworthy threats from Myanmar, Nepal and Bhutan. The Pakistan border sees cross-border terrorism and movement of armed militants and smuggling of goods and narcotics, while along the Bangladesh border, illegal immigration and smuggling have been the main concern. The China border sees fairly regular armed intrusions, and has recently been in the news due to the Doklam crisis that raised suspicions that China may have some concealed their goals in the border region.

In the 1980s, the Border Security Forces (BSF) obtained hi-tech systems such as Hand Held Thermal Imagery (HHTI) systems, Long Range Reconnaissance Observation Systems (LORROS), and Battle Field Surveillance Radars (BFSR) that greatly enhanced the detection ability of BSF personnel. Despite this modernisation process, however, there are still problems in the current system. Some shortcomings include significant gaps in the system at rivers, high-tech equipment not providing all-round security, and border systems not always working in unfavourable climatic conditions. Largely, the current system is not integrated and communication between different paramilitary forces is reportedly scarce, consequently failing to provide a common operating picture at all levels.For example, the Assam Rifles who are guarding the Myanmar border under the management of the Ministry of Defence seldom coordinate with other border paramilitary forces. The recent decision by the army (which polices the Myanmar border) to abolish the Battlefield Management System (BMS) aimed at transforming the military by significantly improving coordination between services and reduce response time has brought about considerable criticism. This decision may also impact BSF as the basic integration framework would have extended across all services. 

In the last couple of years there have been several significant militant attacks which have once again exposed the vulnerability of India’s borders. Prominent among these was the Pathankot attack in 2016 where militants were able to successfully infiltrate the India-Pakistan border and assault the Pathankot Air Force station killing seven Indian soldiers and injuring another 22. Such incidents raise concerns about India’s intelligence-security ecosystem, and have made the government re-evaluate existing border security focusing on new and robust technologies for the job. 

In 2012, the MHA released an expression of interest (Eol) in CIBMS as a potential high-tech solution for border security. Nevertheless, it was only in January 2016 when the decision was made to implement the system. Arguably, the Pathankot attack was the straw that broke the camel’s back and prompted the MHA to come to the conclusion to implement CIBMS. According to DG BSF KK Sharma, the plan is to implement the system within the next three-five years. He said that CIBMS would be able to address the problems with the present system of border security and ease India’s security concerns. However, this assessment could be seen as optimistic. There are a number of potential issues which could hinder the effectiveness of the system. Prominent among these is the fact that at present there is an absence of technical capability among BSF personnel and to operate CIBMS effectively, and optimally, these systems require a higher level of training. 

To achieve stable and secure borders in India, robust technologies for border control and surveillance are required in order to combat real and alleged dangers to the country. CIBMS may be a solution that could augur well for India’s internal security, principally in its fight against infiltrations and drug smuggling. However, issues still remain on whether it can truly enhance and solve India’s border security problems.

Giants: The Global Power Elite

Peter Phillips

My new book, Giants: The Global Power Elite, follows in the tradition of C. Wright Mills’ work the Power Elite, which was published in 1956.  Like Mills, I am seeking to bring a consciousness of power networks affecting our lives and the state of society to the broader public. Mills described how the power elite were those “who decide whatever is decided” of major consequence. Sixty-two years later, power elites have globalized and built institutions for preserving and protecting capital investments everywhere in the world.

Central to the idea of a globalized power elite is the concept of a transnational capitalist class theorized in academic literature for some 20 years. Giants reviews the transition from nation state power elites, as described by Mills, to a transnational power elite centralized on the control of global capital around the world. The global power elite function as a non-governmental network of similarly educated, wealthy people with common interests of managing, and protecting concentrated global wealth and insuring its continued growth. Global power elites influence and use international institutions controlled by governmental authorities like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), World Trade Association (WTO), G-7, G-20, and others. These world governmental institutions receive instructions, and recommendations for policy actions from networks of non-governmental global power elite organizations and associations.

The global 1% comprise over 36 million millionaires, and 2,400 billionaires who employ their excess capital with investment management firms like BlackRock and J.P Morgan Chase. The top 17 of these trillion-dollar investment management firms—which I call the Giants— controlled $41.1 trillion dollars in 2017. These firms are all directly invested in each other and managed by only 199 people who are the decision makers on how and where global capital will be invested. Their biggest problem is they have more capital than there are safe investment opportunities, which leads to risky speculative investments, increased war spending, and the privatization of the public commons.

My research effort was to identify the most important networks of the global power elite and the individuals therein. I name and provide biographies for over 300 people, who are the core members of power networks that manage, facilitate, and protect global capital. The global power elites are the activist core of the transnational capitalist class—1% of the world’s wealthy people. They serve the uniting function of providing ideological justifications for their shared interests through the corporate media and they establish the parameters of needed actions for implementation by transnational governmental organizations and capitalist nation-states.

The global power elites, who direct the world’s corporate giants, overlap with the leadership of organizations such as the Council of Thirty, the Trilateral Commission, and the Atlantic Council. These privately-funded non-governmental organizations provide direct instruction and policy recommendation to governments, international institutions, the G-7 and their intelligence agencies, and other top capitalist countries. The US/NATO military empire operates in nearly every country of the world to protect global capital and the wealthy 1%.

The global power elite are self-aware of their existence as a numerical minority in the vast sea of impoverished humanity. Roughly 80% of the world’s population lives on less than ten dollars a day and half live on less than three dollars a day.

This concentration of protected wealth leads to a crisis of humanity, whereby poverty, war, starvation, mass alienation, media propaganda, and environmental devastation are reaching levels that threaten our species’ future. Organizing resistance and challenging the global power elite should be foremost on the agendas of democracy movements everywhere, now and in the near future. Addressing top-down economic controls, monopolistic power, and the specifics of the global power elites’ activities will require challenging mobilizations and social movements worldwide.

The act of identifying the global power elite by name may persuade some of them to recognize their own humanity and take corrective action to save the world. Global power elites are probably the only ones capable of correcting this crisis without major civil unrest, war, and chaos. Giants is an effort to bring a consciousness of the importance of systemic change and redistribution of wealth to the 99%, and to global power elites themselves, in the hope that we all can collectively begin the process of saving humanity. In that effort, I highly recommend using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a moral base to offer a united thread of consciousness for all seeking human betterment. Humankind deserves nothing less.

Canada and Saudis in raucous diplomatic spat over Ottawa’s posturing over human rights

Roger Jordan

The diplomatic standoff between Canada and Saudi Arabia that was triggered by a Twitter post late last week by Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland shows no sign of abating. 

Riyadh has announced sweeping measures to punish Ottawa for Freeland’s hypocritical criticisms of the absolutist regime’s human rights abuses. The vehemence of the Saudi reaction has stunned Canada’s Justin Trudeau-led Liberal government and elite. But what has most perturbed, even roiled, Ottawa is Washington’s refusal to take any steps to rein in its Saudi ally.

The row erupted when Freeland tweeted her alarm at the news that Saudi security forces had arrested women’s rights activists, including Samar Badawi, the sister of jailed blogger Ralph Badawi, whose wife is a Canadian citizen. 

Freeland’s post was a continuation of the Liberal government’s efforts to conceal Canada’s substantial economic ties with, and political support, for the Saudi dictatorship—including a massive $15 billion arms deal—behind vacuous human rights propaganda.

But to Ottawa’s shock and dismay, the Saudi regime chose to take great umbrage at Freeland’s post. Denouncing the Trudeau government for interfering in its “internal affairs,” Riyadh has kicked Canada’s ambassador out of the country, ordered 7,000 Saudi foreign students to leave Canada, suspended flights to the country of the Saudi national airline, vowed to prevent future commercial deals with Canadian companies, and ordered a fire-sale of Saudi-owned Canadian assets.

For several days it was unclear whether the 75,000 barrels of oil that Saudi Arabia exports to Canada daily would be affected. But on Thursday, Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said Riyadh has a “firm and longstanding policy” that political disputes should not impact on its oil sales.

A close ally of US imperialism in its predatory wars across the Middle East and preparations for war with Iran, Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s most vicious and repressive dictatorships. It regularly beheads prisoners and arrests dissidents at home, while waging a near genocidal war in neighbouring Yemen that has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of civilians and displaced millions. 

Riyadh’s aggressive response to Canada’s diplomatic slap-on-the-wrist reflects the growing power of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Through militarism and the promotion of a virulent Saudi nationalism, bin Salman is seeking to strengthen Riyadh’s role as a regional hegemon allied with Washington.

That being said, Ottawa’s attempt to pose as a defender of human rights reeks of hypocrisy and cynicism. The reality is that the Trudeau government, like its Liberal and Conservative predecessors, has invoked “human rights” to justify a series of violent Canadian imperialist military interventions around the globe. These began with Canada’s participation in the NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999 and continue to this day with Canada’s involvement in the US-led war in Syria and Iraq and its leading role in NATO’s drive to threaten and strategically encircle Russia.

In 2011, a Canadian general led the NATO “regime change” war in Libya that toppled the Gaddafi regime—a war justified in the name of protecting the civilian population, but in which NATO used al-Qaeda aligned Islamists as its shock troops and which has left the oil-rich North African country in ruins. Canadian troops deployed to Libya described themselves, according to the Ottawa Citizen, as “al-Qaeda’s air force.” Canada has similarly collaborated with far-right forces in US-orchestrated regime-change operations in Haiti in 2004 and Ukraine in 2014.

While Trudeau today grandstands in the face of the Saudi reprisals, saying Ottawa will never apologize for advocating for human rights, the reality is Canada and his government have hitherto been staunch allies of the Saudi regime, including in its invasion of Yemen.   

Canada’s $15 billion deal to sell Canadian-made armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia only took effect because the Trudeau government approved it and Canadian officials have continue to defend it, including again this week, as commensurate with Canada’s defence of “human rights.” This has involved Ottawa willfully ignoring evidence that the vehicles have been used to violently repress the Shia minority in eastern Saudi Arabia and in the illegal Yemen war.

Although publicly Canada’s government is making a show of defiance, it is anxious to mend ties with Riyadh so as to ensure Canadian big business interests are not harmed. Behind the scenes, Freeland is reportedly in contact with her Saudi counterpart. She is also said to have approached several European countries, including Sweden and Germany, in the hopes they might mediate an end to the dispute.

However, the Canadian elite’s biggest concern over the developments of the past week is that they have provided yet further proof that Washington is intent on redefining its relationship with Ottawa.

When asked to comment on the Canada-Saudi dispute, the US State Department, in a carefully-worded statement, described both Canada and Saudi Arabia as important partners, and pointedly refused to either criticize Riyadh for the jailing of the women’s rights activists or urge it to withdraw any of its retaliatory measures. This has been interpreted in the Canadian media as a slap in the face for Canada given Ottawa’s decades-long strategic partnership with US imperialism, including in the NATO alliance and through NORAD, and its prominent role in the current American military-strategic offensives in the Middle East and against Russia and China. The Globe and Mail, Canada’s purported “newspaper of record,” led its Wednesday edition with the front page headline, “US refuses to back Canada in Saudi Arabia dispute.”

Washington’s refusal to sign on to Freeland’s hypocritical criticism of the Saudis’ human rights record reflects the fact that under Trump, US imperialism has all but dispensed with any attempt to conceal its global predatory ambitions behind a cloak of “humanitarian” propaganda. More fundamentally, Washington clearly does not see it to be in its interests to ruffle feathers in Riyadh. Not when it is expecting Saudi Arabia to play a vital role in its war drive against Iran, both by ramping up oil production to compensate for the unilateral US embargo on Iranian oil exports and to spearhead a military coalition of Arab Sunni states against Tehran.

By striking a pose of neutrality in the Canada-Saudi dispute, the Trump administration has reiterated the message it has already spelt out in the NAFTA “renegotiation” and through its demand Ottawa increase military spending far above the Liberals’ planned 70 percent hike by 2026: if the Canadian bourgeoisie wants to continue to enjoy a privileged partnership with Washington it will have to be still more accommodating to US interests.    

The growing rift between Canada and the US is part of a much broader unravelling of the post-Second World War, American-led capitalist world order.

Under conditions of deepening economic crisis, all of the imperialist powers, Canada included, are seeking to aggressively assert their interests, through intrigue, diplomatic power-plays, protectionist measures, rearmament and war, in a struggle for markets and profits that is being waged increasingly openly as each against all.

Significantly, none of Canada’s ostensible European allies has come to its support in the dispute with the Saudi absolutist regime.

The diplomatic spat with Riyadh has also brought divisions in Canadian ruling circles to the fore. Leading Conservative Party figures, emboldened by corporate Canada’s growing criticism of the Trudeau government, have denounced Freeland and Trudeau for allowing human rights concerns to get in the way of “national security” considerations.

The Unifor trade union has also expressed concern, lest the dispute impact its involvement in the $15 billion arms deal with Riyadh. Unifor is the bargaining agent for workers at the General Dynamics’ plant in London, Ontario, where the armoured vehicles are built. In 2015, after then NDP leader Thomas Mulcair criticized the Saudi arms deal in the hopes it would boost the party’s flagging election campaign, Unifor officials prevailed on the social democrats to drop the issue like a lead balloon.

“There is an absolute clear and present risk to jobs,” declared Unifor Local 27 President Jim Reid this week following Riyadh’s threat to cut commercial ties with Canada.

Far from being concerned about the fate of the General Dynamics’ workers, Unifor, which has spent the past three decades imposing vicious concessions and job cuts on workers in auto and other sectors, fears the impact the unraveling of the Saudi arms deal would have on its dues income.

On the other hand, the Trudeau government has won plaudits from the NDP for its posturing as a defender of “human rights.” Issuing not a word of criticism over the bogus character of the Trudeau government’s humanitarian credentials, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh told CBC, “There are other nations we can look at in terms of access to oil. I think we should look at that as an alternative to dealing with a nation that has a serious track record of human rights violations …”

Singh’s suggestion that Canadian imperialism can be a protagonist for human rights on the world stage is both absurd and deeply reactionary. It comes from the leader of a party that has endorsed every Canadian imperialist military intervention over the past two decades. Singh’s remarks underscore how the NDP serves as a key prop of Canadian imperialist foreign policy and of the interests of an important section of the ruling elite which views human rights propaganda as a useful means to advance its economic and geo-strategic interests in the Middle East and around the world.

South Korean government begins phony reform of military intelligence agency

Ben McGrath

South Korea announced recently that it would reorganize its military intelligence body, the Defense Security Command (DSC), after it was revealed in early July to have plotted imposing martial law during mass protests last year against former President Park Geun-hye.

Last Monday, the Defense Ministry following President Moon Jae-in’s orders launched a new preparatory committee for a body to replace the DSC. The previous Friday Moon announced the replacement of the agency’s chief, Lieutenant General Lee Seok-gu, with the supposedly “reform-minded” Lieutenant General Nam Yeong-sin.

Moon “disbanded” the DSC, with the government later saying that all current DSC personnel would be sent back to their units in the army, navy, air force, and marine corps, though some will return to their positions following the “reforms.”

However, the fundamentally anti-democratic character of the DSC will not be addressed. Instead, the government is painting the situation as one that can be rectified by the removal of rogue officers or through shuffling staff and positions while leaving the DSC’s basic functions untouched.

“We will expeditiously carry out the creation work to ensure that we can complete the DSC reform as soon as possible through re-establishing its mission, function and organizational composition and through personnel reform,” the Defense Ministry claimed on Monday.

Other changes being discussed include slashing the number of positions in the agency by approximately 30 percent from the current total of 4,200 and renaming the DSC for the moment as the “military security support command.”

The Defense Ministry is also looking to provide a fig leaf of civilian oversight, claiming that the new agency could be kept in check by assigning a high-level bureaucrat to serve as the head of an audit office. A 70 percent cap will also be placed on the number of military officers occupying top roles, with the remainder going to civilians. The new commander and chief of staff, however, will still be generals.

The new 21-person committee in charge of carrying out these changes is also comprised entirely of military officials, a further indication that the military’s functions in the new agency will not change. A civilian lawyer, Choe Gang-uk, will serve as an advisor to this task force, but he was previously a military lawyer.

None of the roles that reportedly will be assigned to the new unit—internal security, counterintelligence, and collecting and processing military information—are at all are different from the previous roles under the DSC.

Furthermore, given the power of the DSC, reforming or disbanding the agency is impossible under the capitalist system. “The Defense Security Command has long been considered the most powerful military organization for decades… I don’t think it would be easy for the DSC to accept the new reality,” an anonymous military official told the South Korean media.

Public anger towards the DSC, the military, and the government broke out in early July when a ruling Democratic Party of Korea member Rhee Cheol-hee made the martial law documents public. The DSC intended to seize power to put down demonstrations and mass protests against then President Park, had they not subsided when she was removed from office, impeached and arrested in March 2017.

These plans included occupying key parts of the capital, Seoul, arresting then-opposition lawmakers in the Democratic Party, censoring the media to prevent the public from learning what was taking place, and petitioning foreign diplomats to recognize the legitimacy of the coup d’état.

In addition, the DSC has also been accused of spying on civilians, namely the families of victims who were killed when the Sewol ferry sank in April 2014. The issue continues to remain politically sensitive, a symbol for many of government incompetence, corruption, and disregard for public welfare as well as an anti-government rallying point.

All of this is par for the course when it comes to the DSC. It has gone by a number of names and re-brandings, tracing its origins back to 1950 during the Korean War when it was a special operations unit under the army, known as the Army Counterintelligence Corps. It was used to preserve loyalty to the regime of Syngman Rhee, who trampled on democratic rights and murdered political opponents.

In 1977, the army unit and its counterparts in the navy and air force were reorganized into a single unit and renamed the Defense Security Command under Park Chung-hee. Future dictator Chun Doo-hwan became head of the DSC shortly before Park’s assassination in 1979. He used his position to seize power after Park’s death.

In 1990, a whistleblower at the DSC named Private Yun Seok-yang exposed the agency’s spying on 1,300 civilians, including students, professors, and politicians. It also included plans for their arrest in the event that martial law was declared. The DSC underwent a name change in Korean (though its English name remained the same), a common tactic the South Korean ruling class uses to cover up its crimes while pretending to enact reforms.

The DSC continued to spy on civilians, according to a civic group that was involved in publicizing the martial law documents in July. The intelligence agency reportedly tapped phone calls between President Noh Moo-hyun when he was in office and his defense minister. The civic group also accused the DSC of collecting information on and surveilling millions of civilians.

Ultimately, regardless of whatever measures Moon’s government carries out, he will not touch the framework of the police state that continues to exist in South Korea. His administration, no less than the conservatives whose legacies he claimed he would sweep away, defends the capitalist system and will preserve the repressive state apparatus needed to maintain it.

US-North Korean nuclear deal stalls amid growing recriminations

Peter Symonds 

The US and North Korea this week traded accusations in a further indication that the nuclear deal struck between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in June is stalling.

In a brief joint statement, the two leaders had publicly committed to the complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. But the gulf between the two sides has become increasingly apparent over the past two months.

Washington has interpreted the agreement as North Korea dismantling its nuclear and missile programs, giving up its nuclear arsenal and allowing intrusive inspections. Pyongyang has insisted that the US make step-by-step concessions, including easing sanctions and taking steps toward a formal peace treaty.

The tensions were evident last month when US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo travelled to Pyongyang for negotiations. Following his departure, the North Korean foreign ministry issued a blunt statement denouncing Washington’s “unilateral and gangster-like demand for denuclearisation” and warning that trust between the two sides was now at a “dangerous” stage.

The Vox website this week revealed that the Trump administration has demanded that Pyongyang hand over 60 to 70 percent of its nuclear warheads within six to eight months, either to the US or a third country. It is not known whether the US has offered anything in exchange. The website reported that North Korean negotiators had rejected the proposal multiple times over the past two months.

Pompeo and his North Korean counterpart Ri Yong Ho shook hands during a brief encounter last weekend at a regional security forum in Singapore. However, Pompeo then suggested that North Korea’s continued work on nuclear programs was inconsistent with its pledge to denuclearise.

Ri responded by declaring that North Korea had already made goodwill gestures, including a moratorium on nuclear and missile testing, and the dismantling of a testing site. Instead of responding in kind, he said, the US “is raising its voice louder for maintaining the sanctions” and is retreating “even from declaring the end of the war, a very basic and primary step for providing peace on the Korean peninsula.”

Rather pointedly, Ri flew to Iran this week where he met with President Hassan Rouhani, who told him that the performance of the US administration “has led the country to be considered untrustworthy and unreliable around the world.” The Trump administration has unilaterally abrogated the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and reimposed sanctions, despite Tehran abiding by its terms.

Formally the US and North Korea are still at war, as a peace treaty was never signed to end the devastating 1950–53 Korean War. Washington has maintained a de facto diplomatic and economic blockade of North Korea for decades, which has been ramped up under the Obama and Trump administrations, with harsh economic sanctions designed to provoke a severe crisis in Pyongyang.

In comments on Fox News on Tuesday, Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton escalated the war of words. He accused North Korea of failing to live up to the agreement reached in Singapore in June. “What we need is performance from North Korea on denuclearisation,” he said. “North Korea has not taken the steps we feel are necessary to denuclearise.”

Bolton flatly rejected North Korea’s call for a step-by-step easing of sanctions, saying they would not be lifted until North Korea abandoned its nuclear programs. “The idea that we’re going to relax the sanctions just on North Korea’s say-so is something that isn’t under consideration. We’re going to continue to apply maximum pressure to North Korea until they denuclearise,” he declared.

Prior to being appointed as national security adviser, Bolton, who is notorious for his militarist views, publicly opposed talks with North Korea and urged military attacks on the small, impoverished country. Trump, who last year threatened to “completely destroy” North Korea, has not publicly disavowed repeated statements that “all options are on the table”—including war on the Pyongyang regime.

Bolton even sounded a sour note on the North Korean handover last month of the remains of US soldiers killed in the Korean War—a step for which Trump thanked North Korea. Bolton declared that North Korea was not serious about improving relations with the West, as it had not handed over the remains of soldiers of other combatant countries, such as South Korea and Australia.

Responding on Thursday, Pyongyang reiterated its demand for the US to agree to declare a formal end to the 1950–53 war, as the first part of the US providing a security guarantee to North Korea. The North Korean foreign ministry said “some high-level officials within the US administration are making baseless allegations against us and making desperate attempts at intensifying the international sanctions and pressure.”

Far from even a token easing of sanctions, the US has taken steps to tighten them.

On August 3, the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on a Russian bank that the US claims was still doing business with North Korea, in supposed violation of existing measures.

Last weekend, Pompeo also suggested that Russia was breaching UN sanctions by issuing work visas to North Korean workers. “I want to remind every nation that has supported these resolutions that this is a serious issue and something that we will discuss with Moscow,” he said. Russia denied a Wall Street Journal story that it was allowing thousands of new North Korean labourers into the country.

While accusing North Korea of not living up to agreements, the US has no intention of making any concessions without a complete capitulation by Pyongyang to its demands. The US is not just seeking the destruction of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and programs, but is pushing for Pyongyang to align itself more closely with Washington in foreign policy. A deal with North Korea is part of a far broader US strategy aimed at encircling China and preparing for war.

For the time being, Trump has halted his inflammatory and provocative threats against North Korea. But that could rapidly change if North Korea fails to bow to US demands.

Turkish lira plunges as US trade war measures strangle Turkish economy

Alex Lantier & Halil Celik

Turkey’s currency fell 16.2 percent yesterday against the US dollar, as US President Trump threatened to strangle its economy by blocking its exports to the United States with high tariffs.

On Twitter, Trump wrote: “I have just authorized a doubling of Tariffs on Steel and Aluminium with respect to Turkey as their currency, the Turkish Lira, slides rapidly downward against our very strong Dollar! Aluminum will be 20 percent and Steel 50 percent. Our relations with Turkey are not good at this time!”

The fall of the lira and the closing of US markets to Turkey’s metal exports threaten to slash Turkish jobs and devastate its economy. In 2017, Turkey sold 1.5 million tons of steel to the United States, its largest steel export market. Much of Turkey’s foreign debt was reduced in value when the lira traded at less than two to the US dollar. Since it now trades at 6.62 lira to the dollar, the cost in lira of buying imports and of servicing Turkey’s roughly US$453 billion in outstanding foreign debt has exploded.

The euro and major stock markets fell amid concern of a new financial crash possibly starting in Turkey. The European Central Bank is monitoring several major European banks they say are heavily exposed to Turkish debt, including Spain’s BBVA, Italy’s UniCredit and France’s BNP Paribas. Spanish, French and Italian banks have loaned Turkey $83.3 billion, $38.4 billion and $17 billion, respectively.

As the lira’s collapse accelerated in recent days, becoming the world’s worst-performing currency, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan turned to Russia and China for aid. On Wednesday, he announced that Turkey will issue so-called “panda bonds,” that is, borrow Chinese yuan instead of US dollars, “to diversify its sources of financing.”

Yesterday, he called Russian President Vladimir Putin for talks. According to a Kremlin statement, “A telephone conversation took place between Vladimir Putin and the President of the Turkish Republic Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The state and prospects of further development of mutually beneficial trade and economic cooperation between the two countries were discussed.” The two presidents made a “positive assessment,” the Kremlin said, including on possible “joint strategic projects, primarily in the energy sector.”

As US-Turkish relations collapse, Trump is using trade war measures to try to compel Ankara to step up attacks on the working class and totally subordinate its foreign policy to the demands of US imperialism. His Tweet made clear that his tariff threats are economic retaliation for the many explosive US-Turkish disputes that are erupting, particularly over foreign policy.

Erdogan, for his part, denounced the measures as “economic war against Turkey” and said Turks “who have dollars or gold under their pillows should exchange gold and hard currency into lira.” He pledged to wage a “national battle” against the lira’s fall, adding: “Don’t forget, if they have their dollars, we have our people, our God.”

Behind Erdogan’s posturing as an anti-imperialist, he is desperately trying to cut a deal with Washington. Turkey’s Trade Minister Ruhsar Pelcan said he would “implore President Trump to return to the negotiating table” and stop “the drift between the NATO allies … through dialogue.”

The Erdogan regime is also trying to placate the major European and US banks at the workers’ expense. Yesterday, Turkish Finance Minister Berat Albayrak gave a policy speech promising to cut state budgets, increase interest rates, impose “structural reforms” and enact other austerity measures to stabilize Turkish finances and free up money to pay foreign investors.

Financial commentators internationally dismissed Albayrak’s presentation, however, and demanded that the Erdogan regime go further in imposing austerity.

Bulent Gultekin, a former governor of Turkey’s central bank who now teaches finance at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Financial Times that banks still need more assurances, as it is unclear “how economic policy is being planned or carried out, and who is responsible for what.” He called for more austerity in Turkey, which he said “needs an adjustment program to give confidence that they are aware of the problems and are trying to do something about them. Markets are nervous because they haven’t gotten these signals yet.”

Win Thin, a strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman & Company, said: “This is not going to end well. The way things are going, markets need to be prepared for a hard landing in the economy, corporate defaults on foreign currency debt, and possible bank failures.”

Above all, Trump is trying to whip the Turkish regime into line with US foreign policy as he wages war in Syria, cancels the Iranian nuclear treaty and prepares for war with Iran, as part of a broader plan to assert US geostrategic hegemony in Eurasia. The US drive to sanction Iran and its targeting of Russia and China have brought Washington into open conflict with Ankara.

In recent days, Washington has imposed sanctions not only on Iran but also on Russia, which both intervened to oppose the US proxy war for regime change in Syria and prop up President Bashar al-Assad. As it imposes tariffs on Iran’s western neighbor, Turkey, it is also threatening to veto IMF loans to Iran’s eastern neighbor, Pakistan, which plays a central role in China’s One Belt-One Road Eurasian infrastructure plans. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said there was “no rationale for IMF tax dollars … to go to bail out Chinese bondholders or China itself.”

A bitter row has erupted between Ankara and Washington over Turkey’s detention of US pastor Andrew Brunson, whom Ankara accuses of involvement in the failed military coup launched against Erdogan with US and German backing in 2016. Brunson now faces 35 years in prison. On Wednesday, US-Turkish talks on his case reportedly broke down, and US Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan bluntly ordered Ankara to release Brunson in a week.

Turkish lawyers from the Association for Social Justice and Aid have also filed a petition that NATO’s Incirlik air base be temporarily shut down, and for the prosecution of seven US officers at Incirlik that they allege were involved in the coup.

In the meantime, it is ever clearer what broader geostrategic calculations led Washington and Berlin to back the 2016 coup attempt against Erdogan. Turkey’s turn towards closer relations with Russia and China, amid growing conflicts with its NATO allies over a range of issues including their backing of Kurdish militias in Syria, is fundamentally unacceptable to the NATO powers, and particularly to Washington.

In an August 8 column, the Financial Times bemoaned the fact that “Turkey is heading back to Eurasia, and Russia and China will be the beneficiaries at the expense of America and Europe.”

It added, “Turkey, NATO ally or not … is already the third leg of a new power tripod in the Middle East, with Russia and Iran. Only with a green light from Russia, whose air force turned the tide in Syria’s civil war, could the Turks stop the US-backed Syrian Kurdish forces from uniting their territories into a self-governing entity, linked to the rekindled Kurdish insurgency inside Turkey.” It also warned that “it is not hard to see the Chinese government trying to fasten Ankara into its Belt and Road initiative, alongside, for example, Pakistan and Iran.”

Trump is making clear on the question of Iranian sanctions that Washington will tolerate no deviation by Turkey from US war policy in the Middle East. Indeed, by targeting Ankara, Trump appears now to be acting on his threat against trade partners of Iran on Twitter: “Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States.”

Ankara has refused to re-impose economic sanctions on Iran, however. “Time and again we have made it clear that we will not implement US sanctions against Iran,” declared Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu last week.

For now, Ankara is still set this year to buy its contracted 9.5 billion cubic meters of Iranian natural gas, on which much of Turkey’s electicity generation depends. Energy Minister Fatih Donmez said, “We will be continuing this trade, as we can’t possibly leave our citizens in the dark.”

Ryanair pilots stage European-wide strike

Marianne Arens & Robert Stevens

Pilots at the Dublin, Ireland-based low-cost airline Ryanair went on strike Friday in Ireland, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany to demand improvements in working conditions, forcing the company to scrap 400 of its scheduled 2,400 European flights.

The company, whose business model revolves around paying the lowest wages and offering the most exploitative working conditions in the European airline industry, has for years set the benchmark for slashing wages and benefits throughout the entire airline industry.

Ryanair pilots in Frankfurt

Some 250 flights in and out of Germany were cancelled, with pilots at nine of 10 airports where Ryanair operates involved. 104 flights to and from Belgium were cancelled along with another 42 in Sweden and the airline’s home base, Ireland.

The strike met with wide support among airline workers. At Germany’s Frankfurt Airport, where supporters of the World Socialist Web Site distributed the statement “The Ryanair strike and the resurgence of international class struggle,” many airport workers expressed their solidarity with the strike.

“Of course I support this strike,” said Jutta, who works for a supplier company at Fraport AG at the Rhein-Main airport. “It’s been long overdue! The staff should be treated humanely,” she said. “It can’t always be just about profits. Who thinks about the people behind it all and who do all the work? The bosses just want to keep making more money, but that’s at the expense of the pilots, the stewardesses and all the personnel.”

Jutta said the pressure on the airline workforce is increasing and added, “It’s not just Ryanair. They are pushing the standards down for everyone, you can see that. The ‘greed is good’ mentality can be seen everywhere.”

Mustafa, a cargo handler at the airport, said he had “great sympathy for this strike.” It was “a clear sign that they won’t just accept everything. It can’t go on like this forever.” He said that at Frankfurt Airport, “more and more work must be done by fewer and fewer people.” Mustafa concluded that “the right to strike is there so that people who do all the work can also push for their demands.”

In contrast to widespread support for their action among workers, the trade unions did everything to sabotage the strike and prevent it having any serious effect on the company. Ryanair reports that despite the industrial action, 85 percent of flights ran as scheduled.

Ryanair claimed that no flights were cancelled to and from the Netherlands, even though pilots were striking there. In the three countries where Ryanair employs the most pilots—the UK (880), Italy (829) and Spain (859)—the trade unions called no action in support of their striking co-workers. Likewise, unions representing Ryanair cabin crew did not lift a finger in solidarity with the pilots.

In the UK and Italy, Ryanair has concluded union recognition deals with the British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA) and ANPAC, the Italian pilots’ union, respectively in the last eight months.

Last December, Ryanair agreed to recognise unions, as it outlined plans to expand its operations and increase profitability, with the company stating that it did not expect union agreements to add costs to its operations. Eddie Wilson, Ryanair’s “chief people officer” said that Ryanair would continue its exploitative labour practices in “partnership” with the unions, insisting, “It’s not the end of the model. The model here will stay the same.”

Upon signing the first Ryanair deal in January, BALPA general secretary Brian Strutton said the union looked forward to a cosy relationship with a company. “Given Ryanair’s previous hostility towards unions, today’s agreement is historic. While we were initially sceptical about Ryanair’s sincerity in offering recognition to us and other unions, our conversations and meetings with them have shown that they are genuine in wanting a constructive trade union relationship,” he said.

In the countries where strikes took place, the pilot unions sought up to the last moment to get strikes off the agenda.

On Thursday, the Association of Dutch Pilots (VNV), representing 50 Ryanair pilots, announced it would join Friday’s strike after failing to reach an agreement with the airline. Ryanair attempted to prevent any strikes by taking last-minute legal action. The VNV said it was surprised by Ryanair’s move because by that stage it had not actually called a strike.

In Germany, the greatest fear of the trade union leaders is that the strike will escalate out of their control and become a pole of attraction for Ryanair flight attendants and ground crew, as well as throughout the whole flight industry.

The Vereinigung Cockpit (VC) union refused to mount any pickets or to organise protests at any of Ryanair’s 10 bases of operation in Germany. Instead, the union called on its members to attend a “meeting” in the basement of its Frankfurt headquarters, miles away from the airport and from the colleagues of the Ryanair pilots at other airlines.

The underground meeting was nothing more than a staged photo opportunity, where the union functionaries did their best to keep their own membership in check. Representatives from the World Socialist Web Site were forbidden from distributing leaflets to the union members present. The union representatives repeatedly told the workers they should not talk to the press under any circumstances. Only the union’s press spokesman could do this, they said.

The “meeting” in the basement at Cockpit Headquarters in Frankfurt

For the union, the meeting merely served as a means to reemphasize its “partnership” with Ryanair. Martin Locher, the president of the Vereinigung Cockpit union, quoted Ryanair marketing chief Kenny Jacobs, who has talked about “this unnecessary strike,” and said he agreed “one hundred percent with this.” It would “have made much more sense,” Locher said, “to sit down and have constructive negotiations.”

The efforts of the trade unions to prevent the development of a European-wide strike could also be seen in Ireland, where Ryanair has its home base.

Forsa, representing some of Ryanair’s Ireland-based pilots, said it was Ryanair’s “lack of experience” in industrial relations, i.e., that it did not yet sufficiently trust the union bureaucracy to police the workforce, that had led to its members’ fifth one-day strike. The Irish Air Line Pilots' Association (IALPA) ,which is part of FORSA, only represents around a quarter of Ryanair’s Irish-based pilots—with the company able to run the majority of its operations in Ireland by utilising pilots employed via third-party agencies.

Next week, IALPA is scheduled to meet with Ryanair under the auspices of mediator Kieran Mulvey. Ahead of the talks, IALPA announced it had no plans for further strikes.

Workers at Ryanair must not allow the trade unions to sabotage their struggle. They must form independent workplace committees that will continue to expand the strike. They must reach out to workers at all other locations and airlines to fight for the international unity of the working class against the nationalist parochialism of the trade unions.

UN-Habitat Scroll of Honour Award for Environmental Enthusiasts Worldwide 2018

Application Deadline: 28th August 2018

Eligible Countries: International

About the Award: The UN-Habitat Scroll of Honour award was launched in 1989 and is one of the most prestigious human settlements award in the world. It aims to acknowledge initiatives which have made outstanding contributions in the field of human settlements, provision of housing, highlighting the plight of people living in poverty or who have been displaced, developing and improving human settlements and the quality of urban life to leave no one behind echoing the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 with emphasis on Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities.

Field of Award: In selecting the winners for the award, the jury will look out for best practices initiatives and achievements related to SDG 11, which consists of 10 targets and 15 related indicators (see table  1: Targets and Current Indicators). Initiatives and achievements related to any of the targets/indicators are welcome.
This year, the jury will give particular attention to achievements related to this year’s World Habitat Day theme Municipal Solid Waste Management.

Type: Award

Eligibility: Individuals, organizations, projects and any Habitat Agenda partner can be nominated for the UN-Habitat Scroll of Honour.
These include:

• Government and inter-governmental organizations or agencies, including bilateral aid agencies
• Cities, local authorities or their associations
• Civil society organizations
• The private sector
• National Habitat Committees or focal points
• Research and academic institutions
• Public or private foundations
• Multilateral agencies (United Nations Agencies, World Bank, etc.)
• The media
• Individuals

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The award, a plaque engraved with the name of the winner, will be presented during the Global Observance of World Habitat Day on 1 October 2018.

How to Apply: To nominate an organization, individual or project for this year’s award:

• Submit the duly filled online nomination form in English
• Download the form, fill it in and email it to: unhabitat-whd@un.org

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: UN-Habitat

ICFJ Covering Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health Programme for Young International Journalists (Funded to New Delhi, India) 2018

Application Deadline: 21st August 2018 11:59pm.

Eligible Countries: International (Journalists from Afghanistan, Cambodia, Chile, Germany, Guatemala, Malawi, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Sierra Leone, South Africa and the United States are especially encouraged to apply).

To Be Taken At (Country): New Delhi, India.

About the Award: Journalists will travel to New Delhi in December to attend the 2018 Partners’ Forum, hosted by the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (PMNCH) and the Government of India. Journalists will have the opportunity to cover the Forum and exchange knowledge with stakeholders in the fields of women’s and children’s issues. ICFJ will hold an orientation to prepare the journalists to cover the conference and help develop their story ideas.
The Forum will be conducted in English, Spanish and French.

Type: Training

Eligibility: 

• The ideal candidate is a professional journalist under 30 years old with experience covering health issues and an interest in women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health. Journalists over 30 are still eligible to apply.
• Broadcast journalists and those with public speaking experience are particularly encouraged to apply.

Number of Awards: 25 to 30

Value of Award: Airfare, lodging and meals during the program will be covered by the organizers.

Duration of Programme: Dec 11-14 2018

How to Apply: To apply, please submit an application, complete with a short video of no more than 15 to 30 seconds explaining why you would be a great participant in this program. Your video submission should be simple; just take out your phone, put it in selfie mode and make your case. Videos longer than 30 seconds will not be considered.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: ICFJ

Important Notes: Please note that all application questions must be completed in English; however, you may submit story links published in your native language. Incomplete applications will not be considered.

Amelia Earhart Fellowship for Women in Aerospace/Mechanical Engineering 2019

Application deadline: 15th November 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Women from Any Country

To be taken at (country): Any University or College offering Accredited Degrees in any country.

Subject Areas: PhD/Doctoral degrees in Aerospace-related Sciences and Aerospace-related Engineering

About the Award: Zonta International established the Amelia Earhart Fellowship in 1938 in honor of legendary pilot and Zontian, Amelia Earhart. Today, the Fellowship of US$10,000 is awarded annually to 35 talented women, pursuing Ph.D./doctoral degrees in aerospace-related sciences or aerospace-related engineering around the globe.

Offered Since: 1938

Type: PhD/Doctoral

Eligibility:

• Women of any nationality pursuing a Ph.D./doctoral degree who demonstrate a superior academic record in the field of aerospace-applied sciences or aerospace-applied engineering are eligible.
• Students must be registered in a full-time Ph.D./doctoral program and completed at least one year of that program or have received a master’s degree in an aerospace-applied field at the time the application is submitted.
• Applicants must not graduate from their Ph.D. or doctoral program before April 2020.
• Please note that post-doctoral research programs are not eligible for the Fellowship.
• Members and employees of Zonta International or the Zonta International Foundation are also not eligible to apply for the Fellowship.
• Note that previous Amelia Earhart Fellows are not eligible to apply to renew the Fellowship for a second year.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Benefits of Fellowship:

• Fellowship of US$10,000 is awarded annually
  
• The Fellowship enables these women to invest in state-of-the-art computers to conduct their research, purchase expensive books and resource materials, and participate in specialized studies around the globe.
• Amelia Earhart Fellows have gone on to become astronauts, aerospace engineers, astronomers, professors, geologists, business owners, heads of companies, even Secretary of the US Air Force.

Duration of Fellowship: One year (current fellows can reapply to renew the fellowship each year)

How to Apply: The Zonta International Amelia Earhart Fellowship Committee reviews the applications and recommends recipients to the Zonta International Board of Directors. All applicants will be notified of their status by the end of April.

Apply Now

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Sponsors: Amelia Earhart Fellowships are made possible by generous contributions to the Zonta International Foundation Amelia Earhart Fellowship Fund.

Important Note: Please note that post-doctoral research programs are not eligible for the Fellowship. Members and employees of Zonta International or the Zonta International Foundation are also not eligible to apply for the Fellowship.