Erasmus+ Masters in Digital Communication Leadership (DCLead) Scholarship Programme 2019/2020 for International Students

Application Deadline: 30th November 2018 at 13:00 CET

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries:  

• Programme Countries are member states of the European Union (EU): Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the following Non-EU programme countries: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Turkey.
• Partner countries are all the other countries that are not Programme Countries.

To Be Taken At (Country): The “DCLead: Digital Communication Leadership” is carried out as a EMJMD Programme coordinated by the Paris-Lodron-Universität Salzburg, Department of Communication Studies together with the Aalborg University (AAU), Denmark and the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Belgium.

About the Award: The Erasmus+ programme of the European Union has granted over 40 scholarships to the Consortium. About 12 to 15 scholarships will be available every year, for three years, starting from the academic year 2016-2017. Only applicants who will submit all required documents will be eligible for consideration. The final decision lies with the Agency of Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) of the European Union based on the evaluation provided by a selection committee of the DCLead consortium.
The Master in Digital Communication Leadership (DCLead) approaches the vast and recent field of digital communication from an interdisciplinary and international point of view bringing together advanced academic discussion with practical knowledge and skills. The programme promotes a non-techno-deterministic, social and ethical reflection on digital communication for future leaders of the field.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: 

• Candidates of all nationalities are eligible for Erasmus + Scholarship, although 75% of these scholarship are Partner Countries scholarships.
• Candidates are not allowed to apply for scholarship for more than 3 Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree Programmes for the same academic year.
• Candidates should note the existence of a 12-months rule: any candidate from a partner country, who has lived for more than 12 months in a programme country within the five years’ period prior to submission deadline, can only apply for programme country scholarship.

Selection Criteria: 

• very good/outstanding study results (= academic excellence) in the relevant study areas
• academic potential
• level of language skills
• motivation
• recommendations
• work experience and professional qualifications (if applicable)
• results of interviews (if applicable)

Number of Awards: 12-15

Value of Award: Partner Countries E+ Scholarship grantees receive a stipend of 1.000 EUR per month for the maximum duration of the 24 month, 1.000 or 3.000 EUR for travel costs depending on the distance of the home country to the coordinating university (University of Salzburg), and 1.000 EUR for installation costs. The grant also covers the participation costs.

How to Apply:  It is important to go through the Admission requirements and procedures on the Program Webpage (See Link below) before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: European Commission

Heinrich Boll Foundation Scholarships for International Students in Germany – Undergraduate, Masters & PhD – 2018/2019

Application Deadlines: 1st March 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Universities, Universities of Applied Sciences, or Universities of the Arts in Germany

Accepted Subject Areas: Any subject area is applicable

About Scholarship: The Heinrich Böll Foundation grants scholarships to approximately 1,000 undergraduates, graduates, and doctoral students of all subjects and nationalities per year, who are pursuing their degree at universities, universities of applied sciences (‘Fachhochschulen’), or universities of the arts (‘Kunsthochschulen’) in Germany.

The special focus regions for international students are Central and Eastern Europe; EU neighborhood countries and the CIS; the Middle East and North Africa; transition and newly industrialized countries; and conflict regions worldwide.

Selection Criteria: Scholarship recipients are expected to have excellent academic records, to be socially and politically engaged, and to have an active interest in the basic values of the foundation: ecology and sustainability, democracy and human rights, self determination and justice.

Eligibility: The following general requirements apply to international student applicants (except EU citizens) who wish to study in Germany:

• You must be enrolled at a state-recognized university or college (e.g. Fachhochschule) in Germany at the time the scholarship payments begin.
• You should provide proof that you have already graduated with an initial professional qualification. This programme mainly supports students aiming for a Masters degree.
• You need a good knowledge of German, and require you provide proof of your proficiency. Please note that the selection workshop (interviews, group discussions) will normally be in German. Exceptions (interview in English) are, however, possible.
• Unfortunately, the current guidelines specify that the foundation cannot support foreign scholarship holders for stays abroad in third countries for more than four weeks.
• You should definitely apply for a scholarship before the start of your studies, in order to ensure long-term support and cooperation.
• The Heinrich Böll Foundation cannot award you a scholarship, if you are studying for a one-year Masters degree and were not previously supported by the foundation.
• Applications are possible before you begin your study programme or within the first three semesters.
• Applicants must provide proof that they have been accepted as a doctoral student by an institution of higher education in Germany or an EU country (for doctoral scholarship).

Number of Scholarships: Approximately 1000

Duration of Scholarship: Scholarship will be offered for the duration of the undergraduate, Masters or Doctoral programme

How to Apply: The application form will be completed online; additional application documents will be submitted as PDF.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details 

Washington’s Latest Cold War Maneuver: Pulling Out of the INF

Melvin A. Goodman

The Trump administration has decided to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), the most comprehensive disarmament treaty ever negotiated between Washington and Moscow.  National Security Adviser John Bolton, a long-time opponent of arms control, reportedly will inform Russian President Vladimir Putin this week that the United States will do so. The Trump administration will also be briefing our key European allies on the decision, which will complicate relations with Germany and France who favor maintaining the treaty.  This is the latest in a series of U.S. steps over the past 20 years that have put the Russians on the defensive, and led Russian President Vladimir Putin to be more assertive in protecting Moscow’s interests in East Europe.

The INF treaty actually eliminated an entire class of intermediate-range missiles from the U.S. and Soviet arsenals in 1987.  The Pentagon opposed the treaty, and Secretary of Defense Weinberger and his deputy for arms control and disarmament, Richard Perle, resigned in protest over President Ronald Reagan’s decision to go forward.  The Pentagon has opposed all presidential decisions to pursue disarmament, although—in the case of INF—the Soviets destroyed more than twice as many missiles as the United States, and the European theatre became safer for U.S. forces stationed there.  The treaty and the improved bilateral relations actually led to a slowdown in military spending in both the United States and Russia.

In 2002, President George W. Bush created the worst of all possible strategic worlds when he abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), the cornerstone of strategic deterrence and one of the pearls of Soviet-American arms control policy.  Bush inflicted the diplomatic wound of abrogating a treaty without cause in order to incur the expense of moving into the world of National Missile Defense (NMD) without any guarantee that even rogue missiles could be stopped.  There is no better example of the creation of national insecurity than the Bush administration’s foolish belief that we could create an impenetrable nuclear umbrella.

President Bill Clinton bears heavy responsibility for the initial worsening of the Russian-American relationship because of his expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a betrayal of Washington’s commitment to never “leap frog” over East Germany to seek new members in East Europe if the Soviets were to withdraw their 380,00 troops from the region.  Clinton invited former members of the Warsaw Pact into NATO.  President Bush worsened the situation by inviting former Soviet republics into NATO. Bush even toyed with the idea of inviting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, but German Chancellor Angela Merkel convinced him of the heavy risk of such a decision. The conventional wisdom is that Putin is responsible for the worsening of relations with the West because of the Russian-Georgian war in the summer of 2008 and the seizure of the Crimea in 2014, but U.S. machinations in both Tbilisi and Kiev had much to do with Russian actions.

The New York Times, for example, in its discussion of the U.S. decision to withdraw from the INF treaty simple echoes Washington’s arguments that Putin’s actions in East Europe are entirely to blame.  While it is true that Moscow’s development of a land-based cruise missile, the SSC-8, presumably violates the treaty, the actions of recent American administrations are primarily responsible for the worsening of relations between the United States and Russia.  The efforts of Bush and President Barack Obama to deploy a regional missile defense in East Europe, which was opposed by our NATO European allies, antagonized Russia, and explains the increase in Russian troop exercises on its borders with former Soviet republics.  Clinton’s dissolution of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency worsened the domestic problem of negotiating any disarmament agreement within our own national security bureaucracy without strong disarmament specialists to stand up to the opposition of the Pentagon.

Without the limitations of the INF treaty, the United States is expected to pursue a new version of the Tomahawk cruise missile to be launched from land as well as from ships and submarines.  Future versions of the Tomahawk cruise missile, moreover, could be fitted with nuclear warheads, which would worsen the problem of verification.  Any future deployment of nuclear weapons on ships, which was stopped by President George H.W. Bush, would encourage Russia and China to do the same, and thus compromise a clear U.S. advantage in sea power.

The withdrawal from INF marks a major victory for Donald Trump’s relatively new “war cabinet” and particularly for National Security Adviser Bolton.  Trump continues to pay lip service to the idea of improving Russian-American relations, but there is no indication that any member of his national security team shares such an objective.

A gruesome murder bares world powers’ flawed policies

James M. Dorsey

Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s gruesome murder raises fundamental questions that go far beyond Middle Eastern geopolitics.

They go to the risks of support for autocratic regimes by democratic and authoritarian world powers, the rise of illiberal democracy in the West, increasing authoritarianism in Russia, and absolute power in China in which checks and balances are weakened or non-existent.

Mr. Khashoggi’s killing is but the latest incident of hubris that stems from the abandonment of notions of civility, tolerance and plurality; and the ability of leaders to get away with murder, literally and figuratively. It also is the product of political systems with no provisions to ensure that the power of men like Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman is restrained and checked.

Mr. Khashoggi was an advocate of the necessary checks and balances.

In his last column published in The Washington Post posthumously, Mr. Khashoggi argued that “the Arab world needs a modern version of the old transnational media so citizens can be informed about global events. More important, we need to provide a platform for Arab voices. We suffer from poverty, mismanagement and poor education. Through the creation of an independent international forum, isolated from the influence of nationalist governments spreading hate through propaganda, ordinary people in the Arab world would be able to address the structural problems their societies face.”

Mr. Khashoggi’s words were echoed by prominent journalist and political analyst Rami Khouri. “We are heading to the law of the jungle if big power and Mideast state autocracy is not held accountable,” Mr. Khouri said.

In a similar vein, a survey by the Arab Barometer survey concluded that public institutions in the Arab world, including the judiciary enjoyed little, if any, public trust.

“Part of the lack of trust comes from the disenfranchisement felt by many, especially youth and women… The lack of alternative political forces is adding to the fatigue and lack of trust in institutions. Citizens in the region struggle to find an alternative to the ruling elite that might help address the issues of ineffective governance and corruption,” said a report by the Carnegie for Endowment of Peace.

“Citizens are increasingly turning toward informal mechanisms such as protests and boycotts, and focusing more on specific issues of governance, such as service provision, particularly at the local level. Furthermore, with democracy under threat across the globe, calls for broad democratic reform have been replaced by more basic demands,” the report went on to say.

What puts the price Mr. Khashoggi paid for advocating controls of absolute power in a class of its own, is the brutality of his killing, the fact that he was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul rather than, for example, by an unknown killer on a motorbike; and the increasingly difficult effort to resolve politically the crisis his death sparked.

Beyond the support by world powers of often brutal autocrats facilitated by a lack of checks and balances that in the past three decades has destroyed countries and costs the lives of millions, Mr. Khashoggi’s murder is also the product of the failure of Western leaders to seriously address the breakdown in confidence in leadership and political systems at home and abroad.

The breakdown peaked with the 2011 popular Arab revolts; simultaneous widespread protests in Latin America, the United States and Europe; and the increased popularity of anti-system, nationalist and populist politicians on both the right and the left.

Mr. Khashoggi joins the victims of extrajudicial poisoning in Britain by Russian operatives of people who like him may have been a thorn in the side of their leaders but did not pose an existential threat – not that that would justify murder or attempted murder.

He also joins the millions of casualties of failed policy and hubris caused by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s gassing of Kurds in the 1980s and reckless 1990 invasion of Kuwait, support for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s determination to cling to power irrespective of the human cost, the Saudi-UAE-led war in Yemen that has produced the worst humanitarian crisis since World War Two, and China’s attempt to brainwash and socially engineer what the country’s leaders see as the model Chinese citizen.

And those are just some of the most egregious instances.

No better are the multiple ways in which autocratic leaders try to ensure conformity not only through repression and suppression of a free press but also, for example, by deciding who deserves citizenship based upon whether they like their political, economic or social views rather than on birth right.

Take Bahrain whose minority Sunni Muslim regime has stripped hundreds of its nationals of their citizenship simply because it did not like their views or Turkey with its mass arrests of anyone critical of the government.

The irony is that if elections in democracies are producing illiberal leaders like US President Donald J. Trump, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Hungary’s Victor Orban, in Asia and Africa they are bring forth governments mandated to reverse Belt and Road-related, Chinese funding of projects that primarily benefit China rather than the recipient economically and pave the way for greater Chinese influencing of domestic politics as well as the export of systems that enhance unchecked state power.

In some cases, like Malaysia, they produce leaders willing to take on China’s creation of a 21stcentury Orwellian surveillance state in its north-western province of Xinjiang.

It matters little what label world powers put on their support for autocrats and illiberals. The United States has long justified its policy with the need for regional stability in the greater Middle East. Russia calls it international legality while China packages is it as non-interference in the domestic affairs of others.

Said Middle East expert and former US official Charles Kestenbaum building on Mr. Khashoggi’s words: “If they (Middle Eastern states) want to compete with the globe in IT (information technology) and tech more broadly, they must encourage risk, innovation and freedom to fail. Such social and political freedom does not exist adequately in the region. The opposite in fact, authoritarian regimes repress such initiative and openness. So what do they have to compete and globally engage in the 2020’s? Nothing.”

Are people really hungry?

Sheshu Babu

Poverty and hunger are common features of India. The Global Hunger Index has further exposed this truth in a report prepared by International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) . The report said, ‘ India is ranked 100th out of 119 countries, and has the third- highest score in all of Asia – only Afghanistan and Pakistan are ranked worse’. The report further said that at 31.4, India’s GHI (Global Hunger Index) of 2017 is at the high end of ‘ serious ‘ category and is one of the main factors pushing South Asia to the category of worst performing region on GHI followed closely by Africa south of Sahara. In an article analysing India’s low performances in most development indexes, Mohan Guruswamy ( How Hungry is India and Why? 20 October 2018, thecitizen.in) says, ‘ Hunger in India is not a consequence of not producing enough food. It is a consequence of very many people not having enough money to spend on food, sometimes even for bare sustenance’.

Poverty amidst plenty

While there were over 190.7 million people who were undernourished in 2014, the number has increased since then. According to FAO estimates in ‘ The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018’ report, 195.9 million people are undernourished in India. ( Hunger in India, www.indiafoodbanking.org) . That is ,14.8% of people are undernourished. India has the largest undernourished population and yet, total foodgrains produced reached an all time high of 251.12 Million tonnes (MT) in FY15. Total Rice and Wheat production stood at 102.54 MT and 90.78 MT respectively. Thus, distribution of food is a primary cause of starvation and deaths.

Some factors

Most important factor for hunger is that food remains inaccessible to most poor people. Much food is wasted which may feed thousands of people. Indians waste as much food as the whole of United Kingdom consumes. According to United Nations Development Programme, upto 40% of food produced in India is wasted. (Food Wastage in India: A Serious Concern, September 10, 2015, thecsrjournal.in). According to agriculture ministry, about Rs. 50,000 crore worth of food is wasted every year.

Another factor relates to the small size of land holdings. There are about 58% of rural households depend on agriculture for their livelihood. According to 2011 census, there are about 118. 9 million cultivators across the country in addition to 144 million landless labourers . Both together constitute about 22% of the population. About 65 per cent of farmland consists of marginal and small farms less than one hectare in size. The average holding size has halved since 1970 to 1.05 ha. As per 2001 census, about 490 million people depend on small farms. This reflects the spread of poverty.

Also, poverty and hunger is more in lower castes because of low and pathetic wage levels. They are well below the level of minimum wage prescribed by government in construction, marginal labor, agriculture labor, unorganized labour, etc.

Another cause of hunger is high rate of unemployment specially among lower castes and sections of society. They go without food for days due to unavailability of enough money.

Adding to misery, the present system of identification has contributed to starvation deaths. PDS , which assisted many poor to get ration in time, became inaccessible due to technical glitches for identification. Many women and children died of hunger due to unavailability of monthly ration in states like Odisha and Jharkhand.

Poor healthcare system also led to deaths of rural poor who could not afford medication to get treated for malnutrition. The starved people in tribal areas were not provided with adequate medicines for improving health and alleviating from hunger.

Apathy

Thus, hunger and starvation is mostly not due to unavailability of food but apathy of the rulers . Unequal distribution of wealth and resources widened gap between rich and poor. While rich had many amenities, the poor did not have minimum money for subsistence. The gap is increasing. Hunger and starvation is rising though there are plenty of resources that can be distributed. Food production is rising but deaths due to starvation continue unabated. India is truly, a rich country with poor people. The system has created more hungry people because of the hegemony of elites controlling wealth of the country. According to a Johannesburg – based company,New World Wealth,India is the second most unequal country globally with millionaires controlling 54% of its wealth. (Inequality in India: what is the real story?, 4 Oct 2016, weforum.org). The richest 1% own 53% of wealth according to latest data by Credit Suisse. Richest 5% own 68.6% and top 10% own 76.3% . The poorer half has only 4.1% of national wealth. Thus, there is a long way to go to reduce income gap and consequently hunger and starvation deaths of poor.

China, A New Imperial Power?

Chandra Muzaffar

Is China a new imperial power threatening some of the developing economies in Asia and Africa? This is a perception that is being promoted through the media by certain China watchers in universities and think-tanks mainly in the West, various politicians and by a segment of the global NGO community.

The peddlers of this perception argue that by giving out loans for development to poor countries China is snaring them in a debt trap. It is a trap that ensures that they are perpetually under China’s control. Is there such a debt trap? To find out, we shall look at three Asian countries before we turn to Africa.

Pakistan has taken loans from China for projects under the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The US 50 billion CPEC is a network of infrastructure projects that are currently under construction throughout Pakistan that will connect China’s Xinjiang province with Gwadar port in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. A number of these projects will strengthen Pakistan’s energy sector which is vital for its economic growth. They will help to reduce its severe trade deficit. Debt servicing of CPEC loans which will only start this year amounts to less than 80 million.

Pakistan’s largest creditors are not China but Western countries and multilateral lenders led by the IMF and international commercial banks. Its foreign debt “is expected to surpass 95 billion this year and debt servicing is projected to reach 31 billion by 2022-2023.” There is evidence to show that its creditors “have been actively meddling in Pakistan’s fiscal policies and its sovereignty through debt rescheduling programs and the conditionalities attached to IMF loans.”

The media does not highlight this which is in fact Pakistan’s real debt trap. Neither does it inform the public that CPEC loans are for projects that are of immense and direct value to the Pakistani people. Their value will be further enhanced when the new Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan visits China on 3rdNovember and broadens the CPEC to emphasisecooperation in agriculture and social sector development.

Distortions and half-truths have also coloured media accounts of China’s relationship to the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota. The construction of the port was a Sri Lankan idea, not a Chinese initiative.  The Sri Lankan government reached out to the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and Japan among others to finance its construction. For different reasons, its request was turned down. It was only then that the government approached China which agreed to help.

As Hussein Askary and Jason Ross point out in an EIR study of 30th August 2018, contrary to media reports, Hambantota on the southern coast of Sri Lanka has tremendous potential. It is “located just 6-9 nautical miles from one of the busiest and most important commercial shipping lines on the planet.”  The Chinese built port was opened for commercial use in 2010. Unfortunately, usage was below par. Because of poor revenue, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority was forced to sign an agreement whereby a Chinese state-run enterprise “took a 99 year lease of 70% of the port and 85% ownership of the port and industrial area with the obligation to continue investing in upgrading the facilities there —- The purpose of this deal was to relieve Sri Lanka off the burden of this debt.”

In the case of our third example, Malaysia, which witnessed a change of government in May 2018, major infrastructure projects funded by Chinese state companies could not be implemented because the nation is in a financial crunch. Besides, the projects were obviously lopsided favouring the Chinese companies more than their Malaysian partners. In announcing his decision, Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, made it very clear that the lop-sidedness was due more to the previous Malaysian government than its Chinese counterpart.

From the three cases in Asia, it would be patently wrong to label China a new imperial power. A quick look at Africa will reinforce this view. The “majority of African debt is notheld by China but by Western countries and such Western-backed institutions as the IMF and World Bank.”

Nonetheless, many African states have Chinese debt. This in itself is not a problem — provided loans are utilised for the public good. In this regard, infrastructure financing under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) — building ports, railways and fibre-optic cables — appears to be a major component of China’s involvement in Africa. The four billion dollar Addis-Ababa-Djibouti Railway which began commercial operations earlier this year would be one such example. The 3.2 billion Madaraka Express railway between Nairobi and Mombasa in Kenya would be another case in point.

The exception in Africa is perhaps the tiny East African state of Djibouti.  In the last two years, it has borrowed 1.4 billion from China. This is more than three-quarters of Djibouti’s GDP. It is alleged that China has leveraged upon this to open its first overseas military installation in Djibouti.  It should be noted at the same time that Djibouti also hosts the largest US military base in Africa.

Djibouti aside, Chinese ventures in Africa have been almost totally economic. The quid pro quo for the Chinese it is true has been access to the continent’s rich natural resources. But it is always access, never control. Control over the natural resources of the nations they colonised was the driving force behind 19th century Western colonialism. Control through pliant governments and, in extreme cases, via regime change continues to be a key factor in the West’s — especially the US’s — quest for hegemony over Africa and the rest of the contemporary world.

It is because China’s peaceful rise as a global player challenges that hegemony that the centres of power in the West are going all out to denigrate and demonise China. Labelling China as a new imperial or colonial power is part of that vicious propaganda against a nation, indeed a civilisation that has already begun to change the global power balance. It is a change — towards a more equitable distribution of power — that is in the larger interest of humanity. For that reason, the people of the world should commit themselves wholeheartedly to the change that is embracing all of us.

Nineteen sentenced to death over 2004 grenade attack in Bangladesh

Rohantha De Silva

On October 12, a Bangladesh special tribunal sentenced 19 people connected to the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) to death over a 2004 grenade attack at a political rally held by current Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who was then the leader of the opposition.

The verdict, delivered 14 years after the attack, comes amid mounting conflicts within the political establishment. Hasina’s Awami League-led government is seeking to cripple the opposition BNP and intimidate any opposition to its rule.

The grenade attack killed two dozen people and wounded around 300, including Hasina. In his sentencing remarks, Judge Shahed Nuruddin said the attack was intended to kill the Awami League’s leadership.

The convicted include former Home Affairs Minister Lutfuzzaman Babar and a deputy minister of industry, Abus Salam, both of the previous BNP government. Tarique Rahman, the son of the main opposition leader Khaleda Zia, was sentenced to life imprisonment. Rahman, who is in exile, was tried in absentia.

Others who face the death penalty include alleged members of Jarkat-ul-Jihad, a banned Islamic fundamentalist group. Seventeen others received life imprisonment. Another eleven received sentences of between six months and two years.

The ruling Awami League welcomed the decision, but those convicted protested their innocence. Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, the BNP’s general secretary, claimed the verdict and sentencing was a “naked manifestation of political vengeance” orchestrated by the Awami League.

The BNP is known for brutal attacks against political opponents and may well have been behind the crime. However, the harsh sentences dovetail with the attempts of the Awami League to eliminate opposition to its rule, in the lead up to a general election slated to be held later this year or early 2019.

Khaleda Zia was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment last February, on trumped-up corruption charges. She is now in a state-run hospital, afflicted by multiple medical problems. Khaleda and her son Rahman, the BNP’s most prominent figures, cannot contest the election because of their convictions.

The infighting within the ruling elite comes amid a turn toward increasingly autocratic forms of rule by the Hasina government. Amid mounting social tensions, it has taken steps to muzzle the media and attack protesting workers and youth.

The administration is preparing to enact a new digital security law that will further erode press freedom and curtail dissenting voices online. The Digital Security Act was approved by the country’s president, Abdul Hamid, on October 8. It combines the draconian colonial-era Official Secrets Act with new repressive measures.

Information Minister Hasanul Haq Inu claimed that the law was necessary to “safeguard the digital space and society.” He stated: “It is not a law against mass media or democracy.”

Journalists and human rights groups rejected these assertions. Amnesty International warned that the legislation could be used to limit online political discussion and crack down on dissent, labelling it a “dangerous restriction on freedom of expression.”

Dr. Asia Nazrul, a professor of law at Dhaka University, told Prothom Alo, a Bangladesh newspaper, the laws were one expression of “the darkest period in the name of Bangladesh’s democracy.”

Under Section 25(a) of the legislation, individuals can be sentenced to up to three years in prison for publishing information that is “aggressive or frightening.” Section 31 provides for sentences of up to 10 years’ imprisonment for posting information that “ruins communal harmony or creates instability or disorder or disturbs, or is about to disturb, the law or order situation.”

Media organisations are already under attack. Bangladesh ranks 146 on Reporters Without Borders’ world press freedom index, behind Burma, Cambodia and South Sudan. Its ranking was 118 in 2002, when the index began.

There are also reports of opposition leaders, students and activists disappearing under suspicious circumstances. The Dhaka-based human rights group Odihikar commented: “The fear that opposition leaders and activists could be subjected to enforced disappearance ahead of upcoming elections is now taking place in reality.”

A report released by Odhikar this month said 30 people were picked up by law enforcement agencies in September alone for political reasons, a sharp increase from a total of 28 in the first eight months of the year. Three of the latest victims were found dead and one remains missing, while 26 were belatedly confirmed to have been arrested. Meetings and protests of the opposition also have been obstructed.

On August 5, Shahidul Alam, a prominent photo-journalist, was arrested for giving an interview to Al Jazeera, in which he accused the government of clinging to power by “brute force.” Despite 25 human rights organisations, including the Committee to Protect Journalists and Amnesty International, issuing a statement calling for his release, Shahidul remains behind bars.

The Awami League government fears that the growing discontent among ordinary people will trigger a social explosion. In July, the government brutally suppressed protests by university students and unemployed graduates who were seeking changes to quotas for entry into government jobs.

Anger among the country’s 40 million garment workers, over poor working conditions and poverty wages, is also growing. Hundreds of workers demonstrated in Dhaka last month for a minimum monthly wage of 16,000 Taka ($US189.63).

The government and the major employers rejected the demands, seeking to ensure that the industry remains globally competitive, on the basis of super-exploitation.

The increasingly autocratic measures of the government are a further warning that it is preparing to unleash the full force of the state against the emerging struggles of the working class.

China growth slows to lowest level since financial crisis

Nick Beams

The growth rate of the Chinese economy has fallen to its lowest level since the beginning of 2009 in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis.

Official figures released at the end of last week put the annual growth rate for the third quarter at 6.5 per cent. This was below market expectations of 6.6 percent and down from the rate of 6.8 percent for the first half of the year.

While the trade war launched by the US has yet to make a significant impact on growth, the official government statement accompanying the release of the data referred to what is called the “severe international situation.”

One of the main contributors to the growth decline was the reduction in industrial output growth which weakened to 5.8 percent in September from 6.1 percent in August. Retail sales growth for the first three quarters was 9.3 percent compared to 10.4 percent in the same period last year. Car sales are significantly down, falling for a third straight month in September, with the Chinese market on track for its first annual decline in nearly three decades.

Exports were up, but this has been attributed, at least in part, to exporters front-loading their shipments in an effort to escape the effects of further US tariff increases. In addition to the 25 percent tariffs on $50 billion of industrial goods, the Trump administration has imposed a 10 percent duty on an additional $200 billion worth of goods, covering a range of consumer products, which is set to rise to 25 percent at the start of next year. Trump has also threatened tariffs on a further $250 billion worth of products, which would mean that all China’s exports to the US would be covered.

Moreover, the trade war is set to intensify with the White House top economic adviser Larry Kudlow accusing Beijing of doing “nothing” to defuse trade tensions. In an interview with the Financial Times, Kudlow said: “We gave them a detailed list of asks, regarding technology for example, [which] basically hasn’t changed for five or six months. The problem with the story is that they don’t respond. Nothing, Nada.”

While China has offered to increase its imports of US goods, the reason for its lack of response to the core demands of the Trump administration, first issued last May, is that they are impossible to meet. In essence, they amount to a demand that China shelve its plans for technological and industrial development under its Made in China 2025 plan.

The slowing economy and the intensifying trade war are compounding the concerns of the government and financial authorities over the sharp fall in the stock market which is down by around 25 percent so far this year. This is a loss of $3 trillion, equivalent to more than the market capitalization of the French stock market.

Shortly before the release of the growth data, three top officials, the governor of the Peoples Bank of China (PBoC), the top security regulator, and the key banking and securities regulator, issued statements urging investors to remain calm. The PBoC governor, Yi Gang, said “abnormal fluctuations” in Chinese stock markets did not reflect economic fundamentals and the country had a “stable financial system.”

The Chinese President, Xi Jinping, added his voice to official reassurances about the state of the economy. According to the official Xinhua News Agency, he has vowed “unwavering” support for the country’s private sector.

“Any words and practices that negate and weaken the private economy are wrong,” he said in a letter to business chiefs. “Supporting the development of private enterprises is the Party Central Committee’s consistent policy.”

These comments followed a meeting between Vice Premier Liu He with policymakers on Saturday in which he said they needed to implement measures to encourage a healthy development of the economy, according to a statement in the State Council’s web site.

In an interview with Xinhua last week, Liu, the government’s chief trade negotiator, said the overall economic situation was stable. He sought to dispel concerns over the effect of US trade war measures, saying the “psychological impact is bigger than the actual impact.”

Commenting on the fall in growth, Liu said if the analysis of the Chinese economy was only on one period then “you might feel it faces difficulty”. “But if you look at it from a larger historical perspective, the outlook is very bright.”

Notwithstanding these assurances, the National Bureau of Statistics issued a statement accompanying the growth data in which it said China faced “an extremely complex environment abroad and the daunting task of reform and development at home.” While emphasising the country’s “resilience,” it warned that the economy would experience “greater downward pressure” in the future.

China expert Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University, told the Financial Times that China’s “slower but strong headline growth masks rising domestic and external vulnerabilities that are likely to presage a further growth slowdown in the absence of concerted policy measures.”

The growth figure is always of central political concern for the Chinese government. Previously it considered a growth level of at least 8 percent was necessary to maintain “social stability.” Now the official growth target is down to around 6.5 percent.

Among the “daunting” tasks facing the regime is the reduction of debt levels while at the same time maintaining the spending infrastructure that has played a crucial role in the continued expansion of the Chinese economy since the global financial crisis of 2008.

Last week S&P Global Ratings issued a report that the actual level of debt issued by local governments could be several times higher than is officially reported. With the central government cutting back on quotas for the issuance of local government bonds, local authorities have resorted to local government financial vehicles (LGFVs) to fund infrastructure projects that support regional growth.

According to the report, the off-balance-sheet local government debt could range between $4.3 and $5.8 trillion above official levels. “The potential amount of debt is an iceberg with titanic risks,” the S&P credit analysts wrote.

The result could be a rise in defaults, according to the S&P report, because the LGFVs do not necessarily have the full backing of local governments, and central authorities may allow more of them to go under as they seek to reduce debt levels.

Kuwait-Turkey military cooperation alarms Saudi Arabia

Abdus Sattar Ghazali

Turkey has recently signed a military cooperation agreement with Kuwait, member of the six-state Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). According to the agreement, signed during the Turkey-Kuwait Military Cooperation Committee meeting, the two countries are planning to share their military experiences and coordinate their activities beginning in 2019.

The GCC alliance includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Turkey already has a military base in Qatar, another GCC member state.

Editor of the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al-Youm, Abdul Bari Atwan, wrote that the Kuwaiti-Turkish accord could lead to deployment of Turkish troops in Kuwait. “The accord doesn’t rule out deployment of Turkish troops in Kuwait and purchase of Turkish weapons, including armored vehicles, along the lines of the Qatar-Turkey accord that defends Doha against Gulf countries.”

Turkey’s efforts to sell defense industry products to Kuwait are not a secret. Turkey participated in the 2017 Kuwaiti Defense and Aeronautics Fair with 23 companies.

Kuwait-Turkey agreement came in the backdrop of close Turkish ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkish moves to become a shield for Qatar against the Saudi-United Arab Emirates alliance, the decision by Riyadh to assist Kurds in Syria and the tensions that erupted with this month’s disappearance of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.

Tellingly, Kuwait-Turkey agreement follows Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Ben Salman’s brief unsuccessful visit to Kuwait on September 30, 2018. This was his first formal visit as Saudi crown prince to a Gulf Cooperation Council country since becoming the heir apparent.

A source at Kuwait’s emiri court told Reuters that the visit took place in a highly tense atmosphere, and that no political or economic agreements were signed by the two sides. The Kuwaiti daily al-Rai al-Youm, quoted a high-level source as saying that the visiting Saudi prince and his delegation appeared visibly displeased and angry. He only exchanged a few inconsequential words with the Kuwaiti ruler, and headed for his private plane along with his delegation as soon as the dinner was over, and flew back to Riyadh.

According to Kristin Smith Diwan, a senior resident scholar at the Washington-based Arab Gulf States Institute, the visit had gone badly, and that key issues – the proposed reopening of production in the Neutral Zone oil fields or the Qatar crisis – had generated disputes.

A top priority of the visit was discussions to restart production in oilfields located in the Neutral Zone shared by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The need to increase oil capacity has intensified as Iranian oil output drops under the pressure of U.S. sanctions, and Venezuelan oil production continues to slide. The administration of U.S. President Donald J. Trump has been publicly hounding OPEC, and swing producer Saudi Arabia, to provide the additional production necessary to smooth oil markets, Diwan said adding:

“With questions mounting  as to whether Saudi Arabia has the spare capacity needed to meet these demands, the untapped potential of the Neutral Zone oilfields of Wafra and Khafji loom large. The fields could contribute half a million barrels toward the 1.5 million barrels of additional output sought by Saudi Arabia. Production was halted in the Neutral Zone over the course of late 2014 and spring of 2015 due to disputes that have never been fully understood. The complex situation in which the two national oil companies jointly manage the fields alongside foreign oil groups with equity stakes seems to have raised difficult issues of sovereignty. It appears that the meetings in Kuwait have thus far failed to resolve the issue, with  Bloomberg reporting that talks stalled over the role of Chevron.”

According to al-Rai al-Youm, the crisis over the oilfields began when Kuwait refused to issue visas to maintenance technicians from the Chevron corporation who had been sent to supervise work on the fields to increase their output and oversee further exploration in the area. Their company had positioned equipment on the Kuwaiti side without consulting the Kuwaiti government. The Saudi government responded by halting production from both fields on the pretext of undertaking maintenance. This maintenance has lasted for four years, shutting the fields down and costing Kuwait some $18 billion in lost production.

Relations between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have not been good for the past 15 months, Abdel Bari Atwan said, adding:  “They have been merely ‘proper’, due to Kuwait’s neutrality in the Gulf Crisis and its failure to send significant numbers of troops to fight in Yemen as part of Operation Decisive Storm. Its warplanes played a merely symbolic role in that war. Tensions increased as a result of Kuwait maintaining diplomatic relations with Iran. It also condemned the recent shooting in Ahvaz that caused the deaths of 85 people, unlike Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which indirectly supported the attack. Their media outlets justified it and hosted guest commentators who backed it and deemed it to be a legitimate act of resistance and not terrorism.”

Lebanese researcher Ali Mourad said Kuwaitis are seriously worried about being invaded. He told Al-Monitor, “Kuwaitis need a regional force like Turkey to deal with Saudi ill intentions. They are truly afraid of a Saudi invasion because of a hegemony crisis in the oil fields, Kuwait’s ties with Qatar and the blank check Trump has issued to MBS [Mohammed bin Salman].”

Mourad said, “Because of his prevailing fears, Amir of Kuwait Sheikh Al-Sabah went to Washington in September 2017 to beef up ties with Trump. For the past three years the Kuwaiti ambassador in Washington has been hosting the Kuwaiti National Day receptions at the Trump International DC hotel. They are of course trying to take steps to free themselves from Saudi hegemony.”

Mourad added, “But the situation is not the same nowadays. Kuwaitis fear a critical threat from a rogue clique in Saudi Arabia. This is why they call MBS ‘little Saddam.’ Amir Sheikh Sabah is in a weak position. This is why he is looking for alliance with Turkish President Erdogan. This is not really what they want but they have no other choice. As a regional force they can’t ask for help from Iran. There is no regional power other than Turkey.”

India seizes “shadow bank” to avert potential “catastrophic” impact on financial system

Kranti Kumara 

Earlier this month, India’s BJP government seized control of a little-known company, Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services (IL&FS), saying the “shadow bank’s” collapse could potentially inflict “catastrophic” damage on India’s “financial stability.”

In explaining the government’s sudden intervention, financial observers have said the collapse of IL&FS, the country’s largest non-bank lender, could have been India’s “Lehman Brothers moment”—a reference to the September 2008 bankruptcy that triggered the global financial meltdown.

IL&FS had a triple-A credit rating as recently as August, but defaulted on a series of payments last month including a Rs 4.5 billion ($41 million) short-term loan from the state-owned Small Industries Development Bank of India. Subsequently, the government learned IL&FS has to repay a massive Rs 37 billion ($500 million) over the next 6 months, but currently has just Rs. 2 billion ($27 million) in cash reserves.

Moreover, the company is also carrying a huge debt-load of Rs 911 billion ($12.5 billion), 63 percent, or Rs 574 billion ($7.9 billion) of which is owed to banks.

India’s banks are themselves mired in crisis. Indeed, in recent years there has been a rapid expansion of lending through shadow banks such as IL&FS, because the country’s banks, themselves burdened by loans that have gone bad, have become chary in extending credit. India’s state-owned banks have a gargantuan Rs 13 trillion ($178 billion) in delinquent loans. At least $70 billion of these are “Non-Performing Assets” (NPAs), i.e., loans on which the banks have received no payment from borrowers for 90 days or more.

IL&FS’s default has severely shrunk India’s already restricted debt market, further limiting access to credit, even at relatively high interest rates, for India’s small and medium businesses.

Following the government’s seizure of IL&FS, the Corporate Affairs Ministry filed a petition with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), a juridical body constituted in June, 2016 to hasten corporate bankruptcy. The ministry charged the ousted IL&FS board of directors with numerous acts of malfeasance, including siphoning off funds through excessive executive pay, financial mismanagement, and outright fraud.

In its petition, the government said “any impairment in (IL&FS’s) ability to finance and support … infrastructure projects would be quite damaging to the overall infrastructure sector, financial markets and the economy.”

The Hindu supremacist Narendra Modi-led BJP government never tires of promoting the supposed wonders of “free-market capitalism,” and has used executive fiat to dismantle a massive number of workplace and environmental regulations that it considers a hindrance to the profit interests of corporations.

Yet it acted with great haste to intervene in the markets and seize control of the privately-owned IL&FS, to reassure the financial markets that the Indian government will backstop the company, using untold public funds to prevent the total collapse of IL&FS and bail out its creditors.

By “nationalizing” the bankrupt IL&FS, the government aims to prevent the non-bank debt market, which serves as the primary vehicle for numerous Indian companies to raise working and investment capital, from completely seizing up.

A second objective is to bail out various government-owned entities, such as the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), which are large investors in the fraud-stricken IL&FS.

LIC is the biggest investor in IL&FS, with 25.3 percent ownership. The state-owned Central Bank of India and State Bank of India own 7.7 and 6.4 percent respectively. Other key owners are Japan’s Orix Corporation—23.5 percent, and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority—12.6 percent.

In a fashion similar to the US government’s 2008 rescue of AIG and, ultimately all the banks, the Modi government, by taking over IL&FS, has implicitly guaranteed massive—if not unlimited—funds to rescue the company, its investors, and lenders..

The rapid growth of “shadow banking”

Unlike regular banks, India’s shadow banks, or more formally Non-Bank Finance Companies (NBFC), don’t rely on customer deposits, but instead raise funds through the debt market or by borrowing from regular banks. They then turn around and lend the borrowed funds, at high interest rates, to other institutions. NBFCs are largely unregulated and hence not backed by India’s central bank, the RBI or Reserve Bank of India.

Over the past three years dubiously-run shadow banks have become a critical source of finance for cash-starved Indian businesses and customers. According to a report in India’s Economic Times, “At last count, there were over 4,000 of these shadow banks in India” and they accounted for “30 percent of all new credit in the economy over the past three years. But unlike banks, shadow lenders didn’t have access to household deposits and became increasingly reliant on wholesale funding [that is short-term debt].”

IL&FS is also India’s most prominent player in India’s burgeoning Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) sector. The World Bank and IMF have heavily promoted PPPs as a means of developing economic infrastructure, such as roads, water supply, bridges, and generating plants.

IL&FS’s sudden unraveling is bound up with the fact that it has been able, with the active connivance of the BJP, the Congress Party and the rest of the political establishment, to exploit the country’s need for infrastructure to finance long-term projects using short-term funds, and with its own subsidiaries acting as contractors.

Following the crisis at IL&FS, several major infrastructure projects have come to a sudden halt, throwing thousands of people out of work.

The government, in filing its petition of charges against the previous board with the NCLT, also sought a 90-day moratorium on creditors or other entities filing lawsuits against IL&FS or any of its large number of subsidiaries.

No matter the immediate consequences, the unraveling of IL&FS is part of a growing crisis that threatens to roil the entire Indian economy. The Indian rupee is now trading around Rs 74 per US dollar, a decline of some 15 percent since the beginning of the year. This drop has been precipitated by a massive outflow of speculative foreign funds chasing higher returns in the US in the wake of the US Federal Reserve Board’s interest rate increases. Other deleterious developments include: falling exports despite the decline in the value of the rupee; almost daily shocks from the Trump administration’s trade-war policies; and surging crude oil prices. The latter impact heavily on India, as it is the world’s third largest crude oil importer.

The crowing of the Modi government and the cheerleading from the World Bank and IMF about India registering “world-beating” economic growth notwithstanding, further major shocks to the Indian economy are inevitable in the weeks and months to come.

Divisions erupt within Sri Lankan government

K. Ratnayake 

Media reports that Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena told his cabinet on Tuesday that “Indian intelligence” was plotting to assassinate him have created a political furore in Colombo and New Delhi.

Sirisena has denied making the remarks. The response to the alleged comments, however, has revealed deepening conflicts between the coalition government’s ruling partners—Sirisena’s faction of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP).

The controversy over Sirisena’s alleged remarks comes as the government is increasingly wracked by mounting economic problems and social opposition to its widely unpopular austerity measures. Above all, the government’s deepening crisis is bound up with the geopolitical rivalry between India and the US on the one hand and China on the other.

Wickremesinghe’s UNP holds the majority of MPs in the ruling coalition. Sirisena has the allegiance of only two dozen SLFP MPs. The majority of the SLFP’s parliamentary representatives have lined up with Sirisena’s arch rival, former president Mahinda Rajapakse. Two dozen SLFP MPs quit the government last month, expressing support for Rajapakse.

The Hindu, a prominent Indian newspaper, carried a report on Wednesday alleging that Sirisena told a cabinet meeting the previous day that “Indian intelligence” was “trying to kill him.” He reportedly said that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi “may not be aware of the plan.” The Sri Lankan media covered the claims.

Nervous that the reports would cause frictions with New Delhi, Sirisena telephoned Modi on Wednesday to deny that he had made the remarks. India, along with the US, is pushing for greater strategic ties with Sri Lanka, as part of a confrontation with China.

India’s ministry of external affairs issued a statement repeating that Sirisena “categorically rejected” the media claims. According to the statement, Sirisena told Modi that the allegations were “mischievous and malafide,” “intended to create misunderstanding” between him and the Indian prime minister and to damage the “cordial relations between the two friendly neighbours.”

The media outlets that reported the claims are sticking to their story. Many of Sri Lanka’s largest news outlets are aligned with the competing political factions.

Claims of a plot to assassinate Sirisena were first made by a police informant named Namal Kumara at a media conference last month. Kumara claims he has a voice recording of a conversation involving Nalaka de Silva, Sri Lanka’s Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), discussing a plan to kill Sirisena.

Kumara stated that an Indian citizen was also involved in the conspiracy. Police later arrested and detained M. Thomas, an Indian national. The Indian High Commission has described him as a “mentally unbalanced” person.

Kumara is a dubious individual, who is posing as the leader of an anti-corruption movement.

Silva was in charge of the Terrorist Investigation Division (TID). The government interdicted Silva on Wednesday. Both he and Kumara are being investigated by the Criminal Investigation Department.

On Thursday, Port and Shipping Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, a Sirisena loyalist, accused ministers of giving false information to the Hindu to “damage” relations between the president and Modi. Samarasinghe did not name the ministers but implied they were from the UNP.

The President’s media advisors told a separate press conference on Thursday that the government, by which they meant the UNP, is not interested in investigating the assassination plot. These remarks would not have been made without the president’s approval.

Cabinet spokesman and health minister Rajitha Senaratne told a press conference the previous day that there was “not sufficient evidence” yet to prove Kumara’s claims of a conspiracy.

The differences between Sirisena and Wickremesinghe have nothing to do with the democratic and social rights of working people. They are over how to best advance the interests of the corporate elite.

Sirisena came to power in the January 2015 elections, ousting former President Mahinda Rajapakse. He exploited widespread opposition among workers and the poor to the previous government’s attacks on democratic rights, austerity measures and atrocities carried out in the war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

The US and India backed the regime-change in Colombo. Both were hostile to the Rajapakse government’s ties to Beijing. Sirisena immediately signalled that his government would deepen Sri Lanka’s alignment with Washington.

However, amid a deepening economic crisis, including mounting debt problems, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government has been forced to turn to China for financial aid.

In a bellicose speech last month, marking an escalation of US plans for war with China, Vice President Mike Pence cited the Sri Lankan government’s Hambantota port deal with China Merchants Port Holdings as an example of “Chinese debt trap diplomacy.”

Pence declared that Sri Lanka took on massive debt to let Chinese state companies build a port. “Two years ago, that country could no longer afford its payments, delivering the new port directly into Chinese hands,” he stated. Pence’s comments underscored intense US hostility to China’s influence on the island.

The government has also been compelled to obtain an International Monetary Fund bailout loan tied to a drastic austerity program aimed at slashing the fiscal deficit by increasing the price of essentials and gutting social spending on subsidies, health and education.

These attacks have provoked a spate of social struggles involving railway, postal and ports workers along with teachers and other sections of the working class. Students have carried out continuous protests against the privatisation of education. Farmers and fishermen have taken action against cuts to subsidies. And some 200,000 plantation workers are protesting to demand a 100 percent wage increase.

The trade unions, backed by the pseudo-left groups, have played the key role in preventing these struggles from developing into a political confrontation with the government.

Last February’s local elections underscored the deepening unpopularity of the government. Sirisena’s SLFP came third and the UNP second, while the majority of seats were won by Rajapakse’s faction.

The government is also being squeezed by a currency crisis, with the Sri Lankan rupee depreciating by 11 percent this year. This is part of a trend throughout the region wracking India, Pakistan and other so-called emerging markets.

Admitting that the economic crisis is “turning to the worse,” Wickremesinghe last week stated that he hoped “all parties will shed their political differences and support the government to overcome this crisis.”

Sirisena has hypocritically sought to distance himself from his own government’s austerity measures. He has claimed that corruption is the main cause of mounting economic problems and has publicly criticised ministers and state officials. This week, he demanded the resignation of the boards of the Bank of Ceylon and the People’s Bank over alleged corruption. UNP ministers have expressed opposition to the move.

Sirisena is also seeking to promote nationalism to divert mounting social anger in reactionary directions.

Shipping Minister Samarasinghe presented a paper to this week’s cabinet meeting calling for the development of Colombo Port’s eastern terminal by the national ports authority. Wickremesinghe countered the proposal, saying the government had already agreed to develop the terminal with Indian investment. Sirisena declared this was inimical to the country’s sovereignty.

Stating that “he can’t work with Wickremesinghe,” Sirisena even tried to establish an agreement with Rajapakse on a proposal for a “caretaker government.” The media reported that the two held a secret meeting last month. Neither Rajapakse nor Sirisena denied the claims. Rajapakse, however, appears to be aiming to exploit the government crisis to form an administration that he leads.

In an interview with the Hindu last month, Rajapakse said: “A government must be strong and speak in one voice.” He warned that investors were turning away as there was no “stable government” in Colombo. Rajapakse is rallying Sinhala chauvinist groups and appealing to the military, accusing the government of victimising “war heroes.”

The competing factions of the ruling elite have all signalled that they want to deepen Sri Lanka’s ties to India and the US.

Wickremesinghe flew to New Delhi on Thursday for discussions with Modi on Indian investments in Sri Lanka.

In September, Rajapakse visited New Delhi to seek its blessing if he was to form a future government.

The infighting within the Sri Lankan political establishment expresses a deepening crisis of capitalist rule. Each of the competing factions are calculating how best to advance the interests of the capitalist class, by lining up with the major powers and deepening the offensive against working people.

These developments underscore that workers can only defend their rights by turning to an internationalist and socialist program aimed at establishing a workers’ and peasants’ government. The Socialist Equality Party alone advances this perspective.