29 Jan 2019

Southeast Asia Terribly Damaged But Lauded By West

Andre Vltchek

Come to Southeast Asia and enjoy beaches, cheap sex and raunchy massage parlors. Hang around this part of the world in whichever way you like;wearing flip-flops, shorts and t-shirts. You were told that ‘everything is easy here, that things are cheap and people are friendly and happy’. Do what you want, as almost everything is allowed, especially if you are from the West, and have plenty of cash and some credit cards in your pockets.
That’s what your simplified perception of Southeast Asia is supposed to be. This stereotype has been created, refined and fine-tuned, then finally hammered into the subconscious of the people in North America, Europe, Australia and Japan. It has been done consistently, for many years and decades, until these lies,repeated a thousand times, have replaced reality.As a result, tens of millions of holiday-makers, sexual tourists, adventurers and single men on power trips, descend on Southeast Asia, annually.Most of them do not see anything, and they do not hear. Most of them leave for home after getting suntanned, a bit fatter, and much more confident. They come with clearly formed ideas, and they leave without learning much.
Most of the ‘visitors’ do not want to be disturbed by reality, because the reality could be extremely unsavory, even horrifying.
The ‘hidden’ and extremely uncomfortable truth is: most of Southeast Asia is actually absolutely unfit for tourism. It is deeply, and terribly injured, even,a broken part of the world which has never been allowed to leave its brutal,feudal system behind.
Its people are barely surviving in the straight jacket of extreme capitalism.All sorts of imported rubbish, from brainless pop music to the lowest grade of Hollywood films, junk food, mass media and ‘fashion’ as well as ‘me-me-me habits’ have been put to work in order to irreversibly ruin their traditional cultures. Generally, people here are unhappy;often thoroughly confused. Societies from Thailand to Indonesia and the Philippines are becoming increasingly violent. At the same time, the politically ‘pacified’ population does not rebel against the rulers in the West or its own servile elites: right-wing political and religious extremism are often the only‘answers’ to popular outrage.
The land of Southeast Asia is devastated, as it is nowhere else on our planet; in fact, it has been totally plundered by unbridled mining, logging, palm oil and rubber plantations. The extraction of natural resources is done in a monstrous fashion;often by poisoning rivers with mercury, by cutting most of the primary forests down or by flattening entire mountains.From an airplane, places like the island of Borneo or Peninsular Malaysia appear as nothing less than hell on earth.
This vast part of the world with a total population of around 650 million, does not count on any renowned thinkers or scientists, and with the exception of Vietnam (which is Communist and therefore to a greater degree different) on even one single globally renowned writer or a film director.
All this is not supposed to be discussed ‘like this’; in this fashion. Writers and filmmakers, local and foreign both, are discouraged from describing and documenting what is right in front of their own eyes.
But why?How come that Southeast Asia has managed to escape almost entirely allthe scrutiny by the Western mainstream media?
It is because what I have just described above is nothing else other than a result of the monstrous mass murder, plunder and destruction, which has been perpetrated by the West. It has been happening all over here; in all corners of Southeast Asia. The destruction has been so appalling and frightening, that almost no liberals in Paris, London, Amsterdam, Canberra or Washington are willing to acknowledge it, instead sticking to bizarre clichés and glorification of the state to which the victims have been reduced to; in which they are forced to live.
Entire teams of academics, notably those at the Australian National University (ANU), but also at several other institutions, continuously repeat the official Western dogma, which describes Indonesia as ‘a normal country’.
But isn’t this what the so-called Western ‘political correctness’ is all about? Doesn’t it work like this: “A country is attacked, left-wing government gets overthrown, corrupt leaders put on thrones; then natural resources get plundered, and extreme right-wing ‘elites’ fully subservient to the West quickly steal everything from their country and people, while dutifully sharing the booty with Western corporations. The population gets indoctrinated, totally brainwashed and the opposition either murdered or scared into submission. And then, and then, the West ‘shows great respect’ for that local ‘culture’ and for ‘local people’. Read:respect for its own Frankenstein; for its own creations.
It goes without saying that this gangrenous monster which the West first created and then ordered everyone to ‘respect’, has nothing to do with the culture and ‘the people’.
In the end, the victims themselves,get methodically conditioned with tools such as mass media, ‘education’, and continuous propaganda dispensed by the political regime. They stop being aware of their own conditions. They become resigned.They become religious, submissive. They blame and fight each other, but never the true oppressors; never the regime.
The victims often feel they are not well, but they have no idea, why?
*
For centuries, Southeast Asia suffered terribly at the hands of the French, Dutch, US and British colonizers. For instance, at the beginning of the 20th Century, the US forces brutally massacred around 1 million Filipinos, in their Asian colony.
Official independence from European and North American colonial masters did not stop the suffering of the people.
After WWII, no other part of the world endured more Western massacres and terror than Southeast Asia. Not even Africa, the Middle East or Latin America. The numbers are truly striking.
The West’s lovely ‘holiday destinations’ inhabited by ‘friendly locals’, were carpet-bombed, and poisoned by chemical weapons. Millions of people were slaughtered; by injected military regimes, by monarchs, by elites and military juntas. Not unlike in Latin America, but with numbers astronomically higher, because the West never considered Asian people to be equal human beings (For instance: around 2 million Indonesians were slaughtered during the 1965 military coup of General Suharto. The coup perpetrated by General Pinochet in Chile, in 1973, took lives of 2-3 thousand people. Adjusted to the numbers of people living in both countries, Indonesia still lost approximately ten times more people than Chile).
Everyone knows about the suffering of Vietnam, under French brutal colonial rule, and then, during the terrorist war unleashed against the country by the US and its allies. But no one really knows, precisely, how many Vietnamese people died.The number of victims goes in to millions.At least 4 million Vietnamese citizens vanished.
In Laos – US bombs ‘with love’
Laos and the so-called ‘side-kick’ or ‘Secret War’ was even worse, on a per capita basis. Hundreds of thousands vanished in this sparsely populated country, which is inhabited by humble and gentle people. Strategic B-52s bombers were deployed against farmers and their water buffaloes, using evil cluster bombs that are, to this day, killing thousands, all over the Laotian countryside. There was no reason for this brutal, monstrous genocide, except some abstract ‘concern’ in Washington that this poor nation could follow Vietnam’s example and ‘go Communist’ (it did, after it tasted true Western ‘democracy’, literally on its skin).
Cambodia– a country where the West nurtured corrupt and brutal elites in Phnom Penh, and then began the same monstrous carpet-bombing campaign as in Laos, against unarmed, desperately poor peasants, using B-52s, killing hundreds of thousands, and displacing millions. People lost their minds from the horrors of the bombing.They were also driven from their land, and began dying from famine. Dismal situation opened doors to Khmer Rouge, which the US decisively supported (on the battlefield and at the UN), even after this deranged murderous group got defeated by heroic Communist forces of Vietnam.
In Bangkok, depiction of modern Thai reality
Artwork at BACC, before Thai elections
Thailand – country which has been choked by car industry and monstrous form of extreme capitalism, while upholding its backward feudal system. Thailand with countless military coups designed to sustain pro-Western monarchy. Thailand which accepted on its turf part of defeated Chinese anti-Communist army, and ‘put it to work ‘almost immediately’, allowing it to massacre substantial part of its own left-wing movements. Thai state that massacred and raped its own students, and butchering thousands of Cambodian refugees. Thailand that technically attacked both Vietnam and Laos, by flying Air America missions against those countries, opening its airports to the West, while selling its own women in countless brothels in Pattaya and elsewhere, to the Western pilots and ground staff.
Indonesia, where the 1965 US and UK -sponsored military coup against left-wing President Sukarno and (then) the third largest Communist Party in the world (PKI), took the lives of between 1 and 3 million people, installing perhaps the most grotesque fascist extreme-capitalist regime on earth. Indonesia, where all the great artists and thinkers were killed, or imprisoned in the Buru concentration camp, and, where the West helped to install a totally brainless system de-intellectualizing the nation and forcing it back to the Middle Ages. Indonesia, where secularism is now collapsing, and where, during the upcoming April 2019 elections, voters will decide between an inept and weak pro-capitalist leader, and a truly fascist military mass murderer.
East Timor (Timor Leste) – a tiny country which was overrun by Indonesia in 1975, shortly after it gained independence from Portugal, under the leadership of the left-wing FRETILIN movement. The right-wing dictator of Indonesia – Suharto – declared that he was ‘not going to tolerate a second Cuba near its shores’, and got a big pat on his back, as well as full support from the US, UK and Australia. The result: around 30% of the entire population of East Timor vanished during the occupation. Countless Indonesian leaders, including the former President ‘SBY’, served there. If Indonesia was a ‘normal country’, these individuals would now be facing long jail sentences for genocide, or in some cases, a firing squad.
In West Papua – hundreds of thousands of people have already died, also under the Indonesian genocidal occupation, which is fully supported by the West, because Papua, like Borneo (which is known in Indonesia as Kalimantan) is getting thoroughly plundered by multi-national companies, of course under the careful supervision of Indonesian military forces. Horrors like the state-sponsored ‘trans-migration’ policy, designed to make people of Papua a minority on their own island, are ongoing and relentless. The people,who have lost everything under the occupation, are forced to convert to Islam, and they are also forced to abandon their way of life and their land. What Indonesia does in West Papua is nothing less than genocide. It is not only the killing and rape,of which its military could be accused of. The plunder of Papuan resources is as deadly for many other reasons,it is likeif the force would be used to ‘open up’vast parts of the Amazonia or Orinoco basins in South America – areas inhabited by indigenous tribes that have never come in contact with the outside world. Even the most insane right-wing presidents of Brazil or Venezuela (of the past), would never dream about such brutal genocidal undertakings (although this may change under the fascist presidency of Bolsonaro in Brazil). In West Papua, dozens of fragile cultures are disappearing. People who have never come into contact with the ‘outside world’ are being forced out of their rain forest, as trees are cut down and mining companies, backed by the Indonesian armed forces, ransack the land. Defenseless tribal people are dying from diseases and hunger, at the same time as corrupt Indonesian officials and businessmen are burning money in Jakarta’s over prized malls, as well as in Singapore, Macau and Hong Kong. And now, thousands of Western tourists fly into West Papua, to Raja Ampat, which is becoming an ‘in place’ for diving!
Malaysia had its own share of inter-religious conflicts, although never at the level of neighboring Indonesia. Nature in Malaysia, almost like in Indonesia, is totally devastated, due to massive palm oil plantations and mining.
The Philippines lived through horrific decades of US neo-colonialism, experiencing the similar extreme capitalism that has been imposed on Indonesia. Only in the recent years, sound social policies have been introduced, and a moratorium on mining, at least in some parts of the Mindanao Island, has been enforced.
Brunei, one of the richest exporters of oil on earth, is now governed by Sharia Law, which, at least in theory, allows amputations, flogging, stoning and other religious practices. Another place where such regressive brutality is officially allowed is in an autonomous province of Indonesia – Aceh.
*
I worked in this apart of the world for decades. I covered countless horrors and conflicts in Indonesia. I used to live in Hanoi, and I covered in-depth the situation in Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, and Papua. I covered East Timor,during the occupation, and was tortured there by Indonesian forces. It happened after I exposed mass rape in Ermera town.
Right now, I am working on a detailed and shocking documentary film about the total environmental destruction of Borneo.
As a local (I actually feel like a ‘local’ in all parts of the world), I often look at the Western travelers visiting this part of the world, and I am wondering, sincerely: are they really so ignorant about the past and the present of Southeast Asia? Or perhaps, are they making sure not to know?
Are they ‘enjoying themselves’, surrounded by devastated nature, privatized and ruined beaches, and a deranged culture? Do they feel powerful, unique, superior, because their countries managed to destroy the entire Southeast Asia, bringing it into shameful submission? Is it, at least partially, why they are here?
Don’t they see? The Indonesian islands of Bali and Lombok have become thoroughly grotesque: everything has been stolen along the coasts, people forced out of their dwellings, and the culture has been fully ruined. Bali suffers from traffic jams and pollution, from over-population, poverty and filth. There is hardly anything pristine there, now. ‘Culture’ is only for sale!
The coastline of Thailand is totally finished. The once pristine islands are now dotted with mass-produced, low quality market towns, with makeshift bungalows and ugly concrete structures. There are standardized,repetitive‘offerings’, most of them of extremely low-quality. There are Thai and Western ‘beach food’, bad old (Western) pop music,countless massage parlors and ersatz bars. There is almost nothing truly Thai left on the Thai coastline. Thai women, the poorest of the poor, many from the north of the country, walk in flip-flops and tasteless T-shirts hand in hand with Western grandfathers, some of them in their 80’s. What a sight!
Everything feels ‘forced’, unnatural, and in terrible taste: in Indonesian ‘resorts’, on the Thai coast, and in the bars of the Philippines, as well as in Cambodia.
In and around Phnom Penh, ‘genocide tourism’ has reached its peak. It is fueled and sponsored by countless Western NGO’s, which are literally pimping the terrible Cambodian past as ‘proof’ that ‘Communism is evil’. Not a word about the fact that most of people who died here, were actually victims of the Western carpet-bombings and consequent famines, and that the Khmer Rouge was in reality a US-sponsored band of freaks, who knew very little about Communist ideology (I spent substantial time talking to them, deep in jungle, and most of them admitted that they had no clue about Marxism or Communism, when they were in power). But to the Westerners, genocide tourism is something thrilling, it represents ‘something new’; ‘something they did not experienced before’.It is good for selfies and for colorful pub stories back at home. And Cambodia is now making huge money out of all this, willing to twist its own horrid past, just to gain some cash. Go to the villages and talk to people: they know the truth. But almost nobody goes. Not even the Western media.
West has totally stolen historic narrative, all over Southeast Asia. Academia in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand is deeply influenced, and manipulated from abroad. ‘Soft power’ is being used; scholarships, funding and invitations to the ‘academic exchanges’.
Both the academic narrative and the mass media in Southeast Asia, are now much more “Westernized” than in the West itself.
*
Clichés about this part of the world are mostly incorrect, in fact, surreal.
Despite the fact that it is suffering from the horrid religious intolerance, racism and perpetual conflicts and tensions, Indonesia is portrayed in the West as ‘tolerant’. Not having one single political party that would represent the majority (which is poor), it is branded as ‘democratic’. A place where a Chinese, black, white or Papuan person can hardly make few steps without being insulted on the street, or being mocked for his or her appearance, Indonesia is described by the Western mass media as ‘friendly’.
Thailand is the same. A staunch ally of the West during so-called Vietnam War, and ‘fight against Communism’, the Kingdom is portrayed as ‘Land of Smiles’. In fact, it has higher homicide rate per capita than the United States, and more female tourist are raped here, annually, than in South Africa. Smiles are reserved only for those who are ready to pay any price, without demanding much in return. Any confrontation here can easily deteriorate to violence. The West hardly ever criticizes outrageous capitalist models of Thailand or Indonesia, as well as collapsed infrastructure and inhuman city planning that is prioritizing motor vehicles and ruthless real estate developers over people. Bangkok and Jakarta are much more polluted than the Chinese cities, and Thai and Indonesian governments do almost nothing to change the situation. But, cliché says that it is dangerous to go to Beijing due to the air quality, while Bangkok or Jakarta are hardly ever mentioned.
*
In Southeast Asia, deafening noise is often administered, in order to silence fear. Thinking is discouraged.It is considered impolite to discuss, to face terrible past and the present. Brainless banging into the phones is recommended. Social media is used here much more than anywhere in the world. While some countries like Indonesia have the lowest readership of books on earth, per capita.
Southeast Asia had been living through genocides, coups, and total submission to the Western masters and to savage capitalism. It has been robbed of its nature, and of natural resources. Its population has been ‘pacified’, forced into obedience and submission. Extreme religious concepts have been injected and upheld from abroad. Only in the Philippines, is the situation now gradually changing. In Vietnam, the state is still strongly resisting subversion from the West, although the country had also been damaged to a great degree, by Western NGOs and social media. Elsewhere, it is getting much worse.
Laos is now moving closer to China, which is literally pulling this beautiful and sparsely populated nation out of slumber, building a high speed rail system, infrastructure, factories, dams, schools and hospitals. But the more China does for Laos, the more it is demonized by the West, by its press, academia and the NGOs. It is now one big battle, over Laos.However, it is clear that the Laotian people are benefiting greatly from their proximity to China, after being literally ruined by French colonialism and the Western “Secret Wars”.
On purpose, here, I don’t mention Burma, as there, the situation is extremely complex, and ‘specific’. But later this year, I expect to publish a detailed report on the topic.
*
Southeast Asia is clearly a victim. It is also an ‘untold story’. Deep, dark story.
With the exception of Singapore and to some extent Malaysia, it is a devastated, an impoverished victim. It is also a ‘time bomb’. People here are discontent, often desperate. Often, they do not know why. Unlike in Latin America and Africa, where the political awareness of the victims is extremely high; here the victims often believe that they are treated justly and that ‘this is the only way how the society can be arranged and governed’.
If someone travels here,searching for ‘culture’ and ‘new ways to understand life’, they should think twice. In most of Southeast Asian countries, the local culture was thoroughly uprooted. What they will see are some folk shows for foreigners, hardly ever attended by locals. Most of the native music venues, as well as theatrical and other art forms, have been replaced by the most vulgar Western entertainment, by video games and naturally, by social media.
Western men often feel good here. It is because in Southeast Asia, ‘they have won’. They are often ‘respected’ here, just for being both men, and white. They are respected, the same way as the French, Dutch and British colonialists used to be respected here, a century ago. Not loved, not admired, but esteemed for belonging to the race and culture that managed to conquer, destroy and then to give orders.
In fact, for those who want to relive those days of imperialist ‘grandeur’, this is the perfect place to visit.
Naturally, Southeast Asia is glorified by the West, with the exception of the Philippines, Vietnam and Laos (and Burma, for different reasons) – countries that are trying to get away from Western dictates.
It is because this part of the world is ‘perfect’ in the eyes of rulers of the Empire. Here, human lives are freely sacrificed for the profits of corporations, both Western and local,like when a pedestrian here has to wait until the cars pass by; entire villages have to give way to the mining venues and to palm oil plantations. Social services for the citizens are not something secondary, but tertiary, almost irrelevant. Profit is all that matters.The well-being of the citizens is hardly considered.
The West is almost never criticized here. Like in any ‘good’ feudal society, the West is seen as a ‘daddy’. It is severe, but always right. It beats its ‘children’, but gives directions. Religions help to reinforce this sort of obedience, which in many other parts of the world would be synonymous with the Middle Ages.
The local ‘elites’, in the meantime, are ‘having a ball’. They govern unopposed. They are only accountable to the much bigger, mostly Western, power. They can do anything they want with their subjects. They drive their super expensive sedans and SUVs, purchased with funds stolen from the poor, and the poor bow, and bend, prostrating themselves in great respect, fear, servility and admiration.
And they do the same in front of the West.
In brief: perfect societies, observed from New York, Canberra, London or Paris.
And in Bali or Phuket, women dressed in traditional clothes dance in 5-star hotels, roll their big eyes, and twist their slender arms. In order for the foreign visitors to say: “What a great culture!” While, of course, the true great culture was killed by the military pro-Western regimes; choked and murdered in the concentration camps and inside the army barracks.
The only victims of this ‘perfect’ state of things, are the poor; in fact, the great majority in Southeast Asia (no matter what the official statistics say). But who really cares about them?
*
Did most of the Southeast Asian countries really gain their independence, some decades ago? Were the famous merdeka shouts just a big farce? Is it true that Thailand was ‘never colonized’? Is this entire huge region still a de facto colony? And if it is, can the situation change?
These are not just rhetorical questions; they are real. And the answers to them are never simple.
The People of Southeast Asia were violated, robbed and then encircled by pseudo-reality; by lies about their past and present. They were told that they are well, happy, and that what they are experiencing is progress, freedom and democracy. They were also ordered to believe that what their usurper, the West, represents, is synonymous with ‘good governance’ and honesty. Many of them have never encountered any alternative views.
After burying tens of millions of corpses, and after having their rain forests, rivers and mountains thoroughly ruined, most of the Southeast Asians are still convinced that their tormentors are fully qualified to control the world.

British Columbia’s opioid crisis hits construction workers hard

Penny Smith

The western Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) continues to be mired in an acute opioid epidemic of crisis proportions. A public health emergency was declared two years ago after the number of overdose deaths doubled in a five-year period. Last March, there were 162 fatal overdoses across the province—the deadliest month on record.
The primary reason for the spike in fatal overdoses is the presence of the extremely potent synthetic opioid Fentanyl, a drug one hundred times stronger than heroin. Significant quantities of the drug are manufactured in China and shipped to BC ports from where it is distributed throughout the country.
However, the availability of this extremely potent drug has proven particularly deadly due to the unprecedented levels of social inequality, the virtual disappearance of permanent, full-time employment and the growth of widespread poverty in the province.
Recent data published by the British Columbia Coroner’s Service (BCCS) reveals that among those workers who fatally overdosed in the five-year period ending in 2016, three quarters were males between the ages of 25 to 54, 20 percent of whom worked in construction, the province’s second largest industry. An additional 13 percent worked in industries connected to construction, including building maintenance and waste management.
The construction sector is notoriously unsafe, with workers suffering high rates of on-the-job injuries and long-term medical conditions. The figures indicate that rather than relying on prescription drugs, many construction workers are risking their lives by turning to cheaper and deadly alternatives like fentanyl and other opioids laced with fentanyl, in order to cope with pain and other ailments.
The disproportionate number of overdoses in the building sector is also a significant indication of the many socio-economic hardships confronting workers in an industry notorious for temporary jobs, variable working hours, and often paltry wages. Garth Mullins, member of the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users, noted, “there’s a lot of day labor type things and so it can be quite uncertain...you can really be just hanging on there, not making very much and you don’t know when your next job is going to come.”
Precarious work has led many construction workers to struggle under conditions of abject poverty. Temporary labourers make on average $18 an hour, but the living wage in Vancouver is almost $21. The BCCS report found that those who were employed in the year prior to their fatal overdose earned on average a meagre $28,437 a year, much lower than the provincial average of $42,000. A fifth of those victims had worked in the construction industry.
The dismantling of business regulations by successive New Democratic Party (NDP) and Liberal provincial governments has allowed dangerous conditions to become a regular feature of the building trades in BC. There were 44 work-related construction deaths in the province in 2017, a 42 percent increase over 2016. Workers continue to face an occupational fatality rate that is three times the provincial average.
Injured workers face a maze of bureaucratic hurdles to obtain compensation for injuries suffered through the workers compensation system. In addition, budget cuts and a failure to strictly enforce employer contributions to workers compensation have ensured that when workers do receive awards, they are grossly inadequate. Similarly, cutbacks to Canada’s public health care system mean that injured workers often wait months for urgent treatments, or struggle to access specialist services like physiotherapy.
The treacherous workplace conditions in construction, and the gutting of healthcare and workers compensation provisions are the direct product of the transformation of the trade unions into nationalist appendages of corporate management and the capitalist state. No longer interested in even partially defending workers’ interests, including workplace safety and wages, as they partially did in a previous period, they now function as cheap labour contractors and an industrial police force to suppress worker anger with their miserable employment conditions. The vast majority of construction workers in BC have no connection with the unions, which only represent 20 percent of all construction workers.
In response to the Fentanyl crisis, NDP government officials have deliberately ignored the dysfunctional economic and social conditions, focusing instead on tougher law and order measures. BC Premier John Horgan said in a public statement that his initial plan was to “prosecute the criminal.” In the midst of this profound crisis, he has been reluctant to call a public inquiry. Although the NDP touted its appointment of the province’s first mental health minister when it took power with support from the Greens in 2017, nothing has changed for the province’s most impoverished and disadvantaged.
Health officials and advocacy groups alike are responding to the epidemic with calls for tepid reforms such as the introduction of more de-stigmatization programs, better access to treatment and recovery, and legal access to life-saving and clean drugs. Although these measures would likely be helpful to some in the short-term, they are grossly inadequate in addressing the bedrock issue of systemic social and economic dislocation arising out of the crisis of capitalism that has produced the acute overdose epidemic.
It is no accident that BC has become the hotbed of the opioid crisis. The province also has the highest rates of child and senior poverty in the country and is home to Vancouver, one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in, where workers may spend upwards of 50 percent of their gross income on rent and utilities. A quarter of British Columbians say they cannot pay their bills or make their debt payments right now.
By contrast, the construction industry—where residential housing speculation accounts for half of all construction projects—has enjoyed healthy returns over the past half-decade with a cumulative value of $75.1 billion in 2017. This has led to enormous profits for a tiny minority of financiers and speculators, including Canada’s major banks. The resulting social disparity can be summed up in the recent statistic that the ten richest BC families’ wealth is, on average, 5,845 times higher than a typical household in the province.
The accumulation of such vast wealth is directly responsible for throwing thousands of people into desperate poverty. The housing boom in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland has forced unprecedented numbers of people, including many low-wage workers, to live in homeless shelters and on the streets. Last May, Vancouver’s homeless population reached a new record, surpassing 2,100.
The widening gap in income and wealth is not a phenomenon exclusive to British Columbia. Throughout Canada and the globe, it is becoming more and more apparent that the richest 1 percent is amassing great wealth as the vast majority languish in debt and decline.
There are now signs that the bull market conditions are changing. Market analysis indicate a recent slowdown in construction activity and this year new housing investment is expected to fall 25 percent from its 2016 peak. Within the context of a contracting economy, it is to be expected that social conditions will only worsen for BC construction workers, and the working class as a whole.

28 Jan 2019

French “yellow vests” applaud workers’ struggles against social inequality

Anthony Torres

Some 69,000 people participated in the eleventh weekly protest of “yellow vests” in France, according to the Interior Ministry. Demonstrators told the World Socialist Web Site that they rejected French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposed “great national debate” and hailed workers’ struggles against social inequality around the world.
Discussions with the “yellow vests” revealed great interest in finding a way to mobilize broader opposition to Macron and the banks.
The major provincial cities saw large protests—particularly Toulouse and Bordeaux, where the turnout was 10,000 and 6,000, respectively. Clashes with police led to numerous arrests in these cities. There were also confrontations with police in Dijon, Montpellier, Avignon, Nantes, Lyon and Evreux, where two cars were torched and the French central bank building was attacked, according to the police prefecture.
For the first time since the beginning of the protests, all of the “yellow vests” in Marseille marched together, calling for “unification of the struggle.” Some 4,000 people demonstrated there. Protesters in Marseille intervened to rescue a tourist couple with a baby carriage who were standing nearby and were suddenly attacked with tear gas by the police.
Ilyes, who was at the scene, told Sputnik News: “We were…marching near the Old Port, singing. Everyone was in good spirits. The riot police were positioned right and left around the protest, across the road from it. Everything was under control when a policeman threw a grenade for no reason.”
Clashes took place throughout the afternoon. In total, 300 people were arrested across France, including 66 in Paris. There, police claimed that 4,000 people demonstrated.
Several marches were planned—one cleared with the police between the Champs-Élysées and Bastille Square, another from Nation Square to Bastille Square, and finally “a march in solidarity with yellow vests from faraway territories,” going from the Overseas Territory Ministry to Facebook’s Paris headquarters.
For the first time since the beginning of the protests, the “yellow vests” called for meetings on Republic Square to continue the protests with a “yellow night.” Police broke up the event, firing volleys of tear gas.
Earlier that afternoon, Jérôme Rodrigues, an associate of “yellow vest” spokesman Éric Drouet who had called one of the protests, was seriously wounded in the eye when a police grenade exploded less than five meters from where he was standing. He was carried away for an emergency operation.
In Paris, the WSWS spoke to Quyn, a waitress protesting “for social, tax and economic justice in our country, because Macron is favoring the rich, not the poor, the retirees, the handicapped.” She added, “We are demanding Macron’s resignation.”
Quyn praised the development of international opposition to social inequality and authoritarianism: “This movement is developing across the world—for example, in Burkina Faso there are the red vests; in Belgium, Germany and Canada, sort of everywhere. I think this movement will continue in various forms. It motivates everyone to wake up and struggle against the dictatorships of the major powers that control our epoch. I hope that everyone across the world will wake up.”
On the Oxfam report pointing to rising social inequality around the world, Quyn said: “It is scandalous that small minorities own a majority of the wealth. The economic, social and tax system must make all these CEOs pay where they live, to share the wealth and spread it to workers so they can have a decent salary to live on.”
She stressed that she supported “all the movements against the enslavement of the people, all those who are rising up like the yellow vests against free market capitalism and the oligarchy of the transnational corporations.” She continued: “We need to rise up now…for everyone to be aware that we have enough energy to produce enough to give people a different life. We have all that, but because the governments and the leaders hide what we have, we do not have enough to live, but in fact everything belongs to the people, to all the peoples. It is up to them to win this struggle.”
WSWS reporters also interviewed Rudis, who had traveled from Limoges and works in industrial maintenance: “We want a better distribution of wealth,” he said, “very simply that something be distributed to those who need it. It would be good to change the entire world. Those who are here are nurses, retirees, everyone basically.”
On the “great national debate,” Rudis was unambiguously hostile: “It’s just talk. We aren’t free to go there, we can’t say what we want… Anyway, it’s been many years that it has all just been talk.”
Rudis called for unifying workers of all countries in struggle against the European Union and austerity. “That would be a good idea,” he said, “a way of rebuilding Europe along lines we have chosen, between the European populations, the European and even world population. If we can, this would be ideal because it’s not just us. Africa and everyone are suffering. We are in a country that one can say doesn’t have so much to complain about, but it would be good for everyone to be able to stand proudly, stop the plundering of Africa and all of that.”
On the role of the unions and their positions on the “yellow vests,” Rudis said: “The unions are disguised politicians. They make agreements just for their own interests. I work in a factory with 50 workers but two unions. And they don’t give a shit about us. The union bureaucrats can sit pretty in the factories.”
The WSWS also spoke to Stéphane, who called for the setting up of “citizen-initiated referendums, which will allow the French people to decide on certain questions, propose or abrogate laws hostile to the interests of the people, or even recall an elected official if he acts against the interests of the people.” He continued: “There are different popular assemblies in various areas of France that are interesting, where people are debating, learning or politically being awakened, because we have been held out of politics for a long time.”
Stéphane stressed that workers will get nothing from the “great national debate” offered by Macron: “Mr. Macron’s national debate does not concern the ‘yellow vests.’ It’s a national debate to promote himself. The European elections are coming soon. It is PR.”
Stéphane told the WSWS that he opposes the attempts to put together a “yellow vest” electoral list for the European elections: “Now we’ve seen that there are some ‘yellow vests’ trying to get together to advance an electoral list for the European elections. The vast majority of the ‘yellow vests’ is totally against that… We are not partisan, because the ‘yellow vests’ are a movement representing the people.”

Leaks expose UK and EU government plans for military deployment in Brexit crisis

Chris Marsden

The Sunday Times has reported that the Conservative government is planning for the possible imposition of martial law as a result of the deepening crisis over Britain’s exiting the European Union (EU). The Daily Mirror reported that the EU is anticipating violence on the streets and decades of political instability.
The Sunday Times report is based on leaks from the Cabinet Office. It states that top civil servants in Whitehall have been “gaming a state of emergency and even the introduction of martial law in the event of disorder after a no-deal Brexit” (leaving the EU with no trade deal agreed).
Robert MacFarlane, the deputy director of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, is identified as being involved in discussions on the use of powers “to deal with national emergencies such as acts of war and terrorism”—part of no-deal contingency planning known as Operation Yellowhammer.
Top civil servants would use the sweeping powers embodied in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, introduced by the Labour government of Tony Blair.
“Curfews, bans on travel, confiscation of property and, most drastic, the deployment of the armed forces to quell rioting are among the measures available to ministers under the legislation,” the newspaper writes. “They can also amend any act of parliament, except the Human Rights Act, for a maximum of 21 days.”
The pretext for the Civil Contingencies Act was the Blair government’s assertion that previous emergency legislation had been proved inadequate—in events such as the severe flooding of 2000 and the foot-and-mouth outbreak of 2001, but also more generally in waging the so-called “war on terror” after the 9/11 attacks in the US.
The Act granted extraordinary new powers, enabling the government to declare a state of emergency without a parliamentary vote, with ministers empowered to introduce “emergency regulations” under the Royal Prerogative that are virtually unlimited. They include the power to “give directions or orders” including the destruction of property, prohibiting assemblies, closing down electronic communication, banning travel and outlawing “other specified activities.”
The Defence Council, comprised of ministers, senior civil servants and military leaders, can deploy the armed services, again without prior parliamentary debate or approval. Emergency regulations may be passed “protecting or restoring activities of Her Majesty’s Government,” effectively allowing the Defence Council absolutist power—including “any provision which the person making the regulations is satisfied is appropriate” to protect human life, health and safety.
A source told the Sunday Times, “The overriding theme in all the no-deal planning is civil disobedience and the fear that it will lead to death in the event of food and medical shortages.”
Responding to statements that the model used for a no-deal scenario is the impact on Iceland of ash clouds caused by a volcanic eruption in 2010, another source told the newspaper, “Although there is nothing that can replicate the scale of the chaos threatened by a no-deal Brexit, which will be about a thousand times worse than the volcanic-ash-cloud crisis, this is about the closest example we have in modern British history.
“The only other thing that would be comparable would be something like a major Europe-wide war.”
Speaking to the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Health Secretary Matt Hancock sought to downplay concerns, saying there was no “specific” plan for martial law, adding: “Of course government all the time looks at all the options in all circumstances. It remains on the statute book, but it isn’t the focus of our attention.”
Pro-Brexit Conservatives and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have both previously rubbished such reports of a planned use of the military as part of a “Project Fear” to secure acceptance of Prime Minister Theresa May’s proposed deal with the EU being debated today in parliament.
It is significant, therefore, that details of an EU report into the post-Brexit crisis leaked to the Daily Mirror do not single out a no-deal scenario. As far as European security and intelligence officials are concerned, Britain will descend into political chaos whatever happens in the coming months.
The secret EU report is not directly cited, but only alluded to by the Mirror. EU officials “are believed to have warned that civil unrest and rioting is almost inevitable, regardless of the outcome of the current political deadlock,” the newspaper reports.
An EU source states, “Analysis of the threat levels in Britain is being shared at the top of the EU as we formulate policy for the years ahead. The assessment is that violence is almost inevitable no matter what.
“They are worried that if the current deal goes through the right-wing will kick off. If there’s no deal everybody will object and kick off. If there’s a second referendum, the right will kick off. The right kicking off is causing most concern. This analysis is being kept very quiet for obvious reasons.”
Confirming that escalating state repression is being considered in all eventualities, the pro-Brexit Sunday Telegraph reported that the Electoral Commission is seeking to give itself new “powers of prosecution” prior to any second referendum on Brexit. The newspaper states that the new powers would mean the Commission could bring prosecutions directly against political parties and campaign groups.
The EU is also predicting the possible break-up of the UK, with independence referendums in Scotland and Northern Ireland within 18 months of Brexit.
In a related warning, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said at the Davos summit last week that soldiers may be deployed to the border with Northern Ireland in a no-deal scenario. The return of a hard border could “involve people in uniform and it may involve the need, for example, for cameras, physical infrastructure, possibly a police presence, or an army presence to back it up,” Varadkar told Bloomberg.
A senior UK government source told the Mirror, “We are seeing civil disobedience across Europe and a growth of the far-right. Anything which changes the status quo, like Brexit, gives those people the opportunity to foment division. We could see protests and public disorder offences.”
All such claims that the “far-right” will be the target of any planned repression should be rejected. There is no doubt that Britain’s as yet small fascistic right-wing will seek to exploit social unrest and channel anti-EU sentiment in a nationalist and reactionary direction—just as have France’s National Rally (formerly National Front), the Liga in Italy and similar larger formations. However, the power of the state will not be directed against such tendencies, which across Europe are either being embraced or even brought into government, but against the true source of social discontent—the working class.
France’s Yellow Vests are routinely slandered as far right extremists by the government of Emmanuel Macron for the “crime” of opposing his savage austerity measures. But it is thousands of working people who have been arrested, brutalised, maimed and killed by riot police on the streets of France. And it would be no different in the UK.
Everywhere a crisis of bourgeois role is emerging, leading invariably to a sharp turn to authoritarianism and state repression—Donald Trump’s threat to declare a state of national emergency in the US, Rodrigo Duterte’s slaughter of 20,000 in his so-called “war on drugs” in the Philippines, Jair Bolsanaro’s glorification of Brazil’s military junta.
This is the ruling class’s response to an explosive growth of social inequality that is rendering impossible the preservation of democracy. The only answer to this danger is the independent political mobilisation of the working class against the ruling elite and its state apparatus. In the UK, this means rejecting any alliance with the pro- and anti-Brexit wings of the capitalist class and forging a unified struggle for a socialist Europe with workers across the continent who face the same threats of social ruin and political repression.

Trump administration imposes sanctions on Venezuelan oil industry

Alexander Fangmann

At a White House news briefing on Monday, National Security Advisor John Bolton and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced the imposition of wide-ranging sanctions against the Venezuelan state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA).
The sanctions constitute an act of war in support of the US-led regime-change operation against the government of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro. They are aimed at securing the support of the Venezuelan military for a coup that would place power in the hands of Juan Guaidó, a right-wing politician and State Department asset who proclaimed himself “interim” president on January 23.
The sanctions prevent US companies and individuals from doing business with PDVSA properties and interests, including its US-based subsidiary, Citgo, unless any earnings from those transactions are placed in accounts from which the Maduro government is blocked. While it has been reported that European and Caribbean companies will be given some time to wind down transactions, it is unclear how far-reaching the sanctions are, and neither Bolton or Mnuchin provided any details.
As the US imports approximately 41 percent of Venezuela’s oil production, the de facto embargo is a huge blow to Venezuela’s already crippled economy, with Bolton himself estimating that the sanctions would deprive Venezuela of $11 billion in earnings. Oil exports constitute about 95 percent of the country’s total export earnings, meaning that the new sanctions will result in further shortages of food, medicine and other commodities.
Although it is expected that the Maduro government will seek other buyers for its oil, some of the more natural options, including Russia and China, may not be viable, as Venezuela is deeply in debt to both and already sends oil to those countries in payment.
Venezuela is the fourth-largest source of US oil imports, amounting to around 580,000 barrels per day (bpd), which is around 6 percent of US oil imports. This is a significant decline from the 1.2 million bpd that Venezuela supplied just 10 years ago. Venezuelan oil exports last year fell by 33 percent compared to 2017, and Venezuelan refineries are reported to be operating at one-third capacity, largely due to shortages of parts and other necessary supplies.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has predicted that the Venezuelan economy will shrink by five percent next year, while inflation is expected to reach 10 million percent, a nearly incomprehensible figure. Some 2.6 million Venezuelans have emigrated because of the economic crisis, while 64 percent of those remaining in the country are living under conditions of extreme poverty. In response to the ongoing crisis, the Maduro government devalued the Venezuelan currency by 35 percent on Monday in order to bring it in line with the black-market exchange rate.
There is likely to be an impact on workers at US companies due to the sanctions, especially those working at refineries that handle Venezuelan heavy crude, including those of Citgo, Valero and PBF Energy. According to Mnuchin, refiners are likely to experience “modest” impact in the “short term.”
This latest move in the US government’s attempts at regime change are likely to be devastating to Venezuelan workers, even aside from any violent clashes between supporters of Maduro and Guaidó. A recently published report on Venezuelan sanctions by former special UN rapporteur Alfred de Zayas made clear that “sanctions kill” and recommended that the International Criminal Court consider US sanctions as possible crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute.
The report says, “Modern-day economic sanctions and blockades are comparable with medieval sieges of towns,” and “Twenty-first century sanctions attempt to bring not just a town, but sovereign countries to their knees.”
Nor are the sanctions likely to be the end of the increasingly provocative actions against Venezuela. During the news conference at which the sanctions were announced, Bolton threatened military intervention by carrying a notepad with “5,000 troops to Colombia” on it during the news conference. This can only mean the US is prepared to intervene directly in order to topple the Maduro government, the result of which would no doubt be a bloodbath.
The governments of other countries closely allied with American imperialism have fallen in line with the US attempt to foment a civil war in Venezuela, with a number of governments recognizing Guaidó as interim president, including Israel, Canada and Australia.

In broadside against China, White House levels criminal charges against Huawei

Andre Damon

US officials announced Monday a series of trumped-up criminal charges against Huawei, the world’s largest telecommunications company and second-largest smartphone maker, and its chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, who is currently under house arrest in Canada.
Despite American officials’ invocations of “justice” and the “rule of law,” the charges are pretexts to launch a new economic broadside against China, the world’s most populous country and its second-largest economy, aimed at giving an edge to Huawei’s American and European competitors in the telecommunications infrastructure sector.
The move comes just two days before the US and China are set to begin a new round of trade talks, approximately halfway through a “cooling-off” period before the Trump administration is set to launch a new round of tariffs targeting Chinese goods.
Despite US officials’ claims that the charges against Huawei and the trade negotiations are unrelated, the timing of the announcement makes it clear that the US will enter the negotiations demanding maximal concessions not just on trade, but on military and “national security” issues as well.
While economic growth in the US remains relatively robust, China is facing a protracted economic slowdown that has been intensified by the Trump administration’s economic sanctions.
The Trump administration and American state apparatus have made it clear that their targeting of Huawei, one of China’s most important companies, is the leading edge of a military and economic escalation that the White House has called “strategic competition.”
In a lead article in Sunday’s edition, the New York Times reported: “Over the past year, the United States has embarked on a stealthy, occasionally threatening, global campaign to prevent Huawei and other Chinese firms from participating in the most dramatic remaking of the plumbing that controls the internet since it sputtered into being, in pieces, 35 years ago.”
The article added: “The administration contends that the world is engaged in a new arms race—one that involves technology, rather than conventional weaponry, but poses just as much danger to America’s national security. In an age when the most powerful weapons, short of nuclear arms, are cyber-controlled, whichever country dominates 5G will gain an economic, intelligence and military edge for much of this century.”
It concluded: “In interviews with current and former senior American government officials, intelligence officers and top telecommunications executives, it is clear that the potential of 5G has created a zero-sum calculus in the Trump White House—a conviction that there must be a single winner in this arms race, and the loser must be banished.”
The article unequivocally spelled out the mercenary economic, military, and geostrategic considerations behind the trumped-up charges against Huawei and Meng.
The first set of charges revolves around US accusations that the company violated unilateral US sanctions against doing business with Iran. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen accused “Huawei and its Chief Financial Officer” of breaking “US law” and engaging “in a fraudulent financial scheme that is detrimental to the security of the United States.”
The US, she said, would “not tolerate a regime that supports terrorism,” apparently in reference to China.
On the grounds of these flimsy charges, Meng was effectively kidnapped last month in Canada. US officials formally announced Tuesday that the Justice Department planned to file an extradition request against her.
In a second set of charges, US officials announced 10 counts against Huawei for attempting to steal plans in 2012 for a robot called “Tappy,” from US cellular carrier T-Mobile.
Commenting on the charges, FBI Director Christopher Wray stated that Huawei’s actions “threaten the free and fair global marketplace.” He declared that giving Huawei access to US telecommunications markets “could give a foreign government the capacity to maliciously modify or steal information, conduct undetected espionage, or exert pressure or control.” In fact, it is the US that is using its geopolitical leverage on the world stage to extract economic concessions from China.
The entire campaign against Huawei is part of an effort to secure the economic dominance of companies controlled by the United States and its European allies, including the US-based Qualcomm, the Finnish Nokia and the Swedish Ericsson.
According to media reports, the White House is on the verge of issuing an executive order that would ban US telecommunications companies from buying key infrastructure from Chinese companies such as Huawei and ZTE. Currently, only US government entities are banned from purchasing such products.
The United States is lobbying its allies, including Britain, Canada, Germany, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, to restrict purchases of telecommunications equipment from Chinese manufacturers.
The Financial Times warned of “the dramatic deterioration in relations between China and the US.” since the arrest of Meng. The newspaper observed: “Officials across the US government have become significantly more hawkish towards China—over everything from human rights, politics and business to national security.”
The broad and bipartisan shift against engagement with China was summed up in the remarks last week by financier and leading Democratic donor George Soros, who called Chinese President Xi Jinping “the most dangerous opponent of those who believe in the concept of open society.”
He criticized US president Trump for being insufficiently aggressive against China. Soros asserted: “Instead of letting ZTE and Huawei off lightly, [The United States] needs to crack down on them. If these companies came to dominate the 5G market, they would present an unacceptable security risk for the rest of the world. Regrettably, President Trump seems to be following a different course: make concessions to China and declare victory while renewing his attacks on US allies. This is liable to undermine the US policy objective of curbing China’s abuses and excesses.
Other commentators have pointed to the domestic considerations involved in escalating tensions with China, a nuclear-armed power. In an article titled “A common enemy could heal the US partisan divide,” Financial Times columnist Janan Ganesh argued: “For the first time since at least the 1980s, Americans face the kind of economic, ideological and military challenge that can make domestic antagonism seem beside the point, if not unconscionable.”
Like Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks, Ganesh asserted that a conflict with China would serve to unify the country and preserve “internal cohesion.” In other words, a confrontation that could lead to nuclear war would be beneficial for the American ruling elite, from the standpoint of suppressing internal political and class tensions.
Ganesh marveled at the “speed with which Mr Trump’s confrontation with China, so shocking in 2017, has found general acceptance, even enthusiasm, not just in Washington but in business.”

Afghanistan peace talks and the debacle of the war on terror

Bill Van Auken

The Trump administration’s special envoy for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, on Monday announced the drafting of a “framework” for a peace agreement with the Taliban against which US troops have been fighting for over 17 years.
Khalilzad has a long record in the elaboration and implementation of the criminal US policies that have led to the deaths of millions of Afghans over the past four decades, while turning millions more into refugees.
In 1979, he served as a close aide to Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in the Carter administration, in the organization of “Operation Cyclone.” This was the code name for the covert CIA-orchestrated war, which provided billions of dollars’ worth of arms and funding to support the mujahideen, a collection of Islamist militias that would ultimately give rise to both the Taliban and Al Qaeda, in an attempt to topple the Soviet-backed government in Kabul and to draw the USSR into what Brzezinski described as “its own Vietnam.” He continued to work under the Reagan administration to coordinate policy for sustaining this bloody operation.
After a brutal civil war in which the Taliban ultimately established its control over most of the country, Khalilzad signed on as a “consultant” for the energy conglomerate Unocal—now part of Chevron—in negotiating with the Taliban on a deal for a trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline.
In 1996, he wrote a memo insisting that “The Taliban does not practice the anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran. We should … be willing to offer recognition and humanitarian assistance and to promote international economic reconstruction,” i.e., promote deals for big oil.
In 2001, he was one of the architects of the illegal October 7 US invasion to overthrow the Taliban, carried out in the name of avenging the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. In the final analysis, the invasion of Afghanistan, like the criminal war on Iraq begun in 2003 was not about terrorism, but rather US military dominance over two major oil- and gas-producing regions on the planet, the Caspian Basin and the Middle East.
Khalilzad, a reliable steward of these interests, was named in December 2001 as US envoy to Afghanistan. Serving as an imperialist proconsul, he worked in Kabul to solidify the puppet regime of Hamid Karzai, a former associate of his at Unocal.
That Khalilzad is hardly a reliable apostle of peace goes without saying. Whether the talks he has supervised with a senior Taliban delegation in Qatar result in the withdrawal of the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan—along with that of 8,000 troops from a number of other countries—remains to be seen.
What is unquestionable, however, is that his announcement signals a shift in US militarist and geostrategic policy that is bound up with the debacle of the more than 17-year-long “war on terrorism” and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan—by far America’s longest war—as well as a shift toward preparation for military confrontation with nuclear-armed China, Russia and other “great powers.”
The outline of the “framework” discussed in Qatar reportedly involves an 18-month drawdown of US forces in exchange for a guarantee by the Taliban that it will prevent the country from “becoming a platform for international terrorist groups,” Khalilzad said.
Such a demand could with even greater justification be made of Washington, which utilized Al Qaeda-linked militias as proxy forces in its wars for regime change in Libya and Syria, and, according to some accounts, has not been averse to promoting the activities of ISIS in Afghanistan as a counterweight to the Taliban.
A senior official cited by the New York Times reported that the US position is that the withdrawal of US troops would take place only after the Taliban entered into talks with the US-backed government in Kabul and agreed to a cease-fire.
The Taliban’s leadership has in the past rejected such negotiations with the US-backed regime, seeing it as a puppet of foreign occupation, a view that is confirmed by Khalilzad’s holding the talks in Qatar behind the backs of the corrupt cabal in Kabul.
What have over 17 years of direct US intervention in Afghanistan wrought? According to conservative estimates, 175,000 have died outright as a result of the war, while with inclusion of indirect deaths, the figure is probably closer to one million. Millions more have been driven from their homes.
The war has unfolded as an unending series of atrocities, from the massacre of 800 Taliban prisoners in November 2001, through to the savage escalation in US bombing under the Trump administration, with US warplanes and drones unleashing nearly 6,000 munitions on targets in Afghanistan in the first 10 months of last year alone.
The toll has also included the deaths of nearly 2,300 US military personnel along with 1,100 other foreign troops and large numbers of private contractors. The wounded and maimed are at least ten times that number. Many more have been left with PTSD as a result of their service in a dirty colonial war, with the suicide rate among US veterans reaching a level of 20 a day.
As for the material cost, the Afghanistan war has drained, by conservative estimates, over $1 trillion from resources to meet the vital social needs of the US population, from jobs and decent living standards to education and health care.
The “war on terror,” initiated with the invasion of Afghanistan, was used as the pretext for a frontal assault on democratic rights, including the passage of the 2001 Patriot Act, the proliferation of unchecked spying, the “extraordinary rendition,” indefinite detention, torture and military tribunals associated with Guantanamo and CIA black cites, along with the militarization of police agencies and the persecution of Muslims and immigrants. Governments around the world have followed the US example, all of them preparing, like Washington itself, for a confrontation with their most dangerous enemy, the working class.
A war launched with the aim of asserting US domination of an oil-rich region in order to reverse US imperialism’s decline by military means has achieved nothing of its original aims. The two-headed monstrosity that constitutes the Afghan government, among the most corrupt in the world, is hated and isolated, with the Taliban controlling more territory than at any time since 2001.
As for the strategic oil and gas reserves of Central Asia, they have only become increasingly dominated by Russia and China.
While there can be little doubt that US imperialism will attempt to continue exerting its influence in Afghanistan, whether by aerial bombardment, the retention of strategic bases like the one at Bagram or the deployment of private mercenaries, the discussions about a troop pullout are bound up with a shift in US strategy toward military confrontation with Russia and China.
This was spelled out in the “National Security Strategy” document unveiled by the Trump administration a little over a year ago, making “great power competition” and countering so-called “revisionist states,” i.e., Russia and China, the new axis of US global strategy, supplanting the so-called “war on terror.”
There exists within the US ruling establishment no constituency opposed to the drive toward a new world war. On the contrary, to the extent that opposition exists within the Democratic Party and the military and intelligence apparatus whose views it reflects, it is based upon the wholly reactionary narrative of Trump’s supposed “collusion” with Russia and failure to prosecute with sufficient force the ongoing US wars, particularly in Syria and Afghanistan. Indeed, in an editorial column published Monday by the Washington Post, hostility to Khalilzad’s negotiations with the Taliban was based on the charge that the war would be ended “on the enemy’s terms,” betraying the “political order they [US forces] have spent 17 years defending, at enormous cost.” That this rotten “political order” rests solely on foreign bayonets is left unmentioned.
The only means of putting an end to US imperialism’s “endless wars” and preventing the outbreak of a global cataclysm lies in the growth of the class struggle in the US and internationally. The conditions are rapidly emerging for the development of a mass political movement of the working class, in opposition to imperialist war and its cause, the capitalist system.

British Institute in East Africa Graduate Attachment Scheme 2019/2020 – Nairobi

Application Deadline: 25th February 2019

Eligible Countries: African countries


About the Award: BIEA graduate attachments offer recent graduates, with an interest in further studies in Africa, the opportunity to gain practical experience of research. The June 2019 to May 2020 BIEA graduate attachment scheme will take up to nine successful applicants.  Graduate attachés will be involved in three types of work while at the BIEA:
  • Attachés will develop specific research interests in the region, gain practical experience of conducting fieldwork, meet a variety of active researchers, and take part in a number of innovative historical, archaeological and anthropological projects throughout eastern Africa;
  • Assisting with the administration of the BIEA including website, library, reading groups focused on key texts in African studies, workshops and seminars; and,
  • Doing their own research usually leading into developing a plan for a Masters or PhD. Their attachment involves the presentation of a paper in the BIEA Completion Seminar Series upon some aspect of the research they have carried out during their time at BIEA.
Type: Job/Internship

Eligibility:
  • You will need a strong academic record, some experience of studying/researching Africa, and a clear interest in developing your own research.
  • You should also be able to show significant initiative and that you are equally adept at working and living alone or as part of a large team.
  • You should be ready to offer enthusiastic assistance for various field projects and subsequent data analysis. 
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
  • Graduate attachés will be given a total allowance of £1600.00 for the three months of the attachment to pay for accommodation, food, daily transport in Nairobi and medicine.
  • The attachés will have to provide receipts for their expenses amounting to their total allowance (small food purchases can be written down weekly in a receipt book/ledger).
  • The total costs for transport to and from Nairobi at beginning and end of an attaché’s stay will be paid separately on a needs basis.
  • Graduate attachés will not be obliged to use the offered BIEA accommodation, but will be given preferential access to the dorm rooms, should they wish to use the BIEA guest house.
  • The BIEA has free weekly Swahili lessons, at beginner, intermediate and advanced level that graduate attachés can join.
Duration of Programme: 
  • Graduate attachments are three months long. There may be opportunities to extend your stay but accommodation, food, visa and transport changes will be at the attaché’s own expense.
  • Graduate attachés can arrive between 1 July 2019 and 1 January 2020. The scheme for this year will finish on 31 March 2020. 
  • Please specify the three-month time period(s) that you are available for this scheme in your application.
How to Apply: Applicants should send a CV and Cover Letter to gas@biea.ac.uk explaining how participation in the scheme will assist the development of your career. You will need to arrange for two academic references to be sent directly to BIEA.
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying.
Visit Programme Webpage for Details