US, Israel and Saudi Arabia meet amid mounting war threats against Iran

Bill Van Auken

Both Israeli and Saudi officials have confirmed an unprecedented secret trip by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, accompanied by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Yossi Cohen, the head of the Israeli spy agency Mossad, to Saudi Arabia on Sunday.

Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud (Credit: en.kremlin.ru)

Israel Army Radio first reported the trip and meeting between the US and Israeli officials and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, which was confirmed by a senior Saudi official speaking to the Wall Street Journal. This marks the first publicly reported talks of this kind, though meetings between Israeli and Saudi military and intelligence officials are believed to have taken place with greater frequency in recent years.

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan subsequently tweeted a denial of the report, saying, “No such meeting occurred. The only officials present were American and Saudi.” The denial reflects the controversial nature of the meeting within Saudi Arabia, where the ruling House of Saud has postured as the guardian of Islam and has formally insisted that “normalization” of ties between Riyadh and Tel Aviv are contingent on the implementation of a Middle East peace deal and the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

The Sunni oil monarchies of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain dispensed with such conditions, however, in signing onto a US-brokered deal in August to recognize Israel. The monarchy in Bahrain, which rules over an oppressed Shia majority population, depends upon Saudi Arabia for its survival and could not have entered the agreement without its approval.

The meeting between Pompeo, Netanyahu and bin Salman in the Red Sea city of Neom, like the August deal, was aimed not at achieving Middle East peace, but rather solidifying an alliance between Washington, Israel and the Saudi monarchy, the linchpin of reaction and imperialist domination in the Middle East, in preparation for a war against Iran.

This has been the main objective of Pompeo’s extraordinary 10-day foreign tour, conducted barely two months before inauguration day, and what, according to the election results, should be the swearing in of a new administration headed by Democrat Joe Biden.

While it is traditional for “lame duck” secretaries of state to use this interregnum to prepare the handover of power and coordinate policy decisions with their incoming replacements, Pompeo has made it clear that he intends to do nothing of the kind.

On the eve of his trip, he told a reporter asking whether he anticipated a “smooth transition” at the US State Department that there would indeed be “a smooth transition to a second Trump administration,” openly aligning US foreign policy with the post-election coup attempt being staged from the White House.

Pompeo has announced plans to continuously escalate Washington’s “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign against Iran, an economic blockade tantamount to a state of war, over the next two months, announcing new measures at least weekly.

During the course of his trip, he and State Department officials have repeatedly stated that the option of military action against Iran remains “on the table.”

While the US Secretary of State has refused to take any questions from accompanying representatives of the US media during his tour, he gave an interview to The National, an Abu Dhabi-based daily controlled by the UAE’s monarchical rulers, in which he was asked if a US military strike against Iran was under consideration.

Pompeo responded: “The President of the United States always retains the right to do what’s needed to ensure that Americans are safe. It’s been our policy for four years. It’ll be our policy, so long as we have the responsibility to keep America protected.”

That such plans are under discussion was confirmed by the New York Times, which cited senior administration officials reporting on a Nov. 12 meeting between Trump and his national security cabinet in which the US president raised the possibility of airstrikes against Iran’s main civilian nuclear site at Natanz. The pretext for such an attack was Tehran’s having exceeded limits on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium set by the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and the major powers, which the Trump administration unilaterally abrogated in 2018.

While the Times reported that senior advisors persuaded Trump against striking the nuclear facility and “left the meeting believing a missile attack inside Iran was off the table,” there are ominous indications that preparations for war are continuing.

The US Central Command confirmed over the weekend that US B-52H Stratofortress bombers, capable of deploying up to 20 nuclear cruise missiles, as well as conventional munitions, have been redeployed from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota on a “short-notice, long-range mission” to the Middle East.

According to a press release by US Central Command, the purpose of the mission was “to deter aggression and reassure US partners and allies.”

This marked the first time that the long-range strategic bombers have been deployed in the region since last January, in the wake of the US drone missile assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, one of Iran’s top officials, after he arrived at Baghdad’s international airport for an official state visit.

The dispatch of the B-52s to the Middle East follows the redeployment last week of an F-16 fighter squadron from Germany to Al-Dhafra Air Base in Abu Dhabi, while the US Navy’s Nimitz Carrier Strike Group remains deployed in the Persian Gulf.

Meanwhile, Israel has been carrying out increasingly provocative airstrikes against Iranian-linked forces in Syria, while offering unprecedented public claims of responsibility for the attacks. The latest such strikes were reported on Saturday in the eastern region of Deir Ezzor, near the Iraqi border, hitting as many as 10 targets and reportedly killing 14 militia fighters.

The Israeli government has for years pressed the US to carry out a war with Iran, and its latest actions are no doubt meant to provoke such a confrontation before the end of the Trump administration.

The conventional wisdom within the corporate media and the Democratic Party is that the anti-Iranian campaign being waged by Trump and Pompeo is aimed at boxing in an incoming Biden administration, impeded its stated aim of rejoining the Iranian nuclear agreement, albeit while demanding even further concessions from Tehran.

Increasingly, however, more ominous possibilities are being considered. The Washington Post reported Sunday that “speculation that the Trump administration was preparing for military action against Iran nuclear capacities in its waning days has been rising. Some considered Netanyahu’s apparent visit to the [Saudi] kingdom and the presence of Pompeo as further evidence that a strike was possible.”

The protracted and bitter conflict between the US and Iran date back nearly 40 years to the overthrow of the US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. Its objective source lies in US imperialism’s drive to impose its hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East, and deny its strategic resources to its principal global rival, China. Whatever the tactical differences, this drive will continue whether the Democrats or the Republicans hold power next year.

In the context of the explosive political crisis unfolding within the US, however, the Trump administration’s launching of a precipitous military confrontation with Iran—and the inevitable Iranian retaliation—could serve a definite and sinister political purpose. It would provide the pretext for the declaration of a national emergency, blocking the transfer of power and imposing martial law.

Between now and Jan. 20, any provocation can be seized upon to justify the launching of a catastrophic new war in the Middle East with the potential of igniting a global conflagration. The fight against this threat can be waged only by the working class mobilizing its independent strength against both the Trump administration and the Democrats and in unity with workers all over the world in the struggle against the source of war, the capitalist profit system.

Federal agency lifts blockade on Biden transition, but Trump pledges to continue electoral coup

Barry Grey

On Monday evening, the administrator of the federal General Services Administration (GSA), Emily Murphy, formally acknowledged Joe Biden as the “apparent winner” of the presidential election, officially initiating the transition process from the administration of Donald Trump to that of his Democratic opponent.

Murphy sent a letter announcing the decision to the Biden transition team, and the GSA informed federal departments. In her letter, Murphy noted that the decision frees up more than $7 million in federal funding for the transition team. It also requires Trump administration officials to begin meeting with the Biden team, and enables Biden to receive classified intelligence briefings.

The extraordinary delay in the GSA designation, normally a formality, but this time coming more than two weeks after the election was called, was the result of Trump’s effort to overturn the election results by discarding the ballots of millions of Biden voters. That unconstitutional election coup continues, despite the official beginning of the transition process.

The General Services Administration building in Washington. (Credit: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Minutes after the news broke of Murphy’s letter, Trump posted a tweet claiming credit for the GSA move. At the same time, he reaffirmed his determination to continue his baseless lawsuits and attempts to block certification of Biden’s victory in key battleground states that he won in 2016 but lost this year. These include Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona.

Biden’s victory was decisive. He topped Trump in the popular vote by some six million ballots and piled up an Electoral College margin of 306 to 232, well above the required 270 electoral votes and equal to Trump’s Electoral College victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Trump wrote: “Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail!

“Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same.”

Murphy refuted Trump’s claim to having directed her to make her decision, writing, “I came to my decision independently, based on the law and available facts.”

In her letter, Murphy said she made her decision on Monday in light of “recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results.” She sent the letter within hours of the vote by the Michigan Board of State Canvassers to certify the official vote tallies of the state’s 83 counties, which gave the state and its 16 electoral votes to Biden by a margin of over 154,000 ballots.

This followed Friday’s official certification of Georgia, with its 16 electoral votes, for Biden. Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes, is expected to certify Biden’s win on Tuesday.

Trump’s setback in Michigan came despite an extraordinary and arguably illegal attempt to personally and directly suborn Republican state legislators and state and local election officials to overturn the election results or delay their certification, with the aim of allowing the Republican-led legislature to throw out the slate of Biden electors and chose its own slate of pro-Trump electors.

Last Tuesday, Trump telephoned the Republican co-chair of the Wayne County, Michigan election board after she and her fellow Republican on the four-member body reversed their earlier votes to deny certification of the vote total in the strongly Democratic county, making the pro-Biden vote official.

The next day, the two Republicans filed affidavits asking, without success, to once again reverse their votes to “no,” which would have blocked the certification.

On Friday, Trump summoned seven leading Republican state lawmakers to the White House, including the speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader, for closed-door discussions. Apparently, however, he did not succeed in convincing them to go along with his scheme to throw out the popular vote in Michigan.

Over the weekend, the Republican National Committee and the Michigan Republican Party called on the two Republican members of the Michigan Board of State Canvassers to refuse to certify the official results submitted by the state’s 83 counties. They demanded that the certification be delayed until December 7, one day before the deadline for confirming state electors ahead of the official December 14 Electoral College vote for president and vice president.

In Monday’s vote by the four-member panel, one Republican, Norm Shinkle, a Trump backer who publicly campaigned for the president’s reelection, refused to certify the election, abstaining on the motion to do so. Had the other Republican voted to abstain or reject the recommendations of the counties and state election officials, the motion to certify would have failed. However, he voted to certify, noting that there was no legal basis for the panel to do otherwise, since its legal mandate was simply to ratify the official results submitted and certified by the counties.

Trump’s setback in Michigan followed a scathing decision by a federal judge in Pennsylvania on Saturday dismissing a suit by the president’s campaign seeking to disqualify the election there, in which Biden topped Trump by 73,000 votes. Trump’s legal team has lost virtually all of the more than 34 suits it has filed in multiple states on the basis of fabricated claims of massive voting irregularities.

Judge Matthew Brann, a Republican member of the right-wing Federalist Society, wrote, “This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.”

In the wake of that ruling, a number of Republican lawmakers and politicians who had previously refused to oppose Trump’s dictatorial power grab called on the president to concede the election, including former Republican Governor Chris Christie, Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey and House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney. On Monday, they were joined by Ohio Senator Rob Portman and Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia.

Also on Monday, Stephen Schwarzman, the billionaire CEO of Blackstone Group, the world’s biggest private equity firm, recognized Biden as president-elect and urged Trump to concede. Schwarzman served as an adviser to Trump on trade with China. On November 6, in a call with fellow CEOs, Schwarzman defended Trump’s vow to challenge the election results.

In a statement provided to CNN, Schwarzman said: “The outcome is very certain today and the country should move on. Like many in the business community, I am ready to help President-elect Biden and his team as they confront the significant challenges of rebuilding our post-COVID economy.”

Later on Monday, a letter was published over the signatures of 164 top business executives, including several major donors to the Republican Party, urging Trump to accept the election results and concede to Biden. Among the signatories were Mastercard Chief Executive Ajay Banga, Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO David M. Solomon and Condé Nast CEO Roger Lynch.

The erosion of support for Trump within the corporate-financial oligarchy is driven by the fear that the theft of the election will provoke an explosion of popular opposition that could threaten the stability of the capitalist system. It is also a recognition that Biden is assembling a right-wing, militaristic administration that will aggressively defend the interests of big business both at home and abroad, while intensifying the attacks on the social conditions and democratic rights of the working class.

In another public letter, over 100 Republican former national security officials called on congressional Republicans to demand that Trump concede the election and allow the transition to begin. The letter focused on “risks to our national security” arising from Trump’s discrediting of the election, but also spoke of his “dangerous” attempt to “prevent a vote by the Electoral College.”

The signatories included a rogue’s gallery of war criminals, including former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden, former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and Trump’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

That Trump has every intention, despite these developments, to remain in power and establish a presidential dictatorship was underscored by his appeal of Saturday’s ruling in Pennsylvania to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. On Monday, the appeals court granted an expedited review of the lower court ruling, possibly setting the stage for the outcome of the election to be decided by the US Supreme Court. With the addition of Trump’s far-right nominee Amy Coney Barrett, which was not seriously contested by the Democrats, the Republican right has a 6-3 majority on the high court.

At the same time, Trump is preparing other, more violent options. He continues to incite fascist militia and vigilante groups, include those who were caught out last month plotting to kidnap and murder Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. And he has carried out a purge and shakeup of the Pentagon top command, installing fascist-minded cronies who can be counted on to do his bidding.

It is more than eight weeks to January 20, Inauguration Day. Trump will continue to have at his disposal vast powers. As the World Socialist Web Site has warned, there are ominous signs that Trump is plotting with Israel and Saudi Arabia to launch a war against Iran during the transition period. This would not only be a war crime of massive dimensions, potentially killing millions, it could also provide the pretext for mobilizing military forces against opposition within the United States.

The working class must be alerted to the ongoing threat of dictatorship and understand that what has already occurred and what is continuing—the refusal of a sitting president to accept his defeat at the polls—represents the irreparable collapse of what remains of bourgeois democracy in the United States. It signifies the turn by major sections of the ruling financial oligarchy to fascism and dictatorship, which will continue and deepen whatever the immediate outcome of the current crisis.

This can be stopped only through the independent intervention of the working class in opposition to both parties and the capitalist system they defend. There can be no democracy today without socialism.

Why are millions of Americans traveling for Thanksgiving as the pandemic rages?

Niles Niemuth

The coronavirus pandemic is breaking records every day in the United States, filling up intensive care units, overwhelming hospital systems and exhausting health care workers.

A record 203,000 Americans tested positive for COVID-19 on Friday, and the seven-day average is above 170,000. Despite significant advances in treating the disease, more than 1,500 people are dying every day, the highest level since May. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) predicts that the US will record 300,000 deaths by the middle of December, and there could be as many as 21,000 new coronavirus hospitalizations each day.

Workers walk out wearing protective gear as they leave for the day on a shift change at Life Care Center earlier this year in Kirkland, Wash., near Seattle. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

The CDC has issued a severe warning against traveling for Thanksgiving, one of the busiest travel weeks of the year. It recommends that people restrict their dinner plans to those who live in their households in order to limit the further spread of the virus.

“The tragedy that could happen is that one of your family members is coming to this family gathering and they could end up severely ill, hospitalized or dying. And we don’t want that to happen,” Dr. Henry Walke, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager explained at a press conference last week.

Under these conditions, many people are choosing not to travel. The number of people flying for Thanksgiving is down by more than half from last year.

However, the Transportation Security Administration reported that more than three million people passed through airport security checkpoints between Friday and Sunday, making it the busiest travel weekend since March, when restrictions and lockdowns were implemented to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Crowded security lines snaked through terminals as travelers packed onto airplanes to head home to see their families.

All told, the American Automobile Association projects that 50 million people will travel by car, air and rail throughout the United States during the Thanksgiving holiday period stretching from November 25 through November 29. While this represents a 10 percent decline from 2019, the consequences of such a mass travel event will likely be catastrophic. The pandemic saw its initial widespread transmission when five million people traveled out of the city of Wuhan in Hubei Province, where the first cases of COVID-19 were detected, to celebrate Chinese Lunar New Year with family. The virus quickly spread from China to the rest of the world.

Canada saw a significant spike in coronavirus infections and deaths two weeks after families across the country gathered to celebrate Thanksgiving on October 12. During the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918, Thanksgiving in the US was followed by a devastating third wave that did not subside until the summer of 1919.

With all that is known about COVID-19—how it is spread, its lethality for the elderly and medically vulnerable—why are so many still traveling for the holiday?

There are complex and varying factors at work. Many students, for example, are returning home after the cancellation of in-person classes by universities, following the reckless reopening of campuses that has helped to propel the present outbreak.

Thanksgiving is a cultural tradition in the United States, the one time in the year when family members living in disparate parts of the country come together. As a result of the pandemic, tens of millions of people have not seen their parents, children, significant others or friends for months. They have gone through varying levels of lockdown and coronavirus restrictions while suffering through a period of unprecedented stress, turmoil, and financial difficulty.

Many people have been led to believe that travel can be safe, or at least that the danger can be minimized. In the days preceding the holiday, demand for testing has surged, as millions hope that a negative test means that they can interact with their families over the holidays. Testing labs, however, starved of critical supplies, are reporting delays in delivering timely results.

While the ruling class and the media focus on the “personal responsibility” of those who travel, the fact is that the present spread of the virus is the direct product of the policy of “herd immunity” spearheaded by the Trump administration and backed by the entire ruling class.

Every day, workers are being forced to interact with their coworkers in factories and other workplaces in order to produce profits for the corporations. Falsely told that it is safe to return to school and work, many ask themselves: Could flying or driving to eat dinner with my family be any worse?

Then there is the immense confusion generated by the mainstream media, whose presentation, day after day, is that the pandemic is about to turn a corner for the better. The New York Times, the editorial voice of the Democratic Party, has been demanding that schools remain open and insists that they are safe even though more than one million children have contracted the disease. And it was the Times ’ columnist Thomas Friedman who vocalized the slogan of the ruling elite’s approach to the pandemic, that the “cure cannot be worse than the disease.”

Finally, there is the abysmal state of scientific education in America, the outcome of four decades of attacks on public education, which has resulted in a situation where significant sections of the population deny the existence of the virus, refuse to wear masks when in public and oppose the use of vaccines to protect the population from disease, ignorantly placing themselves and others at risk.

Trump’s repeated promotion of quack remedies, including the injection of bleach, while pressing for the rapid development and distribution of a vaccine during his administration for clearly political purposes, has sown great distrust among the population.

The systematic denigration of science is not limited to the Trump administration. In academia, the postmodernist rejection of rationality and the denial of objective truth prevails. At the same time the churches, which play an outsize role in social and political life in the United States, peddle superstition and backwardness.

The collapse of the labor movement also plays a significant role in disorienting and polluting popular consciousness. In 2005, remarking on the bizarre spectacle surrounding the case of Terry Schiavo, a brain-dead woman who was removed from life support by her husband, WSWS Editorial Board Chairman David North noted the socioeconomic changes underlying the influence of backwardness and superstition among broader layers of the population:

The virtual disappearance of what had been the principal form of mass organization and popular resistance to corporate power radically changed the nature of the relationship between workers and the economic structure within which they live. Whereas in the past they confronted this structure, however inadequately, as a class, they now confront this structure as isolated individuals. They find themselves in a situation where they are compelled to confront problems not as part of a social collective, but by themselves.

This describes very well the situation tens of millions of people confront as the coronavirus pandemic rages. Workers and young people have been worn down by the daily onslaught of infection and death without any support. They have been left by the ruling class to confront the horror of the pandemic entirely by themselves. Nothing has been done to mobilize resources to stop the disease or to address its massive economic, social and psychological consequences.

The unions play no role in educating the working class about the dangers of the pandemic or the public health measures needed to contain the virus. Nor have they done anything to counter the anti-science sentiments that have been cultivated among a layer of backward workers. Instead, they have collaborated with the companies as their enforcers, keeping the factories, schools and other workplaces open without any restrictions, even as tens of thousands in the auto industry, hospitals, slaughterhouses and Amazon’s warehouses have fallen ill, and many have died.

The disaster that is unfolding and set to dramatically worsen in the next four weeks is the outcome of the fact that the needs of the masses are subordinated to the profit interests of the super-rich. While the billionaires rack up record profits and Wall Street soars to new heights, the working class is experiencing an economic crisis without precedent since the Great Depression. With the ending of the last vestiges of pandemic aid after Christmas and the lifting of moratoriums on evictions, millions face complete destitution. The promotion of cultural backwardness by the ruling class now intersects with a homicidal policy.

While the coronavirus pandemic is the immediate cause of the catastrophe that is enveloping the United States, its impact is bound up with the degraded social-economic and political conditions produced by American capitalism.

Future of American Democracy: On Inequality, Polarization and Violence

Ramzy Baroud

In January 2017, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)’s Democracy Index downgraded the state of democracy in the United States from “full democracy” to “flawed democracy”.

The demotion of a country that has constantly prided itself, not only on being democratic but also on championing democracy throughout the world, took many by surprise. Some US pundits challenged the findings altogether.

However, judging by events that have transpired since, the accuracy of the EIU Index continues to demonstrate itself in the everyday reality of American politics: the extreme political and cultural polarization; growing influence of armed militias, police violence; mistreatment of undocumented immigrants, including children; marginalization of the country’s minorities in mainstream politics and so on.

The EIU’s Democracy Index has, finally, exposed the deteriorating state of democracy in the US because it is based on 60 different indicators which, aside from traditional categories – i.e. the function of government – also include other indicators such as gender equality, civil liberties and political culture.

Judging by the number, diversity and depth of the above indicators, it is safe to assume that the outcome of the US general elections this November will not have an immediate bearing on the state of American democracy. On the contrary, the outcome is likely to further fragment an already divided society and continue to turn the country’s state-run institutions – including the Supreme Court – into a battleground for political and ideological alliances.

While the buzzword throughout the election campaigns has been ‘saving American democracy’, the state of democracy in the US is likely to worsen in the foreseeable future. This is because America’s ruling elites, whether Republicans or Democrats, refuse to acknowledge the actual ailments that have afflicted American political culture for many years.

Sadly, when the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders, former Democratic presidential nominee, insisted that massive structural adjustments were necessary at every level of government, he was dismissed by the Democratic establishment as ‘unrealistic’, and altogether ‘unelectable’.

Sanders was, of course, right, because the crisis in American democracy was not initiated by the election of Donald Trump in 2016. The latter event was a mere symptom of a larger, protracted problem.

These are some of the major issues that are unlikely to be effortlessly resolved by the outcome of the elections, thus will continue to downgrade the state of democracy in the US.

The Inequality Gap: Income inequality, which is the source of socio-political strife, is one of the US’ major challenges, spanning over 50 years. Inequality, now compounded with the COVID-19 pandemic, is worsening, affecting certain racial groups – African Americans, in particular – and women, more than others.

According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center in February 2020, “income inequality in the US is the highest of all the G7 nations,” a major concern for 78 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of Republicans.

Political Polarization: The large gap between the wealthy few and the impoverished many is not the only schism creating a wedge in American society. Political polarization – although, interestingly, it does not always express itself based on rational class demarcation – is a major problem in the US.

Both Republicans and Democrats have succeeded in making their case to enlist the support of certain strata of American society, while doing very little to fulfill the many promises the ruling establishments of these two camps often make during election campaigns.

For example, Republicans use a populist political discourse to reach out to working-class white Americans, promising them economic prosperity; yet, there is no evidence that the lot of working-class white American families has improved under the Trump Administration.

The same is true with Democrats, who have, falsely, long situated themselves as the champions of racial justice and fairer treatment of undocumented immigrants.

Militarization of Society: With socio-economic inequality and political polarization at their worst, trust in democracy and the role of the state to fix a deeply flawed system is waning. This lack of trust in the central government spans hundreds of years, thus, the constant emphasis on the Second Amendment of the US Constitution regarding “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Indeed, US society is one of the most militarized in the world. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), two-thirds of all local terrorism in the US is carried out by right-wing militias, who are now more emboldened and angrier than ever before. According to an October Southern Poverty Law Center report, there are about 180 active anti-government paramilitary groups in the US.

For the first time in many years, talks of another ‘American Civil War’ have become a daily mainstream media discussion.

It would be entirely unrealistic to imagine that democracy in the US will be restored as a result of any given elections. Without a fundamental shift in US politics that confronts the underlying problems behind the socio-economic inequality and political polarization, the future carries yet more fragmentation and, possibly, violence.

The coming weeks and months are critical in determining the future direction of American society. Alas, the current indicators are hardly promising.

What Will a Biden Presidency Mean for the Asia-Pacific Region?

Walden Bello

Assuming Joe Biden will take the reins of the presidency on January 20, 2021, what will his likely policies toward the Asia-Pacific region look like?

It is unlikely that Joe Biden will continue Trump’s trade war with China. That would simply be too destabilizing for everyone. Not only is the U.S. greatly dependent on China for so many of its industrial imports, but so many countries are dependent on China as a market for their exports.

This is not only for raw materials and agricultural goods, as in the case of Africa and Latin America, respectively, but also industrial goods, as in the case of Southeast Asia, which manufactures components that are shipped to China, assembled there, then sent to the U.S., Europe, and everywhere else.

However, it is important to point out that the Biden group shares the Trump administration’s view of China as the main U.S. strategic competitor.

Their negative views on China’s industrial policy are not that much different from those found in the 2017 White House report on the crisis of U.S. manufacturing authored by Trump adviser Peter Navarro. They share the same view that China is advancing by poaching U.S. intellectual property and are prepared to take measures to prevent China from gaining a technological edge.

In this connection, one must realize that it was not Trump that designated China as the main U.S. competitor. That process started with George W. Bush, under whom China was re-designated from being a “strategic partner” to being a “strategic competitor.” Bush, Jr., however, did not follow through with concrete anti-China policies, since he wanted to cultivate China as an ally in the so-called War on Terror.

But Barack Obama did with his “Pivot to Asia,” where the bulk of U.S. naval forces were repositioned to “contain” China. In a way, one can say that Trump merely radicalized Obama’s posture toward China.

Military Continuity

Moreover, there is an institutional presence in the region that has remained very consistent through various presidents, Republican or Democrat, and that is the U.S. military.

The military plays a much, much bigger role in formulating policy in the Asia Pacific than in other parts of the world. Even as U.S. corporations embraced China because it offered cheap labor that enhanced their profitability, the Pentagon was always skeptical of better relations with Beijing and it led in developing the opposite view of China as a strategic rival.

It must be pointed out that the operative warfighting doctrine of the Pentagon is AirSea Battle, where it is clear that China is the “enemy.” The overriding objective is, in case of war, penetrating the A2/AD (Anti-Access/Area Denial) defenses of China in order to deliver a lethal blow on the country’s industrial infrastructure in Southeastern China.

Under Trump, two major moves favored by the Pentagon were made: the installation of an anti-missile defense system (THAAD) directed at both China and North Korea in South Korea, and the redeployment in the Asia-Pacific of intermediate range nuclear missiles aimed at China after the U.S. withdrew from the INF (Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces) Treaty in 2019.

The Pentagon defines China as a “near peer competitor,” but it knows it is far from being one. The U.S. outspends China on defense nearly three to one, some $650 billion to $250 billion (as of 2018). China has only some 260 nuclear warheads, compared to Washington’s 5,400, and Beijing’s ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) are dated, though they are undergoing modernization.

China’s offensive naval capability is minuscule compared to that of the U.S. It has two Soviet-era aircraft carriers, while the U.S. has 11 carrier task force groups and has introduced a state-of-the-art carrier, the USS Gerald Ford.

China has only one overseas base — in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa — while the U.S. has hundreds of bases and installations surrounding China, including in Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, and a mobile floating base in the form of the Seventh Fleet that dominates the South China Sea.

Even if it chooses to challenge the U.S. militarily — which is a big “if” — Beijing won’t be able to significantly do so until after a few more decades. Still, the Pentagon’s grand strategic objective, which will be unchanged under a Biden administration, will be to halt China long before it reaches strategic parity.

The South China Sea

Given this, the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea) will continue to be a site of intense naval confrontation between China and the United States, as well as between China and the ASEAN countries whose just claims to exclusive economic zones and territories Beijing has ignored.

Vietnamese officials, for instance, have been very vocal about their fears that the level of tension is such that a mere ship collision can escalate into a higher form of conflict, since there are no rules or understandings that govern military relationships except a volatile balance of power. And everyone knows what volatile balance of power situations can lead to, the European balance before World War I being a worrisome lesson in this regard.

In this connection, demilitarization and denuclearization of the South China Sea are the real answer to the escalation of tensions in the area, and ASEAN governments and civil society should be pushing this alternative more energetically. It is, however, unlikely that as of now, China or the U.S. under Biden would be open to this alternative.

The Korean Peninsula

Whatever may have been his motives, Trump did contribute to ending the state of Cold War in the Korean peninsula, though he could have done more. Tensions have eased, and the people of all of Korea are the beneficiaries.

Biden, however, was a Cold Warrior when it came to Korea while he was vice president. There are worries that under Biden, there will be a return to the status quo ante of knife’s edge confrontation that marked relations between North Korea and both Democratic and Republican administrations before Trump.

The status of both South Korea and Japan as U.S. satellites will be unchanged under a Biden presidency. They really have no choice, being militarily occupied countries. With Japan hosting 25 major U.S. military bases and Korea 15, plus scores of smaller military installations, these two countries serve as the Pentagon’s principal springboard for the containment of China.

Human Rights and Diplomacy

Certainly, Washington will pick up the cudgel of human rights against North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, which it had dropped totally under Trump. Also, human rights will occupy a more central place in Biden’s approach towards China than it did under Trump, though Biden’s need for Xi’s support to maintain his shaky domestic position will probably soften his invoking it.

Biden will also probably mention human rights vis-à-vis President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, though Duterte’s early congratulations to Biden, Biden’s need for support from foreign leaders for his legitimacy, and Duterte’s continuing threat to abrogate the U.S.-Philippine Visiting Forces Agreement may induce the president-elect to bring down the volume below where it was under Obama.

Parenthetically, human rights is an extremely important advocacy, and international civil society and the United Nations should promote it more aggressively. The problem is that when the U.S. uses it, it is instrumentalized as the “soft power” part of Washington’s foreign policy repertoire aimed at advancing its economic and strategic interests.

It is also seen as extremely hypocritical by people around the world, since there are so many egregious human rights violations in the U.S., including not least the systematic repression of Black people. Human rights advocacy is only effective if the one advocating it has the moral high ground. The U.S. no longer has that (and it is questionable if it ever really did), though one suspects Biden and his people have a blind spot when it comes to this.

The U.S. Domestic Divide

All these projections are based on the assumption that Biden will be able to succeed Trump. But the mood in the U.S. today is, let’s face it, one of civil war, and it may only be a matter of time before this mood is translated into something more threatening, more ugly.

Indeed, even if Biden takes office, it is hard to imagine how any administration can conduct foreign policy under such conditions of deeply divided legitimacy, where unrestricted political warfare is waged over every significant issue, domestic or foreign. Of course, the CIA and Pentagon bureaucracies will continue to function as per their DNA, but contrary to Trumpist claims about the independent dynamics of the “deep state,” political leadership matters, and matters greatly.

For the rest of the world, it is a big question mark if a U.S. so deeply preoccupied with itself that it cannot conduct a coherent foreign policy is a plus or a minus. That is, however, a topic for another essay.

Foreign policy challenges for Biden!

Nadeem Khan

It has been the most keenly followed election in U.S. history. The entire world had been on tenterhooks anxiously waiting for the outcome in the early week of November. According to some foreign policy experts, the last four years had witnessed a remarkable change in U.S. policies with the outside world under the garb of “America First,” which has, in turn, isolated America. With highly changed and unconventional interaction with friends and foes alike during President Trump’s regime, it becomes necessary to investigate or ascertain what are expected changes when Joe Biden assumes Presidents office.

U.S. foreign policy primarily hinges on its relationship with the United Nations, security, economic values, and military deterrence. Biden, who has been a part of the Obama team in his various write-ups, has expressed a desire to make America lead again after it lost its way in pursuit of “Let’s make America great again.” At the fag end of President Obama’s tenure, a desire had developed to look inwards with the belief that resources will be considered better utilized when mobilized for domestic purposes. Later, President Trump decided to pull the U.S. away from endless wars worldwide. However, much of his international relations efforts resulted in antagonizing almost everybody.

A recent survey showed that contrary to the common belief American public is not very opposed to the idea of American involvement in issues around the world, more so when everyone looks to the U.S. to lead and guide them through developing problems. Trump’s regime saw worsening of ties with NATO, coming out of treaty with Iran, problems with WHO, uncertain climate issues making it more necessary to have a fresh look at everything and especially with allies. Although the Senate’s possible Republican control may constrain Biden, one can expect a flurry of executive orders to put things back on track.

Climate crisis

This issue will require immediate attention as President Trump had pulled out of the Paris climate accord, which has left this endeavor rudderless. As per media reports, Biden has expressed his seriousness about rejoining the Paris climate agreement and of motivating other nations to boost their commitments towards keeping right climate.

Earlier, President Trump had also revoked some measures taken by the Obama administration for climate control by dubbing them as job-killing measures. Therefore, the new administration needs to balance job creation and limit carbon pollution, especially from the power plants. A decision has to be taken regarding the revoked moratorium on coal leasing.

World Health Organization

This issue is most recent and has gained prominence due to the COVID-19 pandemic. President Trump withdrew from it after accusing it of working under Chinese influence. It eventually resulted in a loss of funding for WHO, although China and some European nations pledged more amount to take care of the shortfall.

Withdrawal from WHO will also result in problems for the U.S. as it will find itself having less influence in global affairs.  Health priorities around the world where the U.S. has invested will also suffer in the long run. WHO helps countries to deal with their health issues lest they become global problems. Many new competing health groups can come into being if the authority of WHO as custodian of global health authority gets diluted.

Biden has indicated many times during the campaign and in his write-ups that returning to WHO is his priority. However, some systems and protocols have to be in place concerning pandemics’ management and checking Chinese influence.

China

This definitely will be the area which everyone will be watching with keenness. U.S. relationship with China has been tension-ridden and tricky, more so in the recent past. The last four years saw a deterioration of relations with China on climate change issues, the North Korean nuclear program, and of course, COVID-19.

During the campaign, President Trump tried to make China responsible for the COVID-19 mess hoping that it would reduce the heat on his administration regarding handling this pandemic. Later on, his pulling out of WHO citing Chinese influence further complicated the issues.

As per many experts, Biden favors a conciliatory approach towards China. There is also an opinion that one needs to work with China on climate, covid19, and North Korea issues. Biden also said recently in a media interaction on CNN that “we want China to grow,” and many of his advisers also think that engaging China is the only way to make it adhere to international rules and norms. As per media reports, Biden favors dealing with China by creating a united front of U.S. allies, which would together make more than half of the world’s economy.

Iran

During the campaign, Biden has expressed his intention to rejoin Iran nuclear deal if Iran ensures compliance with the pact. It won’t be an easy assignment for the Biden administration as much water has flown under the bridge ever since President Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal. Iran is now a changed country as far as foreign policy is concerned, and the new administration will find it more under Russian and Chinese
influence compared to four years before.

As per media reports, China is building and equipping Iran’s port at Chabahar, which is critical for a pipeline project that can challenge the efforts to ban Iran exports. China has also made $400 billion in investments to upgrade Iran’s oil sector, which would significantly boost its economy.

After U.N. ten-year arm embargo on Iran got lifted in the later part of 2020, a military component has also come into the relationship between Iran and Russia. Media reports also indicated a naval exercise in 2019 across the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, in which Russia, China, and Iran participated.

Hence it appears difficult for the new U.S. administration to pull Iran away from Russian and Chinese influence. There has to be fresh negotiations and would require strong reasons for Iran to come along.

Afghanistan

It has been a complicated case for U.S. policy advisors to handle since President Obama’s time. During his time in Iraq, military leadership tried to implement counter-insurgency operations (COIN) in Afghanistan. This involved building relationships with the local population and focus on development work. This approach had its critics but had worked well in Iraq.

As per James Mann, when President Obama announced to increase troops’ strength in Afghanistan, then the first senior official from the administration to dissent was Joe Biden himself. He felt counter-terrorism is a better option than counter-insurgency. Biden felt more troops would mean more casualties. Therefore, it would result in a decrease in public support and also within the democrats.

Trump administration preferred dealing directly with the Taliban, which ultimately lead to troops withdrawal and Intra-Afghan negotiations. Some policy experts believe that the Biden administration will have to choose for a broad-based Intra Afghan policy along with careful implementation and monitoring of earlier agreements with the Taliban. As there are media reports that Michelle Flournoy can be the next Defense secretary, it can be assumed that counter-insurgency strategy will get a boost if that happens.

The new administration would require a fresh approach to energize foreign policy with rejuvenated alliances with allies, considering the difficult time during the outgoing regime. The new administration’s success in repairing strained relationships is important not only for the U.S. but also for the whole world order.

Is there any alternative to anti-government outburst in Bangladesh?

Amir Mohammad Sayem

In the politics of Bangladesh, opposition parties including the Bangladesh Nationalist Party frequently say that massive movement will be carried out to oust the government, whereas the ruling party, the Bangladesh Awami League, repeatedly responds that oppositions’ anti-government movement will be tackled with full strength. Even if no massive anti-government movement was carried out as said and political situation remains calm at least for around the last two years and especially at the time of the pandemic, a pertinent question obviously remains on whether there is any possibility of such an outburst in Bangladesh — sooner or later. The possibility of anti-government outburst, in my opinion, cannot be discarded altogether, given the overall political context of the country.

For many, there is, in fact, no room for the transfer of political office through free, fair and credible elections — ranging from the parliamentary to Union Parishad — in Bangladesh. While the 10th parliamentary elections held in 2014 were boycotted by the BNP and some other parties, the participatory 11th general elections held in 2018 were, as frequently claimed, massively unfree, unfair and incredible because of the manipulation of state power by the ruling party, leading to a landslide defeat of the National Unity Front — a joint political platform that was created by a number of parties including the BNP and Gono Forum in 2018 aiming at the 11th parliamentary election in particular. Other subsequent elections, including City Corporation, are also claimed by oppositions as unfree and unfair.

In addition to electoral cause, political space of oppositions at national and local level is usually not good in Bangladesh — a constitutionally democratic country. There is small room for opposition parties including the BNP, which was in power for four times, to participate in political assemblies or hold political rallies, rendered as a crucial ingredient of democratic politics. As recurrently criticized by opposition leaders and political analysts, oppositions get very limited opportunities for political rallies or demonstrations, whereas the ruling party can hold political rallies without any barriers. As further said, many opposition leaders and activists are killed for political reasons and many others are repressed and harassed through several forms — politically motivated cases, arrests, threats of arrests, etc.

But an important question remains on oppositions’ capacity, though there are reasons for massive anti-government movement. In fact, several causes including systematic and consistent repression on opposition leaders and activists for years (as particularly claimed by oppositions), the BNP’s staying away from power for around fourteen years, lack of dynamic and effective leadership, indifference among leaders and activists, a lack of people centric agenda, and a lack of effective coordination among oppositions have enormously lessened strengths for successful anti-government outburst. Yet, a great deal of strengths owing to a large number of leaders, activists and supporters across the country may unsurprisingly make oppositions able to successfully carry out a stronger political movement with effective coordination sooner or later for the establishment of political rights, even if they failed earlier and the pandemic can halt any such possibility at this moment.

Under the context of political challenges and counter-challenges and potential circumstances, a question can relevantly be raised on whether the anti-government movement or the capacity to carry it out is mandatory for making sure justifiable concerns are addressed, given that Bangladesh is a democratic country. To me, the necessity of showing capacity — or the necessity of anti-government outburst — does not seem good at all especially when Bangladesh needs to go a long way for its better internal and external position, despite the fact that political movements are sometimes essential for making some significant changes in many countries. In fact, it can possibly lead to catastrophic economic, social, political and other impacts and indicates the culture of politics that is unprogressive and might-based, which are needed to be changed for improvement of the very politics.

It also seems that any massive political movement is now undesirable to most general people, who are more engaged for developing themselves in economic and other terms. But, if do not make any mistake, people simultaneously do not want to see the political culture of revenge and political hegemony that lead to relentless efforts to suppress oppositions and limit political space for oppositions. I think that most people do not accept neither the 21st August grenade attack on the Awami League’s political gatherings in 2004 and other forms of coercion by the then ruling alliance nor the current government’s repression on oppositions, manipulations of elections, etc. In fact, people’s vote for the Awami League in 2008 and reluctance to cast votes at present clearly indicate such a position.

It is often said that the running government has contributed much, since it’s coming to power in 2009, to national development with many remarkable nationally and internationally oriented steps. Obviously, I do not disagree with many significant improvements occurred in diverse sectors including economic, educational, infrastructural and communication, even if there are controversies on some occasions including a lack of fair share of economic development among all segments. But is it possible to develop sustainably without political and civil rights, rendered as crucial for human development from broader viewpoint? To me, desired progression of a country means the one which takes economic, social, political and other aspects into account for all — the ruling party and others.

Expectedly, more needs to be done to avert any undesired potential political outburst — sooner or later — and make political environment from local to national level better with qualitative changes in the culture of politics that are facilitative for progression of all. In this respect, both the ruling party and oppositions have some dissimilar but undeniable roles to play; yet, it is unsurprising that the ruling party has some exclusive responsibilities for addressing diverse justifiable political concerns of oppositions. In my opinion, the ruling Awami League should come out of its present hegemonic stance, realize potential negative impacts of political unilateralism on the future politics of the country and make earnest efforts to address all justifiable concerns — electoral and non-electoral.

But all parties need to play desired roles for improving quality of politics. Obviously, use of diverse forms of coercive techniques against opposition leaders and activists with administrative means, usage of muscle powers of party men, subversive protest activities, the political culture of revenge, etc. are almost common scenario in Bangladesh, though there are variations. It has turned to be around 50 years since the glorious Independence in 1971, but changes do not seem significant in terms quality of politics, although immediate post-independence start was good. In fact, mass people now want to see that all future elections are fair, opposition parties are no more suppressed for political reasons and oppositions play their responsible roles for the country.

Solomon Islands government to ban Facebook

John Braddock

The government of the Solomon Islands in the south west Pacific has announced it will move to ban Facebook. The cabinet is also looking at banning the Messenger app.

Communications Minister Peter Shanel Agovaka confirmed the decision to Solomon Times Online, blaming public misuse of the social media platform. “Abusive languages against ministers, prime minister, character assassination, defamation of character—all these are issues of concern,” he said.

Solomon Islands Prime Minister Sogavare with Australian PM Scott Morrison in June 2019 (Photo: DFAT)

It is not yet clear when the proposed ban might be implemented, for how long, or how the government intends to enforce it, but according to Agovaka the decision would not necessarily require parliament’s approval. “The government is still in discussion with the operators to work out how this can be done. The operators shall need to establish a firewall to block Facebook,” he declared.

Avoka falsely denied the ban is an attack on freedom of expression, claiming that freedom of the press is protected. He said the country lacks legislation on internet usage and cybercrime and cited purported concerns about what children were accessing. The internet needed to be regulated “to safeguard our young people from harmful content,” he said.

Facebook has 2.4 billion users globally. In the Pacific it is a primary means of communication and used as a forum for public discussion as well as connecting expatriates with families at home. About 20 percent of the Solomon Islands’ 650,000 population has internet access. A Solomon Islands Media Association spokesperson Georgina Kekea told Radio NZ the body was concerned people’s voices were being suppressed and the ban contravened their constitutional rights.

Transparency International’s Ruth Liloqula said the government was responding to adverse reactions to its COVID-19 economic stimulus package. “A lot of people are really pressing the government to make an explanation why some constituencies are getting $3 million and why some are just getting $600 and why the economic stimulus package has to go through members of parliament at all,” she told Radio NZ.

The chamber of commerce said the ban was a threat to many businesses and would bring negative press on the world stage.

The Solomon Islands joins four other countries, China, Iran, Syria and North Korea, in banning Facebook. Exploding social struggles are driving governments internationally to impose internet censorship and attack freedom of speech and other basic democratic rights.

Spain’s Socialist Party-Podemos government last month introduced measures to allow the state to monitor and suppress internet content under the pretext of combating “fake news” and “foreign intervention.” New Zealand has also passed legislation making it easier for the government to “take down” content from social media that is deemed to be “extremist.”

Social media platforms, including Facebook, are also actively involved in their own political censorship, targeting left-wing organisations and the World Socialist Web Site in particular, all in the name of halting the spread of disinformation and “fake news.” Various methods have been used, including the manipulation of search results to downgrade or block particular websites.

In the Solomon Islands, Facebook was cited as a factor in riots and looting in the capital, Honiara, in April 2019 following a protest at the parliament over Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare’s re-election for a sixth term. Facebook was widely used by those organising the protests over deepening inequality and poverty.

Like other privileged political elites in the region, the Solomon Islands establishment is embroiled in corruption scandals and instability. Two by-elections were forced last week after the courts found their respective former MPs guilty of bribing voters during the 2019 national election. Although both were disqualified from the by-elections, their spouses stood. One, Ethel Vokia, was successful in Northeast Guadalcanal while two former prime ministers, Derek Sikua and Gordon Darcy Lilo, were defeated.

The Facebook ban is, significantly, taking place amid rising tensions over the Sogavare government’s relations with China. The leader of the Malaita province, Daniel Suidani, is threatening a separatist split after the national government’s diplomatic switch last year from Taiwan to Beijing.

The proposed split by the country’s most populous province follows a series of provocations by the regional premier, who is backed by US and Australian imperialism. Suidani has organised pro-Taiwan demonstrations and fomented anti-Chinese sentiment. His administration has effectively sought to maintain its own foreign policy, coordinating aid and economic assistance from Taipei. Suidani seized on the Facebook ban to further criticise the central government, saying it was “not the answer to people’s frustrations.”

Between 1999 and 2003, a low-intensity civil war involving the separatist Malaita Eagle Force militia cost around 200 lives and forced tens of thousands of people to flee their homes. The threat of renewed conflict has been stoked by the United States, as part of its aggressive drive to undermine China’s influence in the Pacific.

Class struggles are also erupting. Sogavare suspended the Solomon Islands Nurses Association (SINA) early this month for staging an “illegal” rally. Hundreds of nurses had gathered in the carpark of the National Referral Hospital in Honiara to protest non-payment of allowances for work done during the COVID-19 emergency. After failing to get a reply to a formal request to hold the demonstration, the nurses went ahead with the strike, against opposition by the SINA executive.

Sogavare claimed the SINA suspension was because the nurses’ actions put lives at risk. “It is important that we follow the regulations, especially when there is a State of Public Emergency,” he declared. Sogavare further warned the unions against becoming “an instrument of division instead of unity.”

The Solomon Islands is not the only Pacific country to suppress Facebook. In July, the Samoan government threatened a ban after blogger Malele Paulo, also known as King Faipopo, was jailed for seven weeks for making false statements on social media allegedly defaming Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi. Similar measures have also been threatened or implemented by Nauru in 2015, Papua New Guinea (2018) and Tonga (2019).

The turn to authoritarian measures is escalating as the deeply impoverished countries face mounting economic and social crises. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Pacific economies were extremely fragile due to a colonial legacy of poverty and underdevelopment. Now governments in the region, many unstable and in crisis, are imposing tough new controls on the pretext of fighting the pandemic.

The International Labour Organisation has reported that thousands of jobs in Fiji, Samoa and Tonga are dependent on tourist visitor numbers, which have fallen to zero. Australian academic Stephen Howes forecasts that the shutting down of global trade will result in crises of food, water and medicine in the short term, and unemployment and poverty in the longer term, throughout the region.

Preparations to suppress widespread social unrest are well under way. Civil society organisation Civicus last December singled out Fiji, Nauru and Papua New Guinea as having “obstructed” basic civil rights, including media censorship. The Melanesia Media Freedom Forum warned after its annual meeting in Brisbane last year that threats to the media across the Pacific are increasing with “restrictive legislation, intimidation, political threats, legal threats and prosecutions, assaults and police and military brutality and illegal detention.”