NATO members move toward formal alliance with Ukraine

Andre Damon

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, left, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy show the Joint Declaration after signing in Kyiv, Ukraine, on Saturday, June 10, 2023. (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky)

As Ukraine’s offensive against Russian forces moves into full swing, NATO members are accelerating their efforts to initiate a formal military alliance with Ukraine or even have Ukraine join NATO.

On Saturday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited Ukraine to pledge, in writing, his government’s support for Ukraine joining NATO.

Commenting on the meeting, Ihor Zhovkva, the deputy head of the Office of the Ukrainian President, wrote that Canada’s support for Ukraine’s acquisition of NATO membership “as soon as conditions allow” is “the strongest wording among all the G7 countries that are NATO members.”

He added that it was “[A]nother practical step on the Euro-Atlantic path, another powerful voice in support of Ukraine and another stage of preparation for the successful holding of the Vilnius NATO Summit in July.”

Zhovkva claimed that Canada was one of 20 NATO member states to agree in writing that they support Ukraine becoming a member of NATO.

Under conditions in which Ukraine is actively involved in a war with Russia, for Ukraine to join the military alliance would require NATO members to go to war with Russia.

Last month, Colonel Alexander S. Vindman, who had been an early advocate of sending US tanks and F-16s to Ukraine, endorsed an article in Foreign Affairs headlined “To Protect Europe, Let Ukraine Join NATO—Right Now,” by former Ukrainian Defense Minister Andriy P. Zagorodnyuk.

Ukrainian soldiers near Bakhmut, Donetsk region, Ukraine, May 23, 2023. [AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky]

In May, French President Emmanuel Macron said he supports a “path” for Ukraine into NATO. In April, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg declared, “Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO,” adding, “All NATO allies have agreed that Ukraine will become a member.”

The flurry of diplomatic activity is meant to set the stage for the July 11-12 NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, whose central focus will be the expansion of the NATO alliance with the accession of Sweden and moves to engineer a formal alliance between NATO and Ukraine.

The ongoing Ukrainian offensive is timed to create the best possible circumstances for the formalization of this alliance.

As the New York Times wrote on Saturday:

Some battlefield success, whether by decimating Russia’s army, claiming some territory or both … would build more support in Europe for some sort of long-term security guarantee for Kyiv.

Both Ukraine and Western allies have invested in the counteroffensive because, no matter the precise result, it will set the stage for the next phase of the war. The American and British plan to help secure Ukraine involves building support for robust security guarantees from the United States and NATO countries.

Over the weekend, the battlefield situation remained unclear, with indications that Ukrainian forces were able to seize multiple villages after incurring horrific casualties, including the loss of several main battle tanks and dozens of Western armored personnel carriers.

Over the weekend, the New York Times confirmed the Russian claim that at least three German Leopard 2 tanks and eight American Bradley vehicles were destroyed in recent days.

The Institute for the Study of War claimed, “Ukrainian forces conducted counteroffensive operations in at least three areas of the front and made territorial gains on June 10 and 11.” It added, “Ukrainian forces made visually verified advances in western Donetsk Oblast and western Zaporizhia Oblast, which Russian sources confirmed but sought to downplay.”

In his meeting with Trudeau, Zelensky officially confirmed the counteroffensive had begun, saying,  “Counteroffensive and defensive actions are being taken in Ukraine.” He added, “At what stage, I will not disclose in detail.”

In this supercharged climate, NATO is preparing to launch what the German Luftwaffe (air force) called “the largest air force deployment exercise in NATO’s history” based in Germany.

The Luftwaffe said that the war game “scenario is modeled on a NATO Article 5 assistance scenario.” This is a reference to the treaty commitment by all NATO members to go to war if any member is attacked. In this simulation, the Luftwaffe will attempt do what its commander-in-chief, Hermann Göring, failed to do in the Second World War: militarily defeat Russia.

During the exercise, scheduled to begin on Monday, the 10,000 military personnel and 250 aircraft will be involved in missions flying from Germany to the NATO member states bordering Russia.

The Wall Street Journal described the war games as follows:

The Air Defender exercise will practice the mass deployment of troops and hardware from the U.S. to Europe in response to various scenarios involving Russian attacks on NATO members.

The baseline scenario involves the enemy capturing the German port of Rostock in an attack that would trigger NATO’s common defense clause, known as Article 5. The response will include recapturing the port and other infrastructure, as well as defending cities and moving into offensive action.

Increasingly, the war is becoming an existential question for the United States. An article in Politico noted, “Senior U.S. officials are convinced that future support for the Ukraine war—and President Joe Biden’s global reputation—hinges on the success of Ukraine’s counteroffensive.”

US to sell drones to Taiwan in provocative intelligence-sharing plan

Peter Symonds

The Financial Times (FT) revealed last week that plans are well underway in the US to sell four MQ-9B Sea Guardian drones to Taiwan to provide intelligence on Chinese naval movements, to be shared in real time with both the American and Japanese militaries. The US Department of Defence approved the sale of the drones in May but has not commented on the intelligence-sharing arrangement, reportedly disclosed to the FT by four sources.

MQ-9B Sea Guardian drone [Photo: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems]

The decision is a further step in integrating Taiwan into US war plans against China and underscores the absurdity of US claims that it still upholds a “One China” policy under which it de facto recognises Taiwan as part of China. Washington is not only supplying military hardware, as it has done in the past, but drawing Taipei into its framework of military alliances in the Indo-Pacific directed against China.

The US is well aware that this move is highly provocative. “The sharing of data between Japan and Taiwan, between Taiwan and the Philippines, between the US and all three of them, is so crucial, but it’s also one of the big taboos because China will see it as escalatory,” an unnamed senior US military official told the FT.

According to the article, the US manufacturer, General Atomics, is due to deliver the drones to Taiwan, starting in 2025. The MQ-9B Sea Guardian drones are used for the surveillance of warships and submarines but are also able to carry what the manufacturer terms “a kinetic payload” that could include missiles and anti-submarine torpedoes.

If the surveillance from the Taiwanese drones were linked to the intelligence networks of the US and its allies, it would provide what is euphemistically called “a common operational picture”—that is, an overview of military operations in the Taiwan Strait and surrounding waters in the event of war with China.

Following the publication of the FT article, a US defence department spokesman declared that the US was “not currently planning to facilitate MQ-9 data sharing between Taiwan and Japan.” He did not deny, however, that information sharing is taking place between the US and Taiwan and would be greatly augmented by the drones.

Taiwan’s defence ministry declared it had “not yet been informed of plans to share real-time data from naval reconnaissance drones with the US and Japan.” However, National Security Bureau (NSB) director Tsai Ming-yen told the island’s legislature in late April that Taiwan was already sharing intelligence with the top-level Five Eyes spy network that includes the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Tsai explained that Taiwan was upgrading its computer technology to “connect with the Five Eyes alliance through a confidential system.” Questioned about the intelligence exchanges, Tsai said Taiwan was already sharing intelligence “in real time” and had allocated funding to create an “instant online reporting and communication mechanism” to the five countries.

While Japan is not a member of the Five Eyes network at present, it already shares intelligence with the US and discussion is underway to upgrade the relationship. In January, an article entitled “How Might Japan Join the Five Eyes?” published by the US think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted: “There are increasing calls from inside both governments—and outside government—for the United States and Japan to increase intelligence sharing since war planning requires a much higher level of information sharing between militaries.” That also raised the question of Japan joining the Five Eyes, it stated.

As the US intensifies its provocations and preparations for conflict with China, the integration of intelligence and closer military cooperation with Taiwan, in particular, has come to the fore in strategic and military circles.

The right-wing US magazine, National Interest, in February noted the significance of the appointment of Tsai as NSB director, with wide international experience as well as in Taiwan’s own intelligence operations. His ascension, it declared, “could reflect a shift in Taiwan’s approach to intelligence collection and sharing, which has responded to escalating and rapidly evolving threats to the island’s security.”

In an interview with the Nikkei last July, US congressman Steve Chabot said: “I do think that we need to coordinate military intelligence very closely and very cooperatively, between the United States and Taiwan.” He noted that the two sides were already working together in this area, but “that needs to be improved and developed even further.” Chabot is co-chair of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus and was ranking Republican on a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Asia.

The US focus on Taiwan is not accidental. Biden, following Trump, has deliberately undermined the One China policy by forging closer diplomatic and military ties with Taipei and stepping up provocative naval passages through the sensitive Taiwan Strait. While China has emphasised that it seeks reunification with Taiwan by peaceful means, it has not ruled out the use of military force should Taipei formally declared independence from Beijing.

Responding to the FT’s revelations last week, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin called on the US and Japan to “stop creating military tensions and causing trouble for stability in the Taiwan Strait… We firmly oppose military contact between Taiwan and countries that have established diplomatic ties with China.”

The US, however, has no intention of easing tensions with China, which it regards as the chief threat to its global economic and strategic dominance. Just as it goaded Russia into launching its invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration is seeking to provoke a conflict with China by deliberately inflaming what is arguably the most dangerous flashpoint in Asia—relations across the Taiwan Strait.

The moves to establish real-time intelligence sharing between Taiwan and the US and its allies to create a “common operational picture” is a warning of the very advanced character of the Pentagon’s plans for war with China—a conflict with disastrous consequences for humanity as a whole.

German air force conducts massive exercise targeting Russia

Florian Hasek & Johannes Stern

The escalation of the NATO war against Russia over Ukraine is taking on ever more dangerous forms. Last week, former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated that NATO “ground troops” could be deployed to Ukraine. At the same time, NATO is organizing massive military maneuvers with which the alliance “practices” for a direct intervention in the conflict.

The most comprehensive exercises will take place in Germany beginning Monday. From 12 to 23 June, hundreds of fighter jets will be flying over the country as part of Air Defender 2023 and training for a state of total war. It is the largest aerial exercise in NATO history. In total, more than 10,000 soldiers from 25 nations are involved with 250 aircraft. They will be practising offensive maneuvers, potentially right up to the Russian border.

Two U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning II aircraft assigned to the 158th Fighter Wing, Vermont National Guard, taxi to an aircraft shelter on Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, June 7, 2023, in preparation for Air Defender 2023 (AD23). [Photo: US Air Force Tech Sgt. Anthony Plyler]

Here are some more key figures about the exercise: The Bundeswehr (German army) has a contingent of 60 aircraft—including 30 Eurofighters and 16 Tornados—and four helicopters. The largest contingent of combat aircraft comes from the United States with 100. Around 90 percent of air traffic during the exercise will take place in German airspace or over the North and Baltic Sea coasts. Most missions start from locations in Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony, Bavaria and Rhineland-Palatinate, as well as from one location each in the Netherlands and the Czech Republic. Civilian air traffic will be prohibited for at least two hours daily in several areas during the exercise.

Large parts of German airspace are being de facto transformed into a war zone. The official website of the Bundeswehr states on the maneuver: “Depending on the activated airspace, the jet-fight practice flights take place from 2500 or 3000 meters altitude. Low-level flights of jets and cargo aircraft are planned in a part of the eastern air exercise area, the so-called Fight 1. This exercise area extends over northern Brandenburg, parts of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and the Baltic Sea.” In addition, low-flying would take place at the military training sites Baumholder and Grafenwöhr.

Both the sheer scale of the exercise and its character make it clear that “Air Defender 2023” is not simply a routine maneuver. It is a direct component of the NATO war offensive against Russia. Representatives of the German ruling class in particular, which has already tried to subjugate Russia militarily in the two world wars, openly state this.

“History has caught up with us,” said Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (Free Democrats), chairwoman of the Defence Committee of the Bundestag. “We have a hot war by Russia against Ukraine.” Military exercises such as “Air Defender” are always a signal to the other side: “You show what you can do.”

Based on the “script” of the maneuver, this includes a comprehensive war effort against the nuclear-armed power Russia. According to a Wall Street Journal report: 

“The baseline scenario involves the enemy taking the German port of Rostock, an attack that would trigger NATO’s joint defense clause known as Article 5. The response includes recapturing the port and other infrastructure as well as defending cities and launching offensive measures.”

The other training elements also read like a blueprint for direct intervention in Ukraine. “The scenarios include the fight against drones and cruise missiles, the protection of cities, airports and seaports as well as the direct support of ground troops,” writes the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

In addition, nuclear-capable F-16, F-35 and Bundeswehr tornado fighter jets will take part in the exercise, which, according to the Bundeswehr, will fly “daily missions” to Estonia and Romania—i.e., directly to the Russian border and towards the Black Sea. In doing so, the pilots and crews would fly according to the “train as you fight” principle—which means that the Russian military leadership would have to assume potential acts of war are being launched.

In a recent commentary on the escalation of the war, the World Socialist Web Site warned: 

“Given the statements of leading US and NATO officials that they are committed to the military defeat of Russia, the Putin government will be compelled to interpret all these actions as possible preparations for NATO incursions into Russian territory.”

And in another article on the Ukrainian counter-offensive, we wrote:

“In the event of a military debacle for Ukraine, there exists the extreme danger that the NATO powers will respond with the declaration that they will implement a no-fly zone over Ukraine, involving NATO warplanes attacking Russian aircraft, and the deployment of ground troops from NATO member states into Ukraine.”

Regardless of whether “Air Defender 2023” becomes the immediate starting point for NATO’s direct intervention into the war—and this danger exists—the maneuver is part of the development towards a third world war.

From the point of view of the German government, the maneuver is not only part of the war mobilization against Russia. It is also aimed at re-establishing Germany as a military leader and war power. Germany as a host proves “that we are not only talking about international responsibility, but also taking it on as a logistical hub in Europe and a leading nation in such a large exercise,” boasted Defense Minister Boris Pistorius (Social Democrats).

And Air Force Inspector General Ingo Gerhartz told the Wall Street Journal: “Germany needs to take much more responsibility and sometimes take the lead among NATO nations here in Europe... And we prove with this exercise that we are capable of doing so.”

The fact that Gerhartz, of all people, declared yesterday, at the base of the Tactical Air Force Squadron 51 “Immelmann” in Jagel in Schleswig-Holstein, that the preparation of the maneuver was “completed” may have triggered particular unrest in Moscow. Last June, the air force chief openly threatened Russia with the use of nuclear weapons, stating: “For a credible deterrent, we need both the means and the political will to implement the nuclear deterrent if necessary.”

The name “Immelmann” underlines the tradition in which the Luftwaffe operates. It is a tribute to the fighter pilot Max Immelmann, who shot down enemy aircraft during the First World War before he himself died in a mission on 18 June 1916. In the Third Reich, Immelmann was celebrated as a war hero and a unit was also named after him. The Battle Squadron 2 Immelmann played a central role in the war of annihilation against the Soviet Union and was used in numerous operations against Russian cities and positions of the Red Army on the Eastern Front.

The war-mongering media is also beating the drums for war in a way that has not been experienced since Hitler and the Nazis. Thus, the editorial in the current issue of Der Spiegel calls for a massive increase in the German war effort to defeat Russia in Ukraine. The Ukrainian army needs “even more urgent Western support now,” writes head of the foreign affairs desk Mathieu von Rohr. “The next few weeks and months will prove decisive. They will show whether Ukraine can repel the invading army. This war must not become frozen.”

Von Rohr praised Scholz’s militaristic outburst of anger last weekend and noted with satisfaction: “The good thing is that Germany and its Western partners have now understood: It is not enough to prevent Ukraine from losing. You have to help it win.” After the billion-dollar supply of “air defense,” “tanks” and “ammunition,” the German government must now, “as recently indicated by Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, also examine the support of Western fighter jet deliveries.” Von Rohr continues, “The more successful the counter-offensive, the more hope there is for an end to the war.”

This argument corresponds to the murderous war logic of German militarism in the past century. The German elites in the Empire and among the Nazis also justified their total warfare with the cynical argument of wanting to achieve a quick “victory peace” or “final victory.” In fact, they prolonged the duration of the war, sacrificing millions more lives and committing increasingly horrific crimes.

While the ruling class is once again preparing for total war, the opposition in the population is enormous. According to a survey by Infratest dimap published on June 1, 64 percent of Germans reject sending combat aircraft to Kiev. Only 28 percent support it. The thundering fighter jets over Germany in the next few days will further fuel resistance to militarism and war.

Where Are the World’s Water Stresses?

John P. Ruehl

Around the world, significant issues are negatively impacting water security. While the situation appears dire, cooperation initiatives show some signs of relief.

In May 2023, the Arizona Department of Water Resources imposed restrictions on the construction of new housing in the Phoenix area, citing a lack of groundwater. The decision aims to slow population growth in one of the fastest-growing regions in the U.S. and underlines the dwindling water resources in the drought-stricken southwest.

As water levels in the Colorado River have declined, the states dependent on it (Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming) are increasingly at odds over how to distribute the declining supply.

The U.S. is not alone in contentious domestic debate over water supplies. Australian states have constantly quarreled over water rights across the Murray-Darling Basin. Disruptions to water supply or perceived misuse can cause immediate social unrest, and countries like Iran and France have seen violent protests regarding water recently.

Constant and affordable access to fresh water is recognized as a basic human right by the UN. And in addition to providing a foundation for life, fresh water is also crucial for industry and manufacturing, energy production, agriculture, sanitation, and other essential societal functions.

But around the world, its availability is threatened. Desertification, climate change, man-made water diversion, dam building, pollution, and overuse have seen rivers, lakes, and aquifers dry up. Since 2000, the world has added almost 2 billion people, putting further strain on global water infrastructure and supplies.

Poor water management and infrastructure also play a major role in water scarcity around the world. In Iraq, up to 14.5 percent of the country’s water is lost to evaporation and two-thirds of its treated water is lost due to leaks and poor infrastructure. Up to 25 to 30 percent of South Africa’s water is lost to leaks, while even in many industrialized countries, up to 15 to 20 percent of water supply is lost.

Inequality can also exacerbate water stress. Amid Cape Town’s water shortages in recent years, 14 percent of the population has been found to be responsible for more than half of the freshwater use in the city. Across Africa, one in three people already faces water scarcity, where “the availability of natural hygienic water falls below 1,000 m3 per person per year.”

On top of government control of water supply and infrastructure, multinational companies like Nestlé S.A., PepsiCo, Inc., the Coca-Cola Company, and the Wonderful Company LLC play a huge role in the global water industry. In 2013, former Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe was forced to backtrack after a 2005 interview resurfaced where he stated it was “extreme” that water was considered a human right.

However, water privatization has increased significantly over the last few decades. In 2020, Wall Street allowed water to begin trading as a commodity, and today, “farmers, hedge funds and municipalities alike are now able to hedge against—or bet on—future water availability in California.” Monetization has even seen countries like Fiji, the world’s 4th-largest water exporter in 2021, face water supply shortages over the last few years.

Tap water remains drinkable only in certain countries, but fears of contamination can occur rapidly and incite alarm. After thousands of gallons of a synthetic latex product spilled into the Delaware River in 2023, Philadelphia authorities shut down a nearby water treatment plant. While it was ultimately deemed that tap water was still safe to drink, government warnings and alarm on social media led to panic-buying of water.

Contamination can also lead to longer-term damage to public faith in water infrastructure. After heightened levels of lead were found in Flint, Michigan’s drinking water in 2014 (together with the tepid government response), the local population remained hesitant to resume drinking it even after it had been declared safe.

Water security also has a major impact on relations between countries. The U.S. and Mexico have historically competed over water rights to both the Colorado River and the Rio Grande. Strong population growth on both sides of the border in recent decades, coupled with drought, has exacerbated bilateral tensions.

In 2020, tension over Mexico’s inability to meet its annual water delivery obligations to the U.S. from the Rio Grande, laid out in the 1944 Water Treaty, saw farmers in northern Mexico take over La Boquilla Dam, weeks before the deadline. While the crisis was eventually resolved, the fundamental issue of strained water flows remains ongoing.

Iraq has meanwhile increasingly accused Iran of withholding water from tributaries that feed into the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, with Iran accusing Iraq of failing to use water responsibly. Iraq and Syria have also disputed Turkey’s construction of dams and irrigation systems that have hindered the traditional flows of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Relations between Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia have similarly deteriorated since the latter began construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) in 2011. The project has aggravated regional fears over Nile River water shortages, and though outright conflict has so far been avoided, it has inflamed concern over supply in Sudan, which saw deadly clashes over water shortages in 2023.

China has been labeled an “upstream superpower” because several major rivers begin in China. The construction of dams and hydropower plants on the Mekong River has caused friction with Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam, while Kazakhstan and China have often disagreed over water rights regarding the Ili River.

Fears have also arisen that India and China, the world’s two most populous countries, could come into conflict over the Brahmaputra River and Indus River. But India and downstream Pakistan have their own disputes over rights in the Indus River basin that have raised regional concern.

Other countries have weaponized water as part of a wider conflict. Ukraine and Russia have both used water to harass each other since the first round of unrest between them began in 2014. Ukraine almost immediately cut off Crimea from water supply from the North Crimean Canal, shrinking the peninsula’s arable land from 130,000 hectares in 2013 to just 14,000 in 2017.

Russia reopened the canal following the start of the war in Ukraine in 2022. Additionally, Russian forces have since been accused of withholding water to some Ukrainian regions, deliberately flooding others, and targeting Ukraine’s water infrastructure. Both Russia and Ukraine accused one another of blowing up the Kakhovka Dam and hydroelectric power station located on the Dnieper River on June 5, 2023, which flooded downstream communities.

The Islamic State (IS) was meanwhile instrumental in causing water shortages during its rise across Syria and Iraq a decade ago, by polluting and cutting off water supplies and flooding regions. The Taliban also repeatedly attacked water infrastructure in Afghanistan throughout the U.S.-led occupation of the country.

Longstanding disputes between the Taliban and Iran over access to the Helmand River also resulted in deadly clashes at their mutual border in 2023. And in recent years, cyberattacks have increasingly targeted the vulnerable water infrastructure of the U.S.

Thankfully, the future of water stress may be less dire than feared. Global population growth has slowed significantly over the last few decades and the population is expected to peak by the end of the century. Furthermore, regions experiencing water stresses are typically not high-population growth areas. The global community is also taking renewed steps to address global water security, with the UN holding in 2023 its first summit on water since 1977.

And even countries with longstanding disputes have recognized the importance of maintaining water supplies. The 60-year-old Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan has largely held despite persistent tensions between them. China has initiated cooperation with downstream states on transportation and water flows, including the Lancang-Mekong River Dialogue and Cooperation forum to share data and prepare for shortages and flooding.

There have also been recent breakthroughs regarding the GERD. Sudan’s de facto leader, Abdel-Fattah Burhan, recently came out in support of the dam, noting it could help regulate flooding. Greater cooperation between Ethiopia and Egypt could see less water evaporate from Egypt’s Aswan High Dam if it can be stored in the GERD during warmer months.

And though seawater desalination remains expensive and energy-intensive, it is becoming more efficient and widespread. In Saudi Arabia, 50 percent of the country’s water needs are met by desalination, while Egypt plans to open dozens of new desalination plants in the coming years. Currently, 70 percent of the world’s desalination plants are found in the Middle East.

Domestic U.S. initiatives are also promising. California’s Orange County recycles almost all of its waste water back to the nearby aquifer through the world’s largest water reclamation plant, which opened in 2008. Arizona, California, and Nevada also agreed in May 2023 to reduce water intake by 10 percent over the next three years, and Arizona’s decision to suspend housing construction may mark the beginning of more restraint over domestic water consumption.

Ongoing domestic and international cooperation will nonetheless be required to resolve water disputes and create sustainable water management practices. Preventing the use of water as geopolitical leverage or a tool of war, coupled with effective management of climate change and pollution, will be integral to avoiding wars over water in the future.

US and Britain agree “Atlantic Declaration,” pledging economic warfare against Russia and China

Robert Stevens

US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak held talks at the White House Thursday, agreeing to an “Atlantic Declaration” to strengthen economic ties between the countries in areas related to military production.

The meeting was the fourth in four months between Biden and Sunak, following meetings to discuss the AUKUS military alliance, the anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement and at the G7 summit in Hiroshima.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (left) and President of the United States Joe Biden hold a joint press conference in the White House, June 8, 2023 [Photo by Simon Walker/No 10 Downing Street / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0]

Biden and Sunak discussed the situation in Ukraine following the beginning of the Ukrainian counter-offensive against Russia. Also discussed was the development of closer economic ties centred on the declaration that includes commitments to ease trade barriers, for closer defence industry ties and a data protection deal.

The declaration, “A framework for a twenty-first century US-UK Economic Partnership” makes clear that cooperation between the US and Britain is based on confronting Russia and China. It states, “We face new challenges to international stability from authoritarian states such as Russia and the People’s Republic of China (PRC),” continuing, “Over the past year, we have taken steps to deepen our unrivalled defence, security, and intelligence relationship across every theatre in the globe in which we cooperate, recognizing the indivisibility of security in the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific and other regions.”

NATO’s war against Russia was pivotal in further cooperation. “We have stood shoulder to shoulder in our resolve to support Ukraine for as long as it takes in the face of Russia’s illegal, unjustifiable, and unprovoked war of aggression and to preserve a free, independent, and sovereign Ukraine. We are committed to continuing to strengthen NATO’s ability to deter further attempts to undermine Alliance security, in support of NATO’s new Strategic Concept.”

On Britain’s role in confronting China, in alliance with the US and Australia, the declaration states, “We have taken significant steps to implement AUKUS, including announcing our plans to support Australia acquiring conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines. Through our deeper engagement in the Indo-Pacific we are working more closely than ever before with our partners to support a free and open region.”

In their press conference, while not using the term “special relationship,” Biden nevertheless commented, “We don’t have a closer ally than Great Britain. … Prime Minister Churchill and Roosevelt met here a little over 70 years ago, and they asserted that the strength of the partnership between Great Britain and the United States was the strength of the free world. I still think there’s truth to that assertion.”

Britain of course remains an important military ally for Washington, with the New York Times noting ahead of the leaders’ meeting, “Britain’s robust military support for the Ukrainian Army has kept it a central player in the Western response to Russia’s invasion.” London’s pledge to increase defence spending above the 2 percent of GDP demanded of NATO members by the US is crucial, as the US insists that the major European powers stump up the cash and follow Britain’s lead in sharing the expense of war against Russia.

In his press conference answers, Sunak said the “UK is proud to be, behind the US, the biggest contributor to the military effort in Ukraine. And I think it’s right that other countries also step up and do their part. We’re lucky to have America’s investment in European security, but we need to share the burden alongside you, which is why defense spending in the UK has—was—been above the 2 percent NATO benchmark. It’s on an increasing trajectory, and we would encourage other countries to follow the lead that the US and the UK set, because our security is collective.”

A critical role played by Britain is its use by Washington as a counterweight to German and French domination of Europe. However, this has been gravely undermined by Brexit, Britain’s leaving the European Union (EU), against the express wishes of Washington, leading to a significant further collapse of British influence on the world stage. Leading up to the summit, Biden’s visit to Ireland was fractious as the UK’s conflict over post-Brexit trade arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland was regarded as a threat to the Good Friday Agreement and America’s substantial economic investment in the South.

The real character of the “special relationship” was made abundantly clear—with Washington instructing London, “Do as you are told, or else.”

Sunak was only allowed 40 minutes for private talks with Biden, followed by a press conference of around 30 minutes. Biden had originally allocated even less time for private discussion, but the Independent reported that the press conference was delayed “because discussions between the two leaders started late and continued longer than planned.”

Among the issues discussed were Britain’s proposal to hold a global summit in the autumn around the regulatory issues raised by Artificial Intelligence, with Sunak arguing for the UK to play a major role. However, as the New York Times noted, “because Britain left the European Union in 2020, it is not part of the dialogue between the United States and the European Union on how to deal with it.” The Times cited Kim Darroch, a former British ambassador to the United States, who warned, “If the US and EU agree, the rest of the world follows, and Brexit Britain is in danger of being squeezed out.”

This is not the only area where its departure from the EU means that Britain is being squeezed out. Ahead of his trip, Sunak was forced to acknowledge that the main goal of the Brexit agenda that he backed—the signing of a free trade deal with the US—was now at best a distant prospect. Instead what was required was to minimize the economic damage to Britain caused by Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

Only on the military arena and related to fundamental conflicts with China and Russia could Britain make any headway. Sunak wanted a deal over access to the US electric vehicles market to be secured by lining up with Washington in opposition to China’s domination of the global production of critical minerals. The Atlantic Declaration specifies, “With congressional consultation, we intend to immediately begin negotiations on a targeted critical minerals agreement covering the five relevant critical minerals most important for electric vehicles—cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese, and nickel that are extracted or processed in the United Kingdom count toward sourcing requirements for clean vehicles eligible for the Section 30D clean vehicle tax credit of the Inflation Reduction Act.”

This would benefit UK firms, which will qualify for tax credits of $3,750 per vehicle under Biden’s Act.

The agreement also pledges increased efforts by the UK to shut Russia out of the global nuclear market.

But the UK is already well behind the curve in reaching such a deal with the US, even with its professions of hostility to China and Russia, with the Biden administration prioritising negotiations with Japan, the EU and Australia. There is virtually nothing concrete in the Atlantic Declaration that Sunak could point to as a concession from Washington. The Financial Times cited Duncan Edwards, chief executive of the British American Business group, who said the 4,000-word declaration was “laudable” but only signaled “intent rather than actual agreement” on many of the issues raised.

Remains dumped in Guadalajara identified as those of missing Mexican call center workers

Don Knowland

The state prosecutor’s office in the central west Mexican state of Jalisco on Tuesday said that forensic analysis had confirmed that the chopped up human bones and remains found in 45 trash bags in a ravine on the outskirts of the Guadalajara high tech suburb of Zapopan on May 29 were those of eight call center workers who were missing since May 20-22. 

The Guadalajara metropolitan area is the third most populated in Mexico, with over five million people. It is also the home base of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), an outfit that rivals the Sinaloa Cartel as Mexico’s largest.

Search for murdered workers remains [Photo: Estado de Jalisco]

CJNG engages in the traditional businesses of drug trafficking, extortion and kidnapping. It is also notorious for its violence. CJNG is famous for its ruthless treatment of those who attempt to leave it or its employ, informants and turncoats.

The missing workers, who were aged from 23 to 37, worked out of two Zapopan call centers run by CJNG. Authorities believe they were murdered because they tried to leave their jobs. 

Call centers are a major source of employment in Mexico for young people or migrants who may have learned English in the United States, but who have returned to Mexico. One of the Zapopan call center workers was from Arizona.

The call centers that employed the murdered workers likely were a scam designed to defraud money out of mostly elderly Americans and Canadians trying to sell or rent timeshares they had acquired in Mexico resort locations.

The timeshare fraud came to light in April, when the US Treasury Department announced sanctions against members or associates of CJNG, who apparently ran a similar operation in the Pacific coast Puerto Vallarta resort area, also located in Jalisco state.

In an April 2023 alert, the FBI said sellers were contacted via email by scammers who said they had a buyer lined up, but that the seller needed to pay taxes or other fees before the deal could go through. 

The fraud was sophisticated. Victims were sent fake contracts and official-looking documents from the Mexican tax authority saying taxes were due on the prospective sale. Once this money was paid by the victims, the deals evaporated.

The FBI’s report said that in 2022, the agency’s Internet Crime Complaint Center “received over 600 complaints with losses of approximately $39.6 million from victims contacted by scammers regarding timeshares owned in Mexico.”

Jalisco is the state with the highest number of disappearances and missing persons in Mexico. An activist group for families of the disappeared, “Por Amor a Ellxs” —roughly, “For Love of Them”— said there are around 15,000 missing people in Jalisco, out of a total of about 112,000 nationwide.

Official figures show that more than 1,500 bodies have been found in Jalisco state since 2018. According to the office of Jalisco’s special prosecutor for missing persons, 291 bodies were discovered in 2019, 544 in 2020, 280 in 2021, and 301 the following year. So far in 2023, 147 bodies have been found.

Mexican officials, up to the presidential level, and from all the major political parties, have a decades-long history of selectively collaborating with the narco cartels, including Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and likely Enrique Peña Nieto, the predecessor of current president Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), as well as Peña Nieto’s predecessor Felipe Calderón.  

AMLO exonerated former defense minister General Salvador Cienfuegos, who had been detained in the US for facilitating cartel drug shipments and brought him home unscathed and uncharged. 

AMLO has acted sympathetically toward the family of the Sinaloa Cartel’s imprisoned head Chapo Guzman, publicly greeting his mother and one of his sons. Prominent members in government positions in AMLO’s party MORENA are also strongly suspected of cartel ties.

AMLO, a darling of the pseudo-left, while increasingly militarizing the country, has done nothing substantial to reign in the cartels. And despite all his populist demagogy, he has done little to alleviate Mexico’s mass poverty or the conditions that drive young people into cartel activity and lead to many of their deaths.

Supreme Court strikes down Alabama congressional district map as motivated by racial discrimination

Alex Findijs

On Thursday the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a lower court decision mandating that the state of Alabama redraw its congressional district maps. The lower court had found that Alabama’s district map was racially discriminatory towards black voters by diluting their vote.

African Americans make up 27 percent of the state’s population and have overwhelmingly voted for the Democratic Party in recent years. Despite this, the state map, which took effect for the 2022 election, created one safe Democratic district, predominately African American, and six safe Republican districts.

The gerrymandered map does this by concentrating much of the black population in a single district that includes the rural population of of the west central portion of the state, heavily African American, and then reaches out to include black areas of Birmingham and Montgomery, two of the three main cities in the state. The rest of the African American population is dispersed across other districts with Republican majorities ranging from 60 to 80 percent. A lawsuit by the ACLU and the NAACP challenged the district maps and brought the case up to the Supreme Court.

Alabama’s proposed map is not a significant change from its previous district map and overall the general shape of the districts has not changed much in 30 years. District 7, the only Democratic district in the state, was established in 1992 after a lawsuit forced the creation of the first black majority district in the state since 1877.  

Since then the districts have remained roughly the same. Similar challenges to Alabama’s state legislature district maps came after the 2010 census brought Alabama’s redistricting to the Supreme Court in 2015. However, despite the court finding that the districts were drawn with a racial intent to dilute the black vote, the court decided to return the case to a federal district court for further review. In 2017 the federal court ordered Alabama to redraw select districts for the state house and state senate. There was no ruling on the state’s federal congressional districts.

This latest ruling by the Supreme Court was a surprise to many and is being celebrated by the Democratic Party and its aligned organizations as a great victory for voting rights. The decision, however, will have only a short-term effect, the court is still preparing a far greater assault on voting rights than the Alabama districts posed in themselves.

The liberal minority of the court was able to win over Chief Justice Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh, who was a last-minute defector from the conservative majority. But the views stated in their opinions leave extensive room for additional, and even more aggressive, challenges to the Voting Rights Act. A year ago, Kavanaugh sided with a 5-4 conservative majority which agreed to take up the Alabama case, but barred the lower court decision imposing a new map from taking effect in the 2022 elections.

Roberts is a right-wing justice who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade and spearheaded the weakening of section five of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, voicing the belief that the southern states no longer needed any special treatment due to their history of racial segregation and oppression. But he is a more traditional conservative than his far-right colleagues and favors following precedent as much as possible.

The chief justice made several objections to Alabama’s argument, but central to his ruling was “Alabama’s attempt to remake our §2 jurisprudence anew” by relying on computer-generated models to build a supposedly “race-neutral benchmark.” Roberts rejected this argument because it demanded that the court reject other factors and change the framework that previous court rulings have set.

His opposition to changes to precedent is not based on commitment to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) but rather a demand that the Republican challengers to the VRA present a stronger case for overturning section two of the act.

This section prohibits racial discrimination in voting and defines racial voting suppression as when “members [of a protected group] have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” Under the precedent set by the 1986 case Thornburg v. Gingles, the Supreme Court established a three-part test to determine if redistricting is racially discriminatory: 1. A minority group is “sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district”; 2. The group is politically cohesive; 3. The majority votes in a politically cohesive way that would typically defeat a minority candidate.

Roberts’ opinion recognized the “Black Belt” in Alabama as a politically cohesive area that merited two congressional districts. The Black Belt was originally named after the color of the soil, which is extraordinarily fertile. As a result, plantation agriculture dominated the area and slaves made up the vast majority of the population. After emancipation, free blacks still remained the majority, many working as sharecroppers for the former slaveowners. A large proportion of this area is now incorporated into the 7th Congressional District.

Roberts’ statements leave the door open for challengers to the VRA to undermine this precedent, but Kavanugh’s concurring opinion blows the door wide open for the abolition of section two of the VRA entirely.

In Kavanaugh’s concurrence he agreed with Clarence Thomas that “the authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.” In other words, there is a time limit on how long the VRA can prohibit racial discrimination and require states to provide equal voting opportunity to minority populations considered to be “special interest groups.” Kavanaugh rejected this argument only because the State of Alabama did not make it in its legal briefs.

Kavanaugh and Thomas have made it clear that they are fully in support of abolishing section two of the VRA, but Kavanaugh has requested that Republican challengers present a more coherent and persuasive case than Alabama did.

For his part, Roberts is also likely to favor such a ruling in the future. Despite his apparent preference for precedent, in 2013 he led a ruling that struck down section five of the VRA, which required states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to submit their district maps for federal approval before adoption. Roberts accepted legal challenges to this part of the VRA, known as “preclearance,” on the grounds that “things have changed dramatically” since the passage of the VRA in 1965.

The core of Roberts’ decision was simply that section five had expired based, on an arbitrary interpretation of its utility. Roberts and the conservative majority argued that the racial discrimination of the Jim Crow era was no longer a factor affecting voting rights, and therefore pre-clearance was unconstitutional. Since 2013 the section five has been made toothless, remaining a part of the VRA but unenforceable.

This most recent court ruling is not a cause for celebration. At best, it is a win for the reactionary racialist politics of the Democratic Party, which has a history of accepting racial gerrymandering because of the guaranteed seats offered by it. The legal challenges to Alabama’s districts, which were accepted after 1992 because the Democrats had at least one assured seat, are borne out of the Democratic Party’s inability to present a genuine alternative to the Republican Party and concerns about securing more seats in the House of Representatives.

In reality the ruling is a tactical maneuver to wait for the right case to attack the VRA on, just as the court waited for the right case to overturn Roe v. Wade. There have been several court cases reining in some of the excesses of the far-right in the Republican Party recently. A federal judge declared Tennessee’s anti-drag-show law unconstitutional this week and federal courts have intervened against some of the reactionary laws passed in Florida and Texas over the past few years.

However, the courts are not acting as progressive defenders of democratic rights but as referees for the ruling class, calling foul only when the fascistic elements of the Republican Party move too quickly for the comfort of Wall Street, which is concerned about the danger of provoking an angry response in the working class, which broadly defends democratic rights.