State elections in Hesse mark further defeat for Germany’s grand coalition

Ulrich Rippert

In the second state election since the formation of the Grand Coalition government in Berlin, the ruling parties in Germany once again received a severe defeat at the ballot box. As with the election two weeks ago in Bavaria, the Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Social Democrats (SPD) lost more than 22 percentage points between them in Hesse.

The CDU, which has ruled the state of Hesse in coalition with the Greens for the last five years, lost 11.3 percent, dropping to 27 percent. This is the worst result for the Hesse CDU in over fifty years. The SPD lost 10.9 percent and slipped below the 20 percent mark.

The election result is an expression of the growing hostility towards the Grand Coalition and its right-wing policies of militarism, state repression and social austerity. After the loss of votes in Bavaria and the large-scale demonstration against their xenophobic refugee policy in Berlin, the CDU and SPD party leaders pledged they would reverse the trend in Hesse and sent top personnel into the election campaign. But the more representatives of the grand coalition there were, the more hostile the voters' reaction was.

The rejection of the grand coalition was particularly massive among young people, first-time voters and in working class areas.

This hostility towards the Berlin government finds no progressive expression in the existing party system. As a result, the votes have simply shifted around the different parliamentary parties, all of which agree on all the main political issues and work together in various federal or state government coalitions. About one hundred thousand SPD voters and 95,000 CDU voters migrated to the Greens, who have worked smoothly with the CDU over the past five years.

The Greens received 19.8 percent of the vote, an increase of 8.7 percent, and were celebrated as the election winners. Their policies hardly differ from those of the CDU and the SPD, however. During the election campaign, they criticized the grand coalition’s aggressive refugee policy and the establishment of anchor centres for accelerated deportation. That was only window dressing, however.

Wherever the Greens participate in government, the security forces are rearmed, and refugees are brutally deported. The Green mayor of Tübingen, Boris Palmer, advocated for some of the most aggressive anti-refugee policies in Greece.

The same applies to Hesse. According to media reports, almost 600 men and women were deported in the first four months of this year alone. This is 50 percent more than in the same period in 2017. Frankfurt airport is a hub for refugee deportations. The former speaker for asylum and migration policy, Mürvet Öztürk, resigned from the Green parliamentary group three years ago because the party had recognised Albania, Montenegro and Kosovo as safe countries of origin for refugees, contrary to its election promises.

In addition, the CDU and Greens in Hesse passed one of the toughest police laws in Germany. Among other things, it allows the police to penetrate smartphones and computers by means of the so-called “Hesse-Trojans”, although the police are actually forbidden by law from using secret service methods.

Critical social problems received little or no attention during the election campaign, although protest rallies and demonstrations took place in many cities. In Frankfurt alone, thousands have participated in the past two months in a series of demonstrations against the grand coalition’s promotion of the extreme right.

The Left Party plays a key role in blocking growing opposition to social cuts, high rents and right-wing extremism. They focus on providing the SPD and the Greens with a left-wing cover for their right-wing policies. In Hesse, their entire election campaign was aimed at coming to power themselves in alliance with the SPD and the Greens.

While top Left Party candidate Janine Wissler emerged as a darling of the media—the right-wing Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) dedicated an article “The Charming Communist” to her—and appeared in numerous talk shows, the Left Party was punished at the ballot box. Despite the massive losses incurred by the SPD, the Left Party’s vote total of 6.3 percent was only slightly higher than five years ago. Compared to last year's Bundestag elections, it lost 1.8 percent.

Under these conditions, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) was able to enter the state parliament of Hesse with 13.1 percent. For the first time, it is now represented in all state parliaments. In spite of the CDU’s dramatic losses, the former Prime Minister Volker Bouffier will continue to govern. The CDU and the Greens have a narrow majority of one vote; no three-party coalition excluding the CDU has a majority.

The federal government is reacting to growing popular opposition by tightening its right-wing policy. The head of the Chancellor's Office, Helge Braun (CDU), stated that the Grand Coalition would now “focus on the subject” and “move closer together”. SPD leader Andrea Nahles announced a “binding timetable”, and SPD Secretary General Lars Klingbeil explained: “Something must change here in Berlin. I don't think there will be any new elections.”

On Monday, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that she would surrender the CDU chairmanship at the upcoming party congress in December but continue to serve as chancellor. Previously, she had insisted that the same person should occupy both offices. This is largely seen as the beginning of the end of her political career. Merkel has chaired the CDU for 18 years and led the government for 13 years.

Already on election night, media commentators were calling for Merkel's withdrawal. “Chancellor Angela Merkel will have to bear the consequences,” wrote Spiegel Online.

“The Merkel brand has worn itself out, that's one of the messages from Hesse,” commented the FAZ: “It would be a mistake for Angela Merkel to run again for CDU party chair. But does the Chancellor hear the signals?”

Behind the scenes, there is obviously also a discussion about integrating the AfD into future governments. One day before the election, Der Spiegel had portrayed Björn Höcke, who is on the far right of the AfD, as a kind, sensitive politician in a six-page report in its print edition that quoted extensively from his new book.

The election results in Hesse once again make clear the significance of the fight to build the Socialist Equality Party (SGP). It is the only party fighting for a socialist program directed against capitalism and based on an independent movement of the working class. Without expropriating the large banks, corporations and assets, and without orienting economic life towards the needs of society rather than the profit interests of capital, not a single social problem can be solved.

Infighting deepens between rival factions of Sri Lankan elite

Deepal Jayasekera

Mahinda Rajapakse, who was installed as prime minister by Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena in a political coup last Friday, assumed his duties yesterday morning. In the evening, Ranil Wickremesinghe, who was ousted in an unconstitutional manoeuvre, delivered a statement to the press declaring he was still prime minister of the country.

The Colombo political establishment has been in turmoil since Friday’s coup. Sirisena’s faction of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP)—which participated in the previous unity government with Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP)—has now united with its erstwhile opponents of the SLFP faction led by Rajapakse, the island’s president prior to 2015.

The bitter infighting that has erupted within Sri Lanka’s ruling elite has nothing to do with the democratic and social rights of working people, as is being claimed by the competing factions. Rather it is over how best to respond, in the interests of the corporate elite, to the explosive economic problems of the country, intensified by the deepening global crisis, and mounting opposition from the working class and the poor to the attacks on their living and social conditions.

As part of an attempt to consolidate the new regime, Sirisena yesterday appointed 10 cabinet and state ministers. Rajapakse was assigned the key post of minister for finance and economic affairs. There was no indication of other ministerial appointments.

Sirisena informed all ministry secretaries on Saturday that the terms of all cabinet ministers from the previous government had ended. It increasingly appears that Sirisena, Rajapakse and a tiny cabal will run the new regime.

At the same time, the government has drastically reduced Wickremesinghe’s security detail from around 1,000 personnel to just 10. His supporters have brought generators to Temple Trees, the official prime ministerial residence where Wickemesinghe is staying, after Sirisena cut off its electricity. A large number of UNP parliamentarians and supporters have camped inside building.

Under conditions of a government ultimatum for Wickremesinghe to vacate Temple Trees, and warnings that it will take “action” if he fails to do so, violent clashes could develop. The UNP has called on its members and supporters to take to the streets today in opposition to Wickremesinghe’s sacking and Sirisena’s proroguing of parliament. Wickremesinghe is demanding that the parliament sit so he can demonstrate he has a majority.

Wickremesinghe told the media on Monday that a speech to the nation by Sirisena the previous day, attempting to justify the coup, was full of lies. For his part, Wickremesinghe sought to paint a rosy picture of the ousted government, with his own falsehoods.

Wickremesinghe claimed the government had “created democratic freedom never enjoyed before in the country,” and had protected human rights, media freedom and improved living standards and social conditions.

All these claims were aimed at covering up the real record of the government.

Sirisena came to power in the 2015 presidential elections by exploiting widespread hostility to the former Rajapakse government and its ruthless attacks on democratic rights, including atrocities during the war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

However, facing a mounting economic crisis, Sirisena and Wickemesinghe implemented the austerity measures dictated by the International Monetary Fund. The government increased the prices of essentials, unleashed police violence against protesting workers, students and farmers and continued the military occupation in the north and east of the country.

At the end of his statement, Wickremesinghe declared: “We are standing firm to re-establish democracy,” and “will never allow anti-constitutional dictatorship to rule this country.”

These declarations are worthless. Wickremesinghe’s UNP and the SLFP have ruled Sri Lanka for the past 70 years by suppressing democratic rights, including through racist discrimination against the country’s Tamil and Muslim communities aimed at defending capitalist rule by dividing and weakening the working class.

Wickremesinghe hinted that he has the backing of the US, other Western powers and India, which are displeased with the change of government, stating: “Not only the people of this small island, but also the rest of the world are with us at this moment.” The previous evening, he met at Temple Trees with diplomats from the US, the major European countries, Japan and India.

Thoroughly discredited among ordinary people, Wickremesinghe is seeking to return to government with the support of the major powers, including the US and India.

Significantly, yesterday morning US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert urged “all sides to refrain from intimidation and violence.” Then she stated: “We call on the President, in consultation with the Speaker, to immediately reconvene parliament and allow the democratically elected representatives of the Sri Lankan people to fulfill their responsibility to affirm who will lead their government.”

This statement is a clear sign that Washington backs Wickremesinghe and his call for parliament to be reconvened.

Washington’s concerns have nothing to do with democratic rights. Successive American governments supported Rajapakse’s previous government, between 2005 and 2015, as it carried out its brutal anti-Tamil war and turned to increasingly autocratic rule. However, after the LTTE’s defeat in 2009, the US grew increasingly hostile to the Rajapakse government’s close economic and military relations with Beijing.

In order to scuttle these ties and bring the strategically-located island back into its fold, Washington, with the support of New Delhi, orchestrated a regime-change operation to bring Sirisena to power in Sri Lanka’s 2015 presidential election. Its principal allies in this operation were Wickremesinghe and former president Chandrika Kumaratunga.

After coming to power, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government shifted Colombo’s foreign policy orientation towards the US and India, and away from China.

The Trump administration’s statements since Friday show it is not ready to allow a regime to emerge that leans towards China. Yesterday, Washington issued a travel warning to its citizens in Sri Lanka, saying protests there may turn violent. Similar travel warnings have also been issued by the UK and the EU.

India, taking a more cautious line, has also indicated its preference for a return to the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government, while keeping open the option of working with Rajapakse if he manages to consolidate his rule.

In an attempt to assure the US, the Western powers and India that the change of government would not undermine their strategic interests, Sirisena convened a meeting of foreign diplomats at the Presidential Secretariat yesterday evening.

The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), an opposition party, has made a bogus attempt to distance itself from the rival factions, calling a protest tomorrow against Sirisena, Wickremesinghe and Rajapakse. The JVP says it will rally all progressive elements in the competing factions to build “people’s power.”

The JVP played a central role in bringing Rajapakse to power in the 2005 presidential election and was an enthusiastic supporter of his renewal of the racialist war against the LTTE and brutal attacks on the basic rights of the working class and oppressed masses. In 2010, the JVP allied with the UNP, backing the presidential campaign of former army chief Sarath Fonseka.

The JVP again lined-up with the UNP to bring Sirisena to power in January 2015. Their protest tomorrow is aimed at covering-up the real issues underlying the present crisis of the ruling elites and their preparations to suppress the emerging social and political struggles of the working class.

The working class must reject these traps and build a socialist movement, independent of all factions of the ruling class, to lead the rural poor and oppressed masses in the fight for a genuine alternative: a workers’ and peasants’ government based on a socialist program.

Sri Lankan president’s cynical justifications for his political coup

Wasantha Rupasinghe

In a televised speech yesterday, Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena attempted to justify his political coup last Friday, in which he unconstitutionally sacked Ranil Wickremesinghe as prime minister and installed former president Mahinda Rajapakse to replace him. The removal of Wickremesinghe signals a deepening of the country’s political crisis, which is being fuelled by a deteriorating economy and growing resistance to the IMF’s austerity demands.

The upheaval ends the unstable national unity government formed in 2015 when Sirisena defected from the Rajapakse government and, with the backing of Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP), won the presidential election. The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), which has effectively been split into pro-Sirisena and pro-Rajapakse factions, has now reunified to back Sirisena’s actions.

The battle lines have now been drawn. Wickremesinghe has refused to accept his dismissal and has remained in Temple Trees, the prime ministerial residence. In response to his call for a sitting of parliament to prove his government still commands a majority, Sirisena has prorogued parliament until November 16.

Rajapakse ally Wimal Weerawansa, who is notorious for his demagogy, yesterday issued an ultimatum to Wickremesinghe to leave Temple Trees and threatened to take action to oust him. Already one man is dead and two other were injured in a violent clash between pro-Rajapakse thugs and a former minister and his body guards.

Sirisena’s self-serving and cynical speech was to justify his anti-democratic actions, cover up the underlying reasons, and appeal to layers of the population who increasingly opposed the Wickremesinghe’s government’s attacks on living standards.

Sirisena accused Wickremesinghe of “conduct that was unbecoming of civilised politics,” saying he “destroyed the concept and the noble expectations of good governance by his actions during the last few years”. This, however, is the same pretext that he and Wickremesinghe used in 2015 to justify turning against Rajapakse whose government was responsible for the systematic abuse of democratic rights and war crimes in its war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

Sirisena accused Wickremesinghe of corruption over a bond scam in which a finance company, Perpetual Treasuries, owned by the son-in-law of the newly-appointed Central Bank Governor, Arjuna Mahendran, a close confidante of Wickremesinghe, amassed a profit of at least 10 billion rupees ($US65 million) after receiving inside information. No charges have been laid against Wickremesinghe over the allegations.

The president also again raised unsubstantiated claims of a “strong plot to assassinate” him, which involved an unnamed cabinet minister. Sirisena said that this supposed coup was the “most proximate and powerful reason” that made him appoint Rajapakse as prime minister, but provided no evidence. He denounced the Inspector General of Police, a close associate of Wickremesinghe, over the investigation into the supposed assassination plan.

Sirisena cynically tried to pose as a “man of the people,” contrasting himself with Wickremesinghe who “belonged to a privileged class and did not understand the pulse of the people and conducted themselves as if shaping the future of the country was a fun game they played.”

In reality, Sirisena, Wickremesinghe and Rajapakse are the political representatives of Sri Lanka’s venal ruling class that have trampled on the democratic and social rights of working people since formal independence in 1948. Successive UNP and SLFP-led governments have imposed the IMF’s austerity agenda by slashing social spending and jobs, used police state measures to suppress opposition and whipped up Sinhala chauvinism to divide the working class. Both parties are directly responsible for the brutal communal war that devastated the island from 1983 to 2009.

Sirisena claimed that his actions were “totally in accordance with the constitution and on the advice of legal experts,” but made no attempt to argue why that should be so. In coming to power in 2015, he promised to abolish the country’s executive presidency which has far reaching autocratic powers. In reality, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government only amended these powers, but it did end the president’s ability to unilaterally sack a prime minister. Sirisena has now breached the constitution to remove Wickremesinghe.

Sirisena’s actions in arbitrarily suspending parliament are aimed at preventing Wickremesinghe demonstrating that he still has a majority, and buying time to bribe or bully MPs to switch sides. Colombo politicians are well-known for their opportunistic “cross-overs”. Rajapakse yesterday promised to hold fresh elections as soon as possible, but there is no guarantee that the regime will hold elections anytime soon, or at all.

The president ended his speech by posturing as a patriot—demagogy that is aimed at appealing to extreme right-wing, Sinhala chauvinist groups that have been condemning the Wickremesinghe government for selling off the country. “In the last few years,” he declared, “the economic policy relied on foreign investments, and that weakened our local industries.”

Sirisena declared: “Many valuable assets were given to foreigners without tenders. Construction awards were also given without tenders,” and continued: “If the last week’s Land Ordinance Special Act was passed by the Cabinet and then by the parliament, all the lands of our Motherland could be bought outright by foreigners without any difficulty.”

These condemnations carry distinct chauvinist overtones. Much of the criticisms of Rajapakse and his allies against the government has been directed at India and thus indirectly at the island’s Tamil minority, who are often branded by extreme nationalists as agents of Indian expansionism. Colombo politicians have long used anti-Tamil chauvinism to divide working people and it is no accident that such a campaign is being whipped up now amid a sharp increase in strikes and protests over deteriorating living standards.

The anti-Indian rhetoric also plays into intensifying geo-political rivalries in South Asia between China on the one hand, and the US and India on the other. The US orchestrated the 2015 regime change operation that enabled Sirisena to oust Rajapakse, who was regarded as too close to China. The Trump administration as it ratchets up its trade war measures and confrontation with China is unlikely to passively accept the establishment of what it regards as a pro-Beijing government in strategically placed Sri Lanka. The behind-the-scenes manoeuvring will only intensify, further compounding the political crisis in Colombo.

Sirisena is due to swear in Rajapakse’s new cabinet today. On Saturday, the presidential secretariat notified all department heads, chairmen of the state corporations, statutory boards and state banks that the tenure of the ministers of the previous government had ended. Senior UNP leaders have called for people to “take to the streets” to oppose the ousting of the government in protests that could lead to further clashes with pro-Rajapakse forces.

None of the establishment parties defends the interests of the working class and the poor. The new regime, like the previous government, will seek to impose the burden of the economic crisis on working people and ruthlessly suppress any opposition. The working class must chart its own independent path in this political crisis by rejecting both wings of the ruling class and their divisive chauvinist politics, and mobilising the urban and rural poor in the fight for a workers’ and peasants’ government to carry out socialist policies.

Chinese president tells military to prepare for war

Peter Symonds

In another sign of rapidly rising US-China tensions and the danger of conflict, President Xi Jinping has told his country’s military to prepare for war. His speech last Thursday to the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) Southern Theatre Command was a response to the Trump administration’s aggressive actions not just in intensifying trade war, but overtly readying for military conflict with both China and Russia.

Xi, who is also the Chinese military commander-in-chief, stressed the need for military forces that can “fight and win wars” and told the command to “concentrate [on] preparations for fighting a war.” He declared: “We have to step up combat readiness exercises, joint exercises and confrontational exercises to enhance servicemen’s capabilities and preparation for war.”

“You’re constantly working at the front line, and playing key roles in protecting national territorial sovereignty and maritime interests,” Xi declared. The command had a “heavy military responsibility” to “take all complex situations into consideration and make emergency plans accordingly,” he said.

The PLA’s Southern Theatre Command is responsible for the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait—two dangerous flashpoints for war. Under the Trump administration, the Pentagon already has conducted more provocative Freedom of Navigation operations in the South China Sea—eight in all—than under President Barack Obama.

A US Carrier strike group, Photo Credit: US Navy

The latest US provocation, earlier this month, resulted in a close encounter between a Chinese warship and the USS Decatur, which deliberately challenged Chinese maritime claims by sailing within the 12-nautical mile limit of Chinese-controlled islets in the Spratly Islands. Needless to say, if Chinese warships conducted such operations off the US coastline in the vicinity of sensitive military bases, that would provoke an outcry in Washington and a clamour for retaliation.

The US is also sending an increasing number of warships through the narrow Taiwan Strait that separates China from Taiwan, which Beijing has long claimed at its territory. The Trump administration is deliberately inflaming tensions over Taiwan by strengthening military ties with Taipei.

Chinese Defence Minister Wei Fenghe declared last week that Taiwan “touches upon China’s core interests.” He bluntly warned: “On this issue, it is extremely dangerous to repeatedly challenge China’s bottom line. If someone tries to separate out Taiwan, China’s military will take the necessary actions at any cost.”

Yet that is exactly what the Trump administration is doing. Earlier this month, CNN reported that the US Navy was preparing for “a major show of force” in November as a warning to China. The draft proposal recommended a concentrated series of operations over a week involving the dispatch of US warships and warplanes near Chinese territorial waters in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait.

Such plans are part of far broader US preparations for war with China, which along with Russia, the Pentagon branded at the beginning of the year as “a revisionist power” and strategic competitor. In a bellicose speech earlier this month, US Vice President Mike Pence signalled a dramatic escalation in the Trump administration’s confrontation with China, which has already led to a worsening trade war.

The Trump administration has also taken two major military steps this month that certainly would have sounded alarm bells in Beijing.

A day after Pence’s speech, the Pentagon released a report that can be interpreted only as the economic preparation for total war. It urged an end to US dependence on imports of strategic materials and items, particularly from rivals such as China, and the establishment of “a solid defence industrial base and resilient supply chains” in order to sustain a protracted military conflict.

The second move—Trump’s decision to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty—is even more inflammatory. The treaty signed between the US and the former Soviet Union in 1987 formally prohibited the development of short- and medium-range nuclear missiles. By pulling out of the agreement, Donald Trump signalled his intention to massively expand the US nuclear arsenal directed not only against Russia, but above all, at ringing China with nuclear weapons based in Asia.

The growing danger of a nuclear conflict between the US and China was the subject of an article in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs entitled “Beijing’s nuclear option: Why a US-Chinese war could spiral out of control.” Analyst Caitlin Talmadge concluded that any US conventional conflict would necessarily threaten China’s relatively small nuclear arsenal.

If that were the case, the Chinese military would be confronted with the choice of using its nuclear weapons or losing its ability to retaliate against a US nuclear attack. Talmadge dismissed the Pentagon’s routine assurances that there was no likelihood of a nuclear war between the US and China. “If deployed against China, the Pentagon’s preferred style of conventional war [to knock out an enemy’s military assets] would be a recipe for nuclear escalation,” he warned.

There is nothing progressive about the response of Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to the threat of US aggression. The CCP regime represents the interests of the tiny layer of super-rich oligarchs who have amassed enormous wealth though the processes of capitalist restoration that began in 1978. As such, Beijing is organically incapable of making any appeal to the working class in China and internationally to mount a unified class offensive against capitalism and its outmoded nation-state system. Instead, Xi has sought to appease US imperialism, offering concessions, while at the same time accelerating China’s own military build-up—a recipe for war.

The US drive to war against China, initiated under Obama and accelerated under Trump, is a product of the deepening crisis of global capitalism, centred in the United States. In a desperate attempt to counteract its own historic decline, US imperialism regards China as the chief current threat to its world hegemony and will stop at nothing to subordinate China to its economic and strategic interests.

The rising danger of nuclear war must be answered through the building of a unified anti-war movement of the working class in China, the United States and internationally based on a socialist perspective to put an end to the capitalist system that threatens to plunge humanity into barbarism.

Erasmus Mundus Scholarships for Masters in Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management (MESPOM) 2019/2021

Application Deadline: 3rd January 2019 23:59 CET

Eligible Countries: International

About the Award: MESPOM is an Erasmus+: Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree in Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management operated by four leading European Universities with support from two Universities in the USA and Canada and 18 partners around the world. MESPOM prepares students for identifying and implementing solutions to complex environmental challenges, especially in an international context.
The MESPOM study programme is in English and lasts two years. The students study in at least three consortium universities: Central European University (CEU, Hungary), the University of the Aegean (UAegean, Greece), Lund University (ILU, Sweden), the University of Manchester (UoM, UK),  Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS, USA), and the University of Saskatchewan (UoS, Canada).
MESPOM is an Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters Degree receiving support from Erasmus+: Erasmus Mundus programme.

Type: Masters

Eligibility:

• Applicants to MESPOM must have earned a first degree (Bachelor’s or equivalent; not less than 3 years of full-time studies) from a recognized university or institution of higher education, or provide documentation indicating that they will earn their first degree from such an institution by the time of enrolling in MESPOM.
• Their first degree should be in environmental studies or closely related fields.
• Candidates with first degrees in agricultural studies, social sciences, legal and administratie studies, economics, engineering or natural sciences will also be considered if they show commitment to environmental challenges, usually through voluntary or professional work and on-the-job training.
• Applicants must demonstrate proficiency in English. Those applicants whose first language is not English must submit standardized English language test scores, e.g., the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Students taking TOEFL should request a copy of their results to be sent to the CEU Admissions Office. The CEU test code is 0069. Other substitute tests of English language are noted below.

Selection Criteria: Admission is based on the academic and intellectual excellence of applicants as well as their motivation and prior experience. All candidates should demonstrate proficiency in English. In order to create a multicultural learning environment, the Consortium strives to achieve a balance between various geographic and disciplinary backgrounds of MESPOM students.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Outstanding candidates are offered E+:Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters Degree (EMJMD) Scholarships of maximum €47,000 per two years of study to outstanding students from outside Europe (Partner Country Scholarships), and scholarships of €33,000 to European-based candidates (Programme Country Scholarships).

Duration of Programme: 2 years

How to Apply

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Two Other Khashoggis in the Middle East

Kani Xulam 

Both men grew up in the same country, Turkey. One was a Turk, the other a Kurd. The Turk wanted to become a journalist. The Kurd hoped to be a lawyer.

Both accomplished their goals, and both lucked out in their choice of wives, marrying their sweethearts who added luster to their lives.

The Turkish journalist grew up in a leftist household and sometimes shouted the fashionable slogan of the week, “Down with American Imperialism!”

The Kurdish lawyer came of age when Kurdish guerrillas battled Turkish oppression, and probably murmured, “Down with Turkish Imperialism!”

The Turkish journalist became a muckraker—so bold that famed Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk hailed him as “a courageous reporter.”

The Kurdish lawyer was equally daring. He used his mind in the courts to skillfully prosecute the Turkish state in Turkey and in Europe for violating the laws of war in Kurdistan.

The Turkish journalist rose rapidly to become editor in chief of Turkey’s oldest newspaper, Cumhuriyet, a staunchly secular daily once considered a mouthpiece of Ataturk.

The Kurdish lawyer rose equally fast, becoming president of Amed (aka Diyarbakir) Bar Association, the highest accolade in the largest organization of Kurdish attorneys in the world.

Then, they found themselves spotlighted for not minding their words.

The Turkish journalist came upon a flash drive exposing Turkey’s conspiracy in delivering illicit weapons to jihadi cutthroats inside Syria. In spite of the risks, he published the news as “Erdogan’s Weapons Revealed!”

The Kurdish lawyer appeared on “Impartial Zone,” a television program on CNN Turk, and during his interview made a passing remark that Amnesty International also employs, “The PKK is not a terrorist organization. It is an armed political group.”

Both, alas, became marked men.

The Turkish journalist found himself threatened by President Erdogan, on national television no less: “The individual who reported this as an exclusive story will pay a heavy price.”

The Kurdish lawyer was subjected to death threats on social media and was arrested six days later. His passport seized, he was closely stalked under supervised release.

The Turkish journalist’s arrest followed suit.

The Kurdish lawyer tweeted: “That arrest is the greatest blow to freedom of press and expression. Without a violent social reaction, it will be hard to escape from this dark tunnel of no return.”

The Turkish journalist, stripped of his electronic gadgets, remained in the dark about the solidarity tweet.

The Kurdish lawyer, in spite of his probation, tried to stop a war inside city centers in Turkish-Kurdistan, called a press conference in front of a damaged four-legged minaret, and urged Turkish soldiers and Kurdish guerrillas to fight elsewhere. His noble call for peace was ruthlessly repaid with brutal assassination: a bullet to the brain.

The Turkish journalist indignantly responded: “[The Kurdish lawyer’s] tunnel of no return has dragged him into its own darkness. We were the last victims he’d defended: my colleague, I and the four legged minaret.”

The Kurdish lawyer’s wife got a call from the prime minister of Turkey, promising that her husband’s killer would be identified and prosecuted. Some promise. The murderer is still free.

The Turkish journalist’s wife got an unexpected visit from U.S. Vice President Joe Biden who expressed his support for the Turkish journalist and praised the importance of freedom of press by quoting her Thomas Jefferson:

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

The Kurdish lawyer’s wife met with Mr. Biden as well, but their conversation has remained private.

Reflecting on her pain, she came to embody Aeschylus’s maxim: “Suffering leads to wisdom.”

She told Irfan Aktan, a Kurdish reporter: “I grew by suffering.” And, “Both Kurds and Turks have a tendency to fetishize death.”

She added: “The Kurds want their demands to be expressed and defended in a way that their safety is not threatened.”

Her choicest words were reserved for Turks: “When a society is at peace with death, that society becomes scary. And when death is glorified, you can no longer speak of a healthy society.”

The Turkish journalist’s appeal from his prison cell finally paid off. A judge ordered him released. After 92 days, he was reunited with his family and colleagues, but his arbitrary prosecution persists.

Here the paths of these two courageous defenders of freedom crossed again:

Just as the Kurdish lawyer was murdered, so an assassin attempted to kill the Turkish journalist. In an act of unrivaled bravery, captured on video, his wife shielded him. He now lives in exile in Germany.

Oh, if you’re wondering who those two brave dissidents were:

The Turkish journalist is Can Dundar. Dilek is the name of his fearless wife.

The Kurdish lawyer was Tahir Elci. Turkan, his wife, has now taken up her husband’s cry of freedom with her beautiful mind.

Rest in peace, Mr. Elci; take good care, Mr. Dundar.

Highlighting the Need to Combat the Use of Rape as a Weapon of War

Rene Wadlow

The co-laureate of the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize, Denis Mukwege, has become an eloquent spokesperson for the effort to outlaw the use of rape as a weapon of war. Rape has often been considered as a nearly normal part of war. When an army took a city or town, the rape of women followed, a reward to brave soldiers. Military commanders turned a blind eye.

However, whatever may have been past practice, rape has now become a weapon of war, often an effort at genocide. Women’s reproductive organs are deliberately destroyed with the aim of preventing the reproduction of a group – one of the elements of genocide set out in the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Denis Mukwege has created a clinic near Bukavu in South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo – a country that is democratic only in name. He and a number of younger doctors whom he was trained try to care for women who have undergone rape by multiple men, one after the other, often in public in front of family members and others who know the woman. Known rape, even by a single person, can be a cause of family breakup, lasting shame, and an inability to continue living in the same village. There are also negative attitudes toward children born of a rape. Multiple rape is often followed by deliberate destruction of the reproductive organs.

The eastern area of Congo is the scene of fighting at least since 1998 – in part as a result of the genocide in neighboring Rwanda in 1994. In mid-1994, more than one million Rwandan Hutu refugees poured into the two Kivu states, fleeing the advance of the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front now become the government of Rwanda. Many of these Hutu were still armed, among them the “genocidaire” who a couple of months before had led the killings of some 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu in Rwanda. They continued to kill Tutsi living in the Congo, many of whom had migrated there in the 18th century.

The influx of a large number of Hutu led to a desire to control the wealth of the area – rich in gold, tropical timber and rare minerals such as those used in mobile telephones. In the Kivu, many problems arise from land tenure issues. With a large number of new people, others displaced and villages destroyed, land tenure and land use patterns need to be reviewed and modified.

However, violence in the eastern Congo is not limited to fighting between Hutus and Titsis. There are armed bands from neighboring countries – Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda – who have come on the scene attracted by possible wealth from timber and mines of rare minerals. In addition, local commanders of the Congolese Army, far from the control of the Central Government, have created their own armed groups, looting, raping, and burning village homes.

There is a United Nations peacekeeping force in the Congo, the U.N.’s largest peacekeeping mission. However its capacity has reached its limit. Its operations are focused on areas with roads, leaving villages on small paths largely unguarded.

There has been a growing international awareness of the use of rape as a weapon of war. The issue was raised during the conflicts which followed the breakup of Yugoslavia as well as cases brought to the International Criminal Court. The Association of World Citizens has raised the issue in U.N. human rights bodies in Geneva.

Yet there is much yet to be done to make the outlawing of rape as a norm of humanitarian law and especially to prevent its practice. The Nobel Peace Prize to Denis Mukwege should be a strong step forward in this effort.

Pakistan rules out any kind of ties with Israel as Netanyahu visits Oman

Abdus Sattar Ghazali

Pakistan President Arif Alvi on Sunday (Oct 28) ruled out establishing any kind of relations with Israel as he strongly rejected reports that an Israeli aircraft carrying some officials secretly landed in Islamabad and flew away after several hours at the airport here.

“Islamabad is not establishing any kind of relations with Israel,” President Alvi told the media before his departure for Turkey on a three-day official visit.

The story of the Israeli plane coincided with the visit of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the Sultanate of Oman. Netanyahu and his wife Sara visited Muscat on Thursday and returned on Friday (Oct 26). The visit was announced after Netanyahu returned to Israel.

The episode of Israeli plane

An Israeli journalist Avi Scharf tweeted on October 25, when Netanyahu landed in Muscat, that an Israeli business jet flew from Tel Aviv to Islamabad where it was on the ground for 10 hours, before flying back to Tel Aviv.

It may be pointed out that the Muscat Port is only 208 nautical miles from Pakistan’s strategic port Gwadar that was part of Oman till 1958 when it was sold to Pakistan for $3 million.

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi also dismissed reports of an Israeli aircraft landing in Pakistan as fake and baseless. He said that something which is not even real does not warrant a response.

Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry said the “government would not negotiate in secret with either Israel or India”.

BBC Urdu reported that the aircraft in question was a Canadian-manufactured Bombardier Global Express with the serial number 9394. It was registered on February 22, 2017 in the Isle of Man in the UK by a company called Multibird Overseas Ltd.

The Israeli journalist later said he was not “100 per cent sure” if the plane had landed in Islamabad.

Pakistan and Israel do not have diplomatic relations and their aircraft are not allowed to use each other’s airspace.

Analysts are wondering if the ‘fake’ news was a message to nuclear-armed Pakistan that Israel is now in its proximity as Muscat is close to Gwadar.

According to Azriel Bermant, a research associate at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, “one could argue that Islamabad poses more of a threat to Israel than Tehran does.” In an article in the Haaretz, Bermant wrote “Pakistan test-fired a nuclear-capable ballistic missile, the Shaheen III, which Pakistani officials said can reach Israel.

The Saudi Reaction

Commenting on Netanyahu’s visit to Muscat, the Saudi TV Channel Al Arabiya pointed out that Israel has played an important role in hitting Iran’s growing influence in Syria. It took up roles that rejecting Arab countries couldn’t achieve. With this, military balance in the region was achieved.

Al Arabiya writer, Abdulrahman al-Rashed, said:

“Israel has played an important role in hitting Iran’s growing influence in Syria. It took up roles that rejecting Arab countries couldn’t achieve. With this, military balance in the region was achieved, and Israel became integral to regional security after it was once considered a poisonous apple that everyone avoided dealing with.

“The Syrian war changed the equation when Israel became an involved party. In addition to Turkey and Russia, Iran’s strong involvement in the war is what prompted Israel to enter and become a major player, especially when both America and Turkey failed in the face of Iranian regime’s expansion and hegemony in Syria, after it was clear that it is building an empire with chaotic militias.

“Even those who reject Israel in the context of the Palestinian cause found themselves compelled to welcome the intervention of Israeli air forces which dramatically changed the situation in Syria and curbed Iranian threats in the region.

“Israel imposed itself on the heart of the region’s military camps, and without its intervention, stopping the Revolutionary Guards’ expansion that succeeded on the back of Russian military and political presence would not have been possible. These are important changes in the region, and they will not stop the activities of the Israeli leaders in Muscat. It is actually the start of a political division built on conflicts in Syria, Yemen and others.”

Not surprisingly, Netanyahu has said that mutual opposition to Iran has brought Israel closer to the Gulf Arab countries, while Iran criticized the visit, saying that Israel was seeking to create divisions among Muslim countries.

Oman seeking ‘regional role’

Sultan Qaboos bin Said’s surprise meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was more about Oman’s desire to play a role in the region than reaching a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians, Middle East Eye quoted a diplomatic source as saying.

Sultan Qaboos hosted Netanyahu in Muscat only days after he met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

While Palestinian sources said the Sultan urged both leaders to revive the stalled peace process, a Western diplomatic source indicated that Netanyahu’s visit – and the way it was quietly announced after the prime minister had returned to Israel – was more about Oman and its role in the region than anything else.

“Oman is trying to play a regional role between the various parties and axes in the region, and it sees Israel as an important player in various regional issues,” the diplomat told Middle East Eye.

It may be pointed out that Oman is a member of six-state Arabian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) that includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Oman’s government described Israel as an accepted Middle East state on Saturday, a day after hosting a surprise visit by Netanyahu.

Oman is offering ideas to help Israel and the Palestinians to come together but is not acting as mediator, Yousuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah, the Omani Foreign Minister told a security forum in Bahrain.

“Israel is a state present in the region, and we all understand this,” bin Alawi said adding:

“The world is also aware of this fact. Maybe it is time for Israel to be treated the same [as others states] and also bear the same obligations.”

Spy and police chiefs demand passage of Australian encryption access law

Mike Head 

Facing mounting public opposition, Australia’s intelligence and police chiefs are demanding that parliament pass a bill that would set a global precedent for the compulsory cracking open of encryption and other privacy devices.

In effect, the heads of the spy and security apparatus spoke on behalf of the US-led “Five Eyes” worldwide network, which conducts mass monitoring of the world’s population, as well as secret bugging operations against targeted governments.

A summit of the Five Eyes countries, held in Australia on August 28–29, called for laws to enable access to encrypted emails, text messages and voice communications. Representing the US, Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, they declared it was necessary to force open “end-to-end encryption” tools.

Without providing any evidence, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) chief Duncan Lewis told a parliamentary committee hearing on October 19 that suspected terrorists were using encrypted messages to plan potential attacks.

“I can confidently say there are suspected terrorists in Australia using encrypted communications and due to that encryption it is impossible for us at this time to intercept and read their communications, despite our existing range of lawful and legal access authorities,” Lewis said.

Australian Federal Police (AFP) Commissioner Andrew Colvin made similar unsubstantiated assertions, trying to link the proposed assault on all on-line communications to the endless “war on terrorism.”

In other words, despite the introduction of barrages of legislation since 2001 authorising electronic surveillance, computer hacking, detention and interrogation without trial and other measures overturning fundamental civil and democratic rights, the political spy apparatus insists it must have even greater powers.

Lewis himself noted that since 2014, “at about the time I became the Director-General of Security, we’ve seen 12 tranches of national security legislation pass through the parliament.”

The ASIO chief also alluded to the pressure coming from Washington and other “allies” to push the anti-encryption measures through. He told the committee, “it’s not only a concern unique here, to Australia, but it’s one faced around the globe, as our international allies and partners would attest.”

Lewis said ASIO had neither the desire nor the capacity to intercept or collect the communications of Australians en masse. In reality, the Australian agencies work with their Five Eyes partners to monitor the communications of millions of people, as exposed by former US National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks, founded by Julian Assange.

In the lead-up to the committee hearing, Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton insisted that the bill’s passage was urgent. Dutton, who attended the Five Eyes summit and heads a super-ministry in charge of all the spy and police agencies, said: “Given we are talking about nine out of 10 national security investigations now being impeded because of the use of encryption, we need to deal with it.”

The actual concern of the capitalist class and its security apparatuses is not handfuls of terrorists but growing working class hostility to widening social inequality, worsening working and living conditions, the evisceration of civil and democratic rights and the mounting danger of another world war provoked by the US.

At the hearing, a Home Affairs Department official revealed that it had received 15,990 submissions, an indication of popular opposition, but the department contemptuously dismissed nearly all of them—15,130—as “standard campaign responses.” Of the 743 “unique individual responses classified as appropriate for consideration,” only 55 were treated as “substantive submissions.”

Not one member of the bipartisan parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security questioned the declarations of the ASIO and AFP chiefs. All the MPs, both Liberal-National and Labor, declared their agreement with the need to protect “security” and suggested changes to the bill to enhance the operations of the spy and police agencies, while appearing to address the widespread alarm.

The far-reaching scope of the bill was underscored when Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) director-general Mike Burgess was asked to outline the communications platforms that would be covered. The examples he gave included: “Your banking application; your web browser; your text; your music application on a phone; Signal, which is a messaging app that encrypts data; WhatsApp.”

The ASD, Australia’s equivalent of the US NSA, conducts electronic surveillance, including bugging and phone tapping, throughout the Indo-Pacific region.

Under the Telecommunications (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018, telcos, Internet companies and device manufacturers, as well as website and individual social media hosts, would be compelled to remove all barriers to government agencies accessing private data.

Companies would face fines of up to $10 million for each instance of “non-compliance” with “technical assistance notices” or “technical capability notices.” Individuals could be fined up to $50,000.

The ASIO and AFP chiefs repeated the government’s claims that the legislation would not require tech companies to provide “backdoor” entry to encryption systems. But any “approved agency” could force an individual or a service provider to hand over a password or the tools to decrypt messages.

Other witnesses at the hearing outlined insidious aspects of the 176-page bill. Several pointed out that it only mentions “encryption” once. Instead, it uses the wider term “electronic protection” to cover all devices and applications designed to ensure privacy.

Arthur Moses, the president-elect of the Law Council, representing the legal profession, said: “The bill as presently drafted would authorise the exercise of intrusive covert powers with the potential to significantly limit an individual’s right to privacy.”

Moses said compliance notices could amount to a new form of detention without trial. “If a person is required to attend a place to provide information or assistance, this may amount to detention of that person, particularly as they may be arrested on suspicion of an ­ offence if they attempt to leave.”

The Law Council also warned that the bill would allow authorities to side-step warrants previously needed to access private information.

Despite raising objections to aspects of the bill—particularly the threat of criminal sanctions for non-compliance—executives from the major telecommunications companies stressed their willingness to keep voluntarily collaborating with the authorities.

Ramah Sakul, a representative of Telstra, Australia’s largest telecommunications company, told the hearing: “We believe a collaborative and cooperative approach is more likely to result in efficient and timely outcomes in the provision of assistance and capability development.”

Andrew Sheridan from Optus said his company had “developed a long history of cooperation with law enforcement and national security agencies,” including “data retention.”

Representing “The Software Alliance” of transnational internet corporations, such as Google, Facebook and Amazon, Darryn Lim said his organisation “encourages close collaboration between the government, Australian law enforcement and the technology community to improve processes and methodologies enabling law enforcement access to digital evidence in a timely manner.”

Lim outlined a six-point plan to modify the bill to enhance this relationship.

As the WSWS has documented in detail, the global giants are increasingly working in partnership with governments to implement anti-democratic restrictions on internet access. This features, in particular, using algorithms to limit or block access to socialist, anti-war and other critical websites.

Canada upholds $15 billion Saudi arms deal after Khashoggi murder

Roger Jordan 

In the nearly four weeks since the Saudi regime had journalist Jamal Khashoggi murdered, Canada’s Liberal government has gone out of its way to avoid criticizing Riyadh, while insisting Canada must fulfill a $15 billion arms deal with the kingdom—a linchpin of US imperialism’s domination of the oil-rich Middle East.

A Saudi citizen, Khashoggi disappeared after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul October 2 to obtain divorce papers needed to marry his Turkish fiancé. In the three weeks since his disappearance became internationally known, the Saudi regime has desperately attempted to deny responsibility. Initially it claimed that Khashoggi left the embassy, then that he had died during a “fist fight.” More recently, it has said he was the victim of a premeditated murder carried out by “rogue” elements in the Saudi security forces.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has avoided publicly accusing Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, the kingdom’s effective ruler, of ordering Khashoggi’s murder. But Turkish authorities have systematically leaked information contradicting Riyadh’s claims, including video of the arrival in Turkey of a 15-man Saudi assassination squad. Everything points to the Saudi journalist having been tortured and beheaded inside the consulate, then his dismembered body being smuggled out of the premises.

With public outrage over Khashoggi’s gruesome murder mounting, Prime Minster Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government have spent the past two weeks twisting and turning in the face of mounting criticism from sections of the media and opposition over its insistence that Canada must fulfill its $15 billion contract to supply Riyadh with 740 LAVs (Light Armored Vehicles), manufactured at a General Dynamics plant in London, Ontario.

For the first week, Trudeau and Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland claimed, as they have in the past, that Canada’s international reputation would be damaged if it failed to “honour” the contract, while emphasizing that it was the Harper Conservative government that entered into the deal—Canada’s largest ever arms contract—with Riyadh in 2014.

However, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has now come forward with a second argument. Cancelling the contract, he insists, would result in massive financial penalties. Initially, Trudeau spoke of a billion dollars, but by Thursday he was claiming Canadian taxpayers would be on the hook for “billions of dollars.” According to Trudeau, the deal is subject to stringent confidentiality clauses such that the government cannot make the financial penalties section, or any other part of it, public. In other words, the government must be taken at its word.

Trudeau’s claims to be in a legal bind are a callous and hypocritical subterfuge.

The reality is he and his government have issued no more than pro forma statements of concern about Khashoggi’s horrific fate. The strongest language Ottawa has been willing to employ is to describe the obvious stream of lies coming from Riyadh as “not credible.”

Bourgeois commentators have noted a contrast between Ottawa’s tepid response to Khashoggi’s death, and Freeland’s tweets of last August denouncing Riyadh’s jailing of human rights activists. The latter triggered a bitter diplomatic spat, with the Crown Prince demanding an apology and Riyadh recalling its ambassador to Canada and announcing a series of economic reprisals.

In reality, in both cases the Liberals have been pursuing the same reactionary aims.

In August, the Liberal government was not seeking a confrontation with Riyadh. It saw the tweets as a way of providing it political cover at home for the controversial Saudi arms deal, and calculated the criticism would be interpreted by the Saudis as nothing more than the usual human rights rhetoric Western governments use to camouflage their imperialist intrigue and aggression.

After all, Trudeau and his government had never voiced a word of criticism of the brutal war the Saudis have been waging in Yemen since 2015, and which has produced the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis. When evidence emerged of Canadian-built LAVs being used in the Yemen war and to suppress Shia protesters in eastern Saudi Arabia, the Liberal government willfully ignored it. Nor did Trudeau or Freeland ever make any issue of the Saudi absolutist regime’s beheading of over 150 people in 2017, or its executing 48 prisoners in the first four months of this year.

That Ottawa is eager to maintain the $15 billion arms deal with Riyadh is incontrovertible. But the Trudeau government’s muted response to Khashoggi’s murder is about more than just the Canada-Saudi relationship.

For the Liberal government and for the Canadian bourgeoisie as a whole an even more fundamental consideration is sustaining and strengthening the Canada-US military-strategic alliance, which is the cornerstone of Canadian imperialism’s global strategy.

Ottawa was rattled when the Trump administration, which has stepped up its strategic partnership with Riyadh as part of its plans for war with Iran, refused to come to Canada’s support in last August’s spat. In what was seen as a slap in the face in Canadian ruling circles, Trump administration officials repeatedly urged Ottawa and Riyadh to settle the dispute among themselves.

In the intervening period, Canada has reached an agreement with Washington on a “modernized” North American Free Trade Agreement, but to do so it had to make significant concessions. These include changes aimed at making NAFTA a more effective instrument for waging trade war, such as a clause that for all intents and purposes prevents Ottawa and Mexico City from concluding free trade agreements with China without first receiving Washington’s approval.

The Trudeau government has got the message. If Canadian imperialism is going to rely on the might of Washington’s military and geostrategic influence to pursue its predatory interests around the world, it needs to bend more to Washington, at least on issues that it does not view as core interests.

The Trump administration has all but publicly announced that it is looking for the quickest and most effective way to sweep the Khashoggi affair under the proverbial carpet, so it can resume open and active collaboration with Saudi Arabia in bullying and threatening Iran.

Consequently, the Trudeau government is raising only the most muted criticisms of the Saudi murder of Khashoggi, who was a regime insider until a recent falling out with the Crown Prince.

The Khashoggi affair has not only highlighted the Trudeau government’s imperialist foreign policy. It has also provided yet another demonstration of the hypocrisy of the social democratic New Democratic Party (NDP).

Under pressure from the leadership of Unifor, the country’s largest industrial union, the NDP dropped criticism of the Saudi arms deal like a lead balloon during the 2015 election, and until recently has said little to nothing about it. But now, hoping to bolster their pathetic poll numbers, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh and his fellow social democrats are urging the Trudeau government to abandon the Saudi arms deal.

The New Democrats are feigning outrage that Canada is associated with a regime that is a gross violator of human rights and promoting as an alternate market for General Dynamics’ SAVs Canada’s NATO allies—that is the states that comprise the world’s foremost inter-imperialist military alliance, which is currently involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and seeking to strategically encircle and threaten Russia.

NATO is led by none other than Washington, the country that not only has back-stopped the Saudi regime for decades, but which over the past quarter century has led a series of illegal wars that have destroyed entire societies from Afghanistan to Libya, and which with Canada’s support is today pursuing military-strategic offensives against nuclear-armed Russia and China. Other NATO states include Britain, Washington’s chief ally in the Iraq war; France, which, again with Canada’s support, is waging its own neo-colonial war in north Africa; Germany, which is today frantically rearming; and a coterie of other lesser imperialist powers.

Such is the NDP’s defence of human rights and opposition to imperialist militarism.