The 2015 Nigeria Elections: Why the US Silence?

Melvin P. Foote

On March 28, Nigeria, the largest economy and most populous country in Africa, will hold its presidential and federal legislative elections. Given its economic, political and cultural influence in West Africa, these elections will be vitally important to the continent and the United States. So why the near silence here?

If the U.S. wants to encourage democracy and free-trade prosperity around the world, we need more. We need conscience. We need commitment. We need U.S. leaders, including our President, to step up. We need a Bill Clinton or a Colin Powell. We need a leader who commands respect and, yes, attention.

What’s also needed is for the U.S. to send a high-profile delegation to Nigeria to not only oversee a free, peaceful and fair election process, but to “warm up” our relationship with this vital country. From the standpoint of democracy and economics, Nigeria is too big to fail. While it has come very far in a very short time, it remains on the precipice, with multiple issues that include security, corruption and a somewhat tenuous grip on a free and democratic process and truly puts power in the capable hands of its people.

I’ve observed several elections in Africa. To me this is a no-brainer not only because it’s the right thing to do but because it’s very much in the interest of the United States. Before us is a chance to encourage the development of true democracy – and we can do it, thankfully, without sending troops and putting American lives at risk.

Clearly, as democracy in Nigeria has matured, so have its leaders and political class. It is a major force for stability in West Africa and remains the largest contributor of peacekeepers in the sub-Saharan area. For these two reasons alone, it should be the focus of U.S. policymakers to ensure that its progress is sustained and that peace and security prevail. But there are pivotal economic factors as well. Consider that from 2009 to the present:

•Nigeria’s GDP increased from $169 billion to $510 billion, making it the largest economy on the continent
•An estimated $4 billion was invested in its agriculture sector alone
•Life expectancy increased from 47 years to 57
•Rice production in Northern Nigeria increased by 1.1 million metric tons
•As an indication of its new economic strength, the number of Nigerian-owned crude oil tankers increased from 60 to 400
•A world-class mortgage securitization program is being planned to build affordable housing and attract billions of dollars in foreign capital

I believe we should do what we can to ensure this progress continues and does not reverse, and I am not alone in these concerns. Very recently, 14 current and former global leaders of the National Democratic Institute observation missions to Nigeria called for Nigerian election authorities to adhere to the March 28 date for presidential and legislative elections. Signatories to this statement included, among many others, the Hon. Madeleine Albright, Chairman of the National Democratic Institute and former U.S. Secretary of State.

Keep in mind I am not arguing for interference. Election observers are sworn to neutrality. This is why observers, domestic and foreign, play a crucial role in ensuring the integrity of elections and enhancing the socio-political development of nations around the world.

Yes, the European Union and the U.S. will be participating in the monitoring of these elections, but considering what’s at stake, the U.S. effort is muted. We should be participating strongly, not to demonstrate concern, but rather to show encouragement and make it clear to the post-election Nigerian government, regardless of who prevails, that the U.S. applauds its economic progress and supports its fight against the atrocities of Boko-Haram and the government’s efforts to mitigate other security issues.

It’s time for the U.S. to offer a firm handshake to the people of Nigeria, signaling that we understand the important role that Nigeria plays in the west Africa region and for the continent.  We also understand how important Nigeria is to the United States!  After it’s verified that Nigeria can conduct credible, free and fair elections, the naysayers will be proven wrong and the clear, strong voice of democracy will ring out across a beautiful country and a beautiful people.

Economic Progress: Why Africa is Marktiming

Ejike E. Okpa

While the street and pedestrian information  may persuade many unsuspecting people, the continent is still mired in conditions that appear inextricable. So much publicity is given to remittance and nations in Africa fall for such thinking they are attracting resources – winding fall and notoriously ‘manna’ from heaven. How dangerous and damaging!

One ought to know the difference between consumer money and investment money. The former - money that comes in trickles like remittance -- hardly investible money -- does not help to stabilize the fluctuating nature of the local currency of the recipient nations. Money is very useful when pooled and leveraged, in addition to being designated for specific purposes for capital investment. Money wired to families  is like welfare, creating temporary euphoria and inducing dependence. There is nothing like EARNING money, which is as a result of productive activities as opposed to being GIVEN money which is welfare and charity. The latter has damaging effect.

Nigeria for example, may attract the highest remittance given the sheer number of Nigerians outside the country. But her local currency the Naira has not been able to stabilize even when her main foreign currency earner – oil and gas, traded in triple digits. Today, One Million Naira is mere $4,500 compared to the mid-1980s when One Million Naira was almost $2m. Calculate the rate of change, solving for ‘I’ since we know the time frame. The HP calculator will blink for minutes, ending up ‘EE’ extended error.

The west has found a way to keep the so called emerging and developing ‘nations’ hooked, but they have never EMERGED. If we all live in a global world, wouldn’t it make sense to  trade in One Currency? Well, if that happens, there is no way western economies will survive because the cheap labor afforded her based on migration will reduce drastically. Labor is the most critical factor in all factors of production and that is the advantage the west has over commodity based economies. One does not need a PhD in Economics to understand this. Maybe they do.

When Africa was largely colonized, her local currencies were at par with those of the colonizers. That kept the natives at home. But as independence gained  ground and the colonizers could not afford to return the deposits of nations held on their behalf [a third of each nation’s assets were required to be maintained at the colonizer’s financial institutions], they introduced devaluation first to checkmate the newly independent nations’ growth; keeping them hooked. Singapore, was one that vehemently denounced such wicked policy and opted out of the Commonwealth. Today, the proof of such destructive leadership is that Singapore has the highest Per Capita than any of the former colonies and even higher than that of UK, its former colonizer.

Singapore’s GDP per capita PPP 1990-2015 - The Gross Domestic Product per capita in Singapore was last recorded at 76236.79 US dollars in 2013, when adjusted by purchasing power parity (PPP). The GDP per Capita, in Singapore, when adjusted by Purchasing Power Parity is equivalent to 429 percent of the world's average. GDP per capita PPP in Singapore averaged 54572.88 USD from 1990 until 2013, reaching an all-time high of 76236.79 USD in 2013 and a record low of 34202.17 USD in 1990.

It is a knock on the ‘head’ of the former colonizer which is what is needed for anyone to EMERGE. Africans have not learned how to and will not even if they know how. Instead, they celebrate when the Queen awards them the ‘Sir’ knighthood . It does not take a lot to impress people of low expectation and confidence.

Second, in the 1980s, the west introduced export oriented economies to naïve former colonies [Africans that is], demanding them to produce and export so that they can earn foreign exchange which again, is placed in foreign reserve as a measure for current accounts for import [balance of payments] schedules, back to the producing nations. Unfortunately, naïve African nations fell for such, thinking they could dig more holes in search of minerals to sell.  This is never enough as the price of the commodities are not determined by the producing nations. To cushion their wild swings, they are issued IOUs, in other words, even when they do not produce enough, they are allowed to import goods, while debits are issued against any future earnings from whatever they produce. It is voo-doo machinations and manipulations, and the nations are HOOKED.

Until African nations reduce or eliminate their 54 odd and weak currencies to say three or four  currency unions and demand  for either semi or full processing of what they produce in-country before export, they will forever be where they are. New wine in an old bottle -- just the change of label.

I do not write to APPEASE or PLEASE but challenge thoughts. The money US and UK have; the Dollar and Pound, were not wired to them by God. They are all printed and made legal tenders, like in Economics – Preferred stocks and store of wealth. Well, if that is the case, how come when Africans print their own MONEY – currencies that is, it is worthless?

Well, All animals may have been created equal, but some are more equal than others both by design and default. My mom always reminded me, I should not blame anyone for stepping on and all over a doormat. When I asked why, she said why not – it is there. Go figure.

Australian PM attacks “lifestyle choice” of poverty-stricken Aborigines

Susan Allan

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s contempt for poverty-stricken Aborigines living in outback areas was on open display last week when he was asked about plans by the Western Australian (WA) state government to completely shut down many communities.

“What we can’t do is endlessly subsidise lifestyle choices if these choices are not conducive to the kind of full participation in Australian society that everyone should have,” Abbott told the media in the WA gold-mining town of Kalgoorlie last Wednesday.

To claim that Aborigines are indulging in a “lifestyle choice,” akin to that of layers of the upper middle class moving to an idyllic rural setting, is grotesque. The conditions in remote Aboriginal communities, which lack jobs, proper housing and essential services, are frequently described as “third world” or even “fourth world.”

People “choose” to remain because of the connection they have to family, friends and tradition, and the alternatives are even worse. To move out means, in most cases, to lead a marginal, alienated existence on the fringes of towns or amid unemployment and poverty in major cities.

Yet this is exactly what the WA government is preparing to force these residents to do. It has already made threats to shut down 150, or more than half, of the 274 remote indigenous communities in the state. It will render up to 12,000 Aboriginal men, women and children homeless, driving them into under-resourced towns and urban centres.

The aim of closing Aboriginal communities is not simply to cut budget spending by eliminating even the grossly inadequate basic services in these settlements, but to fully open up areas of land to pastoral, mining and other business interests.

The plans to shut the communities were flagged last September in response to the federal Abbott government’s decision to cease funding municipal and essential services, such as power, water and rubbish collection, in remote indigenous settlements and hand over full responsibility to the state government.

The federal government, which previously provided two-thirds of this funding for such communities, handed the WA government a $90 million one-off payment as part of the deal. The South Australian government was offered $10 million. An estimated 60 indigenous communities could be closed and 4,000 people rendered homeless in that state.

Aboriginal people in these communities, also known as homelands or outstations, are among the most poverty-stricken, vulnerable and oppressed sections of Australian society. Conditions of life are harsh in the extreme.

Far from the government “endlessly subsidising” remote communities, successive governments, Liberal-National and Labor alike, have been engaged in decades of underfunding and neglect aimed at starving residents out. Access to electricity, running water and sewerage is rudimentary, if these services exist at all, and housing is inadequate, overcrowded or dilapidated to the point of being uninhabitable.

The decision to live in outstations and homelands is not “a lifestyle choice.” A return to traditional lands for many is the only means of escaping from the unemployment, alcoholism, substance abuse and other horrors in the urban ghettoes and town fringes.

What the government’s decision will mean is shown by the 2011 closure of the Oombulgurru settlement in WA’s far north and the forced relocation of its 107 residents.

After years of inadequate government funding, the community was deemed “unviable” and its houses bulldozed. Homeless Oombulgurru residents were forced onto the fringes of larger regional towns, where they suffered unemployment and the social ills produced by poverty—malnutrition, substance abuse and suicide, even among children as young as 12.

Abbott’s “lifestyle choice” remark was condemned by Labor Party opposition leader Bill Shorten and an array of Aboriginal bureaucrats, including Noel Pearson and former Labor Party president Warren Mundine, who now chairs Abbott’s Indigenous Advisory Council. These denunciations are utterly cynical.

The criticisms were mainly directed against Abbott’s choice of words, not the substance of the policy. The deliberate run-down and closure of remote communities has been taking place for more than a decade, beginning under the Liberal-National government of Prime Minister John Howard and continuing under successive Labor and Coalition governments.

These socially destructive policies, which determine the fate of Aboriginal communities according to whether they are “economically viable”—i.e., whether profits can be extracted from them, one way or another—have been fully endorsed by Pearson and Mundine and other well-paid Aboriginal bureaucrats.

Abbott’s call for more government cuts to remote communities is in line with the “Northern Territory intervention,” the police-military takeover of Aboriginal settlements launched by the Howard government in 2007.

The intervention’s array of anti-democratic measures, including welfare income management and alcohol bans, were supported by Labor from the outset and extended by the subsequent Labor governments. In 2009, the federal and Northern Territory Labor governments introduced “Working Futures” with the aim of forcing an estimated 10,000 Aboriginal people living in 580 settlements into 20 so-called growth towns.

Abbott’s callous indifference to the fate of Aborigines in remote communities speaks volumes about the attitude of the entire political establishment and its occasional hypocritical expressions of concern about the fate of Aboriginal people.

As Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Abbott recently tabled in federal parliament the seventh “Closing the Gap” report, which is meant to record basic social indices among indigenous people, such as infant mortality, life expectancy and education outcomes. He was forced to concede that many of the limited indicators were static or getting worse, not better. He then declared: “There is no more important cause than ensuring that Indigenous people enter fully into their rightful heritage as the first and as first-class citizens of this country.”

In reality, the policies of the Abbott government and its predecessors are directly responsible for the social crisis facing Aborigines. Nothing was said in the report about the cuts to remote community funding and the more than $540 million slashed from indigenous programs in last May’s federal budget.

Moreover, the new attacks on Aborigines are a warning of the savage austerity measures being prepared against the working class as a whole. Regressive policies such as welfare quarantining, first trialled on Aborigines in the Northern Territory, have already been rolled out in working class suburbs.

While Abbott has targeted remote indigenous communities, his declaration foreshadows a far broader assault on the “lifestyle choices” of workers and youth compelled to subsist on poverty-level welfare payments.

Vanuatu cyclone relief efforts grossly inadequate

Tom Peters

So far 24 people have been confirmed dead and 3,300 are sheltering in evacuation centres in Vanuatu, which was devastated by Cyclone Pam on Friday night. The government estimates that up to 70 percent of the impoverished country’s 268,000 people have been displaced by the cyclone. The strength of the storm has been compared with Typhoon Haiyan, which killed 6,000 people in the Philippines in 2013.

South Pacific, with Vanuatu on the right

The numbers of dead, injured and homeless people are certain to rise once communications are restored with outer islands. The population is spread over more than 65 inhabited islands, with 70 percent living in rural or remote areas, which generally lack basic infrastructure and services such as water and electricity.

On Monday evening, the aid organisation World Vision had still not accounted for 30 of its staff in the country.

According to Oxfam, the cyclone, which also caused flooding and damage in Tuvalu, Kiribati and parts of the Solomon Islands, was “one of the worst disasters ever seen in the Pacific.” Entire villages have been blown away. Vanuatu President Baldwin Lonsdale told Agence France-Presse that the category five storm had “destroyed all the infrastructure the government has built” over the past two years.

In the capital Port Vila, with about 45,000 inhabitants, Lonsdale said the cyclone had flattened or damaged 90 percent of all buildings. More than 80 percent of power lines were knocked down and the main hospital has been partly damaged. The capital’s water tanks have been emptied.

Bridges have been damaged, severely limiting travel in the main island of Efate. According to the UN, many schools have been destroyed.

Reports state that almost all trees have been stripped bare and many have been uprooted, in a country where two thirds of the population relies on agriculture, including subsistence farming. Alice Clements, a UNICEF worker in Port Vila, told the Independent that “100 percent” of crops on the worst-hit island of Tanna have been destroyed and “this means this is an island with no food.” There is also an urgent need for clean water on the island, but so far no relief has arrived for its 29,000 inhabitants.

Aid agencies fear that widespread flooding and contamination of water supplies will lead to outbreaks of disease, such as dengue fever and malaria.

Four days after the cyclone, tens of thousands of people have received no assistance. Save the Children spokesman Tom Skirrow told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that it would likely be three more days before planes could land in outer islands. “We’ve had aerial surveillance... all we can tell is what we suspected, that everything’s destroyed, but we don’t know what’s happening with the people right now,” he said.

According to Radio New Zealand International, some Red Cross supplies have arrived at Port Vila’s airport but distribution across the country would not begin until further surveys are done.

In Tuvalu, while the devastation is apparently not as great as in Vanuatu, an estimated 45 percent of the population of 9,800 was displaced by the cyclone. At least one outlying island has been completely inundated, Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga told Radio New Zealand International. The first shipment of aid from the Red Cross was sent to the country today.

Kiribati’s main hospital and many homes have been flooded, according to theAustralian, while in the eastern Solomons more than 3,000 households have been affected and crops destroyed, “with the population forced to shelter in school and church buildings, and in caves.”

Vanuatu, which is heavily reliant on foreign aid, does not have the resources to even begin to address such a humanitarian catastrophe. The assistance pledged by the region’s major powers, however, amounts to a pittance compared with what is needed: Australia has offered $US3.8 million, New Zealand $1.8 million and Britain, which ruled Vanuatu along with France until 1980, has offered just $2.9 million.

For more than a century the ruling elites of France, Britain, the United States, Australia and New Zealand have made empty and cynical promises to assist their “friends” and “neighbours” in the Pacific—all while exploiting the region’s resources and cheap labour. The priority of these countries is not to raise living standards in the Pacific but to maintain their neo-colonial hegemony and deter rivals for influence, particularly China.

These countries have collectively spent billions on contributing to the US-led wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and on increasing their military and intelligence capabilities in the Pacific. Australia’s defence budget for 2014–15 is $US22.4 billion—more than 27 times Vanuatu’s gross domestic product (a mere $828 million, or $3,276 per capita in 2013).

Canberra, Vanuatu’s largest donor, cut its aid allocation to the country last year from $A60.7 to $60.4 million. This sum includes a “policing and justice support program,” which involves stationing Australian police and judicial “advisers” in the country.

All the imperialist powers are responsible for the appalling poverty and lack of development in Vanuatu and other countries, which greatly exacerbates the impact of natural disasters.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that according to the UN World Risk Index, Vanuatu is more vulnerable to natural disasters than any other country on the planet. The 10 most vulnerable countries also include the Philippines, the Solomon Islands, Tonga and Papua New Guinea. Yet the populations of these countries lack basic protection against disasters, with large numbers of people living in poorly-built shacks that are easily blown or washed away.

Loss for Socialist Party expected in French local elections

Antoine Lerougetel

Two rounds of elections for councillors in France’s 101 departments, on March 22 and 29, are expected to produce a new humiliating defeat for the ruling Socialist Party (PS) of President François Hollande and Prime Minister Manuel Valls. The neo-fascist National Front (FN) of Marine Le Pen is expected to make significant advances.

These projections follow big losses for the PS in the 2014 municipal and European elections and historic gains for the FN amid record abstention rates.

Opinion polls show over 30 percent of voting intentions going to the FN, 28 percent for conservative UMP (Union for a Popular Movement of former president Nicolas Sarkozy) or UDI (Union of Democrats and Independents), and 20 percent to the PS.

The Left Front coalition of the Communist Party (PCF) and the Left Party of Jean-Luc Mélenchon obtained 8.6 percent, the Greens 4 percent, and the pseudo-left New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) and LO (Workers Struggle) 1.5 percent. This is a far cry from the combined 10 percent vote of the two pseudo-left parties in the 2002 presidential elections, reflecting broad disillusionment with their support for Hollande in 2012.

Discredited by their support for the PS and terrified of anger in the working class with the PS, the Left Front is proposing an alliance with the Greens in the departmental elections, trying to cover the longstanding alliance of both the Left Front and the Greens with the PS.

Once elected, the department councils will have to oversee savage cutbacks in school and social housing, benefits for the aged and unemployed, sport and culture dictated by the PS. The national government’s annual contribution to local governments of €34 billion is to be cut by €11 billion. Estimates are that these cuts, including €3 billion in cuts to health budgets, could lead to the axing of 60,000 construction jobs and 22,000 health jobs.

With the PS implementing austerity policies with the support of the pseudo-left parties, in the absence of a party speaking for the working class, the far-right FN can demagogically posture as the only opposition to austerity. In this surreal environment, escalating working class discontent with capitalist policies leads to mass abstention and is reflected in elections by the rise of the FN.

The UMP/UDI coalition could take control of up to 60 departments, while the PS and its allies are expected to lose 20 of the 60 departments they now run. FN-PS run-offs are predicted in 300 cantons, with 1,000 UMP-FN and 700 UMP-PS run-offs. The various parties are therefore discussing whom they will endorse if their candidates are eliminated in the first round.

Prime Minster Valls is attempting to steer voters back behind the PS by denouncing the FN. He said he feared “that my country will be smashed by the National Front,” which is “on the verge of power.” France, he claimed, needs “an awakening of consciousness,” because an FN victory would be “a disaster for the country and ruin for French people.”

Valls cynically hopes this fear mongering will mobilise voters for the PS candidates, even though he is trumpeting that the PS government will continue its unpopular, anti-working class policies.

The PS has made it clear that they will ask their voters to transfer their votes to the UMP/UDI in run-offs against the FN, the so-called “Republican Front” against the FN. Valls has asked the UMP to similarly call for a PS vote in PS-FN run-offs.

The issue already created a split in the UMP when it came up in a legislative by-election in the Doubs department last month. The PS had been beaten to second place by the FN, and the UMP eliminated. UMP leader Nicolas Sarkozy was put into the minority in the UMP national committee when he called for a vote against the FN. He threatened to expel any member of the UMP if they ally with the FN, but it is widely expected that many will do just that.

It remains unclear how many departments could go to the FN, which to date has only one councillor. A figure of 100 FN councillors elected has been suggested, with possible FN majorities in the Vaucluse, Aisne, Oise and Var departments. It is likely that there will be several hung councils where the FN could cast deciding votes on the election of the executive.

Marine Le Pen stated last week that the FN would set “four or five conditions—points of programme—for possible alliances to obtain an executive.”

Le Pen is not only seeking to create a network of councillors to establish the FN on a national basis, but is approaching UMP members and voters to form alliances in a bid for power in the 2017 presidential elections.

Last month, emeritus FN leader Jean-Marie Le Pen offered to build alliances between the UMP and the FN in the departmental elections, though Sarkozy rejected it.

California Democrat plans ballot proposal to cut public employee pensions

Kelvin Martinez

Chuck Reed, the former Democratic Mayor of San Jose, is planning to reintroduce a ballot measure that would eliminate constitutional protections for public employee pensions in California, Reuters reported last week.

Starting in May, Reed and a coalition of businesses and politicians will begin the process of gathering enough signatures to place a measure on the 2016 ballot that would allow the state to slash CalPERS, the $300 billion state employee retirement fund which manages the pension obligations of more than 3,000 state and local agencies.

The announcement follows the recent bankruptcies of Stockton and Detroit, which set a precedent for slashing pension obligations protected by state constitutions.

In an interview, Reed said, “CalPERS has dedicated itself to preserving the status quo and making it difficult for anybody to reform pensions,” adding, “This is one way to take on CalPERS, and yes, CalPERS will push back.” For its part, CalPERS has agreed to increase pension contributions by employees in most cities by up to 50 percent in the next few years.

Last year, Reed was forced to abandon a similar ballot proposal after state attorney general Kamala Harris approved wording of the initiative that Reed called biased and “union-friendly.” The summary of the proposal read: “Eliminates constitutional protections for vested pension and retiree healthcare benefits for current public employees, including teachers, nurses, and peace officers, for future work performed.”

Reed sued to have the wording changed, but the lawsuit was rejected by a superior court judge who ruled there was nothing “false or misleading” in the way Harris described the ballot measure, which would effectively amend the California Constitution in order to give state and local authorities the power to change future pension formulas for current employees.

The dispute over the ballot summary reflected concerns within the ruling class over how best to implement pension “reform.” While the political establishment in Detroit used a bankruptcy proceeding to slash pensions, Reed is seeking a similar outcome outside of the courts and through a public referendum.

Harris represents other layers of the establishment who believe pension cuts can be achieved by having the trade unions enforce cuts on their own membership within the current legal framework.

Reed’s earlier ballot proposal enjoyed bipartisan support from four other California mayors. Various sources, including the Sacramento Bee, documented support from former Enron Corp. trader and Texas billionaire John D. Arnold.

Reed also threw an olive branch to the trade unions by asserting: “The initiative explicitly requires that changes to government employee retirement benefits comply with applicable collective bargaining laws and wait until current labor contracts expire. It does NOT allow changes to be made unilaterally.”

Despite an apparently rough relationship with Reed, the unions did nothing to oppose his ascension to the mayoral post, especially in 2009 when he won a second term by a landslide, with 76.7 percent of the votes. Nominal disagreements between Reed and the unions centered mainly around the size of San Jose’s pension debt, which, according to the unions, was exaggerated by Reed’s estimate.

While Reed was termed out of office in December, he has returned with a more concentrated effort to challenge CalPERS and place a more palatable measure on the November 2016 ballot that would still give local authorities and mayors the task to renegotiate contracts. Reed and his backers will have to gather signatures from 585,000 registered voters, or 8 percent of the number of voters in California’s last gubernatorial election.

The drive to slash workers’ pensions was given further encouragement by a judge in Stockton, who ruled that the city can move forward with its bankruptcy plan of adjustment. Judge Christopher Klein declared, “CalPERS has bullied its way about this case with an iron fist,” and that the fund “turns out to have a glass jaw.”

According to the judge, municipalities will now be allowed to exit the pension system entirely and the payment of pensions which are honored under state law can be set aside under federal bankruptcy laws.

As mayor of San Jose, Reed was responsible for passing a pension-cutting measure and slashing the city’s workforce by over 20 percent, while cutting the pay of the remaining workers by 10 percent. Under his pension “reform” referendum, state employees were forced to accept their current pension plan by paying up to 16 percent more or switch over to a new plan with a higher retirement age and lower-cost-of-living adjustments. New employees were given an even worse plan and had to contribute half the cost.

The assault on pensions enjoys the bipartisan support of the entire political establishment, all the way to the White House. Behind the scenes, the Obama Administration played a decisive role in pushing through the Detroit bankruptcy.

Following Detroit’s precedent, Democratic Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has claimed that the state was entitled to break its pension obligations according to the “police powers” provision of the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

Whether through public referendums that are financed by Wall Street bankers or bankruptcy courts, the end result is the same: the destruction of a secure retirement for workers and their families, in the interest of the enrichment of Wall Street and the financial oligarchy that dominates political life in the United States.

Man held for 900 days in US prison without charge

Tom Eley

Benito Vasquez-Hernandez, 59, has been held for 900 days since his arrest in California on September 16, 2012. For 727 of those days he has been held without charge.

Originally arrested for “interfering with prosecution,” these charges were dropped after Vasquez-Hernandez’ first year of confinement. Since then he has been held without charge in Washington County jail in Oregon.

Vasquez-Hernandez is jailed as a “material witness” in the court case of his son, Eloy Vasquez-Santiago, who is accused of murder in the disappearance and suspected killing of Maria Bolanos-Rivera, 55, of Hillsboro, Oregon, who went missing on August 26, 2012.

Benito Vasquez-Hernandez and another son, Moise, allegedly provided testimony implicating Eloy in the disappearance. They were nonetheless arrested in Madera, in California’s Central Valley, for interfering with prosecution.

Eloy turned himself into police on September 29, 2012, but later claimed police tricked him into confessing with the promise that his brother and father would be released from jail. He had worked with the deceased at an Oregon berry packaging plant.

Eloy’s murder trial began on Tuesday. The body of Rivera, who was a mother of six, was never recovered.

Benito and Moise were transferred to Washington County Jail in Oregon on January 10, 2013. On March 21, 2013, two years ago next week, the state dropped its hindering prosecution charges, but called for their ongoing incarceration as material witnesses. Judge Don Letourneau rejected defense attorney requests for their release, and imposed punitive bail of $500,000 each.

Attorneys for Benito and Moise say that their clients are incapable of understanding the case. An attempt to gain a videotaped deposition for Benito, an avenue that might have secured his release, failed when in response to the question “Do you swear to tell the truth?” Benito Vasquez-Hernandez said, “That question, no. I want to get out.” Before being dismissed by the judge, he also asked the court, “Why am I in jail? It’s been two years. It’s been too long.”

Benito’s attorney, Alan Biedermann, tried to explain his client’s refusal to take the oath. “It was not a matter of contempt or defiance,” Biedermann said. “It was the result of his failure to understand the process.” Oregonian writer Emily Smith has also pointed to Benito’s “staggering disadvantages” in the case. She writes, “He’s poor. He’s had no formal education and can’t read or write. He’s an immigrant who doesn’t understand the American justice system. He’s had no contact with his family.” As the British Guardian put it, “it is unclear whether he understands anything at all about the whole situation.”

A video deposition did eventually pave the way for the release of Moise, who told prosecutors that his brother Eloy had confessed to the killing of Bolanos-Rivera.

Yet this testimony is of dubious value in light of Moise’s mental state after nearly 730 days in prison without charge, during which he suffered a “psychotic break” and was hospitalized and diagnosed with schizophrenia.

During his confinement without charge, Moise watched and yelled at a turned-off television, walked an imaginary dog in circles, and smeared his own feces on the walls and ceiling of his cell. In one instance he was hooded and placed in solitary confinement in a maximum-security unit after he allegedly spat at a prison guard.

In a court filing his attorney, David Rich, said Moise has “a poverty of intellect that can be described as nothing short of stunning,” and that, “[q]uite frankly and bluntly spoken, being held in custody is making Mr. Vasquez-Santiago literally crazy.”

The state prosecutor maintains that his effort to secure a guilty conviction justifies the ongoing deprivation of Benito Vasquez-Hernandez’ basic rights. The courts have so far agreed with prosecution claims that his testimony is indispensable, and that he would not voluntarily show up for trial were he released.

“I’m trying to convict a man who has confessed to killing a mother,” prosecutor Jeff Lesowski said. “It’s not a real easy job. It’s not perfect.”

Prison conditions for Benito are bleak. “He lives in a small cell with a single window high above his head and sleeps on a skinny mattress resting on a cinderblock frame,” Smith writes. He is awoken each day at 5 a.m. Lights are shut off at 10 p.m.

State laws, including those in Oregon, allow material witnesses to be imprisoned awaiting their testimony. These are anti-democratic rules that police and prosecutors regularly abuse to elicit testimony from uncooperative witnesses.

In Oregon there is no formal limit on how long a material witness might be held, but in practice such incarcerations have typically been brief, and are often defended as a means of protecting a witness from reprisal. The length of Benito Vasquez-Hernandez’ imprisonment may in fact be a record for the detention of a witness, according to legal experts.

“Assuming it is ever constitutional to lock up an uncharged person to secure his testimony,” commented Lee Gelernt, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, “the detention must be as minimal as possible to avoid a grave injustice.”

Vasquez-Hernandez’ jailing without charge is in keeping with an accelerating attack by American courts and politicians on basic democratic rights in a year that marks the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, which first established the core democratic principle of habeas corpus, prohibiting jailing without charges.

ACLU sues White House over drone “kill list”

Eric London

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit in New York federal court Monday seeking to force the Obama administration to release records related to its “targeted killing” drone assassination program.

The complaint notes that the Obama administration has refused to publish records of the program, which “has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of foreign nationals, many of them children.”

Included amongst the material sought are documents related to “the legal basis in domestic, foreign, and international law” upon which the government may kill with drones, “the process by which the government designates individuals or groups for targeted killing,” and the number and names of people killed in drone attacks.

An initial lawsuit that sought to compel the release of documents was filed by the ACLU in October 2013, and Monday’s complaint notes that despite the passage of 18 months, “none of the defendant agencies has released any record in response to the request.”

The Obama administration’s excuse for ignoring the ACLU request has varied but its failure to release any documents has been consistent.

The Departments of Justice and Defense told the ACLU in 2013 that “unusual circumstances” had delayed any release, while the Department of State wrote that the ACLU had not shown a “compelling need” for information relating to the drone killings to be made public.

The Central Intelligence Agency, for its part, told the ACLU it had “completed a thorough review” of the ACLU’s request and had cynically determined “that if any records existed, the volume or nature of those records would be currently and properly classified.”

The Obama administration has stonewalled the ACLU’s request because compliance would mean releasing damning evidence of American war crimes. Under the drone assassination campaign, President Obama has assumed an unlimited right to kill people—including American citizens—without even so much as a warrant or trial.

A report published last year by the watchdog group Reprieve shows that in the course of hunting down just 41 alleged terrorists through November 2014, the US killed 1,147 people.

Seventy-six children and 29 adults were killed in the course of two strikes aimed at al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri, thought to be hiding in Pakistan. An additional thirteen Pakistani children and 115 adults were killed in a series of drone strikes aimed at mid-level al-Qaeda figure Qari Hussain. All told, 874 Pakistanis have been killed as the US targeted just 24 men.

In Yemen, 273 people were killed as the government tracked down 17 targets, four of whom are still alive.

In total, a conservative estimate from the Council on Foreign Relations shows that 3,674 people have been killed in American drone strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent months, the Obama administration has continued its drone campaign, launching strikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen and Somalia.

The Obama administration has asserted that its license to kill without due process extends to US citizens, despite the Fifth Amendment’s provision stating that, “no person…shall be deprived of life…without due process of law.”

This unprecedented step was taken in 2011, when US citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year-old son, Abdulrahman, were killed in separate drone strikes in Yemen. In the former victim’s case, the Obama administration had presented no evidence that the radical cleric had committed any specific crime. In the latter case, the teenager was killed while attempting to track down his missing father.

The ACLU lawsuit comes almost two years after the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit forced the Obama administration to release a 41-page Justice Department memo detailing the administration’s justification for presidential assassinations without warrant, charges or trial.

The Justice Department memo—released to the public as a result of an ACLU lawsuit—laid forth the unprecedented legal position that the “due process” standard in weighing whether to kill someone could be satisfied outside of the courts by the president and the top military and intelligence brass. In effect, this legal rationale is an argument for dictatorship.

In a blog post announcing the lawsuit, the ACLU’s Matthew Spurlock pointed to the Obama administration’s hypocritical paeans to transparency. Quoting Obama, Spurlock wrote, “President Obama pledged to make lethal targeting ‘more transparent to the American people and the world,’” but that “the administration has failed to follow through on these commitments to openness, and it is continuing to withhold basic information.

“When it has released anything—or been compelled to by lawsuits—discussion of crucial aspects of the program have been omitted or redacted. This lack of transparency makes the public reliant on the government’s self-serving and sometimes false representations about the targeted-killing program.”

Spurlock’s reference to the Obama administration’s falsehoods underscores an additional reason for the administration’s refusal to publish information on the drone killings: to do so would catch leading administration officials in a network of lies.

For example, John Brennan—then Obama’s chief counter-terrorism adviser, said in June 2011 that “there hasn’t been a single collateral [civilian] death” in Pakistan since August 2010. This statement was quickly disproven by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which found that just ten drone strikes carried out during that period had killed 45 civilians, including six children.

If the ACLU lawsuit compels the release of any material related to the drone campaign, the information will be additional evidence of the criminal character of the Obama presidency.

Turkey escalates involvement in Iraq-Syria war

Halil Celik

Turkey’s Defence Minister Ismet Yilmaz accompanied foreign ministry and army officials to Iraq earlier this month to sign bilateral agreements with the Iraqi government in Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Irbil. His stated purpose was to share “intelligence information as part of efforts in the fight against the ISIS [Islamic State in Syria] threat.”

Yilmaz declared that Turkey would do its best to support the Iraqi government. “Turkey is willing to do its part for the Iraqi army for its counterterrorism efforts by logistically supporting it and sharing intelligence,” he pledged. “We are also ready to train and equip Iraqi army and Peshmerga forces.”

The day before his announcement, two Turkish C-130 cargo planes landed at Muthenna Air Base, about 20 kilometres east of Baghdad, to deliver military supplies to the Iraqi army. Earlier, Yilmaz stated that Turkey was part of the anti-ISIS coalition and would make a “further contribution” to defeat the jihadists. He said, “Turkey has begun to actively contribute to the coalition. … When the time comes, Turkey will make an assessment that takes into account our national interests and fulfils our responsibilities of coalition membership.”

He did not make it clear whether Turkey’s “active” contribution to the anti-ISIS coalition would include participation in the joint campaign of Iraqi forces, Kurdish Peshmerga and Shiite militia, backed up by air support from the US-led coalition, to reclaim Mosul province, under ISIS control since June 2014.

His statement came after the exiled governor of Mosul, Atheel al-Nujaifi, spoke with the Iraqi Kurdish online news web site Rudaw, claiming that Ankara, having agreed to send weapons and supplies to Iraqi forces, would take part in the offensive to recapture Mosul from ISIS. He also said that Turkey would train and equip about 3,000 Mosul residents to fight against ISIS. The training would take place in the KRG.

Turkey’s Daily Sabah said that despite al-Nujaifi’s claims, sources close to the government state that Turkey would not put boots on the ground in Iraq or send weapons to Iraq, but would assist the anti-ISIS fight in other ways. Following a meeting between Iraqi Vice President Usama al-Nujaifi (Useyil Nujaifi’s brother) and Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Ankara pledged “all kinds of support for the stability of Iraq,” the paper reported.

This follows a February 18 agreement with Washington to “train and equip” Syrian opposition forces in the central Anatolia province of Kirikkale. Their task will be to fight both ISIS and the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad. The chief of the Turkey general staff, General Necdet Özel, joined military chiefs from 25 countries involved in the US-led coalition at a meeting in Riyadh, where he pledged Ankara’s commitment to the military campaign against ISIS.

Turkey was until recently reluctant to play an active role in the US-led coalition, and was subject to considerable criticism from the Western powers for allowing foreign fighters to cross into Iraq and Syria via Turkey to join ISIS, following ISIS’s capture of vast swathes of Iraqi territory, posing a threat to Western oil interests.

ISIS’s capture in June last year of 49 hostages, 46 of whom were staff members in the Turkish consulate in Mosul, provided Ankara with an excellent excuse for not joining the military campaign so as “not to risk the lives of the hostages.”

However, Ankara’s position shifted after ISIS released the hostages following some three months of secret negotiations, allegedly after Ankara offered some 180 prisoners in exchange. Under growing pressure from its Western allies, Ankara started to issue statements condemning ISIS as “a terrorist group having nothing to do with Islam.”

US officials, including US Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, flew to Ankara to force the government to give the coalition forces expanded access to the Incirlik Air Base, which is close to Syria and Iraq. They demanded Ankara’s participation in a train-and-equip program, along with other regional allies of US imperialism.

Ankara’s first open military operation came on February 21, just after it signed up to the train-and-equip program. The evacuation of 38 soldiers guarding the Suleyman Shah tomb besieged by ISIS militants in Syria was a preliminary operation, which facilitates Ankara’s military activities in Syria. After evacuating Turkish soldiers and moving the Tomb of Suleyman Shah, officially recognized as on Turkish territory, to a site on the Turkish-Syrian border, Ankara appears to have positioned itself against ISIS.

The operation with Syrian Kurdish forces to evacuate the site was a necessary step to remove possible threats in advance of any large scale ground operation in Syria, which would also strengthen the pro-imperialist anti-Assad forces.

In a related development at the beginning of March, President Recep Tayyep Erdogan visited Saudi Arabia, accompanied by a delegation that included Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Economy Minister Nihat Zeybekci and Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus, in an attempt to repair relations between Ankara and Riyadh. Relations between the two countries deteriorated drastically following the July 2013 military coup led by General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi that toppled the Muslim Brotherhood-led government of President Mohammed Mursi, with whom Ankara had developed close ties.

Erdogan has consistently accused the “international community,” including Saudi Arabia, of hypocrisy for giving legitimacy to Sisi and the military coup. Ankara’s refusal to accept the Sisi government prompted Cairo to cut ties with Turkey and expel the Turkish ambassador. Ankara declared Egypt’s ambassador to Turkey persona non grata.

Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood’s other main supporter in the region, came under heavy pressure from the US and Saudi Arabia to rebuild friendly relations with Cairo, leaving Ankara almost completely isolated. After Qatar expelled some MB members last year, Erdoğan said, “If they [the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in exile in Qatar] request to come to Turkey, we will review these requests case by case.” A number of exiled MB leaders, who had previously been living in Qatar, are now living in Turkey.

Erdogan’s visit to Riyadh coincided with the visit by el-Sisi to Saudi Arabia, which, together with the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, is the main financial backer of the Egyptian junta. The timing of the visits prompted speculation about a potential Saudi-brokered reconciliation between Ankara and Cairo. Erdogan ruled out any meeting or reconciliation, telling journalists who asked whether he would meet Sisi in Riyadh, “You must be joking. It’s out of the question.”

He emphasised that it was up to Egypt to take positive steps to normalize relations with Turkey. Sisi, appearing on Al-Arabia television, said that the timing of their visits was just a coincidence and urged Ankara to “stop interfering in Egypt’s internal affairs.”

Turkey’s diplomatic isolation has started to cost it economically. Cairo has refused to renew its ferryboat agreement with Turkey for a roll-on roll-off ferry route between Iskenderum and Port Said, which replaced Turkey’s transit routes via Syria to Iraq and the Gulf, after it expires on April 20. The alternative, transit via the Suez Canal, will prove costly to Turkish exporters to the Middle East. Turkish companies in Libya are owed $4.5 billion and construction equipment worth $7 billion, while a further $1.2 billion worth of machinery was looted from Turkish construction sites during the NATO-led war to topple the Gaddafi regime.

Turkey supports the Islamist-controlled National General Congress and the government of Omar al-Hasi in Tripoli against the Tobruk-based government appointed by the Assembly elected in June 2014.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are supporting the Tobruk-based government and former General Khalifa Haftar, who has close links with the CIA, against the Tripoli government. Following the execution of 21 Egyptian Copts by Islamists pledging allegiance to ISIS, the Tobruk government expelled Turkish companies from Libya.

Facing growing economic and political problems before the June parliamentary elections, with Erdogan seeking a two-thirds majority to replace Turkey’s existing constitution with one that makes him an executive rather than a ceremonial head of state, Turkey’s decision to take an active role in the military operation against ISIS and Syria threatens to draw Ankara ever deeper into the quagmire created by US imperialism.

Hundreds of thousands join right-wing protests for ouster of Brazil’s president

Bill Van Auken

Hundreds of thousands of Brazilians joined protest marches throughout the country called on the basis of opposition to corruption and on the demand for the resignation or impeachment of the country’s recently re-elected Workers Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores—PT) president, Dilma Rousseff.

Behind the demonstrations were various right-wing organizations, but the mass turnout was clearly rooted in rising popular anger over both the widening corruption scandal at Brazil’s state-owned oil corporation, Petrobras, and the rapidly deteriorating economic conditions.

By far the largest of the demonstrations took place in Sao Paulo, where estimates ranged from between 200,000 and 1 million participants, but marchers and rallies also took place in all 22 Brazilian state capitals, the federal capital of Brasilia and a number of smaller cities.

The most prevalent slogans were “Fora Dilma” and “Fora PT” (Dilma Out, PT Out), but there were visible minorities raising banners and placards calling for the Brazilian military to intervene against the government. The rally was called on the 30th anniversary of the restoration of civilian rule, after two decades of US-backed military dictatorship. March 15 was also the day on which the military commanders succeeded one another as heads of the ruling junta.

In unintended irony, some demonstrators carried banners declaring their opposition to Brazil becoming “another Venezuela,” even as their actions were in direct line with the right-wing opposition in that country, which has sought to overturn the results of an election by means of street protests.

A significantly smaller series of demonstrations took place on Friday, March 13, called by the CUT union bureaucracy, so-called social organizations, student groups and others close to the ruling PT. These rallies raised slogans in defense of Dilma, as the Brazilian president is universally called, and of Petrobras. Some equated the calls for resignation and impeachment to a coup.

At the same time, however, the organizers of these rallies were compelled to include demands opposing the PT government’s economic austerity program, which represents an attempt to shift the full burden of the country’s economic crisis onto the backs of the working class.

While the anti-Dilma demonstrations were dominated by better-off sections of the middle class, the combination of these economic measures, rising inflation and falling living standards, along with the Petrobras corruption scandal, have alienated large sections of the working class from the PT government. Polls have shown the president’s overall approval rating nearly cut in half over the past several months, falling to just 23 percent.

There has only been a worsening of the economic and social conditions that brought millions into the streets beginning in June 2013. Then, spontaneous protests over bus fare hikes spilled over into massive demonstrations over the lack of decent health care, education and other social services, and the spending of vast sums on preparations for the football World Cup.

In contrast to those demonstrations, Sunday’s rallies saw no violent confrontation with security forces and little if any reference to the social demands of the Brazilian working class. The attempts to channel those earlier protests in a right-wing direction have now taken a much more finished form.

Coming on top of the dozen years of government by the PT, which from its origins engaged in “left” and even socialist pretensions, the present developments have provided the Brazilian right with its greatest opening since the fall of the military dictatorship. The right’s seizing on the corruption scandal to push for the PT’s ouster is utterly cynical, of course. Its parties and politicians have all been implicated in similar scandals, and among its major aims is to utilize the revelations at Petrobras to push for the corporation’s complete privatization, thus opening the way to a far more extensive looting operation.

While corruption has been endemic to Brazilian politics going back long before the PT even existed, the Petrobras scandal—dubbed “Operation Carwash”—is breathtaking in its scope. Nearly 57 politicians, most of them from the PT and its allied parties in the national congress, have thus far been implicated in the bribery, kickback and money-laundering scheme, which is estimated to have cost Petrobras, Brazil’s largest corporation, some $4 billion.

While no charges have been brought against the president, she was the chairman of Petrobras between 2003 and 2010, when much of the graft took place, and it is alleged that large amounts were siphoned off from the energy giant to pay for her 2010 presidential election campaign.

Money was paid out by construction companies and other contractors to secure inflated contracts with Petrobras. The funds were in part embezzled by Petrobras executives and, in larger amounts, funneled into the campaign coffers and pockets of politicians.

In addition to Petrobras and the politicians, some 30 companies, including some of Brazil’s largest construction firms, have been implicated, leading to the suspension of major contracts, the cutting off of lines of credit and the halting of ongoing projects. The Brazilian economic weekly Exame carried the headline, “Is the Petrobras corruption scandal going to paralyze the country?”

The PT government’s response to the country’s deepening economic crisis has been a package of austerity measures attacking workers’ rights to unemployment insurance, sick pay, pensions and death benefits. This is combined with cuts in funding for education and health care. All of these measures are aimed at reassuring Wall Street by amassing a budget surplus, even as the PT government pays out some 44 percent of the budget to service foreign debt.

While calling for Dilma’s resignation or impeachment, the parties of the Brazilian right have no disagreements on these measures, which they are supporting on the federal level and directly implementing in those states where they hold power.

Deeply implicated in the present crisis and the sharp dangers it poses to the Brazilian working class are all those pseudo-left elements who promoted the PT as a vehicle for social progress and even socialism, to be emulated internationally.

Among those facing prosecution over the Petrobras scandal is Antonio Palocci, who was finance minister in the government of Dilma’s predecessor, the ex-metalworkers union leader and first PT president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and became Rousseff’s chief of staff in 2011. He is charged with taking $700,000 from the Petrobras graft network for Dilma’s presidential campaign.

In the 1970s, Palocci entered political life as self-declared “Trotskyist” affiliated with the Brazilian group aligned with the French revisionist tendency then led by Pierre Lambert. When this group entered the PT, he went in with it, ultimately becoming a congressman, cabinet minister and multimillionaire.

Meanwhile, following the Sunday protests, the Rousseff government sent Justice Minister Jose Eduardo Cardozo and the secretary general of the presidency, Miguel Rossetto, to grovel before the cameras, proclaiming the government’s commitment to both fighting corruption and implementing “fiscal adjustment” measures, as well as its desire for “dialog” with the Brazilian right.

Rossetto was a long-time leader of the Brazilian group affiliated with the Pabloite revisionist United Secretariat who became minister of agrarian reform under the Lula government, serving the interests of agribusiness and the rural oligarchy. Now he is the principal mouthpiece for the Rousseff government.

China-Burma tensions rise after bomb kills Chinese citizens

John Roberts & Peter Symonds

Tensions between China and Burma (Myanmar) have flared after a bomb, which Beijing insists was dropped by a Burmese warplane, killed five people and injured eight inside Chinese territory close to the border. The dead and wounded were working in a sugarcane field near the border city of Lincang.

The incident follows renewed fighting last month between the Burmese army and the separatist Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA) militia, which is based in the largely ethnic-Chinese Kokang region of northern Burma. The MNDAA launched an offensive around the border town of Laukkai on February 9, and Burma’s military-dominated regime responded by imposing martial law.

The Burmese army has ignored appeals from Beijing for a ceasefire and peace talks with the MNDAA and other ethnic-based separatist militias in the region. Fighting has continued, resulting in the deaths of at least 70 soldiers, along with an unknown number of MNDAA fighters and civilians. A flood of refugees, estimated by the Chinese media at 60,000, have crossed the border into the southern Chinese province of Yunnan.

Last weekend Chinese Premier Li Keqiang blamed last Friday’s explosion on a Burmese military aircraft that strayed over Chinese territory while attacking MNDAA fighters. Describing the incident as “deeply distressing,” Li warned: “We have the responsibility and the capacity to firmly safeguard the security and stability of the Chinese-Myanmar border.”

China called in Burma’s ambassador to Beijing last Friday and issued a formal protest. The Chinese military has stepped up border patrols and air defences in the area. Air force spokesman Colonel Shen Jinke said its fighter jets would warn off and chase away any Burmese aircraft approaching or entering Chinese territory.

The Burmese regime denied responsibility for the bombing, while expressing “deep sorrow” over the deaths and offering to conduct a joint investigation. A statement published in the state-backed Global New Light of Myanmaryesterday suggested that the inquiry should focus on “whether the Kokang insurgent group is involved in this incident to have a negative impact on the friendship between Myanmar and China and to create instability along the border area.”

While seeking to ease tensions, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said: “The facts are clear that a bomb from a Myanmar military plane caused the death of Chinese people.” He called on all parties to treat “China’s concerns seriously, maintain restraint, quickly pacify the situation and recover peace and stability in northern Myanmar.”

China is deeply concerned about deteriorating relations with the Burmese regime, which since 2011 has shifted out of Beijing’s orbit and established closer economic, political and military ties with Washington. The Obama administration’s rebranding of the Burmese “rogue state” as a “developing democracy” is bound up with its broader “pivot to Asia,” which is aimed at undermining Chinese influence throughout the Indo-Pacific region.

Closer ties with Washington have encouraged the Burmese military to take a more pronounced anti-Beijing stance in accusing China of supporting the MNDAA militia. On February 21, Burmese military spokesman Lieutenant General Mya Tun Oo asserted that the MNDAA was using “Chinese mercenaries” and receiving aid from other ethnic separatist militias. In a March 1 radio broadcast, Burmese President Thein Sein pointedly declared: “I stress that I will not tolerate any country or group infringing on the sovereignty of Myanmar.”

There is significant sympathy in China, particularly in Yunnan Province, for the ethnic Chinese across the border in Kokang. Beijing, however, has blocked support for the MNDAA in an effort to defend its broader economic and strategic interests in Burma, including large investments in port facilities and energy pipelines from the Indian Ocean to southern China.

The Burmese regime has ignored China’s reassurances, as well as Beijing’s call for stability in the border areas, and continued to attack the MNDAA. While Washington has largely remained silent on the conflict, it is undoubtedly following events closely. Since 2011, the US military has re-established ties with the Burmese military under the pretext of engaging on “human rights” issues.

The Taiwan-based WantChinaTimes reported that a high-level US diplomatic and military delegation, including Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence David Helvey and US Pacific Command deputy commander Lieutenant General Anthony Crutchfield, visited Burma from January 11 to 15.

“Crutchfield and other high-ranking military officers made a low-key visit to Myitkyina in Kachin State, meeting with members of the General Staff Department, the Myitkyina Military Region command and front line brigade-level officers of Myanmar’s armed forces,” the article stated. “The officers also got briefed on the conflict between government forces and civilian militias currently ongoing in the region, as well as the performance of the first batch of Myanmarese soldiers to receive military training from the US on their return to the front line. There was also discussion on a second batch of soldiers receiving military training in the US.”

No further details were provided. However, it is highly significant that a top American military officer should visit frontline Burmese troops, in this case fighting ethnic Kachin fighters. Nominally at least, Washington has called for the Burmese regime to reach peace agreements with various ethnic groups. It is also worth noting that during a previous visit, in June 2014, Crutchfield insisted that US military-to-military assistance would not include training combat forces—such as those deployed in Myitkyina.

In Kokang, Washington is making no effort to rein in the Burmese military’s operations against the MNDAA, which is creating a significant crisis for China on its southern border. While the current fighting began with a MNDAA offensive in early February, there are indications that the Burmese army may have encouraged the MNDAA’s actions to provide the pretext for its own heavy-handed intervention.

MNDAA leader Peng Jiasheng gave an extensive interview to the China-based Global Times, indicating that he would launch an offensive to regain his dominant position in Kokang. The MNDAA while nominally posturing as a defender of ethnic Chinese, has been heavily involved in drug running and other smuggling operations.

In a comment last month, Phuong Nguyen, an analyst with the US-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, suggested that the Burmese army decided to allow Peng to proceed, in order “to tap into widespread nationalist sentiment and renew its image as the only actor that can prevent the disintegration of Myanmar.” The military is positioning itself for elections due to be held later this year.

Whatever exactly happened in last Friday’s explosion inside Chinese territory, the Burmese military is provocatively continuing its operations close to the Chinese border, and doing so with Washington’s tacit support.