Fateful Steps That Led To The Crisis In Ukraine (Part I)

Thomas Riggins

The crisis that struck Ukraine last year-- the overthrow of the elected president, the Russian annexation of Crimea, the rebellion in the Russian speaking eastern provinces— was the result of problems that had been festering, not only in Ukraine but all along the former frontiers of the USSR since the end of the cold war and the collapse of eastern European socialism over twenty some years previously.

There were many pressure points and areas of potential conflict along this defunct border. Over the years they became more and more exacerbated mainly as a result of the triumphalist attitude of the US and its allies over the end of the Cold War which they considered as a "victory" of their side over the Russians and their allies.

Meanwhile the Russians and their remaining close allies had considered the end of the Cold War as a cooperative undertaking in which, with western help, the leadership of the USSR would dismantle the Warsaw Pact and replace state socialism with a European style market economy thus eliminating the threat of nuclear war and allowing for the eventual flourishing of a united European civilization stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

The "we won, you lost" attitude assumed by the US (and its NATO puppet) along with the EU has led to economic and political actions the Russians and their allies believe threaten their interests and rights. This is the theses of professor Richard Sakwa of Kent University (UK) in his new book Frontline Ukraine. This article will attempt to highlight the fateful steps that have led to the current crisis as professor Sakwa annunciated them (any misinterpretations or errors are mine).

One of the major steps was the growth of NATO right up to borders of Russia after the Russians had been given assurances by the US that that would not happen. The US now argues that the growth of NATO was necessary due to the security problems along its borders. This overlooks the fact that it is the new borders that are the location of these problems. As Sakwa puts it, “NATO’s existence became justified by the needs to manage the security threats provoked by its enlargement.” This kind of mendacious logic is typical of the US ’s (and to a lesser extent the EU’s) dealings with Russia. Echoed by the corporate media in the US, it is one of the main reasons the American people are ignorant of the true causes of the Ukraine crisis and for their antipathy toward Russia.

The reason there are so many problems between the US (and its satellites) and Russia is because there are many systemic contradictions between them left over from the end of the Cold War and there has been little, if any, attempt by the West to seriously try to resolve them by good faith negotiations. When a problem boils over, as in the Ukraine (and earlier in Georgia), all the blame is put on Russia and the solution is framed as the need for the US and the West to make the Russians back down. This, Sakwa points out, only makes the contradictions between the interests of the Russians and the US side worse.

A major consideration with regard to the West’s relations with Russia is that after the collapse of the USSR Russia was economically in turmoil and politically weak. The West could pretty much do as it wanted as Russia, as well as Ukraine, were dominated by corruption, oligarchs calling the shots, and the need to concentrate on internal problems not foreign affairs.

Russia was able to economically benefit during the early years of the 2000s, due to high profits of oil, and Putin was able, despite democratic short comings, to curtail the power of the oligarchs, reassert state ownership in many strategic areas of the economy, and reinvigorate the Russian economy and state. This allowed the Russians to reengage in foreign affairs and begin to reassert their perceived interests vis a vis those of the West once they realized it was not part of the West’s intentions to work in partnership with them to peacefully resolve contradictions to the mutual benefit of all concerned. If not a cold war the US was starting a “Cool War.” In contrast Ukraine remained mired in corruption and the control of oligarchs despite a democratic facade.

Another important point made by Sakwa concerns the makeup of the Ukrainian nation. There are two contradictory views which he calls the monistic and pluralistic views. In short, the monistic view, held by the Ukrainian government and the ultra nationalist faction which dominates western Ukraine is that the country is a unique cultural whole bound together by its national language which has its own historical destiny to fulfill as part of the European continuum and is thus more closely bound to the EU than to Russia which is seen as an alien foreign influence.

The pluralistic view, which dominates in the eastern Russian speaking Ukraine, maintains that the peoples of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are related by a common cultural ancestry born of their participation in a common early state and religion (orthodox Christianity since 988 AD). The common state (Kievian Rus) was destroyed by the Mongol invasion in 1240, nevertheless the common cultural unity persists and the three peoples are more closely bound to one another than to the EU and its people. This is admittedly simplified and Sakwa will expand upon it later.

Surveys and polls show that as late as 2005 around 67% of eastern Russian speaking Ukrainians identified with Ukraine as their country and there was no great feeling to join with Russia or become independent. There were major problems, however, which included worries and complaints about the status and use of Russian, negative attitudes towards NATO and no desire to identify with Europe and the West at the expense of Russia.

All of these issues could have been dealt with democratically within Ukraine by means of parliamentary processes and constitutional guarantees. What has led to the present crisis in Ukraine was the perception by the Russian speaking east that the undemocratic overthrow of the elected government in February 2014 brought to power ultra-nationalist forces that were seeking to force their views on the east and that eastern concerns, beliefs, and rights were being ignored and even abrogated.

This eastern crisis is a separate issue from the Crimea. The Russians in the Crimea were never happy about being separated from Russia due to the fact that in 1954 the USSR transferred the area to Ukrainian administration for purposes of cost efficiency. No one then even dreamed of the possibility that the Crimea would be cut off from Russia in an independent Ukraine. Sakwa points out that the Crimea, after all, "is the heartland of Russian nationhood."

The annexation of the peninsula by Russia was welcomed by the majority of people living there and while its return to its motherland set off the storm that has now descended upon US and European relations with Russia (totally provoked by the West and its backing of the overthrow of the constitutional government of Ukraine) it is unlikely to be reversed. The issues in the eastern provinces of Ukraine have to be settled independently of those of the Crimea which is now a part of Russia and likely to remain so. (To be continued.)

12th Anniversary Of Illegal Iraq Invasion

Gideon Polya

Those with consciences  recently marked the 12th anniversary on 19 March 2015 of the illegal and war criminal US, UK and Australian invasion of Iraq in 2003  that was based on false assertions of Iraqi possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction, was conducted in the absence of  UN sanction  or Iraqi threat to the invading nations, and led to 2.7 million Iraqi deaths from  violence (1.5 million) or from violently-imposed deprivation (1.2 million). The West has now commenced its Seventh Iraq War since 1914 in over a century of Western violence in which Iraqi deaths from violence or violently-imposed deprivation have totalled  9 million. However  Western Mainstream media have resolutely ignored  the carnage, this tragically illustrating the adage “History ignored yields history repeated”.

Neocon American and Zionist Imperialist (NAZI)-subverted and perverted Western Mainstream media utterly ignore expert assessments of how many people the US Alliance has killed in Iraq and resolutely ignore the crucial epidemiological concept of non-violent avoidable deaths (excess deaths, avoidable mortality, excess mortality, deaths that should not have happened) associated with war-imposed deprivation (for detailed analysis see).  Thus, by way of example,  on the occasion of  US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 the Australian ABC (Australia's equivalent of the UK BBC) reported that “The withdrawal ends a war that left tens of thousands of Iraqis and nearly 4,500 American soldiers dead".  In contrast, the expert and eminent US Just Foreign Policy organization estimates, based on the data of expert UK analysts and top US medical epidemiologists, 1.5 million violent deaths in the Iraq War (2003-2011) and UN data indicate a further 0.8 million Iraq avoidable deaths from war-imposed deprivation in this period. Violent deaths and avoidable deaths from violently -imposed deprivation in the Gulf War (1990-1991) and Sanctions period (1990-2003) total 0.2 million and 1.2 million, respectively.   Accordingly, Iraqi deaths from violence (1.7 million) or war-imposed deprivation (2.9 million) since 1990 total 4.6 million.

However Western violation of  Iraq commenced with the British invasion in 1914.  Assuming excess mortality of Iraqis under British rule or hegemony (1914- 1948) was the  same as for Indians under the British (interpolation from available data indicate Indian avoidable death rates  in “deaths per 1,000 of population per year”  of 37 (1757-1920), 35 (1920-1930), 30 (1930-1940) and 24 (1940-1950)), one can estimate from Iraqi population data that Iraqi avoidable  deaths from deprivation under British occupation and hegemony from 1914-1950 totalled about 4 million. Thus ignoring  Iraqi deaths associated with the US-backed Iraq-Iran War, one can estimate that about 9 million  Iraqi deaths from UK or US  violence or imposed deprivation in the century after the 1914 invasion of Iraq by Britain, this constituting an Iraqi Holocaust and an Iraqi Genocide as discussed below.    

Holocaust is the destruction of a large number of people and 9 million Iraqi deaths from Anglo-American violence or violently-imposed deprivation certainly constitutes  an Iraqi Holocaust. The term “holocaust” was first applied to a WW2 atrocity by Jog in 1944 in relation to the “forgotten” man-made Bengal Famine (Bengali Holocaust) in which 6-7 million Indians (many of them Muslims, and hence the term WW2 Muslim Holocaust)  were deliberately starved to death by the British in  1942-1945 (Australia was complicit in this atrocity by withholding grain from its huge wartime wheat stores from starving India). The term “holocaust” was subsequently applied to the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million killed, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation according to the recently deceased, pro-Iraq War, and Iraqi Genocide-ignoring British Zionist historian Professor Sir Martin Gilbert), noting that the WW2 Jewish Holocaust was part of a vastly greater WW2 European Holocaust in which 30 million Slavs, Jews and Gypsies were killed.   

Genocide is very precisely defined in International Law as “ acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”, as set out by Article 2 of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”. Any argument that  the British and Americans did not “intend” to kill 9 million Iraqis is belied by the remorseless slaughter over 101 years interrupted only by the period between the  overthrow of the British-installed monarchy in 1958 and the commencement  of Sanctions in 1990.

The Anglo-American Iraqi Genocide since 1990 has been associated with 2 million under-5 year old infant deaths  comprising 1.2 million (1990-2003) and 0.8 million (2003-2011), 90% avoidable and due to gross violation of Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War which demand that an Occupier must supply their conquered Subjects with  food and medical requisites to “the fullest extent of the means available to it”. The Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide was also war criminal mass infanticide and mass paedocide.

The appalling legacy of a quarter of a century of Western violence against Iraq  (1990-2015) - for oil, US hegemony and Apartheid Israeli hegemony – is summarized below, with much of the data being found in  “Iraqi Holocaust Iraqi Genocide”, “Genocide in Iraq” volumes I and II by Iraqi scholars Dr Abdul-Haq Al-Ani & Tariq Al-Ani and reviews of these works and noting that about half of the Iraqi  population of 30 million are children :

(1). 1.7 million Iraqi violent deaths.

(2). 2.9 million Iraqi avoidable deaths from violently -imposed deprivation.

(3). 2 million under-5 year old Iraqi infant deaths, 90% avoidable and due to gross violation of the Geneva Convention by the US Alliance.

(4). 7,700,000 Iraqi refugees.

(5). 5,000,000 Iraqi orphans.

(6). 3,000,000 Iraqi widows.

(7). 1,000,0000 Iraqis missing.

(8). 4,000 Iraqi women (20% under 18) missing and presumed “trafficked”.

(9). 3.5 million Iraqi children living  in dire poverty.

(10). 1.5 million Iraqi children are undernourished.

(11). Iraqi cancer cases in cases per 100,000 people were 40 (1990), 800 (1995) and 1,600 (2005).

(12). 40% of Iraqi professionals have left since 2003.

(13). 34,000 doctors (1990) declined to 16,000 doctors  (2008).

(14). More than 2,200 doctors  and nurses killed.

(15). The Iraqi health budget dropped from  $450 million pa (1980-1991) to $22 million (2002),

(16). Most of Iraqi children are traumatized by war.

(17). From high literacy pre-1990 to 74% illiteracy in 2011.

Iraq has been substantially destroyed a modern state by  US state terrorism, UK state terrorism, French state terrorism, Apartheid Israeli state terrorism and Australian state terrorism and the same state terrorists have been variously involved in the similar destruction of Libya and Syria from formerly being  modern, socially progressive states (albeit under authoritarian governments). . These are unforgivable crimes and the US Alliance war criminals must be brought to account by the world through international law and through application of  Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against the war criminal Western states responsible for the Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide.

Summary.

The  anti-racist Jewish British writer Harold Pinter declared in his 2005 Nobel Prize acceptance speech: “We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'. How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice”. 1990-2011 Iraqi deaths from US Alliance  violence (1.7 million) or violently-imposed deprivation (2.9 million) total 4.6 million and one can in 2015 paraphrase this great humanitarian: “How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? 4.6 million? More than enough, I would have thought.”

Unfortunately the International Criminal Court (ICC) as currently operating is a racist, cowardly, partisan, genocide-ignoring, genocide-complicit organization that strictly confines its war crimes attention to war criminals that the US Alliance doesn't like (e.g. non-European and Serbian war criminals) (for discussion see “The Politics of Genocide” by Edward S. Herman and  David Peterson). The ICC has repeatedly ignored complaints over the Iraqi Genocide (e.g. and that means the world  must accept recourse to eminent, ICC-independent  international tribunals to assess the war crimes of  the US Alliance in Iraq and elsewhere.  

US state terrorism, UK state terrorism, French state terrorism, Apartheid Israeli state terrorism and Australian state terrorism have variously combined over the last  25 years to destroy Iraq as a united, sovereign, modern state. In the face of endless war againstIraq and an ongoing Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide, what can decent people do?  Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity. Decent people must (a) circumvent  the lying and ignoring by the Neocon American and Zionist Imperialist (NAZI)-subverted Mainstream media by resolutely attempting  to  inform everyone  they can about the  Iraqi Genocide, and (b) urge and apply Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) – of the kind successfully applied against Apartheid South Africa and currently being applied against  US Alliance-backed, nuclear terrorist, genocidally racist, democracy-by-genocide Apartheid Israel – against all people, politicians, parties, companies, corporations and countries involved in the Iraqi Genocide and the Zionist-promoted Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide of which it is a part. History ignored yields history repeated. We cannot walk by on the other side.

US-Syria Cultural Heritage Cooperation?

Franklin Lamb

Damascus

Syria’s Director-General of Antiquates and Museums, Dr. Maamoun |Abdul-Karim, as well as other officials including the Ministers of Culture, Information and Tourism often speak of their beloved country being “an open-air museum.” Few would challenge their characterization as the global community focuses increasingly on how to stop crimes against culture which are now widely viewed as crimes against the common heritage of humanity.

Identifying and stopping the current spread of looting and shadowy illegal antiquities marketplaces requires their exposure to sunshine. One is reminded of some wise counsel from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis back in 1913: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.”

Toward this end, the UN Security Council and particularly Turkey, need to cooperate much more with Syria to halt the trade in looted antiquities that helps fund jihadist groups. To its credit, on 2/12/2015, the Security Council passed a resolution identifying groups such as ISIS and Al Nusra Front of generating income by selling antiquities looted in the conflict and the UNSC is well aware that Turkey has been facilitating smuggling of cultural heritage treasures across it (560-mile) border. Turkey has become the main route for looted Syrian antiquities, followed by Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. A BBC Radio 4 report of 2/17/2015 quoted a ‘middle man’ who sells looted Syrian artifacts to international dealers: “From Turkey the final destination is Western Europe, he says. “Turkish merchants sell it to dealers in Europe. They call them, send pictures… people from Europe come to check the goods and take them away.”

Frankly put, if there is not greater international cooperation with the Syrian government to stamp out the current scourge then our global heritage, cannot be preserved. As Syrian Minister of Culture, Issam Khalil explained during a recent meeting in his office in central Damascus, “We have the conclusive documents and evidence to prove our ownership of these antiquities and we also have the will and readiness to cooperate with any serious effort to prevent smuggling of Syrian antiquities abroad.”

One of the strongest laws in effect and which is being enforced wherever security permits is Syria’s 1963 Antiquities Law, as amended in 1999. The regulatory law is divided into six chapters, corresponding to general provisions, immovable antiquities, movable antiquities, excavations, penalties and miscellaneous provisions.

Syria’s law is driven by the idea that cultural goods represent a public interest, and is characterized by a strict retentive spirit and a punitive set of sanctions because the government and people of Syria believe that antiquities belong to the state and should be exhibited in museums not exported to the highest international bidder. The law provides that the owner of an antiquity or piece of land where the archaeological site is situated receives payment of a “suitable financial reward” in the case of movable antiquities (Article 35) and compensation irrespective “of the archaeological, artistic or historical value of expropriated buildings and areas” (Article 20). In all circumstances the state has the exclusive power to oversee the conservation, pertinent modifications or archaeological excavations of the sites.

Among its provisions are the following:

The general export of antiquities is altogether banned, as Article 69 provides that an export license may only be granted with regard to antiquities that are to be exchanged with museums and other scientific institutions, and with regard to antiquities given to an organization or mission after excavations are finished. Moreover, any relocation of antiquities within Syria’s borders requires the permission of the pertinent authorities (Article 40). There are two provisions in the prescriptive part directly relevant to the current armed conflict. Article 7 prohibits, inter alia, destroying, transforming and damaging both movable and immovable antiquities by writing on them, engraving on them, or changing their features. Article 26 bans building military facilities within 500 meters of registered immovable archaeological and historical properties. The law does not contemplate the suspension of its obligations in exceptional circumstances and continues to apply today during the current conflict. But as DGAMS’ Dr. Abdul-Karim has noted, it is difficult to ensure “the protection of the immovable heritage in the country, especially for those archaeological and world heritage sites that are located in conflict areas and cannot be accessed.”

Engulfed in civil war, without an end in sight, Syria has employed its 1963 law with amendments and its governmental institutions and local community support and this country for the benefit of all of us who value our past. Syria is taking the lead to make a big difference but her people need help from those who share their values about our past and who are able to help. Intensified law enforcement efforts directed at investigating and prosecuting cultural heritage trafficking must be supported by the government and people of every country.

International criminal law in many ways is still in its infancy. Yet, hoping to accelerate prospects of achieving international criminal accountability has been a driving force behind the adoption of laws for the protection of cultural heritage. No fewer than 37 countries are currently considering strengthening their laws to stop importation and illicit commerce in looted Syrian cultural heritage artifacts, doubtless a reaction to the iconoclastic nihilist’s crimes in this region.

This growing international commitment to beef up criminal responsibility laws is good. But it is not good enough.

US-Syria cultural heritage cooperation?

This past week, legislation introduced in the U.S. Congress could facilitate cooperation between Syria and America, and joint efforts to preserve and protect our shared cultural heritage may well spread into the political arena according to sponsors of the Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act (H.R. 5703). “The fight to preserve our common cultural heritage, as well as to deny extremists such as ISIL [Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] resources from the sale of blood antiquities, is yet another front on the global war against terror,” proclaimed co-sponsor Congressman Chris Smith (R-N.J).

The bill would create a cultural property protection czar and set up import restrictions to prevent looted and smuggled Syrian heritage material from crossing America’s borders and would advance four articulated U.S. policy goals:

(1) Protect and preserve international cultural property at risk of destruction in Syria due to political instability, armed conflict, or natural or other disasters;
(2) Protect Syrian and international cultural property pursuant to its obligations under the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and customary international law in all conflicts to which the United States is a party;
(3) Prevent, in accordance with existing laws, importation of Syria’s cultural property pillaged, looted, or stolen during political instability, armed conflict, or natural or other disasters; and
(4) Ensure that existing laws and regulations, including import restrictions are fully implemented to prevent the trafficking in stolen or looted Syria cultural property.

The legislation also attempts to offer a solution to the current cumbersome US statutory framework, which c requires Syria’s government—to first ask the State Department for American import controls restricting cultural objects. The barrier to date has been that the US government recognized the rebels as the legitimate governing authority of the Syrian Arab Republic in 2012 so cooperation has not yet happened.

US Secretary of State John Kerry has pledged to launch an international campaign that protects Syria’s and the world’s cultural property while putting politics aside. In doing so Kerry labeled the destruction of heritage in Syria “a purposeful final insult” which is “stealing the soul of millions.” He referred to the devastation in the Ancient City of Aleppo and to the extensive looting of Apamea and Dura Europos as a tragedy for the Syrian people and the rest of the world, and remarked: “How shocking and historically shameful it would be if we did nothing while the forces of chaos rob the very cradle of our civilization.”

Steny Hoyer, from Maryland’s 5th District, commented the other day. “If the US can work with the Iranians over the nuclear file, surely we can work with Syria to preserve the cultural heritage that belongs to all people regardless of politics. Our mutual heritage is bigger than today’s political differences and we must work together. And I think the White House is ready and this may happen soon.”

The Dangerous Resurgence of Tuberculosis in China

Cesar Chelala

China now has the second largest tuberculosis epidemic -second only to India- with more than 1.3 million new cases of tuberculosis every year. What makes the situation particularly serious, however, is that, according to the Chinese Center for Disease Control, China has the largest number of patients with Multiple Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (MDR-TB), and that Extremely Resistant Drug Tuberculosis (XDR-TB) is also widespread. These facts show the need to step up efforts to combat the disease.

In 1993, the World Health Organization (WHO) instituted a cost-effective treatment of tuberculosis called DOTS (a directly observed treatment of a short course of drugs) that was very effective in combating TB in low-income countries. However, over time, patients began developing resistance to the drugs used for treatment, causing MDR-TB to spread.

Less than one-quarter of those believed to have MDR-TB have been diagnosed, according to the WHO, which facilitates the spreading of this serious form of the disease. “We have managed by a combination of complacency and incompetence to allow this bacillus to mutate to a virtually untreatable form,” wrote Dr. Zarir Udwadia, an Indian world expert on tuberculosis and author of the book Principles of Respiratory Medicine.

Tuberculosis becomes resistant to drugs in patients who don’t complete the treatment. The current treatment for non-resistant tuberculosis is relatively cheap and consists of drugs called first-line drugs for TB. In MDR-TB the patient is resistant to at least the two most powerful anti-TB drugs. This form of the disease is much more costly to treat, and it is also much more toxic (it has more serious side effects), which explains patients’ reluctance to complete the treatment.

China has a large migrant worker population who leave the countryside to join the wage economy in China’s main towns and cities. Many of them practice unprotected sex and contract HIV/AIDS, which weakens their immune system and makes them more susceptible to tuberculosis. In addition, they live in circumstances that facilitate the transmission of the disease and impede their diagnosis and proper treatment.

Many of these migrant workers cannot afford the cost of treatment in the cities and have to return to their place of birth, because subsidized management of tuberculosis (and other kinds of social welfare benefits) is only allowed in those areas where they were registered at birth. Those migrants who were born in rural areas are not allowed to switch registration to become urban residents. Returning home for care is not the ideal solution because the rural health system doesn’t have the same quality as the one in the cities.

Although tuberculosis control has been part of the country’s public health program since the 1950s, it is only after the SARS epidemic in 2003 was effectively controlled that the Chinese government increased its efforts to revitalize its tuberculosis control program. In that regard, increased political commitment to public health as a result of the SARS epidemic benefited tuberculosis control.

In March 2004, the government revised the law on control of infectious diseases providing instructions on how to tackle, improve the reporting and implement interventions aimed at the control of those diseases. This law benefited tuberculosis control by improving the reporting of tuberculosis at health facilities across the country. As a result, tuberculosis must be reported to local public health authorities within 24 hours of detection.

In January 2004, the Ministry of Health implemented the world’s largest internet-based communicable-disease reporting system, which allows tuberculosis patients to be rapidly identified to ensure their proper treatment. In addition, the government started a massive effort to improve public health facilities.

Despite those efforts, however, more needs to be done in terms of training health workers to implement the DOTS, improving the recording and reporting systems and increasing awareness about the dangers of the disease. Also important is to control the increasing numbers of MDR-tuberculosis patients. According to the WHO, China has a third of the world’s number of cases of MDR-TB, even though the country has only 15 percent of the global burden of disease.

To lower the prevalence of tuberculosis, particularly in its resistant forms requires further improvement of the public health system. So far, considerable progress has been achieved. The estimated prevalence rate of tuberculosis per 100,000 people fell from 215 in 1990 to 59 in 2013, and its mortality rate declined steadily at an average rate of 8.6 percent between 1990 and 2010. China now has the opportunity and obligation to continue these remarkable achievements.

Australia in Afghanistan

Binoy Kampmark 

It was made as a special statement. The Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott wanted it known that Australian soldiers who had fought in Afghanistan in what has been the country’s longest war should not be treated like those who had fought in Vietnam. “Afghanistan is a better country because Australia was there,” he explained to returning soldiers on March 21. Then, a nice little contortion of language, and reality. “That war ended, not with victory and not with defeat, but with hope, hope for a better Afghanistan and a safer world.”

This statement of ritual stalemate on Operation Slipper – the Australian mission in Afghanistan – is suggestive. The Vietnamese War was marked by false logic, misguided ideology, and hare-brained cultural assumptions that led to a generation of Australian soldiers being ridiculed and vomited on as cultural abominations. Prime Minister Robert Menzies, on April 29, 1965, spoke of fears how “the takeover of South Vietnam would be a direct military threat to Australia and all the countries of South and South-East Asia. It must be seen as a part of a thrust by Communist China between the Indian and Pacific Oceans.” Tinker with such terms as “communism” and replace with “global fundamentalism,” and the raison d’être for unlimited war is revived.

A great evasion has therefore developed towards the role of Coalition forces in Afghanistan, clothed in the language of humanitarianism and the stuffing of good feeling. Notable Australian voices such as Professor Hugh White have argued that Australia’s mission, and by implication those of others, was a “total failure”. White, writing in 2013, was examining the withdrawal of Australian forces from Oruzgan province. Its objectives, he argued, had not been achieved. “That means that Australia’s military operation in Afghanistan has failed.”

Every measurement of success, taken through the doctrine of counter-insurgency (COIN) suggested the converse. The Afghan government backed by foreign forces continues to be debilitating in its corruption. “Any government that is too weak to win a counterinsurgency without massive outside help is too weak to be worth supporting.” The reasons for placing troops in Afghanistan to deny it to al-Qaeda “never made sense” – the terrorist franchise was out of Afghanistan and sprouting like well-fed fungi “long before we went to Oruzgan.”

Others like Peter Jennings of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute engage in acts of gymnastic overstretch, hoping to grasp a rationale as to why Australia was there. He is only left with naked, circular presumptions – Australian soldiers were obviously engaged because it was necessary for Canberra to have a presence. “My view is that Australia’s participation in the war was necessary; it has produced some positive outcomes and created the basis for cautious optimism that Afghanistan will have a better future.” Jennings takes it as a given that, if the US was in Afghanistan to fight that grand nonsense of “global terrorism,” then Australia had to be as well.

Standard economic measures are wheeled out in the manner Graham Greene so significantly skewered in The Quiet American – the good forces of modernisation fighting nationalist primitives in the name of a civilising mission finds virtue in buildings, infrastructure, and roads. “Progress in social and economic development has been made of a type that probably looks more impressive to Afghan than Australian eyes.” Abbott’s own commemorative address noted those materialist achievements: “girls’ schools, roads and bridges where there were none.”

The mid-road here comes from such commentaries as those of Army veteran and Lowy Institute fellow James Brown. First, the deployment of Australian troops was deemed necessary to back US interests – every satrap needs his calling, and “it was entirely correct to support this mission with our military forces.”

But the mission changed. Brown, without any evidence, suggests that the deployment did reduce the threat of terrorism in Australia, another example of how empirical evidence persists in being an enemy of the good, let alone necessity. Neither side of politics could quite explain the “why” of Australian involvement as the torpor began setting in. This, Brown chewed over, had little to do with reality and everything to do with image. The ADF had “forgotten many of the lessons of the East Timor conflict. Like finding a way to tell your story and get the media on side.” The right war was simply fought in a “dumb” way.

For all of that, former Afghan President Hamid Karzai, on whose behalf foreign forces were fighting and dying for, found little room for sympathy. His reflections typify how gratitude can never be possible for occupation forces, however efficient their mission or purpose. “The war on terror was not conducted where it should have been, which was in the sanctuaries and the training grounds beyond Afghanistan, rather than what the US and NATO forces were conducting operations in Afghan villages, causing harm to the Afghan people.”

Importantly, the most brutal observation from Karzai lies in the failings of the mission. It is something that will, and should haunt, endeavours of such intrusion and blindness. This was a defeat of NATO and US forces, since there was never any victory to define, let alone gain.

The New Chinese Dream

Pepe Escobar

“…it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger (to the U.S.)

emerges capable of dominating Eurasia

and thus also of challenging America”

Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997

What’s in a name, rather an ideogram? Everything. A single Chinese character – jie (for “between”) – graphically illustrates the key foreign policy initiative of the new Chinese dream.

In the upper part of the four-stroke character – which, symbolically, should be read as the roof of a house – the stroke on the left means the Silk Road Economic Belt, and the stroke on the right means the 21st century Maritime Silk Road. In the lower part, the stroke on the left means the China-Pakistan corridor, via Xinjiang province, and the stroke on the right, the China-Myanmar-Bangladesh-India corridor via Yunnan province.

Chinese culture feasts on myriad formulas, mottoes – and symbols. If many a Chinese scholar worries about how the Middle Kingdom’s new intimation of soft power may be lost in translation, the character jie – pregnant with connectivity – is already the starting point to make 1.3 billion Chinese, plus the overseas Chinese diaspora, visualize the top twin axis – continental and naval – of the New Silk Road vision unveiled by President Xi Jinping, a concept also known as “One Road, One Belt”.

In practical terms, it also helps that the New Silk Road will be boosted by a special, multi-billion-dollar Silk Road Fund and the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which, not by accident, has attracted the attention of European investors.

The New Silk Road, actually roads, symbolizes China’s pivot to an old heartland: Eurasia. That implies a powerful China even more enriched by its environs, without losing its essence as a civilization-state. Call it a post-modern remix of the Tang, Sung and early Ming dynasties – as Beijing deftly and recently stressed via a superb exhibition in the National Museum of China consisting of rare early Silk Road pieces assembled from a range of regional museums.

In the past, China had a unifying infrastructure enterprise like the Great Wall. In the future it will have a major project of unifying Eurasia via high-speed rail. When one considers the breadth of this vision, depictions of Xi striving to be an equal of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping sound so pedestrian.

Of course China’s new drive may be interpreted as the stirrings of a new tributary system, ordered and centered in Beijing. At the same time, many in the U.S. are uncomfortable that the New Silk Road may be a geopolitical, “peaceful development”, “win-win” answer to the Obama administration’s Pentagon-driven pivoting to Asia.

Beijing has been quick to dismiss any notions of hegemony. It maintains this is no Marshall Plan. It’s undeniable that the Marshall Plan “covered only Western nations and excluded all countries and regions the West thought were ideologically close to the Soviet Union”. China, on the other hand, is focused on integrating “emerging economies” into a vast, pan-Eurasian trade/commerce network.

Achtung! Seidenstrasse! (Attention! Silk Road!)

It’s no wonder top nations in the beleaguered EU have gravitated to the AIIB – which will play a key role in the New Silk Road(s). A German geographer – Ferdinand von Richthofen – invented the Seidenstrasse (Silk Road) concept. Marco Polo forever linked Italy with the Silk Road. The EU is already China’s number one trade partner. And, once again symbolically, this happens to be the 40th year of China-EU relations. Watch the distinct possibility of an emerging Sino-European Fund that finances infrastructure and even green energy projects across an integrated Eurasia.

It’s as if the Angel of History – that striking image in a Paul Klee painting eulogized by philosopher Walter Benjamin – is now trying to tell us that a 21st century China-EU Seidenstrasse synergy is all but inevitable. And that, crucially, would have to include Russia, which is a vital part of the New Silk Road through an upcoming, Russia-China financed $280 billion high-speed rail upgrade of the Trans-Siberian railway. This is where the New Silk Road project and President Putin’s initial idea of a huge trade emporium from Lisbon to Vladivostok actually merge.

In parallel, the 21st century Maritime Silk Road will deepen the already frantic trade interaction between China and Southeast Asia by sea. Fujian province – which faces Taiwan – will play a key role. Xi, crucially, spent many years of his life in Fujian. And Hong Kong, not by accident,also wants to be part of the action.

All these developments are driven by China being finally ready to become a massive net exporter of capital and the top source of credit for the Global South. In a few months, Beijing will launch the http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/09/us-china-yuan-payments-exclusive-idUSKBN0M50BV20150309 China International Payment System (CIPS), bound to turbo-charge the yuan as a key global currency for all types of trade. There’s the AIIB. And if that was not enough, there’s still the New Development Bank, launched by the BRICs to compete with the World Bank, and run from Shanghai.

It can be argued that the success of the entire Silk Road hinges on how Beijing will handle restive, Uyghur-populated Xinjiang – which should be seen as one of key nodes of Eurasia. This is a subplot – fraught with insecurity, to say the least – that should be followed in detail for the rest of the decade. What’s certain is that most of Asia will feel the tremendous pull of China’s Eurasian drive.

And Eurasia – contrary to perennial Brzezinski wishful thinking – will likely take the form of a geopolitical challenge: A de facto China-Russia strategic partnership that manifests itself in various facets of the New Silk Road that also bolsters the strength of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

By then, both Iran and Pakistan will be SCO members. The close relations between what was ancient Persia and China span two millennia – and now they are viewed by Beijing as a matter of national security. Pakistan is an essential node of the Maritime Silk Road, especially when one considers the Indian Ocean port of Gwadar, which in a few years may double as a key transit point of the IP or Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. It may also be the starting point of yet another major Chinese Pipelineistan gambit parallel to the Karakorum highway, delivering gas to Xinjiang.

Beijing values both Iran and Pakistan – the intersection of Southwest Asia and South Asia – as fundamentally strategic nodes of the New Silk Road. This allows China to project trade/commerce power not only in the Indian Ocean but the Persian Gulf.

Got vision, will travel

Washington’s alarm at these developments betrays the glaring absence of an enticing made -in-the-USA vision to woo pan-Eurasian public opinion – apart from a hazy military pivoting posture mixed with relentless NATO expansion, and the TTIP “free trade” corporate racket, also known across Asia as “NATO on trade”.

The counter punch to the above could be already coming via the BRICs; the SCO; the non-stop http://rt.com/news/238857-china-russia-mature-partnership/ strengthtening of the China-Russia strategic partnership. There’s also the expansion of the Eurasian Union (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia – with Kyrgyzstan soon acceding, followed by Tajikistan). In the Middle East, Syria is seriously studying the possibility, and a trade agreement with Egypt has already been clinched. In Southeast Asia, a pact with Vietnam will be a done deal by the end of 2015.

Russia and China’s “secret” agenda in helping to clinch an Iran-P5+1 nuclear deal paves the way for Tehran to be admitted to the SCO as a full member. Expect, as early as 2016, an SCO alignment that unites at least 60% of Eurasia, with a population of 3.5 billion people and a wealth of oil and gas that more than matches the Gulf Cooperation Council states.

So the real story is not how China will collapse, as peddled by David Shambaugh, the so-called second top China expert in the U.S. (who’s the first? Henry Kissinger?) This is a line that’s been soundly debunked by many sources. The real story, which a revived Asia Times will be covering in detail in upcoming years, is how the myriad aspects of the New Silk Road will be configuring a new Eurasian dream. Have vision, will travel. Bon voyage.

The Role of Geopolitics in Myanmar’s Resource Curse

Suparna Banerjee

Myanmar’s abundance in resources similar to the existence of the Roman god with two faces, Janus. In the country’s historical transition, natural resources could either prove to be key to Myanmar’s economically developed future or permanently condemn the country to an abyss of conflicts. One such theatre of conflict is the Letpadaung copper mine in Monywa, Sagaing Region.

The mine is run by a Chinese firm called the Wanbo Mining Copper Ltd. as part of a joint venture with a major local military conglomerate, the Union of Myanmar Economic Holding Ltd. The mine is estimated to hold 3.8 million tonnes of copper deposits, and has been in the thick of controversy since its inception due to the confiscation of over 3000 hectares of land from more than 26 villages.

The related unrest in Myanmar points to the local population’s resentment towards the Chinese for depriving them of the financial benefits of the country’s natural resources. Things improved slightly after the signing of the new agreement between the mine operators post the submission of the report by the Parliamentary Review Committee led by Aung San Suu Kyi. However, Naypyidaw fears deterioration of Myanmar-China bilateral relations over this issue. Naypyidaw can hardly afford to lose the valued friendship of China, a country that has stood by Myanmar through during critical junctures. China, on the other hand, expressing sorrow over the death of the woman protestor went on to defend the mining project and the compensation package was arrived at based on the market price and the local laws.

It is equally wise to argue that the unrest is a reflection of protest against the exploitation of resources and not directed against any particular country. Depriving the local populace of benefits of profits is a common phenomenon, be it a democracy or no democracy. One may draw a comparison in the Vedanta Bauxite mining or anti-POSCO protest in Orissa, India. Thus without drawing too much on the strategic aspect of the resources, the unrest could purely be guided by the share of economic resources and absence of proper guidelines to address this issue.

Naypyidaw fears that the share of resource revenue would be channelised to fund the ethnic conflict by rebel groups and hence maintains reservations on the front of federalism as demanded by the anti-government fighters. Conversely, the rebel groups opine that unaccountable resource exploitation without providing adequate dividends to the locals is sustaining the military rule in Myanmar. Stakeholders within the government are amassing huge wealth through corrupt practices which, in turn, is helping them dictate terms. The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative’s (EITI) approval of Myanmar’s candidate status is a positive sign that the President Thein Sein’s office has followed through the earlier stages of the implementation process.

Post the opening-up of the economy, the quasi-civilian government introduced headline-grabbing reforms in all areas of legislation. However, the country’s rich natural resources have often been proven to be non-beneficial to the locals. When the country is on the verge of creating history pending election in December 2015 after it embarked on the political reforms, the unrest is a cause of worry for the country. Therefore, the timing of these protests need critical evaluation. Why now?

Countering China’s role, Myanmar’s share of oil and natural gas resources, commercial ventures exploiting vast swathes of natural resources, and to tap the country’s fresh market for investment are some of the key pull-factors for external players.

Threatened by the massive influence China wields in Myanmar, Western countries, led by the US have changed their stances. Obstructing the investment flow could also be a reason behind the rise of unrest to have arisen just before the election. Open Briefing, in its report titled ‘Stalled hope? – the resource conflict risk to Myanmar’s political and economic transition’ suggests that rebel groups are targeting infrastructure projects to prevent Myanmar’s armed forces, the Tatmadaw’s,  military modernisation. The Tatmadaw’s share in the country’s GDP has seen an increase from 2.2 per cent in 1995-2005 to 3.9 per cent in 2011-2013.

These unrests point to fundamental issues that remain unaddressed by the political class, thus making the need to address the issue of lack of reforms more pressing.

Australia-India-China: IOR Procurement Race for Submarines

Stephen Westcott

As most of the international community focuses on maritime events taking place in East Asia, the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) has been witnessing its own naval arms race in recent years. Increasingly at the forefront of countries’ maritime procurement wish-lists, are improved submarine capabilities.

Owing to their ability to conduct multiple missions such as anti-ship warfare, intelligence gathering, and limited missile launches, submarines have long been a sought-after vessel for medium fleets. India and Australia, with the two largest resident submarine fleets in the Indian Ocean, have been looking to rebuild their fleet in recent years. Though initially prompted by the state of their rapidly aging fleets, both countries’ efforts to procure new submarines have been given new impetus by China’s recent assertive behaviour and forays in the IOR. With 2015 already shaping up to be an eventful year for both countries’ submarine programmes, it is prudent to investigate the intended composition of each country’s future submarine fleet and the problems that have been plaguing their procurement.

Australia is seeking to acquire 12 new conventional submarines to be in service by 2024, a majority of which are likely to remain stationed in the Indian Ocean, facing Western Australia. Its current fleet of six indigenously built Collins class submarines, the last of which was only commissioned in 2003, will be upgraded with modern systems to extend their lifespan to reach their planned retirement date. Clearly disillusioned by the Collins project, successive governments have sought to purchase the next generation, with the recent favourite being the Japanese Soryu class; although French and German designs too are being considered with a decision expected in mid-2015 to coincide with the new Defence White Paper.

However, the current government clearly favours purchasing these submarines ‘off the shelf’ rather than have them built or outfitted in Australian shipyards. Although an overseas purchase will likely need some modification, especially in range, to meet Australian requirements, the current government has refused to guarantee that this would be done by Australian shipyards. This has caused significant local backlash, especially in South Australia where the defence industry is strongest and the community, desperate to keep its diminishing manufacturing base after the last car factories closed. Nonetheless, in February, Australia’s defence force chief stated that there is more of an emotive instead of national security case for domestic construction of vessels as long as submarine maintenance remains in Australia.

Conversely, India plans to indigenously build at least three nuclear and 12 conventional submarines. These will replace the noticeably aging fleet of 13 conventional diesel electric submarines, including the one that sank at Mumbai harbour in 2013 after a series of internal explosions. India’s first indigenously built nuclear submarine is currently undergoing trials and is expected to enter service in 2016; but only if tests go smoothly. India currently leases one Russian nuclear submarine to get enough qualified crew to man the new submarines.

As part of India’s ‘Project-75’, it also wishes to modernise its conventional submarine fleet, approving in October 2014 a $8 billion project to build six new conventional submarines locally. India has already purchased the rights to build and commission six Scorpène class subs from a French/Spanish shipbuilder, currently under construction in a Mumbai dockyard, the first of which is expected to undergo tests later in 2015. The project is currently running four years late and was again delayed indefinitely in February 2015. To make matters worse, construction has had ‘technical and equipment-related issues’ that will result in at least the first four submarines being deployed without an air-independent propulsion system that allows a submarine to remain submerged for longer periods of time, thereby increasing their covert utility.

Though China’s actions has provided the catalyst for the recent rigour in both countries’ efforts to establish their submarine fleet, Beijing has been relatively subdued in the face of these efforts. The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has a large submarine force with a current total of seven nuclear and 51 conventional submarines split across three fleets that are capable of long-range underwater operations and bearing capability to threaten both Australian and Indian interests.

Though yet to publicly criticise Australia’s and India’s submarine procurement efforts, China has been noticeably increasing its submarine presence in the IOR in what the Indian media has dubbed a ‘submarine noose’. While several of these deployments are likely primarily tests of its own capacities as well as protecting and monitoring its own maritime trade interests that pass through these seas, China is undoubtedly also demonstrating its resolve and abilities to resident militaries in the IOR. As well as utilising its own fleets, China has quietly been improving the capacities of its own allies in the region in an effort to mitigate any impact India’s fleet expansion would have on Chinese operations.

Recently, Beijing reportedly gifted Dhaka some of its older submarines and is training Bangladeshi submariners to operate them. Reportedly, China has also been assisting Pakistan develop its own missile-capable submarines and remains the most likely supplier for Pakistan’s ambitions to acquire six new submarines. 

Though China has yet to issue any direct threat to any resident of the IOR, Australia and India remain committed to providing their navies with the most sophisticated submarines available so as to prevent Beijing from developing free reign over the seas.

However, with both countries handicapped by subpar and expensive shipyards, only time will tell if their different approaches will enable them to achieve their defence ambitions and whether it will elicit a stronger response from China.

India-Nepal Power Trade Agreement: Challenges before Opportunities

Kalpana Jha

The Power Trade Agreement (PTA) signed between Nepal and India in September 2014 was much touted as the most significant achievement of the 18th SAARC summit. This agreement has been perceived as a major advance in not just addressing the increasing power demand in India and Nepal but also as a major economic boost for Nepal. However, not much analysis has been presented on this subject, perhaps because the implementation is still pending.  Will the PTA result in the remarkable benefits that it is expected to deliver? Or will it result in new disputes between the two countries?

The deal, termed ‘historic’ by both the governments authorises the two neighbours to develop transmission interconnections, grid connectivity, power exchange and trading through governmental, public and private enterprises on mutually acceptable terms. It also allows licensed electricity producers, buyers and traders from both countries to engage in cross-border electricity trading, including via power exchanges, and to seek cross-border transmission access as per the laws of the respective countries.

This is not the first time Nepal has entered into agreement with India vis-à-vis power trade and water sharing. There are multiple water sharing treaties that have been signed in between between the two from the 1950s to the 1990s; and they too were lauded and considered as path-breaking as the 2014 PTA. However, in the long-run these treaties have proven to become major bones of contention between India and Nepal. For instance, vis-à-vis the Koshi Treaty (1954) and the Mahakali Treaty (1996), there still remains contention regarding two principal issues: water rights, and the question of the management, control and operation of the barrages.

Additionally, information-sharing and co-operation on water issues is also crucial. This was particularly due to high ambition coupled with a lack of vision and cooperation from both ends. Therefore, it is important that the two countries seek to arrive at a common framework of perspectives on this subject. As the first step, joint mechanisms need to be evolved for water management and control. An inclusive approach would forge trust and make both countries accountable.

While these mechanisms are yet to be evolved, Nepal has entered into another ambitious PTA with India. While it appears to be an actionable project on the surface, it contains vague and questionable clauses. For instance, the statement “The agreement enunciates that it will enable cooperation in the power sector, including developing transmission interconnections, grid connectivity, power exchange, and trading through the governmental, public and private enterprises of the two countries on mutually acceptable terms,” stops short of specifying what the ‘mutually acceptable’ terms are, and whether or not they will be a win-win for both sides. Also, the arrangement of separate agreements between the concerned entities on project-to-project basis for investments and related terms and conditions in developing specific cross-border transmission projects for power trade needs meticulous scrutiny.

Furthermore, the agreement makes no mention of any mechanism to tackle problems of natures similar to those that have plagued previous. Importantly, the onus of effective management and balancing of both the investors and buyers will lie with Nepal. Given the current internal and external political state-of-affairs in Nepal, carving a meticulous strategy to balance both, without letting them overpower the state itself, will be a challenge for Kathmandu. In this regard, a clear implementation strategy specifying Nepal's role as well as the degree of ownership over the project must be carried out before any forward-movement on this course.

Where mutual trust and co-operation have to be the foundation for sustainable water relations, this area appears particularly strained in case of Indo-Nepal relations. India views Nepal with much suspicion vis-à-vis its relations with China and the Pakistan, and the widespread anti-India sentiment in Nepal has been a major spoiler in the bilateral. Nepal's internal instability, widespread corruption and lack of coherent views regarding hydro-power ventures cannot be overlooked.

Additionally, corruption levels in Nepal Electricity Authority is on the higher end. 

The exaggerated comparisons of Nepal’s water resources with the gulf countries’ oil reserves and terming Nepal as the power hub of Asia has projected a misleading image and vision, driven by lofty ideals instead of reality-based analyses. The assessment of risks associated with the 2014 PTA appear crucial. The Indian market will be the single largest end-buyer and consumer of electricity produced on export-oriented foreign investment. In this backdrop, Nepal needs to carefully examine the risks and gains associated with these ambitious goals, given its limited market access and lack of capability to invest. Additionally, asymmetric power relations with India that limit its negotiating capacity also needs assessment, or this can add to the pre-existing ambiguous relationship between the two countries.

Philistinism and crime in the German art market

Sybille Fuchs

On March 16, a district court in Essen announced its verdict on art consultant Helge Achenbach, who enriched himself to the extent of millions of euros in the course of supplying modern art to extremely wealthy clients.

Proceedings at the Essen court’s main criminal chamber opened in December 2014. Achenbach was accused of fraud, forgery and embezzlement. He confessed to the crimes and was sentenced to six years in prison for offences that included 18 cases of fraud.

In January, a Düsseldorf court ruled that Achenbach had to repay nearly €20 million [$US 22 million] to the family of one of his clients.

Achenbach convinced his rich, but not exactly art-savvy, customers that their money was well invested in art purchases, and thereby amassed a fortune for himself.

The court was not primarily concerned about art and the various forms of its exploitation, but rather how to recover the money swindled from rich and super-rich victims who had little knowledge of the art works they were buying. Nevertheless, the trial raises some important questions. It sheds light on the absurd condition of the contemporary art market and those involved in it.

Helge Achenbach, born in 1952 and son of a railway official, studied social pedagogy in Dusseldorf, was chairman of the general students’ committee and member of the SHB social democratic student organisation in the 1970s. In 1973, he and a colleague opened a gallery that mainly exhibited works of artists from the Zero art group (Heinz Mack, Otto Piene and Günther Uecker), and then began working his way up in the gallery business. From 1977, he operated as an art consultant along the lines of the US model, i.e., as a commercial art advisor.

In this role, he established worldwide contacts with recently emerging contemporary artists and promoted their works to newly prominent buyers and museums. During the Documenta IX exhibition in 1992, he cooperated to bring Jeff Koons’s monumental sculpture Puppy to the attention of the public at Arolsen Castle in Hesse, Germany. He advised numerous businesses on the expansion of their art collections and also assembled a number of collections himself.

One of the commissions undertaken by his art consultancy firm was the decoration of the newly erected Klöckner building in Duisburg, involving a contract worth 600,000 deutsche marks. In 1992, Achenbach opened a new company headquarters on the Kaiserwerth market in Düsseldorf. It was designed by architect Rudolf Küppers and covered 2,000 square metres of office space. As economic conditions changed, companies became more cautious about their spending on art, and Achenbach began to focus his business more heavily on wealthy private clients.

He used the money earned this way to try his hand in the catering industry, establishing several so-called “Monkey” restaurants, clubs and pubs named after artist Jörg Immendorff’s monkey sculpture, but this proved to be a “loss-making enterprise”. As he admitted to the court in Essen, recovery of the losses incurred in his restaurant venture was what spurred him into demanding his clients’ payment of hidden surcharges and forging invoices on a photocopier.

Achenbach was even less successful in his sideline role as president of the Fortuna Düsseldorf football club for several years. From 2002 to 2014, he was business manager and co-owner of the private Rheingold Collection. He brokered, among others, the works of Jörg Immendorff, Thomas Struth, Gerhard Richter, Andreas Gursky, Thomas Schütte, Bernd and Hilla Becher, Tony Cragg, Daniel Richter and Donald Judd. One of his most important business clients was the billionaire Aldi supermarket chain heir, Berthold Albrecht, one of Germany’s wealthiest individuals.

In 2011, the Berenberg Bank and Achenbach formed the Berenberg Art Advice consultancy, which addressed itself to wealthy families and collector dynasties. But the company was soon dissolved in mid-2013, due to friction between the shareholders. Forming the background to this was a deal struck with the pharmaceutical entrepreneur, Christian Boehringer.

From 2012, allegations of fraud were raised against Achenbach. The widow of Berthold Albrecht (who died in November 2012) formally charged him with cheating her husband of around €60 million during the assembling of his art and vintage car collection.

Bernd Viehof, former co-owner of the Allkauf retail chain, also opened criminal proceedings against him. This was said to involve several works of painter and sculptor Georg Baselitz, which were promoted by Achenbach. The extent of the alleged damage was between €1.5 and €2.5 million.

Due to the allegations of fraud, Achenbach resigned as business manager of the Rheingold Collection on July 8, 2014, and his share in the value of the collection was suspended by the public prosecutor. His various companies had to file for bankruptcy.

On January 20, 2015, the 6th civil chamber of the Düsseldorf district court ruled that Achenbach had to pay damages amounting to nearly €20 million to the five heirs of Berthold Albrecht. The court considered it proven that Achenbach had ignored the agreed value of the commissions and invoiced unjustified surcharges to the extent of this sum without informing Albrecht.

During the Essen trial, Achenbach showed remorse and apologised several times. In his closing remarks, he tearfully said that he was ashamed of his actions. He knew that he could expect a prison sentence. His attorney argued, among other things, that Achenbach had basically harmed nobody, because the Aldi heirs could have easily covered the sums involved.

The harm done by Achenbach—and this applies not only to him, but also to a large number of agents engaged in the sale of artworks—affected particularly artists and ultimately all who have a genuine interest in art.

Achenbach was only able to swindle his customers because, in recent decades and coincident with the accumulation of obscene wealth by the super-rich, the art market has been promoting art more and more as a source of investment or opportunity for speculation. The works of certain artists have been selling for increasingly ridiculous prices. Buyers are often only interested in a works’ value on the open market. This made it easy for people like Achenbach to make their money.

The trial revealed that the art trade is increasingly little more than an investment business for billionaires. Art works promise high returns in view of the market trends of the last few decades. Rich oligarchs, usually lacking any serious understanding of art, pay consultants who inflate market prices in their own interest.

When the works then disappear into vaults or private museums, they are lost to the greater population. No one is any longer able to study or enjoy them. Their function of aiding us to see, understand and interpret the world is completely undermined.

On the one hand, artists are promoted and their works highly prized, even though it remains unclear whether these works will continue to be regarded as art by future generations. Is it likely that anyone will be interested in a few years’ time in the large-scale sculpture of a dog by Jeff Koons, currently valued at $58 million? Other thoroughly serious artists, however, are at best known only to people in their immediate environment and often live in a state of deprivation that barely allows them to develop their artistic skills.

On the other hand, the astronomical prices make it increasingly impossible for museums in the public domain to purchase important works of art with finances from their state-funded budgets. More and more, they become dependent on loans or donations from wealthy patrons, which are often conditioned by the patrons’ personal taste or the financial interests of their “art consultants”.

Only a socialist transformation of society can liberate art and artists from the capitalist market and provide them with the conditions needed to develop their creativity.