Bizarre Israeli Analyses of Syrian Curriculum Circulate In The Middle East

 Andre Vltchek

My friend, a senior UN official based in Amman, Jordan, recently received a newsletter from an Israeli institution – “IMPACT-se”. Their report was called, ‘modestly’, “Reformulating School Textbooks During the Civil War”.

It is full of analyses of the Syrian curriculum.

Interesting stuff, without any doubt:Manipulative, negative, but interesting. It made it to many other places in the Middle East; to Lebanon, for instance, where even the word “Israel” is hardly ever pronounced.

Predictably, being compiled in Israel, the report trashes Syria, its ideology, and the determined anti-imperialist stand of President al-Assad.

However, that may backfire. Excerpts that are quoted from the Syrian curriculum would impress both education experts, as well as the general public, if they were to get their hands and eyes on them. And I am trying to facilitate precisely that, in this essay.

What the report found outrageous and deplorable, others could find very reasonable and positive. Let’s read, here is what the “IMPACT-se” is quoting, while ringing alarm bells:

“Saddam Hussein took power, and his period witnessed a number of wars in the Arab Gulf area. The first was with Iran, called the First Gulf War (1980–88), which occurred through incitement by the US, in order to weaken both countries. History, Grade 12, 2017–18, p. 105.”

Well put, isn’t it? But it gets much better, philosophically. Imagine, this brilliant intellectual stuff is actually served to all Syrian children in their public schools, while in Europe and North America; kids are fed with neo-colonialist mainstream propaganda. No wonder that Syrian children are much better versed in what is happening in the world. No wonder that millions of Syrian refugees are now ready to return home, after the abuse they received abroad, and after realizing how indoctrinated and brainwashed by Western propaganda, the people all over the world are.

“IMPACT-se” continues quoting the Syrian curriculum, naively thinking that the words engraved there, will terrify the entire world:

“This competition and struggle worsened as the capitalist system developed and new occupying forces such as the US, took control over international politics. It exploited its scientific, technological, economic and military supremacy in order to expand its influence and [gain]control over the capabilities of the peoples of the world. This was done in cooperation with its allies, to increase its presence in the international arena as the only undisputed superpower. National Education, Grade 8, 2017–18, p. 81.(The US) strives to maintain its supremacy by monopolizing developing technology, controlling wealth and energy sources in the world, most importantly oil, and forcing its hegemony on the international community. National Education, Grade 8, 2017–18, p. 82.

This could be easily written by the progressive economist Peter Koenig, by the international lawyer Christopher Black, or, why not, by myself.

Children in Damascus taking summer programme

The people, who worked on the Syrian curriculum, combined two things brilliantly: 1) indisputable facts, 2) elegant simplicity! Actually, this curriculum should be offered not only to the Middle East kids, but all over the world.

Look how skillfully and honestly it summarizes modern history:

“After the disappearance of international balance and unipolar hegemony took control of the world, the US began searching for excuses to justify its intervention in other countries. It occupied Afghanistan in 2002, under the pretext of fighting against “terrorism” in order to realize its political and economic goals. One of the goals was to build an advanced military base close to countries which the US considers to be dangerous (Russia, China, India, Iran and North Korea). In addition, Afghanistan had many assets (such as iron ore and gas). In 2003, the US—helped by a group of countries—declared war on Iraq under the pretext that Iraq was holding weapons of mass destruction and aiding terrorism. The occupation came after an unjust siege and air strikes over Iraqi cities and institutions, without authorization from the UN general assembly and the Security Council. National Education, Grade 8, 2017–18, p. 82

Making the world become one form, one structure and one model, which is the most powerful model now controlling the world, economically and militarily—the American model. The hegemony of the capitalist system . . . turning the world into a consumer market for Western products and ideas, while stripping the nation of its principles, customs and traditions, abolishing its personality and identity, first diluting and then gradually eliminating nations and cultures. National Education, Grade 12, 2017–18, p. 31.”

According to “IMPACT-se”, this is supposed to scare random readers, providing proof how evil the ‘regime in Damascus’ is!

The opposite is true.

An international (non-Western) educator, who is presently based in the Middle East, explained to me over a cup of coffee. I think that this statement is actually a good summary of what many others that are studying the Syrian curriculum really feel:

“Education reflects the vision of a given society.  The heart of what a society expects from its citizens is in the curriculum.  Having carefully read the analysis of the new Syrian curriculum and textbooks reinforces my strong conviction of how great a society Syria really is.”

* 

With or without textbooks children flock to school in newly liberated Aleppo, January 2017

Let us see the ‘other side’; those who are critical of Syrian education, those who are making a living from such criticism and from antagonizing the system.

ESCWA (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia), based in Beirut, Lebanon, has an initiative defined as ‘the future of Syria for the peace-building phase’. This ‘process’ involves Syrian experts from all walks of life.

But who are these experts? In 2018, during the expert’s meeting on education, the list included these specialists:

• Former professors (education and law) of Aleppo University
• Former professor of Damascus University
• Head of an education NGO in Lebanon
• Academics and researchers now based in Turkey and Germany
• Independent consultants

Clearly, if at this meeting any participants were Syrians,they were ‘former somethings’. Meaning exiles, anti-government cadres, and mostly pegged to some Western organization (predominantly the organizations based in France or Germany). Not one person from the legitimate government of Syria was invited!A typical Western approach: “about them, without them”.

And these people who are serving Western interests, are supposed to help to define a component on education which is considered vital to “reconciliation and social cohesion in post-war Syria”.

Predictably, instead of promoting reconciliation, the speeches were full of hate, bitter and aggressive, anti-Syrian and pro-Western. ‘Experts’ used terminology such as: ‘Hegemony of the Syrian regime’, ‘The Ba’ath Party is only concerned about ideology, never giving Syrians an identity’ (they were actually demanding that religions would serve as ‘identity’, replacing the presently secular Syrian state), ‘We need to talk about the truth of what happened in 2011, what led to the war in 2011. Without that nothing makes sense’ (but the ‘truth about 2011’ in their minds has definitely nothing to do with the fact that the West encouraged the anti-government rebellion, injected jihadi cadres and triggered the brutal civil war aimed at overthrowing a social state).

Their main point seems to be: ‘The war has strengthened the culture of hatred’.

Correct, but not because of the Syrian state, but, because of people like those ‘experts’!

What do they really want? Religion instead of secularism, capitalism instead of socialism, and of course, the Western perception of ‘democracy’, instead of a patriotic and pan-Arab independent vision of the state.

*

No matter how one turns it, the Syrian education system, including its curriculum, appears to be greatly superior to those in the neighboring countries. Perhaps that is why it is being placed under scrutiny and under attack.

After all, wasn’t the main goal of the West, in 2011 and after, to destroy yet another socialist, internationalist state that was primarily serving its people?

And the state of Israel? What is “IMPACT-se” mainly complaining about? What is irking it most, in the Syrian curriculum? Perhaps this, in its own words and analyses:

“The Syrian curriculum bases Syrian national identity on the principles of a continued struggle to realize one Arab Nation that includes all Arab states, constituting one country, the “Arab Homeland.” The textbooks present the borders dividing the Arab states as artificial, having been imposed by European colonialism.”

For most of us, this is actually, not bad, is it?

Or possibly this:

“The current borders are political ones, drawn through the policy of the colonial powers that had controlled the region, especially France and Britain. They do not overlap the natural borders that used to separate the Arab Homeland from the neighboring countries. So, important changes took place in these borders to the benefit of those countries and to the detriment of the Arab land. Geography of the Arab Homeland and the World, Grade 12, 2017–2018, p. 13.”

What is incredibly impressive, is, how the Syrian curriculum addresses the Soviet period of its close ally – Russia:

“We shall become acquainted with the reality of Russia prior to the Communist Revolution, and the causes which led to its political, economic, social and intellectual renaissance, from World War I until the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the establishment of the Russian Federation in 1991. History, Grade 8, 2017–18, p. 98.

The Socialist Revolution in Russia broke out in order to confront the imperial regime. It declared the establishment of the first socialist country in 1917. [The Revolution] was based on the rule of the workers and the peasants, and it had a global impact, as it supported national liberation movements. History of the Modern and Contemporary World, Grade 11, 2017–18, p. 168.

Gorbachev took over the leadership of the state and party in 1988, and aspired to implement a plan of economic, social and ideological reconstruction. However, the imperialistic countries conspired against the destiny of the Soviet Union and took advantage of the administrative corruption and the circumstances of multiple nationalities, leading to its dissolution in 1991 and the establishment of the Russian Federation in its place. History, Grade 8, 2017–18, pp. 99–100”

Actually, if I could, if I were to be allowed to, I’d love my publishing house (Badak Merah) to publish the Syrian curriculum, or at least its part on history and politics, for everyone outside Syria to read.

What the Israeli “IMPACT-se” sees as alarming or negative, most of people all over the world and particularly in the Arab region, would definitely perceive as truthful, optimistic and worth fighting for.

Are the experts from “IMPACT-se” so naïve that they do not realize it? Or is there something else going on? Perhaps we will never find out.

No matter what: thank you for reminding us of the great Syrian curriculum! It clearly shows how great a nation Syria is!

UN And Battle Over Kashmir

 Z.G.Muhammad

For the past seventy years the war of words, on the floor of the United Nation’s Security Council on the Kashmir Dispute, has been a routine with India and Pakistan. It, in fact, began, on 30 December 1947, when New Delhi sent a cable to the Security Council, through its representative at UN. The cable, making a complaint under Article 35 of UN charter was delivered on January 1, 1948. On that day the international community became seized of the Kashmir Dispute, which was born 73 days after the birth of India and Pakistan.In the long winding duel of words, that lasted as many as thirteen hours; the two countries created a history of sorts on debates held on the floor of the Security Council.

The marathon debates resulted in the birth of  resolutions that recognized the right to self-determination for people of Jammu and Kashmir.  This was not something new that the UN Security said, in fact, in its complaint, India had explicitly mentioned “that the people of Jammu and Kashmir would be free to decide their future by recognized democratic method of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartially, might be held under international auspices.” New Delhi told this to the United Nation, despite, mentioning that it had sent its troops to Kashmir on the ‘requests made by Hari Singh  Maharaja of the State and National Conference of Sheikh Abdullah.’’ (Letter S/628 January 1, 1948).

Of the many resolution passed by the Security Council after hearing the representatives of the two countries in its January 5, 1949 resolution the Council provided an elaborate mechanism for holding of the plebiscite. Despite, India and Pakistan accepting these resolutions and these becoming international agreement, the plebiscite was not held. The, why tagged to it not happening, has many an answers which are hard to encapsulate in this column. Despite, the non-resolution of the Kashmir Dispute causing three wars, couple of military standoffs the leadership of the two countries instead of constructively engaging with the United Nationsfor the resolution of the dispute  used this forum for exchanging of harsh words against each other. Moreover, the first prime minister of India, who had enthusiastically taken it to the United Nations instead of addressing the issue, adopted the policy of procrastination – this policy of deferments afterward became the Kashmir policy for the successor governments.

On 29 August 2018,  the United Nations UN Security Council under the Agenda item Maintenance of International Peace and Security was debating on meditation and settlement. India and Pakistan that have bagful of disputes hingedto the ‘lead dispute,’ instead of contributing positively to the debate that possibly could have suggested some positive pointers for ending animosity between two South Asian nuclear powers, once again engaged in the war of words. India’s Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin while partaking in the debate rightly ‘observed both in the Covenant of the League of Nations and under the Charter of the United Nations, members assumed a larger obligation than   heretofore   to   settle   their   disputes   in   a   peaceful   manner.’ Stating that ‘there are numerous actors and many forms of pacific settlement that may be better suited to address different issues’ he tried making a case against the United Nations indulging in mediations. To quote him, “It is important, however, not to charge the United   Nations   with   responsibilities   that   it   maybe   ill-suited   to   perform. Mediation, in every circumstance, is one such task, it is not geared to fulfill.”

The statement had come in response to the statement made by permanent representative of Pakistan to the UN Maleeha Lodhi. Lodhi giving  examples of the successful mediations in Colombia and between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had state that “the international community cannot succeed if the SC’s own resolutions are held in abeyance,and the long-standing dispute over Kashmir remains on the Council’s agenda.’ Tacitly calling for international body for meditation, in the debate she ‘urged the Security Council to make frequent use of the secretary-general’s good offices and other possibilities for mediation and reconciliation.’

Lodhi in stating, while the Council could refer disputes to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion if not a legal decision or adjudication, it should also utilize its mandatory enforcement authority under Chapter VII of the Charter to refer a dispute to the ICJ whose determination would thereafter be binding on the parties, irrespective of whether or not they had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court’ subtly suggested taking of Kashmir to the ICJ.  Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin denounced the statement of Pakistan envoy as “a failed approach, which has long been rejected.’

Ostensibly, it seems that Kashmir will once again echo at the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA 73) that will open on 18 September. India will be represented by the Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj and Pakistan by her counterpart Foreign Minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi. Like many other previous annual session, this session will also be marked by the traditional blame game and war of words between the two countries.Nevertheless, there is streak of hope that there will be a thaw in the relations between the two countries. News reports suggest that the foreign ministers of the two countries will meet on the sidelines of the meet.But, there is big question marks, if the meet translates into a sustained, constructive and result-oriented dialogue for the resolution of the dispute and the problems between the two.

Historically, every dialogue between the two countries has ended in the impasse- these impasse at times have caused a military standoffs and clashes along the LOC. It was for of the mediation by some countries that some ceasefireshad happened and some wars between the two countries were prevented. In his opening remarks at the ‘ debate on meditation and settlement,’UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterreswas right in stating that the United Nations must be “bold and creative” in harnessing the avenues and capacities available for mediation. The India-Pakistan dispute that has emerged as a nuclear flashpoint in South-Asia, for ensuring peace in the region has been calling for the mediation that Antonio Guterres talked about in the debate. Even, the article 34 under chapter VI of the UN charter, ‘Pacific Settlement of Disputes’ that Akbaruddin mentioned in his statement empowers the SC to investigate any dispute or any situation which might lead to international friction….’. It is time for Guterres to be “bold and creative” and for“bringing together the avenues and capacities available for mediation” to see India and Pakistan resolve their disputes and live in peace.

Internet Surveillance

Farooque Chowdhury

“Learn about the dangers of the Internet before you start using it!”

“Anyone who thinks their computer or smartphone is not installed with government software is a child.
We are all on the grid and we are all traceable to someone.”

These are only two comments from many on an Associated Press report headlined “Lawsuit lays bare Israel-made hack tools in Mideast, Mexico”.

The report datelined Paris, September 1, 2018, began with the following description:

“One day late last year, Qatari newspaper editor Abdullah Al-Athbah came home, removed the SIM card from his iPhone 7 and smashed it to pieces with a hammer.

“A source had just handed Al-Athbah a cache of emails suggesting that his phone had been targeted by hacking software made by Israel’s NSO Group. He told The Associated Press he considered the phone compromised.

“‘I feared that someone could get back into it,’ he said in an interview Friday. ‘I needed to protect my sources.’

“Al-Athbah, who edits Qatar’s Al-Arab newspaper, now has a new phone, a new SIM card and a new approach to email attachments and links. He says he never opens anything, ‘even from the most trusted circles in my life.’”

The AP report informs:

“Al-Athbah’s discovery touched off a process that has led, months later, to parallel lawsuits filed in Israel and Cyprus — and provided a behind-the-scenes look at how government-grade spyware is used to eavesdrop on everyone from Mexican reporters to Arab royalty.”

The AP story rolls on:

“The first lawsuit, filed in a Tel Aviv court on Thursday, carries a claim from five Mexican journalists and activists who allege they were spied on using NSO Group software. The second, filed in Cyprus, adds Al-Athbah to the list of plaintiffs.

“Both draw heavily on the leaked material handed to the editor several months ago. Portions of the material — which appears to have been carefully picked and exhaustively annotated by an unknown party — appear to show officials in the United Arab Emirates discussing whether to hack into the phones of senior figures in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, including members of the Qatari royal family.

“Al-Athbah declined to identify his source and the AP was not immediately able to verify the authenticity of the material, some of which has already been entered into evidence in the Israeli case, according to Mazen Masri, a member of Al-Athbah’s legal team. But The New York Times, which first reported on the lawsuits earlier Friday, indicated that it had verified some of the cache, including a reference to an intercepted telephone conversation involving senior Arab journalist Abdulaziz Alkhamis. The Times said Alkhamis confirmed having had the conversation and said he was unaware that he was under surveillance.

“The parallel lawsuits underline the growing notoriety of the NSO Group, which is owned by US private equity firm Francisco Partners.

“One of the Mexican plaintiffs, childhood anti-obesity campaigner Alejandro Calvillo, drew global attention last year when he was revealed to have been targeted using the Israeli company’s spyware. The NSO Group’s programs have since been implicated in a massive espionage scandal in Panama. A month ago, respected human rights organization Amnesty International accused the company of having crafted the digital tools used to target one of its staffers.

“The five Mexican plaintiffs, who were advised by Mexico City-based digital activism group widely known by its acronym R3D, are seeking 2.5 million Israeli shekels ($693,000) in compensation and an injunction to prevent the NSO Group from helping anyone spy on them.

“Al-Athbah said he wanted the case to go even further and spawn restrictions on the trade in hacking tools.

“‘I hope selling such technology should be stopped very soon,’ he said.”

Other media reports including a report by The Telegraph, UK, said on the first day of September 2018:

UAE used Israeli spyware to hack Saudi, Qatari and Lebanese rivals.

The UAE had asked an Israeli spyware company it had contracted to surveil dissidents to tap the phone calls of the prime minister of Lebanon and other Arab officials.

The Emirati government reportedly sought help from the NSO Group to hack the phones of a number of politicians. The Arab country’s leaders were particularly interested in spying on a Saudi prince, the leader of rival Qatar, and Lebanese Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri — though it was not clear whether those officials were actually hacked.

The UAE rulers had been using Israeli spyware for more than a year, secretly turning the smartphones of dissidents at home or rivals abroad into surveillance devices.

The NSO Group has insisted in the past that it sells its software to clients on the condition that it be used only against crime and terrorism, and has shirked responsibility in cases where it was allegedly used for civil rights abuses.

But two new lawsuits being brought against the company have uncovered documents that assert the company and its affiliates have actively engaged in illegal activities for clients.

The New York Times based its report on leaked emails submitted in lawsuits against the spyware’s maker, the NSO Group.

The NSO Group told The Times it would not comment until it had a chance to review the documents.

A lawsuit filed in Tel Aviv is laying bare the details of how Israeli spyware is allegedly being used in the Middle East and Mexico.

It’s the latest sign of how cyber espionage is increasingly permeating everything from Latin American health campaigns to intrastate conflicts in the Arab world.

The suit is being brought by five Mexican journalists and activists who allege they were spied on using software designed by the NSO.

The case draws on leaked emails obtained by senior Qatari journalist Abdullah Al-Athbah and also includes details of NSO’s alleged activities in the Gulf.

So, it’s found:

Brethren are not spared from surveillance.

Business/trading companys have no creed.

Interests don’t care any identity including color and creed other than concerned interests’ identity, although the fact is regularly ignored by the mainstream scholars propagating color- and creed-identity above interests, which is basically economic; and economic interests get manifested into politics. These scholars fan up false propaganda of identity above economic interests. To them, all of color “C” belongs to the same camp named “C”, and the same with the creed-camp. It’s done only to confuse victims of powerful interests although powerful interests are fully aware of its interests cutting across color- and creed-line. Even, factional interest within the same class interest doesn’t spare another competing factional interest having the same color- or creed-identity.

In today’s world, admitting this fact – economists interests, neither color nor creed, determine ultimate politics and organization. Admitting this fact today, a century after the proletariat in Russia achieved victory by trampling all divisive politics, is essential and imperative. Admitting this fact is not only essential and imperative, but urgent also as many well-intentioned progressives regularly raise functional issues on the basis of color. Creed has no color. But, strangely, many creeds are presented as divided on the basis of color; and the mainstream fans up the practice. And, strangely, even those creeds don’t oppose that color-based sectarian approach. Even, funerals, in many cases, fail to cross the sectarian approach of color. The group of progressives sympathetic to the color-based weaker section never says or they dare not say: Discard the color-line; it’s sectarian, it’s divisive, it hurts the common interests of the exploited everywhere. A shameful “cautious” approach by the progressive group! This happens not only in the case of color. This happens in other areas also. Thus, the mainstream’s divisive approach gets fuel, and the common approach of the exploited gets hurt.

Australian government rushes to deport Vietnamese refugees

Max Newman 

Australia’s brutal treatment of asylum seekers was again thrown into the spotlight on August 26 when a small fishing vessel, carrying 17 Vietnamese men, ran aground in northern Queensland.

The passengers waded to shore and ran into the dangerous Daintree rainforest in an effort to escape capture. The Queensland police launched a widespread manhunt for the men, establishing roadblocks. After initially arresting 12 of the men, police captured all 17 by August 31.

The rounding up of the men occurred in the same week as the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out a workplace raid in North Texas, arresting 160 immigrant workers. Across the globe, immigrants and refugees are being treated as criminals.

Australia’s Department of Home Affairs has refused to provide any information about the detained Vietnamese men or their fate, in line with the wall of secrecy erected around the militarised “Operation Sovereign Borders” to repel all refugee boats.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton vowed to ensure swift deportation of the group. This violates the international Refugees Convention, which gives refugees the right to apply for asylum and prohibits their return to face persecution in the country they fled.

“We have been very clear that we won’t allow people who arrive illegally into our country to settle in this country,” Dutton told reporters on August 27. “People will be deported from our country at the first available opportunity.”

Dutton refused to provide any details, saying it was “an operational matter.” He declared that the men would be deported, regardless of any “processes” required to do so. “People who seek to come by boat will never settle here permanently and we’re going through the processes now and we will make sure that that’s the outcome,” he stated.

The Liberal-National Coalition government’s rush to deport the men, which was echoed throughout the corporate media, was in stark contrast to the sympathy shown by local fishermen and other residents.

Two of the refugees were found in the crocodile-invested mangroves by fishermen, who picked them up on their boat. Justin Ward and Barry Preston told reporters they gave the men a tour and took them crab fishing because this was their “last chance at freedom.”

Eventually the two fishermen reluctantly handed the men over to the authorities. Ward recounted: “We got back to the boat ramp and they were like ‘which way’ and we said ‘sorry.’ I was genuinely very sorry but there was not much I can do or I’d get into trouble.”

The refugees were quickly flown to Christmas Island, an Australian territory in the Indian Ocean, some 4,300 kilometres away. The island contains one of Australia’s most notorious immigration detention centres, from where refugees and other people denied visas are deported or sent to Australia’s prison camps on Nauru or Manus Island, Papua New Guinea.

Immediate deportation was the fate of a similar Vietnamese vessel that the Australian Navy seized in April 2015. Its 46 passengers were forcibly transported by a naval vessel to a Vietnamese port. As in the current case, all information about the refugees and their deportation was hidden from public view.

In 2015, Human Rights Watch (HRW) later reported that the group of 46 faced persecution or imprisonment in Vietnam. Four of them fled a second time, before UN authorities in Indonesia granted them refugee status. The latest 17 refugees are likely to face a similar fate.

Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung and his party are accelerating economic “reforms,” turning Vietnam into a cheap labour platform for foreign investors. The pro-market doi moi policy, which has been pursued since 1986, has turned Vietnam into one of the most unequal countries in the world. A tiny layer at the top enjoys most of the country’s wealth, while the majority of the country’s 93 million population live in poverty. The average annual income in the country is just $US2,200.

Australia’s treatment of Vietnamese asylum seekers also involves geo-strategic calculations, bound up with US preparations for war against China. Successive Australian governments have committed to backing the escalating American confrontation with Beijing, which now includes trade war measures by the Trump administration.

In 2015, Dutton indicated that a “very strong bilateral” relationship with Vietnam led to a deal for Hanoi to accept the return of refugees. In recent years, Vietnam has been drawn into the US conflict with China. Washington has encouraged Vietnam, together with the Philippines, to aggressively pursue territorial claims against Beijing in the South China Sea.

Australia’s military repulsion of refugees is a policy supported by the opposition Labor Party. In fact, Queensland’s Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk attacked the Liberal-National government from the right. She called for a full investigation into how the fishing vessel breached border security. Palaszczuk accused Dutton of “taking his eye off the ball” during his bid to replace Malcolm Turnbull as prime minister.

Dutton vowed to step up military operations along the country’s northeastern coast. “Clearly there’s been a failing when surveillance has not worked as it should in identifying this vessel or allowing this vessel to get as close to the coastline as it has, but we’ll work through all of that,” he said.

Dutton repeated the government’s claim to have “stopped the boats.” He insisted this was “the first vessel; the first people-smuggling venture in over 1,400 days.” The term “people-smugglers” has been used to justify the criminal “border protection” regime of successive Australian governments, Coalition and Labor alike.

In reality, “people-smugglers” are typically poor Indonesian, Vietnamese or Sri Lankan fisherman whose passengers are forced to resort to their services in order to seek asylum because of Australia’s illegal shutting of its borders to refugees.

As for “stopping the boats,” an unknown number of vessels has been intercepted or sunk over the past decade. Asylum seekers have been seized by the Australian navy and sent back to sea, in some cases without enough food and fuel to reach their destination.

After the Coalition government took office in 2013, Immigration and Border Protection Minister Scott Morrison, who is now the prime minister, launched Operation Sovereign Borders, combining military force with military secrecy.

Far from opposing this regime, the Labor Party has claimed credit for “stopping the boats,” pointing to its decision in 2012, when it was last in government, to reopen the Nauru and Manus camps, where thousands of refugees have been incarcerated indefinitely.

IMF pushes for more social cuts in Ukraine

Jason Melanovski

The Ukrainian government of President Petro Poroshenko is facing a serious economic crisis as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is demanding ever greater social cuts.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the various oligarchic bourgeois regimes that have ruled the country have accepted IMF funding in exchange for carrying out a series of “reforms,” such as the privatization of state-owned industries and elimination of government subsidies, all carried out at the expense of the working class.

The current IMF program, under which Ukraine has received only $8.7 billion of a potential $17.5 billion, is scheduled to expire in March of next year. The IMF has not released any funds to the country since April 2017.

The current sticking point is the elimination of household gas subsidies. Any rise in consumer prices would be correctly seen by Ukraine’s working class as an even further lowering of their already precarious living standards.

After initially agreeing to raise household gas prices, Poroshenko has repeatedly continued a freeze on consumer gas prices and most recently set a new deadline of September 1 for continued government subsidies.

The government argues that without an injection of funds from the IMF, the government may start defaulting on paychecks for government workers. As of July, the country had already begun delaying pension payments to retirees causing widespread dissatisfaction.

Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman blamed the delays on the incompetence of the country’s pension fund managers, rather than any critical drop in the stability of the Poroshenko regime, and promised an investigation.

A significant percentage of Ukraine’s elderly population relies on monthly pension payments to survive. One of the IMF’s other demands is that the country increase the retirement age, which currently stands at 60 for men and 58 for women. Any scheme to cut pensions or adjust the retirement age would be a disaster for the over 8 million pensioners in Ukraine who live on less than $50 a month and millions more preparing to retire.

In October of last year the government attempted to appease the IMF and passed a pension “reform” bill. The bill cut back on early retirements and increased the number of years workers must contribute to the pension system in order to qualify, but stopped short of raising the retirement age or cutting payments. The move was apparently not enough for the IMF as it nevertheless refused to release any more funds to the country.

The ongoing war in the Donbass the region of the country has already given the government an excuse to cut the pensions of residents in Donbass or to make it extremely difficult for refugees to obtain their payments while living elsewhere in the country. In September of last year, the Norwegian Refugee Council reported that up to 600,000 Ukrainians had lost their pensions since December 2014, most of them elderly residents in areas in eastern Ukraine not controlled by Kiev.

There is also anxiety in Kiev that Russia’s construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline will cut out its position as middle-man in the transit of gas between Russia and Western Europe and deprive it of needed foreign cash. The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline will connect Russia directly to Germany through the Baltic Sea and is scheduled to be completed in 2019.

Naftogaz, the state-owned gas and oil company of Ukraine, is in large part only profitable thanks to the transit fees it receives from Russia as it sends gas to European countries such as Germany, which obtains 70 percent of its gas from Russia. The current transit arrangement between Russia’s Gazprom and Naftogaz is set to expire January 1, 2020, just as Nord Stream 2 is to launch.

Any losses from such transit fees would be taken out of the pockets of Ukrainian workers in the form of a rapid hike of gas prices.

Other EU members and most notably the Trump administration have criticized Germany for moving forward with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the midst of their confrontation with Moscow.

Further exacerbating Ukraine’s fiscal situation is the fact that the Ukrainian government will be facing $15 billion in foreign debt repayments between 2018 and 2020. Even if Ukraine complies with the orders of the IMF, the scheduled influx of $2 billion will simply go to paying off foreign debt rather than into pensions and the paychecks of government workers.

In addition to the demands to ramp up attacks on the working class, the IMF and Western governments constantly harangue Kiev over “corruption.” A campaign in recent months in the bourgeois press, especially in the US and Germany, has attacked the Poroshenko regime over the pervasive corruption in Ukraine—a phenomenon that has characterized the oligarchy there, as in all countries of the former Soviet Union, ever since the destruction of the USSR.

In August, the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that Ukraine loses $4.8 billion a year due to corruption. The country regularly ranks near the bottom in Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index.

In response to the criticism, Kiev in July expanded the powers of a recently created sham “anti-corruption” court, which Poroshenko himself initially opposed but then embraced when IMF cash was not forthcoming. The IMF praised the “anti-corruption” efforts but flatly refused to budge on releasing any more cash until gas prices are raised to “market levels.”

Behind the bogus “anti-corruption” campaign is the concern that the obvious corruption among the Ukrainian oligarchs and their control over much of the Ukrainian economy impede US and German business interests in the country. At the same time, the imperialist powers and the IMF are using the issue to push for further attacks on the already abysmally low living standards of the Ukrainian working class.

The Poroshenko regime’s hesitancy in fully implementing the IMF demands is rooted in its fear of an uncontrollable explosion of working class anger. In July, miners from Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine struck over the government failure to pay out more than $107 million promised to support the country's troubled coal mines.

Miners at the mine “Kapital’naya” went on strike, demanding that they be paid their salaries from May and June. According to Life.Ru, as of mid-July the government owed the miners over $41.6 million in salary payments. Protests and demonstrations by miners also took place in the Lviv region in West Ukraine and in the capital in Kiev.

In May, workers struck at the western Ukrainian metallurgical factory ArselorMittal Krivoi Rog, which produces railroad tracks, demanding better working conditions and wages. The average monthly salary in Ukraine is currently around $300. There exists a vast chasm between the country’s ruling oligarchic elite (as of 2015, Poroshenko had a net worth of $720 million) and the Ukrainian working class.

Under these socially explosive conditions, Poroshenko is well aware that his government’s obvious servitude to the IMF would likely result in the elimination of his already slim chances for reelection in next year’s presidential elections.

US and Japan increase efforts to undercut Chinese influence in Sri Lanka

Rohantha De Silva

The US and Japan are stepping up their attempts to draw Sri Lanka more closely into their geo-political and military manoeuvres against Chinese influence in the Indian and Pacific ocean regions. Last month, two senior Japanese government ministers made official visits to Sri Lanka and a US naval squad conducted joint exercises with its Sri Lankan counterparts.

Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera arrived on August 20 for a three-day visit, holding discussions with President Maithripala Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and Minister of Defence Ruwan Wijewardene. It was the first time a Japanese defence minister had visited Sri Lanka.

Onodera’s tour followed his trip to India where he held talks with Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman about boosting military ties. Tokyo and New Delhi both want Colombo more closely integrated into the US-led strategic partnership against China.

While Japan is already aligned with the US against China, Tokyo has its own imperialist interests and ambitions in the Asia-Pacific region and is deepening its relations with South Asian countries, especially Inida.

All three countries—the US, Japan and India—continue to publicly voice their concerns over Colombo’s relations with Beijing, and in particular the 99-year leasing Hambantota Port to China. Washington, Tokyo and New Delhi all claim that Beijing could use the port as a naval base, despite Colombo’s repeated assurances that the deal does not allow its use for military purposes.

On August 22, Onodera travelled to Trincomalee harbour where Sri Lanka’s Eastern Naval Command Headquarters is located and inspected Sri Lanka’s special naval forces there. A Japanese naval warship was anchored in the natural deep water port during the defence minister’s visit. A total of 66 Japanese naval ships have visited Sri Lanka since 2008 underscoring the growing military relations.

Following his Trincomalee tour, Onodera inspected Hambantota harbour, telling Japan’s NHK television that the port “should not be used for military purposes”—another indication of Tokyo’s concerns about the lease with China.

Five days after Onodera left Sri Lanka, the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs Kazuyuki Nakane arrived for a three-day visit. He met with Wickremesinghe and participated in a commissioning ceremony of two patrol vessels donated to the Sri Lankan Coast Guard by Japan.

The Japanese embassy said that the boats, which cost $11 million, could be used for search and rescue, pollution control and oil spill management, and “maritime security boarding” operations. Constructed in Japan, they are part of a $16.5 million Japanese-Sri Lankan “Maritime Safety Capability Improvement” project.

On August 23, a US naval ship—the USS Anchorage—and a Marine Expeditionary Unit arrived in Trincomalee. The 25,000-tonne, 208-metre long and 32-metre wide, amphibious docking vessel carries 600 naval personnel and is designed to transport troops into war zones.

The massive vessel participated in joint US-Sri Lankan search and seizure, and security force reaction exercises on August 30 off the eastern coast near Trincomalee. USS Anchorage Captain Denis Jacko and other US military officers also held discussions with Rear Admiral Sumith Weerasinghe, commander of Sri Lanka’s Eastern Naval Area.

A statement issued by Robert Hilton, the US embassy’s chargé d’affaires, declared, “We’re also excited to try out the air logistics hub concept that utilizes Sri Lanka’s strategic location in the Indian Ocean to ensure the quick availability of relief supplies, equipment and other material when needed by the US and partner militaries and humanitarian organizations.” The “air logistics hub” is part of Colombo’s increasing integration with the US military.

A statement by Cmdr. Deborah K. McIvy, assistant chief of staff for US Expeditionary Strike Group 7, said: “Successfully leveraging local logistics support services will help standardize the process for future operations, to include supplying mission-critical supplies for HADR [] efforts.”

Humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations are constantly used by the US, Japan and other imperialist powers for large-scale military mobilisation and as logistical dry-runs against rival powers.

Between June and August, a 25-member Sri Lankan navy team participated for the first time in the US-led “Rim of the Pacific” exercises, in Hawaii and Southern California between June and August. The biennial event is the world’s largest international maritime warfare exercise and involves the US Navy’s Pacific Fleet, the Marine Corps and number of other units. US quadrilateral partners, India, Japan and Australia, participated in the exercises along with a number of other countries, including Israel and Vietnam. China was a notable exclusion.

India is deepening its economic and defence ties with Sri Lanka. New Delhi wants a leasing agreement with Colombo for the southern Mattala International Airport, near Hambantota harbour, and is also seeking a strategic foothold at Trincomalee.

While an India-Sri Lanka Defence Dialogue was established in 2012, it did not become fully operational until after Maithripala Sirisena became Sri Lankan president following a US orchestrated regime-change operation to remove then President Mahinda Rajapakse. Washington, with backing from New Delhi, demanded Rajapakse distance Colombo from Beijing as part of US President Obama’s anti-China “pivot to Asia.” After coming to power in 2015, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government began implementing a pro-US, pro-Indian foreign policy.

Faced with the serious financial problems, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government, however, has turned to Beijing for financial support and investment. China paid $US1.1billion to lease the Hambantota port and is currently the island’s leading investor. Last month, Chinese President Xi Jinping offered Sri Lanka a $295 million grant as part of its plans to increase its influence on the island.

To counter Washington’s increasingly aggressive political and military moves, Beijing has developed its Belt and Road Initiative, which includes establishing port facilities in countries like Sri Lanka to secure sea lanes to the Middle East and Africa. The massive infrastructure project aims to link the Eurasian region, as well as Africa, by land and sea.

The expansion of US and Japanese military activities in Sri Lanka will only intensify geo-political tensions as the Trump administration ratchets up its trade war measures with China and prepares for military confrontation.

Trump administration ends funding for Palestinian refugees

Jean Shaoul 

After weeks of speculation and leaks, the Trump administration announced Friday that it is to end all its payments to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), including the $290 million planned for this year.

The US State Department also attacked the agency’s “endlessly and exponentially expanding community of entitled beneficiaries,” rejecting UNRWA’s definition of Palestinian refugees, which includes not only the 750,000 who became refugees in 1948-9, when they fled or were driven out by Israeli forces, but their descendants who together total some five million. In future, only those who became refugees in 1948-9 will be deemed refugees by the US administration.

The US has hitherto funded nearly 30 percent of UNRWA’s total budget that provides health care, education and social services to Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. It was set to give around $360 million this year, releasing $60 million in January, but withheld a further $65 million of the $290 million it had been due to provide.

The loss of funding will be felt beyond the occupied Palestinian territories, in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria where UNRWA funding provides a vital safety net for regimes that have hovered on the brink of bankruptcy for years.

Although Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and others have offered more than $200 million in additional funding, and Germany said it too would boost its financial support for the agency, senior Israeli diplomatic officials said that Washington had indicated its intention was to “close down UNRWA altogether” and transfer its functions to other agencies.

UNRWA commissioner-general Pierre Krähenbühl in an interview with Associated Press contradicted Washington’s assertion that the agency was inefficient. He said, “I can say with a great degree of confidence that the decision [to withhold funding] was not related to UNRWA’s performance, because in November I had received very constructive and openly positive feedback on those issues.” Instead, it was meant to punish Palestinians for protesting Washington’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

He warned that although its 711 schools that educate the 526,000 Palestinian refugee children in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria would open on time, the agency only had enough money to keep them open until the end of September. It needed a further $217 million to keep the schools running the rest of the year.

A few weeks ago, UNRWA announced cuts to its services that would mean laying off more than 100 of its 13,000 staff in Gaza, transferring some 580 to part-time contracts and cutting salaries of hundreds more, sparking angry protests and causing UNRWA to “lose control” of its compound in Gaza for more than two weeks.

The situation is particularly acute in Gaza where about half of its two million population are dependent upon food aid from UNRWA, which also runs more than 250 of Gaza’s schools and 22 medical centres.

A spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called the US move a “flagrant assault” against all Palestinians and a breach of UN resolutions.

Saeb Erekat, the Palestinians’ chief negotiator in the defunct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, said, “The American administration’s decisions on Jerusalem, refugees and settlements embody annihilation of international law and security and stability in the region.” He added, “They are gifts for radical forces and terrorism in the region.”

The US move has delighted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who earlier this year declared that UNRWA “needs to pass from this world.” He said, “The time has come to dismantle UNRWA and have its parts integrated into the UN High Commission for Refugees.” He claimed that “UNWRA is one of the main problems perpetuating the conflict [between Israel and the Palestinians].”

Ron Prosor, a former Israeli ambassador to London and the UN, led the campaign against UNWRA on Israel’s behalf. He said, “The time has come to state the truth. The refugees should be rehabilitated. There are no more than half a million refugees from 1948. All the rest are hitchhikers getting a free ride; it is about time that they rehabilitate themselves in the places they live.”

According to Prosor, a review of the refugee issue, begun under the Obama administration, noted that the number of UNRWA-registered refugees was ten times the original number, with the result that “UNRWA has become a monster employing tens of thousands of people in order to perpetuate a whole industry. This makes any attempt to discuss a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible.” He said that only the original refugees should be recognized as refugees.

Last month, Foreign Policy magazine revealed that Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and Middle East envoy, called for “an honest and sincere effort to disrupt UNRWA.” In January, Kushner sent an email to several senior officials stating that UNRWA “perpetuates a status quo, is corrupt, inefficient and doesn’t help peace.”

Dissolving UNRWA—and redefining the number of Palestinian refugees—is aimed at making their right of return to their former homes in Israel, a key issue in any “final status” deal aimed at settling the Israel-Palestine conflict, simply disappear. Israel has always refused to grant the Palestinians their internationally recognized legal right of return, despite granting that same “right of return” to Jews all over the world who have never lived in Israel/Palestine.

The shape of the “ultimate deal” that Trump promised on taking office, to be brokered by Kushner and US ambassador to Israel David Friedman, ardent supporters of an expansionist Israel, has long been clear. The Palestinian Authority must accept its role as security guard for Israel and US imperialism in the region and settle the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Israel’s terms: the abandonment of Jerusalem as the capital of any Palestinian statelet made up of non-contiguous towns and villages, and no right of return for the Palestinians who became refugees in 1948-9 and 1967.

Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move its embassy there from Tel Aviv marked the definitive end of a decades-long US policy, which formally upheld the position that the status of Jerusalem could only be determined through a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

In another move clearly intended to force the PA to submit to its terms, the White House announced that it also intended to cut more than $200 million in bilateral aid to the Palestinian Authority that was agreed following the implementation of the 1993 Oslo Accords. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said that aid to the PA “does not provide value to the US taxpayer.”

The Palestinian Authority already has a $1.8 billion financial deficit for 2018, thanks to Israel’s withholding of millions of dollars of the funds it collects on the PA’s behalf and the reduction in contributions from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, that will be further exacerbated by the US cuts.

The cuts, ostensibly the result of a review of aid to the PA, are widely seen as a punishment for the Palestinians anger over Washington’s decision to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, thereby recognizing Israel’s control over the entire city, including East Jerusalem that Israel illegally annexed after the 1967 war and the Palestinians claim as their capital. In the words of US President Donald Trump, it served to take the Jerusalem problem “off the table” in any “deal” between Israel and the Palestinians.

Now the Palestinians’ right of return is being taken “off the table.” US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley questioned Palestinian claims to a “right of return” to Israel, saying the issue should be taken “off the table” and suggesting the Trump administration would consider rejecting the demand that all the original refugees and their descendants be allowed to return to modern-day Israel in any final deal.

The US froze millions in aid to the PA earlier this year after the passage of the Taylor Force Act that made funding conditional on the PA ending financial support for Palestinians in Israeli jails convicted of terrorist offences. The freeze severely affected Palestinians’ access to medical services and food aid.

Nevertheless, US funds for the PA’s security forces, the largest per capita in the world, which act as Israel’s subcontractor to suppress the impoverished Palestinian working class—thereby protecting both Israel and the Palestinian bourgeoisie—are to be continued.

Washington and Tehran trade threats over the Strait of Hormuz

Jordan Shilton

Less than a month after brutal US sanctions snapped back into force against Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed yet again, in a report released Friday, that Tehran is in full compliance with the 2015 nuclear accord. The agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was unilaterally abrogated in May by US President Donald Trump, who made entirely bogus claims that Iran had violated the deal.

The latest IAEA findings further expose the provocative character of the Trump administration’s policy, which threatens not only to plunge the entire region into military conflict, but also has dramatically sharpened tensions between Washington and its ostensible European allies. Trump vowed following his announcement that any company doing business with Iran, including those based in Europe, would be barred from trading with the United States.

The fact that US imperialism is the most destabilizing factor in the present situation has been underlined over the past week following aggressive comments by US National Security Adviser John Bolton. On August 22, he declared that Washington intends to push Iranian oil exports down to “zero,” and do so just as soon as its sanctions on Iran’s energy sector are re-imposed November 8.

Bolton’s ominous threat was made as reports emerged that the US may be preparing a major military strike on the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, which, as a close ally of Tehran and Moscow, is viewed by Washington as a major obstacle to the consolidation of its unchallenged control over the energy-rich and strategically pivotal Middle East.

In response to Bolton’s threat, a top general in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) threatened to block oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, if Washington follows through on Bolton’s declaration. In recent months, Iranian officials have repeatedly said that if the US and its local clients, such as Saudi Arabia, seek to illegally strangle Iran’s economy—imposing, in what is tantamount to an act of war, an oil-export embargo—then it will be within its rights to stop the Saudis and others from exporting oil as well.

The Pentagon has invariably replied to such Iranian warnings with war threats. In what amounted to an implicit threat of direct military action, Major Josh Jacques of US Central Command was quick to respond to the IRGC general’s warning, declaring “Together,” with its allies, Washington stands “ready to ensure the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce wherever international law allows.”

“Freedom of navigation” has served as Washington’s justification for a massive military build-up in the Asia-Pacific against China, including the deployment of nuclear-capable aircraft and vessels to the region in a series of highly provocative exercises.

Should US imperialism follow through with the threat to invoke “freedom of navigation” to launch a military assault on Tehran, Washington would provoke a region-wide conflict with catastrophic consequences.

As well as being a direct participant in the Syrian conflict, Iran has also aligned with Turkey and Russia to exclude the United States from ongoing peace talks. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani met last week for a previously unannounced meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has increasingly been at odds with Washington due to its support for the Kurdish YPG in Syria and its backing of a failed coup against Erdogan in July 2016.

Officially, the meeting was billed as preparation for a summit to be attended by Rouhani, Erdogan and Russian president Vladimir Putin in Iran on September 7 to discuss the way forward in Syria. However, the two leaders undoubtedly discussed their plans to maintain Iranian-Turkish energy ties, which are critical to both countries’ economies, when US sanctions on Iranian energy exports take hold.

Amid these rapidly rising tensions, Tehran announced plans on Saturday to boost its missile capacity and purchase modern fighter jets and submarines. Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, said he believed a war would not break out, but added that the army needs to be “vigilant … and raise their personnel and equipment capacities.”

Khamenei’s remarks came just days after he told a cabinet meeting, also attended by Rouhani, that Iran could leave the nuclear accord. “The nuclear deal is a means, not the goal, and if we come to this conclusion that it does not serve our national interests, we can abandon it,” he declared. His message was reiterated in a tweet Friday, following the publication of the IAEA report, from Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif.

These threats reflect the deepening crisis confronting the bourgeois-clerical regime in Tehran, under conditions in which Washington is seeking to crash the Iranian economy and is intensifying military pressure. At the same time, unrest is growing in Iran over rampant social inequality, and the bourgeoisie’s drive to make the working class and oppressed masses bear the burden of the confrontation with imperialism.

Khamenei’s threat is also bound up with Tehran’s growing realization that its hopes that the European powers would and could shield them from Washington’s offensive are proving in vain.

Although the EU has revived legislation it claims will protect European companies from US sanctions if they continue to do business with Iran, hundreds of corporations, including Germany’s Daimler and France’s Total, have voted with their feet by declaring their intentions to halt operations in the Islamic Republic.

This has led to a deepening of the rift between the former trans-Atlantic allies. Driven by the intensifying crisis of global capitalism, expressed above all in the breakdown of the post-war economic and political institutions, European politicians, led by Germany, are demanding more independence from and even confrontation with Washington. Two weeks ago, in a comment in the German daily Handelsblatt, German Foreign Minister Heiko Mas called for the creation of an independent European payments system as an alternative to the US-controlled SWIFT system and the drawing of “red lines” by the European powers in their relations with Washington.

No less than Washington, the European imperialist powers are determined to exert their economic, political and military domination over Iran, the Middle East and other parts of the globe. However, their sharp differences with Washington over policy to Iran are based on frustration that the US sanctions are cutting across billions in European investment, and fears that a war with Tehran would cause oil prices to spike and destabilize the entire Middle East region on Europe’s doorstep.

This was underlined in the response by French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian to the latest IAEA confirmation that Iran is complying with the JCPOA’s terms. While defending the JCPOA, Le Drian echoed Trump by demanding that Tehran accept negotiations not only on its future nuclear policy, but also on its ballistic missile program, as well as its roles in regional conflicts in Syria and Yemen. “Iran needs to avoid the temptation to be the [regional] hegemon,” added Le Drian.

The danger that a catastrophic military conflict could erupt between the US and Iran, which would rapidly draw in the European imperialist powers and other regional players like China and Russia, is compounded by deep divisions within the Iranian regime. These disagreements are being exacerbated both by US imperialist aggression and internal social conflicts, which were expressed most clearly in widespread working class protests against worsening living conditions earlier this year.

In an unprecedented move, the Iranian parliament censured Rouhani following responses he gave to a parliamentary sitting last week on the economic situation and economic policy. Earlier in August, parliamentary deputies voted to remove Rouhani’s economy and labour ministers. This reflects sharpening conflicts within the regime between so-called hardliners, whose support for the Iran nuclear deal was at best tepid from the start, and the Rouhani-led “moderate” wing of the ruling elite, which hoped that the JCPOA would serve as the initial stage of a broader rapprochement with the imperialist powers. Trump’s decision to trash the nuclear accord has further weakened the moderate wing, which had already been under increased pressure due to the JCPOA’s failure to bring about any real improvement to economic growth and the living standards of the vast majority of the Iranian population.

The Iranian president’s attempts during his parliamentary appearance to portray the US as solely responsible for the country’s economic woes and tar all anti-government protesters as dupes of Washington are thoroughly dishonest. All factions of the Iranian regime, whatever their differences over foreign policy, agree that the working class must be made to pay for the country’s economic crisis and have pursued neo-liberal pro-market reform and austerity measures for years.

Syria: A False Flag Operation Thwarted?

Chandra Muzaffar

An organised expose by the Syrian and Russian governments over a 3 day period starting 27thAugust may have thwarted a British backed plan to stage a “false flag” chemical weapons attack in Idlib province that would have forced the US to launch a missile and air assault on Syria.

According to Russian Defence Ministry spokesperson, Igor Konashenkov, a militant group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, was going to be the conduit for this false flag operation. It would foment an attack targeting innocent citizens of Idlib and then put the blame upon the Syrian government. Eight chlorine tanks were delivered to Jisr al-Shughurtown for this purpose. Militants “trained in handling poisonous substances under the supervision of specialists from the private British military company Oliva arrived in the town a day earlier. The militants had the task of simulating the rescue of the victims of the chemical weapons attack dressed in the clothes of the famous White Helmets.”  Konashenkov accused British special services of being “actively involved “in the “provocation” which will “serve as another reason for the US, the UK and France to hit Syrian government targets with air strikes.”

False flag operations of this sort have happened a number of times before in Syria. In April 2018, the White Helmets staged such an operation as admitted by some of the so-called “victims” themselves. A year before that, in April 2017, a fake chemical attack became the excuse for US missile strikes against Syrian military installations in Syayrat Airbase It will be recalled that in  August 2013, a fabricated chemical weapons attack was the rationale for a full-scale military assault on Syria ordered by President Barack Obama which was averted at the eleventh hour partly because of the mobilisation of mass public opinion and partly because of some sane voices in the top brass of the US military itself.

The 2013 episode like other false flag operations in Syria from 2011 to the end of 2016 had a singular underlying goal: the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad. Whatever the justifications provided, there was a convergence of motives among those who sought Bashar’s overthrow. For the leaders of the US, Britain, France and Israel, Bashar especially through his links with Iran and Hezbollah was a formidable obstacle to their agenda for hegemonic control over West Asia. For the Saudi political elite it was his association with Iran — the elite’s rival for regional influence — that was the problem. For the Saudi religious elite, on the other hand, what was unacceptable was Bashar’s affiliation to a minor Shia sub-sect. The Qatari elite was incensed by Bashar’s opposition to the construction of a massive inter-state gas pipe-line starting from the tiny state that would have had far-reaching geo-economic and geopolitical consequences. The elite in Ankara with its connection to the Muslim Brotherhood failed to persuade Bashar to incorporate Brotherhood elements and ideology into Damascus’s governing power structure. For all these different reasons, Bashar became the common target for regime change.

But by early 2017 it was clear that Bashar could not be ousted. Apart from the solid support of a wide spectrum of his own society, he has the backing of Russia, Iran and the Hezbollah. He has now regained control of most of Syria. The militants, whose acts of terror have alienated the vast majority of Syrians, are totally isolated. Besides, Donald Trump who assumed the US presidency in January 2017 is not interested in regime change in Syria. In fact, now that the militants have been vanquishedhe is more inclined towards withdrawing from Syria. There are indications that he wants to work with Russian President, Vladimir Putin, to restore peace and stability in Syria.

This is anathema to the ‘Deep State’ in the US. Cooperating with Putin or withdrawing from Syria, from the perspective of those elements in the intelligence and security services, the military, the Congress, the media, some of the lobbies and special interest groups that constitute the Deep State, would spell the end of US hegemony and dominance of West Asia.  For the advocates of hegemony, it means surrendering to Russia whose power and influence in the region is growing. It would also facilitate the entrenchment of Iranian and Hezbollah influence in Syria. This, the Deep State argues, will weaken Israel’s position and increase its vulnerability. US’s other allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia, other Gulf monarchies, Egypt and Jordan will also feel threatened. It explains why Deep State elements are insisting that the US retains a foothold in Syria.

It is in this context that Idlib assumes added significance. The British plan to launch a “false flag “chemical weapons attack may yet happen. And it may yet lead to a US helmed assault upon Syria.