Australian PM sinks Rudd’s bid for UN secretary general

Peter Symonds

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull effectively ended the bid by Kevin Rudd, former Labor foreign minister and prime minister, to replace Ban Ki-moon as UN secretary general when he steps down in December. He bluntly told reporters yesterday that, in his “considered judgment,” Rudd was not qualified for the role.

Turnbull’s decision was not only a blow to Rudd, but was a slap in the face to Liberal deputy-party leader, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who had publicly declared that the former Labor leader was qualified for the UN job. At the first full cabinet meeting of the newly-elected Turnbull government on Thursday, Bishop, supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, presented a submission supporting Rudd’s nomination.

The issue has not only highlighted the deep divisions within Turnbull’s fragile Liberal-National Coalition government, which is back in office after the July 2 election with the slenderest of margins—one seat in the lower house of parliament. It also raises the question as to Washington’s hand in events, amid mounting tensions between the US and China over the South China Sea.

Rudd hit back yesterday by releasing correspondence with Turnbull dating back to April, which indicated that he had the prime minister’s verbal support for his bid. He stated in his April letter that he had “reasonable grounds for support of my candidature in critical capitals.” After Turnbull changed his position on May 1, Rudd again wrote, pointing out that “you have always said to me that the Australian government would be ‘mad’ not to support my candidature.”

Despite Turnbull’s opposition in May, Rudd continued his campaign. He claimed in a letter this week, seeking a last-minute meeting with the prime minister, that he had reached an agreement with Bishop “to proceed with exploring my possible candidature.” Turnbull turned down the request.

Opposition within the Coalition to Rudd’s bid spilled into the open this week with a series of public statements before the cabinet meeting by senior ministers. Cabinet Secretary Arthur Sinodinos said on Monday that “there would be a lot of people on our side of politics who say they have reservations about supporting Kevin.” In remarks on Tuesday designed to make clear his opposition, Treasurer Scott Morrison declared that he “couldn’t possibly comment” on whether Rudd was “not eminently qualified” for the job.

Supporters of Tony Abbott, whom Turnbull ousted as prime minister last September, have been bitterly opposed. Immigration Minister Peter Dutton declared in April that Rudd was behaving like a pest. “Kevin was never happy just running Australia. He believed he was always destined to run the world,” he said. “Kevin’s ego makes Donald Trump’s look like a rounding error.”

The issue raises broader questions for the ruling elite about the ability of the Turnbull government to implement far tougher measures—in particular the austerity agenda being demanded by big business. The fractious first cabinet meeting of the new government made no decisions on any matters.

The Australian ’s foreign editor Greg Sheridan, who has supported Rudd’s UN bid, wrote a scathing comment today declaring: “The Liberals under Malcolm Turnbull now resemble Labor at its worst in the Rudd-Gillard years—ill-disciplined, rancorous, incapable of producing or sticking to good process, making the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons, essentially paralysed….

“If the government can get itself into this much trouble over the simple matter of nominating Rudd for the UN, God help us when it confronts genuinely challenging decisions that require toughness, courage, skill and cabinet solidarity on matters of more importance to the national interest.”

Turnbull refused to elaborate yesterday on why he regarded Rudd as unqualified for the UN job. On paper at least, he has considerable experience firstly as a career diplomat fluent in Mandarin, then as foreign minister and prime minister.

Former Liberal minister Eric Abetz, an Abbott loyalist, branded Rudd “a narcissist, a micro-manager, an impulsive control freak and a psychopath.” These remarks recall the accusations against Rudd as dysfunctional that were used by Julia Gillard to oust him as prime minister in mid-2010 in an overnight inner-party coup.

Rudd’s removal, however, had nothing to do with his administrative skills. Rather he had alienated the Obama administration by calling for an accommodation between the US and China, right at the point when Washington was preparing to confront China and announce its “pivot to Asia.” Rudd was ousted by a handful of factional strongmen, including present opposition leader Bill Shorten, who were regarded by the US embassy as “protected sources,” behind the backs of the Labor cabinet and party, as well as the Australian population as a whole.

Six years on, the US “pivot” and military preparations for war against China are far more advanced. Tensions between Washington and Beijing have sharply escalated following the ruling on July 12 by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague finding in favour of a US-backed Philippine case challenging China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Rudd’s response was highlighted by an Asia Times comment yesterday entitled “China-friendly Aussie ex-PM fails in UN Secretary General bid.” In an interview on July 13, Rudd declared: “Look I believe in the UN. I actually believe in multinational institutions. But the key issue we face is what do we do now in terms of resolving disputes in the South China Sea? And that, I think, is now a practical case of diplomacy and negotiations.”

The last thing that Washington wants is a resolution of disputes that it has been exploiting for the past five years to drive a wedge between Beijing and its neighbours and to justify a US naval build-up in these strategic waters.

Last week former Labor opposition leader Kim Beazley, who was Australian ambassador to Washington and is well-connected in US ruling circles, urged a military response to The Hague ruling. He called on the Turnbull government to “work back in” freedom of navigation exercises within the 12-nautical-mile territorial limit around Chinese-administered islets in the South China Sea.

Significantly, as well as proposing that Australia join the US in provocations against China, Beazley poured cold water on Rudd’s UN bid. Pointing to the push in the UN for a woman and someone from the Eastern Europe, he said: “I don’t know if it would be a sensible thing to stand against that and force through a candidate.”

The US Vice President Joe Biden was also in Australia last week for an unplanned visit following The Hague ruling to press the government to undertake freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. It is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility that in his discussions with Turnbull and Bishop that Biden let it be known that Washington frowned on Rudd’s campaign to become UN secretary general.

Anger mounts over government handling of floods in China

John Braddock

Nearly three weeks after the onset of intense flooding in northern China left hundreds of people dead and missing, anger has erupted among survivors. According to the Asia Times, media and internet users are accusing officials of negligence, with irate villagers declaring that they were not warned in advance of the impending deluge.

At least 273 people have died and 218 are missing amid catastrophic flooding along the Yangtze River. The state news agency Xinhua reported the flooding to be the worst in a decade. About 330,000 homes have been destroyed and economic damage is estimated at $US8.5 billion.

During the first week of heavy rains, Hubei Province, along with its capital Wuhan, a city of 10 million people, was hard-hit with a record 600mm of rain.

On the weekend of July 9–10, typhoon Nepartak made landfall in Fujian province, after earlier lashing Taiwan. The typhoon forced more than 200,000 residents in 10 mainland cities to be relocated and 1,900 homes were destroyed. Power was cut for hundreds of thousands of households, while five airports were closed and hundreds of high-speed train journeys cancelled.

China’s ministry of civil affairs said flooding and rain associated with the typhoon had impacted on over 31 million people in 12 provinces, submerged more than 2.7 million hectares of cropland and caused 67.1 billion yuan ($US 13.4 billion) in damages. Meteorologists blamed the floods on a particularly intense El Nino weather pattern that has resulted in an increase of up to a 50 percent in rainfall in some areas.

Residents in flood-hit areas of Hebei Province, where more than 160 people were killed, have accused the authorities of negligence and inaction. After the floods destroyed the village of Daxian, residents told Al Jazeera that officials had failed to warn them in time about the incoming storm.

Chinese-language posts on Twitter, which is blocked in China, included pictures and videos showing the devastation in Daxian. One video revealed water cascading over homes, turning streets into rivers and apparently sweeping several people away. Some images showed corpses in farm fields.

The Qi Lie River near Daxian had months earlier been blocked by a building contractor but no action was taken by officials. As the river swelled, residents said the local government chief had told them not to worry, because if it was serious senior officials would have contacted him. “It seems many people here had more idea about the imminent danger they faced than local officials did,” an Al Jazeera correspondent reported.

As thousands of soldiers and police officers were dispatched, ostensibly to join the relief efforts, residents complained about their extensive losses and the indifference of the authorities. “I don’t know who I can talk to. No one listens to me,” Zhang Erqiang, father of two missing children, told Al Jazeera. Instead, Zhang was questioned by police demanding to know what he had told the media.

A flash flood near Xingtai, in Hebei Province, sparked outrage after local officials were accused of failing to warn citizens of the imminent deluge, and then trying to cover up the cause of the disaster. “Not to notify villagers about the Xingtai flood wasn’t just an abandonment of the officials’ duty—it was essentially manslaughter,” one person wrote on China’s Sina Weibo microblog.

Public anger intensified after pictures of drowned children being pulled from the muddy floodwaters circulated online. Residents raised suspicions that the sudden flood, which struck while villagers slept, was the result of a deliberate release of water from a local reservoir, rather than the breaking of a levee in a nearby river, as officials claimed.

A local deputy Communist Party secretary absurdly suggested that there had been “no casualties” in the flood. The Asia Times reported a video of him kneeling before wailing relatives who lost family members quickly spread on social media. It showed three distraught women clutching his arm while asking how many had died. Other online footage revealed locals clashing with police trying to prevent them from taking complaints to central authorities.

Provincial leaders have announced that four local officials in Xingtai were suspended for being “ineffective in flood prevention and rescue and relief work.” Beijing’s standard response to every disaster is to prosecute low-level local officials in order to divert public criticism from the Stalinist Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership.

The devastating impact of the floods is due to criminal negligence and corruption at the highest levels in the state, business and the CCP. No serious flood mitigation action has been taken by government authorities since disastrous flooding in 1998, when 4,150 people died, or in 2010, which left 3,900 people dead or missing. Residents, meanwhile, have continually made scathing criticisms of the inadequacy of preventive measures.

The floods are not just a natural disaster. In the past, extensive flood plains were uninhabited, forming a natural defence against rising waters. A proper system of flood control was a popular demand of the Chinese Revolution in 1949, and under the Maoist regime a limited system of dykes and water reservoirs was built, providing some protection. These measures, however, have been completely overwhelmed by the anarchic development of China following capitalist restoration over the past three decades.

The indifference of the ruling elite to the conditions of ordinary people, including their exposure to floods and earthquakes, contrasts starkly with the enormous sums spent to prop up the financial system.

Beijing responded to the 2008 global financial crisis with a stimulus package of half a trillion dollars and a massive expansion of credit, estimated to be the equivalent of the entire US financial system. This has been used to fuel a frenzy of speculation in property and shares, deepening the vast social gulf between a privileged ultra-wealthy layer and hundreds of millions of workers and rural poor.

Following the recent strike activity by sections of the working class, Beijing is worried about the potential for deepening political unrest. Despite tighter state censorship, the explosion of Internet and cell phone use has enabled hundreds of millions of people to communicate more freely. The regime has further clamped down on any independent reporting of what it deems “sensitive” current affairs topics. Online portals will be permitted to publish such material only if sourced from government-controlled news agencies.

Last Monday the government’s Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) revealed that it had moved against at least five major news web sites for publishing stories based on their own reportage. The “self-edited” web sites, according to the CAC, had engaged in “actions that seriously violated regulations and had a completely vile effect.”

Qiao Mu, a journalism professor at Beijing’s Foreign Languages University, told the Guardian last week that recent events meant that the Chinese government was nervous about losing control of the “media narrative.” “This has not been a quiet summer … authorities are worried that reporting [on the floods and The Hague tribunal’s rejection of Chinese claims in the South China Sea] might have an effect on social stability,” he said.

US warplanes kill at least 28 more civilians in northern Syria

Barry Grey

In a new US atrocity in Syria, American warplanes on Thursday bombed a market in the ISIS-controlled village of al-Ghandour near the northern city of Manbij, killing at least 28 civilians, including seven children. According to a report by one monitoring organization, an additional 13 people, possibly ISIS fighters, were killed in the airstrike.

The latest mass killing occurred in the same region where, nine days before, the US military bombed a group of houses in the village of Tokhar, where nearly 200 people had gathered to seek refuge from fierce fighting between US-backed forces and ISIS militants near Manbij. Virtually all those inside the houses were killed or injured, with the reported civilian death toll varying from a low of 56 to a high of more than 200.

That massacre was the single most deadly bombing attack on Syrian civilians inflicted by any warring party since the US launched its war to overthrow the Russian- and Iranian-allied regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad five years ago. Over 400,000 people have been killed and millions of civilians have been displaced and turned into refugees as a result of the US-instigated civil war.

Thursday's deadly airstrike in al-Ghandour came one day after the US military announced it had initiated a formal inquiry into the July 19 bombing of Tokhar. Such inquiries are cynical whitewashes. It takes on average seven months for the release of a redacted version of the findings, which inevitably minimize the scale of the war crime and attribute it to inadvertent errors.

Following the attack on al-Ghandour, the US Central Command issued its standard, pro forma denial: “We take all measures during the targeting process to avoid or minimize civilian casualties or collateral damage and to comply with the principles of the law of armed conflict.”

The contempt of the US government for the Syrian people and indifference to the mass suffering it inflicts are summed up by the absurdly low figures it gives on civilian casualties from American airstrikes. The US Central Command this week released the results of its investigations into civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria over the past year and concluded that only 14 civilians had been killed in six separate US attacks. Washington claims its bombs have caused a total of 55 civilian deaths since the US-led air war against ISIS was launched two years ago.

But groups that maintain a tally of the civilian toll, such as Amnesty International and Airwars, say the real figure is at least 10 times the US number, and could be far higher. Amnesty’s researcher for the region, Neil Sammonds, puts civilian deaths from attacks by the US-led coalition at over 1,500 across Iraq and Syria.

Following Thursday’s attack on Tokhar, Sammonds told the Guardian newspaper, “Levels of civilian killings from the coalition are so high now, we are edging towards the 1,000 figures, and they don’t disclose it, they are covering it up…

“They dismiss evidence pointing to civilian casualties if it hasn’t been captured from the sky by their own operatives, so even if there are photographs of scores and scores of dead bodies, with names, it’s still discounted.”

The Syrian Network for Human Rights, which is part of the anti-Assad opposition, says coalition strikes have killed more than 400 civilians in Syria alone.

In 2015, a London-based group of journalists released a report saying that in the coalition’s first 12 months of airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, it killed 459 civilians in 57 incidents.

Even US-backed opposition groups in Syria denounced Thursday’s attack as a “massacre.” The Syrian National Coalition (SNC) in a statement posted on Twitter declared, “The international coalition committed a new massacre in the Manbij countryside when it bombed the area of Al-Ghandora yesterday, killing dozens of people, among them children.”

The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the civilians in Tokhar “were killed when the warplanes of the international coalition committed a massacre in the town of al-Ghandour in the northwestern countryside of Manbij city east of Aleppo province… and the death toll is expected to rise because there are some people in critical situation.”

The US claim that war crimes such as the July 19 bombing of Tokhar and the July 28 attack on al-Ghandour are merely accidents is a lie. Following the Tokhar airstrikes, the SNC sent a letter to the foreign ministers of the coalition’s member nations demanding immediate suspension of the coalition’s military operations to allow for a thorough investigation of that attack. The US flatly refused.

Washington considers winning control of Manbij, a strategic transit point in the governorate of Aleppo between Turkey and the ISIS “capital” of Raqqa, to be critical to the campaign against ISIS. It is backing Kurdish-dominated forces fighting ISIS in the region.

More importantly, the US is desperate, whatever the cost in Syrian lives, to prevent Russian-backed Syrian government forces from driving Washington’s Islamist proxy forces out of Aleppo, the most populous Syrian city before the outbreak of the civil war. Assad’s forces in recent days made a strategic advance in their battle to take control of the besieged city by closing off the last remaining supply route to the “rebel”-held eastern half.

In response to government gains in recent weeks, the US has sharply escalated its lethal attacks on both military and civilian targets. Chris Woods, director of Airwars, told the Guardian, “We tracked a huge increase in civilian deaths [from coalition airstrikes] in Syria in June above May, a rise of 72 percent from the previous month.” Woods says at least 210 civilians have been killed by coalition airstrikes in the battle for Manbij alone.

On Thursday, the leader of the al-Nusra Front, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, announced that the group was reconstituting itself under the name Levant Conquest Front and severing its formal ties to Al Qaeda. He said the decision, which was praised by the Al Qaeda leadership, was aimed at ending US and Russian bombing of its forces in Syria.

Al-Nusra is the main fighting force opposing Assad and a de facto ally of the United States, although Washington lists it as a terrorist organization and agreed to formally exclude it from a partial ceasefire it reached with Russia last February. In practice, various supposedly “moderate” Islamist groups openly backed by Washington fight alongside al-Nusra against Assad.

Also on Thursday, Russian and Syrian officials announced a plan to allow opposition fighters and civilians in Aleppo safe passage out of the city. They said the plan included an offer of amnesty to insurgents who laid down their arms and food and accommodation to any of the 300,000 civilians trapped in the devastated and food-deprived city who chose to leave.

The United States immediately denounced the plan, with US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power calling it “chilling.” What Washington finds “chilling” is not the prospect of more bloodshed and perhaps thousands dying of starvation and lack of fresh water, but a decisive defeat of its Al Qaeda-linked proxy forces.

Military crackdown ahead of Thai constitutional referendum

Tom Peters

Thailand’s military rulers have launched a crackdown on opposition in the lead-up to a referendum, scheduled for August 7, on the junta’s draft constitution.

The ruling National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) insists that its new constitution must be accepted before elections are held next year. Self-appointed prime minister and former army chief, Prayuth Chan-Ocha, who seized power in a May 2014 coup, declared that if the constitution is rejected, the NCPO will draft another. Elections could be postponed indefinitely.

The draft constitution enshrines rule by the military, the judiciary and state bureaucracy. The 250-seat Senate would be entirely appointed by the NCPO. Six seats would be reserved for the army, navy, air force and national police heads, the military’s supreme commander and defence permanent secretary.

The 500-member Lower House would be elected, but the Senate could veto its laws. The draft also gives the Constitutional Court and “anti-corruption” bodies, which supported the coup, greater powers to remove politicians from the Lower House if they are deemed “corrupt.”

A second referendum question asks whether senators should have a say in the appointment of the prime minister, who could be an unelected official, such as a general.

The proposed charter is so blatantly anti-democratic that both major political parties, the Pheu Thai Party and the Democrat Party, have opposed it. The Democrat-aligned group, the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), paved the way for the 2014 coup by mobilising sections of Bangkok’s upper middle classes to destabilise the Pheu Thai government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. The PDRC leaders secretly coordinated their actions, including the disruption of the 2014 election, with the military coup plotters.

The country’s traditional elites, grouped around the monarchy, the military and the state bureaucracy, are bitterly hostile to Yingluck and her billionaire brother Thaksin Shinawatra, whose parties have won every election since 2001. The Shinawatras built a base of support among the urban and rural poor through limited reforms, such as cheap loans and various subsidies. Thaksin further alienated the Bangkok-based elites by opening up the economy to more foreign investment, cutting across existing networks of patronage. In 2006 the military removed Thaksin in an earlier coup.

Elected in 2011, Yingluck made every effort to bring about a reconciliation with the military. However, as the country’s economic downturn deepened, the ruling elite demanded the elimination of subsidies and other attacks on living standards and turned to the military to suppress opposition from the working class and rural poor. Since taking power the NCPO has eliminated Yingluck’s subsidies for rice farmers and is seeking to cut fuel subsidies, on which millions of people rely. The junta has also increased tax incentives for domestic and foreign companies.

The NCPO has banned all public campaigning on the August 7 referendum. Since coming to power it has maintained a police state, outlawing public gatherings and any criticism of the regime. According to human rights groups, more than 113 people have been arrested in the past three months alone for activities related to the referendum.

Last month, a group of 13 people was arrested for handing out leaflets calling for a “no” vote. The Wall Street Journal reported: “In prison, they said guards shaved their hair down to the scalp and shackled their feet during visits to a military court. Seven of the group refused to seek bail and spent 12 days in detention before a court released them ahead of a trial.” They face maximum sentences of 10 years in prison.

On July 10, journalist Taweesak Kerdpoka was arrested for alleged “No Vote” activities. Two days later, soldiers raided the office of his online newspaper Prachatai. Taweesak was arrested alongside three members of the New Democracy Movement, a student-led group that has organised protests against the dictatorship.

Former members of the ousted Pheu Thai government have also been charged. On 28 July, Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan announced that eight politicians would be tried in a military court for spreading “false information” about the draft charter. The Pheu Thai Party and its protest organisation, the Red Shirts, helped pave the way for the coup by encouraging illusions in the military, and have refused to mobilise opposition against the junta.

Those who expose the crimes of the military also face extreme penalties. Three Amnesty International officials based in Thailand, Somchai Homla-or, Anchana Heemmina and Porpen Khongkaconkiet, were charged on July 26 for criminal defamation and violating the Computer Crimes Act by releasing a report documenting 54 cases of alleged torture carried out by the army and police in southern Thailand. They face up to five years in jail if found guilty.

On the same day, police arrested 25-year-old Naritsarawan Kaewnopparat on similar charges of “defaming” the army. Naritsarawan is the niece of Wichian Puaksom, an army conscript who was tortured to death by the military in 2011. Last year Wichian’s family won $200,000 in compensation after suing the defence ministry, the army and the prime minister’s office over his death.

The recent crackdown on dissent prompted a letter to Thai authorities signed by the ambassadors of the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Germany and several other European countries. The letter, published on July 15 by the Bangkok Post, expressed “concern” over “troubling actions, including the arrest of activists, the shutdown of opposition media, and restrictions on freedom of expression.”

The ambassadors called for Thailand to “emerge quickly from the current period of political transition with a sustainable democracy.”

In reality, the imperialist powers have no concern for democracy in Thailand. The ambassadors share the NCPO’s anxiety about a resurgence of popular opposition around the referendum. They warned that the NCPO’s actions could “increase tensions.” The letter did not criticise the draft constitution, which effectively enshrines military dictatorship, but merely called for “open dialogue.” It stated: “Thailand has traditionally played an important role in strengthening regional cooperation, boosting international trade, and promoting shared global values.”

Washington considers the Thai military a valuable ally in the region, where the US has greatly boosted its military presence in preparation for war against China. Undoubtedly, US officials were informed in advance of the 2014 coup, as they were in 2006, and gave tacit support. Since the coup the US has imposed only token sanctions and continued its annual Cobra Gold military training exercises with Thai forces.

As profits rise, Chrysler to end US passenger car production

Shannon Jones

Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne confirmed Wednesday that the automaker will no longer build passenger cars in the United States by early 2017. The move is part of a plan to focus on production of more profitable pickup trucks and SUVs. FCA said its planned reorganization would allow it to match the performance of its larger and more profitable US-based rivals.

The announcement came at a press conference following the release of FCA’s second quarter profits, which rose 25 percent, to reach $353 million. The results caused the company to raise its estimate for full-year operating profits by 10 percent.

The ending of passenger car production puts a continued question mark over the fate of workers at the Sterling Heights Assembly Plant (SHAP) in suburban Detroit, and Belvidere, Illinois Assembly that build the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart. This is despite company assurances that the expansion of truck and SUV production will absorb workers made redundant at the two facilities.

At the same time, the continued profit boom by US carmakers exposes the phony claim by the United Auto Workers (UAW) that the 2015 agreement was the richest in history. Indeed, it has paved the way for relentless cost cutting and the further enrichment of management and wealthy stockholders.

The FCA profit figures follow reports last week that General Motors had $2.9 billion in second quarter profits, more than double the same period in 2015 and its best quarterly result in seven years. At the same time, GM boasted a sizeable 12.1 percent operating margin. Ford, meanwhile, posted $2 billion in second quarter earnings, a small decline over 2015, but still massive.

Pointing to GM’s numbers, Marchionne said the biggest task facing FCA was to “close the operating margin gap with our competitors. That remains a permanent fixation we have inside the house.”

As part of its switchover to truck and SUV production FCA is investing $1.5 billion to retool SHAP to build the Dodge Ram, currently produced at nearby Warren Truck. Production of the 200 will end in December. SHAP was shut down three months out of the first six months of the year as sales of the 200 tanked. On July 5, FCA permanently eliminated the second shift at SHAP, impacting some 1,300 workers there and 120 workers at Sterling Stamping.

Shift change at Chrysler's Sterling Heights Assembly Plant

The Belvidere assembly plant is being changed over to produce the Jeep Cherokee, now built in Toledo, Ohio. FCA says it will create new jobs at the Toledo complex by expanding production of the Jeep Wrangler.

The changes mean that FCA will build primarily the Ram and Jeep SUVs in the United States and will be dependent on the those products for its sales and profits. The only exception will be the Dodge Durango and Jeep Grand Cherokee built at the Jefferson North Assembly Plant in Detroit.

The changeover at SHAP and the shifting of the Ram out of Warren Truck will create considerable disruption in the lives of autoworkers. It has already impacted workers at SHAP, who are trying to subsist on supplemental unemployment benefits that in some cases only replace about 75 percent of their former income.

Despite this, UAW President Dennis Williams hailed the planned reorganization at Fiat Chrysler calling it “great for all of our members and all of the employees at FCA and for the local communities.” He did not refer at all to the layoffs at SHAP, the first job cuts since FCA emerged from bankruptcy in 2009.

The remarks express the complete subservience of the UAW to management and its indifference to the impact of the recent layoffs on the lives of autoworkers. The FCA job cuts underscore the fact that the supposed “job guarantees” hailed by the UAW in the 2015 agreement are worthless.

Kathy, a veteran SHAP worker told the WSWS, “They told us we won’t go back until August 29. Then maybe we will work for a week or two, then be out for another five or six weeks.

“They are going over people’s work history. If you are laid off longer than your seniority, they don’t have to call you back.

“We have a system to go online and do a lot of things ourselves that used to be the responsibility of Human Resources. If you don’t follow through, you may lose out. Those laid off by department have a week to bump back into the plant. If you don’t do that you are out of luck. You could be bumped to another plant. A lot of people don’t realize that; they don’t know. The union reps don’t care and are not helping. You are left on your own.”

Despite Marchionne’s empty boasting, the future of FCA remains far from certain. The company is the latest automaker to be enmeshed in scandal.

Fiat Chrysler continues in damage control mode after accusations surfaced that it has been padding sales figures in order to artificially boost its stock price. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation launched probes after two FCA dealerships raised accusations that the company had offered cash payments to dealers to give falsified sales reports.

In response, FCA said it would change the way it reports sales. Starting this month the company said it would adjust its sales totals to reflect sales reported in one month that are not actually finalized. Reflecting this change the company retroactively recalculated its sales reporting. It had earlier boasted a 75-month streak of month-over-month sales gains. Under the new method, that streak ended at 40 months. Since then the company reported there were two other months where sales declined, despite earlier claims of sales gains.

At this point FCA is asserting that there were no irregularities in its financial reports. It claimed that its reports of vehicle sales are not the basis for its reports of actual revenue.

Under FCA’s old sales reporting method a dealer could report a vehicle as sold one month and then “unwind” it the next month. For example, FCA reported that as of June 30 it had 4,500 vehicles in dealer stock that had been previously reported as sold, but were returned to inventory after the sale had been undone. FCA had originally claimed it sold 197,073 units in June, its best sales for the period since 2005.

Threat of third election looms in Spain

Alejandro Lopez

The threat of an unprecedented third general election is looming in Spain, as attempts to form a government have ground to a halt.

A date of November 27 has already been suggested. The two previous elections, on December 20, 2015 and June 26, produced hung parliaments with no party securing an overall majority.

The failure of repeated attempts to form a government confirm the deep popular disaffection that exists with the two-party system, comprising the Popular Party (PP) and Socialist Party (PSOE), which has dominated Spanish political life since the collapse of the fascist Franco regime in 1978.

The situation in Spain is symptomatic of the crisis of the traditional bourgeois political system in Europe following the eruption of the 2008 global economic crisis. Parties that ruled for decades have collapsed, leading to the emergence of far-right movements and governments in many countries across the continent.

Where alternative and nominally left-wing governments have come to power—Syriza in Greece or the Left Bloc/Communist Party-supported Socialist Party administration in Portugal—anti-working class, pro-austerity agendas have been imposed.

This week, Spain’s King Felipe VI is meeting leaders from all the parties in Congress in a desperate attempt to break the political deadlock. He has told acting PP Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to negotiate again with other parties to get enough support for a confidence vote on his investiture on August 5.

Rajoy needs 176 of the 350 seats in Congress to form a majority government or the abstention of enough deputies to form a minority government. He went some way to that goal at the inaugural session of Congress last week with the election of the PP’s candidate for Speaker, former Public Works Minister, Ana Pastor.

Pastor secured 169 votes—137 from the PP and 32 from the right-wing anti-separatist Citizens party, which switched its support from the PSOE, ousting its candidate Patxi López, who was only appointed to the Speaker’s post in January. He obtained 155 from the benches of the PSOE (85) and pseudo-left Podemos (70).

Pastor’s success was due to the abstention of the 25 nationalist deputies from the Basque Country: the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV) and Bildu from Catalonia, the Republican Left (ERC) and Democratic Convergence (CDC), and the Canary Islands Coalition (CC).

The CDC’s abstention is linked to back-room negotiations with the PP, which will support the CDC’s bid to have its own parliamentary group despite not having the required number of deputies, allowing it higher subsidies, access to advisers and a greater voice in Congress. The PNV also came to the aid of the PP in the Senate in exchange for its own group there.

The CDC, which rules the regional government in Catalonia in the “Together for Yes” coalition with the ERC and support of the pseudo-left Popular Unity Candidacy (CUP), has claimed that the negotiations over Pastor’s appointment have nothing to do with supporting Rajoy’s attempts to form a new government. Catalan government spokesperson and CDC vice president, Neus Munté, declared, “We have always said that the separatist votes will not serve to perpetuate Rajoy as prime minister of the Spanish government.”

The PNV has also come out saying it will vote against Rajoy during the investiture vote.

The role played by the Catalan and Basque parties reveals their anti-working class, pro-capitalist character. Nationalism and separatism is whipped up in the more prosperous regions, either to secure greater concessions from Madrid or to establish a separate state in order for the regional ruling elite to establish its own relations with the European Union (EU), gain better access to global markets, cut taxes used to support poorer regions and exploit its own working class.

This week, the Catalan government is pushing ahead with its plans for independence by debating, in defiance of the Constitutional Court, a parliamentary working party report on the practicalities of separation, including changes to the legal, taxation and social security systems and a new foreign affairs department. A new referendum on independence is planned for next year, although the result is likely to be just as deadlocked as the political situation in Spain as a whole with recent polls showing fewer than 48 percent in favour of separation.

Catalan foreign affairs minister, Raül Romeva, declared that Madrid “has left us feeling that we just don’t have an alternative,” adding, “We have always said that we would have preferred a Scottish-type scenario, where we could negotiate with the state and hold a coordinated and democratic referendum. We keep talking to Madrid, but all we get back from them is an echo.”

Romeva said the Brexit vote in Britain revealed the need for the EU to recognise the discontent in the continent that is threatening the “European project” and take part in negotiations over the future of Catalonia. Pledging his loyalty to the EU, he declared, “Brexit isn’t good news for Europe or for Catalonia,” he said. “In Catalan logic, yes, we don’t like Brexit, but we understand that the democratic deficit in Europe is what allowed Leave to win. A process of negotiation has begun: it’s not the end of the world and it’s not paradise.”

Rajoy’s difficulties in forming a government has led to increased pressure by politicians on the PSOE to abstain, although its leader, Pedro Sánchez, continues to insist the party will vote against him. Former PSOE Prime Minister Felipe González has called for an abstention, declaring that “after losing eight months in a strange interim situation” the PSOE has to establish dialogue with the PP and, “if necessary,” accept a PP-led government while attempting to extract as many concessions as possible.

Former PSOE defence minister José Bono went further, saying, “Spain deserves a government and if it is necessary the PSOE has to abstain to prevent third elections, I believe this is a responsibility to our country, without anything in return, to go into opposition, to lead it and end the theatre of the populist left”—a reference to the pseudo-left Podemos led by Pablo Iglesias.

Bono and González express the interest of sectors of the bourgeoisie who defend the formation of a PP government as soon as possible, even if this means that the PSOE, which obtained the worst electoral results in its history in the last elections, will be seen as having allowed the PP to rule again.

Podemos is no alternative to the PSOE or the PP. It has repeatedly shown its readiness to rule in the name of the bourgeoisie and defence of the free market. It has promoted Spanish patriotism, the army, NATO and the EU. Its local fronts ruling in Madrid, Barcelona and Cádiz boast of having reduced their deficits compared to previous PP and PSOE councils.

The fact that the alliance between Podemos and the United Left lost 1.2 million votes in June compared to December has not diminished its calls, repeated during the Speaker vote debate, for a “left government” with the PSOE, a party with a proven pro-war and pro-capitalist track record. A PSOE abstention in the investiture process leading to a PP-led government would be another damning exposure of Podemos’ attempt to provide a left-wing guise to the discredited PSOE.

Washington funds death squads, concentration camps in the Philippines

Joseph Santolan

US Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Manila on Tuesday and spent Wednesday meeting with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay. In an effort to secure continued Philippine support for Washington’s war drive against China, Kerry committed $32 million in funding for Duterte’s fascistic crackdown on drugs and alleged criminality.

Since Duterte took office on June 30, over 440 people have been killed and the daily death toll is accelerating. During the less than the 48 hours that Kerry was in Manila, 42 people were reported killed by police and vigilantes.

Duterte has called for the reinstatement of the death penalty by hanging, and for the lowering of the age of criminal accountability to nine. Bills to this effect are before both houses of the newly-opened legislature, where Duterte has a super-majority. The legislature has also introduced a bill granting the president unspecified “emergency powers,” ostensibly to deal with the traffic situation in Manila.

Duterte has implemented a curfew for minors throughout Metro Manila and is moving to expand it nationwide. Youth found on the streets after 10 p.m. at night may be subject to arrest. The parents of unescorted minors may likewise be arrested.

Duterte announced on Wednesday that he will set up what are in effect concentration camps throughout the country, where citizens deemed by the state to be “no longer of service to humanity” may be held indefinitely, without legal recourse, in wired-off camps within existing military bases.

Kerry did not breathe a word of criticism against these police-state measures. On the contrary, he publicly announced Washington’s support for Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, and provided funding for its implementation. In return, Kerry made clear that Washington expects Duterte to continue his predecessor’s support for the US “pivot to Asia,” aimed against China.

The Duterte administration has responded with hesitancy to the sweeping ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, which declared on July 12 that China’s nine-dash-line claim in the South China Sea was invalid and its land reclamation activities on islets unlawful. Duterte is attempting to balance between the country’s economic dependence on China and the political and military might of the US.

Washington is seeking to use the PCA ruling as a pretext for a dramatic escalation of its confrontation with China. The White House is looking for the ostensible claimant in the case—the Philippines—to assert its rights in some way on the basis of the ruling.

As the PCA ruling was handed down, US State Department Counselor Kristie Kenney, a former ambassador to the Philippines, traveled to Manila to push for a strong stance. The new government did not oblige, but publicly said it would “research the ruling carefully.” Duterte announced he was appointing former President Fidel Ramos to head a delegation to Beijing to carry out bilateral negotiations over the South China Sea and trade ties.

A week later, a US congressional delegation, headed by Senator Chris Murphy, met with Duterte, and told him the PCA ruling was “non-negotiable” and he should not be engaged in negotiations with China.

Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) foreign ministers met from July 21 to 26. Fierce disputes broke out over whether the ASEAN joint communiqué would include reference to the PCA ruling. Kerry attended the summit, pressing repeatedly on the contentious topic of the South China Sea. It was reported at the time that Cambodia, which has close ties to China, blocked the inclusion of the PCA ruling in the communiqué. Phnom Penh issued a statement on July 28 claiming that it was Manila, and Foreign Secretary Yasay, which had the section on the ruling removed from the communiqué. Manila has denied the claim.

Traveling to Manila from Laos, where the ASEAN summit was held, Kerry was the first foreign minister to meet with the new Philippine president. He adopted the tack of using and supporting Duterte’s fascist agenda as a means of securing a stronger position from Manila against China.

On the day of Kerry’s arrival, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled “with finality” that the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), which provides the US with military bases in the country, was constitutional. The judges turned down the bogus legal challenge to the deal filed by the Maoist umbrella group BAYAN.

In his meeting with Duterte, Kerry highlighted the fact that he and Duterte had a common past as state prosecutors. Like Duterte, he stated, Washington was “committed to fighting the illegal drug trade.”

US Ambassador to Manila Philip Goldberg, who was present at the meeting, told the press that Duterte’s inaugural speech and State of the Nation address revealed that the president was committed to “following due process and respecting human rights.” This is a flagrant lie. The two speeches repeatedly endorsed, in the most vulgar language, the murder of individuals accused of crimes, and granted immunity to the police and vigilantes who carried this out.

Kerry secured from Duterte and Yasay a public commitment that any talks between Manila and Beijing would open with a discussion of the PCA ruling. Beijing has publicly stated that it would not conduct any discussions with Manila on these grounds. Department of Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre announced on Thursday that the ruling would form the “underlining agendum” in any prospective bilateral talks with China

In return for this commitment, Kerry promised $32 million for Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, to be spent on training and supplies for the police and military. Evidence strongly suggests that he also provided Duterte with military intelligence that attempts to connect China with the drug trade in the Philippines.

Kerry concluded his public press conference with Yasay by saying: “I speak for President Obama and his entire administration when I say that we look forward to working with President Duterte.”

Duterte left his meeting with Kerry and immediately convened the National Security Council. It was a nearly unprecedented gathering. Former presidents, Fidel Ramos, Joseph Estrada, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Benigno Aquino, joined the heads of the legislature and Duterte’s cabinet to discuss three topics: the South China Sea, the peace deal with the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the war on drugs. This was not a photo-op; they met for over five hours.

Duterte then convened a meeting of the mayors of major cities and governors of provinces, organized under the League of Cities and Provinces (LCP) and League of Provinces of the Philippines (LPP). He announced the funding he had received from Kerry.

Duterte told his audience that “a country friend of ours” has “provided us with intercepts” which revealed that the transshipment of drugs in the Philippines came from China. He said he could not reveal all the details for security reasons, but the drug wholesale trade was being run entirely by “the Chinese (intsik)” who were based not in the Philippines, but in China. He claimed that the evidence supplied to him revealed that the Chinese were using drug money to “buy judges, fiscals, the police, mayors, governors.”

The president proposed to spend a large portion of the money received from Washington on what he called rehabilitation centers. He described what can only be called concentration camps. Duterte said he was making arrangements for space to be provided in every military facility throughout the country for housing the detained. The detainees “would be placed in barracks” within “high wire encampments.”

Anyone, Durterte stated, “who is no longer of service to humanity” would be detained. Drug users would be rounded up. There were too many for the police to handle. Over 170,000 had surrendered thus far, he claimed. “We don’t need a legal basis for this,” he stated. The state had the right, he asserted, to “lock up” anyone who is insane. And “drug users” were insane.

The next morning, Duterte delivered a speech to members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and police and reiterated his claim that a “friendly country” had given evidence that the Chinese were behind the drug trade.

He ominously told his audience: “I want to confront China over this… We can’t start a war with China, but if they invade us that’s a different matter.”

Kerry’s money does not come without strings attached. One can only conclude that the Duterte administration, in league with Washington, is cooking up a provocation of some sort that will be used by the US to greatly intensify pressure on China.

Scholarship in USA for Doctors and Palliative Care Physicians from Developing Countries 2016

Application Deadline: The application window will close August 8, 2016. Notification of awards: November 2016

Offered Annually? Yes

The Developing Countries Scholarship Fund was established to provide access to quality education for physicians who reside in developing countries to attend The Annual Assembly in Phoenix, AZ. This scholarship program will provide financial support (up to $5,000) to physicians to learn the latest clinical information and research updates in hospice and palliative care from leading experts in the field.

This scholarship program provides financial support (up to $5,000) to physicians to help them access the latest clinical information and research updates in hospice and palliative care from leading experts in the field.

This scholarship program is intended to facilitate Annual Assembly participation and cover ordinary costs associated with meeting registration, travel-related expenses (airfare, cab fare, meals), and lodging.

Field of Study: To help physicians access the latest clinical information and research updates in hospice and palliative care from leading experts in the field

Eligibility: Scholarships are available to physicians who care for seriously ill patients and permanently reside and practice in a developing country. It is our hope that the scholarship recipients will share the knowledge gleaned from the Annual Assembly to improve the palliative care offerings in their home country. Preference will be given to applicants who are

• members of the AAHPM. Free online membership is available to physicians who reside in a developing nation as defined by the World Bank as “lower or middle income” & HINARI list of eligible countries
• have not previously attended the Annual Assembly
• are junior in their career, and
• whose organizations are considered least able to afford this opportunity.

Scholarship Worth: This scholarship program will provide financial support (up to $5,000) to physicians to cover ordinary costs associated with meeting registration, travel-related expenses (air fare, cab fare, meals), and lodging.

How to Apply: Candidates must submit the completed application form along with your uploaded curriculum vitae (limit of 2 pages), and a letter of recommendation or support by August 8, 2016. All documents must be in English.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for more details

Important Note: Scholarship recipients must participate in a discussion forum during the Annual Assembly by developing a 10 minute presentation briefly portraying the state of hospice and palliative medicine in their region as well as their own role in the provision of such care. Recipients will also be required to submit a written report describing how their attendance at the Annual Assembly benefited their work.

Czech Government Scholarships for Developing Countries 2017/2018 – Undergraduate, Masters and Doctorate

Application Deadline: 30th September 2016 | Offered annually? Not specified

Brief description: The Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport offers five scholarships for developing countries. Applications for these scholarships are open to all students from developing countries and/or countries going through a process of political and economic transition.

Eligible Field of Study: Students who are applying for study in Economics, Agriculture, Informatics, Environment and Energetics at public universities in the Czech Republic.

About Scholarship

Thanks to a generous contribution from the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, the Faculty of Social Sciences is able to offer a limited number of partial scholarships for students of all fee based programs in academic year 2016/17. A total of five scholarships are available, ear-marked for students from developing countries and/or countries going through a process of political and economic transition.

Upon a Decision of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, scholarships of the Government of the Czech Republic are granted to promote specific Bachelor’s, Master’s, follow-up Master’s and/or Doctoral study programmes in the full-time mode of study of a specific study programme pursued by a university (or its Faculty) for a period that equals the regular duration of studies. Scholarships are not transferable to other persons or other academic years. Once a scholarship is granted, neither the university nor the study programme and/or field of study may be changed.

Scholarship Offered Since: Not specified

Scholarship Type: Doctoral, Undergraduate and Masters studies

Selection Criteria and Eligibility

• The scholarships are intended solely to promote the studies of adults who are foreign nationals from developing third countries in need. Neither a citizen of the Czech Republic, nor a citizen of a member state of the European Union, nor any other foreign national with a permit to permanent residence on the territory of the Czech Republic may, therefore, be granted this type of scholarship. Furthermore, the scholarships may not be granted to persons under 18 years of age. (The applicants have to turn 18 as of 1 September of the year when they commence studies in the Czech Republic at the latest.)
• In Bachelor/ Master/ Doctoral Study Programmes plus one-year Preparatory Course of the English language (Which is combined with other field-specific training): Government scholarships of this category are awarded to graduates from upper secondary schools, or Bachelor’s / Master’s degree courses, as applicable, Who can Enroll only in Study Programmes in which instruction is given in the English language. Depending on the subject area, Applicants are normally required to sit entrance Examinations at the higher education institution Concerned. Successful passing of Entrance examination constitutes a precondition for the scholarship award; or
• In follow-up study Programmes Master or Doctoral Study Programmes: Government scholarships of this category are awarded to graduates of Bachelor or Master Study Programmes, respectively, Enroll in the WHO study Programmes with instruction in the English language.

In addition, the Scholarship Review Board will take into consideration applicants’ results from their earlier studies. Priority will be given to students who have not previously had the opportunity to study abroad.

Number of Scholarships: A total of seven scholarships are available.

Duration of Scholarships: These Government Scholarships are designed to cover the standard length of study plus one-year preparatory course of the Czech language(which is combined with other field-specific training).

Value of Scholarships: 

• The scholarship covers the necessary costs related to staying and studying in the Czech Republic. The scholarship amount is regularly amended.
• Currently the amount paid to students on a Bachelor’s, Master’s or follow-up Master’s study programme stands at CZK 14,000 per month
• Whereas the amount paid to students of a Doctoral study programme stands at CZK 15,000 per month.

The above scholarship amounts include an amount designated for the payment of accommodation costs. Costs of accommodation, food and public transport are covered by scholarship holders from the scholarship under the same conditions that apply to students who are citizens of the Czech Republic. Should health services exceeding standard care be required by the student, s/he shall cover them at his/her own cost.

Eligible Countries:

The students from the following developing countries are eligible: Afghanistan, Gambia, Mozambique, Bangladesh, The Guinea, Myanmar, Benin, Guinea-Bisau, Nepal, Burkina Faso, Haiti, Niger, Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Cambodia, Korea, Dem Rep., Sierra Leone, Central African Republic, Kyrgyz Republic, Somalia, Liberia, Tajikistan, Comoros, Madagascar, Tanzania, Malawi, Togo, Congo, Dem. Rep, Eritrea, Mali, Uganda, Ethiopia, Mauritania, Zimbabwe, Albania, Indonesia, Samoa, Armenia, India, São Tomé and Principe, Belize, Iraq, Senegal, Bhutan, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Bolivia, Kosovo, South Sudan, Cameroon, Lao PDR, Sri Lanka, Cape Verde, Lesotho, Sudan, Congo, Rep., Marshall Islands, Swaziland, Côte d’Ivoire, Micronesia, Fed. Sts., Syrian Arab Republic, Djibouti, Moldova, Timor-Leste, Egypt, Arab Rep., Mongolia, Tonga, El Salvador, Morocco, Ukraine, Fiji, Nicaragua, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Nigeria, Vanuatu, Ghana, Pakistan, Vietnam, Guatemala, Papua New Guinea, West Bank and Gaza, Guyana, Paraguay, Yemen, Rep., Honduras, Philippines, Zambia, Angola, Ecuador, Palau, Algeria, Gabon, Panama, American Samoa, Grenada, Peru, Antigua and Barbuda, Iran, Islamic Rep., Romania, Argentina, Jamaica, Russian Federation, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Serbia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Seychelles, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Latvia, South Africa, Botswana, Lebanon, St. Lucia, Brazil, Libya, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Suriname, Chile, Macedonia, FYR, Thailand, China, Malaysia, Tunisia, Colombia, Maldives, Turkey, Costa Rica, Mauritius, Turkmenistan, Cuba, Mexico, Tuvalu, Dominica, Montenegro and Uruguay

To be taken at (country): Public Universities in Czech Republic

How to Apply: All applicants shall fill in the electronic application form available on the website and successfully register (i.e., obtain an application identification number by sending a completed application form to the pertinent authority electronically). The applicant shall send the completed application form to the Mission in electronic form, i.e., by completing online registration.

Visit scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, the Faculty of Social Sciences

Wild Turkey with H-Bombs: Failed Coup Raise Calls for Denuclearization

John LaForge

An explosive cocktail of military instability mixed with 11-foot long US nuclear bombs raises the specter of accidental or suicidal detonation in or near Turkey. This risk was brought into extreme relief by the attempted military coup there in mid-July.

In June, I warned in CounterPunch magazine and elsewhere that the Pentagon’s 50 to 90 B61 thermonuclear gravity bombs deployed at Incirlik Air Force Base in Turkey are too dangerous to keep so close to a warzone — Incirlik is 100 miles from Islamic State territory — especially with racists Donald Trump and Ted Cruz pursuing the White House. Journalists with the Los Angeles Times, the Japan Times, Foreign Policy, or the San Antonio Express News don’t read my columns, but suddenly the Pentagon’s nuclear bombs in Turkey are a hot topic.

Tobin Harshaw reports for Bloomberg July 25 — although he mischaracterized the bombs — “Until recently, the question of whether the United States should continue to station nuclear missiles [sic] in Turkey was of interest only to a passel of national-security geeks and nonproliferation advocates. One failed coup later, the discussion has spread to CNN, The New Yorker, the New York Times, the Washington Post and elsewhere.”

Harshaw went on to validate an analysis by Jeffrey Lewis of the Middlebury Institute of Int’l Studies, who argues that in the wake of the failed coup, “Turkey is not a sensible base for nuclear deterrence.” But in the irrational, self-contradictory realm of nuclear war planning, the B61s are being stored at Incirlik because military hawks insist on “maintaining the capability to attack Iran” with H-bombs, Harshaw reported. Never mind that Russia and Pakistan would doubtless retaliate with their nuclear warheads if the US used its own against Iran.

The reasons why our military’s so-called “forward deployment” of the B61s amounts to nuclear madness were only highlighted by the bloody, hapless coup inside Turkey. The B61s’ uselessness and vulnerability — anti-war protesters have regularly snuck into NATO bases where B61s are stored — have been broadcast by major news outlets from New York to Tokyo:

1) The Los Angeles Times reported July 23: “The base was an operational center of the attempted coup,” which, US military experts said, demonstrated “a worrying level of instability in Turkey’s military command close to the B61s.” Wikipedia lists 20 terrorist strikes inside Turkey since 9/11.

2) The B61s stored at Incirlik are designed for the McDonnell Douglas Corporation’s long-range, high speed F-15E jet fighter and for Lockheed Martin’s F-16 jet fighter, according to the Washington Post. But none of these planes are based at Incirlik or in the Turkish Air Force. As the LA Times reported, “The US does not have aircraft at Incirlik qualified to deliver the weapons.” (“In order for the weapons to actually be used, the US would have to fly a squadron of aircraft into Incirlik to load the bombs, all of which would be observed by Russia and possibly make the base a target for a first strike,” the Times reported.)

3) The B61s are designed to prevent unauthorized use as they have safeguards known as “use controls” and “permissive action links.” But Robert Peurifoy, formerly of the Sandia National Laboratory where he, according to the LA Times, “designed the first use controls on weapons based in Europe,” said that the “use controls may only impede and delay a terrorist. … Either you keep custody or you should expect a mushroom cloud.”

4) General Eugene Habiger (USAF Ret.), a former commander of all Air Force and Navy strategic nuclear weapons (he led the Strategic Command from 1996 to 1998), told the San Antonio Express News July 22 “the bombs no longer have any military usefulness.” And Gen. Habiger warned, “It’s a very, very dangerous weapon in terms of military consequences, political consequences, and I think what happened in Turkey highlights the potential unintended consequences of having nuclear weapons forward deployed if there is no military requirement.”

5) The B61s will almost certainly never be used, according to Aaron Stein, a Turkey analyst at the Atlantic Council, who spoke to the LA Times. This common knowledge moved Gen. Habiger to ask, “Why does NATO need nuclear weapons?”

Why indeed. As Jeffrey Lewis noted June 18, “after the events of the past weekend, leaving them in place seems positively terrifying,” and wild Turkey becomes that latest and best reason ever to permanently remove US nuclear weapons from other countries

SIDEBAR

How powerful is the B61 gravity bomb?

* Bloomberg News says the B61 is a “variable-yield” device, meaning the size of the explosion can be between .3 kilotons [300 tons] and 340 kilotons of TNT equivalent.

* The Los Angeles Times reports that it can be programed to have between 300 tons of TNT explosive force [.3 kilotons], and 170,000 tons [170 kilotons].

* Nuclear weapons analyst John Pike, with www.globalsecurity.org, says “yields range from “a few hundred tons to 160 kilotons.”

* The Nuclear Weapons Datebook, Vol. 1 (Ballinger, 1988) says the yield is from 100 to 500 kilotons.

To compare: the US Army Air Corp’s Hiroshima bomb, which incinerated 7 square miles and killed 140,000 people, was 15 kilotons.