Problems of the Super-Rich

Lawrence Wittner

Based on recent economic developments, the super-rich don’t have much to complain about.

A study just released by UBS, a major global financial services company, has revealed that, during 2016, the total wealth of the world’s billionaires rose by 17 percent―from $5.1 trillion to $6.0 trillion. Furthermore, the number of billionaires grew by 10 percent to 1,542, with more than a third of them located in the United States. As of late October 2017, the five wealthiest Americans were Jeff Bezos ($93.8 billion), Bill Gates ($88.7 billion), Warren Buffet ($81.0 billion), Mark Zuckerberg ($75.4 billion), and Larry Ellison ($56.0 billion).

There is a very substantial gap between the circumstances of what Senator Bernie Sanders calls “the billionaire class” and average Americans, including the nearly 28 million Americans working for companies these billionaires own or partly own. The five members of the Walton family who are heirs to the Walmart fortune now have a collective net worth of $140 billion. Recently, in fact, their wealth jumped $5 billion in one day. Walmart workers, though, are unlikely to ever amass any wealth―indeed, many find it necessary to apply for government food stamps to feed themselves and their families―for their wages are pathetic. Walmart sales associates earn an average of $9.41 an hour, while Walmart cashiers average $9.36 an hour.

Given these wealth disparities in what has been called “a new Gilded Age,” you might think that government action would be taken to redress the balance. But you would be wrong. Despite rising economic inequality in the United States, Congress has kept the minimum wage stuck at $7.25 an hour since 2009. If anyone thinks this is a living wage, he or she should try living on it some time. Meanwhile, as Senator Sanders pointed out, the Republican tax plan moving through Congress provides $1.9 trillion in tax breaks for the richest Americans and the largest corporations. About 80 percent of the tax breaks would go to the top 1 percent, with 40 percent going to the top 1/10 of 1 percent.

But the super-rich do have problems.

Key among them is how to spend the enormous amounts of money that they are amassing. Many of their new purchases include very expensive art and, particularly, sports teams. Indeed, more than 140 of the top sports clubs around the world have been gobbled up by just 109 billionaires, of whom 60 are from the United States. Billionaires now own two-thirds of NBA and NFL teams and half of all Major League baseball teams. But there’s plenty of wealth left over, and so the super-rich spend it on driving $4 million Lamborghini Venenos, acquiring megamansions for their horses, flying luxurious underwater planes, taking $80,000 “safaris” in private jets, purchasing gold toothpicks ($600 each), creating megaclosets the size of homes, having champagne delivered to them by parachute, building new megamansions and leaving them vacant for years, residing in $15,000 a night penthouse hotel suites, installing luxury showers for their dogs, covering their staircases in gold, and building luxury survival bunkers. Commenting on his expenditure of at least $600 million to create an exact replica of the Titanic, one billionaire remarked: “I’ve got enough to pay for it, so that’s all that really matters.”

Of course, there’s also the issue that has plagued the upper classes for centuries: how to deal with “the Servant Problem.” For the most part, the very wealthy do not want to shop for and cook their own food, serve their meals, wash their dishes, care for their children, clean their homes, and engage in the many other tasks that consume large portions of the lives of ordinary people. Therefore, the very wealthy rely heavily on those other people to do these things for them. But they are frequently dissatisfied with the service they receive and, as a result, spend a good deal of time among themselves complaining about “the help” and looking for better, more dutiful workers. Not surprisingly, the new super-rich are now scrambling to acquire well-trained, impeccably-groomed, and properly-behaved servants, even at a substantial cost.

Finally, the super-rich face the problem of how long people are going to tolerate a situation in which just eight men possess the same wealth as half the world’s population: 3.6 billion people. “Wealth concentration is as high as in 1905,” warned the lead author of the UBS report, and “this is something billionaires are concerned about.” The “question is . . . at what point will society intervene and strike back?” This is a perennial problem for economic elites and, to head off popular resistance or revolt, they have, at various times, resorted to government repression or to anti-Semitic, racist, and xenophobic appeals to divert popular discontent. Yes, they could also give way gracefully to public pressure and accept a redistribution of wealth. But there is no evidence that this is a popular position among the “billionaire class.”

In any case, the problems of the super-rich are rather unique, and do not appear to be those of most other people. In the United States, at least, there seems to be far more widespread concern about unemployment and underemployment, stagnant wages, climate change, and the enormous cost of healthcare and higher education than there is about acquiring gold toothpicks. Furthermore, like most Americans, the vast majority of the world’s people are not going to have their problems addressed as long as the world’s riches remain concentrated in the hands of the wealthy few, whose priorities determine public policy.

China Rising: Global Opportunity or Global Threat?

ROY MORRISON

The recent tightly scripted 19^th Chinese Communist Party National Congress has generally been viewed as evidence and celebration of the rise to great power of Chinese President Xi Jinping. President Xi is in ascendance. But what does that really mean for China and the rest of us.

It’s far more useful for us to focus on facts on the ground, on China’s actions than on attempts to parse the meaning of the makeup of the 7 member Standing Committee (SC) at the pinnacle of Party and Chinese government power whose decisions are driven by completely private discussions behind closed doors.

The facts. China has rapidly emerged in the 21^st century as global leader in renewable resource development. China’s leadership and success in helping build a global efficient renewable resource system is absolutely crucial if we are to escape climate change driven global ecological catastrophe. Our collective futures are suddenly, to a considerable extent, in President Xi’s hands given the Trump administration’s opposition to effective action on climate change and support for accelerated coal, oil,and natural gas development.

China is manufacturing and installing solar electric and wind energy systems at an astounding rate. China is responsible for 40% of global renewable energy growth according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Last year, global solar electric (PV) capacity grew by 50%, over 74 gigawatts, with China responsible for almost half of this. By 2022 the IEA forecasts global PV capacity will expand to 920 gigawatts. China, with India soon to follow, is leading the way.

Global investment in renewables now exceeds that in fossil fuel plants. China is also global market leader in electric vehicles, hydropower and biomass systems. China is, as well, global leader in reforestation. China has begun implementing a carbon tax that is being systematically applied across all aspects of the economy,not just on power generation. It will gradually ramp up to help send clear signals for sustainability. China, the largest market for low quality recycled plastic has just banned such imports in part to encourage domestic recycling, and in part to refuse to being the destination for foreign garbage. Building an ecological civilization is official Chinese policy, both at home and internationally. This is a matter of collective self-interest for all of us.

As the United States under Trump pulls out of foreign trade agreements and embraces protectionism and nativism, China is quickly filling the void. Australia’s leading trade partner, for example, is China. China is now the world’s second largest economy, and still growing rapidly at a 6.5 % annual rate.

China is pursuing the multi-trillion dollar One Belt One Road investment program to connect China on land and sea to Asia, Africa and Europe ,investing in building roads, rail, ports, power plants, power lines. In countries like Pakistan, Chinese investment has become a major economic and political fact of life. One Belt One Road can play out as sustainable co-development that builds economic vitality for all and win-win for all with China as central hub. Or will One Belt One Road lead to imposed stringencies upon debtor countries, neo-colonialism with China as the new master instead of the IMF, World Bank and U.S., using debt to ensnare the credulous and gaining control of natural resources? Success of One Belt One Road will depend on China pursuing fair and equitable partnerships sensitive to the political dynamics of dozens of nations where the realities of One Belt and One Road will be determined.

China is a very unusual one party state with the intention of becoming global economic leader. The power and influence of the Communist Party of China is not just political, but economic, financial and social. There are inherent problems inherent in continued success of a one party state. Dealing with these problems is central to President’s Xi’s program.

A unitary hierarchy with economic power presents ongoing problems of inefficiency and corruption including the protection of inefficient state controlled provincial enterprises, manipulation and abuse of investment and finance, and vanilla kleptocratic behavior. A feature of Xi first five years have been very strong anti-corruption efforts that disciplined and punished Party members. Less well known have been efforts to strengthen rule of law and a conditionally independent judiciary . An independent judiciary in China must accomplish the most difficult dance within the context of a one party state where President Xi is the ultimate decider. An independent judiciary with Chinese characteristics is key not just to a belief in fairness and equity, but for the conduct of business with China both nationally and internationally.

China is a one party state that is becoming global economic leader whose ecological conduct and leadership has become key to our common survival. It is a system that allows considerable personal autonomy but not political opposition to the rule of the Communist Party.

There is every reason to make common cause with China in the pursuit of global economic development and sustainable economic growth. We should offer China partnership and cooperation for meeting common goals and encourage our Chinese partners to honor the rights of Chinese citizens in their constitution. China, under President Xi Jinping is focused on a carefully considered long term plan for building a prosperous and sustainable China as a global leader. It is a project that we all can support in our mutual self-interest. To pursue trade war and military confrontation with China is a grave error.

Iraq to End Decades-Old Policy of Semi-Independent Rule in Kurdistan

Patrick Cockburn 

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is triumphant as he describes his country’s security forces driving out Isis from its last strongholds in western Iraq. “Our advances have been fantastic,” he said in an interview with The Independent in Baghdad. “We are clearing the deserts of them right up to the border with Syria.” Isis is being eradicated in Iraq three years after its columns were threatening to capture Baghdad.

Once criticised as vacillating and weak, Mr Abadi – who became Prime Minister in August 2014 – is now lauded in Baghdad for leading the Iraqi state to two great successes in the past four months: one was the recapture of Mosul from Isis in July after a nine-month siege; the other was the retaking of Kirkuk in the space of a few hours on 16 October without any resistance from Kurdish Peshmerga.

The son of a neurosurgeon in Baghdad, Mr Abadi, 65, spent more than 20 years of his life in exile in Britain before the fall of Saddam Hussein. Trained as an electrical engineer, he gained a PhD from the University of Manchester, before working in different branches of industry. A member of the Shia opposition Dawa party from a young age, two of his brothers were killed by Saddam Hussein’s regime and a third imprisoned. He returned to Iraq in 2003 where he became an MP and a leading figure in the ruling Dawa party.

As the man with the strongest claim to be the architect of the two biggest victories ever won by the Iraqi state, Mr Abadi’s reputation has soared at home and abroad. He is particularly pleased that there were so few casualties when Iraqi forces retook the great swath of territory disputed with the Kurds, which stretches from Syria in the west to Iran in the east. “I gave orders to our security forces that there should be no bloodshed,” he says, explaining that fighting the Peshmerga would make reconciliation difficult between the Kurds and the government.

Soft-spoken and conciliatory, Mr Abadi is determined to end the quasi-independence of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) that dates back to Saddam Hussein’s defeat after his invasion of Kuwait in 1991. He says: “All border crossings in and out of Iraq must be under the exclusive control of the federal state.” This includes the Kurdish oil pipeline to Turkey at Faysh Khabour, by which they once hoped would assure their economic independence, as well as the main Turkish-Iraqi land route at Ibrahim Khalil in the north west KRG. This crossing has been Iraqi Kurdistan’s lifeline to the rest of the world for a quarter of a century. Iraqi officials will likewise take over the international side of the airports in the Kurdish cities of Irbil and Sulaimaniyah.

These administrative changes do not sound dramatic, but they effectively end the semi-independence of the Iraqi Kurds which they had built up over the past 26 years. Kurdish president Masoud Barzani, who is to give up his post on 1 November, put these gains at risk when he held a referendum on Kurdish independence on 25 September.

Mr Abadi is in a strong position because the KRG’s two biggest neighbours, Turkey and Iran, agree with him on re-establishing federal control of the border and Kurdish oil exports. Mr Abadi says the Turks admit that “they made a mistake” in the past in dealing directly with the KRG and not with the central government in Baghdad. He emphasises  that he will not be satisfied with Iraq government officials having a symbolic “spot” at different crossing points on the border, but they must have exclusive control of borders and international flights. Asked if this would include visas, Mr Abadi says: “This is a must.”

He wants the Peshmerga either to become part of the Iraqi government security forces or a small local force. He is curious to know how many Peshmerga there really are, expressing scepticism that there are really 300,000 men under arms as claimed by the Kurdish authorities. He says: “I have been told by many leaders in Kurdistan that there is a small fighting force and the rest stay at home.”

He recalls that when he became Prime Minister in 2014 after Isis unexpectedly captured Mosul, he made inquiries as to why five Iraq divisions had collapsed. He found that the main reason was corruption and in many units half the soldiers were drawing their salaries but were not there. He suspects the Peshmerga operate the same corrupt system, which he says would explain “why they failed to defend the borders of KRG [against Isis] in 2014 and had to seek the help of the US and Iran”.

The number of the Peshmerga may be in dispute, but Mr Abadi is adamant that “I am prepared to pay those Peshmerga under the control of the federal state. If they want to have their local small force – it must not be that large – then they must pay for it.” He says that the KRG must not become “a bottomless well” for federal payments. He would also expect Kurdish government expenditure to be audited in the same way as spending in Baghdad.

If all these changes are implemented then Kurdish autonomy will be much diminished. It is easy to see why Mr Barzani is stepping down to avoid the humiliation of giving up so much of his authority. Resistance by the Kurdish leadership will be difficult since they are divided and discredited by the Kirkuk debacle. But Mr Abadi’s strength is that for the first time since 1980, the Kurds do not have any backers in neighbouring states and the US has done little during the crisis except wring its hands at the sight of its Kurdish and Iraqi government allies falling out. When Mr Barzani unwisely forced Washington to choose between Baghdad and Irbil, the Americans were always going to choose the Iraqi state.

Iraqi forces enter Kirkuk

Queried about Iranian influence on the Iraqi government. Mr Abadi is exasperated and derisive by turns, particularly about Qasem Soleimani, the director of foreign operations of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)  whose negotiations with the Kurdish leadership have been reported as playing a decisive role in the retreat of the Peshmerga from Kirkuk.

“He definitely didn’t have any military role on the ground in the crisis [over Kirkuk],” says Mr Abadi. “I can assure you that he had zero impact on what happened in Kirkuk.” Mr Abadi says that it was he himself who called the Kurdish leadership and persuaded them not to fight and to withdraw the Peshmerga from the disputed territories.

A more substantive allegation is that the Hashd al-Shaabi, the powerful Shia paramilitary units which have fought alongside the Iraqi regular forces, are sectarian and under Iranian influence or control. Asked about his recent meeting with Rex Tillerson, the US Secretary of State, who said the Hashd should “go home” or be dismantled, Mr Abadi said that there was either “a misquotation or misinformation” and Mr Tillerson seemed to be under the impression that the IRGC was fighting in Iraq and did not know that the Hashd were all Iraqis.

He said that Iraq had plenty of foreign advisers from the US, UK, France and elsewhere, including Iran, but the number of Iranian advisers was only 30, well down from 110 a few years ago. As for the Hashd, he said they had to be under government control, well-disciplined and to have no political role, particularly not in the Iraqi general election on 12 May 2018 which he pledged not to postpone.

Mr Abadi is in a strong position because he is one of the first Iraqi leaders whose government has good relations with all Iraq’s neighbours: Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. Iraq, a country deeply divided between different sects and ethnic groups, has traditionally been destabilised by domestic opponents of the central government combining with state sponsors abroad who supply money, weapons and a sanctuary. This is not happening for the moment, which is why the Kurdish leadership is so isolated.

Part of Mr Abadi’s success during the Kirkuk crisis stemmed from disastrous miscalculations made by Mr Barzani about the reaction of Baghdad and the rest of the world to the independence referendum. Bur Mr Abadi showed an acute sense of how to exploit his opportunities.Turkey and Saudi Arabia, who once supported or tolerated al-Qaeda type organisations operating in Iraq, now fear them and are frightened of their dispersal as the self-declared Caliphate is destroyed.

“We got the international community on our side,” says Mr Abadi, reflecting on the course of the Kirkuk crisis. “We made it very simple: we said the unity of Iraq is very important for combating terrorism.” The division of Iraq, through the prospect of Kurdish independence,  would open up cracks which Isis would exploit. Mr Abadi certainly knew what buttons to press when it came to getting neighbouring states on his side.  He is patient and strong-minded and the tides that once tore Iraq apart may now be running in his favour.

A Devils’ Alliance: the U.S./Israel Obstacle to Peace

Michael Hager

In Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Jeremy R. Hammond, publisher and editor of the online Foreign Policy Journal, makes a convincing case that the American government has routinely collaborated with Israel to block a genuine peace process, avoid compliance with international law and co-opt the mainstream media.

Hammond traces the conflict from the rise of Hamas in Gaza in 1987 through the U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood in 2012. His chapters on “Operation Cast Lead,” The Goldstone Report and the Gaza Flotilla Incident (“Murder on the High Seas”) are especially revealing of the U.S.-Israel complicity.

With 70 pages of detailed notes to support his case, the author cites as continuing U.S. policies:

+ Refusal to accept a two-state solution;

+ Refusal to negotiate with Hamas;

+ Refusal to call Israel to account for war crimes;

+ Opposition to Palestinian statehood; and

+ Co-option of the mainstream media.

+ The following are the book’s significant conclusions:

“Two-state solution”

In the wake of the 1967 war, the unanimously approved UN Security Council 242 laid the legal foundation for the two-state solution that we know today.  Among other things, the Resolution provided for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and “acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” Although both the United States and Israel have accorded lip service to Res.242, the book shows how both countries have worked in tandem to block its implementation. According to Hammond, U.S./Israel policies “are not premised on the equal rights of all human beings and are not intended to achieve the fulfillment of a just settlement through the application of international law.”

Negotiating with Hamas

Ignoring repeated Hamas offers of a ceasefire and a readiness to accept two-states, both Israel and the U.S. have consistently refused to negotiate with that organization, either alone or in concert with Fatah. In 2006 the U.S. refused to recognize the democratically-elected government in Gaza, plotted unsuccessfully to overthrow it and later failed to stop Israel’s collective punishment of Gazans for their election of Hamas.

Tolerating war crimes

According to Mr. Hammond, the U.S. government “condemned only the violence committed by Palestinians while giving its blessing to Israel’s onslaught.”  Both Israel and the U.S. rejected the Goldstone Report and other reports that documented IDF war crimes. A constant theme during the 2009 war on Gaza and beyond has been the refusal of Israel and the USG to acknowledge the demands of international law (e.g. mandates against the use of white phosphorus munitions and the bombing of civilian places).  As American-made arms devastated Gaza, the USG declined to criticize Israel for its attacks on schools, mosques and apartment buildings.  Hammond’s chapter on “Operation Cast Lead” is replete with examples of Israeli war crimes that the USG repeatedly failed to condemn.

Palestinian statehood 

Opposed by the U.S. and Israel in its effort to achieve statehood, the PA attempted to secure international recognition through the UN, initially by joining UNESCO.  Facing certain opposition by the U.S. in the Security Council on a bid for full UN membership, the PA managed to secure from the General Assembly an upgrade of its status to non-member observer state.  Along the way, Palestinians faced dire threats of aid cut-offs and other sanctions.

Mainstream media

Throughout the volume, Hammond cites mainstream media articles that make Israel appear the victim.  There are, for example, a number of New York Times articles that either applaud Israeli attacks on Gaza (e.g. “Israel Reminds Foes That It Has Teeth”) or blame the Palestinians for initiating conflict when the facts are otherwise.  Parroting IDF reports, western journalists have regularly emphasized Israeli losses without citing Palestinian casualties. They have tended to equate military violence, as if the Palestinians had a war machine remotely equal to Israeli might.

In its detailed review of America’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obstacle to Peace convincingly exposes USG complicity with Israel in blocking the peace process, undercutting a two-state solution (despite pious words to the contrary), resisting the demands of international law, disregarding war crimes, endorsing the Gaza blockade and opposing Palestinian statehood.  The book also offers abundant evidence of pro-Israel bias in the mainstream media, the result of which has kept most Americans in the dark.

What the book doesn’t do is explain why Israel has continued to earn the unquestioning support of the American Congress and why the mainstream media has acted as an echo chamber for Israeli spokespersons.  Is it only the backing of Zionist or Evangelical Christian constituents that fuels pro-Israel policies?   Or could it be the money that flows from the lobbyists of AIPAC-affiliated organizations to fund political campaigns, reward elected officials and offer lawmakers all-expense junkets to Israel?  Perhaps the author’s next volume will answer those questions.

In the meantime Jeremy Hammond has produced a valuable record of a U.S. collusion with Israel that resounds to the detriment of Palestinians, disrespects international law and shames America.

Indonesia: At least 47 dead in Jakarta factory fire

John Roberts

A massive explosion and blaze swept through a fireworks factory at Kosambi in Tangerang, a satellite city on the outskirts of Indonesia’s capital, Jakarta, last Thursday. Most of those trapped inside were killed or suffered horrific burns.

Of the 103 workers thought to be in the plant, at least 47 died inside the factory and 46 were injured. The workforce was largely composed of women, teenagers and at least three under-age children. A 14-year-old girl was among the dead.

Tangerang police chief Hary Kurniawan has stated that the death toll is likely to rise as a result of the severity of burns suffered by the injured. According to doctors, many have burns to 80 percent of their body and are in a critical condition. At least 10 more workers are unaccounted for.

Angry and distraught relatives crowded three hospitals in the area searching for their family members last week. They were well aware of the appalling safety record of the plant, and previous fires in similar facilities. Indonesian authorities are notorious for failing to enforce basic safety regulations in the country’s many sweatshops.

Photos from the scene have pointed to the conditions that led to the tragedy. They show a confined space in which over 100 workers were operating in close proximity to dangerous materials.

Most of the victims were burned beyond recognition. Jakarta police medical and health division chief Umar Shahab said DNA testing and dental records will be required for their identification.

A large explosion, sounding like a massive bomb occurred at around 8:30 am local time. Police said it was caused by a spark from welding in the warehouse section, igniting gunpowder used in the production of fireworks. A fire rapidly spread and the roof collapsed. Panicked workers tried to escape.

Witnesses have stated that the front gate, the only exit from the factory, was closed, preventing workers from escaping. One police account denied this, but authorities have confirmed that most of the bodies were found stacked in one area of the factory, indicating that the workers were trapped.

The devastating impact on the local community was underscored by a report in the Jakarta Post on Saturday.

Twenty of those killed and four injured came from the nearby Gang Pipa neighbourhood in the village of Belimbing. Sutisna and his wife Rohini were among those killed along with 18 of their neighbours. Sutisna was foreman at the factory. When it began operations six weeks ago, he invited his neighbours to work there.

The factory was owned by Panca Buana Cahaya Sukses (PBCS). The local Metro TV reported that, while the factory had a permit, the establishment of a fireworks factory near a residential area was contrary to existing regulations.

The authorities have sought to scapegoat individuals for the blaze, in order to obscure the safety violations that are abetted by the authorities.

Police named three “suspects”—factory owner, Indra Liyono, the company’s operational director Andri Hartanto and the welding equipment operator Subarna Ega. The first two have been interviewed by police and Ega has not been located.

The suspects face the possibility of being charged with workplace negligence causing death, punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment and a fine of 500 million rupiah ($US37,000).

However, the causes of the catastrophe lie in the ruthless exploitation of workers in so-called developing countries such as Indonesia.

The factory was set up to quickly exploit new opportunities in fireworks manufacture. In 2014, 600 billion rupiah ($US44.261 million) was being spent in Indonesia on fireworks but most were imported from China and Japan.

The state-owned PT Pindad munitions manufacturer developed plans in 2014 to expand from military products to large scale fireworks to exploit the lucrative market. Other investors have followed suit.

The workforce for these profiteers is readily available, as seen by the women and children marched by poverty from the Gang Pipa neighbourhood into the PBCS death trap.

The Indonesian economy has grown 500 percent since 1998. According to World Bank figures, this was largely based on the exploitation of cheap labour by domestic and foreign capital.

Some 80 percent of Indonesians, or 205 million people, are worse off than 20 years ago. Over 100 million live below or just above the meagre official poverty line of less than $2 per day.

Some 54 percent of the workforce is employed in the largely unregulated “informal” sector of the economy, where wages are as low as one third of those for comparable jobs in the “formal” sector.

From 2003 to 2010, the bottom 40 percent of the population increased its consumption by just two percent. In 2014 the richest 10 percent of the population consumed as much as the bottom 54 percent. Meanwhile one percent of the population controls 50 percent of national wealth.

The growth of social inequality has been accompanied by ever-more dangerous work conditions. In 2015, an estimated 2,300 workers perished in industrial accidents.

There have been a number of industrial fires in Indonesia this year affecting the poorest workers in Jakarta:

* On New Year’s Day, 23 people perished when an inter-island ferry caught fire travelling from Jakarta to Tidung Island.

* On January 19, a fire in the historic Senen Market in Central Jakarta destroyed three blocks and 500 vendors’ kiosks. It was the eighth major fire at the markets since 1974.

* On June 22, a fire swept through the Kebayoran Lama market, killing a young boy, causing one billion rupiah in damage and destroying the homes of 80 residents.

Austria: Conservatives discuss coalition with the extreme right

Markus Salzmann

Ten days after the Austrian parliamentary elections, the conservative People’s Party (ÖVP) has begun negotiations on the formation of a coalition government with the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ).

The 31-year-old leader of the ÖVP, Sebastian Kurz, had already largely adopted the xenophobic slogans of the far right during the election campaign. Now, he wants to form a government with the FPÖ, which along with even more strident policies against refugees and foreigners, intends to impose further austerity measures plus a massive buildup of the state forces.

The ÖVP is a member of the European People’s Party and aligned with the German conservative parties, the Christian Democratic Union and the Christian Social Union. It is a conservative party with one of the longest histories in Europe. For its part, the FPÖ is allied in the European parliament to the French National Front, the Italian Northern League, the far-right Dutch PVV led by Geert Wilders and other far-right parties. By opening the door to government participation in Austria, the ÖVP is also preparing the path for the integration of the far right into government in other European countries.

Kurz, who is seeking to head the new government with the support of the far right, promised talks “on an equal footing”. After the first round of talks on Wednesday, he said: “It was a positive round, it was a positive atmosphere”. The leader of the FPÖ, Heinz-Christian Strache, described the meeting as a “positive way of getting to know one another”. Both men emphasised that the new alliance should be in place by Christmas.

Both the content of the negotiations and those taking part reveal the course of the future government. Firstly, a “budget inventory” is planned as the basis for further discussions. The two parties have agreed in principle to massively reduce the country’s debt burden.

Five subgroups were formed to decide policy on a range of social and security issues. The Freedom Party is demanding that the coalition agreement reflect its own political priorities, in particular in the spheres of domestic and social policy. The party is striving to fill the post of interior minister by its leader, Strache.

This means an extreme right-winger will assume responsibility for refugee and immigrant policy in the Alpine Republic. Strache, who took over the leadership of the party in 2005, had joined a German nationalist fraternity at the age of 17 and participated in far-right paramilitary training camps. He joined the FPÖ in 1989 and was to the right of its leader at the time, Jörg Haider.

In addition to a further tightening of the country’s already restrictive asylum laws, the FPÖ aims to cut back on social benefits. Among other measures, the party plans to reduce the “political influence of social partnership structures”. By such structures the FPÖ means pensions, health care, labour rights and social housing and not the corrupt clique of trade unions, social democrats, and ÖVP and business heads who have consistently attacked and sought to paralyse the working class.

FPÖ Secretary-General Herbert Kickl, a member of the negotiating team, is favourite for the post of social minister. Kickl is a far-right ideologue. He is a former speechwriter for Jörg Haider and is behind the xenophobic election campaign slogans of the FPÖ. He heads the party’s eduction unit and advocates massive cuts in the social sector. In the coalition talks, Kickl lamented “uncontrolled immigration from non-EU states as well as the utterly rash opening of the labour market for Eastern EU states”.

Another member of the negotiating team is Norbert Hofer of the FPÖ. At the beginning of the year, Hofer narrowly lost the race for the office of president against the Green Party candidate Alexander Van der Bellen. Hofer is regarded as a candidate for the post of foreign minister.

Norbert Nemeth is also involved in the negotiations. The parliamentary leader of the FPÖ is a member of the Olympia fraternity, which the Austrian Resistance Documentation Archive has described as right-wing extremist. According to the magazine profil, Nemeth declared in 1996 his solidarity with the then-imprisoned Holocaust denier Gottfried Küssel and attacked the law banning denial of the mass murder of the Jews.

Freedom Party member Anneliese Kitzmüller is also on the negotiating team. She has close links with far-right nationalist circles. She writes for the right-wing academic magazine Aula and plays a leading role in two German nationalist academies for girls. One of the schools “Iduna zu Linz” has a penchant for ancient Germanic customs. “Strictly right-wing, traditionalist and against the anti-fascist culture of remembrance, Kitzmüller—as a negotiator of the coalition pact—can be seen as an indicator of the FPÖ’s government orientation”, profil wrote.

There is already considerable agreement between the two parties on the issue of strengthening the state. ÖVP Minister Wolfgang Brandstetter has called for a “security package”, the focus of which is the extensive monitoring of Internet communication. Police and security agencies are to receive virtually unlimited surveillance powers.

In the election nearly two weeks ago, the FPÖ won 26 percent of the vote just behind the Social Democrats (SPÖ) with 26.9 percent and the first-placed party, the ÖVP with 31.5 percent. Theoretically, a coalition of the ÖVP and SPÖ or the SPÖ and FPÖ would have a majority for a new government. Prior to the election, both the Social Democrats and the conservatives had ruled out any continuation of the previous Grand Coalition of the two parties. The Social Democrats are also not averse to forming an alliance with the far right, but this is unlikely at the moment due to internal divisions in the party.

Severe US nursing shortage accelerates rural hospital closures

Gary Joad 

Nurses in the United States comprise the largest grouping of health care professionals, numbering about 3 million, and nursing is one of the fastest growing occupations in the country. However, because of changing healthcare needs and demographic shifts, the number of nurses in the US is woefully inadequate and rapidly worsening.

There are more persons over the age of 65 than at any time in the history of the United States. By 2030, one in five persons will be 65 or over, an increase from 2010 by 75 percent to 69 million persons. By 2050, 88.5 million people will be 65 and over.

At age 65, about 80 percent of the population has at least one chronic health problem needing regular medical attention, according to the National Council on Aging. Some 68 percent have two or more chronic health problems. A USA Today analysis indicated that two thirds of Medicare recipients have several chronic diagnoses needing routine and regular care.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics notes that nursing vacancies are now emerging that will leave the US 1.2 million nurses short of what will be needed to staff US hospitals and healthcare facilities in just two years to meet the growing demand.

About 1 million US nurses are over age 50 and will reach retirement age in 10 to 15 years. By 2024, almost 700,000 nurses will retire and leave the work force. Due partially to increasing needs of an aging US population, another 500,000 nurses will be needed to safely and adequately meet the healthcare demands by 2020.

A recent Reuters report reviewed the crisis in the nursing care shortage for 20 hospitals surveyed this year. The shortage is hitting the population of the West Virginia coal mining country with life-threatening force.

The Charleston Area Medical Center is one of West Virginia’s largest employers and faces a $40 million deficit for 2017 as fewer people have private insurance, state and the federal governments slash reimbursements, and labor costs soar for a dwindling supply of nurses.

Charleston Medical will spend $12 million in 2017 for “travel” or temporary nurses, two times what the center spent 3 years ago. Ten years ago, they had no need whatever to hire temporary professionals.

Ron Moore, the vice-president and chief nursing officer for the center who retired this month, told Reuters, “I’ve been a nurse for 40 years, and the shortage is the worst I’ve ever seen it.” He added, “Better to pay a traveler than shut a (hospital) bed.”

Charleston Medical now offers to pay tuition for nursing students if they agree to stay at the center for 2 years.

The nursing shortage is a bonanza for the temporary nursing agencies financially benefiting from crisis, such as AMN Healthcare, a for-profit enterprise whose securities are traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

It is estimated that US hospitals’ expenditure for temporary nurses, working an average of 13 weeks, has doubled in the last 3 years to $4.8 billion, according to Staffing Industry Analysts, which advises governments and institutions on workforce issues worldwide.

As a result of the nursing shortage, wealthier big city and university-connected institutions are placing their smaller and rural counterparts at a disastrous disadvantage in the competition for the shrinking workforce.

The J.W. Ruby Memorial Hospital in Morgantown, Pennsylvania is on the border with West Virginia and is affiliated with West Virginia University (WVU) Medicine. J.W. Ruby spent $10.4 million this year to hire and keep nurses, compared to $3.4 million only a year ago. The complex is expanding by 100 beds as it swallows up the services formerly provided by rural facilities that are closing.

The institution offers higher pay, tuition reimbursement, $10,000 signing bonuses, and free housing for nurses that reside 60 miles or more away. J.W. Ruby administration is said to be considering paying college tuition for children of their current longer-term nursing staff to keep them at WVU.

Doug Mitchell, VP and chief of nursing services said, “We’ll do whatever we need to do (to get and keep them).”

The International Journal of Nursin g Studies published research in August confirming that short staffing of nurses was driving up the death rate after common and routine surgeries.

The University of Alabama (UAB) Hospitals in Birmingham invested millions of dollars in recruiting and retaining nurses and still finds itself 300 professionals short. Various departments have seen nurse vacancy rates at 20 percent and higher. Many low-income, poor, and uninsured patients obtain care at the university center.

Terri Poe, chief of nursing at the state’s largest hospital told Reuters, “We’ve rarely canceled a surgery or closed a bed because of a lack of staffing.” Last year, UAB wrote off $200 million for unreimbursed care and spent $4.5 million on temporary nursing services, including $3 million for staffing of postoperative care departments, compared to 2012, when UAB spent $812,000 hiring temporary nurses.

The nursing shortage in Missouri is at a record high of 5700, up 8 percent from last year. Thirty-four percent of state nurses are age 55 and older. The University of Missouri Health Care in Columbia spent $750,000 on “extras” to keep nurses, including $2000 bonuses to work in “difficult to staff units” and student debt relief. Nurses on staff were offered “referral bonuses” for colleagues who left other workplaces and signed on with the University, as well as a chance to win a trip to Hawaii.

Over 40 percent of America’s rural hospitals obtained negative financial sheets in 2015, according to The Chartis Center for Rural Health. US rural hospitals are closing at an unprecedented and alarming rate. Of 119 rural hospitals closed since 2005, over 65 percent shut down since 2010, and were centered in Texas and 15 other states that did not expand Medicaid. Of 14 rural facilities that closed between 2005 and 2016, Texas shuttered the highest number in the US. Reuters cited so-called “dire states” whose rural hospital debt threatened closure, which were Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Minnesota, New York, Alabama, and Tennessee.

Thirty-eight of the 54 rural counties in Alabama do not have obstetrical services, compared to 9 counties in 1980, according to the state’s Department of Public Health. Most pregnant women who live in rural areas must travel away from their home counties for pregnancy care, including deliveries that increase the risks to mothers and their babies. Alabama is seeing lower birth-weight infants and higher infant mortality rates, rates that are well above the rest of the US, which in turn is higher than all the rest of the G7 developed countries.

Compounding the nursing shortage, bipartisan budget cuts of federal Title VIII funding for colleges that train nurses have choked down the educational and training pipeline to replace the hundreds of thousands of professionals leaving the workforce in the next 3 to 5 years.

A recent report by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing noted, “US nursing schools turned away 79,659 qualified applicants from baccalaureate and graduate nursing programs in 2012 due to insufficient number of faculty, clinical (training) sites, classroom space, clinical preceptors, and budget constraints.” The study also noted that many nursing college faculty are aging and nearing retirement, without effective and sufficient plans for their replacement.

Pam Cipriano, president of the American Nurses Association, told the  Atlantic, “As those numbers (of nurse instructors) drop, schools have to maintain critical student-to-teacher ratios. Preparation for most nurse faculty is a doctoral degree, and you can’t just replace someone in that position. The trajectory timeline to fill jobs (for) nurse faculty (that) are retiring is much longer.”

Cipriano also said, “We saw (Title VIII) money reduced by $2.15 million this year, and when you adjust for inflation, we’ve seen a 30 percent decline in that money since 1972. To maintain our supply (of nurses) and the pipeline, Title VIII is critical.”

A 2012 study titled “United States Registered Nurse Workforce Report Card and Shortage Forecast” graded states nationwide as to the predicted nursing care shortages in hospitals, clinics and health care facilities and graded the states accordingly. The prediction was that, given budget cuts to health care carried out on a bipartisan basis, the number of states that would accrue D’s and F’s would increase from 5 in 2009 to 30 by 2030. The F-graded states, all in the US South and West, would include Florida, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico.

President Xi presides over brittle Chinese regime

Peter Symonds

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) congress ended last week with the installation of a new central committee, which then rubberstamped the appointment of the 25-member Politburo and the seven-member Politburo Standing Committee (PBSC).

The composition of these bodies—especially the PBSC, the party’s top decision-making committee—had been worked out weeks, if not months, in advance through Byzantine manoeuvring and factional deal-making that is completely divorced from the concerns and aspirations of the vast majority of the population.

Without a doubt, Xi emerged from the congress with his position greatly strengthened. His “thought”—that is, key elements of his nationalist “dream” for China to play a central role in world affairs—was entrenched in the constitution.

Xi’s supporters now dominate the two crucial party committees. Moreover, in a break with recent practice, no successor was appointed to the PBSC. This leaves open the possibility that Xi might not stand down in 2022 after the customary two five-year terms as party general secretary and China’s president.

The predominant theme in the US and Western press is that Xi is emerging as the new Mao, a dictatorial figure whose antagonistic policies are undermining the “international rules-based order” underpinned by the United States. In reality, the US, under President Barack Obama and now Donald Trump, has been engaged in a “pivot to Asia” to undermine China and prepare for war to ensure Washington continues to impose its rules and maintains its dominance.

This confrontational US stance has placed enormous pressure on the Chinese regime, which also faces mounting internal problems as the economy continues to slow and the debt-ridden financial system is threatened with a meltdown. The huge social chasm between a tiny layer of the super-rich billionaires, whose interests the CCP defends, and the vast majority of the population, is generating enormous social tensions.

In this fraught situation, Xi has emerged not so much as an unchallengeable political strongman, but as a Bonapartist figure, who serves to safeguard party unity by moderating, arbitrating and, if necessary, suppressing the myriad competing and conflicting interests in the CCP’s massive bureaucratic apparatus.

The British-based Economist commented last month: “His predecessors, Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin, were appointed mainly to continue Deng’s [Xiaoping] reforms. Mr Xi was appointed to save the party. The notion that the Communist Party might need saving will sound peculiar. Although China experiences tens of thousands of anti-government demonstrations each year, these are local affrays which are mostly reactions to greedy local governments...

“Yet that is not how Mr Xi saw matters in 2012. To him, and to the elite who chose him as China’s leader, the party faced an existential crisis.” After relating a warning by Xi about the fate of Emperor Chu [murdered in 202 BC], the article continued: “It is not ancient history that frightens Mr Xi. It is the disintegration of the Soviet Union. For him, everything begins and ends with the party... If it collapses, so will the country.”

Since assuming the post of CCP general secretary in 2012, Xi has accumulated significant powers in his hands. He has restructured the Chinese military—the People’s Liberation Army—to concentrate control in the Central Military Commission, which he chairs. He has sidelined Premier Li Keqiang, whose post traditionally puts him in charge of economic affairs, by blaming Li for the country’s economic woes, particularly the 2015 stock market plunge. Xi now determines policy, including on financial and economic matters, through an array of so-called leading small groups that answer to him.

Xi has also exploited a vast anti-corruption purge, led by his trusted supporter Wang Qishan, to eliminate key rivals and weaken factional opponents. More than 1 million out of 88 million CCP members have been investigated and at least 100,000 have been indicted, including more than 150 “tigers” or officials above the rank of vice-minister.

Just months before the congress, a leading contender to take over from Xi in 2022, Sun Zhengcai, was dismissed from the powerful post of CCP boss in the major city of Chongqing, disgraced and finally expelled in September. Conveniently, the corruption scandal enabled Chen Min’er, who is widely regarded as Xi’s protégé, to be installed in his place.

However, Xi’s accumulation of power is a sign of the CCP’s deep fissures and tensions. While the composition of the Politburo and PBSC has strengthened Xi’s position, he has been careful to maintain a factional balance and, in the main, to observe the unwritten rules governing the party leadership since the late 1980s.

The new Chinese leadership

Despite widespread speculation to the contrary, anti-corruption boss Wang Qishan, 69, was not reappointed to either committee. If he had been reinstalled, it would have been a breach of the de-facto retirement age of 68 and a sign that Xi himself might not retire in 2022 and seek a third term. All the current PBSC members are due for retirement in 2022.

Li Keqiang also held onto his position and a PBSC seat, in the face of some conjecture in the media that he might be ousted. Li is aligned with one of the party’s two main factions—the Communist Youth League faction of ex-President Hu Jintao—which has been seriously weakened over the past five years. Xi is more closely connected to the so-called Shanghai Gang of former President Jiang Zemin, although Xi has established his own bases of support.

The various rival “gangs” and factions are not simply based on personalities. Rather they represent the competing interests of various sections of big business, the state bureaucracy and the military, as well as the state-owned enterprises. Insofar as policy differences exist, they are tactical in nature. Those like Li who advocated accelerated pro-market restructuring and a more conciliatory approach to the US have been increasingly marginalised.

However, ousting Li could have provoked factional warfare inside the party. As well as Li, the Communist Youth League faction gained an additional PBSC seat through the appointment of Wang Yang, vice-premier of the State Council, China’s cabinet, and widely seen as an aggressive proponent of pro-market restructuring.

The five other PBSC members, all with close ties to Xi, are:

* Li Zhanshu, director of the party’s General Office, has effectively operated as Xi’s chief of staff and frequently travels with him. He and Xi worked together at the start of their careers in Hebei province and transferred to Xi’s home province of Shaanxi.

* Wang Huning has worked closely with Xi to develop his ideology and policies. As head of the party’s Central Policy Research Office since 2002, he has served Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao and now Xi. Wang also often travels with Xi.

* Zhao Leiji served as party secretary of Shaanxi province and is seen as part of Xi’s “Shaanxi Gang”. He was head of the party’s powerful Organisation Department prior to the congress and is slated to take over from Wang Qishan as anti-corruption chief, in charge of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection.

* Han Zheng is aligned with the “Shanghai Gang,” having served as Shanghai mayor and then party boss. He was Xi’s deputy when Xi was Shanghai party boss in 2007 and cemented his relations with Jiang Zemin’s faction. Han has been mooted as a replacement premier should Li Keqiang be removed before the 2022 congress.

Xi has also strengthened his position in the 25-member Politburo, which includes the seven PBSC members and an additional 18. According to some analysts, as many as 15 Politburo members have close ties to Xi.

Moreover, while no one in the PBSC is eligible to replace Xi in 2022, there are three contenders in the Politburo who are young enough to serve 10 years as president and CCP general secretary. Two of the three—Chen Min’er and Ding Xuexiang—are closely connected and beholden to Xi.

The third contender is Hu Chunhua, who is aligned with the Communist Youth League, a long time protégé of Hu Jintao and regarded as Hu Jintao’s pick for the top post in 2022. By the CCP’s informal succession rule, the top job should alternate between the two ruling factions. That means Hu should be Xi’s successor and should have been appointed to the PBSC last week.

The fact that Hu was not promoted could indicate that Xi, rather than trying to remain as president after 2022, is preparing to anoint his own successor. The most likely pick is Chen Min’er who was propelled into the significant post of party boss in one of China’s top four cities, and now has been elevated to the Politburo.

Ding Xuexiang is likewise closely tied to Xi. In 2007, he served as political secretary to Xi during his eight months as Shanghai party secretary, then in 2013 moved to Beijing to become head of the party chief office—in effect Xi’s personal secretary. He is expected to become Xi’s new chief of staff.

The new party leadership is thus the result of careful calculation. The only obvious rule that has been broken is that no successor has been nominated. As a result, Xi has left his options open: he could use the next five years to engineer a vacancy on the top PBSC and install Chen Min’er or Ding Xuexiang as his nominated successor, or move to remain in the job for another five years.

Former Australian ambassador Geoff Raby noted this week in the Australian Financial Review: “The greater power that Xi assumes and the more he acts without constraint, the more brittle the Communist state becomes.” Leaving aside the absurd reference to China as a communist state, the remark highlights the weakness of the regime.

Given the extreme geo-political tensions in Asia and the world, and the mounting economic and social contradictions in China itself, the massive CCP bureaucracy apparatus, not to speak of Xi’s schemes and manoeuvres, is likely, under the pressure of great events, to be torn by turmoil and crises.

Pentagon halts release of information on Afghanistan war

Bill Van Auken 

The Pentagon has suddenly ordered the withholding of key information on the state of Afghanistan’s security forces that have been published in quarterly reports for nearly a decade. The censoring of the data comes as the Trump administration has given the military brass free rein to escalate US imperialism’s longest war, now in its 17th year, sending thousands more troops to the South Asian country, while substantially increasing military spending.

The latest report issued by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reported that the US military command in Afghanistan had classified “important measures of ANDSF [Afghan National Defense and Security Forces] performance, such as casualties, personnel strength, attrition, and operational readiness of equipment.”

SIGAR was created by Congress in 2008 as an oversight body to monitor the vast US spending on Afghan “reconstruction,” now totaling over $120 billion, with the lion’s shares going to the country’s security forces. It also has law enforcement powers to investigate the rampant corruption and outright theft that has funneled billions of dollars of this spending into the pockets of military contractors.

The US military command has claimed that it is withholding the information on the state of the Afghan security forces at the request of officials within the American puppet regime of President Ashraf Ghani in Kabul.

In an interview with the New York Times, the inspector general, John Sopko, sharply questioned both the motives and the pretext for the US military’s censoring of the information.

“The Afghans know what’s going on; the Taliban knows what’s going on; the US military knows what’s going on,” he said. “The only people who don’t know what’s going on are the people paying for it.”

He added: “The government usually doesn’t classify good news. I don’t want any nameless, faceless Afghan bureaucrat telling the American taxpayer what they ought to know.”

The day after the issuing of the censored report saw another suicide bombing in the heart of the Afghan capital’s most heavily secured district, killing five people and wounding at least 20. The blast took place within about 500 yards of the US Embassy and near other diplomatic compounds and offices of international agencies. It is the latest in a series of such blasts that have killed at least 70 people in Kabul over the past month, underscoring the Ghani government’s tenuous hold even over the capital. Last May, a massive truck bomb in the diplomatic district killed 80 people and wounded hundreds.

The only other time the US military has classified such data was in 2015 when the Obama administration was orchestrating the formal handing over of security to the Afghan security forces, and then the data was kept secret for only a few days.

The key reason for censoring the information can be found in the last uncensored report, which pointed to unsustainable losses suffered by the Afghan forces in the first four months of the year, with 2,531 troops and police killed and another 4,238 wounded. This points to an increase in the already punishing toll recorded for all of last year: 6,700 dead and 12,000 wounded.

Casualties, desertions and other sources of attrition have led to a drop of 4,000 in the total number of Afghan troops and 5,000 in that of police. Of course, the overall losses are far greater, given the continuous recruitment of impoverished youth as cannon fodder in the US-led war.

The reliability of the figures provided by the Afghan military on the strength of its forces are, in any case, suspect. It has been estimated that up to 17 percent of the Afghan National Army’s official troop total could be made up of so-called “ghost soldiers,” names of soldiers who are no longer serving, but kept on the rolls so that senior officers can collect their paychecks.

Further underscoring the crisis within the US-backed forces were the latest report’s figures indicating a “sharp increase” in so-called “insider attacks” involving attacks on the Afghan security forces and their US “advisors” by Afghan soldiers and police: “From January 1 to August 15, 2017, there have been 54 reported insider attacks: 48 green-on-green and six ‘green-on-blue’ attacks, when ANDSF personnel turned against their Coalition counterparts. This is an increase of 22 green-on-green and four green-on-blue attacks from last quarter.”

Other figures that were included in the report also point to a steadily deteriorating situation for the US-backed regime and the American occupation. Afghan forces were said to be in control of just 56.8 percent of the country’s 407 districts—the lowest share since SIGAR began keeping figures—having lost control of an additional nine districts to the Taliban over the last six months. Moreover, government controlled areas included just 63.7 percent of the Afghan population, far below the 80 percent which the senior US commander on the ground, Gen. John Nicholson, promised to Congress in February.

The report issued Tuesday also found that the number of civilian casualties inflicted by the US military and the security forces of the Afghan regime had increased by 52 percent this year, attributable in large measure to the escalation of US air strikes, with 2,400 conducted between January and September and more bombs and missiles dropped on the country than at any time since 2012, during the Obama administration’s “surge.” At least two-thirds of those killed and maimed by the US and its puppet forces are women and children, according to the report.

The day before the issuance of the censored SIGAR report, US think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies posted an analysis by Anthony Cordesman, a longtime advisor of the Pentagon, that indicated increasing pessimism within the US military and intelligence apparatus over the Afghanistan intervention.

Cordesman painted a picture of an Afghan military consisting of poverty-stricken youth forced into the army because of lack of work in a country that “has become an economic nightmare for all too many of its citizens.”

“Much of the better paid service sector in the Afghan economy collapsed with the departure of US and other foreign troops in 2012-2014,” Cordesman writes, with “all too many of the better educated and more skilled Afghans” leaving the country.

His report cites World Bank figures estimating an overall poverty rate of 39.1 percent, climbing to 46 percent in the rural areas. The bank estimates Afghan per capita GDP at just $590, making it the poorest country on earth outside of sub-Saharan Africa.

An unemployment rate estimated at between 30 and 40 percent for military age males “pushes men—especially young and inexperienced men—into the military out of sheer economic survival and without regard for patriotism or the nature of the cause,” Cordesman writes.

He describes Afghanistan as “one of the worst and most corrupt political structures and governments in the world,” lacking any “coherent political leadership” and characterized by “warlords and power brokers, and a steadily increasing dependence on a narco-economy.”

The situation, he adds, has “ominous historical precedents” that ended in the defeat of “what appeared to be a superior army.” He cites similar levels of corruption and demoralization leading to the defeat of the South Vietnamese army in 1975, the collapse of Chiang Kai-shek’s Chinese Nationalist Army in 1949 and the disintegration of Fulgencio Batista’s security forces in the face of the 1959 Cuban revolution.

In other words, US imperialism is confronting another historic debacle in its 16-year-old war in Afghanistan. Its only answer is to give the military free rein to escalate the bloodshed, increasing the number of air strikes and sending in more troops, while organizing CIA “hunt and kill” militias and drone strikes. At the same time, it is seeking to draw India into a conflict that could rapidly escalate into a broader war involving a confrontation with South Asia’s other nuclear power, Pakistan.

The suppression and censorship of information is an integral part of this escalation of a war that enjoys no significant support by the American people.