All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The power dynamic in Northeast Asia is undergoing a dramatic change against the backdrop of the “no limits” strategic partnership between China and Russia. The collapse of Kiev’s counteroffensive” and abject defeat in the war with Russia may compel Biden administration to put “boots on the ground” in western Ukraine, triggering a global confrontation, and, equally, the US-China relations are at their lowest point since their normalisation in the 1970s, while Taiwan issue may potentially turn into a casus belli of war.

To be sure, the Northeast Asian theatre is going to be a crucial arena in the brewing big-power confrontation what with the Arctic hotting up and the Northern Sea Route becoming operational, which will catapult the strategic importance of the Russian Far East and Siberia as the powerhouse of the world economy in the 21st Century combining with its present status as the world’s number one nuclear power. The outcome of the Ukraine war might be the last chance for the United States to rein in Russia from keeping its tryst with destiny. That is what makes the Far East the most consequential region for the US in its global strategy.

Symptomatic of the cascading tensions, Russian foreign ministry summoned the Japanese ambassador on Friday and a protest was lodged in extraordinarily harsh language, as it came to be known that the 100 vehicles that Tokyo innocuously promised last week to Ukraine would in reality be armoured vehicles and all-terrain vehicles. Apparently, Tokyo was dissimulating, since Japan’s export rules ban its companies from selling lethal items overseas! 

Tokyo is crossing a “red line” and Moscow is not amused. The foreign ministry statement on Friday “stressed that the administration of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida should be ready to share responsibility for the deaths of civilians, including those in Russia’s border regions… (and) driving bilateral relations even deeper into a dangerous impasse. Such actions cannot remain without serious consequences.”

Significantly, on Friday, in a video conference with General Liu Zhenli, Chief of Staff of the Joint Staff Department of China’s Central Military Commission, the Chief of the General Staff of Russian Armed Forces and First Deputy Minister of Defence General Valery Gerasimov expressed confidence in the expansion of military cooperation between the two countries and noted, “Coordination between Russia and the People’s Republic of China in the international arena has a stabilising effect on the world situation.” 

The Chinese media later reported that the two generals agreed that Russia will participate (for the second time) in the Northern/Interaction-2023 exercise organised by China, signalling a new framework of China-Russia joint strategic exercises alongside the  joint air patrol over the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea by their strategic bombers. By the way, the sixth such joint air petrol was conducted on Tuesday since the practice began in 2019. 

The big picture is that the shift in Japanese policies through the past year — close alignment with the US regarding Ukraine; copying the West’s sanctions against Russia; supply of lethal weaponry to Ukraine, etc. — has seriously damaged the Russo-Japanese relationship. On top of it, Japan’s re-militarisation with American support and its  growing ties with the NATO (which is lurching toward the Asia-Pacific) makes Tokyo a common adversary of both Moscow and Beijing. 

The imperative to push back this resurgent US client is strongly felt in Moscow and Beijing, which also has a global dimension since Russia and China are convinced that Japan is acting like a surrogate of American dominance in Asia and is subserving western interests. On its part, in a turnaround, Washington now actively encourages Japan to be an assertive regional power by jettisoning its constitutional limits to rearmament. It pleases Washington that Japan pledged a long-term increase of over 60 percent in defence spending. 

What worries Moscow and Beijing is also the ascendance of revanchist elements — vestiges of Japan’s imperial era — in the top echelons of power in the recent period. Of course, Japan continues to be in denial mode as regards its atrocities during the period of its brutal colonisation of China and Korea and the horrific war crimes during World War 2. 

This trend bears striking similarity to what is happening in Germany, where too the pro-Nazi elements are reclaiming habitation and a name. Curiously, a German-Japanese axis is present at the core of Washington’s strategies against Russia and China in Eurasia and Northeast Asia. 

The German Bundeswehr is expanding its combat exercises in the Indian and Pacific Oceans and will deploy more naval and air force units to the Asia-Pacific region next year. A recent German report noted, “The intensification of German participation in Asian-Pacific regional manoeuvres is taking place at a time when the United States is carrying out record-breaking manoeuvres in Southeast Asia, in its attempts to intensify its control over the region and displace China as much as possible.”

Japan’s motivations are easy to fathom. Apart from Japanese  revanchism which fuels the nationalist sentiments, Tokyo is convinced that a settlement with Russia over Kuril Islands is not to be expected now, or possibly ever, which means that a peace treaty will not be possible to bring the World War 2 hostilities to an end formally. Second, Japan no longer visualises Russia to be a “balancer” in its  troubled relationship with China. 

Third, most important, as Japan sees the rise of China as a political and economic threat, it is rapidly militarising, which in turn creates its own dynamic in terms of both upending its power position in Asia as also integrating itself with the West (“globalising”). Inevitably, this translates as promoting NATO in the Asian power dynamic, something that cuts deep into Russia’s core national security and defence strategies. Consequently, whatever hopes the strategists in Moscow had nurtured in the past that Japan could be weaned away from the US orbit and encouraged to exercise its strategic autonomy have evaporated into thin air. 

Arguably, in his zest to integrate Japan into the US-led “collective West”, Prime Minister Kishida overreached himself. He behaves as if he is obliged to be more loyal than the king himself. Thus, on the same day that President Xi Jinping visited Moscow in March, Kishida landed in Kiev from where he went to attend a NATO Summit and openly began lobbying for establishment of a NATO office in Tokyo. 

Kishida followed up by hosting NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg in Tokyo and giving him a platform to berate China publicly from its doorstep. There is no easy explanation for such excessive behaviour. Is it a matter of impetuous behaviour alone or is it a calculated strategy to gain legitimacy for the ascendance of revanchist elements whom Kishida represents in the Japanese power structure?

To be sure, Northeast Asia is a priority now for China and Russia, given their overlapping interests in the region. NATO expansion to Asia and the sharp rise in the US force projection bring home to the defence strategists in Beijing and Moscow that the Sea of Japan is a “communal backyard” for the two countries where their “no limits” strategic partnership ought to be optimal. The Chinese commentators no longer downplay that the Russian-Chinese military ties “serve as a powerful counterbalance to the US’ hegemonic actions.” 

It is entirely conceivable that at some point in a near future, China and Russia may begin to view North Korea as a protagonist in their regional alignment. They may no longer  feel committed to observe the US-led sanctions against North Korea. Indeed, if that were to happen, a host of possibilities will arise. The Russian-Iranian military ties set the precedent. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) met China’s State Councillor and Defence Minister Li Shangfu (L), Moscow, April 17, 2023

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Abstract

A little over 75 years ago, a Japan-designed Asia-Pacific community collapsed, leaving not only Japan, but much of the region, in chaos. Millions were dead, with cities left in ruins. Important lessons the world—and many Japanese people—took from the catastrophe of the Asia-Pacific War and the demise of the Japanese Empire were incorporated in the American-crafted constitution of Japan that took effect one year later, which pledged under Article 9 that Japan would forever renounce “war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes,” adding that “land, sea, and air forces … will never be maintained.” That pledge remains, unrevised but steadily emptied of content, and the 1946 aspiration to create a new kind of state, one resting on the “peace” principle, has been largely forgotten. Over subsequent decades, the US, which had imposed Article 9 on an occupied Japan, came to regret its recrafting of Japan as a “peace state,” and began steadily exerting pressure on it to revive and expand its military. Thus, with US encouragement, Japan has, over time, indeed built formidable land, sea, and air forces, evading constitutional proscription by calling them “Self-Defence” forces (rather than Army, Navy, and so on). 

*

Regional states with good reason to know and fear Japanese militarism, Australia included, also abandoned their commitment to the idea of permanent demilitarisation. The constitution being steadily sidelined, by early 21st century Japan was already one of the world’s great military powers, poised on the brink of further, massive expansion. 

Figure 1: Japanese military expenditure, 1952-2021

In December 2022, the Government of Japan announced a series of measures designed to substantially elevate the country’s already significant military posture, doubling military expenditure from one-percent of GDP (the NATO level) and expending a grand total of around 43 trillion yen ($US 335 billion) over the five-year period to 2027, bringing it to number three in the world for military spending (after only the United States and China).1  Among other things, Japan is to purchase missiles (with the potential to strike enemy bases in China and Russia as well as North Korea), plus large quantities of attack and reconnaissance drones, F-35 stealth fighters, submarines, and warships.2 It also declared readiness, under certain conditions, to carry out pre-emptive attack on threatening enemy forces.3 The Article 9 principle renouncing war has clearly been degraded to an extreme degree.

Under Abe Shinzo (Prime Minister 2006-7, 2012-2020) and subsequent governments, responding to persistent and unequivocal US demands, Japan committed substantial resources to upgrading the existing US facilities on Okinawa Island. A major new facility in the north for the US Marine Corps to replace the obsolescent Futenma began construction, while at the same time, Self-Defence Force installations (basically missile, anti-missile and intelligence gathering electronics) were built in the outlying islands of Amami, Mage, Miyako, Ishigaki, and Yonaguni. Mage and Yonaguni constitute key components of the overall project.

First Island Chain

Significant US military presence—approximately 26,000 US personnel, or half the total stationed in Japan—is positioned on Okinawa Island, where most attention has been focused on the hugely unpopular and still hotly contested Henoko base being built there by Japan for the US Marine Corps to replace the obsolescent Futenma. Meanwhile, Japan over the past decade has steadily expanded its own military (Self-Defence Force) presence on its lesser known islands. Under strong US pressure, it has deployed, or is in the process of deploying, missile and counter-missile units in a series of new or under-construction bases, decisively changing the character of the Ryukyu island chain that stretches from Kagoshima to Taiwan, via

  • Mage, area 8.5 kms2, population zero
  • Amami, area 306 kms2, population 73,000
  • Okinawa, area 1,206 kms2, population 1.4 million 
  • Miyako, area 204 kms2, population 46,000
  • Ishigaki, area 239 kms2, population 48,000
  • Yonaguni, area 28 kms2, population 1,669 

In geographical terms, a line drawn from Kagoshima City in western Japan to the northern shores of Taiwan passes through these islands, and Japan and the US believe that, when or if the need arises, they can “bottle up” and deny China access or egress to or from the Pacific Ocean that lies beyond it. Japan’s southwestern frontier islands serve as a key component in this US-Japan “first island chain” China containment strategy. 

Neither Mage, to the north and closest to Kagoshima, nor Yonaguni, to the south and just 110 kilometres from the coast of Taiwan, are named on the attached Google satellite photograph. Appearing there meely as insignificant blue dots, both nevertheless demand attention.4 Mage, adjacent to the Japanese space industry island of Tanegashima, was initially chosen to house US carrier-based fighter jet take-off and landing exercises, but gradually evolved into a project to accommodate all three of Japan’s military forces (Ground, Sea and Air Self-Defence Forces) together with unspecified numbers of their US counterparts, under a US sharing arrangement that ensured ultimate Pentagon coordination, control, and command of Japanese military operations throughout the adjacent seas. Construction of this unprecedented Mage Island facility commenced in January 2023 and is projected to take four years.5 As for Yonaguni, close enough to Taiwan that on a clear day its mountains may be seen and occasional Taiwan friendship missions have landed on Yonaguni beaches from motorized jet skis, went furthest of Japan’s outlying islands in developing a distinctive post-Cold War vision for an East China Sea community. However, the community split over the choice between the government’s commitment from about 2011 to install a major military installation on the island and the “peace” vision of 2004. Vision proponents eventually failed in a February 2015 island referendum to win the majority they needed.6 A site was chosen, barracks and other installations installed, and in March 2016 a 160-strong Ground Self Defense Force unit marched in.

Mage and Yonaguni, both once renowned for the richness of their biodiversity, are thus to become centres for the preparation and conduct of war. 

East China Sea from Space (Google)

Filling in the Blank Spots

Throughout the Cold War decades, what distinguished the southwestern islands (other than Okinawa itself, where major units of US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps are entrenched) was the absence of US military installations. Undefended, they posed no threat and so were themselves unthreatened. Those who knew the islands in their pre-military base days – this author among them – remember them as idyllic. But to bureaucrats and Self-Defence Force brass in Tokyo, and to the Pentagon, the absence of such military forces signified a blank spot to be filled. From 2010, the defence of the southwestern islands gradually became of paramount importance in national defence doctrine. The raison d’être for these Okinawan islands became their positions as US-Japan bastions from which to project force in the service of the regional and global hegemonic project, ultimately for “containing” China and addressing any “Taiwan contingency” or war over it.7

Japanese military spending steadily rose throughout the Cold War, but remained, until 2020, below the self-imposed one percent of GDP limit set in 1976. First, under former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, that restriction was set aside. Later, in 2022, the government announced a commitment to spend up to two percent of GDP on military each year by 2027. In 2021, military expenditure reached 5.9 trillion yen ($54.1 billion) and a further 26 percent increase, to 6.8 trillion yen, was projected for 2023.8 This considerable expansion allows Japan to update maritime and air systems and to acquire new weapon systems designed for counterstrike purposes. Over 80 percent of the planned aircraft and most of the long-range missiles will be procured from US arms producers.

The nominal reason for the militarization of the so-called “first island chain” is to defend Taiwan in case of a “contingency,” the sobriquet by which war over Taiwan between China and Taiwan has come to be contemplated since former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s statement that “a Taiwan contingency would be a Japan contingency.”9 Yet, it is clear that the much broader role assigned the first island chain is to position US-Japan power in a place where they can contain a rising China in the region that has come to be known as the Indo-Pacific. The US insists on its own “full-spectrum dominance,” meaning global economic, technological, and military hegemony, and to the extent that it challenges or appears to challenge that prerogative, China “threatens” the US. Consequently, over and under the East China Sea, battleships and aircraft carriers, missile and counter-missile systems, fighter jets and submarines—not only Japanese and American, but also British, French, Australian, Canadian, and German—rehearse a possible future war between a US-led coalition of the willing and China.10

A sane defence policy for a country such as Japan—or indeed for any sane country—would be one that attached highest importance to avoiding, rather than striving to “win,” any such war. This is for two reasons. Firstly, any East Asian war today or tomorrow would be a missile war, involving naval and air power, and could conceivably become a nuclear war. Missile and anti-missile units are now being rushed to the southwestern islands, including 400 “off the shelf” Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles for which Japan suddenly placed an order (at a cost of about 21 billion yen, or $1.6 billion) late in 2022.11 However, such missiles, capable of attacking forces within a 1,500-kilometre radius (including major centres in Russia, China, and North Korea) would provide little defensive reassurance for the roughly 160,000 people living on those Islands, who would surely be targeted in the earliest exchanges of such a war. Secondly, regardless of whoever “wins” this war, damage and devastation is assured for all sides of the conflict. Contemplating such catastrophe, Okinawans recall their sacrifice in the spring of 1945 in the final battle of the Pacific War, which took the lives of more than one-fourth of the civilian population. Japan’s authorities might issue an “alert” warning in case of conflict breaking out, as was done on the occasion of several recent North Korean missile launches, but in 2023 as in 1945 there would be simply no time for the Okinawan civilians to be withdrawn to safety, and indeed nowhere to go.  

500 Years of Friendship

The irony is that the Okinawa now being militarized and readied for war with China not only has no dispute with today’s China, but has a 500-year-long history of friendly interchange with it (in Ming and Qing dynasties) and the Okinawan people (as Okinawa-based scholar Doug Lummis puts it) “do not share the militaristic Japanese Bushido ethic.”12 There is no evidence of the Chinese resorting to violence in its relations with the Ryukyu authorities over those multiple centuries, and the exchanges are still remembered and celebrated in Naha today. The experience of Okinawan incorporation in the modern Japanese state, conversely, was accompanied with great violence, from the torture-induced assent by Ryukyu kingdom elites to the absorption of the Ryukyu Kingdom and its territories into Japan in 1879, through the violent attempts to crush the distinctive Okinawan language and identity since then, followed by the catastrophe of 1945 when Okinawa alone among Japanese territories suffered the horror of land war.13 The violence continues even today, with ongoing assault from the contemporary Japanese state trying to break the Okinawan will for a non-militarized East China Sea community identity.14

Belatedly, the Okinawan prefectural government today appears to have realized that to overcome the threat of war, it must shift its emphasis from preparing for war to creating peace. This author recalls having urged a former (1990-1998) Okinawan governor, Ota Masahide, to combat militarist agendas by taking initiatives to build an East China Sea peace community, hosting leaders of East China Sea states at Naha to figure out an appropriate agenda of peace and cooperation. That suggestion went nowhere, as shortly after our conversation, Governor Ota was driven from office by an intense national government campaign. Reading now of today’s Okinawan Deputy Governor Teruya Yoshimi’s visit to the newly appointed Chinese ambassador to Japan,Wu Jinghao, to press upon him a meeting between today’s governor, Tamaki Denny, and China’s President Xi Jinping,15 I could only reflect that the urgency of such steps is so much greater now than during Ota’s office as governor.

From January 2023, Japan assumed a globally significant role with its two-year membership of the United Nations Security Council beginning and, simultaneously, holding the chair of the G-7 group of industrial states. After visiting major G-7 countries (France, Italy, UK, Canada), Prime Minister Kishida called on President Joe Biden in Washington. He stressed throughout the need for strategic coordination between Japan and the NATO states (under US direction) and support for the US/NATO war in Ukraine. The statement to which he and Biden added their names on 13 January referred to the Japan-U.S. alliance as “the cornerstone of peace and security in the Indo-Pacific region,” and to “Japan’s bold leadership in fundamentally reinforcing its defence capabilities.” In the fine print was the ominous message that the US would defend Japan “using all capabilities, including nuclear weapons.”16 Such explicit reference to the “deterrence” afforded by the US nuclear umbrella was rare, raising the question of whether Kishida had sought it in advance. In any case, the nuclear nature of the US-Japan relationship was made plain. So too was the threat to the people of these southwestern frontier islands as, increasingly, people in neighboring China perceive them to be “anti-China.”

The post-World War II Asia-Pacific settlement thus continues to morph from the 1947 declaration of peace towards war preparation. While China, outraged by US-Japan led attempts to freeze it out of regional and global institutions, pours its formidable and rapidly growing resources into its military, reinforcing its presence in the East and South China Seas in particular, Japan deploys tanks and missiles to remote East China Sea Japanese islands, conducts evacuation drills, and urges local residents to make contingency plans for war. The US Marine Corps, meanwhile, “re-purposes” its Okinawa-based units, facilitating their deployment to farther, further islands and arms them with anti-ship missiles for use against Chinese shipping in the event of any Taiwan “contingency.” 

Early in 2023, Japan reached agreement with NATO on the establishment in Japan of an Asia-Pacific NATO liaison office, to open in 2024.17 From a Chinese point of view, such steps could only be seen as part of the process of consolidation of a global anti-China front. If a peaceful East Asian community of nations is to be constructed, it is certain that Okinawa, at the centre of the East China Sea, will be its centre, and if it cannot be constructed, the prospects for peace in both Okinawa and Japan will be dim.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Gavan McCormack is emeritus professor of Australian National University, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, and author of many books and articles on aspects of modern East Asian history. Much of his work has also been translated and published in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese.

Notes

Ministry of Defense, Government of Japan, National Defense Strategy, 16 December 2022; Yuka Koshino, “Japan’s transformational national security documents,” International Institute of Security Studies, Online analysis, 21 December 2022. https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2022/12/japans-transformational-national-security-documents/

Nick Allen, “Japan to spend $480b to boost its firepower,” Sydney Morning Herald, 19 December 2022.

Iida Masahiro, “Teki kichi kogeki noryoku to anpo hosei,” Sekai, April 2022, pp. 50-61. 

For further details on Mage and Yonaguni, see my The State of the Japanese State (Renaissance Books, 2018)at pp. 155-157 (Mage) and 149-154 (Yonaguni), and Konishi Makoto, Jieitai no Nansei shifuto (Shakai hihyosha, 2018).

For the base construction design: “Mageshima kichi koji’ sagyo-in shukusha o tonai ni 3,000 shitsu cho sechi e,” Minami Nihon Shimbun, 11 February 2023. On the ongoing struggle between the base project endorsing mayor and the civic opposition, Konishi Makoto, “’Mageshima’ o meguru shicho to shimin no kumon,” Okinawa Times-plus, 27 January 2023, https://www.okinawatimes.co.jp/articles/-/1092536.

McCormack, pp. 149-150.

For a comprehensive account of the “shift to the southwest,” Ogata Osamu, “Okinawa/Nansei shoto, kyugeki ni susumu misairu kichika,” Nomoa Okinawa sen nuchi du takara, Bungei shicho, No 87, 19 April 2023, http://nomore-okinawasen.org/7820.

Xiao Liang and Nan Tian, “The proposed hike in Japan’s military expenditure,” SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), 2 February 2023.

“Taiwan yuji wa Nihon yuji,” “Abe moto shucho ga Taiwan no shinpo de,”Asahi Shimbun, 1 December 2021.

10 Gavan McCormack, “Global Agendas 2022 – NATO and RIMPAC, Asia Pacific Journal – Japan Focus, 1 July 2022. See also Tom Hazeldine, “The North Atlantic Counsel, Complicity of the International Crisis Group,” New Left Review, 63, May-June 2010.

11 Handa Shigeru, “Shin anzen hoshoron,” No 59 “Tsukaikata sae wakarazu ‘bakubai’suru tomahoku,” Shukan kinyobi, 24 March 2023, p. 28.

12 C. Douglas Lummis, “Japan declares Okinawa a ‘combat zone’ in possible war with China,” Pearls and Irritations, John Menadue, 15 March 2022.

13 See my “Ryukyu/Okinawa’s trajectory from Periphery to Centre, 1600-20015,” Sven Saaler and Chrisopher W.A. Szpilman, eds, Routledge Handbook of Modern Japanese History, Routledge, 2018, pp. 118-134.

14 On the Okinawan aspiration for a peace-rooted and base-freed East China Sea identity, see Satoko Oka Norimatsu and Gavan McCormack, Resistant Islands: Okinawa Confronts Japan and the United States, Lanham, Maryland, 2nd edition, 2018.

15 Amaki Naoto, “Tai-chu jishu gaiko ni kaji wo kitta Okinawa no dai eitan to Okinawa no shonenba,” Amaki Naoto no meru magajin, 1 April 2023, https://foomii/00001.

16 The Whte House, “Joint Statement of the United States and Japan,” 13 January 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/01/13/joint-statement-of-the-united-states-and-japan/

17 Daniel Hurst, “Nato planning to open Japan office to deepen Asia-Pacfic ties – report,” The Guardian, 3 May 2023.

Featured image: Japan is moving to remilitarize despite its pacifist constitution. Image: Shutterstock via The Conversation

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Japan’s Drive for Military Greatness in the Lengthening Shadow of US-China Confrontation
  • Tags: ,

Queensland Labor Delegates Vote Against AUKUS

June 8th, 2023 by Alex Bainbridge

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

A motion supporting the AUKUS pact between Australia, Britain and the United States was rejected by Queensland Labor delegates at its conference in Mackay over June 3-4.

The Guardian and Labor Against War (LAW) reported that 229 delegates voted against an Australian Workers Union-aligned motion to congratulate the federal government on the AUKUS agreement.

“Conference congratulates Albanese Govt investing in the AUKUS agreement. An agreement that will create jobs for the country, establish and retain a new industry being nuclear science and secure our nation in the future” was supported by just 140 delegates.

LAW reported that Queensland Labor president John Battams, Queensland MPs Ali King and Jonty Bush and former federal Bowman candidate Donisha Duff voted against the motion. Left faction powerbroker and United Workers Union Garry Bullock abstained, as did Labor Secretary Kate Flanders.

Electrical Trades Union (ETU) delegates successfully moved an additional motion calling for a ban on nuclear-powered submarines entering Queensland waters.

Annette Brownlie, President of the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN), told Green Left: “IPAN congratulates the ETU Queensland/NT for maintaining its historic work to keep Queensland nuclear free”.

LAW welcomed the conference decision, tweeting “the fight is just starting to turn this terrible policy around”.

This is the latest indication that there is significant opposition to the militaristic AUKUS pact within Labor’s ranks.

Since former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating made a blistering attack on the AUKUS submarine deal at the National Press Club last November, opposition to AUKUS inside Labor has grown.

LAW spoke out at a May 24 protest in Gadi/Sydney and announced its formation at the South Coast Labour Council’s May Day in Port Kembla, where unions and community groups made a point of rejecting a submarine base.

Anti-AUKUS campaign groups are also organising public actions to educate and involve more of the public, such as the May 27 protest in Walyalup/Fremantle.

The Australian Anti-AUKUS Coalition (AAAC) has just announced a protest against AUKUS will be organised outside Labor’s national conference in Meanjin/Brisbane on August 18.

“This is military madness and many unions and others in the labour movement, including former Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, have criticised the deal,” AAAC said.

“This is money that could be spent on housing, health, aged care, education, renewable energy, increasing the Jobseeker allowance and more. It also risks provoking an arms race, or even war with China, which will come at the cost to workers everywhere.”

*

[This is the anti-nuclear resolution successfully moved by ETU delegates at the Queensland state Labor conference.]

Anti-nuclear

Therefore, we move that the 2023 Queensland Labor Party Conference adopt the following motion:

1. The Queensland Labor Party categorically opposes the manufacture/construction of nuclear-powered/armed submarines or vessels in Queensland, including but not limited to Brisbane or any other Queensland port current or future port facility. This opposition is based on concerns over safety, environmental impact, and public sentiment.

2. The Queensland Labor Party will actively engage in public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about the potential risks and consequences associated with nuclear-powered/armed submarines or vessels. This initiative aims to foster informed public discourse and encourage community support for the opposition f such vessels in Queensland waters.

3. The Queensland Labor Party is called upon to immediately reject any proposal to store nuclear waste generated by the proposed submarines or any other military nuclear waste in this state.

4. The state government is called upon to, in this term of government introduce amendments to the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2007 and any other legislation required to meet commitments outlined in 1-4 above.

By adopting this motion, the Queensland Labor Party reaffirms its commitment to the safety, environmental sustainability, and public sentiment of our state. We recognise the need for clear and unequivocal opposition to nuclear-powered submarines or ships in Queensland waters and call upon the Queensland Labor Government to publicly declare and commit to this stance.

We believe that this position aligns with the values and aspirations of our party and will contribute to the well-being and future prosperity of Queensland. We can make a difference and ensure we continue to live in a state that rejects the use of nuclear power as a source of energy by also ensuring we do not expose the people of this state to its toxic legacy through military use.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: South Coast Labour Council Secretary Arthur Rorris at the May Day rally in Port Kembla on May 6. Photo: Peter Boyle

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Labor has a bill before parliament which, if passed, would exempt nuclear plants on nuclear-propelled submarines from two other important laws — the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 aims to insert a paragraph into these two laws to exempt “a naval nuclear propulsion plant related to use in a conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine” from the “requirements” of each of them when they refer to “nuclear power plants”.

This is not only alarming, it is illogical to make a distinction between controls and protections on a nuclear plant providing power to propel conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines and a land-based nuclear power plant: it is still a nuclear power plant.

In fact, a nuclear power plant on a submarine needs the same, or more, protection requirements as a nuclear power plant on land.

The uranium which will be used in the proposed SSN (a hull classification system denoting nuclear-powered submarines) is enriched to the level used in nuclear weapons.

It is more dangerous to the naval staff than conventional uranium-fired nuclear power plants, as they live and work in very close proximity to the nuclear power plant powering the submarine.

When docked in a port, residents living nearby are exposed to the toxic impact of possible radiation leaks from the submarine’s nuclear power plant.

If passed, the amendments to exempt a nuclear power plant on board a nuclear-propelled submarine from the safety requirements of these two Acts amount to a betrayal of naval staff operating the submarines and the wider public especially those living close to the ports servicing these lethal weapons.

Members of parliament have never been given an opportunity to discuss or vote on joining the trilateral AUKUS security treaty which allowed for the nuclear-powered submarine technology is to be transferred to Australia.

It has never been given an opportunity to discuss the decision to buy and/or acquire nuclear-propelled submarines.

Here is one — possibly the only — opportunity for MPs to voice their opinion on one aspect of the nuclear-propelled submarine aspect of AUKUS.

The Senate has referred this dangerous bill to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. It will report by June 9.

It was only introduced and read on May 10 and submissions to the inquiry close on May 26. The government is clearly trying to get its dangerous amendments through with as little discussion as possible.

You can send your opposition submission here.

There are many reasons this bill is irresponsible and must be opposed.

1. The AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines are to be deployed in a hunter-killer role, and would be subject to enemy attack. A torpedo attack on a nuclear-powered submarine would release toxic radiation from the power plant and its enriched uranium fuel: this toxic pollution would remain for generations to come.

2. It is authoritarian to minimise public and parliamentary discussion about such a move.

3. It is irresponsible because the AUKUS nuclear-propelled submarines depend on US technology to be built as well as for their maintenance and operation.

4. This means that Labor’s alignment to US foreign policy will have to be maintained to gain and maintain access to this technology. This means Australia loses the ability to make decisions in the best interests of its people.

5. It may well draw Australia into a US war against China, which will lead to economic distress not just for us but the nations and peoples of the Indo-Pacific region.

6. Australia is not under military threat from China, or any other country; it does not need nuclear-propelled hunter-killer submarines — designed for forward deployment.

7. The huge cost — $368 billion with substantial blow-outs expected — means less ability to address serious social needs including public housing, hospitals, education, nurses and teachers and transitioning to renewable energy.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Bevan Ramsden is a long-time peace activist. He edits the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network’s monthly e-publication Voice.

Featured image: Green Left with a BAE Systems image of a design for an AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine.

NATO Is Creeping Into Asia, Warns North Korea

May 18th, 2023 by Countercurrents.org

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

North Korea’s Foreign Ministry has claimed NATO is seeking to increase its influence in Asia, citing growing “military collusion” with Japan, which hosted a delegation from the military alliance last month to discuss ways to step up cooperation.

In comments carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Monday, an official with the Foreign Ministry’s Japan Research Center, Kim Seol-hwa, said Washington is gradually pushing NATO into Asia through partnerships with regional powers.

“It is an open secret that the United States has been trying to create a military alliance like this in the Asia-Pacific region,” he said, adding that the “recent unprecedented military collusion between Japan and NATO is arousing great concern and alertness in the international community.”

Kim went on to cite recent reports that NATO is now in talks to open a “liaison office” in Japan, its first such facility in Asia. The office would be used to “conduct periodic consultations with Japan and key partners in the region such as South Korea, Australia and New Zealand,” according to the Nikkei Asia news website.

Japan Enters A Dangerous Phase

“All facts clearly show that NATO’S attempt to advance into the Asia-Pacific region through military collusion with Japan has entered a dangerous implementation phase,” the North Korean Foreign Ministry official continued, also pointing to other “confrontational alliances” such as the ‘Quad’ bloc – which Beijing has decried as an “Asian NATO” – and AUKUS pact between Australia, the UK and the U.S.

Japan-NATO Military Cooperation

Last month, Japan hosted a delegation from NATO’s Cooperative Security Division, which met with senior military leaders to “discuss the current military cooperation and opportunities to foster a stronger partnership,” as well as future joint drills with Japan’s armed forces.

Further highlighting the increased cooperation, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg sat down with Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi at the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels on April 4, where the two officials vowed to further strengthen their partnership. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida also met with the NATO chief earlier this year, after attending an alliance summit in 2022, a first for a Japanese premier.

Kim argued that NATO’s overtures to countries like Japan and South Korea were part of plans to “build a huge anti-China and anti-Russia encirclement” in the broader region, claiming the U.S.-led alliance hopes to “keep neighboring countries in check” while expanding its military footprint across the continent.

China’s Reaction To Reports Of NATO Office In Japan 

An earlier media report said:

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has urged its Asian neighbors to exercise “high vigilance” in response to media reports claiming that NATO is planning to open its first liaison office in the region, in Japan’s capital Tokyo.

Asia is an anchor for peace and stability and a promising land for cooperation and development, not a wrestling ground for geopolitical competition,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said when addressed on the issue during a briefing on Thursday.

NATO’s Continued Eastward Foray

Mao warned that “NATO’s continued eastward foray into the Asia-Pacific and interference in regional affairs will inevitably undermine regional peace and stability and stoke camp competition.”

“High vigilance among regional countries” is required in view of the U.S.-led military bloc’s attempts to gain presence in Asia, she added.

According to the Nikkei Asia outlet, NATO wants to establish a one-man station in Tokyo to be able to conduct periodic consultations with Japan and its other allies in the Asia-Pacific, such as Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea.

The idea of NATO establishing a liaison office was first raised by Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg during their meeting in Tokyo in late January. Japan must agree to fund the operations of the bloc’s mission in order for it to open in the country, Nikkei Asia added.

The abbreviation ‘NATO’ stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but the bloc has recently openly admitted that it also has interests in the Indo-Pacific. Last June, the bloc’s allies from the region participated in the NATO Summit for the first time ever.

NATO is “strengthening relations” with Japan, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand because “in today’s complex security environment, relations with like-minded partners across the globe are increasingly important to address cross-cutting security issues and global challenges, as well as to defend the rule-based international order,” the bloc said in a statement last month.

Russia, which strongly opposes NATO’s expansion towards its borders, has also criticized the bloc’s attempts to spread its activities into Asia.

NATO To Open Office In Japan

Another earlier Nikkei Asia report said:

Japan and NATO are reportedly seeking to increase collaboration in cyberspace and the U.S.-led military bloc plans to open its first liaison office in Tokyo.

According to the outlet, which cited both Japanese and NATO officials, the planned one-person station would allow, the bloc conduct periodic consultations with regional ‘partners’ such as Australia, New Zealand and South Korea.

The outlet noted that similar NATO stations are usually provided by the host nation, and that if Tokyo ends up funding a Western military foothold in Japan, it would mark a new phase in defense cooperation for the country.

Tokyo also reportedly plans to sign an Individually Tailored Partnership Program with the bloc before the NATO summit in Lithuania in July. Japan and NATO are supposedly looking to deepen collaboration in tackling cyber threats, coordinate stances on emerging and disruptive technologies, and exchange notes on fighting disinformation, Nikkei reported.

The news comes after NATO openly outlined its plans to increase cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region. In its 2022 Strategic Concept, the bloc explained the need to create new alliances by emphasizing “systemic challenge” to Euro-Atlantic security posed by China and Russia, with Moscow described as the “most significant and direct threat” to NATO.

China has also denounced NATO’s Strategic Concept, claiming it was filled with distorted facts and tainted with a Cold War mentality that smears Beijing’s foreign policy.

West Building WWII Axis-style Alliance, Says Putin

An earlier media report said:

Western countries are seeking to put together new global alliances reminiscent of those forged by the Axis powers prior to World War Two, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

Speaking in an interview with Russia 1 TV aired in March 2023, the Russian leader dismissed claims that Moscow and Beijing are forming a military bloc that could threaten the West. He described the cooperation between the two as “transparent,” adding that Russia and China make no secret about their ties in various spheres, including defense.

Meanwhile, Putin continued, the U.S. is creating new alliances, citing NATO’s new Strategic Concept as an example of such efforts. “It directly stipulates that NATO is going to develop relations with nations in the Asia-Pacific region, including New Zealand, Australia and South Korea,” he said.

Global NATO

The bloc also announced that it would endeavor to create what Putin called “global NATO,” adding that the UK and Japan recently signed a reciprocal military access agreement.

“Thant is why Western analysts themselves – not us – are saying that the West is starting to build a new axis similar to the one that was created back in the 30s by the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy, and militaristic Japan.”

The U.S.-led military bloc approved the new concept at the Madrid summit of the bloc last June, while describing Russia as the “most significant and direct threat” to NATO amid the Ukraine conflict. In a first, it also addressed the challenges stemming from China, claiming that Beijing’s “hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric” target the alliance’s security.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Asia Media International

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

It is alarming to see the rise of propaganda films in India that use art as a tool to propagate hate and create division among communities. Even Kerala, the God’s Own Country is not spared while filmmakers influenced by the fringe elements are trying to pose the state in a bad light. Thanks to the upcoming release of the film ‘The Kerala Story’ which is as propaganda as the earlier releases like the controversial film ‘Kashmir Files’. KF was criticized for spreading half-truths and fiction while claiming to be based on facts and yet it was declared as the top grosser at the box office.

The Distortion Continues 

Let’s not forget, how Kashmir Files was labeled as “propaganda” and “vulgar” by the head of the jury at the 53rd International Film Festival held in Goa, has stirred outrage in India and Israel. While the film’s makers claimed it to be an honest portrayal of the subject matter, it soon proved out to be an attempt to come up with a propaganda film thus trivializing the truth by marketing the object of hate .The head of the jury, Nadav Lapid, has stood by his initial diagnosis of the film despite the backlash it has received. However, as the head of the jury, it is his responsibility to evaluate the films objectively and provide an honest assessment of their quality.

While it is important to acknowledge and address issues faced by various communities, films that use distorted narratives and sensationalize situations for propaganda purposes can only cause more harm than good. We see the distortion continues with the advent of ‘The Kerala Story’. The filmmakers have made a baseless claim that 32,000 Hindu girls have been converted and are part of the Islamic State, without any credible source to back up their assertion. The filmmakers’ fantasy about Kerala, claiming the film to be based on a true story, is clearly meant for propaganda purposes. The film’s narrative appears to be aimed at creating a false image of the state, promoting communal tensions and creating division among communities.

When Cinema Is Used to Spread Hate?

The use of art to spread misinformation and propaganda is a disturbing trend that needs to be addressed by the authorities. Such films have the potential to create long-term damage by fueling hate and creating divisions that take years to heal. We still see the effect of Kashmir Files and it will continue to contaminate in the coming times and similar will be the story of The Kerala Story. The film claims that 32,000 Hindu girls were converted by the Islamic State. However, the paper by Adil Rasheed titled ‘Why fewer Indians have joined ISIS’ sheds light on the issue of Indian recruits to the Islamic State gives a different story. According to the paper, there are about 40,000 recruits to the Islamic State across the world, with the majority of them coming from Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Tunisia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, France, and other Middle Eastern and European countries.

In contrast, the paper reveals that less than 100 Indian migrants ever left for Islamic State territories in Syria and Afghanistan, and about 155 were detained for having links with it. This indicates that the number of Indian recruits to the Islamic State is significantly lower than that of other countries. The paper also touched on the reasons behind the low number of Indian recruits to the Islamic State. These reasons are both varied and complex. One possible explanation is that India is a predominantly Hindu country, with a large Muslim minority. The paper suggests that Indian Muslims have largely rejected the extremist ideology of the Islamic State and have instead chosen to embrace mainstream Islam. At such a helm of affair movies like The Kerala Story are nothing but an attempt to spread hate using the platform of art and films.

Wrapping up 

As responsible citizens, it is our duty to ensure that we do not fall prey to such propaganda and instead work towards building a harmonious and inclusive society. We must be vigilant in identifying and opposing propaganda films that are created to spread hate and misinformation. At the same time, it is important for filmmakers to be responsible and sensitive towards the subject matter they choose to portray in their films. The use of art to spread hate and division can have serious consequences for our society and must be strongly condemned. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that propaganda films that seek to spread misinformation and create communal tensions do not gain any traction.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Mohd Ziyaullah Khan is a Sr. Content Writer/Content Head in an IT & Digital Marketing Company in Nagpur.

Ten Strategies to Stop a War in the Asia-Pacific

May 5th, 2023 by Dr. Reihana Mohideen

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

The United States’ “Pivot to Asia” was the Barack Obama administration’s military, economic and political strategy to deploy more than half the US Navy to the Pacific.

During Donald Trump’s administration, intermediate-range nuclear missiles freed up by the US’ withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019, were stationed in the Pacific.

Under President Joe Biden, Washington has brought in ships from NATO allies Britain, France and Germany to join US, Australian, South Korean, Japanese and Philippine vessels to patrol the South China Sea.

The Asia Pacific region has always been an important one for the US and the Global North imperialist bloc. It is where they have waged imperialist wars against liberation struggles in Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. It is where they have stationed military bases and military treaties, as in the Philippines, and organised political interventions to set up, or prop up, dictatorships, such as in Vietnam and the Philippines.

They relied on the newly industrialized country (NIC) economic “development” model of integration, as in South Korea, especially after World War II when the primary motive was to stop the “spread of communism” in the region. Attacking and containing China and Russia was the centre-piece of this strategy.

The central aim of the “pivot to Asia” strategy and Washington’s foreign policy today is similar, but contains important differences.

It is aimed at curbing China’s rising economic weight and its rapidly increasing influence in the Asia-Pacific. Washington wants to regain strategic balance through direct competition with China. It is also concerned about the alliances China is forming, such as with Russia. 

The United States’ National Security Strategy Paper, issued last October, which many saw as a declaration of enmity, branded China as the US’s main rival.

In launching it, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan asserted that the post-Cold War détente with Beijing “is over”. At last October’s Chinese Communist Party Congress, President Xi Jinping warned that “stormy weather” was ahead.

Capitalism’s multiple crises

The US’ aggressive regional plan comes amid capitalism’s multiple crises.

The working class today continues to suffer from the combined systemic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the generalised crisis of capital, the climate emergency and rising inter-imperialist contestations.

These conjunctural crises are pushing the US towards more aggressive path on the world stage.

US imperialism is embarking on a revitalised offensive of economic and defence-based initiatives to guarantee America’s pre-eminent standing in the capitalist world order into the latter half of the 21st Century.

A cornerstone of this strategy is the “triad of aggression”: AUKUS-IPEF-Quad initiatives: AUKUS — Australia-United Kingdom-United States “trilateral security partnership,” under US command, strengthens collective security and represents a willingness to build a strong international counterforce to China.

The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF), with a dozen countries initially joining the US’ brand new neoliberal project targeting Asian markets for super-profits, is expected to undermine and outflank China’s own expanding economic influence in the region.

The Quad — the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue — involving India, Japan, Australia and the US, issued a strong statement obviously aimed at China to “strongly oppose any coercive, provocative or unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo” in the Asia-Pacific region at its summit last May in Japan.

For the US, the priority on its military offensive is leading to a rapid escalation in the militarisation of the Asia-Pacific region.

The South China Sea dispute

China claims sovereignty over the South China Sea and its estimated 11 billion barrels of untapped oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The area is also a major trade route.

Competing claimants are Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

The claimant countries’ position is that under the United Nations’ Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), they should have freedom of navigation through exclusive economic zones (EEZs) in the sea, and are not required to notify claimants of military activities.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague issued its ruling in July 2016 on a claim brought by the Philippines against China, under UNCLOS, in favour of the Philippines on almost every count. The Philippines has renamed the areas it claims as the “West Philippine Sea”.

Walden Bello, the PLM’s candidate for Vice President, described the ruling as a “flawed victory”. “The Hague verdict is not an undiluted victory for the Philippines and, at least in the short term, it will not unlock the door to peace in the region,” he said.

The PLM argues for a two-pronged approach involving both military de-escalation and multilateral agreements.

Unfortunately China has taken to making unilateral moves to secure what it sees as a defensive perimeter, instead of cooperating with other countries to reach multilateral agreements.

The PLM sees this as “bullying tactics driven by an aggressive nationalist stance”.

China has unilaterally claimed more than 90% of the South China Sea, with its infamous nine-dash line map, that has no historical or legal basis. It has moved to grab maritime formations such as Scarborough Shoal and Mischief Reef that are in the Philippines’ EEZ. There is no excuse for this. China must engage in negotiations with the ASEAN countries that have legal claims in the South China Sea to bring about a peaceful territorial settlement.

However, Beijing’s actions stem from an effort to expand its defence perimeter to protect its industrial heartland in south and south-eastern China from a potential attack from US bases and US ships that are within a striking distance of the Chinese coast.

The US has leveraged the dispute over the South China Sea to its advantage. It is using it to militarise the region, signing various military agreements, including base agreements with the claimant countries.

The Philippines signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the US in 2014 ostensibly to secure territorial claims when, in fact, it increases US military access to East Asia and undermines efforts to peacefully acquire territory through the Hague Tribunal.

Vietnam’s ‘Four Nos’

By contrast, Vietnam’s more positive move was shown by Secretary General of the Vietnamese Communist Party, Nguyen Phu Trong reiterating to Beijing, during his visit to China last year, that his government would continue to its “Four Nos” foreign policy approach in the region.

These are that Vietnam would not: join military alliances; side with one country against another; give other countries permission to set up military bases or use its territory to carry out military activities against other countries; and use force – or threaten to use force — in international relations.

Contrast this to Jose Manuel Romualdez, the Philippine Ambassador to Washington (and a relative of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr), who said the new administration might give the US permission to use its bases in the Philippines to support Taiwan in the event of hostilities. This only encourages US military adventurism.

The Marcos regime has also increased the number of US bases in the Philippines from five to nine.

Currently, the Philippines is hosting the largest ever military exercise with the US with 17,000 troops: 12,000 from the US, 5000 from the Philippines and 111 from Australia. This has been described as the “recolonisation” of the Philippines.

China could stop building military bases in the South China Sea, while the Philippines should scrap EDCA.

The process would build on previous ASEAN initiatives, such as the treaty which makes ASEAN a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) and the agreement setting up the Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone (SEANWFZ).

The bilateral talks should focus on military de-escalation, not resolving the territorial conflicts. 

ASEAN and China should schedule multilateral talks on a code of conduct to govern the maritime behaviour of all parties with claims in the South China Sea. 

Should these confidence-building measures prove successful, then ASEAN and China could begin to multilateral negotiations on exclusive economic zones, continental shelves and other sovereignty issues.

Washington’s decline, Taiwan

Washington’s aggressive approach to addressing its decline as a hegemonic power is fraught with danger.

Although Russia’s war in Ukraine is the leading trouble spot today, the Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea is a close second.

Taiwan is increasingly becoming a key piece in the US’ militarisation plans for the region.

Washington’s bellicose mood was underlined by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan last year, followed by Biden’s explicit commitment to assist Taiwan “militarily”.

While Beijing considers its sovereignty over Taiwan non-negotiable, its strategy has been to promote cross-straits economic integration as the main mechanism that would eventually lead to reunification. 

China’s overall defensive position in the region has, some argue, more changed to a “tactical offensive” position over the last two decades.

The trigger for this was Taiwan.

China launched missile drills in 1995 as payback following then President Lee’s US visit. It did so again in 1996 after Taiwan held its first democratic presidential election.

The Clinton administration responded by sending the USS Independence and the USS Nimitz to the Taiwan Straits in March 1996. This was the biggest display of US power in the region since the Vietnam War and it was intended to underline Washington’s determination to defend Taiwan by force.

Washington’s intervention revealed just how vulnerable the coastal region of east and south east China, the industrial heart of the country, was to US naval firepower. It was this realisation that prompted the change in China’s strategy, which has been unfolding since.

The PLM recognises Taiwan’s national sovereignty. At the same time we oppose the US plan to use the unresolved status of Taiwan to pursue war plans against China.

Mass anti-war movement needed

The US’ war plans will have a disastrous impact on the peoples in the region. It will also have a disastrous impact on the climate crisis.

We know that the Global North imperialist bloc is prepared to fight China to the last Filipino standing, with no concern for the destruction of the region’s ecology.

Some governments are no better: the Marcos regime is willing to be used as a US proxy in this war.

Building mass anti-war movements, based on regional and international solidarity, is key. We must use every platform, every arena of struggle to do this.

In the Philippines it took a peoples-power revolution to get rid of the two major US bases in the country — the Clark and Subic bases. On September 13, 1991, the Filipino Senate voted to reject a lease extension on the bases, ending almost a century of US military presence.

This only came about because of the large mass movement pressuring the senate and individual Senators (despite Cory Aqunio reversing her position and campaigning to keep the US bases).

The left played a crucial role in this movement. Today, as a recolonisation takes place, this is our challenge: we call it the “continuing revolution”.

The experience of the anti-Vietnam War movement in Australia, that won its key demand to pull out troops, is important to reflect on as well.

The PLM is campaigning for:

1.  All US and British imperialist troops, together with other foreign military forces, be immediately withdrawn from Asia. All US military bases and facilities across the Asia-Pacific region must be shut down.

2. Close down Five Power Defence Arrangements bases as well as all other foreign military bases in the region.

3. Dismantle Asia-Pacific-based physical forces and intelligence interception infrastructure of the imperialist-controlled Five Eyes intelligence alliance and the Echelon intelligence network.

4. Firmly uphold the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Treaty to urgently demilitarise the area and advocate and campaign for a broader Asia-Pacific-wide nuclear weapon-free zone treaty and regime.

5. Advance a common security policy by promoting progressive regional peace initiatives to foster a more peaceful and cooperative global order, especially for the Asia-Pacific region.

6. Support worldwide moves to boost the Non-Aligned Movement, especially its historically progressive principles to decrease and deescalate great power contentions.

7. Popularise the idea of a Shared Regional Area of Essential Commons, with a progressive code of conduct for the South East Asian Sea.

8. Intensify the struggles to dismantle authoritarian, ultra-rightist and fascistic regimes in the Asia-Pacific region that serve to support US imperialism. Replace them with working-class states that will advance and build socialism.

9. Reject the US’ AUKUS, IPEF and Quad (the “Triad of Aggression”). Push ASEAN, its member-states and other non-ASEAN countries in the Asia-Pacific region, to adopt an actively neutral and non-aligned stance concerning inter-imperialist rivalries, while rejecting any efforts to join the Triad of Aggression.

10. Expand and consolidate working-class solidarity and internationalism to resist and defeat US imperialism’s global manoeuvres. Renew all efforts to bolster anti-imperialist/anti-fascist united fronts for militant mass struggles at national-regional-international levels.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr Reihana Mohideen is National Council member of the Party of the Laboring Masses and the head of the party’s international work. The above was abridged from a presentation to a Socialist Alliance–Green Left forum on resisting AUKUS in Naarm/Melbourne on April 18.

Featured image: Philippine Marines join with US Marine Corps during an exercise at Naval Base Camilo Osias in the Philippines last year. Photo: US Marine Corps

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

As Aotearoa/New Zealand’s Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control within the Labour-Alliance coalition government in 1999, I was mandated to promote NZ’s opposition to nuclear weapons and membership of aggressive military blocs such as NATO to the world. And I did.

What I did not realise at the time — and should have, having read Ralph Miliband on “Parliamentary Socialism” — was that all the top brass of the NZ military, intelligence services and the top civil servants were working overtime to assure the United States’ officials that NZ would eventually return to the fold (not their words of course) as a junior imperialist power in the South Pacific and supporter of US military-led alliances. And this is what is happening.

NZ’s anti-nuclear policy and its correlative opposition to nuclear armed military blocs was based on the 1987 Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act, legislated by the then-Labour government, to reinforce membership of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty or the Treaty of Rarotonga.

These strong anti-nuclear policies, which had seen New Zealand turfed out of the ANZUS military pact by its “allies” — with Australian PM Bob Hawke being particularly insistent — were forced upon the Labour government by a vibrant mass movement that had spilled over into Labour’s base.

Labour leaders were to cynically state that conceding an anti-nuclear position was worth it, to distract attention from the blitzkrieg that forced through the neoliberal program of wholesale privatisation, deregulation and an end to free public healthcare and education. Indeed, in the period of the anti-nuclear campaign’s success, NZ suffered the implementation of the complete neoliberal agenda and roll back of the welfare state. This betrayal of the gains of the labour movement saw Labour crash in 1990 to its worst electoral defeat.

Now, Labour’s successors are implementing a new betrayal: of the gains of the mass anti-war movement. The roots of that powerful movement lay in the opposition to the US imperialist war on Vietnam, a war crime in which both Australia and NZ participated, and which, in turn fed into the mass anti-nuclear movement, opposition to South African Apartheid and the subjugation of East Timor.

Opposition to nuclear weapons and military blocs with nuclear weapons was so strong that even the conservative National Party was forced to endorse it. National’s opposition leader Don Brash told visiting US senators in 2004 that the anti-nuclear policy would be gone by lunchtime if National was re-elected. In fact, it was Brash who was gone — if not by lunchtime at least by afternoon tea — and National confirmed its commitment to NZ being nuclear free.

Former PM Jacinda Ardern — touted by the Western media as a promoter of peace and goodwill — visited the US in May last year. There she met with US President Joe Biden and Kurt Campbell, Biden’s US Indo-Pacific National Security Coordinator, among others.

Defence minister Andrew Little also met with Campbell last month and on March 23, confirmed to The Guardian that NZ was discussing joining AUKUS Pillar Two — the non-nuclear part of the defence alliance founded by Australia, Britain and the US. Pillar Two covers the sharing of advanced military technologies, including quantum computing and artificial intelligence.

Labour has also enthusiastically, but without any public discussion, become part of NATO’s Asia Pacific 4 (AP4): Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan.

It appears — from the many statements and actions and visits by the top panjandrums of the US, NATO and others — that a deal has been done on AUKUS Pillar Two and its greater integration with AP4.

Apparently AP4 is “a love at this stage that dare not speak its name”, even though NATO head Jens Stoltenberg recently proclaimed it at a speech at Tokyo’s Keio University in February, reported by Geoffrey Miller’s April 11 piece for democracyproject.nz. Stoltenberg told his audience that NATO had “in many ways … already institutionalised” the AP4 and described the four countries’ participation at the NATO leaders’ summit in Spain in 2022 as a “historic moment”, wrote Miller.

NATO Policy Planning Head Benedetta Berti will speak at the NZ Institute of International Affairs (NZIIA) conference this week — where in 2021 Campbell and Ardern performed a show of mutual admiration as the NZ PM welcomed the “democratic” and “rules-based“ US back into the Pacific, to confront China.

At NZIIA, no doubt, Berti will explain how NATO, the largest military force in the world with a nuclear First Strike policy and bases everywhere, is expanding its ties with the AP4 to contain an aggressive and militaristic China.

NZ’s foreign minister Nanaia Mahuta attended the annual NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels this month — alongside her counterparts from Australia, Japan and South Korea. Recently appointed PM Chris Hipkins will travel to the NATO Leaders’ Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, in July (in the company of other Asia Pacific members) and no doubt show Russia (and China our biggest trading partner) that we are part of Russia’s greatest fear — the continual advance of nuclear-armed NATO and its allies right up to the Russian border.

NZ’s participation in the Talisman Sabre and Rim of the Pacific military exercises and interoperability are all part of preparing NZ for this aggression.

Miller has demonstrated that the greatest betrayal has begun: NZ’s total integration into nuclear-armed NATO; participation in the containment strategy of China as part of the NATO Pacific strategy; and as part of Pillar Two AUKUS with cybersecurity etc. as part of the excuse.

There appears to be more softening up of NZ’s position to come. Recent comments I heard from Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials — that the 1987 legislation is out of date — certainly indicate as much.

Only Te Pati Maori (the Maori Party) seems prepared to fight and there is not a peep from within Labour. We have a fight (to use a militaristic term) on our hands.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Matt Robson is a former NZ cabinet minister, and served as an MP from 1996 to 2005, first as a member of the Alliance, then as a Progressive.

Featured image: A Labour contingent at a 1972 anti-Vietnam war protest in Auckland. Photo: John Miller

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on How the New Zealand Cabinet Learned to Stop Worrying About the Bomb and Love NATO
  • Tags: ,

China’s Exports Shifting From West to Global South

April 26th, 2023 by David P. Goldman

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Central Asian countries increased imports from China in March by 55% over the year-earlier month, beating the 35% jump in Chinese shipments to Southeast Asia reported previously.

Former Soviet republics as well as Turkey and Iran all contributed to a near-record gain in Chinese exports to the region, a focus of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.

China’s exports to the region have nearly tripled since 2018. The chart below includes Turkey and Iran in the Central Asian total.

Several factors contributed to the export boom, which included every country in the region.

China is investing heavily in energy, mineral resources and rail transport across the Asian continent, including a new rail line between China, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan scheduled to start construction next year.

The rail project, which will link China to European markets, has been planned since 1997 but only won approval in 2022, after Russia backed the venture. Russia’s need for Chinese support in the Ukraine war outweighed longstanding strategic rivalries between the two powers.

“The CKU railway is crucial to China for two interconnected purposes—to advance its geopolitical interests and to secure favorable relations with Central Asian elites for their support over Chinese legitimacy in Xinjiang (East Turkestan),” Niva Yau Tsz Yan wrote in a March 2023 commentary for the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

“Russia’s war in Ukraine has made new trade routes bypassing Russia more profitable, and a new Uzbek government is looking to expand regional and international engagement,” Yan wrote.

Iran’s imports from China had fallen to just US$800 million a month during 2019-2022 from a 2014 peak of $2.8 billion a month. But seasonally-adjusted Chinese shipments to Iran more than doubled to $1.7 billion in March.

Chronically short of cash, Iran depends on trade credits from China, by far its largest trading partner. The March increase evidently reflected more Chinese financing, and came after Iran accepted Chinese mediation in restoring diplomatic relations with its regional arch-rival Saudi Arabia. A reasonable inference is that Iran was being rewarded for good behavior.

China’s exports to Russia continued to rise sharply, along with exports to Turkey, which acts as an intermediary for Chinese trade with Russia. China has avoided direct violation of American sanctions on Russia, but Turkey and former Soviet republics have resold sanctioned goods to Moscow. The sharp increase in China’s exports to Kazakhstan probably reflects this intermediation.

Reuters reported on March 27 that Kazakhstan “would require exporters to file additional documents when sending goods to Russia, following reports that Russian companies have been using local intermediaries to bust Western sanctions… After the West barred sales of thousands of goods to Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine, some Kazakh businesses started purchasing such items and reselling them to Russian firms.”

China’s export prowess isn’t entirely free of tensions, though. In March, Turkey imposed a 40% tariff on imports of Chinese electric vehicles (EV’s), hoping to protect a local manufacturer. The Turkish automaker Togg plans to release its first EV later this year with a sticker price of $50,000.

A comparable Chinese model, for example, BYD’s Song sedan, sells for $27,500 in China—which means that BYD would still undercut Togg’s price despite the 40% surcharge. Meanwhile, BYD has just released its $11,300 Seagull subcompact, which has no competitor in the price range anywhere in the world.

In the kaleidoscope of Central Asian politics, a myriad of local factors explains the jump in China’s influence in the region. But all of them line up like iron filings before a magnet. China’s capacity to provide physical and digital infrastructure as well as affordable consumer goods, and its capacity to finance trade and investment out of its current account surplus, explain its economic power and political influence in the region.

There’s another geopolitical consequence of China’s export prowess in Central and Southeast Asia: China’s exports to the Global South and BRICS countries in March reached a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of $1.6 trillion a year.

That’s nearly four times China’s exports to the United States and more than the combined total of China’s exports to the US, Europe and Japan, which reached a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of $1.38 trillion in March.

That represents a geopolitical point of no return of sorts, the moment when China’s economic dependence on the United States in particular and developed markets in general slipped behind its economic standing in the developing world.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Trade containers are seen at the Horgos Port in northwest China’s Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region, February 6, 2021. Photo: Xinhua

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

While the mass slaughtering of, and slaughter by, soldiers, is always a touchy subject of commemoration, a tension has existed between those who did the fighting, and those who ordered it. Comfortably secure in furnished rooms and battle props, planners would, as they still do, draw up the blueprints, concoct the strategy, and give the orders.

In Australia, politicians should have every reason to stay out of the grief and suffering they contributed to by sending their citizenry (wait, subjects – for the State remains a constitutional monarchy) to countries they could barely spell. But the bosom and milk of British empire was, like US hegemony now, too powerful to resist. Enthusiastic, young volunteers were sent to be cut down in the fields of Flanders and the beaches of Gallipoli.

Things have not improved much since. Apart from the Second World War, which saw Australia’s own coastline threatened by the forces of Imperial Japan, Canberra has fallen into a nasty habit of sending troops to fight other people’s wars. The tendency has begun to resemble that of coke-addiction. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq stand out as mercenary missions of invasion and predation rather than defence ventures, the crude calculations of fleshy armchair strategists hankering for security and approval from foreign masters. 

The military and political tradition going back to Gallipoli in 1915 is not an enviable one; talk about being slain in the name of freedom is hollow when it comes from the invaders. In a perverse, and glorious twist of public relations, modern Turkey’s creator Kemal Atatürk knew how to turn the bad behaviour of the invasion into the good grace of forgiveness. You, soldiers of Anzac, invaded us; having died on our soil, you became our sons.

Such skilful marketing is conspicuously ignored every April 25, but remains most profitable for local vendors in Türkiye. It should also be said that, in racial and cultural terms, it clearly ignores the Armenians and those caught in the Turkification project Atatürk pursued with sanguinary tenacity. They died gruesomely, aliens in their own land.   

Around these engagements, the politician as demagogic promoter of ANZAC – the name given to both the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps and the cult surrounding it – has come to the fore. It is common, and convenient, to link the sacral elevation of the Anzac tradition – muscular, masculine sacrifice by sturdy blokes keen on freedom and the “fair go” – to Prime Minister John Howard. The process of burnishing the legend and reviving it for more contemporary consumption actually began with the Australian Labor Party, and Australia’s longest serving Labor Prime Minister, Bob Hawke.

It was his visit to Gallipoli on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings that made things turn. The meaning of the Anzac tradition, Hawke told those gathered, “forged in the fires of Gallipoli, must be learned anew, from generation to generation.” 

As wise political chief, and one who could shed a tear or two, he suggested that the meaning of the tradition “can endure only as long as each new generation of Australians finds the will to reinterpret it to breathe, as it were, new life into the old story: and, in separating the truth from the legend, realise its relevance to a nation and a people, experiencing immense change over the past three-quarters of a century.”

Contrary to Hawke’s hope, the truth from the legend has never been separated, as they never are in the context of any religion.  Faith, and denial, papers over any disparity. 

What Hawke left in brick, Howard turned into marble and sinister mythology. Anzac returned to the cult of mateship indebted to country, and it was to be exploited. Little mention would be made about political responsibility for war: the politician would extol the creed; the rest would follow. Australians gathered on April 25, he remarked on Anzac Day in 2001, were drawn by “a great silent summons to repay a debt to the past. Each year the numbers of us grow. Each year, more and more young Australians hear the call, though far removed, in time and circumstance, from those they seek to honour.”

Since then, Anzac has become a militaristic prop, a promotions exercise for arms manufacturers and the publicity for war. This was best exemplified by the decision to spend almost A$500 million over nine years to redevelop the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. The primary reason for this profligate spending: to create more room for advertising space for military hardware: jet fighters, Chinook helicopters, and the like. Disgracefully, there were arguments that making former and current service personnel see such weapons and platforms of war would supply therapy rather than despair. Suffice to say, such PR is not intended to include the victims of such weapons.

The tradition of Anzac has also done nothing to offer lessons to Australian leaders to be cautious, reflective, and wise in sending troops to foreign theatres. Hawke was hardly going to buck the trend of an automatic deployment of Australian personnel to wars waged by the US. He had, after all, been one of the keenest converts to its messages, spiked by Freedom Land’s convictions.  Despite having received no request from Washington to send a military contingent, Hawke, on August 10, 1990, proudly committed three frigates to US Operation Desert Shield.

When Howard’s conservative coalition won office in 1996, the salient lessons of needless death and foolish deployment showed the extent that Anzac was to be commemorated: as a hat doffing ceremony to war’s necessity rather than its avoidable dangers.  On Australia’s Vietnam fiasco, he “accepted the government’s position that the involvement was justified. I accepted then, and I see no reason to have changed my mind.” Students of his record should have found his instinctive throwing of Australian personnel into the US-led attacks on Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 as fairly consistent. He was never a man to learn much, and errors could never be put down to stupidity or ignorance.

Unfortunately, the current Labor government has also suffered the same condition; Anzac’s lessons of woe and suffering have also failed to filter through the current adjutants of the US empire in Canberra. When the AUKUS security pact was broached to the opposition leader Anthony Albanese by the previous Morrison government in 2021, he made the decision to approve it within twenty-four hours. He was even “proud” of the decision, noting “that the United States’s position was that a precondition of their support for AUKUS and these arrangements certainly was a bipartisan commitment.” The arrangements, including the acquisition of nuclear-propelled submarines, were preparations for war with China.

Beware, then, the warmongering jingoes perfumed in freedom-loving garb. They are bound to be the ones leading the country to a blood-soaked demise. And the Anzac legend has become the ideal, incubating vehicle for doing so, built upon the fiction of sacrificial debt rather than colossal, even criminal blunders.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Politicians and the Anzac Tradition: A Story of Manipulation and Mythology
  • Tags: ,

The Death of Over a Thousand Garment Workers in Bangladesh

April 24th, 2023 by Prof. Vijay Prashad

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

On Wednesday 24 April 2013, 3,000 workers entered Rana Plaza, an eight-story building in the Dhaka suburb of Savar in Bangladesh. They produced garments for the transnational commodity chain that stretches from the cotton fields of South Asia, through Bangladesh’s machines and workers, and on to retail houses in the Western world. Garments for famous brands such as Benetton, Bonmarché, Prada, Gucci, Versace, and Zara are stitched here, as are the cheaper clothes that hang on Walmart racks. The previous day, Bangladeshi authorities had asked the owner, Sohel Rana, to evacuate the building due to structural problems. ‘The building has minor damage’, said Rana. ‘There is nothing serious’. But at 8:57 am on 24 April, the building collapsed in the span of two minutes, killing at least 1,132 people and injuring over 2,500 more. The circumstances of the collapse were similar to the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City, where 146 people died. Tragically, a century later, garment workers are still subject to these dangerous labour conditions.

The list of avoidable ‘accidents’ in Savar is long and painful. In April 2005, at least 79 workers died in a factory collapse; in February 2006, 18 workers died in yet another collapse, followed by 25 in June 2010 and 124 in the Tazreen Fashion Factory fire in November 2012. Since the Rana Plaza devastation ten years ago, at least 109 other buildings in the area have collapsed, resulting in the death of 27 workers (at minimum). These are the deadly factories of twenty-first century globalisation: poorly built shelters for a production process geared toward long working hours, third-rate machines, and workers whose lives are submitted to the imperatives of just-in-time production. Writing about the factory regime in nineteenth-century England, Karl Marx noted in chapter 10 of Capital:

But in its blind unrestrainable passion, its werewolf hunger for surplus labour, capital oversteps not only the moral, but even the merely physical maximum bounds of the body. It steals the time required for the consumption of fresh air and sunlight. … All that concerns it is simply and solely the maximum of labour power that can be rendered fluent in a working day. It attains this end by shortening the extent of the labourer’s life, as a greedy farmer snatches increased produce from the soil by robbing it of its fertility.

Image: Poly Akhter’s mother, Shahana (38), grieves for her, 1 June 2013. Credit: Taslima Akhter

These Bangladeshi factories are part of the landscape of globalisation echoed in factories along the US-Mexico border, in Haiti, in Sri Lanka, and in other places around the world that opened their doors to the garment industry’s savvy uptake of the new manufacturing and trade order of the 1990s. Subdued countries that had neither the patriotic will to fight for their citizens nor any concern for the long-term debilitation of their social order rushed to welcome multinational clothing companies that no longer wanted to invest in factories. So, they turned to subcontractors, offering them narrow profit margins, compelling them to run their factories like prison houses of labour. The garment industry in Bangladesh, which comprises 80 per cent of the country’s total export earnings, grew entirely in security zones, offering workers few prospects to unionise. It is no wonder that these factories are a warzone.

The subcontracting process allowed multinational firms to deny any culpability for the actions of small factory owners, allowing wealthy shareholders in the Global North to enjoy profits from the lower costs of production without having their consciences stained by the terror inflicted on these workers. Men like Sohel Rana, a local tough guy who oscillated between different political parties depending on who held power, became local thugs for multinational firms. After the collapse of the building, Rana was hastily disowned by all politicians and arrested (the trial against him continues, although he is out on bail).

Men like Rana assemble workers, shove them into these shoddy buildings, and ensure that they are beaten if they threaten to unionise while elites living in the mansions of Gulshan and Banani offer small gestures of liberalism through charity and the allowance of modest, but unfulfilled, labour laws. Labour inspectors are few, and – even worse – they are powerless. As the International Labour Organisation noted in 2020, ‘Labour inspectors have no administrative sanctioning power and cannot impose fines directly. However, they can file a case in the labour court, but the resolution of these cases usually takes a long time, and the fines imposed… do not provide a sufficient deterrent’. An occasional outburst of liberal sentiment in the Global North forces some companies to ‘self-regulate’, an exercise in whitewashing the horrors of the global commodity chain. Capitalist democracy requires this alliance of brutality and reform, of neofascism and paternalism. It celebrates the Ranas of the world until they become a liability, and then it simply replaces them.

Image: This harrowing photograph, taken on 25 April 2013 in Savar, Bangladesh, has come to be known as A Final Embrace. Credit: Taslima Akhter

One day after the building collapse, Taslima Akhter went to Rana Plaza and photographed the ruins in what she saw as an act of remembrance. A selection of her photographs illustrates this newsletter. Later, Akhter published a 500-page book, Chobbish April: Hazaar Praner Chitkar (‘24th April: Outcries of a Thousand Souls’), which displays a collection of the posters put up by frantic family members looking for their loved ones and passport photographs of the dead with a brief note on their lives.

Chobbish April opens with the story of 35-year-old Baby Akhter, a swing operator at EtherTex Garment who began working at Rana Plaza only 16 days before her death. Akhter came to Dhaka from Rangpur, where her father was a landless peasant. Eighty per cent of the workers in these factories are women, and most, like Baby Akhter, migrate from conditions of landlessness. They bring with them the desolation of the countryside, its overworked soil and poisoned water ravaged by industrial agriculture as well as by the law of value that makes the small farmer redundant before the might of capitalist farms. Baby Akhter’s husband, Delowar, recalled that her luxuries were chewing paan (‘betel leaf’) and using a hand-held fan. ‘She was ready to fight any war’, he said. Her photograph exudes defiance and kindness, a smile hidden in her face.

Image: Baby Akhter. Credit: Bangladesh Garment Sramik Samhati (‘Bangladesh Garment Workers Solidarity’

Bangladeshi workers like Baby Akhter have regularly organised to fight against their wretched conditions. In June 2012, the year before Rana Plaza collapsed, thousands of workers in the Ashulia Industrial Zone outside Dhaka protested for higher wages and better working conditions. For days on end, these workers closed 300 factories, blocking the Dhaka-Tangail highway in Narasinghapur. In retaliation, the owners shut down the factories, and the state took their side, with inspector Abul Kalam Azad declaring that the factories would only re-open if the workers ‘behaved properly’. Police officers marched down the street with batons and tear gas used to ‘educate’ the workers about so-called proper behaviour. After the 2012 protests, the government set up the Crisis Management Cell and the Industrial Police, both of which ‘collect intelligence and pre-empt labour unrest in industrial areas’. When Human Rights Watch investigated the situation in 2014–15, one worker told the investigator that despite being pregnant, she was ‘beaten with metal curtain rods’. One of the owners of a big factory explained to the investigator why the violence is viewed as necessary:

Factory owners want to maximise profits, so they will cut corners on safety issues, on ventilation, on sanitation. They will not pay overtime or offer assistance in the case of injuries. They push workers hard because they don’t want to miss deadlines… Workers have no unions, so they can’t dictate their rights… Some of this can also be blamed on the branded retailers who place bulk orders and say, ‘Scale up production lines because it is a big order and improve your margins’. Even 2–3 cents can make the difference, but these companies don’t want to factor [labour rights and safety] compliance into costing.

Each of these sentences seems lifted directly from Marx’s Capital, written over 150 years ago. The harsh conditions set by the global commodity chain make Bangladesh one of the worst countries in the world to be a worker. A studypublished in January 2023 shows that during the pandemic, multinational garment companies squeezed subcontractors to cut costs, which resulted in harsher conditions for workers.

A commemoration march in 2022 on the ninth anniversary of the Rana Plaza collapse. Credit: Saifuzzaman Sium

In 1926, the All Bengal Tenants’ Conference met in Krishnanagar to form the Kirti Kisan (‘Worker-Peasant’) Party, an early communist political platform in South Asia. Kazi Nazrul Islam sang his Sramiker Gaan (‘Song of the Workers’) at this meeting, a poem that could have been written for Rana Plaza workers and for the millions who toil along a global commodity chain that they do not control:

We are mere coolies working at the machines
in these terrible times.
We are mere dupes and fools
to discover the diamond and to make a gift of it
to the king, to adorn his crown.

Hold fast your hammer, pick up your shovel,
sing in unison and advance.
Switch off the machine-light, the Satan’s eye.
Come along, O Comrade, and keep your weapon high.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: The mother of an 18-year-old missing worker, Rina, waits for her lost daughter in front of a barricade in Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 24 July 2013.  Credit: Taslima Akhter

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on The Death of Over a Thousand Garment Workers in Bangladesh

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

China’s Nuclear Supercarrier Vision Coming Into View

April 18th, 2023 by Gabriel Honrada

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

Building on the Fujian aircraft carrier’s success, China’s carrier development program is gaining steam with the recent unveiling of its nuclear-powered supercarrier concept.

This month, The Warzone reported that China’s Jiangnan Shipyard has released concept art of what appears to be a nuclear-powered supercarrier similar to the US Gerald Ford class and France’s Next Generation Aircraft Carrier.  

Although the artwork reveals few precise details, the report notes that the design has a catapult-assisted takeoff but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) configuration.

The report says the artwork shows numerous stealth aircraft similar to the FC-31 on the carrier’s deck, hinting that the plane may form the backbone of this new carrier’s air wing.

China has been incrementally approaching its carrier program, first learning carrier operations before moving on to nuclear propulsion.

Concept art of a Chinese nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Photo: DefenceTalk / Screengrab

A 2017 Center of Strategic and International Studies commentary noted that the Liaoning and Shandong both have small fighter wings, with just 18-24 J-15 fighters for the Liaoning and four more jets for the Shandong. The relatively small complement of fighter aircraft carried by both ships presents China with an offense-defense dilemma. 

Asia Times noted last August that such a small complement of aircraft poses limitations on how much of the Liaoning and Shandong’s respective air wings can be dedicated for attack or defense.

Allocating more aircraft to attack increases the vulnerability of their respective carrier battlegroups, but committing more aircraft to fleet air defense diminishes their attack power. However, the Fujian, which can carry between 50-70 aircraft, could overcome those challenges.

The Fujian is also equipped with China’s version of the electromagnetic launch system (EMALS), which uses powerful electromagnets to launch aircraft, enabling the launch of additional and heavier types of aircraft faster.

These aircraft could include improved J-15Bs, naval versions of the J-20 and FC-31, and J-600 airborne early warning and control (AWACS) planes and drones.

Moreover, Asia Times reported that China might be preparing to deploy the FC-31 stealth fighter and the FH-97A Loyal Wingman drone from the Fujian. The carrier-based version of the FC-31, dubbed the J-35, may be used for air supremacy missions.

At the same time, the improved J-15Bs perform ground and sea attacks, possibly eliminating the offense-defense dilemma associated with Liaoning and Shandong.

The J-35 may be complemented by a carrier-based version of the FH-97A, with the land-based version optimized for air-to-air operations, with a front-mounted electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) and internal weapons bay for six air-to-air missiles.

With the offense-defense dilemma possibly surmounted, the next step in improving China’s carrier warfare capabilities will be to eliminate the range and endurance limitations related to conventionally-powered ships.

Asia Times reported last October that China’s fourth carrier will most likely be nuclear-powered, with China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) developing a nuclear-powered carrier design since February 2018 and declaring that it should achieve a breakthrough in nuclear propulsion technology by 2027.

The Fujian aircraft carrier’s launch party. Image: Twitter

At present, however, China’s nuclear propulsion technology lags way behind the US. South China Morning Post (SCMP) notes in an article from last June that developing a nuclear-powered supercarrier cannot be rushed for safety and scientific reasons.

The report notes that China’s Linglong One small modular reactor, considered its most advanced model, needs to be refueled once every two or three years, compared with the reactor on a Ford-class carrier that can operate for half a century.

Nevertheless, in the event of a Taiwan contingency, a Chinese nuclear-powered carrier can reduce the need to break off operations and resupply, increase sortie rates by combat aircraft and strengthen a possible Taiwan blockade by providing a persistent presence.

Given the strategic importance of carriers, China may aims to have a six-carrier navy, with its three fleets operating two carriers each.

In such a configuration, one carrier would be on active deployment while another would undergo maintenance, refitting and crew training.

Building such a navy may already be within China’s shipbuilding abilities. Asia Times noted in February China’s massive shipbuilding production rate and its use last month of artificial intelligence (AI) to accelerate warship design processes.

As of 2022, the PLA-N was the world’s largest navy with 340 ships; the US Navy, in comparison, has only 280 ships. China also has 13 naval shipyards, with each facility having more capacity than all seven US naval shipyards combined.

China’s massive shipbuilding lead over the US can be partly attributed to its civil-military fusion strategy, with the concurrent building of warships and civilian ships in the same shipyards ensuring that its shipbuilding industry operates at capacity despite economic downturns.

The fusion strategy also applies civilian mass-production techniques and advanced technologies to naval shipbuilding, allowing it to maintain surge production capability and also circumvent sanctions targeting its military modernization program.

Moreover, China has used an AI operating on a small computer that reputedly allows it to design a warship’s electrical systems in a day. This task would have taken human designers with the most advanced computer tools 300 days to complete.

China now has more naval vessels than the US. Image: Xinhua

Although building a six-carrier navy at astonishing speed is one thing, producing the required numbers of professional sailors, airmen and marines is quite another.

Given that, Edward Luttwak noted in an UnHerd article last month that a manpower shortage has undercut the PLA-N’s spending plans.

Luttwak says that’s because young and talented Chinese who can absorb high-level technical skills are turning down military jobs due to low pay compared to the civilian sector and a reluctance to serve under strict military discipline and hierarchy.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: China is developing its first nuclear-powered submarine. The above shadowy image is of the conventional Shandong carrier. Photo: Twitter

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

*** 

More than 100 people including at least 30 children were reportedly killed Tuesday in airstrikes by Myanmar’s military dictatorship targeting opponents of the coup regime.

Witnesses and members of the opposition National Unity Government told reporters that a military jet and Mi-35 helicopter gunship bombed and strafed a gathering marking the opening of a new office of the People’s Defense Force (PDF), a militant resistance group, in the village of Pa Zi Gyi, Kanbalu Township in the country’s northwestern Sagaing region.

“This was a war crime,” Byar Kyi, a resistance fighter who helped recover victims’ bodies, told The New York Times. “The place they attacked was not a military target.”

Tom Andrews, the United Nations’ special rapporteur for human rights in Myanmar, tweeted:

“The Myanmar military’s attacks against innocent people, including today’s airstrike in Sagaing, [are] enabled by world indifference and those supplying them with weapons. How many Myanmar children need to die before world leaders take strong, coordinated action to stop this carnage?”

One villager told the BBC that the jet bombed Pa Zi Gyi at about 7:00 am local time, followed by a sustained 20-minute attack by the helicopter.

Local residents and journalists uploaded gruesome photos and videos showing dead and dismembered children, many of their bodies burned or blasted beyond recognition, lying strewn about the bombed-out village in the wake of the attack.

“The corpses cannot be identified since they are all scattered in body parts—legs and heads,” one rescue worker told The Irrawaddy, an anti-junta news site. “After gathering them all, we burned them.”

A resident of a neighboring village told the same publication that “at the moment it’s hard to say exactly how many casualties there were.”

“We haven’t been able to retrieve bodies and body parts, as the area where the air strike occurred is still burning,” they added.

Regional media also reported at least 11 deaths in a Monday airstrike on a high school run by the Chin National Defense Force in Falam Township, Chin state.

Myanmar’s military—which seized power in a February 2021 coup—frequently targets anti-regime strongholds including Sagaing and Chin state. According to a BBC analysis published at the end of January, there have been over 600 aerial attacks by the junta’s forces since the coup.

Last September, a pair of military helicopters attacked a school in Sagaing, killing at least 11 children, according to the United Nations children’s agency. The following month, regime warplanes bombed an outdoor concert in Kachin state, killing at least 80 people.

“The military continues its mindless war on our country’s own people. Their sole aim is to consolidate power through death and destruction. They will not succeed,” National Unity Government Acting President Duwa Lashi La said in a Tuesday Facebook post.

“We will continue our fight for a new Myanmar,” he added. “Our goal is a Myanmar in which such atrocities cannot occur and where power derives from the will of the people, not force of arms.”

Human rights groups amplified calls to suspend aviation fuel shipments to Myanmar’s military in the wake of the latest airstrikes.

“The relentless air attacks across Myanmar highlight the urgent need to suspend the import of aviation fuel,” Montse Ferrer, Amnesty International’s business and human rights researcher, said in a statement.

“Amnesty reiterates its calls on all states and businesses to stop shipments that may end up in the hands of the Myanmar Air Force,” Ferrer continued. “This supply chain fuels violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes, and it must be disrupted in order to save lives.”

Referring to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Ferrer added:

“Instead of taking a back seat, ASEAN must step up and play a leading role in resolving the human rights catastrophe in Myanmar. The United Nations Security Council must find ways to push through effective actions to hold the Myanmar military accountable, including by referring the situation in the country to the International Criminal Court.”

The European Union and countries including Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States have moved to block the sale, supply, and shipment of aviation fuel to the Myanmarese regime and associated companies and businesspeople.

However, a March report from Amnesty International, Global Witness, and Burma Campaign U.K. showed Asian and European companies continued to be involved in supplying Myanmar’s military with aviation fuel.

“Since the military’s coup in 2021, it has brutally suppressed its critics and attacked civilians from the ground and the air. Supplies of aviation fuel reaching the military enable these war crimes,” Ferrer said last month. “These shipments must stop now.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Brett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Featured image: This photograph shows the aftermath of an April 11, 2023 Myanmarese airstrike on the village of Pa Zi Gyi, an attack that reportedly killed more than 100 people. (Photo: Kyun Hla Kanbalu Activists Group/Twitter)

The Philippines as Springboard for US War on China

April 7th, 2023 by Jezile Torculas

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Written on February 17, 2023. 

Update as of April 6, 9:30 AM ET:

The Philippines has recently announced the additional four new EDCA sites which are as follows: Naval Base Camilo Osias in Santa Ana, Cagayan; Camp Melchor Dela Cruz in Gamu, Isabela; Balabac Island in Palawan; and Lal-lo Airport in Cagayan. 

The geographic locations of the sites are very convenient for America’s China containment strategy — three in northern Luzon with close proximity to Taiwan, and one in southern Luzon, just along the South China Sea. 

Map of the new sites encircled in red. (Image source: Nations Online Project)

Moreover, US-PH Balikatan exercises will be held on April 11-28, involving more than 17,600 members of the Armed Forces of the PH and the US military“. It is said to be the largest iteration to date.

***

The US-Philippine relations are at a detente under the new administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. This is especially evident in the strengthened military ties between the two countries, which are accelerating the full implementation of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), a pillar of the US-PH alliance. Reports from the PH Department of National Defense (DND) confirm the addition of four more agreed locations to the existing five agreed locations in strategic areas in the country. This translates to US military access of a total of nine local military bases, presence of US troops and placement of defense assets. The alliance is set to conduct their biggest war games in the second quarter of 2023, involving more troops than the previous year. This renewed vigor is occurring against a backdrop of escalating tension in the South China Sea (SCS) and a looming Taiwan conflict. 

According to the DND, the additional EDCA locations will expedite response to “shared challenges” especially on matters of regional and national security. The US feels threatened by the inevitable rise of China as a regional (and global) key player; therefore it is only equally necessary and important to reinforce its military relations with Asian friends. What is being untold is that the Philippines is used as a springboard for Washington’s war on Beijing due to its favorable proximity to Taiwan. In other words, the geographic location of the Philippines is leveraged by the US to accomplish its goal of encircling China, with the Philippines’ claimant status on the SCS as the icing on the cake. 

The SCS is a bilateral issue between the Philippines and China; it is an issue that needs bilateral agreement and resolution without the need for militarization. US-PH military exercises only send wrong signal to China, given the prevailing geopolitical circumstances. What needs to be done is for involved parties to open communication lines for bilateral talks, dialogue and negotiation. The presence of US military in Philippine soil will only escalate the tension between China and the Philippines and will subsequently disturb regional security architecture. 

The EDCA is clearly a liability more than a benefit. The Philippines should reconsider. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jezile Torculas has a bachelor’s degree in Political Science. She is an Assistant Editor at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image: Through the Balikatan 2023 Joint Mobility Coordination Center, a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III carrying equipment to support the Philippines’ oil spill response in Oriental Mindoro lands at Subic Bay International Airport on March 25. (Source: US Embassy in the Philippines)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Taiwan has pushed back against threats of retaliation by China, ahead of an expected meeting between the island’s president and the US House speaker that will underscore her administration’s claim to sovereignty.

The meeting on Wednesday outside Los Angeles comes on what is technically a stopover for President Tsai Ing-wen, after her two-country trip in Latin America to visit Taiwan’s few remaining official allies.

Tsai also met with senior security officials on Tuesday to discuss the “regional situation” ahead of her meeting with US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in California, which China has demanded not take place.

Beijing calls Taiwan as its breakaway province and balks at any official contact Taipei has with other countries.

This week it warned McCarthy, a Republican and California native who is second in line to the US presidency, that he was “playing with fire” by meeting Tsai.

“China is strongly opposed to the US arranging for Tsai Ing-wen to transit through its territory, and is strongly opposed to the meeting between House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the third-ranking US official, and Tsai Ing-wen,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters.

“It seriously violates the One-China principle and the three China-US joint communiques, and seriously undermines China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” she said.

The United States formally recognises Beijing and One-China principle, but is an important backer of Taiwan, and maintains strong unofficial ties.

Taipei enjoys strong bipartisan support in the US Congress, and has grown closer to Washington under Tsai’s leadership.

‘Threatening things’

Last year, McCarthy’s predecessor, Democrat Nancy Pelosi sparked fury in Beijing by becoming the most senior US politician to visit the island in over two decades.

That prompted Beijing to launch its largest-ever military exercises in waters around Taiwan.

McCarthy had originally planned to go himself, but has opted instead to meet Tsai at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.

His office said that the meeting would be “bipartisan,” while US media reported that over a dozen other members of Congress would attend.

The decision to meet in the United States was viewed as a compromise that would underscore support for Taiwan but avoid inflaming tensions with China.

Tsai’s visit to southern California comes after trips to Guatemala and Belize and after a brief stop in New York last week, where she was greeted by flag-waving Taiwanese expatriates.

“We have demonstrated a firm will and resolve to defend ourselves, that we are capable of managing risks with calm and composure and that we have the ability to maintain regional peace and stability,” she said in New York.

China’s consulate in Los Angeles said on Monday the meeting in California would “greatly hurt the national feelings of 1.4 billion Chinese people” and undermine “the political foundation of China-US relations.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Philippines on Monday announced the locations of four military bases that the US will now have access to under a deal Washington and Manila signed in February.

Three of the Philippine bases will be located in northern Philippine provinces, a move that angers China since they can be used as staging grounds for a fight over Taiwan. The US will be granted access to the Lal-lo Airport and the Naval Base Camilo Osias, which are both located in the northern Cagayan province. In the neighboring Isabela province, the US will gain access to Camp Melchor Dela Cruz.

The US military will also be able to expand to Palawan, an island province in the South China Sea, disputed waters that are a major source of tensions between the US and China. The US will be granted access to Balabac Island, the southernmost island of Palawan.

The new locations are on top of five bases the US currently has access to, bringing the total number of bases the US can rotate forces through in the Philippines to nine. The expansion in the Philippines is a significant step in the US effort to build up its military assets in the region to prepare for a future war with China.

The US expansion is being done under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Arrangement (EDCA), a deal Washington and Manila signed in 2014 to give the US greater access to the Philippines and allow it to build military facilities. The EDCA built on the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which provides the legal basis for the US military presence in the Philippines.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s decision to allow the US to expand significantly departs from the policies of his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, who threatened to scrap the VFA and kick US troops out of the country over US sanctions on Philippine officials related to the country’s drug war.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image source

Punjab: Democracy Under Siege?

March 29th, 2023 by Sandeep Banerjee

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

We were getting distress signals from writings of friends in Punjab and those outside Punjab but are well connected with events there. Internet suspension for days, police raids and arrests, even taking journalists to ‘custody’, imposition of Section-144, and even NIA and paramilitaries all were there apparently in search of one Amritpal who is said to be pro-Khalistan, who ‘mysteriously’ escaped arrest attempts, but all these created an atmosphere of fear. National media was not concerned with peoples’ loss of democratic space; they filled air about pro-Khalistan ‘influence’ in Punjab, machinations from abroad, particularly Pakistan, recovery of weapons and all such news-garbage. Renowned writer Amandeep Sandhu wittily wrote in his great piece on recent Punjab in Frontline magazine: “If militancy plunged Punjab into a crisis, after militancy, politicians of all hues — traditionally Congress and Akali Dal, and now the new Aam Aadmi Party — have displayed apathy and unwillingness to untie Punjab’s knots and give it the healing it needs. A former Chief Minister kept talking about security threats from across the border but never answered why Pakistan viewed the State as ready for the picking and if his own government had assuaged Punjab’s woes. The Centre deployed the Border Security Force in half of Punjab, along the India-Pakistan border, yet ironically, the drugs everyone talks about proliferates in this very belt.” [1]

But the issue is not just concerns of individuals now, for example, in a statement issued by Amarjit Singh, the Jamhuri Adhikar Sabha Punjab (Association For Democratic Rights, Punjab) declared about observing Anti Black Law protests on April 7 at Barnala, Punjab Khet Mazdoor Union (PKMU) secretary Lachman Sewewala issued protest statement on behalf of workers and working people, to mention just a few. Twitter handles of hundreds of persons were suppressed.

As the govt and the media are now seen to be keen in prolonging the Apritpal Singh – Khalistan – Foreign hand etc ‘Serial’ readers may find why the govt find it so convenient to resume new episodes and why many people outside Punjab often fall prey to the propaganda. And it is also imperative to know some ground reality about Punjab which are connected with this. Though this article might seem superfluous after getting analyses from many renowned and knowledgeable persons, but some points need to be mentioned which secular intelligentsia may find provocative or embarrassing. This article wants to visit a few such points: (1) Why Delhi Rulers and Media Can Often Portray Punjab’s Movements as Sikh’s movement (i.e., with religious connotation) OR Why Punjab’s Movements Often Look Like Sikh Movement! (2) Some Incidents During Farmers Long Protest Movement Around Delhi (3) Some Recent Events: Twist & Turn?

Why Delhi Rulers and Media Can Often Portray Punjab’s Movements As Sikh’s movement (i.e., with religious connotation) OR Why Punjab’s Movements Often Look Like Sikh Movement!

First point: It happened historically, or it is indeed a historical fact arising from Punjab’s Hindus’ abnegation of their Punjabi identity starting just after India’s independence: In the 1951 and 1961 census there were concerted efforts by Punjabi Hindus to record their language as Hindi and not Punjabi. It created the basis of further division of Punjab – into Haryana (a state and Chandigarh, an UT), after ceding places including Shimla, Punjab’s capital, to Himachal. There are so many records of this, including illuminating books by Paul. R. Brass and writings of many researchers. This did not happen spontaneously, the Arya Samaj and RSS acted with full strength to make this successful. Haryana was born on 1966.

Second point: The repeatedly wounded and amputated state of Punjab then started its own movement for the interest of Punjab, and naturally Punjabis against rulers higher-up – but take it with caution, as a “nation’s” or nationality’s interest, except in case of liberation war against imperialism, does mean the interest of the influential classes and strata of that nation or nationality, while other lower-down sections may think that to be in their interest too, or they can be made to think so, or, in worst case scenario, they may stay aloof/neutralised in conflict (of course, there could be chances of some trickling down of benefits in case that nation’s interest to some extent could be appropriated). Here came the Anandpur Sahib resolution of 1973. Though in some points it did have some religious overtones (and that is not artificial and by some legal/constitutional provision of some article, Sikhism could/can be portrayed as a sect of Hinduism) the resolution was actually addressing concern of a rising class of entrepreneurs in agriculture and also small industries who were facing heavy difficulties. It was not uncommon in India – states were reorganised and founded on linguistic-cultural, national basis and the respective nations fought for their ‘proper’ share – for example, we have long standing water dispute problems among states in the South.

Third point: In case of Punjab the agricultural entrepreneuring strata in villages and some little entrepreneurs in town were Sikhs and businessmen class was overwhelmingly urban and Hindu — to the extent that, suppose, in 1981 Rural Punjab had more than 71% Sikhs whereas Urban Punjab had more than 64% Hindus! [2]

By the way: This is also a reason why Punjab’s farmers movement look like nearly an all-Sikh movement – it is based on a stubborn fact. Moreover, the division created during 1951-1961 and afterwards, included “hate propaganda” against Punjabi and created “lot of bitterness”, according to Dr J. S. Puar. Ex-VC, Punjabi University [3].

Second and third point together led to: Anandpur Sahib resolution of 1973 was formally taken as a party resolution of Shiromani Akali Dal in 1978. Strangely, in the case of Punjab the regional/national, or as some may call it, wrongly, sub-national, movement was taken up by a party which was connected in many ways with a particular religion or its institution, unlike, say DMK or Telugu Desham, or etc. We may remember the Sarkaria Commission which was constituted in 1983 to look after centre-state relation, demands of federalism against the strong unitary way of functioning of Govt of India forgetting that the ‘State’ in India was codified as The Union of India. Shiromani Akali Dal’s movement for Punjab’s interest (please remember the caution mentioned about a nation’s or nationality’s interest) ultimately resulted in launching “Dharam Yuddh Morcha” in alliance with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale in 1982. Of course, Akali Dal had a compulsion as its students wing, Sikh Students Federation was much under influence of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. No so-alled ‘secular’ party’ did (or could) take up the agenda or part set in Anandpur Sahib resolution and led the movement. The Akali Dal, after some time, came out of the alliance. But the movement was advancing. We know the rest of this episode of 1980s, there would be stories of ‘foreign hands’, ‘international diaspora’ and so on, and it would be forgotten who joined this movement and suffered — Bhindranwale’s initial support base was poorer economically than that of Akali Dal, the movement gained more momentum in districts with higher inequalities and higher depeasantisation and etc, and also about the condition of people far below for who nobody bothered much, the Dalits, mainly landless, and labouring section, about a third of the population of the state.

As in Assam, so also in case of Punjab, after head of collisions with the state during Indira-regime, we would see one after one ‘accords’ during Rajiv-regime, Assam and Punjab got accords. Tamils of Sri Lanka too. Now we can take a little break in this historical journey, with a little reminder only: the agricultural practice enforced by the Indian Govt., the Green Revolution technology, started taking its toll on humans and nature which was much apparent by late 1980s, from presence of DDT in human breast milk to irrigation water shortage to emptying of groundwater layer and so on.

Fourth point: Just ten years ago a movement started spontaneously — Bandi Skh Rihai – and it got support from wide range of people in Punjab. Gurbax Singh Khalsa started a fast which lasted 44 days and compelled the govt. to commute death sentence of Balwant Singh, one of the imprisoned Sikhs, imprisoned for charges of terrorism. Bandi Sikh movement continued demanding release of Sikh prisoners who have already served their jail sentence but yet not released. Five years ago, 2018 on March 21, Gurbax Singh Khalsa, who was again of a fast to death with this demand, committed suicide [4].

By the few above mentioned points, we wished to express a curious fact: how Punjab’s movement often turned out to be or seemed to be a Sikh movement, in general terms, to the outside world.

Some Strange Incidents During Farmers Long Protest Movement Around Delhi

Act 1: The January 26, 2021 Red Fort Event. While all major farmers unions, who were determined to continue their protest, decided for the Million Farmers March on the Ring Road as agreed with administration, some hundreds of protesters, or some parts of the march were seen to be marching towards Red Fort and they reached there. On one side there were some Quixotic movements of tractors, clash with police, etc, a large crowd was seen around the fort and a few climbed on to raise Sikh religious flag. TV channels started a high-pitched propaganda campaign against farmers unions, their disloyalty to the ‘country’, their ‘traitorous’ nature and what not. Quickly, a ‘Khalistan’ link could be discovered by the lackey media. Whole of the farmers movement was portrayed by them as ‘separatist’, ‘traitors’ and supported by ‘foreign hands’. The religious flag hoisting was done by some Nihang Sikhs and a renowned figure of Punjab, Deep Sidhu was one of the main architects behind this who appeared the scene in a car.

Taking advantage of this, the administration tried to attack the farmers protest sites and almost evicted the farmer-protesters in Gazipur border. TV crews merrily and victoriously beamed how police were clearing up protest sites, showing senior farmer leader Tikait in tears in almost deserted site.

It took efforts of big farmers unions of Haryana and Punjab to rush thousands of tractor-loads of activists to help that camp. Thousands of farmers from Tikait’s place started marching to save the situation. And ultimately the farmers movement could be made more fortified. The unity grew farther. Some ‘positive’ lessons were learnt by farmers of western UP, and we saw the famous Lota-Nun Oath at Muzaffarpur on February 7, 2021 [5].

But how could a small part of the big farmers rally reach Red Fort when all roads towards that site were supposed to be closed at multiple points? How could Deep Sidhu and the Nihang group reach there and hoisted their flag and smoothly return by car?

Khair. Anyway, there are people who think Deep Sidhu did this courageous act and it was the correct protest, whereas all farmers unions compromised with the police and did not march to the Red Fort as was declared previously.

Act 2: October 15, 2021, the Singhu Border Event. On the early hours a dalit Sikh labourer, Lakhbir Singh from Cheema Khurd village of Tarn Taran district was found dead; he was killed by some Nihang at farmers’ protest site at Singhu Border on the allegations of sacrilege of Holy Book. The govt and BJP and naturally the media started roaring again about ‘violent farmers’, ‘anarchists’, religious terrorists and etc blemishing the farmers protest which, by then, was near to complete one year of continuous protest.

Later, the govt constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for this incident. By mid-November, The Caravan exposed how the incident was being ‘planned’ since months, how the victim was taken by a car from his village and many related facts [6]. On December 22, The News Click reported “Professor Sukhdev Singh Sohal, who specialises in the social and economic history of Punjab from Guru Nanak University, seconds Sekhon. “People know that nothing comes out of these investigations. … What happened to the case of the man who killed a Nihang at the Singhu border? What about his past and his links? Apparently, something fishy is going on,” he alleges. … Recently, the BKU Ugrahan said that whenever people raise a voice for their demands, such incidents occur to divert attention from the real issues.” [7]

We find from the above facts that there might be some design, some machination, from some quarters to bring a religious, a Khalistani hint, way back in 2021. What the BKU (Ugrahan) commented, ‘whenever people raise a voice for their demands, such incidents occur to divert attention from the real issues’, is really a big point in concern.

Moreover, the crisis ridden society does not only serve as a ground for increasing drug-menace, but also produces frustrated youth, a section of which may turn to some path which may be viewed as ‘uncalled-for’ by many observers.

Some Recent Events: Twist & Turn?

Bandi Sikh movement gave rise to a Quami Insaf Morcha which has been sitting in protest in Mohali in the beginning of this year.

Farmers organisation pledged support for this movement in early February this year. On February 1, Kisan Mazdoor Sangrash Committee members even took part in the dharna in Mohali and on February 4, Krantikari Kisan Union members joined the morcha at Chandigarh. On behalf of the biggest farmers union, BKU (Ekta Ugrahan) “Dr Navsharan Singh, … said, “We are raising the demands for release of all prisoners be it Sikh, Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims etc, who have completed their jail terms. Though we trust our judicial system but people who haven’t been released from jail even after completing their terms raises a question mark.””; and “Sukhdev Singh Kokrikalan, general secretary of BKU Ugrahan, said, “We will be organising district-level protests on February 13 to raise the demand of release of all prisoners who have completed their jail terms.” [8] BKU (Danduka) also came in support of the movement [9].

Later support poured from some other quarters: four Panthik Groups pledged their support for it on Feb 22 [10]. They started their march from Amritsar; two wheelers, cars, buses load of Panthic activists were scheduled to reach Mohali by evening.

In recent weeks, Indian Express reported: Carrying swords and sticks, the protesters, who were part of the Quami Insaaf Morcha, criticised the police for its action against the self-styled Sikh preacher and blocked a road near Gurdwara Singh Shaheedan in Mohali [photo caption]. Supporters of self-styled Sikh preacher Amritpal Singh Sunday (March 19) held a demonstration in Mohali in protest against the police crackdown against the radical leader. The protest was going on till filing of this report. The ‘Quami Insaaf Morcha’ too extended support to the protesters and condemned the police action. [11]

In lieu of conclusion

The author would like to appeal to readers who took pain to read this lengthy piece, to fight against the propaganda to malign Punjab and Punjabis.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

The author is an activist who writes on political and socioeconomic issues and also on environmental issues. Some of his articles are published in Frontier Weekly. He lives in West Bengal, India.  Presently he is a research worker. He can be reached at [email protected]

Notes

  1. What Khalistan means for the Sikhs of Punjab, Published : Mar 23, 2023 AMANDEEP SANDHU, https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/understanding-the-k-word-what-khalistan-means-for-the-sikhs-of-punjab-amandeep-sandhu/article66634435.ece
  2. Sikhs in contemporary times: Religious identities and discourses of development, Surinder S. Jodhka, Jawaharlal Nehru University, June 2009, Sikh Formations Religion Culture Theory 5(1):1-22, DOI:10.1080/17448720902935029 Future Tense, I P Singh, 5 oct 2019,
  1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/future-tense/articleshow/71408895.cms
  2. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sikh-activist-gurbaksh-singh-khalsa-commits-suicide-5105833/
  3. Lota Nun https://www.amandeepsandhu.com/?p=2416https://www.amandeepsandhu.com/?s=Lota+Nun
  4. https://caravanmagazine.in/news/singhu-lynching-lakhbir-sarabjit-nihang-sikh-lived-cheema-kalan
  5. https://www.newsclick.in/Punjab-Sacrilege-Incidents-Attempt-Divert-Attention-Real-Issues

8.https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/bku-ugrahan-demands-release-of-prisoners-who-have-completed-terms-backs-qaumi-insaaf-morcha-8430550/

  1. https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/bku-dakaunda-pledges-support-to-radical-groups-101676137043588.html
  2. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/4-panthic-groups-to-join-qaumi-insaaf-morcha-protest/articleshow/98137502.cms
  3. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/qaumi-insaaf-morcha-bats-for-amritpal-slams-police-action-8505750/

Build the Movement to Oppose AUKUS Nuclear Submarines

March 29th, 2023 by Jacob Andrewartha

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Anthony Albanese’s March 13 AUKUS announcement about how Australia would be acquiring nuclear-powered submarines is a massive escalation of militarism in the Asia-Pacific region and undermines peace in the world.

Over the next three decades Labor and the Coalition have committed to buying, building, operating and maintaining a fleet of more than eight nuclear powered submarines.

It amounts to the single biggest investment in Australia’s “defence” capacity since colonisation.

The AUKUS program also represents an extraordinary waste of public money.

The program will exceed $368 billion — more than doubling the $170 billion projected cost a week ago — with working people expected to contribute more than $3 billion over the first three years.

To do this when we face the fight of our lives to stop runaway global warming and a growing cost-of-living crisis displays utter contempt for ordinary working people.

Albanese’s enthusiasm to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States means that every part of the federal budget is under threat.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s offer to negotiate budgets cuts, including to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, to pay for the submarines was probably support Albanese could have done without, as it was made very clear who will be paying.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has been quick to rule out scrapping the $243 billion Stage Three tax cuts to help foot the submarine bill.

Labor is using the creation of just 20,000 jobs over the next 30-years in relevant industries as a selling point. By that measure, it would have to be the least sustainable jobs creation program in history.

The billions should instead be used to address funding shortfalls in education, health and housing, along with the transition to renewable to combat the biggest existential threat faced by humanity — the climate crisis. Beyond Zero Emissions’ (BZE) Million Jobs Plan showed in 2020 that more than 1.8 million jobs could be created through undertaking steps to reboot Australia as a low-carbon economy.

The government has been tight lipped on the potential environmental and health risks impacts posed by nuclear-powered submarines (Australia’s and others) docking in harbours.

It has showed zero concern over AUKUS violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, via a loophole that allows fissile material to be used for non-explosive military use such as naval propulsion.

The AUKUS submarine program also opens the door to private industries to ramp up their push for nuclear power, something the Opposition is keen to support.

Defence minister Richard Marles sought to justify Labor’s bipartisanship on AUKUS by talking up the need to safeguard “security and peace” in the Asia-Pacific region.

The opposite is true.

The AUKUS partners’ highly provocative move threatens an escalating arms race in the region. It will mean billions in profits for arms’ manufacturers, already doing very well from the war in Ukraine.

Albanese claims his government wishes to improve relations with China. However, AUKUS represents a determination by Western imperialist powers to try and block China’s growth and influence, which they regard as a threat.

China is a rising capitalist power, albeit with command-style economic characteristics and a dictatorial government that does not rule in the interests of ordinary Chinese people.

The claim that China’s growth represents a threat to the security and well-being of Australians is propaganda aimed at building public support for greater military spending and preparing us for any direct military conflict with China.

One impact of this government-media propaganda is rising racism against people of Asian descent.

The front page of The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald which interviewed five “experts” about how Australia could be at war with China within three years was the latest blatant softening-up exercise, timed just before the AUKUS announcement, and the Defence Strategic Review that is about to be tabled.

However, despite the propaganda, the public is still wary of war. A Lowy poll last year found 51% want Australia to remain neutral “in the event of a military conflict between China and the US”.

It means that many are seeing through the lies: China is not about to launch a war or invade and AUKUS is an offensive, not a defensive, military alliance.

A number of unions have passed motions opposing AUKUS, and we need to encourage more to do that.

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating’s criticism of Labor has given others in the Labor camp the courage to speak out.

This is an opportunity to rebuild the anti-war movement before any war can be launched against China.

We need a foreign policy that is based on justice and peace, not more militarism to prepare the country for a new cold war against China. We need a security policy that supports not only our needs here, but those of the people of the Asia Pacific, who are struggling with the real threat — climate change.

Socialist Alliance urges you to find and join your local anti-war group and pass an anti-AUKUS motion in your union or workplace association.

Only a broad-based movement has a chance of forcing Labor to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons — which has now taken on new urgency — and to reverse course on the madness of the AUKUS nuclear submarines.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jacob Andrewartha is a national co-convenor of the Socialist Alliance.

Featured image is by Alan Moir, moir.com.au

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On episode 27 of the show we are joined by Vladimir Zakharov, a specialist in Chinese language and literature, diplomat and orientalist. For many years he worked at the embassy of the USSR, and then of the Russian Federation in Beijing. Former Deputy Secretary General of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and senior lecturer of the Faculty of World Economy and World Politics, Higher School of Economics.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Crop damage by wild animals in Sri Lanka during the first half of 2022 totaled around 144,989 metric tons of 28 types of crops, including paddy and vegetables, and 93 million coconuts resulting in an overall loss of 30,215 million Sri Lankan rupees ($ 87.5 million), according to a new estimate.

The toque macaque tops the list of crop raiders followed by wild boar, elephant, peafowl, giant squirrel and porcupine with five types of crops most heavily damaged: coconuts, paddy, vegetables, corn and bananas.

A high-level committee consisting of experts in agriculture, veterinary science, zoology, natural sciences and conservation ecology conclude that population control of some of these animals may have to be seriously considered.

Experts also recommend a data-driven, science-based approach to solve the problem before it escalates further, as different regions may experience different facets of the problem, requiring diverse solutions.

*

Arjuna Jinadasa owns a plot of land full of coconut trees in Kurunegala, in northwestern Sri Lanka, where he enjoys a good produce of about 3,000 coconuts a month. With Sri Lanka’s traditional cuisine heavily reliant on coconut milk, it’s a crop with high demand. Jinadasa has made healthy profits from his plantation until recently — when daily aerial attacks by monkeys started to impact the harvest.

“These monkeys destroy at least 200 young coconuts daily, and now my monthly yield is reduced to about 250 coconuts,” says Jinadasa. The farmer tried many non-lethal methods to keep the raiding monkeys away, but the success was short-lived, as the primates got used to them.

Sri Lanka has three species of monkeys, but the endemic toque macaque (Macaca sinica) is also the most problematic. Coconut plantations in many areas are also often subjected to aerial attacks by grizzled giant squirrels (Ratufa macroura), as they eat young coconuts. Sri Lanka’s minister of agriculture, Mahinda Amaraweera, says nearly 100 million coconuts are destroyed by monkeys and giant squirrels each year, causing a loss of about 6,638 million Sri Lankan rupees ($19.3 million).

Amaraweera makes this comment based on a preliminary estimate of crop damage caused by wild animals compiled by the Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute. The report is based on data gathered by the Agrarian Development Department, and it lists coconut as the worst-affected crop, followed by paddy, vegetables, corn and bananas. The toque macaque tops the list of crop raiders, followed by wild boar (Sus scrofa), Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus), giant squirrel (Ratufa macroura) and Indian porcupine (Hystrix indica).

Toque macaques and giant squirrels cause the worst damage to coconuts, while elephants, wild boars and peafowl mainly target paddy (rice), Sri Lanka’s staple food. Porcupines tend to damage young coconut plants and vegetables.

Massive financial loss

The report estimates the financial loss caused by crop damage due to wild animals in the first half of 2022 as a massive 30,215 million Sri Lankan rupees ($87.5 million). “Sri Lanka is facing a severe economic crisis, and the recorded crop devastation intensifies the food crisis we already face here. The government is looking for ways to reduce the population of identified wild animals considered agricultural pests,” Amaraweera tells Mongabay.

In this backdrop, there have been many queries about the government being compelled to consider culling as a solution. “We haven’t decided yet, but we need to urgently find ways to control these pests,” Amaraweera says.

The intensification of human-elephant conflict in Sri Lanka is also linked to crop raiding. Elephants cause substantial crop damage, especially to paddy and bananas; but even though the problem continues to escalate, the animal’s status as an endangered species makes it difficult to find easy solutions and calls for urgent and alternative management practices, Amaraweera says.

The cuddlesome grizzled giant squirrel (Ratufa macroura) is Sri Lanka’s national animal but has become problematic to coconut planters who want the squirrel population brought under control. Image courtesy of Evarts Ranley.

In December 2022, the Ministry of Agriculture convened a meeting of experts from a variety of fields including naturalists, farmers and environmentalists to discuss solutions. “This is a complex problem that doesn’t have simple, ready-made solutions,” says Buddhi Marambe of the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Peradeniya, who led the committee proceedings. There are different types of stakeholders and different opinions, but all agree that these troublesome, crop-damaging animal populations need to be controlled, Marambe tells Mongabay.

The committee is continuing to discuss many possible solutions ranging from translocations to sterilization and deterrence methods, but recommendations are yet to come, says Marambe.

“We agree there is a serious need for some effective controlling mechanisms, but these solutions must be based on scientific study, “says well-known environmentalist Hemantha Withanage of the Center for Environmental Justice. “We first need to identify whether these animal populations have actually increased or animals have moved from the wilds to human habitats”.

Withanage says it is necessary to enrich the habitats of protected forests so at least the problematic animals near the forest edges can be chased back to their natural habitats. Losing the ecological balance could also be a contributory factor to the problem. A reduction in natural predators can increase these pest populations. An example is the significant reduction in Sri Lankan jackal (Canis aureus naria) populations, which has led to thriving peafowl populations, he says.

It is not just crop damage; these animals also harass villagers, so their grievances, too, must be considered when seeking solutions, adds Withanage, pointing out that the toque macaque’s problem particularly goes well beyond crop damage. Monkeys swoop into houses, stealing food and messing up households, making it difficult for people to leave doors and windows open during the day, says Dilan Chathuranga. Even if we block the entrances, these highly intelligent primates find some way to get inside. Only those who face this situation understand the suffering, Chathuranga tells Mongabay.

Sterilization programs

Ashoka Dangolla of the veterinary faculty at the University of Peradeniya has been trying to deal with the problem for more than two decades and says the translocation approach does not work. The main method used is the sterilization of female monkeys and their subsequent releasing back to the troops. It is an uphill task, but it can bear long-term results, Dangolla says.

“First, you need to catch them, and then take them for surgery. Initially, we removed the wombs but monkeys often get the stitches removed and start bleeding”, he adds. “Now we perform a laparoscopy known as keyhole surgery to do the sterilization and it is relatively safer,” Dangolla tells Mongabay.

A monkey troop has an alpha male that earns the right to mate with all the females in a troop. Theoretically, this alpha male will not allow any other male to touch the females, so many think that castrating the alpha male can lead to population control among monkeys and may prove successful. “But there are young male monkeys that manage to attract females when the alpha male is not around and take the chance to mate with females, so castrating only the alpha male may fail,” says Dangolla.

Even though animal controlling mechanisms are carried out in other countries, it would be a difficult task to execute them in Sri Lanka, where cultural and religious factors including compassion toward animals are not easily challenged. Adding further complexity, some of the problematic animals are also endangered, and the grizzled giant squirrel is Sri Lanka’s national animal.

The peafowl is considered the vehicle (Vahana) of the Hindu god Skanda and enjoys special cultural status. Skanda is revered by most Sri Lankans irrespective of their faith, so people do not want to harm the peacock.

“This is why it needs a scientific approach. We need to analyze the enormity of the problem, its growth and impact on society and seek a science-based response. The old thinking can only aggravate the problem,” says Thasun Amarasinghe, a Sri Lankan herpetologist with the University of Indonesia.

“If we take the approach of no harm to animals due to religious beliefs, then one cannot get rid of mice because rat is the vehicle of Ganesh, another Hindu god,” Amarasinghe says, emphasizing the need to overcome cultural religious boundaries to find a scientific solution.

An ape-faced scarecrow stands in a paddy field, a popular method used by farmers to scare off crop-raiding animals. Image courtesy of Harsha Bandara.

Data-driven solutions

There should be a data-driven approach to understand the population dynamics of these problematic species, researchers say. In other countries, hunting licenses are issued after scientifically assessing populations. For example, if the number of females increases, then the number that needs to be controlled would be assessed and certain licenses are issued for hunting only the permitted number of females. There may be years in which no hunting licenses are issued if the population is under control, Amarasinghe tells Mongabay.

Sudden population increases can impact native biodiversity in addition to crop damage by some of these pests. The peafowl was restricted to Sri Lanka’s dry zone, but now the bird can be found in the heart of the wet zone closer to rainforests and even in the hill country near cloud forests. These are home to a lot of endemic reptiles that peafowl feed on. This could break the critical ecological balance, Amarasinghe says.

During the past few months, there have been several indications that despite the enormity of the problem with agricultural pests, the government would not consider their killing as part of the solution.

“It is dangerous even to give such signals, as the law is not amended yet. Killing of most of these animals is still illegal,” says Jagath Gunawardana, an environmental lawyer and naturalist. Gunawardane was also a member of the committee convened in December 2022 to consider solutions, but he says even the members of the expert committee were not provided with the report on crop damage by wild animals. It is important to scrutinize the report, as the level of crop damage caused by wild animals appears very high. However, the complete report still has not been shared with the expert committee, says Gunawardane.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Two toque macaques (Macaca sinica) feeding on human food waste in north-central Sri Lanka. Image by Malaka Rodrigo.

Imperial Visits: US Emissaries in the Pacific

March 22nd, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

For some time, Washington has been losing its spunk in the Pacific.  When it comes to the Pacific Islands, a number have not fallen – at least entirely – for the rhetoric that Beijing is there to take, consume, and dominate all.  Nor have such countries been entirely blind to their own sharpened interests.  This largely aqueous region, which promises to submerge them in the rising waters of climate change, has become furiously busy.

A number of officials are keen to push the line that Washington’s policy towards the Pacific is clearly back where it should be.  It’s all part of the warming strategy adopted by the Biden administration, typified by the US-Pacific Island Country summit held last September.  In remarks made during the summit, President Joe Biden stated that “the security of America, quite frankly, and the world, depends on your security and the security of the Pacific Islands.  And I really mean that.”

Not once was China mentioned, but its ghostly presence stalked Biden’s words.  A new Pacific Partnership Strategy was announced, “the first national US strategy for [the] Pacific Islands”.  Then came the promised cash: some $810 million in expanded US programs including more than $130 million in new investments to support, among other things, climate resilience, buffer the states against the impact of climate change and improve food security.

The Pacific Islands have also seen a flurry of recent visits.  In January this year, US Indo-Pacific military commander Admiral John Aquilino popped into Papua New Guinea to remind the good citizens of Port Moresby that the eyes of the US were gazing benignly upon them.  It was his first to the country, and the public affairs unit of the US Indo-Pacific Command stated that it underscored “the importance of the US-Papua New Guinea relationship” and showed US resolve “toward building a more peaceful, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region.”

In February, a rather obvious strategic point was made in the reopening of the US embassy in the Solomon Islands.  Little interest had been shown towards the island state for some three decades (the embassy had been closed in 1993).  But then came Beijing doing, at least from Washington’s perspective, the unpardonable thing of poking around and seeking influence.

Now, Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare finds himself at the centre of much interest, at least till he falls out of favour in the air conditioned corridors of Washington.  His policy – “friends to all, enemy to none” – has become a mantra.  That much was clear in a May 2022 statement.  “My government welcomes all high-level visits from our key development partners.  We will always stand true to our policy of ‘Friends to All and Enemies to None’ as we look forward to continuing productive relations with all our development partners.”

For the moment, the US interim representative, Russell Corneau, was satisfied in noting that the embassy would “serve as a key platform” between Washington and the Solomon Islands.  US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in fairly torturous language, declared that the reopening “builds on our efforts to place more diplomatic personnel throughout the region and engage further with our Pacific neighbours, connect United States programs and resources with needs on the ground, and build people-to-people ties.”  Sogavare, adopting his hard-to-get pose, absented himself from the ceremony.

This month, the Deputy Assistant to the US President and Coordinator for the Indo-Pacific National Security Council Kurt Campbell has been particularly busy doing his rounds.  The Solomon Islands has been of particular interest, given its security pact with Beijing.  No sooner had Sogavare had time to compose himself after two high profile visits from Japan and China, there was Campbell and his eight-member delegation.

“We realise that we have to overcome in certain areas some amounts of distrust and uncertainty about follow through,” Campbell explained in his usual middle-management speak to reporters in Wellington.  “We’re seeking to gain that trust and confidence as we go forward.  Much of what we are doing has been initiated by the president, but I want to underscore that it’s quite bipartisan.”

In Honiara, Campbell was forward in admitting that the US had not done “enough before” and had to be “big enough to admit that we need to do more, and we need to do better.”  Doing more and doing better clearly entailed dragging out from Sogavare a promise that his country would not create a military facility “that would support power projection capabilities” for Beijing.

Earlier in the month, Qian Bo, China’s Pacific Island envoy, was also doing his bit to win support for the cause.  His Vanuatu sojourn was a wooing effort directed at the Melanesian Spearhead Group, comprising Fiji, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and the Kanak independence movement in New Caledonia.  But as with any muscle-bound hegemon seeking to impress, the crumbs left were treated with some circumspection.

A leaked letter from Micronesia’s President David Panuelo took a more dim view of China’s offerings.  In the March 9 document, the cogs and wheels of calculation were busy, taking into account the US proposal of US$50 million into Micronesia’s national trust fund and annual financial assistance of US$15 million.  “All of this assistance, of course, would be on top of the greatly added layers of security and protection that come from our country distancing itself from the PRC.”  Micronesian officials, he charged, had been the targets of bribes and offers of bribes from the Chinese embassy.

Not all his colleagues in the Pacific are in accord with Panuelo, though the view suggests that both Beijing and Washington are finding, in these small countries, political figures more than willing to exploit the rivalry.  To that end lie riches.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University.  He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image:  Admiral John C. Aquilino, Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, traveled to Papua New Guinea January 29-30 (Source: US Indo-Pacific Command)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on Monday announced a new plan to promote an open and free Indo-Pacific, promising billions of dollars in investment to help economies across the region in everything from industry to disaster prevention.

The plan he announced in New Delhi is seen as Tokyo’s bid to forge stronger ties with countries in South and Southeast Asia to counter China’s growing assertiveness there.

Kishida also said Japan wanted Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to end as soon as possible and called on the “Global South”, a broad term referring to countries in Africa, Asia, Oceania and Latin America, to “show solidarity” after his talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Kishida said there were four “pillars” to Japan’s new Indo-Pacific plan: maintaining peace, dealing with new global issues in cooperation with Indo-Pacific countries, achieving global connectivity through various platforms, and ensuring the safety of the open seas and skies.

Click here to read the full article.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

AUKUS a Hard Nuke Sale in Next Door Southeast Asia

March 21st, 2023 by Richard Javad Heydarian

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“I would say, ‘Do you need to be contained? Are you expanding? Are you an expansionist power?’ To a very great extent, the United States was the champion for China’s rise. And in no way are we seeking to contain China. But we are seeking for them to play by the rules,” said Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of the US Indo-Pacific Fleet, in a recent interview.

Many regional states have been forced “to forge closer military ties to the US” in response to “China’s increasingly aggressive moves in the Western Pacific – encroaching on territory, illegal fishing and building bases in the middle of the South China Sea,” the four-star admiral said.

Paparo’s statement was strategically delivered to coincide with the recently-announced US$368 billion Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) submarine deal, which aims to enhance the anglophone allies’ ability to project power across the Indo-Pacific well into the 21st century. But many neighboring states, including those in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), are skeptical of the deal and its implications for regional security.

For them, AUKUS is a clear reflection of an emerging US-led “containment strategy” against China, especially amid rising tensions over Taiwan and across the South and East China Seas in recent years.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin predictably warned the AUKUS deal would “exacerbate” regional tensions and “totally disregarded the concerns of the international community and gone further down the wrong and dangerous path.”

But some Southeast Asian states, most notably Indonesia and Malaysia, also worry that the AUKUS deal will intensify a building regional “arms race” and, along the way, further undermine ASEAN’s centrality.

Meanwhile, the AUKUS deal has also put Australia’s Anthony Albanese administration in a political bind with stinging opposition aired by fellow Labour Party stalwarts, including not least former prime minister Paul Keating.

“Naturally, I should prefer to be singing the praises of the government in all matters, but these issues carry deadly consequences for Australia and I believe it is incumbent on any former prime minister, particularly now, a Labour one, to alert the country to the dangerous and unnecessary journey on which the government is now embarking,” he wrote in a strongly-worded public statement.

“Falling into a major mistake, Anthony Albanese…emerges as prime minister with an American sword to rattle at the neighborhood to impress upon it the United States’ esteemed view of its untrammeled destiny,” the former Australian prime minister added.

It could also complicate Australia’s strategic reboot with ASEAN following years of relatively tense relations under the former Scott Morrison administration.

Since coming to power last year, the Albanese administration has placed ASEAN at the center of its regional diplomacy. In fact, Albanese and his Foreign Minister Penny Wong visited key Southeast Asian capitals shortly after winning election.

During his maiden visit to the region last year, Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles made it clear that “ASEAN is completely central to Australia’s security interests and our economic interests, and you’ll see a focus on this region.”

From its very inception, the nuclear-powered submarine deal has been deeply controversial. Both US allies in Europe, most especially France, as well as key partners in the Indo-Pacific from Indonesia to New Zealand, expressed deep concerns when the trilateral grouping first announced its nuclear-powered submarine deal back in 2021.

Although the AUKUS deal involves nuclear-powered yet conventionally-armed submarines, rather than nuclear-weapons carrying platforms, regional states have nerveless expressed worries over threats to key ASEAN initiatives, namely the 1971 Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality in Southeast Asia (ZOPFAN) as well as the 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), which broadly seek to maintain regional peace and renounce the threat or use of force.

As ASEAN’s current rotational chairman, Indonesia was among first regional states to respond to the AUKUS submarine deal last week.

“Indonesia has been closely following the security partnership of AUKUS, particularly the announcement on the pathway to achieve AUKUS critical capability,” Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement. “Maintaining peace and stability in the region is the responsibility of all countries. It is critical for all countries to be a part of this effort,” it added.

With ZOPFAN and Australia’s accession to the TAC in mind, Indonesia reminded its southern neighbor how it “expects Australia to remain consistent in fulfilling its obligations under the NPT [Non-Proliferation. Treaty] and IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] Safeguards, as well as to develop with the IAEA a verification mechanism that is effective, transparent and non–discriminatory.”

Malaysia, which has been ASEAN’s fiercest AUKUS critic, reiterated its lingering concerns, though it didn’t say it would pursue direct “consultations” with China on the matter, as it did in late-2021. In a public statement, the Malaysian foreign minister called on “all parties to fully respect and comply with its existing national regime in relation to the operation of nuclear-powered submarines in its waters.”

A linchpin of ASEAN, Malaysia warned AUKUS members against “any provocation that could potentially trigger an arms race or affect peace and security in the region.”

Leading ASEAN experts are also ringing certain alarms. Prominent Thai academic Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a professor at Thailand’s Chulalongkorn University, has questioned the necessity for the new submarine deal since “there are enough measures out there” to constrain China.

He underscored how ASEAN is “increasingly divided” amid US-China competition since “all member states need economic ties with China but rely on the US for stability and security.”

In a November 27, 2022 paper for the China International Security Review journal, published by Peking University, Mingjing Li writes, “Despite the divergence in regional states’ views, we can perhaps draw this conclusion: one year after the pronouncement of AUKUS, ASEAN as a collective entity has already cautiously accepted AUKUS as a new reality.”

Li added: “Facing ASEAN now are two highly challenging tasks: first, how to carefully address the intensifying US-China rivalry; second, how to deal with the threats to its unity and centrality posed by this new tripartite security arrangement. Also, it is quite clear from ASEAN’s grudging embrace of AUKUS that this minilateral security pact will instigate many new dynamics in Indo-Pacific regional security.”

In a diplomatic bid to win over critics, Australian Foreign Minister Wong and US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel J Kritenbrink reached out to ASEAN to explain “what AUKUS is and what AUKUS is not.”

“AUKUS is about promoting peace, stability, security and prosperity across the Indo-Pacific region, it’s a modernization of our existing alliances and partnerships,” the US official said during recent visits to Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta. “This is a responsible and transparent agreement that is carried out in the name of the highest standards of non-proliferation,” he added.

For her part, Wong told Singapore’s Channel News Asia that Canberra planned to “talk with the region and listen to the region about any concerns they may have.” She also reiterated that her country “will never seek to acquire nuclear weapons.”

To be sure, not all regional states are opposed to AUKUS. Although largely refraining from making any categorical statement, key ASEAN members such as Vietnam and Singapore have been broadly sympathetic to AUKUS, recognizing the need to counterbalance China’s expanding military footprint in the region.

The Philippines, which has doubled down on defense cooperation with the US, Australia and Japan under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, has publicly backed the AUKUS deal.

“For the Philippines, it is important that partnerships or arrangements in the Indo-Pacific region, such as AUKUS, support our pursuit of deeper regional cooperation and sustained economic vitality and resilience, which are essential to our national development and to the security of the region,” the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.

“We consider it important for these arrangements to uphold ASEAN’s central role in the regional security architecture, and reinforce an international rules-based order that underpins regional security and development,” the statement said.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Follow Richard Javad Heydarian on Twitter at @Richeydarian

Featured image: AUKUS nuclear submarine deal is already making ripples across the Indo-Pacific. Image: US Embassy in China

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

To understand the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) collapse spooking markets, look no further than events in Jakarta.

The Indonesian rupiah’s 3.2% drop since February 1 demonstrates how quickly Asia has resigned itself to the fact that the US Federal Reserve isn’t done tightening. Another batch of too-strong-for-Fed-comfort US employment figures in February only increased the risk.

Episodes of extreme dollar strength tend to hit Southeast Asia particularly hard. And while Indonesia’s financial system is far healthier than it was amid the Asian financial crisis 25 years ago, vulnerabilities abound. Not surprisingly, the region’s dollar-centric economies tend to see another potential 1997-like crisis around every corner.

Case in point: the Fed’s most aggressive tightening cycle since the mid-1990s, an episode that still haunts leaders from Jakarta to Tokyo. As the Fed doubled short-term rates in just 12 months between 1994 and 1995, the collateral damage really started to rack up.

Victims included Mexico, which plunged into the peso’s “tequila crisis.” Orange County, California veered into bankruptcy. Wall Street securities giant Kidder, Peabody & Co went extinct. Then the most spectacular pileup of all: Asia.

As the dollar skyrocketed, currency pegs became impossible to defend in Bangkok, Jakarta and Seoul. Fallout from the barrage of devaluations paved the way for the late 1997 collapse of the 100-year-old Yamaichi Securities, one of Japan’s fabled big-four brokerages.

Yamaichi’s demise panicked officials in Washington. Both the US Treasury Department and the International Monetary Fund worried not that Japan was too big to fail. They worried it was too big to save.

China, too. In 1997 and 1998, US officials all but begged Beijing not to devalue the yuan. That, they feared, would spark a new wave of competitive currency devaluations and drag Malaysia and the Philippines, two nations that hadn’t devalued, into the fray.

All this explains why the SVB collapse is triggering Asia’s post-traumatic stress disorder over Fed austerity from the late 1990s. That PTSD was on display back in 2013 amid the Fed “taper tantrum.” Back then, Morgan Stanley included India and Indonesia in its “Fragile Five” list of economies on the brink along with Brazil, South Africa and Turkey.

At the time, Bank of America strategist Michael Hartnett warned of a “repeat of the 1994 moment.” Then-Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein admitted that “I worry now as I look out of the corner of my eye to the 1994 period.”

This is the minefield that Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is struggling to navigate.

“Hence the canary-in-the-coal-mine fear, which has caused US bank stocks to plunge more than 15% in a week and market volatility to surge,” says analyst Tan Kai Xian at Gavekal Research.

“These travails were only reinforced by Powell’s Congressional testimony last week, amounting to a ‘whatever it takes’ declaration to crush inflation, even if that means upping the pace of rate hikes and putting people out of work.”

Over the weekend, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the Powell-led Fed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation unveiled steps to contain the fallout from Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse.

With all SVB depositors being paid back in full, averting a potential collapse of the US financial system, it now falls to Powell’s team to devise a way forward. And preferably one that won’t send markets from Indonesia to Japan reeling.

The “action dramatically reduces the risk of further contagion,” says analyst Thomas Simons at Jefferies. It’s heartening, too, that SVB’s mistakes in managing its balance sheet are seen as “highly idiosyncratic” to analysts at Morgan Stanley, reducing risks of broader US financial contagion.

Erik Nielsen, economic adviser at UniCredit Bank, calls SVB “a rather special case of poor balance-sheet management, holding massive amounts of long-duration bonds funded by short-term liabilities.”

Economist Paul Ashworth at Capital Economics notes that “rationally, this should be enough to stop any contagion from spreading and taking down more banks, which can happen in the blink of an eye in the digital age. But contagion has always been more about irrational fear, so we would stress that there is no guarantee this will work.”

Indeed, the underlying problem is that the Fed is trying to tame inflation with tools that won’t get the job done. Much of this inflation is better addressed with supply-side reforms that President Joe Biden and Congress have been slow to implement. Anyone who thought driving the US into a controlled recession might work just had a brutal wake-up call from California.

“While the Fed wants tighter financial conditions to restrain aggregate demand, they don’t want that to occur in a non-linear fashion that can quickly spiral out of control,” says economist Michael Feroli at JPMorgan Chase & Co. “If they indeed have used the right tool to address financial contagion risks – time will tell – then they can also use the right tool to continue to address inflation risks: higher interest rates.”

The mini-panic on global markets suggests many aren’t buying the SVB-is-an-isolated-case argument. That has economists at Barclays Plc thinking the Fed rate that had been widely expected later this month is now on hold.

“It raises risks of broader distress within the banking system that could make the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) reluctant to return to 50bp hikes in March,” they wrote. “Indeed, the possibility of capital losses at other institutions cannot be completely dismissed, with rising policy rates raising banks’ funding costs.”

Goldman Sachs economist Jan Hatzius agrees. “In light of the stress in the banking system, we no longer expect the FOMC to deliver a rate hike at its next meeting on March 22,” he says. More likely, the Fed will do smaller 25 basis point hikes in May, June and July, boosting rates as high as 5.5%.

Yet the fallout from SVB could further stymie America’s innovative animal spirits in ways that leave the world’s biggest economy even less productive and nimble.

“It certainly is going to have very substantial consequences for Silicon Valley — and for the economy of the whole venture sector, which has been dynamic — unless the government is able to assure that this situation is worked through,” former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers told Bloomberg.

It’s already having substantial consequences for Asian markets trying to read the Washington policy tea leaves. The 1990s vibe emanating from Fed headquarters in Washington is becoming harder and harder for dollar bulls to dismiss.

The more upward pressure there is on the US currency, the less capital that flows to Indonesia and other Southeast Asian economies that need investment to finance giant infrastructure projects.

Continued tight Fed policies pose their own risks to Xi Jinping’s China, just as the Communist Party leader is beginning his third term. Rising US rates put China’s vital export engine at risk and add to the strains facing highly indebted mainland property developers struggling to avoid default.

Fed overtightening is also a direct threat to the roughly $1 trillion of Chinese state wealth parked in US government debt.

The yen’s dwindling value, thanks to a strong dollar, is a crisis in slow motion for Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and outgoing Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda. Asia’s No 2 economy is importing increasing waves of inflation via food and energy markets.

For governments in Bangkok, Jakarta, Manila and Putrajaya, currencies under downward pressure make US debt harder to service. That also raises the costs of food and other vital items.

Recently, says economist Jonathan Fortun at the Institute of International Finance, “we see clouds forming on the horizon. A renewed hawkish Federal Reserve sentiment is spilling over into some emerging markets, causing short-dated receivers to struggle as interest-rate expectations are pushed further back in time. Monetary policy uncertainty may boost demand for dollar protection, as the relationship between EM currency and US interest-rate volatility continues to strengthen.”

For now, few think the SVB debacle will trigger a 2008-like global financial meltdown. But the speed with which Asian officials have swung from guarded optimism over the US financial system to worrying about another 1997 is its own economic indicator for the year ahead. And not a good one.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Screengrab / Twitter / TechCrunch

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This article was originally published in October 2022.

An Israeli media outlet, The Jerusalem Post recently published an online reportage in September 2022 insisting that a “secret delegation” from Indonesia was scheduled to depart for Israel to engage in “secret visits”. While this claim is unbelievable enough, the report further adds that relations between Israel and Indonesia have grown warmer in the last few months of 2021, notably in the realm of trade and tourism. Finally, the report mentions the possibility of normalisation of Indonesia-Israel ties, a view upheld by American officials.

This was certainly not the first time rumours pertaining to the opening of diplomatic relations between the two countries were circulated, and likely would not be the last. Such false claims have been widespread many times in the past by both Indonesian and foreign (especially Israeli) media, a move that Indonesia’s foreign ministry believes is aimed to frame the issue for Israel’s benefit. The question of whether Indonesia should or should not actually push the agenda forward has been subject to controversy.

High-level Israeli officials have kept the possibility open for decades. When Indonesia held chairmanship of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin visited Jakarta to meet President Soeharto in person. Reportedly, the visit was aimed to promote opportunities of cooperation with Israel and garner support in the Middle East peace process. Indonesian minister Murdiono later stated that Indonesia was not at all considering establishment of diplomatic relations, likely because the meeting itself sent mixed signals to outside observers.

Some high-ranking Indonesian officials have teased upon the idea as well. In 1999, President Abdurrahman Wahid’s government planned to open “economic and trade links” with Israel as part of its commitment to interfaith tolerance. It was also hoped to boost local economic recovery after Indonesia was hit hard by the 1997 Asian financial crisis. But as expected, this plan was met with intense domestic opposition. Protests by Muslim organisations, students, and members of parliament were widespread. His successors never publicly made such politically dangerous comments.

One argument in favour of opening diplomatic ties with Israel is Indonesia’s wish to act as a mediator in resolving the Israel-Palestine situation. Indonesia has long supported a two-state solution where ideally both Israel and Palestine coexist as independent and sovereign nations. With formal ties in place, Indonesia’s lobbying power on the international arena, especially among nations in the West, in theory should increase. However, the widespread belief that opening relations with Israel is mutually exclusive to supporting Palestinian independence undermines this otherwise rational argument.

The preamble of Indonesia’s constitution explicitly expresses the Indonesian people’s eternal support for the “independence of all nations” and the struggle against colonialism. While the face of world politics have drastically changed since the end of World War II up to the present day, the preamble remains unchanged ever since it was established in 1945. It remains a floating constant in a sea full of variables, sometimes presenting problems for Indonesian policymakers in regards to which nations can Indonesia recognise and befriend, and which it should maintain utmost caution in approaching.

It should also be noted that presently, Indonesia does not officially recognise Israel’s existence as a legitimate, sovereign state. One major issue, Israel’s ongoing oppressive occupation of Palestine, remains a crucial deciding factor whether Indonesia would push for a formal recognition and opening of diplomatic relations. The Indonesian government will measure domestic support from voters and Indonesia’s international standing, mainly within the Muslim world. Evidently, both of these factors are unsupportive of furthering any sort of official ties with Israel.

As the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, the ever-present voice of political Islam in the domestic sphere has influenced Indonesia’s foreign policy in regards to the Middle East region. Religious mass organisations with grassroots support including the Nahdlatul Ulama, Muhammadiyah, and the Indonesian Ulema Council will harshly react to any move entertaining the idea of establishing relations with or even just officially recognising Israel. These organisations form the “moderate Islam” support base for the current administration of President Joko Widodo, thus any action that may disappoint them will likely negatively impact the government’s popular support.

Of course, there’s also the potential of sparking radical Islamist sentiment within militant groups, pushing them to rise up against the government if they see its actions as undermining Islamic teachings and struggles of the global Muslim community.

Internationally, Indonesia is a well-regarded member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a grouping of over 50 states with a Muslim majority or significant minority population. In December 2017, Indonesia urged OIC members to “reconsider” their relationship with Israel to further support Palestinian independence efforts. Several OIC member-states have indeed normalised relations with Israel, a move heavily criticised as a betrayal to the creed of solidarity with Palestine. Later in May 2021, Indonesia led an OIC condemnation against Israel for its increased military attacks in the Gaza Strip that was framed by Israel as “self-defence”.

Further back in history, Indonesia has used other platforms to criticise Israel’s existence and actions. When Indonesia hosted the 1962 Asian Games, President Soekarno’s government refused to issue visas to the Israeli delegation, thus de facto preventing them from competing in the Games. This was done to accommodate the wishes of Arab states seeking to internationally isolate Israel at the time and an expression of Indonesia’s ardent anti-colonial spirit.

Thus, if Indonesia establishes ties with Israel today, it would certainly be viewed by the public as a hypocritical move and an upsetting inconsistency with its past actions and statements. Indonesia’s credibility in the eyes of other countries within the Muslim world as a defender of Palestinian struggle will also be tarnished.

Taking a look back at The Jerusalem Post’s peculiar report, if Israel’s underlying motivation of spreading such rumours is to obtain recognition from the world’s biggest Muslim-majority nation to strengthen its legitimacy, it is surely advisable that it throws away any and all expectations. The extremely high political cost imposed by domestic and international factors means that recognition and establishment of diplomatic relations is not a politically feasible option for Indonesia and thus will not even be considered at all by whichever government is in power.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Kenzie Ryvantya is an undergraduate Political Science student at the University of Indonesia. His interests include Indonesian foreign and security policy, Southeast Asian studies, as well as global geopolitics.

Featured image: People was raising Indonesian and Palestinian flags at a rally on safe Al-Quds at the National Monument square in Jakarta (May 2018). (Indonesia Window)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol are hoping to mend the fraught ties that have defined bilateral relations over the past few years when they meet on Thursday.

Yoon’s two-day visit to Japan will be the first such trip by a South Korean leader in 12 years.

“This visit … will be an important milestone in the improvement of relations between South Korea and Japan which has been promo ted by the Yoon administration since inauguration,” Yoon’s national security adviser, Kim Sung-han, told a briefing on Tuesday.

Here is what is expected to be on the agenda:

‘Shuttle diplomacy’

Japan and Korea are expected to revive regular visits between the leaders in what has been called “shuttle diplomacy”, according to a Yomiuri daily report citing Japanese government sources.

The last time the leader of either country visited the other’s country was more than a decade ago, when then-President Lee Myung Bak travelled to Japan in 2011 before heading to remote islands that both nations claim as their own.

Relations subsequently deteriorated.

Kishida is considering visiting South Korea as early as this summer, Kyodo has reported.

Defence cooperation

Yoon said that he expects to “invigorate” security cooperation, including the intelligence-sharing General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) pact, which Seoul threatened to pull out of in 2019, in several written interviews with international media published on Tuesday.

The two countries and the United States are preparing to meet next month to discuss the possibility of setting up an information-sharing framework that would allow Japan and South Korea to share information on North Korean ballistic missile launches in real time, a Japanese defence ministry official told Reuters.

G7 invitation 

Kishida may extend an invitation to Yoon to attend the G7 summit set to take place in Hiroshima in May, several media reported.

In 2008, then-South Korean President Lee Myung-bak attended outreach events of the Group of Eight summit in Toyako, Hokkaido.

Lifting the 2019 restrictions

The two leaders could confirm their countries’ intention to resolve Japan’s high-tech material export curbs against South Korea.

South Korea’s presidential office said on Tuesday that the two countries were discussing the matter and that it expected it to be resolved “in due time”.

Seoul is preparing to normalise its involvement in GSOMIA, and will time the announcement for that of the lifting of the curbs, Jiji news agency said without clarifying its sources.

Japan tightened restrictions on the export of high-tech semiconductor materials to South Korea in 2019 as a row over how to compensate wartime labourers flared.

Last week, on the same day Seoul announced its plan to resolve the forced labour dispute, Tokyo said it would hold talks with Seoul about potentially lifting the 2019 restrictions. Tokyo has maintained that the curbs are unrelated to the labour issue.

Currency swap

The Japan-South Korea currency swap arrangement, once a symbol of bilateral financial cooperation, expired in February 2015 and Seoul has indicated its desire to restore it.

Talks to restart it became strained as relations worsened amid a row over girls and women forced to work in Japan’s wartime brothels.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Much has been made of Australia’s renewed engagement with Asia and the Pacific since Labor came to power.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s “charm offensive” in the Pacific was seen as the beginning of a new process of listening to the region, not dictating to it. Labor’s Asia-Pacific policy has also been hailed as striking a balance between the US and China.

In announcing the AUKUS submarine deal in the US this week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese emphasised it was aimed at allowing nations in the region to “act in their sovereign interests free from coercion” and would “promote security by investing in our relationships across our region”.

The reality of the submarine deal is not, however, in that spirit. Instead, it leads Australia towards half a century of armaments build up and restricted sovereignty within a US-led alliance aimed at containing China.

Worse, it hearkens back to a colonial vision of the region as rightfully dominated by Anglophone powers who enjoy a military advantage over others that live there.

In the process, it has also deliberately endangered the spirit – if not the letter of nuclear non-proliferation agreements – and heightened what our neighbours see as a destabilising and unnecessary naval race that can only further provoke China.

Relinquishing sovereignty of foreign policy

The deal confirms two things that nations in the region have long suspected.

First, Australia is incapable of imagining an Asia-Pacific region that is not militarily dominated by the United States.

In addition, the deal suggests we are still politically attached to the United Kingdom – the post-Brexit ghost of a past British empire once again looking east of the Suez Canal towards Asia and the Pacific.

The second is that, despite the window dressing, Australia’s deafness to regional misgivings has not improved since the change to a Labor government.

AUKUS and the nuclear submarine deal are far from universally admired in Asia and the Pacific. The ASEAN bloc has repeatedly expressed its wish to avoid an arms race in the region. Regional powers such as Indonesia and Malaysia have made this clear on several occasions.

Other approaches to regional security do exist. And our neighbours have their own sense of how the Asia-Pacific can best balance the growing influence of both the US and China.

Malaysia, for example, has emphasised that so clearly identifying China as an enemy will be a self-fulfilling prophesy. The Pacific states have warned against becoming so clearly aligned with the US and sparking a renewed arms race in the Pacific. New Zealand, too, says it sees no sense in moving towards a nuclear-fuelled foreign policy.

Instead of taking these concerns seriously and engaging in deep regional diplomacy to head off future conflict, Australia seems to have has given up sovereign control of its foreign policy.

Canberra is moving towards what former Prime Ministers Malcolm Turnbull and Paul Keating have respectively called “shared sovereignty” and “outsourced” strategic sovereignty.

Contrary to the assurances of Defence Minister Richard Marles, Australia has decided to become absolutely central to the US policy of containing and encircling China. Retreating from the assumed military role that comes with this would take the kind of foreign policy courage that has not been seen for many decades.

War with China is not a certainty

Th submarine deal also comes against a backdrop of some dangerously incautious media predictions that Australia could be at war with China within three years.

Scarcely to be heard is the view that if war were to occur, it would be a war of choice, not a war to defend Australian sovereignty, even broadly defined.

Bad assumptions about the future can unfortunately drive bad policy. The assumption of a regional war is in part a consequence of viewing China through the lens of the faulty idea of an inescapable “Thucydides Trap”.

For adherents of this belief, war between the US and China is simply a natural fact dictated by history when a rising power challenges an established power, similar to what happened in the war between Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece.

Chinese brinkmanship and assertion of control over disputed territories and waters, however, is not a Greek tragedy. And Australian strategic decision-makers should not take for granted that war is coming either between China and Taiwan, or China and the United States – much less with Australia.

Herein lies the danger of handing over our sovereign foreign policy decision-making to the US and relaxing into the faux security offered by AUKUS.

We are led to the false sense there is no alternative but to be involved militarily wherever the US is in a conflict, whether that be in Iraq, Afghanistan or a future war over Taiwan.

Ceding Australia’s capacity to make serious decisions about war and peace cannot be accepted unless all pretence of Australian sovereignty is abandoned. Australia could have tried to work towards a regional approach with other Asian and Pacific countries. But this week’s agreement makes that all but impossible.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 is Professor in International History, Flinders University.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Writing festivals are often tired, stilted affairs, but the 38th Adelaide Writers’ Week did not promise to be that run-of-the-mill gathering of yawn-inducing, life draining sessions.  For one thing, social media vultures and public relations experts, awaiting the next freely explosive remark or unguarded comment, were at hand to stir the pot and exhort cancel culture.

The fuss began with the festival organisers’ invitation of two Palestinian authors, Susan Abulhawa and Mohammed El-Kurd.  Abulhawa was specifically targeted for critical comments on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, notably regarding NATO membership, and for being a mouthpiece of “Russian propaganda”, while El-Kurd has been singled out for social-media commentary on the Israeli state, calling it “sadistic”, “demonic” and “a death cult”.

Righteously, the South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas showed his less than worldly view on such festivals by insisting on boycotting their talks and presentations.  Ever the vote-getting politician, there were those constituents at the Association of Ukrainians in South Australia who had been making noise, notably through their president, Frank Fursenko.  “We are very concerned that [the festival organisers] are giving a platform to people who are known apologists for the Russian invasion of Ukraine,” insisted Fursenko.

Malinauskas even contemplated pulling government funding from the event, something he declared at his address opening Writers’ Week.  (This was also the view of the South Australian opposition leader, David Speirs.)  The premier, it should be noted, is less morally troubled when it comes to funding the LIV Golf tournament, backed by the obscurantist journalist-assassinating regime of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

At the very least, he made some concession to maturity: refusing “to listen to someone’s viewpoint” also involved surrendering “the opportunity to challenge it, much less change their mind.”  But for all that Abulhawa’s presence at the Writers’ Week had to be “actively” questioned.

The Advertiser was less reserved, barking in childish condemnation and demanding, via a statement from editor Gemma Jones, that the Writers’ Week director Louise Adler resign.  “The views of the two writers in question are repugnant.”

Law firm MinterEllison also took up a tenancy in the land of black and white in their decision to withdraw sponsorship, citing concerns about “the potential for racist or antisemitic commentary.”  The company had decided “to remove our presence and involvement with this year’s Writers’ Festival program”.  That’s branding for you.

Consultancies hardly known for their principled stances on intellectual debate let alone the public good took to the podium of virtue even as they withdrew their support.  PwC, which provides pro bono auditing for the Adelaide Festival Foundation, openly disassociated itself from the event by requesting that its logo be removed from the festival website.  “We condemn in the strongest terms any antisemitic comments and any suggestion of support for Russia’s war against Ukraine,” the company stated in a memorandum.  “We stand with the Jewish and Ukrainian communities who have been understandably hurt by this issue.  In this respect, we have asked the chair of the Adelaide Foundation that any association with PwC with this aspect of the festival be removed.”

In all these shallow, stubbornly ahistorical assessments, context is missing.  The background, and sense of where such supposedly horrendous opinions sprung from, are dismissed.  The culture of cancellation and erasure, as it has been previously, is the prerogative of the powerful and their PR offices.  It is also insidious, stressing the trendy, appealing brand of the moment, the acceptable opinion which makes the acceptable person.

El-Kurd, Palestinian poet and correspondent for The Nation, enraged since the day Jewish settlers made their way into his East Jerusalem home, has made no secret in adopting a more militant stance for Palestinians.  It was, he stated, “not enough that I have lost my  home to Israeli settlers, it’s not enough that I grew up and lived as a refugee under military occupation.”  In his protest and suffering, he had been constantly told to be “polite” and “respectable”.

Those years were behind him, times which featured a “failed strategy” that placed a heavy emphasis on humanising unacceptable tragedy: the focus on women and children (again, the branding that matters); the focus on “our inability to commit violence, our inability to feel rage”.  “And we over-emphasise the victims whose qualifiers make them human.”

In her response to the storm, Abulhawa expressed gratitude to Adler and the Board of the  Adelaide Festival “for bravely ensuring that we do and will have space to speak and interact with readers on a cultural landscape.”  She then moved to chart the fault lines that have made contrarian views – or at least views deemed undesirable by the anointed policing agents on the Ukrainian War – a matter of vengeful reaction.  To be critical of the Ukrainian Saint was to somehow be a shill for Russia’s Vladimir Putin; to be a proponent for peace was somehow akin to encouraging genocide.  “These assertions are false, absurd and libellous.”

Specifically regarding Zelenskyy, his sins lay in “taking actions and provocations that would lead to foreseeable, even predictable, war, which has not only wrecked Ukraine and her people, but led to global insecurity and fuel shortages, affecting the most vulnerable among us.”

Her views are not unusual, or astonishing.  They are also echoed through the Global South, where the brands of the noble Ukrainian victim and the remorseless Russian monster have lesser currency.  One can understand the dynamics, and sad perversions of power, without justifying their brutal manifestations.  Abulhawa references John Mearsheimer’s warnings about US provocations against Russia, using Ukraine as a base and pretext.  The Ukraine conflict, to that end, is not isolated or regional.  It is a “global proxy war, the outcome of which may well determine the world order for generations to come.”

Abulhawa would have also been well within her rights to cite the very figure who gave birth to the doctrine of Soviet containment at the start of the Cold War.  The late diplomat and historian George Frost Kennan, eyeing the expansionist drive of NATO and US power eastwards towards the Russian border, could only issue this warning in 1997: “Such a decision may be expected to inflame nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”

To her estimable credit, Adler remained adamant and defiant in permitting the writers to attend their events.  “Our business,” she told the ABC, “is to operate an open space, not a safe space, in which ideas that may be confronting, disturbing, provocative, are debated with civility, that’s the agenda.”  Writers, she also explained to The Age, were not sought out “via their Twitter feeds. I do not think the social media space for a nuanced or reasoned analysis and discussion.”  It never was such a place, but to the cancel culture footsoldiers, that is exactly where they feel most comfortable.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University.  He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Monash University

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Branding the Acceptable: Battling Cancel Culture at Adelaide Writers’ Week
  • Tags:

Fiji’s Pacific Ways: Troubles in Paradise

March 9th, 2023 by Greg Guma

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Two coups had overturned a left-leaning government in Fiji. Only a month after nationwide elections, a fundamentalist general had taken charge. A year later I wanted to talk with the Christian Socialist doctor and labor leader who was Prime Minister so briefly in the spring of 1987. 

I also wanted to relax, to find out what paradise was like, to shed my shoes and sit at the ocean’s edge just watching the tide roll in.

We were just a few miles south of Bligh Water, riding the whitecaps toward a South Pacific island. More than two hundred years ago Captain William Bligh and 18 of his men, cast adrift by the mutineers of the HMS Bounty, covered the same waters. But in 1789 the men on the longboat pulled oars, and the Fijians pursuing them were angry cannibals In 1988 cruise ships and market boats brought most people to the islands, and the welcome was far more encouraging.

Bligh’s group escaped to Timor, an island near Indonesia, and never had the luxury to spend a few weeks on the lush islands that many people often imagine as paradise. Fiji’s native Melanesians haven’t eaten any visitors for more than a century. On the contrary, they’ve become so “pacific” in their approach to life that even two military coups hadn’t led to bloodshed.

Even before that, Fiji wasn’t the most popular or accessible vacation spot on the globe. From New England it took 18 hours by plane, not counting airport madness. And when you landed at the tiny international airport in Nadi (pronounced Nandi), you had really just begun your trip. But that was part of the charm of going to the other end of the earth. Everything broke ingrained patterns and reopened jaded eyes.

I’d made the journey for both pleasure and politics. In 1987, I left the US on a one-way ticket and became a West German resident. Looking back, I view it as an expatriate aspiration, harbored for years, and then sparked by the second election of Ronald Reagan. Jutta, my flat mate and lover in Munich, was well-traveled, had visited Fiji several times, and understood the culture.

Politically, I was curious about the roots of the two coups that had overturned a left-leaning government. Just a month after nationwide elections, Sitiveni Rabuka, a fundamentalist general, had taken charge. “I was chosen by the Almighty,” he claimed. A year later I wanted to talk with Timoci Bavadra, the Christian Socialist doctor and labor leader who was Prime Minister briefly in the spring of 1987. I also wanted to relax, to find out what paradise was like, to shed my shoes and sit at the ocean’s edge just watching the tide roll in.

Fiji is a sprawling collection of 322 islands about 1,400 miles east of Australia, perched at the edge of the Indo-Australian plate. Many are sunken volcanic remnants of a long lost continent. Over 100 are inhabited by a mixture of Melanesians, Polynesians and East Indians, plus a smattering of Chinese, Micronesian and European expatriates.

Because the country spent 100 years as a British colony, most people spoke English fluently, though with a distinct accent. Their mother tongues, however, were liable to be Fijian, Hindi, or one of several Pacific variations. Walking through the huge open air market in Suva, the national capital on Viti Levu, I heard a rich linguistic blend as people hawked produce grown in the village garden plots.

Most Fijian natives had their own small piece of paradise — land. They could grow enough food to be almost self-sufficient. Only a few staples like sugar, tea, and flour, along with some canned and junk food, were imported from the capital. But Indians, who outnumbered Fijians on the two biggest islands, weren’t permitted to buy native-owned land. Over the years since immigrating, however, they had come to virtually monopolize the middle levels of business.

When you wanted to take a taxi or go browsing in a city shop, you’d almost always deal with an Indian. But if you wanted some papaya or an island adventure, you started by meeting one of the dark-skinned, curly-headed native Fijians.

Getting into the country, it turned out, was the simple part. Finding the “real” Fiji, away from its Europeanized cities, required an invitation.

Adi Sayaba, our ticket to ride, was an island rarity, a clever business woman who had turned her clan’s compound on Waya island into a miniature resort. One of her bures (houses) was equipped with a gas-powered stove, refrigerator and bed space for up to six people. Her outhouse sported the only flush toilet on the island. There was no electricity, however, and the strictly rationed village water ran for only an hour or two each day.

We rendezvoused with Adi in Lautoka, a port city on the dry western coast of Viti Levu. At the wharf we waited for hours as she tried to arrange our voyage, haggling with captains for seats on a motor-powered boat. The winds were too stiff that day, so our ship never sailed.

But Adi (the name is actually a title for female chiefs) had an uncle, she explained, who captained a modern launch used by divers. We spent the night at his house, watching videos with the extended family. Early the next morning we made it, finally, onto the water.

As the sea splashed over the deck, captain Elisa headed for the Yasawas, a chain of 16 islands that begins about two hours from Lautoka. Soon we could see Waya, its mass of rock jutting into the clear blue sky, its deep, clear water and white beaches beckoning. When we were in sight of Yalobi, Adi’s village, a corrugated tin boat sped out to ferry us ashore.

“You’ll have to visit the chief,” Adi reminded us. “Do you have the kava?”

We did. Jutta was well acquainted with the protocols of island life. In the Suva market, we purchased a batch of the pepper plant root that, when pounded into dust and mixed with water, becomes Fiji’s national drink.

The chief wasn’t at home on the day we arrived. When he was ready to receive us, Adi advised, he’d let us know.

Each island and village in Fiji had a chief, a hereditary leader who exerted a strong traditional influence. Although the country had a constitutional government the great Council of Chiefs also played a prominent and powerful watchdog role.

We met Waya’s chief in his ornate thatched bure near Yalobi’s white sand beach. Palm trees lined the path to his door. Inside the walls and floors were covered with woven mats. Round wooden beams stretched the length of the building under a high peaked roof.

“This house is hurricane proof,” the chief announced proudly after we removed our sandals and took our places on the floor.

Expressing our admiration, we pushed our sevusevu (offering) forward and waited for the kava drinking to begin. At the head of the circle, lit by Coleman lanterns, the official mixer prepared the ceremonial drink in a hand-carved wooden bowl.

Known as yagona or grog, this traditional non-alcoholic beverage is actually a tranquilizing drug that numbs the tongue, and unless abused, helps to focus the attention. Sharing the drug is the most honored feature of Fiji’s formal life, a ceremony and social event that sometimes goes on well into the night.

First, the mixer offered a prayer of thanks and welcome. Then the kava was served in polished coconut shells. Tradition determined the order of service and participatory ritual. As I accepted my bowl, I clapped my hands once; everyone else clapped three times in response. I downed the slightly muddy-tasting liquid in one gulp. Afterward, everyone gave another three claps.

With each round and each drink, we repeated the ritual. In between, we talked about our trip, the old days on the island, and Adi’s father, Timoci. “The old man with the young spirit” had died a year before. He had been a warm and inspiring presence on Waya, a wise man, a teacher and a World War II hero of the Solomon Islands.

Even the chief, who was only “top man” because Timoci hadn’t wanted the job, missed the village leader.

The days melted past, the hot sun making me lazy and relaxed. There was nothing to do, really, except just be — or meet people, watch children play or watch women make mats and crafts for visiting tourists.

The only downside was this also opened much too much time to think about the end of my relationship with Jutta. The night before boarding our flight she had dropped the news: She wanted to break up. But she also wanted me to make the trip anyway. Once we arrived in Fiji she was a fine companion, but not much interested in discussing the last year. In the end, I came to think it may have been the right move. Just being there helped me to reflect and process what was happening between us.

On most weekdays, a huge Blue Lagoon cruise ship pulled into the bay at midday, disgorging passengers onto the beach. Villagers lined up their displays on the sand — shell and black coral jewelry, woven bags and gorgeous shells found along the coral reefs. Tourists browsed, spent some money and sampled the warm water.

Later the men came down from their hillside tetes (gardens) and families ate, stretching out afterward for post-dinner naps.

For foreigners, getting to know people could be difficult. Most islanders had little interest in the outside world. There were no shops or cafés, no nightlife except at the divers’ compound down the beach. But with a story or game I could break the ice and get a glimpse of daily life.

By accident, I also stumbled onto a way to start a real dialogue. My deck of Rider-Waite Tarot cards and dog-eared divination book created a doorway to intimacy. Laying out the cards, sometimes during kava ceremonies, I would merely describe what the pictures told me. Then I’d ask what the person who had shuffled was thinking about.

Without the slightest hesitation, people would open up about their marriage plans, worries about the future, struggles with a village “black magician,” or hopes for a good fishing catch. Thinking visually and dropping inhibitions, they would react viscerally to the imagery of the cards.

During tarot evenings, I learned about the foreign developers wrangling to establish a resort on a small nearby island owned by some Waya villagers. People told me their fears — of punishment for breaking a teenage beer-drinking taboo, or rivalries for a good building plot — and hopes for a resort job or a good crop.

Before I realized it, two weeks had passed. It was time to return to the mainland.

*

Reaching Dr. Bavadra proved complicated. Even with Adi’s contacts and an introduction from Captain Elisa, a relative, it took weeks to make the connection. Even out of power, the head of the Labor-Indian Coalition Party was busy man.

Meanwhile, we had a friend in Suva, Larry, who was more than willing to be our host. A part-European playwright, he worked at the University of the South Pacific and had a comfortable house near the sea.

Traveling without contacts can be trying, even in the best of circumstances. It’s not just the cost; in Fiji, hotel prices ranged then from $10 to $150, food was cheap and abundant. But without friends it could be hard to get off the well-trodden tourist path. Usually, I made travel contacts in advance through Servas, an international network of hosts and travelers. In this case, Larry invited us, eager to share thoughts and show us his new play.

The Fiji Arts Club was one of the few creative outlets for Suva’s intelligentsia. Since turning 19, Larry had been a central force, directing both foreign and native-written productions. This season’s play, Just another Day, was his first stab at directing his own work.

The play was a slice of local life. It was set in an average urban living room where a Fijian extended family shared tea, wisecracks and gossip. The mother, Margaret, smoked incessantly as she scolded the lazy boys and girls, gabbed with pregnant friends or argued with her husband.

A portrait of good-natured resignation and passivity, it should have been sad, but the ironic humor managed to keep it light. And the native cast played it with rough-edged verve and authenticity. Like Larry, some of them came from families much the same.

Larry and his educated friends were more aware of the country’s political turmoil than the Waya islanders. We spent many evenings speculating about Rabuka’s next moves. The most obvious effects of the coups were higher prices and unemployment.

The atmosphere was damaging to relations between ethnic Fijians and Indians. Relegated to second class status by the traditional Chiefs and the military, non-Fijians were losing faith in the future. Fijians were divided between defenders of native power and advocates of some kind of reform.

After 17 years of rule by the Alliance, a conservative party controlled by the chiefs, a new coalition had won a fair election. Indians joined forces with labor unions and urban intellectuals, won a parliamentary majority, and put Timoci Bavadra in charge. He was Fijian, but most of his support was Indian. Fear of their future dominance was a handy excuse to overreact.

One month later, Rabuka closed parliament at gunpoint and brought the old administration back. Newspapers were closed for several days, and troops kept the lid on demonstrators while Rabuka worked out a game plan with the chiefs. Negotiations between the Alliance and the Coalition eventually produced an apparent compromise. But Mara really wanted to rewrite the constitution to ensure a perpetual Fijian majority. On Sept. 25, about a month before I arrived, Rabuka led his second coup.

Australians and New Zealanders were incensed at the military takeover, as well as Rabuka’s manipulation of racial tensions and religious beliefs. He had weakened the press and expanded the military, and was trying to revamp the constitution. “The real intent,” charged Bavadra, “is to sanction the military dictatorship we now have.” He called the proposed constitutional overhaul “feudalistic, authoritarian and racist.”

By 1988, the number one song in Australia was a send-up of Susanne Vega’s hit about domestic abuse, “Luca,” called “My Name is Rabuka.” With gunfire in the background the dictator sang about his coups and warned, “You just don’t argue anymore.”

*

In Suva, I spoke with V. J. Naidu, a university professor who was active in the nuclear-free zone movement. Hopes for an anti-nuclear shift in Fiji’s foreign policy — under consideration by Bavadra’s government — had evaporated. “Parliament is ineffective, and there is no separation of powers,” he added. Yet Naidu could see a silver lining.

Despite the manipulation of race, there was actually little hatred between ethnic groups, he claimed. A new consciousness was emerging, and the economic problems intensified by the coups had spurred more skepticism.

Most of the Indian citizens I met were not so optimistic. They often talked about emigrating to Australia, and about their second class citizenship in an inflationary economy. More than 5,000 Indians initially left the country after Rabuka seized power, many of them skilled professionals.

Unemployment was over 10 percent. The tourist sector was the hardest hit. Only a dramatic increase in military recruitment was keeping the situation from becoming a full-blown crisis. Criticism was permitted — up to a point. But public discourse was muted by a cowed media and a generalized fear that tolerance had its limits.

In a review of Rabuka’s official biography, pointedly titled No Other Way, Professor Som Prakash noted that the coups ultimately produced the results they were designed to prevent: breaking the Commonwealth tie with Britain and opening the country to foreign infiltration.

“It is the Rabuka-backed government,” Prakash wrote, “which brought about the establishment of the Israeli embassy in Fiji and the strengthening of French connections. And this was an invitation to the Libyans, Palestinians and others to destabilize Fiji further. All but the most gullible reader will see that the bulk of Rabuka’s actions were based on some farfetched, often self-fulfilling prophecies with an ironic twist: what Rabuka claims he fears others might do, he ends up doing himself.” In many ways, he was following the dictator’s playbook, exploiting divisions and using classic Fascist techniques.

In Fiji, irony wasn’t hard to find. By breaking relations with Britain and souring ties with Australia and New Zealand, for instance, the coup-makers had created an opening for the Japanese and later others. One of the first Japanese acquisitions was the Pacific Harbor resort, one of the country’s most exclusive. By the early 21st century, India turned out to be a more acquisitive foreign investor, with China not far behind.

In the long run, preserving the exclusive land rights of Fijians, along with a Fijian lock of state power, turned out to be a very limited victory.

*

Back in Lautoka, just a day before leaving, I reached Bavadra’s wife Kuini (pronounced Queenie) on the phone. They might have time to see us that night if we wanted to take a taxi to Viseisei village. Luckily, it wasn’t Sunday, so Rabuka’s Sabbath ban on transportation couldn’t prevent the meeting.

Since Bavadra was also a chief, we brought an offering, some German tea. Doc Bavadra wasn’t home when we first arrived, but Kuini was friendly, articulate, and ready to begin. The house decor mixed European and Fijian influences; there were easy chairs and modern coffee tables, piled high with international magazines and newspapers, as well as traditional mats and an open space for kava ceremonies.  The young men of the household, Bavadra’s disciples and bodyguards, watched us quietly as I asked my questions.

The two coups, Kuini explained, had actually been planned by former Prime Minister Ratu Mara in order to cover up years of graft. Rabuka was a front man; the real power had not changed hands.

Doc Bavadra joined us and agreed. Ratu Mara — full name Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, Prime Minister since Independence in 1970 — had orchestrated racial tensions, approved plans for the takeover in advance, and provided help in the subsequent “neutralization” operation, he said. Like other autocrats, he didn’t want to surrender power.

Some charges couldn’t be verified, like rumors that US diplomats, worried about the independent drift in Fiji’s foreign policy, had given a silent nod. Or that American forces may have participated. But interviews with Fijians and others close to the previous and current regimes did verify that Mara’s Alliance Party was integral to the May 1987 overthrow. At least one member of Mara’s immediate family was directly involved. Yet Mara insisted publicly that he was surprised and dismayed, and only “reluctantly” returned to his old post at Rabuka’s request.

In reality, divisions had been stirred up between the Taukei (ethnic Fijian landowners and members of chiefly clans) and the Indian community. Firebombings of Indian businesses by Alliance Party supporters were claimed to be Taukei attacks. Meanwhile, the new government’s appointment of Indians to some key positions was vilified as the first stage of an Indian takeover, supposedly leading to the loss of exclusive Fijian land rights and eventual Soviet infiltration. Until the Coalition won, the major races had co-existed better than might have been expected.

“Traditional customs and democracy should be kept separate,” said Bavadra, “but the chiefs say people should follow their lead. Chiefs have to make a choice — stay in the villages or get into elections and play the game there under the rules that apply to everybody. Right now they expect to be treated differently than the rest.”

The talk eventually turned to hopes for the future. Both Doc and Kuini were confident that a majority of people would ultimately reject what they viewed as a “form of apartheid.” Kuini, herself a Fijian member of a chiefly family, rejected the notion of “special status” for Fijians as “an insult, which assumes that we are inferior and need a special status to compete.”

People were learning the truth, they believed. Traditional Taukei leaders and Methodists, once behind the coup-makers, were beginning to reconsider. If a referendum or new elections were permitted, the Coalition might gain a foothold in the government.

When we met, one reason for their optimism was the recent conversion of an old enemy, Ratu Meli, an ardent Taukei who was “converted through prayer meetings and confessed that he made a big mistake,” according to Kuini. “He sees that calling for Fijian supremacy was wrong, and knows he was used.” As a result, he signed a statement that revealed the true story of the coup, an action that angered other Taukei leaders.

Fijians believe in the power of such conversions. It was conversion to Christianity that led Fijians to give up cannibalism. Abandoning that grisly tradition saved the country from invasion and set the stage for Fiji’s cession to Britain. The worst impacts of being a Crown colony were also avoided, and in 1970 the country, still culturally intact, regained its independence. But that led to another, perhaps even deeper transition. Democracy was in its infancy, and the forces of tradition remained powerful.

“If you study the Fijian way of life,” said Doc Bavadra, “you see it is very democratic, based on reciprocity and consensus.” He believed in the possibility of a return to full democracy, a reduction of chiefly influence and improved relations between the races, without a loss of traditional Fijian land rights.

He was mostly correct. At least 90 percent of all land is still owned and controlled by native Fijians. Indians can lease plots for up to 30 years. But they still can’t own the land on which they farm or build their homes. It’s no surprise that many of them continue to feel insecure or ultimately decide to leave.

“I look at the people as one,” Bavadra nevertheless said when we met in 1988. “I don’t see them in terms of race. But the ones who need the most service are the underprivileged across race. There are classes here.”

Bavadra died in November 1989, only a year after we met. By 1992 the country had returned to democratic elections and a constitution-based government. Rabuka remained a powerful political force, in and out of legal office, for the next 30 years. At 74, he was just re-elected Prime Minister in 2022.

*

Fiji was an easy place to fall in love with. Despite the political turmoil and my relationship problems, I rarely felt as comfortable away from Vermont. Fiji has almost the same land area and only 300,000 more inhabitants than the Green Mountain State. It was intimate, open, polite and not overdeveloped. Aside from the mosquitoes, it was almost idyllic.

That can change, of course, but when I was there no one put Fiji at the top of their “to do” list for rapid exploitation, not even the Japanese. And Fijians didn’t seem eager to be modern anyway. On Waya island I sometimes heard gossip about gold. But no one seemed to care much if it was extracted. They mainly just liked the idea that it might be there. Today, by the way, Waya hosts at least four full-service resorts.

And when I worried about being detained at the airport as a result of meeting with Bavadra, a New Zealand expatriate told me not to worry. They had no computers then to put my name in, and were too pacific to be first-rate oppressors. That may be as close to a modern definition of paradise as you can get.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Greg Guma / For Preservation & Change.

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Fiji’s Pacific Ways: Troubles in Paradise
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

India’s presidency of the Group of Twenty (G20) comes at a critical juncture; even as the  pandemic wanes, geopolitical tensions between the US and China could spiral into a possible military confrontation. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is now entering into its second year with little signs of resolution. Economists have been warning of an imminent recession in 2023 as also a deepening of the food crisis. With the global climate talks continuing to flounder the climate and biodiversity crisis will soon cross the tipping point. Earlier trends of authoritarianism and shrinking democratic spaces continue to spread across various regions of the world.  As India assumed G20 Presidency in November 2022, as a representative of the countries of the Global South, it can play a vital role in the face of extreme wealth inequality, increasing ecological devastation, pro-corporate regulatory regimes and criminalisation of dissent.

The G20 was constituted by the finance ministers of the G7 group of countries in 1999 in the wake of the Asian Financial Crisis to unite finance ministers and central bankers from twenty of the world’s largest economies. At a primary level, its mandate was to discuss monetary, fiscal and exchange rate policies, infrastructure investment, financial regulation, financial inclusion, international taxation etc. With time, G20’s appetite to discuss more issues (beyond finance and economic policy) increased with the Sherpa track (such as issues like health, education etc.) and various engagement groups. With the Sherpa track the ensuing presidency keeps forth its priorities, while the engagement groups and the processes associated with them are supposed to be independent of the government. However, several of these engagement groups often turn into a platform for corporations (for example, kicking the can down the road with more loans and debt suspension instead of looking at debt cancellation) and their allied interest groups. Over the years, the year-long presidency becomes a popular networking event for the rich and the powerful under the pretence of saving the world, leaving very little space for groups that are critical of neoliberalism to put forth any alternative paradigms. Over the years, the Sherpa track, Finance track, and the engagement groups have stayed in the realm of being high-end talk-shops with no representation of people’s agenda.

G20 has remained as an exclusive club, a forum to save capitalism at the highest political level through the promotion of neoliberal policies. This provides an important imperative for the progressive civil society groups to raise questions around G20’s accountability and more importantly its legitimacy as a forum of global economic governance.

The threat of recession is looming all over the world; climate crisis is manifesting into extreme weather calamities and along with biodiversity loss and pollution, worsening its impact on the most vulnerable communities and making it difficult for several vulnerable nations to embark on a sustainable future; poverty, hunger, malnutrition and socio-economic inequalities have risen to an alarming level; and a serious debt crisis is threatening economic sovereignty of many countries. All of these calls for an immediate intervention and restructuring of the global economic order that is democratic, just and truly sustainable. Despite this, the G20 as an economic and political forum continues to prescribe the  business as usual approach and policies that advance capitalism, the root of the polycrisis in the first place. More often than not, such policy prescriptions push lower and middle income countries and peoples to the verge of collapse.

At a time when the world is facing such multifaceted problems, instead of raising important issues of the global south and vulnerable communities of the world, the government of India is using the G20 presidency as an opportunity to seek political and electoral gains before the upcoming national elections. The scale at which the G20 meetings are being organised to portray a picture perfect narrative of shining India, reeks of a vulgar display of wealth at a time when India’s performance on every social barometer is abysmal; not to forget, all on tax payers’ money. In the run-up to scheduled G20 meetings in different cities of India, government authorities are displacing the homeless people to far-flung areas, removing street vendors, and small shops from the roadsides to ‘beautify’ the cities. The party in power is forwarding India as the “centre of diversity” and “mother of democracy” while also consistently using all national institutions at its disposal to silence the dissenting voices of human rights defenders, repeatedly attacking minority communities with impunity and systematically destroying institutions and progressive civil society spaces. Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) ranks India at number 46 with “flawed democracy” label and Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-DEM) ranks India at 101 in the world with its classification as an “electoral autocracy” on par with Russia. On freedom of press, India is 11th in the “global impunity index” of Committee to Protect Journalists and in Reporters Without Borders ranks India at 150 in 2022.

Members of adivasi as also dalit-bahujan farming, fishing, livestock rearing and other forest dwelling communities, in other fragile ecosystems, are losing their lives or their freedoms in the struggle to safeguard their rights over natural resources while constantly facing threats from governments and profit-hungry private corporations. Publicly owned enterprises – importance of which was evident during the pandemic – are being handed over to few privately owned business houses through a massive push for privatisation. Policies are being changed to push the informal sector including small and micro businesses to the edge and to make space for medium and big players. Mega infrastructure projects are being implemented without any heed to their socio-economic impact on communities and environmental damage. And, a complete negligence of the working class and labour rights through withdrawal of welfare policies has resulted in high levels of inequality and social progress indicators touching an abysmal low. The richest 98 billionaires of India own the same wealth as the bottom 40% of Indian society and top 1% percent own more than 40.5% of total wealth in India. In the face of such striking ground realities, the Indian Prime Minister’s messages such as “India’s national consensus is forged not by diktat, but by blending millions of free voices into one harmonious melody” and “our citizen-centric governance model takes care of even our most marginalised citizens” do not hold much ground.

Against this background, the forum of G20 needs to be questioned for its absolute silence on declining spaces of dissent, human rights abuses, shrinking space of democracies and rising fascism and authoritarianism in countries including in the G20 nations themselves; as well as for undermining the democratic multilateralism; for its inactions resulting in a global policy paralysis; for being an obstacle in democratisation of global economic governance and for its own illegitimate nature.

G7 countries are still controlling the sovereign financial policies and related regulatory mechanisms through dictats of Financial Stability Board (FSB). With no regards to concerns of countries from the global south, expansion and consolidation of global food supply chains is being promoted as the only way to meet global food security. The Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI) and Common Framework for Debt Treatment (CF) have fallen short in tackling the debt crises due to lack of transparency and exclusion of loans from private sector creditors. G20’s policy recommendations through its various tracks and engagement groups are not only attempting to impose the reforms in sovereign finance related policies, but also pushing the capital-driven and pro-market policies in many critical sectors. These changes and imposed reforms have taken countries away from welfare centred approach, created problems for the masses on every front along the way, and have left them struggling for basic essentials like decent healthcare, affordable housing, quality education, employment, food security, and a healthy environment to live in. One example of this influence is the extent to which the Financial Stability Board’s recommendations featured in the Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance (FRDI) Bill, which was introduced in 2017, later withdrawn in 2018, after ample scrutiny.

The mere inclusion of few developing countries from the southern hemisphere and the G20 troika being composed of the countries of the south – Indonesia, India and Brazil, does not grant it a legitimate status and makes it a representative body of the global population. In fact, it means very little, for the Global South (i.e. the most vulnerable, poor people across the world) remains excluded from the G20 decision-making process and from its priorities. The G20 forum is still being used to safeguard international monetary systems and global economic governance framework in line with the demands of global capital and to serve the interests of corporations and the political and economic elite in both industrial and industrialising nations. The continuous failure of the G20 forum in tackling multiple recurring crises, its top-down approach through token representation and absence of the voices representing concerns of the Global South must be exposed by all means. The role of the Indian government in projecting a false rosy image of India and the silence of G20 countries on rising authoritarianism at the global level should also be challenged and an alternative agenda for the working classes across the G20 nations needs to be asserted. Across the G20 countries, thousands of people’s initiatives are showing what a sustainable, equitable present and future could look like, and how this would be possible to achieve with appropriate policy support.  We, the undersigned, affirm our resolution to strengthen our struggles against the neoliberal policies and authoritarian governance pushed ahead by forums such as G20, and our attempts at forging truly sustainable, democratic, equitable and just economies and societies. We appeal to all citizens, global people’s movements, national and international trade unions, students and academia to not be deceived by the gimmicks of the Indian government and its false propaganda, but to work for these struggles and initiatives.

Endorsed by:

  1. Jawhar Sircar, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
  2. Medha Patkar, Narmada Bachao Andolan / National Alliance of People’s Movements
  3. Teesta Setalvad, Sabrang India
  4. Devasahayam MG, People First
  5. E A S Sarma, Forum for Better Visakha
  6. Anil Sadgopal, All India Forum for Right to Education
  7. Shaktiman Ghosh, National Hawker Federation
  8. Sagari Ramdas, Food Sovereignty Alliance, India
  9. Meera Sanghamitra, National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM)
  10. S Janakarajan, Forum for Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts
  11. John Dayal, All India Catholic Union
  12. Ulka Mahajan, Sarvahara Jan Andolan
  13. Himanshu Thakkar, Bengaluru
  14. Ashish Kothari, Pune
  15. Achin Vanaik, Retired Professor, Delhi University
  16. Prasad Chacko, Ahmedabad
  17. Ashok Shrimali, mines, mineral & People
  18. Edwin, OpenSpace
  19. Leo Saldanha, Environment Support Group
  20. Soumya Dutta, South Asian People’s Action on Climate Crisis
  21. Mujahid Nafees, Minority Coordination Committee
  22. K Ashok Rao, Power Engineer and Public Sector Officers Federations
  23. Ravi Nair, Journalist, New Delhi
  24. Anil Bakshi, Hawker Majdoor Mahasangh
  25. Devidas Tuljapurkar, Maharashtra State Bank Employees Federation
  26. Raj Kumar Sinha, National Alliance of People’s Movements, Madhya Pradesh
  27. Dr. Sunilam, Kisan Sangharsh Samiti
  28. Madhu Bhushan, Women’s Rights Activist
  29. D Thomas Franco, People First
  30. Dinesh Abrol, National Working Group on Patent Laws and WTO
  31. Biswajit Dhar, Economist
  32. Chandan Kumar, Labour Rights Activist
  33. CP Krishnan, Bank Employees Federation of India
  34. Nandita Narain, Democratic Teachers’ Front, Delhi University
  35. Pankaj Bisht, Hawkers Joint Action Committee
  36. Manju Goel, Amazon India Workers Commitee
  37. Friends of the Earth India (FoE India)
  38. Poonam K, GIG Workers Association (GIGWA)
  39. Prafulla Samantara, Lok Shakti Abhiyan
  40. Vineet Tiwari, All India Progressive Writers’ Association
  41. Ram Wangkheirakpam, Indigenous Perspectives
  42. K.J. Joy, Forum for Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts in India
  43. Ravindranath, River Basin Friends
  44. National Federation of Indian Women
  45. Working Group on International Financial Institutions (WGonIFIs)
  46. Deen Bandhu Samaj Sahyog Samiti, Madhya Pradesh
  47. Maansi, Article 21 Trust
  48. Persis Ginwalla, Ahmedabad
  49. Dimple Oberoi Vahali, Independent Activist
  50. Ahmar Raza, Retired Scientist
  51. Geo Damin, Poovulagin Nanbargal
  52. Ajay Kumar Yadav, Asangthit Majdoor Haqu Abhiyan
  53. Izmat Ansari, The Climate Agenda
  54. TN Krishna Das
  55. Centre for Financial Accountability, New Delhi
  56. Dalit Adivasi Shakti Adhikar Manch (DASAM)
  57. Financial Accountability Network India (FAN India)
  58. Raghu Menon, Pondicherry Science Forum
  59. Kurien John, Bangalore
  60. Linda Chhakchhuak, Shillong
  61. Vasudha Varadarajan, Vikalp Sangam
  62. Prakash Louis, Xavier Institute of Social Research, Patna
  63. Rajendra Bhise, Activist
  64. Awadhesh Kumar, Srijan Lokhit Samiti
  65. Pankaj Kumar, Srijan Lokhit Samiti
  66. Dinkar Kapoor, All India People’s Front
  67. Vivek Pawar, Jan Sangharsh Morcha
  68. Aamana Begam, Jan Jagaran Samiti
  69. Pradeep Esteves, Context India
  70. Binu Mathew, Kochi
  71. T Swaminathan, Nagpur
  72. Nidhi, Shehri Mahila Kamgar Union
  73. S Maria Sebastian, Pensioner’s Association
  74. Samali Banerjee, Student, Kolkata
  75. Maria Sebastian. S, Pensioner’s Association
  76. Usman Jawed, Delhi
  77. Vijay Kumar, Caste Annihilation Movement, Madhya Pradesh
  78. Lambert Solomon, Goa
  79. R. Ajayan, Editor, Navayugam weekly, Kerala
  80. Sitaram Shelar, Pani Haq Samiti
  81. Bhupender Rawat, Jan Sangharsh Vahini
  82. Shabina, Delhi Solidarity Group
  83. Avinash Kumar, Wada Na Todo Abhiyan
  84. Arvind Kaul, Delhi
  85. Mini Bedi, Development Support Team
  86. Imtiaz Quadri, Hyderabad
  87. Kalpana, Collective
  88. Raghavan, New Delhi
  89. Dimple Oberoi Vahali, New Delhi
  90. Akash Bhattacharya, All India Central Council of Trade Unions
  91. Avay Shukla, Retired Civil Servant
  92. Rajendra Ravi, People’s Resource Centre
  93. Vijay Kumar, Teacher, Bengaluru
  94. Dr. Sylvia Karpagam, Health for All
  95. A. R. Vasavi, Researcher, Bengaluru
  96. Purushan Eloor, Periyar Malineekarana Virudha Samithy
  97. Peggy Devraj, Bangalore
  98. Geeta Menon, Stree Jagruti Samiti
  99. Sudha S, Bangalore
  100. Lovish Kumar, Betterplace Safety Solutions Private Limited
  101. Reshma, Karnataka
  102. Syed Salman, Bahutva Karnataka
  103. Pooja Tanna, Pune
  104. Prabhat Sharan, Mumbai
  105. Manohar Singh, Haryana
  106. Alex Kerketta, Daltanganj
  107. Anand Athialy, Student, Pune
  108. Anand Lakhan, Indore
  109. Amitanshu Verma, Delhi Solidarity Group
  110. Niraj Bhatt, Chennai
  111. Vijayan MJ, Delhi Solidarity Group
  112. Sundarrajan, Poovulagin Nanbargal
  113. K Sukumaran, Advocate Gudalur
  114. Satyarupa Shekhar, Chennai

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

  • Posted in English @as @as, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Public Statement by Indian People’s Movements, Trade Unions and Other Civil Society Groups on G20
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In the latest escalation in Australia’s increasingly forceful campaign to manufacture consent for war with China, the Murdoch-owned Sky News Australia has aired a jaw-droppingly propagandistic hour-long special which advocates a dramatic increase in the nation’s military spending.

Australians are uniquely vulnerable to propaganda because our nation has the most concentrated media ownership in the western world, the lion’s share of it by Rupert Murdoch, who has well-documented ties to US government agencies going back decades. The propaganda campaign against China has gotten so aggressive here in recent years that I’ve repeatedly had complete strangers start babbling at me about the Chinese threat in casual conversation, completely out of the blue, within minutes of our first meeting each other.

The Sky News special is one of the most brazenly propagandistic things I have ever witnessed in any news media, with its opening minutes featuring footage of bayonet-wielding Chinese troops marching while ominous cinematic Bad Guy music plays loudly over the sound of the marching. In its promotional clip for the special, Sky News Australia tinged all footage pertaining to China in red to show how dangerous and communist they are. These are not decisions that are made with the intention of informing the public, these are decisions that are made with the intention of administering war propaganda.

The first expert Sky News brings on to tell viewers about the Chinese menace is Mick Ryan, an Adjunct Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which is funded by military-industrial complex entities like Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, and is also directly funded by the US government and its client states, including Australia and Taiwan. Sky News of course makes no mention of this immense conflict of interest while manufacturing consent for increased military spending, calling Ryan simply a “former major general.” This is on the same level of journalistic malpractice as running an article by Colonel Sanders on the health benefits of fried chicken but calling him “Harland David Sanders, former fry cook.”

The next expert Sky News presents us with is Australian former major general Jim “The Butcher of Fallujah” Molan, who oh-so-sadly passed away last month. I’ve written about Molan previously specifically because the Australian media love citing him in their propaganda campaign against China, last time when he was pushing the ridiculous claim that China is poised to launch an invasion of Australia.

The other experts Sky News brings in are former CIA Director and US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Joseph Wu, Taiwan’s Director of Chinese Affairs Dr Lai Chung, Japan’s ambassador to Australia Yamagami Shingo, Australian Shadow Defense Minister Andrew Hastie, and John Coyne of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a virulent propaganda firm which is once again funded by US-aligned governments and military-industrial complex war profiteers.

So it’s about as balanced and impartial a punditry lineup as you’d expect.

At the 8:15 mark of the special, Sky News repeats the unevidenced propaganda claim that former Chinese president Hu Jintao was politically purged during the 20th Communist Party Congress last year.

At 19:15 Jim Molan talks about the need to fight and die with our allies the Americans while patriotic cello music plays in the background.

At 21:30 we are shown images of Australia being bombed alongside the Chinese flag (very subtle, guys).

At 24:25 Sky News accidentally does a version of the “look how close they put their country to our military bases” meme with a graphic display of all the US war machinery that surrounds China. The US would never tolerate being encircled by the Chinese military like that and would immediately wage war if China tried; it’s clear that the US is the aggressor in this conflict and China is reacting defensively.

“The United States plays a major strategic role in the Indo-Pacific,” says Sky News anchor Peter Stefanovic as the screen lights up with graphics showing the military presence surrounding China. “With 375,000 personnel, there’s a vast network of operations that extend from Hawaii all the way to India.”

At 26:30 we are shown a digital representation of China’s satellite systems in space, with the Chinese satellites colored red to help us all appreciate how evil and communist they are.

At 27:45 we are shown illustrations of how much smaller Australia’s military is than China’s or America’s to help us understand how important it is to increase the size of our nation’s war machine, ignoring the fact that Australia’s total population is a tiny fraction of either of those countries.

At 32:45 we are told that the AUKUS pact will “beef up America’s military presence in the north of Australia,” and that “America has long used Australia as a key strategic outpost,” showing images of Pine Gap and other parts of the US war machine which dot this continent. “Now, there’s more to come,” says Stefanovic, with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin describing the surge in US military presence we’re to expect in Australia.

At 34:10 the Australian Strategic Policy Institute guy explains why the US is so keen to use Australia in its planned confrontation with China, saying the continent’s geography puts it in “the Goldilocks location” of being close enough to China to be meaningful but far enough away that its war machinery can’t be easily struck.

At 35:15 Stefanovic warns that “our nation could quite literally be brought to its knees” if a war to the north sees shipping lanes cut off since Australia is so heavily dependent of imports. You would think this is an argument about the importance of maintaining a peaceful relationship with China, but instead it’s used to foment fear of China and argue for the need to be able to defeat it in a war.

And at 45:50 we finally get to the real purpose of this Sky News special: the need to “dramatically increase” the Australian military budget, and the need to manufacture consent for that increase. Australia currently has a military budget of $48.7 billion, a little less than two percent of the nation’s GDP. The late Butcher of Fallujah tells Sky News that “we need to at least double our defense expenditure” to four percent, and the special’s pundits openly discuss the need for Australians to be persuaded to accept this using narrative management.

“The Australian government needs to talk to the Australian people about the kinds of threats it faces,” says Mick Ryan. “It needs a more compelling narrative to convince the Australian people that they need to spend more on defense.”

“I think it is important that we are having a conversation with the Australian people which makes it clear that we live in a world which is more fragile than we have for a very long period of time,” Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles tells Sky News. “And what that is going to require is a defense posture and a defense force which is in truth gonna cost more than it has in the past. We’re gonna need to increase our defense spending.”

To be clear, this is not just a call to increase military spending, this is a call to propagandize Australians into consenting to more military spending. It’s not very often that the propaganda comes right out and explains to you why it is propagandizing you.

I always get people complaining that I focus too much on the US war machine when I live in Australia, but anyone who’s paying attention knows the behavior of the US war machine is as relevant to Australians as it is to Americans. They are beating the drums for a future war of unfathomable horror all to please a dark god known as unipolarism, and it threatens to destroy us all.

The time to start resisting is now.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Solomon Islands has begun uprooting US interference in its political and information space;

It has also banned violent US-backed opposition groups and removed from power US-sponsored opposition leaders;

This has been made possible with support from China, the Solomon Islands’ largest trade partner;

The US and the Western media are now accusing China of “encroaching” on the island nation and of the nation’s government of suppressing “democracy” and “human rights;”

This same pattern of US interference is exactly what precipitated the ongoing US proxy war with Russia in Ukraine.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Chinese Embassy in Solomon Islands

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As a four-day reggae, rock and hip hop music fiesta got underway Feb. 17, putting many wild animals inhabiting a forest reserve in Habarana in Sri Lanka’s North Central province at risk, authorities have chosen to look the other way.

The Deep Jungle Music and Cultural Festival 2023 is organized by a company named Deep Jungle Entertainment (Pvt) Ltd and will be held Feb. 17-20 on privately owned land in Habarana, a nearly four-hour drive from the commercial capital, Colombo.

The entire area surrounding the site of the event is forested land and is a habitat for many animals including the Sri Lankan elephant (Elephas maximus maximus).

Sumith Pilapitiya, an environmental scientist, elephant ethologist and a former director of the Department of Wildlife Conservation, said that elephants from Minneriya — which is located east of the event site — are now in the forests of the Gal Oya Forest Reserve and Hurulu Eco Park, after spending “a stressful dry season due to inadequate grazing grounds.”

“The planned event is taking place just a couple of hundred meters from the Gal Oya Forest Reserve and Hurulu Eco Park,” he said.

Tickets for the event were sold in advance for $50, $60, or $70, with a gate ticket for each visitor being priced at $83. At least 50 artists, both local and foreign — including three from Russia and one each from Brazil and Australia — are scheduled to perform at the event.

“Our aim is to promote sustainable tourism locations and activities in Sri Lanka,” Deep Jungle Entertainment said in a notice on its website to promote the event. But multiple concerns have arisen on the event’s sustainability, given the negative impact it is bound to have on the surrounding habitat.

The map depicts the location at which the Deep Jungle Music and Cultural Festival is being held, a venue  surrounded by forestland. Image courtesy of Deep Jungle Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

Key concerns

The issues relating to the festival, which will have more than 100 hours of nonstop music, are primarily the sound and light emissions that can disturb wildlife in a highly sensitive environment.

Although the event is being held on privately owned land, all quarters including the organizers have acknowledged that the surrounding area is a natural forest reserve inhabited by elephants.

“Habarana is a popular tourist destination for its rich wildlife and safaris, as two popular elephant sanctuaries are situated in the area,” Deep Jungle Entertainment has said on its website.

In a letter dated Feb. 2, and seen by Mongabay, the divisional forest office in Polonnaruwa had granted conditional approval for the event, stating that it was to take place in an area inhabited by wild elephants and other animals.

“Steps must be taken to limit the emission of sounds through devices such as loudspeakers, only to the area in which the event is taking place,” the divisional forest office said in a letter to the director of Deep Jungle Entertainment.

Environmental groups are skeptical about assurances granted by the organizers stating they will adhere to the sound limits.

“We will be using the latest array sound system during the festival in keeping with the guidelines. If anyone doubts that, they can clear their suspicion by visiting us when the event is taking place,” the organizers added in another statement.

The location where the music festival will take place with 100 hours of nonstop music. Image courtesy of Deep Jungle Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

Panchali Panapitiya, the founder and executive director of RARE Sri Lanka, an animal conservation group, noted that animals are extremely sensitive to sounds and lighting and respond differently to such situations.

“When there is massive lighting from the event, the birds might assume that it is daytime and then crash on trees when flying in a disoriented way. This will lead to their possible death,” Panapitiya told Mongabay. “Since this is a four-day carnival, the situation will be worse.”

“Similarly, elephants are creatures that are terrified of sound. If they can’t cross this area peacefully, then they will explore alternative routes, which might transverse through villages. This will create serious risks to both humans and elephants.”

According to research papers seen by Mongabay, elephants are among the wild animals that are extremely sensitive to sounds.

“Elephants can hear sounds in the frequency range of 1-20.000 Hz with a distance of 10 km of hearing,” according to research published in the Conference Series of the Journal of Physics. “Absolutely, increasing of human activity around elephant habitat causes noise effects that result in a decrease of quality and quantity of elephant habitat that can be impacted to population decline,” the report states.

Meanwhile, Spencer Manuelpillai, a general committee member of the Wildlife and Nature Protection Society (WNPS) told Mongabay that the surrounding habitat is not just home to wild elephants but also other species of animals, so the greatest possible care must be taken.

According to WNPS, birds such as the black eagle, Eurasian hoopoe (Upupa epops) and roufus woodpecker (Micropternus brachyurus) and animals like the grey slender loris (Loris lydekkerianus), fishing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus), jungle cat (Felis chaus), Indian pangolin (Manis crassicaudata), sloth bear (Melursus ursinus), chevrotain (Tragulidae family) and sambar deer (Rusa unicolor) inhabit the area.

Use of public sound systems

Sri Lanka’s Police Ordinance clearly lays out the regulations relating to the use of loudspeakers.

Under Section 80 of the legislation, no person can use a loudspeaker or any other device that amplifies noise in a public area without a permit issued by the officer in charge of the police station in the respective area.

The law states that the permit has to be obtained to use a sound amplification device even if the event is to be held at any other place, if the sound reaches a public place.

In addition to the ordinance, in 2007, Sri Lanka’s police chief issued a circular prohibiting the use of sound amplification equipment from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. in public areas.

According to the circular, permits for using loudspeakers or other sound amplifying devices during this period can be issued by the police only after consulting the land owners in the vicinity and with the approval of the magistrate’s court.

Lights have been fixed close to the forest reserve. Image courtesy of the Center for Environmental Justice.

“The organizers have not obtained permission from us,” a senior police officer at the Habarana police station who requested anonymity as he is not authorized to speak to the media, told Mongabay. He declined to offer further details.

Mongabay tried contacting Deep Jungle Entertainment to ask why it had not obtained approval to use the sound amplification systems. Calls and messages sent to the organizers went unanswered.

Hemantha Withanage, the director of the Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ), pointed out that if such a permit is not obtained, the police could take legal action against the organizers.

“But the authorities are not willing to take corrective action,” he told Mongabay.

The CEJ has said it will take legal action against the organizers, the police, the Department of Wildlife and Conservation, and the Department of Forest Conservation for organizing the event in violation of existing laws and regulations. On Feb. 17, the Hingurakgoda magistrate court ordered electronic/technological silence from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.

Despite mounting protests, organizers have decided to go ahead with the event. Image courtesy of the Center for Environmental Justice.

Withdrawal of approval

In the face of public outrage, the divisional forest office in Polonnaruwa, in a letter dated Feb. 13, informed the organizers it would withdraw its approval granted for the event.

“The organizers did not have to obtain permission from us since the event is taking place on private land and not in the forest reserve,” a senior official speaking to Mongabay on the basis of anonymity at the forest office told Mongabay.

“We gave them approval previously, only because they asked for it from us.”

When Mongabay questioned whether the divisional forest office has no responsibility even if the event negatively impacts a forest reserve under its purview, the officer said he could not comment on that.

Multiple attempts by Mongabay to reach the conservator general of forests for comment proved futile.

The poster published by the organizers for the Deep Jungle Music and Cultural Festival that is to run across four days. Image courtesy of Deep Jungle Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

Chandana Sooriyabandara, the director general of the Department of Wildlife Conservation, said his institution has informed the organizers that the event should be held in a way that does not harm animals.

“We cannot forecast what action we would take if they violate the laws. If animals are affected by this, then we can decide at that time. That depends on the evidence that is available,” Sooriyabandara told Mongabay.

The Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau has “strongly recommended” canceling the event if the organizers have not obtained the relevant approval and clearances from the environmental, forest and wildlife agencies.

Despite the divisional forest office reversing its approval and the police not permitting the use of sound amplification devices, Deep Jungle Entertainment on Feb. 15 posted a message on its official Facebook page stating the event will go ahead as planned. “Forcing the company to cancel the event just 03 days before the festival is not practical!!” the organizers said.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Source

Abdulla et al. (2020) “The effect of antrophogenic noise on Sumatran Elephant’s anti-predator behavior in the Elephant Conservation Center,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series [Preprint] Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/591/htm

Featured image: Elephants near the Huruluwewa reservoir. Image courtesy of Namal Kamalgoda.

Everything Japan Vowed to Give Marcos Jr.

February 16th, 2023 by Richard Javad Heydarian

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr triumphantly returned from his five-day trip to Japan with major economic and defense deals in his pocket.

It was the leader’s ninth foreign visit in just over eight months, with previous trips to the US and China, and proved to be his most fruitful yet.

In Tokyo, the Filipino president secured US$13 billion in investment pledges and another $3 billion in loans, which according to the official readout could create as many as 24,000 jobs in the Philippines.

The two sides discussed the status of a whole range of big-ticket Japanese infrastructure projects, including the North-South Commuter Railway for Malolos-Tutuban, and the North South-Commuter Railway Project Extension.

Japan is also currently building the Southeast Asian country’s first-ever underground metro system, which promises to revolutionize Manila’s decrepit and clogged public transportation system.

Japan also agreed to provide the Philippines comprehensive assistance in the areas of agriculture, digital economy, the peace process in Mindanao and training of Filipino civil servants.

Historically a top source of development aid and infrastructure investments, Japan hopes to take its bilateral relations with the Philippines to a new level. Accordingly, Tokyo is finalizing an unprecedented defense aid package as well as a Reciprocal Access Agreement with the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

The two sides also signaled their intent to expand joint military exercises, with an eye on a more robust US-Japan-Philippine triangular alliance amid rising geopolitical tensions with China in the region.

By several indications, Marcos Jr is cementing his country’s pivot back to traditional allies after six years of a Beijing-friendly foreign policy under the authoritarian populist regime of Rodrigo Duterte.

Trade and investment deals

As expected, trade and commercial deals dominated Marcos Jr’s trip to Japan, which is the only country to have a bilateral free trade deal with the Philippines.

Since coming to power, the Filipino president has made commercial diplomacy a central theme of his administration, as the Southeast Asian nation aims to boost its post-pandemic recovery amid fears of global recession and heightened inflation at home.

“Coming back, we carry with us over 13 billion US dollars in contributions and pledges to benefit our people and create approximately 24,000 jobs, and further solidify the foundation of our economic environment,” declared Marcos Jr upon his arrival back in the Philippines.

The Filipino president also declared that Japan is offering around $3 billion to finance big-ticket infrastructure projects such as the North-South Commuter Railway Project Extension and the North-South Commuter Railway for Malolos-Tutuban. Both aim to enhance connectivity among the country’s more industrialized regions.

“The completion of these projects along with other large-scale development assistance projects such as the Metro Manila Subway Project and many more across the country are expected to translate to better lives for Filipinos through improved facilitation of the movement of people of goods and services,” Marcos Jr added.

The two sides also welcomed progress in the Japan-led Metro Manila Subway Project while exploring further deals on the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing railway systems, most notably the Metro Rail Transit Line 3 (MRT-3).

Japan has also promised to help the Philippines modernize its failing air transport infrastructure under the New Communications, Navigation and Surveillance and Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) Development Project.

Last month, Marcos Jr attended the World Economic Forum in Davos with a large delegation of the country’s leading business and conglomerate leaders.

Cognizant of his country’s patchy reputation after six years of populist antics under his predecessor Duterte, Marcos Jr, who has also had to grapple with his family’s political notoriety, is bent on “reintroducing” the Philippines to the wider world while rehabilitating his family’s reputation.

In Tokyo, the Filipino president met top business leaders to discuss “the new and better business climate and investment environment in the Philippines.” He also met the relatively large Filipino community in Japan, including Filipino seafarers who constitute 70% of Japan’s maritime crew.

“The Japanese shipping companies also have investments and long-term partnerships with Filipino stakeholders in maritime education and welfare programs,” Marcos Jr added.

As the concurrent agriculture secretary, the Filipino president, who has been grappling with rising food inflation at home, also explored new cooperative deals with Japan, including the establishment of the Joint Committee on Agriculture and other forms of interagency mechanisms to help create “resilient and sustainable agriculture and food systems, smart technology, [and] strengthe[n] food value chain.”

Japan also offered to help the Philippines to realize its own Universal Health Coverage plan while also expanding its assistance to ongoing peacebuilding efforts in the historically restive island of Mindanao through, inter alia, “vocational training for livelihood improvement and industrial development.”

The two sides also agreed to expand people-to-people cooperation through initiatives such as the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) program, JENESYS (Japan–East Asia Network of Exchange for Students and Youths) and the Project for Human Resource Development Scholarship Grant Aid of Japan (JDS).

Integrated deterrence

What made Marcos Jr’s trip particularly significant, however, was the expanded focus on defense cooperation, especially as Japan embarks on its own massive defense buildup and the Philippines restores military cooperation with its American mutual defense treaty ally.

During Marcos Jr’s trip, the two sides agreed to regularize high-level dialogues such as Foreign and Defense Ministerial Meeting (“2+2”) and the Vice-Ministerial Strategic Dialogue and the Political-Military (PM) Dialogue.

The Filipino president largely welcomed Japan’s new “National Security Strategy (NSS),” the “National Defense Strategy (NDS),” and the “Defense Buildup Program (DBP)”, which collectively facilitate the Northeast Asian country’s re-emergence as a major defense player in the Indo-Pacific region.

The two sides also agreed to the terms of reference concerning Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) activities of the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) in the Philippines, which simplifies joint military activities and exchanges between the two countries’ armed forces.

Down the road, Japan and the Philippines hope to finalize a Visiting Forces Agreement, which would enable more large-scale joint military exercises in addition to pre-existing Philippine-US and Philippine-Australia defense agreements.

Crucially, Japan has also agreed to provide a new package of defense aid and other forms of defense equipment transfer programs. In particular, the two sides are exploring the transfer of new air-surveillance radar systems, Japan-made 97-meter-class patrol vessels and other forms of military hardware, which could enhance the Philippines domain awareness and maritime security capabilities vis-à-vis China.

Japan is also set to assist the development of a Philippine Coast Guard Subic Bay support base, which “could serve as the home of, and the installation of satellite communications system on patrol vessels.”

The Philippines and Japan are also exploring a tripartite security agreement with the US as part of a broader “integrated deterrence strategy” against China.

In recent years, Japan has regularly attended major joint drills in the Philippines, including the large-scale Philippines–US “Balikatan”, “KAMANDAG” and “Sama-Sama” exercises and the Philippines–Australia “Lumbas” drills.

Moving forward, the two sides also agreed to institutionalize the Japan-Philippines-US Land Forces Summit and underscored their commitment to deepening defense exchanges through trilateral mechanisms such as the Japan-Philippines-US Trilateral Joint Staff Talks and the Japan-Philippines-US Trilateral Defense Policy Dialogue, as well as the JSDF’s participation in Philippines-US joint exercises.

“It is something that we certainly are going to be studying upon my return to the Philippines. I think just part of the continuing process of strengthening our alliances because in this rather confusing, and I dare say dangerous situations, that we have,” Marcos Jr said, referring to ongoing discussions for a tripartite Philippine-US-Japan security agreement.

“So that is, I think, a central element to providing some sort of stability in the face of all these problems that we are seeing around us,” he said.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr (L) and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida listen to their national anthems at the prime minister’s official residence in Tokyo, Japan, February 9, 2023. Image: Pool / Twitter

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The International Criminal Court will resume the investigation into alleged crimes against humanity in the war on drugs of the Duterte administration more than a year since it was suspended.

“​​After having examined the submissions and materials of the Philippines Government, and of the ICC Prosecutor, as well as the victims’ observations, the Chamber concluded that the various domestic initiatives and proceedings, assessed collectively, do not amount to tangible, concrete and progressive investigative steps in a way that would sufficiently mirror the Court’s investigation,” the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I said in a Jan. 26 announcement.

Although the Pre-Trial Chamber, a judicial branch under the ICC, recognized the efforts of various government offices to probe the alleged crimes, it concluded that such initiatives do not show progressive investigative steps.

“[W]hen taking into account the possible interaction between government agencies, and assessing the various domestic initiatives and proceedings collectively as assessed above, these steps do not, at present and based on the material before the Chamber, amount to tangible, concrete and progressive investigative steps,” it said.

However, the pre-trial chamber assured that the Philippine government is still allowed to provide materials for Khan’s office or the chamber itself in the future “to determine inadmissibility of the investigation or of any actual case, if and when needed.”

Phil Robertson, deputy director of the Asia division of Human Rights Watch, said the resumption of the drug war probe shows that the ICC “offers a path forward to fill the accountability vacuum” due to the alleged failure of the Philippine government to conduct genuine investigations.

Robertson said,

“[T]he ICC investigation in the Philippines is the only credible avenue for justice for the victims and their families of former President Rodrigo Duterte’s murderous ‘war on drugs.’”

Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, however is not amenable to ICC coming to the Philippines to investigate.

“Definitely I do not welcome this move of theirs and I will not welcome them in the Philippines unless they make it clear that they will respect us in this regard,” he said in a press conference. “I will not stand for any of these antics that will question our status as a sovereign country. We will not accept that.”

The Philippines withdrew from the ICC on March 17, 2018 which took effect a year after. ICC investigation on alleged crimes against humanity arising from Duterte war on drugs covered the period July 1, 2016 to March 16, 2019. The ICC is also looking into killings and other related crimes in the Davao region as early as November 2011.

In a statement to VERA Files, National Union of People’s Lawyers chairperson and International Association for Democratic Lawyers transitional president Edre Olalia welcomed the resumption of the probe “in the midst of continuing impunity, selective memory and orchestrated denial by the past and present governments.”

“It validates once again what the victims have been asserting all along: that there are no adequate and effective measures to achieve concrete justice for them on the ground even at this very day despite official claims to the contrary,” he said.

In a joint statement, the NUPL and Rise Up for Life and for Rights, a group of families of victims and drug war survivors, called on those involved in crimes committed in the Duterte administration’s drug war such as police officers, agents and assets to surface and testify against those with “ultimate guilt.”

“Apela namin na lumantad ang mga pulis, ahente, asset, o tao na alam ang sistema at pagkakawing-kawing ng mga direktiba, at tumestigo laban sa mga ultimong salarin,” the groups said.

(We appeal to police officers, agents, assets and persons who know the system and links of the directives to surface, and testify against those with ultimate guilt.)

Aurora Parong, co-chairperson  of the Philippine Coalition for the ICC noted that the decision came after very strong recommendations for prosecution of the perpetrators of extrajudicial killings in the War on Drugs (WoD) during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the Philippines in Geneva, Switzerland where Justice Secretary Remulla spoke about “real justice in real time”. The justice secretary must now give evidence to show that indeed there is real time justice in the country.

“The Philippine government should now realize that badmouthing the ICC, diplomatic runs and rhetorics on justice will not stop the International Criminal Court  from doing its work to investigate crimes within its jurisdiction and deliver justice for serious crimes in international law. Instead of calling the ICC decision an “irritant”, the Justice Secretary should consider it a wake- up call. It is a wake -up call to do more and launch bolder actions to exact accountability for serious crimes from those who pulled the trigger and especially officials or heads of state who emboldened them to kill without fear,” the PCICC said in a statement.

Fr. Flavie Villanueva, who runs Program Paghilom “that provides dignified, systematic and holistic healing and care for the victims of Duterte’s war-on- drugs, said, the ICC’s most recent decision “speaks loud and clear that ÿou cannot run away from your past sins.”

Remulla said he has yet to speak with Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra on the next actions of the Marcos administration.

Guevarra said in a separate statement that the government intends to exhaust legal remedies including appealing the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision to the ICC Appeals chamber.

The investigation into the Duterte administration’s bloody war on drugs began in September 2021. The probe, however, was temporarily suspended in November 2021 on the request of the Philippine government to ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan to defer to local procedures.

The ICC prosecutor alleged at least 12,000 to 30,000 suspected drug personalities died in the Duterte administration’s drug war.

Read the announcement of the court here and the full copy of the decision here.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Protest by local human rights groups, remembering the victims of the drug war, October 2019.  (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Seven months on from the anti-government uprising in Galle Face and on the anniversary of the founding of the Sri Lankan state, Susan Price spoke with Green Left contributor Janaka Biyanwila about how government spin backed up with state violence is attempting to keep a lid on popular discontent.

Janaka Biyanwila: February 4 marked 72 years since the formation of the Sri Lankan state. However, for Tamils, Muslims and the majority of Sri Lankans, this was not a day for celebration. Why is this?

Susan Price: The Independence Day is mostly a project of the elite classes, based on promoting “nationhood” or the national community as a patriarchal Sinhala Buddhist ethno-nationalist project. One of the main acts following independence was the denial of citizenship (1948 Citizenship Act) to Tamil workers in tea plantations. At the time, the population was around 7 million, with close to a million migrant Tamil workers, mostly working in the tea plantations, but they were also part of the urban working classes.

Then in 1956, the Sinhala language was granted constitutional privileges. Although this was seen as an assertion of cultural self-determination, it was mostly about discriminating against Tamil, Muslim and Burger (Eurasian) communities, in order [for Sinhala speakers] to gain public sector jobs. This triggered the initial wave of migration of minority ethnic communities to other parts of the former British Empire (the British Commonwealth) including Australia.

This was followed by the 1972 privileged status given to Buddhism within the constitution, which discriminated against other religions. This piece of legislation linked the state and party politics more closely with conservative, elitist, Buddhist monks. This was also a strategy by the local ruling elites to break the popularity of communist and socialist secular tendencies among the masses. In other words, displacing class politics with ethnic-identity politics.

Then you have the post-1977 market economy which promoted a Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism under the “righteous society” (Dharmishta Samajaya) slogan. The market economy project also shifted the party politics from a parliamentary democracy towards a presidential system, which concentrated and centralised power within the presidency.

The state repression of Tamil agitations that began in the early 1970s mainly in the North to demand cultural recognition — led to the rise of militant Tamil groups. Following the 1983 Anti-Tamil pogrom, the civil war broke out, ending in 2009 in a blood bath. Following this military solution, rather than a political solution, there were no efforts towards a genuine reconciliation. So, 15 years after the ending of the civil war, there are still people displaced, living with families and friends, political prisoners and over 20,000 disappeared people, whose families are still searching for answers.

As for the Muslim community, after the end of the civil war, the Muslim community became the target of Sinhala Buddhist ethno-nationalism. This was bolstered by the Islamophobia triggered following 9/11 [the 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre in the United States] and the Hindu nationalist (Hindutva) attacks on Muslims in India.

There were multiple incidents of violence against Muslim communities led by militant Buddhist monks, and these attitudes escalated after the 2019 Easter Sunday bombing by an extremist Muslim group. But the investigations into the attack revealed that the military intelligence services had contact with this group. In October 2021, then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa appointed the same militant monk who led the anti-Muslim attacks, to head a Presidential Task Force called the “one country, one law”, mainly targeting changes to personal laws based on Islam.

It is also important to recognise that there are a few Tamil and Muslim capitalists and middle classes that support the ruling regime, but Sinhala-Buddhist ethno-chauvinism is configured by co-opting a few minorities. So, for the Tamil and Muslim communities the celebration of Independence has little meaning.

JB: Seven months on from the protests in Galle Face, how would you characterise the state of the anti-government movement?

SP: The anti-government movement (the Aragalaya or struggle) is still active but at a much lower scale because of government repression. After President Gotabaya resigned and the new president, Rani Wickramasinghe was elected, popular support gradually declined. This is mostly because of government propaganda, echoed by the mainstream media, manufacturing a narrative that the economic situation is getting better. Of course, the long queues and shortages that triggered the uprising have disappeared, but the cost of living has increased, pushing more people into poverty and struggling to make a living.

After the occupation of the Galle Face public space (the “Gota go gama”) ended in early August 2022, the government started targeting movement leaders, particularly student movement leaders. In August, two leaders of the student movement, Venerable Galwewa Siridhamma (a student monk) and Wasantha Mudalige, were arbitrarily arrested under the draconian Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (PTA). This piece of legislation, introduced in 1978, essentially allows torture, government secrecy and impunity for those who commit crimes on behalf of the state.

There were multiple protests demanding the release of these student leaders, and the government cracked down on those protests too. Faced with increasing dissent, the government released the leader of the student monks in January. In early February, Wasantha Mudalige was released. This release was an outcome to continued protests by the students as well as a range of activists linked with Aragalaya. One of the first things Wasantha talked about following his release was about Tamil political prisoners, mostly framed under dubious charges.

Some of the Aragalaya activists are linked with the trade union movement and working-class parties [such as] the JVP [Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna — People’s Liberation Front] and FSP (Frontline Socialist Party), and they continue their activism as well as raising awareness of the people. The JVP is more focused on electoral politics, mainly the upcoming local government elections, scheduled for March, while the FSP is more focused on movement building.

The Aragalaya activists fragmented following the August crackdown, and some of them continued with grassroots activism while others joined the regime in different ways. But, I think this is also a time when activists are reflecting about different forms of engagement, now that local government elections have been announced.

The mainstream media, linked with patronage networks to the ruling regime, is maintaining its agenda of stigmatising and discrediting activism. Meanwhile, the police and the Attorney General’s office is trying to manipulate the legal system to prevent protests and the right to dissent. The popular (working class) resentment is fermenting and it is hard to say how the next mass protest is going to play out.

JB: Has the economic crisis that sparked the protests been resolved? Should we believe the government’s story that the SL economy will be “back in the black” by 2026?

SP: The government is incapable of predicting anything at this stage, other than appeasing the masses by promising that things are going to improve soon. Global growth is declining and inflation is going to be around for a while, at least through next year, according the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Even the IMF is also reluctant to make any strong forecasts. The war in Ukraine is a major impediment to local tea exports as well as tourist earnings — both Russia and Ukraine are major markets — so revenues from international trade are going to be constrained. Internally, the government is implementing IMF policies imposing austerity measures. The latest is the increase in taxes.

There was a major mobilisation on February 9 by the labour movement, mostly the public sector unions, against a new policy for an income tax of up to 36% on [incomes exceeding] a threshold of 100,000 rupees (A$393) a month, with no deductions. In the context of inflation, where people are struggling in their daily lives, this is a major burden.

Meanwhile, the government spent lavishly on Independence Day, which was mostly televised without a live public audience. More importantly, this was a highly militarised fanfare, featuring a range of military and police forces, an array of high-tech military hardware, a customary 25-gun salute, Air Force flyovers and a parachute jump by paratroopers carrying a giant National Flag. It’s a kitsch military aesthetic, compatible with that of the ruling elite. But, all this not only adds to the debt, but reinforces and normalises global militarism and arms trade.

This is represented as patriotism but the hidden code is about state monopoly violence. It’s a message to the working classes, as well as minority ethnic groups, that the ruling elites have access to all this technology of violence for class wars and ethnic wars, which includes gender (male) terror, to keep the masses submissive and compliant.

Again the mainstream media frames this event as national pride and patriotism, normalising the militarisation of the state, while completely disregarding the suffering of the working classes as well as Tamil and Muslim populations in the North and the East in particular. This is a working-class or labour force where two-thirds are in the informal sector, and approximately one out of every six (16%) or 3.5 million people in Sri Lanka were considered multidimensionally poor in 2019. That was before the pandemic, so the poverty rates have increased. And, the military, with a bloated budget, is maintaining the colonisation of the North and East provinces.

Nevertheless, there were multiple protests across the island against this waste of public resources. One protest by Aragalaya activists was disrupted by thugs mobilised by the government, followed by the police firing water cannons and tear gas to disperse those protesting. This was a peaceful non-violent protest by less than 100 people. Many were injured and a few were arrested then released. It was a brutal use of excessive force, which has become the standard police practice encouraged by a few senior police figures and the Minister for Police.

So when the government promises “back in the black” by 2026, this is mostly addressing the financial markets, indicating that we are a credit-worthy nation, meaning financial credit-worthiness, and that the elites are going to comply and provide financial markets their return on investment. The IMF is the front organisation for financial markets. The financial markets never demand cuts in military spending, exposing the link between the financial markets and militarism. So this is also about maintaining a system of accumulation (by dispossession) where the elites are the main beneficiaries.

So these government promises represent the “cruel optimism” of the ruling elites. The promise of “prosperity”, despite debt bondage, inequality, poverty, racism, sexism, ecological vandalism and state violence.

It was against this type of repeated fake guarantees of the ruling elite that the Aragalaya emerged, demanding justice and system change.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: ‘Goto go gama’ protest camp at Galle Face last year. Image: @publicnewsdotlk/twitter

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Sri Lanka: Talk of ‘Prosperity’ a Smokescreen for People’s Ongoing Suffering and State Violence
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Under a renegotiation of an agreement known as the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), the US has been given permission to occupy or build military sites in 9 different locations across the Philippines.

The decision caused an uproar among the population who have been in between the US and her enemies in two different wars, which together may have caused 2 million Filipino dead.

The agreement was signed by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. the son of a previous dictator of the country who forged a neutral foreign policy, and significantly scaled back what was then a de-facto US occupation of the Islands following the Second World War.

A joint statement by the Philippines and the US laid out “their plans to accelerate the full implementation of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the agreement to designate four new Agreed Locations in strategic areas of the country and the substantial completion of the projects in the existing five Agreed Locations”.

People’s Dispatch reports that the locations of the new bases haven’t been chosen, but are likely to be on or near Palawan Island, the nearest one to Taiwan.

The Filipino editorial press seems united in their acknowledgment that the EDCA is a pact to involve their nation in a war over Taiwan. While some acknowledge the continual violation of territorial waters, as well as the long rap sheet of perceived slights over disputed waters in the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea, they see these as jobs for the diplomatic corps, and not the marine corps.

Hard facts

Unlike the visiting Sect. of Defense Lloyd Austin, who like the rest of Biden’s cabinet charge all their statements with moral rhetoric, Filipinos are looking at a hard facts approach to the cost/benefit analysis of the expanded EDCA.

Others, like human rights group Karapatan took a harder approach, protesting Austin’s arrival outside Camp Aguinaldo, the general headquarters of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. A spokesperson described Austin as “a man whose career and fortune were built on the deaths and destruction resulting from US-driven wars of aggression,” adding that he was among those “who led the US’s bloody wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan that claimed almost a million lives, most of them civilians, he is the face of the money side of US warmongering”.

A Manila-based think tank on statecraft, the Integrated Development Studies Institute, published an editorial regarding the expansion of the EDCA in which they describe the country as being turned into a “warship” by Sect. Austin.

They first took a look at what the Philippines’ only real national security risk is—the dispute with China in the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea, of which they recognize that “many experts agree that for China, the South China Sea dispute is negotiable”.

“…There are multiple claimants including Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia, of which China already has ongoing negotiations. China has also offered 60-percent profit sharing in favor of the Philippines in disputed areas, far better than what the Philippines received from US and UK partners in the Malampaya deal. While there are occasional incidents, our own fishermen and official government statistics have reported increased fish stocks in the West Philippine Sea since 2016 due to its being protected now during spawning seasons. China has also resolved border issues with 12 of her 14 neighbors, although negotiations took decades and not without minor incidents, but China even gave concessions in pursuit of peace.”

But, they continue, Taiwan has repeatedly been singled out as a non-negotiable, national security issue of greatest importance, much like Ukraine is to Russia—comparisons sprinkled throughout the media coverage of the EDCA update.

“Allowing the US bases in the Philippines, located in sites that clearly encircle Taiwan, will put the Philippines squarely in the war calculations of the People’s Liberation Army,” the institute concludes.

The Institute adds that the “measly” $82 million in development aid money promised by Austin in his visit pales in comparison to what previous Filipino presidents have extracted for the rights to use their island as a base, including $900 million in the 1980s, and $2 billion in the 1990s.

Furthermore, China was the only country to send any medical supplies to the Philippines, writes the Institute, during the worst of the early pandemic months, and has become the largest importer of Philippine agricultural products.

‘Victory is not enough’

In a series of 25 war game simulations run by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a DC-based MIC think tank, found that a coalition was able to repel a Chinese amphibious landing of Taiwan, but at a terrible cost of “dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and thousands of servicemembers”.

Furthermore, the conflict would be inconclusive. “Taiwan’s economy was devastated,” they told The Diplomat, adding that “the high losses would damage the U.S. global position for many years. Victory is, therefore, not enough”.

Reporting on statements made by US Air Mobility Command, Gen. Mike Minihan that in five years the US will go to war against China based on his gut feeling, The New York Times wrote of the Philippines “the plans for a larger US military presence in the Philippines come amid fears about a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan”. The Times Southeast Asia bureau chief wrote that the US officials regard the Philippines as a “key strategic partner for Washington in the event of a conflict with China”.

“If there will be a major conflict here, it will be over Taiwan and most certainly not over the Philippine atolls and sandbanks taken and occupied by China from the Philippines and the few tons of fish stolen daily from Philippine waters,” concludes Father Shay Cullen, an Irish missionary at St. Joeseph’s Parish in Olongapo City where he has taught the most disparate children in society—most of whom were fathered by US sailors who eventually left the islands.

“The US military presence in the West Philippine Sea has not deterred China from grabbing more atolls and islands from the Philippines and arming them with missiles,” continues Cullen, writing at the Manila Times.

“The Mutual Defense Treaty between the US and the Philippines is of no help. There has to be an act of war by China against the Philippines to trigger a US military response. Any such response will need the approval of the US Congress. The presence of so many US military bases inside Philippine bases is making the Philippines an open and vulnerable target for retaliatory strikes by China”.

Visiting Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum meeting, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said he wanted to stay away from anything resembling Cold War power struggle in the region.

“The forces of us going back to that Cold War type of scenario where you have to choose one side or the other are strong—I think we are determined… to stay away from that,” he said.

However, Satur Ocampo, writing for the Philippines Star, quotes the president changing tune a month later in a joint press conference with Sect. Austin.

“It seems to me that the future of the Philippines and, for that matter, the Asia-Pacific, will always have to involve the US simply because those partnerships are so strong and so historically embedded in our common psyches that can only be an advantage to both our countries,” said the president in a rare moment of honesty.

The islands’ media seems to see this as a real coup in their nation, and with the US on the warpath, avoiding a multi-national conflict over Taiwan now in large part hinges on President Marcos Jr.’s future decisions.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: President of the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos Jr. welcomes US Sect. of Defense Lloyd Austin. (Source: World at Large)

Vietnam Sees a Shared Future with China

February 8th, 2023 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The resignation of Vietnam’s President Nguyen Xuan Phuc a fortnight ago had an inevitability about it. The media was rife with speculation for weeks implicating Phuc’s close family members in corruption scandals. 

Several dozen officials, including two deputy prime ministers, were earlier removed from their positions in major scandals of price fixing and kickbacks for Covid-19 test kits, as well as bribes for seats on charter flights returning Vietnamese citizens to the country during the pandemic. 

The decade-old anti-corruption drive by Vietnamese Communist Party (CPV) General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong gained momentum in recent years and seems motivated by concerns strikingly similar to those voiced by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Xi Jinping. Fundamentally, the impetus behind it is the CPV’s legitimacy as the ruling party. 

The CPV’s priorities have changed following decades of impressive economic growth. Vietnam is second only to Hong Kong and Singapore in economic dynamism in the region. Being an economy heavily dependent on trade and foreign investment, promoting a healthy environment for businesses by curbing rampant corruption is an urgent necessity in order to attract foreign investors at a time when global manufacturers have sought to diversify their supply chains away from China. 

Again, problems in economic development can lead to dissatisfaction among the people and affect social stability, slowing down economic growth and ultimately lead to loss of people’s trust in the CPV’s legitimacy. The 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, the Berlin-based think tank, ranked China as 66th among 180 countries and Vietnam 87th, but in scores, China secured only 45 points out of 100 and Vietnam 39.

Curiously, the joint statement issued after Trong’s visit to Beijing in November — the first foreign dignitary to visit China after the CCP Congress in October — listed “prevention and control of corruption and negative phenomena” among areas of cooperation between Vietnam and China. The CPV is adopting China’s anti-corruption campaigns, and reportedly requested China to train its cadres to conduct anti-corruption investigations.

Chinese-style governance practices are present in Vietnam too —growing control over the internet, strengthening of the party’s power, greater state presence in the economy and rollback of the widespread influence of business sector. Last year, 539 party members were prosecuted or “disciplined” for corruption and “deliberate wrongdoings”, including ministers, top officials and diplomats, while police investigated 453 corruption cases, up 50 per cent from 2021. 

In their Lunar New Year letters two weeks ago, Xi Jinping wrote to Trong, “China and Vietnam are a community with a shared future that bears strategic significance.” Trong in turn stated that he is “ready to work with General Secretary Comrade Xi Jinping to… carry out strategic communication on theories and practices of both countries’ respective socialist development, and chart the course and make strategic plans to ensure that the relations between the two parties and two countries continuously develop and reach new heights.” 

The motivation behind the anti-corruption drive in both China and Vietnam is basically to ensure that the communist party continues to have the people’s support, and thereby consolidate the party’s centrality in the country’s politics. The CPV looks to its “big brother” CCP for direction in the next stage of economic progress as a “modern and developed socialist power” (the goal set at the party congress in 2021.)  

It cannot be a coincidence that the party leaders who have been ousted mainly represented the “Westernist” faction or the so-called technocratic wing, which suggests that Trong is concerned about the party’s ideological and moral integrity as well. Trong reportedly has a strong distaste for the political patronage networks within the party.  

Phuc as former prime minister (2016-2021) is widely credited with accelerating pro-business reforms. A commentary in Deutsche Welle described Phuc as a “Western-oriented leader.” It said, “He is seen as one of the main technocrats within the ruling Communist party, and he had developed close connections with Western capitals during his time in office. The reshuffle is expected to cement the power of the country’s security elite.”

This view is commonly shared by western analysts. The Deutsche Welle analysis lamented: 

“Vietnam’s business and political relations with Western states have massively improved in recent years… But Vietnamese Communist apparatchiks remain skeptical of Western intentions. Many of them fear that Western democracies are aiming for regime change in the one-party state and they rankle at foreign organisations lecturing the government over human rights…

“The ascendant public security apparatus is arguably most wary of interactions with Western democracies. At the same time, foreign diplomats are quickly losing their most trusted conduits within the party, the sort of officials who informally provide information and support.”  

Some western analysts compare Trong’s assertion of authority to the consolidation of power in China under Xi Jinping. Bill Hayton, the well-known Vietnam-watcher and author (Vietnam: The Rising Dragon) at Chatham House, sardonically noted that Vietnam’s leaders regard the CCP “as a friend in their struggle to maintain control of Vietnam.” 

Hayton hit hard:

”I think it’s a warning that actually these people are not rushing to embrace the United States as an ally or anything like that, that they are very guarded of their own autonomy, their own ways of doing things, and that actually they see China more as an ideological partner than the US. And so China – Vietnam is going to try and balance its relations forever. It’s not going to be rushing towards the US.”

Such paranoia probably stems from the frustration that Vietnam is set to drift away from the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy at a juncture when in the power dynamic of Asia-Pacific region, it could be a “swing state” to contain China. The West was confident of its deepening networking with factions within the ruling elite in the country. 

Phuc had overseen a push to improve relations with the US, frequently met top executives and was a regular presence at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Yet, the paradox is that Vietnam’s economic policy is unlikely to fundamentally change under party chief Trong’s leadership. The real apprehension of westerners is that the power equilibrium within the CPV and the government may now work more to the advantage of China and Russia. 

Suffice to say, the removal of Phuc can have a rational explanation: The CPV leadership distrusts leaders who are more directly involved in business, and corruption poses an existential threat to the party’s integrity and legitimacy.  

The CPV Central Committee announcement on Phuc’s exit paid fulsome praise to Phuc. But it insisted that “he bears the political responsibility of the head in letting many officials, including two Deputy Prime Ministers; three ministers commit wrongdoings and mistakes, causing very serious consequences… Clearly aware of his responsibility before the Party and people, Phuc has submitted his application to cease holding the positions assigned, stop working, and retire…”

Notably, the US government-funded Radio Free Asia featured a critical commentary which concluded that “the reshuffle sets the stage for more infighting in the run up to the 2026 party leadership contest… Phuc was seen as a reassuring presence for Vietnamese business and foreign investors, and his ouster reveals cracks at the top of the communist leadership.” It betrays annoyance that the best-laid plans to incite a regime change may have been thwarted. The BBC also took a similar line: 

“Reading Vietnamese politics is always difficult — the Communist Party makes its decisions behind closed doors. But hard-line General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong, who was given an unprecedented third term at last year’s party congress, appears to be consolidating his authority by ousting senior officials seen as more pro-Western and pro-business. Officially this is all happening in the name of fighting corruption,.. but it’s indicative of a power struggle at the top of the party… the likely rise now of more security-focused officials to the top of the party will be bad news.”

Trong has upturned the apple cart of the West. Significantly, he did this after returning from a successful visit to Beijing in October-November, during which Trong and Xi Jinping resolved to enhance and deepen the comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership in the new era. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Chinese President Xi Jinping (R) presents China’s Friendship Order to General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam Central Committee Nguyen Phu Trong, Beijing, October 31, 2022 (Source: Indian Punchline)

Stand Against GM Mustard

February 8th, 2023 by Bharat Dogra

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

February 9 2010 was an important day for food safety in India when after a very broad-based public consultation the Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh announced a moratorium on Bt brinjal and thereby the entry of GM food crops was prevented at that time despite a huge attempt being made by the powerful GM crop lobby supported by leading multinational companies. For several years, as a recognition of the essential issues involved in this debate, several organizations committed to food safety and ecologically protective farming have been observing February 9 as the National Food Safety Day.

This also reminds us of the crucial importance of the issue of avoiding/banning GM crops in the overall context of food safety. While there are several important aspects of food safety, there are several reasons why the issue of GM crops has emerged as the most important one. While other threats can be checked more easily, the nature of genetic pollution and its irreversibility are such that it is very difficult to check this once the serious mistake of introducing GM crops and particularly GM food crops has been made.

The other hazard of the impact of using dangerous chemicals in farming is also related to this as several GM crops are closely aligned to the use of dangerous agro-chemicals to grow them.

All over the world the controversy over genetically engineered (GE) food and genetically modified (GM) crops, also called genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is heating up as more and more evidence becomes available on their extremely serious hazards and threats. What needs to be emphasized is that these warnings have the support of some of the world’s most eminent and well-qualified independent scientists and experts in the field.

At a time when the GM debate was heating up India, seventeen distinguished scientists from Europe, USA, Canada and New Zealand wrote in a letter to the then Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh,

“GM transformation can produce novel biochemical processes that are unpredictable and for which there is no natural history to assume are safe.

“The GM transformation process is highly mutagenic leading to disruptions to host plant genetic structure and function, which in turn leads to disturbances in the biochemistry of the plant. This can lead to novel toxin and allergen production as well as reduced/altered nutritional quality.

“It is not a question of if there are disturbances to gene function and biochemistry but to what degree they will be present within any given GM plant. For example, the levels of more than 40 proteins are altered significantly in the commercialised GM MON810 corn compared to equivalent non-GM corn, which included production of a new allergenic protein.

“Numerous animal feeding studies demonstrate negative health impacts of GM feed on kidney, liver, gut, blood cells, blood biochemistry and the immune system.

“Of greatest concern is that studies show negative health effects with GM crops that have already been approved and which have been grown commercially for 10-13 years. This highlights the inadequacy of the original criteria and set of data on the basis of which marketing approval was and is still being granted.”

In the more specific context of Bt brinjal this letter says,

“Bt toxin is a proven potent immunogen raising justifiable concerns that it can give rise to allergic reactions.

“Animals fed diets containing Bt corn have shown signs of direct toxicity.

“Independent re-evaluation of Monsanto’s own research on their Bt corn crops shows negative health effects even in short-term (90-day) animal feeding studies.

“The Mahyco-Monsanto dossier of the raw experimental data of animal feeding studies with Bt brinjal shows highly statistically significant negative signs of toxicity on the functioning of multiple organ systems such as liver, kidney, blood and pancreas in all animals tested (especially rats, rabbits and goats). It is very important to note that these adverse effects were observed after only at most, a 90-day feeding time, which raises serious concerns about the safety of consuming this product over an entire lifetime. Long-term (at least 2-year) animal feeding studies were not done and are stated as not required by the apex regulator, contrary to the science, which requires these studies to detect chronic slow-onset toxicity and cancer.

“There is therefore, no scientific justification for the safety claim of Bt brinjal by India’s regulators, which are based on an uncritical acceptance of the interpretation of the data submitted by Mahyco-Monsanto. This has been heavily criticized by eminent scientists of international standing.”

In 2003 the Independent Science Panel, which consists of eminent scientists from many countries covering a wide range of relevant disciplines reviewed the evidence on the hazards of GMOs. This review concluded that many GM crops contain gene products known to be harmful. For example, the Bt proteins that kill pests include potent immunogens and allergens. Food crops are increasingly being engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, drugs and vaccines in the open environment, exposing people to the danger of inappropriate medication and their harmful side effects. Herbicides tolerant crops – accounting for a majority of all GM crops worldwide – are tied to the broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium. These have been linked to spontaneous abortions, birth defects and other serious health problems for human beings, animals and soil-organisms. GM varieties are unstable, with the potential to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and to disrupt gene function in animal and human cells.

This report also said that there have been very few credible studies on GM food safety. Nevertheless, the available findings already give cause for concern. In the still only systematic investigation on GM food ever carried out in the world, ‘growth factor-like’ effects were found in the stomach and small intestine of young rats that were not fully accounted for by the transgene product, and were hence attributable to the transgenic process or the transgenic construct, and may hence be general to all GM food. There have been at least two other, more limited, studies that also raised serious safety concerns.

“There is already experimental evidence that transgenic DNA from plants has been taken up by bacteria in the soil and in the gut of human volunteers. Antibiotic resistance marker genes can spread from transgenic food to pathogenic bacteria, making infections very difficult to treat.

Transgenic DNA is known to survive digestion in the gut and to jump into the genome of mammalian cells, raising the possibility for triggering cancer.  The possibility cannot be excluded that feeding GM products such as maize to animals also carries risks, not just for the animals but also for human beings consuming the animal products.

Evidence suggests that transgenic constructs with the CaMV 35S promoter might be especially unstable and prone to horizontal gene transfer and recombination, with all the attendant hazards: gene mutations due to random insertion, cancer, reactivation of dormant viruses and generation of new viruses. This promoter is present in most GM crops being grown commercially today.”

A four-part series of experiments conducted over 3 years by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster (United Kingdom)’ (see The Independent dated March 22, 2005 reporting the findings of this study) concluded that GM crops could be more harmful to many groups of wild life than their conventional equivalents. According to these studies, Bt proteins, incorporated into a significant part of all GM crops, have been found to be harmful to many non-target insects, worms and amphibians.

Several scientists involved in studying the implication and impacts of genetic engineering got together at the International Conference on ‘Redefining of Life Sciences’ organised at Penang, Malaysia, by the Third World Network. They issued the Penang Statement (PS) which stated:

“Some GEOs (Genetically Engineered Organisms) have been made with virus or transposon vectors that have been artificially enhanced to become less species-specific. Since viruses and transposons can cause or induce mutations, there is the concern that enhanced vectors could be carcinogenic to humans, domestic animals and wild animals.

“Persons with allergies may have legitimate concerns that with genetic engineering, once-familiar foods may be made allergenic. Furthermore, they will not be able to protect themselves if the foods are not labelled to state that they have been produced from genetically engineered organisms. Allergenic effects could be carried with the transgene or be stimulated by imbalances in the chemistry of the host plant or organism.

“Another problem is that field workers or neighbours may develop allergies to insecticidal transgenic crops. For example, a spider venom expressed in sugarcane might block a metabolic pathway only in insects and not in humans, but humans can nevertheless develop serious allergies to some venoms.

“With genetic engineering, familiar foods could become metabiotically dangerous or even toxic. Even if the transgene itself is not dangerous or toxic, it could upset complex biochemical network and create new bioactive compounds or change the concentrations of those normally present. In addition, the properties in proteins may change in a new chemical environment because they may fold in new ways.”

In addition to all this there is the ethical dilemma faced by vegetarians who may find it difficult to select food when animal genes are introduced into plant genes. The choice becomes even more difficult (and not just for vegetarians) when even human genes are introduced into food crops. This dilemma is most difficult to resolve when GM foods are not specifically labeled, and in fact GM food companies try their best to avoid any legal requirement of specific labeling of GM food.

All these issues have become very important in India today as continuing large-scale efforts are being made by the powerful GM lobby having the support of multinational companies to introduce GM Mustard followed by other GM crops and GM food crops.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include India’s Search for Sustainable Farming and Healthy Food, Protecting Earth for Children and A Day in 2071.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

We all mourn the passing of Jose Maria Sison, Chairman Emeritus of the International League of Struggle since 2016.  He is the great leader and driving force in building a worldwide anti-imperialist front led by the revolutionary proletarians to build socialism. He is ILPS personified because he conceptualized, mobilized and organized the ILPS in 2000 and was its indefatigable chairman for ten years.

In the midst of US imperialist triumphalism with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1994 and the end of the Cold War, imperialism launched a political-ideological offensive exemplified by Francis Fukuyama’s declaration of capitalism’s victory as the ‘end of history’ – that class struggle is passe replaced by identity politics, that communism and militant struggle by the masses are passe.

Joma heralded the fightback, releasing the article “Stand for socialism against modern revisionism” clarifying that the path of the onward march for socialism has never been clearer with capitalist restoration as a result of revisionism while the worldwide crisis of monopoly capitalism further deepened.  Amidst the ensuing debate amongst revolutionary proletarian parties and organizations he pushed many of them to take the forward path of anti-imperialist and democratic struggle in their countries, and build international coordination of militant mass struggles.

But launching ILPS was not an easy task as the visionary goal of starting with the formation of ILPS as a formation of mass movements and peoples’ organizations separate from political parties met with another round of two years of debate.  Its founding in 2000 has proven the timely but difficult work of struggling against the US empire.  But it has grown into the largest, most active and militant international movement against imperialism and reaction worldwide.

As a Marxist, Joma has always underscored the revolutionary cause and interest of the proletariat and the masses of the people.  Beyond the theoretical and ideological debates in the international communist movement, Joma never lost sight of the focus of the people’s struggles, the need to arouse, mobilize and organize the masses in their millions to fight and end imperialism.  ILPS has the urgent and critical role to mobilize the mass struggles of the proletarian and semi-proletarian masses, along with other middle forces of the peoples across the world, especially in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries of the imperialist periphery.

ILPS is key in building a broad international anti-imperialist united front where mass organizations not only express international solidarity to fight imperialism within different countries but also collaborate internationally in different projects.  ILPS develops activities and programs for education and training to raise the capacity of mass organizations in different countries, and advancing them to develop and build their own proletarian revolutionary parties.

Joma has always been a hands-on revolutionary.  In ILPS he took charge in the whole process of founding ILPS, seeing through the launch and first assembly, became chairman when Ka Crispin Beltran took ill, and continued performing part of its work as Chairman Emeritus in 2016.  He was indefatigable – producing more than 200 statements per year, directed the preparation of meetings, monitored the conduct and run of campaigns and ensured the trouble-shooting when problems cropped up.

Of course, Joma is much more than ILPS. Jose Maria Sison provided comprehensive leadership to the national democratic revolution in the Philippines – the people’s war, the democratic mass movement both rural and urban, the broad united front and the elections, the peace talks, and the revolutionary movement of the overseas Filipinos. Joma also was also heavily involved in the building of the international solidarity movement overseas from inception, besides building proletarian internationalist coordination leading to the formation of the ILPS and the broad international antiimperialist united front. We all miss him – his leadership, wisdom, his masterly grasp and wielding of the power of Marxism.  He is unbelievable and unparalleled in these times.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Antonio Tujan Jr, Institute of Political Economy, International League of Peoples Struggle and Vice-chairperson for Internal Affairs

Featured image is licensed under Creative Commons

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Jose Maria Sison, Revolutionary Internationalist and Founder of ILPS
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Taiwan’s Defense Ministry revealed on Wednesday that it has sent some of its military officers to a NATO war college in Italy, acknowledging cooperation with the Western military alliance that is sure to anger China.

One Taiwanese air force officer, Lt. Col. Wu Bong-yeng, told reporters that he went to the NATO Defense College in Rome in 2021 for a six-month course and insisted the cooperation was purely academic.

“This was an academic exchange, not a military exchange,” he said. “Of course, they were very curious about Taiwan,” Wu said he studied the same curriculum as officers from NATO countries did, and the Taiwanese Defense Ministry said other officers had been sent to the college.

Taiwan is known to cooperate with the US military, but interactions with other foreign militaries are much more rare. The revelation comes after NATO said China poses “systemic challenges” to the alliance in its new Strategic Concept document that was issued in 2022.

NATO first made clear it had its eye on China in 2020 and said at the time the alliance would work to build stronger partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. Since then, some NATO countries have joined the US in sending warships into sensitive waters near China, including France, Germany, and Britain.

The US and its allies have been taking steps to increase ties with Taiwan in recent years, which Beijing views as an affront to the one-China policy. These policies have provoked an increase in Chinese military activity around the island. This week, a group of German lawmakers visited Taiwan, and a US trade delegation is due to arrive on the island on Saturday.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Taiwan Defense Ministry Reveals Rare Cooperation with NATO
  • Tags: , ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

China will not let the Asia-Pacific region turn into a hotspot for geopolitical conflict, and will defend its own sovereignty and integrity, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson declared on Monday.

Media reports said:

Speaking at a press briefing, Wang Wenbin responded to the news of a 10-member German delegation arriving on the self-governing island of Taiwan. He stressed that “the Taiwan question is at the very core of China’s interests” and urged Berlin to respect the One China Principle, acknowledging that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the nation.

China considers any treatment of the island as a sovereign nation, including formal visits by foreign officials, as a direct affront to its sovereignty.

Wang said the “root cause” of the historic tensions between Taiwan and China were “the law of the jungle, hegemonism, colonialism and militarism” which had inflicted “deep suffering” on China for many years.

“The Chinese people have been committed to fighting imperialism, hegemonism and colonialism and upholding our sovereignty, territorial integrity and national dignity. We will never allow any force to turn the Asia-Pacific into an arena of geopolitical games once again to maintain their dominance,” the diplomat warned.

Taiwan has never formally declared independence from Beijing, but has been self-governed since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, when nationalists fighting under the Kuomintang were defeated by communist forces and fled to the island.

While relations between Beijing and Taipei have always been strained, tensions boiled over following the visit of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to the island in August.

China has repeatedly warned that it will use whatever means necessary to establish full control over the island, but has insisted it will search for a diplomatic solution.

Beijing Deploys Troops Near Taiwan

Another media report said:

China has announced a military exercise near Taiwan on the eve of visits by German and Lithuanian lawmakers to the self-governed island. The drill has been described as countering “separatist forces.”

The training exercise was announced on Sunday by Colonel Shi Yi, the spokesman for the Eastern Theater Command of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). He said it would involve sea and airspace maneuvers around Taiwan, focusing on land strikes and amphibious assault action.

The exercise was “designed to test the joint combat capabilities of the troops and resolutely counteract the provocative actions of external forces and ‘Taiwan independence’ separatists,” a statement said.

Taiwan is a Chinese island that served as the last bastion of nationalist forces during the 1940s civil war. It is self-governed, but is recognized as part of China by most nations.

The island’s military reported detecting at least four PLA ships on Monday, along with scores of military aircraft in the Taiwan Strait. It said Taiwan’s naval, aerial and ground assets were monitoring the situation and were ready to respond.

The exercise comes amid a visit to Taiwan by a delegation of German MPs from the Free Democratic Party, which is part of the country’s ruling coalition. The group is being led by Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, the chair of the Bundestag Defense Committee, and Johannes Vogel, a deputy chair of the party.

During their four-day trip, they will meet a number of top Taiwanese officials, including President Tsai Ing-wen, Premier Su Tseng-chang, and Wellington Koo, the chair of Taiwan’s national security council, the administration’s foreign affairs office reported. The visit is one of several by foreign MPs scheduled for this week, according to Taiwan’s diplomats.

Separately, a delegation from Lithuania headed by Laurynas Kasciunas, the chair of its parliamentary National Security and Defense Committee, arrived on the island on Monday.

Another group of lawmakers came on Sunday from Paraguay, led by Carlos María Lopez, the president of the national parliament.

Beijing considers any treatment of Taiwan as a sovereign nation, including formal visits by foreign officials, as undermining the ‘One China’ policy that outlines its claim to the island. Chinese officials have accused Washington of deliberately eroding the long-standing arrangement.

Be Alert Of U.S. Pressure: South Korea Urged

A media report from China said:

South Korea should be “alert” to U.S. pressure in confronting China amid a meeting with Jose W. Fernandez, the U.S. undersecretary of state for economic growth, energy and the environment, Chinese observers said, as deepened cooperation with China is where South Korea’s real interests lie.

Unlike China, which is willing to further open up to the world and pursue a globalized, win-win approach when establishing relations with other countries, the U.S. has proved many times that it will only sacrifice the interests of its “allies” to crack down on potential competitors and maintain hegemony, Chinese observers said.

The comments come as Jose W. Fernandez, U.S. undersecretary of state for economic growth, energy and the environment, is in Seoul this week to meet with his South Korean counterpart Lee Do-hoon, the second vice foreign minister, to discuss energy, emerging technologies and supply chains, Korea Joongang Daily reported on Monday.

Their meeting will be their second in a few weeks. In December, Lee traveled to Washington to meet with Fernandez and members of the U.S. Congress. The two are expected to hold a press conference following their meeting on Tuesday, the report said.

“One of the main reasons for the visit is that the U.S. has desperately hoped to bring South Korea on board in forming its small circle to exclude China from the global chip industrial chain, and South Korea is an important link for it to achieve that goal,” Gao Lingyun, an expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, told the Global Times on Monday.

But Seoul has maintained a good balance between China and the U.S., Gao said.

Moreover, from the perspective of the global supply chain, South Korea is deeply integrated into the overall industrial development of China, a format that has lasted for decades, and is completely in line with the interests of the nation and its business community, experts said.

China-S Korea Trade

Data from China’s General Administration of Customs showed that trade volume between China and South Korea surpassed $360 billion in 2021, which was 72 times the figure in 1992 when diplomatic ties were established.

During the January-November period of 2022, the actual use of foreign direct investment into Chinese mainland expanded 9.9 percent on a yearly basis to 1.16 trillion yuan ($171.09 billion), among which investment from South Korea climbed by 122.1 percent.

Ma Jihua, a veteran industry analyst, pointed out that the frequent meetings also reflect that South Korea and the U.S. have demands for each other – while the U.S. urgently needs South Korea’s cooperation in relocating industrial chains, South Korea hopes to find cooperation from the U.S. in terms of security.

Neither can fully agree on the other’s requests, thus they can only communicate and negotiate back and forth – a move that may be unable to generate results although it can “make a show” for domestic politicians, Ma told Monday.

“But this does not rule out that the two sides may ‘partially compromise,’ which we need to pay close attention to,” Ma said.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said at a China-South Korea business dialogue in mid-December that China and South Korea should jointly maintain the stability and smooth flows of regional and global industrial and supply chains, and further expand economic and trade cooperation by completing talks for an upgraded bilateral free trade agreement.

Li said that China is ready to work with South Korea to uphold a good neighborly friendship, mutual respect and equal treatment, and to promote the sound and steady development of bilateral ties, leveraging their complementary strengths and deepening cooperation in fields such as high-tech manufacturing, the green economy and big data.

South Korea and China are neighboring countries with strong connections not only in the economy and trade sectors, but also in the security sphere. China is where South Korea’s real interests lie, and Seoul’s best strategy is to balance its ties between China and the US, and stick to that, experts stressed.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from TRT World

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

An Indonesian court has found a top trade ministry official, a prominent economist and three palm oil executives guilty for violating requirements to ensure supplies of palm oil for the domestic market.

The five were convicted of conspiring to export crude palm oil to the international market, where prices are higher, rather than allocating it for the Indonesian market, where the government had imposed a price cap.

Executives from three companies — the Permata Hijau Group, Wilmar Nabati Indonesia, and Musim Mas — were among those jailed.

Prosecutors and anticorruption activists say the sentences and fines imposed by the court are far too lenient in light of the suffering they caused to the public; prosecutors say they will appeal for stronger sentences and higher fines.

*

Anticorruption activists in Indonesia have criticized as too lenient the sentences handed down by an Indonesian court against officials at the center of a cooking oil shortage that rocked the world’s top producer of palm oil.

A trade ministry official, a prominent economist, and three palm oil executives were on Jan. 4 convicted and sentenced to between one and three years in prison for violating a requirement to ensure palm oil supplies for the domestic market. The court also fined each of the men 100 million rupiah ($6,400).

The punishment handed down was far more lenient than the seven to 12 years in jail and 1 billion rupiah ($64,000) in fines that prosecutors had sought.

“There’s no deterrent effect because the fines to compensate for the state loss are not significant,” said Riawan Tjandra, a law professor at Atma Jaya Yogyakarta University. “So there’s no restorative justice at all due to the lenient sentences.”

Riawan told Mongabay that the verdict failed to provide sense of justice, given that the case involved a ministry official, who was sworn to serve the public.

“He’s supposed to protect the public, but instead he conspired [with the others] so that the public would be denied its rights,” he said. “Cooking oil is a crucial issue because it’s a public good, and thus people are supposed to be able to easily get it.”

A palm oil smallholder farmer in Riau, Indonesia. Image by Hans Nicholas Jong/Mongabay.

Shirking domestic obligations

The scandal broke in early 2022, after a months-long shortage of cooking oil that saw the price of the staple commodity surge.

In response to the scarcity, the government imposed a domestic market obligation policy, or DMO, in February 2022. The policy required palm oil companies to allocate 20% of their crude palm oil (CPO) for domestic use. The government also imposed a domestic price obligation, or DPO, which capped the selling price of CPO.

But three companies — the Permata Hijau Group, Wilmar Nabati Indonesia, and Musim Mas —managed to skirt their obligations to allocate a quota for the domestic market, and instead continued to sell their CPO abroad, where palm oil prices were higher than the DPO at home.

Executives from the companies managed this by securing export permits from Indrasari Wisnu Wardhana, at that time the director-general of foreign trade at the Ministry of Trade.

Indrasari was this week sentenced to three years in prison. Master Parulian Tumanggor, a board member at Wilmar Nabati Indonesia, was sentenced to 18 months, while the other three other defendants in the case — Pierre Togar Sitanggang, general manager at Musim Mas; Stanley M.A., senior manager of corporate affairs at Permata Hijau Group; and Lin Che Wei, founder of economic policy think tank Independent Research & Advisory Indonesia — each got a year in prison.

Indonesian President Joko Widodo checks the stock of cooking oil at a minimarket in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in March 2022. Image courtesy of the Indonesian Ministry of Communication and Information.

Prosecutors to appeal

Prosecutors have also expressed disappointment at the sentencing, saying they will appeal for longer prison terms, higher fines, and a demand for 15 trillion rupiah ($959 million) in restitution for losses to the state. An assessment by Rimawan Pradiptyo, an economist at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, estimated that the state lost 10.96 trillion rupiah ($701 million), mostly in the form of subsidies that the government was forced to roll out to keep cooking oil prices down.

The Attorney’s General Office said the court’s ruling didn’t provide justice to the public for having to suffer through the cooking oil scarcity and soaring prices.

“Prosecutors will appeal the verdict because it doesn’t reflect a sense of justice for the people,” Ketut Sumedana, a spokesman for the AGO, said as quoted by local news outlet Tempo.co.

Boyamin Saiman, coordinator of the Indonesian Anticorruption Community (MAKI), said the fact that the court found the defendants guilty should be reason enough to impose heavier punishments.

He pointed out how, during the crisis, people had to line up for hours just to buy cooking oil, whereas the palm oil companies were able to freely sell their CPO overseas and enrich themselves.

“It’s proven that there was an abuse of authority [in the case], which harmed the people’s economy,” Boyamin said as quoted by state-owned news agency Antara. “How come the sentence is only three years for the public official and one and a half to one year for the rest?”

Riawan, the law professor, said the guilty verdict is evidence that Indonesia’s palm oil industry is rife with corruption and thus needs to be subjected to stronger governance and management.

“We see that the management of our cooking oil and palm oil industry still opens up opportunities for corrupt practices, including by state actors,” he said. “This needs a dramatic overhaul. It’s not enough to punish the perpetrators. There’s a need not only to improve existing regulations, but to make new regulations to monitor irregularities in the palm oil industry.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Palm oil plantation on rainforest peatland in Central Kalimantan, Borneo, Indonesia. Image by glennhurowitz via Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0).

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Indonesia Prosecutors Decry ‘Lenient’ Sentences in Palm Oil Corruption Case
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Right at the end of 2022 the first of China’s COMAC (Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China) C919 airliner jets was delivered to a domestic Chinese airline company, China Eastern Airlines.

Reuters in an article titled, “China Eastern takes delivery of the world’s first made-in-China C919 jet,” would report:

The world’s first C919, a Chinese-made narrowbody jet, was delivered to launch customer China Eastern Airlines (CEA) in Shanghai on Friday and took off for a 15-minute flight to mark the historic moment.

The plane, a rival to the Airbus (EADSY) A320neo and Boeing (BA) 737 MAX single-aisle jet families, is expected to make its maiden commercial flight next spring, according to state-owned Xinhua News Agency.

Between delivery and its first commercial flight, the first C919 will undergo up to 100 hours of flight tests, Simply Flying has reported. The test flights will include flying between multiple destinations. Meanwhile China Eastern has already trained a range of personnel to operate the aircraft including 9 pilots, 24 flight attendants, and 13 maintenance personnel.

The milestone is obviously a major achievement for COMAC, China Eastern, and the People’s Republic of China, but it is also a leap forward for multipolarism.

More than Airplanes at Stake

Together with Russia’s Irkut MC-21 airliner which is already certified to fly, and the prospect of both aircraft and the companies behind them fulfilling not only domestic but also international demand, the duopoly enjoyed by the West’s Boeing and Airbus corporations may be coming to an end.

Germany’s Deutsche Welle in an article titled, “New competition for Airbus and Boeing,” would note:

New aircraft are entering the highly lucrative main segment of the airliner market. And Airbus and Boeing need to take it seriously. The MC-21, in particular, could offer superior performance in some areas, compared to the common types of Airbus and Boeing now being sold. And it is no wonder as the giants from America and Europe have been resting on their laurels for many decades: The Boeing 737 traces its origins back to 1967, while the Airbus A320 premiered in 1987.

To prevent Russian and Chinese airliners from challenging Western monopolies, everything from national security to human rights have been cited particularly by the US government in a bid to place crippling sanctions on Russian and Chinese aerospace companies. Just as the US government has done in terms of Chinese telecommunication companies, these sanctions will seek to prevent Russian and Chinese aerospace companies from competing internationally, and if possible, eliminate these companies altogether.

However, China with a population larger than that of the G7 combined, has a potential air travel market that could boost COMAC and other Chinese aerospace companies regardless of its access to international markets. Russia and adjacent markets provide the MC-21 with similar prospects of being sold in large numbers, proving themselves and becoming appealing and accessible to a larger number of nations over time.

Acutely aware of the impact and intentions of US sanctions, both Russia and China are developing alternatives to components they once depended on the West for including engines and control systems.

Multipolarism Requires Multiple Alternatives 

Multipolarism is not merely a political declaration or desire for an alternative international order to the Western-led unipolar “rules-based” order that currently prevails. It is the physical creation of alternative systems of financing and trade but also of industry and production.

The power the West possesses stems from monopolies like Boeing and Airbus and the immense profits concentrated into the hands of their shareholders. Those profits translate into likewise concentrated power and influence. The creation of alternatives to these monopolies dilutes that concentration of profits and thus redistributes the resulting power and influence.

This is what makes the potential success of China’s C919 and Russia’s MC-21 particularly important. Their success will chip away at the concentrated power and influence of the West’s duopoly in an industry that is notoriously complex and difficult to enter. The success of the C919 and the MC-21 would provide a case study and an example for future success not only in China and Russia but in other emerging industrialized economies.

More than mere greed and the jealous protection of their duopoly, Boeing and Airbus and the circles of special interests around them realize that this is more than just selling airplanes, it is about either preserving or displacing Western hegemony.

China’s C919 together with other products from ever expanding Chinese companies across a wide and growing range of industries is what accounts for China’s rise on the global stage and the subsequent tensions between Beijing and a Washington who refuses to accept that rise.

Understanding the industrial and economic factors that underpin the political aspects of multipolarism help us understand the decisions being made in both Washington and Beijing in terms of sanctions the US seeks to impose and methods used by China to circumvent and rise above them. The continued development and expanding adaptation of the C919 and the MC-21 seem inevitable. Had the West recognized and respected these new players they would have shared in the prosperity these new airliners will produce. Both aircraft used Western parts including engines manufactured by Pratt & Whitney. Because of Washington’s determination to sabotage the development of these aircraft, both China and Russia either have or are in the process of developing indigenous alternatives. These engines will eventually be adopted domestically and once proven, enter into global markets and likely outcompete their Western counterparts.

Just as the US has isolated itself politically through its overdependence on sanctions, it is creating more problems than it is solving for its industry.

Only time will tell when and to what extent Chinese and Russia aerospace companies and their products begin competing for significant market shares with Boeing and Airbus, but when they do it will be more than just aerospace companies and profits at stake, it will also be the wealth, power, and influence that come with those profits up for grabs and a future decided either unilaterally in Washington or via multipolarism beginning in Beijing and Moscow.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Brian Joseph Thomas Berletic, is an ex- US Marine Corps independent geopolitical researcher and writer based in Bangkok, writing under the pen name “ Tony Cartalucci ” along with several others.

Featured image is from TheAltWorld

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on China’s COMAC C919 Passenger Jet and a Leap for Multipolarism
  • Tags: , , ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Next week’s virtual summit will secure the support of the Global South for India’s permanent UNSC seat while the conclusion of its G20 chairmanship in September will do the same with respect to the Golden Billion. Once the vast majority of the international community unites around this cause, India will then likely draft a UN General Assembly resolution on this issue in order to prove the overwhelming support that it has.

EAM Jaishankar Made Some Solid Points About Why India Deserves A Permanent UNSC Seat” earlier this month, essentially arguing that the over three-quarter-century-old UN system is urgently in need of reform in order to accommodate for contemporary realities like the irreversible rise of the Global South. About that category of countries, India will bring over 120 of them together next week during the virtual Voice Of Global South Summit that it’s hosting to discuss their shared geo-economic interests.

India’s Global South Summit Is The Most Important Multilateral Event In Decades” since, as the preceding hyperlinked analysis concluded, “The gathering of so many countries for apolitical and geo-economic purposes proves that the vast majority of humanity wants mutually beneficial development that unites the world instead of more geopolitical competition that’ll only tear it apart.” Furthermore, India is the only truly neutral and bonafide developing state with the credibility to unite its peers.

China can’t play this role since its unprecedented economic development of the last four decades reduces its credibility as a self-declared developing state while Russia is a leading player in the New Cold War between the US-led West’s Golden Billion and the jointly BRICS– & SCO-led Global South of which it’s a part so it can’t be credibly described as neutral. India, by respective contrast to both of them, is a bonafide developing state that’s truly neutral in this competition over the global systemic transition.

While India shares China and Russia’s desire to make International Relations more democratic, equal, just, and predictable, it’s not against the Golden Billion per se like they are since it has many more mutually beneficial relations with that de facto bloc, including military ones. Prime Minister Modi’s vision is one of gradual reforms instead of radical ones in order to avoid inadvertently contributing to any further instability, to which end India still works closely with the Golden Billion on shared interests.

This pragmatic approach of multi-aligning between major powers enabled India to maximize its sovereignty in the New Cold War, thus bestowing it with kingmaker status and proving that it’s indeed possible to benefit from principled neutrality. Comparatively smaller-sized and less geostrategically positioned states can’t realistically replicate this unique role, but they can indeed follow in its footsteps in order to carve out their own in ways that also maximize their sovereignty in the current uncertainty.

This explains why so many of them will participate in the upcoming Global South Summit since they hope to learn more from India’s successful example as well as share ideas with it that they expect their partner to promote during its chairmanship of the G20 in pursuit of their shared interests. This category of countries sincerely trusts India since they regard it as one of their own, unlikely much more economically developed China, and seek to emulate its masterful balancing act in the New Cold War.

Likewise, the Golden Billion also trusts India as a responsible member of the international community, ergo why White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre praised Prime Minister Modi for helping to formulate the careful wording of last November’s G20 joint statement. By successfully balancing between the Global South and the Golden Billion in the pragmatic manner that it has, India is expected to earn the vast majority of their members’ support for a permanent UNSC seat.

The challenge, however, remains China. The People’s Republic is reluctant to give its neighbor this privilege for geopolitical reasons related to its distrust of India stemming from their unresolved border disputes that once again led to a clash last month. This unofficial stance contradicts Beijing’s official claim of wanting to jointly build the Asian Century in equal partnership with Delhi, the rhetoric of which could ring hollow if it obstructs more serious moves by India to secure a permanent UNSC seat.

That might happen sooner than later too since India is expected to make a major move in this direction by the end of the year. Next week’s virtual summit will secure the support of the Global South for its permanent UNSC seat while the conclusion of its G20 chairmanship in September will do the same with respect to the Golden Billion. The first de facto New Cold War bloc regards India as the champion of their interests while the second considers its growing influence to be a peaceful counterweight to China.

Once the vast majority of the international community unites around the cause of India’s permanent UNSC seat, that South Asian state will then likely draft a UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution on this issue in order to prove the overwhelming support that it has. That’ll in turn put immense pressure on China to soften its stance lest it risks the negative optics of going against the democratic will of the global majority, which could cripple its carefully crafted soft power for years to come.

The modus operandi being proposed applies the insight obtained from former Indian Ambassador to China Vijay Gokhale, whose 2021 book about “The Long Game: How The Chinese Negotiate With India” (reviewed here and channeled in his latest paper here) is integral to understanding Chinese calculations. The relevance to the present piece is that he emphasizes how sensitive China is to global perceptions about it, which is why it’ll be loathe to cultivate a negative impression by going against the UNGA.

After all, if China truly considers itself to be a developing country like India and the rest of the Global South veritably are in spite of its indisputable economic asymmetry with its self-declared peers, then it naturally follows that it shouldn’t have a problem supporting India’s envisaged permanent UNSC seat. Moreover, China’s official claim of wanting to build the Asian Century in equal partnership with India would be put to the test upon being pressured to react to any UNGA vote in favor of Delhi’s dream.

Obstructing the democratic will of the international community as embodied in a successful UNGA resolution officially requesting a permanent UNSC seat for India would discredit China’s preceding claims upon which a lot of its contemporary soft power is built. It wouldn’t be regarded as a developing country that respects the UNGA’s politically non-binding resolutions and wants a multipolar Asia, but as an elitist country that ignores the Global Majority because it secretly wants a unipolar Asia.

Faced with the zero-sum choice of sacrificing its carefully crafted soft power in naked pursuit of its geopolitical interests or pragmatically accommodating this in response to the UNGA’s request to preserve that selfsame soft power despite its geopolitical misgivings, China is expected to do the latter. With these calculations in mind, it’s expected that India will build upon the success of next week’s Global South Summit to help make its dream of a permanent UNSC seat a reality by the end of the year.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on The Upcoming Global South Summit Paves the Path for India’s Permanent UNSC Seat
  • Tags: ,

India’s Rocket Force Takes Off with China in Its Sights

December 28th, 2022 by Gabriel Honrada

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

India may have taken steps to build a rocket force amid growing border tensions with China and possibly a failing strategic deterrent posture. 

Last week, Swarajya reported that India was building multi-purpose storage tunnels in border states to store short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) and might soon be acquiring the Pralay tactical ballistic missile.

The source notes that these tunnels would keep India’s missile arsenal safe from pre-emptive attack and allow it to mount a quick counterstrike. It also says the Pralay missile could be used against Chinese troop concentrations along the disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC) between the two countries.

Further, last week India Today reported that the Indian Ministry of Defense had approved the purchase of 120 Pralay missiles as part of building the Indian Rocket Force (IRF), with these missiles to be deployed in border states.

“The project to create a rocket force has received a boost as the proposal to buy around 120 Pralay ballistic missiles has been cleared by a high-level Defense Ministry meeting,” an unnamed government official was quoted as saying.

The Economic Times describes the Pralay as a solid-fuel quasi-ballistic surface-to-surface missile with a range of 150 to 500 kilometers, difficult to intercept, and able to change direction in midair. It says the Pralay can take out long-range enemy air defense systems, high-value targets, and weapons such as heavy artillery.

The source says the Pralay fills India’s tactical ballistic-missile gap, noting that China and Pakistan already have such weapons. It also mentions that Pralay was first developed in 2015 and was successfully tested on December 21 and 22, 2021.

In addition, The Times of India reported this month that India conducted night tests of its nuclear-capable Agni-V missile amid fresh border tensions with China. The source claims that the Agni-V is one of India’s most formidable missiles, sporting a 5,000-kilometer range capable of hitting the northernmost parts of China.

Clashes reported

These developments come after fresh border clashes between China and India in the Himalayas. Last week, The Indian Express reported that on December 9, 70 to 80 Indian troops repelled an incursion by 300 Chinese soldiers after a few hours of hand-to-hand fighting at Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh, at the LAC, with soldiers from both sides sustaining some injuries.

The source says such incursions show that China is unilaterally attempting to change the border status quo. It also mentions previous forays, such as the 2020 Galwan clashes, which left 20 Indian soldiers dead, and a similar incident in 2016 where 250 Chinese soldiers crossed the area, but no clashes were reported.

The idea of creating an Indian rocket force has been discussed in the country’s defense circles. However, in a November 2021 article in The Diplomat, Saurav Jha wrote that the military asymmetry between China and India was the primary driver for the latter to establish a rocket force.

Specifically, Jha cited former Indian Army chief of staff General Manoj Mukund Naravane, who said future military conflicts would follow a “reverse linearity” conduct of operations, with rear facilities such as command and control posts, logistics hubs, airfields, and communication nodes taking the first salvo from precision standoff weapons.

Naravane, as cited by Jha, then said the second salvo of autonomous drones would aim to overwhelm and destroy air defenses, artillery pieces, missile bases, and tank formations, while rocket and gun artillery attacks finished off troops at forward-deployed localities.

Naravane also mentioned lessons learned from the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, noting that concentrating forces increases vulnerability to long-range precision fires, thus the need to concentrate fire rather than platforms.

Given Naravane’s ideas, Jha wrote that the Indian Army might not be able to rely on air support in the opening phase of a future conflict and that precision standoff weapons would be vital to enabling offensive and defensive air operations.

He also said establishing the IRF would signal that the country’s use of surface-to-surface missiles with mass and precision in a limited war in “non-contact” warfare in a joint force environment.

Yet another reason for India’s plans to establish a rocket force is that its deterrence posture against China is failing.

In a Foreign Policy article this month, Sushant Singh wrote that India’s economic entanglement with China, lack of diplomatic reaction to China’s incursions in the Himalayas, participation in China-led multilateral summits, and participation in China-led military exercises may show India’s inability to act decisively against China.

Singh also said India’s desire to be part of the Global South and have a seat at the Global North’s table has constrained its freedom of maneuver to deal with its long-standing disputes with China. He said this foreign-policy prism has precluded India from committing to the US-led Quad alliance. Still, the recent border clashes with China may force India to take more decisive steps.

Regarding IRF requirements, a November 2021 article in India Defense Research Wing (IDRW) says it will require 50,000 to 70,000 personnel and three or four ballistic-missile brigades independently deployed in the country’s eastern and western regions.

File photo of the Prithvi missile. Photo: AFP / HO / Indian Ministry of Defense

However, the source also mentions that India has a low rate of ballistic-missile production, with the 1980s-vintage Prithvi SRBM being its mainstay and being designed to deliver nuclear warheads rather than for tactical use.

The source says India has yet to adopt road-mobile tactical ballistic missiles fully, with only limited Shaurya and Prahaar missiles. Establishing the IRF will require vast numbers of these missiles. It also says that while India has the Brahmos supersonic cruise and hypersonic missiles in the works, these weapons are too expensive to deploy in large numbers.

In addition, the jury is split when it comes to establishing an Indian rocket force.

In a 2020 article for the Center for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), Bimal Monga discusses the benefits and risks of establishing such a force.

In terms of benefits, Monga says a rocket force would deter China from threatening India using conventional missiles, provide India with an option to inflict severe damage on an adversary, increase the cost of aggression against India, suppress Chinese airbases and missile launch sites, enable engagement of time-sensitive targets, provide a quick-response counter-strike, and send a strong message to an adversary.

Monga also discusses the risks of establishing a ballistic-missile force.

He notes that India lacks a well-formulated policy regarding the use of conventional missiles, the difficulty of distinguishing a conventional from a nuclear missile attack, the inability to reassure potential adversaries that conventional missiles will not threaten their nuclear forces, lack of destructive power to be a credible strategic deterrent, huge expenses involved in building a missile arsenal, and the potential to spark a missile arms race with China and Pakistan.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: India test-fires its Agni-V ICBM on January 18, 2018. Photo: The Times of India via Indian Defense Ministry

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on India’s Rocket Force Takes Off with China in Its Sights
  • Tags: , ,

Arms Tests vs War Drills Ad Infinitum in Korea

December 23rd, 2022 by Andrew Salmon

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

While real-life carnage unfolds across Ukraine, the phony war continues predictably on, around and above the Korean peninsula.

The actions of recent days may hearten jingoes and depress peaceniks on both sides.

On December 14, the US announced that a Space Force command unit had stood up inside US forces based in South Korea. In Ukraine, the space domain has proven crucial, providing satellite data for Kiev’s network-centric precision munitions.

On the same day, North Korea tested a solid-fuel engine for its missiles and on December 16 test-fired two medium-range ballistic missiles. On December 18, it offered apparent proof – images of South Korean cities – of its nascent reconnaissance satellite capability.

On December 20, the US deployed B-52 strategic bombers and F-22 stealth fighters to the skies just south of the peninsula to drill with South Korean F-35 and F-15 fighters.

For headline writers in multiple media, these developments represent “rising tensions.” For cynics, they are signs that the peninsula’s status quo drags on. For South Koreans, they are business as usual.

And don’t expect any major change in the new year: There is more of the same to come.

Roll on 2023

On December 20, South Korean Defense Minister Lee Jong-sup said South Korea and the US will conduct 20 training exercises in 2023, including amphibious assault drills. The decision was taken to “expand the scale and types of combined field drills…in light of advancing North Korean nuclear and missile threats,” Lee said.

Seoul announced today that it is mulling major joint artillery drills in 2023 to mark 70 years of the bilateral alliance, which was signed as the smoke from the Korean War cleared in 1953. The last time such drills were held was in 2017.

Between 2018 and 2021, multiple training drills were put on hold under Seoul’s progressive Moon Jae-in administration. This happened, firstly, to enable diplomacy with North Korea, and, latterly, due to Covid-19 risks.

But under the conservative Yoon Suk-yeol administration, which took office in May, drills have restarted with a vengeance. While joint drills are essential to ensure military interoperabilities and overall credibility, they are a red rag to North Korea.

Pyongyang considers drills to be war preparations. The country has borrowed heavily from Soviet-Russian doctrine, and in February this year, Moscow did, indeed, use winter exercises to pre-deploy units for its Ukraine invasion.

Meanwhile, there are continued expectations among Pyongyangologists that North Korea will soon conduct what would be its seventh nuclear test – albeit, this alarm bell has been ringing constantly, and so far incorrectly, since the beginning of 2022.

At a time when differences between the authoritarian bloc and liberal democracies appear to be solidifying on the global chessboard, the peninsula’s status quo looks to be further cemented. Yet this dire outlook is not reflected in fear in South Korea.

All quiet on the Korean front

While generals, politicians and editors fret over “tensions,” nobody is digging bunkers behind South Korean apartment complexes, nor are shocks decimating South Korean capital markets.

“This is the unique nature of Korean society: We live right next to North Korea,” said Chun In-bum, a retired South Korean general. “It is like living next to a volcano, but if you don’t have the option to move, you just continue and hope for the best.”

“For the US, it is like a fire across the river – but that is different from your house burning,” Chun continued. “For South Koreans, it is such a nightmare that ignorance is bliss so we act as if nothing is wrong.”

Another Seoul resident agrees.

“There is proximity and geography and force deployed close together, with historical animosity – we live in the shadow of that,” said Dan Pinkston, an American international relations professor at Troy University.

But he added that he does not fear his home being hit by a missile: “It’s not so much tension, its clickbait,” he said.

In fact, one of North Korea’s recent developments might actually lessen tensions.

“If you look even at US analysts’ writings, they paradoxically say that North Korean spy satellites might make the situation more stable,” said Andrei Lankov, a Russian specialist in North Korea who teaches in Seoul’s Kookmin University.

“North Korea is afraid of attack as they don’t get reliable intelligence in real-time so rely on agents who are unreliable,” Lankov explained. “If they have real reliable information, they are less likely to worry over sudden attacks so the chance of confrontation goes down.”

Still, Lankov admits that Pyongyang’s apparent advances in solid fuel engines increase risk.

Liquid fuel missiles need to be fueled up before being launched, providing defenders with both a warning and a window of opportunity to pre-empt them. Solid fuels lessen the vulnerability of a missile that requires time to take on propellant at or near its launch site before being fired.

Cold War 2.0

Outside the peninsula, virtually all indications are that the gap between the authoritarian bloc and the liberal democracies is widening to a chasm.

Moscow’s assault upon Ukraine has unified the Global North, with prosperous democracies as far distant from the action as Australia, Japan and South Korea joining North America and Western Europe in funneling aid and arms to Kiev.

Iran is providing direct military aid to Russia, indications are increasing that North Korea is supplying munitions and missiles, and China is providing diplomatic backing, if not more.

Meanwhile, the US, constantly fretting over a potential Chinese attack on Taiwan, is upping its semiconductor embargo on Beijing. As part of that chip war, Washington is rail-roading its allies into a struggle that could end up costing their chip companies scores of billions of dollars.

And Japan, after two years of discussion since abandoning its Aegis Ashore missile defense system in 2020, last week formally announced plans to create a missile-based counterstrike force to balance potential Chinese, North Korean and Russian threats.

Given these various signs of global bifurcation, up-arming and technological weaponization, there seems little likelihood that the Korean Peninsula – which was from 1950-53 the site of a civil war that spiraled into a murderous Cold War hot war – will break free of the wider trend.

That is true even though Pyongyang might like to widen its economic dependence beyond Beijing.

“The North Koreans would be far more comfortable outside the Chinese sphere of influence,” Lankov said. “But none of their opposite numbers is willing to make concessions strong and attractive enough for them to engage in negotiations.”

Amid this big-picture backdrop, the Korean peninsula remains a pivot point of compressed big-power confrontation. And stakeholders have selfish interests: The Kim regime seeks to entrench its survival while arms manufacturers benefit from the threat that the up-arming regime represents.

All this argues for a continuance of rising-falling tensions as North Korea hones its weapons and military systems, and for continued deterrence efforts as South Korea and the US shore up their alliance.

“The Korean peninsula is a microcosm but what are the choices? Appease, acquiesce, sign a peace treaty and give them what they want – or prepare for the worst?” Pinkston said of the conundrum facing strategists. “If liberal democracies did nothing and just took it on the chin, that would be unusual.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Seoul lies within artillery range of North Korea – but remains largely indifferent to the threat. Photo: Andrew Salmon / Asia Times

New Breakthrough in Australia-China Relations

December 20th, 2022 by Prof. Michelle Grattan

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Australia’s relations with China will take another major step forward this week with Foreign Minister Penny Wong travelling to Beijing for the resumption of the bilateral Foreign and Strategic Dialogue, which has been on hold since 2018.

The latest breakthrough follows the meeting between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 summit.

Wong’s Wednesday talks coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Whitlam government establishing diplomatic relations with China on December 21 1972 – an anniversary the Chinese government had been indicating it wanted to mark. They are also part of a round of meetings with foreign ministers that China is conducting.

Australian exporters will hope the meeting paves the way to China easing the trade restrictions it has imposed on Australia. The improved relations may also be positive for detained Australians Cheng Lei and Yang Hengjun.

In a statement Albanese and Wong said:

“In 1972, then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam took a bold decision, recognising the importance of engagement and cooperation between our two nations and peoples.

“In the decades since, China has grown to become one of the world’s largest economies and Australia’s largest trading partner.

“Trade between Australia and China, as well as strong people-to-people, cultural and business links have delivered significant benefits to both our countries.”

They said Wong was going to Beijing at the Chinese government’s invitation “to meet China’s State Councilor and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Wang Yi, and hold the 6th Australia–China Foreign and Strategic Dialogue”.

Albanese and Wong said they welcomed the opportunity to mark the anniversary of diplomatic relations.

“Australia seeks a stable relationship with China; we will cooperate where we can, disagree where we must and engage in the national interest.”

Albanese flagged this latest breakthrough on Friday’s podcast with The Conversation, although he did not specify the form it would take.

He said:

“China is our major economic partner and I think in coming weeks you will see further measures and activities which indicate a much-improved relationship, which is in the interests of both of our countries, but importantly as well is in the interests of peace and security in the region.”

The thawing in relations, which began with overtures from China as soon as Labor was elected, came after the Chinese government had previously refused to even return the Morrison government’s phone calls.

China had been angered by the Coalition’s tough line on foreign interference and by its harsh rhetoric, for which then defence minister Peter Dutton was notable. Australia’s pressure for an inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 was a high-profile source of tension.

The Albanese government has been aware of the need for caution as it looks to stabilise the relationship, repeatedly making it clear Australia would not give any concession to get an improvement.

Shadow foreign minister Simon Birmingham said the Coalition welcomed Wong’s plans to visit.

“Engagement between governments is essential to advance areas of mutual interest and to manage differences,” he said, but added that “the ultimate test of any dialogue lies in the outcomes achieved”.

“Minister Wong’s visit will be judged on progress towards the removal of unwarranted tariffs and sanctions on Australian exports; achieving fair and transparent treatment of Australians currently detained in China; advancing regional security via respect for international law; and securing greater transparency on human rights issues of concern,” Birmingham said.

“Australia should also continue to appeal for China to use its influence on Russia to end the immoral and illegal invasion of Ukraine.”

Birmingham said the Wong visit would be the first by an Australian minister since his final visit as trade minister in November 2019.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Featured image: Penny Wong (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Vice President Kamala Harris visited the Philippines last week in what can only be described as three days of warmongering, hypocrisy, and another huge provocation against China. Harris spent her time spouting empty platitudes of affirmation regarding U.S. defense commitments to the Philippines and underscoring U.S. commitment to upholding human rights, while simultaneously threatening war with China.

The Vice President’s visit was an attempt to make nice with an old U.S. ally after the tumultuous terms of both former U.S. President Donald Trump and former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. U.S.-Philippine relations were strained as Trump questioned the value of U.S. defense commitments to the archipelago and Duterte inched closer to China. The disastrous and deadly war on drugs, which killed thousands of mostly petty suspects, was just one among many human rights abuses by the Duterte regime.

Yet, little has changed since Duterte stepped down this summer. Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., son of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr., ran a campaign that tried to erase the human rights abuses under his father’s regime. Further, Marcos Jr. has not stopped Duterte’s war on drugs, violence and threats against progressive activists and independent journalists continue, and government propaganda is ubiquitous. The human rights situation in the Philippines remains poor.

While Harris met with human rights activists to underscore the United States’ enduring commitment to human rights, democracy, and rule of law in the Philippines, protestors took to the streets of Manila displaying slogans like “stop funding state terrorism in the Philippines,” “stop U.S. military aid to the Philippines” and “US Imperialism #1 Terrorist.”

But none of that matters to the United States if it means risking its hegemony in the region.

During her trip, Harris told Marcos Jr. that “an armed attack on the Philippines armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the South China Sea would invoke U.S. mutual defense commitments.”

Harris made a point to give a special speech to members of the Philippine Coast Guard in Palawan, the province closest to the highly contested Spratly Islands. Palawan is also home to the Antonio Bautista Air Base, the center of Philippine military command responsible for patrolling and defending the Spratly Islands’ waters.

During her speech in Palawan, Harris reaffirmed that the United States “stands with the Philippines in the face of intimidation and coercion in the South China Sea,” all but naming China as the aggressor. In 2016, a tribunal in The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines, stating China has no legal basis to claim historic rights to most of the South China Sea. The Philippines has complained of Chinese aggression around the Spratly Islands, to include overfishing and even harassment of its fishing and naval vessels. If the United States wanted to heighten tensions with China, choosing Palawan for Harris’ speech was certainly one way to achieve that goal.

This visit was really about expanding U.S. influence in the region under the Obama-era Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement of 2014, not assuring the Philippines that it will receive help from the United States over maritime disputes. Harris stated the United States is seeking additional locations under the agreement, which permits the United States to move troops into the Philippines for extended stays and to build and operate facilities on Philippine bases. The Vice President confirmed the United States will spend $66.5 million expanding its military presence under the pact. The United States is bulking up its military presence in Asia to balance against China, a dangerous strategy proven to lead to more coercive Chinese actions.

Consider the context of Harris’ visit against U.S. provocations toward China in the past few months. In August, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan, resulting in the expected: forceful and coercive Chinese military, economic, and diplomatic measures. In other words, Pelosi’s Taipei visit set off a Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis.

President Biden has publicly announced not once, but thrice, that the United States would aid Taiwan in the face of a Chinese attack, dangerously moving away from the thus far successful One China policy. After Biden’s 60 Minutes interview, in which he abandoned strategic ambiguity and admitted the United States would defend Taiwan in an unprecedented Chinese attack, a White House official said that is not formal U.S. policy. In recent meetings with Chinese President Xi, Biden backpedaled and said the United States remains committed to the status quo and the One China policy. So which is it? China is likely wondering who is calling the shots for the United States and which narrative it can trust. These recent events do not do anything to assure China that the United States is seeking peace or the status quo.

Under the guise of assuring an ally, Kamala Harris went to the Philippines to tout U.S. imperialism and reassert Uncle Sam as the true hegemon of Asia. The United States must stop cozying up to one brutal regime to oppose another, and undergo a serious reexamination of its current security guarantees in Asia.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Nickie Deahl is a former intern at the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. She holds a master’s degree in International Security from George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government. You can follow her on Twitter @NickieDeahl.

Featured image is from The Libertarian Institute

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Twisting truths cannot cover the fact that butchers 94th Infantry Battalion and 47th Infantry Battalion captured NDF Consultant Ericson Acosta and his companion, a peasant organizer, alive around 2:00 this morning, November 30, at Sitio Makilo, Barangay Camansi, Kanbankalan City, Negros Occidental, and, few hours after, tagged them as casualties of a fake encounter.

Ka Ericson was here in Negros, particularly in Kabankalan City, to consult on the situation of farm workers in the southern part of Negros Occidental and share developments regarding the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms (CASER). He was one of the NDF consultants working on the CASER.

NDF Negros, in the strongest terms, condemns the 94th IB, 47th IB and top dogs of the 3rd ID for the summary execution of Ka Ericson and his companion. The two were victims of the AFP’s despicable policy of “taking no prisoners” in their counter-insurgency campaign.

The entire revolutionary forces and the broad masses in Negros offer the highest tribute to Ka Ericson Acosta. Likewise, NDF Negros extends sympathies to Ka Ericson’s family, especially his son, and all those he has inspired.

Today, the Filipino people has lost a revolutionary, propagandist, poet, song writer, journalist, and thespian. His bloody murder is added fuel to the already seething social volcano in Negros and will bring forth an outpour of new blood to the national democratic revolution.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Officers of the 94th Infantry Battalion led by Lt. Col. Randy Pagunuran welcome Brig. Gen. Benedict Arevalo (left), commander of the Army’s 303rd Infantry Brigade based in Murcia, Negros Occidental, during the visit of the latter to the unit’s headquarters in Guihulngan City, Negros Oriental on Sunday (July 7, 2019). The 94IB was placed under the jurisdiction of the 303IBde on July 1, following the realignment of the military forces in Negros Island. (Photo courtesy of 303rd Infantry Brigade, Philippine Army)

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on Philippines: National Democratic Front Consultant Ericson Acosta Murdered in Joint Operation of 94th and 47th Infantry Battalion
  • Tags: , , ,

Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim, US Meddling, and China

November 29th, 2022 by TheAltWorld

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Malaysia’s new prime minister Anwar Ibrahim is the product of decades of US government backing, both himself a regular associate of Washington’s regime change front, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and part of a wider US NED-funded network.

Is Malaysia about to embark on self-destruction like so many other US proxies, or will this be the first time in US history that a proxy does not serve Washington at the expense of his own nation?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

You might be forgiven for thinking it’s Groundhog Day reading headlines about the Great Barrier Reef potentially being listed on the World Heritage “in danger” list. After all, there have been similar calls in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2017.

Successive federal governments have lobbied hard to keep the largest coral reef in the world off the high-profile list kept by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Only last year, former environment minister Sussan Ley jetted around the world in a successful effort to stave off the inevitable, pointing to hundreds of millions of dollars spent on issues such as water quality. The new minister, Tanya Plibersek, also wants to avoid having the reef “singled out” in this way.

The question is, what does in-danger mean? Everyone knows the reef is in trouble. An in-danger listing is not a sanction or punishment. Rather, it’s a call to the international community that a World Heritage property is under threat, requiring actions to protect it for future generations. In-danger listing is not permanent, nor does it mean the Reef will be permanently removed from the World Heritage list.

The reef faces a multitude of threats. The most significant threats are coral bleaching worsened by climate change, poor water quality from land-based runoff, and unsustainable fishing and coastal development. We already have regulations to tackle many of them – but we need more effective enforcement to ensure compliance.

What just happened?

The Great Barrier Reef has been World Heritage listed since 1981. This means it’s considered an area of outstanding value to humanity. Covering an area the size of Italy, this iconic area includes some 3,000 separate reefs, over 1,000 islands and a variety of other significant habitats.

The latest UN mission has just reported back, finding the reef’s condition is worsening and recommending it be listed as “in danger”. It also offered practical solutions.

Previous governments have fought to ensure the reef is not listed as in-danger despite their own five-yearly reviews demonstrating an obvious decline. In 2009, the reef’s condition was rated poor and declining. In 2014 it was poor and declining and in 2019, very poor and declining.

So the government knows the reef is in danger. We know, and the tourism industry knows. While some tourism operators worry about their business, the opposite appears to be true: more people go, thinking it might be their last chance to see it. And already, operators are adapting by taking tourists to areas still in good condition.

Federal governments just don’t want the reef on the list because of the hit to their international reputation – and to their domestic standing.

If the reef is officially listed as “in danger” next year, it will draw a much greater focus to the reef’s plight. And that may help galvanise effective national and global action.

Take the case of the famous coral reefs of Belize in Central America. When these reefs were listed, the government banned nearby oil exploration and protected mangroves. Belize’s reefs have now been taken off the in-danger list.

So what has to be done?

The mission’s report lays out what needs to be done for the major issues.

Australia already has a long-term plan aimed at ensuring the reef’s sustainability. There are regulations governing, say, sediment and water quality in run off from agriculture and towns. We have some targets too, particularly around water quality.

flood plume reef

This 2019 photo shows two threats to the Great Barrier Reef: coal ships anchored near Abbot Point and a flood plume from the Burdekin River. These plumes can carry pollutants and debris to the reef. Matt Curnock, Author provided

The problem is delivery. There is a need to scale up efforts and improve compliance. Regulations mean very little if there’s ineffective enforcement. For example, while most farmers have taken on board the rules around fertiliser use, erosion and run-off, those flouting the rules get only a slap on the wrist. As the state government notes, enforcement is a “last resort”.

The UN mission has called on Australia to improve in four key areas:

1. Look after land and water

When native vegetation is cleared, it makes erosion more likely. Eroded soils are washed downstream and out to sea, where they can settle on coral and seagrass, smothering them. In Queensland, native vegetation is still being cleared at unsustainable levels.

2. Phase out gillnets

These long nets catch fish by their gills. But they also catch dugongs, dolphins and turtles, which then die. The UN mission made a very strong recommendation: phase out gillnets in the marine park.

3. More effective disposal of dredge spoil

Dredging shipping channels and ports produces a lot of silt and sand. If this is dumped in shallow areas, it can also spread to nearby corals and seagrass beds already under stress from climate change. A previous government policy ended the dumping of capital dredge spoil (dredging previously undisturbed areas). But maintenance dredge spoil is still being dumped at sea or used for reclamation, both causing adverse impacts.

4. Tackle climate change

This month, the northern reefs are sweltering in record water temperatures – raising the chance of further bleaching events. The UN report makes it clear that climate change is the biggest threat. Climate change heats up tropical waters, causing coral bleaching and potentially coral death. Australia, as one of the world’s top exporters of fossil fuels gas and coal, has long tried to go slow on climate action. The new government has moved to legislate a stronger 2030 emissions reduction target, but the UN report calls for even more ambition to keep warming under 1.5℃ as this is widely accepted as the critical threshold for reef survival.

The report doesn’t make reference to the impacts of shipping on nearby coral and seagrass areas, such as sediment churned up by propellers of large ships and tankers.

Death by a thousand cuts

If you dive the reef for the first time this year, you might wonder if there really is a problem. After all, there are still fish and coral. When I first dove on the reef more than 35 years ago, it was in much better condition. What you see now may seem okay – but it’s a pale shadow of what it could or should be. It’s death by a thousand cuts.

As reef expert Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has said:

The reef is in dire trouble, but it’s decades away before it’s no longer worth visiting. That’s the truth. But unless we wake up and deal with climate change sincerely and deeply then we really will have a Great Barrier Reef not worth visiting.

We’re never going to restore the reef to its pre-European conditions. But unless we take real action, future generations will wonder how and why we failed them so badly. We don’t need to wait for the World Heritage Committee to make in-danger listing to know the reef is in real trouble.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

PSM, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University

Featured image is by Kristin Hoel/Unsplash, CC BY-SA

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

We recently reported that the Federal Reserve plans to launch a 12-week pilot program in partnership with several large commercial banks to test the feasibility of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). The US isn’t alone in experimenting with digital currency. India is working on developing a digital rupee and recently announced the second phase of testing.

After successfully running a pilot program to test its digital currency at the wholesale level, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has announced it will test the digital rupee in a retail setting.

According to the RBI, the central bank digital currency “is a legal tender issued by a central bank in a digital form. It is the same as a fiat currency and is exchangeable one-to-one with the fiat currency. Only its form is different.”

Digital currencies are similar to bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. They exist as virtual banknotes or coins held in a digital wallet on your computer or smartphone. The difference between a government digital currency and bitcoin is the value of the digital currency is backed and controlled by the state, just like traditional fiat currency.

As the RBI put it, “Unlike cryptocurrencies, a CBDC isn’t a commodity or claims on commodities or digital assets. Cryptocurrencies have no issuer. They are not money (certainly not currency) as the word has come to be understood historically.”

According to a report in the Economic Times of India, the National Payments Corporation of India will host the platform for the digital rupee payment system during the testing phase. The Reserve Bank of India wants each commercial bank in the pilot to test retail use of the digital rupee with 10,000 to 50,000 users.

State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Union Bank of India, ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Yes Bank and IDFC First Bank will participate in the pilot program. If the pilot is successful, the RBI will roll out the program to the entire Indian banking system.

“The e-rupee will be stored in a wallet, the denominations will be available as per the customer’s request, just like you request cash from an ATM. Banks are launching this only in select cities,” a person involved in the program told the Times.

In a concept note, the RBI touted the benefits of digital currency.

It is believed that retail CBDC can provide access to safe money for payment and settlement as it is a direct liability of the central bank. Wholesale CBDC has the potential to transform settlement systems for financial transactions and make them more efficient and secure. Going by the potential offered by each of them, there may be merit in introducing both CBDC-W and CBDC-R.”

Government-issued digital currencies are sold on the promise of providing a safe, convenient, and more secure alternative to physical cash. We’re also told it will help stop dangerous criminals who like the intractability of cash. But there is a darker side – the promise of control.

At the root of the move toward government digital currency is “the war on cash.” The elimination of cash creates the potential for the government to track and even control consumer spending, and it would make it even easier for central banks to engage in manipulative monetary policies such as negative interest rates.

Imagine if there was no cash. It would be impossible to hide even the smallest transaction from government eyes. Something as simple as your morning trip to Starbucks wouldn’t be a secret from government officials. As Bloomberg put it in an article published when China launched its digital yuan pilot program, digital currency “offers China’s authorities a degree of control never possible with physical money.”

The government could even “turn off” an individual’s ability to make purchases. Bloomberg described just how much control a digital currency could give Chinese officials.

The PBOC has also indicated that it could put limits on the sizes of some transactions, or even require an appointment to make large ones. Some observers wonder whether payments could be linked to the emerging social-credit system, wherein citizens with exemplary behavior are ‘whitelisted’ for privileges, while those with criminal and other infractions find themselves left out. ‘China’s goal is not to make payments more convenient but to replace cash, so it can keep closer tabs on people than it already does,’ argues Aaron Brown, a crypto investor who writes for Bloomberg Opinion.”

China launched its digital yuan pilot program last year. The Chinese government-backed digital currency got a boost when the country’s biggest online retailer announced the first virtual platform to accept the Chinese digital currency.

Economist Thorsten Polleit outlined the potential for Big Brother-like government control with the advent of a digital euro in an article published by the Mises Wire. As he put it, “the path to becoming a surveillance state regime will accelerate considerably” if and when a digital currency is issued.

Governments around the world have quietly waged a war on cash for years. Back in 2017, the IMF published a creepy paper offering governments suggestions on how to move toward a cashless society even in the face of strong public opposition.

As with most things the government does, you should be wary of the digital dollar. It has a dark side that you can be sure the mainstream will mostly ignore.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

  • Posted in Mobile
  • Comments Off on War on Cash: India Rolling Out Retail Pilot Program for Digital Rupee
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The U.S. military will likely return to Subic Bay 30 years after relinquishing what was once their largest military base in Asia due to concerns over China’s increasing maritime assertiveness, a top official of the local body overseeing the free port zone said.

The former U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay, which faces the South China Sea, has become a bustling free port that employs about 150,000 locals, administered by the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority.

Manila and Washington have been in negotiations over setting up five more locations in the Asian country to build U.S. military facilities and preposition weapons under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement.

Rolen Paulino, chairman of the SBMA, told Kyodo News on Wednesday that he would be “very surprised” if Subic Bay does not become an EDCA site, as “during war, time is of the essence,” a day before the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Navy’s departure from the harbor that it had controlled for nearly 94 years.

A series of events were held Thursday at the free port to mark the 30th Founding Anniversary of the SBMA, including a public display of civilian airplanes and a Philippine Navy helicopter at the Subic airport which is now being repurposed for surveillance and aviation training.

Signed in 2014, the EDCA is likely to continue beyond its 10-year period, as indicated by the United States’ renewed interest in establishing new bases in the Philippines and fresh funding for upgrading existing EDCA sites.

Paulino said tensions over the Taiwan Strait and the growing animosity between the United States and China are causes for concern.

A former mayor of the adjacent Olongapo City, Paulino would prefer that his government maintains a defense alliance with the United States, adding that most Olongapo residents are “pro-Americans” given the very long time they have lived alongside U.S. servicemen.

On Nov. 9, U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines Mary Kay Carlson visited Subic Bay and the shipyard that U.S. private firm Cerberus Capital Management LP acquired this year. The Philippine Navy has also begun occupying part of the shipyard as its new naval base.

Paulino believes Carlson’s visit amplifies the importance of Subic Bay to the United States. A senior Philippine official said two Chinese firms had wanted to take control of the shipyard, but the United States had stepped in.

The Philippines and China have overlapping claims in the South China Sea, a mineral-rich and vital shipping lane through which $3 trillion worth of trade passes annually.

As ordered by Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Manila on Thursday wrote a note verbale to China, seeking “clarification” on the Nov. 20 encounter between the Philippine Navy and the Chinese Coast Guard near the Philippine-occupied island of Thitu, a maritime feature in the contested waters.

Philippine authorities have said the Chinese coast guard “forcefully” retrieved debris resembling a Chinese rocket launched in October.

A Chinese Coast Guard rigid hull inflatable boat approached a Philippine naval ship towing the debris to the island and twice attempted to block the vessel’s way before the Chinese boat’s crew cut the towing line and took the object.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Photo taken Nov. 24, 2022, shows a new naval base built at Subic Bay, Philippines. (Kyodo)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In the past few weeks, ASEAN, G20, APEC, all these meetings featuring major economies, took place in Asian countries. China’s President Xi Jinping attended both the G20 Summit and APEC meeting and hold bilateral meetings with several world leaders including US President Joe Biden which caught the world’s attention.

As the relations between Asian countries are getting closer and stronger, several joined the Belt and Road Initiative and signed new deals with China during these meetings. What will happen next? Is Asia rising and kicking Western influence out? Will the bilateral meeting between China and the US change the current China-US relations?

I invited Bangkok-based geopolitical analyst Brian Berlectic to discuss this.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Brian Joseph Thomas Berletic, is an ex- US Marine Corps independent geopolitical researcher and writer based in Bangkok, writing under the pen name “ Tony Cartalucci ” along with several others.

Featured image is from TheAltWorld, a screenshot from the video

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Abstract

In recent years, successive Australian governments, in coordination with the United States, have responded to the dramatic rise of China with military and economic policies that directly challenge the possibility of accommodation with China.

*

In an arc of militarization across northern Australia, successive Australian governments, in close concert with the United States, have responded to the rise of a newly assertive China in terms that constitute an almost historically irrevocable opposition to any accommodation with China as a regional great power.

From the high-technology bases clustered along the length of North West Cape in Western Australia (including the newly built Space Surveillance Radar and the Space Surveillance Telescope supplying data on the position, behaviour, and character of adversary countries satellites), to the port and barracks and air base of Darwin, to the newly joint RAAF-US Air Force base of Tindal outside Katherine, to the deepening commitment to US global military operations, conventional and nuclear, of a rapidly expanding Pine Gap outside Alice Springs, Australia is joining the United States in preparation for war with China, most immediately over a war over Taiwan.

In part, this is nothing new. Post-1945 Australia, like some other liberal democracies allied to the United States, is a case of dependent, high-technology liberal militarization. This pattern is curiously hard for Australians to recognize – as always for states that valorize their liberal virtues, and especially so for those likely Australia founded on the untranscended, let alone fully recognized, mass violence of settler colonial conquest that is still unfolding.

Moreover, as this new phase of Australian militarization exemplifies, it reflects the character of American empire, one key part of which is the worldwide network of US and allied military bases and deployed military personnel, and most importantly, globally distributed elements of US-controlled but coalition-accessed space and terrestrial surveillance sensor systems, communications and computing systems – all tied to US and coalition military operations.

The material form of Australian high-technology alliance dependent militarization is manifest far from the population centres – socially and culturally out of sight, even when it is close-up, as in the small town of Alice Springs, next door to Pine Gap.

But the pace of militarisation, and the attendant loss of freedom of action for any independently minded Australian government, is quickening through preparations for the China target.

In the midst of this rush to join forces, in Canberra there is a profound lack of competent assessment within government and the wider alliance-dominated security policy community of whether or not Australia’s strategic interests and those of the US actually align over the Taiwan issue.

For Australia, the turmoil of structural and contingent disruptions in the world economy in the last few years are magnified by the implications of US security-directed economic and technological decoupling from China for an economy that I highly dependent on commodity exports to China – all against a background of historically constitutive racially-inflected ‘fear of China’.

US alliance structures are clearly changing shape. As has often been noted this year, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has revivified US dominance of NATO. Thus after two decades of Australian Defence Force high-tempo participation in NATO-auspiced coalition operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Indian Ocean, the Australian military has become habituated to a new alliance role as an Enhanced Strategic Partner of NATO.

Anthony Albanese (left), the then newly elected Australian Labor prime minister joined his Japanese, South Korean and New Zealand equivalents at the 2022 NATO Madrid summit.

The dark follies of the AUKUS agreement to build Australian nuclear-powered submarines apart, there can be little doubt of the ultimate goal for Washington in the construction of ‘an alliance of democracies’ with global reach.

In the ‘Indo-Pacific’, the half century of US-centred hub-and-spokes alliance structures are noticeably beginning to be reshaped, again under US direction through:

Now, Canberra also seems increasingly drawn into a sense – increasingly prevalent amongst other US allies – that war over Taiwan, sometime soon, is ‘necessary’ and inevitable. The combination of Australian fear of China, the assertiveness of the current Chinese leadership, and the evidently successful US-led ideological construction of the binary identifications of ‘Russia = China, Putin = Xi Jinping, and Ukraine = Taiwan’ all combine with the hard-wiring of northern Australian military facilities into the US military force structure to drastically reduce the freedom of action of an independently-minded Australian government focused on the actual defence of Australia.

Pine Gap – Critical for Warfighting, Expanding, and Still a Priority Nuclear Target 

While nominally a joint Australian/US affair, the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap outside Alice Springs is the largest US intelligence facility outside the US, equipped with some 45 antennas, mostly in radomes, as the visible expression the base’s surveillance role as ground station for US giant signals intelligence satellites and infrared early warning satellites, in addition to hosting antennas that collect signals downlinked from foreign communications satellites on an industrial scale.

Pine Gap, already large and now growing more rapidly than ever before, will play an irreplaceable role in US military operations from Africa to the Pacific and everything in between, both conventional and nuclear. All three of its surveillance systems have critical roles in US planning for a war with China over Taiwan.

Australian governments have long known, though rarely even hinted publicly, that they have known for half a century that Pine Gap was – and is – a high priority Soviet/Russian nuclear target in the event of major conflict with the US. The base remains so today for China, with roughly the same number of priority targets as Russia, but less than a tenth the number of long-range nuclear missiles that would be up to the task.

B-52s come to RAAF Tindal to stay

B-52s have been landing at RAAF Darwin regularly since 2013 after the Gillard-Obama Darwin basing agreement, but expansion of Tindal to meet USAF requirements for B-52 deployments would make permanent presence possible.

Moreover, the Morrison government’s 2020 commitment of $1.1 bn for the United States Force Posture Initiative Airfield Works Project Elements at RAAF Base Tindal will have to be re-framed while Canberra adjusts to the Pentagon’s newest plans for a B-52 Bomber Task Force on permanent rotation from their home base in Barksdale AFB in Louisiana.

According to Pentagon tender documents released by the Australian Broadcasting Company’s Four Corners, the US is planning yet further development at Tindal – beyond that acknowledged by the Australian government – for a USAF B-52 bomber task force on permanent rotation including an ‘aircraft parking apron to accommodate six B-52s’, a USAF ‘squadron operations facility’, plus USAF maintenance centre, fuel dump, and ammunition depot. One key tender document for the Pentagon’s B-52 deployment to Tindal was dated as recently as 22 September 2022.

Source: The Drive

Tindal as Back Up for a Vulnerable Guam

For the Pentagon, a B-52 deployment to Tindal provides backup to the increasingly vulnerable Andersen AFB on tiny, heavily militarised Guam.

As former Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Dibb put it on Four Corners:

America has to take out an insurance policy because a lot of its forward military bases in places like the island of Guam near Japan and elsewhere in the region are coming much closer to Chinese military strike capabilities.

But beyond the Tindal fallback factor, the USAF is banking on the RAAF contributing critical assets to Tindal-based Bomber Task Force operations towards China in the form of the RAAF’s E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft, plus the RAAF’s long-range tanker capability, and F-35 multirole fighters.

While apparently unquestioned in Canberra, this unquestioned technical, doctrinal, and organizational integration of northern Australian military facility into US planning and preparation for an increasingly likely conflict with China has grave implications for Australian security.

B-52s, nuclear weapons, and a South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone

There is one further urgent task involving planning for six B-52 bombers to be based on permanent rotation at Tindal. B-52-H bombers, albeit heading for their 70s, have been upgraded this year yet again and remain a frontline US strategic nuclear weapons platform. According to the Federation of American Scientists’ authoritative study United States nuclear weapons, 2021, of the 87 B-52s currently deployed by the USAF, 46 are nuclear capable, with each capable of carrying up to 20 nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missiles.

At present, the language of the B-52 permanent rotational deployment is in terms of training, as was the Fraser government’s 1981 agreement to allow B-52s on navigation training exercises into Darwin.

Fraser’s agreement required explicit Australian government prior approval of use of that access for any other purpose. We know nothing of the implementing agreements under the Morrison and Albanese government’s allowing the Tindal deployment.

The issue of the constraints on the deployment under an implementing agreement will become critically important in the event f a crisis-driven US decision to bring the B-52s into war.

Pine Gap Satellite Surveillance Base, Australia, 2016 (courtesy of Felicity Ruby, available at Felicity Ruby images of Pine Gap, Australian Defence Facilities Pine Gap, Nautilus Institute.

The fabled doctrine of the Australian government controlling the uses to which the joint facilities can be put is phrased in legal agreements as our ‘Full Knowledge and Concurrence’ with American operational uses of Pine Gap, all the North West Cape cluster of bases, and now RAAF Tindal and more.

And yet, nuclear-capable B52 bombers at Tindal raise a fundamental issue for Australia which requires urgent clarification by the Albanese government: the prohibition under the Treaty of Raratongaestablishing the South Pacific Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, Article 5 of which begins, unambiguously:

‘1. Each Party undertakes to prevent in its territory the stationing of any nuclear explosive device.’

However, during the negotiations of that treaty Australia supported the position of the United States that any Pacific NWFZ must allow the transit of nuclear weapons on board visiting ships and aircraft, resulting in a second clause to Article 5:

‘2. Each Party in the exercise of its sovereign rights remains free to decide for itself whether to allow visits by foreign ships and aircraft to its ports and airfields, transit of its airspace by foreign aircraft, and navigation by foreign ships in its territorial sea or archipelagic waters in a manner not covered by the rights of innocent passage, archipelagic sea lane passage or transit passage of straits.’

The US – and Australian – intent was ‘No More New Zealands’, following the Langer Labor government’s banning of nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered warships in 1984.

While a normal interpretation of the meaning of ‘visits’ and ‘transit’ would not include something like permanent extensive rotation deployments, this second clause is now more deeply problematic than ever.

As a matter of urgency the Albanese government should declare that it accepts that under the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone any deployments of nuclear weapons to Australia in any form or under any pretext will not be permitted.

The government must require the US to answer the key questions pertaining to its deployment of B-52s:

  • Will US nuclear strategic weapons be brought to Australia in any form, for whatever duration, under any circumstances?
  • On any occasion that a US nuclear-capable bomber deploys to Australia, is it carrying nuclear weapons?

Australian government acceptance of statements that the United States will ‘neither confirm nor deny’ the presence of nuclear weapons in any form in Australia would constitute an abandonment of sovereignty.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Richard Tanter is Senior Research Associate at Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability and Director of the Nautilus Institute at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. An Asia-Pacific Journal contributing editor, he has written widely on Japanese security policy, including ‘With Eyes Wide Shut: Japan, Heisei Militarization and the Bush Doctrine’ in Melvin Gurtov and Peter Van Ness (eds.), Confronting the Bush Doctrine: Critical Views from the Asia-Pacific. He co-edited, with Gerry Van Klinken and Desmond Ball, Masters of Terror: Indonesia’s Military and Violence in East Timor.

UN Member States Fall Short on Accountability for Philippine Mass Killings

November 16th, 2022 by International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

ICHRP supports the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee through the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), but is concerned by a general lack of support for action among UN member states.  

The United Nations Human Rights Committee is a treaty body composed of 18 experts, established through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Committee meets for three four-week sessions per year to consider the periodic reports submitted by the 173 state parties to the ICCPR on their compliance with the treaty.

The 2022 report of the Human Rights Committee highlights the ongoing failure of the Philippine government in ensuring that human rights are upheld. The recommendations take note of the issues and instruments that have contributed to a system of impunity and state-orchestrated terror, such as: the red-tagging of human rights defenders and attacks on journalists and lawyers; continued extra-judicial killings under the guise of the war on drugs; and the repressive provisions of the Anti-Terror Law which target the fundamental foundations of democracy, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the right to dissent.

The Committee’s recommendations are timely, given the continuing human rights violations under the new Marcos administration. The current administration must not ignore nor downplay these recommendations and instead find concrete ways of upholding its treaty obligations under the ICCPR.

There was a great deal of interest expressed among member states in the Philippines UPR here in Geneva. A total of 107 states intervened and about 40% took a critical stand and supported the Committee’s recommendations. There is a general reticence among the majority of member states to be critical towards the Philippines’ abysmal human rights record. Despite the UN’s ongoing documentation of the Philippine’s poor civil and political rights record which dramatically worsened under the Duterte administration, only a minority of states are willing to openly express concerns and even fewer were willing to make strong recommendations for action (specifically some European and Latin American States). We specifically laud the intervention of Sierra Leone who called for the abolition of the NTF-ELCAC (National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict) which has functioned as one of the main instruments of state terror against dissidents.

Several member states including Lichtenstein, Sierra Leone, Sweden, Romania, and the USA, called for an end to the practice of red-tagging, a process by which individuals and organizations are labelled as fronts for the Communist Party of the Philippines. The Philippine representative Jesus Crispin Remulla, Secretary of the Department of Justice, for his part angrily responded to the US criticism claiming, “there is no government policy of red-tagging, it is a term invented by the left”.  This was a complete turnabout from Remulla’s contention two weeks earlier that red tagging was a government right and a vibrant part of the democratic process.  This is an example of the Philippine government’s state of denial to the international community regarding its continuing war on dissent.

ICHRP Chairperson Peter Murphy expressed “profound appreciation to those member states who spoke out pressing for greater accountability from the Philippine government,” but he urged the international community to “press member states for concrete action on human rights from the Marcos administration”.  He further called for an immediate need for an end to the supply weapons to the Marcos government, noting that “the United States has recently extended $100 million in credit for weapons purchases, and supplied $1.14 billion [2015-21] in weapons to the Philippine government during the worst period of rights violations”.

The recommendations stem from a recognition of the dire human rights situation in the Philippines. The experts do not appear swayed by the claim that the justice system in the country is working for the victims of human rights violations. ICHRP Global Council Member, Rev. Patricia Lisson, indicated that “all evidence to date points to a failure of domestic measures with less than 15 prosecutions among the thousands of cases of rights violations. Given such weak evidence to the contrary, the experts and a number of member states are clearly not convinced that the human rights situation has greatly improved”.

ICHRP calls on UN member states to hold the Philippines accountable to act on the findings of the UPR, to take concrete action to support an end to impunity, and to support the struggle of the victims and their family for justice and to finally conduct an independent international investigation as a follow-up to the 2020 Bachelet report. In the interim, the most visible and effective measure will be a cessation of all arms trade with the Philippines.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from ICHRP

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Thousands of workers from every corner of the country swarmed  to raise their voices in unison at the Ramlila Grounds in New Delhi, as part of Mazdoor Aakrosh Rally organized by Mazdoor Adhikar Sangharsh Abhiyan (MASA). We must salute the workers and organisations for braving all odds to do just what the doctor ordered, with the state of the economy and condition of working class aggravating at an unprecedented scale. The spirit of resistance shimmered sky high  with revolutionary slogans and demands representing workers from the vast sphere of industries and regions of the country in attendance at the march as the ground was transformed from a spark into a prairie fire, with thousands of red flags fluttering.

The program was the culmination of a sustained, qualitative four month long agitational campaign on six central demands, engulfing many regions of the country. The campaign was undertaken both jointly and independently by the constituent organizations of MASA at factory gates, labour lines, fields, mines and industrial areas across the country. Three regional conventions were held in Kolkata, Hyderabad and Delhi in build up to the march.

The march was a testimony of the growing discontent within the working class in India, being placed in dire straits with rising cost of living, wages falling and escalating unemployment and social insecurity. Slogans for working class unity confronting communal divisions, regional and sectoral differences were also raised. Such diverse sections of the country’s working class coming together as an organised force struck a bell in the ears of the central and state governments. The spirit of unity and camaraderie in the march is bound to instill renewed energy among all who participated in the demonstration, to organise the working class and counter the unchecked capitalist exploitation engulfing India and the entire globe.

The workers confronted heavy police deployment with Delhi police declaring section 144 and barricading despite having notified the administration months in advance of the program. The workers heroically overpowered two rounds of barricading to block the main Jawaharlal Nehru Marg towards New Delhi railway station. A delegation submitted the memorandum containing the six central demands to the President’s office. The rally was concluded with a resolve to consolidate and broaden the scope of the platform and relentlessly wage a continuous working class struggle to challenge the neoliberal policies of the government.

Workers demanded the withdrawal of the four new anti-worker labour codes passed by the Indian government; an end to the privatisation drive of public industries and assets; permanent and secure employment for all; Rs. 26,000 as minimum monthly wage; a monthly unemployment allowance of Rs 15,000; declaration of lay-offs, closures and retrenchments as illegal; abolition of the contract system and various kinds of temporary employment; recognition of domestic-gig-scheme workers under labour laws; job security, housing, healthcare, child care for all migrant and rural workers and universal PDS. Over five thousand workers, students and teachers from 18 states including Delhi NCR, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Rajasthan, Bihar, Bengal, Assam, Himachal, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra and Gujarat thronged into the capital for the protest.

The Rally was addressed by representatives from the sixteen constituent organisations of MASA, i.e. All India Workers Council, Grameen Mazdoor Union (Bihar), Indian Council of Trade Unions (ICTU), Indian Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), IFTU (Sarwahara), Inqlabi Mazdoor Kendra, Inqlabi Mazdoor Kendra Punjab, Jan Sangharsh Manch Haryana, Karnataka Shramika Shakthi, Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union (Samanvay Samiti), Mazdoor Sahayata Samiti, Mazdoor Sahyog Kendra, New Democratic Labour Front-State Coordination Committee (NDLF SCC Tamilnadu), Socialist Workers Centre (Tamilnadu), Struggling Workers Coordination Centre (SWCC, West Bengal), Trade Union Centre of India (TUCI). Cultural performances by teams from Karnataka, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Punjab and West Bengal energised the rally with songs of struggle and transformation.

The spirit of resistance shimmered in the air with revolutionary slogans and demands representing workers from the vast sphere of industries and regions of the country in attendance at the march as the ground was transformed from a spark into a prairie fire, with thousands of red flags fluttering. The protest was joined by organised private sector workers from automobile, engineering, textile, garment and food processing industries including the struggling terminated workers of Maruti Suzuki, the Maruti Suzuki Workers’ Union, Belsonnica Employees Union and contract workers from Sunbeam and Hitachi in Haryana; Daikin Air Conditioner Workers’ Union and Daido Mazdoor Union from Neemrana, Rajasthan; Bhagwati Micromax, Nestle, Parle, Rocket Riddhi Siddhi, Kirolia Lighting, Voltas, Intrark and other unions from Uttarakhand; unions from Hindi Motors, Kanoria Jute Mill, Bauria Cotton Mills and other units from West Bengal and Steel and Molding Workers Union (Punjab); Workers from public sector enterprises including BHEL (Uttarakhand), BSNL (WB), Eastern Coalfeilds Limited (WB), Singareni Collieries Company Limited (Telangana) and Indian Railways (Easter UP); Tea Plantation workers from Jakai, Nahorkotia, Gotonga, Naginijan, Jaipur, Samuguri, Hautley, Furkating and Missamara Tea Estates in Assam and Margaret’s Hope, Dhotrey, Baghrakote, Phulbari and Peshok Tea Gardens from Darjeeling joined the rally in significant numbers. Unions of rural workers and urban unorganized sectors such as Anganwadi Workers and Helpers Union (Haryana), MGNREGA and Sarva Kamgar Union (Himachal Pradesh), Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha Mazdoor Karyakarta Samiti (Chhatisgarh), Rural Employees Union (Haryana), Nirman Mazdoor Sangharsh Union (Bihar) and others among MNREGA, Sanitation, Construction, Domestic work, Anganwadi, Mid-day meal, IT-ITES, gig workers, loading-unloading and private transport from different states gave a fitting boost to the  march. The mobilisation witnessed a strong presence of women workers.

The program was the culmination of a sustained, qualitative four month long agitational campaign on six central demands, engulfing many regions of the country. The campaign was undertaken both jointly and independently by the constituent organizations of MASA at factory gates, labour lines, fields, mines and industrial areas across the country. Three regional conventions were held in Kolkata, Hyderabad and Delhi in build up to the march.

The march was a testimony of the growing discontent within the working class in India, being placed in dire straits with rising cost of living, wages falling and escalating unemployment and social insecurity. Slogans for working class unity confronting communal divisions, regional and sectoral differences were also raised. Such diverse sections of the country’s working class coming together as an organised force struck a bell in the ears of the central and state governments. The spirit of unity and camaraderie in the march is bound to instill renewed energy among all who participated in the demonstration, to organise the working class and counter the unchecked capitalist exploitation engulfing India and the entire globe.

It is vital that the tempo does not subside to painstakingly educate the working class politically and consistently undertaking qualitative programmes.Economism has to be battled at the very root and demands of trade union movement must be linked with the movement against Hindutva proto-fascism. Workers must be prepared to counter the fascist threat to organising itself.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Harsh Thakor is freelance journalist who has covered mass movements around the country.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

You’ll find no freer democracy than the Republic of the Philippines under former President Rodrigo Duterte (2016-2022). Well, at least that’s what former National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) Spokesperson Lorraine Badoy said.

The Birth of NTF-ELCAC

Since the founding of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) in 1968 and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA) in 1969, the country has been rife with terrorist activities and armed insurgencies. With a view to ending “50 years of deceit, lies and atrocities committed by communist terrorists against the Filipino people,” former President Rodrigo Duterte signed Executive Order 70 (EO 70) in 2018. It institutionalized a whole-of-nation approach that subsequently created the NTF-ELCAC. This task-force is composed of 12 operational clusters, each consisting of relevant government agencies. It is headed by the President as commander and chairman; the National Security Adviser as vice-chairman; and an appointed executive director.

Established to dismantle local insurgencies and to spur the development of former guerilla fronts of the CPP-NPA, the NTF-ELCAC initiated the Barangay Development Program (BDP) which allocates funds for sustainable rehabilitation projects. Presidential Adviser on Peace, Reconciliation and Unity (OPAPRU), Secretary Carlito G. Galvez, Jr. commended the Localized Peace Engagements (LPE) cluster as the “most effective way of dealing with the communist insurgency” by “allowing local leaders to touch base with [community-level] insurgents who have expressed their willingness to lay down their arms and return to the folds of law”.

Everything sounds about right, doesn’t it? But there is more than meets the eye.

Relentless Red-tagging

The NTF-ELCAC, primarily designed as a democratic institution aimed towards lasting peace and inclusive development, is on the frontline of relentless red-tagging of human rights activists, journalists, political opposition, labor leaders, and religious groups as communists, terrorists or advocates of the communist cause.

Red-tagging, according to a Supreme Court justice, refers to the “’phenomenon of implicating progressive civil group leaders to heinous crime,’ or the ‘vilification, labelling… of,’ or ‘ascribing guilt by association’ to, organizations in which said individuals and organizations are depicted as communists or communist supporters, ‘making them easy targets of government military or paramilitary units’.” Targets — determined without substantial proof — are usually subject to harassment and even extrajudicial killing.

While red-tagging has a long history in Philippine democracy, it was during the Duterte administration, particularly upon the institutionalization of the NTF-ELCAC, where the undemocratic practice bore its legitimacy. Apart from official pronouncements, the inter-agency body regularly utilizes the social media to communicate individual names and groups — for public derision.

Domestic human rights defenders and state universities and their constituents are often the object of violence, arbitrary and unlawful killings.

Karapatan, an “alliance of human rights organizations and programs, human rights’ desks and committees of people’s organizations, and individual advocates committed to the defense of people’s rights and civil liberties,” has always been in the crosshairs of the NTF. Named members of the said group struggled through the ordeal of online threats and physical assault. The group also compiled records from 2020 of at least 78 people being killed “either from red-tagging or anti-terrorism police operations” and 136 arrests.

In another incident in December 2018, human rights lawyer Angelo Karlo Guillen had his face plastered around Iloilo City, accusing him of membership of the NPA. He was a legal representative of the Tumandok Indigenous People. In 2021, he survived multiple stab wounds but lost his “laptop and a few documents”.

In yet another case in December 2020, Dr. Mary Rose Sancelan, a red-tagged community doctor, and her husband were shot in Guihulngan City. She was reportedly linked to the NPA.

Journalists also join the list of red-tagged individuals. Frenchiemae Cumpio of Eastern Vista, a local independent news website, has been detained for alleged illegal possession of firearms and involvement with the NPA — both of which have been dismissed by her colleagues and advocacy groups as charges intended to silence her reporting on the military’s human rights abuses.

Only recently was a regional trial court judge publicly accused to be sleeping with the enemy for dismissing a government petition to tag the CPP-NPA (and the National Democratic Front) as terrorists. Judge Marlo Malagar and her husband, University of the Philippines-Cebu Chancellor Atty. Leo Malagar, received threats arising from a Facebook post by former NTF-ELCAC spokesperson Badoy.

Implications to Philippine Democracy: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

The implementation of the whole-of-nation approach spearheaded by the NTF-ELCAC is arguably a landmark decision in the Philippine history of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. Executive Order 70 is constitutionally and legally binding. Its provisions adhere to democratic principles and processes. Simply put, EO 70 is an express measure to safeguard Philippine democracy.

However, as argued by Varol (2015) and Huq and Ginsburg (2018), democratic institutions — irrespective of quality — are easily susceptible to abuse by malicious political leaders who manipulate them for their anti-democratic practices. Against this premise, EO 70 through the NTF-ELCAC constitutes a means to an end.

The unsystematic practice of red-tagging is tantamount to crackdown on dissent. It has serious repercussion on civil liberties, particularly on freedom of expression and media freedom. By openly targeting progressive groups and individuals who are critical of the government and its programs, the Duterte administration through the NTF-ELCAC was pushing the nation towards a trajectory of “stealth authoritarianism”. Introduced by Varol, this modern concept of authoritarianism is reminiscent of a wolf in sheep’s clothing — using subtle mechanisms of authoritarian control that relies on the same legal rules that exist in regimes with favorable democratic credentials (p. 1678).

The Duterte administration used a façade of democratic institution to silence critics and oppositions. Such institution invites threats or self-censorship, with the latter only reinforcing an echo chamber that is bereft of objective reporting.

Further, Badoy’s attack against Judge Malagar oversteps the bounds of democracy by challenging autonomous judicial processes.

The red list is essentially a hit list, a death sentence of some sort. And this is not characteristic of a democracy.

The Philippines under the Duterte administration was never a free democracy, as opposed to Badoy’s remark; but a soft tyranny or stealth authoritarianism.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jezile Torculas has a bachelor’s degree in Political Science. She is an Assistant Editor at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Sources

Huq, Aziz and Tom Ginsburg. 2017. “How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy.” UCLA Law Review 65(78): pp. 80-169. Parts 1 and 4

Varol, Ozan. 2015. “Stealth Authoritarianism.” Iowa Law Review 100(4): pp. 1673-1742. Parts I, II and III.

Featured image: Protest in front of DILG, Quezon City against NTF-ELCAC on its second anniversary, December 4, 2020. (Photo by Ryomaandres, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)