Mounting violence against Muslims in America

Tom Carter

A series of attacks on Muslims in the US have occurred in the wake of theCharlie Hebdo shootings in France and executions carried out by the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria. These events have been seized on by governments around the world, including the Obama administration, to promote anti-Islamic sentiment so as to justify expanded military interventions in the Middle East and stepped up domestic repression.

On February 10, three Muslim-American students—Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, his wife Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21, and her sister Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19—were found shot in the head, execution-style, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The two young women were wearing traditional hijabs when they were killed.

The man who turned himself in to authorities in connection with the murders had previously brandished guns at the victims and threatened them. Before the shooting, Yusor Abu-Salha told her father, “Daddy, I think he hates us for who we are and how we look.”

On February 12, an Arab-American man was brutally attacked by two white men at a Kroger supermarket in Dearborn, Michigan. The attackers also taunted his daughter, who wears a hijab, making references to ISIS and Muslims. The attackers called the man and his daughter “r--head” and said, “Go back to your country.”

On February 13, the Quba Islamic Institute in southeast Houston, Texas was the target of an arson attack that destroyed a substantial portion of the building and caused an estimated $100,000 in damage. On February 17, police in Austin, Texas arrested a man for threatening to bomb an Islamic center as well as a Middle Eastern restaurant.

Last month, a “Texas Muslim Capitol Day” event (the declared purpose of which was to “engage American Muslims in the political process”) was attacked and disrupted by anti-Muslim thugs. Another attack was organized on “Muslim Day” in Oklahoma City. The attacking group’s Facebook page screamed, “Get Islam Out of America.”

The rate of hate crimes against Muslims in the United States stands at five times what it was before September 2001. A recent poll found that out of all religions, Americans harbor the most negative feelings towards Muslims.

The American political and media establishment bears a significant portion of the responsibility for these trends.

A recent report by the Center for American Progress entitled “Fear, Inc. 2.0, The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America” exposes a veritable “Islamophobia industry” operating on the periphery of the American state. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent over the past decade to promote anti-Muslim bigotry through a shady network of politicians, journalists, foundations, “activists” and “experts.”

This Islamophobia network enjoys close ties with police departments and the intelligence agencies. Anti-Muslim bigotry, the report indicates, can often be found “masquerading as law-enforcement counterterrorism training.” The training materials and “experts,” according to the report, encourage police and intelligence agents to see “a terrorist plot in every mosque.”

The intentional whipping up of anti-Muslim bigotry has intensified internationally in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks last month. As theWorld Socialist Web Site has explained, the campaign to vilify Muslims serves definite political ends.

Anti-Muslim hysteria provides a justification for imperialist mayhem abroad as well as a wedge with which to attack democratic rights at home. Policies can be pursued in the climate of such hysteria that would otherwise be unthinkable. And, as with all such campaigns against racial and religious minorities throughout the twentieth century, murderous and fascistic elements are mobilized that, in a crisis, can be unleashed against the working class as a whole.

In cultivating the conditions for an intensification of anti-Muslim violence within the United States, a particularly reprehensible role has been played by the racist, homicidal film American Sniper. The film features an elite US soldier heroically slaughtering Iraqi “savages” for God and country.

Chris Kyle, the real-life sniper behind Clint Eastwood’s pro-war propaganda film, boasted of killing more than 300 people. (He was apparently also a pathological liar who bragged about having shot and killed dozens of “looters” in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and to have participated in other events that are unlikely ever to have happened).

During a military investigation of allegations that Kyle killed an unarmed civilian in Iraq, Kyle said, “I don’t shoot people with Korans. I’d like to, but I don’t.”

In the current toxic social climate, and in the absence of any progressive outlet for social discontent, American Sniper has met with a certain and disturbing response. “American sniper makes me wanna go shoot some f---ing Arabs,” wrote one individual on Twitter. “Nice to see a movie where the Arabs are portrayed for who they really are,” wrote another, “vermin scum intent on destroying us.”

Another individual wrote, “Great f---ing movie and now I really want to kill some f---ing r--heads.” And another: “American sniper made me appreciate soldiers 100x more and hate Muslins (sic) 1000000x more.”

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee described a “drastic increase” in hate speech on social media following the film’s release. It is not difficult to see how these kinds of responses can translate into real violence.

A revealing episode was provided by the “National Prayer Breakfast” on February 5. Bowing to pressure from the right, Obama utilized the occasion (a reactionary spectacle under any circumstances) to denounce “ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism, terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.” Obama also mentioned the Crusades and the Inquisition as examples of “terrible deeds” committed in the name of religion.

Obama’s appearance fueled an ongoing campaign by the Republican right denouncing the White House for not going far enough in vilifying Muslims. Obama was criticized on the grounds that his invocation of the Crusades and the Inquisition “throws Christians under the bus.”

“The words ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ do not come out of the president’s mouth,” declared Republican Senator Ted Cruz. “The word ‘jihad’ does not come out of the president’s mouth. And that is dangerous.”

“The president’s comments… at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I've ever heard a president make in my lifetime,” former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore told reporters. “He has offended every believing Christian in the United States. This goes further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share.”

The engines of anti-Muslim agitation in the United States do not include only the usual suspects: the Republican Party, the military, AM talk radio, police, the intelligence agencies, Fox News, the Murdoch Press, religious zealots, billionaire reactionaries, the Tea Party and so forth.

Instead, anti-Muslim prejudice has been lent a certain respectable gloss by so-called “liberal” and “left” sections of the political establishment. These layers either endorse the vilification of Muslims, acquiesce to it, or make hand-wringing scholarly inquiries into whether or not Islam is “inherently violent.”

“The rash of horrific attacks in the name of Islam,” read a front-page article in the New York Times on January 9, “is spurring an anguished debate among Muslims here in the heart of the Islamic world about why their religion appears cited so often as a cause for violence and bloodshed.” The article then weighs arguments—for and against—the proposition that Islam is “inherently more violent than Judaism or Christianity.”

No significant section of the political establishment in any of the imperialist countries has shown itself capable of taking a principled stand in opposition to the promotion of anti-Muslim sentiment. That task falls to the socialist movement, which stands for the international unity of the working class, defends its democratic achievements, and rejects all attempts to whip up national, ethnic or religious bigotry.

German government prepares new military doctrine

Johannes Stern

German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen on Tuesday heralded the adoption of a new military and security strategy for Germany. Her speech, on the occasion of the first meeting of those preparing the “White Paper 2016,” underscored the turn by the German ruling elite to an aggressive foreign policy 70 years after the end of the Second World War.

Almost ten years after the publication of the last White Paper in 2006, “a new White Paper is overdue,” von der Leyen said at the beginning of her presentation. She referred to the changed “security environment,” pointing in particular to “the alarming development of transnational terrorism” and “the behavior of Russia in Ukraine,” which, she said, had “wide-ranging consequences.”

Saying she hoped the Minsk ceasefire would be implemented, she warned that one should “have no illusions.” She continued: “The new policy of the Kremlin began before the crisis in Ukraine and will keep us busy for a long time to come.”

Now the task was to find “the appropriate reaction by the West to the attempt to establish geo-strategic power politics as a way of pursuing interests,” and to Russia’s efforts “to replace internationally established rules and regulations with dominance and zones of influence.”

The defense minister ignored the fact that the crisis in Ukraine was the result of the putsch carried out by fascist forces with the support of Berlin one year ago. However, she implicitly acknowledged that the real background to the new White Paper was not “Russian aggression” in Ukraine, but the end of German restraint with regard to foreign policy, announced by President Gauck, Foreign Minister Steinmeier and herself at the Munich Security Conference at the beginning of 2014.

To reduce the need for the new White Paper to the “changed environment” would be “too reactive,” said von der Leyen. Rather, the paper had to “serve the purpose of self analysis and self assurance.” It “should explain our actions and our intentions clearly. It should offer a narrative,” she added.

The contours of this “new narrative” have already become clear over the past year. In numerous speeches, commentaries, interviews and think tank strategy papers, German politicians, journalists and academics have repeatedly demanded that Germany take on “more leadership” and “responsibility” in Europe and the world. To this end, they have argued, Germany requires a foreign policy strategy that clearly formulates German interests, along with the provision of the necessary military means to defend these interests.

Von der Leyen’s speech was a continuation of this basic line. She emphasized that “our intentions with regard to German security policy have changed quite fundamentally.” What was important was “leading from the center” and “readiness to engage.” She allowed no room for doubt that what she meant by this was the development of a globally oriented militaristic foreign policy.

She explicitly excluded any political, geographic or other restriction on military intervention. She declared, in effect, that the German army was free to intervene anywhere around the world, noting that there was no “rigid prescription for action that sets immovable geographic or qualitative boundaries.”

In other words, everything that German imperialism deemed to be necessary was permissible. There was “no checklist for foreign engagements,” “no compulsion to engage,” but also “no taboos.”

“More responsibility” could mean “fighting together to establish or preserve peace,” she declared. It could mean “training together in fragile regions, educating, building.”

Von der Leyen praised the German interventions in northern Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Kosovo, off the coast of Lebanon, in Mali and in Eastern Europe. Germany was “deeply committed” to the buildup of NATO forces in these areas, she said. Together with “partners,” it was “introducing the new rapid spearhead force” and expanding NATO headquarters in Szczecin.

At the end of her speech, the defense minister let the cat out of the bag: Germany had to massively rearm! It was necessary “to maintain the armed forces as long term partners and provide them with the necessary means.” Consequently, the White Paper would discuss “efforts to secure modern weapons,” an “up-to-date personnel policy” and an “appropriate budget.”

Von der Leyen announced her first weapons deal the same day as her speech. The Defense Ministry plans to purchase 138 helicopters for the army, including 80 multi-purpose NH90 helicopters and 40 “Tiger” combat helicopters. The deal will cost 8.7 million euros.

Because of broad opposition to militarism and war within the population, the government had previously raised the question of increased military spending with caution. The aim of the White Paper is to change this.

The president of the Armed Forces Association, André Wüstner, said on the fringes of the meeting in Berlin that “it is high time for new strategic guidelines.” The defense minister had to “break free” to “fully equip the army against the backdrop of current crises and conflicts.” Two weeks ago, at the Munich Security Conference, Wüstner had called for the arming of Germany and preparations for war.

This sentiment was echoed in a guest column in the Süddeutsche Zeitung by Christian Mölling, a staff member of the foundation Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (German Institute for International and Security AffairsSWP), which works closely with the government. He wrote that Von der Leyen had to explain in the White Paper “what role German soldiers, helicopters and tanks should play in foreign policy and in crises.” He argued that the “parameters of defense policy” depended “on the actual capabilities of the army and not on external dangers.”

The SWP published a strategy paper under the title “New Power, New Responsibility: Elements of a German Foreign and Security Policy for a Changing World” in the fall of 2013. This paper provided a template for the return of German militarism. While at that time meetings about a new, aggressive German foreign policy were taking place in secret, the current discussion on the White Paper is to take place in full view of the public.

Von der Leyen concluded by saying she looked forward “to cooperation with experts from different government agencies, with parliament, with foundations and with academia.”

To this end, four working groups, under the headings “Security and Defense Policy,” “Partnerships and Alliances,” “Armed Forces” and “National Frameworks of Action” have been established. Among the participants are leading security policy makers, journalists, academics, military personnel and representatives of German and American think tanks.

They include: Sylke Tempel, chief editor of the journal Internationale Politik; Thomas Bagger, head of the planning staff of the Foreign Office; General Major Hans-Werner Wiermann, commander of the Territorial Missions Command of the armed forces in Berlin; Winfried Nachtwei, former security policy spokesperson of the Green Party; Henning Otte, defense policy spokesperson of the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) fraction in parliament; Constanze Stelzenmüller, former security policy editor of Die Zeit and fellow at the US Brookings Institution think tank; Lieutenant General Heinrich Brauß, adjunct general secretary of NATO for defense policy and military forces planning; and Humboldt University Professor Herfried Münkler.

US steps up threats against Russia as Ukrainian troops retreat from Debaltseve

Niles Williamson

The retreat Wednesday of Ukrainian soldiers from the city of Debaltseve was a major defeat for the Kiev regime in its military offensive against pro-Russian separatists in the eastern Donbass. It was also a blow to US policy in Eastern Europe.

The loss of Debaltseve has underscored the bankruptcy of the US puppet regime in Kiev and the lack of popular support for military operations against ethnic Russians in the east.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko announced Wednesday that he had ordered a “planned and ordered” withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the battered transit hub. The New York Times reported that a column of approximately 100 transport trucks ferried soldiers out of Debaltseve early in the morning. The convoy came under intense fire from separatist tanks and snipers as it made its way toward the government-held city of Artemivsk, approximately 45 kilometers to the northwest.

Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman Andriy Lysenko reported that a majority of the estimated 8,000 Ukrainian soldiers who had been trapped in the city had escaped. “At the moment, almost 80 percent of the Ukrainian units have retreated from this sector and this operation is to be completed soon,” he told reporters.

The head of the separatist Donetsk People’s Republic, Aleksandr Zakharchenko, had called on the encircled soldiers to lay down their weapons and surrender ahead of last Sunday’s cease-fire deadline.

In the lead-up to the cease-fire negotiated in Minsk last week, several thousand Ukrainian troops entrenched in the city had been surrounded by separatist militias. Fighting continued in Debaltseve after the cease-fire deadline, as the separatists sought to force a complete surrender by the Ukrainian forces.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande launched a last-ditch diplomatic effort last week, securing a cease-fire after it was reported that US President Barack Obama was moving toward a decision to arm the Kiev regime with lethal military equipment, including anti-armor missiles, raising the specter of war between NATO and Russia.

Speaking from Hungary on Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin called for the Ukrainian troops in Debaltseve to give up their weapons and for the separatists to allow them to return home. He downplayed the significance of the fighting and called for the cease-fire he negotiated with Germany and France to be “implemented in full.”

American officials have seized on continuing hostilities following Sunday’s cease-fire deadline to press for an escalation of economic and military pressure on Russia. US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki stressed at a press briefing Tuesday that the delivery of American weaponry to the Kiev regime remained “on the table.”

Ashton Carter, who was sworn in as Obama’s new secretary of defense on Tuesday, openly backed the arming of the Ukrainian regime at his Senate confirmation hearing earlier this month. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was “very much inclined” to support a plan for delivering lethal weapons. Carter insisted that the US needed to “support Ukraine in defending themselves.”

US Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham released a joint statement on Tuesday in which they pressed for Obama to move forward with such a plan. The Republican senators declared the cease-fire a failure and blamed “Russia and its Ukrainian proxies” for assaulting Debaltseve.

They demanded that in addition to arming the Kiev regime, the Obama administration impose tougher economic sanctions on Russia to “change Putin’s behavior.” McCain and Graham called for the removal of Russia from the SWIFT financial network, a move that would significantly curb the access of Russian banks to the international financial system.

EU Foreign Minister Federica Mogherini declared in a statement Wednesday that the actions of the separatists in Debaltseve constituted a “clear violation of the cease-fire” and called on Russia and the separatists to “immediately and fully implement” the terms of the Minsk agreement. She warned that the EU was prepared to take “appropriate action” in the event of further violations of the agreement.

At a meeting of the UN Security Council on Tuesday, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power accused Russia of supporting an “all-out assault” in Ukraine in violation of the cease-fire. She baldly repeated US allegations, unsubstantiated, that Russian troops were involved in the fighting in eastern Ukraine and Russian arms were being funneled to the separatists. She declared that Russia had “manufactured and continues to escalate the violence in Ukraine.”

The crisis in Ukraine began last year after a pro-Western government came to power in a coup backed by the US and EU and spearheaded by fascist forces. The putsch ousted the elected pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych.

After opposition to the regime emerged in the Donbass region, which has a majority Russian-speaking population, Kiev began military operations in an attempt to violently suppress the separatists.

Large urban centers, including Luhansk and Donetsk, have been subjected to months of artillery shelling and mortar attacks by Ukrainian forces. Ukrainian military assaults have been spearheaded by fascist and nationalist “volunteer battalions,” including the notorious Azov Battalion, whose members are known to sport Nazi insignia on their helmets, and the Right Sector militia headed by Dymytro Yarosh, a devotee of Ukrainian nationalist and Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera.

A cease-fire deal negotiated between Kiev and the pro-Russian rebels in September never took hold, with fighting continuing through the end of last year. Kiev launched a renewed offensive in January to solidify its control over territory in the east, but the action quickly backfired, with the separatists making significant territorial gains in a counter-offensive. The position of the Ukrainian military continued to deteriorate in the face of the separatist offensive in the east and opposition to conscription in the west.

Significant resistance has emerged in western Ukraine to the military draft that came into effect at the end of January, with many reportedly fleeing the country to avoid service. Morale is reportedly extremely low amongst the government’s armed forces, with thousands of reported desertions.

According to estimates by the UN, more than 5,400 soldiers and civilians have been killed in the conflict, while more than a million people have been displaced. A German intelligence estimate cited by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung places the death toll much higher, at approximately 50,000.

Syriza, requesting six-month loan extension for Greece, accepts continued austerity

Robert Stevens

The Syriza-Independent Greeks government is set to request a six-month loan extension Thursday, reversing its previous pledges and accepting the debt-repayment scheme and austerity program dictated by the European Union.

Greece’s current loan agreement with the so-called “troika” (European Commission, European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund) expires at the end of this month. Without further loans, it will rapidly default on its foreign debt of €320 billion.

According to press reports, the request was scheduled to be submitted on Wednesday, but was held back by Athens in order to ensure that it was worded in a manner acceptable to the Eurogroup. Led by Germany, the euro zone governments have thus far rejected Syriza’s concessionary offers and insisted on an explicit acceptance of the current debt repayment plan.

The new government will reportedly agree not to roll back the austerity measures already implemented or take any action not approved by the troika, while asking for a loan extension of up to six months that is not formally attached to completion of the austerity programme agreed by the previous Greek government.

On Tuesday, a senior Greek cabinet minister, speaking anonymously, said, “We will ask for an extension of the current bailout agreement within the framework of the Moscovici plan.”

This is a reference to a document authored by Pierre Moscovici, economic chief of the European Commission, which Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis on Monday said he was prepared to sign. At Monday’s meeting of euro zone finance ministers in Brussels, the Moscovici document was withdrawn and replaced with another from Eurogroup head Jeroen Dijsselbloem demanding that Greece remain within the previous austerity agreement and impose further cuts.

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble denounced the new Greek proposal, stating, “It’s not about an extension of the loan programme, it’s about whether this program is fulfilled, yes or no.”

A further indication of German opposition came Wednesday evening with the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) to grant a further extension of just €3.3 billion to Greek banks accessing the ECB’s Emergency Liquidity Assistance fund. At the current rate of deposit outflows from Greek banks, this sum is estimated to cover just one week of funding. The ECB board was split on the issue, with the Bundesbank’s Jens Weidmann opposing even this token increase.

In preparing to submit the new Greek proposal, Varoufakis met with Moscovici on Tuesday. On Wednesday he spoke by telephone with US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, who called on Greece to "find a constructive path forward in partnership" with its creditors. A US Treasury statement warned that “failure to reach an agreement would lead to immediate hardship in Greece, that the uncertainty is not good for Europe, and that time is of the essence.”

On Wednesday evening, Varoufakis tweeted that a Eurogroup teleconference would be held Friday to discuss Greece’s proposal.

Syriza has been desperately seeking to come to an agreement with the troika and the Eurogroup since its election last month on an anti-austerity platform. But the eurozone governments, led by Germany, have to date rejected the supposedly “left” government’s pleas for some form of verbal camouflage for what amounts to capitulation to the demands of EU and the banks.

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, in particular, has gone out of his way to crack the whip and display contempt for Syriza, exhibiting the arrogance and indifference of the bourgeoisie for the suffering of the Greek masses. The evident aim is to make Greece an object lesson on the futility of challenging the power of capital.

Syriza, a party that speaks for sections of the bourgeoisie and privileged upper-middle class layers in Greece, is incapable of mounting any real opposition to the dictates of the EU and the banks. It is part of the bourgeois political order and explicitly defends the capitalist economic system and its organizational and political framework in Europe, the EU.

It is being forced, before the eyes of the world, to systematically discard its “radical” pretences in something akin to a political striptease.

On Wednesday, the Greek government released documents outlining its negotiating positions and citing statements made by Varoufakis at the last two Eurogroup meetings. The documents are an extraordinary testament to the lengths Syriza has gone in repudiating its anti-austerity rhetoric in an effort to satisfy the rapacious demands of the European ruling elite.

In his presentation to the February 11 Eurogroup meeting, Varoufakis started by stressing that Syriza understood the austerity measures already in place in Greece would be permanent. “Greece has made a vast adjustment over the past five years at immense social cost” he said. “The new government takes this adjustment as its point of departure.”

He continued, “Our government will be the most reform-oriented government in Greek modern history, and among the most enthusiastic reformers in Europe.”

Addressing concerns that Syriza might implement a few reforms partially reversing austerity measures in place regarding privatisations, the firing of public sector workers, the slashing of pensions and cuts in the minimum wage, Varoufakis explained that Syriza’s proposals were so watered down as to be inconsequential. It was untrue “that we have rolled back previous reforms and added to our state budget,” he declared.

Regarding privatizations, he said “we are ready and willing to evaluate each and every one project on its merits alone. Media reports that the Piraeus port privatisation was reversed could not be further from the truth.” He went on to insist that “foreign direct investment will be encouraged.”

On the promised reinstatement of laid-off state employees Varoufakis had already said this policy would apply to “just one tiny little miserable percent of those who lost their jobs.” He told the Eurogroup meeting that just 2,013 workers would be rehired, and promised that this “tiny number” would “have no adverse effect on competitiveness and no fiscal bearing as [the reinstatements] will be paid for entirely by other savings in the state budget.”

Syriza’s “reform” of pensions was barely a change in the existing policy and would cost almost nothing, pleaded Varoufakis. He said the “restoration of the pension cuts we announced concern pensioners living at or below the poverty line and comes up to less than 2 euros per day per eligible pensioner—a grand total of around 9.5 million.” [Emphasis added].

On the minimum wage, Syriza is proposing merely a return to the level that prevailed before the austerity measures were launched. On this issue as well, big business had nothing to fear, Varoufakis assured the assembled finance ministers. The “government will phase in its restoration to the 2012 level gradually, from September onward,” he said, and only “after consultation with employers and trades unions.” It would apply, moreover, “only to the private sector.”

Posing the question, “Will it reduce the competitiveness of the private sector?” he answered, “The government commits to reforms, e.g., in social security. Reducing the tax on wages will ensure it does not.”

Varoufakis was addressing finance ministers who in 2010 alone imposed €487 billion in austerity cuts, with hundreds of billions in further cuts since then. Varoufakis concluded, “Some of you... were displeased by the victory of a left-wing, a radical left-wing party. To them I have this to say: It would be a lost opportunity to see us as adversaries. We are dedicated Europeanists. We care about our people deeply but we are not populists promising all things to all people.” [Emphasis added.]

The Eurogroup listened to Varoufakis, but did not even bother to look at his latest paper outlining Syriza’s proposals.

The fact that the Eurogroup has rejected such miserable proposals out of hand shows that the European Union will not allow anything to be legislated in Greece, or anywhere else, that impinges on the ongoing transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

The Daily Telegraph summed up the position of the ruling elite when it lauded Lithuania, calling it “the euro zone’s newest member… where the minimum wage is €300 per month and which is now asked to cave so Syriza can increase the Greek minimum wage to €751 per month.”

If any agreement is reached between the Eurogroup and Greece it will be based on a continuation of austerity enforced by Syriza. Even then, the growing scale of Greece’s foreign debt is such that it cannot be paid off. More and more commentators are concluding that Greece is edging toward default and exit from the euro zone.

The Guardian warned in its editorial Wednesday that Greece’s application for an extension “would be only a temporary, if welcome, respite to the underlying problem.” The editorial continued: “It would be foolish to assume that it represents a conclusive step back from the brink.”

Japanese prime minister pushes to end constitutional limits on the military

Peter Symonds

Under conditions where US imperialism is resorting to war as an instrument of foreign policy in Ukraine, the Middle East and the Asia Pacific, other major powers are also seeking to remilitarise and remove any restraints on their use of military force. That is the significance of the call by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for a fundamental revision of the country’s post-war constitution.

Last week, in his first keynote policy speech to parliament since the December election, Abe formally put constitutional change on his government’s agenda. He exhorted the “people of Japan” to “be confident,” exclaiming: “Isn’t it time to hold deep debate about revising the constitution? For the future of Japan, shouldn’t we accomplish in this parliament, the biggest reform since the end of the war?”

Constitutional revision has been a longstanding ambition, not only of Abe. Substantial sections of the Japanese political establishment object in particular to Article 9 of the constitution, which renounced war forever and declared that land, air and sea forces would never be maintained. The constitution was drawn up by the post-war American occupation under General Douglas MacArthur, although from the 1950s the US encouraged Japan to establish its own substantial “self-defence forces” as part of their Cold War alliance.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Japanese ruling class has increasingly viewed the post-war constitution as an intolerable impediment to pursuing its own imperialist ambitions in Asia and internationally. Amid rising geo-political tensions, the Abe government has already expanded military spending, re-oriented defence strategy to fighting a war with China and is waging a propaganda campaign to whitewash the war crimes of the Japanese military during the 1930s and 1940s.

Last July, Abe took a further major step in undermining Article 9 by announcing a “constitutional reinterpretation” allowing for so-called “collective self-defence”—in other words, for Tokyo to militarily support the US and other potential allies, even if Japan was not directly threatened or under attack. A battery of legislation to give legal force to this “reinterpretation” has already been drawn up and will be pushed through the national parliament after local elections in April.

As part of its “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration has actively encouraged Japan to take a more aggressive stance toward Beijing and play a greater role in “regional security”—that is, in supporting the US military build-up in the Indo-Pacific region against China. Washington welcomed the Abe government’s statement on “collective self-defence” as it opens the door for the closer integration of US and Japanese forces, including in Japan itself, where nearly 50,000 American military personnel are based.

Abe now plans to press ahead with his far broader objective of sweeping constitutional change, well aware that he faces major obstacles. Any constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of parliament before being put to a popular referendum for ratification. More fundamentally, the government confronts deep-seated public opposition, especially in the working class, to any attempt to revive Japanese militarism or change the constitution.

In calling for a “deep debate,” Abe is preparing a lengthy ideological offensive. He has already seized on the barbaric execution of two Japanese hostages by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militias to argue for the removal of constitutional and legal restraints on the military’s ability to launch rescue operations. Undoubtedly, the government will exploit or manufacture a series of terrorist or war scares to try to stampede public opinion into supporting constitutional change sometime after upper house elections in mid-2016.

The driving force behind the revival of Japanese militarism is the deepening breakdown of global capitalism, which is fuelling geo-political rivalries and tensions around the globe—from the provocative intervention of the US and its allies in Ukraine, to the new US-led war in the Middle East and Washington’s “pivot” against China. Like Germany, Japan continues to pursue its objectives within the framework of the US alliance, but, at the same time, is rearming in order to pursue its own imperialist interests, which may come into conflict with those of the United States.

Having suffered what it regarded as a humiliating defeat in World War II, the Japanese ruling elites only reluctantly accepted the constitution foisted on them by the American occupation. Abe often speaks of “escaping the post-war regime,” by which he means not only removing the constitutional shackles on the Japanese military but ending the country’s post-war subordination to American interests.

In his 2006 book, Towards a Beautif ul Country: My Vision for Japan, Abe declared that Article 9 of the constitution “failed to provide a necessary condition for an independent nation.” That reflected the US stance toward Japan, he wrote. “In order to protect national interests of its own and other Allied powers, the US ... drafted the constitution not to let Japan challenge the Western-centred world order again.”

Abe is determined to remove the restraints on Japanese imperialism’s ability to aggressively prosecute its interests internationally. In just over two years since he came to power in December 2012, Abe has mounted a far-ranging diplomatic offensive to strengthen Tokyo’s ties around the world, visiting more than 50 countries on five continents.

At the same time, the Liberal Democratic Party government is seeking to amend or abolish basic democratic rights contained in the post-war constitution. It is proposing to grant sweeping “emergency powers” to the prime minister, restore the emperor to his pre-war status as head of state and replace the “fundamental rights” of citizens with patriotic “duties,” including to respect the national flag and anthem. Above all, these anti-democratic measures will be used against the working class under conditions of mounting government attacks on living standards.

The re-emergence of Japanese militarism holds great dangers for the working class in Japan and internationally. Amid a mounting economic crisis and growing inter-imperialist rivalry, all the major powers are preparing for war. The US and Japan fought a bloody war between 1941 and 1945 that cost millions of lives in order to determine which power would dominate China and the Asia Pacific. While the US and Japan are currently allies, the unresolved questions of the last war continue to fester, threatening new tensions and conflict.

The sole social force capable of halting the accelerating drive to war in Europe, the Middle East and Asia is the international working class. The International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) and its sections are the only organisations fighting to build a global anti-war movement of workers and youth on the basis of a socialist and internationalist perspective to abolish the root cause of war—the bankrupt capitalist system and its outmoded nation-state system.

Resuming the Indo-Pak Dialogue: Evolving a New Focus

PR Chari

Foreign Secretary Jaishankar is scheduled to visit Pakistan for resuming the interrupted Indo-Pak dialogue, which has got the talking heads in New Delhi into a tizzy. Why on earth did the Prime Minister reverse course after taking the firm position that Pakistan could not indulge in unacceptable conduct and hope to continue efforts to normalise relations with India? It would be recollected here that the Pakistani Foreign Secretary had gone ahead last year during his visit to India to meet separatist leaders from Kashmir in New Delhi, despite being specifically urged not to do so. That act of deliberate intransigence had caused Prime Minister Modi's ire, and his announcement that no further dialogue with Islamabad was possible due to its obduracy. 

What has happened then to occasion this policy reversal? It has been alleged that US pressure on New Delhi was responsible. President Obama has made the inclusion of Pakistan within the structure of various dialogue processes into an article of faith, despite Pakistan's many transgressions. This is vividly demonstrated by Obama's Afghanistan policy, which privileges Pakistan above all others for being doled out financial largesse, despite its proven links with al Qaeda, Taliban and militant groups of all descriptions. It is therefore quite possible that President Obama strongly urged Modi to resume the dialogue with Pakistan and not complicate the American plans for withdrawing its forces from Afghanistan. Indeed, there are committed elements in India who also believe that dialogue with Pakistan should be an uninterrupted and uninterruptable process that is not subject to the vagaries of day-to-day occurrences.

Conspiracy theorists have also speculated that the BJP's humiliating defeat in the Delhi state elections, despite Modi's personal canvassing, alongside other stalwarts of the BJP and the RSS, made it imperative to divert public attention away from this electoral disaster. Hence, the dramatic decision to resume the shelved India-Pakistan dialogue although nothing has changed in the bilateral situation. This conclusion has some merit. But subsequent clarifications by the Government have sought to play down the significance of this overture to Pakistan by urging that the Foreign Secretary's visit to Islamabad is part of a larger diplomatic endeavour. Visits are also planned thereafter to the other SAARC capitals to infuse new life into this moribund organisation. The policy implications of this modality are of the essence and need to be emphasised, especially in the light of Prime Minister Modi's radical declarations during the last SAARC Summit meeting  in Kathmandu held in November 2014.

After identifying terrorism as the major security threat confronting the regional grouping, Modi predicted that regional integration could occur “through SAARC or outside it” if the group failed to reach consensus on the many fundamental issues that were bedevilling this regional organisation. Modi also asserted, significantly, that India would work “through SAARC or outside it, among some or all of its members,” which presages a new approach to dealing with India's South Asian neighbours. Plainly, this was Modi's instinctive reaction to Pakistan's obstructive conduct during the Summit meeting, where it did not allow several proposals for achieving regional cooperation to be passed. Under its Charter, unfortunately, the founders of SAARC had opted for all its decisions being taken by consensus, and not on the basis of majority votes, which has enabled intransigent members to halt decision-making for frivolous and implausible reasons.

Modi's message to Islamabad was plain. If the situation so warranted India could work within the SAARC modality or with individual SAARC countries or with smaller groupings of its members. A new relevance was thereby accorded to bilateral relations and sub-regional groupings within the ambit of SAARC. Reportedly, a BJP spokesperson had declared earlier that “South Asia will grow without Pakistan if they don’t want to be on board. They anyway see themselves as a part of the Islamic West Asian world; good luck to them.” The Foreign Secretary could pursue these propositions during his forthcoming visit to Pakistan, in addition to the set-piece agenda for Indo-Pak meetings that must perforce include border incidents, terrorist activities, hostile propaganda, apart from more constructive items like strengthening trade relations and facilitating people-to-people relations. 

In his subsequent visits to the other SAARC countries the Foreign Secretary could also explore the possibility of invigorating the possible sub-regional groupings within SAARC  where some natural affinities are available, and trade, communications and similar cooperative linkages are already existing. A sub-regional grouping that would include Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal (BBIN), or India, Maldives and Sri Lanka (SIM) is presently conceivable. And, a sub-regional grouping comprising Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (API) can be visualised in the fullness of time if the politics of these countries transcends their present dissensions.  

Viewed in the SAARC perspective the resumption of the Indo-Pak dialogue offers Pakistan both a challenge and an opportunity to redeem its present image of being the global centre for jihad and religious terrorism. It would be in the self-interests of both China and the US to support these initiatives that derive from the SAARC modality.

Pakistan's Hurt Locker: What Next?

Salma Malik

A year ago, the morning of 7 January 2014 started as an average routine day for the children of Ibrahimzai village in Hangu, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. However, few minutes later, 14-year-old Aitzaz Hasan, prevented a suicide bombing attack on the school, courageously saving 2000 pupils, and embraced martyrdom in the process. Aitzaz’s sacrifice affected everyone and his death was mourned and eulogised everywhere. However, given the spreading geography of fear, life soon returned to what can be tragically termed as normal.

Eerily reminiscent of the January attack, on 16 December 2014, what began as a normal turned into a day of mourning and national reflection itself, for the Army Public School, Peshawar, came under a terrorist attack that left 148 dead; and 134 were children. The attack was launched specifically by the Khorasani group of the Pakistani Taliban, in retaliation of the Pakistani military’s Operation Zarb-e-Azb. There was an outpouring of grief, solidarity, condolences and condemnation from not just within Pakistan, but from world over.

Educational institutions coming under attack isn’t a new thing; there have been several such cases in the recent part alone. These acts are often highly condemned, but they generate widespread fear, and the state promises to doing “more” vis-à-vis security as well as bringing culprits to justice.

The immediate and instinctive reaction felt by all was one of immense grief, and above all, anger. Anger at being helpless and at why the government had taken no concrete measures to address terrorism in the past and especially this particular incident, for which there was credible intel on. As a knee jerk reaction, in response to the civil society seeking the jugular, the moratorium on death penalty was lifted conditional to those booked under terrorism charges. Several faced execution. The sole designated governmental response body, the NACTA, which after many hiccups, had coughed up the national internal security policy, predictably went missing in action. The government formed a parliamentary committee of all political stakeholders to formulate a national action plan to counter terrorism and extremism and produce concrete proposals in seven days’ time. Massive crackdowns to flush out sleeper cells and miscreants across the country is underway. The civil society has intensified its activities such as holding vigils, country wide condolences, and protest rallies.

The executions, hailed by the larger segment of a perceptibly docile and liberal civil society, where necessary in terms of fear and punishment, only serve a quick fix and good optics, are by no means the answer to the problem. A day after the Peshawar incident, the initial bail and then rejection of the 2008 Mumbai attacks suspect Zia-ur-Rehman Lakhvi is proof that the criminal and overall justice system needs urgent and critical review and reform, as well as security of the judges. The need is for a stronger and independent judicial system, where neither judges nor witnesses need to fear for their lives; the justice system must be based on a purely professional, unbiased and balanced platform. Secondly, the entire security sector needs to be strengthened and though the risk of militarising the police by itself carries severe repercussions, stakeholders need to work this fine balance. One clarity that has emerged from this horrific massacre is that there are no good or bad Taliban; and secondly, as a nation Pakistan is at war; and thus, extraordinary measures need to be undertaken to confront the enemy.

Within hours of the Peshawar tragedy, the military high command visited Kabul and consulted the ANA and the ISAF high command regarding actions against TTP Chief Mullah Fazlullah and his militiamen hiding in Afghan territory. The Afghan side responded positively and the reciprocal visit by two military commanders to Rawalpindi affirms the support pledged. This is certainly a major success, as for once, neither Afghan nor Pakistani territory will be friendly and safe for terrorists. Secondly, the political government is also no longer considering North Waziristan or a specific territory as a troubled spot, but expanding its focus countrywide. The national action plan initially finalised eight proposals (later twenty) that touched upon: strengthening and restructuring the NACTA; the urgent need to reform the criminal justice system; the establishment of military courts in the FATA; the establishment of special courts and rapid reaction forces; repatriation of Afghan nationals; the registration of religious seminaries and their code of conduct was suggested. Channels of communication, information, propaganda and monetary resources of terrorist outfits should be monitored and chocked. Furthermore, the curricula and text books need to be revised and extremist narratives need to be neutralised. The misinterpretation of Quranic teachings, mosques and the hadith needs to be countered and corrected. A comprehensive and country wide de-weaponistion drive is one of the first measures to be undertaken.

Though the civil society’s reaction and populist demand for unleashing ultimate fury and revenge is a natural outpouring of the anguish the entire nation feels, one must not forget that similar provocations had resulted in a reluctant Pervez Musharraf laying siege to Lal Masjid – resulting in the death of a large number of children and young girls. The conflict equilibrium completely tilted and transformed as a result, with terrorism intensifying and expanding out of proportion.

One must not discount the numerous non-combatants getting killed by terrorists, as part of collateral – victims of aerial bombing or drone strikes. They all are equally precious and worthy as the children martyred at the Peshawar army school, who through their sacrifice, have hopefully opened the eyes of all those who harbored fantasies about terrorists’ intentions and possible utility as assets. The aforementioned measures in terms of security and law enforcement; political action; discontinuing support of all kinds; and economic, societal, educational and above all judicial actions to counter violent extremist elements can by no means be proposed and implemented overnight. Nor can the menace be wished away.

Already, retaliatory targeted attacks are testimony of the terrorists’ tenacity. Ideally led by the political government, however, where knee jerk responses formulated in an emotionally charged frame of mind cannot bring about change, and this tragedy, instead of becoming yet another collectable for the hurt locker, must become a turning point.

Otherwise, as one killer, after killing all the children in his range, asked his commander over the phone as to what to do next, once the enemy has killed all our children, there would be nothing left to save.

Eviction of Maasai Continues in Loliondo, Tanzania

Madeline McGill

Violence between the Tanzanian government and the Maasai people of Loliondo has continued to mount in the face of their eviction from ancestral lands on the Western Serengeti.

Since February 12, 2015, Tanzanian government forces have begun forcibly evicting Maasai from their homes, burning houses to the ground, injuring civilians, and leaving women and children without shelter or protection.

The land in question is a 1500 square kilometer area that has been disputed for over 20 years. The Maasai indisputably first occupied the land, but in 2009 the Tanzanian government called this into question due to the land being desirable to the Ortello Business Company (OBC), a hunting company from UAE interested in hunting and trapping in the wildlife in the area.

Thanks to grassroots activism and international pressure, the government was mostly unsuccessful in their eviction. However, they have since returned to the same Maasai lands. A Maasai source’s analysis has found that the eviction is the combined efforts between Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA), Police, and the OBC.

Following February 12’s violent encounter, the police, said to be 67 in number, have installed a camp next to the bomas (homestead) to control the Maasai from resettling after their homesteads are burnt.

As of February 14, over 114 bomas have been burnt to the ground and 3,000 people have been left without shelter, food and protection. Women and children have taken shelter under trees, where 3 women have delivered without medical attention. Other damaged valuables include skins for sleeping and 120 goats, essential for providing nourishment.

Following the two injured Maasai youth on Feburary 12, another young man was severely injured by police forces and has been hospitalized. Two more men have also been beaten and are being treated from home.

Further violence is expected, as a Maasai source states that this state-sponsored destruction is expected to continue through February 17th, when the regional commissioner for the Arusha region will be visiting the area with the chief park warden from the Serengeti.

Several immediate actions are recommended in the wake of these incidents in Loliondo:

Food provisions are needed for the starving population - especially children. With the removal of livestock, children are unable to obtain milk. From interviews and visible observation, suffering is evident. Food is needed, including infant packages, risk, cooking fat, and other essentials.

Tents, Turubali, or some form of shelter are needed to protect children from the cold. The interviews of a Maasai source have shown over 200 children sleeping under trees at night. Any effort made by Maasai women to construct temporary housing is met by them being burned again.

A campaign is needed to halt the burning and destruction from now until the 17th when senior officials will be visiting the area. The Maasai have been holding meetings strategizing on this upcoming visit.
 

The Maasai will not leave the land as they are being directed. A Maasai elder told a journalist, “We have decided to die here, and our graves will be used by the coming generation to stand for their rights. We have left Serengeti for our government, we are not claiming it now, but there comes a time when we will be forced to ask the British government of our agreement… Am asking my government to leave us in our land before we migrate to Serengeti.”

Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism Launches Native American Trails Website

Asia Alsgaard

The Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism (MOTT) has a variety of themed historical programs ranging from ones that trace the state’s history in the Civil War to another that delineates the plethora of historic lighthouses spotting the Massachusetts coastline. However, their newest program is unique. The Massachusetts Native American Trails website is not merely written about Native peoples, but is written by Native people themselves.

Native American Trails is a recently released online resource aimed at providing a succinct source of information on the history of the Native tribes in Massachusetts, the associated historical and natural sites, as well as on current events by the Native American tribes in the Massachusetts area. There is information, not just on sites such as the Aptucxet Trading Post Museum, the site of the first trading house built in 1627 by the Plymouth Colony where the pilgrims traded with the native tribe, but also on natural sites such as Bash Bish Falls.  Bash Bish Falls, a 200-foot falls associated with the woman Bash Bish who, according to Native American legend, was sentenced to death here only to disappear into thin air. If someone is looking for a more personal experience, the site also provides information on Native American-guided tours of Plymouth as well as about current native events that are open for anyone to attend, complete with accompanying information on proper protocol at Powwows and related events.

The idea was initiated by MOTT after receiving feedback from tourists who lamented the lack of available resources for those interested in finding and learning more about the Native American history of Massachusetts. MOTT reached out to Dr. Jean Forward for assistance, a professor of Anthropology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who has been working with Native tribes in the state for over 30 years. She began collaborating with John Peters, the director of the Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs, on how best to formulate the tourism program. They ultimately decided on an online, rather than physical “trail,” that would act as a resource for interested educators and tourists. In a discussion with Cultural Survival, Dr. Forward noted how, “tourism acts as an excellent opportunity to educate people.” In order to educate, the website would contain tourist information, but also act as a central source of information on Massachusetts tribes in the area.

MOTT took it one step further, deciding that rather than just constructing the site themselves, the website would be a collaborative effort with the Native tribes to present the information they wanted in their own words. The ultimate goal was that the tribes themselves would maintain their own portion of the website. Jean Forward commented on how “in general, 95% of what you see is written by non-Native people. We felt it was important to have Native people in control of the information [on the website].”

The Creative Economy Initiative Fund grant covered the expense of travel and allowed visits with the Aquinnah Wampanoag, the Mashpee Wampanoag, and Nipmuc Nations, the three tribes that would ultimately be linked to the website. MOTT felt it was important to approach the project on the terms of the Native Americans involved in the process, taking the time to travel to them.

Because of the number of moving parts involved, the process was a slow one, taking over a year and a half to complete. According to a soon to be published article by Virginia McLaurin, a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the project required constant collaboration between the busy schedules of Native leaders, university professors, undergraduate and graduate student volunteers making just finding a time to meet challenging. Once a meeting was established, an effort was made to find out what information each tribe wished to have displayed on the website. In many cases, the tribes already had an operational website that could be linked to. However, it was still necessary to make the main website easy-to-update while simultaneously instructing the tribes on how to take over their own sites. In some cases, such as with the video of Hawk Henries, a Nipmuck flute player, or in other cases where a tribe wished to present more extensive information, the tribe was fit with undergraduate and graduate volunteers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who were able to help with the display of ideas or information.

Despite the time intensive nature of the project, the end result is a product that combines information from a variety of sources, including information regarding the Native tribes, as well as links to the North American Indian Center of Boston, Aptucxet Trading Post Museum, and the Massachusetts Center for Native American Awareness.

Not only does this website provide a valuable resource for educators and tourists within Massachusetts, but it was a unique opportunity for the tribes involved as well. Dr. Forward says, “Everyone was excited and receptive. We were approaching tribes to give them something instead of taking something away.” Historically, interactions between the Native and non-native peoples of Massachusetts have been characterized by diseases, conversion, dispossession, and relocation. Native people in Massachusetts are more than their history and they continue to have an active presence within the commonwealth. The Native American Trail website is an attempt to present their past while showing they are involved in shaping our futures.

As put by John Peters and written about by Faye Alkiewicz, “[The website] gives the general population information on who we [Native Americans] are, what we do.” The hope is that this can help to deconstruct some of the misconceptions surrounding Native Americans that still exist today. In an interview with Fran Fifis, Paula Peters, a member of the Mashpee Wampanoag, mentioned some of the misconceptions that accompany many visitors to Plimoth Plantation, where a construction exists of a 17th century Wampanoag village with all Native re-enactors. As put by Peters, “We have a unique opportunity here because of our history to teach the public about our culture and dispel the myths.” The Massachusetts Native American Trail Website is a major contribution to this effort, allowing a succinct site for presenting accurate information by the Native tribes themselves. Unfortunately, Massachusetts is not the only state to struggle with Native misconceptions and misinformation, but Dr. Forward hopes that in the future the site can become a “model that other states can use to educate and do tourism with.”

Follow this link to check out the Massachusetts Native American Trails website:www.massnativetrails.com

First Nations #ShutDownCanada Demanding Justice

Emily Sanders

In what promised to be the most widespread protest by First Nations in Canada since Idle No More, Indigenous peoples staged a massive boycott intended to temporarily freeze the nation’s economy. At least twenty-two scheduled rallies, peaceful protests and events were held in various counties, communities and cities around Canada including Vancouver and Toronto on Friday February 13, 2015, in order to spread knowledge and educate passersby of the violations committed against Indigenous Peoples in Canada and demand justice. The purpose of these events was to further the legacy of Indigenous resistance against the violence and robbed autonomy tribes have suffered since colonialists began their reign of subjugation.

Participants in the nationwide protest #ShutDownCanada want to inform the public about numerous incidents of institutionalized racism and cultural genocide committed by the Canadian police forces and government. The issues covered include land dispossession, disproportionate homelessness of native peoples, and numerous causes of environmental destruction such as the tar sands, pipelines, fracking, mining and energy developments like the Site C mega-dam, which drastically affect the traditional livelihoods of Indigenous peoples. “This government blatantly oppresses Indigenous peoples in a calculated effort to create dysfunction within communities to maintain control of the land and exploitation of natural resources,” reads the #ShutDownCanada Facebook event page. The event aims to prevent further cultural disintegration and the fracturing of Indigenous communities, the goals of a corrupt democracy where “systematic racism and structural violence are connected to the needs of this illegal colonial state to maintain control of the land for exploitation.”

Canadian communities and grassroots organizations were called upon to blockade their local railways, ports or highways on Friday with the goal of paralyzing the Canadian economy for a day and demanding attention towards these issues. Protestors also hope to draw attention to the devastating consequences of unconsented development projects on native land, such as severe disruption of ecosystems and the Dene way of life invoked by the expansion of tar sands extraction, the public health crisis spurred by the byproducts of this development, the loss of exported jobs as a result of pipeline construction, the destruction of the wild salmon habitat and unconsented fish farming in native waters, and issued grants for open pit mining despite the outcome of the Tshilqot’in Supreme Court decision. The Facebook page reminds readers that, not dissimilar to the tactics of “biological warfare” used in colonial times to steal land from Indigenous peoples, the crippling effects of unsustainable resource use destroy a way of life that is crucial to Indigenous resistance and survival on their traditional land.

The dramatic over-representation of Indigenous peoples in Canada’s prison system was also a focus of attention. In 2013, the correctional investigator for Canada reported during a news conference in Ottawa that there is “no deputy commissioner dedicated solely to and responsible for aboriginal programs, planning, implementation and results. And worst of all, no progress in closing the large gaps in correctional outcomes between aboriginal and non-aboriginal inmates.” Despite that Indigenous peoples make up only four percent of the population in Canada, “in federal prisons nearly one in four is Metis, Inuit, or First Nations.” First Peoples Worldwide reported in 2014 that Aboriginal women represent 33 percent of all women imprisoned, a number that has increased 90% in the past decade.

Members of the United Urban Warrior Society held a protest in the intersection of highways 17 and 6, with its Manitoulin and North Shore organizer Isadore Pangowish voicing her concerns as the traffic halted for five minutes each hour. Among these were Bill C-51, an Anti-Terrorism Act that would heighten the power of Canada’s intelligence agency and allow the RCMP the ability to make excessive arrests based on fears of terror attacks that “may” happen, as opposed to attacks that “will” happen. “What we are doing right now, this will be illegal,” said Pangowish of the picketing.

Perhaps the most prominent issue that this and all #ShutDownCanada protests demand to see addressed is the lack of justice and inquiry into over 2,000 cases of missing or murdered Indigenous women. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has dismissed cries for investigation into these crimes by claiming that the issue “is not on their radar.” The delegitimizing of Indigenous women’s safety by the Canadian government and police forces reared its head at the protest itself: Audrey Siegl was injured during the action when an officer bumped her with his shoulder as he walked by, thrusting her hand drum into her face. “A VPD shoved Shannon & Savannah aside, and as he marched forward, looked right at me as he shoved my drum into my face with his shoulder. We three women were standing still, drumming n singing. He could have gone around instead of using aggression to intentionally intimidate and harm three unarmed and passive women,” Siegl posted on her Facebook page. Siegl, a Vancouver COPE Council Candidate and Musqueam First Nation activist, has mentioned plans to press charges.

Indigenous protestors want the public to know that all of the issues addressed by #ShutDownCanada, including a history of excessive police involvement and force deployed during peaceful demonstrations to which Siegl’s assault can be added, fall under the umbrella of one underlying fact: that “the system has failed us all miserably.”