SPD leader Gabriel succeeds Steinmeier as German foreign minister

Johannes Stern

Last Friday, President Joachim Gauck officially dismissed the Social Democrat Frank-Walter Steinmeier from the post of foreign minister. His successor is the former economics minister and Social Democratic Party (SPD) chairman, Sigmar Gabriel. The new economics minister is Gabriel’s former state secretary, Brigitte Zypries, who was federal justice minister from 2002 to 2009. On February 12, Steinmeier will be elected to succeed Gauck as president by the Federal Assembly.

As the WSWS wrote in a previous article, the changes, including the chancellor candidacy of former president of the European Parliament Martin Schulz (SPD), are directly linked to the coming to power of Donald Trump. German imperialism is responding by aggressively pursuing its own economic and geopolitical claims, if necessary against its main post-war ally, the United States.

Immediately after Trump’s inaugural speech on January 20, Gabriel had already argued that Germany now had to define and pursue its own interests “rigorously.” Earlier last week, in an interview with business daily Handelsblatt, he stressed it was now a matter of asserting German leadership in Europe and the world.

“Germany should act confidently and not be anxious, let alone submissive,” he said. “We are a technologically highly successful exporting nation, with many industrious workers and shrewd entrepreneurs.” Germany was “not only stable itself, but an anchor of stability for many other countries in Europe.” Trump’s first speech as US president showed “He is bitterly serious in what he means. We will have to dress warmly. But there is no reason for timidity.”

Gabriel’s answer echoes Germany’s former great power pretensions that had already found a place in the foreign ministry under Steinmeier. At the 2014 Munich Security Conference, Steinmeier, together with German President Gauck and Foreign Minister Ursula von der Leyen (Christian Democratic Union, CDU), announced that Germany must be “ready to engage in foreign and security policy issues earlier, more decisively, and more substantially.” Ever since, the SPD-led foreign ministry has published numerous policy papers, directed at the militarization of Europe under German hegemony. In several articles, Steinmeier himself has spoken of “Germany’s new global role.”

With Trump’s election and Britain’s impending exit from the European Union, the German ruling class feels the time is ripe to turn this ambition into action. “Now is the time to strengthen Europe,” Gabriel declared in Handelsblatt. “Strengthen Europe, develop a common foreign and security policy. ... We do not need ‘more Europe,’ but a different Europe. One which positions itself collectively in the world. If Trump starts a trade war with Asia and South America, this will open up opportunities for us.” Europe must “now quickly work on a new Asia strategy” and “use the space that America frees up.”

In this context, Brexit was “being discussed far too defensively,” Gabriel blustered. It could “provide a decisive impulse” and “tremendously strengthen a core Europe” led by Germany. The Europe of 28 member states, in “which the European Commission micromanages things and leaves unanswered the major issues of a common foreign and security policy or a common economic and fiscal policy” has “no future.”

To put Gabriel’s perspective in a nutshell: Germany must now finally rise to become Europe’s “disciplinarian” and enforce its geopolitical and economic interests internationally. This is precisely what Humboldt Professor Herfried Münkler, who maintains close links with the foreign ministry, called for as early as 2015 in his book Power in the Middle. Ever since the inauguration of Trump, this is the stated aim of the ruling class.

In the article “German officials demand aggressive response to Trump ’s inaugural address”, we reported on the ferocious reactions to Trump’s inauguration. Since then, numerous other newspapers, foreign policy think tanks, business leaders and politicians have joined in the call for German “leadership” in Europe and the world.

“Berlin confronts the difficult task vis-à-vis the USA and within the EU of showing leadership,” warned the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP). And Manfred Weber (Christian Social Union, CSU), head of the conservative EPP Group in the European Parliament, threatened in the Rheinische Post that if Trump’s message was “America first,” then our answer must be “Europe first.”

The Left Party, which from the beginning has been part of the return of German militarism, is sounding similarly aggressive tones. On the day Gabriel took office, Gregor Gysi, leader of the European Left, said on Deutschlandfunk, “We must find our own role and act sovereignly and, incidentally, boldly against Trump. Otherwise we have no chance. ... If you want Trump to have respect for you, you have act downright impudently and confidently. He likes that. Then he will also learn to deal with you. But if you act obsequiously and then say nothing ... you’re finished with him. He likes tough guys, so you have to act correspondingly tough.”

In 2014, the Partei für Soziale Gleichheit (PSG, Socialist Equality Party) published a resolution analysing the historical and political reasons for the return of an aggressive German imperialism. The reason for this was “the deep crisis of global capitalism and the nation-state system on which it is based. When Trotsky analysed the objective driving forces in 1932 that led to the rise of Hitler, he wrote: ‘As the productive forces of Germany become more and more highly geared, the more dynamic power they gather, the more they are strangled within the state system of Europe—a system that is akin to the “system” of cages within an impoverished provincial zoo.’”

The resolution continues: “Hitler’s attempt to break out of this system of cages by violently conquering Europe left the continent in ruins, costing the lives of 70 million and ending in total military defeat. But the post-war order resolved none of the problems that had led to war. The economic power of the US made possible a temporary stabilisation and the post-war boom. The Cold War not only kept the Soviet Union at bay, but also kept Germany under control. But with the reunification of Germany and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the period in which German business could conduct its affairs in the wake of the US and the German army could restrict itself to national defence was irrevocably over.”

At the end of the resolution, the Partei für Soziale Gleichheit outlines the only viable perspective in the struggle against war, which is now of crucial significance: “The PSG links the struggle against militarism and war with the mobilization of the working class to defend their social and political rights. The fight against imperialism is a struggle against capitalism. All demands arising from opposition to war—the abolition of the Bundeswehr (German military), the immediate withdrawal of German troops abroad, the dissolution of the secret services—require the independent political and revolutionary mobilization of the working class, with the goal of assuming political power and transforming the world economy on a socialist basis.”

UK Labour Party split threatened over Brexit

Paul Mitchell 

The second reading today of the government’s Article 50 bill, which will trigger the two-year process of Britain leaving the European Union (EU), has raised again the prospect of a split in the Labour Party.

Even if this does not happen, it confirms that Labour remains mired in a bitter civil war despite party leader Jeremy Corbyn’s constant efforts to placate his Blairite opponents.

Last Thursday, Corbyn declared that there would be a three-line whip to ensure Labour MPs voted in support of triggering Article 50. This was the signal for a resumption of operations by the coup plotters, who made the Brexit vote in favour of the UK quitting the European Union last June the centrepiece of their efforts to remove Corbyn as party leader. They blamed his late and unconvincing conversion to the Remain campaign in the referendum on Brexit and staged a wave of resignations from the shadow cabinet and a no-confidence motion signed by 172 members of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP).

The coup attempt failed. However, the Blairite’s hopes have been resuscitated by last week’s ruling by the Supreme Court that the Brexit process could not begin without parliamentary approval. Its judgement allows pro-Remain MPs to make amendments to any legislation proposed by the Conservative government and to change or block any agreement it reaches with the EU.

On one level, there is a unity of concerns between Corbyn and his opponents as both have made clear that the UK must maintain access to European markets. But Corbyn has effectively endorsed the position of Theresa May’s Conservative government that this can be secured through effective negotiations with the EU. Urging party unity, he said, “we will frame that relationship with Europe in the future, outside Europe but in concert with friends, whether those countries are in the EU or outside the EU.”

The Blairites insist that no such deal is possible, warning that the government’s pledge to end free movement of EU labour and its antagonising of the major European powers will end in the UK’s economic exclusion.

These divisions have been brought to the peak of intensity by May’s efforts to cultivate relations with the US administration of Donald Trump as a means of strengthening the UK’s hand against Germany and France. A leading political ally of Tony Blair, Guardian columnist Martin Kettle, warned, “A trade deal with the US is top of the leavers’ wish list, but this too is a potentially treacherous prospect. It owes more to the wishful thinking of UK Atlanticists than to hard economic reason, which still points firmly to Europe.”

His colleague, Jonathan Freedland, added, “One study, released on Friday, estimated that leaving the single market would bring a loss in UK trade of up to 30 percent—while a new deal with the US might boost it by a meagre 2 percent. It was a reminder that while the US might be a bigger market for British exports than any other single country, it is dwarfed by the European continent on our doorstep.”

The Independent’s deputy business editor James Moore outlined the underlying considerations as, “[T]he Conservative Party is morphing into the hard Brexit party, Jeremy ‘not wedded to freedom of movement’ Corbyn is following it down that road ... Labour needs to split ... The two party system is collapsing anyway, and the fundamental schism in Britain is not so much about right and left as it is about in or out.”

There is no chance of blocking the Article 50 bill, but the Blairites are using the opportunity to stake out their leading role in a strategic realignment of bourgeois politics that will only gather pace in the coming months. Whether this takes the form of another extended period of trench warfare or a possible split to form a new political alliance or party is yet to be decided.

Following Corbyn’s announcement of the three-line whip, Tulip Siddiq resigned as a shadow education minister, citing the fact that her London constituency voted to remain. On Friday, the shadow secretary for Wales, Jo Stevens, quit. Stevens was followed by Labour MP Owen Smith, Corbyn’s leadership challenger last year, who said he would vote against Article 50 and that up to 50 Labour MPs could also defy the whip. “For my money, I think we should be seeking to get another referendum, a confirmatory referendum at the end of the process,” he added, lining himself up with the Liberal Democrats who also advocate a second referendum.

Shadow business secretary Clive Lewis, mooted by Guardian columnist Owen Jones as a possible replacement for Corbyn, said he would vote for the bill at the second reading but not for the third and final reading if Labour’s amendments were not accepted. These would ensure the UK commits to having “the closest relationship to Europe and the single market as is possible,” he declared.

Two whips, Bristol MP Thangam Debbonaire and Manchester MP Jeff Smith, who are supposed to ensure voting discipline, announced they too would defy the whip.

A Commons motion, or “reasoned amendment”, to throw out the government’s bill entirely has been tabled by the former shadow health secretary, Heidi Alexander, supported by 18 fellow backbenchers. The amendment says the government has failed to “safeguard British interests in the single market” or given guarantees on whether parliament or voters should decide on any deal.

Deputy Leader Tom Watson, a key opponent of Corbyn, insisted that Labour had to take a “sensible” approach to the Blairite rebellion. “I understand this is very unique circumstances and we are going to deal with this issue very sensitively,” he said—declaring that Labour frontbenchers who had quit should be back in their jobs within months.

Divisions are also emerging, and being encouraged, within Corbyn’s own constituency. The Observer, Sunday sister paper of the Guardian, published an open letter signed by Labour “activists” critical of Corbyn’s position on the Article 50 bill. It claimed, “the intervention appears to indicate a significant disillusionment among part of Mr Corbyn’s core support, with around half of the signatories understood to have previously backed him for leader.”

The Guardian has also hyped a march being organised for March 25 through the Unite for Europe Facebook page, which declares, “Brexit can be stopped.”

The declared aim of the march is to “embolden our elected representatives.” The hitherto unknown movement, fronted by “professional singer” and former male model Peter French, complains, “The vast majority of our MPs support our membership of the European Union, but are being railroaded into a catastrophe by reckless and incompetent leadership. With our vocal support, they can stop Brexit.”

The Guardian is set on fishing in troubled waters regarding the Labour Party, but they are playing to a real constituency. The Canary, the pro-Corbyn news site, published an editorial Friday complaining, “Corbyn has chosen to back the government without guaranteeing that the most vulnerable people, and the most valued principles of our participation in the EU project, will be protected post-Brexit. ... It is a decision that could sink his leadership of the party, and kill off any chance of a bona fide left-wing alternative among the national Westminster parties. This is a colossal mistake.”

A substantial section of the pro-Corbyn left is in favour of an alternative “progressive alliance” with the SNP, the Welsh nationalist Plaid Cymru, the Greens and possibly the Liberal Democrats—oriented to the same pro-Remain sentiment as the Blairites, but also making a pitch to the social disaffection that animated the working class Brexit vote.

Israel’s Netanyahu steps up settlement construction

Jean Shaoul 

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has launched a series of provocative moves against the Palestinians in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and inside Israel itself.

His aim is to distract public attention from the corruption probe that could force his resignation and bring down his government. In doing so, he has been emboldened by strong support from the incoming Trump administration.

Netanyahu has given the go-ahead for building 2,500 new homes in settlements in the West Bank, the largest construction scheme of its kind since 2013-14, saying, “We are building, and will continue to build.”

This follows the announcement that 566 new homes—previously on hold because of US opposition—are to be built in East Jerusalem. Jerusalem’s deputy mayor, Meir Turjeman, who also heads the planning committee, said plans for 11,000 other homes in East Jerusalem were also under consideration, although he did not say when they would be approved.

These moves come just days after Donald Trump’s inauguration as US president. Trump, who has vowed to be “the most pro-Israel president in history,” has indicated his support for the Greater Israel project and backs moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He has appointed David Friedman, his personal bankruptcy lawyer, who is pro-settler and a fervent opponent of the two-state solution, as his ambassador to Israel. Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, is charged with imposing a deal with the Palestinians on Israeli terms.

Netanyahu has welcomed this shift in US policy. He had clashed repeatedly with former US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry over settlement expansion—among other issues—because it cut across the charade of the two-state solution, seen as vital to suppressing social and political opposition to the imperialist powers’ reactionary and authoritarian allies in the region.

His extreme right-wing coalition partners hope that Trump will allow them to move forward with their goal of annexing so-called Area C, the 60 percent of the West Bank under Israeli military control; passing the law to legalise illegal settler outposts, including Amona, retroactively; and approving the Jerusalem Law proposal which would apply sovereignty to “greater Jerusalem”—the Eztion Bloc, Ma’aleh Adumim, Betar Ilit and Givat Ze’ev, all of which are across the 1967 borders.

Netanyahu has cautioned against taking unilateral action before he has met the new administration. He is set to meet Trump in Washington in February.

Not only is construction on land seized during the June 1967 war illegal under international law, but the Palestinians view the settlements, now home to more than 600,000 Israelis, as a major obstacle to any peace deal and the creation of a future Palestinian mini-state.

In another inflammatory move, the authorities have demolished dozens of homes belonging to Israel’s Palestinian citizens, in part to appease the right-wing settler movement, which opposes the evacuation of illegal outposts in the West Bank. The authorities claim the Palestinian homes are illegal as they were built without a warrant, which is in fact impossible to obtain. Last year, the government approved the demolition of tens of thousands of Palestinian homes on this basis.

A new law, now going through the Knesset, will establish a national enforcement unit to wage an offensive against unauthorised construction in Palestinian towns and villages in Israel, giving it the power to demand information from the local authorities and restricting the right of judicial appeal.

On January 10, 11 homes were demolished in the city of Qalansawe. A week later, a further 15 were demolished in Umm al-Hiran, in the Negev, whose Bedouin community, along with dozens of other Bedouin communities, face expulsion.

While many of Palestine’s original inhabitants fled or were driven out by the Israeli army in 1948, one-quarter of those who remained were subsequently driven from their homes by the Israeli army, including the Bedouin families who relocated to Umm al-Hiran. Since then, the exclusion of the Palestinians from the national master plans has led to the Palestinian local authorities holding just 2.5 percent of the land and a severe housing shortage for Palestinians who constitute 20 percent of Israel’s population.

Successive governments refused to recognise Umm al-Hiran and similar villages now been classified as illegal. Under government proposals, drawn up to replace the Prawer Plan that was abandoned in 2013 following mass demonstrations, the villagers are to be relocated to overcrowded slum “townships” that are the most deprived in Israel. Their land is slated for the development of a new Jewish town.

At a mass rally to prevent the demolition of Bedouin homes in Umm al-Hiran, violent clashes broke out, ending in the death of two people. One of them was a local teacher, Yacoub Abu al-Qian, who had been shot by the police. Ayman Oydeh, head of the Palestinian Joint List, the third largest party in the Knesset, suffered a head injury from a rubber bullet.

Numerous witnesses insisted that al-Qian posed no threat to anyone when the police opened fire on his vehicle, causing him to swerve out of control and drive into the police officers. The police claimed that they had shot him because he had deliberately rammed into the police in a terrorist attack. Afterwards, they sought to justify their actions alleging he was active in the Israeli Islamic Movement, which his family denied. Later still, the police said he was struck not by police fire but by demonstrators’ rocks, which conflicted with the medical reports.

Since then, there have been protests all over Israel by Palestinian citizens, who fear that the demolitions and forced evacuations in Umm al-Harin are a taste of what is to come as the government opens up a new front against its own citizens and brings the war against the Palestinians to Israel itself. The police used tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannon to break up the demonstrations.

A mass rally from all over the country descended on the Knesset in Jerusalem, demanding that the police release al-Qian’s body without preconditions on his funeral, which the Supreme Court has now supported, and an end to the house demolitions. His family are demanding an investigation into the circumstances of his death.

Netanyahu and his ministers have repeated the unsubstantiated claim that the killing of al-Qian was a justified response to a terrorist attack by an ISIS supporter. The lies and cover-up of his murder are of a piece with claims a few months ago of a vehicle-ramming terror attack in East Jerusalem, which turned out to be a misunderstanding in which the driver was shot and killed by police. Similarly, when a wave of fires broke out at the end of last year, Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan, senior police officers and fire fighters claimed that many of the blazes were deliberate arson attacks by Palestinians. Despite numerous arrests for arson, all of the supposed suspects have been released without charge.

These provocations against Israeli Palestinians follow a particularly deadly and violent period for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Since the start of a wave of violence in October 2015, in the wake of increasing restrictions on the right of access to and prayer in the al-Aqsa compound in East Jerusalem over the preceding summer, 247 Palestinians have been killed by Israelis, with 135 Palestinians killed between the months of October and December 2015 alone. Of the 130 killed in 2016, 112 were Palestinians, 15 were Israelis, and three were foreign nationals.

Netanyahu has already ordered his security chiefs to prepare plans to counter mass opposition expected in the West Bank if Trump does move the US embassy to Jerusalem.

Senior Chinese military official warns of rising danger of war

Peter Symonds

The official web site of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) published a commentary on the day of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration warning that the danger of war between the two nuclear-armed powers was escalating. The article reflects the growing concerns in the Chinese regime over the bellicose remarks of Trump and his advisers toward Beijing over trade and a range of other issues.

Liu Guoshun, an official with the national defence mobilisation unit of the Central Military Commission, warned that “the possibility of war increases” as tensions around North Korea and the South China Sea heat up. “‘A war within the president’s term,’ ‘war breaking out tonight’ are not just slogans, but the reality,” he wrote.

The Central Military Commission, which is chaired by President Xi Jinjing, is at the top of China’s military command structure.

Trump has repeatedly condemned China for failing to take strong action to rein in North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. After Pyongyang at the beginning of the year declared it was preparing to test an intercontinental ballistic missile, Trump bluntly tweeted: “It won’t happen.” The obvious implication was that the US would resort to any means—including a military intervention—to prevent such a launch.

The statements of incoming US secretary of state Rex Tillerson on the South China Sea were even more inflammatory. Speaking at his confirmation hearing in mid-January, Tillerson berated China for its construction activities in the South China Sea and threatened to block Chinese access to islets under its control. Any US attempt to impose a military blockade against Chinese ships and aircraft would constitute an act of war.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer last week reaffirmed Tillerson’s threat, provoking a reaction from the Chinese foreign ministry that reiterated Chinese claims in the South China Sea and urged caution on the part of the US. The PLA commentary suggests that sections of the Chinese military are pressing for a more aggressive response and military preparations to counter US provocations in the South China Sea or elsewhere.

Jin Canrong, an academic at the Renmin University of China, condemned Tillerson’s remarks. He told the state-owned Global Times: “If the new US administration follows this route and adopts this attitude, it will lead to a war between China and the US, and that would mean the end of US history or even of all humanity.”

Jin bragged that if the US navy sent aircraft carriers into the South China Sea, the Chinese military had “the ability to destroy them all, even if they send 10.” The Global Times and its contributors highlight the reactionary character of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) response to the threat of US aggression.

The CCP regime, which represents the interests of an ultra-rich oligarchy, seeks to manoeuvre for a deal with US imperialism, on the one hand, while engaging in an arms race and preparing for war, on the other. Under President Xi, China reacted to the Obama administration’s massive military build-up as part of Washington’s “pivot to Asia” by revamping the PLA to fight a war with the US.

Last year the PLA scrapped its seven military regions in favour of five theatre commands to enable the closer integration of naval, air and missile forces and greater control by the Central Military Command and the CCP.

Despite Beijing’s denials, its land reclamation and construction in the South China Sea from 2015 clearly has a military component aimed at countering the US build-up in the region. Major General Luo Yuan told the Global Times: “The islands with airports that we have built in the area are unsinkable aircraft carriers … and we have DF-21D and DF-26 missiles capable of destroying large surface ships.”

Trump has called for a huge increase in the US military, including an expansion of its military arsenal. In response, the Global Times last week seized on unconfirmed reports that the Chinese military had moved its most advanced inter-continental ballistic missile, the Dongfeng-41, to the northeastern province of Heilongjiang to demand a boosting of the Chinese nuclear arsenal.

Advocating what would in effect be a nuclear arms race, the Global Times declared: “China’s nuclear capacity should be so strong that no country would dare launch a military showdown with China under any circumstance, and such that China can strike back against those militarily provoking it.”

Trump, who has turned unpredictability into a principle of foreign policy, has already inflamed tensions with China by threatening to impose trade war measures and to tear up the “One China” policy if Beijing refuses to accept his demands. The One China policy, under which the US recognises Beijing as the sole legitimate government of all China, has been the foundation of US-China relations for nearly 40 years.

Pang Zhongying, a professor at Renmin University, told the South China Morning Post that the danger of conflict was rising. “There is little doubt that a major storm is gathering. Both sides appear to have made few discernible efforts to hide the fact that they expect a rough ride for bilateral ties.”

Commentators in other countries are also ringing alarm bells.

Speaking to the Association of European Journalists in London last Friday, former British military chief, General Richard Barrons, warned that Trump’s confrontational approach to negotiation could provoke a war. He said Trump’s “win-lose” philosophy might be normal for a head of a major corporation, but could be “deeply dangerous” on the international stage.

Barrons outlined a scenario involving Chinese and American ships in the South China Sea that could rapidly escalate into a war between the two countries. “Wars generally start for really bad reasons and the red mist descends and you lose control,” he said. “I think the risk of that is evident.”

Protests in Mexico continue against gas price hike, water privatization

Clodomiro Puentes

The gasolinazo protests, which erupted in Mexico early this month over the slashing of gasoline subsidies, continue throughout the country. In Baja California, these protests have coincided with enormous social anger over PAN (National Action Party) state Governor Francisco Vega’s attempt to ram through legislation that would privatize water services and implement severe rate increases, a measure backed by the ostensibly “center-left” PRD (Party of the Democratic Revolution) and Movimiento Ciudadano (Citizens’ Movement).

Protesters marching in Tijuana

On January 22, protests were coordinated across the country. In Tijuana, some 18,000 protesters gathered at the city’s Monumento a Cuauhtémoc roundabout in one of the main arteries of the downtown district and marched to the town hall. In Mexicali’s town hall, over 20,000 protesters convened. At these protests, the calls for the resignation of Governor Vega were added to the national calls for the resignation of President Enrique Peña Nieto.

The immense anger set off by the efforts to subordinate to private profit such a basic social right as access to water, forced Vega to repeal the measure earlier this month. The most extreme proposed rate hikes were in Tijuana, where the minimum rate of 59.1 pesos per cubic meter would have been raised to 99.5 pesos, and in Playas de Rosarito, from 81.2 to 99 pesos. In addition, the bill would have allowed private water concerns to cut off service for non-payment after 90 days, a measure which is deemed unconstitutional. Even at present prices, urban residential rates in Tijuana currently exceed those for similar services across the border in San Diego.

In spite of the repeal, the protests against the state government continue, alongside the ongoing protests throughout a country beset by inflation and a chronically underperforming economy, whose future looks increasingly uncertain with the election of Donald Trump.

Since coming to power, Trump has demanded that Mexico pay $12 to $15 billion for a border wall and has threatened trade war through the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Mexican peso has lost approximately 13 percent of its value in relation to the dollar, while the cost of gasoline is expected to rise by 14 to 20 percent in the next year, driving up prices of all commodities and further straining the ability of working families to pay for basic necessities. Mexican President Peña Nieto’s politically-calculated cancellation of a planned meeting with Trump will do nothing to resolve the Mexican government’s state of crisis, with the president’s approval rating hanging precariously just above the single digits.

Members of the Socialist Equality Party and the International Youth and Students for Social Equality intervened at continuing protests this past Sunday to speak with those attending about social and political conditions in Mexico, the significance of a Trump presidency and the need for a socialist program which insists on the international unity of the working class.

Protesters chanted “Fuera Peña, fuera Kiko!” (“Out with Peña, out with Kiko!”—the latter referring to the Baja California state governor) and carried signs expressing their outrage over not only the gasolinazo and the attempt at water privatization, but a range of long-standing grievances, including the counter-reforms aimed at the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS), the disappearances of many individuals in the state and of the 43 students who were kidnapped by the government in Iguala in 2014.

A placard held by a protester which reads: “Let all with a rightful grievance have a court that will hear, protect and defend them against the strong and the arbitrary. The juridical foundation of laws is to protect and preserve the rights of all of society.”

About 400 people attended the protest. A truck equipped with speakers and a microphone led the march through the city as angry citizens denounced the government. Professor Juan Ramirez, a member of the “non-party” political organization Ciudadanos Unidos de Tijuana, which has played a role in organizing the demonstrations over the past month, was the main speaker during the march. His remarks consisted mostly of the narrowest of demands to the municipal government.

That the protest’s final destination was an empty city hall seemed to symbolize the ruling elite’s indifference to the needs and aspirations of the masses of working people, and the dead-end protest perspective of the Ciudadanos Unidos de Tijuana leadership. Among those who joined in the demonstration, however, many were looking for a way to fight the government and the deteriorating social conditions in Mexico.

“I’m very pleased that people are protesting, it’s good to see Mexicans waking up,” said Lorena. “This protest shows that we won’t stand for privatizing water or paying 18 pesos more for a liter of gasoline.

Lorena

“I don’t feel that working people are represented. They’re all equally dishonest—neither PRI, nor PAN, nor PRD; they’re all the same, corrupt, enriching themselves off of the people, and never following through with what they promise. I’ve voted for the PRI for 25 years, but with everything that’s going on, I’ve had it.”

While expressing hopes that a party like Morena (the National Regeneration Party headed by Andrés Manuel López Obrador-AMLO) might offer some sort of alternative, she noted that figures such as AMLO were cut from the same cloth as the rest of the political establishment. “It’s true, even the ones claiming to be outsiders are all from the same group as the rest. They haven’t been in power yet, so we’ll have to see how it plays out.”

Miguel

“It’s important that we’re here to defend the Constitution, which the water law would’ve gone against. We need a solution to the political parties that we have now, which only exist to benefit wealthy classes,” said Miguel, one of the protesters. “I wish that the media would cover these protests more extensively, and tell the truth about them. Too often, they attempt to portray us as just rabble rousers with nothing to do. That’s obviously not true, we’re here peacefully.”

Alicia, a domestic worker, said, “There could be a danger that this gets derailed. What we have now is a government that only represents the wealthy, the millionaires. It makes no sense that we have one of the richest people in the world, Carlos Slim, and yet we have a minimum wage of 80 pesos a day. That doesn’t cover anything, and the price of just about everything keeps increasing.”

Members of the Socialist Equality Party were able to address the assembled crowd, emphasizing the international dimension of the struggle facing workers, and the consequent need to unite Mexican and US workers across the border that divides them.

“We have to unite [internationally], and we have to be very conscious of which Mexico we’re talking about—the Mexico of workers. Long live the international working class!” said one SEP speaker. These remarks were met with shouts of “Viva!” and applause, with many in the crowd asking for leaflets and information.

The protests express a growing popular awareness that the whole of the Mexican political establishment is fundamentally hostile to the needs of the masses of working people. What is lacking, however, is a conscious revolutionary leadership in the working class, raising the danger that the protests will dissipate mounting anger behind one or another wing of the bourgeois political establishment. What is urgently required is the building of a section of the International Committee of the Fourth International in Mexico to link the struggles of working people across North America on the basis of a program of international socialism.

Six killed in terror attack on Quebec City mosque

Keith Jones

Six Muslim Canadians, all of North or West African origin, were killed and another 19 persons wounded, five of them gravely, by a masked gunman who assaulted a Quebec City mosque during evening prayers Sunday.

Yesterday afternoon, Alexandre Bissonnette, a 27-year-old Laval University student, was charged with six counts of first-degree murder and five of attempted murder during a brief court appearance.

Shortly after the mosque slaughter, Bissonnette contacted police and subsequently surrendered to them on a Quebec City bridge. An AK-47 and two handguns were found in his car.

Initially, police took a second person into custody in the vicinity of the Islamic Cultural Center of Quebec, the scene of the shooting. But later they conceded this was a case of mistaken identity and said they now believe Bissonnette acted alone.

Sunday’s attack was a heinous crime. The target of the attack and the profile of the presumed killer leave little doubt it was a political attack, motivated by Islamophobia and other extreme right-wing views.

Shortly after media began posting a photo of Bissonnette, a leader of a Quebec City group dedicated to helping Syrian refugees told reporters he was known to them for spouting anti-immigrant views. François Deschamps of “Bienvenue aux réfugiés” (Welcome to Refugees) said Bissonnette also routinely railed again feminists in his online posts.

According to the Montreal daily La Presse, Bissonnette’s Facebook page, which has now been taken off line, had hyperlinks to the National Front, the French neo-fascist party led by Marine Le Pen.

Global News said Bissonnette’s Facebook “likes” also included US President Donald Trump, the Israeli Defense Forces, and Christopher Hitchens, the British writer who became a propagandist for the illegal 2003 US invasion of Iraq and Washington’s phony “war on terror.”

Witnesses say that when Bissonnette opened fire on them, he screamed “Allahu Akbar!” in a thick French- Québécois accent.

Soon after the media reported the attack, Canadian authorities, beginning with Prime Minster Justin Trudeau and Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard, denounced it as an act of terrorism.

Quebec City media reports suggest Bissonnette is a psychologically troubled individual. Even if, as is likely, this is true, Sunday’s mass killing cannot be separated from the noxious political and social environment that has been created by North America’s governments and capitalist elite through their wars of aggression, gutting of democratic rights, and promotion of reaction, including anti-Muslim bigotry.

Since Friday, news reports around the world have been dominated by the fallout from and reaction to US President Donald Trump’s antidemocratic and patently discriminatory executive order barring refugees, visitors, and US permanent residents from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the US. All these countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—have been the target of US aggression, either in the form of “regime change” wars, drone strikes or punishing economic sanctions.

Trump has systematically stoked anti-Muslim prejudice since he launched his bid for the Republican Party presidential nomination. This is exemplified by his naming of Stephen Bannon, the former Goldman-Sachs executive who made Breitbart News into a sounding board for the fascistic alt-right, as his “chief strategist.”

On Monday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer made a show of condemning the Quebec City attack “in the strongest possible terms.” But he did not mention that its target was a mosque or that its victims were Muslims. Without losing a beat, Spicer then brazenly sought to invoke the murders perpetrated by a sympathizer of the ultra-right as an argument for the Trump administration’s persecution of Muslims and immigrants. “It’s a terrible reminder,” said Spicer, “of why we must remain vigilant and why the president is taking steps to be proactive and not reactive on issues of national security.”

Like the Democratic Party in the US, Canada’s elite claims to be appalled by Trump’s anti-Muslim bigotry. But since 2001 it has promoted the false “war on terror” narrative, joining both parties of US big business in exploiting the atrocities committed by Islamist terrorists—often thanks to unexplained intelligence lapses—to legitimize militarism and war and sweeping attacks on democratic rights, while feeding anti-Muslim prejudice.

Stephen Harper and his Conservatives sought re-election as Canada’s government in the fall of 2015 with crude Islamophobic appeals, claiming Canada was at war with “Islamist terror” and promising to set up a snitch line so Canadians could denounce the “barbaric cultural practices” of their immigrant neighbours.

This was the culmination of a year-long campaign in which Canada’s ruling elite had rallied round the Harper Conservative government in using the deaths of two military personnel at the hands of psychologically troubled, recent Canadian-born converts to Islam to promote reaction at home and abroad. This included expanding Canada’s participation in the US war in Iraq and Syria—a war that arises directly from Washington’s previous ruinous Mideast wars, and like them is aimed at strengthening US hegemony over the world’s most important oil-exporting region. It also involved the ramming through, with the support of the opposition Liberals, legislation giving the national-security apparatus police-state powers (Bill C-51).

As for Trudeau—the politician who is being touted by the New York Times and the British Guardian as the new poster boy for international liberalism—he has been assiduously courting Trump ever since his election last November.

Trudeau’s Liberal government is in talks with top Trump officials to expand Canada’s already extensive participation in America’s military-strategic offenses in the Mideast and against Russia and China. It has also signalled that it is ready to throw Mexico to the wolves and support Trump in scuttling NAFTA, so long as Canadian big business keeps it privileged access to US markets.

Apart from one tweet Saturday declaring “Canadians will welcome” refugees, Trudeau has refrained from criticizing Trump’s trampling on democratic rights and steps to militarize the Mexican border, let alone his aggressive America First protectionist policies and plans to massively hike US military spending.

This is because Canada’s ruling elite views it as essential to asserting its own predatory imperialist interests that Canada be, as the Globe and Mail put it recently, behind Trump’s “walls”—that is, a partner in a “Fortress North America.”

Canada’s liberal media, like that in the US, systematically lies about the extreme right-wing forces, including Islamist terrorists, that Washington and its Canadian allies use on the world stage.

How many Canadians, for example, know that Canadian Armed Forces personnel who participated in NATO’s regime war in Libya referred to themselves as “Al Qaeda’s air force”?

While the entire Canadian ruling elite is complicit in the promotion of anti-Muslim bigotry and reaction, it is not mere chance that Quebec was the site of Canada’s first lethal attack on a mosque.

All sections of Quebec’s political establishment, including the pseudo-left Québec Solidaire, have legitimized a reactionary campaign gotten up by the right-wing tabloid press that claims immigrants and religious minorities are threatening Quebec’s values.

Muslims have been the principal target of this campaign.

Currently, the Quebec Liberal government has legislation before the provincial legislature that would ban Muslim women wearing religious face coverings from receiving public services, including education and health care, except in emergencies.

When it held office for 18 months in 2012-14, the trade union-supported, pro-Quebec independence Parti Quebecois sought to enact a Charter of Quebec Values under which public sector workers would have been threatened with the loss of their jobs if their wore a Muslim hijab, Sikh turban, Jewish kipah, or other “ostentatious” religious symbols. Underscoring the chauvinist character of this legislation, an exception was provided for “discreet” crucifixes.

The PQ’s new leader, Jean-François Lisée, has suggested it should be illegal for Muslim women to wear the niqab or burqa in public in Quebec because an AK-47 could be hidden under it.

As for the right-wing mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume, he has at most issued pro forma condemnations, despite repeated acts of vandalisms at the city’s four mosques, while repeatedly suggesting refugees could constitute a terrorist threat.

In Quebec and Canada, as around the world, the ruling class is promoting anti-immigrant and anti-minority chauvinism so as to split the working class.

There is mass revulsion in Quebec and across Canada at Sunday’s horrific events. Trudeau, Couillard and the entire establishment are trying to manipulate these sentiments through hypocritical calls for unity and solidarity. These are aimed at suppressing any discussion of the real causes of the tragedy at the Islamic Cultural Center of Quebec.

A crisis-ridden, ever-more socially polarized and militarized capitalist society is dredging up all manner of reaction.

The defence of democratic rights requires the development of an independent movement of the working class against war and social inequality based on an unequivocally anti-capitalist and internationalist program.

Trump executive order vows elimination of government regulations

Nick Barrickman

On Monday, President Trump signed an executive order mandating that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination.” Trump declared the measure to be “the largest ever cut by far in terms of regulations,” adding, “If you have a regulation you want, number one we’re not going to approve it because it’s already been approved probably in 17 different forms.”

“Government regulation has actually been horrible for big business, but it’s been worse for small business,” Trump said, posturing as a friend to workers and small business owners. In addition to excoriating supposedly unnecessary regulations, the president stated that the order “goes way beyond that,” adding that the slate of minor regulations passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, most notably the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, were a “disaster.” Trump declared that his administration would do “a big number” on that legislation, without specifying what.

The “one in, two out” regulatory rule would mandate that for every new federal regulation introduced, two others must be singled out for elimination. In addition, the text of the order declares that for fiscal year 2017, “the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations … shall be no greater than zero.”

Business lobbyists lauded the action, with Jaunita Duggan, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, stating “[The] president’s order is a good first step on the long road toward eliminating ball-and-chain regulations so small businesses can create jobs and expand the economy.” Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan responded to the executive order by declaring, “President Trump’s executive order helps bring the nation’s regulatory regime into the 21st century by putting regulators on a budget, and addressing the costs agencies can impose each year.”

Trump sought to present the executive order as the fulfillment of campaign promises to do away with regulations which were supposedly “killing” American businesses. However, rather than supporting the interests of small businesses, Trump’s new rule would continue the consolidation of big business’s domination over American society, including the bankrupting of small businesses, while facilitating the exploitation of workers and the environment.

Elaborating on the administration’s intentions at a White House press briefing Monday, Press Secretary Sean Spicer noted that the goal of the administration would be to “unleash the American economy,” adding that Trump was focusing on “the energy sector, how to unleash America’s natural resources.”

The executive order comes on the heels of Trump’s meeting last week with manufacturing industry executives, where the president promised to eliminate “75 percent” of industrial regulations. In particular, Trump has been focused on environmental regulations which have placed higher fuel efficiency requirements on vehicles produced in the US.

Members of the scientific community expressed horror at the arbitrary measure. Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the Washington Post the executive order was “absurd, imposing a Sophie’s Choice on federal agencies.”

“If, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency wants to issue a new rule to protect kids from mercury exposure, will it need to get rid of two other science-based rules, such as limiting lead in drinking water and cutting pollution from school buses?” Kimmell asked. The scientist asserted that Trump’s order was “likely illegal,” declaring, “Congress has not called upon EPA to choose between clean air and clean water, and the president cannot do this by executive fiat.”

Trump’s executive order would concentrate power in the hands of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), whose agency is charged with overseeing federal regulations. Trump’s nomination for OMB director, Republican Congressman Mick Mulvaney, is an adamant opponent of federal spending.

According to the New York Times, “Within the Trump team, the views of Representative Mick Mulvaney... rank as among the most reactionary.” Mulvaney, who according to the Times possesses “an almost perfect conservative voting record,” has spent his six-year congressional career opposing disaster relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy as well as backing the 2013 government shutdown, which was instigated by right-wing Republicans in an effort to force the adoption of austerity measures.

Mulvaney is a proponent of ending government-provided health care, having declared that “[we] have to end Medicare as we know it” in 2011 while being interviewed on the Fox Business Network.

The onslaught against federal regulation comes as Trump’s nominees for cabinet secretaries continue to be placed at the head of departments of which they have a record of opposition. Scott Pruitt, Trump’s nominee for the Environmental Protection Agency, has a long career of leading lawsuits against the agency on behalf of the energy industry.

Myron Ebell, who led Trump’s EPA transition team, declared in a recent interview with the Washington Post that his prescription for the EPA would see the elimination of 5,000 employees and the halving of the agency’s $8.1 billion budget. “My own personal view is that the EPA would be better served if it were a much leaner organization that had substantial cuts,” stated Ebell in an interview to the Post .

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to vote on Pruitt’s nomination on Wednesday. In addition, Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon and Trump’s pick for Secretary of State and Treasury Secretary nominee Steve Mnuchin are set to receive committee votes this week. All three nominations would then proceed to the Senate floor for confirmation by the full Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow 52-48 edge.

Mnuchin’s vote was originally scheduled for Monday, but was postponed as Senate Democrats delayed the hearing in order to attend a candlelight vigil opposing Trump’s executive order which bans visitors from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

India: Acting East after the End of the TPP

Roshan Iyer

As the new US President Donald Trump signed his first set of executive orders on 23 January 2017, the world heard the final nail in (at least this iteration of) the Trans Pacific Partnership’s (TPP) coffin.

The proposed TPP would have linked 40 per cent of the global economy and revolutionised global value chains. This vacuum in the world economy may now purportedly be filled by China. However, this also provides an opportune moment for India to engage with Asia and fill a part of that space through its Act East Policy and engaging with Southeast Asia through the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) - a trade deal between the 10 ASEAN nations and the nations that have existing FTAs with the grouping.

Significance of the TPP’s Death

With the rejection of the TPP officially in place, doubts have arisen about the credibility of the US’s Pivot to Asia. Some also feel that this finally heralds the rise of China as the global economic leader. While a conservative US has always been alarmist when it comes to China, the situation might not be as dire as it has been made to be. China still has a long way to go before implementing any of its own initiatives on a trans-continental level.

 

Critics of the TPP targeted its opaque negotiation process and argued that it was created purely for the benefit of large corporations. It also faced criticism for its investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDSM), which would have enabled foreign corporations to sue governments if the former felt that terms of its contracts were being violated by the latter. Meanwhile, the RCEP does not address certain issues like protections for labour and the environment which the TPP had attempted to. The RCEP also lacks an ISDSM, limiting the power that foreign investors hold in a host country (albeit this has not yet been finalised). These make the RCEP more palatable to developing countries.

 

At present, the death of the TPP has breathed new life into the RCEP. This partnership offers India the unique opportunity of engaging directly with China on this multilateral forum to push forward an agenda (that is acceptable to India) for greater regional trade integration.

 

Potential of the RCEP

Originally introduced at a 2011 ASEAN conference as an alternative to the TPP, the RCEP comprises 25 per cent of the global economy. The agreement promises to provide a basis for more open trade and investment in the region while also avoiding the hassle of multiple bilateral arrangements that currently exist between the RCEP countries. Simultaneously, the RCEP is an ASEAN-led agreement, i.e. in principle, both Beijing and New Delhi have an equal platform within the arrangement.

 

Although this grouping holds the potential to be a major trade bloc and possibly even the third pillar in the global economy (like the EU or the North American Free Trade Agreement), India is at loggerheads with the other RCEP nations over certain tariff and liberalisation related matters. Previously, India had proposed a three-tier tariff reduction plan based on its existing Free Trade Agreements, proposing 80 per cent tariff cuts to the 10 ASEAN countries; 65 per cent cuts to South Korea and Japan; and 42.5 per cent cuts to China, Australia and New Zealand. The plan was unilaterally rejected by the RCEP members, a decision that India accepted allowing for negotiations to continue. This worked out well as the RCEP members eventually agreed to include services and investments liberalisation in the negotiation agenda.

 

Previously, services and investments liberalisation found little support as structural disparities between the service and investment sectors of the RCEP countries (especially within the Singapore-led ASEAN grouping) had previously prevented them from negotiating the idea of bringing about a uniform policy in these sectors. However, India used the potential of access to its market as leverage to build a consensus on services and investments liberalisation. This demonstrated India’s considerable sway within the partnership. India requires liberalisation in these sectors to enable its service exports (which are highly competitive and profitable) to the region.

What Next?

At present, the RCEP is still in the negotiating process, with the 16th round scheduled to be held in Indonesia in December 2017. India’s negotiation appears to be heading in the right direction with its focus on services and investment. If the liberalisation of these sectors is implemented in full, India stands to gain the most and must hence work to capitalise those markets in the RCEP countries.

 

However, India must balance the pressure to reduce its own tariffs so that the country’s farmers and low-income manufacturing sector labourers are insulated from the substantial social cost this might have on them. It would be prudent for the Indian government to hold more consultations with the various farmers groups, industry associations, and labour unions to develop an optimal liberalisation plan for the country.

 

On a geopolitical level, the RCEP creates a Southeast Asia-centric economic system that aligns with India’s Act East Policy. The partnership would also work to exclude Trump’s US from the regional Asian economy, reducing the blowback from the US’ withdrawal from the global economy. India must use this window of opportunity to its greatest advantage. Its massive market is extremely attractive to other countries but this is only an asset if India is able to strategically leverage it to its benefit in the global economy.

Left Wing Extremism in 2017: Still Holding On

Bibhu Prasad Routray



Insurgency is a long drawn out affair and often defies attempts to bring it to a quick conclusion, whether by force, coercion, or strategies that are primarily geared at gaining fame for individual politicians or the leaders of security forces. 2016 proved just that, like the years that preceded it. The Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) continues to be a source of instability in sizeable tracts of India's territory, although their potential for violence has declined considerably, owing partly to state initiatives and partly to its own follies. A comprehensive solution to the problem remains, however, a distant goal. 

LWE Status Report
LWE continues to be the source of the maximum number of fatalities in India, compared to other theatres of conflict such as Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) and the Northeastern states. According to provisional data by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), in 2016, LWE was the reason for 433 deaths, whereas 267 and 165 fatalities were reported from J&K and the Northeast respectively. This translates to Naxalites being responsible for over 48 per cent of fatalities in the country. In fact, the 2016 LWE-related figures represent not just a quantum jump of over 71 per cent in 2015, but surpass annual deaths recorded in the last six years. 2016 therefore was the bloodiest LWE affected year since 2011. Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) data reveals that territories in five states - Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Bihar and Maharashtra - either continue to remain under Maoist influence or are affected by the outfit's activities. LWE is only marginally influential in parts of states like Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Madhya Pradesh, whereas West Bengal, where the CPI-Maoist once used to be predominantly active, continues to be Maoist-free.

Depleted Strength
On 24 October 2016, in the biggest counter-insurgency (COIN) success of the year, 24 CPI-Maoist cadres from the Andhra Odisha Border (AOB) zone were killed in a security force operation in Malkangiri district. Among those killed were Appa Rao alias Chalapathi, the East Division Secretary of the outfit; his wife, Aruna; Gajarala Ashok alias Uday, the military head of the AOB zone; and Munna, the son CPI-Maoist's central committee member, Ramakrishna. Chalapathi carried an INR 20 lakh reward on his head, and Aruna, another INR 5 lakhs. The killings, the result of a meticulous operation, inflicted a serious blow to the outfit's fledging presence in the area. The AOB zone today is among the weakest operational divisions of the outfit, having endured splits, killings, and alienation from the tribal community. Similarly, other zonal divisions of the CPI-Maoist, such as the Dandakaranya Special Zone and the Jharkhand-Odisha-Bihar Special Zone, too, are under immense pressure.    

In addition to these 24 fallen cadres, the outfit lost another 220 members throughout the country in 2016. Cadres suspected of belonging to the CPI-Maoist and other smaller groups accounted for 56 per cent of the total LWE-related fatalities. Of these 244 LWE cadres who were killed in security force operations, 215 (amounting to 88 per cent) were killed in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha. This points to the fact that these three states are the worst LWE-affected in the country, necessitating a greater concentration of counter-LWE operations by the state. The rest of the country, probably with the exception of Bihar and Maharashtra which registered 194 LWE-related incidents, is only marginally affected. 

According to the MHA, in 2016 (till 15 December), 1,750 LWE cadres were arrested and 1,431 cadres surrendered, thus severely depleting the strength of the outfit. Since the outfit's capacity to recruit cadres among the tribal population is believed to have been weakened, such loss of cadres should have a telling effect on its activities in 2017. The narrative on surrenders, however, has remained problematic.  
    
COIN Weaknesses
Behind these seemingly impressive figures, which many believe have broken the back of the LWE movement in the country, however, is a COIN campaign marked by a range of infirmities. Police in most of the LWE-affected states remain incapable of dealing with the threat without central assistance. As a result, an estimated 109 battalions of the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) are currently assisting the police and providing security to a number of infrastructure building projects that have not taken off due to the extremist threat. Police infirmities, ranging from lack of intelligence and adequate numerical strength, have allowed a dependence on policies that could be counter-productive in the long-run. These include the use of vigilante groups against Naxal sympathisers, persecution of activists and lawyers who have been working to provide legal aid to tribal victims of police atrocities, and overt state support to police officials who have indulged in a number of human rights violations. Most of these COIN facets are witnessed in Chhattisgarh, which remains the worst affected. However, states like Jharkhand, Maharashtra, and Odisha are also not immune to these policies. Killing tribals unconnected to Naxalism in fake encounters, including a nine-year old child, sexual exploitation of tribal women by security force personnel and vigilante groups, and burning tribal villages, continue. A number of these allegations have been found to be true by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Supreme Court.   

'Mission 2016', Chhattisgarh police project to combat the extremist problem, had raised the hope of a Naxal-free state by the end of 2016. However, in hindsight, it predominantly allowed certain police officials to curb press freedom, generate a rogue band of state loyalists to pursue so-called Naxal-sympathisers among academics and civil rights activists, and create an atmosphere of fear in which none of their controversial actions could be questioned. 'Mission 2016' ended with the Chhattisgarh police claiming the killing of 134 CPI-Maoist cadres. The Mission has since been rebranded, and the 2017 edition has declared 'safedposh Naxals' (white collar extremists) as its principal target.
  
'Mainstreaming' Naxals
One of the multiple government strategies to deal with LWE is to inculcate values such as "national integration, patriotism, nation building, and communal harmony" among tribal groups. Strategies to attract tribal youth to the 'mainstream' rather than LWE has led to the implementation of employment generation schemes that include recruiting tribal youth in Bastar to a specially formed battalion of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Scripting a narrative of triumph is also leading the police establishment to organise mass-scale surrenders of just not active Naxal cadres, but almost anybody who chooses to declare allegiance to the state. This primarily explains the reason for the 2.5 fold increase in the number of surrenders in 2016 over 2015. The NHRC, in September 2016, found  the allegation of stage-managed fake ‘surrenders’ of well over a hundred ‘Naxal-operatives’ in 2011-12 as "prima facie true." Police in Chhattisgarh's Bastar division boasted of 1,210 Naxal surrenders in 2016, but a screening and rehabilitation committee of the state government held that 97 per cent of the surrenders did not adhere to the definition of “Naxal cadres” and were not eligible for benefits under the Centre or state government’s rehabilitation policy. Such adverse feedback notwithstanding, the Chhattisgarh police force is likely to use the surrender of manufactured Naxalites as a principal element of its perception management strategy. On 29 January 2017, 195 LWE cadres were shown to have surrendered in Narayanpur district. 

Future Prospects
At a time when its top leadership's interactions with the media has become a rarity, a somewhat honest assessment of the CPI-Maoist's past actions and future strategies was provided by Chalapathi, a few months before his death. In a media interview, he blamed the multi-pronged attacks by the security forces as well as the outfit's own mistakes for its weakened state. He admitted that the outfit's ability to wage a class struggle by mobilising people had not been very successful. Guerrilla warfare techniques, too, have been successfully challenged by the security forces, making the launch of counter-attacks on difficult. He, however, expressed hope for a revival of the outfit's fortunes in the coming months.  
It is, therefore, unlikely that the CPI-Maoist will perish without an attempt to stage a comeback. Its new war strategy, in vogue since 2013, includes recruiting new cadres to offset losses; protecting its leadership and cadres from security force operations; and inflicting losses on the adversary in carefully planned operations. An analysis of its pattern of attacks in 2016 demonstrates an attempt to mount small and focused assaults on security forces and police informers within tribal groups. 109 such attacks were carried out on the police in 2016. MHA data indicate a significant increase in the number of police informers killed by the CPI-Maoist in 2016 (162) over 2015 (92). Intelligence agencies also point to a plan of expansion by creating a new guerrilla zone along the Chhattisgarh-Maharashtra-Madhya Pradesh (MP) border region, which will serve as an extension of its Abujhmad stronghold. 

LWE is certainly on an ebb. But its capacity to delay its defeat by the state would probably be assisted by the state's follies.