Alberta’s NDP government freezes wages, gambles on oil price rise in budget

Janet Browning 

Alberta’s trade union-backed New Democratic Party (NDP) government has responded to the economic crisis produced by the collapse in oil prices by targeting working people.

In its latest budget, tabled March 21, Rachel Notley’s two year-old NDP government served notice of a coming multi-year wage-freeze for public sector workers, most of whom are low paid, while lavishing additional tax credits and other financial incentives on business. Finance Minister Joe Ceci claimed the incentives would help diversify Alberta’s economy and get off the “oil and gas roller coaster.”

In truth, the NDP’s budget relies heavily on revenues from these resources. The NDP are betting that the West Texas Intermediate oil price, currently just under $49 US a barrel, will hit $68 US a barrel by 2020. This is much lower than the $98 US a barrel such oil averaged in the years prior to 2014, when prices plummeted by more than 60 percent. Even assuming this projection comes to pass, Alberta’s provincial debt is forecast to reach $45 billion by March 31, 2018 and $71.1 billion by March 31, 2020. If oil prices do not increase in line with the NDP’s optimistic predictions over the next three years, the deficit will be higher, potentially much higher.

The NDP plan will see Alberta’s debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio rise to 10.5 percent, more than triple what it was in 2015, but still far and away the smallest of any Canadian province. Notley is vowing to balance Alberta’s budget in six years, a goal which will inevitably require the imposition of further austerity measures on Alberta’s already financially squeezed working class.

The NDP’s second full budget reaffirmed the so-called “Alberta advantage”—the ultra-low tax regime for corporations that the Conservatives fashioned during their decades of rule over Alberta. Ceci boasted that Alberta will continue to have a “tax advantage over every other province in Canada.” He added that he expected Alberta to lead the way nationally with a growth rate of 2.6 percent in 2017. This is far less impressive than it sounds when one takes into account the sharp economic contraction since 2014 and the devastation caused by the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire.

Despite the conservative, pro-big business character of the NDP budget, much of Alberta’s and Canada’s business and political elite denounced it as fiscally “irresponsible,” and demanded the country’s only NDP provincial government cut funding for public and social services much more aggressively. Bond rating agencies Moody’s Investor Services and DBRS Ltd. responded to the budget by saying that they are reviewing the province’s credit rating. A credit rate cut would raise debt servicing costs, adding further pressure on the government to slash spending.

Under the social-democratic NDP, spending on health care and education has been sharply constrained despite continued population growth; public sector wages have been targeted for restraint; and income, fuel, and municipal taxes and government fees have all been hiked. Meanwhile, unemployment has risen sharply.

As of January 1, 2017, a new Carbon Tax must be paid on any carbon-creating good or service that is consumed and this in a province with a very cold winter climate, where most people drive and where everyone must heat their homes most of the year. The Carbon Tax is expected to bring in $1.27 billion over three years. Last month’s budget said the province will spend $1.27 billion over the same period on a Green Infrastructure Fund, which will provide business opportunities for “Green entrepreneurs.”

Also hitting working class Alberta families in the wallet is a 6 percent increase in the provincial education tax portion of municipal tax bills in Edmonton.

Statistics Canada reported unemployment climbed to 8.1 percent in Edmonton and to 9.8 percent in Calgary in January, far higher than the current average Canadian national rate of 6.8 percent. Yet the budget contained no significant job creation measures. Instead the Notley government continues to promote a scheme, copied from the Obama administration, where employers receive short-term subsidies for hiring new workers.

The province committed a paltry $100 million to integrate existing drinking water systems with First Nations’ Reservations, in an effort to reduce the number of boil-water advisories on reservations. Due to unsafe water, thirteen Alberta First Nations Reservations are currently under boil-water advisories issued by Health Canada. Everyone on these reservations must buy clean water to drink, cook and wash. The budget committed a similarly derisory $120 million to building affordable housing for Indigenous people moving “off-reservation” into towns or cities, where they can be exploited as cheap labour.

The Alberta Union of Public Employees’ (AUPE) collective agreement, which covers 87,000 provincial government workers, is up for renegotiation this year. In July 2016, after two years of unsuccessful negotiations, a government-appointed arbitrator imposed a contact on AUPE members employed by Alberta Health Services (AHS). The AHS workers received a minuscule 2 percent wage increase in each of the first two years of the contract and a 1 percent increase in the third year, retroactive to 2014.

Now, with all the public sector contracts set to expire at the same time, the government, by allocating not a penny for increased labour costs in its budget, has all but proclaimed that it intends to freeze its unionized workers’ wages, as it has already done with non-unionized provincial staff. The NDP is counting on its political allies in the trade union bureaucracy to impose this on a recalcitrant membership, obviating the need for the government to impose concession contracts by decree.

The Notley government’s determination to offload the economic crisis onto the backs of working people comes as no surprise. Whenever the NDP has held power at the provincial level, it has launched devastating attacks on public services and workers in order to balance budgets and uphold the interests of big business. In the 1990s, NDP governments in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario imposed sweeping public-spending cuts and wage- and job-cutting “social contracts.”

At the federal level, the NDP has shifted so far to the right that it is virtually indistinguishable from the big business Liberals. Like social-democratic parties around the world, the NDP places fiscal discipline and austerity measures and support for imperialist military interventions abroad at the centre of its program.

The NDP’s right-wing, anti-working class agenda has been lauded by the Canadian ruling elite. The Globe and Mail, the mouthpiece of Bay Street, recently enthused over Notley’s role in working with Alberta big business to secure close relations with Trump administration. At the end of February, Notley became the first Canadian premier to travel to Washington to lobby the Trump Administration and arrange business deals.

On March 24, Notley’s top wish was granted when Trump approved the Keystone XL pipeline. In an interview that day with Global News Edmonton, Notley revealingly showed whose class interests she represents. She said, while also referring to other oil pipeline projects, “We actually can use Keystone XL, Kinder Morgan, and frankly Energy East, and we could use all of them to move our product.” This would make Alberta’s oil and gas economy more “compelling” for “investors,” the NDP premier declared.

Thousands protest police murder of Liu Shaoyo in Paris

Alex Lantier

Around 8,000 people joined a protest held in Paris on Sunday by Asian organizations against the murder of Chinese immigrant Liu Shaoyo on March 26 by police. Protesters were also defying a reactionary media campaigned, launched by French domestic intelligence services, insinuating that their opposition to the extra-judicial execution of the 56-year-old father of five children is simply a state operation launched by China.

A banner was stretched around the statue in the center of Republic Square, that read “Police killers, we want justice.” Protesters carried banners that read “Truth, justice, dignity” or “I love France.”

One youth, Chen Hui, told the press that he had come to the protest “so as not to be the next one to be killed by a policeman,” adding that he feared that the Asian community would now be a “target” of police violence.

Sacha Lin-Jung, one of the organizers of the protest who also leads the “Chinese Living in France” non-governmental organization (NGO), wrote on Twitter: “Police violence affects all French people. We are raising our voices today in order to fulfill our responsibilities.” He added that the goal of the demonstration was to “put pressure and support the family, to establish the truth and to struggle against police violence.”

The murder, coming only weeks after the police rape of Théo in the working class district of Aulnay-sous-Bois, points to the rapid rise of police brutality against people of all ethnic origins under France’s state of emergency.

According to Liu’s daughters, police battered down the door to their apartment in a popular neighborhood of Paris and, without warning, shot their father, who had scissors in his hands to cut up a fish he was cooking. They say Liu made no physical contact with police.

Police presented multiple versions of events, without ever explaining why they shot Liu. First, it claimed that he took his scissors and attacked one of the policemen, wounding him and forcing him to go to the hospital in a “relatively urgent state.” Then it declared that in fact, the policeman had not been wounded at all, and that his bullet-proof vest stopped Liu’s scissors. However, neither account explains why police would have had to shoot and kill Liu.

The incident compelled the Chinese government to publicly ask France to protect its citizens on French soil and to also “fully bring to light what happened in this matter.”

French domestic intelligence has reacted to the popular protests by launching a reactionary media campaign, seeking to discredit the Liu family’s supporters, and more broadly all the organizations in the Chinese community hostile to police violence—which it implies are agents either of Beijing or the Chinese mob.

On March 30, Le Parisien published an article summarizing a note of the General Directorate of Internal Security (DGSI). It reportedly alleges that the Chinese mob, including a “big fish” tied to prostitution and gambling, is trying to “infiltrate” the protests. It also claimed that “someone close to the Chinese Communist Party and a secret agent, both of whom have infiltrated the NGO movement in France,” were joining the protests because “Beijing is very nervous about the operations of mafia networks.”

At the same time, according to Le Parisien, the DGSI complained that protesters were rejecting all accusations that they were being manipulated by Beijing or the mob: “Indeed, the movement is gathering many young people, who are very militant, and who do not want to hear anything about Beijing’s influence or mafia groups.”

The next day, FranceInfo published extracts from another DGSI briefing which, this time, placed the blame squarely on “the Chinese authorities,” which it said are “actively implicated in leading the protests.” The passages cited from this note sought to whip up suspicion and hysteria against the protesters. It added that Chinese NGOs in France “are very directly manipulated by Chinese diplomatic and consular authorities” and “seem unusually mobilized.”

The Liu family’s lawyer, Calvin Job, rejected the intelligence services’ insinuations against the protesters, calling them “defamatory.”

“This is the response we see systematically whenever there is an issue of police violence,” Job noted. “Considering the recent cases, like that of Théo, when they began to really attract attention, then things came out about a supposed abusive use of public funds by the family of the young Théo. Today, they want to make us believe that, since the citizens of the Chinese community are not sufficiently mature to organize themselves and to protest the injustices they are suffering, they are necessarily being manipulated!”

These attempts to establish an amalgam between the Republic Square protest and the activities of spies and the mob is a sinister and absurd provocation, aiming essentially to de-legitimize and ultimately illegalize all opposition to police violence and the state of emergency in France.

An innocent man was murdered by police and people of all ethnic origins in cities and suburbs across France fear they could be next. By throwing accusations against one or another NGO, without presenting any proof but simply on the say-so of unidentified intelligence officials, the security forces are trying to discredit the legitimate anger of the thousands who have exercised their constitutionally-protected right to protest.

Class tensions are explosive in France and across Europe. Tens of millions of European workers are unemployed; the PS government is deeply unpopular after having crushed protests against its retrogressive labor law; and France has been under a semi-permanent state of emergency that has suspended basic democratic rights for a year and a half. However, according to France’s spies, social anger and opposition today are the fault of Chinese agents!

The security forces’ decision to present such arguments must be taken as a warning to working people. Aware of the social gulf separating the elite from the masses, they are preparing arguments that equate all protest with treason and would thus justify banning protests and any NGO or organization that they consider to be an obstacle. Ultimately it is a sign of the deep political crisis in France, and of the panic and isolation of the ruling class.

French Guiana strikers reject PS government's offer

Anthony Torres

The French Overseas and Interior ministers, Ericka Bareigts and Matthias Fekl, arrived in French Guiana this weekend, as France's Socialist Party (PS) government tried to end the general strike that has lasted for over a week in this overseas department of France in South America. Talks between a delegation of 50 people led by the “Make Guiana Take Off” collective and the two ministers began on Saturday.

Immediately on arrival in Guiana, on the balcony of the police prefecture, Bareigts declared, “After so many years, the honor falls to me to give, beyond my small person, beyond the authority I have, my excuses to the Guyanese people.”

Bareigts and Fekl supposedly made 30 promises involving over €1 billion over five to 10 years, according to the investments being considered. “The government has listened to and understood the aspirations and the demands of the Guyanese people,” declared Fekl, before he left Saturday to return to metropolitan France.

The promises involve €85 million on health, including €60 million to modernize the hospital center in Cayenne and re-balance its treasury since, according to Bareigts, it is no longer able to pay its bills. For education, there is supposedly €400 million, including €60 million for the construction of new junior or senior high schools. On the problem of the lack of housing, the state claimed it would give up 200,000 hectares of land in order to allow for the construction of new housing, and in particular rent-controlled housing.

Nevertheless, the “Make Guiana Take Off” collective rejected the measures proposed by the ministers, stating that these measures did not respond to the Guianese people’s demands. What is taking place is “the biggest protest ever organized” in French Guiana, police officials state. They have counted 8,000 protesters in Cayenne and 3,500 at Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni, the two largest cities of the department, whose total population is only 250,000.

Above all, given the election calendar and the reactionary policies of the PS, which led a savage policy of austerity and police repression against working people, none of its promises are credible. Bareigts's promises will be immediately placed in question, as soon as the new government comes in after the presidential elections on May 7.

Le Monde described a “total lack of understanding between, on the one hand, a movement that, while it is very pacific, feels that it expresses a historic ambition, and a government whose days are numbered.” At the same time, the newspaper, which is politically close to the PS government, insisted that the PS cannot “go beyond what is possible,” that is, significantly improve living conditions in French Guiana.

What the PS government did agree to, however, as police prefect Martin Jaeger underlined, was to send “25 policemen and 23 paramilitary police to reinforce the national and paramilitary police. In addition, the deployment of a squad of mobile guards in Cayenne is to be made permanent.”

Paris is desperate to rapidly end the Guianese general strike before it provokes broader solidarity struggles in metropolitan France. The PS has imposed a state of emergency, giving police virtually unlimited authority, that it used to repress workers and youth who were demonstrating in particular during protests against the reactionary PS labor law. Nonetheless, the first solidarity protest for the Guianese strikers was held yesterday in Paris. Some 100 people reportedly attended.

The balance sheet of the struggle against the labor law underscores that Guyanese workers must take their struggle out of the hands of the unions and develop a broader political struggle, both in metropolitan France and in overseas territories, against the PS and the entire ruling class. It would be politically suicidal to leave the union bureaucracies in control of the struggle. They are hostile to the mobilization of the workers against the PS, which they support and which they helped get elected in 2012 by calling for a PS vote.

The trade union federations mobilized no opposition to PS austerity measures prior to the labor law protest, which they were compelled to organize—as in the current strike in Guiana—only because explosive political anger was building against the law, above all among youth. However, they never had any intention of organizing a political struggle to bring down the PS government and the reactionary state of emergency it has imposed.

Above all, everything indicates that the trade unions and the various collectives allied to them are secretly negotiating with the state, behind workers' backs, to try to strangle the struggle.

The prefect of Guiana, who has been trying to end the strikes since the first blockades went up, has made clear he is semi-officially in contact with “a collective.” He declared, “Despite notification that we should not prematurely talk to the inter-ministerial delegation, I am in contact with many representatives of the social, health, agricultural, and economic world. These people consider that it is useful to lay out their concerns, but they want to remain discreet, until they get a green light to move closer to us.”

These semi-official contacts with the prefect and the enthusiastic support for Bareigts underscore the role played by forces in and around the collectives that are claiming to direct the general strike. Far from defending workers' aspirations, they are discussing with the PS how to end the strike, so that they would be left only with crumbs, despite their broad mobilization.

Guianese workers can expect nothing from negotiations between the collectives and the state, which is preparing to boost the strength of police units tasked with repressing their struggles, either under the PS government or the government that will follow it.

Colombian government ignores warnings, mudslide kills hundreds

Andrea Lobo

Late Friday night and Saturday morning, sudden floods and a deafening avalanche swept through entire neighborhoods in the Colombian city of Mocoa, located in the impoverished southern department of Putumayo. The devastating mudslides left hundreds of casualties, while thousands of families lost their homes and belongings. As of Monday, the Red Cross had announced 254 dead, 43 of them children, hundreds more injured and no official number of missing persons.

Nine months ago, the Colombian Geologic Service had warned the Putumayo local government about the need to relocate entire neighborhoods, which had been recently urbanized on former riverbeds and areas at risk of landslides. The deaths caused by the disaster in Mocoa, as well as the floods in Peru that killed over 100 people, and those in Ecuador that left 21 dead, are entirely preventable. They are the product of the capitalist system. Such disastrous weather events are expected to grow in frequency as the effects of global warming wreak havoc on the poorest parts of the world.

Three days after the deluge, the desperation of many had not receded as they continue to check the lists outside of the makeshift morgue and to tirelessly dig into the mud and rubble to find those missing. The government has announced that an insulting $87 monthly stipend for three months will be provided to families that have lost their homes, even though officials have said that reconstruction efforts will take at least one year.

Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos visited the stricken area and declared a “state of emergency.” In spite of his remarks and the announcements that potable water tankers, food, and mattresses were being sent, those at the shelters complain that these are still in short supply. Half of the city still has no electricity.

The small hospital at Mocoa collapsed immediately, unable to attend the numerous victims, and all fresh water sources were destroyed, leading the Putumayo governor to declare a “sanitary emergency” on Saturday.

“There is no physical, logistical, or medical infrastructure to attend the injured from this tragedy, but we are doing as much as we can with whatever is available,” an anesthesiologist told El Espectador.

Many from nearby towns rushed in to help with the search-and-rescue efforts on Saturday and Sunday. Initially, the deployment of rescue teams, equipment and aid depended on the local airport 40 minutes away since all of the roads crossing the mountains into the city were blocked by landslides.

The Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology, and Environmental Studies reported that almost 129mm of rain fell on Mocoa in just three hours on Friday night, which represents about 30 percent of the average rainfall for the entire month. Three rivers that cross the city overflowed, producing landslides and flash floods that destroyed 17 neighborhoods, affecting several thousand of the 42,000 residents of the city.

“Many of the neighborhoods close to the rivers have almost disappeared,” commented the mayor, José Antonio Castro.

The National University has already emitted a warning that, out of the 2,440 urban municipalities, 385 are at risk of “landslides and the damming of floodwaters.” Other meteorologists have cautioned that the rainy season continues to intensify until May.

The Los Angeles Times reported that as far back as 1989, the Agricultural Ministry reported that a disaster of such proportions was likely unless efforts “were taken to reinforce the riverbanks, channel water away from the town and restore some of the forest.” Government officials, on their part, have blamed the lack of a territorial ordinance plan for the region, but only 3 percent of the country has a functioning plan.

This is not the first time the Colombian ruling class has ignored pleas by scientists and experts to prevent such a disaster. In the Colombian town of Armero, 25,000 people died in 1985 from volcanically induced mudflows, even though volcanologists had called for the evacuation of the town at least two months before.

After enormous floods during La Niña event in 2011-12, the Santos administration acknowledged that droughts and major rain events had become more extreme than in the last 50 years, and that Colombia will be one of the countries most affected by climate change. Nonetheless, as extreme weather events continue, no serious measures have been taken to protect vulnerable communities.

The government’s 2014-18 Strategic Plan for the Putumayo Department recognized the dire infrastructural conditions. They found that there is a 72.6 percent housing deficit, while 63.7 percent of households were in precarious conditions, compared to a 25.8 percent national average.

Other infrastructure is urgently lacking. For instance, only 44 percent of the region has a sewage system compared to 82 percent for Colombia and 97.1 percent for Latin America. In spite of this, the strategic plan dedicates most resources to facilitate the fast extraction of resources from the region and spends virtually nothing on safer housing.

More than half of Putumayo’s production comes from mining and crude oil, while illegal coca leaf farming is rampant and has engulfed the region in decades-long warfare between drug cartels, paramilitary units, and guerrilla groups.

While the 2014 plan pledged the construction of a new hospital in Mocoa, it was never built. Seeking to cover up this important factor, the health minister, Alejandro Gaviria Uribe, announced on Sunday that the construction of the new hospital will be accelerated.

Similar figures for the region—including the lack of availability of middle or higher education, illiteracy, stunted growth from malnutrition, infant mortality and the homicide rate—are much higher than the already alarming national averages. Over 90 percent of the department’s working age population is either unemployed or working informally. According to 2013 official government data, the index of multidimensional poverty is 79 percent for the Putumayo department and 53 percent for the city of Mocoa.

The Attorney General’s office has sent 45 prosecutors and forensic specialists to the affected area to seek who to blame in order to appease the growing social indignation and disguise the ruling class’s indifference to such suffering.

Germany clashes with US over NATO funding

Johannes Stern

A sharp clash took place at Friday’s NATO meeting between German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel (Social Democrats, SPD) and his American counterpart Rex Tillerson.

Tillerson demanded that NATO’s European members and Germany in particular issue a statement on how they intend to meet the goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on defence with “annual milestones and progress commitments.” According to the official text of Tillerson’s remarks, published on the US State Department’s website, he added, “Allies that do not have a concrete plan to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense by 2024 need to establish one now.” Such plans are to be presented prior to the NATO conference in Brussels on 25 May.

Gabriel bluntly responded that he thought it was “completely unrealistic to believe that Germany will reach an annual military budget of more than €70 billion.” He was aware of “no politician who believes that this is achievable or even desirable in our country.” In addition, he had “absolutely no” idea “where we would put all of the aircraft carriers that we would have to buy in order to invest €70 billion in the German army every year.”

Gabriel’s remarks have nothing to do with pacifism. The Social Democrat Foreign Minister left no doubt about his commitment to the substantial rearming of the German army which was agreed to by his predecessor Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) at NATO’s 2014 summit in Wales. “We have a plan—it is called a budget plan,” Gabriel said. “We are increasing military spending, but on a scale that we deem responsible.”

Gabriel’s message was clear: Germany is rearming and preparing an expansion of its policy of military interventions, but only on its own terms. “We Germans are currently spending a lot of money on accepting refugees. They come because military interventions went wrong. And because there was no stabilisation afterwards. So we know what it means when the only focus is on military spending,” he stated.

This was a thinly-veiled criticism of the US-led wars in the Middle East, against which Gabriel counterposes an imperialist European foreign policy dominated by Berlin.

In his speech in the German parliament (Bundestag) on continuing the German-European intervention in Mali, the foreign minister stated on Thursday, “Europe is being asked more than ever before to be a global actor, which is also ready to assume responsibility, and this is even though the European Union was not constructed as a global political actor. It was never made for that. Despite this, we cannot be indifferent to the conflicts going on around us.”

The “deployment of German soldiers as part of the European training mission EUTM Mali” shows “that where Europe is ready to do so, we engage jointly and can certainly achieve good results.” It was a “European strength” that “we deal with crises with a broad range of instruments: with diplomatic, civilian and police capabilities, and also militarily.”

A few days earlier, Gabriel announced a “new orientation” for Germany’s “Asia policy” and stated, “In many areas of international politics, we are currently experiencing crises, upheavals and new dynamics. One has the sense that this world is being measured anew—and everybody is using their own tape measure to do so. One thing is clear: Asia’s rising powers will play a key role in this.”

This is the old language of German imperialism. In the new scramble among the imperialist powers for raw materials, markets and cheap labour, Germany is once again laying claim to “a place in the sun.” The task is to “intensify [German] relations with Asia and organise them more strategically so they correspond to the rapidly rising significance of this region with 4 billion inhabitants and rapidly growing sales markets,” Gabriel wrote.

He had “decided, therefore, to establish an independent Asia department within the Foreign Ministry for the first time, which will better consolidate and further expand our regional competencies.” It was “high time that the composition of our team in the Foreign Ministry appropriately reflects the further growth of Asia’s weight.”

But this could “only be a first step. It is vital that Asia be seen as the key region of the future in our thinking and daily politics—in the Foreign Ministry, in the federal government and in the EU.” Ultimately, “the road to resolving our global task” runs “ever more frequently through Asia.”

As in the periods prior to the first and second World Wars, the “global tasks” of German imperialism are leading to growing conflicts with the United States and these will culminate in trade war and military conflict unless the working class intervenes.

On the same day as the clash with Tillerson, Gabriel demanded that the EU resist the “anti-dumping” measures against European steel producers being pushed for by the United States. He acknowledged the proceedings “with a large degree of incomprehension.” The goal was clear to him, “American industry is to be protected by disadvantaging the better German steel industry.”

There was no question that the United States was practicing “trade warfare” and was thereby violating international trade law so as to secure a competitive advantage for their companies, according to Gabriel. A clear position had to be taken against the US government and “the EU now had to consider whether to file a complaint with the WTO. I would strongly support that.”

In a comment on Monday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung warned, “Trump has to realise: if America adopts protectionist measures, Germany, the EU and China will adopt counter-measures, immediately, ruthlessly and without compromise.” This would involve “direct consequences, counter-tariffs, other penalties, but also publicly effective lawsuits at the WTO.” Europe and China would have the privilege of being “strong enough for such a course.”

The author, Marc Beise, then gave free rein to his great power fantasies for Germany, noting, “That also applies to Germany, which likes to play small politically, but which as an economic power is a great power that can afford to assert itself.”

Explosion in St. Petersburg kills at least 10

Vladimir Volkov

On Monday, April 3, at about 2:40 PM, an explosion occurred on a subway car in St. Petersburg that was traveling between the “Sennaya Square” and the “Technological Institute” metro stations. Eleven people were killed and around 50 people, including children, were injured.

The power of the blast indicated an equivalent of 300 grams of TNT. One more explosive device was found and defused at the station at “Uprising Square.” It was 3 to 5 times more powerful.

The Investigative Committee of Russia opened a criminal case for a suspected terrorist act, although it announced that it was verifying other possibilities. No terrorist groups have so far taken responsibility for what has happened.

Soon after the explosion, all metro stations in St. Petersburg were closed, and security measures were increased at places where people gather, on public transportation and at the Pulkovo airport.

For several hours, the city of five million was practically paralyzed, since remaining city transport could not handle the flood of passengers, the bulk of whom usually use the metro. No panic or disorder was observed in the city as thousands of inhabitants had to walk long distances on foot.

The governor of Petersburg, Georgy Poltavchenko, declared three days of mourning for the victims.

Russian President Vladimir Putin was in Petersburg on the day of the terrorist act. He was meeting with participants of a media forum under the aegis of the pro-Kremlin All-Russian Popular Front, as well as with the President of Belorussia, Aleksandr Lukashenko. During his discussion with the Belorussian leader, Putin made a brief statement, expressing sympathy for the victims and saying that “security organs and special services are at work and doing everything in order to discover the causes of what happened and give a full evaluation of what had occurred.”

Later he placed flowers at the “Technological Institute” metro station.

During the investigation, two people were declared to be under suspicion for preparing the explosions. In addition, according to an unnamed source in the security forces, the explosion in the St. Petersburg metro might have been caused by a suicide terrorist who tentatively appeared to be a 23-year-old from Central Asia who was connected with radical Islamic groups.

For now, it is impossible with any degree of certainty to say who is guilty of this crime, whose victims were dozens of peaceful citizens. However, there are undoubtedly factors which may have played a role in this tragic event.

Primarily, in the course of the last 25 years, Russia has repeatedly encountered manifestations of Islamic terrorism, whose growth in many regions of the former Soviet Union—in particular, in the Northern Caucasus and in Central Asia—has been aided by the catastrophic social consequences of the restoration of capitalism carried out by the former Stalinist bureaucracy and accompanied by an outburst of national, ethnic and religious conflicts.

Russia conducted two bloody wars in Chechnya (in 1994-1996, and also in 1999 to the beginning of the 2000s), killing tens of thousands of people. Many cities of this republic in the Northern Caucasus were turned into ruins, including its capital, Grozny.

The growth of Islamic fundamentalism was also aided by the policies of leading powers in the West, in particular the United States, who viewed it as an instrument for advancing their own interests in the region, by weakening Russia internally and destroying its territorial integrity.

For the last year and a half, Russia has been drawn into the civil war in Syria on the side of the government of Bashar al-Assad, conducting military operations against a number of Islamic armed groups supported by the USA, European powers, Turkey and the monarchies of the Persian Gulf.

In an extraordinary statement last year, US State Department Spokesman John Kirby said at a news conference that unless Russia “stops the violence” in Syria, “Extremist groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which could include attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities.”

According to the media accounts, several thousand emigrants from the former USSR are fighting in the ranks of the anti-government coalition. After painful defeats at the hands of Damascus, achieved in part due to bombing by Russian air forces, leading to the loss of Aleppo by the Islamic armed opposition at the end of last year, many of these fighters could return to their native land in search of revenge.

UK Prime Minister May silent on war threats against Spain over Gibraltar

Julie Hyland 

Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May has refused to condemn the comments by Michael Howard that her government would be prepared to go to war with Spain over Gibraltar.

Howard, a former Conservative Party leader, was responding to the European Union’s (EU) stipulation that any deal reached by the British government over the terms of its withdrawal from the EU, would not apply to Gibraltar—a British Overseas Territory—without Spain’s agreement.

Invoking Margaret Thatcher’s 1982 war against Argentina over the Malvinas/Falkland Islands—another British Overseas Territory—Howard said, “Thirty-five years ago this week another woman Prime Minister sent a taskforce half way across the world to defend the freedom of another small group of British people against another Spanish-speaking country, and I am absolutely certain our current Prime Minister will show the same resolve in standing by the people of Gibraltar.”

His statement was made just four days after May triggered Article 50, officially beginning Britain’s two years of negotiations on the terms of its withdrawal from the EU. Asked later if he was “seriously suggesting” going to war with Spain, Howard said, “Of course not,” but added, “I can see no harm in reminding them what kind of people we are.”

Upping the ante, Rear Admiral Chris Parry, a former director of operational capability at the Ministry of Defence, threatened, “We could cripple Spain in the medium term and I think the Americans would probably support us too.

“Spain should learn from history that it is never worth taking us on and that we could still singe the King of Spain’s beard.”

Gibraltar, a 6.7 square kilometre territory on the southern tip of Spain, was seized by Britain in 1704. With just 30,000 residents, it is an important military base controlling the entrance and exit to the Mediterranean and a tax haven that is home to 500 financial services companies.

At a lobby briefing Monday morning, a spokesperson for May—who was en route to Jordan for trade talks—said that while the dispatch of a British taskforce to Gibraltar “isn’t going to happen,” Howard had been trying to prove the UK’s “resolve” on the issue. Speaking to journalists later, May herself attempted to laugh off questions as to whether the UK was prepared to declare war on Spain. The UK was “sitting down and talking” to the EU about the “best possible deal” over Brexit that would apply to its overseas territories.

At the meeting of EU Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson—who had said the UK would stand by Gibraltar “like a rock”—stressed again the British commitment to its “sovereignty.”

Statements by Gibraltar’s chief minister, Fabian Picardo, made clear that it is not sovereignty that is at issue, but the territory’s demand that it must not be excluded from any terms finally agreed between the EU and the UK. Writing in the pro-Brexit Daily Express, Picardo thundered that the EU’s decision to give Spain a veto over Gibraltar’s “participation in any future UK/EU trade deal is a betrayal of historic proportions…”

Spain’s Foreign Minister, Alfonso Dastis, said that the minority conservative Popular Party government was “a little surprised by the tone of comments coming out of Britain, a country known for its composure,” and that “someone in the UK is losing their cool and there’s no need for it.”

Gibraltar’s border with Spain would not be closed after Britain quit the EU, he said. Spain’s government sought only “a balanced, reasonable and thorough deal,” regarding workers’ rights and immigration. London is demanding an end to free movement as one of the terms of its divorce, under conditions in which more than 13,000 Spaniards cross Gibraltar’s border to work each day—representing 40 percent of the workforce.

The European Commission has traditionally maintained a neutral position on conflicting Spanish/UK claims to Gibraltar. However, with Britain leaving the EU a diplomat told the Guardian, “Now we are going to support the member state.”

Several Tories, including prominent supporters of the Leave campaign during the referendum have called for calm. Conservative Member of the European Parliament Daniel Hannan tweeted, “Spain is a NATO ally, for Heaven’s sake.” But a faction of the pro-Brexit campaign are pressing for an even harder line from May in the EU negotiations, using Britain’s military and intelligence capabilities as a weapon. May’s letter triggering Article 50 warned that if the UK did not get its demands, it “would mean our co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened.”

Should this fail, they insist that Britain should end all negotiations with the EU. As Parry’s statements make clear, they calculate that, in doing so, they would have the support of US President Donald Trump, who backed Brexit and has spoken in favour of the EU’s break-up as a German-dominated economic competitor to the US.

Breitbart London carried an op-ed by Ted Malloch under the heading, “Brexit Is a Fait Accompli and Europe’s Acrimonious Attitude Should Be Toned Down.” Malloch, touted as a leading candidate to be Trump’s ambassador to the EU, backed Brexit, has supported referendums in other EU countries to quit, has said the euro will collapse and, equating the bloc with the Soviet Union, described it as “another union that needs a little taming.”

Brexit “is no longer up for discussion,” he wrote, and, as Britain is a “sovereign, democratic country,” it alone should decide its future. In contrast, “The European Union is not a cohesive sovereign state. These are matters of fact, not politics.

“Transforming the current international organization known as the European Union into a proper sovereign entity is the declared aim of many figures in the European institutions … it remains to be seen whether it can garner democratic support as an idea among the countries they wish to turn into sub-sovereign entities.”

Writing in the Telegraph, Norman Tebbit, an arch Thatcherite, warned that Gibraltar is a “vital Western strategic interest” and he doubted “President Trump would see it as in the interests of the US for ‘the Rock’ to fall out of British hands. Already the Trump administration is questioning for how long it can maintain its commitment to the Nato guarantee that an attack on any one member state would be regarded as an attack on all while only the Americans and British are willing to fulfil their commitment to spend 2 percent of GDP on defence. We might therefore not be without allies in this matter.”

Responding to Spain’s suggestion that it would not block Scotland’s application for membership of the EU, should a second referendum on its independence from the UK prove successful, Tebbit suggested “inviting leaders of the Catalan independence movement to London, or even to raising their desire for independence at the United Nations.” The “Catalans are different from the Spanish,” he wrote, as they “are an outward-looking Atlanticist people…”

Two years ago, Spain signed an agreement with the US making permanent its military base in the southwest of the country. The air and naval base is considered a strategic hub for NATO, and is playing a key role in Trump’s declared war against Islamic State, especially in Iraq and Libya.

Earlier this month, Spain’s defence minister, Maria Dolores de Cospedal, pledged to meet Trump’s demands that all European countries contribute to spending 2 percent of their GDP on defence. However, this would not be until 2024. A possible factor in the bellicose statements emanating from London is to thwart any possibility of Spain, following Brexit, replacing the UK as a key ally of the US in Europe.

Egyptian dictator el-Sisi welcomed to the White House

Patrick Martin

President Donald Trump welcomed the bloodstained military dictator of Egypt, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, to the White House Monday, giving a public demonstration of support for a regime that has slaughtered thousands, crushing the revolutionary uprising of millions of workers and youth that inspired the world in 2011, and currently jails tens of thousands of political opponents and dissidents.

More than a thousand Egyptians are facing death sentences handed down by kangaroo courts where they could not present a defense and in which no evidence was actually submitted. Others are jailed for life, including the elected president of Egypt, Mohamed Mursi of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose government was overthrown by el-Sisi in a military coup in July 2013.

This bloody record did not give Trump the slightest pause, as he shook el-Sisi’s hand vigorously—in notable contrast to his refusal to make the same gesture when German Chancellor Angela Merkel was his guest last month. “We are very much behind Egypt and the people of Egypt,” Trump said, as he stood side-by-side in the Oval Office with the chief oppressor of the Egyptian people.

“You have a great friend and ally in the United States and in me,” Trump told el-Sisi. “I just want to let everybody know that we are very much behind President el-Sisi, he has done a fantastic job in a very difficult situation.”

The Egyptian president responded with extravagant flattery of Trump, declaring, “Since we met last September, I’ve had a deep appreciation and admiration of your unique personality, especially as you are standing very strong in counterterrorism field.” The Egyptian regime has made no objection to Trump’s efforts—in the name of counterterrorism—to ban visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries, including two of Egypt’s neighbors, Libya and Sudan.

A White House statement announcing the visit of el-Sisi listed only two issues on the agenda for the meeting, terrorism and economic reform. The most important issues were unstated: The escalation of US military intervention throughout the Middle East and Washington’s efforts to mobilize its client states, military dictators and oil despots alike, in support.

Egypt is the second-largest recipient of US military and economic aid in the region, trailing only Israel. However, despite huge weapons purchases, including fighter jets, armored vehicles and advanced weaponry, there are no Egyptian warplanes taking part in the US-led bombing of Iraq and Syria. Egypt has also rejected requests from Saudi Arabia to back the coalition of Gulf monarchies waging war in Yemen against Houthi rebels who overthrew the Saudi-backed regime of President Abdrabbuh Mansur al-Hadi.

Egyptian officials have resisted the pressure for such military contributions because of security crises on both the eastern and western borders: Islamist guerrilla attacks in the Sinai peninsula, and the civil war in neighboring Libya. Even more significant is the continuing fear of a social explosion at home, six years after the mass movement that brought down the military regime of President Hosni Mubarak. The most critical function of the massive Egyptian military apparatus, funded by $77 billion in US aid over three decades, is to police a population of 90 million, by far the largest in the Arab world.

Trump has ostentatiously discarded the occasional human rights rhetoric of the Obama and Bush administrations. However, he has not yet rescinded some of the restrictions imposed on Egyptian military purchases during the period after el-Sisi’s coup. At the time, Obama felt compelled to posture as a critic of the most violent acts of repression, even while maintaining security ties with Cairo, including $1.3 billion in annual military aid.

In particular, el-Sisi is seeking the restoration of “cash-flow financing,” a particularly favorable method of military assistance that allows Egypt to buy US military equipment on easy, long-term credit terms. Observers in the Egyptian media—all subject to state censorship—suggested that expanded Egyptian cooperation with US military efforts against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria might be the price to be paid for restoration of the long-term credits.

Despite Trump’s enthusiastic embrace of el-Sisi, both as a candidate and as president, his initial budget request to Congress included sharp cuts in foreign aid that would have devastating consequences for the bankrupt Egyptian economy. On military aid, the Trump budget guaranteed continued funding for Israel but not for Egypt, which was said to be still under evaluation.

The official unemployment rate in Egypt is 12.7 percent, compared to 9 percent in 2011, when discontent over the economy was a driving force in the revolution that overthrew the Mubarak dictatorship. Youth unemployment is estimated at more than 30 percent.

President el-Sisi met with his financial paymasters at the World Bank even before visiting Trump at the White House. He also met with Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, and was to meet later in the week with officials of the International Monetary Fund. At each stop, including the White House, el-Sisi pledged to continue his program of “economic reform,” which involves slashing subsidies for consumer goods like bread and further opening the Egyptian economy to foreign investment.

Last month the cut in subsidies for bread, demanded by the IMF, triggered riots in many cities. In a commentary in Foreign Policy magazine, Zeinab Abul-Magd of Oberlin College wrote, “The riots reveal that, underneath this tranquility, a war is raging between the country’s domineering army and its civilian poor,” adding, “The stability of Egypt’s military regime is not guaranteed to last.”

El-Sisi has devoted himself to shoring up his support within the military establishment, lavishly funding state investments in enterprises run by military officers. Last month his regime engineered the release from prison of the former dictator, Hosni Mubarak, quashing his conviction on corruption charges.

Trump’s meeting with el-Sisi is part of a US foreign policy offensive throughout the Middle East. Later in the week Jordan’s King Abdullah visits the White House—another US-backed despot who is under mounting pressure to contribute more to the military campaign in Iraq and Syria.

Last weekend Trump dispatched his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to Iraq, accompanying General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and White House counterterrorism adviser Thomas Bossert. He is participating in talks with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad and getting a first-hand look at the Iraqi military siege of Mosul, where US warplanes have slaughtered hundreds of civilians in relentless bombing.

The 36-year-old Kushner, scion of a billion-dollar real estate family, has no foreign policy experience, but has a growing portfolio, including China, Mexico and the Middle East, which stamps him as the “crown prince” of an increasingly dynastic regime.

The Dunford-Kushner mission follows press reports that the Pentagon will no longer announce or confirm the movement of troops into or out of Iraq and Syria, following orders from Trump’s National Security Council. A Pentagon official told the Los Angeles Times that the purpose was “to maintain tactical surprise, ensure operational security and force protection.”

The real purpose, however, is to conceal from the American people, and from world public opinion, the ongoing escalation of US military operations in the region, which includes recent deployments of 400 Marines into northern Syria and 300 paratroopers to reinforce the Iraqi onslaught on Mosul.

The Trump administration has also approved the sale of F-16 warplanes to Bahrain’s monarchy, suspended for years because of savage repression of the Shi’ite majority in that country. King Hamad responded with an intensification of the repression, approving a constitutional amendment Monday allowing military courts to try civilians for offenses against the state of emergency which has been in effect since 2011.

Forecast 2017: Nepal

Pramod Jaiswal

2016 began with difficult start for Nepal. Shortly after the massive earthquake and the disaster that followed, there was a shortage of fuel and essential supplies due to the ‘economic blockade’ imposed by Madhesis to pressurise the government to address their demands related to the newly promulgated constitution. To add to the woes, the 'economic blockade' took place during the winter months when the country was struggling to recover from the earthquake that had claimed thousands of lives. Despite this, the then Prime Minister of Nepal, KP Oli, refused to address the demands of Madhesis, Janajatis and Tharus through amendments in the constitution. 

 

With the prime minister's reluctance to pay heed to the demands, the blockade was lifted after the 134 days long protest, without any result. The first quarter of 2016 was also a period of despair as Nepal lost its former Prime Minister and senior Nepali Congress leader, Sushil Koirala. It was also around the time when India-Nepal relations were at a low because the KP Oli-led government had accused India of supporting the ‘economic blockade’ imposed by the Madhesis. 

 

To improve the New Delhi-Kathmandu relationship, Oli was invited for a six-day visit to India. However, nothing remarkable was achieved through his visit. Within few weeks, Oli paid a week-long visit to China. He tried to challenge India by signing an agreement on trade and transit with Beijing. However, the Oli-led government could not last long. It collapsed within 10 months, following the withdrawal of support by the Maoists as the Oli government had failed to address the demands of the Madhesis, Tharus and Janajatis. Subsequently, Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, Chairman, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Center) became Nepal's prime minister for the second time with the support of Nepali Congress, the largest party in the parliament. Both the Nepali Congress and the Maoists agreed to equally share the remaining 18-month term between themselves. Prime Minister Dahal was able to garner the support of the Madhesi parties as well, because he assured them that he would address their demands. 

 

While 2016 was a mixed bag, 2017 comes with several challenges. Nepal has to implement the newly promulgated constitution by taking the Madhesis on board by addressing their demands. The government also needs to hold the three-tier elections (local, provincial and federal) by January 2018, as mentioned in the constitution. Delivering on these would be a herculean task for both the incumbent and the upcoming government led by Nepali Congress in 2017. Failing to address these challenges will plunge Nepal into crisis.

 

Prachanda's Promise

Prachanda promised the Madhesis, Janajatis and Tharus that their demands will be addressed through a constitutional amendment as he was in need of their support to become the prime minister for the second time. However, despite his attempts, he has failed to do so. Though he tabled the amendment proposal in the parliament, he could not garner the two-third majority required for the amendment. Moreover, under the pressure of the main opposition, the Communist Party of Nepal [Unified Marxist Leninist] (CPN-UML), he announced that local elections will be held on 14 May.

 

The newly promulgated constitution requires holding of three-tier elections by January 2018. In this context, the Election Commission of Nepal had asked the government to agree on election dates at the earliest to facilitate conducting all three elections within the stipulated time. Following the strong reaction and warning of withdrawing support to the Maoists' government, Prachanda reiterated that he would address the demands of the Madhesis, Janajatis and Tharus through amendments before the local polls.

 

Local Elections

If the local body election takes place on the announced date - May 14 - Nepal will have a democratically elected local body after two decades. But the Madhesi political parties are agitating and have demanded that the government should first address their concerns regarding Madhesis, Janajatis and Tharus through constitutional amendments and then announce the poll dates. Meanwhile, the CPN-UML had demanded that the government should hold the elections and had rejected the proposition of constitutional amendments. 

 

Following the announcement of the election date, Madhesi parties announced a series of protests in Madhes. They declared that they would not partake in the election and would instead foil the process unless their demands are addressed via a constitutional amendment. With this declaration, unfortunately, five Madhesis became the target of brutal extra judicial killing by the security forces in eastern Nepal when the United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF) cadres tried to disrupt the CPN-UML's Mechi-Mahakali campaign.

 

Conducting the election without the participation of Madhesi parties is not possible and neither does it serve any purpose. It will further increase the rift between the Madhesi parties and the government, which will further complicate the existing issue. There are also chances of serious clashes between people of different communities in Madhes, which could spiral into instances of large-scale ethno-centric violence that will worsen the situation. As experienced in the past, it has the potential to escalate further with the mobilisation of security forces and the Nepal Army. The possibility of another ‘economic blockade’ at the India-Nepal border and similar implications cannot be ruled out. Frustration among the Madhesis, Tharus and Janajatis is already rising. The radicalised Madhesi youth, may raise a demand for a separate Madhes, like CK Raut’s group. Together, all these issues might create an environment for the formulation and organisation of armed insurgents like it did in the past. Under such circumstances, conducting the election is possible only if the government strikes a deal with the Madhesi parties, addresses their demands, and brings them on board for holding the election in a timely manner. 

 

Economy

Nepal has faced an acute power crisis for over a decade. Nepalese people were subjected to power cuts that lasted as long as 18 hours a day during peak seasons. This impacted the economy and normal lives severely. However, with electricity imported from India and the increment in domestic electricity production and some strong bureaucratic action, the power crisis has almost been resolved. Hence, it is highly probable that in 2017, Nepal's economy will thrive.

 

India-Nepal Relations

India and Nepal share deep historical, political, geographic, economic and socio-cultural ties. The two countries share an 1850-kilometre long open border and cross-border marriages are common. Under the provisions of the 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, citizens of both countries enjoy special privileges.

 

Given this level of engagement between the two countries, any change in government or policy in Nepal or India cannot negatively impact the relations heavily. Yet, the bilateral has witnessed ups and downs at times. The tension in the Nepal-India relationship during the Oli government tenure was rectified as soon as Prachanda took over. Though Nepalese president Bidhya Devi Bhandari's India visit could not take place during Oli’s tenure, Indian President Pranab Mukherjee paid a three-day visit to Nepal - the first by an Indian president to Nepal in 18 years. Additionally, there were several other high level visits between leaders of the two countries. 

 

India is Nepal’s largest trading partner and contributes significantly in the country's development. New Delhi has played a crucial role in Nepal's major political transitions, be it the overthrow of the autocratic Rana regime; introduction of democracy; restoration of democracy in 1990; abolition of Monarchy; or mainstreaming the Maoists. It will continue to play an important role in days to come. 

 

However, with the thumping victory of Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) in Uttar Pradesh - an Indian state that shares borders with Nepal - there are apprehensions in Nepal that India might impose ‘Hinduism’ on secular Nepal or might attempt to revive monarchy. But, these are highly unlikely in the present context. Even if India plans for such adventurism, it will not succeed; instead, it would be counterproductive and would have lasting implications for India-Nepal relations. India should pay special attention in Nepal to consolidate its influence, as there are speculations that China would have proactive diplomacy and engagement in Nepal in days to come. New Delhi was already alarmed since Oli tried to bring China to counterbalance India. Hence, in 2017, India must pay special emphasis on improving connectivity; bringing the political parties together to resolve their internal differences in the constitution for peace and stability; and support Nepal in improving and consolidating its economy.

 

Overview

2017 is full of challenges for Nepal's government as well as the political parties. The first and major challenge is to address the demands of Madhesis, Janajatis, Tharus and other marginalised groups. This will create an environment conducive for free, fair and credible elections. It will also pave way for implementing the constitution, which will gradually create peace and stability in Nepal. Failing to conduct all the three elections by January 2018 will lead the nation into another constitutional crisis and prolong the transition. Prime Minister Dahal also has to hand over the prime ministerial role to the Nepali Congress after the local election, to meet the terms of the agreement. If the political parties fail to overcome these challenges, Nepal is bound to face a series of protests, violence and demands for a separate Madhes, and the constitutional gains of the past would be at stake. Any instability and chaos in Madhes will impact the security of its neighbouring regions, especially India.

Park Geun-hye's Impeachment and South Korean Foreign Policy

Sandip Kumar Mishra

South Korean President Park Geun-hye was impeached by the National Assembly on 9 December 2016. There were thirteen charges against her; these included bribery, influence peddling, and dereliction of duty. On 10 March 2017, the Constitutional Court of Korea unanimously upheld the impeachment, and sent Geun-hye to prison on 31 March.
In fact, the process of Park Geun-hye’s downfall began in October 2016, when it was reported that her old family friend, Choi Sun-sil, had access to government documents, took final decisions on government policy and appointments, and embezzled huge sums of money from Korean business houses by establishing various foundations. The widespread shock among South Koreans reflected in her popularity ratings, which reached a low of 4 per cent after these revelations.

Geun-hye's downfall has been perceived in South Korea as a positive moment in their democratic processes. An entirely peaceful people’s movement has shown that the South Korea polity is governed by the ‘rule of law’ and that nobody is above it. In the peaceful protests that took place across South Korea over the past five months and in which more than half of the Korean population participated, there was no report of violence, destruction of public property, or rioting. The South Korean polity, which was earlier supposed to be divided between the conservative and progressive parties, appears much more cohesive than is believed - less than 20 per cent favours conservative forces.

The impeachment, apart from having consequences for domestic politics, is also going to have some important implications for South Korea’s relations with the US, China, Japan and North Korea.

One of the most important issues for the next South Korean presidential elections scheduled for 9 May 2017 is the installation of the Terminal High Altitude Air Defence (THAAD) system in the country. South Korea's progressive parties are campaigning to review this decision. It has been alleged that Geun-hye did not allow enough public discussion on the subject and quite suddenly decided to deploy THAAD in early-2016, after North Korea's missile and nuclear tests. In the first three years of her term, Gen-hye was keen on engaging China and had annual summit meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013, 2014 and 2015. In this period, South Korea joined the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), Chinese initiative, in spite of Washington’s displeasure. Earlier, it officially denied, on multiple occasions, that they were discussing THAAD with the US. It appears South Korea did not conduct a sufficient cost-benefit analysis of the situation, as China's displeasure would have  serious implications for their bilateral economic and security exchanges.

For the same reason, the US sent its first major installment of THAAD equipment to South Korea when the process of impeachment was underway. The intention was to move forward to a point of irreversibility or no return. The tactic may work, and if the process of installation moves beyond the critical phase, it will not be easy for the next South Korean president to reverse the decision even if they undertake a review.

However, despite the unlikelihood of a reversal of the decision on technical grounds, the next progressive president may try to mend relations with China, which have deteriorated in the past year and a half owing to THAAD. Over two South Korean progressive administrations, from 1998 to 2002, the country forged close ties with China in the political and strategic domains, and this might be repeated.

Geun-hye's administration also reached a hasty ‘final deal’ with Japan in late December 2015 on the issue of comfort women. South Korea's progressive parties have been consistently critical of this deal, and the new president in all likelihood will review it. It has been alleged that in the first three  years of her presidency, Geun-hye held several South Korea-Japan bilateral exchanges hostage to  the comfort women issue, and she agreed to a less-than-satisfactory deal when this started having a negative impact on South Korea. Notwithstanding domestic contestation, Japan-South Korea relations may deteriorate if the next president tries to revise or scrap the deal.

The Geun-hye administration has been criticised by the progressive parties on the issue of North Korean missile and nuclear tests as well, and her policy to engage North Korea has been deemed a failure.  Although Geun-hye had initially proposed ‘trust politik’ with North Korea, inter-Korea relations and lines of communication worsened during her presidency. The next president may have a more genuine policy of engagement that would not demand mechanical or short-term reciprocity.

Overall, the South Korean president's impeachment will lead to a significant shift in South Korea's foreign policy orientation with implications for East Asian regional politics.