The Real Russiagate

Paul Craig Roberts & Michael Hudson

Mike Whitney has written an excellent expose of the “Russiagate” cover story for Obama’s political use of national security to help his party oppose Republicans. Covert surveillance of politicians on Obama’s Nixon-like “Enemies List” has been going on for many years, but is only now being unmasked as a result of the failure of its cover story (“We weren’t spying on enemies; only on Russians to protect America”).

Democratic-leaking mass media have passed on the cover story authored by former Obama-administration officials led by CIA director John Brennan, FBI director James Comey, the DNC, and Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff. The loose ends in this cover-up have now been so widely exposed as hearsay and political that only 13% of Republicans believe the fact-free story – but, according to a poll, 67% of Democrats.

Whitney reports that Comey began the investigation in July 2016. As of last Friday (March 31, 2017) not a scrap of evidence has turned up.  This did not deter Comey from telling Congress that Putin “hated Secretary Clinton so much that the flip side of that coin was that he had a clear preference for the person running against the person he hated so much.” So the Russians allegedly “engaged in a multifaceted campaign to undermine our democracy.”

Comey based this conclusion on what has become a hilarious bit of gullibility. The Russians, he said “were unusually loud in their intervention. It’s almost as if they didn’t care that we knew, that they wanted us to see what they were doing.”

Alternatively, someone wanted investigators to infer that the Russians were doing the hacking. They were careful to insert the signature of GPU-NKVD founder Felix Dzerzhinsky for anyone to find. As Wikeleaks Vault 7 releases prove, the CIA can hack computers and leave anyone else’s signature. Due to poor security, the CIA’s cybertechnology ended up in the Internet domain.

“They’ll be back. They’ll be back, in 2020. They may be back in 2018,” warned Mr. Comey. But who is the “they”? “They” seem to be “us,” or at least what numerous former national security officials have suggested: either the NSC, CIA or its “Five Eyes” partner, British MI6.

Wall Street Journal editorialist Kimberley A. Strassel poses the real question: Why hasn’t the Trump administration had the Secret Service arrest Comey, Brennan, Schiff, the DNC and Hillary for trying to overthrow the President of the United States?  “Mr. Nunes has said he has seen proof that the Obama White House surveilled the incoming administration—on subjects that had nothing to do with Russia—and that it further unmasked (identified by name) transition officials. This goes far beyond a mere scandal. It’s a potential crime.”

What we are watching is turning out to be traces of a plot against a government elected by the American people. Attempts by House national security committee Chairman Devin Nunes have been countered with demands by his potential victims to recuse himself so as to stop his exposé of how “Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration.”

It seems that this has been going on for many years now. Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich has dropped a bombshell about what appears to be his own illegal surveillance under Obama’s NSC.

“When the president raised the question of wiretapping on his phones in Trump Tower, he was challenged to prove that such a thing could happen. It happened to me.”

Here’s what happened, which was revealed two years after he left office in 2013 when the Democrats were overjoyed to see Ohio Republicans redraw the election district lines to get rid of his candidacy. The Washington Times asked him to authenticate a secret recording of a cell phone call “from Saif el-Islam Qaddafi, a high-ranking official in Libya’s government and a son of the country’s ruler, Moammar Qaddafi.”

Before taking the call, Rep. Kucinich “checked with the House’s general counsel to ensure that such a discussion by a member of Congress with a foreign power was permitted by law.”

“I was assured that under the Constitution a lawmaker had a fundamental duty to ask questions and gather information—activity expressly protected by the Article I clauses covering separation of powers and congressional speech and debate.”

Given the quality of the recordings was excellent on both ends of the call, Kucinich concluded that “the tape was made by an American intelligence agency and then leaked to the Times for political reasons. If so, this episode represented a gross violation of the separation of powers.”

His repeated Freedom of Information Act requests made in 2012 before leaving office have been stonewalled by the intelligence agencies for five years.

We are now in a position to see the real story behind “Russiagate.” It’s not about Russia, except incidentally. The Obama regime abused the government’s surveillance powers and spied on Donald Trump and other Republicans in order to build a dossier for the DNC to leak to the press in an attempt to slander or compromise Trump and throw the election to Hillary.

They’ve been caught, but we can now see that they took steps to protect themselves against this. They prepared a cover story. They pretend they were not spying on Trump, but on Russians – which only by fortuitous happenchance turned up incriminating smoke against Trump.

This cover story was buttressed by the fake news story prepared by former MI6 freelancer Christopher Steele. As Whitney reports, Steele “was hired as an opposition researcher last June to dig up derogatory information on Donald Trump.”  Unvetted and unverified information paid for by so-called informants “somehow” found its way into U.S. intelligence agency reports. These reports were then leaked to Democrat-friendly media.

This is where the crime lies. Obama regime and DNC were using these agencies for domestic political use, KGB style.

The Obama/Clinton cover story is now falling to pieces. That explains the desperation in the attack byAdam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, on Committee Chairman Devin Nunes to stop the exposure. Russiagate is not a Trump/Putin collusion but a domestic spy job carried out by Democrats.

Law requires Trump to arrest those responsible and to put them on trial for treason and conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. If Trump fears to prosecute the Obama operatives within the Deep State, they will try all the harder to attack him to the point of forcing his removal, or at least discrediting him and his fellow Republicans to pave the way for the 2018 elections.

Pig Peril: the Real Threat to America!

TIM BEAL

You may have seen the scary story in The Hill by James Woolsey and Peter Pry, How North Korea could kill 90 percent of Americans

Frightening eh?  Especially the bit about  ‘Why do the press and public officials ignore or under-report these facts?’  Note that Woolsey is a former Director of the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency. Intelligence, as in really smart and CIA, as in fiendishly devious. Or perhaps not smart, but certainly devious.

Devious?  Yeah, because they are not telling us the real story.

The clever folks at MSN put their fingers on it. MSN, as in Microsoft, as in Vista, as in Windows 7, as in really smart. Anyway, they highlighted the danger:

…which reminded Americans that North Korea could in theory use a satellite weapon to send an electromagnetic pulse over the United States, triggering widespread blackouts and ultimately, societal collapse.

OK, think about that ‘in theory’ and think of pig.

Why pig?

Well there are hundreds of millions of pigs. A lot of them in Russia. None in Israel or Saudi Arabia. What does that tell us?  You know people by the friends they keep. Or in this case animals.

OK, so the North Koreans don’t like us. There are lots of maladjusted people in the world like them. OK, so we killed 2 million, 3 million of them in the 1950s, but gooks, who’s counting? The Germans, the Japanese, the Vietnamese, they got over our killing them and moved on, so if the Koreans can’t do that it says something about them, right? OK, then there’s our sanctions causing malnutrition in their children. So they grow up stunted, if they grow up, but is that the end of the world? Means they can live in smaller houses and save money.

But pigs. Now that’s where real hatred lies. Think bacon, think ham, think pork crackling – now that gets me hungry. Anyway, pigs don’t like us. Pigs detest us.  Pigs hate us. Perhaps they’re envious of our freedom and democracy, or perhaps they just don’t like being slaughtered and eaten, who knows?

Now let’s go back to the folks at MSN, and instead of being side-tracked by this nonsense about North Koreans, think of the real enemy.

Woolsey and Fry, and MSN, tell us that, in theory, the North Koreans could kill 90% of us.

They’re right, but they’re pointing in the wrong direction

In theory, if they mastered the technology, pigs could fly.

And if they could fly, who would they attack?

Us, of course

And the North Koreans?  Only 25 million of them and we know where they live. And we have thousands of times more missiles and nuclear weapons than they could possibly have. And aircraft carriers, and B-52s, and B-1s, and F-22s and F-35s – after all those billions they must be useful for something. And all those bases in South Korea and Japan.

North Korea is not a problem, but pigs are a different matter. Sly, intelligent, tasty (sorry, slip of the tongue), and cunning. Oh, so cunning.

So why do the press and public officials ignore this clear and present danger? Are they in the pay of Putin (and how many pigs does he own?).

And it’s not merely a matter of foreign pigs. There are millions and millions of pigs here in the US. How many of them are Russian agents? Or Chinese?  If you’ve ever been to a Chinese restaurant you’ll realize that the Chinese have a love affair with pigs. And probably that love is reciprocated and many of what we fondly think of as our American pigs are really controlled from Beijing

So pigs here in America and pigs around the world pose an existential threat to our national security, our freedoms, our values, all that we hold dear.

As soon as they master the technology, which in theory they can

And when pigs can fly, we will face a frightening danger.

Why do our media and our public officials ignore it?  Is this because the highest in the land are secret porcinists?  Have you wondered why Barack Obama, born to a Muslim father became a Christian? Is that suspicious or is that suspicious? Was it to do with his love of pig? And have you seen a photograph of Donald Trump recently?

Wake up America, the pig peril is nigh!

The New South African Revolution

P R Dullay

South Africa is poised on a knife edge. Anything can happen. Last week Pravin Gordhan the Minister of Finance and former head of the S African Revenue Service, plus his deputy were recalled from London in the midst of a promotional roadshow for potential investors. Upon their return home, each was fired by the very president who appointed them. You will recall that a short while back President Zuma dismissed the then incorruptable finance minister, Nene and replaced him with a compliable Van Royen. The world markets reacted predictably and the S African currency began to slide furiously. A suddenly frightened Zuma was persuaded to appoint Gordhan, who is a seasoned economist. All of this happened within a week! A semblance of stability returned to the economy. The president was set back in his plans to capture the key ministry, but that did not signal normality. He had other plans up his sleeve.

Above all of this was the manipulative hand of a former family of Indian nationals, namely the Guptas, who recently obtained S African citizenship. This financially powerful and influential family saw the ease with which corruption was becoming the norm and decided to move in very decisively. From their luxurious Saxonwold mansion in Johannesburg they wanted not just access to lucrative tenders, but direct influence on the president and the appointing of various ministers who could be compromised. They succeeded, perhaps beyond their own dreams. The president and various ministers as well as potential corruptible appointees were regulars at Saxonwold and some were offered massive bribes, ostensibly, to fix matters. This insidious development met with outrage across the land. The president and his surrogates were untouched. The Guptas beat a well timed retreat to Dubai, from where their manipulation continues. Even the explosive report of the Public Protector on ‘state capture’ by the Guptas was smothered and the president bided his time. Like S Africas famed snake, the Black Mamba, he would strike with deadly force when it was time to do so.

Coincidentally, two matters came to a head almost at the same time last week, namely the death of a much loved struggle veteran and fellow prisoner with Mandela on Robben Island, Ahmed Kathrada, and the reshuffling of the cabinet to get Gordhan out of the way. Gordhan defiantly refused to step down and faced the wrath of a president who would not be thwarted. Gordhan stood between him and his fervent wish to get the funding of one trillion Rand to secure the purchase of between 6-8 nuclear power plants from Russia’s Rosatom. This represents the single largest expenditure in the history of the country and has the real potential to bankrupt S Africa. It is important to remember that this amount is equivalent to almost the entire GDP of the country. When seen in the face of the suppression of the government’s own electricity supply commission endorsing the development of S Africa’s massive potential in renewable energy sources, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the release of such vast sums will facilitate massive corruption, on a scale hitherto unknown. It has already begun. There is no credible supporter for Zuma’s nuclear plans. There are hosts of reports and findings endorsing the harnessing of renewable energy, with which S Africa is generously endowed and will, moreover, be safe and create thousands of jobs.

Perhaps this president did not figure out the rage that his actions have spurred. The family of the late Kathrada pointedly asked the president to stay away from his funeral arrangements. Kathrada’s widow, lashed out at the betrayal of Zuma of the proud traditions of the ANC and the people of S Africa. Bishop Desmond Tutu, other faith based leaders, civil sociey organisations, politicians, even within the ANC have condemned and backed away from his actions. In the coming week a range of opposition political parties and more, importantly, civil society organisations have called for a complete stay away and acts of civil disobedience.

A very slippery and slithering president is being cornered. His cunning manoeuvres and dodging the more than 800 charges against him are legendary, in as much as his raids on the public purse. It was not possible to accomplished this on his own and so he packed the government with those who would do his bidding, and of course, enrich themselves in the process, as a part of the deal. All the parastatals and key ministries were headed by those chosen and appointed as ‘pliable’ and partial to the wishes of the president. Their general lack of competence was a plus in their pliability. The media and the Office of the Public Protector exposed on a regular basis the raiding of the parastatals

The chances for chaos in Nelson Mandela’s homeland is great but so is the opportunity of getting a shot at the country re-inventing itself, in other words a second revolution, perhaps as great as the one that ended Apartheid and ushered in democracy. Few doubt today that the transition was seriously flawed. The compromises made in 1994 caused many to say that Mandela and the ANC sold out the struggle for real emancipation and settled for A World Bank/IMF brokered deal that was not in the interest of the people.

That Mandela’s government agreed to take over repayment of the money borrowed by the oppressors during the worst years of Apartheid repression was perhaps the first outrage. This was quickly followed by government silencing calls for the payment of reparations for the exploitation of Western multinational companies operating under Apartheid. The governments much vaunted Reconstruction and Development Programme of social reconstruction, was, at the insistence of the international banks, placed on the back burner and snuffed out. Little was done to address white corporate control of the economy. The ownership of the land remained much the same as under Apartheid. Academia remained unchanged and the training and development needs of an emerging economy (as skewered as it was) were ignored. Similarly, little was done to address the corrosive legacies of racism, slavery, indenture, sexism and colonialism. A new democratic order emerged that was a band-aid hotchpotch of neo-liberalism. The ANC’s Freedom Charter of basic rights was quietly ignored and remains unfulfilled. The accommodation of a few persons of colour into the white controlled economy and the creation of a black elite is transparently provocative. The people will not accept the continuation of this order.

This is the reason that I believe that S Africa is lucky to get a second shot at revolutionary development. It has all the mistakes to learn from and develop a powerful civil society that will direct the emergence of a true peoples’ government.

South Sudan “Rebels” And The CIA; Show Me The Money!

Thomas C. Mountain

For going on 3 years now a “rebel army” of some 20,000 South Sudanese soldiers have been fighting to overthrow the Salva Kiir government without any visible means of support. The government has oil revenues and aid funds but the “rebels” (and their propaganda arm in the west) have not been asked by anyone in the international media to “show me the money”.

Why? Maybe the recent kidnapping of Chinese oil company workers as a part of the “rebels” demand that China abandon its only oil field in Africa in Sudan. which can best be described as a blow struck on behalf of the “US National Interest”, for the USA is the ONLY party that benefits by the South Sudanese civil war.

Getting China out of African energy is why the CIA is picking up the tab for this most savage series of tribal based ethnic cleansing and massacres, to the tune of over $300 million and counting. Where else could this kind of off the books cash be coming from?

Do the math, 20,000 under arms at salaries starting at $300 a month and then add food, supplies, fuel, ammunition etc and you get a monthly nut of close to $10 million, over a $100 million a year and this for years now.

Show me the money! is the golden rule and why isn’t anyone asking this question when it comes to the South Sudan civil war? Who else could it be but the CIA that these “rebels” are getting their blood money from?

Trump threatens China with war on North Korea

Peter Symonds

Ahead of his meeting this week with Chinese President Xi Jinping, President Trump issued a blunt, menacing warning to Beijing to force North Korea to abandon its nuclear and missile programs … or else. Speaking to the Financial Times, he declared: “If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will. That is all that I am telling you.”

Trump outlined the ultimatum that he intends to deliver to Xi: “China has great influence over North Korea. And China will either decide to help us with North Korea, or they won’t. And if they do that will be very good for China, and if they don’t it won’t be good for anyone.”

Trump’s threats have only one meaning: if the Chinese government is not prepared to economically cripple or oust the Pyongyang regime, the US is prepared to use every means at its disposal, including its massive military might, against North Korea. As US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson emphasised during his trip to Asia last month, all options, including war with North Korea, are on the table.

Whatever measures the US might initially take, Trump made absolutely clear that he was prepared to attack North Korea and could do so with no notice. “I am not the United States of the past where we tell you where we are going to hit in the Middle East,” he told the newspaper. “Where they say … ‘We will be attacking Mosul in four months.’ … Why are they talking? There is no reason to talk.”

Behind closed doors, the Trump administration has been preparing for a war with North Korea that will not only be catastrophic for the Korean people on the divided peninsula but could drag in other major powers, including China, Russia and Japan.

The White House has just completed a review of US policy towards North Korea ahead of Xi’s meeting with Trump. While the options reportedly include heavy sanctions not only against North Korea but also Chinese firms doing business with Pyongyang, the Trump administration would not stop there.

During his recent trip, Tillerson declared that the Obama administration’s policy of incrementally increased sanctions—dubbed “strategic patience”—had failed. He also ruled out any immediate negotiations with Pyongyang. All of the remaining options—cyber warfare, provocations and covert operations to destabilise the North Korean regime and military action of various forms—threaten to rapidly plunge the region into war.

The Financial Times asked Trump: “Do you think you can solve it [North Korea] without China’s help?” His utter recklessness is summed up in his one word reply: “Totally.” Asked the same question again, he responded: “I don’t have to say any more. Totally.”

The incalculable consequences of war on the Korean Peninsula were summed up by Obama’s defence secretary, Ashton Carter, who has long been a supporter of military strikes on North Korea. Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, Carter declared that he was not optimistic about pressuring China to take action against North Korea.

Carter insisted that the military option had to remain on the table then, with callous indifference to the human suffering involved, sketched what would happen in the wake of a US pre-emptive strike on North Korea. “It is quite possible that they [Pyongyang] would … launch an attempted invasion of South Korea. As I said, I’m confident of the outcome of that war, which would be the defeat of North Korea.

“But I need to caution you. This is a war that would have an intensity of violence associated with it that we haven’t seen since the last Korean War. Seoul is right there on the borders of the DMZ [border with North Korea], so even though the outcome is certain, it is a very destructive war,” Carter declared.

Carter knows of what he speaks. As assistant defence secretary in the Clinton administration, he was deeply involved in planning for the war with North Korea in 1994 that was called off at the last minute when the Pentagon conservatively estimated the likely outcome—300,000 to 500,000 South Korean and American military casualties, not counting the death toll in North Korea and civilian dead and injured.

The death toll in the Korean War between 1950 and 1953 ran into the millions. Casualties in a war today in which North Korea as well as the US have nuclear weapons and could use nuclear weapons would be far higher. US Defence Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis has already warned that any attempt by Pyongyang to use its nuclear weapons would be met with an “effective and overwhelming response”—that is, nuclear annihilation.

The Korean War was the only time that China and the United States directly fought a war. The strategic position of the Korean Peninsula in North East Asia has made it a focus for invasions and wars for more than a century—involving not only the United States and China, but also Japan and Russia. The danger is that a new war would rapidly drag in other military powers, including those armed with nuclear weapons.

The danger of world war arises not simply as a result of the erratic and reckless behaviour of Trump. Rather, his irrationality is a product of the profound crisis of American and global capitalism and the determination of the US ruling class for whom he speaks to exploit its current military dominance to arrest its historic decline—whatever the outcome. A quarter century of military provocations and invasions in the Middle East and Central Asia are now coalescing into a confrontation with major US rivals—above all, China and Russia.

The reaction of the North Korean regime to the growing threat of war is utterly reactionary. Its missile and nuclear tests play directly into Washington’s hands by providing a pretext for war. Moreover, Pyongyang’s nationalist bombast and bloodcurdling threats against the US, Japan and South Korea only heighten the danger of war and sow divisions in the international working class.

Unlike the criminal US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 or the more recent wars in the Middle East, the countdown to war against North Korea is not being made public. Nevertheless it is proceeding with a relentless logic. Workers around the globe cannot afford to wake up one morning to find that the US has bombed North Korea and the world stands on the brink of a nuclear war.

The only means for halting the drive to war is to put an end to its source—the bankrupt profit system and its division of the world into rival nation states—through the building of a unified anti-war movement of the working class based on socialist internationalism.

Maldives opposition intensifies campaign to destabilise government

Rohantha De Silva 

An impeachment motion by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) against Abdulla Maseeh Mohamed, the parliamentary speaker, failed last week following a violent confrontation. The motion was part of ongoing moves to oust President Abdulla Yameen and his government by Mohammed Nasheed, the pro-US MDP leader and former president.

While the MDP only has 26 MPs in the 85-member parliament, it hoped several parliamentarians from the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) which supports Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, would break ranks and vote with the opposition. Gayoom, a long-time leader of the PPM and president of the Maldives from 1978-2008, has opposed Yameen—his half-brother—after being marginalised in the party.

MDP lawmakers began a protest in parliament, claiming that the ruling coalition had changed the usual electronic voting system, in order to conceal how MPs voted on the impeachment motion. Military officers were called in by the speaker to remove 13 protesting MPs from the parliament. The opposition claimed that MPs were manhandled and dragged from the chamber.

The impeachment motion was voted down by 48 MPs. The public, media, and non-government organisations were barred from parliament house during the vote.

While increasingly isolated, President Yameen is attempting to muzzle the opposition and block its attempts to oust the president. Nasheed told the Economic Times that there are currently 1,700 political activists, either under threat, on trial or in jail. Nasheed and his party, however, have no concern for the democratic rights of the Maldivian people.

The infighting between the opposition and President Yameen is bound up with US and Indian geo-political manoeuvres against China. The Maldives, an archipelago of 1,192 islands with a population of just 400,000, is strategically located astride major sea lanes across the Indian Ocean.

Following the failure of the impeachment motion, Yameen sacked Gayoom as the nominal president of the PPM. Gayoom’s three-decade rule of the Maldives ended in 2008 when Nasheed became the first president elected in a contested election. Nasheed and Gayoom recently announced an alliance to oppose Yameen.

Before launching the impeachment resolution, Nasheed said: “If we succeed, as we expect, the president will be reduced to a lame duck and will have to carry out reforms reversing the anti-democratic measures he has introduced.” Nasheed claims that he is attempting to make the forthcoming 2018 presidential election free and fair.

Nasheed wants the removal of a law introduced last year by Yameen banning anyone convicted of terrorism from running for president. The anti-democratic law was specifically introduced to prevent Nasheed from contesting the election. MDP leader Nasheed was charged and convicted of terrorism, after ordering the arrest and detention of former Chief Justice Abdulla Mohamed in 2012. Nasheed was sentenced to 13 years jail but was later released under pressure from the US and Britain.

Nasheed is openly attempting to bring the country’s foreign policy into line with Washington’s agenda. Speaking to Colombo-based foreign correspondents on Wednesday, he said that if elected, his government would change the terms of China-funded projects in Maldives. “We will learn from the experience of the Sri Lankan Ports Minister Arjuna Ranatunga in re-negotiating the deal over Chinese built Hambantota project,” he said.

Nasheed’s comments are significant. Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena was elected in January 2015, following a regime-change operation against former President Mahinda Rajapakse orchestrated by the US with the backing of India. The US was hostile to Rajapakse’s close relations with Beijing.

After coming to power, Sirisena and his new government suspended all Chinese-funded projects—the terms of these projects are still under discussion—and has developed close political and military relations with the US.

Nasheed said that Chinese loans constitute about 70 to 80 percent of foreign debt and if elected his administration would “seek the restitution of transactions and properties unlawfully seized from citizens by the government.” The MDP has attacked the Yameen government over the 99-year land leases granted to Chinese companies that open the way for Beijing to build a permanent base in the archipelago.

Nasheed accuses Yameen of corruption and authoritarianism. He told Colombo-based journalists that the US, EU and Canada were openly supporting the Maldives opposition and suggested that he had behind-the-scenes support from India and Sri Lanka.

Former Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga has called on Nasheed and Gayoom to come together against Yameen. This, she declared, would “ensure democratic governance and the guarantee of civil and political rights.” Kumaratunga was a major player in the Washington inspired regime-change operations against Rajapakse in Sri Lanka.

The US embassy to Sri Lanka and Maldives also issued a statement on March 28 favouring Nasheed. “We call on the government to restore faith in democratic processes by ensuring free and impartial proceedings in parliament,” it said, and that “irregularities” over the impeachment motion had impeded a free and fair vote in the Maldives parliament.

The US-based Foreign Policy magazine has also backed Nasheed. In an article entitled “Democracy is Drowning in Maldives” on March 29, it states that his “decision to run for office has guaranteed a game-changing year not only for his own political carrier but also for the future of democracy in the South Asian Island.”

While the Yameen government is authoritarian and anti-democratic, Nasheed is not concerned about “future of democracy” in Maldives. In power, Nasheed used the state apparatus to suppress opposition protests. The MDP leader is attempting to integrate Maldives into the US war preparation against China. Like Sri Lanka, Washington is determined to secure this strategically important location in the Indian Ocean as a key component of any future war.

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.