Australia proposes visas for white South Africans

Max Newman & Mike Head

The Australian government, notorious around the world for blocking refugee boats and indefinitely detaining asylum seekers, is pushing ahead with plans to grant humanitarian visas to selected white South African farmers.

After first announcing on March 14 that the farmers “deserve special attention and we’re certainly applying that special attention now,” Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton this week declared he is considering “several” such visa applications.

Around the world, more than 65 million people are facing closed borders as they flee persecution and wars, many as a result of military interventions by the US and its allies, including Australia. Nearly a million Rohingya refugees are currently living in squalor and danger in tents and huts in impoverished Bangladesh, driven out of Burma by the military supported by the Western-backed government of Aung San Suu Kyi.

While shutting the country’s borders to these desperate people, Australia’s government is moving to grant expedited visas to white South Africans. Dutton last month provocatively declared that the farmers deserved help “from a civilised country like ours,” claiming they face “horrific conditions” of violence and seizures of their land. South Africa called in Australia’s high commissioner to demand an explanation.

Dutton has responded by ramping up his inflammatory remarks this week. He accused the South African government of falsely claiming, for “domestic” reasons, that the Australian government had retracted his comments. “There has been no retractions of my comments or our desire to assess some of these cases,” he told Sky News.

In his original remarks, Dutton insisted that the white farmers were hard workers who “want to contribute to a country like Australia.” He continued: “We want people who want to come here, abide by our laws, integrate into our society, work hard, not lead a life on welfare.”

In other words, the farmers should be prioritised because, unlike other refugees, they will supposedly “integrate,” be law-abiding and not seek to live on welfare benefits. These remarks highlight the racist character of Australian immigration policy, which features the demonisation of asylum seekers, especially those from Asia and the Middle East, by successive Liberal-National and Labor governments.

Dutton’s remarks recall the “White Australia” policies of the 19th and first half of the 20th century, which barred the immigration of people to Australia based on skin colour. Both Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop defended Dutton’s comments, while hypocritically insisting that Australia’s humanitarian visa program is non-discriminatory.

Bishop denied there was a double standard in Dutton speaking up for white South African farmers, but not Palestinian farmers persecuted by Israel. “What we do in our humanitarian visa program is assess visas on their merits and that’s what Peter Dutton as home affairs minister does every day,” she said.

In reality, Australia’s refugee and immigration policy has long been thoroughly discriminatory, with nearly all visas tied to selecting people on the basis of their wealth, employability, education levels, health status and English language proficiency, as well as their religion.

While handpicking small numbers of people for humanitarian visas, Australia’s bipartisan “border protection” regime violently turns back or imprisons all asylum seekers who try to reach Australia by boat. The Greens-backed Gillard Labor government reopened the camps on Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island in 2012.

Last week, the UNHCR rejected Dutton’s call for special treatment for South African farmers, saying priority should be given to refugees, including children, detained by Australia for years on the remote island of Nauru.

By alleging widespread violence against white farmers, Dutton is echoing sensationalist campaigns by Murdoch media tabloids and right-wing web sites that have made similar calls for the Trump administration and other governments to come to the farmers’ “rescue.” Former prime minister Tony Abbott quickly backed Dutton, claiming that 400 farmers were murdered over the past 12 months.

According to various sources, including the fact-checking organisation Africa Check, the reports of widespread murders and land seizures are vastly exaggerated. More reliable statistics indicate that there were 84 farm murders in 2017, with 59 victims being white farmers.

This level has not changed significantly over the past two decades. It is part of a wider pattern of killings and home robberies that reflect the immense social and class tensions wracking the country, where the African National Congress (ANC) government has enriched a wealthy capitalist elite while presiding over worsening poverty and inequality since taking office in 1994, replacing the decades-long apartheid regime.

What has changed over the past year is that the increasingly discredited ANC, now led by the multi-millionaire former trade union leader President Cyril Ramaphosa, has desperately sought to revive its electoral fortunes by promising to shift its “land reform” policy to head off discontent.

The overwhelming majority of South Africa’s commercial agricultural land, about 80 percent, remains in the hands of 1 percent of the population, nearly all white farmers, except for a small number of wealthy black operators. This is despite the ANC, then led by Nelson Mandela, promising in 1994 that 30 percent of agricultural land would be transferred to black owners by 1999. According to the latest statistics, only about 8 percent of the land has been transferred under the so-called land reform program.

This became a major issue in Ramaphosa’s bid last year to oust his predecessor Jacob Zuma. As a result, two months ago, the ANC backed a motion in the South African parliament to amend the country’s constitution to allow for land expropriation without compensation. A parliamentary committee was appointed to report back by August 30 on the proposal, which would require a two-thirds majority in parliament and ratification by six of the country’s nine provinces.

At the same time as holding out the promise of land distribution, Ramaphosa assured the financial markets that no “smash and grab” land transfers would be permitted, nor would any harm to the economy. Nevertheless, some wealthy farmers could now face the prospect of having their holdings expropriated.

Dutton, Abbott and others, including Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party, are seizing on the South African crisis as part of their efforts to whip up a nationalist and xenophobic constituency domestically. Last month, several hundred people, mostly white South African immigrants, marched through Brisbane, Dutton’s home city, demanding support for his offer of visas for farmers, particularly their families and friends.

Some media commentators have touted Dutton as a possible replacement for Turnbull, whose government is showing signs of unravelling. Last December, Turnbull elevated Dutton to the new position of home affairs minister, allocating him vast repressive powers. In effect, Dutton became a “national security” supremo, in charge of Australia’s intelligence agencies, immigration department, the Australian Border Force, the Australian Federal Police, “cyber security” and citizenship laws.

Sri Lankan prime minister narrowly survives no-confidence resolution

K. Ratnayake

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe survived a no-confidence motion by 122 to 76 votes after a 12-hour parliamentary debate last Wednesday. The motion was moved by the Joint Opposition, a parliamentary faction led by former president Mahinda Rajapakse. The group has publicly vowed to bring down the government.

The main pretext of the no-confidence motion was a multi-billion rupee scam involving Central Bank bonds and Perpetual Treasuries, a financial company, two months after President Maithripala Sirisena took office in January 2015. Wickremesinghe is accused of appointing and defending former Central Bank governor Arjun Mahendran, who was implicated in the scandal.

The motion also accused Wickremesinghe, who was law and order minister, of failing to promptly stop anti-Muslim riots by Sinhala Buddhist extremists last month in the Kandy district.

The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), which is led by Sirisena, is a partner of the so-called national unity government with Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP).

SLFP parliamentarians were politically divided before Wednesday’s vote—41 supported the government and 54 were with Rajapakse. The no-confidence motion deepened the factional tensions, further destabilising the government. On Wednesday, 16 SLFP parliamentarians loyal to Sirisena voted for the opposition resolution and at least 20 abstained.

Since the humiliating defeat of ruling coalition candidates in February’s local government elections, Sirisena has sought to distance his SLFP loyalists from the government. The president did not publicly oppose the no-confidence motion but advised SLFP members to vote according to their “conscience.” Senior SLFP minister Nimal Siripala de Silva demanded that Wickremesinghe resign before the parliamentary debate, a proposal widely interpreted as a political message from Sirisena.

Sirisena has not publicly explained what he will do after a faction of his group endorsed the no-confidence motion. Wickremesinghe simply declared he would continue with the unity government after discussions with the president. Senior members of the UNP, however, are demanding the removal of SLFP ministers who voted with the opposition. Adding to Wickremesinghe’s crisis, the SLFP ministers said they would not resign, declaring that the president was leader of the government.

The differences between Sirisena, Wickremesinghe and Rajapakse, however, are entirely tactical. The principal concern of the ruling class is a growing financial crisis and the mounting political opposition of workers, youth and the rural poor to the government’s austerity measures.

Sirisena was elected president, with Wickremesinghe’s backing, in 2015 by exploiting the mass opposition to Rajapakse’s autocratic rule and anti-democratic attacks on social rights.

While the incoming administration introduced some cosmetic measures, mounting economic problems forced it to negotiate an International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout loan and implement the IMF’s austerity dictates. The past two years have been marked by increasing struggles of workers, students and farmers, as well as Tamils in the north and east, whose conditions were devastated by war.

Underscoring this popular opposition, on Tuesday thousands of workers at Colombo’s Katunayake international airport staged a wild-cat strike, blocking access roads and demanding higher wages. The militant walkout ended after government ministers quickly promised to grant the strikers’ demand.

At the same time, over 15,000 non-academic university workers remain on strike after walking out indefinitely in February. They are demanding higher wages and pension and medical schemes.

A day before the no-confidence debate, Central Bank Governor Indrajit Coomaraswamy pointed to the economic crisis and outstanding IMF demands. “We need to move away from the current political instability and achieve a stable outcome soon,” he warned.

Coomaraswamy said the government should have implemented a new fuel price formula—i.e., raised prices in line with the world market—as previously demanded by the IMF.

“The deadline was missed as political instability struck in the wake of the local government election results,” Coomaraswamy said. “A similar price transfer of electricity has been set for September but it is unclear whether the government will meet it.”

The Rajapakse group’s no-confidence resolution had nothing to do with the Central Bank bond scam or attacks on Muslims. The former Rajapakse regime and its close associates were mired in nepotism, corruption and Sinhala chauvinism.

Like Sirisena and Wickremesinghe, Rajapakse nurtured extreme-right Sinhala Buddhist groups and gave them a free hand to provoke anti-Tamil and anti-Muslim riots. Movements such as Bodu Bala Sena and Maha Sohon Balakaya, which were involved in the recent attacks on Muslims, began during Rajapakse’s rule. Local members of the Rajapakse-led Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) have been arrested for their involvement in the anti-Muslim attacks in the Kandy district.

Rajapakse’s SLPP won a majority of local government positions in the February elections by capitalising on the widespread popular opposition to the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration. Rajapakse and his allies are building an extreme-right movement, appealing to the military, the Buddhist hierarchy and other right-wing forces to take on the working people.

Parliamentarians from the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the main bourgeois Tamil party, opposed Wednesday’s no-confidence motion. The TNA supported Sirisena’s election as president and has been a close ally of the pro-US government since then. Serving the geopolitical interests of US and India, the TNA calculates that the best way to secure the interests of the Tamil elite is by assisting the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration.

Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake told parliament the no-confidence motion was “politically motivated” by the Rajapakse camp, but falsely claimed it was “against corruption and racism.”

The JVP manoeuvres between all factions of the ruling elite. It backed Rajapakse to come to power in 2005 and ten years later, in 2015, supported Sirisena. The JVP served for four months on Sirisena’s national executive council to help stabilise his regime.

The desperate right-wing manoeuvres of these competing factions are a warning to the working class. The ruling class is committed to implementing the IMF’s demands and has already deployed police and military against workers, students and farmers opposing the government’s attacks on living conditions. Facing a worsening economic crisis, the factions are all moving toward the imposition of dictatorial forms of rule.

The working class must build its own independent socialist movement to rally poor farmers and youth, and fight for a workers’ and peasants’ government to implement socialist policies. This is the perspective advanced by the Socialist Equality Party.

Haitian army general staff appointed amid tensions with the Dominican Republic

John Marion

Recent events show that workers and peasants face grave dangers as the ruling elite on both sides of Hispaniola resurrect figures from their violent pasts.

Haitian President Jovenel Moïse announced on March 13 the appointment of six general staff members for the reconstituted Forces Armées d’Haïti. All six held senior posts in the FAd’H before it was disbanded by President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1995. Three have blood on their hands from the period of the Raoul Cédras military dictatorship in the early 1990s.

Colonel Jean-Robert Gabriel, a new assistant chief of staff, was convicted in absentia for his role in the April 1994 Raboteau Massacre under Cédras. After his appointment to the new general staff was announced, the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux, which had secured his conviction in connection with Raboteau in 2000, issued a press release noting that not only was he complicit in the massacre, but he also was a torturer under Cédras.

A Haitian court overturned Gabriel’s conviction in 2006, using a technicality it had dredged up from a 1928 law passed during the American occupation.

Brigade General Sadrac Saintil, the new army chief of staff, was a Lieutenant Colonel during the Cédras regime and participated in the official whitewash of the Raboteau Massacre.

Another assistant chief of staff in the resurrected army, Derby Guerrier, had his assets frozen by the US Treasury in 1993 because of his role in the Cédras dictatorship. The current acting commander in chief of the FAd’H, Jodel Lesage, served in the military of Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier and was trained by the US military as a member of the Leopard Corps.

In announcing the appointments, Moïse claimed that the army will be used to manage responses to natural disasters and as a coast guard. He undoubtedly views it as a replacement for the United Nations’ hated forces and the US military, which deployed far fewer marines after Hurricane Matthew than after the 2010 earthquake.

The US, France, and the UN view the Haitian National Police, which they helped build up to 15,000 members, as a more effective means of suppressing domestic unrest than military troops. US Senator Marco Rubio had this tactic in mind when he pretended last month to oppose Moïse’s military appointments, telling the Miami Herald, “I continue to question why, with so many other needs, Haiti would pursue creating an army.”

While the reconstituted army has fewer than 200 troops at present, Haitian Defense Minister Hervé Denis plans to recruit 5,000.

Despite his protestations about human rights, Moïse also sees the army as a means of addressing tensions along the border with the Dominican Republic. There is currently no criminal extradition treaty between the two countries, but in March the Dominican military demanded the extradition of a Haitian suspected in the murder of a Dominican husband and wife in Pedernales.

In response, Haitian judge Françoise Morailles told Le Nouvelliste that “more than ever it is time for the FAd’H…to get to work on the violent situation with which Haitians find themselves confronted at the border.”

Ramfis Domínguez Trujillo, the grandson of murderous dictator Rafael Leónidas Trujillo, has announced his candidacy for the upcoming presidential election in the Dominican Republic. According to a Gallup poll last month, 42 percent of Dominicans support his candidacy while 51 percent are opposed. In order to give his campaign a populist air, Trujillo is promising to institute anti-corruption measures that would include 30-year jail terms for guilty officials.

More ominously, he is proposing to build a border wall between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic is already monitoring parts of the border with drones and cameras.

On Sunday, according to the Providence Journal, Trujillo told a group of Dominican emigrants in Rhode Island that “we need to hold a tough and firm stance before the peaceful Haitian invasion. We need to remove all Haitians who are in the country illegally.”

In the Pedernales case, a Haitian named Edner Noël is accused of murdering a couple on whose Dominican ranch he had worked. He was captured and jailed in Haiti after crossing the border.

After the murders, vigilantes drove through Pedernales in a pickup truck with a loud speaker on March 13 and demanded that all Haitians leave within 24 hours. At least 250 families fled across the border to Anse-à-Pitres. Dominican President Danilo Medina ordered the deployment of 60 soldiers to Pedernales, along with 30 anti-riot police.

There are conflicting reports of whether Haitians had been killed in retaliation, with the mayor of Anse-à-Pitres on the Haitian side of the border telling Le Nouvelliste that he had heard reports of deaths. Tensions continued to be high two weeks after the murders, with the international market still closed by Dominican authorities.

In a second incident, a Dominican was murdered on March 19 in Barahona province, with a Haitian co-worker named Jacques Estimphil accused of the crime. The Haitian refugee support group GARR told Alterpresse that approximately 100 people had fled across the border to Haiti to avoid reprisals. Dominican soldiers stopped people who were trying to flee and demanded bribes of 150 pesos.

Charities work with UK Home Office to deport rough sleepers

Tom Pearce 

At least three homeless charities and a number of local authorities in the UK have colluded with the Home Office in the deportation of people who are sleeping rough and whom they deem to be in the country illegally.

This was first established last year by the Corporate Watch group through freedom of information (FOI) requests to London councils.

Among these is St. Mungo’s, which has one of the largest homeless outreach services in the UK with more than 15 teams across the south of the England. Its web site explains, “We work to prevent homelessness and support people at every step of their recovery from homelessness.”

This seems not to apply if you are deemed to be an “illegal” immigrant.

Last month, the charity admitted cooperating with the Home Office’s compliance and enforcement teams (ICE) when the latter goes searching for rough sleepers deemed to be in the UK illegally.

The latest revelations came to light in a September 2016 Home Office training document obtained by the Guardian last month. The St. Mungo’s logo was featured on the document, which read: “This teamwork which sees both the charity referring eligible people to immigration enforcement [IE] for help with voluntary returns and IE referring people to St. Mungo’s has already proved beneficial for both bodies.”

Questioned about its work with the Home Office, St. Mungo’s said some of its contracts with local authorities specified that it should work with ICE teams. “I get why that can be seen as strange and unpopular for some people,” said Petra Salva, the charity’s director of rough sleeping services. “It’s a difficult climate we’re operating in.”

If this weren’t enough to demonstrate the pernicious role played by the charity, Salva confirmed that Home Office enforcement teams are “go[ing] up to individuals sleeping in sleeping bags and interviewing them [and] end up arresting them.”

Despite Salva’s claim, “We don’t believe our outreach staff have accompanied ICE teams this year,” the Guardian reported, “It continues to work with the Home Office by passing on details of people from other countries who wish to return home.”

In 2017, the rough sleeping rate in London (per 1,000 households) showed an 18 percent rise since 2016, with 59 percent of rough sleepers in the capital being non-UK nationals.

Corporate Watch found that the practice of homeless charities collaborating with the Home Office is rife. Its devastating March 2017 exposure established that “Outreach teams from charities, Thames Reach, and Change, Grow, Live (CGL) conduct regular joint ‘visits’ with Immigration Enforcement officers, as often as fortnightly in central [London] boroughs.”

It found that the charities were persuading non-UK rough sleepers to leave “voluntarily.” However, the figures uncovered showed “that detention and enforced deportation is more common” and that “in any case, so-called ‘voluntary’ departures are carried out under the threat of force.”

Corporate Watch found a routine practice of Outreach teams pass[ing] “on locations of non-UK rough sleepers to ICE, including through the London-wide CHAIN database, and through local co-operation agreements.” This also had the approval of Conservative-run Westminster council, which consistently lobbied for a tougher policy on migrant rough sleepers, with the policy “encouraged by the ‘Mayor’s Rough Sleeping Group,’ which included senior charity managers from St Mungo’s, Thames Reach, and Homeless Link.”

Its research found that the rights of people from the European Economic Area (EEA) have been eroded by loopholes in the law since 2016. People from EEA countries should be allowed to stay for three months without condition as part of exercising their “treaty rights,” which includes being, “employed or self-employed, seeking work, studying” or being “self-sufficient.” However, since 2016, the Home Office has changed the guidance and classified rough sleepers as “abusing their treaty rights,” even if they were working or have been in the country for less than three months.

ICE has the power to deport people immediately. Although the wording has since been changed to include the word “proportionality,” it means that a member of ICE can decide if removing a rough sleeper is correct due to circumstances. This is where the outreach charities pass their information on to ensure the process goes smoothly.

The callous nature of the work being carried out by the charities was revealed in an FOI request from Hammersmith and Fulham council. Corporate Watch noted that the council disclosed a “local protocol” produced by St. Mungo’s for its homeless outreach teams. Its report notes: “According to this document…St. Mungo’s outreach workers should assess the nationality of all rough sleepers they encounter and, if they are European citizens, also assess whether they are ‘exercising their treaty rights’: for example, seeking employment or education. The St. Mungo’s document states in bold type the procedure to be followed if a rough sleeper is judged to ‘not exercise their treaty rights’ over a period of time.”

The document continues: “These individuals’ details will be passed on to the ICE by the outreach team. Following this a joint shift will be agreed with outreach, ICE, Parks Police to target/tackle these individuals.”

Corporate Watch noted the scale of persecution of the homeless in these operations. “Outreach teams from charities St. Mungo’s, Thames Reach, and Change, Grow, Live (CGL) conduct regular joint ‘visits’ with Immigration Enforcement officers, as often as fortnightly in central boroughs. Freedom of Information (FOI) responses show 141 such patrols organised by the GLA and 12 London boroughs last year. This figure does not include Westminster, the biggest concentration of London homelessness, where patrols are likely to be even more frequent.

“Joint visits in just eight of these areas led to 133 rough sleepers being detained, while 127 people were deported in under a year in Westminster alone.”

Collaboration between homeless charities and the state has increased over the past four years with the creation of the London Homelessness Social Impact Bond (SIB), where providers are paid on a payment-by-results basis for their effectiveness in assisting rough sleepers. In February 2017, Labour Party London Mayor Sadiq Khan approved the decision to continue with £4.2 million in SIB funding.

He was forced to suspend ICE patrols in response to the revelations that have emerged. Despite these temporary changes, the scheme continues and there is no indication that the Khan will end the SIB. The main beneficiaries are St. Mungo’s and Thames Reach, which were both contracted with delivering “services to half of a cohort of 831 entrenched rough sleepers.”

In November 2017, the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government released a report: “London homelessness social impact bond evaluation.” It hailed the success of the payment-by-results approach and the profiting from the removing of rough sleepers, saying it “had stimulated providers to develop an innovative and effective delivery model.”

Charities tailoring their work to the requirements of the capitalist state are the result of the drive by successive governments to hand over responsibility for public health and safety provision to the so-called “Third Sector.” This outsourcing of responsibilities to charities and voluntary organisations has been an integral part of the privatisation of vital services.

The revealing of the intimate relationship between St. Mungo’s and the repressive apparatus of the state follows the exposure last year that the Shelter housing charity had trustees that were connected to corporations involved in the Grenfell fire.

One of Shelter’s board, Tony Rice, was forced to resign when it was revealed that he was—and remains—the chairman of Xerxes Equity, a construction industry investment group that is the sole shareholder in Omnis Exteriors. This is the company that sold the flammable cladding to contractors hired by the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation—who managed Grenfell Tower on behalf of Kensington and Chelsea council—for the “refurbishment” of the tower.”

British government admits MI5 enjoys carte blanche to break the law

Simon Whelan

“ This attempted murder using a weapons-grade nerve agent in a British town was not just a crime against the Skripals. It was an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom, putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk. ”

This was one of the many statements by UK Prime Minister Theresa May accusing Russia, without any credible evidence being made available, of committing crimes on British soil with the “attempted assassination” of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.

The mendacity of May and the British ruling elite—who have universally backed her claims—knows no bounds. The accusations against Russia were made as it was finally admitted that MI5 (Military Intelligence section five—Britain’s domestic intelligence agency) is permitted to carry out criminal activity.

Earlier this month, after a seven-month legal battle by human rights groups Reprieve and Privacy International, the May government revealed that, under a previously secret order, MI5 is entitled to break the law and to commit crimes in pursuit of its aims.

In a written statement to Parliament on March 1, May said she had instructed Lord Justice Fulford, the investigatory powers commissioner (IPC), to “keep under review the application of the security service guidelines on the use of agents who participate in criminality and the authorisations issued in accordance with them”.

The direction to the IPC is entitled “security service participation in criminality.” The one-page text instructs the IPC to oversee the participation of MI5 officers in criminal activity under a previously secret order known as the “third direction.”

Had the legal case not been mounted by Reprieve and Privacy International, it is likely that the ministerial order would never have seen the light of day—as it has remained secret since it was first written into law in 2014.

After the announcement, a solicitor for Privacy International, Millie Graham Wood, asserted, “Had we not sought to challenge the government over the failure to publish this direction, together with Reprieve, it is questionable whether it would have ever been brought to light. It is wrong in principle for there to be entire areas of intelligence oversight and potentially of intelligence activity, about which the public knows nothing at all.”

The government directive covers the operations of what they call “Covert Human Intelligence Sources [CHIS],” who are trained to provide intelligence on British citizens deemed a threat to national security and worthy of attention by the state.

The government attempted to keep even the few paragraphs released under lock and key, arguing that publication would damage national security. The guidance itself, concerning when British spies can commit crimes, and how far they are able to go, remains confidential.

In 2016, a report published by Intelligence Services Commissioner Sir Mark Waller clearly hinted at the fact that M15 is authorised to commit criminal activity. Headed “Agent Participation in the Commission of an Offence,” it stated, “Agents are one of the most significant information gathering assets we have.”

It continued, “There may be occasions where a CHIS participates in a criminal offence in order to gather the required intelligence, for example, membership of a proscribed organisation or handling stolen goods.”

Reprieve and Privacy International are demanding that the full security service guidelines be published.

After the note was released, Reprieve’s Maya Foa said, “After a seven-month legal battle the prime minister has finally been forced to publish her secret order but we are a long way from having transparency. The public and parliament are still being denied the guidance that says when British spies can commit criminal offences and how far they can go. Authorised criminality is the most intrusive power a state can wield. Theresa May must publish this guidance without delay.”

May will do no such thing. The British state has zero intention of revealing their modus operandi of dirty state operations.

Even the minute amount released reveals that there is one rule book for working people and another for MI5 and the intelligence agencies. While workers and young people are being incarcerated at an accelerated rate for even petty crimes, the forces of the state have carte blanche for their lawless operations.

The acknowledgement of an official sanction for state operatives to behave criminally in pursuit of their nefarious aims received only cursory attention in the media, which merely noted that the document was now in the public domain.

MI5 has been involved in subverting democracy by spying, criminal collusion, conspiracy, infiltration and political provocation. Its main target has been the working class, especially the socialist movement.

Former MI5 operative and dyed-in-the-wool anti-communist Peter Wright detailed some of its activities, but by no means all of them, in his 1987 book Spycatcher. In the book, Wright described how he and his colleagues in MI5 “bugged and burgled” their way across London and the UK.

He detailed “black bag” operations carried out by the agency against the Labour government of Harold Wilson in the 1960s and 1970s. It is now well documented that MI5 had its dirty digits all over a plot during the early 1970s to organise secret fascistic paramilitary forces and private armies to overthrow Wilson and install Lord Mountbatten as the head of an extreme right-wing military dictatorship.

Spycatcher, whose publication the Tory government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher attempted to suppress at the time, revealed that the British state spied upon and infiltrated agents into the forerunners of the Socialist Equality Party in the UK—the Socialist Labour League (SLL) and the Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP).

Wright revealed that MI5 boasted of effectively running the Communist Party of Great Britain—such was the depth of their agents’ penetration into the party. Subsequently, MI5 turned more of their resources to what Wright described as “the far and wide left”—i.e., Trotskyism.

Former MI5 agent David Shayler has subsequently revealed that the British state had a high-level informer within the SLL/WRP in a leading party position in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a period of enormous revolutionary potential in Britain and internationally.

Even the recent authorised official history of MI5 by Christopher Andrew, published in 2009 to mark the 100th anniversary of the foundation of what was initially known as the Secret Service Bureau, acknowledges that the WRP was under surveillance by MI5’s “F Branch,” which was responsible for “counter-subversion.”

There is ample evidence that MI5 was heavily involved in the Thatcher government efforts to defeat the miners during the 1984/1985 strike. Among their anti-democratic strikebreaking activities was the infiltration of agent Roger Windsor into the National Union of Mineworkers leadership.

There is no doubt that, under conditions in which social and political antagonisms are reaching the breaking point, the state security apparatus has accelerated its anti-working class and anti-socialist activities. That is the real reason May’s acknowledgement received virtually no comment in the media.

Hungary on the eve of parliamentary elections

Markus Salzmann

According to current opinion polls, the right-wing Fidesz Party will secure victory in Sunday’s parliamentary elections in Hungary. Prime Minister Viktor Orban will then begin his third term in office. The neo-fascist party Jobbik is expected to emerge in second place.

Orban has been in office since 2010, and he previously headed the government between 1998 and 2002. In the last election four years ago Fidesz finished with 45 percent, well ahead of the Social Democrats (MSZp), with 26 percent, and Jobbik, with 20 percent.

During his eight years in office, Orban has pursued far-right policies and established an authoritarian regime. Important positions in the state apparatus are occupied by political cronies and the independence of the judiciary has all but ceased to exist. The constitution has been amended on several occasions to suit the government. Immediately after his election victory in 2010, Orban effectively abolished press freedom and silenced opposition media outlets.

However, even though the electoral system has been tailored to suit Fidesz, unrest predominates in government circles.

At the end of February, Fidesz suffered a shock election defeat in Hódmezövásárhely, a town of 50,000 that was one of its strongholds. Peter Marki-Zay, the independent candidate, won the mayoral election with 57 percent of the vote, while the Fidesz candidate got just 41 percent. Janos Lazar, Orban’s right-hand man and head of the chancellery, is from Hódmezövásárhely and was mayor of the town for many years. Previously, Fidesz had usually won elections there with 60 percent of the vote.

Marki-Zay, a former Fidesz supporter and chair of the local Roman Catholic priests’ council, received backing from Jobbik, the Greens, and “left” parties, which gave the election national prominence, coming just six weeks ahead of the parliamentary vote.

The Hódmezövásárhely result unleashed a wave of panic in government circles. They fear that Fidesz will lose the two-thirds majority in parliament that enabled it to change the constitution. The result was a symptom of mounting social and political opposition in a country where unemployment and poverty are rampant, in spite of the low official figures.

Orban’s son-in-law is also implicated in a corruption scandal. Hungary is currently 66th on Transparency International’s list of the most corrupt countries, behind Montenegro and Romania.

Alongside declining levels of support, Orban also confronts a growing strike movement. Strikes have taken place this year in the public sector and in retail. Strikes and protests have also occurred recently in other Eastern European states, against low wages, poor working conditions, and the precarious social situation.

The relatively low level of unemployment is linked to the use of so-called work programmes, under which the unemployed perform community services for €180 per month. It is impossible for anyone to live on this sum. Hungary has fallen from 20 to 29 in the European Health Consumer Index, a comparison of healthcare systems across the continent. The education system is at the breaking point. Pupil performance in maths and reading has deteriorated sharply, according to the Program for International Student Assessment, which compares education systems around the globe.

Under these conditions, Orban has waged a despicable campaign for the election, targeting refugees and those who assist them. In his address to mark Hungary’s national day, Orban played the anti-European Union card and stoked the fear of immigration from Islamic countries. The EU intends “to change the face of the European population,” he stated, before predicting, “One day, the West Europeans will wake up in countries no longer their own.”

With the so-called “Stop Soros” law, Orban plans to end the activities of refugee organisations in the country, which will result in a drastic worsening of the already terrible conditions refugees face. For months, the government in Budapest has been waging a campaign against US-based multibillionaire George Soros that contains unmistakable anti-Semitic undertones. The government accuses Soros, a Holocaust survivor who comes originally from Hungary, of deliberately encouraging millions of Muslims to come to Europe so as to rob Europeans of their Christian and national identities.

According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, tens of thousands of placards have been hung since the beginning of the campaign depicting Soros’ enlarged smiling face and the slogan, “Don’t let Soros have the last laugh!” Other placards show Soros as a puppet master making the opposition candidates dance.

Orban has already made life unbearable for refugees in Hungary by building a border fence, establishing camps at the borders, and launching a vicious crackdown on border crossings. In spite of criticism from Brussels, Orban continues to reject refugee resettlement quotas proposed by the EU. Based on anti-immigrant agitation, he has adopted a number of laws with Jobbik’s support.

Although Orban’s support is declining, he can be relatively confident of victory due to the miserable state of the opposition. The parties are fragmented and in some cases bitterly internally divided. The social democratic MSZP, which came second last time around, is set to suffer a major defeat. The Democratic Coalition (DK), a split-off from MSZP led by former Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany, will be represented in parliament but will not play a significant role.

The Green LMP (Politics Can be Different) could also surpass the 5 percent hurdle for parliamentary representation. After a split in 2013, it underwent a sharp shift to the right. Lead candidate Bernadett Szel declared that immigration remains “a national issue.” Orban’s border fence should also stay in place, she said.

The extent of the social democrats’ and Greens’ lurch to the right was made clear at the beginning of the year, when the government decided to accept a few refugees entitled to subsidiary protection after they arrived in the country last year. The opposition on the left and right sharply criticised the government, claiming that refugees were “being accepted through the back door.” With the support of the MsZP and LMP, Jobbik applied for an emergency session of parliament.

Due to wide-ranging political agreement, several joint initiatives between the MSZP, LMP, and far-right Jobbik have occurred during the election campaign.

Sunday’s elections are being watched with mixed feelings in Europe’s capital cities. While criticism has focused on Budapest’s good relations with Moscow, praise has grown recently for Orban’s far-right policies.

In early January, the Austrian government of the conservative Austrian People’s Party and far-right Freedom Party extended a warm welcome to Orban in Vienna. At a press conference, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz noted the commonalities between both governments’ policies. “I am grateful that on protecting Europe’s borders, we are on the same page,” he said. “We must stop illegal immigration in order to guarantee security in the EU.”

Without being challenged, Orban was able to invoke the threat of a “mass migration of peoples” as the greatest danger for Central Europe. Orban subsequently met with investor Heinrich Pecina. In consultation with Orban, the founder of Vienna Capital Partners shut down Népszabadság, a newspaper critical of the government, in October 2016.

The German government also backs Orban. In January, he was the guest of a Christian Social Union party congress in Seeon, Bavaria. Horst Seehofer, who is now German interior minister, fully endorsed Orban’s anti-refugee policies and praised the self-appointed “border protection captain” for shutting down the Balkan route.

Trump reverses himself on Syria pullout order

Patrick Martin

After a reportedly heated meeting of the US National Security Council on Wednesday, the Trump White House announced that there was no change in US policy toward Syria, despite a volley of comments and tweets by President Trump demanding an immediate pullout of the 2,000 US troops now deployed in the country.

The meeting with the National Security Council was essentially a conference between Trump and his generals, since he has no current top-level civilian foreign policy advisers.

Trump fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson last month, and his successor, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, has not yet been confirmed. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, an Army general, is a lame duck, and his replacement, former Bush administration UN Ambassador John Bolton, does not begin work until next week.

As a consequence, the meeting Wednesday involved Trump and Secretary of Defense James Mattis (a retired Marine Corps general); the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunsford; and the head of the Pentagon’s Central Command, General Joseph Votel, to discuss Syria policy.

The White House issued a brief statement after the meeting, declaring, “The military mission to eradicate ISIS in Syria is coming to a rapid end,” but adding that it would continue. At the same time, Washington appealed to “countries in the region and beyond, plus the United Nations, to work toward peace and ensure that ISIS never re-emerges.”

Press reports suggested that Trump had told the military brass that he wanted a complete pullout within six months, an indication that the wrangling over Syria is largely motivated by domestic political considerations. Trump wants to have the option of announcing a supposedly triumphant end to the Syrian intervention on the eve of the November 6 congressional election, now seven months away.

The Republican Party is trailing badly in the polls and has suffered a series of recent reverses in key industrial states, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Significantly, Trump made his initial announcement about withdrawing all US troops from Syria at a campaign-style rally in Ohio, another key industrial state in the Midwest. He is acutely aware—and the audience response at the rally demonstrated it—that the American public is deeply hostile to military interventions in the Middle East.

There is an enormous gulf between this popular antiwar sentiment and the demands of the military-intelligence apparatus, the Democratic and Republican parties, and the corporate media, where there has been near-universal denunciation of Trump’s suggestion of a pullout from Syria.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who plays a major role on national security policy in the Republican caucus, warned on Fox News Sunday that a withdrawal from Syria was the worst decision Trump could make.

On Tuesday, there was a revealing split-screen moment, when Trump was declaring his support for withdrawal from Syria at a White House press briefing, at the very time that two top US officials, General Votel of Central Command, and Brett McGurk, the State Department coordinator of the campaign against ISIS, were a few blocks away addressing the US Institute for Peace, a think tank devoted, of course, to imperialist war, about the necessity to stay the course.

“We are in Syria to fight ISIS. That is our mission, and our mission isn’t over,” McGurk told the audience, citing two large pockets of ISIS fighters numbering several thousand men, and including ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. “We have to work through some very difficult issues as we speak,” he said. “We are going to complete that mission.”

General Votel was even more categorical, saying, “The hard part, I think, is in front of us, and that is stabilizing these areas, consolidating our gains, getting people back into their homes.” He added, “There is a military role in this, certainly in the stabilization phase.”

Wednesday’s NSC meeting was only the latest demonstration of the sway that the generals exercise in all Trump administration policy matters. Besides the generals on the other side of the table, briefing Trump, his own chief of staff, John Kelly, is a retired Marine Corps general implacably opposed to any “premature” withdrawal of US forces from Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan.

The NSC meeting coincided with the meeting in the Turkish capital of Ankara between Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss the political situation in Syria in the wake of the destruction of ISIS and the military advances of forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The three presidents agreed on maintaining the territorial integrity of Syria, an implicit rejection of Kurdish aspirations in the region.

At the same time, the Associated Press reported Wednesday that United States troops were building new positions near the front line close to the Syrian-Turkish border, with outposts flying the American flag. According to this report, “The structures look much like the fighting positions once seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, which projected a clear message: ‘We’re here for a while.’”

A top US general Thursday emphasized that Trump had not set a deadline for withdrawing US troops from Syria, despite his statement to that effect at a campaign rally last week, several tweets, and his comments to the press Tuesday during an appearance with visiting leaders of the three Baltic states.

Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the director of the Joint Staff, told a Pentagon press briefing, “One of the things that we haven’t been given is a timeline,” and he went on to praise Trump, saying, “The President has actually been very good in not giving us a specific timeline.”

In a transparent effort to flatter Trump, General McKenzie contrasted the current posture in Syria with timelines like those set by the Obama administration in Afghanistan, where, he said, US forces “operated against a timeline that was known to the enemy.”

The real attitude towards Trump’s vacillations about Syria was spelled out in a scathing editorial published Thursday night by the Washington Post, which has been aligned with the Democratic Party efforts to push Trump towards a more confrontational policy against Russia.

Under the headline, “Trump’s mind-boggling gift to America’s enemies,” the Post took note of Trump’s belated climb-down before the demands of his “national security team,” and then warned of the devastating consequences that a pullout from Syria would have for the interests of US imperialism.

Brushing aside the question of ISIS, which has always been a pretext, calling it “only one of the major US interests at stake,” the Post spelled out the main US war aims: “preventing Iran and Russia from entrenching in the country at the expense of U.S. allies including Israel and Jordan;” as well as “preserving Turkey’s place as a NATO ally” and preventing “destabilizing waves of refugees headed for Europe.”

The editorial continued, making a sinister connection between US policy in Syria and the ongoing anti-Russian campaign by the Democrats and their media mouthpieces like the Post and the New York Times: “That Mr. Trump’s intended retreat is a gift to Vladimir Putin perhaps should not be surprising, given Mr. Trump’s curious eagerness to accommodate the Russian ruler.”

Capitalism and the artificial intelligence revolution

Andre Damon

Last month, over 3,000 Google employees signed a letter taking a stand against Google’s collusion with the United States’ drone assassination program, which has killed and maimed tens of thousands of people throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Google employees demanded that the company end its participation in “Project Maven,” a system of mass drone surveillance integrated with the US drone warfare program, declaring, “We believe that Google should not be in the business of war.” It called for the adoption of a policy stating that “neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology.”

Google’s collusion with the drone assassination program highlights the growing integration of the major technology companies with the US military, which, having declared a new era of “great-power competition” with Russia and China, sees pressing Silicon Valley into its war plans as the only way to regain its military power on the world stage.

Just as ominous is Google’s role in mass domestic surveillance and censorship. In April of 2017, Google announced changes in its search algorithms—implemented through the use of “deep learning” and artificial intelligence technologies—to promote “authoritative content” over “alternative viewpoints.” These changes led to a sharp fall in search referrals to left-wing web sites by as much as 75 percent—with the World Socialist Web Site a central target.

More broadly, Google, Facebook and Twitter have hired tens of thousands of professional censors, many with backgrounds in the military, police and intelligence agencies, to train and augment their artificial intelligence systems to censor and police what people say and read online.

Central to both the military’s recruitment of the technology companies and the partnership of these firms with the intelligence agencies is the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology. Using the power of artificial intelligence, Google is helping the US military to mesh together drone footage to identify individuals and objects in a targeted area.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg declared earlier this year that its “goal with AI [artificial intelligence] is to understand the meaning of all the content on Facebook,” as part of manipulations to the social media giant’s News Feed.

The object of the military and intelligence agencies’ use of artificial intelligence is the holy grail of every totalitarian regime: what the National Security Agency called “total information awareness,” or, as its unofficial mission statement put it, “Collect It All, Know It All… Exploit It All.”

This mission statement, which in another context would seem to be an unhinged dictator’s megalomaniacal fantasy, is fast becoming an imminent reality through the power of artificial intelligence.

In his statement to the World Socialist Web Site's January 16 online webinar, "Organizing Resistance to Internet Censorship," Wikileaks founder Julian Assange warned of the immense dangers posed to humanity by the misuse of artificial intelligence.

“The future of humanity is the struggle between humans that control machines and machines that control humans. Between the democratization of communication and usurpation of communication by artificial intelligence,” Assange warned. “Undetectable mass social influence powered by artificial intelligence is an existential threat to humanity. The phenomena differs in traditional attempts to shape cultural and political phenomena by operating at scale, speed and increasingly at a subtlety that eclipses human capacities.”

The use of artificial intelligence for mass surveillance and war-making is only one of the destructive purposes to which this transformative technology is being used under capitalism.

Already, artificial intelligence is being used at Amazon warehouses to track every move employees make. Amazon’s systems count how many times workers go to the bathroom and alert foremen if workers stop to catch their breath in the up to 15 miles they are forced to walk during a single shift. At companies such as Uber and Lyft, artificial intelligence is used to push drivers to work longer and harder, often to the detriment of their health and well-being.

But even more radical changes are on the horizon. As ride-sharing companies and shipping lines rush to implement driverless cars, trucks and boats, tens of thousands of jobs will be eliminated. The integration of AI with robotics will extend the wave of mass automation that has already displaced countless thousands of industrial workers into every single field, from the building trades to food preparation, to custodial work and retail.

According to a 2013 survey by Oxford University, nearly half of US jobs will be destroyed by AI and robotics in the next two decades alone.

Since the industrial revolution, capitalism has managed to transform every development in technology into an instrument of human oppression and butchery. The introduction of the  spinning jenny ushered in the horrendous social misery of 19th century slums of London and Manchester. The cotton gin brought a resurgence of American slavery. The airplane was converted—through the doctrine of “strategic bombing”—into a method for killing civilians by the tens of thousands. And the nearly limitless energy created by nuclear fusion was turned into a means of destroying entire societies, and perhaps humanity itself.

But why should these technologies, which objectively create the conditions for a massive expansion of the standard of living for billions of people, be put to such horrendous uses? As the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky wrote in 1926:

Technique and science have their own logic—the logic of the cognition of nature and the mastering of it in the interests of man. But technique and science develop not in a vacuum but in human society, which consists of classes. The ruling class, the possessing class, controls technique and through it controls nature. Technique in itself cannot be called either militaristic or pacifistic. In a society in which the ruling class is militaristic, technique is in the service of militarism. (“Radio, Science, Technique and Society”)

In the hands of the ruling elites that control society under capitalism, every technological innovation becomes a cudgel: against the working class and against countries they seek to conquer and suppress through military violence.

In different hands, the same technology will produce different results. In a socialist society, the artificial intelligence and robotics revolution will create the circumstances for a massive elevation of not only the economic well-being of the population, but also its cultural life. The replacement of tedious and back-breaking occupations will mean not mass unemployment and destitution, but rather greater leisure and an expansion of workers’ opportunities for education, family life and cultural enrichment.

The automation of the building trades and the expansion of additive manufacturing (3D printing) to construction will vastly reduce the amount of labor required to build homes, schools and hospitals and ensure excellent housing for all. The leveraging of artificial intelligence in gene sequencing, drug development and analysis of medical studies will result in unprecedented breakthroughs in human health for the whole of humanity, not just the few who can pay soaring drug prices.

The roboticization of both farming and transportation will vastly reduce the cost of food, ending malnutrition and ensuring a high-quality diet for all—not the ruin of small farmers by agriculture conglomerates.

In holding out this prospect for humanity, Marxists base themselves on the traditions of the Enlightenment, which drew a connection between human progress in science and society. Just as men like Isaac Newton were unlocking the secrets of nature, so too society could be rationally understood, and, once understood, changed for the better.

This view stands in direct contrast to the middle-class pessimists of the Frankfurt School, who, in rejecting the Enlightenment, claimed that the theory of gravity paved the way to the gas chambers of Auschwitz. What demoralized intellectuals such as Herbert Marcuse and Max Horkheimer—who falsely claimed to be students of Karl Marx and whose theories are still palmed off as Marxism at universities—ignored was precisely Trotsky’s point: that “technique and science develop not in a vacuum but in human society, which consists of classes.”

The question is: Who controls the means of production, and thus society?

Two roads are open to humanity. The capitalist road offers a relentless escalation of war, poverty, mass repression and totalitarian dictatorship. The road of socialism offers not just freedom from all those horrors, but the liberation of all mankind from oppression and want.

Which road humanity takes will be decided through the class struggle. Amid a growing strike wave throughout the United States, Europe and the whole world, the most critical question is the unification of the disparate struggles by workers in different industries and countries into a common political movement for the socialist transformation of society. Only then will the vast technological revolution on the horizon be transformed into a revolution for human liberation, not human enslavement.

Regional Stability and Japan's Irresponsible Political Gambit

Sandip Kumar Mishra 


It is a critical time for the North Korean nuclear and missile issue, and South Korea, the US and other stakeholder states have accorded it their highest priority. Japan, however, is focusing its primary attention on the abduction of its citizens by North Korea, and has asked for the issue to be raised during the South Korea-North Korea and US-North Korea summit meets scheduled for April and May 2018, respectively. On 16 March, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe raised his concerns with over a telephonic conversation with the South Korean President Moon Jae-in. On 17 March, the Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kano raised the issue again with his South Korean counterpart, Kang Kyung-wha. On 2 April, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga reiterated that during the April summit meet between Japan and the US, Japan would request President Donald Trump to explore the possibility of a Japan-North Korea summit. Japan emphasised the abduction issue as the “most important task” in dealing with North Korea.
It is unfortunate that Abe is more concerned about domestic politics and is deliberately trying to deflect focus from the North Korean nuclear issue. Japan’s priority also emanates from a sense of being left out in dealing with North Korea, a trend referred to as ‘Japan passing’. 

According to Japan, 17 of its citizens were abducted by North Korea between 1977 and 1983 (North Korea claims that 13 were abducted). Five of them have already come back to Japan. While the abduction of these individuals is highly condemnable and entirely North Korea's fault, it is not appropriate to continue raising an issue that happened more than 35 years ago, part of which has been already resolved. The deliberate use of it, time and again, to derail efforts aimed at North Korea's denuclearisation is imprudent. In fact, North Korea has abducted more than 3,800 South Koreans, and it is estimated that 485 are still alive in North Korea. However, the South Korean leadership has focused on the larger issues in dealing with North Korea. Seoul's approach - that the future should be not be kept hostage to the past - does not imply a lack of concern for their citizens. Their interest in securing long-term regional stability in fact means quite the opposite. 

The Japanese attempt to raise the abductee issue is irresponsible. It will not contribute in any positive way to international attempts to deal with North Korea's nuclear weapons - in fact, Japan's moves may play spoiler to the positive momentum established in recent months. Shinzo Abe has resorted to playing this card for two important reasons. First, he feels that the current dynamics around the North Korean nuclear issue have moved towards negotiation and engagement, and Japan has no role in it. He sees ‘Japan passing’ as detrimental to Japan's regional standing. Perhaps it is believed that the ends will justify the means if the country is able to find an entry into the process. Japan is also concerned that if relative peace arrives with the amelioration of the nuclear threat and establishment of a US-China modus vivendi in dealing with the issue in a consensual framework, Japan would lose its aggressive posture's raison d'etre. Two, Japan’s behaviour could also be linked with the Liberal Democratic Party’s presidential election in autumn this year. Abe’s approval ratings have dropped after the finance ministry’s document-alteration scandal and he may feel apprehensive about a third straight victory in the presidential election.

Japan appears desperate, and from the very announcement of an important breakthrough during the South Korean envoys' visit to North Korea in early March, Japan has strategically and recurrently expressed its apprehensions. When the potential for summit meets between the US, South Korea and North Korea were announced, Abe hurriedly fixed up a summit meet with the US ahead of both. Japan has not asked for the inclusion of any positive content in these meetings and the deliberations are more likely to sow doubt at a time when the US is on board with South Korea's engagement efforts towards North Korea. 

Japan may be able to persuade Trump against a give-and-take deal with North Korea since there is a history of mistrust when it comes to North Korean peace offers, and there may also be doubt regarding South Korea's capacity to achieve anything substantial. However, Abe must realise that his political gambit will cause significant damage to Japan as a responsible stakeholder, and it is time to re-focus attention away from smaller past issues, to the most pressing threat to East Asian regional stability today.