Venezuela – US Attack Imminent?

Peter Koenig

Imagine, the President of the self-declared, exceptional and unique Superpower, Donald Trump of the United States of America, has the audacity to threaten the Venezuelan military with their lives, if they keep standing behind the democratically elected President Nicolás Maduro, and defending his Government. An open threat – yesterday, 18 February, at a Miami University, in a speech of ‘fire and fury’; this time against socialist Venezuela with which he wants to finish, like with all other socialist nations – especially those in his ‘backyard’. So, Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia are next in Trump’s crosshairs – and / or the crosshairs of his handlers. Don’t forget, he is a staged and convenient fool for the “Deep State” or the “Profound Government” – whatever you want to call this secret clan of the Chosen People that intends to rule the world.

I cannot help being amazed at what level of inhumanity we have arrived. Trump calls openly out to assassinate those who stand behind the legitimate President of Venezuela – and the rest of the world just looks on, watches and says NOTHING – zilch, zero – tolerates such atrocity coming from the mouth of a buffoon, aka the strongman of the self-proclaimed one and only superpower of the globe. – No, much worse – the so-called civilized west, the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan – and some second- and third class puppet developing countries from South America, whose people are being starved while the elite admires and dances to the tune of the USA; united in what they call the “Group of Lima” (created in Lima in August 2017, to “safe” Venezuela). Members include, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay and Peru.

In the meantime, Mexico, under her new leftwing President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, or simply, AMLO, abstains from any decision against Venezuela. To the contrary, Mexico is part of the “Montevideo Mechanism” that comprises Mexico, Uruguay, Bolivia and the member countries of CARICOM and seeks conflict resolution through dialogue with the opposition, for which the Maduro Government has been ready from the beginning of the conflict, but which has been boycotted by the opposition, as were the 20 May 2018 elections which the non-participating opposition now calls a fraud.

The Lima Group was initiated, as such unofficial clubs always are, to out-rule the official routes, by Washington. Similarly, Washington created “The Friends of Syria” – all with the objective to bring about “Regime Change”. In the case of Venezuela, to circumvent the official representation of the Americas – the OAS – Organization of American States. – Why? – Because the empire was unable to get the legitimate majority of the OAS members to side with them against Venezuela. So, they organized the Lima Group, a club of the willing, of the utmost corrupted vassals, who believe at the end of the days to receive some crumbs of ‘gracias’ from their northern master and tyrant – or the vassals’ leaders (sic) hope perhaps for a safe haven, a castle in Miami?

I often wonder whether such a dream of eventually, at the end of the day – the end of all days perhaps? – being saved by the surviving elite of the US of A in an untouched paradise, is also the dream of the European puppets, for example those that pull the EU’s strings – the Macrons, Merkels and Mays – and, of course, the rest of the EU, the puppets of the puppets? – What else could make them so miserably betray their people, hundreds of millions of people? – Do they have not an iota of morals left?

---

Coming back to Venezuela – the Buffoon calls for outright war against the Maduro regime – and to salvage the Venezuelan people, he sent US$ 20 million worth of “humanitarian aid” to Cucutá, border town in Colombia, which, of course, the Bolivarian army does not let enter Venezuela. There is no need for humanitarian aid, let alone for US$ 20 million worth, peanuts, as compared to what Venezuela buys on a daily basis in food and medical supplies.

Undeniably, the US warmongers – specially Bolton, Pompeo and Pence – are preparing for a hot war. Whether they will execute it, remains to be seen. But the Bolivarian military does not idly watch what may happen. They are ready to face any Yankee aggression. The US southern military command, SOUTHCOM, stationed in Florida, is preparing an impressive military build-up. The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, with 3,200 military personnel, 90 fighter planes and helicopters is positioned off the Florida coast, accompanied by the cruise missile carrier, USS Leyte Gulf, and the destroyers, USS Bainbridge, USS Gonzalez, USS Mason, and USS Nite. Joining the fleet is also the Spanish marine ship ESPS Mendez Nuñez.

The Spanish participation in this war game of criminal aggression is outrageous. The Spanish socialist leader, Pedro Sanchez (who certainly does not deserve the attribute of ‘socialist’), has also had the audacity requesting Nicolas Maduro to resign and call elections. Who is the (faltering) head of the fallen Spanish empire to meddle in another country’s internal affairs? – Maybe because the Spaniards can still not stomach having been defeated by Simón Bolívar, still feel superior and behave racist over the ‘brown’ Latinos, or maybe because he wants to please the masters in Washington – or simply because he needs popular support in his own country, as he is leading a minority, currently non-government and had to call snap elections for 28 April 2019?

There are, however, also Russia and China, solid, but rather quiet partners of Venezuela’s. Russia has made it clear, though, “Don’t mess with Venezuela”. Russia has two nuclear capable bombers, TU-160, deployed to the Venezuelan Caribbean island of la Orchila, where Moscow will establish, with the agreement of Venezuela, a permanent military base.

Both Russia and China have tens of billions worth of investments in Venezuela’s hydrocarbon industry. But besides the commercial interests, Russia and China vie for a multipolar world and want to guarantee the independence of Latin America, the sovereignty of the peoples of the Americas.

On 26 January 2019, the US dragged the “Case Venezuela” to the UN Security Council, in an attempt to condemn Venezuela and to trailblaze the path for a military invasion. However, while nine of the 15 UNSC members voted for a special meeting on Venezuela (Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Kuwait, Peru, Poland, United Kingdom, United States), four voted against (China, Equatorial Guinea, Russian Federation, South Africa), with two abstentions (Côte d’Ivoire, Indonesia). The Russian Federation’s delegate countered that the Council has no role to play in a domestic matter that poses no threat to international peace and security. And right he is!

This UNSC event prompted a solidarity movement of more than 50 states, including China, Russia, Cuba, DPRK, Syria, Iran, Palestine, Nicaragua, and many more, supporting Venezuelan’s Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza’s statement before the Security Council, declaring the illegality of unilateral coercive economic sanctions, and territorial invasions by the United States. As Carla Stea reports (https://www.globalresearch.ca/hands-off-venezuela-historic-stance-at-the-united-nations-against-us-imperialism/5668780), this new alliance “constitutes a formidable force which Western capitalism will antagonize at its own peril. This is a long overdue counterforce to Western domination of the United Nations, a domination based on money, on the large payments enabling the US and other capitalist powers to bribe, threaten and otherwise control the direction of the UN, and distort and destroy the independence, impartiality and integrity which the UN requires in order to maintain its legitimacy, and implement the sustained global peace and justice for which Franklin Delano Roosevelt created it.”

This new alignment of more than 50 states comprise more than half of the world’s population, to a large extent people who have been exploited, slaughtered and their countries raped and ravaged for hundreds of years by wester capitalist and colonialist powers. This alliance promises to become a solid new face in the otherwise western dominated and bought United Nations.

As to Venezuela’s fate, Trump has made vague indications of 23 February being the deadline for an assault on Venezuela. We will see whether this remains nothing but an intimidating insinuation, or whether it will be real. The latter case would be a disaster not only for Venezuela, and Latin America, but for the entire world. Will Trump’s handlers allow such blunder? – In any case, Venezuela’s armed forces are disposed to confront the empire’s nuclear aircraft carrier, missile launchers, countless fighter planes and the up to 5,000 US troops and mercenaries newly stationed in Colombia and ready to cross the border into Venezuela.  – And, not to forget, there are also Russia and China.

More lawyers could be police informants in Australia

Mike Head

Further revelations over the past week about the police recruitment of lawyers in Australia to inform on their clients, in violation of the fundamental principle of legal confidentiality, point to the full extent of the abuse being as yet unknown, but certainly systemic.

The affair has thrown a question mark over the entire legal system, undermining the very notion that defendants are guaranteed “fair trials” with the right to independent legal representation. Dozens, if not hundreds, of cases may have to be retried.

The legal and political implications are even broader. The methods involved could be used against anyone targeted by the police and intelligence agencies, particularly political activists.

Far from being confined to a few dozen convictions of “crime bosses” and “drug lords” in the state of Victoria, as the media and government figures have insisted, the use of police informants, including members of the legal profession, to frame up people or orchestrate incriminating information, is clearly much more widespread.

Eight years of efforts by the police and successive governments to cover up the recruitment of lawyers as informers on their clients began to collapse late last year, forcing the current Labor Party government to finally announce a royal commission into the scandal.

When the inquiry held a preliminary hearing last Friday, it was told that police had used or considered using at least eight lawyers or law clerks to provide information on their clients, and the true number could be higher.

The counsel assisting the inquiry, Chris Winneke, told the commissioner, Margaret McMurdo, a former judge: “Subsequent and ongoing investigations by the State and Commonwealth Offices of Public Prosecutions with the assistance of Victoria Police has identified further cases. There may be more.’’

Court orders continue to prevent the identification of any of the eight informers. They include informant 3838 or Lawyer X, whom the inquiry will refer to as EF. The seven others are a court clerk, two legal secretaries, a solicitor, a former solicitor, a “self-proclaimed legal adviser” and a lawyer who has since died.

They all acted either as police informants or “community sources,” even as the police fought in the courts for nearly four years to prevent any details being reported of the role of the first-known informant, dubbed by the media as Lawyer X.

Judging by the informing performed by Lawyer X, the scale of the practice is massive. In a now-released letter to the police, written in 2015, she wrote: “[T]here are literally thousands of hours of recorded conversations and debriefings as well as many thousands of documents proving without doubt, the immense assistance I provided over a number of years…

“To try to encompass my actual value, reliability and work for Victoria Police in any summary is immensely difficult because from September 16, 2005, I spoke to my handlers on a daily basis, often seven days a week for a couple of years.

“Again, the media has informed me that there are approximately 5,500 information reports generated from information I provided to police.

“There were a total of 386 people arrested and charged that I am specifically aware of based upon information I provided to Victoria Police, but there are probably more because as you would know, I did not always know the value or use of some of the intelligence that I was providing.”

Claiming her life was in danger because her treatment as a police source had been botched, Lawyer X sued Victoria Police in 2010 and received a compensation payout of almost $3 million. The backroom settlement of her case began eight years of desperate cover up.

Victoria Police had three chief commissioners during Lawyer X’s time as a registered informant—Simon Overland, Christine Nixon and Neil Comrie—further underscoring the institutional character of the abuse. Yet, Premier Daniel Andrews has repeatedly expressed his full confidence in the current police chief, Graham Ashton, who has been continuing the practice, and covering up for his predecessors, since 2015.

Andrews’ Labor government instigated the royal commission for the purpose of continuing the smokescreen. It is seeking to head off public outrage over the affair, depict informing lawyers as an aberration and minimise the damage to the credibility of the legal system.

The government was compelled to broaden the scope of the royal commission this month when the police admitted that Lawyer X was first registered as a police informant in 1995, not 2005 as originally reported. She was officially recruited two years after the police dropped serious drug trafficking charges against her, while she was still a law student.

In her opening statement, McMurdo, a former president of the Queensland Court of Appeal, voiced revealing concern for the impact of the widening scandal in eroding public trust in the police and courts.

“The police use of lawyers to inform on their clients has obvious potential to undermine the criminal justice system and the public’s confidence in it,” she said. If that happened, “the criminal justice system would regress into a dysfunctional, far more costly, clogged quagmire of universal distrust.”

McMurdo indicated deeper political anxiety, stating: “When those whom the community entrusts to uphold and enforce the law themselves breach fundamental legal principles, confidence in our justice system and indeed our democracy is seriously diminished.”

The judge pointedly ruled out any suggestion of a wider inquiry into the police, not even into the use of other informers apart from lawyers. “It is important to keep in mind that the scope of the Commission’s work is tightly defined by those terms of reference,” she said. “This is not an open-ended, broad inquiry into Victoria Police or even into Victoria Police’s management of police informers generally.”

In addition, the inquiry has no power to quash the convictions of the victims, reduce sentences or order retrials. Nor can it instigate prosecutions of the lawyers and police officers responsible.

Winneke, the prominent barrister assisting McMurdo, also confirmed that while some hearings will be held in public, other sessions will be closed in order to protect the informants, thus shielding the operations of the police. “The matters being investigated by the Commission involve sensitive information about criminal activities and police operations,” he said.

Winneke further noted that prosecutors, judges and officials of Victoria’s anti-corruption body, IBAC, cannot be compelled to testify or provide documents to the inquiry. This means that the prosecutors who ran cases in which lawyers informed on their own clients, and the judges who presided over those cases, as well as the officials who kept secret the true scope of the affair, cannot be questioned, let alone brought to account.

IBAC conducted an investigation into the Lawyer X affair in 2015, essentially continuing a whitewash begun by earlier police inquiries.

Questions are obviously raised about similar police operations in other states, as well as by the Australian Federal Police and its partner agency, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

In an effort to protect the police in Western Australia, that state’s Labor Party Attorney-General John Quigley formally wrote this week to his colleague, Police Minister Michelle Roberts, asking her to “seek assurances” from the state’s police chief that lawyers have never acted as police informants.

In South Australia, the police issued an evasive statement that it had “no recollection or record” of such practices in that state since 2000.

Further blows to US anti-Huawei campaign

Nick Beams 

The US campaign to block participation by Huawei in the development of 5G mobile phone networks globally appears to have suffered another setback. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), citing several German government officials, reported on February 19 that the German government is “leaning towards letting Huawei … participate in building the nation’s high-speech internet infrastructure.”

This follows reports that a leading British intelligence agency had concluded that any security risks from using the Chinese telecom’s equipment can be mitigated.

The Journal said a small group of ministries reached a preliminary agreement two weeks ago that required approval of the full cabinet and the parliament, with a decision not expected for several weeks.

The US has been conducting an intense campaign to have Huawei banned from the development of the 5G network on the basis that its participation will facilitate Chinese spying. The new network will produce a qualitative leap in internet communication.

While the UK National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) has told Huawei that it must upgrade its security—at a reported cost of at least $2 billion—it has never found evidence that Huawei was used to conduct cyber spying. The NCSC’s view that security concerns about Huawei can be mitigated has produced a backlash. The Royal United Services Institute, a leading British defence think tank has issued a report saying that allowing Huawei to supply equipment would be “naïve” and “irresponsible.”

The NCSC’s findings that Huawei has not been used to carry out spying have been replicated in Germany.

According to the Journal, “A recent probe by Germany’s cybersecurity agency with help from the US and other allies failed to show that Huawei could use its equipment to clandestinely siphon off data, according to senior agency and other government officials.”

The campaign against Huawei is being spearheaded by the US intelligence and military establishment, which regards Chinese technological development as a “national security” threat. It has also suffered a blow from a seemingly unlikely source.

On Thursday, as another round of critical trade talks with China got under way in Washington, US President Donald Trump issued a tweet which cut across the national security campaign.

“I want the United States to win through competition, not by blocking out currently more advanced technologies,” he wrote.

While the tweet may well have been simply a ploy in the trade discussions, it will add to concerns in intelligence circles and some members of Trump’s economic team that the president may be too ready to strike a trade deal with China, at the expense of what they consider to be the longer-term US strategic interests.

As Trump issued his tweet, the position of the US military and intelligence apparatus on Huawei was underscored in a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. If a country uses Huawei in some of their critical information systems, he said, “we won’t be able to share information with them, we won’t be able to work alongside them. We’re not going to put American information at risk.”

An underlying problem confronting the US, reflecting the broader process of its relative economic decline that has seen its resort to aggressive tariffs, bans and sanctions, was outlined in comments by former CIA China analyst Dennis Wilder.

Wilder, who served as White House Asia adviser to George W. Bush, pointed to the underlying problem confronting the US and its resort to aggressive tariffs, bans and sanctions.

“One of the frustrations of 5G development is that the US does not have the ability to deploy a completely US-made 5G network,” he told the Financial Times. “For a president who has prided himself in championing US industry, it must be frustrating that there is no all-American 5G on the horizon.”

Currently Huawei is estimated to have around 30 percent of the global telecom-equipment market, well ahead of rivals such as the Finnish firm Nokia and the Swedish Ericsson group. The major US firm Qualcomm reported a fourth quarter 2018 decline in revenue by 20 percent, compared to an increase of almost 13 percent by most of its competitors.

The Journal report pointed to the economic pressures that could lead Germany to defy the US campaign to ban Huawei. It noted that Germany lagged behind the rest of Europe and most of Asia in internet speed, “making a 5G rollout crucial to enabling a range of new services such as autonomous vehicles and high-resolution video streaming.”

According to one “senior government official” cited in the report: “We missed the boat here in Germany with regards to the broadband internet. We need fast internet, we need it quickly and we need it cheap.”

Huawei equipment is as good as and frequently better than that supplied by its rivals and very often cheaper, sometimes by a large amount.

Cost and quality are major considerations for India—potentially one of the largest markets in the world.

The Journal followed up its article on the German deliberations with a report on similar discussions there. It said policymakers and telecommunications firms were “so far largely unpersuaded by US warnings that using Huawei’s equipment to upgrade India’s telecom networks presents a major cybersecurity threat.”

Citing “more than a dozen government officials and industry executives,” the report said many argued that any security risk was “outweighed by Huawei’s cut-rate prices and technological prowess.”

Rajan Mathews, the director of the Cellular Operators of Association of India, said: “The perception here is that the US action is more a matter of foreign policy.”

A senior government official told the Journal that India wanted to move quickly to reap the rewards of 5G and it would choose vendors “on our own terms, not under pressure.” This is another direct blow to the US, which had concluded that, because of its rivalry with China, India would remain in its camp.

“Huawei is today at the frontier on 5G and so can’t be ignored,” the official said. “All technologies have security concerns and vulnerabilities, so singling out Huawei won’t be correct.”

The thrust of the US campaign is that a 2017 Chinese law stipulates that all Chinese companies must cooperate with the country’s intelligence services on request. This issue formed the centre of warnings against the use of Huawei issued by US Vice President Mike Pence at the Munich Security Conference last weekend.

In his reply to Pence at the conference, Yang Jeichi, a Chinese foreign affairs official, said Huawei was cooperating with European companies. Referring to the law, he said it did “not require from companies to install backdoors … or spy.”

Very often in the case of disputes, the accusations made by one side against another are an expression of its own actions. And it is the case in this matter.

As documents, both leaked and public, have revealed, US technology firms, far from operating at arms-length from the state, have the most intimate economic and political relations with the military and intelligence agencies and their well-known spying operations.

Canada’s Liberal government rocked by high-profile resignations

Roger Jordan

Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has been rocked over the past 12 days by two high-profile resignations triggered by its intervention into a scandal involving Canada’s largest engineering and construction company, SNC-Lavalin.

The former Justice Minister and Attorney-General, Jody Wilson-Raybould, quit cabinet and Gerald Butts resigned as Trudeau’s principal secretary or “chief of staff” after reports emerged that the Prime Ministers’ Office (PMO) had sought to bully Wilson-Raybould into halting SNC-Lavalin’s criminal prosecution for fraud and bribery.

The scandal erupted February 7, when the Globe and Mail charged that members of the PMO had put undue pressure on Wilson-Raybould to overturn the decision of the Public Prosecution Service not to offer SNC-Lavalin a “deferred prosecution agreement,” under which the charges would have been dropped in exchange for pledges not to engage in further law-breaking.

The Globe also suggested that the reason Trudeau had relegated Wilson-Raybould—whose appointment as Canada’s first indigenous Justice Minister he had touted as proof of his government’s “progressive” character—to the lowly post of Veteran Affairs minister last month was because she had refused to do the PMO’s bidding and exempt SNC-Lavalin from criminal prosecution.

SNC-Lavalin has been charged with paying $48 million in bribes to Libyan government officials between 2001 and 2011 to secure public contracts under the Gaddafi regime.

If it is convicted, the engineering giant will be automatically banned from doing business with the federal government for 10 years.

The Trudeau government has made little secret of its desire to come to SNC-Lavalin’s rescue. Last year, it buried in a hundreds pages-long budget bill a change in the law creating the option for the Prosecution Service or Attorney-General to forgo a criminal prosecution and instead strike a “deferred prosecution agreement” with a company implicated in systematic law-breaking. That this measure was from the get-go meant to be a life-line to SNC-Lavalin is underscored by the fact that Ottawa insiders reportedly referred in private to it as the “SNC-Lavalin bill.”

The Montreal-based concern is one of the crown jewels of “Quebec Inc.” and has lobbied Ottawa extensively to secure business contracts, and in recent years to derail its prosecution. Some of Canada’s most well-connected political figures, including former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s principal secretary, have met with Liberal officials to press them to create the “deferred prosecution” option and then apply it to SNC-Lavalin.

For his part, Trudeau has admitted meeting with Wilson-Raybould last September to discuss SNC-Lavalin, just two weeks after the head of the Public Prosecution Office ruled that the company would not be given the opportunity to negotiate a deferred prosecution agreement.

Everything suggests Wilson-Raybould’s demotion was meant to pave the way for the government, via the Attorney-General, to overturn the Public Prosecution Office’s decision in the SNC-Lavalin case, although the charges of undue political interference have now dramatically raised the political cost to the government of proceeding along these lines. Nevertheless, Wilson-Raybould’s replacement as Justice Minister and Attorney-General, David Lametti, has said he is reviewing the SNC-Lavalin file and will make a fresh determination in the matter.

The government is making the self-serving claim that its interest in supporting SNC is linked to its desire to protect jobs. In truth, the Liberals want to come to the aid of one of Canadian imperialism’s key players. The construction and engineering firm employs some 50,000 workers around the world, has offices in 50 countries, and operates in 160 countries. Some of SNC’s recent major international projects include a $4.6 billion contract to construct the Ambatovy mine in Madagascar, an $800 million oil and gas processing management contract in the Middle East, and a $100 million contract for the building of gas facilities in the United States. It recently bought out its British rival, W.S. Atkins, for $1.9 billion, and Irish engineering firm Kentz for $2.1 billion.

However, the optics of the affair have become a major problem for Trudeau and his Liberals, as they have put the lie to the government’s carefully-crafted image as a “progressive,” even worker-friendly, government, a little more than a half-year before the next election.

Since coming to power in 2015, the Liberals, supported by their cheerleaders in the trade union bureaucracy, have sought to portray themselves as focused on addressing the needs of ordinary working people. Additionally, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and others have cast the Liberals’ aggressive foreign policy as being “feminist” and motivated by a commitment to “diversity.” The SNC-Lavalin affair has torn aside this already tattered veil of deceit, exposing the Trudeau government to be a pliant tool of big business and the ruling elite.

Reports of Trudeau and his ministers bullying a female indigenous minister are also highly damaging, since they cut across Trudeau’s efforts to retain a base of support within the population by means of “progressive” sounding diversity rhetoric while pursuing right-wing, pro-corporate policies.

Another aspect of this affair—although one entirely blacked out in the avalanche of media coverage— is the light it sheds on the extensive interests Canadian imperialism had developed in Libya in the final years of Gaddafi’s rule, and the real motivations behind its leading role in the 2011 NATO regime-change war on Libya. The cynical claims made by the then Harper Conservative government, and echoed by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois, that Canada was participating in the bombardment of Libya to defend “human rights” and “democracy” now appear even more absurd. In reality, Canada intervened in the US-led military onslaught, which claimed tens of thousands of Libyan lives, to consolidate its geopolitical and economic interests in North Africa and the Middle East.

A former First Nations chief in British Columbia, Wilson-Raybould was a willing accomplice in Trudeau’s efforts to use identity politics to provide a pseudo-progressive veneer to a big business government that in all its essentials has continued the agenda of austerity and war of the previous hard-right Harper regime.

Her resignation, coming just hours after Trudeau proclaimed that her continued presence in cabinet was proof she didn’t believe she had been unduly pressured by the PMO in the SNC-Lavalin affair, was highly damaging to the prime minister and the Liberal government.

However since then, Wilson-Raybould has gone out of her way to reaffirm her support for the Liberals and was allowed to meet, at her request, with the cabinet for three hours this week. There is already chatter that she may yet be reintegrated into the government.

In any event, Wilson-Raybould is a typical representative of the petty-bourgeois indigenous elite that the ruling class is seeking to cultivate through affirmative action and land claims, and who, in exchange for privileges, will work to “reconcile” the historically-oppressed aboriginal population to Canadian capitalism.

Although the significance of the Trudeau government’s defence of SNC-Lavalin’s corruption should not be underestimated, there is no doubt that sections of big business and the corporate media are exploiting the scandal for their own reactionary political ends. Since the story broke February 7, the SNC-Lavalin affair has dominated political news coverage, and broad sections of the media are suggesting that Trudeau’s re-election is in serious jeopardy.

While the Liberals were swept to power in 2015 with the support of decisive sections of the bourgeoisie, frustration with the Trudeau government has been building in the ruling elite for well over a year. The reasons for this are bound up with the intractable geopolitical and economic crisis confronting the Canadian ruling elite under conditions of the breakdown of the post-World War II order, the eruption of trade war, and the threat of a new global downturn. Ruling circles are frustrated with Trudeau’s inability to resolve Ottawa’s multiple trade disputes with the United States, his government’s failure to build oil pipelines to tidal water to enable Canadian companies to ship bitumen to the world market, and its slow response to the “competitive” challenges created by the Trump administration’s tax cuts and gutting of environmental regulations. Additionally, the ruling elite believes that the Liberals are not moving fast enough to implement their promised 70-percent hike in military spending and the associated plans to procure new battleships and warplanes, which would require a savage assault on social spending and the working class.

The opposition Conservatives have denounced the Liberals for their dealings with SNC-Lavalin, and are seeking to use the affair to incite regional tensions. They are citing the Liberals’ attempt to shield the Montreal-based company from criminal prosecution as evidence of a purported bias in favour of Quebec business and contrasting it with the government’s reputed lack of support for the oil and gas sector in western Canada, particularly in Alberta.

Whatever transpires over the course of the coming days and weeks, absent the independent political intervention of the working class on the basis of a socialist program, the outcome of the SNC-Lavalin affair will be the shifting of official Canadian politics still further to the right.

China retaliates over New Zealand government’s Huawei ban

John Braddock

The Chinese government last week initiated an apparent series of retaliatory measures against the New Zealand Labour Party government’s move to ban the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei from supplying hardware for a new generation 5G mobile technology upgrade.

New Zealand, a member of the US-led Five Eyes intelligence network, is one of several US allies pressured by the Trump administration to bar the Chinese company. The Australian government has imposed a similar ban. The measures form part of Washington’s economic and military build-up against Beijing, and preparations for war.

Several incidents this month suggested a diplomatic “blowback” by Beijing against Wellington.

These include: the ongoing inability by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to arrange a visit to China since last year; the late cancellation of a launch event for the 2019 China-New Zealand Year of Tourism; and the mid-air turning back of an Air NZ flight over the Pacific after it was refused permission to land at Shanghai.

While there has been no formal statement from Beijing, much of the New Zealand media and the main opposition National Party have expressed concern that there has been a significant deterioration in diplomatic relations. Following the signing of a 2008 bilateral Free Trade Agreement, China quickly became New Zealand’s largest export destination, accounting for nearly $NZ15.3 billion and 24 percent of total exports. China is also New Zealand’s largest source of imports, amounting to $11.9 billion and nearly 20 percent of the total.

Ardern is the first New Zealand prime minister in many years not to visit China during her first 12 months in office. She dismissed concerns over the long-postponed visit, declaring that neither side had been able to “coordinate” their diaries. The major tourism event was cancelled, according to NZ officials, “due to changes of schedule on the Chinese side.” In the third incident, Air NZ took responsibility for the failed flight as an “administrative issue” on its part.

A Beijing-based NZ businessman, David Mahon, told the New Zealand Herald that Wellington has lost its “favoured status” with the Chinese regime. Mahon said the decision to ban Huawei was the “flash point” for the changed relationship, which had been deteriorating for twelve months. “We’ve got a big problem. It’s viewed as breach of trust,” he said.

Successive New Zealand governments have sought to balance between commercial relations with China and an increasingly close military alliance with Washington. This policy has become ever more fraught as the Obama and Trump administrations have ratcheted up tensions with Beijing and demanded that US allies fall into line.

Since assuming office in October 2017, the Labour-NZ First-Green Party government has dramatically strengthened the alliance with the US. Labour gave NZ First, a right-wing nationalist and virulently anti-Chinese party, the roles of deputy prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister.

The government redeployed troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and sent air force personnel to Japan to join the encirclement of North Korea. A 2018 Defence Strategic Policy Statement echoed the Pentagon in labeling Russia and China as the main “threats” to global stability. Foreign Minister and NZ First leader Winston Peters has called on the US to boost its military presence in the Pacific region to counter China’s growing presence.

These measures have been accompanied by a xenophobic anti-Chinese campaign within New Zealand aimed at overcoming widespread anti-war sentiment and hostility to the Trump administration. New Zealand academic Anne-Marie Brady has become a prominent figure, attacking purported Chinese “influence” in politics, business, universities, media and cultural organisations.

The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) ruled last November that it would block Huawei, citing “significant” security risks. Huawei already has a significant stake in New Zealand as a supplier to Vodafone, Spark and 2Degrees. It had partnered with Spark, NZ’s largest telecommunications company, for a trial mobile 5G rollout and was preparing to invest $NZ400 million in telecommunications research.

Spark and Huawei publicly opposed the ban. The deputy CEO of Huawei’s New Zealand operation, Andrew Bowater, said no evidence had been presented that Huawei poses a security threat. The company last week took out full-page newspaper advertisements declaring that “5G without Huawei is like rugby without New Zealand.” It has offered to exclude Chinese workers from the 5G roll-out and open up its equipment to inspection.

The government may back down and lift the GCSB’s ban. The Financial Times last week reported that the British government has concluded that it can mitigate any supposed risk from using Huawei equipment. New Zealand’s minister responsible for the intelligence agencies, Andrew Little, declared there may be a way forward for Huawei if Spark and other providers can prove the same.

Whatever decision is eventually made, China’s apparent retaliation has brought to the surface significant divisions within New Zealand’s media, business and political establishment.

A February 19 editorial in the New Zealand Herald, while underscoring the importance of the Five Eyes alliance, called on the government to “take another look at” the Huawei ban in light of the statements by British authorities. The newspaper’s Heather du Plessis Allan wrote that Foreign Minister Peters needed to “get over” his “dislike of China,” or be reined in by Ardern, to prevent Beijing from “tightening its squeeze” on the NZ economy.

National Party leader Simon Bridges said last November that the US and China were in a situation of “virtual war” and that New Zealand should not “take sides.” Last week, he accused Ardern and Peters of endangering the China relationship, pointing to Peters’ “intemperate” criticism of China’s Belt and Road infrastructure projects and calls for a push against China in the Pacific.

Peters countered with an attack on former National Party Prime Minister Jenny Shipley after she was quoted in the China People’s Daily complimenting China on “lifting 700 million people out of poverty” and praising the Belt and Road initiative. The NZ First leader said Shipley, who chairs the China Construction Bank NZ, was “selling out New Zealand’s interests.”

Newsroom published a hysterical comment on February 18 by financial analyst Michael Reddell, which lashed the opposition National Party for its “craven deference to China.” Describing the Beijing regime as “today’s equivalent of Nazi-ruled Germany,” the writer denounced the presence of a Chinese-born parliamentarian, Jian Yang, in the party’s caucus. NZ First and Brady have accused Yang of being a spy, without presenting any evidence.

One of the most vociferous anti-China mouthpieces, the trade union-funded Daily Blog, posted a tirade by the site’s editor Martyn Bradbury which declared: “Our Chinese Overlords are angry—we should have angered them a lot sooner!” Bradbury’s xenophobic rant attacked Chinese tourists, bus companies and restaurants, stating they made no contribution to local economic growth.

Such comments underscore the fact that there is no anti-war faction within the political establishment. The Labour-NZ First-Greens government, backed by the unions, liberals and pseudo-lefts, is fully prepared to drag the country into a US-led war against China.

Mercenaries flown back to US after their arrest in Haitian capital

John Marion

The threat of a military intervention in Haiti was demonstrated last Sunday afternoon, when five Americans, two Serbians, and one Haitian were arrested under circumstances that have no innocent explanation. Armed with pistols, assault rifles, drones, a telescope and three satellite phones, they were trying to gain access to the roof of the Banque de la Republique d’Haiti (BRH).

Neither of the two vehicles from which they were arrested had license plates showing. Prime Minister Jean-Henry Céant, whose secretary has an office directly opposite the bank, claims to be in possession of a letter from Behrman Motors documenting that one of the vehicles—a Ford Ranger with serial number SA2LPJJ77628—is registered in the name of Jean Fritz Jean-Louis, a former director of the national lottery. Jean-Louis joined President Moïse on his viewing stand at a Christmas parade in December. The Ford Ranger was purchased last August by Magalie Habitant, who at the time was Director of the Metropolitan Waste Collection Service. She was fired without notice last September.

The five Americans have been flown out of the country. While US agents made a show of arresting them as their American Airlines flight arrived in Miami, they skipped their scheduled court appearance in Haiti and, according to the Miami Herald, “ airport employees say the men seemed quite at ease and were taken inside the VIP diplomatic lounge to wait on the flight after their tickets were purchased at the counter. One of the two Serbians initially was not allowed to board the flight by Haitian immigration because he had no stamps showing where he resides. After a few calls were made, he was put on the flight.”

The Herald reported that one of the five Americans, Kent Leland Kroeker, is a Marine veteran who now heads a company with a website boasting of “Military, Police, Professional Mechanics, Entrepreneurs and the best volunteers that America has to offer.” Christopher Mark McKinley, who also uses the last name Heben, is a former Navy SEAL. Christopher Osman was one of the first Navy SEALs to fight in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. Dustin Daniel Porte owns a company called Patriot Group Services, which counts the US Department of Homeland Security among its clients.

Although the purpose of their mission and identity of their employer were still unclear as of Wednesday evening, there can be no doubt that these eight men are mercenaries. Early reports stated that Minister of Justice Jean Roody Aly pressured the Haitian National Police and a government prosecutor to release the eight, but on Tuesday Port-au-Prince Chief Prosecutor Paul Eronce Villard denied having received such instructions from Aly.

Presidential counselor Reynold Georges denied on Tuesday that Moïse had intervened on the mercenaries’ behalf, and then claimed that the eight were just trying to rob the bank. However, on Tuesday afternoon a spokesman for Prime Minister Céant told CNN that far from being bank robbers, “the mercenaries wanted access to the roof of the BRH in order to be able to dominate the Prime Minister’s office and also the parliament.”

The same afternoon Jorchemy Jean Baptiste, counselor to Céant, told radio station Vision 2000 that the eight “absolutely wanted to make an attempt on the life of the PM.”

This episode must be taken as a warning by Haitian workers and peasants that imperialism is making ruthless plans to suppress their protests while the country’s politicians and big bourgeoisie fight amongst themselves.

The government of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse, who on February 14 gave a defensive seven-minute speech after having stayed silent for a week during protests demanding his resignation, continues to find itself in a weak position. In 2016 Moïse won an election in which barely more than 20 percent of eligible voters turned out, and last July a weekend of violent protests against cuts to fuel subsidies led to the resignation of his first prime minister.

The response of the imperialist powers to the growing likelihood of Moïse’s overthrow has been curiously silent. The US State Department made a desultory promise of food “aid” as this month’s protests were shutting down large sections of the economy, while the Core Group of the UN, the European Union, the Organization of American States, the US, France, and others, issued a statement urging “national authorities to engage in a deep and inclusive dialogue with all other key actors in the country in order to restore calm, promote social cohesion, and ensure the safety of people and goods, while respecting the rule of law.”

During a lull in the protests at the beginning of this week, the Haitian government took its imperialist backers up on their advice, with the prime minister promising economic reforms while his communications minister announced a program to create 200,000 temporary jobs. The Senate, with barely a quorum, forwarded yet another report about the PetroCaribe corruption scandal to judicial authorities.

In an indication of the desperation prevailing among the bourgeoisie, the Professional Association of Banks (APB) issued a statement that was carried in Le Nouvelliste on Monday denying that its member banks have been profiting from the fall of the gourde’s value against the US dollar. Accusations of such profiteering have spread on social media and radio stations.

On the border with the Dominican Republic, Haitians have taken to purchasing gas at cheaper Dominican prices and then selling it on the black market in Haiti because of shortages on that side of the border. Haiti Libre reported Wednesday that the Dominican military is now patrolling gas stations, leading to a protest in which Haitians used their cars to block the bridge between Ounaminthe and Dajabón.

UK parliament committee demands sweeping social media censorship

Robert Stevens

Parliament’s Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (DCMS) has called for the sweeping censorship of Facebook and other social media.

Reporting its 18-month investigation into “Disinformation and ‘fake news’,” the select committee’s explicitly anti-Russian agenda was clear from the outset, with a remit to tackle accusations of foreign interference in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the 2016 referendum on the UK’s European Union membership and the 2017 general election.

The committee is chaired by leading Conservative Damian Collins, with 11 members in total (five Tory MPs, five Labour and one Scottish National Party MP.) The introduction to the report declares, “Democracy is at risk from the malicious and relentless targeting of citizens with disinformation and personalised ‘dark adverts’ from unidentifiable sources, delivered through the major social media platforms we use every day.

“Much of this is directed from agencies working in foreign countries, including Russia.”

The report denounced Facebook in unprecedented language, stating, “Companies like Facebook should not be allowed to behave like ‘digital gangsters’ in the online world, considering themselves to be ahead of and beyond the law.”

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is accused of showing “contempt” towards the committee by choosing not to appear before it last year and sending senior executives to answer questions. Collins said that Zuckerberg had given incomplete, disingenuous and “at times misleading” evidence. Facebook had “intentionally and knowingly” violated data privacy laws and should be subject to a probe by the UK’s competition and data watchdogs.

Such denunciations of Zuckerberg are from the right, justifying regulation and censorship by using the crimes of the internet corporations, real, imagined and manufactured, to clamp down on free speech and to ensure that the only news and opinions that can be disseminated are those published by their own favoured propaganda outlets.

The report states, “In a democracy, we need to experience a plurality of voices and, critically, to have the skills, experience and knowledge to gauge the veracity of those voices. While the Internet has brought many freedoms across the world and an unprecedented ability to communicate, it also carries the insidious ability to distort, to mislead and to produce hatred and instability. It functions on a scale and at a speed that is unprecedented in human history.”

The committee adds, “We must use technology… to free our minds and use regulation to restore democratic accountability. We must make sure that people stay in charge of the machines.”

The “people” the DCMS want in charge are representatives of the ruling elite, who can determine what can and cannot be accessed through social media. Collins said, “The age of inadequate self-regulation must come to an end.”

The DCMS declares, “Social media companies cannot hide behind the claim of being merely a ‘platform’ and maintain that they have no responsibility themselves in regulating the content of their sites.” It demands the creation of a “compulsory Code of Ethics … overseen by an independent regulator, setting out what constitutes harmful content. The independent regulator would have statutory powers to monitor relevant tech companies…”

Social media companies would be required by law to remove what is deemed as “disinformation,” as well as “harmful content,” or face potential fines. The regulator’s office would be paid for by tech firms that have operations in the UK and be given extraordinary “powers to obtain any information from social media companies that are relevant to its inquiries.”

The report notes approvingly that under the Network Enforcement Law passed in January, tech firms operating in Germany must remove material deemed “hate speech” in 24 hours and “unlawful content” in seven days, or face a fine of £20 million. One in six of Facebook’s thousands of “moderators” (censors) are employed monitoring and taking down content, with the DCMS welcoming this as “practical evidence that legislation can work.” It also applauds “a new law in France, passed in November 2018, allowing judges to order the immediate removal of online articles they decide constitutes disinformation during election campaigns.

The report demands that the state be allowed to totally regulate social media despite being forced to admit—after a series of blatantly contradictory statements—there was no proven foreign interference in any of the elections it has spent 18 months investigating. It declares, without attempting to explain why millions are turning away from the political parties and mainstream media echo chambers of the capitalist class, that, “The speed of technological development has coincided with a crisis of confidence in institutions and the media in the West. … This has enabled foreign countries intent on destabilising democratic institutions to take advantage of this crisis.”

“Proof” of Russian meddling is contained in the final report, which states that a PDF of the government’s response to the MPs interim report was viewed just 346 times, including by some people with IP addresses based in Moscow and St Petersburg!

Buried in the latter parts of the report are statements that give the lie to the entire Kremlin “meddling” framework. It declares that in response to the Committee’s previous report, “the Government made it clear that ‘it has not seen evidence of successful use of disinformation by foreign actors, including Russia, to influence UK democratic processes’… When the Secretary of State was questioned in oral evidence over what constitutes ‘successful’… Jeremy Wright MP, responded: ‘We have seen nothing that persuades us that Russian interference has had a material impact on the way in which people choose to vote in elections. It is not that they have not tried, but we have not seen evidence of that material impact’.”

The Committee responds in the manner of every classic witch-hunt, that this admission changes nothing. “It is surely a sufficient matter of concern that the Government has acknowledged that interference has occurred, irrespective of the lack of evidence of impact.”

It demands, “The Government should be conducting analysis to understand the extent of Russian targeting of voters during elections … The Government also cannot state definitively that there was ‘no evidence of successful interference’ in our democratic processes, as the term ‘successful’ is impossible to define in retrospect.”

The government welcomed the report and said its “forthcoming white paper on online harms will set out a new framework for ensuring disinformation is tackled effectively.” In addition, the “culture secretary will travel to the United States to meet with tech giants including Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple to discuss many of these issues.”

The Labour Party declared its full support for the report, with its right-wing deputy leader and Shadow Culture Secretary Tom Watson repeating “the era of self-regulation for tech companies must end immediately. We need new independent regulation with a tough powers and sanctions regime to curb the worst excesses of surveillance capitalism and the forces trying to use technology to subvert our democracy.”

Giving grist to the report’s implication that Facebook and Zuckerberg are essentially Russian dupes, Watson continued, “Few individuals have shown contempt for our parliamentary democracy in the way Mark Zuckerberg has.”

Given that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., have masses of data on tens of millions of Britons, the proposed regulation measures against social media would represent a major escalation of state electronic surveillance already in place. By 2022, the number of monthly active Facebook users in the UK is projected to reach 42.27 million individuals—an increase of over 7 million new users from 35.13 million users in 2015.

New revelations of right-wing terrorist network in German army

Gregor Link

A former member of the German army’s elite Commando Special Forces (KSK) confirmed on public radio station SWR’s political programme “Zur Sache Baden-Württemberg” that a terrorist network within the German state apparatus is planning the murder of political opponents and a fascist revolt for “Day X.” To this end, infrastructure, including safe houses, secret chat groups, storage facilities and weapons depots have been established in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the former soldier said.

The network was established by leading KSK members and maintains symbiotic relations with other sections of the state apparatus, including in particular with members of the military intelligence service (MAD), members of the domestic intelligence agency (Verfassungsschutz), as well as military reservists, police officers, judges and other state officials. Both in terms of its personnel and organisation, the network is based on “Uniter,” an association of former elite soldiers, and the KSK.

The former soldier’s statements confirm earlier reports from Focus and the daily TAZ about the existence of a shadow army within the German army. The World Socialist Web Site has already reported on this.

SWR’s anonymous informant identified Andre S., the founder and deputy chairman of “Uniter” who served in the KSK until 2017, as a leading member in the network. He added that he was contacted by several members of the association during 2012 when he was still an active soldier, including Andre S. They tried to recruit him by remarking that Uniter is “a pack of wolves that controls the herd of sheep.”

The informant described the association to SWR as dangerous. Uniter possesses military commando structures, and there is a hard core of 80 to 100 people who have established weapons depots and want to destabilise the political order in Germany. The network consists of former and current KSK soldiers, as well as police officers from the special forces. The purpose of the weapons was to restore order on a “Day X,” when the group expects a collapse of state structures in Germany.

According to witness testimonies, which have been reviewed by Focus and SWR, witnesses provided concrete details about the plans for a revolt. Driven by “hatred of the left,” files were established “with the names, addresses, and photos” of people who “have to be removed.” There are several secret chat groups, all administered by Andre S., in which plans were discussed “for the arrest of politicians from the left-wing milieu and their execution at pre-arranged locations.” The army would be deployed for such operations, according to the witnesses. The term “final solution” was also allegedly employed.

Concretely, investigators from the state prosecutor are accusing a lawyer and a member of the State Office of criminal Police (LKA) of preparing these murders. Their list of targets also reportedly contains the addresses of refugee accommodation centres. According to the TAZ, the two accused and two witnesses are members of the association of military reserves and sought acceptance into the army’s home guard company (RSU), because it has access to weaponry.

In parallel to this, specially secured “safe houses” were identified “everywhere” in the Federal Republic, in which “supplies of diesel and food are stored.” The Graf-Zeppelin barracks in Calw, where the KSK is based, was also considered as an operational command centre, provided that the barracks had been “conquered” at the time.

The German army officer Franco A., who portrayed himself as a refugee and was arrested under suspicion of terrorist activity, was a member of a chat group administered by S. until his arrest. After A. was exposed, S. supposedly gave the order to delete the group so as not to endanger the “police, judges, state officials and soldiers” in the group, the TAZ reported in late 2018.

Uniter, which was founded by S., presents itself as a “community” where former and current soldiers and police officers in the special forces offer mutual support and help soldiers to return to civilian life. According to the association, national and international events are organised for this purpose, and business ties to mid-sized arms and security providers established. Additionally, the association offers courses such as self-defence and civilian topics. Based on information from its informant, SWR reported that military exercises also take place near Heidelberg.

Questioned by SWR, a spokesperson for Uniter confirmed the existence of “safe houses” run by association members and compared them to the welcoming environment of his parents’ home. The association informed SWR that since the Focus report on a “shadow army,” the group has seen an “incredible” increase in membership, with the current figure being around 1,800.

The research by SWR, Focus, and TAZ has also exposed the complicity of the Military Intelligence Service (MAD) with the right-wing extremist KSK network. According to the TAZ, Uniter founder S. was a source and informant over an extended period of time for the MAD. When the federal state prosecutor began investigating members of his association, S. was informed ahead of time by a MAD agent and a KSK soldier, allowing S. to inform his network about the investigation, the TAZ reported.

Following a request for information from Uniter and S. in the course of their research in April 2018, the newspaper received the response that S. refused in principle to write to and communicate with media outlets for reasons of maintaining secrecy and protecting the members. “If further questions or pressure emerge from your side, we will have to inform the Military Intelligence Service, etc.,” S. said.

Thus, a man who transmits confidential information about investigations by the authorities through communication channels in which political mass murder is discussed feels able to threaten to resist media inquiries by mobilising the Military Intelligence Service.

The German Reservists’ Association, which plays an important role in the army’s terrorist network, was once again in the news on Wednesday. According to the TAZ, first sergeant of the reserves, Thomas K., received the highest honours of the association. In 2014, he was discovered to be in possession of a hard drive with right-wing extremist material, including song titles such as “Race hatred,” “Zillertaler Turk hunters–SS–SA–Germania,” and “Aryan blood—Hitler’s 100th birthday.” K. has been convicted of violent crimes and was therefore temporarily banned from football stadiums across the country.

The chairman of the reservist association in Mecklenburg-Pomerania, Helge Stahn, who reported the incident with the hard drive and wanted to expel K. from the association, was subsequently voted out of office, while K. continues to work for the association. The hard drive disappeared after being sent to the domestic intelligence agency for review in 2014.

While right-wing extremists enjoy free rein and the Alternative for Germany now sits in parliament, the number of cases in which the MAD has exposed right-wing extremists in the army continues to decline. Spiegel Online and the Funke Media Group reported at least 286 such cases in 2017 and 270 last year. However, a MAD spokesperson reported that the “true” number of right-wing extremist cases over recent years was around 200, 170 of which occurred in the years 2009 to 2011. Since 2011, the numbers declined dramatically and there have only been a further 30 cases until today, the intelligence agency claims.

In addition, the MAD has not categorised a single elite soldier over the past seven years as a “recognised extremist.” This statement is particularly remarkable in light of the case of Lieutenant Colonel Pascal D. At D.’s farewell party, he and some other soldiers allegedly threw pigs’ heads and performed the Nazi salute. Although D. was forced to accept a criminal prosecution for this, the MAD refused to categorise him as a right-wing extremist.

Another right-wing extremist KSK soldier, Lieutenant Colonel Daniel K., is currently suspended. As Spiegel Online and Deutsche Welle reported last week, he allegedly stated in telephone conversations that the state no longer has the situation under control due to the influx of immigrants, meaning that “the army now has to take things over.” In a closed Facebook group, K. indicated his sympathy for the “Reichsbürger” (Reich Citizens), who refuse to accept the legitimacy of the Federal Republic.

Although K. has been known as a right-wing extremist for years, the army has only now decided to launch an investigation against him due to the “spreading of right-wing extremism on social media.” In fact, the K. case is far more serious. According to information from Der Spiegel, he sent a threatening letter signed with his full name to a senior officer who had requested to be relieved of any duties associated with supporting the intervention of Tornado aircraft in southern Afghanistan on grounds of conscience.

K. wrote, “I deem you to be an internal enemy and will direct my actions to destroy this enemy with a decisive blow.” He distanced himself from “this left-wing zeitgeist conglomerate of uniformed ration recipients.” The critical officer should return “to the swamp of Stone Age Marxism.” In conclusion, he warned, “You are being observed, no, not by impotent instrumentalised services, but by a new generation of officers who will act if the times demand it.” He wrote in the postscript, “Long live holy Germany!”

According to Deutsche Welle, K. was “heavily involved in founding the elite army unit KSK.” His threatening letter, which triggered a formal complaint by the officer who was its target, had no consequences for K., other than a single note in his personnel file.

Right-wing psychopaths like Daniel K. and fascistic conspirator Andre S. are by no means exceptional figures in the army. With the revival of German militarism, the same right-wing and fascist elements that played such a horrendous role in the Weimar Republic are being protected and promoted by the state and are returning with full force.

According to an answer to a parliamentary question tabled by the Left Party, authorities in Germany are currently investigating six KSK soldiers. The accusations range from financial fraud to severe disruption of traffic, a serious breach of the peace, the abuse of subordinates, bodily harm, rape, the ownership of child pornography, and child abuse.

At the same time, all sections of the state apparatus are wallowing in the brown right-wing extremist swamp. In close cooperation with the AfD, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution has placed opponents of capitalism under state surveillance. In Frankfurt, a terrorist group named “NSU 2.0” with members in the Hesse state police is threatening a lawyer.