Gendering Strategic Discourses: Women as Opinion-Makers

Salma Malik


Speaking recently at a UN plenary on the subject of ‘women in disarmament’, it was indeed a matter of great pride and honour as the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva was presided by a woman ambassador who happened to be Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN. Interestingly and not surprisingly, her counterpart in New York happens to a lady, who enjoys an equally stellar reputation.

Fortunately, for us in South Asia, there is neither a dearth of such female role models nor a lack of women as policy and opinion-makers. At least half the regional countries have had female heads of government, very strong and influential women with very powerful voices. If we search for women policy and opinion-makers, again they stand tall and formidable, prove their strength and lack of higher numbers through their excellence in performance and honest hard work.

Yet, in key decision-making, the masculine perspective and prevalent predominant order ultimately prevails. This bring us to the key questions: does a woman’s voice matter? Why is it so important to highlight the concerns and perspectives women bring to the disarmament debate? How do women effectively voice and establish their nuanced perspective? What should matter more: numbers, mere empowerment, or the quality of debate? How do women perceive and want to perceive themselves – as vulnerable victims or as active agents of change and stakeholders, when it comes to decisions regarding conflict, peace and security?

During interactions, this author often comes across confident, energetic young women who are highly knowledgeable about the subject matter. Their voices and perspectives have been highly appreciated and heard, yet none speak with a gendered bent. This trend is reflective in the developing world, and the region we represent, where the numbers of female students seeking degrees in security or defence studies is increasing over time. Several female students concentrate on nuclear issues. However, these students do not seem to focus on disarmament – or, in general, on the alternative perspectives on nuclear issues that might cause established points of view to be seriously challenged.

This may be due to several reasons, including the predominately masculine discourse and environment in which they learn and seek knowledge. If these young women are asked about their mentors, hardly any will name another woman. Security studies and policy-making are cut-throat worlds, where women are already disadvantaged by being fewer in number. Thus, they are always struggling to create a space for themselves, to make themselves heard, to be taken seriously, to be credible enough to receive respect. And though women are very scarce in policy circles, especially at the highest levels, the situation may be even worse than it appears – it is doubtful that women exert influence even to the extent that their low representation suggests they should.

Many women, perhaps most, therefore approach issues such as disarmament, policy-making, and science and technology from established, male-dominated perspectives, rather than trying to develop alternate perspectives. The task at hand for women who want to effect a change is by no means simple or short. Women in the policy world must not only demonstrate their competence but also struggle to rise above stereotypes. They must prove that they are equal to their male counterparts – or, at the least, must strive to sound gender-neutral. Consequently, women often take on personas that are stern, hawkish, and ‘masculine’.

Women also need to carefully choose areas of expertise, giving preference to ‘hard’ research areas such as nuclear policy-making, missile proliferation, arms races, and now cyber warfare, over ‘softer’ issues such as gender and security, women's rights, post-conflict reconstruction, and activism, which are stereotyped as more feminine or in undertones ‘weak’ policy reflections. Women are not well represented in the ‘hard’ issues; and when they do work on these issues, they tend to produce work that is not gendered, which largely reinforces the dominant (male) narrative. Women are better represented when it comes to ‘soft’ issues; but the issues themselves are considered less important, as it makes them appear irrelevant and weak.

Furthermore, in terms of lasting discourse, academic contribution and formal policy debate, women produce relatively very little work. This is probably because in the developing world, strategic issues are very much wedded to a nation-building narrative. Despite having moved well beyond the initial stages of nuclear learning, the discourse on nuclear issues remains, in effect, state-owned and state-directed. For any opinion-maker, man or woman, gaining credibility and acceptability depends on creating a niche for oneself that reinforces the nationalist discourse.

There is a strong presence of women in policy-making positions, but where they leave a personal legacy of strong work ethics and approaching their work with no half measures, their imprint or official legacies, most of the time, are no different than that of their male counterparts, as they occupy ‘genderless’ spaces, which must prove them stronger women than weak. The ongoing conflict in West Asia has a strong imprint of powerful and empowered women, opting for a legacy of complex conflict than accommodation to prove their power and strength.

Is there really any reason to think that a gendered approach to disarmament would result in quicker abolition of nuclear weapons? Even today, in many countries, governments have to pass and enforce legislation requiring equal opportunity and female-friendly workplaces. Quotas or special allocations might sometimes be required to ensure that qualified women get the opportunities they deserve. Women’s empowerment also means a strong shift in attitudes and mindsets across genders. Baseline change needs to be effected from the primary reference group.

In traditional societies, it is the family that defines and assigns gendered roles. As a primary group, the family, and then social reference groups, must change their attitudes and preconceived notions regarding gender. Women can be ‘soft’ – but soft does not automatically translate to weak. Religious and thought leaders have to be roped in; and story-telling, in which heroes are always men – sons of brave mothers – needs to undergo revision. Curricula must be reviewed, modified and adjusted. Women can take control of their destiny and change this mindset, not just by donning the ‘masculine’ avatar but by being women with ‘soft’ but strong voices.

Simultaneously, men need to be sensitive to, create space, and accommodate, gender concerns and perspectives. Often, gender champions are not women alone, but men as well, and for which those men must be appreciated. Over time, these steps would expand the pool of women policy-makers and experts and enhance women leaders’ credibility. Even so, chances are that the glass ceiling would still exist in some way, one that they would have to break through. Doing so will not be easy, but for women, things have never been easy.

Rightsizing the Armed Forces: Problems and Prospects

Bhartendu Kumar Singh

Until last year, manpower reductions did not figure in Indian military modernisation discourse, though its centrality is well established in revolution in military affairs (RMA) worldwide. Instead, the Indian preference was for the recruitment of more officers and men under the rubric of a two-front war, low intensity conflicts, and the scourge of terrorism. India was the only country amongst great powers not to work on manpower reduction in its military. However, taking perhaps the most commendable step in India’s post-independence military reforms, the Government recently announced the high level Shekatkar Committee to rightsize the armed forces and cut extra flab wherever possible.

 

What was the turning point? Undoubtedly, it is Prime Minister Modi’s leadership that impressed upon the armed forces the need to rightsize during his December 2015 address at the combined commanders’ conference. He lamented that, “when major powers are reducing their forces and rely more on technology, we are still constantly seeking to expand the size of our forces. Modernisation and expansion of forces at the same time is a difficult and unnecessary goal. We need forces that are agile, mobile and driven by technology….we should shorten the tooth-to-tail ratio.” Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar also called upon the armed forces to reduce the extra flab on many occasions before commissioning the Shekatkar committee.

A key problem that could hamper the Shekatkar Committee’s working is the choice between an in-house approach and sourcing views from outside. It could adopt an in-house approach assuming that outsiders will not know the nitty-gritty of the armed forces. However, even from a layman’s perspective, many reasons exist for manpower reforms in armed forces. First, numbers do not count anymore in the modern military power index. China down-sized the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) from 4.9 million in the early nineties to 2.3 million, and further declared to reduce it by 3 lakh in the near future. The contemporary emphasis is on educated soldiers fighting a technology-driven war with modern gadgets and machinery. The Indian soldier, representing the rural gentry, is semi-educated and deployed in the traditional warfare system.

 

Second, the guiding philosophy driving manpower restructuring and reductions the world-over is not merely the problem of plenty but that of a resource crunch as well. Even in the Indian context, the most vocal advocates of the expansionist school admit that revenue expenditure is rising beyond manageable levels along with defence pension expenditure. Third, many functionalities in the armed forces could be done away with altogether, handed to civilians, or outsourced for budgetary savings. Why should there be colonial leftovers like sahayaks or military farms producing costlier milk than that available in the market? The list is indeed long and frustrating. Such issues are not discussed in public since defence is treated as a holy cow and, therefore, alternative ideas are dumped in the dustbin. The Committee should, therefore, encourage feedback from the open environment to ensure that reform proposals are not half-baked or coloured by an organisational bias since few organisations in the government are willing to shelve their own manpower.

 

Another problem is about earlier proposals of manpower reforms in the services. For example, the Fifth Pay Commission had recommended the disbanding of the Accounts Branch of the Air Force.With 492 commissioned officers and 7,000 men, the only job done by this branch is to make salary and contractual payments for the Air Force through a circuitous procedure. On a competitive note, the same is being provided by their civilian counterparts through officers and staff totaling less than 300. Incidentally, the Accounts Branch is also under a huge number of post-audit observations and recoveries and has erred on a massive scale on travel-related payments and compensation in lieu of quarters (CILQ). This is just a representative example; the committee may like to expand the basket for analysis and further action.

Any prospect for India’s defence reforms, in general, and manpower reforms, in particular, is possible only with a change of mindset on certain counts. First, defence should be treated as public good and not something to be decided upon by the collective wisdom of a select few who are often victims of organisational thinking. Manpower shortage is quite ubiquitous in other sectors of the Government and, therefore, the claim of shortage of officers and men needs to be judged in the wider national interest. Cuts have been imposed in a judicious manner in these sectors, without compromising efficiency and performance, and there is space to replicate the same in the armed forces.

 

Second, the logic of domain specialisation demands that services restrict themselves to combat functionalities and get rid of running Canteen Stores Department (CSD), schools, shopping complexes, marriage venues, housing societies, fund management, etc. These activities could be outsourced to contracted staff. Third, it is time to define defence in broader terms. Development as defence contributes to the logic propelling the ‘Make in India’ initiative, and savings from extra manpower could be spent in developing the domestic military industrial complex (MIC) or creating jobs in defence sector.

 

India is at a historic crossroad in its military modernisation drive. Given the political initiative and leadership, the Committee has its task cut out. It should live up to its expectation and come out with recommendations that can enable the Indian armed forces to emerge as lean and trim, and be able to put their best foot forward. 

How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians And 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS And Saved Palmyra

Franklin Lamb

Palmyra: Something just didn’t feel quite right to Syrian army brass as they penciled in final plans to liberated Palmyra in early March 2016 and as they debated how best to drive Daesh (ISIS) out of Palmyra and deep into the surrounding unwelcoming Syrian desert. This, according to army intelligence officials and commanders who this week briefed this observer at various locations around Palmyra.

Some generals were puzzled. “Why did Daesh not do even more damage at the ancient ruins, given their widely broadcast iconoclasm and their targeting as heresy ancient pre-Islamic sites,”one officer remembers  asking his colleagues.  Daesh(ISIS) certainly had the means and their perverted Koranic motivation to destroy the whole ancient ruins area. This puzzlement was widely held by officials and military strategists who increasingly wondered what was really going on as it became evident that Daesh’s military positions at Palmyra were untenable and they surely would be driven out. Many archeologists and others wondered the same thing as the horrors shown on ISIS U-tube videos began to appear on the Internet.

The Syrian army was soon to learn the answer to their question of why didn’t the Islamic State (Daesh) do more damage among the acres of ruins?

A bit of background.Before waging its final assault to re-take Palmyra, Damascus issued orders to the army not to shell near the ruins. The Syrian air force was similarly instructed not to bomb in the close-in area. So the army, at the cost of losing some troops, did not invade from the south into the area of the ancient ruins.  Rather they surrounded the whole area and fought close-in street battles, mainly in the “modern” city area. “Tadmor, (Palmyra) was taken piece by piece to avoid damaging the ruins”, one officer who took part in the fighting explained to this observer.

It is now known why sparing the “ruins area” from close-in fighting may have been alright with IS, for what they had carefully planned, as discussed below,  was a deadly surprise for the anticipated and hoped for more than for 1000 Syrian troops  they calculated would  soon arrive and advance into the ruins.

ISIS had correctly assumed that the Syrian military would not bomb Palmyra’s National Museum, Syria’s second most tourist visited collection of antiquities after the National Museum in Damascus. For this reason IS housed key leaders and its Sharia court and archives among the remaining statues inside Palmyra’s museum and were fairly safe during their 8 month occupation of the “Bride of the Desert”. This, as they methodically chiseled off the faces and hands of each of the 74 statue heads, including those in what  people here refer to the Museum’s “Head Room.”  It was in the basement of the museum that ISIS planned for the fate of the acres of our cultural heritage ruins.

The above photo taken by this observer on 6/22/2016 at the Palmyra Museum illustrates the ISIS results of chiseling off every face and hand (I counted a total of 74) on statues they found in the Museum.

ISIS damage to the Palmyra Museum and its content would have been much worse according to eyewitnesses had it not been for the work of Syria’s Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) led by Dr. Maamoun Abdul Karim.

“Dr. Maamoun” as he is affectionately  known is Syria, is an international patriot to whom all people of good will are indebted for his indefatigable labor on behalf of all of us to preserve, protect and  restore our shared cultural heritage. Every Abdul-Karim initiative since the start of the current crisis was solidly implemented by DGAMS competent staff of hundreds,  as well as the frequent close-in support of the Syrian army and crucially, the local population across Syria,many of whom this observer has been honored to meet the past few years. Together they were able to protect more than 80% of the exhibits at Palmyra’s museum. Their most recent mission of transporting a large truck full of Museum contents was undertaken at great personal risk and less than 24 hours before ISIS invaded and surrounded the city.

There has been much understandable confusion and also a bit of misinformation about the degree of damage to Palmyra’s archeological sites. Contrary to many media reports, only five percent of the area of our cultural heritage archeological treasures was damaged by ISIS.

Experts at Palmyra have recently formed three units specializing in engineering, archeological evaluations and restoration of damage artifacts. As noted above, it is widely believed here that 95% of Daesh caused damage can and will be restored.. Even a higher percentage can be restored some archeologists working here estimate.And 95% of all the ruins were untouched. Why?

These assertions are not meant to minimize the massive cultural heritage crimes that ISIS committed, including but not limited to the Arc de Triumph, Temple of Bel and, Sella (Sella being the central part of the temple where the statue of the God Bel, was located )and other archeological sites  visited by this observer in the company of experts from Syria’s Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museum (DGAM) including my new friend Mohammad Assa’ad, the much cherished son of the hero of all of us, Khaled Assa’ad, who on August 18, 2015 was brutally murdered near the Palmyra Museum where he had labored for decades. Khaled Ass’ad was accused by ISIS of being an “apostate’ for refusing to give them, even under torture, the information they were seeking about the whereabouts of certain artifacts.

The nagging question persisted into March 2016. Why the limited destruction?What was ISIS up to? Some archeologists and military strategists had been wondering and watching since the ISIS occupation and atrocities began. Another question being asked was why at locations such as the Arc de Triumph, Temple of Bel and, Sella, ISIS did not damage or remove the chunks of the blown up columns and structures.  They were left at the base of the structure and ISIS must have been aware that despite its iconoclastic destructions, the columns and structures could be put back together. “We felt something was wrong with this picture” one expert who has worked at Palmyra for the past two decades explained. “Did Daesh (ISIS) explode certain sites mainly for publicity and was it not interested to cause more lasting destruction and erase the surrounding area?” The gentleman’s use of the word, “erase” was soon to have more significance than this observer initially attached to his word choice.

Visiting UNESCO officials from Paris recently engaged in very useful discussions here, according to one participant, of two often misunderstood concepts, restoration vis a vis rebuilding. Syria plans restoration at Palmyra which uses the original matrix fragment sand not rebuilding which suggests using materials from elsewhere.  UNESCO agrees with DGAM and has promised major help once security conditions allow. So have many others internationally.

Why such optimism?  Is it misplaced?  Experts here think not. As the photo below makes clear, at virtually all the sites that ISIS bombed, the large pieces of the fallen structures are on the ground. And they can and will be restored to their original position.

The photo above, taken 6/22/2016 by Mr.Wael alHafian of the Homs Directorate of Antiquities,illustrates that at ISIS bombed structures, the broken archeological pieces are all still at the site. This is crucially important. The whole ruins area is being guarded by the Syrian army. One very interesting and charming Japanese gentleman excitedly exclaimed that by employing recently developed technology, similar in some respects to what Japanese experts used to “look inside” Egyptian pyramids at few years back, he has ‘seen’ in the pile of rubble shown above approximately 325 pieces of the bombed arch and that every piece can be put back exactly in its place. This is very good news and one hopes that the gentleman from an Osaka University is correct.

So what was the Daesh plan for Palmyra and what went wrong?

We now know that any chance for restoration of our cultural heritage is not what ISIS had in mind as it prepared to evacuate Palmyra. Many details have emerged about their pre-liberation plans for the sites.

As soon as ISIS arrived to Palmyra on  May 20, 2015 and in the coming days, the local population with some exceptions such as the family of the former Director of Palmyra Antiquities and Museums, KhaledAss’ad fled by any means they could. Many evacuated with the Syrian army.

Syrian army intelligence admits that it did not have many agents in the area, whose remaining population of approximately 500 ISIS tightly controlled.But they did receive some reports about seemingly odd middle of the night activity among the ruins. The activity, locals sources claimed, increased toward the end of the eight months of ISIS occupation.

To shorten a long story, this observer can reliably report that by piecing together bits of information and evaluating rumors, Syrian army intelligence discovered, just a couple of days before it intended to enter in force into the area of ruins, that ISIS had developed a very elaborate plan, using some of the latest American technology, one archeologist who has worked for many years at Palmyra explained. Another source told this observer that no, there was nothing used by ISIS that the Syrian and Russian ordnance disposal specialists were unfamiliar with.  But the breadth and detail of the wiring and explosives ISIS placed hidden among the ruins were found to be very sophisticated. The ISIS plan which was also apparently referenced in a document later recovered from the Museum was dubbed “Erase.” (“Mahaqa” in Arabic). ISIS planned to “Erase” the whole area of our ancient ruins and ISIS hoped to kill at least 1000 Syrian troops who they assumed would be among the ruins when they were detonated.

The rumors from some locals turned out to be quite accurate with respect to unusual nocturnal activates among the columns and ancient structures.  ISIS laid what must have been a few miles of wires directly connecting virtually every column and structure of ancient Palmyra to massive amounts of buried explosives that included more than 4000 bombs among the ruins and another 1000-plus in Palmyra town. Using technology and triggering devices some claim were not seen to be used earlier, the whole area was intended by ISIS to be “Erased” by a massive explosion, and as noted above hopefully killing large numbers of Syrian soldiers at the same time.

More details of the ISIS “Erase” project were uncovered when army investigators listened to local sources and began to poke around the ruins.  Long story made short, Syrian and Russian experts discovered that ISIS planned to trigger “Erase” at their moment of choosing by employing one of two means.  The ISIS PlanA was to detonate the massive explosions of “Erase” by using a mobile phone from as far away as between 5 and 10 kilometers to trigger the massive explosion. A backup Plan B triggering method was tied into landline phone lines.  Discovered only a short period before the conflagration was likely to be unleashed, arriving Syrian forces acted fast and the first measure they took was to have the two Syrian phone services Syriatel and MTN shut down all the phone lines in and around Palmyra. “Erase” was disabled unless ISIS had a Plan C. If so, it did not work either.

The dangerous and tedious unexploded ordnance disposal work began in earnest on March 29, 2016 and continued until April 30, 2016. A week later on May 5th Russian symphony performed in the amphitheater where not too long ago 22 Syrian soldiers were hanged-one each on a massive column.  Still visible is one of the hanging roads tied at the top of one column. The next day, May 6th, Syria used the same site to celebrate Martyr’s Day during a 7 to 10 p.m. ceremony.

The dangerous work of clearing the unexploded ordnance was performed by many to date unsung heroes; among them are 100 Syrian and 200 Russian unexploded ordnance specialists and 11 Russian explosive detecting dogs.  Some robots were all deployed as part of the massive around clock bomb clearing operation.

At the end of the intense 30 days of heroic work, which claimed the lives of two soldiers and wounded others, no fewer than 4000 booby-trap bombs were defused and removed from among our cultural heritage ruins at ancient Palmyra.

According to the Syrian General who commanded the whole neutralization of the ISIS “Erase” project, and who generously gave these observer hours of his and his staff’s time, all of Palmyra and the close-in surrounding area are now cleansed of bobby-traps and are safe. The General proclaimed just this week that Palmyra and our cultural heritage sites here are ready and waiting to again receive foreign friends.

Bangladesh police arrests thousands in “anti-terror” operation

Sarath Kumara

Over the past fortnight, Bangladesh police and paramilitary units have carried out a major “anti-terror” crackdown, arresting over 14,000 people. Those detained have been herded into temporary camps and police stations. According to media reports, some those arrested are being tortured to extract confessions. 

Speaking on June 11, Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said her government would end the ongoing assassinations and attacks on secular bloggers, religious minorities and foreigners by Islamic radicals. “It may take time… but we will bring [the perpetrators] under control,” she said. “Where will the criminals hide? Each and every killer will be brought to book.” 

Bangladesh Inspector General of Police A.K.M. Shahidul Hoque told the press that those arrested have been accused of firearms, narcotics and other offences. Thousands of police and paramilitary unit members are involved in the nation-wide repression. 

The right-wing Bangladesh National Party (BNP) has accused the Hasina government of targeting political opponents of her regime. BNP leader Khalida Zia said over 2,000 of the party’s leaders and activists across the country had been arrested since the crackdown started. 

Justifying the mass roundups, Nadeem Qadir from the Bangladesh High Commission in London, told the BBC: “During a major operation you don’t take chances. You do make a lot of arrests and then after the arrests are made you screen them.” 

The Hasina government ordered the crackdown in response to international pressure, particularly from the US and India. Fifty people have been murdered since 2013, with the attacks intensifying this year. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Al Qaeda, which are said to be working in South Asia, have claimed responsibility. 

The Hasina government, which has refused to admit that ISIS or any group with international connections is involved, is targeting the opposition BNP and the fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI). Police have also claimed that Jamaat ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) and Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT) are behind the murders. 

Following the assassination of US Agency for International Development employee Xulhaz Mannan in April, US Secretary of State, John Kerry telephoned Prime Minister Hasina and “offered” Washington’s assistance in the investigation. Mannan’s friend, Tonmoi Mahbub, an actor, was also murdered. 

A host of senior US officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Nisha Desai Biswal, have visited Dhaka to discuss the killings. Washington is concerned that the emergence of Islamic fundamentalist groups in Bangladesh hostile to the US and India, will destabilise Bangladesh and India, and impact on US preparations for war against China.

The US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) has called on Bangladesh to halt the “arbitrary arrests.” It referred to media reports and said that “some of those detained are being made to pay bribes to secure their release...”

HRW cited one case where “police detained a youth, beat him up in custody, and then demanded a 100,000 taka ($US1,270) bribe, threatening otherwise to list him as a suspected fundamentalist.” It also said the Bangladesh security forces had a “history of impunity for torture and other custodial abuse” and there was “a real risk of harm during detention and interrogation.”

Justifying the mass arrests, Bangladesh police claimed it had captured around 200 suspected Islamic militants, including the killers of two bloggers. Sumon Hossain Patwari was accused of involvement in the murder of publisher Ahmed Rashid Tutul and injuring two writers. Another individual was accused of killing Avijith Roy, an American-Bangladesh blogger and writer, last year.

US Ambassador Marcia Bernicat last week told the media that she was concerned about whether the arrests were being “conducted in a transparent manner.” In other words, Washington has no objections to the mass arrests—which it has supported behind the scenes—but is concerned to keep up the pretence of concern for democratic rights.

India has openly backed the government crackdown in Bangladesh. Its external affairs minister, Sushma Swaraj, said: “The Bangladesh government is sparing no effort to stop the attacks. Sheikh Hasina has taken strong steps and Islamic leaders have condemned the killings.”

Swaraj was replying to concerns about the killing of a Hindu monastery worker Ranjan Pandey, 60, in northeastern Bangladesh on June 10 and death threats against a priest from the Ramakrishna Mission Dhaka. ISIS is said to have claimed responsibility for both incidents. 

The US and India are determined to undercut Beijing’s influence on Dhaka and want to prevent ISIS, or other fundamentalist groupings, destabilising the situation in Bangladesh and complicating Washington’s geo-political agenda in the region.

Egyptian military regime steps up repression as food becomes unaffordable

Jean Shaoul

Two years ago General Abdul Fattah el-Sisi, defence minister in Mohamed Mursi’s government, became president of Egypt. He had led a military coup that toppled the Mursi government in July 2013, drowning the military’s Islamist opponents in blood.

Since then, there has been no let-up in the state-organised repression of the el-Sisi regime’s bourgeois political opponents, liberal activists and the working class and repression is increasing as the cost of basic commodities soar.

The judge in yet another kangaroo court sentenced former Muslim Brotherhood President Mursi to 40 years in prison following his conviction on charges of spying for Qatar by allegedly passing on classified Egyptian documents to the petro-state. He sentenced to death six other defendants, including two Al-Jazeera news service employees in absentia. Mursi is currently appealing a previous death sentence and another two sentences—life in prison and 20 years in prison—in separate cases.

El-Sisi banned the Brotherhood after his takeover, declaring it a terrorist organisation. Since then, he has mounted a vicious crackdown against all opponents of the military elite that has dominated Egyptian political and economic life since the 1952 Free Officers’ coup.

The government declared a three-month state of emergency in parts of the Sinai Peninsula in October 2014, which it has illegally extended across the entire Peninsula ever since. It was aimed ostensibly against the Bedouin and Islamist fighters in the impoverished desert region who have killed dozens of security personnel. But the curfews, detention without trial or even charges, shutdown of cell phone and internet networks, and routine abuse by the army and police have only inflamed tensions.

The Egyptian state has outlawed protests, imprisoned tens of thousands, sentenced hundreds to death and introduced a sweeping counterterrorism law that vastly expanded the authorities’ powers. Mass trials, mostly of Brotherhood supporters, failed to establish individual guilt. Several thousand have been tried in military courts. Torture and enforced disappearances are commonplace, with many detainees dying in custody from mistreatment.

The junta harasses and investigates independent NGOs and prosecutes journalists who dare to criticise its actions. Three leading members of the journalists’ union face trial for harbouring “fugitive” colleagues and publishing false news, after the police stormed their headquarters to arrest two reporters hiding inside the union’s offices on May 1. The media were banned from covering the preliminary proceedings.

The regime has also targeted the universities, amending the law to allow the state to appoint senior university personnel and university heads in order to expel students. It has deployed security forces on campuses, arresting at least 790, mainly for protesting against the government, many of whom were tortured or abused. At least 89 were referred to military tribunals where some were sentenced to death or life imprisonment. According to officials from Egypt’s two largest universities, 819 students have been expelled since 2013. Some were Brotherhood supporters, while many others were protesting against abuses by the security forces.

In February this year, Italian doctoral student Giulio Regeni, who had been writing his thesis about independent trade unions, was found tortured to death after disappearing on the January 25 anniversary of the 2011 revolution that toppled long-standing dictator Hosni Mubarak, when security forces were out in force in central Cairo.

All the indications are that the top echelons of the regime were involved in the murder as it prepares to legislate against “independent” unions, with the official state unions filing a lawsuit to criminalise unofficial unions, many of them connected to Washington. The government is also seeking to shut down NGOs that receive overseas funding.

Despite the crackdown on political protests, including a ban on a march on International Workers Day last month organized by independent trade unions, rising prices, low wages and delays in paying wages and bonuses are fuelling social and economic tensions.

In the wake the 2008 global financial crisis and the political upheavals following Mubarak’s ouster, Egypt’s economy has gone into free fall. With its main foreign currency earners, the Suez Canal hit by falling trade and tourism by security fears, the Egyptian pound has plummeted. This, along with the price hikes resulting from the taxes and cuts in subsidies on basic goods imposed in 2014, new import duties on several products, including nuts and fruits, and restrictions on others, has sent prices, particularly foodstuffs, medications and fuel sky high.

Inflation is now running at 13 percent a year and rising in a country where 40 percent of the people live on less than $2 a day and wages have not kept up with inflation. Prices are soaring in Egypt despite a UN Food and Agriculture Organisation report showing global commodity prices falling to their lowest since June 2010.

So great is the fear that rising prices may lead to widespread protests that the government announced government stores would offer basic commodities at discounted prices.

Egypt’s Central Bank has raised interest rates twice this year, to around 12 percent, to bolster the pound. This move threatens the already limited capital investment in Egypt, following its 14 percent devaluation of the pound, which set exchange rate at 8.85 pounds to the US dollar, compared to 7.73 previously. On the black market, traders are paying up to 11 pounds per dollar. Another devaluation is expected later this year.

Egypt's budget deficit rose to 9.2 percent of GDP in first nine months of this fiscal year, up from 9.0 percent in the same period last year.

The el-Sisi regime is dependent on Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the United States for its economic and political survival, with Washington providing at least $1.3 billion a year in direct aid. It was Egypt’s dire financial situation that led el-Sisi to transfer sovereignty of two strategic Red Sea islands at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba to Saudi Arabia as part of an economic deal to stimulate Egypt’s economy, although the courts have unexpectedly nullified the transfer. Under the deal, Riyadh is to provide Cairo with a $22 billion oil and aid deal, including loans of $1.5 billion to develop the Sinai Peninsula, $1.2 billion to finance Egypt’s oil purchases and a $500 million grant to buy Saudi exports and products.

According to Egyptian NGO Democracy Meter, in the first four months of 2016 thousands have defied the ban on protests to take part in a total of 493 actions, ranging from work stoppages to peaceful marches and pickets. This represents a 25 percent increase from the same period last year. In the last month, workers have held sit-ins over unpaid wages in Cairo and at the port of Alexandria, Egypt’s second city. Security forces broke up the protests, arresting 13 workers and engineers who face the possibility of military trials since the Alexandria facility belongs to the navy.

Heightening the political and economic crisis engulfing el-Sisi’s dictatorship is the scandal surrounding the leaking of the school-leaving examinations on which entry to university depends. The revelation has led to the cancellation of one of the examinations and protests by high school students, highlighting the deteriorating conditions of public education in Egypt where teachers routinely take charge of at least 60 students in a class and schools operate daily on a double-shift basis.

Spain’s elections intensify crisis of bourgeois rule

Alejandro Lopez

On June 26, Spaniards will be called to vote for the second time in six months to elect the next parliament. The election is set to produce another hung parliament like that of last December’s elections, with neither any of the major four parties—the Popular Party (PP), Citizens, the Socialist Party (PSOE) and Unidos Podemos (UP)—able to gain a majority in parliament.

On Sunday, three separate polls by Metroscopia, Sigma Dos and GAD3 found that UP, an alliance between Podemos and the Stalininst-led United Left (IU), is making big gains at the expense of the PSOE. It would garner between 84 and 95 parliamentary seats in the 350-seat parliament,up from 71 seats won in December. The PSOE would fall from 90 to 78 and 85 seats. The PP under interim Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy would get between 113 to 129 votes, and Citizens 40 to 41.

While the major four parties are committed in not repeating elections, any government emerging from these elections would be weak, divided, and unpopular. The most widely cited possible configurations would be a grand coalition between the PP, Citizens and the PSOE, or a UP-PSOE government.

Rajoy has stated that he hopes for a coalition government with PSOE and Citizens, stating, “I continue to believe that the best thing is to have a government with a wide parliamentary support, and I am willing to work for this”.

Albert Rivera, Citizens’ leader, has stated that his party will not vote Rajoy, but could abstain to allow him to rule or support another PP candidate. Rivera has called for a “negotiating table between the three constitutional parties, PP-PSOE-Citizens, without waiting one minute”.

Rivera has also opened the door to the parliament voting for “independent” candidate, in other words, the creation of an unprecedented technocratic government supported by the PP, Citizens and the PSOE.

The PSOE, led by Pedro Sánchez, is in a weaker position than in December. Polls show his party has been overtaken by Unidos Podemos, relegating the PSOE to a third position for the first time since the 1977 elections after the death of General Francisco Franco.

The social democrats have so discredited themselves by their previous cost-cutting measures that they are incapable of political benefiting from the explosive social anger at the PP’s years of cuts, tax hikes and corruption scandals.

Sánchez, who failed to get enough parliamentary support for a PSOE-Citizens government last April, is claiming that he will neither rule with the PP nor with Podemos. However, his position within the PSOE is precarious.

If the party suffered the ever more likely historic defeat, it could allow internal opponents to remove Sánchez to allow such a grand coalition. A possible successor could be the current regional premier of Andalusia, Susana Díaz. Along with the PSOE old guard led by the former Prime Minister Felipe González, Díaz became the leading contester to Sánchez’s leadership after the December elections, opposing any attempt to form a government with Podemos, claiming that the pseudo-left’s key requirement to hold a referendum on independence in Catalonia was unacceptable.

The other likely government is a Unidos Podemos-PSOE government, supported by separatist and nationalist parties.

Under Iglesias, UP has framed its entire electoral campaign as preparing a “government of change” with the PSOE. Its electoral ads, pamphlets, and Iglesias’ speeches and interventions in debates are all directed to pressuring the PSOE for this government.

UP has accepted “deficit reduction”, i.e., austerity, the European Union and NATO. Podemos has also abandoned its populist rhetoric. Words such as “caste” and “oligarchs” are omitted and instead Podemos is now promoting itself as the new social democracy, a clear indication that it aims to save the post-Franco order from mass opposition to the establishment parties.

Iglesias has also renounced the main condition it had imposed on the PSOE to form a coalition in the post-December negotiations: the independence referendum in Catalonia.

No sooner had Sánchez stated that “We will not support a government which fragments the Spanish national sovereignty, and who questions the economic and social viability of the welfare state”, that Iglesias intervened in the radio last Tuesday to state, “Our proposal is that there is a referendum, but we are available to talk about anything. We wish to talk without red lines and hear other kinds of proposals.”

Meanwhile the separatist Republican Left of Catalonia has stated that it would be willing to support such a government only if it agreed to a referendum to be held in less than a year after it was elected.

Whatever coalition of parties emerges to rule Spain after the elections, what is clear is that it will be ferociously hostile to the opposition to austerity and war in the Spanish population, and to the growing militancy in the European working class. There are escalating strikes against austerity measures in France, Belgium, and against Podemos’ ally, Syriza, in Greece. Yet all Spain’s parties are committed to deepening the assault on living standards and defending Spanish imperialism abroad.

What is being prepared is a confrontation with the working class. The question posed for the ruling class is whether it will bring Podemos to power to try to channel the mass anti-austerity opposition into a new dead end like the Syriza government, or whether it will use Podemos as a safety valve in the case a PP-Citizens-PSOE coalition is set up.

The intensification of the crisis will drive wider layers of workers and youth into social and political struggle. The unsustainable levels of unemployment, 23 percent overall and 45 percent among youth, nearly a third of the families living in poverty, and wage cuts and job insecurity offers no viable solution within the capitalist system.

UK “leave” vote batters financial markets

Andre Damon

Thursday’s vote in the UK to leave the European Union triggered a global stock sell-off Friday, prompting fears of a global market crash, recession or both.

Despite polls showing a slight lead for the leave campaign in the week leading up to the vote, markets appear to have been unprepared for the Brexit result, having placed heavy bets on a “remain” outcome.

European stocks led the sell-off, with the UK’s FTSE 100 down by more than 3 percent, Germany’s DAX losing 6.8 percent and France’s CAC 40 declining by 8 percent, as trading volumes on Europe’s stock exchanges hit a new record. The EURO STOXX 50 index fell by 8.6 percent.

Stocks were also pummeled in Asia, with Japan’s Nikkei 225 index falling by nearly 8 percent.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down by 610 points, or 3.4 percent, its biggest fall since August 2015. The Standard & Poor’s 500 erased all of its gains for the year, while the Nasdaq suffered its biggest loss in five years, descending into correction territory. Major banks led the sell-off, with Citigroup falling 9.4 percent and JPMorgan Chase plummeting 6.9 percent.

Stock markets in the EU’s weaker “periphery” fared worst of all, with markets falling by more than 12 percent in Spain, Italy and Greece. Shares in Italy’s two largest banks, Sanpaolo and UniCredit, fell by more than 23 percent, and trading in some Italian banks never even opened.

The only stocks to fare well, tellingly, were those of defense companies, while investors poured into gold and “safe haven” government bonds.

The pound at one point fell to its lowest level against the dollar since 1985, and was down 8.1 percent at the end of the trading day in New York.

Moody’s Investors Service responded to the vote by downgrading the outlook on the UK’s credit rating from “stable” to “negative,” warning of a “prolonged period of uncertainty.” The ratings agency warned of “diminished confidence and lower spending and investment to result in weaker growth.”

The referendum is expected to have its sharpest impact on companies that use the UK as a staging platform for trade and financial transactions with the rest of Europe. Morgan Stanley said it could move one sixth of its British workforce to other EU countries, and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said similar moves could follow at his firm.

A source at a major US financial firm told Reuters, “The juniors are freaking out. I will tell them to focus on their job and wait for the volatility to pass, but the reality is much, much starker. We'll have a crash and big layoffs.”

Joe Rundle, an official at the UK-based financial services firm ETX Capital, told Reuters, “Leave's victory has delivered one of the biggest market shocks of all time… Panic may not be too strong a word.”

Ford said it would cut jobs in Britain as a result of the vote, declaring that it would “take whatever action is needed” to shore up profitability. Its Asian competitors Toyota and Nissan, whose car production in the UK is designed almost entirely for export, particularly to the European Union, hinted at similar steps. Only ten percent of Toyota’s car production in the UK targets the domestic market.

The stock sell-off was likely tempered somewhat by the expectation that global central banks would respond to the crisis with new infusions of cash into the financial markets. The Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve issued statements to the effect that they would do whatever was necessary to rescue the financial markets. Futures markets are now betting that the Federal Reserve will not raise the benchmark federal funds rate until mid-2018.

“The future of the EU itself is now clouded, as a rising chorus of populist voices in places like the Netherlands, France, Italy and Spain will no doubt call for reconsideration of their own membership,” David Joy, chief market strategist at Ameriprise, told the Financial Times.

In an interview with the financial channel CNBC, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan said the problems expressed in the Brexit vote were more serious than suggested by most commentators. He said the existence of the euro currency was threatened, declaring that Greece would sooner rather than later be forced out of the currency bloc. He pointed to the political strains created by the exit of the UK and noted that France and Germany had gone to war against one another on several occasions.

Greenspan went on to say that the underlying problem was a “massive slowing” of real income growth across Europe and the US, which he linked to a decline in the growth of productivity and a “huge contraction” in capital investment. As a step toward resolving the crisis, he called for slashing the growth of social entitlements.

The vote also points to a growing tide of protectionist sentiment. Earlier this month, the World Trade Organization reported that anti-trade polices carried out around the world had hit the highest level since 2009. “This vote is a step away from free trade," Bob Doll, chief equity strategist at Nuveen Asset Management, told the Associated Press.

The Financial Times quoted analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch saying the vote would add to a “long string of confidence shocks hitting an already vulnerable US and global economy.” Michael Mullaney, chief investment officer of Boston-based Fiduciary Trust Co., told the Wall Street Journal, “The probability of a global recession that we were teetering on before Brexit is now more in play.”

Brexit vote intensifies conflicts within European Union

Alex Lantier

As news that Britain had voted to exit the European Union triggered a global financial panic, it became clear that the Brexit vote will have vast and unforeseen consequences throughout Europe and beyond. The process of European integration launched just after World War II, intended to build political institutions that would make a new world war impossible, is unraveling.

Europe is now preparing for years of bitter negotiations over the legal and financial conditions of Britain's withdrawal from the EU and its treaties. With trillions of euros in trade and financial contracts at stake—and intra-EU tensions sharpened over many years by the Greek debt crisis, the Middle East refugee crisis, and US-sponsored wars in the Middle East and Ukraine—divisions within the EU are set to intensify. Top officials made somber and pessimistic comments about the prospects for Europe and the world in the wake of the Brexit vote.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel delivered a brief statement in Berlin, taking no questions. She called Brexit “a break in Europe's history,” reflecting “fundamental doubts about the current direction of European integration” and challenging the ability of European countries to assert “our economic, social, ecological and foreign policy interests.”

Merkel bluntly warned that there was no guarantee that the explosive contradictions reemerging between the major European powers would not again erupt into war: “Even if it is hard to imagine now,” she said, “we should remember, especially in these hours, that the idea of the European Union is an idea of peace. After centuries of terrible bloodshed, the founders of the European Union found a joint path towards reconciliation and peace, culminating in the treaties of Rome signed almost sixty years ago. That is and continues to be anything but a given in the future.”

Against this specter of a new war in Europe, Merkel had little to propose besides vain hopes that the EU could present its hated policies of austerity, war and police repression in a more favorable light to its remaining citizens. “We therefore have to ensure that citizens get a concrete sense of how the European Union contributes to improving their own personal lives,” she said.

In fact, a key factor in the Brexit crisis is the reality that masses of voters in Britain, as across Europe, have concluded that the EU is a socially regressive institution hostile to their interests. A tool of European capitalism, it is, moreover, irrevocably torn by the competing interests of European states.

Merkel did not attempt to hide rising intra-EU tensions. Even as she called for unity, the German chancellor, whose government only two years ago repudiated the policy of military restraint pursued by Germany after World War II, said she would defend first and foremost Berlin's interests. “The German government will pay special attention to the interests of German citizens and the German economy in that process,” she declared.

On Monday, Merkel will host French President François Hollande and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, who are meeting today in Paris, for a one-day meeting to prepare an extraordinary two-day EU summit. Even as EU officials attempt to construct a negotiating framework, however, tensions are already erupting between different European countries.

Spanish officials reacted by proposing to take back the Rock of Gibraltar, a British possession at the tip of the Iberian peninsula situated between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, which was captured by British and Dutch forces in 1704. Spain's acting foreign minister, José Manuel García-Margallo, told Onda Cero radio, “I hope the formula of co-sovereignty—to be clear, the Spanish flag on the rock—is much closer than before.”

British officials flatly rejected proposals to share sovereignty over Gibraltar with Spain.

Above all, Brexit is stoking tensions between the two largest remaining EU economies, Germany and France. Yesterday, Hollande demanded “profound change” in the EU, focusing on strengthening European military and police powers and generating more economic growth.

While Hollande's comments broadly echoed those of EU officials, who have called for expanding the EU's repressive powers and its ability to wage foreign wars, his remarks on growth were a barely veiled criticism of Germany, in line with longstanding French calls for a looser monetary policy. These demands have faced determined and ever more overt opposition in Berlin since the eruption of the Greek debt crisis, shortly after the 2008 Wall Street crash.

“The calculation of the [French] head of state is that Angela Merkel, who blocked this, will now have to give way,” an anonymous French presidential staffer told Les Echos .

There is no indication, however, that Berlin and Paris will be able to resolve the escalating conflicts within the euro zone. As stock markets collapsed globally, former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan appeared on the financial news channel CNBC to declare that, due to the intractable political conflicts unleashed by the crisis, it would prove to be more serious than the financial crashes of 1987 and 2008.

“This is the worst period I recall since I've been in public service,” Greenspan said. “There's nothing like it, including the crisis—remember October 19, 1987, when the Dow went down by a record amount, 23 percent? That I thought was the bottom of all potential problems. This has a corrosive effect that will not go away.”

Greenspan indicated that he considered both a Greek exit from the EU and Scottish secession from Britain to be likely. However, he reserved his sharpest warnings for the increasingly bitter divisions within the euro zone, declaring that “the euro is a very serious problem in that the southern part of the euro zone is being funded by the northern part and the European Central Bank.”

What has emerged is the breakdown of the EU and the impossibility of overcoming contradictions deeply lodged in the historical and economic development of Europe on a capitalist basis. Far from uniting Europe, the relentless assault on workers' social and democratic rights and the escalating military interventions that have proceeded since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 have discredited the EU and undermined the relations established during the Cold War era.

The greatest danger, however, lies in the suppression of the independent interests of the working class, the only social force that can overcome the deepening crisis and drive to war. Opposition to the EU in Britain was organized not from the left, from the standpoint of the independent political interests of the working class, but from the right—by extreme nationalist elements within the Conservative Party in alliance with the far-right, anti-immigrant UK Independence Party, who attracted around them reactionary petty-bourgeois, pseudo-left elements such as George Galloway.

The European allies of these forces predictably praised the Brexit and called for a further breakup of the EU along nationalist lines.

Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's neo-fascist National Front (FN), attended a congress of far-right parties in Vienna Friday that hailed the Brexit vote. Le Pen, who has associated her campaign for next year's French presidential election with a demand for a referendum on a French exit from the EU, said: “Like a lot of French people, I’m very happy that the British people held on and made the right choice. What we thought was impossible yesterday has now become possible.”

Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders, also at the Vienna meeting, welcomed the Brexit vote as “historic,” adding: “Now it’s our turn. I think the Dutch people must now be given the chance to have their say in a referendum.”

The rising tensions within the EU confront Washington with serious problems. The NATO military alliance encompassing all of the major European powers is central to the global imperialist policy of the United States. US President Barack Obama aggressively campaigned against Brexit, traveling to Britain to threaten that the UK would be relegated to “the back of the queue” in its relations with the US if it exited the EU. With NATO now facing increasing internal conflicts, or even possibly outright dissolution, Obama took a more conciliatory stance yesterday.

“The people of the United Kingdom have spoken, and we respect their decision,” he said. “The special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is enduring,” he added, “and the United Kingdom’s membership in NATO remains a vital cornerstone of US foreign, security and economic policy.”

The Oaxaca massacre and the eruption of class struggle in Mexico

Neil Hardt

On Sunday, June 19, a force of heavily-armed Mexican federal police fired automatic weapons into a crowd of 500 striking teachers and their supporters blocking a highway in the impoverished town of Nochixtlán in the southern state of Oaxaca, killing at least thirteen and wounding dozens more.

The massacre reveals the brutal lengths to which the Mexican ruling class will go to impose its attacks on Mexican workers. Opposition will not be brooked.

Those who lost their lives, mostly young people, were protesting in defense of public education. Teachers across Mexico, most forcefully in Mexico’s deeply impoverished southwest, have demonstrated against efforts by President Enrique Peña Nieto to privatize education and impose authoritarian methods of testing and hiring teachers.

In the wake of last Sunday’s massacre, a groundswell of opposition has emerged nationally against state repression and right-wing “reforms,” part of Peña Nieto’s “Pact for Mexico,” aimed at slashing social services. Thousands of workers, youth and peasants attended funeral processions for the dead in Nochixtlán. Residents have since rebuilt the barricades taken down in the police operation.

On Wednesday, 200,000 doctors and nurses struck in sympathy with the teachers and against attempts to privatize the federal social security and health systems. Students at major Mexican universities boycotted classes this week to protest Sunday’s attack and ongoing efforts by the government to impose higher education costs.

Parents of the 43 Ayotzinapa student teachers “disappeared” by the Mexican government in September 2014 continue to tour the country in protest, after the Peña Nieto administration shut down the only independent investigation of the attack.

Through the Pact for Mexico, the Mexican oligarchy, backed by US imperialism, seeks to implement a massive transfer of wealth from the Mexican working class to the banks and corporations.

The US ambassador to Mexico, Roberta Jacobson, met with Peña Nieto the day after the attack in Oaxaca to express support for his reforms. After a perfunctory and insincere expression of regret over the slaughter in Nochixtlán, Jacobson emphasized that the “opportunities for bilateral cooperation have never been better” between the US and Mexico, and that “only through alliances on education can we succeed in training the Twenty-First Century labor force.”

It is likely that the federal police who opened fire in Nochixtlán were US-trained officers using weapons provided by the Obama administration. Through the Merida Initiative, the US has spent over $2.3 billion arming and training Mexico's police and armed forces since 2008, providing them with deadly weapons, drones, surveillance equipment and airplanes.

In addition, the US Northern Command has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on separate training programs that, unlike under the Merida Initiative, are not subject to any human rights withholding provisions. Nearly 5,000 Mexican police and military personnel were trained at US military bases in 2015 alone.

The educational reforms of the Pact for Mexico have their origins in similar programs being implemented in the United States and around the world. In cities such as Detroit and Chicago, the Obama administration has worked closely with the trade unions to impose pension and wage cuts, school closures and antidemocratic testing policies on millions of teachers.

The resurgence of class struggle and, in particular, the struggle of teachers, is not only a Mexican, but rather an international phenomenon. In Detroit, thousands of teachers staged “sickouts” to protest the dilapidated condition of the city’s schools. Similar strikes and protests have taken place in Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle and Atlanta. A strike wave of teachers and professors has swept across five Brazilian states in recent weeks, as opposition grows to counter-reforms undertaken by Interim President Michel Temer.

The Mexican ruling class has responded to the growth of social opposition and the reemergence of the class struggle not only by employing state violence. As a backup, it has also brought to the forefront various self-proclaimed “left” or even “socialist” groups in an attempt to disarm social protests and prevent working-class opposition from taking an independent, revolutionary form.

Key is the role of former Mexico City mayor and ex-Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who now heads the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) party. He founded this new party in 2014 after splitting with the supposedly “left” PRD. López Obrador, who will run for president in 2018, pledges to “transform Mexico through the electoral process.”

In the wake of this week's signs of a broadening movement of strikes and protests, López Obrador posted a video calling for a national protest march for Sunday, June 26 against the “political mafia” and “hypocritical conservatives.” In the video, López Obrador says the demonstration will be directed against corruption and will pose the question: “Why not choose humanism? Why not search for reconciliation and peace?” As for the teachers’ work stoppage, he calls for a “dialogue” with a state that has ruled out compromise.

MORENA is being groomed to play a similar role as SYRIZA in Greece and Podemos in Spain. The party won a majority of seats in the Mexico City Constituent Assembly in the June 5 elections. It is being widely hailed as Mexico's foremost “broad left” party after the collapse in support for the PRD. The latter has been thoroughly exposed as a right-wing party by its vote for the Pact for Mexico, its role in carrying out and covering up the Ayotzinapa massacre, and its electoral alliances with the right-wing National Action Party (PAN).

Like its counterparts in Greece and Spain, MORENA is a nationalist, pro-capitalist, anti-socialist party. Its radical phraseology is designed to tie the Mexican working class to the blood-soaked Mexican state. If brought to power, MORENA will play the same role as SYRIZA in Greece. It will enforce the Pact of Mexico in conjunction with US imperialism, and, if necessary, respond to opposition in the working class with violence and repression.

The Mexican working class cannot solve the severe problems plaguing Mexican society by tying itself to bourgeois parties such as MORENA and proceeding on a nationalist basis. It can do so only in a united revolutionary struggle with its class brothers and sisters worldwide, including in the United States.