Deporter-in-Chief: The legacy of Obama

Genevieve Leigh and Toby Reese 

Over the past six years the United States and Mexican governments have collectively apprehended nearly 1 million refugees fleeing to the United States from the Northern Triangle countries—El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras—deporting more than 800,000, including more than 40,000 children. Nearly 10 percent of the Northern Triangle countries’ total population have reportedly left the region.

The unceasing flow of refugees has compelled the political establishment to take a series of measures in an attempt to contain the crisis. More recently, the strategy of the Obama administration has been to shift the dirty work of apprehensions and deportations to its southern neighbor, Mexico.

Under heavy pressure from Washington, Mexico implemented Programa Frontera Sur in July 2014. The plan, likely crafted by officials within the Obama administration itself, means that those refugees who previously would have reached the US border are now being intercepted by Mexican authorities.

Under the Programa Frontera Sur, Mexico has relocated over 300 immigration agents to its southern border with Guatemala to carry out the ruthless dictates of Washington. The program has included setting up mobile checkpoints and conducting regular raids on trains and migrant hostels. The Obama administration has directly supported this campaign with training, technology and intelligence. For migrants, the consequences have been devastating.

A year after its implementation in July 2014, apprehensions by the Mexican government increased by 71 percent over the same period the previous year. Likewise, apprehensions of Central Americans by the US border patrol decreased. This shift created the illusion of some measure of effective immigration reform in the US. In reality, even more migrants are being deported than previously; the only change has been in the location of apprehension. Furthermore, due to the absence or deliberate disregard of laws of due process and humanitarian norms, the migrants are often no longer even considered for temporary visas. Instead, they are forced to return, in massive numbers, to some of the most violent and desperate social conditions on the planet.

The program has taken a particularly aggressive approach to operations aimed at preventing migrants from riding north on cargo trains, known collectively as La Bestia. Migration authorities have blocked migrants from boarding trains, forcibly removed migrants from trains mid-ride, and raided establishments that migrants are known to frequent, detaining thousands in the process. There have been many reports of excessive use of force and other abuses by the authorities, including a recent shooting of a 15-year-old boy traveling from Guatemala. The government has denied all of the charges.

No longer able to board the train in Chiapas, migrants, because of the disruption of the usual route, are forced to rely on different and dangerous modes of transportation, often traveling incredible distances by foot. Without access to the networks of resources and shelters long established on the previous train route, migrants suffer immensely from vulnerabilities on their new path.

The Mexican government has turned these methods of repression, forged initially to be used against migrants, towards its own population. Earlier this year the Guardian found that an increasing number of indigenous Mexicans had been detained for possible deportation in Chiapas for not having a valid identification—despite the Mexican Constitution stating that individuals are able to move freely throughout the country “without necessity of a letter of security, passport, safe-conduct or any other similar requirement.” It is quite common for babies who are born in indigenous communities in Chiapas, Guerrero, and Oaxaca to be born without a record of birth. Some reports estimate that as many as 7 million Mexicans do not have a registered name, identity, or nationality. Earlier this year, the WSWS learned of a woman who gave birth to a child in Chiapas and then, en route to the US, became entangled in an immigration web in which the baby became stranded without citizenship in either country.

As the tenure of the 44th United States president comes to a close, a balance sheet of the administration’s “accomplishments” regarding immigration should be drawn. Despite grand promises of immigration reform in his first 100 days of office, the Obama administration proceeded to enact draconian immigration legislation and speed up deportations. Obama’s actions become all the more significant when one considers that these policies were carried out while the Democratic Party, which continues to posture as a defender of working people and the poor, gained a majority in both houses of Congress after the 2008 elections.

In immigrant communities, Obama has become infamously known as “deporter-in-chief.” Since 2008 there have been over 2.5 million deportations, an average of more than 1,000 per day. This is roughly double the rate that occurred under Republican president George Bush, and totals more than under any other president in US history. In 2013, there were 435,498 removals, an all-time high for a single year. In addition, the administration has prioritized using a more formal removal process, which carries greater consequences if re-entry is attempted by the immigrant. Considering that the most recent statistics only include deportations that have taken place through October 2014, it is quite possible that over 3 million immigrants have been deported to date.

After coming to office, Obama vastly expanded a program begun under Bush called Secure Communities. The program united federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies with the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in an effort to deport immigrants who were already living in communities, as opposed to those attempting to cross the border. A political scientist at the University of Iowa, Rene Rocha, recently told the Christian Science Monitor that, “Prior to the Obama administration, there was very little interior enforcement, it was almost all near the border. By the end of 2011, arrests near the border and interior were equal.”

The program faced extensive criticism for ripping up communities and the lack of regulation of the program’s implementation. A study by UC Berkeley found that only 52 percent of individuals arrested through the program were slated to have a hearing before an immigration judge and that 39 percent of individuals arrested had a spouse or children who were US citizens, causing an impact on 88,000 families that included US citizens.

In many cases, immigrants who have temporary legal status through programs such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are held in poorly regulated detention centers throughout the country with few rights. Although these individuals have received temporary legal immunity from deportation, in many states they are not eligible for Medicaid programs, nor are they eligible for the tax subsidies of the Affordable Care Act. In select states that have provided a state-funded waiver to assist the poorest sections of immigrants, such as California with Medicaid, this vulnerable section of the population is often scapegoated by the right wing for their “abuse of social programs,” in a further effort to divide the working class.

The administration’s “reform” measures did not only focus on immigrants already residing in the country but have also focused on strengthening Fortress America at the border. In 2010, Obama signed into legislation a bill that granted $600 million to further militarize the US-Mexico border through the buildup of thousands of border agents and the use of Predator drones to patrol from the sky.

The most recent manifestation of Obama “reform” came in September when his administration announced that it would begin the forced removal of Haitian refugees, an act only briefly postponed in the wake of Hurricane Matthew and the massing of thousands of Haitian immigrants at the US border in cities such as Tijuana, Mexico. Many of these immigrants, who fled Haiti to Brazil following the 2010 earthquake, are now being forced out of economic necessity to make the dangerous journey north from Brazil to the United States. Much like the migrants fleeing the war-torn Northern Triangle region, the Haitian migrants have now become double victims of US imperialism: first, from the devastating situation they faced in their home countries brought on by US imperialism, and later during their perilous journey in search of livable conditions.

The criminal immigration policies of the Obama administration carried out over the last eight years are yet another indictment of the increasingly Orwellian nature of the US political establishment. The great “anti-war” candidate became the first president in history to keep the US at war throughout two full terms in office. Universal health care has turned out to be nothing short of a restructuring of the system to benefit big business. The alleged candidate of working people has overseen the largest transfer of wealth to the top 1 percent in history. As his presidency comes to a close, we should add to the balance sheet immigration “reform” that has turned out to mean the ruthless deportation of more immigrants than any other administration in US history.

For all intents and purposes, Hillary Clinton can be expected to continue the same harsh policies as the Obama administration if she is voted into the White House on November 8. While Clinton demagogically harangues Donald Trump for his plans to build more walls, she has been a firm supporter of deportations, and voted for the increased securing of the border through building a 700-mile barrier between the US and Mexico in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (a bill also approved by Obama as a senator). Clinton is on record in January of this year trying to distance herself from Trump by dishonestly quibbling over semantics and stating that she supported the building of a “fence” and not a “wall.” Based on the Obama experience, it should be clear that whatever rhetoric is decided upon, the reality will be increased attacks on defenseless migrants.

Divisions mount in UK military over US presidential race

Robert Stevens

Sir Richard Shirreff, a recently-retired British general, has publicly declared his opposition to Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Speaking to the Conservative Daily Telegraph, Shirreff, NATO’s deputy supreme allied commander in Europe between 2011 and 2014, said, “Here we are days from the election and that’s a real, real threat—Trump saying he might not commit to article 5.”

Article 5 of the US-led NATO constitution commits each of its members to come to the aid militarily of any member facing attack.

Shirreff added, “The defence of Europe during the Cold War depended on total certainty that whichever president was in the Oval Office, of whatever party, [the US] would come to Europe’s defence.”

Shirreff is a vocal advocate of Britain gearing up for war with Russia, as part of NATO. Earlier this year he published a book entitled 2017: War with Russia: An Urgent Warning from Senior Military Command.

Among Britain’s ruling elite there is grave concern for the future of Europe over the outcome of an election being contested by the two most unpopular candidates in US history. Following the June referendum vote to leave the European Union (EU), Britain is in the midst of a constitutional and political crisis without precedent in the post-war period. Such is the febrile atmosphere that the discussion in ruling circles on the US elections is focused on its implications for the NATO alliance, for the security of the European powers and on the issue of war preparations against Russia, in which Britain is playing a major role.

Sherriff’s intervention was in opposition to that of General Lord Richards, Chief of the Defence Staff from 2010 to 2013. Last week, Richards argued that a devastating war between the US and its allies against Russia was less likely if Trump is elected to the White House. Speaking to Parliament’s the House magazine, Richards said, “It’s non-state actors like Isis that are the biggest threat to our security. If countries and states could coalesce better to deal with these people—and I think Trump’s instinct is to go down that route—then I think there’s the case for saying that the world certainly won’t be any less safe. It’s that lack of understanding and empathy with each other as big power players that is a risk to us all at the moment.”

Richards warned of the imminent danger of a war with Russia, which would immediately embroil the UK as America’s main ally, if Hillary Clinton came to power. He said of the war in Syria, in which the Russian government is backing the regime of Bashar al-Assad, while opposition militias backed by US and Britain are fighting to remove him: “Unless she’s [Clinton] prepared to do this properly and go to war with Russia, she shouldn’t talk about no-fly zones and nor should we. We would have to shoot down Russian aircraft in order to impose it. Do we really want to go to a shooting war over Aleppo?”

He warned, “The alternative is for the West to declare a no-fly zone and that means you’ve got to be prepared to go to war with Russia ultimately. I see no appetite for that and nor, frankly, do I see much sense in it.”

Accompanying Shirreff’s comments, Lord West of Spithead, a former First Sea Lord and Labour government security minister, commented on a new Russian battle tank. He told the Daily Telegraph he was “very concerned” about a Russian military build-up. West described Russia’s economy as “a war economy. They have got the GDP of Italy and they are trying to spend the same on defence as America. What they are doing is unsupportable and when something is unsupportable, then anything could happen.”

One would not know from West’s comments that the main NATO powers are squandering vast amounts of their own GDPs on preparing for war with Russia and China.

In August, West told the Daily Star, “If the EU starts to break up and things go badly wrong in Europe, which I think they might well do, we have historically twice in the last century had to go and sort it out at immense cost of blood and treasure to our nation.”

On China, West said, “I do not believe we can let the Americans handle that on their own, we have to stand by them.”

Britain’s ruling Conservatives, backed by the opposition Labour Party, recently signed off on the renewal of the Trident nuclear missile system at an estimated cost of over £200 billion (almost twice the annual cost of the UK’s National Health Service.)

The intervention of top military figures in political affairs is now a regular occurrence and is indicative of the disintegration of British democracy. In September 2015, in the immediate aftermath of the landslide victory of Labour “left” Jeremy Corbyn in the party’s leadership contest, the Sunday Times carried comments from a “senior serving general” that in the event of Corbyn becoming prime minister, there would be “the very real prospect” of “a mutiny.” Elements within the military would be prepared to use “whatever means possible, fair or foul,” the officer declared.

Just weeks later Britain’s highest ranking military officer—Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Nicholas Houghton—was asked by the BBC’s Andrew Marr about Corbyn’s statement that he would never authorise the use of nuclear weapons. He replied, “Well, it would worry me if that thought was translated into power.”

The constitutional crisis opened by the Brexit referendum and the attempt by the defeated pro-EU camp to overturn the vote has prompted a further extraordinary intervention by senior military figures. Lord West and Lord Dannatt, the former head of the army, vented their opposition to last week’s High Court’s judgement that Prime Minister Theresa May cannot trigger Article 50—beginning the process of leaving the EU—via Royal Prerogative powers bypassing parliament. One of the powers it covers is the “control, organisation and disposition of the Armed Forces.”

Lord Dannatt told the Sunday Telegraph, “This judgement should not be allowed to impact on the future use of the Royal Prerogative as far as authorising military action is concerned. I fear it might, but it is up to the Government now to make it quite clear that that linkage is not legitimate and should not be made.”

He added, “That is kind of consensus government, whereas actually the Prime Minister has to be a leader, to take decisions and live with the consequences.”

Lord West said, “There are people who don’t like the ability to use the Royal Prerogative to react and go to war rapidly if you need to as a nation and I’m afraid they are wrong. We elect a government and the whole duty of a government is to govern. There may be an occasion where you have to take action because the time to act is so little. You can’t go and have a debate in Parliament about it.”

The mounting anxiety over the US elections in Britain is expressed throughout Europe.

Most European leaders want a victory for Hilary Clinton, who they believe will safeguard, at least for the time being, transatlantic economic, political and military relations. But there are opposed positions in every country. In France, Marine Le Pen, the leader of the neo-fascist National Front is a serious contender in the presidential elections in April/May next year. As someone who has argued for more friendly relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Le Pen has endorsed Trump, stating that he “is a less harmful candidate than Hillary Clinton.” “Clinton is war,” she added.

NATO announces largest troop deployments against Russia since Cold War

Alex Lantier

NATO will place hundreds of thousands of troops on alert for military action against Russia in the coming months, top NATO officials told the Times of London on Monday.

The US-led military alliance is planning to speed up the mobilization of forces numbering in the tens of thousands and, ultimately, hundreds of thousands and millions that are to be mobilized against Russia. Beyond its existing 5,000-strong emergency response force, NATO is tripling its “incumbent response force” to 40,000 and putting hundreds of thousands of troops on higher alert levels.

The Times wrote, “Sir Adam West, Britain’s outgoing permanent representative to NATO, said he thought that the goal was to speed up the response time of up to 300,000 military personnel to about two months. At present a force of this size could take up to 180 days to deploy.”

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said, “We are… addressing what we call the follow-on forces. There are a large number of people in the armed forces of NATO allies. We are looking into how more of them can be ready on a shorter notice.” According to the Times, Stoltenberg explained that NATO is looking broadly at methods for “improving the readiness of many of the alliance's three million soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.”

The target of these deployments, the largest since the dissolution of the Soviet Union by the Stalinist bureaucracy and the end of the Cold War a quarter century ago, is Russia.

“We have seen a more assertive Russia implementing a substantial military build-up of many years, tripling defence spending since 2000 in real terms; developing new military capabilities; exercising their forces and using military force against neighbours,” Stoltenberg said. “We have also seen Russia using propaganda in Europe among NATO allies and that is exactly the reason why NATO is responding. We are responding with the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War.”

These statements show how NATO planning for a horrific war against Russia has continued behind the backs of the people throughout the US presidential election campaign. Military deployments and war preparations by the Pentagon and the general staffs of the various European countries are set to go ahead, moreover, whatever the outcome of the election in the United States and those slated for 2017 in the European NATO countries.

Stoltenberg's vague attack on Russian “propaganda” in Europe is an allusion to the instinctive opposition to war that exists in the European and international working class and popular distrust of the anti-Russian propaganda promoted by NATO officials like Stoltenberg and West.

Last year, a Pew poll found broad international opposition to NATO participation in a conventional war against Russia in Eastern Europe, even in a scenario that assumes Russia started the conflict. Under these hypothetical conditions, 58 percent of Germans, 53 percent of French people, and 51 percent of Italians opposed any military action against Russia. Opposition to war in the poll would doubtless have been higher had pollsters mentioned that NATO's decision to attack Russian forces in Eastern Europe could lead to nuclear war.

This opposition is rooted in deep disaffection with the imperialist Middle East wars of the post-Soviet period and the memory of two world wars in Europe in the 20th century. The arguments Stoltenberg presented against it are politically fraudulent.

The primary threat of military aggression and war in Europe comes not from Russia, but from the NATO countries. Over the past 25 years, the imperialist powers of NATO have bombed and invaded countries in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Within Europe, they bombed Serbia and Kosovo in the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, pushed NATO’s borders hundreds of miles to the East, and backed a violent, fascist-led putsch to topple a pro-Russian government in Ukraine in 2014.

The aggressive character of NATO policy emerged once again last Friday, when NBC News reported that US cyber warfare units had hacked key Russian electricity, Internet and military networks. These are now “vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons should the US deem it necessary,” NBC stated.

Russian officials denounced the activities highlighted in the report and the Obama White House's silence on the matter. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said, “If no official reaction from the American administration follows, it would mean state cyber terrorism exists in the US. If the threats of the attack, which were published by the US media, are carried out, Moscow would be justified in charging Washington.”

The geo-strategically disastrous consequences of the Stalinist bureaucracy's dissolution of the Soviet Union and restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe are ever more apparent. With NATO troops or proxy forces stationed in a geographic belt extending from the Baltic republics to Poland, Ukraine and Romania—either a short distance from or on Russia's borders—NATO is now poised for a major war against Russia that could escalate into a nuclear conflagration.

An examination of Stoltenberg’s remarks shows that NATO’s plans are not defensive preparations to counter a sudden conventional invasion of Europe by the Russian army. In such a scenario, Russian tank columns would overrun the few thousand or tens of thousands of troops in NATO’s various emergency response forces, depriving the broader ranks of NATO “follow-up” forces the 60 to 180 days they need to mobilize.

Rather, the plan for mobilizing successive layers of “follow-on forces” is intended to allow NATO to threaten Russia in a crisis situation by gradually bringing to bear more and more of its collective military strength, which, although split between 28 member states, outweighs that of Russia. Russia's population of 145 million is far smaller than that of the NATO countries, at 906 million.

The aggressive character of NATO’s agenda is illustrated by a report issued last month by the CIA-linked Rand Corporation think tank on the military situation in the Baltic republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The small military forces NATO has posted in the Baltic republics, Rand wrote, are “inviting a devastating war, rather than deterring it.” They calculated that Russian forces, if they actually invaded, could overrun these countries in approximately 60 hours.

On this basis, the think tank called for launching a vast NATO military build-up in the Baltic republics, virtually at the gates of St. Petersburg. It wrote that it would take “a force of about seven brigades, including three heavy armored brigades—adequately supported by air power, land-based fires, and other enablers on the ground and ready to fight at the onset of hostilities… to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states.” This would cost the NATO countries $2.7 billion each year.

As the NATO countries intensify their threats against Russia, there are increasingly bitter conflicts among the NATO imperialist powers themselves. Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi bluntly opposed new sanctions on Russia as called for by Washington at last month's European Union summit in Brussels, and there are deepening tensions between Germany and the United States as officials in Berlin and Paris call for an independent EU military.

Prospects of increased US-led military provocations against Russia are sharpening tensions within Europe. In an article titled “Whether Clinton or Trump wins, for Germany things will get uncomfortable,” German news magazine Der Spiegel warned of the long-term implications of an aggressive US-led policy against Russia, which it assumed would continue regardless which of the two candidates secured the White House.

The magazine wrote, “The motto will be: If you want (nuclear) US protection from Putin, you must either pay us more money or re-arm yourself.”

Mass protests call on Korean president to resign

Ben McGrath

Up to 200,000 people demonstrated in the South Korean capital on Saturday to demand President Park Geun-hye resign, according to protest organisers. Park is accused of allowing her personal confidante Choi Soon-sil to be involved in deciding policy matters despite holding no formal government position. Park’s approval rating has fallen to a mere 5 percent, the lowest of any South Korean president.

Like last week’s demonstration which involved 20,000 people, the protestors included a wide range of workers, both Korean and foreign, as well as middle, high school and university students and other youth. The participation of young people is significant in South Korea where they are often prevented from having any voice in politics. More protests are planned for next week.

“I am mad that an unelected individual ruled the country behind the scenes. It is a regression of the democracy that we have learned about,” Cho Ji-hun, an 18-year-old student told the Korea Herald. “I thought I would regret it if I did nothing in this seriously sad situation.” Others denounced the president’s recent apologies over the matter as meaningless.

Park has maintained her innocence whilst apologizing for the scandal. In a speech Friday she said: “I feel sorry and miserable that a specific individual derived benefits in the process of key state projects, the purpose of which was to improve the nation’s economy and the people’s lives.” It was her second apology in 10 days.

Park also stated that both she and her secretariat would cooperate in an investigation now underway. However, an official involved with the probe told the media, “Nothing is decided yet on [when to start] questioning the president, as our priority is currently on fact-finding.” Justice Minister Kim Hyun-woong (Kim Hyeon-ung) previously said that the president was legally protected from being questioned.

Two recently-sacked presidential secretaries—An Jong-beom and Jeong Ho-seong—were questioned on Sunday, following their formal arrests. An has been accused of working with Choi, to pressure companies to donate nearly 80 billion won ($US72 million) to Mir and K-Sports, two non-profit organizations established under suspicious circumstances. The money was allegedly used as a slush fund, with some of it going towards Park’s retirement and for real estate speculation. Jeong has been accused of providing government documents to Choi.

Choi was also formally arrested on Thursday and has been questioned for several days. She has been charged with abuse of authority, raising suspicions that the accusation is designed to protect the president. Unlike bribery, abuse of authority does not require third party involvement. It also comes with a lighter sentence should she be found guilty. Her lawyer has also maintained her innocence.

South Korea’s political elite are attempting to restrict the widespread public anger to Park alone and away from the broader crisis now engulfing the national economy in line with other countries around the world. Corruption goes beyond Park in a country where scandals are regularly used to force political changes and settle scores.

The opposition parties, led by the Minjoo Park of Korea (MPK), have all focused on demanding Park resign. On Thursday, MPK lawmakers made their first call for the president to quit. “Park’s prolonged rule will bring extreme confusion, leaving the country in a deadlock. The people will become victims,” a statement from six MPK representatives declared. “There will be disaster if Park does not step down and continues to cling to her remaining term in office.”

These comments echoed those of the minor Justice Party, which postures as a left-wing alternative to the MPK. Ahn Cheol-soo of the People’s Party and a potential presidential candidate in next year’s election has also called for Park’s resignation. The South Korean president is constitutionally limited to one, five-year term with Park’s term ending in February 2018.

While the anti-Park faction in her own Saenuri Party continues to call for the party leadership to step down, those close to Park have resisted, stating that the scandal should be resolved before any changes occur.

Park’s longtime involvement with Choi and her father Choi Tae-min, a cult leader who befriended Park following her mother’s assassination in 1974, is well known in Seoul and Washington.

Park was criticized for her involvement with the elder Choi, who died in 1994, during a bitter factional fight with Lee Myung-bak in the 2007 presidential primary. A 2007 document released by WikiLeaks in 2011 from then-US ambassador to South Korea Alexander Vershbow, stated: “Rumors are rife that the late pastor [Choi Tae-min] had complete control over Park’s body and soul during her formative years and that his children accumulated enormous wealth as a result.”

While the political establishment and media have focused on the religious nature of the case, it was already known that the younger Choi had been profiting from her relationship with Park.

The political calculations run far deeper than a simple corruption scandal. Park has lost the confidence of the ruling elites in Seoul as well as Washington. She has been unable to force through so-called labor reform measures demanded by the conglomerates that control the economy amid declining growth.

When questioned on Friday about US President Obama’s position on Park, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest pointedly declined to support Park, saying “that the alliance between the United States and South Korea is a close alliance, it’s a strong alliance, and it’s one that is strong today as it’s been. And one of the hallmarks of a strong alliance is that it remains durable, even when different people and different personalities are leading the countries.”

During her presidency Park has tried to draw closer to China, joining the Beijing-led Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) against US wishes and appearing at a military parade in China’s capital alongside Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin in September 2015. The image of a US ally alongside the two biggest targets of American imperialism will have raised concerns in Washington.

The lack of any US support for the embattled Park is a clear warning to any future South Korean administration to line up unequivocally behind Washington’s “pivot to Asia” against China.

Growing tensions in Chinese-German relations

Ulrich Rippert 

This week Germany’s Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy Sigmar Gabriel (SPD–Social Democratic Party) is spending several days in China, where he is holding talks with senior government officials. He is accompanied by a high-profile business delegation from 60 large- and medium-sized enterprises. Unlike many previous trips to China by Gabriel and Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU–Christian Democratic Union), the current visit is overshadowed by fierce tensions. The almost obligatory signing of major economic projects is not on the agenda.

The immediate cause of the tension is Berlin’s intervention against the acquisition of several German companies by Chinese businesses.

This past summer, Gabriel and European Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society Günther Oettinger, a German politician from the CDU, attempted to prevent the purchase of industrial robot manufacturer KUKA by the Chinese Midea Group by encouraging German and European companies to take over KUKA. This effort failed because Midea, which had originally offered €4.5 billion [US$5.01 billion], had bought up 95 percent of KUKA shares.

Last week Gabriel rescinded approval for the already agreed sale of German semiconductor equipment maker Aixtron, valued at €670 million, to China’s Fujian Grand Chip Investment Fund (FGC). According to press reports, he was responding to an intervention by the US ambassador to Germany, John B. Emerson, who presented a confidential paper to German government officials, according to which Aixtron products could be used in the Chinese nuclear programme.

The announced takeover of the Munich-based manufacturer of lighting products and semiconductors, Osram Licht, worth €6 billion, by San’an Optoelectronics, another Chinese company, also met resistance from the German economic affairs ministry. The former light bulb manufacturer Osram is now considered a high-tech corporation, which possesses numerous international patents.

The Chinese government responded to Berlin’s intervention by summoning the German ambassador immediately before Gabriel’s visit, and handing him an official protest note. In it, Beijing complained of the non-approval of Chinese investments due to American pressure.

Gabriel dismissed the protest, saying key German technologies must be better protected in future. It had to be clear “that Germany and Europe will create instruments for the future, in order to protect security-related technologies, where this is necessary”, the minister wrote in a commentary for the daily Die Welt. Foreign investors remain welcome, he said, but the government would not allow “a state-controlled business to undertake technology acquisitions combined with expanding geopolitical power”, Gabriel blustered.

Chancellor Merkel agreed with her economics minister. Via government spokesman Steffen Seibert, she let it be known that German interests would prevail in matters of security. In addition, German investors were being disadvantaged in China, she claimed, which was unacceptable. Equality of opportunities must exist in Chinese-German economic relations.

This sharp tone toward the Chinese government is part of an increasingly aggressive German foreign policy. At every opportunity, representatives of the government emphasize that Germany, now more than ever, is involved in all regions of the world and must defend its own economic and geo-strategic interests more confidently.

At the heart of this is growing alienation from its traditional ally, the US. The political crisis in Washington, which has taken on unprecedented form during the presidential campaign, has led ruling circles in Germany to develop new foreign policy strategies. An electoral victory for Donald Trump with his “America-first” policy is seen by most German observers as the worst possible scenario. But they also expect more aggressive war policies against Russia and China, which take no account of German interests, in the event of a Hillary Clinton victory.

Therefore, they are increasingly turning to Russia and China. For this reason, economic affairs minister Gabriel travelled to Moscow in late September, before his visit to China, and agreed closer cooperation with Russian President Vladimir Putin to reduce economic sanctions gradually. At the start of October, Gabriel was then a guest in Tehran and opened a German-Iranian business forum. On this occasion, he specifically praised the Iranian government for offering dialogue with Germany on the rule of law. He stressed that cooperation between Berlin and Tehran had improved, despite known differences.

But in its cooperation with Russia and China, Berlin insists it set the tone. The recent statements by Oettinger, who in a speech to business leaders called the Chinese "slit-eyes” and “sly dogs”, are expressions of this imperialist arrogance.

Germany has cultivated close and good relations with China for years. Berlin has distanced itself from President Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia”—the military encirclement of China using a ring of allied states. Instead, Germany has been the only European country to hold regular joint meetings with the Chinese government.

Economic relations have developed rapidly. Germany has traditionally exported machinery, cars and other high-tech products to China and imported electronics, textiles and other mass products. In 2015, China, with a trade volume of €163 billion, was Germany’s largest trading partner outside the European Union. Not only for Volkswagen, but for many of the 5,000 German companies operating in China, the market there is of vital importance. The “rise of the People’s Republic to the economic powerhouse of the world was a major cause of stability and growth of the German economy in recent years”, observes the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

But the growth of economic relations has not improved political relationships between Berlin and Beijing. Under conditions of global economic stagnation, China is increasingly perceived in Germany as an economic rival. The Chinese economy has evolved in recent years from an extended workbench of German and international corporations and a huge market, into a business competitor that makes billion-euro investments in technological development.

Chinese investments in foreign technology companies, promoted by the government in Beijing, have triggered panic in German business and government circles. Although they have not yet reached the level of European and American investment in China, they are growing rapidly.

According to recent figures from the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, China’s foreign investment in the past year reached more than $140 billion, around a quarter more than the previous year. It involved a “new era of Chinese capital”, researchers at the Mercator Institute for China Studies in Berlin assert. Each week, new investment projects were being announced.

“Even today, the People’s Republic is one of the three largest foreign investors worldwide. Nevertheless, that was just the beginning”, writes Die Zeit in a background article. China’s President Xi Jinping has announced foreign investments amounting to $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

According to the German government, Chinese companies bought into 37 German firms in the first six months of this year alone. Chinese companies have invested more in Germany in this period, €9.7 billion, than in the past 15 years combined. German-Chinese economic relations are changing at a rapid pace. Both countries act less and less as partners and increasingly as competitors.

The double standard displayed by the German government was shown by Gabriel’s protest against the plans of the Chinese government to introduce an 8 percent electric car quota by 2018 to mitigate the terrible smog in major Chinese cities. German auto companies, which lag far behind in the development of electric cars, saw this as a disadvantage. Industry Minister Miao Wei finally calmed his German colleagues, but nothing was decided.

The impact of this growing economic rivalry between the two countries is now evident in the steel industry.

A few decades ago, China produced a fraction of the world’s steel. In 2015, this reached 50 percent. Given the slowdown in economic growth in China, demand has decreased. According to European Union estimates, China now has an overcapacity of 350 million tonnes, which is more than twice as many as the entire EU produces in a year.

China’s attempt to export some of its surplus has led to a slump in steel prices by up to 40 percent. This spring, China announced the elimination of 500,000 jobs in the steel industry and a drastic reduction in capacity.

Nevertheless, the European steel corporations, with the support of the trade unions, demanded high punitive tariffs be imposed against China, as are already applied in the US. But even then, the chairman of the World Steel Association, Wolfgang Eder, assumes that the European steel industry must be reduced by half in the next 15 years. With 330,000 employees working in more than 500 steel plants, this would amount to a massive cut in jobs.

The German government is responding to growing competition with China as it has to all the problems in recent years: With sharp attacks on the wages and living conditions of the working class at home, with the establishment of authoritarian forms of rule and with the revival of German militarism. Under capitalist conditions—i.e., the dominance of private ownership and the nation-state—it is impossible to bring the enormous potential of global productive forces and the social interests of humanity into harmony.

New Spanish government makes austerity budget its first task

Paul Mitchell 

On Thursday, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy announced his 13-member cabinet, which included six new appointments. His Popular Party (PP) was brought back into power in Spain as a minority government last Saturday thanks to the support of the Citizens Party and, most important of all, the abstention of the Socialist Party (PSOE).

The decision of the PSOE to allow Rajoy to form a new government followed the ouster of PSOE leader Pedro Sánchez, who had stuck to the “No to Rajoy” policy decided by the party’s Federal Committee in January. It was a desperate attempt to avoid the total discrediting of the political system after the failure to form a government during 10 months of a hung parliament and despite two general elections and the possibility of a third.

The new government is the weakest since the end of the Franco dictatorship in the 1970s, and rules under conditions in which the bipartisan arrangements, in which power alternated between the right-wing PP and the “centre-left” PSOE for four decades, have been thoroughly exposed as a result of the austerity agenda pursued by both parties.

The PP has to secure agreement on a long overdue budget for 2017 and prevent the collapse of the pensions system. Moreover, the prospect of the country fragmenting as a result of the referendum on Catalan independence, which the separatist regional government is planning to hold next year, looms ever closer. Catalan leader Francesc Homs warned Rajoy, “Catalonia will continue on its path, whether or not there is dialogue depends on you.”

There is also pressure on Spain to fully commit to the NATO war drive against Russia. It has opposed sanctions on Russia and was about to allow Russian warships to refuel in its ports earlier this month before being severely reprimanded by NATO allies.

Rajoy said the “red lines” for government were Spain’s commitments to the European Union (EU), budget stability and maintaining the unity of the country. He warned the PSOE that he wanted, “A government that can govern, not a government that will be governed” by Congress. “It is not good to demonize your adversary because, among other things, Europe sets out a framework for us…We agree on many things, but most especially on the important ones,” he added.

A PP spokesperson said the new government would try to get a one-vote majority (176 of the 350 votes in Congress) for each piece of new legislation by making deals with Citizens and smaller parties from the Basque Country and the Canaries. Media reports suggest Rajoy would be prepared to call a general election if the PSOE does not toe the line, calculating that its electoral support would plummet even further than its record low in June, after its role in allowing the PP to take office.

The European Commission (EC) has made it clear that Rajoy’s first task must be setting the 2017 budget. Last week, it insisted on a further €5.5 billion in cuts on top of those previously submitted in the Draft Budgetary Plan (DBP).

Commissioners Valdis Dombrovskis and Pierre Moscovi told Spain’s Economy Minister Luis de Guindos that the new government had to give the DBP its highest priority in order to ensure Spain met its deficit target of 3.1 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2017, down from an expected 4.7 percent this year. The Commission said, “We are therefore seeking reassurances from the Spanish authorities in the coming days that the incoming government, as soon as possible upon taking office, will submit an updated Draft Budgetary Plan to the Commission and to the Eurogroup, which will ensure compliance with the targets set out in the Council decision…of 8 August 2016.”

In its recent “State of Play—Winter 2016” report on Spain, the Commission also criticised the continuing “excessive deficit”, “high levels of public and private debt”, “large external liabilities” (i.e., debt to foreign lenders), high unemployment, especially youth and long-term unemployment, low productivity,” as well as “limited progress in improving the cost effectiveness of the healthcare sector and reinforcing the regional budgetary strategy” and only “some progress” in labour and social reforms and improving the “business environment”.

All of these criticisms can mean only one thing--a ratcheting up of the attack on the living standards of the working class. A sign of the social explosion this must provoke was shown by the thousands attending the demonstration outside the Congress building, called at the last minute, as Rajoy’s investiture vote was taking place.

On behalf of the PSOE, Javier Fernández, chair of the management team that is running the party until a new leadership election, signaled the PSOE’s support for anything the Commission demanded. Fernández said, “It should be clear that the PSOE is not considering any kind of alliance with the PP, but there are affairs of state on which we will always support the government… We have to drop this confrontational idea of politics we have in this country, where politics is reduced to mere antagonism.”

For his part, the former PSOE leader, Sánchez, made the “painful” decision to resign his seat in Congress just hours before the investiture vote—absolving himself Pilate-like of any responsibility for allowing the PP to take office, while also not having to vote against. In a tearful performance designed to cover for his cowardice, Sánchez said he would, once more, become “a rank and file member” and would “get in my car and travel all over Spain to listen to those who haven’t been listened to, to the grassroots members and left-wing voters.”

Sanchez indicated he might stand in the leadership election and appealed to the PSOE federal committee not to expel the 15, mainly Catalan, deputies who voted no. Disciplinary procedures have been opened against them.

The PSOE debacle is an indictment of the pseudo-left Podemos, which, since its creation in 2014, has oriented towards the PSOE in the hope of coming to power and setting up a so-called “Government of Change.” Undeterred, Podemos continues to seek out alliances with discontented factions of the PSOE, with party leader Pablo Iglesias arguing, “Sánchez has recognised the pressure of the oligarchic powers and that it was a mistake not seeking an agreement with us.”

Iglesias is calling for Podemos to re-orient to the social movements “on the streets”, in order to recoup the 1.2 million votes the party lost in the June election, preventing it from overtaking the PSOE as Spain’s second largest party.

To Iglesias’s rescue comes the Pabloite Anticapitalists, which have agreed to ally with him against the faction around Podemos’ number two, Inigo Errejón, who supported the forming of a PSOE-Podemos-Citizens government. Iglesias briefly attempted this strategy in the spring before dropping it, fearing that it would expose Podemos’ leftist pretensions. The Anticapitalists offered their services after previously complaining of an Iglesias dictatorship, which had demobilised the social movements in its construction of an “electoral war machine” that said one thing and did another--leading to the hemorrhaging of support.

Refugees face catastrophic conditions in Italy and Greece

Martin Kreickenbaum

The human rights organization Amnesty International has accused the Italian security forces of using torture and ill-treatment to force refugees to submit to fingerprinting.

Their report shows how refugees who have risked life and limb to reach Europe, seeking protection, are denied all rights and are subjected to arbitrary treatment by the authorities. They are chased along the border fences, which have sprung out of the ground like mushrooms. They are interned for months in reception camps, which only exist because there is nowhere else for them.

Amnesty International interviewed a total of 174 refugees in Italy, 24 of whom stated that they had been ill-treated by the police. In 16 cases, they have been beaten. A 25-year-old Eritrean woman reported that she had been struck in the face by police officers until she agreed to be fingerprinted.

A 16-year-old from Sudan was abused with electric shocks: “They used a rod to give me electric shocks. Many times on the left leg, then on the right, the chest, the abdomen. I was too weak, I could not defend myself, and then they took my hands and placed them on the fingerprint machine.”

A 16-year-old and a 27-year-old reported they had been tortured on their genitals. The older one said he had initially received electric shocks from the security forces in Catania in Sicily, and was then forced to strip. “I sat on an aluminium chair, with an opening in the seat,” he said. “They held me firmly by the shoulders, squeezed my testicles with pliers and pulled twice. I cannot tell you how painful that was.”

All the abuse documented by Amnesty happened in so-called “hotspots,” the registration centres established by the European Union in Italy and Greece within the last year. The EU’s aim was to prevent refugees making the onward journey to the rest of Europe, and ensure that an asylum application was made in the first country of arrival, as laid down in the Dublin II treaty.

Amnesty regards these restrictive policies as the cause of the ill-treatment of refugees. “EU leaders have driven the Italian authorities to the limits of what is legal—and beyond,” explained Amnesty’s Italy expert Matteo de Bellis, during the presentation of the report. “As a consequence, traumatized people who have landed in Italy after an agonizing journey confront flawed procedures and in some cases, repugnant ill-treatment by the police.”

In the hotspots, refugees are not only mistreated during the registration process, they are also deprived of their right to apply for asylum. Registration is used to select refugees by ethnicity. Those who, solely on the grounds of their nationality, are suspected of coming to Italy as “irregular” migrants are separated from those regarded as having good prospects for a successful asylum claim.

The interview takes place without providing any information about the asylum process and without any legal support. Arriving completely exhausted and often traumatised by their flight, refugees are questioned immediately upon their arrival in the hotspots, completely unaware that this could have an immediate bearing on their future. Refugees, who, following this short interview, are refused the right to lodge a claim for asylum, are then presented with a deportation order.

In this way, under pressure from the EU, the Italian authorities have been able to increase the number of deportations, and also through repatriation agreements with various countries of origin in which human rights are routinely ignored. Only in August, the Italian government reached such an agreement with the government of Sudan, resulting in refugees deported by Italy arriving at the airport at the Sudanese capital Khartoum only to be arrested immediately by security forces.

Matteo de Bellis sharply criticized the refugee policy of the European Union. “The hotspot approach that has been devised in Brussels, and is run in Italy, has increased the pressure on the bordering states, not decreased it,” he said. “It leads to the abhorrent violation of the rights of desperate and vulnerable people, for which the Italian authorities directly and the European leaders are politically responsible.”

And this is especially the case as the resettlement programme agreed to by the European Union a year ago has not come into effect. Of the 160,000 refugees who were supposed to be transferred to other EU member states at that time, only some 6,000 have been moved. In total, since the beginning of the year, some 158,000 refugees have reached Italy via the Mediterranean.

In Greece, the situation confronting refugees is no less catastrophic, especially on the Aegean islands where some 16,000 have been interned in hotspots for months. The camps, which were only supposed to house 8,000, are completely overcrowded and lack basic amenities. Recently, even drinking water was being rationed to maintain reserves.

According to official figures from the Greek government, 8,500 refugees have lodged asylum claims on the Aegean islands, but have to wait months for them to be processed. Of the 600 officials promised by the EU to assist with asylum claims, only a tiny portion have materialised, so that only 60 to 70 cases a day can be processed.

Protests continue to increase in the camps, with the refugees mainly directing their anger at the officials and facilities of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), which is primarily responsible for refugees being stuck in the camps.

On August 24, refugees protesting at the Moria camp on Lesbos, where some 7,000 are being kept, set fire to four EASO containers. Two days later, refugees on Chios attacked EASO containers, throw stones and burning blankets. Three containers were destroyed, and EASO officials had to be evacuated.

“It is no coincidence that the camps are burning,” according to the head of the UNHCR office in Greece, Philip Leclerc. The European Union is well aware of the extremely tense situation. A report by the European Commission seen by news magazine Der Spiegel notes that the staff of EU agencies and aid organizations face serious problems on the ground. This is why many EU states have withdrawn their agreement to send additional asylum support staff to Greece.

The EU has cynically calculated that the permanent internment of refugees on the islands is a means of deterrence. When the Greek government announced the transfer of refugees from the hotspots to the Greek mainland, to reduce the pressure a little, this was sharply criticised, especially by the German government.

The interior ministry in Berlin told Die Welt: “It must continue to be made clear that for the overwhelming number of new arrivals, being housed on the mainland is not a consideration, but that the processing of asylum claims takes place on the Greek islands.” Improvements in the camps should “be made primarily by expanding their capacity on the islands.” In other words, the Merkel government could not care less about the fate of the refugees. They should continue to be kept in inhuman conditions and without rights, imprisoned in camps.

Recently, the number of refugees coming from Turkey to the Greek islands increased slightly. In the last three months, more than 10,000 refugees arrived who had to be accommodated on the islands.

Without any legal recourse to leave Greece, more and more refugees are trying to get to central Europe illegally via Bulgaria and Serbia. However, at the Balkan Summit at the end of September, the EU made it unmistakably clear that the Balkan route was being hermetically sealed. To that end, the EU border agency Frontex was expanded and additional police officers and soldiers deployed to Bulgaria and to Serbia, which is not a member of the EU.

Some 7,000 refugees remain stuck in Serbia, and can move neither forward nor back. Of these, 1,200 have occupied an abandoned warehouse in Belgrade, and are attempting to survive the bitter winter there. Migrants who attempt to go to Hungary are hunted down by the police, beaten up and then shipped back to Belgrade without any due process.

The French government has also announced that following the dismantling of the so-called “Jungle” refugee camp at Calais, other such informal camps would also be forcibly cleared by the police. In particular, this affects a tent camp in Paris, near the “Stalingrad” metro station, between the 10th and 19th arrondissements. There, more than 2,000 refugees, mainly from Afghanistan, Sudan and Eritrea, are holding out with virtually no state support. They are mainly supported by charities, who bring food and hygiene supplies.

President François Hollande had previously announced that France would not tolerate any more “Jungles,” and only those with a valid claim to asylum would be accommodated. In Paris, the refugees in the tent camp are to be taken to a new reception camp where there is space for just 400.

An Afghan refugee from the tent camp expressed his incomprehension regarding the police action. Speaking to the AFP news agency, he said, “If they aren’t going to provide us with any accommodation, why do they destroy our tents?”

Meanwhile, the ruins of the former Calais refugee camp have witnessed considerable unrest. The 1,500 remaining refugees, who are all minors, are protesting that they are not being transferred to the UK, as promised, but being taken to reception camps in France. Following the police clear-out of the “Jungle,” the youth and children had been permitted to stay in some containers they had erected themselves, hoping to be reunited with family members in Britain.

However, the British government has maintained its harsh stance, excluding family reunification even for minors. “In Calais, no further requests for transfers to the United Kingdom are being processed,” an official statement read. “All cases and emigration towards the UK are only being processed at the special reception camps for young people.”

When the youth realized that they were not being brought to Britain, their anger grew. Armed with sticks and stones, they marched into the former camp, damaging vehicles and throwing stones. The police arrived with a large contingent of special forces and drove the young refugees back with tear gas.

Michael McHugh, who works with unaccompanied minors, told the Guardian that there were more military-equipped police at the camp than social workers, teachers or therapists. “These are the most at-risk children in Europe,” he said.

However, the answer of the European Union to the millions who have had to flee the imperialist wars and conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen or Sudan consists of sealing off the border even more tightly, refusing the right to asylum and using police-state methods.

US election stokes deep concerns in Australian ruling circles

Peter Symonds 

The degraded spectacle of the US presidential election has provoked great trepidation in the Australian media and political establishment amid fears that the result, whoever wins, will have far-reaching implications for global politics and economics.

President Obama’s term in office coincided with the ongoing breakdown of world capitalism following the 2008–09 global meltdown and the escalation of tensions throughout the Asia-Pacific as his administration rolled out its confrontational “pivot to Asia” against China. Both the present Liberal-National Coalition government and the previous Labor government enmeshed Australia in this military build-up, basing US Marines in the northern city of Darwin and opening up Australian air and naval bases to the American military.

Now not only the “pivot” but the whole framework of post-war alliances in Asia is being called into question. The most overt sign has been the opposition of both major presidential candidates—Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump—to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was aimed at ensuring, as Obama put it, that the US, not China, writes the economic rules in the twenty-first century.

The Australian’s editor-at-large Paul Kelly warned in a worried comment last week: “It is more likely this crisis of American culture and politics is closer to its commencement than its conclusion. An unconvincing win by Clinton could cripple her governing ability arising from a permanently divided polity. An unexpected Trump win would generate even deeper domestic trauma and plunge the world into hazardous uncertainty.”

After declaring that it would be a mistake to exaggerate America’s decline, Kelly questions the ability of the US to maintain its global dominance, and by implication, defend Australian interests. “Well, there are limits now, big time, limits everywhere. The truth, however, is that limits on American power have been growing for 25 years and are now on embarrassing display for the entire world, notably US rivals,” he wrote.

Kelly is just one of a string of commentators fearful of the implications of a Trump presidency. While Trump has not publicly questioned the US-Australian military alliance—indeed privately his advisers have signalled to Canberra that he regards it highly—he has called into question longstanding American alliances with Japan and South Korea. Trump has even suggested that Japan and South Korea should develop their own nuclear weapons if they are not prepared to pay more for American military protection.

An editorial in today’s Australian Financial Review (AFR) entitled “The dangers of President Trump” declared that his populist appeals to widespread anti-establishment sentiment had “made this into the most extraordinary and dangerous US election of modern times.” Not only would a Trump presidency “undermine the credibility of the West’s defensive alliances” but “his antics have damaged the global prestige of Western democracy.”

While not uncritical of Clinton, the editorial opined: “Mrs Clinton may be wrong on many things, but she is in the realm of normal. In an extraordinary election she is not the extraordinary danger, and must be the world’s choice.” It did, however, call on Clinton to reverse her opposition to the TPP, echoing sentiments in ruling circles throughout the region that any US withdrawal from the economic deal could undermine the “pivot” and America’s position in Asia.

Another AFR comment by US Council of Foreign Relations fellow Sheila Smith criticised the Trump variant of American isolationism, saying that “his prescriptions for US policy sound downright dangerous.” It warned of the dangers of “China’s growing use of military force” and declared that “Washington will need to bolster—not reduce—its forces in the region.” Smith appealed to US allies in Asia not to back off and to “remind the United States of what is at stake if the US loses its way in Asia.”

Such pronouncements stand reality on its head. The primary factor in raising geo-political tensions in Asia has been the Obama administration’s “pivot” and its preparations for war with China. While Trump might put pressure on key allies, his “make America great again” demagogy foreshadows a reckless resort to military force in Asia and globally.

As for Clinton, she was one the chief architects of the “pivot” as secretary of state and consistently adopted a more militarist stance than Obama in the Middle East as well as against Russia and China. In 2010, Clinton deliberately inflamed longstanding territorial disputes in the South China Sea by declaring that the US had a “national interest” in ensuring “freedom of navigation”—transforming the disputed waters into a dangerous flashpoint for war.

Several commentators have warned that a Clinton presidency would place far greater demands on Canberra to play a more prominent role in the US military build-up against China.

Speaking to the Sydney Morning Herald, an unnamed “Washington expert” declared that Clinton was “very invested in the pivot to Asia and sustaining advantage [over China]” and suggested that she would challenge the Australian government to mount a military “freedom of navigation” operation into Chinese-claimed waters in the South China Sea.

The same article entitled “End of the Alliance?” cited James Brown, research director of the US Studies Centre at Sydney University, who warned against assuming that “it’ll all be OK if Hillary wins.” He said that a President Clinton would make big and difficult demands of Australia, ones that it is not ready for. Brown said before too long Clinton would pose the questions: Is Australia prepared to host US long-range bombers? Is Australia prepared to host a US aircraft carrier battle group?

Andrew Shearer, former national security adviser to Australian prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott, told the AFR: “Australia will find itself having to stand up. Issues like freedom of navigation where we’ve been given a bit of a pass by the Obama administration, when Clinton settles on a policy there will be a part for Australia to play and expectations on us.”

The apprehension in ruling circles over the US election feeds into sharp divisions over how to deal with the underlying dilemma posed by Australian capitalism’s longstanding reliance on the US to defend its strategic interests, on the one hand, and its growing economic dependence on China, the country’s largest trading partner.

The government of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has ignored repeated suggestions by American officials for the Australian navy to intrude into Chinese-claimed waters in the South China Sea. Turnbull is under pressure both from the opposition Labor Party and within the Coalition to carry out a provocative “freedom of navigation” operation, regardless of possible Chinese economic retaliation or the risk of a destabilising military clash.

The American election is also viewed in the Australian political establishment as another warning of the political instability threatened by widespread popular alienation and hostility deepening social inequality and the agenda of austerity, not only in the US, but Australia and around the world.

An editorial in today’s Sydney Morning Herald draws the parallel between the rise of the Trump, the surprise referendum vote in Britain to exit the European Union, and the re-emergence of the right-wing, anti-immigrant populist Pauline Hanson in Australia. As it points out, Hanson and other small parties and “independents” who have exploited seething resentments have created a parliamentary logjam.

“Nations across the Western world have reached a point where citizen anger at dysfunctional and tone-deaf political institutions is palpable. The backlash by outsiders against political insiders had combined with an endemic yet largely overblown fear of migrants, Muslims and multinationals to destabilise global relationships. Trust in policy making is being eroded. The risks of conflict on a national and community scale have grown,” it stated.

The editorial warned that “centuries-old rules of liberal democracy are under fire, but offered no solution other than the pious call for “higher standards of behaviour” on the part of politicians.

All but ignored in all of the commentary is the significance of the campaign waged by the self-proclaimed democratic socialist Bernie Sanders who won millions of votes, many from young people, who believed his empty posturing against Wall Street. The unspoken fear is that the anger and opposition of workers and youth will take a genuinely socialist direction and pose a threat to the capitalist order.

PM Modi’s Visit to Japan: Prospects and Prudence

Sandip Kumar Mishra

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s two-day visit to Japan, 11-12 November 2016, is eagerly awaited in India for an almost certain civil nuclear deal between the two countries. This would be an important achievement, as until now Japan has been firm on its stand of not having nuclear technology exchange with any non-NPT signatory. Both the countries had broad consensus on the deal during Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe’s visit to India in December 2015 and in the subsequent months the details have gradually been carved out. The deal will boost bilateral economic and security ties and facilitate leading US-based players to set up atomic plants in India. The deal has been important not only because Japan is one of the most important players in the nuclear energy sector but also because some of the American nuclear plant makers have Japanese investments in them and without Japan’s consent they were not able to reach the Indian market.

 

There have been important high-level contacts between India and Japan in the recent past, which which may be seen as a prelude to Modi’s visit and would bring more comprehensive partnership between the two countries in the future. On 3 November, a Japanese parliamentary delegation visited India and had a meeting with Modi and on 5 November, Japanese National Security Advisor Shotaro Yachi met his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval in New Delhi. In several other exchanges, both the countries have shown their strong willingness to collaborate on various issues of mutual cooperation such as tax convention to cover banking information, disaster management, high speed trains, Japanese investment in India and so on. In fact, after two years of talks, India’s Defence Ministry has approved the purchase of 12 ShinMaywa US-2i amphibious search-and-rescue/maritime surveillance aircraft from Japan. Though, it’s not clear if Japan has agreed to the Indian demand of buying only two of them and building the remaining ten in India, the deal per se is an important step forward. This would be the first time that Japan would export arms to India and it underlines the growing proximity and trust between the two countries. India and Japan have identified the importance of each other not only for bilateral cooperation and gains but also for their mutual interests on most of the regional and global issues.

In the changing economic and security dynamics of the Asia-Pacific region, which is largely shaped by the rise of China and its “assertive” moves in the regional politics, it has been imperative for Japan to reach out to India and ask for a more active role. Recently, the Deputy Director of Japan’s Foreign Ministry’s regional policy division, Yuki Tamura said that that “we are encouraging India to speak up on issues related to South China Sea because maritime security is important.” In the upcoming East Asia Summit in Japan, which will be held in December 2016, there is all probability that Tokyo would insist on India having a more proactive role on issues related to the maritime security of the region. 

The US is also in agreement with Japan that India must be supported and brought into the network of countries which are concerned about an “assertive China” in the South and the East China Sea and beyond. For the same reason, in June 2016, the Malabar Naval Exercise among India, the US and Japan took place near Okinawa in Japan. 

India-Japan friendship has a long history, which has gradually deepened with the course of time, though not without disagreements on India’s nuclear tests in 1998. However, under the leaderships of Modi and Abe, the pace and content of friendship has increased substantially. 

Although the growing “special strategic global partnership” between the two countries is an important achievement, which is going to be further strengthened by the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Japan, India should tread carefully on three counts. 

First, New Delhi needs to be cautious in prematurely over stretching its role in the regional politics. Although, India’s growing economic and military prowess is fact but it must take an incremental approach rather than committing itself beyond its capabilities.

Second, India should also be clear about its own national interests and carefully assess that by becoming part of the great game in Asia-Pacific, which has unleashed with decline of the US and emergence of China, India does not become a pawn of any vested interests. India shares a long unsettled border with China along with cultural and historical ties, which are absent in the cases of both Japan and the US. Thus, India’s approach towards China must also be different and more nuanced.

Third, in the process of building proximity with Japan, India must also remember that Japan has its own historical and colonial baggage with other countries of the region such as South Korea and Taiwan. India needs to assure them that the India-Japan ties would not hamper New Delhi’s bilateral relations with these countries. This would be possible when India does not solely and narrowly focus on its bilateral relations with Japan but also keeps in mind its integrated regional objectives.