India moves to enhance strategic ties with Japan and Israel

Deepal Jayasekera

India has taken important steps in recent weeks to enhance its military-strategic ties with Japan and Israel, both close US allies.

These steps are aimed at aggressively pursuing the Indian elite’s great power ambitions in the broader Asian and Indian Ocean regions against its main rivals, China and Pakistan. At the same time, they are part of India’s ever-closer integration into Washington’s military-strategic offensive against China, including the development of closer bilateral and trilateral cooperation with the chief US allies in the Asia-Pacific, Japan and Australia.

Modi visited Japan on November 11-12, during which time he held talks with his Japanese counterpart, Shinzo Abe, and signed several bilateral agreements to enhance Indo-Japanese economic and military ties. Highlighting New Delhi’s and Tokyo’s mutual support for each other’s geopolitical ambitions, the joint statement Modi and Abe issued at the conclusion of their talks said, “Abe appreciated Prime Minister Modi’s active engagement in the region under (India’s) ‘Act East Policy’” and Modi “appreciated Japan’s greater engagement in the region under” its “Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy.” It went on to say that the two leaders had recognized the potential for “deeper bilateral cooperation and synergy” across the Indo-Pacific region.

Underscoring that China is the principal target of the burgeoning India-Japan alliance, the joint statement reiterated Abe’s and Modi’s position on the South China Sea dispute, which dovetails with that of Washington. The statement parroted the US claim that China is threatening “freedom of navigation and over flight.” This claim is in fact a transparent pretext for asserting the Pentagon’s right to maintain an armada off China’s shores, so it can impose a blockade and/or implement its AirSea Battle plan in the event of a war or war crisis with China.

Modi’s and Abe’s decision to highlight the South China Sea dispute is particularly provocative, as China had explicitly warned India not to involve Japan in the dispute on the eve of Modi’s visit.

Modi and Abe also lined up behind the recent US provocations against North Korea, including the massive military exercise it conducted with South Korea this summer based on the scenario of a “regime change” war against Pyongyang. The statement condemned “in the strongest terms North Korea’s continued development of its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes.” Washington has consistently used the conflict with North Korea as a means to pressure Beijing and justify military preparations against it.

The most significant development during Modi’s Japan visit was the signing of a civil nuclear cooperation pact allowing India access to Japan’s nuclear technology. This is the first time Japan has signed a civil nuclear agreement with a country that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and there was significant public opposition to doing so, because of Japan’s history as the only country to ever suffer nuclear attack and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster.

The potential for big profits for Japanese big business was undoubtedly a factor in the Abe government’s readiness to defy domestic opposition over nuclear commerce with India. But there were also major military-strategic calculations. A similar civil nuclear deal between New Delhi and Washington in 2008 was pivotal in cementing a “global Indo-US strategic partnership.” As with the 2008 deal, the Japan-India nuclear agreement will help New Delhi to further concentrate its indigenous nuclear program on the development of nuclear weapons. Last month India boasted that, with the launch of its first indigenously-built nuclear submarine, it has completed the “nuclear triad,” meaning it can now launch nuclear weapons from air, land and underwater.

In an attempt to downplay concerns about nuclear proliferation, the Abe government pointed to an addendum to the civil nuclear cooperation agreement in which New Delhi reiterated its commitment to a “voluntary moratorium” on nuclear weapons tests and Tokyo stipulated it has the “right” to terminate the agreement if India conducts a future nuclear test.

During Modi’s visit, the two countries moved to further expand their military ties. According to the joint statement, Abe and Modi “welcomed the entry into force of the two Defence Framework Agreements concerning the Transfer of Defence Equipment and Technology and concerning Security Measures for the Protection of Classified Military Information.”

India is reported to be on the verge of finalizing the purchase of 12 Japanese-built amphibious surveillance aircraft, in what would be one of Japan’s first arms deals since it removed restrictions on foreign arms sales.

In a clear indication of India’s further integration into a US-led anti-China alliance, the statement noted: “The two Prime Ministers welcomed the holding of trilateral dialogue among Japan, India and the United States, and strengthened coordination and cooperation in such areas as HA/DR [Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief], regional connectivity as well as maritime security and safety. The two Prime Ministers also welcomed continued and deepened trilateral dialogue among Japan, India and Australia.”

Two days after the conclusion of Modi’s Japanese visit, Israeli President Reuven Rivlin made a six-day visit to India. This was the first such visit by an Israeli President to India in two decades. It was publicly acknowledged that its primary purpose was to pave the way for Modi to visit Israel early in 2016, in what will be the first-ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister to that country.

While India’s previous Congress-led government pursued closer relations with Israel, Modi and his Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) government have made expanding New Delhi’s military-strategic and economic relationship with Tel Aviv one of their main foreign policy goals. The ideological affinity between the Hindu supremacist, anti-Muslim BJP and Israel’s Zionist right has played no small part in furthering the burgeoning Indo-Israeli alliance. The stronger relations between India and Israel have also been clearly encouraged by the US, which views them as its main ally respectively in South Asia and the Middle East.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Modi in New York in September 2014, he boasted that the “sky is the limit” for the relationship between the two countries. That meeting was followed by Israel Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon’s visit to India in February 2015, the first ever such visit by an Israel Defence Minister; Indian President Pranab Mukherjee’s visit to Israel later that year; and External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s visit to Israel in early 2016.

Hailing the strengthening of Indian-Israeli ties under Modi, the Indian English-language daily Pioneer wrote in an editorial on November 18: “Long-held balancing acts in India-Israel relations have gone now. With the coming of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the era of India's staid diplomatic establishment was replaced by active engagement of nations, cutting across ideological barriers of the Cold War days.”

For two decades Israel has been a major arms supplier to India. Indeed, New Delhi is the world’s largest buyer of Israeli military equipment. During his visit to India this month, the Israeli President indicated his government’s readiness to expand into the co-production of weapons. Modi subsequently said that both sides agreed on the need to make their defence ties “more broad-based” through a weapons-production and manufacturing partnership.

Israeli weapons sales to India amount to more than $1 billion annually and include missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles and weapons systems. Some Indian military analysts have expressed concerns that Tel Aviv is also selling weaponry to China and are calling for New Delhi to press for a guarantee that only India will be eligible to buy Israel’s most advanced weapons.

According to press reports, New Delhi has placed hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of rush orders with Israeli arms manufacturers in recent weeks so as to enhance its readiness to fight a war with Pakistan. For the past two months, South Asia’s nuclear-armed rivals have been involved in escalating border clashes.

Nearly two million people demand South Korean president’s removal

Ben McGrath 

Approximately 1.5 million people demonstrated in South Korea’s capital Saturday, demanding the removal of President Park Geun-hye. Demonstrations in other cities brought the total number of participants to 1.9 million. About 100,000 people took part in Busan, South Korea’s second largest city. An additional 50,000 people gathered in Gwangju and 20,000 in Daegu.

It was the fifth and largest weekly protest to date since allegations of corruption emerged in September surrounding the president and her personal confidante, Choi Soon-sil. Counting all the protests around the country, the rallies were the largest in South Korea’s history.

In Seoul, the protesters again filled Gwanghwamun Square in Seoul and marched within 200 meters of Cheongwadae, the presidential residence, while chanting “Park Geun-hye, resign!” They also carried placards reading “Arrest President Park” and “Surrender Now.” The protest was organized by 1,500 civic groups, many of which have close ties to the Democrats and other official opposition parties.

The immediate scandal involves accusations that Park allowed Choi Soon-sil, who holds no government post, to be involved in deciding policy matters and to solicit funds from corporations for companies that she effectively controlled. This affair is bound up with rifts in South Korean ruling circles, including Park’s own Saenuri Party.

However, the demonstrations also reflect broader popular opposition to her administration’s attacks on working-class conditions and basic democratic and social rights, including a drive to casualize the workforce, cut jobs, and privatize state-owned industries.

For many people, these are the first protests they have ever attended. Students from middle schools, high schools, and universities continued to take part in large numbers. Chang Hae-jin, an 18-year-old high school senior, told the media: “This is my first time participating in a rally. When I was studying for the (college entrance) exam, I was sorry because I could not do anything. Park should not hide like this. She should be honest about her wrongdoings.”

Parents also continued to bring their children. Jung Young-hoon, a 36-year-old father of two, told the Korea Herald: “It is difficult to take care of my children on the street during the rally, especially because of the weather, but it is peaceful, so it’s okay. I had to come to show them this is democracy.”

Significantly, protestors’ demands are beginning to go beyond the status of the president. As of last Friday, the student unions at 13 universities had decided to boycott classes while an additional 10 are expected to join them this week. Students at Korea University have occupied the school’s main building since Thursday to denounce the chancellor’s future plans, which include eliminating one of the university’s departments and raising tuition fees.

At Seoul National University students have occupied the administration building for a month to oppose privatization plans. The president of the student body, Lee Tak-gyu, said students would join the class boycott on November 30.

Demonstrators are also once more taking aim at the Park administration’s decision to revise history textbooks for middle and high schools. The government is attempting to re-write the books to whitewash the crimes of conservative leaders and dictators, including Park’s father, General Park Chung-hee.

Cho Seong-hun, 21, a student at Myongji University, said: “Students are taking to the streets as they are angry about Park’s policies, including a government-authored history textbook.” He added, reflecting the struggle young people face to find employment: “I am majoring in library and information science. Most graduates become librarians, and it’s getting more and more difficult to get a permanent job.”

According to Lee Jun-hyup of the Hyundai Research Institute, one in three youth, those between the ages of 15 and 29 years-old, could be considered unemployed. The real unemployment rate for all workers stands at 10 percent, including those who have given up looking for work or are in part-time jobs involuntarily.

For now, however, the protests have not gone beyond the confines established by the opposition parties, led by the Minjoo Party of Korea (MPK). These bourgeois parties are attempting to divert the public anger into support for their own campaigns, particularly for the presidential election scheduled for next year, and quell discontent over the growing social crisis.

Democrats and conservatives have the same aim. While Chu Mi-ae and Moon Jae-in of the MPK again took part in Saturday’s rally, right-wing politicians also joined, including Nam Gyeong-pil, the governor of Gyeonggi Province who recently left the ruling Saenuri Party, and former Seoul mayor Oh Se-hun.

The MPK and its allies, the People’s Party and Justice Party, as well as the anti-Park faction of the Saenuri Party have formed a de facto alliance, backing the president’s removal. The opposition intends to propose an impeachment bill this Wednesday, with a vote as early as Friday and no later than December 9. “Saenuri must promptly cooperate with the impeachment move that the three opposition parties have agreed to,” said Representative Chu Mi-ae, the MPK leader, appealing to those who still back Park or who may waver at the thought of breaking with their party.

Nam Gyeong-pil, a potential presidential candidate who openly supports South Korea obtaining nuclear weapons, stated at a recent news conference: “The impeachment motion should be done by December 9. If it pointlessly drags on, the people’s patience will reach its limit.” In other words, if Park is not removed soon, the protestors could begin advancing demands that none of the parties are willing to meet.

For the impeachment bill to pass, it requires a two-thirds vote of the 300-seat National Assembly. Assuming that all opposition and independent lawmakers vote in favor, it would still need the support of at least 28 lawmakers from the Saenuri Party. According to Yonhap News Agency, some 40 Saenuri lawmakers may vote for its approval.

If the bill succeeds, Park would remain president, but her official duties would be transferred to Prime Minister Hwang Gyo-an. The Constitutional Court would then examine the case. If six out of the nine justices support the charges against her, Park would be removed as president and a new election would be held within 60 days. The court proceedings could drag on for weeks. In 2004, the Constitutional Court took 63 days to dismiss impeachment charges against President Roh Moo-hyun (No Mu-hyeon).

According to media polls, Park’s approval rating has fallen to 4 percent, the lowest of any South Korean president. She is expected to deliver another public apology this week, but has shown no signs of willingly giving up her office.

Support for the Saenuri Party has fallen to 12 percent. The pro-Park faction comprises about 68 lawmakers out of the 128 conservative party members in the National Assembly. The faction recently boycotted a party meeting to discuss the impeachment procedures.

Huge growth in “precarious employment” in the UK

Thomas Scripps

A new study reveals that one in five UK workers—over 7 million people—are in “precarious employment.” This includes self-employment, temporary work and zero-hours contracts.

The total number has increased by nearly 2 million over the past decade, rising from 18.1 percent of the workforce to 22.2 percent.

The figures reveal a vast network of highly exploited workers, occupying positions throughout the British economy and held at the beck and call of multi-million and multi-billion pound corporations.

According to the Guardian, the number of self-employed reached 4.7 million this year, with over half on low-pay as compared to 30 percent of employees. Over a quarter of these live in low-income households (compared to 19 percent of employees) and over 60 percent have no pensions, savings or investments. Across the country, 80 percent of self-employed workers live in poverty.

Among the 4.7 million are 460,000 who could be falsely classified as “self-employed”—costing as much as £314 million a year in lost tax and employer National Insurance Contributions, according to the charity Citizens Advice. Businesses classify workers who are, to all intents and purposes, full or part-time employees as self-employed so they can avoid paying sick pay, holiday pay and pensions. Self-employed workers also have far fewer employment rights than employees.

The World Socialist Web Site has reported on a number of companies accused of having falsely classified workers in this way, including Sports Direct, Hermes, Uber and Deliveroo. Many workers have engaged in strikes and protests to demand fair wages and recognition as employees, with attendant protections. Those on zero-hours earn 50 percent less per hour than the average worker. The number of workers on zero-hours contracts in their main job rose 20 percent this past year, to 930,000. The number of zero-hours contracts, however, was in the region of 1.7 million last November, suggesting many people hold more than one job on these terms.

Despite this, 30 percent of zero-hours workers are underemployed—that is they would work more hours if they could. This is three times the percentage of those in other forms of employment. Contrary to the claims that such employment is often temporary, the Resolution Foundation reported this September that 70 percent of over-25s on zero-hours contracts had been with their employer for more than a year.

According to the Office for National Statistics, zero-hours workers are more likely to work for large employees and are concentrated in the hotel and leisure industries, followed by the health and education sectors.

In health, the proportion of care workers on zero-hours contracts rose from one-in-ten to one-in-seven this past year. There are currently 130 care firms being investigated for paying workers on these contracts below the minimum wage. Over the last two years, HM Revenue & Customs found almost £1 million worth of unpaid wages in the sector.

In education, precarious employment extends even to the teaching staff, with more than half of university academics at elite Russell Group universities on some form of insecure, non-permanent contract. These include short, generally nine month, contracts and per-hour contracts to teach classes or mark essays and exams.

Fully 1.8 million people nationally are in temporary work—207,000 more than in 2006—in fields as diverse as supermarket warehouses, schools and construction. In 2012, when the number stood at roughly 1.6 million, well over a third were in temporary jobs because they couldn’t find permanent work, according to the Trades Union Congress.

Recently, it was revealed that several agencies have been forcing their workers to sign up with “umbrella companies” before giving them any placements. Under these arrangements, temporary workers are paid marginally higher hourly rates, but are required to pay both employee and employer National Insurance Contributions as if self-employed. The increased wages, moreover, are supposed to cover holiday pay and pensions. To rub salt in the wound, the umbrella company then charges an administrative fee for its services.

Such agencies are engaged in tax dodging and business fraud to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. An agency employing 1,000 workers receives a £3,000 employment allowance every year, designed to help small businesses. That agency will then split those 1,000 workers into 500 companies with two employees. Each “company” can then receive £3,000 and is allowed to charge VAT sales tax to customers at 20 percent, while paying it back to the government at 12 percent.

Between them, these business and employment agencies account for nearly one quarter of the UK workforce. The 7.1 million people employed in this way are faced with poverty wages, perpetual financial insecurity and little hope of a pension.

Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, described the day to day difficulties workers face: “Not knowing what hours you’re working from one week to the next, or how much money you will lose to travel costs, can make it very difficult to manage household finances. It can also cause problems with other aspects of money management, such as whether you can get a mortgage or even commit to a mobile phone contract.”

These are the grim realities of work in the “globally competitive” economy demanded by contemporary capitalist governments. Damian Green, the Conservative Work and Pensions Secretary, recently stated “Just a few years ago the idea of a proper job meant a job that brings in a fixed monthly salary, with fixed hours, paid holidays, sick pay, a pension scheme and other contractual benefits. But the gig economy has changed all that…”

Making a cynical pretense at this being liberating for the worker, he added, “People now own their time and control who receives their services and when. They can pick and mix their employers, their hours, their offices, their holiday patterns... The potential is huge and the change is exciting.”

His comments expose the fraudulent nature of the Taylor Review, set up by Prime Minister Theresa May, to investigate working practices. Whatever the results of the investigation, the government will do nothing to infringe on the profits of their paymasters in boardrooms across the country.

The primary responsibility for the appalling situation facing millions of workers and youth lies with the trade unions and Labour Party, whose refusal to defend the working class is the root cause of the catastrophic decline in living standards since the 2008 financial crash, including a 10 percent real wage drop across the board.

So successful has been their sabotage of the resistance of workers to attacks on their living and working conditions that employers have been emboldened to pursue ever more extreme forms of exploitation. Recent promises by the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress to campaign against zero-hours contracts and umbrella companies, and for the extension of workers’ rights to cover the self-employed, should be understood for what they are: a cynical attempt to control rising militancy among this section of the labour force.

Trade unions already have a poor hold on private-sector workers, only 18 percent of whom are unionised. Among young workers, just 4 percent belong to trade unions. The unions are intervening among the self-employed, temporary and zero-hours sectors workers only in order to police them more effectively on behalf of management.

EU fears ‘no’ vote in Italian referendum

Marianne Arens

In less than a week voters in Italy will decide on the constitutional reform proposed by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. The reform envisages abolishing the parliamentary two-chamber system by reducing the size of the Senate and its powers. The move, Renzi argues, will considerably facilitate decision-making processes in the Chamber of Deputies. In addition, the new right to vote, “Italicum,” which was passed last year, gives the strongest party a massive bonus and in turn the prime minister much greater power.

The constitutional reform is the key element of the political program of 41-year-old Renzi, who took over the government in February 2014 after an internal coup in the Democratic Party (PD). He has never stood for election. The sidelining of the Senate, in which numerous minor parties are represented, in conjunction with the “Italicum,” which automatically assures the strongest party an absolute majority of votes in the Chamber of Deputies, is aimed at strengthening Renzi’s hand in advancing his neoliberal reforms, in the force of fierce social resistance.

The reform is an obvious step towards authoritarian rule. According to the British-Italian historian Paul Ginsborg, “Such a serious reform, clearly linked to the ‘Italicum,’ is evidently intended to restrict political power and move increasingly towards a presidential republic, which could bring a strong man to power. This aspect alone leads me to doubt the reform.”

In order to increase pressure for introduction of the reform, Renzi has linked his political destiny to the referendum and repeatedly threatened his resignation if it fails. More recently, however, he has distanced himself from this threat. The referendum, however, has developed its own dynamic and turned into a vote on Renzi’s policies.

According to the latest polls, a majority is in favour of the constitutional reform, but still intends to vote “no” to demonstrate opposition to the government. Even the 91-year-old ex-president, Giorgio Napolitano, has sought to promote Renzi and his arguments. In the show “Porta a Porta,” on primetime television, Napolitano stressed that it was “not a vote for or against the government, but rather just about changing the law.”

Just days before the vote on December 4, the outcome of the referendum is still completely open. In the three weeks before the vote, no polls are allowed, but the latest published trends place opponents 7 percent ahead of supporters, while 10 to 25 percent remain undecided.

The possible failure of the referendum has alarmed advocates of the European Union and representatives of the business elite in Italy and throughout Europe. They fear that the fourth largest economy in the EU could plunge into a long period of recession and political instability should the referendum fail and Renzi resign. If new elections take place, a majority hostile to the EU could take over the government for the first time in the traditionally EU-friendly country. This would be a further step, following the Brexit vote, towards the breakdown of the EU.

According to the media, the Confindustria (Confederation of Employers) fears a recession following a “no” vote in the referendum. The Italian leading index on the Milan stock market is declining steadily, and the risk premiums for Italian bank bonds have risen by 20 percent over the past six months—a significant symptom of crisis.

In a Bloomberg survey, 41 out of 42 top managers spoke out in favour of Renzi’s constitutional reform. “I hope for a yes,” said Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne when visiting Renzi in the company’s Cassino workshop.

Apparently, influential financial institutions are threatening to block rescue programs for Italian banks in the case of a “no” vote. Nonperforming loans on the books of Italian banks are estimated at €360 billion, with the bank Monte dei Paschi di Siena in immediate danger.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung, under the heading “Italy: Tighten your seat-belts,” wrote: “Following a defeat for Renzi, the planned capital increase [for this bank] could hardly be raised, according to Goldman Sachs. There could then be a domino effect for other financial concerns, which will have to collect billions in the coming months.”

Renzi himself has travelled up and down the country, arguing for a “yes” vote. He has met with earthquake and flood victims, debated with opponents of the reform and has been feted by his supporters on TV shows. Three years after he made his widely publicised promises to “shred” the old elites and modernize the country, however, his glamour has faded.

His reforms of pensions, the labour market and schools have had devastating consequences for a large portion of the population, and the economic situation has failed to improve. Under conditions of increasing poverty for the elderly, declining wages, job cuts, company bankruptcies and an official youth unemployment rate of 37 percent, Renzi is a despised figure.

Even a section of his own PD, its trade unions and associated pseudo-left groups feel unable to back Renzi any longer. The trade unions CGIL and FIOM, a wing of the PD, Sinistra Italiana, (which former SEL leader Nichi Vendola and some apostate PD members joined a year ago), as well as Rifondazione Comunista and similar groups have joined the “no” camp. Even former Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema (1998-2000) has spoken out against the constitutional reform.

But after almost 25 years of attacks on the social and political achievements of the working class by so-called “left” governments, backed by the trade unions, it is above all right-wing parties that are benefitting most from the anger directed against Renzi.

In particular, the Five-Star Movement led comedian Beppe Grillo, which has increasingly embraced xenophobia and nationalist positions and attacks the EU from the right, has been winning influence. On almost a daily basis Grillo insults the head of government on his blog, calling Renzi a “serial killer” (because he robs youth of a future), and compares Renzi’s campaign with the screams of a “wounded sow.”

The remnants of the party led by Silvio Berlusconi, who had proposed a similar constitutional reform, the far-right Lega Nord and the fascists of Fratelli d’Italia have campaigned vehemently for a “no” vote. This is despite the fact that, according to one survey, one-fifth of the supporters of these parties back the reform, which contains much of what they have long demanded: the reduction of state bureaucracy and introduction of an authoritarian state.

The 2017 German budget: Billions for the military and war

Johannes Stern

The 2017 federal budget passed by the grand coalition government marks a turning point in German post-war history. Almost three years after outgoing president Joachim Gauck and the German government officially announced the end of military restraint, a massive build-up of the military domestically and abroad stands at the centre of the budgetary plan.

In the next year, the defence budget alone will be raised by almost €2.5 billion, to €36.61 billion. The funds for military acquisitions will climb by approximately €1 billion, from €10.16 billion to €11.1 billion. The Foreign Office of Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Social Democratic Party, SPD) is to receive €5.23 billion in 2017, around €420 million more than this year. The funds for the Christian Democratic Union (CDU)-led Federal Ministry of the Interior will be increased to €8.98 billion. That is more than a billion more than this year and far more than designated in the original governmental draft (€8.34 billion).

The additional billions for security forces and the military are only the beginning of a massive campaign of military build-up. On Thursday, the Handelsblatt featured the following headline: “Merkel promises higher military spending: Chancellor wants NATO commitment to meet 2 percent of economic output.” In its report, the mouthpiece of German industry and the banks calculated: “Germany would have to spend 23 billion more euros for defence in order to fulfil the NATO stipulation of 2 percent of GDP.”

What was long considered virtually impossible is now the official policy of the government. In her governmental declaration on Wednesday, Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) announced: “[W]e are approaching that which we all—not just Christian Democrats, but also Social Democrats—pledged as a contribution to NATO, ladies and gentlemen.”

The German government seized on the victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential elections as a pretext to advance its plans for a more independent foreign and military policy. While Merkel did not mention Trump once by name in her governmental declaration on Wednesday, even bourgeois commentators considered her speech a reaction to Trump’s pledge to withdraw from free trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

“Openness will bring us more security than isolation,” declared Merkel, holding out the prospect of a greater role for Germany in world politics. While Germany “obviously cannot solve all problems,” the question remains: “Are we ready, with our experience of social market economy, for a social order which I believe as before brings with it the highest degree of economic strength and social justice, to champion an intensification and organisation of globalization? Or are we not ready and are withdrawing into ourselves?”

Who is Merkel trying to fool with her propaganda? The worldwide diplomatic offensive of the Foreign Office and the military missions in Afghanistan and Mali or in Syria and Iraq have nothing to do with “social market economy” or “justice,” but rather the defence of the geo-strategic and economic interests of German imperialism by the most brutal means.

The official “Federal Financial Plan 2016 to 2020” explicitly states: “the values, interests and priorities of the Federal Republic of Germany identified in the White Paper on security policy and the future of the Bundeswehr form the strategic framework for the mission and tasks of the Bundeswehr as an instrument of German security policy.”

Germany must “provide an active contribution to political conflict resolution, which is appropriate given the political aspirations and the weight of Germany in the world.” It continues: “To counter the risks and threats to Europe and Germany appropriately and as far as possible, a variety of security and defence policy options must exist, including the use of military instruments.”

What then follows reads like a recipe for the preparation of military interventions like those the United States has long carried out: “The armed forces of the 21st century must have a wide range of capabilities as well as a high degree of operational capacity.” Moreover, “flexible and professional structures, highly-qualified personnel, and adequate equipment … are necessary for conducting stabilization operations up to high-intensity combat missions.”

A core goal of the financial plan is the pursuit of stronger foreign policy independence and flexibility. “In training, exercise and possible future missions, new and existing forms of cooperation—especially in the realm of further developing bilateral relations—can be vitally important,” reads the section on “Military Defence.”

The German government is aware that a large majority of the population rejects the return of militarism and war, above all because of the terrible crimes committed during the Second World War. This explains the massive military build-up taking place domestically. The ruling class is alarmed at the increase in political opposition and is preparing itself at the same time for serious social conflicts.

Merkel declared she was “very happy that in the area of domestic security considerable efforts were being made.” “Among the authorities of domestic security,” she said, “thousands of new positions” had been created. She added, provocatively, that she could “only hope that the offers are so attractive that enough people will choose to accept them. That is, of course, of the greatest importance to us.”

While in parliament the Left Party and the Greens vote against the budget as nominal opposition parties, they agree with its general direction. Representatives of both parties have attacked the government from the right in several speeches. Anton Hofreiter, the leader of the Green Party’s parliamentary faction, criticized Merkel for not having done enough “to oppose the coming apart of the European Union” as the “chancellor of the most powerful country in the EU.” In addition to this, he wished that “one or another here in the House would issue a clear statement” against Russian “war crimes” in Aleppo.

Michael Leutert of the Left Party celebrated the fact that, in part, the budget bore the fingerprints of his party. Under pressure from the Left Party, more funds were allocated for the Foreign Office and for humanitarian aid during negotiations. Nevertheless, German foreign policy was “essentially incapable of taking action at the moment.” He had “at least not yet heard that the civil war in Syria and Iraq was ended, that the situation in Ukraine or Afghanistan had calmed, or that the conditions in Africa turning people into refugees had disappeared.”

France: Fillon wins presidential primary of right-wing parties

Alex Lantier

According to initial estimates, François Fillon has won 67 percent of the vote in the run-off presidential primary election of France’s main right-wing parties, easily defeating Alain Juppé.

Fillon is a former prime minister under Nicolas Sarkozy and practicing Catholic who admires Margaret Thatcher and advances a violently right-wing program. He is likely to face off against neo-fascist Marine Le Pen in the final round of the presidential election next May.

Voter turnout was roughly 4 percent higher than in the first round of the primary a week ago, in which 4.2 million voters participated. Fillon won all of France’s 100-plus departments and overseas territories with the exception of Juppé's home area, Gironde. Juppé, a former prime minister under Gaullist President Jacques Chirac, also won Corrèze and, overseas, French Polynesia, Wallis-and-Futuna and Guyana.

Juppé conceded defeat at his campaign headquarters, saying, “I congratulate François Fillon for his decisive victory… I wish him good luck for his upcoming presidential campaign.”

Fillon hailed his “deep-going victory” and called for unity among supporters of all the right-wing candidates. He attacked the “pathetic” five-year term of Socialist Party (PS) President François Hollande, adding, “I know the gravity of the situation and what my fellow citizens expect. I will listen to them in the coming months. I will take up with them the main challenge in France: that of truth and totally changing the country’s references. I will work with all those who know that happiness is something that is conquered.”

Less than three weeks since Donald Trump’s election in the United States, Fillon’s emergence as the candidate of The Republicans (LR) signifies a major shift to the right, entailing an intensification of austerity and efforts to promote nationalism. Fillon proposes €110 billion in social cuts, nearly half of which would come from the slashing of Social Security and elimination of health care for numerous illnesses, as well as the elimination of 500,000 public-sector jobs.

He has suggested that abortion is not a “fundamental” right and indicated that he would support stepped-up judicial persecution of religious minorities, including passage of a law against the burkini.

In foreign policy, Fillon proposes a massive escalation of wars in the Middle East directed against the Islamic State (IS), which he denounces as “Islamic totalitarianism.” He has observed that this war threatens to set off World War III, while absurdly blaming this danger on IS, which controls only a limited amount of territory in Iraq and Syria, rather than on the policies of the major world powers.

Fillon’s candidacy will intensify the economic and strategic rivalries that are tearing apart the European Union, which is already threatened by the British exit and a referendum next week in Italy that could lead to the installation of an anti-EU, anti-euro government. Fillon has indicated he wants better relations with Russia, while repeatedly declaring that his goal is to prepare France to become Europe’s leading power. The target of such remarks is obviously Germany, the EU’s dominant member-state.

Fillon’s primary victory highlights the collapse of French democracy. The PS is hated for having assaulted the workers with austerity measures and waged unpopular wars. Yet the candidate that currently is presented as the likely winner of the election aims to impose a program of Thatcher-style economic shock therapy, using the PS’ state of emergency and reactionary labor law to escalate France’s military operations and destroy basic social rights won by the French working class in the course of a century of struggle.

The deep economic and military tensions internationally, as well as the character of the leading French presidential candidates, rule out the coming to power of a candidate whose policy would be significantly different. Whether the election ultimately goes to Fillon, Le Pen or—as now seems highly unlikely—a candidate of the PS or allied political tendency, what is being prepared is more war overseas and social war against the workers at home.

Opposition by workers to this offensive will be victorious only if it is organized independently of the trade union bureaucracy and PS satellites such as the New Anti-capitalist Party. The leaders of these organizations, who drove opposition to the PS labor law into a dead end last summer, are already suggesting that Fillon has a legitimate right to seek to impose his program on the French people.

Asked on France Inter about the legitimacy of a Fillon administration, General Confederation of Labor (CGT) leader Philippe Martinez answered, “Of course it would be legitimate, as long as promises are kept… as long as there are no new laws that are proposed.”

Everything suggests that Fillon’s nomination as LR candidate will boost the vote for Le Pen’s National Front (FN) in the presidential and legislative elections. Nicolas Sarkozy won the presidency 10 years ago by appealing to anti-Muslim prejudice and to the FN voter base. Voters at that time preferred to vote for Sarkozy rather than FN candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine’s father, because Sarkozy presented himself as a “democratic” candidate, in contrast to Jean-Marie Le Pen, who was infamous for statements denying the Holocaust and trivializing the Nazi occupation of France.

Fillon seems to be using Sarkozy’s playbook. However, the record of Sarkozy and, even more, of Hollande over the last 10 years has eliminated many obstacles to a massive shift of votes from the more traditional right to the FN. The same period has also seen evolution toward the extreme right of social democratic and petty-bourgeois politics.

The PS government under Hollande, by legitimizing the legal arsenal of the Vichy regime and the Algerian war, proposing a policy to deprive alleged terrorists of nationality, and imposing a state of emergency, set up a police state framework that blurs the distinction between traditional parties of government and the FN.

Marine Le Pen has taken over the FN, carefully avoiding any display of pro-Nazi sympathies and giving top party positions to individuals tied to ex-PS member Jean-Pierre Chevènement, such as FN Vice President Florian Philippot. These ex-Chevènement supporters seek to give the FN a populist and “social” façade. The nomination of a violently free-market LR candidate will assist them as they demagogically pose as the only alternative to the pillage of the people by the banks.

Already yesterday, Philippot was attacking Fillon, declaring, “Fillon is clearly a free-marketer, clearly for austerity.” Attacking Fillon’s “extraordinary violence,” he added, “Fillon’s program is harsh: 500,000 public-sector jobs cut, especially in rural areas, and a hike in the sales tax… If you examine what Fillon would do, it means 12,500 fewer police and paramilitary security forces and 700,000 more unemployed.”

Yesterday, the Canadian press warned that a possible Le Pen-Fillon run-off in May could prove very close. “It’s not clear that Fillon is an attractive character for the left in French society to rally around,” Paul Diggle of Aberdeen Asset Management in London told the Globe and Mail. “I wouldn’t be willing to give you any better odds than 50-50 on Le Pen versus Fillon.”

Fidel Dies, Fight Will Not

Omar Rashid Chowdhury

Fidel Castro, the Comandante is no more.The leader of the Cuban revolution and former president of Cuba who led the island nation through a half-century blockade imposed by US, died on the night of 25th November, 2016 in Havana, Cuba, aged 90.

Born in 1926 to a prominent landowner in Holguín Province, Cuba, Castro went on to lead Cuba’s revolutionary independence movement, becoming president of the island nation in 1959 after defeating the U.S.-backed Batista dictatorship.

Soon after taking power Castro adopted an explicitly Marxist-Leninist model of development and in so doing faced the wrath of the U.S. For the next 48 years, until resigning in 2008, Castro led the tiny island nation to historic levels of development, leading the world in literacy and public health rates.

The success of Castro’s revolution also meant facing down more than 50 years of a hostile and destructive U.S. blockade, while also surviving multiple CIA assassination attempts. Castro and Cuba’s success inspired a growing decolonization movement throughout the world, one which Castro actively supported by creating networks of mutual aid throughout Latin America, Africa, and the rest of the Global South.

The leader of a Caribbean island nation of 11 million people, was one of the most important international figures of the world, whose very existence challenged the US supremacy and imperialist onslaught. The solution to Communism in Cuba was believed to be a “biological” one by US, that led CIA and CIA backed assassins to more than hundred failed assassination attempts on Castro. The mainstream media is no doubt, caught in a frenzy of suppressed celebrations on his death!

The charismatic leader, who was famous for long hours of fiery speeches, exceptional wisdom and farsightedness, will remain one of the most successful effective practitioners of Communist philosophy in history. His fight left Cuba a legacy of free health care and education, making it a champion among Latin American nations and a role model for many other. Cuba prospered even in the face of the longest embargo in human history, producing excellent doctors who crossed borders to help humanity, leading in medicine and cancer research and constantly keeping the light of revolution alive across the whole Latin America.

A communist who preached his philosophy with prophetic zeal, a leader who could see far into the future, a strategist who baffled and ‘bedeviled’ 11 American presidents, a revolutionary whose life was a relentless fight for humanity, a philosopher who introduced new dimensions in the international communist struggle, Fidel Castro will be remembered and remain as an icon whose significance is no less than Lenin, Stalin or Mao in the history of communism.

“I’ll be 90 years old soon,” Castro said at an April 2016 communist party congress where he made his most extensive public appearance in years. “Soon I’ll be like all the others. The time will come for all of us, but the ideas of the Cuban Communists will remain as proof that on this planet, if one works with fervor and dignity, they can produce the material and cultural goods that human beings need and that need to be fought for without ever giving up.”

Fidel Castro had been, and will be depicted, laureated in titles, words good and bad, but there is only one word that can best surmise and embody him and his life: Fight. Fidel fought with body and brain. After relinquishing the rifle, he took up the pen and carried on the ideological fight with newer dimensions that unified Latin America and kindled a fire of hope across the world. Fidel continued the fight and ensured that the fight against oppression, hunger, inequality, war, the fight for light against darkness, the fight for the dignity of humanity shall continue. And it will continue.

Flawed Alliances: Australia, The US And Trumpism

Binoy Kampmark

Politics can be a deliciously self-defeating field.  For the US-Australian alliance, one born out of desperate insecurity on the part of Canberra, a dramatic change in the White House was always going to cause a shudder.  A Clinton presidency was presumed to be inevitable and, on taking place, a no-fuss affair, one which was to continue President Barack Obama’s “pivot” towards the Asia Pacific, and against China.

This has made a satrap Australia vulnerable to the grand political designs of the United States.  Caught in the cross hairs of conflict, Canberra can do its little bit to disentangle itself from the overly enthusiastic eye of Washington in the region while maintaining a merry dance with China.

That aspect has been something of a dream.  Instead of maintaining a degree of sobriety in the matter, various local commentators and policy wonks were hoping that Australia would, alongside the United States, be able to contain China’s belligerence.  The large question was how best to do so.

In July this year, the opposition Labor’s Defence spokesman Stephen Conroy decided to stoke the fires by insisting that China had been shown by the International Court of Justice to be a regional bully boy. On ABC radio, he observed that China had been “engaged in an aggressive, at times, bullying performance, and has now been called out by the international court.”

Conroy’s hawkish solution was simple. “Australia should authorise its forces to both sail and fly over the areas of the South China Sea.” This would at least reassure other powers that the “Freedom of Navigations in and around the South China Sea” could be affirmed.

The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, rebuked Conroy by suggesting that he was “steaming in a direction all of his own.  Everyone else in the region is calling for calm and consideration.”  Foreign Minister Julie Bishop scoldingly told the Senator that he was “urging an escalation in tensions.”

The stomping victory of Donald Trump now sharpens the belligerent context, throwing such engagements into sharper relief.  Unilateralism offers a vast bag of unpredictable goodies, and it was the sort of bag that was providing Australia’s political classes with discomfort.

On both sides of the aisle, the members of parliament were visibly troubled about the US election result, with only government backbencher and Trump enthusiast George Christensen thrilled at the outcome.  Never the sharpest tool in the box, Christensen insisted that this was the sort of victory that could only be good.

The others did not fare so positively.  Opposition leader Bill Shorten had already pushed himself into hot water by calling Trump “barking mad”, madness he would have to contend with in future.  But he, along with many Australian political figures, has been as much a Trumpist at stages as the man he so roundly condemned.

Australian politicians, in truth, have been mimicking the Trump doctrine of Fortress America for years, building borders they hope will be impervious to the arrival of refugees by sea, and insisting on a form of ugly patriotism that would sit rather well in Trump’s cabinet of wonders. Shorten’s “Australia First” philosophy is another example.

What the local think-tankers and members of the defence fraternity are fretting over is what unruly measure will take place towards the Canberra-Washington alliance. In that sense, such mouthing is typical of satrapy, the view of the desperate on the periphery.

Individuals such as Senator Di Natale of the Greens have simply jumped to the conclusion that a Trump presidency posed Australia with a “security threat”. Labor has urged, through its Shadow Foreign Minister Penny Wong, that “we should not be naïve,” only to then prove her very own point by drawing assumptions about Trump.  “We need to consider a broader range of scenarios than was previously within contemplation.”

This, of course, should have always been the case for Australia, whose tendency to ape the Washington line in matters of war and security has gone unquestioned except by a few, including the late Malcolm Fraser.  The result has seen unquestioned deployments of personnel and material in zones of conflict most Australians would struggle to name. Truly, with the US, all the way, whatever the case of Australia’s immediate neighbours.

Department of Defence Secretary Dennis Richardson has also added his few cents worth, telling an audience at Old Parliament House in Canberra that “the alliance cannot be taken for granted.”  It was a relationship that would endure, irrespective of who was in the White House. Ditto former Defence Force chief Angus Houston, who insisted that the US was the “stabilising glue” of the Asia-Pacific region.

If you wanted to get a sense of Australian foreign policy in the past, you would simply have to go to the US State Department’s portfolios.  The rest was simple imitation, with the Australian foreign minister being no better than a mid-ranking State Department employee.  As with so much with previous assumptions, that book has been thrown out.  A Trump victory has given the first necessary jolt to the US-Australian relationship in years, and a needed one at that.

Japanese quakes highlight danger of new catastrophe

Mike Head 

Two earthquakes off Japan’s northwest coast this week—Tuesday’s 7.4-magnitude shock and Thursday’s 6.1-magnitude tremor nearby—triggered tsunami fears and injured some 20 people. Fortunately, they were much less devastating than the massive magnitude-9 quake that caused nearly 20,000 deaths and a nuclear disaster on the same coastline in March 2011.

Nonetheless, they point to the lack of remedial, planning and precautionary measures taken by successive Japanese governments since the 2011 tsunami tragedy and Fukushima nuclear plant failure. They also raise further critical questions about the potential impact of another huge earthquake and the lack of official preparations for such a catastrophe.

The two quakes, and numerous subsequent tremors, came just seven months after two major earthquakes and hundreds of aftershocks killed 42 people, injured about 1,000 and left a trail of destruction through the southern island of Kyushu in April.

All these events highlight the prevalence of earthquakes in the highly-populated country, which sits at the convergence of four tectonic plates.

Tuesday’s powerful earthquake generated a tidal wave of up to 1.4 metres at Sendai, about 70 kilometres north of Fukushima, with smaller waves hitting ports elsewhere along the coast, public broadcaster NHK said. Luckily, the tsunami was not larger. Official tsunami warnings were issued but some came too late or failed to reach people.

The first tsunami wave reached the coast of Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture, at 6:29 a.m., 30 minutes after the earthquake. The Japan Meteorological Agency issued a tsunami warning for Fukushima Prefecture at 6:02 a.m. but not for Miyagi Prefecture until 8:09 a.m.

Some panic and confusion was observed during the evacuations. In Iwaki, severe traffic congestion occurred on roads, including the Kashima Kaido prefectural highway that connects the coastal district of Onahama with inland areas.

Wednesday’s Yomiuri Shimbun editorial questioned whether the authorities had learned the lessons from the 2011 disaster. “[S]ome municipalities issued such notices only after the tsunami reached their areas,” it reported. According to the newspaper’s tally, evacuation directives, advisories and preparation notices were issued for a total of more than 550,000 people in Aomori, Iwate, Miyagi, Fukushima, Ibaraki and Chiba prefectures. However, only about 12,000 people, or 2.2 percent of the total, actually evacuated to shelters.

The quake also temporarily caused a cooling system in the Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant to stop, leaving more than 2,500 spent uranium fuel rods at risk of overheating. The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the utility that operates the Fukushima plants, reported that it restored the cooling pump in about an hour and a half.

Doubts remain, however, about the reliability of TEPCO’s claims, given its long record of cover-ups of nuclear incidents. Two days, later, on Thursday, the company admitted that workers found large puddles of water in reactor buildings at the plant immediately after the quake. TEPCO said the puddles may have formed from water that spilled out of spent-fuel pools during the quake.

All four reactors at the Daini plant have been offline since the 2011 disaster. While the complex was engulfed by tsunami waves in 2011, it escaped a breakdown, unlike its sister Fukushima Daiichi plant. Three out of six nuclear reactors at Daiichi went into meltdown. TEPCO only admitted in February this year that it had known that a meltdown had occurred but waited two months before making the information public.

Despite TEPCO’s record, the previous Democratic Party of Japan government of Naoto Kan left the company in charge of the emergency and remediation operation, a situation continued by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s current administration.

Following Tuesday’s quake, nuclear experts reiterated concerns about the safety of the clean-up program at the Daiichi plant. The melted cores of three reactors have yet to be removed because they are still too radioactive for workers to approach. Since 2011, groundwater has seeped into the reactors daily. The water, contaminated by the melted fuel rods, is being treated and stored on site. So far, TEPCO has built more than 880 tanks of about 1,000 tons each.

To try to halt the flow of groundwater into the damaged buildings, the company has built an underground wall of frozen dirt more than a kilometre in length encircling the reactors. The wall is not yet fully frozen, though, and groundwater continues to ooze into the reactors. Scientists have also expressed doubts that the storage tanks or the sea walls being built around the plants could withstand a more damaging earthquake or tsunami.

All but two of the country’s 54 plants have remained closed since 2011, but the Abe government is pushing for most plants to be reopened, defying widespread public opposition. Currently, the owners of 24 other reactors are seeking restart approvals.

In Fukushima, an estimated 174,000 residents are still displaced, many living in cramped prefabricated temporary housing. The Abe government is gradually declaring sections of the 20-kilometre nuclear exclusion zone safe and habitable. But many people have refused to return to Fukushima’s atomic “ghost towns.” For example, four months after Naraha Town was declared safe in September last year, only 6 percent of former inhabitants had moved back.

The latest quakes are another warning of a possible future calamity. In 2013, Abe’s government released a study showing that an earthquake of between 8 and 9 magnitude was highly likely to occur within the next 30 years in the tectonic plate boundary called the Nankai Trough, which runs just south of Tokyo, home to nearly 14 million people.

The report warned that such a quake and an accompanying 30-metre tsunami could kill 323,000 people, destroy over two million houses and cause economic losses amounting to double the annual national budget. Abe simply called on the Japanese people to be “calmly and appropriately afraid.”

As the World Socialist Web Site explained in “Nuclear power, private ownership and the profit system” published in March 2011, the construction of nuclear plants in one of the world’s most seismically active regions on the planet demonstrates two things. One is the subordination of the safety of humanity and health of the environment to the drive for profit and enrichment of executives and big shareholders.

The other is the destructive consequences of capitalism’s division of the world into rival nation-states. Since its defeat in World War II, the Japanese ruling class has suppressed basic considerations of public safety in order to develop “energy self-sufficiency” through nuclear power. This industry also provides the essential capacity to quickly develop nuclear weapons, a possibility openly canvassed by US president-elect Donald Trump during the presidential election campaign.

Construction scaffolding collapses, killing 74 at Chinese power plant

Richard Phillips

At least 74 building workers were killed on November 24 after 70-metre high scaffolding collapsed inside a cooling tower at a state-owned power plant project at Yichun city in China’s Jiangxi province.

While no official statement has been released about what caused the disaster, the China Daily said a tower crane collapsed, triggering the disintegration of the entire construction platform at about 7:30 a.m., during a shift change.

According to news reports, 90 percent of the site’s workforce lost their lives in the disaster, China’s worst building accident in the past two years. Most victims were low-paid migrant workers from Hebei province in northern China. The youngest was just 23 years-old.

Video footage and photographs screened by CCTV, the state broadcaster, showed massive piles of twisted metal and debris, and scores of workers, many forced to use their bare hands, attempting to locate victims. Police have taken 17 people into custody over the accident but provided no information about their identities.

The cooling tower was part of a $US10 billion project to build two 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power units at the site. The state-owned Jiangxi Ganneng power company expected construction, which began in July 2015, to be completed by early 2018.

According to the China Daily, the Jiangxi Ganneng corporation launched a “Work Hard for 100 Days” campaign in September, urging workers to speed up construction. Thursday’s disaster came just over 70 days into the new productivity regime.

The GB Times web site reported that Hebei Yinen Tower Engineering Ltd, the principal contractor on the project, has been involved in several construction accidents in recent years. Unnamed experts suggested that the disaster was caused by the use of lower grade materials and the lack of proper safety inspections.

Tsinghua-Gammon Construction Safety Research Centre director Fang Dongping told the South China Morning Post today: “In China, you seldom see builders who are not rushing to get projects done. The faster companies promise to complete them, the more likely they are to be awarded the contracts.”

President Xi Jinping, Premier Li Keqiang and provincial government officials issued perfunctory statements calling for improved safety. China’s State Administration of Work Safety chief Yang Huanning said there would be an investigation and the lessons of the accident would be learnt to expose the “hidden dangers” in the workplace. Such comments, routinely issued after every industrial disaster, are worthless.

Tens of thousands of Chinese workers are killed in their workplaces each year. In 2015, over 66,000 people died in industrial accidents at an average of 181 deaths per day. This massive death toll is not simply the result of “accidents”—unpredictable and unavoidable events—but the deliberate avoidance of basic safety procedures in order to cut costs, boost output and drive up profits.

Corruption is rife, with health and safety rules largely ignored, and workplace inspections rare. Whenever a major accident occurs, a few officials or managers are scapegoated and the underlying reasons for the disaster are either censored or brushed aside, so that similar practices continue.

In August 2014, a metal dust explosion at a car parts factory in eastern China killed at least 75 people and injured more than 18 others. Last year, the Chinese port city of Tianjin was rocked by two massive blasts, killing at least 173 people and injuring hundreds of others.

Last month, an industrial explosion hit Xinmin township in Shaanxi province, killing over 14 people , injuring more than 150 and leaving a crater several metres deep. The blast was reportedly caused by improperly stored construction chemicals. Earlier this month, over 30 miners were killed in a series of mine explosions and cave-ins.

The deaths of more than 70 building workers at the Jiangxi power-station construction site occurred on the same day that former head of the State Administration of Work Safety, Yang Dongliang, was placed on trial for allegedly accepting bribes. Yang said in court he took bribes and gifts worth 28.5 million yuan ($US4.1 million) while head of the government’s “work safety” agency.

While Yang is to be made an example, his conduct is emblematic of the corruption and profiteering that riddles the entire capitalist regime in China.

Incoming Berlin senate plans more deportations

Carola Kleinert 

At the beginning of November, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Left Party and the Green Party in Berlin held coalition negotiations over refugee policy. The three parties are expected to form the new state administration in the German capital of Berlin.

According to media sources, the parties have agreed on a change of course in refugee policy. The parts of the agreement that have been made public read like a humanitarian wish list. In most cases, however, they amount to nothing more than a statement of intent that will not cost any money or place in question the asylum laws of the federal government.

The attitude of the future “red-red-green” state government is already clear on one essential point: it will continue and intensify the existing deportation policy. However, it will take place under a new guise.

Under the heading “right of residence,” the Left Party reported in its Newsletter: “The coalition will rely to a greater extent on assisted return instead of a policy of deportation and will ‘strengthen’ existing programmes through a state programme as needed.”

The term “assisted return” is a typical Left Party smokescreen. The so-called “voluntary return” has already been put into practice and is an especially two-faced method of deportation.

In cases of “voluntary return,” refugees who have been turned down for asylum are informed that they must leave the country for a period of time, usually 30 days. Then, if they do not leave “voluntarily,” they are threatened with forcible deportation for which they are forced to pay, as well as a re-entry ban of ten years. If they agree to leave, then they are rewarded with the cost of departure, a small amount of cash, and possibly also entry into a reintegration program in their home country. This has become the favoured procedure of the authorities. The number of people who return “voluntarily” has increased throughout the country.

The “red-red-green” coalition favours this method of sending refugees back to their home countries. However, the Left Party claim that it has humanitarian motivations is false. Instead, this policy is favoured for concrete monetary reasons. As Bettina Jarasch, the state president of the Berlin Greens said after the coalition negotiations at the beginning of November, deportations are “more expensive.”

However, a red-red-green government will not advocate for an end to deportation and the right of refugees to stay in the country, even though this was an election promise made by several Left Party politicians. “In the end, this coalition will also have to deport in cases where nothing else is possible,” Jarasch said in a radio interview. However, this would supposedly be only a “last resort.”

An examination of the record in Thuringia, where the Left Party has already ruled along with the SPD and the Greens since 2014, shows the reality behind this supposedly humanitarian concept of “return.” Minister President Bodo Ramelow and Dieter Lauinger, the Green Party minister for migration, justice and consumer protection, have overseen a large number of “voluntary” repatriations. At the same time, they are notorious for brutal deportations.

According to the radio station Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, by the end of July of this year, over 1,400 refugees, 41 percent of those obligated to leave, went “voluntarily.” Ten percent were forcibly deported. At 30.5 percent, Thuringia had the third highest percentage of migrants who were declared “obligated to leave” in the first half of 2016. In the conservative-ruled state of Bavaria the number was 39.9 percent. In Saxony, it was 35.2 percent.

Lauinger justifies the policy of “voluntary return” by saying: “We are convinced that the voluntary departure is also cheaper, faster, easier and more humane; these are all reasons why we should follow the way of voluntary departure before we—and I will say this quite clearly, if this way is not chosen—before we reach for deportation as a method.” It is noteworthy that “humane” comes last in the list of adjectives he uses to describe the policy.

The red-red-green coalition in Berlin shares this perspective. Above all, refugees who are denied asylum must leave the country. The only thing that distinguishes their policy from that of the far right Alternative for Germany slogan, “foreigners out,” is the humanitarian pretext. The fact that Sahra Wagenknecht, the head of the Left Party faction in parliament, demanded an upper limit on the number of refugees who can enter the country was no coincidence.

The other points of agreement that have come out of the Berlin coalition talks on refugee policy are nothing but window dressing. Supposedly, they want to house refugees more quickly, integrate them into the labour market and, in this way, exploit “latitude within state law.” They do not want to introduce the “residence requirement,” which is ineffective in Berlin anyway. In addition, they want to advocate for deportation custody “on a national level,” and “in the Federal Council” they want to advocate for more naturalization, the expansion of family reunion and against the expansion of the list of so-called safe countries of origin.

Who is supposed to take this seriously after the experience with the red-red government between 2002 and 2011? The government coalition of the SPD and the Green Party, which was led by Klaus Wowereit (SPD) also deported refugees and has not even closed the deportation prison in Berlin-Grünau.

In addition, every time asylum law is tightened, the SPD provides its support. In the case of the most recent expansion the list of so-called safe countries of origin from which refugees are not granted asylum, the Greens—with whom the Left Party wishes to rule—have given their support.

The Left Party and Green Party propaganda that claims they are preparing a change of course in refugee policy is intended above all to deceive those among their voters who actively support refugees and serve as a left-wing fig leaf for the federal election due in 2017.

Meanwhile, a new massive wave of deportations has been initiated. At the beginning of October, the federal government came to a readmission agreement with Afghanistan for rejected asylum applicants. Shortly afterwards, it also implemented a similar agreement in the EU. CDU Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziére claimed that there were “safe zones” in war torn Afghanistan. As demonstrated by the most recent attacks in Kunduz, this is pure cynicism. “This is the beginning of a brutalization of the deportation process,” commented Günther Burkhardt of the refugee advocacy organization Pro Asyl.

The Afghanistan agreement also carries the signature of the SDP, with whom the Left Party and the Greens want to enter a coalition. There is growing fear among Afghani refugees, and there have been protest demonstrations in Berlin, Hamburg and Munich.

In this context, the announcement of an increase in “voluntary” returns by the red-red-green government takes on an especially cynical coloration. The Left Party, the Greens and the SPD are offering to manage future mass deportations better and more efficiently.