27 Jan 2017

US and India sharing intelligence on Chinese submarine and ship movements

Keith Jones

India and the US are exchanging intelligence on Chinese submarine and ship movements in the Indian Ocean, the head of the US Pacific Command, Admiral Harry Harris, told a press conference in New Delhi last week.
“There is sharing of information regarding Chinese maritime movement in the Indian Ocean,” Harris said, following an address to an Indian government-sponsored security conference.
The Pentagon, continued the admiral, is working “closely with India and with improving India’s capability to do that kind of surveillance.”
The head of the US Pacific Command then referred to the Malabar exercise, a yearly Indo-US naval exercise, which was recently expanded to include Japan as a permanent third partner. “Malabar … helps us hone our ability to track what China is doing in the Indian Ocean. Chinese submarines are clearly an issue and we know they are operating through the region.”
Under Narendra Modi and his Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, India has aligned itself ever more closely with Washington’s diplomatic and military-strategic offensive against China. It has parroted US claims that China is an “aggressor” in the South China Sea; enhanced strategic ties with America’s principal Asia-Pacific allies, Japan and Australia; and opened Indian military bases for routine use by US warplanes and battleships.
Harris’ remarks would appear, however, to be the first public admission by either the US or India that their navies are sharing intelligence on Chinese deployments in the Indian Ocean.
With Washington’s support, India is rapidly building a blue-water navy to stake its claim to a leading role in the Indian Ocean, which is home to the world’s busiest shipping lanes, including those that bear Mideast oil and other resources to China and carry Chinese goods to markets in much of Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe.
Harris made mention of the Indian Ocean intelligence sharing following a bellicose address to the second annual Raisina Dialogue in which he celebrated the burgeoning Indo-US military-security partnership and emphasized the Pentagon’s wish for it become ever-more comprehensive.
Admiral Harris told the inaugural Raisina Conference, held in March 2016, that he looked forward to the day when Indian and American warships would jointly patrol the Indian and Pacific Oceans, including the South China Sea.
At last week’s conference he said that India and the US must work together to “shape” “the new normal” in the “Indo-Asia-Pacific” region so as to prevent it being shaped “by a revanchist Russia and an increasingly assertive China.”
He then likened Indo-US military-security cooperation to the sharpening of a war axe.
Harris claimed that Abraham Lincoln’s adage “Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I’ll spend the first four sharpening the axe” encapsulates the current purpose and posture of the Indo-US partnership.
“The tasks before us,” he declared, “are to shape the New Normal and uphold the rules-based international order [that is, US imperialist hegemony in the Indo-Pacific] … These are huge tasks, but not insurmountable ones. Our approach, by taking the time to work together—to sharpen our tools—is, in my opinion, the right approach.”
To make sure his meaning was not lost on his audience, Harris said the US military is ready to confront its adversaries “where we must,” adding that he would like “to sharpen our proverbial axe faster,” and make it “razor sharp,” “because we never know when events will force us to use it.”
At his press conference Harris said he has met Trump’s security team and is confident the new administration will continue the bipartisan policy toward India that the US political elite has pursued since the final years of the Clinton administration. This policy aims to build up India as a strategic counterweight to China and has crystalized, in this decade, into a drive to transform India into a frontline state in the US effort to thwart China’s “rise,” if necessary through war.
Toward this end, Washington has whetted the Indian bourgeoisie’s great power ambitions. Successive US administrations have declared India a “global strategic partner” and showered New Delhi with strategic favours. Last year, Washington named India a “Major Defense Partner,” so as to give it access to the most advanced weapons and weapons systems—those the US will sell only to its closest treaty allies.
Although Pakistan does not fall under Harris’ jurisdiction under the Pentagon’s command structure, he expressed concern at his press conference about the strengthening of China’s longstanding military-security ties with Pakistan. Needless to say, he did not mention that these enhanced ties are very much a response to the Indo-US alliance.
“The relationship between China and Pakistan is of concern,” said Harris. Indeed, he urged India to be “concerned about increasing Chinese influence” across South Asia. “If you believe that there is only finite influence, then whatever influence China has means that influence India does not have.”
New Delhi is already immersed in fractious strategic competition with China throughout South Asia and among the Indian Ocean islands states, from Nepal and Bangladesh to Sri Lanka, Mauritius, and the Maldives.
Nevertheless, Harris’ injunction to India to beware of Chinese influence in Pakistan will be music to the ears of the Modi government. It has been pursuing a hardline policy against Pakistan that brought South Asia’s nuclear-armed rivals to the brink of all-out war in October-November 2016.
While India and Pakistan are no longer exchanging daily artillery barrages across the Line of Control that separates Indian- and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, their 2003 truce has manifestly collapsed and the Modi government’s threat to mount further cross-border military raids into Pakistan has left the region on tenterhooks.
Prime Minister Modi and his ministers continue to insist they will not resume any form of dialogue with Islamabad until Pakistan demonstrably heels to India’s demand it stop all logistical support to the anti-Indian insurgency in Kashmir.
Modi reiterated this stance in his speech to the Raisina Dialogue. When it came to China, however, his tone was quite different from that of the US Admiral Harris. India’s prime minister claimed that “the development of India and China” represents “an unprecedented opportunity, for our two countries and for the whole world.” He then cautioned that both “countries need to show sensitivity and respect for each other's core concerns and interests.”
Modi has frequently combined conciliatory rhetoric vis-a-vis China, with provocative actions.
In recent weeks, India has tested an intermediate and an intercontinental ballistic missile, respectively the Agni IV and Agni V—weapons developed with the express purpose of ensuring that all China’s major population centers could be targeted for nuclear annihilation in the event of a Sino-Indian war.
And just days after assuming his command, India’s new army chief, General Bipin Rawat boasted about the Indian military’s readiness to fight a “two-front” war against Pakistan and China simultaneously.

Oligarch investor seeks leadership of Canada’s Conservatives

Carl Bronski

Just days after proposing that the federal government become more of a “profit-center” by selling Senate seats, multi-millionaire investor, reality television star, and inveterate blow-hard Kevin O’Leary announced he is a candidate to lead Canada’s Conservative Party.
O’Leary joins thirteen other candidates vying to lead Canada’s Official Opposition. But much of the media has already anointed him the “front runner” in the Conservative leadership race, which will climax at a party convention in May.
The post of Conservative leader has been vacant since Stephen Harper resigned within hours of his decade-old Conservative government losing the October 2015 federal election to the Justin Trudeau-led Liberals.
O’Leary, who has no political experience, is claiming strong support for his candidacy, based largely on name recognition from his numerous television appearances as a business commentator and his leading role in two “reality” based shows that extol the virtues of entrepreneurship—the Canadian version of “Dragon’s Den” and its American spin-off, “Shark Tank.” His candidacy is supported by long-time right-wing party stalwarts, such as former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, Senator Marjorie LeBreton, and former Harper confidante Mike Coates.
O’Leary has long been associated with the unbridled cultivation of wealth and the celebration of social inequality as keystones of a well-functioning capitalist economy. In 2014, in his capacity as business expert on a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) financial news program, he infamously hailed a then-recent Oxfam report that showed the richest 85 people in the world owned as much as the poorest 3.5 billion.
“This is fantastic news,” he pontificated. “Of course I applaud it. What could be wrong with this? It inspires everybody to get some motivation to look up to the 1 percent and say ‘I want to become one of those people, I’m going to fight hard to get to the top’.”
O’Leary, who has made the accruing of obscene wealth a veritable fetish, no doubt would have been tickled by the most recent Oxfam report on social inequality. It shows that the gulf between the richest oligarchs and the rest of the global population continues to grow. Based on new and better data, Oxfam found that today eight multi-billionaires control more wealth than half the world’s population. The same report cited figures showing that in Canada, two men—David Thomson of Thomson-Reuters and Galen Weston of the giant Loblaw grocery empire—own more than the poorest 30 percent of Canadians.
It is not difficult to find other aggressively anti-democratic statements from O’Leary. In 2011, on the same CBC financial news program, he railed against a threatened strike by Air Canada employees. “Here’s the right thing to do,” said O’Leary. “Elect me as prime minister for 15 minutes. I will make unions illegal. Anybody who remains a union member will be thrown in jail.”
In the ballyhoo about O’Leary’s entry into the leadership race, much has been made of the similarities between him and US President Donald Trump. Both men harbour profoundly anti-democratic views and advocate class war policies aimed at further redistributing wealth to the capitalist elite, including the slashing of taxes on big business and the rich, the gutting of social spending, and shredding of environmental and labour regulations.
O’Leary has complained bitterly about election financing laws that prevent him from mimicking Trump and using his personal fortune, estimated at more than $400 million, to fund his leadership bid.
The corporate media has afforded O’Leary overwhelmingly positive coverage. For months, it has promoted his campaign with story after story speculating about his possible candidacy and, more recently, his impending entry into the Conservative leadership race.
There have been some notes of caution expressed in ruling circles, however, particularly over O’Leary’s flaunting of his wealth and political inexperience and his inability to speak French. Several of his Conservative rivals have also attacked him for comments he made last year criticizing the Harper government’s promotion of Canada as a “warrior nation.”
Since its creation in 2004, out of the merger of the right-wing populist Canadian Alliance and what remained of a shattered Progressive Conservative Party, the “new” Conservative Party has been used by Canada’s ruling elite to shift politics dramatically to the right.
During the decade of Conservative rule that began in February 2006, Harper vastly expanded Canadian imperialist involvement in US-led wars and military-strategic offensives, including against Russia and China. Canada’s leading role in the Afghan counter-insurgency war was used to acclimatize the population to the shedding of blood, putting paid to the myth of Canada as a “peacekeeper,” and to promote a virulently reactionary, pro-monarchy, and militarist Canadian nationalism.
On the domestic front, Harper and his Conservatives imposed sweeping social spending cuts and attacked democratic rights. This included whipping up anti-immigrant chauvinism and Islamophobia under the guise of the so-called “war on terror” and granting the national security apparatus police-state powers. The Harper government also moved to criminalize worker resistance, virtually banning strikes in key sectors like the railways, air travel and the postal service.
It therefore comes as no surprise that O’Leary is far from the only Conservative leadership candidate advancing Trump-style, ultra-right policies.
Kellie Leitch, Harper’s former Minister of Labour, has deliberately patterned her campaign after Trump’s right-wing populism, denouncing the “liberal elites” and pinning the problems faced by workers on immigrants who threaten “Canadian values.” She has vehemently defended her 2015 election campaign appearance, along with then the Immigration Minister and fellow leadership candidate Chris Alexander, to call for an anti-immigrant “barbaric cultural practices” snitch-line.
Leitch is only the most vitriolic of several leading candidates who have taken up the anti-immigrant cudgel as their political calling-card. Quebec-based candidate Stephen Blaney and former Veterans’ Affairs Minister Erin O’Toole have called for restricting immigration, with Blaney also urging restrictions be placed on Muslim women wearing religious face-coverings.
Former Small Business Minister Maxime Bernier, who is running to be Canada’s “first libertarian prime minister,” advocates the privatization of health care and the post office, massive social spending cuts, the elimination of all capital gains taxes, and the effective gutting of all regulatory restrictions on the unbridled pursuit of profit.
Such has been the stampede to the right that Lisa Raitt, herself a former Harper Labour Minister who regularly invoked or threatened strike-breaking legislation, can now posture as leader of the party’s so-called “moderate” faction.

Wall Street’s Trump euphoria propels Dow above 20,000

Barry Grey

On Wednesday, Wall Street celebrated the installation of an administration staffed by CEOs and pledged to remove all obstacles to corporate profit-making by pushing the Dow Jones Industrial Average above the 20,000 level for the first time in history. US stock indexes have been soaring since the November 8 election of Donald Trump, with the Dow rising 9 percent in just 11 weeks.
The blue chip index gained 155 points to close at 20,068 on Wednesday. The Standard & Poor’s 500 and Nasdaq indexes also recorded strong gains and ended the day in record territory.
Trump hailed the record-breaking close with a tweet: “Great!#Dow20K.” His senior economic adviser, the former hedge fund boss Anthony Scaramucci, congratulated Trump for the market surge, tweeting, “Stock market performance in 6 weeks following President Trump’s victory is best among all elections since 1900#ThankYouTrump.”
The record close came one day after Trump issued orders aimed at removing all obstacles to the completion of the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines, demonstrating his contempt for environmental concerns and the sentiments of Native American tribes and their supporters, who have been protesting for months against the Dakota project’s threat to the Standing Rock Reservation’s water supply and traditional lands.
This boon to the energy and materials corporations and their Wall Street backers coincided with meetings between Trump and corporate CEOS on Monday and Tuesday at which the billionaire real estate mogul-turned president reiterated his pledge to gut health and safety and environmental regulations and slash corporate taxes.
In remarks just prior to meeting Tuesday with the CEOs of the US-based auto companies, Trump promised to shift the business climate “from truly inhospitable to extremely hospitable.” He called current business regulations “out of control.” Administration officials broadly hinted that Trump would meet one of the auto bosses’ key demands by rolling back fuel efficiency standards. On Monday, Trump told a meeting of a dozen CEOs that his advisers thought “we can cut regulations 75 percent, maybe more.”
Other actions Trump has taken in the five days since his inauguration include a freeze on all pending regulations and a hiring freeze for all federal agencies.
While there have been certain improvements in the economic situation in the US and internationally in recent months, including signs of stronger growth in Europe and an upsurge in fourth quarter US corporate profits, these changes do not explain the extraordinarily rapid rise in the American markets.
The surge began the day after Trump’s November 8 election victory, as the markets, initially shaken by the unexpected defeat of their favored candidate, Democrat Hillary Clinton, turned sharply upward, buoyed by Trump’s promises of massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich, the wholesale lifting of business regulations, a massive expansion of military spending, and the prospect of a full-scale attack on social programs.
As Trump began to name one billionaire or multi-millionaire after another to his cabinet, along with ex-generals and far-right opponents of public education, Medicare and Social Security, housing assistance, environmental protections, the minimum wage and occupational health and safety, the upward spiral on Wall Street accelerated. It is barely two months since the Dow first hit 19,000.
The rise stalled for several weeks while the financial elite waited to see if Trump really intended to carry out the social counterrevolution to which he had alluded during the campaign. The markets soared once again after Trump’s installation and initial pro-corporate moves.
Trump is the embodiment of the American financial aristocracy, in all its brutish and violent backwardness and criminality. What the markets are celebrating is a government that in an unprecedented manner openly functions as the instrument of this oligarchy.
On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal if anything understated the greed-driven euphoria in corporate and financial circles in an article headlined “CEOs Savor New Washington Status.”
“For CEOs,” the Journal wrote, “the moves have sent a message that their stock is rising in Washington, with some betting that they will have a bigger say in running the country…
“Along with [former Exxon Mobil CEO Rex] Tillerson at State, billionaire investor Wilbur Ross [Commerce], former Windquest Group chairwoman Betsy DeVos [Education], Andy Puzder, chief executive of CKE Restaurant Holdings [Labor] and former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon [Small Business Administration] have been tapped to play big roles in his administration.”
The Journal could have added, among others, longtime Goldman Sachs lawyer Jay Clayton the head the main Wall Street regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The presence of three former Goldman Sachs executives in top positions in the Trump administration, in addition to Clayton, helps explain the frenzied runup in the share prices of major banks. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase together account for some 20 percent of the rise in the Dow since November 22.
Trump’s plan to “make America great again” is a drive to wipe out every social gain won by the working class in the course of more than a century of struggle and return to a supposed “golden age” when the corporations could plunder and pollute the country to their heart's content.
The fraud of Trump’s “concern” for the American worker is exposed by the reality of the forces that are actually benefitting from his policies.
One of the Goldman alumni chosen by Trump for top posts in his administration is Gary Cohn, the bank’s former president and chief operating officer. In return for his leaving the bank and assuming the post of director of Trump’s National Economic Council, Goldman is handing Cohn more than $285 million in bonuses, stock holdings and other investments, according to Bloomberg News.
The Wall Street Journal, in an article published Tuesday titled “Bankers Cash In on Post-Election Stock Rally,” reported that executives of major Wall Street banks have sold almost $100 million worth of stock since the election, more than in that same period in any year for the past decade.
In addition to the share sales, bank officials have sold another $350 million worth of stock to cover the cost of exercising stock options.
Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman, according to the newspaper, sold 200,000 Morgan Stanley shares three days after the election, and has since sold another 385,000 shares, altogether realizing a profit of at least $8.4 million.
Six Goldman Sachs executives, as well as board member and ex-finance chief David Vinar, exercised 983,000 options, representing $200 million worth of shares.
The advent of Trump has already boosted the fortunes of Wall Street bankers by millions of dollars, and this is only a small preview of the colossal plundering of the American and world economy that is to come.
All the more politically criminal are the efforts of the Democrats, including supposed “left” figures such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, to lend credibility to Trump’s claims to be fighting for American workers by backing the new president’s xenophobic “America First” policies of economic nationalism and trade war.

Trump launches war against immigrant workers

Bill Van Auken

The two executive orders signed by President Donald Trump on Wednesday at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) constitute an assault not only against immigrants, but against the working class as a whole.
The main order called for beginning construction of “the wall” on the Mexican border that was endlessly promoted by Trump in the course of his presidential campaign, and for an escalation of the criminalization of undocumented immigrants.
These measures are aimed at whipping up xenophobia and anti-immigrant chauvinism in order to carry out a wholesale assault on the democratic rights and social conditions of the entire working class, together with an accelerated transfer of wealth to the corporations and financial oligarchy in the name of “America First.”
Delivered to an audience of uniformed Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, Trump’s speech justifying the further militarization of the US-Mexican border and a redoubled crackdown on immigrant workers had a distinctively fascistic flavor.
Depicting an “out of control” border, Trump addressed himself directly to the border and immigration agencies, declaring that for “too long your officers and agents haven’t been allowed to do their jobs.” That, he said, would now change: “From here on out, I'm asking all of you to enforce the laws of the United States of America. They will be enforced and enforced strongly.”
Trump’s tone echoed that of his spokesman, Sean Spicer, who told White House reporters just before Trump’s appearance at DHS that the administration was going to “return power and responsibility” to the Border Patrol and ICE to enable them to “unapologetically enforce the law, no ifs, ands or buts.”
The administration is telling these agencies, notorious for their brutality and lawlessness in dealing with immigrants, that now the gloves are truly off. Moreover, Trump’s executive orders call for these militarized police forces to be substantially enlarged. The Border Patrol, already the largest police agency in the country, is to get another 5,000 members, while the number of ICE officers is to be tripled, with the addition of another 10,000, creating the foundations for the “special deportation task force” that Trump promised during his election campaign.
Heading these agencies is Trump’s newly confirmed secretary of homeland security, retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, who formerly headed the US Southern Command, which oversees all of the Pentagon’s operations in Latin America. Kelly’s appointment signals a further militarization of both the border and the hunting down of undocumented immigrant workers in the US itself.
Part of the change in immigration policy advanced by the new president is an end to the practice described by immigration agents as “catch and release,” in which some undocumented immigrants are released from detention while awaiting a court hearing. The ending of such conditional releases will require a vast expansion of the immigration prison system, which already holds some 40,000 people on any given day.
The executive order calls for DHS to set up new detention camps, which will likely be filled with families and unaccompanied children fleeing violence in Central America, who make up the bulk of those now crossing the border.
To justify this massive escalation of repression on the border, under conditions in which the actual number of border crossings has fallen to its lowest level in 40 years, and more Mexican immigrants are leaving the country than coming in, Trump sought to amplify his racist campaign rhetoric depicting immigrants in general, and Mexicans in particular, as criminals.
To this end, the extreme anti-immigrant group The Remembrance Project was invited to the DHS to participate in the presentation of the new executive orders. This organization, which is linked to white nationalist and other ultra-right groups, is dedicated to exploiting the small number of American citizens allegedly killed by undocumented immigrants as a means of demonizing all foreign-born workers.
Trump asked relatives of such alleged victims to stand and be applauded by the assembled immigration and border agents. His executive order mandates the creation of a special office dedicated to “supporting victims of illegal immigrant crime” in order to promote this fascistic propaganda narrative.
Trump’s second executive order calls for the US government to retaliate against so-called “sanctuary cities” by cutting off federal grant money. The aim is to coerce local governments into ordering their police departments to join in the crackdown against immigrants.
The cost of the centerpiece of Trump’s policy, the wall that is supposed to be erected between the US and Mexico, is estimated at anywhere between $10 billion and $25 billion. The executive order calls for redirecting existing funds to begin building the barrier, while Trump has reiterated his insistence that Mexico will be forced to pay for it.
Trump’s measure ordering the erection of a “large physical barrier on the southern border” is based upon the 2006 Secure Fence Act, passed with the support of Trump’s Democratic presidential opponent, then-Senator Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, the Obama administration deported some 3 million immigrants, more than all previous US presidents combined.
The executive orders mandating the border wall and escalating the anti-immigrant crackdown were announced on the same day that Mexico’s foreign minister, Luis Videgaray, together with the country’s finance minister arrived in Washington for White House talks aimed at preparing a state visit by President Enrique Peña Nieto next week. This timing, combined with Trump’s continued demand that Mexico pay for the wall, has provoked widespread outrage in Mexico and demands that Peña Nieto call off his trip.
The imposition of a new barrier along the border, together with Trump’s protectionist threats and demands that US manufacturers stop production in Mexico, will serve only to deepen the economic crisis on both sides of the border, while further inflaming the social unrest that has erupted in response to the recent hike in Mexican gasoline prices.
Further reactionary immigration orders are expected this week, including a refashioning of Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the country that would effectively bar legal entry to people from a number of so-called “terrorism prone” countries, including Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Somalia.
The redoubled crackdown on immigrants is part of a far broader drive to strengthen the dictatorial powers of the state. Even as he was preparing to unveil his anti-immigrant executive orders, Trump expressed to ABC News his support for the resumption of water boarding and other methods of torture in order to “fight fire with fire.” Drafts of other executive orders have reportedly been circulating calling for the reopening of the CIA’s “black sites” as well as a review of the Army Field Manual’s limits on torture methods.
The police state methods that are being unleashed against immigrant workers will ultimately be turned against the working class as a whole. The defense of democratic rights and social conditions can be carried forward only by uniting immigrant and native-born workers within the United States and joining the struggles of US and Mexican workers across the border that divides them against their common enemy, the capitalist system.
Workers in the US and throughout the world must come forward in defense of immigrants and refugees, upholding the right of workers everywhere to live and work in the country of their choice, with full legal and political rights.

Australian government defies public outcry on welfare debt assault

Margaret Rees

Confronted by mounting public hostility to its crackdown on supposed “welfare fraud,” the Australian government is nevertheless stepping-up its assault on recipients, declaring that its measures will be extended from unemployed workers to sole parents and aged and disability pensioners by July.
Public sector workers inside Centrelink, the welfare office, have made a series of increasingly damaging leaks, exposing official instructions to send recipients threatening “debt” letters demanding repayment of alleged over-payments despite knowing that the accusations are false. These workers have taken a courageous stand, defying government threats that could see them punished, sacked or prosecuted for divulging internal communications.
Since last July, the government’s “Online Compliance Intervention” has already dispatched 232,000 letters to welfare recipients, primarily on Newstart or Youth Allowance unemployment benefits. At least another 900,000 letters will follow.
The letters place the onus on recipients to disprove “discrepancies” or “overpayments” said to arise from computer-generated data-matching of Centrelink records with Australian Tax Office (ATO) tax returns. Welfare recipients are forced to start paying back the disputed amounts, even if they have lodged an appeal against the claim.
According to the government’s budget estimates, more than three million aged pensioners, single parents and disability support pensioners will be targeted next. Over four years, the government is seeking to claw back $1.1 billion from aged pensioners, $400 million from disability pensioners and $700 million from sole parent support payments.
By terrorising welfare dependents, the Liberal-National Coalition government is seeking to meet the demands of the financial elite to slash social spending and at the same time lower corporate taxes. Altogether, the aim is to extract $4 billion in budget “savings” from some of the poorest members of society.
The latest damning leak, an eight-page letter released last Thursday, said the compliance teams were being ordered not to fix errors generated by the system, even when they could see the debts were wrongly alleged.
“Within the organisation it is well known that there are errors in the program and compliance officers are directed to ignore incorrect debts without being permitted to correct them,” the letter said.
“I’m writing because I along with so many of my co-workers have tried to stop the wrong that is being done to thousands of our customers on a daily basis and I can no longer live with what we are doing… I am risking my job sending this information in the desperate hope that exposing such an … unjust system might just make a difference.”
Income that is exempt from Centrelink assessment, such as meal, laundry and uniform allowances, is being included. Paid parental leave is also being wrongly counted. The system is also generating debts based on welfare payments that were never made, and duplicating income where a termination or leave payment was made.
An earlier anonymous leak said the system was particularly harsh on those who received a sickness allowance—a benefit paid to those unable to work temporarily due to serious illness.
“The ATO matched data will show that they worked the entire financial year and will apportion the gross payments over that financial year without taking into account their time off. This means the system raises a debt for the entire sickness allowance they received. For many that is a debt of over $1,000.
“Although we may have documented evidence of their medical issues on the system, we are not allowed to look into the system to find any of that evidence. Instead customers must obtain all their pay information for that financial year.”
Some recipients had to search for pay slips issued by defunct employers from six years ago.
In an internal memo that was also quickly leaked, the Department of Human Services last week threatened whistleblowers with disciplinary action or criminal prosecution. Sections of the Crimes Act make it a serious crime for a public servant to leak information, or a journalist or third party to receive it.
Trying to deflect the mounting outcry, Human Services Minister Alan Tudge last week promised cosmetic “improvements.” Admitting that some welfare recipients had not even received letters before being confronted by debt collectors, Tudge said the letters would now be sent by registered mail, and addresses would be checked against the electoral roll.
At the same time, Tudge insisted that the government had to act because “welfare constitutes a third of the budget now.” He renewed his previous threats to see welfare recipients jailed, stating: “If you deliberately seek to get more money than you’re entitled to, then yes, that is a fraud.”
Centrelink workers said the automated system discriminates against those in casual jobs. The compliance process fails to take into account precarious patterns of employment—into which growing numbers of workers have been forced.
Last September, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that in four years, the number of casualised workers has risen by 110,000. In the late 1970s, only 15 percent of jobs were part-time. Now the figure stands at 31.9 percent.
In one Centrelink Ballarat case, a recent university graduate who had worked casually full-time for a single month, had that amount averaged as a yearly income and was then deemed to have been overpaid $6,000.
A single mother received a $24,000 debt notice just before Christmas because the automated system mistakenly recorded her as having two jobs and undeclared income. She told the media: “They want to get money back from us low-income Australians instead of the Murdochs. A lot of people won’t have the means to question it and are just going to go and pay, or freak out and get very stressed.”
This did not begin under the current ruling Coalition. A Labor government initiated the framework for it in 1991, introducing stricter work-seeking tests for the unemployed, as well as data-matching processes that had been trialled in Sweden during the 1980s.
Since then, every government, Labor and Liberal-National alike, has witch-hunted so-called “welfare fraud.” In 2008, the Rudd Labor government’s first budget included $138 million for data matching and surveillance measures and claimed that improved compliance would net $600 million over four years.
In 2011, the Gillard Labor government introduced the full automation of welfare debt recovery. Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten, who is now Labor Party leader, said: “The new matching data link is expected to increase the number of former customers identified for this process by an additional 65,000, above current detection levels, over four years.”
Labor is now cynically calling for the temporary suspension of the automated process, yet it is also counting on the $4 billion in budget “savings” for its proposed austerity measures, designed to curry favour with the corporate elite. Labor supported the government’s abolition of a six-year statute of limitations on welfare “debts” and last September helped the government pass an omnibus savings bill, cutting $6.3 billion from social spending over four years.
Likewise, the trade union covering public sector workers, the Community and Public Sector Union, is feigning concern for its members who are being instructed to enforce the government’s assault. But it has proposed no action or campaign to halt the offensive and is promoting illusions that a Labor government would be less draconian.

Philippine President Duterte threatens martial law

Joseph Santolan

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, speaking on January 14 before the Davao City Chamber of Commerce and Industry, threatened to declare martial law in the Philippines.
Duterte has made this threat in the past and, as part of his murderous drug war, has already invoked a state of national emergency, granting significant extra-constitutional powers to the police and military. The recent remarks, however, are a further escalation of the danger of dictatorial rule in the country.
Duterte began publicly threatening to declare martial law in August, during the second month of his presidency. With each renewed warning, he has further elaborated the grounds for his dictatorship, and manner in which it would be implemented.
The Philippine constitution, drawn up in 1987 following the ouster of the Marcos dictatorship, established that a president may declare martial law only in the event of an invasion or rebellion, and subject to congressional review within 60 days.
In his speech, Duterte rejected both legal limits for declaring martial law, as well as any judicial or legislative review of his dictatorial powers. He stated that any declaration would be to escalate his war on drugs, adding: “If I have to declare martial law, I will declare it. Not about invasion, [or] insurrection … Wala akong pakialam diyan sa Supreme Court [I don’t care what the Supreme Court says] … I will declare martial law if I want to. Walang makapigil sa akin. [No one can stop me] … If you ask for the basis, you son of a bitch, I don’t care.”
Duterte doubled down on these statements in a speech on January 18, making his murderous intentions clear, insisting that the 60-day legislative review gave him too short a period to “complete the slaughter.”
Solicitor General Jose Calida defended the legality of such measures, declaring that Duterte, as “father of the nation,” would use martial law to take power away from “certain functionaries” in the legislature and judiciary, and calling Duterte “a political genius actually.”
During a press conference on January 24, US Ambassador to the Philippines Sung Kim articulated the perspective of the newly-installed Trump administration toward the Duterte government. He declared Washington’s endorsement of Duterte’s war on drugs, citing behind-the-scenes support for this campaign from the Obama administration’s Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) over the past six months as one of the “bright spots in bilateral relations.”
The ambassador stated that these relations had gone through a “rough patch,” as the Obama administration had publicly raised human rights concerns over the campaign. However, he admitted Washington had secretly continued funding and supporting the campaign.
Washington used the pretext of human rights to pressure Duterte to pursue an aggressive policy against China in the South China Sea, but Duterte responded by denouncing the Obama administration and seeking improved economic and diplomatic relations with Beijing and Moscow.
Duterte hailed Trump as someone with whom he is eager to work, and repeatedly declared that Trump endorsed his war on drugs during a phone call held in early December.
Ambassador Kim, asked by the press about the Trump administration’s position on the drug war and the explosion of extrajudicial killings under Duterte, cited Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who declared that he “wanted more information before passing judgment” on the matter. Washington would continue its support for Duterte’s war on drugs, Kim declared.
Questioned about Washington’s response to Duterte’s repeated threats to declare martial law, Kim said he would not comment on “hypothetical situations.”
Duterte announced on Tuesday that Trump had sent regards and a statement of support for the Duterte administration’s policies via the head of the Miss Universe pageant, which is currently being staged in Manila, and which was owned by Trump until 2015.
The official body count from Duterte’s war on drugs has risen to more than 7,000 in the past seven months. Over 2,000 of those killed were shot by police on unsubstantiated charges that they were somehow part of the drug trade. The remaining victims have been killed by vigilantes and paramilitary forces.
Duterte has used the drug war to increase the powers of the executive branch over all aspects of government via the police and military. He released a list of mayors throughout the country whom he claimed were involved in the drug trade, ordering local police chiefs two weeks ago to “shoot-to-kill” anyone on the list.
Throughout all of this murder, and as his preparations for military dictatorship advance, Duterte has enjoyed the warm support of the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its front organizations. On the basis of nationalism, they have endorsed his policies as progressive and have entered into an alliance with his administration. They appointed four of his cabinet members from their ranks, including the secretaries of agrarian reform and social welfare and development.
The CPP and the Duterte administration have just concluded their third round of peace talks in Rome, where both parties worked to end the 48-year-old armed struggle of the CPP’s New People’s Army (NPA). Joma Sison, founder and head of the CPP, declared that the party and the government could reach an agreement to achieve a “progressive” national economy and conclude a complete peace deal by 2020.
During his prepared remarks, delivered on January 19 at the opening of the third round of negotiations, Sison said Duterte “can prove in real and concrete terms that he is truly a patriotic and progressive president and fights against the imperialists and oligarchs for the benefit of the people.” Sison made these declarations several days after Duterte’s most recent threats to declare martial law and carry out “slaughter” in the Philippines.

Report reveals deepening poverty in West Virginia

Joe McGee

Last month, the West Virginia Center for Budget and Policy and the American Friends Service Committee released their annual report on economic conditions in the state. Titled “2016 State of Working West Virginia: Why is West Virginia So Poor?,” the report reviews the history of the lumber, coal and extraction industries, as well as the severe impact of the 2008 financial crisis on working people.
The release of the study coincides with the inauguration of coal magnate and Democrat Jim Justice as governor and the convening of the Republican-dominated legislature. It also occurs within the context of a fiscal crisis which finds the state facing a budget shortfall possibly greater than $400 million, according to outgoing Revenue Secretary Bob Kiss. The previous governor, Democrat Earl Ray Tomblin, has already instituted cuts of $400 million over the six years of his administration, including a two percent across-the-board cut ordered last November.
Contributing to these dire numbers, according to the WVCBP report, is the continuing steep decline in the West Virginia economy. Employment in the state fell by 0.5 percent from 2012 to 2014 when massive layoffs began in the coal mining industry. Employment declined an additional 0.7 percent in 2015, leaving the state with 9,000 fewer jobs than in 2012.
The overall unemployment rate was 6 percent in November 2016, the fourth highest among the 50 US states. An additional factor in the job losses was the fall in natural gas prices, affecting capital investment in the Marcellus Shale fields which cut across northern West Virginia.
Compounding the impact of the layoffs is that many of the jobs lost over the past few years have been in relatively high-wage positions in what was already a poverty-stricken state. In fact, the report points out, the state has lost 11,200 high-wage private sector jobs since 2000. Of these, 7,000 were in mining and 1,500 in heavy construction.
At the same time, the state has actually added 3,700 low-wage jobs since 2012. Of these, 1,300 are low-paid food service workers, whose average full-time earnings would amount to $13,000 a year—provided an employee works on a full-time basis, which is a rarity in this highly exploitative industry.
In a particularly telling observation, the report notes the median wage is unchanged since 2012, at $16.01 an hour. Adjusted for inflation, this amounts to $1.01 less per hour than a median-wage worker earned in 1979. Additionally, jobs that provide health coverage or a pension are increasingly scarce. In 1979, 73 percent of West Virginia workers were covered by an employer-sponsored health plan, and 57 percent were covered by an employer-sponsored pension. This declined to 52 percent and 42 percent respectively in 2014.
West Virginia also has the lowest labor force participation rate in the nation for the section of the population that is defined as prime-age adults, those aged 25 to 54. The labor force participation rate for this group is 72 percent, compared to the national average of 80 percent. This translates to 193,000 prime-age adults in West Virginia who are not working or looking for employment. Additionally, of those prime-age adults, only 33.2 percent have more than a high school education.
The WVCBP report attempts to provide a historical context for these devastating statistics on human misery. A section called “A Brief Economic History of West Virginia” is devoted to the conception of a “culture of poverty,” promoted by right-wing groups, suggesting that impoverished residents of the state know little beyond their own borders or material conditions, and thus accept their plight and have passed it down from generation to generation. These right-wing arguments were deployed to block the limited reforms of “anti-poverty” programs enacted in the 1960s.
Liberal media commentators now echo these views, portraying West Virginia, which voted heavily for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and Republican Donald Trump in the general election, as a bastion of racism and sexism, with pseudo-left and liberal commentators suggesting that white workers deserve to be attacked and punished for rejecting the establishment-vetted Hillary Clinton.
In reality, the poverty, high rates of disability, and record rates of addiction that affect the residents of Appalachia cannot be separated from the rapaciousness of the capitalist system. The WVCBP report traces the economic development of West Virginia from the middle of the nineteenth century beginning with the extraction of timber that left the state almost denuded as early as 1920. This in turn required extensive reforestation.
The expansion of railroads went hand in hand with the increase in the tonnage of coal in the 1880s, leading workers to populate relatively isolated Appalachian towns, often set up by the coal operators. In order to maintain profitability, operators tried to increase the rate of exploitation of miners through various means, such as defrauding workers on their hauls or confining them to the use of company scrip at company stores. Efforts to organize labor unions led to great struggles on the part of the miners in the early twentieth century and made them some of the most militant members of the working class, resulting in the formation of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA).
One section of the WVCBP report reviews the automation of coal mining and the UMWA’s role in bringing this about. The report notes that 125,000 miners were employed in West Virginia in 1948. The UMWA leader John L. Lewis offered a deal to industry that, in exchange for abandoning the union’s opposition to mechanization, the UMWA would establish a health and welfare fund tied to the tonnage of coal produced. As the report correctly points out, such an arrangement tied to production depended on a strong and consistent market for coal. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, production declined, eliminating many of the benefits for miners. Meanwhile, the mechanization of the industry continued with the advent of the longwall miner, which greatly benefited the operators. This resulted in the loss of 100,000 coal mining jobs.
Today, the UMWA—a shell of its former self, exclusively concerned with enriching a layer of union bureaucrats and bolstering the Democratic Party—continues to play a shameful role in betraying the working class, along with the AFL-CIO. As mine after mine closed and coal companies shed their pension and health care obligations in bankruptcy court, the union stood by with little more than a few mildly disapproving words. In the 2016 gubernatorial election in West Virginia, the UMWA plumbed new depths with the endorsement of coal magnate Jim Justice.
Like the unions, the two big business parties offer no solution to the situation confronting the West Virginia working class except cuts in education, health care, and other vital social infrastructure. The working class is not represented by the capitalist parties. Indeed, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton described many of these people as “deplorables.” Donald Trump, for his part, offered the hollow promise that he would “bring coal back.” The only way to resolve the crisis in West Virginia, across the US, and in the world economic system as a whole, is an independent movement of the international working class based on a genuine socialist program.

Poland “faces tragic decision” after Trump election

Clara Weiss

Poland’s leading conservative newspaper Rzeczpospolita (Republic) believes the country “faces a tragic decision” in the wake of Donald Trump’s inauguration as US president. Given the rapidly intensifying tensions between Washington and Europe, Poland must, according to the newspaper, make a “devilish decision” between an alliance with Washington and an alliance with Germany. The comment provides an indication of the conflicts taking place within Polish ruling circles over foreign policy.
In the January 19 comment, JÄ™drzej Bielicki summed up the radically changed situation in which the Polish ruling elite finds itself since the Trump election: “For the first time the [interests of] the United States and Europe are in conflict. Should we rely on an alliance with the US or prefer Germany? What is more important, NATO or perhaps the EU? Poland will certainly soon have to answer these fundamental questions. And all of this because of Donald Trump.”
Bielicki referred to the interview that Trump gave to the Bild newspaper and Britain’s Times, in which he became the first US president to openly question the EU’s existence, openly attacked Germany and welcomed Brexit. The newspaper then cited German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who answered Trump’s radical statements by declaring, “We Europeans have our fate in our own hands.”
Bielicki warned of a possible deal between Washington and Moscow at Europe’s expense and predicted Ukraine, a close Polish ally, would be the first victim of a US foreign policy reorientation towards the Kremlin. Bielicki surmised that the choice between Germany and Europe, on the one hand, and the US, on the other, posed the Polish ruling elite with a practically irresolvable dilemma. The situation, according to Bielicki, was “tragic.”
Bielicki emphasised the importance of the EU for Poland and wrote that a decision between Washington, Brussels and Berlin was “not easy and requires detailed consideration.” Significantly, Bielicki then indicated that an alliance with Germany would make more sense.
Although the US had in the past been the only country capable of protecting Poland militarily from Russia, it may no longer be prepared to do so under Trump for political reasons. By contrast, according to Bielicki, Germany is much less inclined to “leave” its neighbour “to Putin.” His argument amounts to the view that Germany, with the vast expansion of its military and plans for a European army, could soon be in a position to replace the US as Poland’s protector.
He concluded by criticising the monopolisation of all foreign policy decisions by the PiS (Law and Justice) government under Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz. According to Bielicki, this had excluded the foreign ministry. He ended with the remark, “It is certainly realistic that the dilemma posed to Poland by Trump will [now] be decided for decades, over a period of time in which PiS will no longer be in power. One must always consider that.”
The article exposes the tensions within the Polish ruling class over foreign policy. The Polish bourgeoisie has always been dependent upon imperialism, especially that of the United States. Between the two world wars, the regime of Josef Pilsudski sought to manoeuvre between the great powers, above all Germany, the Soviet Union, Britain and France. This attempt ended with the occupation of Poland by the Nazis in World War II, which, when one excludes the numerous deaths of people from other countries on Polish territory, claimed the lives of some 8 million Poles.
With the intensification of the conflicts within Europe and in particular between Germany and the US, the Polish bourgeoisie is once again objectively in the same position. As a deputy of the liberal opposition Nowoczesna party (Modern), Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus, remarked, “I fear that the geopolitical situation recalls what happened in the 1930s.”
Since capitalist restoration, the bourgeoisie has been united on a close orientation to the United States. In 1997, Poland joined NATO. In 2004, it was—not least thanks to pressure from the US—brought into the EU. Washington has systematically developed the country over the past quarter century into a bulwark against Russia and provided it with military supplies. The stationing of the first contingent of US troops took place on Russia’s doorstep in eastern Poland this month, with a total of 3,500 soldiers to be sent to the region.
In this context, a break with the US would be a radical step, which would not only have huge consequences for Poland, but for the entire balance of forces within the EU.
Along with the fear of a deal between Washington and Moscow at Warsaw’s expense, hard-nosed economic interests and dependencies are playing an important role in the foreign policy conflicts. Poland’s most important economic relations are with EU countries, above all Germany, the largest trading partner by far. Compared to this, trade ties with the US, apart from the military sector, are minimal. Since Poland’s entry into the EU in 2004, the volume of German-Polish trade has more than tripled.
At the end of 2015, foreign direct investment in the Polish economy amounted to €159 billion. Of this, €30.3 billion came from the Netherlands, €27.3 billion from Germany, €19.3 billion from Luxembourg and €17.9 billion from France. The largest share of foreign investment goes to the industrial sector (€53.8 billion in 2015), followed by the finance and insurance sector (€31.4 billion). According to the central state statistics office (GUS) there were 26,464 firms with foreign capital. In 2014, 89.7 percent of foreign capital came from the EU. In the industrial sector, 45.8 percent of all workers were employed in firms with shares held by foreign capital.
PiS has begun to “re-Polandise” the banks with a new law, but German, Italian and Swiss capital continues to play a crucial role in the financial sector. Of particular importance are Kommerzbank, Raiffeisenbank and the Italian bank Pekao. Germany also plays an important role in the media. Many influential media outlets, including opposition newspapers like Newsweek Polska, are owned by the Springer company.
In addition there is the substantial amount of EU funding, which helps in Poland to secure minimal standards in social infrastructure and maintain low levels of unrest among the impoverished population. The single market is not only important for selling products, but also with regard to the several million Polish workers who earn money in other countries and make it easier for their families in Poland to survive.
PiS is currently pursuing a future foreign policy alliance with Britain, which is soon to exit the EU, and the US government under Trump.
Over recent months, the PiS government has undertaken deliberate efforts to expand these ties and at the same time establish close ties with the Brexit government of Theresa May. In November, the first bilateral conference took place in London at which high-ranking officials of both governments participated to discuss a Polish-British alliance.
Marek Magierowski, from the chancellery of the president Andrzej Duda, told Wpolityce.pl, “The better the military and political relations between the US and Britain are, the better the relationship we can expect between Poland and the United States.” At the same time, PiS hopes that an improvement in US-Russian relations will not materialise, not least because of the opposition from both Democrats and Republicans to Trump’s position on this.
The news portal also cited politicians who noted that Barack Obama’s period in office had begun with pledges to “reset” relations with Russia, but these had very rapidly deteriorated.
But PiS is also opening the door to a closer alignment with Germany, with which relations have worsened under the PiS government. Party leader JarosÅ‚aw KaczyÅ„ski, who has emerged as one of the sharpest critics of Germany and of the pro-German orientation of the liberal opposition, has in recent times, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, adopted a more conciliatory tone.
Leading party representatives have repeatedly expressed the hope that German Chancellor Angela Merkel will be re-elected this year. President Andrzej Duda has met with outgoing German President Joachim Gauck more often than with any other head of state.
The FAZ commented that, given the threatened break-up of the EU and the coming to power of the Trump government, Germany was just as dependent on an alliance with Poland as Warsaw was on securing its partnership with Berlin. The German government was therefore working to, according to the FAZ, “summarise points of dispute.” Referring to an upcoming meeting between Merkel and JarosÅ‚aw KaczyÅ„ski in February, the FAZ wrote that “pragmatic progress” in the bilateral relationship was possible.

Was the Berlin Christmas market attacker an undercover agent?

Dietmar Henning 

A report published just over a week ago by the Federal Criminal Office (BKA) raises the question of whether Anis Amri was an intelligence agent.
Amri allegedly drove into a Christmas market with a lorry on December 19 and killed 12 people. He is also accused of shooting and killing the lorry’s Polish driver.
Just days after the attack, it was already clear that Amri had prepared the attack under the noses of the police and intelligence agencies. He had been under constant surveillance over the previous two years and was in contact with an agent with the North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) state intelligence agency.
On the basis of the BKA’s confidential report, it is possible to reconstruct Amri’s activities in Germany quite precisely. The police and intelligence agencies concentrated on Amri almost weekly and followed all of his actions.
Amri came from Italy to Germany in the summer of 2015. He had already received a four-year custodial sentence. He was initially sent to a refugee accommodation centre in Emmerich (Kreis Kleve), NRW.
Already at that time, the 22-year-old was noticed because he had pictures of ISIS fighters on his mobile phone. In December 2015, other refugees reported to the immigration authorities in Kreis Kleve that he “supposedly maintained contact with Islamic State.” Eventually, the authorities were aware of 14 identities used by Amri.
Amri became involved with the Salafist movement, into which the NRW state intelligence agency had embedded at least one agent. He reported repeatedly to the police about Amri. “The source spilled over,” wrote the Süddeutsche Zeitung, which saw the BKA report. These reports filled entire files.
On the basis of these reports, the state prosecutor ordered Amri’s phone to be tapped in November 2015. Somewhat later, Italian intelligence agencies sent photos and detailed personal information to Germany.
In February 2016, the intelligence agent reported that Amri was becoming more withdrawn and reading the Koran, as if he wanted to be purified as some suicide attackers do prior to an attack. He was designated as a “threat” by the NRW state intelligence agency.
At the same time, the state BKA in NRW sent their intelligence about the Islamist network in which Amri was involved to the state prosecutor in Karlsruhe. The top German prosecutor took up an investigation against the group for supporting terrorism and recruitment for a terrorist organisation and in November ordered the arrest of its leader, Abu Walaa, as well as the hardcore members of the group. However, Anis Amri was left at large.
A variety of intelligence agencies were now watching him as he travelled regularly between Dortmund and Berlin. He was driven at least once by the intelligence agent. Between March and September, the Berlin state prosecutor conducted an investigation into Amri. He was intercepted and observed, but allegedly not for terrorist planning but for petty drug trafficking. According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the BKA report alleges that “religious questions” supposedly fell into the background during Ramadan.
On July 30, police arrested Amri on a bus at the border with Switzerland because drugs and false identities were found on him. After two days, he was released from the justice detention centre in Ravensburg after consultations with the immigration authorities in Kreis Kleve and the NRW Interior Ministry.
The head of the justice detention centre in Ravensburg told Westdeutsche Rundfunk that if everything had been known at the time that was known by the authorities in NRW, they could have held Amri longer. But the authorities kept the information to themselves.
Then on September 19, Morocco’s intelligence agency warned the BKA and the foreign intelligence service (BND) that the Tunisian could carry out an attack. Two days later, on September 21, 2016, the Berlin police ended their observations, allegedly because there was no evidence of an impending criminal act.
A new warning was sent from Morocco to the German intelligence agencies in October. The NRW state intelligence agency was warned on several occasions by the Moroccan and Tunisian intelligence agencies about Amri, the last time on October 26. The NRW state intelligence agents merely checked the location of his phone and found he was residing in the Berlin-Brandenburg area.
The Joint Terrorism Defence Centre (GTAZ), in which 40 security agencies at the state and federal levels are represented, held a total of seven meetings about Amri. But nobody allegedly saw any risk.
Nonetheless, the authorities entered Amri’s name into a nationwide police Inpol database as a “foreign fighter”—i.e., as a terrorist—last October. This information was sent to all 26 countries party to the Schengen agreement.
Amri was not arrested due to a lack of legal means, even though this is how it is portrayed. The authorities could have filed an application for deportation or security detention with a court and held Amri for up to 18 months as a “threat.” They could have then arrested him under a charge of terrorism. But none of this occurred. Amri remained concealed and on December 19 was able to carry out his attack.
The BKA in particular played down the threat posed by the young Tunisian. In December 2015, the BKA deemed it “very unlikely” that Amri would carry out an attack. At one of the GTAZ meetings, an official of the BKA stated that the agent reporting about Amri had been part of a previous case in which he had provided “exclusive intelligence.” (“Exclusive means in general: there was nothing to it,” the Süddeutsche Zeitung explained.)
The BKA designated Amri as a standard petty criminal to whom religious rituals meant nothing. “In the course of the measures, indications of planning for religiously motivated acts of violence did not arise.” The BKA report stated further, “The impression emerged of a young man on the move, erratic and appearing quite unstable.”
As is now known, Amri prayed at a mosque in Berlin-Moabit shortly before the attack.
Who was responsible for playing down the threat of Amri is one of the open questions in the case. Was he even perhaps an agent for one of the authorities? This suspicion was even held by some police authorities, because all pending investigations against Amri were halted, even an investigation for social welfare fraud in Duisburg. Additionally, there was no inquiry against him for grievous bodily harm and drug trafficking. Based on historical experience, this is a clear sign that someone is under the protection of a senior police or intelligence authority.
Amri cannot comment on these latest details. The 24-year-old was shot and killed by Italian police on December 23 in Milan.
The insistence by all state intelligence agencies that they were unaware that Amri was preparing an attack is worthless. This is well known from numerous previous attacks—the terrorist attacks of November 13, 2015, in Paris; April 15, 2013, in Boston; and September 11, 2001, in New York City. In every case, the security services had the attackers under surveillance for a long time and did not intervene to stop them from carrying out their plots.
Each attack provided the justification for a huge build-up of the state apparatus, and the latest attack on the Berlin Christmas market is no different.
Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière (Christian Democrats—CDU) responded at the beginning of January with the demand for the restructuring and centralisation of the security apparatus. The BKA had to be strengthened and the state intelligence agencies dismantled in favour of a federal administration and the construction of a “genuine federal police.” He published these demands under the headline “Guidelines for a strong state in difficult times” in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
CDU chair Thomas Strobl, interior minister in Baden-Württemberg, subsequently called for unlimited detention pending deportation for threats and criminals.
On Tuesday, the federal government decided to appoint a special investigator or initiate a parliamentary investigatory committee into the December 19 attack. Merely an internal investigatory group of the Parliamentary Control Commission (PKGr) will shortly present a report. The question must be asked: Who has an interest in this cover-up?