Africa subject to billions in illicit capital flight

Thabo Seseane

A report adopted by the African Union on February 1 indicates that African g overnments are losing some US$5 billion a year in unpaid taxes, royalties and other charges as companies, criminals and wealthy individuals illegally siphon money from the continent.

The report ranks South Africa third, behind Nigeria and Egypt, in terms of cumulative losses between 1970 and 2008, which it says amounted to US$81.8 billion or 11.4 percent of Africa’s total illicit capital outflows. It was authored by a panel established in 2012 by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and headed by former South African president Thabo Mbeki.

Speaking at the report’s launch, Mbeki contrasted the estimated US$50 billion annual outflow to the total inflow of US$25 billion of aid and foreign direct investment. However, thanks to its opacity , the unlawful expatriation of capital from Africa is hard to quantify.

A 2008 study covering the years 2002 to 2006 found that the continent lost US$859 billion in cumulative capital flight. This compares to a 2010 study of the period 1970 to 2008, which arrived at a figure of between US$854 billion and US$1.8 trillion in illegally lost capital.

Whatever the actual figures, they represent a huge loss of revenue for African states, with mining and fossil fuel companies accused of being the worst culprits for the continent’s capital loss and resulting underdevelopment. A report by Sarah Bracking and Khadija Sharife on the South African diamond mining sector put the 2011 value of all uncut production at US$1.73 billion. The authors found that the biggest companies, De Beers and Petra Diamonds, accounting for 95 percent of all production, paid just US$11 million in royalties for 2010 to 2011.

Other studies expressed illegal capital flight as a ratio of gross domestic product (GDP). According to research cited by Jeff Rudin, associate researcher at the Alternative Information and Development Centre (AIDC) in Cape Town, illicit capital flight increased from 9.2 percent of GDP in 1994 to 23 percent in 2007. “This means,” Rudin observes, “that, at the same time the government was implementing Thatcherite neoliberal policies to bring foreign investment to South Africa, a vastly greater volume of capital was leaving our country.”

What does he recommend? “The time is ripe,” Rudin writes, “for a formal Commission of Enquiry to replicate in South Africa what Mbeki is heading in Africa.”

Unfortunately for Rudin’s credibility, Mbeki was deputy president and then president of South Africa from 1994 to 2007. Therefore the Thatcherite neoliberal policies Rudin deplores were implemented under Mbeki’s watch and with his imprimatur. This expresses the essential bankruptcy of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) and other former liberation movements across Africa, Asia and South America, which cannot define a perspective even marginally independent of imperialism.

It also exposes that groups such as the AIDC represent no real political alternative to the ANC.

The AIDC advised and represented mineworkers at the Marikana Commission of Inquiry into the sho oting death of 32 miners by police in August 2012. But like so many other organisations to the nominal left of the ANC—the Economic Freedom Fighters, the planned United Front of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the Stalinist South African Communist Party, the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union as well as the Workers and Socialist Party—it acts only as a safety valve on behalf of capitalism.

One of the effects of capital flight was apparent this month in a Statistics South Africa (StatsSA) report—of 5.1 million unemployed, 1.5 million have been jobless for more than five years. This is more than triple the figure of 974,000 around the start of the global economic crisis in 2008. According to the agency, duration of unemployment is critical in that the longer a person is unemployed, the less likely they are to find work. “In addition, skills deteriorate and future earnings may be negatively impacted,” read the report.

Some of the architects of South Africa’s capital flight gat hered under the aegis of the F. W. De Klerk Foundation in early February. The dignitaries celebrated 25 years since De Klerk, the last apartheid-era president, made the speech announcing the unbanning of liberation movements such as the ANC , and the release of political pri soners including Nelson Mandela who succeeded De Klerk and , jointly with him , was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for laying the foundations for a democratic South Africa.

Businessman Johann Rupert, patriarch of the richest South African family with some US$7 billion in assets, said at the event that demands for higher wages were not sustainable. In terms of spreading opportunities more evenly, he explained, “My family has always held that one must repatriate wealth to South Africa.”

His words were at odds with remarks attributed to Johann Van Loggerenberg, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) executive in charge of enforcement and investigations who abruptly resigned on February 4. Van Loggerenberg was suspended last year amid allegations of running a “rogue” unit, which among other accusations is said to have run a brothel and spied on President Jacob Zuma. When suspended, he was overseeing an investigation into an apparent tax avoidance scheme of British American Tobacco, a multinational controlled by Rupert and which Van Loggerenberg said was illegally withholding about R1 billion (US$89 million) due to SARS.

Spanish government prepares new National Security Law

Vicky Short & Alejandro Lopez

Spain’s Popular Party (PP) government is stepping up its police-state measures. A draft Organic Law of National Security, drawn up by the Ministry of the Presidency, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Interior, has been passed by the Council of Ministers and is awaiting final approval in parliament.

Government sources stated that the objective of the new law is to strengthen the coordination between ministries in the face of an emergency situation and that it will consolidate the National Security Strategy passed in May last year.

The draft law declares that the “State may mobilise public and private resources to address crisis situations that put national security at risk” but does not specify how this would be done. Material resources such as vehicles and buildings can already be temporarily seized in a “Civil Protection” emergency or disaster, but not for cases of risk to national security.

The draft law introduces a new category of what constitutes a national crisis, allowing the prime minister, without approval by parliament, to declare a crisis in the “interests of National Security” and the suspension of basic rights and public freedom.

Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Saenz de Santamaria said that the government will prepare an inventory of resources in public or private hands that are of interest to national security and that can be mobilised in a crisis. “The first thing to do in order to meet a catastrophe is knowing what you have, where it is and [to be able to use it] with due compensation,” she declared. Although Saenz denied that the law was linked to the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris, the government took advantage of the hysteria to rush through the law after two years of back-door discussions.

During the drafting of the new law, in July 2013, a National Security Council (CSN) was created, assuming the functions of the Government Commission for Crisis Situations and sitting at the apex of the National Security System. It is led by the prime minister and includes the deputy prime minister, the foreign minister, the ministers of defence and of interior, the Treasury, the secretary of state for security, the chief of staff of defence and the director of the National Intelligence Centre (CNI). The theme of the first meeting after the Paris events was Plan Estratégico Nacional de Lucha contra la Radicalización Violenta (National Strategic Plan to Fight Violent Radicalisation).

The strategic plan lists 12 risks to Spain’s security: armed conflicts, terrorism, cyber threats, organised crime, economic and financial instability, energy vulnerability, irregular migratory flows, weapons of mass destruction, espionage, natural emergencies and catastrophes, vulnerability in the maritime space and critical infrastructure, and essential services.

The new law has all the hallmarks of that introduced by the leader of the fascist regime, Francisco Franco, in 1969. It was only repealed in 2007 by the Socialist Party (PSOE) government as a sop for its refusal to carry out proper government-backed investigations into Franco’s crimes.

It is an indictment of the Spanish ruling class that the precedent for this law was one passed and used by the fascist regime to suppress the rise in working class militancy. Between 1970 and 1979, it was used against striking workers on the Madrid and Barcelona metros, railways and buses and in the shipyards, postal and fire services and the electricity system.

Franco’s law began in these chauvinistic terms: “The defence of the nation is an honourable and foremost duty of all Spaniards and it is for the latter to contribute their efforts and sacrifice of their individual and collective interests to the extent that it [the nation] requires it.”

It included not only the seizure of property, but also the forceful seizure of people.

The PP government is organising the forces of the state to be used, not against jihadists or any other so-called terrorists, but for domestic repression under conditions of social unrest. The new law comes in the wake of other recent anti-working class legislation, passed with the agreement of the PSOE opposition or through the PP parliamentary majority.

The Citizens Security Law, popularly known as the Gag Law, introduced fines of up to €600,000 for demonstrations not previously notified to the authorities, or anyone reporting on them, re-tweeting or posting a “like” on Facebook. Anyone videotaping the police during demonstrations faces a fine of up to €30,000.

The PP government used the Charlie Hebdo attacks to introduce new amendments to the Gag Law and the Criminal Procedure Code, with the agreement of the PSOE, under the guise of a new “anti-terrorist pact” between both parties.

One amendment provides for “imprisonment of between one to eight years for those who on a daily or regular basis access in online communication or acquire or are in possession of documents which target, or because of their content, result in inciting others to decide to join a terrorist organisation or group.”

Other amendments include imprisonment for those who have shown interest in committing terrorist acts; for those who have received military training by a terrorist organisation; for whoever establishes contact with a terrorist organisation; for whoever moves to a foreign territory controlled by a terrorist organisation with the aim of collaborating with them; and for the praising or justification through any public means of terrorist crimes.

The Charlie Hebdo attack has also been used to reintroduce life imprisonment and allow the Interior Ministry to compile an airline passenger database. The Ministry of Defence is increasing its expenditure this year by nearly 2 percent, with military units receiving special crowd control training by the military police, including in the use of anti-riot equipment.

Former intelligence chief in South Korea jailed

Ben McGrath

South Korea’s former intelligence chief Won Sei-hoon was sentenced to three years in prison on Monday for his role in influencing the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. The conviction is another in a growing list of scandals that plagued President Park Geun-hye since coming to power and raised further questions about the legitimacy of her rule.

Won was convicted of violating the Public Official Election Act by ordering subordinates to post at least 274,800 comments on internet message boards and social media prior to the 2012 election. Of that number, 110,000 posts were illegal, as they came after Park became the Saenuri Party’s presidential candidate. In South Korea, it is illegal for government officials or agencies to campaign or intervene in elections in any way. Won was head of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) from 2009 to 2013.

Park was elected on December 19, 2012, narrowly defeating Moon Jae-in by 3.5 percent. Moon ran on the Democratic United Party (DUP) ticket, which now goes by the name of New Politics Alliance for Democracy (NPAD). President Park has not issued a statement on Won’s conviction.

The comments smeared opposition presidential candidate Moon as well as independent Ahn Cheol-soo, who dropped out of the race to back the DUP. The posted messages accused Park’s opponents of, among other things, being “servants” of North Korea. The verdict of the Seoul High Court read, “The agency’s cyber-activity interfered in the public’s decision-making while neglecting its duty to keep political impartiality, which is required by law.”

Monday’s ruling overturned a lower court decision declaring that Won had interfered in the election but had not supported any particular candidate. He had previously received a two and a half year prison sentence, suspended for four years last September. Won was taken into custody immediately following the High Court’s decision. He declared, as he was being led away, “I thought I was working for the good of the country and the people.”

Won was a close ally of former President Lee Myung-bak. Following the 2007 presidential primary for the Grand National Party (the former name of the Saenuri Party) in which Lee edged out Park for the party’s nomination, two factions emerged within the GNP; one pro-Lee and the other pro-Park. Park’s 2012 presidential campaign was not only directed against Moon and the Democrats, but also against Lee, whose popularity had plummeted to around 20 percent range by that time.

Won is being used as a convenient scapegoat to protect the NIS and distract attention from its anti-democratic activities. No-one else involved in the scandal has received jail time. Two former NIS officials received suspended one and a half year jail terms. Kim Yong-pan, the former Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency chief, was accused of obstructing the investigation into the intelligence agency, but was recently cleared of those charges.

The investigation and conviction of Won undoubtedly removes a political rival of the pro-Park faction, while allowing the government to limit the political damage already caused by the issue. Park’s administration has been dogged by scandals throughout her two years in office. South Korean presidents serve a single, five-year term and cannot seek re-election.

Throughout the summer of 2013, large-scale protests took place against the NIS’s actions, organized by the Democrats and their allies in the now banned Unified Progressive Party (UPP). The Democrats exploited the issue to rally support after major losses in the general and presidential elections the year before.

In April 2014, public anger erupted over government inaction over the sinking of the Sewol ferry, which killed 300 people, mostly high school students. Once again the Democrats exploited this sentiment to try to boost its support in local elections last June. As a result of these scandals, Park’s approval rating has steadily fallen to 29.7 percent as of last month.

Park sought to protect the NIS last year by concocting a red scare involving the UPP. The intelligence agency claimed to have uncovered a plot led by UPP National Assembly member Lee Seok-ki to stage a revolt against the South Korean government in the event of war with North Korea. The Democrats quickly separated themselves from their one-time ally and the protests against the NIS fizzled out.

The phony plot provided the pretext for Park’s government to demand the dissolution of the entire UPP. The Constitutional Court approved the decision last December, marking the first time since 1958 a political party had been disbanded in South Korea. The episode is a clear warning of the police-state measures that will be used to suppress any resistance by workers and youth to ongoing attacks on living standards.

The National Intelligence Service has a long and filthy history in South Korean politics. It was founded in 1961 by Kim Jong-pil as the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA). Its purpose was to assist Park Chung-hee, the father of current President Park, in solidifying his dictatorship after seizure of power in a military coup that same year.

Over the next 18 years, Park used the KCIA to terrorize political opponents, engaging in kidnappings, torture, and murder. After his own assassination in 1979 by KCIA chief Kim Jae-gyu, the agency underwent cosmetic changes, becoming the Agency for National Security Planning in 1981 under Park’s protégé Chun Doo-hwan. It was maintained after the military dictatorship formally ended in the late 1980s and was renamed the National Intelligence Service in 1999 during the presidency of Kim Dae-jung.

However, the NIS continues to be the bastion of reaction that it was when it was first established. South Korea’s first Democrat president, Kim Dae-jung, like his predecessors used the intelligence service to spy on political opponents as did his successor President Roh Moo-hyun, also a democrat. Now under Park, its ruthless police-state methods are being openly revived and will in the future be used against the working class.

UK Police Federation votes for all police to be given access to Taser guns

Margot Miller

The Police Federation has voted for all uniformed officers in Britain to be given access to a Taser gun. In a significant move towards the police in the UK being routinely armed, on Monday the interim national board of the Police Federation voted unanimously for the policy.

A Taser is a gun-shaped weapon that uses compressed air to fire two darts that trail an electric cable back to the handset, delivering a 50,000-volt electric shock. When delivered, the electric current causes massive pain and disrupts voluntary muscle control, so the victim either freezes or falls to the ground.

Following the vote, Police Federation head Steve White said, “This is a step in the right direction and we will now work with ACPO [Association of Chief Police Officers], individual chief officers, the Superintendents’ Association and the Home Office to progress this as a matter of urgency. We have long called for a wider rollout of Taser. Now the time is right for all operational police officers to have the option to carry Taser….”

White met Home Secretary Theresa May yesterday for a scheduled meeting, with reports stating that he was going to discuss with her the need for additional government funding for purchasing Tasers and providing training.

On Tuesday, even before the government had announced any plans, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police, announced that the number of police offers with access to Tasers would be drastically stepped up on the capital’s streets. At present, four police officers armed with Taser stun guns patrol in two cars in each borough. Howe said in future 100 or more Taser officers could be on duty at any one time.

In the run-up to the vote, White used the pretext of combating terrorism to insist that the arming of police with Tasers was necessary. Citing the killingof Fusilier Lee Rigby in Woolwich in 2013, White told the Guardian that “the terrorist ideal to get attention no longer relies on an attack being in a place of note.... It could be any part of the UK. We know there are more dangerous people out there, preparing to attack police officers.”

White claimed that giving all police routine access to a Taser “is a defensive tool and a tactical option…. The alternative is to have officers out there without anything at all. We have to do something.”

This fear-mongering came in the wake of the heightened security threat following the terrorist murders of staff at Charlie Hebdo in Paris. In its aftermath, the UK terror threat was raised two levels to “severe”, with the military placed on standby. This is the fourth highest of five levels and follows an assessment by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre based within MI5.

Prior to this week’s vote, an anonymous police chief speaking to theGuardian said if the policy went through, it would be “a stepping stone to arming the police.”

The vast majority of the 125,000 police officers in the UK do not carry firearms. The carrying of firearms in the UK is at present confined to authorised firearms officers (AFOs). In 2010, there were 6,653 AFO officers who are often deployed in armed response vehicles.

Home Office figures released last year show the use of Tasers by the police has increased year-on-year since it was first introduced in 2004 to firearms officers only. Since 2007, 10 percent of officers have been trained in its use. In 2013, it was deployed on 4,999 occasions, compared to 1,297 times in 2009. Between January and June of last year, Tasers were fired 826 times out of the 5,107 occasions when they were deployed. Tasers were used, in total, 10,488 times in England and Wales in the 12 months to the end of June 2014, a 13 per cent increase on the previous year.

Some police forces have a much higher rate of use proportionate to their size, such as West Midlands Police. Greater Manchester Police are using Tasers, in so-called drive-stun mode, more than other areas. Taser use on children by the Metropolitan Police rose sixfold in the last four years.

As its use has increased, so have complaints recorded by the police watchdog, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The IPCC has noted the use of the Taser at point-blank range “purely as a means of pain compliance.” In drive-stun mode, the Taser is held against the subject’s body and the trigger is pulled without the firing of probes. This causes extreme pain without the incapacitating muscular spasms. Sometimes both modes are used.

Amnesty International has reported hundreds of Taser-associated deaths throughout the world. Since its introduction in the UK, 10 people have died in England and Wales after being tasered. Such was the outcry that Home Secretary Theresa May ordered a review into the use of Tasers last October, amid concerns that physical restraint and the use of Tasers are being used too often against the mentally ill.

The United Nations Committee Against Torture (UNCAT) described the use of Tasers as a “form of torture that can kill.”

Death can result from Taser-induced arrhythmia, which is the uncoordinated contraction of the cardiac muscles so they tremble rather than contract. If this continues for more than a few seconds, blood circulation ceases, leading to cardiac arrest. Death occurs within minutes. The Taser can also disrupt breathing.

According to US cardiologist and emeritus professor at Indiana University Dr. Douglas Zipes, “Taser shots to the chest can produce cardiac arrest.”

He warned that serious complications could arise if used against people with impaired heart function or a pacemaker. The manufacturer, US-based Taser International, cautions against shots to the chest, yet figures show that since 2009 in the UK, 57 percent of discharges have hit the chest area.

The ACPO claims there is “no substantial risk” from the use of the Taser. In the US, however, Taser International was ordered to pay $15 million to the family of Darryl Turner, who died after being tasered in 2008.

Of the 10 Taser-related deaths investigated by the IPCC, none have been attributed by them to the high-voltage charge. Two of the 10 cases are still undergoing investigation, including the death of 23-year-old factory worker Jordan Lee Begley in July 2013, who was, at the time, under care for a possible heart condition.

A police officer tasered a 61-year-old blind man in the back in Chorley Lancashire 2012, after his white stick had been reported as a Samurai sword. The officer was given a performance improvement notice. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided no criminal charges should be brought over the incident.

An inquiry is under way as to why three teenage boys, aged between 14 and 15, with learning difficulties, were tasered at their school near Plymouth late last year by Devon and Cornwall police.

On December 8 of last year, a peaceful protest at Warwick University against high tuition fees and education cuts was broken up by the police, who usedCS gas and brute force to end the occupation. A Taser was fired into the air.

The vote for making Tasers available for use by all police officers follows proposals to use water cannon, rubber bullets and live firearms.

Calls to intensify Australian austerity agenda

Nick Beams

In a sharp reaction to fears that the crisis in the Australian government of Prime Minister Tony Abbott will slow its austerity drive, key sections of the ruling elites have called for its budget cutbacks, not only go to forward, but to be intensified.

The calls are a response to Abbott’s statement, made in the wake of his “near death” experience, in which 40 percent of the parliamentary Liberal Party voted to declare the leadership vacant, that the government might have bitten off more than it could chew in its May budget. The widespread opposition to the budget, reflected in the surprise defeats of the Victorian and Queensland Liberal-National party governments, was the key factor in driving the backbench revolt.

However, in recognition that the latest upheaval—a continuation of the political turmoil of the past five years—was an expression of a crisis of the parliamentary rule itself, the demands for a deepening of the austerity drive have been accompanied by proposals for new forms of rule that can ride over popular opposition.

An editorial in today’s Australian, called for a “national summit on prosperity,” possibly including former Labor treasurer and prime minister Paul Keating as well as former Liberal treasurer Peter Costello, to build the momentum to tackle so-called reforms. It said that a key question for the summit was how the “vital spirits of the economy can be brought to life” and condemned the “political class as a whole” because such questions figured so little in its deliberations. It would be a chance to “sidestep the rituals of party political warfare and short-term populism.”

The editorial harkened back to the economic summits convened under the Hawke-Keating Labor governments in the 1980s. Couched in terms of defending the “national interest,” these summits played a central role in implementing the “reform” agenda demanded by the ruling elites at that time. The Labor governments, in collaboration with the trade unions, scrapped a series of economic regulations, initiated major privatisations, and opened the Australian economy up to “market forces,” resulting in a massive redistribution of wealth up the income scale.

Today, in the midst of the most serious and ongoing breakdown of the global capitalist system since the 1930s, which now has the Australian economy firmly in its grip, such measures would go much further than those of 30 years ago. Appeals to “national unity” are to disguise the fact that what is being advanced is in the interests of a tiny wealthy elite at the expense of the vast majority of working people.

According to a report in yesterday’s Australian, Abbott’s chief economic adviser Maurice Newman, who has previously bewailed the fact that the Australian minimum wage is around twice the level of the United States, favours a system where the treasury secretary and the governor of the Reserve Bank are brought more directly into the budget process in order to shift it “above politics.”

In other words, a mechanism should be established along the lines of that operating across Europe where the population votes in elections but their decisions have no impact because economic policies are dictated by the financial elites and imposed by the European Union and the European Central Bank, as the case of Greece so clearly demonstrates.

The initial focus for the intensification of the austerity agenda is the so-called Intergenerational Report which Treasurer Joe Hockey has said will be brought down by the end of this month.

The aim of the report will be to advance the claim that the maintenance of living standards and spending on vital social services, health care, education and other necessities of life, involves placing an intolerable burden of debt on future generations and therefore must be slashed.

The real aim of such an agenda is not to preserve future “national prosperity” but to meet the present demands of the Australian and global financial elites to make the working class pay for the crisis of the capitalist economy by driving down living standards.

The political purposes to which it will be put were made clear in a comment by the leading political commentator of the Australian, Paul Kelly, published today.

Calling for a return to “first principles,” he wrote: “The report will document the fiscal crunch arising from an ageing population and the core issue of social justice: will the next generation pay the price for the selfish indulgence of the current generation?”

That is, the demands of the present generation of workers and their families for a decent standard of living, as they struggle to make ends meet in an increasingly worsening economic situation, must be made to appear as a crime committed against their children and their children’s children.

According to Kelly, the government had to invest the report “with the status of St Paul’s epistles”—in other words there had to be “conversion” to the austerity agenda.

The push for a stepped up austerity offensive is reflected in a series of comments by political and business leaders.

Hockey told a meeting of government MPs yesterday that anyone who thought “we are going to get back to [budget] surplus on the back of growth is kidding themselves.”

While rejecting the call for a summit, at least at this point, Costello insisted there should be no lessening of the effort to balance the budget—a process which involves cuts of tens of billions of dollars per year for the indefinite future. There should be an agreed goal, “preferably a bipartisan goal,” he said.

Heather Ridout, former head of the Australian Industry Group, and a member of the Reserve Bank board, said there had to be some agreement on budget measures and Abbott should sit down with the Labor party “to try to find some common ground.”

National Australia Bank chairman Michel Chaney has called for bipartisanship to deal with the budget. The Labor opposition had to acknowledge there was a fiscal problem in the longer term, agree that something had to be done “and then accept solutions which may be unpopular but are in the national interest.”

The Labor Party has indicated that, while it has opposed various measures contained in the May budget in the Senate, it supports major cuts. Appearing on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Q&A” program on Monday evening, shadow treasurer Chris Bowen repeated remarks he made last month that the days of what he called “Santa Claus” economics were over.

Peter Nash, chairman of the major financial firm KPMG, said bipartisanship would make necessary economic measures “more doable and less fraught with difficulty.”

However, the spokesmen of the financial elites themselves know the assertion that painful “sacrifice” can somehow restore economic prosperity is bogus and is being blown apart by the deepening global economic crisis.

The head of the think tank Access Economics, Chris Richardson, noted that even if the Senate had agreed to every economic measure put forward in May, “the budget would remain in deeper deficit than previously forecast because of the slide in iron ore coal and gas prices.”

As the Socialist Equality Party explained in a comment published yesterday, the central demand of the ruling elites is that the working class be made to pay for the deepening crisis of the profit system as a whole.

The calls for a summit, the intervention of the treasury and Reserve Bank heads in determining government policy, and increased bipartisanship make clear that new forms of rule are being discussed within ruling circles to impose this agenda, underscoring the necessity for the working class to advance its own independent solution to the crisis on the basis of a socialist program.

Upstart AAP staggers BJP and Congress in Delhi Assembly election

Kranti Kumara

Formed less than three years ago, the Aam Aadmi (Common Man’s) Party has scored a stunning upset in the Delhi assembly elections, delivering a significant blow to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his nine month-old Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government.

The AAP has captured 67 of the 70 assembly seats in India’s National Capital Territory, which, with more than 20 million inhabitants, is also India’s largest urban agglomeration. The Hindu supremacist BJP, which had swept Delhi in last May’s national election and fully expected to top the polls in the just concluded assembly election, won the remaining three seats—28 less than it had in the 2013 Delhi election.

The Congress Party, which had ruled Delhi for 15 years from 1998 through 2013, was entirely shut out. This is only the latest in a series of electoral debacles stretching back to the last year’s national elections, when the Congress, India’s traditional governing party, not only fell from power, but failed to even win the fifty seats required to be recognized as the Official Opposition.

The AAP received 54.3 percent of the vote, a 25 percentage point increase from its score in the 2013 Delhi elections, while the BJP won 32.2 percent and the Congress Party just 9.7 percent.

Arvind Kejriwal, a former government tax collector, who first came to prominence as one of the principal leaders of a middle-class “anti-corruption” movement, led the AAP campaign and is expected to be sworn in as Delhi’s Chief Minister at a ceremony on February 14.

The BJP expended no small effort to capture power in Delhi, with Modi himself taking to the campaign trail and the BJP and its Hindu supremacist allies mobilizing more than a hundred thousand volunteers. While India’s ruling party is now trying to downplay the significance of the Delhi elections, they have put the lie to the image the BJP and corporate-media have sought to craft of an unstoppable Modi “wave.”

The AAP is a bourgeois party. It was formed by a section of the leaders of the 2011 anti-corruption movement, which tapped into middle class anger over increasing social inequality, rising prices and deteriorating job prospects for graduates. While it railed against the corruption of the Congress Party-led national and Delhi governments, the anti-corruption movement ignored big business’s role in determining and dictating government policy and the extent to which India’s corporate elite has gorged on the fire-sale and even outright gifting of government assets under BJP and Congress governments alike.

Significantly many of Kejriwal’s allies in the anti-corruption campaign subsequently threw their support behind the BJP. These included former policewoman Kiran Bedi, whom Modi personally selected and imposed on a recalcitrant Delhi BJP-state unit as the party’s Chief Ministerial candidate in the 2015 assembly elections.

After the AAP scored a breakthrough in the 2013 Delhi election and briefly formed a minority government, Kejriwal went out of his way to pledge his support for big business, declaring that the AAP is not opposed to capitalism, only “crony capitalism.” He also emphasized that many of his relatives are businessmen and that the change the AAP’s want to bring about will be “incomplete without participation of the business class.”

Notwithstanding all of this, the AAP clearly was perceived by wide sections of the population as an “anti-establishment” party.

Emphasizing a commitment to improve public services, epitomized by its call for “bijli, paani and sadak” (power, water and roads), the AAP was able to win the votes of broad sections of workers, street vendors, and middle class people.

The AAP’s ability to pass itself off as a “pro-people” party is bound up with the criminal role of India’s Stalinist parties. Over the past two decades, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM and the older, smaller Communist Party of India (CPI) have supported the bourgeoisie’s neo-liberal agenda, sustaining in office a series of right-wing Indian governments, most of them Congress-led. Conceding it has little influence in India’s largest city, the CPM called for an AAP vote in the Feb. 7 Delhi election.

Another factor that contributed to the AAP victory was the support it received from Delhi’s large Muslim minority, and other sections of the population angered by the aggressive communalism of Modi and his BJP.

With the tacit and at times explicit support of Modi’s government, the Hindu right has gone on the offensive since the BJP won national office, mounting a series of provocations aimed at asserting Hindu superiority and cowing India’s religious minorities.

In the run-up to the Delhi vote there were communal altercations in many Delhi neighbourhoods, including Trilokpuri, Bawana, Nangloi, Nand Nagiri and Okhla, targeting Muslims and Dalits (the former untouchables) in what appears to have been a deliberate attempt upon the part of the Hindu right to whip up communal strife so as to polarize the electorate. There has also been a series of attacks on Christian churches, including vandalism and arson.

The rise to power of the AAP is an indication of the mass disaffection of the population with India’s main bourgeois parties, the BJP and Congress. Under conditions where the working class has been held in check by the Stalinists, the AAP was able to tap into the deep popular anxiety and anger over acute economic insecurity and the rabid communalism of the BJP government and its Sangh Parivar (Hindu nationalist) allies.

Invariably the AAP will cruelly disappoint the hopes placed in it by working people and come into open conflict with the working class. Significantly, the AAP did not repeat many of the populist promises it made in the 2013 Delhi election campaign, such as halving electricity bills for consumers using less than 400 Kwh and providing 20,000 liters of free water per month to all households. Instead, it issued a “70-point Action Plan” full of vague promises.

Fighting in Ukraine intensifies ahead of Minsk talks

Niles Williamson

Fighting between Ukrainian armed forces and pro-Russian separatists escalated on Monday and Tuesday, ahead of cease fire talks being held today in Belarus. Each side has pushed to make strategic territorial gains ahead of today’s meeting.

Delegates from Ukraine, Germany, France and Russia as well as representatives of the separatists and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) are meeting today to discuss a possible ceasefire. It would create a demilitarized zone in eastern Ukraine and possibly halt fighting that has killed more than 5,000 people, since the Kiev regime launched military operations against pro-Russian separatists in the spring of last year.

Conflicting reports of a deal emerged late last night, involving the withdrawal of heavy military equipment and establishing an effective means of enforcing the ceasefire. If such an agreement is signed, it would be the second ceasefire since the Minsk Protocol, signed in September, which has been repeatedly violated by both sides over the last several months. The Kiev regime signed that accord when it was in an unfavorable military position—as it is now—and used the ceasefire to prepare a renewed offensive against the separatists in eastern Ukraine.

French President François Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel flew to Moscow at the end of last week to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as part of emergency diplomatic efforts to avoid the outbreak of full-scale war in Europe, after it was reported that the US government was moving to directly arm the Ukrainian military.

Merkel traveled to Washington, DC on Monday to meet with US President Barack Obama, who has put off making a decision on sending weapons and equipment, including anti-armor missiles, until after the conclusion of today’s talks in Minsk.

“If, in fact, diplomacy fails, I’ve asked my team to look at all options, what other means can we put in place to change Mr. Putin’s calculus. And the possibility of lethal defensive weapons is one of those options that’s being examined. But I have not made a decision on that yet,” Obama told reporters.

According to Bloomberg View, US Secretary of State John Kerry told a closed meeting of US lawmakers, including Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Republican Senator John McCain, gathered in Germany for last weekend’s Munich Security Conference that he is in favor of arming the right-wing pro-Western Ukrainian regime with lethal arms and equipment.

The current government in Kiev was brought to power in a US and EU backed fascist-spearhead coup last February which ousted pro-Russian President Victor Yanukovych. Since the spring of last year, the regime has been waging a bloody offensive against ethnic Russian separatists in the eastern Donbass region who are opposed to the government’s pro-Western alignment.

A renewed offensive and corresponding military draft initiated last month by the Kiev regime quickly collapsed, with the separatists responding with their own offensive that achieved territorial gains.

The Kiev regime has faced significant resistance to its mobilization order, implemented in January, severely impacting its ability to carry out military operations in the east. By the end of last month, at least 7,000 people were facing criminal charges for refusing compulsory military service.

In a high-profile incident, Ruslan Kotsaba, a journalist from western Ukraine, was arrested this week on charges of treason after he released a video stating that he would rather go to prison for draft dodging than fight the pro-Russian separatists in the east. Kotsaba also called on anyone else that was drafted to resist military service.

In recent weeks, the separatists successfully pushed the Kiev regime’s forces out of the Donetsk airport and encircled several thousand Ukrainian fighters in the strategic rail town of Debaltseve.

Separatist militias moved into Lohvynove on Tuesday, cutting off access to Ukrainian-controlled territory. This was part of an ongoing effort to encircle several thousand pro-Kiev regime forces entrenched in Debaltseve. Fighting has also been reported in Chornukhyne, seven miles east of Debaltseve.

A spokesman for the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) claimed that separatist fighters had succeeded in completely surrounding the city.

DPR spokesman Eduard Basurin called on Ukrainian fighters trapped in Debaltseve to surrender. “We guarantee security to all who lay down their arms. The others will be eliminated. If the enemy attempts to attack in another place, the strike will be repelled. Some 5,000-6,000 Ukrainian servicemen have been trapped in Debaltseve,” he stated.

Meanwhile, the fascist Azov Battalion, a part of the Ukrainian National Guard, opened a new government offensive along Ukraine’s southern Black Sea coast. The operation is aimed at retaking the city of Novoazovsk, which has been controlled by pro-Russian separatists since August of last year.

The Kiev regime’s military spokesman, Andrey Lysenko, told reporters that the purpose of the assault was to return “to the line of demarcation, to their positions, drawn by the Minsk agreements.” Oleksandr Turchynov, the head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, was also in Mariupol to assist in coordinating the push for Novoazovsk.

In the course of the day’s fighting, the pro-Kiev battalion took control of the villages of Pavlopil, Oktyabyr, and Shyrokyne, which is less than 23 kilometers west of Novoazovsk. Separatist-held positions in the village of Kominternove, less than 30 kilometers northeast of Mariupol, were shelled by pro-Kiev forces.

Several rockets struck the Ukrainian military headquarters in Kramatorsk on Tuesday, injuring at least 10 Ukrainian soldiers. Kramatorsk was retaken from the pro-Russian separatists in July of last year after a month-long assault by the Ukrainian military. The city has since been used as the headquarters for the Ukrainian military’s operations in the Donbass.

Rocket strikes in the eastern suburbs of Kramatorsk also killed at least seven and wounded another 15 civilians. The Ukrainian government claims that the rockets were fired from the separatist-held city of Horlivka, 80 kilometers to the southeast, but separatist forces denied responsibility for the attack.

On Monday, the shelling of a chemical plant in Donetsk by Ukrainian forces resulted in a massive explosion, though there were no reported casualties.

HSBC documents reveal criminal conspiracy of banks and governments

Andre Damon

On Sunday, international news outlets the Guardian and Le Monde, working with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), published articles based on their analysis of leaked files showing that the Swiss private banking arm of HSBC, Europe's largest bank, functioned for years as a tax evasion and money laundering firm.

The company ran a branch that gave out “bricks” of hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash in foreign denominations and provided its wealthy clientele with advice on how to commit tax fraud, according to the reports.

These facts have for years been been in the possession of international financial regulators and governments throughout the world—including those of Britain, France and the United States—which systematically covered them up. Neither the bank, nor its executives, nor any of the clients that utilized its tax dodging services have been criminally prosecuted.

No one should believe that HSBC is an aberration; there is no doubt that similar practices are carried out by all major international financial institutions. The HSBC files have unearthed a cesspool of corruption, criminality, bribery and collusion that pervades the entire capitalist system and the governments that defend it.

The HSBC revelations are only the latest in a series of scandals involving virtually every major financial institution. These have included the selling of fraudulent subprime mortgage-backed securities, illegal foreclosures, commodities fraud and the manipulation of LIBOR and international foreign exchange benchmarks.

HSBC was one of the institutions whose greed and lawlessness plunged the world into a crisis in 2008 from which it has never recovered, cost millions of people their jobs and launched a wave of austerity all over the world involving the slashing of workers wages’ and social benefits.

The list of people who used HSBC’s services include corporate executives, fundraisers and major donors to American, British and Australian political parties, and politicians from at least 17 countries, including Britain.

The trail of dirty money reaches as high as former US President Bill Clinton. British business tycoon Richard Caring, who once picked up more than five million Swiss francs in cash from the bank, donated $1 million to Clinton’s foundation from his Swiss bank account.

The report by the ICIJ notes that the month before Caring made his donation, he “funded a champagne and caviar extravaganza at Catherine the Great’s Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, Russia, flying in 450 guests to be entertained by Sir Elton John and Tina Turner and addressed by Bill Clinton.”

It also notes that Charles Barrington Goode, a major fundraiser for the Liberal Party and chairman of ANZ bank, one of Australia’s largest financial institutions, held an account with the bank under a false name for three decades.

In addition to “legitimate” businessmen and high-ranking politicians, HSBC’s services were used by drug kingpins, weapons smugglers and traffickers in illegal “blood diamonds.” Reviewing the reports, it is impossible to determine where the criminal underworld ends and the ruling class of bankers and corporate CEOs and their millionaire political front-men begins.

While no bank executives or wealthy clients have been prosecuted, the one person out of this morass of criminality who faces serious legal consequences is the whistleblower who exposed them.

In 2009, an HSBC technical employee named Hervé Falciani came to realize that HSBC’s private bank was operating a huge tax evasion operation, and began collecting information to provide to Swiss authorities, which showed no interest.

He subsequently turned files pointing to tax fraud by some 130,000 people over to the French police, who shared them with other governments, including that of Britain and America. Falciani has since been charged with violating Switzerland’s bank secrecy laws and carrying out industrial espionage.

In 2010, then French Minister of Finance Christine Lagarde provided a list of 2,000 suspected tax evaders to the Greek government, and the list subsequently came into the possession of Greek magazine publishers, who printed it. They were subsequently charged, then found not guilty, of breaching privacy laws.

A portion of the files accumulated by Falciani were recently obtained by Le Monde and shared with the ICIJ and other newspapers. The files cover some 30,000 accounts holding nearly $120 billion in assets.

In the UK, more than 3,000 people have been investigated based on Falciani’s files, but the government has brought no charges against any of them.

Perhaps the biggest cover-up has been carried out in the United States, where in 2012 the Justice Department agreed to a $1.2 billion “deferred prosecution” settlement with HSBC on charges of money laundering for Mexican drug cartels, never mentioning the fact that the US government had evidence the bank helped its clients evade taxes.

One of the leading architects of the settlement with HSBC, Loretta Lynch, at that time the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, is now the Obama administration’s nominee to replace Eric Holder as attorney general. The Reverend Lord Stephen Green, HSBC’s chief executive during the period covered by the files, was subsequently appointed the UK’s minister of state for trade and investment.

The British Labour Party, which was in power at the time that thousands of members of the British ruling class used HSBC to dodge their taxes, declared, “What is truly shocking is that [UK officials] were made fully aware of these practices back in 2010 but since then very little has been done.”

The revelations are likewise particularly striking in the baseness of the criminality they depict. After all, these people already make millions of dollars by paying workers poverty wages, slashing the pensions of the elderly and privatizing public assets. Do they really need to cheat on their taxes too? Is it really necessary, as the documents detail, for them to smuggle “bricks” of cash in some cases amounting to millions of dollars?

For the global financial elite, the line between “legitimate” business activity and political donations on the one hand, and fraud, theft and bribery on the other, does not exist. Capitalist society is run by thieves and criminals, who see the law as a minor inconvenience. In the immortal words of Leona Helmsley, “Only the little people pay taxes.”

We would ask those who still believe the social order exposed by these documents can be somehow reformed: Where would you start? Would you appeal to the politicians, who are all bought by political donations from financial criminals? Or to regulatory agencies, which have systematically covered up these crimes? Or the courts, which bring charges against whistleblowers while shielding financial criminals?

The entire structure of contemporary society, from major corporations to governments to regulators, is controlled by multi-billionaire financial oligarchs.

The only way to bring to justice the major banks like HSBC, and the millionaires and billionaires who used its services to commit fraud, is a complete reorganization of society. The ill-gotten wealth that corrupts every public institution must be seized, major corporations must be nationalized, and every existing state replaced with a workers’ government whose first task will be the establishment of democratic control over the basic forces of economic life.

China Foreign Minister's Visit to Kenya: An Analysis

 Bob Wekesa

As Kenyans were resuscitating themselves from the stupor of end of year holiday festivities and coming to terms with the fact that New Year 2015 was here with us, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi came calling. Wang’s Nairobi visit between January 10 and 11 was his first port of call anywhere in the world this year.

The visit might have passed for a fairly innocuous and routine diplomatic event except that certain covert and overt factors make it special and worth analysis. Discerning Kenyans may ponder over why a visitor of the stature of foreign minister of the world’s second largest economy elected to visit their rather lowly-ranking-by-global-standards country so early in the year!

Well, symbolically, Wang’s visit was in keeping with a consistent tradition devised in 1991 whereby a high level Chinese official makes Africa his first destination every New Year. The significance of an Africa-first for a Chinese top official annually is often bundled with the calibration of Africa-China relations as founded on as such conceptions as south-south solidarity and true and sincere friendship. In this scheme of things, a Chinese top official would have elected to visit the country with which China operates the highest level of economic engagement: the United States of America. However, Chinese officials see relations with the US as a pursuit for explicitly pragmatic interests while relations with Africa are seen as those of natural allies in a competitive geopolitical environment. 

The symbolism however tells only half the story as even the chummiest of international relations must be anchored in economic and political motivations. After all, until fairly recently, Kenya-China relations were cool rather than “tight” particularly during the Cold War epoch when the two nations travelled different ideological paths: the former gravitating West and capitalist; the latter decidedly communist.

Yet, since former President Jiang Zemin’s 1996 Africa tour in which Kenya was among the selected few, this East African country has remained high on China’s Africa agenda. It is worth noting that Jiang Zemin’s visit was momentous to the extent that it was it was the first ever visit by a Chinese president to Africa at the outset of China’s more robust policy toward Africa. Evidence of Kenya’s importance on the Chinese diplomatic circuit can be seen in the fact that the 2005 visit by former president Hu Jintao and last year’s visit by current Chinese premier Li Keqiang not mentioning other high ranking Chinese state and party officials over the years. The importance of these visits is that excepting South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ethiopia and Egypt, other African countries hardly attract the interest of Chinese leaders on such an elevated scale. 

Indeed foreign minister Wang’s January visit resonates with historical as well as contemporary dynamics. In the present, media reporting on the visit indicates that one of his objectives was to lobby for the extradition of Chinese nationals facing charges in Kenya for allegedly being in Kenya illegally on a supposed criminal mission. This constitutes dicey headwinds in the hitherto even-keeled Kenya-China relations. Observers of this dramatic saga will be keenly watching to see how it develops given the mix of legal, nationalistic and diplomatic dimensions it has wended into. The elephant in the room for which perhaps only time will settle is: will the legal, nationalistic and diplomatic maneuvering on the matter on the Chinese and Kenyan side put paid to Kenya-China engagements?

Notwithstanding the cyber-crime conundrum, analysts might have missed other significant factors that might have impelled Wang to make the symbolic junket to Kenya. Probably the most crucial of these factors is Kenya’s geopolitical positioning on the continent. Not long after he was elected President, Uhuru Kenyatta famously encapsulated Kenya’s foreign policy as “Africa first, Africa second and Africa third.” He followed up this with highly visible visits to a number of African countries. Uhuru’s “Africa policy” was quickly conflated with his battle against the International Criminal Court (ICC) charges for crimes against human – now water under the bridge  - in that he was seen as lobbying African leaders to do him a good turn vis a vis the ICC specifically and the West generally. On this score, China, the first non-African country for Uhuru to visit as president, is seen to have been a friend in deed. But more importantly, Chinese officials might have noted Kenya’s fallout with the West and its rising stature on the continent in such a manner to earmark it a higher ranking in its African policy. It is probable that Chinese foreign policy strategists might have seen Kenya as a robust African ally in the continuing battle with the West on myriad political and economic issues. 

On the East African front, Uhuru and Kenya have been seen as the cog in the so-called coalition of the willing wheel bringing together Uganda, Rwanda and South Sudan and more tepidly Burundi. For instance it will be remembered that when Premier Li Keqiang visited Kenya May last year, one of the multilateral meetings he held was with presidents Yoweri Museveni, Salva Kiir and Paul Kagame with Uhuru playing host. This was in the context of discussions for the construction of East African railway system. Indeed unconfirmed sources indicated that, Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda had initially sought Chinese capital for the independent construction of their railways only for the Chinese side to advice for seamless cross-border infrastructure. Bundled with the near-incontestable Kenyan status as the regional economic powerhouse, all these make Kenya attractive as the gateway for Chinese economic and political interests in East Africa.

An equally powerful factor revolves around what several analysts refer to as “China’s long memory,” one in which Kenya is the few African countries with claim to bona fides. The fact of China leveraging history to the present can be seen in President Xi Jinping’s promulgation of the geopolitical policy-cum-strategy variously referred to as the “Silk Road Economic Belt,” “new Silk Road”, “Silk Road and Maritime Silk Road”, “Chinese and 21st-Century New Silk Road” and “Silk Road of the Sea” last year. At its very basic, the policy looks to see China expend resources on the revival of the ancient trade routes from southern China to Eurasia, Middle East, South Asia, South East Asia and Africa. To this end, the Chinese government unveiled a $40 billion Silk Road Fund, a demonstration if any was needed, that the Silk Road strategy sits at the heart of China’s global economic strategy. 

In the Silk Road cartographic models that have been generated, Africa feature not by road extensions but by a maritime route that touches Mombasa on the East Africa coast (with a short dash to Nairobi) and then extends via the Red Sea to Egypt. In essence therefore the Kenyan coast is the landing point for China’s economic plans in the Sub Saharan region going forward. It is in these respects that Chinese interest in the ports on the Kenyan coast (Lamu and Mombasa) as well as the Mombasa-Nairobi railways – funded and constructed with Chinese loans – should be seen.

So why is Kenya being included in the New Silk Road strategy? The straightforward answer is that the Kenyan coast was the site of ancient voyages by Chinese maritime ships. Specifically, the famous Chinese admiral, Zheng He led the maritime armada of ships to Malindi and Lamu in 1418. Indeed, one of the symbolic Kenya-China cultural project that has been underway since 2010 is the $2.4 million archeological research undertaken as partnership between the National Museums of China and the National Museums of Kenya.  

The upshot is that foreign minister Wang Yi might have made Nairobi his capital of choice for his maiden visit anywhere in the world in furtherance of the African dimensions of the Silk Road concept. Wang might have well elected to make his maiden tour of Africa elsewhere on the continent. After all, Kenya has hogged a little of Chinese visits than other African countries. Indeed Premier Li Keqiang was in Kenya less than a year ago. It would appear that the significance of the New Silk Road – in addition to Kenya’s econo-political positioning – were powerful motivations for the visit.

Spiegel Online warns of nuclear war

Johannes Stern

On Sunday evening, after the Munich Security

Conference, Spiegel Online published an article titled “NATO-Russia crisis: The Nuclear spectre returns”. It confirms the warnings of the World Socialist Web Site regarding the danger of nuclear war between the superpowers, which is steadily rising as the Ukraine crisis and the imperialist states’ aggression against Russia intensify.

The article begins by describing a little-known incident on January 25, 1995, which almost triggered nuclear war between the United States and Russia. At that time, Norwegian and American researchers fired a rocket from the Norwegian island of Andøya, which caused the Russian armed forces to go to the highest alert level, and prompted Russian president Boris Yeltsin to activate the keys to the nuclear weapons.

The rocket, used by the scientists to study the Northern Lights, travelled on the same trajectory that US intercontinental nuclear missiles would take on their way to Moscow. Moreover, on the Russian radar, the four-stage research rocket looked like a Trident missile fired by an American submarine. Then everything happened extremely quickly. The alarm sirens sounded in a Russian radar centre, then technicians reached for the phone and reported a US missile attack. Yeltsin called up generals and military advisers on the telephone, but finally gave the all-clear because no second missile followed.

Spiegel Online notes that Yeltsin at that time probably left the Russian nuclear missiles in their silos “because relations between Russia and the United States in 1995 were relatively trusting”. Today, however, the situation is entirely different. The magazine quotes senior politicians, military experts and scholars, who provide a picture of how dangerous the situation currently is.

“A five or six minute decision time can be enough if trust exists, when the communication channels exist and you can activate them quickly,” former Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov said during the Munich Security Conference, which was dominated by the imperialist powers’ escalation against Russia. “Unfortunately, this machinery is currently running very badly,” Ivanov added.

Asked what would happen today if the 1995 incident were repeated, he said: “I’m not sure if the right decisions would still be taken.”

Ivanov recently published an analysis with former British defence minister and head of the European Leadership Network (ELN) Des Browne and former US senator Sam Nunn, warning that “the institutions created for constructive interaction between Russia and the West have been badly damaged and are not in a position to deal with the current political, economic and security issues.”

The authors write that “for years, there has been no close personal relationships between leaders and no clear and timely communication necessary for crisis management”. The NATO-Russia Council was dissolved, and other agreements that serve to foster mutual trust, such as the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) and the Washington Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Systems (INF), had already been suspended or placed in question.

Back in November, the London-based ELN think tank published an alarming report on the growing threat of war in Europe. Since the NATO-supported right-wing coup in Kiev in February 2014, there had been almost 40 “near misses” between the Russian military and the NATO forces sent into eastern Europe that could have caused a military conflict.

Nunn described to Spiegel Online a gloomy picture of the situation: “Trust between NATO and Russia is almost destroyed. In the midst of Europe, a war is taking place, international treaties have collapsed or are heavily overloaded, we have tactical nuclear weapons everywhere in Europe. The situation is extremely dangerous.”

Ivanov compares the situation today with the Cold War. At that time, there were many security mechanisms, “a huge amount of agreements and documents which ensured that there was no military confrontation between the Soviet Union and NATO.” Today, “the danger of war [is] bigger”.

One measure of the nuclear threat is the “Doomsday Clock” of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ( BAS). On January 19, the BAS, which has existed since 1945, set the clock to “three minutes before midnight”. The last and the only time it had stood there was in 1984, when the United States stepped up the nuclear arms race against the Soviet Union, and as a result, “cut or limited all communication channels”.

The BAS justified its current decision as follows. The “political leaders” had failed “to protect citizens from possible disaster” and thus “endangered every person on earth.” In 2014, the nuclear powers had “taken the crazy and dangerous decision to modernise their nuclear arsenals”. They had abandoned “reasonable efforts to disarm” and allowed the “economic conflict between Ukraine and Russia to develop into an East-West confrontation”.

Significantly, neither the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists nor Spiegel Onlinenames those responsible for the growing threat of nuclear war. It was the imperialist powers who first organised a coup in Ukraine utilising fascist forces, and who since then drove forward the aggression against Russia and now prepare to supply arms to the pro-Western regime in Kiev.

The scientists’ and journalists’ silence is not surprising. While the BASpromotes illusions in the phony promises of the Obama administration to create a nuclear weapons-free world, Der Spiegel has followed the broader line of the German media, which has launched the most aggressive warmongering over the last year against Russia.

Now, it is dawning on some people in the newsroom how dangerous the situation that they helped conjure up really is. For example, Spiegel Onlinenotes that tactical nuclear weapons are also stored in Germany at the Büchel airbase in the Eifel, “which are currently being modernised at a high cost”. Although they are under US command, “in wartime” they could be “dropped by German Tornado fighter jets.”