Italian government turns away ship with 629 refugees aboard

Marianne Arens 

The Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, from the far-right Lega, declared “Victory!” in a tweet late Monday after Spain offered to take a ship packed with 600 refugees, which Italy’s new right-wing government had blocked from landing in southern Italy.

The refugees were aboard the Aquarius, a ship operated by SOS Méditerranée and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). They are migrants who were picked up from unsafe rafts in six separate operations Saturday by Italian navy ships patrolling the waters off of Libya.

Among those crammed onto the vessel were 123 unaccompanied minors, 11 other children and seven pregnant women. Some of them are reportedly sick or suffering from injuries inflicted in beatings and torture carried out by human smugglers in Libya.

The new right-wing government, which consists of the Lega and the Five Star Movement, has decided to make an example of these refugees, at the risk of their lives, in order to implement its anti-immigrant policy. The campaign platform of the coalition called for the speedy deportation of half a million migrants.

“Saving lives at sea is a duty, but transforming Italy into an enormous refugee camp is not,” Salvini declared demagogically on Facebook. “Italy is done bowing its head and obeying. This time there’s someone saying no.”

On Monday afternoon, the new Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez (PSOE) was the only European leader to promise that his government would allow the Aquarius to land and the refugees to disembark, “to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.”

It is by no means clear, however, that the Aquarius can make the journey to the Spanish coast overloaded as it is with refugees. In a tweet late Monday, MSF said, “Spain’s offer of safe port Valencia is 1,300 kilometres away—further 3 day journey with Aquarius already over maximum capacity. Health and safety of people rescued onboard including sick and injured people, pregnant women and children must come first.”

Salvini had sent an official note to the Maltese government in Valletta on Sunday urging it to take in the ship. At the same time, he categorically barred all Italian ports from allowing the Aquarius to dock.

Malta then also refused to accept the Aquarius. Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, a social democrat, pointed out that the maritime rescue of these refugees had involved several merchant ships and three patrol boats belonging to the Italian Coast Guard. As a result, Malta was “neither involved nor responsible for coordinating the rescue.”

Significantly, Salvini’s note banning the Aquarius was also signed by Danilo Toninelli, who is the new Minister of Infrastructure and Transport and a member of the Five Star Movement (M5S). Luigi Di Maio, M5S leader and second deputy prime minister, had expressly supported Salvini in a television interview a few hours earlier, claiming that the “phenomenon of migrants” had become uncontrollable in Italy.

The situation of the people aboard the Aquarius had become increasingly unbearable, after two days of sailing between Messina and Malta without being able to find a safe haven. TV journalist Anelise Borges, reporting from the Aquarius, said there were supplies for two to three days, but they could run out.

“The situation is precarious,” Borges said, “because the rescue vessel is overcrowded.” The ship is usually designed for 550 people. “Most people have had to stay outside on deck and are completely exposed to the weather. We’re talking about people who have already spent 20 to 30 hours at sea before being rescued.”

The plight of the Aquarius recalls the legendary 1939 “Voyage of the damned,” in which the German ocean liner, the St. Louis, set sail for Cuba with 937 German Jews seeking to escape Nazi terror. Refused permission to land not only in Cuba, but the United States and Canada as well, the ship was forced to return Europe, disembarking its passengers in Antwerp, Belgium, which, within a year was occupied by the Nazis. It is estimated that a least one-quarter of the passengers were murdered in the Holocaust.

In most cases, the refugees aboard the Aquarius have endured a hellish journey of months or even years before managing to leave Libya. Many migrants are picked up by the Libyan Coast Guard and dragged back to the infamous Libyan torture camps. Just a few days ago, 15 people were killed in a mass break-out in Libya.

The refusal of a safe haven for the Aquarius in Italy, as well as the close collaboration of the European Union (EU) with the Libyan Coast Guard, shows the true face of EU refugee policy. The new Italian government is just pursuing this policy more nakedly and ruthlessly.

The EU is waging a shadow war against migrants, which has already claimed tens of thousands of lives in the mass grave of the Mediterranean Sea. The international migration organization IOM has documented 785 drowned refugees this year alone.

The German government also supports this EU war against refugees and immigrants. Chancellor Angela Merkel (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) has spoken out in favour of the rapid development of the notorious AnKER centres. Speaking on the Anne Will talk show, she said on Sunday that asylum procedures would have to be accelerated in future “so that rejected asylum seekers can leave the country quickly.”

The CDU’s coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), shares the tough attitude against refugees. In a Spiegel online interview, SPD leader Andrea Nahles said on Sunday that the “safe countries of origin” policy included “people being deported as well. We have to deal with that. We cannot give the impression that people can easily stay in Germany if their application for asylum has been rejected.” She threatened that “many decisions” would be made on the subject in the near future.

The Italian government has set a deadly precedent by refusing to allow the Aquarius to dock and has given the signal to turn back NGO ships. After the Aquarius was turned away, other ships, including the Seawatch, rescued nearly 800 people from the Mediterranean on Sunday. Last weekend alone, over 1,420 people have been rescued, whose fate and survival are now directly threatened.

While offering to allow the Aquarius to dock at Valencia, the new PSOE government of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez will pursue a no less anti-immigrant policy than the rest of the capitalist governments of Europe. It was under the PSOE in 2005 that Spain originally erected a border fence around Melilla and Ceuta, the Spanish enclaves in Morocco, to stop refugees from reaching Spanish territory. The three-meter-high fences were topped with razor-wire, monitored by police, with CCTV watch posts and motion sensors. The fences were subsequently increased to six meters, and satellites and drones were introduced.

Even if the refugees on the Aquarius were to reach Spain, there is no reason to hope that they will find asylum there. The Spanish state is notorious for brutal collective deportations and was condemned for this by the European Court of Human Rights only last October.

More than half of Australian workers in part-time insecure employment

Terry Cook

The Liberal-National Coalition government claims that its policies have produced an employment upswing, with the creation of half a million additional jobs since it took office in 2013. In reality, it has intensified the pushing of workers into casual, part-time or contract work, a process that begun under the Labor governments of the 1980s and 1990s.

Last month, in response to official figures showing the unemployment rate remained at 5.6 percent in May, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull boasted: “Every lever of policy put in place by the government is pulling in the direction of more economic growth, more jobs and better jobs.”

However, a recent report shows the deepening of the levels of unemployment and under-employment that became entrenched under the last Labor government from 2007 to 2013. Hundreds of thousands workers remain jobless or have been forced into precarious employment with little hope of ever securing better-paying full-time positions.

A report released by the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work at the end of last month revealed that, for the first time in recent recorded statistics, less than half of all workers are in a permanent full-time paid job with holiday, sick and other leave entitlements.

Based on Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and other government data, the research found full-time paid jobs with normal leave entitlements fell to 49.97 percent of all employment in 2017, from 51.35 percent in 2012.

Over the same period, the share of part-time jobs rose two percentage points to 31.7 percent, a new high. The number of workers in casual jobs without paid leave entitlements rose 1.6 percentage points to 25.1 percent.

Underemployment, the proportion of people working but who want more hours, jumped from 7.6 percent to 9.1 percent, while average hours worked each month fell from 141 to 139.

In a media release, report co-author Jim Stanford said: “Given current labour market conditions and lax labour standards, employers are able to hire workers on a ‘just-in-time’ basis. They employ workers only when and where they are most needed, and then toss them aside. This precariousness imposes enormous risks and costs on workers, their families, and the whole economy.”

The impact was greatest on young workers, who “are giving up hope of finding a permanent full-time job, and if these trends continue, many of them never will.”

According to Stanford, since 2012 the standard job “has been whittled away on all sides by part-time work, by casual and temporary jobs, by shifting more tasks to supposedly independent contractors and self-employed gig workers.”

In reality, this process goes back far further, although the report says the deterioration was masked during the “mining boom” of 2002–12.

During the 1980s, the Hawke Labor government struck a series of Accords with the Australian Council of Trade Unions that suppressed strikes, enforcing the deregulation of the economy, elimination of manufacturing jobs and gutting of hard-won conditions. In the 1990s, the Keating government partnered with the trade unions to institute “enterprise bargaining,” which laid the basis for an endless onslaught on jobs, wages and conditions through individual workplace company-union agreements.

The current government’s claims were further dented by an article in the Guardian that pointed out that part-time jobs accounted for 47 percent of the one million jobs the government said it had “created” over the past five years.

Moreover, the monthly ABS unemployment figures cover up the real level of joblessness by counting as employed anyone who has worked for just one hour a week. The more reliable Roy Morgan employment survey said unemployment stood at 9.8 percent in May. An estimated 1,316,000 workers had no job while a further 1,251,000, or 9.3 percent, were under-employed, working part-time and looking for more work.

Companies across numbers of sectors have announced jobs cuts in recent months as part of ongoing drives to slash costs and boost profits.

Most recently, mining equipment company Austin Engineering announced it will shutter its operation in the New South Wales Hunter Valley town of Muswellbrook at the cost of 100 jobs.

This month also, ASC Shipbuilding in South Australia said it will shed 223 jobs by June as the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) project winds down.

At the end of May, communications provider Optus confirmed it will slash a further 400 jobs to “remove duplication.” A week earlier, the company said it will phase out its subsidiary brand, Virgin Mobile, destroying 200 jobs and closing 36 stores.

Last month, Vodafone Hutchison Australia announced plans to restructure its contact call centre in Hobart, Tasmania cutting up to 100 jobs.

Private hospital operator Healthscope also announced in May the closure of two hospitals in the state of Victoria at the cost of more than 400 jobs. Service provider Spotless will cut 220 after the company last month lost a cleaning contract at Flinders Medical Centre and Modbury Hospital in Victoria.

Australia’s largest cattle producer, Australian Agricultural Company,announced plans to mothball its abattoir outside Darwin in the Northern Territory (NT) at the cost of 200 jobs.

In its May budget, the NT government announced 200 public service job cuts over the next two years and imposed a freeze on further hiring.

In April, the government-owned Australian Broadcasting Corporationannounced it will cut 20 jobs in its capital city newsrooms. Last year, the corporation axed approximately 200 positions.

During February, National Bank of Australia (NAB) announced it will slash 1,000 jobs as part of its plan to cut a total of 6,000 jobs over the next three years.

In late January, oil and gas producer and energy retailer Origin Energyannounced it will eliminate 650 jobs in its Queensland operations, mostly at its Brisbane office.

None of the trade unions involved have initiated a fight against the job cuts. Instead, they have stifled opposition by their members, in line with the union’s decades-long partnership with employers, in the name of making Australian business “globally competitive.”

New evidence of more Australian special forces’ war crimes in Afghanistan

Mike Head

Yesterday, in an attempt at damage control, the Australian government belatedly revealed the existence of a third closed-door inquiry into alleged war crimes by the Special Air Services (SAS) and other military special forces personnel in Afghanistan.

After a Fairfax Media investigation reported over the weekend a new series of killings by Australian commandos, the Defence Department announced that earlier this year, military chiefs commissioned David Irvine, a former director-general of security, to conduct an “independent assessment.”

This is the latest manoeuvre in years of official cover-up, seeking to cloak the barbaric character of the ongoing, 17-year US-led invasion and occupation of the impoverished country.

Far from being the conduct of a few “bad apples” or “rogue elements,” there is mounting evidence of endemic abuses of Afghani civilians, reflecting the nature of the war itself.

The Afghanistan war necessarily involves brutal killings of civilians, because most of the population are suspected of opposing the US and its allies. Such wars require the recruitment and training of soldiers to become “elite” hardened killers.

The crisis surrounding the SAS began last Friday, when the Fairfax journalists, Nick McKenzie and Chris Masters, reported some contents of a 2016 confidential inquiry, which concluded that special forces members committed war crimes in Afghanistan.

Yet another probe has been underway since May 2016, headed by New South Wales Supreme Court Justice Paul Brereton, who is a major-general in the Army Reserve, on behalf of the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force.

None of these inquiries, each conducted by a figure within, or close to, the military-intelligence apparatus, can be regarded as “independent.” Irvine led the secretive overseas spy agency, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) from 2003 to 2009, then ran the domestic surveillance force, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) from 2009 to 2014.

Among the latest cases reported by Fairfax Media, each backed by eye-witnesses, are the following:

* A SAS trooper on his first deployment to Afghanistan in 2009 was pressured by higher-ranking soldiers to execute an elderly, unarmed detainee as part of a “blooding” ritual.

* On the same mission, a man with a prosthetic leg was killed by machine-gun fire. His plastic leg was souvenired and taken back to SAS headquarters in Perth to be used as a novelty beer-drinking vessel.

* In September 2012, an SAS commando killed handcuffed detainee Ali Jan by kicking him off the edge of a cliff near the village of Darwan.

These revelations came on top of the leaked inquiry report, written by Defence Department consultant Dr Samantha Crompvoets. Her report pointed to the toxic culture, personal degradation and abusive behaviour inevitably produced among the special forces officers and troops sent repeatedly to both Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001.

Crompvoets, an academic whose consulting firm has conducted several reviews for military agencies, reported that during interviews with her, special forces “insiders” confidentially disclosed “unsanctioned and illegal application of violence on operations” that extended to “disregard for human life and dignity.”

One “SOF [special operations forces] insider” told Crompvoets: “I know there were over the last 15 years some horrendous things. Some just disgraceful things happened in Kabul … very bad news, or just inappropriate behaviour, but it was pretty much kept under wraps.”

The consultant said the conduct went “well beyond blowing off steam.” She wrote: “Even more concerning were allusions to behaviour and practices involving abuse of drugs and alcohol, domestic violence, unsanctioned and illegal application of violence on operations … and the perception of a complete lack of accountability at times,” from the military chain of command.

Crompvoets said “others felt there was a deep impediment to change because of the extent to which leaders with SOF backgrounds, highly placed through the SOF and beyond, were compromised by their own participation or complicity in problematic behaviours of the past.”

This indicates systemic cover-ups, implicating successive governments, both Liberal-National and Labor, and high-ranking military officers, some of whom today sit at the top of the armed forces and spy services.

Ex-SAS commanders are prominent throughout the political and military establishment.

Andrew Hastie, who chairs the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Security and Intelligence, is a former SAS officer. So is Duncan Lewis, the current ASIO director-general, whom the previous Labor government appointed as national security adviser in 2008.

Government Senator Jim Molan headed allied military operations in Iraq during 2004-05. A Labor Party MP and ex-minister, Mike Kelly, was a colonel and Director of Army Legal Services, which would have handled complaints against special forces members, before he became a Labor candidate in 2007.

Other ex-SAS commanders include Army chief, General Angus Campbell, who will become the Chief of the Armed Forces next month, and Deputy Chief of Army General Rick Burr.

Crompvoets’ report was commissioned to try to improve the performance of the special forces, and rescue their political reputation. She stated: “The current situation holds inherent risks, not only for sub-optimal delivery of capacity, but potentially for national security and/or strategic/political interests, given the sensitive nature of deployments.”

Nevertheless, the suppression of the report for more than two years confirms an ongoing pattern of cover-up. The journalists, McKenzie and Masters, said previous efforts to obtain the Crompvoets’ report under freedom of information laws had been blocked.

There is a long record of special forces crimes. Internal investigations, in recent conflicts alone, go back to the military intervention in East Timor in 1999.

The Australian Defence Force paid out $120,000 in compensation for incorrectly killed and injured Afghan civilians during 2009–2011 alone, according to an Amsterdam International Law Clinic report. With payments of less than $2,000 per murder, that indicates hundreds of casualties.

The following is a partial list of known cases:

* Last July, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) published reports of leaked documents said to cover “at least 10” incidents between 2009 and 2013 in which military investigators summarily cleared soldiers of killing civilians or other war crimes.

One of the incidents occurred in 2013, when troops commanded by Hastie severed the hands of dead alleged Taliban fighters. This followed a training session where soldiers were told such methods could be used for identification purposes.

* In October 2016, special forces sergeant Kevin Frost told the ABC he helped cover up the shooting of a detainee and wanted those involved—including himself—to face trial.

* In May 2013, Stephen Smith, the defence minister in the last Labor government, rejected complaints by Afghan detainees that they were subjected to humiliating public searches of groin and buttocks areas, as well as poor food and cold cells.

* In May 2011, an Australian military court dropped manslaughter charges against two soldiers involved in the killing of five Afghan children during a raid in the southern province of Uruzgan in early 2009. The decision effectively gave Australian forces a green light to kill civilians.

* In October 2008, an inquiry whitewashed an operation that resulted in the mistaken killing of Rozi Khan, the pro-occupation governor of Chora district in Uruzgan province. A SAS death squad stormed the house of an alleged Taliban member to execute him in cold blood, but got the wrong man.

Such crimes are not isolated incidents. They flow from the thoroughly predatory motives of the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington were seized upon as the pretext to take over these countries to secure domination over one of the world’s most strategic and resource-rich regions.

The revelations of war crimes are a warning to workers and youth. The special forces operations are part of preparations for use at home. As well as deployments to overseas neo-colonial wars, the commandos train to suppress domestic unrest, in the name of combatting terrorism.

Myanmar's Ethnic Armed Conflict: Emerging Trends in Violence

Angshuman Choudhury


2018 has been a violent year in Myanmar. Besides the crisis in the northern Rakhine State concerning the Rohingyas, the country has been engulfed by incessant fighting between the Tatmadaw (the military) and various Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) from almost all sides.

The third iteration of Myanmar's flagship biennial Union Peace Conference/21st Century Panglong Conference (21CPC)—previously scheduled for May 2018—was postponed for the fourth time, and is now rescheduled to June 2018. The 21CPC brings together representatives of the government, military, and ethnic (civilians and armed groups) for peace talks in Naypyitaw. The previous iteration took place in May 2017.

Meanwhile, developments in the January-May 2018 period point to emerging trends in the nature of armed conflict in the post October-2015 landscape in Myanmar. Overall, there were 17 broad instances and at least 60 micro incidents of violence between January-May 2018, and only eight visible instances of dialogue (albeit without settlement) between core negotiating parties. The pattern—some emergent and others a continuation of the past—reflect the complex escalation dynamics in Myanmar’s protracted civil war.

Continuity
Of all broad instances of violence, the most prominent and destabilising has been the protracted war between the Tatmadaw and the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) (a non-signatory to the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement/NCA) in Kachin and Shan states. The raging war in its current form began in 2015 and has since continued in the form of annual winter offensives and counter-offensives by the military and the KIA respectively.

In 2018, intense clashes internally displaced over 5000 civilians and inflicted significant strategic losses on the KIA. Save for the relatively higher levels of violence this year, the still-open Kachin front reflects continuity in a long-term conflict trend. In another continuing trend, the northern front also witnessed clashes between the Tatmadaw and three other non-signatory EAOs–Ta'ang National Liberation Army (TNLA), Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), and Arakan Army (AA)–who, along with the KIA, are part of the hostile Northern Alliance. 

The Arakan Dilemma
May 2018 saw intense clashes between the Tatmadaw and the Rakhine-based AA in Chin state, inflicting heavy casualties on both sides and displacing nearly 1200 civilians into India's Mizoram state. For the first time in years, a conflict inside Myanmar could directly threaten India’s overseas interests: a connectivity project node in Chin's Paletwa township falls in the main conflict zone and could be at risk of sabotage.

Although clashes have subsided for now, the potential for intensification remains high. Since the killing of seven ethnic Rakhine protesters by the police in Mrauk U in January, the AA has only drawn milk from the public anger against the ‘Bamar-dominated’ union government. Even prominent Rakhine politicians have expressed sympathies for an armed struggle against the government.

This puts Naypyitaw in a delicate spot. Currently, the government’s Peace Commission is engaged in mandated talks with the Arakan Liberation Party (ALP), which is the only NCA signatory and legitimate dialogue partner in the state. However, the AA's rising stature creates conditions for a bitter power struggle within the Rakhine ethnic setup, which threatens to further destabilise the already precarious situation.

The Karen Standoff
In March 2018, there were fierce clashes between the Tatmadaw and the NCA signatory Karen National Union (KNU) in Karen State's Hpapun district. Since 2017, the KNU and the Karen civil society have accused the Tatmadaw of illegally expanding its presence in Karen in violation of the NCA, and of shooting a local humanitarian worker dead. This created an escalation dynamic despite the existence of a ceasefire arrangement between the two parties, ultimately peaking in violent clashes. Finally, both sides held talks and the military decided to pull back from KNU territory. 

The KNU is the most powerful and influential of all NCA signatories, and therefore a crucial dialogue partner for Naypyitaw. A fallout with the group would reverse all positive gains painstakingly accrued over the past five years in this sensitive ethnic state and more importantly, damage the NCA’s credibility as an instrument of reconciliation.

Attacks on Non-combatants
There were three instances of violence against civilian or quasi-civilian targets between February and May 2018: an unclaimed bomb blast at Yoma Bank in Lashio, Shan State, (2 civilians killed); an unclaimed triple bomb blast in Sittwe, Rakhine State (no deaths reported); and a coordinated TNLA attack against security outposts and a casino (at least 15 civilians killed).

EAO attacks on non-combatant targets have been rare, with infrequent exceptions mostly in the north where illicit financial interests often trigger inter-EAO turf wars. The last rebel attack on non-combatants was in March 2017 when the MNDAA launched an assault in Laukkai, Shan State, killing 30 people. However, with the growing intensity of military offensives, more non-ceasefire EAOs seem to be resorting to attack soft targets in urban areas with an objective of bridging the tactical asymmetry in the conflict as well as increasing the Tatmadaw’s costs for attacking rebel positions in the jungles.

Need for Stronger Ceasefire Monitoring
Besides military-rebel clashes, there were several low-grade skirmishes between various EAOs–both signatories and non-signatories–most which erupted over contested territorial blocs.

These low-intensity skirmishes, unlike military-rebel clashes, can be tackled at the ground level by strengthening the ceasefire-monitoring regime spearheaded by the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC). This would entail further disaggregation of the existing JMC framework to the ground level by instituting more JMC-Locals involving community-level organisations, thereby allowing JMC-Union and JMC-States to process and respond to ground level complaints quicker.

Disruptive Technologies and Future Naval Warfare

Vijay Sakhuja


Google’s decision to cancel Project Maven may be a disappointment for the US military who were hoping to use the company’s artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning (ML) techniques to analyse huge amounts of video footage captured by drones operating in Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan. The project had come under severe criticism from Google employees who had urged the leadership to stop pursuing and developing technologies that would augment a user's war-making potential. Further, they wanted Google to “draft, publicise and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology.” Under pressure, Google CEO Sundar Pichai has stated in a blog post that the company will withdraw from Project Maven and not develop in future “technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm,” those which “violate internationally accepted norms” and “widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.” The announcement indeed emphasises human ethics and international norms, and merits appreciation.

While that may be true, disruptive technologies such as AI and ML are fast making inroads into the military and many have already acquired these technologies to augment their surveillance and combat capability as also employ them for safety purposes. The use of disruptive technologies for counter terrorism is a burgeoning industry and algorithms are used by the US military’s Middle East and Africa commands to fight against the Islamic State (IS). The US Department of Defense (DoD) has said that the technology is “literally a work of magic.” 

The use of AI in the maritime domain is well documented and has found reference in addressing criminal activities at sea such as piracy, illegal unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and unlawful transfer of humans and materials. Its use for weather and sea condition monitoring and predictions, oil spill detection and tracking, etc are also well-known. In the naval domain, AI-enabled systems for data and logistics management, machinery operations, repair and maintenance, shipboard autonomous firefighting robots, etc are in operation. The use of AI and ML in warfare, particularly in the context of missiles, UAVs, UUVs, drones and submarines,merits attention.

The navies of US, Russia, China, Japan, and a few from the EU are in competition to develop AI weapons and sensors. In South Korea, Hanwha Systems, a South Korean defence business company in partnership with Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) plans to develop “an AI-based missile that can control its speed and altitude on its own and detect an enemy radar fence in real time while in flight. AI-equipped unmanned submarines and armed quadcopters would also be among autonomous arms.” The company also plans to develop AI-equipped submarines. 

Perhaps the biggest naval challenge is likely to emerge from shipborne/ship-controlled and AI-enabled swarm drones that have caught the fancy of some navies. It is useful to recall that during World War II,between 1940 and 1943, German U-boats attacks against Allied convoys sailing across the Atlantic had potentially challenged the naval balance of power and had almost brought Britain closer to defeat. These Rudeltaktik, or wolfpack tactics and coordinated attacks are now being replicated by swarm platforms which can be launched in the air as also at sea. 

There are several limitations to operating small boats in a swarm, such as limited range, stability on the high seas, and jamming through electronic warfare, they may not match and offer similar capability as the U-boats. However, AI enabled boats in swarm mode with autonomy can potentially cause significant challenges for the enemy and it may not be possible to shoot down each one of them. Likewise, drones offer an attractive option and have higher levels of automation and do not require advanced computers and sensors. These can be launched in large numbers and can conjure a lethal force at sea.

A recent video released online by China’s Yunzhou Tech Corporation showcases a 56-robot boat swarm conduct complex and coordinated maneouvre around a larger boat from where these are controlled. China is also developing swarm drones that can be deployed at sea for surveillance, and if strapped with explosives can carry out a ‘saturation attack’ on an enemy ship or even adopt kamikaze tactic to simultaneously dive in to attack from different directions and defeat ship based anti-aircraft and anti-missile defences. 

Warfare at sea has witnessed several transformations in the past but the ongoing transformation led by AI, ML, big data, cloud commuting, and quantum communications will cause major disruptions in naval warfighting. In fact, the autonomous nature of UAVs, UUVs and drones and their ability to ‘self-organise in sub-swarms’ could be a game-changer in naval operations and could well be the new asymmetric approach in warfare. Further, it is fair to argue that smaller navies can be expected to equip themselves with advanced AI and ML-enabled platforms and sensors which can be acquired from the open market, and rely less on military hardware imports which always attract a number of restrictions imposed by the supplier.

Myanmar's Military and the Rohingya Crisis

Roshni Kapur


The Rohingya have fled from their homeland in Rakhine, Myanmar, whenever there has been an eruption in violence. Approximately 700,000 Rohingyas are currently living in Bangladesh’s Cox Bazar district ever since fleeing the latest outbreak of violence in August 2017. The latest scale of violence is the result of a four-month long military operation against Rohingya militants that has been marred by widespread allegations of extra judicial killings, rapes, arson, and other serious human rights violations. There is now a strong call by some countries to start criminal proceedings against Myanmar’s top military personnel who may be implicated for war crimes. 

The Rohingya crisis is a product of deep-seated hatred and resentment perpetuated by the military that has manifested into discriminatory policies that have disenfranchised and stripped the Rohingya of their basic civil liberties including citizenship, employment and education. Senior General Min Aung Hlaing said in March 2018 that the Rohingyas have nothing in common with the rest of the country and the recent violence was exacerbated by their quest for citizenship. Both the outgoing and current governments have asserted that the Rohingya are ‘Bengali’ trespassers from Bangladesh whereas the community has in fact lived in Myanmar for generations. 

Punitive Action
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad a-Hussein has been advocating for strong punitive action against Myanmar, urging the UN General Assembly to pass on information pertaining to the atrocities to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Similar statements have been made by Yanghee Lee, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, on the prosecution of military personnel for war crimes. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has also joined the for-prosecution lobby, announcing its interest in forming a committee to investigate and provide evidence of those guilty of crimes. This initiative shows collective solidarity on the issue, but has its own limitations. 

Despite sufficient evidence to suggest state-sponsored violence against civilians by the Tatmadaw, domestic prosecution is off the table since the military controls three key ministries: defence, home affairs and border Furthermore, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is unlikely to intervene or take a proactive stance due to its non-intervention principle. The final call lies with the ICC; however, the international court only has jurisdiction over the signatories to the Rome Statute, thus keeping Myanmar, which is not a signatory, off the hook of direct prosecution.

Only the UN Security Council (UNSC), through a resolution, can refer Myanmar to the ICC for criminal proceedings. But such a resolution is likely to be blocked by China and Russia given their strong relations with Myanmar. In 2017, China was quick to block a UNSC statement on Myanmar pertaining to the crisis.

Nonetheless, there have been past exceptions where China placed the international community’s agenda over its national interest. Despite China’s close relations with Sudan, the UNSC was able to refer Sudan to the ICC, which led to the eventual conviction of former president Omar Al Bashir in 2009. The UNSC has also referred Libya to the ICC despite not being a signatory to the Rome Statute. So, while remaining UNSC members could attempt to pressurise China to prioritise humanitarian issues over its national interest, it will undoubtedly be an uphill task. 

Alternative Options
First,different groupssuch as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International (AI) should form a joint committee to collate, gather and document information on the alleged atrocities. The OIC and fact-finding mission ofthe Human Rights Council (HRC) can be a part of this joint body to which each group brings its own expertise and pool of resources. 

This is important for a number of reasons. The details on human rights violations are still murky since no names for conviction have yet been submitted. The lack of precision on whom to prosecute under what crimes may be a reason behind the stunted progress on punitive action. Identifying the alleged perpetrators will help build a concrete case that could eventually lead to prosecution. 

Second, creation of an ad-hoc tribunal to try Myanmar's generals remains a possibility. Such tribunals were common instruments in the 1990s to respond to atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) saw a number of politicians convicted for genocide and other crimes against humanity. However, the UNSC will need to pass a resolution in order to set up such a tribunal on Myanmar.

Third, the UN Secretariat may explore the possibility of sendingmilitary observers to supervise the situation in Rakhine. These observers can be stationed there to oversee developments and investigate allegations of atrocities.However, their access within the state may be heavily restricted, thus hindering their capability to make in-depth and comprehensive assessments. There is also likely to be opposition from Russia and China who may not want to jeopardise their relations with the Tatmadaw, which remains antagonistic to external presence in the country.

Fourth, the ICC is probing whether it has extended jurisdiction over the crisis’ spill over to Bangladesh. Since Bangladesh is a signatory to the Rome Statute, the ICC has requested Dhaka to weigh in for prosecution. Unsurprisingly, Myanmar has objected to this, arguingthat such a move would have no legitimacy. 

Conclusion
Over the past few months, the US, EU, and others have imposed asset freezes and visa bans on military officials. However these measures have not deterred the alleged wrongdoers from committing further atrocities. As a result, prosecution remains the last resort. However, the ICC’s jurisdictional limitations and Chinese and Russian reluctance to allow UNSC to refer Myanmar to the court compels the international community to take action through alternative ways to prosecute.

China and the Trump-Kim Summit: Beijing's Looming Influence

Sandip Kumar Mishra


A flurry of developments in the past few months in and around the Korean peninsula has led to expectations that North Korea might give up its nuclear programme in lieu of some kind of security guarantee and economic benefits. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has apparently taken a calculated risk to hold summit meets first with South Korea and then with the US leaders. South Korea under the President Moon Jae-in has utilised this opportunity judiciously to pursue peace on the Korean peninsula which has been marred by high decibel name callings and provocative actions and reactions between North Korea and the US. In 2018, North Korea has had two summit meets with South Korea - on 27 April and 26 May - and both the Koreas have announced their intent to formally end the Korean War along with making the peninsula nuclear free. In the same vein, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and the US President Donald Trump are scheduled to meet in Singapore on 12 June 2018.

It is interesting to note that China has not been an active player in these turns of events and it might be expected that China would not be very pleased with the situation that several strategic shifts have been taking place in its neighbourhood without Beijing being the primary player. For the same reasons, it has been said that China is sidelined or left out from the process. However, the reality seems to be quite the opposite.

In fact, North Korea and China drifted away from each other during the reigns of Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and both leaders had no direct meeting after they came to power in 2013 and 2011 respectively. Furthermore, there are reliable reports that China cooperated with the international community in an unprecedented way to impose economic sanctions on North Korea in 2017. When North Korea decided to participate in the Winter Olympics held in South Korea and met South Korea’s special envoys and conveyed its willingness to denuclearise, reportedly, until then, Pyongyang and Beijing had not had sufficient consultations with each other.

However, when Kim Jong-un realised that he has been facing an engaging Moon Jae-in in South Korea and a tough Donald Trump in the US, he made a significant course correction. Before making his historic visit to the southern part of the demilitarized zone (DMZ) and the summit meet with Moon Jae-in on 27 April 2018, he hurriedly held an unofficial meeting with Xi Jinping in Beijing during his visit to China (25-28 March 2018). Furthermore, after his first summit meet with the South Korean leader, he visited China again, to meet Xi Jinping in Dalian (7-8 May 2018). Within a very brief period, China and North Korea have been trying to catch up with each other through several high-level visits between the countries, including the visit of China’s top envoy Wang Yi to Pyongyang. 

Essentially, North Korea is aware that if it tries to deal with South Korea and the US independently, it would not have enough strategic depth to manoeuvre the course and thus, it was considered important to bring China back into the process.

China-North Korea rapprochement could be seen on the ground as well. China has announced that it would restore Beijing-Pyongyang Air China flights that had been suspended in November 2017 in the context of UN Security Council Resolutions. Moreover, China has also blocked most of the online search results insulting Kim Jong-un, and Chinese expressions such as jin-san-pang (Kim Fatty the Third) have completely disappeared from Chinese websites such as Baidu and Weibo in the recent weeks. There have been more positive news and stories about North Korea in China’s official media such as People’s Daily. 

Thus, although China's role does not appear significant in the recent summits on the surface, it will be of utmost importance in the process. North Korea through its clever move has been able to restore its contacts with China, which is important in an event of both success or failure of North Korea’s upcoming summit meet with the US. More importantly, if the US does not provide enough takeaways to Pyongyang in the Kim-Trump summit, Kim Jong-un may walk out of the process and could have China to bank on. 

South Korea and the US too are aware that any plan to engage or pressure North Korea would not succeed without China’s cooperation and thus both countries have approved the North Korea-China rapprochement. However, Washington and Seoul would like China to be on their side in dealing with North Korea. South Korea and the US may agree to provide security guarantees to the North Korean regime or conclude a peace treaty to end the Korean War but they would like to have more credible progress in North Korea’s denuclearisation process in the complete, verifiable, irreversible disarmament (CVID) framework.

From China’s perspective, if North Korea is able to achieve a downscaling of the US-South Korea alliance or the withdrawal of US troops from the Korean peninsula in exchange for its denuclearisation pledge, it would be a significant gain for Beijing as well. This is also why China's influence will loom large in the future course of North Korea’s denuclearisation even though Beijing appears to be in the background.

Brexit constitutional stand-off reaches UK Supreme Court

Steve James

A case provisionally due to reach the UK Supreme Court on July 24 marks an unprecedented escalation of tensions between the Conservative central government and the Scottish National Party (SNP) in Edinburgh. It is the first time a disagreement between Westminster and Holyrood has reached the Supreme Court.

At issue are powers due to be handed back to Britain from the European Union (EU), when the UK quits the bloc, over matters such as food labelling, agriculture, fishery management and public procurement. Authority over these lucrative sectors of the economy, although currently in the hands of the EU, legally resides with the Scottish parliament and the Cardiff-based Welsh Assembly, under the terms of the UK’s devolution settlement of 1999.

The British government of Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May wants the powers to be repatriated to London, leading to complaints of a “power grab.” In March this year, Edinburgh and Cardiff passed emergency continuity legislation to ensure that, post Brexit, control over the contested sectors lapsed to the devolved administrations rather than Westminster. The legislation gave Scottish and Welsh ministers authority to maintain regulatory regimes in line with the EU.

In the event of a “hard” Brexit, followed by a growing customs and trade divergence between Britain and the EU, the result of Scotland or Wales using these powers would be to create differing regulatory environments within the UK. This would effectively break up the UK internal market.

The British government referred both the Scottish and Welsh bills to the Supreme Court, in the hope that the legislation would be struck down as outside the competence of the devolved administrations. For the moment, all three governments agree that regulatory alignment within the UK should be retained.

At issue is the question of where the powers reside.

The Welsh government led by Labour’s Carwyn Jones accepted an offer from London that the repatriated powers could be transferred to London for a period of seven years. Any subsequent changes, however, would need the agreement of the Welsh Assembly. The Supreme Court action on the Welsh dispute was dropped.

Brexit tensions coming to a head

However, the Scottish government, led by the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon, rejected the same terms, tweeting “Scottish Parliamentary powers on vital matters could be restricted for up to seven years without our consent.”

The stand-off is only the latest expression of the escalating tensions in the aftermath of the UK vote to leave the EU. It risks becoming a conflict not only between England, Scotland and Wales, but between London and Brussels as Edinburgh and Cardiff seek to maintain their own trading relations with the EU.

If Scotland’s Continuity Bill is upheld by the Supreme Court, the powers transferred from Brussels will go to Edinburgh, thereby handing Scotland powers over the British internal market. If not, Westminster will be able to legislate for the whole of the UK without Scottish agreement, which will call the entire “consensus” basis of devolution into question.

The row coincides with the launch of a series of campaigns seeking a second referendum in Britain, either on the terms of any final Brexit deal, or on the decision to leave.

The Tory government is in the grip of a faction of the British ruling class intent on leaving the EU to pursue a low-tax, low-regulation, cut-throat investment-oriented economy at the expense of the working class. Other factions, including those around former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair and sections of all the major parties, no less committed to low taxes and attracting investment and likely numerically-dominant, see British interests as best met through membership of the EU.

In Scotland, all parties besides the Tories support the EU. In addition, 40 “civil society figures,” including academics, business figures and politicians recently signed a declaration “to work with and support people and organisations of all political views and of none to maintain our European Union membership.”

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, former British diplomat, former director of Rio Tinto and currently a director of the £581 million [$US 778 million] Scottish American Investment Trust warned, “I think we are very close to a constitutional crisis, I have no idea how it is going to play out, it just feels to me very serious.”

Nationalist divisions

While most of the Scottish ruling elite and its government back continued British EU membership, the SNP and its allies are deeply divided over how best to exploit the Brexit crisis to push for greater independence from Britain.

Tensions have been building since the 2016 Brexit vote. Scotland voted by 62 to 38 percent to remain in the EU, while across Britain 52 percent voted to leave.

The SNP pointed to the claim made by the victorious “No” camp during the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, that opposing independence would mean that Scotland remained in the EU. The Brexit vote, the nationalists claimed, turned this inside out, with Scotland facing being forced out of the EU despite having voted, in 2014, to maintain the union with England.

Brexit, therefore, gave a boost to nationalist aspirations for a second independence poll. Immediately after the Brexit result, Sturgeon announced that another such vote was indeed “on the table.” In 2017, just before May triggered Article 50, Sturgeon announced plans for a new referendum sometime in 2018 or 2019. This followed the British government’s rejection of the SNP’s proposals to ensure, on behalf of Scottish-based business, continued access to the European Single Market.

Ever since, the SNP have been rowing back on the timing of another independence vote, and the party and its allies are increasingly divided.

The SNP and the broader nationalist milieu have long based their perspective for Scottish independence on EU membership, but the EU has never reciprocated by encouraging Scottish separatism. After the Brexit vote, Sturgeon’s journeys around European capitals seeking sympathy met with little interest as EU states sought to avoid encouraging separatist movements across the continent. Last year, the EU looked the other way while the Spanish government brutally suppressed the Catalan government’s declaration of independence. Catalan ministers remain international exiles.

As a result, the SNP leadership aims to postpone another independence vote at least until after the terms of a Brexit deal are revealed. Essentially, the party leadership views the threat of a new poll as a bargaining chip with Westminster.

In addition, the economic case for independence is weaker even than in 2014. A recent report from the SNP’s Sustainable Growth Commission by Andrew Wilson outlined a perspective for post-independence Scotland based on deep spending cuts and a squeeze in public finance. The report noted that some £13.5 billion more was spent on public spending in Scotland than was raised in tax. Public spending, the report admits, is £1,437 higher per person in Scotland than across the UK thanks to subventions from Westminster under the Barnett formula.

To offset this, the Wilson report focused on “productivity, population and participation”—all of which should be increased to allow Scotland to emulate Denmark, Finland or New Zealand in the struggle for global investment and international sales.

The SNP is now acknowledging that, to be viable in today’s global market conditions, independence must be based on a sharp increase in the exploitation of the working class through lower wages and further social cuts. The report also noted that an independent Scottish government would have to be prepared to bail out its own banks at government expense, requiring yet more transfers from workers and public spending to a newly formed central bank.

John Kay, one of Sturgeon’s advisers, told the Financial Times that “the report belies the leftist image of Scottish politics...”

The SNP is a right-wing, tax-cutting party of austerity, which has only been able to masquerade as a left formation because of the political cover provided by the various pseudo-left groups that orbit around it.

The same report has therefore caused a crisis within those groups who have for years marketed Scottish separatism as the basis for a left-reformist agenda. The Scottish Socialist Party recently complained in an “Open Letter to the Yes Movement” that the report “has been written to reassure bankers and businessmen that little will change with independence; that we will keep the pound, keep the neo-liberal economic dogma that has failed our people, keep the austerity imposed upon us by corrupt and reckless banking practices, continue with the privatisation of our public services and industries.”

The SNP’s support is being challenged, particularly among young people and in the local authority areas it controls. Seeking to cash in on the left credentials of Jeremy Corbyn, Labour’s new leader in Scotland, Richard Leonard, has worked to rhetorically position the party somewhat to the left of the SNP.

Labour is seeking to take advantage of a broad, international, leftward shift in the working class, which it can in no sense satisfy. As in England, there have recently been a series of strikes and strike votes against low wages and poor pension provision.

Sensing that their window of opportunity is closing, a section of the nationalists, backed by the pseudo-left, are seeking to pressure the SNP into calling a new independence referendum as soon as possible.

The largest demonstration yet seen supporting Scottish independence took place May 5 in Glasgow, with estimates of 35,000 attending—around double that of a similar march last year.

Speaking at Glasgow Green, nationalist demagogue Tommy Sheridan insisted that its previous electoral successes meant the SNP had “a mandate” for a new referendum. He demanded the SNP’s conference later this month “announce that we don’t need a 12-month campaign, all we need is a short three-month campaign.” “Let’s go,” Sheridan continued, “for September 2018.”

Sheridan and the SSP speak for all the former lefts who view the prospect of independence as an opportunity for self-enrichment and advancement. Seeking a position for themselves in an expanded state apparatus directed—as the Wilson report makes clear—toward ensuring intensified exploitation, they speak for a wealthy middle class layer seeking a share of the spoils from the destruction of workers’ living standards.

Record of the Socialist Equality Party

These developments vindicate the position taken by the Socialist Equality Party during the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence.

Calling for a “No” vote in 2014, we wrote “All claims that ‘independence’ is a democratic demand, offering an alternative to cuts and austerity, are lies.

“The move for separation from the UK is being led by right-wing forces espousing nationalism, whether or not they attempt to dress this up in fake left language. The aim is to transform Scotland into a low tax, cheap labour platform for the benefit of the banks and transnational corporations.

“The victims of this will be workers on both sides of the border, who will see a deepening of the ongoing offensive against jobs, wages and conditions that has been waged by all the major parties in both Westminster and Holyrood.

“The unity and independence of the working class is the criterion against which every political party and every political initiative must be judged. This is essential under conditions in which the planet is being befouled with nationalist poison.”

Mexico responds to Trump’s trade war measures with tariffs on US goods

Rafael Azul

In what it described as a “measured and proportionate response” to steel and aluminum import tariffs announced a week ago by the US against Mexico, Canada and the European Union, the government of President Enrique Peña Nieto imposed tariffs on some 71 products that Mexico currently imports from the United States.

They include agricultural products, steel, manufactured products, and some consumer products, such as bourbon whiskey [previously exempt under the NAFTA free trade agreement], with a value of US$3 billion. Depending on the product, the tariffs will range from 7 to 25 percent. Mexico’s economy ministry said that it was suspending “preferential treatment” that those 71 commodities have had since 2003. The ministry indicated that the tariffs would remain in effect until the US government cancels tariffs on Mexican steel and aluminum.

The US has imposed a 25 percent tariff on imported steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum. For Mexico, the effect will be felt in steel mills in Lázaro Cárdenas, in the state of Michoacán, and Monclova, in the state of Coahuila.

Mexico is a net importer of US steel, and most of the Mexican tariffs (56 out of 71) are directed against manufactured steel from the United States, including sheets, rolled steel, steel pipes, laminated steel and steel bars.

In addition to those 71 products from the US, Mexico also imposed tariffs on about 280 steel products that come from nations with which Mexico has no trade agreement, the ministry declared, supposedly to prevent the movement into Mexico of US products through third countries.

In addition to steel imports, Mexico imposed new tariffs on a range of manufactured products, ranging from ships with inboard motors to electric fans. In addition to the tariff on bourbon, agricultural tariffs will be imposed on apples, some cheeses and a variety of pork products.

According to the Spanish daily El País, one of the criterions in selecting which products to impose tariffs on was to single out products that come from states like Texas and Iowa (pork) Tennessee (bourbon), Wisconsin (cheese) etc., considered to be Republican Party strongholds or crucial to Trump’s 2016 election. However, also included are products from California (grapes) and Washington state (apples).

NAFTA members Mexico and Canada are major trading partners with the US and the tariffs have raised concern, particularly in the US agricultural sector.

The quick response of the Mexican government to the US tariffs was in part driven by pressure from the powerful Mexican steel lobby. Mexico’s National Steel and Iron Industrial Chamber (CANACERO) warned ominously that “due to the breakdown in market rules and the distortions that it generates, the Mexican government must be prepared to respond adequately and immediately, to prevent the closure of plants and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.” The announcement of the retaliatory tariffs had an immediate effect on the value of the peso, which on Tuesday dropped 1.62 percent to 20.78 pesos to the dollar.

Coming on the back of the depreciation of the Mexican peso relative to the US dollar in April and May, due to a general flight of capital from Latin America to Wall Street, for Mexican workers, peasants, and the lower middle class, the retaliatory tariffs are another harsh blow, particularly since many foods are imported from the US. They are expected to fuel an inflationary trend, and lead to austerity measures and lower GDP growth.

A threat by the Trump administration to also impose tariffs on automobiles and automobile parts is a major concern for the Mexican government. Mexico will be one of the three most affected nations if automobile tariffs are imposed; the other two are Germany and Japan. Given Mexico’s lower Gross Domestic Product, the impact of auto tariffs, if they are imposed, will be comparatively greater for Mexico. The Mexican auto parts industry is linked to US assembly plants north of the border, as part of “cluster” system, in which goods produced more cheaply from across the world flow into assembly plants throughout the world.

Canada and the European Union followed Mexico on Wednesday and Thursday, with their own retaliatory tariffs.

In addition to the trade war measures, Mexico plans to bring the case up before the court at the World Trade Organization. Canada also indicated that it would go to the WTO.

The US and Mexican trade war measures are coming into effect in the context of stalled negotiations over NAFTA and of the brutal attacks on Mexican and Central American families crossing the border into the Unites States, including the separation of children from their parents, who are accused of “smuggling” their own children across the border.

On Tuesday, June 5, Larry Kudlow, the White House economic advisor, signaled that the Trump administration is proposing to move away from NAFTA and negotiate separate trade treaties with Canada and Mexico. Both Mexico and Canada reject such a proposal. The prospect of separate negotiations are further weakening the peso, and increasing its volatility. After recovering some of its value on Wednesday, the peso sank on Thursday almost to Tuesday’s level. Purchased at banks, the dollar sold for 20.75 pesos, while on the street the price of the dollar rose to 20.90 pesos. The dollars thus purchased fled to less risky financial assets; a splurge in demand for 10-year US treasury bonds forced a drop in the yield on that benchmark asset.

Mixed in with other demands, the US government is pressing for a treaty that is renewed every five years and that places limits on foreign components in Mexican manufactured products, affecting the auto industry, and that erases whatever trade surplus Mexico has with the US.

President Trump has repeatedly linked NAFTA with immigration and the Dreamer act (DACA), demanding that Mexico take measures against border crossers and insisting on expanding the border wall, while pursuing cruel, inhumane and illegal measures that violate the human rights of immigrant families and their children.