Archives: Articles

By Nick Dearden

18 Oct 2020 – For months, experts have repeatedly told us that no one is safe from coronavirus until we are all safe. If that is true, we should be going all out to ensure the world’s resources are used to bring treatments and vaccines to the whole world as soon as possible.

Several initiatives have attempted just that, but efforts have been stymied by the self-interest of big business, and by the leaders of rich countries who are terrified of undermining rules designed to keep their countries at the top of the pecking order.

A recent ground-breaking proposal by India and South Africa could change all that. Those governments have lodged a proposal at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to suspend international patent laws for an extended period, allowing countries to share technology and produce their own versions of patented medicines, treatments and protective equipment without being held to ransom by the corporations which own those patents. It is a game-changer, which challenges one of the most shameful aspects of modern trade rules.

Intellectual property – essentially patents and copyright – first became a trade issue in the mid-1990s when the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS, was negotiated at the WTO. TRIPS extended Western-style patent protections across the whole world, allowing the business to sit on patents for a minimum of 20 years, during which time they are able to dictate who can use their creations and at what price.

At a stroke, it meant that one of the main benefits of trade for developing countries – the ability to learn from and copy technologies developed in richer countries – was lost. Just as bad, corporations started worrying more about extending these patents, for instance making tiny changes to products that were of no benefit to the consumer, than they did developing new and useful products.

Nowhere did this have a more devastating impact than in the development of medicines. TRIPS was concluded as the HIV/AIDS crisis reached epidemic proportions in Southern Africa. While drugs had been developed that could lengthen life, reduce suffering and help prevent the transmission of HIV, most people in the world could not afford those medicines, and the new trade rules prevented countries from simply taking the technology and producing the drugs themselves. Millions died unnecessarily in one of the most obscene examples of corporate profits trumping the right to life.

Today, Big Pharma, as these corporations are collectively known, is a dysfunctional industry. While modern medicine risks collapsing because of antibiotic resistance, these companies spend more resources inflating their stock price than developing new medicines. What useful medicines are produced depend on massive injections of cash from the public sector, which normally comes without any conditions constraining the prices these megacorporations can charge for the final drugs produced.

Little wonder then that India and South Africa are sceptical about the ability of Big Pharma to help us deal with coronavirus. In fact, there have already been attempts to design a system which can help the world provide coronavirus medicines which would be available to all on a fair basis. Costa Rica proposed allowing countries and researchers to share their technologies, collaborate on research and produce patent-free medicines back in the spring.

Despite gaining broad support from around the world, Big Pharma howled in protest. Pfizer called it “nonsense”. British companies working on coronavirus treatments, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKlein, refused to participate, backed by the British government which tried to water down the proposals. When asked whether he would attend the launch of the Costa Rican scheme, the director of a prominent Big Pharma lobbying group, said he was “too busy”.

The scheme is up and running, but its voluntary nature means that its impact will be limited. And while there are global programmes to support “fair distribution” of medicines across the world, these schemes are all based on Big Pharma keeping its patents intact. The fact that rich countries are spending billions of dollars buying as many potential vaccines as possible suggests they do not have much faith in these schemes. They are, it seems, just for poor countries who have no better choice.

It is true that some companies have promised to produce medicines “without profit” during the pandemic, but even here we have every reason to be sceptical, with companies themselves left to define when the pandemic is “over” and near-total secrecy surrounding their pricing. What we do know is that one company, Gilead, which produces Donald Trump’s favourite drug remdesivir, tried to get special patent protection on the basis that their medicine had a limited potential market; an astonishing claim in a drug you hope will help in a pandemic.

Another company, Moderna, released suspiciously early test findings on its contender for a vaccine, in a move suspected of helping its executives cash in on rising share prices rather than get its medicine out to as many people as possible. And British company Astra-Zeneca made a deal with Oxford University, which has trumped Oxford’s initial promise to make their research available without patents. All of these drugs have received significant amounts of public money.

But perhaps this behaviour is not surprising. After all, what else can be expected of a system which hands no-strings public funds over to the some of the richest corporations in the world, and allows them to charge whatever the market will bear for life-saving medicines for at least 20 years? It is the model itself which is broken, and the Indian-South African proposal aims to change this.

There are already exemptions within TRIPS, hard-fought-for by campaigners in the 1990s, under which countries can override patents in certain circumstances. Indeed, a number of countries in recent months from Germany to Ecuador, Chile to Israel, have said they will use this option if forced to. But there are huge limitations to these exemptions, most notably that they leave individual countries to fight over every individual drug that they need to get hold of, against the full might of Big Pharma and their Western government backers. Far better, given how fundamentally broken the system is, to use this opportunity to do things differently.

If coronavirus has shown us anything, it is how reliant we are on each other, and on public services. Many of us in the West enjoy a health system which is protected from the whims of the market. If this applies to our hospitals, why should it not also apply to the medicines we are given when we are in hospital? And if it is good enough for the rich world, it is surely even more important in countries where so many die every year simply because Big Pharma does not find it sufficiently profitable to research the medicines that could save those lives, or to charge a low enough price that those in need could afford them. It is time for a transformation. The Indian-South African proposal must be supported as a vital first step.

________________________________________________

Nick Dearden is director of the UK campaigning organisation Global Justice Now.

26 October 2020

Source: www.transcend.org

By Caitlin Johnston

25 Oct 2020 – The US-centralized empire functions like a giant blob that absorbs nations and turns them into imperial client states. Once absorbed, it is rare for a country to escape and rejoin other genuinely sovereign nations.

The new president-elect of Bolivia, Luis Arce, has told the Spanish international news agency EFE that he intends to restore the nation’s relations with Cuba, Venezuela and Iran. This reverses the policies of the US-backed coup regime which immediately began closing embassies, kicking out doctors and severing relations with those nations after illegally seizing power last year.

Arce also spoke of warm relations with Russia and China.

“We are going to re-establish all relations,” he told EFE. “This government has acted very ideologically, depriving the Bolivian people of access to Cuban medicine, to Russian medicine, to advances in China. For a purely ideological issue, it has exposed the population in a way that is unnecessary and harmful.”

Arce expressed a willingness to “open the door to all countries, the only requirement is that they respect us and respect our sovereignty, nothing more. All countries, no matter the size, who want a relationship with Bolivia, the only requirement is that we respect each other as equals. If that is so, we have no problem.“

If you know anything about US imperialism and global politics, you will recognize that last bit as brazen heresy against imperial doctrine.

The unofficial doctrine of the empire-like cluster of international allies that is loosely centralized around the United States does not recognize the sovereignty of other nations, much less respect them as equals. This empire takes it as a given that it has every right to determine what every nation in the world does, who their leaders will be, where their resources will go, and what their military posture on the world stage will be. If a government refuses to accept the empire’s right to determine these things, it is targeted, sabotaged, attacked, and eventually replaced with a puppet regime.

The US-centralized empire functions like a giant blob that slowly works to absorb nations which have not yet been converted into imperial client states. It is rare that a nation is able to escape from that blob and rejoin the unabsorbed nations like China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba in their fight for self-sovereignty, and it is encouraging that it was able to do so.

We saw the dynamics of the imperial blob explained quite vividly last year by American political analyst John Mearsheimer at a debate hosted by the Australian think tank Center for Independent Studies. Mearsheimer told his audience that the US is going to do everything it can to halt China’s rise and prevent it from becoming the regional hegemon in the eastern hemisphere, and that Australia should align with the US in that battle or else it would face the wrath of Washington.

“The question that’s on the table is what should Australia’s foreign policy be in light of the rise of China,” Mearsheimer said. “I’ll tell you what I would suggest if I were an Australian.”

Mearsheimer said China is going to continue to grow economically and will convert that economic power into military power to dominate Asia “the way the US dominates the western hemisphere,” and explained why he think the US and its allies have every ability to prevent that from happening.

“Now the question is what does this all mean for Australia?” Mearsheimer said. “Well, you’re in a quandary for sure. Everybody knows what the quandary is. And by the way you’re not the only country in East Asia that’s in this quandary. You trade a lot with China, and that trade is very important for your prosperity, no question about that. Security-wise, you really want to go with us. It makes just a lot more sense, right? And you understand that security is more important than prosperity, because if you don’t survive, you’re not gonna prosper.

“Now some people say there’s an alternative: you can go with China,” said Mearsheimer. “Right, you have a choice here: you can go with China rather the United States. There’s two things I’ll say about that. Number one, if you go with China you want to understand you are our enemy. You are then deciding to become an enemy of the United States. Because again, we’re talking about an intense security competition.

“You’re either with us or against us,” he continued. “And if you’re trading extensively with China, and you’re friendly with China, you’re undermining the United States in this security competition. You’re feeding the beast, from our perspective. And that is not going to make us happy. And when we are not happy you do not want to underestimate how nasty we can be. Just ask Fidel Castro.”

Nervous laughter from the Australian think tank audience punctuated Mearsheimer’s more incendiary observations. The CIA is known to have made numerous attempts to assassinate Castro.

If you’ve ever wondered how the the US is so successful in getting other nations around the world to align with its interests, this is how. It’s not that the US is a good actor on the world stage or a kind friend to its allies, it’s that it will destroy you if you disobey it.

Australia is not aligned with the US to protect itself from China. Australia is aligned with the US to protect itself from the US. As a Twitter follower recently observed, the US doesn’t have allies, only hostages.

As the recently released Palace Letters illustrated, the CIA staged a coup to oust Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam because he was prioritizing the nation’s self-sovereignty. Journalist John Pilger wrote in 2014 after Whitlam’s death:

Australia briefly became an independent state during the Whitlam years, 1972-75. An American commentator wrote that no country had “reversed its posture in international affairs so totally without going through a domestic revolution.” Whitlam ended his nation’s colonial servility. He abolished royal patronage, moved Australia towards the Non-Aligned Movement, supported “zones of peace” and opposed nuclear weapons testing.

The primary difference between the coup in Australia and the one in Bolivia was that the Bolivians refused to roll over and take it while we shrugged and said ‘No worries mate.’ We had every option to become a real nation and insist on our own self-sovereignty, but we, unlike the Bolivians, were too thoroughly propagandized and placid. Some hostages escape, some don’t.

The US empire got rid of Whitlam, and then when we elected in 2007 a prime minister who was considered too friendly with China they did it again; in order to facilitate the Obama administration’s “pivot” against Beijing the pro-China Kevin Rudd was replaced by the compliant Julia Gillard. World Socialist Website reports:

Secret US diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks in December 2010 revealed that “protected sources” of the US embassy were pivotal figures in Gillard’s elevation. For months, key coup plotters, including senators Mark Arbib and David Feeney, and Australian Workers Union (AWU) chief Paul Howes, secretly provided the US embassy with regular updates on internal government discussions and divisions within the leadership…

Rudd had proposed an Asia-Pacific Community, attempting to mediate the escalating strategic rivalry between the US and China, and opposed the formation of a quadrilateral military alliance between the US, India, Japan and Australia, aimed against China.

Gillard, who had cultivated her pro-US credentials through Australia-US and Australia-Israel leadership forums, was literally selected by the US embassy as a reliable replacement to Rudd. In her first public appearance after knifing Rudd, she demonstrated her devotion to Washington by posing for a photo op with the US ambassador, flanked by US and Australian flags. She soon had a phone call with Obama, who had previously twice postponed a planned visit to Australia under Rudd.

The centrality of Australia to the US preparations for war against China became apparent in November 2011, when Obama announced his “pivot to Asia” in the Australian parliament, rather than the White House. During the visit, Gillard and Obama signed an agreement to station American Marines in Darwin and allow greater US access to other military bases, placing the Australian population on the front line of any conflict with China.

Gillard’s government also sanctioned the expansion of the major US spying and weapons-targeting base at Pine Gap, agreed to the US military’s increased use of Australian ports and airbases, and stepped up Australia’s role in the US-led top-level “Five Eyes” global surveillance network, which monitors the communications and online activities of millions of people worldwide.

Rudd’s removal marked a turning point. US imperialism, via the Obama administration, sent a blunt message: There was no longer any room for equivocation by the Australian ruling elite. Regardless of which party was in office, it had to line up unconditionally behind the US conflict with China, no matter what the consequences for the loss of its massive export markets in China.

This is what we’re seeing all around the world now: a slow motion third world war being waged by the US power alliance against the remaining nations which have resisted being absorbed into it. As the most powerful of the unabsorbed nations by far, China is the ultimate target of this war. If the empire succeeds in its ultimate goal of stopping China, it will have attained a de facto planetary government which no population will be able to oppose or dissent from.

I don’t know about you, but I never consented to a world where powerful nuclear-armed forces wave Armageddon weapons at each other while fighting for planetary domination and subverting less powerful nations if they don’t play along with their Cold War games. Detente and peace must be sought and obtained, and we must all work to live together on this planet in collaboration with each other and with our ecosystem.

This omnicidal, ecocidal way of living that the oligarchic empire has laid out for us does not suit our species, and it will drive us to extinction along with God knows how many other species if we do not find a way to end it. Rulers historically do not cede their power willingly, so we ordinary human beings as a collective are going to have to find a way to destroy their propaganda engine, force an end to imperialism, and build a healthy world.

________________________________________________

Caitlin Johnstone, an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia.

26 October 2020

Source: www.transcend.org

By teleSUR

The authorities reported that they have repaired more than 19.000 houses while supporting waste recycling projects that aim at securing an estimated 18.000 job positions.

22 Oct 2020 – Syrian authorities announced today that six million displaced people had returned home to different parts of the country.

The Minister of Municipal Administration and Environment, Hussein Makhlouf, said to the People´s Assembly that one million refugees had returned to Syria, and 5 million internally displaced people were back at their homes.

The official said that this achievement was possible after the rehabilitation of infrastructure and roads, collecting and deporting 4 million cubic meters of waste and debris from them.

Moreover, the authorities reported that they had repaired more than 19.000 houses while supporting waste recycling projects to secure 18.000 job positions.

As the country tries to overcome aggression and sanctions from the U.S. and the European Union, the government plans to create more homes and announces that 11 new artisanal zones were established in Tartous, Quneitra, Homs, and Hama provinces. Also, with China’s support is has imported transportation, including buses and 708 vehicles for the cleaning sector.

26 October 2020

Source: www.transcend.org

By Vanessa Beeley

24 Oct 2020 – The BBC is preparing an attack against journalists, former diplomats, academics and scientists who challenge the dominant pro-war narratives against Syria underpinned by the pseudo-humanitarian White Helmets.

The British public broadcaster has sent out requests for comments to those who have dared to expose the role the UK government and its intelligence agencies have played in the destabilization of Syria, which look more like neo-McCarthyist charge sheets. The producer of an upcoming Radio 4 documentary series had been in email and telephone conversation with the author of this article, as well as Peter Ford, former UK ambassador to Syria, and members of the Working Group on Syria, Media and Propaganda (WGSMP) since June 2020. The result of those conversations, during which the evidence emanating from serious scientific research and on-the-ground testimony was presented to the producer, was a familiar list of accusations of “conspiracy theorism” and suggestions of “incentivized” Russian or Syrian bias.

Fellow independent journalist Eva Bartlett has spent long periods of time inside Syria, reporting from many of the most high-risk areas during the Syrian Arab Army allied campaigns to liberate swathes of Syrian territory from the US coalition-proxy occupation. She had this to say about the email she received a few days ago:

“The questions emailed to me by the BBC evidence a predetermined intent to character assassination. This approach shows an utter lack of journalistic integrity on the part of the BBC.

The BBC’s hostile insinuations against me arrogantly infer that neither I nor the Syrians I interview think for ourselves, but are puppets of the Syrian and Russian governments. My journalism dates back to 2007 and is quite extensive, with 13 years of on the ground experience, from Palestine and Syria, to Venezuela and eastern Ukraine, and elsewhere.

My focuses have been on giving voice to Syrians disappeared by corporate media, highlighting the terrorism they endured by terrorist groups which the West dubs “rebels,” and highlighting war propaganda by outlets such as the BBC.”

It was clear from the BBC’s line of questioning that this was not a genuine investigation into the life and times of White Helmets founder, and former British military intelligence officer, James Le Mesurier. It is effectively a damage limitation exercise designed to discredit the evidence that points to the White Helmets being a propaganda construct with extremist connections funded by the US/UK coalition to vilify the Syrian government and allies, thus justifying military intervention by proxy and aggression against a sovereign nation. The aggression includes economic sanctions that have devastated the Syrian economy and caused widespread poverty and food insecurity among the Syrian people.

The upcoming BBC programme – ‘Mayday’ – appears to be an attempt to whitewash British intelligence operations inside Syria. Operations that were recently further exposed following the leak of alleged UK Foreign Office documents, reported by Grayzone, which detailed the extent to which the UK government provided media and PR support to the armed groups in Syria. Those groups effectively include Al Qaeda and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) affiliates such as Jaysh Al-Islam and Ahrar Al-Sham, who are responsible for the horrific bloodshed and devastation of infrastructure in the areas they invaded and occupied.

The UK and EU government-funded Mayday Rescue organisation was established by Le Mesurier to provide an intermediary management of the funds the UK government was providing to the White Helmets as they embedded themselves with armed groups in extremist-controlled areas throughout Syria, more recently exclusively in Idlib, the last remaining and “largest Al Qaeda haven since 9/11.” Le Mesurier died in November 2019 having fallen from the balcony of his Istanbul home which he shared with his third wife, Emma Winberg. Three days before his death, which was ruled a suicide, Le Mesurier had reportedly admitted to defrauding Mayday Rescue of funds provided by UK and European governments.

It is also worth a reminder that the Dutch government had withdrawn funding from Mayday Rescue in 2018 following an extensive investigation that had concluded a lack of assurances that funds were not being hijacked by the armed groups in Syria, including Al Qaeda.

The BBC pins its arguments on the view that the White Helmets are a “humanitarian” organisation – an Oscar-winning illusion that has been dismantled by some of the most acclaimed independent journalists and researchers of our time, including Cory Morningstar, Rick Sterling, Eva Bartlett, Stephen Kinzer, Robert Parry, John Pilger, Gareth Porter, Ray McGovern, Phillip Giraldi, Craig Murray and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, to name just a few.

The former UK ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, also received the BBC bill of indictment and he issued this statement in response:

“The BBC have systematically tried to suppress views on Syria which run counter to the standard one-sided narrative. This programme’s efforts to smear dissenters takes BBC conduct to a new low. By alleging conspiracy theorising where there is only evidence-based reporting and analysis, the BBC is showing its frustration at being unable to stifle truth-telling.

The only conspiracy here is whatever coordination has taken place between the BBC and British authorities responsible for failing to achieve regime change in Syria despite throwing many millions of taxpayer money at the effort. Why is the BBC not drawing attention to the biggest failure of British foreign policy since Suez, as judged by its self-proclaimed objective of removing Assad, rather than busying itself with trying to take down unsupported individual dissenters who have ranged against them the vast wealth and resources of the establishment?

The charge of biggest failure since Suez as judged by its own objective of regime change is stinging because palpably true, and will with luck get some play in the follow up. It’s an angle that has been largely lost in the welter of detail.”

On October 5, the US and UK envoys to the UN Security Council (UNSC) led the campaign to ban the former Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) director general, Jose Bustani, from briefing the UNSC meeting presided over by Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia. Nebenzia accused the US/UK-led truth-suppressors of bringing the UNSC into disrepute. One week later, the BBC, a de facto UK-state-media outlet, kicked off its attack on the individuals responsible for highlighting the corruption of the OPCW and the fraud that was the final report on the alleged Douma chemical attack in April 2018.

One member of the WGSMP, Paul McKeigue, has published his conversations with the producer. Regarding the Douma incident, McKeigue informs us that “a reader of this correspondence could reasonably conclude that [..]Raed Saleh (White Helmets leader) has something to hide, and further that [the BBC producer] is, for some reason, colluding with him by helping him to avoid having to respond” to questions regarding the whereabouts of the bodies of the alleged chemical weapon attack victims. Part of my response to the BBC also alludes to the apparent suppression of evidence:

“A BBC producer, Riam Dalati, has stated publicly that the Douma hospital scenes, the site of the alleged chemical weapon attack in Syria, 2018, were staged. As has been pointed out repeatedly to Riam Dalati and the BBC, if the hospital scenes at Douma were staged so too were the films of the deceased in the Douma apartment block. The BBC have never reported this information, nor has it passed the information obtained by its producer to either the OPCW FFM or the IIT. It is extraordinary and completely unjustifiable that the BBC should be withholding this vital information from a UN linked organisation.”

Dr. Piers Robinson, the co-founder of the WGSMP, accused the BBC of suppressing truth:

“The BBC is also attempting to smear academics researching alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria as ‘conspiracy theorists’, even though their work has been supported by the leading chemical and biological weapons expert the late Julian Perry Robinson and vindicated by whistleblowers and leaks from the OPCW itself. The BBC is not engaging in journalism but rather suppression of the truth.”

In conclusion, the BBC is not an honest broker. Our work as journalists and researchers is to mine for the truth. The BBC’s output, especially with regards to foreign affairs, is produced in lock-step with UK foreign policy objectives. In the context of the war against Syria, this has resulted in a pattern of omission and censorship that has underpinned UK FCO efforts to foment conflict within Syria and to overthrow the internationally recognised Syrian government.

The result has been an illegal war that has caused death and suffering for millions of Syrian people. Regarding the UK/US intelligence-incubated, Al Qaeda-linked, White Helmets, the BBC could be considered complicit in manufacturing consent for another “humanitarian war” through their lack of “rigorous journalism” and omission of the facts surrounding this UK state-client-propaganda-manufacturer. Just as the BBC defended the WMD “dodgy dossier” that decimated Iraq and led to the deaths of millions of Iraqis, we now see the BBC rallying around the chemical weapon “dodgy dossier” that has enabled the prolongation of the barbaric war against the Syrian people.

___________________________________________________

Editor’s note: RT has reached out to the BBC producer for comment on issues raised in Vanessa’s article. A BBC spokesperson gave this response:

“The BBC’s journalism is rigorous, independent and impartial, and that will be evident to anyone who listens to this new series.”

Vanessa Beeley is an independent journalist and photographer who has worked extensively in the Middle East – on the ground in Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Palestine, while also covering the conflict in Yemen since 2015.

26 October 2020

Source: www.transcend.org

By Junya Yimprasert

Note: From a pro-democracy stand-point, this article attempts to provide some basic background for people who might not know much about Thai politics and who may be confused or alarmed by the current wave of protest that is confronting the Thai government (junta) and also the Monarchy itself. The aim is thus to increase understanding around the world that, right now, the people’s struggle for democracy in Thailand needs the support and solidarity of the International Community and people everywhere.

Thailand in brief

With a population of around 67 million, which includes some 40 ethnic groups and languages, the success of the decades long struggle for fully representative democracy in the Kingdom of Thailand is of vital importance to not only the health and aspirations of the peoples of Thailand itself, but also for the future of the ASEAN.

During the USA-Indochina War of 1950 – 1975 more-or-less the whole of Thailand was used by the USA as a military facility. From 1947 onwards the US military presence in Thailand functioned to bolster the Monarchy and Royal Thai Army, enhancing the ability of both to operate in tandem to successfully block the democratic process, as clearly evidenced by the succession of no less than 12 monarcho-military coups. The current wave of protest across Thailand is attempting to say that the time has come to end this succession.

After the most recent military coup in 2014, the leader of the coup and Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Army, General Prayuth Chan-o-cha, appointed himself Prime Minister, and continues today (mid-October 2020) as a pathetic royalist dictator attempting to cling to power by refusing to countenance in any meaningful way the reasons why he is being confronted with massive protest.

In October 2016, after the passing of old King Bhumibol (Rama 9, 1946 – 2016), Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn was enthroned as Thailand’s new King, as Rama 10, the tenth king of the Chakri Dynasty. The Chakri Dynasty came into existence in 1782, when Rama 1 terminated the Taksin Dynasty by executing King Taksin and most of his relatives and their families.

238 years under the Chakri has meant that Thailand remains one of the very few countries in the world that has been unable to liberate itself from the brutality of feudal monarchism. Today Rama 10, King Maha Vajiralongkorn (68), Thailand’s Head of State, the richest monarch in the world, untouchable by law in Thailand, appears to have only one abiding interest: his own interest.

Alongside the fundamental, determined, violent rejection of the concept of equal rights, the survival of the Chakri Dynasty depends in part on ensuring that its diplomatic service is served exclusively by royalists that present, north, south, east and west, to Europe, the USA and China, a sweetly acquiescent impression of the good intentions of the good Kingdom.

Thai democracy in Brief

Stirrings to establish a constitution for Siam began some 120 years ago during the reign of Rama 5. The Palace was successful in suppressing this early attempt and 30 years were to pass before, at the hour of dawn on 24 June 1932, a lightning, bloodless coup d’état brought 150 years of absolute rule under Chakri monarchs to a sudden stop. The coup was led by a group of young scholars and military officers. Calling themselves Khana Ratsadon, the People’s Party, they did aim to open the road to democracy for Siam (Thailand), but the journey has been and remains painful.

Khana Ratsadon consisted of a rather elite group of civilians, government officials, aristocrats and military officers who had met and begun planning the coup as students in France in the 1920s. Pridi Phanomyong, a farmer’s son, led the political wing and Lieutenant-Colonel Phibunsongkhram the military wing. On that early morning in 1932, completely unknown to the people, within the space of a few hours, Siam was changed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.

The new Government of Siam was still dominated by the military but it did at least aim at some kind of democracy: the 1932 Constitution did state that the people of Siam (not yet Thailand) held sovereign power. Nonetheless the continuous, systematic refusal of the Palace, royalists and military elite to accept universal suffrage and the sovereign authority of an elected Parliament has meant that, still today, after 88 years, such a state has yet to be achieved.

Monarcho-militarism versus democracy

The first royalist coup against Thailand’s fledgling movement for democracy came in 1933. Despite being fed with money by Rama 7 it failed. The royalist elite made a second attempt in January 1939 against the government of Phibunsongkhram, now Prime Minister and also Field-Marshal. This attempted coup also failed and resulted, by order of Phibun, in the execution of 18 leaders, life imprisonment for several and long sentences for others

Prince Chainart, the uncle of King Ananda (and Prince Bhumibol), received a life sentence. The Palace placed PM Phibun under enormous pressure to release Chainart, but Phibun stuck to his guns. It was not until after the withdrawal of Japanese troops, when Field-Marshal Phibun was pushed from power, that Prince Chainart was pardoned, in September 1944. As the last remaining son of Rama 5, Prince Chainart returned to being the most influential person in Palace politics.

On 9 June 1946 King Ananda was found in bed with a bullet through his head. Prince Chainart stepped in as Regent on 16 June and took over the Chairmanship of the Supreme Council of State the following year. Prince Bhumibol, Ananda’s brother, having recently returned from Switzerland to permanent residence in the Palace, became King Bhumibol, Rama 9. Suspicion that he was somehow involved in his brother’s death still hangs in the air. His public coronation took place on 5 May 1950, a date that can be seen as marking the beginning of systematic efforts to re-establish the power of the monarchy.

70 years of oppression and suppression

The roots of Thailand’s political chaos, and of the widespread discontent and massive protests of today, are found in the last 70 years of extreme, royalist propaganda. For Thai children born after 1946 “Killing communists for nation, religion and King” was standard fare.

Below are just a few of the horrific happenings that punctuate the history of the Land of Smiles after Bhumibol became king.

• 25-28 April 1948. Hundreds of Royal Thai police and army in Narathivat Province surrounded the village of Dusongdor and murdered about 400 villagers.
• 28 Feb – 01 March 1949. By order of Field-Marshall Phibun, chief of the military junta, 5 members of the Pridi Alliance for Democracy were assassinated. After being arrested and handcuffed, four of them, all Members of Parliament, were riddled with bullets in the back of a van, and the fifth, the Chief of Police Intelligence, was shot dead in the street.
• 13 December By order of the Chief of the Royal Thai Police, the Leader of the Labour Party, Tieng Sirikhan, a former MP from Sakon Nakhon Province, was brutally murdered in Bangkok together with four friends. Their bodies were taken to be burnt in Kanchanaburi Province, 200 km from the scene of the crime.
• 1971-1973. During this period of ‘killing communists for nation and king’, in Pattalung Province alone around 3,000 villagers were brutally murdered by the Royal Thai Army. Some were burnt alive in drums of oil, some pushed into sacks to be dropped down the side of a mountain or pushed out of helicopters.
• 14-15 October 1973. Monarcho-military crackdown on students and working-class people protesting on the streets of Bangkok. 77 people were killed, most by military gunfire. 847 were wounded.
• 6 October 1976. Monarcho-military crackdown on student protest. According to official government records, 41 students were killed by a mixed-force of Royal Thai Army, Royal Thai Border Guard and para-military ‘Protect the Monarchy’ thugs. 30 bodies were identified, 10 were too damaged to identify. 26 male and 4 female bodies were returned to their families by the Police for cremation. Hundreds were injured. 3,154 students were arrested. Thousands of people went into hiding, most fleeing to the forest. In anger over the brutality of the oppression many did join the Communist Party of Thailand, and remained in hiding until granted immunity after the Communist Party was dissolved in 1980.
• 17 – 19 May 1992. Monarcho-military crackdown. This ‘Bloody May’ witnessed about 45 killed on the streets of Bangkok, about 38 by bullets from the Royal Thai Army. Reports indicate that about 70 people ‘disappeared’.
• April-May 2010. Monarcho-military crackdown under Prime Minister Abhisit (‘Democrat Party’), who declared a ‘Live firing zone’, in other words issued elite troops with license to kill Thai civilians. 99 people were killed on the streets of Bangkok, almost all by military snipers. About 2000 were wounded. 470 were arrested. When official records say ‘wounded’ or ‘died on the spot’ they forget to add ‘from a military bullet to the back of the head’.

From the few records that are available, the death-toll from political oppression and extrajudicial killings since 1946 adds-up to somewhere over 13,000, but this figure in no way speaks of the actual number of people that have died as a result of political oppression and military crackdowns.

Coups and Kings

From the beginning, all of the Chakri Ramas have refused to respect or recognise the democratic aspirations of the peoples of Thailand.

Up until the last, King Bhumibol (Rama 9) argued that the people are not ready for democracy. He presented himself as a king god-sent to care for the people, with, naturally, the mercifully god-sent assistance of the commanders of the Royal Thai Army, the US military and 12 military coups.

All of the governments that came from the 28 general elections held during Bhumibol’s reign were prevented by one means or another from completing even one 4-year term, all except one, that of Thaksin Shinnawatra from 2004 to 2008.

The Thaksin governments were brought to office and power through land-slide elections and twice brought down by monarcho-military coups, in 2006 and 2014.

The 2014 coup was conducted for one purpose alone: to ensure the transition from Rama 9 to Rama 10 be kept under the control and management of a military commander trusted by the Palace, in other words to ensure yet again that the critical concerns and interests of the people could be flattened-out and kept harmless.

Dictator Prayuth

The leader of the 2014 coup, General Prayuth Chan-o-cha, Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Army, disbanded all elements of the elected government, tore-up the Constitution and set-up a military junta calling itself the National Council of Peace and Order (NCPO) and presented the country with a National Legislative Assembly (NLA). Half of the 220 seats of this ‘legislative assembly’ were filled with people hand-picked by the NCP and half were military officers. The function of the NLA was to rubber-stamp the dictates of the NCPO.

After slipping out of uniform and appointing himself Prime Minister in August 2014 and by heading-up both his NCPO and NLA set-ups, Prayuth, honouring his many predecessors, slid from Royal Army Commander-in-Chief to Thailand’s Royal Dictator-in-Chief, and proceeded, as did all his predecessors, to drafting yet another Constitution (Thailand’s 20th since 1932), and to employing all possible ways and means to delay the demand of the furious majority for a general election, in order to give his junta as much time as possible to consolidate power over the electorate.

After a full year allocated to the official, national mourning for King Bhumibol, Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn was crowned in 2016. His very first move as Head of State was the issuance of orders to amend the junta’s 2017 Constitution even further in his favour: to increase his personal freedom, to greatly increase his personal military power and to massively increase his personal wealth. All of this passed, the public aghast, completely unopposed.

Nonetheless, with the world watching and public demand for a general election growing and EU sanctions causing Thailand humiliation if not pain, Prayuth could not delay a general election forever.

After several bluff start-ups for the purpose of generating further delay, the junta did eventually grant the population a General Election on 24 March 2019, but not without engaging all the tricks in the royalist playbook, all financed by the national budget, to ensure that the opposition could not win. The 2017 Constitution stipulated that it was to be the 250 members of the reconvened Senate, who were all junta-appointed, that voted in a new Prime Minister. Furthermore, the judges of the so-called Constitutional Court, which was a product of the 1997 People’s Constitution, were by now (after the coups of 2006 and 2014) all junta-appointed judges quite at ease with disqualifying and dissolving any opposition parties and parliamentary candidatures that they deemed unsuitable. In all ways the 2019 General Election was rigged to make it impossible for the opposition to win.

These royalist game-plays are well-understood and extremely wearisome for the majority of Thai people, because they know simultaneously that they have only two options: to submit or protest.

Protest began gaining momentum after the Constitutional Court had the temerity to dissolve the largest opposition party, the Future Forward Party, that had won 80 of the 220 seats of the NLA in the 2019 election.

King Maha Vajiralongkorn

Old King Bhumibol (1946 – 2019) was surely vaguely aware that his son Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn had an infamous reputation as a sex-addict with a mafia-like life-style, but he did not want to break with royal precedent. When Bhumibol passed away on 13 October 2016, Vajiralongkorn was named king. His 3-day public coronation was staged in May 2019 at a cost of around 32 million USD.

Thailand’s new king, now 68, abandoned and humiliated his first wife soon after they were married. In 1996 he banished his second wife and the four sons he had with her. In 2014 he placed his third wife under house arrest and imprisoned her parents, three brothers, a sister, her uncle and several other relatives. He married his fourth wife in 2019.

According to the 2014 Constitution, as amended by Vajiralongkorn himself, the Thai king’s status is now closer to that of an absolute monarch than to that of a constitutional monarch.

As noted above, before the people could blink, their new King had taken some major steps to strengthen his position, by increasing his direct personal command, by some tens of thousands, of the 80 000 strong Royal Guard, and by providing himself with direct personal access to the vast wealth of the Crown Property Bureau, to which his father had only limited access. As the wealthiest monarch in the world, with something in the region of 50 – 60 billion Euro at his disposal, he still demands a vast sum from Thai taxpayers, not less that one billion Euro, to finance his personal expenses, many palaces and the so-called ‘royal projects’.

The future of this king is already severely haunted by overwhelming evidence that, since 2016, nine democracy activists, who had sought refuge from the military junta outside Thailand, have been hunted-down and murdered by his agents – assassination squads.

In true medieval style, this King is also famous for casting anybody who displeases him into his own dungeons, to be tortured. The stories are many and bad. One place, the Thawee Watthana Prison in the grounds of the Thawee Watthana Palace in western Bangkok has a very dark reputation: those who don’t come out alive are reported as having died by suicide and so on.

At the present time Thailand’s Head of State has been spending by far the greater part of his time with his harem at the Grand Hotel Sonnenbichl in Bavaria, Germany, supported by 100 or so servants and body guards. There are women and servants in his entourage that exist solely as royal prisoners. It is said that even here those who displease the king are also abused and beaten, and made too afraid to approach the German police, terrified that their families in Thailand will face retribution.

In Thailand the King can do and does as he pleases with complete impunity. Nobody can bring charges against him, he lives completely above the law. Most Thais are to some extent aware that their new king is cruel and somehow criminal, but until now their thoughts and feelings have been silenced by the draconian laws of the military junta, in particular the laws of lès majesté and the so-called computer crime laws, which can cause anybody to find themselves in jail for many years for any indication or accusation of disrespect, true or false, towards His Majesty or his His Majesty’s relations, affairs, interests or projects.

Nonetheless, the fact that, as Covid-19 exasperates existing destitution everywhere, this King chooses to live a life of luxury in Germany, abusing women, wasting vast sums of taxpayer’s money and sending out agents to kill popular dissidents, has finally stirred-up open expression of disgust in Thailand itself.

Does this King of Thailand also think himself above and beyond the laws of Germany and the European Union? Does he imagine that he is not subject to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that his kingship is beyond the reach of the International Criminal Court? Apparently he does, but increasing numbers of people. including most of the youth of Thailand, are starting to find him guilty on all counts.

2020 Youth Uprising

It was early in 2020 when students first started appearing on the streets of Bangkok in large numbers – to protest the dissolution, by the judges of the Constitutional Court, of the Future Forward Party, the main opposition to the Prayuth junta.

The arrival of Covid-19 gave Prayuth a defensible but also convenient reason to declare a State of Emergency and stifle protest. Nonetheless, by this time the majority of Thai people had become deeply tired of their Dictator and what he said or didn’t say or did or didn’t do began to feel somewhat irrelvant. Youthful Thailand was coming to a common understanding, a consensus, that it was time to inform General Prayuth that his illegitimate regime was illegal and his modus operandi impossible to tolerate any longer.

On 18 July the youth of Thailand, from secondary schools to universities – from all across Thailand, rose up in protest against the military-enforced status-quo. The broad, red-hot dynamism of the demands of the students, demands that range all the way from removing militant disciplinary codes in schools to radical reform of the Monarchy itself, began to electrify the whole country.

WHERE is JUSTICE?

Thailand has arrived at a long-predicted, dangerous but inescapable juncture. In facing the potentially ruthless, implacable monarcho-military establishment, youthful Thailand needs, right now, the understanding, support and solidarity of the International Community.

How can the logical, common-sense, standard, decent, normal and natural aims and demands of this youth-led uprising against autocratic rule be supported?

For many years there has been a broad convergence of analysis and common opinion and a gathering of momentum around recognition that there is no way for Thai people, for the population at large, to move from the past to the future, to be able to engage with full hearts, minds and full power with local, regional and global matters, issues and crises, while a patronising, monarcho-military alliance hovers over them, assuming right to own or disown their every thought, hope, wish, desire, invention, movement and action.

King Vajiralongkorn, Head of State, is a well-known abuser of human rights, an abuser of the privileges afforded to him by birth, a pathological abuser of women, a vile executioner, an owner of some 10 000 slaves, some of them trafficked, and, for the youth of Thailand and of the world, the worst possible example of a human-being, let alone Head of State.

Since people in Thailand have zero resort to meaningful justice – or appeal, at the start of 2020 ACT4DEM joined forces with PixelHELPER in Germany to bring the crimes of King Vajiralongkorn directly to courts of justice in Europe.

General Prayuth is a puppet of the Chakri monarchy and powerless without it, thus our work at present is focused on bringing the attention of the Germany Bundestag, European Union, United Nations and all people around the world who love Thailand, to the extreme degrees of corruption and cruelty exhibited by King Vajiralongkorn.

We aim to ensure that King Vajiralongkorn will be forevermore prevented from beating, torturing and murdering any more people, as well as being prevented from throwing any more desperately needed, hard-earned public money down the drain of his own selfish desires.

Together we can end this reign of fear before it gets worse.

Together we will ensure that justice prevails.

Further reading in https://act4dem.net/

Voter’s Upraising (2009), https://act4dem.net/?p=661

Why I don’t Love the King (2010), https://act4dem.net/?p=653

Overcoming fear of Monarchy (2011) https://act4dem.net/?p=732

and

Understanding the fog shrouding Thai vision (2015) https://act4dem.net/?p=677

Junya Yimprasert is a labour and human rights activist and former director of the Thai Labour Campaign (TLC).

25 October 2020

Source: countercurrents.org

By Farooque Chowdhury

The Bolivia-victory says: We return. We, the people, return crossing ages, foiling frontiers, crushing conspiracies the Empire and its gang of imperialists hatch.

Following the latest Bolivia-election-victory Evo Morales, the guerrilla turned lead fighter in a bourgeois-electoral arena, has vowed: “We’re going to return to Bolivia; that’s not in debate.”

The former president of Bolivia announced: My great desire is to return to Bolivia and enter my region. It’s a matter of time.”

The vow, the announcement Evo has made, the electoral victory the people of Bolivia has achieved foiling rightist-imperialist murders and persecutions ring and resound the vow Spartacus made: We shall return, we shall return in millions. On an earlier occasion, after the victory, Evo said: “We have become millions.”

This is the path people tread trampling conspiracies, murders, armed violence, and confusion petty “progressives” seed among people. This is the march mass line produces. Thus is the march a reliance on people, instead of conspiratorial work and hobnobbing with the rightist-imperialist clique, a group of petty “progressives” is practicing in countries, advances through.

Evo, exiled since the rightists with backing from the Empire and the military, an armed wing of the old state machine, toppled him and seized power, made the announcement of returning to Bolivia after his socialist ally Luis Arce thumped a decisive victory in the just concluded presidential election in Bolivia. Evo was speaking at a press conference in Buenos Aires on October 19. In the Congress, the MAS’ victory is also sound.

Luis Arce, the Movement for Socialism (MAS) candidate, led the victory. It’s a victory against the Empire, as the Empire’s black footprints were visible from the day one of the rightist coup organized against Evo. It’s a victory of the people of Bolivia, and of all the peoples in countries standing against the Empire – the chieftain of the imperialist gang. It’s a victory against the OAS bosses, persons in the payroll of the Empire, as those persons invalidated Evo’s electoral victory. They, the bourgeois gentlemen, and the “democracy”-gentlemen from Europe, nullified the Bolivian people’s democratic verdict – Evo’s electoral victory – months ago. These “democracy”-hawkers from Europe teach “democracy” in other countries also; and they gather disciples!

The imperialist gentlemen’ dirty and nasty act – nullifying Evo’s electoral win – is a tombstone of imperialist lie and propaganda-power, a historical heinous act by the imperialist-bourgeois power. It was another example of their power demolishing people’s democratic practice. Even, after this anti-democratic act by the Empire, groups of pseudo “progressives” in some countries hobnob, enter into alliance with these gentlemen, plead with these gentlemen for attaining “democracy”. Bolivia, thus, stands as a historic lesson for all fighting imperialism, fighting exploitative system.

It’s a lesson that imperialist intrigues, interferences, proxies and contras, money- , murder- and propaganda-power and imperialism can be pushed aside, can be defeated. It’s lesson that painstaking political and organizational work among the masses is the path to victory. It’s a lesson that adventurous slogan mongering is not the path. It’s a lesson that Mao’s teaching – imperialism is a paper tiger – shouldn’t be forgotten.

This is victory of people power. It’s so powerful that the Jeanine Áñez, the president of the coup-government run by military officers, and their dear friend Mesa, the contesting candidate in the election, had to accept the defeat, had to express their “belief in democracy”.

This victory has made Alberto Fernandez and Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, presidents of Argentina and Mexico respectively, happy. They played very crucial role in saving Evo from the murderous military officers of Bolivia after the henchmen of imperialism staged the coup to oust Evo. Today, after this electoral victory, Evo’s plane-path from Bolivia to safety may sound a gossip. But that plane journey was charged with high tension and diplomatic efforts by governments friendly to Evo. And, Cuba has gained another friend. Cuba’s President has written: “Cuba shares joy for the triumph of Luis Arce. The Bolivarian ideal is reborn. Our Indigenous Chief of the South @evoespueblo Jallalla Bolivia!”

This victory strengthens struggle of the anti-imperialist people in Latin America and the Caribbean. It signifies: Struggles don’t go in vain, imperialism doesn’t control the time, imperialism doesn’t determine everything, all outcomes.

Now, the path in front is crucial. Conspiracies are there as there’s the old state machine. Bolivian comrades will chalk out the path to higher victory – recreating the Bolivian Miracle, taming and dismantling the military bosses’ clique, achieving political unity. These are a few of the challenges. Evo, during his tenure, achieved many gains. The rightists, since staging the coup, bloodied the society to deprive the people of those gains. As hands of clock don’t sleep, so does imperialism with its conspiracies, money and butchers. It’s – imperialism – a challenge to the Bolivian people.

Luis Arce has already said: “We will govern for all, we will redirect the change without hate. We will restore unity in our country, and we will recover the economy, step by step.”

Arce has also said about the first measure he will take: Give anti-hunger bonds to the poor. The beneficiaries will be Bolivians residing in the country and are over 18 years old by September 16, 2020, groups of women, visually impaired people.

The economic model the new government plans to follow is to strengthen internal economic demand. Arce said: “This is a central issue. For our model, it is important to strengthen internal demand through bonds and transfers. At the same time, we are going to start rebuilding production”.

The US-backed coup-government has hardly hit the part of production since usurping power. That murderous government fatally hit organizations the Bolivian people built up as part of their struggle. These organizations are to be strengthened. The Plurinational Revolution in Bolivia will move forward with compañero Evo Morales. The moves will be easier with a strong mandate and the experience gathered since the Empire-backed coup.

The most important lesson of this electoral victory is political – in the areas related to imperialism, the exploiting classes, the classes fighting imperialism and exploiters, organizations of people, political education. The incidents in some Latin American countries that were identified by some scholars as the White Tide sweeping Cuba-allies seem ebbing.

In Bolivia, the counter-revolutionary campaign is so short-lived that anyone concerned with people’s politics will analyze the entire episode – class equation, people’s organization and power, power of the reactionary forces, imperialism’s limit, plays within economy and its reaction in politics. However, the question of organization of people will never be considered as less significant. Without organization, the Bolivian people wouldn’t have achieved today’s victory. And, organizations don’t crop up overnight, don’t turn functional without long, repetitive, persistent and painstaking work, and without making those organizations superb than the organizations imperialism builds up with its proxies. Among other lessons, the organizational question is one of the most important; and organizations don’t grow with slogan mongering.

Farooque Chowdhury writes from Dhaka, Bangladesh.

20 October 2020

Source: countercurrents.org

Co-Written by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies

Toward the end of Joe Biden’s October 15 town hall session, a Trump supporter asked Biden the only foreign policy question of the night. “So peace is breaking out all over the world,” the questioner claimed. “Our troops are coming home. Serbia is talking to Kosovo. And the Arabs and Israelis are talking peace, which I believe is a modern-day miracle, what’s going on. Does President Trump’s foreign policy deserve some credit?”

This question encapsulated all the smoke and mirrors that Trump has used to confuse the public and obscure his broken promises to end America’s wars, bring our troops home and build a more peaceful world. This was a fantastic opportunity for Biden to clarify the reality of Trump’s abysmal record and explain what he would do instead. But he didn’t. Instead he endorsed some of the most deceptive elements of Trump’s propaganda, dropped some clangers of his own and, in a classic Freudian slip, laid bare his own enduring commitment to American imperialism.

In response to the questioner’s designation of Israel’s deal with the UAE and Bahrain as a “modern-day miracle,” Biden simply rolled over and said, “I complement the president on the deal with Israel.” What he should have said was something like this:

“The UAE and Bahrain are ruled by dictators with absolute, despotic power who represent neither their own people nor the Arab world, let alone the people of Palestine—who gained nothing from these deals. Since these countries were not at war with Israel to begin with, these accords have nothing to do with peace. They are more about flooding the Middle East with even more U.S. weapons and forming new military alliances against Iran. Yes, we need peace deals between Israel and its Arab neighbors, but they must be deals that truly bring peace, end Israel’s illegal military occupations and advance the equal rights of Palestinians and Israelis.”

Biden didn’t respond to the mention of the White House meeting between Serbia and Kosovo, but he could have explained that it had to be postponed when President Hashim Thaci of Kosovo was indicted for war crimes by an international court at The Hague. Thaci is charged with organizing the killing of hundreds of Serbian prisoners of war to sell their internal organs on the international transplant market under cover of NATO bombing in 1999. When the indictment was unveiled in June 2020, Thaci was literally in his plane on the way to meet Serbian leaders at the White House, and had to make a U-turn over the Atlantic to return to Kosovo.

Twenty-one years after NATO dropped 23,000 bombs on Serbia and illegally annexed Kosovo, neither Serbia nor nearly half the countries in the world have recognized Kosovo’s independence from Serbia. Biden could have pointed to this as a case study in why the U.S. must stop waging regime change wars, organizing coups in other countries, and installing CIA-backed gangsters and war criminals like Thaci to rule them.

As for the critically important statement by the town hall questioner that “Our troops are coming home,” Biden claimed that there are more troops in Afghanistan now than when he and Obama left office. That appears to be incorrect, since there were 11,000 troops there in December 2016 and 8,600 U.S. troops as of September 22nd, despite the lack of confirmation from the Pentagon on further reductions that Trump had promised.

However, Biden could have simply compared the number of troops brought home by Obama and Trump, which would have been an impressive comparison. Obama reduced U.S. troop levels abroad from 483,670 in December 2008, just before he took office, to 275,850 by December 2016. If the latest figures from the Trump administration are correct, there are still over 238,000 U.S. military personnel overseas.

So Obama reduced the U.S.’s overseas military presence by 43%, while Trump has reduced it by no more than another 14%. With Trump claiming he is “bringing our troops home” in every stump speech, why on Earth is Biden not trumpeting the fact that he and Obama brought home five times more troops than Trump has? Why is Biden running from that record? Is he planning to reverse that trend if elected? Millions of American voters would like to know.

A disappointing aspect of Biden’s response was his habitual readiness to take the low road, smearing China’s President Xi Jinping, criticizing Trump for even trying to make peace with North Korea, and repeating an unsubstantiated story about Russia paying “bounties” to the Taliban for killing U.S. troops. A better response from Biden would have been to fault Trump for not following through on the peace initiative with North Korea and for stirring up new Cold Wars with Russia and China, when the American people want their leaders to focus on existing threats like the pandemic, our devastated economy and the climate crisis.

But perhaps the most revealing moment of the evening was Biden’s Freudian slip about the imperial character of America’s relations with its allies and the rest of the world:

“You know, we’ve always ruled – (corrects himself) we’ve been most effective as a world leader, in my humble opinion – not just by the exercise of our power – we’re the most powerful nation in the world – but the power of our example. That’s what’s led the rest of the world to follow us, on almost anything.”

The U.S. did indeed rule an empire in the twentieth century, albeit a neocolonial empire in an anti-colonial and post-colonial world that had to be sustained by a whole web of myths and lies. But now we are standing at a crossroads in American and world history. America’s history of war, militarism and international coercion has reached its final stage in the terminal decline of an increasingly corrupt and decadent American empire. Yet most of our leaders are still hell-bent on preserving America’s imperial power at any cost: endless wars, climate catastrophe, mass extinctions, and the terrifying risk of a final, apocalyptic mass-casualty war – most likely a nuclear war.

But there is another path leading away from this crossroads, one that Joe Biden should embrace, which involves redirecting our country’s resources and energies away from unsustainable imperial power through a peaceful transition to a sustainable, prosperous post-imperial future.

It would have been inspiring to hear Biden say that his goals would be to put an end to U.S. efforts at regime change; to significantly reduce the threat of nuclear war and join the UN Treaty on the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons; to free up hundreds of billions of dollars per year for domestic needs by right-sizing the Pentagon budget; and to put peaceful diplomacy front and center.

That would have been a paradigm-changing answer that would have motivated millions of Americans across the political spectrum—from leftists to anti-imperialist Republicans and libertarians—who long to live in a peaceful, just and sustainable world.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the US-Saudi Connection and Inside Iran: the Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK, and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

20 October 2020

Source: countercurrents.org

By Afro-Middle East

Zimbabwe is set to become the latest African country to embrace Israel as it seeks to get off the US sanctions list. Zimbabwe’s president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, vowed to get the embattled country out of the economic turmoil it had faced under the former president, Robert Mugabe, since the late 2000s, and ending US sanctions on the country would be a good start.

In August, Mnangagwa appointed Israeli citizen Ronny Levi Musan as Zimbabwe’s honorary consul in Israel. This signalled strengthened relations between the two countries, and a move away from longstanding support expressed for Palestinians by the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF). Musan is alleged to have links with the controversial Nikuv International Projects Company that was accused of engineering Robert Mugabe’s win in the 2013 Zimbabwean elections. He is also the CEO of the Ashelroi Group, which describes itself as aiming to connect companies, organisations, diplomats, leaders and churches from all over the world to Israel.

Mnangagwa hopes to enlist Israel’s military intelligence to train Zimbabwe’s security forces and to establish a defence academy in Harare, which will be run by Israelis.

Zimbabwe’s relations with Israel began in the early 1990s under Mugabe, who deployed Israeli riot control equipment to suppress political opposition, especially before the 2008 elections when there was a heavy clampdown on the opposition, particularly supporters of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). The former president was also instrumental in Nikuv obtaining a stake in Zimbabwe’sdiamond mines in Mutare through a contract that has since been characterised by widespread corruption. After Mnangagwa took power from Mugabe in a military takeover in November 2017, the relationship with Israel has continued, and, more recently, seems set to improve. Mnangagwa has been on a drive to attract investment into the embattled Zimbabwean economy, and to find a way to re-engage western countries to lobby for the lifting of sanctions against the country; Israel seems to be the gateway.

In October 2019, Mnangagwa met then-Israeli foreign minister, Israel Katz, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Earlier, in April 2018, Mnangagwa accepted the credentials of Gershon Kedar as the non-resident ambassador to Zimbabwe, but based in Israel. Kedar brought representatives of a number of Israeli companies to Zimbabwe, including Michael Biniashvili, who is associated with former Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) general Gal Hirsch, a controversial businessperson who had been accused of bribery and money laundering while heading the Defensive Shield Holdings Company in which Biniashvili is a partner. Defensive Shield Holdings was accused of tax evasion in Israel and of bribingthe Georgian defence minister, Davit Kezerashvili, to secure military training contracts in 2007 and 2008. Another unsavoury businessperson that Kedar has pushed into Zimbabwe is Yaron Yamin, who owns 262 claims on sixty-two gold mines in the southern African country.

These initiatives, with Mnangagwa’s blessing, signal the president’s desperate attempts to appease the West, notably the USA, Israel’s biggest ally. Musan has set plans into motion for Mnangagwa’s official visit to Israel. His activities in Zimbabwe include collaboration with Pentecostal churches to push for Christian support for Israel. Zimbabwe’s honorary consul is also pushing for Israeli businesses to invest in Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector, and he recently announced the intention to open an Israeli academy of agriculture in Zimbabwe.

On the diplomatic front, Israel hopes that Mnangagwa will follow the example of his Malawian counterpart, Lazarus Chakwera, who announced plans to open an embassy in Jerusalem, thus legitimising Israel’s claim of Jerusalem as its capital city, a claim not recognised under international law. Chakwera, an Evangelical Christian who staunchly supports Israel, is on a drive to promote Israel on the continent. His visit to Harare last month likely included discussions with Mnangagwa about relations with Israel and the USA.

Donald Trump’s White House is increasingly doing Israel’s bidding on the African continent, and is pushing for African states to normalise relations with Israel as a means of unlocking US aid and investment. Sudan, for example, is being lobbied to recognise Israel in exchange for being removed from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism. The USA has also lobbied Kenya, which already has strong relations with Israel – including in security and intelligence, to publicly support Israel and push for Israel to get observer status in the African Union (AU). Others countries, such as Chad, have also used relations with Israel as a means of receiving western arms, which are being used to suppress domestic dissent.

Like many other African and Arab states, Zimbabwe has long had secret relations with Israel; these are now coming to light through Mnangagwa’s rigorous attempts to attract investment into the Zimbabwean economy, despite ZANU-PF’s supposed support for the Palestinians.

17 October, 2020

Source: www.amec.org.za

By Dr. Alaa Tartir

Alliances have been shifting since Israel started signing a number of so-called peace accords with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain this summer. Hailed as beacons of peace by the US, who brokered these meetings, the Abraham Accords bypass an important actor in the equation of peace in the Middle East: Palestine. In order to understand the implications of these alliances on Palestine, as well as the geopolitical motivations behind them, we asked Palestinian researcher, Dr. Alaa Tartir, three questions.

Under the auspices of the US, Israel, Bahrain and the UAE signed the Abraham accords on September 15, agreeing to normalize relations. What does this normalization mean in the context of countries who are not at war with each other?

The so-called Abraham Accords are neither peace agreements nor historic breakthroughs, as is hailed by many observers. They are rather a prime example of the distortion of the very meaning of peace. At best, on one hand, they are a set of economic and diplomatic arrangements between a number of regional actors in response to a mutual interest. On the other hand, they are an expression of the formation of an alliance to face what is perceived as a common threat.

Hence, they are narrow and self-serving arrangements designed to reap benefits from a mutual interest and to face a perceived common threat. They are formulated through a top-down, elitist approach that is meant to serve the ruling class and the “leaders-in-trouble” in the concerned countries. The emergence of these Accords was neither due to the aspirations of the people (who are the real guarantors of any lasting peace), nor in response to a bottom-up incremental approach that aims to create a positive peace. Therefore, it would be absolutely delusional, misleading, dangerous, and irresponsible to think about the so-called Abraham Accords as a form of meaningful “peace” or even a formula for a genuine stability or security.

So, within this contextual understanding, normalization of relations between Israel and other Arab countries such as Bahrain and the UAE, operationally means “doing joint business without being shy or embarrassed”. Politically, it means transforming the “under-the-table” diplomacy into “over-the-table diplomacy”. Economically, it implies capitalizing on the existing security arrangements and intelligence cooperation, to ensure the prosperity of security -driven economic deals (and their industrial complexes) between the signatories. Socially, especially in the post-Covid-19 era, we will witness some social media influencers, celebrities, and possibly religious actors enjoying the trivial trappings of “peace-building”, for the sake of impacting public perceptions, pleasing the ruling elites, and financially benefiting from this emerging “peace industry”. These multi-dimensional consequences are some selected reflections of the short-sighted strategy that we could see in the near future. However, these manifestations are largely dependent on the continuation of the current administrations and polity in the ruling offices. A test to the strength or fragility of these “normalization deals” will occur the day after Trump and Netanyahu leave their political offices.

Additionally, it is crucial to remember that these “normalization deals” violated the “Arab consensus” around the Palestinian cause, and effectively declared the end of the much-totted Saudi-led Arab Peace Initiative (API) as we know it (a future modified version of the API remains a strong possibility). Therefore, they further fragmented the “Arab bloc”, which has always been an Israeli-American objective that is now potentially fulfilled. Consequently, these “normalization deals” offer the Palestinian political leadership a reality check concerning whom they can depend on.

The failure of the Arab League to confront Bahrain and the UAE for their violation of the “Arab consensus”, and its failure in performing its basic political mission, testified to the Palestinian leadership that if they don’t ensure dignity, independence, and self-determination in their political actions, no one will.

Since the agreement, it seems that Israel is putting aside its plans to annex the West Bank. What are the actual implications of these alliances for Israel-Palestine?

It is a myth to think that the so-called Abraham Accords stopped, or waseven linked to, the Israeli annexation plan of Palestinian West Bank territories. The Israeli Prime Minister and the US Ambassador to Israel made it very clear that Israel’s annexation plan is still on the table. On September 14, The Israeli government approved the construction of a thousand new units in settlements and colonies, that are illegal according to international law. The Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories has been an on-going process since Israel was established in 1948, and therefore this annexation dimension should not be treated as “breaking news”; it is what a settler colonial project is all about as it is embedded in its DNA. Thefact that we are even discussing it testifies to our collective failure at the international level to tackle the root causes of the Palestinian-Israeli “conflict”. If anything, the Israeli annexation plan, as it is currently unfolding, is directly linked to intra-Israeli politics and dynamics, and a stark violation of international law and even a violation of the obsolete Oslo Accords of 1993.

The US-backed Israel-Bahrain-UAE alliance offers the Israeli leadership, and its settlers in the occupied West Bank, an additional source of power and strength. In turn, that translates into more coercive physical and non-physical forms of violence. It is no surprise that over the past two months, the Israeli violence and settler terrorism have increased vis-à-vis the Palestinian people. These immediate implications of the Israeli-Bahraini-Emirati alliance are also accompanied with longer term effects, depending on how the different actors will be instrumentalizing them at the local, regional, and international levels, and also if they will lead to new additional “normalization deals”. The implicit and explicit roles of Saudi Arabia are the most critical in this regard. But meanwhile, Israel is equipped with an additional card, thanks to the notion of Arab weakness and “sell-out”. It will not spare in abusing that card, by establishing new facts on the ground that will only solidify the one-state reality: the state, system, and structures of apartheid.
Palestine was not part of the deal, and Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki announced the decision to quit the presidency of the Council of the Arab League as a sign of protest. What are the prospects of the Palestinian people and Palestinian leadership under these regional shifts?

The unfolding regional shifts and transformations can be seen as a double-edged sword, as far as the Palestinians are concerned. They can make the grim future prospects even grimmer, but they can also offer the Palestinian leadership another opportunity to shift gears and engage in a seriouss process of reforming the Palestinian national project.

Reacting to the US-Israeli-Bahraini-Emirati alliance by convening a leadership meeting to read and narrate empty slogans and rhetoric, or by announcing a nominal unity between Fatah and Hamas, or even calling (once again) for democratic elections, are not the panacea for this grand challenge and existential threat. These approaches are well-trodden and have failed multiple times before, and it is time to move beyond the tactically dysfunctional and short-sighted strategies, and indeed move beyond the existing obsolete political framework that the current Palestinian political leadership is fixated to. More meetings, declarations, committees and promises to unite are not what the Palestinian people are waiting for, nor are they satisfied with the old tactics, approaches, and failed strategies. Clear, operational, and tangible action plans to sufficiently address the question, “what to do?” are what the Palestinian people are waiting for and working hard towards achieving. Certainly, there are multiple constraints and obstacles along the way. But who said the road to achieving freedom, justice, equality, self-determination, and lasting peace is a smooth ride?

Dr. Alaa Tartir is a Researcher and Academic Coordinator at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID) in Geneva.

14 October 2020

Source: www.institutmontaigne.org

By Muin Bseiso

(Translated by May Jayyusi and Naomi Shihab Nye)

Brother! If they should sharpen the sword on my neck,
I would not kneel, even if their whips lashed
my bloodied mouth
If dawn is so close to coming
I shall not retreat.
I will rise from the land that feeds our furious storm!

Brother! If the executioner should drag me to the slaughterhouse
before your eyes to make you kneel,
so you might beg him to relent,
I’d call again, Brother! Raise your proud head
and watch as they murder me!
Witness my executioner, sword dripping with my blood!
What shall expose the murderer, but our innocent bleeding?

At night their guns kidnapped him from his trench.
The hero was flung into the cells’ darkness
where, like a banner flutter above chains, he stayed.
The chains became flaming torches,
burning the ashes which coat our shining future.
Now the hero lives, his footsteps ringing triumphantly
within the closed walls of every prison.

Mu’in Bseiso is one of Palestine’s most renowned poets. Bseiso received his basic education in the Gaza Strip, and later his university degree in Egypt.

15 October 2020

Source: www.palestinechronicle.com