Archives: Articles

By Dr Andrew Glikson

As fires rage across tens of thousands square km the Amazon forest, dubbed the Planet’s lungs, producing some 20 percent of the oxygen in the atmosphere, with some 72,843 fires in Brazil this year, where fires on such a scale are uncommon, as well as through Siberia, Alaska, Greenland, southern Europe and elsewhere,they herald a world where increasing temperatures and droughts overwhelm original habitats, flora and fauna (Figure 1).

As the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets progressively melt, at more than 6 times faster than during the Seventies, the tropics expand and arid deserts encroach into temperate Mediterranean-type climate zones at a rate of 56 – 111 kmper decade, the Earth’s fertile regions are progressively replaced by environments less suitable for farming.

According to reports “climate change itself is making dry seasons longer and forests more flammable. Increased temperatures are also resulting in more frequent tropical forest fires in non-drought years. And climate change may also be driving the increasing frequency and intensity of climate anomalies, such as El Niño events that affect fire season intensity across Amazonia.”

Figure 1 (A) Burning Amazon rainforest; (B) A warm smoke plume emanating from the Amazon fires; (C) The spate of Siberian wildfires from July 2019, reaching 6.4 million acres.

The pace of global warming is astounding climate scientists. Within the last 70 years or so major shifts in climate zones and an accelerating spate of extreme weather events—cyclones, floods, droughts, heat waves and fires (Figure 2)— is increasingly ravaging large tracts of Earth.

Figure 2.Extreme weather events around the world 1980-2018, including earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts.Munich Re-insurance.

However, despite its foundation in the basic laws of physics (the black body radiation laws of Planck, Kirchhoff’ and Stefan Boltzmann), as well as empirical observations around the world by major climate research bodies (NOAA, NASA, NSIDC, IPCC, World Meteorological Organization, Hadley-Met, Tindale, Potsdam, BOM, CSIRO and others), the anthropogenic origin, scale and pace of climate change remain underestimated and the subject to extensively propagated denial and untruths. Extreme climate change remains counter intuitive to many, let alone where potential mitigation could affect vested economic interests.

Climate scientists find themselves in a quandary similar to medical doctors,committed to help the ill and facing situations where they need to communicate a grave diagnosis. How do they tell people that the current spate of cyclones, devastating islands from the Caribbean to the Philippine, or floods devastating coastal regions and river valleys from Mozambique to Kerala, Pakistan and Townsville, can only intensify in a rapidly warming world?How do scientists tell the people that children are growing into a world where survival under a mean temperatures higher than +2 degrees Celsius (above pre-industrial temperatures) may be painful, and in some parts of the world impossible, let aloneunder +4 degrees Celsius projected by the IPCC?

The Cassandra syndrome is alive and well. Throughout history messengers of bad news have been rebuked or worse, nowadays facing reluctance on the part of the mainstream media to publish the dire climate change projections. Given the daunting scenarios climate scientists are looking at, many find it difficult to talk about the issue, even among friends and family.

As atmospheric levels of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide have reached a combined level of near 500 parts per million, intersecting the melting threshold of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets and heralding a fundamental shift in state of the terrestrial climate, fires consume large parts of the land.

It would appear parliaments preoccupied as they are with economics, legal issues and international conflicts, hardly regard the future of nature and civilization as a priority.

Andrew Glikson, Earth and climate scientist

27 August 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

By Kamalakar Duvvuru

On 26th August 2019 The Consulate General of Israel in Mumbai, along with one Indo-Israel Friendship Association, is organising a public discussion on “Leaders’ Idea of Nations in the Context of Zionism and Hindutva” at the Convocation Hall of University of Mumbai. The poster of the event displays images of Theodor Herzl and V.D. Savarkar. This is only an expression of the ongoing relationship between Zionists and Hindutvawadis.

I. Zionism

There is a misconception that “Zionist” is a synonym for Jew. One can not be a Zionist without being a Jew, and one can not be a Jew without being a Zionist. There are people who still think that Zionism is just Jewish self-determination, and not a reactionary colonial ideology.

But this is not true!

One can be a Zionist without being a Jew or without being pro-Jew. A Zionist can be anti-Semitic.

Adolf Eichmann loved Zionism and even said, “Were I a Jew, I will be a fanatical Zionist.” But Eichmann hated Jews. That’s how he eventually became the architect of the Holocaust. But to him being a Zionist and the architect of Holocaust were not contradictory. To him, Jews living among and with Germans was a problem. So he wanted to solve this problem by exterminating Jews from Germany.

Eichmann’s pre-World War II views were quite in line with two prominent figures in the history of Zionism. The first was Theodor Herzl. Herzl was the founder of Zionism and the visionary who conceived the State of Israel.

But as a cosmopolitan European Jew, Herzl knew he was in a minority. There were millions of other Jews in Central and Eastern Europe who were very much not like him: not cosmopolitan, not well-educated, not secular, not well-connected, not comfortable. These Jews were a problem: they were poor, they stuck out like a sore thumb in their native lands, they didn’t speak the language, they observed strange, primitive customs. Worst of all, they provoked hatred and anti-Semitism due to their alien strangeness: “The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.”

So Herzl, after originally espousing mass conversion to Christianity as the solution to this problem, later turned to establishing a Jewish State as a way to solve the European Jewish problem: “Send all the refuse from Europe’s teeming shores to the Middle East.”

Also influenced by rising European nationalism, Herzl dreamed that Jews could take control of their own destiny in their own land. But not in Europe! Because Jews were alien to Europe and Europeans had shown themselves unwilling to absorb Jews. To Herzl, these eastern European Jews were refuse that must be cleaned up in order to permit Europe to enjoy its respective national homogeneities (French, English, German, etc.). Herzl remarked, “We, the Jews, not only have denigrated and are located at the end of the path, we spoiled the blood of all the peoples of Europe…Jews are descended from a mixture of waste of all races.”

With the demagogic politicians (Demagogic politicians are those who try to win people’s support by appealing to their emotions than using reasonable arguments) of his own and more recent times, Herzl shared both contempt for the Jews and affinity with them.

Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of the Revisionist Party which today is the Likud party, said, “Zionism is a colonization adventure, and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force.” He further said, “The Jewish people are a very nasty people. Its neighbours hate it and they’re right.”

It is very evident that some of the founders of the State of Israel either hated Jews or saw them as a fundamentally alien presence in Western civilization that must be eliminated from Europe (by creating the State of Israel in the Middle East) or by exterminating Jews altogether (as done by Hitler and Eichmann).

The creation of the State of Israel is the Zionist project. It is an idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea. This can be seen in Herzl approaching England to help create the State of Israel.

Herzl approached Britain because, he said, it was the “first to recognise the need for colonial expansion.” According to him, “the idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea, should be easily and quickly understood in England.”

Arthur Balfour, the colonial father of the modern State of Israel, is a Zionist. Like Eichmann and Herzl, for Balfour Zionism solved a problem. He hated Jews. He believed, like much of the then British aristocracy, that Jews were alien to Western Christian civilization. They could never be integrated into it properly. Thus, the best solution was to remove them from the shores of England and transport them to Palestine where they could flourish on their own.

The project of creating the State of Israel served two purposes: it removed Jews from among Europeans in Europe, and it permitted Jews to achieve their own separate national identity.

Another important purpose that was in the mind of the founders of the State of Israel and of the European countries and the US was that the State of Israel would become a “beacon of the West” or the “bastion of the Occident” in the Middle East to checkmate the Arab and the Muslim nations (i.e. the enemies of the West) there. With this colonial mindset, the Zionist founders of the State of Israel and the West created the State of Israel. They instilled the “western racist mindset” in the Jews who settled in Palestine. The settler-Jews started seeing themselves as the harbingers of civilization and the indigenous Arabs as the primitive communities that must be evicted or eliminated (if necessary), just as in the Europe Europeans saw Jews as the underclass and wanted to remove Jews from among themselves either by eviction or by extermination. The settler-Jews became the enlightened or civilized colonizers, and the native Arabs became the underclass in Palestine.

This is the mindset of the present day Jewish nationalists in Israel. Judaism for these Jews is not a spiritual value, it is a physical manifestation of power in the world. These Jews understand that not all Jews are their “brothers/sisters”. For them, some Jews are weak, very “womanly” and not “manly”, too liberal, too humane, too universalist, who are a waste or refuse.

The western racist and colonial mindset of Jews made them to find new allies in Christian Zionists, African dictators, European neo-Nazis. Zionism or Nationalism, as these Jews define, is less a movement dedicated to common good of all those living in Israel and to ethics and morality, but more a movement dedicated to the self-interests of the Israeli Zionist political leaders, NRI Zionist Jews and their Israeli and Western Zionist patrons!

II. Hindutva

One of the misconceptions about “Hindutva” is: “Hindutva” is a synonym for “Hinduism”. One can not be a “Hindu” without being a “Hindutvawadi”, and one can not be a “Hindutvawadi” without being a “Hindu”. People in India and outside think that “Hindutva” is Hindu self-determination, and not a reactionary “elite upper caste Hindu ideology”.

However the truth is, not all Hindus are “Hindutvawadis”. There are many Hindus in India and outside who do not subscribe to the Hindutva project of “nation”.

On the other hand, one can be a “Hindutvawadi” without being a “Hindu” or without being pro-Hindu. During the “Humanity Against Terror” charity concert in Edison, New Jersey, US, in October 2016 to show support for Donald Trump and raise funds for Kashmiri pundits as well as Hindu refugees from Bangladesh, organised by the Republican Hindu Coalition formed in 2015 by Indian businessmen in the US, including the Chicago-based businessman and founding chairman Shalabh Kumar (who pledged to donate one million dollars for Trump’s presidential campaign), to promote the interests of Hindu Americans with Republican policymakers, Trump said, “We love Hindus (notice, NOT INDIANS).” Trump’s apparent embrace of Hindu-Americans makes sense. Trump, who is islamophobic, is popular with India’s Hindu nationalist bloc, which is virulently Islamophobic.

Though Trump said that he loves Hindus, his policies on immigration prove contrary to his statement. Trump has tightened restrictions on people working in the US on an H-1B visa, a move that works against Indian-Americans (including Hindus), who have been the overwhelming beneficiaries of that system. Two-thirds of Indian-Americans agree with the statement: “Undocumented or illegal immigrants should have an opportunity to eventually become US citizens.”

Trump’s love for Hindus was not visible when a 32-year old Hindu immigrant, Srinivas Kuchibhotla, was shot dead in Kansas by a man shouting racial slurs. Trump broke his silence on this incident only after six days, condemning the attack in a joint session of Congress. His strong stand against immigration forced Trump to be silent about the attack on the Hindu immigrant.

To Trump, just like Eichmann, being a lover of Hindus and against immigration are not contradictory. To him, Indians, including Hindus, and scores of other ethnic communities, living in the US are a problem. So he wants to solve that by tightening immigration policies.
On the other hand, the promoters of the Hindutva project of “nation” share both affinity and contempt for Hindus. This is evident in RSS/BJP’s attitude towards the SCs and STs.

A. RSS/BJP Claim SCs and STs as “Hindus”

The reluctant outreach of the Hindutva organisations to SCs and STs informs their dilemma about their relationship with the latter. They include them as “Hindus” in order to prevent them from embracing normatively egalitarian religions such as Islam and Christianity, so that their number will not dwindle. By this time, the colonial exercise of enumeration on religious grounds had produced a census mentality in which a community’s numerical strength had become synonymous with its power. So the Hindutva brigade can not afford to forgo SCs and STs for the sake of statistics.

B. RSS/BJP’s Antipathy towards SCs and STs

1. Reservation Policy

Since SCs and STs own neither land nor other resources, nor are they educated enough to look for government and non-government jobs, the only recourse that is left open for them is social mobility through reservation.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar understood the devastating consequences of exclusion of SCs and STs in areas of education, employment and power. So he demanded for the rights to representation in proportion to their population in educational institutions, public services and legislative bodies. One of the consequences of such demand was the incorporation of the provision of reservation in educational institutions, jobs and legislatures as articulated in the Article 330 of the Constitution of India.

Crimes committed often against SCs and STs reiterate the fact that their rights are more often violated. Since the upper caste people are the law-makers, enforcers of law, and the ones who occupy the seats of justice, rights are continually denied to the SCs and STs.

For the above reason, Prevention of Atrocities (SC/ST) Act of 1989 and Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 (amended in 1976) are introduced.

Although RSS/BJP consider SCs and STs as “Hindus”, they covertly and overtly oppose the reservations for SCs and STs. Many upper caste people, often RSS/BJP supporters, are hostile to quotas, because they believe that reservation takes away their seats in educational institutions and their job opportunities.

Since coming to power RSS/BJP government has focused on making reservation policy for SCs and STs ineffective. From privatisation to bringing Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation and selling government companies to bringing the lateral entry scheme are attempts by RSS/BJP to deny SCs and STs their share. Most of the jobs in India are already private or in unorganised sector where reservation policy is not applicable.

From denying reservation for SCs and STs to diluting SC/ST Act, RSS/BJP has never hidden its agenda.

Through policies that are detrimental to SCs and STs, RSS/BJP government is fortifying the graded caste inequalities promoted by the caste system.

Caste is an important determinant of social, economic, corporate and political power in contemporary India. The influence of caste on corporate boards and its network is staggeringly against SCs and STs.

A recent study examines the caste diversity of corporate board structures in India based on a sample of top 1,000 companies listed in the Indian stock exchanges for 2010. The average board size of the top 1,000 companies in India was found to be nine members; nearly 88% of them were insiders and 12% were independent directors. The distribution of board members according to caste shows that nearly 93% were forward caste members; 46% Vaishya and 44% Brahmin. The OBCs and SCs/STs have a meagre 3.8% and 3.5% respectively.

Caste-wise Distribution of Indian Corporate Board Member (2010):

Caste Numbers % to Total

a. Forward caste 8,387 – 92.6 %
Of which
i. Brahmin 4,037 -44.6 %
ii. Vaishyas 4,167 -46.0 %
iii. Kshatriya 43 -0.5 %
iv. Others 137 – 1.5 %

b. Other Backward Classes 346 -3.8 %

c. SC/ST 319- 3.5 %

d. Total (a to c) 9,052 – 100.0

The empirical results show that caste diversity is non-existent in the Indian corporate sector, and the Indian corporate board is dominated by forward castes and lacks diversity. Indian corporate boards consist of members based on caste affiliation rather than on other considerations (like merit or experience). It is difficult to fathom the argument that lack of merit is the cause for under-representation.

As long as the task of judging the merit of SCs and STs is in the hands of the upper caste Hindus, there is very little chance of their being declared “merit worthy”.

2. Untouchability

Although there is a law against the practice of untouchability, the practice continues. A study in 2006 by a Human Rights organisation has brought out the existence of more than 124 forms of visible and invisible untouchability practices in the social, economic and political life of SCs and STs.

Ambedkar links the origin of untouchability to beef-eating. In his 1948 work The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became Untouchables?, Ambedkar contends, “What is the cause of the nausea which the Hindus have against beef-eating? Were the Hindus always opposed to beef-eating? If not, why did they develop such a nausea against it? Were the Untouchables given to beef-eating from the very start? Why did they not give up beef-eating when it was abandoned by the Hindus? Were the Untouchables always Untouchables? If there was a time when the Untouchables were not Untouchables even though they ate beef why should beef-eating give rise to Untouchability at a later-stage? If the Hindus were eating beef, when did they give it up? If Untouchability is a reflex of the nausea of the Hindus against beef-eating, how long after the Hindus had given up beef-eating did Untouchability come into being?”

Based on an analysis of various religious texts, the father of Indian Constitution argued that Brahmins, who once had no compunctions against slaughter of animals, including cows, and were the greatest beef-eaters themselves, not only gave up beef-eating but also started worshipping the cow as a deliberate strategy. “The clue to the worship of the cow is to be found in the struggle between Buddhism and Brahmanism and the means adopted by Brahmanism to establish its supremacy over Buddhism.”

In other words, Ambedkar lays the blame for untouchability on the ancestors of today’s proponents of Hindutva ideology and relates it to cow protection, an agenda that RSS/BJP take seriously.

In the “new India” the Brahminical supremacy is violently enforced through groups of vigilantes known as gau-rakshaks. This has denied both affordable protein food and vocation for many SCs.

C. K.M. Munshi – A Representative of RSS/BJP

The attitude of RSS/BJP towards SCs and STs has been exemplified by K.M. Munshi.

K.M. Munshi, an ardent Brahmin leader (later in August 1964, Munshi chaired the meeting for the founding of the Hindu nationalist organization “Vishwa Hindu Parishad” at Sandipini Ashram), proposed an amendment to the Report prepared by the Advisory Committee on Minorities that was submitted to the Constituent Assembly in August 1947: “To (a) delete Scheduled Castes from the list of the minorities, (b) include the following addition, “I-A: The section of the Hindu Community referred to as Scheduled Castes as defined 1 of the Government of India Act 1935, shall have the same rights and benefits, which are herein provided for minorities specified in the Schedule to para 1.”” The inner motive for the amendment is best expressed by the words of Munshi himself. He said, “Any safeguard as a minority, so far as the Schedule Castes are concerned, will possibly prevent their complete absorption in the Hindu fold.” He stated, “Harijans are part and parcel of the Hindu community. Safeguards are given to them till they are completely absorbed in the community.”

When Munshi claims that “Harijans are part and parcel of the Hindu community”, why is he again saying that “Safeguards are given to them till they are completely absorbed into the community”? Are the SCs “Hindus” in reality? If they are “Hindus”, then what is the necessity for them to be “completely absorbed into the (Hindu) community”?

The above seem to be contradictory statements: “Harijans” are Hindus, but at the same time they are not completely absorbed into the Hindu community! Why are SCs not “completely absorbed into the (Hindu) community”?

Being a lawyer, by saying that “Harijans are part and parcel of the Hindu community”, he gives “Harijans” an illusion that they are “Hindus”. By this he does not want to forgo such cheap, free, obedient and ever loyal work force. If the “Harijans” move out of the Hindu community, then the entire edifice of the upper caste power structure will crumble.

So, Munshi is saying, in a way, to SCs: “You continue to be obedient and loyal workforce for us.”

Secondly, Munshi also acknowledges that the Harijans are not “completely part of the Hindu community.” Anyone with some knowledge of the Hindu scriptures will know that SCs are not recognised as a part of the chaturvarna or the four-fold division of castes and are in fact “out caste”, technically known in the Hindu scriptures as “Antyajya”.

So the dilemma that is explicit in Munshi’s amendment and later statements is representative of that of RSS/BJP. Caste system is an essential feature of Hindutva project of “nation”, and without caste that project will collapse.

RSS/BJP are the strong advocates of caste system and graded caste inequality. This is evident in the leadership of the RSS.

From 1925 to 2019 (i.e. 94 years), there has not been a single lower caste RSS Sarsanghchalak (Head). The position of sarsanghchalak is decided through nomination by predecessor. Until as of August 2019, RSS leadership has always been held by an upper caste, primarily Brahmin. The individuals who have held the post of sarsanghchalak in RSS are:

1. K.B. Hedgewar (1925-1930 and 1931-1940) – Brahmin

2. Laxman Vaman Paranjpe (1930-1931) – Brahmin

3. M.S. Golwalkar (1940-1973) – Brahmin

4. Madhukar Dattatraya Deoras (1973-1993) – Brahmin

5. Rajendra Singh (1993-2000) – Upper Caste (First non-Brahmin and First non-Maharashtrian)

6. K.S. Sudarshan (2000-2009) – Brahmin

7. Mohan Bhagwat (2009-Present) – Brahmin

This status quo is more likely to be maintained in the RSS.

D. The Idea of “Nation” of Hindutvawadis

With caste-based social structure, Manusmriti as the law-book and the upper caste leadership in the “Hindu Rashtra”, the SCs being outside the pale of caste system can not expect to find a place in the political, economic, educational, religious and social arrangements of the “Hindu Rashtra”, and equal human dignity, human value and human rights.

1. Caste System

Caste system will be strictly implemented in the “Hindu Rashtra”. That means, graded caste inequality will be a norm or characteristic of the “Hindu Rashtra”.

The social status of a caste is determined by the Hindu scriptures and has little to do with whether a member of a particular caste holds a job or does not hold a job or the nature of job he/she holds, or his/her economic status. Neither a rich SC/ST nor an educated SC/ST is acceptable to the upper caste Hindu as worth of sharing his/her table. SCs and STs are doomed to being outside the pale to be ever considered an equal with the upper caste in “Hindu Rashtra”. Children of SCs and STs will continue to suffer prejudice in schools, colleges and at work places.

The caste discrimination will continue to be maintained through endogamy, a sense of caste prestige, and social distance.

Practically, SCs and STs will be forced to serve the upper castes. That means, going back to the “caste vocations” and “caste equations”! Those at the top of the caste ladder will again enjoy the fruit of the sweat and blood of the SCs and STs.

2. Manusmriti

Caste-based reservation in India started in 2nd century BC. In Manusmriti, the law-book of “Hindutvawadis”, all laws are based on caste and no merit is ever considered. It divides people into upper and lower castes, and “out caste” on the basis of their birth and not on the basis of merit. Wealth, political power, spiritual leadership, education, ownership of land, trade and all lucrative aspects are reserved for the upper castes.

This will undermine democracy and change the nature of the polity, where a large segment of people will be denied equal human dignity, equal human value and equal human rights. They will be denied equal opportunities for education, employment and political power. Thus, SCs and STs will be deprived from reaching their potential in the “Hindu Rashtra”.

3. Leadership

The deception and the lie of the proponents of “Hindu Rashtra” will be exposed, when these questions are asked: Who are main proponents of “Hindu Rashtra”? To which caste do they belong to?

The proponents of “Hindu Rashtra” are the strong believers and observers of the caste system. Their strong belief in the caste system is reflected in the caste status of the top leadership. That means, the establishment of “Hindu Rashtra” does not benefit all Hindus, leave alone minority communities such as Muslims and Christians. It benefits only those who are at the top of the caste ladder and class ladder. Their rallying cry for the establishment of “Hindu Rashtra” is to secure or gain power for those at the top of the caste ladder and the class ladder.

This is exposed by their opposition to reservations to SCs and STs, who are considered by them as “Hindus”.

1. The Reservation Policy does not benefit those who are at the top of the caste hierarchy;

2. Through Reservation Policy SCs and STs (though Hindus), who are at the bottom of (in fact outside) the caste system, may reach equal positions, and at times higher positions, in employment, education, economy with those at the top of the caste hierarchy. This will, to a certain extent, undermine caste system.

At the same time, by implementing the anti-conversion law throughout India, the proponents of “Hindu Rashtra” will stop SCs and STs from embracing normatively egalitarian religions such as Islam and Christianity. Thus, SCs and STs will be kept within Hindu-fold to serve the upper caste!

Therefore, the Hindutva project of “Hindu Rashtra” is by the Upper caste, of the upper caste and for the upper caste!

Since majority of opposition political parties follow caste and class systems, they do not have a counter message. Only those political parties and common people who do not follow the discriminatory systems of caste and class can come up with a counter message and expose the deception and lie of the proponents of “Hindu Rashtra”.

References

Ajit. D., Han Donker, Ravi Saxena, “Corporate Boards in India: Blocked by Caste?” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol xlvii, No. 31, 11th August 2012.
Richard Silverstein, “Loving Israel, Hating Jews.”
https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2017/08/06/loving-israel-hating-jews/

Rikha Sharma Rani, “Why Trump Celebrated a Hindu Religious Holiday.” Politico Magazine, 31st October 2017. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/31/trump-indian-americans-gop-215771

Sakshi Human Rights watch – Special Report, Hyderabad, India, 2006.

Surendra Kumar, “Debunking Myths About India’s Reservation Policy.” Dailyo, 17th May 2017. http://www.dailyo.in/politics/caste-system-reservation-quota-ambedkar-merit-dalits/story/1/17238.html

Vikas Pathak, “Hindutva and the Dalit Question.” The Hindu, 9th December 2015. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-bjps-coopting-of-ambedkar/article7962369.ece
“Israel Consulate in Mumbai Organises Event on Hindutva and Zionism.” Sabrangindia, 23rd August 2019. https://sabrangindia.in/article/israel-consulate-mumbai-organises-event-hindutva-and-zionis

“Forms of Untouchability and Discrimination on SCs and STs.”
http://velivada.com/2016/01/22/more-than-100-forms-of-untouchability-and-caste-discrimination/

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh.html

Kamalakar Duvvuru teaches the New Testament with an objective of promoting peace, justice, unity and love. He can be reached at kamalakar.duvvur@gmail.com

26 August 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

Co-Written by Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers

Update: Protests continued in Hong Kong this weekend. The protesters returned to the use of violence and the police responded. The South China Morning Post reported: “In a now familiar pattern, the protesters threw bricks, petrol bombs, corrosive liquid and other projectiles at the police, who responded with tear gas, pepper balls and sponge grenades. Twenty-eight people were arrested, including an organiser of an approved protest march. At least 10 people were hospitalised, including two men in serious condition.”

Some people in the United States are confused about the protests going on in Hong Kong. Whenever the corporate media and politicians, especially people like Marco Rubio, applaud a social movement, it is a red flag that the protests are not a progressive people’s movement, but serve other purposes. Is this really a democracy movement? Are workers protesting the deep inequality and exploitation there? If not, what are these protests really about?

Fortunately, a more complete narrative of what is happening in Hong Kong and how it relates to the geopolitical conflict between the United States and China is developing among independent and movement media. The following is a description of what has been learned recently.

Hong Kong Protests: Not a Democracy Movement, but an Anti-China Tool

What is happening in Hong Kong is not actually a people’s uprising for democracy, but a tool for anti-China rhetoric and “Great Power Conflict.” Many Hong Kong protesters are pro-capitalist and racist in nature, referring to mainland Chinese as locusts, and are calling for the United States to intervene. Many of the same tactics employed by Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, and Ukrainian regime change operations are re-appearing in Hong Kong. For example, demonstrators have used violence as a tactic to entice police to respond with violence in order to put out a false narrative of state repression against them.

Fight Back News describes the problem: “There’s a tendency among progressives in the United States to support big crowds of people protesting in other countries. No doubt, the corporate media assists in this process by labeling certain movements ‘pro-democracy’ or ‘freedom fighters.’”

Just because there are people in the street does not make protests progressive, worker-based or for the people’s interests. Fight Back News reports how Hong Kong has been used by China as a way to attract foreign investment, but also as a way to make the Renminbi (RMB) a more powerful currency as well as to advance China’s Belt & Road initiative. These are major threats to US dominance.

Dan Cohen of the Grayzone mentions the ties between the protest movement and right-wing racist groups in the US. This is an issue requiring further reporting as it is strange that pro-Trump, racist groups are supporting the protests and the protesters are using US racist symbols.

Cohen’s major focus is the capitalist ties of the Hong Kong protesters. He describes the Rubert Murdoch of Hong Kong, Jimmy Lai, the self-described “head of opposition media,” who has been spending a lot of money, millions, to build the movement and giving a lot of media time to the anti-China rhetoric. And, he shows the connections between these capitalists and the Trump administration, i.e. he has had meetings with Bolton, Pence, and Pompeo as well as with neocons in the Senate, Marco Rubio, and Tom Cotton.

The goal of the Hong Kong protests is only unclear because they are trying to hide their true purpose. The real goal is preventing the full integration of Hong Kong into China in 2047 when the transition agreement between China and the United Kingdom is finished. The United States, the United Kingdom, and billionaires in Hong Kong want it to be integrated into the western capitalist economy and fear China’s state-planned economy. If they succeed, Hong Kong will become a base of economic, military and political operations for the US at the Chinese border, a critical position for the West’s ‘Great Power Conflict’ with Russia and China.

The US is investing in an anti-China movement to make integration of Hong Kong into China difficult. China is already hedging its bets by building Shenzhen across the bay, a state-planned, market-based economy, which will become an alternative to Hong Kong and shrink Hong Kong’s importance. The people of Hong Kong will be the losers if this occurs.

The Hong Kong Protest Is Not A Working-Class Revolt

Even though there are good reasons for workers in Hong Kong to revolt, these protests are not focused on the issues of economic insecurity, i.e. high levels of poverty, the exorbitant cost of housing, low wages, and long hours. As Sara Flounders writes, “For the last 10 years wages have been stagnant in Hong Kong while rents have increased 300 percent; it is the most expensive city in the world.”

But, as Fight Back News explains, “The Hong Kong protests are absolutely not driven by or in the interests of the working class, whether in Hong Kong or mainland China.” In fact, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions is not backing the demonstrations and called on its members to reject the call for a strike on August 5 put out by the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, which is backed by the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

If the protesters were focused on workers rights, they would be demanding an end to, or at least reform of, the neoliberal capitalism of Hong Kong that is dominated by big financial interests and corruption. In fact, half of the seats in the legislature are set aside for business interests who vote to protect their profits and not basic needs such as housing, but there is no criticism of this by the protesters.

In Popular Resistance, we wrote: “Hong Kong has the world’s highest rents, a widening wealth gap and a poverty rate of 20 percent.” These are crisis-level problems for the vast majority of people in Hong Kong, but they were not the focus of the protests.

Fight Back News writes: “In actuality, the protests in Hong Kong serve the interests of finance capital, both in the city itself and around the world,” and makes the important point that “Hong Kong’s working class has nothing to gain from worse relations with mainland China, much less from ‘independence.’ They suffered greatly under British colonial rule – no minimum wage laws; no labor protections; barbaric legal punishments like flogging and more.”

The Role of the United States is Evident to Anyone Who Looks

The NED has spent millions of dollars to build this anti-China movement over the years in a place with a population of 7.3 million people, over a million fewer people than New York City. The first to report on NED involvement in the current protest was Alexander Rubinstein of Mintpress News, who wrote: “the coalition cited by Hong Kong media, including the South China Morning Post and the Hong Kong Free Press, as organizers of the anti-extradition law demonstrations is called the Civil Human Rights Front. That organization’s website lists the NED-funded HKHRM [Human Rights Monitor], Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, the Hong Kong Journalists Association, the Civic Party, the Labour Party, and the Democratic Party as members of the coalition.” HKHRM alone received more than $1.9 million in funds from the NED between 1995 and 2013.

The Viable Opposition blogger, in How Washington is Meddling In the Affairs of Hong Kong, describes NED’s history as a regime change agent for the United States and the recent NED funding in Hong Kong, pointing to a total of $1,357,974 on grants to organizations described as promoting freedom, democracy and human rights in Hong Kong over the period from 2015 to 2018.

This is not short-term funding but a long-term commitment by the United States. NED has been doing mass funding in Hong Kong since 1996. In 2012, NED invested $460,000 through its National Democratic Institute, to build the anti-China movement (aka pro-democracy movement), particularly among university students. Two years later, the mass protests of Occupy Central occurred.

Sara Flounders points out US funding goes beyond NED, writing: “Funding from the NED, the Ford, Rockefeller, Soros and numerous other corporate foundations, Christian churches of every denomination, and generous British funding, is behind this hostile, subversive network orchestrating the Hong Kong protests.” The US-funding of NGO’s confuses political activists, media and commentators because they fund a myriad of NGO’s in Hong Kong. As a result, there are human rights, democracy, youth and other Hong Kong spokespersons whose NED funding is not disclosed when they talk in the media.

Hong Kong protesters are not always secret about their ties to the US. In 2014, Mintpress News exposed US involvement in Occupy Central. They pointed out that Martin Lee, a Hong Kong protest figure, was in bed with NED. They gave him an award and had his bio on their website. He came to Washington, DC in 2014 along with Anson Chan, another protest figure, and met with Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Lee took part in a NED talk hosted specifically for him. In 2015, Lee and others were applauded for their leadership by Freedom House, which, as the now-deceased Robert Parry described in 2017, works hand in hand with the NED.

In this Popular Resistance story, we point out that during the current protests, participants were meeting with Julie Eadeh, of the US Consulate at a hotel. And, when Nathan Law and Agnes Chow visited the US they met with the China-hawk Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Rep. Eliot Engel. They also met with Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Pompeo, National Security Adviser John Bolton, and Senator Marco Rubio.

Protesters carry US and UK flags, and sing the Stars and Stripes Forever and the US national anthem, displaying their connection to western nations. In one of the most iconic moments, demonstrating how these protests are really a microcosm of the conflict between the US and China, a protester used a US flag to beat a Chinese reporter, Fu Guohao of Global Times, who was tied up and assaulted at the Hong Kong airport.

Some believe the protests are too big for the US to control and point to the amount of money being spent by the NED. If the populations of Hong Kong and the US are compared, $1 million in funding for the movement in Hong Kong is equivalent to $60 million in the US. Additional funds are also being provided by billionaires. That level of resources is gigantic for popular movements that typically run on shoestring budgets.

The only way not to see US involvement in the Hong Kong protests is to close your eyes, ears, and mind and pretend it does not exist.

Challenging the Dominant Western Narrative

Although Western backing and political ambitions are the reality, it is a challenge to get this narrative out more widely. Too many in the US are confused by the messaging coming from the Hong Kong billionaires, NED-funded NGO’s, bi-partisan politicians in DC and the military-intelligence establishment, all made larger by the corporate mass media.

Corporate powers are banning social media accounts and YouTube Channelsfrom China to suppress social media activism that tells a different narrative. For example, an article in the China Daily documents US involvement in detail with photographs of meetings between US officials and Hong Kong opposition, as well as the role of NED and Voice of America.

Independent media outlets, such as the ones cited above, are exposing who is behind the protests and their pro-capitalist, imperialist agenda. They are starting to change the dominant western narrative. This is critical because it is easy for activists to be drawn into supporting movements that are counter to our goals for social and economic justice as well as peace.

Hong Kongers have also been manipulated pawns in the US Great Power Conflict with China. They are advocating against their own interests by seeking what will essentially be re-colonization by the West. If the US is successful, it will not be good for the people of Hong Kong, Asia or the world.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers are directors of Popular Resistance

25 August 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

‘Without UN, external intervention, Rohingya will remain most persecuted, vulnerable population’

By Maung Zarni

The author is a Burmese coordinator of the Free Rohingya Coalition, an umbrella network of Rohingya refugees and human rights activists, and co-founder of Forces of Renewal for Southeast Asia (Forsea.co).

LONDON

This coming Sunday Rohingya communities and their international supporters will commemorate the 2nd anniversary of what is widely acknowledged as a textbook genocide commissioned by the UN member state of Myanmar, not simply by a few bad apples amongst the leaders of my country’s Tatmadaw or armed force who continue to shield their mass-criminal rank and file troops with a blanket impunity.

At the Jesuits’ Sogang University in Seoul, Yanghee Lee, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights situation in Myanmar, has opened this year’s largest international conference co-organized by the Korean Civil Society in Solidarity with Rohingya, Free Rohingya Coalition, Forsea.co and Human Rights Action Center in Washington, DC.

Those of us, grassroots human rights defenders, engaged legal scholars and genocide experts from about 12 countries have joined Professor Lee in building a grassroots movement to end Myanmar’s ongoing genocide and help realize Rohingya’s dream of justice, truth and international accountability.

As a scholar and activist, during the last 10 years I have been extremely pained by what I discovered to be our genocidal crime which both the state and the predominantly Buddhist society have been committing against the most vulnerable community of Rohingya. I blew the whistle on my own country’s “Buddhist” genocide with the three-year-long study which I conducted with my colleague and partner Natalie Brinham six years ago, at a time when using the “G-word” was sure fire way to destroy one’s own intellectual and professional credibility.

I stuck to what I found, despite denunciations and dismissal coming from even the leading circles of human rights documenters including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, not to mention genocide-averse diplomats and policy wonks.

While I do not have the power to end my Buddhist country’s genocide or hold any perpetrators or perpetrating Myanmar as a state party to the Genocide Convention, I do have the power to spread the word that my country is committing genocide against an innocent, vulnerable Muslim community. And I have the power as an honest Buddhist to say “sorry” to the Rohingya community – for the heinous crimes which they have been subjected to during the last 40 years.

I am not alone.

I know that there are other truthful and compassionate Burmese activists who want to apologize to the Rohingya and want to stand up openly in support of Rohingya’s right to belong in Myanmar – as full and equal citizens, just like any other ethnic nationalities.

Despite all irrefutable evidence to the contrary, the overwhelming majority of my fellow Burmese of all non-Rohingya backgrounds have fallen prey to the 40-year official propaganda of Myanmar crafted against the targeted Rohingya ethnic group.

We, Myanmar Buddhists and other non-Rohingya communities are, without a doubt, implicated in this crime of all crimes as unwilling or willing executioners partaking in the heinous acts, literally or through our acts of genocide cheer-leading, popular denial of both Rohingya group identity as an integral ethnic nationality of the Union of Myanmar and the government-orchestrated policies of persecution and collective destruction against these “Myanmar’s Jews”.

The manufactured hate-soaked climate within Myanmar makes it exceedingly risky for other human rights defenders — for instance, the White Rose campaigners who went around mosques in Rangoon, Mandalay and other cities during Muslims’ Holy Month of Ramadan — inside the country to openly stand with Rohingya. The White Rose-ers draw their inspiration from the peaceful anti-Nazi resistance group from Bavaria, Hitler’s stronghold.

All genocides are no crimes of passion, and as such they do not simply erupt violently in a sudden fashion out of nowhere. Beyond the standard, narrow definition of the convention, genocides are a long process of intentional destruction of groups with distinct collective identities from their very economic, cultural, social, physical, institutional, communal foundations. Rohingya have suffered a similarly systematic destruction as the Jews and other group victims such as Sintis and Romas throughout the Nazi-occupied Europe.

Myanmar’s genocide began with the military’s racially and religiously motivated attempt to re-engineer the predominantly Muslim character of Northern Rakhine State of Western Myanmar where there existed 70% Rohingya population. My late mentor Robert L. Koehl called the Nazi SS corps, who executed Hitler’s genocidal project, “social engineers”. Koehl was a US military intelligence officer and German-English interpreter posted to Germany during the WWII, where he came to specialize in Himmler and SS. Like the Holocaust which culminated with one million deaths in a single concentration camp of Auschwitz, Myanmar military’s demographic engineering of N. Rakhine ended with the “security clearance operations” — with the almost total destruction of Rohingya as a group. Today only about 400,000 left standing in Myanmar.

When societies reach a low point where public partake, literally and psychologically, in such premeditated, state-sponsored destruction of targeted groups, be they Jews, Bosniaks, Rwandan Tutsi, or Bengali, the world ought to intervene. For no genocides have ever ended through legal activism or economic boycott. No real justice can be done, unless perpetrators are captured and/or their regime crushed militarily.

The chances are slim in terms of any effective intervention to end Myanmar genocide or to effectively hold to account Myanmar both as a UN member state and individual perpetrating leaders, including Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and his partner in crime Aung San Suu Kyi.

Much as I wish for the restoration of Rohingya’s full-citizenship with all the basic rights as the rest of Myanmar’s ethnic nationalities, I fear that without the UN and external intervention Rohingya will remain the most persecuted and vulnerable population existing in sub-human conditions in the camps in Bangladesh, in detention centers in India, Saudi Arabia and as stateless people in Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia.

Alas, a classic Catch-22. The world has failed again – this time the Rohingya are paying the price, with no light at the end of the tunnel.

No wonder then that the staff lady at the Nazi Concentration camp museum at Dachau last Christmas, who sold me a “Never Again!” pin, and said: “the world never learn” (from the Nazi Genocide).

* Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu Agency.

Maung Zarni is a Burmese educator, academic, political dissident and human rights activist with 30-years of involvement in the Burmese political affairs.

24 August 2019

Source: www.aa.com.tr

By Gerald A. Perreira

We will never accept the Mark of the Beast

In these times, many in the Americas and the Caribbean are giving in to geo-political fatalism. Their argument is that because we are located in the so-called “backyard” of the Empire, we must inevitably accept the mark of the beast. We have survived centuries of enslavement and colonialism no thanks to such forces, but because of those revolutionary leaders, governments and movements throughout history that have never, and will never acquiesce. On August 10th, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, led by President Nicolas Maduro, following in the footsteps of the great freedom fighters of the Americas and the Caribbean, launched a global campaign, #No More Trump. The campaign is a defiant appeal to us, the peoples of the world, to stand with the people of Venezuela, to oppose Trump’s war of attrition against this heroic sovereign nation, whose only sin is daring to claim its right to self-determination and true independence. The petition will be circulated globally until the end of August, and will be presented to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, in early September. It begins with the words: We, the undersigned, the peoples of the world… It is expected that millions will sign the petition in Venezuela and across the globe.

On August 5, Trump expanded the sanctions against Venezuela, signing an executive order to freeze all Venezuelan State assets in the US. Economists Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs, estimate that the sanctions against Venezuela caused at least 40,000 deaths between 2017 and 2018, and can be considered as assault on the civilian population, contravening the Geneva and Hague international conventions, of which the US is a signatory. A report issued by the Washington-based Centre for Economic & Political Research published earlier this year, found that as a result of the US embargo, Venezuelans were deprived of “lifesaving medicines, medical equipment, food and other essential imports”. This is exactly what the Trump Administration has in mind as they intensify the sanctions.

“A silent, deadly enemy…”
One hundred years ago, then US president, Woodrow Wilson, stated: “A nation that is boycotted is a nation that is in sight of surrender. Apply this economic, peaceful, silent, deadly remedy and there will be no need for force. It does not cost a life outside the nation boycotted, but it brings a pressure upon that nation which, in my judgment, no modern nation could resist.”

We, the people, must never sink into despair

Arundhati Roy captured the mood of Venezuela’s steadfast defiance and unwavering belief in the power of us, the people, when she said: “The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling – their ideas, their version of history, their wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability… Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them…Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”

I have written this many times over – we, the peoples of the Global South have the natural resources and power to humble the Empire. It is a well substantiated fact that if Europe and the US were denied access to our resources for two weeks, their economies would grind to a halt. It is time for us to recognize our collective power and introduce sanctions of our own!

An Axis of Hope, Dignity and Defiance

US National Security Advisor, John Bolton, recently described Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua as an “axis of evil”. Bolton is a liar. According to irrefutable data and actual events, the truth is that these three countries constitute an “axis of hope, dignity and defiance”.

Unlike the US, none of these countries have ever invaded another country, or supported any form of terrorism. On the contrary, all three have been leaders for human advancement, dignity and progress in the region and worldwide, sharing human, cultural, scientific, and any other resource that could propel the rest of us forward. Cuba has been in the vanguard, making extraordinary contributions in the fields of healthcare and medical research. Despite the US’s criminal 60 year old blockade, which has been rightly described as “the longest lasting genocidal attack in history”, Cuba has developed vaccines and drugs that have saved countless lives. In fact, no matter how hard you search, you cannot find any evidence that would support John Bolton’s assertion. It is, in other words, baseless.

However, we the people of the Caribbean, Central and South America can attest and provide mountains of hard evidence to support our claim that Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua constitute an “axis of hope, dignity and defiance”. The fascist double speak of the likes of Donald Trump, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo is wearing thin. There can be no doubt that we have embarked on the future described in Orwell’s cautionary tale, where he warns us of the time when “war will be peace, freedom will be slavery and ignorance will be strength”.

Triumvirate of Evil

Triumvirates are nothing new – they have been around since ancient times. European history records the first triumvirate in Rome as early as 60 BC, consisting of Julius Caesar, Marcus Crassus and Gnaeus Pompey. In France, during the “Reign of Terror”, the triumvirate consisted of Maximilien Robespierre, Georges Couthon and Louis de Saint-Just. This trio unleashed a living hell, not only on the remnants of the old class, but also on the “proles and plebs” that questioned Jacobin authority. In Nazi Germany, there was the infamous Triumvirate of Adolph Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Goebbels. Then there was the Triumvirate of Evil in Cambodia/Kampuchea, three demons known to the world as Pol Pot, Nuon Chea and Ieng Sary of the Khmer Rouge, who exterminated hundreds of thousands of their country men and women with active support from the US. Today, in the US, we have witnessed the emergence of yet another Triumvirate of Evil consisting of Donald Trump, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo.

There’s the Crypto-Fascists and then there’s Trump
It is not that Fascism is something new for occupants of the White House. The difference between Trump and past crypto-fascist US presidents, is that Trump is emboldened, and, having hit a raw nerve with his supporters, he is emboldening them to come out in the open. The climate is getting uglier and uglier by the day. Anyone familiar with Nazi and Fascist propaganda would be hard pressed to deny that the rhetoric and bellicose language that emanates from Donald Trump, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo is not different to that spewed by Adolph Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Goebbels. The content, tone, intent, and language of this US Triumvirate of Evil is stripped of all pretense of “democracy”, and is exposed for what it is – down-right fascist.

Recently, John Bolton was in Peru for a conference on Venezuela. His language was that of a thug, demonstrating no respect for the fundamental norms of international law. He openly bullied and threatened countries that refused to go along with the unilateral decisions of the Empire. While Bolton was busy attacking President Maduro and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Peru, it was reported by various media outlets, including Telesur, that between January 2016 and May 2019, 482 community leaders were murdered in Colombia, while many ex-guerrillas of the now reconstituted Common Alternative Revolutionary Force (FARC) are being killed at an alarming rate, yet the imbecile and so-called defender of “democracy”, John Bolton, remained silent on these atrocities. Colombia is a member of the Lima Group of countries that play second fiddle to the Empire of Evil. Other members of this US instigated neo-colonial formation are Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru, Panama, Guyana and St. Lucia.

The US Triumvirate of Evil, like their German prototype, are unashamed white supremacists. Hitler and his henchmen believed that all of Europe belonged to them, in the same way that ignoramuses like Trump, Pompeo and Bolton assume that South and Central America and the Caribbean are their “backyard”, and by extension, the world.

We Must Break the Monroe Doctrine

The Trump Administration’s invocation of the racist and imperial Monroe Doctrine to sanction and blockade the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, tighten the illegal embargo against Cuba, and fund criminal gangs attempting to pass themselves off as “pro-democracy activists” to destabilize the Nicaraguan government, can only be described as State terrorism and naked Fascism. Hugo Chavez said “The United States was born with an imperialist impulse. There has been a long confrontation between Monroe and Bolivar…it is necessary that the Monroe Doctrine be broken.”

Expanding the Definition of Fascism

In 1933, the Comintern defined fascism as “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist element of finance capital”. Revolutionary and progressive activists can also learn from Trotsky’s observation of Fascism at the time, as “a petty-bourgeois phenomenon; an independent mass movement, with a glorification of violence that even scares Big Business”. Mussolini’s definition of Fascism as “the marriage of corporation and state” is also applicable. The features of Fascism described above, have long been characteristics of Rogue State USA. Although these definitions are still applicable, they are limited, and it is necessary to move beyond a dogmatic and narrow conception to encapsulate what actually constitutes Fascism in 2019. Fascism is not static, it is fluid and constantly evolving, for example, there are large sections of the Alt Right that while espousing fascist ideology, are antagonistic to monopoly capitalism and globalization, and are therefore at odds with the likes of Trump. We need to expand our definition to fit the facts as they are unfolding.

The Devil is a Liar all the time
A further common characteristic of all evil triumvirates is their adept use of deceptive intelligence. This is how the devil operates. He is the originator of all wickedness, slander and lies, yet, he attempts to pass himself off as the one that is truthful and righteous. It never ceases to amaze me that after centuries of consistent deception, all of which has been eventually revealed as deception, many continue to be deceived. If someone lies and deceives me my entire life and then comes to me in 2019 with a new deception, how and why would I believe that liar? And yet people do. Such is the incredible complexity and grip of white supremacy on this earth.

For example, recognized war criminals and mass murderers like George Bush, senior and junior, and Tony Blair will be perceived by many as the truth tellers, while people will be quick to dismiss the words of non-white leaders as liars. When I was in primary school we were given a text book which contained a story about George Washington and the cherry tree. According to this story, when his father asked who chopped down the cherry tree, the young George boldly proclaimed that he did. The story goes on to assert that this white man, George Washington, who became the first president of the US, never told a lie. What was omitted from this story is that the same George Washington, at the age of eleven, inherited ten captured Africans from his father, one of whom he later exchanged for a quantity of molasses. So much for George Washington’s moral superiority! Any scholar of human behavior knows that there is no human being alive who, at least in their childhood, has never told a single lie. All of us, from our earliest recollections, have been sucked into an amazing web of deception, designed in its entirety to reinforce and maintain white supremacy. It is something we must snap ourselves out of if we are to make the quantum leap from intellectual incarceration to self-actualization and revolutionary consciousness.

Endless Examples
We have seen this remarkable phenomena in action time and time again. Our history is littered with examples of deceptive intelligence. The evil system of apartheid in South Africa was aided and abetted by fascists like Bolton, and crypto-fascists like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, both of whom also openly defended the mass-murderer and Nazi admirer, Augusto Pinochet of Chile. These white supremacists never once condemned the Boers or Pinochet when they were committing atrocities. They were vociferous in their opposition to sanctions being imposed on the terrorist regime in South Africa, and even labelled Nelson Mandela a terrorist. It was Cuba that sent thousands of troops to the frontline states to fight and die alongside the freedom fighters of the ANC, PAC, AZAPO, SWAPO, FRELIMO and MPLA in what history now identifies as the wars of national liberation.

Before the Bolivarian Revolution led by Hugo Chavez, the proceeds of the oil wealth went to a tiny section of the society that were urban, white and conservative, irrespective of whether the government was Christian Democrats (COPEI) or Social Democrats (Democratic Action). Africans and Indigenous Venezuelans were marginalized, having endured centuries of oppression. Successive US regimes supported this unjust arrangement, not only because it was in keeping with their own doctrine of white supremacy, but also because it ensured that they had unfettered access to the oil through corporate vultures such as EXXON Mobil. It was not until Hugo Chavez initiated the Bolivarian revolution that this cruel and oppressive arrangement began to shift in favour of the dispossessed. However, the masters of deception would have us believe that Hugo Chavez was a “dictator and oppressor”.

In Nicaragua, the US supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship that killed thousands of its own citizens, and long after the overthrow of this despicable regime by the Sandinistas, the US continued to provide support to Somoza loyalists known as the “Contras” to murder, maim and destabilize the country. Today, they continue to wage this war of deception and aggression against the democratically elected and legitimate government led by President Daniel Ortega.

Examples of the Empire’s deceptive intelligence are endless. As the revolutionary prophet, Jesus pointed out: “know the truth and the truth shall set you free”. Truth, as a principle and foundational element of the universe, is alien to the warped mindset of the US Triumvirate of Evil. Truth can be staring these morons in the face and they will never recognize it, precisely because they are liars and deceivers. Deception is a major tool in imperialism’s arsenal.

First-class idiots

A characteristic that sets the current US triumvirate of evil aside from other triumvirates is their glaring stupidity. It is perhaps one of their most disturbing features. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”. How fitting in relation to these three ignoramuses. In the recent sparring between Washington and Paris over Iran, one French minister described Trump’s tweets as “completely moronic”, while Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, said “some US politicians are first-class idiots”. Trump, Bolton and Pompeo have no understanding of the world and the noble perennial values that have sustained human civilization. Their primary objective is the mindless perpetuation of imperial power, conquest and domination, regardless of the cost to humanity. They are incapable of any purpose beyond this objective.

Transcending a Materialist Analysis

Finally, it is my firm belief that the battle we wage for truth, justice and human dignity in this world is fought both on the material and spiritual planes. Therefore this struggle clearly transcends the limitations of the progressive and revolutionary forces that adhere strictly to a materialist analysis. The materialist reading of history, rooted in anti-spiritual and anti-religious ideologies of the so-called European Enlightenment, has, in my opinion, substantially hindered the advancement of our cause. The so-called Christian Right, Alt-Right and Christian Zionists utilize religious language and theological terms, in conjunction with decontextualized readings of the Bible, to defend the Empire of Evil and to effectively buttress Euro-American hegemony. Equally, many reactionary Islamic “scholars” do the same injustice to the Qur’an, attempting to provide theological legitimacy to murderous outfits such as ISIL, Al Qaeda, and Boko Haram, and their financiers, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both close allies of the Empire.

Those revolutionary and progressive forces that stand outside of this materialist tradition, must take the upper hand and reclaim the revolutionary messages of the Bible and the Qur’an from these usurpers and hijackers. We must recapture the authenticity of what the Iranian revolutionary scholar, Ali Shariati, referred to as “true religion”.

On August 10th, President Maduro told thousands of Venezuelans gathered at a rally in Caracas to launch the #No More Trump campaign, “Today, we Venezuelans have dignity and are spiritually united.” Revolutions cannot be limited to the material/ economic plane. In fact, if a revolution is to be successful, the spiritual and cultural dimensions must be central. The Bolivarian Revolution understands this. Hugo Chavez constantly invoked liberation theology in his speeches, and was clear that his inspiration to liberate his nation came from his religious convictions.

Failing to wage resistance in its totality is a huge obstacle to achieving our ultimate goals. We must arm ourselves with theologies of liberation and a spirituality of resistance if we are to successfully challenge and overcome the forces we are up against. As the Bible informs us clearly: “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but again principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”. (Ephesians 6:12)

24 August 2019

Gerald A. Perreira is leader of Organization for the Victory of the People based in Guyana.

By John Menadue

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wants us to join with the U.S. in tackling the problems which Donald Trump created with Iran and presumably to soften us up to host missiles to protect the U.S. marines and port facilities in Darwin, writes John Menadue.

WE ARE BEING SOFTENED UP again, step-by-step, to support the U.S. military and industrial complex that promotes perpetual war.

The U.S. is the greatest threat to peace in the world. It is an aggressor across the globe. It is the most violent country, both at home and abroad. And people know it. The Pew Research Centre found in 2018 that 45% of people surveyed around the world saw ‘U.S. power and influence as a major threat’.

Retired U.S. Defence Secretary Jim Mattis complained that President Trump should show more respect for allies. But the U.S. shows the most respect for allies that do what they are told or supinely comply — like Australia. Our PM even gets an invitation to dinner with Trump and he cannot contain his eagerness. Our media join in the vicarious thrill of it all.

Apart from brief isolationist periods, the U.S. has been almost perpetually at war; wars that we have been foolishly drawn into. The U.S. has subverted and overthrown numerous governments over two centuries. It has a military and business complex, a “hidden state” that depends on war for influence and enrichment. It believes in its “manifest destiny” which brings with it an assumed moral superiority which it denies to others. The problems did not start with Trump. They are long-standing and deep-rooted.

Unfortunately, many of our political, bureaucratic, business and media “elites” have been so long on an American drip feed that they find it hard to think of a world without an American focus. We had a similar and dependent view of the UK in the past. That ended in tears in Singapore.

Conservatives rail about Chinese influence but they and we are immersed and dominated by all things American, including the Murdoch media. Our media do regard Australia as the 51st American state. Just look at the saturation coverage of the Democrat primaries with the Presidential Election still 15 months away. Easy and lazy news. It’s harder and nowhere near as interesting to cover much more important news in Indonesia and Malaysia.

In a blog titled ‘Is war in the American DNA?’ I have drawn attention to the risks we run in being “joined at the hip” to a country that is almost always at war. The facts are clear. The U.S. has never had a decade without war. Since its founding in 1776, the U.S. has been at war 93% of the time. These wars have extended from its own hemisphere to the Pacific, to Europe and most recently to the Middle East. The U.S. has launched 201out of 248 armed conflicts since the end of WWII. In recent decades, most of these wars have been unsuccessful. The U.S. maintains 700 military bases or sites around the world including in Australia. In our own region, it has a massive deployment of hardware and troops in Japan, the ROK and Guam.

U.S. fleets patrol in strength off the Chinese coast. The U.S. would have mass hysteria if the Chinese fleet patrolled off the Californian coast or Florida Keys, as it is legally entitled to do.

The U.S.-led illegal invasion of Iraq encouraged by John Howard has resulted, directly and indirectly, in the death of a million people and the displacement of millions of others. It has exposed historic religious, tribal and ethic tensions. Worldwide terrorism and ISIS are the direct results of U.S. aggression and our complicity. John Howard is never held responsible for the massive calamity that he helped facilitate. He remains a national hero, at least in the Liberal Party.

The U.S. has been meddling in other countries’ affairs and elections for a century. It tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the cold war. Many foreign leaders were assassinated.

In the piece reproduced in this blog (‘The fatal expense of U.S. Imperialism’), Professor Jeffrey Sachs said:

‘The scale of U.S. military operations is remarkable… The U.S. has a long history of using covert and overt means to overthrow governments deemed to be unfriendly to the US… Historian John Coatsworth counts 41 cases of successful U.S.-led regime change for an average of one government overthrow by the U.S. every 28 months for centuries.’

The overthrow, assassination, or interference in foreign governments are diverse, including Honduras, Guatemala, Iran, Haiti, Congo, Indonesia, Japan, Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan and, most recently, Syria.

And this interference continued with the undermining of the pro-Russian Government in the Ukraine by the U.S.-backed Maidan coup in 2014. Gorbachev and Bush agreed that in allowing the reunification of Germany, NATO would not extend eastwards. But with U.S. encouragement, NATO has now provocatively extended right up to the borders of Russia. Not surprisingly, Russia is resisting.

Despite all the evidence of wars and meddling in other countries’ affairs, the American Imperium continues without serious check or query in America or Australia.

There are several reasons why the American record of war and interference has not been challenged.

The first is what is often described as America’s “manifest destiny” — the God-given right to interfere in other countries’ affairs. This right is not given to others because many Americans see themselves as more virtuous and their system of government better than others.

Despite their assumed world role, many Americans have a limited understanding of other countries’ culture and life. Only 32% of Americans have passports. In the UK and Australia, it is 70%. Before he became President, George Bush had only been overseas once. That was to visit Beijing where his father was the Ambassador.

Professor Tom Nichols reported in this blog (‘How America lost its faith in expertise, and why that matters’), Public Policy Polling revealed that 43% of Republicans and 55% of Democrats supported bombing a place called “Agrabah”, which turned out to be a fictional place in a cartoon. Only an ignorant people could presume that their country should bomb a city that did not exist. To this day, 70% of registered Republicans doubt that Obama is an American citizen.

The U.S. has invaded countries it knew about and, in many cases, cultures and people it knew nothing about, who were assumed to be less virtuous and wise than the U.S.

In examining the failure in Vietnam, General Walter T Kerwin Jr observed that:

‘We never understood the Vietnamese. We think we know best. We tried to force on them what they should do…’

The ignorance of ordinary Americans and its politicians of other countries is legendary, but possibly just as important is their resistance to any relief of that ignorance. That may not seem unusual — but it is dangerous for a country with overwhelming military power employed around the globe.

The second reason why the American Imperium continues largely unchecked is the power of what President Eisenhower once called the “military and industrial complex” in the U.S. In 2019, I would add the intelligence community and politicians to that complex who depend heavily on funding from powerful arms manufacturers across the country and the military and civilian personnel in over 4,000 military facilities across the U.S. Democrats and Republicans both court these wealthy arms suppliers and their employees.

The intelligence community, universities and think tanks also have a vested interest in the American Imperium.

This complex which co-opts institutions and individuals in Australia is often called “the hidden state”. It has enormous influence. No U.S. President, nor for that matter any Australian Prime Minister would likely challenge it.

Australia has locked itself into this complex. Our military and defence leaders are heavily dependent on the U.S. Departments of Defence and State, the CIA and the FBI for advice. But it goes beyond advice. The “Five Eyes” led by the CIA applied pressure to us on 5G as part of a broader campaign to attack almost all things Chinese. We willingly respond and join the U.S. in disasters like Iraq and the Middle East. While the U.N. General Assembly votes with large majorities to curb nuclear proliferation, we remain locked into the position of the U.S. and other nuclear powers.

Our autonomy and independence are also at great risk because our defence/security “elites” in Canberra have as their holy grail the concept of “interoperability” with the U.S. This is mirrored in U.S. official and think tank commentary on the role they see for us in our region. So powerful is U.S. influence and our willing cooperation with it, that our foreign policies have been largely emasculated and sidelined by the defence and security views of both the U.S. and their acolytes in Australia.

The concept of interoperability does not only mean equipment. It also means personnel where increasingly large numbers of Australian military personnel are embedded in the U.S. military and defence establishments, especially in the Pacific Command in Hawaii. The last U.S. Commander in Hawaii very nearly became the new U.S. Ambassador in Australia. Instead, he was sent to Seoul to keep the ROK in line.

The U.S. military and industrial complex and its associates have a vested interest in America being at war and our defence establishment, Department of Defence, ADF, Australian Strategic Policy Institute and the “intelligence” community are locked-in American loyalists.

As Geoff Raby in this blog has argued, our security and intelligence agencies like ASIO and ASIS have led and bullied the Australian Government into hysteria over China. The collectors of intelligence have become the propagandists and policy makers. Paul Keating calls them “nutters”. DFAT has been sidelined. With our intelligence agencies out of control, it is not surprising to see the travesty of the prosecution of Bernard Collaery and Witness K. The wrong people are being charged.

The third reason for the continuing dominance of the American Imperium is the way the U.S. expects others to abide by a “rules-based international order” which was largely determined at Bretton Woods after WWII and embedded in various U.N. agencies. That “order” reflects the power and views of the dominant countries in the 1940s. It does not recognise legitimate interests of newly-emerging countries like China, who now insist on playing a part in an international rules-based order.

The U.S. only follows an international rules-based order when it suits its own interests. It pushes for a rules-based system in the South China Sea while refusing to endorse UNCLOS (Law of the Sea) or accept ICJ decisions. The invasion of Iraq was a classic case of breaking the rules. It was illegal. The resultant death and destruction in Iraq met the criteria for war crimes. But the culprits have gone scot-free.

It is a myth that democracies like America will behave internationally at a higher level of morality than other counties. Countries act in their own interests as they perceive them. We need to discount the noble ideas espoused by Americans on how they run their own country on the domestic front and look instead at how they consistently treat other countries. Consider how the Kurds are being treated. They led the fight against ISIS but are now largely abandoned by the U.S. and other “allies”. The Kurds are holding the Australian wives and children of ISIS fighters but we are so slow to decently help. The scrapping of the alliance with the Kurds is made the more dishonourable by the emergence of the new version of the US/Saudi alliance with its resulting tragedy in Yemen.

U.S. claims about how well they run their own country are challenged on so many fronts. 43 million U.S. citizens live in poverty, they have a massive prison population with its indelible racist connotations, guns are ubiquitous and they refuse to address the issue. Violence is as American as cherry pie. It is embedded in U.S. behaviour both at home and abroad.

The founding documents of the U.S. inspire Americans and many people throughout the world. ‘The land of the free and the home of the brave’ still has a clarion call. Unfortunately, those core values have often been denied to others. For example, when the Philippines sought U.S. support it was invaded instead. Ho Chi Minh wanted U.S. support for independence but Vietnam was invaded.

Like many democracies, including our own, money and vested interests are corrupting public life. Democracy in the U.S. has been replaced by “Donocracy”, with practically no restrictions on funding of elections and political activity for decades. Vested interests are largely unchecked. House of Representatives electorates are gerrymandered and poor and minority group voters are often excluded from the rolls. The powerful Jewish lobby, supported by fundamentalist Christians, has run U.S. policy off the rails on Israel and the Middle East.

The U.S. has slipped to number 21 as a “flawed democracy” in the Economist’s Intelligence 2016 Democracy Index. (NZ was ranked fourth and Australia tenth.) It noted that ‘public confidence in government has slumped to historic lows in the U.S.’ That was before Trump.

Many democracies are in trouble. U.S. democracy is in more trouble than most. There is a pervasive sickness.

Our risky dependence on the U.S. cannot be avoided or excused by laying problems at the door of Donald Trump. Malcolm Fraser warned us about a dangerous ally long before Donald Trump came on the scene. U.S. obsession with war and with overthrowing or undermining foreign governments goes back over a century. So does domestic gun violence.

Donald Trump excesses are not likely to significantly move American policies from what has become the norm over two centuries.

Hugh White has pointed out that the U.S. has, in effect, now given up looking after anyone but itself — “America first”. It could, of course, be argued that Trump is just being honest and saying what U.S. Presidents have always done, looking after their own interests even if they refused to admit it.

A major voice in articulating American extremism and the American Imperium is Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, who exert their influence not just in America but in its subservient “allies” like Australia. In the media, Fox News supported the invasion of Iraq and is mindless of the terrible consequences. Rupert Murdoch applauded the invasion of Iraq because it would reduce oil prices. Fox and News Corp are leading sceptics on climate change which threatens our planet. In April last year, the New York Times told us that outside the White House, Rupert Murdoch is Trump’s chief advisor. Rupert Murdoch runs political parties as much as media organisations.

But it is not just the destructive role of News Corp in the U.S., UK and Australia. Our media, including the ABC and even SBS, is so derivative. Our media seems to regard Australia as an island parked off New York. We are saturated with news, views, entertainment and sitcoms from the U.S. It is so pervasive and extensive, we don’t recognise it for its very nature. The last thing a fish recognises is water.

Mike Keating described (as Hugh White pointed out) that, based on Australian Treasury figures, by 2030, Chinese GDP is projected to be 70% larger than U.S. GDP. It is already 15% larger. The U.S. has record debt which the recent tax cuts, like those of Reagan and Bush, will only worsen.

One outcome of the declining comparative U.S. economic power is that the U.S. will ask its allies to do more. We saw the influence of U.S. budgetary pressures in its launch of the pivot to the Pacific. We have seen the first step with Marines in Darwin. There are a lot more big steps to come.

The U.S. may return, hopefully, to its brief periods of isolationism and leave its allies to their own devices. Maybe they will do us a favour.

Despite continual wars, often unsuccessful, the overthrow or subversion of foreign governments and declining U.S. economic influence, U.S. hegemony and domination of Australian thinking continues.

Despite all the evidence, why do we continue in denial?

One reason is that as a small, isolated and white community in Asia, we have historically sought an outside protector, first the UK and, when that failed, the U.S. We should not bury in Anzackery the enormous price we paid for British “protection”. We have not shaken off that dependence and subservience to distant empires.

We continue to seek security from our region through a U.S. protector rather than, as Paul Keating put it, security within our own region. Our long-term future depends on cooperation in our region and not reliance on a dangerous and distant ally.

Another reason why we are in denial about the American Imperium is, as I have described, saturation of our media with U.S. news, views and entertainment. We do not have an independent media. Whatever the U.S. media says about tax cuts for the wealthy, defence or climate change, it inevitably gets a good run in our media.

A further reason for the continuing U.S. hegemony in Australian attitudes is the galaxy of Australian opinion leaders who have benefitted from American largesse and support — in the media, politics, bureaucracy, business, trade unions, universities and think tanks. Thousands of influential Australians have been co-opted by U.S. money and support in “dialogues”, study centres and think tanks. The U.S. has nourished agents of influence in Australia for decades. China is a raw beginner in the use of soft power.

How long will Australian denial of U.S. policies continue? When will some of us stand up? When will our humiliation end?

Are our political leaders right in their assessment that any questioning of the threats posed by our interpretation of the benefits and obligations of the U.S. alliance will lose them an election?

Insofar as China is any sort of distant threat, it would be much less so if we were not so subservient to the U.S. The U.S. is determined to make China its enemy. We are cooperating in that process.

The U.S. is a very dangerous ally. It is more likely to get us into trouble than out of trouble.

We are joined at the hip to the most violent and dangerous country in the world.

John Menadue is a commentator, businessman and former diplomat.

15 August 2019

Source: independentaustralia.net

By Amir Zulhayyad

The dispute over Kashmir which involves Pakistan and India has been ongoing since the partition of India by the British colonial government. Kashmir was once a sovereign territory Without the consent from the Kashmiris the territory was divided into two by the colonial power and given over to India and Pakistan after which Kashmir became Azad Kashmir administered by Pakistan and the Indian administered Kashmir. Since then every dispute between India and Pakistan becomes one over Kashmir.

Do the voices of Kashmiris matter now that it is the 21st century?

In the mainstream media, the coverage ignores the people of Kashmir. There is very little to none relating to the population. The narrative of the media is mainly focused on issues regarding the two regional powers. It covers only the actions taken by the New Delhi and Islamabad governments both distant centres of power. As Nitasha Kaul (as cited by Naina Bajekal in TIME) says, “Kashmir was always seen as real estate, not a place with people”. This shows how India and Pakistan treated Kashmir. They launched missiles and fired heavy weapons on Kashmir without a thought for the Kashmiris themselves. The news will then always be about India attacking Pakistan or vice versa. Given this situation, we often forget that the one who suffers most are the Kashmiris. They are but victims of a war between two nations.

In the most recent event India revoked Article 370, the constitutional provision granting autonomy to Indian-administered Kashmir, thus downgrading Kashmir from being a state to federally administered union territories of Jammu and Kashmir further causing the under-representation of the Kashmiris.

Furthermore, the manner in which Article 370 was revoked is totally authoritarian. It was done without any consultations with Kashmiri leaders. New Delhi revoked the rights of the autonomous region. Then, they cut off the internet and line network connections in Kashmir, blocking out all communications. This move ensured that no information could leave or enter Kashmir giving New Delhi total control over the territories.

The voices of the Kashmiris were, over and over again, throughout the territorial disputes between India and Pakistan, ignored.

But the only way to have justice and peace in the valley is to involve the Kashmiris themselves. Let their voices and opinions be heard and give them what they want. The international community must take a a new position on Kashmir. Rather than thinking for them and be bogged down by the vicious circle of violence between India and Pakistan, we must think of the people of Kashmir. This is the only way to resolve the issue and bring peace to Kashmir. If the solution proposed continues to be one imposed on them by outsiders we will never see an end to this dispute. And the suffering of the Kashmiris will continue unabated.

23 August 2019

AMIR ZULHAYYAD BIN ZAKARIA
Intern
International Movement for a JUST World (JUST)

At the heart of the Tariq Ramadan case, a multitude of notorious intellectual opponents are suspected of collusion. While the investigating judges have never responded to the requests submitted by Ramadan’s lawyer, Emmanuel Marsigny, to interrogate the individuals most often cited in the case, many questions remain unanswered regarding their involvement.

Caroline Fourest: a central figure?

Caroline Fourest, a renowned opponent of Tariq Ramadan, was among the first to make a TV appearance when the case broke out. In her initial interventions, she lied and claimed she did not know Henda Ayari. She also minimized her relationship with Paule-Emma Aline. However, according to the investigation, Fourest had 156 and 116 telephone contacts respectively with Henda Ayari and Paule-Emma Aline, six months before Henda Ayari lodged her complaint in October 2017.

Fourest then admitted having met Paule-Emma Aline in 2009. According to the Journal du Dimanche newspaper, Fourest introduced Paule-Emma Aline to the prosecutor Michel Debacq (former antiterrorist unit’s chief at the prosecution department and one of Emmanuel Macron’s advisers). Both Debacq and Fourest say today that they have been aware of the rape charges since 2009 but did not deem it useful to lunch a judicial procedure while they say they were informed about a crime! Isn’t it illegal for a “journalist” and a prosecutor to remain silent when they know about a crime ?

Even more disturbing, the investigation into Paule-Emma Aline’s Skype calls has brought to light a strange discussion where Paule-Emma Aline explicitly said that Caroline Fourest is part of her “plan” to bring down Tariq Ramadan. In spite of lawyer Marsigny’s requests [to interrogate Fourest], she was never summoned for a hearing by the judges. Similarly, the phone fadettes (identifying dates and times of calls or SMS) have never been added to the court file. Fourest has also had proven contacts in Belgium with Majda Bernoussi, and the Swiss plaintiff whose pseudonym is “Brigitte” for the media and “Maimouna” on social networks.

Jean-Claude Elfassi, Alain Soral and the rest

The Israeli-French paparazzi known for his brutality, Jean-Claude Elfassi is all over this file. He still, however, has not been summoned for a hearing by the Criminal Brigade and the judges. He is suspected of having played a large role in the staging of complaints against Tariq Ramadan. In August 2017, three months before the case, he posted an ad on his blog asking women to send him intimate testimony to discredit Tariq Ramadan. As had been the case in the JeremStar affair, Elfassi could have pushed the third plaintiff to file a complaint and, according to her, he also pushed her to change her narrative. Today, she accuses him of having manipulated her with the complicity of her previous lawyer Francis Szpiner. Elfassi has long been in contact with Henda Ayari, who regularly posts pictures of them together. Their relationship seems strange as they have exchanged troubling messages in private which were later leaked and posted on the internet. Sometimes verbally violent, other times friendly or more, their messaging proves that they have been in close contact, before the complaint was lodged and throughout the court proceedings till the present time. Elfassi also had direct and indirect contacts with the Swiss plaintiff before and after she was convinced to file a complaint in April 2018.

Elfassi is also under investigation for several complaints in this case. These include; defamation of Tariq Ramadan’s witnesses, harassment and threats. Before going quiet on the social networks, Elfassi also harassed some of Tariq Ramadan’s family members, many supporters and witnesses by tweeting defamatory, often rude or sexual messages. Following his argument with the third plaintiff, Mounia Rabbouj, he posted nude photos of her, accompanied by a text that carried sexual connotation. Elfassi introduced Mounia Rabouj and Henda Ayari to his friend, lawyer Szpiner, who initially defended them. Later, Rabouj accused Szpiner of manipulation and raised money problems. This is confirmed by Rabbouj’s wiretaps that were investigated by the judges. The wiretap revealed that the plaintiff has received money from her lawyer but complained to one of her interlocutors about his non-compliance of their agreement.

Finally, other protagonists of the case, known to be notorious opponents of Tariq Ramadan, were in contact with the first two plaintiffs. Suspected of collusion, none of them was summoned for a hearing by the judges. This is particularly the case of Alain Soral; Henda Ayari often mentioned him in her messages to Tariq Ramadan. She lets Ramadan know that she had a relationship with Soral and that he wanted her to set him up. Additionally, according to Gamal Abina, a witness heard by the Criminal Brigade, Henda Ayari told him that she knew Soral very well and had been in regular contact with him. He testified: “She went so far as to give me her phone number and explained to me that at the time, he [Soral] had pushed her to seduce Tariq Ramadan into inviting her to the hotel room.”

Paule-Emma Aline was also in touch with Soral and his friend at that time, Salim Laïbi, “Le Libre Penseur” (the free thinker), both close to the far right movements. She had informed Tariq Ramadan of all that since 2009. Finally, according to a source close to the file, Alain Soral was the companion of Majda Bernoussi who revealed, by email, that Soral had also suggested to her to “trap Ramadan”. The Swiss complainant, “Brigitte” – “Maimouna” was also in contact with Soral through Dieudonné with whom she posted a very close and intimate relationship on social networks (posts and photos).

Nacira Menadi (“Vanessa” from BeurFM radio) was heard by the police but not by the judges. She has established phone contact with Ayari (57 times) and with Paule-Emma Aline (51 times) between May and November 2017 (six months before the complaints were lodged) according to the file facts. Since 2009, she has had many contacts on social networks with the Swiss plaintiff “Maimouna”. Menadi is also an intimate friend of Yasmine Kepel, Gilles Kepel’s partner, whose opposition to Tariq Ramadan has been long established. In 2015, two years before the case, he told an online journalist that Tariq Ramadanwould soon “fall from grace”.

Bloggers Maamar Metmati and Adeline Aragon (whose pseudonym is “Lucia Canovi” on the Net) have also not been summoned for a hearing by the judges. In a video posted almost six months before the case, Metmati offered to give 3000 € to anyone who would provide him with information on TariqRamadan’s private and sexual life. “Lucia Canovi” posted dozens of messages and videos on the internet calling on people to denounce Tariq Ramadan. She wrote a book against Ramadan a year before the case was lodged, in which she announced that she wanted to bring him down. Her book tells women’s stories and on a Facebook post, she gives distinctive signs of [Tariq Ramadan]’s anatomy in order, she claims, to help making “more credible” the testimonies of those who would like to lodge a complaint against Ramadan. She was in contact with the fourth plaintiff and the two witnesses “R” and “C” who testified against Tariq Ramadan. Finally, the retired journalist, Ian Hamel, the sociologist Vincent Geisser (who has exchanged many messages with Henda Ayari) and the prosecutor Michel Debacq were also indirectly involved in the case, but have not been summoned for a hearing by the judges till now.

In a case such as that of Tariq Ramadan, where so many well-known opponents have been or are in contact with the plaintiffs, it is legitimate to pose the question: is this affair primarily political? Why this double standard treatment with regards to litigant’s identity or the media coverage of the case? Why would individuals, so implicated in the case, are conspicuously absent from the judicial process and media questioning?

What are these absentees hiding? In a case of such a global impact like that of Tariq Ramadan, how come that none of the newspapers nor any investigative journalist has examined the absentees’ role and the high probability of a political collusion?

M.M

22 August 2019

Source: www.reveilcitoyenmedia.com

Personal impressions from the conference MH17: The Quest for Justice, Kuala Lumpur, 17 August 2019.

by Kees van der Pijl, Amsterdam

From 15 to 19 August I was in the capital of Malaysia for a conference organised by the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), the Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF) and the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). I had been invited as the author of Flight MH17, Ukraine, and the New Cold War, meanwhile in four languages. All signs were that this would be a landmark event because for the first time, critics of the Dutch-led investigation into the tragedy were coming together for what the organisers called ‘a modest endeavour to uphold the truth and to remain faithful to justice’. It would be much more than that and among those sharing that assessment was the Dutch embassy in Kuala Lumpur, which expressed its concern over the conference both to the Prime Minister’s office and to the organisers. In what follows, I give a brief account of what I see as the effective establishment of an international task force on MH17 solely motivated by the quest for justice, not by any political position adopted beforehand. Since I was only an invited speaker it will be obvious that the organisers are in no way responsible for these notes.

Preliminaries

On arrival at Kuala Lumpur International Airport I was met by a functionary of the Perdana Foundation, one of the organisations established at the initiative of Dr Mahathir (for other Malaysians I rely on the abbreviated names as used in the conference programme). The Perdana Foundation, I learned, is committed to the criminalisation of war, and in my book I actually refer to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, which in 2011, after extensive hearings, indicted George Bush and Tony Blair for crimes against the peace over the Iraq invasion of 2003. As was established at Nuremberg in 1945-46, all other crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the like, follow from the supreme crime against the peace. Although Mahathir had excused himself for the conference, his public remarks on the doubtful accusations made against Russia had been an obvious inspiration for the Kuala Lumpur event.

On the Friday evening before the actual conference there was a welcome dinner, an opportunity to meet with the organisers, their respective staffs, and the other speakers and moderators. The foreign guests were presented with a signed copy of Mahathir’s autobiography, ‘A Doctor in the House’ (he is a medical doctor). Luckily I had a copy of the Manchester University Press edition of my own book with me to return the gesture via the organisers, several of whom are close to Mahathir.

At this dinner I first heard of steps taken by the Dutch embassy with the Prime Minister’s office and with the organisers at the Perdana Foundation office (because the Dutch ambassador was new to the place, by his deputy) to express discontent and concern over the event. Apparently the deputy ambassador complained about holding this conference in the first place and extending an invitation to ‘conspiracy theorists’ (the label applied to all those doubting the JIT claim that Russia is guilty of the downing of MH17, a claim made already by Western politicians and media before any investigation had begun). I will come back to the possible role of the Dutch embassy when discussing the session at which two family members of Malaysian victims had been planned to speak.

Still at the dinner, I was seated next to the former Malaysian ambassador to the Netherlands, Dr Fauziah, who told me how the Dutch TV programme Nieuwsuur had approached her on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the tragedy, only to castigate her for not being fully convinced of the validity of the JIT reading and then, why did she continue to defend the Russians?

The Conference: Introductions

The event was held in the main auditorium of the International Islamic University of Malaysia (since the country is constitutionally a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society, this has no other relevance than that it is among Malaysia’s largest and most prestigious academic institutions, on a par with the University of Malaysia).

After the arrival of guests and registration of participants and media representatives, the opening remarks were made by Dr Chandra Muzaffar, president of JUST. Dr Chandra is one of the country’s leading intellectuals and besides his many academic credits, a well-known public figure since even a hotel assistant I spoke to, knew him. Chandra explained in his remarks that there were many justified doubts about the Dutch-led investigations and many issues had not been satisfactorily resolved. In contrast to the adherence to one official account in the West, this conference was meant to be an open-minded event to bring together some of those whose views could enlarge or contest the JIT account; it was not based on any a priori position regarding the downing of MH17 or the conflict in Ukraine.

Next the conference was officiated by Professor Tan Sri Dzul, the president of the university and a world-renowned expert on health and drug issues. Through his participation in Malaysian public life and media, he too is a well-known figure in the country. That he was also a former student of Chandra’s may have helped to make the facilities of the university available for this event, but his brief and lively introduction was testimony to a profound commitment to the cause of achieving justice for the victims of the disaster and their relatives.

Session 1. Documentary, MH17—Call for Justice

The title of this documentary makes clear how close its perspective is to the theme of the Kuala Lumpur conference. The documentary, which meanwhile has been seen by hundreds of thousands of viewers on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkDWwYk4-Ho), was introduced by the director, Yana Yerlashova. She explained this was her third documentary on the topic and paid tribute to Max van der Werff, the investigative journalist with whom she made this one. With her on the podium was Akash Rosen, founder of OG IT Forensic Services, who as a certified audio specialist has demonstrated with his colleagues that the phone taps provided by the Ukrainian intelligence service SBU to the Dutch-led investigation had been extensively tampered with, cutting and pasting different segments etc. Besides their appearance in the documentary, Akash Rosen and his colleagues also produced a special 143-page report detailing their investigations, which is in the public domain.

The documentary, shown at the conference on a big screen, shares the spirit of the event in that there is no a priori attribution of guilt. It merely seeks to highlight the inconsistencies and falsehoods of the JIT investigation. Its shocking revelations on the intimidation of a Dutch lawyer willing to challenge the government, the tampering with evidence, the testimony of experts such as the German lawyer, Professor Giemulla, witnesses of Ukrainian air force activity, plus the fraudulent nature of SBU-supplied evidence, made a great impression and set the tone for the conference.

Session 2. Review of evidence and background

This session was moderated by Tan Sri Fuzi, former Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia, an accomplished diplomat and currently active in a wide range of businesses as chairman of the board and director.

The first speaker was Michel Chossudovsky, emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and director of the Centre for Research of Globalization, one of the three organisations behind the conference. I am familiar with Chossudovsky’s work from the time of the NATO intervention in the dissolution of Yugoslavia and his relation with Malaysia includes membership in the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. The website of he CRG, Global Research.ca, is one of the most read alternative news media in the world.

Chossudovsky argued that there have in fact been four investigations on MH17. Besides the Dutch Safety Board and the JIT, there was first the investigation immediately after the event and leading to the assertion of Russian guilt. It was based on radar images mentioned by US Secretary of State John Kerry, which were not heard of again but which yet made a great impact on the political climate in which subsequent investigations transpired. Next there was the investigation by then-SBU-head Nalyvaychenko who claimed to have discovered a Russian plot to shoot down one of its own civilian airliners and thus provoke a Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Chossudovsky highlighted the political credentials of Nalyvaychenko and the absurdity of this assertion on several counts, although it did not apparently disqualify the SBU as a source for the subsequent two investigations (DSB and especially, JIT).

The second speaker was Peter Haisenko, a retired civil aviation pilot with a long career as captain on international flights with Lufthansa. Meanwhile also a prolific author and publisher and well-known on this particular dossier, he was interviewed by the JIT but nothing of his findings in the end made it into their conclusions, perhaps also because the DSB had already excluded any other outcome than a Buk impact.

Haisenko told the conference that he had studied photographs of the wreckage right after the MH17 disaster and discovered evidence of impact holes of 30 mm explosive shells in some of the high-definition pictures on the Internet. When he found these pictures had been removed the next day, he began his own investigation, among other things discussing the possibility of a Buk missile having exploded near the Boeing’s cockpit. Following conversations with experts including the former East German anti-aircraft officer and author, Bernd Biedermann, Haisenko came to the conclusion that the cause of the downing could not have been a Buk missile. Instead he claims an Su-25 ground-support fighter jet (which I in my book still rule out because it is subsonic and not fast enough to manoeuvre around a Boeing 777 at top speed) may have fired a heat-seeking air-to-air missile hitting an engine and slowing down the Boeing to around 600 km/h but not destroying it, after which the Sukhoi was able, flying at 0.9 Mach, to fire its cannon at the cockpit with the aforementioned shells (actually two types loaded alternately). With the pilots killed, the explosions of the anti-tank shells that are the standard armament of an Su-25, then caused the plane to break-up in mid-air.

After the presentations there was extensive Q & A and of course discussions continued in between sessions and after the conference. I suggested to Haisenko that for his account to be vindicated (it incidentally was the only express alternative theory of why MH17 was destroyed at the entire conference), we must know what was on the voice and flight recorders, a topic of dispute later.

As the third speaker in this session I relied for the greater part on my book, which deals primarily with the geopolitical and economic context of the tragedy. About the actual event, in contrast to DSB and JIT, I only list the different possible scenarios, so who had Buks, what do specialists say about the effect of a Buk hit, who had fighter jets, what are the characteristics of such jets, and so on. Ultimately I cannot say with certainty what was the cause of the downing except that all circumstantial considerations, so who had a motive, who profited, and so on, would seem to point to the coup regime in Kiev and its Atlantic backers. I also mentioned how the DSB Final Report has lied about the presence of 1.3 tons of lithium ion batteries right behind the cockpit, which if on fire, produce high explosive gases.

Also I asked why the Su-25 pilot, Voloshin, whom an airbase mechanic declared had returned from a sortie in great distress on 17 July, had never been interviewed by the DSB or JIT before he died, supposedly by suicide, in March 2018. That the DSB and JIT investigations are profoundly compromised because of the veto granted to the Kiev coup regime, is in my book, and here I also mentioned that the law establishing the DSB already rules that facts harmful to Dutch foreign relations will not be reported. Finally I asked why the JIT did not accept the evidence offered by the German investigator, Josef Resch, whilst relying extensively on the proven falsehoods of the amateur Internet collective, ‘Bellingcat’ (instead of one or more of the 17 US intelligence agencies)—claims which I show in my book had been previously dismissed by the JIT as ‘unfit for evidence’.

Session 3. MH17: Legal dimensions

This session was moderated by Professor Mary George of the Faculty of Law, University of Malaysia, and a specialist on law of the sea and air and space law. In hindsight I would think this was the most important session determining the outcome of the entire conference. For whereas the other sessions gave details adding up to serious doubts about the tenability of the conclusions of the Dutch-led investigations, which led to the recent indictment of four individuals for murder and the announcement of a trial held in the Netherlands in March 2020, this session resulted in the recommendation to prevent that trial from taking place in the first place.

The first speaker, Canadian criminal defence lawyer John Philpot, a specialist in international criminal law with 35 years of experience including the tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court (ICC), brought his experience to bear on the MH17 case. In all the recorded cases of international criminal justice, the dedicated courts dealing with the Rwanda genocide, with the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia, and the ICC (which in practice turned out a court limiting its prosecution to criminal actions by Africans), Philpot had established that this is a highly politicised form of justice, far removed from the presumed neutrality of a normal court and with a prosecution which has to be mistrusted most because its role, too, differs fundamentally from a national prosecutor’s office. Since on the long flight back I read a large part of an edited collection on international criminal justice that he gave me as a present in Kuala Lumpur, I recognised many of the characteristics of the JIT (tunnel vision, prejudice, political pressure notably by the US and Western governments) in the cases analysed in that book (‘Justice Belied. The Unbalanced Scales of International Criminal Justice’).

The second speaker, Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar, a solicitor, former Professor of Law at the University of Malaysia, and president of the Malaysian Human Rights Society, covered a different legal aspect, the question of a possible civil suit against the Kiev regime for keeping open the air space above a war zone (along the lines of the lawsuit on behalf of the German victims’ relatives by Professor Giemulla, as in the ‘Call for Justice’ documentary). Since Kiev obviously did not fulfil its international obligations in this domain, there should be good grounds for a successful civil suit, Gurdial argued.

Session 4. Ground Zero: The Unsung Heroes

This session, chaired by former Reuters staff correspondent Amy Chew, featured Colonel Sakri, who also appears in the ‘Call for Justice’ documentary. Col. Sakri was instructed by then Prime Minister Najib to fly to Ukraine and gain hold of the data recorders of the plane (black boxes) besides ensuring that the bodies of the Malaysian victims would be collected in a proper manner. Col. Sakri gave a chilling account of the operation he led, which included crossing ten checkpoints between the Ukrainian government-held territory and the rebel areas, against the will of the coup government in Kiev. As a military officer, he knew he exposed himself and his men to grave danger, but having reached the rebels, he was handed the black boxes without further ado, a sign they had nothing to hide. I was impressed by Sakri’s sober account even of anecdotes that might have been presented with bravado. The same for the moment, also in the documentary, when he was confronted by FBI agents demanding the black boxes upon his return to Kharkov and said ‘no’. His telephone conversation with Prime Minister Najib, in which the latter implored him to secure the black boxes at all cost, if only for the sake of national dignity after the successive disasters of MH370 and MH17, was very moving, certainly when Sakri, again in the most modest of terms, related how he effectively pledged his life. Whether MH370, lost in March 2014, was really the reason for Malaysia to turn down the offer to lead the (technical) MH17 probe, as maintained by the former head of the Civil Aviation Department, Mr Azharuddin, who made two long interventions at the conference in reply to questions, was a matter much discussed in the corridors. The same for the question of whether Malaysia had ever been allowed to listen to the original tape recordings of the voice and data recorders, referred to already.

Session 5. In Memory

This session had been planned to be dedicated to the victims and their families. However, although the two relatives, the widow of the first officer and the daughter of the chief stewardess, had been closely involved in the planning, including how they would be presented in the programme booklet (which was printed in accordance with their wishes), they withdrew two days before the conference (a single line in the booklet was printed just in time to this effect, below their portraits). The letter in which they conveyed the decision to withdraw was cast in what the organisers told me was an uncharacteristically bitter and vehement mould. But not only did the letter unexpectedly complain about the lack of professionalism and transparency of the conference organisers, it so happened that the Dutch deputy ambassador knew about the letter and also, on his visit to the Perdana Foundation office, was able to report that a copy had been sent round to all foreign embassies in Kuala Lumpur.

The Malaysian organisers told me that it was certainly surprising that the previously cooperative family members would suddenly change their minds about participation, and also that they would be able to circulate their letter at such short notice to the foreign embassies, of which the addresses are not readily available outside the diplomatic milieu. The organisers also expressed their disquiet about the extent to which the Dutch had access to and were able to influence the victims’ relatives more generally. Somebody else told me that a Malaysian cameraman filming commemorative ceremonies on the fifth anniversary of the tragedy, had reported that a statement praising the JIT work, read out by a young Malaysian victims’ relative at an event in the Australian embassy, had just been handed to her by somebody else in the room. I was left with the feeling that the ‘quest for justice’ as interpreted by the Dutch (and Australian) diplomatic representation(s) may not be of the same quality as that which impressed me so much in the conference. The Dutch embassy had been given the assurance that the conference was a public event and that the deputy ambassador was most welcome to raise questions, express dissent, or whatever. However, I was told that the promise he made to call back later regarding the invitation was not honoured and nobody turned up in the end.

Nevertheless ambassador Fauziah, who had agreed to chair this session, volunteered to do it on her own. Her account of how the Malaysian embassy in The Hague dealt with the tragedy when it happened, the harrowing details of sorting the body parts that kept coming in once the recovery of the bodies began, the negotiations with the relatives about repatriation, all of it was presented with professional sang froid. At the same time, she told us, the embassy had to continue its other work too, as in the field of economic, especially agricultural matters, for which it has special attachés (at the dinner Dr Fauziah had told me more than 100 Dutch companies are active in Malaysia).

Session 6. Formulation of an Action Plan

This was the closing session of the conference, chaired by Mr Tan Sri Jawhar, a senior government official in the foreign affairs area, with a long list of distinctions awarded on account of his international activities for Malaysia in the fields of security, in ASEAN, and the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network for Nuclear Non-Proliferation.

In this final session, Dr Zulaiha Ismail, a trustee of the Perdana Foundation who earned her Ph D in Human Resource Development at George Washington University in the US, was joined by Ms Askiah Adam, a lead writer in the New Straits Times and the executive director of JUST, and Dr Chandra Muzaffar. It was at this session that the plans for further action were formulated first, I assume on the basis of ideas that had already been explored previously. At the centre is the idea of seeking to obtain a suspension of the preparations for a trial, rightly seen as premature given the flawed, one-sided nature of the evidence presented so far. This was discussed in its various aspects with an energy that was most surprising given that this was one of the longest one-day conferences I have attended, with hardly a break except for lunch. Whether it was at this point that the intention to present the outcomes of the conference, including the proposal to have the Malaysian prime minister contact his Dutch counterpart directly, to Dr Mahathir, or whether I heard it later or read it in the Sunday papers the next day, I don’t recall because my energy certainly was at a low ebb.

With Dr Zulaiha, one of the driving forces of the conference, I had spoken before about another plan to come to Malaysia, earlier in August, for a conference proposed by friends and colleagues I had met in Moscow when presenting the Russian translation of my MH17 book in May. This had clearly been an initiative for which the time to prepare had been too brief. Dr Zulaiha told me that she had been aware of it, but that Malaysia as a long-standing non-aligned country would always have preferred to organise an event like this on its own, also to avoid being seen as a channel of Russian concerns. For the present conference the Russian embassy had been invited (like all other embassies, the media, etc.) and three junior diplomats had indeed turned up but they had no active role.

The third speaker in this closing session, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, also used the occasion to respond to questions posed by young reporters of Malaysian newspapers, which I found provocative by their lapidary form and insistence. Thus one young reporter asked, where was our ‘rock-solid evidence’ that the JIT investigation was flawed. To this Chandra replied by going over a number of instances of how Kiev was given a veto, and also how Malaysia had been kept out of the JIT until, effectively, March 2015, almost a year after the tragedy. He patiently explained that such a course of events, which is beyond dispute, is itself evidence too. He also went over to the counter-attack, asking why the newspapers had unanimously refused to carry the announcement of the conference, so that few people outside the circles associated with the organisers knew of it. As a result, the public turnout was limited, although this did not of course affect the quality of the debate.

I can only say that Chandra’s role in this matter was impressive by his consistent courtesy and eloquence in the face of arrogant, puerile questioning. Whether that may have helped the turnabout of the media the next day, when all the major newspapers carried the key message that came out of the conference, viz., that the trial should be suspended, I don’t know. The Sunday edition of the New Straits Times had a two page report covering various aspects in depth, with pictures of several speakers, the audience, and the same conclusion in the headline, ‘Bid to Halt Prosecution of MH17 Suspects’.

Whatever the actual success of this aim, I do feel that with this conference a momentous step has been taken to establish an international alternative task force on the topic of the downing of MH17. With each of the foreign participants relying on their own associates at home, further research can be made part of a collective resource base now that face-to-face contact and mutual confidence have been established at Kuala Lumpur. As to myself, I will make an effort to get my contacts in Russia and in the other countries where my book has been translated, also on board of this enterprise. In this and in other respects this inspiring, flawlessly organised conference has brought the quest for justice for the victims and relatives of the MH17 tragedy a huge step forward.

The author is a senior academic in The Netherlands.

17 August 2019

By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers

11 Aug 2019 – “We oppose the extraterritorial application of unilateral measures.” That is not Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, Russia, or China talking about the most recent unilateral coercive measures imposed by the United States against Venezuela, i.e. economic sanctions that have become an economic blockade, but the European Union. Even allies who have embarrassed themselves by recognizing the phony “interim president” Juan Guaido are saying the US has gone too far.

All of the countries listed above and many more have stated their opposition to the escalation of the US economic war against Venezuela. Venezuela, along with Iran, has become a prime target of US regime change, and both are uniting the world in opposition to US bullying behavior, which is hastening the demise of US domination. Popular social movements are growing against US unilateralism and violations of international law.

Countries of the World are Uniting against the United States

Six months ago, the US sought to install a puppet government led by Juan Guaido. Guaido, trained by the US, was an unknown personality to most Venezuelans. He is a minor politician who barely won election to the defunct National Assembly. Today, the failure of the US coup attempt is evident. Repeated efforts by Guaido, his allies and the United States to rally support for Guaido from the people and Venezuelan military have failed.

A large rebuke on the international stage occurred in July when delegations from 120 countries of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) united to oppose US policy against Venezuela, saying in a statement that only Venezuela can decide its fate, no other state can intervene in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The UN General Secretary pointed out the importance of the Non-Aligned Movement when she spoke at the beginning of the conference, stating that “two-thirds of the United Nations members and 55% of the world’s population” are represented by it, making it the second-largest multinational body in the world after the UN.

Javad Zarif, the Foreign Minister of Iran, put the US intervention against Venezuela in context, declaring upon his arrival for the meeting: “The resistance of the people of Venezuela against the United States is very important for all the countries of the world.”

The economic blockade, announced last week, has also escalated opposition to dollar domination. There are now 21 countries on the US sanctions list and scores of other countries are impacted by US sanctions. In reality, what the US is doing is imposing unilateral coercive measures against these countries, which violate the United Nations Charter. Sanctions imply there was a formal action that justified punishment, but that is not the case here.

The Caracas Declaration was passed at the NAM meeting. As Anya Parampil reported in the Grayzone, “the delegates unanimously affirmed their pursuit of a multipolar world and a desire to construct an international financial system independent of US control.”

The Declaration also contained a clause calling for following the Vienna Convention, which includes a provision to protect diplomatic missions. No doubt this was in response to the US seizure of Venezuelan diplomatic properties, highlighted by the work of the Embassy Protection Collective to uphold international law.

Sanctions Are Economic Terrorism

At the NAM meeting, representatives of various countries described the impacts of the US’ economic war on their people. Zarif of Iran made the point clear: “Just Google ‘terrorism.’ This is the definition that the dictionary will give you: ‘unlawful use of violence or intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political gains’… so please friends, stop using [the term] ‘sanctions’… sanctions have a legal connotation. This is economic terrorism… we have to say it again and again.”

Illegal unilateral coercive measures have contributed to the deaths of 40,000 Venezuelans in 2017 and 2018. A leading Venezuelan Economist, Francisco Rodríguez, says the Trump Administration’s sanctions are costing Venezuela $16.9 billion annually and threaten a famine that could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths. Two days after Trump’s new Executive Order was signed, a ship carrying 25 thousand tons of soy-made products for food production in Venezuela was blocked.

The NAM conference agreed to study and report on the impact of US sanctions, ensuring that the movement against illegal unilateral coercive measures by the United States will continue.

Russia, an observer of the NAM, was represented by Vice Minister Sergey Ryabkov who said the US was strangling Venezuela with one hand through sanctions while pick-pocketing it with the other by freezing its assets held in Western banks. Ryabkov told The Grayzone, “the US has sanctioned almost 70 countries in recent decades, impacting the lives of over one-third of the world’s population.”

The US tried to threaten diplomats to convince them not to attend the meeting, but was unsuccessful. Jorge Arreaza, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, described the successful summit as “a failure of US diplomacy” driven home by “120 countries [that] are not aligned with the US… they want to be free, they want to be independent.” He described the Non-Aligned Movement as a “vaccine against unilateralism.”

President Maduro spoke at the meeting. He underscored the march of history toward freedom and the end of US empire describing the 21st Century as “the century of freedom, it is the century of the end of empires, and it is just beginning in 2019…nothing, nor anyone will stop us…no one can stop the course of the new story that is making its way!”

People’s Movements Organizing against US’ Violations of International Law

The US blockade against Venezuela and continued threats of military attack galvanized worldwide protests this weekend. Popular Resistance joined with other social movements and civil society organizations in denouncing the blockade.

In addition to the Non-Aligned Movement’s renewed commitment to the United Nations Charter, popular movements are organizing along similar lines. This week, we launched the Global Appeal to Save International Law, an effort to create a global network of people and social movements to demand respect for the United Nations Charter and its use as a tool for maintaining peace, guaranteeing human rights and protecting the sovereignty of nations.

From September 20-23, a coalition of organizations is holding the People’s Mobilization to Stop the US War Machine and Save the Planet. The Mobe will highlight the role of US militarism as the largest polluter on the planet during the Global Climate Strike on Friday, September 20 and join in calling for decolonization at the Puerto Rico Independence March on September 21. The People’s Mobe will hold a rally at Herald Square at 2:00 pm on Sunday, September 22. On Monday the 23rd, we will hold an evening event: “A Path To International Peace: Realizing the Vision of the United Nations Charter,” which will feature social movements and government representatives working for an end to US violations of international law. Registration is free, but is required. Register here.

Opposition to US violations of international law were also evident at the Sao Paulo Forum held in Caracas from July 25-28 with the participation of 190 organizations, political parties, social movements, workers’ movements, parliamentarians and intellectuals from Latin America, the Caribbean and several continents. Seven hundred people participated in the four-day event showing unity across Latin America against US aggression.

A dozen members of the Venezuelan Embassy Protection Collective attended the forum, spoke to the conference and were received with standing ovations for their work to uphold international law. The Collective had challenges getting to the Forum, due to US airlines no longer flying to Venezuela, and one member was harassed at the US border when he returned.

A Final Declaration was issued by the Forum in support for Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and other progressive governments under attack by US imperialism and for a demand to free Lula and other left-wing leaders imprisoned for political reasons.

Rising Resistance

People are standing up to US interventions in many other countries. In Honduras, there are widespread protests against the US-installed coup president, Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was indicted last week in the US for drug trafficking. US-trained police are responding to protests with violence. A hunger strike by political prisoners turned into a call for Hernandez’s resignation. Embassy Protector Adrienne Pine is there and reporting via Twitter.

In Nicaragua, peace has prevailed after a US coup attempt last year. A US-funded Human Rights Director was accused of massive theft of US regime change dollars and inflating death tolls. To understand Nicaragua, read this excellent book by social movement leaders. There is a great deal happening in Cuba, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador and other countries responding to US domination. Stephon Sefton writes that the next five years will be pivotal for the Left in Latin America.

Another top target is Iran where the US has escalated its economic war after Trump violated the nuclear arms agreement. Iran is being very strategic in responding to US aggression in the Strait of Hormuz and the US has been unable to get traditional allies like France and Germany to join with it, causing concerns within the US foreign policy establishment. The US economic war is undermining the Iranian economy and causing tens of thousands of deaths annually.

Iran has never attacked another country nor invaded a country to steal its resources. They are proud of their skills in diplomacy and negotiation, as a veteran of the Iraq-Iran war wrote to President Trump in an open letter. He warns that the initiator of war is the loser, and attacks on Iran will backfire. Foreign Minister Zarif made a similar point with regard to the unilateral coercive measures saying US economic terrorism will backfire against the US.

The Loss of US Supremacy

Aggressive US actions being put in place by Trump, John Bolton, and Mike Pompeo are backfiring. Responses are being put in place that will unravel US economic power, which is more fragile than it seems.

Foreign Minister Zarif summarizes the situation saying, “Last year we did 35 percent of our bilateral transactions with Turkey in our own currencies. And this is happening between us and China, between us and India, between us and Russia, and between us and the countries in the region.”

Countries are responding to dollar domination by trading without the US dollar. JP Morgan’s private bank advised clients that “the US dollar could lose its status as the world’s dominant currency” and urged investors to diversify their currency holdings. New financial structures are being created by Europe, Russia, Iran, China, and others to trade without the dollar. The value of the dollar is in decline and last month Credit Suisse predicted it would continue to fall.

The US political leadership seems unable to change course. The bi-partisans in Washington, DC passed a record-setting two-year military budget that continues to misspend US resources on an arms race and never-ending war rather than on critical needs at home. The failure to rebuild infrastructure, make education from pre-school through college free and available to all, confront the lack of investment in cities and rural areas and confront the crisis of healthcare with national improved Medicare for all will cause a downward US spiral.

The myth of American Exceptionalism is being exposed, as we discuss with Danny Haiphong on Clearing the FOG. We need to prepare for a new era as the 2020’s offer potential for significant social and political transformation if we work at it.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance.

19 Aug 2019

Source: www.transcend.org