Archives: Articles

By Richard Falk

18 Aug 2019 – The decision to ban, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, two sitting members of the U.S. House of Representatives, disgraces the leaders of both the United States and Israel, confirms the illegitimacy of both political parties by their tepid responses, and confirms once more the unhealthy relationship that has evolved between Trump and Netanyahu, these two most reactionary of political figures, and badly reflects on the political atmosphere in the countries they represent. For an American president to encourage a foreign government to deny entry to elected members of Congress is not only unprecedented, harmful to the quality of democratic life in America, and represents a wrongful and extremely distasteful use of his position to engage in nasty partisan reelection politics aimed at the 2020 elections. This outrageous display of further impeachable behavior by Trump is further accentuated by the defamatory, as well as maliciously and demonstrably false assertions in this notorious tweet that Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib hate Israel and all Jews, and nothing can alter their views.

For Netanyahu, the leader of Israel, to reverse an earlier decision to allow these U.S. officials to enter the country in response to Trump’s tweet has just the reverse effect of what is claimed. By seeming to forego Israel sovereign rights in response to an inappropriate interference in Israeli public policy by the American Head of State, Netanyahu reveals to the world Israel’s weakness, not its strength, and in the process casts a dark shadow over Israel own claims of political legitimacy. As well, to give way in this unseemly manner to Trump may also prove to be a tactical blunder in the Israeli context even if it contributes one more sordid chapter to their quid pro quo relationship. Such a craven move by Netanyahu might turn off just enough Israeli voters to tip the balance against the Likud Party in the forthcoming September 17thelections. Not only was Trump’s tweet an effective assault on Israeli sovereign rights, but it also undermines the long absurd propaganda claims of Israel to be a democratic state that values and protects freedom of expression.

After further political turmoil, Israel appeared to relent, but by affixing humiliating conditions, and then only with respect to Rashida Tlaib. The Israeli Minister of Interior, Aryeh Deri, agreeing to a ‘humanitarian’ visit provided the Congresswoman agreed not to promote boycotts of Israel while in the country, her visit restricted to the sole purpose of visiting her 90-year-old grandmother in a small Palestinian village not far from Ramallah. After initially accepting these constraints over the intense objections of her supporters and even her family back in Palestine, Rep. Tlaib reversed her own acceptance of the Israeli conditions, issuing a statement denouncing the constraints she earlier accepted, and refusing to restrict her time in her own Palestinian homeland to a personal visit. Of course, an Israeli rebuke followed from Deri, claiming that her rejection of Israel’s humanitarian gesture exhibits the Israeli-bashing intent that motivated the fact-finding visit. Deri hammered one more nail in Tlaib’s already exposed flesh: “Apparently her hate for Israel overcomes her love for grandmother.” More understandably, Tlaib also was rebuked by many Palestinians for initially accepting Israel’s conditions intense objections to her face from supporters, alleging that she fell into Israel’s trap, “and accepted to demean herself and grovel.”

Seeking to thread this needle separating an ill-timed family ties from her high-profile political image, Tlaib chose these words, “Silencing me and treating me like a criminal is not what she [her grandmother] wants for me—it would kill a piece of me.” Although Tlaib used poor judgment by first agreeing to Israel’s acceptance, her statement explaining her reversal a short time later, had a redemptive effect. Perhaps, more disturbing, was Tlaib’s failure to sustain a posture of public solidarity with Ilhan Omar, whose relevance was ignored in Tlaib’s three-step dance movement.

The distractions caused by this secondary development involving Tlaib should not be allowed to divert attention from the primary outrage resulting from the Trump tweet and Israeli gag order imposed on nonviolent advocates of the BDS Campaign, which in this instance meant banning entry to elected U.S. government officials, supposedly a super-ally.

In my view, Israel’s decision to ban these two members of Congress can at best be considered ‘an unfriendly act’ by Israel toward its unconditional ally. This alone should persuade a self-respecting U.S. Congress to react with much more than a few empty words of disapproval. At the very least, a message of censure should be formally endorsed by the House of Representatives, and delivered to the Israeli government, which strongly discourages further visits to Israel by members of Congress until Israel announces a policy of allowing entry any American official to visit Israel without restrictions. Perhaps, a more suitable alternative would be to urge banning members of the Knesset until Israel welcomes as visitors any and all members of the UN Congress without conditions. A further appropriate step would be to condition any approval of future military or economic assistance to Israel on lifting the ban on future visits by government officials, but also ideally by all American citizens regardless of political views; After all, American taxpayers have long paid their share of the annual aid package of at least $3.8 billion, the greatest per capita amount given to any country in the world.

I believe that by singling these two members of Congress, who happen to be the first two Muslim women ever elected to the House of Representatives, in the manner of Trump’s tweet is a clear instance of racism and hate speech, especially considered in light of his past hostile statements directed at prominent women of color who dare enter political life and oppose his presidency, including his past slanders of these two brave individuals. The language of Trump’s tweet also sought successfully to interfere with their effort to engage in a legitimate legislative undertaking in a discriminatory manner, and included this inflammatory and false allegation: “They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds.” The tweet ends with this shocking expression of hostility that demeans Trump and the Office of the Presidency rather than its intended targets, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. Trump’s final tweeted words– “They are a disgrace!” It is best understood as “You are disgraced.”

The media at least gave major attention to this unfolding political drama, although more in the spirit of narrating a human interest story than offering a damning commentary on the anti-democratic moves of these two ‘illiberal democrats.’ Tom Friedman, never foregoing a chance to deliver fence-setting know-it-all lectures to whomever would listen, managed staked out some liberal territory by condemning the tactical damage to their own countries and especially to the ‘special relationship’ between them as a result of making the Republicans the true friends of Israel, and the Democrats not so clear, hence fraying the edges of bipartisanship when it comes to support for Israel. Friedman also took the opportunity to make it clear that in his view Tlaib and Omar were not better due to their ill-considered support for BDS, which he argued dooms to two-state liberalism, and implies that by their criticism of Israel, the excluded officials are widening Jewish/Islamic cleavages rather than building bridges. [See Friedman, “If You Think Trump is Helping Israel, You’re a Fool,” Aug. 16, 2019]

Richard Falk is a member of the TRANSCEND Network, an international relations scholar, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, Distinguished Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global Studies, UCSB, author, co-author or editor of 40 books, and a speaker and activist on world affairs.

19 August 2019

Source: www.transcend.org

By Mehdi Hasan

14 Aug 2019 – Forget uranium enrichment: Has Iran mastered time travel?

Last month, the Trump White House put out a typically Orwellian statement, chock-filled with lies, distortions, and half-truths about Iran and the 2015 nuclear deal. One line in particular stood out from the rest: “There is little doubt that even before the deal’s existence, Iran was violating its terms.”

Huh? The Iranians were violating an agreement — before it even existed?

Is it any surprise that even the foreign minister of Iran took to Twitter to join the online ridiculing of the White House?

The Trump administration’s lies on the topic of Iran are now beyond parody. There is, however, nothing funny about them. U.S. government lies can have deadly consequences: Never forget that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children, not to mention more than 4,400 U.S. military personnel, are dead today because of the sheer volume of falsehoods told by the George W. Bush administration.

So it is incumbent upon journalists to do in 2019 what we collectively did not do in 2003: Check the facts, challenge the lies, debunk the myths.

Here’s my contribution: a refutation of five of the most dishonest and inaccurate claims from the hawks — claims that brought the United States and Iran to the brink of conflict only a few weeks ago.

Lie #1: Iran Is Building a Nuclear Weapon

President Donald Trump has referred to Iran’s “quest for nuclear weapons” and claimed the Islamic Republic will soon be “on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued, “Even after the deal, Iran continued to preserve and expand its nuclear weapons program for future use.”

The truth is that while it is accurate to speak of an Iranian nuclear program, which is legal under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is an utter lie to speak of an Iranian nuclear weapons program — as countless news organizations have also done.

As long ago as 2007, the U.S. intelligence community produced a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran which offered what then-President George W. Bush would later describe in his memoir as a “stunning” and “eye-popping” conclusion that “tied my hands on the military side”: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”

Nothing has changed since then. In January, then-Director of National Intelligence, Trump appointee, and former Republican congressman Dan Coats reaffirmed the consensus view of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies when he told the Senate: “We continue to assess that Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device.”

Nuclear weapons program? What nuclear weapons program?

Lie #2: Iran Violated the Nuclear Deal

The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that Iran was not sticking to the terms of the agreement — prior to the administration itself violating the agreement by unilaterally pulling out and reimposing economic sanctions on Iran.

The president claimed Iran “committed multiple violations.” Hawkish Republican Sen. Tom Cotton accused Tehran of having “repeatedly violated the terms of the deal.” So did Mark Dubowitz, head of the neoconservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, who said, “Iran is incrementally violating the deal.”

In fact, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, published more than a dozen reports confirming that Iran was fully complying with the terms of the deal. In April 2018, then-Defense Secretary James Mattis described the nuclear agreement as “pretty robust.” Even the then-head of the Israeli military, Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, said in March 2018 that the deal “with all its faults” was “working.”

Last month, Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, announced that the country’s stockpiles of enriched low-grade uranium would exceed the 300-kilogram limit laid out in the nuclear agreement — provoking a flurry of condemnations from Western governments and op-ed columnists. But let’s be clear about the order of events: The Iranian violation of one particular aspect of the deal came more than a year after the United States violated the entire deal.

Lie #3: Iran Is the Leading State Sponsor of Terror

“Iran remained the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism,” declared the State Department in September 2018. The Islamic Republic has been “the world’s central banker of international terrorism since 1979,” claimed national security adviser John Bolton a few weeks later. In June, Trump called Iran the “number one terrorist nation” in the world.

This makes no sense. Few would dispute the fact that Tehran has provided support, funds, and weaponry to Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which have been designated “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” by the U.S. government (though it is also worth noting that millions of Palestinians and Lebanese see them as resistance groups that are fighting against Israeli occupiers).

Yet the “war on terror” declared by Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks has been fought against Sunni jihadist groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Shabab — none of which are backed by Shia-majority Iran.

According to the Global Terrorism Index 2018, compiled by the Institute for Economics & Peace, more than half of the deaths caused by terrorists around the world in 2017 were a result of attacks by four groups: ISIS, the Taliban, the Shabab, and Boko Haram. Again, the experts agree that none of these groups are sponsored by Iran.

In fact, it is Iran’s biggest regional rival, Saudi Arabia, which has been accused of arming, funding, and providing Salafi ideological cover for many of these jihadists — including by this president.

“Who blew up the World Trade Center?” Trump asked on Fox News during the 2016 election campaign. “It wasn’t the Iraqis, it was Saudi — take a look at Saudi Arabia, open the documents.”

If any nation deserves the dubious distinction of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism,” it is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, not the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Lie #4: Iran Working with Al Qaeda

By conjuring up a fictitious alliance between Iran and Al Qaeda, the Trump administration has found a novel way of both justifying the “number one terrorist nation” tag and providing legal cover for a future U.S. attack on Tehran.

The president has claimed that Tehran “provides assistance to Al Qaeda.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, during his tenure as CIA chief, suggested it is an “open secret” that “there have been relationships” and “there have been times the Iranians have worked alongside Al Qaeda.”

The Bush administration’s attempt to link secular Saddam Hussein with the theocratic fanatics of Al Qaeda sounded preposterous to many of us back in 2002 and 2003. It was a dumb lie. Yet the Trump administration, and its hawkish outriders at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, now want us to believe that the sectarian Sunni killers of Al Qaeda have formed an alliance with Iran, a hard-line Shia theocracy.

“I’ve never seen any evidence of active collaboration,” Jason Burke, author of “Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror,” told me in 2017. The relationship between Al Qaeda and Iran is “not one of alliance” but “highly antagonistic,” concluded a report by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point in 2012.

The Iran-Al Qaeda conspiracy theory is an especially dangerous one. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed by Congress in the wake of 9/11, allows the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” As Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine told the New York Times in June, Trump administration officials “are looking to bootstrap an argument to allow the president to do what he likes without coming to Congress, and they feel the 2001 authorization will allow them to go to war with Iran.”

Lie #5: War on Iran Would Be Easy

This is perhaps the dumbest lie of all. Trump has threatened “the official end of Iran.” His pal in the Senate, Tom Cotton, has predicted that the United States could win a war with Tehran with just two strikes: “The first strike and the last strike.”

To call such statements absurd would be an understatement. Iran isn’t Iraq. As Col. Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, told me on a recent episode of my podcast, Deconstructed, a conflict with the Islamic Republic “would be horrible”:

Four times almost the size of Iraq, 80 million, not 26 million people, homogeneity to the population that Iraq certainly didn’t have, 51 percent Persian. Terrain … that’s just inhospitable, almost killed Alexander the Great, for example. This would be a vicious, long-term guerrilla campaign waged by the Iranians over 10 or 15 years. And at the end of it, it would look about like Iraq did in 2011. And it would cost $2 trillion and lots of lives and more than anything else, it would require at least a half a million troops.

In other words, it would be a disaster of epic proportions. Let’s be clear: Many of the accusations leveled by Western governments and Western media organizations against Iran — it is a serial violator of human rights; it is complicit in Bashar Assad’s murderous attacks on his own people; it backs Hamas and Hezbollah, it is a promoter of anti-Semitism — are undeniably true. But the five lies that are constantly deployed by politicians and pundits to justify military action against Iran, and even regime change in Tehran, are flat-out false. And if they are not called out, we will soon find ourselves embroiled in another bloody Middle East conflict that will make the war in Iraq look like a walk in the park.

Mehdi Hasan – mehdi.hasan@​theintercept.com

19 August 2019

Source: www.transcend.org

By Sara Flounders

The demonstrations in Hong Kong, now an open confrontation with the People’s Republic of China, have a global impact. What are the forces behind this movement? What provides the funds and who stands to benefit?

The increasingly violent demonstrations in Hong Kong are completely embraced and enthusiastically supported in the U.S. corporate media and all the imperialist political parties in the U.S. and Britain. This should be a danger sign to everyone fighting for change and for social progress. U.S. imperialism is never disinterested or neutral.

The disruptive actions involve helmeted and masked protesters using gasoline bombs, flaming bricks, arson and steel bars, random attacks on buses, and airport and mass transit shutdowns. Among the most provocative acts was an organized break-in at the Hong Kong legislature where “activists” vandalized the building and hung the British Union Jack flag.

U.S., British and Hong Kong’s colonial flags are prominent in these confrontations, along with defaced flags and other symbols of People’s China.

The New York Times described the airport shutdown: “The protests at the airport have been deeply tactical, as the largely leaderless movement strikes at a vital economic artery. Hong Kong International Airport, which opened in 1998, the year after China reclaimed the territory from Britain, serves as a gateway to the rest of Asia. Sleek and well run, the airport accommodates nearly 75 million passengers a year and handles more than 5.1 million metric tons of cargo.” (Aug. 14)

U.S. media have consistently labeled these violent actions “pro-democracy.” But are they?

Even if the leaders of these reactionary actions decide to pull back from the brink and recalibrate their tactics, based on the Chinese government’s strong warnings, it is important to understand a movement that has such strong U.S. support.

China has a right to intervene

It must be strongly stated that China is not invading Hong Kong if it moves against these violent disruptions. Hong Kong is part of China. This is an internal matter, and the call for independence for Hong Kong is an open attack on China’s national sovereignty.

Under Hong Kong’s Basic Law, the constitution for the city, the government is legally allowed to request help from the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.

The Chinese government has announced that it will intervene militarily to defend China’s sovereignty. Top government officials have labeled the most extreme acts as “terrorism” and denounced U.S. support. Several times officials raised the analogy to the Western “color revolutions” that violently overturned governments in Serbia, Ukraine, Libya and Haiti and were attempted in Venezuela and Syria.

“The ideologues in Western governments never cease in their efforts to engineer unrest against governments that are not to their liking, even though their actions have caused misery and chaos in country after country in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Now they are trying the same trick in China,” China Daily explained on July 3.

Liu Xiaoming, China’s ambassador to Britain, told reporters that their country was still acting as Hong Kong’s colonial master. (nbcnews.com, July 4)

“A spokeswoman for China’s Foreign Ministry claimed Tuesday that recent comments from American lawmakers Pelosi (D-Ca.) and McConnell (R-Ky.) demonstrate that Washington’s real goal is to incite chaos in the city,” according to CNBC. “By neglecting and distorting the truth, they whitewashed violent crimes as a struggle for human rights and freedom” (Aug. 14)

Where is U.S. support for other resistance?

Hong Kong police are denounced in the U.S. media for violence, but actually have shown great restraint. Despite months of violent confrontations, with flaming bottles constantly thrown, no one has been killed.

There is no such favorable media coverage or support from U.S. politicians for demonstrations of desperate workers and peasants in Honduras, Haiti or the Philippines, or for the yellow vest movement in France. There is never an official condemnation when demonstrators are killed in Yemen or Kashmir or in weekly demonstrations in Gaza against Israeli occupation.

These struggles receive barely a mention, although in every case scores of people have been killed by police, targeted for assassination or dissappeared.

While Hong Kong protests receive widespread attention, there is no similar coverage of or political support for Black Lives Matter demonstrations in the U.S. or the masses protesting racist Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and roundups of migrants.

U.S. pressure continues

Despite China’s warnings of possible martial law, strict curfews and military intervention to restore order, protesters have shown no signs of retreat. The U.S. and Britain are determined to propel forward those hostile political forces they have cultivated over the past two decades.

The escalating demonstrations are linked to the U.S. trade war, tariffs and military encirclement of China. Four hundred — half — of the 800 U.S. overseas military bases surround China. Aircraft carriers, destroyers, nuclear submarines, jet aircraft, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile batteries, and satellite surveillance infrastructures are positioned in the South China Sea, close to Hong Kong. Media demonization is needed to justify and intensify this military presence.

Encouraging the demonstrations goes hand-in-hand with international efforts to bar Huawei 5G technology, the cancelation of a joint study of cancer and the arrest of Chinese corporate officers. All these belligerent acts are designed to exert maximum pressure on China, divide the leadership, destabilize economic development and weaken China’s resolve to maintain any socialist planning.

Martial law in Hong Kong, a major financial center, especially for international investment funds coming into China, would impact China’s development.

Capitalist economic “freedom”

British imperialism, in the 155 years it ruled Hong Kong, denied rights to millions of workers. There was no elected government, no right to a minimum wage, unions, decent housing or health care, and certainly no freedom of the press or freedom of speech. These basic democratic rights were not even on the books in colonial Hong Kong.

For the past 25 years, including this year, Hong Kong has been ranked No. 1 in the right-wing Heritage Foundation’s list of countries with the “greatest economic freedom” — meaning the least restraints on capitalist profit taking. Hong Kong’s ranking is based on low taxes and light regulations, the strongest property rights and business freedom, and “openness to global commerce and vibrant entrepreneurial climate … no restrictions on foreign banks.” For this Hong Kong is the “freest society in the world.”

This “freedom” means the world’s highest rents and the greatest gap between the super-rich and the desperately poor and homeless. This is what Hong Kong youth face today. But the youth are consciously being misdirected to blame the city administration for the conditions Hong Kong is locked into under the “One Country, Two Systems agreement.”

An unequal colonial treaty

Hong Kong is stolen land. This spectacular deep water port in the South China Sea at the mouth of the Pearl River, a major waterway in south China, was seized by Britain in the 1842 Opium Wars. After negotiations with Britain had dragged on through the 1980s, the British imposed another unequal treaty on the People’s Republic of China.

Under the 1997 “One Country, Two Systems” agreement that officially returned Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories to the PRC, Britain and China agreed to leave “the previous capitalist system” in place for 50 years.

China, determined to reassert its sovereignty over land stolen by imperialist invasion, also needed funds for development. Most money in Asia moved through the Hong Kong banking system. So in 1997 China was anxious to reach a smooth transition that would not destabilize the transfer of investment funds into the 99.5 percent of China that had previously been denied development funds. Since the victorious Chinese Revolution in 1949, China had been sanctioned and blockaded from accessing Western investment and technology.

U.S. and British imperialism took full advantage of the 1997 concession that maintained their economic control of the former colony. Their hope was that Hong Kong could serve, as it had in the past, as an economic battering ram into China.

Their hopes were not realized. In 1997 Hong Kong’s gross domestic product was 27 percent of China’s gross domestic product. It is now a mere 3 percent and falling. Much to U.S. and British frustration, the world’s largest banks are now in China and they are state-owned banks.

What confounds the capitalist class, far more than China’s incredible growth, is that the top 12 Chinese companies on U.S. Fortune 500 list are all state-owned and state-subsidized. They include massive oil, solar energy, telecommunications, engineering and construction companies, banks and the auto industry. (Fortune.com, July 22, 2015)

U.S. corporate power is deeply threatened by China’s level of development through the Belt and Road Initiative and its growing position in international trade and investment.

U.S., Britain built a network of collaborators

When Britain and China signed the One Country, Two Systems agreement, all foreign intervention and colonial claims on Hong Kong were supposed to end. Full sovereignty was to return to China.

However, U.S. and British efforts to undercut Hong Kong’s return began in advance of the signing. Just before the transfer of sovereignty, Britain hastily set up, after 150 years of appointed officials, a partially elected, although still mainly appointed, government. They quickly established and funded political parties, composed of their loyal collaborators.

Millions of dollars were openly and secretly funneled into a whole network of protected social service organizations, political parties, media and social media, student and youth organizations, and labor unions established to undercut support for China and the Communist Party of China.

The Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions receives U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funding, along with British support. It promotes “pro-democracy, independent unions” throughout China. The HKCTU was established in 1990 to counter and undercut the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions founded in 1948, which is still the largest union organization with 410,000 members.

The HKFTU suffered years of brutal repression under British colonial rule as it fought for basic protection of workers’ rights. A strike organized by the HKFTU shook British colonial rule in 1967. The strike became a citywide rebellion sparked by mass layoffs of workers from the plastic flower factory. British colonial authorities harshly suppressed the uprising, resulting in 51 deaths and hundreds injured and disappeared. The HKFTU supports China and opposes the reactionary demonstrations.

NED funding = CIA support

Allen Weinstein, a founder of the NED, told the Washington Post in 1991, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” (Sept. 21, 1991) The NED funds, coordinates and weaponizes nongovernmental organizations and social organizations with the capacity to put tens of thousands of misdirected, idealistic and alienated youth on the streets.

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 NED bankrolls the Hong Kong Human Rights Movement, the Hong Kong Journalists Association, the Civic Party, Labor Party and Democratic Party. They are members of the Civil Human Rights Front that coordinates the demonstrations.

This role of the NED in China is increasingly harder to obscure. Alexander Rubinstein reported in “American Gov’t, NGOs Fuel and Fund Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Protests” (mintpressnews.com, June 13): “It is inconceivable that the organizers of the protests are unaware of the NED ties to some of its members.” (tinyurl.com/y6nhmapz)

The goal is to promote a hostile and suspicious attitude toward China and toward communism and to foster the false concept of a past democratic Hong Kong with a distinct identity. China Daily warns: “In recent years, there have been warnings that color revolutions are emerging as a new form of warfare employed by the West to destabilize certain countries.” (Aug. 12)

Which system works better?

The Aug. 13 New York Times refers to Hong Kong as a “bastion of civil liberties” to counter “Beijing’s brand of authoritarianism.”

British colonial past is deeply mythologized. Twenty-two years of constant nostalgia for this past, supposedly glorious time has influenced increasingly impoverished youth.

Despite decades of multimillion-dollar Western funding, Hong Kong has a poverty rate of 20 percent (23.1 percent for children) compared to less than 1 percent in mainland China. In the past 20 years, mainland China has lifted countless millions of people out of poverty

Just across the river from Hong Kong sits the city of Shenzhen. It is one of the Special Economic Zones established to lure Western technology. These zones, originally with thousands of labor-intensive factories and millions of workers earning low wages, were centers of capitalist exploitation and enormous profits for U.S. and other global capitalists.

Shenzhen grew from a city of 30,000 in 1979 to a megacity of 20 million, with the largest migrant population in China. Shenzhen had a population three times the size of Hong Kong. With investments via Hong Kong, this new city became a massive polluted factory town with sweatshops spewing out clouds of dark toxic smoke.

In the past five years, through city and national urban planning, Shenzhen is today one of the most livable cities in China, with extensive parks, tree-lined streets and the largest fleet of electric buses in the world (16,000), along with all-electric cabs. Shenzhen aims to have 80 percent of its new buildings green-certified by 2020. It is full of apartment blocks, office towers and modern factories with advanced equipment manufacturing, robotics, automation and giant tech startups.

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. In Shenzhen, wages have increased 8 percent every year, and more than 1 million new, public, green housing units at low rates are nearing completion.

The U.S. is demanding that China abandon state support of its industries, the ownership of its banks and national planning. But contrasting the decay, growing poverty and intense alienation in Hong Kong with the green vibrant city of Shenzhen across the river shows that there are two choices for China today, including the angry forces mobilized in Hong Kong: modern socialist planning or a return to the super-exploitation and imperialist domination of the colonial past.

For decades Britain and the U.S. used the people of Hong Kong for cheap labor. Now they are using the same population for cheap political propaganda. This cynical maneuver is just one more weapon in a desperate effort to disrupt China’s further development.

U.S. corporate power is incapable of meeting any of the desperate needs for housing, health care, education and a healthy environment for people here. Instead, in a relentless drive for profits, enormous resources are squandered on militarism to threaten countries around the world.

We must demand: U.S. Hands Off China! U.S. Out of Hong Kong!

Sara Flounders is an American political writer who has been active in progressive and anti-war organizing since the 1960s. She is a member of the Secretariat of Workers World Party, as well as a principal leader of the International Action Center.

16 August 2019

Source: www.workers.org

By Abdus Sattar Ghazali

Shi Jiangtao, a former diplomat writing in the South China Morning Post, says a fresh row between Beijing and New Delhi over India’s decision to split the hotly contested region of Kashmir into two territories could cast fresh uncertainty over bilateral ties amid signs of growing strategic competition.

Parts of Kashmir are claimed by the two regional giants as well as India’s arch-rival Pakistan, and the dispute is one of a number of border issues that have for decades dogged relations between Beijing and New Delhi, according to Shi Jiantao.

Chinese analysts challenged the Modi government’s stance that Kashmir was a domestic issue, Shi Jiangtao said and quoted Zhao Gancheng, a researcher with the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, as saying that while India’s move appeared to be a change to its domestic law, any attempt to alter the status of Kashmir had international implications, including for Pakistan, which condemned the move as an infringement of a United Nations resolution on the question of Kashmir’s sovereignty.

“Without consulting China or Pakistan in advance, Modi’s move, largely based on his domestic political needs, has further complicated the relations with China,” Zhao said.

“But their different stances on long-lasting border disputes are nothing new and it does not necessarily mean their relations would deteriorate inevitably if both sides manage their conflicting interests well,” said Zhao Gancheng.

Both Zhao and Wang Dehua, an expert on India at the Shanghai Municipal Centre for International Studies, said that with no solutions to their bitter, decades-old border issues in sight, the priority for both countries remained how to prevent their widening competition from spiralling out of control.

“I’m confident that bilateral ties will not be affected by lingering border disputes and other strategic differences, especially amid the escalating rivalry between China and the United States,” Wang said.

A series of high-level China-India exchanges are planned for the coming weeks, including a visit to China on Sunday by Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar.

Observers say his trip is expected to pave the way for Chinese President Xi Jinping’s informal summit with Modi in his parliamentary constituency Varanasi on October 12.

Jammu & Kashmir is controlled by China, India and Pakistan

Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research, said China’s protest busted a widely disseminated fiction on the Kashmir dispute.

“The original princely state of Jammu and Kashmir is divided not just between India and Pakistan. China occupies one-fifth of the original Jammu and Kashmir state,” he said.

Chellaney said the Aksai Chin Plateau, a sparsely populated area about the size of Switzerland in China’s western Xinjiang region, was part of the new Ladakh federal territory.

“China not only holds Aksai Chin but also lays claim to several other areas in Ladakh. Chinese military incursions into Ladakh have increased in recent years,” he said.

Shi Jiangtao quoted Madhav Das Nalapat, director of the Department of Geopolitics at India’s Manipal University, as saying that Beijing should not treat his country as an inferior power to be “lectured to on matters that are wholly within its own purview and competence”.

“Beijing’s comments on India’s domestic decision to fulfil the long-pending demand of the people of Ladakh for administrative separation from Kashmir have harmed the trajectory of Sino-Indian relations,” he said.

On Tuesday, China’s foreign ministry voiced “serious concern” about a highly contentious move a day earlier by India’s parliament, controlled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling party, to split the state of Jammu and Kashmir – which includes the Kashmir Valley and the Ladakh area – into two federal territories.

Jammu and Kashmir will have a state legislature, and Ladakh – which includes Aksai Chin, a Chinese-claimed and held disputed territory – will be ruled directly by New Delhi.

Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said the decision to create a separate territory for Ladakh was unacceptable and undermined China’s territorial sovereignty.

China’s Ambassador to Pakistan Yao Jing, on Wednesday, reiterated China’s stance that Jammu and Kashmir was an “internationally recognized disputed territory”, and criticized the Indian government for unilaterally revoking its special status.

Yao, speaking to journalists, also stressed on the need for compliance with international laws and hoped that both Pakistan and India would “take a suitable decision for the betterment of the Kashmiri people”, Ary News reported.

Yao said that de-escalating tension between Islamabad and New Delhi would be beneficial for the entire region. He said that being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, China.

Protest Demonstration in Washington

Muslim rights activists, including members of Pakistani-American community, held demonstrations outside the Indian Embassy in Washington to protest against the scrapping of special status to Jammu & Kashmir, The First Post of India reported Wednesday.

Accusing India of human rights violations in Kashmir, protestors sought the intervention of US President Donald Trump and the UN to solve the vexed issue.

They raised slogans against India and PM Narendra Modi. People of Kashmir “deserve independence, deserve their rights and deserve justice, ”Nihad Awad, national executive director of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said outside Indian Embassy in Washington.

“There is a humanitarian crisis brewing in the Kashmir valley. The State Department should urge the Indian Govt to immediately reinstate the protected status, lift the siege, and enter into peaceful negotiations,” said Awad.

CAIR is the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization in US.

The protest was organized by Chicago-based Sound Vision, which claims to be the pioneering Muslim-media organization of North America. Muslim activists also held demonstration outside the Indian Consulate in Chicago.

Members of other Muslim organizations, including the Islamic Leadership Institute of America, Burma Task Force which is working among Rohingya Muslims, and those representing Palestine groups, also participated in demonstration.

The US Council of Muslim Organizations expresses concern

The US council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), a conglomerate of more than two dozen American Muslim organizations, said in a statement Thursday It is beyond doubt that the longer the uncertainties continue and the longer the United Nations and world powers ignore Jammu & Kashmir, the more dangerous and intractable the crisis becomes in light of the fact that both Indian and Pakistan are nuclear powers. The crisis requires immediate diplomacy that recognizes the explosive situation on the ground in Jammu and Kashmir and takes immediate measures to avert it before it explodes.

The USCMO said Kashmir is under siege and silence is no longer an option. It called the Indian move to change Kashmir’s status as a crisis for the entire humanity.

The organization urged the 7-million strong Muslim American community to write letters and make phone calls to the White House and key members of Congress asking them to support peace in Kashmir and an end to the carnage.

It also advised the American Muslims to request one of the more than 200 World Affairs Councils (WAC) in the United States to arrange a program on Kashmir because of the nuclear danger there the greatest in the world-and unspeakable daily sufferings.

The USCMO statement pointed out that for more than five decades, the people of Indian Held Kashmir have been denied their inalienable right to self-determination. The people of Kashmir are helpless. The international community has abandoned them to the Indian repression.

More than 100,000 killed during the last decade, over 15,000 Kashmiri women violated, over 5,000 Kashmiri youths imprisoned in India, interrogation center and torture cells, more than 20,000 kids orphaned, 8,000 to 10,000 involuntarily disappeared, over 200 totally blinded with pellet guns.

The US council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) members are:

The American Muslims for Palestine, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), Muslim American Society (MAS), Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA), Muslim Ummah of Northern America (MUNA),The Mosque Cares (Ministry of W. Deen Mohammed), Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, Majlis Ash-Shura (Islamic Leadership Council of New York), The Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC), Muslim Forum of the Pacific Northwest (MFPNW), The North American Imams Federation, United Muslim Relief, ICNA Relief, Baitulmaal, Helping Hands, Mercy Without Limits, United Hands Relief, The Mosque Foundation, Islamic Center of Wheaton (ICW) IL, Islamic Society of Boston, Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center Virginia, Islamic Community Center of Illinois, (ICCI), Islamic Center of Detroit (ICD), Together We Serve Inc, International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), Burmese Rohingya Association of North America, American Muslim Alliance, Islamic Association of North America (IANA) and Islamic Center of Naperville IL.

Abdus Sattar Ghazali is the Chief Editor of the Journal of America (www.journalofamerica.net) email: asghazali2011 (@) gmail.com

9 August 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

By Countercurrents Collective

Hong Kong is hot with protests, and with a photo of foreign diplomats and protest leaders.

Media reports said:

Hong Kong’s Airport Authority said on Friday only departing passengers with travel documents will be allowed to enter the terminal as anti-government activists gear up for a three-day rally to raise awareness among tourists entering the city.

The move comes as officials confirmed on Friday that a police commander who oversaw pro-democracy demonstrations that roiled the former British colony in 2014 has been recalled to help deal with protests that have plunged the financial hub into crisis.

Former deputy police commissioner Alan Lau Yip-shing has been appointed to help handle large-scale public order events and steer operations, including activities to mark the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China on Oct. 1, the government said in a statement.

Hong Kong, which returned to Chinese rule in 1997, is embroiled in two months of increasingly violent protests. The demonstrations erupted in opposition to a now-suspended extradition bill, which would allow suspects to face trial in mainland China.

The escalating cycle of violence has prompted travel warnings from countries including the U.S. and Australia.

The protesters plan to converge on the airport on Friday afternoon.

“To maintain the smooth process of the departure procedures of passengers and the terminal operation, only departure passengers with an air ticket or boarding pass for the next 24 hours and a valid travel document, or airport staff with identity proofs will be allowed to enter to the check-in aisles at Terminal 1,” the Airport Authority said in a statement.

The massive travel hub connects the city to more than 220 global destinations and served 74.7 million passengers last year, according to the airport’s website.

A photo

A Hong Kong activist who has played an active role in the ongoing protests has raised suspicions after being photographed meeting with a senior official from the U.S. consulate.

Hong Kong newspaper Ta Kung Pao published a photograph of a U.S. diplomat, who it identified as Julie Eadeh of the consulate’s political section, talking to student leaders in the lobby of a luxury hotel.

The photograph appeared under the headline “Foreign Forces Intervene”, continuing a theme of previous protests from Beijing officials, who have blamed Hong Kong’s unrest on “black hands” from the U.S.

Chinese authorities have asked the U.S. to explain why that contact was made and to explain the nature of their relationship.

The photo shows leaders of the movement including Joshua Wong Chi-fung, the face and leader of the 2014 Umbrella Movement with an American diplomat.

Joshua, the secretary-general of pro-democracy party Demosisto, told the Hong Kong Standard that there was nothing sinister behind his recent meeting with Julie Eadeh, a political unit chief of the U.S. consulate general in Hong Kong.

“I even went to Washington several times, so what’s so special about meeting a U.S. consul?” Wong told the Standard.

He claimed that their discussion focused on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act – a bill proposed in the U.S. Congress, which calls for involvement in safeguarding “democracy” in Hong Kong.

The two also reportedly discussed banning U.S. exports of equipment to Hong Kong police.

In facebook post, he revealed his visiting Washington D.C., meeting U.S. officials, and meeting between the U.S. secretary of state and another Hong Kong protest leader.

A video that circulated on Twitter on Wednesday showed a demonstrator waving an American flag, as his accomplices hurled projectiles at a Hong Kong police station.

China demands: Stop interference

On Thursday, China’s Foreign Ministry expressed “strong dissatisfaction” over media reports alleging that a senior official at the U.S. consulate had met with a Hong Kong “independence group.”

In a statement, the ministry urged Washington to “immediately make a clean break with various anti-China rioters” and “stop interfering in Hong Kong’s affairs immediately.”

CCTV, China’s state-run broadcaster, called the U.S. diplomat “the behind-the-scenes black hand creating chaos in Hong Kong,” according to the New York Times, employing the term used against those who led the anti-government protests leading up to the Tiananmen massacre in 1989.

China has accused foreign powers, particularly the US, of fomenting the demonstrations in Hong Kong.

The top Chinese envoy in Hong Kong has demanded that the U.S. consulate “make a clean break from anti-China forces” following media reports of a meeting between an U.S. official and local activists including Joshua Wong Chi-fung.

On Thursday, the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed “strong disapproval” and “firm opposition” demanding clarification over a meeting two days earlier between U.S. consulate political counselor Julie Eadeh and Wong, Nathan Law Kwun-chung as well as fellow core members of local political party Demosisto.

In a statement, the office also labeled the activists as “anti-China forces who stir up trouble in Hong Kong.”

On Eadeh’s meeting with Wong and Law, a spokesperson of the foreign ministries commissioner’s said: “China is rock-firm in upholding national sovereignty and security, as well as Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability, and in opposing any interference in Hong Kong affair by any country, organization or individual in whatever form.”

The spokesperson said: “We strongly urge members of the U.S. [consulate] to … immediately make a clean break from anti-China forces who stir up trouble in Hong Kong, stop sending out wrong signals to violent offenders, refrain from meddling with Hong Kong affairs, and avoid going further down the wrong path.”

US denounces China

When contacted by AFP for comment, a U.S. State Department spokesperson said representatives of the U.S. government “meet regularly with a wide cross section of people across Hong Kong and Macau.”

A U.S. official has described China as a “thuggish regime” for disclosing the photographs and personal details of a U.S. diplomat who met student leaders involved in demonstrations in Hong Kong.

The denunciation was unusually sharp and came as tensions between Washington and Beijing surged over an expanding trade war and military rivalry in the western Pacific, among other disputes.

The Hong Kong office of China’s foreign ministry on Thursday asked the U.S. to explain reports in Communist party-controlled media that American diplomats were in contact with leaders of protests that have convulsed Hong Kong for nine weeks.

“I don’t think that leaking an American diplomat’s private information, pictures, names of their children, I don’t think that is a formal protest, that is what a thuggish regime would do,” state department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus told a briefing late on Thursday. “That is not how a responsible nation would behave.”

Ortagus did not name the diplomat, or elaborate further on what kinds of private information or children’s details were disclosed.

Ortagus said it was the job of U.S. diplomats and those from other countries to meet different people, including opposition leaders.

The discontent

A CNBC report headlined – Hong Kong protesters plan airport sit-in, will make ‘five demands’ – said:

“The discontent from protesters may go beyond politics. While the city’s rich have grown richer, the wealth gap in the city has grown wider, according to David Dodwell, a long-time observer of Asia politics.

“Many people feel left behind and neglected by the government, and their frustration is fueling increasingly disruptive protests that have coursed through the city, said Dodwell, who is executive director at HK-APEC Trade Policy Group and a former Financial Times Asia correspondent.

“‘There is a very widespread anxiety in Hong Kong among the ordinary working person about their prospects going forward,’ Dodwell told CNBC. He added that more than 90% of local Hong Kongers work for small and medium-sized enterprises, which have not seen the kind of economic growth that big multinational corporations have.”

9 August 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

By Niles Niemuth

Federal District Judge Anthony Trenga rejected a motion Monday from imprisoned whistleblower Chelsea Manning to reconsider the imposition of daily fines for her principled refusal to testify before a grand jury impaneled to bring frame-up charges against WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange.

Manning has been held in contempt of court for 149 days in the Alexandria City Jail. She now owes $40,000 in fines and is being assessed $1,000 for every day she refuses to testify, up from $500 per day assessed in her second month of confinement.

Manning expects to spend approximately 400 more days in jail if the grand jury does not conclude before its 18-month term is up. This means she would face a total of $441,000 in fines.

The 31-year-old former Army intelligence analyst is being vindictively pursued by the Trump administration for her role in exposing US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. She leaked to WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of military war logs, diplomatic cables and the infamous Collateral Murder video, which showed an Apache helicopter airstrike in Baghdad that killed at least a dozen civilians, including two Reuters journalists.

Manning was already convicted in 2013 on a number of charges, including under the Espionage Act. She served seven years in military detention, including one year in solitary confinement, before her 35-year sentence was commuted by President Barack Obama in 2017 as part of a cynical effort to burnish his record just before leaving office.

Assange is currently being imprisoned at Belmarsh Prison in England after being illegally snatched by police from the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he had been granted asylum. He was quickly convicted on a bogus bail-jumping charge and is awaiting an extradition hearing February 25 on his rendition to the United States.

Assange currently faces 18 charges, including 17 under the Espionage Act, and up to 175 years in prison for publishing the information which he received from Manning in 2010.

Last month, federal district judge John Koeltl dismissed a civil lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee which attempted to smear WikiLeaks and Assange as assets of the Russian government for publishing leaked DNC emails during the 2016 election. The ruling was a vindication of WikiLeaks’s rights as a publisher and exposed the ongoing effort to prosecute Assange over the publication of the documents provided by Manning.

The fact that Manning is still being detained in an effort to compel her testimony indicates that further charges are being considered which would be unsealed once Assange is firmly in Washington’s grips—even though current British and US law does not allow for further charges to be unsealed after a formal extradition request.

The charge which was used to justify the ending of his asylum and removal from the embassy, conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, names Manning as a co-conspirator, raising the prospect that she could also face criminal charges.

However, Manning has not yet been charged with any crime, and therefore cannot legally be punished. Trenga was at pains to insist in his ruling that the fines are merely coercive and not punitive.

Trenga, appointed to the bench by George W. Bush in 2008, ruled that there are no “reasonable grounds” to reconsider the fines since Manning “has the ability to comply with the court’s financial sanctions or will have the ability after her release from confinement.”

Her attorneys have argued that the fines are punitive rather than coercive, since there is nothing which will convince Manning to testify before the current grand jury or any other and since the unprecedented financial penalties threaten her with financial bankruptcy.

Manning has already lost her apartment, has no personal savings and is unable to work while in jail. Her only source of income prior to being incarcerated came from intermittent speaking fees.

In the face of the mounting fines and continued imprisonment, Manning has remained steadfast in her convictions.

“I am disappointed but not at all surprised” by the ruling, she said. “The government and the judge must know by now that this doesn’t change my position one bit.” During her contempt hearing in May, Manning told Trenga that she would “rather starve to death than to change my opinion in this regard.”

At the end of that month she submitted a letter outlining her politically principled objections to the grand jury system in general and its specific use against Assange and WikiLeaks.

“I believe in due process, freedom of the press, and a transparent court system,” Manning wrote. “I object to the use of grand juries as tools to tear apart vulnerable communities. I object to this grand jury in particular as an effort to frighten journalists and publishers, who serve a crucial public good. I have had these values since I was a child, and I’ve had years of confinement to reflect on them. For much of that time, I depended for survival on my values, my decisions, and my conscience. I will not abandon them now.”

The World Socialist Web Site and the Socialist Equality Parties (SEP) affiliated with the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) put out the call in June for the formation of a Global Defense Committee to secure the freedom of Assange and Manning. Protests and interventions to raise awareness about their joint persecution have been organized by the ICFI and other supporters of WikiLeaks around the world, including in England, Australia, Sri Lanka and India.

Time is of the essence for Manning and Assange, whose health, journalist John Pilger reports, is deteriorating and who is being treated worse than a murder suspect. The attack on Manning and Assange is part of a global assault on democratic rights, aimed at silencing journalists and intimidating all those who would expose the war crimes of the imperialist powers.

Manning and Assange’s freedom will not be won through moral appeals to the various governments that are engaged in a conspiracy against them, whether in London and Canberra or Quito and Washington, D.C. Instead, this movement must come from below through a campaign to mobilize the international working class, students, artists, intellectuals and journalists to save the lives of these two courageous individuals.

Originally published by WSWS.org

9 August 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

By National Alliance of People’s Movements

National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) unequivocally condemns the indefensible and totalitarian move of the BJP-led NDA Govt. to repeal Article 370 of the Constitution by way of a Presidential Order and introduce a Bill for bifurcation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories, not only without but seemingly in violation of the consent of the people and key political actors of the state.

It is also an extremely unfortunate day in our parliamentary politics that some key opposition parties (in Rajya Sabha) as well failed to raise the voice of people of Jammu & Kashmir and succumbed to the majoritarian politics, exposing the political bankruptcy of a section of the ‘Opposition’. However, we place on record our appreciation for those parties who stood by constitutional norms and the people of Jammu & Kashmir and opposed the Ordinance and the Bill.

Over the past one week, the entire nation as well as international community has been witnessing with bated breath the ‘actions’ of the Union Government, which kept the Kashmiris and citizens-at-large on tenterhooks and in utter darkness. This included a series of draconian measures like heavy upscaling in deployment of military forces, random frisking of people, arrests of former Chief Ministers and key leaders in J&K, disruption of mobile communication and internet, suspension of civil activity, evacuation of tourists and Amarnath pilgrims in an attempt to terrorise citizens and bulldoze the aspirations of the people of Jammu & Kashmir. It is in such a climate of fear and uncertainty that 370 has been abrogated.

It also needs to be noted that all the scare-mongering at the highest level of the Prime Minister turned out a complete hoax since the motives of this Govt. became crystal clear after the announcement in the Parliament yesterday. It is now evident that the imposition of President’s rule last year and further delay in holding Assembly elections, were all done with a purpose to abrogate Article 370.

This period would undoubtedly go down as one of the darkest days in the history of any democracy and the hurried, authoritarian and unilateral manner in which the Presidential Order and Bill were brought in would, unfortunately, remain as a blot on our seriousness to address the long-standing Kashmir question.

These steps not only violate the basis of conditional accession of Kashmir with the Indian Union in 1947 (which granted a special status to J & K) that was built into the constitution, but grossly betray the trust of the Kashmiri people and all sections of the Kashmiri political class in the Indian State and is bound to have a long term adverse impact on the democratic future of the country.

The manner of introducing the presidential order and Reorganization Bill is tantamount to a clear fraud on the Constitution. While provisions of Article 370 can be amended or dropped by the President only upon the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State of J&K (which ceased to exist in 1947), the present Ordinance was passed mischievously by interpreting the word ‘Constituent Assembly of the State of J & K as “Legislative Assembly” and since from Dec 2018, President’s rule has been imposed, the Parliament has ‘legally’ assumed authority to pass the present reorganization law for J&K.

It is an ostensible abuse of constitutional authority that the President has used his power under Art 370 (1) meant to amend the provisions of the Constitution of J & K to amend Sec 367 of the Indian Constitution, which has then been used to replace the words Constituent Assembly of the State of J & K as “Legislative Assembly”. Thus, the very legality of the Presidential Order insofar as it amends Article 370 is questionable, and therefore the Reorganization Bill based on the same is also legally untenable. This flies in the face of numerous judgements of the Supreme Court that no attempt should be made to amend a law or the Constitution indirectly, if the same cannot be done directly.

In the light of the above, it is amply clear that Jammu and Kashmir Re-organization Bill 2019 is grossly unconstitutional. In fact even two years back, in 2017, the Supreme Court held that Article 370 is “not a temporary provision”

Further, it is a matter or great political and constitutional concern that such a major change has been made during the period of imposition of the President’s rule (which should only be a temporary, emergency measure) and by merely consulting with the Governor and not the elected Legislature of J&K. This is a blatant assault on the federal character of the Indian Constitution as well as the federal spirit of the Instrument of Accession of 1947.

The manner in which the State of Jammu & Kashmir has been ‘constitutionally’ done away with portends a potential threat to all provinces, parts and territories within the Indian Union, especially fifth and sixth schedule areas and jeopardizes the very federal structure of the Indian constitution.

While it is true that “abrogation” of Article 370 has been a key communal agenda of the RSS-BJP since long, which is now being executed in a fascist ‘parliamentary’ manner, the pursuit of such agendas at the present time also absolves this Govt. of any accountability on its (lack of) performance on the economic front, particularly at a moment of severe recession.

We also would like to emphasize that Art 35 A has been made infructuous not because the BJP has any ‘concern’ for dalits and women (its track record on this front being pathetic in the rest of India), but because of its twin sinister design to a) change the religious and ethnic demograhy of J&K and b) to facilitate large-scale ‘developmental terror’ in the Himalayan state by throwing open its lands and resources to be ‘purchased’ and ‘owned’ by private players and corporates. Within a day, we have seen announcements that the PM is likely to inaugurate an ‘Investors Summit’ in October and there is no doubt now that more repression lay in store for the people of J&K and Ladakh region for questioning or resisting BJP’s ‘Vibrant Development Model’.

The past two months have seen Parliament push through a series of regressive, unconstitutional or flawed bills on important matters like RTI, Triple Talaq, UAPA, Trangender Rights, Surrogacy etc with barely any discussion or referral to parliamentary committees.

What is also evident is that with many of these Bills, especially Triple Talaq, Citizenship Amendment Bill and Article 370, BJP is making a clear attempt to legally institutionalize its communal agenda and destroy our constitutional secular ethos. The harm that this Govt is thus causing to the democratic fabric is this country is moumental and unforgivable. Parliament which is supposed to be the custodian of democratic values seems to be fast becoming a space where democratic values are eroded ruthlessly.

We the people’s movements from various states of India are protesting and shall protest across the country, this atrocious move to abrogate Article 370. The democratic forces in India have always demanded a peaceful political solution to the Kashmir question based on the right of self-determination of the people in Kashmir. The present imbroglio only complicates the whole situation instead of peacefully and maturely addressing it, leading to peace with our neighbours as well.

In these troubled times, we appeal to all sections of the society, political parties, mass, student organizations and concerned individuals to stand with Kashmiris, especially with young people and students from Jammu & Kashmir who are in workplaces, neighborhoods and educational institutions everywhere in India and ensure their safety and well-being.

We recognise that the people of Jammu & Kashmir are the most important stakeholders in this entire legal-political discourse and any action undertaken without involving them would be undemocratic. People of J&K have faced untold violence for decades and the Govt. has a mandate and responsibility to ensure that there are no more human rights violations. Our heart goes out to our sisters and brothers in Kashmir whose lives are being made miserable for the ulterior political motives of this Govt. We stand in solidarity with the resistance of the peoples of Jammu & Kashmir for a peaceful democracy. We request the people of Kashmir, especially youth and students to maintain calm and fight for their rights in a peaceful way and by democratic means.

We, the movements of this country demand the following immediately:

1. President must withdraw the Order repealing Sections of Article 370 and withhold consent to the State Reorganisation Bill, after its passage through both the Houses.

2. Election Commission must make arrangements to hold Elections to constitute Legislative Assembly of J&K because that is the only body authorised to take decision regarding the state

3. President and Govt of India must refrain from undertaking any further actions in the absence of the full and informed consent of the people of Jammu & Kashmir.

4. An immediate withdrawal of the additional military and para-military forces deployed in the area and maintaining forces only to the limited extent of verified strategic and intelligence requirement.

5. Immediate release of all the political leaders and civil society activists, ensuring no further arrests are made without any cogent justification and removal of bar on peaceful assembly.

6. Immediate restoration of communications, mobile and internet networks as well as safe resumption of all civil activity, especially schools, colleges, hospitals, transportation etc.

We condemn attacks online and on ground on people who are resisting this ‘abrogation’ and demand action. We call upon the peace loving common citizens of this country as well as people’s organizations to see through the nefarious designs of this government and defeat the attempt to destabilize our social and democratic fabric.

We also urge upon the people’s movements, trade unions and conscientious citizens of this country and leaders of the opposition parties to undertake a national mission to Kashmir to break this veil of security and complete blackout of the Kashmir valley and curfew in many other parts of the State.

Medha Patkar, Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) and National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM);

Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey, Shankar Singh, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, NAPM;

Gautam Bandopadhyay, Nadi Ghati Morcha; Kaladas Dahariya, RELAA, NAPM Chhattisgarh;

Prafulla Samantara, Lok Shakti Abhiyan; Lingraj Azad, Samajwadi Jan Parishad & Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti, Manorama, Ant-Posco Movement, NAPM Odisha;

P. Chennaiah, Andhra Pradesh Vyavasaya Vruthidarula Union-APVVU, Ramakrishnam Raju, United Forum for RTI and NAPM, P. Shankar (Dalit Bahujan Front), Vissa Kiran Kumar (Rythu Swarajya Vedika), Chakri (Samalochana), M. Venkatayya (TVVU), Balu Gadi, Bapji Juvvala, Meera Sanghamitra, Rajesh Serupally, NAPM Telangana – Andhra Pradesh;

Kavita Srivastava, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL); Kailash Meena, NAPM Rajasthan;

Sandeep Pandey, NAPM, Richa Singh, Sangatin Kisaan Mazdoor Sangathan; Arundhati Dhuru, Manesh Gupta, Suresh Rathaur, Mahendra, NAPM, Uttar Pradesh;

Sister Celia, Domestic Workers Union; Maj Gen (Retd) S.G.Vombatkere, NAPM, Karnataka;

Gabriele Dietrich, Penn Urimay Iyakkam, Madurai; Geetha Ramakrishnan, Unorganised Sector Workers Federation; Arul Doss, NAPM Tamilnadu;

Dr. Sunilam, Adv. Aradhna Bhargava, Kisan Sangharsh Samiti; Rajkumar Sinha, Chutka Parmaanu Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti,NAPM, Madhya Pradesh;

Vilayodi Venugopal, CR Neelakandan, Prof. Kusumam Joseph, Sharath Cheloor, NAPM, Kerala;

Dayamani Barla, Aadivasi-Moolnivasi Astivtva Raksha Samiti, Basant Hetamsaria, Ashok Verma, Aloka Kujur, NAPM Jharkhand;

Anand Mazgaonkar, Swati Desai, Krishnakant, Parth, Nita Mahadev, Mudita, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, Lok Samiti, NAPM Gujarat;

Vimal Bhai,Matu Jan sangathan; Jabar Singh, NAPM, Uttarakhand;

Samar Bagchi, Amitava Mitra, NAPM West Bengal;

Suniti SR, Suhas Kolhekar, Prasad Bagwe, NAPM, Maharashtra; Bilal Khan, Ghar Bachao Ghar Banao Andolan, Mumbai, NAPM Maharashtra;

Anjali Bharadwaj, National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), NAPM;

Faisal Khan, Khudai Khidmatgar, J S Walia, NAPM Haryana; Guruwant Singh, NAPM Punjab;

Kamayani Swami, Ashish Ranjan, Jan Jagran Shakti Sangathan; Mahendra Yadav,KosiNavnirman Manch; Sister Dorothy, Ujjawal Chaubey, NAPM Bihar;

Bhupender Singh Rawat, Jan Sangharsh Vahini; Sunita Rani, Domestic Workers Union;Nanu Prasad, Nirman Mazdoor Union; Rajendra Ravi, Madhuresh Kumar, Himshi Singh, Uma, Aryaman, NAPM, Delhi

For any further details, contact: | napmindia@gmail.com

7 August 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

By Satya Sagar

If any confirmation was needed Narendra Modi is determined to cast himself as a carbon copy of Indira Gandhi- albeit one with a venomous, communal edge – you need not look further than his latest Kashmir gamble.

There is true ‘Indira-style’ audacity written all over his regime’s decision to scrap the

special status given to the Himalayan state under the Indian Constitution, boldly bifurcating it and downgrading it to a union territory for direct rule from Delhi. The move goes against long-standing Indian government approach to Kashmir, risks a geopolitical backlash and stands a good chance of being struck down by the courts.

Not that Modi, who has become synonymous with the BJP he leads just as Indira was with the Congress party, really cares. For, this is his own ‘Bangladesh moment’ – the equivalent of Mrs. Gandhi’s dismemberment of regional rival Pakistan in 1971, by enabling the liberation of its eastern, Bengali speaking territories.

And just as Indira intervened in Pakistan’s civil conflict, following a sweeping victory in the Indian elections at that time, Modi has also ‘made history’ within months of a massive mandate for his regime in the mid-2019 pools. The forcible ‘integration’ of Kashmir, flouting all democratic and even Constitutional norms, is likely to seal Modi’s reputation among ‘real estate’ Indian nationalists[i] as a ‘great leader’ – on par with the ‘Iron Lady’ of Indian politics.

As Yashwant Sinha, former BJP leader turned bitter critic of Modi conceded to the Indian media, if an election is held tomorrow Modi will probably win more seats in parliament, than any other leader since Indian independence seven decades ago. It is no longer ‘Narendra’ but Nar’Indira’ Modi now.

However, while there are other similarities between Modi and Indira, including a common authoritarian streak (Watch out! The Emergency is coming soon!), there are crucial differences too in the convictions involved, context and the consequences of their actions. It is these differences that will determine whether Modi is really BJP’s answer to Indira Gandhi or is only a farcical repetition of the latter’s history.

Going back to the Bangladesh parallel, Indira Gandhi’s momentous decision to send troops to liberate East Pakistan was done – not only from an Indian military strategic point of view – but as a genuine move to end the then ongoing genocide of Bengali-speaking Muslims there, by the Punjabi-Muslim dominated Pakistani army. The Indian action was fully supported by the people of Bangladesh and it was a resounding success.

In sharp contrast, in the case of Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-dominated state, it is the Indian government itself that has been the main oppressor for long, robbing the people of the state of their democratic rights and treating it like a colony of India. Despite the Constitutional guarantee of autonomy provided by Article 370, very little of it was implemented in practice by successive Indian regimes. It is safe to say, Kashmir remains Indian territory only because of the presence of over half a million of its armed troops there, making it one of the most heavily militarized zones in the world.

In his first term as Prime Minister, though the Modi-led BJP managed to form a government in Kashmir with the People’s Democratic Party, a regional outfit, the alliance collapsed and worsened the strife in Kashmir. Dozens have been killed, thousands injured- mostly civilians- in street battles between Kashmiri citizens and the Indian armed forces in the last few years.

On the geopolitical front also, the Bangladesh story is completely different from what Modi is attempting in Kashmir now. Half a century ago Indira’s decision to take on the Pakistani army head on was an act of some courage, as it was also done in defiance of threats from the superpower United States, then a close ally of the generals running Islamabad.

In the case of Kashmir though the Modi government has denied recent claims by US President Donald Trump that he was asked to ‘mediate’ in the conflict, there is evidence that its move on Kashmir has all the blessings of Washington. According to Indian media reports the US had been ‘consulted’ well in advance before announcing the abolition of Kashmir’s special status and its geographical dismembering.

Perhaps the biggest divergence between Indira Gandhi and Modi’s ‘Bangladesh moment’ is the impact of their actions on the Indian Republic itself. Back in 1971, Mrs Gandhi managed to unite the political and social spectrum with her action – billed rightly or wrongly as a noble mission undertaken by India – and also won global admiration to boot.

Modi’s move on Kashmir, despite initial euphoria, however is likely to divide the nation deeply. For all its audacity the ideologically driven decision shows a complete lack of sagacity about its long-term implications. In that sense it is quite like his surprise demonetization of high value Indian currency notes three years ago – hailed by his cheerleadersas a ‘masterstroke’ but which brought disastrous consequences for the Indian economy. Kashmir is going to be a repeat of India’s ‘notebandi’ experience, except the damage will be even higher- both politically and socially.

No, this is not going to be because of what the people of Kashmir feel, think or want. It is quite clear that, not just successive Indian governments, but much of the Indian public itself, has really cared very much about them at all. Internationally too, India’s open imitation of Israel’s ‘Gaza model’, will not raise too many eyebrows except of course in Pakistan and to some extent in China – but there is nothing much either can do immediately.

Yes, there will be turmoil and brutal suppression of protests but also carrots dangled before the Kashmiri public in the form of fresh, speculative investments from around India. And strange as it may sound, even a significant section of the population may actually welcome Modi’s ‘bold step’ – despite opposition from the current lot of Kashmiri politicians –who have neither the credibility nor the clout to prevent turning of minds and bodies that money makes possible.

The real impact of revoking Kashmir’s autonomy and the dubious way in which it has been done, is going to be on the rest of India, a federation of diverse cultures, religious, ethnic and linguistic groups held together – ultimately by nothing much more really than goodold-fashioned trust. Trust in the inviolability of the Indian Constitution, the fairness of various state institutions, in the honoring of past promises and the belief that,in a dispute,no partywill pull a fast one on the other.

The simple question for many around the country will be, if the Indian government can so cunningly and casually discard a historical agreement or turn a full-fledged state into a union territory without consulting anyone in Kashmir– can’t this also be done to Bengal, Kerala or Punjab tomorrow? In other words, the entire organization of India into states demarcated along linguistic lines – a cornerstone of the country’s federal structure- is today in question.

Nobody caught the real meaning of the Modi government’s Kashmir ploy better than Chidambaram, the former finance minister, a constitutional lawyer and a senior leader of the Congress Party.

“People of India, people of every State must wake up to the grave danger that was set as an example today by these completely unconstitutional and illegal resolutions. I want to warn every party, every State, every citizen of India that the idea of India as a union of States is in grave danger,” he told the press soon after the Indian parliament rammed through the measure changing Kashmir’s status drastically.

Chidambaram’s insight had nothing to do with being part of the Congress party or his legal background. It rather came from the fact he is from Tamil Nadu, where the idea of a ‘united’ India has been challenged, for decades, by the leaders and ideologues of the Dravidian movement as a power grab by ‘Aryan supremacists’[ii] of northern India.

The founder of the Dravidian movement, E.V. Ramasamy Periyar, sounded the warning bell at the time of Indian independence itself about how the new nation of India was going to control and suppress all other cultures and nationalities on behalf of upper caste Hindus. If he had been around he would have seen the Kashmir development as an open land grab by politicians from India’s Hindi-speaking, cow-belt states.

“Who are India and Pakistan to talk about the Kashmir issue? The Kashmiris have all the rights to decide for themselves. The Kashmir issue must be left in the hands of Kashmiris alone”, thundered Periyar more than six decades ago.

Substitute ‘Kashmiri’ with Tamil, Malayali, Bengali, Oriya, Punjabi, Manipuri, Mizo or Naga – Periyar’s message is going to resonate more and more with the people of the Indian sub-continent in the days ahead.

Nar ‘Indira’ Modi and his sidekick Home Minister, Amit Shah, can jump around for the moment , claiming they ‘made history’ – but when history actually happens it is going to be nothing like they wanted or expected. Many more ‘Bangladeshs’ are waiting to happen.

Satya Sagar is a journalist and public health worker who can be reached at sagarnama@gmail.com

6 August 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

By Gautam Bhatia

In this post, I will attempt to break down the constitutional changes to Article 370, and highlight some key legal issues surrounding them. In essence, to understand what has happened today, there are three important documents. At the heart of everything is Presidential Order C.O. 272, which constitutes the basis for everything that follows. The second is a Statutory Resolutionintroduced in the Rajya Sabha, which – invoking the authority that flows from the effects of Presidential Order C.O. 272 – recommends that the President abrogate (much of) Article 370. The third is the Reorganisation Bill, that breaks up the state of Jammu and Kashmir into the Union Territories of Ladakh (without a legislature) and Jammu and Kashmir (with a legislature).

To understand the legal issues, we need to begin with the language of unamended Article 370. Article 370, as is well known, limited the application of the provisions of the Indian Constitution to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Under Article 370(1)(d), constitutional provisions could be applied to the state from time to time, as modified by the President through a Presidential Order, and upon the concurrence of the state government (this was the basis for the controversial Article 35A, for example). Perhaps the most important part of 370, however, was the proviso to clause 3. Clause 3 itself authorised the President to pass an order removing or modifying parts of Article 370. The proviso stated that:

Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the Statereferred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.

In other words, therefore, for Article 370 itself to be amended, the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of J&K was required. Now, the Constituent Assembly of J&K ceased functioning in 1957. This has led to a long-standing debate about whether Article 370 has effectively become permanent(because there is no CA to give consent to its amendment), whether it would require a revival of a J&K CA to amend it, or whether it can be amended through the normal amending procedure under the Constitution.

C.O. 272, however, takes an entirely different path. C.O. 272 uses the power of the President under Article 370(1) (see above), to indirectly amend Article 370(3), via a third constitutional provision: Article 367. Article 367 provides various guidelines about how the Constitution may be interpreted. Now, C.O. 272 adds to Article 367 an additional clause, which has four sub-clauses. Sub-clause 4 stipulates that “in proviso to clause (3) of Article 370 of this Constitution, the expression ‘Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2)” shall read “legislative Assembly of the State.”

In other words, this is what has happened. Article 370(1) allows the President – with the concurrence of the government of J&K (more on that in a moment) – to amend or modify various provisions of the Constitution in relation to J&K. Article 370(3) proviso states that Article 370 itself is to be amended by the concurrence of the Constituent Assembly. C.O. 272, therefore, uses the power under 370(1) to amend a provision of the Constitution (Article 367) which, in turn, amends Article 370(3), and takes out the Constituent Assembly’s concurrence for any further amendments to Article 370. And this, in turn, becomes the trigger for the statutory resolution, that recommends to the President the removal of (most of) Article 370 (as the Constituent Assembly’s concurrence is no longer required).

This is very clever. Is it legal? One serious objection is Article 370(1)(c). Article 370(1)(c) (unamended) stated that “notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, the provisions of Article 1 and this Article shall apply in relation to that State.” This is absolutely crucial, because it makes clear that the power of the President to amend provisions of the Constitution in relation to J&K does not extend to Article 1 and “this Article”, i.e., Article 370 itself. 370(1)(d) makes it even clearer where it refers to the “other provisions” of the Constitution that may be altered by Presidential Order (and this is how the present Presidential Order is different from previous ones, such as those that introduced Article 35A). Article 370 itself, therefore, cannot be amended by a Presidential Order such as C.O. 272 (the one exception was a clarificatory amendment, which is not analogous to this one).

Now, it may be immediately objected that C.O. 272 does not amend Article 370: it amends Article 367. The point, however, is that the content of those amendments do amend Article 370, and as the Supreme Court has held on multiple occasions, you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly. I would therefore submit that the legality of C.O. 272 – insofar as it amends Article 370 – is questionable, and as that is at the root of everything, it throws into question the entire exercise.

There is a second important point to be noted here. C.O. 272 says – as it must – that the concurrence of the government of the state of Jammu and Kashmir has been taken. However, Jammu and Kashmir has been under President’s Rule for many months now. Consequently, actually, the consent is that of the Governor. However, there are two serious problems with basing C.O. 272 upon the consent of the Governor. The first is that the Governor is a representative of the Central Government – like the President. In effect, therefore, Presidential Order 272 amounts to the Central Government taking its own consent to amend the Constitution.

There is, however, a more important issue. President’s Rule is temporary. It is only meant to happen when constitutional machinery breaks down in a state, and an elected government is impossible. President’s Rule is meant to be a stand-in until the elected government is restored. Consequently, decisions of a permanent character – such as changing the entire status of a state – taken without the elected legislative assembly, but by the Governor, are inherently problematic. Formally, they may be within the bounds of legality; however, as the Supreme Court held in D.C. Wadhwa, on the question of re-promulgation of Ordinances, formal legality can nonetheless, in effect, amount to a fraud on the Constitution. Using the Governor to sign off on a Presidential Order that fundamentally alters the constitutional character of a federal unit appears, to me, to be straying dangerously close to the constitutional fraud line.

For these two reasons, therefore – first, on the indirect amendment of Article 370(3) proviso via 370(1), and secondly, on the use of the Governor as a substitute for the elected assembly in a matter of this kind – I would submit that there are serious legal and constitutional problems with Presidential Order C.O. 272 – which, of course, forms the basis of both the statutory resolution and the Reorganisation Bill.

Gautam Bhatia is a lawyer

Originally published in Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy

5 August 2019

Source: countercurrents.org