Archives: Articles

By Jonathan Cook

For seven years, from the moment Julian Assange first sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, they have been telling us we were wrong, that we were paranoid conspiracy theorists. We were told there was no real threat of Assange’s extradition to the United States, that it was all in our fevered imaginations.

For seven years, we have had to listen to a chorus of journalists, politicians and “experts” telling us that Assange was nothing more than a fugitive from justice, and that the British and Swedish legal systems could be relied on to handle his case in full accordance with the law. Barely a “mainstream” voice was raised in his defence in all that time.

From the moment he sought asylum, Assange was cast as an outlaw. His work as the founder of Wikileaks – a digital platform that for the first time in history gave ordinary people a glimpse into the darkest recesses of the most secure vaults in the deepest of Deep States – was erased from the record.

Assange was reduced from one of the few towering figures of our time – a man who will have a central place in history books, if we as a species live long enough to write those books – to nothing more than a sex pest, and a scruffy bail-skipper.

The political and media class crafted a narrative of half-truths about the sex charges Assange was under investigation for in Sweden. They overlooked the fact that Assange had been allowed to leave Sweden by the original investigator, who dropped the charges, only for them to be revived by another investigator with a well-documented political agenda.

They failed to mention that Assange was always willing to be questioned by Swedish prosecutors in London, as had occurred in dozens of other cases involving extradition proceedings to Sweden. It was almost as if Swedish officials did not want to test the evidence they claimed to have in their possession.

The media and political courtiers endlessly emphasised Assange’s bail violation in the UK, ignoring the fact that asylum seekers fleeing legal and political persecution don’t usually honour bail conditions imposed by the very state authorites from which they are seeking asylum.

The political and media establishment ignored the mounting evidence of a secret grand jury in Virginia formulating charges against Assange, and ridiculed Wikileaks’ concerns that the Swedish case might be cover for a more sinister attempt by the US to extradite Assange and lock him away in a high-security prison, as had happened to whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

They belittled the 2016 verdict of a panel of United Nations legal scholars that the UK was “arbitrarily detaining” Assange. The media were more interested in the welfare of his cat.

They ignored the fact that after Ecuador changed presidents – with the new one keen to win favour with Washington – Assange was placed under more and more severe forms of solitary confinement. He was denied access to visitors and basic means of communications, violating both his asylum status and his human rights, and threatening his mental and physical wellbeing.

Equally, they ignored the fact that Assange had been given diplomatic status by Ecuador, as well as Ecuadorean citizenship. Britain was obligated to allow him to leave the embassy, using his diplomatic immunity, to travel unhindered to Ecuador. No “mainstream” journalist or politician thought this significant either.

They turned a blind eye to the news that, after refusing to question Assange in the UK, Swedish prosecutors had decided to quietly drop the case against him in 2015. Sweden had kept the decision under wraps for more than two years.

It was a freedom of information request by an ally of Assange, not a media outlet, that unearthed documents showing that Swedish investigators had, in fact, wanted to drop the case against Assange back in 2013. The UK, however, insisted that they carry on with the charade so that Assange could remain locked up. A British official emailed the Swedes: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!”

Most of the other documents relating to these conversations were unavailable. They had been destroyed by the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service in violation of protocol. But no one in the political and media establishment cared, of course.

Similarly, they ignored the fact that Assange was forced to hole up for years in the embassy, under the most intense form of house arrest, even though he no longer had a case to answer in Sweden. They told us – apparently in all seriousness – that he had to be arrested for his bail infraction, something that would normally be dealt with by a fine.

And possibly most egregiously of all, most of the media refused to acknowledge that Assange was a journalist and publisher, even though by failing to do so they exposed themselves to the future use of the same draconian sanctions should they or their publications ever need to be silenced. They signed off on the right of the US authorities to seize any foreign journalist, anywhere in the world, and lock him or her out of sight. They opened the door to a new, special form of rendition for journalists.

This was never about Sweden or bail violations, or even about the discredited Russiagate narrative, as anyone who was paying the vaguest attention should have been able to work out. It was about the US Deep State doing everything in its power to crush Wikileaks and make an example of its founder.

It was about making sure there would never again be a leak like that of Collateral Murder, the military video released by Wikileaks in 2007 that showed US soldiers celebrating as they murdered Iraqi civilians. It was about making sure there would never again be a dump of US diplomatic cables, like those released in 2010 that revealed the secret machinations of the US empire to dominate the planet whatever the cost in human rights violations.

Now the pretence is over. The British police invaded the diplomatic territory of Ecuador – invited in by Ecuador after it tore up Assange’s asylum status – to smuggle him off to jail. Two vassal states cooperating to do the bidding of the US empire. The arrest was not to help two women in Sweden or to enforce a minor bail infraction.

No, the British authorities were acting on an extradition warrant from the US. And the charges the US authorities have concocted relate to Wikileaks’ earliest work exposing the US military’s war crimes in Iraq – the stuff that we all once agreed was in the public interest, that British and US media clamoured to publish themselves.

Still the media and political class is turning a blind eye. Where is the outrage at the lies we have been served up for these past seven years? Where is the contrition at having been gulled for so long? Where is the fury at the most basic press freedom – the right to publish – being trashed to silence Assange? Where is the willingness finally to speak up in Assange’s defence?

It’s not there. There will be no indignation at the BBC, or the Guardian, or CNN. Just curious, impassive – even gently mocking – reporting of Assange’s fate.

And that is because these journalists, politicians and experts never really believed anything they said. They knew all along that the US wanted to silence Assange and to crush Wikileaks. They knew that all along and they didn’t care. In fact, they happily conspired in paving the way for today’s kidnapping of Assange.

They did so because they are not there to represent the truth, or to stand up for ordinary people, or to protect a free press, or even to enforce the rule of law. They don’t care about any of that. They are there to protect their careers, and the system that rewards them with money and influence. They don’t want an upstart like Assange kicking over their applecart.

Now they will spin us a whole new set of deceptions and distractions about Assange to keep us anaesthetised, to keep us from being incensed as our rights are whittled away, and to prevent us from realising that Assange’s rights and our own are indivisible. We stand or fall together.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism.

12 April 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

By Countercurrents Staff

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange has been arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London on Thursday morning. Julian Assange has been dragged out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he has spent the last six years. This happens after Ecuador’s president Lenin Moreno withdrew Julian Assange’s asylum.

Video shows Julian Assange being carried out of the Ecuadorian embassy by force, before being shoved into a police vehicle. Assange was heard shouting “…must resist…” before his words are muffled as he was forced into a police vehicle.

Whistleblower Edward Snowden has responded to the arrest of Assange in London, tweeting that the images of Ecuadorian authorities handing him over to UK police were a “dark moment for press freedom.”

In the tweet, Snowden said the images of a publisher of “award-winning journalism” being dragged out of the embassy would “end up in history books.”

Snowden wrote: “Assange critics may cheer, but this is a dark moment for press freedom.”

Snowden further said, “important background for journalists covering the arrest of Julian #Assange by Ecuador: the United Nations formally ruled his detention to be arbitrary, a violation of human rights. They have repeatedly issued statements calling for him to walk free–including very recently.”

Veteran journalist John Pilger said, “the action of the British police in literally dragging Julian Assange from the Ecuadorean embassy and the smashing of international law by the Ecuadorean regime in permitting this barbarity are crimes against the most basic natural justice. This is a warning to all journalists. ”

Julian Assange took refuge in the embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden over a sexual assault case that has since been dropped.

Police said he was arrested for “failing to surrender” to the court.

Lenin Moreno said Ecuador withdrew Assange’s asylum after his repeated violations of international conventions.

But Wikileaks tweeted that Ecuador had acted illegally in terminating Assange’s political asylum “in violation of international law”.

Sajid Javid, UK Home Secretary, tweeted: “I can confirm Julian Assange is now in police custody and rightly facing justice.”

Assange was “no hero and no one is above the law. He has hidden from the truth for years,” tweeted UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

There has been a long-running dispute between the Ecuadorean authorities and Assange about what he was and was not allowed to do in the embassy.

Over the years, Ecuadorean authorities have removed his access to the internet and accused him of engaging in political activities, which is not allowed when claiming asylum.

Assange will initially face UK legal proceedings but could be extradited to the US over the Wikileaks revelations.

UK foreign minister Sir Alan Duncan said the arrest followed “extensive dialogue between our two countries”.

The arrest comes only a day after WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson claimed that an extensive spying operation was conducted against Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy. During an explosive media conference Hrafnsson alleged that the operation was designed to get Assange extradited.

Assange’s relationship with Ecuadorian officials appeared increasingly strained since the current president came to power in the Latin American country in 2017. His internet connection was cut off in March of last year, with officials saying the move was to stop Assange from “interfering in the affairs of other sovereign states.”

The whistleblower garnered massive international attention in 2010 when WikiLeaks released classified US military footage – “Collateral Murder” – of a US Apache helicopter gunship opening fire on a number of people, killing 12 including two Reuters staff, and injuring two children.

US Army soldier Chelsea Manning leaked the footage, as well as US war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and more than 200,000 diplomatic cables, to the site. Chelsea Manning was tried by a US tribunal and sentenced to 35 years in jail for disclosing the materials.

Manning was pardoned by outgoing President Barack Obama in 2017 after spending seven years in US custody. She is currently being held again in a US jail for refusing to testify before a secret grand jury in a case apparently related to WikiLeaks.

Assange’s stay at the Ecuadorian Embassy was motivated by his concern that he may face similarly harsh and arguably unfair prosecution by the US for his role in publishing troves of classified US documents over the years.

His legal troubles stem from an accusation by two women in Sweden, with both claiming they had a sexual encounter with Assange that was not fully consensual. The whistleblower said the allegations were false. Nevertheless, they yielded to the Swedish authorities who sought his extradition from the UK on “suspicion of rape, three cases of sexual abuse and unlawful compulsion.”

In December 2010, he was arrested in the UK under a European Arrest Warrant and spent time in Wandsworth Prison before being released on bail and put under house arrest.

His attempt to fight extradition ultimately failed. In 2012, he skipped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy, which extended him protection from arrest by the British authorities. Quito gave him political asylum and later Ecuadorian citizenship.

Assange spent the following years stranded at the diplomatic compound, only making sporadic appearances at the embassy window and in interviews conducted inside. His health has reportedly deteriorated over the years, while treatment options are limited due to his inability to leave the Knightsbridge building.

In 2016, a UN expert panel ruled that what was happening to Assange amounted to arbitrary detention by the British authorities. London nevertheless refused to revoke his arrest warrant for skipping bail. Sweden dropped the investigation against Assange in 2017, although Swedish prosecutors indicated it may be resumed if Assange “makes himself available.”

Assange argued that his avoidance of European law enforcement was necessary to protect him from extradition to the US, where then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that arresting him is a “priority.”

WikiLeaks was branded a “non-state hostile intelligence service” by the then-CIA head Mike Pompeo in 2017.

The US government has been tight-lipped on whether Assange would face indictment over the dissemination of classified material. In November 2018, the existence of a secret indictment targeting Assange was seemingly unintentionally confirmed in a US court filing for an unrelated case.

Last year, a UK tribunal refused to release key details on communications between British and Swedish authorities that could have revealed any dealings between the UK, Sweden, the US, and Ecuador in the long-running Assange debacle. La Repubblica journalist Stefania Maurizi had her appeal to obtain documents held by the Crown Prosecution Service dismissed on December 12.

A Kremlin spokesperson has said that Julian Assange should be treated properly, “Undoubtedly, we hope that all his rights will be respected,” Dmitry Peskov told journalists when asked if Russia could grant asylum to Julian Assange.

Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno the UK should ensure that he is not extradited to a country where he may face inhumane treatment or capital punishment.

Some observers, however, said the carefully worded statement by Moreno does not rule out Assange being extradited to the US.

Meanwhile, WikiLeaks itself blamed “powerful actors”, such as the CIA, for running a “sophisticated” campaign to scapegoat Assange.

Meanwhile, former Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa (who granted asylum to Assange) labeled Moreno a “traitor” following the arrest.

11 April 2019

By Paul Craig Roberts

April 11, 2019, brought us a new word for Judas: Moreno—the puppet president of Ecuador who sold Julian Assange to Washington for his 30 pieces of silver.

This morning’s arrest of Assange inside the Ecudoran embassy in London is the first stage in Washington’s attempt to criminalize the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Washington’s man in Quito said he revoked Assange’s political asylum and Ecuadoran citizenship because Assange engaged in free speech.

As race and gender diverse police dragged Assange out of the embassy this morning, I reflected on the utter corruption of three governments—the U.S., the U.K., and Ecuador—and their institutions.

The British police showed no shame as they carted Assange from his embassy prison of the last seven years to a British jail as a way station on the way to an American one. If the British police had any integrity, the entire force would have called in sick.

If the British parliament had any integrity, they would have blocked London’s contribution to Washington’s upcoming show trial.

If the British had a prime minister instead of a Washington agent, Assange would have been released a long time ago, not held in de facto imprisonment until Washington found Moreno’s price.

If the Ecuadoran ambassador in London had any integrity, he would have publicly resigned rather than call in the police to take Assange. Is the ambassador so soulless that he can live with himself as the man who helped Moreno dishonor the reputation of Ecuador?

If the Anglo-American journalists had any integrity, they would be up in arms over the criminalization of their profession.

President Trump has survived a three-year ordeal similar to Assange’s seven-year ordeal. Trump knows how corrupt US intelligence agencies and the U.S. Department of Justice (sic) are. If Trump had any integrity, he would bring the shameful and embarrassing persecution of Assange to an immediate end by issuing a pre-trial pardon. This would also end the illegal re-imprisonment of Manning.

But integrity is not something that thrives in Washington, or in London, or in Quito.

When the Justice (sic) Department does not have a crime with which to charge its intended victim, the department trots out “conspiracy.” Assange is accused of being in a conspiracy with Manning to obtain and publicize secret government data, such as the film, which was already known to a Washington Post reporter who failed his newspaper and his profession by remaining silent, of U.S. soldiers committing extraordinary war crimes without remorse. As a U.S. soldier, it was actually Manning’s duty to report the crimes and the failure of U.S. troops to disobey unlawful orders. Manning was supposed to report the crimes to his superiors, not to the public, but he knew the military had already covered up the massacre of journalists and civilians and did not want another My Lai-type event on its hands.

I don’t believe the charge against Assange. If Wikileaks cracked the code for Manning, Wikileaks did not need Manning.

The alleged Grand Jury that allegedly produced the indictment was conducted in secret over many years as Washington searched for something that might be pinned on Assange. If there actually was a grand jury, the jurors were devoid of integrity, but how do we know there was a grand jury? Why should we believe anything Washington says after “Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction,” “Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people,” “Iranian nukes,” “Russian invasion of Ukraine,” “Russiagate,” and on and on ad infinitum. Why believe Washington is telling the truth this time?

As the grand jury was secret because of “national security,” will the trial also be secret and the evidence secret? Is what we have here a Star Chamber proceeding in which a person is indicted in secret and convicted in secret on secret evidence? This is the procedure used by tyrannical governments who have no case against the person they intend to destroy.

The governments in Washington, London, and Quito are so shameless that they do not mind demonstrating to the entire world their lawlessness and lack of integrity.

Perhaps the rest of the world is itself so shameless that there will be no adverse consequences for Washington, London, and Quito. On the other hand, perhaps the frameup of Assange, following the Russiagate hoax and the shameless attempt to overthrow democracy in Venezuela and install Washington’s agent as president of that country, will make it clear to all that “the free world” is led by a rogue and lawless government. Washington is speeding up the decline of its empire as Washington makes it clear that Washington is worthy of no respect.

No confidence that justice will be served can be placed in any American trial. In Assange’s trial justice is not possible. With Assange convicted by the media, even a jury convinced of his innocence will convict him rather than face denunciation for freeing a “Russian spy.”

Assange’s conviction will make it impossible for media to report leaked information that is unfavorable to the government. As the precedent expands, future prosecutors will claim the Assange case as a precedent for prosecuting critics of the government who will be charged with intended harm to the government. The age of justice and accountable government is being brought to an end.

Paul Craig Roberts is an American economist, author, and conspiracy theorist.

11 April 2019

Source: paulcraigroberts.org

By Abdus Sattar Ghazali

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, facing a hotly contested bid for a fourth term, tweeted Monday (April8) that the Trump administration designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization at his request, Los Angeles Times reported from Jerusalem.

“Thank you, my dear friend, the president of the United States, Donald Trump, for having decided to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization,” he wrote in Hebrew on Twitter on Monday. “Thank you for responding to another of my important requests, which serves the interests of our countries and countries of the region.”

The Los Angeles Times said Netanyahu English-language thank you note posted later omitted taking credit, but said of Trump, “Once again you are keeping the world safe from Iran aggression and terrorism.”

President Donald Trump said in a statement that the “unprecedented” move “recognizes the reality that Iran is not only a State Sponsor of Terrorism, but that the IRGC actively participates in, finances, and promotes terrorism as a tool of statecraft.”

“The IRGC is the Iranian government’s primary means of directing and implementing its global terrorist campaign,” Trump said.

It is the first time the United States has designated part of a foreign government a terrorist organization, rather than guerrilla groups or other more informal entities, according to AFP.

The Trump administration argues that Iran’s government, which is locked in a deeply hostile standoff with top US ally Israel, cannot be trusted and should face “maximum pressure.”

Addressing reporters following Trump’s announcement, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned all banks and business of consequences to dealing with the Revolutionary Guards from now on.

“The leaders of Iran are racketeers, not revolutionaries,” Pompeo said. “Businesses and banks around the world now have a clear duty to ensure that companies with which they conduct financial transactions are not conducted with the IRGC in any material way.”

A senior Trump administration official was quoted by AFP as saying that the new measure would criminalize contact with the Guards and “enable our prosecutors to bring charges to those that bring material support to the IRGC.”

“The IRGC is interwoven into the Iranian economy.… The safest course is to stop doing business with the IRGC. If you do business with the IRGC you run the risk of bankrolling terrorism,” said the official.

Another official said the force has “been a principal driver of violence on a vast scale for many decades” in an attempt “to reshape the Middle East in Iran’s favor.”

Los Angeles Times said U.S. military and intelligence officials have raised concerns that the designation may bar them from meeting foreign officials in contact with Revolutionary Guard personnel. Those concerns are one reason previous administrations did not make the move, which was considered for more than a decade.

But administration officials said Monday that exceptions would be made for U.S. personnel as needed. U.S. diplomats talk with the Taliban in Afghanistan, another group listed as a foreign terrorist organization, noted Nathan Sales, the State Department’s coordinator for counter-terrorism.

Some military experts warned the decision could endanger U.S. troops, one reason for long-standing concerns at the Pentagon, the LAT said.

In response to Washington’s decision, the Iranian Supreme Security Council declared the US a “terrorist government” while calling the US CENTCOM a terrorist group as well.

Following what it called an “unlawful and unreasonable action” of the US, Tehran officially declared the US “a terrorist government and the US Central Command known as CENTCOM as well as all its affiliates a terrorist group,” a statement of the Islamic Republic’s Supreme National Security Council headed by President Hassan Rouhani said.

The statement blamed CENTCOM for harming Iran’s national security as well as ruining the lives of “innocent Iranian and non-Iranian individuals” to promote the US’ “aggressive policies” in Western Asia.

It also specifically mentioned that the US is “involved” in the killing of people in Yemen, where a Saudi-led coalition wages a brutal military campaign against the Shia Houthi rebels.

The US and its allies “have always been advocates of extremist groups and terrorists in the Western Asian region,” the council said, adding that Washington has to take responsibility for “the dangerous consequences of its adventures.”

In a tweet, Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, called it a “misguided election-eve gift to Netanyahu. A(nother) dangerous U.S. misadventure in the region.”

Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the guard, warned that “the American army in West Asia will see the end of tranquility,” according to the Iranian Fars news agency.

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

9 April 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

By Shajid Khan

GUWAHATI, APRIL 9: In a shocking incident of hate crime reported from Assam’s Biswanath Charali headquarters of Biswanath district, about 240 km north-east of state capital Guwahati a sexagenarian skull capped bearded man identified Shaukat Ali was thrashed by an agitated mob for allegedly selling cooked beef at his eatery, stopped to go for namaz and forced to consume pork as has been evident in a video circulated in social media on April 7 last.In the video the irate mob, is heard demanding Ali to declare his nationality, asking if he is Bangladeshi or if he has a National Register of Citizen (NRC) certificate.

The victim – Shaukat Ali, who is undergoing treatment in Biswanath Civil Hospital till the report is being filed, told mediapersons that he was thrashed black and blue in the Biswanath Chariali market and was forced to eat pork. “I was badly beaten by the mob for keeping beef in my hotel for sale. I was even stopped from offering namaz and forced to eat pork. I am doing this business for the last 40 years,” Ali said.

While describing the whole incident, Ali said, “Two to three boys came to my hotel in the morning and asked that if I kept beef in the hotel. I replied yes. Later, the mahaldar asked me not to sell beef and continue my hotel in the area.” “At around 3 pm, some youth came to my hotel and destroyed the properties and took away the gas cylinder. They did not stop beating me even when the officer-in-charge tried to stop them,” Ali added.

A case (No. 80/ 2019) unders sections 143, 341, 325, 294(a), 295-A, 153- A(b) and 384 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been registered at the Biswanath Police Station. Meanwhile the prime accused identified to be one Dipen Gogoi have been arrested.The search is on to catch the other accused,” informed Biswanath Superintendent of Police, Rakesh Roshan. Five others picked up in this connection were let go after they had signed a good behaviour bond under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pabitra Ram Khound, Biswanath Deputy Commissioner said, “We held meetings with several organisations in relation to the incident. All the organisations condemned the incident. Biswanath is a symbol of the history of communal peace. Steps are being taken to ensure that there is no repetition of such incidents in the state.”

The All Assam Minorities Students’ Union a student body of the minorities on April 9th, has dashed off a letter to Assam Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal demanding stern action and judicial inquiry against the culprits behind the assault on Ali.

The family members of the victim admitted that the eatery has had beef on the menu for decades while letting customers bring home-cooked meat too. “No one told us we could not sell beef. They could have served a notice instead of attacking my brother, and could have taken action officially if we did not comply,” said, victim’s brother adding that the mob mostly comprised people from adjoining areas.It is pertinent to be mentioned that none of the sections ofthe Cattle Preservation Act of Assam, 1950 criminalizes possession or consumption of beef. The Act merely lays down the conditions under which a cattle can/can’t be slaughtered. The fact that cow poltics have started in a secular and multi-diverse state like Assam has been gravely concerned the minority population. Beef is openly traded and consumed in Assam by more than 10 non-Muslim communities including Christians.

Cow vigilantism has become a key point of debate in the last five years under the Bharatiya Janata Party’s rule in the country. The last tenure of the Modi government has seen a spate of mob attacks across India.Since the BJP formed the government in 2014, a total of 122 incidents of cow-related violence took place in India till 2019. According to indiaspend.com (a data journalism site), 86 per cent of those people died in cow-related violence since 2010 are Muslim and 97 per cent of the attacks took place after 2014.

The leader of the Opposition in Assam Legislative Assembly Debabrata Saikia has condemned the incident of thrashing Shaukat Ali for selling beef and forcing him to eat pork. He demanded immediate intervention of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) over the incident.

“I would like to draw your attention to a distressing incident wherein a man was severely assaulted and his property ransacked by some vigilantes few days back in the Biswanath Chariali town of Biwanath district of Assam, simply because he was serving beef in his restaurant. The victim, Shaukat Ali, has had to be admitted to hospital due to severe injuries. Incidentally, there is no blanket ban on beef in Assam, and the victim has been running his restaurant for four decades. Although a case has been registered in this connection, none of the culprits has been detained so far,” Saikia said in his letter sent to the NHRC on Tuesday.

“Ali was beaten up by the hooligans in front of a police official. This sort of mob rule is a blot on our nation’s secular and democratic ethos and, if left unchecked, will imperil peaceful coexistence among various communities in Assam and the country as a whole. I would, therefore, like to request you kindly to take cognisance of the incident and initiate appropriate action to have the culprits brought to book according to the law of the land, and also ensure that this type of anarchic behaviour by fanatics does not recur,” he added.
Meanwhile,Sailen Kumar Sharma,President of Human Rights Forum,Tangla a NGO based in Udalguri district of Assam have strongly condemned the entire episode and appealed the government to ensure that guilty be punished as per provisions of law. The NGO have further demanded a high level judicial inquiry into the matter and exhorted all the sections of the society to maintain tranquility and keep faith in the judiciary.

Shajid Khan is an Independent journalist,human right activist and a law student of Gauhati University based in Assam and can be reached at itsshajidkhan@gmail.com

9 April 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

By Afro-Middle East Centre (AMEC)

Turkey’s local election concluded with the country’s rulinpg Justice and Development Party (AKP) incurring heavy losses in major cities, and the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) making significant gains. The poll, which will result in the election of new mayors, mukhtars and local assembly members, saw the AKP losing the capital, Ankara; the commercial hub and largest city, Istanbul; and a major city, Izmir. Although the AKP and its alliance still won around fifty per cent of the votes overall, losing major cities is an indicator of voters’ waning confidence in the AKP and its leader (and Turkey’s president) Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and punishing the party with its biggest losses since attaining power in 2002.

Erdogan based the AKP’s campaign on national security, side-lining local economic grievances that caused many voters concern about their future. The depreciation of the Turkish Lira against the dollar in 2018 saw inflation increase to twenty-five per cent in October 2018 and resulted in rising unemployment. Although the AKP lodged a complaint with the Supreme Electoral Council, challenging the results in Istanbul and thirty-eight other districts, Erdogan seems to have accepted these election as a learning moment, and has vowed to fix the economy to regain voter confidence ahead of the 2023 national elections. Nevertheless, the current loss signifies the mood of an electorate which finds itself disconnected from the AKP that it once embraced, and is seeking refuge in the opposition. The elections were also seen as a referendum on Erdogan’s rule, after the country moved from a parliamentary to a presidential system in 2018, extending his powers significantly.

National security over economic issues

Election results show that these elections have been challenging for Erdogan. They are the first elections since he was elected in 2018 as the country’s first executive president after a controversial referendum in 2017 that changed the electoral system from parliamentary to presidential. Under the new system, Erdogan can rule the country almost by decree, and many people fear that the country is in the grip of dictatorial tendencies from the president. Since his election, the AKP has focused on positioning the country internationally in a region that is plagued by political instability and insecurity. This continued to be the case as the AKP and its coalition partner, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), campaigned for the election under the banner of the People’s Alliance.

The Alliance’s campaign focused on national security and terrorism, taking swipes at some candidates by accusing them of links to the outlawed Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) and of being western agents. Erdogan further blamed the deterioration of the Turkish Lira on foreign powers trying to destroy Turkey. Erdogan’s rhetoric on national security and terrorism meant that he avoided speaking about the country’s economic issues, whereas his opponents focused on the economic problems, blaming them on his government, which they accused of corruption and maladministration. The CHP capitalised on the discontent of the electorate amid inflation increasing from less than ten per cent in March 2014 to a peak of twenty-five per cent in October 2018.

Turkey’s economic difficulties were exacerbated by its international diplomatic problems, specifically its complicated relationship with the USA. In August 2018, the USA imposed sanctions on Turkey over the detention of US pastor Andrew Brunson, who Turkey charged with aiding the 2016 attempted coup. Although Turkey eventually released Brunson – after a series of bilateral diplomatic talks, the Turkish Lira failed to strengthen amid huge government debt created by massive spending and borrowing. In January 2019, the US president, Donald Trump,threatened to destroy the Turkish economy again if Turkey attacked US-supported Kurdish forces in Syria. The Turkish Lira suffered again, but managed to remain steady after Erdogan cut down on his rhetoric threatening the US proxies in Syria. Nevertheless, relations between the USA and Turkey remain fragile, especially after the latter halted the sale of fighter jets to Turkey because of Ankara’s intention to purchase the Russian S-400 defence system. The decision saw the Turkish Lira fall by three per cent to 5.6590 against the dollar. Many issues remain unresolved between the two countries, including the future of Kurdish forces in Syria, which Ankara sees as the extension of the PKK.

Suppression of Kurdish candidates
Another factor that contributed to the CHP victory was Erdogan’s suppression of Kurdish candidates contesting the election. Before announcing the election, Erdogan removed and replacedmayors in predominantly Kurdish areas with AKP leaders close to him. Soon after the outcomes of the current election were announced, Erdogan threatenedto again replace Kurdish mayors with trusted ones linked to the AKP. Some Kurdish politicians, such as former co-chair of the Kurdish-majority People’s Democratic Party (HDP), Selahattin Demirtas, were forced to campaign from prison, while many others linked to the HDP had been charged with terrorism and links to the PKK. Due to this and other factors, the HDP did not field candidates in many areas, including Istanbul, thus losing their voters to the CHP. Further, the HDP did not enjoy much media coverage during its campaign, with over ninety per cent media coveragegiven to the AKP.

Loss of traditional AKP voters
The AKP did not lose only Kurdish voters but also voters in areas where Erdogan had traditionally enjoyed widespread support, such as the Mediterranean region. Adana and Antalya were both lost to CHP. In the resort city of Antalya, the AKP won forty-six percent of the vote against the CHP’s fifty per cent. This further frustrated Erdogan, who had hoped to tap into nationalist rhetoric for his traditional supporters in the Mediterranean areas. The loss of Mersin and Hatay to the CHP has almost kicked the AKP out of the Aegean and Mediterranean region. It lost many strategic areas in these elections despite the political odds being stacked in its favour. Erdogan’s repeated accusations against opposition candidates of terrorism, his jailing of journalists and closing down of independent media, and his suppression of Kurdish politicians still failed to secure the AKP a victory in the country’s major cities. Ankara fell to the CHP’s fifty-nine per cent win, fifty-eight per cent of Izmir’s voters put their cross next to CHP candidates’ names, and in Istanbul, which is politically important for Erdogan, the CHP won by 48.8 per cent.

Istanbul, the contested jewel in the crown
These major losses led the AKP officially to object to the electoral outcomes, claiming irregularities. The objections reflect Istanbul’s political and personal significance for Erdogan, whose career début was in Istanbul when he was elected mayor in 1994. After the AKP suffered a painful defeat in Ankara, Turkey’s Supreme Electoral Council ceased the counting of ballots in Istanbul with around ninety-nine per cent counted. The state-run Anadolu news agency stopped reporting on the vote tallies shortly thereafter. The AKP candidate for Istanbul, Binali Yildirim, a former prime minister, claimed victory over CHP candidate Ekrem Imamoglu even though the CHP led by around 5 000 votes. The electoral board declared Imamoglu the winner even though the results remain ‘unofficial’ until the objections are dealt with. The indications are that the electoral council will keep the results likely the same despite the AKP objections. Indications are that the electoral council will likely maitain the result in Istanbul, despite AKP claims of the involvement of ‘organised crime’ in some Istanbul districts. Despite ongoing recounts in many Istanbul districts, the electoral council is not expected to change its original result, despite AKP objections.

Conclusion
Together with the overall results and the AKP’s loss of major cities, the Turkish local elections reflect the mood of a discontented electorate. The opposition has been re-energised, and provided with a morale boost to enable it to build support against the AKP and Erdogan ahead of the 2023 general elections. The loss has been a wake-up call to the AKP, which has vowed to work harder to regain lost support. The rhetoric to rebuild AKP support may also be a sign that Erdogan will not take steps to undermine the municipal elections’ outcome by exercising his presidential powers. Turkey’s rampant economic woes, exacerbated by local and foreign challenges that contributed to the AKP defeat might see Erdogan make certain concessions to stabilise the economy using presidential decrees that could undermine democratic processes. With the overall results remaining the same even after the review of the objections, it remains to be seen whether Erdogan will concede defeat in Istanbul. What is more important is what he does going forward, with Turkey mired in a suffering economy and a disgruntled electorate.

AMEC briefs is a fortnightly commentary on a current issue in the Middle East and North Africa region, providing short but trenchant analyses.

8 April 2019

Source: amec.org.za

By Ronnie Kasrils

I was shut down in South Africa for speaking out, and I’m disturbed that the same is happening to critics of Israel now.

3 Apr 2019 – As a Jewish South African anti-apartheid activist I look with horror on the far-right shift in Israel ahead of this month’s elections, and the impact in the Palestinian territories and worldwide.

Israel’s repression of Palestinian citizens, African refugees and Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza has become more brutal over time. Ethnic cleansing, land seizure, home demolition, military occupation, bombing of Gaza and international law violations led Archbishop Tutu to declare that the treatment of Palestinians reminded him of apartheid, only worse.

I’m also deeply disturbed that critics of Israel’s brutal policies are frequently threatened with repression of their freedom of speech, a reality I’ve now experienced at first hand. Last week, a public meeting in Vienna where I was scheduled to speak in support of Palestinian freedom, as part of the global Israeli Apartheid Week, was cancelled by the museum hosting the event – under pressure from Vienna’s city council, which opposes the international movement to divest from Israel.

South Africa’s apartheid government banned me for life from attending meetings. Nothing I said could be published, because I stood up against apartheid. How disgraceful that, despite the lessons of our struggle against racism, such intolerance continues to this day, stifling free speech on Palestine.

During the South African struggle, we were accused of following a communist agenda, but smears didn’t deflect us. Today, Israel’s propaganda follows a similar route, repeated by its supporters – conflating opposition to Israel with antisemitism. This must be resisted.

A growing number of Jews worldwide are taking positions opposing Israel’s policies. Many younger Jews are supporting the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, a peaceful mobilisation inspired by the movement that helped to end apartheid in South Africa.

How disgraceful that, despite the lessons of our struggle against racism, such intolerance continues to this day

The parallels with South Africa are many. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, recently said: “Israel is not a state of all its citizens … Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and them alone.”

Similar racist utterances were common in apartheid South Africa. We argued that a just peace could be reached, and that white people would find security only in a unitary, non-racist, democratic society after ending the oppression of black South Africans and providing freedom and equality for all.

By contrast, Netanyahu’s Likud is desperately courting extremist parties, and abandoning any pretext of negotiating with the Palestinians. His plan to bring an extremist settler party and Kahanist terrorist party into his governing coalition is obscene. His most serious opponent is a general accused of war crimes in Gaza. As long as a repressive apartheid-like regime rules, things will only worsen for Palestinians and Israelis too.

The anti-apartheid movement grew over three decades, in concert with the liberation struggle of South Africa’s people, to make a decisive difference in toppling the racist regime. Europeans refused to buy apartheid fruit; there were sports boycotts; dockworkers from Liverpool to Melbourne refused to handle South African cargo; an academic boycott turned universities into apartheid-free zones; and arms sanctions helped to shift the balance against South Africa’s military.

As the movement developed and UN resolutions isolated Pretoria’s regime, pressure mounted on trading partners and supportive governments. The US Congress’s historic adoption of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act (1986) was a major turning point. When the Chase and Barclays banks closed in South Africa and withdrew their lines of credit, the battle was well-nigh over.

This required huge organisational effort, grassroots mobilisation and education. Similar elements characterise today’s BDS movement to isolate apartheid-like Israel.

Every step is important – pressing institutions and corporations that are complicit in Israel’s crimes and supporting Palestinians in their struggle for liberation. This is not about destroying Israel and its people but about working for a just solution, as we did in South Africa.

It is the duty of supporters of justice worldwide to mobilise in solidarity with Palestinians to help usher in an era of freedom.

Ronnie Kasrils is a former South African government minister, and was a leading member of the African National Congress during the apartheid era.

8 April 2019

Source: transcend.org

By Darius Shahtahmasebi

29 Mar 2019 – Just recently, the US military launched a full-on invasion of an island in the East China Sea to send a strong message to China, and yet barely any mainstream media outlet has covered the story or its massive implications.

Last week, US marines from the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit invaded a tiny island in Japan’s Okinawa archipelago, known as Ie Shima. Ie Shima is approximately 23 sq km, holds an airstrip, a fishing port and a local population of about 4,500 inhabitants.

Colonel Robert Brodie announced the planned operations in a Marine Corps statement last week. According to Colonel Brodie, because the Indo-Pacific region is “incredibly dynamic” the US Marines are preparing and training daily for “real world crises” coming about as a result.

The crises he is referring to is the loss of the Indo-Pacific region to an adversarial state, being China.

Island-snatching will be “critical for us to be able to project power in the context of China,” Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said at the beginning of March to a Senate Armed Services Committee.

“In the South China Sea and elsewhere in the region, we also fly bomber missions, demonstrating a resilient global strike capability that checks Chinese ambition and assures our regional Allies and partners. Throughout the Pacific, our troops exercise and engage with partners to signal our commitment and counterbalance China’s challenges to the rules-based order,” he added.

World War II nostalgia

The remnants of World War II was fought and won in the Pacific, a challenging feat which came with an enormously costly death toll. US soldiers ventured from island to island, fighting lengthy and deadly battles against the Japanese forces. For example, Okinawa lost at least one third of its population during the final battles of World War II. The horror and difficulty in fighting such a war still weighs heavy on the mind of the US military, who now appear to be attempting to practice for such an island-battle scenario in the future (which is officially known as the Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations concept).

According to a US Marine release, the invasion began with troops dropping at free-fall from a high-altitude, who then quickly moved themselves into positions where they could begin attacking defenses. The free-fall technique had already been practised in Okinawa by US marines in August last year, meaning the US has been actively preparing for these scenarios for a while. Maybe now when I sound the alarm that the US is cultivating a showdown with China in the Pacific region, people can start taking me seriously.

In fact, this strategy appears to be part and parcel of an overall US capability which is giving Washington the edge over the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China, according to Meia Nouwens, a Chinese military expert with the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

“The greatest advantage that the US has at the moment over the PLA,” Nouwens said, “is that the US has been working on doctrine, training, professionalization for a lot longer than the PLA, with actual experience to back it up.”

After taking control of the island’s airfield, US troops set up a Forward Arming and Refuelling Point. Accompanying the invasion were low-flying MV-22 Ospreys (the same aircraft terrorising the local Okinawan population) and F-35B stealth fighters and C-130J Super Hercules.

Media blackout

No one will come right out and say it, but it certainly seems as though the US military is actively preparing for a third world war. If this media blackout on the implications of these recent developments wasn’t bad enough; even more bizarre is the complete silence from the media on the enormous geopolitical activity itself.

A brief search of Google News reveals that only a handful of media outlets even covered the event, many of which are not typically regarded as internationally mainstream sources. A ProQuest search for media coverage of the story in fact returned zero results. The most prominent western outlet that covered the story is Business Insider, as well as a number of military sites.

I cannot find any mention of this story on any of the major news sites, whether it’s CNN, MSNBC, the Guardian, BBC, the New York Times – take your pick. Remember that the adversarial, independent and free media who is entrusted with informing you and keeping you up to date barely even mentions geopolitical manoeuvres that could lead to a global conflict.

The build-up to war with China

In other news, the Trump administration has also given “tacit approval” to a request from Taiwan for 60 new F-16 fighter jets, a move that is already making China furious in response, who demanded that the US sever its military ties with what Beijing views as a breakaway, renegade province. Instead of heeding these warnings, the US is also considering selling Taiwan Lockheed Martin’s newest stealth fighter jet, the F-35. The US is also hoping to expand its arms sales to other countries within the region, particularly those that rely on Russia and China for its military equipment.

At the same time, the Pentagon confirmed this week that it had carried out an intercept of an unarmed missile making its way across the Pacific, using interceptor missiles launched out of southern California.

Approximately a day ago, Japanese jets intercepted a Chinese anti-submarine aircraft equipped with electronic warfare and a variety of electronic and signals intelligence gathering platforms over the East China Sea, the first such encounter of its kind.

Earlier this week, the US navy also sailed right between China and Taiwan passing through the Taiwan Strait into the South China Sea, accompanied by Coast Guard ships. Unsurprisingly, this move also irked China, who again urged the US to recognise its one-China policy, which appears to be completely eroding under the watch of the Trump administration.

Regardless of whether or not China’s outrage to the Taiwan question is reasonable, the stakes of this provocation are much higher than we seem to give them credit for. Even US defense officials are warning that China and the US could eventually reach a showdown, particularly over the Taiwan question. Chinese President Xi Jinping already declared early this year that any attempt from Taipei to assert its independence will be met by an armed response.

Funnily enough, these same US military officials warn against the rise of a World War III scenario with Beijing, yet they maintain that by arming Taiwan and beefing up its defenses, the US could avoid such a scenario. There seems to be no sane and sound voice at all who is given airtime on this topic to voice the other alternative: that if the US were not to incessantly pushback on China and mind its own business, a major conflict could in fact potentially be avoided in the long run.

US will counter China wherever possible

So, to summarise: the US has invaded approximately half of the Middle East, has troops deployed all over the African region, is vying to invade Iran, Venezuela, and demolish North Korea, and at the same time, sees fit to invade a helpless island in the Pacific region. And yet – China, currently invading no one, is still the largest overarching threat to the US military and its interests.

For example, an internal cybersecurity review recently concluded that the US Navy are “under cyber siege” prompting the Navy to keep high-level promotions a secret for fear of Chinese hacking. According to Defense News, a recent Air Force wish list includes, among other things, that it would like more money for advanced technology to confuse Russia and China. Any talk of military expenditure or military capabilities from Washington almost always fixates on China, and what the US needs in order to counter China’s expanding influence and military presence in the region.

But not to fret – the US has been seeking areas to cooperate with China where possible, but when it isn’t possible, the US is “prepared to certainly protect both US and allies interest in the region,” as Marine Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie said at the Pentagon last year. According to McKenzie, the US military “has had a lot of experience in the Western Pacific taking down small islands.”

“We had a lot of experience in the Second World War taking down small islands that are isolated, so that’s a core competency of the US military that we’ve done before,” he explained.

Perhaps the rest of the world can start to wake up to this looming disaster; but unfortunately, not if most mainstream media outlets refuse to even cover these developments as and when they arise. Thankfully, they’re busy scrambling after spending two years on what can only be described as one of the greatest conspiracy theories of our age.

Darius Shahtahmasebi is a New Zealand-based legal and political analyst, currently specializing in immigration, refugee and humanitarian law.

8 April 2019

Source: transcend.org

By Chris Hedges

1 Apr 2019 — In the small chapel to the right at the entrance of the neoclassical Church of Saint-Sulpice is a large mural by Eugène Delacroix. The painter, at the end of his career and suffering from the tuberculous laryngitis that would soon kill him, depicted a story from Genesis. “Jacob is travelling with the flocks and other gifts he is taking to his brother Esau in the hope of appeasing his anger,” Delacroix wrote in 1861 when the painting was completed. “A stranger appears, blocking his path, and engages him in a fierce struggle – The holy books see this struggle as a symbol of the trials God sometimes sends His chosen ones.”

Delacroix shows the stranger—an angel—and Jacob wrestling in a sunlit clearing in a thick forest. Jacob, bent with exertion, the muscles on his back tense, attempts to push back against the angel, who stands implacably upright. The mural, created with layers of paint and bold, thick brush strokes that would later inspire the Impressionists, was Delacroix’s final testament to the inherent struggle—a struggle he was acutely aware he would soon lose—with mortality.

Delacroix asks us what constitutes victory in life. What gives life meaning? How are we to live? Why struggle against forces that we can never overcome? In the biblical story, Jacob is crippled in the long night’s fight, then blessed at dawn by the departing angel. He begs the angel’s name. But that name remains unspoken. Delacroix painted the inscription “Deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink,” from Psalm 69, over the entrance to the Chapel of the Holy Angels, which holds two other murals by Delacroix portraying clashes with angels. On the ceiling is the Archangel Michael driving the demons from heaven. On the wall opposite Jacob and the angel, Heliodorus is attacked by angels as he attempts to steal the treasures from the temple in Jerusalem. A large window in the church’s stone wall spills sunlight over the paintings.

“Painting taunts and torments me in a thousand ways,” Delacroix wrote in his journal in 1861, seven months before completing his work at Saint-Sulpice. “… [T]hings that seemed to be the easiest to overcome present appalling, interminable difficulties. How is it, then, that instead of casting me down, this eternal combat lifts me up, not discouraging, but consoling me?”

Our worth is determined, the painter attempts to show us, not by what we do in life, but by what we do with what life gives us. It is the ferocity and steadfastness of the struggle that exalt us, especially when we comprehend that victory is ultimately impossible. This wisdom would be echoed by Albert Camus almost a century after Delacroix when he wrote that life required us to “être à la hauteur de son désespoir”—rise up to the level of our despair.

Three Saturdays ago France experienced its 18th consecutive weekend protest by the gilets jaunes, or “yellow vests,” against President Emmanuel Macron’s austerity measures, tax cuts for the wealthy and privatization of public services. Members of the masked and violent Black Bloc had infiltrated the yellow-vest protest on the Champs-Élysées. A few dozen Black Bloc people smashed windows of luxury shops and torched Le Fouquet, one of the city’s best-known restaurants. Police, who inexplicably waited to intervene, eventually used rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons to disperse the protesters. The images of the clashes and property destruction were repeatedly broadcast throughout the following week. The police chief would be fired. Macron, who during the mayhem was skiing in the Pyrenees, would ban protests on the Champs-Élysées and order 6,000 counter-terrorism soldiers deployed outside government buildings. The pleadings by yellow-vest organizers for Black Bloc activists to separate themselves from the nonviolent protests were effectively drowned out by the state’s successful demonization—bolstered by the broadcast media—of the protest movement as a threat to public order and security.

As clashes took place on the Champs-Élysées, some 20,000 demonstrators thronged the streets outside the old Paris Opera House to protest the government’s refusal to address the crisis of global warming. My wife and I were in this nonviolent crowd, which was largely ignored by the press for the more colorful scenes of newspaper kiosks going up in flames on the Champs-Élysées.

The Black Bloc in France, as in the United States, is a gift to the security and surveillance apparatus. I suspect the French police waited to intervene until the camera crews could get enough dramatic footage. The goal of any counterinsurgency campaign is to villainize protest movements, paint them as violent and dangerous to limit their appeal, reduce their numbers and use them as justification to ban any dissent.

Revolution is not about catharsis. It is not about joining a masked mob to “get off” on property destruction. That is protest as adolescent narcissism. It celebrates a self-destructive hyper-masculinity that also fuels many in the police and military. It alienates those within the power structures who, if revolution is to succeed, must be pried away from defending the ruling elites. It produces nothing but fleeting protest porn, which Black Bloc activists watch with self-admiration. And the state loves it.

“We are attached to constitutional rights, but we’ve got people who through all means quite simply want to make a wreck of the republic, to break things and destroy, running the risk of getting people killed,” Macron said after the disturbances.

The yellow vests returned the next weekend in Paris and other cities in France. But the numbers had fallen by half. The peaceful marches were again disrupted by Black Bloc activists, shattering windows and throwing bottles. The yellow-vest protesters deride the Black Bloc contingents as the casseurs, or wreckers. Yellow-vest marchers have taken to waving white flags as a symbol of nonviolence. It appears to be a losing battle.

France has been in an official state of emergency since the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris. The current crisis has only increased the presence of squads of heavily armed soldiers patrolling the city. The threat of terrorism, whether from radical jihadists or cliques of Black Bloc activists, is used by France and other states that seek to crush basic civil liberties and dissent in the name of national security. Macron, who is deaf to the plight of the working class and serves as a French instrument for the global social inequality orchestrated by corporate elites, is pushing significant sectors of the population off the streets and into the arms of the neofascist Marine Le Pen, with whom our corporate masters can make an accommodation, just as they have with Donald Trump. What they fear is a popular uprising. What they fear is losing power. If it takes alliances with repugnant neofascists and demagogues to retain control they will make them.

The brutality of our corporate executioners grows by the day. They will stop at nothing, including wholesale murder, to consolidate power and amass greater profits. Blinded by hubris, driven by greed, disdainful of democracy, foolishly believing their wealth will protect them, they will herd us over the cliff unless they are overthrown.

Delacroix was right. It is the struggle that matters. Not the outcome. I was where I should have been that Saturday in front of the Paris Opera House. Yes, our cries were not heard. Yes, it may be futile. But the fight is what makes us human. It gives us dignity. It affirms life in the face of death. “This eternal combat” brings with it, as the painter knew, a strange kind of consolation that lifts us up to the level of our despair.

Chris Hedges spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans.

8 April 2019

Source: transcend.org

By Jan Oberg

3 Apr 2019 – Last night I witnessed a Danish public service debate program interviewing two pro-NATO experts who concluded by agreeing that NATO at 70 was vibrant and necessary and that it would surely turn 100 and – why not? – 140 years too!

Western mainstream media and their carefully selected editors and commentators are likely to have only politically correct perspectives on the anniversary.

We believe it is important to raise questions about its members and NATO itself:

NATO’s huge, accelerating armaments from an already superior position, its nuclear weapons and doctrine, its post-1989 expansion and confrontational policies, its interventions without UN mandate, its role in the new Cold War and – not the least – NATO’s permanent operation in violation of its own Treaty.

I regret if we happen to embitter some people’s joy. It’s a tiny effort at re-installing diversity, free opinion formation, independent research and to assist democracy in increasingly authoritarian and militarist times.

In short, an effort at promoting peace perspectives.

****

Here are the Birthday Bouquets:

The future of NATO: An interview

NATO expansion: What Gorbachev heard and how he was cheated

NATO’s crisis and the Transatlantic conflict

The increasing global arms trade: NATO – not Russia – is the main problem

The big American mistakes with Russia

Montenegro and NATO’s Faustian Bargain

NATO’s – bizarre – budget row: It should have more important things to discuss

TFF LIve: NATO is outdated – 8 arguments

The Cold War ideas of March

Ten articles on the New Cold War and a reflection

Macedonia’s name and NATO

Make NATO civilian and civilised

A NATO attack on nuclear disarmament

The West’s alienation of Russia: The next wave will be Russia’s liberals

The US Nuclear Posture Review: Sliding towards nuclear war?

****

Some of us don’t see anything worth celebrating about an incredibly expensive, dangerous and harmful alliance which should have been closed down exactly 30 years ago.

Why 30 years ago? Because in 1989, the First Cold War in the Western sphere – Europe – between the Warsaw Pact and NATO came to an end thanks to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.

When that happened and the Berlin Wall came down, NATO too should have been dissolved.

Its raison d’etre until then had always and unambiguously been the very existence of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact (which, by the way, was established 6 years after NATO, in May 1955) and its socialist/communist ideology.

But NATO instead continued to expand – today 29 countries of which 10 former Warsaw Pact members – against all promises about the opposite given to the last Soviet President, Mikhail Gorbachev. And it has caused much harm even in peacetime.

Let’s look at some dimensions that will remain untold at this Anniversary.

How Is NATO Unlawful?

If – like this author – you believe that it is wrong and even unlawful for an organisation to ignore and violate its own treaty/statutes/laws, NATO is an unlawful alliance which systematically violates its both its preamble and treaty provisions.

I’m pretty sure that most people – including those in politics and media – have never even glanced through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s treaty text. Since most people have also never read the United Nations Charter either, about 99% of humanity has no idea of how close the two legal documents are to each other at least when it comes to stated purposes.

Neither do they have a clue about NATO’s full commitment to adhere to the UN Charter provisions. And those provisions aim at abolishing war and make peace by peaceful means and only use – UN-organised – military means as a last resort (Chapter 7) when everything civilian has been tried and found to be in vain.

Are you surprised? Then read the NATO Treaty Preamble (my italics):

“The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.”

Article 1:
“The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

Article 5:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations…”

Only Self-Defence, Defensive Weapons and Postures

Imagine if NATO adhered to such principles in its day-to-day policies. Today it does the exact opposite and wraps it all in boringly predictable rhetoric and the three mantras to explain and legitimize whatever it does: Security, stability and peace – none of them having emerged yet in the real world, neither 1949-1989 nor since.

A new NATO that would thus go back to its original Treaty provisions and build its new policies on them, would be very acceptable to the world, seen as no threat to anybody.

It would be entirely defensive and only take action if one of its members were first attacked. That’s a basically defensive posture and in complete unity with moral principles and international law.

And it would adhere to the Kantian categorical imperative about world peace: Do only yourself what can be elevated to a general principle adhered to be all others in the system without endangering that system.

Defensive postures – self-defence – can be done by everyone without upsetting the system. Offensive “defence” is nonsense and simply can’t, it will lead to eternal armament and militarism.

That’s why the UN Charter’s Article 51 talk about self-defence.

Psychological Problems?

Yes, for sure – and I say that without being a psychologist. It’s not really important to diagnose precisely. The problem is that what NATO does today is devoid of fact-based analyses of the world around it. It is based, instead, on internal dynamics which is the sum total of its member states’ MIMACs – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complexes.

Thus, NATO has only one answer to every problem it sees: More money and more weapons.

To legitimize its operations, it has to constantly develop/maintain enemy images, see one enemy here and see another enemy there and interpret the whole world as though it is “out to get us”.

With this sophisticated but deliberately deceptive “fear-ology” – i.e. making citizens pay without too much protest by considerable information and propaganda (fake and omission) operations that guarantee that people fear these constructed enemies – it continues ad absurdum while the world around it changes rapidly.

At every given moment and occasion: Make the enemy look gigantic and ourselves at least a little inferior and therefore in need of new weapons, doctrines, exercises, expansions and what not.

Military Expenditures as a Main Indicator

And what is the reality outside this – absurd – reality show?

Well, there are many indicators of military strength but if you want just one which allows for comparisons in fixed prices and over time, the best single measurement is military expenditures.

Based on this single indicator, NATO’s military strength is overwhelming if compared with the military expenditures of the one-country enemy, Russia.

Here are the figures:

US military expenditures as of today is between US 700 and 1100 billion depending on what is included. The lower is Pentagon-only, the higher includes home security, pensions, costs for veterans etc. Russia’s military expenditures were US 69 billion in 2016, 55 in 2017 and likely further reduced in 2018.

In crude terms and based on reliable research including SIPRI’s statistics, facts are that the US military expenditures alone is 13-20 times higher. Rule of thumb is that the US stands for about 70% of NATO’s total expenditures.

If you sit in Moscow you need to add the expenditures of the 28 other NATO member, some of which – like Germany, France, Italy and Britain – are among the highest in the world. And either own or hosts nuclear weapons close to your country.

And as if that wasn’t enough, NATO’s military expenditures is increasing. The US demands up to 2% of the member states’ GDP. NATO recently decided to further increase its military expenditures by US 100 billion. That is, believe it or not, almost twice the total Russian military expenditures.

To learn more and find out how much you are not told when you listen to NATO’s representatives and advocates arguing permanently for higher and higher contributions from all members. The relevant figures are here and here and here.

What Type of Psychological Illness?

So what to make of an alliance that for 30 years has been unable to define its post-Cold War mission, has violated international law and its own treaty time and again?

What to make of NATO’s militaristic elites who are vastly and increasingly superior their self-defined enemies in terms of expenditures and technological quality, but feel they must shout and scream constantly about all the existentially threatening enemies they see (Russia, Iraq, China, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, and who is next?) and must attempt to force even allies to line up behind policies that clearly violate international law such as the sanctions on Iran?

What to make of a US-managed NATO elite who constantly threatens others with war, place sanctions on them, seek to isolate them, speak bad about and demonise them, and accuse them of doing what they themselves do to a much larger extent?

What should we call it? Paranoid? Psychotic? Autistic? Insane? Should we say that NATO is losing the grip, thrives on invented images, live in a fantasy world filled with illusions and self-deception?

Or, should we just say that it suffers from dangerous ‘groupthink’ which excludes the possibility that NATO’s decision-makers are ever seeing or hearing counter-views and counter-facts and therefore increasingly believe that they are – exceptionally – chosen by God to lead the world and that they are always right and can’t be wrong?

I’m not sure what defines the illness better or that a precise diagnosis is necessary. But I am sure that NATO is unhealthy and dangerous.

Any group that keeps twisting reality to suit only its own inner structural needs, continues to interpret reality so as to maximize its own utility in it and for decades avoid reality checks and lessons learned is, by definition, a dangerous enterprise.

Over time, such an alliance – and its declining leader – are likely to become a victim of its own propaganda, mistaking it for the reality and the truth. Military secrets are well-protected from outside scrutiny. Even better protected, it seems, are the ways of thinking, the values and the manifest absence of self-criticism: “It’s ours to dominate and we have so much firepower that we don’t have to think!”

The whole structure and power ideology, the mission and the discrepancy between political conduct and its own treaty make NATO its own worst enemy. It will be the last to see that NATO now is the acronym of the North Atlantic Treaty Obsolescence.

But Wait…

The problem, however, is that the ageing alliance sits on huge arsenals of nuclear weapons (not mentioned in its treaty). It builds on a nuclear doctrine that permits it to plan and, if necessary, conduct a nuclear war. It finds it right to be the first to use nuclear weapons and even against a conventional attack. And it is dominated by the US Empire and the US nuclear doctrine.

The problem, furthermore, is that when they gather, its leaders could feel emboldened by a megalomaniac illusion that they are omnipotent and should be rulers of the world.

When we observe what they decide on a day-by-day basis, I’d say that in reality, they are anti-intellectuals who lacks the basics of ethics. Worse, to possess so much destructive power, you must be utterly careful and humble. No sane person can possible perceive NATO and its dominant countries as humble.

NATO’s constructive contribution to humanity’s future is infinitely small compared with its destructive impact, its confrontational attitude, its expansion and its members’ warfare, particularly in the Middle East.

We could actually live in a peaceful world if it wasn’t for NATO and its member states. But no other group of countries has conducted more warfare for so long, killed so many and destroyed so much as they have.

Nobody has had so many resources – including information and media influence – at their disposal to threaten millions of citizens into fearful submission. (We need a taxpayer revolt against military expenditures…)

Think of all the good that could have been done in the world for just a tiny fraction of what NATO and its member states have squandered over the years on their military and on warfare, death and destruction.

Where is the stability, security and peace that NATO has promised us over the last 70 years? If you have promised to achieve something for 70 years that has still not materialized, it doesn’t require a professor to judge that it is time to say ‘Goodbye’!

NATO’s 70th Anniversary self-celebration is tragic and should never have happened. Its new Alliance headquarters should be seen as a mausoleum over militarist folly and vanity.

Its members’ squandering of scarce resources in times of the West’s multi-crisis with not a single successful war to show while hatred against the West is on the rise everywhere, NATO is a major reason that the West is falling. In the process, it has of course to blame everybody else.

Only someone who has been fooled, brainwashed or paid well can believe that this alliance is for the common good of its own members and of humanity.

TFF Director Prof. Jan Oberg is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment.

8 April 2019

Source: transcend.org