Archives: Articles

By Oscar Grenfell

An affidavit unsealed by US prosecutors on Monday has underscored the unlawful character of the Trump administration’s request that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange be extradited to the US in the wake of his illegal expulsion from Ecuador’s London embassy and arrest by the British police last Thursday.

The affidavit was made by Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) special agent Megan Brown on December 21, 2017, in support of two charges which had been secretly filed against Assange, under her name.

The charges accuse Assange of participating in a “conspiracy” with whistleblower Chelsea Manning to gain unauthorised access to a US government computer.

Brown’s document demonstrates that the Trump administration does not have a legal case against Assange that would withstand judicial scrutiny in the US, or in any other country that claims to be a democracy. It brands the US extradition request as a pseudo-legal fig leaf for an extraordinary rendition operation, aimed at silencing a publisher, for his lawful journalistic activities.

The sole “evidence” against Assange is chat logs, in the possession of the US government, which Brown and US prosecutors claim are of online conversations between the WikiLeaks founder and Chelsea Manning.

Brown’s affidavit, and the charge sheet, do not provide any direct evidence that the person Manning was speaking to was Assange.

The “case” against Assange is that Manning, and whoever she was allegedly conversing with in March 2010, discussed cracking a “hash,” or password, that would have allowed her to access US Defence Department material on an account that was not her own.

Manning, as a US army intelligence analyst, had access to the material that she leaked to WikiLeaks. She had already leaked thousands of documents, including the US army’s Afghan and Iraq war logs. The only purpose of accessing the password would have been to help protect her identity.

Brown’s affidavit indicates that the password was never cracked. It quotes Manning, allegedly asking, “any more hints about the IM hash?” The person Manning was conversing with replied: “No luck so far.” Brown then stated: “There is no other evidence as to what Assange did, if anything, with respect to the password.”

Brown also draws attention to portions of the chat logs, in which Manning and her interlocutor discuss the contents of material she had read and leaked to WikiLeaks.

All of the substantive material in the affidavit has been in the possession of the US authorities since at least 2011, following Manning’s arrest the previous year.

The Obama administration viciously pursued Assange and convened a secret Grand Jury to concoct charges against him. It did not, however, press charges over the alleged conversation logs, in an apparent recognition that such a prosecution would violate the US Constitution’s First Amendment freedom of the press protections.

As one of Assange’s US based lawyers, Barry Pollack, stated this week: “Encouraging sources to provide information, and using methods to protect their identity, are common practices by all journalists.” Another of Assange’s lawyers, Jennifer Robinson, noted that the material showed “the kinds of communications journalists have with sources all the time.”

Brown’s affidavit demonstrates that the Trump administration is using the case against Assange to try and prevent journalists from speaking to any sources within the US state apparatus, who wish to disclose evidence of American imperialism’s criminal operations domestically and around the world.

The affidavit declares that WikiLeaks “solicited submissions of classified, censored, or otherwise restricted information,” as though there was something illegitimate about this centuries-long journalistic practice.

It stated that Assange “never possessed a security clearance or need to know” and was “prohibited from receiving classified information of the United States.” This line alone brands the indictment against Assange as a frontal assault on freedom of the press in the US and internationally.

Significantly, Brown’s affidavit condemns Assange for WikiLeaks’ publication of information that they “had reason to believe would cause injury to the United States.”

This is nothing less than a call to establish a legal precedent that journalists must function as de facto agents of the government, including by suppressing truthful information that is in the public interest.

The documents referenced in that section of the affidavit are the Iraq and Afghan war logs. Those publications exposed, for the first time, the extent of the war crimes carried out by US occupying forces in both countries.

The Iraq war logs documented the deaths of almost 110,000 people, including more than 66,000 people labelled by the US military as civilians. This included 15,000 civilian deaths, which were known to the US authorities, but publicly suppressed.

The war logs from both countries demonstrated that torture was a common practice for the US and its proxies. They documented extra-judicial killings and the cover-up of war crimes extending to the highest levels of military command.

The affidavit further demonstrates that it is for exposing these historic crimes, as a journalist and publisher, that Assange has been pursued and charged by the US government.

It is warning that if Assange is extradited to the US, espionage and other charges, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment or the death penalty, will likely be added to his charge sheet. Brown indicated that she became involved in the investigation against Assange, after having been assigned to an FBI “counter-espionage squad” in Washington.

The timeline presented by Brown, also provides new evidence of the motives behind the stepped-up US pursuit of Assange.

She began working with the “counter-espionage squad” targeting Assange in February 2017, the same month WikiLeaks announced that it was preparing to release a massive trove of documents from the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), dubbed Vault 7.

The documents, published over March 2017, were the most extensive exposure of the criminal methods of the CIA in more than 30 years.

They detailed the activities of a secretive division within the agency, tasked with hacking computers all over the world. The documents demonstrated that the division had developed techniques to hack into computer systems and leave “tell-tale” markers, attributing the attacks to other countries, including Russia and Iran.

Vault 7 revealed that the agency was spying on people through smart televisions and other household devices. The CIA was also seeking to develop capabilities to remotely take control of the computer systems in modern cars. Such abilities could be used in assassination operations.

The US government response to the exposures was apoplectic. In April 2017, CIA director Mike Pompeo declared that Assange was a “demon” and that WikiLeaks was a “non-state hostile intelligence service” without any first amendment rights.

The same month, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions said arresting Assange was a “priority.” He told a news conference: “We’ve already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail.”

Just weeks before Pompeo and Sessions made their statements, the corrupt Ecuadorian regime of President Lenín Moreno, acting at the behest of Washington, cut-off all of Assange’s communications and his internet access, in its London embassy.

In court testimony last October, challenging the Ecuadorian government’s attempts to isolate and gag him, Assange explained that the escalating attacks against him had resulted from the publication of Vault 7.

Brown’s affidavit, and the timing of the 2017 investigation into WikiLeaks, demonstrate the urgency of transforming the immense support that exists for Assange among workers, students and young people, into a mass political movement to secure his freedom.

Everything must be done to prevent the extradition of the courageous journalist to the US, where he would be at the mercy of the CIA torturers and war criminals he has done so much to expose.

Originally published by WSWS.org

17 April 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

By Afro-Middle East Centre (AMEC)

Khalifa Haftar’s 4 April announcement declaring his march on Tripoli, and the subsequent of the Libyan capital by his forces, threaten to gravely impact the already tenuous process of placing the country on a more inclusive and representative trajectory, and highlights his intention to subjugate all of Libya to his rule. As a result of the Haftar threat, the Libyan National Conference planned by the UN, and which was to be held this week, was postponed. Significantly, unlike in relation to his rapid capture of the South between December 2018 and March 2019, Haftar’s move westwards is likely to be fraught with challenges; even if it is successful, his grip on power will continue to be subject to low-level insurgent warfare.

Haftar’s decision to march on Tripoli was likely influenced by the announcement of the UN’s national conference, which was to be held in the southwestern town of Ghadamis. It was hoped the conference would agree on a roadmap for Libya’s future that would include a provision for elections to be held before the end of this year. Haftar’s likely fear was that the diverse, and fairly representative 120-person conference would have opposed to his super-sized role in the country’s future, especially since he wants to become the supreme military commander in any future settlement. Significantly, a February meeting in the UAE between Haftar and the head of the internationally-recognised Government of National Accord (GNA), Fayez al-Sarraj, sought to formulate a compromise, and proposed reducing the Presidential Council (PC) that controlled the GNA from nine members to three, and tacitly acknowledging that Haftar would be one of the three. Indeed, the proposed compromise was too heavily weighted in Haftar’s favour for it to be implemented by the GNA.

Haftar calculated that his march on Tripoli would spur militia groups in the West to quickly change sides, joining his forces and allowing him to rapidly conquer the city. His previous such offensive was in the South where, through crafting opportune alliances and by instigating rivalry and warfare between southern tribes, he was able rapidly to capture much of that part of the country, even though his hold on the area is tenuous. With the fall of the South, Haftar now controls all Libya’s oil resources, which empowers him in any future negotiations.

However, he had miscalculated; a few smaller towns, such as Rujban and Surman, shifted allegiances, but most militia groups mobilised to defend the capital. Significantly, the large Bunyan Marsus militia from the city of Misrata dispatched troops to defend Tripoli, even though Haftar attempted to involved it in local skirmishes around Sirte. Further, militia form the city of Zintan also joined the Misratans, even though Zintan’s leadership is divided on whether to support the GNA. After Haftar’s initial approach to Tripoli, the frontlines have remained constant, just outside the city, with his self-styled Libyan National Army being unable to breach its barriers.

Foreign powers, especially France, Russia, the UAE and Egypt, continue to support Haftar, even though French diplomats claim they did not authorise the march on Tripoli, and despite the fact that these countries issued a statement on the 4 April asking Haftar to halt his offensive. An example of this support is that a 6 April UNSC formal statement condemning Haftar was blocked by Russia, with the result that the UNSC issued just a press statement that called on ‘all forces’ to halt activities. Echoing that sentiment, the French foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, said, ‘both sides will have to come to a new understanding’.

It is likely that the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia green lighted Haftar’s march on Tripoli. In his visit to Cairo on 6 and 7 April, he received unequivocal support from Egypt’s president, Abdul Fattah El-Sisi. France is unlikely to halt its support to Haftar; Paris is keen to control Libya’s vast oil resources, and Haftar’s counter terrorism rhetoric that paints all Islamists as terrorists appeals to Macron. Paris is also attracted by the ‘stability’ that a Haftar victory would bring, especially since France maintains strong interests in former colonies Niger and Chad, which have been negatively impacted by Libya’s current chaos.

Moscow dispatched troops, equipment and private contractors to support Haftar; Russia ‘s interest is resuming the large military contracts it had lost after Gadhafi’s ouster, which it believes Haftar will revive. In general, Moscow also favours strongmen, which it, like France, believes would ease its re-entry into the continent; it has thus supported Sisi’s Egypt and Bashir’s Sudan.

Highlighting the fact that Libya has become a battle ground between foreign powers, Russia warned against outside interference, fearing that the USA and Italy might strengthen support for the GNA. Matteo Selvini, Italy’s deputy prime minister, recently intensified criticism of French activities in Libya in support of Haftar. Meanwhile, the EU’s statement on Libya, which would have condemned Haftar, similar to the US statement, was blocked by Paris.

The African Union continues to be a non-player, restricting itself to monitoring events. The continental organisation had planned a July reconciliation conference on Libya, but it is now uncertain whether it will go ahead or have much impact, despite the AU’s insistence that there were no plans for a postponement. Algeria, one of the key actors influencing the AU on Libya is currently involved in its own leadership transition.

If Haftar’s move on Tripoli intensifies into a battle, Libya’s civil war will enter a deadlier phase, especially since weapons’ proliferation in the country is ubiquitous. It will also increase destabilisation in the region, where contestation over power is occurring in Sudan and Algeria, and where conflicts in Mali, Burkina Faso and, to an extent, Egypt continue. The international community must ensure that the Libyan National Conference goes ahead as soon as possible.

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

16 April 2019

Source: amec.org.za

By Andre Vltchek

I hear this again and again, whenever I speak in the West:

“What kind of Communism is that, in China? In all big cities, they have Prada and Gucci in every major department store.”

Western leftists are obsessed with this topic. They do not even realize how ridiculous, how racist their arguments actually are!

China, with some 6,000 years long history, 1.3 billion inhabitants and the second largest economy in the world, has almost eradicated extreme poverty in the cities, and in the countryside. For the first time in modern history, people are moving from the urban centers to the villages. The great Ecological Civilization effort is demonstrating to the world how to save the environment, and the planet.The country is firmly back with its brilliant model of “Communism with the Chinese characteristics”. Its foreign policy is more and more internationalist.

But the more progressive, independent-minded and kind to its people China becomes, the more it is attacked and antagonized by the West. The more is its Communist model scrutinized, under the microscope.

By the Right, by the racists and imperialists naturally,but by the Left?

The problem is that the Western Left subscribes to exceptionalism almost as much as the Right.

It demands purity, great sacrifice and austerity from countries like China and Russia.

As I have already described in many of my essays and books, including Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, there is hardly anything pure left in London or Paris. Hardly anyone is ready to commit to anything ideological, especially to the revolutionary struggle. Sacrifice or austerity is totally foreign to Europeans or North Americans, no matter on what side of the political spectrum they stand.

But the Chinese and Russians are expected to behave like saints.

Actually, the entire planet is supposed to stop consuming, driving expensive cars, wearing designer shoes and bags, and if possible, to stop travelling.

All these privileges are reserved for Westerners, and for the elites in ‘client’ states.

It is never pronounced like this, in one breath. But that is what the Western left-wing intellectuals with their, outdated and rejected by the entire world ‘anarcho-syndicalist logic’, really want to push down the throats of all non-Western people.

And I say: such twisted logic is insulting, even disgusting.

For centuries, the West has been robbing, and looting everything, in all corners of the world.

Designer boots is what the British and French ‘gentlemen’ were kicking ‘un-people’ with, in their crotches andtheir buttocks. Designer clothes were worn by the first and second generations of those refined European ladies in North America, while the native population was being exterminated, and slaves were laboring and getting raped on the plantations.

I don’t want Westerners to talk about fashion and who has the right to be ‘obsessed with it’. I sincerely believe that Europeans and North Americans have absolutely no right to judge anybody, or to ‘advise’ people anywhere in the world, on how to live, what to wear and consume.

*

Chinese people, as well as Russian people, work extremely hard. They work much harder than most people anywhere in Germany or France. Unlike Westerners, they do not loot. They do not exploit anyone.

If they make money and want to spend it the way they want, it is not the business of Western hypocrites to protest.

No matter what the half-hearted ‘austerity’ measures the Europeans and North Americans take(like turning the lights off in their toilets, or using half a tank to flush their toilets), the plunder that their countries are continuing to perpetrate, and the privileges that their entire societies enjoy, are overwhelming and unprecedented. And yes, Europeans recycle a few sheets of paper, while their multi-nationals grab and privatize entire aquifers in South America.

China and Russia are already doing all they can to save the world and the environment, from the deadly Western imperialism. If they work for it, their citizens have the full right to buy the latest mobile phones or elegant pair of shoes. If they want to travel to Thailand or to Turkey for vacation, that’s perfectly fine. It does not make them more or any less Communist or internationalist.

*

But that is not what they think in the West.

You see, those ‘comrades’ in France or US or UK actually demand that everyone listens to their definitions about what the Left is, and what is not; or what Communist or capitalistis.

The great cultures of China or Russia cannot be trusted to decide how they define themselves. The definition has to be outlined on some couch in London, or in a bar in New York,or at a Euro-centric university. It has to be some ‘traditional Marxist’ or anarcho-syndicalist who is expected to put their stamp of approval on, and tell those ‘savages’ who they really are.

The West may be obsessed with ‘political correctness’, but it is as racist as ever. Racist and fundamentalist, it has to be added.

*

I have a proposal to make: if the West is so concerned about Chinese and Russian citizens wanting to drive decent cars and to wear elegant clothes, why don’t they push for an end tothe production of these items in their own end: in France, Italy, the United States. Their countries would lose millions of jobs, but if they are so principled, then, why not? Why don’t they themselves dressed in rags?

But seriously, why don’t they, themselves, build that ‘real and pure’ Communism?

So far, all they, the Western ‘left’,have done was to change colors like chameleons; they betrayed both socialism and Communism, and ended up doing absolutely nothing,instead of fighting, just the constant criticism of others who are actually busy trying to build much better world.

You know, we are tired of being tutored and advised by them. I have had enough of hearing, in those luxury villas in North America and Europe, over expensive drinks and while being comfortably seated in those plush chairs and sofas, how the Chinese, Russians and Vietnamese people should give up aiming for the latest mobile phones and designer clothes. I am sick of those bizarre statements coming from anarcho-syndicalists who are living in luxury marina compounds somewhere in New England, that “China is not really Communist because it has a few billionaires”.

Periodically, I come to the West to speak, to open my films or to launch my books. I get invited to ‘those places of high abstract morality’ in the evenings, inevitably. Places where dogs have better lives than citizens of the neo-colonized African or Asian countries. It is always the same tune.

And this time, I have had enough.

We don’t need advice, thank you. And we are smart enough to know and to define, who we are.

The Western ‘left’ should take care of its own problems. They have lost on their own continents, in their own countries. Presently, they don’t have one single figure that could inspire the world. All they do is to bark at the true revolutionaries, and at the countries where both Communism and socialism are firmly in power. They bark because they have nothing important to say. They bark because they have no guts to fight. They bark because they will never get elected, and they actually have no strength to govern. They bark, because, I believe, they actually don’t like true Communists and socialist at all; those who are facing the real world, real issues, and real enemies.

Communism and socialism have won elsewhere, in several places in Asia and Latin America, even in the Middle East. People there fought bravely. Despite the Western left, not because of it, they won.

We have already determined that the pompous self-centered exceptionalism of the West is similar to religious fanaticism. The Western Left is no exception.

They don’t only want us to be ‘pure’, they want us poor, humiliated and submissive. This way they can pity us, and constantly pretend that they are trying to save us (not for our own sake, but for their own).

Unfortunately for them, we do not need their charity. We are winning. Anyone who is not blind can clearly see that China and Russia are standing tall and marching forward. And other independent-minded countries are winning as well.

We know precisely who we are – no need for advice. And what we are will not be threatened if our women and men wear designer clothes, or drive good cars. In fact, claiming otherwise is appallingly patronizing; it is racist rubbish.

*

[First published by NEO – New Eastern Outlook]

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist.

15 April 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

By Professor Francis A Boyle

The United Nations Organization (U.N.O.) has receded far distant from the positive role it used to play in Africa from the late 1950s to the 1980s when the U.N.O. worked vigorously for the decolonization of Africa from the white racist Western colonial imperial powers. Today what we are witnessing instead is the United Nations basically helping the white racist Western colonial imperial powers re-colonize the continent of Africa. I personally would not believe anything that the United Nations Organization is saying or doing in Africa. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is a flunky for the United States. The Americans gave him the job. He does whatever the United States tells him to do. Africans are well advised to be extremely skeptical of the United Nations Organization as well as of its specialized agencies and affiliated organizations operating anywhere in Africa.

To be sure, technically the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) is not an Organ of the United Nations Organization (U.N.O.). Legally, both the I.C.C. and the U.N.O. are supposed to be independent of each other. But both International Organizations operate in accordance with that well-known “Piper Principle” of international political science: He who pays the piper calls the tune! The same white racist Western colonial imperial powers call the tune for both the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Organization including all of its specialized agencies and affiliated organizations. Western money talks, international law and human rights walk — especially in Africa.

When it supported the right of self-determination under international law in Africa, the United Nations overturned the historical legacy of the Berlin Conference of 1884-85 under which auspices the white racist Western imperial powers commenced their colonial division of the African continent, robbed Africa of its natural resources, and proceeded to inflict outright genocide upon Africans — even for “sport.” By contrast, under the influence of Third World countries that fought for independence against the West, the United Nations supported a decolonization campaign that culminated in the independence of Namibia and the dismantling of the white racist criminal apartheid regime in South Africa. In theory, Africa was then legally free. But economically Africa was still dependent upon and subordinate to the Western Powers because of their continued imposition of neo-colonial economic control and political domination.

What we are seeing now is an attempt by the United States and the European States — collectively organized into the NATO Alliance — to actually recolonize Africa outright and in toto. The opening shot of this process was the 2011 U.S./NATO war of aggression and genocide against Libya that was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. This U.N.-authorized U.S./NATO military operation clearly had the objective of stealing all of Libya’s oil and gas resources. Up to 50,000 Africans were brutally exterminated in this process of U.S./NATO reconquering Libya after Muamar Gadhaffi had previously expelled the U.S. and the U.K. Thanks to U.S./NATO, Libya has now become Somalia on the Mediterranean with waves of African refugees drowning on their way to Europe.

Libya is scheduled to become a de facto base and staging area for U.S./NATO to project power southward into the heart of the African continent in order to steal the abundant natural resources of Africa. As demonstrated in Libya, the white racist Western colonial imperial powers that control NATO and the United Nations Organization will pay no attention whatsoever to the 1948 Genocide Convention when it stands in their rapacious path of invading, bombing, exploiting, persecuting, murdering, and occupying African States and Peoples of Color in order to steal their natural resources. This is what the new “scramble for Africa” is all about by the white racist Western colonial imperial Powers along the lines of the old Conference of Berlin. Now implemented today by means of the latest Western high-tech weapons systems such as genocidal drones.

France has always been one of the West’s major colonial imperial powers in Africa. Today France is deeply involved in consolidating the entire geopolitical space between the Mediterranean and the Gulf of Guinea for U.S./NATO as most recently demonstrated by its ousting the government of Cote D’Ivoire and its invasion of Mali using Guinea as a staging area for the attack. In fact, France never really left Africa. France still maintains garrison forces all over Africa to exert continued French control and domination upon these Black African States, governments, Peoples, leaders, and resources. I am of French Ancestry: Vive La France! — But not in Africa!

Regretfully, with respect to many African leaders, the situation still remains analogous to what Frantz Fanon described in his classic book Black Skin, White Masks (1952). You have leadership Elites throughout Africa who do the bidding of the United States and the NATO states against the wishes and interests of their own people. The second and current I.C.C. Prosecutor Madame Fatou Bensouda from Gambia is a classic case of Black Skin, White Masks. The white racist Western colonial imperial powers who control the I.C.C. put her into office in order to deceive African States and Peoples into believing that the I.C.C. works for them rather than against their interests on behalf of U.S./NATO.

In this process of the modern Western re-colonization of Africa the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) at The Hague functions as The White Man’s Court. The I.C.C. enables the white racist Western imperialist states to pursue and neutralize African leaders who do not do their bidding. Admittedly, some of the implicated African leaders have unsavory reputations. But so far every suspect the I.C.C. has gone after has been from Africa. This is no coincidence. In fact and in law, these African tin-pot dictators are small fish compared to the genocidal monsters of white racist U.S./NATO/Israel.

The I.C.C. refused to do anything about bringing to Justice Tony Blair despite the fact that British lawyers filed a perfectly correct Complaint against him for his numerous international crimes in Iraq. Likewise for the Complaint I filed with the I.C.C. in January 2010 against George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, Alberto Gonzales and their lawyers because of their criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary renditions,” which is a euphemism for the enforced disappearances of human beings and their torture and thus constitute crimes against humanity in accordance with the I.C.C.’s Rome Statute. So far the I.C.C. has refused to do anything to serve Justice upon these Bush-era American international criminals. Ditto for President Obama and his administration for their drone murder policy and practices being run out of occupied Afghanistan that is an I.C.C. member state.

Right after Israel’s genocidal Operation Cast Lead against Gaza from December 2008 to January 2009, I recommended to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that Palestine accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which President Abbas did do. And what happened? The first I.C.C. Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo threw it out on the bogus grounds that it was not for him to determine whether Palestine is a State. He reached this disingenuous conclusion despite the facts that Palestine then had de jure diplomatic State relations with about 130+ States and also possessed State membership in U.N.E.S.C.O., a U.N. specialized agency. This coward and hypocrite Moreno-Ocampo had the gall to toss aside Palestine’s acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court like a piece of Kleenex, and refused to investigate Israel for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinians. Moreno-Ocampo would not lift even one finger to help the Palestinians in their moments of dire desperation. He is truly a despicable human being! So far his successor Ms. Black Skin, White Masks Bensouda has demonstrated no propensity either for doing Justice for the Palestinians against the white racist Israeli genocidaires who have the full support and backing of the racist American genocidaires against Palestine and the Palestinians.

The I.C.C. will not touch white racist American, British, Canadian, European, and Israeli perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against Peoples of Color around the world. So far the I.C.C. has refused to prosecute any of the U.S./N.A.T.O. officials for their international crimes against the Afghani People despite the fact that Afghanistan is a party to the I.C.C. Rome Statute. Estimates run from 1 million to 4 million Afghanis exterminated by white racist Western colonial imperial powers since September 11, 2001. The I.C.C. has also refused to prosecute the white racist leaders of the U.S./NATO states for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against Africans in Libya. The I.C.C. will not bite the white racist Western colonial imperial Hands that feed it.

I originally supported the establishment of an International Criminal Court because I figured it might serve as some minimal deterrent to the United States government inflicting aggression, genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity all over the world, including and especially against Peoples and States of Color in the Third World. I proved wrong in my estimations. I was naïve about the realities of American power ready, willing, and able to subvert and to pervert from the get-go an international institution that it never intended to join in the first place.

Of course the United States could never have permitted a real, independent, and effective International Criminal Court to come into existence! Otherwise, its highest level civilian and military officials would be — and should be — sitting behind bars in a Hague jail cell today. Instead we now witness The I.C.C. White Man’s Court stinking up The Hague.

My good faith advice today to Third World States who are not yet parties to the Rome Statute is not to join the International Criminal Court. And if Third World States are already parties to the I.C.C. Rome Statute, again my good faith advice to them is to pull out now before the white racist Western Colonial Imperial Powers sic the I.C.C. after them as their pet attack dog. The I.C.C. is the West’s Rottweiler against Africa and Asia!

(Francis A. Boyle is a Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign U.S.A. On 8 April 1993 and 13 September 1993 he won two Orders from the International Court of Justice in The Hague — the so-called World Court of the United Nations System — that were overwhelmingly in favor of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

15 April 2019

source: countercurrents.org

By John Pilger

The glimpse of Julian Assange being dragged from the Ecuadorean embassy in London is an emblem of the times. Might against right. Muscle against the law. Indecency against courage. Six policemen manhandled a sick journalist, his eyes wincing against his first natural light in almost seven years.

That this outrage happened in the heart of London, in the land of Magna Carta, ought to shame and anger all who fear for “democratic” societies. Assange is a political refugee protected by international law, the recipient of asylum under a strict covenant to which Britain is a signatory. The United Nations made this clear in the legal ruling of its Working Party on Arbitrary Detention.

But to hell with that. Let the thugs go in. Directed by the quasi fascists in Trump’s Washington, in league with Ecuador’s Lenin Moreno, a Latin American Judas and liar seeking to disguise his rancid regime, the British elite abandoned its last imperial myth: that of fairness and justice.

Imagine Tony Blair dragged from his multi-million pound Georgian home in Connaught Square, London, in handcuffs, for onward dispatch to the dock in The Hague. By the standard of Nuremberg, Blair’s “paramount crime” is the deaths of a million Iraqis. Assange’s crime is journalism: holding the rapacious to account, exposing their lies and empowering people all over the world with truth.

The shocking arrest of Assange carries a warning for all who, as Oscar Wilde wrote, “sew the seeds of discontent [without which] there would be no advance towards civilisation”. The warning is explicit towards journalists. What happened to the founder and editor of WikiLeaks can happen to you on a newspaper, you in a TV studio, you on radio, you running a podcast.

Assange’s principal media tormentor, the Guardian, a collaborator with the secret state, displayed its nervousness this week with an editorial that scaled new weasel heights. The Guardian has exploited the work of Assange and WikiLeaks in what its previous editor called “the greatest scoop of the last 30 years”. The paper creamed off WikiLeaks’ revelations and claimed the accolades and riches that came with them.

With not a penny going to Julian Assange or to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie. The book’s authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, turned on their source, abused him and disclosed the secret password Assange had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing leaked US embassy cables.

With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding joined the police outside and gloated on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”. The Guardian has since published a series of falsehoods about Assange, not least a discredited claim that a group of Russians and Trump’s man, Paul Manafort, had visited Assange in the embassy. The meetings never happened; it was fake.

But the tone has now changed. “The Assange case is a morally tangled web,” the paper opined. “He (Assange) believes in publishing things that should not be published…. But he has always shone a light on things that should never have been hidden.”

These “things” are the truth about the homicidal way America conducts its colonial wars, the lies of the British Foreign Office in its denial of rights to vulnerable people, such as the Chagos Islanders, the expose of Hillary Clinton as a backer and beneficiary of jihadism in the Middle East, the detailed description of American ambassadors of how the governments in Syria and Venezuela might be overthrown, and much more. It all available on the WikiLeaks site.

The Guardian is understandably nervous. Secret policemen have already visited the newspaper and demanded and got the ritual destruction of a hard drive. On this, the paper has form. In 1983, a Foreign Office clerk, Sarah Tisdall, leaked British Government documents showing when American cruise nuclear weapons would arrive in Europe. The Guardian was showered with praise.

When a court order demanded to know the source, instead of the editor going to prison on a fundamental principle of protecting a source, Tisdall was betrayed, prosecuted and served six months.

If Assange is extradited to America for publishing what the Guardian calls truthful “things”, what is to stop the current editor, Katherine Viner, following him, or the previous editor, Alan Rusbridger, or the prolific propagandist Luke Harding?

What is to stop the editors of the New York Times and the Washington Post, who also published morsels of the truth that originated with WikiLeaks, and the editor of El Pais in Spain, and Der Spiegel in Germany and the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia. The list is long.

David McCraw, lead lawyer of the New York Times, wrote: “I think the prosecution [of Assange] would be a very, very bad precedent for publishers… from everything I know, he’s sort of in a classic publisher’s position and the law would have a very hard time distinguishing between the New York Times and WilLeaks.”

Even if journalists who published WikiLeaks’ leaks are not summoned by an American grand jury, the intimidation of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning will be enough. Real journalism is being criminalised by thugs in plain sight. Dissent has become an indulgence.

In Australia, the current America-besotted government is prosecuting two whistle-blowers who revealed that Canberra’s spooks bugged the cabinet meetings of the new government of East Timor for the express purpose of cheating the tiny, impoverished nation out of its proper share of the oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea. Their trial will be held in secret. The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, is infamous for his part in setting up concentration camps for refugees on the Pacific islands of Nauru and Manus, where children self harm and suicide. In 2014, Morrison proposed mass detention camps for 30,000 people.

Real journalism is the enemy of these disgraces. A decade ago, the Ministry of Defence in London produced a secret document which described the “principal threats” to public order as threefold: terrorists, Russian spies and investigative journalists. The latter was designated the major threat.

The document was duly leaked to WikiLeaks, which published it. “We had no choice,” Assange told me. “It’s very simple. People have a right to know and a right to question and challenge power. That’s true democracy.”

What if Assange and Manning and others in their wake – if there are others – are silenced and “the right to know and question and challenge” is taken away?

In the 1970s, I met Leni Reifenstahl, close friend of Adolf Hitler, whose films helped cast the Nazi spell over Germany.

She told me that the message in her films, the propaganda, was dependent not on “orders from above” but on what she called the “submissive void” of the public.

“Did this submissive void include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie?” I asked her.

“Of course,” she said, “especially the intelligentsia…. When people no longer ask serious questions, they are submissive and malleable. Anything can happen.”

And did.

The rest, she might have added, is history.

John Pilger is an acclaimed documentary film maker. Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger

13 April 2019

Source: countercurrents.org

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