Archives: Articles

By Dr Marwan Asmar

Israel killed 210 Palestinians and injured 400 to secure the release of four Israeli hostages deep in the Nuseirat Camp in central Gaza.

What happened in Nuseirat is being described as the largest single massacre carried out by the Israeli army, using a special unit of the Shabak and Israeli police that went into the central market of the west of the camp early Saturday, backed by heavy bombardment from the air, sea and tanks.

Bollywood-style rescue

An eyewitness in the camp described what happened as “unbelievable”, something from an Indian Bollywood movie with camfloudged men that came out of a lorry thought to carry displaced people and their furniture and started firing at everyone within distance.

The Israelis are seeing the bloody operation as a “great national success. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are patting themselves on the back for the release of the four hostages. They say now the release of the hostages – at around 120 – is only a matter of time with Netanyahu hinting at repeat operations of the same kind.

Hamas on the other hand, has been quick to respond, saying the release of four of its hostages after 245 days of an-eight-month bloody and destructive war was nothing to brag about. The Islamist organization now battling the Israeli army in all parts of Gaza says, the operation in broad daylight and carried out when the street markets are busy and full of people,  only shows the failure of the Israeli army and its strategy.

It added all that the Israeli did was carry out another massive killing spree on the civilians of Nuseirat.

The high death numbers are being confirmed by the Gaza government media office stating the number of the people killed and injured in this part of the enclave is unprecedented, adding the number of deaths is likely to climb because of the Israeli missiles that struck and buried people under the tons of wreckage and debris and as the number of those killed are dug up from under the rubble but this would take days. At least 80 homes were struck.

Worry is that extremist Israelis might now consider this scorched-earth policy which the army carried out since 7 October is finally bearing fruit and would continue. This is what Netanyahu believed all along, saying the only way to secure the release of the hostages is by more bombardment of Gaza.

Two points need to be considered here, however. Spokesman of the Hamas Izz Al Din Al Qassam Brigade Obu Obeida said the military operation has come at a high cost for the Israelis. He added Netanyahu would realize that more hostages died in the operation as the following days will show.

One of the female hostages released among the other three male captives, Noa Argamani, said she nearly died four times as a result of Israeli bombing of the camp. She said the other two she was with didn’t make it and were killed thanks to the Israeli bombs.

It is clear however, the operation was carefully constructed and took weeks to plan with the help  of American intelligence and US officers previously working in Iraq with possible reconnaissance by the British.

Worried White House

Nevertheless, the White House may just be a little bit worried about what had just happened despite serving as the main supplier of weapons in this slaughter that saw the killing of over 36,000 people and the injury of over 82,000. Washington has sought to project a dual image since the beginning of this bloody conflict  despite remaining a loyal Israeli supporter.

On the face of it, US president Joe Biden wants a political solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with an end to the Gaza crisis that is complicated by the existence of Hamas. However, the White House is still banking on the release of the remaining hostages, some of whom are American citizens, and he would like to see more aid into the enclave to lighten the burden of starvation being openly implemented by the Israelis.

For Biden it’s a multi-layer role. While he keeps saying he is a “Zionist”, he is facing elections in November and wants to secure a return to the White House through Arab-American and Muslim voters but he can’t do that if he alienates them. There are many voters who say they will not vote for him because of his pro-Israeli policies in the war on Gaza already. But he is willing to see whether he can still turn the tables around.

The snagging problem now is that with the release of the four hostages Netanyahu is likely to become even more intransigent on continuing the war on Gaza, believing his scorched-earth policy and the killing of more civilians will be the only way to get the rest of the hostages back, keeping alive his pipe-dream of ending Hamas and the Palestinian resistance. And with Biden not wanting to stop the arm-supplies to Israel, he will continue to support Netanyahu whatever he does.

What this means is that the war on civilians in Gaza will continue under the name of fighting the Palestinian resistance with Netanyahu in no mood for stopping despite the fact that the relatives of the hostages are still protesting and believe the only way to get their sons and daughters back is through negotiations and a ceasefire.

Netanyahu needs to understand as well Hamas is here to stay. Its not going anywhere as shown everyday by its strength on the Gaza battlefields. Unless he comes to this realization the war will continue and the chances of getting the hostages will be slim.

Commentators have been making a mockery of the latest release of the hostages. They say at a rate of four every eight months, it would take Israelis till at least 2030 to get its hostages back. So why keep waiting till then?

Dr Marwan Asmar is an Amman-based writer covering Middle East affairs

9 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

The results of the General Elections 2024 have thoroughly exposed the Bania media and its Brahmanical proponents. I have never trusted it but it took 10 years of Modi rule to expose them completely. V T Rajshekar, the indomitable Editor of Dalit Voice which flourished in the 1990s always mocked at their ”merit’ and wrote ‘Merit : My Foot’. Many people would question him and blame him for criticising ”liberals” but he remain categorical that the Brahmanical liberals are more dangerous. Time has proved it that these liberals by picking up one or two issues become brand of the ‘secularism’ and ‘liberalism’ among the Brahmin Bania media and then suddenly get exposed whenever there is a threat to their duopoly.

The bloodbath at the stock market where Banias hold solid monopoly cant be without the involvement and knowledge of those who owns these channels and have converted them to disinformation centre for their own profit. The darbari media or manustream media has lost all its credibility.

We all know that this has been a tough election where BJP wanted to finish everything that we had in the name of opposition. It played different games, distorting facts and hiding information from people. The so-called ‘national  media therefore is a partner in crime against constitution.

Look the way Rajat Sharma shamelessly spoke about Rahul Gandhi, will leave for Italy after June 4th, a despicable statement made by BJP spokespersons everywhere. The ‘bombardment’ of so called interviews of Narendra Modi during election campaign were nothing but purely advertised campaign for the ruling party. Unfortunately, neither the Election Commission nor the Supreme Court bothered about it. The media had no time to question the government but in the name of news they were just providing platform to those who can demonise the opposition and lampoon Rahul Gandhi.

Rajdeep Sardesai had long started batting for Narendra Modi. He spoke in many interviews that BJP was crossing 300. Shekhar Gupta who virtually mocked at Congress and felt it would not cross 60 and crossing 90 would mean a big thing. Another ‘liberal’ Vir Sanghavi was also upset with congress and Rahul Gandhi, just because he spoke about caste census and reservation.

Indian media has proved that it will go to any extent to protect the caste interest of its owners and reporters. They are upset with the caste questions. In the 1990s, I studied the Hindi media when BJP launched the Ayodhya campaign. The middle class liberals were exposed that time as they hated Mandal. Media had no shame in supporting the Hindutva campaign just because they dont want to upset their caste hegemony.

Now, 35 years later, we now see, a must worst media, more nasty, casteist and thuggish promoting animosity among communities and had no shame in broadcasting, publishing stories that vilified Muslims of India. Isnt it a shame that nearly 15 crore population of India, its second majority, is termed as main villain and all efforts were made to deny them representation.

Media is a business. They are loyal to their jaatis and owners. After 1990s, many of our friends felt that India need to ‘liberalise’ but they only meant privatise the nattional resources to a few cronies and jaatis. They could not develop liberal thinking and ideas. Capitalism in India is nothing but Baniaism and media owned by the Banias have done everything to protect their business and market monopoly. Brahmins were just satisfied with their social-cultural privileges. The duopoly of these two communities are well established. Capitalism in India need religion to thrive and vice versa. Jyotiba Phule said it is Sethji -Bhatji combine that want to rule over us, control our minds and resources. Any one who try to challenge this hegemony is unwanted and named and shamed as jaatiwadis.

It is good diverse new youngs are speaking. Let the different voices emerge. There are good people everywhere and I dont say every one from these communities are bad. Exceptions are always there but we must not forget that jaatis created and protected their hegemonies. Perhaps, that is the reason why we all are upset with caste question and representation of diverse groups in our power structure. India’s unity and strength is its diversity and it is time it should reflect everywhere right from media, to judiciary, to industry to academia and cultural spaces and only then we will be called as truly liberal democratic society.

Vidya Bhushan Rawat is a social activist

8 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Samina Salim

Today was a typical morning of a hot summer in Houston. I woke up looking at the rays of the sun peeking through the window shades of my bedroom. As I usually do, I grabbed my phone to glance over the family WhatsApp group chat, which are usually a combination of family travel photos, invites, illnesses, a recipe or something of that nature, today the first message which caught my attention was a meme which said, “BJP losing Ayodhya is funny as hell and iconic, one for the history books”.  I knew exactly what this meant and immediately ran for my computer to log in to see the Indian election results.

I was blown away, the sophistication of the Indian electorate is remarkable, the voters may be poor and illiterate or semi-literate, but they cannot be fooled by hypothetical claims, dubious algorithms or coaxing of self-proclaimed messiahs. This is evident from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s loss in Faizabad which includes the temple town of Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh (UP). UP is India’s most populous state, which holds a significant position in the Indian elections with 80 parliamentary seats. In 2014 and 2019, the BJP won 71 and 62 seats respectively but in the recent election, the BJP secured only 33 seats, with the most notable being its loss in the Faizabad constituency, where BJP had spent millions of dollars on construction of an opulent Ram temple on a site where 16^th century Babri Mosque once stood. This result is particularly telling. It gives a simple message; hate is a burden that weighs people down. Sooner or later, this burden ought to drop, and it did. Ayodhya voted against Modi’s hate, and brought to the forefront real issues locals faced- poverty, housing, clean water, unemployment, illiteracy etc. What use is a grand temple when there is no food on the table? How can one pray on an empty stomach? How can hating Muslims solve any of the day-to-day problems of a common man? Modi’s hateful campaign targeting India’s 200 million Muslims by criminalizing, demonizing, and marginalizing them by openly professing anti-Muslim rhetoric has been thwarted.

Additionally and most significantly, the election results have busted the “Modi myth” which was a carefully crafted story romanticized to an extreme stretch; a long-bearded man of humble beginnings, dressed in a crisp attire sitting with a peacock in a pensive mood in almost an academic solitude, a chaiwala (a tea seller), a monk, incorruptible, an environmentalist, a visionary, a super diplomat- everything that he is not. In fact, he was barred from entry into the US for his role in Gujarat pogrom against Muslims, but the BJP fought every election in his name using the personality cult they had crafted for him. Modi himself seemed almost consumed in this delusional narrative to the extent that he had started professing himself as a messiah, a divine reincarnation who was sent to serve as the savior of India. If anything, Mr. Modi should be humbled by the election results. As an Indian Muslim American I feel cautiously excited about the future of India, finally an end to the authoritarianism, and vigilantism seems near. India is too incredible to be consumed by the parochial designs of self-consumed fanatics.

Samina Salim, Associate Professor Department of Pharmacological & Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Houston

8 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Lock them up.  The whole bally lot.  The pollsters, the pundits, the parasitic hacks clinging to the life raft of politics in the hope of earning their crust.  Yet again, the election results from a country have confounded the chatterers and psephologists.  India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, was meant to romp home and steal the show in the latest elections.  The Bharatiya Janata Party was meant to cut through the Lok Sabha for a third time, comprehensively, conclusively.  Of 543 parliamentary seats, 400 were to be scooped up effortlessly.

From a superficial perspective, it was easy to see why this view was reached.  Modi the moderniser is a selling point, a sales pitch for progress.  The builder and architect as leader.  The man of temples and faith to keep company with the sweet counting of Mammon’s pennies.  Despite cherishing an almost medieval mindset, one that rejects Darwinian theories of evolution and promotes the belief that Indians discovered DNA before Watson and Crick, not to mention flying and virtually everything else worth mentioning, Modi insists on the sparkle of development.  Propaganda concepts abound such as Viksit Bharat (Developed India).  The country, he dreams, will slough off the skin of its “developing” status by 2047, becoming a US$30 trillion economy.

The BJP manifesto had pledges aplenty: the improvement of the country’s infrastructure, the creation of courts programmed to be expeditious in their functions, the creation of “high-value” jobs, the realisation of India as a global hub for manufacturing.

The electors had something else in mind.  At the halfway point of counting 640 million votes, it became clear that the BJP and its allies had won 290 seats.  The BJP electoral larder had been raided.  The Modi sales pitch had not bent as many Indian ears as hoped.  The opposition parties, including the long-weakened Congress Party, once the lion of Indian politics, and the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, had found their bite.  States such as Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Maharashtra, had put the Hindutva devotees off their stroke.

Despite Modi’s inauguration of a garish temple to Ram at Ayodhya, occupying the site of a mosque destroyed by mob violence (the cliché goes that criminals return to the scene of their crime), the Socialist party and Congress alliance gained 42 of the 80 seats on offer in Uttar Pradesh.  A rather leaden analysis offered in that dullest of publications, The Conversation, suggested that Hindu nationalist policies, while being “a powerful tool in mobilising the BJP’s first two terms” would have to be recalibrated.  The theme of religious nationalism and its inevitable offspring, temple politics, had not been as weighty in the elections as initially thought.

For such politics watchers as Ashwini Kumar, the election yielded one fundamental message: “the era of coalition politics is back”.  The BJP would have to “put the contentious ideological issues in cold storage, like the uniform civil code or simultaneous elections for state assembly and the Parliament.”

While still being the largest party in the Lok Sabha, the BJP put stock in its alliance with the National Democratic Alliance.  The NDA, said Modi, “is going to form the government for the third time, we are grateful to the people”.  The outcome was “a victory for the world’s largest democracy.”

Modi, sounding every bit a US president dewy about the marble virtues of the republic, romanced the election process of his country.  “Every Indian is proud of the election system and its credibility.  Its efficiency has not [sic] match anywhere else in the world. I want to tell the influencers that this is a matter of pride.  It enhances India’s reputation, and people who have a reach, they should present it before the world with pride.”

For a man inclined to dilute and strain laws in a breezy, thuggish way, this was quite something.  Modi spoke of the Indian constitution as being “our guiding light”, despite showing a less than enlightened attitude to non-Hindus in the Indian state.  He venerated the task of battling corruption, omitting the fact that the vast majority of targets have tended to be from the opposition.  The “defence sector”, he vowed, would become “self-reliant”.

In an interview with the PTI news agency, the relentlessly eloquent Congress Party grandee Shashi Tharoor had this assessment.  The electorate had given a “comeuppance” to the BJP’s “overweening arrogance” and its “my way or the highway attitude”.  It would “be a challenge for Mr Modi and Amit Shah who have not been used to consulting very much in running their government and I think this is going to test their ability to change their way of functioning and be more accommodative and more conciliatory within the government and also I hope with the Opposition.”

Whatever Modi’s sweet words for the Indian republic, there was no getting away from the fact Hindutva’s juggernaut has lost its shine. We anticipate, to that end, something amounting to what Tharoor predicts to be a “majboor sarkaar (helpless government)” on fundamental matters.  Far better helpless in government than ably vicious in bigotry.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.

8 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Prakash Louis

With arrogance Mr. Modi had declared that his party would cross 400 out of 543 seats in the election to the Lok Sabha or the Lower House of India. In the election that concluded on 1^st June, 2024, the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), the party that he led was reduced to 240. Modi is struggling to form the government on its own and has to seek the support of NDA partners. Earlier, it had boasted that it would form the government on its own but the Indian voters have shown that he and his policies and programs do not find favour among them. From being a Vishwa guru, he has been reduced to an ordinary citizen of the country. There are also reports that there are rumblings within the BJP. That is, a section of the elected members not wanting Modi to become the Prime Minister of India. Next few weeks and months are crucial for India, because if Modi becomes the PM, he would destroy the country.

It is pertinent to raise the question, why the people of India rejected Modi, his policies and programs. Let us remember these facts that in 2014, in the 16^th Lok Sabha elections, the BJP won 282 seats with 31% of votes at the national level. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) secured 336 seats. The Indian National Congress was defeated in a landslide. In the 2019 elections, the BJP won 303 seats, thus increasing 21 seats to its count. It received 37.6% of the vote share and formed the government. The Congress party won only 52 seats and the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) won only 91 seats. For Modi from a secure state of being able to form the government independently to seeking alliance, is unthinkable and unexplainable. The Indian voters undeniably have given a hard blow to Modi from which he would not be able to spring back to his arrogant self.

Modi and the party he is leading promised a vibrant and participatory democracy, inclusive and sustainable development, quality of life, productive youth, a globally competitive economy, open and transparent government, and pro-active and pro-people governance in its manifesto. He announced from roof top, “Achhe din aane waale hain”, that is, “Time for Change, Time for Modi.”

Based on the above, the following were the promises made by Modi based on which he came to power in 2014: two crore [20 million] jobs per year; 15 lac [1.5] million in the accounts of the poor; will bring back black money from abroad; will control price rise by establishing special courts to stop hoarding and black marketing; promised price stabilisation fund; unbundling FCI operations into procurement, storage and distribution for greater efficiency; encouraging and empowering youth via self-employment; focus on agriculture, allied industries and retail through modernisation as well as stronger credit and market linkages; initiating a multi-skill development programme, with focus on job creation and entrepreneurship; national healthcare programmes, medical education and financing for health care services; setting up an AIIMS-like institute in states; digitisation of government records;  focus on increasing the penetration and usage of broadband; leveraging technology for e-governance; generating ITbased jobs in rural and semi-urban areas, using mobile and e-banking to ensure financial inclusion; modernization of Madarasas; improving traditional artisanship and entrepreneurial skills; 33% reservation for women through constitutional amendment; launch of ‘beti bachao beti padhao’ campaign; improving village level infrastructure like roads, potable water, education, health, supply chain, electricity, etc.;  building 100 new smart cities and lastly, exploring all possibilities within the framework of the Constitution to facilitate the construction of the Ram temple at Ayodhya.

But a careful reading of the last 10 years of rule or misrule of Modi clearly and categorically states the utter failure of his government leave alone governance. None of the above election promises are fulfilled. There was no focused and directed work done by him, his cabinet colleagues or the government. All these promises only became a laughing stock and Modi himself was ridiculed at every step. This was all the more in the run to the 2024 election. There was not a single issue on which Modi can boast of having made a mark in 10 years of his rule. Only getting the Ayodhaya temple constructed by breaking rules and by posing himself as the priest, temple, Hindus, nation, etc. Even the hard core Hindus understood that the opening of this temple was only an election gimmick and not real love for Hindu belief.

There are some devastating steps that Modi took during his regime. They are: demonetization which instead of resulting in its stated objectives combating terror funding, fake notes and black money resulted in wide spread suffering to over 75% of the citizens; the imposition of three Farm Ordinances in the name of regularizing the market in favour of the farmers. But the farmers realizing the sinister game that Modi and his coterie were playing opposed it tooth and nail even at the expense of 700 farmers dying martyrs’ death forced Modi to withdraw these ordinances; the ordinary demand of the farmers for minimum support price has not been heeded to by Modi.

Under the New Labour Code, Modi tried to curtail the freedom of the labourers and give free hand to the companies and industries to hire and fire. Denying the existence of over 40 labour laws, attempted to regulate labour movements and labour rights. Weakening and destroying all the national institutions like the Planning Commission, Minority Commission, Women’s Commission, Scheduled Caste Commission, Scheduled Tribe Commission, to name a few. Did not create one commission but destroyed what was already there. Misuse of institutions like CBI, ED, NIA, RBI, etc. Captured the media through his friends in the loot and made them godi media, that is, parroting what Modi said and did not say.

Mishandling of Kashmir and Ladak issues and alienated the people there. Eight month long curfews destroyed the local economy. Worse still, there was a marked increase (72%) in the number of our soldiers martyred in just the first three years of the BJP’s term. Even going to the inhuman level of using the death of army jawans for electoral purposes. It is reported that over 1 lac jobs are vacant in the railways. Instead of attending to that and also responding to the demands of the ordinary passengers, kept on promoting Vande Bharat which appeases the middle and upper class, who alone can travel in these. Making Aadhaar number essential for any public and financial transaction and thus gathering information about the citizens.

Anti-Dalit and anti-Tribal policies and programs. Modi as PM announced that he is in favour of abolishing reservation. His argument was that reservation brings down the merit and service to the nation declines. Echoing his view BJP goons shouted that reservation be withdrawn. By undertaking this heinous crime, he wanted to undo Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar and the principles that he stood for – fraternity, liberty and equality.

The country will not forget the hardships suffered all the citizens, especially over 75% of the population by the totally unplanned and unprepared series of lockdowns. Instead of getting counsel from medical experts and taking to a scientific approach, he went to the ridiculous level of clapping hands and vessels. The middle class and upper class were part of his obnoxious thought and behaviour. The migrant labourers from north India will not forgive him for pushing them to walk thousands of miles while he could have made arrangements for their travel back home. Over, 40 lac Indians succumbed to COVID-19, less by the virus but more by his inability to handle the situation.

Perhaps one of the unforgivable crime of Modi was to spread hate, division and violence. Instead of arresting Muslim hate, mob lynching and running bulldozer, he vomited venom against the Muslim minority community. Using his position of being the PM of this country, he went around spreading all kinds of rumours against them and called for violence against them. This was fully and totally under the vote bank politics of majoritarianism. Created enmity with the neighbouring countries.

It suffices to state that the above presented facts and figures are a dismal report card by any measure, but it is far from exhaustive. To be precise, Modi’s views, perceptions, thoughts and behaviour are rooted and grounded in an anti-poor, anti-Dalit, anti-Tribal, anti-minority, anti-OBCs, anti-citizen principles and programs. In his first term as the PM of India Modi’s image of being a techno-savvy, angry Hindu appealed to many rural youth. These were the ones who were getting into mobile culture. But they realized that except rhetoric, no substantial changes were intended by Modi. Youth accounted for about 83% of the jobless citizens, according to a report by the International Labour Organization and the Institute for Human Development.

Manipur was a blot on the face of Modi and the BJP. The crisis and violence that has been going on in Manipur for the last one year has been repeatedly identified as government – state and centre- orchestrated one. That is, planed, programed, financed and executed violence with the short term and long term objectives to deprive the Kuki Tribal communities of land, forest and other resources. It is the governments who pitted the Meiteis against the Kukis. The fact is that Modi underestimated the power of the backlash from women and youth in Manipur. Hence, both Meiteis and Kukis defeated BJP thoroughly. Both the parliamentary seats are won by the Congress.

One crisis that India witnessed in Modi’ first term itself was price rise and growing inequality. Several reports both internal and global pointed out to the stark reality that that inequality and poverty have risen during the Modi years. Reports also indicated that the persistent high inflation pushed the household financial savings to a 30-year-low in the first half of financial year 2023. A report by Motilal Oswal Securities indicated that these depleted savings were being used for consumption.

This was clearly pronounced in the rumblings before the election in the most electorally secure state, that is, Uttar Pradesh. It was reported that the Samajwadi Party leader said voters in the state were turning against Modi because of a lack of jobs, the high cost of living, and concerns that he would dilute affirmative action policies for lower-caste individuals. In addition to doing away with the reservation policy, Modi would also replace Dr.B.R. Ambedkar with Savarkar. Interestingly, in the 2019 election, the BJP won 63 seats in UP on its own. But in the 2024 election, it could scrap to 33 seats only.

In the run up to the election, Modi was becoming aggressive, autocratic, abusive, impulsive, etc. “India was trending towards a more autocratic country, a country with one leader who had a larger-than-life image,” said Raghuram Rajan, a former governor of India’s central bank and ex-chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. “And that unfortunately meant the BJP leadership wasn’t listening, wasn’t listening to the economic news on the ground. That people were actually suffering hardships.” It is this disconnect which reduced Modi and BJP to low margin.

Modi had claimed that he is fighting all the 400 seats for BJP. But this arrogance was destroyed by the mature electorate of India. The BJP’s inability to secure an outright majority “pricks the bubble of Modi’s authority,” commented political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta. Mehta goes on to state Modi is “not the indomitable vehicle for History … Today, he is just another politician, cut to size by the people.” A totally self-centered person, with me, my, mine brought destruction on himself. He had destroyed the country already.

What is an undeniable fact is that the Indian democracy has reaffirmed its vibrance and the people’s ability to course-correct when necessary. No force, not even Modi’s vaunted election juggernaut, could withstand the tsunami of people’s electoral power. It is not this or that caste, class, religious group who defeated Modi and his divisive forces. The Lok Sabha election 2024 has reiterated this powerful fact that ‘We the people of India’ are the real swaraj (independence), shakti (power), shaasan (governance).

Dr Prakash Louis is a political commentator

8 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Sonali Kolhatkar

Using a little-known provision of trade agreements, oil and gas corporations are able to pit their profits against democracies and our climate. It’s time to end the practice.

There is an obscure mechanism by which fossil fuel companies maintain their global domination even as their products are destroying our futures. Most rank-and-file climate activists haven’t heard of it and most news media rarely discuss it in great detail. It is a tool that has its origins in colonialism and advantages corporate power over democracy. The technical term for such a tool is “Investor-state dispute settlement” or ISDS. And while it sounds boring and technical, it is crucial that we familiarize ourselves with it in order to dismantle it.

The Global ISDS tracker, a newly launched online database, describes these as “secretive corporate tribunals.” When nations enter into trade agreements with one another, they usually include a clause on using the benign-sounding ISDS to resolve corporate disputes with national regulators. In other words, if a corporation originating in one nation sees its profits threatened by regulations or nationalization in another nation, it can sue that second government.

When applied to curbing carbon emissions in order to save our planet’s ability to sustain life, one can see that such tribunals can be extremely problematic. Country A decides to transition away from the oil and gas industry toward green, renewable energy. However, an oil company based in Country B sues via an ISDS agreement to extract its lost profits. That’s precisely what is happening, to the tune of $327 billion, according to the Global ISDS Tracker. “[F]ossil fuel cases… can devastate public budgets or even bankrupt a country.”

For example, Nigeria is currently facing a massive set of damages determined by an ISDS tribunal to be paid to a UK-based company for a gas project to the tune of 30 percent of the entire nation’s foreign exchange reserves. And, foreign mining companies are demanding $30 billion from the Republic of Congo using ISDS tribunals. That’s twice the amount of Congo’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Former UN climate envoy and former Irish President Mary Robinson, who said she was “outraged” when she found out about oil and gas companies using ISDS to extort nations, explained that “if countries do the right thing on climate, they have to compensate fossil fuel companies.”

Where did ISDSs come from and how are they remotely justifiable in an era when society broadly agrees on democracy as the best form of government? Former U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration explained in the context of the 2016 free trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that “ISDS is specifically designed to protect American investors abroad from discrimination and denial of justice,” and that it is a “more peaceful, better way to resolve trade conflicts” compared to the “gunboat diplomacy” of earlier eras.

It is as if the United States’ only option has been to defend its corporations against other people’s democracies rather than allow private entities to fend for themselves. If only human beings were protected from “discrimination and denial of justice” to this extent!

According to a 2023 report by David Boyd, the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, “[o]f the 12 largest ISDS awards to date, 11 involve cases brought by fossil fuel and mining investors.” The $95 billion they extracted from nations using ISDS “likely exceeds the total amount of damages awarded by all courts to victims of human rights violations in all States worldwide, ever,” wrote Boyd.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning media outlet Inside Climate News prefers to call ISDS “economic colonialism,” especially given that “the majority of cases have been filed by corporations from the United States, Europe, and Canada against developing nations.” Colonialism is a fitting descriptor. Gus Van Harten explained in his 2020 book “The Trouble with Foreign Investor Protection,” that ISDS treaties “originate in the efforts of former colonial powers and international organizations, especially the World Bank, to constrain newly independent countries.” In other words, ISDS is a means by which to extend colonialism after the end of physical occupation.

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize-winning economist, prefers even harsher terminology. He called ISDS mechanisms “litigation terrorism,” because they “instill fear of environmental regulations, climate regulations because you know that it’s going to be costly” for governments.

British commentators had pressured the UK government to exit from treaties such as the “Energy Charter Treaty” (ECT) that require ISDS tribunals. In February 2024, the UK announced it would quit the ECT, following in the footsteps of France, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands. Most recently Members of the European Parliament also backed a proposal to end its ECT membership. It was called a “historic” vote against a treaty seen as a “climate killer.”

It’s time for the U.S. to do the same. Last November, hundreds of climate justice and civil society groups signed on to a letter urging President Joe Biden to end ISDS mechanisms built into a trade agreement with nearly a dozen Latin American and Caribbean nations called Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. The signatories explained that ISDS was “a global governance regime that prioritizes corporate rights over those of governments, people, and the planet.”

This was followed by a similar letter in December 2023 signed by more than 40 lawmakers from the Senate and House urging Biden to remove ISDS provisions from all trade agreements. The signatories, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sheldon Whitehouse, lauded Biden for his “powerful action when he shut down the Keystone XL pipeline project, preventing the construction of a tar sands oil pipeline,” and pointed out that “TC Energy (formerly known as TransCanada)—the company behind the now-defunct pipeline—has filed an ISDS claim for billions of dollars to be litigated not in an American court, but in a shady international tribunal.”

What good does it do Biden and the U.S. for him to be a climate champion if any steps he takes to undermine fossil fuel domination are countered by a powerful and secretive corporate weapon?

Momentum against ISDS provisions is growing. In April 2024, hundreds of academics in law and economics also wrote to Biden urging him to “eliminate ISDS liability from existing agreements,” and offering valuable expertise on how it can be done.

Biden had said in 2020 that he was against ISDS provisions—in spite of his role as Vice President to the pro-ISDS Obama. In a letter to the United Steelworkers union, he said “I oppose the ability of private corporations to attack labor, health, and environmental policies through the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process, and I oppose the inclusion of such provisions in future trade agreements.” But what about current trade agreements?

It’s troubling that multinational corporations from the U.S. launched the highest number of ISDS cases worldwide. The U.S. is currently the top producer of crude oil in the world. U.S. oil and gas companies are reaping extraordinarily high profits while taking advantage of billions of dollars of public subsidies in the form of tax breaks. The least Biden can do to curb a deadly industry that is threatening our entire species is to take action against ISDS provisions in existing trade agreements.

Sonali Kolhatkar is an award-winning multimedia journalist. She is the founder, host, and executive producer of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a weekly television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations.

8 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Marwan Asmar

More bad news for Israel with the information about the United Nations moving ahead to include Israel on its blacklist of countries and organizations harming children in conflict zones according to the Palestine Chronicle.

The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has written to the Israeli military Attaché in Washington, Major General Hidai Zilberman informing him of his decision to include Israel in the blacklist of countries that harm children.

Based on Israeli sources media sources the Chronicle added the list that includes terror groups like  ISIS, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram.

Palestine’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Riyad Mansour was happy with the move to dam Israel.

“The United Nations’ decision to add Israel to the list of violations of children’s rights, often referred to as the ‘list of shame’, will not bring back tens of thousands of our children killed by Israel over decades..but it is an important step…towards ending the double standards and the culture of impunity Israel has enjoyed for far too long and that left our children vulnerable to its consequences, he said.

But Israel is already very angry about its inclusion into the blacklist with its leaders screaming about the addition alongside “uncouth” countries and terror organizations.

In an attempt to strike back, an Israeli official said he would recommend to the government it moves to classify UNRWA (UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees) as “a terrorist organization,” according to Anadolu.

Israeli public broadcaster KAN said Gilad Erdan, Israel’s envoy to the UN, made the recommendation according to the Turkish news agency.

Further, Israel may sever ties with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and deny visas to UN officials and the heads of UN agencies, and prevent them from working in the West Bank.

This is the first time Israel is being added to the “List of Shame,” despite calls by rights groups to add Tel Aviv years ago.

More than 36,700 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since 7 October and most of them are women and children, and over 83,500 others injured.

The black list report which will be published next week will not explicitly mention Israel by name, but will state as written that ‘Israeli security forces’ are responsible for the situation,” as mentioned in the Palestine Chronicle.

Israel is accused of genocide at the International Court of Justice, whose latest ruling ordered Tel Aviv to immediately halt its operation in the southern city of Rafah, where more than 1 million Palestinians sought refuge from the war before it was invaded on May 6.

Israel is already indicted by the International Court of Justice to stop the genocide on Gaza and by the International Criminal Court which is issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.

Dr Marwan Asmar  is a writer based in Amman and covers Middle East news.

8 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Wim De Ceukelaire & Ana Vračar

At a recent global gathering, hundreds of health activists committed to uniting the health movement with other progressive social movements. Their aim is to form a broad coalition for radical change to counter the crises of capitalism and imperialism.

Hundreds of health activists gathered in Mar del Plata, Argentina, in April to reinvigorate the struggle for health rights. This fifth global assembly since 2000 underscored the enduring vibrancy of the People’s Health Movement (PHM), a prime advocate for health as a human right for all.

Established after the first People’s Health Assembly in 2000, PHM is a global network of activists, social movements, and organizations advocating for health as a fundamental human right, promoting comprehensive primary health care, and striving for equitable health systems.

The fifth People’s Health Assembly featured plenary sessions, sub-plenaries, and interactive workshops focused on five key themes: resistance to war, occupation, and forced migration; traditional ancestral and popular knowledge; gender justice in health; transformation of health systems; and ecosystem health.

“At the heart of our assembly lies the power of people’s movements. Hearing the testimonies of those at the forefront of struggle ignites a fire in our collective spirit, reminding us of the resilience and solidarity that fuels our journey towards health for all,” said Carmen Baez from the local organizing committee during the opening ceremony.

The assembly faced challenges due to Argentina’s new Milei government imposing radical neoliberal policies and the ongoing Israeli genocidal war on Palestine, which complicated travel for several delegations.

Palestinian delegates contributed via video link, with prominent activist Mustafa Barghouti detailing the severe impacts of Israeli attacks on the health system in Gaza. “Today, many countries and free peoples of the world stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people in their tragedy and fight alongside our people to stop the war and support their rights. We ask you to stand on the side of all the free voices in the world,” PHM Palestine asked the assembly in a plea that was met with a standing ovation.

Vivian Camacho, Bolivia’s National Director of Traditional Medicine, emphasized the integration of Indigenous perspectives and needs into Western medical systems. “People’s lives are about our deep identity and cultural resilience. Traditional ancestral medicine is about a deep historical cultural resistance to colonialism, to the violence that has been used against us, to the usurpation of our territories, to the massacre of our peoples,” she said.

“Feminist solidarity locates us in a framework of mutual support,” said Sonia Gutierrez from the Winaq Political Movement in Guatemala, highlighting the potential of women’s struggles to contribute to Health for All. “For the liberation of women, of the peoples who have been conquered, we must free ourselves from historical oppression,” she added. The road to achieving such liberation lies in building a joint social movement representing the existing achievements of feminist struggles and will be built upon the solidarity and unity they already include.

Matheus Falcão from PHM Brazil highlighted that the assembly not only discussed problems but also showcased successful struggles in the fight for health. “In Brazil, we established a system of universal access to health care, achieved through a process we call the Health Reform that took place in the 70s and 80s,” he said. “This is an example of how these achievements are the fruits of people’s struggle, taking the perspective of… communities into account.”

More Struggle, Unity Needed to Achieve Health for All

The assembly culminated in a Call to Action, developed through a participatory process and emphasizing the need for radical change to counter the crises of capitalism and imperialism. The document calls for replacing the capitalist mode of production, consumption, and life with a system based on sovereignty, self-determination, equality, and cooperation between nations.

According to the document, only a radical change that replaces the mode of production, consumption, and life generated by capitalism can reverse the destructive trends of exploitation and extractivism. “We believe the new economic order should be based on the sovereignty and self-determination of peoples, and equality and cooperation between nations, and on solidarity and peace,” it explained, adding that people’s control and ownership of the necessities of life needs to be restored.

Referring to the movement’s theory of change, the Call to Action states: “Transformation of the transnational and imperialist capitalist system to a new international economic, political, and social order will only happen through the joint action and solidarity of social movements, progressive political parties, and nation-states. Class struggle will be a vital part of this action.”

The Call to Action emphasizes the need for national processes that drive economic, political, and social transformation, including progressive reforms in health, education, agroecology, food, energy, and labor. These reforms aim to reduce or eliminate unjust inequalities and create an environmentally sustainable economy. To achieve this, PHM country circles will collaborate with communities to develop locally appropriate solutions to counter neoliberalism and imperialism.

In its conclusion, the Call to Action aims to unite the health movement with other progressive social movements, creating a broad front to establish a new international economic, political, and social order. The PHM also aims to seek alliances with political parties and states that promote this new international economic order.

Wim De Ceukelaire is a health and social justice activist and member of the global steering council of the People’s Health Movement.

Ana Vračar is a health reporter at the People’s Health Dispatch, a fortnightly bulletin published by Peoples Dispatch and the People’s Health Movement.

7 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Vijay Prashad

Each year, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) releases its World Migration Report. Most of these reports are anodyne, pointing to a secular rise in migration during the period of neoliberalism. As states in the poorer parts of the world found themselves under assault from the Washington Consensus (cuts, privatization, and austerity), and as employment became more and more precarious, larger and larger numbers of people took to the road to find a way to sustain their families. That is why the IOM published its first World Migration Report in 2000, when it wrote that “it is estimated that there are more migrants in the world than ever before,” it was between 1985 and 1990, the IOM calculated, that the rate of growth of world migration (2.59 percent) outstripped the rate of growth of the world population (1.7 percent).

The neoliberal attack on government expenditure in poorer countries was a key driver of international migration. Even by 1990, it had become clear that the migrants had become an essential force in providing foreign exchange to their countries through increasing remittance payments to their families. By 2015, remittances—mostly by the international working class—outstripped the volume of Official Development Assistance (ODA) by three times and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). ODA is the aid money provided by states, whereas FDI is the investment money provided by private companies. For some countries, such as Mexico and the Philippines, remittance payments from working-class migrants prevented state bankruptcy.

This year’s report notes that there are “roughly 281 million people worldwide” who are on the move. This is 3.6 percent of the global population. It is triple the 84 million people on the move in 1970, and much higher than the 153 million people in 1990. “Global trends point to more migration in the future,” notes the IOM. Based on detailed studies, the IOM finds that the rise in migration can be attributed to three factors: war, economic precarity, and climate change.

First, people flee war, and with the increase in warfare, this has become a leading cause of displacement. Wars are not the result of human disagreement alone, since many of these problems can be resolved if calm heads are allowed to prevail; conflicts are exacerbated into war due to the immense scale of the arms trade and the pressures of the merchants of death to forgo peace initiatives and to use increasingly expensive weaponry to solve disputes. Global military spending is now nearly $3 trillion, three-quarters of it by the Global North countries. Meanwhile, arms companies made a whopping $600 billion in profits in 2022. Tens of millions of people are permanently displaced due to this profiteering by the merchants of death.

Second, the International Labor Organization (ILO) calculates that about 58 percent of the global workforce—or 2 billion people—are in the informal sector. They work with minimal social protection and almost no rights in the workplace. The data on youth unemployment and youth precarity is stunning, with the Indian numbers horrifying. The Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy shows that India’s youth—between the ages of 15 and 24—are “faced by a double whammy of low and falling labor participation rates and shockingly high unemployment rates. The unemployment rate among youth stood at 45.4 percent in 2022-23. This is an alarming six times higher than India’s unemployment rate of 7.5 percent.” Many of the migrants from West Africa who attempt the dangerous crossing of the Sahara Desert and the Mediterranean Sea flee the high rates of precarity, underemployment, and unemployment in the region. A 2018 report from the African Development Bank Group shows that due to the attack on global agriculture, peasants have moved from rural areas to cities into low-productivity informal services, from where they decide to leave for the lure of higher incomes in the West.

Third, more and more people are faced with the adverse impacts of the climate catastrophe. In 2015, at the Paris meeting on the climate, government leaders agreed to set up a Task Force on Climate Migration; three years later, in 2018, the UN Global Compact agreed that those on the move for reasons of climate degradation must be protected. However, the concept of “climate refugees” is not yet established. In 2021, a World Bank report calculated that by 2050 there will be at least 216 million climate refugees.

Wealth

The IOM’s new report points out that these migrants—many of whom lead extremely precarious lives—send home larger and larger amounts of money to help their increasingly desperate families. “The money they send home,” the IOM report notes, “increased by a staggering 650 [percent] during the period from 2000 to 2022, rising from $128 billion to $831 billion.” Most of these remittances in the recent period, analysts show go to low-income and middle-income countries. Of the $831 billion, for instance, $647 billion goes to poorer nations. For most of these countries, the remittances sent home by working-class migrants far outstrips FDI and ODA put together and forms a significant portion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

A number of studies conducted by the World Bank show two important things about remittance payments. First, these are more evenly distributed amongst the poorer nations. FDI transactions typically favor the largest economies in the Global South, and they go toward sectors that are not always going to provide employment or income for the poorest sections of the population. Second, household surveys show that these remittances help to considerably lower poverty in middle-income and low-income countries. For example, remittance payments by working-class migrants reduced the rate of poverty in Ghana (by 5 percent), in Bangladesh (by 6 percent), and in Uganda (by 11 percent). Countries such as Mexico and the Philippines see their poverty rates rise drastically when remittances drop.

The treatment of these migrants, who are crucial for poverty reduction and for building wealth in society, is outrageous. They are treated as criminals, abandoned by their own countries who would rather spend vulgar amounts of money to attract much less impactful investment through multinational corporations. The data shows that there needs to be a shift in class perspective regarding investment. Migrant remittances are greater by volume and more impactful for society than the “hot money” that goes in and out of countries and does not “trickle down” into society.

If the migrants of the world—all 281 million of them—lived in one country, then they would form the fourth largest country in the world after India (1.4 billion), China (1.4 billion), and the United States (339 million). Yet, migrants receive few social protections and little respect (a new publication from the Zetkin Forum for Social Research shows, for instance, how Europe criminalizes migrants). In many cases, their wages are suppressed due to their lack of documentation, and their remittances are taxed heavily by international wire services (PayPal, Western Union, and Moneygram) which charge high fees to both the sender and the recipient. As yet, there are only small political initiatives that stand with the migrants, but no platform that unites their numbers into a powerful political force.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter.

7 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Ramzy Baroud

If one were to argue that a top Spanish government official would someday declare that “from the river to the sea, Palestine would be free”, the suggestion itself would have seemed ludicrous.

But this is precisely how Yolanda Diaz, Spain’s Deputy Prime Minister, concluded a statement on May 23, a few days before Spain officially recognized Palestine as a state.

The Spanish recognition of Palestine, along with the Norwegian and Irish recognition, is most important.

Western Europe is finally catching up with the rest of the world regarding the significance of a strong international position in support of the Palestinian people and in rejection of Israel’s genocidal practices in occupied Palestine.

But equally important is the changing political discourse regarding both Palestine and Israel in Europe and all over the world.

Almost immediately after the start of the Israeli war on Gaza, some European countries imposed restrictions on pro-Palestinian protests, some even banning the Palestinian flag, which was perceived, through some twisted logic, as an antisemitic symbol.

With time, the unprecedented solidarity with Israel at the start of the war, however, turned into an outright political, legal and moral liability to the pro-Israel western governments.

Thus, a slow shift began, leading to a near-complete transformation in the position of some governments, and a partial though clear shift of the political discourse among others.

The early ban on pro-Palestinian protests was impossible to maintain in the face of millions of angry European citizens who called on their governments to end their blind support for Tel Aviv.

On May 30, the mere fact that French private broadcaster TF1 hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu led to large, though spontaneous, protests by French citizens, who called on their media to deny accused war criminals the chance to address the public.

Failing to push back against the pro-Palestine narrative, the French government has, on May 31, decided to disinvite Israeli military firms from participating in one of the world’s largest military expos, Eurosatory, scheduled for June 17-21.

Even countries like Canada and Germany, which supported the Israeli genocide against Palestinians until later stages of the mass killings, began changing their language as well.

The change of language is also happening in Israel itself and among pro-Israeli intellectuals and journalists in mainstream media. In a widely read column, New York Times writer Thomas Friedman attacked Netanyahu late last March, accusing him of being the “worst leader in Jewish history, not just in Israeli history”.

Unpacking Friedman’s statement requires another column, for such language continues to feed on the persisting illusion, at least in the mind of Friedman, that Israel serves as a representation, not of its own citizens, but of Jewish people, past and present.

As for the language in Israel, it is coalescing into two major and competing discourses: one irrationally ruthless, represented by far-right Ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, in fact, by Netanyahu himself; and another, though equally militant and anti-Palestinian, which is more pragmatic.

While the first group would like to see Palestinians slaughtered in large numbers or wiped out through a nuclear bomb, the other realizes that a military option, at least for now, is no longer viable.

“The Israeli army does not have the ability to win this war against Hamas, and certainly not against Hezbollah,” Israeli Army Reserve Major General Yitzhak Brik said in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Maariv on May 30.

Brik, one of Israel’s most respected military men, is but one of many such individuals who are now essentially repeating the same wisdom.

Strangely, when Israel’s Minister of Heritage Amihai Eliyahu suggested the “option” of dropping a nuclear bomb on the Strip, his words reeked of desperation, not confidence.

Prior to the war, the Israeli political discourse regarding Gaza revolved around a specific set of terminology: ‘deterrence’, represented in the occasional one-sided war, often referred to as ‘mowing the lawn’ and ‘security’, among others.

Billions of dollars have been generated throughout the years by war profiteers in Israel, the US and other European countries, all in the name of keeping Gaza besieged and subdued.

Now, this language has been relegated in favor of a grand discourse concerned with existential wars, the future of the Jewish people, and the possible end of Israel if not Zionism itself.

While it is true that Netanyahu fears an end to the war will be a terrible conclusion to his supposedly triumphant legacy as the ‘protector’ of Israel, there is more to the story.

If the war ends without Israel restoring its so-called deterrence and security, it will be forced to contend with the fact that the Palestinian people cannot be relegated and that their rights cannot be overlooked. For Israel, such a realization would be an end to its settler-colonial project, which began nearly a hundred years ago.

Additionally, the perception and language pertaining to Palestine and Israel are changing among ordinary people across the world. The misconception of the Palestinian ‘terrorist’ is being quickly replaced by the true depiction of the Israeli war criminal, a categorization that is now consistent with the views of the world’s largest international legal institutions.

Israel now stands in near-complete isolation, due, in part, to its genocide in Gaza but also to the courage and steadfastness of the Palestinian people, and to the global solidarity with the Palestinian cause.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle.

6 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org