Category: France

  • ANALYSIS: By David Robie

    After three decades of frustratingly slow progress but with a measure of quiet optimism over the decolonisation process unfolding under the Noumea Accord, Kanaky New Caledonia is again poised on the edge of a precipice.

    Two out of three pledged referendums from 2018 produced higher than expected – and growing — votes for independence. But then the delta variant of the global covid-19 pandemic hit New Caledonia with a vengeance.

    Like much of the rest of the Pacific, New Caledonia with a population of 270,000 was largely spared during the first wave of covid infections. However, in September a delta outbreak infected 12,343 people with 280 deaths – almost 70 percent of them indigenous Kanaks.

    With the majority of the Kanak population in traditional mourning – declared for 12 months by the customary Senate, the pro-independence Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) and its allies pleaded for the referendum due this Sunday, December 12, to be deferred until next year after the French presidential elections.

    In fact, there is no reason for France to be in such a rush to hold this last referendum on Kanak independence in the middle of a state of emergency and a pandemic. It is not due until October 2022.

    It is clear that the Paris authorities have changed tack and want to stack the cards heavily in favour of a negative vote to maintain the French status quo.

    When the delay pleas fell on deaf political ears and appeals failed in the courts, the pro-independence coalition opted instead to not contest the referendum and refuse to recognise its legitimacy.

    Vote threatens to be farce
    This Sunday’s vote threatens to be a farce following such a one-sided campaign. It could trigger violence as happened with a similar farcical and discredited independence referendum in 1987, which led to the infamous Ouvea cave hostage-taking and massacre the following year as retold in the devastating Mathieu Kassovitz feature film Rebellion [l’Ordre at la morale] — banned in New Caledonia for many years.

    On 13 September 1987, a sham vote on New Caledonian independence was held. It was boycotted by the FLNKS when France refused to allow independent United Nations observers. Unsurprisingly, only 1.7 percent of participants voted for independence. Only 59 percent of registered voters took part.

    After the bloody ending of the Ouvea cave crisis, the 1988 Matignon/Oudinot Accord signed by Kanak leader Jean-Marie Tjibaou and anti-independence leader Jacques Lafleur, paved the way for possible decolonisation with a staggered process of increasing local government powers.

    A decade later, the 1998 Noumea Accord set in place a two-decade pathway to increased local powers – although Paris retained control of military and foreign policy, immigration, police and currency — and the referendums.

    New Caledonia referendum 2020
    The New Caledonian independence referendum 2020 result. Image: Caledonian TV

    In the first referendum on 4 November 2018, 43.33 percent voted for independence with 81 percent of the eligible voters taking part (recent arrivals had no right to vote in the referendum).

    In the second referendum on 4 October 2020, the vote for independence rose to 46.7 percent with the turnout higher too at almost 86 percent. Only 10,000 votes separated the yes and no votes.

    Kanak jubilation in the wake of the 2020 referendum
    Kanak jubilation in the wake of the 2020 referendum with an increase in the pro-independence vote. Image: APR file

    Expectations back then were that the “yes” vote would grow again by the third referendum with the demographics and a growing progressive vote, but by how much was uncertain.

    Arrogant and insensitive
    However, now with the post-covid tensions, the goodwill and rebuilding of trust for Paris that had been happening over many years could end in ashes again thanks to an arrogant and insensitive abandoning of the “decolonisation” mission by Emmanuel Macron’s administration in what is seen as a cynical ploy by a president positioning himself as a “law and order” leader ahead of the April elections.

    Another pro-independence party, Palika, said Macron’s failure to listen to the pleas for a delay was a “declaration of war” against the Kanaks and progressive citizens.

    The empty Noumea hoardings – apart from blue “La Voix du Non” posters, politically “lifeless” Place des Cocotiers, accusations of racism against indigenous Kanaks in campaign animations, and the 2000 riot police and military reinforcements have set a heavy tone.

    And the damage to France’s standing in the region is already considerable.

    Many academics writing about the implications of the “non” vote this Sunday are warning that persisting with this referendum in such unfavourable conditions could seriously rebound on France at a time when it is trying to project its “Indo-Pacific” relevance as a counterweight to China’s influence in the region.

    China is already the largest buyer of New Caledonia’s metal exports, mainly nickel.

    The recent controversial loss of a lucrative submarine deal with Australia has also undermined French influence.

    Risks return to violence
    Writing in The Guardian, Rowena Dickins Morrison, Adrian Muckle and Benoît Trépied warned that the “dangerous shift” on the New Caledonia referendum “risks a return to violence”.

    “The dangerous political game being played by Macron in relation to New Caledonia recalls decisions made by French leaders in the 1980s which disregarded pro-independence opposition, instrumentalised New Caledonia’s future in the national political arena, and resulted in some of the bloodiest exchanges of that time,” they wrote.

    Dr Muckle, who heads the history programme at Victoria University and is editor of The Journal of Pacific History, is chairing a roundtable webinar today entitled “Whither New Caledonia after the 2018-21 independence referendums?”

    The theme of the webinar asks: “Has the search for a consensus solution to the antagonisms that have plagued New Caledonia finally ended? Is [the final] referendum likely to draw a line under the conflicts of the past or to reopen old wounds.”

    Today's New Caledonia webinar at Victoria University
    Today’s New Caledonia webinar at Victoria University of Wellington. Image: VUW

    One of the webinar panellists, Denise Fisher, criticised in The Conversation the lack of “scrupulously observed impartiality” by France for this third referendum compared to the two previous votes.

    “In the first two campaigns, France scrupulously observed impartiality and invited international observers. For this final vote, it has been less neutral,” she argued.

    “For starters, the discussions on preparing for the final vote did not include all major independence party leaders. The paper required by French law explaining the consequences of the referendum to voters favoured the no side this time, to the point where loyalists used it as a campaign brochure.”

    ‘Delay’ say Pacific civil society groups
    A coalition of Pacific civil society organisations and movement leaders is among the latest groups to call on the French government to postpone the third referendum, which they described as “hastily announced”.

    While French Minister for Overseas Territories Sebastien Lecornu had told French journalists this vote would definitely go ahead as soon as possible to “serve the common good”, critics see him as pandering to the “non” vote.

    The Union Calédoniènne, Union Nationale pour l’independence Party (UNI), FLNKS and other pro-independence groups in the New Caledonia Congress had already written to Lecornu expressing their grave concerns and requesting a postponement because of the pandemic.

    “We argue that the decision by France to go ahead with the referendum on December 12 ignores the impact that the current health crisis has on the ability of Kanaks to participate in the referendum and exercise their basic human right to self-determination,” said the Pacific coalition.

    “We understand the Noumea Accord provides a timeframe that could accommodate holding the last referendum at any time up to November 2022.

    “Therefore, we see no need to hastily set the final referendum for 12 December 2021, in the middle of a worldwide pandemic that is currently ravaging Kanaky/New Caledonia, and disproportionately impacting [on] the Kanak population.”

    The coalition also called on the Chair of the Pacific Islands Forum, Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama to “disengage” the PIF observer delegation led by Ratu Inoke Kubuabola. Forum engagement in referendum vote as observers, said the coalition, “ignores the concerns of the Kanak people”.

    ‘Act as mediators’
    The coalition argued that the delegation should “act as mediators to bring about a more just and peaceful resolution to the question and timing of a referendum”.

    Signatories to the statement include the Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era, Fiji Council of Social Services, Melanesian Indigenous Land Defence Alliance, Pacific Conference of Churches, Pacific Network on Globalisation, Peace Movement Aotearoa, Pasifika and Youngsolwara Pacific.

    Melanesian Spearhead Group team backs Kanaky
    Melanesian Spearhead Group team … backing indigenous Kanak self-determination, but a delay in the vote. Image: MSG

    The Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) secretariat has called on member states to not recognise New Caledonia’s independence referendum this weekend.

    Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, which along with the FLNKS are full MSG members, have been informed by the secretariat of its concerns.

    In a media release, the MSG’s Director-General, George Hoa’au, said the situation in New Caledonia was “not conducive for a free and fair referendum”.

    Ongoing customary mourning over covid-19 related deaths in New Caledonia meant that Melanesian communities were unable to campaign for the vote.

    Kanak delegation at the United Nations.
    Kanak delegation at the United Nations. Image: Les Nouvelles Calédoniènnes

    Hopes now on United Nations
    “Major hopes are now being pinned on a Kanak delegation of territorial Congress President Roch Wamytan, Mickaël Forrest and Charles Wéa who travelled to New York this week to lobby the United Nations for support.

    One again, France has demonstrated a lack of cultural and political understanding and respect that erodes the basis of the Noumea Accord – recognition of Kanak identity and kastom.

    Expressing her disappointment to me, Northern provincial councillor and former journalist Magalie Tingal Lémé says: What happens in Kanaky is what France always does here. The Macron government didn’t respect us. They still don’t understand us as Kanak people.”

    Dr David Robie covered “Les Événements” in New Caledonia in the 1980s and penned the book Blood on their Banner about the turmoil. He also covered the 2018 independence referendum.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Walter Zweifel, RNZ Pacific reporter

    There is growing unease over the French decision to hold Kanaky New Caledonia’s third and final independence referendum on December 12.

    Pro-independence parties and groups decided last month that because of the pandemic, they will stay away from the polls.

    The decolonisation mechanism, at play for 30 years, will therefore reach its formal end without the full participation of the colonised indigenous Kanak people at the centre of the process.

    In the two preceding referendums in 2018 and 2020, the percentage of voters backing the status quo fell from 56.7 percent in 2018 to 53.3 percent in 2020.

    With the expected overwhelming “no” vote, the referendum decision will put the onus back on France to find a new way to accommodate the Kanaks’ right to self-determination.

    The December date for the referendum was chosen by French Overseas Minister Sebastien Lecornu in June after he dismissed calls by the pro-independence parties to hold it in late 2022.

    His position echoed the consensus that the referendum date should in no way overlap with the campaign period for the French presidential and legislative elections due next year.

    Honouring the Philippe promise
    However, the pro-independence parties had asked Paris to honour the 2019 promise by then French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe to exclude the period from September 2021 to July 2022 for the referendum

    While the anti-independence camp was not keen on having another vote, its preference was a date as early as possible

    The pro-independence side grudgingly accepted the choice by France, and began readying itself for the third independence vote in three years.

    In August, campaigning started but it ground to a sudden halt in early September when a community covid-19 outbreak shattered New Caledonia’s bubble, previously spared any pandemic-related fatalities.

    A strict lockdown ensued while the virus rapidly infected thousands and killed more than 200 people, mainly indigenous Kanaks.

    Vaccinations have picked up and around 80 percent of the eligible population has had at least one jab, while about 70 percent have had two doses.

    With community gatherings banned, the pro-independence parties saw their chances to reach grassroot voters dimmed and called for a postponement of the vote until late next year.

    Population in grief
    They also argued that for a population in grief, the time for political campaigning was not right.

    But for Paris, the referendum machinery has been set in motion, with hundreds of security forces and their armoured personnel carriers on their way to Noumea.

    Grief was not considered to be a reason to delay the vote, and Lecornu said that only an “out-of-control pandemic” justified a postponement.

    With case numbers falling, the pandemic was deemed to be managed and conditions fine for the vote to go ahead.

    Failing to get any concession, the pro-independence parties let the deadline lapse to submit official campaign material and then announced they would not take part in the referendum.

    Mayors in towns with pro-independence administrations have been asked to assist in the formality of running of the referendum but not vote.

    Pacific regional support for a delay
    The Melanesian Spearhead Group, which has New Caledonia’s pro-independence FLNKS movement as a member, endorsed the call to delay the vote.

    Vanuatu’s government also supports a postponement, while other governments in the region, including the Pacific Islands Forum, have remained silent.

    Pacific regional statesmen, such as the former presidents of the Marshall Islands, Kiribati and Palau, have written to President Macron asking him to show consideration and respect for the wishes of the Kanak people.

    Former senior French officials as well as civil society members have also publicly, but unsuccessfully, lobbied Paris to delay the vote.

    It is being pointed out time and again that the independence referendum imposed by France in 1987 failed because the Kanaks rejected the conditions attached to it.

    With more than 98 percent then opting to stay French, it did not reflect the aspirations of the people colonised since 1853 and sidelined for the better part of a century thereafter.

    A simmering conflict
    A conflict simmering for years and on the verge of a civil war in the early 1980s had its most dramatic flashpoint in the 1988 Ouvea hostage crisis when both French police and hostage takers were killed in operations controversial until today.

    The crisis happened to reach its very peak as France was in the middle of its 1988 presidential elections.

    It marked a turning point and ushered in a deal to try to achieve New Caledonia’s decolonisation peacefully.

    Known as the Matignon Accords, a 10-year horizon was set for a proper vote, but again put off with the signing of the 1998 Noumea Accord.

    Another 20-year window was given for a decolonisation by 2018, and in case of a “no”, two more votes were possible, in 2020 an 2022.

    Under the Accord, New Caledonia was given a collegial government, made up of members in proportion to their parties’ representation in Congress.

    The electorate for provincial elections as well as the referendums was limited to indigenous people and long-term residents, and enshrined in the French constitution.

    Irreversible transfer of power
    The Accord also saw the phased and irreversible transfer of power from France to New Caledonia as part of the decolonisation under the auspices of the United Nations.

    What remains under French control, and is the substance of the referendum, is defence, policing, the judiciary, monetary policy and foreign affairs.

    Also part of the realignment was the transfer of vast nickel ore deposits to the mainly Kanak Northern Province for it to partake in what is the backbone of the economy.

    While these accords provided for a peaceful coexistence for three decades, they failed to unite the communities for the much vaunted common destiny.

    Approaching a third and final vote, the anti-independence side has been keen for an early vote, warning that the prolonged referendum process has already created uncertainty in difficult economic times.

    The pro-French loyalists also pointed out that it was the pro-independence parties, which in April asked for the referendum and which should now stand by their decision, irrespective of the arrival of covid-19 in the community.

    In July, France released a comprehensive document outlining what either a yes or a no will mean.

    A convergence period
    It also provides for a convergence period to June 2023 when Paris wants another vote in New Caledonia on its next status, whose elaboration looms as an enormous challenge.

    With the French presidential election less than half a year away, time will be tight as attention invariably drifts towards French domestic politics which may even bring on another set of actors.

    Missing in the lead-up to the December referendum, which is now all but certain to be a resounding victory for the anti-independence side, is any proposal which could be acceptable to both sides in order to maintain the peace.

    Lecornu has said December 12 will see the Noumea Accord lapse. For the anti-independence side, this is being taken to mean the end of the restricted roll and the admission of all French citizens in future votes.

    This risks setting an end to the concept of a New Caledonian people, made of indigenous Kanaks, descendants of 19th century convicts and long-term settlers.

    It is clear that the Kanak people will not accept that its right to self-determination will be voted away by recent migrants.

    A flawed referendum in December will set the clock back and force the two camps to relitigate the terms for a continued peaceful coexistence.

    Maybe the time will come for a New Caledonia with sovereignty shared with France.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • A Home Office minister has insisted that relations between France and the UK are “strong”. That’s despite Boris Johnson and French president Emmanuel Macron clashing over how to deal with refugees crossing the English Channel in small boats as they flee war, poverty, and persecution.

    Deadliest day of Channel crossings

    Damian Hinds, whose brief covers security and borders, defended the prime minister’s letter to the French leader as “exceptionally supportive and collaborative”. It came after Paris was enraged by Johnson making the letter public on Twitter.

    A full-scale diplomatic row between the two nations erupted as the first of the 27 victims of a capsizing on 24 November was named as a young Kurdish woman from northern Iraq.

    Relatives identified 24-year-old Maryam Nuri Mohamed Amin, known to her family as Baran, as one of the people who died on 24 November. It was the deadliest day of the Channel migration crisis. The student was said to have been trying to join her fiance who already lives in Britain.

    Tres bien?

    As families mourned the loss of their loved ones, politicians argued about how to stem perilous Channel crossings. Paris withdrew an invitation to home secretary Priti Patel to attend a meeting of ministers from key European allies in Calais on 28 November.

    France was angered by Johnson releasing a letter he sent to Macron setting out his proposals. They included reiterating a call for joint UK-French border patrols along French beaches to stop boats leaving, which Paris has long resisted.

    French government spokesperson Gabriel Attal rejected the proposal as “clearly not what we need to solve this problem”. And he said the prime minister’s letter “doesn’t correspond at all” with discussions Johnson and Macron had when they spoke on 24 November.

    “We are sick of double-speak,” he added. He said Johnson’s decision to post the letter on his Twitter feed suggested he was “not serious”.

    But despite the open derision from French politicians, UK ministers claimed that British-French relations remained intact.

    “Breaching sovereignty”

    Hinds told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:

    British and French officials have been working together throughout, in fact we’ve been working together for years, on these really important issues. The partnership is strong.

    Moreover, he insisted “nobody is proposing breaching sovereignty” amid concerns over the request for UK officials to join patrols on French beaches. He added:

    The tone of the letter is exceptionally supportive and collaborative, it absolutely acknowledges everything the French government and authorities have been doing, that it’s a shared challenge, but that now, particularly prompted by this awful tragedy, we have to go further, we have to deepen our partnership, we have to broaden what we do, we have to draw up new creative solutions

    Hinds acknowledged the challenges of policing the French coastline and added:

    There is more that can be done and clearly we can’t just say it’s difficult because it’s hundreds of miles of coastline, we have to do what’s necessary to save human life.

    But some have made suggestions as to how the UK can better help “save human life”:

    Patel left out

    In a statement reported in French media, the interior ministry said the meeting on 28 November would go ahead with interior minister Gerald Darmanin and his counterparts from Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, as well as representatives of the European Commission.

    Although the meeting with Patel has been cancelled, the No 10 spokesperson said Home Office officials had travelled to France for talks on 26 November with French counterparts as planned.

    Amid the diplomatic storm, Krmanj Ezzat Dargali identified his cousin among those who died on 24 November. He posted a tribute to Nuri Mohamed Amin on social media and told Sky News:

    The situation is just awful. She was a woman in the prime of her life.

    I understand why so many people are leaving for a better life, but this is not the correct path. It’s the route of death.

    And he said he hoped the British and French governments would “accept us in a better way”, adding:

    Anyone who wants to leave their home and travel to Europe has their own reasons and hopes, so please just help them in a better way and not force them to take this route of death.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • France has reacted with fury after Boris Johnson publicly called on Paris to take back people who succeed in making the perilous Channel crossing to Britain. A French government spokesperson accused the prime minister of “double-speak” as the fallout from the sinking of a refugee boat on Wednesday with the loss of 27 lives erupted into a full-scale diplomatic row.

    “Double-speak”

    Earlier the French Interior Ministry announced it was withdrawing an invitation to home secretary Priti Patel to attend a meeting in Calais on 28 November of ministers from key European countries to discuss the crisis. The French were enraged by Johnson releasing a letter he sent to president Emmanuel Macron setting out his proposals to tackle the issue. They included joint UK-French patrols by border officials along French beaches to stop boats leaving – a move which Johnson said could begin as early as next week but which Paris has long resisted.

     

    Johnson also called for talks to begin on a bilateral returns agreement, saying it could have “an immediate and significant impact” on the flow of people attempting the crossing. However, the proposal was dismissed by French government spokesman Gabriel Attal, who said it was “clearly not what we need to solve this problem”.

    He said the prime minister’s letter “doesn’t correspond at all” with discussions Johnson and Macron had when they spoke on 24 November. He said:

    We are sick of double-speak

    Macron said Johnson’s decision to post his letter on his Twitter feed suggested he was “not serious”. He told a news conference:

    We do not communicate from one leader to another on these issues by tweets and letters that we make public. We are not whistleblowers

    Johnson’s alleged “double-speak” has prompted a new round of criticism following the many other problems he’s recently brought upon himself:

    “Hand in glove”

    Transport secretary Grant Shapps insisted Mr Johnson’s proposals were made in “good faith”, and appealed to the French to reconsider their decision to withdraw the invitation to Patel. He told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme:

    I think it is really important that we work hand-in-glove with the French. I don’t think there is anything inflammatory to ask for close co-operation with our nearest neighbours

    The proposal was made in good faith. I can assure our French friends of that and I hope that they will reconsider meeting up to discuss it.”

    In a statement reported on French media, the Interior Ministry said the meeting on 28 November would go ahead with interior minister Gerald Darmanin and his counterparts from Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany and representatives of the European Commission.

    Boris Johnson (left) greets French President Emmanuel Macron
    President Emmanuel Macron (right) said Boris Johnson’s proposals were ‘not serious’ (Alastair Grant/PA)

    In his letter, the prime minister argued a bilateral returns agreement would be in France’s interest by breaking the business model of criminal gangs running the people-smuggling trade from Normandy.

    Under Johnson’s proposals:

    – Joint patrols would prevent more boats from leaving French beaches.

    – Advanced technology such as sensors and radar would be deployed to track migrants and people-trafficking gangs.

    – There would be joint or reciprocal maritime patrols in each other’s territorial waters and airborne surveillance by manned flights and drones.

    – The work of the Joint Intelligence Cell would be improved with better real-time intelligence sharing to deliver more arrests and prosecutions on both sides of the Channel.

    – There would be immediate work on a bilateral returns agreement with France, to allow migrants to be sent back across the Channel, alongside talks to establish a UK-EU returns agreement.

    English Channel migrant deaths
    Migrants in Grand Synthe near Dunkirk (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

    However, as many people argue, a much better way of dealing with the crisis would be to open the borders:

     

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • When I saw that Jaccques Lesage de La Haye had a new book called The Abolition of Prison, published by the French radical press, Éditions Libertalia, I reached out through my anarchist radio networks to find contact information for him. Jacques is a longtime anarchist and abolitionist in France, who for many years hosted the anti-prison radio show Ras les murs. His book promised to be a culmination of all of his experience writing and struggling against prisons and working to support people both inside and outside.

    As a translator and an anarchist, I am always keeping an eye out for new texts to try to bring into English in order to connect movements around the world and especially to help connect the abolitionist struggles across national divides.

    The post The ‘Forgotten Fight’ For Prison Abolition In France appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Throughout his tenure as president, Macron has said that the key to an “ecological future depends on nuclear power.” A few days before the opening of the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Macron was asked to reflect on Europe’s crisis over rising natural gas prices (mostly sourced from Russia’s Gazprom). “It’s not about whether we are too dependent on a company or not,” Macron replied. “It’s about how to create alternatives. The only alternatives are to have European renewable energies and, of course, European nuclear power.”

    The post As The Planet Wants To Go Green, France Has A Nuclear Habit It Just Cannot Kick appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • It looked like something of an ambush, but a coterie of Australian journalists had their man where they wanted him.  Between sessions at the G20 Summit in Rome, and French President Emmanuel Macron found himself blunter than usual.  The sundering of the relationship between Australia and France over the new trilateral security relationship between Canberra, Washington and London, and, more importantly, the rescinding of the submarine contract with Australia, was playing on his mind.  Did he think, came the question, whether he had been lied to by the Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, about the intended scrapping of the Franco-Australian submarine deal with the creation of AUKUS?  “I don’t think, I know,” came the definitive answer.

    The response from Morrison was one of shameless dissembling.  Making sure that Australian audiences and the news waves would only pick up select gobbets, he told the press that the French president had attacked, or “sledged” Australia and its good burghers.  He expressed concern about “the statements that were made questioning Australia’s integrity and the slurs that have been placed on Australia”.  He was “not going to cop sledging at Australia.”

    A full reading of Macron’s words in the brief encounter suggests nothing of the sort.  Australia and France were bound up in history and blood enriched ties going back to two world wars.  “Your country was shoulder to shoulder with us during the wars.  You had fighters with us when our freedom was at stake.  We have, we do have the same values.”  He respected “sovereign choices” but it was also vital to “respect allies and partners.”  It was the conduct of the Australian government he had issue with, something that Macron thought “detrimental to the reputation of your country and your Prime Minister.”

    Morrison’s defence proved shoddy, confusing the issue of having difficulties with the contractual relationship with France to build twelve diesel electric submarines with the issue of announcing an intended divorce.  As with lovers who read off different relationship scripts, the Australian Prime Minister is convinced that Macron must have known when they met in June that something had soured.  He had “made it very clear that a conventional diesel-powered submarine was not going to meet Australia’s strategic requirements. We discussed that candidly.”  He did, however, say that alternatives were not discussed, they being “in confidence”.

    The strategic environment, claimed Morrison with tediousness, had changed.  There were also issues specific to the contract with the French defence firm Naval, including “following through with commitments on Australian industry content.”  There were issues with delays; issues with cost.  “These were matters that we raised quite regularly and indeed I raised with President Macron at each opportunity when we either spoke over the phone or we had our bilateral meetings going on for a number of years.”

    Morrison’s mendacity is also pronounced in how he justifies pursuing the nuclear submarine option with the United States.  Wishing to cuckold France, the Australian prime minister began to look around, with eyes firmly fastened on Washington’s formidable hardware.  But, using the reasoning of any adulterer who is found out, it wasn’t a true relationship at that point; Washington and Canberra were dealing with “the nuclear stewardship issues”.  “At the same time, we were working through in good faith with Naval to address the problems that we had in the contract.”  Such a marriage; such a commitment.

    In the Scotty from Advertising appraisal of the world, dissatisfaction can be retooled and packaged as separation and nullification.  What Macron thought he heard or understood is less relevant than what Morrison thought he said.  He might even believe it.

    The Biden administration has also done its fair share of dissimulative manoeuvring in this affair.  In his meeting with Macron at the Villa Bonaparte in Rome on October 29, President Joe Biden was fluffy and buttery.  France, he assured the French President, was “the reason, in part, why we became an independent country.”  Asked on whether the relationship between France and the US had been “repaired”, Biden was apologetic: “Well, the answer is: I think what happened [over the announcement of the submarines] – to use an English phrase, what we did was ‘clumsy’.  It was not done with a lot of grace.”

    This gave Biden the cue to place Morrison before an oncoming truck.  “I was under the impression certain things had happened that hadn’t happened.”  To clarify, he was “under the impression that France had been informed long before that the [French-Australian submarine] deal was not going through.  I, honest to God, did not know you had not been.”

    What, then, had Morrison told Biden he was doing about the French and ending the conventional submarine affair?  The Australian, equipped with a confidential document detailing a communications timeline on the new submarine nuclear announcement, suggests that Biden’s full grasp of the verity should also be questioned.  The 15-page document, approved by officials of Biden’s National Security Council, makes the point that France would only be informed of the new arrangements on September 16.

    Time was also spent in the Eisenhower Executive Office building pondering how Australia might best calm an indignant France.  There was also concern expressed on how other powers might react.  Little consideration was given to the fact that any anger might be directed against the US, least of all from France.  Perhaps, suggests Greg Sheridan of the same newspaper with some charity, Biden has reached a point in his life where he can’t remember what he can’t remember.

    The Morrison government has also taken to the distasteful practice of selective leaking in bolstering its quicksand position, a tactic which further suggests a diminution of an already less than impressive political office. A prodding text from Macron to Morrison, sent two days prior to the AUKUS announcement and the cancellation of the contract, involved a query as to whether good or bad news could be expected about the French submarines.  The vulgar insinuation here is that Macron supposedly had an inkling that something was afoot from the Australian side, which hardly counts as fully informed awareness.  Naturally, Morrison’s response is not noted.  The Elysée further denies suggestions that Canberra made several warning efforts regarding the AUKUS announcement.

    An Elysée official expressed bafflement at the tactic.  “Disclosing a text message exchange between heads of state or government is a pretty crude and unconventional tactic.”  It may be crude, and it may be unconventional, but this furnishes an apt summation of the Australian Prime Minister’s view of diplomacy.

    The post Lies, Lies and Nuclear Submarines first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The French are causing intense anger among people with Winston Churchill as their profile picture. The latest row over post-Brexit fishing rights has also seen the French ambassador summoned to explain after a trawler was impounded.

    The Guardian reported that the French are angry the UK will not renew licences. In response, the French have allegedly said they will clog British imports in red tape, ban UK ships from French ports, and stop energy supplies.

    A defence source told the paper there had been no request for military support. But they added:

    The intention is to calm the situation down, although ships remain ready if the situation were to suddenly escalate

    Sptifire Twitter

    Union Jack Twitter was very sad about the whole issue. A number seemed very keen to get a war over scallops rolling as quickly as possible.

    Nigel “Up The RA” Farage led the way (obviously):

    This morning, a man named Steve with a Labrador as his profile picture (and a Spitfire in his header image) wanted French ships sunk:

    Elsewhere, Peter (who loves a pint of ale going off his profile picture), said Boris Johnson needed to sort it out. He also worked in a sad lament that the PM hadn’t sorted out ‘illegal immigration’ like he said he would. How could you, Boris?

    The self-appointed People’s Villain, who seems to be living in 1066, offered his own completely normally solution: the Royal Navy should take French trawler crews hostage. Okay, mate:

    “Cat lover” Phil (full bulldog/union jack profile picture, enjoys “a little sax”. I mean who doesn’t, Phil?) cut out the middleman and lobbied the Royal Navy directly:

    In a much earlier tweet, Phil spoke (probably) for the nation when he said what Britain needed was “Churchill on acid”. Absolutely here for that, to be fair:

    Last time out

    The last time a Fish-mageddon situation developed was May 2021. At that time, it was reported that an entire flotilla of French ships was headed to UK waters to cause mischief.

    Readers may recall the incident culminated in one absolute legend from the local Jersey reenactment society symbolically firing a musket out to sea:

    Island of poo?

    One can’t help but wonder why people would want fish from UK waters right now anyway given the amount of raw sewage that’s been pumped into the sea under the Tories’ watch.

    Nevertheless, it seems there are legions of angry, conservative men over 50 ready to defend our poo-filled waters to their last drop of ale. As long as they can do it via Twitter, obviously.

    Featured image – Wikimedia Commons/LA (Phot) Emma Somerfield

    By Joe Glenton

  • RNZ Pacific

    A leading anti-independence politician in New Caledonia, Sonia Backes, has rejected calls for the referendum on independence from France to be postponed, saying it should be held as planned.

    Pro-independence politicians have asked Paris to postpone the vote — due on December 12 — until next year because of the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on the Kanak population.

    About 10,000 mainly Kanak people have been infected since early September and more than 200 patients have died.

    Southern Province President Sonia Backes
    Southern Province President Sonia Backes … argues that campaigning should resume as vaccinations are being ramped up after the Kanak population has been hit badly by the delta virus outbreak.

    In a letter to her rivals, Backes, who is the president of the Southern Province government, said campaigning should resume as vaccinations are being ramped up, and soon 80 percent of those over 12 would be vaccinated.

    She said it was the pro-independence side, which in April unanimously wanted to have this third referendum, when there could have been the option of negotiating a way forward instead of seeking a divisive vote.

    Backes said talk of a boycott was misplaced because there was no basis for such a stance, wondering how the United Nations and the observers would be able to understand such a move.

    She said waiting for an outcome of the vote stops all initiative, hampers economic development and discourages people who wanted to have a perspective and a future.

    French Overseas Minister Sebastien Lecornu, who met New Caledonian leaders in Noumea last weekend, wants to maintain the December date he set in June.

    He said only an out-of-control pandemic could justify a postponement.

    In 2018 and 2020, a majority voted against independence, but the winning margin shrank from 56.7 percent to 53.3 percent.

    250 extra French police
    France has flown a batch of 250 police reinforcements to New Caledonia as part of preparations for the independence referendum.

    The officers, who are fully vaccinated, were received by the French High Commissioner Patrice Faure and General Jean-Marc Descoux, who oversees security for the referendum process.

    Minister Lecornu said a total of 2000 police would be brought in for the plebiscite, marking a substantial strengthening of the force compared to the previous two referendums in 2018 and 2020.

    He said in a great democracy there could be no feeling of insecurity.

    After the 2018 plebiscite, rioting south of Noumea closed the main road, which police managed to reopen after two days.

    Lecornu, who ended a two-week visit to New Caledonia on Monday, confirmed Paris wanted the referendum to be held well before the French presidential election due in April.

    According to the Noumea Accord, the third and last vote must be held within two years of the previous vote.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • “Clear Differences Remain Between France and the U.S, French Minister Says,” is the headline to a remarkable  piece appearing in the New York Times.  The Minister, Bruno Le Maire, is brutally frank on the nature of the differences as the quotations below Illustrate.  (Emphases in the quotations are jvw’s.) In fact, they amount to a Declaration of Independence of France and EU from the U.S.

    It is not surprising that the differences relate to China after the brouhaha over the sale of U.S. nuclear submarines to Australia and the surprising (to the French) cancellation of contracts with France for submarines.  Mr. LeMaire, sounding very much like a reproving parent, characterized this as “misbehavior from the U.S. administration.”

    The post French Finance Minister Issues Declaration Of Independence appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • “Clear Differences Remain Between France and the U.S, French Minister Says,” is the headline to a remarkable  piece appearing in the New York Times today.  The Minister, Bruno Le Maire, is brutally frank on the nature of the differences as the quotations below Illustrate.  (Emphases in the quotations are writer’s.) In fact, they amount to a Declaration of Independence of France and EU from the U.S.

    It is not surprising that the differences relate to China after the brouhaha over the sale of U.S. nuclear submarines to Australia and the surprising (to the French) cancellation of contracts with France for submarines.  Mr. LeMaire, sounding very much like a reproving parent, characterized this as “misbehavior from the U.S. administration.”

    Mr. LeMaire made it crystal clear that the disagreement over submarines is symptomatic of deeper differences in world view that have emerged not only in France but in the EU as a consequence of China’s rise.  The article states:

    The United States wants to confront China. The European Union wants to engage China,’ Mr. Le Maire, a close ally of President Emmanuel Macron of France, said in a wide-ranging interview ahead of the (IMF) meetings. This was natural, he added, because the United States is the world’s leading power and does not ‘want China to become in a few years or in a few decades the first superpower in the world.

    Europe’s strategic priority, by contrast, is independence,  ‘which means to be able to build more capacities on defense, to defend its own view on the fight against climate change, to defend its own economic interest, to have access to key technologies and not be too dependent on American technologies,’ he said.

    The article continued, quoting the Finance Minister:

    The key question now for the European Union, he said, is to become ‘independent from the United States, able to defend its own interests, whether economic or strategic interests.’

    LeMaire might have pre-ambled that statement with: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

    Still, seasoned diplomat that Mr. LeMaire is, he provided some cold comfort to the naughty U.S. administration, saying, the United States remains “our closest partner” in terms of values, economic model, respect for the rule of law, and embrace of freedom.  But with China, he said, “we do not share the same values or economic model.”

    The article continued:

    Asked if differences over China meant inevitable divergence between the United States and Europe, Mr. Le Maire said, ‘It could be if we are not cautious.’ But every effort should be made to avoid this, which means ‘recognizing Europe as one of the three superpowers in the world for the 21st century,’ alongside the United States and China.

    The piece concluded:

    One of the biggest lingering points of contention is over metal tariffs that former President Donald J. Trump imposed globally in 2018. Officials face difficult negotiations in coming weeks. Europeans plan to impose retaliatory tariffs on a range of U.S. products as of December 1, unless Mr. Biden pulls back a 25 percent duty on European steel and a 10 percent tax on aluminum.

    ‘If we want to improve the bilateral economic relationship between the continents, the first step must be for the United States to lift the sanctions in the steel and aluminum case,’ Mr. Le Maire said. ‘We are fed up with the trade wars,’ he added.

    Shared values are nice, but shared profits are clearly better.

    The post French Finance Minister Issues Declaration of Independence from the U.S. first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Which is the Canadian political party most likely to stand up to the world’s rich and powerful? Which is willing to help the poorest of the poor gain a semblance of dignity and respect? Which can proudly proclaim, we stand for what is right, not just what is easy and expedient?

    Unfortunately, the answer is not the Conservatives, Liberals or the NDP.

    When it comes to Canada’s most flagrantly racist and colonial alliance NDP truly does stand for No Difference Party.

    In response to a Canadian Foreign Policy Institute election questionnaire asking, “Does your party support ‘greater’, ‘same’, ‘less’ or ‘no’ focus on Haiti Core Group”? The NDP answered “same”. It’s a remarkable endorsement of imperialism, racism and Canadian policy in Haiti.

    The Core Group is a coalition of foreign representatives (US, Canada, France, Spain, Germany, Brazil, UN and OAS) that periodically releases collective statements on Haitian affairs. They also meet among themselves and with Haitian officials. Recently, the Core Group propped up an unpopular president and effectively appointed Haiti’s de-facto prime minister. On Thursday Madame Boukman-Justice 4 Haiti tweeted, “international law bars foreign embassies from meddling in the internal affairs of nations. But in Haiti, a group of ambassadors from the US, France, Canada, Spain, Germany, EU, UN, OAS formed a bloc called CORE GROUP that literally controls the country and chooses its leaders.”

    The Core Group was officially established by a UN Security Council resolution on April 30, 2004. That resolution replaced the two-month-old Multinational Interim Force — created after US, Canadian and French troops invaded to overthrow the elected government — with the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), which occupied the country for 15 years. Point 5 of the resolution “supports the establishment of a Core Group chaired by the Special Representative and comprising also his/her Deputies, the Force Commander, representatives of OAS and CARICOM, other regional and sub-regional organizations, international financial institutions and other major stakeholders, in order to facilitate the implementation of MINUSTAH’s mandate, promote interaction with the Haitian authorities as partners, and to enhance the effectiveness of the international community’s response in Haiti.”

    While it is specifically cited in the UN resolution, CARICOM (Caribbean Community) hasn’t played much of a role in the Core Group, John Reginald Dumas recently explained. He is a Trinidadian diplomat who was the UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on Haiti at the time of the Core Group’s creation.

    Unofficially, the Core Group traces its roots to the 2003 “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti” meeting. In a rare major media look at that private meeting, Radio Canada’s Enquête pointed out that the Core Group was spawned at the “Ottawa initiative on Haiti”. Held at the Meech Lake government resort on January 31 and February 1, 2003, no Haitian officials were invited to a gathering where US, French, OAS and Canadian officials discussed overthrowing Haiti’s elected government, putting the country under UN trusteeship and recreating the Haitian military, which largely transpired a year later.

    The 2004 coup and UN occupation that spurred the Core Group has been an unmitigated disaster for most Haitians. An individual who had been living in Florida for 15 years, Gerard Latortue, was installed as prime minister for two years and thousands were killed by the post-coup regime. Besides their role in political repression, UN occupation forces disregard for Haitian life caused a major cholera outbreak, which left more than 10,000 dead and one million ill.

    In a sign of the disintegration of Haitian political life under Core Group direction, two months ago the (de facto) president was assassinated in the middle of the night by other elements of the government. While there were thousands of elected officials before the overthrow of the elected government in 2004, today Haiti doesn’t have a single functioning elected body (10 senators mandates have not expired but it’s not enough for a quorum).

    By basically any metric, 17 years of Core Group influence in Haiti has been a disaster. But even if that were not the case the NDP should oppose the nakedly imperialistic alliance on principle. Just imagine the Jamaican, Congolese, Guatemalan and Filipino ambassadors releasing a collective statement on who should be prime minister of Canada. How would Canadians feel about that?

    Remarking on the racial dimension, Haitians on social media often contrast the skin tone of Core Group ambassadors to most Haitians. Above a video of the German ambassador speaking on behalf of the alliance, last week Madame Boukman noted on Twitter, “The media deceptively covers up Haiti’s reality as a modern colonial project, where a German ambassador can boldly announce the country’s future under the control of a CORE GROUP of white supremacist ambassadors from the US, Canada, France, Brazil, Spain, Germany, EU, UN & OAS.”

    While the alliance may not be widely known in Canada, this country’s role in the Core Group has been publicly contested. Solidarity Québec Haiti has long criticized the Core Group. A February public letter signed by numerous prominent individuals, including NDP MPs Leah Gazan and Alexandre Boulerice, criticized the Core Group. I have written about the alliance on multiple occasions.

    Every NDP member should be ashamed of their party’s endorsement of Canadian colonialism in Haiti.

    Haitian Lives Matter!

    The post Shame on NDP for supporting imperialism in Haiti first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Royal Australian Navy submarine HMAS Rankin is seen during a biennial maritime exercise between the Royal Australian Navy and the Indian Navy on September 5, 2021, in Darwin, Australia.

    “The United States will compete, and will compete vigorously, and lead with our values and our strength,” President Biden told the UN General Assembly on Tuesday. “We’ll stand up for our allies and our friends and oppose attempts by stronger countries to dominate weaker ones, whether through changes to territory by force, economic coercion, technological exploitation or disinformation. But we’re not seeking — I’ll say it again — we are not seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs.”

    This was the only part of Biden’s speech where he said the words “Cold War.” They stood out; last everyone had heard, the U.S. was engaged in a “war on terror” that, thanks to the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), could conceivably run on until the stars burn out. The Cold War is black-and-white television, Ike, Nixon, Kennedy, the Cuban Missile Crisis, duck-and-cover drills, Ronald Reagan scaring the hell out of everyone, and finally a wall falling on my 18th birthday, seemingly a thousand years ago.

    Biden did not say “China” in that particular passage either — though China was mentioned several times elsewhere in his remarks — but that country was most certainly the intended recipient of that specific message. Biden was speaking amid a diplomatic meltdown between the U.S. and long-time ally France over a new Australia/United Kingdom/United States (AUKUS) strategic alliance, and specifically over the sale of at least eight nuclear submarines to Australia by the U.S.

    France was perturbed because it only learned of the new AUKUS alliance after Australia publicly announced it. This was an open-handed slap from Australia’s conservative Prime Minister Scott Morrison, a man any modern U.S. Republican would embrace on sight, to the more left-leaning French prime minister, Emmanuel Macron. France was legitimately outraged over having been excluded from such important, high-level discussions and the French ambassador to the U.S. was immediately called home.

    Why the sudden reversal? Nuclear subs are more expensive to maintain and operate, and New Zealand does not allow anything nuclear within its territorial waters, which from a strategic standpoint leaves a huge swath of Australia’s west coast exposed. The Pacific is a massive ocean, to be sure, but what set of circumstances exist that would lead Australia — and the U.S. — to believe that nation needs at least eight of the most fearsome weapons platforms ever devised?

    Answer: The “pivot to Asia,” an Obama-era recasting of global strategic imperatives which was exacerbated by Donald Trump’s blizzard of nonsense tariffs against China. “Until this week, the so-called ‘pivot to Asia’ by the United States had been more of a threat than a reality for Europe,” reports The New York Times. “But that changed when the Biden administration announced a new defense alliance against China that has left Europe facing an implicit question: Which side are you on?”

    “We are not seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs,” Biden said at the UN.

    But the sudden new AUKUS alliance (a rigid bloc?), and the placement of U.S.-made nuclear submarines into that portion of the Pacific, seems vividly at odds with the president’s placating words. Indeed, it is beginning to feel as if a new Cold War is off and running.

    Deploying U.S.-made subs in that part of the Pacific Ocean is a big, deliberate thumb in China’s eye, an act provocative enough to motivate UN Secretary-General António Guterres to speak words of warning a day before Biden’s speech. “We need to re-establish a functional relationship between the two powers,” Guterres told the Associated Press. “We need to avoid at all cost a Cold War that would be different from the past one, and probably more dangerous and more difficult to manage.”

    At bottom, however, the argument between France and the U.S. was as much over money as it was national pride. France had already inked a deal with Australia to sell a dozen diesel-powered submarines, and the AUKUS nuclear sub deal blew all that up. The collapse of the deal cost France tens of billions of euros — France is the United States of Europe when it comes to global arms sales, and France’s leaders take the arms trade as seriously as U.S. leaders do — which could translate into a whole slew of lost jobs if that money is not recouped. (French defense contractor Naval Group, which is partially owned by France and was already building the diesel subs, intends to bill Australia for the lost revenue.)

    It would surprise me not one single bit if the AUKUS agreement, and specifically the sub sale pivot from France to the U.S., first came into being after a few phone calls to some officers in “defense” procurement from lobbyists for General Dynamics and/or Huntington Ingalls, the only two shipbuilders in the U.S. with shipyards capable of building nuclear submarines. The cost to build one of these monstrously deadly machines runs, on average, around $3 billion per unit.

    “Why are you letting France get that money?” would have almost certainly been the crux of such a call. “Don’t you love America?” And away we go.

    Money. Cold Wars, you see, are notoriously expensive (read: wildly lucrative for the various war profiteers that circle the Pentagon like so many carrion birds).

    The average military spending during “peacetime” in the Cold War ran about $285.4 billion per year. The first hot Cold War conflict in Korea, according to Richard M. Miller Jr. of Praeger Security International, cost $678 billion. The cost of the Korean Conflict spanning from 1951 to 2000 is over $1 trillion. The Vietnam War cost another $1 trillion. Benefits to the veterans and veteran families of those wars runs into the tens of billions of dollars per year. The total cost of the Cold War from 1948 to 1991 is estimated to be $13.1 trillion, including $5.8 trillion for the development and maintenance of a vast nuclear arsenal.

    These eye-popping numbers, all pegged as closely as possible to current dollar values, scarcely tell the tale of the present moment. The “Black Budget” cost of the national security state, born during World War II and massively expanded during the Cold War, is unknown… well, someone knows, but they ain’t telling. The Pentagon, for its part, currently has a $35 trillion hole in its accounting. Nobody seems to know just where that money went… but somebody knows, and again, they ain’t telling. Meanwhile, despite our “withdrawal” from Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terror grinds on relentlessly, and expensively.

    U.S. politicians and the corporate “news” media have a casually self-destructive way of discussing military spending: They don’t. If someone goes on TV and says we have to feed the poor, ten voices will be raised howling “How much will that cost?” and “We can’t afford it!” A president flips 20 missiles into a foreign country, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars from construction to deployment to launch, and “How much did that cost?” never seems to come up.

    It comes down to this: Every bullet, every bomb, every attack helicopter, every destroyer, every fighter jet, every field meal, every tent, every rifle, every pistol, every grenade, every land mine, every missile, every submarine (!), every uniform, every pair of boots, every body bag, every coffin, every everything that goes into the U.S. war-making machine is money flooding into some “defense” contractor’s bank account and stock portfolio.

    It has been 73 years since the onset of the first Cold War, and the “terror” war is not quite the money spigot it was for the last two decades. Still, 53 cents of every tax dollar goes to the fighting of and preparation for war already, and a new Cold War with China would dramatically increase that.

    It goes entirely without saying that a new Cold War with China is an astonishingly terrible idea, an undermining of nuclear nonproliferation efforts and a good reason for China to harm the U.S. by way of the massive share of our economy they already own and control. The potential cost in human life is nigh incalculable… but ask yourself this: When was the last time you can remember the warmakers actually thinking things through when massive profits were in play? I’m stumped.

    There is also this: Among the many things the Cold War is remembered for, inflicted popular fear and mass control stand out. Here in the “free” U.S., the groupthink inspired by enmity toward the Soviet Union destroyed lives and constrained liberty for decades. It inspired two lucrative shooting wars, one of which technically never ended and another that lasted 20 years, along with a dozen proxy skirmishes around the world. All of this invigorated the fury and paranoia of enforced patriotism, and did great and lasting damage to those who did not take up the standard of war.

    As we enter an era of unrest, amid racist police violence and state efforts to repress the popular uprising against it, a fascist authoritarian surge in the halls of government everywhere, and a climate preparing to show us all who is really in charge around here, a new Cold War with all attendant mechanisms of enforced control would be just the ticket for those looking to make a buck while avoiding actual solutions to these concerns.

    “If you want a picture of the future,” wrote George Orwell, “imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.” I am forced to wonder if future years will have us looking back on this seemingly insignificant submarine deal between the U.S. and Australia the way historians today regard George Kennan’s “Long Telegram”: One diplomat’s long transatlantic missive that is now widely regarded as the seedcorn for U.S. Cold War policy toward the U.S.S.R. — along with all its consequences — for the next five decades. It had to start somewhere. It always does.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A man and a woman sit next to eachother in two different chairs

    In 1951, Elaine Stein, a young Jewish radical from Hempstead, New York, moved to Paris and soon became involved with the impoverished and persecuted Algerian immigrant community there. By late 1954, when the Algerian War of Independence began, she was swept up in the exploding struggle against over a century of French colonial domination. After Algeria won independence in 1962, Elaine worked for the new Algerian Ministry of Information, which, at one point, asked her to help Black Panther Party members fleeing the United States find a home among other revolutionary groups in Algiers. And, in 1972 — as if she hadn’t already encountered enough life-changing events — Elaine met Mokhtar Mokhtefi, a devoted nationalist who had fought in the armed branch of Algeria’s National Liberation Front (FLN) during the war.

    Elaine and Mokhtar lived together on three continents over 45 years. During that time, they married and remained engaged in various political and intellectual battles for revolutionary justice — even if that battle at times led them to confront aspects of the revolution itself. After Mokhtar’s death from cancer in 2015, Elaine published a memoir of her time with the Panthers, Algiers, Third World Capital. And early this year, she finished translating the forthcoming English edition of Mokhtar’s book, I Was a French Muslim: Memories of an Algerian Freedom Fighter. In his memoir, Mokhtar writes of growing up, a butcher’s son in an obscure Algerian village, while growing into a widening political awareness.

    Elaine Mokhtefi still lives in the Manhattan apartment she and Mokhtar shared for years. Some weeks ago, I sat with her at the table where she and Mokhtar had talked so often and so long. I asked her about Algeria, about Mokhtar, about his work. First, I wanted to know just what the title “French Muslim” means.

    Elaine Mokhtefi: This was Mokhtar’s French ID. Algeria was considered part of France, but that identity told him precisely that he was not French. It’s like, during the Second World War, France identified Jews as “juif” in national papers, to differentiate them from the rest of the population. Mokhtar’s ID, “français musulman,” separated him and all Algerians from the pied noirs, the French women and men. If you were one of the colonized people, you were considered Muslim — you weren’t even asked if you actually were Muslim. There were all sorts of regulations, and the French used whatever means they had — the police, the army — to make sure the “Muslim” population stayed under their control.

    susie day: Mokhtar was the youngest of six boys in a traditional Algerian family, right? He writes about his family so beautifully.

    He had a great family — a rather extended one. He was loved by everyone, except maybe Mustafa, the brother just before him; he was the bane of Mustafa’s existence. His mother, as he explains in the book, was veiled and didn’t go out alone, had never been to his father’s butcher shop. But at home, she was the sultan and she ruled. He felt very close to her and knew all of her defects — he’d go through them — but he did adore her.

    Mokhtar’s grammar school teacher notices his intelligence, and Mokhtar wins a competition to attend this lycée, a prestigious French high school in another town. No one in his family had ever gone to middle or high school before. So now he’s away from home, alone among French kids, and he describes himself as feeling “mutilated.”

    Yes, leaving the family when it was so closely intact, everything he had learned — every meal, every thought, the street — was through the family. Suddenly there was no family.

    Did he put up a fight at first?

    At 12 [years old], he read Egyptian history. He couldn’t believe there’d been a religion based on pharaohs. [Laughs] Oh, no, that can’t be true — Egyptians were Muslims from the beginning of time! Eventually, though, he was very startled by his French education — he’d expected to be in eternal opposition — he hadn’t expected to like it. But as he kept learning, there were subjects he couldn’t discuss with his family. They’re village people and he’s becoming worldly — and very political. He was very confused at several points: Who was he?

    It’s ironic that, as Mokhtar was becoming educated — and increasingly conscious of French occupation — he came to embrace the Enlightenment-based values of France’s purported “liberté, égalité, fraternité.”

    He was able to translate them into an anti-colonial struggle. You know, I think that neither Mokhtar’s book nor mine really show you how the French came with their tanks and their airplanes and napalm and helicopters — American helicopters — and killed, from west to east Algeria. They must have killed 2 million people out of a population of 9 million. They wiped out whole villages and fields and animals and locked people up in concentration camps. This was a vile war. Vile, violent, venomous.

    Mokhtar writes that, like thousands of Algerians, he was ready to give his life for a free, independent Algeria. So, in 1957, he joins the National Liberation Army (ALN). They assign him to the Signal Corps, where he learns to code. But then, to deepen this ongoing tragedy, Mokhtar begins to see corruption and abuse inside the army.

    He found it difficult to guide himself through the mess and maze that the Algerian wartime organizations became. But at some point, as he got a little more secure in the ranks, Mokhtar decided to strike out and tell people what he thought. He became an anomaly in the military. Most people were obedient, but he often didn’t watch his back. He judged some of his commanding officers as ignorant and ego-bound and corrupt — and sometimes very violent.

    I remember Mokhtar’s horrible story, where a commander orders him to prove his manhood by strangling two men who were suspected of treason. Somehow, the task is passed down to another soldier, who repeatedly wakes up screaming after he executes the two. Like Mokhtar, he believed they were innocent.

    A woman sits at her table
    Elaine Mokhtefi sits at a dining table on July 25, 2021.

    The fact that he even tells this story is amazing. It was complicated by the origins of the individuals. There was also a class warfare going on. The commander was of a different Algerian social background (but from the same town) as the man ordered to strangle the two dissidents. Mokhtar doesn’t shy away from that. Many Algerians have written stories of their lives in this war, but few have been as frank.

    Mokhtar saw the lack of democracy. He saw decisions imposed — not discussed — by the strongest and those who had the best weapons. Some of the decisions were absolutely inhumane. Former leaders were arrested, some were tortured — torture for an independent Algeria? Mokhtar couldn’t get over it.

    At the end of his book, Mokhtar, who’s been serving in the ALN in Morocco, casts his ballot for independence and drives into a now-free Algeria — only to be met by an armed guard who holds Mokhtar’s papers upside down, pretending to read them. Mokhtar writes: “Ignorance out of the barrel of a gun is preparing us for bitter tomorrows.”

    Mokhtar expected a radiant Algeria that would fulfill his dreams of independence, freedom — and the first person he meets going back is this soldier who seems to think it’s enough to hold a gun. But Mokhtar kept working for independence.

    After 132 years of colonization, Algeria was about 90 percent illiterate at [the time of its] independence. But the new government also had the largest percentage for education of any national budget in the world. So Mokhtar became the first head of the General Union of Algerian Muslim Students and launched the student publication Revolution at the University. He went on to work at the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reform.

    You worked in the new Algerian government yourself. How did you two finally meet?

    I met him accidentally in 1972. I was in Algiers, driving my friend Behja, who saw Mokhtar on the street and told me to stop. Mokhtar walked over and poked his head through the car window. Next day, he asked my friend to organize a dinner and invite me.

    And at dinner?

    I thought he was very handsome. And funny. He had a way of telling stories and cracking jokes. When he asked if I’d drop him off at home — I had a car — I said, “Of course.”

    Did he get fresh?

    No, no, no. He smoked a cigarette — we both smoked at the time — and said he’d call me. A couple of days later, he called, and things moved faster.

    We would do things I had never done, closely, with anyone. We would read together — poetry, essays. Not only did we get to know each other better, we got to know ourselves better. He taught me a lot about my own parents. [Laughs] He felt Americans were much too hard on their parents. He used to say, “They gave you life — why be so critical?” I remember, we’d wake up in the morning and start writing down all that had passed in our heads during the night. There was a sense that we didn’t know enough.

    About each other?

    An oil oainting of a man wearing glasses
    “Mokhtar” by Elaine Mokhtefi; oil on canvas, 2000.

    About the world. Algeria was our main subject of conversation: our stories of the war, the political activity leading up to the war, different people. After all, we had gotten to know most of the major political personalities. So we could compare thinking, compare experiences.

    You wrote a book about your experience as Algeria’s liaison to Black Panther Party members like Eldridge and Kathleen Cleaver. Did Mokhtar also hang out with the Panthers?

    He knew them all because he knew me, though they didn’t speak any French at the time. He thought they were much too open in their communications — and they were. They were Americans, after all. Algerians are very closed; they don’t tell secrets. Mokhtar thought they needed some kind of coding system and taught Don Cox [a Black Panther Party member, also known as “DC”] some coding. He was also very fond of Kathleen.

    Then, two years later, in 1974, the Algerian government banned you.

    Right. I was kicked out because I refused to spy on my friend for Algerian military security. She was visiting [Ahmed] Ben Bella in prison [the first Algerian prime minister, then president, deposed in the 1965 coup]. Mokhtar did his best to get that decision changed. He went to several people, including a government minister, but there was no way. For Mokhtar, it was the last straw. So he gave up the idea of staying in Algeria.

    He could have moved high up in the government — he knew all the Algerian leaders — but he cared more for principle and ethics. It tore at him, what things had become. So he straightened out his affairs, got rid of his apartment, folded his clothes, put them in a suitcase, and left Algeria to join me in Paris. When he [made] a decision … it was very difficult to get Mokhtar to change his mind.

    You lived together in Paris for 20 years. Why did you come to New York?

    French laws were tightening on immigrants, legal and illegal, from former French colonies, mainly from Africa. To be brown-skinned and Algerian in France was the equivalent of being Black in the United States. You couldn’t get into the metro without squads of police asking for your papers. The communist and socialist parties were in decline. The National Front, the far right party, under the aegis of the Le Pen family — now Marine Le Pen — had gained strength. All this had grown out of Islamophobia and Holocaust denial. It’s nationalism in the worst sense of the term.

    We came to New York in the late 1990s, and Mokhtar immediately took English as a Second Language at Columbia University’s Teachers College. He got good enough to make a speech. After 9/11, he was often called upon to attempt to explain the Islamic world he came from. We also took part in antiwar and Free Palestine demonstrations. We joined climate marches, Occupy Wall Street, anti-racist mobilizations…

    How did Mokhtar change, politically, over the years?

    Until his death, Mokhtar said that Algeria would be part of him. He went back every year to visit his family. But he’d lost his nationalism. He came to dislike nationalism as dangerous, conflictual. His love of country, though, was something beyond that.

    Personally, I understand the nationalism of a country like Algeria, fighting colonialism. But I find it difficult to accept when it’s used to define a nation as superior, as opposed to seeking a shared humanity. The U.S. Republican Party now is an example of destructive nationalism: anti-immigrant, anti-Black, anti-Muslim, antisemitic, anti-voting rights…

    Mokhtar died in 2015, before he knew his memoir would see daylight. What has translating and editing this book meant to you?

    Everything. Mokhtar would be over the moon. He never imagined it would be published in New York. I can’t wait for the day when I see it in a bookshop.

    Because what I think Mokhtar wants you to see is that, even with all its disappointments and disillusionment, the belief in an independent Algeria was extraordinary. That any time you stand up for freedom, it’s worth the fight.

    This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Australia has just caused surprise among its friends, concern among its neighbours, and an overtly hostile reaction from the Chinese with its announcement that it was scrapping the submarine deal it had signed with France and replacing it with a scheme, cooked together with British and American allies, to buy 8 nuclear powered submarines.

    The scheme as announced was extraordinarily short on details. There is apparently at least 18 months of negotiating ahead before the contract is even signed. After that there will be a lengthy delay, estimated being at least 10 years in length, before the first submarine is ever delivered. By that time, who knows what the state of the world’s geopolitical system will be. One can be assured that the Chinese, against whom the plan is obviously directed, will have taken multiple steps to ensure its own safety.

    The Australian prime minister Scott Morrison was not short of hyperbole in announcing the deal. He described the relationship with the United States as the “forever partnership”. As the old joke goes, there are only two forever’s, death and taxes. Morrison’s words are reflective of an unfortunate tendency among Australian politicians. They are inclined not to look at the map when making grand geopolitical statements.

    Australia is a thinly populated European nation that sits at the southern end of the Asian landmass. In keeping with its geography, the bulk of Australian foreign trade is conducted with those same Asian neighbours. Ironically, China is by far Australia’s largest trading partner, followed by Japan.

    The British are yesterday’s men when it comes to Asia having finally been forced to give up its holding in Hong Kong that they took by force from China in the 19th century. The United States likes to project itself is an important figure in the Asian scheme of things. As the recent debacle in Afghanistan showed, however, American influence in the region is marked by one rebuttal after another.

    With the possible exception of Japan, United States influence in the region is rapidly fading, notwithstanding its provocative sailings in the South China Sea and its overt support for the island of Taiwan. It is conveniently forgotten by Western commentators that from 1949 to 1972 the island of Taiwan held China’s seat on the United Nations Security Council. There was no suggestion then that Taiwan was a separate country. It could hardly have claimed to be, yet retaining China’s seat on the Security Council.

    Now, Taiwan is making noises about becoming an independent country, something that the Beijing government has declared to be totally unacceptable, and which they will prevent by the use of force if necessary. It would be very unwise for the West to ignore the determination of the People’s Republic of China to recapture its rebellious neighbour. It would be equally unwise for the Americans to underestimate the Chinese level of determination and attempt to defend Taiwan from returning to the control of the mainland.

    It is into this fraught situation that the Australian government is being inexorably drawn by its latest agreement with the Americans. Although the Australian media are almost completely silent on the point, one of the consequences of this new agreement with the Americans will be an increase in the number of United States military holdings in Australia. They already control the operation of the spy base at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory. It was former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam‘s intention to close the base that led to the coup against his government in November 1975.

    The United States has operated a baleful influence upon Australian foreign policy ever since. There is absolutely nothing in the latest announcement of Australia buying United States designed nuclear powered ships that will do a single thing to reduce that influence. Quite the contrary.

    The current posturing by the Australian Prime Minister will do nothing to alter that reality. Together with his defence minister, Peter Dutton, who has been a failure at each of his previous ministerial postings, they are both talking loudly about the wonderful future of Australia. They are either too vain or too stupid to see that this latest deal does more than any other single decision in recent years to entrap Australia in a subservient role to the United States.

    As Scott Ritter writes in RT: “This is a story of geopolitically driven military procurement gone mad”,1, pointing out that this deal “further exacerbates the existing geopolitical crisis with China by injecting a military dimension that will never see the light of day.”

    Ritter goes on to seek answers to problems he sees as being associated with the announced purchase; for instance, first of all, how much will it cost?  Secondly, how will Australia operate advanced nuclear power systems when it has no indigenous nuclear experience to draw upon? And how does Australia plan to man a large nuclear submarine when it can barely field four crews for its existing Collins class fleet.

    These are legitimate questions to ask, yet the timid Opposition Labor Party seems paralysed by them.

    As Alan Gyngell points out2, the United States’ expectations of Australia’s support in almost anything going, whether it involves China or not (although that is the greatest danger) will grow. It represents an application of responsibility to ensure the ongoing welfare of the Australian people. By the time the submarines are delivered, if at all, the present generation of political leaders will be long gone. The damage they are doing will last a lot longer.

    1. US-UK-Australia Submarine Deal is a Dangerous Joke, 18 September 2021.
    2. Australia Signs up for the Anglosphere“, September 19, 2021.
    The post Morrison’s Dangerous Fantasies Represent a Danger to Australia’s Future first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a leader of the left-wing France insoumise (France Unbowed) calls for a return to independence and diplomacy based on global justice.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • When President Joe Biden won the White House, he promised, with a facility of unceasing boredom, that diplomacy was back.  “Diplomacy is back at the centre of our foreign policy,” he stated on February 4.  “As I said in my inaugural address, we will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again, not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but today’s and tomorrow’s.”

    The fact that such diplomacy had never gone away seemed to escape him.  In the simpleton’s view of politics, his predecessor had abandoned the jaw jaw approach to international relations for muscular and mindless US unilateralism.  Allies had been belittled, ignored and mocked.  Strongmen had been feted, admired and praised.  It was now incumbent upon the United States, urged Biden, that “American leadership” confront “this new moment of advancing authoritarianism, including the growing ambitions of China to rival the United States and the determination of Russia to damage and disrupt our democracy.”

    It would have been more accurate to say that President Donald Trump’s coarse, business board room model was simply too much of a shock for those familiarly comfortable with guile, deception and dissimulation.  But Biden’s return to acceptable hypocrisy did not mask the “America First” note in his temper.  Since then, that temper has seen a dramatic, ahead-of-schedule exit from Afghanistan, building on Trump’s undertakings to conclude open-ended wars and commitments.  US allies began to wonder whether the Biden model was that different from Trump’s cruder original.

    With the announcement on September 15 of the trilateral security pact AUKUS, an agreement between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia to deepen military ties in an effort to contain China, the “diplomacy is back” cart was soiled and upended.  The European Union had not been consulted.  A furious France only received a few hours’ notice that the agreement they had made through the Naval Group with Australia to construct the next generation of attack class submarines had been dissolved.  Countries in the Indo-Pacific were also left in the dark.

    France, in some ways even more than China, the primary target of AUKUS, is incandescent with rage.  On Franceinfo radio, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian was unsparing in his remarks.  “This brutal, unilateral and unpredictable decision reminds me a lot of what Mr Trump used to do.” He confessed to feeling anger and bitterness. “This isn’t done between allies.”

    As recently as July, Le Drian had visited Washington, where he pointedly stated that France was “an Indo-Pacific nation with territories that give [it] the world’s second-largest exclusive economic zone” with a permanent military presence of 8,500 personnel in the region.  Paris, along with EU member states, was in the process of formulating a clear Indo-Pacific strategy.  Efforts were being made in creating “strategic partnerships” with Japan, Australia and India.  Regional organisations such as ASEAN were being brought into the fold.  Any “transatlantic pivot toward the Indo-Pacific” had to be taken “together”.

    At the end of August, Australia and France held their inaugural Foreign and Defence (2+2) Ministerial Consultations. No hint was given that something was brewing.  As the joint statement outlined, “Ministers underscored the importance of the strong and enduring commitment of other partners, including the United States, and Indo-Pacific partners in upholding an open, inclusive and resilient Indo-Pacific in accordance with international law.”

    With notions of sham togetherness shaken, retaliation in the old diplomatic tradition has followed.  President Emmanuel Macron has recalled the French ambassadors to the United States and Australia.  Britain was rebuked somewhat differently, being spared the same harsh treatment; being underhanded was the very sort of thing Paris expected from their historical enemy. In Le Drian’s words, its conduct had been “opportunistic”, with London being little more than “the fifth wheel of the wagon”.

    In a joint statement, Le Drian and French Minister for the Army Florence Parly emphasised that this new security arrangement had been arrived at to the “exclusion of a European ally and partner … at a time when we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region.”  The move signalled “a lack of consistency which France can only notice and regret.”

    Special words were reserved for Australia, a country now wooed by an unconvincing promise of eight nuclear-powered submarines that are only promised to enter service sometime in the 2040s.  The decision was “contrary to the letter and the spirit of the cooperation which prevailed between France and Australia, based on a relationship of political trust.”  Le Drian, in a separate observation, weighed on the theme of infidelity, calling the decision, “A knife in the back.”

    None of this takes away from the fact that the original Franco-Australian contract, reached in 2016, was an ill-thought out undertaking to build 12 conventional Barracuda class submarines in imitation of the nuclear powered Suffren design.  It was vain, costly and promised obsolescence before viable performance. Then again, the French argument goes, the Australians wanted it.

    The justifications for this episode of Anglophonic mischief have varied in their insolence and disingenuousness.  US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was all shine and floss in claiming that France remained “a vital partner” in ensuring security in the Indo-Pacific “and we want to find every opportunity to deepen our transatlantic cooperation” in the area.  To a question suggesting that France had been stabbed in the back, Blinken mechanically repeated the vital importance of a “transatlantic” association.

    Australia’s simply disposed Defence Minister Peter Dutton preferred fantasy by way of explanation, claiming that his government had been “upfront, open and honest”.  “We can understand of course, the French are upset at the cancellation of a contract but in the end, our job is to act in our national interest.”  Britain’s Defence Minister Ben Wallace was of like mind, promising that, “Nothing was done by sneaking behind anyone’s back.”  But sneaking there was, and it was the Anglosphere, led by the United States, doing the sneaking.

    AUKUS is less a trio than a hefty, bullying chief accompanied by a willing assistant and an enthusiastic supplicant.  It is a declaration of hostile intent in a region of the world that promises to be the Europe of 1914.  It has also encouraged the EU to formulate its own Indo-Pacific policy with haste and independence. “The regrettable decision which has just been announced on the FSP [Future Submarine Program] only reinforces the need to raise the issue of European strategic autonomy loud and clear,” observed Le Drian and Parley.  Policy makers in Beijing will be struggling to stifle their amusement.

    The post The Anglo Unilateralists Strike first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • By Johnny Blades, RNZ Pacific reporter

    Australia’s new security pact with the US and the UK has touched a nerve at the core of Pacific regionalism.

    The AUKUS alliance, announced by leaders of the three countries last week, finds them seeking strategic advantage in the Indo-Pacific region with a focus on developing nuclear-powered submarines for the Australian Navy.

    Announcing the pact via video link with Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his British counterpart Boris Johnson, US president Joe Biden said it was about enhancing their collective ability to take on the threats of the 21st century.

    Recalled French ambassador Jean-Pierre Thebault … angry words for journalists on the way to Canberra airport. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    France has recalled its ambassadors to the US and Australia for consultations, in a “Pacific” backlash over a submarine deal after Canberra cancelled a multibillion-dollar deal for conventional French submarines, reports Al Jazeera.

    President Biden declared: “Today we’re taking another historic step, to deepen and formalise co-operation among all three of our nations, because we all recognise the imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific over the long term.

    “We need to be able to address both the current strategic environment in the region, and how it may evolve.”

    Describing this threat as rapidly evolving, Biden said AUKUS was launching consultations on Australia’s acquisition of conventionally armed submarines powered by nuclear reactors. The president emphasised that the subs would not be nuclear-armed.

    Serious concern for Pacific
    But the general secretary of the Pacific Conference of Churches, Reverend James Bhagwan, said the move towards nuclear submarines was a serious concern for a region still dealing with the fallout from nuclear weapons tests.

    “Three weeks ago, the current chair of Pacific Islands Forum, the Prime Minister of Fiji (Voreqe Bainimarama) reiterated that we want a Blue Pacific that is nuclear free. It’s at the heart of Pacific regionalism,” he said.

    The general secretary of the Pacific Council of Churches, James Bhagwan.
    The general secretary of the Pacific Council of Churches, Reverend James Bhagwan … “We are still dealing with the fallout from nuclear testing.” Image: Jamie Tahana/RNZ

    “From the Sixties, from when the very first tests started in our region, this is something that government, civil society, churches have all been very adamant against, to keep our Pacific nuclear-free. We are still dealing with the fallout from nuclear testing.”

    However, Morrison said it was time to take the partnership between the three nations to a “new level”, noting that “our world is becoming more complex, especially here in our region, the Indo-Pacific”, a sign of the alliance’s growing angst over China.

    But the move towards nuclear submarines confronts the spirit of a nuclear-free zone that Pacific regional countries signed up to decades ago.

    Furthermore, the pact comes as the Pacific Islands Forum continues to protest about Japan’s plans to dump treated nuclear waste water into the ocean from the Fukushima power plant, that was damaged in an earthquake and tsunami 10 years ago.

    Taken by surprise
    The Federated States of Micronesia, a country with close ties to the US, was diplomatic in conveying how the pact caught it by surprise.

    A spokesperson for the FSM government said it had “trust, faith and confidence” in the US and Australia in their promotion, and protection, of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific

    “It can safely be assumed that the United States and Australia are making security decisions with the best interests of the Pacific in mind, because our vitality is their vitality. That said, this news is a surprise.

    “Micronesia is confident this decision makes our country safer, but Micronesia also looks forward to learning more about how precisely that is the case.”

    Regional figure: Fiji prime minister Frank Bainimarama at the Melanesian Spearhead Group leaders summit in Noumea in 2013.
    Regional figure … as Pacific Forum chairman, Fiji’s Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimara has outlined the regional aim for a nuclear-free Blue Pacific. Image: Johnny Blades/RNZ

    Rather than loss of business, Pacific Islands are more concerned about existential loss, having first hand experience of nuclear testing by French, American and British.

    “The ocean impacts on our life,” Reverend Bhagwan said.

    “We are the fish basket of the world. So if one submarine comes in and something goes wrong and the nuclear waste from that submarine gets into our ocean, that’s too much already.”

    Pacific interests
    Reverend Bhagwan questioned how the pact stacked up with Scott Morrison’s claims that Australia considered Pacific Islands countries as vuvale, or family.

    “This is our Pacific way. Sometimes we don’t agree, but we always act in the best interests, we always come and support one another,” he said.

    “This is not Australia acting in the best interests of the rest of its Pacific Vuvale.”

    China has described the pact as being detrimental to regional peace and stability.

    Relations between Beijing and Canberra are at an all-time low, and a spokesman for the Chinese government urged Australia to think carefully whether to treat China as a partner or a threat.

    New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the prohibition of nuclear-powered vessels in its waters remained unchanged, adding that the pact “in no way changes our security and intelligence ties with these three countries”.

    She said New Zealand was first and foremost a nation of the Pacific which viewed foreign policy developments through the lens of what is in the best interest of the region.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ANALYSIS: By Alexander Gillespie, University of Waikato

    We live, to borrow a phrase, in interesting times. The pandemic aside, relations between the superpowers are tense. The sudden arrival of the new AUKUS security agreement between Australia, the US and UK simply adds to the general sense of unease internationally.

    The relationship between America and China had already deteriorated under the presidency of Donald Trump and has not improved under Joe Biden.

    New satellite evidence suggests China might be building between 100 and 200 silos for a new generation of nuclear intercontinental missiles.

    At the same time, the US relationship with North Korea continues to smoulder, with both North and South Korea conducting missile tests designed to intimidate.

    And, of course, Biden has just presided over the foreign policy disaster of withdrawal from Afghanistan. His administration needs something new with a positive spin.

    Enter AUKUS, more or less out of the blue. So far, it is just a statement launched by the member countries’ leaders. It has not yet been released as a formal treaty.

    As The Conversation reports, the initiative coincides with the Morrison government deciding it is best for Australia to accelerate the production of a more capable, integrated, nuclear-powered submarine platform — at a vastly higher cost — with the US and the UK.

    Australia’s previous A$90 billion deal with the French company DCNS to build up to 12 submarines has been canned.

    The Indo-Pacific pivot
    The new agreement speaks of “maritime democracies” and “ideals and shared commitment to the international rules-based order” with the objective to “deepen diplomatic, security and defence co-operation in the Indo-Pacific region”.

    “Indo-Pacific region” is code for defence against China, with the partnership promising greater sharing and integration of defence technologies, cyber capabilities and “additional undersea capabilities”. Under the agreement, Australia also stands to gain nuclear-powered submarines.

    To demonstrate the depth of the relationship, the agreement highlights how “for more than 70 years, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States have worked together, along with other important allies and partners”.

    At which point New Zealand could have expected a drum roll, too, having only just marked the 70th anniversary of the ANZUS agreement. That didn’t happen, and New Zealand was conspicuously absent from the choreographed announcement hosted by the White House.

    Having remained committed to the Five Eyes security agreement and having put boots on the ground in Afghanistan for the duration, “NZ” appears to have been taken out of ANZUS and replaced with “UK”.

    Don’t mention the nukes
    The obvious first question is whether New Zealand was asked to join the new arrangement. While Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has welcomed the new partnership, she has confirmed: “We weren’t approached, nor would I expect us to be.”

    That is perhaps surprising. Despite problematic comments by New Zealand’s trade minister about Australia’s dealings with China, and the foreign minister’s statement that she “felt uncomfortable” with the expanding remit of the Five Eyes, reassurances by Ardern about New Zealand’s commitment should have calmed concerns.

    One has to assume, therefore, that even if New Zealand had been asked to join, it might have chosen to opt out anyway. There are three possible explanations for this:

    The first involves the probable provision to Australia of nuclear-powered military submarines. Any mention of nuclear matters makes New Zealand nervous. But Australia has been at pains to reiterate its commitment to “leadership on global non-proliferation”.

    Similar commitments or work-arounds could probably have been made for New Zealand within the AUKUS agreement, too, but that is now moot.

    The dragon in the room
    The second reason
    New Zealand may have declined is because the new agreement is perceived as little more than an expensive purchasing agreement for the Australian navy, wrapped up as something else.

    This may be partly true. But the rewards of the relationship as stated in the initial announcement go beyond submarines and look enticing. In particular, anything that offers cutting-edge technologies and enhances the interoperability of New Zealand’s defence force with its allies would not be lightly declined.

    The third explanation could lie in an assumption that this is not a new security arrangement. Evidence for this can be seen in the fact that New Zealand is not the only ally missing from the new arrangement.

    Canada, the other Five Eyes member, is also not at the party. Nor are France, Germany, India and Japan. If this really was a quantum shift in strategic alliances, the group would have been wider — and more formal than a new partnership announced at a press conference.

    Nonetheless, the fact that New Zealand’s supposedly extra-special relationship with Britain, Australia and America hasn’t made it part of the in-crowd will raise eyebrows.

    Especially while no one likes to mention the elephant – or should that be dragon? – in the room: New Zealand’s relationship with China.The Conversation

    Dr Alexander Gillespie is professor of law at the University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • It does not get any messier or more chaotic than this.  Since 2009, when Australia’s Future Submarine Program (FSP) known as Project SEA 1000, began to take shape, strategists and policy makers have been keen to pursue the next big White Elephant of defence spending.  And few areas of an already wasteful area of public expenditure are more costly – often mindlessly so – than submarines.

    The Australian effort here is particularly impressive.  Pick a real winner by signing a contract for a yet to be designed attack class submarine, supposedly necessary in an increasingly dangerous region.  Ensure that this design is based on a nuclear model and remove that attribute, aptly described as “dumbing down a nuclear submarine by removing the whole basis of its superior capability, and then charging at least twice as much for a far less capable submarine.”

    Just to make things interesting, make sure the order is for 12 of these yet to be designed and built creatures.  Make sure, as well, that they are only ready sometime in the 2030s, by which time they risk being obsolete in a field of other contending submarines with superior capabilities.

    The dubious honour for this monumentally foolish contract, with an initial cost of AU$50 billion, fell to the French submarine company DCNS (now called Naval Group). It nudged out German and Japanese contenders with pre-existing designs.  “The decision,” a government announcement in April 2016 explained, “was driven by DCNS’s ability to best meet all of the Australian Government requirements.  These included superior sensor performance and stealth characteristics, as well as range and endurance similar to the Collins class submarine.  The Government’s considerations also included cost, schedule, program execution, through-life support and Australian industry involvement.”

    The contract warmed the French military establishment.  It was praised as the “contract of the century”.  Le Parisien’s editorial lauded the prospect of thousands of jobs.  President François Hollande could say that he was also capable of pulling off a contract to aid the French military industrial complex, despite being a socialist.  A “50-year marriage”, claimed French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian with honeymoon exuberance, had begun.

    The post-nuptials were not promising.  Rear Admiral Greg Sammut had to concede in an estimates hearing before Australian senators that another AU$50 billion would be required to sustain the submarines for the duration of their operating life.  “Many of the detailed costs of acquisition and sustainment will be determined during the design process through choices made but at this point early estimation of the sustainment costs for the fleet are of the order of up to $50 billion on a constant price basis.”

    Tiffs and disagreements over distribution of labour and further costs started to bite.  How much of the work would actually be undertaken by labour based in Australia?  Would the French company be keeping the lion’s share?  With such problems, and the pace of development, another idea started to gain momentum in the halls of defence: a competing, cheaper design, based on a rejigged version of Australia’s existing Collins Class submarine, might be a suitable alternative.  In the meantime, perhaps a German alternative might also figure, namely the Type 214 diesel electric submarine developed by Howaldtswerker-Deutsche Werft GmbH (HDW).

    In May, Naval Group’s Transfer of Technology program manager Fabrice Leduc solemnly told his staff that the submarine project had been subjected to a “political timeline” following a change of minister in the Australian Defence portfolio.  The new occupant, Peter Dutton, was biding his time because “he wanted to have some strong warranties from the industry and especially Naval Group in terms of cost and schedule.”  The marriage had truly soured.

    On September 15, the press gallery in Canberra was awash with rumours that a divorce was being proposed.  In the early hours of the following day, the question as to whether Australia would be dissolving its union with Naval Group was answered. In place of that union would be a ménage à trois with the United States and United Kingdom, a security three-way with Australia as the subordinate partner.  The glue that will hold this union together is a common suspicion: China.  In place of the Attack Class submarine: a nuclear powered alternative with Anglo-American blessing, based on the US Virginia class or UK Astute class.

    In their joint statement announcing the creation of AUKUS, a name deserving a place in a science fiction glossary, the joint leaders of the three countries “guided” by their “enduring ideals and shared commitment to the international rules-based order” had resolved “to deepen diplomatic, security, and defence cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region, including by working with partners, to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.”  AUKUS would be a new “enhanced trilateral security partnership” to further such goals.

    The agreement is nothing less than an announcement to powers in the region that the Anglophone bloc intends to police, oversee and, if necessary, punish.  The three countries will “promote deeper information and technology.”  Security, science relating to defence, technology, industrial bases and supply chains will be further integrated.  Deeper cooperation would take place “on a range of security and defence capabilities.”

    The first initiative of the agreement stands out: “we commit to a shared ambition to support Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy.”  Expertise to “bring an Australian capability into service at the earliest achievable date” from the submarine programs of both the US and the UK would be drawn on.  AUKUS unmistakably ties the countries into the same security orbit, meshing them to principles of “interoperability, commonality, and mutual benefit.”

    Australia’s submarine policy has previously eschewed nuclear propulsion. Now, as a dowry for receiving such largesse, Canberra is offering up Australia as a confirmed US asset in policing the Indo-Pacific. In any conflict situation, the wallahs of the antipodes are unlikely to say no to any request to do battle with the Middle Kingdom.  US Navy commanders will also be smacking their lips at maintaining attack vessels in Australia as part of the arrangement.

    In the meantime, neighbours will be troubled, despite assurances that the vessels will only have a conventional weapons capability.  Nearby Indonesia is unlikely to be glowing in admiration.

    The dissolution of the union with Naval Group will also be costly, with the defence company bound to push for a generous compensation package.  (AU$400 million is a suggested figure, though this is unlikely to satisfy either Naval Group or the Parisian overlords)  To this can be added AU$2 billion already spent.

    As the divorce costs are sorted, some Australian politicians have pledged to make dissenting noises, with the Greens leader Adam Bandt already warning that the decision promised to “put floating Chernobyls in the heart of Australia’s cities.”  Protests from anti-nuclear activists and advocates are in the offing.

    Then arises that enduring problem of actually building these naval beasts.  US lawmakers will be rooting for the construction of the submarines on home soil, a situation which promises to mirror the headaches caused by the Naval Group contract.  Australia also lacks a shipyard able to build or maintain such vessels.

    In playing its part in the creation of AUKUS, Canberra has exchanged one white elephant of the sea for another.  But in doing so, Australia has done so in manner more threatening, and more significant, than anything associated with the Naval Group Contract.  The small space Australian diplomats might have had in keeping Canberra out of any foolish conflict in the Indo-Pacific has become miniscule.  The war mongers will be dewily ecstatic.

    The post Nuclear White Elephants: Australia’s New Submarine Deal first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The global coronavirus pandemic has brought into sharp relief the many failures of contemporary capitalist states around the globe. These include the failure to ensure social and economic justice and to provide basic protections for the most vulnerable individuals and communities, from refugees to the houseless. Consequently, it has also made clear the need for social movements to not only resist the violence of the state and its facilitation of global capitalism, but to simultaneously and actively build a prefigurative politics toward an alternative society. Carving out autonomous spaces for mutual aid and radical politics is more important than ever.

    The post The ZAD: Between Utopian Radicalism And Negotiated Pragmatism appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Just as many predicted over a year ago, the rollout of the vaccine for Covid-19 and its implementation has introduced intense polarization and social segregation through the implementation of mandatory vaccination for employees and vaccine passports. Medical authoritarianism and the burgeoning biosecurity state are here, expanding in real time. In New York City, San Francisco, France, and Italy, vaccine passports are mandatory for entrance to nearly any indoor public venue: restaurants, bars, museums, cinemas, and more. Also, hundreds of corporations, colleges, federal and state agencies are mandating rushed emergency experimental injections with no long-term knowledge of side effects.

    Yes, we’re all well aware that the Pfizer vaccine just got full FDA approval. Did anyone think that it wouldn’t? Did anyone in the media bother to ask if the forces of power, money, and technocratic medical tyrants would back down and not give full approval, considering how these forces have managed to shape reality and scare to death half of the population over a disease with a very low mortality rate? Regardless of your opinion of how severe the disease is, mandates and passports are incontrovertibly coercive, tyrannical measures. If the vaccines do not stop transmission, which the medical authorities have already admitted to varying degrees, then what is the point of these mandates and passports?

    Furthermore, the vaccine passport will effectively be discriminatory since minorities are less likely to get the vaccines. African Americans especially have lower vaccination rates, for good reasons, the US medical establishment experimented on black populations throughout the Cold War and even beyond. It’s not difficult to see the ramifications of bio-digital segregations. One does not need a PhD or medical degree; in fact, these “credentials” seem to blinker one’s view in support of this new form of discrimination.

    In the view of what we might term the technocracy, or perhaps the emerging biosecurity establishment, it is virtuous to separate the “clean” vaxxed from the supposedly disease-carrying, uneducated, lower-classes who won’t take these experimental shots.

    All of the power and money, all the “Science ™” snowballed into an unstoppable corporate/government momentum which shows no signs of letting up. All that propaganda, the deliberate lies about mask efficiency (they don’t work) and vaccine holiness (they don’t prevent transmission) they’ve been shoving down the public’s throats for over a year and a half? Yeah, the nanny-state politico-medical tyrants are not going to give up this narrative without a fight. They are doubling down on the fear and quest for total obedience and control. It suits late-stage capitalism just fine if small and medium sized businesses go under and the excess labor supply of the unemployed are evicted and go hungry. They are extraneous to the monopoly cartels which run the “economy”, which is run by giant tech corporations, the stock market, the military-industrial complex, and the FIRE sector, multinational conglomerates who operate with almost no competition in nearly every industry.

    There is no way to fight back against these abuses of power through the court system. In my opinion, the most rational approach would be to boycott, in any way possible, the corporations and public institutions that are going along with vaccine mandates and passports. Part of this involves the vote with your dollars approach. Hurting the corporate lemmings and technocrat sociopaths in their wallets and lack of tax revenues are the only things they will understand.

    If you were thinking of traveling to Europe, skip France and Italy. Guess what?  If globally millions of tourists suddenly gave the middle finger to these two countries and vacationed elsewhere, the dent in lost revenue and GDP might actually have some effect on the political establishment. In France and Italy citizens are rightly fed up with protests every day against the passports, and many vaccinated people have burned their vaccine papers in solidarity.

    Similarly, if people in the US abstained from traveling to and spending money in NYC and SF, every restaurant owner, museum board, theater, and small business would then put immediate pressure on city, state, and federal politicians to ban vaccine passports, hopefully for good. If millions of people refuse to shop and do business with companies that have mandatory vaccination requirements for their employees, it would also put immense pressure to relent.

    Investors should also divest from corporations that insist on mandating vaccines for employees. It may, in fact, be legal for companies to do so, but it is frankly coercive and is a sort of crossing of the Rubicon, blurring one’s private life and medical choices with public duties, to create a new type of “good citizen”, a biopolitical subject serving capitalism with zero critical thinking skills.

    For those in the workforce facing mandates, such as federal/state public employees and health care workers, if possible it is definitely worth considering if another career/job can be found. If enough teachers, nurses, etc., quit or go on strike against their employee mandates, pressure can be applied and the mandates could potentially be lifted.

    It’s worth pointing out that the goalposts continue to be changed from slowing the pace of transmission to eradicating the virus- from two weeks to flatten the curve (tacitly acknowledging that coronaviruses cannot really be stopped) to mandates for wide swaths of public and private work, as well as military and police presence on the streets of Australia, to name one of the most obvious police state measures. The goalposts are changing to determine our “good citizen” status. Before, one simply had to go along to get along, obey the laws, pay taxes, and keep one’s head down; now, not only are we expected to do and say the right things, but to inject the right experimental drugs into our bodies.

    My humble prediction is the goalposts are going to continue to move. The game is akin to the frogs boiling slowly in the pot; by consenting to our own freedom being curtailed and our own imprisonment, the establishment gets what it wants without having to crack down using excessive force and coercion. The innate desire to have access to public spaces, to go on vacation, will lead many people ignorant of the wider implications to accept these new dystopian measures.  The horizon of getting “back to normal” will recede faster as new variants naturally emerge, as viruses tend to do, and this will continue to be used as a new scare tactic, even as death rates effectively returned to normal four months ago (May of 2021) in the US, and many other countries show no more excess deaths, or none outside normal yearly variations, as well in 2021.

    The virus is now endemic, but the powers that be are going to insist upon using it as a weapon for total control over the population. We’re through the looking-glass, we now have a form of “scientism” which is irrefutable no matter how unsettled the truth really is. Statistics such as death counts from Covid are unreliable, with doctors confessing to listing Covid-19 as the primary cause of death when it’s not- dying “from Covid” is conflated as dying “with Covid”. Deaths from the lockdowns are not seriously considered, even though many scientists are on record stating that the lockdowns led to a large chunk of the excess deaths.

    Frankly, the near future looks pretty bleak for the US and the chances to have an open, honest dialogue about the seriousness of the pandemic, the capitalist world-system which stands to gain by using a 21st century tech-driven shock doctrine, and the police-state that will be built on the back of the panic caused by incessant propaganda. The fault lines are deepening and Democrats yammer to “trust the science” without any understanding themselves, and are willing to demonize anyone who doesn’t get an experimental jab or wear two masks while alone in their car; while Republicans continue to frame the “reopen the economy” debate in terms of those supposedly wonderful job-creating corporations, all the while being willing to sell the average worker out for an extra buck or two. Both parties are more than willing to screw over the poor, minorities, and working classes; if either cared about their citizens’ lives they wouldn’t throw people out into the streets via the mass evictions that are already underway.

    As imperial decline and rot deepen, and the domestic surveillance apparatus pulls its noose tighter against our necks, our best bet to resist these freedom-crushing decrees is to deploy citizen power, mass protests, and coordinated direct action against inhumane vaccine mandates and police-state vaccine passports.

    The post Boycott Vaccine Mandates and Covid Passports first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Suddenly, the idea put forth by French President, Emmanuel Macron, late last year does not seem so far-fetched or untenable after all. Following the US-NATO hurried withdrawal from Afghanistan, European countries are now forced to consider the once unthinkable:  a gradual dismantling from US dominance.

    When, on September 29, 2020, Macron uttered these words: “We, some countries more than others, gave up on our strategic independence by depending too much on American weapons systems”, the context of this statement had little to do with Afghanistan. Instead, Europe was angry at the bullying tactics used by former US President Donald Trump and sought alternatives to US leadership. The latter has treated NATO – actually, all of Europe – with such disdain, that it has forced America’s closest allies to rethink their foreign policy outlook and global military strategy altogether.

    Even the advent of US President Joe Biden and his assurances to Europe that “America is back” did little to reassure European countries, which fear, justifiably, that US political instability may exist long after Biden’s term in office expires.

    The chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan – without NATO members even being consulted or considered as the US signed and enacted a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban starting in July 2020 – has convinced Europe that, despite the defeat of Trump, Washington has essentially remained the same: a self-centered ‘ally’.

    Now that the US and NATO have officially left Afghanistan, a political debate in Europe is raging on many political platforms. The strongest indicators that Europe is ready to proceed with an independent foreign policy agenda and European-centered military strategy became evident in the EU Defense Ministers’ meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia.

    In a position that is increasingly representing a wider EU stance, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell Fontelles, articulated the Bloc’s prevailing sentiment: “The experience from Afghanistan has shown that our inability to respond comes at a price. The EU must therefore strengthen its strategic autonomy by creating the first entry force capable of ensuring stability in the EU’s neighborhood.”

    Despite assurances that this ‘first entry force’ will not represent an alternative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but rather ‘complement’ its role, chances are this new army will serve as a stepping stone for Europe’s coveted independence from the US foreign policy agenda.

    Just marvel at these statements by top European, including British, officials and analysts to appreciate the crisis underway in NATO. Remember that 51 NATO members and partner countries had rushed to aid the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, following the invocation of the common-defense clause, Article 5.

    “Nobody asked us whether it was a good idea to leave that country in such … a way,” Johann Wadephul, a deputy caucus leader for German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, said, with reference to the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the absence of any coordination with Washington’s NATO allies.

    Former British Prime Minister, Theresa May, questioned everything, including Europe’s blind allegiance to the US: “Was our intelligence really so poor? Was our understanding of the Afghan government so weak? Was our knowledge on the ground so inadequate? Or did we just think we had to follow the United States and on a wing and a prayer it would be all right on the night?”

    Katharina Emschermann, the deputy director of the reputable Berlin-based Center for International Security at the Hertie School, seemed to speak for many European analysts when she said: “Part of the discord that we’re seeing now is probably also rooted in the sense of unease about how things are going to go on in the future.”

    This ‘unease’ refers to Europe’s traditional foreign policy, which has been hostage to post-WWII Trans-Atlantic European American partnership. However, Europe itself is changing, together with the world around it. Moreover, the Chinese economy has grown tremendously in recent years. As of last year, it was Beijing, not Washington, that served the critical role of being the EU’s largest trade partner.

    Not only has Chinese economic – thus, political and military – clout grown exponentially, Europe’s share of the global economy has shrunk significantly, and not only because of the Brexit ordeal. According to NBC news, citing the British accounting firm PwC, “in 1960, the countries that would form the E.U. made up a third of the global economy. By 2050, the bloc is projected to account for just 9 percent”.

    The growing realization among European countries that they must engineer an eventual break-up from the US is rooted in legitimate fears that the EU’s interest is hardly a top American priority. Hence, many European countries continue to resist Washington’s ultimatums regarding China.

    It was also Macron, while elaborating on the concept of the European army, who rejected the US China agenda. “We cannot accept to live in a bipolar world made up of the US and China,” he said.

    Macron’s once ‘controversial’ view is now mainstream thinking in Europe, especially as many EU policy-makers feel disowned, if not betrayed, by the US in Afghanistan. If this trajectory of mistrust continues, the first step towards the establishment of a European army could, in the near future, become an actuality.

    The post Following Afghanistan Defeat: Can EU Win Own ‘Independence’ from the US? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Suggestion to home secretary condemned as breach of UN convention on human rights

    Conservative MPs have urged the home secretary, Priti Patel, to send back immediately anyone including children who boards an illegal crossing of the Channel from France.

    They claimed the measure should be enacted because the UK needed to “up the stakes” with the French government, which has been blamed by the home secretary for failing to curb the number of migrants sailing across the channel.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • French journalist Valentin Gerdrot spent two years infiltrating the French police force to see with his own eyes the life of a front-line cop. Barry Healy reviews his book.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • A round-up of the coverage of the struggle for human rights and freedoms, from Thailand to Mexico

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Photo by Jarr1520;

    Strategy of reward and punishment

    In the newly coined so-called War on Covid, the arsenal is eclectic. There is not only science, in the form of experimental RNA vaccines hastily developed by giants of the pharmaceutical industry, but also semi-authoritarian or full-blown authoritarian government measures imposed and legally validated by declarations of states of emergencies. The panoply of edicts include mandatory face masks indoor and sometime outdoor, depending on the country; enforced or unenforced social distancing recommendations; limitation of public or even private gatherings; and more drastic measures like lock-downs and curfews.

    The crescendo of assaults on personal liberties eased up for a few months, but governments are now using, because of the spread of the Delta variant, the threats of reinstating their coercion as an insidious blackmail to force people to get vaccinated. In other words, if one has the temerity to refuse the salvation brought by Big Pharma’s vaccines, life shall be so extremely problematic and isolated as almost to make one a social pariah. In France President Macron is defining a new ideology that could be called semi-authoritarian neoliberalism, while in the Philippines neofascist Duarte is entirely blunt in his approach. Regardless, both politicians have the same goal: to get their entire population vaccinated. They use a strategy of psychological warfare based on reward and punishment, a bit similar to that used on lab mice.

    Photo by Robert Muller

    In the case of Macron, the reward for the good and fully vaccinated French citizens is that they will carry, as a badge of honor, a Pass Sanitaire. The misfits, refuseniks, pesky bad citizens who still refuse to see the light and comply, will receive punishments. These bad French apples will be deprived from travel except in their own vehicles, and from cultural events like concerts, movies and museum exhibits.

    Duarte’s fascist approach, if more brutal, is in a sense a bit more honest. It is still about manipulating his population with the rewards versus punishments principle, but there are many sticks and basically no carrots. Case in point: Duarte is seriously considering locking up in their homes those Filipinos who refuse to be vaccinated. One can only wonder what will happen to the vast homeless population in the Philippines.

    Photo by Grey Area

    Vaccines, the universal silver bullet

    Covid management styles and policies have been diverse in tone and strategies, but it seems that governments worldwide are all watching, then mimicking, at times, each other’s minor achievements to avoid major failures. Only one question is on their minds, which seems to be the universal governmental panacea, independently of ideology: how do we get the entire population vaccinated?

    In the more sophisticated media manipulation of Western democracies, the secondary questions are as follows. How do we convince the citizenry that the coercive measures put in place nearly 18 months ago, in a quasi entirely undemocratic fashion by decrees etc., were gently forced on people for their own good rather than in an attempt to avoid a global economic collapse? And further, how do we persuade them that these measures will be entirely lifted one day to go back to an almost mythological happy pre-Covid world?

    Jonathan

    In other words, how can leaders, with varying degrees of incompetence and undisclosed ties to giant global corporate interests, make people believe that they are acting for the common good rather than to avoid a global stock market crash? Altruism and the collective social good rarely guide the paths of politicians anywhere, and citizens in large numbers have finally caught on to this reality.

    People have become more doubtful about what they are told, either directly by their elected officials, or through mainstream media outlets via so-called experts charged with propagating — yes, like propaganda — the government narrative with powerful bullhorns, and sort of carpet-bombing people’s brains with a relentless coverage of the immense danger of Covid, especially the brand new Delta variant, and the great virtue of vaccines as being almost 92 percent accurate silver bullets against the pandemic.

    Unfortunately, a one-note intrusive narrative eventually has an undesired effect on a fragment of the population. This is precisely what is going on in France since Macron made the choice, which could be fatal to his political future, to jam through parliament, in the middle of the summer holidays, a law infamously called Pass Sanitaire, to blackmail French people into mandatory vaccination. Many opponents perceive it as a pass to submission, and they have decided to make their voices heard, loud and clear, in the streets. Will this movement of dissent be long lived, contagious to other countries, or ultimately twisted and hijacked for a political purpose? This is so far a question in limbo.  The large scale protests, however, were unexpected.

    Illustration by Mike Finn

    A smoke screen to mask climate collapse

    A year ago the Covid-19 pandemic accounted for about 75 percent of the media coverage across the board worldwide. This alone, if a virus could have been granted the Person of the Year award from Time Magazine, would have assured it the coveted price. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won person of the year in 2020, but if it had been Creature of the Year, SARS-CoV-2 would have won. As matter of fact, one can easily argue that without the Covid crisis, Donald Trump would have likely been reelected. In political, sociological, and economic affairs, the microorganism has been a game changer.

    So far, Covid has not been a seed of much needed social change but instead has been used as a nasty new tool for disaster capitalism to thrive by changing some fundamental economic parameters, as well as serve as a powerful device to concentrate wealth. What could be better for capitalism than to convince taxpayers that their money needs to be injected by the trillions into corporate conglomerates? Across the world, in all the COVID-19 stimulus funding schemes, the lion share went to corporations while private citizens got the crumbs. Wall Street should have crashed but didn’t, because vast amounts of public funds were pumped into the global financial markets. Airlines that were saved from bankruptcy by a Covid bail out should have been nationalized; instead Air France, for example, remained a private company with an overpaid CEO while France’s government became a bigger share holder.

    Photo by Jeanne Menjoulet

    The bait and switch worked on a global scale. It worked with the financial aspect, just like it worked in the semantic of fear. For the media, it’s all about key words. Some might have noticed that at first it was COVID-19, then it became simply Covid, but now, probably because the word’s traction is wearing off, governments or corporate-controlled outlets have switched to Delta variant. It is today’s winner in the fear factor department, and it is repeated ad nauseam. This element of constant fear has established a nice level of docility in a majority of the global population, as well as a numbing anxiety focused on the narrow topic of the pandemic, and the easy vaccine fix proposed by governments.

    The cloud of anxiety has obstructed from many the clarity that WE, as a species, face a threat much greater than a virus. How gullible many of us might be to believe that a pandemic, which so far has killed a quarter of the number of victims of the Spanish flu 100 years ago, is more of an existential threat than the unfolding climate collapse? It is pathetic and ironic for governments and their media servants to use a pandemic as a smoke screen for a much bigger problem, especially when a substantial potion of Earth is currently being consumed by fires.

    Photo by Glenn Lewis

    Last time I checked, 800 wild fires were burning in Italy, Turkey was scorched, the US northwest was still burning, Greece was baking with a 45 degree Celsius temperature, Siberia had been burning for months, and there were killer floods in Germany and China. Meanwhile, the so-called climate experts on mainstream media hardly connected these climate crisis events. They barely connected the dots between extreme weather events and catastrophic climate change by softly saying “isolated extreme weather events could be a manifestation of global climate change.” It shouldn’t be “could be” but are; it shouldn’t be “climate change” but climate crisis. The global fear of Covid is highly lucrative. By contrast a fear of climate collapse — or actually a recognition of its imminence — would lead people to reject the global capitalist system that is driving our species into the abyss. It would lead human societies away from consumption and toward zero-growth economies and population models that would deal capitalism a fatal blow.

    Photo by Ian Sanderson

    We have more or less collectively experienced, since March 2020, a life of fear and a sort of lingering collective anxiety. Fear is usually correlated with a reduction of critical thinking and greatly diminished opposition against the abuse of authority.

    The protests in France show that fear can lose ground. Citizens do not have to surrender their fundamental rights of freedom and liberty to the whim of governmental authority based on semi-valid cognitive notions, or purely arbitrary ones, at times absurd, which appear to serve an agenda foreign to the common good. Popular resistance, whatever forms it may take in France and elsewhere, is always a viable option. At critical times in history it even becomes a civic duty.

    The post Covid Fear Management Policies: Distractions from and Tests for Looming Climate Collapse first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • People can tell themselves that they didn’t see where things have been heading for the last 17 months, but they did. They saw all the signs along the way. The signs were all written in big, bold letters, some of them in scary-looking Germanic script. They read …

    “THIS IS THE ROAD TO TOTALITARIANISM.”

    I’m not going to show you all those signs out again. People like me have been pointing them out, and reading them out loud, for 17 months now. Anyone who knows anything about the history of totalitarianism, how it incrementally transforms society into a monstrous mirror image of itself, has known since the beginning what the “New Normal” is, and we have been shouting from the rooftops about it.

    We have watched as the New Normal transformed our societies into paranoid, pathologized, authoritarian dystopias where people now have to show their “papers” to see a movie or get a cup of coffee and publicly display their ideological conformity to enter a supermarket and buy their groceries.

    We have watched as the New Normal transformed the majority of the masses into hate-drunk, hysterical mobs that are openly persecuting “the Unvaccinated,” the official “Untermenschen” of the New Normal ideology.

    We have watched as the New Normal has done precisely what every totalitarian movement in history has done before it, right by the numbers. We pointed all this out, each step of the way. I’m not going to reiterate all that again.

    I am, however, going to document where we are at the moment, and how we got here … for the record, so that the people who will tell you later that they “had no clue where the trains were going” will understand why we no longer trust them, and why we regard them as cowards and collaborators, or worse.

    Yes, that’s harsh, but this is not a game. It isn’t a difference of opinion. The global-capitalist ruling establishment is implementing a new, more openly totalitarian structure of society and method of rule. They are revoking our constitutional and human rights, transferring power out of sovereign governments and democratic institutions into unaccountable global entities that have no allegiance to any nation or its people.

    That is what is happening … right now. It isn’t a TV show. It’s actually happening.

    The time for people to “wake up” is over. At this point, you either join the fight to preserve what is left of those rights, and that sovereignty, or you surrender to the “New Normal,” to global-capitalist totalitarianism. I couldn’t care less what you believe about the virus, or its mutant variants, or the experimental “vaccines.” This isn’t an abstract argument over “the science.” It is a fight … a political, ideological fight. On one side is democracy, on the other is totalitarianism. Pick a fucking side, and live with it.

    Anyway, here’s where we are at the moment, and how we got here, just the broad strokes.

    It’s August 2021, and Germany has officially banned demonstrations against the “New Normal” official ideology. Other public assemblies, like the Christopher Street Day demo, one week ago, are still allowed. The outlawing of political opposition is a classic hallmark of totalitiarian systems. It’s also a classic move by the German authorities, which will give them the pretext they need to unleash the New Normal goon squads on the demonstrators tomorrow.

    Christopher Street Day demo (Photo Credit: Der Tagesspiegel)

    In Australia, the military has been deployed to enforce total compliance with government decrees … lockdowns, mandatory public obedience rituals, etc. In other words, it is de facto martial law. This is another classic hallmark of totalitarian systems.

    In France, restaurant and other business owners who serve “the Unvaccinated” will now be imprisoned, as will, of course, “the Unvaccinated.” The scapegoating, demonizing, and segregating of “the Unvaccinated” is happening in countries all over the world. France is just an extreme example. The scapegoating, dehumanizing, and segregating of minorities — particularly the regime’s political opponents — is another classic hallmark of totalitarian systems.

    In the UK, Italy, Greece, and numerous other countries throughout the world, this pseudo-medical social-segregation system is also being introduced, in order to divide societies into “good people” (i.e., compliant) and “bad” (i.e., non-compliant). The “good people” are being given license and encouraged by the authorities and the corporate media to unleash their rage on the “the Unvaccinated,” to demand our segregation in internment camps, to openly threaten to viciously murder us. This is also a hallmark of totalitarian systems.

    And that, my friends, is where we are.

    We didn’t get here overnight. Here are just a few of the unmistakable signs along the road to totalitarianism that I have pointed out over the last 17 months.

    June 2020 … The New (Pathologized) Totalitarianism.

    August 2020 … The Invasion of the New Normals.

    October 2020 … The Covidian Cult.

    November 2020 … The Germans Are Back!

    March 2021 … The New Normal (Phase 2).

    March 2021 … The “Unvaccinated” Question.

    May 2021 … The Criminalization of Dissent.

    June 2021 … Manufacturing New Normal “Reality.

    And now, here we are, where we have been heading all along, clearly, unmistakably heading … directly into The Approaching Storm, or possibly global civil war. This isn’t the end of the road to totalitarianism, but I’m pretty sure we are in the home stretch. It feels like things are about to get ugly. Very ugly. Extremely ugly. Those of us who are fighting to preserve our rights, and some basic semblance of democracy, are outnumbered, but we haven’t had our final say yet … and there are millions of us, and we are wide awake.

    So pick a side, if you haven’t already. But, before you do, maybe look back at the history of totalitarian systems, which, for some reason, never seem to work out for the totalitarians, at least not in the long run. I’m not a professional philosopher or anything, but I suspect that might have something to do with some people’s inextinguishable desire for freedom, and our willingness to fight for it, sometimes to the death.

    This kind of feels like one of those times.

    Sorry for going all “Braveheart” on you, but I’m psyching myself up to go get the snot beat out of me by the New Normal goon squads tomorrow, so I’m a little … you know, overly emotional.

    Seriously, though, pick a side … now … or a side will be picked for you.

    The post The Road to Totalitarianism first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    French President Emmanuel Macron said this week that Paris owed “a debt” to French Polynesia over nuclear tests conducted in the South Pacific territory between 1966 and 1996, but stopped short of apologising, reports France 24.

    “I want truth and transparency,” Macron said in a speech to Polynesian officials during his first formal trip to the territory, adding that there should be better compensation for victims of the tests.

    “The nation owes a debt to French Polynesia. This debt is from having conducted these tests, in particular those between 1966 and 1974.”

    The legacy of French testing in the territory remains a source of deep resentment and is seen as evidence of racist colonial attitudes that disregarded the lives of locals.

    The 193 tests were conducted from 1966 to 1996 as France developed nuclear weapons.

    Officials denied any cover-up of radiation exposure earlier this month after French investigative website Disclose reported in March that the impact from the fallout was far more extensive than authorities had acknowledged, citing declassified French military documents.

    Macron echoed the sentiments in his remarks on Tuesday.

    “I want to tell you clearly that the military who carried them out did not lie to you. They took the same risks… There were no lies, there were risks that weren’t calculated, including by the military.”

    “I think it’s true that we would not have done the same tests in La Creuse or in Brittany,” he said, referring to regions inside France.

    Macron says France owes “a debt” to French Polynesia

    Calls for apology
    Ahead of Macron’s four-day visit, residents in the sprawling archipelago of more than 100 islands were hoping that Macron would apologise and announce compensation for radiation victims.

    Only 63 Polynesian civilians have been compensated for radiation exposure since the tests ended in 1996, Disclose said, estimating that more than 100,000 people may have been contaminated in total, with leukaemia, lymphoma and other cancers rife.

    “We’re expecting an apology from the president,” Auguste Uebe-Carlson, head of the 193 Association of victims of nuclear tests, said ahead of Macron’s visit.

    “Just as he has recognised as a crime the colonisation that took place in Algeria, we also expect him to declare that it was criminal and that it is a form of colonisation linked to nuclear power here in the Pacific.”

    Meeting Macron on Tuesday on the island of Moorea, Lena Lenormand, the vice-president of the association, renewed the call.

    ‘Urgent demands’
    “There are urgent demands, people who are suffering. We’re asking you to own what the state did to these Polynesian people, for an apology and real support,” she told Macron.

    “We can’t help but think that you are at the end of your term, so words are one thing, but afterwards, what will be done concretely?” she told Macron.

    In response, Macron said he was “committed to changing things” regarding compensation.

    “I’ve heard you, and I’ve heard what you are asking of me, and you will see my response.”

    In his speech, Macron said that since his election in 2017, there had been progress in compensation claims, but he admitted that it was not enough and said the deadline for filing claims would be extended.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • 5 Mins Read After months of debate, France has approved a new climate law to slash its carbon emissions. Here, we take a closer look.

    The post France Just Passed a New Climate Law. Here’s the Good and the Bad. appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.