Category: Militarism

  • A new report by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has revealed that UK arms exports nearly doubled in 2022 to £8.5bn. This is the highest level of Single Issue Export Licences (SIELs) since records began. CAAT said its report should be a moment for political parties to reflect on Britain’s role in fuelling global conflict – however, the Labour Party is unlikely to heed CAAT’s concerns.

    UK arms exports: dealing in repression and violence

    In 2022, the number of people killed globally in war or conflict reached a 28-year high, at 237,000 people. The UK government plays a role in this, as Britain supplies weapons to some of these conflicts. For example, as the Guardian reported:

    At least 87 civilians were killed by airstrikes from the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen using weapons supplied by the UK and US between January 2021 and February 2022

    Now, CAAT has released its latest report into UK arms exports – and it makes for grim reading. You can read the full report by downloading it here. The group said in a press release that, while much of the information it based the report on is publicly available, the UK government still needs to enforce:

    a greater level of transparency… to ensure companies are compelled to provide accurate data on the financial values and quantities of actual transfers.

    The report shows that the highest levels of arms exports were to countries with repressive regimes and poor human rights records. It states that:

    • The largest recipient of SIELs by value was Qatar, at £2.7 billion, mostly from the licence for the delivery of 24 Typhoon combat aircraft issued in May. Eight aircraft were delivered in 2022.
    • The second largest recipient was Saudi Arabia at £1.1billion, mostly missiles and components for bombs.

    Regarding Saudi Arabia, the report further detailed that:

    The UK supplied £1.1b worth of air-air missiles, air-surface missiles, and components for bombs to Saudi Arabia in 2022, thus replenishing its arsenal following the heavy use of such weapons in the devastating Saudi-led war in Yemen.

    Then, CAAT found that, of the larger volumes of licences:

    The next three were the USA (£860m, including large amounts of small arms), Türkiye (£424m, mostly a £250m licence for technology for tanks and armoured vehicles), and Ukraine (£401m).

    The report noted that the £401m worth of SIELs to Ukraine did not include equipment the UK government gifted to the country.

    Overall, CAAT’s report made clear where most of the UK’s SIELs allowed military equipment to be sent to: the Middle East:

    SIEL values by region

    CAAT: various concerns

    CAAT said in a press release that:

    Ukraine is also cited as a country of concern in the report due to the UK government not putting any measures in place to safeguard weapons when the conflict ends. This is in contrast to the EU and the US, both of which have additional regulatory mechanisms in place to address end user concerns in Ukraine.

    Small arms sales to the US are also highlighted as problematic due to a licence issued for 28,500 sniper rifles for a commercial end user. This raises concerns that weapons exported by the UK could contribute to gun violence, or be smuggled to Mexico and Central America where a large proportion of the guns used by criminal gangs originate from the US.

    Then, the report also looked at the UK’s major conventional weapons (MCW) dealings. These are things like aircraft, missiles, and ships – but not small arms and light weapons like guns or bullets. CAAT found that:

    • The largest recipients of UK exports of MCW over 2018-22 were the USA (20.4%), Qatar (16%), Saudi Arabia (7.6%), India (6.9%), and Ukraine (6.3%).
    • Of the rest, 14.9% were to other Asia Pacific countries, 10.6% to other countries in Europe, 10.2% to South America, 7.0% to others in the Middle East, and 0.2% to Africa.

    Britain: complicit in ‘appalling human rights violations’

    CAAT’s media coordinator and former Canary editor Emily Apple stated:

    The Annual Report gives a clear picture of how the UK is complicit in fuelling conflict around the world. Billions of pounds of arms are exported to dictatorial, or near-dictatorial regimes that commit appalling human rights violations with a disturbing lack of transparency.

    As we move closer towards a general election, it is vital that all political parties take CAAT’s recommendations seriously and commit to taking urgent action over these deadly sales.

    Of course, the general election will make little difference to the UK’s fuelling of conflict around the world. The Labour Party under Keir Starmer is now as militaristic as the Tories are. So, while CAAT’s report is crucial, whether or not it will make a difference to UK policy remains to be seen.

    Featured image via Flickr/Alisdare Hickson, resized to 770×403 under licence CC BY 2.0

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Can you imagine that after my generation either was pushed into the Vietnam phony war or pushed into the streets to get us out, we have arrived at this, this ****? Bad enough that less than twenty years later we twice destroyed and invaded Iraq (occupying it the second round), destroyed much of Afghanistan, and then set our sights on the rest of the Middle East. Let’s look at what the rigged system has given us since 1980:

    The crème de la crème had to then be Dutch Reagan, informer for the HUAC ( House Un-American Activities Committee) and friend of the California Super Rich Mafia. Already going senile, Reagan actually used the moniker that Trump later stole: MAGA (Make America Great Again) to convince many Two Party/One Party suckers… sorry, voters, to make him the quintessential front man for the Super Rich corporate predators. While his wife’s war on drugs was going on, the CIA, handled by his VP and former CIA boss Bush #1, was making sure plenty of crack cocaine was flowing into the US, especially Southern California. Ronnie baby meanwhile made sure the super rich got lower tax rates as the nation saw less and less private sector unions. The great illusion was when states passed the contradictory Right to Work laws, which meant having to work with NO union to protect you. None!

    Reagan did his job, which meant acting like a commercial pitchman (which he knew from experience) and napping while Bush #1 ran the corporation… sorry, the country. Then, when Governor and Democratic Party presidential candidate Michael Dukakis wore that silly helmet while foolishly riding on top of a tank as his numbers dissipated, we got Bush #1. He was there when the Deep State wanted to punish Saddam Hussein for not staying on his side of the reservation and getting too big for his britches. So, Saddam became Hitler and the Brits and us destroyed Iraq with the asinine “Coalition of the Willing… to do Uncle Sam’s bidding” with mostly our firepower. One surmises that the economy under #1 was enough to turn off the suckers… sorry, voters. Even the yellow ribbon BS on this Wag the Dog phony war (Go and get that film by Barry Levinson) could not save the day. So, we got Mr. Bill….

    If there was ever a professional bullshit artist better than Billy Clinton, show me! This guy could BS his way out of any scrap. “I did not inhale,” is as good as it gets. The funny thing is that he did what the professional card players call a tell. They can read a person’s hand by how he or she gestures or looks. Books have been written on that skill in reading body language. Well, Billy boy would tell while having a conversation by giving a “shit eating grin” or pausing before finishing a thought. You could just know this guy was about to BS, and did he! “I did NOT have sex with that woman!” Gold, pure gold.

    Bush #2 or Junior as his dad referred to him, was a true piece of work. This spoiled frat boy who supported our phony war in Vietnam while conveniently using #2’s influence to fly with the Texas Air National Guard. For you novices on history out there, during the 60s and 70s the last military personnel to ever get sent overseas into any hornet’s nest was our National Guard and Reserves. You would need an attack by North Vietnam on our shores to see those guys in action. After all his personal peccadilloes and failures as a (so called) businessman, Junior got to work for the Texas Rangers. Bush #1 sure did have lots of friends. Then, after a failed attempt at Congress, the Super Rich Texas Deep State got Junior into the governor’s mansion. From there, with the help of an army of right wing movers and shakers, Junior became President… in name only. They made sure Tricky Dick Cheney would run things as his Veep. The increasing suspicions as to what really went down on 9/11 led Junior to sign off on War on Iraq 2, to perhaps wash some of that **** away from the public’s attention. Junior became the idiot emperor who just didn’t have any clothes. He ruled MoronAmerika during the absolute worst foreign policy maneuver our nation has ever made.

    The damage that the Bush/Cheney Cabal had done just opened the door to the need for “Hope and Change.” Enter Barack Hussein Obama, advertised as a true activist for progressive change. He was handled so well by the Democratic Party movers and shakers that mega millions of suckers… sorry, voters, put this guy into the Oval Office. His greatest foreign policy maneuver was to increase drone missile attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan by tenfold of what the Cheney/Bush Cabal did. How many innocent civilians happened to be near where the **** happened is a tragedy in itself. Barack also continued the bailout AKA gift to the Wall Street banksters on the taxpayer’s dime. He was the reverse front man to Reagan’s own servitude to the Super Rich.

    What can one say about The Trumpster that hasn’t been covered by serious researchers? Put it this way: If we were back in the days of the Old West, The Donald would have been the epitome of the con man pushing his medicinal remedies from the back of a wagon. He took the (rightful) anger of millions of working stiffs (mostly white, by the way) and mesmerized them with his populist rhetoric. A man who stood up to his knees in the Deep State **** his whole career convinced them that he was anointed to save them. The real twist is that most of them still follow his tune right over the cliffs of reason.

    Finally, we have Lunchbox Joe, who they now have to guide to and from the podium. This guy was always a piece of work his entire career. He helped break the railroad workers strike and then had the audacity to stand on the picket line with auto workers. Biden destroyed Anita Hill 32 years ago when she told the world the truth about Clarence Thomas. Biden also supported the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq in ’03. Before that he supported Billy Boy’s welfare reform bill, which took us back closer to the Gilded Age. Now, he follows the orders of the Deep State and keeps sending our tax dollars down the rabbit hole in support of a Neo Nazi infiltrated Ukraine. Read my lips: If they run this guy again he will lose… even to a crook like Trump.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

    ― Frédéric Bastiat, French economist

    Pay no heed to the circus politics coming out of Washington DC. It’s just more of the same grandstanding by tone-deaf politicians oblivious to the plight of the citizenry.

    Don’t allow yourselves to be distracted by the competing news headlines cataloging the antics of the ruling classes. While they are full of sound and fury, they are utterly lacking in substance.

    Tune out the blaring noise of meaningless babble. It is intended to drown out the very real menace of a government which is consumed with squeezing every last penny out of the population.

    Focus instead on the steady march of the police state at both the national, state and local levels, and the essential freedoms that are being trampled underfoot in its single-minded pursuit of power.

    While the overt and costly signs of the despotism exercised by the increasingly authoritarian regime that passes itself off as the United States government are all around us—warrantless surveillance of Americans’ private phone and email conversations by the FBI, NSA, etc.; SWAT team raids of Americans’ homes; shootings of unarmed citizens by police; harsh punishments meted out to schoolchildren in the name of zero tolerance; drones taking to the skies domestically; endless wars; out-of-control spending; militarized police; roadside strip searches; privatized prisons with a profit incentive for jailing Americans; fusion centers that collect and disseminate data on Americans’ private transactions; and militarized agencies with stockpiles of ammunition, to name some of the most appalling—you rarely hear anything about them from the politicians, the corporations or the news media.

    So what’s behind the blackout of real news?

    Surely, if properly disclosed and consistently reported on, the sheer volume of the government’s activities, which undermine the Constitution and dance close to the edge of outright illegality, would give rise to a sea change in how business is conducted in our seats of power.

    Yet when we’re being bombarded with wall-to-wall news coverage and news cycles that change every few days, it’s difficult to stay focused on one thing—namely, holding the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law—and the powers-that-be understand this.

    As with most things, if you want to know the real motives behind any government program, follow the money trail.

    When you dig down far enough, you quickly find that those who profit from Americans being surveilled, fined, scanned, searched, probed, tasered, arrested and imprisoned are none other than the police who arrest them, the courts which try them, the prisons which incarcerate them, and the corporations, which manufacture the weapons, equipment and prisons used by the American police state.

    These injustices, petty tyrannies and overt acts of hostility are being carried out in the name of the national good—against the interests of individuals, society and ultimately our freedoms—by an elite class of government officials working in partnership with megacorporations that are largely insulated from the ill effects of their actions.

    Everywhere you go, everything you do, and every which way you look, we’re getting swindled, cheated, conned, robbed, raided, pickpocketed, mugged, deceived, defrauded, double-crossed and fleeced by governmental and corporate shareholders of the American police state out to make a profit at taxpayer expense.

    Not only are Americans forced to spend more on taxes than the annual financial burdens of food, education and clothing combined, but we’re also being played as easy marks by hustlers bearing the imprimatur of the government.

    Examples of this legalized, profits-over-people, government-sanctioned extortion abound.

    On the roads: Not satisfied with merely padding their budgets by issuing speeding tickets, police departments have turned to asset forfeiture and speeding and red light camera schemes as a means of growing their profits. Despite revelations of corruption, collusion and fraud, these money-making scams have been being inflicted on unsuspecting drivers by revenue-hungry municipalities. Now legislators are hoping to get in on the profit sharing by imposing a vehicle miles-traveled tax, which would charge drivers for each mile behind the wheel.

    In the prisons: States now have quotas to meet for how many Americans go to jail. Increasing numbers of states have contracted to keep their prisons at 90% to 100% capacity. This profit-driven form of mass punishment has, in turn, given rise to a $70 billion private prison industry that relies on the complicity of state governments to keep the money flowing and their privately run prisons full, “regardless of whether crime was rising or falling.” As Mother Jones reports, “private prison companies have supported and helped write … laws that drive up prison populations. Their livelihoods depend on towns, cities, and states sending more people to prison and keeping them there.” Private prisons are also doling out harsher punishments for infractions by inmates in order to keep them locked up longer in order to “boost profits” at taxpayer expense. All the while, prisoners are being forced to provide cheap labor for private corporations. No wonder the United States has one of the largest prison populations in the world.

    In the schools: The public schools have become a microcosm of the total surveillance state which currently dominates America, adopting a host of surveillance technologies, including video cameras, finger and palm scanners, iris scanners, as well as RFID and GPS tracking devices, to keep constant watch over their student bodies. Likewise, the military industrial complex with its military weapons, metal detectors, and weapons of compliance such as tasers has succeeded in transforming the schools—at great taxpayer expense and personal profit—into quasi-prisons. Rounding things out are school truancy laws, which come disguised as well-meaning attempts to resolve attendance issues in the schools but in truth are nothing less than stealth maneuvers aimed at enriching school districts and court systems alike through excessive fines and jail sentences for “unauthorized” absences. Curiously, none of these efforts seem to have succeeded in making the schools any safer.

    In the endless wars abroad: Fueled by the profit-driven military industrial complex, the government’s endless wars are wreaking havoc on our communities, our budget and our police forces. Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government officials, America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $93 million per hour. Future wars and military exercises waged around the globe are expected to push the total bill upwards of $12 trillion by 2053. Talk about fiscally irresponsible: the U.S. government is spending money it doesn’t have on a military empire it can’t afford. War spending is bankrupting America.

    In the form of militarized police: The Department of Homeland Security routinely hands out six-figure grants to enable local municipalities to purchase military-style vehicles, as well as a veritable war chest of weaponry, ranging from tactical vests, bomb-disarming robots, assault weapons and combat uniforms. This rise in military equipment purchases funded by the DHS has, according to analysts Andrew Becker and G.W. Schulz, “paralleled an apparent increase in local SWAT teams.” The end result? An explosive growth in the use of SWAT teams for otherwise routine police matters, an increased tendency on the part of police to shoot first and ask questions later, and an overall mindset within police forces that they are at war—and the citizenry are the enemy combatants. Over 80,000 SWAT team raids are conducted on American homes and businesses each year. Moreover, government-funded military-style training drills continue to take place in cities across the country.

    In profit-driven schemes such as asset forfeiture: Under the guise of fighting the war on drugs, government agents (usually the police) have been given broad leeway to seize billions of dollars’ worth of private property (money, cars, TVs, etc.) they “suspect” may be connected to criminal activity. Then—and here’s the kicker—whether or not any crime is actually proven to have taken place, the government keeps the citizen’s property, often divvying it up with the local police who did the initial seizure. The police have actually being trained in seminars on how to seize the “goodies” that are on police departments’ wish lists. According to the New York Times, seized monies have been used by police to “pay for sports tickets, office parties, a home security system and a $90,000 sports car.”

    By the security industrial complex: We’re being spied on by a domestic army of government snitches, spies and techno-warriors. In the so-called name of “precrime,” this government of Peeping Toms is watching everything we do, reading everything we write, listening to everything we say, and monitoring everything we spend. Beware of what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, and with whom you communicate, because it is all being recorded, stored, and catalogued, and will be used against you eventually, at a time and place of the government’s choosing. This far-reaching surveillance, carried out with the complicity of the Corporate State, has paved the way for an omnipresent, militarized fourth branch of government—the Surveillance State—that came into being without any electoral mandate or constitutional referendum. That doesn’t even touch on the government’s bold forays into biometric surveillance as a means of identifying and tracking the American people from birth to death.

    By a government addicted to power: It’s a given that you can always count on the government to take advantage of a crisis, legitimate or manufactured. Emboldened by the citizenry’s inattention and willingness to tolerate its abuses, the government has weaponized one national crisis after another in order to expand its powers. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands. Now that the government has gotten a taste for flexing its police state powers by way of a bevy of COVID-19 lockdowns, mandates, restrictions, contact tracing programs, heightened surveillance, censorship, overcriminalization, etc., “we the people” may well find ourselves burdened with a Nanny State inclined to use its draconian pandemic powers to protect us from ourselves.

    This perverse mixture of government authoritarianism and corporate profits has increased the reach of the state into our private lives while also adding a profit motive into the mix. And, as always, it’s we the people, we the taxpayers, we the gullible voters who keep getting taken for a ride by politicians eager to promise us the world on a plate.

    This is a far cry from how a representative government is supposed to operate.

    Indeed, it has been a long time since we could claim to be the masters of our own lives. Rather, we are now the subjects of a militarized, corporate empire in which the vast majority of the citizenry work their hands to the bone for the benefit of a privileged few.

    Adding injury to the ongoing insult of having our tax dollars misused and our so-called representatives bought and paid for by the moneyed elite, the government then turns around and uses the money we earn with our blood, sweat and tears to target, imprison and entrap us, in the form of militarized police, surveillance cameras, private prisons, license plate readers, drones, and cell phone tracking technology.

    With every new tax, fine, fee and law adopted by our so-called representatives, the yoke around the neck of the average American seems to tighten just a little bit more.

    All of those nefarious deeds by government officials that you hear about every day: those are your tax dollars at work.

    It’s your money that allows for government agents to spy on your emails, your phone calls, your text messages, and your movements. It’s your money that allows out-of-control police officers to burst into innocent people’s homes, or probe and strip search motorists on the side of the road. And it’s your money that leads to Americans across the country being prosecuted for innocuous activities such as growing vegetable gardens in their front yards or daring to speak their truth to their elected officials.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, this is not freedom, America.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Things did not go so well this time around. When the worn Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy turned up banging on the doors of Washington’s powerful on September 21, he found fewer open hearts and an increasingly large number of closed wallets. The old ogre of national self-interest seemed to be presiding and was in no mood to look upon the desperate leader with sweet acceptance.

    Last December, Zelensky and Ukrainian officials did not have to go far in hearing endorsements and encouragement in their efforts battling Moscow’s armies. The visit of the Ukrainian president, as White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated at the time, “will underscore the United States’ steadfast commitment to supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes, including through provision of economic, humanitarian and military assistance.”

    Republican Senator from Utah, Mitt Romney, was bubbly with enthusiasm for the Ukrainian leader. “He’s a national and global hero – I’m delighted to be able to hear from him.” Media pack members such as the Associated Press scrambled for stretched parallels in history’s record, noting another mendicant who had previously appeared in Washington to seek backing. “The moment was Dec. 22, 1941, as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill landed near Washington to meet President Franklin D. Rosevelt just weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor.”

    Then House Speaker, the California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, also drew on the Churchillian theme with a fetishist’s relish. “Eighty-one years later this week, it is particularly poignant for me to be present when another heroic leader addresses the Congress in time of war – and with Democracy itself on the line,” she wrote colleagues in a letter.

    Zelenskyy, not wishing to state the obvious, suggested a different approach to the question of aiding Ukraine. While not necessarily an attentive student of US history, any briefings given to him should have been mindful of a strand in US politics sympathetic to isolationism and suspicious of foreign leaders demanding largesse and aid in fighting wars.

    How, then, to get around this problem? Focus on clumsy, if clear metaphors of free enterprise. “Your money is not charity,” he stated at the time, cleverly using the sort of corporate language that would find an audience among military-minded shareholders. “It’s an investment in global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way.” Certainly, Ukrainian aid has been a mighty boon for the US military-industrial complex, whose puppeteering strings continue to work their black magic on the Hill.

    Despite such a show, the number of those believing in the wisdom of such an investment is shrinking. “In a US capital that has undergone an ideological shift since he was last here just before Christmas 2022,” remarked Stephen Collinson of CNN, “it now takes more than quoting President Franklin Roosevelt and drawing allusions to 9/11, to woo lawmakers.”

    Among the investors, Republicans are shrinking more rapidly than the Democrats. An August CNN poll found a majority in the country – 55% – firmly against further funding for Ukraine. Along party lines, 71% of Republicans are steadfastly opposed, while 62% of Democrats would be satisfied with additional funding.

    Kentucky Republican and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell continues to claim that funding Ukraine is a sensibly bloody strategy that preserves American lives while harming Russian interests. “Helping Ukraine retake its territory means weakening – weakening – one of America’s biggest strategic adversaries without firing a shot.”

    The same cannot be said about the likes of Kentucky’s Republican Senator Rand Paul. While Zelenskyy was trying to make a good impression on the Hill, the senator was having none of it. “I will oppose any effort to hold the federal government hostage for Ukraine funding. I will not consent to expedited passage of any spending measure that provides any more US aid to Ukraine.”

    In The American Conservative, Paul warned that, “With no end in sight, it looks increasingly likely that Ukraine will be yet another endless quagmire funded by the American taxpayer.” President Joe Biden’s administration had “failed to articulate a clear strategy or objective in this war, and Ukraine’s long-awaited counter-offensive has failed to make meaningful gains in the east.”

    Such a quagmire was also proving jittering in its dangers. There was the prospect of miscalculation and bungling that could pit US forces directly against the Russian army. There were also no “effective oversight mechanisms” regarding the funding that has found its way into Kyiv’s pockets. “Unfortunately, corruption runs deep in Ukraine, and there’s plenty of evidence that it has run rampant since Russia’s invasion.” The Zelenskyy government, he also noted in a separate post, had “banned the political parties, they’ve invaded churches, they’ve arrested priests, so no, it isn’t a democracy, it’s a corrupt regime.”

    Republicans such as Missouri Senator Josh Hawley are of the view that the US should be slaying different monsters of a more threatening variety. (Every imperium needs its formidable adversaries.) The administration, he argued, should “take the lead on China” and reassure its “European allies” that Washington would be providing “the nuclear umbrella in Europe”.

    On September 30, with yet another government shutdown looming in Washington, the US House approved a bill for funding till mid-November by a 335-91 vote. But the measure did not include additional military or humanitarian aid to Ukraine. In August, the Biden administration had requested a $24 billion package for Ukraine but was met with a significantly skimmed total of $6.1 billion. Of that amount $1.5 billion is earmarked for the Ukrainian Security Assistance Initiative, a measure that continues to delight US arms manufacturers by enabling the Pentagon to place contracts on their behalf to build weapons for Kyiv.

    The limited funding measure proved a source of extreme agitation to the clarion callers who have linked battering the Russian bear, if only through a flawed surrogate, with the cause of US freedom. “I am deeply disappointed that this continuing resolution did not include further aid for our ally, Ukraine,” huffed Maryland Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer. “In September, the House held seven votes to approve that vital funding to Ukraine. Each time, more than 300 House Members voted in favor. This ought to be a nonpartisan issue and ought to have been addressed in the continuing resolution today.”

    As Hoyer and those on his pro-war wing of politics are starting to realise, Ukraine, as an issue, is becoming problematically partisan and ripe. The filling in Zelenskyy’s cap is inexorably thinning and lightening.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Ukrainian troops surrendering en masse – TASS
  • Last month CNN published a poll revealing 55% of people surveyed in the United States do not support spending more money on the Ukraine war. A tone-deaf White House responded by requesting another $24 billion, mostly for weapons and military training that would bring the Ukraine war tab for US taxpayers to nearly $140 billion.

    CODEPINK, a member of the Peace in Ukraine Coalition that represents over 100 anti-war organizations, is committed to raising up the majority opinion that the U.S. needs to stop fueling this war. We condemn the illegal Russian invasion but we believe that this conflict has no military solution, only stalled counter-offensives, random drone attacks and profound heartache for the families losing their loved ones, their homes and their livelihoods.

    That’s why we are participating in the Global Days of Action for Peace in Ukraine, Sept. 30-October 8th, joining with others in the United States and Europe to march, protest, petition, vigil, banner  and push our elected officials to publicly advocate for a mutual ceasefire, peace negotiations and weapons freeze.

    The call for Global Days of Action emerged from last June’s International Summit for Peace in Ukraine, held in Vienna, Austria and attended by representatives from 32 countries, including Italy where tens of thousands marched in Rome last year to end funding for the war. The Summit produced a declaration urging “leaders in all countries to act in support of an immediate ceasefire and negotiations to end the war in Ukraine” and calling on civil society globally to mobilize.

    In this country, events to end the Russia-Ukraine-NATO war are slated for Washington DC, New York City, Albany, Brooklyn, Boston, Milwaukee, Madison, Philadelphia, Portland, Hilo, San Francisco, Seattle, Burlington, Rockville and other locations.

    To host an event, sign up here. To join an event, click here.

    The Peace in Ukraine Coalition, which includes CODEPINK, Veterans for Peace, DSA-International, World Beyond War, RootsAction, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom-US, Massachusetts Peace Action, Brooklyn for Peace and others, invites all peace-loving people to join us in DC and become a member of our coalition.

    On Tuesday, October 3, we will host a DC rally with professor Dr. Cornel West, People’s Forum Co-Executive Director Claudia De la Cruz, CODEPINK Co-founder Medea Benjamin, journalist Eugene Puryear, and comedian/podcaster Lee Camp. You can join us in person in Washington or join us online here as we broadcast a livestream! 

    The following day, Wednesday, October 4, we will organize in the halls of Congress to hand deliver this “No more weapons!” petition and dialogue with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as other senators who represent constituents traveling to DC.

    If you’re in or around DC, join us for Advocacy Day.

    The answer to the war in Ukraine is not more cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions or nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets but a willingness to embrace a diplomatic solution, such as the 15-point peace plan that was drafted by both sides in April 2022 but squashed by Western powers.

    While the majority of congresspeople in both parties have ignored public opinion and refuse to call for negotiations, some members of the Republican party have voted against more funds for the war, have called for an audit to follow the billions spent on this war, and have pressed the Biden administration to report on its efforts to seek a diplomatic path. Unfortunately, not one Democrat or Independent in Congress has been willing to join any of these efforts.

    Instead, high-profile Democrats and Senate Armed Services Committee members, such as Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)  and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), flew to Kyiv to shake hands with Ukraine President Zelensky and promise an endless stream of US tax dollars to continue fueling this war.

    Even Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), whose Presidential campaigns were supported by anti-war activists, has quietly gone along with the war funding. In championing workers rights and health care initiatives, he fails to point out that the billions spent on the Ukraine war could be used to address urgent domestic needs instead of lining the pockets of military contractors.

    He also disregards his own critique, right before the war began, about the dangers of NATO expansion, the West’s refusal to acknowledge Russia’s security interests, and the pressing need for dialogue.

    That’s why a contingent from Vermont is requesting a face-to-face meeting with Senator Sanders in DC to ask him point-blank, “Why aren’t you speaking out for a diplomatic solution to end this war?”

    As we face a war marked by intense suffering and environmental devastation in Ukraine, increasing hunger in Africa, and growing fears of a nuclear catastrophe, it is urgent we promote a ceasefire and negotiations. Join us.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Nearly 3000 people have fled Nagorno-Karabakh, a region inside Azerbaijan, for neighbouring Armenia. The refugees fled after Azerbaijan carried out military operations in the area on 20 September.

    Ethnic Armenians fleeing Azerbaijan

    According to a statement from the Armenian government, published by Russian state media, more than 2900 refugees had entered Armenia by 25 September. Agence France-Presse (AFP) had previously witnessed several hundred refugees entering the country, most of whom were women and children.

    This came after a day-long military operation by Azerbaijan in the separatist region of Nagorno-Karabakh on 20 September. The region’s rights ombudsman, Gegham Stepanyan, said on social media at the time that Azerbaijan killed 200 people and wounded a further 400. Amongst them were 10 civilians, including five children.

    Laurence Broers of the Chatham House think tank wrote on Twitter that the attack:

    follows nine months of (Azerbaijan) blocking access to the territory, a blockade that grew in severity since mid-June.

    Meanwhile, Azerbaijan claimed it was carrying out an “anti-terrorist” campaign in Nagorno-Karabakh.

    Exploiting the global situation

    As a result of Azerbaijan’s successful attack, Armenian separatists agreed to lay down arms. The surrender was part of a ceasefire brokered by Russia.

    Azerbaijan has made the most of a favourable political climate to launch its attack. It has the strong support of NATO member Turkey. Meanwhile, Russia – the traditional heavyweight in the area, and Armenia’s ally – is busy with its war in Ukraine. However, it is worth noting that Russia has also previously supplied large amounts of arms to both Azerbaijan and Armenia.

    At the same time, the EU signed a gas supply agreement with Azerbaijan in 2022 as part of an attempt to reduce dependence on Russian gas.

    On the other side of the border, in Azerbaijani settlements such as Terter and Beylagan, locals celebrated their government’s victory over Nagorno-Karabakh. State television played music paying tribute to the nation and its army. Flags and portraits of dozens of local “martyrs”, who died fighting during the previous 30 year-conflict between the two nations, lined the roads.

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via AFP News Agency/YouTube

    By Glen Black

  • Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

    Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

    The South and East China Seas are among China’s major security concerns in its neighborhood. Despite this, the US still hypes up competition with China in these regions to cover up the tendency of its hegemonic expansion.

    The US Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently published a report which pointed out that the South China Sea in the past 10 to 15 years has become the arena of US-China strategic competition, while actions by China’s maritime forces at the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea are another concern for US observers. “Chinese domination of China’s near-seas region… could substantially affect US strategic, political, and economic interests in the Indo-Pacific region and elsewhere,” said the CRS report.

    The South and East China Seas hold different strategic positions for China and the US. On one hand, as China’s military strength has rapidly progressed, the Chinese navy no longer prioritizes near-shore defense. Instead, it actively and comprehensively seeks to safeguard China’s sovereignty and security in these waters. China’s activities in the South and East China Seas are among the first indications of its rise as a global power.

    On the other hand, the South and East China Seas are at the forefront of US hegemonic power. Despite being geographically distant from these waters, the US still perceives China’s near-seas region as a place to show off its military presence and political influence due to the pervasive nature of the US global hegemony. This situation is unlikely to change unless the US hegemonic strategy collapses.

    It is evident that the situation in the South and East China Seas has become complicated over the years. Experts told the Global Times that Washington is the biggest driver of the intensifying China-US competition in these regions, noting the US deliberately creates problems in these regions for its own interests. In other words, the US aims to showcase the strength of its hegemony, while simultaneously containing China’s development through its Indo-Pacific Strategy.

    Managing the China-US competition in those regions has become an urgent yet difficult task. When China’s growing determination to protect its national security encounters the US’ pursuit for global hegemony in the South and East China Seas, a collision can easily occur. The US will do anything to make sure its needs override China’s, leading to the emergence of more confrontations and future deterioration of bilateral relations.

    The intense strategic competition between Beijing and Washington in China’s near-seas region may also affect policymaking in the US. The CRS is a major congressional think tank under the Library of Congress that serves members of Congress and their committees. Its recent report is obviously intended to clarify congressional responsibilities in the China-US strategic competition in the South and East China Seas, so that Congress can better help Washington gain an advantage over Beijing.

    The US Congress has passed bills to institutionalize anti-China activities, which in itself will lead to further tensions in the bilateral relationship. This year, the South China Sea and East China Sea Sanctions Act of 2023 has already been introduced in the Senate; we cannot rule out the possibility that Congress may use more legislative resources against China’s development.

    But from a strategic point of view, the US actually hopes China’s neighbors in the South and East China Seas to fight Beijing at the forefront, while the US provides strategic support from behind. The question is, as Washington’s sinister intentions of exploiting its allies and partners become increasingly prominent, how many countries will be willing to pay for US hegemonic strategy?

    In the face of the US’ intense competition with China in China’s neighboring waters, China should, on one hand, strive for a more favorable international environment through diplomatic means to ensure a long-term peaceful and stable surrounding environment conducive to its development.

    On the other hand, the country should not neglect the development of its hard power, including military capabilities. During critical moments, China must demonstrate its determination through action to safeguard national sovereignty, security, and interests, making it clear to those who provoke that there is no room for maneuver when it comes to issues involving China’s red line.

  • Many have noted that the indictments of Trump ring of lawfare by the Biden administration. Donald Trump has now been indicted four times, and in blatant overkill, now faces 91 criminal charges. In New York alone  he was hit with 34 felonies for the payments to Stormy Daniels. Trump also faces felony charges for claiming the 2020 election was the byproduct of fraud and then seeking to invalidate the outcome of that election through allegedly unlawful means.

    These criminal cases rest on the assumption that Trump knew his claims of election fraud were false, making his actions to overturn the election an illegal conspiracy. However, what anti-Trumpers declare disinformation is what Trumpers and others consider their First Amendment free speech right to speak the truth. So far, the US has no official 1984-style Ministry of Truth or “science” that declares what is misinformation – though Biden sought to create one with the Nina Jankowicz Disinformation Governance Board.

    Trump challenged the election results in some states and asked officials there to find evidence of fraud. Later he asked Vice President Pence to reject the Electors from those states. A candidate in any election has the right to challenge the vote count. The Constitution presents some procedures for doing this, which Trump followed.

    Yet, in 2000, 2004, and particularly in 2016, when Democrats lost the election, they also challenged the final vote. The US clearly has undemocratic presidential elections, where winning the popular vote does not mean you win the election, a consequence of the Constitution giving us no right to vote for president.

    In 2000, the Supreme Court did intervene to stop the recount of votes for president in Florida that would have made Al Gore the president. In 2004, Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer and others objected to certifying the Ohio elector votes for Bush, which would make him the victor. In 2016, after the Hillary Clinton-CIA-FBI Russia collusion hoax – the biggest national security state hoax since their WMDs in Iraq – had failed to stop Trump, Democratic activists tried to convince electors to switch their votes from Trump. Two did. Some even received death threats if they voted for Trump. No one was charged with obstructing an official proceeding in either case.

    Trump stands accused of violating the Espionage Act, treason, by possessing classified documents in his private mansion – something we know Biden did as Vice President and Clinton did as Secretary of State. Trump – unlike Biden or Clinton at the time – was President of the United States, the highest official of the Executive Branch of the government. Even the American Bar Association states the President has “broad authority to formally declassify most documents.”

    Glenn Greenwald asked:

    What is it that Donald Trump did exactly that was illegal? He definitely sued in court multiple times and lost, which is absolutely his right to do. He told Mike Pence what he heard from his lawyers was Mike Pence’s ability to do, even if it wasn’t, which was act as that vice presidential role and reject as certified results, ones that he regarded had evidence of fraud and send them back to the states. He arranged for an alternative state of electors to be ready to be anointed in the event he could prove that there was a fraud. But what about this is criminal? Which of these steps is illegal?

    In Georgia state court Trump was charged with 13 felony conspiracy counts under their RICO anti-racketeering law used against mobsters. The law makes everyone who did anything as part of the conspiracy a full member of the criminal ring and equally responsible for crimes committed by others, as long as they were committed as part of the conspiracy. The prosecutor outlandishly claimed this conspiracy began one day after the 2020 election, when Trump gave a speech saying he won. This is criminalizing our First Amendment free speech rights.

    National Security State Lawfare to Fix 2024 Election for Biden

    The Biden administration is using the Department of Justice to eliminate his only serious challenger in the presidential race. This lawfare election fixing is unprecedented in US history, though presidents have been “elected” in underhanded ways, as in 1824, 1876, 1960, 2000. Even more ominously, this lawfare is being engineered by the national security state. They have opposed Trump since he first condemned US wars in the Middle East during the 2016 Republican primary debates, and called out the national security state hoax of weapons of mass destruction to instigate the war on Iraq.

    It now looks like the 2024 presidential election will not be decided by our vote, but by the national security state intervening beforehand to remove Biden’s most formidable challenger.

    Trump could have brought the same charges against Biden in 2020, when Biden, years after no longer holding a government position, had secret documents in his house. However, there would have been national outrage and popular mobilizations against “fascism” if Trump’s Department of Justice had indicted Biden for treason in the run-up to the election. But today, progressive people either approve of lawfare against Trump, or are silent.

    In 2020, during the Black Lives Matter mass protests, people called for defunding the police and prison network, and regarded prosecutors as covering for police brutality. Now, the left and liberals champion the prosecutors of Trump, not questioning their credibility. Greenwald noted, “They really have come to be a political movement that reveres institutions of power because they regard them as being their political allies.”

    Voters for Democrats now Trust the FBI and CIA

    A Gallup poll a year ago, before the indictments of Trump corroborates this: 79% of Democrat voters say the FBI is doing an excellent or good job; only 29% of Republican voters do. And 69% of Democratic voters say the CIA is doing a good job; only 38% of Republican voters do. We live in a different era from what we grew up in, even 20 years ago at the start of Bush’s war on Iraq. Now most Democrats like the CIA and FBI and most Republicans don’t. Now all the Democrats in Congress vote to continually fund the war in Ukraine, while only Republicans vote against.

    It’s a bygone era when Republicans were the war hawks and a wing of the Democrats were pro-peace. Unfortunately most leftists and progressives still live in that era.

    Today many who want to defend free speech, stop endless war, stop censorship, oppose the “deep state,” find a hearing with Trump Republicans, while the Democrats have become advocates of war and state censorship.

    Lawfare Indictments against Trump will be directed against us

    These lawfare charges to remove Trump from the presidential race, presented by the national security police agencies along with the Democratic Party and neo-con Republicans, will be used against viable future third parties. They will be a threat to our constitutional rights and our ability to organize against the 1%. Already, in part thanks to the absence of progressive outcry, the RICO law prosecution of Trump in Georgia is used against Stop Cop City protestors in Atlanta.

    We should protest the indictments against Trump and the harsh criminal sentences against his January 6 supporters because if the left would ever move off the sidelines and become a force, they will be subject to similar prosecutions, only in an even more draconian way. Working class forces who effectively take on the bosses will suffer the same treatment.

    McCarthyism of the Left

    Unfortunately, anti-Trump sentiment infects and blinds much of the left milieu. Very few oppose these national security police state attacks on Trump or the lawfare manipulation of the 2024 election. We protest the New York Times’ McCarthyite attack on anti-war activists, but McCarthyism also exists in the left, where people are baited, and fear being baited – not as Reds, but as Trump supporters often simply for not condemning him enough. Consequently, they either participate in Trumper-baiting themselves or are intimidated into not standing up to it. This left McCarthyism is widespread and functions to push people towards voting for the supposed “lesser evil” Democratic Party and towards defending the actions of the national security police state.

    We see this left McCarthyism with cheering the harsh sentences of January 6 defendants, most of who were non-violent. We see it in progressives’ not demanding answers for what the 100-200 undercover FBI and other police agency undercover agents in the crowd were actually doing that day. We see it in their not demanding answers about what the federal agents who had infiltrated the Proud Boys and other groups months before January 6 actually knew of January 6 plans. Stewart Rhodes, leader of the Oath Keepers, was in regular contact with the Secret Service for months prior to January 6. We see it in progressives’ failure to question the reasons behind the deliberate lack of defense of the Capitol. We see it in progressives not standing up for Rhodes and Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who were non-violent on January 6, and did not even enter the Capitol, but were given 18 and 22 years for a charge often used against radicals: “seditious conspiracy.” These sentences are precedents that will be used against us. But left McCarthyism, fear of being baited as soft on Trump, makes progressives keep their mouths shut.

    Unfortunately, as the Democratic Party shifted far to the right, and now is in open collusion with the FBI and CIA, becoming increasingly owned by the national security state, more and more of the left has capitulated to the identity politics ideology of that Party and the belief that it represents the “lesser evil” to Trump “fascism.” How far this left will degenerate, and how long until there is a national reaction to national security state fixing the 2024 election is unclear. The left is digging themselves into a hole, and giving the police state the opportunity to cover them up when they try to get out of it.

  • The Tory-led UK government has revealed that it invited eight countries it considers to be human rights abusers to the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair at the ExCeL centre in London. Accordingly, people have been protesting – making their objections to these death dealers clear.

    DSEI: protests continue

    The Canary has been covering this year’s DSEI. As we previously reported:

    It’s a huge arms fair that hosts over 2,800 companies profiting from death, destruction, and surveillance. DSEI happens every two years – and so do the protests to it. Stop The Arms Fair (STAF) has been organising resistance. So far, it’s held a peace walk, a workshop on removing militarisation from education, and a ‘policing and prisons’ day

    Then, on Monday 11 September, protests took place outside BAE Systems – one of the most notorious arms companies on the planet:

    There was also a poster campaign, spreading information:

    Activists then held a vigil to remember all the victims of war:

    On the fair’s opening day, Tuesday 12 September, protesters made sure that the arms dealers attending couldn’t miss the resistance to them and their industry:

    The Tories courting human rights abusers

    Meanwhile, also on 12 September, the Tory government published a list of countries it had invited to the arms fair. Unsurprisingly, eight states are on the UK government’s own list of ‘human rights priority’ countries:

    • Bangladesh
    • Colombia
    • Egypt
    • Iraq
    • Pakistan
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Turkmenistan
    • Uzbekistan

    So, as part of the protests against DSEI, people have been demonstrating outside the UK Defence and Security Exports office:

    Of course, the UK government’s definition of a human-rights-abusing state is itself entirely inadequate. Other notorious countries attending DSEI but who don’t make the government watch-list include:

    As the Canary previously reported, over 40 Israeli arms companies have stands at this year’s DSEI. Independent media outlet Declassified UK managed to get into DSEI. It found the Israel’s Ministry of Defense had its own stand:

    ‘Utter disdain for human rights’

    Campaign Against the Arms Trade’s (CAAT’s) media coordinator – and former Canary editor – Emily Apple said in a statement:

    The list of countries invited to this year’s DSEI shows this government’s utter disdain for human rights around the world. These invited delegates will be wined and dined and encouraged to buy yet more weapons to wage wars across their borders and to repress their civilian populations at home. It makes a mockery of the Foreign Office publishing a list of human rights priority countries when the same government pulls out all the stops to sell them as many arms as possible.

    DSEI is a marketplace in death and destruction. It has nothing to do with peace and security, and only exists to maximise the profits of arms dealers.

    The UK government’s willingness to invite human rights-abusing states to DSEI raises huge questions about how we function as a country. So, with just a few days left of DSEI, protests are set to continue at the ExCeL centre and beyond.

    Feature image via CAAT

    By Steve Topple

  • It all tallies.  War, investments and returns.  The dividends, solid, though the effort expended – at least by others – awful and bloody.  While a certain narrative in US politics continues in the vein of traditional cant and hustling ceremony regarding the Ukraine War – “noble freedom fighters, we salute you!” twinned with “Russian aggressors will be defeated” – there are the inadvertently honest ones let things slip.  A subsidised war pays, especially when it is fought by others.

    The latter narrative has been something of a retort, an attempt to deter a growing wobbling sentiment in the US about continuing support for Ukraine.  In a Brookings study published in April, evidence of wearying was detected. “A plurality of Americans, 46%, said the United States should stay the course in supporting Ukraine for only one to two years, compared with 38% who said the United States should stay the course for as long as it takes.”

    In early August, a CNN survey found that 51% of respondents believed that Washington had done enough to halt Russian military aggression in Ukraine, with 45% approving of additional funding to the war effort.  A breakdown of the figures on ideological grounds revealed that additional funding is supported by 69% of liberals, 44% of moderates and 31% of conservatives.  In Congress, opposition to greater, ongoing spending is growing among the Republicans, reflecting increasing concern among GOP voters that too much is being done to prop up Kyiv.

    Such a mood has been anticipated by number crunching types keen to reduce human life to an adjustable unit on a spreadsheet.  The Centre for European Policy Analysis, for example, suggested that a “cost-benefit analysis” would be useful regarding US support for Ukraine.  “It’s producing wins at almost every level,” came the confident assessment.  In spectacularly vulgar language, the centre notes that, “from numerous perspectives, when viewed from a bang-per-buck perspective, US and Western support for Ukraine is an incredibly cost-effective investment.”

    War-intoxicated Democrats would do well to remind their Republican colleagues about such wins, notably to those great patriots known as the US Arms Industry.  Aid packages to Ukraine, while dressed up as noble, democratic efforts to ameliorate a suffering country’s position vis-à-vis Russia, are much more than that.

    In May 2022, for instance, President Joe Biden signed a bill providing Kyiv $40.1 billion in emergency funding, split between $24.6 for military programs, and $15.5 billion for non-military objects.  Even then, it was clear that one group would prove the greatest beneficiary.  Stephen Semler of the Security Policy Reform Institute was unequivocal: US military contractors.

    Of the package, rich rewards amounting to $17.3 billion would flow to such contractors, comprising goods, be they in terms of weapons and equipment, or services in the form of training, logistics and intelligence.  “It allows the Biden administration,” writes Semler, “to continue escalating the United States’ military involvement in the war as the administration appears increasingly disinterested in bringing it to an end through diplomacy.”

    Broadly speaking, the US military-industrial complex continues to gorge and merely getting larger.  Whatever the outcome of this war – talk of absolute victory or defeat being the stuff of dangerous fantasy –   it remains the true beneficiary, the sole victor fed by new markets and opportunities.  Former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, now vice president of the Toledo Center for Peace, had to concede that the  US arms industry was the “one clear winner” in this bloody tangle.

    The addition of new member states to NATO, in this case Finland and Sweden, will, Ben Ami suggests, “open up a big new market for US defence contractors, because the alliance’s interoperability rule would bind them to American-made defence systems.”  The evidence is already there, with Finland’s order of 64 new F-35 strike fighters developed by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems.  The Ukraine War has been nothing short of lucrative in that regard.

    Such expansion also comes with another benefit.  The interoperability requirement in the NATO scheme acts as a bar to any alternatives.  “The market for their goods is expanding,” writes Jon Markman for Forbes, “and they will face no competition for the foreseeable future.”

    It should come as little surprise that the US defence contractors have been banging the drum for NATO enlargement from the late 1990s on.  While a good number of those in the US diplomatic stable feared the consequences of an aggressive membership drive, those in the business of making and selling arms would have none of it.  The end of the Cold War necessitated a search for new horizons in selling instruments of death. And with each new NATO member – Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic – the contracts came.  Washington and the defence contractors, twinned with purpose, pursued the agenda with gusto.

    In 1997, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin was awake to that fact in hearings of the Senate Appropriations Committee on the cost of NATO enlargement.  He was particularly concerned by a fatuous remark by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright comparing NATO’s expansion with the economic Marshall plan implemented in the aftermath of the Second World War.  “My fear is that NATO expansion will not be a Marshall plan to bring stability and democracy to the newly freed European nations but, rather, a Marshall plan for defense contractors who are chomping [sic] at the bit to sell weapons and make profits.”

    The moral here from the US military-industrial complex is: stay the course.  The returns are worth it.  And in such a calculus, concepts such as freedom and democracy can be commodified and budgeted.  As for Ukrainian suffering?  Well, let it continue.

    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

  • As Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) sets up at the ExCeL centre in London, activists have begun resisting it. Not far behind them are the cops – with nine arrests already, even before this notorious arms fair begins properly.

    DSEI arms fair: dealing in death

    The Canary has been documenting the build-up to this year’s DSEI, an arms fair which happens every two years – as do the protests against it. As former Canary editor Emily Apple previously wrote:

    supported by the UK government, and organised by Clarion Events – DSEI is a massive event for arms dealers. One of its primary functions is to allow arms companies to network with representatives from some of the world’s most repressive regimes. Companies will encourage delegates from human-rights-abusing nations such as BahrainQatarTurkey, and Saudi Arabia to buy the latest weapons to suppress their own populations and/or to wage war against others.

    There is no pretense. DSEI exists to connect buyers and sellers. It exists to make deals that will devastate people’s lives.

    So, as DSEI began to set up on Tuesday 5 September, activists started resisting it. For example, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) held a “vigil”. It was over arms manufacturers and governments selling weapons to the apartheid state of Israel – which it then uses to kill Palestinians:

    PSC said in a statement that the vigil and its attendees:

    condemned the presence of Israeli military officials and Israeli arms companies, which develop and use weapons in violence against Palestinians, before selling them as ‘battle-tested’ to other states. This year alone, Israel has killed over 200 Palestinians across the occupied Palestinian territory, including in military invasions, bombing campaigns, and assassinations.

    Vigil attendees joined calls for London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, who has previously stated his opposition to the fair, to act to bring a halt to the event. Protesters also turned their fire on the British government, which helps organise the event through the Ministry of Defence and UK Defence and Security Exports, part of the Department for International Trade.

    Then, on Wednesday 6 September, people held a “peace walk” – plus a workshop on removing militarisation from education also went on:

    However, while all these events passed off without incident, that wasn’t the case on Thursday 7 September.

    Faith Day is met with cops

    It was Faith Day outside DSEI – where people of all denominations (and none) come together to call for peace, and denounce militarisation (and the arms fair).

    People congregated on the road leading into the ExCeL to sing and stop vehicles entering it:

    Historically, Faith Day has been a flashpoint at DSEI protests. In 2019, cops arrested over 30 Quakers. Apple previously reported:

    Quakers were sitting in silence – a key part of their act of worship – when police officers began moving through the crowd to warn people they could be arrested if they didn’t move.

    Head of worship & witness for Quakers in Britain Oliver Robertson spoke to an inspector about the decision to move the police in while this was taking place. He expressed his “disappointment” in the police’s actions and that:

    “it’s a spiritual endeavour. It’s the same as in the middle of a church service”.

    The inspector apologised and said they:

    “will take that as a learning point”.

    Clearly, cops haven’t learned – as they arrested nine people during Faith Day this year:

    ‘Stop the deals before they take place’

    Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) told the Canary:

    On Thursday, people of all faiths and none put their bodies in the way of this trade in death and destruction. The religious services held at the gates were powerful testaments to people’s commitment to the principles of their faith and the need to act against this deadly trade.

    Deals done at DSEI will cause misery across the world, causing global instability, and devastating people’s lives. Representatives from regimes such as Saudi Arabia, who have used UK-made weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen, will be wined and dined and encouraged to buy yet more arms.

    Arms dealers do not care about peace or security. They care about perpetuating conflict, because conflict increases profits for their shareholders. Meanwhile this government has shown repeatedly that it cares more about the money made from dodgy deals with dictators than it does about the people whose lives will be ruined by the sales made at DSEI.

    War starts with the deals done at the ExCeL centre. Campaigners are showing that we have the power to stop those deals before they take place.

    All this is before DSEI has actually even begun. On Saturday 9 September, Stop The Arms Fair has organised its Festival of Resistance – an event which has in the past seen widespread disproportionate policing. So, in the coming days expect more heavy-handedness from cops, amid more protests from people committed to stopping DSEI.

    Featured image via CAAT

    By Steve Topple

  • Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) is one of the world’s largest arms fairs. It’s taking place at the ExCeL Centre in London between 12 and 15 September. The biannual event is always met with resistance from campaign groups and activists, who are then equally met by heavy-handed treatment by the cops. Already, it looks like this year will be no different – as police targeted activists before anything had even begun.

    DSEI: stop the arms fair

    As the Canary previously reported, DSEI takes place every two years. Thousands of arms dealers and defence and security suppliers gather at the ExCeL centre to court repressive regimes:

    This year, over 2,800 defence and security suppliers will be courting deals. However, every time DSEI takes place, activists also descend on the ExCeL centre and its locality to protest it. Stop the Arms Fair (STAF) organises the resistance – and the Canary has repeatedly reported on this bi-annual horror show.

    This year, protests began on 5 September and will run for two weeks:

    The group Campaign Against The Arms Trade (CAAT) has already made camp outside the ExCeL Centre:

    During the first week, activists will target the setting up of the arms fair. However, police are already disrupting protesters’ right to go about their business.

    Cops already targeting activists

    For example, as campaign group the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) wrote on X (formerly Twitter):

    Police refused to allow the delivery of portable toilets to the protest camp saying it’s private property – even though campaigners have permission for them and it’s really none of the police’s business. The usual petty restrictions on the right to demonstrate, in other words

    Moreover, cops have already been following CAAT activists – even before they reached the ExCeL centre:

    Campaigners have suffered from excessive and violent policing at previous DSEIs. This has included cops using blanket stop-and-search powers, making arrests, disproportionate surveillance, harassment, and deploying spycops. Previous DSEI protests have also shown the institutional and systemic racism that is rife in the police. Protests by marginalised communities faced excessive police violence and harassment.

    Former Canary editor Emily Apple, in her capacity as CAAT’s media coordinator, told us:

    Time and again at DSEI we’ve seen the police protect the arms dealers, and repress our right to protest against this abhorrent fair. DSEI is a marketplace in death and destruction with deals done at the ExCeL centre causing global misery and devastating people’s lives.

    Representatives from regimes such as Saudi Arabia, who have used UK-made weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen, will be wined and dined and encouraged to buy yet more arms.

    Arms dealers do not care about peace or security because conflict increases profits for their shareholders. Meanwhile this government has shown repeatedly that it cares more about the money made from dodgy deals with dictators than it does about the people whose lives will be ruined by the sales made at DSEI.

    Yet despite the violence perpetrated inside the ExCeL centre, the police view protesters as the problem, not arms dealers. But this year we’re also sending the police a message. You will be watched and you will be held accountable for repressive policing.

    Cat and mouse policing

    Netpol will be central to the monitoring of police at the arms fair. It’s already made it clear it wants to hear from any activists targeted by cops:

    The group’s campaigns coordinator Kevin Blowe told the Canary :

    There is often a huge gulf between police promises to “respect human rights” at protests and campaigners’ experiences of aggressive policing, racial profiling, intrusive police surveillance and mistreatment at the hands of officers.

    This year’s opposition to the DSEi arms fair, however, is taking place in the aftermath of a growing state intolerance towards protesters and increasingly restrictive anti-protest legislation. Not all the new powers given to the police are in place yet, but the Home Secretary has decided that the definition of “serious disruption” means anything causing more than a minor hindrance, and Netpol believes this is more likely to lead to arrests in the week before the arms fair begins, when in previous years the ExCeL centre has been blockaded by demonstrators.

    It is already easier for the police to impose strict conditions on a demonstrations, but we do not yet know if the Metropolitan Police will become the first to make arrests for the new criminal offences of locking-on and going equipped to lock-on. These offences target the methods by which disruption might potentially take place, rather than focusing on the actual degree of disruption a protest could lead to.

    Netpol believe new police powers exist primarily to further criminalise the right to dissent and to intimidate people into not joining protest movements that the police recognise are likely to grow. That is why we are monitoring the impact of policing on the right to freedom of assembly during DSEI and are urging campaigners to tell us about their experiences.

    Bear in mind that this was on the first day when cops followed activists, and blocked the entry of their toilets. With STAF organising numerous events, including a ‘Festival of Resistance’ on Saturday 9 September, the police response is likely to be more disproportionate than ever. Saturday’s event has historically seen the most repressive policing. Not that this will deter activists – it never did in previous years.

    Featured image via CAAT

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The government has now appointed Grant Shapps as defence secretary following Ben Wallace‘s resignation yesterday – and even some Tories are upset with the choice of “Rent-a-Minister” Schapps, a man who’s had five different cabinet roles in the past 12 months alone.

    ‘He fucked the railways, now he’ll fuck the country’

    Wallace stepped down as defence minister on 31 August, having committed to doing so back in July. In his letter, Wallace wrote that he wanted to:

    invest in the parts of life that I have neglected, and to explore new opportunities.

    With Wallace gone, prime minister Rishi Sunak drafted in Shapps for his fifth cabinet role in the past year. The decision was immediately met with a combination of humour and horror, including Green Party MP Caroline Lucas describing the new defence secretary as a “Rent-a-Minister”:

    These comments are not undeserved. Not only does Shapps’ rapid revolving-door career bring his knowledge of any specific department into question, but he also has a record of questionable decisions and outright failures.

    Fake names and secret pay deals

    Shapps’ mishaps run from the minor to the massive. Most famously, he used a number of pseudonyms to continue running a web marketing business banned by Google after being elected as an MP. He denied the claims for years until the Guardian exposed him in March 2015. He was the Conservative Party chair at the time.

    This scandal led to Shapps’ reappointment as minister for international development. He was in this post for less than a year before resigning due to another scandal. The Guardian reported in November 2015 that Schapps:

    resigned from the government in disgrace in the wake of revelations that he had been warned about bullying in the party before the death of one of its young activists.

    In 2018, Labour called for an inquiry into Shapps because of his position in cryptocurrency firm OpenBrix, when he was just an MP. The Financial Times had uncovered a “secret pay deal” that saw OpenBrix planning to pay Shapps in tokens worth around £170,000. Despite that, the MP had registered his association with the company as “unpaid”.

    The then-transport secretary was also caught up in the ‘VIP lanes’ scandals during the Covid-19 pandemic. Shapps referred Eyespace Eyewear through the government’s high-priority lane for PPE equipment, subsequently winning a £1.4m contract. It turned out the company is owned by one of Shapps’ constituents, though the MP denied any knowledge of that.

    Not every mistake was a headline-grabber, though. Shapps has managed to fuck up in lots of small ways too. In June, the Canary reported on his avoidance of a parliamentary debate on the environmental impact of fossil fuels. He was energy secretary at the time. Meanwhile, in August last year, as transport minister, he was apparently unable to read a train timetable. And he even managed to go on holiday to Spain in August 2020 despite knowing the UK government was about to impose travel quarantine rules.

    These are, of course, just some of Shapps’ many fuckups.

    Shapps: encyclopedia salesman

    Shapps hasn’t won many people over, as even Tories came out against Sunak’s appointment of him as defence secretary. According to Sky News, one Tory MP said:

    Shapps is such an uninspired choice as defence secretary. This man… only cares about photos and gimmicky press releases. What a wasted opportunity by Rishi, who could have appointed somebody of substance.

    While another unnamed MP said:

    He sold encyclopedias. It’s a joke given that we’re at war.

    The presenter clarified that, in fact, it is Ukraine at war and the UK is “assisting them”.

    While Shapps’ rent-a-minister reputation can seem ridiculous to the public, it’s catnip to many at the top of the party. The man has shown himself willing to roll over to protect colleagues, such as during the 2015 suicide scandal when Shapps said his resignation meant the “buck should stop” with him. As the Daily Express admiringly proclaimed, Shapps is a minister “willing to get his hands dirty wherver [sic] and whenever necessary”.

    Let’s face it, Shapps’ legacy of mishaps and bullshit can’t make him much worse than any other Tory senior minister right now. Those fawning over Wallace are choosing to blinker themselves to his own dodgy history, including his involvement in an expenses scandal and a bizarre lashing-out at anti-hunting activists.

    What Sunak’s appointment of Shapps does show, though, is that the Tory party has run out of ideas. A general election is looming and Sunak’s desperately trying to keep everything together. However, if Shapps’ history is anything to go by, he’ll soon be helping bring the party down even further.

    Featured image via UK Government/Flickr

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The United States is gunning for war with China. By cozying up to Taiwan and arming it to the teeth, President Joe Biden is undermining the “One China” policy which has been the cornerstone of U.S.-China relations since 1979. The Biden administration is enlisting South Korea and Japan to encircle China. The U.S. military is conducting provocative military maneuvers that exacerbate the conflict in…

    Source

  • A judge has acquitted two Palestine Action activists after they blockade the entrance to a drone engine-making factory that supplies Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest privately owned arms company. Crucially, the judge let them off using a precedent of proportionately versus what they were protesting – that is, the pair’s actions were reasonable compared to what the drones would have done in the Occupied Territories.

    Palestine Action: blockading Elbit subsidiary UAV Engines

    Back in September 2022, Jasmine and Iola were protesting at UAV Engines Ltd, which is owned by Elbit Systems. This was part of an ongoing activist camp at the site in Shenstone. UAV specialises in making engines for combat drones. Palestine Action said in a press release that:

    Elbit openly market these as ‘battle-tested’ on the Palestinian population. The Hermes 450 aircraft has been used to surveil and attack the people of Gaza for over a decade, decimating thousands of lives.

    UAV Engines also manufactures parts for the Watchkeeper drone. The UK government uses this to surveil migrants seeking refuge here. This is despite attempts by the company, and the government, to deny that the Israeli military uses UAV Engines’ products. However, an Information Commission Office investigation revealed that UAV Engines holds a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with the Israeli military, stopping it from saying it supplies them.

    So, it’s of little wonder Palestine Action targeted the factory. As the group said on its website, on 7 September 2022 activists blocked the gates of the UAV Engines factory with two cars, forcing the factory to close for a day. The group added that:

    The activists behind the wheel threw paint and quickly initiated lock-ons, preventing removal of themselves and the vehicles from the location and leaving operations halted at UAV Engines.

    Using, then setting, a precedent?

    Predictably, cops eventually arrested ten activists including Jasmine and Iola. However, after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) looked at the case, it gave notices of ‘no further action’, meaning no criminal charges would be brought against them:

    However, UAV Engines reviewed this decision, which led to the CPS reversing its decision and subsequently charging the two. Their trial at Walsall Magistrates Court lasted two days, starting on 29 August. Both defendants gave evidence of crimes committed against the Palestinian people by the targeted arms factory. Clearly, the judge found Jasmine and Iola’s arguments compelling.

    On Wednesday 30 August, a judge found Jasmine and Iola not guilty of ‘obstruction of the highway’. The ruling was based on the principle of proportionality. This was established in the 2021 Supreme Court case of DPP v Ziegler. So, Jasmine and Iola were acquitted as, according to Palestine Action:

    the judge found their action was proportionate in comparison to the crimes against humanity which they were acting to stop.

    With further trials of Palestine Action activists coming up, the judge’s use of this precedent could prove crucial in future outcomes.

    Feature image via Martin Pope/Palestine Action 

    By Steve Topple

  • Campaigners are getting ready to resist Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI), one of the world’s largest arms fairs.

    DSEI: courting human rights-abusing nations

    DSEI is taking place at the ExCeL centre in London between 12 and 15 September. As Emily Apple previously reported for the Canary:

    Taking place every two years – supported by the UK government, and organised by Clarion Events – DSEI is a massive event for arms dealers. One of its primary functions is to allow arms companies to network with representatives from some of the world’s most repressive regimes. Companies will encourage delegates from human-rights-abusing nations such as BahrainQatarTurkey, and Saudi Arabia to buy the latest weapons to suppress their own populations and/or to wage war against others.

    There is no pretense. DSEI exists to connect buyers and sellers. It exists to make deals that will devastate people’s lives.

    This year, over 2,800 defence and security suppliers will be courting deals. However, every time DSEI takes place, activists also descend on the ExCeL centre and its locality to protest it. Stop the Arms Fair (STAF) organises the resistance – and the Canary has repeatedly reported on this bi-annual horror show.  As we reported in 2017:

    Demonstrations happened throughout the week, with people performing ‘lock ons’ to lorries, blockading roads and camping out. Groups working alongside STAF included legal observers from Green and Black Cross, the Network for Police Monitoring (NetPol) and the British Quakers.

    That year, STAF organised a ‘Carnival of Resistance’. However, as is usually the case, the protests and events were marred by over-the-top and heavy-handed policing from the cops:

    DSEI Five

    In 2019, cops arrested over 110 people – including Canary journalists. Then, in 2021, resistance to DSEI was strong again. So, 2023’s arms fair looks set to be against a similar backdrop of protest.

    ‘Shut this arms fair down for good’

    This year, protests will begin on Monday 4 September, lasting for two weeks. The first week will target the setting up of the arms fair. STAF is coordinating the fortnight of resistance, with other groups organising specific events or days. These days will highlight the intersections of the arms trade and the different areas and communities it impacts, including migrant justice, arms sales to Israel, the climate crisis, policing and prisons, and more. You can find a full lost of STAF’s events here:

    Former Canary journalist Emily Apple is Campaign Against Arms Trade’s media coordinator. She said:

    DSEI is a marketplace in death and destruction. Deals done at DSEI will cause misery across the world, causing global instability, and devastating people’s lives. Representatives from regimes such as Saudi Arabia, who have used UK-made weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen, will be wined and dined and encouraged to buy yet more arms.

    Arms dealers do not care about peace or security. They care about perpetuating conflict, because conflict increases profits for their shareholders. Meanwhile this government has shown repeatedly that it cares more about the money made from dodgy deals with dictators than it does about the people whose lives will be ruined by the sales made at DSEI.

    It’s therefore down to all of us to take action to resist DSEI and to shut this arms fair down for good.

    The events will include a ‘Festival of Resistance’ on Saturday 9 September. STAF says this will be:

    A day of music and mayhem. A day for the creative celebration of all our resistance… If you’re a performer, a singer, a clown or a just down funny guy and you’d like to share your skills and celebrate our resistance, reach out.

    The Canary will be covering this year’s resistance to DSEI, as we have always done. It is crucial that STAF’s organising is supported – as DSEI is a microcosm of the violence the colonial capitalist system metes out.

    Featured image and additional images via the Canary 

    By Steve Topple

  • New Electoral Commission figures show that Labour Party membership has fallen by tens of thousands over the past two years. At the same time, its total income has skyrocketed. There’s only one reason for this, and nowhere is it more evident than at its annual conference.

    Labour’s income is a dead giveaway

    On 24 August, the Electoral Commission published the accounting figures of Britain’s political parties for the year to 31 December 2022. It revealed that the Labour Party took more than £47m over the year, equating to nearly half of the £99.9m income across 18 of 19 large parties in the country. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party took just £30m.

    This isn’t in itself surprising news. The Labour Party’s income topped the Tories last year too. However, it was paired with another piece of crucial news: that membership had once again fallen. The Guardian said membership had dropped by nearly 25,000 since 2021, to a total of 407,445. Party membership showed its most recent peak in 2019, at 532,046.

    The Electoral Commission’s breakdown of the numbers shows party membership remained the highest single contributor, with donations a close second. However, it also showed that the balance is tipping away from membership and trade unions towards private donations and companies.

    All of this means Labour is now drawing on a smaller but more affluent audience to fund its activities – and its party conference this year makes that clear.

    Arms, spies and fossil fuels

    A day before the Electoral Commission published its figures, OpenDemocracy reported on the sponsors for the Labour conference’s fringe events.

    Partners and sponsors for this year’s New Statesman Media Group’s (NSMG) programme include arms manufacturers Babcock and Boeing, defence contractor Northrop Grumman, CIA-linked intelligence firm Palantir, and a range of fossil fuel companies – including Cadent, National Gas, and Offshore Energies UK.

    OpenDemocracy said that:

    The party has been slammed for playing host to these industries by environmental groups and anti-weapon groups, who call the sponsorships “disgusting and disappointing.” Its own MP Clive Lewis has also questioned why Labour is “cosying up” to some of the organisations involved.

    Several of these companies also sponsored NSMG’s 2022 fringe event, including Babcock, Cadent, and Offshore Energies UK.

    People on social media were similarly scathing, including rapper Lowkey, who used the news to draw a connection between the current Labour Party and that of former leader Tony Blair:

    Prem Sikka, Labour peer and former advisor to Jeremy Corbyn, questioned leader Keir Starmer‘s intentions:

    A range of campaign groups were likewise appalled by the news:

    Votes don’t win election, money does

    It’s important to be clear that these companies aren’t sponsoring the conference directly. They are sponsoring NSMG’s fringe event. However, the New Statesman has a long-running cosy relationship with Labour’s right wing. OpenDemocacy reported that NSMG billed a partnership with the media company as:

    an opportunity to “showcase your brand, generate leads, nurture relationships,” with “policy makers and politicians.”

    However, they also reveal how the corporate capture of the Labour Party is ramping up just in time for the next general election. Another example can be seen in Judy Botterill, Labour candidate for Ossett and Denby Dale, West Yorkshire. People on social media quickly pointed out she was a lobbyist for Yorkshire Water, which has massively polluted the region’s water.

    Combine that with Starmer’s special relationship with Rupert Murdoch and it’s clear which way ‘left wing’ politics is heading. The next election might bring a Labour government, but it isn’t likely to be one that will act in the interests of the people.

    Featured image via Labour Party/YouTube

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A total of 62 humanitarian aid workers have died this year around the world, the UN has said. The statistic arrived as the UN prepared to mark 20 years since a devastating attack on its headquarters in Baghdad.

    Dozens of aid workers are killed every year

    Each year, the UN observes World Humanitarian Day on 19 August, the date that the suicide bombing in Baghdad claimed 22 lives including Sergio Vieira de Mello. He was the UN high commissioner for human rights and head of the UN mission in Iraq at the time. Another 150 aid workers were injured.

    Besides the 62 deaths in the world’s conflict zones this year, another 84 aid workers were wounded and 34 were kidnapped. Consulting firm Humanitarian Outcomes compiles the figures. it then presents them in the Aid Worker Security Database. The fatality figure for all of 2022 was 116.

    For several years running South Sudan has been the world’s most dangerous place for aid workers. As of 10 August 2023, there had been 40 attacks on humanitarian staffers there, with 22 lives lost.

    Next on the list was Sudan to the north. Aid workers there experienced 17 attacks and 19 deaths so far this year. Such high figures had not been seen since the Darfur conflict from 2006 to 2009.

    Other countries where humanitarian workers died include the Central African Republic, Mali, Somalia, Ukraine, and Yemen.

    UN: attacks a ‘scar on our collective consciousness’

    Organisations including Doctors of the World, Action Against Hunger, and Handicap International compiled a report on the issue of violence against aid workers. It stated that:

    The risks we face are beyond human comprehension

    Every year more than 90% of the people who die in attacks on aid workers are locals, according to the International NGO Safety Organization.

    This year World Humanitarian Day marked 20 years since the bombing in Baghdad against the Canal Hotel. The building was serving as the UN headquarters in the Iraqi capital.

    UN’s humanitarian chief, Martin Griffiths, said:

    World Humanitarian Day and the Canal Hotel bombing will always be an occasion of mixed and still raw emotions for me and many others

    Every year, nearly six times more aid workers are killed in the line of duty than were killed on that dark day in Baghdad, and they are overwhelmingly local aid workers

    Impunity for these crimes is a scar on our collective conscience.

    As upheavals around the world have grown, the UN says it is working to help nearly 250 million people living in crisis areas. That is 10 times more than in 2003.

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via NARA & DVDIS Public Domain Archive

    By The Canary

  • Preventing extinction of species is a major concern of many countries in the world today. Legislation to accomplish this is usually based on an endangered species list. Such a list should include any animal or plant species that has been deemed likely to go extinct in a few generations. Listing would normally trigger protective actions to increase the population size of the dwindling species; these include introducing them to unoccupied suitable habitats and measures that would increase birth rates or decrease death rates. Unfortunately, one important species at risk in today’s world does not have a small population size or an endangered designation in any country. This is understandable, since the traditional actions to increase population size would likely speed, rather than delaying the species’ extinction.

    The species in question is Homo sapiens, as the title has already revealed. Humans are not on any country’s endangered species list, even though many well-qualified analysts believe that extinction could easily occur in the coming few decades (1-2 human generations). Human collapse or disappearance is certainly more likely if the global political scene does not change dramatically and soon. Experts generally agree on the two most likely mechanisms underlying potential human extinction: (1) continued or increased greenhouse gas emissions; (2) nuclear war. Noam Chomsky (among many others) has repeatedly warned of these dual risks in recent years. Both mechanisms are promoted by increases in the human population size. One important consequence of either mechanism is that it will lead to the collateral extinction of a huge number of other species.  Thus, the relationships of the U.S. government with those of Russia and China, and all three countries’ policies regarding greenhouse gas emissions have major implications for the survival of a large fraction of the earth’s species.

    The interdependence of the climate crisis and nuclear war is seldom analysed. However, both potential causes of human extinction act in part by producing climate changes that would destroy a large amount of global agricultural production for a significant period, and thereby cause mass starvation.  A large-scale nuclear war would immediately inject enough particulates into the stratosphere to cool the earth and eliminate agriculture in most areas for the following two years.1 This, in turn, would probably kill almost all surviving human beings. Warming due to greenhouse gas production will also eliminate a good deal of agricultural and other plant production, leading to starvation.  Atmospheric warming effects would occur over a somewhat longer time span than those of a war, and the effects would vary greatly across space.  Although the consequences for human population size will initially be less dramatic, greenhouse-gas-driven climate changes will be much longer-lasting than those from a nuclear war. The effects of warming on human populations are already substantial.  The U.N. has recently assessed that hunger affects 122 million more people than it did four years ago.

    Climate change is almost universally expected to raise international tensions, as different countries experience different changes in their weather patterns.  Greatly increased migration, water diversion/competition, food shortages, and other tensions provoked by the uneven effects of, and responses to warming are likely to generate military responses in some cases.  Those involving nuclear-armed states would have a potential escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.  In turn, the risk of war accelerates warming by diverting funding that could potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the high CO2-producing activities of military production.  Thus, the two risk factors are mutually reinforcing.  As with all positive feedback loops, situations can change extremely rapidly.

    If large-scale nuclear war occurs first, global warming will be basically irrelevant for the first two years of darkness.  Even without many humans left, warming could still be an issue after that, depending on the natural processes involved.  If global warming reaches a sufficiently advanced stage to cause mass mortality in the populations of one or more large countries first, nuclear war becomes much more likely as a result.

    Either of the two likely causes of human extinction/near-extinction will also lead to large numbers of plants and animals going extinct, as the tolerance ranges of many species will be exceeded.  The occurrence of war would likely cause extinction of most of the vertebrate species currently on endangered species lists, with continued warming also representing a major cause of extinction. Vertebrates are less likely to be able to shelter in microenvironments with more suitable temperatures under either mechanism. Species with relatively small spatial ranges are most likely to go extinct.  Organisms with short generation times or resting stages that can persist for many years would have the best chances being able to survive either human-caused disaster. Having relatively long generation times, most vertebrates’ abilities to evolve quickly under new climate regimes are limited.  By leaving out the likely future actions by the human population under current governance, the current laws regarding endangerment of other species are ignoring one of the most likely drivers of their extinction.

    How likely is it that future human actions will prevent these two linked threats to their own existence and that of many other species? The track record of past human responses to each of the threats has been abysmal.  More disturbing is the fact that the current global political system actually promotes both global military conflict and the higher emissions that fuel global warming.

    The rise in greenhouse gases and global temperature are well-documented, so there is no question about risk increasing.  Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase over the 3+ decades that there has been scientific consensus over the need for action to prevent further increases. There is less certainty about how rapidly human death rates will increase and standards of living decrease in response to the resulting climate change. It is still possible for these adverse effects to be slowed by some future emissions reductions.  However, the weather record for 2023 thus far is showing that previously predicted climate changes are likely to be underestimates.  Despite many previous international agreements to reduce CO2 and methane emissions, those decreases have not occurred on a global scale (other than a brief blip due to covid lockdowns).  Ignoring targets has been economically advantageous to high-emission countries in the short term.  Increases in the size of the human population, and the distraction of conflicts between countries have concurrently made the targets more difficult to achieve.

    The future change in the risk of nuclear war is much more difficult to quantify than is warming.  The only widely used measure of risk is the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock, which is now closer to midnight than ever before.  While the exact setting is not based on quantifiable components, there is no question that the decrease in remaining seconds does reflect greater risks.  The abrogation of nuclear treaties over the past ten years and the continual modernization of weapons stocks in the two largest nuclear powers (U.S. and Russia) over the past two decades have both increased risks. U.S.-Russia relations have been deteriorating steadily for the past two decades.  The war in Ukraine is currently the single process most likely to lead to the use of nuclear weapons.  Ending that conflict before the nuclear stage has become steadily less likely over its 550+ day course, as more Russians and Ukrainians have died, and as the U.S. and NATO continue to exceed many previous ‘red-lines’ in sending more and more-dangerous weapons to Ukraine (most recently, cluster munitions).  Greater numbers of commentators and government officials on both sides have argued for actual use of nuclear bombs.

    Under the present system of largely country-based decision-making, averting extinction due to either war or warming requires implementing effective counteractive policies by the countries that contribute most to the risk factors. Fortunately, nuclear weapons are only possessed by a small number of the world’s countries, and most greenhouse gases are also produced by a relatively small subset of countries. Unfortunately, agreement within either of these groups of countries has not proven possible over the many decades since both problems were recognized.  The lack of effective international agencies regulating either process has meant that countries have been free to pursue policies that have (or appear to have) short-term local benefits. This is a common problem of decision making between competing entities, whether those entities are individuals or groups of individuals, and whether the species is human or nonhuman.

    Both biological evolution and human decision making are driven by the short term consequences of actions to individual entities.2  Under modern political organization the entities are political leaders, who are likely to put more weight on winning the next election rather than on the persistence of their country. They are also likely to falsely equate these two goals.  Humans have an evolutionary history of inter-group conflict involving violence.  The ease of producing inter-group hatred and violence has been reflected in previous conflicts; for example, World War I,3 and both U.S.-led wars in Iraq.4  Western news outlets, reflecting the views of political leaders, have been generating highly biased news about Russia for many years now, making it easier to sustain support for the current war in Ukraine.  This is the main factor in the current risk for nuclear conflict.

    There has not yet been any sign of a move towards a ceasefire or peace negotiations in the Ukraine war.  John Mearsheimer has recently written, “Is a meaningful peace agreement possible? My answer is no. We are now in a war where both sides – Ukraine and the West on one side and Russia on the other – see each other as an existential threat that must be defeated. Given maximalist objectives all around, it is almost impossible to reach a workable peace treaty.”5 This leaves the question of how a nuclear war can be avoided.  Mearsheimer’s article appeared before the recent NATO meeting at Vilnius.  This gathering ended up promising Ukraine eventual membership, even though preventing NATO membership was the stated primary motivation for the original Russian invasion.  It is a recipe for perpetual war.  That war could easily become nuclear if the Russian government felt itself to be losing, but the NATO summit guaranteed that the current members would keep arming Ukraine until it ‘won’ the conflict.  The war has already led to remarks by some U.S. and Russian politicians and academics that nuclear weapons should be used.

    The current demonization of Russia in the West makes it very difficult for the U.S. to avoid sending troops or directly attacking Russia if Ukraine is clearly losing.  If, on the other hand Russia was clearly losing, its current government, or its successor would almost certainly use nukes (previous President Dmitri Medvedev has said so publicly).  The extreme negative commentary on Russia in western NATO/media also makes it almost impossible for the West to accept any peace proposal that would be acceptable to the Russians.  If any of the Eastern European NATO members independently chose to join the war before the U.S., it would be obliged to join them.  This would not be NATO’s first ill-advised military venture.  Over the last three decades NATO has grown greatly, engaged in several aggressive wars, and become more obviously an arm of U.S. foreign policy, which has itself become more militaristic.  Alfred de Zayas has recently written that, “The bottom line is that … NATO forces since the 1990s have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity…, what is important today is that world public opinion recognizes NATO as a threat to the peace and security of humankind. Its serial provocations constitute the greatest danger to our survival as a species.”6 de Zayas expands on this theme in a subsequent article.7 It is particularly disturbing that all NATO members have just agreed to contribute a minimum of 2% of their GDP to NATO. In the case of my country (Canada), this is $40-45 billion, approximately the same as the total federal contribution to health care in a country where the public health care system is rapidly falling apart.  Canada and the U.S., as well as many other western nations, are prioritizing death over life.

    A growing number of academics have issued warnings of the risk of a nuclear war growing out of the Ukraine conflict. These include prominent academics like John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago), Alfred de Zayas (Geneva School of Diplomacy), Richard Falk (University of California, SB) and Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia University). Prominent journalists, including Glenn Greenwald, Jonathan Cook, Seymour Hersh, Aaron Maté and Jackson Lears, have made similar warnings. These, and other critics of current Western government foreign policies are largely shut out of mass media. With growing provocations of both Russia and China by the U.S., it seems increasingly unlikely that peace can be maintained.  The uniformity and bellicosity of foreign policy views of the mainstream media in the West seems to be increasing much more rapidly than any indicator of climate change.

    The immediate hope is that at least one of the two main countries involved in policy determination in the Ukraine war (the U.S. or Russia) will change policy and interrupt the immediate process of escalation before it is too late.  However, this possibility has been decreasing over time and seems likely to continue to do so.  A major reason is the already weak position of the U.S. president (and declared candidate for 2024) in public opinion polls.  Admitting that sending 50 – 100 billion dollars to Ukraine had not produced any positive results would likely make a Biden victory impossible.  Vladimir Putin also faces an election in 2024, but his current within-country approval rating is approximately double Biden’s, possibly giving him a greater ability to make locally unpopular decisions.

    The degree of non-nuclear escalation that causes a nuclear war to begin is impossible to predict.  Even if war over Ukraine is avoided, there the growing possibility is that the U.S. will simply shift its main military focus from Russia to China.  Tensions have already been ramped up by unnecessary weapons transfers and top U.S. political figures visiting Taiwan.  The manufactured Chinese ‘spy-balloon’ scare in February has also generated hostility towards China for no apparent reason.  Canada has lately been generating tensions with China with vague unsubstantiated stories of Chinese ‘meddling’ in Canadian politics. Even the wording of these stories is strikingly similar to the now discredited ‘Russian meddling’ stories in the U.S.

    The current lack of action on climate change, and negative action on avoiding war provide lessons on some general principles would be needed in an Endangered Human Species Act. It is obvious that international bodies must have more power that they currently do.  They must also be less susceptible to manipulation by wealthy countries than the U.N. is today.  All countries need to have greater separation between government and media; that is particularly true in the U.S., where intelligence agencies have interfered massively in online media. Humankind must acknowledge the susceptibility of individuals in one group to supporting violent conflict with those having other affiliations; steps must be taken by governments to counteract this psychological flaw.  In the longer term, a smaller global population size would reduce many of the pressures for between-country conflict, as well as energy use.

    Even if they were favoured by most people in most nations, these suggested principles probably won’t be applied quickly enough to reverse the growing risk of self-annihilation during the remainder of this decade.  However, some movement on one or two of the factors mentioned here could provide a longer time window in which to achieve the others. If the intertwined risks of extreme climate change and nuclear war are avoided, it will preserve many thousands of other species as well as our own.

    ENDNOTES

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The AUSMIN 2023 talks held between the US Secretaries of State and Defense and their Australian counterparts, confirmed the increasing, unaccountable militarisation of the Australian north and its preparation for a future conflict with Beijing.  Details were skimpy, the rhetoric aspirational.  But the Australian performance from Defence Minister Richard Marles, and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, was crawling, lamentable, even outrageous.  State Secretary Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III could only look on with sheer wonder at their prostrate hosts.

    Money, much of it from the US military budget, is being poured into upgrading, expanding and redeveloping Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) bases in the Northern Territory city of Darwin, and Tindal, situated 320km south-east of Darwin, the intended to “address functional deficiencies and capacity constraints in existing facilities and infrastructure.”  Two new locations are also being proposed at RAAF Bases Scherger and RAAF Curtin, aided by site surveys.

    The AUSMIN joint statement, while revealing nothing in terms of operational details or costs, proved heavy with talk about “the ambitious trajectory of Enhanced Force Posture Cooperation across land, maritime, and air domains, as well as Combined Logistics, Sustainment and Maintenance Enterprise (CoLSME).”  Additionally, there would be “Enhanced Air Cooperation” with a rotating “US Navy Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft in Australia to enhance regional maritime domain awareness, with an ambition of inviting likeminded partners to participate in the future.”

    Further details have come to light about the money being spent by the Pentagon on facilities in Darwin.  The unromantically titled FY22 MCAF Project PAF160700 Squadron Operations Facility at the RAAF Darwin base “includes the construction (design-bid-build) of a United States Air Force squadron facility at the … (RAAF) in Darwin, Australia.”  The project is deemed necessary to add space “for aircrew flight equipment, maintenance and care, mission planning, intelligence, crew briefings, crew readiness, and incidental related work.”  Some of the systems are mundane but deemed important for an expanded facility, including ventilating and air conditioning, water heating, plumbing, utility energy meters and sub-meters and a building automation system (HVAC Control system).

    Correspondents from the Australian Broadcasting have gone further into the squadron operations facility, consulting US budget filings and tender documents to reveal cost assessments of $26 million (A$40 million).  A further parking apron at RAAF Darwin is also featured in the planning, estimated to cost somewhere in the order of $258 billion.  This will further supplement plans to establish the East Arm fuel storage facility for the US Air Force located 15 kilometres from Darwin that should be able to, on completion by September this year, store 300 million litres of military jet fuel intended to support US military activity in the Northern Territory and Indo-Pacific region.

    According to the tender documents, the squadron operations facility also had a broader, more strategic significance: “to support strategic operations and to run multiple 15-day training exercises during the NT dry season for deployed B-52 squadrons.”  The RAAF Tindal facility’s redevelopment, slated to conclude in 2026, is also intended to accommodate six B-52 bombers.  Given their nuclear capability, residents in the NT should feel a suitable degree of terror.

    Michael Shoebridge, founder and director of Strategic Analysis Australia, is none too pleased by this state of affairs.  He is unhappy by Canberra’s reticence on US-Australian military arrangements, and none too keen on a debate that is only being informed by US-based sources.  “A public debate needs to be enabled by information and you can’t have a complete picture without knowing where the money is being spent.”

    While it is hard to disagree with that tack, Shoebridge’s outfit, in line with such think tanks as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, is not against turning Australia into a frontline fortress state ready for war.  What he, and his colleagues take issue with, is the overwhelmingly dominant role the US is playing in the venture. Those in Washington, Shoebridge argues, seem to “understand the urgency we don’t seem to.”  Rather than questioning Australia’s need for a larger, more threatening military capability to fight phantoms and confected foreign adversaries, he accepts the premise, wholeheartedly.  Canberra, in short, should muck in more, pull its weight, and drum up Australian personnel for the killing.

    Anthony Bergin, a senior fellow of Strategic Analysis Australia, teases out the idea of such mucking in, suggesting a familiar formula.  He insists that, in order to improve “our national security, we should be looking at options short of conscription which wouldn’t be as hard to sell to the Australian people.”  He thought the timing perfect for such a move.  “There’s now a latent appetite for our political leaders to introduce measures to bolster national resilience.”

    This silly reading only makes sense on the assumption that the Australian public has been softened sufficiently by such hysterical affronts to sensibility as the Red Alert campaign waged in the Fairfax Press.

    Options to add padding to Australia’s military preparedness include doubling or tripling school cadets and cadet programs of the “outdoor bound” type based in the regions.  But more important would be the creation of a “national militia training scheme”.  Bergin is, however, displeased by the difficulty of finding “volunteers of any kind”, a strange comment given the huge, unpaid volunteer army that governs the delivery of numerous services in Australia, from charities to firefighting.

    Alison Broinowski, herself formerly of the Australian diplomatic corps, safely concludes that the current moves constitute “another step in the same direction – a step that the government has been taking a series of for years; accepting whatever the United States government wants to place on Australian soil.”  More’s the pity that most details are to come from Washington sources, indicating, with irrefutable finality, Canberra’s abject subordination to the US imperium and its refusal to admit that fact.

  • Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock for the past few months, you’re undoubtedly aware that award-winning director Christopher Nolan has released a new film about Robert Oppenheimer, known as the “father of the atomic bomb” for leading the group of scientists who created that deadly weapon as part of America’s World War II-era Manhattan Project. The film has earned widespread attention…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The ground-breaking movie Oppenheimer, despite its unsympathetic protagonist, packs a powerful anti-nuclear punch that makes it hard, if not impossible, to sleep after watching the film.

    For this reason alone, the movie should be shown on the floor of Congress and in the White House as required viewing by all in DC bent on spending $1.7 trillion over the next decades to build new nuclear weapons to kill us all.

    Only those with a global death wish or on the payroll of Northrop Grumman, the military contractor with the nuclear “modernization” contract, could watch this film and still root for US nuclear rearmament, a horror show now underway with the blessings of DC politicians. Unless people rise up in fury, unless this Hollywood movie sparks a second nuclear-freeze movement, a repeat on steroids of the 80’s nuclear weapons freeze, Congress and the White House will raid the treasury to expand our nuclear arsenal.

    On the agenda is a new sea-launched nuclear cruise missile, a gravity bomb with two-stage radiation implosion, a long range strike bomber and the replacement of 400 underground nuclear missiles in the midwest with 600 new Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. These new ICBMS–The Sentinel–could each carry up to three warheads 20 times more powerful than the atomic bombs the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to incinerate 200,000 people in a span of three days.

    Irish actor Cillian Murphy plays the role of J. Robert Oppeneheimer, a hand-wringing scientist, a lackluster womanizer, a man with few convictions but lots of demons, who traverses an emotional landscape of ambition, doubt, remorse and surrender.

    Oppenheimer oversees the Manhattan Project, the team of scientists hunkering down in the beautiful desert of Los Alamos, New Mexico, to build the hideous atomic bomb before the Germans or Russians crack the code.

    In a scene reminiscent of the absurd 1950s, when pig-tailed school children scrambled under desks in mock nuclear drills, scientists don sunscreen and goggles to protect themselves during the blinding Trinity Test. This was the first atomic test conducted with no warning to the downwinders–the nearby Indigenous people of the Southwest who developed cancer as a result of radioactive fall out. This was the test before President Truman ordered a 9,000 pound uranium bomb named Little Boy loaded onto a B-29 bomber. This was the trial performance before the same President, depicted in the movie as unctuous and arrogant, orders Fat Boy, a second plutonium bomb– prototype for today’s nuclear weapon–dropped on Nagasaki.

    Though the movie can be slow, a three hour endurance test, its historical insights and gut-churning imagery compensate for its lack of likable characters, save for Lt. General Leslie Groves, played by a fun-to-watch Matt Damon as Oppenheimer’s Pentagon handler.

    One of the most haunting moments juxtaposes in living color celebrations of the bombings, applause and accolades for Oppenheimer standing at the podium with the guilt-consumed scientist’s black and white visions of irradiated souls, skeletal remains, flesh turned to ash–all amid a cacophony of explosions and pounding feet, the death march.

    Even more disturbing are the questions that tug at the moviegoer, who wonders, “Where are the Japanese victims in this film? Why are they missing from this picture? Why are they never shown writhing in pain, their lives and cities destroyed?” Instead, the human targets are seen only through the lens of Oppenheimer who imagines faceless x-rayed ghosts torn asunder in the burning wreckage, their skin, their flesh falling off their bones, their bodies disappearing into nothingness. The omission of the real victims in the interest of maintaining a consistent point of view may make sense from a filmmaker’s perspective, but not from the standpoint of historians and truth tellers. Writer-director Christopher Nolan could have shown us photos, authentic aerial footage of the Japanese, blinded and burned, before the final credits roll to remind us the horror is real, not just a Hollywood movie bound for several Oscar nominations.

    In the name of truth the movie does, however, smash the persistent myth that the US had no other choice but to drop the atomic bombs to end WWII. Through dialogue, we learn Japan was about to surrender, the Emperor simply needed to save face; the point of irradiating Hiroshima and Nagasaki, targeting civilians in far off cities, was not to save the world but to show the Soviets the US possessed the technology to destroy the world, so better not cross the aspiring empire.

    In closed door sessions, all filmed in black and white, we watch as crusading anti-communist politicians–determined to stop Oppenheimer from advocating for arms control talks with the Soviets–crucify their atomic hero for his association with members of the Communist Party, leftist trade unions and a long ago anti-capitalist lover who threw his bourgeois flowers in the trash.

    When the McCarthyites strip Oppenheimer of his security clearance, it’s a big “who cares” shrug for a movie audience weary of Oppenheimer’s internal conflicts over whether science can be divorced from politics, from the consequences of a scientist’s research. How can anyone with a heart want to continue this line of work? To hell with the security clearance.

    The movie Oppenheimer is compelling and powerful in its timeliness, though one can’t help but think it would have been exponentially more powerful had it  been told from a different point of view, from the point of view of a scientist who opposed the death-march mission.

    We see glimpses of a pond-staring fate-warning Albert Einstein, who in real life lobbied to fund the atomic bomb research only to later oppose the project. It could have been his story–or the story of one of the 70 scientists who signed a “Truman, don’t drop the bomb” petition that Oppenheimer squelched, persuading Edward Teller, the “father of the hydrogen bomb” not to present Truman with the petition drafted by Leo Szilard, the chief physicist at the Manhattan Project’s Chicago laboratory. The movie’s reference to the petition was so fast, so quiet, so mumbled, the audience could have missed it.

    If we are not careful, more mindful, more awake, we might miss our moment, our moment to avert another nuclear holocaust, this one a far worse nightmare in which five billion of the Earth’s 8 billion people perish, either immediately from radiation burns and fire or in the months that follow during a famine in which soot blocks the sun.

    The White House and a majority of Congress want to rush us, a sleepwalking populace into WWIII with Russia, a nation of 143 million people, 195 different ethnicities and 6,000 nuclear weapons. For those, like the shameful editors of the Washington Post, who insist we continue to forever fund the proxy war, for those in high places who refuse calls for a ceasefire, this movie reminds us of the existential danger we confront in a sea of denial, complicity and exceptionalism.

    Despite campaigning on a platform of no first use of nuclear weapons, President Biden’s Nuclear Posture Review echoes his predecessor Trump’s approval of first use should our allies’ interests be threatened.

    CODEPINK activists are distributing flyers outside showings of Oppenheimer to invite stunned movie goers leaving the theater in a daze to take action, to join our organization and amplify our peace-building campaigns, to ground the nuclear-capable F-35, to declare China is Not our Enemy and to partner with the Peace in Ukraine Coalition.

    This is the movie, this is the moment, this is the time to challenge the euphemistic nuclear modernization program, to expose the madness of militarism that abandons urgent needs at home to line the pockets of military contractors gorging at the Pentagon trough.This is the time to demand a ceasefire and peace talks to end the war in Ukraine, to stop preparations for war with China, to finally pass legislation to ban first use, to take our ICBM’s off hair trigger alert, to abide by our disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to campaign for the US to become signatories to the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

    Opposed by NATO–a huckster for nuclear proliferation–the TPNW has been signed by 95 state parties wishing to outlaw the development, deployment and use of nuclear weapons.

    Unlike Oppenheimer, we can make the right choice; the choice that saves the human race from immediate extinction.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A typo meant the British Ministry of Defence (MOD) sent sensitive UK emails to a Russian-allied nation. The classified material ended up being sent to Mali, rather than the US where it was intended to go.

    The emails were meant to be sent to an address ending in ‘.mil’ denoting the US military. Instead, the ‘i’ was dropped, resulting in them being sent to addresses in Mali.

    Until recently, the UK and US were closely aligned with Mali. The UK even sent troops to the country. More recently, however, the military took over and appears to have aligned more closely with Moscow.

    MOD fail

    Cue MOD embarrassment and back-pedalling. A spokesperson told the press:

    We have opened an investigation after a small number of emails were mistakenly forwarded to an incorrect email domain.

    We are confident they did not contain any information that could compromise operational security or technical data.

    The MOD said that sensitive information “is shared on systems designed to minimise the risk of misdirection”.

    They added:

    The MoD constantly reviews its processes and is currently undertaking a programme of work to improve information management, data loss prevention, and the control of sensitive information.

    The US did it too

    Irish news channel RTE reported that the Malian government had recently struck up a grain deal with Russia:

    Mali was among the six African countries promised free grain shipments by Russian President Vladimir Putin after the collapse of the Black Sea deal with Ukraine.

    Now that the US and UK have pulled out of Mali, Russian mercenary firm Wagner is operating in a counter-insurgency role:

    Moscow’s Wagner mercenaries have also been deployed in Mali to fight alongside the army against jihadists

    It is also worth noting that the US recently reported making the same email error. But the result was that millions of military emails may have been seen to Mali.

    Malian conflict

    Fuelled by arms stolen during NATO’s 2011 Libyan war, the war in Mali has ground on for over a decade. Now the Wagner Group is operating in the country.

    But, as the Intercept pointed out, many of the military officers now working with Wagner are US-trained:

    Researchers found that the longtime U.S.-backed Malian military also tortured detainees in an army camp and destroyed and looted civilian property as part of its protracted campaign against militant Islamists.

    In fact, US-trained military officers have been involved in coups all over Africa in recent years. In fact, the framing of Mali across the press as a ‘Kremlin ally’ in relation to the email story seems rather odd. Especially, given that UK troops only pulled out in November 2022.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Harland Quarrington, cropped to 1910 x 1000, licenced under OGL 1.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Today marks the 70th anniversary of the Korean War Armistice, which brought a cessation of hostilities between the opposing parties, but left the peninsula locked in a permanent state of war. Article IV of the armistice stipulates: “​Within three months after the Armistice Agreement is signed and becomes effective, a political conference of a higher level of both sides beheld by representatives…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On Thursday 27 July, Israeli troops killed a 14-year-old Palestinian child during yet another overnight raid in the occupied West Bank. It comes a day after Israeli troops killed a Palestinian man named Mohammed Abd al-Hakim Nada in the same region.

    The shooting of 14-year-old Fares Abu Samrah occurred in the city of Qalqilya in the northern West Bank. The Israeli army claimed this is where it was conducting “counter-terrorism activity”.

    The Palestinian official Wafa news agency reported:

    The occupation forces had stormed the Naqar neighbourhood in the west of Qalqilya, which led to clashes…

    The occupation forces fired live and rubber bullets, stun grenades and tear gas at residents and their homes.

    The Palestinian health ministry identified Fares and said he died of bullet wounds to the head.

    Third day of killings

    On Wednesday, a Palestinian was killed in the main northern West Bank city of Nablus during what the army also described as “counter-terrorism activity”. Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported that this was during a raid Israeli forces conducted at Al-Ain refugee camp in Nablus.

    The Palestinian health ministry said:

    A young man died of his wounds as the occupation forces stormed the city of Nablus at noon (0900 GMT).

    The martyr, Mohammed Abd al-Hakim Nada, was shot in the chest.

    Eyewitnesses told AFP that Israeli forces had stormed the neighbourhood of Al-Muhayim on Wednesday. They surrounded a house before arresting one Palestinian.

    The Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a resistance group linked to the Palestinian Fatah movement, said its fighters had:

    ambushed a unit of special forces in the alleys of Al-Ain camp … and managed to inflict casualties.

    The group did not specify whether the dead man was one of its fighters.

    Hamas, which controls the besieged coastal enclave of Gaza, condemned what it said was a “Zionist crime in Nablus”. The group called on all:

    Palestinian factions to confront the terrorist settlers’ government.

    Fares’s killing took place on the third consecutive day of Israel violence in the West Bank. On Tuesday, Israeli troops killed three Palestinians in an exchange of fire in Nablus, the Palestinian health ministry said. Hamas said the three were members of its armed wing.

    Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967.

    Israel: violent occupiers

    Since early last year, Israeli forces have killed more than 200 Palestinians. There has also been racist violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinian communities, as well as a steady increase in Palestinian armed resistance.

    Earlier this month, Israeli forces conducted a two-day raid on Jenin refugee camp, razing large swathes of the area and killing 12 Palestinians, including children.

    The raid on Jenin was one of the biggest operations carried out by the Israeli army in the West Bank in years. Israeli forces used helicopter gunships and drones to fire on the city.

    Palestinians are calling for solidarity. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is asking its international supporters to boycott Israeli goods, and push for a military embargo on the sale of weapons to Israel. Find out more at bdsmovement.net.

    Via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via screenshot/Al Jazeera

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Island of Taiwan has been turned into a “powder keg” by the infusion of U.S. weaponry, pushing the Taiwanese people into the “abyss of disaster.”  These are the words of the Chinese Defense Ministry in reaction to the recent $440 million sale of U.S. arms to the island.  And now the U.S.is also giving, not selling, arms to Taiwan, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

    The “First Island Chain” Strategy of the U.S.

    Taiwan is but one in a series of islands along the Chinese coast, often called “The First Island Chain,” which now bristles with advanced U.S. weapons. These are accompanied by tens of thousands of supporting U.S. military personnel and combat troops.  The “First Island Chain” extends from Japan in the north southward through Japan’s Ryukyu islands which include Okinawa, to Taiwan and on to the northern Philippines.  (U.S. ally, South Korea, with a military of 500,000 active duty personnel and 3 million reserves is a powerful adjunct to this chain.)  In US military doctrine the First Island Chain is a base to “project power” and restrict sea access to China.

    Taiwan is at the center this string of islands and is considered the focal point of The First Island Chain strategy.  When the fiercely hawkish Cold Warrior, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, conceived the strategy in 1951, he dubbed Taiwan America’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier.”

    Taiwan is now one source of contention between the U.S. and China.  As is often said but rarely done, the pursuit of peace demands that we understand the point of view of those who are marked as our adversaries.  And, in China’s eyes, Taiwan and the rest of these armed isles look like both chain and noose.

    How would the U.S. react in a similar circumstance? Cuba is about the same distance from the U.S. as the width of the Taiwan Strait that separates Taiwan from the Mainland.  Consider the recent U.S. reaction to rumors that China was setting up a listening post in Cuba.  There was a bipartisan reaction of alarm in Congress and a bipartisan statement that such an installation is “unacceptable.”  What would be the reaction if China armed Cuba to the teeth or sent hundreds of soldiers there as the U.S. has done to Taiwan?  It is not hard to imagine.  One immediately thinks of the U.S. sponsored invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs and later the Cuban missile crisis.

    Clearly the arming of Taiwan is a provocative act that pushes the U.S. closer to war with China, a nuclear power.

    The Secessionist Movement in Taiwan

    According to the One China Policy, the official policy of the U.S., Taiwan is part of China.  The UN took the same position in 1971 with passage of Resolution 2758 (also known as the Resolution on Admitting Peking) which recognized the Peoples Republic of China as the legitimate government of all of China and its sole representative in the UN.

    In recent decades a secessionist movement has developed on the island of Taiwan, a sentiment represented by the DPP (Democratic Progressive Party).  Currently Tsai Ing-wen of the DPP is President.  But in the local elections of 2022, the DPP lost very badly to the KMT (Kuomintang) which is friendly to the Mainland and wishes to preserve the status quo or “strategic ambiguity,” as it is called. Tsai built the DPP’s 2022 campaign on hostility to Beijing, not on local issues.  And at the same time her government passed legislation to increase the compulsory service time for young Taiwanese males from 6 months to a year.  Needless to say, this hawkish move was not popular with the under 30 set.

    Polling in 2022 showed that an overwhelming majority of Taiwanese now want to preserve the status quo.  Only 1.3% want immediate unification and only 5.3% want immediate independence.  Compared to previous years, a record 28.6 percent of those polled said they preferred to “maintain the status quo indefinitely,” while 28.3 percent chose the status quo to “decide at a later date,” and 25.2 percent opted for the status quo with a view to “move toward independence.”  Thus, a total of 82.1% now favor the status quo!  Not surprisingly, every prominent presidential candidate professes to be in favor of the status quo.  However, DPP candidates also contend there is no need to declare independence since in their eyes Taiwan is already independent.

    The stated policy of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is to seek peaceful reunification with Taiwan.  Only if the secessionist movement formally declares independence does Beijing threaten to use force.  Clearly the Taiwanese do not wish to find themselves in the position of Ukrainians, cannon fodder in a U.S. proxy war.

    Here we might once more consider how the alleged enemy of the U.S., China, sees things and might react to a formal act of secession and declaration of independence by Taiwan.  And again, we might be guided by our own history.  When the Confederate States seceded from the Union, the U.S. descended into the bloodiest war in its history with 620,000 soldiers dead.   Moreover, a secessionist Taiwan, as an armed ally of the U.S., represents to China a return to the “Century of Humiliation” at the hands of the colonial West.  Given these circumstances, arming Taiwan clearly creates a “powder keg.” A single spark could ignite it.

    It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the U.S. is trying to gin up a proxy war that would engulf East Asia, damaging not only China but other U.S. economic competitors like Japan and South Korea.  The US would come out on top.  It is the neocon Wolfowitz Doctrine put into play.  But in the nuclear age such stratagems amount to total insanity.

    If some Taiwanese hope that the U.S. will come to its aid, they should ponder carefully the tragedy of Ukraine.  Somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 Ukrainian soldiers have lost their lives so far and millions turned into refugees.  A similar U.S. proxy war in Taiwan could easily turn into a full-scale conflict between the world’s two largest economies, certainly triggering a global depression and perhaps a nuclear exchange.  And Biden has committed to send troops to fight the Peoples Liberation Army should hostilities break out.  So, the situation is even more perilous than the one in Ukraine!

    No arms to Taiwan

    When all this is considered, arming Taiwan is asking for trouble on a global scale.  Taiwan and Beijing can settle their disagreements by themselves.  Frankly put, disagreements between the two are none of America’s business.

    So, we in the U.S. must stop our government from arming Taiwan.  And we need to get our military out of East Asia.  It is an ocean away, and no power there is threatening the U.S.  We do not have Chinese warships off our Pacific Coast, nor do we have Chinese troops or Chinese military bases anywhere in our entire hemisphere.

    China calls for peaceful coexistence and a win-win set of relationships between us.  Let’s take them up on that.

    And let’s bring all those troops, submarines, bombers, rockets and warships out of East Asia before they stumble into a conflict or become the instrument of a false flag operation.  We should keep in mind the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, a fake report of a Vietnamese attack on a U.S. ship that led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, a de facto declaration of war against Vietnam.  In the end millions lost their lives in Southeast Asia in that brutal, horrific war.  Even that will look like a schoolyard squabble compared to the conflagration unleashed by a U.S.-China war.

    • This article was first published at Antiwar.com

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • People have taken action in the UK, Canada, and France over the imprisonment of UK pro-Palestine activists. It came after high-profile campaigners, including Roger Waters, issued a joint statement condemning the British state’s persecution of the six people over their activism against the state of Israel.

    Imprisoned for resisting Israel’s apartheid

    As the Canary has reported, the British state is currently detaining six activists. It’s over their part in protests about the Israeli state’s ongoing apartheid against the Palestinian people – including its illegal occupation. Specifically, the protests were over UK-based arms companies, and their supply chains, that sell weapons and military kit to Israel.

    Four of the activists have been in prison since December 2022. It’s because they took action to dismantle Teledyne Labtech – a Welsh factory belonging to American-owned Teledyne. The company is the largest exporter by volume of weapons from Britain to Israel. As campaign group Palestine Action said:

    The four activists are the longest serving prisoners for taking action with Palestine Action to disrupt the war machine. Their incarceration demonstrates Britain prioritising the interests of an arms industry which facilitates the genocide of the Palestinian people, over the freedom of its own citizens.

    The two other activists are locked up over an action they took in June 2021 at company APPH. It makes drone landing gear for Elbit Systems, which supplies 85% of Israel’s military drones. One of the jailed activists is Mike Lynch-White. He and others covered APPH’s building in red paint, scaled the roof, and destroyed equipment. Palestine Action said of the two activists:

    They both took action to disrupt the military industrial complex which profits from the blood shed of the Palestinian people and the apartheid regime they’re subjugated too. For this, they should not be imprisoned.

    So, after support from 80 public figures, including Waters, and also a separate statement from the Palestinian Prisoners’ Movement, Palestine Action organised a day of protests.

    Global solidarity with pro-Palestine activists

    On Saturday 22 July, hundreds of people came out to call for the freedom of Palestine Action political prisoners. In England, people demonstrated in Manchester, Liverpool, London, Birmingham, Sheffield, and Brighton:

    In Sheffield specifically, people took action against Barclays. As the Canary recently reported, the bank, according to the group Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), has:

    over £1 billion in shares and provides over £3 billion in loans and underwriting to 9 companies whose weapons, components, and military technology have been used in Israel’s armed violence against Palestinians.

    Activists also took direct action to “shatter” windows at Keysight Technologies in Telford. It’s a supplier to Elbit Systems:

    Then, there was also international solidarity.

    Groups including Samidoun and Collectif Palestine Vaincra put posters up around France:

    In Canada, people mobilised outside Scotiabank in Vancouver. It holds half a billion dollars in shares in Elbit:

    A ‘desperation’ to protect a foreign apartheid state

    A Palestine Action spokesperson said in a press release:

    For the state to turn to imprisoning its own citizens, demonstrates their desperation to protect the military supply chain of a foreign apartheid state. The show of solidarity from across the world in support of our activists in prison, and others facing prison, for disrupting the production of Israeli weapons, shows the strength of our movement. Collectively, we will resist until all Israeli weapons factories in Britain are shut down and the activists, as well as the Palestinian people, are free.

    As the Canary has documented, the state increasingly criminalising protest is becoming a lot more common and authoritarian as a result of the Tories’ Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts (PCSC) Act. The state jailing pro-Palestinian activists is the thin end of this wedge – but groups like Palestine Action will continue, regardless.

    Featured image via Palestine Action

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • This morning Russian media sources reported that a Ukrainian followup attack to the one on the Crimea bridge by 28 drones was defeated by Russian air defenses. In response, Russia destroyed the manufacturing sites of the drones and fuel storage facilities that provide fuel for Ukraine’s military.  The two words, “in response” tells us what is wrong with Putin’s conduct of the war.  Why did it take a Ukrainian attack on Crimea for Russia to do what any other country at war would have done a long time ago—destroy its enemy’s armaments factories and fuel depots? It is as if Russia is not at war. The offensive initiatives are with Ukraine. All Russia does is to retaliate to Ukrainian attacks.

    This is a mindless way for the Kremlin to conduct a war. It encourages the US neoconservatives to continue and to widen the conflict. Russia should have shut down Odessa long ago.  It was mindless to leave Ukraine with bases on the Black Sea from which to launch attacks on the Crimea bridge. If Putin was conducting war as war should be conducted, the young girl’s parents would still be alive.

    The Russian Foreign Ministry, like the Kremlin and the Defense Ministry, does not seen to comprehend that a war is in process. Russia termed the attack on the bridge a “terror attack.” The bridge is a legitimate military target. It was Putin’s limited operation that allowed Ukraine the resources and naval base with which to attack the bridge. Calling it a terror attack is a pretense that a war is not underway.

    Perhaps one day the Russian government will come to its senses and comprehend that a war has too long been underway and make the decision to get it over with. As Prigozhin said, the Russian Ministry of Defense is asking his Wagner troops to die without offering them a prospect of victory.

    Putin’s refusal to fight a war is going to cause the Russian people to tire of it. Why is Putin playing so totally into Washington’s hands?

    Putin’s refusal to fight has even convinced his Chinese ally that Russia cannot win the conflict with Ukraine. Yesterday China’s UN representative, Geng Shuang, speaking to the UN Security Council wrote off any prospect of a Russian victory: “The evolution of the battlefield situation shows that military means cannot resolve the Ukrainian crisis, and the continuation of the conflict will only bring more suffering to civilians, and may even lead to unpredictable and irreparable situations.” Shuang agrees with me that the never-ending conflict is in danger of “getting out of control.”

    It must be extremely embarrassing to Putin, to the Russian military, and to the Russian people to be seen as too weak and irresolute to defeat a third world military force.  The encouragement Putin has given to Washington’s neoconservatives to push ever harder against Russia is leading, as I fear, to a wider conflict that could destroy organized life on earth.

    Update:

    Another Consequence for Putin for Failing to Bring the Conflict to a Close

    Putin cannot attend in person a meeting of BRICS without the risk of his arrest.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • This June, the Swiss journalist Maurine Mercier found several United States citizens fighting in Ukraine under the guise of humanitarian work. “All of them are veterans, former soldiers who fought in all the recent American wars: the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan,” she reports. Many suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, carrying the embodied ghosts of past conflicts and deep psychic wounds to…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.