Category: Militarism

  • Peace campaigners are calling on the UK government to hold the British Armed Forces to account for systemic abuse within their ranks and to halt planned rises in military spending.

    The armed forces have systemic problems with abuse and misogyny

    The inquest into the suicide of 19-year-old soldier Jaysley Beck this week has revealed a harrowing culture of abuse and cover-up within the armed forces. The inquest found that her death was caused by the sexual assault and harassment she suffered at the hands of senior colleagues, as well as the Army’s failure to investigate her allegations or report them to the police.

    The revelations follow a long series of stories of abuse across all branches of the UK armed forces, including allegations of widespread sexism and harassment in the RAF’s Red Arrows display team and the Royal Navy’s Submarine Service, and a parliamentary report which found that almost two-thirds of women in the armed forces have experienced bullying, sexual harassment and discrimination.

    In spite of mounting evidence of systemic abuse, Labour Party PM Keir Starmer is ramping up support for the armed forces through increased military spending.

    On the back of multiple military spending hikes under the Tories, the Labour government is promising to increase the UK’s military budget to 2.5% of GDP, in line with NATO’s target for member states. Keir Starmer is under pressure to meet this target quickly, or even exceed it, with UK politicians and military figures urging increases to as much as 3.5% of GDP. The Strategic Defence Review, led by former senior military, defence and security figures, is likely to recommend significant spending increases in its impending report.

    Peace campaigners from the Peace Pledge Union (PPU) have responded with shock and sorrow to the latest reports of abuse, as revealed in the inquest. They have slammed the government for brushing these, and many similar reports, aside while offering ever-increasing support and funding to the armed forces.

    Acting with impunity

    Amy Corcoran, the PPU’s operations manager, said:

    If any other institution had seen numerous reports of rape and sexual assault within the space of a few years, it would be subject to major investigation and serious repercussions. Instead, military chiefs continue to pretend these are isolated incidents, and the government rewards the armed forces with huge increases in public spending.

    The PPU points out that the armed forces are the only institutions in the UK that are allowed to run their own criminal courts and judicial system, along with their own police forces. The PPU argues that this effectively allows the armed forces to operate above the law.

    The inquest into the death of Jaysley Beck comes on the back of a recent report by Child Rights International Network (CRIN), into widespread allegations of sexual offences and rape at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, where Jaysley Beck initially trained, along with most 16- and 17-year-old army recruits.

    CRIN found that, within a three year period at the Army Foundation College, there were 15 internal complaints of violent behaviour by staff, 13 alleged sexual offences including nine cases of rape, and the conviction of multiple instructors working at the college.

    In spite of this mounting evidence of endemic abuse, successive governments have lent unqualified support to the armed forces, with ever-increasing military spending. The PPU has consistently argued that this is a grievous waste of public funds, pointing out that the UK already has the fifth highest military budget in the world.

    Accountability for the armed forces – not more money

    Amy Corcoran said:

    Spending more and more money on weapons and the armed forces does nothing to make us safer. On the contrary, it fuels military confrontation around the world, and sustains the unaccountable and abusive behaviour of the armed forces at home.

    The PPU argues that military budgets would be better spent on desperately under-funded public services and major security threats such as climate change and pandemics. They challenge the armed forces’ recruitment practices, which target poorer areas of the country and – uniquely in Europe – children as young as 16 years old.

    In recent months the PPU has criticised the UK armed forces for fuelling violence and geopolitical tensions by bombing Yemen, providing military backing to Israel during its genocide in Gaza, and leading NATO exercises in Eastern Europe.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Over 230 global civil society organisations have called on governments producing F-35 fighter jets to immediately halt all arms transfers to Israel, including the these jets. The F-35 jet programme partners include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, the UK, and the US. On top of the letter, civil society organisations around the world have taken legal action to hold their governments accountable for the F-35 programme, and complicity in Israel’s crimes in Gaza. And in the UK, groups are calling on the Labour Party government to end its complicity now.

    Israel: using F-35 jets with Western complicity

    Israel has used these jets in its bombardment of Palestinians in Gaza. An F-35 was used in July 2024 to drop three 2,000 lb bombs in an attack on a so-called “safe zone” on Al-Mawasi in Khan Younis, killing 90 Palestinians.

    Despite all partners to the jets programme having legal obligations to halt arms exports to Israel, governments continue to allow the transfer of parts to Israel. Incoherent positions have been put forward by governments including stating that arms licences to Israel have been suspended while allowing transfers under existing licences or supplying “indirectly” via the US or other F-35 partners.

    A global movement of legal cases taken by civil society has grown across countries in the F-35 programme, seeking to hold their government accountable for the transfer of jets and components to Israel. These include Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the UK.

    The organisations, while welcoming the limited temporary ceasefire, say that the past 15 months have illustrated with devastating clarity that Israel is not committed to complying with international law. It is therefore inexcusable for our governments to continue to provide arms transfers to Israel, potentially implicating themselves in war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    In December 2024, Amnesty International’s investigation concluded that Israel has committed and is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and Human Rights Watch reported that ‘Israeli authorities are responsible for the crime against humanity of extermination and for acts of genocide’.

    You can read the full letter on the supply of F-35 jets here.

    International law must be complied with

    Shawan Jabarin, General-Director of Al-Haq, said:

    Israeli airstrikes, including the use of 2,000-pound bombs dropped from F-35 fighter jets, have devastated Gaza, repeatedly targeting densely populated areas, alleged “safe zones”, and even shelters for displaced Palestinians, during Israel’s ongoing genocidal onslaught. The overwhelming evidence of Israel’s grave violations of international law makes the F-35 partner nations—all of which are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, with the majority also having ratified the Arms Trade Treaty—complicit in these actions.

    F-35 partner nations, including the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, have assessed Israel’s use of these jets and concluded that the risk of violations of International Humanitarian Law is significant enough to halt direct sales of key components. However, components continue to reach Israel indirectly, highlighting the urgent need for the entire F-35 programme to be brought into compliance with international law.

    As Israel carries out its genocidal practices across the occupied Palestinian territory, with Palestinians in the West Bank subject to an ongoing, violent military onslaught and Gaza’s population still being attacked and denied essential aid despite a ceasefire, it is imperative that states uphold their binding duties under international law. They must collectively ensure that F-35 jets and components no longer reach Israel, halting further complicity in these international crimes.

    Gearóid Ó Cuinn, Director of GLAN (Global Legal Action Network) which is supporting Al-Haq’s arms exports challenge in the UK, said:

    This May the UK High Court will consider this controversial exemption for war plane parts. The UK Government’s position is that Israel can commit whatever depraved atrocity it pleases in Palestine, and nothing will stop the supply of British war plane components. In taking this indefensible position the UK Government has shamelessly put US interests and arms contracts above its own international legal obligations.

    F-35 jets: enough is enough

    Yasmine Ahmed, UK Director of Human Rights Watch, said:

    It is unconscionable that the UK government continues to supply weapons that end up going to the Israeli government, especially for the F35 which has played a pivotal role in Israel’s brutal bombing campaign.

    The government must close the loopholes and end its legal gymnastics- failure to do so displays either a misunderstanding of the government’s legal obligations or a wilful disregard for them.

    Katie Fallon, Advocacy Manager at Campaign Against Arms Trade said:

    The F-35 jet programme is emblematic of the West’s complicity in Israel’s crimes against Palestinians. These jets were instrumental in Israel’s 466 day bombardment of Gaza, in crimes that include war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Since the limited ceasefire the US government, and lead partner to the F-35 programme, has threatened Gaza with mass ethnic cleansing and forced displacement. This programme gives material and political consent from all Western partners, including the UK, for these crimes to continue.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A group of half a dozen young activists staged a third peaceful sit-in at the Bristol Broadmead branch of Barclays Bank. It follows similar protests against the bank in October and December last year.

    Barclays: wrecking the planet

    Activists from Extinction Rebellion Youth Bristol (XRYB) entered the bank branch at around 10am on Saturday 15 February with the aim of engaging customers about what they see as the problems with Barclays, and to encourage them to stop banking there:

    Barclays

    Barclays

    The protests staged by XRYB previously drew significant public attention and customer interest.

    The action by XRYB coincided with a vigil by Cristian Climate Action Bristol (CCA) in protest against the bank, resulting in a significant activist presence both inside and outside the Bristol branch.

    Rather than making demands of Barclays who are a global financial superpower, ranking in the top five largest European banks, the XRYB activists are seeking to increase customer awareness of how the bank invests its money, and of alternative banks that XRYB consider preferable.

    Barclays are a significant global investor in fossil fuels, at a time when a rapid transition to renewable energy is essential in the face of the climate crisis. Barclays is ranked the number one investor in fossil fuels in Europe, and seventh biggest in the world, having financed around $167 billion in fossil fuels between 2015 and 2021. It is also the 4th biggest financer of Arctic fossil fuel extraction.

    As well as its destructive fossil fuel funding, Barclays is a major financer of the global arms trade. This includes funding the sale of weapons to be used in Yemen and major investment in arms companies whose technologies are being used for genocide in Palestine.

    According to Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Barclays bank now holds over £2 billion in shares, and provides £6.1 billion in loans and underwriting to companies used by Israel against Palestine.

    Close your accounts

    A young person from XRYB expressed their concern over Barclays’ investment policies:

    Barclays is a major investment bank and currently has over a billion pounds of investments in companies whose weapons, components, and military tech have been used in unlawful violence against Palestinians. They are also a significant investor in fossil fuels, so are not only funding the deaths of Palestinian people but are also sacrificing our planet’s future for profit.

    Bella, another XRYB member, appealed to those who bank there:

    You have the power to make a difference. Historically boycott, divest, and sanction tactics work to make change, such as in the cases of racist practices in Bristol bus networks and against South African apartheid. Barclays are using your money to fund genocide and using the profits to make themselves richer. They are not your friends. There are numerous alternative banks such as Triodos, Nationwide, and Monzo who will use your money more responsibly and even offer better value!.

    Featured image and additional images supplied

    By The Canary

  • The testimony of Mark Smith, former diplomat and policy adviser at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Officepublished in the Guardian on 10 February 2025, confirms exactly what Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has argued for decades: the UK’s arms export control system is rotten to its core.

    Mark Smith exposed a system rotten to the core

    Mark Smith’s testimony raises fundamental questions about why the system works in this way and why successive governments have bent over backwards to justify selling arms despite knowing they’ll be used to commit or facilitate horrific war crimes. CAAT argues that the answer lies in the power and influence of the arms trade.

    In August 2024, Smith resigned over the UK government’s refusal to halt arms sales to Israel amid the bombardment of Gaza, following a year of internal lobbying and whistleblowing.

    As an official responsible for assessing Saudi Arabia’s compliance with International Humanitarian law (IHL) in Yemen, Mark Smith was repeatedly told to revise or “rebalance” his reports to make them less damning of Saudi’s conduct, and to give an appearance of “progress”.

    Officials were told to delete correspondence that gave a more negative picture. Ministers employed delaying tactics and repeated requests for “more evidence”, even when the picture of serious violations was clear.

    CAAT’s 2024 report on political influence revealed the disturbing level of access and influence the arms industry has on the UK government. This included BAE Systems having more meetings with ministers, and more with prime ministers, than any other private company.

    On average, between 2009-19, senior government officials and ministers met with their arms industry counterparts 1.64 times a day. This level of influence buys government complicity and makes a mockery of international law in order to safeguard arms dealers’ profits.

    Racism and colonialism in action

    CAAT further argues that underpinning this is the racism and colonialism that is still at the heart of UK foreign policy. It doesn’t matter if this means arming human rights abusing dictators and genocidal regimes – and it doesn’t matter if Black and Brown people are murdered with UK supplied weapons and parts – if this helps pursue a supposed ‘stability’ that promotes US/UK interests.

    CAAT’s media coordinator Emily Apple said:

    Thousands of campaigners across the UK have been vindicated, but it’s too late for tens of thousands of Palestinian and Yemeni people killed with weapons and components exported from the UK.

    Successive governments have manipulated evidence to knowingly and willingly facilitate war crimes and genocide to safeguard arms dealers’ profits. This has to stop.  This has to be the wake up call to take action, reduce the power of the arms trade lobby, and demand a systemic change in our arms export licensing system.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • After World War 2, the US set its sights on becoming the dominant superpower. As a benevolent dictator — an enlightened hegemon — it would spread peace and prosperity across the globe. Its first objective was to defeat what it perceived as the #1 threat to the economic and political system it represented, which was capitalism and democracy, that being communism.

    After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the US decided to leverage its new positioning as the world’s most militarily and economically powerful nation into becoming a full-blown empire. This was the beginning of a period of unprecedented military expansion, i.e. endless wars and defense budget increases which have now all but bankrupted the country. There are a lot of narratives out there about why things are as they are, why the economy is poised on the verge of collapse, but the one offered by War Is Making Us Poor makes the most sense. At least it explains why the excesses of DOD funding is the main reason for many of our current crises.

    This short, powerful book, War Is Making Us Poor, packs more punch and understanding than volumes ten times its size. It presents unmistakeable proof of the mess our country is in, and it points the finger at rampant, accelerating militarism. The sub-title is “Militarism Is Destroying the U.S.”

    Why aren’t people talking about this? Why is this never discussed or debated in the mainstream media?

    The “War Is Making Us Poor” campaign is the beginning of this necessary, vital conversation.

    Why did I write this book at this time?

    It’s simple.

    America is at the end of its ropes. It’s in a tailspin. It’s accelerating its own decline and demise. If we as a nation are not consumed by a nuclear war, then we will be cannibalized by horrible policies which will eventually lead to our destruction as a functioning nation.

    Our fortunes are declining on every front. Our international standing is plummeting. Our power is shrinking. Our economic viability is fatally compromised. As a society, we are unraveling, increasingly more divided, constantly bickering and at each other’s throats. Desperation is the new normal. We are losing our sense of what it is to be “an American”.

    While not the sole cause, it is our military and foreign policy which is largely responsible. We have lost our perspective and are now incapable of cooperation with and respect for other countries. We see the main thrust of this in our militarization both overseas and at home, and our exclusive exercise of military power when dealing with the rest of the world. It’s our way or bombs away. Now with our provoking Russia and China, we are crossing existential red lines. It’s Russian Roulette with bullets in every chamber.

    Domestically, the U.S. — despite the propaganda and spin — is a mess. A crash — a HUGE crash — is coming. The U.S. as a country is becoming insolvent. Individually, we are in debt up to our eyebrows. And both are only getting worse. The U.S. now pays $1 trillion annually just to service the national debt. That debt is increasing by $1 trillion every three to four months. As individual citizens, with inflation so severe, people are so overwhelmed, they’re charging food on their credit cards. There’s no end in sight to any of this, other than a complete implosion.

    In order to slow, and hopefully prevent, our complete bankruptcy, I say we have to target the DOD. As I explain in the book:

    Can we blame all of America’s crises and deficiencies on the military? Perhaps not directly. But we certainly can blame our chronic inability to find the money to fix things on the endless wars and exorbitant DOD budgets.

    The DOD consumes the biggest portion of our national budget. That makes it the “Achilles heel” for the entire edifice of catastrophic priorities.

    Folks, it’s time to get real. We’re at an existential moment in our history as a nation and society. If we don’t begin to act decisively and immediately, then it’s all over.

    Understand, our current national leaders will not solve the problem. They continue to exacerbate the problem. They are the problem. At the end of this very short volume, I’m offering a controversial but realistic proposal. It’s a modest beginning but at least it’s a beginning. I see nothing else out there other than whining and pleading to the very people who are responsible for the disaster, an exercise in futility.

    We can still save America from collapse. But hesitation, no matter how conveniently rationalized, will guarantee failure.

    The post War Is Making Us Poor first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A pious Sunday school teacher confessing to lust in his heart but swearing never to lie, he came to Washington to reestablish public faith in government just when popular disgust at monstrous U.S. crimes in Indochina had reached unprecedented heights. The big business agenda during his term in office (1977-1981) was to roll back the welfare state, break the power of unions, fan the flames of the Cold War to increase military spending, engineer tax breaks for wealthy corporate interests, and repeal government regulation of business. While portraying himself as a peanut-farming populist, Carter delivered the goods for Wall Street.

    Having run as a Washington “outsider,” he immediately filled his administration with Trilateral Commission members, hoping that a coterie of Rockefeller internationalists could resurrect the confidence of American leaders and enrich business relations between Japan and the United States.

    His Secretary of State was Cyrus Vance, a Wall Street lawyer and former planner of the Vietnam slaughter. Secretary of Defense Harold Brown was Lyndon Johnson’s Air Force Secretary and a leading proponent of saturation bombing in Vietnam. Secretary of the Treasury Michael Blumenthal was the standard rich corporation president. Attorney General Griffen Bell was a segregationist judge who disclosed that he would request “inactive” status as a member of Atlanta clubs closed to blacks and Jews [Carter himself stated that housing should be segregated]. Energy coordinator James Schlesinger was a proponent of winnable nuclear war. Transportation Secretary Brock Adams was a staunch proponent of Lockheed’s supersonic transport. National security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski was an anti-Soviet fanatic who said in an interview with the New Yorker that it was “egocentric” to worry that a nuclear war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. would entail “the end of the human race.” Since it was unlikely that every last human being would perish in such event, Brzezinski recommended that critics of U.S. nuclear policy abstain from narcissistic concern for the mere hundreds of millions of people who would.

    In what William Greider, author of Secrets of the Temple (a study of the Federal Reserve Bank), called his most important appointment, Carter named Paul Volcker to chair the Federal Reserve Bank. Stuart Eizenstat, Carter’s assistant for domestic affairs said that, “Volcker was selected because he was the candidate of Wall Street.” The Wall Street agenda became clear when Volcker contracted the money supply and declared, “the standard of living of the average American has to decline.”

    Wealth was funneled upward and wages and production declined. Unemployment and bankruptcy rose, unions shriveled and disappeared, Pentagon spending soared. For the first time ever American white collar families couldn’t save money. With urban housing costs zooming, workers fled to remote suburbs, but the increased commute expenses tended to cancel out cheaper mortgages. Moonlighting and overtime work increased, but added income disappeared in eating out, second commutes, and hired child care. As the cost of necessities outpaced wage gains, only credit cards could fill the widening gap. Hamburger stands and nursing homes proliferated while well-paid manufacturing jobs fled to the Third World. The workforce of the future was said to be a generation of super-efficient robots.

    Carter’s populist assurances simply whetted the public appetite for this kind of dismal anticlimax. While making a few listless gestures towards blacks and the poor, he spent the bulk of his energy promoting corporate profits and building up a huge military machine that drained away public wealth in defense of a far-flung network of repressive “friends” of American business.

    The heaviest applause line in his Inaugural Address was his promise “to move this year a step towards our ultimate goal – the elimination of all nuclear weapons from this Earth.” But after his beguiling rhetoric faded away, he embarked on a program of building two to three nuclear bombs every day. Although he had promised to cut military spending by $5 to $7 billion, he decided to increase it after just six months in office, and his 5% proposed spending increases in each of his last two years in office were identical to those first proposed by Ronald Reagan. Furthermore, having pledged to reduce foreign arms sales, he ended up raising them to new highs, and after speaking of helping the needy, he proposed cutbacks in summer youth jobs, child nutrition programs, and other popular projects serving important social needs. Similarly, though he had campaigned as a friend of labor, he refused a request to increase the minimum wage and opposed most of organized labor’s legislative agenda while handing out huge subsidies to big business. He made much ado about “human rights,” but returned Haiti’s fleeing boat people to the tender care of “Baby Doc” Duvalier, and when a member of the American delegation to the U.N. Human Rights Commission spoke of his “profoundest regrets” for the C.I.A.’s role in General Pinochet’s bloodbath in Chile, Carter scolded him, insisting that the C.I.A.’s actions were “not illegal or improper.”

    Carter came to Washington proclaiming his desire for a comprehensive Middle East peace, including a solution to the Palestinian question “in all its aspects.” Yet at Camp David he failed to grasp the root of the problem, let alone propose a mature way of dealing with it. He assumed that Palestinians were anonymous refugees whose nationalist aspirations could be safely ignored. He supposed a peace treaty could be signed in the absence of the PLO, world recognized as the Palestinians’ “sole legitimate representative.” He offered no apologies for negotiating an agreement that failed even to mention Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. He did not protest Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s presentation of the Accords before the Israeli Knesset as a “deal,” one much more favorable to Israel than to “the Arabs.” He pretended not to notice that corralling Palestinians into Bantustans was not simply a tactic of war, but constituted Israel’s boasted final product of “peace”! Finally, his much praised Camp David accords were the death warrant for Lebanon, as Israel, its southern border secure with the removal of Egypt from the Arab military alliance, was freed to concentrate undivided attention on a long-planned invasion across its northern border. It was this invasion (June 1982) that convinced Osama bin Laden that only mass murder of Americans could ever change U.S. foreign policy.

    Carter was effusive in his praise and blind support of the Shah of Iran, who was deeply unpopular in his country due to policies of super-militarization, forced modernization, and systematic torture. By the time Carter arrived in the White House the Shah’s throne sat atop a veritable powder keg. Iranian cities were hideously unlivable with fifteen percent of the entire country crowded around Teheran in shanty dwellings lacking sewage or other water facilities. The nation’s incalculable oil wealth reached few hands and a restless student generation had no prospects. The country’s bloated bureaucracy was totally corrupt. While Shiite leaders rallied popular support, the Shah’s secret police threw tens of thousands of Iranians into jail, the economy gagged on billions of dollars of Western arms imports (mostly from Washington), and Amnesty International speculated that Iran had achieved the worst human rights record on the planet. Meanwhile, Carter declared that “human rights is the soul of our foreign policy,” though he added the following day that he thought the Shah might not survive in power, a strange expectation if indeed the U.S. stood for human rights around the world.

    After the Shah was overthrown, Carter could not conceive of U.S. responsibility for the actions of enraged Iranian students who seized 66 Americans and held them hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, demanding the return of “the criminal Shah.” (He had admitted the Shah to the U.S. for emergency medical treatment for cancer, thus precipitating the “hostage crisis.”) To Carter, Americans were by definition innocent, outside history, and he dismissed Iranian grievances against the U.S. as ancient history, refusing to discuss them. In his distorted mind, Iranians were terrorists by nature, and Iran had always been a potentially terrorist nation, regardless of what they had suffered at U.S. hands. In short, without the Shah, Carter regarded Iran as a land of swarthy and crazed medievalists, what Washington today calls a “rogue state.”

    Having “lost” Iran, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, along with military outposts and electronic eavesdropping stations used against the Soviet Union, the Carter administration began supporting Afghan Islamic fundamentalists, not making an issue of their having kidnapped the American ambassador in Kabul that year (1979), which resulted in his death in a rescue attempt. While U.S. officials condemned Islamic militants in Iran as terrorists, they praised them as freedom fighters in Afghanistan, though both groups drew inspiration from the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was, in the eyes of official Washington, the Devil incarnate. In a 1998 interview Carter’s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted that the U.S. had begun giving military assistance to the Islamic fundamentalist moujahedeen in Afghanistan six months before the U.S.S.R. invaded the country, even though he was convinced – as he told Carter – that “this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.” Among the consequences of that policy were a decade-and-a-half of war that claimed the lives of a million Afghans, moujahedeen torture that U.S. government officials called “indescribable horror,” half the Afghan population either dead, crippled, or homeless, and the creation of thousands of Islamic fundamentalist warriors dedicated to unleashing spectacularly violent attacks in countries throughout the world.

    The list of disastrous policies can go on. For example, Carter continued the Ford Administration’s policy of backing Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, which killed tens of thousands of Timorese during Carter’s years in office, and roughly a third of the Timorese population overall between 1975 and 1979. In 1977-1978 while Indonesia engaged in wholesale destruction in the form of massive bombardment, wiping out of villages and crops, and relocation of populations to concentration camps, the Carter Administration extended the military and diplomatic support necessary to make it all possible. In late 1977 Washington replenished Indonesia’s depleted supplies with a sharp increase in the flow of military equipment (Jakarta used U.S.-supplied OV-10 Broncos, planes designed for counterinsurgency operations) encouraging the ferocious attacks that reduced East Timor to the level of Pol Pot’s Cambodia. In a 1979 interview with the New York Times Father Leoneto Vieira do Rego, a Portuguese priest who spent three years in the mountains of East Timor between 1976 and 1979, said that “the genocide and starvation was the result of the full-scale incendiary bombing . . . I personally witnessed – while running to protected areas, going from tribe to tribe – the great massacre from bombardment and people dying from starvation.” In May 1980 Brian Eads reported for the London Observer that “malnutrition and disease are still more widespread than in ravaged Cambodia.” Relating the comments of an official recently back from a visit to Cambodia, Eads added that “by the criteria of distended bellies, intestinal disease and brachial parameter – the measurement of the upper arm – the East Timorese are in a worse state than the Khmers.” Another stellar achievement of the “Human Rights” administration.

    Furthermore, during Carter’s brief reign he ordered production of the neutron bomb (which his administration praised for “only” destroying people while leaving property intact), endorsed “flexible response” and “limited” nuclear war, lobbied for the radar-evading cruise missile, developed a rapid deployment force for instant intervention anywhere, enacted selective service registration in peacetime, and advocated the construction of first-strike MX missiles for use in a nuclear shell game along an elaborate system of underground railroad tracks proposed for the Utah desert. While lecturing the Soviets on human rights, he escalated state terror in El Salvador, crushed democracy in South Korea, gave full support to Indonesia’s near genocide in East Timor, and maintained or increased funding for the Shah, Somoza, Marcos, Brazil’s neo-Nazi Generals, and the dictatorships of Guatemala, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Bolivia, and Zaire. He refused to heed Archbishop Romero’s desperate plea to cut off U.S. aid to the blood drenched Salvadoran junta, and Romero was promptly assassinated. Furthermore, he said nothing at all when the London Sunday Times revealed that the torture of Arabs implicated “all of Israel’s security forces” and was so “systematic that it cannot be dismissed as a handful of ‘rogue cops’ exceeding orders.” And though he presented himself as sympathetic to those who had opposed the Vietnam war, he refused to pay reconstruction aid on the grounds that during the devastating U.S. attack on the tiny country, “the destruction was mutual.” (Try arguing that the Nazi invasion of Poland wasn’t a crime because “destruction was mutual.”)

    Carter turned domestic policy over to Wall Street, refusing to increase the minimum wage and telling his Cabinet that increasing social spending “is something we just can’t do.” According to Peter Bourne, special assistant to the president in the Carter White House, he “did not see health care as every citizen’s right,” though every other industrial state in the world except apartheid South Africa disagreed with him. He understood that liberals desired it, but, Bourne notes, “he never really accepted it.” Instead, “he preferred to talk movingly of his deep and genuine empathy for those who suffered for lack of health care, as though the depth of his compassion could be a substitute for a major new and expensive government solution for the problem.” In point of fact, money can be saved under a government funded plan, but Carter was uninterested. He insisted on controlling business costs rather than providing universal coverage, neglecting to note that under Medicare – universal insurance for the elderly – administrative costs were a fraction of those charged under private HMOs.

    Carter simply could not comprehend the vast unmet social needs that existed (and exist) in the United States. He thought there was a way to maintain a global military presence, balance the budget, and keep business costs low while adequately meeting social welfare needs via reorganizing programs. When his Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Joe Califano informed him that without increased funding many welfare recipients would be worse off after any reorganization than before, Carter erupted: “Are you telling me that there is no way to improve the present welfare system except by spending billions of dollars? In that case, to hell with it!” In response to a comment that his denial of federal funding for poor people’s abortions was unfair, Carter summed up the political philosophy that rendered him hopelessly unprogressive: “Well, as you know, there are many things in life that are not fair, that wealthy people can afford and poor people cannot.”

    Like political candidates who do their bidding.

    The post False Savior: Jimmy Carter first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Campaigners at PARC Against DARC, which launched in May 2024 to block the proposed US military DARC radars at Brawdy in Pembrokeshire say it’s only a matter of time until the proposed radars receive national scrutiny. This follows Cefin Campbell MS submitting a Statement of Opinion on DARC radar in the Senedd.

    The move comes after a vote at Plaid Cymru’s national conference last October where the Party unanimously backed a motion to oppose DARC and support the campaign to halt its development.

    Statement of Opinion tabled in the Senedd to oppose DARC Radar

    Plaid Cymru’s Cefin Campbell who tabled the Statement of Opinion is one of four regional MSs representing Mid and West Wales. He said:

    Plaid Cymru has a long and honourable history of promoting peace around the globe and opposing militarism at every level. We cannot therefore support the construction of DARC and give space to American militarism on our land.

    Furthermore, no assessment at all has been completed on its impact on the community in terms of tourism, health, or the economy, and the assumption is that it will be harmful on each count.

    Statements of Opinion are a mechanism within the Senedd by which elected MSs can register their concerns on particular issues as a means to gauge feeling from other Senedd Members who can then support or oppose the statements. This is a similar mechanism to ‘Early Day Motions’ which are used in Westminster and are considered to be an effective way to raise awareness over certain issues with an aim of escalating to plenary debates within the Senedd chamber later on.

    PARC Against DARC say they worked closely with Cefin Campbell, and other MS’s to draft the Statement of Opinion which reads:

    This Senedd

    1. Notes:

    a) the opposition by Pembrokeshire residents to the Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability (DARC) proposal by the Ministry of Defence;

    b) concerns regarding the visual and tourism impact of 27 large radar dishes in view of a coastal national park of significant UK importance and national heritage in nearby St David’s;

    c) concerns regarding unaddressed health risks and regional security implications; and

    d) the petition of 16,000 signatures against the proposal.

    2. Calls on the Welsh Government to commission an authoritative impact assessment of the plan to better inform residents and decision-makers

    DARC Radar would give Trump the keys to Pembrokeshire to control space

    The campaign, which has asserted its view that the proposed 27 dish radar array would give Donald Trump and the US the ability to militarily dominate all of space from Pembrokeshire and two other proposed sites located in Australia and the US, won a campaign in the 1990s to fight off a very similar proposal.

    A spokesperson told the Canary:

    The successful campaign in the 90’s became an issue of national and international importance which was debated in UK parliament and subsequently cancelled very publicly by the then Conservative government. We fully expect the DARC radar proposal to receive the same level of national scrutiny this time round and we believe it’s only a matter of time before decision makers are forced to U-turn on this very unpopular proposal.

    With Trump now at the helm in the US, which is terrifying enough in itself, who in their right mind would support giving over a precious piece of Pembrokeshire’s landscape to the US military so that Trump, along with his incoherent foreign policies would be able to control space from here?! Especially when you consider that DARC directly breaches several international treaties which dictate that space must be kept for peace and never used for military purposes

    With other local infrastructure projects currently at pre-planning stages which campaigners assert DARC would be reliant on, they also believe that the planning application for DARC should include these as part of the wider application, inline with current planning legislation and regulations.

    These include the new pylons DARC would need, the proposed Newgale bypass and a data Cable which Vodafone hopes to lay from Ireland to Brawdy. “Given that the MOD admits there would be hundreds of lorries per day needed to construct DARC” say campaigners, “it is very apparent to everyone concerned that DARC would not be viable without the new road and the other elements of additional infrastructure, therefore the MOD should be forced to adhere to current planning law and apply for them all at once”.

    DARC set to become a ‘pivotal issue’ in 2026 Senedd Elections

    On Wednesday 12 Feburary, Roy Jones, a leading activist of PARC Against DARC travelled to Cardiff Bay to hand deliver letters to all 60 Members of the Senedd. The letters raise multiple concerns about DARC as well as imploring the MS’s to support Cefin Campbell’s Statement of Opinion and to meet with the Campaign at an event they will be hosting at the Senedd on 5 March.

    The campaign has urged anyone with concerns about DARC to write to their local and regional MS’s asking them to support the Statement of Opinion. The group said:

    With the 2026 Senedd elections also seeing an increase in the number of MS’s from 60 to 96 as well as a move to proportional representation across the board, we are sure that this will become a pivotal issue as the candidates and parties begin vying for votes in the build up to the 2026 elections. Our 16,000 strong petition demonstrates how unpopular DARC already is among locals and we believe that as awareness grows so will the pressure for candidates to join with public opinion and stand up against DARC.

    The campaign says it also has its sights set on similar processes in Westminster and are already receiving help from several MPs:

    A matter of such hugely significant national interest cannot be decided by a few planning officials at PCC [Pembrokeshire County Council] and must therefore be escalated to the appropriate levels of government for real scrutiny and thorough investigation.

    Campaigners set to lobby Senedd Members

    On Wednesday 5 March as part of the United Nations international day of disarmament and non-proliferation awareness, with Heddwch ar Waith a Welsh Peace network, PARC Against DARC, along with other campaigns such as CND Cymru, Stop the War, and the Peace Pledge Union will be hosting presentations in the Peirhead building at the Senedd including a lunchtime session where all MS’s will be invited to come along and learn more about the dangers of the DARC proposal and the growing levels of militarism in Wales. Heledd Fychan MS will sponsor the day’s proceedings.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Arts University Bournemouth has announced it will boycott fossil fuel industry recruitment, implementing a new Ethical Careers Policy. The university has now excluded oil, gas, and arms industries from attending careers fairs or advertising vacancies through the university’s Careers and Enterprise Service.

    Arts University Bournemouth: offloading fossil fuels and arms

    Arts University Bournemouth is now the 11th UK university to end fossil fuel recruitment on campus, following a wave of student pressure for universities across the UK to cut ties with the fossil fuel industry over environmental and social justice concerns.

    As the Canary previously reported, in December 2024 Aberystwyth University committed to ending its recruitment ties with fossil fuel and mining companies. In doing so, it became the third university in Wales to exclude the fossil fuel industry from its careers and recruitment activities.

    In an updated Ethical Careers Policy published on Aberystwyth’s website, the university states that it will “no longer collaborate or hold relationships” with fossil fuel, mining or tobacco companies. This followed similar commitments from the Universities of Swansea in November 2023 and Wrexham in December 2022.

    All this comes as part of the Fossil Free Careers campaign led by the UK’s largest student campaigning network, People & Planet.

    People & Planet

    The campaign calls on universities to adopt an Ethical Careers Policy excluding fossil fuel and mining industries from careers recruitment.

    To date, Fossil Free Careers has received backing from 19 students’ unions across the UK and has been endorsed by the National Union of Students (NUS) and the University and College Union (UCU) at its National Congress.

    This announcement from Arts University Bournemouth demonstrates a further commitment to sustainability from the university, as students across the UK continue to push for their universities to cut all ties with the fossil fuel industry.

    Alison Zorraquin, employability manager at Arts University Bournemouth, said in a statement:

    At AUB, our student cohort strongly values sustainability, equality, and social responsibility. These principles are championed by the university, and in alignment with its code of ethics, we have decided to advertise roles exclusively with companies whose missions align with these values.

    Josie Mizen, climate justice co-director at People & Planet said:

    We’re delighted to see Arts University Bournemouth become the latest university to cut recruitment ties with the fossil fuel industry. The arts have a pivotal role to play in the fight for a fairer world, so it’s only right that arts universities should be leading the way in putting climate justice front and centre in their work. We hope to see more arts and music colleges follow in their footsteps.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Across the globe, communities are still reeling from the sudden cutoff of U.S. funding for food aid, vaccination programs, education, disability supports and more. The State Department issued guidance freezing foreign assistance for at least a 90-day period on January 25, throwing programs funded with U.S. foreign aid into turmoil worldwide. As a result, an estimated $500 million in food aid…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Last April, in a move generating scant media attention, the Air Force announced that it had chosen two little-known drone manufacturers — Anduril Industries of Costa Mesa, California, and General Atomics of San Diego — to build prototype versions of its proposed Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), a future unmanned plane intended to accompany piloted aircraft on high-risk combat missions.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) has sent a legal letter to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Suffolk County Council highlighting concerns over the potential stationing of US nuclear weapons at an RAF base in Lakenheath, Suffolk.

    CND: US nuclear weapons should not be in Suffolk

    The campaign group points to indications from the US Air Force (USAF) which they say suggest that such weapons, which were previously housed at the base until 2008, could be stationed there once again.

    CND says the authorities do not have the required plans and measures in place to deal with emergency situations that could arise from the storage of radioactive materials.

    Nuclear weapons were initially housed at Lakenheath from 1954, with two major incidents in subsequent years seriously risking the detonation of the bombs and potentially resulting in catastrophic consequences. The weapons were removed in 2008, and the base has since only hosted USAF units and personnel.

    However, the recent 2024 USAF budgetary justification package put forward the need for ‘surety dormitory’ at Lakenheath – with ‘surety’ a term used by the US government to refer to the capability to securely store nuclear weapons.

    CND wrote to the MoD to challenge planning for the dormitory and the potential storage of nuclear weapons at RAF Lakenheath in November 2023. Upgrades to Lakenheath were completed in November 2024 which gave the base the capability to house F-35 aircraft, which are capable of carrying nuclear bombs.

    Breaching regulations?

    It argues that if the UK government were to allow nuclear weapons to be stationed at Lakenheath without proper emergency plans, this could be in breach of statutory obligations under a number of the 2019 Radiation Regulations.

    These regulations include a requirement to carry out a hazard evaluation and have plans prepared to limit the possibility of a radiation emergency, as well as a consequence assessment for if one should occur.

    CND says that no such planning appears to have taken place, which puts on-site personnel, civilians, and the environment in danger.

    In its latest letter to the secretary of state for defence, the group invites the government to demonstrate if the regulations have been met, and if not, urges that appropriate assessments of the nuclear incident risks take place within two months. CND has written to Suffolk County Council as well arguing that it has similarly failed to comply with the 2019 Radiation Regulations.

    The group says that the council has also failed to meet obligations under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which requires it to make occasional assessments of the risk of an emergency occurring, as well as maintain emergency plans.

    In its letter to Suffolk County Council, CND asks that it completes a full assessment of the risks of a nuclear incident occurring at Lakenheath.

    CND: it’s ‘totally unacceptable’

    CND general secretary Sophie Bolt said:

    While the council has now prepared a response to any potential accident at the Sizewell nuclear plant, it seems to have no such emergency plan for the deployment of US nuclear weapons to RAF Lakenheath.

    Why such a huge oversight – especially given the accidents and mishaps when handling nuclear weapons that have taken place at the base historically. This lack of emergency planning is absolutely shocking considering US nuclear bombs could now be at the base.

    It’s totally unacceptable that the British government uses nuclear secrecy to avoid any accountability for these deployments when they pose such a huge risk to the environment and the population.

    Leigh Day environment solicitor Ricardo Gama said:

    With escalating nuclear rhetoric around the world and the possibility of nuclear weapons returning to UK soil, CND believes that the government needs to come clean about the risks that nuclear weapons pose to the public and the environment. That’s why they’re particularly concerned that laws requiring emergency procedures for sites involving radioactive materials have been overlooked by the government and local authorities. We hope that the Ministry of Defence and Suffolk County Council will clarify what plans, if any, the authorities have in place to deal with a nuclear emergency.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Two Youth Demand supporters sprayed paint over a University of Glasgow building to demand the UK government impose a complete trade embargo on Israel, including on arms sales.

    University of Glasgow: complicit in Israel’s genocide

    At around 9:50am on Thursday 6 February, Hannah Taylor and Catriona Roberts used fire extinguishers to spray the James McCune Smith Learning Hub in red paint:

    The pair then glued onto the front of the building:

    One of those who took action is Hannah Taylor, a maths masters student and hospitality employee from Glasgow, who said:

    I was forced into action today because Glasgow University has blatantly ignored the will of the majority of its students and staff, and insisted on continuing to invest in Israeli linked arms research. I’m enraged that I’ve been forced into complicity with the killing and maiming of Palestinian children, both by my university and by my government. As students we demand an immediate trade embargo including all arms. If you too are sick of standing by and watching a genocide be legitimised and enabled go to youthdemand.org and take action now.

    Catriona Roberts, who is also a student from Glasgow, said:

    The Palestinian people are still under siege. No ceasefire will wash away the blame from our genocidal government. We demand our government stops arming the Israeli state and imposes a full trade embargo. Our institutions follow the lead of our government, who continue to trade and send arms to Israel, a state guilty of genocide. We refuse to be made complicit in the mutilation of children. Please take a stand, join us in April and go to youthdemand.org.

    In November, the University of Glasgow refused to prohibit its endowment fund managers from investing in companies that earn more than 10% of their income from arms manufacturing.

    The University of Glasgow has £6.8 million worth of shareholdings in arms companies such as BAE systems and QinetiQ. They have also received around £600,000 in research funding from BAE systems and Rolls Royce since 2017. QinetiQ, a supplier of military robotics, has been criticised for their active export of arms to Israel and involvement in the British Army Watchkeeper Programme which allegedly tested the drones on Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

    This is despite overwhelming opposition from both student groups and staff. A survey of 2,400 staff and students at the university found that 81% of staff and 84% of students were in favour of divestment.

    Join Youth Demand on the streets of London every day in April by signing up at youthdemand.org

    Featured image and video supplied

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Throughout the election campaign US President Donald Trump often claimed that Biden’s administration made a lot of mistakes while in power. Many of them, according to Trump, just fueled the flame of the protracted war between Russia and Ukraine. The US President and his supporters fiercely condemned the Democrats for numerous aid packages, that, from their point of view, not only pulled the opposing sides away from negotiations but also damaged the American economy. In his speeches Trump systematically stressed his intention to bring an end to the conflict in a very short time by halting military aid to Ukraine and forcing the warring parties to enter into peace talks. Billing himself as a “peacekeeper”, Trump inspired hope of the war to be ended.

    However, on January 13, the newspaper Financial Times released the information that the 47th President of the USA urged Kyiv to lower Ukraine’s conscription age from 25 to 18, promising to equip recruits with all necessary clothing and gear as well as weapons. This injunction can be considered to be an indispensable condition for Kyiv to get further financial and military assistance from the USA. Thus, before sending arms and materiel to Ukraine, Trump is determined to make sure that the problem of personnel shortage within its Armed Forces is solved. It seems that Trump and Zelensky reached a certain agreement behind the scenes that made the US President move away from his campaign pledges and reconsider his attitude to financing Ukraine. Conditions, set to Kyiv, leave no possibility to see the end of the Russo-Ukrainian war in the near future, as the lowering of the conscription age, according to the experts, will bring hundreds of thousands recruits to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Such a hefty increase of personnel, in its turn, will instigate another round of escalation instead of bringing peace.

    Agreement reached by the leaders of the USA and Ukraine is confirmed by the active changes in the educational programs of the latter. Traditional school subjects are substituted with military disciplines, new courses, such as “Drones and how to operate them”, are introduced and more time is now devoted to PE. Military trainings for boys and girls every three months, annual paramilitary teen camps testify that Kyiv starts to train recruits when they are just kids. Definitely, the base to lower the conscription age to the point, voiced by Trump, has been already prepared, and, despite an official rejection of condition, set by the US President, Kyiv is elaborating relevant legislative measures. This fact is confirmed by the announcement made by Chairmen of the Council of Reservists of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Ivan Tymochko, who said that since January 1st, 2025, all men from 18 to 25 must undergo military training without an exception. According to some information, spread over Ukrainian social networks, draft offices in several regions have already finished the lists of men of the mentioned age group, who will be conscripted in the very near future. Thus, we can only hope that Ukraine won’t recruit teens, as the current policy can lead to such an outcome in the in the next few years.

    The post Failed Peacekeeper? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) has called for a ban on defense contractor stock trading within Congress, saying it’s wrong that lawmakers are able to personally profit from approving hundreds of billions of dollars to fund militarism in the U.S. and across the world year after year. In an op-ed in the Detroit Free Press, Tlaib said it is “incredibly disturbing” that Congress has passed yet…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On 28 January, Labour Party defence secretary John Healey spoke at the annual ADS dinner. The dinner, held at the JW Marriott Grosvenor House hotel on Park Lane, is a major lobbying and networking event for the arms industry. Healey used his speech to criticise student campus protests over arms trade involvement in their universities. He stated that “We don’t stop wars by boycotting our defence…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • RAF Akrotiri is a UK airbase on Cyprus. And while the British government and its mainstream media lapdogs have tried to limit public knowledge about the base’s support for Israel during its genocide in Gaza, people who oppose the settler-colonial state’s war crimes are keeping up the pressure. Artwork on the London Underground from Matt Bonner, for example, highlights RAF Akrotiri’s…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Protesters vow that arms dealers and politicians will not dine in peace at their £265-£540-a-head annual dinner – as they prepare another year of disruption to the event. The Aerospace, Defence & Security (ADS) Group is an arms-industry trade body that represents most of the world’s biggest arms firms. And according to Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), every year it holds a dinner to “bring…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On January 23rd, activists targeted Kelvinside Electronics in Glasgow, spraying the interior with red paint and leaving signs that read: “Drop Leonardo Contract” and “Don’t Profit from Genocide”: Kelvinside Electronics has supplied services for both Leonardo and Thales. Leonardo, one of the worlds largest arms manufacturers, has close ties to the Israeli state and to the Israeli based…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Protestors led by Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and Drone Wars will gather outside the main gates of RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire at 1pm on Saturday 25 January to oppose plans to fly US Global Hawk drones from the base. The protest comes as the newly inaugurated US president Donald Trump once again repeated his plan to ‘Make America Great’ articulating a ‘peace through strength’ foreign policy.

    US drones in the UK: WTF?

    The US plan to operate the huge RQ-4 Global Hawk drones from RAF Fairford as part of NATO’s ‘Agile Combat Employment’ (ACE) concept which argues that key military aircraft should be able to operate from different bases in order to make it harder for adversaries to conduct pre-emptive strikes.

    As the Telegraph reported, “introducing the long-range RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance drones to the Gloucestershire base means severing a vital flight path used by airlines serving the West Midlands airport several times a week”:

    Now airport managers have written to the CAA warning that flights could be extended by hundreds of extra miles and delayed by up to 20 minutes while the Global Hawks are flying to and from Fairford.

    According to documents submitted to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the “working assumption” is that when the drones are at the base they will fly 2-3 times per week. However, a trial flight of the giant drone into the base in August 2024 seriously disrupted UK passenger flights arriving into Birmingham airport.

    No, no, no

    CND general secretary Sophie Bolt said:

    The Global Hawk is part of the US spying apparatus and has been for decades, from the devastating invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to supporting Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Whether it’s US nuclear weapons stationed at RAF Lakenheath or drone flights from RAF Fairford, these British bases are critical hubs for the US war-fighting machine. With Donald Trump back in power this is even more alarming. Instead of hiding behind bogus arguments of national security, the British government should be held accountable for the war crimes being perpetrated from these bases.

    Director of Drone Wars Chris Cole said:

    While in theory the UK has to give approval for any military operations carried out from its territory, given that the UK government is so determined to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Washington, there must be serious questions as to whether the Government would ever refuse permission for flights, no matter what the purpose of the operation. Allowing US drones to fly from Fairford is effectively handing Washington a blank cheque for its drone operations and must be challenged.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Twinning the terms “ceasefire” and “Gaza” seems not only incongruous but an obscene joke.  This is largely because the ceasefire announced on January 15 between Israel and Hamas could have been reached so much earlier by all the concerned parties.  But will was lacking in Washington to force Israel’s hand, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was repeatedly of the belief that Hamas had to be unconditionally defeated, if not extirpated altogether, for any such arrangements to be reached.

    A general outline of the ceasefire terms was released by Qatar, a vital broker in the talks between Hamas and Israel.  According to its Ministry of Foreign Affairs release, there are to be three phases in the agreement.  The first phase will involve the release of 33 Israeli detainees in exchange for a number of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.  The second and third phase “will be finalized during the implementation of the first phase.”

    The first stage will last for six weeks and see, should things pan out, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all populated areas of Gaza and the return of Palestinians to their neighbourhoods. (To say homes, in this regard, would be monstrously distasteful, seeing that many would have been flattened.)  Humanitarian aid deliveries will also be increased and distributed “on a large scale” through the Strip, while hospitals, health centres, and bakeries will be rehabilitated. Supplies of fuel for civilian use and shelter for displaced persons deprived of their homes will also be facilitated.

    The second stage envisages a conclusion to the war, a full withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from the Strip and the return of all remaining living hostages in return for another allotment of Palestinian prisoners.  The third entails reconstructing Gaza and the return of any remaining bodies of the hostages.

    Despite his habitual impotence in the face of Netanyahu, US President Joe Biden saw the agreement as a masterstroke.  Oddly enough, he insisted that the plan resembled almost to the letter a plan he had advanced in May 2024.  “I laid out the precise contours of this plan on May 31, 2024, after which it was endorsed unanimously by the UN Security Council.”

    He omitted to mention the US vetoing of no fewer than five ceasefire resolutions proposed at that same body, not to mention those foggy “red lines” he insisted Netanyahu never cross when waging war against Hamas and the Palestinian populace.  Such gestures as delaying the shipment of 2,000-pound bombs for fear that they might be used by the IDF in such areas as Rafah were purely symbolic in nature.

    As Netanyahu had no interest in being bound by any such lines of engagement, Biden’s national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, could only crankily remark to reporters that it was all a media obsession.  “The whole issue of the red line, as you define it, is something that you guys like; it’s almost become a bit of a national parlour game.”

    While Biden clawed and scraped for credit, it was incoming US President Donald Trump claiming the lion’s share.  And why not?  With his inauguration on January 20, the timing of the ceasefire, with Israel finally relenting, was no coincidence.  “This EPIC ceasefire agreement,” Trump stated in a roaring post on his Truth Social platform, “could only have happened as result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signalled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our Allies.”

    While Biden and his officials fumed at this claim, it was clear that Trump had a sharp point.  His incoming Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff has had a busy January interposing in the negotiation process, spending time in Doha as part of the discussions on the Israeli hostages, then meeting Netanyahu in a January 11 encounter that was reported to be “tense”.

    According to the Times of Israel, Witkoff was most insistent that the Israeli PM accept essential compromises.  Two nights after their meeting, the negotiating teams of both Israel and Hamas notified the mediators that they had accepted the deal on hostages in principle.  In the view of two Arab officials cited in the paper, Trump’s envoy had done “more to sway the premier in a single sit-down than outgoing President Joe Biden did all year”.

    Whoever claims credit for these latest developments hardly lessens the bitterness of the harvest.  The prevarications, delays and obstructions have permitted massive destruction and loss of life to take place.  Cowardice and bad faith have been the hallmarks of the process.  It remains unclear how all the relevant parties will behave.  Netanyahu will remain bitter that his goals of eliminating Hamas have not been achieved. It’s a point that his cabinet colleagues on the far right, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, are all too readily reminding him of.

    The question of who controls Gaza after the phases conclude remains a thick encumbrance.  Then comes that big issue after Trump’s inauguration.  How far will his involvement be constructive in achieving a lasting peace, or merely default to the exclusive security goals and interests of Israel?  If history is a reliable guide on this point, the omens are not good.

    The post Bitter Harvests: The Gaza Ceasefire first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Local campaigners have uncovered a previously-missed company that is actually now one of the biggest UK arms exporters to Israel – therefore, complicit in its genocide. Meet G&H Artemis.

    G&H Artemis: supplying arms to genocidal Israel

    On Monday 13 January, campaigners across the south west stopped business at Gooch and Housego’s (G&H) Artemis site in Plymouth:

    The action marks the start of a new campaign – Shut Down G&H – committed to shutting down a company that’s deeply complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza:

    G&H Artemis

    According to research by Campaign Against Arms Trade, G&H, with the acquisition of Phoenix Optical Technologies last year, is now the largest recipient of single issue arms export licenses to Israel between October 2021 and May 2023.

    G&H Artemis export a range of military equipment to Israel, including components for head up/down displays for military aircraft. G&H Artemis provide optical and laser technology for head up displays.

    On the ground, activists reported that many of the workers couldn’t gain entry to the factory due to the disruption.

    A spokesperson for Shut Down G&H said “this act of resistance was inspired by the growing awareness that G&H is directly implicated in the murder of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. This is unconscionable. As the local community, we are taking action to reject our city’s complicity in Israel’s genocide and display our unequivocal solidarity with the struggle for Palestinian life, freedom, and self-determination”:

    Today’s action is only the start. G&H have offices across the South West. We can and we must shut them down!

    Slipping under the radar

    The Canary asked G&H Artemis for comment – but the company declined to provide us with one.

    Campaign Against Arms Trade’s media coordinator, Emily Apple, said:

    It’s great to see this campaign being launched today. For too long G&H has got away with slipping under the radar. It should be a household name. Everyone should know this company is complicit in and profiting from Israel’s genocide.

    In only imposing a partial arms suspension, this government has made it clear that it will continue to prioritise arms dealers’ profits over Palestinian lives and international law. It’s therefore down to ordinary people across the country to take action and say no to the genocide profiteers on their doorsteps.

    Featured image and additional images supplied

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The ongoing controversy over RAF Akrotiri‘s participation in Israel’s genocide in Gaza is not the only scandal relating to British armed forces. Because the Afghanistan Inquiry into possible UK Special Forces (UKSF) war crimes has just revealed that SAS officers had a “golden pass allowing them to get away with murder” from 2010 to 2013.

    This is according to a former senior Special Boat Service (SBS) officer who, along with others, had raised concerns in 2011 about SAS executions and cover-ups.

    Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick faced criticism in 2024 for “casually revealing a UK extra-judicial assassination program designed to evade ECHR jurisdiction”. And there were many official denials. But the revelations from the Afghanistan Inquiry suggest that this type of behaviour may indeed be commonplace.

    The inquiry’s closed hearings do not allow attendance by members of the public, the media, or the legal teams of bereaved families.

    SAS: kill counts, child murder, impunity, and fear of WikiLeaks

    As the BBC reports:

    Senior SBS officers told the inquiry of deep concerns that the SAS, fresh from aggressive, high-tempo operations in Iraq, was being driven by kill counts – the number of dead they could achieve in each operation.

    A junior officer of the SBS, meanwhile, reported how an SAS member had spoken “about a pillow being put over the head of someone before they were killed with a pistol”. They added that “some of those killed by the SAS had been children” likely younger than 16.

    In an email, another SBS officer showed concern about what might happen if they didn’t speak out:

    When the next WikiLeaks occurs then we will be dragged down with them

    One said that “basically, there appears to be a culture there of ‘shut up, don’t question’”.

    The low level of accountability for the SAS was apparently “astonishing”.

    British support for and participation in Israel’s genocide in Gaza has been utterly damning. But the UK seems not to reserve impunity only for its allies’ crimes. Instead, it seems to be how things work with our own forces too.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg1 mikeprysner left split2

    We look at what we know about two deadly incidents that unfolded in the United States on New Year’s Day: a truck attack in New Orleans in which a driver killed at least 14 people before being shot dead by police, and the explosion of a Tesla Cybertruck outside a Trump hotel in Las Vegas, part of an apparent suicide. The FBI has identified the New Orleans suspect as 42-year-old U.S. Army veteran Shamsud-Din Jabbar, who had posted videos to social media before the attack pledging allegiance to the Islamic State militant group. In the Las Vegas case, the driver was 37-year-old Matthew Livelsberger of Colorado, an active-duty Army Green Beret, who is believed to have shot himself before the blast. Investigators say they have not found a link between the two incidents despite both men being connected to the military, but Army veteran and antiwar organizer Mike Prysner says “military service is now the number one predictor of becoming what is called a mass casualty offender, surpassing even mental health issues.” Prysner says the U.S. military depends on social problems like alienation and inequality in order to gain new recruits, then “spits them back out” in often worse shape, with people exposed to violence sometimes turning to extremism. “We have these deep-rooted problems in our society that give rise to these incidents of mass violence. Service members and veterans … can actually be a part of changing society and getting to the root of those issues and moving society forward,” he says, citing uniformed resistance to the Vietnam and Iraq wars as examples.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Since the state of Israel’s founding, its leaders and supporters have sought acceptance among other states as a peer, and legitimacy in the eyes of the global public. It has achieved mixed success on the former — and failed repeatedly on the latter. The examples are numerous. The 2022 World Cup, for one, saw a flood of social media videos involving Israeli reporters pursuing interviews with…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • China reiterated its concerns about the Philippines’ plan to acquire the US Typhon missile defense system. In the foreign ministry press briefing on Thursday, December 26, the spokesperson of the ministry, Mao Ning, claimed it is a “strategic and offensive” weapon which may fuel arms race in the region. China also restated its long-standing demand for the withdrawal of the system already deployed near its borders.

    Ning reminded the leadership in the Philippines of their promise of never taking sides among the major powers.

    The post China Demands Withdrawal Of US Missile System From The Philippines appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On December 11, activists opposing the ongoing Israeli genocide in the Gaza Strip picketed the Brooklyn Navy Yard in New York City for the fifth time since September. The activists, collectively known as Demilitarize Brooklyn Navy Yard (DBNY), seek to pressure the manufacturing complex’s board of directors to evict two tenants connected to the Israeli military: Crye Precision…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • When Japan, already considered an enemy of the United States, sent its air force to U.S. territory and bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, the same date on the calendar that former opposition forces of the Iraq government entered Damascus, the U.S. government and media emphasized the more serious situation ─ the U.S. was at war with Japan. Press coverage and U.S. government response to the “fall” of the Assad government distracted from the serious situation ─ Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), successor to former Al-Qaeda affiliate, Al-Nusra Front, which the U.S. labelled a terrorist organization and enemy of the United States and previously fought to prevent gaining control of Syria, sent its forces to seize control of Syria.

    The conventional U.S. media treated the ominous events as a tale of the daily lives of two individuals — Abu Mohammad al-Jolani and Bashar al-Assad — Jesse James vs the evil banks. Amidst their entertaining stories are misinterpretations, lack of depth in analysis, and inattention to details. More valid discussion of a momentous event and where the United States is centered in the crisis are helpful.

    Bashar Assad had already fallen.
    With half the population displaced or out of the country, with sanctions depriving the people of energy, and with foreign forces wandering at will throughout the countryside, Syria navigated on fumes. Its government hardly breathed. Assad had already fallen. Considering the coming winter chill, he decided to change residences.

    The U.S. had no fingers in the cookie jar.
    What a whopper.

    • Is it a coincidence that the U.S. supported Syrian Democratic Forces launched an attack on villages in the northern countryside of Deir Al Zor province on Tuesday, December 3?
    • Is it a coincidence that, on Nov 12, U.S. Central Command in Eastern Syria said, “it had carried out attacks against ‘Iranian backed groups’ in Syria, hitting nine targets at two separate locations in the country over the previous 24-hour period.”
    • Didn’t the U.S. air force bomb, strafe, and repulse militias from the Iraq Popular Mobilization Forces, who tried to enter Iraq and assist the Syrian military?
    • Why did the “US A-10s, B-52s, target dozens of ISIS sites in Syria? Air Force planes dropped roughly 140 munitions on a ‘very broad’ gathering of ISIS fighters early Sunday morning (December 8).” Why weren’t the attacks done before the walkover? Obvious answer ─ previously the U.S. encouraged ISIS’ needling the Syrians. Now, Uncle Sam did not favor ISIS needling the new favorites in the neocon world.

    Another U.S. counterproductive and foreign policy failure.
    U.S. foreign policy initiatives have one common thread ─ counterproductive and homicidal.

    • Calculated to prevent North Vietnam from obtaining control of all of Vietnam, 10 years of war resulted in 1-2 million Vietnamese casualties and North Vietnam obtaining control of Vietnam.
    • Fifty years of a Cold War struggle, in which the United States inflicted casualties on millions around the world, designed to prevent the Soviet Union from extending its hammer and sickle and challenge U.S. hegemony, resulted in a Russia that extends its territory and vigorously challenges U.S. hegemony.
    • U.S. troops, sent on a mission to feed and stabilize Somalia, shot up the place, paved the road for al-Shabaab, a Salafi terrorist organization, and scurried out of an anarchic Somalia.
    • The U.S. fought twenty years in Afghanistan to replace the Taliban with…..the Taliban.
    • The U.S. invasion of a moribund Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, alleged as an opportunity to remove an international threat, triggered the emergence of a parade of international threats, which terrorized the Fertile Crescent, and solidified the Iraq Popular Mobilization Forces that challenge the U.S. in Iraq. These forces ally with Iran, which the U.S. State Department considers an international threat. The Iraq Body Count project documents 186,901 – 210,296 violent civilian deaths during the Iraq war. In 2007, due to sectarian violence that emerged from the U.S. invasion, Iraq had about 4 million displaced persons. Between January 2014 and August 2015, 2.9 million persons fled their homes in three new mass waves of displacement following offensives by ISIL.
    • Together with NATO, the U.S. replaced Muammar Gaddafi, who suppressed al-Qaeda terrorists, with the same terrorists, and engineered the creation and arming of several terrorists groups in North Africa.
    • After sending its military into Syria’s civil war, a war that estimated deaths at about 600 thousand, more than six million internally displaced, and around five million refugees, with defined purpose of preventing ISSIS from seizing control of Syria, the U.S. enabled Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the successor to al-Qaeda’s previous partner, Al-Nusra Front, to seize control of Syria.

    The release of dissidents from prisons was an incomplete story.
    Media attention to Saydnaya prison, “which had become synonymous with arbitrary detention, torture and murder,” would have been genuine if the same attention had been given to similar prisons in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. The horrific incarcerations of dissidents in the three mentioned countries cannot be adequately described in less than a 1000 page book. Here are some details.

    Israel has, by magnitudes, exceeded Syria in the number of detainees of Palestinian dissidents.

    On 11 December 2012, the office of then-Prime Minister Salam Fayyad stated that since 1967, 800,000 Palestinians, or roughly 20% of the total population and 40% of the male population, had been imprisoned by Israel at one point in time. According to Palestinian estimates, 70% of Palestinian families have had one or more family members sentenced to jail terms in Israeli prisons as a result of activities against the occupation.

    From the New Yorker magazine, March 21, 2024, “The Brutal Conditions Facing Palestinian Prisoners”:

    Israel has also detained thousands of Palestinians from Gaza; prisoners who have described extensive physical abuse from Israeli forces, and, already, at least twenty-seven detainees from Gaza have died in military custody. At the same time, Israeli forces have arrested thousands more Palestinians, mostly from the West Bank, at least ten of whom have reportedly died in Israel prisons.

    The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (P.C.A.T.I.), a non-governmental organization, established in 1990, represents Palestinians and Israelis who claim to have been tortured by Israeli authorities. In the New Yorker article, they claim,

    We’re currently looking at almost ten thousand Palestinian detainees from the West Bank and Gaza…We know that the International Committee of the Red Cross (I.C.R.C.) has been banned from visiting all Israeli prisons since October 7th. We also know—through evidence that P.C.A.T.I. and other N.G.O.s have collected—of what we view as systemic abuse and violence by prison guards toward Palestinian detainees since October 7th. We’ve documented nineteen different incidents of torture and abuse in seven different Israel Prison Service (I.P.S.) facilities by different I.P.S. units, all of which have led us to believe that we’re looking at a policy rather than just isolated incidents.

    Although the number of arbitrary executions in Saydnaya prison is not known, much mention is made of the executions. Passing mention is made of the hundreds of arbitrary executions of Palestinians in the West Bank, shot while escaping Israeli military, and the tens of thousands murdered in Gaza.

    Where are investigations into the number of dissidents held in Saudi and Egypt jails. We read of constant executions in Saudi Arabia and pay no attention to the reports. No execution has matched the grisly slicing and dicing of Saudi journalist, Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi, “who was assassinated at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018 by agents of the Saudi government.”

    We now have good terrorists.
    Questioned, in a CNN interview, as to why the U.S. accepts HTS, designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. and with a $10m bounty on its leader, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan replied, “The group at the vanguard of this rebel advance, HTS, is actually a terrorist organization designated by the United States. So we have real concerns about the designs and objectives of that organization. At the same time, of course, we don’t cry over the fact that the Assad government, backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, are facing certain kinds of pressure. So it’s a complicated situation.”

    Placed in words often described to the hypocritical U.S. government, “Yes, they are bad guys and they are a terrorist organization, but they are our bad guys and they are our terrorist organization.”

    We know where Assad is; where is the United States?
    Uncle Sam’s voices to the world give their usual empty and meaningless words to a packed and meaningful event — closely monitoring, historic opportunity, a moment of risk and uncertainty, work together with allies and partners to urge de-escalation and protect U.S. personnel and military positions, and strongly support a peaceful transition of power.

    The U.S. should be forced to answer why it did not use its power to prevent a Civil War that caused an estimated deaths of about 600 thousand, more than six million internally displaced, and around five million refugees, and why it has not used its power to insist that the more democratically inclined opposition in Syria be immediately given leading roles in the new Syrian government. Isn’t it dangerous to have Mohammed al-Bashir, a deputy in Abu Mohammad al-Jolani’s National Salvation Front, serve as “acting” prime minister for Syria’s transitional government. Will Mohammed al-Bashir “act” for one month, one year, or one decade?

    Israel has spoken forcefully; its terrorist country smells and recognizes another terrorist country. The U.S. has spoken by not speaking; it now has the clout of Albania in Middle East affairs.

    It’s becoming shameful to be a U.S. citizen.

    The post Incomplete Coverage of an Ominous Syrian Situation first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Jeremy Corbyn is taking part in two promotional events in Manchester and Rochdale on Saturday 14 December in support of the Peace and Justice Project’s new book, Monstrous Anger of the Guns: How The Global Arms Trade Is Ruining The World & What We Can Do About It.

    Monstrous Anger of the Guns: a new release and a tour

    We are seeing injustices caused by war and occupation unfold in real-time via social media, and we are speaking out in our millions against these horrors. Yet, from Gaza to Ukraine, the bombs continue to fall. We must understand why this is happening if we are to end it.

    Monstrous Anger of the Guns lays bare the dark and deceitful world of the global arms trade, which, often funded in our name, is a business that counts its profits in billions and its losses in human lives.

    Leading activists and campaigners connect the dots, showing how notions of citizenship, democracy and trust in governments are misguided, and how we can fight back by building mass movements, using direct action and legal justice to end the flow of weapons and the environmental and human devastation they bring.

    Economist Yanis Varoufakis said the book “equips readers with the information they need to resist the lies that feed humanity’s urge to commit suicide”. He urged people to “read it”.

    Journalist Peter Oborne said it contains “devastating testimony. Faultless research. It’s impossible to exaggerate the timeliness of this powerfully written book”.

    So, to coincide with the release of Monstrous Anger of the Guns, Corbyn will be making two appearances on 14 December.

    The first of these events takes place at the Mechanics Institute in Manchester at 1pm, where Jeremy will be joined by Dr Paul Rogers for an in discussion event on the global arms trade.

    The second event will take place at the Rochdale Royale at 6pm and also features Dr Yvonne Ridley, Rabbi Elhanan Beck, and Al Jazeera journalist Youmna El Sayed, as well as many others campaigning for an end to the genocide in Gaza and lasting peace:

    Monstrous Anger of the Guns

    Featured image supplied

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.