Category: military

  • Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    The United Liberation Movement of West Papua has blamed the Indonesian military over the attack at a hospital in Kiwirok, near the Papua New Guinean border, in which a nurse was killed.

    Interim president Benny Wenda of the ULMWP has issued a statement in response to accusations by the Indonesian authorities against the West Papuan army, saying that the upsurge in violence is because of the militarisation of the region to protect business and a “destroy them” policy directive from Jakarta against West Papuan resistance.

    Indonesia has accused the West Papuan army of attacking the hospital and killing nurse Gabriella Meliani in Kiwirok.

    But Wenda claimed, according to sources he has spoken to, the clash was started by an Indonesian migrant doctor threatening people with a pistol.

    “This triggered a West Papua Army investigation. A nurse fled from the scene and fell down a slope, fatally injuring herself,” said Wenda.

    Indonesia had deployed more than 21,000 new troops since December 2018, displacing tens of thousands of civilians from Nduga, Intan Jaya, Puncak Jaya and Sorong.

    Not keeping Papuans safe
    “These troops are not there to defend Indonesia’s ‘sovereignty’ or keep my people safe; they are there to protect illegal mining operations, to defend the palm oil plantations that are destroying our rainforest, and to help build the Trans-Papua Highway that will be used for Indonesian business – not for the people of West Papua,” Wenda said.

    “The Indonesian government is creating violence and chaos to feed these troops. As the head of the Indonesian Parliament, Bambang Soesatyo, ordered, ‘destroy them first. We will discuss human rights matters later’.

    “He reiterated this statement [on Monday], and was backed by Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs, Mahfud Md.”

    Benny Wenda
    United Liberation Movement of West Papua leader Benny Wenda on a visit to New Zealand in 2013. Image: Del Abcede/APR

    The killing of Pastor Yeremia Zanambani and his two brothers in April last year was an example of how this policy worked.

    “Indonesian soldiers murdered the two brothers in April last year. Months later troops tortured and killed the pastor,” Wenda said.

    Indonesian soldiers to blame
    “In both cases, the military blamed the West Papua Army for the attacks – but Indonesia’s own human rights commission and military courts found that Indonesian soldiers were to blame. A similar pattern will unfold with the events in Kiwirok.”

    Wenda said Indonesia must allow the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights into West Papua to investigate this violence and produce an independent, fact-based report, in line with the call of 84 international states.

    “Indonesia’s ban on media, human rights groups and aid agencies from entering West Papua must be immediately lifted. If Indonesia is telling the truth about these events, why continue to hide West Papua from the world?,” he said.

    “This war will never end until President Widodo sits down with me to solve this issue. This is not about ‘development’, about how many bridges and roads are built.

    “This is about our sovereignty, our right to self-determination — our survival.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    The Indonesian government has used the covid-19 pandemic as a pretext to crack down on West Papuan street protests and to impose online censorship, according to new research published by the human rights watchdog TAPOL.

    Covid-19 protocols have given more power to the police and military to crush protests but they are not fairly implemented across Indonesia in general.

    Peaceful demonstrators, student activists, West Papuan and Indonesian political activist groups, human rights lawyers and defenders and individual civilians experienced extreme repression during 2020 in West Papua and outside West Papua.

    The West Papua 2020 Report
    The West Papua 2020 Report. Image: Tapol screenshot APR

    The findings are in a new study, the West Papua 2020: Freedom Of Expression And Freedom Of Assembly Report, in which TAPOL has collated and analysed incidents recorded by West Papuan and Indonesian civil society organisations.

    The report includes specific recommendations for the Indonesian government and the international community.

    “Online and offline repression in 2020 left almost no space in which West Papuans, or West Papua-related issues, or protest in general, could be freely conducted,” said Pelagio Doutel of TAPOL.

    Doutel called on the Indonesian government to desist from using its own covid-19 protocols to stop free expression, especially treason charges which were in almost all cases “disproportionate” to alleged offences.

    Call to uphold human rights
    He also called on international groups to ensure that the Indonesian government fulfilled its legal obligations by upholding human rights and not arbitrarily criminalising West Papuans.

    The report details repression, consisting of arbitrary dispersals, arbitrary arrests, terror and intimidation, internet shutdowns or cyber attacks against those speaking out in support of West Papua’s self-determination and against the Indonesian government’s treatment of West Papuans.

    The Indonesian police and military were responsible for most of the repression but some actions were carried out by Indonesian right-wing reactionary militias, academic institutions and civilian administrative authorities.

    Regions such as West Papua have seen increasing numbers of the security forces deployed on the streets.

    Security forces arrested as many as 443 people. Of this number, 297 were arrested in West Papua, with 146 people arrested outside West Papua.

    The authorities charged 18 people with treason, all of whom were West Papuans.

    Various arbitrary dispersals took place during protests about West Papua, with dozens of intimidation and harassment incidents taking place before and during protest dispersals.

    Intimidation and harassment
    Intimidation and harassment also took place online.

    Many West Papua-related public discussions that were held online were attacked by unknown individuals with the intention of disrupting them, and event speakers received intimidating phone calls and threatening messages.

    Protests in West Papua continued in 2020 due to ongoing issues of political prisoners, arrested during 2019, and the renewal of the special autonomy law (otsus, otonomi khusus) in West Papua.

    Protests against the Omnibus Law were also held in Indonesia in general, including in West Papua.

    Trials of several high profile Papuan political prisoners from the 2019 West Papua Uprising took place at the beginning of 2020.

    As a result, many street protests and public discussions were held to support and demand the release of political prisoners.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • In Humane, historian Samuel Moyn argues that efforts to make U.S. wartime conduct less brutal have helped pave the way for a policy of permanent armed counterterrorism.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • By Johnny Blades, RNZ Pacific reporter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The US recently admitted that its drone attack in Kabul, perpetrated on 29 August, killed 10 civilians. Seven of them were children. The youngest victim, a toddler named Sumaya, was only two years old.

    With this development has come a fresh wave of outrage against US military aggression. But the outrage means little without an outright rejection of the neoliberal system of which these strikes are a feature. It also means little if it comes from people who won’t acknowledge the Islamophobia inherent in the war on terror – and the dehumanisation of Muslim lives that it’s enabled and legitimised.

    The US only helps itself

    At the start of the 1987 Hollywood film Predator, American soldiers charge into an unidentified forest in Central America and indiscriminately gun down an entire encampment. Their aim was to save hostages, but their policy was to shoot first and ask questions later. More recently, The Suicide Squad similarly depicted US agents accidently gunning down a camp that later turned out to be ‘the good guys’.

    The drone attack in question is a real-life example of this approach. The attack has turned on its head the notion that the US is, or ever has been, a benevolent protector of Afghan people. But moreover, this incident is symbolic of US foreign policy for at least half a century. Acts of military aggression instigated on claims of freedom, democracy, and justice are anything but. Whether the bogeyman is communism or terrorism, the objective remains the same: protecting US interests.

    And in service of this aim, human life is reduced to collateral damage. Of secondary importance. Its loss is regrettable but necessary. The US attack on 29 August killed 10 people, none of whom were IS agents. Sorry about that, but oh well.

    The non-value of Muslim lives

    Moreover, a defining feature of drone strikes carried out over nearly two decades is that the targets have been Muslim countries. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya – all attacked in service of US interests. Although the justifications have been varied, they fall broadly under the ‘war on terror’ umbrella. And nothing exemplifies the concept of structural Islamophobia quite like the war on terror.

    These strikes have killed as many as 16,901 people so far. And as many as 2,200 are recorded as being “civilians”. These are high estimates – but even if we were to take the lower estimates of these figures, what would that prove? The lives of 910 civilians are as valuable as the lives of 2,200 civilians. 8,858 extra-judicial killings is no better than 16,901.

    And even if we consider confirmed non-civilian killings to be ‘justified’ targets, the killing of innocent civilians in pursuit of those targets is never justifiable. These people were not collateral. They were not mere statistics. They were human beings with names, and families, and aspirations. Hundreds of them were children. And regardless of the extent to which the media and Western superpowers may have dehumanised them, their lives mattered.

    We need more than outrage

    It won’t be long before the news cycle moves on to discuss something else. Drone strikes in Muslim countries, meanwhile, will continue. Nation states will keep chasing their tails, trying to fight ‘Islamist’ groups and radicalisation while refusing to look to their own disastrous policies. Yet the 7/7 bombers had said in no uncertain terms that military aggression against Muslim nations played a role in motivating them. For decades, the wars that benefit our governments have only put the rest of us at risk.

    The war on terror killed those 10 civilians in Kabul on 29 August, seven of whom were children. Outrage is no longer enough. Anyone who continues to give credence to the war on terror – and moreover the counter-terror ideology that spawned in its wake – is complicit. Anyone that continues to support politicians who have presided over these drone strikes is complicit. And anyone who supports a neoliberal status quo that tut-tuts at civilian deaths in one breath while celebrating war heroes in the next is complicit.

    Reject the system that created the war on terror, and all the senseless wars that may yet be fought in its name. The system that continues to dehumanise Muslims and render their lives worthless. Otherwise, your sympathies are meaningless.

    Featured image via YouTube – Sky News

    By Afroze Fatima Zaidi

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Members of US congress have called on Boris Johnson to scrap his proposals to ban future prosecutions related to the Northern Ireland Troubles.

    Special relationship

    In a letter to the prime minister, the US congress members also called for the British government to reaffirm its commitment to the Stormont House Agreement. In the letter, the members expressed concern that the proposed legacy laws would strain the British-Irish relationship and “cement widespread feelings” that justice is being denied.

    In July, Northern Ireland secretary Brandon Lewis announced plans for a statute of limitations which would end all prosecutions for Troubles incidents up to April 1998. And it would apply to military veterans as well as ex-paramilitaries.

    Northern Ireland Troubles
    Raymond McCord speaking outside Belfast City Hall (Liam McBurney/PA)

    Johnson previously said the proposals would allow Northern Ireland to “draw a line under the Troubles”. They would also end all legacy inquests and civil actions related to the conflict.

    The move has been widely condemned by campaigners on both sides of the Troubles and across the political divide.

    “Serious mistake”

    The letter, led by congressmen Brendan Boyle and Brian Fitzpatrick, has been signed by 36 members. They said it would be a “serious mistake” for the British government to renege on its commitments laid out under the Stormont House Agreement. And the added that it would lead to “major setbacks” in the search for justice and reconciliation.

    Moreover, they said they were “disappointed” that the UK government plans to introduce new legislation that would modify the Agreement’s legacy laws. They added:

    To be clear, we strongly disapprove these proposals

    We believe that they would not only prevent a pathway to justice, but that they would also strip these families of their legal rights protected under European Law and the Good Friday Agreement.

    The issue of legacy killings spans across generations and any continued deprival of justice will only further deepen the wound that this history has on Britain and Ireland. We are concerned that these legacy laws would strain the British-Irish relationship and cement widespread feelings that justice is being denied.

    There is no doubt that the difficult and troubling legacy of the past must be addressed, and we as members of congress will continue to advocate on this issue until good faith action is taken and progress is made.

    These legacy proposals require genuine reconsideration. Delivering answers for these bereaved families has been a longstanding priority for Irish-American community and those interested in global peace. We will continue to listen to these families as they await long overdue answers.

    We urge you to re-examine these proposals, reverse the decision and reaffirm your commitment to the Stormont House Agreement.

    They also expressed concern that the Historical Investigations Unit, set up under the 2014 Agreement, has been slow to investigate legacy cases. Describing the unit as “stagnant”, they added:

    Had the Historical Investigations Unit been provided with the resources and attention it was promised more substantial progress might have been achieved over the past several years

    Northern Ireland Troubles
    Eugene Reavey, Cathy McIlvenny, Julie Hambleton, Raymond McCord, Michael Gallagher, and Billy McManus during a meeting at the HELP (Helping Everybody Live Peacefully) office in north Belfast (Liam McBurney/PA)

    Limitations

    Part of the push for a statute of limitations is a bid to prevent British Army veterans who served during the Troubles from being held accountable for alleged criminality decades later.

    Raymond McCord, whose son Raymond Jr was murdered by loyalist paramilitaries, said:

    The only people who agree with these proposals are the people who are trying to push it through.

    Why is Boris and (Northern Ireland Secretary) Brandon Lewis so eager to get this through? If people are innocent, would why they need an amnesty? The only people who need amnesty are people who are guilty. The letter is a massive step forward because we have the support of the biggest democracy in the world, powerful people in congress.

    Boris is being told that he is breaking the Good Friday Agreement. This is a massive boost, not just for my family, but for all victims.

    I really welcome this letter. We have politicians from the main land on board, we’ve got politicians from Dublin and Northern Ireland on board, and now we have America on board. Every single one of them rejects the proposals. It will put a lot of pressure on Boris Johnson.

    What Prime Minister would want to give an amnesty to murderers?

    Johnson’s office has been contacted for comment.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    The West Papua National Committee (KNPB) claims that an attack on a military post in Maybrat regency earlier this month is being used as a pretext to “force the KNPB into a corner” and to criminalise them, reports Suara Papua.

    The September 2 attack on Kisor sub-district military post in Maybrat regency, West Papua province, killed four soldiers.

    “There are vested interests and a plot by certain parties behind the killing for four TNI [Indonesian military] members at Kisor, Maybrat,” claimed KNPB spokesperson Ones Suhuniap in a statement sent to Suara Papua newspaper.

    “First multinational palm oil companies, which are currently challenging [the cancellation of] permits in the western Birds Head region,” he said.

    “Second, the construction of [new] Koramil [sub-district military commands] in several districts in South Sorong and Maybrat regencies.

    “Third, the additional deployment of troops on the grounds of securing the PON XX Papua [20th Papua National Games].”

    Suhuniap said the incident was a plot and a trap which had been arranged to distract public attention from a challenge by four palm oil companies with the Jayapura State Administrative Court (PTUN) against Sorong Regent Jhony Kamuru’s decision to revoke their permits.

    Legalising Trans-Papua Highway posts
    The “plot” was also to legalise and accelerate the construction of sub-district military posts and TNI and Indonesian police posts on the Trans-Papua highway connecting Manokwari and Sorong.

    Suhuniap said that for the KNPB such a plot was nothing new and these methods were often used in Papua, especially against the KNPB.

    As has been reported, the police claimed that a member of the civil society KNPB was involved in the attack, namely the movement’s chairperson in the Kisor sector.

    However, what their alleged motive was and why they were involved, along with who the mastermind was behind the 19 people declared responsible for the attack had not been cited by the police.

    Suhuniap said that if there were KNPB Maybrat members involved then there was a third party which provoked or trapped them into it and so it was necessary to discover the mastermind and what their interests were.

    The KNPB did not kill or act in a hostile way towards other people, including the TNI and police, Suhuniap said.

    “There is no agenda of murder directed against the authorities or special organisational instruction to attack members of the TNI and Indonesian police,” he said.

    Investigation needed
    “So the police must delve into and investigate this case further. Who was the mastermind behind the attack? Don’t criminalise the KNPB.” he said.

    If the investigation found that KNPB members were proven to have been involved in the attack then their actions were taken as individuals, not the organisation.

    “We as an organisation [the KNPB] have never carried out sabotage or urban guerrilla actions,” he said.

    Suhuniap also said the attack was part of an Indonesian effort to counter public demands from within Papua and internationally for the release of KNPB international spokesperson Victor Yeimo.

    “The state is shaping public opinion to distract the Papuan people’s attention from Victor Yeimo’s release and creating a sense of fear,” he said.

    “Indonesian colonialism through its intelligence [services] are shaping public opinion and distracting the Papuan people’s attention by accusing the KNPB of being involved in the attack on the soldiers in Kisor.

    “We believe that this effort to distract public attention is a cheap sort of intelligence propaganda to destroy and criminalise the KNPB.”

    Suhuniap called on colleagues from West Papua’s 112 resistance movement organisations and all Papuan people to remain solid and not be influenced by the manipulation of public opinion.

    “The Papuan people must be consistent in rejecting the extension of special autonomy, the unconditional release of Victor Yeimo and demanding the right to self-determination,” he said.

    Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “KNPB Sebut Empat Skenario Pembunuhan Empat Anggota TNI di Kisor”.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • According to a community group in the Jordan Valley, Israeli forces fired tear gas into a Palestinian school. The alleged attack took place on 14 September during school hours.

    An unnamed activist is quoted on the Jordan Valley Solidarity website. They said Israeli forces had been training with tanks and other equipment near the village of Tayasir before the attack:

    We believe that today is the last day of the training, as the occupation forces brought a low-loader truck and other military equipment to carry away the tanks that were in Tayasir. Whilst right in the middle of the village they threw teargas cannisters into Palestinian homes, into the school and into the streets. By doing this they are ignoring the safety and security of the local population and placing the lives of Israeli soldiers above all others.

    ‘Illegal occupation’

    The activist condemned Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory as “illegal” and “inhuman”:

    This illegal occupation should not be in Palestine. It should not be in any village. it is illegal under international law to carry out military training inside villages and next to people’s homes. There can never be a reason to throw teargas into a school where children are having their lessons. It is inhuman. It makes me so upset and angry. I can’t imagine how these children will ever be able to erase this from their memories.

    A video shows children crying and fearful (some readers may find this footage distressing):

     

    Another video

    UK direct action group Palestine Action also tweeted a video of Palestinian children fleeing a tear gas attack on 14 September. It appears different to footage from the Jordan Valley school. School uniforms also suggest that this may have been an attack on another school:

    Palestine Action implored people to help shut down Elbit Systems, the Israeli arms firm which has offices and factories in the UK.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/IDF

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Australia, the UK, and the US have signed a new military pact they say will protect their countries. The allies claim an AUKUS (pronounced ‘awk-us’) alliance will support a “peaceful and rules-based international order”. But critics have called the move a new Cold War against China. And some question the Western countries’ decision so soon after defeat and withdrawal from Afghanistan. It seems to ignore key lessons: that US power is in decline and that expeditionary warfare is a recipe for disaster.

    Announced on 15 September in a trilateral press conference, the UK government expects the deal to “bolster the Integrated Review commitment to strengthen alliances with like-minded allies and deepen ties in the Indo-Pacific”.

    The Integrated Review is the UK’s overarching international security strategy.

    Lucrative contracts

    The conference – in which US president Joe Biden appeared to forget Australian PM Scott Morrison’s name – saw some discussion of eight new nuclear submarines in Adelaide, South Australia. However, the move had antagonised France, which had signed a £40bn deal to build submarines for Australia. These will now be built as a joint US/UK/Australian project.

    According to Reuters, French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said it was a “brutal, unilateral and unpredictable decision” and that it “reminds me a lot of what Mr Trump used to do”. He added:

     I am angry and bitter. This isn’t done between allies.

    ‘Indo-Pacific’

    The UK announcement didn’t mention China. Instead, the text referred to the ‘Indo-Pacific’, saying the region was:

    at the centre of intensifying geopolitical competition with potential flashpoints including unresolved territorial disputes; to nuclear proliferation and miscalculation; to climate change and non-state threats from terrorism and Serious Organised Crime. It is on the frontline of new security challenges, including in cyberspace.

    The Chinese government, however, had no doubts about why the US and its allies were escalating their activities in the region. And the Chinese embassy spokesperson in Washington condemned the “Cold War mentality”. Liu Pengyu said that countries should not “build exclusionary blocs targeting or harming the interests of third parties”.

    Moreover, the UK announced an increased, permanent presence in the region in July. And one of the UK’s new carriers is already in the region.

    Spending

    Some Tory MPs have used the new defence pact to call for hikes in military spending. Defence committee chair Tobias Elwood tweeted that since the move was long-term, an increase was required:

    And, according to the Guardian, Australian PM Scott Morrison also wants to increase military expenditure:

    He said the push for more advanced submarines, together with an intention to further increase defence spending and draw closer to the US and the UK, would allow Australia to “contribute to the stability and security of our region” and “benefit all in our region – no exceptions”.

    Spectre of Afghanistan

    As Elwood has pointed out, the US, UK, and their allies are trying to reset after failure in Afghanistan. But the process does not seem to involve learning any key lessons. They’ve cut and run from the Central Asian country. Now they seem set to pump up defence budgets, increase their rhetoric, and refocus on China.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Royal Navy

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Australia, the UK, and the US have signed a new military pact they say will protect their countries. The allies claim an AUKUS (pronounced ‘awk-us’) alliance will support a “peaceful and rules-based international order”. But critics have called the move a new Cold War against China. And some question the Western countries’ decision so soon after defeat and withdrawal from Afghanistan. It seems to ignore key lessons: that US power is in decline and that expeditionary warfare is a recipe for disaster.

    Announced on 15 September in a trilateral press conference, the UK government expects the deal to “bolster the Integrated Review commitment to strengthen alliances with like-minded allies and deepen ties in the Indo-Pacific”.

    The Integrated Review is the UK’s overarching international security strategy.

    Lucrative contracts

    The conference – in which US president Joe Biden appeared to forget Australian PM Scott Morrison’s name – saw some discussion of eight new nuclear submarines in Adelaide, South Australia. However, the move had antagonised France, which had signed a £40bn deal to build submarines for Australia. These will now be built as a joint US/UK/Australian project.

    According to Reuters, French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said it was a “brutal, unilateral and unpredictable decision” and that it “reminds me a lot of what Mr Trump used to do”. He added:

     I am angry and bitter. This isn’t done between allies.

    ‘Indo-Pacific’

    The UK announcement didn’t mention China. Instead, the text referred to the ‘Indo-Pacific’, saying the region was:

    at the centre of intensifying geopolitical competition with potential flashpoints including unresolved territorial disputes; to nuclear proliferation and miscalculation; to climate change and non-state threats from terrorism and Serious Organised Crime. It is on the frontline of new security challenges, including in cyberspace.

    The Chinese government, however, had no doubts about why the US and its allies were escalating their activities in the region. And the Chinese embassy spokesperson in Washington condemned the “Cold War mentality”. Liu Pengyu said that countries should not “build exclusionary blocs targeting or harming the interests of third parties”.

    Moreover, the UK announced an increased, permanent presence in the region in July. And one of the UK’s new carriers is already in the region.

    Spending

    Some Tory MPs have used the new defence pact to call for hikes in military spending. Defence committee chair Tobias Elwood tweeted that since the move was long-term, an increase was required:

    And, according to the Guardian, Australian PM Scott Morrison also wants to increase military expenditure:

    He said the push for more advanced submarines, together with an intention to further increase defence spending and draw closer to the US and the UK, would allow Australia to “contribute to the stability and security of our region” and “benefit all in our region – no exceptions”.

    Spectre of Afghanistan

    As Elwood has pointed out, the US, UK, and their allies are trying to reset after failure in Afghanistan. But the process does not seem to involve learning any key lessons. They’ve cut and run from the Central Asian country. Now they seem set to pump up defence budgets, increase their rhetoric, and refocus on China.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Royal Navy

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • ANALYSIS: By Alexander Gillespie, University of Waikato

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Via America’s Lawyer: After 20 years, President Biden declassifies “Operation Encore,” a 16-page FBI report on the 9/11 attacks. Although much of the document is redacted, the report outlines close ties between the 9/11 hijackers and several Saudi nationals living in the United States. Mike Papantonio and Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription […]

    The post Biden’s Declassified 9/11 Report Reveals FBI & CIA Incompetence appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • We speak with reporter Matthieu Aikins about how his investigation for The New York Times found an August 29 U.S. drone strike, which the Pentagon claimed targeted a facilitator with the militant group ISIS-K, actually killed 10 Afghan civilians, including seven children and Zemari Ahmadi, an Afghan engineer who had worked since 2006 for an American aid group. A review of video evidence by the Times shows Zemari loading canisters of water at the charity’s office, after the Pentagon claimed surveillance video showed Zemari loading what they thought were explosives into a car at an unknown compound earlier in the day. “We put together evidence that showed that what the military interpreted as a series of suspicious moves from the sky was, according to his co-workers and colleagues and video evidence, just an ordinary day for this aid worker,” says Aikins.

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

    We turn now to Afghanistan. It’s been one month since the Taliban seized control of Kabul after Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled the country. On Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken defended the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan during a second day of questioning on Capitol Hill. Blinken was grilled about a U.S. drone strike in Kabul on August 29th. It’s the last drone strike before the withdrawal. The Pentagon claimed the strike targeted a facilitator with the militant group ISIS-K who was preparing to attack the Kabul airport. But local residents said the strike killed 10 Afghan civilians, including seven children and Zemari Ahmadi — not an ISIS-K operative, but an Afghan engineer who had worked since 2006 for the California-based charity group Nutrition and Education International. The Pentagon claims surveillance video showed Zemari loading what they thought were explosives into a car at an unknown compound earlier in the day. But video evidence obtained by The New York Times found Zemari was actually loading canisters of water at the charity’s office to deliver to those in need. The Pentagon has described the drone attack as a “righteous” strike. But on Tuesday, Secretary of State Blinken acknowledged the U.S. is not certain who was targeted, when questioned by Republican Senator Rand Paul.

    SEN. RAND PAUL: The guy the Biden administration droned, was he an aid worker or an ISIS-K operative?

    SECRETARY OF STATE ANTONY BLINKEN: The administration is, of course, reviewing that — that strike, and I’m sure that a, you know, full assessment will be — will be forthcoming.

    SEN. RAND PAUL: So you don’t know if it was an aid worker or an ISIS-K operative?

    SECRETARY OF STATE ANTONY BLINKEN: I can’t speak to that. And I can’t speak to that in this setting, in any event.

    SEN. RAND PAUL: So, you don’t know or won’t tell us?

    SECRETARY OF STATE ANTONY BLINKEN: I don’t — I don’t know, because we’re reviewing it.

    SEN. RAND PAUL: Well, see, you’d think that you’d kind of know, before you off somebody with a Predator drone, whether he’s an aid worker or he’s an ISIS-K. See, the thing is, is this isn’t just you. It’s been going on for administration after administration.

    AMY GOODMAN: We go now to Kabul, Afghanistan, where we’re joined by Matthieu Aikins of The New York Times. He wrote the recent piece headlined “In U.S. Drone Strike, Evidence Suggests No ISIS Bomb.”

    Matthieu, talk about going to the site, to the family’s home, where the car was, and describe what you learned happened that day, August 29th.

    MATTHIEU AIKINS: Well, August 29th, there was the strike in the evening. And we went the next morning, myself and a photographer for the Times, Jim Huylebroek, and we arrived at the scene. It was inside a courtyard of a house, where a car had been hit. And there was a small crater, still flesh and blood spattered around the interior of the courtyard. And we spoke to the family who lived there, and they were extremely distraught, because they had just lost 10 members of the family, including seven children. So, it was immediately apparent that there had been civilian casualties in the strike. And then, you know, when we followed up with our investigation over the past two weeks, we put together evidence that showed that this — what the military interpreted as a series of suspicious moves from the sky was, according to his co-workers and colleagues and video evidence, just an ordinary day for this aid worker.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Matthieu, the continued stonewalling, effectively, of the government in terms of what they have found out since is really remarkable. I’m just wondering — basic stuff like how many people died. And there’s a big difference between 10 and the official count that the U.S. is still saying of three civilians. They haven’t quite explained why they claimed Mr. Ahmadi was driving into an unknown compound at one point, which actually was the aid agency’s headquarters in Kabul. And also, they’re not even making clear whether they’ve checked if he was an employee of this U.S.-based aid group. What do you make of this continued almost refusal to explain the results of what they’ve investigated so far?

    MATTHIEU AIKINS: Well, certainly, they have a lot to answer for, a lot to explain. But they are conducting an investigation, and typically when the military does this sort of investigation, you do have to wait for the results. They’re going to be classified, but they’ll probably brief them to lawmakers and then eventually release a redacted version of the investigation. So, at this point, I don’t think we’re going to hear anything, at least not officially, until that’s completed.

    AMY GOODMAN: On September 1st, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, described the drone attack as a “righteous” strike.

    GEN. MARK MILLEY: We know that there were secondary explosions. Because there were secondary explosions, there is a reasonable conclusion to be made that there was explosives in that vehicle. The third thing is, we know from a variety of other means that at least one of those people that were killed was an ISIS facilitator. So, were there others killed? Yes, there are others killed. Who they are, we don’t know. We’ll try to sort through all that. But we believe that the procedures, at this point — I don’t want to influence the outcome of an investigation — but, at this point, we think that the procedures were correctly followed and it was a righteous strike.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s General Mark Milley. Evidence examined by The New York Times at the scene of the drone strike suggests there was not a second explosion.

    NARRATOR: We gathered photos and videos of the scene taken by journalists and visited the courtyard multiple times. We shared the evidence with three weapons experts, who said the damage was consistent with the impact of a Hellfire missile. They pointed to the small crater beneath Ahmadi’s car, and the damage from the metal fragments of a warhead. This plastic melted as a result of a car fire triggered by the missile strike.

    All three experts also pointed out what was missing: any evidence of the large secondary explosions described by the Pentagon — no collapsed or blown-out walls, including next to the trunk with the alleged explosives; no sign that a second car parked in the courtyard was overturned by a large blast; no destroyed vegetation. All of this matches what eyewitnesses told us, that a single missile exploded and triggered a large fire.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s The New York Times video report based on Matthieu Aikins’ investigation of the U.S. drone strike. So, if you could elaborate on that, Matthieu, and also talk about why the children, why there were seven children in Zemari’s car?

    MATTHIEU AIKINS: Sure. Well, the investigation was definitely a team effort. And we had experts look at the photos and videos that we were able to collect from the scene. And that was really the military’s justification, from what we’ve learned at least thus far, for taking the strike, you know, that this was an imminent threat to the airport, because they took the shot inside a crowded residential neighborhood, where there was a very high likelihood of civilian casualties. You know, that’s a kind of assumption that I think would have been fair in that circumstance. So, really, the way they would have justified this was that this was a car bomb or some kind of imminent threat. And I think it’s pretty conclusive that there was not a larger explosive in this car.

    Now, what happened was, is that Zemari’s family, you know, the kids — he lived with his three brothers, so there was a lot of kids in this house. And when he came home every day from work, as I was told by his brother, you know, he’d pull up, and the kids would run out, and they’d be excited to see him. And they’d get in the car, and, you know, usually one of them would sit behind the wheel, maybe on his lap, and they would back the car in the courtyard. So, that’s what they said happened that day, so those kids were in the car when it was struck by a Hellfire missile. And that is the reason why seven of them were killed.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Matthieu, what does this — from your reporting in Afghanistan, what does this tell us about the limitations of these drone strikes, the inherent problems that exist when you rely, essentially, on aerial surveillance to determine who you strike, or not, versus on-the-ground, real human intelligence?

    MATTHIEU AIKINS: Yeah. So, this is not an isolated incident. You know, we’ve had civilian casualties from drone strikes many times over the years. But the fact of the matter was, this happened in Kabul. You know, I was able to go to the scene, and we were able to do the story in two weeks. Normally these happen in remote, dangerous areas, difficult to access. So, often all we have is the military’s official version of the events — in this case, that this guy was an ISIS facilitator and that there was explosives in the car.

    So, the danger with these strikes, which — again, this may have been the last drone strike of the 20-year American war, but the war on terror continues, and there’s going to be more drone strikes, you know, as promised by the administration, in an over-the-horizon role in places like Afghanistan. The danger is that we’re going to have more of these incidents, there’s going to be more children killed, but that we’re not going to really even know about it, because, again, we’re not going to have access to what’s happening on the ground.

    AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, these drone strikes lessen the chance of U.S. soldiers being killed, as they fly over from another country, as you said, the over-the-horizon capability they’re talking about. But I wanted to go to one last video that you obtained, security camera footage from the office of the U.S.-based aid group Nutrition and Education International, where Zemari Ahmadi had worked earlier in the day.

    NARRATOR: At 2:35 p.m., Ahmadi pulls out a hose. And then he and a co-worker fill empty containers with water. Earlier that morning, we saw Ahmadi bring these same empty plastic containers to the office. There was a water shortage in his neighborhood, his family said, so he regularly brought water home from the office.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, we’re looking at this closed-circuit footage of him gathering this water to bring home. The U.S. apparently was monitoring him for hours that day, Matthieu.

    MATTHIEU AIKINS: Yeah, they said that they were surveilling him with an MQ-9 Reaper drone. But, again, you know, what they see from the sky and what’s happening on the ground are not necessarily the same thing. And in this case, you know, this was a man who had loaded water in the car to bring home to his family.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, Matthieu, we want to thank you so much for being with us. Matthieu Aikins, Kabul-based contributing writer to The New York Times and The New York Times Magazine, his investigation into the drone strike headlined “In U.S. Drone Strike, Evidence Suggests No ISIS Bomb.”

    Next up, we go to a clinical social worker helping undocumented 9/11 responders and cleanup workers 20 years later, even to this day. Stay with us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The International Witness Campaign is remembering the last 20 years of the “failed War on Terror”. This decades-long war has seen its fair share of illegality and incompetence by those who’ve waged it. As with all wars, it’s hawks also paid no regard to the huge environmental costs involved.

    Now, after these decades of war, the Middle East is facing another security threat: the climate crisis. Indeed, authorities around the world are increasingly recognising the environmental emergency as the greatest security threat we face.

    As In These Times recently contemplated, imagine if those who waged the War on Terror had spent the last 20 years fighting the climate crisis instead. The populations targeted in the failed war, and the global community as a whole, would undoubtedly be better equipped to deal with the crisis if they had.

    Indeed, there might not be a crisis to speak of if the vast amounts of money spent on the war had been directed to tackling the climate crisis from the start of the millennium onwards.

    Perfect storm

    A number of countries in the Middle East have faced intense temperatures this summer. In July, for example, Iraq saw temperatures of over 51C. In 2016, the country faced heat of more than 53C. As Foreign Policy recently reported, global warming in the region is double the global average. So 2C of global warming by 2050 would mean a 4C increase in the Middle East.

    It’s not just intense heat affecting the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region either. The climate crisis is impacting rainfall and water availability. This means that some areas are experiencing increased drought, while others are flooding.

    As the International Committee of the Red Cross has pointed out, the War on Terror and previous conflicts have played a role in this environmental situation. It’s regional water and habitat advisor Igor Malgrati said:

    In southern Iraq, you have an environment that has been damaged by years of conflict, poor environmental management and weak governance. When you add climate change into the mix, you have the perfect storm.

    The Costs of War Project has also asserted that the enduring military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan have resulted in “the degradation of the natural resources in these countries and a radical destruction of forest cover”. It said “the animal and bird populations have also been adversely affected”.

    Security threat

    The Max Plank Institute has warned that the climate crisis could make some areas of the MENA region uninhabitable in the coming years. A study by researchers from Princeton University earlier this year made similar claims about countries in the tropics. The study’s authors asserted that the world’s temperature increase needs to stay below 1.5C for the tropics to avoid the risk of exceeding a particular heat threshold, known as wet bulb temperature (TW). Because the human body is unable to regulate its own temperature past the TW threshold of 35C, it’s considered, as the Guardian put it, the “limits of human livability”.

    As the UN secretary-general António Guterres said in August, greenhouse gas emissions are “choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk”. Meanwhile, the biodiversity crisis, whereby species are disappearing at a rate not seen in history, is devastating the ecosystems on which people depend on for food, water, and much more. These two interconnecting crises are converging too, with horrifying consequences.

    Righting wrongs

    Of course, climate change is not news. The oil and gas industry have known about it for decades. Governments involved in waging the War on Terror have long been aware of it too. As In These Times‘ Sarah Lazare wrote, in light of this understanding:

    We should have been putting every resource toward stopping climate disaster, rather than pouring public goods into the war effort

    Instead, the US ploughed $21tn into “foreign and domestic militarization” over the last 20 years. The UK government, meanwhile, recently revealed that it spent £22.2bn of taxpayers’ money on the 20-year-long invasion and occupation of Afghanistan alone.

    In short, rather than investing in averting climate disaster, US and UK politicians chose to wage a climate-destroying war that made targeted populations even more vulnerable to the environmental crises.

    The actions of rich nations in general, largely the elite among them, have brought the world to this environmental juncture. And the warmongering decisions these elites have made are a part of the litany of failures that got us here.

    Officials from these countries need to address these injustices, and provide reparations for them, as they gather at climate and biodiversity conferences over the coming months.

    Featured image via Channel 4 News / YouTube

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Via America’s Lawyer: After spending $2 trillion over the past 20 years, lawmakers on Capitol Hill aren’t letting the Afghanistan withdrawal get in the way of securing more military funding. RT correspondent Brigida Santos joins Mike Papantonio to explain. Also, a Wisconsin school board reverses its decision to cancel a free lunch program for students after facing nationwide backlash. Mike Papantonio and Farron Cousins discuss […]

    The post Bipartisan Warhawks Push Increased Military Budget & Wisconsin School FAILS To End Free Meal Program appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • On 10 September 2021 Brian Dooley blogged for Human Rights First: “British Government Proposes Amnesty for Killings That’s Worse Than Pinochet’s”:

    In a startling move, in July 2021, the British government announced a proposal to end all Troubles-era prosecutions, granting amnesty to its soldiers for any crimes they committed during this time. While the proposal has yet to be introduced as a bill, its mere introduction has already received a strong reaction.

    Last week, I visited Belfast and Derry where I met with human rights NGOs and families of those killed during the Troubles. Human Rights First has been active on these issues for decades, with a focus on past abuses and on supporting the human rights lawyers helping families bring prosecutions against those who committed them.

    This recently introduced proposal is a significant setback to the families whose loved ones were killed by British forces during those years. Many of which have spent decades looking for the truth about what happened to those who were killed. During my time with them, some of the family members said that this proposal, which would eliminate any potential for accountability, has left them exasperated and angry.

    Some of the killings from this period, like those on Bloody Sunday in Derry or Ballymurphy in Belfast, are well known and have received international attention. Others, such as the Springhill-Westrock shootings and many others, have had less attention. Overall, during the Troubles (1969-1998), 3,350 people were killed, including 1,840 civilians, and 47,500 were injured.

    In many cases of killings, there was no real investigation done at the time. Local human rights NGO, the Pat Finucane Centre, has recently published declassified documents showing how some soldiers evaded prosecutions. The new proposal would remove any possibility of the families having any possibility for legal recourse or bringing the killers to justice.

    The wide scope of the UK government’s proposed amnesty is breathtaking.

    Human Rights First has for many years worked with Belfast-based human rights NGO the Committee for the Administration of Justice (CAJ). This week, with a team of experts from Queen University, Belfast, the CAJ produced an analysis of the proposed amnesty laws, measuring the British government’s proposals “against binding international and domestic human rights law, the Good Friday Agreement and other international experiences of amnesties to deal with past human rights violations.”

    This study found that the proposal would create an amnesty more sweeping than that of General Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator who introduced a policy to shield human rights violators from prosecution, which is often regarded as the worst. However, unlike the UK proposal, which excludes no crimes and has no temporal limits, Pinochet’s amnesty excluded certain crimes, such as sexual violence, and applied only to the first five years of the 17-year dictatorship. Additionally, Pinochet’s amnesty excluded criminal cases already before the courts and applied only to criminal prosecutions. The UK proposal on the other hand would close cases already in the system and apply to both civil and criminal cases.

    Professor Louise Mallinder, one of the experts on the report and a world-renowned scholar of transitional justice who has examined roughly 300 amnesties relating to various conflicts around the world from 1990 until 2016, says the UK’s proposed amnesty “would offer the broadest form of impunity of all the amnesties surveyed.”

    Yes, the British government’s standard for addressing past human rights violations by its soldiers, including murders, appears to be lower than that of General Pinochet’s.

    The plan is so bad that all major political parties in Ireland, north and south, have united in rejecting it. Members of the U.S. Congress are reportedly signing a letter objecting to it.

    The British government got many things wrong over the course of The Troubles. This proposed amnesty for its former soldiers is another huge mistake and should be rejected immediately.

    Instead, a real process of justice should be followed, along the lines of that outlined in the 2014 Stormont House Agreement. Dealing with The Troubles’ past is difficult but not impossible. The families of those killed – and of victims of human rights violations in other post-conflict situations that a new UK precedent might influence – deserve much better than what the British government has proposed.

    https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/british-government-proposes-amnesty-killings-s-worse-pinochet-s

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    We live in a world of manufactured lack, manufactured enemies, manufactured crises and manufactured consent. We’ve had sufficient resources to care for everyone for generations. All our wars are based on lies. All our problems are cooked up by a few psychos with too much power.

    Ever since he came to Australia my American husband still finds it strange to see a parrot out in the open instead of sitting in a cage. I feel much the same whenever I see George W Bush.

    The capitalist class has never voluntarily returned anything it has stolen from the working class; every time it manages to give people less it never reverses it, no matter how much greater profits become. Capitalism is never going to get less abusive. It will only grow more so.

    If there were good billionaires they wouldn’t still be billionaires.

    It’s impossible to be a good billionaire, not just because it’s immoral to remain that wealthy in a world full of need and because all billionaires are parasitic middlemen siphoning the profits off other people’s labor, but also because in order to obtain that much wealth you generally have to manipulate the actual movement of human civilization to your benefit in some way.

    “You’re anti-American!”

    No I’m anti-war, anti-militarism, anti-empire, anti-ecocide, anti-oligarchy, anti-capitalism and anti nuclear brinkmanship. It just happens that the US is at the center of a globe-spanning power structure that is the worst offender on all these fronts by an extremely wide margin.

    The most evil and destructive things Trump did as president weren’t the Trumpian things but the American things. The things his predecessors and his successor are also guilty of doing.

    If the US empire ran out of excuses to use and test its extremely profitable military arsenal on impoverished foreigners, it would simply invent more excuses.

    It’s hard to wrap your mind around, because it’s so much more profoundly evil than we’re ever taught to anticipate, but it really is an objective fact that people who make money manufacturing military weapons have a tremendous amount of influence over how and when those weapons are used. A war profiteer can pour money into campaign contributions which incentivize policymakers to push for acts of military interventionism, and pour money into think tanks and lobbying to give those policymakers an excuse to do so. This is all perfectly legal, and it happens constantly.

    It’s exactly the same as murdering human beings at mass scale and selling their body parts for a tremendous profit. And it’s deemed perfectly reasonable and acceptable.

    I grow continually more and more amazed at how western media get away with citing think tanks funded by governments and defense contractors to promote imperialist propaganda. If everyone understood that they do this constantly and what that means, it would end the mass media.

    The real heroes of 9/11 were those precious few who immediately took a stand against the jingoistic hysteria that swept across public consciousness and opposed the horrors the western empire was about to unleash upon the world.

    History seldom vindicates the peacemongers. Not because they aren’t right, but because history is written by warmongers.

    Covid could just as easily have been used to transfer wealth from the wealthiest to the poorest and pay people to voluntarily stay home and to take the vaccine. Instead it’s seen a massive wealth transfer to the very wealthiest, and vaccine mandates that will hurt the poorest.

    We’re a few months out from seeing American libertarians angrily sharing around a video of police beating an unvaccinated Black person for noncompliance with some new authoritarian law, and seeing liberals in the comments cheering for the police.

    Don’t look to other leftists to figure out how to think about a given issue, look at the values and priorities which led you to the left in the first place. The group consensus and your most deeply held values will not always be in alignment.

    Humanity is deeply insane, even the parts of humanity which align with your ideological preferences. For this reason it’s never a safe bet to go along with the consensus positions of your ideological faction instead of figuring things out on your own based on your own values.

    There are a lot of people who correctly ask “who benefits?” whenever there’s a potential false flag event yet fail to ask who might benefit from a religion whose teachings glorify poverty, meekness, humility, docility, and rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

    True humility isn’t thinking less of yourself, and it isn’t thinking of yourself less. True humility is the deep, all-pervading insight that the very phenomenon we call “self” is pure illusion.

    You just have to wonder how much of a mass-scale psychological pummelling human consciousness can take before it snaps. And you have to wonder what might lie on the other side of that snap. Maybe something bad. But maybe something very, very good.

    It’s a tricky tightrope walk the oligarchs have to do, making sure they don’t steal too much of our wealth and freedom all at once so we don’t rise up and take it back. It’s easy to forget that we’re actually the ones with all the power here. Only problem is we don’t yet know it.

    They’re more afraid of you than you are of them. It’s true of spiders, snakes, and oligarchic imperialists.

    _______________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi or . If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, 

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • COMMENTARY: By Jason Brown in Auckland

    Twenty years ago, I was on a plane from Rarotonga to Auckland. Lovely flight, with a path at the end I had never experienced before.

    Almost from the tip of the North Island, down to Tamaki Makaurau — the rising sun bathing the hills and coastline in rich, almost mango, orange. So rich and orange that for a second I wondered if I had mistakenly got on a flight to Aussie, not Aotearoa.

    It was the most stunningly beautiful sight.

    Half asleep from the then usual awake-all-night, early morning departure, dawn arrival, I floated through duty free and customs, not noticing anything really different — until our old Cook Islands Press photographer Dean Treml who was on the same flight came up looking alarmed.

    “There’s been an attack in New York – two planes have flown into the World Trade Towers,” or words to that effect. I was like, “..whaaat? No …Really??”

    He nodded, hurried off.

    I blinked a bit, shook off my disbelief, and forgot about it as we moved through the lines, looking forward to seeing my younger son, Mikaera.

    He was there in arrivals. Rushed to give my three-year-old a kneeling hug. Smiled up at his grandparents.

    ‘Stay calm’
    “Stay calm,” the grandfather told me, “and don’t get upset, but terrorists have attacked the Twin Towers in America,” or words to that effect. “It’s on the screen behind you.”

    In those days, news was still played on the big multiscreens over the arrival doors. I turned, looked, and caught sight of a jet slicing into one of the towers. Over the rest of the day, that scene, and its twin, were replayed over and again, as a stunned world witnessed an unthinkably cinematic display of destruction.

    And then, hours later, one by one, the towers dropped.

    Like billions of others, I watched, in my case in between playing with my young son, alone at his mum’s home, looking over his shoulder at the television.

    A few times it got too much. Made sure Mikaera was okay with toys and/or food, then stepped outside to the garage to cry, the replay sight of people jumping from the smoking towers to their deaths; hiding my tears and low moans of stunned despair.

    Big breaths, wipe away the tears, back inside to play with blocks and trucks, and … planes. One eye on the TV.

    Nearly 3000 people died that day. Almost all Americans, with a few hundred other nationalities.

    Since then?

    Tragedy of so-called ‘War on Terror’
    Millions of non-Americans have died in the Middle East, mostly from economic blockades resulting in deaths from starvation and treatable diseases. Hundreds of thousands dying in a so-called “War on Terror” that served to produce tens of thousands more “terrorists”, vowing to avenge the deaths of their children, siblings, parents, aunties, cousins and uncles.

    Western states have spent trillions of dollars, weapons dealers making obscenely fat profits on the back of jingoistic propaganda from news media which, to this day, counts Western deaths to the last man and woman, but barely mentions any civilian deaths from their bullets, bombs and drones.

    Profits that have been used to bribe officials at home and abroad, via a network of secrecy havens such as New Zealand and the Cook Islands, but mostly via American states like Delaware, or financial centres like London in the UK, flushing trillions more through millions of secret companies for the benefit of a few.

    9/11, they said, changed everything.

    Twenty years later, with the war on terror a complete and utter failure, everything certainly has changed.

    For the worse.

    Western financial hypocrisy
    Trillions continue to be hidden, including with our help, legally or otherwise. Legality being a very moveable feast. Western states pick on tiny offshore banking centres like the Niue, Samoa and the Cook Islands, while ignoring the gaping holes in their own banks and finance centres.

    Governments like New Zealand and Australia fund corruption studies in the Pacific, as one regional example, but not their own.

    And, like little children, we are still over-awed when famous people come to visit our homelands, happily posing and smiling in delight whenever big country people deign to visit our shores.

    Unlike when then Tahitian president Gaston Flosse came to Rarotonga in 1996, and Cook Islanders protested nuclear testing, for example, the Cook Islands happily welcomed then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012.

    Even media people and supposed journalists lined up to grin, to grip the hand of a leader reported as once asking about using a drone to assassinate Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

    In fact, in 1996, I was one of those people, “meeting” Clinton on a rope line at the Atlanta Olympics when I was “Press Attache” for our Olympics team.

    “Greetings from the South Pacific!” I said cheerily when she offered her hand to me, among a hundred or so others who had suddenly gathered.

    “Outstanding!”, she replied, equally delighted.

    Of course, none of us knew then what was coming.

    But we know now.

    Cook Islands in lockstep
    And still the Cook Islands walks in lockstep with our powerful neighbours, a “dear friend” of Australia’s ruling party and its unbelievably corrupt mining, military and media networks.

    Two decades later, the Homeland seems yet to learn any lessons from 9/11, yet to admit any responsibility for its part in enabling #corruption, money laundering and terrorism which breeds extremism, hate, and death, on all sides.

    Instead, our government works against the interests of our own region, a Pacific pawn used and abused in age-old colonial tactics of divide et empera – divide and conquer – a phrase going back over two millennia.

    Today our peoples are further misled by a tsunami of fake news – misinformation and disinformation – from mysteriously well-resourced sources. Distracted from real responses to the #covid19 pandemic, which distracts further from even bigger threats from global warming — or “climate change” as it was known for so long, before leaders started only recently admitting we face a “climate crisis” — but still locked to “market mechanisms” as a supposed solution.

    So, what are the solutions?

    Fight fake news. Fight corruption. Fight the hateful, extremist, death cults hiding behind religion, especially within the largest, most powerful faith in the world — Christianity.

    Fight for a world where shorelines are bathed in mango dawns, and our children don’t grow up watching death replayed every single day of their lives.

    Jason Brown is founder of Journalism Agenda 2025 and writes about Pacific and world journalism and ethically globalised Fourth Estate issues. He is a former co-editor of Cook Islands Press. This article is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Via America’s Lawyer: After spending $2 trillion over the past 20 years, lawmakers on Capitol Hill aren’t letting the Afghanistan withdrawal get in the way of securing more military funding. RT correspondent Brigida Santos joins Mike Papantonio to discuss how Congressional war hawks are still hoping to add tens of billions of dollars to next year’s already-colossal defense budget. Transcript: *This […]

    The post Republican And Democrat War Pimps Join Together To Expand Military Spending appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • By Rahmad Nasution in Jayapura

    More than a week after four Indonesian soldiers were killed by pro-independence fighters in an attack on a military post in Kisor village, South Aifat sub-district, Maybrat district, West Papua, police have arrested two suspects and launched a manhunt for 17 others.

    Also, a joint team of personnel from the Indonesian Military (TNI) has continued to crack down on Papuan rebels operating in the area.

    The XVIII/Kasuari Regional Military Command’s spokesperson, Colonel Hendra Pesireron, said that TNI soldiers had “secured” several villages.

    The troops’ presence in villages had “restored the security situation” in Maybrat district, and guaranteed public safety, he claimed in a statement.

    On 5 September 2021, TNI personnel engaged in a gunfight with several members of a pro-independence group in the neighborhood areas of East Aifat sub-district.

    The rebels retreated into a thick forest to escape, Colonel Pesireron said.

    Before the gunfight, the rebels destroyed a bridge, he said.

    Kisor military post attacked
    On Thursday, pro-independence rebels had ambushed several soldiers while they were sleeping at the Kisor military post.

    Four soldiers—2nd Sergeant Amrosius, Chief Private Dirham, First Private Zul Ansari, and First Lieutenant Dirman—died in the attack, while two others suffered serious wounds.

    The bodies of three soldiers had been found at the post, while the body of another soldier had been discovered in bush not far from the post.

    Several local residents had fled their homes fearing for their safety.

    On Friday, Indonesian police investigators named 19 alleged suspects in connection with the attack on the military post.

    Rahmad Nasution is a journalist for the Indonesian news agency Antara.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Protests continue on the streets of Kabul and other cities in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, over hundreds of activist organisations and individuals around the world have pledged support for the Afghan women facing oppression by the Taliban.

    Courageous

    On 4 September, women protesters attempted to march to the presidential palace in Kabul. But the Taliban attacked them with tear gas:

    The women demanded there be no recognition of Taliban government without the full participation of women in politics and without recognition of their right to work. Tear gas was reportedly used to disperse the demonstrators and one woman allegedly beaten. Women also reportedly demonstrated in Herat and other regional cities.

    More protests followed:

    The Taliban fired in the air to disperse these protesters (parts of this footage may be distressing for some readers):

    Despite a ban by the Taliban on demonstrations, protests continued in Kabul and other cities such as Takhar, Parwan, Badakshan, and Ghazni.

    Solidarity pledges

    Meanwhile over 370 activist organisations and hundreds of individuals have pledged to take to the streets on 25 September in support of Afghan women.

    Their demands are as follows:

    • Refuse to recognize a Taliban government, which has no legitimacy beyond the brutal force it commands, and which terrorizes the people of Afghanistan, girls and women in particular.
    • Stop all forms of support to the Taliban, including funding, providing of arms, and technical know-how.
    • End imperialism, militarism, fascism and religious fundamentalism. Cut the Pentagon Budget.
    • Stop and prevent manipulating women’s rights for commercial and other interests.
    • Support the women’s resistance to the Taliban inside Afghanistan. Respect and support Afghan women and people’s exercise of their democratic and human rights, including their right to self-determination.
    • Evacuate women and men, human rights defenders, journalists, police officers, public employees, athletes, and LGBTI+ who wish to leave the country and ensure their safe passage.
    • Create an independent body of observers, made up with a majority of women, who have a track record of promoting women’s human rights to monitor the situation in Afghanistan.
    • Welcome refugees, with the US and their allies assuming the responsibility of financing the cost of resettling displaced people from Afghanistan.
    • Immediately open humanitarian corridors to support the people of Afghanistan.
    • Stop arms trade policies and the military industrial complex, which profits from the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere the world.
    Support from Kurdish women

    Previously, The Canary published messages of defiance by the Revolutionary Association of Women in Afghanistan (RAWA). There were also messages of support from a number of Kurdish women’s organisations, including the armed YPJ (women’s protection units).

    Now Kurdish women’s organisation Kongra Star is calling on all governments and the UN to refuse recognition of a Taliban government:

    Turkey assisting ISIS

    The Kurds of northern Syria have been at the forefront of the war against Daesh (ISIS). NATO member Turkey is at war with the Kurds and Yazidis – a war which will likely benefit IS-Khorasan (ISIS-K). IS-Khorasan is the organisation that claimed responsibility for the Kabul airport bombing. As one commentator observed:

    Thus, the more Ankara erodes the ability of Kurdish and Yazidi militant groups to combat ISIS, the greater the chance Turkish forces could face ISIS-K attacks in Afghanistan, like the one that killed some 180 people at Kabul airport last month.

    It now appears that Turkey, led by authoritarian Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is working up a deal to provide intelligence and military support to the Taliban. Indeed, on 18 August, Erdoğan explained:

    The main point is to reach an understanding with the Afghan authorities. For example, we can achieve this with a bilateral agreement like we did in Libya.

    And in July, Erdoğan admitted Turkey:

    has nothing against the Taliban’s ideology, and since we aren’t in conflict with the Taliban’s beliefs, I believe we can better discuss and agree with them on issues.

    “Let Us No Longer Mourn but Make the Enemy Weep!”

    In a statement issued on 3 August, RAWA declared:

    we call for the establishment of a democratic front against the Taliban, we call upon all democratic, secular, anti-fundamentalist and anti-occupation forces, all our tormented women, girls and men, to say that nothing will come out of mourning. Let us rise and resist against the Taliban and their partners, in any way and at any level, and give them a taste of defeat and sorrow.

    The Afghan people – particularly women and their supporters globally – are now the only true opposition to the fundamentalists.

    Featured image via YouTube – Hindustan Times

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The UK Defence Committee has proposed an inquiry into the recent, messy end of the 20 year war in Afghanistan. The scrutiny body has laid out a series of questions it wants answered. But it’s far from the inquiry we need into the decades-long disaster.

    Committee chair Tobias Elwood MP said:

    The sheer speed of the Taliban takeover following our withdrawal from Afghanistan sent shockwaves across the world. After twenty years of war, the images of Taliban fighters celebrating victory on the streets of Kabul are sobering. It has been a dark and troubling time for the West and supporters of democracy and human rights worldwide.

    Pot, kettle?

    Certainly the resurgent Taliban is no friend of human rights and democracy. But this isn’t the whole story. The scope of the inquiry will not extend to the legacy of human rights abuses carried out in Afghanistan by the West and its allies.

    There is no mention in the proposal of the bombings, the night raids, the drone attacks or the Western-trained death squads – nor the huge profits made by arms firms during the war.

    The questions proposed are very narrow in scope, often focusing on recent events only. It also covers whether the disaster will affect future UK wars and occupations. One question reads:

    What effect will the withdrawal have on future operations, and what will be the impact on the willingness of local personnel to work with, and support, the UK in future operations?

    A key priority, then, seems to be the next war. Wherever that will be…

    A real inquiry?

    PM Boris Johnson has already rejected the idea of a proper inquiry, as The Canary reported recently. Yet other voices are demanding that the war is properly scrutinised.

    Among them is former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. He challenged Johnson on the matter in the Commons on 7 September.

    Others have warned that there will be no accountability. Former military officer Frank Ledwidge is among them. And he said this was the case despite the Afghan war being more damaging than the Iraq War in “every respect”. He added:

    Over the past 20 years, 457 members of the armed forces have been killed in Afghanistan – and thousands more ruined for life. We don’t count the suicides. We killed thousands of non-combatants in Helmand, and many more insurgents.

    Truth and justice

    There can be no meaningful peace without justice. This is as true in Afghanistan as anywhere else. And that will never be achieved by another narrow inquiry which amounts to the UK warmongering class marking its own homework once again.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Stag Sgt Vince Mancilla

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • ANALYSIS: By Clare Corbould, Deakin University

    Since the September 11 terror attacks, there has been no hiding from the increased militarisation of the United States. Everyday life is suffused with policing and surveillance.

    This ranges from the inconvenient, such as removing shoes at the airport, to the dystopian, such as local police departments equipped with decommissioned tanks too big to use on regular roads.

    This process of militarisation did not begin with 9/11. The American state has always relied on force combined with the de-personalisation of its victims.

    The army, after all, dispossessed First Nations peoples of their land as settlers pushed westward. Expanding the American empire to places such as Cuba, the Philippines, and Haiti also relied on force, based on racist justifications.

    The military also ensured American supremacy in the wake of the Second World War. As historian Nikhil Pal Singh writes, about 8 million people were killed in US-led or sponsored wars from 1945–2019 — and this is a conservative estimate.

    When Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican and former military general, left the presidency in 1961, he famously warned against the growing “military-industrial complex” in the US. His warning went unheeded and the protracted conflict in Vietnam was the result.

    General Dwight D. Eisenhower in second world war.
    General Dwight D. Eisenhower addresses American paratroopers prior to D-Day in the Second World War. Image: Wikimedia Commons

    The 9/11 attacks then intensified US militarisation, both at home and abroad. George W. Bush was elected in late 2000 after campaigning to reduce US foreign interventions.

    The new president discovered, however, that by adopting the persona of a tough, pro-military leader, he could sweep away lingering doubts about the legitimacy of his election.

    Waging war on Afghanistan within a month of the Twin Towers falling, Bush’s popularity soared to 90 percent. War in Iraq, based on the dubious assertion of Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”, soon followed.

    The military industrial juggernaut
    Investment in the military state is immense. 9/11 ushered in the federal, cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, with an initial budget in 2001-02 of US$16 billion. Annual budgets for the agency peaked at US$74 billion in 2009-10 and is now around US$50 billion.

    This super-department vacuumed up bureaucracies previously managed by a range of other agencies, including justice, transportation, energy, agriculture, and health and human services.

    Centralising services under the banner of security has enabled gross miscarriages of justice. These include the separation of tens of thousands of children from parents at the nation’s southern border, done in the guise of protecting the country from so-called illegal immigrants.

    More than 300 of the some 1000 children taken from parents during the Trump administration have still not been reunited with family.

    Detainees in a holding cell at the US-Mexico border.
    Detainees sleep in a holding cell where mostly Central American immigrant children are being processed at the US-Mexico border. Image: The Conversation/Ross D. Franklin/AP

    The post-9/11 Patriot Act also gave spying agencies paramilitary powers. The act reduced barriers between the CIA, FBI, and the National Security Agency (NSA) to permit the acquiring and sharing of Americans’ private communications.

    These ranged from telephone records to web searches. All of this was justified in an atmosphere of near-hysterical and enduring anti-Muslim fervour.

    Only in 2013 did most Americans realise the extent of this surveillance network. Edward Snowden, a contractor working at the NSA, leaked documents that revealed a secret US$52 billion budget for 16 spying agencies and over 100,000 employees.

    Normalisation of the security state
    Despite the long objections of civil liberties groups and disquiet among many private citizens, especially after Snowden’s leaks, it has proven difficult to wind back the industrialised security state.

    This is for two reasons: the extent of the investment, and because its targets, both domestically and internationally, are usually not white and not powerful.

    Domestically, the 2015 Freedom Act renewed almost all of the Patriot Act’s provisions. Legislation in 2020 that might have stemmed some of these powers stalled in Congress.

    And recent reports suggest President Joe Biden’s election has done little to alter the detention of children at the border.

    Militarisation is now so commonplace that local police departments and sheriff’s offices have received some US$7 billion worth of military gear (including grenade launchers and armoured vehicles) since 1997, underwritten by federal government programmes.

    Atlanta police in riot gear.
    Atlanta police line up in riot gear before a protest in 2014. Image: The Conversation/Curtis Compton/AP

    Militarised police kill civilians at a high rate — and the targets for all aspects of policing and incarceration are disproportionately people of colour. And yet, while the sight of excessively armed police forces during last year’s Black Lives Matter protests shocked many Americans, it will take a phenomenal effort to reverse this trend.

    The heavy cost of the war on terror
    The juggernaut of the militarised state keeps the United States at war abroad, no matter if Republicans or Democrats are in power.

    Since 9/11, the US “war on terror” has cost more than US$8 trillion and led to the loss of up to 929,000 lives.

    The effects on countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan have been devastating, and with the US involvement in Somalia, Libya, the Philippines, Mali, and Kenya included, these conflicts have resulted in the displacement of some 38 million people.

    These wars have become self-perpetuating, spawning new terror threats such as the Islamic State and now perhaps ISIS-K.

    Those who serve in the US forces have suffered greatly. Roughly 2.9 million living veterans served in post-9/11 conflicts abroad. Of the some 2 million deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, perhaps 36 percent are experiencing PTSD.

    Training can be utterly brutal. The military may still offer opportunities, but the lives of those who serve remain expendable.

    Fighter jet in the Persian Gulf
    Sailor cleaning a fighter jet during aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf in 2010. Image: The Conversation/Hasan Jamali/AP

    Life must be precious
    Towards the end of his life, Robert McNamara, the hard-nosed Ford Motor Company president and architect of the United States’ disastrous military efforts in Vietnam, came to regret deeply his part in the military-industrial juggernaut.

    In his 1995 memoir, he judged his own conduct to be morally repugnant. He wrote,

    We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong.

    In interviews with the filmmaker Errol Morris, McNamara admitted, obliquely, to losing sight of the simple fact the victims of the militarised American state were, in fact, human beings.

    As McNamara realised far too late, the solution to reversing American militarisation is straightforward. We must recognise, in the words of activist and scholar Ruth Wilson Gilmore, that “life is precious”. That simple philosophy also underlies the call to acknowledge Black Lives Matter.

    The best chance to reverse the militarisation of the US state is policy guided by the radical proposal that life — regardless of race, gender, status, sexuality, nationality, location or age — is indeed precious.

    As we reflect on how the United States has changed since 9/11, it is clear the country has moved further away from this basic premise, not closer to it.The Conversation

    Dr Clare Corbould, Associate Professor, Contemporary Histories Research Group, Deakin University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Susan Price in Sydney

    West Papua activists have called on the Australian government to raise concerns about the Indonesian military’s ongoing human rights abuses in West Papua, when they met with their Indonesian counterparts this week.

    Foreign Minister Marise Payne and Defence Minister Peter Dutton are attending the seventh Indonesia-Australia Foreign and Defence Ministers 2+2 dialogue in Jakarta, which started yesterday, before continuing on to visit New Delhi, Seoul, Washington and New York.

    Australia-West Papua Association spokesperson Joe Collins said: “We can expect all the usual statements about regional stability, peace, economic prosperity, terrorism and defence cooperation, but highly unlikely anything about human rights — unless it is criticism of China’s record.”

    In a reply to correspondence from AWPA, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) indicated that because of Australia’s close relationship with Indonesia it had allowed DFAT to discuss a range of issues, including sensitive topics like the situation in Papua.

    Given this close relationship, Collins said activists were hoping the human rights situation in West Papua would be raised, including: the ongoing concerns for arrested West Papuan activist Victor Yeimo; the security force operation taking place in the Maybrat Regency; and the death of Kristian Yandun from a beating in a police cell in Merauke.

    Yeimo faces a number of charges, including treason with conspiracy. There is concern for his mental and physical health, which is deteriorating.

    According to AWPA, after an attack on a military post in Kisor village in the Maybrat regency, security forces have retaliated, causing residents from five districts to flee their villages in fear of the Indonesian military.

    AWPA is concerned that Merauke local police chief Untung Sangaji was trained by Australian Federal Police and trainers from the United States and Britain in anti-people smuggling and surveillance techniques at the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation (JCLEC).

    AWPA is calling on Payne and Dutton to urge Jakarta to release Yeimo and all political prisoners, and to raise the human rights abuses committed by the Indonesian security forces.

    Susan Price reports for Green-Left.

    Stronger Australian-Indonesian military ties
    Indonesian troops could join regular training exercises on Australian soil, as part of a deepening of defence ties with Australia, reports The Guardian.

    While Indonesia regularly joins naval exercises with Australia, and has participated in occasional joint military exercises on Australian land, the two countries have flagged plans to “step up” their joint training in the coming years, writes Daniel Hurst.

    Australia’s defence minister, Peter Dutton, and foreign minister, Marise Payne, met their Indonesian counterparts in Jakarta yesterday, on the first leg of a four-country trip.

    Indonesia’s Defence Minister Prabowo Subianto said he and Dutton had discussed “the possibility of Australia opening their training areas for the participation of Indonesian units to be training together with Australia”.

    “I think this is a historical first,” Prabowo said.

    Indonesian troops arrive at Sinak 100921
    Indonesian security forces troops being flown in to Sinak, Puncak region, in the Papuan highlands for operations against independence fighters. Image: Screenshot APR

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • UK governments often claim their wars and occupations have a moral element. And the Iraq, Afghanistan and Libyan wars were no different.

    But a recent Freedom of Information request by the research charity Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) calls that claim into question. The charity has discovered that the UK military doesn’t even keep a count of the civilians it kills.

    In a new blog, AOAV’s Murray Jones reported that the MOD had said the information was “not held”.

    Only data on the deaths of non-UK civilians employed by the military was offered. Reportedly, 38 died between 2015 and 2021.

    Contested figures

    Actual figures of civilian deaths from UK military action are hard to pin down. As AOAV points out, some official estimates seem very odd.

    In the air war against ISIS, according to MOD figures, only a single civilian died.

    The MOD has been repeatedly challenged over its claim that its bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria (Op SHADER) has killed and injured an estimated 4,315 enemies, but only resulted in one civilian casualty between September 2014 and January 2021.

    AOAV also argues that due to the bombing in cities, a figure of zero civilian casualties seems optimistic.

    It’s highly likely that civilian deaths have been under-reported, as 1,000 targets were hit by the RAF during its bombing campaign in the cities of Raqqa and Mosul.

    Self denial

    AOAV previously revealed that the Royal Air Force does not always keep count of the amount of bombs it uses in areas filled with civilians.

    In August, AOAV revealed that the RAF does not keep a specific record of how many bombs they have dropped on populated areas, raising questions over how they are measuring civilian harm.

    The organisation suggested under-reporting may be due to the UK’s very high threshold of evidence for civilian deaths. While the US relies on a “balance of probabilities approach”, the UK requires “hard fact” totally innocent deaths.

    In their new article, AOAV cited Chris Cole, director of Drone Wars UK, who described the MOD approach as:

    A kind of internal structural self-denial, where it has become seemingly impossible for the MoD even to accept that civilian casualties have occurred.

    We may never know the true cost in innocent civilian lives. But it seems that the UK’s claims to be a humanitarian force in the world are, at best, massively optimistic.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Corporal Steve Follows.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    The CIA just casually discussed sinking a boat full of Cuban refugees and planting bombs in Miami and blaming Castro, but you’re bat shit crazy if you suspect such agencies may have had similar discussions about other geostrategic situations and decided to go through with it.

    There’s more public criticism of ordinary people taking ivermectin than there is of planet-dominating power structures driving humanity to armageddon.

    Nobody who supports internet censorship does so because they’re worried they themselves might consume dangerous words and believe them, it’s always to protect other people from dangerous words. It’s about the most megalomaniacal, emotionally stunted desire anyone could possibly have.

    They see themselves as responsible adults who can be trusted to independently sort out truth from falsehood, but see other people as infants who cannot be trusted to do this. This is nothing other than garden variety narcissism.

    Internet censorship via monopolistic government-tied tech corporations isn’t just a problem because of free speech issues, it’s a problem because the way it’s applied is completely uneven and power-serving: politicians and the mass media circulate disinformation constantly without ever being censored. It’s not just silencing people, it’s actually shifting power upwards.

    There is no path forward for humanity on this planet without complete female reproductive sovereignty.

    Imagine if the world’s deadliest terrorist group got their hands on drones and cruise missiles and nuclear warheads and aircraft carriers and circled the planet with hundreds of military bases and began waging wars and destroying any country which disobeyed their dictates.

    No, Texas conservatives aren’t like the Taliban. No, US government authoritarianism isn’t like China or North Korea. You know what it’s like? It’s like America. It says so much that the most corrupt and destructive nation on earth keeps comparing its homegrown depravity to foreign nations.

    It’s crazy how there are guys whose whole entire job is trying to get large number of people killed by mass military violence and we just let that be a thing like it’s a perfectly legitimate way for someone to be.

    “Hey why does that mustache guy keep trying to get large numbers of people violently killed?”

    “Oh he’s just one of those war starty guys.”

    “What?? Why are there war starty guys??”

    “I dunno. Isn’t that normal? I just assumed it was normal to have war starty guys.”

    Every single soldier who died in Afghanistan died in vain. Don’t make up sugary fairy tales about it, just stop letting it happen.

    Are soldiers working under the US empire the worst people in the world? No. But in terms of moral standing you’d have to rank someone who murders foreigners on behalf of imperialists and war profiteers below most of the people in your average prison.

    “If it wasn’t us waging all these wars and killing all those people it’d be someone else” sounds very much like the sort of thing an abusive tyrant would say.

    There’s no good reason to respect the analysis of anyone who thinks China’s behavior on the world stage is worse than or equally as bad as America’s.

    Australia is the only so-called democracy in the world which has no bill of rights of any kind. Most people are unaware of this, including most Australians. What you’re seeing in Australia is simply what happens when you add a pandemic response on top of a nation with no foundational legal protection from government overreach. That’s why our Covid measures are so notoriously harsh relative to other western countries.

    Modern gods are corporations and banks, faceless inhuman entities whose agendas of growth and conquest supercede even the wishes of their own executives. Our gods are insatiable devourers controlled by no one. Our gods have no heads.

    At a time when our species is hurtling toward its own demise we ought to be coming together and working in unison to avert disaster, and it says so much about the power of propaganda that we are instead doing the exact opposite.

    All of humanity’s problems are ultimately due to a misperception of the way things are.

    Propaganda causes us to misperceive reality in a way that benefits establishment power structures, so we don’t rise up and use the power of our numbers to put an end to the ecocidal, omnicidal status quo which oppresses and exploits us.

    Advertising causes us to misperceive our own bodies and the source of real contentment, leading to the obsessive consumption habits necessary for turning the gears of capitalism.

    Ego causes us to misperceive our own experience of consciousness and the information which enters our minds through the senses, leading to the suffering and dysfunction which ultimately underlies all abuses in our world.

    What we need, then, is clear seeing, both outwardly and inwardly. An end to government secrecy and the mass-scale manipulations which distort our perception of reality. An end to restrictions on psychedelic tools which help people behold their inner processes with lucidity. A greatly elevated prioritization of self-honesty and self-reflection to help us see through the ego’s illusions.

    We can’t move toward health until we can see where we’re going.

    _______________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi or . If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, 

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • US president Joe Biden recently announced that he will sign an executive order to facilitate the release of classified documents about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The move is the result of a long-running campaign by victims’ families to determine whether the government of Saudi Arabia played a hand in the atrocities.

    Throughout the 20 years since the attacks, it appears that successive US administrations and the US intelligence community alike have gone out of their way to suppress evidence that might implicate one of Washington’s staunchest allies. This refusal to release the documents speaks volumes about the US’s fawning treatment of one of the world’s last remaining absolute monarchies. It also raises big questions about the US’s flagrant double standards in the Middle East during its so-called ‘War on Terror’.

    Documents finally redacted after three presidents in a row refuse

    On 3 September, Biden ordered the US Justice Department to release documents produced as part of a Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) probe into the 9/11 attacks. Groups representing families of 9/11 victims have lobbied hard for years for their release. In response, Biden committed to declassifying the documents during his 2020 presidential campaign.

    As the anniversary of the attacks approached, these groups released a statement urging Biden not to attend memorial events unless his administration declassified the documents. The administrations of former presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump all refused to do so.

    Saudi involvement?

    Many victims’ families have been particularly motivated by a suspicion that the government of Saudi Arabia might have been involved in planning the attacks. On 3 September, Reuters reported:

    Family members of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks asked a U.S. government watchdog on Thursday to investigate their suspicions that the FBI lied about or destroyed evidence linking Saudi Arabia to the hijackers.

    These suspicions have been heightened by the fact that Saudi Arabia is, after Israel, the US’s second staunchest ally in the Middle East. Throughout the presidencies of Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, Washington all entered into profitable arms deals with the country’s royal family. Successive US administrations, therefore, have had an incentive to suppress information that could reveal Saudi involvement in 9/11. Politico reported in April 2017 that the 9/11 Commission’s “own members protested drastic, last-minute edits that seemed to absolve the Saudi government of any responsibility”.

    Bogus justification for meddling in the Middle East

    But the reality is that Washington’s deceitfulness runs even deeper. Because the 9/11 attacks were used as a ruse to provide bogus justification for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to topple the Taliban and the Ba’athist government of Saddam Hussein respectively. Yet there is evidently significantly less reason to believe that either of these actors had any connection to 9/11 when compared with Saudi Arabia.

    In spite of this rather obvious reality, there were no calls in the aftermath of 9/11 to take any kind of action whatsoever against Saudi Arabia, let alone to invade it and replace its government. Yet despite much thinner evidence linking them to the attacks, the Bush administration instead launched invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. What could explain this stunning paradox?

    Revealing double standards

    The answer lies in examining the criteria on which the US bases its treatment of other countries. As The Canary has extensively argued, US administrations of both parties do not base their treatment of other countries on their publicly-stated criteria of human rights and democracy. (Indeed, if the true motivation behind Washington’s foreign policy was to spread democracy, as George W. Bush claimed, then Saudi Arabia would probably top the list of countries to invade given its status as one of the world’s last remaining absolute monarchies.) Rather, Washington bases its stance towards other nations according to how obedient they are to US geo-strategic and economic interests.

    When it comes to Saudi Arabia, the evidence speaks for itself. In the final year of World War II, the US entered into a deal with the Saudi royal family to ensure continued privileged access to the country’s ample oil reserves. Ever since, the Saudi royals have been rewarded for this with the most fawning treatment imaginable. As then-US president Donald Trump put it in a November 2018 statement:

    The United States intends to remain a steadfast partner of Saudi Arabia to ensure the interests of our country, Israel and all other partners in the region.

    Opening up the region to Western oil companies in Afghanistan…

    When it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq, on the other hand, the Taliban and the government of Saddam Hussein had fallen afoul of the US foreign policy establishment due to their growing unwillingness to serve US interests. This was particularly so in terms of providing favorable access to their countries’ oil reserves. And that resulted in a desperate scramble by the Bush administration to somehow tie them to 9/11.

    In the case of Afghanistan, Washington attempted to strike a deal with the Taliban in the late-1990s to allow the US-based petroleum giant Unocal to build an oil pipeline through the country to the Caspian Sea. When it became clear that the Taliban was unlikely to accommodate this process, Unocal withdrew from negotiations and the plans were shelved. When 9/11 came along, it gave the Bush administration its perfect ruse to topple the Taliban in order to install a more friendly government that would allow the building of the pipeline. (Though there were considerable delays, probably owing to the chaos caused by the US invasion, construction of the pipeline finally began in February 2018. The New York Times reported at the time: “The United States has supported pipelines to bypass Russia and alleviate former Soviet states’ economic dependence on it.”)

    Since this motivation would have surely provoked widespread scorn, Washington weaponized 9/11 by issuing allegations that the Taliban were ‘harboring terrorists’ and had links to al-Qaeda to whip up public and congressional support for invasion. On both counts, these allegations were dubious. A 2011 report by the Center on International Cooperation describes the relationship between al-Qaeda and the Taliban as “complicated and often tense”, adding that they “knew little about each other”. Nonetheless, the ploy seemingly paid off: only one congress member voted against the invasion while public opinion polls at the time put support for it at around 80%.

    …and Iraq

    A similar, and even more duplicitous, dynamic played out with respect to Iraq. Saddam Hussein had been a close US ally, and even received US military funding in the 1980s. But throughout the 1990s, the relationship began to sour over his invasion of Kuwait. In the early 2000s, Hussein’s status as a US enemy was cemented when he fully nationalised Iraq’s oil industry and closed off access to Western petroleum companies. Unfortunately for the Bush administration, however, his connection to 9/11 was simply nonexistent – even Bush himself said after the invasion “I don’t think we ever said — at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein”.

    So his administration concocted a narrative, which the media dutifully repeated, that would nonetheless play on public fears that had been ignited by the attacks. It fabricated bogus claims that Hussein’s government had been developing ‘weapons of mass destruction’ to provide a ruse for invading the country. (To demonstrate the absurdity of denouncing Iraq for purportedly having ‘weapons of mass’ destruction, consider that the only nuclear armed state in the entire region is the US’s number one ally, Israel.) As was the case with Afghanistan, the true purpose of the invasion was to create a more favorable environment for US oil companies. Even members of the US’s own military have admitted this reality. Former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq gen. John Abizaid said in 2007: “Of course it’s about oil; we can’t really deny that”.

    Some of the Bush administration’s leading figures, meanwhile, had extensive ties to the very corporations that ultimately benefited from the invasion, such as the former CEO of oil giant Halliburton, Dick Cheney, who served as Bush’s vice president. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were highly profitable for such US private contractors, which received billions in contracts for both wars. Halliburton itself ultimately became the largest single US government contractor in Iraq and by 2013 had received over $39bn in contracts.

    The final piece of evidence could be coming soon

    Clearly, the US foreign policy and intelligence establishment have a vested interest in suppressing evidence of potential Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks. After all, this would make even further nonsense of the entire edifice of bogus justification that the Bush administration built in order to manufacture consent for invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Though his administration is hardly a decisive break from the bipartisan consensus for endless war, Biden’s decision to declassify the documents should nonetheless be welcomed. It might end up providing the final piece of evidence needed to determine whether one of the US’s own allies in the Middle East played a hand in the worst domestic terrorist atrocity in US history.

    Featured image via Flickr – Stacy Herbert and Wikimedia Commons – Michael Foran

    By Peter Bolton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    Indonesian authorities have been accused of adopting a strategy of deploying military force to drive thousands of Papuans from their homes to make way for powerful business interests.

    The accusation comes from the United Liberation Movement of West Papua (ULMWP) in a statement responding to news that about 2400 internal refugees have been displaced from 19 villages after renewed Indonesian military operations in the Maybrat regency.

    The humanitarian crisis there is being compared to Nduga and Intan Jaya, where more than 50,000 West Papuans have been displaced by military operations in recent years.

    “Maybrat is a peaceful place. The violence we are seeing now is a result of Indonesian state attempts to clear the local people and grab the gold and minerals that lie under the earth,” said ULMWP interim president Benny Wenda.

    “I have been stating for a long time that Indonesia’s military operations are not about ‘sovereignty’, but business.

    “Now, Indonesia’s own NGOs have confirmed this. New reports from WALHI Papua, LBH Papua, KontraS, Greenpeace Indonesia and several other groups have noted the deep links Indonesia’s retired generals, Kopassus officers and intelligence chiefs have with resource extraction projects in West Papua.

    “Powerful Indonesian leaders like Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan, Maritime Affairs Minister, hold direct interests in the Wabu Block gold concession in Intan Jaya, where huge military operations have forced thousands of people from their homes.”

    ‘Wiping our entire villages’
    Wenda claimed the military operations were attempts to “wipe out entire villages and clear the way for illegal mines”.

    “They are killing us because we are Black, because we are different. This is state-sponsored terrorism,” he said.

    Wenda said that given these economic interests, the Papuan people could not “trust the reports of the Indonesian police and military whenever one of their own is killed”.

    “The military men’s presence in the region is illegal. Their presence is part of Indonesia’s business interests, part of their illegal colonial occupation of my land.

    “The 1969 Act of No Choice was illegal, it was not done by one man one vote as required by the 1962 New York Agreement. The UN did not endorse what happened, it only ‘took note’ following fierce opposition led by Ghana in the UN General Assembly.

    “Indonesia cannot claim that its invasion of West Papua is a done deal – it is not. It is the root cause of all the issues we see today.

    “Indonesia has no right to send any more military to West Papua, to build the Trans-Papua Highway, or to construct any more military posts.”

    Negotiated solution
    Wenda said the issue would never end until Indonesian President Joko Widodo negotiated a “solution for the good of West Papua and Indonesia to hold a referendum on independence”.

    He said Indonesia must listen to the will of 84 countries and allow the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit West Papua immediately.

    “If the international community wants to help end the bloodshed in my homeland, it must act to ensure this visit happens,” Wenda said.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Via America’s Lawyer: Middle Eastern countries funnel money to D.C. lobbyists hoping to reinforce their foreign foothold on Capitol Hill. Mike Papantonio and Farron Cousins discuss more. Also, The Supreme Court strikes down the Biden administration’s latest eviction moratorium, putting millions of renters across the country in jeopardy of losing their homes. RT correspondent Brigida Santos joins Mike Papantonio to discuss the ruling. Transcript: *This […]

    The post Lobbyists Are Using Afghanistan Chaos To Push For MORE War & A Massive Eviction Wave Is Coming appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • Dominic Raab has been urged to “find a backbone and resign” after MPs criticised his handling of the Afghanistan crisis.

    Spineless

    Labour told the foreign secretary the coordination between his department and the Ministry of Defence to assist people seeking to flee Afghanistan is “still appalling” despite the efforts of some “very hardworking” civil servants.

    The SNP’s Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) went a step further when asking why Raab went on holiday to Crete despite concerns being raised in July over the future of Afghanistan. He added:

    When’s he going to find a backbone and resign?

    Raab replied:

    He referred to the risk report that the management board received in July, it’s a standard monthly report, it goes to senior officials. It didn’t contain any novel or new intelligence assessment.

    What the July document made clear was that our central planning assumption at the time was the peace process in Afghanistan would probably run for a further six months.

    So we followed all that advice while at the same time preparing our contingency plans for the evacuation.

    The Taliban retook control of nearly all of Afghanistan by mid-August.

    “Lottery of life and death”

    Raab repeatedly stressed the UK will not recognise the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan and noted his “scepticism is quite deep” about their assurances. But he told MPs:

    There is some evidence, in relation to the engagement we had on the ground in relation to the airport, it is possible to have a rational, constructive engagement and be able to test whether they will keep their word.

    Labour’s Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) earlier warned that the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme “is going to end up as a lottery of life and death”. She asked about the number of Afghan citizens “who want and need to flee here from Afghanistan and have already asked”. Harman said:

    How will the Government in practice decide between those who will be the lucky 5,000 and be allowed to come here and those who, though meeting the criteria, will because of the 5,000 cap be refused and face a terrible fate at the hands of the Taliban?

    I think the reality is unless they increase the 5,000 cap, the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme is going to end up as a lottery of life and death.

    Raab replied:

    I think she’s right to say frankly even if we doubled or tripled the quota, the number of people fleeing Afghanistan is going to outstrip what the UK would be able to take alone.

    “Appalling”

    Shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy said:

    The coordination between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, despite some very hardworking civil servants on the ground who are working round the clock, is still appalling.

    She also asked about the number of calls handled by the crisis centre. The foreign secretary said:

    Since August 11, (the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office crisis centre) has handled more than 44,000 calls. We surged 45 members of FCDO staff and 35 staff from other departments.

    Since August 19, we have answered well over 90% – 93% – of the total number received, and every day since the 24th, our call handlers have answered more than 94% of the calls that were made.

    And just to give the honourable lady a sense, since August 20 average wait times have been less than a minute.

    Raab also told MPs there is “clearly a difference” between the Taliban and terrorist groups such as Isis-K – the affiliate of the so-called Islamic State in Afghanistan – and al-Qaeda.

    He added:

    Indeed, there is suspicion that the Abbey Gate attack from Isis-K, that part of the intention was to target the Taliban.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.