radiofree.asia

Category: military

  • Oh Great They’re Putting Guns On Robodogs Now

    Listen to a reading of this article:

    ❖

    So hey they’ve started mounting sniper rifles on robodogs, which is great news for anyone who was hoping they’d start mounting sniper rifles on robodogs.

    At an exhibit booth in the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting and exhibition, Ghost Robotics (the military-friendly competitor to the better-known Boston Dynamics) proudly showed off a weapon that is designed to attach to its quadruped bots made by a company called SWORD Defense Systems.

    “The SWORD Defense Systems Special Purpose Unmanned Rifle (SPUR) was specifically designed to offer precision fire from unmanned platforms such as the Ghost Robotics Vision-60 quadruped,” SWORD proclaims on its website. “Chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor allows for precision fire out to 1200m, the SPUR can similarly utilize 7.62×51 NATO cartridge for ammunition availability. Due to its highly capable sensors the SPUR can operate in a magnitude of conditions, both day and night. The SWORD Defense Systems SPUR is the future of unmanned weapon systems, and that future is now.”

    Back in May the US Air Force put out a video on the “Robotic Ghost Dog” these weapons are designed to be used with, showing the machines jogging, standing up after being flipped over, and even dancing. All of which becomes a lot less cutesy when you imagine them performing these maneuvers while carrying a gun designed to blow apart skulls from a kilometer away.

    At one point in the video a Senior Master Sergeant explains to the host how these robodogs can be affixed with all kinds of equipment like communications systems, explosive ordnance disposal attachments, gear to test for chemicals and radiation, and the whole time you’re listening to him list things off you’re thinking “Guns. Yeah guns. You can attach guns to them, why don’t you just say that?”

    The SPUR prototype is just one of many different weapons we’ll surely see tested for use with quadruped robots in coming years, and eventually we’ll likely see its successors tested on impoverished foreigners in needless military interventions by the United States and/or its allies. They will join other unmanned weapons systems in the imperial arsenal like the USA’s notorious drone program, South Korea’s Samsung SGR-A1, the Turkish Kargu drone which has already reportedly attacked human beings in Libya without having been given a human command to do so, and the AI-assisted robotic sniper rifle that was used by Israeli intelligence in coordination with the US government to assassinate an Iranian scientist last year.

    And we may be looking at a not-too-distant future in which unmanned weapons systems are sought out by wealthy civilians as well.

    In 2018 the influential author and professor Douglas Rushkoff wrote an article titled “Survival of the Richest” in which he disclosed that a year earlier he had been paid an enormous fee to meet with five extremely wealthy hedge funders. Rushkoff says the unnamed billionaires sought out his advice for strategizing their survival after what they called “the event”, their term for the collapse of civilization via climate destruction, nuclear war or some other catastrophe which they apparently viewed as likely enough and close enough to start planning for.

    Rushkoff writes that eventually it became clear that the foremost concern of these plutocrats was maintaining control over a security force which would protect their estates from the rabble in a post-apocalyptic world where money might not mean anything. I encourage you to read the following paragraph from the article carefully, because it says so much about how these people see our future, our world, and their fellow human beings:

    “This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time.”

    Something to keep in mind if you ever find yourself fervently hoping that the world will be saved by billionaires.

    LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman has said that more than half of Silicon Valley’s billionaires have invested in some type of “apocalypse insurance” such as an underground bunker to ensure they survive whatever disasters ensue from the status quo they currently benefit so immensely from. The New Yorker has published an article about this mega-rich doomsday prepper phenomenon as well. We may be sure that military forces aren’t the only ones planning on having eternally loyal killing machines protecting their interests going forward.

    We are ruled by warmongers and sociopaths, and none of them have healthy plans for our future. They are not kind, and they are not wise. They’re not even particularly intelligent. Unless we can find some way to pry their fingers from the steering wheel of our world so we can turn away from the direction we are headed, things will probably get very dark and scary.

    ____________________________

    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.

  • The Science Of Propaganda Is Still Being Developed And Advanced

    Listen to a reading of this article:

    ❖

    We live in a far less free society than most of us think.

    It looks like we’re free. We don’t get thrown in prison for criticizing our government officials. We can vote for whoever we want. We can log onto the internet and look up information on any subject we’re interested in. If we want to buy a product we have many brands we are free to choose from.

    But we’re not free. Our political systems are set up to herd people into a two-party system that is controlled on both sides by plutocrats. The news media that people rely on to form ideas about what’s going on and how they should vote are controlled by the plutocratic class and heavily influenced by secretive government agencies. Internet algorithms are aggressively manipulated to show people information which favors the status quo. Even our entertainment is rife with Pentagon and CIA influence.

    How free is that? How free is your speech if there are myriad institutional safeguards in place to prevent speech from ever effecting political change?

    It doesn’t matter what you’re allowed to say if it doesn’t matter what you say. It doesn’t matter if you’re allowed to call the oligarchic puppet put in office by the last fake election a dickhead. It doesn’t matter if you’re allowed to Google any information you want only to find whatever information Google wants you to find.

    What is the functional difference between a regime which directly censors the internet to prevent dissent and a regime which works with Silicon Valley plutocrats to control information via algorithms and has a system in place which prevents dissent from having any meaningful impact?

    There is none.

    We live in a profoundly unfree society that is disguised as a free society. Western liberal democracy is just totalitarianism dressed in drag.

    And it’s only getting worse. Propaganda is a still-developing science.

    Last month Ottawa Citizen reported that the Canadian military used the Covid outbreak as an excuse to test actual military psyop techniques on its own civilian population under the pretense of assuring compliance with pandemic restrictions.

    Some excerpts:

    • “Canadian military leaders saw the pandemic as a unique opportunity to test out propaganda techniques on an unsuspecting public, a newly released Canadian Forces report concludes.”
    • “The plan devised by the Canadian Joint Operations Command, also known as CJOC, relied on propaganda techniques similar to those employed during the Afghanistan war. The campaign called for ‘shaping’ and ‘exploiting’ information. CJOC claimed the information operations scheme was needed to head off civil disobedience by Canadians during the coronavirus pandemic and to bolster government messages about the pandemic.”
    • “A separate initiative, not linked to the CJOC plan, but overseen by Canadian Forces intelligence officers, culled information from public social media accounts in Ontario. Data was also compiled on peaceful Black Lives Matter gatherings and BLM leaders.”
    • “’This is really a learning opportunity for all of us and a chance to start getting information operations into our (CAF-DND) routine,’ the rear admiral stated.”
    • “Yet another review centred on the Canadian Forces public affairs branch and its activities. Last year, the branch launched a controversial plan that would have allowed military public affairs officers to use propaganda to change attitudes and behaviours of Canadians as well as to collect and analyze information from public social media accounts.”
    • “The plan would have seen staff move from traditional government methods of communicating with the public to a more aggressive strategy of using information warfare and influence tactics on Canadians.”

    So they’re not just employing mass-scale psychological operations on the public, they’re testing them and learning from them.

    And we can probably assume that anything which may have been learned was also shared with the government agencies of other NATO members.

    In a new article titled “Behind NATO’s ‘cognitive warfare’: Western militaries are waging a ‘battle for your brain’“, The Grayzone’s Ben Norton reports on how recent NATO-sponsored discussions have explicitly advocated the need to advance the science of cognitive warfare for offensive as well as defensive purposes.

    Some excerpts:

    • “NATO is spinning out an entirely new kind of combat it has branded as cognitive warfare. Described as the ‘weaponization of brain sciences,’ the new method involves ‘hacking the individual’ by exploiting ‘the vulnerabilities of the human brain’ in order to implement more sophisticated ‘social engineering.’
    • “While the NATO-backed study insisted that much of its research on cognitive warfare is designed for defensive purposes, it also conceded that the military alliance is developing offensive tactics, stating, ‘The human is very often the main vulnerability and it should be acknowledged in order to protect NATO’s human capital but also to be able to benefit from our adversaries’s vulnerabilities.’”
    • “In a chilling disclosure, the report stated explicitly that ‘the objective of Cognitive Warfare is to harm societies and not only the military.’”
    • “The study described this phenomenon as ‘the militarization of brain science.’ But it appears clear that NATO’s development of cognitive warfare will lead to a militarization of all aspects of human society and psychology, from the most intimate of social relationships to the mind itself.”
    • “In other words, this document shows that figures in the NATO military cartel increasingly see their own domestic population as a threat, fearing civilians to be potential Chinese or Russian sleeper cells, dastardly ‘fifth columns’ that challenge the stability of ‘Western liberal democracies.’”
    • “Naturally, the NATO researcher claimed foreign ‘adversaries’ are the supposed aggressors employing cognitive warfare. But at the same time, he made it clear that the Western military alliance is developing its own tactics.”

    In a 2017 essay titled “The War on Sensemaking“, writer Jordan Greenhall made an observation that I have thought about ever since: that the science of modern propaganda has been in research and development for more than a century now, and has necessarily advanced scientifically just as much as other fields in the military have.

    “In 1917, a young Edward Bernays was asked to help the American war effort by applying his uncle Sigmund Freud’s theories of the unconscious to a new German technique called ‘propaganda’,” Greenhall writes. “The technology of war moves quickly. In the span of one and a half centuries, the last war leapt from long rifles to repeating rifles to gatling guns all the way to Little Boy. The warfighters of the current war haven’t dawdled. The wars of culture, meaning and purpose have seen innovation on an ‘exponential technology curve.’ The artisanal efforts of Bernays and Goebbels have been left far in the past by modern methods.”

    Think about how many technological advancements there have been in the military over the last century. Our rulers have been refining their methods of manipulating our sensemaking abilities to their advantage throughout that entire time, and only a small minority of us have even begun to realize that that manipulation is even happening. We’re just learning to play checkers while they’re mastering 3-D chess.

    I don’t have any solutions to this problem other than to spread consciousness of the fact that it is happening. Propaganda only works if you don’t understand (A) that it is happening to you and (B) how it is occurring, and a basic awareness of the fact that there’s a globe-spanning campaign to manipulate human thought to the advantage of the powerful is the first step toward having that understanding. Having the humility to understand that you yourself can be manipulated and deceived is the second step.

    My hope is that humanity will transcend its psychological susceptibility to manipulation and move into a healthy relationship with mental narrative as our adapt-or-die precipice draws nearer. But time will only tell.

    ____________________________

    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

    Featured image via Pixabay.

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • It’s never the generals on trial for wartime atrocities. That needs to change.

    The trial of former soldier Dennis Hutchings is underway in Belfast. And once again, the accused is from the lower ranks. Not one of the powerful commanders who gave the orders is facing trial.

    The former Household Cavalry trooper faces a charge of attempted murder. His alleged victim was John Pat Cunningham. Cunningham was 27 and had learning difficulties. He was shot in the back after fleeing an army patrol in 1974. Hutchings has pleaded not guilty to the offence.

    Hutchings has won the support of many in the military community. This includes former Tory veterans minister Johnny Mercer, who has been with him in Ireland. A DUP politician even joined the pair for a photo opportunity. Carla Lockhart claimed on Twitter that Hutchings was a victim of politicised courts:

    Familiar pattern

    Hutchings served in the Household Cavalry as a non-commissioned officer. That means he was part of the workforce not the boss class of officers. In fact, barring a few exceptions, most of the soldiers accused of war crimes from Ireland, Iraq, and Afghanistan served in ‘the ranks’. And here there is a question about accountability.

    What the average soldier does on the ground reflects how they are trained and led. Yet the burden of legal cases always seems to fall on low-ranking personnel and never on the generals and politicians in charge. So what’s the alternative?

    The poor bloody infantry

    Derry writer and politician Eamonn McCann captured this sentiment in a head-to-head debate with ex-general and peer Richard Dannatt in 2019.

    Speaking on the Bloody Sunday massacre, McCann said:

    What we’re seeing [is] what Kipling called the “poor blood infantry”. Your rank-and-file soldiers, they have to carry the can. Somebody organised it, somebody gave the Paras to understand that it would be okay if you go in there and shoot innocent people. Where are they?

    And he went on:

    And I agree with the person who said [gestures to the audience] where are the IRA leaders? Why are the foot soldiers being dragged up all the time? Where are the bosses? The bosses are sitting pretty, and none more so than the bosses of the British Army, now made Lords and the rest of it. And none of them were ever held to account.

    Real justice

    That’s not to say low-ranking soldiers who carry out atrocities should get away scot-free. However, the fact that courts only seem to look at working class squaddies, who have little say over the broader scope of operations, is intolerable.

    The senior officers with the actual power who give the orders should also be in the dock.

    Featured image – Wikimedia Commons/Kenneth Allen

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Police arrest spectator at Papua Games for wearing Morning Star T-shirt

    By Maria Baru in Sorong, West Papua

    Brother Frater Anton Syufi of the Papua’s Order of Saint Augustine (OSA) has been arrested by the Jayapura city district police for wearing a banned Morning Star (BK) independence flag T-shirt while watching a soccer match between Papua and East Nusa Tenggara at Indonesia’s National Games at Mandala Stadium.

    This was conveyed by Frater Kristianus Sasior, also from the OSA, who assisted Brother Syufi at the Jayapura district police.

    Syufi, who was arrested at 4 am last Sunday and detained until 7 pm, was finally released at 10 pm because police did not find any other issues to charge him with.

    Morning Star flag
    The Morning Star flag of West Papua … outlawed. Image: SIBC

    “The police said he was detained because he wore a BK T-shirt. The police said that he was disturbing the Papua PON XX [20th National Games], said Brother Sasior.

    “There is a prohibition on wearing things with the BK design. Brother Frater Anton did not [show] it intentionally because he was wearing two layers of clothing.

    “When his favourite team won he jumped up and down and opened his outer shirt so police saw the costume underneath with the BK design.

    “He was summoned and taken to Jayapura city district police. The police said they were still waiting for the head of the intelligence unit to arrive so we were [also] still waiting”, explained Sasior when contacted by Suara Papua by phone from Sorong.

    A similar story was conveyed by Evenisus Kowawin who said that Syufi was detained for wearing the Morning Star T-shirt while watching the soccer match.

    “Frater Anton was arrested because he wore a BK shirt. Police saw the shirt then dragged him out, interrogated him then took him to the district police. He’s currently still at the police [station],” explained Kowawin.

    Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. Slightly abridged due to repetition. The original title of the article was “Pakai Baju Bintang Kejora Nonton Pertandingan PON, Seorang Frater Ditahan Polisi di Jayapura”.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • House Lawmakers Attempt To End Saudi Bombing In Yemen & FDA Recalls Chantix Due To Cancer Link

    Via America’s Lawyer: RT correspondent Brigida Santos joins Mike Papantonio to explain how lawmakers are voting to end U.S. support for the Kingdom’s deadly bombing campaign against civilians in Yemen. Also, Pfizer announces a global recall of its anti-smoking medication Chantix after studies linked long-term use of the drug to certain cancers. Mike Papantonio is joined by attorney Joshua Harris to outline the long-term dangers […]

    The post House Lawmakers Attempt To End Saudi Bombing In Yemen & FDA Recalls Chantix Due To Cancer Link appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • Indonesian Games ‘held on bones of Papuans’, accuses Benny Wenda

    Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    The interim president of the United Liberation Movement of West Papua (ULMWP) has accused Indonesia of holding its 20th National Games “on the bones of my people”.

    “While we mourn for three years of Indonesian military operations, these games are a dance on top of our graves, on top of our suffering, on top of our cries,” Benny Wenda said today in a statement.

    “I call on my people to ignore these games and focus on liberating us from this tyranny.”

    The two-week Papuan Games (PON XX), centred mainly on the new Lukas Enembe Stadium complex in Jayapura, were opened on Saturday by President Joko Widodo.

    Wenda said that the ULMWP had gathered new information that in the past three years at least 26 local West Papuan political figures and 20 intellectual and religious leaders had died in suspicious circumstances after speaking out about human rights and injustice.

    “Some of them were official heads of their local districts, others were prominent church people,” said Wenda in the statement.

    “Many turned up dead in hotel rooms after unexplained heart attacks, usually with no forensic evidence available.

    ‘Systematic killing’
    “This is systematic killing, part of Jakarta’s plan to wipe out all resistance to its rule in West Papua.

    “These deaths have occurred at the same time that Indonesia has sent more than 20,000 new troops into West Papua. They are killing us because we are different, because we are Black.”

    Wenda said that while President Widodo visited “my land like a tourist”, more than 50,000 people had been internally displaced by Indonesian military operations in Nduga, Intan Jaya, Puncak and Sorong since December 2018.

    Lukas Enembe Stadium
    The Lukas Enembe Stadium and the Papuan National Games complex. Image: Tribun News

    “High school children and elders were recently arrested and blindfolded like animals in Maybrat. The PON XX is a PR exercise by the Indonesian government to cover up the evidence of mass killings,” Wenda said.

    “Any use of the Morning Star flag, or even its colours, has been totally banned during the games. One Papuan Catholic preacher was arrested for wearing a Morning Star [independence] flag t-shirt during a football match.

    “Our Papuan rowing team was banned from the games for wearing red, white and blue, the colours of our flag.

    “This has happened at the same time as 17 people were arrested for holding the Morning Star in Jakarta. A West Papuan woman was sexually assaulted by police during the arrests.

    Papuan Games a ‘PR stunt’
    “Indonesia continues to hold this PR stunt even while Vanuatu and PNG call for a UN visit to West Papua in line with the call of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States.”

    President Joko Widodo
    Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, who officially inaugurated the National Games last Saturday, buys nokens – traditional Papuan woven bags – from a craftswoman in Jayapura. Image: President Widodo’s FB page

    Wenda said there was no reason Indonesia could not allow the visit of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to take place.

    He asked that if Indonesia wanted to use the covid-19 crisis as an excuse to stop the visit, why was the Jakarta government sending tens of thousands of troops into West Papua.

    “Why are they holding the National Games in the middle of military operations and a pandemic?” Wenda asked.

    “President Widodo, do not ignore my call to find the peaceful solution that is good for your people and my people.”

    The ULMWP repeated its call to “sit down to arrange a peaceful referendum, to uphold the principle of self-determination enshrined by the international community”, Wenda said.

    “You cannot pretend that nothing is happening in West Papua. The world is beginning to watch.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Julian Assange Assassination Plan Exposed & Pfizer CEO Spending Millions To Fight Drug Price Reform

    Via America’s Lawyer: In its war against Julian Assange, CIA officials had outlined plans to kidnap and assassinate the WikiLeaks founder who exposed the glaring deficiencies of U.S. intelligence gathering. Plus, President Biden calls Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla a “good friend” despite targeted efforts by his company to fight against drug price reform touted by Democrats and […]

    The post Julian Assange Assassination Plan Exposed & Pfizer CEO Spending Millions To Fight Drug Price Reform appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • National Defense Amendment Looks To End Bombing Campaign In Yemen

    Via America’s Lawyer: House representatives are finally standing up to Saudi Arabia. RT correspondent Brigida Santos joins Mike Papantonio to explain how lawmakers are voting to end U.S. support for the Kingdom’s deadly bombing campaign against civilians in Yemen. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos. Mike Papantonio:             House lawmakers have approved an […]

    The post National Defense Amendment Looks To End Bombing Campaign In Yemen appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • Weapons with minds of their own

    The future of warfare is being shaped by computer algorithms that are assuming ever greater control over battlefield technology. Will this give machines the power to decide who to kill?    

    The United States is in a race to harness gargantuan leaps in artificial intelligence to develop new weapons systems for a new kind of warfare. Pentagon leaders call it “algorithmic warfare.” But the push to integrate AI into battlefield technology raises a big question: How far should we go in handing control of lethal weapons to machines?

    We team up with The Center for Public Integrity and national security reporter Zachary Fryer-Biggs to examine how AI is transforming warfare and our own moral code. 

    In our first story, Fryer-Biggs and Reveal’s Michael Montgomery head to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Sophomore cadets are exploring the ethics of autonomous weapons through a lab simulation that uses miniature tanks programmed to destroy their targets.

    Next, Fryer-Biggs and Montgomery talk to a top general leading the Pentagon’s AI initiative. They also explore the legendary hackers conference known as DEF CON and hear from technologists campaigning for a global ban on autonomous weapons.

    Machines are getting smarter, faster and better at figuring out who to kill in battle. But should we let them?

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Police break up rally by Papua activists at US embassy in Jakarta – 17 arrested

    By Ihsanuddin in Jakarta

    Indonesian police forcibly broke up a protest marking the 1962 Rome Agreement in front of the US Embassy in Central Jakarta this week and arrested 17 Papuan activists.

    One of the demonstrators, former political prisoner Ambrosius Mulait, said the 17 arrested protesters were forcibly taken away by police as soon as they arrived at the US Embassy.

    “We hadn’t even started the action and were forced to get into crowd control vehicles,” said Mulait about the protest on Thursday.

    Mulait also said that police were “repressive” when they were arresting the protesters by firing teargas until a physical clash broke out between demonstrators and police.

    “Some of our comrades were assaulted by the police,” he said.

    Central Jakarta district police chief Senior Commissioner Hengki Hariyadi confirmed that 17 Papuan activists were arrested.

    Hariyadi said that they did not allow the protest action because Jakarta was currently under a level 3 Enforcement of Restrictions on Public Activities (PPKM) in order to prevent the spread of the covid-19 pandemic.

    “During a Level 3 PPKM all activities which have the potential to create crowds are prohibited, in this case they did not have a permit to express an opinion in pubic, so it was without a recommendation from the security forces,” said Hariyadi.

    The protest by the Papuan activists made six demands:

    • [The right to hold] an action in the context of marking the 59th anniversary of the Rome Agreement [that led to Jakarta’s colonisation of Papua];
    • President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo to withdraw all TNI (Indonesian military) and Polri (Indonesian police) from Papua because they were making the situation for the Papuan people “uncomfortable”;
    • Release political prisoner Victor Yeimo who is currently in ill health and is being detained at the Mobile Brigade (Brimob) command headquarters in Jayapura;
    • Reject the extension of Special Autonomy for Papua which had failed to bring prosperity to the Papuan people;
    • Give Papuans the right to self-determination (through a referendum);and
    • Reject racism and fully resolve human rights violations in Papua.

    IndoLeft News backgrounds the crisis:
    The 1962 Rome Agreement was signed by Indonesia, the Netherlands and the United States in Rome on September 30, 1962.

    The agreement provided for a postponement of a referendum on West Papua’s status which had been scheduled to be held in 1969 under the New York Agreement signed on August 15, 1962, that the referendum would use a consultative process, that the UN’s report on the implementation of the referendum would be accepted without open debate and on US commitments to invest in resource exploration and provide funds for development programmes in West Papua.

    Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Polisi Tangkap 17 Aktivis Papua yang Akan Demo di Depan Kedubes AS”.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The UK’s criticism of a Russian mercenary group smacks of hypocrisy

    The UK’s minister for Africa has condemned talks between the Malian government and a Russian mercenary firm. In a statement, Vicky Ford said the Wagner Group was “a driver of conflict”. She added that one of the organisation’s key funders, Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, is subject to sanctions for his past actions. But the whole thing smacks of hypocrisy.

    Ford warned:

    The UK is deeply concerned by consultations between the Malian government and the organisation known as the Wagner Group, in which Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin holds a position of responsibility. Prighozin is subject to UK sanctions for significant foreign mercenary activity in Libya and multiple breaches of the UN arms embargo.

    And she added:

    The Wagner Group is a driver of conflict and capitalises on instability for its own interests, as we have seen in other countries affected by conflict such as Libya and the Central African Republic.

    She made no mention of the UK’s own private military industry, which according to 2018 estimates makes £50m a year just from government contracts.

    Civil war

    The UK currently has troops deployed to Mali in a UN role. As The Canary reported in January 2021:

    The conflict in Mali has been ongoing since 2012 with the French – a former colonial ruler – intervening militarily in 2013. As of December 2020, 47 French soldiers had been killed. It is a perilously complex situation that began with a northern Malian separatist movement – including jihadist allies – opposing the central government based in Bamako, southern Mali. Coups occurred in 2012 and 2020.

    But there’s a problem with Ford’s analysis. Russian mercenaries are certainly no angels, but the UK is hardly one to talk. Because the instability in Mali has been directly fuelled by the NATO war in Libya. That war resulted in weapons looted from Muammar Gaddafi’s armouries flooding south and into Mali.

    And to say the Wagner Group drives conflict is to ignore the UK role, to take just one example, in Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s brutal 20 year US/UK occupation collapsed just weeks ago.

    Stealing resources?

    Ford had more to say about the Wagner Group. She warned:

    Wagner has committed human rights abuses, undermined the work of international peacekeepers, and sought control of mineral resources, to the detriment of local citizens and their economy. Wagner does not offer long-term security answers in Africa.

    She added that the UK thought the Malian government should “reconsider their engagement with Wagner in light of the implications that any deal would have on stability within its own borders and the wider region”.

    Once again, the UK’s involvement in Iraq went unacknowledged. The UK itself sought to control natural resources – critically, Iraqi oil, as journalist and scholar Nafeez Ahmed wrote in 2014.

    And the UK’s billions in arms sales to Saudi Arabia? Not a single mention. Despite their obvious impact on stability in places like Yemen.

    New Cold War, same victims

    Clearly these mercenaries are a violent tool of Russian foreign policy. Nevertheless, the idea that UK foreign policy is somehow morally better is simply deluded.

    Recent polls show that most Europeans believe there is a new Cold War underway between China and Russia and the West. The fear must be that the new Cold War, like the old one, will not be cold at all. At least not in the Global South. And, once again, the primary victims will be the people who live there.

    Wikimedia Commons/Kassim Traore.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • PNG Post-Courier: Time to consider piracy as a serious issue

    EDITORIAL: By the PNG Post-Courier

    Ten years ago, a dinghy carrying 5 medical research institute scientists disappeared in Papua New Guinea’s West New Britain waters.

    The scientists — 3 men and 2 women — have never been found.

    A few weeks ago, the PNG Medical Research Institute finally closed its book on the missing five.

    PNG Post-Courier
    PNG POST-COURIER

    What remains interesting in this case is an open finding in a coronial inquest several years ago, which did not rule out an act of piracy in its conclusion.

    Last Friday, hundreds of angry protesters marched in the town of Buka, raising their voices against piracy and venting their anger against the new Autonomous Region of Bougainville for failing to take action against sea pirates.

    They, just like every other Papua New Guinean, have every right to know how their loved ones have vanished without a trace while travelling along the shores or out in the open oceans.

    In recent years in East New Britain, sea pirates caught by police were prosecuted and sentenced to death.

    In the Gulf of Papua, travellers from Gulf and Western fall victim to sea and river pirates.

    Along the Northern Province waters and Milne Bay waters, sea piracy is becoming a common law and order issue. In the last two years, wanted criminal Tommy Baker led a string of piracy attacks.

    He is still on the run.

    Papua New Guinea has a vast coastline and many islands.

    In fact, our coastline is said to be 5,152 km (3,201 miles) long. And out in the open seas, there are many big islands and even more smaller islands, many uninhabited.

    Policing the vast coastline and the islands is nonexistent.

    Once in a while, we hear of piracy, boats shot up, people robbed, women kidnapped and sexually abused, children subjected to trauma.

    Some victims are never to be heard of or seen again.

    In the absence of anything resembling a coast guard, the government needs to have a policy on this that works for public confidence, public protection and interest.

    The NMSA needs to seriously consider this as a national threat to the safety of our travelling public who use small craft and smalls ships for movement of passengers and cargo.

    Police boats given to maritime provinces are virtually useless given that they are hardly used on anti-piracy patrols due to lack of funding.

    Boat travellers and seagoing ships are tired of this. Incidences of piracy are now being reported on our country’s big rivers and waterways. This is adding to the fear our people face.

    Some years ago, the NMSA made it compulsory for small boats to be registered, and owners to provide emergency equipment on their craft.

    This law is not effective, just as taxi meters for taxi operators is non operable on land.

    In this age of rocket science, internet and robots, and drones, finding missing boats or hijacked craft using GPS, should be made mandatory and the costs passed onto dinghy manufacturers to include Emergency Position Indicator Radio Beacon on their products.

    Frankly, we have had enough of piracy on the high seas and on our rivers.

    This editorial was published by the PNG Post-Courier today, 29 September 2021.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Boris Johnson must drop amnesty plans and ensure justice for Troubles victims

    In July, Northern Ireland secretary Brandon Lewis announced plans for a statute of limitations on ‘Troubles’-related incidents. The so-called ‘Troubles’ were a conflict that happened in Ireland between 1968 and 1998. Should the plans become law, it would mean an amnesty from criminal prosecution for British military personnel as well as loyalist and republican paramilitaries who fought in that conflict.

    There’s been widespread criticism of this proposal. In fact, one human rights group said it meant “a retrospective ‘license to kill’ for the British Army and RUC”. On 25 September, as reported by The Canary, protests against the plans took place across the island of Ireland. The Time for Truth Campaign (TFTC) organised these protests. Spokesperson for the TFTC Ciarán MacAirt believes:

    Britain is only interested in burying its war crimes in Ireland and protecting its war criminals.

    So victims’ families are:

    mobilizing to protect our basic human rights and will demand no less than equal access to due legal process and investigations which are compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Johnson bluster

    Boris Johnson says the amnesty would allow the north of Ireland to “draw a line under the Troubles” and allow its people “to move forward”. But his predictions of better times ahead have become tiresome if not dangerous.

    Johnson also claimed his post-Brexit deal with the EU was “oven-ready”. Yet in the past month, people in the UK have struggled to buy essential food. And there have been major problems in getting fuel delivered to the UK. So Troubles victims’ families will need to bring to bear whatever pressure they can in order to ensure another destructive Johnson plan doesn’t see the light of day. Campaigners believe they can’t move forward or draw a line under anything until they get the truth.

    A day of action

    Campaigners took to the streets in towns, cities, and villages across the island of Ireland to voice their opposition. The Canary spoke with the organisers of the Dublin event. It took place on Talbot Street next to the Dublin-Monaghan bombing memorial.

    This memorial commemorates the 17 May 1974 bombing of Dublin and Monaghan. It was the greatest loss of life in one day during the entire conflict. And campaigners believe the British state colluded with loyalist paramilitaries in this bombing.

    Memorial in Dublin city centre to the 34 victims of the 1974 Dublin-Monaghan bombings

     

    It’s about “truth and justice”

    Dublin City councillor Mícheál Mac Donncha said he was at the protest, as part of TFTC, to seek:

    truth and justice from the British government for its many atrocities during the conflict. And the many unsolved murders and attacks on people and torture.

    Mac Donncha added:

    The proposals from the British government to effectively amnesty its own members… is outrageous. It has nothing to do with conflict resolution in Ireland or justice or truth. It’s purely for English party political reasons – the Tory party – regardless of the pain it inflicts in Ireland. And regardless indeed of what part of the community the victims comes from.

    There is united political opposition across the political spectrum in Ireland against this proposal, which must be dropped.

    And when asked if he felt the protests taking place would have any effect, he said:

    Certainly yes. And I think the pressure is already on. There may be some signs of wavering already on the part of the British government. They haven’t brought in this legislation yet, essentially it’s threatened legislation… I think that this pressure will be very important in causing the British government to relent and to stick by international agreements

    When asked about what the Irish or other governments could do about these proposals, author and campaigner Margaret Urwin said:

    We’re in constant touch with the Irish government about it and I think they did… succeed in persuading the British to postpone until the autumn at least.

    We know that a letter signed by 26 Congressmen has been sent to Brandon Lewis. So, we’re just hoping that enough pressure will come to bear on the British so that they won’t do it.

    And Urwin believes the proposed amnesty is twofold. She said while it’s about stopping the prosecution of army veterans it’s also:

    to stop any information coming out about collusion at a higher level… [which would] expose their dirty war in Ireland

    Addressing the crowd. Margaret Urwin (right hand side) & Cllr Mícheál Mac Donncha (2nd from right)
    Behaviour that “would have embarrassed Chile’s Pinochet dictatorship”

    As Urwin mentioned, pressure is already mounting on Johnson to drop these plans. After having expressed the Irish government’s opposition, Irish foreign affairs minister Simon Coveney added on 25 September that the amnesty could “re-traumatise” victims.

    In advance of 25 September protests, MacAirt said:

    The families of the Time for Truth Campaign are mobilizing against Britain’s insidious and perfidious proposals which would have embarrassed Chile’s Pinochet dictatorship.

    This campaign has sent a clear message to Johnson and Lewis. These families have a right to justice, and they will continue to fight for it.

    Featured image via Unsplash – Taras Chernus

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Lawyer Koman calls for inquiry into tragic death of health worker in Papua

    Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    Papua human rights activist and lawyer Veronica Koman has called for an independent inquiry into the attack on health workers in the Kiwirok district, Star Highlands, Papua, saying there are two versions of how the tragedy happened.

    A healthcare worker, 22-year-old Gabriella Maelani, was killed during the attack by the West Papua National Liberation Army-Free Papua Organisation (TPNPB-OPM) resistance movement.

    “There is one version which is clearly being shared a lot in the media. And there is a second version circulating among the Papuan people,” Koman told CNN Indonesia.

    Koman said that the chronology of events which was being broadcast by most news media depicted the alleged brutality of the TPNPB-OPM during the attack.

    In the second version alleged the attack was triggered when a person wearing a doctor’s uniform shot at the TPNPB, causing a shootout inside the healthcare building, Koman said.

    She said that in Papua many TNI (Indonesian military) personnel held dual posts as teachers and doctors. She believed this caused a great deal of suspicion in Papua.

    Nevertheless, she was saddened by the news that a healthcare worker died, although she said that the truth about the chronology of events must still be investigated.

    Death of healthcare worker
    Based on information she had received, the death of the healthcare worker was not because they were tortured by the TPNPB as alleged.

    “The Papuan people’s version is that it’s not true that there was torture. Gabriella jumped [into a ravine] while escaping, she wasn’t thrown into the ravine by the OPM,” she said.

    Koman called for an independent investigation. According to Koman, finding out which chronology was correct would influence several factors, particularly racism against the Papuan people.

    “If for example the alleged barbaric actions are not true, it will influence the stigma and racism against the Papuan people. And that is very barbaric,” she said.

    “Looking for examples of human rights issues, we can separate it. The ones adversely affected should be the OPM, not the ordinary Papuan people.

    “In general with minority groups, including the Chinese, when one person does wrong, everyone is adversely affected. LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] for example, if a gay person does something, the whole community is adversely affected. So it’s important to straighten it out.”

    Koman also said care was needed to be taken with the witness testimonies.

    Information under duress
    She questioned whether or not the witnesses provided information under duress.

    “There would have been many soldiers around them … So they could have been pressured,” she said.

    Earlier, the TPNPB-OPM admitted responsibility for attacking public facilities such as a community healthcare centre and school building in the Kiwirok district on September 13 and 14.

    They claimed that the attack was a form of resistance demanding Papuan independence from Indonesia.

    The Presidential Staff Office said that “armed criminal groups” (KKB) — as officials generally describe Papuan armed independence fighters — violated human rights law after the healthcare worker died during the attack on September 13.

    Presidential Staff Deputy V Jaleswari Pramodhawardani said that the armed group had violated several laws such as the healthcare law, the nurses law, the hospital law and the healthcare quarantine law.

    Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Veronica Koman Klaim Ada 2 Versi Penembakan Nakes di Papua”.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pentagon Admits To Botched Drone Strike After Killing Several Children

    Via America’s Lawyer: The Pentagon apologizes for its recent drone strike which killed 7 innocent children in Afghanistan. Mike Papantonio and Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos. Mike Papantonio:             The Pentagon was forced to admit last week that they completely botched a recent drone strike and ended up […]

    The post Pentagon Admits To Botched Drone Strike After Killing Several Children appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • With 750 military bases in 80 countries, the US still remains a threat to global peace

    The Afghan war may be over, but the vast global network of US military bases still threatens peace, an American think tank has warned. The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft (QI) has published a report on the 750 remaining US military bases in 80 countries.

    Its report comes as the US is undertaking a Global Posture Review. The review will examine the US military footprint around the world. And QI said this is a chance to close down bases. Given the cost and the fact many bases are in authoritarian and undemocratic states, it’s hard to argue otherwise.

    Expensive and destabilising

    The report contains some astonishing statistics on US military installations, including that:

    • “The United States has at least three times as many overseas bases as all other countries combined”.
    • “U.S. bases abroad cost taxpayers an estimated $55 billion annually”.
    • “The United States has nearly three times as many military bases abroad… as U.S. embassies, consulates, and missions”.
    • “Bases abroad have helped the United States launch wars and other combat operations in at least 25 countries since 2001”.
    • “U.S. installations are found in at least 38 non-democratic countries and colonies”.

    But it also noted that a full list hasn’t been published by the Pentagon since fiscal year 2018.

    When is a base a base?

    The authors acknowledge that some bases might not even be counted as bases. They say the Pentagon is wary of how a military presence is defined:

    Frequently the Pentagon and U.S. government, as well as host nations, seek to portray a U.S. base presence as “not a U.S. base” to avoid the perception that the United States is infringing on host nation sovereignty (which, in fact, it is).

    Closer to home

    QI’s breakdown showed that many US bases are in Global South countries. And many of these have authoritarian governments. But European countries are also colonised by the American military, including the UK. This week saw the family of a teenager killed by a US citizen working on a military base reach a resolution a civil claim.

    19-year-old Harry Dunn was killed after being struck by a car in 2019. Anne Sacoolas, allegedly an intelligence officer for the US government, claimed diplomatic immunity and fled to the US. Sacoolas may have been working at RAF Croughton, Northamptonshire. Despite the name, RAF Croughton is a US spy base.

    Closures

    QI says closing bases is politically possible. They say that recent presidents from Bill Clinton though to Donald Trump all closed bases around the world regularly. There’s nothing to stop Biden, who has pledged to reset US foreign policy, doing the same.

    It said the review meant there was a “historic opportunity” to reduce the US military footprint, saving taxpayer cash and improving “national and international security in the process”.

    And QI has a point. Closing bases is a good idea in economic, political, and moral terms. The question is, will the new administration muster the political will to do so?

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/ Sgt Chris Stone

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Wenda blames nurse’s death on Indonesian military crackdown for Papuan mining, palm oil

    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.

  • Covid-19 crisis a pretext for West Papua online, offline repression, says Tapol

    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.

  • The Laws of Forever War

    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.

  • AUKUS pact strikes at heart of Pacific nuclear-free regionalism

    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.

  • Drone strikes prove that Muslim lives hold no value for Western imperial powers

    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.

  • US congress members urge Boris Johnson to rethink ban on Troubles prosecutions

    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.

  • Papua’s KNPB accuses Jakarta of using military post attack to criminalise them

    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.

  • Israeli military fired tear gas into Palestinian schools

    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.

  • The new anti-China ‘defence’ pact shows no lessons were learned from Afghanistan

    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.

  • The new anti-China ‘defence’ pact shows no lessons were learned from Afghanistan

    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.

  • ANZUS without NZ? Why the new security pact between Australia, the UK and US might not be all it seems

    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.

  • Biden’s Declassified 9/11 Report Reveals FBI & CIA Incompetence

    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.

  • US Drone Killed 10 Afghans After Mistaking Water Jugs for Bombs

    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 War on Terror has made populations more vulnerable to the climate crisis

    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.