radiofree.asia

Category: Opinion

  • #SwindonsSundaySermon: 65 million of us – and these three are the best we’ve got?

    I genuinely didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when I saw a new opinion poll putting the recently-routed Tories just one percentage point behind Keir Starmer’s deeply-disliked Labour Party government.

    How can this be?

    Despite Labour’s steadfast commitment to gifting the Tories with seemingly endless opportunities to land a hefty blow on Starmer’s glass chin, the Tories attempt at opposition has been incredibly ineffective, as is often the case when a new leader is being chosen following a humiliating defeat.

    So what are the Tories doing that’s put them within a Rizla paper of the new Labour government with the undeserved whopping majority?

    In short, nothing. They’re not interested in opposing Keir Starmer because they are far too busy opposing each other.

    Keir Starmer is the reason the Tories find themselves just one percentage point behind Labour.

    The opinion polls are a Keir Starmer problem

    If we go back to Swindon’s Sunday Sermon in the Canary on 1 September, I said:

    The greatest threat to Keir Starmer’s leadership is Keir Starmer. It’s not the Tories. It is not Farage. The Lib Dems are as threatening to the Labour prime minister as a hungry vegan is to a bowl of pan-fried offal.

    And I absolutely stand by that because the Tories lurching further to the hard-right under Badenoch or Jenrick pose absolutely no threat to a right-of-centre Labour Party

    It doesn’t matter which of the Tory headbangers claim victory. The Conservatives will replace them within two, maybe three years with a more electable candidate to go up against Keir Starmer, assuming he actually lasts a full term himself.

    The Tories are selecting a candidate that makes them feel better about themselves, not a candidate that stands any realistic chance of appealing to the same not-so-hard-right-Tories that helped Starmer fluke his way into power, just three months ago.

    We have entered the age of ineffective oppositions and unaccountable politicians, far-right MPs and a never ending conveyor belt of corruption and sleaze, and then there’s that ridiculous twat Jenrick wanting to raise the Star of David flag at every British port.

    Starmer is arrogant enough to believe that he is the reason the public voted for the Labour Party, back in July, but the truth of the matter has been revealed by pollsters YouGov.

    Labour’s tanking polling continues

    A whopping 55% of the Labour vote (that’s more than half, Reform voters), voted Labour because they wanted to get the Tories out of office.

    Just 13% of those questioned voted for Starmer’s Labour based on policy, although I do wonder how many of that 13% could name and describe three pre-election policies that stand firm today?

    But the best answer was saved for last, because just ONE PERCENT voted for the Labour Party due to Keir Starmer. That’s one voter in every one hundred voters.

    Starmer’s own personal approval ratings have hit rock bottom. Even the much-maligned Rishi Sunak and the kangaroo gonad-eating GB News hatemonger Nigel Farage have higher approval ratings than Keir Starmer — a man that has a face that looks like a dropped pasty at the best of times.

    Tragically, at least for an entirely unrepentant Starmer and his sidekicks, the polls just keep on coming, much like the ocean of freebies that flow into the leaders office from hedge funds and pro-Israel lobbyists.

    This time, as the Canary reported, YouGov asked Labour voters what they thought of other political parties, and while some 9% had a favourable opinion of Reform UK and 55% thought well of the Liberal Democrats, it only turned out that the Green Party have a higher net approval rating than the Labour Party, with Labour voters!

    Little by little, support for the Labour government is beginning to crumble.

    Never particularly popular

    It is so easy to forget, they never were a particularly popular choice, securing a massive majority with considerably fewer votes than Labour picked up under Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 and even Labour’s ‘worst election defeat since 1935’, just two years later.

    The rot began to set in within days of Labour taking power. We didn’t even get the chance to sing a line of Things Can Only Get Better before Kid Starver and Rachel Thieves created a £22 billion black hole and opted to kill thousands of elderly British people instead of telling the comedy guy Zelensky exactly where to shove his short-range air defence missile systems.

    But the freebie scandal was a huge slap around the face for ‘Mr Rules’, Keir Starmer.

    The British electorate are a ridiculously tolerant bunch. Just look at how long we put up with Thatcher, New Labour, and the fourteen years of Tory rule that is already being buried under an avalanche of Labour sleaze and corruption.

    Starmer is destroying what’s left of Labour

    Just six months before taking power, Starmer said:

    No more VIP fast lanes. No more kickbacks for colleagues. No more revolving doors between government and the companies they regulate. I will restore standards in public life with a total crackdown on cronyism.

    Keir Starmer is a shameless, fraudulent liar. He cannot and must not be trusted to put the interests of the British people before the interests of the Israeli state.

    The gift-hoarding scandal merely reinforced what the public already believes. Trust and confidence in government are as low as they have ever been with fewer voters believing politicians would put national interest before self-interest.

    When you combine Starmer’s deeply troublesome personal approval ratings and virtually zero trust in the politicians we elect to represent us in parliament, you can understand why many politicos still think a hard-right Tory candidate has a chance of defeating Starmer in five years time.

    And should that happen, it will be down to one man and one man alone.

    Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, take a bow.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

  • Published by the Star – the genocide advert that Stuff didn’t want you to see

    By John Minto

    Published in the Christchurch Star newspaper yesterday — this was the advert rejected last week by Stuff, New Zealand’s major news website, by an editorial management which apparently thinks pro-Israel sympathies are more important than the industrial-scale slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza and Lebanon.

    Stuff told the Palestinian Solidarity Movement Aotearoa (PSNA) on Thursday last week it would not print this full-page “genocide in their own words” advertisement which had been booked and paid to go in all Stuff newspapers this week.

    Stuff gave no “official” reason for banning the advert about Israel’s war in Gaza aside from saying they would not do so “while the ongoing conflict is developing”.

    It seems that for Stuff, pro-Israel sympathies are more important that Palestinian realities.

    It’s worth pointing out that Stuff has, over many years, printed full page advertisements from a Christian Zionist, Pastor Nigel Woodley, from Hastings.

    Woodley’s advertisements have been full of the most egregious, fanciful, misinformation and anti-Palestinian racism.

    Our advertisement on the other hand is 100 percent factual and speaks truth to power – demanding the New Zealand government hold Israel to account for its war crimes and 76-years of brutal military occupation of Palestine.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Floating Down the Abyss

    The dictionary defines abyss as “a deep or seemingly bottomless chasm”. Look around you folks and realize just how far down that rabbit hole we have fallen. You turn on the boob tube and try to watch a NFL football game. The teams are owned by billionaires. The players are mostly all millionaires, with star players earning mega millions (especially $ 20 to $50 million per year quarterbacks). The media that televises the games earns $billions, with their announcers paid like the players, in mega millions. If you can afford a ticket to a game, bring your banker! A neighbor told me he went to a pro football game recently and a beer cost him $18. Unreal!

    We have about half of the House of Representatives that are millionaires, while two thirds of the Senate are. About 8% of Americans are millionaires. Yet, with the iron clasp that the two major political parties have on campaign spending, it is almost impossible for an independent candidate to win office… even on the state level! Money talks. Yet, the embedded media (for both parties) has the nerve to call this a democracy! Anybody want that bridge for sale in Brooklyn? Remember that less than 10% of the private sector labor is unionized, lower than it ever was. As long as the super rich own politics, along with of course our industry and media, our visit to the abyss is apparent.

    Imagine if, instead of spending half of our tax dollars on military spending, we used the hundreds of billions of dollars to shore up our nation’s infrastructure? Maybe when this newest monster hurricane Milton hits land we would have had the power lines secured underground (like they did in Europe after WW2, by the way), the shorelines better protected, and so on. No way Jose! The masters of empire, bunkered in their gated communities with hurricane shutters, don’t give a rat’s ass about us, the masses. God forbid there is either talk of socialism to level the playing field.

    My dear college buddy Jay from NYC says: “Don’t call this capitalism. It’s really MONEYISM!” We working stiffs, making up most of the masses, need to get pissed at the super rich, and call them what they really are: GREEDY, SELF CENTERED NARCISSISTS!

    The post Floating Down the Abyss first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Canary has a leaked copy of the second NHS eLearning module on ME/CFS. It’s not good.

    The Canary has been leaked a draft copy of the second NHS eLearning module on myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS). It comes after patients have been expressing growing concern on social media over it. Those concerns seem well-placed – because there are some gaping holes in the NHS ME/CFS module’s content.

    The second NHS ME/CFS module

    In short, this is the second of three modules the NHS is rolling out. The first one was met with a muted response by many people with ME. However, predictably the charities endorsed it. The module was aimed at ‘anyone’ with an interest in the disease, and gave a basic overview.

    This second module, however, is aimed at primary care healthcare practitioners: primarily GPs. It is at the bottom of this article.

    It was co-written by Dr David Strain, as was the first one. He is a controversial figure. Strain admitted at the inquest into the death of Maeve Boothby O’Neill that he was not an ME specialist. Yet, here we are.

    It would be unfair of me to slam the NHS ME/CFS module in its entirety. The text does repeatedly emphasise how doctors and the state have stigmatised ME for so long. It is thorough in terms of background and diagnosis. It is easy to understand. And it is a vast improvement on what’s come before it.

    However, this cannot detract from the fact there are some glaring and dangerous issues with it.

    A failure to understand the impact of exertion and PEM combined

    The standout issue from the NHS ME/CFS module is its failure to recognise that any exertion resulting in post-exertional malaise (PEM) can cause a permanent deterioration in the patient’s health. In short, exertion or any increase in activity levels (mental/physical/emotional) can cause PEM and therefore a permanent deterioration.

    The fraudulent and completely false idea that exercise is a treatment for the disease has been the bedrock of its psychologisation for decades. Even to this day, doctors are still prescribing this to people with ME – because they still believe it to be true.

    So, the module does explain that exertion can cause PEM and therefore a worsening of symptoms. But it does not state that this can cause permanent harm. Therefore, an unwitting GP would be forgiven for thinking that the benefits of exercise would outweigh the risks.

    An example of this is where the module says:

    Encouraging mental activities that are enjoyable but not exhausting.

    Mental exertion in itself can cause PEM, therefore long-term deterioration too.

    However, there are other issues with the NHS ME/CFS module as well.

    Multiple other issues

    For example, it mentions mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), says it is often mistaken for ME, says that “it is also possible to have ME and MCAS simultaneously” – but fails to explain how MCAS presents or what testing (like bone marrow trephine/aspirate) is possible, and what medication can be prescribed.

    The recommendations for sleep disruption are laughable (like “cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia”) – given that in ME this is likely caused by hormonal disruption affecting the circadian rhythm. ‘Think your sleep better’, though.

    The module discusses orthostatic intolerance (OI), recognises this is not exactly the same as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), but fails to say that primary care practitioners would need to check for the latter as well. For OI, it also mentions that midodrine is a medication option, but fails to say that only a specialist cardiologist can prescribe this.

    Gastrointestinal issues

    Moreover, the common denominator in severe and very severe ME patients is an almost, if not complete collapse in function of their gastrointestinal system. Yet the entire module downplays this as either ‘nausea’, difficulty chewing or swallowing’, and “IBS” – the latter being a misnomer in itself. It lists the causes of malnutrition as:

    • fatigue
    • reduced appetite
    • nausea
    • altered sensitivity to tastes/smells/textures
    • inability to shop, cook or feed oneself
    • difficulty swallowing and chewing
    • disrupted sleep and meal patterns
    • food intolerances and/or restrictive diets
    • financial constraints, due to reduced ability to work

    The NHS ME/CFS module fails to say what severe/very severe ME patients are actually experiencing is a combination of:

    This is because the NICE guidelines don’t even recognise this. Overall, the above represent huge issues with this module.

    Disastrous failures of joined-up thinking

    It is likely that many people have severe/very severe ME because of the co-morbidities they live with. I have witnessed it firsthand with Carla Naoum. She clearly has POTS, MCAS, and gastroparesis all playing havoc with her body. However, all of these West Middlesex hospital is either ignoring or downplaying. I witnessed firsthand in Millie – and it seems a similar story with patients like Sami Berry and Alice Barrett.

    So, the module not only fails to recognise exertion = deterioration, but deterioration = highly dangerous for co-morbidities.

    The NHS ME/CFS module not making it clear that any exertion resulting in PEM can cause a permanent deterioration is negligent, at best. At worst, it is an intentional misrepresentation by people who still believe that exercise regimens have a place in ME care.

    The module failing to then highlight co-morbidities like MCAS properly, let alone explain that management of them is crucial to prevent further deterioration, is not an oversight. It is because the people writing the module are a) following NICE guidelines (which I warned when published were not good enough), and b) don’t even understand this themselves.

    Finally, just to add insult to injury the module links to the thoroughly discredited BACME at the end – as well as the two main not fit-for-purpose charities. If you don’t know the problems with BACME, you can read my colleague Hannah Sharland’s investigations into the group here.

    I have personal experience of how damaging the organisation is as well, via Millie McAinsh’s hospital the Royal Lancaster Infirmary’s over-reliance on them.

    NHS ME/CFS module: back to the drawing board

    I emailed the lead contact on the module, offering the right of reply to the concerns I raised. In the interests of transparency this was late on Friday 4 October. I did not receive a response as an out-of-office reply told me Friday was their ‘non-working day’.

    Usually in this situation, a journalist would wait until the respondent has had a chance to reply during the working week. However, given the cut off for responses to the module is Monday 7 October, I have decided to publish anyway.

    I have grave concerns that this second NHS ME/CFS module shows the authors complete failure to understand ME in its severest forms. However, it also shows a basic lack of understanding of the disease overall. Moreover, as an eLearning guide for GPs it will do little to prevent a patient’s deterioration from the disease.

    To sum up, as the module states:

    The next session in this programme will deal with the modifications that are required in order to manage a patient with severe ME/CFS in the hospital setting.

    Given the errors and general downplaying of the severity of ME in this module, I hold out little hope for the next.

    You can read the full module below:

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • #SwindonsSundaySermon: Starmer is looking as popular as a night on the tiles with Diddy

    Prime minister Keir Starmer has not yet reached one hundred days, and in that time we have seen the staggering hypocrisy of the freebies scandal, the intolerable Labour MP for Narcissism West Rosie Duffield quitting the party in disgust, a pre-Christmas death sentence for at least 4,000 pensioners — going by the governments own figures — a briefing war between Sue Gray’s allies and senior Downing Street figures, solidarity sent to the pariah state of Israel while the jets were bombing and killing orphans in an orphanage, the DWP preparing to snoop through your bank accounts, and enough sausage-related memes to sink an already-sinking Labour Party ship.

    Aaaand breathe…

    Where is the official opposition? Oh – gouging each other’s eyes out.

    Sure, the dulcet freeloader Starmer would probably still beat the Tories in an election if it were to be held tomorrow.

    But is that something to boast about? Did you watch any of the Conservative Party annual wake, this past week? I’d put a fiver on the ‘Harold Shipman was innocent party’ beating the Tories in an election if we were trudging to the polling stations tomorrow.

    An opposition with just the slightest hint of a spine would and should have Keir Starmer down on his knees right now. But they’re far too busy knocking ten barrels of shit out of each other, and wearing “Hamas are terrorists” hoodies to even begin to consider their first job is to hold the government of the day accountable for their actions.

    I think the Tory hopefuls that repeatedly summon the spirit of Margaret ‘still dead’ Thatcher in the hope of getting a few more votes from their ever-dwindling membership will be hugely disappointed when they realise the votes they desperately seek are now proud card-carrying members of Keir Starmer’s neo-Thatcherite Labour Party.

    While it’s Starmer that is known for his love of gifts, it is Starmer himself that is gifting the Tories with stick after stick to beat him with. The Tories picked up the sticks, and couldn’t poke their leadership rivals in the eye any quicker if they tried.

    The biggest threat the Tories could possibly pose to Starmer would come in the shape of a Tory-Reform pact.

    Hate mates, if you like.

    It wasn’t about Starmer’s charisma

    Admittedly, nobody voted for Keir Starmer based on his charismatic personality. Starmer’s essential bedtime reading for insomniacs could shift enough copies to keep Mrs Starmer in the luxury she has become accustomed to for many years to come. You could even tolerate the dullness of Keir Starmer if he was any good at being dull. After all, we don’t elect politicians to entertain us, do we?

    So what happens when you are mired in scandal and corruption, your policies are as popular as a night on the tiles with Diddy, and your own personal approval ratings are lower than the much-disliked temporary leader of the opposition, Rishi someone-or-another?

    You need charisma, and you need to be believable. Starmer has the charisma of an unemptied food waste recycling bin and he isn’t far off challenging for the title of ‘GLOAT’ from Boris Johnson. That stands for “greatest liar of all time”.

    Labour find themselves in an incredibly difficult position. The initial delight that came with the eventual removal of the Tories is dissipating without being replaced by any enthusiasm for what Labour is putting forward to the country. The new government didn’t expect to be evicted from the honeymoon suite with such brutal rapidity.

    But evicted they were, and rightly so, because they have betrayed the voters that still believed, somewhat naively, that any Labour government was going to be better than a Tory government.

    Labour messed it up five years ago

    It’s a real shame the Labour Party itself didn’t believe a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn would have been an immeasurably better option than Theresa May or Boris Johnson.

    250,000+ Covid dead? Probably not. Partygate? What, at the allotment? A kamikaze economy policy outlasted by a fucking iceberg lettuce? No chance. More than a hundred grands worth of freebies? That’s a lot of custard creams at Jeremy’s local community centre. Freeze-a-nan for Christmas? This is Jeremy Corbyn I’m talking about, not that compromised, bought-and-paid-for lobbyist’s wet dream, Starmer.

    The electorate won’t have the opportunity to truly pass judgment on Labour until 2029, and there’s every chance that the freebie scandal will be a long forgotten nightmare for Starmer in five years time.

    But how will winter fuel payment cuts be received across the Labour heartlands that have only just returned Labour to power on a ticket of “change”?

    The ‘red wall’ heartlands that handed Keir Starmer the keys to Number 10 Downing Street have now been left out in the cold. Quite literally.

    Call me cynical if you must, but Starmer and Reeves are fully aware a majority of older people vote for the Tories, so why not kill off a few more before they get a chance to vote again in the local elections to be held next year?

    Starmer’s partridge in a pear tree

    We were supposed to put this state of government permacrisis to bed with the Tories, but we find ourselves no further on than we have been during the past fourteen years. Watching the British attempt to govern is as infuriating as it is embarrassing.

    Britain is rife with poverty and homelessness and disabled people are being singled out for being disabled.

    Doesn’t this all sound alarmingly familiar to you? Or do you still hold on to the impossible dream of Starmer standing up to his paymasters and delivering on just one of the ten pledges, five missions, four commitments, three cast iron guarantees, two “governments of service”, and a “no thanks” to Lord Alli?

    I wouldn’t hold your breath.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Maybe a healthy dose of DWP sanctions would sort scrounger Jonathan Gullis & his workshy attitude out?

    The Conservative conference was a treasure trove of sad little Tories saying any old shite to get column inches this year. While the prospective Tory bosses gave us all a good heaping of wtf – from Jenrick revealing his poor kid’s middle name is Thatcher to Kemi Badenoch taking a swipe at maternity pay being too good (apparently) – it was actually one of their former MPs who provided the biggest lol. No, this isn’t Liz Truss claiming she could’ve won the election, but poor old DWP-ready Jonathan Gullis.

    Ready the tiny violins, please!

    Sad jobless Seagullis

    The “outspoken” (shitebag) ex-MP for Stoke-on-Trent told Times Radio that since losing his seat his political views have stopped him from gaining employment in his previous profession of teaching. Which makes a lot of sense when one of his opinions was that striking teachers were all Commies letting kids suffer.

    The ex-Tory Party deputy chair, who once accused the media of having a “sick obsession” with Covid deaths, said:

    There are a lot of schools that will see who I used to represent, and maybe my views, which they may not like, and because of that I won’t even be given an interview. I think that is a damning indictment of the profession that I do love and care about.

    Of course, he hasn’t reflected on whether he should change his views. Instead, he blamed the “woke agenda entrenching the education sector”.

    Poor old Seagullis said he’d applied for over 30 jobs and gotten nowhere, though he does have his first interview coming up.

    Jonathan Gullis, who once said that anyone using the term “white privilege” should be reported for extremism, all but sobbed:

    It’s been hard, I’ll be frank, we are now three months on and I am still without a job, and that’s scary .I am a father of a four-year-old and a two-year-old.

    My question, and perhaps that of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) however, is this?

    Is Jonathan Gullis actually trying hard enough to get a job?

    Jonathan Gullis claimed he was searching hard for work, but would the DWP see it that way? If he was a Universal Credit claimant would applying for 30 jobs since July be seen as fulfilling his commitments to look for work?

    Well, considering the DWP says all Universal Credit claimants must spend 35 hours a week looking for work or preparing for work, I don’t think so. I also don’t think 30 jobs in 12 weeks is nearly enough to have applied for if you are actually serious about getting a job, Mr Gullis.

    There’s also the fact that Gullis has seemingly only applied for teaching jobs. The DWP website states that claimants:

    will need to do everything you reasonably can to give yourself the best chance of finding work.

    By only applying in one sector Gullis isn’t doing everything he reasonably can to find work now is he? Why hasn’t he explored other options if this avenue isn’t getting him anywhere by applying for every job going regardless of whether it’s low paying?

    If he was on Universal Credit he would be required to attend training courses or take up unpaid work in new areas. Why hasn’t he shown willing to learn new skills through unpaid internships or training courses like jobseekers are expected to?

    If he is intent on staying in teaching, what has he done to ensure that he’s actually employable? He has been out of the profession for the last five years and a lot can change in that time. Has he undertaken any courses to refresh his knowledge?

    Just how conceited is he?

    Another glaringly obvious fact for anyone who has ever worked in teaching is that it’s impossible to find a job between July and October. This is down to the fact that most schools will want new staff to start with the new school term. Damn woke six weeks’ holidays!

    We all know Tories are conceited, but it was obvious to everyone that Jonathan Gullis was going to be unemployed come July. If he was truly committed to finding a new job he would’ve started looking in May or June.

    The DWP doesn’t state that you should only look in your area of expertise. In fact you’re encouraged to take any job that’s offered to you. Why hasn’t he therefore taken up a job at Argos?

    The fact it’s been 12 weeks and Gullis still doesn’t have a job would be particularly worrying for the Jobcentre, as unemployed people are supposed to be constantly looking for work, take up any job that’s offered to you, and be available to start work immediately.

    If you turn down a job offer you can lose your benefits. Now I know Gullis is a colossal prick but you can’t tell me he’s had absolutely zero job offers since July? Why hasn’t he taken up a job in 12 weeks?

    Water off a seagull’s back – but a reality for many

    Despite the fact that a headteacher would have to ignore that he draws a hell of a lot of negative attention and already has nickname he hates kids calling him, if he was actually seriously looking for work he would’ve found it by now.

    The reality is that, despite whinging about not being able to get a job, it’s no skin off his nose when it comes to being able to afford to live – unlike those on Universal credit.

    The punishment for refusing to do any of these things for Universal Credit claimants is of course sanctions and loss of benefits, which is a real worry for those already struggling to get by. Despite attempting to bring his kids into the equation for sympathy, Jonathan Gullis will still be able to feed his children without a job.

    Gullis thinks his life is hard, but compared to those on benefits who are at the mercy of sanctions he’s living a pretty sweet one. Under the Labour Party, sanctions remain intact and all of the things I mentioned above still happen.

    Instead of encouraging people into work, the benefits system leaves people living in fear that one wrong move will mean they will starve or freeze to death. The benefits system needs a massive overhaul and it needs to start by removing sanctions.

    Not that whiny Gullis will eve have to experience any of that.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Ditch the ‘mood music’ at the UK-EU reset, Starmer, and put musicians top of the bill

    The following article is a comment piece from campaign group Thank EU For The Music, about Starmer’s meeting this week

    Keir Starmer and Ursula von der Leyen are meeting in Brussels on Wednesday 2 October for a much-needed UK-EU reset. But will the Labour Party honour a key manifesto pledge to reduce red tape for touring musicians?

    Thank EU For The Music: Starmer needs to act

    Three months after taking office, the UK prime minister will meet with Ursula von der Leyen to discuss improving UK-EU relationships. Senior EU diplomats are frustrated by the lack of clear objectives for the relationship, but sources suggest reducing paperwork for touring musicians may be a talking point.

    It can’t come too soon. Resolving the issue of UK touring in Europe was in the Labour manifesto. In an LBC radio interview conducted shortly before the election, Keir Starmer said:

    It’s been very tough, particularly for musicians. So, anything we can do to ease that, the better.

    Recent research by the Musicians’ Union and the Independent Society of Musicians reveals that over half of UK musicians have ceased touring in the EU due to post-Brexit red tape and costs. David Martin, chief executive of the Featured Artists Coalition, revealed that the number of shows performed by UK artists in Europe fell by 74% between 2019 and 2022.

    Thank EU for the Music is a pro-European group that campaigns for a better deal for touring musicians impacted by Brexit. Its members formed part of the National Rejoin March last Saturday 28 September dressed as elephants:

    Thank EU For the Music

    “Brexit has been the elephant in the room for years,” group spokesperson Kate Hobbs says:

    UK Musicians are struggling to tour in the EU, and vice versa. As Keir Starmer meets with Ursula von der Leyen this week to ‘reset’ post-Brexit relationships, we urge him to prioritise visa-free touring and freedom of movement for musicians. It’s a win-win for both the UK and the EU.

    Placards with messages such as “Musicians Need to be ‘Herd’” were held aloft by activists in elephant costumes at last Saturday’s ‘National Rejoin March’ in London, underscoring the call to restore freedom of movement for artists:

    Deal with the elephant in the Brexit room

    Since 2016, Thank EU for the Music has been raising awareness about the devastating consequences of Brexit on the music industry. Their efforts include distributing thousands of EU flags at the Last Night of the Proms and 50,000 flags at the Eurovision Song Contest in Liverpool in 2022.

    Tom Kiehl, chief executive of the UK Music industry body, wants Sir Keir Starmer to make UK touring musicians a key priority:

    Labour made a pre-election commitment to deal with a problem that is threatening the talent pipeline on which the music industry relies. We need the government to continue to work with our EU neighbours to try to find a swift solution.

    Mujtaba Rahman of the Eurasia Group political risk consultancy is more direct:

    Starmer has to use the meeting to provide a greater, concrete sense of what the government actually wants to do. It can’t be another ‘mood music’ meeting — that won’t land well in Brussels.

    Musicians hope Wednesday’s reset meeting isn’t just a case of “mood music” being on repeat and that Keir Starmer and Ursula von der Leyen cut straight to the grand finale to improve conditions for the troubled creative touring industry.

    Featured image via the Canary and additional images via Thank EU For The Music

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On Harris, Hawthorne, and Fears of Smart, Strong Women for Political Offices

    It was a shock to some of us progressives when Liz Cheney—once a rising, strong Republican star in the U.S. House—recently declared she was endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president, and would campaign and spend millions on it in battleground states.

    As Cheney put it after a speech at Duke University: “Those of us who believe in the defense of our democracy and the defense of our Constitution and the survival of our Republic have a duty in this election cycle to come together and to put those things above politics.”

    But even more mind-blowing to us (and Democratic leaders) was that father Dick Cheney , president George W. Bush’s powerful, two-term vice president, supported her decision and also endorsed Harris. Trump, he said: “can never be trusted with power again.”

    Moreover, the Cheneys’ endorsements say something far, far deeper about human relations in this fractious election crisis. It might lead to millions of men changing their minds about voting for a woman president—or any woman seeking public office. Smart and strong women have existed elsewhere in the world for centuries from Cleopatra and Golda Meir to former House speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    Or most men believing a vice presidency doesn’t qualify Harris for the White House, despite predecessors like Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. They, like Harris, were U.S. Senators and experienced on how the White House operates in handling foreign and domestic affairs great and small.

    At the heart of male prejudice about strong and smart women’s competence for any political office seems to be the ancient cultural fear of being stripped of power by those perceived as inferiors.

    Perhaps the only two times fear of such women dissipates and true equality begins is either at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings or between proud fathers and those strong, smart daughters. For example, King Henry VIII and daughter Queen Elizabeth I and Pelosi’s father, Baltimore Mayor and House member Tommy D’Alesandro Jr., in wielding public power.  A true kinship of respect, political training, and love—and tough  decision-making—is the reality. It should overcome bias against women seeking public office.

    Interestingly, Author Nathaniel Hawthorne, one of America’s greatest authors (1804-1864) focused largely on this subject of foolish fears about strong and smart women.

    Brought up in penury with two sisters by a young widowed mother, he knew economic and social chauvinism and trivialization of women firsthand, doled out by men of every class. He married an intellectual and emotional peer, and fathered two outspoken daughters. In college, he also appears to have studied the revolutionary ideas by Jean-Jacques Rousseau about equality at all levels.

    Moreover, as the descendant of a harsh judge in the Salem witchcraft trials  of 1692-93, he probably would have agreed with author Virginia Woolf. She believed such women were hanged or set ablaze not for religious error, but because they threatened men’s desperate need to control other men, but, most of all, powerful and defiant women. Then, by labeling them witches. Today, it’s “bitches”.

    To Hawthorne, such women were equal companions, not threats to men. He never viewed them as unimportant or as threatening Delilahs, but, rather, as men’s vital emotional, intellectual, and spiritual partners. As a writer, his mission seemed to be overcoming most men’s deep-rooted fears of the strong and smart. Yet to carry such a message in the literature of his day was a monumental undertaking.

    He laid the fundamental cause at ending men’s monopoly on control and power. His novels and short stories were the first in this country to focus on the rigid second-class roles assigned women for life. Initially, he disguised this view in allegorical short stories. He finally threw that cloak aside with his 1844 masterpiece “Rappaccini’s Daughter” about the usual tragic result of male fears. The allegory was poison.

    Rappaccini is a brilliant and famed botanist with an experimental garden of toxic plants tended by daughter Beatrice, now immune to their poisons and up for a university post in that field. She is spotted by Giovanni, an older student, from his boarding house balcony who is struck by her beauty as she feeds and waters the deadly garden. It becomes love at first sight for both. He enters the garden despite her warnings. Soon, however, he becomes frightened of losing domination expected of men over all women, powerful and brilliant though they be. Made immune to all the poisons, he accuses her of killing him. There may be no finer breakup line than Beatrice’s heartbroken:  “Was there not, from the first, more poison in thy nature than in mine?”

    That allegoric lesson applies to most biased and fearful men when it comes to women and seeking public office. Put the case another way:

    If they had daughters running for any position in the upcoming elections, wouldn’t they proudly tout them to friends, neighbors, work cohorts, and the cashier and line-mates at the supermarket? Maybe help finance their campaigns? Or put up yard or window signs and paste bumper stickers on their cars? Do phone banking? Canvass the neighborhood? And with any action, wouldn’t they insist their daughters were as capable for office as male opponents?

    In other words, if fathers—and mothers,too—don’t fear powerful daughters, why fear smart, strong women candidates on November 5? They’re somebody’s daughters, too, and just as worthy of fair consideration as any male on the ballot.

    The post On Harris, Hawthorne, and Fears of Smart, Strong Women for Political Offices first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On Harris, Hawthorne, and Fears of Smart, Strong Women for Political Offices

    It was a shock to some of us progressives when Liz Cheney—once a rising, strong Republican star in the U.S. House—recently declared she was endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president, and would campaign and spend millions on it in battleground states.

    As Cheney put it after a speech at Duke University: “Those of us who believe in the defense of our democracy and the defense of our Constitution and the survival of our Republic have a duty in this election cycle to come together and to put those things above politics.”

    But even more mind-blowing to us (and Democratic leaders) was that father Dick Cheney , president George W. Bush’s powerful, two-term vice president, supported her decision and also endorsed Harris. Trump, he said: “can never be trusted with power again.”

    Moreover, the Cheneys’ endorsements say something far, far deeper about human relations in this fractious election crisis. It might lead to millions of men changing their minds about voting for a woman president—or any woman seeking public office. Smart and strong women have existed elsewhere in the world for centuries from Cleopatra and Golda Meir to former House speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    Or most men believing a vice presidency doesn’t qualify Harris for the White House, despite predecessors like Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. They, like Harris, were U.S. Senators and experienced on how the White House operates in handling foreign and domestic affairs great and small.

    At the heart of male prejudice about strong and smart women’s competence for any political office seems to be the ancient cultural fear of being stripped of power by those perceived as inferiors.

    Perhaps the only two times fear of such women dissipates and true equality begins is either at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings or between proud fathers and those strong, smart daughters. For example, King Henry VIII and daughter Queen Elizabeth I and Pelosi’s father, Baltimore Mayor and House member Tommy D’Alesandro Jr., in wielding public power.  A true kinship of respect, political training, and love—and tough  decision-making—is the reality. It should overcome bias against women seeking public office.

    Interestingly, Author Nathaniel Hawthorne, one of America’s greatest authors (1804-1864) focused largely on this subject of foolish fears about strong and smart women.

    Brought up in penury with two sisters by a young widowed mother, he knew economic and social chauvinism and trivialization of women firsthand, doled out by men of every class. He married an intellectual and emotional peer, and fathered two outspoken daughters. In college, he also appears to have studied the revolutionary ideas by Jean-Jacques Rousseau about equality at all levels.

    Moreover, as the descendant of a harsh judge in the Salem witchcraft trials  of 1692-93, he probably would have agreed with author Virginia Woolf. She believed such women were hanged or set ablaze not for religious error, but because they threatened men’s desperate need to control other men, but, most of all, powerful and defiant women. Then, by labeling them witches. Today, it’s “bitches”.

    To Hawthorne, such women were equal companions, not threats to men. He never viewed them as unimportant or as threatening Delilahs, but, rather, as men’s vital emotional, intellectual, and spiritual partners. As a writer, his mission seemed to be overcoming most men’s deep-rooted fears of the strong and smart. Yet to carry such a message in the literature of his day was a monumental undertaking.

    He laid the fundamental cause at ending men’s monopoly on control and power. His novels and short stories were the first in this country to focus on the rigid second-class roles assigned women for life. Initially, he disguised this view in allegorical short stories. He finally threw that cloak aside with his 1844 masterpiece “Rappaccini’s Daughter” about the usual tragic result of male fears. The allegory was poison.

    Rappaccini is a brilliant and famed botanist with an experimental garden of toxic plants tended by daughter Beatrice, now immune to their poisons and up for a university post in that field. She is spotted by Giovanni, an older student, from his boarding house balcony who is struck by her beauty as she feeds and waters the deadly garden. It becomes love at first sight for both. He enters the garden despite her warnings. Soon, however, he becomes frightened of losing domination expected of men over all women, powerful and brilliant though they be. Made immune to all the poisons, he accuses her of killing him. There may be no finer breakup line than Beatrice’s heartbroken:  “Was there not, from the first, more poison in thy nature than in mine?”

    That allegoric lesson applies to most biased and fearful men when it comes to women and seeking public office. Put the case another way:

    If they had daughters running for any position in the upcoming elections, wouldn’t they proudly tout them to friends, neighbors, work cohorts, and the cashier and line-mates at the supermarket? Maybe help finance their campaigns? Or put up yard or window signs and paste bumper stickers on their cars? Do phone banking? Canvass the neighborhood? And with any action, wouldn’t they insist their daughters were as capable for office as male opponents?

    In other words, if fathers—and mothers,too—don’t fear powerful daughters, why fear smart, strong women candidates on November 5? They’re somebody’s daughters, too, and just as worthy of fair consideration as any male on the ballot.

    The post On Harris, Hawthorne, and Fears of Smart, Strong Women for Political Offices first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The 1948 Recognition of Israel: Impact, Legacy, and Relevance

    Note: Update of my previous article from March 2008.

    Except for a brief interlude during the Eisenhower administration, United States’ support for Israel, in its genocide of the Palestinian people, has been an ongoing process since the Truman administration recognized the state. Contemporary events prompt a review of the post-World War II history that resulted in the formation of a nation that had no visible name until David Ben Gurion proclaimed, on May 14, 1948, the state as Israel.

    Books, articles, documents, memoirs and letters from past generations detail how a small group of insiders prevailed over recommendations from an experienced and famous U.S. State Department of “wise men.” It is the story of the Zionist mission. It is the story of apartheid Israel.

    The impact, legacy and relevance of the 1946-1948 events to today’s occurrences have not been sufficiently explored. Under the surface are the hidden messages and obscure drives that shaped the past and extended into the future. A more complete analysis of the legacy from Truman’s rapid recognition of the state of Israel explains the past and clarifies the present.

    In the initiation of a trend, supporters of those who derailed State Department Near East policy were able to integrate themselves into Middle East policy and subsequently shape global policies. Turmoil from initial events provoked a continuous turmoil in the Middle East. Almost all administrations framed Middle East polices to favor the Zionist cause.

    The Truman State Department consisted of leading luminaries of U.S. State Department history. George C. Marshall, United States military chief of staff during World War II, first military leader to become Secretary of State and later a Nobel Prize recipient, had Loy Henderson, Robert A. Lovett, Dean Rusk, Warren Austin and other known figures in his department. Many of them were not entirely supportive of the UN partition plan; their State Department followed Truman’s directives until sensing the partition plan would be counterproductive and cause more violence than it intended to resolve. The record indicates the State Department attempted to modify Truman’s policy that favored partition. They sought a temporary UN  trusteeship.

    President Truman postured himself as motivated by a conviction — the displaced Jews who had survived the World War II Holocaust needed and deserved an immediate home. The U.S. president vacillated in his arguments and contradicted himself in statements. He railed vehemently against the steady stream of advocates for a Jewish state and retained several presidential advisors who pursed one purpose; promoting a new Jewish state. A suspicion remains that his humanitarian motives had a political content; the Democratic Party craved the financial and voting support of Zionist organizations and their allies.

    Clark Clifford, Truman’s chief consul and ardent promoter for a Jewish state, quickly became one of the president’s closest assistants. He was not Truman’s principal assistant, a post held by John Roy Steelman, and behaved as if he were titular chief of staff by acting unilaterally and somewhat dubious in actions that proved decisive. The evidence points to Clifford favoring election expediencies in developing policies that led to the creation of the state of Israel.

    The story begins at the closing shots of World War II and with the refugees in displaced persons camps.

    The plight of the displaced persons could not be easily resolved. The United States was involved in returning millions of its armed forces to their homes, in the repatriation of captured enemy soldiers, and in preventing mass starvation in Europe. A possibility of a post-war depression and mass unemployment guided America’s political thinkers. In addition, the U.S. immigration laws did not permit the immediate admittance of the displaced persons, nor could it show favoritism. Unable to find a legal mechanism that would  bring them to America, Truman petitioned Great Britain to allow them to immigrate to Palestine. British Prime Minister Clement Attlee cited the 1939 White Paper, which specified a definite number of applicants, as a limiting factor. He also suspected new immigrants would burden Britain’s over-stressed mandate and add troubles to the existing emergency.

    Truman could not prevail over Attlee. What to do? After presentations by an Anglo-American inquiry commission and a joint cabinet committee (Morrison-Grady) failed to achieve welcoming peace proposals, a tired and irked British government requested the UN General Assembly to consider the Palestine problem. On May 15, 1947, the UN created the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). The committee outlined a partition plan with the city of Jerusalem under a UN trusteeship. Truman instructed the State Department to support the partition plan. UN Ambassador Warren Austin and the state department’s Near East Division, led by Loy Henderson, doubted that partition could resolve the situation.

    During the months of UNSCOP’s efforts, Truman complained of pressure by pro-Zionist groups. In Volume II of his Memoirs, p.158, the former president relates:

    The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been there before but that the White house too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders — actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats — disturbed and annoyed. Some were even suggesting that we pressure sovereign nations into favorable votes in the General Assembly.

    This harsh rhetoric was mild compared to other Truman’s statements concerning the Zionists and its American leaders, especially Cleveland’s Rabbi Silver. In a memorandum to advisor David K. Niles, the president wrote, “We could have settled this whole Palestine thing if U.S. politics had been kept out of it. Terror and Silver are the contributing cause of some, if not all of our troubles.”

    On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly approved the UNSCOP Partition plan. Approval only meant agreement in principle. No effective means for transferring the principle into an operational result had been determined. The lack of enforcement provoked more conflict in Palestine. Each side strived to gain territory and advantage. The uncontrolled mayhem steered the U.S. State Department to adopt the concept of a temporary trusteeship for the area. Believing it had President Truman’s approval, the State Department instructed the U.S. delegation to the United States to petition for a special session of the General Assembly and reconsider the Palestinian issue. In his presentation, UN Ambassador Warren Austin proposed the establishment of a temporary trusteeship for Palestine.

    Truman denied giving a green light for the presentation and wrote in his diary, which has been quoted in “The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, P.127. “This morning I find that the State dept. has reversed my Palestine policy. The first I knew about it is what I see in the papers. Isn’t that hell!” His infuriation arose from embarrassment of having assured Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, whom he highly regarded, that the U.S. would not depart from the Partition Plan and would not entertain a temporary trusteeship. George McKee Elsey, in his memoir, An Unplanned Life, p.161, supplied evidence of Truman’s awareness and permission for the speech. White House staff member Elsey writes:

    In fact, as I quickly learned in delving into the record and querying White House and State Staff, Truman had personally read and approved some days earlier the Austin speech, which outlined a plan for U.N. trusteeship of Palestine when the British Mandate ended in May in lieu of partitioning the area into separate Jewish and Arab territories.

    The May 15 date for the British exit neared, and the Zionists prepared to declare their state and present their credentials for recognition. Contradictions in U.S. Near East policy led to policies that became completely confusing.

    In a speech to the UN General Assembly, March 25, 1948, President Truman clarified his nation’s temporary endorsement of a UN Trusteeship for Palestine that did not prejudice partition. The pleased State Department instructed Ambassador Austin to proceed with deliberations of the Trusteeship proposal. As if not cognizant of the UN trusteeship discussion, Truman prepared to recognize the soon to be formed state. On May 12, two days before an expected announcement by the Jewish Agency in Palestine, an angered George C. Marshall and his assistant Robert Lovett confronted Truman and demanded reasons for the haste in wanting to grant recognition. The president selected his counsel Clark Clifford, who was not involved in foreign policy, to clarify the reasons for the intended recognition.

    Clifford’s principal reasons for instant recognition: The UN Security Council could not obtain a truce in hostilities; partition would happen in fact; the U.S. would eventually have to recognize a new state, and it was preferable to get the jump on the Soviet Union.

    Clifford’s arguments are easily rebutted. (1) More significant than whether or not the Security Council could obtain a truce was that the UN council was engaged in discussions hoping to achieve a truce. Recognition would close the discussions and prevent the truce. (2) If the Trusteeship was approved and implemented, an entity unilaterally invoking a partition scheme would violate the UN dictates. (3) Clifford’s simple explanation that the U.S. must recognize the new state quickly because the U.S. must recognize the new state was a statement and not a clarification. (4) As for the Soviet Union, Clifford echoed the alarm of Phillip C. Jessup, a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN, who, according to Robert J. Donovan in his book Conflict and Crisis, The Presidency of Harry S. Truman, p.380, cabled UN affairs officer Dean Rusk that the Soviet Union wanted recognition to use Article 51 of the UN charter to protect the new state and thus gain a foothold in the Middle East. This view is specious — Article 51 pertains to defense of member states and the new nation did not become a UN member until one year later. Besides, wasn’t it advantageous for the U.S. to have the Soviet Union recognize the new state before it did? The State Department could then claim it had no choice and would lose less favor with the Arab states.

    Marshall questioned why a domestic affairs advisor was determining foreign policy. Truman replied that he had invited Clifford to make a presentation. Obviously, Truman did not want history to record his words and asked his campaign manager to speak for him. Sensing that politics and the forthcoming presidential election had become overriding factors in a significant foreign policy decision, the dedicated George C. Marshall uttered one of the most insulting words ever directed by a cabinet official to a president, “If you follow Clifford’s advice, and if I were to vote in the next election, I would vote against you.” Clark Clifford’s Memoir, Council to the President, P.13, mentions that the Secretary also insisted that these personal remarks be included in the official state department record of the meeting. Whew! (Vice President Harris take note.)

    Fearing that the transfer of advice on Near East affairs from the state and defense departments to inexperienced advisors and non-professional lobbyists would continue, Assistant Secretary of State Robert Lovett determined to change Truman’s intentions. For some unknown reason, rather than calling the president directly, he channeled his inquiries through Counselor Clark Clifford. The president’s counselor didn’t speak to the president about Lovett’s urgencies, but assumed a new role ─ he spoke for the president. In response to Lovett’s request to ask Truman to delay recognition, Clifford confesses in his memoir, P.22,

    Saying (to Lovett) I would check with the President, I waited about three minutes and called Lovett back to say that delay was out of the question. It was about 5:40 and the State Department has run out of time and ideas.

    Within a few minutes, one of the most bizarre sequence of events that had ever occurred in U.S. diplomacy unfolded.

    Clifford states he called Dean Rusk and asked the UN affairs officer to inform Warren Austin, chief of the U.S. delegation to the UN, that the president intended to recognize the new Near East state within fifteen minutes. His called bypassed protocol; usually the assistant secretary of state should be informed and that person has the obligation to inform other staff members of decisions. Clifford quotes a surprised Rusk as retaliating with the remark, “This cuts directly across what our delegation had been trying to accomplish in the General Assembly, and we have a large majority for it.” Rusk supposedly called Warren Austin who went home without bothering to inform the U.S. delegation of the news.

    Truman’s rapid signing (within 11 minutes) of the document that gave de facto recognition to the ‘new state of Israel’ angered members at a United Nations meeting on the Trusteeship. After learning the new state would be called Israel, the words ‘Jewish state’ were crossed out and the words ‘state of Israel’ were inserted.

    May 14 was an enviable day for the new state of Israel, but an unpleasant day for the 160 year old American republic. The diplomatic solution to the Near East crisis had been settled, but the conflict has not been resolved.

    What does history show?

    History supports the conviction that the Partition Plan would not resolve the hostilities. The State Department concern for rapidly recognizing a new state, without knowledge of its constitution or composition, was diplomatically correct and prescient. The quick recognition of a state for the Jewish population prevented the UN from finishing a discussion of providing mechanisms to prevent more bloodshed and providing proper protection for the state’s large Palestinian population. George Marshall’s State Department acted honestly, with knowledge, and with the conviction it served the interests of the United States

    President Harry S. Truman correctly perceived the tenacity of the Zionists. He erred in his judgment that the Partition Plan would resolve the conflict. The unusual rapid response for recognition of the new state, without awareness of its composition, signified a pardon of the excesses committed by Irgun and Haganah against civilian populations and certified the exclusion of any Palestinian voice in the new government. Truman never asked what would happen to the 400,000 Palestinians who had no representation in the new state. Evidently, he didn’t consider that the placing of 100,000 displaced Jews into Palestine would also mean the placing of weapons in the hands of many of these persons and, together with instant recognition, would reinforce the eventual displacement of 900,000 Palestinians. The European DP camps were temporary shelter for those who would undoubtedly find permanent homes and citizenship; the UNWRA refugee camps became permanent homes for several million Palestinian displaced persons who languish with stateless identification.

    The post-election provided Truman with an opportunity to show he was not captive to the Zionist enterprise. What did he do? He only half-heartedly pressured Israel in 1949 to resettle displaced Palestinians. This token maneuver is verified by Joshua Landis. In a paper published in The Palestinian Refugees: Old Problems – New Solutions, University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, OK, 2001, p. 77-87, Landis writes,

    McGee threatened the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. that if Israel did not accept 200,000 refugees, the US would withhold $49 million worth of Export-Import Bank loans to Israel. The Israeli Ambassador was unimpressed with McGhee’s threat and responded that McGhee “wouldn’t get by with this move.” The Israeli Ambassador boasted that “he would stop it.”

    True to his word, the Ambassador was able to nip McGhee’s threat in the bud. That same afternoon, the White house phoned McGhee to say that the President would have nothing to do with withholding loans to Israel. Never again would a State Department official under President Truman attempt to intimidate Israel on the issue of refugees.

    Landis claims the U.S. President tried to resolve the Palestinian DP problem by offering the Syrian government $400,000,000 dollars in exchange for settling up to 500,000 Palestinians in the fertile plains between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. A president of a nation was willing to burden his own nation in order to relieve Israel of its obligation to the Palestinian refugees. In retrospect, he behaved circumspect and his compassion for victims depended on their value to the Democratic Party.

    A humanitarian light brightened the parade of lobbyists for partition and this light managed to convince many of the validity of their cause. Later U.S. government Middle East policies repeated the intense lobbying that guided Truman’s 1948 decisions and subdued the power and recommendations of government agencies.

    The darkened perspective, due to Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, has not deterred the forces who continue to obtain a U.S. foreign policy that favors their direction. The memory of Truman’s electoral victory, which defied all predictions, continues to make prospective candidates for national office sense that winning elections depends upon support from those who also support Israel.

    The legacy of the 1946-1948 events is well described. Control of discussions pushed a previous U.S. administration to provide a legal frame for creation of the state of Israel. Control of discussions continued and impelled contemporary administrations to provide the support for that frame. Without U.S. support, Israel’s authentic moral, political, economic and military character would have been exposed and its structure weakened. The Israeli state might have collapsed.

    The genocide started in 1947, from an improbable ‘there’ and has continued until the impossible ‘here.’ By supporting Israel, the democratic and freedom loving United States has made the improbable a sickening and frightful reality.

    The post The 1948 Recognition of Israel: Impact, Legacy, and Relevance first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Women’s rights under siege amid Middle East conflict

    Women continue to lose out as the crisis in the Middle East heats up. That’s without even counting the ravages the war between Israel and Hamas is having on women and children in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and beyond. The flow on effects in the region are dire and countries like Australia are failing in their obligations to protect vulnerable women and children.

    As the threat of geostrategic conflict with Iran rise, so too does the situation for women’s rights defenders there. While women in Iran and Afghanistan both experience gender apartheid, there is little solidarity between the two countries.

    (Editor’s note: Gender apartheid is the economic and social sexual discrimination against individuals because of their gender or sex. Some lobbyists are calling for it to be recognised as a crime against humanity. )

    Many women’s rights defenders who faced specific threats to their lives when the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan fled to Iran. Many of these refugees are Hazara or other religious minority groups that are targeted by the Taliban. They often chose Iran because of religious and linguistic connections to the country.

    But they are not welcome by the Iranian authorities. It is estimated that more than 1.3 million Afghans currently reside in Iran as refugees or with valid visas to the country. It has been common for Afghans to face street harassment and police brutality. But that has increased exponentially in recent weeks and months.

    Azadi-e Zan and our network of volunteers has helped over 350 Afghan women’s rights defenders escape to final destinations of safety. But we have hundreds more still in need of assistance, many of whom are in Iran. In recent months, women on our list have been kidnapped, subject to arbitrary detention by Iranian police, and physically assaulted by business owners while simply trying to buy bread.

    Countries like Australia have refused to grant humanitarian visas to people who remained inside Afghanistan. People who flee the specific threats they face from the Taliban, are then exposed to more, general threats while they wait in third countries.

    The slow rate of processing the visas promised to the victims of the Taliban has been incredibly frustrating to Afghanistan’s neighbours. Last year, the government of Pakistan implemented a nationwide deportation policyto remove millions of Afghans from their borders. At the most recent international conference on the future of Afghanistan, Pakistan said it would end this policy, but Iran has essentially stepped up where they left off.

    Meanwhile, there has been a worrying trend in the last few months where Australia’s Department of Home Affairs has been removing vulnerable women from visa applications for Australia. This is entirely unsatisfactory.

    There are multiple cases of families in Australia who have been asked to remove vulnerable women from humanitarian visa applications. These include the cases of a 68-year-old mother of a man who worked at the Australian Embassy in Kabul, and a 23-year-old unmarried Hazara woman. In the current regime of gender apartheid in Afghanistan, if these women were to be removed from the applications of the rest of their family, they would not have the required male guardian to cross the border with them and return to their hometowns. Similarly, they would have no one to rent a house for them, pay their livelihoods costs or take them for medical care if they needed it.

    Earlier this month, a women’s rights defender also had her visa application flatly rejected. She ran nationwide women’s rights programs with funding from international organisations and has received personal and organisational threats from the Taliban. But Home Affairs said they thought she faced insufficient persecution in her country of origin or had somewhere else to go.

    Australia has a whole of government policy designed to help implement the ten Security Council resolutions on Women, Peace and Security. The resolutions were passed exactly because of women’s unique vulnerabilities during conflict and instability and the long term effect they have on international peace and security.

    But the government is now two years overdue in its reporting against Australia’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. It seems the Department of Home Affairs considered it had no further obligations under this policy when the Australian Federal Police were removed from their portfolio. But this is entirely untrue.

    Women and children are incredibly vulnerable when they are forced to flee violence. Because of this, they are entitled to special protections. Women’s human rights defenders need additional protections, all of which are outlined in the Women, Peace and Security resolutions. These protections include through migration pathways.

    Even if the government is busy dealing with new visa applications in response to the crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, there is no excuse for failing to protect vulnerable Afghan women, and human rights defenders who have been waiting for humanitarian protection visas for years.

    The Department of Home Affairs must ensure that they incorporate gender into the assessments they undertake for visa applications. It is not ok for Australia to speak the words of support for Women, Peace and Security at the Security Council each year, and at the United Nations General Assembly right now, while so blatantly failing in their protection obligations.

    • Picture at top: In the Afghan culture it is a common sight to see the women completely covered when in public, July 10, 2002. This Afghan female shows the stark contrast between those traditions required of adults but not enforced on children. Image taken in the Province of Parwan. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Sean A. Terry) (Released)

    The post Women’s rights under siege amid Middle East conflict appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Labour conference should have been a triumph for Starmer. It wasn’t – and that’s a problem for all of us.

    Something very weird is going on at the moment in UK politics, and it pre-dates the election of the current Labour Party government. 

    A muted general election

    As a campaigner, I try to have my ear to the ground, and I spend a lot of time listening to what people are talking about on social media. Sometimes the conversation is dominated with the actions of politicians, or a particular policy issue. Sometimes people are sharing concerns about what’s going on locally to them, or talking about a major development or a crisis. But between 2019 until a few months ago, the most prominent conversation topic was the general election. 

    Many people felt extremely let down by the decisions of Conservative governments, and their disappointment and anger ramped up as the years went on. The Conservatives themselves gradually seemed to implode; through scandal, through poor leadership, and perhaps through sheer exhaustion too.

    14 years is a long time to be in charge of a country. Political premierships naturally run their course; and as we entered summer 2024, it certainly felt like Sunak had reached the end of his. When the general election was finally announced, it felt confusing; like both a surprise and a let-down.

    Many had predicted that Sunak would try to hold off until the autumn, but he didn’t. He wrongfooted many people with that rainy announcement in late May, and this created a muted start to the election campaign.

    What were people voting for?

    The desire for a general election had been articulated loudly and vehemently for so long that when he decided to call an election earlier than planned, it seemed like many people were experiencing an anti-climax. 

    The following few weeks felt strange too; as if the nation was wobbling towards a finishing line rather than pushing up a great mountain towards progress.

    There wasn’t much discussion about what people were voting for; the individual points of policy difference, the great vision of one party or another. Instead, it felt like many people were desperate to simply draw a line under the past 14 years.

    The day of the general election came and went, and that line was drawn, strong and unwavering, delivering a huge majority for Keir Starmer. A great wall of red, a sea of new Labour MPs in the House of Commons, and a much diminished representation in parliament for the Conservative Party.

    But since then, things have felt very odd. 

    We’re now in a vacuum and Labour has no clear route out

    There are political tribes online, and they’re already disagreeing about what’s going on and who’s to blame.

    Some of those who voted for Labour are Labour Party members.

    Some of those are loyal supporters of Starmer and seem happy to wait for a plan to emerge.

    Others aren’t very impressed, but are biding their time, or trying to influence things within their own networks.

    Some people willingly offered their votes to Labour, hoping for change, but haven’t seen anything inspiring yet.

    Others voted tactically, specifically to oust their local Conservative MP. I’ve seen many people in that position who feel very let down so far. They felt that they’d done Starmer a favour, and now what’s he doing for them? 

    Without a vision, a clear plan, a mountain to climb, it feels like the whole project might be rudderless. We were waiting for him to get into Downing Street, and then we were waiting all summer, and now we’re waiting for the Autumn Budget. Even then, we’re being reminded that nothing happens quickly, that things might get worse before they get better.

    Labour still seem to be blaming the Conservatives for problems, even though they’re now in the driving seat. Perhaps there is a plan, and perhaps it’s an incredible one, but at the moment, a lot of people are in the dark. There’s a void, a gap in peoples’ understanding. 

    And here’s where things become dangerous, politically.

    If there is a gap in the political progress for a government, that gap will become filled with questions about the strength of a leader, with unhelpful reporting, with whatever gossip or rumour or scandal is swirling around Westminster.

    Labour must get a grip on our polycrises

    This has been Labour conference week, and it could have been a moment of triumph for Keir Starmer, jubilation, a huge celebration of the enormous power his party commands in parliament.

    Instead, he has been beset by media commentary about donations and donors, and by alleged in-fighting and unrest. 

    This isn’t a good look for Labour, isn’t a good start, and they’re going to have to turn things around quickly. Not just for the optics of course, but for the public.

    Things are in a terrible state. Millions of people are suffering, millions can’t access the care they need in the NHS. Schools have been underfunded. Social care is in crisis. Many, many people face poverty and sickness and unstable housing.

    Were in a state of polycrisis, and these crises won’t wait much longer.  We need action from our new government, and we need it now.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Dr Julia Grace Patterson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • After the Labour conference, Starmer’s ‘tunnel’ seems longer and darker than ever before

    “Do you want to do something on the Labour conference”, asked the Canary’s editor. I didn’t need asking more than once. I didn’t really need asking at all.

    No victory lap in sight at the Labour conference

    This was the first gathering of the Labour Party since the most disproportionate outcome in British electoral history, a little under three months ago.

    I can already hear the groaning Starmerite loyalists, secretly wondering if this ‘responsible government’ malarkey is all that it is cracked up to be.

    If winning 63% of the parliamentary seats on 34% of the lowest turnout since universal suffrage isn’t disproportionate, what on earth is?

    This conference was supposed to be a celebration of Labour’s return to power after fourteen long years in the political wilderness. Instead, it has been overshadowed by the furore over dodgy donors, dodgy policies, and dodgy politicians.

    The expected victory lap didn’t happen. How could it? Their party is mired in scandal and chaos, less than ninety days after the Tories (blue) were unceremoniously ousted from office.

    “People are asking how things can have gone wrong so quickly. Hiring Sue Gray was just obviously a stupid move, and now it’s backfiring”, said one Labour source, echoing the feelings of many of the dejected Labour delegates as they left the conference hall.

    Even die-hard members at the Labour conference aren’t fooled by the hypocrisy of the Labour freebies scandal.

    The hypocrisy is off the charts

    Watching Angela Rayner bang on about Tory cronyism while knowing she has accepted free designer clothing worth £2,230 from luxury brand ME+EM, according to the Register of Members’ Interests, must be a tough pill to swallow.

    And let’s not forget the trip to New York with an apartment looking out over the beautiful Manhattan skyline. Good old Lord Alli.

    Like Ms Rayner herself asked on X back in 2021, “Who paid for Boris Johnson’s luxury Caribbean holiday and the renovation of his flat, and what did these donors expect in return for their huge generosity?”

    Good question that. And I guess we could ask who on earth would blow £67,000 from the public purse on a fucking ‘vanity photographer’ while leaving pensioners to freeze?

    But what of the Labour conference itself? We had higher water bills and a bit of PFI profiteering to remind us all that the Blairite free market headbangers are fully in control of the Labour machine.

    So how’s this for some neoliberal thinking? The private companies that flood our waterways with sewage without a single shit given for the environmental catastrophe left in their wake, will get another £88 BILLION of new private money to distribute to their shareholders. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

    No protest allowed

    Labour’s fascist tendencies were once again on display after a young protester was dragged out of the conference hall in scenes reminiscent of the violent removal of Walter Wolfgang, then 83, who was forcibly evicted from Labour’s 2005 conference for shouting “nonsense” during a speech by Jack Straw.

    Imagine Walter Wolfgang in today’s Labour Party. A left-wing Jewish ex-CND vice president and vocal supporter of Stop The War wouldn’t last five minutes in the party and even less time in the Labour conference hall.

    The young protestor, who was detained by the police for an hour, should’ve been applauded for adding something relevant to the chancellor’s monotonous speech, not locked up.

    All Reeves could manage in response to the protestors call for an end to arms sales to Israel was some old mumbo jumbo about Labour not being “a party of protest”.

    Finally! Kill-a-gran-for-Christmas Reeves and I agree on just one thing. Labour definitely isn’t a party of protest, but it is a party of shit landlords, intolerable hypocrisy, freebie addicts, bought-and-paid-for lobbyist playthings, ineptitude, dishonesty, division, cronyism, and corruption.

    Give me a party of protest over that fucking disgraceful charge sheet any day.

    An interminably long speech

    What is the point in being gifted power by the most hated Conservative government in living memory if the principles you take into power are not *your* moral values, or the vision that is needed to take the country forward, but those of the highest bidder?

    Starmer’s keynote speech was no better or worse than I expected. We’ve become accustomed to Sir Freeloader’s promise of a brighter tomorrow throughout his time in opposition, and enough of those three word slogans to start his own right-of-centre focus group.

    But like the entire Labour conference, Starmer’s interminably long speech — rather aptly delivered on the same day he recorded his lowest ever approval rating with YouGov — was haunted by the spectre of recent revelations that has seen the Labour Party taking an almighty kicking.

    While Starmer takes great pleasure from frequently reminding us of the criminals he locked up during his time at the Crown Prosecution Service, it felt like the new prime minister was the defendant on trial this time around.

    Starmer and the Labour conference needed to deliver – and he didn’t

    Starmer needed to deliver the speech of his life. Yet he ended up demanding the return of sausages from Gaza.

    Starmer needed to demonstrate an understanding of the Gaza genocide that we have yet to see, and he ended up telling a young ex-Starmerite protestor that his concern for the slaughter of Palestinian children belonged in 2019.

    Starmer’s pitch was no more than what the status quo wanted. He spoke of a Britain that belongs to all of us, but there’s every chance he delivered his speech wearing a designer suit that belongs to someone else.

    Starmer’s key message was that he is the right man to help Britain find the “light at the end of the tunnel”, which really is rather ironic given that he has spent the last 10 weeks making that tunnel seem even longer and darker than it did under the last lot.

    I’ve read some fantastic coverage of the Labour conference from the Canary team this week, which has served as a timely reminder as to why we need to support independent media, or we just end up with the filtered corporate media, and nobody wants that, do they?

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Starmer’s Labour Party is now just as dangerous for disabled people as the Tories were

    “We are rebuilding a Britain that belongs to you”.

    Those were the words tweeted by Keir Starmer hours before his first Labour conference speech as prime minister. Though after hearing the speech it’s clear he left a few words off the end:

    “…unless you’re disabled”.

    Starmer: coming after vulnerable people

    Disabled people have long feared that a Labour government would treat them no better than a Tory one. And so far, Starmer’s team have done nothing to prove otherwise.

    It may have only been 12 weeks since the election and just three weeks since the end of summer recess, but in that time their intentions have been made clear.

    They could’ve shown us they cared about disabled people straight out of the bat – but instead, they allowed the PIP and Universal Credit consultations to carry on, and Liz Kendall has said she’ll be reviewing them. We’ve also had endless rhetoric from her and Reeves about “economic inactivity” – the most bullshit phrase for those not working as it’s not as if we stop paying bills when we’re on benefits.

    In the last few weeks, we’ve also seen the number of articles on “workshy” Britain amped up, which is exactly what the government usually does before cutting our benefits.

    It was also revealed by my brilliant colleague Hannah Sharland that Iain Duncan Smith’s grubby little think tank has already gotten itself into bed with Labour’s DWP.

    Much of the first few weeks of Keir’s cruel rule has been focused on him freezing pensioners. Whilst the winter fuel payments cuts are bad enough, the fact that 71% of disabled pensioners will lose it is even worse. And it’s no coincidence that the DWP snuck that little nugget out late on a Friday evening.

    On top of the winter fuel payments cut we’ve also seen a new task force formed to get Britain back to work that doesn’t include a single disabled person, because, for all their talk of wanting to get those of sickness benefits back into work, they’re not actually doing anything to really support us.

    Cutting benefits once again

    In the run-up to Starmer’s speech, we had reports that Rachel Reeves is looking to cut “sickness” benefits in order to help get people back into work.

    Because starving to death is obviously an incentive.

    Kendall also told a fringe event that the government were preparing for big benefits and Jobcentre reforms that would coincide with the budget.

    As if we weren’t all anxious enough.

    Just before his speech, several outlets reported that Starmer would outline plans to continue the crackdown on “benefit fraud” that the Tories started

    A reminder disability benefit fraud is 0%.

    This includes plans to bring in legislation that will give DWP benefit inspectors the power to snoop into benefit claimants’ bank accounts. This sounds awfully like Tory plans from 2023 that were scrapped in the last administration’s wash-up period.

    This is also horrifically hypocritical, because Labour fought the Tories against this bill last year, with the now-minister for disabled people Stephen Timms saying at the time:

    I think it’s surprising that the Conservative Party is bringing forward such a major expansion of state powers to pry into the affairs of private citizens.

    Dark sentiment lurks under Starmer and the smarminess

    So what did Starmer actually say in his speech? Well under the smarminess and cliche on top of cliche were a lot of big promises that are going to cost a lot. Then finally came the time for a measly mention of benefits:

    If we want to maintain support for the welfare state, then we will legislate to stop benefit fraud. Do everything we can to tackle worklessness.

    This should’ve set alarm bells ringing for many, but he threw it in amongst a promise-heavy paragraph next to something about pylons hoping people wouldn’t notice. If only you hadn’t given it to the press – making benefits a big focus hours before – eh Keir?

    He went on to say:

    We will get the welfare bill down because we will tackle long-term sickness and get people back to work. We will make every penny work for you because we will root out waste and go after tax avoiders. There will be no stone left unturned.

    The implications of course of using this bullshit phrase “worklessness” alongside benefit fraud is that it’s people who are out of work.

    By bringing up specifically those who can’t work because of long-term sickness, Starmer is hoping 2+2 will equal 5 for the British public and they’ll think those are the ones wasting their hard-earned taxes.

    The use of words such as “no stone unturned” perpetuates the lies that many slip through the net because disability benefits are so easy to claim – despite many being hounded by awful assessments and of course the dehumanising work capability assessments.

    And if they want to talk about tackling DWP waste they could start with the millions spent trying to deny disabled people the right to benefits a year or all the money wasted in their own error.

    Failing to support disabled people

    What’s a coincidence, I’m sure, is that whilst he mentioned tax avoiders in the welfare section, he didn’t mention how much is unpaid in tax a year by the wealthiest.

    There were also lots of instances in his speech that he could’ve used to show his support for disabled people and just didn’t – even when he mentioned his brother, who he said “had difficulties learning”.

    This would’ve been a great place to talk about SEND. His mother who needed care when she got sick would’ve been an opportunity to pledge to support those who need care or indeed carers.

    The most noticeable thing we were missing, hurt the most for me.

    When Starmer pledged that they would bring in a “Hillsborough Law” meaning all public officials have a duty of candour, he mentioned many cases where this would apply and victims and their families would get justice – Grenfell, the postmasters, and the infected blood scandal.

    However, he didn’t mention the Covid inquiry, in which six in 10 deaths were disabled people.

    He also didn’t mention disabled benefit deaths, of which an inquiry is due to start soon. But this comes as no surprise when disabled activists had to stage a sit-in just three weeks ago to get parliament to accept copies of John Pring’s The Department which exposes how the DWP is responsible for so many dead disabled people.

    What he did do, however, was continuously mention working people and how much this was a government for them, making it clear that labour is not for those who can’t work. He focused heavily on the sacrifices working-class people would have to make – whilst subtly making those on benefits sound like a burden:

    I have to warn you, working people do want more decisive government. They do want us to rebuild our public services. But their pockets are not deep — not at all. So we have to be a great reforming government.

    Starmer: no ‘change’, just the same old shit

    It’s really terrifying that the man accused of taking hundreds of thousands of pounds of freebies can so readily make it seem like the most vulnerable in society are scroungers.

    At the end of the day, despite successive governments trying to paint us all as workshy layabouts who sponge off taxpayers, disabled benefits claimants are some of the poorest people in society who struggle to eat and pay their bills on the paltry amount of benefits they receive.

    Labour are just Tories in a different colour in many ways, but the most obvious is the way they’re trying to paint disabled people and other minorities as the enemy so that the public won’t look at them.

    They might’ve campaigned as the party of change, but it’s just the same old shit – now in red.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Wes Streeting thinks rich people giving MPs Taylor Swift tickets is a “NOBLE CAUSE”

    Wes Streeting is perhaps the Labour Party frontbench’s least competent politicians when it comes to off-the-cuff speaking. That is, of course, saying something from a frontbench that a knot of toads could out-articulate. However, at the Labour conference on Monday 23 September Streeting once again showed himself up for the fool he is – while also showing what a snivelling little toad he is as well when it comes to his corporate paymasters.

    Streeting: bad jokes and even badder politics

    Streeting was being grilled about the ongoing Labour donors scandal. Well, we say being grilled. It was the BBC – so more a friendly chat. Streeting told BBC Newsnight:

    I’m really proud of people who want to contribute…their money to our politics. It is a noble pursuit, just like giving to charity.

    Streeting went onto say that if rich people and businesses DIDN’T give money to politicians, then the taxpayer would have to foot the bills.

    After Nick Watt asked him if going to see Taylor Swift was a “noble cause”, insufferable ‘twunk on a ship‘ Streeting dropped the worst Swiftie gag ever:

    I’m sure Keir will ‘shake it off’

    For fucks sake.

    He then made a back-handed jibe at the BBC, saying:

    I’m absolutely delighted in the BBC’s new-found conviction that no one should be paid more than the prime minister, that they shouldn’t give or receive hospitality, and will judge the performance on the social media mentions.

    Of course, all this is from the guy who got Arsenal tickets from a private healthcare tech company:

    Oh, and the same guy who spoke about Boris Johnson’s “entitlement” in 2019:

    But poor Wes! He only now feels financially secure for the first time in his life (thanks to his private donors). But God forbid if you nan wants to feel financially secure:

    All this was Streeting encapsulated. Vacuous, insipid, but when the chips are down so verbally flatulent that literally any old shit will come out of his mouth in an attempt to a) make him self look commanding when he’s not, and b) cover up whatever sordid tale he’s being questioned on.

    Who can forget Streeting’s greatest hit? His infamous ‘twunk on a ship moment’ on general election night?

    Roll on the next general election

    Streeting attempted to use a sailing analogy to represent the Labour Party’s laughable ‘landslide’ – y’know, the one where the party got less votes than Corbyn did in 2019 BUT IT’S STILL A LANDSLIDE.

    Rule one of public speaking: don’t start an analogy that you can’t finish. Streeting’s desperate linguistic gymnastics were a sight to behold. So much so, the renowned X account Accidental Partridge thought them noteworthy enough to include in its feed:

    Take away the semi-polished veneer of these Labour frontbenchers and throw them into a situation where their answers haven’t been pre-arranged, or the questions pre-prepared, and these inarticulate, shallow nincompoops literally fall apart – whether that be Streeting on election night, or Streeting defending dodgy donations.

    When’s the next general election? Because it can’t come quicky enough.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • #SwindonsSundaySermon: how’s that “government of service” going, Keir Starmer?

    Correct me if I am wrong here, but prior to the July general election didn’t the master of mooching Keir Starmer pitch himself to the electorate as an honest and dutiful public servant that understood the importance of standards and ethics following fourteen years of Conservative corruption and cronyism?

    It’s not refugees that are the problem, nor is it sick, disabled, poor, elderly, and vulnerable people. The problem is the ruling classes, the billionaires, and the freeloading, self-serving rich man’s playthings like the Taylor Swift devotee, Keir Starmer.

    I doubt Starmer will ever see this, or particularly care if he did, but why didn’t he gift his £4,000 VIP ticket to see Ms Swift perform to a more deserving cause? Perhaps a child with a life-altering illness or disability?

    Think about it for a moment. Starmer spent his entire campaign holding the Tories to a standard he is unable to maintain himself. All the talk of cleaning up politics was absolute bullshit.

    Keir Starmer’s ‘government of service’

    I cannot fathom how Keir Starmer can ever begin to think it is acceptable to target pensioners with cuts to their winter fuel allowance while pocketing football tickets, clothes and an £18,000 pair of spectacles from a Labour donor worth some £200 million.

    Since December 2019, Keir Starmer has grasped £107,145 worth of freebies. This is more than any other member of parliament, and £67,000 more than second placed Lucy Powell, minister for something or another.

    Is this what the junket-hooked underwhelming sack of mediocrity meant when he promised us all a “government of service”?

    Of service to whom? Me? You? 99% of the British people? Absolutely not.

    I cannot remember a prime minister beginning their term with such open flippancy towards serving themselves to a mind-boggling avalanche of freebies while literally killing pensioners in their thousands because of  “difficult decisions”.

    Starmer could’ve prevented this crisis of his own making from escalating by simply agreeing to accept no further gifts. But he opted to double down and attempt to defend the indefensible.

    It’s not even the amount of money that’s the biggest issue here, it is the simple principle of not helping yourself at the trough when there are so many of your own people unable to feed, heat, and clothe themselves.

    If you ever have the misfortune of bumping into Keir Starmer at an Arsenal match, be sure not to shout “free Palestine” in front of him because he’s likely to ask for two of them.

    Dripping in scandal and we’re only two months in

    We’re not even three months into the age of beige, and Keir Starmer and his jumped-up band of right-of-centre grifters — desperately trying and catastrophically failing to pass themselves off as a credible government — are dripping in scandal, beyond anything that any of us could’ve possibly imagined just a short time ago.

    Dodgy donors, access to influence and power for sale, slum landlords, kamikaze policy making, crashing in the polls, Starmer’s own top team briefing against him, his wife, and his chief of staff Sue Gray, enough freebies to set up his own stag do business, and who the hell could possibly sit through three hours of Coldplay and still be able to get up and face the world the following day?

    Nobody is pretending that Keir Starmer is the first ever politician to be exposed as a greedy, trough-clearing parasite, of course. And like many of those before him, he isn’t actually breaking any rules.

    If you ever want to find the most ludicrous explanation for the freebie hoarding from a politician, I urge you to see what David Lammy has to say:

    The truth is that successive prime ministers, unless you’re a billionaire like the last one, do rely on political donations so they can look their best both in the hope of representing the country, if you’re in the opposition, or as prime minister.

    Thanks David, that helps massively.

    Twat.

    When the millionaire Keir Starmer promised us he was the candidate of “change”, I don’t think any of us thought he was referring to his or his wife’s wardrobe, did they?

    Difficult wardrobe decisions

    Have the Starmer’s not heard of Primark, or George at Asda? If they’re so fucking hard up they end up in a situation whereby multi-millionaires are forced to clothe them, they need to make the very same difficult decisions that they expect us to make.

    All jokes aside, I really hope the Starmer’s manage to get through the winter without needing their energy bills to be covered by Lord Ali, or worse still, the public purse.

    Starmer’s second-in-command, Rachel Reeves, got us to pay for her energy bills. In fact, she claimed £4,400 from the public purse to cover her energy costs over the space of five years.

    And then she went and stole £300 from the elderly.

    In that same five year period, 162 Labour Party MPs claimed some £400,000 towards their own energy costs. None of them did anything wrong.

    The hypocrisy, double standards, and skewed morality of the Labour Party is truly staggering, and Keir Starmer is taking a well-earned lashing for his pre-election pledge to be a whiter-than-white government of service.

    Those of us that have followed the trials and tribulations of the Labour Party for some time won’t be shocked by Starmer’s inability to deliver on a pledge.

    Starmer lied his way to the top of the Labour Party and he lied throughout his time as leader of the opposition. Are we really surprised to see Starmer squirming like a worm on the end of a hook less than three months into his tenure? Absolutely not.

    In fact, it’s quite enjoyable watching a demonstrably dishonest British media kick ten barrels of shit out of a demonstrably dishonest Labour Party. Isn’t it called blue-on-blue warfare, or something like that?

    Keir Starmer: pay the bloody money back

    But there is no enjoyment to be had for the millions of older people set to have to choose between heating and eating as the winter approaches.

    And what could be more galling for them than to witness the entirely-owned prime minister prancing around in his bought and paid for designer gear while they’re stressing if they can afford to buy themselves an extra cardigan from the charity shop for the colder months.

    Keir Starmer must reconsider his approach to the acceptance of gifts. It’s no good him telling us he can’t go to a football match unless someone is picking up the tab for him. We don’t care.

    Pay the money back and pay for your own bloody football tickets Mr Starmer, like millions of ordinary people do every week in support of their favourite team. Pocketing more than £35,000 worth of free football tickets is just plain greedy. Tory bastard.

    I remember Jeremy Corbyn attending football matches at Arsenal, and also Liverpool FC with the then Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell. No fanfare, no corporate hospitality, no donors. Just sat with the fans, enjoying the football.

    Rumour has it, Jeremy even paid for his own cup of tea at half time:

    Corbyn McDonnell at Arsenal

    Featured image and additional image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Right wants us to submit to nihilism. Here is where i’m searching for hope.

    This story originally appeared in Truthout on Sep. 19, 2024. It is shared here with permission.

    Every day I encounter, in some form or another, the idea that everything is doomed to always get worse. Faced with a daily inundation of horrors and political bad news from around the world, it’s easy to slide into feeling that nothing can change and that no actions we can take make a difference.

    But we have to resist this feeling, because this is the mindset of nihilism — it’s what authoritarians want us to feel. Their power thrives on our exhaustion and silence.

    I often wake up and fall asleep unsure of my own ability to truly face this world as it is, in the fullness of pain and grief, in the obscene cruelty of a genocide aired on social media. I watch fascist leaders on TV making light of others’ pain and bragging about being strong men, hypocritical liberals claiming empathy while funding destruction.

    I protest and write and collaborate and read, looking hopefully to literature and science fiction for a sense of a better future, or at least a more deliciously imagined one. But every day I also contend with nihilistic ideas, the worry that people are set in their ways, the fear that nothing can change for the better.

    This is the work of media overwhelm and attention saturation, the constant feed of outrage mixed with frivolity, without suggestions for action or connections to others. The current media landscape, and the trend toward believing that everything is always getting worse, can create a feeling that nothing we do makes any difference. We cannot let this work on us.

    Daily inundated with pulls toward nihilism, I stay hopeful through a careful practice, a careful focus on what matters. Here are five things keeping me hopeful right now.

    1. The Elders

    I have been listening to The Nerve! Conversations with Movement Elders, a podcast of the National Council of Elders that pairs young activists and organizers with elders who have been in the movement since the 60s or 70s. In the most recent episode, elders Frances Reid, Loretta Ross and Barbara Smith joined with younger activists Nautica Jenkins and Hannah Krull to talk about voting and national politics.

    “No Black person has ever had the luxury of relying on the Supreme Court for our liberation,” said Ross, a longtime southern Black organizer, responding to questions about recent devastating Supreme Court decisions. “We never fell for that okie doke … it’s people’s power that decides how people’s human rights are upheld and respected.”

    The elders throughout this podcast series assert that we need multiple tactics, long-term visions and also short-term strategies to improve immediate conditions. They discourage activists from getting broken down by infighting or seeking political perfection over effective action. And they discourage us from thinking of ourselves or our moment as special.

    “One of the sayings from the civil rights movement that I was told,” Ross said, “was that we’ve got to stop thinking of ourselves as the entire chain of freedom. Because the chain of freedom stretches back towards our ancestors and stretches forward towards our descendants. We just have to make sure that the chain doesn’t break at our link, do not give up because of apathy or being so sure that we’re right that we’re not willing to question what we’re doing, or how we’re dissuading people from being active.”

    2. The Young People

    It’s easy to slide into feeling that nothing can change and that no actions we can take make a difference…. It’s what authoritarians want us to feel.

    At the Socialism 2024 conference in Chicago this September, I heard members of the youth antiwar organization Dissenters speak about their practices of international solidarity.

    A lot of the ambient “kids-these-days” talk is about how young people don’t know about organizing for power, or are obsessed with superficial and siloed forms of identity politics, or are apathetic. Anyone who believes that would change their minds if they took the time to listen to youth organizers like these speak about global imperialism. Three Dissenters — Christian Ephraim, Rubi Mendez and Josue Sica — reported back on their recent delegations to Cuba, the Philippines and Guatemala, giving detailed analyses of the lessons about the force of U.S. imperialism and the power we have to challenge that from the belly of the beast. They drew parallels among anti-imperialist and workers’ struggles around the world, connected U.S. support for dictatorial leadership abroad to U.S. support for the genocidal Israeli government, and provided specific action steps for supporting struggles in each country.

    Meanwhile Peyton Wilson, the communications organizer for Dissenters who moderated the panel, called on everyone in the room to stop being despairing and instead “join an organization.” The message felt disciplined, old-school, inspired and fresh. I thought to myself, imagine being born after 9/11, into a society of mass shootings and endless war and climate catastrophe; coming of age as Donald Trump was voted into office; going out into the world just as the Democrats served up another four years of half-baked policy; and deciding that the only option is to acknowledge your relative privilege and access and keep on fighting with everything you’ve got. It put hope in my bones to see and feel this — not naïve optimism, but a refreshing sense of responsibility.

    3. Small-Scale Organizing Works.

    In my capacity as the Abolition Journalism Fellow at Interrupting Criminalization, I work with a lot of incarcerated writers, and we often do flash call-ins and protests over censorship, clemency campaigns and retaliatory actions taken against our folks in prison. These abuses range from shutting people in rooms without AC during the hottest Texas summers to “sentencing” people to indefinite solitary confinement without due process. While not every one of these campaigns is successful, a surprising number are — when prisons target people with additional forms of punishment, they are also assuming the outside world won’t pay any attention. Just this year one of our folks finally emerged from years of solitary confinement; another accessed necessary health care; another had major advances in her case for freedom, all with the support of small but strong outside campaigns.

    As incomplete and sometimes unsatisfying as they are, each success like this should be celebrated. They show people inside that they are not alone, and they show prison officials that they are being watched. They lead to concrete change and raise consciousness about the inherently abusive nature of prison itself. Phone blasts, emails, petitions — they make an actual difference and they strengthen our networks of resistance. Participating in small-scale actions like this reminds me to focus on what I can do where I am, right now.

    4. Our Movements Are Changing the Conversation.

    We are still witnessing a genocide in Palestine. We are still watching as people are churned and cycled through criminal legal systems in the U.S. We are still watching the acceleration of climate catastrophe as most of our leaders walk the deadly road of “compromise” on the Earth’s future.

    Practicing hope means paying attention to what is possible, and planting ourselves in the places where we can help those possibilities grow.

    But we also can’t and shouldn’t deny that our movements for justice are changing the conversation. Take trans people — currently a scapegoat and pariah of right-wing activists. I’m not happy to be in the crosshairs, but the reality is that we have cracked open a universe of possibility with our movements for trans liberation, showing people that gender is a constellation rather than a binary, influencing health care providers and educators and social services to expand and accommodate us, insisting on more expansive languages, and sensitizing the general public to the routine violence against us, particularly against trans women and Black and Brown trans people. There is immense vulnerability that comes with these successes, and it will take disciplined solidarity to stem the tide of the attacks on our communities. And still, we should not deny or ignore that we have, through organizing, changed the conversation about trans bodies — and therefore about all bodies — permanently.

    In recent years, our movements have worked unexpected wonders in carving out space in the public conversation for abolition, and for mutual aid, and for just economic futures that see beyond capitalism. We have also moved the public in the U.S. significantly on Palestine; in spite of an aggressive and persistent pro-Israel propaganda campaign perpetuated from the very top levels of power in this country, a majority of U.S. adults support a ceasefire in Gaza and disapprove of Israel’s violence in the Gaza Strip. A Harvard Kennedy School survey this spring found that young people support a permanent ceasefire by a 5-to-1 margin. Led by Palestinians, U.S. solidarity actions have generated meaningful change in the conversation — although we have yet to exercise our power to stop the genocide. Building that power requires us to steadfastly recognize and build upon those wins. To ignore them only cedes more space to those who would have us give up hope.

    5. Joy and Humor

    In The Nerve podcast, Loretta Ross recalled a mentor of hers when she was young advising her to “lighten up.”

    “You should have joy and pleasure from being on the right side of history,” he told her, “not anguish and despair. Let the other people have that.”

    Joy is not just icing on the cake or the purview of the privileged. It is an exercise in hope that has always been rigorously practiced by people facing impossible situations of oppression. Laughter, pleasure and small acts of connection are precisely where we find our power — and the soul fuel that makes it possible to go on.

    Hope isn’t a feeling or a firm belief that things will go our way; it is, as Mariame Kaba often says, a discipline. Practicing hope means paying attention to what is possible, and planting ourselves in the places where we can help those possibilities grow. These acts may be as simple as putting a pen to paper, picking up a phone to call or venturing into the streets to protest. Grief and even despair may overshadow us some days. But wallowing in hopelessness is exactly what they would have us do, those who would break the chain of freedom. Our actions, even in the face of apathy and overwhelm, are just links in the chain.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Murdoch to Musk: how global media power has shifted from the moguls to the big tech bros

    ANALYSIS: By Matthew Ricketson, Deakin University and Andrew Dodd, The University of Melbourne

    Until recently, Elon Musk was just a wildly successful electric car tycoon and space pioneer. Sure, he was erratic and outspoken, but his global influence was contained and seemingly under control.

    But add the ownership of just one media platform, in the form of Twitter — now X — and the maverick has become a mogul, and the baton of the world’s biggest media bully has passed to a new player.

    What we can gauge from watching Musk’s stewardship of X is that he’s unlike former media moguls, making him potentially even more dangerous. He operates under his own rules, often beyond the reach of regulators. He has demonstrated he has no regard for those who try to rein him in.

    Under the old regime, press barons, from William Randolph Hearst to Rupert Murdoch, at least pretended they were committed to truth-telling journalism. Never mind that they were simultaneously deploying intimidation and bullying to achieve their commercial and political ends.

    Musk has no need, or desire, for such pretence because he’s not required to cloak anything he says in even a wafer-thin veil of journalism. Instead, his driving rationale is free speech, which is often code for don’t dare get in my way.

    This means we are in new territory, but it doesn’t mean what went before it is irrelevant.

    A big bucket of the proverbial
    If you want a comprehensive, up-to-date primer on the behaviour of media moguls over the past century-plus, Eric Beecher has just provided it in his book The Men Who Killed the News.

    Alongside accounts of people like Hearst in the United States and Lord Northcliffe in the United Kingdom, Beecher quotes the notorious example of what happened to John Major, the UK prime minister between 1990 and 1997, who baulked at following Murdoch’s resistance to strengthening ties with the European Union.

    In a conversation between Major and Kelvin MacKenzie, editor of Murdoch’s best-selling English tabloid newspaper, The Sun, the prime minister was bluntly told: “Well John, let me put it this way. I’ve got a large bucket of shit lying on my desk and tomorrow morning I’m going to pour it all over your head.”

    MacKenzie might have thought he was speaking truth to power, but in reality he was doing Murdoch’s bidding, and actually using his master’s voice, as Beecher confirms by recounting an anecdote from early in Murdoch’s career in Australia.

    In the 1960s, when Murdoch owned The Sunday Times in Perth, he met Lang Hancock (father of Gina Rinehart) to discuss potentially buying some mineral prospects together in Western Australia. The state government was opposed to the planned deal.

    Beecher cites Hancock’s biographer, Robert Duffield, who claimed Murdoch asked the mining magnate, “If I can get a certain politician to negotiate, will you sell me a piece of the cake?” Hancock said yes.

    Later that night, Murdoch called again to say the deal had been done. How, asked an incredulous Hancock. Murdoch replied: “Simple [. . . ] I told him: look you can have a headline a day or a bucket of shit every day. What’s it to be?”

    Between Murdoch in the 1960s and MacKenzie in the 1990s came Mario Puzo’s The Godfather with Don Corleone, aided by Luca Brasi holding a gun to a rival’s head, saying “either his brains or his signature would be on the contract”.

    Changing the rules of the game
    Media moguls use metaphorical bullets. Those relatively few people who do resist them, like Major, get the proverbial poured over their government. Headlines in The Sun following the Conservatives’ win in the 1992 election included: “Pigmy PM”, “Not up to the job” and “1001 reasons why you are such a plonker John”.

    If media moguls since Hearst and Northcliffe have tap-danced between producing journalism and pursuing their commercial and political aims, they have at least done the former, and some of it has been very good.

    The leaders of the social media behemoths, by contrast, don’t claim any Fourth Estate role. If anything, they seem to hold journalism with tongs as far from their face as possible.

    They do possess enormous wealth though. Apple, Microsoft, Google and Meta, formerly known as Facebook, are in the top 10 companies globally by market capitalisation. By comparison, News Corporation’s market capitalisation now ranks at 1173 in the world.

    Regulating the online environment may be difficult, as Australia discovered this year when it tried, and failed, to stop X hosting footage of the Wakeley Church stabbing attacks. But limiting transnational media platforms can be done, according to Robert Reich, a former Secretary of Labor in Bill Clinton’s government.

    Despite some early wins through Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, big tech companies habitually resist regulation. They have used their substantial influence to stymie it wherever and whenever nation-states have sought to introduce it.

    Meta’s founder and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, has been known to go rogue, as he demonstrated in February 2021 when he protested against the bargaining code by unilaterally closing Facebook sites that carried news. Generally, though, his strategy has been to deploy standard public relations and lobbying methods.

    But his rival Musk uses his social media platform, X, like a wrecking ball.

    Musk is just about the first thing the average X user sees in their feed, whether they want to or not. He gives everyone the benefit of his thoughts, not to mention his thought bubbles. He proclaims himself a free-speech absolutist, but most of his pronouncements lean hard to the right, providing little space for alternative views.

    Some of his tweets have been inflammatory, such as him linking to an article promoting a conspiracy theory about the savage attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of the former US Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, or his tweet that “Civil war is inevitable” following riots that erupted recently in the UK.

    As the BBC reported, the riots occurred after the fatal stabbing of three girls in Southport. “The subsequent unrest in towns and cities across England and in parts of Northern Ireland has been fuelled by misinformation online, the far-right and anti-immigration sentiment”.

    Nor does Musk bother with niceties when people disagree with him. Late last year, advertisers considered boycotting X because they believed some of Musk’s posts were anti-Semitic. He told them during a live interview to “Go fuck yourself”.

    He has welcomed Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, back onto X after Trump’s account was frozen over his comments surrounding the January 6, 2021, attack on the capitol. Since then both men have floated the idea of governing together if Trump wins a second term.

    Is the world better off with tech bros like Musk who demand unlimited freedom and assert their influence brazenly, or old-style media moguls who spin fine-sounding rhetoric about freedom of the press and exert influence under the cover of journalism?

    That’s a question for our times that we should probably begin grappling with.The Conversation

    Dr Matthew Ricketson is professor of communication, Deakin University and Dr Andrew Dodd is director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Right-wing media caught LYING about Last Night of the Proms – of all things

    The following article is a comment piece from Thank EU for the Music 

    As the final chorus of Auld Lang Syne was sung by 5,900 concertgoers attending the Last Night of the Proms, the right-wing press continued inventing stories for the sake of old Brexit times. Right-wing press headlines such as “EU Flags confiscated” and “Banned of Hope and Glory” are “simply absurd” says Charlie Rome, a spokesperson for Thank EU for the Music.

    “Do you think we would have gone to all of this trouble and expense without first checking with the Royal Albert Hall whether the European flag is banned from the Last Night of the Proms?” Charlie reasoned:

    Clearly, the flag is not a symbol of hatred.

    Thank EU for the Music at the Proms

    4,000 European flags were handed out to concertgoers attending the Last Night of Proms at the Royal Albert Hall on Saturday night, and not a single one was refused by security confirmed organisers of Thank EU for the Music, the pro-EU organisation who distributed the flags to concertgoers.

    The right-wing headlines are self-evidentially baseless because viewers tuning in to the live BBC broadcast could see thousands of European flags being waved in the circular hall.

    Thank EU for the Music are a group of music lovers who invite concertgoers to wave the European flag in solidarity with UK and EU touring musicians whose careers and livelihoods have been blighted by Brexit red tape.

    “Venues, festivals, and artists across both the UK and EU are suffering under the current touring arrangements,” says Jon Collins, CEO of UK trade body LIVE (Live music Industry Venues and Entertainment).

    UK musicians face a mountainous pile of red tape organising tours to the continent, including arranging carnets, work visas, cabotage permits, CITES certificates, and VAT registrations for the sale of merchandise.

    Recent research carried out by the Musicians’ Union and the Independent Society of Musicians reveals that more than half of UK musicians having given up touring in the European economic zone.

    Labour must act on the crisis for musicians

    This story will not go away, however, until the Labour Party government fulfils its manifesto pledge to resolve the issue of UK and EU touring musicians. In an interview with LBC in April 2024, Keir Starmer acknowledged the problem, stating:

    There are brilliantly talented individuals in bands, groups, drama, you name it, who are going to other countries to perform often for a few days, then coming back or going to another country. They are nothing really to do with immigration, yet are simply going to play in other countries, and those other countries want them there. So, we have to make that easier. It’s been very tough, particularly for musicians. So, anything we can do to ease that, the better.

    Since Labour has been in power, they have remained tone-deaf on the subject. Dave Webster, Musicians’ Union head of international, is quietly optimistic that things will improve:

    Thankfully, we now have a government who are listening to our concerns and have pledged to take our issues to the EU to try to reach an understanding for touring musicians and their crews.

    But musicians and artist managers are growing sceptical of the government’s progress. “Many in the industry are frustrated by the slow progress on EU touring,” says Gemma, an artist manager from London:

    Middle to small-sized bands who were on the cusp of success have been ruined because of the Brexit factor and it needs to be urgently fixed.

    The Labour government needs to get in tune with the touring musician issue, or the right-wing media will continue to make mischief.

    Featured image via Thank EU for the Music/the Canary, and additional images via Thank EU for the Music

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Papuan aspirations at stake in divided Melanesian Spearhead Group politics

    COMMENTARY: By Laurens Ikinia in Jakarta

    The Land of Papua is widely known as a land full of milk and honey. It is a name widely known in Indonesia that refers to the western half of the island of New Guinea.

    Its natural wealth and beauty are special treasures entrusted by the Creator to the Papuan people who are of Melanesian ethnicity.

    The beauty of the land inhabited by the blackish and brownish-skinned people is often sung about by Papuans in “Tanah Papua”, a song created by the late Yance Rumbino. The lyrics, besides being musical art, also contain expressions of gratitude and prayer for the masterpiece of the Creator.

    For Papuans, “Tanah Papua” — composed by a former teacher in the central highlands of Papua — is always sung at various important events with a Papuan nuance, both in the Land of Papua and other parts of the world in Papuan gatherings.

    The rich, beautiful and mysterious Land of Papua as expressed in the lyrics of the song has not been placed in the right position by the hands of those in power.

    So for Papuans, when singing “Tanah Papua”, on one hand they admire and are grateful for all of God’s works in their ancestral land. On the other hand, by singing that song, they remind themselves to stay strong in facing daily challenges.

    The characteristics of the Land of Papua geographically and ethnographically are the same as the eastern part of the island of New Guinea, now the independent state of Papua New Guinea.

    Attractive to Europe
    The beauty and wealth of natural resources and the richness of cultural heritage initially become attractions to European nations.

    Therefore, the richness attracted the Europeans who later became the colonisers and invaders of the island.

    The Dutch invaded the western part of the island and the British Empire and Germany the eastern part of the island.

    The Europeans were present on the island of New Guinea with a “3Gs mission” (gospel, gold, glory). The gospel mission is related to the spread of Christianity. The gold mission is related to power over natural resource wealth. The glory mission is related to reigning over politics and territory on indigenous land outside of Europe.

    The western part of the island, during the Dutch administration, was known as Dutch New Guinea or Netherlands New Guinea. Later when Indonesia took over the territory, was then named West Irian, and now it is called Papua or internationally known as West Papua.

    The Land of Papua is divided into six provinces and it is home to 250 indigenous Melanesian tribes.

    Meanwhile, the eastern part of the island which currently stands on its independent state New Guinea is home to more than 800 indigenous Melanesian tribes. Given the anthropological and ethnographic facts, the Land of Papua and PNG collectively are the most diverse and richest island in the world.

    Vital role of language
    In the process of forming an embryo and giving birth to a new nation and country, language plays an important role in uniting the various existing indigenous tribes and languages.

    In Papua, after the Dutch left its territory and Indonesia took over control over the island, Bahasa Indonesia — modified Malay — was introduced. As a result, Indonesian became the unifying language for all Papuans, all the way from the Sorong to the Merauke region.

    Besides Bahasa Indonesia, Papuans are still using their ancestral languages.

    Meanwhile, in PNG, Tok Pisin, English and Hiri Motu are three widely spoken languages besides indigenous Melanesian languages. After the British Empire and Germany left the eastern New Guinea territory,

    PNG, then an Australian administered former British protectorate and League of Nations mandate, gained its independence in 1975 — yesterday was celebrated as its 49th anniversary.

    The relationship between the Land of Papua and its Melanesian sibling PNG is going well.

    However, the governments of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea with the spirit of sharing the same land and ocean, culture and values, and the same blood and ancestors, should take tangible steps.

    Melanesian policies
    As an example, the foreign policy of each country needs to be translated into deep-rooted policies and regulations that fulfill the inner desire of the Melanesian people from both sides of the divide.

    And then it needs to be extended to other Melanesian countries in the spirit of “we all are wantok” (one speak). The Melanesian countries and territories include the Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS).

    Together, they are members of the sub-regional Oceania political organisation Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG).

    In that forum, Indonesia is an associate member, while the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) and Timor-Leste are observers. The ULMWP is the umbrella organisation for the Papuans who are dissatisfied with at least four root causes as concluded by Papua Road Map (2010), the distortion of the historical facts, racial injustice and discrimination, human rights violations, and marginalisation that Papuans have been experiencing for years.

    Fiji:
    Here is a brief overview of the diplomatic relationship between the Indonesian government and Melanesian countries. First, Indonesia-Fiji bilateral affairs. The two countries cooperate in several areas including defence, police, development, trade, tourism sector, and social issues including education, broadcasting and people-to-people to contact.

    PNG:
    Second, Indonesia-PNG bilateral affairs. The two countries cooperate in several areas including trade cooperation, investment, tourism, people-to-people contact and connectivity, energy and minerals, plantations and fisheries.

    Quite surprisingly there is no cooperation agreement covering the police and defence sectors.

    Solomon Islands:
    Third, Indonesia-Solomon Islands diplomacy. The two countries cooperate in several areas including trade, investment, telecommunications, mining and tourism.

    Interestingly, the country that is widely known in the Pacific as a producer of “Pacific Beat” musicians receives a significant amount of assistance from the Indonesian government.

    Indonesia and the Solomon Islands do not have security and defence cooperation.

    Vanuatu:
    Fourth, Indonesia-Vanuatu cooperation. Although Vanuatu is known as a country that is consistent and steadfast in supporting “Free Papua”, it turns out that the two countries have had diplomatic relations since 1995.

    They have cooperation in three sectors: trade, investment and tourism. Additionally, the MSG is based in Port Vila, the Vanuatu capital.

    FLNKS — New Caledonia:
    Meanwhile, New Caledonia, the territory that is vulnerable to political turmoil in seeking independence from France, is still a French overseas territory in the Pacific. Cooperation between the Indonesian and New Caledonia governments covers the same sectors as other MSG members.

    However, one sector that gives a different aspect to Indonesia-New Caledonia affairs is cooperation in language, society and culture.

    Indonesia’s relationship with MSG member countries cannot be limited to political debate or struggle only. Even though Indonesia has not been politically accepted as a full member of the MSG forum, in other forums in the region Indonesia has space to establish bilateral relations with Pacific countries.

    For example, in June 2014, then President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was invited to be one of the keynote speakers at the Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF) summit in Nadi, Fiji.

    PIDF is home to 12 member countries (Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, Marshall Islands, Palau, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu). Its mission is to implement green economic policies in the Pacific.

    Multilateral forums
    Indonesia has also joined various multilateral forums with other Pacific countries. The Archipelagic and Island States (AIS) is one example — Pacific states through mutual benefits programs.

    During the outgoing President Joko Widodo’s administration, Indonesia initiated several cooperation projects with Pacific states, such as hosting the Pacific Exposition in Auckland, New Zealand, in 2019, and initiating the Indonesia-Pacific Development Forum.

    Will Indonesia be granted a full membership status at the MSG? Or will ULMWP be granted an associate or full membership status at the MSG? Only time will reveal.

    Both the Indonesian government and the United Liberation Movement for West Papua see a home at the MSG.

    As former RNZ Pacific journalist Johnny Blades wrote in 2020, “West Papua is the issue that won’t go away for Melanesia”.

    At this stage, the leaders of MSG countries are faced with moral and political dilemmas. The world is watching what next step will be taken by the MSG over the region’s polarising issue.

    Laurens Ikinia is a Papuan lecturer and researcher at the Institute of Pacific Studies, Indonesian Christian University, Jakarta, and is a member of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN).

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Up close and friendly with Vietnam’s war resistance Củ Chi tunnels

    COMMENTARY: By David Robie

    Vietnam’s famous Củ Chi tunnel network was on our bucket list for years.

    For me, it was for more than half a century, ever since I had been editor of the Melbourne Sunday Observer, which campaigned against Australian (and New Zealand) involvement in the unjust Vietnam War — redubbed the “American War” by the Vietnamese.

    For Del, it was a dream to see how the resistance of a small and poor country could defeat the might of colonisers.

    “I wanted to see for myself how the tunnels and the sacrifices of the Vietnamese had contributed to winning the war,” she recalls.

    “Love for country, a longing for peace and a resistance to foreign domination were strong factors in victory.”

    We finally got our wish last month — a half day trip to the tunnel network, which stretched some 250 kilometres at the peak of their use. The museum park is just 45 km northeast of Ho Chi Minh city, known as Saigon during the war years (many locals still call it that).

    Building of the tunnels started after the Second World War after the Japanese had withdrawn from Indochina and liberation struggles had begun against the French. But they reached their most dramatic use in the war against the Americans, especially during the spate of surprise attacks during the Tet Offensive in 1968.

    Checking out the Củ Chi tunnel network
    Checking out the Củ Chi tunnel network near Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh City. Image: David Robie/APR

    The Viet Minh kicked off the network, when it was a sort of southern gateway to the Ho Chi Minh trail in the 1940s as the communist forces edged closer to Saigon. Eventually the liberation successes of the Viet Minh led to humiliating defeat of the French colonial forces at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.

    Cutting off supply lines
    The French had rebuilt an ex-Japanese airbase in a remote valley near the Laotian border in a so-called “hedgehog” operation — in a belief that the Viet Minh forces did not have anti-aircraft artillery. They hoped to cut off the Viet Minh’s guerrilla forces’ supply lines and draw them into a decisive conventional battle where superior French firepower would prevail.

    However, they were the ones who were cut off.


    The Củ Chi tunnels explored.    Video: History channel

    The French military command badly miscalculated as General Nguyen Giap’s forces secretly and patiently hauled artillery through the jungle-clad hills over months and established strategic batteries with tunnels for the guns to be hauled back under cover after firing several salvos.

    Giap compared Dien Bien Phu to a “rice bowl” with the Viet Minh on the edges and the French at the bottom.

    After a 54-day siege between 13 March and 7 May 1954, as the French forces became increasingly surrounded and with casualties mounting (up to 2300 killed), the fortifications were over-run and the surviving soldiers surrendered.

    The defeat led to global shock that an anti-colonial guerrilla army had defeated a major European power.

    The French government of Prime Minister Joseph Laniel resigned and the 1954 Geneva Accords were signed with France pulling out all its forces in the whole of Indochina, although Vietnam was temporarily divided in half at the 17th Parallel — the communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, and the republican State of Vietnam nominally under Emperor Bao Dai (but in reality led by a series of dictators with US support).

    Debacle of Dien Bien Phu
    The debacle of Dien Bien Phu is told very well in an exhibition that takes up an entire wing of the Vietnam War Remnants Museum (it was originally named the “Museum of American War Crimes”).

    But that isn’t all at the impressive museum, the history of the horrendous US misadventure is told in gruesome detail – with some 58,000 American troops killed and the death of an estimated up to 3 million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians. (Not to mention the 521 Australian and 37 New Zealand soldiers, and the many other allied casualties.)

    The section of the museum devoted to the Agent Orange defoliant war waged on the Vietnamese and the country’s environment is particularly chilling – casualties and people suffering from the aftermath of the poisoning are now into the fourth generation.

    "Peace in Vietnam" posters and photographs
    “Peace in Vietnam” posters and photographs at the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City. Image: David Robie/APR
    "Nixon out of Vietnam" daubed on a bombed house
    “Nixon out of Vietnam” daubed on a bombed house in the War Remnants Museum. Image: Del Abcede/APR

    The global anti-Vietnam War peace protests are also honoured at the museum and one section of the compound has a recreation of the prisons holding Viet Cong independence fighters, including the torture “tiger cells”.

    A shackled Viet Cong suspect (mannequin) in a torture "tiger cage"
    A shackled Viet Cong suspect (mannequin) in a torture “tiger cage” recreation. Image: David Robie/APR

    A guillotine is on display. The execution method was used by both France and the US-backed South Vietnam regimes against pro-independence fighters.

    A guillotine on display at the Remnants War Museum
    A guillotine on display at the Remnants War Museum in Ho Chi Minh City. Image: David Robie/APR

    A placard says: “During the US war against Vietnam, the guillotine was transported to all of the provinces in South Vietnam to decapitate the Vietnam patriots. [On 12 March 1960], the last man who was executed by guillotine was Hoang Le Kha.”

    A member of the ant-French liberation “scout movement”, Hoang was sentenced to death by a military court set up by the US-backed President Ngo Dinh Diem’s regime.

    In 1981, France outlawed capital punishment and abandoned the use of the guillotine, but the last execution was as recent as 1977.

    Museum visit essential
    Visiting Ho Ch Min City’s War Remnants Museum is essential for background and contextual understanding of the role and importance of the Củ Chi tunnels.

    The Sunday Observer coverage of the My Lai massacre
    The Sunday Observer coverage of the My Lai massacre. Image: Screenshot David Robie/APR

    Back in my protest days as chief subeditor and then editor of Melbourne’s Sunday Observer, I had published Ronald Haberle’s My Lai massacre photos the same week as Life Magazine in December 1969 (an estimated 500 women, children and elderly men were killed at the hamlet on 16 March 1968 near Quang Nai city and the atrocity was covered up for almost two years).

    Ironically, we were prosecuted for “obscenity’ for publishing photographs of a real life US obscenity and war crime in the Australian state of Victoria. (The case was later dropped).

    So our trip to the Củ Chi tunnels was laced with expectation. What would we see? What would we feel?

    A tunnel entrance at Ben Dinh
    A tunnel entrance at Ben Dinh. Image: David Robie/APR

    The tunnels played a critical role in the “American” War, eventually leading to the collapse of South Vietnamese resistance in Saigon. And the guides talk about the experience and the sacrifice of Viet Cong fighters in reverential tones.

    The tunnel network at Ben Dinh is in a vast park-like setting with restored sections, including underground kitchen (with smoke outlets directed through simulated ant hills), medical centre, and armaments workshop.

    ingenious bamboo and metal spike booby traps, snakes and scorpions were among the obstacles to US forces pursuing resistance fighters. Special units — called “tunnel rats” using smaller soldiers were eventually trained to combat the Củ Chi system but were not very effective.

    We were treated to cooked cassava, a staple for the fighters underground.

    A disabled US tank demonstrates how typical hit-and-run attacks by the Viet Cong fighters would cripple their treads and then they would be attacked through their manholes.

    ‘Walk’ through showdown
    When it came to the section where we could walk through the tunnels ourselves, our guide said: “It only takes a couple of minutes.”

    It was actually closer to 10 minutes, it seemed, and I actually got stuck momentarily when my knees turned to jelly with the crouch posture that I needed to use for my height. I had to crawl on hands and knees the rest of the way.

    David at a tunnel entrance
    David at a tunnel entrance — “my knees turned to jelly” but crawling through was the solution in the end. Image: David Robie/APR

    A warning sign said don’t go if you’re aged over 70 (I am 79), have heart issues (I do, with arteries), or are claustrophobic (I’m not). I went anyway.

    People who have done this are mostly very positive about the experience and praise the tourist tunnels set-up. Many travel agencies run guided trips to the tunnels.

    How small can we squeeze to fit in the tunnel?
    How small can we squeeze to fit in the tunnel? The thinnest person in one group visiting the tunnels tries to shrink into the space. Image: David Robie/APR
    A so-called "clipping armpit" Viet Cong trap
    A so-called “clipping armpit” Viet Cong trap in the Củ Chi tunnel network. Image: David Robie/APR

    “Exploring the Củ Chi tunnels near Saigon was a fascinating and historically significant experience,” wrote one recent visitor on a social media link.

    “The intricate network of tunnels, used during the Vietnam War, provided valuable insights into the resilience and ingenuity of the Vietnamese people. Crawling through the tunnels, visiting hidden bunkers, and learning about guerrilla warfare tactics were eye-opening . . .

    “It’s a place where history comes to life, and it’s a must-visit for anyone interested in Vietnam’s wartime history and the remarkable engineering of the Củ Chi tunnels.”

    “The visit gives a very real sense of what the war was like from the Vietnamese side — their tunnels and how they lived and efforts to fight the Americans,” wrote another visitor. “Very realistic experience, especially if you venture into the tunnels.”

    Overall, it was a powerful experience and a reminder that no matter how immensely strong a country might be politically and militarily, if grassroots people are determined enough for freedom and justice they will triumph in the end.

    There is hope yet for Palestine.

    The Củ Chi tunnel network
    The Củ Chi tunnel network. Image: War Remnants Museum/APR

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • #SwindonsSundaySermon: we just voted in the son of Thatcher – Keir Starmer

    “The son of Thatcher”. That was the one of the most eye-catching headlines that I spotted this week. A follower described Labour PM Keir Starmer as “the hate child of Thatcher and Pinochet”.

    We’re angry, prime minister, we are seriously fucking angry.

    Starmer just created Labour’s most shameful day since Iraq

    Labour’s darkest and most shameful day since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 will be noted in history as Tuesday 10 September 2024.

    Picture the scene. Labour Party members of parliament earning a generous £91,000 a year (plus expenses), meekly lining up like sheep through a turnstile in their hundreds to vote to cut a pensioners money.

    Disgusting cowards.

    Once you get past that, imagine if you will, the nauseating and deeply insensitive spectacle of a Labour MP doing “a double fist pump as the vote to remove the winter fuel payment from pensioners was passed by parliament”, as noted by the SNP group leader in Westminster, Stephen Flynn.

    Did I mention, Mr Starmer, we really don’t like you, at all?

    Make it a priority to find a Labour voter today, and ask them if this is this the type of “change” they had in mind when they naively voted for Keir Starmer’s Israel First Labour Party, back in July?

    They’ll either confess to not being particularly fussed by the thought of an elderly person huddled round a fucking candle for warmth, or they’ll be honest and admit they thought they were voting for something better than the Tories. Either way, you’ve got them by the short and curlies.

    Maybe they’re one of those gormless parrots that kept telling us, “let’s just get the Tories out first”? You told them they’re all the same, and they called you a “Tory enabler”.

    Tories on rotation

    We haven’t got the Tories out, we’ve had a rotation of the hand-picked elite and the malevolent Tory Starmer has been chosen to defend the wealth of the rich and powerful while the failures of capitalism are added to your bills and cut from your services.

    We ripped the callous Tories to pieces for voting to cut disability money back in 2016, and Labour — found guilty of betraying everything Keir Hardie wanted the Labour movement to become — can expect no less.

    I know you’re not supposed to interfere when the enemy is destroying itself, but these horrible Labour bastards really do deserve a push as they walk along the plank of shame into an ocean of SAGA-backed sharks.

    The honeymoon period didn’t even really progress beyond the registry office before Lucy Powell told the world we needed to kill off 4,000 of our elderly loved ones or the British economy would go through another Trussquake and we’ll all die anyway.

    Or words to that effect.

    I know I’ve most likely said this already, we are seriously fucking angry, and we really don’t like you, Mr Starmer.

    I will never understand how we can continue to fuel the Ukraine/Russia conflict while allowing our most vulnerable people to freeze and starve to death. It was a disgrace under the previous Tory administrations and it is a disgrace under this Tory administration too.

    We are sending ANOTHER £600 million from the public purse to the weird comedy guy in that country with a Nazi problem to fight a proxy war on behalf of NATO and the West while some little old lady in Croydon is fretting over turning her halogen heater on for an hour.

    UNDER A FUCKING LABOUR GOVERNMENT.

    *Has two coffees and a calming walk with the dogs*

    Struggling to stomach Labour centrists

    I must be honest, I have taken great delight in watching this shower of inept careerists fall from their pedestals in such a dramatic fashion over the past couple of weeks. And I don’t think I am alone, with this latest poll from YouGov suggesting just 19% of the electorate approve of the deceitful Labour government.

    Keir Starmer is rapidly becoming public enemy number one. The right think he is soft on immigration and can sniff out this false patriotism thing from a mile away. The left only have to point to the last two months to demonstrate exactly why we cannot stand the bought-and-paid-for quockerwodger.

    And that just leaves the centre, and while Starmer’s own people would claim he won the general election from the centre, in reality the Tories lost the general election because they were all over the place.

    I cannot stomach a centrist. Centrists can only ever think in terms of equal opposites. If the right is bad, the left must be just as bad. Taking a stance is inherently irrational.

    The centrist makes this completely false binary and then smugly declare themselves above it, when real life is never in the neat little ‘equal and opposite’ boxes they assume exist.

    Starmer began his time as opposition leader predominantly pitching to the liberal centre ground, but as time progressed he has dragged the Labour Party kicking and screaming to the right.

    Sorry, what pledge?

    What started as Keir Starmer’s pledge to make “the moral case for socialism” in 2020 has ended up becoming a pro-Israel, pro-privatisation, pro-austerity, pro-war cabal of right-wing elitists promising to embrace many of the Tories most detestable policies with a bit of granny killing thrown in for good measure.

    Starmer is now beating the NHS privatisation drum louder than ever before. We know what “reform” means, in the same we know what “difficult decisions” means. You cannot and must not trust the Labour government with your NHS.

    We told you time after time before the election that Starmer’s donors will expect a swift return on their sizeable investments. These millionaires don’t just pay for a few paper clips and a refill for Wes Streeting’s biscuit barrel because they are kind-hearted philanthropists.

    They buy access to power. They buy influence. They buy the sort of opportunities that the likes of us cannot even begin to fathom. Every freebie that makes its way to Keir Starmer and his cabinet of horrors has a purpose.

    Remember, Starmer has accepted more freebies to events such as Premier League football matches, concerts and parties than the COMBINED total of every other Labour leader since records began in 1997.

    Starmer needs to stop this downward trajectory for all our sakes

    Looking ahead, should Starmer continue on this downward trajectory, he and Britain face the very real prospect of a battered Conservative Party and a gammon-soaked Reform coming together to oust Labour from government at the next general election.

    This Labour government, just a couple of months into the era of Starmer, is less popular than the Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party of 2019. That’s got to hurt.

    The Labour vote isn’t strong, the majority is built upon quicksand, however spectacular it might look in numbers. It isn’t going to take much for the hard-right to come together to challenge Starmer’s right-wing Labour, particularly in constituencies where immigration is considered a higher priority than British grannies slowly freezing to death.

    The left needs to organise, both online and on the ground. A clear alternative to austerity and war has to be presented to the electorate, in every constituency up and down the land.

    We have got the best part of five years to get it sorted.

    We can move the argument back to the left and fight on home soil or we can roll over and accept the next decade is going to be an awfully depressing and often-racist battle of right-wing ideologies.

    For me, that is no choice whatsoever.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Pope Francis – a message of peace and real change in Pacific political struggles

    COMMENTARY: By Laurens Ikinia in Jakarta

    Pope Francis has completed his historic first visit to Southeast Asian and Pacific nations.

    The papal apostolic visit covered Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Singapore and Timor-Leste.

    This visit is furst to the region after he was elected as the leader of the Catholic Church based in Rome and also as the Vatican Head of State.

    Under Pope Francis’ leadership, many church traditions have been renewed. For example, he gives space to women to take some important leadership and managerial roles in Vatican.

    Many believe that the movement of the smiling Pope in distributing roles to women and lay groups is a timely move. Besides, during his term as the head of the Vatican state, the Pope has changed the Vatican’s banking and financial system.

    Now, it is more transparent and accountable.

    Besides, the Holy Father bluntly acknowledges the darkness concealed by the church hierarchy for years and graciously apologises for the wrong committed by the church.

    The Pope invites the clergy (shepherds) to live simply, mingling and uniting with the members of the congregation (sheep).

    The former archbishop of Buenos Aires also encourages the church to open itself to accepting congregations who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT).

    However, Papa Francis’ encouragement was flooded with protests from some members of the church. And it is still an ongoing spiritual battle that has not been fully delivered in Catholic Church.

    Two encyclicals
    Pope Francis, the successor of Apostle Peter, is a humble and modest man. Under his papacy, the highest authority of the Catholic Church has issued four apostolic works, two in the form of encyclicals, namely Lumen Fidei (Light of Faith) and Laudato si’ (Praise Be to You) and two others in the form of apostolic exhortations, namely Evangelii Gaudium (Joy of the Gospel) and Amoris Laetitia (Joy of Love).

    Of the four masterpieces of the Pope, the encyclical Laudato si’ seems to gain most attention globally.

    The encyclical Laudato si’ is an invitation from the Holy Father to human beings to be responsible for the existence of the universe. He begs us human beings not to exploit and torture Mother Nature.

    We should respect nature because it provides plants and cares for us like a mother does for her children. Therefore, caring for the environment or the universe is a calling that needs to be responded to genuinely.

    This apostolic call is timely because the world is experiencing various threats of natural devastation that leads to natural disasters.

    The irresponsible and greedy behaviour of human beings has destroyed the beauty and diversity of the flora and fauna. Other parts of the world have experienced and are experiencing adverse impacts.

    This is also taking place in the Pacific region.

    Sinking cities
    The World Economy Forum (2019) reports that it is estimated there will be eleven cities in the world that will “sink” by 2100. The cities listed include Jakarta (Indonesia), Lagos (Nigeria), Houston (Texas-US), Dhaka (Bangladesh), Virginia Beach (Virginia-US), Bangkok (Thailand), New Orleans (Louisiana-US), Rotterdam (Netherlands), Alexandra (Egypt), and Miami (Florida-US).

    During the visit of the 266th Pope, he addressed the importance of securing and protecting our envirinment.

    During the historic interfaith dialogue held at the Jakarta’s Istiqlal Mosque on September 5, the 87-year-old Pope said Indonesia was blessed with rainforest and rich in natural resources.

    He indirectly referred to the Land of Papua — internationally known as West Papua. The message was not only addressed to the government of Indonesia, but also to Papua New Guinea.

    The apostolic visit amazed people in Indonesia which is predominantly a Muslim nation. The humbleness and friendliness of Papa Francis touched the hearts of many, not only Christians, but also people with other religious backgrounds.

    Witnessing the presence of the Pope in Jakarta firsthand, we could certainly testify that his presence has brought tremendous joy and will be remembered forever. Those who experienced joy were not only because of the direct encounter.

    Some were inspired when watching the broadcast on the mainstream or social media.

    The Pope humbly made himself available to be greeted by his people and blessed those who approached him. Those who received the greeting from the Holy Father also came from different age groups — starting from babies in the womb, toddlers and teenagers, young people, adults, the elderly and brothers and sisters with disabilities.

    Pope brings inner comfort
    An unforgettable experience of faith that the people of the four nations did not expect, but experienced, was that the presence of the Pope Francis brought inner comfort. It was tremendously significant given the social conditions of Indonesia, PNG and Timor-Leste are troubled politically and psychologically.

    State policies that do not lift the people out of poverty, practices of injustice that are still rampant, corruption that seems endemic and systemic, the seizure of indigenous people’s customary land by giant companies with government permission, and an economic system that brings profits to a handful of people are some of the factors that have caused disturbed the inner peace of the people.

    In Indonesia, soon after the inauguration on October 20 of the elected President and Vice-President, Prabowo Subianto and Gibran Rakabuming Raka, the people of Indonesia will welcome the election of governors and deputy governors, regents and deputy regents, mayors and deputy mayors.

    This will include the six provinces in the Land of Papua. The simultaneous regional elections will be held on November 27.

    The public will monitor the process of the regional election. Reflecting on the presidential election which allegedly involved the current President’s “interference”, in the collective memory of democracy lovers there is a possibility of interference from the government that will lead the nation.

    Could that happen? Only time will tell. The task of all elements of society is to jointly maintain the values of honest, honest and open democracy.

    Pope Francis in his book, Let Us Dream, the Path to the Future (2020) wrote:

    “We need a politics that can integrate and dialogue with the poor, the excluded, and the vulnerable that gives people a say in the decisions that impact their lives.”

    Hope for people’s struggles
    This message of Pope Francis has a deep meaning in the current context. What is common everywhere, politicians only make sweet promises or give fake hope to voters so that they are elected.

    After being elected, the winning or elected candidate tends to be far from the people.

    Therefore, a fragment of the Holy Father’s invitation in the book needs to be a shared concern. The written and implied meaning of the fragment above is not far from the democratic values adopted by Indonesia and other Pacific nations.

    Pacific Islanders highly value the views of each person. But lately the noble values that were well-cultivated and inherited by the ancestors are increasingly diminishing.

    Hopefully, the governments will deliver on the real needs and struggles of the people.

    “Our greatest power is not in the respect that others have for us, but the service we can give others,” wrote Pope Francis.

    Laurens Ikinia is a lecturer and researcher at the Institute of Pacific Studies, Indonesian Christian University, Jakarta, and is a member of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN).

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • John Minto: International Court of Justice says BDS against Israel is an obligation on governments

    COMMENTARY: By John Minto

    You could be forgiven if you missed the recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion that Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestine is illegal.

    The landmark ruling sank without trace in Aotearoa New Zealand and aside from an anaemic tweet from the Minister of Foreign Affairs has barely caused a ripple in official circles.

    However, the court’s July 19 decision is a watershed in holding Israel to account for its numerous breaches of international law and United Nations resolutions and while western governments prefer to look the other way, this is no longer tenable.

    The ICJ has found not only that Israel’s 57-year occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal but that BDS (Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions) are an obligation on governments to impose on Israel.

    The wording is unambiguous. The ICJ says:

    “The State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful [and it] is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence . . .  as rapidly as possible.”

    And goes on to say:

    “All States are under an obligation not to recognise as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the [Occupied Palestinian Territory] and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

    NZ government must reevaluate
    Not rendering “aid or assistance” to Israel to continue its illegal occupation means the New Zealand government must re-evaluate its entire relationship with Israel.

    For a start government investments in companies profiting from Israel’s illegal occupation must be withdrawn; imports or procurement of services from companies in the illegally-occupied Palestinian territories must be stopped and visas for young Israelis coming to New Zealand after serving in support of Israel’s illegal occupation must cease.

    A host of other government policies to impose BDS sanctions against Israel must follow — the type of sanctions we imposed against Russia for its invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine.

    This ICJ ruling comes as western governments such as New Zealand shamefully provide political cover for Israel’s illegal occupation and wholesale slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. Most of the victims are women and children.

    By April Israel had dropped over 70,000 tonnes of bombs on Gaza, surpassing the bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, and London combined during World War II, in one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

    Israel has killed the equivalent of all the children in more than 100 average sized New Zealand primary schools and yet our Prime Minister has refused to condemn this slaughter, refused to call for an immediate, permanent ceasefire or join South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

    Our Prime Minister describes the situation in Gaza as catastrophic but refuses to utter a single word of condemnation of Israel. Mr Luxon has replaced principled political action with bluff and bluster.

    Widening chasm with international law
    The gap between what our government does and what international law demands is a widening chasm.

    Gaza exists as an illegally occupied and densely populated area because Israeli militias conducted a massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from 1947 to 1949 to artificially create a majority Jewish state on Palestinian land.

    Eighty percent of Gazans are descendants of the victims of this ethnic cleansing.

    Under cover of its war on Gaza, Israel’s ethnic cleansing continues today in the occupied West Bank. Illegal Israeli settlers, with the backing of Israeli Occupation Forces are driving Palestinians off their land.

    Numerous Palestinian towns and rural communities have been attacked in pogroms with arson, looting and killing leaving “depopulated” areas behind for Israel to settle.

    There are now more than 700,000 illegal Israeli settlers in more than 200 settlements and settlement outposts on Palestinian land in the occupied territories of East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

    700,000 settlers declared illegal
    It is these settlers and settlements the International Court of Justice has declared illegal.

    As well as responsibilities on individual states to end support for Israel’s illegal occupation, the ICJ ruling says the world should take collective action requesting “The UN, and especially the General Assembly . . .  and the Security Council, should consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

    New Zealand must regain its moral courage and become a leader in helping end the longest-running military occupation in modern history.

    John Minto is national chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA). This article was first published by The Daily Blog and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Samoa Observer: A slap across the face of media freedom

    EDITORIAL: The Samoa Observer editorial board

    The Samoan government’s attempt to control the media for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is a slap across the face of press freedom, democracy and freedom of speech.

    It is a farce and an attempt by a dysfunctional government unit to gag local and overseas media.

    No international forum of such importance does this. The United Nations, the Pacific Islands Forum or other CHOGMs never had to deal with such dictatorial policies for journalism. What is the sub-committee thinking?

    Samoa Observer
    SAMOA OBSERVER

    We are not living under a dictatorship, neither are the media organisations coming to cover the event. The message to media organisations like the BBC, ABC, AFP and others is you will only publish and broadcast what we tell you to.

    To the people who came up with these policies, what were you thinking? This goes to show the inexperience of the press secretariat and the media sub-committee. It would have been good if you had involved experienced journalists who have covered international events.

    There is never a restriction on media to cover side events, there is never a restriction for photographers and cameramen to take pictures, and there are never restrictions for media to approach delegates for interviews or what content they can get their hands on.

    In any international forum, the state or the organisation’s media uploads their content, interviews, pictures and videos and makes it accessible for all to use. It is at the discretion of the media to choose to use it. In most cases, the media come with their issues and angles. To say that this will be dictated, makes it sound like this is not Samoa but China.

    Next thing, the sub-committee will announce prison terms for not following the policies set by them. The CHOGM is the biggest international event Samoa has ever hosted and this decision is going to cause an international nightmare. The media in Samoa is furious because this is choking media freedom.

    The hiring of a New Zealand company will not solve the matter. They can help the government as they have done sporting bodies for the Pacific Games but who are you to dictate to the media what to publish and what to report?

    Each of the heads of delegations will be followed by the media from their country including their state media. All these people will not be allowed at the closing and opening ceremony. ABC, Nine News and other Australian media will follow Anthony Albanese, RNZ, New Zealand Herald, and Stuff will be behind Christopher Luxon and the British media with the King.

    This is surely not a move proposed by the Commonwealth Secretariat. If anyone at the press secretariat or any of the state-owned media has covered international events like the COP, CHOGM, UN meetings or even the Pacific Island Forum Leaders Meeting, you will know that this is not how things work. To even recommend that overseas and local media work together to cover the event is absurd.

    Imagine the press secretariat journalist following Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mataafa is told at an international event, no stay away from the events she goes to because we will tell where you are allowed to go. That also begs the question, will state media from other countries be treated differently from media who are independent?

    Each media outlet has its priorities. They will cover what is relevant to their audience.

    Media are given access and the option to choose whichever side event they would want to be part of. Does this also mean that the itinerary or schedule of events will also be not made public?

    The prime minister needs to intervene as quickly as possible before this situation escalates into an international incident. Stifling the media is never a good thing and trying to control them is even worse. Let us hope that this is not the legacy of this government. The one that managed to control media from 54 countries. It would be an achievement marked on the international stage.

    This year, Samoa jumped into the top 20 in the latest press freedom index released by the global group Reporters Without Borders out of 180 countries and territories assessed.

    It is one of only two Pacific nations in the top 20 of the index with New Zealand the other state and ahead of Samoa in 13th position. The other Pacific states below Aotearoa and Samoa include Australia (27), Tonga (44), Papua New Guinea (59), and Fiji (89).

    This is not a reflection of that.

    To justify this action by saying it is being done for security reasons either shows that you expect journalists to kill delegates with their questions or the lack of security arrangements surrounding the event. Is this an attempt to hide the inadequacies of the preparation from the eyes of the world?

    The sub-committee even said this was done to safeguard information that cannot be released. If you have covered an event like this before, you would know how it works. The least you could have done was consult with the Commonwealth media team or Rwanda, the previous hosts. The media know which meetings are public.

    The CHOGM is not a private event. It concerns governments from 54 nations and a government is its people. Do not be responsible for breaking the communication between governments and their people. Do not be the people to go down in history as the ones who killed media freedom at CHOGM, because that is what has happened here.

    If this is allowed to happen for CHOGM, a dangerous precedence will be set for future local events.

    The Samoa Observer editorial on 12 September 2024. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Catalonia rallies for its National Day – showing it’s the most powerful social movement in Europe

    Every 11 September Catalonia celebrates its National Day, commemorating that on that day in 1714 it lost a war and was annexed to Castile, all its institutions were abolished, its language was banned and it began to be treated as a colony. This was from 2024’s rally:

    Catalonia rally

    A people that chooses this kind of anniversary as a national day commits itself to remembering that its freedom was taken away from it and makes it clear that it will want to regain it in the future, as it has been trying to do ever since. But the military brutality of Castile repeatedly prevented this, with bombings, imprisonments, and mass executions.

    Catalonia: Spain may try and frighten the people

    In 2017 Catalonia naively thought that, in the context of the EU, Spain could not resort to violence as before and this would open the door to a democratic way out of the conflict with a referendum on self-determination. But Madrid sent 10,000 police to repress the voters of the self-organised referendum, with images that went around the world.

    Since then, Spain has squandered enormous resources to try to destroy the Catalan independence movement: with police and judicial repression unprecedented in Europe, prevaricating, conducting prospective investigations, and twisting the law to charge embezzlement, terrorism, and treason; with illegal spying on politicians, activists, and lawyers in order to accuse or blackmail them; with a constant media attack to discredit them, and even with bribes and foul play by vigilante groups acting outside the law.

    With this way of proceeding, Spain has managed to frighten and divide the action of the pro-independence parties and, after a decade of pro-independence Catalan governments, they have just made it possible for a Spanish party to govern Catalonia (with the support of one of the pro-independence parties in exchange for economic agreements that will surely not be fulfilled).

    And, with this change of government, they want to make people believe that there is another social majority that is no longer pro-independence. But everyone knows that this change has another explanation: Spain, for a decade, has been subjecting Catalonia to political violence that has affected the pro-independence parties, which are very discredited and will now have to make self-criticism and change strategies.

    The pro-independence movement forges ahead

    But, apart from the political parties, the pro-independence social majority continues to forge ahead as the most powerful social movement in Europe, given its almost unperturbed convening power despite all these vicissitudes.

    And so, on 11 September, crowds once again took to the streets, this time simultaneously in five cities (Barcelona, Girona, Tarragona, Lleida, and Tortosa) to denounce the fact that Catalonia might not be a poor region if it had the resources that Spain plunders it with colonialist treatment:

    It is up to the Catalan independence movement to devise a way to exercise the right to self-determination, knowing that Spain, which boasts of being a democratic state, will use violence to prevent it, and knowing that the EU, which boasts of being a democratic space, may once again look the other way so as not to get involved.

    In any case, if the people are there, the pro-independence project will go ahead and, for Spain and the EU, it will become increasingly uncomfortable to try to prevent the Catalans from being able to decide their future democratically.

    Featured image and additional images via Assemblea Nacional Catalana

    By Jordi Oriola Folch

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Open letters on Gaza that The Press shunned – the Handala protest

    Pacific Media Watch

    Two open letters on the genocidal Israeli war against Palestinian sent to The Press for publication that have been ignored in the continued Aotearoa New Zealand media silence over 11 months of atrocities.

    Both letters have been sent to the Christchurch morning daily newspaper by the co-presenter of the Plains FM radio programme Earthwise, Lois Griffiths.

    The first letter, had been “sent . . .  in time for it to be published on 29 August 2024. the anniversary of the Palestinian political cartoonist Naji al-Ali‘s murder”, Griffiths said.

    A protest boat aimed at breaking the illegal Israeli siege of Gaza, Handala, is named after a cartoon boy created by the cartoonist.

    On board the Handala, currently in the Mediterranean ready to break the siege with humanitarian aid for the Palestinians, are two New Zealand-Palestinian crew, Rana Hamida and Youssef Sammour.

    Yet even this fact doesn’t make the letter newsworthy enough for publication.

    Griffiths sent Naji al-Ali’s cartoon figure Handala with the letter to The Press. The open letter:

    Dear Editor,

    The situation in Gaza is so very very disturbing . . .  those poor people . . . those poor men, women and CHILDREN.

    How many readers are aware that 2 New Zealanders are on a boat that hopes to take aid to Gaza. Maybe the brave actions of those 2 Kiwis, joined by other international volunteers, of trying to break the siege of Gaza, will rally the rest of the world to finally stop looking away.

    Handala, the cartoon character
    Handala, the cartoon character . . . a symbol of Palestinian resistance. Image: Naji al-Ali

    They are on a very special boat, a boat with a name chosen to fit the occasion, the Handala.

    Handala is the name chosen by the Palestinian political cartoonist Naji al-Ali, for a cartoon refugee boy who stands with his back to the reader, in the corner of his political cartoons.

    Handala witnesses the suffering inflicted on his people.

    We have a book of al-Ali’s drawings, A Child in Palestine.

    Naji al-Ali was well-loved by the Palestinians for using his skills to share, with the world, stories of what the people had to endure.

    On 29 August 1987, the cartoonist died after being shot in London by an unknown assailant.

    Yet the memory of Naji al-Ali survives.

    The memory of Handala survives. He represents the Palestinian children. And the boat named Handala is sailing for the children of Gaza.

    Yours
    Lois Griffiths

    South Africa then, why not Israel now?
    In the other letter sent to The Press a week ago, Lois Griffiths, in time for the opening of the UN General Assembly on September 8, she urged the New Zealand government to call for the suspension of Israel.

    Not published, yet another example of New Zealand mainstream newspapers’ blind responses and hypocrisy over community views on the Gaza genocide?

    Dear Editor,

    Tuesday of this week, 08 September, is the date for the opening of UNGA, the UN General Assembly.

    In 1974, South Africa was suspended from the UN General Assembly after being successfully charged by the ICJ, International Court of Justice, of apartheid. This move isolated South Africa and was very effective in leading to the collapse of the apartheid regime.

    Now, the democratic regime of South Africa has taken a case to the ICJ [International Criminal Court] charging Israel with genocide. In an interim judgment, the ICJ has broadly supported South Africa’s case.

    The situation in Gaza is so vile now: the bombing, the targeting of residences, schools and hospitals, the lack of protection from disease, the huge numbers of bodies lying under rubble. And now, violence against the Palestinians in the West Bank is on the increase.

    Where is humanity? What does it mean to be human?

    A step that would certainly help to slow down the genocide, would be for Israel to be suspended from the UN General Assembly.

    Please New Zealand. Call for the suspension of Israel from the UNGA.

    NOW!!

    Yours,
    Lois Griffiths

    Palestinian resistance artwork on the humanitarian boat Handala
    Palestinian resistance artwork on the humanitarian boat Handala . . . hoping to break the Gaza blockade. Image: Screenshot PushPull

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Wet wipe Mel Stride binned from Tory leadership race. So, here are his greatest (!) hits.

    You’d perhaps be mistaken for thinking the big political stories of recent days came from the Labour Party. Whilst Keir Starmer attempted to blow smoke up the TUC’s arse and many of Labour were showing they had no backbone and so were going to let pensioners freeze to death were sad, nothing came close to the tragedy that struck the Conservative Party. Over in the Tory leadership battle, a valiant hero fell as none other than this columnist’s favourite, Mel Stride, was the latest to be knocked out of the race.

    HAHAHAHA THE WET WIPE GOT BINNED

    Sorry for worrying you all there, as a long-time hater of Mel Stride this was of course the best news of my life.

    The dangerous little wet wipe has had his hopes of ruling the Tory party dashed, as he got just 16 votes in this round. While that might seem small that’s only because there are gloriously barely any Tory MPs left. The winner in that round Robert Jenrick only got 33 votes.

    So in honour of our fave little wet wipe’s departure, here’s a best bits round up. If you want Mel, you can imagine this is a Strictly montage as you’ll unfortunately still have to warm the opposition benches and can’t pursue your real dream of media luvvie a la Balls just yet.

    Stab-vest-o-clock

    Although Mel was made DWP chief wet wipe in October 2022, I first became aware of his true absurdity when he donned a stab vest in May 2023. This was during that truly incredible time when the then-minister for disabled people Tom Pursglove was cutting about like the shittest Liam Neeson ever, and filming dawn benefits raids. Not one to miss out on some public humiliation, Mel Stride had to get in on the action.

    Soundtracked by seemingly those video piracy ads from the 00s, and interspersed with flashy images of police dogs, Stride told criminals “DON’T” like some disappointed deputy headteacher. He told the Sun he had “the determination of Ted Hastings” and that “Sun readers don’t expect our benefits system to be abused”:

    Mel Stride

    Yeahhh but Sun readers also believed Freddie Starr ate someone’s hamster, so it’s not a high bar.

    WCA cruelty from Mel Stride

    One of the cruellest things Mel Stride is responsible for is the truly callous proposed changes to the work capability assessment. The changes would see 440,000 people lose their benefits as they could be deemed fit for work despite previously being told they had limited capability for work.

    Stride aimed to fix this in two ways: the first not allowing doctors to write sick notes anymore because they were apparently too close to their patients. Which is hilarious when GP appointments are like gold dust around here.

    The even more bullshit solution was that apparently all disabled people can work from home. Last September he told the Commons:

    The Work Capability Assessment doesn’t reflect how someone with a disability or health condition might be able to work from home, yet we know many disabled people do just that.

    However he of course cherry-picked these answers.

    20% of people in the ESA Support Group or on the Universal Credit LCWA element said they “would like to work at some point in the future”. This however ignored the 80% who said they wouldn’t or couldn’t. There was also the fact that just 4% of people said they felt they would be able to work now if the right job and the right support were available. But those are just semantics to an evil bastard like Stride.

    Truly disgusting rhetoric

    Speaking of being disgusting to disabled people, Mel Stride is responsible for some of the worst rhetoric about us in a long time. He particularly took aim at people with mental health conditions who he thought were all just being softies

    sometimes everyday anxieties are being labelled as medical problems, and that isn’t right

    You mean like the anxieties of having your benefits taken away and starving to death? There were also bizarre claims at one point about curing long-term conditions.

    But his worst words were saved for unemployed disabled people. In his regular Telegraph column he was responsible for headlines such as “Epidemic of long-term sick leave is stifling the economy” and let’s not forget how much he furthered the media’s love of calling us all shirkers.

    Whatever the fuck happened with PIP and vouchers

    His most batshit and scariest time at the DWP was when he was just throwing ideas about for PIP and going with whatever stuck. The worst of these was the idea that disabled people on PIP don’t actually need money. No, they could survive on vouchers or invoice the department.

    Only someone who has never relied on benefits would suggest vouchers when many disabled people use PIP to pay their bills and buy food. But you’ve got to be horrifically conceited about how well your department is being run if you think the DWP could handle thousands of invoices a week.

    The car crash of Mel Stride’s WorkWell

    As part of the Tory re-election campaign, Mel Stride starred in a truly horrific video where he declared:

    Join me on the road for the next generation of welfare reforms. We’ll be making a few stops along the way!

    Hilariously this came the week after I’d started a column with “all aboard the hating disabled people bus” and it seemed Mel had completely stolen my work. Where I’d said the first stop taking away sicknotes he went “full throttle” towards a little fit notes layby.

    WorkWell itself was a proposed four sessions of physio and a meeting with a counsellor, but it’s not worse than Labour’s plan to put work coaches in therapists’ offices.

    Telling the world he cares but too chicken to face disabled people

    During his tenure, Mel Stride had plenty of chance to engage with disabled people, but that would of course mean having to hear how dangerous his plans were – and quite frankly he didn’t care about that.

    The Disability Action Plan (DAP) and National Disability Strategy (NDS) both went down like lead balloons, mainly because they do fuck all to actually help us, but particularly because there was no engagement with disability action groups. The DAP which focussed on the short-term cared more about playgrounds and the Special Olympics than tangible things to support us.

    Meanwhile, the government were taken to court by disabled activists over the NDS and it was found unlawful as it hadn’t sought to consult disabled people fully or give us long enough to complete the consultation.

    Then there’s the fact that when the government were given the opportunity to prove what they were really doing for disabled people in front of the UN, Mel decided he couldn’t be bothered. This is despite the fact he was in Paris the day before, one of the stopovers on the way to Geneva.

    The Great Wet Wipe Media Tour of Summer 2024

    Before Brat Summer was a twinkle in Charli XCX’s eye, Mel Stride was having what my best friend dubbed as his own Twat Summer all over our TVs and radios. While everyone else deserted the Tory Party, Stridey boy was there front and centre.

    In one morning alone at the end of June he showed up at Times Radio, GB News, Sky News, and BBC Breakfast, BBC Radio 4, LBC, and GMB (Heyyyy Macarena).

    His incredible gaffs along the way on his media tour included telling Nick Ferrari “It isn’t for me to start announcing policy on the hoof”, having to attempt to defend the batshit national service “plan” and trying to turn the nation against Martin Lewis. He also thought he was clever naming Starmer “no idea Keir” and incredibly saying that PPE was inevitable.

    Back off into irrelevancy for you Mel Stride

    Unfortunately for Mel Stride, whilst he lost the leadership race theres no Strictly sambaing off into the sunset yet. While his party went down in flames he won his seat again by a whopping 61 votes, so he’ll be stuck pretending to oppose Starmer and Kendall’s Tory-red plans for the next four years. Who knows mate, maybe one day you’ll be a Pointless answer, I’d make a joke here about you already being pointless but it’s really too easy.

    But I’ll leave you all with possibly my favourite thing that has ever happened to Stride, and this time I mean this sincerely. If you haven’t seen this already, I present to you, the General Erection

    Feature image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Protesters mobilise to greet Australia’s ‘Land Forces’ merchants of death

    COMMENTARY: By Binoy Kampmark in Melbourne

    Between tomorrow and Friday, the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre (MCEC) will host a weapons bazaar that ought to be called “The Merchants of Death”.

    The times for these merchants are positively bullish, given that total global military expenditure exceeded US$2.4 trillion last year, an increase of 6.8 percent in real terms from 2022.

    The introductory note to the event is mildly innocuous:

    “The Land Forces 2024 International Land Defence Exposition is the premier platform for interaction between defence, industry and government of all levels, to meet, to do business and discuss the opportunities and challenges facing the global land defence markets.”

    The website goes on to describe the Land Defence Exposition as “the premier gateway to the land defence markets of Australia and the region, and a platform for interaction with major prime contractors from the United States and Europe”.

    At the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre in 2022, the event attracted 20,000 attendees, 810 “exhibitor organisations” from 25 countries, and ran 40 conferences, symposia and presentations.

    From 30 nations, came 159 defence, government, industry and scientific delegations.

    Land Forces 2024 is instructive as to how the military-industrial complex manifests. Featured background reading for the event involves, for instance, news about cultivating budding militarists.

    Where better to start than in school?

    School military ‘pathways’
    From August 6, much approval is shown for the $5.1 million Federation Funding Agreement between the Australian government and the state governments of South Australia and West Australia to deliver “the Schools Pathways Programme (SPP)” as part of the Australian government’s Defence Industry Development Strategy.

    The programme offers school children a chance to taste the pungent trimmings of industrial militarism — visits to military facilities, “project-based learning” and presentations.

    Rather cynically, the SPP co-opts the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) aspect of government policy, carving up a direct link between school study and the defence industry.

    “We need more young Australians studying STEM subjects in schools and developing skills for our future workforce,” insisted Education Minister Jason Clare. It is hard to disagree with that, but why weapons?

    There is much discontent about the Land Forces exposition.

    Victorian Greens MP Ellen Sandell and federal MP for Melbourne Adam Bandt wrote to Premier Jacinta Allan asking her to call off the arms event.

    The party noted that such companies as Elbit Systems “and others that are currently fuelling . . . Israel’s genocide in Palestine, where 40,000 people have now been killed — will showcase and sell their products there”.

    Demands on Israel dismissed
    Allan icily dismissed such demands.

    Disrupt Land Forces, which boasts 50 different activist collectives, has been preparing.

    Defence Connect reported as early as June 4 that groups, including Wage Peace — Disrupt War and Whistleblowers, Activists and Communities Alliance, were planning to rally against the Land Force exposition.

    The usual mix of carnival, activism and harrying have been planned over a week, with the goal of ultimately encircling the MCEC to halt proceedings.

    Ahead of the event, the Victorian Labor government, the event’s sponsor, has mobilised 1800 more police officers from the regional areas.

    Victorian Police Minister Anthony Carbines did his best to set the mood.

    “If you are not going to abide by the law, if you’re not going to protest peacefully, if you’re not going to show respect and decency, then you’ll be met with the full force of the law.”

    Warmongering press outlets
    Let us hope the police observe those same standards.

    Warmongering press outlets, the Herald Sun being a stalwart, warn of the “risks” that “Australia’s protest capital” will again be “held hostage to disruption and confrontation”, given the diversion of police.

    Its August 15 editorial demonised the protesters, swallowing the optimistic incitements on the website of Disrupt Land Forces.

    The editorial noted the concerns of unnamed senior police fretting about “the potential chaos outside MCEC at South Wharf and across central Melbourne”, the context for police to mount “one of the biggest security operations since the anti-vaccine/anti-lockdown protests at the height of covid in 2021–21 or the World Economic Forum chaos in 2000”.

    Were it up to these editors, protesters would do better to stay at home and let the Victorian economy, arms and all, hum along.

    The merchants of death could then go about negotiating the mechanics of murder in broad daylight; Victoria’s government would get its blood fill; and Melbournians could turn a blind eye to what oils the mechanics of global conflict.

    The protests will, hopefully, shock the city into recognition that the arms trade is global, nefarious and indifferent as to the casualty count.

    Dr Binoy Kampmark lectures in global studies at RMIT University. This article was first published by Green Left and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Netanyahu and the Israeli protesters are on the same genocidal page

    COMMENTARY: By Belén Fernández

    In July 2014, shortly after the kickoff of Israel’s “Operation Protective Edge” in the Gaza Strip — a 51-day affair that ultimately killed 2251 Palestinians, including 551 children — Danish journalist Nikolaj Krak penned a dispatch from Israel for the Copenhagen-based Kristeligt Dagblad newspaper.

    Describing the scene on a hill on the outskirts of the Israeli city of Sderot near the Gaza border, Krak noted that the area had been “transformed into something that most closely resembles the front row of a reality war theatre”.

    Israelis had “dragged camping chairs and sofas” to the hilltop, where some spectators sat “with crackling bags of popcorn”, while others partook of hookahs and cheerful banter.

    Fiery, earth-shaking air strikes on Gaza across the way were met with cheers and “solid applause”.

    To be sure, Israelis have always enjoyed a good murderous spectacle — which is hardly surprising for a nation whose very existence is predicated on mass slaughter. But as it turns out, the applause is not quite so solid when Israeli lives are caught up in the explosive apocalyptic display.

    For the past 11 months, Israel’s “reality war theatre” has offered a view of all-out genocide in the Gaza Strip, where the official death toll has reached nearly 41,000.

    A July Lancet study found that the true number of deaths may well top 186,000 — and that is only if the killing ends soon.

    Protests for hostage deal
    Now, massive protests have broken out across Israel demanding that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu enact a ceasefire and hostage deal to free the remaining 100 or so Israeli captives held in Gaza.

    Last week, when the Israeli military recovered the bodies of six captives, CNN reported that some 700,000 protesters had taken to the streets across the country. And on Monday, a general strike spearheaded by Israel’s primary labour union succeeded in shutting much of the economy down for several hours.

    Although certain wannabe peaceniks among the international commentariat have blindly attributed the protests to a desire to end the bloodshed, the fact of the matter is that Palestinian blood is not high on the list of concerns.

    Rather, the only lives that matter in the besieged, pulverised, and genocide-stricken Gaza Strip are the lives of the captives — whose captivity, it bears underscoring, is entirely a result of Israeli policy and Israel’s unceasing sadistic treatment of Palestinians.

    As Israeli analyst Nimrod Flaschenberg recently commented to Al Jazeera regarding the aims of the current protests, “the issue of returning the hostages is centre stage”.

    Acknowledging that “an understanding that a deal would also mean an end to the conflict is there, but rarely stated”, Flaschenberg emphasised that “as far as the protests’ leadership goes, no, it’s all about the hostages”.

    The captives, then, have assumed centre stage in Israel’s latest bout of blood-soaked war theatrics, while for some Israelis the present genocide is evidently not nearly genocidal enough.

    Press a button for ‘wipe out’
    During a recent episode of the popular English-language Israeli podcast “Two Nice Jewish Boys”, the podcasting duo in question suggested that it would be cool to just press a button and wipe out “every single living being in Gaza” as well as in the West Bank.

    Time to break out the popcorn and hookahs.

    At the end of the day, the disproportionate value assigned to the lives of the Israeli captives in Gaza vis-à-vis the lives of the Palestinians who are being annihilated is of a piece with Israel’s trademark chauvinism.

    This outlook casts Israelis as the perennial victims of Palestinian “terrorism” even as Palestinians are consistently massacred at astronomically higher rates by the Israeli military.

    During Operation Protective Edge in 2014, for example, no more than six Israeli civilians were killed. And yet Israel maintained its monopoly on victimisation.

    In June of this year, the Israeli army undertook a rescue operation in Gaza that freed four captives but reportedly killed 210 Palestinians in the process — no doubt par for the disproportionate course.

    Meanwhile, following the recovery of the bodies of the six captives last week, Netanyahu blamed Hamas for their demise, declaring: “Whoever murders hostages doesn’t want a deal.”

    General consensus over Israeli life
    But what about “whoever” continues to preside over a genocide while assassinating the top ceasefire negotiator for Hamas and sabotaging prospects for a deal at every turn?

    As the protests now demonstrate, many Israelis are on to Netanyahu. But the issue with the protests is that genocide is not the issue.

    Even among Netanyahu’s detractors, there persists a general consensus as to the unilateral sacrosanctity of Israeli life, which translates into the assumption of an inalienable right to slaughter Palestinians.

    And as the latest episode of Israel’s “reality war theatre” drags on — with related Israeli killing sprees available for viewing in the West Bank and Lebanon, too — this show is really getting old.

    One would hope Israeli audiences will eventually tire of it all and walk out, but for the time being bloodbaths are a guaranteed blockbuster.

    Belén Fernández is the author of Inside Siglo XXI: Locked Up in Mexico’s Largest Immigration Detention Center (OR Books, 2022), Checkpoint Zipolite: Quarantine in a Small Place (OR Books, 2021), and Martyrs Never Die: Travels through South Lebanon (Warscapes, 2016). She writes for numerous publications and this article was first published by Al Jazeera.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.