Category: Russia

  •  Following on from its decision to donate widely banned cluster munitions to Ukraine the US is sending armor-piercing depleted uranium (DU) munitions to fight Russia. Indifferent to the poisonous effect of these weapons, the Justin Trudeau government has remained mum on Washington’s escalatory move.

    Depleted uranium (DU) is a by-product from the production of fuel used in atomic power stations. A heavy metal, DU is good for armor-piercing rounds.

    But it’s also toxic. Studies have linked DU munitions to cancer and birth defects. The US DU munitions will add to the growing health and ecological damage of the war.

    As the world’s second biggest producer of uranium, Canada is the source of a significant share of US uranium. Over the past two decades Canada has abstained on a series of UN resolutions concerning DU munitions. Backed by the vast majority of General Assembly members, the resolutions don’t even call for the abolition of DU, but only for transparency in their use to enable clean up.

    Canadian forces have supported the use of DU munitions. In the first Gulf War 4,000 Canadians fought alongside US forces that fired shells with DU, which probably increased the incidence of cancer and congenital disease for those nearby. Similarly, the Canadian air force was a major participant in the 1999 bombing of Serbia in which NATO jets dropped bombs containing DU, causing long term ecological damage.

    Alongside health and ecological concerns, the DU munitions donation escalates the conflict. Russian officials labelled the new US donations a “criminal act” and “indicator of inhumanity”. When the UK gave Ukraine DU-laced arms to use in Challenger 2 tanks, Russia cited the move to justify stationing tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.

    Ottawa has been a staunch proponent of NATO’s proxy war. At the recent G20 meeting in India Prime Minister Trudeau complained there wasn’t a stronger condemnation of Russia. Over the past year and a half Canada has given $2 billion in arms, promoted former Canadian soldiers fighting, trained thousands of Ukrainian troops and dispatched special forces to Ukraine. Ottawa has also provided significant intelligence assistance with the Communications Security Establishment even extending its cyber defence umbrella to Ukraine.

    While rarely raising peace negotiations, Trudeau has repeatedly said “Canada will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes”. Combined with NATO prodding Ukraine into a horrific counteroffensive, this effectively means prolonging the death and destruction, which could have been avoided if the US/NATO agreed not to expand to Ukraine. In a recent speech NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg all but said as much, noting “President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn’t sign that… So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.

    Notwithstanding Trudeau’s statements about “as long as it takes”, the government appears to be slowing down new arms announcements. The last one seems to have been five months ago on April 11. Maybe Canadian weapons stocks are running low or the government understands the public is souring on arms deliveries.

    On the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion the National Post reported on a poll that found “only 33 per cent believe Canada should provide more personnel to train Ukrainian soldiers and just 32 per cent believe more military equipment should be provided.” The numbers are remarkable considering that no one in the dominant media or Parliament is articulating this position. With Ukraine’s counteroffensive failing, opposition to arms donations has likely grown. And Kyiv’s increasingly desperate response to the failure is troubling even if understandable amidst Russian violence [the violence is not one-sided — DV ed]. Sending drones to hit targets in Moscow will have limited military benefit but is sure to harden Russian resolve, making compromise more difficult.

    Two columns in the Financial Times this month highlight the prevailing madness. “Ukraine cannot win against Russia now, but victory by 2025 is possible”, noted one headline while another stated “Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine would be a moral defeat.”

    Nineteen months into this horrendous war the usually sober minded establishment paper seems to believe a “moral” victory is sending depleted uranium, ensuring ever more immediate and long-term death and destruction.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Egypt, Vietnam and Indonesia among countries sending delegations to four-day DSEI at ExCeL

    Europe’s biggest ever arms fair got under way in London on Tuesday with record numbers expected to attend, boosted by interest from countries with controversial human rights records.

    Authoritarian Egypt and Vietnam are among those sending delegations, defence sources said, as well as Indonesia and India – all countries whose arms-buying strategies have been affected by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    Continue reading…

  • The Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 has been justified by Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “special military operation” with a few barbed purposes, among them cleaning the country’s stables of Nazis.  As with so many instances of history, it was not entirely untrue, though particularly convenient for Moscow.  At the core of many a nationalist movement beats a reactionary heart, and the trauma-strewn stretch that is Ukrainian history is no exception.

    A central figure in this drama remains Stepan Bandera, whose influence during the Second World War have etched him into the annals of Ukrainian history.  His appearance in the Russian rationale for invading Ukraine has given his spirit a historical exit clause, something akin to rehabilitation. This has been helped by the scant coverage, and knowledge of the man outside the feverish nationalist imaginings that continue to sustain him.

    Since his 1959 assassination, the subject of Bandera as one of the foremost Ukrainian nationalists has lacked any lengthy treatment.  Then came Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe’s door stop of a work in 2014, which charted the links between Bandera’s nationalist thought, various racially-minded sources such as Mykola Mikhnovs’kyi, who dreamed of a Ukraine cleansed of Russians, Poles, Magyars, Romanians and Jews, and the role of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which was founded in Vienna in 1929 by Yevhen Konovalets and Andriy Melnyk.

    Notwithstanding the cosmopolitan, multi-ethnic composition of the territories that would become modern Ukraine, the OUN specialised in the babble of homogenous identity and purity.  A hatred of Jews was more than casual: it was integral.  They were, to quote the waspish words of Yuri Lylianych in Rozbudova Natsii (Rebuilding the Nation), the official OUN journal, “an alien and many of them even a hostile element of the Ukrainian national organism.”

    For his part, Bandera, son of a nationalist Greek Catholic priest, was a zealot, self-tormentor and flagellator.  As head of the Ukrainian Nationalists, Bandera got busy, blooding himself with such terrorist attacks as the 1934 assassination of the Polish Minister of the Interior Bronisław Pieracki.  He was fortunate that his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, not that it stopped him from bellowing “Slava Ukrayiny!”

    Followers of Bandera came to be known as the Banderowzi.  During the second week after the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the Benderowzi, flushed with confidence, declared a Ukrainian state in Lemberg.  The occasion was celebrated a few days with a pogrom against Jews in the city.  It remains unclear, however, where the orders came from.  With the Germans finding Bandera’s followers a nuisance and ill-fitting to their program, they were reduced in importance to the level of police units and sent to Belarus.  On being transferred to Volhynia in Ukraine, many melted into the forests to form the future UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army).

    For its part, the OUN, aided by the good services of the Ukrainian citizenry, assisted the Third Reich slaughter 800,000 Jews in western Ukraine.  The UPA, as historian Jaroslav Hryzak writes, proceeded to fight all and sundry, be they units of the German Army, red partisans, the Polish underground army, and other Ukrainian nationalists.  Volhynia and Galicia were sites of frightful slaughter by the UPA, with the number of murdered Poles running upwards of 100,000.  One target remained enduring – at least for five years.  From 1944 to 1949, remnants of the UPA and OUN were fixated with the Soviets while continuing a campaign of terror against eastern Ukrainians transferred to Volhynia and Galicia as administrators or teachers, along with alleged informers and collaborators.

    Oddly enough, Bandera as a historically active figure played less of a direct role in the war as is sometimes thought, leaving the Banderowzi to work their violence in the shadow of his myth and influence.  From the Polish prison he was kept in, he escaped after the German invasion of Poland in September 1939.  In the summer of 1941, he anticipated a more direct role in the conflict as future Prowidnyk (leader) but was arrested by the Germans following the Lviv proclamation of a Ukrainian state On June 30, 1941.

    Prior to his arrest, however, he had drafted, with the aid of such deputies as Stepan Shukhevych, Stepan Lenkavs’kyi and Iaroslva Stes’ko, an internal party document ominously entitled, “The Struggle and Activities of the OUN in Wartime.”  In it, purification is cherished, one that will scrub Ukrainian territory of “Muscovites, Poles, and Jews” with a special focus on those protecting the Soviet regime.

    Following his arrest, Bandera spent time in Berlin.  From there, he had a stint as a political prisoner of the Reich Main Security Office (RSHA) in Sachsenhausen concentration camp.  His time in detention did little to quell the zeal of his followers, who went along their merry way butchering in the name of their cult leader.  After the war, he settled in Munich with his family, but was eventually identified by a KGB agent and murdered in 1959.

    Bandera offers a slice of historical loathing and reverence for a good number of parties: as a figure of the Holocaust, an opportunistic collaborator, a freedom fighter.  Even within Ukraine, the split between the reverential West and the loathing East remained.  In January 2010, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko declare Bandera a Hero of Ukraine.

    In 2020, Poland and Israel jointly rebuked the city government of Kyiv via its ambassadors for sporting banners connected with the nationalist figure.  Bandera’s portrait made an appearance on a municipal building at the conclusion of a January 1 march honouring the man’s 111th birthday, with hundreds of individuals in attendance.

    In their letter to the city state administration, ambassadors Bartosz Cichocki and Joel Lion of Poland and Israel respectively expressed their “great concern and sorrow… that Ukraine’s authorities of different levels: Lviv Oblast Council and the Kyiv City State Administration continue to cherish people and historical events, which has to be once and forever condemned.”

    The ambassadors also expressed concern to the Lviv Oblast for tolerating its celebration of a number of other figures: Andriy Melnyk, another Third Reich collaborator whose blood lust was less keen than that of Bandera’s followers; Ivan Lypa, “the Anti-Semite, Antipole and xenophobe writer,” along with his son, Yurii Lypa, “who wrote the racist theory of the Ukrainian Race.”

    The stubborn Bandera itch can manifest at any given moment.  In July 2022, the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, as it so happens another Andriy Melnyk, misjudged the mood by airing his views about Bandera.  He insisted that the nationalist figure had been needlessly libelled; he “was not a mass murderer of Jews and Poles” and nor was there evidence to suggest otherwise.   The same Melnyk had also accused the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz of being a “beleidigte Leberwurst” (offended liver sausage), a delightful term reserved for the thin-skinned.

    As ambassadors are usually expected to be vessels of government opinion, such conduct should have been revealing enough, though Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s decision to remove Melnyk from his Berlin post was put down to “a normal part of diplomatic practice.”  A likelier explanation lies in the furore the pro-Bandera remarks caused in the Israeli Embassy (“a distortion of the historical facts,” raged the official channel, not to mention belittling “the Holocaust and is an insult to those who were murdered by Bandera and his people) and Poland (“such an opinion and such words are absolutely unacceptable,” snapped the country’s Deputy Foreign Minister Marcin Przydacz).

    Despite his removal from the post, messages of regret and condolences flowed from a number of his German hosts, suggesting that the butcher-adoration-complex should be no barrier to respect in times of conflict.  “The fact that he did not always strike the diplomatic tone here is more than understandable in view of the incomprehensible war crimes and the suffering of the Ukrainian people,” reasoned the foreign policy spokesman of the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) parliamentary group, Roderich Kiesewetter.  Bandera would surely have approved the sentiment.

  • On 6 September 2023 the ISHR published its formidable overview of key issues at the upcoming, 54th session of the UN Human Rights Council (from 11 September – 13 October). I have extracted from it – as ussual [for 53rd see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/06/20/human-rights-defenders-issues-at-the-53rd-session-of-the-un-human-rights-council/], the issues most direclty affecting Human Rights defenders

    To stay up-to-date: Follow @ISHRglobal and #HRC54 on Twitter/X, and look out for their Human Rights Council Monitor.

    Thematic areas of interest

    Reprisals

    During the 54th session, Ghana, Fiji, Hungary, Ireland and Uruguay will present a draft resolution on cooperation with the UN. ISHR urges all States to support the adoption of a HRC resolution that strengthens the UN’s responses to reprisals.

    On 28 September, the Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights, Ilze Brands Kehris, will present the Secretary General’s annual Reprisals Report to the Council in her capacity as UN senior official on reprisals. States raising cases is an important aspect of seeking accountability and ending impunity for acts of reprisal and intimidation against defenders engaging with the UN. It can also send a powerful message of solidarity to defenders, supporting and sustaining their work in repressive environments.

    This year, ISHR launched a campaign regarding five cases. ISHR urges States to raise these cases in their statements:

    • Anexa Alfred Cunningham (Nicaragua), a Miskitu Indigenous leader, woman human rights defender, lawyer and expert on Indigenous peoples rights from Nicaragua, who has been denied entry back into her country since July 2022, when she participated in a session of a group of United Nations experts on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. States should demand that Anexa be permitted to return to her country, community and family and enabled to continue her work safely and without restriction.
    • Vanessa Mendoza (Andorra), a psychologist and the president of Associació Stop Violències, which focuses on gender-based violence, sexual and reproductive rights, and advocates for safe and legal abortion in Andorra. After engaging with CEDAW in 2019, Vanessa was charged with ‘slander with publicity’, ‘slander against the co-princes’ and ‘crimes against the prestige of the institutions’. She has been indicted for the alleged “crimes against the prestige of the institutions” involving a potentially heavy fine (up to 30,000 euros) and a criminal record if convicted. States should demand that the authorities in Andorra unconditionally drop all charges against Vanessa and amend laws which violate the rights to freedom of expression and association.
    • Kadar Abdi Ibrahim (Djibouti) is a human rights defender and journalist from Djibouti. He is also the Secretary-General of the political party Movement for Democracy and Freedom (MoDEL). Days after returning from Geneva, where Kadar carried out advocacy activities ahead of Djibouti’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR), intelligence service agents raided his house and confiscated his passport. He has thus been banned from travel for five years. States should call on the authorities in Djibouti to lift the travel ban and return Kadar’s passport immediately and unconditionally.
    • Hong Kong civil society (Hong Kong): Until 2020, civil society in Hong Kong was vibrant and had engaged consistently and constructively with the UN. This engagement came to a screeching halt after the imposition by Beijing of the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL), which entered into force on 1 July 2020. States should urge the Hong Kong authorities to repeal the offensive National Security Law and desist from criminalizing cooperation with the UN and other work to defend human rights.
    • Maryam al-Balushi and Amina al-Abduli (United Arab Emirates), Amina Al-Abdouli used to work as a school teacher. She was advocating for the Arab Spring and the Syrian uprising. She is a mother of five. Maryam Al Balushi was a student at the College of Technology. They were arrested for their human rights work, and held in incommunicado detention, tortured and forced into self-incriminatory confessions. After the UN Special Procedures mandate holders sent a letter to the UAE authorities raising concerns about their torture and ill treatment in detention in 2019, the UAE charged Amina and Maryam with three additional crimes. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found their detention arbitrary and a clear case of reprisals for communicating with Special Procedures. In April 2021, a court sentenced them to three additional years of prison for “publishing false information that disturbs the public order”. States should demand that authorities in the UAE immediately and unconditionally release Maryam and Amina and provide them with reparations for their arbitrary detention and ill-treatment.

    Other thematic debates

    At this 54th session, the Council will discuss a range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and issues through dedicated debates with the:

    1. Special Rapporteur on truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence
    2. Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences
    3. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
    4. Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
    5. Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and waste
    6. ID on HC oral update on drivers, root causes and human rights impacts of religious hatred constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence

    In addition, the Council will hold dedicated debates on the rights of specific groups including with the:

    1. Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons
    2. Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

    Country-specific developments

    Afghanistan

    The Council will hold an Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan on 11 September, and on the OHCHR report on Afghanistan on 12 September, and will consider a resolution on the human rights situation in Afghanistan at this session.

    ISHR supports the call of Afghan human rights defenders to the Council to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan. We also support the call to establish a parallel independent investigative mechanism in the upcoming September session and to ensure meaningful follow up to the joint report of the Special Rapporteur and the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls, as well as continuation of a dedicated discussion at the Council on the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan. Accountability for widespread human rights violations, including gender apartheid and other crimes against humanity, is imperative to securing sustainable peace and development in the country.

    Algeria

    We urge States to demand that Algeria, a Council member, end its crackdown on human rights defenders and civil society organisations, amend laws aimed at silencing peaceful dissent and stifling civil society, and immediately and unconditionally release arbitrarily detained human rights defenders and activists, including in the interactive dialogue with the Working Group on arbitrary detention. Since the beginning of the Hirak pro-democracy movement, the Working Group has issued at least 6 decisions of arbitrary detention, highlighting Algerian legislation that is inconsistent with international law, violations of due process and the right to a fair trial, as well as violations to the right to freedom of expression, discrimination based on language, ethnicity and religion. They have also condemned Algeria’s abuse of counter-terrorism legislation. States should call on Algeria to implement the recommendations of the working group.

    We also urge States to address the case of reprisals against HRDs Kaddour Chouicha and Jamila Loukil, members of the Algerian League for the Defence of Human Rights (LADDH) before its dissolution by the Algerian authorities. They were prevented from traveling to attend the pre-session organized by UPR-info, a clear case of reprisals against human rights defenders attempting to cooperate with the UPR. Chouicha, Loukil and other HRDs are charged in a criminal case, which includes ‘enrollment in a terrorist or subversive organization active abroad or in Algeria’. They are still awaiting trial as the authorities postponed their court session on 15 June 2023. If convicted of these charges, they face up to twenty years imprisonment.

    Bahrain

    Civil society organisations, including ISHR, have requested States to urge Bahraini authorities to unconditionally release all those sentenced for their political opinions, including human rights defenders Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja and Abduljalil Al-Singace, and in the meantime, to ensure that they are provided with life-saving medical care to prevent an imminent tragedy. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/08/20/500-bahraini-prisoners-on-hunger-strike-over-conditions/]

    Burundi

    The Council will hold an Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Burundi on 22 September. As serious human rights violations persist in Burundi and the Government has failed to hold per­petrators accountable or take the concerns raised by Burundian and international actors seriously, the Coun­cil should not relax its scrutiny. The Council should extend the Special Rapporteur’s mandate for a further year.

    China

    31 August marked one year since the release of the groundbreaking OHCHR report finding possible crimes against humanity committed by the Chinese government in Xinjiang. This Council session also marks one year since the failure of the Council, and most of its Council Members, to stand by principle against Beijing’s coercion and promote a dialogue on the human rights of Uyghurs. Since that time, the recommendations of the OHCHR’s report have been echoed by the CERD in its Urgent Action decision on Xinjiang, by the CESCR and CEDAW in their respective Concluding Observations, and by 15 Special Procedures mandates in their seven benchmarks on Xinjiang. Yet, in a surprise visit to the region in August, President Xi Jinping reiterated its hardline policy and called for further efforts to ensure ‘social stability’ and ‘control illegal religious activities’. States should take collective action to urge China to implement key recommendations from the OHCHR Xinjiang report, and from relevant UN Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures, with a focus on root causes of violations that commonly affect Uyghurs, Tibetans, Hong Kongers and mainland Chinese human rights defenders, including the abuse of national security laws and measures.

    States should further ask for the prompt release of human rights defenders targeted by the Chinese government’s renewed crackdown on human rights lawyers, including lawyer Lu Siwei at risk of refoulement from Laos, activists Chang Weiping, Ding Jiaxi and Xu Zhiyong, recently convicted to lengthy prison sentences, as well as Yu Wensheng and Xu Yan, detained en route to meet with EU diplomats in Beijing. Ten years after the detention, and subsequent death in custody, of woman human rights defender Cao Shunli on her way to attend China’s UPR in Geneva, the Council must also pierce the veil of impunity for egregious cases of reprisals, and call on China to acknowledge its responsibility, bring perpetrators to justice and provide adequate remedy. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/09/05/human-rights-lawyer-gao-zhisheng-and-the-practice-of-enforced-disappearances-joint-letter/]

    Egypt

    Recent arrests and arbitrary detention of several media figures, dissidents and their family members in Egypt are indicative of the ongoing crackdown on basic freedoms and liberties in the country, and reflect a lack of genuine political will to improve the human rights situation by the Egyptian government. In the last ten years, Egyptian human rights organisations have recorded the enforced disappearance of no less than 3,000 citizens for varying periods of time, death by mistreatment and medical negligence of at least 1,200 people in detention centers, the sexual assault of at least 655 people and their family members, and the extrajudicial killing of more than 750 people. The continued silence on Egypt by States at the Council will only encourage further violations. NGOs continue to urge States to ensure appropriate action on Egypt at the Council though the establishment of a monitoring and reporting mechanisms on the human rights crises in the country. As an immediate step, States should deliver a follow-up joint statement condemning the human rights situation in the country and calling on the Egyptian government to refrain from continuing to carry out wide-spread human rights violations.

    Israel/OPT

    While Israel rejected all the recommendations on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and refugee return made by states during its UPR review, States should reiterate their commitment to putting an end to 75 years of denial of the Palestinian’s people inalienable rights to return and self-determination.

    During HRC 53, civil society welcomed the resolution put forward by the OIC to ensure the full implementation of the United Nations database of businesses involved in Israeli’s settlement enterprise in the occupied Palestinian territory. States must ensure that the mandate is implemented in full as it represents a question of credibility to the Council, including by ensuring that the budget adopted in the fifth committee of the General Assembly later this year is in line with the programme budget implications (PBI). 

    Russia

    The Council will hold an Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Russian Federation on 21 September. The Council will also be called upon to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur (HRC Resolution 51/25). ISHR strongly supports the renewal of the mandate and urges States to oppose Russia’s candidacy to the Human Rights Council.

    The human rights situation in Russia continues to deteriorate, while Russia also continues to perpetrate atrocity crimes in Ukraine In recent months, Russia has enacted laws providing immunity against war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the ‘State’s interests’, intensified its assault against LGBT persons, adopted further measures to repress civil society and silence independent journalists, and continued to arbitrarily imprison human rights defenders. Of further and direct relevance to the Council, Russia adopted a new law on 28 April 2023 which criminalises assistance, cooperation or confidential communications with international bodies, which may include the HRC and its mechanisms. These regressive developments, and the lack of any improvement in the human rights situation in the country, clearly warrant the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.

    With respect to Russia’s candidacy for the Council, ISHR only campaigns against countries based on strict and objective criteria. Russia manifestly fulfils all of these criteria, being a country: (1) responsible for a pattern of reprisals against those who cooperate with the UN; (2) responsible for the repression of civil society (Russia is ranked as ‘closed’ (scoring 17/100 in the Civicus Monitor); and (3) directly responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine according to the HRC-mandated CoI. On ISHR’s HRC candidate scorecards, Russia scores just 1/20 on objective criteria.

    Saudi Arabia

    In light of the ongoing diplomatic rehabilitation of crown prince and de facto ruler Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi authorities’ brazen repression continues to intensify. Some notable recent trends as documented by ALQST include, but are not limited to: the further harsh sentencing against individuals for peaceful social media use, including a death sentence issued against a man for tweets, the prosecution of women such as Manahel al-Otaibi over her choice of clothing and support for women’s rights, the ongoing forcible disappearance of prisoners of conscience including Mohammed al-Qahtani [see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/78383825-0b3f-4bca-883a-b81e1baecd09]and Essa al-Nukheifi beyond the expiry of their sentences, and; regressive developments in relation to the death penalty, including a surge in executions (95 individuals were executed in 2023 so far), and several young men at imminent risk of execution for crimes they allegedly committed as minors. Human Rights Watch has documented the brutal massacre of migrants at the Yemen border, in what may amount to further crimes against humanity. ISHR continues to call for States at the Council to adopt a resolution mandating an independent international monitoring and investigative mechanism on massive human rights violations perpetrated in and by Saudi Arabia.

    Sudan

    On 12 September, the Council will hold Interactive Dialogue on the High Commissioner’s oral update on Sudan.

    Sudanese Women Rights Action published a report “laying an overview of the conditions of women’s rights and gender equality in Sudan as an extended crisis started on October 25th, 2021, when the military took over the power in Sudan, ending the transitional period on a bloody note…the report presents verified information about the crises scope, context, and responses from a gender perspective based on the needs on the grounds, the challenges, and the recommended interventions according to local actors and women activists.” ISHR urges the implementation of  the recommendations identified by women activists including to “Pressure both fighting parties to commit to sustainable Ceasefire; Pressure the fighting parties to open humanitarian corridors; Provide urgent funding to the humanitarian aid interventions; Ensure protection and evacuation of women and WHRDs from fighting areas”. Ahead of HRC54, ISHR joined over 110 NGOs in reiterating a call on the Council to establish an independent investigative mechanism on Sudan with a mandate to investigate human rights violations and abuses in Sudan, collect and preserve evidence, and identify those responsible.

    Tunisia

    We regret that the Council failed to exercise its prevention mandate and address the deteriorating human rights situation in Tunisia during HRC 53, during which the High Commissioner and UN Special Procedures raised alarm at the escalating pattern of human rights violations and the rapidly worsening situation in Tunisia following President Kais Saied’s power grab on 25 July 2021. In the last two years in Tunisia there has been a significant erosion of the rule of law, attacks on the independence of the judiciary, reprisals against independent judges and lawyers and judges associations, a crackdown on peaceful political opposition and abusive use of “counter-terrorism” law in politicised prosecutions, as well as attacks on freedom of expression and threats to freedom of association.

    In an open letter against the “Memorandum of Understanding on a Strategic and Comprehensive Partnership between the European Union (EU) and Tunisia” and against the EU’s border externalisation policies, 379 researchers and members of civil society decried the use of vulnerable populations as scapegoats to mask the failures of public policy in Tunisia. While Tunisian authorities were persecuting Black African foreign nationals, including migrants, asylum seekers and refugees – deporting at least 1,200 sub-Saharan nationals to the borders with Libya and Algeria, in inaccessible and militarised desert zones, leaving them abandoned without water and food – the signing of the Memorandum effectively gave Tunisia “a blank check, following a strategy that is all the more irresponsible given its inefficacy”. Unless States tackle “the structural socio-economic causes of so-called irregular migration”, and radically rethink access to mobility, “this security approach to border management will only make crossings more deadly and strengthen smugglers”. Addressing these grave violations cannot be done without also urgently addressing the rule of law crisis in the country.

    Venezuela

    The UN’s fact-finding mission on Venezuela (FFM) will report to the Council on 25 and 26 September. The Mission will focus on the situation for human rights defenders in the country – an essential focus given the existing and proposed legislation adversely affecting civic space, and the threats and attacks HRDs face. The recent sentencing of 6 union leaders, denounced by UN Special Rapporteurs, is a clear example of the criminalisation of HRDs, as is the continued detention of the HRD Javier Tarazona, since July 2021, and that of many other real or perceived opposition figures. The continuing impunity in regard to the killing of defender Virgilio Trujillo Arana a year ago is an example of how little will exists to prevent attacks against HRDs.

    In its first report in 2020, the FFM stated that it had reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity had been carried out in Venezuela, with the principal targets of violations including social activists and political leaders at the forefront of protests. The recommendations made by the FFM at that time have not been implemented. We recall that Venezuela continues to refuse to engage with the FFM or allow it to enter the country.

    States must participate in the interactive dialogue with the FFM to highlight the essential role of HRDs; express utmost concern at the ongoing, systematic threats, attacks and restrictions against civic space, and urge the Venezuelan authorities to take immediate steps to implement the recommendations issued by the UN human rights system. States must speak out forcefully in support of the FFM and its work, and encourage other states to do the same. This vital accountability mandate must be supported and its recommendations echoed, so that victims of violations in the country can believe that one day justice will be done.

    Other country situations:

    The High Commissioner will provide an oral update to the Council on 11 September 2023. The Council will consider updates, reports and is expected to consider resolutions addressing a range of country situations, in some instances involving the renewal of the relevant expert mandates. These include:

    • Interactive Dialogue on the report of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar and Interactive Dialogue on the OHCHR report on Myanmar
    • Interactive Dialogue on the report of the High Commissioner on Nicaragua and oral update by the Group of Experts on Nicaragua
    • Interactive Dialogue on the report of the OHCHR on Sri Lanka
    • Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia
    • Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic
    • Interactive Dialogue on the interim oral update of the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights in Belarus
    • Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine and Interactive Dialogue on the High Commissioner oral update on Ukraine
    • Enhanced Interactive Dialogue on the report of the High Commissioner and experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo
    • Interactive Dialogue on the oral update of OHCHR on technical assistance and capacity-building for South Sudan
    • Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Cambodia and presentation of the Secretary-General’s report
    • Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on Somalia
    • Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on the Central African Republic
    • Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner on the interim report on Haiti
    • Presentation of the High Commissioner’s report on cooperation with Georgia
    • Presentation of the High Commissioner’s report on cooperation with Yemen

    Council programme, appointments and resolutions

    Appointment of mandate holders

    The President of the Human Rights Council has proposed candidates for the following mandates:

    1. Special Rapporteur on minority issues
    2. Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants
    3. Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism
    4. Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity
    5. Working Group on discrimination against women and girls, several members

    Resolutions to be presented to the Council’s 54th session

    At the organisational meeting on 28 August resolutions were announced (States leading the resolution in brackets):

    1. From rhetoric to reality: a global call for concrete action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (Africa Group)
    2. Technical assistance and capacity-building in the field of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Africa Group)
    3. Question of the death penalty (Benin, Belgium, Costa Rica, France, Mexico, Mongolia, Republic of Moldova, Switzerland)
    4. Special Rapporteur on truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence – mandate renewal (Argentina, Morocco, Switzerland)
    5. Human rights and Indigenous Peoples (Guatemala, Mexico)
    6. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan – mandate renewal (EU)   
    7. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burundi – mandate renewal (EU)
    8. Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances – mandate renewal (Argentina, France, Japan, Morocco)
    9. Implementation of the UN declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas (Bolivia)
    10. Technical assistance and capacity-building for Yemen in the field of human rights (Lebanon on behalf of the Arab Group)
    11. Special Rapporteur on Russia – mandate renewal (Luxembourg on behalf of 26 EU countries)
    12. Right to privacy in the digital age (Austria, Brazil, Germany, Liechtenstein, Mexico)
    13. A world of sports free from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (Brazil and Africa Group)
    14. Cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights (Fiji, Ghana, Hungary, Ireland, Uruguay)

    The core group on Sudan (Germany, Norway, UK, US) announced that they are considering presenting a resolution on Sudan at this session. The core group on Syria (Germany, France, Italy, Jordan, Netherlands, Qatar, Turkiye, UK, USA) also announced that they are considering presenting a resolution on the human rights situation in Syria.

    Read here the three year programme of work of the Council with supplementary information.

    Read here ISHR’s recommendations on the key issues that are or should be on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council in 2023.

    https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/hrc54-key-issues-on-agenda-of-september-2023-session/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The West is writing a script about its relations with China as stuffed full of misdirection as an Agatha Christie novel.

    In recent months, US and European officials have scurried to Beijing for so-called talks, as if the year were 1972 and Richard Nixon were in the White House.

    But there will be no dramatic, era-defining US-China pact this time. If relations are to change, it will be decisively for the worse.

    The West’s two-faced policy towards China was starkly illustrated last week by the visit to Beijing of Britain’s foreign secretary, James Cleverly – the first by a senior UK official for five years.

    While Cleverly talked vaguely afterwards about the importance of not “disengaging” from China and avoiding “mistrust and errors”, the British parliament did its best to undermine his message.

    The foreign affairs committee issued a report on UK policy in the Indo-Pacific that provocatively described the Chinese leadership as “a threat to the UK and its interests”.

    In terminology that broke with past diplomacy, the committee referred to Taiwan – a breakaway island that Beijing insists must one day be “reunified” with China – as an “independent country”. Only 13 states recognise Taiwan’s independence.

    The committee urged the British government to pressure its Nato allies into imposing sanctions on China.

    Upping the stakes

    The UK parliament is meddling recklessly in a far-off zone of confrontation with the potential for incendiary escalation against a nuclear power, a situation unrivalled outside of Ukraine.

    But Britain is far from alone. Last year, for the first time, Nato moved well out of its supposed sphere of influence – the North Atlantic – to declare Beijing a challenge to its “interests, security and values”.

    There can be little doubt that Washington is the moving force behind this escalation against China, a state posing no obvious military threat to the West.

    It has upped the stakes significantly by making its military presence felt ever more firmly in and around the Straits of Taiwan – the 100-mile wide waterway separating China from Taiwan that Beijing views as its doorstep.

    Senior US officials have been making noisy visits to Taiwan – not least, Nancy Pelosi last summer, when she was house speaker. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is showering Taiwan with weapons systems.

    If this weren’t enough to inflame China, Washington is drawing Beijing’s neighbours deeper into military alliances – such as Aukus and the Quad – to isolate China and leave it feeling threatened. The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, describes this as a policy of “comprehensive containment, encirclement and suppression against us”.

    Last month, President Biden hosted Japan and South Korea at Camp David, forging a trilateral security arrangement directed at what they called China’s “dangerous and aggressive behavior”.

    Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s “Pacific Defence Initiative” budget – chiefly intended to contain and encircle China – just keeps rising.

    In the latest move, revealed last week, the US is in talks with Manila to build a naval port in the northernmost Philippine islands, 125 miles from Taiwan, boosting “American access to strategically located islands facing Taiwan”.

    That will become the ninth Philippine base used by the US military, part of a network of some 450 operating in the South Pacific.

    Dirty double game

    So what’s going on? Is Britain – along with its Nato allies – interested in building greater trust with Beijing, as Cleverly argues, or backing Washington’s escalatory manoeuvres against a nuclear-armed China over a small territory on the other side of the globe, as the British parliament indicates?

    Inadvertently, the foreign affairs committee’s chair, Alicia Kearns, got to the heart of the matter. She accused the British government of having a “confidential, elusive China strategy”, one “buried deep in Whitehall, kept hidden even from senior ministers”.

    And not by accident.

    European leaders are torn. They fear losing access to Chinese goods and markets, plunging their economies deeper into recession after a cost-of-living crisis precipitated by the Ukraine war. But most are even more afraid of angering Washington, which is determined to isolate and contain China.

    That divide was highlighted by French President Emmanuel Macron following a visit to China in April, when he urged “strategic autonomy” for Europe towards Beijing.

    “Is it in our interest to accelerate [a crisis] on Taiwan? No. The worse thing would be to think that we Europeans must become followers on this topic and take our cue from the US agenda and a Chinese overreaction,” he said.

    Macron soon found himself roundly rebuked in Washington and European capitals.

    Instead, a dirty double game is being played. The West makes conciliatory noises towards Beijing, while its actions turn ever more belligerent.

    Cleverly himself alluded to this deceit, observing of relations with China: “If there is ever a situation where our security concerns are at odds with our economic concerns, our security concerns win out.”

    After Ukraine, we are told, Taiwan must be the locus of the West’s all-consuming security interest.

    Cleverly’s meaning is barely veiled: Europe’s clear economic interests in maintaining good relations with Beijing must be suborned to Washington’s more malevolent agenda, masquerading as Nato security interests.

    Forget Macron’s “autonomy”.

    Notably, this game of misdirection draws on the same blueprint that shaped the long build-up to the Ukraine war.

    Moscow cornered

    Western politicians and media repeat the preposterous claim that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was “unprovoked” only because they created a cover story beforehand, as they now do with China.

    I have set out in detail before how these provocations unfolded. Bit by bit, US administrations eroded Ukrainian neutrality and incorporated Russia’s large neighbour into the Nato fold. The intention was to covertly turn it into a forward base, capable of positioning nuclear-tipped missiles minutes from Moscow.

    Washington ignored warnings from its most senior officials and Russia experts that cornering Moscow would eventually provoke it into a pre-emptive strike against Ukraine. Why? Because, it seems, that was the goal all along.

    The invasion provided the pretext for the US to impose sanctions and wage its current proxy war, using Ukrainians as foot soldiers, to neutralise Russia militarily and economically – or “weaken” it, as the US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin explicitly terms Washington’s key aim in the Ukraine war.

    Moscow is seen as an obstacle, alongside China, to the US maintaining “full-spectrum global dominance” – a doctrine that came to the fore after the Soviet Union’s collapse three decades ago.

    Using Nato as sidekick, Washington is determined to keep the world unipolar at all costs. It is desperate to preserve its global, imperial military and economic might, even as its star wanes. In such circumstances, Europe’s options for Macron-style autonomy are non-existent.

    Peace talks charade

    The public’s continuing ignorance of Nato’s countless provocations against Russia is hardly surprising. Reference to them is all but taboo in Western media.

    Instead, the West’s belligerent manoeuvrings – as with those now against China – are overshadowed by a script that trumpets its faux-diplomacy, supposedly rebuffed by “madman” Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    This disingenuous narrative was typified by western double-dealing over accords signed in 2014 and 2015 in the Belarussian capital Minsk – after negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv to stop a bloody civil war in Ukraine’s eastern region of Donbass.

    There, Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and separatist Ukrainians of Russian origin began facing off in 2014, immediately after yet more covert meddling. Washington assisted in the overthrow of an elected Ukrainian government sympathetic to Moscow. In response, ethnic Russians demanded greater autonomy from Kyiv.

    The official story is that, far from inflaming conflict, the West sought to foster peace, with Germany and France brokering the Minsk accords.

    One can argue about why those agreements failed. But following Russia’s invasion, a disturbing new light was shed on their context by Angela Merkel, German chancellor at the time.

    She told Die Ziet newspaper last December that the 2014 Minsk agreement was less about achieving peace than “an attempt to give Ukraine time. It also used this time to get stronger, as you can see today… In early 2015, Putin could easily have overrun them [areas in Donbas] at the time. And I very much doubt that the Nato countries could have done as much then as they do now to help Ukraine.”

    If Russia could have overrun Ukraine at any time from 2014 onwards, why did it wait eight years, while its neighbour grew much stronger, assisted by the West?

    Assuming Merkel is being honest, Germany, it seems, never really believed the peace process it oversaw stood a chance. That suggests one of two possibilities.

    Either the initiative was a charade, brokered to buy more time for Ukraine to be integrated into Nato, a path that was bound to lead to Russia’s invasion – as Merkel herself acknowledges. Indeed, she accepts that Ukraine’s accession process into Nato launched in 2008 was “wrong”.

    Or Merkel knew that the US would work with Kyiv’s new pro-Washington government to disrupt the process. Europe could do little more than delay an inevitable war for as long as possible.

    Neither alternative fits the “unprovoked” narrative. Both suggest Merkel understood Moscow’s patience would eventually run out.

    The theatre of the Minsk accords was directed at Moscow, which delayed invading on the assumption the talks were in good faith, but also at western publics. When Russia did finally invade, they could be easily persuaded Putin never planned to embrace western “peace” overtures.

    Economic chokehold

    As with Ukraine, the cover story concealing the West’s provocations towards China has been carefully directed from Washington.

    Europeans like Cleverly are parading around Beijing to make it look like the West desires peaceful engagement. But the only real engagement is the crafting of a military noose around China’s neck, just as a noose was crafted earlier for Russia.

    The security rationale this time – of protecting far-off Taiwan – obscures Washington’s less palatable aim: to enforce US global dominance by smashing any economic or technological threat from China and Russia.

    Washington can’t remain military top dog if it doesn’t also maintain a chokehold on the global economy to fund its inflated Pentagon budget, equivalent to the combined spending of the next 10 nations.

    The dangers to Washington are only underscored by the rapid expansion of Brics, a bloc of emerging economic powers headed by China and Russia. Six new members will join the current five in January, with many more waiting in the wings.

    An expanded Brics offers new security and economic axes on which these emerging powers can organise, profoundly weakening US influence.

    The new entrants are Argentina, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. China already brokered an unexpected reconciliation between historic foes Iran and Saudia Arabia in March, in preparation for their accession.

    Brics+ will only strengthen their mutual interests.

    That will be no comfort in Washington. The US has long favoured keeping the two at loggerheads, in a divide-and-rule policy that rationalised its continuous meddling to control the oil-rich Middle East and favoured Washington’s key regional military ally, Israel.

    But Brics+ won’t just end the US role in dictating global security arrangements. It will gradually loosen Washington’s stranglehold on the global economy, ending the dollar’s dominance as the world reserve currency.

    Brics+ now controls a majority of the world’s energy supplies, and some 37 percent of global GDP, more than the US-led G7. Opportunities to trade in currencies other than the dollar become much easier.

    As Paul Craig Roberts, a former official in Ronald Reagan’s treasury, observed: “Declining use of the dollar means a declining supply of customers for US debt, which means pressure on the dollar’s exchange value and the prospect of rising inflation from rising prices of imports.”

    In short, a weak dollar is going to make bullying the rest of the world a considerably more difficult prospect.

    The US isn’t likely to go down without a fight. Which is why Ukrainians and Russians are currently dying on the battlefield. And why China and the rest of us have good reason to fear who may be next.

    • First published at Middle East Eye

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Biden administration is expected to send armor-piercing munitions containing depleted uranium to Ukraine as part of the latest military aid package, even though the weapons are radioactive and their use causes contamination that is hazardous to human health. It’s the latest escalation in the war between Ukraine and Russia that nonproliferation activists warn could possibly lead to a nuclear…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Biden administration will, for the first time, send controversial armor-piercing munitions containing depleted uranium to Ukraine, according to Reuters. The munition can be fired from U.S. Abrams tanks, which are expected to arrive in Ukraine in the coming weeks. The shells, which will come from U.S. excess inventory, would be funded by the Presidential Drawdown Authority…

    Source

  • Abdel Hadi el-Gazzar (Egypt), The Popular Chorus or Food or Comrades on the Theatre of Life, 1948 (post-dated 1951).

    On the last day of the BRICS summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, the five founding states (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) welcomed six new members: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The BRICS partnership now encompasses 47.3 percent of the world’s population, with a combined global Gross Domestic Product (by purchasing power parity, or PPP,) of 36.4 percent. In comparison, though the G7 states (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) account for merely 10 percent of the world’s population, their share of the global GDP (by PPP) is 30.4 percent. In 2021, the nations that today form the expanded BRICS group were responsible for 38.3 percent of global industrial output while their G7 counterparts accounted for 30.5 percent. All available indicators, including harvest production and the total volume of metal production, show the immense power of this new grouping.  Celso Amorim, advisor to the Brazilian government and one of the architects of BRICS during his former tenure as foreign minister, said of the new development that ‘[t]he world can no longer be dictated by the G7’.

    Certainly, the BRICS nations, for all their internal hierarchies and challenges, now represent a larger share of the global GDP than the G7, which continues to behave as the world’s executive body. Over forty countries expressed an interest in joining BRICS, although only twenty-three applied for membership before the South Africa meeting (including seven of the thirteen countries in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC). Indonesia, the world’s seventh largest country in terms of GDP (by PPP), withdrew its application to BRICS at the last moment but said it would consider joining later. Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo’s comments reflect the mood of the summit: ‘We must reject trade discrimination. Industrial downstreaming must not be hindered. We must all continue to voice equal and inclusive cooperation’.

    Tadesse Mesfin (Ethiopia), Pillars of Life: Waiting, 2018

    BRICS does not operate independently of new regional formations that aim to build platforms outside the grip of the West, such as the Community of Latin America and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Instead, BRICS membership has the potential to enhance regionalism for those already within these regional fora. Both sets of interregional bodies are leaning into a historical tide supported by important data, analysed by Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research using a range of widely available and reliable global databases. The facts are clear: the Global North’s percentage of world GDP fell from 57.3 percent in 1993 to 40.6 percent in 2022, with the US’s percentage shrinking from 19.7 percent to only 15.6 percent of global GDP (by PPP) in the same period – despite its monopoly privilege. In 2022, the Global South, without China, had a GDP (by PPP) greater than that of the Global North.

    The West, perhaps because of its rapid relative economic decline, is struggling to maintain its hegemony by driving a New Cold War against emergent states such as China. Perhaps the single best evidence of the racial, political, military, and economic plans of the Western powers can be summed up by a recent declaration of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the European Union (EU): ‘NATO and the EU play complementary, coherent and mutually reinforcing roles in supporting international peace and security. We will further mobilise the combined set of instruments at our disposal, be they political, economic, or military, to pursue our common objectives to the benefit of our one billion citizens’.

    Alia Ahmad (Saudi Arabia), Hameel – Morning Rain, 2022

    Why did BRICS welcome such a disparate group of countries, including two monarchies, into its fold? When asked to reflect on the character of the new full member states, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said, ‘What matters is not the person who governs but the importance of the country. We can’t deny the geopolitical importance of Iran and other countries that will join BRICS’. This is the measure of how the founding countries made the decision to expand their alliance. At the heart of BRICS’s growth are at least three issues: control over energy supplies and pathways, control over global financial and development systems, and control over institutions for peace and security.

    Houshang Pezeshknia (Iran), Khark, 1958

    A larger BRICS has now created a formidable energy group. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are also members of OPEC, which, with Russia, a key member of OPEC+, now accounts for 26.3 million barrels of oil per day, just below thirty percent of global daily oil production. Egypt, which is not an OPEC member, is nonetheless one of the largest African oil producers, with an output of 567,650 barrels per day. China’s role in brokering a deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia in April enabled the entry of both of these oil-producing countries into BRICS. The issue here is not just the production of oil, but the establishment of new global energy pathways.

    The Chinese-led Belt and Road Initiative has already created a web of oil and natural gas platforms around the Global South, integrated into the expansion of Khalifa Port and natural gas facilities at Fujairah and Ruwais in the UAE, alongside the development of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030. There is every expectation that the expanded BRICS will begin to coordinate its energy infrastructure outside of OPEC+, including the volumes of oil and natural gas that are drawn out of the earth. Tensions between Russia and Saudi Arabia over oil volumes have simmered this year as Russia exceeded its quota to compensate for Western sanctions placed on it due to the war in Ukraine. Now these two countries will have another forum, outside of OPEC+ and with China at the table, to build a common agenda on energy. Saudi Arabia plans to sell oil to China in renminbi (RMB), undermining the structure of the petrodollar system (China’s two other main oil providers, Iraq and Russia, already receive payment in RMB).

    Juan Del Prete (Argentina), The Embrace, 1937–1944

    Both the discussions at the BRICS summit and its final communiqué focused on the need to strengthen a financial and development architecture for the world that is not governed by the triumvirate of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Wall Street, and the US dollar. However, BRICS does not seek to circumvent established global trade and development institutions such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the World Bank, and the IMF. For instance, BRICS reaffirmed the importance of the ‘rules-based multilateral trading system with the World Trade Organisation at its core’ and called for ‘a robust Global Financial Safety Net with a quota-based and adequately resourced [IMF] at its centre’. Its proposals do not fundamentally break with the IMF or WTO; rather, they offer a dual pathway forward: first, for BRICS to exert more control and direction over these organisations, of which they are members but have been suborned to a Western agenda, and second, for BRICS states to realise their aspirations to build their own parallel institutions (such as the New Development Bank, or NDB). Saudi Arabia’s massive investment fund is worth close to $1 trillion, which could partially resource the NDB.

    BRICS’s agenda to improve ‘the stability, reliability, and fairness of the global financial architecture’ is mostly being carried forward by the ‘use of local currencies, alternative financial arrangements, and alternative payment systems’. The concept of ‘local currencies’ refers to the growing practice of states using their own currencies for cross-border trade rather than relying upon the dollar. Though approximately 150 currencies in the world are considered to be legal tender, cross-border payments almost always rely on the dollar (which, as of 2021, accounts for 40 percent of flows over the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, or SWIFT, network).

    Other currencies play a limited role, with the Chinese RMB comprising 2.5 percent of cross-border payments. However, the emergence of new global messaging platforms – such as China’s Cross-Border Payment Interbank System, India’s Unified Payments Interface, and Russia’s Financial Messaging System (SPFS) – as well as regional digital currency systems promise to increase the use of alternative currencies. For instance, cryptocurrency assets briefly provided a potential avenue for new trading systems before their asset valuations declined, and the expanded BRICS recently approved the establishment of a working group to study a BRICS reference currency.

    Following the expansion of BRICS, the NDB said that it will also expand its members and that, as its General Strategy, 2022–2026 notes, thirty percent of all of its financing will be in local currencies. As part of its framework for a new development system, its president, Dilma Rousseff, said that the NDB will not follow the IMF policy of imposing conditions on borrowing countries. ‘We repudiate any kind of conditionality’, Rousseff said. ‘Often a loan is given upon the condition that certain policies are carried out. We don’t do that. We respect the policies of each country’.

    Amir H. Fallah (Iran), I Want To Live, To Cry, To Survive, To Love, To Die, 2023

    In their communiqué, the BRICS nations write about the importance of ‘comprehensive reform of the UN, including its Security Council’. Currently, the UN Security Council has fifteen members, five of which are permanent (China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US). There are no permanent members from Africa, Latin America, or the most populous country in the world, India. To repair these inequities, BRICS offers its support to ‘the legitimate aspirations of emerging and developing countries from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, including Brazil, India, and South Africa to play a greater role in international affairs’. The West’s refusal to allow these countries a permanent seat at the UN Security Council has only strengthened their commitment to the BRICS process and to enhance their role in the G20.

    The entry of Ethiopia and Iran into BRICS shows how these large Global South states are reacting to the West’s sanctions policy against dozens of countries, including two founding BRICS members (China and Russia). The Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter – Venezuela’s initiative from 2019 – brings together twenty UN member states that are facing the brunt of illegal US sanctions, from Algeria to Zimbabwe. Many of these states attended the BRICS summit as invitees and are eager to join the expanded BRICS as full members.

    We are not living in a period of revolutions. Socialists always seek to advance democratic and progressive trends. As is often the case in history, the actions of a dying empire create common ground for its victims to look for new alternatives, no matter how embryonic and contradictory they are. The diversity of support for the expansion of BRICS is an indication of the growing loss of political hegemony of imperialism.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Russian invasion of Ukraine has had a devastating impact on the environment and global food market, particularly in Third World nations (also referred to as the Global South). Several instances of explosions in nuclear facilities, oil refineries and distribution pipelines have greatly contributed to the indiscriminate destruction of crops, agricultural land, and vital infrastructure in the region. Inevitably, such destruction has had an immediate impact on the people’s access to food supply in the North African and Middle Eastern countries that are dependent on the region for the same, leading to an impending food security crisis.

    The implications of such destruction is noteworthy due to the information presented by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (‘FAO’), which indicates that 26 countries rely on wheat imports from Russia and Ukraine to fulfil 50% of their wheat requirements. According to data published by the United Nations World Food Programme (‘WFP’), an estimated 6 million children in the Sahel region of Africa remain malnourished, while 16 million individuals residing in urban areas are on the verge of experiencing food insecurity. Moreover, the aforementioned development has elevated the probability of food insecurity within the borders of Russia, and has the potential to trigger a global surge in malnourishment and famine, thereby intensifying concerns for developing nations. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that African nations exhibit a significant dependence on Russia and Ukraine for the procurement of essential agricultural commodities, including wheat, maize, and sunflower seed oil. It is worth mentioning that the Middle East and North African regions alone account for 80% of the wheat export from these countries. India’s annual demand for crude sunflower oil is largely met by Ukraine and Russia, accounting for up to 90% of the supply. The adverse effects of war and drought in certain regions have led to a heightened dependence on imports, exacerbating the potential consequences. Furthermore, the pre-existing risk of food insecurity in these areas compounds the issue. It has caused the agricultural commodity markets to remain highly elevated, even after retreating from their record high in 2022.

    In this piece, we discuss that there is a need to establish a legal framework to account for Russia’s extraterritorial responsibility towards the Third World, to assess its violation of its obligation to protect the environment and its violation of the right to food. This framework must be compatible with a Third World Approach to International Law (‘TWAIL’)-centric analysis, as any such analysis would remain incomplete by simply focussing on the rights-rhetoric developed by the First World.

    Establishing Russia’s Extraterritorial Responsibility towards the Third World

    Russia has an Extraterritorial Obligation towards the Third World, which extends to countries that are not directly involved in the conflict. According to Article(s) 1 and 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (‘ICESCR’), the Right to Food has a transnational impact due to the Covenant’s emphasis on transnational cooperation, with no specific provisions on extraterritorial implementation. Further, Principles II-IV of the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Duties of States in the Field of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (‘ETO Principles’) emphasizes the territory is extended to places outside the State’s own territory if the ICESCR-rights can be influenced outside the state’s borders. According to the UN Committee on World Food Security’s Framework for Action for Food Security and Nutrition in Protracted Crises (‘FFA’), protracted crises may have international, regional, and trans-boundary aspects and impacts, including the presence of refugees. The UN General Assembly Resolution on the Right to Food emphasizes the extraterritorial commitment to respect and protect and urges States to ensure their political and economic actions do not impede the enjoyment of ICESCR rights in other States. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and the UN Committee on World Food Security have been actively publishing reports on the plight of Third World countries due to the lack of food supplies and resources.

    Russia has not fulfilled its extraterritorial commitment to provide help to foreign citizens, but indirect assistance is still needed. This has arisen due to its violation of its obligation to respect the right to food. In order to maintain its obligation to respect the right to food, Russia should have considered the effects of its actions on the global population (particularly in the Third World). This evaluation should have concluded that their actions would have calamitous consequences for global food security. Yet, the assaults were carried out, in violation of the universal extraterritorial obligation to respect (particularly in the Third World).

    Identifying a TWAIL-centric legal framework to analyse Russia’s Extraterritorial Responsibility towards the Third World

    Arguments for extraterritorial responsibility can be placed on Russia, but there is a less likelihood that Russia can be held accountable for its actions. To assess the damage to environment and food security caused by the conflict, it is necessary to identify a relevant standard to assess the damage. The Additional Protocol I (‘AP I’) to the Geneva Convention of 1977 mandates three conditions that must be satisfied during an armed conflict to trigger protection from environmental damage. This includes long-term, severe, and widespread damage to the natural environment by the chosen means of warfare. However, these conditions impose a very high threshold to establish environmental damage, as it only envisages damage towards a population for ten (10) years. In light of this, the Draft Principles on the Protection in Armed Conflict (‘DPPAC’) adopted by the International Law Commission is a more suitable framework to trigger environmental protection under the TWAIL analytical framework. It extends the obligation to protect the environment to all three stages of the armed conflict – before, during, and after. This brings the environmental law standard a step closer to the Third World, as the brunt of the impact, in this case, was borne by them.

    The UN Special Rapporteur Report on ‘Conflict and the Right to Food’ highlights the effects of armed conflict on discrimination, inequality, bodily harm, ecological violence, and erasure. This could lead to the gradual ‘invisibilisation’ of such people through a violation of their food sovereignty, leading to their gradual ‘erasure’. The Russian invasion has caused environmental damage that directly impacts the food chain of the Third World and its population. In furtherance to this, access to food would become exclusive to First World citizens in the Third World, creating two classes of people based on their ability to meet basic needs. A legal analysis using a TWAIL analytical framework is necessary to bring international law closer to the ‘people’. Narratives by the global media, actions by States, and enforcement of statutes and obligations by States and International Organizations need to be developed further to provide for an equal space to TWAIL and its related approaches.

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • New research has revealed that the European Union (EU) has raised its imports of Russian liquified natural gas (LNG) by 40% since it began its brutal invasion in Ukraine. Moreover, in the first seven months of 2023, EU countries ploughed €5.3bn into buying up over half the Russia’s total supply.

    Research and campaign nonprofit Global Witness produced the analysis. The organisation highlighted the hypocrisy of the soaring imports, which it said is “lining Putin’s pockets”.

    LNG from Russia

    Global Witness found that between January and July 2023, the EU has purchased 22 million cubic meters of LNG from Russia. LNG is a form of fossil gas that companies cool into liquid form for easier transportation.

    Notably, this was a 40% climb on EU imports of Russian LNG for the same period in 2021. By comparison, the campaign group stated that the global average jump in Russian LNG imports stood at 6%.

    On top of this, it pointed out that the EU is now buying up the bulk of Russia’s LNG. During the first seven months of 2023, the EU took 52% of Russia’s LNG exports. In the same period of 2022, this was 49%, and just 39% in 2021.

    Moreover, two European countries are top buyers of Russian LNG. Specifically, Spain and Belgium are now the second and third largest purchasers of Russian LNG, behind only China. In 2023, Spain bought 18% of Russia’s total LNG. Meanwhile, Belgium was hot on its heels with 17% of Russia’s LNG sales. China accounted for marginally more, at 20%.

    Gas from bloodshed in Ukraine

    Global Witness suggested that the imports make the EU complicit in Russia’s war on Ukraine. Senior fossil fuel campaigner Jonathan Noronha-Gant said that:

    every euro means more bloodshed. While European countries decry the war, they‘re putting money into Putin’s pockets.

    The organisation has estimated that Russia’s LNG exports were worth $21bn in 2022. Given that oil and gas made up 45% of Russia’s federal budget pre-invasion in 2021, its likely the industry is financing its violent assault on Ukraine.

    Global Witness also argued that the EU’s increase in Russian LNG exports showed that countries:

    are simply not moving fast enough to replace gas with renewables.

    In July, Climate Home News reported that the EU’s ambition for renewable energy deployment is woefully below what’s needed to meet global climate targets.

    Of course, Western nations have meanwhile continued to facilitate fossil fuel expansion. G7 nations, including European economic majors, have doubled down on public finance for LNG elsewhere.

    Fossil fuel profiteers of war

    Of course, European fossil fuel majors have been making a killing from Russian LNG while the country wages its deadly invasion. Global Witness highlighted that Anglo-Dutch Shell and French TotalEnergies have maintained trade in Russian LNG. In particular, the campaign group showed that Total is the largest non-Russian buyer of LNG, at nearly 4.2 million cubic meters in 2023 so far.

    Previous research from Global Witness in July revealed that Shell also likely raked in hundreds of millions of dollars in 2022 from Russian LNG. Its analysis identified that Shell had traded over 7.5 million cubic meters – 12% of Russia’s total LNG exports – between March and December 2022.

    Global Witness said that this:

    made Shell critical to a trade that brought Putin $21 billion in 2022.

    Moreover, the nonprofit articulated how the oil and gas giant had justified its continued trade in Russian LNG:

    under a pretext of ensuring Europe’s energy security.

    However, as the Canary has previously detailed, this is a key “shock doctrine” tactic. Fossil fuel companies have employed this to capitalise on disasters. Significantly, a report from Greenpeace in April documented the industry’s barefaced weaponisation of the invasion to lock Europe into greater LNG dependancy.

    Fossil fuels are war-mongering by design

    Of course, European government and corporations’ support for brutal military regimes is nothing new. The Canary has previously highlighted EU financing and supply of arms to Saudi Arabia. The repressive regime has been waging a violent invasion on Yemen. Naturally, fossil fuels sit at the heart of Western backing of the war.

    What’s more, not only has the EU increased its Russian LNG imports, it has also raised its share of fossil fuel imports from the violent Saudi regime. Since implementing sanctions, the EU’s share of diesel imports from Russia has plummeted. Whereas Russian diesel made up 53% of the Northwest Europe’s seaborne imports from October 2021 through September 2022, by February 2023, it was just 2%.

    Conversely, in February 2023, Northwest Europe increased its imports of diesel from Saudi Arabia to 202,000 barrels per day. This was up from an average of 68,000 per day between October 2021 and September 2022.

    Meanwhile, the Guardian and a group of nonprofits also exposed Western oil and gas companies’ coup money in February. They found that UK, US, and Irish gas firms had profited from Myanmar’s gas after its violent military coup.

    The trade in fossil fuels has long been war-mongering by design. As Declassified UK detailed, fossil fuel interests have been at the center of multiple Western-backed coups and invasions.

    If the devastating costs of the climate crisis weren’t already reason enough, fossil fuels’ major role in propping up murderous regimes should make the case for a just transition blatantly vital.

    Feature image via Chursaev13/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY 4.0

    By Hannah Sharland

  • After the closing of Memorial [see https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/12/29/russias-supreme-court-orders-closure-emblematic-memorial/], Deutsche Welle reported on 18 August 2023 that it was now the turn of the Sakharov Centre, the organization, dedicated to Nobel Peace Prize winning rights activist Andrei Sakharov [https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/B3C93212-FADC-4C30-B82A-3E5F2716F1D6] which was accused of illegally hosting conferences and exhibitions. It was created in Moscow almost three decades ago.

    The closure of the human rights group is seen as part of the Kremlin’s campaign to crack down on liberal-leaning organizations that challenge official narratives, including those about Moscow’s military campaign in Ukraine.

    Moscow City Court said in a statement that it had decided to liquidate the Sakharov Center at the request of the Justice Ministry for illegally hosting conferences and exhibitions.

    Since its creation in 1996, the group has hosted hundreds of debates, exhibitions and other events. In 2015, thousands of people gathered there to pay their last respects to opposition politician Boris Nemtsov, who was murdered near the Kremlin walls.

    Authorities declared the group a “foreign agent” in 2014 and this year ordered the eviction of the center from its premises.=

    On Thursday, authorities charged Grigory Melkonyants, the leader of Golos, a prominent independent election monitoring group, with being involved with an “undesirable” organization. He faces up to six years in prison.

    In January, a court also ordered the closure of Russia’s oldest human rights organisation, the Moscow Helsinki Group.

    Another rights group, Memorial, which established itself as a key pillar in civil society, was disbanded by Russian authorities in late 2021, just months before Putin sent troops to Ukraine.

    https://www.dw.com/en/russia-closes-human-rights-group-sakharov-center/a-66572098

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

  • The Italian theorist continues to offer important insights for organizers in the socialist lineage.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • Cosmopolitan — ‘world politics’, ‘world citizen’ — people of many races under a world empire. The word became a meme in the 1890s as British empire blossomed, supposedly the world now united around principles of the free market. Sounds cool. The market is the proven way to run economies. It is neutral, no favorites, harsh but just, making us work hard, the state ensuring people don’t cheat and undermine the sacred system. For if belief in all this wavers, the loss of faith in the market would spell doom for all, equally. We are equal before the law, and we can vote. That’s what democracy and freedom are all about, right?

    But is the apparent real?

    Statistics suggest there’s much more to all this. Income distribution has never been more skewed, clearly the result of four decades of neoliberalism. We’ve never been closer to world war (except in 1914 and 1939). Weren’t countries merrily trading in ‘free markets’ supposed to be peaceful? Reason and logic fail us.

    Peter Myers’ Cosmopolis is a collection of essays, available free at his website, which can be read independently, packed with quotes, reflecting on past conspiracies, critiquing the neoliberal plot for world hegemony today, its origins and its relation to Jewish, Freemason, Nazi, Bolshevik, capitalist ones. The main actors — Trotsky vs Stalin, HG Wells and Orwell, the pandemic, and the return of fascism/ Nazism as the conspirators push for their TINA moment in the Great Reset, culminating in the war in Ukraine.

    The star is HG Wells, who proposed a World State which he also called ‘Cosmopolis’. His ‘Open Conspiracy’, the world movement for the supercession or enlargement or fusion of existing political, economic, and social institutions … a movement aiming at the establishment of a world directorate” (Wells, Open Conspiracy, 1933, p. 32-3.)

    There are two main themes. The first centres around the role of Jews in the Russian revolution, how Stalin ‘stole’ ‘their’ evolution (Myers calls it ‘one of the great Denials of our time’1), and how that resulted in Israel and feminism-gay liberation as the new, post-Marx ‘revolution’. He shows that the new Cold War is between the atheistic, LGBT, ‘Trotskyoid’, ‘Cosmopolitan’ West, on the one hand, and a coalition of Christian Russia and Confucian China, both a hybrid socialist-capitalist authoritarian on the other.

    Myers’ other main theme is linking all suspicious recent events — assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, 9/11 + the anthrax letters, MH370, the World Economic Forum and the Great Reset — to deep state elite plans. The WEF ‘penetrates the cabinets’, ‘but for an unelected body to do so is undemocratic and subversive. It implies Oligarchic rule—for the greater good, of course, because most people are Deplorables. The Globalists are attempting to implement the World State advocated by HG Wells.’

    Myers draws from dozens of sources, many of which he unearthed himself and with the help of his strategically located readers, from the New York Public Library to the grave site of Stalin’s mother in Georgia. Part of the fun in reading this very readable work is following his sleuthing.

    His appendices including the smoking gun revelations of Morrow and Hunt on JFK are welcome reminders of how truly bizarre US politics is. They make the case of assassination as the CIA modus operandi for JFK, MLK, and RFK. Truman’s 1963 Oped to the New York Times calling for the CIA to be brought under control disappeared the moment it appeared. (Eisenhower made sure his message got out and stayed out by springing it on a nationally broadcast farewell speech in 1960.) RFK was killed for calling for an independent investigation of his brother’s death. Which brings us to the ultimate cloak and dagger, the blowing up of North stream. The CIA is alive and well and still out of control.

    Promised lands

    Myers, like Solzhenitsyn, is not afraid to analyze the role of Russian Jews in the Russian revolution from start to finish, with a short bumpy patch under Stalin. The details are fascinating. It’s finally time to access Soviet history through different lenses, and Myers is a good source for this. One tidbit: ‘Both Trotsky (Kronstadt, collectivization) and Stalin (gulags) lived by the sword and died by the sword.’ i.e. they were both assassinated.2

    It struck me that Israel is actually a slicker version of the Russian revolution from Lenin to Putin: a cosmopolitan ideological state, originally socialistic but quickly devolved into authoritarian capitalism, governed by a European elite as a police state oppressing non-Jews. BUT with a ‘heppi end’ for the Jews both in Russia and Israel. All but one of the Russian oligarchs are Jewish.

    Just stating this truth is heresy. The centrality of the Jewish tribe must be rigorously denied, a feat which we watch as laws are pushed even in the United Nations (and unwritten laws for media stamped in journalists’ minds), asserting that any criticism of the Jewish state is racism, despite clear practice that shows Israel is the font of racism. Orwell’s 1984 doublethink and newsspeak have a new playing field, where INGSOC (Orwell’s Britain) has devolved into the most loyal supporter of the new Oceania (US), and no one notices that the Grand Inquisitor is a Goldstein.

    In the days of the British empire, before the state of Israel, it was easier for the goy empire of the day (Britain) to manoeuvre, as the elite Jews at the centre of that conspiracy had to behave. The Shaftsbury/ MacKinder idea of a Jewish colony in the Middle East was there by the mid-19th century, but when it materialized in 1948, it had a new mother country and quickly started to play its own political games. Jews are nobody’s puppets. So the US-Israel empire is unwieldy and is wearing thin as Israel celebrates 75 years, its diamond jubilee. And moves to unite Sunni and Shia in a newly invigorated united front against Israel, with the US out of the picture, suggest that all the plandemics and wars might not be enough to put Humpty Dumpty together again.

    Illuminati/ Freemason

    Myers deals with the origins of today’s conspiracy, giving a central role to the Illuminati and Freemasons. I’m not convinced that there is more than an just an element of nostalgia in those who identify with these secretive groups. The Tempest, Midsummer Night’s Dream, Winter’s Tale are based on Masonic legends. Mozart’s Magic Flute has clear Illuminist influence. Goethe was a member of the Illuminati. Myers traces Freemason imagery, poses and beliefs as continuous through the post-enlightenment period. The hand-hiding pose traces back to classical times – Aeschines, founder of a rhetoric school, suggested that speaking with an arm outside one’s chiton was bad manners. The pose was used in 18th-century British portraiture as a sign that the sitter was from the upper class.

    But there are definitely two versions of today’s conspiracy. Myers sees the Illuminati as more globalist (rule by the United Nations, UN Committees and International courts) as opposed to a more hegemonic nationalist rule by the UK/US/Israel. Jews, the most internationalist/cosmopolitan and yet ‘the most nationalist (chauvinist, self-absorbed) of peoples, are riven by the oscillation between Akhenaten’s Universal God and Jehovah the Tribal God.’

    Elite Jews are behind the conspiracies today, though a small minority of ‘good’ Jews reject this secular Judaism-Zionism and work with non-Jews to unite as opponents to this corporate globalization, either nice Wellsian or chauvinist. Such as Jeffrey Sachs, who condemns US imperial policy today, having participated in the post-collapse Russian reforms which almost cemented post-Soviet Russia into the US-led conspiracy. Sachs and Putin ended up on much the same page three decades later, both essentially fighting the post-pandemic push by the globalists.

    Marx was not a Freemason nor were Lenin, Trotsky, etc. Stalin, Hitler, Franco banned it as do all dictators. The most authoritative text, Manly Hall, Lost Keys of Freemasonry, 1923, is anodyne, admirable, no hint of anything nefarious, just another ‘path to enlightenment’. Freemasony operate(d) as a secret society but never very secret (unless outlawed) as it became fashionable in the 18th century. It was openly behind both the American and French revolutions (though not the Russian). Now it is more or less completely open. It has evolved over time as capitalism developed and made use of the Freemasons as a governing force of educated bourgeois.

    Freemasonry serves imperialism though it is either unaware of this or accepts imperialism as the way to a universal society, the ancient dream, the Tower of Babel in reverse, as sincere striving rather than hubris. Hall’s thought stops with bourgeois society, though he explains the pomp of mystic self-striving which ‘true’ Masons pursue as part of their 33-level initiation.

    Myers chides RFK Jr for not pointing to Masonic handshakes by Fauci and others, but are they just colourful flourishes, hiding the real deep state? Most Masons are just nice science-oriented, educated middle class men and women. Though Freemasonry might have sparked the French revolution, it didn’t come to power as a disciplined elite, and it was not a factor in the conspiratorial organization that brought the Bolsheviks to power. Freemasonry did not re-emerge in the former Soviet Union until after the breakup of Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe.

    Vladimir Antyufeyev, deputy prime minister of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic blamed the ongoing conflict on US and European Masons. If in fact all European leaders are Freemasons and the US has Freemasonry built into its revolution, then Antyufeyev is right. Putin also attacked ‘Masonic’ competitors (at 15 minute spot) and warned that Russia has always ‘caught up with them in strategic weapons’.

    An appeal online by Andrey Bogdanov, Great Master Of The Grand Lodge Of Russia, addressing the war in Ukraine, suggests the role of Freemasonry is not a serious lethal conspiracy: ‘For a real Freemason, no matter how complex the outside world is, a sense of inner harmony, fraternal communication and continuity of the chain of communication of Masonic knowledge are the prevailing aspects of its existence. Everything passes and only brotherhood seems eternal to us.’

    New morality: anything goes

    It is interesting that both ‘Marx and Engels saw the bourgeois family as a farce, oppressing women and predicted communal child-rearing but traditional forms of living, as did HG Wells. ‘ Yet all had traditional families. Rousseau, author of Emile, on free child-rearing, place all five of his children in an orphanage at birth.’ My takeaway: Intellectuals make poor rulers, always theorizing, conflicting and/or totalitarian.

    Myers shows how important the Stalin-Trotsky war-within-the-revolution is to understanding our current cultural wars. ‘Trotskyists did not learn from the Soviet Union’s experience, because they deemed Stalinism a ‘betrayal’ of True Communism. Instead, they are bringing the Culture War — begun by Old Bolshevism — to the West; but, as David Horowitz noted, in the West it is called ‘Feminism’ rather than ‘Marxism’. … Whereas Hitler’s supporters are in jail for Holocaust Denial, and most of Stalin’s supporters in the West disappeared after 1991, Trotsky’s heirs and supporters are entrenched in Academia, university campuses, Foundations, the Media, the Public Service, and the Judiciary. They have dominated university campuses for decades. They regularly march in city centres—marches organised by Socialist Alliance, Socialist Alternative, or other Trotskyist sects. Green Left Weekly is a mainly Trotskyist newspaper.’

    You must read the details yourself. The ‘revolution’ snuck in the back door.

    And now we arrive at the Globalists, the ‘collective West’ elites, the new Oceania, having rewritten 20th c history as a benevolent empire that crushed fascism and communism (i.e., Stalinism), with no mention of the role of Judaism, though it was behind both, as Svengali for the Nazis and as shapers of communism in the latter.

    ‘The anti-Stalin ‘Trotskyoid’ Left, which Stalin defeated in Russia, has consolidated in the West and largely overthrown the Christian order via the so-called Culture War,’ which is already creating a centre of opposition that brings left and right together. ‘Putin, meanwhile, has re-established Christianity in Russia. The new Cold War is between the atheistic, LGBT, ‘Trotskyoid’, ‘Cosmopolitan’ West, on the one hand, and a coalition of Christian-socialist Russia and Confucian-Stalinist China on the other.’ Which is now attracting the evangelical right in the US, creating fissures in any conspiratorial attempt at a ‘Great Reset’.

    Where is the East in all this? Myers points out that ‘Knowledge and ideas spread both ways across the Silk Road, from around 2000BC. Heraclitus’ philosophy is similar to Taoism, and he too took to the hills.’ Eastern thinking culminated in Plato. Marx dismissed ‘oriental despotism’ but Schopenhauer built his philosophy around Buddhism and despised socialist notions of elevating the working class as a historical actor. He quips in The World as Will and Representation that he would prefer to be ruled by a lion than one of his fellow rats. So were the nonentities that followed Stalin rats? They certainly weren’t lions. And the workers’ state collapsed in an awful hurry, with rats fleeing the sinking ship in droves when the hatch opened.

    As for totalitarianism, Plato was the first to promote it, though he insisted his republic would only work for a community of 5,000. We shouldn’t blame Plato. ‘When Russian emigrants went to Palestine and established the state of Israel there, they brought with them both socialism (the kibbutzes being a benign kind) and the totalitarianism disclosed by Israel Shahak.3 Their treatment of the Palestinians and of their neighbours bears comparison with Soviet precedents. As for the ‘Open Society’, could there be anything more ‘Closed’ than the Jewish Bible’s mindset in its depiction of Goyim/the Nations?’

    It is important to have reliable sources when dealing with Jewish issues. This work by Myers and his online library are essential tools to recognize the Jewish origins of today’s world.

    Prescriptions

    ‘There IS a need for Environmental Limits, but the One Worlders are using this as an excuse to push World Government. The Trotskyist/HG Wells version of Communism is alive and well. ‘Open-border immigration, casual relationships treated as equivalent to marriage, We did not recognise it as Communist simply because we identified Stalin’s modifications as Communism. The Marxist Cultural Revolution, begun in the West in the late 1960s, has taken the West down the path pioneered by the early USSR. … To treat “relationships” as the equivalent of marriage is, in effect, to abolish marriage.’

    ‘As social breakdown proceeds, desperation will force us back to the essentials of life. We’ll be looking for ways to re-establish family ties, and the bonds between men and women.’ Myers takes many blinkers off leftists’ eyes (including mine). Even John Lennon’s Imagine: ‘no borders and no religion too.’ Many of us were smitten by the promise of 1917, which somehow morphed into a backdoor revolution of sex and drugs.

    Myers has his finger in the dyke to stem the flood of book burning and newspeak today: History had already been rewritten, but fragments of the literature of the past survived here and there, imperfectly censored, and so long as one retained one’s knowledge of Oldspeak it was possible to read them. … A great deal of the literature of the past was, indeed, already being transformed. (1984 p. 250) As Myers points out it is the Trotskyoids of today that are the Thought Police for this brainwashing.

    Is there any hope for ‘a less-severe Managerial State one day, not burdened by this Jewish bitterness or, equally, by a ‘white separatist’ prejudice’? China’s long tradition of state bureaucracy without full-blown slavery suggests itself as a tradition worth building on today, though contemporary China’s 996 policy4, and the plight of Tibetans, Uighurs and no doubt others, suggest capitalism erases even the most honoured traditions. Egypt and Babylon were successful state bureaucratic formations which were admired by Herodotus. It’s only biblical lore that paints a (self-serving) narrative dissing those civilizations.

    Myers’ chapter on the covid plandemic documents how the Trotskyists in Australia sided with the conspiracy, denouncing anti-vaxxers as fascists. He could add the remnant of the communist parties too, which have all gone down the trans/gay road and meekly promoted the pro-vax plan. Even Cuba. The future opposition to the Wellsian world government is taking shape now, centred on Russia and China and their growing trade bloc with the third world (85% of the world population).

    Wells is still the inspiration behind the one-worlders today, complete with his recommendation of an end to war and instead to deindustrialize in the interests of preserving the planet. ‘Wells presents a strong case for World Government, and it is a matter we should be discussing openly and (I believe) agonizing over, because we are in a Catch-22 situation. The threats are real, but the outcome could be Tyranny and the End of Civilization.’

    ‘Was George Orwell wrong when he depicted the coming tyranny as a Left-wing one?’ Left and right have lost their meaning. Genuine conservatives and genuine Marxist socialists have much common ground in opposing the liberal, now neoliberal Great Reset behind the plandemic and the cementing of a Wellsian globalism but under US-Israel.

    *****

    Afterthought:

    The world had its moment of a global civilization. It started in 1917 and embraced the world by 1945 but collapsed when the US launched the Cold War. It was a proto-socialism, which the ‘collective West’ tolerated long enough to let the Communists beat Hitler. In the 1930s, it was implanted in the minds of anyone who took the time to consider it. Even the western media seemed to be on board as the fascist rivals prepared to destroy (the idea of) Communism.

    Communism was the 19th century answer to industrial society, but Stalin made it a nonstarter for the ‘collective West’. Reading all this and the complicity of western media in giving Stalin’s regime lots of slack during the 1930s (Ukraine famine, mass arrests, slave labour), I’m reminded of my own ‘sov-symp’ Soviet sympathies, even today, with all the filth and horror exposed. It was never just a ‘managerial’ bureaucratic society. It was and will remain a stirring symbol of defiance of capitalism, banker-capitalist control, war as a plaything for weapons producers and cynical imperialist governments.

    And it is Stalinism that retains the stamp of authenticity. The 1920s NEP mixed market was only a way station, and Khrushchev’s Thaw was really just living off the fruits of Stalinism; but without the ideological backbone, it slowly, then quickly collapsed. That spark/ flame  in history is now the stuff of legend, still inspiring Africa and Asia for help in liberating themselves in the 1960s. When Russia needed them, they held out their hands.

    Yes, Cuba and a few others survive, fiercely attacked by imperialism, but none of them would have existed without the Soviet Union, and none have found a magic key to leave its legacy – good and bad — behind. It still looms as the conscience of the world cosmopolis. It included villains but many more heroes and many happy, if exasperated campers. And inspired the best music of the century (Shostakovich, Prokofiev), the best athletes (hockey, figure skating legends). They proved socialism could work, even under excruciating conditions. Russians are right to mourn its demise. I will die a sovsymp.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • President Biden speaks to General Mark Milley after his 2023 State of the Union speech.
    (Photo credit: Francis Chung/Politico)

    President Biden wrote in the New York Times in June 2022 that the United States was arming Ukraine to “fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.”

    Ukraine’s fall 2022 counteroffensive left it in a stronger position, yet Biden and his NATO allies still chose the battlefield over the negotiating table. Now the failure of Ukraine’s long-delayed “Spring Counteroffensive” has left Ukraine in a weaker position, both on the battlefield and at the still empty negotiating table.

    So, based on Biden’s own definition of U.S. war aims, his policy is failing, and it is hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers, not Americans, who are paying the price, with their limbs and their lives.

    But this result was not unexpected. It was predicted in leaked Pentagon documents that were widely published in April, and in President Zelenskyy’s postponement of the offensive in May to avoid what he called “unacceptable” losses.

    The delay allowed more Ukrainian troops to complete NATO training on Western tanks and armored vehicles, but it also gave Russia more time to reinforce its anti-tank defenses and prepare lethal kill-zones along the 700-mile front line.

    Now, after two months, Ukraine’s new armored divisions have advanced only 12 miles or less in two small areas, at the cost of tens of thousands of casualties. Twenty percent of newly deployed Western armored vehicles and equipment were reportedly destroyed in the first few weeks of the new offensive, as British-trained armored divisions tried to advance through Russian minefields and kill-zones without demining operations or air cover.

    Meanwhile, Russia has made similar small advances toward Kupyansk in eastern Kharkiv province, where land around the town of Dvorichna has changed hands for the third time since the invasion. These tit-for-tat exchanges of small pieces of territory, with massive use of heavy artillery and appalling losses, typify a brutal war of attrition not unlike the First World War.

    Ukraine’s more successful counteroffensives last fall provoked serious debate within NATO over whether that was the moment for Ukraine to return to the negotiating table it had abandoned at British and U.S. urging in April 2022. As Ukrainian forces advanced on Kherson in early November, La Republicca in Italy reported that NATO leaders had agreed that the fall of Kherson would put Ukraine in the position of strength they had been waiting for to relaunch peace talks.

    On November 9, 2022, the very day that Russia ordered its withdrawal from Kherson, General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke at the Economic Club of New York, where the interviewer asked him whether the time was now ripe for negotiations.

    General Milley compared the situation to the First World War, explaining that leaders on all sides understood by Christmas 1914 that that war was not winnable, yet they fought on for another four years, multiplying the million lives lost in 1914 into 20 million by 1918, destroying five empires and setting the stage for the rise of fascism and the Second World War.

    Milley concluded his cautionary tale by noting that, as in 1914, “… there has to be a mutual recognition that military victory is probably in the true sense of the word, is maybe not achievable through military means. And therefore, you need to turn to other means… So things can get worse. So when there’s an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize it, seize the moment.”

    But Milley and other voices of experience were ignored. At Biden’s February State of the Union speech in Congress, General Milley’s face was a study in gravity, a rock in a sea of misplaced self-congratulation and ignorance of the real world beyond the circus tent, where the West’s incoherent war strategy was not only sacrificing Ukrainian lives every day but flirting with nuclear war. Milley didn’t crack a smile all night, even when Biden came over to glad-hand after his speech.

    No U.S., NATO or Ukrainian leaders have been held accountable for failing to seize that moment last winter, nor the previous missed chance for peace in April 2022, when the U.S. and UK blocked theTurkish and Israeli mediation that came so close to bringing peace, based on the simple principle of a Russian withdrawal in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. Nobody has demanded a serious account of why Western leaders let these chances for peace slip through their fingers.

    Whatever their reasoning, the result is that Ukraine is caught in a war with no exit. When Ukraine seemed to have the upper hand in the war, NATO leaders were determined to press their advantage and launch another offensive, regardless of the shocking human cost. But now that the new offensive and weapons shipments have only succeeded in laying bare the weakness of Western strategy and returning the initiative to Russia, the architects of failure reject negotiating from a position of weakness.

    So the conflict has fallen into an intractable pattern common to many wars, in which all parties to the fighting—Russia, Ukraine and the leading members of the NATO military alliance—have been encouraged, or we might say deluded, by limited successes at different times, into prolonging the war and rejecting diplomacy, despite appalling human costs, the rising danger of a wider war and the existential danger of a nuclear confrontation.

    But the reality of war is laying bare the contradictions of Western policy. If Ukraine is not allowed to negotiate with Russia from a position of strength, nor from a position of weakness, what stands in the way of its total destruction?

    And how can Ukraine and its allies defeat Russia, a country whose nuclear weapons policy explicitly states that it will use nuclear weapons before it will accept an existential defeat?

    If, as Biden has warned, any war between the United States and Russia, or any use of “tactical” nuclear weapons, would most likely escalate into full-scale nuclear war, where else is the current policy of incremental escalation and ever-increasing U.S. and NATO involvement intended to lead?

    Are they simply praying that Russia will implode, or give up? Or are they determined to call Russia’s bluff and push it into an inescapable choice between total defeat and nuclear war? Hoping, or pretending, that Ukraine and its allies can defeat Russia without triggering a nuclear war is not a strategy.

    In place of a strategy to resolve the conflict, the United States and its allies harnessed the natural impulse to resist Russian aggression onto a U.S. and British plan to prolong the war indefinitely. The results of that decision are hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian casualties and the gradual destruction of Ukraine by millions of artillery shells fired by both sides.

    Since the end of the First Cold War, successive U.S. governments, Democratic and Republican, have made catastrophic miscalculations regarding the United States’ ability to impose its will on other countries and peoples. Their wrong assumptions about American power and military superiority have led us to this fateful, historic crisis in U.S. foreign policy.

    Now Congress is being asked for another $24 billion to keep fueling this war. They should instead listen to the majority of Americans, who, according to the latest CNN poll, oppose more funding for an unwinnable war. They should heed the words of the declaration by civil society groups in 32 countries calling for an immediate ceasefire and peace negotiations to end the war before it destroys Ukraine and endangers all of humanity.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Mao Xuhui (China), ’92 Paternalism, 1992

    In 2003, high officials from Brazil, India, and South Africa met in Mexico to discuss their mutual interests in the trade of pharmaceutical drugs. India was and is one of the world’s largest producers of various drugs, including those used to treat HIV-AIDS; Brazil and South Africa were both in need of affordable drugs for patients infected with HIV as well as a host of other treatable ailments. But these three countries were barred from easily trading with each other because of strict intellectual property laws established by the World Trade Organisation. Just a few months prior to their meeting, the three countries formed a grouping, known as IBSA, to discuss and clarify intellectual property and trade issues, but also to confront countries of the Global North for their asymmetrical demand that the poorer nations end their agricultural subsidies. The notion of South-South cooperation framed these discussions.

    Interest in South-South cooperation dates back to the 1940s, when the United Nations Economic and Social Council established its first technical aid programme to assist trade between the new post-colonial states in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Six decades later, just as IBSA was formed, this spirit was commemorated by the United Nations Day for South-South Cooperation on 19 December 2004. At this time, the UN also created the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation (ten years later, in 2013, this institution was renamed as the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation), which built upon the 1988 agreement on the Global System of Trade Preferences Among Developing Countries. As of 2023, this pact includes 42 member states from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, that are collectively home to four billion people and have a combined market of $16 trillion (roughly 20% of global merchandise imports). It is important to register that this longstanding agenda to increase trade between Southern countries forms the pre-history of the BRICS, set up in 2009 and presently made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

    Madhvi Parekh and Karishma Swali (India), Kali I, 2021–22

    The entire BRICS project is centred around the question of whether countries at the nether end of the neo-colonial system can break out of that system through mutual trade and cooperation, or whether the larger countries (including those in the BRICS) will inevitably enjoy asymmetries of power and scale against smaller countries and therefore reproduce inequalities rather than transcend them. Our latest dossier, on Marxist dependency theory, calls into question any capitalist project in the South that believes it can somehow break free from the neo-colonial system by importing debt and exporting cheap commodities. Despite the limitations of the BRICS project, it is clear that the increase in South-South trade and the development of Southern institutions (for development financing, for instance) challenges the neo-colonial system even if it does not immediately transcend it. At Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, we have been closely following the developments and contradictions of the BRICS project from its inception and continue to do so.

    Later this month, the fifteenth BRICS summit will take place in Johannesburg, South Africa, from 22–24 August. This meeting comes as two of the group’s members, Russia and China, are facing a New Cold War with the United States and its allies, while the other members face immense pressure to be drawn into this conflict. Below, you will find briefing no. 9, published in collaboration with No Cold War, which offers a brief but necessary primer of the upcoming BRICS summit. You can read the briefing below.

    The upcoming fifteenth BRICS Summit (22–24 August) in Johannesburg, South Africa, has the potential to make history. The heads of state of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa will gather for their first face-to-face meeting since the 2019 summit in Brasilia, Brazil. The meeting will take place eighteen months since the beginning of military conflict in Ukraine, which has not only raised tensions between the US-led Western powers and Russia to a level unseen since the Cold War but also sharpened differences between the Global North and South.

    There are growing cracks in the unipolar international order imposed by Washington and Brussels on the rest of the world through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the international financial system, the control of information flows (in both traditional and social media networks), and the indiscriminate use of unilateral sanctions against an increasing number of countries. As United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently put it, ‘the post-Cold War period is over. A transition is under way to a new global order’.

    In this global context, three of the most important debates to monitor at the Johannesburg summit are: (1) the possible expansion of BRICS membership, (2) the expansion of the membership of its New Development Bank (NDB), and (3) the NDB’s role in creating alternatives to the use of the US dollar. According to Anil Sooklal, South Africa’s ambassador to BRICS, twenty-two countries have formally applied to join the group (including Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Algeria, Mexico, and Indonesia) and a further two dozen have expressed interest. Even with numerous challenges to overcome, the BRICS are now seen as a major driving force of the world economy and of economic developments across the Global South in particular.

    Lygia Clark (Brazil), O Violoncelista (‘The Violoncellist’), 1951

    The BRICS Today

    In the middle of the last decade, the BRICS experienced a number of problems. With the election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India (2014) and the coup against President Dilma Rousseff in Brazil (2016), two of the group’s member countries became headed by right-wing governments more favourable to Washington. Both India and Brazil retreated in their participation in the group. The de facto absence of Brazil, which from the outset had been one of the key driving forces behind the BRICS, represented a significant loss for the consolidation of the group. These developments undermined and hampered the progress of the NDB and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), established in 2015 – which represented the greatest institutional achievement of the BRICS to date. Although the NDB has made some progress it has fallen short of its original objectives. To date, the bank has approved some $32.8 billion in financing (in fact, less than that has been issued), while the CRA – which has $100 billion in funds to assist countries that have a shortage of US dollars in their international reserves and are facing short-term balance of payments or liquidity pressures – has never been activated.

    However, developments in recent years have reinvigorated the BRICS project. The decisions of Moscow and Beijing to respond to escalations of aggression in the New Cold War by Washington and Brussels; the return of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to the presidency of Brazil in 2022 and the consequent appointment of Dilma Rousseff to the presidency of the NDB; and the relative estrangement, to varying degrees, of India and South Africa from the Western powers have resulted in a ‘perfect storm’ that seems to have rebuilt a sense of political unity in the BRICS (despite unresolved tensions between India and China). Added to this is the growing weight of the BRICS in the global economy and strengthened economic interaction between its members. In 2020, the global share of the BRICS’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in purchasing power parity terms – 31.5 percent – overtook that of the Group of Seven (G7) – 30.7 percent – and this gap is expected to grow. Bilateral trade among BRICS countries has also grown robustly: Brazil and China are breaking records every year, reaching $150 billion in 2022; Russian exports to India tripled from April to December 2022, year-on-year, expanding to $32.8 billion; while trade between China and Russia jumped from $147 billion in 2021 to $190 billion in 2022, an increase of nearly 30 percent.

    Ayanda Mabulu (South Africa), Power, 2020

    What’s at Stake in Johannesburg?

    Faced with this dynamic international situation and growing requests for expansion, the BRICS face a number of important questions:

    In addition to providing concrete responses to interested applicants, expansion has the potential to increase the political and economic weight of the BRICS and, eventually, strengthen other regional platforms that its members belong to. But expansion also requires having to decide on the specific form that membership should take and may increase the complexity of consensus building, with a risk of slowing the progress of decision making and initiatives. How should these matters be dealt with?

    How can the NDB’s financing capacity be increased, as well as its coordination with other development banks of the Global South and other multilateral banks? And, above all, how can the NDB, in partnership with the BRICS’ network of think tanks, promote the formulation of a new development policy for the Global South?

    Since the BRICS member countries have solid international reserves (with South Africa having a little less), it’s unlikely that they will need to use the CRA. Instead, this fund could provide countries in need with an alternative to the political blackmail of the International Monetary Fund, which requires developing countries to enact devastating austerity measures in exchange for loans.

    BRICS is reported to be discussing the creation of a reserve currency that would enable trade and investment without the use of the US dollar. If this were established, it could be one more step in efforts to create alternatives to the dollar, but questions remain. How could the stability of such a reserve currency be ensured? How could it be articulated with newly created trade mechanisms which do not use the dollar, such as bilateral China-Russia, China-Brazil, Russia-India, and other arrangements?

    How can cooperation and technology transfer support the re-industrialisation of countries like Brazil and South Africa, especially in strategic sectors such as biotech, information technology, artificial intelligence, and renewable energies, while also fighting poverty and inequality, and achieving other basic demands of the peoples of the South?

    Leaders representing 71 countries of the Global South have been invited to attend the meeting in Johannesburg. Xi, Putin, Lula, Modi, Ramaphosa, and Dilma have a lot of work to do, to answer these questions and make progress on the urgent matters in global development.

    Peter Gorban (USSR), Field Camp. The Izvestiya., 1960

    Our institute continues to track these developments, neither with the belief that the BRICS project offers global salvation, nor with the cynicism that dismisses it as nothing new. History is moved, not by purity, but by the world’s contradictions.

    As these major countries of the South meet in Johannesburg, they will confront the vast inequities in South Africa. These fissures are the grist for the poems of Vonani Bila, whose voice rises out of Shirley Village (Limpopo) and reminds us of the long walk ahead, through the BRICS project and beyond:

    When the sun recedes
    into the Soutpansberg,
    Giyani Block puts on a
    black adder coat;
    a mirror of death and despair.

    Doctors and nurses stand on their feet.
    They shall not rest when the workers’ strike
    ignites its furious flame.
    They’re on tiptoe, looking up,
    wrestling the faceless, tailless monster.

  • China’s paramount leader, like his Russian counterpart, is making a fine mess of his country’s economy and world standing

    It must be tough, being a dictator, when your diktats are ignored, thwarted and scorned. Vladimir Putin is a sad case in point. He ordered the glorious reintegration of Ukraine into his imaginary Russian empire. What he got was an existential crisis that he couldn’t control.

    China’s president, Xi Jinping, is another paramount leader with dictatorship issues. Xi presumes to exercise supreme control, channelling Mao Zedong like a card-carrying Communist party Zeus – yet repeatedly messes up. Xi’s signature tune could be the chorus to Moby’s Extreme Ways: “Then it fell apart … Like it always does.”

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • (Photo Credit:  Lapaz Telesur)

    On June 27, 1986, the World Court condemned the United States for illegal war and aggression against Nicaragua and ordered the US to compensate Nicaragua for damages estimated to run to US$17 billion dollars, what today would be more than US$55 billion. On June 27 of this year, President Daniel Ortega demanded that the US fulfill its obligation. He stated:

    On June 27, 1986, the International Court of Justice condemned the US and directed it to compensate Nicaragua for all damages caused as a consequence of military activities against Nicaragua. In a situation of armed aggression such as that carried out by the US, no amount of reparations – neither economic nor moral – could compensate for the devastation of the country, the loss of human lives and the physical and psychological wounds of the Nicaraguan people. The Court decided that the United States had a legal obligation to make economic reparations to Nicaragua for all the damages caused.

    The President continued:

    The compensation due to Nicaragua remains unpaid… Instead of receiving compensation as is morally and legally due, Nicaragua continues to be the object of a new form of aggression, which consists of sanctions and an attempted coup d’état.

    In finishing, Ortega said that:

    Nicaragua takes this opportunity to recall that the judgments of the ICJ are final and of obligatory compliance, and therefore the United States has the obligation to comply with the reparations ordered by the ruling of June 27, 1986.

    In June the Sao Paulo Forum approved a resolution in support of Nicaragua’s demand for compliance with the 1986 ruling of the World Court. The Sao Paulo Forum is the premier forum of revolutionary organizations, movements and parties of Latin America and the Caribbean. The Sao Paulo Forum declared itself in support of Nicaragua’s demand that the US comply with the ICJ sentence, and compensate Nicaragua to the full extent of that historic ruling.

    The Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement meeting in Azerbaijan in June issued a joint declaration in which the member countries expressed their support for Nicaragua’s request for US compliance and compensation for damages in accordance with the ruling. The statement highlights that “the persistent refusal of the United States to comply with the Judgment of the International Court of Justice issued 37 years ago, is a flagrant violation of international law and of the ruling of the highest court of justice in the world.”

    Nicaragua showed it will not bend to US coup attempts and destabilization when it tried and convicted Nicaraguan agents who participated in violent actions in an attempt to overthrow the government in 2018. Then on February 9, 2023, Nicaragua decided to deport 222 prisoners convicted of treason and other crimes to the US. “In accordance with the Law for the Defense of the Rights of the People, Independence, Sovereignty and Self-Determination … the immediate and effective deportation of 222 persons is ordered…The deportees were declared traitors and punished for different serious crimes (that would be serious crimes in any nation) and their citizenship rights are perpetually suspended.” [Note: The new law under which Nicaraguans can lose their citizenship because of treasonous acts is very similar to US Code 1481 under which a person can lose US citizenship by “committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, … by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.]

    In another example of demanding respect for sovereignty, Nicaragua suspended the placet it had granted to Fernando Ponz as European Union ambassador. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Denis Moncada Colindres said in a statement:

    In view of the interfering and insolent communiqué of this day, which confirms the imperialist and colonialist positions of the European Union, this April 18, on the eve of the National Day of Peace, the sovereign and dignified government of the Republic of Nicaragua … has decided to suspend the placet that had been granted to Mr. Fernando Ponz as ambassador of that subjugating power. We reiterate to the neocolonialist gentlemen and women of the European Union our condemnation of all their historic genocide and we demand justice and reparation for these crimes against humanity and for their virulent, greedy and rapacious plundering of our wealth and cultures. In these circumstances and in the face of the permanent siege on the rights of our people to national sovereignty, we will not receive their representative.

    On January 24, at the VII Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (CELAC) held in Argentina, Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Denis Moncada rejected foreign intervention in any form, including aggressions, invasions, interferences, blockades, economic wars, offenses, threats, humiliations, occupations as well as sanctions, which are nothing more than “aggressions, all illegal, arbitrary and unilateral.” His message also called on the CELAC countries to resist and reject everything that endangers the future, “the luminous horizon of our peoples, where we do not allow any more plundering of our natural and cultural resources, and where the genocide imposed on us for centuries by the colonialist powers is not only denounced, but [our resistance] becomes … songs that demand peace.” He went on to say, “The world urgently needs justice and peace…respectful cooperation and solidarity. The world needs understanding, comprehension and affection. The better world that we all want to create urgently needs … the ability to live together”….

    Strategies for Development Despite Sanctions

    In 2018, the same year of the coup attempt, the US passed a first round of sanctions called the Nica Act. Then, under President Joe Biden, more sanctions were passed called “RENACER.” Currently, Senators Marco Rubio and Tim Kaine have introduced a new bill to reauthorize and amend the previous sanctions making them even harsher.

    All of these sanctions are illegal coercive measures and the US applies them not because Nicaragua has done something wrong, but exactly because Nicaragua is using the riches it produces for the social welfare of its people and not acting as a US colony. Sanctions tend to primarily affect economic growth and studies show they have the biggest effect on the poor and vulnerable.

    Nicaragua has developed three essential areas that make it resilient even in the face of this form of war: Nicaragua produces about 90% of the food that people eat; Nicaragua has increased renewable energy from 20% to 70% so every year it is less dependent on petroleum imports; and it has developed excellent infrastructure in health, education, roads and bridges, energy, water and sewage. And because of more benefits like free universal health and education, more affordable housing possibilities as well as more opportunities for youth and women, a very high percentage of the population approves of the government – currently nearly 83%.

    And Nicaragua is developing new relationships of respect with many other countries: In the first six months of 2023 Nicaragua received high level visits from China, Russia and Iran.

    The Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Sergei Lavrov, visited Nicaragua on April 19 and said that together with Nicaragua they will continue to work hand in hand against interference and intervention. “Thanks to the efforts of Daniel Ortega, the country remains stable,” he said. “I would like to wish all Nicaraguans peace, prosperity and stability; I am convinced that the bilateral relations between Russia and Nicaragua will facilitate this process.” Multipolarity is a process that cannot be stopped, but Westerners under the auspices of the US try to spread their hegemony in conflicts such as the one in Ukraine and will try to increase their influence in the region looking towards the Pacific, among others,” he said. Russia has helped Nicaragua develop vaccine production such as the influenza vaccine now produced locally.

    Cooperation with China began in December 2021 when Nicaragua recognized that there is only one China. Recently, on July 11 of this year, Nicaragua and China signed three agreements: China will donate 1,481 metric tons of wheat, 2,595 metric tons of urea, and 500 buses to Nicaragua. President Ortega thanked the President of China, Xi Jinping, for this cooperation that is provided in solidarity and unconditionally through the China International Development Cooperation Agency (CIDCA) for the benefit of Nicaraguan families. Lou Zhaohui, the President of CIDCA, said China will continue to support the efforts of Nicaragua to meet its goals of poverty reduction and human development. And as of May, Nicaragua can export seafood, beef, and textiles to China free of tariffs.

    On February 1, 2023, Nicaragua hosted Iranian Foreign Minister Dr. Hossein Amir-Abdollahián. Then, on June 13 and 14, Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi visited Nicaragua to deepen relations and begin cooperation in the areas of science and technology. Raisi said that the United States wanted to paralyze its people through threats and sanctions; however, Iran was not paralyzed in its path and has turned threats and sanctions into opportunities and through those opportunities it has achieved great progress in many areas. “Although the enemy wants to discourage the revolutionary peoples, the peoples have to know that the new world order is being formed in favor of the resistance of the people and against imperialist interests,” Raisi stated.

    President Daniel Ortega Emphasizes the Importance of Peace

     This year, April 19 was declared the National Day of Peace. On this day in 2018, at the beginning of the attempted coup, the first three people were killed by US-backed agents, including a policeman, a young Sandinista and a passer-by.

    In his speech on April 19 President Ortega said:

    I want to remind all Nicaraguans to think for a moment what Nicaragua was like five years ago. Could you walk on these streets; could you live in peace in your homes? Everyone was terrified. And the deaths every day; those who were killed were blamed on the government, on the police, and the police were in their barracks, which was the decision we had taken.

    President Ortega frequently emphasizes the importance of peace and how essential peace is to end poverty and for the development of all sectors of the country. On the 40th anniversary of the revolution in 2019, the president asked “What is the way to be able to work, study, receive health care, build schools, roads, show solidarity to get our Nicaraguan brothers and sisters who are still in these conditions out of poverty and extreme poverty? What is the fundamental condition?” Everyone answered with one voice that it is peace. He affirmed that a community needs peace to work and to live.

    Residents of Leon march for peace carrying the blue and white flags of Nicaragua and the red and black flags of the FSLN. (Photo Credit:  Nicaraguan photographer, Jairo Cajina)

    On January 9 of this year, at the swearing in the of National Assembly, President Ortega pointed out that:

    No matter how well-intentioned a government may be, if there is no peace, social programs cannot go forward. Without peace, schools, roads, hospitals simply cannot be built. We already know how terrible war is, the war that Nicaragua has lived through, the attempted coups that Nicaragua has lived through, how much blood, how much pain caused by terrorists, how much damage to the economy. But in the midst of the coup d’état, we were still inaugurating infrastructure and, after security and peace were restored for all Nicaraguans, then came this new push, because the country had been acting with enormous strength from 2007 until the coup attempt.

    Nicaragua does all it can to have peace, independence and sovereignty in order to advance well-being for its population. Nicaragua is a revolution that works!

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • We speak with Ukrainian peace activist Yurii Sheliazhenko, whom Ukrainian authorities have charged with justifying Russian aggression, days after his Kyiv apartment was raided and searched. Sheliazhenko is executive secretary of the Ukrainian Pacifist Movement and has vocally opposed any escalation of the conflict, calling for a ceasefire and peace talks to end the war. “It is total nonsense that…

    Source

  • President Kennedy’s World Peace speech on June 10, 1963,where he championed nuclear disarmament and lasting peace with the Soviet Union, is given renewed attention with a Kennedy now running for president and by the present war with Russia. JFK supposedly underwent a transformation after the near mutual nuclear annihilation with the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962. It is claimed JFK had decided to withdraw from Vietnam, break up the CIA and the power of the Pentagon chiefs, and end the Cold War.

    In his World Peace speech President Kennedy states,

    I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children–not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women–not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

    Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament–and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude–as individuals and as a Nation–for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward–by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

    World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor–it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement.

    We [the US and Soviet Union] are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.

    So far so good. But then he adds:

    To secure these ends, America’s weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self-restraint.

    And again:

    The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today.

    In other words, the US that stands for peace, the Communist bloc instigates conflict. Not exactly putting into action his words, “every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward.” This has similarity to President Eisenhower’s farewell address warning us of the military-industrial complex after he spent eight years building it up.

    Coming to his final words, Kennedy says, just six months after almost precipitating a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, “The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war.”

    This World Peace speech is heralded by many progressive and libertarian people.

    However, if “America’s weapons are nonprovocative…  designed to deter”; if “Our military forces are committed to peace”; if “The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war,” then Kennedy is saying US has been for peace and he is continuing that policy. His speech did not proclaim major policy change, but signaled a preservation of the present one.

    We are told this speech, like the claim he planned to pull the troops out of Vietnam, posed a threat to the Pentagon chiefs. And we are told after the defeat at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba (April 1961), JFK vowed, “I will splinter the CIA up into a thousand pieces and scatter them into the wind.” This statement, said in private (contradicted by later Kennedy statements), is said to have made the CIA, like the Pentagon, seek revenge. This supposedly led, less than six months after his June 10 speech, to his murder on November 22.

    Kennedy’s November 22, 1963 Speeches

    His speeches he was to give that evening show the actual “peace” policy he was carrying out was really one of military escalation. From the first speech he was to give in Dallas:

    In the past 3 years we have increased our defense budget by over 20 percent; increased the program for acquisition of Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by 60 percent; added 5 combat ready divisions and 5 tactical fighter wings to our Armed Forces; increased our strategic airlift capabilities by 75 percent; and increased our special counter-insurgency forces by 600 percent.

    From his second speech on November 22:

    We have radically improved the readiness of our conventional forces – increased by 45 percent the number of combat ready Army divisions, increased by 100 percent the procurement of modern Army weapons and equipment, increased by 100 percent our ship construction, conversion, and modernization program, increased by 100 percent our procurement of tactical aircraft, increased by 30 percent the number of tactical air squadrons, and increased the strength of the Marines. As last month’s “Operation Big Lift” – which originated here in Texas – showed so clearly, this Nation is prepared as never before to move substantial numbers of men in surprisingly little time to advanced positions anywhere in the world. We have increased by 175 percent the procurement of airlift aircraft, and we have already achieved a 75 percent increase in our existing strategic airlift capability. Finally, moving beyond the traditional roles of our military forces, we have achieved an increase of nearly 600 percent in our special forces – those forces that are prepared to work with our allies and friends against the guerrillas, saboteurs, insurgents and assassins who threaten freedom in a less direct but equally dangerous manner.

    Do these actions by JFK show the Soviet leaders his desire for “not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women–not merely peace in our time but peace for all time”?

    With good reason few believe the government’s story that Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald. Since thousands of documents the government still conceals from us, we are left with unanswered questions. Maybe it was the CIA and FBI and Mafia and anti-Castro Cubans, or a sub-grouping in them.

    The National Security State Campaign to Remove Trump

    But we do have evidence the CIA, FBI, NSA, and DIA and other secret national police agencies have targeted a president – in the unsubstantiated stories of Russian election interference and Trump collusion with Russian President Putin. This national security police state hoax is reminiscent of the Weapons of Mass Destruction lie they fed us to start a war on Iraq. They conjured up this Russia collusion story to sway a US presidential election and continued it during Trump’s presidency. And in 2020, they suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop case to sway a second election. They now attempt to imprison him for treason.

    Regardless your opinion of Trump, this is a documented case of the US national security state seeking to neutralize a president. Those who assert a US police state operation against Kennedy do not attempt to bolster this with the proven operation against Trump. It would make sense for them to argue that while evidence of the CIA plot to kill Kennedy remains a state secret, in Trump’s case their plots are now out in the open.

    Moreover, Trump, though a racist and sexist bully, did advocate for the issues that are said to make JFK a target: to bring US troops home, have peaceful relations with Russia, and reign in national security state agencies.

    For instance, Trump said at a press conference (October 21, 2019):

    I got elected on bringing our soldiers back home.  Now, it’s not very popular within the Beltway, because, you know, Lockheed doesn’t like it, and these great military companies don’t like it. It’s not very popular.

    As we defend American lives, we are working to end American wars in the Middle East …. It is also not our function to serve other nations as law enforcement agencies. (February 28, 2019).

    I want to bring our troops back from the endless war. They’ve been going on for 19 years in the area. But I’m going to bring them home from Syria. (Watch How Progressives Respond When Trump Isn’t Wrong) There is more here.

    Concerning the security state police agencies, Trump condemned the collusion of the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton, and FBI when asked if he would publicly criticize President Putin for Russia’s interference when they met. In response former CIA head John Brennan declared, “Donald Trump’s press conference performance [with President Putin] in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous.” This sounds the same as the CIA’s alleged attitude towards JFK.

    President Trump wrote (Mar 15, 2019):

    New evidence that the Obama era team of the FBI, DOJ & CIA were working together to spy on (and take out) President Trump, all the way back in 2015.

    Unelected deep state operatives who defy the voters to push their own secret agendas are truly a threat to democracy itself. (September 6, 2018).

    This does not mean Trump was any more serious about “draining the swamp” than JFK in carrying out his World Peace speech – and in the end, the president is not in control of the national security state, but the reverse.

    While President Trump did advocate US ruling class interests around the world and prioritized business interests above our welfare, the national security state did not forgive him for repudiating its endless war agenda. He wanted to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

    He befriended DPRK leader Kim Jong Un, an anathema to Washington, later explaining, “We have a good relationship with North Korea, we’re not in a war. Having a good relationship with leaders of other countries is a good thing.” (October 22, 2020).

    Even worse, he said, “Some people hate the fact that I got along well with President Putin of Russia. They would rather go to war than see this” (July 18, 2018). He was gotten out of office, and then they instigated a war.

    Of course, liberals would never uphold Trump, like they did Kennedy, Obama (in 2007-2008), Bernie, Jesse Jackson (1984), among others, as a leader who could move the US towards the dream of being a model for the world and make the US government actually represent the people.

    Kennedy embodied progressives’ hope that a genuinely progressive democrat could become president and redeem the country, fulfill the promise of its ennobling principles and supposed exceptional nature. To MAGA people, Trump personifies the conservative realization of this same chauvinist dream.

    Trump brought about a redirection in the US no more than Kennedy.  But the popularity of both presidents in different sectors of the population does signify the common yearning of US people across the board for curtailing the immense power of the national security state. Now this national security state is using lawfare to intervene in the 2024 election process to disqualify and imprison Biden’s main challenger. That issue should be determined by the voters.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Leading medical journals published a joint editorial late Tuesday calling on world leaders to take urgent steps to reduce the risk of nuclear war — and eliminate atomic weapons altogether — as the threat of a potentially civilization-ending conflict continues to grow. The call was first issued in The Lancet, The BMJ, JAMA, International Nursing Review, and other top journals.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • -Russian tensions continued to rise this week as two U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drones were damaged by flares released from Russian jets over Syria. The first incident on Sunday damaged the drone’s propeller but did not cause it to crash, but it echoed a similar episode over the Black Sea in March when the drone crashed after a collision with a Russian jet. Another incident occurred Wednesday over…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Jacobin logo

    This story originally appeared in Jacobin on July 28, 2023. It is shared here with permission.

    In Russia, a fabricated legal process has been launched against the prominent left-wing sociologist Boris Kagarlitsky. He is being accused of “justifying terrorism” based on his discussion about the motivations of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Crimean Bridge explosion. The true reason behind this is the elimination of remaining opposition figures amid a political crisis resulting from military failures.

    Kagarlitsky is a renowned left-wing theoretician in Russia, internationally known for his works, including the popular books Between Class and Discourse and From Empires to Imperialism, which help to understand the structure of modern capitalism and the challenges faced by the left-wing movement.

    Kagarlitsky did not emigrate or halt his political work, even when Russian authorities labeled him a “foreign agent” for his consistent antiwar stance during the 2022 Russian-Ukrainian conflict. He recently published his latest book. Over the years, the online journal Rabkor, directed by Kagarlitsky, has become an informational platform that unites people with various left-wing and prodemocratic perspectives. Kagarlitsky has never shied away from parliamentary methods of struggle and adeptly engaged in discussions with political opponents, even garnering sympathy from adversaries.

    On July 25, 2023, it was revealed that the federal security services (FSB) instigated criminal charges against Kagarlitsky under one of the new repressive articles — “justification of terrorism.” The reason for this was an old post on social media in which he indicated that the Crimea Bridge explosion could be understood “from a military perspective.” Taking advantage of this absurd pretext, Kagarlitsky was swiftly taken one thousand kilometers away from Moscow and put on trial in a small regional town, in a closed session without media or legal representation. The Syktyvkar City Court ordered the detention of Kagarlitsky until September 24. The hearing was held in a closed session. He will be held in custody at the Verkhniy Chov detention center. Now, the elderly left-wing thinker faces up to seven years in prison, and searches are being conducted at the premises of his associates.

    Such calculated precautions taken by those orchestrating the political persecution of Kagarlitsky demonstrate their serious concern about organized support for the left-wing sociologist — perhaps more so than any other remaining public figure in Russia. And not without reason, as news of Kagarlitsky’s arrest has sparked anger and empathy among a wide range of activists: all those who learned from him, debated with him, and worked alongside him.

    Furthermore, this is not the first case of persecution against left-wing activists: criminal and administrative charges on false grounds are being brought against trade unionists and activists, such as Anton Orlov and Kirill Ukraintsev, and the “foreign agent” status is being imposed on new individuals every week, including mathematician and left-wing activist Mikhail Lobanov. Despite the near obliteration of legal avenues for resisting government oppression in Russia, we will not leave Kagarlitsky alone to face his accusers.

    Kagarlitsky must be freed; and may this slogan be echoed by all who have ever shaken his hand or read his books. We call upon you to support him: through publications, actions, and attention to his books. People may perish, but ideas do not, and Kagarlitsky has done everything to ensure that prison walls will not hinder his fight for human freedom.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • A Russian mercenary outfit rose to prominence on the UK government’s watch, a new committee report claims. They aren’t wrong. But regardless of the Wagner Group‘s crimes and influence, the UK itself remains a global hub for mercenary activity.

    The Foreign Affairs Select Committee published the hard-hitting report on Wednesday 26 July. Titled ‘Guns for gold: The Wagner Network exposed’, the report examines the mercenary group’s global operations.

    The authors warned that while the Putin-linked group is primarily understood through its role in Ukraine, it operates far outside Europe.

    They said:

    Wagner’s activities in Ukraine are not representative of the network’s operations globally.

    Global guns for hire

    Wagner’s operations are varied. And its roles can include military and non-military operations. The report also points out it is a complex entity with a range of affiliates and attributes:

    The network’s military operations can be mapped in at least seven countries (Ukraine; Syria; the Central African Republic; Sudan; Libya; Mozambique; and Mali), with medium or high confidence that the network has been involved in a non-military capacity in 10 further countries since 2014.

    While not every operation is at the direction of the Russian state, the network’s aims usually align to some degree with Russian interests:

    Even when the Wagner Network has not acted as a direct proxy of the Russian Government, the Kremlin is likely to have benefited from its presence.

    And while Wagner has a mixed track record, the costs are usually the same:

    …atrocities, corruption and the plunder of natural resources.

    Late to the party

    The report claimed that the UK has tried to counter Wagner by supporting Ukraine. But this is not enough, given the group’s geographical spread:

    It is deeply regrettable that it was not until early 2022 that the Government began to invest greater resource in understanding the Wagner Network, despite Wagner fighters having already conducted military operations in at least seven countries for almost a decade.

    But there is another side to the mercenary debate. Certainly Wagner is a brutal operation, linked with atrocities around the world. So brutal and powerful, in fact, that it recently attempted to challenge the Russian state itself through a coup.

    But the UK’s own vast, multi-billion pound mercenary industry has been thriving unchecked not for ten years, but since the Iraq War.

    The UK Wagner?

    While opaque and unaccountable, there have been attempts to expose the UK private military industry. Perhaps the most important report was published by the charity War on Want in 2016.

    It found:

    Private military and security companies (PMSCs) burst onto the scene 15 years ago, following the declaration of a ‘war on terror’ and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    And the firms quickly turned a tidy profit:

    This vast private industry, now worth hundreds of billions of dollars, is dominated by UK companies reaping enormous profits from exploiting war, instability and conflict around the world.

    War on Want called for a ban on mercenary firms – one which so far has not been enacted.

    Whoever can pay

    A later 2018 report into the industry showed it was still raking in cash for violence with minimal oversight.

    As that Open Democracy investigation had it:

    Many of these companies will serve whoever can pay – from wealthy private individuals to faceless corporations. It is easy for them to do so.

    They added:

    Despite the size of this mercenary industry, the entire sector is marked by secrecy. Men trained in the arts of subterfuge and counter-intelligence dominate this sphere, and the result is an industry that operates from the shadows.

    Secretive elite gunmen

    The UK mercenary industry involves a great number of shadowy people. But it has long centred on former soldiers from British special forces units. And the home of the SAS, the sleepy town of Hereford, is also a hub for for-profit military activity.

    As journalist Matt Kennard reported in 2017:

    The business model involves providing “soldiers for hire” to companies and governments around the world, to protect assets and important people from criminals and terrorists (and sometimes dissidents).

    He added:

    It is a multibillion dollar industry operating in virtually every country in the world

    While warfare was, for many years, the sole preserve of states, the neoliberal model of privatisation has been extended to the provision of deadly violence. With obvious results.

    Double standards?

    Certainly, there is an argument the Wagner Group should be proscribed. But not for the first time, the UK finds itself in a position where it cannot finger-point and moralise. Given the UK is home to its own private military industry, which is also unregulated, it is very hard for the UK government to criticise other states for theirs.

    That the same military industry is built on the expertise of its own elite troops, and within shouting distance of its own major special forces base, makes the government’s position even more untenable.

    A ban on global mercenary firms would be sensible and prescient. But that must include our own killers-for-hire, as well as those of foreign powers.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/2s3m akatsiya, cropped to 1910 x 1000, licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • I just returned from my third trip to Russia, and my second trip to Donbass (now referring to the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk collectively) in about 8 months.  This time, I flew into lovely Tallinn, Estonia and took what should be about a 6-hour bus ride to St. Petersburg.  In the end, the bus trip took me about 12 hours due to a long wait in Customs on the Russian side of the border.

    Having a US passport and trying to pass the frontier from a hostile, NATO country into Russia during wartime got me immediately flagged for questioning.  And then, it turned out I didn’t have all my papers in order as I was still without my journalist credential from the Russian Foreign Ministry which was necessary given that I told the border patrol that I was traveling to do reporting.  I was treated very nicely, though the long layover forced me to lose my bus which understandably went on without me.

    However, sometimes we find opportunity in seemingly inconvenient detours, and that was true in this case.  Thus, I became a witness to a number of Ukrainians, some of them entire families, trying to cross the border and to immigrate to Russia.  Indeed, the only other type of passport (besides my US passport) I saw amongst those held over for questioning and processing was the blue Ukranian passport.  This is evidence of an inconvenient fact to the Western narrative of the war which portrays Russia as an invader of Ukraine.  In fact, many Ukrainians have an affinity for Russia and have voluntarily chosen to live there over the years.

    Between 2014 – the real start of the war when the Ukrainian government began attacking its own people in the Donbass – and the beginning of Russia’s intervention in February of 2022, around 1 million Ukrainians had already immigrated to Russia.  This was reported in the mainstream press back then, with the BBC writing about these 1 million refugees, and also explaining, “[s]eparatists in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.  Since the violence erupted, some 2,600 people have been killed and thousands more wounded. The city of Luhansk has been under siege by government forces for the past month and is without proper supplies of food and water.”  The number of dead in this war would grow to 14,000 by February of 2022, again before Russia’s Special Military Operations (SMO) had even begun.

    Around 1.3 million additional Ukrainians have immigrated to Russia since February of 2022, making Russia the largest recipient of Ukrainian refugees in the world since the beginning of the SMO.

    When I commented to one of the Russian border officials, Kirill is his name, about the stack of Ukrainian passports sitting on his desk, he made a point to tell me that they treat the Ukrainians coming in “as human beings.”  When my contact in St Petersburg, Boris, was able to send a photo of my newly-acquired press credential to Kirill, I was sent on my way with a handshake and was able to catch the next bus coming through to St. Petersburg almost immediately.

    Once in St. Petersburg, I went to Boris’s house for a short rest and then was off by car to Rostov-on-Don, the last Russian city before Donetsk.  I was driven in a black Lexus by a kind Russian businessman named Vladimir and along with German, the founder of the humanitarian aid group known as “Leningrad Volunteers.”  The car was indeed loaded with humanitarian aid to take to Donbas.  After some short introductions, and my dad joke about the “Lexus from Texas,” we were off on our 20-hour journey at a brisk pace of about 110 miles an hour.

    We arrived in Rostov in the evening and checked into the Sholokhov Lofts hotel, named after Mikhail Sholokhov, Rostov’s favorite son who wrote the great novel, And Quite Flows the Don. We were told that, up until recently, a portrait of the titular head of the Wagner Group, Yevgeny Prigozhin, had adorned the lobby wall.  They took this down after members of the Wagner Group invaded Rostov, putting fear in many of the residents.  Now, the hotel only has Hollywood movie posters decorating the walls.

    In the early afternoon the next day, my translator Sasha arrived from her hometown of Krasnodar, Russia – a 7-hour train ride from Rostov.  Sasha, who is just 22 years old, is a tiny red-headed woman who quickly turned out to be one of the most interesting people I met on my journey.  As she explained to me, Sasha has been supporting humanitarian work in Donbass since the age of 12.  She told me that she derived her interest in this work from her grandmother who raised her in the “patriotic spirit” of the USSR.  As Sasha explained, her parents were too busy working to do much raising of her at all.  Sasha, who is from the mainland of Russia, attends the University of Donetsk to live in solidarity with the people who have been under attack there since 2014.

    At age 22, Sasha, who wore open-toed sandals even when we traveled to the frontlines, is one of the bravest people I have ever met, and she certainly disabused me of any notion that I was doing anything especially brave by going to the Donbass.  But, of course, as Graham Greene once wrote, “with a return ticket, courage becomes an intellectual exercise” anyway.

    We quickly set out on our approximately 3-to-4-hour drive to Donetsk City, with a brief stop at a passport control office now run by the Russian Federation subsequent to the September, 2022 referendum in which the people of Donetsk and three other Ukrainian republics voted to join Russia.  I was again questioned by officials at this stop, but for only 15 minutes or so.  I just resigned myself to the fact that, as an American traveling through Russia at this time, I was not going to go through any border area without some level of questioning.  However, the tone of the questioning was always friendly.

    We arrived in Donetsk City, a small but lovely town along the Kalmius River, without incident.  Our first stop was at the Leningrad Volunteers warehouse to unload some of the aid we had brought and to meet some of the local volunteers.  Almost all of these volunteers are life-long residents of Donetsk, and nearly all of them wore military fatigues and have been fighting the Ukrainian forces as part of the Donetsk militia for years, many since the beginning of the conflict in 2014.  This is something I cannot impress upon the reader enough.  While we are often told that these fighters in the Donbass are Russians or “Russian proxies,” this is simply not true.  The lion’s share of these fighters are locals of varying ages, some quite old, who have been fighting for their homes, families and survival since 2014.  While there have been Russian and international volunteers who have supported these forces – just as there were international volunteers who went to support the Republicans in Spain in the 1930’s —  they are mostly local.  Of course, this changed in February of 2022 when Russia began the SMO.  But even still, the locals of Donetsk continue to fight on, now alongside the Russian forces.

    The lie of “Russian proxies” fighting in the Donbass after 2014 is actually one of the smaller ones of the Western mainstream press, for the claim at least acknowledges that there has been such fighting.  Of course, the mainstream media has tried to convince us that there was never such fighting at all and that the Russian SMO beginning in February of 2022 was completely “unprovoked.”  This is the big lie that has been peddled in order to gain the consent of the Western populations to militarily support Ukraine.  What is also ignored is the fact that this war was escalating greatly before the beginning of the SMO and this escalation indeed provoked it.  Thus, according to the Organization for European Security and Cooperation (OESC) — a 57-member organization including many Western countries, including the United States – there were around 2000 cease-fire violations in the Donbass in the weekend just before the SMO began on February 24, 2022.  In a rare moment of candor, Reuters reported on February 19, 2022, “Almost 2,000 ceasefire violations were registered in eastern Ukraine by monitors for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on Saturday, a diplomatic source told Reuters on Sunday. Ukrainian government and separatist forces have been fighting in eastern Ukraine since 2014.”

    Jacques Baud, a Swiss intelligence and security consultant and former NATO military analyst, further explains the precipitating events of the SMO:

    as early as February 16, Joe Biden knew that the Ukrainians had begun shelling the civilian population of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem, or to stand by and watch the Russian-speaking people of Donbass being crushed.

    . . .   This is what he explained in his speech on February 21.

    On that day, he agreed to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Donbass Republics and, at the same time, he signed friendship and assistance treaties with them.

    The Ukrainian artillery bombardment of the Donbass population continued, and, on 23 February, the two Republics asked for military assistance from Russia. On 24 February, Vladimir Putin invoked Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for mutual military assistance in the framework of a defensive alliance.

    In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately hid the fact that the war actually started on February 16. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as some Russian and European intelligence services were well aware. Jurists will judge.

    Of course, none of this was news to the people I met in Donetsk, for they had been living this reality for years.  For example, Dimitri, a young resident of Donetsk who has been fighting since 2014 along with his mother and father, told me quite exasperated as he pointed to some of the weapons and ammunition behind him, “what is all this stuff doing here?  Why have we been getting this since 2014?  Because the war has been going on since then.”  Dimitri, who was studying at the university when the conflict began, can no longer fight due to injuries received in the war, including damage to his hearing which is evidenced by the earplugs he wears. He hopes he can go back to his studies.

    Just a few days before my arrival in Donetsk, Dimitri’s apartment building was shelled by Ukrainian forces, just as it had been before in 2016.  Like many in Donetsk, he is used to quickly repairing the damage and going on with his life.

    Dimitri took me to the Donetsk airport and nearby Orthodox church and monastery which were destroyed in fighting between the Ukrainian military and Donetsk militia forces back in 2014-2015.  Dimitri participated in the fighting in this area back then, explaining that during that time, this was the area of the most intense fighting in the world.  But you would not know this from the mainstream press coverage which has largely ignored this war before February of 2022.

    One of the first individuals I interviewed in Donetsk was 36-year-old Vitaly, a big guy with a chubby, boyish face who wore a baseball hat with the red Soviet flag with the hammer and sickle.  Vitaly, the father of three children, is from Donetsk and has been fighting there for four years, including in the very tough battle for the steel plant in Mariupol in the summer of 2022.  He decided to take up arms after friends of his were killed by Ukrainian forces, including some who were killed by being burned alive by fascist forces –- the same forces, we are told, don’t exist.  Vitaly, referring to the mainstream Western media, laughed when saying, “they’ve been saying we’ve been shelling ourselves for 9 years.”

    Vitaly has personally fought against soldiers wearing Nazi insignia, and he is very clear that he is fighting fascism. Indeed, when I asked him what the Soviet flag on his hat meant to him, he said that it signified the defeat over Nazism, and he hopes he will contribute to this again.  When I asked him about claims that Russia had intervened with soldiers in the war prior to February of 2022 as some allege, he adamantly denied this, as did everyone else I interviewed in Donetsk.  However, he has witnessed the fact that Polish and UK soldiers have been fighting with the Ukrainian military since the beginning.  Vitaly opined that, given what has transpired over the past 9 years, he does not believe that the Donbass will ever return to Ukraine, and he certainly hopes it will not.  Vitaly told me quite stoically that he believes he will not see peace in his lifetime.

    During my stay in Donetsk, I twice had dinner with Anastasia, my interpreter during my first trip to the Donbass in November.  Anastasia teaches at the University of Donetsk.  She has been traveling around Russia, including to the far east, telling of what has been happening in the Donbass since 2014 because many in Russia themselves do not fully understand what has been going on.  She told me that when she was recounting her story, she found herself reliving her trauma from 9 years of war and feeling overwhelmed.  Anastasia’s parents and 13-year-old brother live near the frontlines in the Donetsk Republic, and she worries greatly about them.  Olga is glad that Russia has intervened in the conflict, and she indeed corrected me when I once referred to the Russian SMO as an “invasion,” telling me that Russia did not invade.  Rather, they were invited and welcomed in. That does seem to be the prevailing view in Donetsk as far as I can tell.

    During my 5-day trip to Donetsk, I was taken to two cities within the conflict zone – Yasinovataya and Gorlovka. I was required to wear body armor and a helmet during this journey, though wearing a seat belt was optional, if not frowned upon.  While Donetsk City, which certainly sees its share of shelling, is largely intact and with teeming traffic and a brisk restaurant and café scene, once we got out of the city, this changed pretty quickly.  Yasinovataya showed signs of great destruction, and I was told that a lot of this dated back to 2014.  The destruction going back that far included a machine factory which is now being used as a base of operations for Donetsk forces and the adjacent administrative building which looks like it could have been an opera house before its being shelled.  For its part, the city center of Gorlovka looked largely unmolested with signs of street life and even had an old trolley, clearly from the Soviet era, running through the center of town.  But the outskirts of Gorlovka certainly showed signs of war.  In both cities, one could hear the sound of shelling in the distance quite frequently.

    In Gorlovka, we met with Nikoli, nicknamed “Heavy.”  Nikoli looks like a Greek god, standing at probably 6 feet, 5 inches and all muscle.  I joked with him while I was standing next to him that I felt like I was appearing next to Ivan Drago in Rocky IV.  He got the joke and laughed.  While a giant of a man, he seemed very nice and with a strong moral compass.  He led us over to a makeshift Orthodox chapel in the cafeteria of what was a school, but which is now the base of operations for his Donetsk militia forces.  He told us that, even now after the SMO began, about 90 percent of the forces in Gorlovka are still local Donetsk soldiers, and the other 10 percent are Russian.  Again, this is something we rarely get a sense of from the mainstream press.

    Nikoli, while sitting in front of the makeshift chapel, explained that while he still considers himself Ukrainian, for after all he was born in Ukraine, he said that Donetsk would never go back to Ukraine because Ukraine had “acted against God” when it began to attack its own people in the Donbass.  He made it clear that he was prepared to fight to the end to ensure the survival of the people of Donetsk, and I had no doubt that he was telling the truth about that.

    At my request, I met with the First Secretary of the Donetsk section of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), Boris Litvinov. Boris, who has also served in the Donetsk parliament, explained that the Communist Party under his leadership had been one of the leaders and initiators of the 2014 Referendum in which the people of Donetsk voted to become an autonomous republic and leave Ukraine.  According to Boris, about 100 members of the Donetsk section of the CPRF are serving on the frontlines of the conflict.  Indeed, as Boris explained, the CPRF supports the Russian SMO, only wishing that it had commenced in 2014.  Boris is clear that the war in Ukraine is one over the very survival of Russia (regardless of whether it is capitalist or socialist) and that Russia is fighting the collective West which wants to destroy Russia.

    Boris compares the fight in the Donbass to the fight of the Republicans against the fascists in Spain in the 1930’s, and he says that there are international fighters from all over the world (Americans, Israelis, Spanish and Colombians, for example) who are fighting alongside the people of Donbass against the fascists just as international fighters helped in Spain.

    The last person I interviewed, again at my own request, was Olga Tseselskaya, assistant to the head of the Union of Women of the Republic of Donetsk and First Secretary of the Mothers’ United organization.  The Mothers’ United organization, which has 6000 members throughout the Donetsk Republic, advocates for, and provides social services to, the mothers of children killed in the conflict since 2014.  I was excited that Olga opened our discussion by saying that she was glad to be talking to someone from Pittsburgh because Pittsburgh and Donetsk City had once been sister cities.

    I asked Olga about how she viewed the Russian forces now in Donetsk, and she made it clear that she supported their presence in Donetsk and believed that they were treating the population well.  She adamantly denied the claims of mass rape made against the Russians earlier in the conflict.  Of course, it should be noted, the Ukrainian parliament’s commissioner for human rights, Lyudmila Denisova, who was the source of these claims was ultimately fired because her claims were found to be unverified and without substantiation, but again the Western media has barely reported on that fact.

    When I asked Olga whether she agreed with some Western peace groups, such as the Stop the War Coalition in the UK, that Russia should pull its troops out of the Donbass, she disagreed, saying that she hates to think what would happen to the people of the Donbass if they did.  I think that this is something the people of the West need to come to grips with – that the government of Ukraine has done great violence against its own people in the Donbass, and that the people of the Donbass had every right to choose to leave Ukraine and join Russia.  If Westerners understood this reality, they would think twice about “standing with” and continuing to arm Ukraine.

    A cathedral near the Donetsk City airport was destroyed in 2014.  The airport was also destroyed.

    A bridge near the Donetsk airport which was destroyed in 2015 by Donetsk militia forces to prevent Ukrainian troops and tanks from crossing. 

    • Both photos were taken by Daniel Kovalik.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Tactical Missiles Corporation (TMC) has presented at the International Maritime Defense Show (IMDS-2023) in the city of Kronstadt the latest naval weapons, including – for the first time – a new universal small-sized UMT torpedo. The UMT torpedo can be launched from helicopters, aircraft and drones. It deserves special attention because it is said to […]

    The post Tactical Missiles Corporation Develops Anti-Drone Torpedo appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Update:

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

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

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • In war, truth is the first casualty.

    — Aeschylus, Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC – 456 BC)

    How many of us learn about Russia from a Russian point of view? Or about Syria from a loyal Syrian? Or Cuba from a Cuban supporter? Or Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, China or many others on our current list of adversaries, from the point of view of those adversaries? We supposedly pride ourselves on listening to both or many sides of an issue before forming an opinion (or, better still, a sound analysis). It’s the core of our system of justice, however flawed. It’s why we value free speech.

    It’s not that the viewpoints we commonly hear are not different from each other, or that we don’t hear from people with foreign accents from the parts of the world in question. It’s that mainstream news, information and analysis are from a very narrow spectrum. The differences in the viewpoints are in the details, not the fundamentals. In the case of Ukraine, for example, the differences are mainly about how, and how much, to support Ukraine, not whether to do so. Do we hear the Russian view that they were compelled to come to the rescue of Ukraine’s Russian population, which was being massacred by racist, pro-Nazi elements running the Ukrainian government and supported by NATO? Not from the mainstream news, we don’t.

    Similarly, when we hear from nationals of adversary countries, our media rarely offer space or air time to persons who represent the adversarial point of view. We are rather more likely to hear from exiles seeking to overthrow the government and hoping for western support. When have we heard from a representative of Hezbollah or Hamas? Or of the government of China or North Korea, or the Sandinista government of Nicaragua? The point is not whether their point of view is correct or whether we decide that it’s reasonable or not, but rather whether we even know what it is, and whether we try to understand it. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do in order to negotiate with our adversaries, solve our differences and achieve peace? The closest we come to that in our media is to invite such representatives to an on-air ambush where we browbeat them and shout them down instead of listening to them.

    But it’s worse than that. Our vaunted “free press” closes down the offices and facilities of journalists from countries or movements selected for vilification, and blocks their websites within the boundaries of our country. Thus, the Russian RT media channel and the Iranian Press TV, among others, are no longer permitted to operate within most western countries. Apparently, their words are considered hazardous to western ears. Similarly, many journalists and other individuals have found themselves banned from western-based social media for revealing unwelcome facts or contradicting official truth. Many have been banned from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other platforms.

    It’s not just censorship, either. Our journalistic media have been taken over by advertising and PR principles, going so far as to fabricate stories and substitute lies for the truth on a massive scale. Even “fact checking” has become the province of distortion, where the “authorized” version of events has displaced actual facts.  The mainstream media remove journalists who tell too much truth, contradicting the lies. The New York Times “disappeared” war correspondent Chris Hedges for reporting on war crimes committed by Israel and similar news. Aaron Maté and Max Blumenthal used to report their investigative journalism on Democracy Now, which has now ceased inviting them, in order to become more of a mainstream outlet. Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersch migrated from The New Yorker and the New York Times to foreign media and eventually alternative outlets as his investigative journalism began to cast doubt on mainstream accounts of the Syrian war, the death of Osama Bin Laden, the destruction of the Nordstream gas pipelines and other events. Julian Assange is paying the highest price for publishing a modern-day equivalent of the Pentagon Papers, originally published by a younger, more courageous New York Times.

    Sadly, many members of the public consider themselves well-informed and openminded if they read the most prestigious U.S. newspapers, watch or listen to the BBC and Deutsche Welle, and subscribe to Asia Times. To the extent that this may have been true in the past, it no longer is. Today, the ownership and funding sources of the major news media are all oligarchs and powerful corporations. Their job is no longer to inform the public, but rather to inculcate them with whatever information and ideas will manufacture consent for the policies that the powerful wish to enact. And no more, please.

    This explains the actions of those who rule us, who are not just the elected leadership. In fact, even the elections themselves are limited to candidates selected by the powerful interests, and centered upon a few issues that do not threaten those interests (e.g. abortion and civil rights), and where the campaigning takes place almost exclusively in the few “swing” states that will determine the outcome of the election. As Emma Goldman said, “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

    If we want to be worthy of calling ourselves educated, we cannot depend solely upon the mainstream press; we will have to do a lot of the work ourselves. There is bias in all media, but we can expose ourselves to opposing biases in order to get a wider variety of facts and analyses, and form our views accordingly. We have choices, if we only seek them out. The biases of Yahoo and Google are different from those of Russian and Chinese search engines. If we don’t find what we’re looking for on one, we might find it on another. The same is true with social media. Telegram is becoming increasingly popular, especially with those who have been banned elsewhere. Substack.com is a website that thus far has accommodated most subjects and viewpoints. Many of the journalists who are less than welcome in the mainstream media can be found at serenashimaward.org, a project that rewards journalists who present alternate views and information (and for which I am proud to serve as Treasurer). Due diligence is worth the rewards.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.