position – Radio Free

‘Our Position on Palestine Is Not Fringe’: CounterSpin interview with Danaka Katovich on attacks on activists

Janine Jackson — Thu, 08 May 2025 21:07:01 +0000

Janine Jackson interviewed CODEPINK’s Danaka Katovich about attacks on activists for the May 2, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin250502Katovich.mp3

CODEPINK’s Medea Benjamin

Janine Jackson: It is misleading to portray public protest simply in photos of people being dragged off the street by law enforcement, because protest and dissent take many forms, some less visible than others. Still, the people in those photos have meaning for us, about being vocal and visible in frightening times. If standing up and speaking out loud in oppressive times were easy, well, there’d be less oppressive times, wouldn’t there? Whatever one’s imaginings about what they woulda, coulda done, the reality is that it is not a walk in the park to protest in person, knowing that you may face a lethally armed officer, tasked with grabbing you and throwing you in a cell, with the weight of the state behind them.

The state also has many forms of attacks on protesters and protest, and those are not always so visible, either. All of that is in play right now, and here to talk about it is Danaka Katovich, national co-director of the group CODEPINK. She joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Danaka Katovich.

Danaka Katovich: Thank you so much for having me, Janine.

JJ: I know that you see what’s happening to CODEPINK as just a piece of a bigger issue, but maybe first tell us a little about what’s been happening to CODEPINK in the last few months.

Common Dreams (3/27/25)

DK: Yeah. I think this new wave started with Sen. Tom Cotton, who’s the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. When he was at a hearing, during a CODEPINK disruption of the hearing, he stated, like it was a fact, that CODEPINK is funded by the Chinese Communist Party. We’re not, but someone in such a high position of power saying that is difficult to navigate, scary; you wonder what they’re going to do next.

And the very next day or two days later, Sen. Jim Banks, in a different Senate hearing, repeated and regurgitated the same lies about us, and asked Pam Bondi to investigate CODEPINK for these fake and not real ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

And they’re doing that to—you know, we’re very in their face. We’re in Congress every single day, challenging them on the genocide in Gaza, and their support for the genocide in Gaza, and their constant willingness to ignore the American public. It’s their job to listen to the American public and represent us, but they don’t do that. And we’re very in their face, and they’re trying to intimidate us, and scare us into being quiet.

JJ: MAGA couldn’t hate CODEPINK any more than they do, to the extent that they know you exist. So is the hope to isolate CODEPINK, even among other pro-Palestinian groups?

DK: I don’t think so, to be honest. In my honest assessment, I think they are going after us because we’re a well-known group—online, at least—and we post everything that happens to us, and all the interactions that we have, to educate the public on what’s really going on in Congress. So I don’t think it’s to isolate us from the Palestine movement. If it is, it’s absolutely not working.

CODEPINK (4/30/25)

JJ: I sense that CODEPINK, along with other groups, understands that you have to talk around dominant media narratives. I just saw a message today talking about how simple it is to want a child born in Gaza to live. I think people can get explained away from that basic human understanding, told that politics is over your head and let smarter folks decide. But folks who don’t do organizing think maybe you just come up with a magic message, but it’s much more human to human than that, isn’t it?

DK: Oh, absolutely. And that’s what’s really rooted me in this work, is our position on this is not fringe. A poll came out last week that said 70% of Democratic voters do not support sending weapons to Israel. That is so vastly different than what that poll would’ve been two years ago, or was two years ago.

I’ve not had to read a million books—I mean, I have, but a lot of people haven’t read a million books—to have the opinion that Palestinians in Gaza, and children in Gaza, deserve every single right to dignity and life that any person on this Earth has.

Because we’re seeing their faces, we’re hearing their voices. We see what they’re going through on our phones every single day. There’s no shortage of content coming out of Gaza that Palestinians have demonstrated their humanity in the worst situations of their life. And I think people don’t have to be even politically aware to not support what’s going on in Palestine.

JJ: The expansive and transparently intimidating effort, the work that’s being applied against CODEPINK, to say you’re funded by Communist China, that’s meant to keep folks from listening to you, or thinking about what you have to say. But that intimidation could be applied to anyone that they designate they don’t want us to hear from. So it’s not like they’ve set themselves any guardrails. This is a bigger thing.

CNBC (4/29/25)

DK: Yeah. What’s funny is this morning, before we did this interview, the Trump administration was doing a press conference about Amazon. Amazon said that they were going to post the prices for how the tariffs are affecting consumers, and the Trump administration and the press secretary, I can’t remember her name, said Amazon is partnering with a Communist China propaganda arm.

JJ: Right. So it’s a go-to.

DK: It’s literally whoever they disagree with, which is probably great for us, because they’re completely making their propaganda seem so pathetic and deluded.

JJ: Right. But following from that, because it’s fascinating to me, in the way that MAGA and the right will just throw charges out there. And then when they’re disproven, they’ll say, Yeah, but they’re really still true.

It reminds me of the way prosecutors will never accept a wrongful conviction: If he didn’t do what we sent him to prison for, he did something else. So we were still right to send him to prison.

FAIR.org (8/17/23)

And I think, at a certain point, an observer has to acknowledge that truth is not the point. It’s just us versus them. And I think a lot of folks lose the plot right there, because we don’t know how to operate in a system where truth doesn’t matter. So in the face of just blatantly false charges against you, how do you keep going forward, and help other folks go forward themselves?

DK: I think one way we’ve done it is help people realize just how ridiculous it is, because they can say whatever they want, and they will continue to say whatever they want. They’re saying it as if it’s a fact. Even though, if any of this were true, they would’ve shut us down years ago, when they started bringing up these allegations. I think that is one way we approach it, is just making it as ridiculous as it is, and unserious as it is.

JJ: Finally, we need a brave independent press corps right now, that could push back on these scurrilous attacks—scratch ’em, you can see their falsehood, but they’re part of attacks on democracy and on human rights. Corporate media—spotty, good things here and there. But in the main, I don’t see it.

But of course, corporate media are not the only media. I wonder what your thoughts are, overall, on the state of journalism and protest, and just what you would like to see from reporters in this moment.

DK: When Mahmoud was arrested by ICE agents, I think there was a different sort of pushback than there were on groups that are being attacked in such ways, like these vague and false claims about supporting terrorism, or supporting Hamas, or being funded by these foreign agencies or whatever. I think there was some pushback from even mainstream media. They were asking critical-thinking questions that I feel like they’ve been completely not doing for years and years.

But when it’s a group, when it’s CODEPINK or all these other Palestine organizations, they don’t ask these critical-thinking questions that they’ve asked when it happens to individuals. So, when someone accuses a feminist organization in the US of being funded by a foreign government, I would like to hear them challenge that, because it’s a direct attack on civil society. We are a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and they’re trying to take us down a peg, and even mainstream media who claim to support women’s rights and all of these things don’t even question it at all. So I’d love to hear them actually be critical of the Trump administration in a way that’s not just benefiting their specific neoliberal values.

Danaka Katovich: “Their goal here is to make people afraid of expressing a very normal human opinion.”

JJ: And then, any final thoughts for activists who might be kind of afraid to go out in the street or to join an organization, because they feel targeted and fearful? What do you have to say to folks?

DK: I would say the fear is the point of all of this. I fluctuated between being scared that they want to shut down CODEPINK… The thing that I come back to is, their goal here is to make people afraid of expressing a very normal human opinion. The point is fear. And I think if they’ve instilled fear, then they’re winning. And I think it’s OK to be afraid. I think it’s normal and human. But in this trajectory that we’re on, it will only get scarier to resist what is happening.

JJ: And we’ll do it in community, yeah?

DK: Absolutely.

JJ: We’ve been speaking with Danaka Katovich. She’s national co-director at the group CODEPINK. Thank you so much, Danaka Katovich, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

DK: Thank you so much for having me on.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

Not Taking a Position on Gaza IS Taking a Position on Gaza

Caitlin Johnstone — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 18:59:02 +0000

It’s not okay to claim ignorance or uncertainty about what’s happening in Gaza in 2025. You’re an adult. You have internet access. If you don’t know, learn. You can’t just go “it too compwicated, me no understandy, googoo gaga.” It’s not cute and it’s not okay. Grow the fuck up.

Not taking a position on Gaza IS taking a position on Gaza. One you’ll have to live with for the rest of your life. One you will be judged by history for. One you will have to explain to your grandkids. Failure to oppose a genocide that your own government is supporting is consenting to the genocidal status quo.

If this is the case with you, then that’s a character flaw, and you need to change it. It’s not okay for you to be that way. Knock that shit off.

*****

Israel is destroying the heavy machinery needed to clear rubble and rescue people trapped under buildings in Gaza.

https://x.com/AssalRad/status/1914818312133087627

Countless people have died slow, agonizing deaths trapped under destroyed buildings since this nightmare began. Have you ever taken the time to deeply contemplate that? What a horrifying way to die that is? Being alive but with your body partially crushed, alone and in agony unable to move in the darkness, surrounded by members of your family who are either dead or similarly trapped, possibly for days until you die of dehydration?

Maybe the worst part would be knowing that you’re surrounded by survivors who would like to get you out of there, but can’t because they don’t have the equipment necessary to move the enormous pieces of rubble overtop of you. Knowing you’re trapped, and you’re never getting out.

This has happened to people countless times since the beginning of this onslaught in 2023. And Israel is going out of its way to make sure even more people die this way.

*****

US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has rejected appeals by the World Health Organization to put pressure on Israel to end its starvation blockade on Gaza, saying, “What I would like to suggest is that we work together on putting the pressure where it really belongs — on Hamas.”

https://x.com/USAmbIsrael/status/1914335973237805553

Huckabee is a fanatical Christian Zionist who has said that there is “no such thing as a Palestinian” and that Israel has a right to the entirety of the West Bank.

If you believe your religion tells you to support the butchery and starvation of the people of Gaza, then your religious beliefs are bad, and you should change them. There’s no point in having a religion if it doesn’t even help you understand that genocide is an inexcusable evil.

There’s too much religious tolerance in our society. If you believe your religion tells you to support an active genocide, then everyone should call you an asshole and tell you to get different beliefs.

I actually agree with conservatives who say we need to be less tolerant toward people with unwholesome religious beliefs — I just disagree about whom that intolerance should be directed toward. It’s not Muslims telling me it’s right to support the Gaza holocaust, it’s Christian Zionists and Jewish Zionists. They belong to death cults which tell them that God wants them to support these profoundly evil things. These death cults should not exist, and anyone who belongs to them should leave. It should not be even slightly controversial to say this.

I don’t care what you believe about any deity or deities or how we should live or what happens to us after we die. Believe whatever you want as pertains to you and yours. But if your religious beliefs tell you to support Israel’s daily massacres and mass starvation, then your religious beliefs are bad, and people should not be tolerant toward them.

The post Not Taking a Position on Gaza IS Taking a Position on Gaza first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Caitlin Johnstone.

Tulsi reverses antiwar position on Yemen for Trump

The Grayzone — Mon, 24 Mar 2025 14:44:32 +0000

This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

Utah Man Pleads Guilty to Sexually Abusing Patients “Using His Position as a Therapist”

by Jessica Schreifels, The Salt Lake Tribune — Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:30:00 +0000

by Jessica Schreifels, The Salt Lake Tribune

This story describes explicit details of a sexual assault.

This article was produced by The Salt Lake Tribune, a member of ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

Former Utah therapist Scott Owen admitted in a Provo courtroom on Monday that he sexually abused several of his patients during sessions.

Provo police began investigating Owen in 2023 after The Salt Lake Tribune and ProPublica reported on a range of sex abuse allegations against Owen, who had built a reputation over his 20-year therapy career as a specialist who could help gay men who were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some of the men who spoke to The Tribune and ProPublica said their bishop used church funds to pay for sessions in which Owen allegedly also touched them inappropriately.

While Owen gave up his therapy license in 2018 after several patients complained to state licensors that he had touched them inappropriately, the allegations were never investigated by the police and were not widely known. He continued to have an active role in his therapy business, Canyon Counseling, until the newsrooms published their investigation.

In pleading guilty on Monday to three charges of first-degree felony forcible sodomy, Owen for the first time publicly acknowledged that he sexually abused his patients.

Owen, 66, admitted that he sexually abused two male patients “using his position as a therapist” and led them to believe that sexual contact was part of their therapy.

He also pleaded no contest on Monday to another first-degree felony, attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child, in connection with a third patient — a woman who alleged Owen touched her inappropriately during therapy sessions in 2007, when she was 13 years old. A no-contest plea means that Owen did not admit he committed the crime but conceded that prosecutors would present evidence at trial that would likely lead a jury to convict him.

Owen faces a maximum sentence of up to life in prison during a sentencing hearing scheduled for March 31.

Prosecutors agreed in a plea deal to dismiss seven other felony charges that Owen faced in connection with the two male victims. Both told police that Owen engaged in sexual contact with them during therapy sessions — including kissing, cuddling and Owen using his hand to touch their anuses.

Owen admitted in plea documents to having sexual contact with the two patients, including putting one patient’s testicles in his mouth.

Owen admitted in plea agreement documents that, as a therapist, he was in a special position of trust when he had sexual contact with his patients, which he told them was “part of their treatment process.” Utah law says patients can’t consent to sexual acts with a health care professional if they believe the touching is part of a “medically or professionally appropriate diagnosis, counseling or treatment.”

Provo police interviewed at least a dozen of Owen’s former patients, according to court records, all of whom say he touched them in ways they felt were inappropriate during therapy sessions. Many of those patients are men who told police they were seeking therapy with Owen for “same-sex attraction.” Provo police Capt. Brian Taylor has said that some of the former patients’ reports involved allegations that were outside the window of time that prosecutors had to file a case, called the statute of limitations.

Under a negotiated settlement with Utah’s licensing division in 2018, Owen was able to surrender his license without admitting to any inappropriate conduct, and the sexual nature of his patients’ allegations is not referenced in the documents he signed when he gave up his license.

Both state licensors and local leaders in the LDS church knew of inappropriate touching allegations against Owen as early as 2016, reporting by The Tribune and ProPublica showed, but neither would say whether they ever reported Owen to the police. In Utah, with few exceptions, the state licensing division is not legally required to forward information to law enforcement.

The church said in response that it takes all matters of sexual misconduct seriously and that in 2019 it confidentially annotated internal records to alert bishops that Owen’s conduct had threatened the well-being of other people or the church.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Jessica Schreifels, The Salt Lake Tribune.

Rep. Tlaib’s Emotional Response To the DNC’s Gaza Position

The Intercept — Thu, 22 Aug 2024 20:30:13 +0000

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by The Intercept.

Liberals Create Yet another “Support Israel’s Crimes” Position

Yves Engler — Sun, 14 Jul 2024 03:21:11 +0000

A genocidal Jewish supremacist political culture rewards, well, a genocidal Jewish supremacist. That explains Anthony Housefather’s recent appointment as Special Adviser on Jewish Community Relations and Antisemitism.

On Friday Justin Trudeau rewarded his most openly hostile caucus member with the newly created position. This gives Housefather a bigger platform to promote Israel’s holocaust in Gaza.

A longstanding advocate of apartheid, Housefather has spent the past nine months working assiduously to expand Canadian assistance to Israel’s bloodletting, which has led to 50,000 killed, 100,000 injured and the destruction of most buildings, water sources and agricultural land in Gaza.

Housefather has repeatedly smeared protesters as antisemitic and clamoured for the violent suppression of students protesting Israel’s genocide. In late November, Housefather made a solidarity trip to Israel where he met former Israeli military leaders and other officials. Previously Housefather met a Knesset member from Itamar Ben Gvir’s far right party Simcha Rothman and boasted about the Trudeau government’s voting record at the United Nations being more anti-Palestinian than Stephen Harper’s.

After Canada voted with most of the world for a ceasefire at the United Nations in December, Housefather repeatedly condemned his own government to the media. A month earlier, the Montréal MP also criticized Trudeau for his statement opposing the killing of babies. At the time CBC’s At Issue panel reported that Liberal MPs (presumably Housefather) had privately threatened to quit the party if Trudeau called for a ceasefire.

After a March 18 parliamentary vote that represented a small step towards lessening Canada’s complicity in Israel’s genocide, Housefather’s threat was formalized. In a rare form of public dissent, Housefather said he was considering quitting the Liberal caucus because of the vote and his party’s MPs applauding NDP foreign affairs critic Heather McPherson who introduced the motion. He created a media spectacle for a week, concluding it with a column in the National Post about being a proud “Zionist”.

If another MP attempted a similar move on most any other issue they would have been expelled from the Liberal caucus. Instead, the rogue genocidal Jewish supremacist is rewarded.

At the end of January, Housefather was made Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and then parlayed his threat to leave the party over his “hurt” feelings into the appointment as Special Envoy to Promote Israel’s holocaust in Gaza.

Housefather’s appointment further confirms what I argued in a 2016 article that led to efforts to cancel my ability to speak publicly. I wrote, “‘Anti-Semitism’ may be the most abused term in Canada today. Almost entirely divorced from its dictionary definition — “discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews” — it is now primarily invoked to uphold Jewish and white privilege… Without an intervention of some sort, the Jewish community risks having future dictionaries defining “antisemitism” as “a movement for justice and equality.”

Since that time the antisemitism apparatus has grown significantly.

As Special Adviser on Jewish Community Relations and Antisemitism, Housefather will work with Trudeau’s Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism Deborah Lyons (who hosted a pizza party for Canadians fighting in Israeli military while ambassador). They’ll seek to enforce the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s anti Palestinian definition of antisemitism, which the Liberals adopted and have made all Canadian Heritage grantees adhere to. They’ll work with the publicly funded Holocaust museums and monuments, which use Nazi crimes to enable Israel’s holocaust in Gaza today.

They’ll probably also coordinate with the University of Ottawa’s Special Advisor on Antisemitism and a host of other similar new ventures, such as Canadian Women Against Antisemitism, campaigning in support of Israel’s horrors in Gaza.

History will not judge the antisemitism industry kindly. Claiming oppression to justify apartheid and genocide is odious and honest people know it.

Image credit: Al Jazeera.

The post Liberals Create Yet another “Support Israel’s Crimes” Position first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Yves Engler.

Thai top diplomat on resignation: Work would slow without deputy PM position

By Nontarat Phaicharoen for BenarNews — Tue, 30 Apr 2024 03:22:20 +0000

Parnpree Bahiddha-Nukara, Thailand’s erstwhile foreign minister, said Monday that he resigned because he could not have performed his diplomatic duties effectively after the prime minister dropped him as a deputy PM through a cabinet shuffle.

In the scant seven-plus months that Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin’s government has been in power, Parnpree, as Thailand’s top diplomat, was instrumental in ensuring the release of Thai workers taken hostage by Palestinian militant outfit Hamas after it attacked Israel on Oct. 7.

He was also spearheading Thailand’s first humanitarian aid delivery effort to war-torn Myanmar since the February 2021 Burmese military coup, which led to a civil war on multiple fronts that has since displaced nearly 2.6 million people.

Being removed as deputy PM while being retained as foreign minister was “a little unusual,” Parnpree told reporters on Monday, a day after the Srettha government’s first cabinet shuffle was announced in the Royal Gazette on Sunday.

“In the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it is common to also have the role of deputy prime minister to lend dignity when we travel abroad, making foreign affairs operations smoother,” Parnpree said.

“Now that it’s reduced to just one position, I think that the work I will continue to do in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs may not be as quick and smooth as it should be. I believe that if they think there is someone more suitable, I am willing to let someone else take over.”

In Parnpree’s resignation letter, a copy of which BenarNews obtained, the 67-year-old said that he had dedicated himself to both roles and did not believe that performance was a reason for the change in his status.

Prime Minister Srettha said that Parnpree was being dropped as deputy prime minister so he could focus on his foreign ministerial work.

“I apologize if I made him uncomfortable about anything and thanked him for his work,” Srettha told reporters on Monday.

“I believe that if we need to work across ministries, we can still work as a team… holding both positions [deputy prime minister and foreign minister] is no longer necessary,” he said, adding that he had begun to reach out to potential candidates for the position.

In the interim, Srettha said that Phumtham Wechaychai, a deputy prime minister and commerce minister, would assume responsibility for foreign affairs.

However, one academic, Olan Thinbangtieo of Burapha university, said he was concerned about the potential impact Parnpree’s resignation could have on the efforts to address the crisis in neighboring Myanmar.

“[S]ociety recognizes that he is a knowledgeable and capable person, and his work has been evident. I believe it will affect the resolution of the Myanmar problem,” Olan, an assistant professor at the Faculty of Political Science and Law, told BenarNews.

Parnpree played a key role in initiating the Humanitarian Assistance Corridor project in March and April to provide aid to Myanmar’s citizens affected by the internal conflict in Kayin state. He had also expressed Thailand’s willingness to enable Myanmar’s peace process.

“Thailand’s primary concern is to see peace restored in Myawaddy, not just for the sake of trade relations,” Parnpree told reporters on April 12, while on a visit to the border region.

“If the various groups in Myanmar can engage in talks among themselves, Thailand would be pleased and ready to act as a mediator and coordinate efforts.”

Around two months ago, the Myanmar government introduced new conscription regulations, prompting some citizens to flee to Thailand to avoid being drafted.

The Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA), the Karen National Union (KNU), and the People’s Defense Force (PDF) launched a major offensive, declaring control over Myawaddy, a strategically important town near the Thai border.

Meanwhile, in the weekend’s cabinet shuffle, Prime Minister Srettha removed himself as finance minister.

“Every period that we manage the country, there is a need, a demand for problem-solving which necessitates personnel changes,” he told reporters on Monday.

“It’s not just the executive branch … the legislative branch also needs adjustments to ensure that the most suitable or knowledgeable people are in charge. It does not mean that those who are moved lack the ability to manage.”

Jon Preechawong in Bangkok contributed to this report.

BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated online news organization.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Nontarat Phaicharoen for BenarNews.

Fiji’s position over Israeli war on Gaza – international blunder or a domestic strategy?

APR editor — Tue, 09 Apr 2024 19:01:15 +0000

SPECIAL REPORT: By Richard Naidu, editor of Islands Business

South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been described as involving two competing narratives: one, about a displaced Palestinian people denied their right to self-determination, and the other, about the Jewish people who, having established an independent state in their historical homeland after generations of persecution in exile, have been under threat from hostile neighbours ever since.

When Fiji joined the United States as the only two countries to support Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territory at the ICJ in February, it was seen as walking head-on into one of the longest running conflicts in history, leaving Fijians, as well as the international community struggling to figure out which narrative that position fits into.

Following Hamas’ unprecedented attack on Israel in October, Israel’s retaliatory campaign against Gaza has provoked international consternation and has seen a humanitarian crisis unfolding, resulting in the motions against Israel in the ICJ.

And since then other cases such as Nicaragua this month against Germany alleging the enabling by the European country of the alleged genocide by Israel as the second-largest arms supplier.

South Africa had asked the ICJ to consider whether Israel was committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Fiji’s pro-Israel position was on another matter — the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) had requested the ICJ’s advisory opinion into Israel’s policies in the occupied territories.

Addressing the ICJ, Fiji’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, retired Colonel Filipo Tarakinikini said the ICJ should not render an advisory opinion on the questions posed by the General Assembly. He said the court had been presented “with a distinctly one-sided narrative. This fails to take account of the complexity of this dispute, and misrepresents the legal, historical, and political context.”

The UNGA request was “a legal manoeuvre that circumvents the existing internationally sanctioned and legally binding framework for resolution of the Israel-Palestine dispute,” said Tarakinikini.

“And if the ICJ is to consider the legal consequences of the alleged Israeli refusal to withdraw from territory, it must also look at what Palestine must do to ensure Israel’s security,” he said.

On the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, “Fiji notes that the right to self-determination is a relative right.

“In the context of Israel/Palestine, this means the Court would need to ascertain whether the Palestinians’ exercise of their right to self-determination has infringed the territorial
integrity, political inviolability or legitimate security needs of the State of Israel,” he added.

Crossing the line
Long-standing Fijian diplomats such as Kaliopate Tavola and Robin Nair said Fiji had crossed the line by breaking with its historically established foreign policy of friends-to-all -and-enemies-to-none.

Nair, Fiji’s first ambassador to the Middle East, said Fiji had always chosen to be an international peacekeeper, trusted by both sides to any argument or conflict that requires its services.

“The question being asked is, how is it in the national interest of Fiji to buy into the Israeli-Palestine dispute, particularly when it has been a well-respected international peacekeeper in the region?

“Fiji has either absented itself or abstained from voting on any decisions at the United Nations concerning the Israeli-Palestinian issues, particularly since 1978 when Fiji began taking part in the UN-sponsored peacekeeping operations in the Middle East,” Nair told Islands Business.

Nair said it was worth noting that in keeping with its traditionally neutral position on Israeli-Palestinian issues, Fiji had initially abstained on the UN General Assembly resolution asking the ICJ for an advisory opinion.

Former Ambassador Kaliopate Tavola asks why that position has changed. “Fiji’s rationale for showing interest now is not so much about the real issue on the ground — the genocide
taking place, but the niceties of legal processes. Coming from Fiji with its history of coups, it is a bit over-pretentious, one may say”.

Fiji’s stance over Israel . . . implications for the safety and security of Fijian peacekeeping troops deployed in the Middle East. Image: Republic of Fiji Military Forces/Islands Business

At odds with past conduct
Former Deputy Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, now professor in law at the University of Fiji, Aziz Mohammed, says the change of position does not reconcile with Fiji’s past endorsement of international instruments and conventions, including the International Criminal Court (ICC) statute on war crimes at play in the current proceedings at the ICJ.

“That endorsement happened by the government that was in power at the time of the current Prime Minister (Sitiveni Rabuka’s administration in the 1990s),” says Mohammed.

“We became the fifth country to endorse it. So, it was very early that we planted a flag to say, ‘we’re going to honour this international obligation’. And that happened. But subsequently, we brought the war crimes (section from the ICC statute) into our Crimes Act. Not only that, but we also adopted the international humanitarian laws into our laws — three Geneva Conventions, and three protocols. So, in terms of laws, most countries only have adopted two, but we have adopted all the international instruments. But then we’re not adhering to it.”

Fiji was among six Pacific Island countries — including Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Nauru, Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia — that voted against a UN resolution in October calling for a humanitarian truce in Gaza.

That vote caused significant political ruptures. One of Rabuka’s two coalition partners, the National Federation Party (NFP), said Fiji should have voted for the resolution. “It was a motion that called for peace and access to humanitarian aid, and as a country, we should have supported that,” said NFP Leader, Professor Biman Prasad, who is Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister.

Prasad’s fellow party member and former NFP Leader, Home Affairs Minister, Pio Tikoduadua, served in the Fiji peacekeeping forces deployed to Lebanon in the 1990s, and recounted the horrors of war he had seen in the region.

“I can still vividly remember the blood, the carnage and the mothers weeping for their children and the children finding out that they no longer had parents,” he said.

“In any war, no matter how justified your cause may be, it is always the innocent that suffer and pay the price. Those images, those memories are seared into my memory forever . . . that is why NFP has taken the position of supporting a ceasefire in Gaza contrary to Fiji’s position at the UN.”

Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, Major-General Jone Kalouniwai said the “decision has significant implications for the safety and security of RFMF troops currently deployed in the Middle East” and called on the government to reevaluate its stance on the Israel-Hamas issue.

“Their safety and security should remain a top priority, and it is crucial that their contribution to international peacekeeping efforts are fully supported and respected,” an RFMF statement said.

Interesting cocktail
Writing in the Asia-Pacific current affairs publication, The Diplomat, Melbourne-based Australia and the Pacific political analyst, Grant Wyeth said Pacific islanders’ faith and foreign policy make an “interesting cocktail” that drives their UN votes in favour of Israel. He knocks any theories about the United States having bought off these island nations.

“Rather than power, faith may be the key to understanding the Pacific Islands’ approach,” writes Wyeth. “Much of the Pacific is highly observant in their Christianity, and they have an eschatological understanding of humanity.”

He notes that various denominations of Protestantism see the creation of Israel in 1948 as the fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy in which the Jewish people — “God’s chosen” — return to the Holy Land.

“Support for Israel is, therefore, a deeply held spiritual belief, one that sits alongside Pacific
Islands’ other considerations of interests and opportunities when forming their foreign policies.”

In September, Papua New Guinea moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Prime Minister James Marape was quoted as saying at the time: “For us to call ourselves
Christian, paying respect to God will not be complete without recognising that Jerusalem is the universal capital of the people and the nation of Israel.”

“I am ashamed of my own government” protester placards at a demonstration by Fijians outside the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre (FWCC) . . . commentators draw a distinction between the matter of political recognition/state identity and the humanitarian issues at stake. Image: FWCC

Political vs humanitarian
The commentators draw the distinction between the matter of political recognition/state identity and the humanitarian issues at stake.

Says Mohammed: “This is not about recognising the state of Israel. This is about a conflict where people wanted to protect the unprotected. All they were saying is, ‘let’s’ support a ceasefire so [that] women, children, elderly … could get out [and] food supplies, medical supplies could get in …’ and it wasn’t [going to be] an indefinite ceasefire, which we [Fiji]
agreed to later.”

Fiji eventually did vote for the ceasefire when it came before the UN General Assembly again in December, following a major outcry against its position at home. The key concern going forward is the impact on the future of Fiji’s decades-long peacekeeping involvement in the Middle East.

Fiji-born political sociologist, Professor Steven Ratuva, is director of the Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies and professor in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology at the University of Canterbury.

“The security of Fijian soldiers overseas will be threatened, as well as Fijian citizens themselves,” says Ratuva. “There are already groups campaigning underground for a tourist boycott of Fiji. I’ve personally received angry emails about ‘your bloody dumb country.’”

Nair says when 45 peacekeeping Fijian soldiers were taken hostage by the al Qaeda-linked Syrian rebel group al-Nusra Front in the Golan Heights in 2014, when all else — including the UN — had failed to secure their release, Fiji’s only bargaining power was the value of its peacekeeping neutrality.

“No international power stepped up to help Fiji in its most traumatic time in international relations in its entire history. Fiji had to fall back on itself, to use its own humble credentials. I successfully used our peace-keeping credentials in the Middle East and over many decades, including the shedding of Fijian blood, to ensure peace in the Middle East, to free our captured soldiers.”

Punishing the RFMF?
Mohammed agrees with the concern about the implications of Fiji’s compromised neutrality.

“I think what’s on everybody’s mind is whether we’re going to continue peacekeeping or suddenly, somebody is going to say, ‘enough of Fiji, they have compromised their neutrality, their impartiality, and as such, we are withdrawing consent and we want them to go back,’” he says.

Fiji’s Home Affairs Minister, Pio Tikoduadua has been dismissive of such concerns, saying Fiji’s position on Israel at the ICJ did not diminish the capability of its peacekeepers because Fiji had “very professional people serving in peacekeeping roles”.

Mohammed, with an almost 40-year military career and having held the rank of Deputy Commander and once a significant figure on Fiji’s military council, asks whether Fiji’s position on Israel is a strategic manoeuvre by the government to reign in the military.

“Do they really want Fijian peacekeepers out there? Or are they going to indirectly punish the RFMF [Republic of Fiji Military Forces]?” he said in an interview with Islands Business.

He floats this theory on the basis that Fiji’s position on Israel came from two men acutely aware of what is at stake for the Fijian military — Prime Minister Rabuka and Tarakinikini, both seasoned army officers with extensive experience in matters of the Middle East.

“We all know that in recent times, the RFMF has been vocal (in national affairs). And they have stood firm on their role under Article 131 (of Fiji’s 2013 Constitution which states that it is the military’s overall responsibility to ensure at all times the security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all Fijians).

“And they have pressured the government into positions, so much so, the government has had difficulty. And they (government) say, ‘the RFMF are stepping out of position. Now, how do we control the RFMF? How do we cut them into place? One, we can basically give them everything and keep them quiet, or two, we take away the very thing that put them in the limelight. How do we do that? We take a position, knowing very well that the host countries will withdraw their consent, and the Fijians will be asked to leave’.

“Fiji will no longer have peacekeepers. No peacekeeping engagements, the numbers of the RFMF will have to be reduced. So, all they will do is be confined to domestic roles.

“People are questioning this,” says Mohammed. “Military strategists are raising this issue because the government knows they can’t openly tell the Fijian public that we are withdrawing from peacekeeping. There’ll be an outcry because every second household in Fiji has some member who has served in peacekeeping.

“So, strategically, we [government] take a position. It may not be perceived that way. But the outcome is happening in that direction.”

Richard Naidu is currently editor of Islands Business. This article was published in the March edition of the magazine and is republished here with permission.

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

Disgraced ex-governor appointed to senior ministry position

By RFA Khmer — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:43:02 +0000

Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Manet has appointed a former governor convicted of shooting a group of protesters to a senior position within the Ministry of Interior, RFA Khmer has learned, prompting condemnation from rights groups over rampant nepotism and impunity within the government.

It’s the latest controversial appointment by the prime minister, who in February named his younger brother, Hun Many, one of Cambodia’s 11 deputy prime ministers. The same month, his father, former Prime Minister Hun Sen, appointed as his adviser a former top military police official who was found guilty 15 years ago in an acid attack that disfigured a victim’s face.

In a sub-decree dated Jan. 30, but only released to the public on Thursday, Hun Manet appointed Chhouk Bandith, the former governor of Bavet city in Svay Rieng province, to the position of deputy director general of the General Department of Administration under the Ministry of Interior.

Chhouk Bandith was sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay 38 million riel (US$9,500) in compensation after he was convicted of shooting and wounding three female garment workers. They had been protesting poor conditions at the Kaoway Shoe Factory in Svay Rieng province in February 2012. He was released from prison in February 2015 after serving his full sentence.

Despite his conviction, on March 18, 2022, Acting Head of State and President of the Senate Say Chhum promoted Chhouk Bandith to the new post.

Chhouk Bandith is also a nephew of influential Deputy Prime Minister Men Sam A.

Attempts by RFA to reach him and government spokesman Pen Bona for comment on the appointment went unanswered Thursday.

‘There is no reform’

Ly Chanravuth, an activist with the environmental watchdog Mother Nature Cambodia, called the move a sign that Hun Manet is reneging on his promise to reform the government.

"This is an example that proves there is no reform,” he said. “Instead, we’re seeing appointments based on lineage and factions. In addition, the appointment of officials who have committed serious misconduct has put us back to where we were years ago.”

Ly Chanravuth said that appointing convicted criminals to office will lead to social insecurity. The public will be unable to seek help from the government to find justice because the officials that they rely on are already violating the rights of the people, he said.

Chhouk Bandith remained at large for a time after his conviction, prompting rights groups to speculate that he was under the protection of top officials. In November 2013, an appeals court upheld his 18-month jail sentence and the restitution to the garment workers, according to an earlier RFA report.

He later turned himself in after then-Prime Minister Hun Sen ordered his capture.

Translated by Yun Samean. Edited by Joshua Lipes and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Khmer.

UN Security Council Members Say Russia Exploits Its UNSC Position By Acquiring Missiles From North Korea

News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty — Wed, 10 Jan 2024 16:25:34 +0000

President Volodymyr Zelenskiy says Ukraine has shown Russia's military is stoppable as he made a surprise visit to the Baltics to help ensure continued aid to his country amid a wave of massive Russian aerial barrages.

Live Briefing: Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine

RFE/RL's Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia's full-scale invasion, Kyiv's counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL's coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

Zelenskiy met with his Lithuanian counterpart Gitanas Nauseda on January 10 to discuss military aid, training, and joint demining efforts during the previously unannounced trip, which will also take him to Estonia and Latvia.

“We have proven that Russia can be stopped, that deterrence is possible,” he said after talks with Nauseda on what is the Ukrainian leader's first foreign trip of 2024.

"Today, Gitanas Nauseda and I focused on frontline developments. Weapons, equipment, personnel training, and Lithuania's leadership in the demining coalition are all sources of strength for us," Zelenskiy later wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

Lithuania has been a staunch ally of Ukraine since the start of Russia's unprovoked full-scale invasion, which will reach the two-year mark in February.

Nauseda said EU and NATO member Lithuania will continue to provide military, political, and economic support to Ukraine, and pointed to the Baltic country's approval last month of a 200-million-euro ($219 million) long-term military aid package for Ukraine.

Russia's invasion has turned Ukraine into one of the most mined countries in the world, generating one of the largest demining challenges since the end of World War II.

"Lithuania is forming a demining coalition to mobilize military support for Ukraine as efficiently and quickly as possible," Nauseda said.

"The Western world must understand that this is not just the struggle of Ukraine, it is the struggle of the whole of Europe and the democratic world for peace and freedom," Nauseda said.

Ukraine has pleaded with its allies to keep supplying it with weapons amid signs of donor fatigue in some countries.

There is continued disagreement between Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Congress on continuing military aid for Kyiv, while a 50-billion-euro ($55 billion) aid package from the European Union remains blocked due to a Hungarian veto.

But a NATO allies meeting in Brussels on January 10 made it clear that they will continue to provide Ukraine with major military, economic, and humanitarian aid. NATO allies have outlined plans to provide "billions of euros of further capabilities" in 2024 to Ukraine, the alliance said in a statement.

Zelensky warned during the news conference with Nauseda that delays in Western aid to Kyiv would only embolden Moscow.

"He (Russian President Vladimir Putin) is not going to stop. He wants to occupy us completely," Zelenskiy said.

"And sometimes, the insecurity of partners regarding financial and military aid to Ukraine only increases Russia's courage and strength."

Since the start of the year, Ukraine has been subjected to several massive waves of Russian missile and drone strikes that have caused civilian deaths and material damage.

Zelenskiy said on January 10 that Ukraine badly needs advanced air defense systems.

"In recent days, Russia hit Ukraine with a total of 500 devices: we destroyed 70 percent of them," Zelenskiy said. "Air defense systems are the number one item that we lack."

Meanwhile, in Ukraine, an all-out air raid alert was declared on the morning of January 10, with authorities instructing citizens to take shelter due to an elevated danger of Russian missile strikes.

"Missile-strike danger throughout the territory of Ukraine! [Russian] MiG-31Ks taking off from Savasleika airfield [in Russia's Nizhny Novgorod region].

Don't ignore the air raid alert!' the Ukrainian Air Force said in its warning message on Telegram.

With reporting by AFP and Reuters

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

Texas Woman Denied Abortion for Nonviable Fetus, Flees State, "One of Thousands" in Similar Position

Democracy Now! — Tue, 12 Dec 2023 15:33:22 +0000

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

Texas Woman Denied Abortion for Nonviable Fetus, Flees State, “One of Thousands” in Similar Position

Democracy Now! — Tue, 12 Dec 2023 13:46:45 +0000

A Texas woman has had to flee to another state to have an emergency abortion after the state Supreme Court ruled against her. Kate Cox fled Monday after she had petitioned a judge to get an exemption from the state’s near-total abortion ban when her fetus was diagnosed with a fatal condition and doctors warned her carrying to term could endanger her fertility. “Unfortunately, it’s one of hundreds, if not thousands, of comparable stories,” says Dr. Bhavik Kumar, an abortion provider in Texas. “While these politicians say there are exceptions, somebody really has to be at death’s door before we can reasonably act in their favor.” We also speak with Tamarra Wieder, Kentucky state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, who says the Texas case could have a “chilling effect” on people seeking abortions elsewhere in the country, including in Kentucky, where a pregnant woman is the lead plaintiff in a new class-action lawsuit that argues the state’s ban on abortion violates its constitution. “These laws, restrictions and attacks don’t happen in a vacuum,” says Wieder.

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

Texas Woman Denied Abortion for Nonviable Fetus, Flees State, “One of Thousands” in Similar Position

Democracy Now! — Tue, 12 Dec 2023 13:46:45 +0000

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

UN nuclear watchdog boss defends position on Japan’s wastewater dump

APR editor — Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:17:59 +0000

By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific journalist

The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog has told RNZ Pacific its standards are not outdated.

It comes as nuclear activists raise concerns about the viability of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Japan’s impending release of over one million tonnes of treated radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean.

The report, released last week, said Japan’s plans for a controlled, gradual release of the treated and diluted water would have a “negligible radiological impact on people and the environment”.

READ MORE: Other Fukushima treated radioactive waste reports

In an exclusive interview, IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi told RNZ Pacific he stood by the agency’s safety standards.

“The standards are well, and fine. I have to be clear on this; they are not outdated,” he said.

“One of the first things that was done was to analyse, after the accident, whether the existing safety standards needed to be changed, needed to be updated.

“The conclusion was the standards did not need updating.”

Grossi said the parameters set were good enough then, and were good enough now.

NZ continues to ‘stand alongside’ Pacific
Grossi met NZ Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta in Auckland on Monday, before travelling to Rarotonga to meet with Pacific leaders.

Anti-nuclear activists have called repeatedly for New Zealand to take a firm opposition standpoint and even take Japan to court under the International Law of the Sea given the country’s long-standing anti-nuclear stance.

“What New Zealand has been very clear about is that there are long standing concerns in the Pacific about nuclear testing and the impact on the marine environment and health of the people,” Mahuta said after the meeting.

“And we recognise that that is a significant set of considerations that must be taken into account.

“New Zealand continues to stand alongside Pacific partners to ensure that their concerns are adequately taken on board,” Mahuta said.

“I am encouraged that the IAEA is taken it upon themselves to engage with the Pacific to hear their concerns, and the nature of their long standing worries about the impact of nuclear testing and their region, the health of the oceans, and gain some further insight about the response to the report,” she said.

Mahuta said she reiterated New Zealand’s full confidence in the IAEA’s advice and commended their science-based approach.

The IAEA’s report on Japan’s controversial nuclear wastewater plan was presented to Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida last week. Image: Twitter/Rafael Grossi/RNZ

‘Hit on the head again’
While in Japan to release the report, Grossi sat down with 11 mayors, the Chamber of Commerce and the Fishermen’s Associations.

“I have to say that there is mistrust — there is concern,” he said.

Grossi said the fisher-people of Japan were justifiably angry and lacked trust.

“I think it is logical that they feel in this way; they have they suffered once with the accident, and now they fear that they are going to be hit on the head again with this thing. So I have to understand this.”

He wanted be clear, however, that the products from Fukushima were “perfectly fine for consumption”.

IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi meeting members of the Committee for Countermeasures against Fukushima Radioactive Water Ocean Discharge in South Korea. Image: Twitter/Rafael Grossi/RNZ

In South Korea last week, the head of the UN nuclear watchdog was greeted with fierce protests.

Grossi was asked if the water is safe enough to drink and when he said yes, he was met by anger.

“This is not trying to make this into a farce. But if any water does not contain harmful radionuclides – why not?” he said.

“And there is a check that the water does not contain any harmful radionuclide – [but] there won’t be a reason for somebody to consume it apart from the taste because it would be salty.”

Concrete not an option
IAEA experts had looked at the Pacific Islands Forum panel’s suggestion that the wastewater, treated by an advanced liquid processing system, could be turned into concrete and then used at the Fukushima site as a sea wall.

Grossi said while it was not in their scope to do so, their experts had taken a look “informally”.

“According to our experts, this option in the case of Japan would not be possible,” Grossi said.

Transforming the water into concrete would release vapour “in itself complicating the problem even further”.

Secondly, under Japanese law, the concrete would become “nuclear waste”.

“There have been people, including some of our experts, looking informally into this,” Grossi said.

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

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

US claims to have made position clear during Blinken’s Beijing visit

By Chris Taylor for RFA — Tue, 20 Jun 2023 12:03:03 +0000

The mood was cautiously buoyant in both the U.S. and China – as well as Taiwan – that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s trip to China was the right move in “stabilizing” relations between the two superpowers that have grown increasingly precarious in recent months.

The State Department issued a statement saying the two sides had “candid, substantive, and constructive discussions on key priorities in the bilateral relationship and on a range of global and regional issues.”

“The Secretary emphasized the importance of maintaining open channels of communication across the full range of issues to reduce the risk of miscalculation. He made clear that while we will compete vigorously, the United States will responsibly manage that competition so that the relationship does not veer into conflict,” department spokesperson Matthew Miller said.

In a digital press briefing on Tuesday, Daniel J. Kritenbrink, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Sarah Beran, Special Assistant to the President of the United States and U.S. National Security Council Senior Director for China and Taiwan Affairs, broadly described Blinken’s trip as having been successful in terms of reestablishing lines of communication and managing competition.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, center, talks to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, second left, as Wang Yi, third right, Chinese Communist Party's foreign policy chief, listens during a meeting at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, Monday, June 19, 2023. Credit: Wang Ye/Xinhua via AP

During his meeting with Blinken, Xi Jinping rejected the term “strategic competition,” according to Chinese-language sources, saying, “Great power competition does not conform to the trend of the times.”

But as Wen-Ti Sung, a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council's Global China Hub, sessional lecturer in the Australian National University’s College of Asia and the Pacific and a member of the Australian Centre on China in the World, wrote in a tweet, the framing of the great power relations as non-competitive is “long-standing,” dating back to 2012.

“If China were to change, and to accept [the] U.S.' preferred framing, it would symbolize China compromising,” he wrote, saying that would only be likely to happen when Xi met his equal, President Biden.

Sung told RFA that, symbolically, the meeting was important.

“The visuals of Xi-Blinken meeting will embolden Chinese diplomats to more proactively engage with the U.S. and possibly show a little more flexibility,” he said.

Sung said that the fact that Xi had met with a U.S. envoy, someone lower than himself, showed that China was in a “gracious mood” and that would give Chinese bureaucrats “political cover” to extend olive branches and “make occasional compromises necessary to repair relations.”

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, Monday, June 19, 2023. Credit: Leah Millis/Pool Photo via AP

Another area of concern is China’s apparent disdain for reestablishing military-to-military communications, which Blinken said the U.S. wants in order to avoid any miscalculations in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea turning into outright conflict.

But both sides expressed satisfaction with the outcome of Blinken’s visit, even if there was little in the way of substantive agreement on specifics beyond returning to the agreement reached by Xi and President Joe Biden at a summit in Bali last November.

Exiled Tiananmen Square student leader Wu’er Kaixi, speaking to RFA in Taiwan, said it was possible that military-to-military exchanges were a “no go” for Beijing due to the non-negotiable nature of its claims on Taiwan. He said Beijing may also be reluctant to appear to be in too much of a hurry to offer concessions to Blinken for fear of looking weak and caving into Washington based on one visit by a U.S. Secretary of State.

Wu’er Kaixi described Blinken’s statements on the U.S. position on the One-China policy and on Taiwan independence, as “new definitions of old policies, an effort to regain control of [the] narrative.”

“I think it was a success, the U.S. playing their game on China’s home turf,” he said, adding that China cannot appear too willing to admit it has overstepped in a game of bluff and lost.

“The fact is that the whole wolf warrior diplomacy thing was a mistake and I think Blinken took that message to Beijing whether China likes it or not.

“Beijing probably realizes that it’s up against a firmer, more no-nonsense U.S. administration than any it has had to deal with before,” he added, while cautioning it may not signal an end to provocative military maneuvers in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.

A Chinese J-16 fighter jet carries out a maneuver that the U.S. military said was “unnecessarily aggressive” near an American reconnaissance plane flying above contested waters in the South China Sea, May 26, 2023. Credit: U.S military handout

State tabloid Global Times reported Monday that H-6K bombers of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force had carried out nighttime sorties encircling Taiwan, without specifying when it had occurred and with no official confirmation by Taiwan at the time.

According to Sung, the fact that Xi called for cooperation rather than strategic competition signaled that “Beijing is confident enough to reject American overtures [on competition] but also that the Chinese government can engage the U.S. government more now because Xi himself reaffirmed the need for cooperation.”

Sung added, “Chances are [that] functional issues such as people-to-people exchanges between students, scholars, and businesspeople will see a slow thaw, but it may not take long until tensions return again.

“Chinese military activities in the East and South China Sea as well as Taiwan Strait will likely go on unabated,” said Sung.

“All it takes is another near-miss between Chinese and American warships or military jets to turn up the default temperature of US-China rhetoric up again. Like it or not, strategic competition is here to stay.”

Edited by Mike Firn.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Chris Taylor for RFA.

‘The Court’s Position Is, No One Can Tell Them What to Do’ – CounterSpin interview with Ian Millhiser on Supreme Court corruption

Janine Jackson — Fri, 19 May 2023 22:49:06 +0000

Janine Jackson interviewed Vox‘s Ian Millhiser about Supreme Court corruption for the May 12, 2023, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

CounterSpin230512Millhiser.mp3

Janine Jackson: If you are disturbed, but also overwhelmed, by the sheer volume and severity of revelations of corruption at the US Supreme Court, you’re far from alone. Clarence Thomas, his wife Ginni and billionaire operative Harlan Crow may be at the current epicenter, but our guest suggests the problem, and consequently the necessary response, is much bigger and deeper.

Ian Millhiser covers the Court and the Constitution as senior correspondent at Vox. He is the author of the book Injustices: The Supreme Court’s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted, and The Agenda: How a Republican Supreme Court Is Reshaping America.

He joins us now by phone from Virginia. Welcome to CounterSpin, Ian Millhiser.

Ian Millhiser: It’s good to be here, thanks so much.

ProPublica (4/6/23)

JJ: Well, let’s start with the information that many folks will have heard at least some piece of. Clarence Thomas has been recipient of millions of dollars worth of gifts—including vacations, homes, the private school tuition of a child he says he’s raising as a son— from Republican billionaire Harlan Crow, without disclosure. As you’ve noted, this relationship between Thomas and Crow has actually been going on for years, and has been known about for years.

Thomas’ line has been, there’s no conflict, because Harlan Crow doesn’t have any business before the Court. That’s not true, and if it were, I imagine that many people would be surprised to learn that the standard of the highest court in the land is that a powerful billionaire, who overtly wants to reshape the country’s laws and regulations, can give you lots of money and benefits over decades, and it doesn’t matter, if they aren’t a named party in a case you’re actively considering.

And Roberts, and all the justices, I understand, signed a letter saying that, basically, We aren’t really governed by ethics rules, but it’s OK because we follow them anyway. Are we missing something, or is this really the Court’s official response to this?

IM: Yeah, the Court’s position is essentially, no one can tell them what to do. They use the words “separation of powers” a lot, to claim it would be wrong if Congress or someone else imposed an ethics code on them. But the reality that it creates is that there are no rules for the justices, other than the rules that they feel like complying with.

And to be clear, if the justices were anywhere else in government, there would be extraordinary ethics constraints on them. There’s a statute that says if you work for a federal agency, you cannot accept any gift, period, from anyone who is regulated by the agency that you work for. If you’re a member of Congress, or even if you’re just a congressional staffer, there’s a rule saying that if you want to accept a gift, even from one of your lifelong friends, and it’s more than $250, you have to get approval from the House Ethics Committee.

I used to work for an organization; we’d host a lot of congressional staffers for luncheons sometimes. And they would ask us, before we served them a meal, “Does this cost more than $25?” The reason why is because, under the ethics rule, if the meal costs more than $25, they aren’t allowed to eat it.

And so those are the rules that apply to other people in government. The rules that apply to the Supreme Court justices, apparently, are that Clarence Thomas can accept a $500,000 vacation from a billionaire, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Or at least nothing can be done to him.

New York Times (6/27/16)

JJ: John Roberts wrote an opinion, some years ago, vacating the conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, who had been convicted of accepting luxury gifts and loans from a bigwig. And in Roberts’ opinion, he said it was “distasteful…but our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns.” That seems to say, “We’re just above all of this; you might think this is a concern, but we’re Supreme Court justices, and we are just above it all.”

IM: This, I guess, shows you why they’ve taken such a blasé attitude to all these gifts that Clarence Thomas is getting. They almost don’t believe that the concept of corruption exists.

JJ: That’s what I was wondering.

IM: Basically what they have said—I mean, they said this explicitly, and this was the holding of the Citizens United decision—is that the only thing that counts as corruption is an explicit quid pro quo arrangement.

So if I go to a congressman and I say, “I will give you $10,000 if you vote for this bill,” that’s the one thing that the Supreme Court has said actually qualifies as corruption. But if I am, say, a lobbyist for, let’s say, the pork industry, and I write a congressman a $10,000 check and say, “Here’s $10,000, I’d like to have a meeting with you,” and then in that meeting, I say, “Here’s a list of bills I want you to vote for,” the Supreme Court has said that’s not corruption, because there was no explicit “you only get the $10,000 if you do what I say.” They even said, in the Citizens United case, that it’s good that elected officials are more responsive to their donors, because “democracy is premised on responsiveness.”

So you’re dealing with a bunch of folks who don’t see any problem at all with people who have a lot of money, who are willing to spend it on public officials, getting more access, and getting more beneficial outcomes from government. And so it doesn’t surprise me at all that Clarence Thomas, who has joined all those decisions, says, “Well, if Bob McDonald can get a Rolex, and if members of Congress can get the $10,000 donation, why can’t I get all the goodies that I want?”

LA Times (5/2/23)

JJ: Right. It’s just the joke is on everybody else, right?

I want to ask you about a big thing that I think folks may have not learned about yet. I want to ask you about Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Can you just tell us about the significance of that 1984 ruling, and then the significance of its potential overturn, which is possibly going to happen?

IM: So one trend I’ve been watching very closely in this Court—and this, I think, should trouble everyone who’s worried about the corruption in the Court as well—is that this Court is very eager to concentrate power within itself. And this is a break; there’s all kinds of cases, throughout the 20th century, establishing that courts should be reluctant to exercise power, in part because federal judges aren’t elected, so when they exercise power, they are taking power away from democratically elected officials.

Chevron is one of those cases. The way that a lot of federal law works is that, Congress writes a law and it delegates to a federal agency the power to figure out how to implement that law, how to achieve the goal of the law; the agency issues a regulation using the authority it’s been delegated by Congress. And Chevron said that, generally, courts should defer to the agencies when they issue those decisions. Courts should stay out of the question of whether those regulations are good ideas or not.

And the reason why is twofold. One is that judges don’t know a lot about the subject matters that agencies regulate; agencies know more, and are likely to do it well. And the other reason why is that, while the heads of federal agencies are typically not elected, they are all appointed by and serve at the pleasure of an elected president. And so there’s still democratic accountability there in a way that there isn’t in the judiciary.

Chevron has been around since 1984. The Supreme Court recently announced that it will take a case that seeks to overrule Chevron. And I see this quest to overrule Chevron as part of this much bigger project the current Court is engaged in, of trying to concentrate power in the Supreme Court itself, and to roll back all these old decisions that said that judges should be reluctant to exercise power.

JJ: And just as a point of information, or maybe more, Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion on Chevron, right? But now he’s opposed? He says he’s matured and changed his mind?

IM: Chevron was handed down before Thomas’ time; it was Justice Stevens who wrote the opinion. I believe that Thomas was in the Reagan administration when Chevron was handed down.

JJ: No, that’s right.

IM: But we have seen a huge shift. Thomas used to join decisions advocating for judicial restraint, like what was argued in Chevron. Justice Scalia, the conservative icon, was an evangelist for Chevron.

And of course Scalia was an evangelist for Chevron in the 1980s, when Republicans controlled the government. And so conservatives were very, very happy for courts to stay out of policymaking, and leave matters up to the experts in the federal agencies, when those agencies were controlled by the Republican Party.

When we started to see conservatives, including people like Thomas, shift away from this support for judicial restraint, was when Barack Obama moved into the White House, and all of a sudden there was a risk that Democrats might be making calls within the agencies. And so all of a sudden, many of the same conservative judges, who had been huge advocates of judicial restraint under Ronald Reagan, suddenly decided that the Court should be more active in checking Barack Obama.

Vox (6/25/22)

JJ: Well, for some people, when the guy who starred in Bedtime for Bonzo became president, it damaged the role, the legitimacy, of the presidency itself. The Court-packing by a president who didn’t even win the majority vote, the guy who likes beer, you know, the Roe overturning, Citizens United—it’s led to a similar drop in many people’s respect for the Supreme Court. Confidence in the Court, we hear, is at a historic low.

To which you have said, “Good.” And not just that, but that if one knows the Supreme Court’s history, and understands its structure, what’s going on today is not this wild, unprecedented, “how could this happen” situation that some might suggest. What should we understand?

IM: The thing to understand about the Supreme Court throughout history is, first of all, you don’t get on the Supreme Court unless you’re a lawyer, and you don’t get on it unless you’re a fairly elite lawyer. So it’s an institution that has always been controlled by elite professionals. And, I mean, I’m a lawyer myself, I don’t think that all lawyers are terrible human beings, but when you have a graduate degree, and you earn the kind of money that lawyers can make, that tends to skew your perspective on society.

So it doesn’t surprise me that this institution that will always be controlled by elites has not been a particularly beneficent organization in American history. Through the history of judicial review, the idea that the Supreme Court is allowed to strike down federal law, the first case they ever did was Marbury v. Madison. All that Marbury says is that they’re allowed to do it. The second case they ever did that in was in Dred Scott, which was an abysmal pro-slavery decision, which said that Black people—I apologize, this is offensive language—but the opinion said that Black people are “beings of an inferior order,” and therefore aren’t entitled to the same rights as white people. So that was the second time the Court ever exercised judicial review.

We passed three constitutional amendments—the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments—to get rid of Dred Scott, and the Court spent the first 30 or 40 years that those amendments were in effect basically writing them out of the Constitution. And then they spent the next 30 or 40 years, in what is known as the Lochner era, where they read the amendments, that were supposed to achieve racial equality in the US, to protect business owners from laws that gave their workers a minimum wage, from laws that allowed their workers to unionize, from laws that said that workers could not be overworked.

Extra! (1/11)

That’s the history of the Supreme Court. I could go on, I could talk about Korematsu, I could talk more about Citizens United, I could talk about them striking down parts of the Voting Rights Act. But the Supreme Court, for almost all of American history, has been a malign force, and that’s a big reason why I often argue that it should have much less power.

JJ: Let me just draw you out on one thing, because the media depiction is, “Republicans and Democrats fight over these tools, of which the Court is one, and whoever gets control of them has power.” But that’s not quite how it goes; there are reasons that it’s harder to do progressive policy with control of the Court than the other way around, yeah?

IM: Two responses. One, with respect to the assertion that, well, this is just a prize that both parties fight over, and whoever gets it gets it, fair and square: We are supposed to be a democracy; we have presidential elections every four years in this country; that means that if your candidate wins the presidential election, your party should get to govern for four years. It does not mean that you should get to govern for forty years.

One impact of the fact that Donald Trump happened to get elected at a time when three seats became vacant on the Court means that this guy who lost the popular vote, who tried to overthrow the federal government, got to appoint a third of the Supreme Court. And a recent paper that came out, by a friend of mine up at Harvard, argues that Democrats may not have a shot of regaining a majority in the Supreme Court until 2060. I will probably be dead the next time there’s a Democratic majority on the Supreme Court.

So, again, I think it is fair that if Republicans run a candidate for president, and that candidate wins the election fair and square, then they get four years of power. They should not get forty years of power.

And on top of that, the power that they get—Courts are very good at striking down laws, they’re very good at saying “no” to things. Courts can’t really build anything from scratch. Courts don’t have economists, they don’t have people who enforce their decisions, they don’t have the web of bureaucracy that you need to create, say, a welfare state.

And so courts wind up being much more powerful tools in the hands of conservatives, people who want to stop the government from doing things, because the Court can always strike a law down, they can always say no to a policy that is enacted. But they just aren’t very good at building things. Again, they do not have the staff, they do not have the infrastructure, to build policies; they can only destroy.

Vox (5/4/23)

JJ: Maybe following from that, you have written, “There are better ways to design a judiciary.” Can you tell us just a little bit about what you think some of those ways might be?

IM: The idea behind a court is that you’re supposed to have judges who are obedient to legal text. They read the statute, they read the Constitution, they read what the precedents say. The answer to every legal question isn’t always 100% clear, but judges are supposed to do their best job of following what the law is, regardless of what they want the policy to be.

It’s really hard to have disinterested public servants in those roles as judges, if the way you pick those judges is that a partisan president nominates people, that inevitably that partisan president will think will implement their agenda from the bench, and then those judges are confirmed by a partisan Senate. The way that we choose judges all but guarantees the sort of people who serve as judges will be partisan, they will not engage in that disinterested practice of reading the legal text and trying in good faith to discern what the law is, not what they want the policy to be.

Other countries, other states in the US, do it very differently. There is the Missouri model, which is where you have a commission, and you have different inputs into the commission: The governor gets to appoint a few members, the bar gets to appoint a few members, I believe the Missouri chief justice gets to appoint a member. The idea is you have enough inputs onto this commission, so it is much harder for one party to capture control over judicial selection.

And then different states do it in different ways; different countries’ selection systems, they do it in different ways. The way that it works specifically in Missouri is that, when there’s a state supreme court vacancy, the commission comes up with three names, the governor has to pick one of them. And that helps reduce the partisanship of the judiciary.

The French system: Some of France’s courts are staffed by civil servants, like literally someone who goes to judge school—they get a graduate degree that qualifies them to be a judge—and then they move up the ranks, and they’re promoted from within. There are many ways to design a judicial selection process in a way that doesn’t make judges into partisan appointees, and, unfortunately, we just don’t do that at the federal level in the US.

JJ: OK. Your work at Vox, ProPublica, Politico, the Lever, the Washington Post—all of the stories and exposés around this court corruption story, it’s showing, really, the power and importance of investigative reporting.

Crow’s laughable line about how he covered up payments to Ginni Thomas in one case because “people are so mean, and if it got out, people would say mean things about her”: It’s laughable, but it’s not funny, and I just have to think that surely what some powerful people are taking away from this is that there should be no more exposés.

I wonder if, along with what legislators might do and what people might do, what would you hope to see journalists do to keep this from being a couple weeks’ long scandal, and then we’re on to something else?

Ian Millhiser: “I think the most important thing that journalists can do is make it clear that Clarence Thomas is a Republican, and to speak of the Court, speak of the justices, as political appointees chosen by partisan officials.”

IM: It is a good question, because I think if Clarence Thomas, again, were in any other branch of government—like, if we found out that the secretary of transportation was getting flown all over the world, taking these lavish vacations being paid for by a billionaire political donor, the secretary of transportation would lose their job, because it would be too much of a scandal, and it would blow back on the president if they weren’t fired.

If a member of Congress did this, they would probably resign, and if they didn’t resign, they would be pushed out of office, either in their primary election, because their own party wouldn’t want them as an anchor hanging around their necks, or in the next general election.

And the Supreme Court, the only way to remove a justice is by impeachment. That takes 67 votes in the US Senate, which means that you would need at least 16 Republicans to vote to remove that justice. And, I mean, Clarence Thomas could eat a live human baby on national television and there wouldn’t be 16 Republican votes to remove him from office. They are committed to keeping this man on the Supreme Court.

I’ve covered the Supreme Court for a very long time. I covered Clarence Thomas’ scandals in which he accepted gifts from billionaire Harlan Crow in 2011, a dozen years ago I was on this story. It flared up, I wrote about it, a bunch of other reporters wrote about it, I went on the Rachel Maddow Show twice to discuss it. And nothing happened, because under our Constitution, Clarence Thomas is impossible to fire.

And so we can keep shining a light on this. I think the most important thing that journalists can do is make it clear that Clarence Thomas is a Republican, and to speak of the Court, speak of the justices, as political appointees chosen by partisan officials, so that the voters know, “OK, if I don’t want someone like Clarence Thomas appointed in the future, I know which party to blame.” But ultimately, that’s the only leverage that voters have with respect to the Supreme Court, because they enjoy this extraordinary protection from being fired, virtually no matter what they do.

JJ: And that just underscores the importance of voting rights, right? It all kind of tangles together, when the tools that you need to fight back against something like this are at least partly in the hands of the very people that you would be fighting.

IM: Now it’s getting so much attention, because Dobbs happened, because of the scandals with Thomas, because of the circumstances that led to Brett Kavanaugh getting on the Court, people are beginning to realize there are interesting stories, important stories, to be told there.

But ultimately, like I said, any consequences for what the Court has done are going to be one step removed from the people who are actually doing the terrible things. We probably cannot remove Thomas or Kavanaugh or any of those folks. The thing that voters need to understand is just that these are Republican political appointees doing these things, and if you think that the things that they are doing are bad, then take that into account when you show up at the voting booth.

JJ: All right, we’ll end it there for now.

We’ve been speaking with Ian Millhiser, senior correspondent at Vox, author of Injustices: The Supreme Court’s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted and The Agenda: How a Republican Supreme Court Is Reshaping America.

Ian Millhiser, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

IM: All right, thank you.

The post ‘The Court’s Position Is, No One Can Tell Them What to Do’ appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

County chief who oversaw destruction of Tibetan Buddhist sites moved to new position

By Sangyal Kunchok for RFA Tibetan — Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:16:00 +0000

A Chinese official who approved the destruction of a huge Buddha statue in a Tibetan-majority area has been assigned to another position in the same prefecture, Tibetans inside and outside the region said.

Wang Dongsheng, former chief of Drago county, now holds an apolitical appointment as director of the Science and Technology Bureau in the Kardze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in China’s Sichuan province, they said. Drago county, called Luhuo in Chinese, lies in Kardze in the historical Tibetan province of Kham.

A source in India told Radio Free Asia that Wang was promoted to the position in August 2022.

Wang had earlier overseen a campaign of destruction at the sprawling Larung Gar Buddhist Academy in Drago in a move that saw thousands of monks and nuns expelled and homes destroyed.

After he took office as Drago county chief in October 2021, Wang directed the demolition of the 30-meter (99-foot) Buddha statue there following official complaints that it had been built too high. Dozens of traditional prayer wheels used by Tibetan pilgrims and other Buddhist worshipers were also destroyed.

Officials forced monks from Thoesam Gatsel monastery and Tibetans living in Chuwar and other nearby towns to witness the destruction that began in December 2021.

Wang had earlier overseen a campaign of destruction at Sichuan’s sprawling Larung Gar Buddhist Academy in a move that saw thousands of monks and nuns expelled and homes destroyed.

“[J]ust within a month of taking the office, he initiated the demolition of Tibetan religious sites in Drago,” said a Tibetan source inside the region who requested anonymity for safety reasons. “Under his leadership the Drago Buddhist school was destroyed.”

Hotbed of resistance

Since 2008, Drago has been a hotbed of resistance against the Chinese government, prompting interventions by authorities, including significant crackdowns in 2009 and 2012. Beijing views any sign of Tibetan disobedience as an act of separatism, threatening China’s national security.

In this satellite image slider, the 99-foot Buddha statue in Drago in the Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture is shown at left sheltered by a white canopy on Nov. 19, 2019. At right is the site on Jan. 1, 2022. Credit: Planet Labs with analysis by RFA

Earlier this year, Chinese authorities tightened restrictions on Tibetan residents there, imposing measures to prevent contact with people outside the area, according to sources with knowledge of the situation.

Wang’s term as chief of Drago county ushered in a period of heightened assault on Tibetan Buddhism at the hands of the Chinese Communist Party, with the brutal dismantling of important cultural and religious sites.

Party leaders who suppress Tibetans and successfully carry out harsh campaigns against the Buddhist minority group are often promoted, said Dawa Tsering, director of the India-based Tibet Policy Institute.

“This is the norm, and we can see that happen with Wang Donsheng,” he told RFA.

Lui Pang, an executive member of Drago Communist Party, has been appointed as the new county chief, the sources said.

Among Drago county’s dozen administrative officials are eight of Chinese origin who hold higher positions, while the remaining four are Tibetans who work as office employees, they said.

So far, there’s been a slight easing of the harsh campaigns against Tibetans in the region under the new county chief, said another Tibetan inside the region, who declined to be identified for safety reasons.

“Unlike under former chief Wang, if one does not get involved in any political and sensitive issues and incidents, they [authorities] will not make random arrests as such,” the source said.

Previously, Wang was appointed deputy secretary of Tibetan-majority Serta county in Kardze, called Ganzi in Chinese, in December 2016, and later served as its county chief.

Translated by Tenzin Dickyi for RFA Tibetan. Edited by Roseanne Gerin and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Sangyal Kunchok for RFA Tibetan.

Algeria’s Gas vs. Rightwing Ideology: Will Italy Change Its Position on Jerusalem?

Ramzy Baroud - Romana Rubeo — Wed, 22 Mar 2023 05:55:01 +0000

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu left Tel Aviv for Rome on March 9, he was flown to Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv by a helicopter because anti-government protesters blocked all the roads around it. Netanyahu’s visit was not met with much enthusiasm in Italy, either. A sit-in was organized by pro-Palestine activists in More

The post Algeria’s Gas vs. Rightwing Ideology: Will Italy Change Its Position on Jerusalem? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Ramzy Baroud - Romana Rubeo.

Active ‘Neutrality’: Why Is Israel Struggling to Maintain a Coherent Position in Russia, Ukraine?

Ramzy Baroud — Fri, 17 Feb 2023 06:54:16 +0000

Photograph Source: kremlin.ru – CC BY 4.0

For a whole year, Israel has struggled in its attempts to articulate a clear and decisive position regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. The reason behind the seemingly confused Israeli position is that it stands to lose, regardless of the outcome. But is Israel a neutral party?

Israel is home to a population of almost one million Russian-speaking citizens, one-third of them arriving from Ukraine shortly before and immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Those Israelis, with deep cultural and linguistic roots in their actual motherland, are a critical constituency in Israel’s polarized political scene. After years of marginalization following their initial arrival in Israel, mostly in the 1990s, they managed to formulate their own parties and, eventually, exert direct influence on Israeli politics. Russian-speaking ultranationalist leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu, Avigdor Lieberman, is a direct outcome of the growing clout of this constituency.

While some Israeli leaders understood that Moscow holds many important cards, whether in Russia itself or in the Middle East, others were more concerned about the influence of Russian, Ukrainian and Moldovan Jews in Israel itself. Soon after the start of the war, then-Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid stated a position that took many Israelis, and, of course, Russia by surprise. “The Russian attack on Ukraine is a serious violation of the international order. Israel condemns this attack,” Lapid said.

The irony in Lapid’s words is too palpable for much elaboration, except that Israel has violated more United Nations resolutions than any other country in the world. Its military occupation of Palestine is also considered the longest in modern history. But Lapid was not concerned about ‘international order’. His target audience consisted of Israelis – around 76% of them were against Russia and in favor of Ukraine – and Washington, which dictated to all of its allies that half positions on the matter are unacceptable.

US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, warned Israel plainly in March that it must have a clear position on the issue, and “join the financial sanctions” against Russia if “you (meaning Tel Aviv) don’t want to become the last haven for dirty money”.

As millions of Ukrainians escaped their country, thousands landed in Israel. Initially, the news was welcomed in Tel Aviv, which has been worried about the alarming phenomenon of Yordim, or reverse immigration out of the country. Since many of the Ukrainian refugees were not Jews, this created a dilemma for the Israeli government. The Times of Israel reported on March 10 that “footage aired by Channel 12 news showed large numbers of people inside one of the airport’s terminals, with young children sleeping on the floor and on a baggage carousel, as well as an elderly woman being treated after apparently fainting.” In January, the Israeli Aliyah and Integration Ministry decided to suspend the special grants for Ukrainian refugees.

Meanwhile, Israel’s political position seemed conflicted. Whereas Lapid remained committed to his anti-Russian stance, then-Prime Minister Naftali Bennett maintained a more conciliatory tone, flying to Moscow on March 5 to consult with Russian President Vladimir Putin, purportedly at the request of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Later on, Bennet alleged that Zelensky had asked him to obtain a promise from Putin not to assassinate him. Though the claim, made several months after the meeting, was vehemently rejected by Kyiv, it illustrates the incoherence of Israel’s foreign policy throughout the conflict.

During the early phase of the war, Israel wanted to participate as the mediator, repeatedly offering to host talks between Russia and Ukraine in Jerusalem. Hence, it wanted to communicate several messages: to illustrate Israel’s ability to be a significant player in world affairs; to assure Moscow that Tel Aviv remains a neutral party; to justify to Washington why, as a major US ally, it remains passive in its lack of direct support to Kyiv and, also, to score a political point, against Palestinians and the international community, that Occupied Jerusalem is the center of Israel’s political life.

The Israeli gambit failed, and it was Türkiye, not Israel, that was chosen by both parties for this role.

In April, videos began emerging on social media of Israelis fighting alongside Ukrainian forces. Though no official confirmation from Tel Aviv followed, the recurring event signaled that a shift was underway in the Israeli position. This position evolved over the course of months to finally lead to a major shift when, in November, Israel reportedly granted NATO members permission to supply Ukraine with weapons that contained Israeli technology.

Moreover, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Israel has agreed to purchase millions of dollars’ worth of “strategic materials” for Ukrainian military operations. Therefore, Israel had practically ended its neutrality in the war.

Moscow, ever vigilant of Israel’s precarious position, sent messages of its own to Tel Aviv. In July, Russian officials said that Moscow was planning to shut down the Russian branch of the Jewish Agency for Israel, the main body responsible for facilitating Jewish immigration to Israel and Occupied Palestine.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s return to the office of prime minister in December was meant to represent a shift back to neutrality. However, the rightwing Israeli leader pledged during interviews with CNN and French LCI channel on February 1 and 5 respectively, that he would be “studying this question (of supplying Ukraine with the Iron Dome Defense System) according to our national interest.” Again, the Russians warned that Russia “will consider (Israeli weapons) to be legitimate targets for Russia’s armed forces”.

As Russia and Iran heightened their military cooperation, Israel felt justified in becoming more involved. In December, Voice of America reported on the exponential growth in Israel’s arms sales, partly due to a deal with the US Lockheed Martin Cooperation, one of the major US weapon suppliers to Ukraine. The following month, the French Le Monde reported that “Israel is cautiously opening its arsenal in response to Kyiv’s pressing demands.”

The future will further reveal Tel Aviv’s role in the Russian-Ukraine war. However, what is quite clear for now is that Israel is no longer a neutral party, even if Tel Aviv continues to repeat such claims.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Ramzy Baroud.

Why Is Israel Struggling to Maintain a Coherent Position in Russia, Ukraine?

Ramzy Baroud — Thu, 16 Feb 2023 02:53:30 +0000

As millions of Ukrainians escaped their country, thousands landed in Israel. Initially, the news was welcomed in Tel Aviv, which has been worried about the alarming phenomenon of Yordim, or reverse immigration out of the country. Since many of the Ukrainian refugees were not Jews, this created a dilemma for the Israeli government. The Times of Israel reported on March 10 that “footage aired by Channel 12 news showed large numbers of people inside one of the airport’s terminals, with young children sleeping on the floor and on a baggage carousel, as well as an elderly woman being treated after apparently fainting.” In January, the Israeli Aliyah and Integration Ministry decided to suspend the special grants for Ukrainian refugees.

The Israeli gambit failed, and it was Türkiye, not Israel, that was chosen by both parties for this role.

Moreover, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Israel has agreed to purchase millions of dollars’ worth of “strategic materials” for Ukrainian military operations. Therefore, Israel had practically ended its neutrality in the war.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s return to the office of prime minister in December was meant to represent a shift back to neutrality. However, the right-wing Israeli leader pledged during interviews with CNN and French LCI channel on February 1 and 5 respectively, that he would be “studying this question (of supplying Ukraine with the Iron Dome Defense System) according to our national interest.” Again, the Russians warned that Russia “will consider (Israeli weapons) to be legitimate targets for Russia’s armed forces”.

As Russia and Iran heightened their military cooperation, Israel felt justified in becoming more involved. In December, Voice of America reported on the exponential growth in Israel’s arms sales, partly due to a deal with the US Lockheed Martin Cooperation, one of the major US weapon suppliers to Ukraine. The following month, the French Le Monde reported that “Israel is cautiously opening its arsenal in response to Kyiv’s pressing demands.”

The post Why Is Israel Struggling to Maintain a Coherent Position in Russia, Ukraine? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Ramzy Baroud.

#17 Former Neo-Nazi Leader Now Holds DOJ Domestic Counterterrorism Position

Project Censored — Sat, 26 Nov 2022 20:38:14 +0000

In a November 2021 Progressive magazine article, reporter Helen Christophi revealed that Brian P. Haughton, a former member of multiple racist skinhead bands and a past leader in the neo-Nazi movement, now holds an important counterterrorism position in the Department of Justice. Haughton serves as a law enforcement coordinator for domestic counterterrorism in the Middle Atlantic Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement Network of the Department of Justice’s Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS).

Michael German, a Brennan Center fellow who investigates neo-Nazis, told Christophi that it is “highly unlikely” that RISS or similar federal employers would have missed Houghton’s neo-Nazi ties while conducting a background check. As Christophi reported, many other white supremacists likely hold powerful positions in law enforcement agencies, especially since neo-Nazi leaders are encouraging their followers to take jobs in the police or military.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Haughton played drums with the Arresting Officers, an influential neo-Nazi band, which was named for the belief that arresting officers had the best jobs since they could assault people of color. He also had connections to members of the Aryan Republican Army, a neo-Nazi gang that robbed twenty-two Midwest banks in the mid-1990s and is suspected of having helped to fund the Oklahoma City bombing. Haughton’s involvement in the Nazi skinhead scene ended around January 1995, when he joined the Philadelphia Police Department, where he worked until December 2017.

Although Haughton’s ideological commitments could have changed since his days as a skinhead, Frank Meeink, a former neo-Nazi leader who knew Haughton and now conducts hate crime trainings, said, “I’m sure he still has these beliefs. You don’t join the cops being racist and then get un-racist.”

Georgetown law professor Vida Johnson told Christophi that police departments are overwhelmingly conservative and white and often give the benefit of the doubt to job applicants with racist or bigoted pasts. “Police underestimate white people as threats,” Johnson said. German, the Brennan Center fellow, observed that a white supremacist “couldn’t prosper in law enforcement agencies if the prosecutors didn’t go along with it, if the judges didn’t go along with it, if the government didn’t go along with it.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has long been aware that white supremacists are infiltrating law enforcement agencies. In 2006, the Bureau disclosed that white supremacists were getting jobs as police officers in order to access intelligence and weapons training. And, in 2015, an FBI counterterrorism policy directive referenced “active links” between white supremacists and law enforcement officials. However, there is little evidence that law enforcement leadership did much in response to these revelations.

Although NPR, the Washington Post and the New York Times, among others, have reported on former or current police officers with ties to white supremacist organizations being charged in connection with the January 6 storming of the Capitol, only the Progressive appears to have reported on the alarming case of the neo-Nazi inside the DOJ.

Helen Christophi, “The Lone Wolf in the Henhouse,” The Progressive, November 18, 2021.

Student Researcher: Annie Koruga (Ohlone College)

Faculty Evaluator: Mickey Huff (Diablo Valley College)

The post #17 Former Neo-Nazi Leader Now Holds DOJ Domestic Counterterrorism Position appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Project Censored.

How Ukrainian Tank Crews Near Kharkiv Seized A Position Called ‘Moscow’

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty — Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:09:10 +0000

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

‘A Simple Yes or No’: Fetterman Demands Oz Share Position on GOP’s Federal Abortion Ban

Kenny Stancil — Tue, 13 Sep 2022 17:21:31 +0000

Moments after Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina introduced legislation Tuesday that would prohibit abortion nationwide after 15 weeks of pregnancy, the campaign of Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman—the Democratic nominee for the key battleground state's open U.S. Senate seat—challenged Dr. Mehmet Oz, his GOP opponent, to clarify where he stands on reproductive freedom.

"Republicans are running on a national abortion ban in these midterms."

"Would you vote for Sen. Graham's bill to ban abortions after 15 weeks?" Fetterman spokesperson Joe Calvello asked Oz, a super-wealthy, right-wing celebrity television doctor backed by former President Donald Trump. "It's a simple yes or no question."

"'It should be left to the states' is not a real answer," Calvello added, preemptively shutting down what has become Republicans' typical response on the campaign trail since the U.S. Supreme Court's reactionary majority eliminated the constitutional right to abortion earlier this summer. GOP candidates' standard retort looks increasingly deceptive now that Graham has once again proposed a federal abortion ban.

"The people of Pennsylvania deserve to know how Oz would vote on this bill if he were in the U.S. Senate," said Calvello. "They deserve to know where he stands when it comes to an issue as fundamental as reproductive rights."

"John Fetterman's position on this issue is crystal clear," he continued. "John believes abortion is a decision that should only be made by a woman and her doctor, not politicians in Washington. In the Senate, he will proudly cast the 51st vote to scrap the filibuster and codify Roe v. Wade into law."

O’Neill ‘bombshell’ throws top position in PNG elections wide open

APR editor — Thu, 04 Aug 2022 02:14:00 +0000

By Gorethy Kenneth in Port Moresby

People’s National Congress party leader Peter O’Neill has blown the race for the Papua New Guinea prime minister’s job wide open by declaring he will not run for the country’s top post.

As the national election winds down and lobbying intensifies among Pangu Pati, People’s National Congress (PNC), United Resources Party (URP), People’s Progress Party (PPP) and the National Alliance (NA), the one-time prime minister O’Neill said his party would support an alternative prime minister candidate.

The bombshell from O’Neill is likely to shake up the Pangu camp on Loloata Island which contains several aspiring PM-minded politicians.

READ MORE: Other PNG elections reports

O’Neill also appealed to the elected leaders to choose a prime minister who could heal the nation from the chaos that has plunged the country into election-related violence.

He wants to focus on Ialibu-Pangia and Southern Highlands and wants to give an opportunity to those who have been elected the right way to put their hands up.

“You will have my 100 percent support and I ask nothing special in return,” the former PM said yesterday.

O’Neill had gone to the election, vying to form government but the dismal performance of his PNC party may have forced his change of heart for the top job.

Not just about O’Neill or Marape
He said that the position of prime minister should not just be about O’Neill or Marape.

“Let me make it clear. I do not believe that I have a right to be the only alternative to Marape for the prime minister position.

“It was my greatest privilege to lead Papua New Guinea, but I recognise that we need to heal and move forward, and that the restoration may move faster when leaders listen to the will of the people,” he said.

“I encourage leaders who have been elected properly and who are genuinely interested in rescuing PNG from the economic and social chaos Marape has plunged the country into over the past three years, to consider putting their hand up for the top job.

“The role of prime minister should be filled by a person who has firstly been elected with integrity — who has been mandated by the people honestly.

“It is a critical junction for our young nation, and we urgently need a Papua New Guinean who has a vision for our country and who can pull the nation together and lead us forward.

He said there was a very worrying “fake government” which had fostered deep hatred under the Marape leadership that was tearing at the cohesion that had kept the country peaceful.

‘No celebrations’
“There are no celebrations around the country despite the apparently overwhelming election of Pangu candidates,” he said.

“Very strange, no one at all seems proud of their apparent chosen leaders, rather people are scared with no one to turn to with all avenues for justice closed off to the regular person.

“The national general election has magnified the level of violence, hatred, and unfairness in society and it is time for a leader to step forward who can bring peace and execute on clear policies.

“I am prepared to support alternative prime minister candidates as I and my party are prepared to do whatever it takes to rescue PNG,” he declared in Port Moresby.

“I can assure those who may contemplate being the next prime minister, that the propaganda coming from the locked and guarded at Kalabus Pangu (Loloata Resort) is not true.

“Leaders are worried the economy is in tatters. They are asking why our economy is performing so badly that the IMF has announced that they are opening a dedicated office in Port Moresby to monitor more closely the Treasury functions.”

O’Neill said the closure of the Porgera mine and the failure to move ahead in three years with any new major investments such as Wafi Golpu, along with massive borrowings and wastage had “shredded our financial position”.

He said genuine leaders did not want another five years like the last three.

“Our children are growing up thinking this violent society is normal,” he said.

“We now seem to be in freefall economically and socially and need to use this moment in time to reset ourselves and move forward with new leadership.”

Gorethy Kenneth is a PNG Post-Courier journalist. Republished with permission.

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

Position of World’s Governments on Ukraine Considered Insane Pacifism in U.S.

David Swanson — Fri, 27 May 2022 08:00:11 +0000

The stance taken on Ukraine by many of the governments of the world is outside acceptable debate in the United States.

The Secretary General of the United Nations António Guterres has proposed a ceasefire, urged a negotiated settlement, and met with the President of Russia despite opposition in the West to doing so. Pope Francis has urged a ceasefire and negotiations, declared that no war can be justified, and encouraged workers to block weapons shipments. China’s Ambassador to the United Nations Zhang Jun has urged nations’ governments to pursue a ceasefire and offered China’s assistance.

The President of Italy Sergio Mattarella, speaking to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, has urged pursuit of a ceasefire and negotiated settlement. Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi and Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio have even proposed a draft agreement. India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has urged a ceasefire and peace talks. The President of France Emanuel Macron has proposed a ceasefire, negotiations, and the creation of new non-military alliances.

Brazil’s ambassador to the United Nations Ronaldo Costa Filho has urged an immediate ceasefire. The President of Germany Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Chancellor Olaf Scholz have urged a ceasefire and negotiations. Chair of the African Union President of Senegal Macky Sall has called for a ceasefire. South Africa’s ambassador to the United Nations Jerry Matjila and Deputy President David Mabuza have called for a ceasefire and negotiations.

On its face, or if we were talking about any war other than Ukraine, this might all seem sensible, even inevitable. A war must eventually be ended, either through negotiation or by putting an end to us all via nuclear apocalypse. The belief by both sides that ending it later will be better is almost always catastrophically wrong. The unwillingness to end wars is driven largely by hatred, resentment, and the corrupt influences that create wars in the first place. So, a negotiated settlement must come, and the sooner the better. A ceasefire, of course, need not wait for a resolution of all issues, only for a credible commitment to negotiate by all sides.

But we are talking about Ukraine here, and U.S. media has persuaded much of the U.S. public that nothing short of the destruction or elimination of the Russian government is morally worthy of consideration, even if it risks nuclear holocaust for the planet.

This might be an occasion to consider how the United States differs from the rest of the world on other matters military. The U.S. spends vastly more money on militarism than any other government, about as much as the next 10 nations put together, 8 of those 10 being U.S. weapons customers pressured by the U.S. to spend more.

Below those top 11 military spenders, do you know how many nations it takes to add up to the same level of spending as the U.S. engages in? It’s a trick question. You can add up the spending of the next 142 countries and not come anywhere close.

U.S. weapons exports are more than those of the next five countries. The U.S. holds well over 90% of the world’s foreign military bases, that is bases that are in someone else’s country. The U.S. is the only country with nuclear weapons in someone else’s country; it has nukes in Turkey, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, and Germany — and is now putting them in the UK.

It’s possible that, in fact, the world’s governments have been taken over by deranged Putin-loving pacifistic lunatics. But it’s a fact that U.S. culture has been saturated for decades in pro-war infotainment, and that the world’s biggest booster of militarism is the U.S. government. It’s possible that this had had some effect on the ability of the U.S. public to consider sensible alternatives to war.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by David Swanson.

Democratic AGs Position Themselves as ‘Last Line of Defense’ If Roe Falls

Jessica Corbett — Mon, 09 May 2022 18:11:05 +0000

Democratic state attorneys general and candidates are gearing up to play a key role in the fight for abortion rights in the wake of Politico revealing a U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade amid the GOP plotting to pass a nationwide ban if they regain control of Congress.

"While this decision is not yet final, this is a moment we've been preparing for and we're already fighting back."

The reversal of Roe could outlaw abortion in up to 26 states, due to trigger bans and other existing laws, according to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute.

CNN noted last week that "the inability of Democrats in Washington, despite narrow majorities in Congress and President Joe Biden in the White House, to come up with the votes to pass federal legislation guaranteeing abortion rights—and the likelihood that, even if they were to retain or build on those majorities, action would be difficult—has positioned Democratic state leaders as the last line of defense against Republican efforts to seize on the court's potential decision and move forward seeking either to ban or severely restrict the right to an abortion."

Representatives for both the Democratic Governors Association and the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA) pointed to Justice Samuel Alito's forthcoming opinion as a wake-up call for what is at stake in this year's state-level races.

"If Roe is overturned, this fight will move squarely into the states," DAGA communications director Geoff Burgan told CNN, "and we need national donors, both large and small, to recognize that reality and invest in electing Democratic AGs this year."

A new memo from the organization first reported Friday by The New Republic details plans to boost paid media and services to up to $30 million "in support of incumbent Democratic AGs and DAGA-backed candidates in battleground states like Georgia, Arizona, and others to come."

In addition to announcing the nearly 40% increase in spending on such races compared to the 2018 campaign cycle, the memo highlights DAGA's requirement that "endorsed attorneys general and candidates must publicly support abortion access and reproductive healthcare."

The memo came after DAGA co-chairs Aaron Ford of Nevada and Kathy Jennings of Delaware released a statement calling news of the draft opinion "devastating and disturbing."

"While this decision is not yet final, this is a moment we've been preparing for and we're already fighting back," they said. "Since 2019, we've been the only Democratic political committee with an explicit litmus test for supporting abortion access, and we are doubling down on the importance of protecting this right, especially if Roe falls and the right to abortion care is dismantled."

"We must show up at the ballot box this year and vote to protect abortion access," the pair added. "Alongside leaders in the reproductive rights movement, we are proud to be part of this fight and will never let up on ensuring the people of our states can access reproductive healthcare safely."

Ford, Jennings, and other Democratic AGs have also spoken out individually since the leak.

Wisconsin's Democratic AG, Josh Kaul—who is seeking reelection this year—said that "because of the importance of the freedom at stake, but also because of the need to use our resources as efficiently as possible," the state Department of Justice won't investigate or prosecute alleged violations of an 1849 abortion ban that could take effect if Roe is reversed.

"As long as I'm attorney general, we will not be using any resources for those purposes," Kaul told the Wisconsin State Journal, also noting that his agency has the authority to provide legal guidance to district attorneys and training to law enforcement.

"I do not think that a ban on abortion should be enforced by any DA or law enforcement agency," he said, "both because it infringes on a fundamental freedom, but also because the resources of those agencies, and DOJ likewise, are much better used investigating things like violent crime or drug trafficking and should not be going towards trying to prosecute people for their involvement in abortions."

Democratic attorney general candidates are also speaking out—like Kris Mayes, who told Politico that "I'm going to make it clear to Arizonans that they can protect reproductive rights by electing me AG."

Georgia state Sen. Jen Jordan (D-6), an AG hopeful who's known nationally for advocating for abortion rights, has vowed not to enforce a six-week state ban that could take effect.

In Politico's Monday report—highlighting how Democrats have been "pitching themselves as the last line of defense for the right to terminate a pregnancy" since even before Alito's draft became public—Jordan noted a shift since former President Donald Trump's days in office.

"During the Trump years the AGs were trying to protect their constituents from the overreach of the administration and policies they saw as both unconstitutional and likely to hurt people. But what's interesting is that now AGs are having to stand up to overreach from their own states," she said. "Our legislature—House and Senate—is controlled by Republicans and thanks to gerrymandering that's not going away anytime soon. So the only person standing in the gap would be an AG."

Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel—who last month filed suit to strike down the state's 1931 abortion ban—is up for reelection this fall and has similarly pledged not to enforce the law if it takes effect. She discussed her position Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"Well, there's 83 duly elected prosecutors for every county in our state. As attorney general, I have statewide jurisdiction. And I ran on a platform of understanding that likely during the course of my term, Roe v. Wade would be overturned," she said. "And this incredibly draconian and strict 1931 law would criminalize abortion in this state with virtually no exceptions—no exception for rape, for incest, no exception for medical emergencies."

"And understanding that the lives of our 2.2 million women who are of childbearing age in this state, their lives would be at risk," she continued. "I refuse to enforce this draconian law that will endanger their lives and put at jeopardy the health, safety, and welfare of the lives of each and every woman in the state of Michigan."

Nessel reiterated her commitment to protecting the lives of Michiganders who would be endangered by the looming reinstatement of the ban in Politico's Monday report.

"The AG is an absolutely pivotal position," she also said. "We are not only the one authority with the power to prosecute cases in all counties in the state, but we also have unique oversight authorities when it comes to licensing and regulation."

Meanwhile, in states friendlier to reproductive rights, top officials are preparing for an influx of patients who can't access abortions where they live.

Former Neo-Nazi Leader Now Holds DOJ Domestic Counterterrorism Position

Vins — Wed, 20 Apr 2022 21:38:57 +0000

A November 2021 report by The Progressive revealed that Brian P. Haughton, a former member of multiple racist skinhead bands and a past leader in the neo-Nazi movement, now holds an important counterterrorism position in the Department of Justice. Haughton serves as a law enforcement coordinator for domestic counterterrorism in the Middle Atlantic Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement Network of the Department of Justice’s Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS). Michael German, a Brennan Center fellow and former FBI agent who specialized in investigating neo-Nazis, told The Progressive that it is “highly unlikely” that RISS or similar federal employers could miss neo-Nazi ties if they had conducted any sort of pre-employment background check. As The Progressive reported, this problem goes far beyond Haughton. Many other neo-Nazis and white supremacists likely hold powerful positions in law enforcement agencies, especially since neo-Nazi leaders such as Mark Thomas encouraged young recruits to blend into mainstream society and to take jobs in the police or military.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Haughton played drums with the Arresting Officers, one of the most influential neo-Nazi bands of the time, which was named for the belief that arresting officers had the best jobs since they could assault people of color. He also played for Break the Sword, another neo-Nazi punk band around the same time. Beyond music, Haughton had connections to members of the Aryan Republican Army, a neo-Nazi gang that robbed twenty-two Midwest banks in the mid-1990s and is suspected of having helped to fund the Oklahoma City Bombings. Haughton’s direct connections to the neo-Nazi skinhead scene appear to have ended around January 1995, when he joined the Philadelphia Police Department, where he worked until December 2017.

Of course, Haughton could have changed since his days as a neo-Nazi, but Frank Meeink, a former neo-Nazi leader who knew Haughton and who now conducts hate crime trainings for police agencies, explained, “I’m sure he still has these beliefs. You don’t join the cops being racist and then get un-racist being a cop.”

Georgetown law professor Vida Johnson told The Progressive that police departments are overwhelmingly conservative and white, with a consequence that job applicants are often given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their racist and bigoted pasts. Johnson described this as “a persistent problem” in policing. “Police underestimate white people as threats,” Johnson told The Progressive. German, the Brennan Center fellow and former FBI agent, expanded on these points, observing that a white supremacist “couldn’t prosper in law enforcement agencies if the prosecutors didn’t go along with it, if the judges didn’t go along with it, if the government didn’t go along with it.”

White supremacists’ presence in law enforcement agencies has long been recognized by the FBI. In 2006 the Bureau reported that white supremacists were getting jobs as police officers in order to access intelligence and weapons training. And, in 2015, the FBI reported evidence of “active links” between white supremacists and law enforcement officials. Aside from instituting processes aimed at preventing police officers from searching for themselves in the RISS system, agencies such as RISS denied the problem. Even in the months before the January 6 domestic terrorist incident, the FBI ignored continued efforts by white supremacists to recruit police officers. In October 2021, NPR reported that more than eighty people charged in connection with January 6 had connections to the military or law enforcement.

No corporate outlets have reported on this story as of April 20, 2022.

Source: Helen Christophi, “The Lone Wolf in the Henhouse,” The Progressive, November 18, 2021.

Student Researcher: Annie Koruga (Ohlone College)

Faculty Evaluator: Mickey Huff (Diablo Valley College)

The post Former Neo-Nazi Leader Now Holds DOJ Domestic Counterterrorism Position appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Vins.

There Is No Left Position That Justifies Putin’s Attack on Ukraine

David Ost — Sat, 02 Apr 2022 10:55:55 +0000

It is tough for leftists to be on the same side as the mainstream. We can easily feel at those times that we’re missing something, that we’re letting down the struggle, that by ganging up even on an admittedly bad actor we’re helping strengthen the nemesis at home, allowing it to appear as the good guy. Ever since 1917, that has been the case with regards to the western Left and Russia. Before 1917, the Left saw the tsarist autocracy as the pinnacle of authoritarian reaction, an attitude that eased the path for the socialist parties of Russia’s enemies to embrace World War I. But ever since the Russian Revolution, the Left has been wary of joining with any western bourgeois condemnations of the country, despite its own often fierce objections to Stalinism or the clampdown on internal democracy.

If we want to support the right of self-determination to America’s neighbors, we can’t deny the same to Russia’s. If we’re not able to recognize multiple imperialisms, we are guilty of the same kind of Americocentrism for which we castigate others.

As the war now enters its second month, we see this again in the case of Ukraine, despite the fact that Putin’s Russia is far closer to the tsarist model than to anything from the Soviet period. In the first days after the invasion, it seemed like almost all that prominent western left commentators could talk about was not Russia but NATO. The invasion was wrong, they usually stated at the outset and then proceeded to focus on the “real” culprit, invariably the West. Its guilt? That it had already expanded NATO to the east, and that it not ruled out the possibility of Ukrainian membership. It didn’t matter that NATO expansion was driven more by the east Europeans than by Washington, which was originally quite divided on the matter. Nor did it matter that NATO membership for Ukraine was hardly imminent, or that in no scenario was a NATO attack on Russia imaginable.

What mattered was that all these moves angered Russia, and it was the justified anger of Russia that so many western leftists seemed so eager to focus on in these first days following Russia’s invasion. In this way, they have effectively minimized Russia’s responsibility by embracing a “realist” view that the destructive rage of a “great” power is something the world must somehow accept as normal. It is not surprising that east European leftists have been unsparing in their criticism of their western counterparts, accusing them of “westsplaining.”

Even Noam Chomsky, while more viscerally critical of the invasion—he called it “a major war crime, ranking alongside the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland in September 1939”—then proceeded to speak all about NATO, endorsing someone else’s claim that “there would have been no basis for the present crisis if there had been no expansion” of NATO. Once again, Putin appears here as almost helpless, apparently left no other choice but to invade Ukraine in trying to defend Russia.

The statement of the “Party for Socialism and Liberation” was blunter but not really different from the approach of too many others: “While we do not support the Russian invasion, we reserve our strongest condemnation [emphasis added] for the U.S. government, which rejected Russia’s legitimate security concerns in the region.”

In other words, in the first days of this brutal and completely unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country, the first concern of many western leftists was to contextualize the invasion, shifting the blame to the enemy at home, and thereby standing aside from the outpouring of mainstream condemnation.

As for its supposed “security guarantees,” perhaps Russia does “need” them; great powers always insist they do. But for leftists to be more concerned with the security interests of a great power—in this case, a right-wing militarist power that supports itself almost entirely by the mining and selling of planet-killing fossil fuels—than with the desires of a small people hoping to secure their independence and not be invaded, is scandalous. Leftists never treat the peoples marginalized by western imperialism in such a dismissive way.

Giving a Pass to Imperialism

And yet this is not so surprising to me. I have been writing as a leftist about eastern Europe since the late 1970s. When I harshly criticized Soviet policies, or supported opposition movements in the Soviet bloc, western left colleagues sometimes looked at me askance. After all, the mainstream press and usually even the American government often criticized the same things and at least discursively supported the same movements. Wasn’t I thus just endorsing western Cold War government policies when, as an American, I should be focusing on how to change things here?

In the early 1980s, I wrote numerous articles from Poland for the left American weekly In These Times about the Solidarity trade union movement there—a workers’ movement fighting against the Soviet-backed government that practiced participatory democracy, opposed capitalism, and demanded independent trade unions. When I got home, one friend introduced me as a “former leftist.” The fact that my critique of the putatively left state socialist system never sounded anything like that of bourgeois counterparts—the fact that leftists really defended Polish workers’ labor rights unlike, say, Ronald Reagan’s cynical defense of Solidarity while crushing labor movements back home—somehow meant nothing to some leftists, concerned above all that taking a certain position put them “on the same side” as their enemies at home.

Yet it’s contrary to all internationalist principles, and plainly Americocentric, to give even a slight pass to an imperialism just because the country doing it opposes the country you think does it more. Blaming America for Russia invading Ukraine is like blaming the German Communist Party for the murder of Rosa Luxemburg. If the Party didn’t organize an uprising, which the Freikorps and government had made clear they would resist, they wouldn’t have shot her. In politics, states always face provocations. But they are not obligated to respond in the worst way possible.

The Problem of NATO

NATO has of course long been a major point of contention for Russia. The West has understood the prospect of Ukrainian membership as so unacceptable to Russia that NATO has repeatedly stated that there were no plans to do begin accession, though without formally withdrawing its 2008 statement that this was the long-term aim.

So, did Putin invade in order to keep NATO out of Ukraine? Objecting to NATO is one thing. But waging a war that invariably leads to the strengthening of NATO suggests that this is not the key question here. If the main aim were to take NATO membership off the table, Russia could have kept its troops surrounding Ukraine and announced that it was ready to invade. It would have then held off any attack pending emergency talks on Ukrainian neutrality. If rejected, it might have begun a limited incursion into the lands already controlled by separatists and threatened an escalation without an agreement on NATO. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said soon after the invasion that he was open to discussing the question of neutrality. Putin could have taken various steps short of all-out war to address what so many have said is Russia’s main grievance.

So, there must have been something else going on. And it hasn’t been hidden.

Putin has been expressing his views on Ukraine extensively for years. In July 2021 Putin wrote (perhaps even himself) a 7,000-word article completely devoted to two points: that Ukraine is an inalienable part of Russia and that Ukrainians have no right to govern themselves unless they do so in deep collaboration with Russia. The piece argues that an unbreakable connection between Russia and Ukraine existed for over a thousand years until it was broken definitively by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, allowing a large Ukrainian Soviet republic to become an independent state when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Forget for a moment the bizarre assumption that nations take on their eternal form at one particular moment of creation. Putin’s more important quote is this: “Soviet nationality policy created three separate Slavic peoples, when in fact there is only one large Russian nation, a triune people comprising Great Russians [i.e., Russians], Little Russians [i.e., Ukrainians], and Belorussians.”

The problem, then, with all the accounts focusing on NATO—a topic barely mentioned in Putin’s July text—is that they deny Putin agency. They present Putin as someone capable only of reacting, to America. Putin has repeated endlessly, and with signal clarity, what he thinks of Ukraine apart from the question of NATO. The NATO question is certainly not unimportant, but western analysts who keep stressing its absolute centrality are just plain guilty of not letting easterners, even in this case Vladimir Putin himself, speak for themselves. Yet Putin is clear: if NATO, one year ago, had taken membership off the table, Putin would still be left with the problem of Ukraine insisting that it is a completely separate entity from Russia.

Further evidence for the centrality of the “one great Russian nation” theme comes from a remarkable article published a day after the invasion in Novosti, the official Russian news agency, and then deleted hours later when it realized the extent of Ukraine’s resistance. Amazingly, some in the top leadership have believed this would be a cakewalk, because the article announces that “a new era” has begun, with Russia “restoring its historical fullness” by re-uniting the Russian people “in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarussians, and Little Russians.” Ukrainian independence, it continues, is intolerable because it means the “de-Russification of Russians.”

How much clearer can Russia say that NATO was only a minor symptom of a bigger problem? Publicly Russia spoke about NATO because it knew that this was something anyone wary of American power could latch onto, as a way of minimizing Russian responsibility. We should indeed be wary of American power. But if we are to listen to what Putin says, then we must acknowledge his clear and proud expressions of utterly imperialist ambitions toward Ukraine.

Putin and the Left

Do some people still harbor a view of Putin as some kind of leftist? Is that why there is still this reluctance in some western left circles (though not in eastern European left circles) to attribute the same ill intentions to Russia as they do to the United States?

It is true that Putin long served the Soviet state, belonged to the Communist Party, and famously bemoaned the end of the Soviet Union. It is also true that in most international conflicts during the Cold War, except for the ones inside the Soviet bloc, the Soviet Union was usually on the progressive side.

But Putin entered the state apparatus of the Soviet Union not for any progressive reasons, but to serve a powerful Russian state. There is no evidence of Putin having ever been interested in any kind of left ideology. He belongs squarely in the tradition of those old imperial White Army émigrés who began to embrace Soviet Russia in the 1930s when they saw that it was restoring the Great Russian power they had been pushing for all along.

In fact, the closest Putin comes to having an intellectual hero is one of the key theorists of the anti-Bolshevik side in the Civil War: Ivan Ilyin, a Christian monarchist and early admirer of Hitler, whose ashes Putin retrieved from America to have ceremoniously reinterred in Moscow. As for Russian leaders he styles himself after, his model is Tsar Alexander III, who reversed the reforms of his predecessor and strengthened authoritarian rule during his reign from 1881-1894, becoming a model for the west European right resisting liberal and socialist reforms just as Putin is now a hero for Marine Le Pen or Tucker Carlson fighting against egalitarian “woke” tendencies today.

George Kennan offered his warnings about NATO expansion before anyone had ever heard of Vladimir Putin. Any Russia was likely to be wary of NATO on its borders. But not every Russia would treat Ukraine as devoid of the most elementary rights of self-determination. Neither Lenin nor Gorbachev nor Yeltsin treated Ukraine that way, and Putin has denounced all three. Not every Russia would respond to a distant possibility of Ukrainian membership in NATO with an all-out war. And for those who keep returning to Russia’s justified fears of NATO on its borders, how to explain an invasion that is, as anyone could have predicted, already leading to a more aggressively anti-Russian NATO than anything since the end of the Cold War?

Recognizing Putin’s enormous culpability does not mean giving a free pass to America. Given its unwillingness to push for Ukraine’s NATO membership, it ought to have publicly taken the prospect off the table and worked towards a joint agreement for neutrality that would have defused Russia’s main talking point. Yet for all of America’s historic sins and culpabilities, the war in Ukraine is not one of them. Even Putin locates the causes of the war in Ukraine’s push for full independence—a push, he tells us repeatedly, that he cannot accept.

Almost no one on the left has supported the war. But saying “Down with the Russian invasion” and then turning immediately to blaming America, and only America, for provoking it is almost the same. Not only does it show a lack of basic understanding about Russia, it is also a stunning betrayal of the most basic internationalist principles. If we want to support the right of self-determination to America’s neighbors, we can’t deny the same to Russia’s. If we’re not able to recognize multiple imperialisms, we are guilty of the same kind of Americocentrism for which we castigate others.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by David Ost.

Nuland: Russia’s Negotiating Position Is ‘Capitulate And Then Maybe We’ll Talk’

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty — Wed, 30 Mar 2022 12:11:26 +0000

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

Vladimir Putin Made a Terrible Mistake, and His Concessions on Ukraine are a Sign of His Weakened Position

Patrick Cockburn — Wed, 30 Mar 2022 09:07:26 +0000

Much of what Russia says that it has gained was obtainable without an invasion. Ukraine was unlikely to join Nato and the Nato powers said that none of their soldiers would fight in Ukraine. Russian demands for ‘de-Nazification’, and an end to the genocide of Russian speakers, will be easy to meet because neither allegation was true, but Putin could claim to have averted them. More

The post Vladimir Putin Made a Terrible Mistake, and His Concessions on Ukraine are a Sign of His Weakened Position appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Patrick Cockburn.

Associate of Hunter Biden Defense Attorney Appointed to DOJ Position in Biden Administration

Vins — Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:39:30 +0000

Nicholas McQuaid was an attorney with Latham & Watkins, working at their New York office for many years. On January 21, 2021, President Joe Biden appointed McQuaid as the assistant…

The post Associate of Hunter Biden Defense Attorney Appointed to DOJ Position in Biden Administration appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Vins.