Egypt’s Government Rehabilitates Ex-President Mubarak with State Funeral
February 27, 2020
Despite being discredited and ousted by the 2011 Arab Spring, former president Mubarak's funeral aims to rehabilitate him and his legacy of military rule.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wilpert: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia. Egypt’s long-time dictator, Hosni Mubarak, died at the age of 91 on Tuesday, he was buried the following day. Mubarak ruled Egypt with an iron hand for nearly 30 years from 1981 until the protest of Egypt’s Arab Spring ousted him in 2011. After his forced resignation, Mubarak faced a trial where he was at first convicted largely as a result of the Egyptian public’s demand for him to be tried for the killing of over 800 protesters during the Arab Spring.
He received a life sentence in 2012, but it was released five years later when his conviction was overturned under current president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Mubarak’s former director of military intelligence who became president shortly after the 2014 coup d’état against elected president, Mohamed Morsi. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Egypt’s top military officers, Mubarak’s sons Alaa and Gamal, and other Egyptian and Arab officials accompanied Mubarak’s funeral procession in Cairo.
Joining me now to discuss Mubarak’s death and what he meant for Egypt is Angela Joya. She’s a political economist with expertise on the middle East and North Africa, and who has taught at the University Of Oregon. Her most recent book is The Roots of Revolt: A Political Economy of Egypt from Nasser to Mubarak, forthcoming very soon from Cambridge University Press. Thanks for joining us again, Angela.
Angela Joya: Pleasure to be here, Greg.
Greg Wilpert: Let’s start with who Mubarak was. How did he come to power and how did he govern Egypt for 30 years as Egypt’s longest serving president?
Angela Joya: Mubarak, interestingly enough as a cohort of free officers, had came from a rural background in the Nile Delta in the North of Egypt, and it was through the military schooling and military training that he climbed through the ranks of power within the state. His role became more prominent in the 1973 Egyptian Israeli war. It was right after that that Sadat basically appointed him as his vice president. He served as vice president for Sadat until you mentioned 1981 when Sadat was assassinated, Mubarak assumed the presidency of Egypt until he was overthrown decades later.
Greg Wilpert: So the 2011 Arab Spring protests actually forced Mubarak to resign. Let’s review those developments a little bit. I mean how and why did the Arab Spring come about in Egypt?
Angela Joya: When I heard the news of Mubarak passing away, you reflect on how long he actually ruled Egypt. Talking to my Egyptian friends, a lot of them remark how they were born under his rule, they grew up under his rule, and now they’re getting closer to becoming in their early 40s. Close to two generations of Egyptians almost have seen no one else in power except Mubarak. He has had a massive influence in the state, in Egypt and in society there. That, I guess in some ways, affected politics in Egypt, affected the economy in Egypt.
When I think about the chronology of Mubarak’s rule I see a particular transition that happens initially in the 1980s, for instance, because of the environment of fear, because of Islamists and the fact that Sadat was assassinated, Mubarak was very cautious in the kind of policies that he was implementing.
Egypt was gripped in economic crisis, and so Mubarak was not necessarily so keen on implementing reforms that the International Monetary Fund at the time or the World Bank were prescribing. This waited until the end of 1980s, early 1990s when Egypt started accepting some of those requests for opening Egyptian markets to the global economy.
In the 1980s also, Mubarak was seen… I mean if you look at his legacy, he was seen more of a democratic figure in some ways because he opened up society to a more political competition by other groups. It was repressive as it later on became post reforms, I mean the political environment in Egypt.
I would say Mubarak’s rule transformed quite a bit in the 1990s when Egypt adopted a structure adjustment program recommended by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. In that period, Mubarak’s reputation among Egyptians, ordinary Egyptians, transformed quite a bit as well.
I recall when I was doing my field work in 2008 I was going through some of the villages and smaller towns in upper Egypt, and ordinary Egyptians were already referring to him as a foreigner, as a foreign ruler over Egyptian. They were disowning him in some ways because of the way his policies were affecting the lives of these people.
The 1990s is when you see Egypt opening up and Egyptians seeing Mubarak as taking away the wealth of Egypt and handing it over to private investors, whether Egyptian or foreigner, they didn’t make the distinction. But that’s what the process of dispossession that I discussed in my book, it started happening in the course of 1990s land reform and housing reform which I’ve looked at more closely.
Greg Wilpert: Talk a little bit more about how people reacted to these policies. I mean like you said, he implemented this structural adjustment program, how’s that related then to… First of all, the economy seems to have picked up a little bit, but still in 2011 you saw the Arab Spring. Why was that?
Angela Joya: Right. I guess the part of the violence that I examined in my research was mostly linked to urban land reform and rural land reform, so agricultural reform and urban land rights, tenancy rights. We saw slow mobilization with the Kefaya group, but also with peasants in rural areas engaging in resistance, acts of resistance across villages and towns of Egypt, against the actions of landlords, and against the actions of the military that often would send off security forces to support the landlords in this process of dispossessing peasants and farmers, small farmers.
Workers also went on various strikes so [inaudible 00:06:35] happened where various manufacturing centers of Egypt started revolting against some of the changes that were introduced that entailed shrinking the labor force, but also bringing in stringent rules of contract that were short-term contracts and wages that were stagnating for the longest time. Egypt experienced quite a radical… Basically increased the rate of poverty, and there’s a rule of Mubarak. A lot of that had to do part and parcel because over a million Egyptians were dispossessed from land in the late 1990s, ’97 and onward.
So by the time 2000s rolled in, there was expectation that maybe investors will be attracted, foreign investors, but also Egyptian private investors, then they would transform the economy, create jobs and lift people out of poverty. Unfortunately by the end of 2000s, the number of strikes, the number of protests in Egypt started climbing up precisely because people’s conditions of life were not changing, it was not getting better.
I remember around those times walking in the streets of Cairo, but also Alexandria, their bigger cities, there was an increasing environment of fear that was setting in. I remember my internal couturiers would often say, “Do not take a picture of that. Do not take a picture of this particular building.” They thought that they were being seen. Oppression seemed to have set in Egypt as economic reform packages were introduced, and basically, people’s lives were being put under pressure.
By 2010, it was predictable in some ways that some uprising would happen but not to the scale that it happened. The scale of it and the fact that it was more urban based was quite shocking to a lot of experts of Egypt. Now thinking back to 2011 and how Mubarak reacted to that, it says quite a bit about Mubarak and who he had become in the 2000s.
I wanted to emphasize is that in the 2000s, it was his son, Gamal Mubarak and a lot of his friends who were trained in western universities and who worked for the World Bank, for International Monetary Fund, they had taken over various cabinet roles and advising basically the government as to what policies they should implement. They had become the government basically. Mubarak was, at this part, I think at this part of his rule, more of a figure without much influence. I do not think that he had the power to basically dictate the kind of policies that came out under his name in the late 2000s.
This is the part where Mubarak was shocked that the people were revolting in 2011 in January. He didn’t believe that they were actually asking him to step down, and he thought, “I’m the father figure, these are my children,” and he did refer to all Egyptian as his children, and so he was quite shocked. But I can assume that at this point, maybe even mentally, he was not there fully and so he had been going through various rounds of sicknesses.
The actual manipulations, and rules, and policy-making were happening at the hands of, at this point, late 2000s, the military-supported capitalist class in Egypt that had gained quite a bit of control of the state and the economy.
Greg Wilpert: Now, another major player and factor in Egypt of course, was the United States. That is Egypt, for a long time, was the second largest recipient of US foreign aid after Israel. Why would you say that the US give so much support to Mubarak, about $2 billion per year, and how important was that aid for keeping Mubarak in office?
Angela Joya: I have to say that initially, the aid started with the peace agreement, the Camp David Accords with Israel under Sadat, and so the aid was promised then, but it continued happening afterwards because Egypt continued to fulfill its role as a “peacekeeper” between Israel and Palestine.
But in reality, when we talk to Palestinians, they would often talk or refer to Mubarak as the one who kept the Gates closed for Palestinians not to escape the conditions that they were experiencing, especially the Sinai region and the border between Gaza and Egypt. Mubarak was seen by the Palestinians and by some of the critical scholars of the region as doing the dirty job of Israel for it. In some ways, that’s what they thought they got rewarded for.
I think given that the kind of research that I’ve done in my forthcoming book, you also find out that the relationship between the Egyptian military and between the American corporations over the course of 1980s, 1990s and 2000s strengthens and becomes much closer, and so Egypt became a market basically for American products, mainly military products. Either they were assembling them in Egypt or they were preparing, making them, and selling them, and getting licenses out of US.
It was that relationship also that ensured if Egypt received this $3 billion a year of US aid, they would continue becoming or remaining a customer for American military. That was another reason, it was not necessarily just for the support of Egypt’s role in maintaining the peace between Israel and Palestine.
Greg Wilpert: Now, finally, very briefly, Mubarak spent only a few years in prison and was ultimately released under a President el-Sisi. It seems that also given Mubarak’s ceremonious funeral, that he has been completely rehabilitated by the current government. Would you say that’s correct? If so, what does this say about the current president?
Angela Joya: Ultimately in the case of Egypt as I have noticed since 2011 onwards, the military has definitely assumed a stronger control over the state and under el-Sisi, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, we see a consolidation of the military’s power within the state and economy. Some of the activists in Egypt that I speak with, they have confirmed some of my worst fears that the environment of safety of journalists, of activists, of NGOs is much worse now under the rule of el-Sisi than it was under Mubarak in all of his period of rule.
In some ways, this repression is also speaking to how the military as a class want to celebrate the legacy of one of their own, and that’s where this three days of mourning for Mubarak comes into play and this massive ceremony that they are going to have for his funeral, is part and parcel of that consolidating this [inaudible 00:13:57] of the military in Egypt, in the mind of Egyptians.
It’s not surprising. I mean, I kind of expected that they will rehabilitate him not because of who he think, they think he is or he was, but more so as to what he symbolically represents on the part of the military and how the military should be viewed by the Egyptian public in general.
Greg Wilpert: Okay. Well, very interesting but we’re going to leave it there. I was speaking to Angela Joya, author of the forthcoming book, The Roots of Revolt: A Political Economy of Egypt from Nasser to Mubarak. Thanks again, Angela, for having joined us today.
Angela Joya: Pleasure to be here, Greg. Thank you.
Greg Wilpert: Thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Sunday, March 01, 2020
Germany Is Failing to Take Racism Seriously
February 26, 2020
A white supremacist in Hanau murdered ten people. German authorities, however, refuse to acknowledge the connection between Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, considering only the latter to be worthy of attention.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wolpert in Arlington, Virginia. On February 19th, a man walked into a shisha bar in the town of Hanau, a suburb of Frankfurt, Germany, and began shooting with a nine-millimeter pistol, killing nine people there and in a nearby coffee shop. He then went home, killed his mother, and took his own life. This shooting has become a highly divisive political issue in Germany because of the killer’s racism. Here’s how some of the leaders from Germany’s political parties reacted to the mass-shooting. Chancellor Angela Merkel, of the Christian Democratic Party, Christian Lindner of the Neo Liberal Free Democratic Party, Robert Habeck of the Green Party and John Carter of the Left Party.
Greg: Jack [inaudible 00:01:39] of the Far-right Alternative for Germany argued on Twitter that the shooting was neither a left wing or right wing attack, but just an act of insanity. The German police discovered that the shooter had legally registered weapons, that he was influenced by white supremacist ideology and sought to kill as many Muslims as possible. The mass shooting and German politicians reactions to it, highlight the different ways in which Germany deals with right-wing extremists depending on whether they target Jews or Muslims. Joining me now to discuss the different reactions to racist mass shootings is Shir Hever. Shir is a Real News correspondent in Heidelberg, Germany and is the author of the book, The Privatization of Israeli Security that was published by Pluto Press in 2017. Also, he is a board member of the German organization, Jewish Voices for Just Peace in the Middle East. Thanks for joining us today, Shir.
Shir: Thanks for having me, Greg.
Greg: So what was the official response of German authorities to the Hanau attack? And do you think that this was the correct way to respond?
Shir: So the German police has been taken by surprise and is very embarrassed by this because apparently, according to the records, this man … the killer actually reached out to the German police and to other institutions and tried to make contact with them because he was under the impression that his Islamophobic ideas would be welcomed by the government, by the police. And he wanted to cooperate with them in the act of killing Muslims basically. And they kind of brushed it away or it didn’t respond in time. And so he went on and decided to commit murder on his own. And I think that’s something that the German police is now responding to by saying the problem is that a response is to decentralize and calling for not stricter gun control, because Germany already has quite strict gun control laws, but rather a more centralized system for controlling guns, a more centralized system for managing racism and hate crimes.
And I’m not completely sure that this is the right response that one should expect from the German police in this case. In fact, one specific response with the German police was especially dis-concerning, because they said that they are now preparing for counter attacks or retaliatory attacks from Muslims. So already, their initial responses to suspect the victims, the Muslim community in Germany of maybe planning some kind of counter attack and attacking people of … attacking Christians or Far-right white nationalists. And interestingly, or very tellingly when there were other attacks in Germany for example, targeting Jews like there was in [Hale 00:04:31] late last year, there was no similar statement with the police. “Oh, no. Now the Jews are going to organize a counter attack and attack a white nationalist.”
But one thing I do want to point out that I think was a very good response, and it came surprisingly from the Green Party in Germany, the Green Party in many ways has many conservative elements that I do not expect them to make the statement, but they’ve actually echoed something that left organizations and especially anti-racist organizations in Germany have been saying for years, that it doesn’t make any sense that Germany has an official government appointed employee to deal with the matter of antisemitism, racism against Jews, but there is nobody to deal with other forms of racism. And we need in Germany somebody who will be organizing the efforts in the education specifically on all kinds of racism regardless of whether the targets are Jews or Muslims or [inaudible 00:05:39].
Greg: Now, in Germany there are laws that prohibit Holocaust denial and state security organs are charged with the surveillance of organizations that are suspected of antisemitic activities as you point out. And also there is a federal and state level official charged with combating antisemitism. But prior to this shooting in Hanau, there were polls that show that Islamophobia is actually much more widespread in Germany today than antisemitism is, and there are numerous attacks against Muslims and have been in recent years. So why are German authorities focusing on the protection of Jews so exclusively and not of most Muslims? And is this now going to change after the Hanau attack?
Shir: Well, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that in the German political discourse, in the German political culture, there is a complete mix of Judaism and the state of Israel to the point that people have forgotten the historical facts of the Holocaust and many Germans don’t understand that the state of Israel was only founded after the Holocaust, and there was never a war between Germany and Israel. In fact, the Jews that are being targeted in Germany by far-right crime, receive very little protection from the German state despite of all these mechanisms that you listed. Because the people who are in charge of fighting antisemitism for Germany … first and foremost among them is Dr. Felix Klein, who is the federal appointee for the issue of an antisemitism. He doesn’t really concern himself so much with far-right racism.
He barely mentions or criticizes and the far-right party alternative for Germany and their antisemitic statements and history. But rather, he’s focusing on criticism of the state of Israel. And because of that, there is this kind of false equivalence as if you have the left on the one side and the right on the one side, and both of the extreme left and the extreme right around this medic. That’s nonsense. That’s just not the case. And Muslims are in many ways on the same situation as Jews are, in many ways worse off than Jews in Germany today in the amount of stereotypes, and racism and discrimination that they are subjected to just because of their religion. But the authorities and the government often considers them to be potential perpetrators rather than victims of racism, because the focus is specifically on antisemitism, but it’s not really a focus on antisemitism, it’s just a focus on criticizing the state of Israel.
And Jews are perceived as if they are somehow representative of that state, even though of course, most Jews in the world and most Jews in Germany are not supporting Israeli state policy and do not see themselves as representatives of the Israeli state. And I think that’s a very big problem. And we have here a problem of blaming the victim when newspapers in Germany are talking about antisemitic attacks, and then immediately referring to Muslims, even if the perpetrators were not Muslims, or to the BDS movement as if that has anything to do with antisemitism and attacks on Jews in Germany and it does not. And I think that needs to change. That was the question. Is it going to change?
It needs to change. The problem is, do Muslim communities have the power to change it just by their activity in civil society? I think on their own they do not, but neither do the Jewish communities. It only works when minority groups work together in solidarity to demand to be treated equally and with respect. And the group that does have power in the German political system, is a state of Israel just because it’s a state, not because it’s particularly strong as a state, but it uses antisemitism as a tool to improve relationship with the German government instead of caring for the safety of persecuted minorities in Germany or in other countries.
Greg: Well, I think your point about solidarity is very important, but of course, the solidarity probably should also be coming from non Muslims and non Jews in Germany towards both of these populations. And that’s a real problem as you say. I think the issue of equating our criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism is just so prevalent, also in my experience. But I also wanted to ask about your organization, Jewish Voice for Just Peace. It has taken part in vigils and calls for a fight against all forms of racism, not just antisemitism. Now, does this represent and mainstream view among German Jews? And how is the relationship between the many Jewish communities and Muslim communities in Germany anyway?
Shir: Yeah. Well, first of all, yes, our organization is definitely committed to a joint struggle against all forms of racism and for promoting peace. And we are working together in demonstrations and other kinds of political activities together with groups representing other minorities, and also, groups that don’t necessarily represent minorities, but groups on the left that believe in solidarity and they’re neither Muslim nor Jewish, but they still and want to join these coalitions of course. I think that there is a kind of myth in Germany as if Jews and Muslims are inherently hostile to each other. And that is absolutely a myth because of course, in history, the relationship between Jews and Muslims has been far better than they have been between Jews and Christians, or between Christians and Muslims. So in many ways that that kind of mythology is part of perpetrating far-right’s vision of the so-called Judeo-Christian culture, which is a very racist concept. And of course, we rejected completely.
But I do think that when we talk about the German Jews and how they respond to these things, you have a lot of people who just don’t want to deal necessarily with politics and we don’t necessarily want to have their Judaism part of their public life at all. And they say that’s a private thing. And it doesn’t matter if I’m Jewish or not in the way that I choose my political opinions, that’s absolutely fine and respectable. But there are also Jews on the left and Jews on the right. And my organization is of course, an organization of Jews on the left who are progressive and demand equal rights, human rights and so on. There are also unfortunately, Jews on the right and even on the far-right. And I feel the need to mention that in Hamburg, there was this organization called, German-Israeli Society in Germany. And the German-Israeli Society is organizing an event in a synagogue in Hamburg on March 29th inviting professor [inaudible 00:13:20] from Israel to speak about Islamic culture and how evil it is.
[inaudible 00:13:29] is a well known Islamophobe. He has called for raping the sisters and mothers of Muslim terrorists in order to discourage terrorism. That is his idea for a solution. Now the problem is that this is a far-right group. This is a hate crime and this is incitement to racism. If the situation was different, if it was for example, a mosque inviting some extremist preacher from … or a professor from Iran to give a talk about the values of Judaism in a way like that and calling for rape and other forms of violence, that would’ve been illegal. That person would never have received a visa to enter Germany in the first place. German law does not allow freedom of speech to that extent, except when it is organized by this far-right Jewish group. Because this group which is funded by the state of Israel, is considered to be almost above the law because limiting their speech would be considered to be a form of antisemitism, which is of course, nonsense.
And I think it’s not that the right wing Jews who reject solidarity with Muslim groups are more. They’re not more of them. It’s just that they receive more institutional support. And we know that Felix Klein … I mentioned it before, the official for fighting antisemitism, he’s a good friend of the German-Israeli Society. He has no problem visiting them and speaking to them directly because they are his partners, but he, the same man, is boycotting our group, refusing to meet with Jewish Voice For Just Peace because according to him, we are possible antisemites. So I think this is a question I would like to pose for our audience, for you, what do you think is a better way to protect Jewish life in Germany? Is it to form solidarity with other groups who are suffering from racism? Or to create a separation and say, “Well, we’re only interested in racism against Jews antisemitism, but all other forms of racism just don’t interest us.”
Greg: Yeah. I think that’s an excellent question, but we’re going to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Shir Hever, Real News correspondent based in Heidelberg, Germany. Thanks again Shir for having joined us today.
Shir: Thank you, Greg.
Greg: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Shir Hever is an economic researcher in the Alternative Information Center, a Palestinian-Israeli organization active in Jerusalem and Beit-Sahour. Researching the economic aspect of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, some of his research topics include the international aid to the Palestinians and to Israel, the effects of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian…
February 26, 2020
A white supremacist in Hanau murdered ten people. German authorities, however, refuse to acknowledge the connection between Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, considering only the latter to be worthy of attention.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wolpert in Arlington, Virginia. On February 19th, a man walked into a shisha bar in the town of Hanau, a suburb of Frankfurt, Germany, and began shooting with a nine-millimeter pistol, killing nine people there and in a nearby coffee shop. He then went home, killed his mother, and took his own life. This shooting has become a highly divisive political issue in Germany because of the killer’s racism. Here’s how some of the leaders from Germany’s political parties reacted to the mass-shooting. Chancellor Angela Merkel, of the Christian Democratic Party, Christian Lindner of the Neo Liberal Free Democratic Party, Robert Habeck of the Green Party and John Carter of the Left Party.
Greg: Jack [inaudible 00:01:39] of the Far-right Alternative for Germany argued on Twitter that the shooting was neither a left wing or right wing attack, but just an act of insanity. The German police discovered that the shooter had legally registered weapons, that he was influenced by white supremacist ideology and sought to kill as many Muslims as possible. The mass shooting and German politicians reactions to it, highlight the different ways in which Germany deals with right-wing extremists depending on whether they target Jews or Muslims. Joining me now to discuss the different reactions to racist mass shootings is Shir Hever. Shir is a Real News correspondent in Heidelberg, Germany and is the author of the book, The Privatization of Israeli Security that was published by Pluto Press in 2017. Also, he is a board member of the German organization, Jewish Voices for Just Peace in the Middle East. Thanks for joining us today, Shir.
Shir: Thanks for having me, Greg.
Greg: So what was the official response of German authorities to the Hanau attack? And do you think that this was the correct way to respond?
Shir: So the German police has been taken by surprise and is very embarrassed by this because apparently, according to the records, this man … the killer actually reached out to the German police and to other institutions and tried to make contact with them because he was under the impression that his Islamophobic ideas would be welcomed by the government, by the police. And he wanted to cooperate with them in the act of killing Muslims basically. And they kind of brushed it away or it didn’t respond in time. And so he went on and decided to commit murder on his own. And I think that’s something that the German police is now responding to by saying the problem is that a response is to decentralize and calling for not stricter gun control, because Germany already has quite strict gun control laws, but rather a more centralized system for controlling guns, a more centralized system for managing racism and hate crimes.
And I’m not completely sure that this is the right response that one should expect from the German police in this case. In fact, one specific response with the German police was especially dis-concerning, because they said that they are now preparing for counter attacks or retaliatory attacks from Muslims. So already, their initial responses to suspect the victims, the Muslim community in Germany of maybe planning some kind of counter attack and attacking people of … attacking Christians or Far-right white nationalists. And interestingly, or very tellingly when there were other attacks in Germany for example, targeting Jews like there was in [Hale 00:04:31] late last year, there was no similar statement with the police. “Oh, no. Now the Jews are going to organize a counter attack and attack a white nationalist.”
But one thing I do want to point out that I think was a very good response, and it came surprisingly from the Green Party in Germany, the Green Party in many ways has many conservative elements that I do not expect them to make the statement, but they’ve actually echoed something that left organizations and especially anti-racist organizations in Germany have been saying for years, that it doesn’t make any sense that Germany has an official government appointed employee to deal with the matter of antisemitism, racism against Jews, but there is nobody to deal with other forms of racism. And we need in Germany somebody who will be organizing the efforts in the education specifically on all kinds of racism regardless of whether the targets are Jews or Muslims or [inaudible 00:05:39].
Greg: Now, in Germany there are laws that prohibit Holocaust denial and state security organs are charged with the surveillance of organizations that are suspected of antisemitic activities as you point out. And also there is a federal and state level official charged with combating antisemitism. But prior to this shooting in Hanau, there were polls that show that Islamophobia is actually much more widespread in Germany today than antisemitism is, and there are numerous attacks against Muslims and have been in recent years. So why are German authorities focusing on the protection of Jews so exclusively and not of most Muslims? And is this now going to change after the Hanau attack?
Shir: Well, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that in the German political discourse, in the German political culture, there is a complete mix of Judaism and the state of Israel to the point that people have forgotten the historical facts of the Holocaust and many Germans don’t understand that the state of Israel was only founded after the Holocaust, and there was never a war between Germany and Israel. In fact, the Jews that are being targeted in Germany by far-right crime, receive very little protection from the German state despite of all these mechanisms that you listed. Because the people who are in charge of fighting antisemitism for Germany … first and foremost among them is Dr. Felix Klein, who is the federal appointee for the issue of an antisemitism. He doesn’t really concern himself so much with far-right racism.
He barely mentions or criticizes and the far-right party alternative for Germany and their antisemitic statements and history. But rather, he’s focusing on criticism of the state of Israel. And because of that, there is this kind of false equivalence as if you have the left on the one side and the right on the one side, and both of the extreme left and the extreme right around this medic. That’s nonsense. That’s just not the case. And Muslims are in many ways on the same situation as Jews are, in many ways worse off than Jews in Germany today in the amount of stereotypes, and racism and discrimination that they are subjected to just because of their religion. But the authorities and the government often considers them to be potential perpetrators rather than victims of racism, because the focus is specifically on antisemitism, but it’s not really a focus on antisemitism, it’s just a focus on criticizing the state of Israel.
And Jews are perceived as if they are somehow representative of that state, even though of course, most Jews in the world and most Jews in Germany are not supporting Israeli state policy and do not see themselves as representatives of the Israeli state. And I think that’s a very big problem. And we have here a problem of blaming the victim when newspapers in Germany are talking about antisemitic attacks, and then immediately referring to Muslims, even if the perpetrators were not Muslims, or to the BDS movement as if that has anything to do with antisemitism and attacks on Jews in Germany and it does not. And I think that needs to change. That was the question. Is it going to change?
It needs to change. The problem is, do Muslim communities have the power to change it just by their activity in civil society? I think on their own they do not, but neither do the Jewish communities. It only works when minority groups work together in solidarity to demand to be treated equally and with respect. And the group that does have power in the German political system, is a state of Israel just because it’s a state, not because it’s particularly strong as a state, but it uses antisemitism as a tool to improve relationship with the German government instead of caring for the safety of persecuted minorities in Germany or in other countries.
Greg: Well, I think your point about solidarity is very important, but of course, the solidarity probably should also be coming from non Muslims and non Jews in Germany towards both of these populations. And that’s a real problem as you say. I think the issue of equating our criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism is just so prevalent, also in my experience. But I also wanted to ask about your organization, Jewish Voice for Just Peace. It has taken part in vigils and calls for a fight against all forms of racism, not just antisemitism. Now, does this represent and mainstream view among German Jews? And how is the relationship between the many Jewish communities and Muslim communities in Germany anyway?
Shir: Yeah. Well, first of all, yes, our organization is definitely committed to a joint struggle against all forms of racism and for promoting peace. And we are working together in demonstrations and other kinds of political activities together with groups representing other minorities, and also, groups that don’t necessarily represent minorities, but groups on the left that believe in solidarity and they’re neither Muslim nor Jewish, but they still and want to join these coalitions of course. I think that there is a kind of myth in Germany as if Jews and Muslims are inherently hostile to each other. And that is absolutely a myth because of course, in history, the relationship between Jews and Muslims has been far better than they have been between Jews and Christians, or between Christians and Muslims. So in many ways that that kind of mythology is part of perpetrating far-right’s vision of the so-called Judeo-Christian culture, which is a very racist concept. And of course, we rejected completely.
But I do think that when we talk about the German Jews and how they respond to these things, you have a lot of people who just don’t want to deal necessarily with politics and we don’t necessarily want to have their Judaism part of their public life at all. And they say that’s a private thing. And it doesn’t matter if I’m Jewish or not in the way that I choose my political opinions, that’s absolutely fine and respectable. But there are also Jews on the left and Jews on the right. And my organization is of course, an organization of Jews on the left who are progressive and demand equal rights, human rights and so on. There are also unfortunately, Jews on the right and even on the far-right. And I feel the need to mention that in Hamburg, there was this organization called, German-Israeli Society in Germany. And the German-Israeli Society is organizing an event in a synagogue in Hamburg on March 29th inviting professor [inaudible 00:13:20] from Israel to speak about Islamic culture and how evil it is.
[inaudible 00:13:29] is a well known Islamophobe. He has called for raping the sisters and mothers of Muslim terrorists in order to discourage terrorism. That is his idea for a solution. Now the problem is that this is a far-right group. This is a hate crime and this is incitement to racism. If the situation was different, if it was for example, a mosque inviting some extremist preacher from … or a professor from Iran to give a talk about the values of Judaism in a way like that and calling for rape and other forms of violence, that would’ve been illegal. That person would never have received a visa to enter Germany in the first place. German law does not allow freedom of speech to that extent, except when it is organized by this far-right Jewish group. Because this group which is funded by the state of Israel, is considered to be almost above the law because limiting their speech would be considered to be a form of antisemitism, which is of course, nonsense.
And I think it’s not that the right wing Jews who reject solidarity with Muslim groups are more. They’re not more of them. It’s just that they receive more institutional support. And we know that Felix Klein … I mentioned it before, the official for fighting antisemitism, he’s a good friend of the German-Israeli Society. He has no problem visiting them and speaking to them directly because they are his partners, but he, the same man, is boycotting our group, refusing to meet with Jewish Voice For Just Peace because according to him, we are possible antisemites. So I think this is a question I would like to pose for our audience, for you, what do you think is a better way to protect Jewish life in Germany? Is it to form solidarity with other groups who are suffering from racism? Or to create a separation and say, “Well, we’re only interested in racism against Jews antisemitism, but all other forms of racism just don’t interest us.”
Greg: Yeah. I think that’s an excellent question, but we’re going to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Shir Hever, Real News correspondent based in Heidelberg, Germany. Thanks again Shir for having joined us today.
Shir: Thank you, Greg.
Greg: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Shir Hever is an economic researcher in the Alternative Information Center, a Palestinian-Israeli organization active in Jerusalem and Beit-Sahour. Researching the economic aspect of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, some of his research topics include the international aid to the Palestinians and to Israel, the effects of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian…
The Rwanda Genocide’s Origins Are in Resource Extraction and US Militarism
February 25, 2020
Judi Rever's book “In Praise of Blood” connects the modern scramble for control of African resources to the Rwandan genocide and sets the record straight about its alleged hero, Paul Kagame.
THE CLINTON HUMANITARIAN WARS
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Jacqueline Luqm…: This is Jacqueline Luqman with The Real News Network. The scramble between global powers to control resources on the African continent is the cause of as much suffering today as colonization caused in the past. Judi Rever has written the book In Praise of Blood: The Crimes of the Patriotic Front to highlight one chapter of that modern scramble for resources and the suffering it’s caused and to set the record straight about it. Judi, thanks so much for joining me.
Judi Rever: Thank you Jacqueline.
Jacqueline Luqm…: So I think we have to get a clear understanding of why this issue is important today. First, because we are talking about the Rwandan genocide that happened back in the ’90s. So I think we have to start with a little bit of history to set the stage. Now, the US under president Bill Clinton and please correct me if I’m wrong, at any point. The US under president, Bill Clinton began to pave the way for a giant resource grab in the Congo, which is the most resource rich country on the planet basically, in the early 90s. And back the Rwandan Patriotic Front or the RPF forces that were led by Paul Kagame who was then trained in intelligence at Fort Leavenworth here in the United States and the RPS takeover of Rwanda. I’m I on track so far?
Judi Rever: That’s a pretty good synthesis. We had Paul Kagame and his rebel troops invading Northern Rwanda in 1990 and there was already, as you mentioned. Paul Kagame had been trained in the United States. So the US had decided that this was someone that it was willing and very interested in supporting. So we had already in the late ’80s, early ’90s the US very interested in militarily and politically supporting Uganda.
It was through Uganda that the United States ended up supporting Paul Kagame and his Rwandan Patriotic army, which enabled him of course to invade Rwanda in 1990 engaged in a scorched earth campaign for almost four years. That created the context for the Rwandan genocide. And of course we know we have enough evidence now know that Paul Kagame and is true having assassinated the Hutu president on April 6, 1994. That was the act that triggered the Rwandan genocide. So all the while getting very solid support from the US.
Jacqueline Luqm…: So you mentioned the assassination of the Hutu president, the former president of Rwanda by Paul Kagame and that was president Juvenal Habyarimana. I think we need to put this in a little bit of context because the reason this was done was at the time technology was becoming a big economic driver in global markets. And much like European great powers after the 1885 Berlin conference wanted to control and exploit the resources of African continents for their own economic needs.
The same was true about the quest for resources in the Congo, so the assassination of president Habyarimana was done because he would not step down at the request of president Bush. This campaign to install a more US friendly government in Rwanda was continued under Clinton and it is largely believed that the plane that was carrying the former president was shot down as they were returning from a peace conference. In which they had signed a peace treaty between the Hutus and the Tutsis was the plane was shot down over Kigali returning from that peace conference as a way to get rid of the former president. Does that sound like that’s accurate?
Judi Rever: Well, in terms of a strategy of, I would say US militarism and global capitalism, if you want to look at the root of some of the drivers of the conflict, you have to go back. We’ve talked a little bit about the 1980s and the 1990s what you’re seeing in the 1990s is… Well, actually it started in ’89 with the coup in Sudan. So you had the United States becoming very interested in containing Islamic insurgency or Islamic power on the continent with the coup and with the rise of Omar El Bashir in 1999.
At the same time we saw in the 1990s certainly copper and cobalt plummet. The production of those two strategic minerals plummet in Congo. Okay. So we have a set of circumstances which was of concern to the United States and the United States at that time in the late ’80s and 1990s decided to play chess in the sense they decided on who their strategic players would be. Who were the guys that they were going to support.
So number one, Yoweri Museveni president of Uganda. He was going to help contain the rise of Islam in Africa because of his strategic placements in Uganda next to Sudan. Of course Sudan had oil resources and that was interesting for the United States. Now in Congo where there is 24 million, excuse me, in Congo where there is an estimated $24 trillion in untapped mineral wealth, it’s almost unfathomable. The United States was very interested there. As I said in the early 1990s we saw copper and cobalt climate under Mobutu.
So it was becoming impossible for the United States and for Western nations to do business in Congo under Mobutu, he was becoming intractable, he was becoming an obstacle and multinationals were no longer able to do business. The United States wanted Congo open for business. So that was part of the larger strategy. So supporting Museveni, supporting Paul Kagame who was at that time, Paul Kagame was a rebel and he was already waging war in Northern Rwanda. It was clear that I think the United States had a plan to support these men and make central Africa a place where it was easier to do business.
Jacqueline Luqm…: That groundwork, that foundation and that history is incredibly important because that is the foundation or the pathway to the Rwandan genocide in which more than 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutus died. Now where does your book come in to this history? Because what we understand in the United States, Judi, is that Paul Kagame, who was the current president of Rwanda was the hero of the conflict. We’re told that he ended the Rwandan genocide, but your book reveals a different perspective on that narrative. So what is that perspective?
Judi Rever: My book fundamentally challenges the official narrative. Maybe it defeats the narrative. What my book says, my research says is that Paul Kagame, did not stop the genocide. He did not stop the violence. He ignited the genocide by killing Juvenal Habyarimana, the Hutu president. He also fueled the genocide against Tutsi by sending in his Tutsi commandos. Infiltrating the Hutu militia and assisting directly in the killing of Tutsi. So he augmented. He potentiated, the Tutsi genocide.
I also say in my book based on years and years of research that Paul Kagame Tutsi army committed genocide against Hutus as well and this was not in retaliation. These were operations that will preemptive and proactive. As soon as the Hutu president Habyarimana was killed and those operations to systematically kill Hutu leaders and Hutu peasant from the North down the Eastern coast or down the Eastern border in the South and then back up to the Northwest. That that was highly orchestrated, very organized and the killings of Hutus continued after the genocide.
Jacqueline Luqm…: Right now that narrative is not only being challenged by the Kagame administration in several different ways, but here in the United States you have been going on some speaking tours, promoting the book, talking about this issue. There are sometimes people in attendance and I attended one of these events who will directly challenge of the information that you are revealed in your book. They say that there was no genocide, that Kagame committed. They say that your information is false. They said that you’re spreading lies. What is your response to those allegations that the information you’re providing that Kagame was actually not a hero ending the Rwandan genocide, but he participated and that he committed genocide himself, what’s your response to those allegations that that information is not true?
Judi Rever: Well as you said, Jackie, you were there in Washington and one of Kagame supporters mentioned the Byumba Stadium massacre, which occurred in April, 1994. I talk about this briefly massacre by the Rwandan Patriotic Front of Hutus civilians, men, women, children and babies. He said it was a myth that it never happened and a lot of people were shocked. I said to him that there was so much evidence, incredible amount of evidence of this massacre at the Byumba Soccer Stadium in 1994. There was evidence that was in the UN documents… Documented at the UN tribunals. One of the investigators that I spoke to who worked at the UN tribunals that set up to prosecute the most serious crimes of the genocide said never in his life had he collected so much evidence on a massacre that it was a mass killing. Thousands of victims were killed.
He had people who were members of the RPA stationed outside the stadium. He had collected testimony from them. He collected testimony from some of the soldiers inside the stadium who killed these Hutu civilians. He had testimony. This is a UN investigator I’m talking about, had testimony from soldiers who brought the bodies, the corpses out of the stadium, transported them on trucks to bury them. I mean it was incredible. Never in his life as an investigator at the tribunals did he collect so much evidence and of course I interviewed a number of people who were at the scene of the crime as well.
Jacqueline Luqm…: The interesting thing about the exchange that you’re talking about that I was a witness to. But that I’ve also seen critics of your book use online and the response that you give and that you document in your book is that this is not information that is hearsay. There are eye witness accounts that have been documented not just by you in interviewing survivors, but also the United Nations has documented.
Collected this evidence have interviewed survivors. I have confirmed that these people they have interviewed are survivors and the evidence according to the UN is insurmountable. But still there are critics who decry the idea that Kagame was not the hero that the United States and other Western nations make him out to be. To the point that now Judi, there is repression of people who are openly challenging Kagame in Rwanda who are being targeted by his administration. Can you talk a little bit about that?
Judi Rever: Well, sadly this is the ongoing, his repression, his terror inside the country ever since he took power. But increasingly Tutsi and Hutus, but interior Tutsi survivors are targeted in Paul Kagame Rwanda. Within the last few days a very much loved Tutsi survivor, a gospel singer named Kizito Mihigo died in a military detention, police detention. It is believed that he was murdered. Most people believe he was murdered. This man was very much admired and talked about the importance of ethnic reconciliation. He also challenged the official narrative. He said that Hutus died as well during the genocide and their deaths mattered.
Remember he was a Tutsi survivor. He lost many family members during the genocide. So people saw him as a symbol of hope and reconciliation and millions of Rwanda’s inside the country and abroad are crying this week. Their son that Paul Kagame and his henchments could stoop so low as to apparently murder this person. So Rwandans in general, especially those who tried to speak out or might be seen as potential dissidents inside the country are very much living in fear. We have Kagame death squads operating outside the country. Many people have called the RPF and Kagame criminals without borders and so no one is beyond his limits.
Jacqueline Luqm…: That is absolutely horrifying that people just recently as a few days ago are still being targeted by this regime and it truly is a regime that’s not a word I use lightly. Judi, what does these issues, what does this information mean? What should it mean to people watching this interview right now? Why should people be concerned about what happened in the Rwanda and the ongoing legacy of the Kagame regime? Why should the people be concerned about this in their everyday life right now?
Judi Rever: It’s very serious. I mean, I’ve studied these questions of the political and security issues, plaguing Central Africa for a few decades now. I’m very much concerned, but I think we should all be concerned as global citizens. One of the things I’d like to say is that there are so many troubling… There has been a history of troubling concealing, hiding Kagame crime. Oppressing them, dismissing them, minimizing them, and even justifying those times by our Western governance, particularly by the United States government.
I think as American citizens and people who are listening to your interviews, I would think that people should be concerned about what their government does and how US policies have fueled the conflict in central Africa. Remember, by supporting militarily and politically supporting Paul Kagame and his troops to unleash the genocide. And by giving them tremendous amount of support and cover for the invasion of Congo, overthrowing Mobutu’s and waging wars there, over the last 23 years. Where millions of people have died and that conflict is still raging. So these are all pressing issues. They’re burning issues that I think enlightened Americans should be concerned about.
Jacqueline Luqm…: Yes, definitely. Especially, since the resources that are coming out of the region that is affected by these conflicts are in our hands every day, are on our desks every day. We watch them every day. Cell phones, laptops, televisions, other kinds of electronics, batteries, even electric motor cars. So Judi, how can people, number one, support the journalists, dissidents, and activists who are actively speaking out against the Kagame regime, both in Rwanda and outside of the country? What can people do also, if they want to participate in bringing accountability to the Kagame regime?
Judi Rever: It’s very important for people who are interested in these issues to press Congress and speak up about the military cooperation agreement that the United States government has with Rwanda. Press Congress to halt that agreement. We know that through Africom, the United States has more operations in Africa and is using Rwanda as an integral part of Africom, more operations in Africa than it does in the middle East. The United States has to draw back, diminish Africom and stop funding and militarily supporting Rwanda.
The other thing that’s important to do is to change the narrative, get people to understand that the official narrative is in on a number of levels based on lies. Kagame did not stop the genocide. He ignited the genocide and continues to destabilize the region. I also think it’s important for Americans and for media to listen to people who flee. Rwandans who flee the country. It’s only in fleeing that Rwandans have been able to talk about what’s really going on. So doing research and prosecuting crimes inside Rwanda based on testimony there doesn’t give us a real picture, a complete picture of what went on in the genocide and what continues to go on in the country.
Jacqueline Luqm…: Judi Rever thank you so much for taking this time to talk about this very, very important issue and to talk about your book In Praise of Blood: The Crimes of The Patriotic Front. I absolutely encourage all of our viewers to secure a copy of this book and read it. Thank you so much, Judi, for joining me today to talk about all of this.
Judi Rever: Thanks Jacqueline for having me.
Jacqueline Luqm…: Thank you for watching. This is Jacqueline Luqman with The Real News Network in Washin
February 25, 2020
Judi Rever's book “In Praise of Blood” connects the modern scramble for control of African resources to the Rwandan genocide and sets the record straight about its alleged hero, Paul Kagame.
THE CLINTON HUMANITARIAN WARS
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Jacqueline Luqm…: This is Jacqueline Luqman with The Real News Network. The scramble between global powers to control resources on the African continent is the cause of as much suffering today as colonization caused in the past. Judi Rever has written the book In Praise of Blood: The Crimes of the Patriotic Front to highlight one chapter of that modern scramble for resources and the suffering it’s caused and to set the record straight about it. Judi, thanks so much for joining me.
Judi Rever: Thank you Jacqueline.
Jacqueline Luqm…: So I think we have to get a clear understanding of why this issue is important today. First, because we are talking about the Rwandan genocide that happened back in the ’90s. So I think we have to start with a little bit of history to set the stage. Now, the US under president Bill Clinton and please correct me if I’m wrong, at any point. The US under president, Bill Clinton began to pave the way for a giant resource grab in the Congo, which is the most resource rich country on the planet basically, in the early 90s. And back the Rwandan Patriotic Front or the RPF forces that were led by Paul Kagame who was then trained in intelligence at Fort Leavenworth here in the United States and the RPS takeover of Rwanda. I’m I on track so far?
Judi Rever: That’s a pretty good synthesis. We had Paul Kagame and his rebel troops invading Northern Rwanda in 1990 and there was already, as you mentioned. Paul Kagame had been trained in the United States. So the US had decided that this was someone that it was willing and very interested in supporting. So we had already in the late ’80s, early ’90s the US very interested in militarily and politically supporting Uganda.
It was through Uganda that the United States ended up supporting Paul Kagame and his Rwandan Patriotic army, which enabled him of course to invade Rwanda in 1990 engaged in a scorched earth campaign for almost four years. That created the context for the Rwandan genocide. And of course we know we have enough evidence now know that Paul Kagame and is true having assassinated the Hutu president on April 6, 1994. That was the act that triggered the Rwandan genocide. So all the while getting very solid support from the US.
Jacqueline Luqm…: So you mentioned the assassination of the Hutu president, the former president of Rwanda by Paul Kagame and that was president Juvenal Habyarimana. I think we need to put this in a little bit of context because the reason this was done was at the time technology was becoming a big economic driver in global markets. And much like European great powers after the 1885 Berlin conference wanted to control and exploit the resources of African continents for their own economic needs.
The same was true about the quest for resources in the Congo, so the assassination of president Habyarimana was done because he would not step down at the request of president Bush. This campaign to install a more US friendly government in Rwanda was continued under Clinton and it is largely believed that the plane that was carrying the former president was shot down as they were returning from a peace conference. In which they had signed a peace treaty between the Hutus and the Tutsis was the plane was shot down over Kigali returning from that peace conference as a way to get rid of the former president. Does that sound like that’s accurate?
Judi Rever: Well, in terms of a strategy of, I would say US militarism and global capitalism, if you want to look at the root of some of the drivers of the conflict, you have to go back. We’ve talked a little bit about the 1980s and the 1990s what you’re seeing in the 1990s is… Well, actually it started in ’89 with the coup in Sudan. So you had the United States becoming very interested in containing Islamic insurgency or Islamic power on the continent with the coup and with the rise of Omar El Bashir in 1999.
At the same time we saw in the 1990s certainly copper and cobalt plummet. The production of those two strategic minerals plummet in Congo. Okay. So we have a set of circumstances which was of concern to the United States and the United States at that time in the late ’80s and 1990s decided to play chess in the sense they decided on who their strategic players would be. Who were the guys that they were going to support.
So number one, Yoweri Museveni president of Uganda. He was going to help contain the rise of Islam in Africa because of his strategic placements in Uganda next to Sudan. Of course Sudan had oil resources and that was interesting for the United States. Now in Congo where there is 24 million, excuse me, in Congo where there is an estimated $24 trillion in untapped mineral wealth, it’s almost unfathomable. The United States was very interested there. As I said in the early 1990s we saw copper and cobalt climate under Mobutu.
So it was becoming impossible for the United States and for Western nations to do business in Congo under Mobutu, he was becoming intractable, he was becoming an obstacle and multinationals were no longer able to do business. The United States wanted Congo open for business. So that was part of the larger strategy. So supporting Museveni, supporting Paul Kagame who was at that time, Paul Kagame was a rebel and he was already waging war in Northern Rwanda. It was clear that I think the United States had a plan to support these men and make central Africa a place where it was easier to do business.
Jacqueline Luqm…: That groundwork, that foundation and that history is incredibly important because that is the foundation or the pathway to the Rwandan genocide in which more than 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutus died. Now where does your book come in to this history? Because what we understand in the United States, Judi, is that Paul Kagame, who was the current president of Rwanda was the hero of the conflict. We’re told that he ended the Rwandan genocide, but your book reveals a different perspective on that narrative. So what is that perspective?
Judi Rever: My book fundamentally challenges the official narrative. Maybe it defeats the narrative. What my book says, my research says is that Paul Kagame, did not stop the genocide. He did not stop the violence. He ignited the genocide by killing Juvenal Habyarimana, the Hutu president. He also fueled the genocide against Tutsi by sending in his Tutsi commandos. Infiltrating the Hutu militia and assisting directly in the killing of Tutsi. So he augmented. He potentiated, the Tutsi genocide.
I also say in my book based on years and years of research that Paul Kagame Tutsi army committed genocide against Hutus as well and this was not in retaliation. These were operations that will preemptive and proactive. As soon as the Hutu president Habyarimana was killed and those operations to systematically kill Hutu leaders and Hutu peasant from the North down the Eastern coast or down the Eastern border in the South and then back up to the Northwest. That that was highly orchestrated, very organized and the killings of Hutus continued after the genocide.
Jacqueline Luqm…: Right now that narrative is not only being challenged by the Kagame administration in several different ways, but here in the United States you have been going on some speaking tours, promoting the book, talking about this issue. There are sometimes people in attendance and I attended one of these events who will directly challenge of the information that you are revealed in your book. They say that there was no genocide, that Kagame committed. They say that your information is false. They said that you’re spreading lies. What is your response to those allegations that the information you’re providing that Kagame was actually not a hero ending the Rwandan genocide, but he participated and that he committed genocide himself, what’s your response to those allegations that that information is not true?
Judi Rever: Well as you said, Jackie, you were there in Washington and one of Kagame supporters mentioned the Byumba Stadium massacre, which occurred in April, 1994. I talk about this briefly massacre by the Rwandan Patriotic Front of Hutus civilians, men, women, children and babies. He said it was a myth that it never happened and a lot of people were shocked. I said to him that there was so much evidence, incredible amount of evidence of this massacre at the Byumba Soccer Stadium in 1994. There was evidence that was in the UN documents… Documented at the UN tribunals. One of the investigators that I spoke to who worked at the UN tribunals that set up to prosecute the most serious crimes of the genocide said never in his life had he collected so much evidence on a massacre that it was a mass killing. Thousands of victims were killed.
He had people who were members of the RPA stationed outside the stadium. He had collected testimony from them. He collected testimony from some of the soldiers inside the stadium who killed these Hutu civilians. He had testimony. This is a UN investigator I’m talking about, had testimony from soldiers who brought the bodies, the corpses out of the stadium, transported them on trucks to bury them. I mean it was incredible. Never in his life as an investigator at the tribunals did he collect so much evidence and of course I interviewed a number of people who were at the scene of the crime as well.
Jacqueline Luqm…: The interesting thing about the exchange that you’re talking about that I was a witness to. But that I’ve also seen critics of your book use online and the response that you give and that you document in your book is that this is not information that is hearsay. There are eye witness accounts that have been documented not just by you in interviewing survivors, but also the United Nations has documented.
Collected this evidence have interviewed survivors. I have confirmed that these people they have interviewed are survivors and the evidence according to the UN is insurmountable. But still there are critics who decry the idea that Kagame was not the hero that the United States and other Western nations make him out to be. To the point that now Judi, there is repression of people who are openly challenging Kagame in Rwanda who are being targeted by his administration. Can you talk a little bit about that?
Judi Rever: Well, sadly this is the ongoing, his repression, his terror inside the country ever since he took power. But increasingly Tutsi and Hutus, but interior Tutsi survivors are targeted in Paul Kagame Rwanda. Within the last few days a very much loved Tutsi survivor, a gospel singer named Kizito Mihigo died in a military detention, police detention. It is believed that he was murdered. Most people believe he was murdered. This man was very much admired and talked about the importance of ethnic reconciliation. He also challenged the official narrative. He said that Hutus died as well during the genocide and their deaths mattered.
Remember he was a Tutsi survivor. He lost many family members during the genocide. So people saw him as a symbol of hope and reconciliation and millions of Rwanda’s inside the country and abroad are crying this week. Their son that Paul Kagame and his henchments could stoop so low as to apparently murder this person. So Rwandans in general, especially those who tried to speak out or might be seen as potential dissidents inside the country are very much living in fear. We have Kagame death squads operating outside the country. Many people have called the RPF and Kagame criminals without borders and so no one is beyond his limits.
Jacqueline Luqm…: That is absolutely horrifying that people just recently as a few days ago are still being targeted by this regime and it truly is a regime that’s not a word I use lightly. Judi, what does these issues, what does this information mean? What should it mean to people watching this interview right now? Why should people be concerned about what happened in the Rwanda and the ongoing legacy of the Kagame regime? Why should the people be concerned about this in their everyday life right now?
Judi Rever: It’s very serious. I mean, I’ve studied these questions of the political and security issues, plaguing Central Africa for a few decades now. I’m very much concerned, but I think we should all be concerned as global citizens. One of the things I’d like to say is that there are so many troubling… There has been a history of troubling concealing, hiding Kagame crime. Oppressing them, dismissing them, minimizing them, and even justifying those times by our Western governance, particularly by the United States government.
I think as American citizens and people who are listening to your interviews, I would think that people should be concerned about what their government does and how US policies have fueled the conflict in central Africa. Remember, by supporting militarily and politically supporting Paul Kagame and his troops to unleash the genocide. And by giving them tremendous amount of support and cover for the invasion of Congo, overthrowing Mobutu’s and waging wars there, over the last 23 years. Where millions of people have died and that conflict is still raging. So these are all pressing issues. They’re burning issues that I think enlightened Americans should be concerned about.
Jacqueline Luqm…: Yes, definitely. Especially, since the resources that are coming out of the region that is affected by these conflicts are in our hands every day, are on our desks every day. We watch them every day. Cell phones, laptops, televisions, other kinds of electronics, batteries, even electric motor cars. So Judi, how can people, number one, support the journalists, dissidents, and activists who are actively speaking out against the Kagame regime, both in Rwanda and outside of the country? What can people do also, if they want to participate in bringing accountability to the Kagame regime?
Judi Rever: It’s very important for people who are interested in these issues to press Congress and speak up about the military cooperation agreement that the United States government has with Rwanda. Press Congress to halt that agreement. We know that through Africom, the United States has more operations in Africa and is using Rwanda as an integral part of Africom, more operations in Africa than it does in the middle East. The United States has to draw back, diminish Africom and stop funding and militarily supporting Rwanda.
The other thing that’s important to do is to change the narrative, get people to understand that the official narrative is in on a number of levels based on lies. Kagame did not stop the genocide. He ignited the genocide and continues to destabilize the region. I also think it’s important for Americans and for media to listen to people who flee. Rwandans who flee the country. It’s only in fleeing that Rwandans have been able to talk about what’s really going on. So doing research and prosecuting crimes inside Rwanda based on testimony there doesn’t give us a real picture, a complete picture of what went on in the genocide and what continues to go on in the country.
Jacqueline Luqm…: Judi Rever thank you so much for taking this time to talk about this very, very important issue and to talk about your book In Praise of Blood: The Crimes of The Patriotic Front. I absolutely encourage all of our viewers to secure a copy of this book and read it. Thank you so much, Judi, for joining me today to talk about all of this.
Judi Rever: Thanks Jacqueline for having me.
Jacqueline Luqm…: Thank you for watching. This is Jacqueline Luqman with The Real News Network in Washin
Unreported Opposition Violence Continues in Venezuela
February 21, 2020
Venezuela’s opposition has a long history of burning government buildings, health clinics, and the local headquarters of the country's social missions. The violence continues, but these acts of opposition violence are rarely covered in the press.
Story Transcript
Mike Fox: On the evening of February 8, a warehouse belonging to Venezuela’s National Telephone Company, Cantv and its affiliate Movilnet, was set on fire in the state of Carabobo. According to the Venezuelan government, all of the equipment there was destroyed. The government denounced the attack as an attack of sabotage and terror.
For those not following Venezuela closely, this may seem a strange occurrence, but in fact, ongoing violence and attacks by the U.S.-backed opposition are quite common in Venezuela, although you rarely hear about them in the mainstream press.
This was the scene last year, on a random weekend in Caracas, at the local headquarters of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela in the working-class neighborhood of San Augustin.
Marvi Devia, Resident: At about 3am, we smelled some very thick smoke. And some neighbors realized that they were burning tires. So we ran downstairs, with fire extinguishers, and we were able to put out the fire. But 21 families live here and we have little children and grandparents. So it was very scary to be in this situation.
Orlando Acevedo, Community Member, PSUV: They tried to burn down this headquarters, which is the home of all of spaces of representation of the community, and where people live upstairs. The idea was to burn down this headquarters with the people inside.
Mike Fox: Those responsible were not caught, but they left threatening fliers, demanding Maduro’s removal.
This was far from the first time.
Venezuela’s opposition has a long history of burning government buildings, community health clinics, and the local headquarters of its social missions. Such incidents happen continuously, but flared up particularly during the opposition’s months-long street blockades, known as “guarimbas,” in 2014 and 2017.
On the day of the failed April 30 coup, last year, by opposition leader Juan Guaido, members of the opposition raided this neighborhood center, in the working class Caracas barrio of Caricuao, where numerous social offices and community programs are held.
The forces behind these violent actions are the same, linked to Juan Guaido, who was recently heralded by both U.S. president Donald Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a democrat and a freedom fighter.
Acts of opposition violence are rarely covered in the press. What is covered, often ad nauseum, are the pro-government collectives from 23 de Enero, a working class neighborhood, and long-time bastion of support for the Bolivarian process.
The opposition and most mainstream outlets says these collectives are armed and dangerous — shock troops at the service of the governments.
Jose Lugo, from the Alexis Vive collective, says they have it all wrong.
Jose Lugo, Alexis Vive: If it’s alright, let me take you to our weapons facility. Come with me, please. I am going to show you the weapons park of the collectives.
Here we have the area where we cut the pieces of the collective. We are making shirts. Shirts for our country’s boys and girls.
Over here, [indicating a sewing machine] we have an AK47. Oh, sorry, this is a 757K, which is a machine that is called Overlock.
Over here, we have another weapon [indicating another sewing machine]. It’s a 757K. This fires almost 500 projectiles per second. Can you shoot it, Margarita? She’s firing.
Mike Fox: This sewing collective is just one piece of El Panal commune, which was founded by the Alexis Vive collective over a decade ago.
Jose Lugo, Alexis Vive: [Walking onto a basketball court] Here we have a youth concentration camp. Be careful here, because the youth here are all in prison, and chained, in this concentration camp. Look how we make them play basketball and listen to music.
This is part of the social and economic development. This is a court we built with our own resources, thanks to the effort of Alexis Vive. This collective of assassins made this court here.
There’s also a communal bank and a community radio.
Lina Arregocés, El Panal Border Studies and Research Center: Wherever we go, we are spreading the word. We have a local research center and a radio through which we share information. And this information isn’t for the libraries and the intellectuals. It’s knowledge for the people.
Jose Lugo, Alexis Vive: We are Alexis Vive and we are the commune. We are the same people from the community. There is no separation. There is no difference. You can’t see us as separate from 23 de Enero.
There is no difference.
Mike Fox: Down the hill, the collective as the Coordinador Simon Bolivar took over a former police headquarters and interrogation center and converted it into a neighborhood center.
Juan Contreras, Coordinador Simon Bolivar: This is the Francisco Miranda community school of modern languages. Here is the infocenter, with more than 30 computers. A community bookstore. The local civil registry office. A community radio. Over there, you have an elderly club and a neighborhood veterinarian.
This is the center of grassroots organization in the sector of La Cañada in the region of 23 de Enero. And I would dare to say that it has an important impact on all of 23 de Enero.
Mike Fox: These neighborhood groups continue with their ongoing community work and services. But they’re still demonized in the press. Meanwhile, the violence sown by Juan Guaido’s opposition is ignored and overlooked.
Michael Fox for The Real News, Caracas, Venezuela.
February 21, 2020
Venezuela’s opposition has a long history of burning government buildings, health clinics, and the local headquarters of the country's social missions. The violence continues, but these acts of opposition violence are rarely covered in the press.
Story Transcript
Mike Fox: On the evening of February 8, a warehouse belonging to Venezuela’s National Telephone Company, Cantv and its affiliate Movilnet, was set on fire in the state of Carabobo. According to the Venezuelan government, all of the equipment there was destroyed. The government denounced the attack as an attack of sabotage and terror.
For those not following Venezuela closely, this may seem a strange occurrence, but in fact, ongoing violence and attacks by the U.S.-backed opposition are quite common in Venezuela, although you rarely hear about them in the mainstream press.
This was the scene last year, on a random weekend in Caracas, at the local headquarters of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela in the working-class neighborhood of San Augustin.
Marvi Devia, Resident: At about 3am, we smelled some very thick smoke. And some neighbors realized that they were burning tires. So we ran downstairs, with fire extinguishers, and we were able to put out the fire. But 21 families live here and we have little children and grandparents. So it was very scary to be in this situation.
Orlando Acevedo, Community Member, PSUV: They tried to burn down this headquarters, which is the home of all of spaces of representation of the community, and where people live upstairs. The idea was to burn down this headquarters with the people inside.
Mike Fox: Those responsible were not caught, but they left threatening fliers, demanding Maduro’s removal.
This was far from the first time.
Venezuela’s opposition has a long history of burning government buildings, community health clinics, and the local headquarters of its social missions. Such incidents happen continuously, but flared up particularly during the opposition’s months-long street blockades, known as “guarimbas,” in 2014 and 2017.
On the day of the failed April 30 coup, last year, by opposition leader Juan Guaido, members of the opposition raided this neighborhood center, in the working class Caracas barrio of Caricuao, where numerous social offices and community programs are held.
The forces behind these violent actions are the same, linked to Juan Guaido, who was recently heralded by both U.S. president Donald Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a democrat and a freedom fighter.
Acts of opposition violence are rarely covered in the press. What is covered, often ad nauseum, are the pro-government collectives from 23 de Enero, a working class neighborhood, and long-time bastion of support for the Bolivarian process.
The opposition and most mainstream outlets says these collectives are armed and dangerous — shock troops at the service of the governments.
Jose Lugo, from the Alexis Vive collective, says they have it all wrong.
Jose Lugo, Alexis Vive: If it’s alright, let me take you to our weapons facility. Come with me, please. I am going to show you the weapons park of the collectives.
Here we have the area where we cut the pieces of the collective. We are making shirts. Shirts for our country’s boys and girls.
Over here, [indicating a sewing machine] we have an AK47. Oh, sorry, this is a 757K, which is a machine that is called Overlock.
Over here, we have another weapon [indicating another sewing machine]. It’s a 757K. This fires almost 500 projectiles per second. Can you shoot it, Margarita? She’s firing.
Mike Fox: This sewing collective is just one piece of El Panal commune, which was founded by the Alexis Vive collective over a decade ago.
Jose Lugo, Alexis Vive: [Walking onto a basketball court] Here we have a youth concentration camp. Be careful here, because the youth here are all in prison, and chained, in this concentration camp. Look how we make them play basketball and listen to music.
This is part of the social and economic development. This is a court we built with our own resources, thanks to the effort of Alexis Vive. This collective of assassins made this court here.
There’s also a communal bank and a community radio.
Lina Arregocés, El Panal Border Studies and Research Center: Wherever we go, we are spreading the word. We have a local research center and a radio through which we share information. And this information isn’t for the libraries and the intellectuals. It’s knowledge for the people.
Jose Lugo, Alexis Vive: We are Alexis Vive and we are the commune. We are the same people from the community. There is no separation. There is no difference. You can’t see us as separate from 23 de Enero.
There is no difference.
Mike Fox: Down the hill, the collective as the Coordinador Simon Bolivar took over a former police headquarters and interrogation center and converted it into a neighborhood center.
Juan Contreras, Coordinador Simon Bolivar: This is the Francisco Miranda community school of modern languages. Here is the infocenter, with more than 30 computers. A community bookstore. The local civil registry office. A community radio. Over there, you have an elderly club and a neighborhood veterinarian.
This is the center of grassroots organization in the sector of La Cañada in the region of 23 de Enero. And I would dare to say that it has an important impact on all of 23 de Enero.
Mike Fox: These neighborhood groups continue with their ongoing community work and services. But they’re still demonized in the press. Meanwhile, the violence sown by Juan Guaido’s opposition is ignored and overlooked.
Michael Fox for The Real News, Caracas, Venezuela.
International Banks and Law Firms Are at the Heart of South Africa’s Corruption
February 21, 2020
In South Africa, corruption is called state capture. A new report by Shadow World Investigations reveals how world bankers, lawyers, and accountants manipulate politicians.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Mark Steiner: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Mark Steiner, good to have you all with us. In South Africa, they call corruption in politics state capture, and it’s at the heart of the political struggle in South African politics now. Because it refers to the idea that government cannot act in the interest of the public if it’s fully in the pocket of powerful business people.
It was one of the main issues in the last May’s national elections in South Africa, and the reason that the ruling ANC, the African National Congress, that led the revolution against the apartheid state, received fewer votes than ever before, while maintaining its majority, a 62% majority. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, promised to fight against state capture, but he himself was accused of doing the bidding of capital groups like the Gupta brothers.
Now, Cyril Ramaphosa has gone, went from a revolutionary leader of the mine workers, to himself becoming a wealthy owner and investor in mines. Former South African president Jacob Zuma has been under investigation for corruption. And last week, the court issued an arrest warrant against him, to force him to appear before the court, and answer allegations of corruption. Here is Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge [Vaya Palay 00:01:09].
Vaya Palay: in this instance, Counsel for Mr. Zuma was notified in advance, in the middle of January, that this document, or that sound evidence is required to justify his absence from court. And without that evidence, this court cannot do anything else but issue a warrant of arrest.
Mark Steiner: A new report, which was just published by Open Secrets and Shadow World Investigations, deals with the issue of state capture on South Africa, but from a very different angle. It’s entitled The Enablers, a report which focuses not on the direct relationship between capitalists and politicians, but rather on the people in between layers, the lawyers, the accountants, the bankers who enable this relationship to flourish.
One of the authors of that report is Andrew Feinstein, who is of Shadow World Investigations, is now joining us to discuss the report. He’s the Executive Director of Corruption Watch UK, and author of The Shadow World Inside The Global Arms Trade, which was the basis of a documentary film, that explores world’s largest and most corrupt arms deals that took place.
And previously, Andrew Feinstein worked with the ANC, under the previous South African presidents, Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki, and Andrew, welcome. Good to have you back on The Real News.
Andrew Feinstei…: Thank you. Good to be here.
Mark Steiner: Let’s start with some background very quickly for our viewers. And let’s take a look at who the Gupta brothers are, and what went on with the former president, Jacob Zuma, who’s now being called before the commission, and what led us to this in the first place, what this means.
Andrew Feinstei…: So I think the situation is that the Gupta brothers are two brothers from India, previously based in Delhi, I think, where they ran a company called Sahara Computers. They got involved, in a peripheral way in South Africa, under the previous president, Thabo Mbeki, who, one of his ministers actually first introduced them into South Africa.
And they forged relationships across the AMC, most importantly, with then-Deputy President Jacob Zuma. Zuma toppled Mbeki from power. And when he moved into the Union Buildings, our presidential house in Pretoria, it was as though he took with him the Gupta brothers. And the process of what we described as state capture is really the process of giving state contracts to private interests, who are both unable to deliver on those contracts, but also pocket enormous amounts of money for those contracts.
So, an enormous number of very large government contracts, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of South African Rand, were given to Gupta companies, many of them established as special purpose vehicles only for that contract. In the majority of cases, very little if anything was delivered, and hundreds of millions, billions of dollars, in fact, was siphoned out of the South African state, and into bank accounts around the world, most prominently in Dubai.
Mark Steiner: So let’s go to the report itself for a moment. I mean, I everybody agrees that capitalists have to be exposed for giving bribes, and controlling the political world, and controlling government. And politicians have to be exposed for betraying the trust of voters and promoting the interests of those capitalist powers, instead of the people themselves.
But why did you focus on the accountants, the bankers, the lawyers that hammered out these deals, and did it in secret? So talk about the focus of this, and why that happened, and the way you did it. And what’s the significance?
Andrew Feinstei…: So we have done a series of reports, on various of these instances, of what we refer to as state capture. But what was apparent to us, in every single case, is there was very prominent South African, and global financial institutions, auditing firms, law firms and management consultants, who made tens of millions of dollars, out of effectively facilitating these contracts that undermined the state. In addition to which, they played the crucial role in laundering the illicit proceeds from these contracts, that accrued to the Gupta brothers, but also to key South African politicians, who had awarded the Gupta brothers these contracts.
And without those enablers or facilitators, it would have been far more difficult for this phenomenon of state capture to have taken place, and especially to have taken place to the extent that it has. Because during the Zuma years, Jacob Zuma was president of South Africa for eight years, it is estimated that around one-third of the country’s GDP has been lost to state capture.
That could never have happened without the involvement of banks like HSBC, The Bank of Baroda, standard bank here in South Africa, and a bank called First National Bank, global law firms, consultancies, particularly Bain Consulting, and McKinseys, and a variety of others.
The audit firms that we’ve all heard about, KPMG, Deloitte, PWC, all of these entities, played an absolutely essential role at every part of the process of state capture. And while we are demanding that the South African judicial process deals with the politicians, who have been the recipients of the bribes paid by the Guptas, it is as important, not just for South Africa, to ensure that state capture comes to an end in this country, but for many other countries around the world, including the United States of America, which you could argue, under President Trump, is also experiencing state capture, to ensure that these companies to face prosecution, both in South Africa and in their home markets, wherever those might be.
Mark Steiner: So, [inaudible 00:07:39], so clearly, the Gupta brothers, the way you’re describing things, are, on the face of this, and you can… But from what you’ve just said, I mean this, this goes way deeper, much deeper than the Gupta brothers, much deeper in their relationship with Zuma. This has to do with the role, or the way you’re describing it, of international capital of the banks, of the finance industry, or the international arms industry, I’m sure, which you’ve covered intensely in your work before.
Andrew Feinstei…: Yeah.
Mark Steiner: So this is, this really it goes to the heart of, what we talked about even before you got on the air, which is, one of the reasons why, when the AMC finally took control of South Africa and ended the apartheid state, it was almost impossible to take on these capitalist powers who really were controlling everything. And what you are doing is uncovering what that really means. Am I right?
Andrew Feinstei…: Absolutely. So we have a situation where the apartheid state, too, wasn’t able to survive, and sadly, prosper, through the role of international banks, international lawyers, foreign governments, and a variety of foreign companies who broke the UN oil embargo against South Africa, and of course the UN arms embargo, against apartheid South Africa.
Now, the system of apartheid was not only morally corrupt, as a racist oligarchy, it was materially corrupt as well. About 50% of the budget was off the book, and was used for indecent, corrupt purposes. And that was facilitated and enabled by the private sector around the world. Sadly, what happened in South Africa was the corruption of the later apartheid period, alighted into our democratic era.
So, when I was an ANC member of Parliament in this country, I tried to investigate an arms deal, in which we bought $10 billion of weapons that we had absolutely no need of, and that we barely used today.
It’s estimated that around three to $400 million of bribes were paid on those deals. But the intermediaries, who enabled and facilitated those deals, like Barclays Bank, in the United Kingdom, like certain arms dealers based in Germany, and Belgium, and various other parts of the world. These were the same people who had enabled and facilitated the corruption of the apartheid era.
So had we dealt with the economic dimensions of apartheid during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it is quite likely that this massive arms deal, which was really the point at which the AMC and our nascent democracy lost its innocence, lost its moral compass, it is quite likely that that would not have happened. So that his vision is absolutely crucial.
And from the arms deal, which was the point at which the AMC made clear, that it was fine to plunder the state treasury, for personal and party political gain. From that point on, it was inevitable that we would reach the point we did under Jacob Zuma, where effectively, the state became a tool in the hands of private interests, the Gupta brothers, but also, all of these companies, who were making millions and millions of dollars, out of corrupting the South African state.
Mark Steiner: Which is why your report is so important, because it goes beyond the Gupta brothers into what really fueled all of this, and how it actually happened. And also explains, when you open your report, and as we conclude this, I mean, you talk about the human cost of this corruption.
You just mentioned, one-third of the GDP being the being, becoming part of this corruption, in lots of South Africa, means that, as you wrote about, millions of people are trapped in poverty. People die because of this. This is, this has a huge human and societal cost.
Andrew Feinstei…: Mark, the arms deal that I mentioned, the first point of the corruption of the democratic South African state, took place at a time when our then-President Thabo Mbeki, told the six million citizens of our country, who were living with HIV or AIDS, that we could not afford to buy the antiretroviral medication.
I remember him alive. As a consequence of which, according to a study undertaken at Harvard, over the following five years, 365,000 South Africans died avoidable deaths. Thirty-two thousand babies every year were born HIV positive, because we couldn’t afford mother to child transmission treatment, but we could afford to spend billions on jet fighters, that we can’t afford to fuel, let alone fly. And as we go into the state capture of the Guptas, every single dollar that is stolen from the Ciscos in this country, means that the two million people who require housing are less likely to get that housing.
That’s the millions of school children, who either don’t have a school, or have an inadequate school, and inadequate teaching. I’m likely to get a decent education, but those people who require public healthcare are unlikely to get it.
So quite literally, our own politicians, aided and abetted by these global banks, lawyers, auditing firms and management consultancies, are effectively stealing the livelihood out of the pockets of ordinary South Africans. So anybody who believes that corruption is a victimless crime need only look at South Africa.
The complicity of American and global companies in these crimes cannot be avoided. And so, what we are stating in this report, is that those companies too must face the legal consequences of their corrupt activities.
Mark Steiner: Well, Andrew Feinstein, I really look forward to seeing how this unfolds more, as this report comes out, and we see how South Africa wrestles with this, and the work that you do, and the work that other people are doing in the mine workers union, to equate a really true democratic South Africa, that comes to the fore.
And look forward to many more conversations, and just seeing where this takes South Africa and the world. Andrew, thanks so much for your work, and thank you for being with us today.
Andrew Feinstei…: Thank you so much for your time.
Mark Steiner: It’s been my pleasure. And I’m Mark Steiner here, for The Real News Network. Thank you all for joining us. Please let us know what you think. Take care. with Andrew Feinstein, the report's author.
February 21, 2020
In South Africa, corruption is called state capture. A new report by Shadow World Investigations reveals how world bankers, lawyers, and accountants manipulate politicians.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Mark Steiner: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Mark Steiner, good to have you all with us. In South Africa, they call corruption in politics state capture, and it’s at the heart of the political struggle in South African politics now. Because it refers to the idea that government cannot act in the interest of the public if it’s fully in the pocket of powerful business people.
It was one of the main issues in the last May’s national elections in South Africa, and the reason that the ruling ANC, the African National Congress, that led the revolution against the apartheid state, received fewer votes than ever before, while maintaining its majority, a 62% majority. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, promised to fight against state capture, but he himself was accused of doing the bidding of capital groups like the Gupta brothers.
Now, Cyril Ramaphosa has gone, went from a revolutionary leader of the mine workers, to himself becoming a wealthy owner and investor in mines. Former South African president Jacob Zuma has been under investigation for corruption. And last week, the court issued an arrest warrant against him, to force him to appear before the court, and answer allegations of corruption. Here is Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge [Vaya Palay 00:01:09].
Vaya Palay: in this instance, Counsel for Mr. Zuma was notified in advance, in the middle of January, that this document, or that sound evidence is required to justify his absence from court. And without that evidence, this court cannot do anything else but issue a warrant of arrest.
Mark Steiner: A new report, which was just published by Open Secrets and Shadow World Investigations, deals with the issue of state capture on South Africa, but from a very different angle. It’s entitled The Enablers, a report which focuses not on the direct relationship between capitalists and politicians, but rather on the people in between layers, the lawyers, the accountants, the bankers who enable this relationship to flourish.
One of the authors of that report is Andrew Feinstein, who is of Shadow World Investigations, is now joining us to discuss the report. He’s the Executive Director of Corruption Watch UK, and author of The Shadow World Inside The Global Arms Trade, which was the basis of a documentary film, that explores world’s largest and most corrupt arms deals that took place.
And previously, Andrew Feinstein worked with the ANC, under the previous South African presidents, Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki, and Andrew, welcome. Good to have you back on The Real News.
Andrew Feinstei…: Thank you. Good to be here.
Mark Steiner: Let’s start with some background very quickly for our viewers. And let’s take a look at who the Gupta brothers are, and what went on with the former president, Jacob Zuma, who’s now being called before the commission, and what led us to this in the first place, what this means.
Andrew Feinstei…: So I think the situation is that the Gupta brothers are two brothers from India, previously based in Delhi, I think, where they ran a company called Sahara Computers. They got involved, in a peripheral way in South Africa, under the previous president, Thabo Mbeki, who, one of his ministers actually first introduced them into South Africa.
And they forged relationships across the AMC, most importantly, with then-Deputy President Jacob Zuma. Zuma toppled Mbeki from power. And when he moved into the Union Buildings, our presidential house in Pretoria, it was as though he took with him the Gupta brothers. And the process of what we described as state capture is really the process of giving state contracts to private interests, who are both unable to deliver on those contracts, but also pocket enormous amounts of money for those contracts.
So, an enormous number of very large government contracts, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of South African Rand, were given to Gupta companies, many of them established as special purpose vehicles only for that contract. In the majority of cases, very little if anything was delivered, and hundreds of millions, billions of dollars, in fact, was siphoned out of the South African state, and into bank accounts around the world, most prominently in Dubai.
Mark Steiner: So let’s go to the report itself for a moment. I mean, I everybody agrees that capitalists have to be exposed for giving bribes, and controlling the political world, and controlling government. And politicians have to be exposed for betraying the trust of voters and promoting the interests of those capitalist powers, instead of the people themselves.
But why did you focus on the accountants, the bankers, the lawyers that hammered out these deals, and did it in secret? So talk about the focus of this, and why that happened, and the way you did it. And what’s the significance?
Andrew Feinstei…: So we have done a series of reports, on various of these instances, of what we refer to as state capture. But what was apparent to us, in every single case, is there was very prominent South African, and global financial institutions, auditing firms, law firms and management consultants, who made tens of millions of dollars, out of effectively facilitating these contracts that undermined the state. In addition to which, they played the crucial role in laundering the illicit proceeds from these contracts, that accrued to the Gupta brothers, but also to key South African politicians, who had awarded the Gupta brothers these contracts.
And without those enablers or facilitators, it would have been far more difficult for this phenomenon of state capture to have taken place, and especially to have taken place to the extent that it has. Because during the Zuma years, Jacob Zuma was president of South Africa for eight years, it is estimated that around one-third of the country’s GDP has been lost to state capture.
That could never have happened without the involvement of banks like HSBC, The Bank of Baroda, standard bank here in South Africa, and a bank called First National Bank, global law firms, consultancies, particularly Bain Consulting, and McKinseys, and a variety of others.
The audit firms that we’ve all heard about, KPMG, Deloitte, PWC, all of these entities, played an absolutely essential role at every part of the process of state capture. And while we are demanding that the South African judicial process deals with the politicians, who have been the recipients of the bribes paid by the Guptas, it is as important, not just for South Africa, to ensure that state capture comes to an end in this country, but for many other countries around the world, including the United States of America, which you could argue, under President Trump, is also experiencing state capture, to ensure that these companies to face prosecution, both in South Africa and in their home markets, wherever those might be.
Mark Steiner: So, [inaudible 00:07:39], so clearly, the Gupta brothers, the way you’re describing things, are, on the face of this, and you can… But from what you’ve just said, I mean this, this goes way deeper, much deeper than the Gupta brothers, much deeper in their relationship with Zuma. This has to do with the role, or the way you’re describing it, of international capital of the banks, of the finance industry, or the international arms industry, I’m sure, which you’ve covered intensely in your work before.
Andrew Feinstei…: Yeah.
Mark Steiner: So this is, this really it goes to the heart of, what we talked about even before you got on the air, which is, one of the reasons why, when the AMC finally took control of South Africa and ended the apartheid state, it was almost impossible to take on these capitalist powers who really were controlling everything. And what you are doing is uncovering what that really means. Am I right?
Andrew Feinstei…: Absolutely. So we have a situation where the apartheid state, too, wasn’t able to survive, and sadly, prosper, through the role of international banks, international lawyers, foreign governments, and a variety of foreign companies who broke the UN oil embargo against South Africa, and of course the UN arms embargo, against apartheid South Africa.
Now, the system of apartheid was not only morally corrupt, as a racist oligarchy, it was materially corrupt as well. About 50% of the budget was off the book, and was used for indecent, corrupt purposes. And that was facilitated and enabled by the private sector around the world. Sadly, what happened in South Africa was the corruption of the later apartheid period, alighted into our democratic era.
So, when I was an ANC member of Parliament in this country, I tried to investigate an arms deal, in which we bought $10 billion of weapons that we had absolutely no need of, and that we barely used today.
It’s estimated that around three to $400 million of bribes were paid on those deals. But the intermediaries, who enabled and facilitated those deals, like Barclays Bank, in the United Kingdom, like certain arms dealers based in Germany, and Belgium, and various other parts of the world. These were the same people who had enabled and facilitated the corruption of the apartheid era.
So had we dealt with the economic dimensions of apartheid during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it is quite likely that this massive arms deal, which was really the point at which the AMC and our nascent democracy lost its innocence, lost its moral compass, it is quite likely that that would not have happened. So that his vision is absolutely crucial.
And from the arms deal, which was the point at which the AMC made clear, that it was fine to plunder the state treasury, for personal and party political gain. From that point on, it was inevitable that we would reach the point we did under Jacob Zuma, where effectively, the state became a tool in the hands of private interests, the Gupta brothers, but also, all of these companies, who were making millions and millions of dollars, out of corrupting the South African state.
Mark Steiner: Which is why your report is so important, because it goes beyond the Gupta brothers into what really fueled all of this, and how it actually happened. And also explains, when you open your report, and as we conclude this, I mean, you talk about the human cost of this corruption.
You just mentioned, one-third of the GDP being the being, becoming part of this corruption, in lots of South Africa, means that, as you wrote about, millions of people are trapped in poverty. People die because of this. This is, this has a huge human and societal cost.
Andrew Feinstei…: Mark, the arms deal that I mentioned, the first point of the corruption of the democratic South African state, took place at a time when our then-President Thabo Mbeki, told the six million citizens of our country, who were living with HIV or AIDS, that we could not afford to buy the antiretroviral medication.
I remember him alive. As a consequence of which, according to a study undertaken at Harvard, over the following five years, 365,000 South Africans died avoidable deaths. Thirty-two thousand babies every year were born HIV positive, because we couldn’t afford mother to child transmission treatment, but we could afford to spend billions on jet fighters, that we can’t afford to fuel, let alone fly. And as we go into the state capture of the Guptas, every single dollar that is stolen from the Ciscos in this country, means that the two million people who require housing are less likely to get that housing.
That’s the millions of school children, who either don’t have a school, or have an inadequate school, and inadequate teaching. I’m likely to get a decent education, but those people who require public healthcare are unlikely to get it.
So quite literally, our own politicians, aided and abetted by these global banks, lawyers, auditing firms and management consultancies, are effectively stealing the livelihood out of the pockets of ordinary South Africans. So anybody who believes that corruption is a victimless crime need only look at South Africa.
The complicity of American and global companies in these crimes cannot be avoided. And so, what we are stating in this report, is that those companies too must face the legal consequences of their corrupt activities.
Mark Steiner: Well, Andrew Feinstein, I really look forward to seeing how this unfolds more, as this report comes out, and we see how South Africa wrestles with this, and the work that you do, and the work that other people are doing in the mine workers union, to equate a really true democratic South Africa, that comes to the fore.
And look forward to many more conversations, and just seeing where this takes South Africa and the world. Andrew, thanks so much for your work, and thank you for being with us today.
Andrew Feinstei…: Thank you so much for your time.
Mark Steiner: It’s been my pleasure. And I’m Mark Steiner here, for The Real News Network. Thank you all for joining us. Please let us know what you think. Take care. with Andrew Feinstein, the report's author.
Ilhan Omar’s ‘Pathway to Peace’ Would Revolutionize US Foreign Policy
February 20, 2020
The seven bills would steer US foreign policy towards international norms and remove support for human rights violators. While the chances are slim that these bills will pass, they outline a progressive foreign policy.
Story Transcript
GREG WILPERT: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia.
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota introduced a package of seven bills last week, which she calls the Pathway to Peace. This legislation, if it were passed, would mean nothing short of a revolution in the way that U.S. foreign policy is conducted. Last year, Omar already said that she plans to make U.S. foreign policy more ethical.
ILHAN OMAR: I want to make sure that here in the United States we understand that there are other countries who take in so many people of the world’s most pained people, and in the United States we could do better.
GREG WILPERT: The package of seven bills would end arm sales to countries that violate human rights, provide foreign aid to youth in developing countries, shift $5 billion from the Pentagon to the state department for a global peace building fund and grant Congress oversight over U.S. economic sanctions. Also, the bills would have the U.S. sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a global migration agreement, and the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court.
Joining me now to analyze Representative Ilhan Omar’s proposal is Kate Kizer. She’s the Policy Director at Win Without War, a national grassroots advocacy organization that works to help establish a more progressive foreign policy for the United States. Thanks for joining us today, Kate.
KATE KIZER: Thanks for having me.
GREG WILPERT: The chances that this package of bills would be approved by congress, particularly by the Republican controlled senate, and then not be vetoed by the president, is pretty slim. So what’s the significance of Representative Omar’s Pathway to Peace?
KATE KIZER: It’s a really important marker of what Progressive’s want to see on foreign policy. For a long time there’s been little to no debate within the Democratic Party of how we would actually reform U.S. foreign policy to meet the values that the U.S. says it stands for. So it’s very exciting to see Representative Omar lay down such bold markers of how we would change U.S. engagement with the world, and not only to socialize these ideas amongst her peers in Congress, even if they won’t end up becoming law this year, but also to signal what we would expect to see from a progressive White House in the future.
GREG WILPERT: Now, in an article that you wrote for The American Prospect about the Pathway to Peace, you point out that the United States has historically pushed for a rules-based international system, but you also point out that the U.S. has at the same time considered itself to be an exception to these rules and not bound by them. For example, the U.S. is the only country in the world not to have signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and one of the few that hasn’t supported the International Criminal Court or the UN compact on migration.
Now, getting the U.S. to abide by these UN conventions would imply a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy. Is there support among the Democratic Party and presidential candidates for such a shift, and if not, how might such support be built?
KATE KIZER: In rhetoric, I think there absolutely is support for these ideas of being an internationalist, of being a multilateralist in foreign policy. The U.S. government says it supports the multilateral system, but as you just mentioned, it’s my analysis that we actually act to undermine it, which weakens that system, and prevents us from actually positively reforming the system to meet the needs of the 21st century.
So it’s been very exciting to see Senator Warren and Senator Sanders on the campaign trail really stake out an internationalist position that supports multilateralism, and it would absolutely require the U.S. to not only join these international conventions that set out the rule of the road, but also to establish more norms and standards that it not only holds itself accountable to but other countries. Without holding ourselves accountable to these standards, we can’t then act for accountability for other countries. Ultimately, that undermines any U.S. power to implement these rules of the road.
GREG WILPERT: Now currently, not only hasn’t the U.S. signed these conventions that we mentioned, but it also flaunts international law when it imposes unilateral economic sanctions on countries such as on Venezuela, Russia, or Iran. That is, according to the UN charter it is illegal for countries to engage in collective punishment. Now, the Pathway to Peace includes a bill that would require Congress to approve of economic sanctions, but it would still mean that sanctions could violate international law actually. I mean wouldn’t a bill that would outlaw all non-UN-approved sanctions be better?
KATE KIZER: I think that the fact that U.S. sanctions has really become a reflexive tool in the toolkit that many policymakers don’t see as a form of warfare, is very problematic. I think Congresswoman Omar recognized this. She’s obviously been an advocate for an end to U.S. blanket sanction regimes that violate international law and cause undue hardship to regular people in sanctioned countries. But I think she’s strategic in that she recognizes that many members of Congress in particular are not ready to just do away with all U.S. sanctions power.
So what she is doing is really staking out what a first step in sanctions reform look like. First Congress must A, have to affirmatively vote to approve any sanctions. In doing so it would force Congress with having to reckon with whether or not sanctions actually can achieve the policy goals that they say they want to achieve, which the academic literature indicates they can’t and don’t. And they would also have to reckon with the humanitarian impact of sanctions, which Congress largely ignores at this point, and it has led to some of the world’s worst humanitarian crises as we’re seeing in Venezuela, and North Korea, and Iran.
GREG WILPERT: Now, while the U.S. sanctions governments it does not like, it actually arms governments that it does like such as Saudi Arabia, and it arms them to the teeth even when they violate human rights or wage war. Now, one of these bills in Omar’s package, the Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act, would dramatically change this practice, and require the president to certify whether countries engage in human rights abuses lest they be cut off from U.S. arms.
Now, if this bill were to become law, we can though be fairly certain I would say that a president such as Trump would not rule a country such as Israel or Saudi Arabia to be a violator of human rights. Wouldn’t it be better to have an independent commission make such a judgment on human rights abuses?
KATE KIZER: Actually, the Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act would establish an independent human rights commission that’s been modeled off of the international commission for religious freedom. How that works in practice is, there is independent commissioners who evaluate the human rights records and evidence of human rights abuses of a subject country, and they would essentially tier them on whether or not they meet the threshold for a cutoff of assistance.
The nice thing about this bill is, despite the fact that there are human rights protections in current U.S. foreign assistance and arm sales laws, they’re not regularly enforced because they’re so broadly and generally written that they’re difficult to enforce, and the incentive at the state department and the department of defense is to continue sending out weapons and other assistance to countries versus trying to halt assistance.
So this would take those decisions out of the hands of those bureaucracies and instead provide independent analysis to determine whether or not countries are violating the thresholds that Miss Omar’s bill identifies. So, again, it would be a really strong step in the right direction in that it would essentially provide a huge way for civil society to influence whether or not the U.S. is providing security assistance, police officer training, or weapons to a subject country, and create a much more transparent process.
GREG WILPERT: Okay. Well, we’re going to leave it there for now, but we’ll continue to see how this bill fares in Congress. I was speaking to Kate Kizer, Policy Director at Win Without War. Thanks for joining us today Kate.
KATE KIZER: Thanks for having me Greg.
GREG WILPERT: Thank you for joining The Real News Network.
February 20, 2020
The seven bills would steer US foreign policy towards international norms and remove support for human rights violators. While the chances are slim that these bills will pass, they outline a progressive foreign policy.
Story Transcript
GREG WILPERT: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia.
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota introduced a package of seven bills last week, which she calls the Pathway to Peace. This legislation, if it were passed, would mean nothing short of a revolution in the way that U.S. foreign policy is conducted. Last year, Omar already said that she plans to make U.S. foreign policy more ethical.
ILHAN OMAR: I want to make sure that here in the United States we understand that there are other countries who take in so many people of the world’s most pained people, and in the United States we could do better.
GREG WILPERT: The package of seven bills would end arm sales to countries that violate human rights, provide foreign aid to youth in developing countries, shift $5 billion from the Pentagon to the state department for a global peace building fund and grant Congress oversight over U.S. economic sanctions. Also, the bills would have the U.S. sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a global migration agreement, and the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court.
Joining me now to analyze Representative Ilhan Omar’s proposal is Kate Kizer. She’s the Policy Director at Win Without War, a national grassroots advocacy organization that works to help establish a more progressive foreign policy for the United States. Thanks for joining us today, Kate.
KATE KIZER: Thanks for having me.
GREG WILPERT: The chances that this package of bills would be approved by congress, particularly by the Republican controlled senate, and then not be vetoed by the president, is pretty slim. So what’s the significance of Representative Omar’s Pathway to Peace?
KATE KIZER: It’s a really important marker of what Progressive’s want to see on foreign policy. For a long time there’s been little to no debate within the Democratic Party of how we would actually reform U.S. foreign policy to meet the values that the U.S. says it stands for. So it’s very exciting to see Representative Omar lay down such bold markers of how we would change U.S. engagement with the world, and not only to socialize these ideas amongst her peers in Congress, even if they won’t end up becoming law this year, but also to signal what we would expect to see from a progressive White House in the future.
GREG WILPERT: Now, in an article that you wrote for The American Prospect about the Pathway to Peace, you point out that the United States has historically pushed for a rules-based international system, but you also point out that the U.S. has at the same time considered itself to be an exception to these rules and not bound by them. For example, the U.S. is the only country in the world not to have signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and one of the few that hasn’t supported the International Criminal Court or the UN compact on migration.
Now, getting the U.S. to abide by these UN conventions would imply a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy. Is there support among the Democratic Party and presidential candidates for such a shift, and if not, how might such support be built?
KATE KIZER: In rhetoric, I think there absolutely is support for these ideas of being an internationalist, of being a multilateralist in foreign policy. The U.S. government says it supports the multilateral system, but as you just mentioned, it’s my analysis that we actually act to undermine it, which weakens that system, and prevents us from actually positively reforming the system to meet the needs of the 21st century.
So it’s been very exciting to see Senator Warren and Senator Sanders on the campaign trail really stake out an internationalist position that supports multilateralism, and it would absolutely require the U.S. to not only join these international conventions that set out the rule of the road, but also to establish more norms and standards that it not only holds itself accountable to but other countries. Without holding ourselves accountable to these standards, we can’t then act for accountability for other countries. Ultimately, that undermines any U.S. power to implement these rules of the road.
GREG WILPERT: Now currently, not only hasn’t the U.S. signed these conventions that we mentioned, but it also flaunts international law when it imposes unilateral economic sanctions on countries such as on Venezuela, Russia, or Iran. That is, according to the UN charter it is illegal for countries to engage in collective punishment. Now, the Pathway to Peace includes a bill that would require Congress to approve of economic sanctions, but it would still mean that sanctions could violate international law actually. I mean wouldn’t a bill that would outlaw all non-UN-approved sanctions be better?
KATE KIZER: I think that the fact that U.S. sanctions has really become a reflexive tool in the toolkit that many policymakers don’t see as a form of warfare, is very problematic. I think Congresswoman Omar recognized this. She’s obviously been an advocate for an end to U.S. blanket sanction regimes that violate international law and cause undue hardship to regular people in sanctioned countries. But I think she’s strategic in that she recognizes that many members of Congress in particular are not ready to just do away with all U.S. sanctions power.
So what she is doing is really staking out what a first step in sanctions reform look like. First Congress must A, have to affirmatively vote to approve any sanctions. In doing so it would force Congress with having to reckon with whether or not sanctions actually can achieve the policy goals that they say they want to achieve, which the academic literature indicates they can’t and don’t. And they would also have to reckon with the humanitarian impact of sanctions, which Congress largely ignores at this point, and it has led to some of the world’s worst humanitarian crises as we’re seeing in Venezuela, and North Korea, and Iran.
GREG WILPERT: Now, while the U.S. sanctions governments it does not like, it actually arms governments that it does like such as Saudi Arabia, and it arms them to the teeth even when they violate human rights or wage war. Now, one of these bills in Omar’s package, the Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act, would dramatically change this practice, and require the president to certify whether countries engage in human rights abuses lest they be cut off from U.S. arms.
Now, if this bill were to become law, we can though be fairly certain I would say that a president such as Trump would not rule a country such as Israel or Saudi Arabia to be a violator of human rights. Wouldn’t it be better to have an independent commission make such a judgment on human rights abuses?
KATE KIZER: Actually, the Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act would establish an independent human rights commission that’s been modeled off of the international commission for religious freedom. How that works in practice is, there is independent commissioners who evaluate the human rights records and evidence of human rights abuses of a subject country, and they would essentially tier them on whether or not they meet the threshold for a cutoff of assistance.
The nice thing about this bill is, despite the fact that there are human rights protections in current U.S. foreign assistance and arm sales laws, they’re not regularly enforced because they’re so broadly and generally written that they’re difficult to enforce, and the incentive at the state department and the department of defense is to continue sending out weapons and other assistance to countries versus trying to halt assistance.
So this would take those decisions out of the hands of those bureaucracies and instead provide independent analysis to determine whether or not countries are violating the thresholds that Miss Omar’s bill identifies. So, again, it would be a really strong step in the right direction in that it would essentially provide a huge way for civil society to influence whether or not the U.S. is providing security assistance, police officer training, or weapons to a subject country, and create a much more transparent process.
GREG WILPERT: Okay. Well, we’re going to leave it there for now, but we’ll continue to see how this bill fares in Congress. I was speaking to Kate Kizer, Policy Director at Win Without War. Thanks for joining us today Kate.
KATE KIZER: Thanks for having me Greg.
GREG WILPERT: Thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)