Monday, March 21, 2022

Top Turkey activist awaits fate in new hearing

Turkey's leading activist Osman Kavala, who at the weekend marked his 1,600th day in prison without conviction, will appear in court Monday in a case that has strained Ankara's ties with the West

Turkey has kept Kavala in prison since 2017 in defiance of a European Court of Human Rights ruling to release him [Getty- archive]

Turkey's leading activist Osman Kavala, who at the weekend marked his 1,600th day in prison without conviction, will appear in court Monday in a case that has strained Ankara's ties with the West.

The philanthropist is accused of financing 2013 anti-government protests and playing a role in a coup plot against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Turkey has kept Kavala in prison since 2017 in a huge prison complex on the outskirts of Istanbul in defiance of a European Court of Human Rights ruling to release him.

Last month, the Council of Europe (COE) launched rare disciplinary action against Turkey over the case, which Ankara denounced as interference.

An Istanbul court asked Kavala to be physically present at the hearing on Monday, a Turkish judicial source told AFP, where a panel of three judges could deliver a final verdict.

Erdogan has openly targeted Kavala and accused him of being an agent of George Soros, a billionaire financier and pro-democracy campaigner.

The case - closely monitored by the West - has become a symbol of a sweeping crackdown on government opponents after the botched coup.

RELATED
Turkey frees reporters set for jail over Libya coverage

'Politically motivated' charges

Kavala said last October he would not defend himself in court because he lost faith in a fair trial after his case sparked a diplomatic spat.

Erdogan nearly expelled 10 Western countries' envoys including the United States and major European powers after they made an appeal for Kavala's release last October.

But the new hearing comes as Erdogan attempts to salvage battered ties with the European Union in recent months, a bid which intensified after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Kavala previously attended hearings via a video link from prison.

In his final opinion on March 4, the prosecutor requested that Kavala be found guilty of "attempting to overthrow" Erdogan's government.

If convicted, Kavala faces an aggravated life sentence, which has tougher terms of detention.

Kavala denies the claims and has branded the charges in the indictment as "politically motivated".

RELATED
Turkish prosecutor seeks jail for opposition politician

'Arbitrarily detained'


Kavala is on trial with 16 other defendants, who are in the dock over the 2013 protests after the court last month separated the dossier from another case involving a football fan group on the same charges.

Human rights organisations have also criticised the case.

"Despite committing no internationally recognised crime, he remains arbitrarily detained on baseless charges in a facility far away from his family," said Nils Muiznieks, Amnesty International's Europe director.

Muiznieks accused the prosecutors of seeking but failing "to conjure a crime out of thin air".

"On the contrary, each tortuous twist in this politically motivated prosecution has further exposed the hollowness of the Turkish justice system," he added in a statement ahead of the hearing.

Turkey faces infringement proceedings by the COE, the second time the body has taken such action, the first occasion in 2017 against Azerbaijan over its refusal to release a dissident.


Boris Johnson accused of hiding meetings with Russian oligarchs

21st March 2022 / United Kingdom
Boris Johnson accused of hiding meetings with Russian oligarchs

By Jim Cusick and Peter Geoghegan:

 Labour has accused Boris Johnson of deliberately hiding details of meetings at his country residence, Chequers. A source with links to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) told openDemocracy that there were “internal concerns” about Chequers being used as an “undocumented” channel for Conservative Party business.

Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, said it was “deeply concerning” that vital transparency data was being covered up to avoid scrutiny of who the prime minister was entertaining.

Rayner said: “What has the prime minister got to hide? With questions raised about Boris Johnson’s secret meetings with Russian oligarchs, it is crucial that the Cabinet Office releases this data to the public.”

The Ministerial Code states that Chequers should not be used for party political work. When the prime minister hosts Conservative Party or personal events at Chequers it should be at his expense with, as the code states, “no cost falling to the public purse”.

Details of guests who visited Chequers and Chevening, the foreign secretary’s grace and favour estate, were previously routinely published, but the practice appears to have ended shortly after David Cameron won a Conservative majority in 2015. 

In a recent response to a parliamentary question about the publication of Chequers visitors, Cabinet Office minister Michael Ellis pointed to official transparency data that has not been updated since December that year.

The prime minister has been criticised for his relationship with Evgeny Lebedev, the Russian-born media mogul. Johnson reportedly overrode security concerns to give Lebedev a seat in the House of Lords.

Shortly before Boris Johnson won the Conservative leadership contest and became prime minister in 2019, openDemocracy published the first full details of his visits to Lebedev’s villa in Umbria, Italy. This week Labour wrote to the Home Office asking if any record of this meeting was kept.

openDemocracy has previously revealed that, in March 2020, Lebedev and Johnson had a “personal” meeting just days before the COVID-19 lockdown.


Boris plays by his own rules. If we did not know at the beginning, we know it now

 

One Conservative MP, serially critical of Johnson’s record as prime minister, told openDemocracy: “Boris plays by his own rules. If we did not know at the beginning, we know it now. He is reluctant to use his own money in anything connected to his role as PM.”

Johnson has form when it comes to delaying the release of potentially damaging information.

In March 2019, Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) examined Russian interference in British politics. The 50-page ‘Russia Report’ was sent to Johnson in Number 10 in October. It was eventually published, heavily redacted, in July 2020.

The Russia Report found that “a lot of Russians with very close links to Putin” were “well integrated into the UK business and social scene”. Boris Johnson refused to act on its conclusion that the government must “take the necessary measures to… challenge the impunity of Putin-linked elites”.

Although it is illegal for any Russian national to donate to a UK political party, those with dual UK-Russian status, or UK nationals with significant links to Putin’s Kremlin, have donated to the Conservative Party in recent years. Labour claims that Russian-linked donors have given close to £2m to the Conservatives since Johnson became leader.

Prime ministers have often entertained guests at Chequers. The last transparency release from David Cameron’s time in office showed that, between October and December 2015, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, President Xi Jinping of China, and the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, all visited Chequers.

But no full lists of those Cameron entertained at Chequers were published. During Cameron’s time in government, this lack of transparency was criticised by the former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Sir Alistair Graham. He said the public “had a right to be suspicious” and that partial lists risked damaging public trust in the government.

The Cabinet Office was approached for comment but had yet to respond at the time of publication.

If you want to boycott Russian oligarch-owned organisations – start with the Tory party

3rd March 2022 / United Kingdom
If you want to boycott Russian oligarch-owned organisations - start with the Tory party

By TruePublica

The Conservative party and most specifically this Prime Minister has betrayed the country, this much is now evident. To be fair, it’s been going on for quite a few years now, but the truth is this – they let an enemy in through the front door and now we are paying for that crime.

Irrespective of your rosette colour or your views on all political matters – on public health, education, policing and especially that of Brexit – we have all been betrayed by your government. These observations have emerged on social media, it’s not as though some of the general public is not aware.

The British government have been warned for years that Putin was a serious threat to the British way of life. And yet, his crooked subordinates were allowed to infect our system of government with bribery and corruption.

What there was of the so-called Russia Report – we know the security services gave their warnings. On Page 15 of that report, the intelligence service reports that – “The UK is clearly a target for Russia’s disinformation campaigns and political influence operations and must therefore equip itself to counter such efforts.” This was used to great effect to secure Brexit. We know this. To deny it is wrong. And what was that effect? It destabilised the European Union, pitted allies against each other, severely weakened the United Kingdom and put a wedge through society – and that is what Putin paid for. Do you not see that now?

Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, most of the entire cabinet – in all about one in ten of all Tory MP’s have accepted cash from Putin’s cronies. This government took advantage of that cash, took advantage of these disinformation campaigns and political influence operations – simply to secure their own power. They did this because they had no real compelling narrative to secure it otherwise.

Page 8 of that report says – “Russia considers the UK one of its top Western intelligence targets: while we may not experience the level and type of threat that countries on Russia’s borders suffer, witnesses have suggested that we would sit just behind the US and NATO in any priority list.” This means Russia had put the UK very high on its priority list of political targets – and so it took aim. And it succeeded with little resistance from those that govern us today. Why would any citizen want such an unbelievable lack of judgement from its government to be making decisions when defending the ideology of democracy against the very people who severely weakened it through bribery in the first place?

On Page 12, the intelligence services write the following ominous words – “Since 2014, Russia has carried out malicious cyber activity in order to assert itself aggressively in a number of spheres, including attempting to influence the democratic elections of other countries. Russia’s cyber capability, when combined with its willingness to deploy it in a malicious capacity, is a matter of grave concern, and poses an immediate and urgent threat to our national security.” So the people who sit in No10 Downing Street knew all along of this threat to our national security and welcomed that very same threat with open arms. Do you think they should be sitting in Downing Street right now?

A foreign power seeking to interfere in our democratic processes – whether it is successful or not – cannot be taken lightly.”  This was from the same page. One wonders if Boris Johnson and his acolytes can read because they didn’t take this lightly. In fact, they didn’t do anything except become overpowered by a hostile foreign power. At our most charitable it might be possible to say they were duped. Who wants naive stooges in government, especially in times like these?

The security and intelligence services made a point of saying that the EU referendum was “a case study” for the failure of the government to take this situation seriously. You could take this one step further and say the current government accepted that risk in order to be elected – power at all cost.

Page 15 shone a light on exactly what we are seeing in the papers every day right now – the backtracking of their position. “Whilst the Russian elite have developed ties with a number of countries in recent years, it would appear that the UK has been viewed as a particularly favourable destination for Russian oligarchs and their money.” Don’t forget that this report was eight months in the making and was stalled by Boris Johnson because he knew what was in it. This information was not new information when it was published last year.

“The links of the Russian elite to the UK – especially where this involves business and investment – provide access to UK companies and political figures, and thereby a means for broad Russian influence in the UK. To a certain extent, this cannot be untangled and the priority now must be to mitigate the risk and ensure that, where hostile activity is uncovered, the tools exist to tackle it at source.” This statement on page 23 makes it plain and simple to understand. The government has allowed mass infiltration of corrupt money to influence all aspects of British life. And it will not be easy to rid ourselves of it all.

Since 2014, the British security and intelligence services have been consistently warnings about Russia’s political activities in the UK. These national security services made it plain to understand to the government that it was their job to highlight these threats and the government were to make decisions and act. The general public was not made aware of these hostile foreign state attacks by the Her Majesties Government.

“The Agencies have emphasised that they see their role in this as providing secret intelligence as context for other organisations, as part of a wider HMG response: they do not view themselves as holding primary responsibility for the active defence of the UK’s democratic processes from hostile foreign interference, and indeed during the course of our Inquiry appeared determined to distance themselves from any suggestion that they might have a prominent role in relation to the democratic process itself, noting the caution which had to be applied in relation to intrusive powers in the context of a democratic process. They informed us that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) holds primary responsibility for disinformation campaigns and that the Electoral Commission has responsibility for the overall security of democratic processes.” All of this is currently the responsibility of Nadine Dorries. Yes, Nadine Dorries! The report did go further and say that the government, in general, are responsible.

If you want further evidence that this government is colluding with a foreign power such as Russia – look no further than the conclusion of the Russia Report when it talks about Scottish independence.

“There has been credible open source commentary suggesting that Russia undertook influence campaigns in relation to the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. However, at the time (REDACTED). It appears that (REDACTED) what some commentators have described as potentially the first post-Soviet Russian interference in a Western democratic process. We note that – almost five years on (REDACTED).” The redactions tell you what the intelligence services were saying – that it was extremely serious. But the government decided that the general public should not know just how serious – it was after all, just too damning, obviously.

“It appears that the Intelligence Community did learn lessons from the US experience, and HMG recognised the Russian threat to the UK’s democratic processes and political discourse. In May 2017, the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) concluded that (REDACTED) and that (REDACTED). Had the relevant parts of the Intelligence Community conducted a similar threat assessment prior to the referendum, it is inconceivable that they would not have reached the same conclusion as to Russian intent, which might then have led them to take action to protect the process.” But that’s the point isn’t it – they did know and deliberately decided not to protect the process of democracy in Britain. How can this be interpreted as anything other than a failure (in one way or another) of public duty by the very people who abused the weaknesses of democracy for self-interest – not national interest or indeed national security?

Page after page of redactions was how the Russia Report didn’t explode into something completely different on the front pages of the mainstream media. There is so much more that those in government know about Russia’s involvement in British politics, in distorting our way of life and the toxic narrative they have both delivered. Don’t forget, the binary form of politics we have today is the result of our own government dividing us. The information about swinging election results using illicit money from enemy states is all out there in the open. They chose power over our own national security and national interest. How’s that for taking back control?

Do you not see now who we have in the heart of government? Puppets. People who got into power by deception and by the money of our corrupt enemies. There is only one way to correct this. Johnson and all those tainted (and there’s a lot of them) must leave politics and never allowed a way back. A general election should be called and a new EU referendum should take place. And anyone partaking in illegal financing of our democracy should spend a few years behind bars.

And don’t forget – the very people in power are now legislating to silence you (just as Putin is doing to his people) peacefully protesting on the streets with this in mind.  To them, you are a threat to national security in their eyes. This is Boris Johnson’s government – shaped by Putin.

For all of the rhetoric of this government – don’t forget whose side Johnson is on. He has given Russia’s second-biggest bank, VTB Bank, a 30-day reprieve from UK sanctions. A top official at the bank, Barin Yucemen, has given the Conservative Party more than £44,000 since 2018. Last September VBT wrote on its own website – “VTB Capital can expect to be informally crowned Russia’s investment banking state champion by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at its inaugural investor forum starting tomorrow in Moscow.” VTB Bank is Putin’s bank – according to VTB that is. It makes you wonder exactly whose side Boris Johnson is on doesn’t it!

The Russia Report (LINK)


CHEMICAL WARFARE 
UPDATED
Ukrainian town told to shelter after ‘leak’ at ammonia plant

Sumy regional governor says the area within a 5km radius around the plant is hazardous.

Sumy, about 350km (220 miles) east of Kyiv, has experienced weeks of heavy fighting [Andrey Mozgovoy/Reuters]

Published On 21 Mar 202221 Mar 2022

A Ukrainian official has told residents of the northern town of Novoselytsya to seek shelter after an ammonia leak at a nearby chemical factory, as intense fighting with Russian forces in the area continues.

Ammonia is a highly corrosive, toxic and hazardous gas, and can be fatal to humans if ingested, inhaled or absorbed through the skin.

Sumy regional governor, Dmytro Zhyvytsky, said on Monday there had been an “ammonia leakage” at the Sumykhimprom facility, affecting an area within 2.5km (1.5 miles) of the plant, which produces fertilisers. He said the leak was the result of Russian shelling and that an employee at the plant was wounded.

There was no immediate comment by Russian officials.



Residents were told to seek refuge in basements or on lower levels of buildings to avoid exposure, and if ammonia is detected, to breathe through gauze bandages soaked in citric acid.

“Ammonia is lighter than air, therefore shelters, basements and lower floors should be used for protection,” Zhyvytsky said in a Telegram message.

He added that emergency crews were at the scene and prevailing winds meant the nearby city of Sumy – with a prewar population of about 250,000 – was not under immediate threat

According to Sumykhimprom’s website, the facility produces a range of chemical fertilisers.

Sumy, about 350km (220 miles) east of Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, has experienced weeks of heavy fighting.


An ammonia leak occurred at a chemical plant in the Sumy region of Ukraine

Today, In the world
Photo: Медиахолдинг1Mi/Фотобанк Ура.Медиа

The head of the Sumy Regional Administration of Ukraine, Dmitry Zhyvitsky, announced an emergency at the SumyKhimProm plant, where ammonia leaked.

The accident at the plant happened at about 4:30 local time (at 5:30 Moscow time). Emergency teams left for the emergency site.

“The affected area is about 2.5 kilometers. Settlements that are under threat: the village of Novoselitsa”, - RIA Novosti quotes Zhivitsky as saying.

According to representatives of the emergency department, the wind is not blowing towards the city of Sumy. Thanks to this, there is no threat to the health of its inhabitants.

Earlier, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation stated that they expected mass provocations. According to the agency, the nationalists in Sumy allegedly mined storage facilities with ammonia and chlorine in order to provoke mass poisoning of the inhabitants of the Sumy region in case the Russian army came to the region.

The Ministry of Defense added that the purpose of the upcoming provocations is to accuse the Russian military of sabotage against the civilian population of Ukraine.

At about 9 am in Moscow, it became known that the ammonia leak at the Sumy plant was localized.

Ammonia is widely used in the chemical industry, in the production of fertilizers, refrigeration units, and in medicine. The substance is toxic, it is assigned to the 4th level of danger. If inhaled, it can cause toxic pulmonary edema and severe damage to the nervous system, and at high concentrations, it can be fatal.

Ammonia vapors strongly irritate the mucous membranes of the eyes and respiratory organs, as well as the skin, cause tearing and pain in the eyes. They can provoke a chemical burn of the conjunctiva and cornea and loss of vision. Signs of ammonia damage are also coughing fits, redness and itching of the skin. When liquefied ammonia comes into contact with the skin, a severe chemical burn is possible, causing severe pain, redness and blisters on the skin.

Earlier, an ammonia leak occurred at a plant in Primorye. More than 400 people had to be evacuated from the enterprise.

The military special operation of the Russian Federation in Ukraine began on February 24 in response to a call for help from the authorities of the DPR and LPR. The entry of Russian troops into Ukraine was called an act of armed aggression in the country, Western countries imposed sanctions against the Russian Federation, which seriously undermined the economic well-being of the country.

Fake News, Fake History, Fake Law


 Facebook

“Fake news” is a widespread phenomenon – not only in wartime, but also in daily political and economic relations.  Fake news are not only disseminated by governments and its proxies, but also practiced by the private sector, by media conglomerates, by individuals in their correspondence, gossip, social media and through the internet.

Fake news is as prevalent in Europe as it is in the United States, in Latin America, Africa and Asia.  Patently false narratives, false flag operations and bogus incidents are concocted by governments in order to justify their policies, a compliant corporate media acting as echo chambers of the propaganda issued by governments.  Purportedly independent journalists (with their own agendas) have no hesitation to print evidence-free allegations, referring to anonymous officials or witnesses, supported by “secret intelligence”. Thus emerges “fragmented truth”, and no one really knows what truth is, everyone clings to his own views, refusing to consider alternative versions of the facts. When it comes to access to reliable information, freedom of opinion and expression, we live in an increasingly polarized, intolerant, intransigent world.

Only reluctantly we must acknowledge that “fake news” have always been around, the difference being that in the past only governments were purveyors of fake news, only governments could successfully manipulate public opinion, whereas today anybody with access to the internet can also weigh in. From experience we also know that all media – CNN, BBC, DW, NYTimes, Washington Post, The Times, The Economist, Le Monde, Le Figaro, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, El Pais, El Mundo, RT, Sputnik, CGTN, Asia Times, Telesur – all slant the news in a particular way.  They cite their favourite spin doctors and distort the facts, lying here and there, suppressing inconvenient facts and opinions, or shamelessly applying double-standards.

The perception of contemporary events eventually generates “fake history”, which necessarily builds on the steady flow of both verifiable information  and fake news.  As an aspiring historian taking courses in the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (at the same time as  I was getting my law degree), as a doctoral candidate in history at the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Göttingen in Germany, I learned to question historical narratives,  look at the sources, insist on seven C’s of history writing; chronology, context, coherence, comprehensiveness, causality,comparison and cui bono (who stands to gain from an event and from a particular interpretation). I was taught never to rely on a single source, but proactively to look for alternative views, see whether the standard narrative can be challenged, whether the subsequent publication of previously classified documents, whether the memoirs of movers and shakers, politicians and diplomats suggest the necessity of adjusting in the mainstream narrative.

My research activities for my publications on the Spanish Civil War and  on the Second World War and its aftermath convinced me that history textbooks were not all that reliable, that some of them were essentially propagating oversimplifications that ignored crucial facts, that long debunked canards had found their way into the mainstream narrative, sometimes resulting in a caricature of events.  My research in public and private archives in the US, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, my ability to read the original documents in English, French, German, Spanish, Dutch and Russian opened my horizons far beyond the accepted narratives. On the other hand, I realized that archives could be incomplete, that inconvenient documents could have been destroyed, that pertinent information is still classified.  Personal interviews with key players like George F. Kennan, Robert Murphy, James Riddleberger, Lord Strang, Lord Paget, Lord Weidenfeld, Lord Thomas, Sir Geoffrey Harrison, Sir Denis Allen, Telford Taylor, Benjamin Ferencz, Howard Levie, Albert Speer, Karl Dönitz, Otto von Habsburg, Kurt Waldheim, added missing links and nuances.  I was able to connect the dots.

I also realized that the optimistic expectation that as time passes and emotions abate the historical narrative will become more objective is  a sorry illusion.  Frequently the very opposite happens, because as the persons in the know disappear, as witnesses die and no one is left to dispute the politically useful narrative, pseudo-history is cemented and emerges as the  socially accepted narrative.  Extrapolating from my experience researching 20th century historical events, I am convinced that our knowledge of Greek and Roman times, our perception of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Napoleonic ear, must be woefully incomplete. I also realize that it will be very difficult to change the established narratives – absent some extraordinary discovery of previously unknown manuscripts of diplomatic or commercial correspondence, papyrus or cuneiform tablets.

What amazes me is that no one seems to be talking about “fake law”? Indeed, politicians and journalists frequently “invent” law as they go along, contending that what some lobby or interest group invokes as law actually has legal force, as if law and legal obligations could spontaneously arise, without the drafting, negotiation and adoption process of all legislation, treaties, conventions, or without  the ratification by Parliaments.

We must beware of the loose use of legal terms, which undermines the authority and credibility of the law.  Not every military encounter entails “aggression”, not every massacre constitutes “genocide”, not every form of sexual harassment can be considered “rape”.  Nor is every jailed politician a “political prisoner”, nor every migrant a “refugee”.  And yet, much hyperbole and political agitation play out on this pseudo-legal arena, much political blackmail is practiced on the basis of fake “law”, much propaganda is actually believed by average citizens. Mundus vult decepi (the world wants to be deceived).

Politicians who want to impose sanctions  insist that they are legal, without, however, elucidating  the legal basis.  In classical international law unilateral coercive measures are not legal. The only legal sanctions are those imposed by the UN Security Council under article VII of the Charter.  All other unilateral coercive measures actually constitute an illegal “use of force”,  prohibited in article 2(4) of the Charter, and contrary to article 2(3), which requires negotiations in good faith.

Moreover, the extra-territorial application of national law (e.g. the Helms-Burton Act) violates numerous principles of the United Nations, including the sovereign equality of states, the self-determination of peoples, freedom of commerce and freedom of navigation.  Every day politicians and the media invent their own law – but it is bogus law.  Alas, the media simply disseminates the “fake law” as a form of “fake news” – and people believe it.

Some politicians pretend that there is a human right to migration, but fail to give any treaty or doctrinal source.  Of course every sovereign state can generously open its border and welcome both economic migrants and refugees, but this opening of frontiers is nowhere required by international law.  In fact, the very ontology of a sovereign state since the Peace of Westphalia is that the state controls its frontiers and determines who can and cannot enter its territory.  This is customary international law recognized in every textbook.

There is, of course, the UN Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and members of their Families, but this Convention applies only to migrant workers who have already entered the territory and have their papers in order.  Moreover, the Convention does not establish a right of migration, it only specifies the rights of migrant workers living within the State’s jurisdiction.  It should also be noted that only 56 countries have ratified the MWC – not the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain etc.

All too often we are confronted by a combination of fake news, fake history and fake law, a very toxic cocktail for any democracy.  Alas, fake law has become a favourite weapon of demagogues and phoney “experts” and “diplomats” who gleefully engage in what may be termed “fake diplomacy”, as the goal is not to reach a reasonable negotiated settlement, but rather to score points on the gladiator arena of power-politics, with the dutiful collusion of a sold-out and capricious media.

The unsuccessful encounters between Putin and Biden, between Lavrov and Blinken belong in this category of “fake diplomacy”.  Indeed, unless we do away with fake news, fake history and fake law, it will be very difficult to advance with true diplomacy in the sense of George F. Kennan. Thus continues the game of sabre-rattling and sanctions that have brought the world to a situation of armed conflict, which could even degenerate into World War III.  In the process many fortunes are being made, since nothing is more lucrative than the arms business, and the military-industrial-financial complex has a economic interest in stoking tensions and war.

Is there a solution to “fake news”? Demagogues would establish an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth”, others would criminalize “fake news” (but only inconvenient “fake news”), others would pretend to filter facts and opinion using self-made tools to determine what is true and what isn’t.

No one needs this kind of Inquisition and censorship, because neither governments nor the private sector can be gatekeepers of the truth. The only solution is ensuring access to pluralistic information and open debate.  Society must demand greater transparency at all levels and proactively seek the truth by consulting multiple sources and making a new synthesis, which will not be “revealed truth” or “immutable truth”, but a constantly evolving truth that incorporates the complexity and nuances of reality on the ground.

All of the above raises the question whether we are not already living under a fake democracy?  What kind of correlation is there between the will and needs of the people and the laws and regulations that govern them?  Is there not a great disconnect between governments and the people? Are there any democratic governments where the people actually can fully take part in the conduct of public affairs as envisaged in article 25 of the International covenant on Civil and Political Rights?  Where is the power of initiative and the right to hold referendums recognized?  Surely the meaning of democracy must encompass more than the ritual act of going to the polls once every two or four years.  Surely the democratic process must allow real choices, not just pro-forma voting for one of two candidates.  In my reports to the General Assembly and Human Rights Council I insisted that those individuals who are elected do not really govern, while those who govern are not elected.  I deplored the fact that “representative democracy” can only be called democratic if the Parliamentarians represent the electorate, if they proactively inform the electorate and proactively consult with them.  As an American I have noted that US elections do not permit real choices, and that we can only exercise the fake right to vote for A or B, knowing that both A and B are committed to the military-industrial complex, that both support Wall Street over Main Street, that both are for capitalism with no frills, and in foreign affairs both are hawks, both are interventionists, both prefer to engage in military interventions than to negotiate in good faith.  This ontological disconnect made me conclude that the two-party system we know in the United States is only twice as democratic as the one-party system that rules China.  Democracy means rule by and for the people.  Alas, we do not enjoy democracy and must content ourselves with the window-dressing, with the pro-forma rhetoric, with the trappings of democracy.

It is time for the American people to demonstrate the courage to demand an end to fake news, fake history, fake law, fake diplomacy and fake democracy.  But to achieve that we must first win the information war and defeat those who systematically brainwash the public.  It will take time to reform the system, but this is a task we cannot avoid.  We owe it to future generations.

 

Alfred de Zayas is a law professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and served as a UN Independent Expert on International Order 2012-18. He is the author of ten books including “Building a Just World Order” Clarity Press, 2021.  

Why Russians are Unlikely to Abandon Putin

THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE 


 Facebook

While Russia is leading a merciless war in Ukraine that has resulted in millions of Ukrainian refugees’ fleeing to neighboring countries, Western brands are on the exodus from Russia.

The closure of over 800 McDonald’s restaurants particularly stands out: McDonald’s was the first American restaurant to openin Russia, in 1990. Its arrival symbolized Russia’s new pro-Western era.

That era is rapidly ending, giving way to a quickly spreading revival of Russian nationalism. Such nationalism is a direct outcome of the country’s economic suffocation through sanctions and the West’s broad rejection of Russia and its war with Ukraine.

The West is punishing Russia, hoping that the dire economic crisis provoked by sanctions will put an end to the bloody war against Ukraine, an independent state that was once an integral part of the Soviet Union.

We are international critical cultural scholars with extensive experience in various geopolitical contexts – the U.S., European Union and post-Soviet countries. We believe that those who think that sanctions will turn Russia and Russians around and end the war know very little about the country, its history and its people.

Russians’ perpetual suffering

Russians are used to turmoil and instability. They endured cruel social experiments during the 20th century, and the early 21st, performed upon them by their own political leadership. Except for the rare example of Mikhail Gorbachev, Russian leadership during that period was never democratic.

The country, whose participation in World War I was led by a weak czar, emerged impoverished from that conflict. The czar’s rule was brutally overturned by a Bolshevik uprising that ushered in Soviet rule for decades. The crafting of the Soviet state entailed exiling millions of its own people to the gulag campsand cold-blooded execution of many of them during Stalin’s mass repressions from 1917 to 1956.

Private property was abolished in 1929, and political leaders commanded absolute, selfless obedience to the Soviet state. World War II required painful sacrifice from every citizen, including children.

After the war was over, the depleted USSR constructed the metaphorical Iron Curtain, preventing its citizens from traveling to and communicating with the West. The Soviet state’s attempts to expand its Communist influence led to the Cold War. During that period, failed agricultural reforms gave rise to food rationing. The painful disintegration of the USSR in 1990 brought economic turmoil to the newly formed Russia, along with unemployment and high suicide rates.

What does this catalog of woes teach us? To us, it suggests the Russians cannot be scared by a sanctions-induced absence of goods. High-end fashion labels, iPhones, fancy coffee and foreign cars became a part of Russian life over the past 20 years – but the Russians have had them for far too short a time to be unable to imagine life without them. In any case, most of the luxury businesses – McDonald’s is considered a luxury business in Russia – operated in Moscow and its neighboring regions, whereas the overwhelming majority of the Russians did not get to see them in their towns.

United in their struggle

Historically, any political and economic struggle united Russia and its people, especially in the face of a common enemy. The enemy was traditionally represented by the West.

World War II and the Cold War united the nation around the idea of self-sacrifice as central to the Soviet identity. The identity – a kind of Soviet exceptionalism – consisted of a morally superior nation that values the ephemeral Soul – the mysterious Russian “душа” – more than the perishable Western flesh.

Soviet identity encompassed a great variety of ethnicities, including but not limited to only Russia. Although the capital of the USSR was Moscow, and the official language of the Soviet Union was Russian, the USSR consisted of 14 additional republics, and united more than 100 nationalities. The claimed unity of the nations is debatable, as the sameness was often imposed by forced assimilation – Russification, or spread of the Russian language and culture – and Sovietization, or the state monopoly on everything, combined with groupthink. So “Soviet” refers to anyone who lived in the USSR, including Ukrainians, Russians, Georgians, Belorussians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Estonians.

The USSR used pompous discourse that glorified Soviet sameness and the moral sacrifice of its people as a trigger for patriotism and loyalty to the motherland, whose core was Russia. Among popular slogans and sayings were: “Раньше думай о Родине а потом о себе”/“First, think about your motherland, and only then, think about yourself”; “Я – последняя буква алфавита”/“‘I’ is the last letter of the alphabet,” which it is in Cyrillic; and “Я русский бы выучил только за то, что им разговаривал Ленин!”/“I would learn Russian alone because Lenin spoke it!”

Eventually, “Russia” and “the USSR” were understood and used interchangeably, at home and abroad. Therefore, for many Russians, especially those born and raised in the USSR, watching Ukraine embrace the West means letting part of Russia’s history go with it.

The wounded bear

We believe the West’s sanction strategy could backfire.

Not all Russians support the war in Ukraine and the government that dragged them into it. But all Russians are suffering from the sanctions and the crisis. Their common suffering is a dangerous thing: It is all too familiar; it makes them angry, and some are eager to strike back.

The possibility of this stems from the Russian national mindset, crafted in Soviet times and now affecting even generations that grew up in post-Soviet Russia. Western freedoms are only partially appealing, since historically, Russians never had them – not freedom of speechself-determinationreligion nor unrestricted travel.

Instead, the Russian people are patient, stoic and often irrationally devoted to their cruel motherland, whose autocratic leader started a war.

Where does that leave the Russians? From our perspective, in a deep limbo: The country-aggressor that is currently bombing and destroying Ukraine is also their beloved homeland, and by now the only place in the world that accepts them as they are.

Having their country be an international pariah is not new for Russians, from its climate policies to its sports and its foreign affairs, including its widely condemned annexation of Crimea.

But today’s situation is extreme. We believe the chances that Russians will turn toward their government – as they feel rejected by the global community – are high.

That will likely lead to the intensifying of Putin’s autocratic regime under the guise of restoring the country’s industry and economy in the face of Western rejection.

Russia will have a common enemy again, and because thinking – and acting – disobediently in Russia typically has drastic consequences, dissent will not be heard. Putin opponents, among them Anna PolitkovskayaAlexander LitvinenkoBoris NemtsovAlexei Navalny and many others – some murdered, some imprisoned – serve as cautionary tales of punishment for political dissent in Russia.

Encouraging Russians to protest their autocratic government, as the West has done, while cutting ties with them, thus becomes an ideological oxymoron. It is punishing the people for what that government does while suffocating them economically.

In Siberia, safety rules are a matter of life and death. One of them is about always leaving the bear a route to escape. The bear is particularly aggressive when wounded, cornered and protective of its cubs. The wounded bear, representing the Russian nation, is not an exception.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Julia Khrebtan-Hörhager is an Associate Professor of Critical Cultural & International Studies, Colorado State University. Evgeniya Pyatovskaya is a Ph.D. Candidate in Communication, University of South Florida.