We need people’s solidarity with Ukraine against war, not the fake solidarity of governments

Shaun Matsheza and Nick Buxton of TNI spoke to two activists on the editorial board of the left Commons journal that explores and analyses Ukraine’s economy, politics, history and culture. Denys Gorbach is a social researcher currently doing his PhD in France on the politics of Ukrainian working class and Denis Pilash is a political scientist and activist involved in a social movement, Sotsialnyi Rukh. More here.

Shaun Matsheza: How is the situation unfolding in Ukraine and what’s been the impact on you, your family and your friends?

Denys Gorbach: I am quite safe personally as my partner and I are far away from Ukraine. Although the situation certainly does not help to live and to function on a daily basis. Besides the anxiety generated by the news, I still have family there. My aunt and my father-in-law have spent a week or so hiding in cellars because they live in the eastern suburb of Kyiv, which was hit by one of the first air strikes on the morning of the 24th.

Denis Pilash: On the first day of the invasion, I was still in Kyiv. My initial plan was to stay there, but I was convinced to relocate to a safer place in Ukraine and here the situation is more or less okay. It has become a big hub for the influx of refugees from one side and the influx of humanitarian aid from another. I am involved in a local university volunteer network, disseminating humanitarian aid to people who have been relocated here as well as to people closer to the frontlines of the war. But it’s again a similar situation of anxiety when you try to track hundreds of your friends to check whether they are safe. There are several with whom I have had no contact for several days, who are still in the heavily hit Kyiv suburbs, so I have no idea how they are. So you have this anxiety and a kind of existential horror every day when you get the news. I have friends of friends who have already been killed. And one of the worst feelings is knowing that even if we avoid a worst case scenario like nuclear war, that we look like we will be heading to prolonged conflict, in which many people will be torn from their homes and scattered everywhere. It’s a dark feeling.

Shaun Matsheza: It’s a terrible, terrible situation. I understand it’s very difficult for anyone right now to determine exactly what Russia’s strategy might be. But where do you think this is going?

Denys Gorbach: Well, I’m not a military analyst, but from what I see we should not count on any significant concessions on the part of Zelensky. Not because he’s like a superhero as he’s portrayed in the Western press today, but because he simply has little choice. Even if he were to agree to some significant concession to end the war, there is an enormous risk that he would be deposed by a nationalist coup. He has visibly made a choice to be deposed, if necessary, by an occupational force rather than by his fellow Ukrainians. Similarly, it looks like Putin has put himself in a situation where if he backs down, his rule internally will be compromised. I can see no signs right now on how the conflict can be de-escalated.

Shaun Matsheza: Do you concur, Denis?

Denis Pilash: Well, yes, I am no military analyst either, but from what we have seen in this last week the Russian invasion was really a mess in terms of how it was prepared. It looks like they were planning for a smooth blitzkrieg, capturing the major cities in several days and being received as liberators. Instead, there are lots of problems with logistics and they have faced complete rejection by the people in all the regions they have seized. There are big rallies against Russian occupation and the majority of local authorities are refusing to collaborate with the occupying forces. So they have clearly miscalculated and seem to have no clear Plan B. And this brings us to this danger of prolonged war where Putin won’t retreat without significant concessions and where Zelensky and Ukraine have no other option but to resist.

The Ukrainian authorities say that they are trying to find a way towards a ceasefire, but not much is expected because Russia is still sticking to its initial demands. Some news is very confusing, for example, there are rumours that Russia is going to bring back the deposed President Yanukovych, who has become a laughing stock for almost everyone throughout Ukraine and is deeply despised. If this is the case, Russia has no connection to reality. That’s why it’s quite hard to do a prognosis.

Shaun Matsheza: So in the current situation that is unfolding, what can people do? It seems unfortunately there’s a lot of division on the left on how to respond. What does solidarity look like?

Denys Gorbach: Well, in terms of division, for example, there is so-called campism, which is rooted in the Cold War where a significant portion of the western left supported the Soviet Union. Whatever it’s logic in the past, it’s an aberration today when Russia is clearly a capitalist country whose leader Putin is an explicit anti-communist who rants about how he hates Lenin and Bolsheviks for destroying the precious Russian Empire. Yet somehow the descendants of the campists believe the seventies are still here, which brings us to this sad situation where a portion of the global left supports anyone anti-American, especially if it is Russia, which is somehow still associated with the Soviet Union and Communism and Bears.

I think this is a good moment for everyone on the left globally to rethink their analysis. A good starting point would be to refuse geopolitical bias in the analysis of events unfolding outside of your own country. Too often, in left analysis only NATO or Putin are given agency, but the tens of millions of people inhabiting Ukraine are denied this agency. We need to remind ourselves that Ukrainians are not only people, they are actually your class comrades. Most of them are working men and women, who share lots of everyday worries and who deserve to be taken into account when you formulate your positions.

Denis Pilash:Yeah, I totally agree. Ukrainians are not just pawns on a geopolitical chessboard. Just as our understanding of the corruption of Abbas administration and the far-right nature of Hamas movement shouldn’t be an obstacle to hearing the plight of the Palestinian people. So invoking the Ukrainian far-right or Ukrainian corruption and oligarchs shouldn’t be an obstacle for the solidarity of people with the direct victims of Russian bombs and Russian imperialism and indeed victims of oligarchs and the far right.

We must focus on the needs of the people in all these countries and not some abstractions. All this talk about ‘legitimate security concerns of Russia, for example. Did we talk about legitimate security concerns of the US, related to Cuba or Grenada? Do these ‘security concerns’ grant an imperial power the right to intervene and to make this aggression? Of course not. So you need to apply this same principle to Ukraine and to all other countries affected by imperialism.

And I must also say that it’s aggravating to see the return of this campism. In the 1990s and early 2000s, I think the vast majority of the international left was critical about Yeltsin’s and Putin’s wars in Chechnya, and had no illusions about the Russian grand power game to re-establish its sphere of influence. But then miraculously, without even hard efforts by the Kremlin, their propaganda has been bought by some of the left, even though Russia’s government is also eagerly working with the European far-right and ultra-conservative forces.

Meanwhile, central and eastern European states are sometimes even dismissed as not real states, treated as nations without history, as second-class people.

Shaun Matsheza: What type of support can progressive forces give to the people of Ukraine? Is it right for the left to ally with demands for military support?

Denys Gorbach: It’s a difficult question for the left, how to support anything related to the military. I personally like the position of Gilbert Achcar, a researcher in London, who calls for a radical anti-imperialist position, which according to him should consist of opposing a no-fly zone and similar propositions, as this would lead to a direct military clash between the major imperialist powers and a possible all out global nuclear war. But on the other hand, it is worthwhile to support supplies of arms to a small country trying to defend itself from imperialist attack, as happened in Vietnam or Korea which benefited from extensive military aid from China and Soviet Union.

Denis Pilash: Yes. There is a big historic tradition of supporting peoples’ wars in smaller countries that are being attacked or oppressed by grand imperial powers. It has been an integral part of leftist political projects since the 19th century, since the support of the First International for the Polish struggles and the Irish struggles and so on, and later with the support for decolonization of many countries.

If you still have reservations due to different considerations or convictions or strict pacifist beliefs that prevent you from supporting military aid or military resistance, there are still lots of ways to support the civilian population including humanitarian aid and supporting the non-violent resistance in occupied cities, towns, and villages. There is a big range of actions that can be taken by every person, organisation, movement.

Shaun Matsheza: As a Zimbabwean and part of African networks, I see a lot of comments about how the Ukrainian conflict is being reported and explained to the world, which is very different to other conflicts. We also see images of African student refugees being treated differently to other Ukrainian refugees, reports of racism, discrimination on getting onto the train and so on. What would be your message to people who are not European, who are not invested in the European dynamics, but who really want to be part of the movement for peace globally?

Denys Gorbach: There is this expression coined by one of our colleagues who called Ukraine the northernmost country of the Global South. I think it is a fair point, especially if you look at the macroeconomic situation and demographic trends. This translates into racialisation of Ukrainians when we consider that racism is about power relations. Sure, we pass for Whites in terms of our skin colour, and we are certainly White in Ukraine in our interactions with local racialized people such as Roma or Black students. But in western Europe, my social status falls as soon as I open my mouth to reveal my Slavic accent. However, due to the war, Ukrainians have become sort of ‘whiteish’ for the West and almost human in terms of their treatment.

This racist outlook, this ideology that privileges Europe and measures the quality of people in terms of their proximity to this idea of Western Europe is also unfortunately very widespread in Ukraine. The racist incidents on the border must be condemned. We are seeing not only discrimination according to the colour of skin but also by the colour of the passport. For example, refugees from Belarus are also being discriminated against, even though they fled to Ukraine to escape the regime, yet they are accused of being part of the regime.

On the brighter side, we have now seen it is possible to establish more or less decent conditions for refugees fleeing a war from a non-first world country. So I think this should be a good precedent to build on and now demand the same kind of legal regime and same level of solidarity to be extended to refugees coming from all the other parts of the world. We all deserve the same kind of treatment.

Denis Pilash: Even in this preferable treatment of Ukrainian refugees, there are already reports of some refugees being exploited or discriminated against in Europe. We need to highlight also those who are in the most vulnerable positions, such as foreign citizens or people without citizenship or discriminated minorities, such as the Roma people. I hope the situation with Ukraine can be the starting point for a bigger discussion on how to treat people fleeing and seeking asylum in a much more humane way.

I also want to say that people on the left should not be confused that if people are treated well and praised by people such as Boris Johnson, that they are somehow not our friends. That their friends must be our enemy. We need to understand that figures such as Johnson and Erdogan and others who present themselves as great defenders of Ukraine are using this situation cynically and are not real friends of Ukrainian people.

It was very symbolic that just prior to this Russian invasion, we had a delegation from British left trade unionists and politicians who spoke with people here on the ground – activists in trade unions and human rights groups, in feminist movements – and showed their solidarity in the face of real aggression. You had no such response on the right or the liberal mainstream centre. This was genuine grassroots support between working class exploited, oppressed and excluded peoples, facing the same systems of exploitation and discrimination and exclusion. That’s why we need to have this solidarity on the level of people, not just this fake solidarity on the level of governments.

Shaun Matsheza: Any final words or messages?

Denys Gorbach: I think these sad circumstances show that it is high time to build practical solidarity that is anti-capitalist, anti-climate change, and anti-militarist. We need concretely to join these three agendas in a movement that can rise today against the war, as well as against imperialism that is destroying our planet.

Denis Pilash: I hope as we make demands specific to the Ukrainian situation, that we can also be transcendent to something more global. So when we speak about support and help for Ukrainian refugees, our demand transcends to refugees throughout the world. If we demand the cancellation of Ukrainian foreign debt, it transcends to the issue of indebtedness of the majority of countries, especially the poorest countries. If we demand to seize the assets of Russian and perhaps Ukrainian oligarchs as well to use them to rebuild Ukraine, we also open up the questions of the tax loopholes used everywhere by the global capitalist class to store their assets. If we demand to shut down the supplies of oil and gas from Russia, we should also extend that to states such as Saudi Arabia with its criminal war in Yemen. These are all fossil fuel empires that need to be ended with an eco-socialist reconstruction of the global system.

So every smaller issue is part of a broader discussion. That’s why it’s important to have this solidarity and to have this exchange between peoples in different regions, who are all affected by basically the same problems, even while they face specific dynamics and contexts.

https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/

Reclaiming the co-operative history and tradition in Scotland

Dumfries and Maxwelltown Co-operative Shop

Something to Build On: The Co-operative Movement in Dumfries, 1847-1914, by Ian Gasse, Scottish Labour History Society. 

At a time when many companies are keen to promote their commitment to ethical or sustainable retailing (whether genuine or otherwise), the Co-op is, to many, perhaps indistinguishable from any other supermarket. From its inception, however, the co-operative movement represented a different way of doing business. In Scotland, the movement developed from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, and by the early twentieth century, co-operative societies were an established feature in towns and cities across the country. Despite the rapidly changing social and economic conditions of the twentieth century, co-operatives continued to occupy a central position in many local areas well into the post-war period, and the movement’s influence within working-class communities remained significant – as those who can recall their local store and family dividend number can attest.

With this in mind, it might seem a little surprising that the history of the co-operative movement in Scotland has, to date, received little in the way of academic interest, with both the Trade Union movement and Labour Party proving more attractive to historians of the labour movement. Something to Build On, by Ian Gasse, is the latest publication to add to the movement’s rather limited historiography. This point is acknowledged by Gasse within the book’s introduction, in which he states that, despite forming a significant part of the commercial sector and making a major contribution to the areas’ wider economic, social, and cultural sectors during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there has been virtually nothing written about the movement’s origins in Dumfries and Maxwelltown. Gasse’s aim therefore, through this work, is to make a record of this history and prevent it from becoming totally ‘lost’ (though Gasse, by his own admission, points out that some aspects of the study represent more of a ‘preliminary sketch’ of its history, rather than a definitive account).

This is familiar territory for Gasse, having published two articles previously on co-operation in Dumfries, and his expertise on the subject matter shines through in this highly readable account. Drawing on society minute books (where extant) and local press reports, Gasse illustrates the various attempts to initiate and maintain consumer co-operative societies in Dumfries and Maxwelltown between 1847-1914. Although, at first glance, the scope of the study appears to be somewhat restricted by its concentration on a relatively small geographical region, a grass roots approach to the study of the movement is completely logical, given the alignment of co-operative societies with the area that they served (being reflective of local industry and economic conditions) and their strict adherence to the principle of autonomy. Furthermore, discussion is also devoted to the wider movement in Scotland, in terms of providing context for the expansion of co-operation throughout the nineteenth century and in cases where national issues had local consequences.

As the study makes clear, early efforts to install co-operation within Dumfries were by no means straightforward. Within the book’s six chapters, Gasse documents the various endeavours undertaken by co-operators to do so, including what he terms the ‘false starts’: the short-lived attempts made by the Dumfries and Maxwelltown Equitable Co-operative Society and the Dumfries Co-operative Meat Supplying Society to become established within the community between 1861-67 and 1874-76 respectively. Other ventures were to prove more successful. The Dumfries and Maxwelltown Co-operative Provision Society began trading in 1847, with the aim of providing its working-class members with quality produce at affordable prices and undercutting the area’s existing grocers and merchants (suspected of operating cartels to artificially inflate the price of basic foodstuffs).

The author Ian Gasse (right) with the book.

In this regard, the society’s commitment to the working class was evident, and the expansion of the range of goods and services on offer to its members was testament to its development. However, the decision taken by the Dumfries and Maxwelltown Co-operative Provision Society to operate as a joint-stock company was at odds with the example set by the Rochdale Pioneers to pay a dividend on member’s purchases. As Gasse explains, the principles established by the Rochdale Pioneers in 1844 subsequently provided the successful blueprint for co-operative societies throughout Britain, and though the Dumfries and Maxwelltown Co-operative Provision Society conformed to some, (including the sale of unadulterated foodstuffs and implementing a system of democratic control), the decision not to pay a dividend or to provide members with educational opportunities proved notable exceptions.

Although this system proved profitable for the society’s shareholders, the benefits afforded to the town’s working-class inhabitants were limited. Unsurprisingly, the society’s secretary reported that shareholders ‘did not grumble at all about it’, and it was only when the Queen of the South Co-operative Society came into being that change was deemed necessary. Formed in 1881, the Queen of the South Co-operative Society appears to have been borne by a desire within the local community to create a society based upon genuine co-operative principles. Faced with a rival society paying its members a dividend on purchases, and suffering from adverse trading conditions as a result, the management of the Dumfries and Maxwelltown Co-operative Provision Society took the decision to register as an ‘equitable’ co-operative society (though Gasse notes that the interests of the existing shareholders remained protected during this process).

Gasse then goes on to note the financial difficulties experienced by both co-operative societies and their eventual amalgamation to form the Dumfries and Maxwelltown Co-operative Society in 1892 and narrating its ‘solid, and at times, quite spectacular growth’ until 1914, despite coordinated opposition from the Scottish Traders’ Defence Association. In his final chapter, Gasse assesses the extent to which the various co-operative societies examined within the study attempted to extend the ideology aims of co-operation amongst the working-class communities of Dumfries and Maxwelltown, and to create what Peter Gurney has termed a ‘co-operative culture’. Though some elements of discussion could have been expanded upon (with more focus given to the activities of the local branch of the Scottish Co-operative Women’s Guild, for example), the final chapter represents the culmination of a theme woven throughout the book, that of the tension between profit and principle in co-operative enterprise.

Through Something to Build On, Gasse achieves his aim of ensuring that the history of the co-operative movement in Dumfries is not lost. Indeed, by examining the expansion of co-operative societies in the area between 1847 and 1914, the author is able to highlight the strong co-operative tradition that existed in the town. Moreover, while this study represents a welcome addition to the history of the co-operative movement in Scotland, it also provides an insight into the everyday lives of the area’s inhabitants. With economic changes and local conditions reflected in the stock lists and balance books of co-operative societies in areas like Dumfries, it is possible to gauge the incremental, but significant, improvements to the lives of the working classes during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 

https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/

 

Battlefield Band Anthem for the Common Man Full Album
00:00 The Four Minute Warning: The Tide's Out/James MacLellan's Favourite/Dougie's Decision/The Ferryman/Lady Doll Sinclair 

04:38 The Old Changing Way 

07:38 The Hook Of Holland/Dominic MacGowan

12:17 The Snows of France & Holland 

16:00 Sauchiehall Street Salsa: McHugh's Other Foot/The Man With Two Women 

19:13 Anthem 

22:45 The Yew Tree

26:50 The Port Of Call

31:17 Ina MacKenzie/The Braes Of Mellinish/Troys Wedding 

34:37 Miners Wives 

36:48 I Am The Common Man

Julian Assange: Extradited to the US?

Julian Assange is one step closer to being extradited to the US has the court received ‘assurances’ that the US will offer adequate prison conditions.  Curtis Daly’s reaction.

Wikileaks' Assange to wed partner Stella Moris in prison ceremony

Reuters
Tuesday, March 22, 2022



Stella Moris, partner of Julian Assange, speaks to journalists in front of the High Court in London, Friday, Dec. 10, 2021. (AP Photo/Frank Augstein)

LONDON -- WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will marry his long-term partner Stella Moris inside a high-security prison in southeast London on Wednesday at a small ceremony attended by four guests, two official witnesses and two security guards.

Assange is wanted by U.S. authorities to face trial on 18 counts relating to WikiLeaks' release of vast troves of confidential U.S. military records and diplomatic cables.

The 50-year-old, who denies any wrongdoing, has been held at Belmarsh prison since 2019 and before that was holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy in London for seven years.

Related Stories
Julian Assange denied permission to appeal by U.K.'s top court

Julian Assange given permission to marry partner in prison

While living at the embassy he fathered two children with Moris, a lawyer more than a decade his junior, who he met in 2011 when she started work on his legal team. Their relationship began in 2015.

The registrar-led ceremony will take place during visiting hours at the prison, where some of Britain's most notorious criminals have served sentences, including child murderer Ian Huntley.

Moris's wedding dress and Assange's kilt -- a nod to his family ties to Scotland -- have been created by British fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, who has previously campaigned against his extradition.

Assange was denied permission this month to appeal at Britain's Supreme Court against a decision to extradite him to the United States. He could still challenge any decision from the government to approve his extradition.

(Reporting by William James; Editing by David Goodman)

Journalists call on Home Office to block Assange extradition

by Staff Writer | Mar 21, 2022 | Briefing

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the National Union of Journalists have expressed disappointment and anger at the refusal of the UK Supreme Court to consider the appeal in the extradition case against Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange.

More than two years after extradition proceedings began, the case will now be sent back to the Home Office for a political decision.

RSF has urged the Home Office to act in the interest of journalism and press freedom by refusing extradition and immediately releasing Assange from prison.

On 14 March, Assange’s defence lawyers issued a statement publicising the fact that the Supreme Court has refused Assange permission to appeal on the basis that “the application does not raise an arguable point of law.” The case will now be sent back to the Home Secretary to decide whether to approve or reject extradition, nearly three years after the same office greenlighted the US government’s extradition request in the first place.

This announcement followed the 24 January decision by the High Court allowing Assange to file an appeal with the Supreme Court, requesting review of a narrow point related to the lateness in the US government’s provision of diplomatic assurances regarding Assange’s treatment if extradited.

RSF is deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision, which represents a serious blow to Assange’s fight against extradition to the United States.There, he faces the possibility of a prison sentence of up to 175 years, in connection with Wikileaks’ publication of leaked classified military and diplomatic documents in 2010. The documents exposed war crimes and human rights violations which have never been prosecuted.

RSF’s Director of Operations and Campaigns, Rebecca Vincent, said: “Julian Assange’s case is overwhelmingly in the public interest, and it deserved review by the highest court in the UK. After two full years of extradition proceedings, once again Assange’s fate has become a political decision. We call on the Home Office to act in the interest of journalism and press freedom by refusing extradition and releasing Assange from prison without further delay.”

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has meanwhile renewed its call for UK government intervention in Julian Assange’s case, saying the Supreme Court’s decision to deny him the right to appeal his extradition to the US is a new blow to free expression.

Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ General Secretary said: “The legal shortcomings in the case to extradite Julian Assange are clear, as are the risks to free speech from this attempted prosecution. This comes against a backdrop of legal threats to reporting, among them the production order sought against Chris Mullin, proposed reforms of the Official Secrets Act and plans to scrap the Human Rights Act.

“The Home Secretary should call a halt to this extradition attempt and affirm the government’s support for a free media.”

The NUJ has repeatedly highlighted wider risks to journalism if efforts to extradite Julian Assange are successful, and says it will continue its calls for him to be released.

The UK is ranked 33rd out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2021 World Press Freedom Index.

Sources: Reporters Without Borders and National Union of Journalists

The Supreme Court won’t listen to Assange, but the legal battle is still on

The Supreme Court refused to listen to Julian Assange’s appeal. The more the intricate mechanisms of British justice unfold, the more the observers realise that the system seems to “avoid” the most critical issues at stake, namely, those related to media freedom or to the necessity of preventing whatever government from extraditing individuals for political reasons. 

It occurred at the time of the first instance verdict, and it happened again now, with the Supreme Court walking a path of avoidance and missing the opportunity to clarify a question that is crucial from the human rights point of view, namely, the US diplomatic assurances. 

The US promises and the Human Rights voices 

According to the testimony given during the trial by the US attorney Eric Lewis, it is possible, in the Special Administrative Measures system, that the prisoners spend time in chains or see the confidentiality of conversations with their attorneys denied. Also, the SAM could prevent them from socialising with anyone else for the rest of their life.

Assange would not be detained in the inhumane SAM system based on the US assurances. However, the US provided the UK government with such promise only after the judge denied the extradition in the first instance. Is this acceptable? The Supreme Court had the chance to discuss this point, but it didn’t. Despite this, one thing is sure. If the US offered those assurances during the original trial, the defence would have had the possibility to question their validity since the first instance hearings focus on facts and evidence on them. The diplomatic note highlights that inhumane treatments won’t be put in place “unless, after entry of the assurances, he commits any future act which renders him liable to such conditions of detention.”

This last sentence has been considered by human rights NGOs a clever way for the US to change their mind on the way. “Assurances by the US Government that they would not put Julian Assange in a maximum-security prison or subject him to abusive special administrative measures were discredited by their admission that they reserved the right to reverse those guarantees,” the Secretary-General of Amnesty International Agnes Callamard said.

This is sufficient to understand why it is astonishing that the Supreme Court saw “no arguable legal grounds” for an appeal focused on the US promises. Stinging commentators detect here the UK’s unwholesome need to pave the way to the US, whatever the cost, in this legal case. 

And, while now this seems to happen through the “avoidance” of the real issues, previously it was an effort carried out through confusing the public on what kind of person Assange is. 

Such effort found an obstacle in 2020, at the first instance extradition hearing, where the witnesses drew a portrait of him that immediately appeared light years away from the character depicted for a decade by the politicians embarrassed by the WikiLeaks disclosures. Listening to such qualified voices and understanding more about him, it became apparent that there had been a will pushing to delegitimise the WikiLeaks publisher by defaming him. 

Why disclosures like the WikiLeaks ones are critical for democracy

The voices heard by the court were very authoritative ones. For example, there were Professors from Journalism universities in the States, reporters from the most famous newspapers around the World, very high-profile scholars like Noam Chomsky, and the Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. 

All of them contributed to de-constructing the smear campaign Assange had been through from 2010, when its publication WikiLeaks released the Iraqi and Afghan war logs, making the World aware of shocking war crimes carried out by the United States. The most famous of these is undoubtedly the one recorded in the “Collateral Murder” video, where a group of US soldiers targets civilians and kills them just like in a videogame.

Without such revelations, the World would have kept blindly believing in the narrative of a victorious war, where the Western saved the World from the mass destruction weapons by “exporting democracy,” as the key personalities of the Iraqi conflict used to say. 

This is the first reason why Assange’s story is relevant for everyone: his work made us much more conscious of reality, which is what we need when evaluating our governments. The democracy that Bush and Blair wanted to teach other peoples can’t exist if not thanks to investigative journalism making the public aware of what it has the interest to know. 

We could add a long list of reasons, besides the necessity to defend the right to knowledge as the foundation of democracy. One of these further reasons deals with Assange’s human rights and touches principles that – as Europeans – we should consider non-negotiable. First and foremost, there is the right to be protected against inhumane treatment. 

Some of the most authoritative personalities in the field of human rights called for Assange to be freed. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention did it in 2016. The UN Special rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer did it as well, adding that he saw on Assange the clear signs of psychological torture. He also pointed out that he never saw a group of democratic states bullying individuals like the US, Ecuador, Sweden, and the UK did with Assange. The British government, however, looked deaf to all this.

In January 2020, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) also called for his liberation. Some weeks later, the High Commissioner on Human Rights of the Council of Europe Dunja Mijatović added her voice. The extradition will have “a chilling effect on press freedom,” she said. 

Actually, if a precedent is created according to which a powerful state can extradite a journalist who embarrassed it, how many reporters would feel safe in exposing the wrongdoing of the governments? Not many.

Is this acceptable for the European democracies and their citizens? It does not sound so. And, it becomes even more intolerable if we look at that portrait of Assange drawn by renowned public figures who worked with him and brought their evidence to the court. 

One of them is John Goetz, a German investigative journalist who collaborated with WikiLeaks to release war records and many US diplomatic documents. Goetz dismantled the prosecution’s main argument against Assange, the one according to which he would have endangered the security of people who had provided information to the US military. Goetz described the removal from the documents of the names of such informants as “a robust process” carried out by WikiLeaks. It involved a substantial expenditure of financial resources and secure servers and encryption to store unredacted documents. 

What happens now

What will Assange’s legal team do, now that the procedure assigns the final decision to State Secretary Priti Patel? Three options emerge. 

The first would be to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It is very likely to finally recognise the persecution of Assange and free him, but the process could take many, many years. 

The second way is the cross-appeal. Judge Baraitzer’s first instance verdict – which denied the extradition – was already brought to the High Court by the US. Assange could appeal as well, not to overturn the decision but to open a dispute on the five points that Baraitzer did not consider as valid reasons to block extradition. First and foremost, on the fact that the latter would trample on freedom of expression, breaching article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Secondly, on the fact that, according to the Treaty between the UK and the US on the matter, “extradition shall not be granted if the offence for which extradition is requested is a political offence”. The third point deals with the fact that the key US witness Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson admitted his allegations against Assange were lies that he told in exchange for immunity from American prosecution. The fourth point is connected to the fact that the hacking charges are unfounded according to the evidence brought before the judge by forensic computer analyst Patrick Eller. The fifth point is the use of the American Espionage Act against a journalist and publisher. All these points could be the object of the cross-appeal. It could take years to hear all the witnesses again, but certainly fewer years than those needed within the ECHR process.

The third option is to ask for a judicial review if Priti Patel authorises extradition. 

Now, the National Union of Journalists campaigns for Assange’s liberation, and so does the International Federation of Journalists. What is currently missing is a massive number of people joining the activists of the Committee to Defend Julian Assange, a grassroots solidarity movement fighting for his freedom in the UK. In the last ten years, the Committee has always protested against his arbitrary detention, demonstrating in front of the Ecuadorian Embassy in the past and in front of Belmarsh prison now, every Saturday. Joining them is the choice of everyone caring about media freedom, democracy, and human rights. Probably, the only way to urge the UK government to reflect on its complicity with the dark forces pushing to extradite Assange is to show its ministers that the public wants the WikiLeaks founder free.

https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/

Brazilian leftist Lula leads Bolsonaro ahead of October election, poll shows


FILE PHOTO: Brazil's former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva attends an event of the Workers Party (PT), in Curitiba

YOU HAVE TO WONDER WHO IT IS THAT POLITICIANS ARE POINTING TO

Mon, March 21, 2022
By Anthony Boadle

BRASILIA (Reuters) - Former leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva holds a comfortable lead in the run-up to Brazil's October election while voters blame incumbent far-right President Jair Bolsonaro for surging fuel prices, a poll showed on Monday.

Lula, who served two terms as president from 2003 to 2010, would win a first-round vote by 43% to 29% if the election were held today, the survey by pollster FSB Pesquisa found.

Lula's 14-point lead widens to 19 percentage points in a run-off between the two main contenders, said the poll, which was commissioned by investment bank BTG Pactual.

Bolsonaro's rejection rate is the highest among all potential candidates, with 59% of those surveyed saying they would never vote for him, followed by Sao Paulo Governor Joao Doria, who is trailing with just 2% of voter support.

The poll showed Ciro Gomes, the center-left former governor of Ceara, with 9% and former justice minister and federal judge Sergio Moro with 8% support.

Asked who was to blame for high gasoline and diesel prices, 29% of voters polled said the Bolsonaro government, while 22% blamed state-run oil company Petrobras and 21% pointed to state governors. Only 18% saw the Ukraine war as the cause.

A majority of those polled, or 61%, said they disapproved of the way Bolsonaro was governing Brazil, while 34% approved.

Bolsonaro will launch his re-election campaign on Sunday and will focus on corruption under Lula. He dismissed the polls as inaccurate.

"I don't believe in polls, but the guy who practically destroyed Brazil is ahead," he said in a radio interview. "Either the surveys are fraudulent or people are not well informed."

Lula has yet to formally declare his candidacy, but he has invited centrist Geraldo Alckmin, a former Sao Paulo state governor, to be his running mate.

FSB interviewed 2,000 voters by telephone between March 18-20. The poll has a margin of error of 2 percentage points.

(Reporting by Anthony Boadle, additional reporting by Lisandra Paraguassu.; Editing by Paul Simao and Jonathan Oatis)

LEFT WING SWING
Costa Rica's Chaves leads polls ahead of tight run-off election


Rodrigo Chaves, presidential candidate of the Social Democratic Progress Party (PPSD), speaks to the media during a news conference in San Jose

Tue, March 22, 2022
By Alvaro Murillo

SAN JOSE (Reuters) - Rodrigo Chaves, the finance minister in Costa Rica's outgoing government, was in pole position to win a run-off for the presidency in less than two weeks time, a voter survey showed on Tuesday, though the race remained too tight to call.

Chaves, an anti-establishment technocrat who had worked for the World Bank up until 2019, scored 43.3% against 38.1 percent

for Jose Maria Figueres, a centrist candidate who was last president from 1994-1998, according to the poll published by the University of Costa Rica.

The survey of 1,015 voters, conducted by the university's Center for Research and Political Studies (CIEP) between March 17-21, found 16.5% were still undecided.

And with Chaves's lead reduced to just over five percentage points the contest could go to the wire, whereas a similar poll earlier this month had made him the favorite to win.

Given the margin of error of 3.1 points, the latest poll did not show any clear winner as Figuere's maximum could beat Chaves's minimum, researcher Jesus Guzman told Reuters.

The first round was held in February, when Chaves, the ruling Social Democratic Progress Party (PPSD) candidate, suprisingly came second with 17% of the vote, ten points less than Figueres, the National Liberation Party (PLN) candidate who fell short of the 40% needed to be declared the outright winner.

The winner of the April 3 run-off will replace Carlos Alvarado Quesada, with the transfer of power set for May 8. Costa Rica's constitution bars presidents from holding two consecutive terms.

(Reporting by Alvaro Murillo; Writing by Valentine Hilaire; Editing by Jorgic Drazen & Simon Cameron-Moore)

Foreign children risk languishing in Syria for decades: Charity

The Kurdish-run al-Hol camp, which holds relatives of ISIS fighters 

in Hasakeh, Dec. 6, 2021. (AFP)

AFP
Published: 23 March ,2022

Children held in Syrian camps for relatives of suspected extremist fighters may remain stuck there for another 30 years, unless the pace of repatriations accelerates, Save the Children said Wednesday.

“It will take 30 years before foreign children stuck in unsafe camps in North East Syria can return home if repatriations continue at the current rate,” it said in a statement.

The charity’s call to quicken repatriations coincides with the third anniversary of the final demise of ISIS’ self-proclaimed caliphate.

The massive US-backed Kurdish military operation landed tens of thousands of the extremist proto-state’s residents in detention camps, including many foreigners.

Save The Children said that 18,000 Iraqi children and 7,300 minors from 60 other countries are stuck in the Kurdish-run al-Hol and Roj camps, in northeastern Syria.

“The longer children are left to fester in Al-Hol and Roj, the more dangers they face,” said the charity’s Syria response director, Sonia Khush.

United Nations data shows that around 56,000 people live in al-Hol, an overcrowded camp plagued by murders and escape attempts.

In 2021, 74 children died there, including eight who were murdered, according to Save the Children.

Kurdish authorities have repeatedly called on foreign states to repatriate their citizens but Western countries have mostly returned them in dribs and drabs, fearing a domestic political backlash.

“These children have done nothing wrong,” Khush said. “When will leaders take responsibility and bring them home?”

ISIS women in Syria camp clash with police, one child killed


Women walk through al-Hol displacement camp in Hassakeh in Syria on April 1, 2019.

 (Reuters)

The Associated Press, Beirut
Published: 07 February ,2022: 

Women held in a camp housing families of ISIS militants in northeast Syria tried to kidnap their Kurdish guards Monday, an opposition war monitor said. The attempt led to a shooting that left one child dead and several other people wounded.

A Kurdish official confirmed there was an attempt to kidnap female guards but had no immediate word on casualties. The sprawling al-Hol camp is where tens of thousands of women and children — mostly wives, widows and children of ISIS members — are held.

The attack in the camp came days after ISIS’s top leader, Abu Ibrahim al-Hashemi al-Qurayshi, was killed in a US raid on his safehouse in northwest Syria. The camp has witnessed dozens of crimes over the past year.

The incident also comes two weeks after ISIS fighters attacked a prison in Syria’s northeastern city of Hassakeh, where some 3,000 militants and juveniles are held.

The attack on the prison led to 10 days of fighting between US-backed fighters and ISIS militants that left nearly 500 people dead. US-backed Kurdish fighters brought the situation under control eventually.

President Joe Biden said al-Qurayshi had been responsible for the Syria prison assault.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said women in the al-Hol camp tried to kidnap guards leading to a shooting in which a 10-year-old child was killed and six women and children were wounded.

The Observatory said the shooting caused a fire and the women were not able to kidnap the guards.

Shixmus Ehmed, head of the Kurdish-led administration’s department for refugees and displaced, confirmed to The Associated Press that some camp residents tried to kidnap their female guards. He had no information on casualties.

Another Kurdish official who works in the camp said he was not aware of a kidnapping attempt but that there were some riots in a small section holding mostly foreign women and children. Speaking on condition of anonymity in line with regulations, he said seven women and children were hurt during Monday’s riots.

In the fenced-off camp, multiple families are often crammed together in tents, medical facilities are minimal and access to clean water and sanitation limited.

Some 50,000 Syrians and Iraqis are located in al-Hol. Nearly 20,000 of them are children.

Monday’s incident occurred in the separate, heavily guarded section of the camp known as the annex. Another 2,000 women from 57 other countries are located there and they are housed with about 8,000 children. The women in the annex are considered the most die-hard ISIS supporters.

The Observatory recorded 84 crimes inside the camp in 2021 in which 89 people were killed, including two Kurdish police, 67 Iraqis and 20 Syrians.

WAR IN SPACE

Australia launches Defense Space Command with sights on China, Russia

Online News EditorMarch 23, 2022

Sydney, Australia, Mar 23 (EFE).- Australia has established a Defense Space Command with a view to countering threats from China and Russia with the collaboration of the United States and other allies.

The new military agency, which emulates the US Space Force, will be led by Defense Space Commander Air Vice-Marshal Cath Roberts and will coordinate the operations in space of the Australian army, air force and navy, the defense ministry said in a statement on Wednesday.

“Australia’s geographical location and vast open land in the southern hemisphere helps us see things that others can’t. We will continue to work closely with our allies and international partners to mutually assure the responsible use of the space domain,” Roberts said.

Defense Minister Peter Dutton announced the launch of the new space command at the Royal Australian Air Force conference on Tuesday.

He described space as a “domain which must be used to deter aggression” and warned that space was becoming “more congested.”

“Russia and China are already developing hypersonic missiles which can travel at more than 6,000 kilometers per hour,” Dutton said in his address at the conference, in which he also touched upon China’s “rapid militarization.”

Dutton explained that the space command will be Australia’s contribution to ensuring “a safe, stable and secure space domain.”

The Australian government has committed to investing some AU$7 billion ($5.22 billion) over this decade to improve the country’s space capabilities.

Australia, a historical ally of the US, signed the AUKUS defense pact with Washington and London in September, which includes the construction of nuclear-powered submarines for the country to counter China in the Indo-Pacific region.

Earlier this month, Prime Minister Scott Morrison, announced the government’s plan to increase defense personnel by 18,500 for a total of around 80,000 troops by 2040 with the aim of dealing with the “threats” facing the country in the Indo-Pacific region. EFE

wat/pd/tw

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M; BORIS BECKER INC.

Tennis: Retired star Becker used business account as 'piggy bank', court hears

Former Wimbledon Boris Becker arriving with his partner Lillian de Carvalho at Southwark Crown Court on March 22, 2022. 

PHOTO: EPA-EFE

MAR 23, 2022, 12:35 AM SGT

LONDON (AFP) - Six-time Grand Slam champion Boris Becker used his business account as a "piggy bank" to pay for luxury shopping expenses and school fees, a British court was told on Tuesday (March 22).

Becker is on trial charged with 24 offences relating to his 2017 bankruptcy over a £3.5 million (S$6.3 million) loan from private bank Arbuthnot Latham for a property in Spain.

Despite his financial difficulties, the 54-year-old German spent hundreds of pounds at luxury London department store Harrods and treated himself to designer clothes, a jury at Southwark Crown Court in London heard.

The former world No. 1 is alleged to have hidden €1.13 million (S$1.7 million) from the sale of a Mercedes car dealership he owned in Germany, which was paid into his Boris Becker Private Office (BBPOL) account.

"It is the prosecution case that Mr Becker used the BBPOL sterling account as an extension of his own account, effectively as his own piggy bank, for everyday personal expenses such as school fees for the children and suchlike," said prosecutor Rebecca Chalkley.

She said payments in 2017 included £643 to Polo Ralph Lauren, £7,600 for school fees and £976 to Harrods.

Jurors heard Becker paid substantial sums to ex-wife Barbara Becker, estranged wife Sharlely "Lilly" Becker and a friend.

Becker was also said to have transferred €300,000 to his own account, while other funds went into an account he jointly held with his son Noah.

The German is also accused of failing to hand over assets including his 1985 and 1989 Wimbledon trophies and his Australian Open silverware from 1991 and 1996.

He allegedly failed to declare two German properties, as well as his interest in a London flat, and hid a €825,000 bank loan.

Becker, who won 49 singles titles during his 16-year playing career, including six Grand Slam trophies, is being supported in court by his partner Lilian de Carvalho Monteiro.

He denies all the charges against him, which include nine counts of failing to deliver trophies and other awards.

The trial is expected to last for up to three weeks.

BACKGROUNDER

Tennis: Boris Becker to stand trial as former Wimbledon winner fights to avoid prison

At the time of his bankruptcy in June 2017, Boris Becker's debts were estimated at up to £50 million. 

PHOTO: BORIS BECKER/TWITTER

PUBLISHED
MAR 21, 2022

LONDON (AFP) - Boris Becker goes on trial in London on Monday (March 21) over charges relating to his bankruptcy - the latest twist in the former Wimbledon champion's troubled post-playing career.

The German will stand trial at Southwark Crown Court accused of concealing his Wimbledon and Australian Open trophies, several properties and around £1.8 million (S$3.21 million).

At the time of his bankruptcy in June 2017, his debts were estimated at up to £50 million.

The 54-year-old, a six-time Grand Slam singles champion, faces a maximum of seven years in prison if he is found guilty.

The court was told in preliminary hearings that Becker owned a flat in Chelsea, London, as well as two properties in Germany, which were undeclared between June and October 2017.

He is accused of removing hundreds of thousands of pounds by transferring it to other accounts, including to former wife Barbara Becker and estranged wife Sharlely Becker.

Becker also hid 75,000 shares in the AI firm Breaking Data Corp, the court was told.

He denies seven charges of concealing property, two counts of removing property required by the receiver, five counts of failing to disclose details of his estate and one count of concealing debt.

He also denies nine counts of failing to disclose the trophies.

Becker, who lives in London, will use an interpreter when giving evidence in a trial expected to last three weeks, even though his barrister admits his English is "very good".

It is yet another curious chapter in the life of one of tennis' most troubled personalities.

Aged just 17, Becker burst onto the scene in 1985 when he became Wimbledon's youngest singles champion and the first unseeded player to lift the trophy at the All England Club.

Becker's dynamic play and boyish enthusiasm - best captured in his penchant for spectacular diving volleys - made him the darling of Wimbledon crowds.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Tennis: Boris Becker accused of failing to hand over Wimbledon trophies

Tennis: Boris Becker claims diplomatic immunity in bankcruptcy case

Steep decline

He successfully defended his Wimbledon title a year later, thrashing world No. 1 Ivan Lendl in straight sets in the final.

Becker's ferocious serve led to the nickname 'Baby Boom Boom' and 'Der Bomber'.

In 1989, Becker won Wimbledon for the third time and claimed his first US Open title just months later.

His long chase to become world No. 1 paid off in 1991 when he won the Australian Open for the first time, beating Lendl in the final to move to the top of the rankings.

Becker's greatest moment would prove to be the start of his steep decline.

Prone to emotional outbursts on the court, he frequently lost matches that were in his grasp and earned numerous fines for smashing his racket.

Those tantrums were public displays of the volatile personality that made it difficult for Becker to stay at the top of his game.

By 1993, he was embroiled in tax problems with the German government, while his last Wimbledon final ended in defeat by Pete Sampras in 1995.

Becker lifted his final Grand Slam title at the 1996 Australian Open before retiring three years later, having won 49 singles titles.

He kept in touch with tennis as a television commentator and served as Novak Djokovic's coach from 2013 to 2016, helping the Serb successfully challenge Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal's dominance.

But his private life was frequently in turmoil, featuring marriage splits and a bizarre incident when he claimed to be the Central African Republic's attache for sports, culture and humanitarian affairs to the European Union.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Tennis: Bankrupt Boris Becker pleads for help in hunt for missing trophies

Becker's lawyer argued the role gave him diplomatic immunity from being pursued for further debt payments, but he later dropped the claim.

In 2002, a court in Munich sentenced Becker to a two-year suspended prison sentence and a fine of €300,000 (S$450,000) for tax evasion of around €1.7 million.

He was declared bankrupt five years ago, setting in motion a chain of events that leaves the tennis icon fighting to avoid a lengthy spell behind bars

US Should End Marijuana Prohibition

Congress Should Pass the MORE Act, Again, Reduce Harms of Criminalization

Thomas J. Rachko, Jr.
Senior Program Coordinator, US Program

@ThomasRachkoJr
HRW

Click to expand Image
Supporters hold flags near the Capitol in Washington, DC, during a rally in favor of marijuana legalization on April 24, 2017. © AP Photo/Alex Brandon

In the last Congress, the US House of Representatives made history by passing the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act. Another House floor vote on the newly introduced version of this bill is an urgent step towards advancing long overdue reform in the criminal legal system and beyond.

When the bill passed, it was the first time that a body of Congress voted to end the federal prohibition of marijuana – a policy that has led to the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of people. It also tears apart families when immigrants – often vital community members – are arrested and then deported for marijuana possession.

Ending marijuana prohibition would be a much-needed move toward a US drug policy grounded in human rights, harm reduction, and health.

Human Rights Watch has long documented the profound racial disparities in arrests and imprisonment for drug offenses in the United States. In a 2016 report, “Every 25 Seconds: The Human Toll of Criminalizing Drug Use in the United States,” Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) documented how someone in the US was arrested for drug possession for personal use every 25 seconds, and that despite using drugs at similar rates as white people, Black adults were more than two-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested for possession.

Of these drug arrests, the largest share by far are marijuana related.

Increasing legalization of marijuana at the state level has resulted in significant reductions in marijuana arrests in multiple states. However, while marijuana arrests have dropped nationally in recent years, there were still an estimated 350,150 arrests for marijuana-related violations in the United States in 2020, roughly one arrest every 90 seconds. The overwhelming majority were for simple possession. And as a recent report by the ACLU shows, racial disparities in marijuana arrests for both possession and sales remain acute.

The MORE Act is a step toward a rights-respecting criminal legal system that furthers racial justice and equity. The bill would end federal marijuana prohibition, address the collateral consequences of criminalization, and take steps to repair the harms caused by the war on drugs on many communities in the US.

Members of Congress should heed the call of a diverse coalition of organizations and cosponsor the bill. House Leadership should immediately bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

To urge House Leadership to support the MORE Act and bring the bill to a vote this month, visit: https://engage.drugpolicy.org/secure/help-pass-more-act-house.