Criminals At Large: The Iraq War Twenty Years On

Article: Binoy Kampmark

The arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for Russian President Vladimir Putin came at an opportune moment. It was, if nothing else, a feeble distraction over the misdeeds and crimes of other leaders current and former. Russia, not being an ICC member country, does not acknowledge that court’s jurisdiction. Nor, for that matter, does the United States, despite the evident chortling from US President Joe Biden.

Twenty years on, former US President George W. Bush, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Australia’s own John Howard, the troika most to blame for not just the criminal invasion of a foreign country but the regional and global cataclysm consequential to it, remain at large. Since then, Bush has taken to painting; Blair and Howard have preferred to sell gobbets of alleged wisdom on the lecture circuit.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US-led Coalition of the Willing was a model exercise of maligning the very international system of rules Washington, London and Canberra speak of when condemning their latest assortment of international villains. It recalled those sombre words of the International Military Tribunal, delivered at the Nuremberg war crimes trials in 1946: “War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

The invasion of Iraq defied the UN Security Council as the sole arbiter on whether the use of force would be necessary to combat a genuine threat to international peace and security. It breached the UN Charter. It encouraged instances of horrendous mendacity (those stubbornly spectral weapons of mass destruction) and the inflation of threats supposedly posed by the regime of Saddam Hussein.

This included the unforgettable British contribution about Saddam’s alleged ability to launch chemical and biological weapons in 45 minutes. As Blair declared to MPs in September 2002: “It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes.”

Putin, not one to suffer amnesia on this point, also noted this fact in his speech made announcing Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Iraq, he noted, had been invaded “without any legal grounds.” Lies, he said, were witnessed “at the highest state level and voiced from the high UN rostrum. As a result, we see a tremendous loss of human life, damage, destruction, and a colossal upsurge of terrorism.”

In the immediate aftermath of the invasion, the infrastructure of the country was ruined, its army and public service disbanded, leaving rich pools of disaffected recruits for the insurgency that followed. The country, torn between Shia, Sunni and Kurd and governed by an occupation force of colossal ineptitude, suffered an effective collapse, leaving a vacuum exploited by jihadis and, in time, Islamic State.

Since the invasion, a number of civil society efforts have been undertaken against the dubious triumvirate of evangelist warmongers. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, convened over four days in November 2011, invoked universal jurisdiction in finding Bush, Blair and their accomplices guilty of the act of aggression.

Despite its unmistakable political flavour – the original body had been unilaterally established by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad – its reasoning was sound enough. The invasion of Iraq could not “be justified under any reasonable interpretation of international law” and threatened “to return us to a world in which the law of the jungle prevails over the rule of law, with potentially disastrous consequences for the human rights not only of the Iraqis but of the people throughout the region and the world”.

The Sydney-based SEARCH Foundation also resolved to submit a complaint to the ICC in 2012, hoping that the body would conduct an investigation and issue a warrant for Howard’s arrest. In September 2013, a complaint was filed by Peter Murphy, Secretary of the Foundation, alleging, among a range of offences, the commission of acts of aggression, breaches of international humanitarian law and human rights, and crimes against peace. The effort failed, leaving Howard irritatingly free.

In two decades, the United States still finds itself embroiled in Iraq, with 2,500 troops stationed in a capacity that is unlikely to stop anytime too soon. That said, the parallels with Afghanistan are already being drawn. In 2022, the outgoing head of US Central Command, Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie, trotted out his dream about what would happen. “You want to get to the state where nations, and security elements in those nations, can deal with a violent extremist threat without direct support from us.”

Ironically enough, such violent extremist threats had more than a little help in their creation from Washington’s own disastrous intervention. Eventually, the Iraqis would simply have to accept “to take a larger share of all the enabling that we’re doing now.”

The calamity of Iraq is also a salutary warning to countries willing to join any US-led effort, or rely on the good grace of Washington’s power. To be an enemy of the United States might be dangerous, but as Henry Kissinger reminds us, to be a friend might prove fatal.

Monday, 20 March 2023

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

© Scoop Media

Imperial Visits: US Emissaries In The Pacific

Article: Binoy Kampmark

For some time, Washington has been losing its spunk in the Pacific. When it comes to the Pacific Islands, a number have not fallen – at least entirely – for the rhetoric that Beijing is there to take, consume, and dominate all. Nor have such countries been entirely blind to their own sharpened interests. This largely aqueous region, which promises to submerge them in the rising waters of climate change, has become furiously busy.

A number of officials are keen to push the line that Washington’s policy towards the Pacific is clearly back where it should be. It’s all part of the warming strategy adopted by the Biden administration, typified by the US-Pacific Island Country summit held last September. In remarks made during the summit, President Joe Biden stated that “the security of America, quite frankly, and the world, depends on your security and the security of the Pacific Islands. And I really mean that.”

Not once was China mentioned, but its ghostly presence stalked Biden’s words. A new Pacific Partnership Strategy was announced, “the first national US strategy for [the] Pacific Islands”. Then came the promised cash: some $810 million in expanded US programs including more than $130 million in new investments to support, among other things, climate resilience, buffer the states against the impact of climate change and improve food security.

The Pacific Islands have also seen a flurry of recent visits. In January this year, US Indo-Pacific military commander Admiral John Aquilino popped into Papua New Guinea to remind the good citizens of Port Moresby that the eyes of the US were gazing benignly upon them. It was his first to the country, and the public affairs unit of the US Indo-Pacific Command stated that it underscored “the importance of the US-Papua New Guinea relationship” and showed US resolve “toward building a more peaceful, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region.”

In February, a rather obvious strategic point was made in the reopening of the US embassy in the Solomon Islands. Little interest had been shown towards the island state for some three decades (the embassy had been closed in 1993). But then came Beijing doing, at least from Washington’s perspective, the unpardonable thing of poking around and seeking influence.

Now, Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare finds himself at the centre of much interest, at least till he falls out of favour in the airconditioned corridors of Washington. His policy – “friends to all, enemy to none” – has become a mantra. That much was clear in a May 2022 statement. “My government welcomes all high-level visits from our key development partners. We will always stand true to our policy of ‘Friends to All and Enemies to None’ as we look forward to continuing productive relations with all our development partners.”

For the moment, the US interim representative, Russell Corneau, was satisfied in noting that the embassy would “serve as a key platform” between Washington and the Solomon Islands. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in fairly torturous language, declared that the reopening “builds on our efforts to place more diplomatic personnel throughout the region and engage further with our Pacific neighbours, connect United States programs and resources with needs on the ground, and build people-to-people ties.” Sogavare, adopting his hard-to-get pose, absented himself from the ceremony.

This month, the Deputy Assistant to the US President and Coordinator for the Indo-Pacific National Security Council Kurt Campbell has been particularly busy doing his rounds. The Solomon Islands has been of particular interest, given its security pact with Beijing. No sooner had Sogavare had time to compose himself after two high profile visits from Japan and China, there was Campbell and his eight-member delegation.

“We realise that we have to overcome in certain areas some amounts of distrust and uncertainty about follow through,” Campbell explained in his usual middle-management speak to reporters in Wellington. “We’re seeking to gain that trust and confidence as we go forward. Much of what we are doing has been initiated by the president, but I want to underscore that it’s quite bipartisan.”

In Honiara, Campbell was forward in admitting that the US had not done “enough before” and had to be “big enough to admit that we need to do more, and we need to do better.” Doing more and doing better clearly entailed dragging out from Sogavare a promise that his country would not create a military facility “that would support power projection capabilities” for Beijing.

Earlier in the month, Qian Bo, China’s Pacific Island envoy, was also doing his bit to win support for the cause. His Vanuatu sojourn was a wooing effort directed at the Melanesian Spearhead Group, comprising Fiji, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and the Kanak independence movement in New Caledonia. But as with any muscle-bound hegemon seeking to impress, the crumbs left were treated with some circumspection.

A leaked letter from Micronesia’s President David Panuelo took a more dim view of China’s offerings. In the March 9 document, the cogs and wheels of calculation were busy, taking into account the US proposal of US$50 million into Micronesia’s national trust fund and annual financial assistance of US$15 million. “All of this assistance, of course, would be on top of the greatly added layers of security and protection that come from our country distancing itself from the PRC.” Micronesian officials, he charged, had been the targets of bribes and offers of bribes from the Chinese embassy.

Not all his colleagues in the Pacific are in accord with Panuelo, though the view suggests that both Beijing and Washington are finding, in these small countries, political figures more than willing to exploit the rivalry. To that end lie riches.

Wednesday, 22 March 2023

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

© Scoop Media

 

New Research Finds Farmer’s Market Food Cheaper Than The Supermarket

Friday, 24 March 2023, 10:59 am
Press Release: Farmers Markets NZ

A recent survey done throughout the country conducted by Farmers’ Markets New Zealand (FMNZ) has revealed that buying fresh food directly from the grower or producer costs less money than buying the same basket of goods from the supermarket.

There is up to an 18% saving by shopping at Farmers Markets, and an even larger percentage when fruit & vegetables are considered on their own. At the Southern Farmers Market in Invercargill that amounted to a saving of $50 by shopping at the Farmers’ Market.

“This doesn’t even consider that the food from markets is much fresher, meaning it lasts longer once it’s taken home. There is less food waste in these short distribution chains. By being able to speak directly to the farmer, grower or producer people can ask questions about how their food was grown, and more money is returned to local communities” says Farmers Market NZ chair Jono Walker.

“I suspect we’re seeing a tipping point” says CE of Eat New Zealand Angela Clifford “where all of the shortcomings of the centralised distribution system are coming home to roost. You really must question the retail margin here, as smaller growers don’t have the economies of scale. What percentage are supermarkets taking from our food producers in Aotearoa I wonder? How does this contribute to our overall food security?

Enabling local food systems is a pathway to solving the cost-of-living crisis. Best of all, it’s a mana-enhancing pathway, one that allows New Zealanders to solve their own problems rather than relying on hand outs.”

The research comes at a time of renewed scrutiny on the affordability and fairness of supermarket pricing. The 2022 Commerce Commission study of the grocery sector found evidence of sustained high prices, high profits and uncompetitive behaviour. A recent article also compared local vegetable boxes and found even organically grown produce was cheaper than current supermarket prices.

Nicky Booker, manager of the Amberley Farmers Market in North Canterbury states “while supermarket shelves have been empty, we’ve continued to have eggs to supply to our local community, grown by farmers in our region in a market environment that fosters social connection”.

Anthony Tringham, tomato grower and farmers market stallholder says “the more people who shop at farmers markets the more money is returned to farmers. Bypassing cost-plus systems allows us to sell our tomatoes for less. It’s better for both food producers and eaters.”

© Scoop Media

NZ

Thousands Come In Behind Call For Free Dental Care For Adults

Friday, 24 March 2023,
Press Release: ActionStation

Over 10,000 people have signed a petition calling for dental care to be brought into the public healthcare system. On Monday, polling was released showing strong public support for dental care to be funded for adults as it is for children, with people from across the political spectrum having roughly the same level of agreement (77% of Labour and Green supporters, and 73% of National and ACT supporters).

“The speed at which public support is growing, and the decisive polling results, show very clearly that the public wants to see action on this” said Sarah Dalton of ASMS, who commissioned the poll. “We know how important oral health is to our overall well being, and that thousands of New Zealanders suffer because they do not have access to care.”

The 2022 ‘Tooth Be Told’ report outlines that free or subsidised access to dental care in Aotearoa would save millions of dollars in the health budget over time.

“Access to dental care, no matter your income, is essential. This change is inevitable if we want to have a healthy society. Therefore it is a matter of when, not if. We are calling on the government to act now, to avoid the unnecessary suffering and complications that come with not seeing the dentist.” Said Brooke Stanley Pao of Auckland Action Against Poverty. “It is no coincidence that people living under the poverty line or on low incomes often have oral health problems. It is yet another way that life is made so much harder for people on low incomes. This is an issue of inequity and we can do so much better.”

The Dental for all Campaign is supported by medical professionals, unions, community groups, and social service providers including the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, Auckland City Mission - Te Tāpui Atawhai, New Zealand Nurses’ Organisation, Auckland Action Against Poverty, and ActionStation.

 

Blunting Of AIDS Epidemic: It's Time For Zero-complacency And Stronger Action

Press Release: CNS

After over 42 years when HIV virus was first detected, the fight against AIDS has indeed come a long way. Ending AIDS by 2030 means that every person globally has access to full spectrum of combination prevention options to protect oneself from HIV, all people living with HIV know their status, receive lifesaving antiretroviral therapy, and remain virally suppressed. Science-proven fact that when HIV virus is at undetectable levels then it is untransmittable too, or “undetectable equals untransmittable” (U Equals U) needs to be a reality in life of every person living with HIV.

Are we at the milestone of blunting of AIDS epidemic?

“Globally by end of December 2021, new HIV infections reported every year have reduced by 54% since the peak in 1996. In 2021, 1.5 million people got newly infected with HIV, compared to 3.2 million people in 1996. Compared to 2010, annual new infection rate has declined by 32% since then (in 2010, 2.2 million people got newly infected with HIV). Since 2010, new HIV infections among children have declined by 52%, from 320,000 in 2010 to 160,000 in 2021,” said Dr Ishwar Gilada, President of 14th National Conference of AIDS Society of India (ASICON 2023) and Governing Council member, International AIDS Society (IAS).

AIDS-related deaths have also declined by 68% in 2021 compared to the peak in 2004 (and by 52% since 2010). In 2021, around 650,000 people died from AIDS-related illnesses worldwide, compared to 2 million people in 2004 and 1.4 million people in 2010.

India too has bent the HIV curve but challenges remain

Annual new HIV infections and AIDS-related deaths continue to decline nationally. Between 2010 and 2021, new infections declined by 46% and while AIDS-related mortality declined by 76%, according to the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) of the government of India.

“The Blunting of an Epidemic: A courageous war on AIDS” book launched

The 14th National Conference of AIDS Society of India (14th ASICON) which is happening in Delhi, India (17-19 March 2023), called upon stronger and effective integrated HIV responses to end AIDS by 2030. ASICON 2023 is being held on the theme of “Energize – Empathize – Equalize”, in academic partnership with India’s National AIDS Control Organization (NACO), National TB Elimination Programme (NTEP), United Nations joint programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), International AIDS Society (IAS), among others. As 1st ASICON was previously held in 2005, ASICON is being held in national capital Delhi after 18 years.

Dr Anoop Kumar Puri, Deputy Director General of National AIDS Control Organization (NACO), Government of India; Dr David Bridger, Country Director, UNAIDS India; Dr Po-Lin Chan, Head of Communication Diseases at the World Health Organization (WHO) for Southeast Asian region; Dr Ishwar Gilada, President of 14th ASICON and AIDS Society of India (ASI); Dr N Kumarasamy, Secertary General, ASI; Dr Dilip Mathai, President-elect, ASI; Dr Glory Alexander, Vice President, ASI; Dr Ruby Bansal, Organizing Secretary of 14th ASICON; Dr Atul Gogia, Co-Chair of 14th ASICON; were among the key dignitaries who addressed the opening ceremony.

“The Blunting of an Epidemic: A courageous war on AIDS” book authored by Jayashree Shetty and Gopal Shetty, was released at ASICON 2023 by NACO DDG Dr Puri, UNAIDS India head Dr Bridger, and WHO regional head of infectious diseases Dr Po-Lin Chan. It chronicles 37 years long fierce and tireless journey of Dr Ishwar Gilada who had established India’s first HIV clinic in government-run JJ Hospital Mumbai when first case had got diagnosed in the country.

Dr Gilada said that “we need to recognize and address the inequalities which are holding back progress in ending AIDS, and to equalize access to essential full cascade of HIV care services, particularly for key and vulnerable populations. TB, a disease of poverty and inequality, is a leading cause of severe illness and death among people with HIV. TB is preventable and curable and people with HIV who do not receive appropriate prevention and care are at much higher risk of developing and dying from TB. Many of those who die from HIV-related TB are the most vulnerable populations who are not reached by timely health services, including services to address comorbidities such as undernutrition, mental health disorders and substance use disorders.”

According to 2022 WHO Global TB Report, over 54000 people living with HIV in India also developed active TB disease in 2021, out of which 11,000 died. “No one should die of HIV or TB. More importantly we have the scientifically proven tools and approaches to prevent, and treat and manage TB in people living with HIV,” said Dr Gilada.

ASI Lifetime Achievement Awards 2023

Four distinguished HIV medical experts and scientists were conferred the ASI Lifetime Achievement Awards. Dr Prakash Bora, Dr Rajiv Jerajani, Dr Savita Pahwa, and Dr AR Pazare.

Close the gap

Dr Glory Alexander, Vice President of ASI and co-Chair of 14th ASICON, has earlier received the coveted Dr BC Roy Award and heads ASHA Foundation in Bengaluru. She said: “Achieving the 95-95-95 targets is crucial to help end the AIDS epidemic. But even after 40 years into the epidemic, more than 20% of people with HIV still do not know their HIV status. We will have to use innovative approaches to close this gap. And one of these approaches is by self-testing for HIV - people who perceive themselves at risk of HIV infection (persons from key populations, men, young people among others) are given the opportunity to self-test for the infection so that they can test in the privacy of their homes. This has received a very big YES from the key populations in the Asia Pacific region. We call upon the government of India to take it up and develop a strategic framework for HIV Self-Test (HIVST) to make self-testing for HIV an integral part of HIV services.”

“Prevention of mother to child transmission is another important gap. We know that 90% of the children below 15 who are HIV positive got the infection through vertical transmission (from mother to child). If we eliminate this vertical transmission, we will eliminate paediatric HIV in our country. But it is no easy task. Hidden among the 27 million women who get pregnant every year in India, there are about 27500 women who are HIV positive. These women have to be traced, diagnosed and put on treatment to reduce the risk of transmission to the baby born to them to less than 1% from the current 45%” said Dr Glory Alexander.

Last mile is not a time for complacency but for stronger action

Since most nations could not meet 2020 AIDS targets, now the eyes are set on 2030 goalpost of 95-95-95 targets (95% of people living with HIV to know their status, 95% of them should be on ART, and 95% of these be virally suppressed). HIV self-test is one of the key cog-in-the-wheel to “reaching out to the last mile” for first-95 target.

Globally, 15% of all people living with HIV did not knew their HIV status in 2021. Among people who knew their status, 12% were NOT accessing treatment. And among people accessing treatment, 8% were NOT virally suppressed. Likewise, in India, as on March 2022, 23% of people living with HIV DID NOT knew their status, 16% of them were NOT on antiretroviral therapy, and 15% of them DID NOT had viral suppression. These are missed opportunities which we cannot afford if we are to end AIDS, said Dr Ishwar Gilada.

Sunday, 19 March 2023

Shobha Shukla, Bobby Ramakant – CNS (Citizen News Service)

(Shobha Shukla and Bobby Ramakant are part of the editorial team at CNS (Citizen News Service). Follow them on Twitter @Shobha1Shukla or @BobbyRamakant)

- Shared under Creative Commons

‘20 years after Iraq, progressives must learn its lessons for Ukraine’

Labour MP Clive Lewis: There is a crucial distinction between the UK’s imperialist wars, and Ukraine’s self-defence

Clive Lewis
19 March 2023

A Ukrainian soldier aims his 40 cal. machine gun as war continues in Bakhmut, Donetsk Oblast |
Muhammed Enes Yildirim/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

On the 20th anniversary of the West’s war in Iraq, progressives in the UK will remember the important moment in 2003 when millions stood up to an unjust invasion and said: “Not in our name.”

Yet more than a year into Russia’s war against Ukraine, this is also a moment of nuance. Today, progressives in the West have made a crucial distinction between their own country’s imperialist wars and another democracy’s war of self-defence against imperialism.

This distinction has not come easy.

The West has long been divided about the very concept of war. Its Indo-European root word means confusion and discord, but war is also seen as valorous and honourable in the defence of something most valued. War is driven by something that really matters being at stake. Yet it is shaped by means that are inherently destructive, unruly and hard to contain.

This confusion applies to the very real risks posed by Vladimir Putin and his nuclear-capable oligarchy – and the sceptical view that progressives rightly take of our own government and its economic and geopolitical motivations for supporting Ukraine’s resistance. That’s a challenge.

As progressives, all wars should sit uncomfortably with us. I know I’ve found it uncomfortable – I still do, even now. When I put down an early day motion in Parliament, demanding more weapons be sent to Ukraine, I agonised over it. I’ve been torn by it.

But it’s OK to be torn, to doubt ourselves. The waging or supporting of war should never come easy to us. The world, after all, rarely fits into a narrative of absolute good and evil.

On the UK’s support for Ukraine, I didn’t want to see more money and power put into the hands of arms dealers and the military industrial complex. I didn’t want to find myself on the same side in Parliament as the Tories and other assorted warmongers.

But I understood my political misgivings. My discomfort was nothing compared to the existential fight and the sacrifices Ukrainians have made and continue to make to defend their homes, their families and their democracy from brutal, naked aggression. I understood, as complex as it is, that supporting the Ukrainian people in their hour of need was, and is, the right thing to do.

Contrary to what some on the left think, the fact I served in the British Army doesn’t make me more prone to militarism or imperial adventurism. For me, it actually works in the opposite way. It makes me even more wary.

Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan are a grim warning about the current Western approach to the issue of global security, which is still a one-size-fits-all militarism

While I don’t regret the vast majority of my personal experiences in Afghanistan in 2009, I do regret Western motivation for the intervention itself. It saw me and thousands of others serving in Afghanistan. It wasn’t Iraq but, in hindsight, I believe it failed the litmus test of a just war.

Britain’s Afghanistan invasion was ill thought through. Ultimately, it fell victim to the paradox of security in which the more arms and troops we poured into Afghanistan, the stronger the enemy became. It was a military intervention that fostered a spiral of violent regression and ever greater instability.

If you doubt that, then simply look at the violence and chaos that now engulfs Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. They are a grim warning about the current Western approach to the issue of global security, which is still a one-size-fits-all militarism.

If you’ve seen the consequences of war, you would not be keen to see it repeated. Mutilated civilians. Mentally broken soldiers. People you speak to one day are gone the next. That is why millions of people, 20 years ago, came out in their millions against the Iraq war.

Russia’s war against Ukraine is different. Its conclusion is as yet unknown.

Putin has implied that Russia would be prepared to use nuclear weapons if NATO were to interfere excessively in Ukraine. What that looks like, nobody knows. But it means that Joe Biden – and by default the UK, which is closely shadowing the US on this issue – is unlikely to provide the longer-range weaponry that would allow Ukraine to go on the offensive in Crimea, which Russia has occupied since 2014.

NATO planners – who, like Russia, have a first-strike doctrine – must surely be aware of this danger. That means there are limits to our support for Ukraine in terms of weaponry. It cannot be a blank cheque. But nor should it be a drip-feeding of ineffective, insufficient military support that cynically uses Ukraine and its people to weaken Russia.

A growing body of evidence suggests there are strong links between climate and conflict around the world

The peace we build after the conflict in Ukraine has concluded – and it will – must be sustainable. Ukraine’s economy must be closer to Finland than the US. An unequal, privatised, authoritarian Ukraine will be far more likely to shift to the authoritarian right. That could yet see it fall into the orbit of an increasingly right-wing and authoritarian Russia, as in the case with Belarus. Or it could have an authoritarian and nationalist regime intent on antagonising and provoking its larger neighbour. That would have consequences for all of us.

But there is also another way and one we must consider if we are to deal with the other crisis in the room: climate change.

A growing body of evidence suggests there are strong links between climate and conflict around the world. The effects of climate change, such as changes in temperature and precipitation, can increase the likelihood and intensity of conflict and violence. Climate change, then, is a threat-multiplier.

An influential 2015 paper found that changes in temperatures and precipitation patterns increase the risk of conflict: every 1°C increase in temperature increases conflict between individuals (for example, assault, murder) by 2.4% and conflict between groups (riots, civil war) by 11.3%.The implications are clear – that global security will deteriorate even more dramatically this century.

Contrary to popular belief, the Global Green New Deal – backed by legislators across the world – isn’t just about building more wind turbines and planting more trees, critical as these are. It is the implicit understanding that the only way we will navigate this century is to make our own country and the world less unequal in terms of power and wealth.

That redistribution of wealth – from Global North to South via reparations, technology transfers and trade deals – won’t happen if we continue with emaciated institutions and crumbling democratic apparatuses both here in the UK and internationally. The climate crisis is as much a failure of democracy as it is markets.

The Ceres2030 research group, an international research coalition, has estimated that it would be possible to achieve the goal of zero hunger by 2030 at a cost of $330bn. Compare that to the world’s annual military spend of £1,917bn.

This is where Finland as a model for Ukraine comes in. Universal welfare, lower inequality and more robust democratic practices would lead to enhanced social trust and community cohesion.

It is this kind of security in depth – but on an international scale – that is required now. Simply, responding to the unfolding chaos with ever greater military support will create an increasingly destructive feedback loop.

This article is based on remarks given at the Solidarity with Ukraine: Building a New Internationalism conference at the London School of Economics, March 2022.

Global poll: 93.15% of respondents urge U.S. to account for its war crimes

CGTN

A girl walks near a building destroyed during past fighting with Islamic State militants in the old city of Mosul, Iraq, February 1, 2022. /Reuters

March 20 marks the 20th anniversary of the U.S. starting the war in Iraq. According to a poll of global internet users conducted by CGTN, 93.15 percent of respondents believe the U.S. should account for the war crimes it committed in Iraq.

Twenty years ago, the U.S. and its allies claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and illegally launched a military attack against it without UN authorization. It was subsequently proven that the so-called "weapons of mass destruction" were just lies. To this day, 94.6 percent of global respondents believe there was no legitimate cause for the U.S. to launch a war in Iraq. It was completely wrong.

During the two decades, the U.S. military campaigns in Iraq have caused at least 200,000 civilian casualties and displaced millions of people. Weapons such as depleted uranium munitions have caused massive fetal deformities and cancer in the population. U.S. soldiers were also frequently exposed in scandals of detention, abuse and even killings of civilians and prisoners of war in Iraq. More than 90 percent of respondents believe the U.S. is responsible for the war crimes it committed in Iraq.

Furthermore, the U.S. has spent more than $2 trillion on various projects in Iraq, and 4,572 U.S. troops have died there. The United States' own fiscal capacity and international reputation, as well as the credibility of the U.S. government among its citizens, have likewise been severely damaged. In the opinion of 93 percent of global respondents, launching the war in Iraq was also a complete failure for the U.S. government.

For 20 years, it has been proven that the so-called "democratic system" of the United States has not brought freedom and peace to Iraq, as promised by the U.S. government. Instead, it caused the collapse of the previous order, rampant terrorist activities, serious social fragmentation and a loss of livelihood for many ordinary people. A total of 94.56 percent of respondents believe that American-style democracy cannot bring real freedom to the world.

The poll was released on CGTN's English, Spanish, French, Arabic and Russian platforms, with over 80,000 people voting within 24 hours.

Revealed: the secret plot that brought down Jimmy Carter

Texas politician claims senior member of Reagan's campaign told Tehran to hold on to the hostages until after the election in 1980

THE LEFT SAID THIS AT THE TIME BUT WERE DISMISSED AS 'CONSPIRACISTS'

ByJosh White

THE TELEGRAPH

19 March 2023 • 

Jimmy Carter (left) and Ronald Reagan at a 1980 television debate CREDIT: AP

A Texas politician has claimed that he worked with a senior member of Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign to convince Iran to delay releasing its hostages during the crisis of 1979 in a bid to derail Jimmy Carter's re-election bid.

Ben Barnes, Texas's former lieutenant governor, has claimed in an interview with The New York Times that John Connally Jr – once a governor of the same state and a high-ranking member of Reagan's election team – took him on a secret diplomatic tour of the Middle East as part of a scheme to damage Carter by convincing Iran to hold on to its American hostages until after the election.

Mr Carter was the US president when 52 diplomats and US citizens were taken hostage at the American embassy in Tehran by college students who supported the Iranian revolution.

Despite diplomatic efforts from the White House, the hostages were held for 444 days and the political crisis significantly damaged the Democratic president's attempt to be re-elected. Mr Carter was heavily defeated by his Republican rival in the election of 1980.

The hostages were released minutes after Reagan was sworn in as US president on Jan 20, 1981.

Reagan with wife Nancy at the inauguration parade in 1981. The hostages were released minutes after his speech CREDIT: EPA


According to Mr Barnes, Connally brought him to several Middle Eastern capitals to lobby regional leaders to convince Tehran that they would receive a better deal from Republican nominee Reagan if they kept hold of the hostages until after the election.

Mr Barnes told the newspaper that he was persuaded to come forward with his account by the news last month that Mr Carter is receiving home hospice care.

“History needs to know what happened,” Mr Barnes told the newspaper. “I think it’s so significant and I guess knowing that the end is near for President Carter put it on my mind more and more and more. I just feel like we’ve got to get it down some way.”

According to the newspaper, records at Lyndon Baines Johnson Library show that Connally and Mr Barnes left on a trip from Houston on July 18, 1980 to visit Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel, and returned to the US on Aug 11.

Mr Barnes said he was certain that the reason for the trip was to deliver the message to Iran to hold the hostages until after the election.

He claimed that when the pair met the first of a number of Middle Eastern leaders, Connally told them: “Look, Ronald Reagan’s going to be elected president and you need to get the word to Iran that they’re going to make a better deal with Reagan than they are Carter.”

Mr Barnes added: “He [Connally] said, ‘It would be very smart for you to pass the word to the Iranians to wait until after this general election is over.’ And boy, I tell you, I’m sitting there and I heard it and so now it dawns on me, I realise why we’re there.

“I’ll go to my grave believing that it was the purpose of the trip.”

Mr Barnes does not suggest that Reagan, who won two terms as US president, knew anything about the trip, but Mr Barnes told The New York Times that Connally briefed the chairman of Reagan's campaign, William Casey, when they returned to the US.

Carter is the oldest living former US president CREDIT: AP


Mr Barnes claimed that Casey, who went on to be director of the CIA under Reagan, wanted to know whether “they were going to hold the hostages”.

“It wasn’t freelancing because Casey was so interested in hearing as soon as we got back to the United States.”

In 1992 and again in 1993, Congress held separate inquiries that investigated alleged collusion between the Reagan campaign and Tehran and found no evidence of wrongdoing.

The timing of the release of the hostages has over the years given rise to conspiracy theories and allegations that Reagan's team conspired with Iran in a bid to prevent the release and stop Mr Carter pulling off an “October surprise” – a news event shortly before a presidential election that could swing the vote in one candidate's favour.

The Reagan administration was accused by some – namely former Iranian president Abolhassan Banisadr – of rewarding Tehran by supplying the regime with weapons and releasing Iranian assets held in US banks.

Connally died in 1993. His eldest son, John Connally III, told The New York Times that he remembered his father taking the trip but that he did not know of any communication with Iran.

He said: “No mention was made in any meeting I was in about any message being sent to the Iranians. It doesn’t sound like my dad.”

Casey died in 1987, while Reagan passed away in 2004.

Mr Barnes, a Democrat, was a fundraiser for John Kerry's failed bid for president in 2004 and was Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives.

ALSO SEE An Untold Story Behind Jimmy Carter’s Presidential Defeat - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Spent Matters: The AUKUS Nuclear Waste Problem

Opinion: Binoy Kampmark

When Australia – vassal be thy name – assumed responsibilities for not only throwing money at both US and British shipbuilders, lending up territory and naval facilities for war like a gambling drunk, and essentially asking its officials to commit seppuku for the Imperium, another task was given. While the ditzy and dunderheaded wonders in Canberra would be acquiring submarines with nuclear propulsion technology, there would be that rather problematic issue of what to do with the waste. “Yes,” said the obliging Australians, “we will deal with it.”

The Australian Defence Department has published a fact sheet on the matter, which, as all such fact sheets go, fudges the facts and sports a degree of misplaced optimism. It promises a “sophisticated security and safety architecture” around the nuclear-powered submarine program, “building on our 70-year unblemished track record of operating nuclear facilities and conducting nuclear science activities.”

This record, which is rather more blemished than officials would care to admit, does not extend to the specific issues arising from maintaining a nuclear-powered submarine fleet and the high-level waste that would require shielding and cooling. In the context of such a vessel, this would entail pulling out and disposing of the reactor once the submarine is decommissioned.

Australia’s experience, to date, only extends to the storage of low-level waste and intermediate-level waste arising from nuclear medicine and laboratory research, with the low-level variant being stored at over a hundred sites in the country. That situation has been regarded as unsustainable and politically contentious.

The department admits that the storage and disposal of such waste and spent fuel will require necessary facilities and trained personnel, appropriate transport, interim and permanent storage facilities and “social license earned and sustained with local and regional communities.” But it also notes that the UK and the US “will assist Australia in developing this capability, leveraging Australia’s decades of safely and securely managing radioactive waste domestically”.

That’s mighty good of them to do so, given that both countries have failed to move beyond the problem of temporary storage. In the UK, the issue of disposing waste from decommissioned nuclear submarines remains stuck in community consultation. In the US, no option has emerged after the Obama administration killed off a repository program to store waste underneath Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. The reasons for doing so, sulked Republicans at the time, were political rather than technical.

Where, then, will the facilities to store and dispose of such waste be located? “Defence – working with relevant agencies including the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency – will undertake a review in 2023 to identify locations in the current or future Defence estate that could be suitable to store and dispose of intermediate-level waste and high-level waste, including spent fuel.”

The various state premiers are already suggesting that finding a site will be problematic. Both Victoria and Western Australia are pointing fingers at South Australia as the logical option, while Queensland has declared that “under no circumstances” would it permit nuclear waste to be stored. “I think the waste can go where all the jobs are going,” remarked Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews. “I don’t think that’s unreasonable, is it?”

Western Australia’s Mark McGowan, in furious agreement, suggested that a site “somewhere remote, somewhere with very good long-term geological structure that doesn’t change or move and somewhere that is defence lands” narrowed down the options. “[T]hat’s why Woomera springs to mind.”

South Australia’s Premier, Peter Malinauskas, insists that the waste should go “where it is in the nation’s interest to put it” and not be a matter of “some domestic political tit-for-tat, or some state-based parochial thing.”

When it comes to storing nuclear waste, parochialism is all but guaranteed. The Australian government is already facing a legal challenge from traditional owners regarding a 2021 decision to locate a nuclear waste site at Kimba in South Australia. The effort to find a site for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility intended for low and intermediate radioactive waste produced by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation at Lucas Heights, New South Wales, took three decades.

According to members of the First Nations group opposing the decision, the proposed facility risks interfering with a sacred site for women. Dawn Taylor, a Barngarla woman and Kimba resident, told the ABC that, “The Seven Sisters is through that area.” She feared that the waste facility would end up “destroying” the stories associated with the dreaming.

The federal resources minister, Madeleine King, has stated with little conviction that a cultural heritage management plan “informed by the research of the Barngarla people” is in place. “There are strict protocols around the work that is going on right now to make sure there is no disturbance of cultural heritage.”

Local farmers, including the consistently vocal Peter Woolford, are also opposed to the project. “We just can’t understand why you would expose this great agricultural industry we have here in grain production to any potential risk at all by having a nuclear waste dump here.”

The Australian security establishment may well be glorifying in the moment of AUKUS, itself an insensibly parochial gesture of provocation and regional destabilisation, but agitated residents and irate state politicians are promising a good deal of sensible mischief.

Sunday, 19 March 2023

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

© Scoop Media

AUSTRALIA

No quid pro quo’: Defence Minister Richard Marles rejects idea subs deal means we go to war if US does


It's a furphy that the AUKUs submarines deal means Australia automatically follows the US into a war, Defence Minister Richard Marles says. Photo: AAP

Maeve Bannister

Mar 19,2023

Australia’s defence minister insists there is no commitment to go to war alongside the United States in return for nuclear submarines he says will protect vital trade shipping routes.

Under a landmark military arrangement with the United States and United Kingdom, Australia will command a fleet of eight nuclear-powered submarines within the next three decades.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the up to $368 billion deal alongside US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in San Diego.


But the announcement sparked an angry reaction from China which accused Australia of going down a “path of error and danger”.

Former prime ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull also criticised the deal and questioned how Australia would maintain sovereignty within it.

But Defence Minister Richard Marles said such commentators were “plain wrong” and insisted there was no “quid pro quo” to join in military action with the United States.

“I couldn’t be more unequivocal than that … in all that we do, we maintain complete sovereignty for Australia,” he told ABC Insiders.

“The moment that there is a flag on the first of those Virginia-class submarines in the early 2030s is the moment that submarine will be under the complete control of the Australian government of the day.”

Mr Marles said while the submarines could operate in a potential conflict, the main intent was for them to contribute to regional stability and protect trade routes through the South China Sea.
Freedom the seas

“A lot of our trade goes to China, but all of our trade to Japan (and) to South Korea – two of our top five trading partners – goes through the South China Sea,” he said.

“The maintenance of the rules-based order as we understand it, freedom of navigation, freedom of overflight is completely in Australia’s interest and we need to make sure that we have a capability which can back up that interest.”


Trade Minister Don Farrell, who met with his Chinese counterpart Wang Wentao in February, said he was hopeful discussions to improve Australia’s trade relations with Beijing wouldn’t be affected by the AUKUS announcement.

“Everything is pointing in the right direction for stabilisation of the relationship and I’d be very confident that process will continue,” Senator Farrell told Sky News on Sunday.

“We want a stable relationship with China, we want a mature relationship with China.

“At the same time we want to make sure that everything we do is in our national interest and dealing with the issues of our national security.”

Senator Farrell remained confident the current $20 billion in trade sanctions imposed by China in 2020 could still be resolved.

But opposition defence spokesman Andrew Hastie said it was important to be realistic following the Chinese government’s comments about the AUKUS arrangement.

“I don’t think the relationship is at its best at the moment. I think AUKUS is going to make it difficult for (the government) to get back into a place where they want to go (with China),” he said.

-AAP