Year 2023 in review for Latin America and the Caribbean

Contesting a still dominant US hegemon

by Roger D. Harris / December 17th, 2023

December 2nd marked the 200th  anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine, which proclaimed US dominion over Latin America and the Caribbean. Left-leaning governments in the hemisphere have had to contest a decadent but still dominant USA. Challenges in the past year include a world economic slowdown, a continuing drug plague, and a more aggressive hegemon reacting to a more volatile and disputed world order.

The progressive regional current, the so-called Pink Tide, slackened in 2023 compared to the rising tide of 2022, which had been buoyed by big wins in Colombia and Brazil. Progressive alternatives had floated into state power on a backwash against failed neoliberal policies. Now they have had to govern under circumstances that they inherited but were not their own making. Most importantly for progressives once in power are whether they have sufficient popular support and a program commensurate with achieving significant economic and social goals.

 Ebb and flow of the Pink Tide – Peru, Guatemala, and Ecuador

Peru. A case in point was the presidency of Pedro Castillo. From a nominally Marxist-Leninist party in Peru, he had neither a sufficient program nor the electoral mandate to resist the traditional oligarchy.  Castillo was imprisoned a year ago on December 7 via a complicated parliamentary maneuver. Dina Boluarte assumed the post to become Peru’s seventh president in eight years. Beloved by what Bloomberg calls the “business class,” she had a single-digit approval rating from the larger population as she spent this year presiding over a contracting economy in harsh recession.

While Boluarte may be facing murder charges for the violent repression of continuing mass protests, former president Alberto Fujimori was just sprung from prison. Fujimori had not completed his sentence for crimes against humanity, but was given a humanitarian pardon, despite a request from the regional Inter-American Court of Human Rights to delay his release. Castillo is still in prison.

Guatemala. In a surprise break from right-wing rule in Guatemala, political dark horse Bernardo Arévalo won the presidential runoff election in August. Ever since, the entrenched oligarchy has tried to disqualify the winner. Despite popular demonstrations in his support and even murmurings from the US State Department to maintain the rule of law, it remains to be seen if the president-elect will be allowed to be sworn into office on January 14.

Ecuador. The corrupt right-wing president of Ecuador, Guillermo Lasso, faced popular protests, out of control narcotics-related violence, a dysfunctional economy, and a hostile parliament. He came within a hair’s breadth of being impeached on May 17. At the very last moment, Lasso invoked the uniquely Ecuadorian muerte cruzada (mutual death) constitutional provision.

This allowed him to dissolve the National Assembly and rule by decree but with the subsequent requirement for snap elections to replace both the legislators and the executive. On October 15, the mandated presidential election brought in another rightist, Daniel Noboa, who will serve the remaining year and a half of the presidential term. Noboa’s father, the richest person in Ecuador, ran unsuccessfully for the presidency six times.

Argentina takes a sharp right turn

 Argentina is a case study of how, when the left fails to take the initiative, the popular revolt against neoliberalism can take a sharp right turn. Javier Milei’s win was symptomatic of what Álvaro García Linera, former leftist vice president of Bolivia, observed as a shift to more extreme right-wingers (e.g., free market fundamentalists) and more timid progressives (e.g., social democrats).

In a typically Argentine que se vayan todos (everyone leave) moment, harking back to 2001 when mass popular discontent precipitated five different governments in a short period of time, the self-described anarcho-capitalist Milei won the presidential runoff by a landslide on November 19.

Sergio Massa, who ran against Milei, was the incumbent economic minister in the administration of Alberto Fernández, which had broken with the more leftist wing of the Peronist movement associated with Vice President Cristina Fernandez (no relation). With 143% inflation rate and 18 million in poverty, the Peronists were booted out by an alternative that promises to realign the second largest economy in South America with the US and Israel and away from its main trading partners Brazil and China.

The left-centrist Peronists had in turn inherited a made-to-fail economy due to excessive debt obligations incurred by former right-wing president Mauricio Macri’s mega IMF loan. Ironically, the current Pink Tide wave is commonly thought to have begun with the defeat of Macri by the Fernandez’s in 2019. Now Macri has teamed up with the ultra-right Milei. Officials from Macri’s old administration, such as Patricia Bullrich and Luis Caputo, are in Milei’s new ministries.

Venezuela resists

Venezuela provides a counter example to Argentina. The possessor of the world’s largest oil reserves appeared to be on the ropes back in the dark days of 2019-2020. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo triumphantly predicted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s “days are numbered.” Over 50 countries had recognized the US puppet pretend-president Juan Guaidó including Venezuela’s powerful and (at the time) hostile neighbors, Colombia and Brazil. With the handwriting on the wall spelling imminent collapse, the Communist Party of Venezuela jumped ship from the government coalition.

Against seemingly unsurmountable odds, President Maduro led a remarkable turnaround. By year end 2023, Venezuela had achieved nine quarters of consecutive economic growth across all economic sectors. The Orinoco Tribune reports inflation down from triple digits. Still the most vulnerable have least benefited from the recovery.

Venezuelan special envoy Alex Saab, meanwhile, is in his third year behind bars, now languishing in a Miami prison. The imprisoned diplomat helped circumvent the illegal US blockade of Venezuela by obtaining humanitarian supplies of food, medicine, and fuel from Iran in legal international trade.

Opposition-aligned Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodriguez now admits the US hybrid war against Venezuela has so far “failed,” although he still shamelessly calls Washington’s campaign to overthrow the democratically elected president an effort “to push Venezuela back toward democracy.”

Given the successful resistance, the Biden administration has been compelled to modify its tactics, although not its ultimate goal of regime-change, by easing some of its sanctions against Venezuela. Because the relief is explicitly temporary, the implicit threat is that full sanctions would be reimposed if Maduro is reelected. This, in effect, is a form of election interference.

Behind the temporary easing of sanctions is surging immigration to the US, posing a vulnerability for Biden’s 2024 reelection bid. Immigration from sanctioned Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, is driven in large part by conditions created by the US sanctions. Even corporate media are increasingly making this connection with the coercive US policy. A letter to Biden from 18 House Democrats urged sanctions relief.

Also with an eye to reelection, Biden is hoping to stimulate Venezuelan oil production lest the US-backed wars in Ukraine and Palestine cause fuel prices to rise. If the US does not walk back on the sanctions relaxation, Venezuela’s oil company could increase state revenues, which would be applied to social programs.

Over a year ago, the Venezuelan government reached an agreement with opposition figures and Washington for releasing $3.2b of its own illegally seized assets. So far, nothing has been forthcoming. The best relief would come if the US simply released what lawfully belongs to Venezuela.

Regional economic and climate prospects

Last year’s post-Covid regional economic rebound had run its course by 2023. The World Bank currently projects a 2.3% regional growth rate for the year, described as “regressed to the low levels of pre-pandemic growth” due partly to lower global commodity prices and rising interest rates. Real wages have remained stagnant and declined for older adults.

Since the pandemic, an estimated 1.5 years of learning have been lost, especially impacting the youngest and most vulnerable. In the context of declining economic conditions, the region is experiencing the worst migration crisis in its history with recent surges from Venezuela (4.5-7.5m) and Haiti (1.7m) adding to the more usual sources of Mexico and Central America.

In addition, extreme weather events driven by climate change have displaced 17 million people. The World Bank warns that by 2030, 5.8 million could fall into extreme poverty, largely due to a lack of safe drinking water along with exposure to excessive heat and flooding. Foreshadowing future scenarios, drought in Argentina contributed to a crashing economy which was a factor in the far-right presidential win in November.

2023 has been the hottest year in the millennium. The Mexican daily La Jornada reported that the much anticipated mid-December COP28 climate summit in Dubai concluded with at best “small achievements” and with the road to renewables proceeding at a “snail’s pace.”

The other pandemic – illegal drugs

Related to deteriorating economic conditions for the popular classes region-wide has been a continuing drug pandemic. The role of the US and its Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), active in most countries in the region, is problematic. Washington’s staunchest allies repeatedly turn out to be major drug pushers. Former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández is now in US federal prison on drug charges. However, former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, the person credited for kick starting the Medellin Cartel, remains free.

Mexico, Honduras, and Venezuela have all had to call in their militaries in major operations to wrest control of their prison systems and even parts of their national territories from narcotics cartels. According to the Amnesty International, El Salvador is experiencing the worst rights causes since the 1980-1992 civil war under President Nayib Bukele’s controversial crackdown on gangs.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen visited Mexico in December in the midst of the fentanyl flood. The corporate press in the US continuously runs sensational reports about drug kingpins in Latin America but curiously none on our side of the border. Not simply under-reported, but unreported, is how the illegal substances get distributed in the US. How is it that the US is the biggest illicit drug consumer, but we don’t hear about cartels at home?

US military projection

Drug trafficking and popular unrest, both exacerbated by precarious economic conditions, have been capitalized by the US to further project its military presence in the region. Washington is by far the largest source of military aid, supplies, and training.

US military strategy in the region has pivoted from fighting communism and “terrorism” to containing China and, to a lesser extent, Russia and Iran. China is now the leading trading partner with South America and the second largest with the region as a whole, after the US. Some 20 regional countries have joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

China’s official policy on relations with the US is based on mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation, predicated on the understanding that “the common interests of the two countries far outweigh their differences.”  US official policy, on the other hand, is “full spectrum dominance.”

Laura Richardson, head of the US Southern Command, met with Brazilian and Colombian military brass in May. Previously, she had visited Argentina, Chile, Guyana, and Surinam. When asked about her interest in the region, she unapologetically admitted that the US seeks hegemony over the region and possession of its rich resources.

In May, Peru brought in US Marines and special forces. In October, the US got the UN Security Council to approve the military occupation of Haiti using proxy troops from Kenya, even though the operation would not be under its auspices. Moreover, history shows occupation is the root problem. Also in October, Ecuador approved deploying US troops there plus US funding for security programs.

The annual CORE23 exercises, held in November by combined Brazilian and US forces, were designed to achieve military interoperability. Last year, joint Brazilian and US troops practiced war games against a “hypothetical” Latin American country (e.g., Venezuela) experiencing a humanitarian crisis. This month, Mexico and Peru joined the annual US naval Steel Knight exercises.

By December, the disputed Essequibo territory between Venezuela and Guyana became an international flashpoint. The US Southern Command announced joint air operations with Guyana. What is in essence an oil company land grab by ExxonMobil is disrupting regional unity and is a Trojan horse for US military interference. US boots are already reportedly on the ground in Guyana. However, the leaders of Guyana and Venezuela met on December 14 and pledged to resolve the conflict peacefully.

End note for the year 2023 – Sanctions Kill!

While Washington may seek to accommodate social democracies such as Colombia and Brazil by cooption, nothing but regime ruination is slated for the states explicitly striving for socialism: Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

Sanctions on Venezuela – started by Obama, intensified by Trump, and seamlessly continued by Biden – have taken its toll: over 100,00 death, 22% of the children under five stunted, 2.4 million food insecure, over 300,00 chronic disease patients without access to treatment, 31% of the population undernourished, 69% drop in goods and services imports, deteriorated infrastructure, and accelerated migration and brain drain.

Despite the UN nearly unanimously condemning the US blockade of Cuba for its devastating effects on civilians and as a violation of the UN Charter, the ever-tightening economic warfare has left the island in crisis. Reuters reports that the production of staples pork, rice, and beans is down by more than 80%. Cuba has only been able to import 40% of the fuel requirement while industry is operating at 35% of capacity.

The Trump/Biden “maximum pressure” campaign has produced its desired effect of a catastrophic situation in Cuba. Biden imposed additional sanctions in November and has continued his predecessor’s policy of keeping Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

While sanctioned by Washington, the current hybrid war on Nicaragua has been less intense and prolonged than that endured by Cuba and Venezuela. Nicaragua left the Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS) on November 19. Foreign Minister Denis Moncada said good riddance to what he called an “instrument of US imperialism.”

Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua have achieved so much with so little. The World Economic Forum commended Nicaragua for being the country in Latin America that made notable progress in reducing the gender gap. The World Wildlife Fund certified Cuba as the only country in the world to have attained sustainable development. The Harvard Review of Latin America praised Venezuela for cutting poverty in half before the sanctions set in. Imagine what could be accomplished if the hegemon’s boot was removed from their necks.

Roger D. Harris is with the human rights organization Task Force on the Americas, founded in 1985. Read other articles by Roger D..

 

Ret. Col. Ann Wright Unmasks the Truth in Arms Transfer Debate

by Melissa Garriga / December 18th, 2023

In a heated session at the United Nations Security Council, diplomats engaged in a vigorous debate over the provision of arms to Ukraine amid the protracted war with Russia. The eleventh meeting on this pressing issue since Russia invaded in February of 2022 drew sharp criticisms from multiple speakers, who accused Moscow of deflecting attention from its own aggression.

While various briefers and delegates presented conflicting perspectives, CODEPINK member Ann Wright, a retired United States Army colonel and former diplomat, took a different stance. As a civil society representative, she introduced herself as a concerned citizen and taxpayer who resigned from the U.S. Government in 2003 in protest against the Iraq War.

Wright emphasized her opposition to the continued supply of weapons, asserting that it only serves to prolong conflicts. The United States and its European allies have provided tens of billions of dollars in aid to support Ukraine over the past two years. With the war at an indefinite stalemate with the death toll rising, Wright argued that fueling conflicts with substantial amounts of weapons ultimately profits corporations and politicians, but not the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. A position that antiwar groups like CODEPINK has held since the beginning of this deadly war.

Highlighting the lengthy process of conflict resolution, Wright drew parallels with historical conflicts, such as the Korean War, which required 575 meetings before reaching a ceasefire agreement. She underscored the devastating toll on human lives during U.S. funded wars, referencing the significant casualties in the Korean War.

Drawing attention to not only the lack of diplomacy but also an attempt to stop any form of negotiations from happening, she expressed concern along with the historical fact that the supply of weapons prevents the possibility of peace. Wright referred to the reports that informed Washington, D.C., and London had pressured the Ukrainian Government to avoid peace negotiations with Russia, emphasizing the importance of preserving diplomatic efforts.

In a powerful conclusion, Mary Ann Wright shared a poem depicting a plea in Gaza for children’s names to be written on their legs as a means of identification in the event of death due to Israeli bombings. While specifically referencing Gaza, she asserted that the sentiment applies universally to children in conflict zones, including Ukraine, Russia, Palestinel, or Yemen.

As the Security Council debates the “complexities’ ‘ of arms transfers and their impact on international peace and security, Wright’s testimony emphasizes the importance of addressing the root causes of conflicts and fostering meaningful resolutions. She makes the case that this is not, in fact, a complex issue nor should it be a debate. It is quite simple, more weapons only create more war and prohibit lasting peace.

You can watch her full testimony here.

Melissa Garriga is the communications and media analysis manager for CODEPINK. She writes about the intersection of militarism and the human cost of war. Read other articles by Melissa.

 

Getting Serious About Halting Israeli Genocide

by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies / December 18th, 2023

US representative to the UN Robert Wood raises his hand to veto a security council resolution calling for Gaza ceasefire. Photo credit: Charly Triballeau/AFP

On Friday, December 8, the UN Security Council met under Article 99 for only the fourth time in the UN’s history. Article 99 is an emergency provision that allows the Secretary General to summon the Council to respond to a crisis that “threatens the maintenance of international peace and security.” The previous occasions were the Belgian invasion of the Congo in 1960, the hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979 and Lebanon’s Civil War in 1989.

Secretary General Antonio Guterres told the Security Council that he invoked Article 99 to demand an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza because “we are at a breaking point,” with a “high risk of the total collapse of the humanitarian support system in Gaza.” The United Arab Emirates drafted a ceasefire resolution that quickly garnered 97 cosponsors.

The World Food Program has reported that Gaza is on the brink of mass starvation, with 9 out of 10 people spending entire days with no food. In the two days before Guterres invoked Article 99, Rafah was the only one of Gaza’s five districts to which the UN could deliver any aid at all.

The Secretary General stressed that “The brutality perpetrated by Hamas can never justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people… International humanitarian law cannot be applied selectively. It is binding on all parties equally at all times, and the obligation to observe it does not depend on reciprocity.”

Mr. Guterres concluded, “The people of Gaza are looking into the abyss… The eyes of the world – and the eyes of history – are watching. It’s time to act.”

UN members delivered eloquent, persuasive pleas for the immediate humanitarian ceasefire that the resolution called for, and the Council voted thirteen to one, with the U.K. abstaining, to approve the resolution. But the one vote against by the United States, one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, killed the resolution, leaving the Council impotent to act as the Secretary General warned that it must.

This was the sixteenth U.S. Security Council veto since 2000 – and fourteen of those vetoes have been to shield Israel and/or U.S. policy on Israel and Palestine from international action or accountability. While Russia and China have vetoed resolutions on a variety of issues around the world, from Myanmar to Venezuela, there is no parallel for the U.S.’s extraordinary use of its veto primarily to provide exceptional impunity under international law for one other country.

The consequences of this veto could hardly be more serious. As Brazil’s UN Ambassador Sérgio França Danese told the Council, if the U.S. hadn’t vetoed a previous resolution that Brazil drafted on October 18, “thousands of lives would have been saved.” And as the Indonesian representative asked, “How many more must die before this relentless assault is halted? 20,000? 50,000? 100,000?”

Following the previous U.S. veto of a ceasefire at the Security Council, the UN General Assembly took up the global call for a ceasefire, and the resolution, sponsored by Jordan, passed by 120 votes to 14, with 45 abstentions. The 12 small countries who voted with the United States and Israel represented less than 1% of the world’s population.

The isolated diplomatic position in which the United States found itself should have been a wake-up call, especially coming a week after a Data For Progress poll found that 66% of Americans supported a ceasefire, while a Mariiv poll found that only 29% of Israelis supported an imminent ground invasion of Gaza.

After the United States again slammed the Security Council door in Palestine’s face on December 8, the desperate need to end the massacre in Gaza returned to the UN General Assembly on December 12. An identical resolution to the one the U.S. vetoed in the Security Council was approved by a vote of 153 to 10, with 33 more yes votes than the one in October. While General Assembly resolutions are not binding, they do carry political weight, and this one sends a clear message that the international community is disgusted by the carnage in Gaza.

Another powerful instrument the world can use to try to compel an end to this massacre is the Genocide Convention, which both Israel and the United States have ratified. It only takes one country to bring a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under the Convention, and, while cases can drag on for years, the ICJ can take preliminary measures to protect the victims in the meantime.

On January 23, 2020, the Court did exactly that in a case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar, alleging genocide against its Rohingya minority. In a brutal military campaign in late 2017, Myanmar massacred tens of thousands of Rohingya and burnt down dozens of villages. 740,000 Rohingyas fled into Bangladesh, and a UN-backed fact-finding mission found that the 600,000 who remained in Myanmar “may face a greater threat of genocide than ever.”

China vetoed a referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Security Council, so The Gambia, itself recovering from 20 years of repression under a brutal dictatorship, submitted a case to the ICJ under the Genocide Convention.

That opened the door for a unanimous ruling by 17 judges at the ICJ that Myanmar must prevent genocide against the Rohingya, as the Genocide Convention required. The ICJ issued that ruling as a preventive measure, the equivalent of a preliminary injunction in a domestic court, even though its final ruling on the merits of the case might be many years away. It also ordered Myanmar to file a report with the Court every six months to detail how it is protecting the Rohingya, signaling serious ongoing scrutiny of Myanmar’s conduct.

So which country will step up to bring an ICJ case against Israel under the Genocide Convention? Activists are already discussing that with a number of countries. Roots Action and World Beyond War have created an action alert that you can use to send messages to 10 of the most likely candidates (South Africa, Chile, Colombia, Jordan, Ireland, Belize, Turkïye, Bolivia, Honduras and Brazil).

There has also been increasing pressure on the International Criminal Court to take up the case against Israel. The ICC has been quick to investigate Hamas for war crimes, but has been dragging its feet on investigating Israel. After a recent visit to the region, ICC prosecutor Karim Khan was not allowed by Israel to enter Gaza, and he was criticized by Palestinians for visiting areas attacked by Hamas on October 7, but not visiting the hundreds of illegal Israeli settlements, checkpoints and refugee camps in the occupied West Bank.

However, as long as the world is faced with the United States’ tragic and debilitating abuse of institutions the rest of the world depends on to enforce international law, the economic and diplomatic actions of individual countries may have more impact than their speeches in New York.

While historically there have been about two dozen countries that have not recognized Israel, in the past two months, Belize and Bolivia have severed ties with Israel, while others–Bahrain, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Jordan and Turkey–have withdrawn their ambassadors.

Other countries are trying to have it both ways–condemning Israel publicly but maintaining their economic interests. At the UN Security Council, Egypt explicitly accused Israel of genocide and the U.S. of obstructing a ceasefire.

And yet Egypt’s long-standing partnership with Israel in the blockade of Gaza and its continuing role, even today, in restricting the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza through its own border crossings, make it complicit in the genocide it condemns. If it means what it says, it must open its border crossings to all the humanitarian aid that is needed, end its cooperation with the Israeli blockade and reevaluate its obsequious and compromised relationships with Israel and the United States.

Qatar, which has worked hard to negotiate an Israeli ceasefire in Gaza, was eloquent in its denunciation of Israeli genocide in the Security Council. But Qatar was speaking on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Under the so-called Abraham accords, the sheikhs of Bahrain and the UAE have turned their backs on Palestine to sign on to a toxic brew of self-serving commercial relations and hundred million dollar arms deals with Israel.

In New York, the UAE sponsored the latest failed Security Council resolution, and its representative declared, “The international system is teetering on the brink. For this war signals that might makes right, that compliance with international humanitarian law depends on the identity of the victim and the perpetrator.”

And yet neither the UAE nor Bahrain has renounced their Abraham deals with Israel, nor their roles in U.S. “might makes right” policies that have wreaked havoc in the Middle East for decades. Over a thousand US Air Force personnel and dozens of U.S. warplanes are still based at the Al-Dhafra Airbase in Abu Dhabi, while Manama in Bahrain, which the U.S. Navy has used as a base since 1941, remains the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet.

Many experts compare apartheid Israel to apartheid South Africa. Speeches at the UN may have helped to bring down South Africa’s apartheid regime, but change didn’t come until countries around the world embraced a global campaign to economically and politically isolate it.

The reason Israel’s die-hard supporters in the United States have tried to ban, or even criminalize, the campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is not that it is illegitimate or anti-semitic. It is precisely because boycotting, sanctioning and divesting from Israel may be an effective strategy to help bring down its genocidal, expansionist and unaccountable regime.

U.S. Alternate Representative to the U.N. Robert Wood told the Security Council that there is a “fundamental disconnect between the discussions that we have been having in this chamber and the realities on the ground” in Gaza, implying that only Israeli and U.S. views of the conflict deserve to be taken seriously.

But the real disconnect at the root of this crisis is the one between the isolated looking-glass world of U.S. and Israeli politics and the real world that is crying out for a ceasefire and justice for Palestinians.

While Israel, with U.S. bombs and howitzer shells, is killing and maiming thousands of innocent people, the rest of the world is appalled by these crimes against humanity. The grassroots clamor to end the massacre keeps building, but global leaders must move beyond non-binding votes and investigations to boycotting Israeli products, putting an embargo on weapons sales, breaking diplomatic relations and other measures that will make Israel a pariah state on the world stage.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published by OR Books, November 2022. Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for PEACE, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK and the author of Blood on our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. Read other articles by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies.

Unmasking Media Complicity

The Urgent Call for Truth in Gaza

by Nour Jaghama and Melissa Garriga / December 16th, 2023

Bisan Owda, a 25-year-old journalist from Gaza, recently expressed a bleak outlook: ‘I no longer have any hope of survival…I am certain that I will die in the next few weeks or maybe days.’ Bisan’s harrowing sentiment reflects the dangerous reality journalists face, risking their lives to expose the brutal truths obscured by the fog of war.

Bisan and other Palestinian reporters, such as Motaz, another courageous photojournalist from the Deir al-Balah refugee camp, stand as unsung heroes amid a devastating genocide. Bisan, tearfully acknowledging the imminent danger she faces, and Motaz transitioning from documenting to surviving underscore the extraordinary courage of Palestinian journalists determined to unveil the truth.

In contrast, mainstream Western media, epitomized by the New York Times, presents a stark disparity. Instead of amplifying the voices of individuals like Bisan and Motaz, major publications propagate a narrative that perpetuates misinformation and greenlights the ongoing tragedy.

The toll in Gaza is staggering—over 20,000 lives lost, including nearly 10,000 innocent children. Amidst the ruins of homes and the echoes of airstrikes, it becomes clear that the valiant efforts of these journalists serve as our only window into the extent of this horror.

Regrettably, the New York Times is failing to report the situation accurately. Its persistence in publishing misleading information not only aids in spreading propaganda but also follows a historical pattern. The current reporting echoes the publication’s prior engagement in a misinformation campaign preceding the U.S. invasion of Iraq, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. The New York Times is failing an open-notes test it has taken many times.

Notably, instead of reporting on the confirmed cases of genocide, the New York Times seems fixated on fake controversies sparked by controversial lawmakers such as Rep. Elise Stefanik (R–N.Y.) that feed into the false idea that supporting Palestinians and demanding an end to the genocide is antisemitic. This type of reporting creates a false sense of danger and weaponizes people into rejecting the Palestinian struggle as the human rights issue it is.

As the Israeli military intensifies its attack on Gaza, the urgency for accurate reporting becomes paramount. Netanyahu’s unwavering pursuit of genocidal goals, evidenced by the bombing of schools, hospitals, and UN buildings, demands unfiltered attention. Strikingly, Israeli leaders have laid bare their intentions for ethnic cleansing through genocide, yet U.S. media remains conspicuously silent.

The betrayal of journalists like Bisan, Motaz, and countless others who put their lives on the line becomes even more egregious when juxtaposed with the New York Times‘ failure to uphold journalistic standards. It is no longer a matter of misguided reporting; it is the perpetuation of a historical pattern that prioritizes profit and imperialism over truth and justice.

Western media has the potential to be a catalyst for change. We have seen the impact of unfiltered reporting during the Vietnam War when journalists chose to reveal the truth, irrespective of government constraints. There are the equivalents of the Tet Offensive and the My Lai Massacre currently being in Gaza by Israel. Any reporting by Western media that doesn’t center its context around that is a disservice to humanity.

News reporting, at its core, should be about saving lives. Instead, influential publications opt to provide manufactured consent for violence and oppression, holding the line for war criminals while the atrocities unfold in real-time. In doing so, this makes publications like the New York Times complicit in the ongoing genocide in Palestine, mixing the blood of innocent Palestinians with that of those murdered in Iraq twenty years ago—shame on the New York Times and all.

Nour Jaghama is CODEPINK's Palestine and Iran Campaigner. Melissa Garriga is the communications and media analysis manager for CODEPINK. Read other articles by Nour Jaghama and Melissa Garriga.

A Moral Principle: Denounce the Bigotry of In-Group Members before Criticizing the Bigotry of Out-Group Members

by Kim Petersen / December 16th, 2023

Contempt for the Arab population is deeply rooted in Zionist thought.

— Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians, 1983, 2015.

This is the holiday season for various groups of people. Some people will celebrate Xmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, etc during the winter season. Others will celebrate just because celebrating is fun.

Noting that it is Hanukkah, Sportsnet published an article titled “Oilers’ Zach Hyman: We must ‘eradicate antisemitism’.”

The article is extremely one-sided and insensitive because the Jewish State is in the midst of trying to eradicate Palestinians.

Obviously, anti-semitism must be eradicated from any moral universe. But what does Hyman’s statement imply? It is not “We must ‘eradicate every form of bigotry’.” It is explicit to one group: Jews. Do Jews face bigotry targeted at them? Undoubtedly they do. But is the biotry faced by Jews the worst form of bigotry, so heinous that subordinating other forms of bigotry is acceptable? And is it the case that Jews do not engage in bigotry against Gentiles?

Hyman is a prideful, skillful forward for the Edmonton Oilers of the National Hockey League.

Mark Spector of Sportsnet writes of Hyman:

“I’m very proud of who I am. I’m proud of being Jewish. I’m proud of growing up in the Jewish community … and I’m proud of where we come from,” began Hyman, a 31-year-old product of Toronto’s Jewish community. The Oilers forward is the grandson of Holocaust survivors, schooled in Judaism from kindergarten all the way through Grade 12.

Why has he chosen to speak out during the eight days of Hanukkah?

To shed light on what he is seeing at home. To shine a candle on a growing sense of antisemitism right here….

“It’s very clear that antisemitism as a result of what’s going on has been on the rise. Jewish people … don’t feel safe. There are attacks on synagogues. My high school [in Toronto] has had two bomb threats. This is just for being Jewish. It’s just because you’re Jewish. There’s no other reason.

“There’s no other reason”? Apparently, Spector and Hyman are seemingly unaware that people in their self-declared Jewish State are engaged in a genocide against Palestinians and that the genocide has been in progress since 1948.

Jewish anti-Arabism has been on prominent display over the decades unabated to the present day. Recently, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant denigrated the Palestinians as “human animals.” Jerusalem deputy mayor Arieh King protested that Palestinians are not “human animals”; they are not “human beings”; they are “subhuman.”

It is a commonly held tenet that one should clean up one’s own backyard before complaining about the backyard of others.

At its most basic level, backyard tenets would include mutual respect between neighbors and non-violence (definitely no spilling of blood; especially of civilians, whether they be elderly, children, women, or men). What does mutual respect require? Observing the golden rule: treat others as you wish to be treated.

To prioritize concern about anti-semitism at a time when Israeli Jews, supported by Jews in the diaspora, are committing genocide against Palestinians speaks absurdly to a person’s moral basis. In essence, what Spector, Hyman, and Sporstnet are promoting is Jewish people first even when Jews are knocking down hospitals, blowing up schools, and destroying another people.

As Chomsky wrote in his book The Fateful Triangle: “Anti-Arab racism is, however, so widespread as to be unnoticeable; it is perhaps the only remaining form of racism to be regarded as legitimate.”

Bigotry must be opposed in all its forms. To stand on morally sound ground, one must especially denounce the odious acts committed in the name of one’s group and criticize the bigotry held by members of one’s own group.

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. Read other articles by Kim.

 

The Deep State’s Persecution of Its Most Vulnerable Citizens

Born in a Police State

by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead / December 18th, 2023

When the song of the angels is stilled, when the star in the sky is gone, when the kings and princes are home, when the shepherds are back with their flocks, the work of Christmas begins: to find the lost, to heal the broken, to feed the hungry, to release the prisoner, to rebuild the nations, to bring peace among the people, to make music in the heart.

— Howard Thurman, theologian and civil rights activist

The Christmas story of a baby born in a manger is a familiar one.

The Roman Empire, a police state in its own right, had ordered that a census be conducted. Joseph and his pregnant wife Mary traveled to the little town of Bethlehem so that they could be counted. There being no room for the couple at any of the inns, they stayed in a stable (a barn), where Mary gave birth to a baby boy, Jesus. Warned that the government planned to kill the baby, Jesus’ family fled with him to Egypt until it was safe to return to their native land.

Yet what if Jesus had been born 2,000 years later?

What if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, Jesus had been born at this moment in time? What kind of reception would Jesus and his family be given? Would we recognize the Christ child’s humanity, let alone his divinity? Would we treat him any differently than he was treated by the Roman Empire? If his family were forced to flee violence in their native country and sought refuge and asylum within our borders, what sanctuary would we offer them?

A singular number of churches across the country have asked those very questions in recent years, and their conclusions were depicted with unnerving accuracy by nativity scenes in which Jesus and his family are separated, segregated and caged in individual chain-link pens, topped by barbed wire fencing.

Those nativity scenes were a pointed attempt to remind the modern world that the narrative about the birth of Jesus is one that speaks on multiple fronts to a world that has allowed the life, teachings and crucifixion of Jesus to be drowned out by partisan politics, secularism, materialism and war, all driven by a manipulative shadow government called the Deep State.

The modern-day church has largely shied away from applying Jesus’ teachings to modern problems such as war, poverty, immigration, etc., but thankfully there have been individuals throughout history who ask themselves and the world: what would Jesus do?

What would Jesus—the baby born in Bethlehem who grew into an itinerant preacher and revolutionary activist, who not only died challenging the police state of his day (namely, the Roman Empire) but spent his adult life speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo of his day, and pushing back against the abuses of the Roman Empire—do about the injustices of our  modern age?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer asked himself what Jesus would have done about the horrors perpetrated by Hitler and his assassins. The answer: Bonhoeffer was executed by Hitler for attempting to undermine the tyranny at the heart of Nazi Germany.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn asked himself what Jesus would have done about the soul-destroying gulags and labor camps of the Soviet Union. The answer: Solzhenitsyn found his voice and used it to speak out about government oppression and brutality.

Martin Luther King Jr. asked himself what Jesus would have done about America’s warmongering. The answer: declaring “my conscience leaves me no other choice,” King risked widespread condemnation as well as his life when he publicly opposed the Vietnam War on moral and economic grounds.

Even now, despite the popularity of the phrase “What Would Jesus Do?” (WWJD) in Christian circles, there remains a disconnect in the modern church between the teachings of Christ and the suffering of what Jesus in Matthew 25 refers to as the “least of these.”

Yet this is not a theological gray area: Jesus was unequivocal about his views on many things, not the least of which was charity, compassion, war, tyranny and love.

After all, Jesus—the revered preacher, teacher, radical and prophet—was born into a police state not unlike the growing menace of the American police state. When he grew up, he had powerful, profound things to say, things that would change how we view people, alter government policies and change the world. “Blessed are the merciful,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and “Love your enemies” are just a few examples of his most profound and revolutionary teachings.

When confronted by those in authority, Jesus did not shy away from speaking truth to power. Indeed, his teachings undermined the political and religious establishment of his day. It cost him his life. He was eventually crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be.

Can you imagine what Jesus’ life would have been like if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, he had been born and raised in the American police state?

Consider the following if you will.

Had Jesus been born in the era of the America police state, rather than traveling to Bethlehem for a census, Jesus’ parents would have been mailed a 28-page American Community Survey, a mandatory government questionnaire documenting their habits, household inhabitants, work schedule, how many toilets are in your home, etc. The penalty for not responding to this invasive survey can go as high as $5,000.

Instead of being born in a manger, Jesus might have been born at home. Rather than wise men and shepherds bringing gifts, however, the baby’s parents might have been forced to ward off visits from state social workers intent on prosecuting them for the home birth. One couple in Washington had all three of their children removed after social services objected to the two youngest being birthed in an unassisted home delivery.

Had Jesus been born in a hospital, his blood and DNA would have been taken without his parents’ knowledge or consent and entered into a government biobank. While most states require newborn screening, a growing number are holding onto that genetic material long-term for research, analysis and purposes yet to be disclosed.

Then again, had Jesus’ parents been undocumented immigrants, they and the newborn baby might have been shuffled to a profit-driven, private prison for illegals where they first would have been separated from each other, the children detained in make-shift cages, and the parents eventually turned into cheap, forced laborers for corporations such as Starbucks, Microsoft, Walmart, and Victoria’s Secret. There’s quite a lot of money to be made from imprisoning immigrants, especially when taxpayers are footing the bill.

From the time he was old enough to attend school, Jesus would have been drilled in lessons of compliance and obedience to government authorities, while learning little about his own rights. Had he been daring enough to speak out against injustice while still in school, he might have found himself tasered or beaten by a school resource officer, or at the very least suspended under a school zero tolerance policy that punishes minor infractions as harshly as more serious offenses.

Had Jesus disappeared for a few hours let alone days as a 12-year-old, his parents would have been handcuffed, arrested and jailed for parental negligence. Parents across the country have been arrested for far less “offenses” such as allowing their children to walk to the park unaccompanied and play in their front yard alone.

Rather than disappearing from the history books from his early teenaged years to adulthood, Jesus’ movements and personal data—including his biometrics—would have been documented, tracked, monitored and filed by governmental agencies and corporations such as Google and Microsoft. Incredibly, 95 percent of school districts share their student records with outside companies that are contracted to manage data, which they then use to market products to us.

From the moment Jesus made contact with an “extremist” such as John the Baptist, he would have been flagged for surveillance because of his association with a prominent activist, peaceful or otherwise. Since 9/11, the FBI has actively carried out surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations on a broad range of activist groups, from animal rights groups to poverty relief, anti-war groups and other such “extremist” organizations.

Jesus’ anti-government views would certainly have resulted in him being labeled a domestic extremist. Law enforcement agencies are being trained to recognize signs of anti-government extremism during interactions with potential extremists who share a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”

While traveling from community to community, Jesus might have been reported to government officials as “suspicious” under the Department of Homeland Security’s “See Something, Say Something” programs. Many states, including New York, are providing individuals with phone apps that allow them to take photos of suspicious activity and report them to their state Intelligence Center, where they are reviewed and forwarded to law-enforcement agencies.

Rather than being permitted to live as an itinerant preacher, Jesus might have found himself threatened with arrest for daring to live off the grid or sleeping outside. In fact, the number of cities that have resorted to criminalizing homelessness by enacting bans on camping, sleeping in vehicles, loitering and begging in public has doubled.

Viewed by the government as a dissident and a potential threat to its power, Jesus might have had government spies planted among his followers to monitor his activities, report on his movements, and entrap him into breaking the law. Such Judases today—called informants—often receive hefty paychecks from the government for their treachery.

Had Jesus used the internet to spread his radical message of peace and love, he might have found his blog posts infiltrated by government spies attempting to undermine his integrity, discredit him or plant incriminating information online about him. At the very least, he would have had his website hacked and his email monitored.

Had Jesus attempted to feed large crowds of people, he would have been threatened with arrest for violating various ordinances prohibiting the distribution of food without a permit. Florida officials arrested a 90-year-old man for feeding the homeless on a public beach.

Had Jesus spoken publicly about his 40 days in the desert and his conversations with the devil, he might have been labeled mentally ill and detained in a psych ward against his will for a mandatory involuntary psychiatric hold with no access to family or friends. One Virginia man was arrested, strip searched, handcuffed to a table, diagnosed as having “mental health issues,” and locked up for five days in a mental health facility against his will apparently because of his slurred speech and unsteady gait.

Without a doubt, had Jesus attempted to overturn tables in a Jewish temple and rage against the materialism of religious institutions, he would have been charged with a hate crime. More than 45 states and the federal government have hate crime laws on the books.

Had anyone reported Jesus to the police as being potentially dangerous, he might have found himself confronted—and killed—by police officers for whom any perceived act of non-compliance (a twitch, a question, a frown) can result in them shooting first and asking questions later.

Rather than having armed guards capture Jesus in a public place, government officials would have ordered that a SWAT team carry out a raid on Jesus and his followers, complete with flash-bang grenades and military equipment. There are upwards of 80,000 such SWAT team raids carried out every year, many on unsuspecting Americans who have no defense against such government invaders, even when such raids are done in error.

Instead of being detained by Roman guards, Jesus might have been made to “disappear” into a secret government detention center where he would have been interrogated, tortured and subjected to all manner of abuses. Chicago police have “disappeared” more than 7,000 people into a secret, off-the-books interrogation warehouse at Homan Square.

Charged with treason and labeled a domestic terrorist, Jesus might have been sentenced to a life-term in a private prison where he would have been forced to provide slave labor for corporations or put to death by way of the electric chair or a lethal mixture of drugs.

Indeed, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, given the nature of government then and now, it is painfully evident that whether Jesus had been born in our modern age or his own, he still would have died at the hands of a police state.

Thus, as we draw near to Christmas with its celebration of miracles and promise of salvation, we would do well to remember that what happened in that manger on that starry night in Bethlehem is only the beginning of the story. That baby born in a police state grew up to be a man who did not turn away from the evils of his age but rather spoke out against it.

John W. Whitehead, constitutional attorney and author, is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He wrote the book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015). He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Read other articles by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.