Wednesday, February 07, 2024

The Downfall of Boeing: Its Planes and Company

Facebook

Photograph Source: Aka The Beav from Seattle, Washington – CC BY 2.0

The documentary Downfall: the Case Against Boeing confines its scope to the crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 (which occurred on October 29, 2018, in Indonesia) and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 (March 10, 2019, in Addis Ababa). Both planes crashed shortly after their takeoffs (13 minutes for 602, six minutes for 210), killing everyone on board.

In both cases, the plane was a brand-spanking-new Boeing 737 MAX 8. In both cases, Boeing blamed pilot error by the stinky pagan wogs, who were too stupid to fly anything more complex than a paper airplane.

In both cases, the crash was traced directly to problems with the sensors and flight control systems on the plane–specifically, something called MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System). The Lion Air crash led a number of countries to issue advisories about the MAX 8. After the Ethiopian Air crash, countries began grounding the model.

The first–and credit to the documentary for pointing this out–was China. The US, unsurprisingly, was the last country to take that step (March 13, 2019, three days after the crash).

+++

Here’s something you won’t get from the documentary. It’s not surprising that the US was last. Remember, these events happened in 2018-2019– meaning Donald Trump was president and Mitch McConnell’s wife (Elaine Chao) was Transportation secretary.

More importantly, during the period when both crashes occurred, there was nobody running the show at the Federal Aviation Administration.

The 17th Administrator (who served from December 6, 2011 – January 6, 2018) was Michael Huerta. He was a technocrat with zero experience managing an aviation system (other than being a commissioner of New York City’s Department of Ports, International Trade and Commerce). Barack Obama appointed him as Deputy Administrator in 2010; he was promoted to the top job when his predecessor quit.

Huerta’s term expired on January 6, 2018; his interim replacement was a Trump-appointed Deputy Administrator. Dan Elwell was a former pilot for American Airlines who became the company’s chief lobbyist and later head of the Aerospace Industries Association (the industry’s lobbying organization). You can probably guess how much he cared about safety and regulation.

Elwell didn’t leave the post until Stephen Dickson (a former pilot with 27 years running flight operations for Delta) was confirmed on August 12, 2019.

During the interim between Huerta and Dickson, 346 people died.

+++

The documentary accurately explains what happened, but it offers the technical stuff in bits and pieces, spread out over the film’s 90 minutes. It doesn’t do a great job of explaining, in a structured way, exactly how Boeing got into the mess.

The design of the Boeing 737 began in 1964; the first model was tested in April 1967 and began flying commercially in February 1968. It was designed and built from scratch, using lessons learned from the 727, but everything else was new. The 737 has been in service ever since.

That a piece of technology could continue to offer competitive performance is remarkable (would you want a TV first built in 1968?) and partly terrifying–more than six decades, you should have made it obsolete. Boeing has updated its design and changed the configurations–the 737 MAX is the fourth major version of the plane. But it’s still a 737, albeit with tweaks.

Boeing was resting on its laurels, raking in profits and boosting dividends. The third ‘generation” (the “737 Next Generation”) began production in 1996 and hit the runways in 1997. Which is why Airbus was able to clean Boeing’s clock with the 320neo in 2014.

+++

Since I’m trying to supplement the film, not rehash it, I’ll introduce the competition. Airbus Industrie GIE was formed in 1970, through a merger of a French company (AĆ©rospatiale-Matra), an English firm (Hawker Siddeley), a German one (DASA) and a Dutch one (Fokker-VFW ). The goal was to produce an “Airbus”–a wide-body aircraft that could transport over 100 passengers over short to medium distances (all you need to get from point to point in Europe) whose workmanship approached the three US companies (Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Lockheed) who dominated the commercial airline industry, due to their high-quality models.

You could make jokes–and the “Big Three” did. What do you get when you combine the quality of German food, French customer service and British flexibility and willingness to change?

Another way you could have framed it: what happens if you blend French design with German craftsmanship and English quality control and cost management?

(One thing the US overlooked. The “D” in the German airline company DASA stood for “Daimler”. As in Daimler-Benz. As in “Mercedes.”)

It took a while for Airbus to figure things out. The merged companies battled for control. They couldn’t agree on what they should do. Was the path to success through military or civilian planes? Passenger or cargo? Short-range or long-distance?

The biggest steps forward were probably (1) the Spanish aviation company CASA joining up in 1977 and (2) British Aerospace buying Hawker in 1979. That pretty much eliminated any competing firms in the Common Market, and made it “Us against America.”

+++

Meanwhile, American aviation decided to focus on profits, with encouragement from Wall Street and the administration of President Horndog the First. In 1995, Lockheed merged with Martin-Marietta (a huge defense contractor). That effectively took it out of the commercial aircraft industry.

(By 2010, Lockheed-Martin was getting 85% of its revenues from US government contracts and 13% from foreign governments. Commercial revenue fell to 2%.)

Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas (also a defense contractor) merged in 1997. The documentary correctly makes the latter company the villain of the piece, blaming it for destroying the quality control processes at Boeing. Here, the film is substantially correct.

M-D had been formed by a merger in 1967. McDonnell Aircraft was a government contractor that found sucking at the public teat much more profitable– and much less difficult– than competing for business. If something doesn’t work, the Pentagon will give you unlimited extensions (while still paying your bills). If you simply can’t make something work, they’ll let you rewrite the specs to accept worse performance.

When Douglas Aircraft ran into a cash crunch trying to balance the demands of commercial aviation and military work, McDonnell scooped them up in 1967. 30 years later, they spun the same siren song for Boeing: “Merge with us and you’ll make a fortune.”

Then McDonnell-Douglas did the same bullshit that Jack Welch did to GE: Slash the research budget, eliminate the people in charge of quality and project management and sell the current models until people stop buying.

“Why are you wasting all this money trying to make your product better?,” the mindset went. “With Lockheed gone, we’re the only game in town. You don’t think airlines are gonna buy planes from a joint project between Nazis and Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys, do you?”

Which, in the 1990s, was true, Just as it had been true– in the 1960s– that no red-blooded, God-Fearing American would drive a rice-burning sardine can with a lawnmower engine that was built by a bunch of Japanese.

Both perceptions ultimately changed–and for the very same reason.

+++

Airbus’s first model was the A300 (a twin-engine widebody with up to 247 seats and a range of 4,000 miles). It began production in 1972 went into commercial use in 1974 and was sold until 2007.

It sold only 561 units, because the plane was designed for large capacity, long-distance flights and suffered on fuel efficiency. But what made it unsuited for flights from Italy to Spain made it ideal for carrying cargo. The three customers who bought the most A300s were FedEx, UPS and European Air Transport.

The A320 was designed for people. It was announced in 1984, had the first test flights in 1987, and entered service in 1988. It had a smaller capacity (135-190 people) and shorter range, but better fuel efficiency. It’s still in service and Airbus has sold over 11,000–primarily to American Airlines for regional flights.

The A330 (designed in 1990, released in 1992, in service in 1994) was another step forward, It was the first model to offer a choice of engines and configurations. You could cram up to 400 people in it to shuttle around Europe or accommodate fewer people and use it to cross oceans. However you set it up, it would meet published specs.

It’s still in service, has sold almost 1,600 units and its big fans are Delta, Turkish Air, Aer Lingus (Ireland) and China Eastern.

Airbus funneled all that experience (and lessons from iterations and less unique models) to create the A320neo. That plane was announced in 2010, made its first flight in 2014 and went into service in 2016. The 320neo has a fully redesigned body, a new generation of high-powered, fuel-efficient engines, and scads of design improvements. The most noticeable, if you’re a passenger, are “winglets” (which look like shark fins at the end of wings, but reduce drag and offer greater stability).

The most noticeable–if you’re an airline–is fuel efficiency. The 320neo gets 15-20% better mileage than anything Boeing has. Airbus literally can’t build 320neos fast enough to match the demand. At last count, 130 different airlines have ordered a combined 10,350… and Airbus has only been able to build 3,200.

+++

Boeing was caught flatfooted. They had nothing in development–why build a new plane if the ones you have now are still selling?

They needed to do what Airbus had done–completely re-engineer the design, so they could take advantage of the latest technology. But they didn’t have time to do it.

More to the point, Boeing wasn’t any fucking good at building planes by this point. Consider the 787 “Dreamliner”. Boeing initially announced the 787 in January of 2003. They didn’t get a prototype built until July 8, 2007. And it had so many issues that the first flight didn’t occur until December of 2009. The 787 didn’t go into service until October or 2011–and when airlines began flying it, they reported an astonishing number of different issues.

Eight years from design to “in service, “and the 787 was pulled out of service in 2013 for four months because its batteries kept imitating Samsung phones (catching on fire). Cost overruns mean that Boeing is still in the red on the 787. They’ve sold 1,100, but they won’t break even until they deliver 1,500 to 2,000.

+++

What Boeing did with the 737 MAX 8 was slap a new engine on a 737 body with a few tweaks. Because the new engine was so much larger than the older ones, they had to mount it higher to avoid drag. That change mucked up its handling. If you pulled back too hard on the stick, the 737 MAX 8 would stall.

Boeing’s solution was the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System). It put a sensor at the front of the plane. ONE.

If that sensor decided that the plane was climbing too rapidly–meaning in danger of stalling–MCAS would engage. It would flash a shitload of lights, set off all sorts of warnings in the cockpit… and then automatically push the nose of the plane sharply downward.

Towards the ground.

MCAS would do that no matter how hard the pilots tried to pull back on the controls. It would apply as much force as it believed it needed to, until that sensor was satisfied that the plane was leveling out.

What would happen if that one sensor malfunctioned? Boeing figured that probably wouldn’t happen. If it did, the pilots would have to shut off MCAS. And they had to shut off MCAS, Boeing’s internal studies showed, within ten seconds. Any longer, and the weight and speed of the plane–with some help from gravity–would produce enough momentum to send the plane into the ground. You wouldn’t be able to pull out.

+++

If you know anything about flying, you’ll realize how insane that is. If the lights on the instrument panels go off, it’ll take you a second or two to identify the problem. Then your first step will be to check other instruments to confirm the problem. That’s 1-2 seconds more. Deciding what to do burns a second or two. By the time you realize it’s an instrument failure–and you need to shut off the system (in the words of pilot Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, who served as an expert) “maniacally pushing you into the ground”–you’re probably out of time.

Assuming you even know that MCAS exists. And Boeing guaranteed that no pilot would.

As the Downfall explains carefully, Boeing didn’t document what MCAS was or what it did. And Boeing actually refused to offer training on its use–even when Lion Air specifically asked for it.

FAA rules are very strict about training. If a plane’s systems contain new technology that changes the operational procedure, the manufacturer has to offer full training to every pilot in the fleet on its use. You can’t just watch a PowerPoint or a YouTube video–it means taking classes and spending time in the simulators and then passing tests. The time required to train a few hundred pilots would have kept the 737 MAX 8s from being approved to fly for several months.

So Boeing didn’t tell Lion Air. And when Flight 610 crashed, the company blamed the pilots, saying that any American pilot would have had the training to handle the plane.

Internal documents showed that Boeing knew what had happened, and realized they needed to fix MCAS. They thought it might take six weeks and they figured the odds of a second crash were infinitesimally low.

CEO Dennis Muilenberg’s instructions (caught on tape) were explicit: “I don’t give a shit what happens. I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover-up or anything else, if it’ll save it, save this plan. That’s the whole point. We’re going to protect our people if we can.”

Actually, that was what the taping system caught Richard Nixon saying to his White House staff during Watergate. But the instructions coming from Boeing’s senior leadership were equally direct and more appalling.

And they delayed making fixes for five months. When Ethiopian Air 302 crashed, aviation regulators around the world took matters into their own hands.

The FAA wouldn’t allow the 737 MAX 8 to fly again until November 18, 2020. That’s a year and eight months (619 days).

Amazingly, when the scope of the disaster became fully known, Boeing’s Board of Directors voted (on December 23, 2020) to give CEO Dennis Muilenburg a $55 billion bonus.

No, wait, that’s what Tesla did with Grifter Elon Musk. Boeing asked Muilenberg to resign. He agreed and forfeited $14 million in performance bonuses. But he kept the full $62.8 million from his severance package.

And, no, that is not a joke.

+++

The documentary decides to go in a number of directions that I don’t entirely endorse. It makes the widow of the pilot of Lion Air 610 a main character, as well as the American father of one of the passengers on Ethiopian Air 302. (Of course, she’s a pretty white woman).

It tells the story of how McDonnell-Douglas gutted Boeing through the eyes of three staff members–only one of whom I really felt added a lot.

It makes the very solid decision to feature some of the pilots who spoke out against the 737 MAX 8. It does not– and I think this is chickenshit– mention that Dan Carey (and some of the others) are union officials. The film was made by Imagine (run by Brian Grazer and “Little Opie Cunningham”) so they’re not gonna get into politics or class warfare. Opie (who made THE DA VINCI CODE without mentioning the Catholic Church and HILLBILLY ELEGY without talking about Republicans or Sackler Pharmaceuticals) is as far from hard-hitting as it gets.

The film makes the guy in government most responsible for taking action to be retired Oregon Congressman Peter De Fazio (who was chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as well as a longtime member of the Progressive Caucus). I think this is substantially correct. But Trump was in power and the Senate was Republican.

It would have been nice to discuss the FAA’s non-feasance, and to point out that the FAA chair who let the 737 MAX 8 get approved was an Obama appointee. But this is a movie that paints in broad strokes and doesn’t drill down.

It’s still well worth seeing. Using a simulator to show what was going on in the cabin was a nice decision. And it gets the facts right.

I will offer kind words for filmmaker Rory Kennedy,  the child of Robert Kennedy who ought to be running for president.

If you know that campaign, you might recall that Ethel Kennedy (Bobby’s wife) was pregnant at the time her husband was assassinated. That child– born on December 12, 1968; the youngest of 11– was Rory.

RFK, Jr. is as bad a seed as one can get, and I wasn’t enamored with Kathleen or Congressional Critter Joe (not the one who ran against Ed Markey, a different moderate). Rory is the real deal. She was arrested at a protest outside the South African Embassy in her teens and organized a protest supporting migrant farmworkers at a Providence supermarket in college.

I say this even though Kennedy is a challenge for me to like, because so much of her life is fueled by privilege. She founded a documentary company with Vanessa Vadim (daughter of filmmaker Roger and actress “Hanoi Jane” Fonda). She did an HBO series about AIDS that was funded by Jeffrey Epstein’s wingman (through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation).

She made a film about the uplifting challenge by The Rock (back when he was Cory Booker) running for Mayor of Newark. She did a film about the soldiers who tortured people at Abu Ghraib… but found that many of them weren’t totally evil people. (The Neo-Times could have told me that.) She made a 1999 film about how hard it is to grow up in Appalachia and a 2010 film about how fences at the Mexican border don’t really work. She’s about to release a film on Synanon

The subjects are all worthwhile and the viewpoints are never horrible. But they always make things a little too pat, never go quite far enough– and a lot of them are on her name. (Many of us think our moms were nifty, but HBO wouldn’t fund my film…)

On the other, she has had more than her share of tragedy– her dad was killed before she was born, one brother died before her eyes (in a ski accident; she tried to keep him alive) another brother died of a drug overdose and her wedding (to a college classmate) had to be postponed because her cousin and his wife crashed their plane into an ocean (entirely without Boeing’s assistance).

I don’t have to deal with stuff like that. Nor do I have to live my life knowing Faux News and TMZ are always ready to pounce on me.

But when Kennedy’s wedding was rescheduled, it was held in Greece, at the home of a billionaire shipping magnate (not Onassis). Details like that make unsnarked appreciation come hard.

 

Why the US Is Reimposing Sanctions on Venezuela


Even the US business magazine Forbes expressed surprise at the reimposition of US sanctions on Venezuela’s gold sales and its threat to do the same with oil. The oil sanctions especially, if reinstated, would precipitate higher gas prices and further debilitate the Venezuelan economy, forcing more people to leave the country out of economic necessity. 

The Venezuelan government, for its part, has not been contrite. Vice President Delcy RodrĆ­guez protested “the wrong step of intensifying economic aggression against Venezuela.” She warned that if Washington takes the threatened measures, Venezuela will cancel repatriation flights returning Venezuelan immigrants back from the US.

Is Biden shooting himself in the foot in an election year with major vulnerabilities from inflation and unpopular immigration? The New Times describes these weaknesses as a “major crisis” for the incumbent US president. Adding to the Democrats’ woes, many Venezuelans in the US – driven here by sanctions – support Republicans.

Barbados agreement temporarily eases sanctions

The State Department accused the Venezuelan government of actions that are “inconsistent” with Barbados agreement, negotiated last October. This accord arranged a prisoner exchange with the US and the issuance of licenses allowing Venezuela to sell some of its own oil and gold. The agreement promised temporary and partial sanctions relief for Venezuela, although major coercive economic provisions were still left in place.

Even with limited sanctions relief, Venezuela anticipated a 27% increase in revenues for its state-run oil company. Experts predicted a “moderate economic expansion” after having experienced the greatest economic contraction in peacetime of any country in the modern era. Venezuela was on the road to recovery.

Then on January 30, the US rescinded the license for gold sales and threatened to allow the oil license to expire on April 18, which could cost $1.6B in lost revenue. The ostensible reason for the flip in US policy was the failure of the Venezuelan supreme court to overturn previous prohibitions on Maria Corina Machado and some other opposition politicians from running for public office.

The Barbados agreement was predicated on “electoral guarantees.” But there was no mention of specific individuals who had been legally barred from running for office due to past offenses. In fact, these cases were well known. Venezuelan officials had repeatedly insisted that those disqualified would continue to be ineligible. According to HĆ©ctor RodrĆ­guez, a member of the Venezuelan government’s delegation to Barbados, forgiveness for crimes was never on the negotiating agenda.

The case of opposition politician Maria Corina Machado

Machado’s treatment by the Venezuelan government has arguably erred more on the side of leniency than severity. In most other countries, a person with her rap sheet would be behind bars.

Back in 2002, Machado signed the Carmona Decree, establishing a coup government. Venezuelan President Hugo ChƔvez had been deposed in a military coup backed by the US. The constitution was suspended, the legislature dismissed, and the supreme court shuttered.

Fortunately for democracy in Venezuela, the coup lasted less than three days. The people spontaneously took to the streets and restored their elected government. Machado, who now incredulously claims she signed the coup government’s founding decree mistakenly, was afforded amnesty.

Machado was subsequently banned from running from public office after she served as the diplomatic representative for Panama in order to testify against her own country. She was also implicated in tax evasion and fraud along with coup attempts. In addition, the hard-rightist had called for a military intervention by the US and for harsh economic coercive measures.

Machado had adamantly refused to contest her electoral ineligibility before the Venezuelan supreme court. But when Washington instructed her to go before the tribunal, she obediently complied. That Machado’s appeal would be denied was “obvious” even to Luis Vicente LeĆ³n, president of the pro-opposition Venezuelan polling company Datanalisis. He explained: “If we are honest, the US government knew full well this was going to happen.”

The New York Times described the supreme court’s decision to uphold her ban as “a crippling blow to prospects for credible elections…in exchange for the lifting of crippling US economic sanctions.” In other words, the Venezuelans did not bow to blackmail and allow a criminal to run for public office.

Venezuelan opposition

Under-reported is how Machado became the unofficially designated opposition candidate according to the corporate press. Normally in Venezuela opposition presidential primaries are run by the national election authorities, as they are in the US. Machado, however, engineered the primary election to be run privately.

The primaries were riddled with irregularities, and other opposition leaders are livid with Machado. Not only did her political alliance (Plataforma Unitaria) omit some opposition parties from the primaries, but voting records were destroyed after the election. This prevented any accounting when some members of her own coalition claimed fraud. Further, the administration of the opposition primary involved SĆŗmate. Machado was the founder and first president of this private non-governmental organization, a recipient of NED funds. 

The opposition has lost credibility with even conservative political commentators in the US such as Ariel Cohen, associated with the Atlantic Council and the Heritage Foundation. He describes the US seizure of the Venezuelan-owned oil subsidiary Citgo as part of its “asphyxiation tactics.” Handed over to the opposition, they ran Citgo to the ground and used their country’s assets for personal gain.

Sanctions “don’t work” 

Washington has a problem. Geoff Ramsey with the Atlantic Council revealingly laments: “How do you threaten a regime that’s endured years of crippling sanctions, multiple coup attempts and a failed mercenary invasion?” The unfortunate Yankee solution is more of what Forbes calls “Washington DC’s heavy-handed response” knowingly causing “enormous” human suffering. 

As a recent US Congressional Research Service report admitted, the US sanctions “failed” in their implicit goal of regime change but have exacerbated an economic crisis that “has prompted 7.7 million Venezuelans to flee.” The Hill ran an opinion piece stating that “sanctions are still hurting everyday Venezuelans – and fueling migration.”

Some Congressional Democrats have called for ending US sanctions. Domestic corporations, such as Chevron, have been clamoring to reopen the Venezuelan market. The UN has roundly condemned sanctions, which they call “unilateral coercive economic measures.” Mexico insists that Biden address the root causes of migration. Other governments in Latin America and beyond are pressuring the US to lift sanctions. Meanwhile, experts in international human rights law censure Washington for illegal collective punishment.

Arguably, the US economy would benefit more by promoting commerce with some 40 sanctioned countries than from restricting trade. And the surest remedy for the immigration crisis on the country’s southern border is to end the sanctions, which are producing conditions that have compelled so many to leave their homes. Even US mainstream media has nearly universally concluded that sanctions “don’t work.”

The underlying purpose of sanctions on Venezuela 

If sanctions “don’t work,” if they are economically counterproductive, and if they cause so much suffering and ill will, why impose them? The regrettable answer is that sanctions do “work” for the purposes of the US empire.

In 2015 President Obama declared a “national emergency.” Venezuela, he claimed, posed an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the national security of the US. That was not fake news. The imperial hegemon recognizes the “threat of a good example” posed by a country such as Venezuela. As Ricardo Vaz of Venezuelanalysis observed, Venezuela is “a beacon of hope for the Global South, and Latin America in particular, an affront to US hegemony in its own ‘backyard.’”

Washington’s self-proclaimed “rules-based order” is threatened, especially with the emergence of China as a major world economic power. In the imperial worldview, it is better to have failed states like Libya and Afghanistan than the anathema of a sovereign and socialist Venezuela.

The US-imposed misery on Venezuela is used by Washington as a cautionary warning of the consequences for a sovereign project in defiance of Yankee domination.

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

 

Unaccountable Hackers: The CIA, Vengeance, and Joshua Schulte


The release of the Vault 7 files in the spring of 2017 in a series of 26 disclosures, detailing the hacking tools of the US Central Intelligence Agency, was one of the more impressive achievements of the WikiLeaks publishing organisation.  As WikiLeaks stated at the time, the hacking component of the agency’s operations had become so sizeable it began to dwarf the operations of the National Security Agency.  “The CIA had created, in effect, its ‘own NSA’ with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capabilities of a rival agency could be justified.”

The publication ruffled feathers, enraged officials, and stirred the blood of those working in the intelligence community bothered by this “digital Pearl Harbor”.  The exercise involved the pilfering of 180 gigabytes of information and constituted, according to the agency, “the largest data loss in CIA history”.

The CIA’s WikiLeaks Task Force was charged with investigating the incident and submitted its findings to the director in October 2017.  Pompeo should have been grudgingly grateful – WikiLeaks had given the organisation a good excuse for cleaning the cobwebs and removing the creases.  The report, for instance, found that the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI) had placed greater emphasis on the building of “cyber weapons at the expense of securing their own systems.  Day-to-day security practices had become woefully lax.”  The cyber weapons were also “not compartmented”, passwords at various administrator levels were shared “and historical data was available to users indefinitely.”  In what reads like a vote for the dull and the tedious, the report took issue with “a culture that evolved over years that too often prioritized creativity and collaboration at the expense of security.”

The individual responsible for taking the loot to WikiLeaks was the fractious Joshua Schulte, who worked at the CCI as a software developer and had himself created a number of hacking tools.  On February 1, he was sentenced in the New York federal court to 40 years in prison.  His list of previous convictions was encyclopaedically colourful: espionage, computer hacking, contempt of court, making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and child pornography.

At the sentencing hearing, Judge Jesse M. Furman, in that time honoured tradition of judicial vagueness, remarked that, “We will likely never know the full extent of the damage, but I have no doubt it was massive.”  This was a silly claim, given that the leaks were, as Axios reported, “largely inconsequential, with most being instruction manuals for old hacking tools”.

The prosecution was similarly imprecise (and disingenuous), as they tend to be when measuring the extent national security is supposedly impaired by information disclosures.  “He caused untold damage to our national security in his quest for revenge against the CIA for its response to Schulte’s security breaches while employed there,” stated the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams.  Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen further added that Schulte had “directly risked the lives of CIA personnel, persisting in his efforts even after his arrest.”

In comments made to the court prior to the sentencing, Schulte touched on the wonderful penal conditions that mark the US penitentiary system.  He had, for instance, been denied hot water.  He had been extensively exposed to artificial light and constant noise.

He also had – and here, British judges should take note regarding Assange’s own arguments against extradition to the US – been deceived by the prosecutors in a plea deal offer that would have seen him sentenced to 10 years in prison.  Instead, he got an additional three decades.  “This is not justice the government seeks,” Schulte accurately observed, “but vengeance.”

Schulte proved an important figure in the roistering annals of WikiLeaks.  It was his disclosures that signalled the cold and vicious turn in US policy in targeting Assange.  The release of the Vault 7 files sent the then director, Mike Pompeo, into a rage.  The 2021 Yahoo! report, which famously noted various opinions within the intelligence community on what could be done about the Australian publisher, reports that change of approach.  According to one former Trump national security official, the director and CIA officials “were completely detached from reality because they were so detached about Vault 7.”

Soon, Pompeo was publicly tarring WikiLeaks while privately pondering options to kidnap or assassinate Assange.  In April 2017, in a speech given to the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington, the director hoisted the black flag.  “WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service and has encouraged its followers to find jobs at the CIA in order to obtain intelligence.”  Nonsensically, Pompeo imbues the publishing organisation with dictatorial and mesmeric qualities.  “It directed Chelsea Manning in her theft of specific secret information.”  (No, it did not.)  “And it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States while seeking support from anti-democratic countries and organizations.”  Given the concentration of unstable power at the heart of Washington, and its imperial pretences, Pompeo can hardly be surprised.

The speech is worthy of close analysis.  It declares, inevitably, that the CIA is a noble organisation incapable of abuse, a saintly enterprise of patriots who should be treated as such.  It takes issue with those who give the game away.  And, more fundamentally, it refuses to have any truck with a publisher who aids that cause.

Pompeo, for instance, dismissed Assange’s own justifications for publishing national security material as “sophistry”.  He could hardly be compared to Thomas Jefferson or “the Pulitzer Prize-winning work of legitimate news organizations such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.”

Dangerously, the strategy behind the bluster becomes clear, and would find itself gorily displayed in the indictment against Assange.  It picks and chooses between publishers as sacred and profane, the ennobled and the condemned.  It ignores the pointed fact that national security information is almost always pilfered and leaked, sometimes patriotically, sometimes selfishly.  Punish Assange, and you are opening the door to punishing any news outlet of any stripe operating anywhere.  And that, fundamentally, is the point.FacebookTwitter

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

 

Deplorable: Plans to Expand US Drone Atrocities in West Africa


The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) and the U.S. Out of Africa Network (USOAN) opposes in the strongest terms the U.S. plans, in collusion with West Africa’s comprador class, to further violate Africa’s sovereignty and right to self determination in the form of three new military drone bases in Ghana, Ivory Coast and Benin. Further, we condemn the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) for not publicly renouncing this proposal in particular, and the existence of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) in general. Their silence around this development confirms their complicity and betrayal of Pan-Africanism and the interests of the African masses struggling against the ravages of neo-colonialism.

More U.S. drone bases in Africa spell more violence, vicious anonymity, and “collateral damage” from drone assassinations. It spells enhanced surveillance capabilities for imperialism to use against any threat to the neocolonial order. U.S. maneuvering to expand its already massive military drone operations is consistent with the U.S. incessant drive to wage war globally and its militarization of the planet. U.S. drone and air strikes in Africa have primarily been in Libya and Somalia with the numbers of confirmed civilian deaths from drones as high as 3,200 in these two countries, and studies have shown these conditions “have inadvertently aided the growth of terrorist groups in the region.” This is what the U.S. proposes now for West Africa.

There are clear and disturbing geostrategic implications regarding the countries they have chosen for these U.S. drone bases. The bases will form a border along the three countries of the Alliance of Sahel States – Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger – countries which have been adopting an anti-imperialist disposition. In fact, Burkina Faso’s entire southern flank would be surrounded by these U.S. drone bases. The last two administrations as well as members of Congress have clearly stated in policy declarations and legislation that the U.S.’ primary objective in Africa is to counteract the presence and influence of China and Russia in order to maintain its full spectrum dominance of all regions of the world. This is also consistent with the Global Fragility Act that states the Biden administration’s first sites of focus would be Haiti, Libya, and “West African coastal states,” where the U.S. seeks to place the drone bases.

The bases will not be there to end so-called terrorism of extremists in Africa; they will be there for the U.S. to terrorize the region. It is folly to believe that the settler criminals who rule the U.S. state, who can justify the genocidal assault on Gaza, and who systematically murder, sanction, and attack nations globally to maintain white supremacy and global capitalism, are spending hundreds of millions to “fight terrorism” in Africa.

Rather than “an urgent effort to stop the spread of al Qaeda and Islamic State in the region,” according to American and African officials, the USOAN contends that this is more likely a contingency plan to preserve drone capabilities in the event of losing their $110 million U.S. drone base in Agadez, Niger. Niger has also recently temporarily suspended the granting of new mining licenses and ordered an audit of the sector, a move that would invariably raise the eyebrows of the U.S.-EU-NATO axis of domination, concerned over the future of exploitative access to the mineral resources there, such as uranium. Resource sovereignty runs counter to the true colonialist objectives of U.S. foreign policy.

BAP and the USOAN call on all who support African sovereignty to denounce the U.S.’ latest imperialist moves in Western Africa as well as the neocolonial African governments and collaborators like the Ghanaian president Nana Akufo-Addo who, face-to-face with U.S. Secretary Antony Blinken, openly begged for the U.S. to violate the sovereignty of the countries in the Alliance of Sahel States.

BAP and the USOAN will continue to expose the puppets of neocolonialism in Africa and the misleaders masquerading as Black representatives in the legislative branches of the U.S. setter state. We maintain that the U.S. and its Western Europe progenitors are the root cause and primary sustenance for the poverty, displacement, despair, and violence in Africa, born from decades of colonialist plunder.

#ShutDownAFRICOM!

#USOutofAfrica!


The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) seeks to recapture and redevelop the historic anti-war, anti-imperialist, and pro-peace positions of the radical black movement. Read other articles by Black Alliance for Peace, or visit Black Alliance for Peace's website.