Tuesday, June 11, 2024


“For Us Cubans, Africa is Our Heart, Our Blood”
June 4, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Image by Tumpatumcla~commonswiki, Creative Commons 4.0


Born into a modest family in Sagua la Grande in 1937, Víctor Dreke experienced first-hand the realities of pre-revolutionary Cuba, marked by poverty, racism and discrimination of all kinds. He frequented working-class circles, particularly the sugar industry, which was very present in his native region, and identified with their demands for social justice. At the same time, he became his school’s student representative, voicing the concerns of his generation.

On March 10, 1952, he had just turned fifteen when General Fulgencio Batista orchestrated a coup d’état that shattered the constitutional order and installed a military dictatorship that would last six long years. He discovered the figure of Fidel Castro following the attack on the Moncada barracks in Santiago de Cuba on July 26, 1953, and immediately identified with his cause, defended in his plea/recquisitory known as “History will acquit me”.

With the outbreak of the armed struggle in the Sierra Maestra on December 2, 1956, following the landing of revolutionaries on the island, Víctor Dreke also went underground in the central region of the country. There he met Che Guevara and took part in the final battle at Santa Clara in December 1958.

With the advent of the Cuban Revolution on January 1, 1959, Víctor Dreke was appointed prosecutor of the Revolutionary Tribunals charged with judging the blood crimes committed by the former regime. He also took part in the fight against armed counter-revolutionary groups in the Sierra del Escambray, and confronted the U.S.-organized invasion of the Bay of Pigs.

In 1965, he was asked by senior government officials to organize a group of volunteer fighters to help the guerrillas in the Congo, in the company of Che Guevara. He also led various internationalist missions to Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde at the request of Amilcar Cabral, who was then waging a war of national liberation against Portuguese colonialism. Today, as President of the Cuba-Africa Friendship Association, Víctor Dreke looks back on his history and discusses the links between the Caribbean island and the cradle of humanity.

Salim Lamrani: What memories do you have of your childhood and youth?

Víctor Dreke: I was born on March 10, 1937 in a town called Sagua la Grande in the former province of Las Villas, now called Villa Clara. It was a prosperous area at the time. I’m the youngest of a blended family.

My family was called Castillo Dreke, which was my father’s name. My mother Catalina Mora came from a village called Sierra Morena, near Sagua la Grande. I could have been named Castillo, as one of my brothers was, but my father chose to give me the name Dreke.

I must say that I was a lucky child in the midst of the misery that afflicted the country at the time. My mother Catalina, who gave birth to me, and my adoptive mother Felicia, who raised me, took great care of me. My family was poor, and we lived in a small house with a guano roof on Calle Agramonte no. 30 in Sagua la Grande. I wasn’t a bad kid and I must say I was well educated. I also remember that when I visited my friends at lunchtime and was asked if I’d eaten, I was taught to always answer the same thing – that I’d already eaten and wasn’t hungry, even if it wasn’t true. That was our upbringing.

Like all children my age, I made a few mistakes, but I wasn’t naughty. My full name is Victor Emilio and my childhood friends called me “Emilito”. If I compare myself with today’s kids, I was a kid without much education. I went to a private school that had to be paid for, run by nuns, and I remember that we had to pray on Fridays. However, for family reasons, I wasn’t baptized until I was an adult. I wasn’t a bad student, but I wasn’t brilliant.

SL: Do you remember Fulgencio Batista’s coup d’état on March 10, 1952?

VD: I remember it perfectly, because it was my birthday, my 15th. With a group of young people, we went out into the streets to demonstrate against the coup. We were arrested by the police, who took us to the station before releasing us. I can say that my commitment as an aspiring revolutionary began at that precise date.

My father would go out of his way to explain to me the situation the country was in. He was sympathetic to the Authentic Party of Ramón Grau San Martín and Carlos Prío Socarrás, without being very political. He had previously been linked to the Liberal Party. He was a fish salesman and thought that all politicians were the same, prolix when it came to making electoral promises, but far less inspired when it came to adopting measures for the common good. My older brother Mario was a militant of Eduardo Chibás’ Orthodox Party.

As for me, I didn’t belong to any party. I wasn’t a Marxist. In fact, at the time, I’d heard nothing but negative things about communism. I took part in workers’ strikes in the sugar industry. There were a lot of sugar factories in the province. I was also a student representative at the José Marti Boys’ High School in Sagua la Grande. So, I became politicized in this way, militating with workers and students. I was resolutely opposed to the dictatorship, which murdered opponents and plunged the people into untold misery. I remember the police telling us that black people couldn’t be revolutionaries. I used to tremble with indignation.

SL: How did racism manifest itself in Cuba under Batista’s military regime?

VR: We were discriminated against because of our skin color. We had fewer rights. The same applied to women in relation to men: they suffered the oppression of a patriarchal society.

I became a revolutionary for three fundamental reasons. Firstly, because I was poor and had to fight to provide for my basic needs. Secondly, because I was young, because youth is always rebellious. Finally, because I was black and suffered from racism.

SL: What do you remember of the attack on the Moncada barracks by Fidel Castro and his companions on July 26, 1953?

VD: My revolutionary commitment predates the emergence of Fidel Castro’s July 26 Movement. We were very attached to the figure and ideals of Antonio Guiteras, who had been the soul of the 1933 Revolution and who had been assassinated by Batista. We had a movement called Acción Guiteras and we organized a ceremony in his honor every May 8, the day of his death. Each time, we were repressed by the police and pelted with stones. In those days, my fervor was called Guiteras. We were also followers of Rafael García Bárcena, a philosophy professor opposed to Batista who had founded the Movimiento Nacional Revolucionario.

I didn’t know Fidel. I found out about him during the attack on the Moncada barracks. Fidel’s revolutionary action took place in the centenary year of the birth of José Marti, our national hero. I remember his plea “History will acquit me”, in which he denounced the situation of the country, racial discrimination, illiteracy, misery and injustice of all kinds. I was deeply moved by his undertaking, in which he risked his own life, and by his speech, which was both a plea for his revolutionary action and an indictment of the Batista dictatorship. He pledged to redress all injustices once the Revolution was victorious. I immediately identified with his line. Our generation had finally found its leader.

SL: When did you decide to join the armed struggle after Fidel Castro landed on the island in December 1956?

VD: Within the workers’ movement, there was a tendency in favor of armed struggle led by Victor Bordón Machado, who would later become Commander. I joined this group, which was more in line with my sensibility, and was appointed head of “Action and Sabotage” for the July 26 Movement, initially in 1957, in the Santa Clara area of Escambray. We had few weapons and had to obtain them from the enemy.

Later, as a student, I joined the Directorio Revolucionario and operated in the capital. There were two aspects to the Directorio’s involvement: the clandestine struggle in the cities and the armed struggle in the Sierra.

It should be remembered that most of the revolutionaries, starting with Fidel Castro, came from the university, which was the epicenter of the emancipatory process. There was a subsequent rapprochement between the July 26 Movement and the Directorio. At the end of the war, I was no longer a member of the Directorio but a member of the Revolution.

SL: When did you first meet Che Guevara?

VD: I met Che in October 1958, when he arrived in Escambray. He had come to visit us at the Directorio Headquarters to see Faure Chomón, our commander. He arrived with his legendary column of guerrillas, who were respected by all because they had crossed the whole island on foot at the cost of a titanic effort, following Fidel’s directives.

I remember that, in anticipation of Che’s arrival, we attacked two places: Fomento and Placeta. It was a Sunday in torrential rain. Our aim was to mobilize the army’s attention so that the column could arrive safely in Escambray. I was wounded at Placetas. Our contribution was modest and symbolic, but it was enough to enable Che to carry out his mission.

Che had made a great impression on me. He arrived at the camp where I was, wounded, and I remember he asked me if he could use the typewriter. It made a big impression on us, because our orders were to be at Che’s service. He was very courteous. In Santa Clara, people didn’t really know who this Argentinian was who had come to fight for our cause. We were reliving the story of Máximo Gomez, the Dominican who fought alongside us in the Second War of Independence. It was quite a symbol.

SL: When the Revolution triumphed in 1959, you were appointed prosecutor of the Revolutionary Courts. What was the aim of these institutions, which dispensed expeditious justice?

VD: The aim was to try people who had committed crimes. During the Batista dictatorship, 20,000 Cubans were murdered, often in atrocious conditions, by the tyranny’s henchmen. Our great concern was that the families and friends of these people cowardly murdered, and the relatives of the women who had been raped, should see justice done themselves. We didn’t want the people to lynch these individuals in the streets. There were only two options: either create the revolutionary courts and apply the law, or let the people take care of the criminals. We had experience of what had happened elsewhere, notably in Europe at the end of the Second World War, and we didn’t want extra-judicial executions.

One of the characteristics of our Revolution is that there were no massacres when the military regime fell. There was no revenge. Fidel was very clear on this point, asking the people to trust the courts to deliver justice.

As far as I’m concerned, after taking part in the fighting that led to the capture of Santa Clara, as leader of Squadron 31, I went to Havana to see my family. The Revolution then sought my help as prosecutor for the newly-created Revolutionary Courts. I returned to Santa Clara where, in addition to my role as prosecutor, I was a member of the High Council responsible for analyzing all decisions taken by the Revolutionary Courts, in order to avoid errors and unnecessary sentences. We were particularly attentive to the dignity of the accused. They had the right to a lawyer. They were never mistreated, and we allowed family visits. It wasn’t easy to see a little girl visit her father who had been sentenced to death. But the law had to be applied. We remembered the crimes committed by these same people.

SL: You took part in the fight against the counter-revolutionary groups that sprang up, particularly in the Escambray mountains, following the advent of the Revolution. How did the fight against these individuals unfold?

VD: As early as 1959, there were armed groups supported by the United States who were conspiring against the Revolution. It’s important to remember that the Eisenhower administration supported Batista right up to the very end, by sending him arms. In Escambray, there were armed groups attacking peasants, most of whom were in favor of the Revolution, and teachers involved in the literacy campaign. These men were preparing the ground for the coming invasion. Their aim was to create a bridgehead. The strategic plan was to organize an internal uprising during a future landing to support the invaders. You can’t separate Playa Girón, or the Bay of Pigs, from the Escambray counter-revolutionary struggle.

Fidel Castro, our Commander-in-Chief, therefore took the decision to counter-attack and liquidate these Yankee government-backed groups, which were mainly located in Escambray, but also in the Eastern Province and Pinar del Río. We carried out a major sweep and neutralized most of these groups before the invasion of April 1961. Our State Security apparatus had infiltrated these bandit groups. The struggle lasted until 1965.

SL: In April 1961, the United States and the CIA orchestrated the Bay of Pigs invasion. You personally took part in the fighting. Can you tell us about these events?

VD: Before the invasion of April 1961, there had been sabotage, acts of terrorism such as the explosion of the La Coubre boat in March 1960, which cost the lives of nearly a hundred people, and aerial bombardments from Florida, etc.

On the day of the invasion, I was driving towards Santiago de Cuba. When I arrived in Santa Clara at the headquarters of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, everyone was on a war footing and I was informed that an invasion had taken place: “The Americans have landed!” That was the rumor going around the island at the time. We later learned that they were Cuban renegades in the pay of the United States, not conventional troops. I asked where the landing had taken place and was told “Playa Girón”. I had absolutely no idea of the place. I’d never been there.

I joined the platoon and we headed for Girón. We entered through Yaguaramas. From the very first moments of the invasion, Fidel was in the front line of the fighting. It gave us moral strength. He appeared with his rifle on his shoulder, like all the fighters, and didn’t just give a speech in Havana’s Revolution Square. He was accompanied by other commanders. All the inhabitants of the area rose up against the invaders, while the United States thought that the people would turn against the revolutionary government. Several battalions that had been fighting the bandits in Escambray joined the struggle. In less than 72 hours, the mercenaries were crushed by the people in arms.

SL: You took part in Che Guevara’s guerrilla war in the Congo. How did this project come about?

VD: I had the historic opportunity to take part in guerrilla warfare alongside Che in Africa, in Congo Kinshasa. Joseph Désiré Kabila’s Mouvement de Libération had asked for our help, following the assassination of Patrice Lumumba by the United States and Belgium. He needed to train his staff and send some thirty officers to us for military training. Fidel agreed, but suggested that the Cubans go directly to the area to train the militants under real conditions, while taking part in the fighting against the Mobutu regime. It was the best thing to do for us and for them.

When we arrived in the Congo, we realized that Fidel was right. The geographical characteristics of the country were different from those of Cuba. We realized this during the preparation stage. In Cuba, for example, you could climb a tree to look into the distance and watch for enemy troop movements. In the Congo, this was impossible because of the dense vegetation. It was impossible to see into the distance. We discovered these specificities on the spot.

SL: What was the selection process like?

VD: There were 130 advisors in all. All were volunteers. Fidel, Raúl, Commandant Piñeros and Osmany Cienfuegos put me in charge of preparing the group for departure. My nom de guerre was Roberto for the Cubans. Nobody knew that Che was going to join the group, not even me. I remember that Osmany Cienfuegos came to see me with several photos of Che shaved and made-up by our specialists. He looked nothing like the Che I knew. Osmany said to me: “This is the Commander Ramón you know”. I told him I’d never seen him before in my life. All the commanders knew each other. I was a commander myself. We met regularly for various tasks.

One day, while I was in camp, I was picked up and we went to a house where there were various comrades-in-arms. I was sitting at the table when I saw Osmany approaching with the gentleman in the photo. I stood up, as my father had taught me. He always told me: “You must always stand up to greet people if they have good intentions, and to be able to defend yourself if they approach with hostile intentions”. So, I greeted Commander Ramon, who had a cigar in his mouth. Osmany insisted: “I’m telling you, you know him”. I racked my brains trying to remember who this individual was, without success. Then “Ramon” spoke up and said “Osmany, stop bothering Dreke”. It was only then that I recognized Che.

SL: How did the operations in the Congo go? Che spoke of failure.

VD: The great difficulty we faced was the lack of unity among the country’s revolutionary forces. There were many divisions between the different factions. We decided to form a first company under Tamayo’s leadership, which left for several weeks to carry out combat actions. We then formed a second column under my command. But there were too many difficulties. When we arrived, the enemy had already infiltrated the troops, and the idea was already spreading of seeking a peaceful settlement and abandoning the path of arms.

I don’t share Che’s opinion. For me, the Congo operation was not a failure. We had to adapt to the realities of the country and follow the orders of the Congolese chiefs. Che was not the guerrilla leader. He had to follow the directives of the local leaders. Che was the leader of the Cuban internationalist group. We had no decision-making power. We thought that the Congolese leaders should act as Fidel and Raul had done, with rifle on shoulder, in combat with the troops. In our military doctrine, in our combat philosophy, the leader is always with his troops, on the front line, facing danger and setting an example. But this was not the case in the Congo. Kabila had a different vision of things. Fidel had insisted that we follow the directives of the Congolese and never impose our point of view. We expressed our opinion and let the country’s leaders make the decisions.

Far from being a failure, the Congo operation helped other peoples in struggle to understand how to wage war against colonialism, and what mistakes not to make, whether in Angola or Guinea-Bissau. Our attitude was exemplary, and six of our comrades fell fighting in the Congo. It was an example that will go down in history, particularly in African history. Che is part of African history.

The Congo venture was not a failure. We were able to convince our African brothers that we could conquer freedom through arms.

SL: What does the figure of Che mean to you and to the Cuban people?

VD: Che was a noble soul. We often talk about the guerrilla, but first and foremost he was a noble soul. He was a man of great generosity. You don’t give up what’s dearest to you – your family, your country, your friends, your well-being – if you’re not made of greatness. He was a just man, energetic, firm, an example, who never mistreated anyone, least of all prisoners.

The Cuban people venerate Che even more than when he was alive. Even young people, who never knew him, have great respect for his figure. When you mention his name, you have to discover yourself, in memory of his history and his sacrifice for the cause of the humble.

SL: After the Congo, you headed the military mission to Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde, where Amilcar Cabral led the armed struggle against Portuguese colonialism. Tell us about that experience.

VD: After the Congo, we lent our support to the national liberation struggle of the people of Guinea Bissau. Sékou Touré, the first President of Guinea, played an important role in the decolonization of Africa. He gave us great support during our missions on the continent. We trained the militia in Conakry to prevent a coup d’état against Touré by the Portuguese. Touré was courageous and supportive of Amilcar Cabral.

In Guinea Bissau, the situation was different from that in Congo. After the 1966 Tricontinental Conference in Havana, Amilcar Cabral asked for our help and technical support. He didn’t want the Cubans to take part in the fighting.

Amilcar Cabral was one of the most clear-sighted revolutionary leaders of his time, as demonstrated at the Tricontinental Conference, where he spoke out in favor of armed struggle. He had a solid intellectual training. Jorge Risquet, our man in Africa, had met him in Congo Brazzaville and was impressed by his vision. Risquet offered him men, but Amilcar refused, stressing that he only needed trainers and advisers, as it was up to the Guineans themselves to liberate their own country. “We must make our own revolution”, he said. He wanted to prepare the country’s future by training his people to assume the responsibilities of independence. Amilcar had achieved the feat of uniting his people under the flag of independence, no easy feat, in both Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde, two distinct and non-bordering territories almost 1,000 kilometers apart. His father was Cape Verdean and his mother Guinean. Unfortunately, Amilcar Cabral was assassinated by traitors in the pay of Lisbon, a few months before his homeland gained independence.

SL: What motivates an internationalist to carry out a mission far from his native land, with all the sacrifices that entails?

VD: First and foremost, it’s a call from the heart. When we see the misery, oppression and poverty that strike the most vulnerable, we can’t remain insensitive. Deep down, we feel a moral imperative to act to help these peoples in their struggle for dignity. That’s why, in addition to my military missions, I ran an internationalist school in Cuba. Later, I led construction projects in Africa, in Guinea Bissau, Cape Verde, Mozambique and Angola.

It must be stressed that we have always intervened at the request of the people. We have never imposed our presence on anyone. We went to the Congo at the request of Kabila’s revolutionaries and left the country when they considered that our mission had come to an end. It’s important to remember this. Che did not leave the Congo of his own accord. He didn’t abandon the National Liberation Movement. We left because Kabila asked us to leave the country.

SL: Did you visit Algeria during this period?

VD: I went to Algiers in 1967 and even met President Houari Boumediene. It was our first visit since 1965 and Ben Bella’s departure from power. I remember that Boumediene asked me to convey a message of solidarity to Fidel. We’ve always had great relations with Algeria, especially with Ben Bella. We have great respect for the Algerians. Unity between Cuba and Algeria has been very strong. We can’t forget the ties, particularly during the early years of the Cuban Revolution and the first years of Algerian independence. The 1960s were revolutionary and glorious.

SL: What did you do when you returned to Cuba, and what is your position today?

VD: I joined the Armed Forces in various units. I was head of construction. I founded the Juvenile Labor Army in the eastern region, which was in charge of agricultural production, particularly for crops such as sugar cane and coffee. I was also Head of the Central Political Directorate of the Armed Forces.

Today, I’m President of the Cuba-Africa Friendship Association. For us Cubans, Africa is the symbol of the resistance of a people, a continent, that has been mistreated, bullied and resisted. Today, the peoples of Africa are saying “no” to the powerful, which wasn’t obvious back then, with the exception of a few leaders like Sékou Touré or Ahmed Ben Bella. Our people are descended from enslaved Africans, torn from their homeland to be exploited in America. Our culture is African. How many Africans have died in Cuba? You can’t separate Cuba from Africa. For us Cubans, Africa is our heart, our blood.

SL: Last question: what does Fidel Castro mean to Cubans?

VD: I’ve had two fathers in my life: Dreke Castillo and Fidel Castro. That’s what Fidel means to me. He taught me to have a line of conduct, honor and principles. He taught me that you always have to get up after you’ve fallen. That’s why we’ve been resisting the criminal economic blockade imposed on us by the United States for decades. Fidel taught us to stand our ground when the going gets tough, and to never give up under any circumstances. For this, we can count on the support of the peoples of Africa and beyond.

US-Backed Ukrainian Publication Releases New ‘Enemies List’

The US government-affiliated Ukrainian web publication “Data Journalism Agency” (TEXTY) has just released a report attacking hundreds of prominent American individuals and organizations as enemies for not supporting sending more US money and weapons to Ukraine.

The report, titled “Roller Coaster: From Trumpists to Communists. The forces in the U.S. impeding aid to Ukraine and how they do it,” intends to smear American politicians, journalists, and social media influencers as tools of Russia, writing:

Most of the people in our study do not have direct, proven ties to the Russian government or propagandists. However, the arguments they use to urge authorities to distance themselves from Ukraine echo key messages of Russian propaganda aimed at depriving Ukrainians of the ability to defend themselves with Western weapons and funds. (emphasis added)

Although the “enemies list” purports to correct disinformation about Ukraine spread by those on its list, the report itself is full of crude disinformation. For example this bit:

Even long-debunked myths continue to surface, such as claims of Nazi dominance and American Biolabs in Ukraine and the portrayal of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity as a coup.

The organization’s assertion that these claims are “long-debunked” may be wishful thinking, but back on planet reality even mainstream, pro-Ukraine media sites in the US wring their hands over the disturbing, extremist images coming out of the country. For example, NBC News wrote that, “Ukraine’s Nazi problem is real, even if Putin’s ‘denazification’ claim isn’t.” Newsweek wondered, “Why Have So Many Neo-Nazis Rallied to Ukraine’s Cause?” Even before the current conflict, mainstream pro-Ukraine publications such as Reuters worried in 2918 about “Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem.”

As to the biolabs, none other than Mother of the Maidan Victoria Nuland admitted in a US Senate hearing that there were biolabs in Ukraine. Ah, but one may counter that these were not “American biolabs.” In fact with the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop now absolutely confirmed during his trial, a report by the New York Post two years ago based on the laptop also must be considered accurate. According to the article, “Russia’s assertion that President Biden’s son Hunter was ‘financing… biological laboratories in Ukraine’ was based in truth, according to e-mails reviewed by The Post.”

And on whether the Maidan events of 2014 were a “Revolution of Dignity” or a coup, we again only need turn to Victoria Nuland’s infamous phone call with US Ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, for all the evidence needed that the US was micromanaging the removal of an elected leader and replacing him with hand-picked US puppets.

The report also includes such prominent American politicians and journalists as Sen. JD Vance, Sen. Rand Paul, Rep. Matt Gaetz, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Rep. Jim Jordan, and Col. Douglas Macgregor.

Even our friends at Antiwar.com… and your own correspondent (!) find ourselves appearing on the Ukrainian “enemies list”:

As the report states:

There are 391 individuals and 76 organizations in our list. These include politicians, political movements and groups, media and journalists, experts, and think tanks (some individuals appear in multiple categories).

Perhaps what is most shocking about this attack on American citizens is the fact that the Data Journalism Agency (TEXTY) has a long affiliation with the US Government itself! In fact, the founder of the publication Anatoly Bondarenko appears prominently on a US Government website as a participant in the US State Department’s “TechCamp” project.

The Data Journalism Agency (TEXTY) is listed as an “Implementing Partner” of the US Agency for International Development’s Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration and Services/ TAPAS Project.

The Ukrainians seemingly love to make lists of their “enemies.” One of their most notorious of these is the infamous “kill list” put out by the Mirotvorets Center in Kiev. From that list several have already been murdered by Ukraine, including prominent Russian journalist Daria Dugina.

One wonders how, for example, former US President Donald Trump and dozens of members of the US Congress will react when they hear that US tax dollars are being sent to Ukraine for US-backed Ukrainian organizations to make “hate lists” and “kill lists” of patriotic Americans like themselves.

Daniel McAdams is Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and co-Producer/co-Host, Ron Paul Liberty Report. Daniel served as the foreign affairs, civil liberties, and defense/intel policy advisor to U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, MD (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer. Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.


How the US is Scrambling to Stop Ukraine Peace Plan by China & Brazil w/ Vijay Prashad

June 5, 2024
Source: BreakThrough News

While world leaders prepare to convene in Switzerland for a “peace summit” ostensibly called to advance peace in Ukraine despite excluding Russia from the meeting, Brazil and China have proposed an alternative. Both countries released a joint statement calling for an international peace conference with equal participation from both Russia and Ukraine. Vijay Prashad, the Executive Director of the Tricontinental Institute, calls the Switzerland summit a “facade” and explains how the US and NATO are thwarting any real chances for peace.ussia and Ukraine. Vijay Prashad, the Executive Director of the Tricontinental Institute, calls the Switzerland summit a “facade” and explains how the US and NATO are thwarting any real chances for peace.



Zelensky’s Peace Summit Is Just an Echo Chamber

The Ukrainian President will use his platform in Switzerland to hector his supporters to send more weapons and money to Kyiv

 Posted on

In one of his more bizarre outbursts, Volodymir Zelensky, red of face, jabbing his finger, recently accused China of being “an instrument in the hands of Putin”. He said this at the recent Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore as part of a world tour, in which he is encouraging participation at what Ukraine calls the Global Peace Summit.  This will take place in Switzerland from 15-16 June, and China has said it will not attend. Zelensky was treading a now well-worn path in which he and other senior Ukrainian figures insult countries that don’t bend to Ukraine’s demands for support in the war with Russia.

He believes that China has been discouraging countries from attending the Summit but provided no evidence of this.  Some reports suggest that up to 107 States may attend.  Although, in addition to Xi Jinping, there’s a chance Joe Biden may also not attend because of a fund-raiser in Texas.  Those who do send country delegations will undoubtedly enjoy the comforts of the Bürgenstock Resort on the shores of Lake Lucerne.  Though I suspect many will be confused about the purpose of the event.

For, despite its billing, this won’t be a Global Summit. If it was, it would undoubtedly look at the appalling situation in Israel and Gaza, and no doubt other conflict hotspots across the world too. It might consider more broadly how to strengthen the adherence of states to their obligations under the UN Charter or review progress in strengthening international peacebuilding architecture. But it won’t do those things.

Indeed, the Swiss Government, which is hosting, refers to it as the Summit on Peace in Ukraine.  Although it isn’t clear that Switzerland is in charge, as most of the press reporting about invitations appears to issue from Zelensky’s office. So this raises a diplomatic question as to the precise scope of the event itself?  Summits are normally hosted by the countries in which they take place; those countries shape the agenda and try to steer a communique that represents the best outcome of what can be agreed among the parties. In this case, there appears to be a diplomatic tug of love between the Swiss and the Ukrainians about who is running the show.

For Ukraine, the Summit is explicitly an opportunity to push Zelensky’s so-called ten-point peace formula, which is essentially the points he made in a speech at UNGA.  The formula does contain some helpful lines on nuclear safety, food and energy security and environmental protection.  But it also contains three points that are probably unachievable.  Namely, the full restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, by which it means Ukraine’s border pre-2014.  This, according to Zelensky, ‘is not up to negotiations’. Secondly, the full withdrawal of Russia’s military and, third, the establishment of a tribunal to investigate alleged Russian war crimes.

However, Ukraine’s pre-2014 border won’t be restored because the west tacitly gave up on Crimea in 2014 and focussed its energy instead on attempts to mediate a peace in the Donbass. These attempts notably included the Franco-German orchestrated Normandy format, which failed in the teeth of US and UK interference; namely, the locking in of sanctions against Russia under an unattainable notion of full Minsk II implementation. European leaders won’t commit to a plan where retaking Crimea is a key element, indeed, western war aims in Ukraine are now completely unclear, beyond helping Ukraine to hold on from further territorial losses.

Even though hardline and now sidelined figures like Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have long supported the aspiration to re-take Crimea, Ukraine does not now and will never have the military capabilities to do so.  So the second and related aspiration of the full withdrawal of Russian troops is also unrealistic, however the map is drawn. Using western weapons to strike targets in the west of Russia won’t change the balance of power on the battlefield in Ukraine which favours Russia. It also won’t decisively shift Russian public opinion away from support for Putin in this war. Rather, it will ramp up the risk of escalation by Russia, which has still not committed its forces to the fight in Ukraine, in any numbers.

While there is clearly a need to investigate allegations of war crimes committed by Russian forces during the war, the west will struggle to deliver this, not least because of the inevitable pressure to consider allegations of war crimes committed by Ukrainian forces.  And as neither Ukraine nor Russia are signatories to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, neither country would recognise the legitimacy of any investigation should it materialise.  That would render the endeavour toothless in the absence of more coercive measures to hold either country to account under international law.

So, Zelensky’s plan is nothing more than Ukraine’s maximalist position that will inevitably be bargained down in any future peace negotiations that take place with Russia.

But, and here’s the rub, Russia hasn’t been invited to the Swiss Summit.  The Swiss Government believes that Russia should be invited. The Swiss MFA website says “Switzerland is convinced that Russia must be involved in this (peace) process. A peace process without Russia is unthinkable.” But Zelensky clearly doesn’t agree. It has been an explicit aim of Ukrainian foreign policy to exclude Russia from any dialogue on a settlement of the conflict.

Indeed, this mirrors long-standing UK policy of talking about Russia and not to Russia. Rather, and in a recent visit to Madrid, Zelensky encouraged western partners to force Russia to make peace.  By that, he meant specifically to continue to provide Ukraine with offensive weapons that it can use it strike directly into Russia. Or force Russia into peace by continuing to make war, even though there is no evidence that NATO plans to join the fight in any decisive way.

And just to be clear, on the summitry itself, Zelensky’s so-called Peace Formula isn’t a communique as the Swiss are (or should be) holding the pen. The Swiss are shooting for peace. But, whenever Zelensky talks about peace, what he really means is ‘keep funding the war’.  So this creates a recipe for diplomats finessing any public statements at the end of a Summit that will, most likely, achieve nothing.

Since his unhelpful comments about China, Zelensky has also suggested that Donald Trump is a loser. The event in Switzerland is shaping up to be another echo chamber for an increasingly boorish Zelensky to publicly hector countries that don’t agree with his deluded and completely unsupportable position.  It’s time for real peace talks with Russia to begin.

Ian Proud is a former British diplomat and was the Economic Counsellor at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to 2019.  While in Russia, Ian advised UK Ministers on Russia’s political economy, and that of neighbouring former Soviet states, including Ukraine. He recently published his memoir, a Misfit in Moscow: how British diplomacy in Russia failed, 2014-2019.

Is NATO Taking Over the Pacific?
June 6, 2024
Source: World BEYOND War


Screenshot



30% of Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Naval Forces are from NATO Europe

As the United States increases its military confrontation with China through new military bases on Guam and the Philippines and more land, sea and air exercises with countries in the Asia-Pacific, the world’s largest naval war exercises are going to be held in the mid-Pacific from June 26 to August 2, 2024-and NATO is in the middle of it.

29 countries are participating in the 2024 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval war practice that will bring 40 ships, 3 submarines, over 150 aircraft, 14 national land forces and 25,000 personnel to the island of Oahu and the waters off Hawaii.
One-third of Countries in RIMPAC NOT from the Pacific, but are from NATO-Europe

Incredibly, one-third of the countries bringing ships, submarines and aircraft to the middle of the Pacific are not from Asia and the Pacific, but are from Europe–all members of the North ATLANTIC Treaty Organization (NATO).

European NATO members Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and the United Kingdom are joining the United States and Canada as the full NATO members in RIMPAC.

Along with the full members of NATO, five countries in the Pacific are NATO “partners”- Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Republic of Korea and Colombia. Each will be participating with ships, aircraft and personnel in RIMPAC.
Israel is in RIMPAC Despite its Continuing Genocide of Gaza-Perfectly Acceptable in the U.S. “Rules Based Dis-Order”

Because of its testing of US and NATO countries’ weapons on Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank, Israel has been given special status by NATO and keeps an office in NATO headquarters. The U.S. has continued its invitation to Israel to have a ship and personnel in Hawaii in RIMPAC despite the continuing Israeli genocide of Gaza with over 36,000 Palestinians killed, thousands dead in the rubble of destroyed buildings and over 100,000 injured.

Israeli impunity in its war on Palestinians is a harmful influence on militaries participating in RIMPAC and U.S. complicity in the genocide sends a signal to other countries that violation of international laws and norms are perfectly acceptable in the U.S. “rules based dis-order.”

Other countries sending ships, aircraft and military personnel to RIMPAC are Brazil, Brunei, Chile, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the Republic of the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga.

NATO countries send ships on Freedom of the Seas Navigation Operations

Over the past two years, NATO countries have sent ships to the Western Pacific in tandem with the U.S. Freedom of the Seas navigation operations in the South China sea. In 2021, British HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier strike group and an American surface action group had exercises in the South China Sea. Britain’s Ministry of Defense described the strike group as the largest concentration of maritime and air power to leave the UK in a generation.

In May 2024, Germany sent two warships to the Indo-Pacific on the freedom of navigation and free passage missions as tensions are raised with China over the status of Taiwan and over disputed South China Sea islands.

RIMPAC Destroys on the Land as well as the Sea

RIMPAC war exercises harm marine life in the Hawaiian waters. Whales, dolphins and fish are harmed by the ships and their weapons. Ships are sunk by bombs, missiles and torpedoes. Onshore animals are killed during military beach assault landings. Pohakuloa Training Area on Hawaii Island, the largest U.S. military training area in the Pacific, is bombed from aircraft some of which fly thousands of miles to drop their bombs, artillery shelling, and troop training. Human rights advocates are very concerned about human trafficking with military troops in tourist areas in Hawaii when the thousands of military arrive from around the world for RIMPAC.

Citizens in the Pacific Challenge RIMPAC and the Militarization and Contamination of the Pacific by Military Forcesl

Citizens in most of the countries in the Pacific challenge the need for the hugely expensive and destructive RIMPAC war practice. Webinars, social media, conferences/town hall meetings and protests are held from San Diego, California in the eastern Pacific, through Hawaii and Guam to the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

In Hawaii, thousands of residents of Oahu are still dealing with the 2021 effects of fuel pollution from the giant underground Red Hill fuel tanks that leaked 19,000 gallons of toxic fuel into the drinking water and the 2014 leak of 27,000 gallons of fuel. Several lawsuits against the U.S. military for the long term damage to the health of those who ingested the contaminated water are in federal courts with the military arguing that the contamination did NOT cause widespread harm as military family members were hospitalized for severe reactions to the fuel-laced drinking water.

Additionally, residents of Hawaii are demanding the return of 29,000 acres of state land that was leased to the U.S. military 65 years ago for…..$1 !!! The lease of these areas on Oahu and Big Island ends in 2029.

Communities around U.S. military bases all over the Pacific are finding that their water sources have been contaminated by the U.S. military use of fire-fighting foam that contains PFAS, the “forever chemical.” Bases on Okinawa, Japan and South Korea where the U.S. has had military bases since World War II and the Korean war have found high levels of contamination from PFAS.

Why Not Diplomacy Instead of Military Confrontation?

Instead of using diplomacy to resolve security and economic issues, RIMPAC is one of hundreds of U.S. sponsored military war exercises that fuel dangerous confrontations in Asia and the Pacific.

It’s time for U.S. citizens to demand that elected officials/politicians use nonviolent methods to resolve conflicts—but we know we face great opposition to nonviolence from the manufacturers of violence, the weapons manufacturers who fuel the campaign coffers of politicians. Until we elect those who stand for peaceful resolution of issues instead of using war, we will continue to face an ever increasingly dangerous world.

The No to NATO: Yes to Peace coalition will be in Washington, DC July 5-11, 2024 as a counterweight to the 75th Anniversary celebrations of the founding of NATO in Washington, DC. The heads of state of the 32 NATO member states and “partner” and “wanna-be” states will convene at the Washington Convention Center July 9-11.

Preceding the arrival of the heads of state, NO to NATO: YES to Peace will hold a one-day conference on July 6 with speakers from around the world. July 7 will be a rally at Lafayette Square in front the White House. July 9-11 concerned citizens will be at the Washington Convention Center.
For the Rich, One Nation Isn’t Rolling Out the Red Carpet
June 7, 2024
Source: Inequality

Image by G Cardinal, Creative Commons 2.0

Do you think the rich have life easy, do you? Just try telling that to the deep pockets who’ve spent tens of millions buying condos at 432 Park Avenue, the 11-year-old Manhattan luxury tower that once rated as our hemisphere’s tallest residence. Condo owners in the tower have had to put up with “faulty elevators, leaky plumbing, and noise issues.” They’re now suing the building’s operator.

Or consider the plight of those fabulously wealthy souls who’ve had to pay millions to move their mansions off the sandy coast of Nantucket, the one-time hippie refuge that’s become a summer “holiday hot spot for billionaires.” The problem? With climate change raising water levels, seaside homes on this Massachusetts island now have a nasty habit of “falling into the ocean.”

Or contemplate what life would be like if you were a person of means who fell in love with a mega-yacht the length of a football field and just had to be able to call that yacht your own. The purchase sets you back well over $100 million. But now you’ve just realized you’ll be annually paying at least 10 percent of that purchase price to dock and staff and fuel and insure your oh-so-cute new plaything.

The one saving grace amid challenges like these: Things could be a lot worse. You could be a rich Norwegian.

Norway’s wealthiest have faced a wealth tax ever since 1892, and, over the generations since then, no nation in the world has taken taxing wealth as seriously. But that tradition came under a direct challenge just over a decade ago, in 2013, when a new conservative government came into power. Over the next eight years, that government set about cutting Norway’s richest some slack at tax time.

This conservative government, under prime minister Erna Solberg, trimmed down Norway’s wealth tax, eliminated the nation’s levy on inheritances, and slashed the tax rate on incomes. The predictable result: Norwegians with the greatest wealth, a Statistics Norway analysis found, saw the greatest gains.

“The richest have been given 100 times more in tax cuts than the lowest-paid under Erna Solberg,” the Norwegian Labour Party’s Hadia Talik would charge. “If you want less inequality, tax policies have to be distributive. That’s the fairest way and gives a better basis for the country to create value.”

In the 2021 elections, voters would agree. The center-left government they voted into power that year moved quickly to reverse the Conservative Party’s rich-people-friendly tax cuts. By 2023, the top wealth tax rate on Norway’s largest fortunes had risen from 0.85 to 1.1 percent, just one of a number of moves that distinctly displeased many of Norway’s richest, among them the industrialist Kjell Inge Røkke. Midway through 2022, Røkke announced he was moving to Switzerland.

Other rich Norwegians would follow Røkke out. By 2022’s close, over 30 of Norway’s richest had departed, more wealthy emigres than Norway had seen over the previous 13 years combined. But that exodus would only strengthen the resolve of tax-the-rich progressive lawmakers.

“The wealthiest should contribute more to society,” noted Bjørnar Moxnes, the Red Party leader, “and it’s important that Norway doesn’t let itself be held hostage by billionaires who threaten capital flight.”

Norway’s richest, the finance ministry state secretary Erlend Trygve Grimstad would add, have always had to pay more in taxes to help keep the nation’s world-class public services — including free health care — strong and vital.

“Those who enjoy success with this social model,” Grimstad posited, “must contribute more than others.”

Other Norwegians — like the Financial Times economics commentator Martin Sandbu — would directly challenge the case against raising taxes that Norway’s tax exiles were trying to make.

These exiles, Sandbu observed, tend never to say “that they just want to pay less” at tax time. They instead pose as the “geese that lay golden eggs.” They’re only moving, these rich insist, “because the wealth tax forces them to take capital out of their companies to pay it, and that, in turn, is bad for growth, business development, and employment where their companies are based.”

But Norwegian companies, Sandbu countered, show no signs of suffering from a lack of access to capital. The capital these companies need can “come from other sources than the original owners, and it may be precisely this dilution that rankles, especially for self-made entrepreneurs or family businesses.”

Those Norwegian wealthy who feel most rankled, Norway’s current legislative majority believes, do have every right to exit the nation. But they have no right to leave with all the wealth that Norway’s commitment to economic security — for everyone — has helped those rich amass.

How to keep wealthy exiles from jetting off with wealth they should be sharing? Norway’s progressive lawmakers have put together a new “exit tax” that will have wealthy exiles paying a loophole-free exit levy on unrealized capital gains. Exiles will have the option of paying their exit tax in interest-free installments over 12 years or paying the total due, with interest, after 12 years.

These exiles will, of course, have the option of returning home to Norway anytime they’d like. And if they do return, they’ll be reentering what may be the world’s most equal nation. One telling indicator of that equality: the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. On this list of the world’s 500 richest, only one Norwegian today appears — in 374th place.

In a few years, who knows, you might not find any Norwegian on that list at all.





Sam Pizzigati

Sam Pizzigati, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, has written widely on income and wealth concentration, with op-eds and articles in publications ranging from the New York Times to Le Monde Diplomatique. He co-edits Inequality.org Among his books: The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970 (Seven Stories Press). His latest book: The Case for a Maximum Wage (Polity). A veteran labor movement journalist, Pizzigati spent 20 years directing publishing at America’s largest union, the 3.2 million-member National Education Association.

 

How Daniel Ellsberg’s Moral Power Remains Alive

Strange to think that, without Daniel Ellsberg, Watergate might never have happened, Richard Nixon might have remained president, and the war in Vietnam might have taken even longer to end. So many decades later, it’s easy to forget how, in June 1971, when Ellsberg released those secret government documents that came to be known as the Pentagon Papers, and their shocking revelations about that distant war hit the front page of the New York Times, Nixon and crew were determined to move against him – and fast. It mattered not at all that he would be “indicted on 12 felony counts, including theft and violation of the Espionage Act,” and face up to 115 years in prison. That wasn’t enough for them. Nixon wanted to “try him in the press” and turned to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to investigate him.

As it happened, though, Hoover was a buddy of Louis Marx, the father of Ellsberg’s wife and the head of a major toy company that, among other things, made plenty of toy soldiers. (Marx regularly gave Hoover toys that he could turn over to his employees for their kids at Christmas.) So when the FBI chief moved far too slowly on Ellsberg, Nixon and his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, worrying about those Pentagon Papers revelations (even though they didn’t deal with Nixon’s own nightmarish role in the then-ongoing wars in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia), decided to set up a White House Special Investigations Unit. It came to be known informally as “the Plumbers.”

Its first assignment would be to break into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in search of damaging information on him. (No luck, as it turned out, but when the judge in Ellsberg’s trial found out about that break-in, he dismissed the case.) Nine months later, that unit’s ultimate assignment would, of course, have nothing to do with Ellsberg. It would be the infamous break-in at the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in — yes! – the Watergate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The result was history that would have been inconceivable without – yes! – Daniel Ellsberg.

As TomDispatch regular Norman Solomon, author of War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, makes clear today, Ellsberg led quite a life thereafter before dying in June 2023. Let him rest in peace. (If only the rest of this planet could do the same!) ~ Tom Engelhardt


The Absence – and Presence – of Daniel Ellsberg

by Norman Solomon

On a warm evening almost a decade ago, I sat under the stars with Daniel Ellsberg while he talked about nuclear war with alarming intensity. He was most of the way through writing his last and most important book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. Somehow, he had set aside the denial so many people rely on to cope with a world that could suddenly end in unimaginable horror. Listening, I felt more and more frightened. Dan knew what he was talking about.

After working inside this country’s doomsday machinery, even drafting nuclear war plans for the Pentagon during President John F. Kennedy’s administration, Dan Ellsberg had gained intricate perspectives on what greased the bureaucratic wheels, personal ambitions, and political messaging of the warfare state. Deceptions about arranging for the ultimate violence of thermonuclear omnicide were of a piece with routine falsehoods about American war-making. It was easy enough to get away with lying, he told me: “How difficult is it to deceive the public? I would say, as a former insider, one becomes aware: it’s not difficult to deceive them. First of all, you’re often telling them what they would like to believe — that we’re better than other people, we’re superior in our morality and our perceptions of the world.”

Dan had made history in 1971 by revealing the top-secret Pentagon Papers, exposing the constant litany of official lies that accompanied the U.S. escalation of the Vietnam War. In response, the government used the blunderbuss of the World War I-era Espionage Act to prosecute him. At age 41, he faced a possible prison sentence of more than 100 years. But his trial ended abruptly with all charges dismissed when the Nixon administration’s illegal interference in the case came to light in mid-1972. Five decades later, he reflected: “Looking back, the chance that I would get out of 12 felony counts from Richard Nixon was close to zero. It was a miracle.”

That miracle enabled Dan to keep on speaking, writing, researching, and protesting for the rest of his life. (In those five decades, he averaged nearly two arrests per year for civil disobedience.) He worked tirelessly to prevent and oppose a succession of new American wars. And he consistently gave eloquent public support as well as warm personal solidarity to heroic whistleblowers — Thomas DrakeKatharine GunDaniel HaleMatthew HohChelsea ManningEdward SnowdenJeffrey SterlingMordechai VanunuAnn Wright, and others — who sacrificed much to challenge deadly patterns of official deceit.

Unauthorized Freedom of Speech

Dan often spoke out for freeing WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, whose work had revealed devastating secret U.S. documents on America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the end of a visit in June 2015, when they said goodbye inside Ecuador’s embassy in London, I saw that both men were on the verge of tears. At that point, Assange was three years into his asylum at that embassy, with no end in sight.

Secretly indicted in the United States, Assange remained in the Ecuadorian embassy for nearly four more years until London police dragged him off to prison. Hours later, in a radio interview, Dan said: “Julian Assange is the first journalist to be indicted. If he is extradited to the U.S. and convicted, he will not be the last. The First Amendment is a pillar of our democracy and this is an assault on it. If freedom of speech is violated to this extent, our republic is in danger. Unauthorized disclosures are the lifeblood of the republic.”

Unauthorized disclosures were the essence of what WikiLeaks had published and what Dan had provided with the Pentagon Papers. Similarly, countless exposés about U.S. government war crimes became possible due to the courage of Chelsea Manning, and profuse front-page news about the government’s systematic violations of the Fourth Amendment resulted from Edward Snowden’s bravery. While gladly publishing some of their revelations, major American newspapers largely refused to defend their rights.

Such dynamics were all too familiar to Dan. He told me that the attitude toward him of the New York Times, which won a Pulitzer Prize with its huge Pentagon Papers scoop, was akin to a district attorney’s view of a “snitch” – useful but distasteful.

In recent times, Dan detested the smug media paradigm of “Ellsberg good, Snowden bad.” So, he pushed back against the theme as rendered by New Yorker staff writer Malcolm Gladwell, who wrote a lengthy piece along those lines in late 2016. Dan quickly responded with a letter to the editor, which never appeared.

The New Yorker certainly could have found room to print Dan’s letter, which said: “I couldn’t disagree more with Gladwell’s overall account.” The letter was just under 300 words; the Gladwell piece had run more than 5,000. While promoting the “Ellsberg good, Snowden bad” trope, the New Yorker did not let readers know that Ellsberg himself completely rejected it:

“Each of us, having earned privileged access to secret information, saw unconstitutional, dangerously wrong policies ongoing by our government. (In Snowden’s case, he discovered blatantly criminal violations of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, on a scale that threatens our democracy.) We found our superiors, up to the presidents, were deeply complicit and clearly unwilling either to expose, reform, or end the wrongdoing.

“Each of us chose to sacrifice careers, and possibly a lifetime’s freedom, to reveal to the public, Congress, and the courts what had long been going on in secret from them. We hoped, each with some success, to allow our democratic system to bring about desperately needed change.

“The truth is there are no whistleblowers, in fact no one on earth, with whom I identify more closely than with Edward Snowden.

“Here is one difference between us that is deeply real to me: Edward Snowden, when he was 30 years old, did what I could and should have done – what I profoundly wish I had done – when I was his age, instead of 10 years later.”

As he encouraged whistleblowing, Dan often expressed regret that he hadn’t engaged in it sooner. During the summer of 2014, a billboard was on display at bus stops in Washington, D.C., featuring a quote from Dan — with big letters at the top saying “DON’T DO WHAT I DID. DON’T WAIT,” followed by “until a new war has started, don’t wait until thousands more have died, before you tell the truth with documents that reveal lies or crimes or internal projections of costs and dangers. You might save a war’s worth of lives.” Two whistleblowers who had been U.S. diplomats, Matthew Hoh and Ann Wright, unveiled the billboard at a bus stop near the State Department.

A Grotesque Situation of Existential Danger

Above all, Daniel Ellsberg was preoccupied with opposing policies that could lead to nuclear war. “No policies in human history have more deserved to be recognized as immoral. Or insane,” he wrote in The Doomsday Machine. “The story of how this calamitous predicament came about and how and why it has persisted for over half a century is a chronicle of human madness.”

It’s fitting that the events set for Daniel Ellsberg Week (ending on June 16th, the first anniversary of when Dan passed away) will include at least one protest at a Northrop Grumman facility. That company has a $13.3 billion contract to develop a new version of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which – as Dan frequently emphasized – is the most dangerous of all nuclear weapons. He was eager to awaken Congress to scientific data about “nuclear winter” and the imperative of shutting down ICBMs to reduce the risks of nuclear war.

Five years ago, several of us from the Institute for Public Accuracy hand-delivered paperbacks of The Doomsday Machine – with a personalized letter from Dan to each member of the House and Senate – to all 535 congressional offices on Capitol Hill. “I am concerned that the public, most members of Congress, and possibly even high members of the Executive branch have remained in the dark, or in a state of denial, about the implications of rigorous studies by environmental scientists over the last dozen years,” Dan wrote near the top of his two-page letter. Those studies “confirm that using even a large fraction of the existing U.S. or Russian nuclear weapons that are on high alert would bring about nuclear winter, leading to global famine and near extinction of humanity.”

Dan’s letter singled out the urgency of one “immediate step” in particular: “to eliminate entirely our redundant, vulnerable, and destabilizing land-based ICBM force.” Unlike air-launched and sea-based nuclear weapons, which are not vulnerable to attack, the ICBMs are vulnerable to a preemptive strike and so are “poised to launch” on the basis of “ten-minute warning signals that may be – and have been, on both sides – false alarms, which press leadership to ‘use them or lose them.’”

As Dan pointed out, “It is in the power of Congress to decouple the hair-trigger on our system by defunding and dismantling the current land-based Minuteman missiles and rejecting funding for their proposed replacements. The same holds for lower-yield weapons for first use against Russia, on submarines or in Europe, which are detonators for escalation to nuclear winter.”

In essence, Dan was telling members of Congress to do their job, with the fate of the earth and its inhabitants hanging in the balance:

“This grotesque situation of existential danger has evolved in secret in the almost total absence of congressional oversight, investigations, or hearings. It is time for Congress to remedy this by preparing for first-ever hearings on current nuclear doctrine and ‘options,’ and by demanding objective, authoritative scientific studies of their full consequences including fire, smoke, nuclear winter, and famine. Classified studies of nuclear winter using actual details of existing attack plans, never yet done by the Pentagon but necessarily involving its directed cooperation, could be done by the National Academy of Sciences, requested and funded by Congress.”

But Dan’s letter was distinctly out of sync with Congress. Few in office then – or now – have publicly acknowledged that such a “grotesque situation of existential danger” really exists. And even fewer have been willing to break from the current Cold War mindset that continues to fuel the rush to global annihilation. On matters of foreign policy and nuclear weapons, the Congressional Record is mainly a compendium of arrogance and delusion, in sharp contrast to the treasure trove of Dan’s profound insights preserved at Ellsberg.net.

Humanism and Realism to Remember

Clear as he was about the overarching scourge of militarism embraced by the leaders of both major parties, Dan was emphatic about not equating the two parties at election time. He understood that efforts like Green Party presidential campaigns are misguided at best. But, as he said dryly, he did favor third parties – on the right (“the more the better”). He knew what some self-described progressives have failed to recognize as the usual reality of the U.S. electoral system: right-wing third parties help the left, and left-wing third parties help the right.

Several weeks before the 2020 election, Dan addressed voters in the swing state of Michigan via an article he wrote for the Detroit Metro Times. Appearing under a headline no less relevant today – Trump Is an Enemy of the Constitution and Must Be Defeated – the piece said that “it’s now of transcendent importance to prevent him from gaining a second term.” Dan warned that “we’re facing an authoritarian threat to our democratic system of a kind we’ve never seen before,” making votes for Joe Biden in swing states crucial.

Dan’s mix of deep humanism and realism was in harmony with his aversion to contorting logic to suit rigid ideology. Bad as current realities were, he said, it was manifestly untrue that things couldn’t get worse. He had no intention of ignoring the very real dangers of nuclear war or fascism.

During the last few months of his life, after disclosing a diagnosis of inoperable pancreatic cancer, Dan reached many millions of people with an intensive schedule of interviews. Journalists were mostly eager to ask him about events related to the Pentagon Papers. While he said many important things in response to such questions, Dan most wanted to talk about the unhinged momentum of the nuclear arms race and the ominous U.S. frenzy of antagonism toward Russia and China lacking any sense of genuine diplomacy.

While he can no longer speak to the world about the latest developments, Dan Ellsberg will continue to speak directly to hearts and minds about the extreme evils of our time – and the potential for overcoming them with love in action.

A free documentary film premiering now, “A Common Insanity: A Conversation with Daniel Ellsberg About Nuclear Weapons,” concludes with these words from Dan as he looks straight at us: “Can humanity survive the nuclear era? We don’t know. I choose to act as if we have a chance.”

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel, Songlands (the final one in his Splinterlands series), Beverly Gologorsky’s novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt’s A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy’s In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War IIand Ann Jones’s They Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return from America’s Wars: The Untold Story.

Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include War Made EasyMade LoveGot War, and most recently War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine (The New Press). He lives in the San Francisco area.

Copyright 2024 Norman Solomon