Friday, July 05, 2024

 

U.S. out of Africa: Voices from the Struggle

AFRICOM Watch Bulletin #52

As anti-imperialist sentiment gains momentum in Africa, the Alliance of Sahelian States has demonstrated a clear resolve to reclaim sovereignty from foreign powers. The backlash against Western presence, and French presence in particular, has ignited a broader conversation about the future of foreign intervention and the true path to self-determination for African nations. Yet, while AFRICOM and Western military forces are being pushed out of the Sahel by people’s movements, we see a much different relationship elsewhere on the continent taking note, in particular, of the ongoing close coordination between the US and Botswana Defense Forces as well as the US and Kenya Defense forces even as they are illegitimately deployed against their own civil society.

With Kenya as a current poster child, we observe that in Africa, there are hundreds of political parties that do not serve the interests of African people. These parties serve as middlemen between imperialism and the masses of the people.  But even in more convoluted or reactionary political environments, there is always pushback. In tandem with the events in the Sahel, Kenya is witnessing its own wave of resistance against neocolonialism, particularly in the form of protests against President William Ruto and his collusion with the IMF to further immiserate the Kenyan people on behalf of Western interests. Ruto has also sent Kenyan police to Haiti, ostensibly to serve Western imperialist agendas under the guise of peacekeeping, in a plan crafted in large part by Meg Whitman, U.S. ambassador to Kenya. These moves have been met with significant opposition within Kenya, highlighting a broader continental struggle against foreign domination and exploitation. The ongoing events signal a rising Pan-African consciousness that seeks to dismantle the remnants of colonialism and resist new forms of imperialist control.

AFRICOM Watch Bulletin spoke with Salifu Mack who is a high school English and History teacher, music lover, and sparkling water connoisseur. He is also a member of the Black Alliance for Peace and the All African People’s Revolutionary Party and an organizer with the Lowcountry Action Committee in the Lowcountry of South Carolina.

AFRICOM Watch Bulletin: You recently spent time on the ground in Burkina Faso during or shortly after the uprisings that led to the backlash against the French colonialists. Did you feel that this was just another military coup in Africa or that this was different and why?

Salifu Mack: Even before arriving in Burkina Faso, it was quite clear to me that the character of this coup was different from what is commonly associated with coups in Africa. My comrades on the ground at the Thomas Sankara Center for African Liberation and Unity had been reporting for months prior about the sentiment that had been emanating from the masses.

During my time in Burkina Faso, it was quite clear to me that the movements of the Traore administration have been in direct response to, and many cases, in lock-step with the demands of the people of Burkina Faso. While many coups in Africa are a top-down imposition of the will of a few “strong-men”, moves in Burkina Faso such as the ejection of the French military, embassies, and certain NGO and media properties, were demands originally spurring from the grassroots. The military coup led by Captain Ibrahim Traore just provided the muscle to move those demands into reality.

This is quite different from the January 2022 coup that preceded Traore, led by Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba. That coup administration was deeply unpopular with the masses and lasted only 8 months. Often in Western circles, it is easy to discuss the African masses as people who lack discernment, but the reaction to Damiba contrasted against the positive reaction to Traore should be enough proof to demonstrate that people in Burkina Faso are using sound reasoning and discernment skills to determine what is in their best interests.

AFRICOM Watch Bulletin: Clearly, France was the primary target among foreign interests. What signs, if any, did you see that the focus would then shift to US AFRICOM next or in the future?

Salifu Mack: On February 2, 2024, I attended a rally outside of the U.S. Embassy in Burkina Faso, organized by an organization called the Black African Defence League. The group was there to deliver a letter to the US ambassador to Burkina Faso, demanding US military bases withdraw from the country immediately.

They also denounced US imperialist policy, stating that U.S. interference in the affairs of the Alliance of Sahel States would not be tolerated by the popular administrations and that consequences for such interference would be backed by the masses of the country. I remember being so blown away not just by this action, but by the very clear analysis that members of the organization displayed regarding imperialism.

They understood quite clearly the essence of the idea that imperialism is the primary contradiction in the world today, and they situated the U.S. at the center of that. They were declaring that while France has been the most visible hand in the oppression they’ve experienced, France would never have such abilities without the backing of the U.S. and NATO more explicitly. They pointed directly to the 2011 NATO-led invasion of Libya as a material starting point for the issue of terrorism plaguing the Sahel today. Two months later, the U.S. was dismissed by Niger, and the action was widely celebrated across Burkina Faso.

AFRICOM Watch Bulletin: With the exit of the French, a power vacuum has been created in the Sahel. Some suspect that the US will fill that vacuum. Others think that Russia via its Wagner group or China might fill that void. In your view, how best can Africans fill that void?

Salifu Mack: This question comes up quite commonly in western Pan-Africanist spaces and I just want to point out that it goes back to what I mentioned in my first response, but unfortunately it’s going to be a little long-winded. Africans in the Sahel are not being lulled into compliance by the scent of some fancy Russian perfume or the promise of sweet words. The Sahel is a region of Africa that has been absolutely ravaged by the results of years of Western meddling in African affairs, direct and indirect. The Sahel has also, up to the point of establishing a relationship with Russia, received close to no real material support from any outside forces to help tackle that problem.

The Sahel is surrounded by countries that at best are hollowed-out shells of nations due to years of neocolonial leadership, and at worst, are treacherous lackeys of Western imperialism who willingly engage in acts of sabotage against nations who won’t comply with it. This question and criticism are also often raised by the Western diaspora, who must be mindful of our inability to materially change anything about our situations abroad, and who should be honest about the fact that our powerlessness has led to a passive complicity with U.S. imperialism. With that context in mind, I think we must discuss Sahelian partnerships with Russia, or whoever else they may engage with in the future, with a bit of humility.

While navigating desperate conditions, leaders of the AES have still managed to initiate quite meaningful security partnerships with the Russian state. Russian flags stand tall beside flags of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger at roundabouts in all three countries. And it is not because Burkinabe are engaged in a delusion of “friendship” but because they understand the utility of strategic alliances.

In an ideal world for most people I encountered, Africa solves its own problems. However, the Sahel is forced to deal very acutely with the reality that Africa at this very moment has been conquered. They are also more honest about the reality that Africa does not exist in a world apart from the rest of this planet. Sahelian partnerships with Russia have assisted in the longstanding fight against terrorism, creating space and opportunity for meaningful attempts at development. The need for development in the Sahel states is an ill-understood aspect of the struggle there.

The concern moving forward, in my opinion, needs to be less about filling a void, and more about building upon the achievements of the current struggle. This phase in the AES is just a building block, and each of us has a role to play in building new ones. Africans in the West need to turn our attention towards AFRICOM (through organizations like the Black Alliance for Peace) because its meddling against the region is only going to escalate from here. I also think that we need to be engaged in moving resources to organizations in the Sahel, like the Thomas Sankara Center so that they can continue to facilitate opportunities for in-person work with the masses throughout the region. There are quite energetic anti-imperialist and socialist organizations in the Sahel. Organizations are attempting to do a lot at this moment with very limited resources. The defense of our liberated territories has to be a priority because as these nations increase their capacity, they can increase the power of their material contributions toward the struggle for Pan-Africanism, which is also a very clear motivation of the masses in these countries. I have never encountered Africans with a more serious commitment to pan-African unity than I did in Burkina Faso.

AFRICOM Watch Bulletin: What evidence of structural or policy changes can you identify on the ground that has directly and positively impacted the material reality of the masses since the uprisings and coup?

Salifu Mack: The Traorè administration has received a lot of positive attention for kicking out the French military, NGOs, and enemy media, and rightfully so. I think many people living in the deluded realities of Western states that commit and fund terrorism but do not have to bear the brunt of terrorists running around unchecked, can not appreciate how meaningful it is to Burkinabè to see their anxieties about security being dealt with effectively for the first time in years. But in my opinion, more attention should be paid to the administration’s intense focus on development.

Captain Ibrahim Traoré has demonstrated that he is wholly invested in the process of nationalizing Burkina Faso’s resources. In 2023, the administration announced it would be nationalizing the sugar sector. The SN SOSUCO sugar company, which was once privatized during the term of the counterrevolutionary president, Blaise Compaoré, is now state-owned.

This administration has also positioned Burkina Faso, one of Africa’s foremost gold-producing states, to develop technology to process gold mine residues on-site. Construction on the factory began in November, and it was opened this January. In his formal announcement, Captain Ibrahim Traoré noted that the facility is 40% owned by the state.

In addition, Burkina Faso has long implemented land reform policies limiting the amount of land that can be privately possessed to 5 hectares. To boost production, the current administration is subsidizing the cost of agricultural equipment for farmers and has set a goal to increase the productivity of irrigated areas by at least 50%.

AFRICOM Watch Bulletin: Many African people in the United States question why we should care about what goes on in the Sahel. How would you respond to this and how can those who do care get involved?

Salifu Mack: In chapter 19 of Africa Must Unite, Kwame Nkrumah states that “… any effort at association between the states of Africa, however limited its immediate horizons, is to be welcomed as a step in the right direction: the eventual political unification of Africa.” In my observation, the average, everyday African in Burkina Faso is extremely concerned with the total unity of not just the Sahelian states, but all of Africa. It’s my most sincere hope that the AES can model something that will be the envy of Africans across the continent. The AES states have taken on a huge responsibility which must be delivered on by any means necessary. And this means that Africans everywhere — we are around the world — have a responsibility to defend it.

This defense, however, can not be actualized as passionate individuals reposting content on social media. We have to be members of political formations with clear principles, and goals, that have an emphasis on political education and action. We need to develop an analysis that helps to draw very succinct connections between what is going on in places like the Sahel and Haiti, and places like Baltimore and Los Angeles. Places where concepts like “terrorists” and “gangs” are being weaponized against the African masses to manufacture consent for police brutality and imperialist invasion.

There is no cure for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, no way to “free” Sudan, no end to settler colonialism in Western Sahara, or true liberation for Africans in the United States without this unity. No confrontation of violent client states, or our ruthless petit bourgeoisie. No path to true development— not a single road or hospital built truly to our advantage. There is no way forward for our individual states in this modern era that does not involve political and economic unity, and unity presupposes organization. Word to Nkrumah!


What is the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM)?


Today, the United States is leading the world’s largest multinational maritime war exercise from occupied Honolulu, Hawai’i. 25,000 personnel from 29 nations, including NATO allies and other strategic partners, are participating in the Rim of the Pacificor RIMPAC, under the command of the US Pacific Fleet, a major component of the US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM).

With RIMPAC now underway, the lands and waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands are being intensively bombed and shelled as participating forces practice amphibious landings and urban combat training, and the Kānaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians) find their sovereignty once again violated after more than 130 years of colonization by the US.

RIMPAC aims to fortify the colonization and militarization of the Pacific, ensuring the security of the West’s imperialist agenda against the rise of China and other threats to the US-led capitalist system.

In the interest of advancing a political education around the history and purpose of INDOPACOM as part of U.S. militarism, the Solidarity Network for the Black Alliance for Peace has published this comprehensive Fact Sheet on INDOPACOM.

WHAT IS INDOPACOM?

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, or INDOPACOM, is one of the U.S. Department of Defense’s eleven unified combatant commands that together span the globe. INDOPACOM’s area of responsibility (AOR) covers half of the earth’s surface, stretching from California to India’s western border, and from Antarctica to the North Pole. INDOPACOM claims 38 nations within its AOR, which together comprise over half of the world’s population. Its AOR includes the two most populous countries in the world, China and India, while also encompassing small island nations, such as Diego Garcia, Guam, Palau, and Samoa, all of which are under some form of U.S. colonial occupation. INDOPACOM comprises multiple components and sub-unified commands. They include U.S. Forces Korea, U.S. Forces Japan, U.S. Special Operations Command Pacific, U.S. Pacific Fleet, U.S. Marine Forces Pacific, U.S. Pacific Air Forces, and U.S. Army Pacific.

According to INDOPACOM, this large and diverse area is optimal terrain to implement its “combat credible deterrence strategy.” This includes an estimated 366 bases and installations across 16 nations–more than any other command structure due to large concentrations in Guam, Hawai’i, Japan, Korea, and Okinawa. Many of the military installations strategically surround China and major trade routes.

Headquartered at Camp H.M. Smith of occupied Honolulu, Hawai’i, INDOPACOM claims to enhance stability and ensure “a free and open Indo-Pacific” through military and economic partnerships with countries in the region. Nonetheless, it also claims to advance “U.S. national security objectives while protecting national interests.” INDOPACOM states its mission is to build a combat-ready force “capable of denying its adversaries sustained air and sea dominance.”

THE HISTORY OF INDOPACOM

INDOPACOM is the U.S. military’s oldest and largest combatant command. It is the result of a merger between three commands–Far East Command, Pacific Command and Alaskan Command–which were established after World War II in 1947. The first commander of the Far East Command, General Douglas MacArthur, was tasked with “carrying out occupation duties of Korea, Japan, the Ryukyu Islands, the Bonin Islands, the Philippines and the Mariana Islands.” From the end of WWII to 1958, the U.S. military conducted 67 nuclear tests throughout the Marshall Islands under “Operation Crossroads.” It conducted another 36 nuclear detonations at Christmas Island and Johnston Atoll in 1962 under “Operation Dominic,” which permanently destroyed the natural biomes.

Against the backdrop of the Korean War, the key predecessor to INDOPACOM, Pacific Command, was primarily oriented toward combat operations in Korea and later, the Philippines. The ongoing Korean War has resulted in millions of casualties as well as the demarcation of North and South Korea since 1953. By 1957, Pacific Command saw a major expansion and strategic reorientation of its AOR, absorbing the Far East Command and most of the Alaskan Command. Camp H.M. Smith of occupied Honolulu, Hawai’i was selected as the new headquarters because the U.S. Fleet Marine Force, Pacific, the largest maritime invasion force in the world, was already located there.

Throughout the U.S. war on Vietnam, Pacific Command controlled all U.S. military forces, including South Vietnamese assets, and operations within the country. Leading both the U.S. Pacific Air Forces and Pacific Fleet, Pacific Command’s brutal campaigns resulted in some of the most egregious atrocities, such as the My Lai massacre in 1968. Pacific Command’s operations also included some of the heaviest aerial bombardments, like “Operation Rolling Thunder.” In its numerous campaigns, which also included “Operation Bolo,” “Linebacker I and II”, “Ranch Hand,” and “Arc Lightdropping,” Pacific Command dropped over 5 million tons of bombs and at least 11 million gallons of the highly corrosive herbicide known as “Agent Orange” on Southeast Asia. Pacific Command was also responsible for covert bombing operations targeting Cambodia and Laos during the war, dropping over 2.5 million tons of bombs through “Operation Menu.”

Pacific Command saw subsequent alterations to its AOR after U.S. forces fled Vietnam in 1973. Responsibility for Afghanistan and Pakistan was delegated to US Central Command after its inauguration in 1983, while Pacific Command assumed new responsibility for China and North Korea that same year. U.S. Secretaries of Defense Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield respectively oversaw territorial expansions to Pacific Command’s AOR in 1989 and 2002, into INDOPACOM’s current formation.

INDOPACOM NOW

The United States continues to view the Asia-Pacific region as pivotal to the pursuit of its material interests, emphasizing that the region is home to some of the largest and fastest-growing economies and militaries. The Obama administration’s 2011 “Pivot to Asia” marked a stronger push by Pacific Command for confrontation not only with China but any nation or movement that poses a threat to U.S. hegemony in the region.

In 2018, Pacific Command was rebranded to Indo-Pacific Command, or INDOPACOM, as it is known today. This move was meant to recognize the strategic importance of India, following heightened aggression toward China during the Obama and Trump presidencies. INDOPACOM regularly conducts joint naval training exercises in the South China Sea with countries like Japan and Australia in clear violation of international law and even secretly stationed U.S. special-operations and support forces in Taiwan since 2021.

Massive military exercises like the largest international maritime warfare training, the “Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC),” and others like “Cape North” and Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center trainings occur frequently in occupied Hawai’i and Guam, without the consent of the Indigenous populations. In 2023, INDOPACOM carried out new iterations of its“Talisman Sabre” exercise in Australia and its “Super Garuda Shield” exercise in Indonesia. These exercises involved tens of thousands of military personnel from 13 and 19 nations, respectively, including the Pacific island nations of Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and Tonga for the first time.

INDOPACOM’s major military partners in the Asia-Pacific region include Japan and South Korea. The U.S. military holds significant leverage over each nation’s armed forces via agreements undergirding the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) and U.S. Forces Japan (USFJ), essentially commanding additional joint military structures with their own distinct mission, vision, and objectives in support of INDOPACOM. USFK continues to prevent reunification in Korea as part of its mission to “defend the Republic of Korea,” while USFJ remains committed to the colonial occupation of Okinawa as part of its mission of “provid[ing] a ready and lethal capability…in support of the U.S.-Japan Alliance.”

BAP AGAINST INDOPACOM

INDOPACOM works to extend U.S. military influence throughout the Asia-Pacific region and to promote the militarism and violence required to fulfill the material interests of the U.S. ruling class. By portraying China as a global bogeyman, INDOPACOM serves to obfuscate the indigeneity and legitimacy of liberation movements like those occurring on the occupied islands of Guam, Hawai’i, Okinawa, and Samoa, as well as nearly every other nation across the region from Indonesia and Malaysia to the Philippines. INDOPACOM’s aggressive role in the region serves to create the very instability it uses to justify its own existence and mask the responsibility of U.S. officials provoking new wars.

The Black Alliance for Peace stands against the influence and power of INDOPACOM, and the ever-increasing militarization of the region. Informed by the Black Radical Peace Tradition, we understand that peace is not the absence of conflict, but the achievement, by popular struggle and self-defense, of a world liberated from nuclear armament and proliferation, unjust war, and global white supremacy. As referenced in our Principles of Unity, BAP takes a resolute anti-colonial, anti-imperialist position that links the international role of the U.S. empire–one based on war, aggression and exploitation–to the domestic war against poor and working-class African/Black people in the United States.

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.




 

George C. Marshall: Founder of Orwellian Deep State


Most geopolitics’ nerds know George C. Marshall as President Harry S. Truman’s Secretary of State, 1947-49, and Secretary of Defense, 1950-51, credited with initiating $13 billion Marshall Plan for rebuilding European economies devastated by the war.

But few people know that as Chief of Staff of the US Army during World War II, Gen. George C. Marshall organized the largest military expansion in the US history, inheriting an outmoded, poorly equipped army of 189,000 men that grew into a force of over eight million soldiers by 1942, a forty-fold increase within the short span of three years.

Rumors circulated by the end of the war that Marshall would become the Supreme Allied Commander for the Allied invasion of Normandy in June 1944. However, Franklin D. Roosevelt selected relatively modest Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower for the momentous march to victory, because Roosevelt felt threatened by Marshall’s power and ambitions.

Thus, after the war, Eisenhower was hailed as liberator of Europe from the Nazi occupation who subsequently rose to prominence as the president, whereas the principal architect of the US deep state and a military genius who was instrumental in making the United States a global power died in relative obscurity.

Ever since Marshall, however, the United States has been ruled by the top brass of the Pentagon while presidents have been reduced to the ceremonial role of being public relations’ representatives of the deep state, pontificating and sermonizing like priests to gullible audiences at home and abroad on the virtues of supposed American democracy, rule of law and civil liberties.

Though a clarification is required here that US presidents indeed have the power to order withdrawal of troops from inconsequential theaters of war, such as the evacuation of US forces from Iraq as directed by former President Obama in 2011 or the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan as ordered by President Biden in 2021, as the perceptive military brass is courteous enough to bow to sane advice of purported chosen representatives of the people and ostensible commander-in-chief of the armed forces in order to maintain the charade of democracy in the eyes of the public.

But in military oligarchy’s perpetual conflict with other major world powers deemed existential threats to the US security interests, such as arch-rivals Russia and China, as in the Ukraine War, civilian presidents, whether Biden or Trump, don’t have the authority to overrule the global domination agenda of the Pentagon.

In fact, the deep state has murdered US presidents in cold blood for appeasing adversaries and daring to stand up to the deep state, for instance the assassination of the Kennedy brothers in the sixties after the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

Though credulous readers of mainstream media designate alternative media’s erudite writers casting aspersions over perfectly “natural murders” of John and Robert F. Kennedy that were nothing more than “coincidences” as cynical “conspiracists.”

The gullible sheeple believe the Kennedy brothers didn’t die at all. In fact, they were raised from the dead by the Almighty and ascended alive into heaven like Jesus Christ and will be resurrected on the Day of Judgment to give credible testimony regarding their real executioners. Religiously held beliefs regarding the purported strength of American democracy are just beliefs, no matter how absurd, hence there is no cure for “the united state of denial.”

Sarcasm aside, it’s noteworthy the national security and defense policies of the United States are formulated by the all-powerful civil-military bureaucracy, dubbed the deep state, whereas the president, elected through heavily manipulated electoral process with disproportionate influence of corporate interests, political lobbyists and billionaire donors, is only a figurehead meant to legitimize militarist stranglehold of the deep state, not only over the domestic politics of the United States but also over the neocolonial world order dictated by the self-styled global hegemon.

All the militaries of the 32 NATO member states operate under the integrated military command led by the Pentagon. Before being elected president, General Dwight Eisenhower was the first commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE).

The commander of Allied Command Operations has been given the title Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), and is always a US four-star general officer or flag officer who also serves as the Commander US European Command, and is subordinate to the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The incumbent Godfather of the Cosa Nostra is Gen. Charles Q. Brown since October 2023 following the retirement of Gen. Mark Milley who completed his tenure of four tumultuous years, including the Ukraine War and the Capitol riots, in September as the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Although officially the CIA falls under the Department of State, the FBI under the Department of Justice and the NSA under the Department of Defense, all of these security agencies take orders from the Pentagon’s top brass, the de facto rulers of the imperial United States.

Moreover, it’s worth pointing out that although the Pentagon is officially headed by the Secretary of Defense, who is typically a high-ranking retired military officer, the Secretary is simply a liaison between the civilian president and the military’s top brass, and it’s the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff who calls the shots on military affairs, defense and national security policy.

In Europe, 400,000 US troops were deployed at the height of the Cold War in the sixties, though the number has since been brought down after European clients developed their own military capacity following the devastation of the Second World War. The number of American troops deployed in Europe now stands at 50,000 in Germany, 15,000 in Italy and 10,000 in the United Kingdom.

Since the beginning of Ukraine War in 2022, the United States has substantially ramped up US military footprint in the Eastern Europe by deploying tens of thousands of additional NATO troops, strategic armaments, nuclear-capable missiles and air force squadrons aimed at Russia, and NATO forces alongside regional clients have been provocatively exercising so-called “freedom of navigation” right in the Black Sea and conducting joint military exercises and naval drills.

Regarding the global footprint of the United States troops, 275,000 US military personnel are currently deployed across the world, including 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East, in addition to the aforementioned number of US troops deployed in Europe.

Clearly, through the transatlantic NATO military alliance, the overseas deployment of US forces in client states and the presence of aircraft-carriers in the international waters that are similar to floating air bases, the deep state rules not only the imperial United States but the entire unipolar world.


Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Middle East and Eurasia regions. His domains include neocolonialism, the military-industrial complex, and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of investigative reports to alternative news media. Read other articles by Nauman.

“Genocide Joe” and “Fascist” Trump: What to Do!


Joe Biden and other Democrat politicians portray the 2024 Presidential election as a choice between fascism and democracy.  Many avowed “socialists” echo that assertion.  Are they correct; or, are they misguided (given that the Party, which they back, is dominated by politicians who primarily serve capital and monstrous empire)?

Palestine.  Biden and most Congress people of both parties evade the facts of Israeli persecution of Palestinians.  For them: Israeli lives (seen as worthy) matter, Palestinian lives (seen as other) don’t.  In fact, the Zionist colonial-settler state (which Biden and nearly all of Congress supports) entitles Jewish Israelis to liberal civil rights such that they generally cannot be imprisoned without a fair hearing in a court of law.  Meanwhile, although Biden et al will not acknowledge it, any Palestinian in the West Bank or Gaza can be imprisoned and routinely tortured by Israel: for any, or no, reason with no court hearing whatsoever; or, if they do receive a hearing, it is in a kangaroo-style military court where the conviction rate is over 99%.  In fact, Palestinians imprisoned by Israel numbered nearly 10,000 at last report.  Israelis elect their government; Palestinians are not permitted to do likewise.  Moreover, the Palestinian Presidential governing regime in the occupied West Bank (which actually governs only a fifth of that territory, the remainder being under mainly or exclusively Israeli military rule) has not stood for election since 2005 and has become largely a subservient client regime (agent) of the Zionist state.  Gaza has been under an increasingly suffocating Israeli economic siege ever since Hamas (defining itself as a Palestinian resistance organization) became its governing authority after fairly winning the last-permitted Palestinian legislative election in 2006.  Israel has periodically subjected Gaza to murderous bombardments (sometimes with huge death tolls: 1,400 in 2008 and 2,300 in 2012) in response to rocket attacks which were provoked by preceding ceasefire-breaking Israeli violence (including assassinations of Palestinian resistance leaders).  Zionist Israelis can and do rob Palestinians of their homes and properties and/or murder them with impunity.  Previously, the Zionist state had used terrorist violence (in 1947—49) to expel 60% of the Palestinian population, bar their return, and confiscate their property.

The US and allied governments have consistently evaded the foregoing reality; and the US has consistently vetoed UN Security Council resolutions seeking to hold Israel accountable for its crimes against Palestinian humanity.  It is only the massive public outrage over the current genocidal Israeli mass murder of the overwhelmingly unarmed population of Gaza (only about 2% [40,000] being armed resistance fighters) which has compelled Biden and other liberal Israel-apologists to respond.  That response: lip-service concern for the suffering Gazans and token action to provide grossly inadequate humanitarian relief for Gazans dying from lack of food, clean water, proper sanitation, medical supplies, and other essentials for life.  While Israel deliberately deprives Gazans of those necessities, the US (President and Congress) and its imperial allies abet the mass killing by providing billions in military aid to Israel.  As a staunch defender of the Jewish-supremacist state, Biden (along with most Congress people of both Parties) obviously believes that democracy and rule of law are good for some people and that fascist-like apartheid and genocidal mass murder (until abetting it becomes an electoral liability) are acceptable for others.  Biden and most Congressional Democrats, like most Congressional Republicans, operate with an unadmitted racist mindset.  (For relevant background facts regarding Zionism, Hamas, and the current war in Gaza, see here!)

Immigration.  Whereas Trump panders to xenophobic racism, Biden pretends to oppose it.

  • But Biden summarily deported some 20,000 Haitiansin his first year despite the horrific conditions in Haiti and his authority to grant “temporary protective status”.  That 20,000 is more than Trump and his 2 predecessors deported in their cumulative 20 years.
  • Despite his campaign promises to rescind Trump’s racist border policies, Biden largely continued them: first by continuing Trump’s deceitful “title 42” rule, and subsequently by imposing comparable obstructions. Moreover, he backed a bipartisan Senate proposal with immigration and asylum restrictions nearly as onerous as those demanded by MAGA Republicans.  Those restrictions would violate international humanitarian law, notwithstanding that the migrants are fleeing the economic and political havoc wreaked by Western imperialism upon the countries from which they come (havoc wreaked thru: invasions, coups, electoral interference, inequitable trade and investment impositions, et cetera).  Now Biden has issued an executive order to largely close off entry and effectively deprive migrants of their legal right to apply for asylum.
  • Biden also continues Trump’s economic sieges which are designed to starve and otherwise punish the peoples of Cuba and Venezuela, actions which also violate international humanitarian law (as well as driving even more international migration).

Evidently, Biden’s humanitarian sympathies are no more than minimally, if at all, better than Trump’s when it comes to Cubans, Venezuelans, Haitians, and desperate immigrant people of color.

Biden’s antiracism?  Let us not forget:

  • that Biden, pandering to racist white constituents, joined with segregationists in opposition to court ordered bussingfor school desegregation; and
  • that he, finding that Reagan’s tough-on-crime policies were popular with many of his white voters, spent a decade pressing for legislation culminating in the 1994 crime billwhich has given the US the world’s largest per capita prison population (which is disproportionately racial minority).

Voting rights.  Red-state Republicans impose restrictions to discourage voter participation by Democrat-favoring segments of the electorate, to marginal effect.  Far more consequential, both Democrats and Republicans act to rig elections for partisan advantage: gerrymanders to obtain disproportionate representation in legislative elections, and ballot access rules to exclude third parties and independent candidates from the ballot.  Most politicians in both establishment parties rely heavily upon big-money campaign funding, the result (which neither Trump nor Biden will change) being policy largely dictated by capital.

Human rights.  Trump panders to bigoted reaction.  In red states, Republicans respond by abrogating some human rights: abortion access, LGBTQ+ equality, secular government, diversity-equity-inclusion policies, et cetera.  Blue states have responded by enacting laws to protect those rights (which capital often supports as so doing curries favor with much of its workforce and customer base and does not adversely impact its profits).  Biden and Congressional Democrats, when they had both houses of Congress, could have precluded most of those bigoted reactionary red-state measures.  However, they lacked the will to take decisive action on crucial rights legislation: police accountability, gun regulation, abortion rights, voting rights, removal of rogue Supreme Court Justiceset cetera.

Labor rights.

  • When Democrats (in 2009) had a 60-vote majority in the Senate, they failed to enact the very minimal Employee Free Choice Act to make it a little easier for workers to obtain collective bargaining. Most Congressional Democrats will vote for pro-union legislation; but for many, such votes (which they know will not actually win enactment), are more pretense than real commitment.
  • As for Biden, he pretends to be pro-labor, but he stopped the rail workers from exercising their right to strikeover oppressive attendance requirements and safety violations.  Trump would have done no worse.

Environment.  Biden pretends to be pro-environment; but he prioritizes those projects (renewable energy projects, electric vehicles) from which capitalists can profit, and he avoids actions to which powerful capitalists object.  Moreover, Biden defied the environmental community by acquiesced to pressure from the fossil fuel industry with his approvals of:

Biden also demands massive military spending plus weapons deliveries to fuel ongoing US-backed wars, both of which add considerably to global warming as well as being extremely wasteful and destructive.  Trump’s record and rhetoric are obstructive of calls for transition to climate-friendly energy; but he is opposed: to continued fueling of the Ukraine War, and to US financing of foreign development projects.  One must question whether Biden is actually much, if at all, better for the climate than Trump.

Abuse of power.  Trump, odious demagogue that he is, nevertheless surprised the Democrats by fairly winning the 2016 Presidential election.  Disappointed Democrat leaders then acted to discredit Trump’s victory with grossly overblown claims of Russian meddling.

Moreover, in a scheme to discredit his Presidency, Congressional Democrats followed with a purely partisan (and failed) impeachment.  They alleged that Trump’s temporary holdup of military aid to Ukraine in order to obtain Ukraine’s investigation of possible corruption involving Hunter Biden (son of the then-VP during the Obama Presidency) was a violation of national security.  In fact, temporary holds on Congressionally budgeted military aid had occurred in that prior (Democrat) administration, without anyone calling it criminal.  Moreover, Hunter Biden had no special qualification for being on the Board of the Ukrainian Burisma Gas Company, and his appointment thereto was obviously intended to shield said company from being investigated for its corrupt acts.  Even though Trump evidently acted from partisan motivations, and even though no evidence of criminality by either Biden was ever discovered; Trump’s request for said investigation was entirely legitimate, and only partisan Democrats would say otherwise.

That abuse by Congressional Democrats provoked Trump (already habituated to violating inconvenient laws as long as he thinks his elite status will grant impunity) to respond in kind.  He did so by attempting to subvert the 2020 Presidential election with a scheme to falsify the electoral count, ultimately backed by a seditious riot.  [For that act, Trump incurred a second and justified impeachment plus a number of criminal indictments.]  Nevertheless, the Democrats, having forgotten the adage “as you sow, so shall you reap”, set the example with their own abuse of power.

Repression.  Trump has advocated repression of peaceful Black-lives-matter and other leftist protest.  But now liberal power-holders have joined those on the right in using police repression to suppress pro-Palestine campus protests.  Politicians of both parties support legislation to criminalize boycott of the Zionist state.  They enact laws defining advocacy, of replacing that racist genocidal apartheid state, as “antisemitic” and cause for punitive action.  Biden et al, while purporting to defend the right to free speech and peaceful protest, vilify speech and peaceful protest in defense of Palestinian humanity as “disruptive” and “threatening” and therefore criminal.  Biden, like Trump, is hardly a real defender of civil liberties when used for causes with which he disagrees.

Dictatorship?  Trump evidently wishes that he could be an autocrat; but, narcissist and opportunist demagogue that he is, Trump is no Hitlerian fanatic.  In pursuit of votes, he panders to Zionist Jews and also to Judeophobe racists.  He makes campaign appeals to Black or Hispanic audiences one day and to white supremacists the next.  He panders to bigotry for political gain, not to create a thousand-year Reich.  Trump wants another 4 years in the Presidency so that he can: personally profit from it, boost his ego, and escape accountability for his past and future business and political crimes.  It is not his proclivity for abuse of office, but the shameless blatancy with which he does so, which sets him apart.

Despite Trump’s extreme campaign talk, there is no basis for concluding that he would be able to abrogate elections or disband the Congress or abolish the courts, in order to rule by decree.  He and his doctrinaire reactionary allies (Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation with its Project 2025 wish list) are seeking control of the 3 branches of the federal government in order, in the name of “freedom”, to “legally” effectuate:

  • their reactionary culture-war policies to rescind protections for the rights of women and vulnerable minorities (all in deference to a voter base upon which they rely, one which is under the influence of theocrats and bigots); and
  • their primary objective which is antisocial policy, including capital-friendly tax and regulatory policy (to eliminate constraints upon capitalist freedoms).

They seek to reinterpret the Constitution in accordance with a corruptly inconsistent and reactionary so-called “originalism”, not to abrogate it.

Fascism?  Centrist Democrats are asserting that a 2nd Trump Presidency would result in a fascist autocracy with: extraordinary nullification of Americans’ civil and human rights, and/or all-out repression of the progressive left.  In support of this prediction: they erroneously equate MAGA populist reaction to a Hitlerite fascist movement, and they assert that Trump will have learned from the fiasco of his failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election of Joe Biden and be able to seize absolute power.  However, for reasons as follows, the factual evidence does not support said prediction.

  • Definitions, which said liberals neglect to provide, are essential to this analysis. Bigoted populist reaction in control of the state power has occurred historically in 3 forms: (1) anti-liberal fascist autocracy, (2) semi-fascist regime, (3) liberal “democracy” in the grip of regressive reaction.
  • Under pluralist liberal bourgeois “democracy” (whether under welfare-state social-liberal, centrist, or neoliberal administration); capital rules while multiparty competition provides the illusion of popularly-chosen government. [Note.  Marxists, including this author, hold that the abusive rule of capital and the resulting social evils of capitalism cannot be ended thru serial piecemeal reforms but only thru revolutionary conquest and holding of state power by the people (working class and its allies) led by their revolutionary socialist party.]
  • Populist reactionary regimes (all 3 forms) always serve the capitalist class and depend upon its support or acquiescence for their continuation.
  • Political conditions, which resulted in the coming to power of fascist autocracies in the 1920s and 1930s, do not now exist in developed Western “democracies”. In the cases of Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and Pinochet, a dominant section of the capitalist class chose to cede control of the state power to the fascist autocracy; because it regarded that as necessary in order to suppress the threat of impending anti-capitalist revolution.  No such revolutionary threat exists now; and, absent such threat, most capitalists prefer the liberal pluralist pseudo-democracy, because, with a fascist autocracy, they give over to the unaccountable autocrat their power to largely dictate public policy.  After the threat of anti-capitalist revolution has passed; the dominant factions in the capitalist class support the repressed liberals in demanding and obtaining a restoration of the pluralist liberal “democratic” regime (as occurred in Greece [1974], in post-Franco Spain [1975—78], and in Pinochet’s Chile [1990]).
  • In recent years, parties of regressive reaction (pandering to bigotry and taking advantage of popular discontent with economic and/or other personal-security conditions under government by traditional liberal-democratic parties) have obtained (thru election) governing power in several countries. These include: Orban in Hungary (2010), Law and Justice Party in Poland (2015—23), Bolsonaro in Brazil (2019—23), Meloni in Italy (2022), Milei in Argentina (2023).  None of those regimes have abolished elections, although one has tilted the field in favor of the ruling party (a longstanding routine practice in much of the liberal “democratic” US).  Opposition parties and media continued to operate freely.  Mass popular antigovernment protest rallies could still occur (and did in Hungary, Poland, Brazil, and Argentina).  In 2 of those (Brazil and Poland), the reactionary party has lost power in the most recent election.
  • In political-assassination-riven India, where Modi’s semi-fascist regime has severely persecuted religious minorities, periodic elections are held while opposition parties and media continue to operate normally.
  • It is in politically unstable countries (such as Erdogan’s coup-prone Turkey) that fascistic leaders have been able: to seize autocratic power, to eviscerate the liberal-democratic civil liberties and freedom for dissent, and to impose exceptionally repressive fascistic regimes. The potential, for any such regime in the US or most of Europe, is currently close to nil.

Centrist Democrats and their liberal “socialist” apologists are promoting a grossly exaggerated fear (fantasizing fascist autocracy and extraordinary repression) as a scare tactic to seduce progressive voters into voting for Biden (or his substitute).

Imperialism. 

  • Trump and his isolationist MAGA Republicans opposed more billions for Biden’s proxy war (using Ukrainians as cannon fodder) against Russia.  Trump lacks any firm commitment to the imperial NATO alliance, whereas Biden acts to consolidate its hold upon Europe and to expand its purview to the Asia-Pacific.
  • But for overwhelming opposition within the bipartisan US foreign policy establishment, then-President Trump may well have negotiated a long overdue peace treaty with North Korea. Biden clearly would never do so.
  • Trump initiated a trade war with China for purported America-first economic advantage. Biden has continued Trump’s anti-China trade policies; but he also (despite the longstanding US commitment to the one-China principle) threatens a real war, if the independence faction in Taiwan secedes (which Biden and many Congressional Democrats are actually encouraging), and if China then responds with military action to stop it.  Trump could be expected to do no worse.
  • Biden backed the 2003 US regime-change invasion of Iraq and defended the US-NATO military intervention to oust the Gaddafi regime in Libya. Both actions produced failed states and immense suffering (with hundreds of thousands killed) for the peoples of those countries.
  • In service to the politically powerful war-profiteering arms industry, Biden (and bipartisan majorities in Congress) insist that the US, with a 38% share of all of the world’s military spending compared to Russia’s 3.1%, needs to spend ever more.
  • Biden backs every US regime-change intervention and aggressive military move in pursuit of US “full-spectrum dominance” of the world. Isolationist Trump does not really care about imperial US alliances; he pursues foreign interventions selectively (where it panders to voter groups whose support he seeks).
  • Biden and most Congressional Democrats have committed the US to new cold wars against both Russia and China. They worship imperial domination and refuse to accept the need for peaceful coexistence and international cooperation to address the major threats to humanity (threats of: impending climate catastrophe, wars involving states with nuclear weapons, pandemics, famines, et cetera).

[For a comprehensive analysis of contemporary imperialism, see: Charles Pierce: Conflicting “left” views of capitalist imperialism.]

Credit where due.

  • There are some issues wherewith Biden has actually made some relatively progressive difference: many (not all) of his appointments to regulatory bodies, most of his judicial appointments, and some actions on culture-war issues (which are important to progressive voters whose votes Biden needs). From a social justice standpoint, his spending choices are mixed: domestically some beneficial, but overwhelmingly bad in foreign relations.
  • Trump’s domestic policies were largely detrimental, and his jobs promises were/are mostly illusory. However, isolationist America-first Trump, to his credit, is less thoroughly imperialist than Biden and the centrist Democrats; though Trump may be somewhat more reckless (as exhibited by his decision to assassinate an Iranian General).

Centrist Biden and demagogue Trump may tell themselves, as well as their prospective voters, that their beneficial actions and proposals are out of concern for the public welfare.  We should not be deceived.  In fact, such actions and promises (increasingly as election nears) are to win votes, without unduly offending capitalist campaign funders.

America first leftism.  The regress which Americans would experience under another 4 years of Trump in the Oval Office is nowhere near the total deprivation of civil and human rights which Israel and the US (continuing under Biden) have imposed upon the Palestinians.  And there are hundreds of millions of other victims whose lives have been taken or ruined by the Biden-backed imperial US foreign policy.  Meanwhile, Trump has opposed continued US funding for the US-NATO proxy war in Ukraine.  Although Trump and his isolationist America-first MAGA Republicans are certainly not consistently anti-imperialist; they, unlike Biden and his centrist Democrats, take some positions which are objectively antiwar and anti-imperialist.  Sadly, with avowed “socialists” shelving anti-imperialism to back Biden for the sake of purely domestic political concerns; said “socialists” thereby embrace an “America-first” policy of their own, one which is objectively racist and imperialist.  Moreover, the abusive rule of capital cannot be ended in a major power as long as it rules a belligerent empire, oppressing vulnerable other states and their peoples, and striving to subjugate insubordinate states.

Bigoted reaction.  After decades of center-left parties (Labour in Britain, Socialist in France, Social-democrat in Germany, Democrat in US, et cetera) embracing antisocial neoliberal policy; economic conditions for most working people have stagnated or worsened (housing unaffordability and increased homelessness, employment precarity and persistence of poverty, inflation exceeding wage increases, et cetera).  Said parties have effectively abandoned their previous popular constituencies.  Consequently, antisocial reactionary parties, led by demagogues pandering to latent bigoted prejudices and scapegoating immigrants and othered minorities, have increasingly seduced much of the now discontented populace.  Meanwhile, instead of demanding return to popular Keynesian policies which actually served working people to some extent (at some tolerable cost to capital), centrist politicians cry “fascist” and assert that they will save “democracy” from an alleged threat of impending autocracy.  As that anti-fascist appeal increasingly loses traction, they defensively embrace some of the inhumane policy demands of the reaction, especially against politically powerless victim groups such as immigrants.

Lesser-evil-ism.  Liberal “socialists” are habituated to giving electoral allegiance to the thoroughly imperialist center-left party in hopes of saving domestic reforms, previously extracted (by popular pressure) from capital.  They embrace a policy of electoral lesser-evil-ism.  As a means for stopping the rise of bigoted reaction, this policy has been an absolute failure.  It results in the center-left becoming ever weaker while antisocial bigoted reaction grows ever more potent, and progressive reforms previously conceded by capital are increasingly nullified.  As the adage goes: repeating the same failed action, and expecting a different outcome, is an insanity.  With avowed “socialists” and avowed “anti-imperialists” having backed capital-serving imperialist center-left parties for decades, their “left” has sunk ever deeper into the sinkhole of lesser-evil-ism.  And in every succeeding election, it becomes yet more painful, and more urgent, for the progressive left to climb out of that sinkhole.

What to do.  Whether Trump again or another 4 years of Biden, neither is an acceptable choice.  Reliance upon centrist Democrat politicians is a recipe for failure.  It enables said Democrats to mislead and cynically use social-justice voters while persisting with their policies of militarism, imperialism, supremacy of capital, and political perfidy, and yet remain largely ineffective against MAGA-Republican abuses and obstructions.

The popular front against fascism (then the most vicious oppressor and most dangerous threat against the left) was appropriate in the 1930s.  Replicating it in the very different current conditions would be allying with the world’s current principal enemy of social justice, namely US-led Western imperialism.  Our real need is not for a “broad popular front against MAGA fascism” (which would mean campaigning for “Genocide Joe” and US imperialism).  Our real need is to build our indivisible social-justice activist movement for: economic justice, environmental justice, human rights, civil rights, and international justice.  Said movement must be one which is truly independent of both major US Parties:

  • one which does not give its allegiance to the Democratic Party;
  • one which allies with Democrat politicians only when and insofar as they actually act for social justice;
  • one which backs their election only selectively and for sound tactical reasons (such as to deny Trump a Congressional Republican majority in the House);
  • one which backs actual pro-social-justice challengers, beginning in primary elections, and an actual progressive (such as Jill Stein) for commander-in-chief;
  • one which does not abandon anti-imperialism and international solidarity with the victims of Western imperialism in order to pursue limited domestic reforms (often to be unenforced or otherwise later nullified);
  • one demanding people-power reforms (in preference to the limited ameliorative measures favored by left liberals), people-power capable of seriously challenging the abuses perpetrated by capital and its agents (whether business firms, neoliberal ideologues, reactionary demagogues, MAGA Republicans, or perfidious and unreliable Democrats).

Biden, at least as much as Trump, is a racist promoter of mass murder.  Neither is capable of actually earning the votes of people seeking comprehensive social justice.  Unless we (like Biden and most Congressional Democrats) devalue the humanity and lives of Palestinians, Haitians, Venezuelans, et cetera; how can we accept liberal “left” assertions, that Biden (or his substitute) is any savior of humanity and democracy and must therefore be reelected?


Charles Pierce is a social-justice activist (since his youth in the early 1960s), a former/retired labor activist (union steward & local officer), and currently a researcher and writer on history and politics. He can be reached at cpbolshi@gmail.com. Read other articles by Charles, or visit Charles's website.

Assange’s Return to Australia: The Resentment of the Hacks


Julian Assange of WikiLeaks fame is now back in the country of his birth, having endured conditions of captivity ranging from cramped digs in London’s Ecuadorian embassy to the maximum-security facilities of Belmarsh Prison.  His return to Australia after striking a plea deal with the US Department of Justice sees him in a state with some of the most onerous secrecy provisions of any in the Western world.

As of January 2023, according to the Attorney-General’s Department, the Australian Commonwealth had 11 general secrecy offences in Part 5.6 of the Criminal Code, 542 specific secrecy offences across 178 Commonwealth laws and 296 non-disclosure duties spanning 107 Commonwealth laws criminalising unauthorised disclosure of information by current and former employees of the Commonwealth.

In November 2023, the Albanese Government agreed to 11 recommendations advanced by the final report of the review of secrecy provisions.  While aspiring to thin back the excessive overgrowth of secrecy, old habits die hard.  Suggested protections regarding press freedom and individuals providing information to Royal Commissions will hardly instil confidence.

With that background, it is unsurprising that Assange’s return, while delighting his family, supporters and free press advocates, has stirred the seething resentment of the national security establishment, Fourth Estate crawlers, and any number of journalistic sellouts.  Damn it all, such attitudes seem to say: he transformed journalism, stole away our self-censorship, exposed readers to the original classified text, and let the public decide for itself how to react to disclosures revealing the abuse of power.   Minimal editorialising; maximum textual interpretation through the eyes of the universal citizenry, a terrifying prospect for those in government.

Given that the Australian press establishment is distastefully comfortable with politicians – the national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, for instance, has a central reporting bureau in Canberra’s Parliament House – Assange’s return has brought much agitation.  The Canberra press corps earn their crust in a perversely symbiotic, and often uncritical relationship, with the political establishment that furnishes them with rationed morsels of information.  The last thing they want is an active Assange scuppering such a neat understanding, a radical transparency warrior keenly upsetting conventions of hypocrisy long respected.

Let’s wade through the venom.  Press gallery scribbler Phillip Coorey of the Australian Financial Review proved provincially ignorant, his mind ill-temperedly confused about WikiLeaks.  “I have never been able to make up my mind about Assange.”  Given that his profession benefits from leaks, whistleblowing and the exposure of abuses, one wonders what he is doing in it.  Assange has, after all, been convicted under the US Espionage Act of 1917 for engaging in that very activity, a matter that should give Coorey pause for outrage.

For the veteran journalist, another parallel was more appropriate, something rather distant from any notions of public interest journalism that had effectively been criminalised by the US Republic.  “The release of Julian Assange has closer parallels to that of David Hicks 17 years ago, who like Assange, was deemed to have broken American law while not in that country, and which eventually involved a US president cutting a favour for an Australian prime minister.”

The case of Hicks remains a ghastly reminder of Australian diplomatic and legal cowardice.  Coorey is only right to assume that both cases feature tormented flights of fancy by the US imperium keen on breaking a few skulls in their quest to make the world safe for Washington. The military commissions, of which Hicks was a victim, were created during the madly named Global War on Terror pursuant to presidential military order.  Intended to try non-US citizens suspected of terrorism held at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, they were farcical exercises of executive power, a fact pointed out by the US Supreme Court in 2006.  It took Congressional authorisation via the Military Commissions Act in 2009 to spare them.

Coorey’s colleague and international editor of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, Peter Hartcher, was similarly uninterested in what Assange exposed, babbling about the publisher’s return as the moment “Assangeism came into plain view”.  He had no stomach for “the cult” which seemed to have infected Canberra’s cold weather.  He also wondered whether Assange could constructively “use his global celebrity status to campaign for public interest journalism and human rights”.  To do so – and here, teacher’s pet of the political establishment, beater of the war drum for the United States – Assange would have to “fundamentally” alter “his ways to advance the cause”.

All this was a prelude for Hartcher to take the hatchet to the journalistic exploits of a man more decorated with journalism awards that many in the Canberra gallery combined.  The claim that he is “a journalist is hotly contested by actual journalists.”  Despite the US government conceding that the disclosures by WikiLeaks had not resulted in harm to US sources, “there were many other victims of Assange’s project.”  The returned publisher was only in Australia “on probation”, a signal reminder that the media establishment will be attempting to badger him into treacherous conformity.

Even this language was too mild for another Australian hack, Michael Ware, who had previously worked for Time Magazine and CNN.  With pathological inventiveness,  he thought Assange “a traitor in the sense that, during a time of war, when we had American, British and Australian troops in the field, under fire, Julian Assange published troves of unredacted documents”.  Never mind truth to power; in Ware’s world, veracity is subordinate to it, even in an illegal war. What he calls “methods” and “methodology” cannot be exposed.

Such gutter journalism has its necessary cognate in gutter politics.  All regard information was threatening unless appropriately handled, its more potent effects for change stilled.  Leader of the opposition in the Senate, Simon Birmingham, found it “completely unnecessary and totally inappropriate for Julian Assange to be greeted like some homecoming hero by the Australian Prime Minister.” Chorusing with hacks Coorey, Hartcher and Ware, Birmingham bleated about the publication by Assange of half a million documents “without having read them, curated them, checked to see if there was anything that could be damaging or risking the lives of others there.”  Keep the distortions flying, Senator.

Dennis Richardson, former domestic intelligence chief and revolving door specialist (public servant becomes private profiteer with ease in Canberra), similarly found it inexplicable that the PM contacted Assange with a note of congratulation, or even showed any public interest in his release from a system that was killing him.  “I can think of no other reason why a prime minister would ring Assange on his return to Australia except for purposes relating to politics,” moaned Richardson to the Guardian Australia.

For Richardson, Assange had been legitimately convicted, even if it was achieved via that most notorious of mechanisms, the plea deal.  The inconvenient aside that Assange had been spied upon by CIA sponsored operatives, considered a possible object of abduction, rendition or assassination never clouds his uncluttered mind.

Sharp eyes will be trained on Assange in Australia, however long he wishes to stay.  He is in the bosom of the Five Eyes Alliance, permanently threatened by the prospect of recall and renewed interest by Washington.  And there are dozens of journalists, indifferent to the dangers the entire effort against the publisher augurs for their own craft, wishing that to be the case.


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.