Friday, May 24, 2024

REST IN POWER

In Memoriam: H. Bruce Franklin (1934-2024)


 
 MAY 24, 2024
Facebook

The American cultural historian called the creation of the US Space Force an “open declaration of our national insanity.”

This CounterPunch feature, in honor of Professor Franklin who passed away on May 19, 2024, is from a previous discussion with him in 2018 and found in Foreign Policy Journal.

Bruce Franklin is a US academic who specializes in American studies, science fiction, marine ecology, prison literature, and military history. He writes extensively on US wars and American cultural history while strongly advocating for academic freedom in higher education. I asked Franklin to discuss the plan for a military presence in space, the prospects for its Pentagon support, and the likelihood of it becoming “the next battlefield.” I also asked him to break down space militarization as he describes how it already exists as a US capability and explains the meaning of Trump in this reemerging context and the origins of a US “war star.”

Daniel Falcone: I wanted to ask you about the recent headlines regarding Vice President Mike Pence and the announcement of the Space Command branch of the military. What was your general reaction after hearing this announcement?

Bruce Franklin: First, it makes no rational sense. That’s obvious. Our nation is already militarizing space. The Space Force would just add another branch to the bureaucracy of the military, which is already an octopus with too many arms. At a minimum, it would cost billions of dollars just to fund this Force with offices, people, computers, and other goodies. It would be a ridiculous waste of resources and personnel, which are reasons the military honchos oppose it.

But the real concern is that it would be an official declaration of a race to militarize space. It’s as though the people leading our government have learned nothing from the history of our nation and this planet since 1945. Because every single weapon system that we invented and every single move we’ve made to gain military supremacy has succeeded in making us more and more insecure. At the end of World War II, we were the only major power in the world with global military capabilities, with the oceans to the east and west and friendly countries to the north and south. And yet somehow, we’ve succeeded in putting ourselves in daily jeopardy of annihilation and a constant vortex of militarization. And it’s not as though this wasn’t predicted.

After the first successful test of an atomic bomb, Leo Szilard, who initiated the Manhattan Project, together with 68 other scientists from the Manhattan Project, signed a letter to the president urging him not to use this weapon and warning about the future that would come. ‘Don’t use this bomb. If you use this bomb, eventually: “the cities of the United States would be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. So, it was totally predictable. The consequences of a military race in space are just as predictable. Russia and China right away are going to try to match whatever we do in the weaponization and militarization of space. And then other countries are going to get the technology and the infrastructure to be able to put up all kinds of very dangerous weapons and systems in space. Back in 1945 there was a great article titled, “Gentlemen, you are Mad!” What we did then and ever since is indeed mad and insane. I not only witnessed but also participated in this insanity as a navigator and intelligence officer in the Strategic Air Command in the 1950s.

Daniel Falcone: Can you take a moment to discuss US weapons capabilities and could you compare the Obama Doctrine to the Trump “Me First” foreign policy on this score? Also, could you explain what a “war star” is—in the historiography of the United States from your standpoint? How is Trump a “war star?”

Bruce Franklin: Yes, and why I wrote a book titled — not Star Wars, but War Stars. The title refers to things we have created and men who created and glamorized them. We have created literally war stars. Our thermonuclear weapons are literally miniature stars, hence war stars. They work the same way that the sun works. We’ve harnessed that and done it in a way that puts our species in jeopardy. When I taught a nuclear war class, I told the students, ‘I was born and grew up on a different planet from the one on which you were born and grew up.’ On that planet, there was nothing that threatened the existence of our species. Now there is. We homo sapiens think we are smart. We’re so smart that we’ve created the means of our own extinction. And not only created that means but deployed it and threatened to use it. And have come very close to using it many times. So that’s the first meaning of “war stars,” the physical stars.

Secondly, there are the human stars. In the book, War Stars – the concept dates all the way back to the 18th century when Robert Fulton created what he thought would be the ultimate defensive weapon, that would bring an end to wars, one that would never be able to be used as an offensive weapon. That was the submarine, the war submarine. And now, here we are in the 21st century when US submarines, Russian submarines, British submarines, and Chinese submarines are roaming the oceans armed with nuclear missiles. Our submarines have 124 thermonuclear warheads, each many times more potent than the atomic bombs that incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

These thermonuclear weapon heads can be launched from underwater. And the three top officers on each of these submarines have the physical power and the authority to launch those weapons. The Russian submarines off our coast have the same power and authority. The first human “war star” then can be traced back to Fulton. Other historically noteworthy “war stars” include Thomas Edison; Billy Mitchell, the ‘father’ of the US Air Force; my former boss, Curtis LeMay; Harry Truman, who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and every other US president since. As many people have been pointing out for decades, it’s not as though the last time we used nuclear weapons was in August in 1945. We’ve continued to use them, the same way a person uses a weapon when they put a gun to your head and say, ‘Give me your wallet.’ We offered nuclear weapons to the French in 1954.

It’s every single American President without exception and having someone unstable as our current president [Trump] makes it scarier. But most Americans are still under the illusion that only the president can order a nuclear attack, which is simply false. The ability to order nuclear attack is widely dispersed. If people thought about it, they would realize it has to be that way in order to maintain “effective deterrence.”

‘We must have the ability and authority to launch nuclear weapons widely’ because otherwise another power could conduct a decapitating first strike, in which one nuclear bomb would wipe out the President, the Vice President, everybody in the Pentagon, the entire Washington area and all the people in the chain of command. This is why the commanding officers of the nuclear submarines, and many other branches have nuclear weapons available.

I worry about those people in the nuclear subs and the people with the tactical nukes almost on the Russian border and a full-scale race to militarize and weaponized space is beyond scary. It’s hard here to see much difference between Obama and Trump. Obama decided to “modernize” and “update” our nuclear arsenal. Of course, Trump has special claims and ambitions as a war star. He is already a star, and his stardom led to the White House. And “war” is something he wages with glee, whereas the trade wars that he claims are “good” and “easy to win,” or the land, air, and drone wars America is now fighting in at least seven countries. Then there are [Trump’s] hair-raising and bone-chilling threats against North Korea: “I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my button works!”

Daniel Falcone: With Pence making this announcement and the rhetoric that’s used by Trump in regards to the militarization of space, what do you think is taking place on an American historical level as far as the domestic population being potential proponents of this? Is the US population and its cultural imagination and fascination with the super weapon embraced or feared, and where does it originate?

Bruce Franklin: Obviously our culture has been deeply influenced by science-fiction, which is seen in contradictory ways, on the one hand glorifying and romanticizing it, and on the other hand, warning against the terrifying aspects of it, but it’s a given in the culture. Unfortunately, it is also a given in the culture, that there’s nothing we can do about it, which is probably the most dangerous idea of all.

If this military concept is supported it makes me think that the country is very susceptible to fear and propaganda. I’m trying to get to the causes of that, when it comes to war and selling war, how these new dimensions of explaining threats get people to accept the narrative and reality of each geo-political situation. American exceptionalism didn’t begin yesterday or with Trump. It has a very long history which we can trace back to the 17th century and those Puritans who believed that God had given a special mission. In general, American ignorance of modern history is monumental, and very scary. I think that very few Americans have any notion of how isolated we are in the world in our attitude toward weapons, militarization, and war. And it’s brought right into focus on this issue of space.

In 2014 there were two resolutions brought before the UN on the prevention of an arms race in space. 178 nations voted for that resolution to prevent militarization and an arms race in space. Two nations abstained: the United States and Israel. In a second resolution there were 126 nations that voted for it, while the United States and Israel voted against it, joined by Georgia and Ukraine (the Ukraine after the coup that overthrew the legitimate government of Ukraine and installed this neo-fascist government). Sane people recognize that if space is to belong to anybody it must belong to everybody. The creation of the US Space Force would be an open declaration of our national insanity.

Daniel Falcone is a teacher, journalist, and PhD student in the World History program at St. John’s University in Jamaica, NY as well as a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. He resides in New York City.

The Slow-Motion Execution of Julian Assange Continues

May 23, 2024
Source: Scheer Post


Dust to Dust – by Mr. Fish


The ruling by the High Court in London permitting Julian Assange to appeal his extradition order leaves him languishing in precarious health in a high-security prison. That is the point.

The decision by the High Court in London to grant Julian Assange the right to appeal the order to extradite him to the United States may prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. It does not mean Julian will elude extradition. It does not mean the court has ruled, as it should, that he is a journalist whose only “crime” was providing evidence of war crimes and lies by the U.S. government to the public. It does not mean he will be released from the high-security HMS Belmarsh prison where, as Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, after visiting Julian there, said he was undergoing a “slow-motion execution.”

It does not mean that journalism is any less imperiled. Editors and publishers of five international media outlets —– The New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais and DER SPIEGEL —– which published stories based on documents released by WikiLeaks, have urged that the U.S. charges be dropped and Julian be released. None of these media executives were charged with espionage. It does not dismiss the ludicrous ploy by the U.S. government to extradite an Australian citizen whose publication is not based in the U.S. and charge him under the Espionage Act. It continues the long Dickensian farce that mocks the most basic concepts of due process.

This ruling is based on the grounds that the U.S. government did not offer sufficient assurances that Julian would be granted the same First Amendment protections afforded to a U.S. citizen, should he stand trial. The appeal process is one more legal hurdle in the persecution of a journalist who should not only be free, but feted and honored as the most courageous of our generation.

Yes. He can file an appeal. But this means another year, perhaps longer, in harsh prison conditions as his physical and psychological health deteriorates. He has spent over five years in HMS Belmarsh without being charged. He spent seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy because the U.K. and Swedish governments refused to guarantee that he wouldn’t be extradited to the U.S., even though he agreed to return to Sweden to aid a preliminary investigation that was eventually dropped.

The judicial lynching of Julian was never about justice. The plethora of legal irregularities, including the recording of his meetings with attorneys by the Spanish security firm UC Global at the embassy on behalf of the CIA, alone should have seen the case thrown out of court as it eviscerates attorney-client privilege.

The U.S. has charged Julian with 17 acts under the Espionage Act and one count of computer misuse, for an alleged conspiracy to take possession of and then publish national defense information. If found guilty on all of these charges he faces 175 years in a U.S. prison.

The extradition request is based on the 2010 release by WikiLeaks of the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs — hundreds of thousands of classified documents, leaked to the site by Chelsea Manning, then an Army intelligence analyst, which exposed numerous U.S. war crimes including video images of the gunning down of two Reuters journalists and 10 other unarmed civilians in the Collateral Murder video, the routine torture of Iraqi prisoners, the covering up of thousands of civilian deaths and the killing of nearly 700 civilians that had approached too closely to U.S. checkpoints.

In February, lawyers for Julian submitted nine separate grounds for a possible appeal.

A two-day hearing in March, which I attended, was Julian’s last chance to request an appeal of the extradition decision made in 2022 by the then British home secretary, Priti Patel, and of many of the rulings of District Judge Baraitser in 2021.

The two High Court judges, Dame Victoria Sharp and Justice Jeremy Johnson, in March rejected most of Julian’s grounds of appeal. These included his lawyers’ contention that the UK-US extradition treaty bars extradition for political offenses; that the extradition request was made for the purpose of prosecuting him for his political opinions; that extradition would amount to retroactive application of the law — because it was not foreseeable that a century-old espionage law would be used against a foreign publisher; and that he would not receive a fair trial in the Eastern District of Virginia. The judges also refused to hear new evidence that the CIA plotted to kidnap and assassinate Julian, concluding — both perversely and incorrectly — that the CIA only considered these options because they believed Julian was planning to flee to Russia.

But the two judges determined Monday that it is “arguable” that a U.S. court might not grant Julian protection under the First Amendment, violating his rights to free speech as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judges in March asked the U.S. to provide written assurances that Julian would be protected under the First Amendment and that he would be exempt from a death penalty verdict. The U.S. assured the court that Julian would not be subjected to the death penalty, which Julian’s lawyers ultimately accepted. But the Department of Justice was unable to provide an assurance that Julian could mount a First Amendment defense in a U.S. court. Such a decision is made in a U.S. federal court, their lawyers explained.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg, who is prosecuting Julian, has argued that only U.S. citizens are guaranteed First Amendment rights in U.S. courts. Kromberg has stated that what Julian published was “not in the public interest” and that the U.S. was not seeking his extradition on political grounds.

Free speech is a key issue. If Julian is granted First Amendment rights in a U.S. court it will be very difficult for the U.S. to build a criminal case against him, since other news organizations, including The New York Times and The Guardian, published the material he released.

The extradition request is based on the contention that Julian is not a journalist and not protected under the First Amendment.

Julian’s attorneys and those representing the U.S. government have until May 24 to submit a draft order, which will determine when the appeal will be heard.

Julian committed the empire’s greatest sin — he exposed it as a criminal enterprise. He documented its lies, routine violation of human rights, wanton killing of innocent civilians, rampant corruption and war crimes. Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Labour, Trump or Biden — it does not matter. Those who manage the empire use the same dirty playbook.

The publication of classified documents is not a crime in the United States, but if Julian is extradited and convicted, it will become one.

Julian is in precarious physical and psychological health. His physical and psychological deterioration has resulted in a minor stroke, hallucinations and depression. He takes antidepressant medication and the antipsychotic quetiapine. He has been observed pacing his cell until he collapses, punching himself in the face and banging his head against the wall. He has spent weeks in the medical wing of Belmarsh, nicknamed “hell wing.” Prison authorities found “half of a razor blade” hidden under his socks. He has repeatedly called the suicide hotline run by the Samaritans because he thought about killing himself “hundreds of times a day.”

These slow-motion executioners have not yet completed their work. Toussaint L’Ouverture, who led the Haitian independence movement, the only successful slave revolt in human history, was physically destroyed in the same manner. He was locked by the French in an unheated and cramped prison cell and left to die of exhaustion, malnutrition, apoplexy, pneumonia and probably tuberculosis.

Prolonged imprisonment, which the granting of this appeal perpetuates, is the point. The 12 years Julian has been detained — seven in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and over five in high-security Belmarsh Prison — have been accompanied by a lack of sunlight and exercise, as well as unrelenting threats, pressure, prolonged isolation, anxiety and constant stress. The goal is to destroy him.

We must free Julian. We must keep him out of the hands of the U.S. government. Given all he did for us, we owe him an unrelenting fight.

If there is no freedom of speech for Julian, there will be no freedom of speech for us.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. DONATE

Related Posts



Chris Hedges  who graduated from seminary at Harvard Divinity School, worked for nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, National Public Radio and other news organizations in Latin America, the Middle East and the Balkans. He was part of the team of reporters at The New York Times who won a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of global terrorism. Hedges is a fellow at the Nation Institute and the author of numerous books, including War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning.

ICYMI

2024: People Starve As The Rich Get Richer


 
 MAY 24, 2024
Facebook

Image by Hennie Stander.

Earning enough to pay the rent or mortgage, cover utility bills and travel costs, buy food and have the occasional coffee is impossible for many. But its not hard for everyone, is it; there are a small number of people living among us who don’t have to worry about the bills, are not troubled when food prices increase or rents balloon.

They are the rich and the obscenely rich. On the surface they look like the rest of us, but they live in a completely different world to the one most of us inhabit. A pristine space of privilege and political influence, for in our corrupt world bereft of principled political leaders, money and power are bedmates.

The statistics around wealth and income inequality are manifold and horrifying.

There are, according to Forbes more billionaires in the world than ever before; 2,781 individuals with fortunes in excess of $1Bn (up 141 on 2023), of which 14 are ‘centi-billionaires’ i.e. fortunes over $100 Bn. Mostly the super rich are men, Oxfam record that, “Globally, men own US $105 trillion more wealth than women.”

During the last ten years, (which saw the 2008 financial crash, Covid and the Ukraine/Russia) the collective wealth of this tiny shiny gang has increased by 120%. As Forbes puts it, “Even during times of financial uncertainty for many, the super-rich continue to thrive.” At the same time, on the same planet, as the hyper rich drown in money and stuff, around five billion people around the world are poorer now than they were in 2019.

The poorest everywhere are women, people of colour (“in the USA, the wealth of a typical Black household is just 15.8% of that of a typical white household”) and marginalised groups; the same sections of society coincidentally that were most severely impacted by Covid.

Remember all the talk during the pandemic of a socio-economic reset, of tackling social injustices, creating fairer more integrated ways of working and living etc, blah, blah blah. Well, Oxfam reveal that, in subsequent years while “average real wages of nearly 800 million workers have fallen” across 52 countries, the worlds billionaires are $3.3Tn richer than they were pre pandemic……and their wealth has grown three times faster than the rate of inflation.”

Unimaginable wealth for a tiny number of individuals while the majority of humanity live in varying levels of poverty or economic hardship. “The wealth of the world’s five richest billionaires has more than doubled since the start of this decade, while 60% of humanity has grown poorer.” ‘Trickle down economics’ (“gush up” as Arundhati Roy rightly describes it) is a dystopian fantasy peddled by those who are swimming in cash.

In parallel to unprecedented concentrations of wealth, the corporations that many of these individuals lead or own have also been making unprecedented profits. Oxfam: “148 of the world’s biggest corporations together raked in $1.8 trillion…in total net profits in the year to June 2023, a 52 per cent jump compared to average net profits in 2018-2021.”

Record profits as the majority are struggling to feed themselves, are in many cases falling into debt and destitution, whilst being told to ‘tighten their belts’, by obnoxious, often wealthy, politicians beholden to corporate leaders.

Virtually all profits are dished out to shareholders, with companies refusing to pay their staff properly; less than 0.5% “of over 1,600 of the world’s largest companies “pay their workers a living wage.” Corporate greed knows no limits, nor the level of worker exploitation.

Corporate political power fuels inequality not just by shareholder payouts, but by keeping wages low, avoiding paying taxes, absorbing and running public services and feeding climate change.

Multiple inequalities

In addition to growing inequality within countries, the gap between the Global north and the Global south is also increasing.

There are various forms of inequality that flow from the underlying cause, financial inequality: climate change, political influence, housing, access to the arts and internet, good health care and stimulating education among others.

Under the socio-economic system of the day, all is dependent on money. Financial hardship/poverty places individuals and nations in a position of disadvantage, making it impossible for example to live in a comfortable home, eat a balanced healthy diet, to attend a good school, visit art galleries and the theatre, access the internet; travel, have a voice that is listened to by the political class.

The systemic cause of this madness is of course the inherent injustice/s sewn into the DNA of the pervasive socio-economic model. The more extreme, the more fundamental the form of capitalism becomes concentrations of wealth intensify and narrow, inequality increases, democracy flounders, social divisions and anger grow.

Since the 1990s, thanks largely to that fanatical duo, Thatcher and Reagan, and intensifying year on year, the socio-economic paradigm has moved from twilight to utter darkness. Neo-Liberalism or Market fundamentalism, has expanded its reach, until it now dominates virtually all areas of life, in almost every corner of the world.

The Paradigm of Greed and Destruction champions excess; sufficiency, simplicity and moderation are dismissed. Everything is seen as a commodity, including health care, education, and people, to be monetised, exploited to the last drop and profited from. Everyone is regarded as a consumer, every nation, city or village analysed as a potential marketplace.

It is a deeply materialistic, extremely crude, albeit complex way of organising society, that humanity is enthralled too and entrapped by. Obsession with objects and sensory experiences has resulted in mankind being divorced from him/herself, from the natural world and that underlying reality, which we call god. It is choking the life out of humanity, poisoning the planet and driving climate change.

Yes, the underlying cause of climate change and ecological vandalism is consumerism, therefore greed. Not consumerism within poor developing nations (including China) of course, but relentless irresponsible consumerism in rich western nations (US leads the pack by some margin), particularly the richest members within these societies. “The richest 1% globally emit as much carbon pollution as the poorest two-thirds of humanity [roughly 5.4billion].”

It doesn’t have to be like this

Keeping the masses poor, physically exhausted and emotionally drained, whilst concentrating wealth into the pockets of the already rich is not a new game of course. As Priya Sahni-Nicholas of the Equality Trust explains, “The super-rich have spent centuries diverting wealth into their hands, making our democracy less responsive to people’s needs and damaging our communities. The result is we [society/nations] are poorer, sicker, less productive, unhappier, more polarised, and less trusting.”

The values of the market are destroying communities and literally making people ill – physically and psychologically (and of course the two are inter-twinned). These insidious tools of control create the conditions for all kinds of conflict, individually and collectively. They fuel tribalism, deny/pervert democracy, encourage corruption, and make peace impossible. All of which is by design; the last thing the ruling elites want is a contented happy, and well informed populace.

Despite the dogmatic rhetoric from politicians of all colours this is not the only way to live, the only option. We can change this, and if we are to prosper.

At the heart of any re-imagining must be that simple attitude and action that parents routinely encourage in their children, – Sharing. We need to learn to share; fundamentally to share the essentials required to live – water, food, shelter; share the knowledge, information, and technology. Ensure everyone, irrespective of income has access to good quality health care and stimulating education, and begin to create a just world where trust can blossom, differences dissolve and relationships form.

Sharing is the first step of such a shift. If introduced as a guiding principle it would have a profound impact, not just in the way basic needs are met, but in the collective consciousness. It would facilitate a kinder, fairer, society and allow a space to open up in which stress could gradually dissolve. The mechanisms for building sharing into the machine could easily be designed and introduced, if, and of course its a colossal if, the political will was there.

In parallel with structural simplification, purpose needs to be rediscovered and actions cleansed. Humanity must – or potentially face extinction – move away from the relentless pursuit of material, sensory pleasure, which demands constant stimulation through consumption, and therefore, ensures perpetual discontent and environmental catastrophe, to a quieter, simpler mode of living.

This may sound ridiculously ambitious, and given the determination by corporations, the exceedingly rich and weak politicians with vested interests, and public apathy, it may well be. But unless purpose is re-imagined, and unless ‘root and branch’ economic ‘reform’ takes place, the social-economic-political divisions will not just continue, they will intensify, and the unbelievable extremes will become normalised, baked into everyday life and everyday politics.

This is the time for such a move; everything is in a state of collapse; all the forms, all the systems and, in societies throughout the world, particularly the West, many of the people are falling apart. If not now, when?

Graham Peebles is a British freelance writer and charity worker. He set up The Create Trust in 2005 and has run education projects in Sri Lanka, Ethiopia and India.  E: grahampeebles@icloud.com  W: www.grahampeebles.org