Saturday, August 05, 2023

COLLECTIBLE WATCHES
Pakistan: Imran Khan sentenced to 3 years for corruption

The former prime minister of Pakistan has been found guilty in a case involving state gifts and has been handed a three-year jail term. Khan has maintained he is innocent of the charges brought against him.


Khan urged his supporters "to remain peaceful, steadfast and strong" in a video released after the verdict
Mohsin Raza/REUTERS

A court in Pakistan has found former Prime Minister Imran Khan guilty of graft and has sentenced him to three years in prison, according to state TV.

"His dishonesty has been established beyond doubt," judge Humayun Dilawar wrote in his ruling. "He has been found guilty of corrupt practices by hiding the benefits he accrued from national exchequer willfully and intentionally."

The court found him guilty of selling and lying about receiving state gifts worth more than 140 million Pakistani rupees ($635,000, €576,000), during his tenure as prime minister from 2018 to 2022.

Khan's lawyer Intazar Hussain told the Reuters news agency that he had been arrested and taken from his residence in the eastern city of Lahore.

Following his detention, Khan urged his supporters "to remain peaceful, steadfast and strong," in an address that was pre-recorded as he "expected" to be arrested.



Hopes of return to helm hanging by a thread

The conviction could end Khan's chances of standing in national elections that are due to be held later this year.

The cricketer-turned-politician has denied the charges.

Last month Khan predicted his opponents would imprison him eventually, saying "sooner or later they will put me in jail," adding that he welcomed fresh elections, but wondered whether his party would be allowed to contest them.

 

'Biased decision,' says PTI

"This is a biased decision by the court and the decision is the worst example of political revenge and engineering," PTI spokesperson Raoof Hasan told DW's Islamabad correspondent Haroon Janjua. "It has been challenged in the Supreme Court. Through this case, another black mark was placed on the forehead of the justice system of Pakistan."

"The nation will never accept such a conspiracy and revenge attempt against the most popular and reliable political leader of the country," Hasan added.

Pakistani Minister of Poverty Alleviation and Social Safety Shazia Marri, hit back, telling DW, "We have never desired for our political opponents to be victimized but law must be the same for all. If he thinks he’s innocent he can take the legal course."

Marri added that Khan had been "defying legal procedures, not appearing before legal forums and building a falsehood to hide from legal consequences of his actions."

Earlier on Saturday, in a statement, Khan's Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party said it had already filed an appeal to the country's Supreme Court.

More than 150 cases have been filed against Khan since a no-confidence vote ousted him in April last year.

Khan's legal team said: "It's important to mention there was no chance given to present witnesses, neither was time allotted to round up arguments."

DW
mfa, jsi/sms (Reuters, AFP, AP, dpa)

No surprises
Published in Dawn, 
August 6th, 2023

PAKISTAN’S twisted political saga continues without the slightest deviation from a tired and predictable script. PTI chairman Imran Khan has been found guilty of “corrupt practices”, disqualified from representing the people of Pakistan, fined Rs100,000, and sentenced to three years in jail for good measure.

If Mr Khan’s actual ‘crime’ seems irrelevant and of little moral significance, it is because former prime ministers Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy faced similar treatment at the hands of the state; none of the charges levelled against them withstood the test of time.

Indeed, considering the frivolity of the charge and severity of Mr Khan’s punishment, one need not reach too far back in history to find a parallel. Where Mr Sharif’s political dreams were cut short over an unreceived salary, Mr Khan’s political career has been rudely interrupted over failing to properly declare certain gifts he received as prime minister. In neither case, can the severity of the punishment be said to have fitted the ‘crime’.

There is no denying that Mr Khan blundered by not complying with the ECP’s asset declaration rules as strictly as he should have. However, months of reporting on Toshakhana records have since established that very few of those who received gifts in an official capacity may be able to pass similar scrutiny if their records were to be examined with the same vigour.

Given that context, for the court to hand Mr Khan the maximum possible sentence for the offence he was charged with seems excessive. The punishment is all the more problematic after the concerns raised by several observers over the manner in which the trial was conducted and the seeming haste with which the judgement was issued. Of course, Mr Khan is entitled to appeal the sentence, and he may earn a reprieve, but the intended damage may have been done by then.

It must be asked why our state periodically subjects popular leaders to such humiliation when it routinely ignores far more serious crimes. This is, after all, the same country where a clear constitutional edict to hold elections within a specified time frame was wilfully cast aside earlier this year, and there still haven’t been any consequences for the actors involved in the farce.

The fact is that Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto were not, and Imran Khan will not be rendered irrelevant to Pakistanis over some technical knockout. The fate of a politician rests in the hands of their constituency, and no amount of external interference can change this simple relationship. The experiment was tried in the earlier two cases and failed, and the state seems to be repeating the same mistake, only to weaken a fraying social contract further.


‘Murder of justice’: Lawyers weigh in on ‘hasty’ verdict against Imran Khan

"This is not the first time a politician has been ousted by the courts. Past injustices do not justify continued injustice."
Published August 5, 2023 

After a few weeks of speculation as to when it would happen, former prime minister and PTI chief Imran Khan was arrested for the second time in three months from his Zaman Park residence in Lahore today. The arrest was made by the Punjab police following an Islamabad trial court’s verdict in the Toshakhana case, declaring the former premier guilty of “corrupt practices”.

Announcing its verdict, the trial court sentenced Imran to three years in prison and imposed a fine of Rs100,000 on him for concealing details of Toshakhana gifts under Section 174 of the Election Act. The PTI chief was not present when the verdict was announced by the trial court.

Dawn.com reached out to members of the legal fraternity to weigh in on the conviction and subsequent arrest.

Unfair, unjust

Lawyer Rida Hosain termed the trial unjust. “Article 10A of the Constitution guarantees an absolute and unqualified right to a fair trial and due process. The right to a fair trial includes an opportunity to defend the case against you, an adequate opportunity to prepare the defence, a right to a hearing, an independent and impartial judge etc. The fairness of the process is fundamental — it prevents arbitrary excesses and provides certain minimum safeguards. Justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done.”

Hosain added, however, that Section 366(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that a judgment shall not be deemed to be invalid ‘by reason only of the absence of any party or his pleader on the day.’

“The fact that the verdict was announced in the absence of Imran Khan in and of itself is not enough to declare the conviction invalid,” she said.

Having said that, the manner in which the Toshakhana case was conducted raises serious questions on the fairness of the trial, said Hosain.

“There is a right to appeal against this decision. An appellate court would need to determine whether a conviction, which was reserved without hearing the final arguments of the defence counsel, and without hearing defence witnesses, can hold the field. On the face of it, it is unjust.”

Commenting on the legal implications of the verdict, Hosain explained: “Under Article 63(1)(h) of the Constitution, an individual with a criminal conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude (carrying a sentence of at least two years) is subject to disqualification for five years after release. The courts have held that ‘moral turpitude’ includes delinquent conduct involving misrepresentation, dishonesty, misappropriation, forgery, cheating etc. If Imran Khan’s conviction stands, he cannot be a member of parliament for five years after release.

“This is not the first time a politician has been ousted by the courts. Past injustices do not justify continued injustice.”

‘Convenient tool’

Referring to Imran’s potential disqualification from holding public office following his conviction, lawyer Hassan A Niazi termed Pakistan’s disqualification laws “convenient tools to get rid of troublesome politicians at the behest of the unelected.” He argued that this case, like those that came before it, has little to do with corrupt practices.

“In the 90s, we had the Constitution’s dissolution provisions that were used to pull down political opponents.

“Now we have disqualification laws backed by incomprehensible Supreme Court judgments and enabled by the establishment.”

A hasty judgement

On whether the judgement would stand, given how it was announced in the absence of the accused, lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii said: “While it is the duty of the accused to present themselves in court and not the court’s duty to wait upon their arrival, the verdict is ridiculous for a whole host of other reasons.

“Technically the court should have ensured the presence of the accused, by use of force if necessary, and then announced the verdict. This method used today speaks to the extraordinary haste with which these proceedings have been conducted.

“A decision on the merits cannot be given without the accused being present, even though they can be declared fugitives or proclaimed offenders. The court cannot then proceed to adjudicate the merits of a criminal case and must declare the accused a proclaimed offender and then a decision on this offence is rendered.

“As a result of today’s decision, not only is Imran Khan convicted for three years, he is also disqualified for the relevant five-year period.”

‘Politically motivated case’

For lawyer Muhammad Ahmad Pansota, “the mode and manner in which the judgement has been rendered reeks of vengeance, mala fide and a politically motivated case”.

“The judgement is wrong on many grounds,” he said. “Article 10A of the Constitution mandates that a fair trial and due process must be accorded to the accused, which doesn’t seem to have happened in this case.”

Referring to the Islamabad High Court judgement, which had a day earlier ordered the trial court to decide the matter again after re-hearing the case, Pansota termed it quite a difficult judgement to understand, “but even if we take it on face value, it [IHC] had asked the concerned judge to first decide the jurisdiction”.

He added, however, that the judgement had been rendered by the trial court on the same day. “In my view, time should have been given to the accused to produce his defence because a criminal trial without defence kills the very idea of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

“So in my view, the judgement, once challenged, will be struck down or at least suspended, to say the least. Even otherwise, any conviction which is five years or less is usually suspended on the very first day of hearing, so let’s see what happens.”

Lawyer Mirza Moiz Baig echoed Pansota’s thoughts. “The decision against Imran perhaps gives short shrift to the accused’s right to due process and procedural fairness,” he said.

“Earlier, the high court had directed the trial court to decide the question of maintainability on merit and then render a final decision on the merits of the allegations against Imran,” Baig explained. “Nonetheless, the fact is that the trial court disregarded the binding directions passed by the high court by failing to decide the question of maintainability and dismissing the accused’s application in this respect merely on account of his absence.

“Given our history of disqualifying elected representatives for extraneous reasons, it won’t be surprising if this decision too crumbles when challenged before the high courts once there’s a shift in the politics that underpins this decision.”

The irony

Lawyer Ayman Zafar pointed out the irony in the situation, saying when Imran Khan was arrested for the first time on May 9, he had already surrendered himself to the court, while his arrest today came in light of a verdict rendered during his absence from court.

“The pertinent question now arises as to the standing of this verdict and its potential implications on Imran’s eligibility for public office.

The legal process allows Imran the opportunity to avail himself of the right to appeal before both the high court as well as the honourable Supreme Court in light of today’s proceedings. This avenue of recourse is akin to the approach undertaken by the Sharif family in the Avenfield case.“

According to Ayman, “choosing not to argue the case, and allowing it to be condemned unheard was likely to result in an unfavourable decision against Imran. However, the underlying ground remains alive and preserved, should it need to be raised again in the future.

“It is possible that this decision was a strategic choice made by Imran’s legal counsel, in order to be able to raise the same legal grounds in the future. While this verdict also means that Imran will not be able to take part in elections due before the end of the year, the predicament that the nation faces yet again is the political instability that arises, whereby the nation finds itself in a precarious situation with unpredictable outcomes and further challenges for the people of Pakistan to endure.”

Zafar added, however, that the “events of May 9 have shown loud and clear that the people of Pakistan possess a voice that cannot be silenced and the country’s survival is intricately tied to its people.

“As of now, Imran’s future in politics remains uncertain due to the recent legal developments surrounding his arrest and potential disqualification.

“The impartiality of the judiciary is paramount to ensure a fair and just outcome for all stakeholders. The ultimate outcome will largely depend on the legal proceedings and the rulings of the higher courts. As events unfold, the nation’s focus will be on the pursuit of a fair and just resolution that upholds democratic values and serves the best interests of the people of Pakistan.”



Imran arrested after Islamabad court finds him guilty of ‘corrupt practices’ in Toshakhana case

Politik-tok: The infamous watches of Toshakhana

Imran Khan arrested from IHC; court deems ex-PM’s arrest legal
Posted by at No comments:
SOCIETY: THE RISE OF BALOCH WOMEN VLOGGERS
Published August 6, 2023 
Tilyan Aslam started vlogging during her exchange year in the US

It took Anita Jalil months to convince her father to allow her to start vlogging [video blogging] on YouTube. Eventually, her father agreed — marking the beginning of Jalil’s journey to become Balochistan’s first female vlogger.

Hailing from Gwadar, Anita struggled with vlogging at first, as the idea of women having a public presence or talking about their everyday lives on social media was an alien concept in her environment. In the initial days, Anita’s father would sit by her side when she edited her vlogs and ask her to edit out shots he didn’t like — such as shots of her clothes or make-up.

In her vlogs, Anita covered various programmes happening in Gwadar for her channel, talked about her daily life and raised issues, such as those of electricity and water in Gwadar, a city termed as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor’s (CPEC’s) ‘crown jewel’.

Slowly, Anita garnered an audience and her work started getting noticed outside of Gwadar. A team from BBC Urdu travelled to Gwadar to do a story on her, titled ‘Balochistan Ki YouTube Star Anita Ko Lakhon Loag Kyun Follow Kartay Hain? [Why Do So Many People Follow Balochistan’s YouTube Star Anita?]’, after which she was invited to various morning shows on television.

In conservative Baloch society, the idea of Baloch women placing themselves in the public eye is sometimes unthinkable. But more and more young vloggers are asserting themselves on social media and changing mores in the process…

“My father started realising that I was doing good and, now, he is one of my greatest supporters,” Anita says. However, she tread a difficult path, paved with trolling and abuse — both online and offline.

“I still remember that once a male relative told me that, ‘You have ruined our family name, we have never seen a Baloch woman show herself and her life on YouTube, you should remove our family’s name and remove your Baloch identity too’,” she recalls. “There were 15 to 17 male family members in the room. What hurt me more than the remark itself was that my father didn’t take a stand for me then, but he supports me now.”

TROLLING AND HONOUR

Sanj Baloch, a daily vlogger from Karachi | Photos by the writer

Hostility came not only from her family. Anita says she received negative comments and was trolled online, which took a mental toll on her.

“I had to be on sleeping pills because I wouldn’t be able to fall asleep thinking about the negative comments I was getting,” she recounts. “I developed anxiety — in the beginning I received many life threats. During the nights, I wouldn’t be able to fall asleep in the fear that someone might enter my home and murder me.”

Five years since starting her journey, Anita still receives hateful comments online but the fact that many opportunities have come her way because of her vlogging and knowing she has played a role in bringing about a change, makes her content.

Like many societies in South Asia, Baloch families too place the burden of upholding their ‘honour’ on women. Females who post their pictures online or have an active and public social media profile are often treated as having breached the ‘righteous’ social code.

For this reason, Tilyan Aslam, who hails from Turbat and who started vlogging in 2019 while she was on an exchange programme in the USA, thinks such Baloch women are ‘rebels.’

Tilyan started posting vlogs on her channel to share her experiences with other girls back home and kept an active presence on Instagram and Twitter — talking about various topics, such as mental health and self-love. As a university-going student, she no longer finds the time to vlog but remains active on other platforms.

“When you start doing something new, people generally pour hate and want you to do everything as per their wishes,” she remarks, explaining why she had to take a break from social media.

“They start pointing out flaws in everything. Comments like, ‘You’re not wearing a Baloch dress’, ‘You’re not speaking in Balochi’ or ‘You haven’t covered this and that topic’. People have fat-shamed me or commented on my facial structure or been rude. Sometimes I open Instagram to character-assassinating comments that lower my confidence.”

Tilyan says that while her parents are supportive, her extended family — that is, her aunts, uncles and cousins — didn’t give a positive response to her online presence.

“I have stopped going to family gatherings because of the amount of hatred and negativity that I get,” she says. Because of the taunts, her parents have sometimes indirectly advised her to reduce her social media activity.

Despite the challenges, ranging from family disapproval, facing discomfort in male-dominated public areas and receiving backlash online, more and more Baloch females have, in fact, taken up their cameras to start vlogging and maintain an active online presence.

NEVER QUITE RIGHT

Anita Jalil, the first female vlogger from Balochistan

Yasmin Ghani, a final year student at University of Turbat, is the first vlogger from Turbat. Ghani is also the youngest Radio Jockey (RJ) from her city.

Belonging to a conservative community, where women are generally confined to the chaadar and chaardiwari, ie away from the public eye, means young women like Yasmin have to be conscious of what they put out as content creators.

“When I started making videos and uploading them in 2018, I received a lot of criticism, which made me wonder what I should be doing to change this,” says Ghani. She started to appear in traditional Baloch dresses, covering her head with a scarf and speaking in Balochi in her videos, in attempts to placate her audience.

“I had some content in mind that I couldn’t produce because I knew the society I belong from won’t accept it,” she laments. “Even though my language is not understood worldwide or nationwide, I would speak in Balochi in my videos to gain acceptance. I made vlogs in Urdu in the beginning, but I was criticised for that.”

In her videos, she has covered many events in Turbat, interviewed many emerging Baloch artists and touched upon various topics.

“Some remarks left me scared too,” says Yasmin. “I would be told that, in the society I live in, women are killed in the name of honour. I continued for the sake of bringing about a change — I thought that if I stop, then my society would remain stagnant.”

The idea of a female from Baloch society uploading her pictures is a radical one, even in the 21st century, so when this happens, the pictures are often reposted, used in reels or uploaded elsewhere without seeking permission.

WITHOUT PERMISSIONS

Tilyan Aslam says that she has tried to educate people on this matter — telling them it is not only unethical but a cybercrime too. “People are never ready to listen, and this is one of the main reasons why Baloch girls don’t use social media — there is the fear that their pictures will be used without consent and not everyone has supportive families.”

“Stealing content as well as pictures is a very common thing and, if this is pointed out, people respond by saying this is part and parcel of having a public account,” says Sanj Baloch, a vlogger from Karachi who started her YouTube channel two years ago. “They don’t understand the concepts of copyright or consent or the effort that goes behind making the content.”

Sanj vlogs with a mask and keeps her face covered and, yet, she too has been on the receiving end of hateful comments online. Many fake accounts of hers have been made on Facebook and TikTok.

“Someone once shared a fake account which had a lot of followers and I posted this on my Instagram to inform my audience it wasn’t me,” she says. “People started telling me that this person was talking to them on Facebook impersonating me.”

Over time, many women from Baloch society have started fighting these outdated social norms by starting their YouTube channels and creating public accounts on social media, where they voice their opinions and share content.

When Anita started out, she was the only Baloch female vlogger. But this has changed — there are many Baloch female vloggers on YouTube now, from Balochistan as well as the Baloch diaspora living abroad, showing various aspects of Baloch society, and they receive positive and encouraging comments as well.

Even if one frame at a time, things are surely changing.


The author is a freelance feature writer. She tweets @sommulbaloch

Published in Dawn, EOS, August 6th, 2023


Posted by at No comments:
PAKISTAN
Rapacious mining
Editorial 
Published in Dawn, August 6th, 2023

STRIP the land, plunder the mountains, until all that remains is not even a shadow of a bygone time. That seems to be the approach of the Sindh government in its heedless pursuit of material gain. Its willingness to barter away the province’s glorious natural resources and its heritage puts Sindh’s past as well as its future in peril. The magnificent Karoonjhar mountain range of Nagarparkar in the Tharparkar district, from whose heights rainwater flows down into more than 20 streams in the monsoon season, is of environmental as well as cultural significance. Thankfully, the Sindh High Court, acting on a public interest petition, stepped in after the provincial government last month decided to call for tenders for extracting granite from these hills. This was part of the auction the Sindh government was planning to hold on Aug 4 for small-scale mining permits for lake salt, china clay, marble, gravel, sand and limestone across the province. On Tuesday, the court passed a restraining order till Aug 15 preventing the Mines and Minerals Development Department from undertaking any stone-cutting activities in the Karoonjhar range.

The rich stores of granite in these hills have drawn predatory attention since many years: the first contract for cutting stone here was issued during the Zia regime. In 2008, the PPP government gave the area on a 20-year lease to a private company. The court has now and then intervened to stop the stone-cutting operations here. However, despite protests by activists and locals, illegal quarrying has continued virtually unabated, changing the topography and gutting the history intrinsic to this landscape of ancient holy sites. One hopes the court will once again impose a ban on mining in the Karoonjhar range. But already there are allegations that the SHC’s stay order is being flouted. When the supposed guardians of this land are themselves profiting from its unsustainable exploitation, only continued public pressure will stay their hand.


Posted by at No comments:
AFTER OPPENHEIMER
Japan marks 78th anniversary of Hiroshima atomic bombing

Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui called out the nuclear deterrence policy of G7 leaders as "folly" at the memorial ceremony of the atomic bombing that was also attended by Japan Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.

https://p.dw.com/p/4Uotl


About 50,000 people paid homage to the victims of atomic bombing in Hiroshima
Keita Iijima/Yomiuri Shimbun/AP/picture alliance

Japan on Sunday commemorated the 78th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in the final phase of World War II.

Considering the growing nuclear threat worldwide, the mayor of Hiroshima Kazumi Matsui called for the abolition of nuclear weapons and described the nuclear deterrence policy of G7 as "folly."

"They must immediately take concrete steps to move us from the dangerous present to our ideal world," he said as a peace bell rang on Sunday at 8:15 a.m. — exactly when on August 6, 1945, US bomber Enola Gay set off the world's first atomic bomb dropped on a population center.

This year, the G7 summit took place in Hiroshima, which happens to be Japan Prime Minister Fumio Kishida's home constituency.

The mayor of Hiroshima Kazumi Matsui emphasized on the need to abandoning nuclear weapons
 JIJI Press/AFP/Getty Images

"Leaders around the world must confront the reality that nuclear threats now being voiced by certain policymakers reveal the folly of nuclear deterrence theory," Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui said at the ceremony which was also attended by Kishida.

At the memorial ceremony about 50,000 people, including aging victims who survived the bombing, gathered and observed a moment of silence.
Drums of nuclear war beating again: Antonio Guterres

The anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing was commemorated amid the growing threat of nuclear weapons propelled by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The issue poses a tricky balancing act for Kishida. Japan is traditionally an advocate of nuclear disarmament, in no small part because of the legacy of the attacks on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki three days later.

However, it also supports the partly nuclear-armed G7's group stance that members with atomic weapons shall retain them for as long as they're a necessary deterrent against other nuclear powers.

"World leaders have visited this city, seen its monuments, spoken with its brave survivors, and emerged emboldened to take up the cause of nuclear disarmament," he said in remarks read by a UN representative. "More should do so, because the drums of nuclear war are beating once again."

Japan's Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, front right, also attended the memorial service in Hiroshima and observed a moment of silence
AP/Kyodo News/picture alliance

The American atomic bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima was nicknamed "Little Boy." It is thought to have killed as many as 140,000 people by the end of 1945. Three days later, the US dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki. It is believed to have killed up to 70,000 over the next four months.

A few days after the bombings, on August 15, Japan made an official announcement that it was surrendering. Soon after, on September 2, Japan formally capitulated, bringing an end to World War II in Asia

Whether using the bombs brought about a speedier, and possibly even more bloodless, end to the war or whether it was an ultimately unnecessary show of force remains a fierce debate among historians almost eight decades on.

Oppenheimer: what you need to know before watching – ICAN

, , Leave a Commenton Oppenheimer: what you need to know before watching – ICAN“The Doomsday Clock set by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, of which Oppenheimer was a founder, in 2023 put the world at 90 seconds to midnight — the closest we have been in history.”

By The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)

The release of Christopher Nolan’s biopic about Robert J Oppenheimer – leader of the Manhattan project – is driving a lot of questions about nuclear weapons, who has them and how they (continue to) pose a global risk of catastrophe. Here are some key things you should know before going to see the film.

Looking for our action kit? Please click here. 

Fact: The Trinity test left a terrible legacy of cancer on the communities living downwind.

The Trinity Test at Alamogordo was the first, but not the last, nuclear weapon test. Like the tests that would follow, it caused irreversible damage to the environment and surrounding communities.The communities of the Trinity fallout zone call themselves the ‘Tularosa Basin Downwinders’ because radiation was carried downwind from the test site to their communities. Safety came second at the Trinity Test: the fallout zone was dramatically underestimated, the effects were barely studied, and no one was evacuated. Residents were not told about the test even as fallout ‘snowed’ over their farms, homes, and wells. The damage became clear almost immediately.

In the months following Trinity (Aug, Sept, and Oct of 1945) infant mortality in New Mexico increased by 56%, many as a result of rare birth defects. Ionising radiation is particularly damaging to rapidly developing and dividing cells—affecting infants, children, and pregnant women. But when authorities were alerted, nothing happened. Read more here.  

Myth: Nuclear weapons ended WWII

The contention that the atomic bombings saved more lives than they took by avoiding the need for the US and its allies to invade the Japanese homeland evades several important issues. First and foremost, it is not possible to know this for a fact because Japan did surrender.

Secondly, it means not having to properly address why, once Nazi Germany had surrendered, the weapon was then used against Japan which did not have a nuclear weapons project worth the name. For those who took the decision and those who have endorsed it since, it also conveniently avoids confronting the inhumane nature of these weapons and their knowing use against civilians, which even by the standards of the time many realised was a war crime.

Notably, several of the United States’ top military commanders believed the bombings played little part in Japan’s surrender. The Commander in Chief of the US Pacific fleet, Admiral Nimitz said: “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.”

Fact: The risk of nuclear weapons use is higher than ever

Even before the war in Ukraine began, the UN was warning that “the risk that nuclear weapons will be used is higher now than at any point since the duck-and-cover drills and fallout shelters of the Cold War.” Analysts for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists calculated that a child born today is unlikely to live out their natural lives without seeing nuclear devastation. 

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the barrage of nuclear threats and retaliatory statements that have followed, those risks have only increased.  That is why the Doomsday Clock is now closer to midnight than it has ever been before. The terrifying but true reality is that we cannot know for certain if Putin – or any leader of a nuclear-armed state – will use nuclear weapons at any time. What we do know is that nuclear weapons pose unacceptable humanitarian consequences – and that there is no response capacity to help survivors in the aftermath. 

Myth: Nuclear weapons prevented major conflict or even a third world war

There is no evidence that nuclear weapons deter war and preserve strategic stability beyond the correlation of the existence of these weapons with the fact a third world war has not – yet – occurred.

The mutual build-up of nuclear weapons between the USSR and the US in the Cold War may have prevented the two from engaging in war with one another directly, however, proxy wars (generally on the territories of developing nations) continued. War did not end with the development of the bomb. The chance that one of the proxy wars could have flared into a nuclear war was very close- several times. Also, while – luckily – there hasn’t been a nuclear war since 1945, nuclear weapons have not protected countries from conventional attack.

In 1982, Argentina went to war with Britain over the Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands and the US nuclear arsenal did not deter Al Qaida from mounting the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. Not to mention the 1973 Yom Kippur war and the Kargil War in 1999.

Fact: the 9 states with nuclear weapons are wasting billions of public money each year on their arsenals

In 2022 alone, the nine countries armed with nuclear weapons spent $82.9 billion on their nuclear arsenals, 35% of which went into the private sector. The United States spent more than all of the other nuclear armed states combined, $43.7 billion. Russia spent 22% of what the U.S. did, at $9.6 billion, and China spent just over a quarter of the U.S. total, at $11.7 billion.

Myth: Nuclear weapons are safer today than they were when they were first invented

Nuclear weapons today have much greater destructive power than the first bombs in the 1940s. The bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were equivalent to 15 and 20 kilotons of dynamite which by today’s standards is considered a “low-yield” nuclear weapon. The B83, the largest deployed US nuclear warhead, is equivalent to 80 Hiroshima-sized bombs. At the start of 2023, the US nuclear arsenal of 5,244 nuclear weapons had a total yield of 857.6 megatons, or the equivalent of 57,173 Hiroshima-sized bombs. That’s an average of 164 kilotons per nuclear warhead in the US arsenal. Russia, with 5,889 nuclear warheads, has the equivalent of 65,240 Hiroshima-sized bombs.

There have been many accidents and incidents where nuclear weapons almost detonated or were nearly used since 1945 and it is matter of luck and individuals who were prepared to defy peer pressure and military protocols being in the right place at the right time, including during the Cuban Missile crisis, that nuclear war has so far been avoided.

Daniel Ellsberg, the US military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers, notes in his book Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner that the military bureaucracy associated with the cold war and mutually assured destruction has largely stayed intact. The maintenance of the status quo in nuclear weapons policy, along with the maintained and constant threat of use, largely suggests we are no safer from nuclear weapons than we were since their first invention.

Most notably, the Doomsday Clock  set by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, of which Oppenheimer was a founder, in 2023 put the world at 90 seconds to midnight — the closest we have been in history. This means that we are much less secure than we have ever been in regards to nuclear war.

Fact: You can’t un-invent nuclear weapons, but you can reject them

The knowledge of how to build nuclear weapons is out there, one doesn’t even need to go to the dark web to find schematics. But, just because you can figure out how to do it, doesn’t mean a country will choose to do so. Many countries could make nuclear weapons but have decided not to do so – and the non-diversion of nuclear materials used for nuclear energy to weapons is verified by a highly effective international system of safeguards run by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  This system could be adapted and extended to all countries once those with nuclear weapons have made the choice to disarm. 

Dangerous technology can be and has been successfully controlled. Chemical and biological weapons have been outlawed, as have anti-personnel landmines, cluster bombs and blinding laser weapons. Useful and economically important industrial chemicals that proved to be health hazards or dangerous environmental pollutants have been banned and their use stopped worldwide. It is entirely possible and nuclear weapons are no different. There is nothing magic about them.

Fact: The horrific impact of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings created the nuclear taboo that has helped prevent the further use of nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons haven’t been used in warfare since 1945. The reports, initially by the International Committee of the Red Cross and devastating images and stories that eventually made their way out of Hiroshima. John Hersey’s coverage in 1946 told the human impact, about the people with melted eyeballs, or people vaporised, leaving only their shadows etched onto walls, cementing the horrors of nuclear weapons use into the public’s imagination.

There are several moments in which the world came dangerously close to the use of nuclear weapons in warfare again, notably during the Cuban missile crisis when it was a combination of luck and the presence of individuals on the ground willing to make their own minds up that prevented nuclear weapons being used. 

More recently, Russia’s full-scale  invasion of Ukraine under cover of repeated nuclear threats and with nuclear tensions on the Korean Peninsula running consistently high, the discussion of the use of nuclear weapons has become normalised which risks undermining the nuclear taboo.

Myth: Doesn’t deterrence mean never using nuclear weapons?

The theory of nuclear deterrence requires that the threat of use of nuclear weapons be credible. That means that countries who subscribe to nuclear deterrence doctrines are prepared to incinerate cities and mass murder civilians. It also requires leaders to act rationally and predictably- and history shows that’s not what happens in conflict situations. Deterrence is often given the credit for the long record of non-use of nuclear weapons, but much of it is due solely to good luck – which cannot be expected to last forever.

The risk of nuclear weapons being used, whether deliberately, by accident, or miscalculation, is real. It literally could happen at any moment. Worse, many experts assess that the risk of use of nuclear weapons is increasing, due in part to the increased speed of warfare enabled by the expanded use of artificial intelligence by the military. Unless nuclear weapons are eliminated, sooner or later they will be used – and the consequences will be catastrophic.

Myth: Doesn’t Russia’s use of nuclear blackmail over Ukraine show the need for nuclear deterrence?

While it seems Russia’s nuclear weapons may have deterred the US and NATO from direct military confrontation with Russia in defence of Ukraine, western countries have armed and financed Ukraine to the extent that it has been able to push Russian forces back and may even be able to expel them from the areas it has captured since the full-scale invasion started.

So the response to Russia’s actions, including its nuclear threats, has been large-scale coordinated action across diplomatic, economic, financial and military fields and Russia has failed to coerce other countries into not supporting Ukraine.

Furthermore, Russia’s attempt to use nuclear threats as a cover for its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, on the assumption other countries would be deterred from helping Ukraine, shows that nuclear deterrence is a flawed strategy and these weapons don’t preserve stability, but in fact undermine it.

Remember Hiroshima

, , , , , on Remember Hiroshimahttp://“Learning about the bomb through presentations was one thing, however, seeing with my own eyes how it changed the landscape of Hiroshima was an emotional, heavy experience.”

Yorkshire Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)’s Sam Legg travelled to Hiroshima earlier this year. In this article he writes about how the trip impacted his campaigning for a world without nuclear weapons.

In April, I visited Hiroshima for the G7 Youth Summit. I was very grateful to have been chosen as a representative for the UK peace movement at this meeting, alongside other representatives from Christian CND and SCRAP Weapons. Whilst the anti-nuclear movement in the UK is not as strong among young activists as it once was, meeting over 50 other young peace activists filled me with enthusiasm for what is possible.

The summit aimed to present a youth voice to the G7 leaders, by using the summit’s presence in Hiroshima as an opportunity to highlight the dangers of nuclear weapons. Over the course of three days’ worth of workshops, talks, and museum trips, all the participants gathered knowledge to strengthen our understanding to collectively write a youth statement for the G7 leaders.

Learning about the bomb through presentations was one thing, however, seeing and hearing its impact was another. Seeing with my own eyes how it changed the landscape of Hiroshima was an emotional, heavy experience. But it was the voice of the Hibakusha – those directly affected by the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – that really stood out to me as the most powerful part of the trip.

The voices of those that lived a life pre, during, and post-bomb won’t be around forever. These stories are heartfelt and first hand. Whilst it is indeed important to recognise the statistics, being told stories from Hibakusha definitely deepens the realness of the bomb and, perhaps most importantly, its impact on the individual daily lives of people. Having reflected on and heard of the abuse that survivors such as Ms. Keiko Ogura would endure for years afterwards – the constant prejudice, and constant worry about whether the radiation would affect her children, what needs to be spoken of more is the post-bomb impact.

Whilst the G7 summit did not bring the progress we wanted, we must not give up! Moving forward, we must think of ways to utilise the powerful stories of Hibakusha, so that we create no further victims of nuclear weapons. There is no action without inclusion, so we must consider intersectionality and seek ways to engage in more discussions internationally. This should be with other peace activists and those affected communities of nuclear weapons (including those outside of Japan e.g., the Marshall Islands). I strongly believe that a more peaceful world is possible. It will take time, but it is worthwhile pursuing that goal.

Please mark the anniversary of the bombings (6th & 9th August). Use this time to reflect, strategise, and enthuse new audiences (and old ones!).






Posted by at No comments:
(EAST) German AfD: Revival of far-right a 'threat to Jewish life'

Germany's antisemitism commissioner has spoken out about the surge in support for the Alternative for Germany. The far-right party is meeting in Magdeburg to finalize its list of candidates for the 2024 EU elections.


The far-right AfD has been holding its conference in the eastern city of Magdeburg
dts Nachrichtenagentur/IMAGO

The German government's antisemitism commissioner, Felix Klein, has expressed concern about the resurgence of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) as polls suggest the party currently has the backing of a fifth of voters.

The AfD is holding a conference in the eastern German city of Magdeburg this weekend to finalize the list of its candidates and manifesto for the 2024 European elections in Magdeburg.
What did antisemitism commissioner Felix Klein say?

"I'm worried that a party like that would achieve such approval," Klein told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper in remarks released on Saturday.

The latest Deutschlandtrend poll for public broadcaster ARD, published Thursday, suggested if elections were held now, 21% of German voters would back the AfD. That compares to 10.3% two years ago.

Founded in 2013, the AfD grew quickly to become the third-largest party in the Bundestag, the lower house of German parliament, in the 2017 federal elections, but by the 2021 election the far-right party had dropped to fifth place.

Felix Klein was appointed as Germany's antisemitism commissioner in 2018
 Wolfgang Kumm/dpa/picture alliance

Since then, issues like the cost of living crisis, large-scale immigration and the costly energy transition have turned voters against the three-party coalition led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

Despite voter dissatisfaction, a YouGov poll published on Friday showed the majority of Germany remains opposed to AfD, with 58% saying they are against the party taking part in any coalition government.

Klein accused the AfD of condoning antisemitism and backing forces that have sought to downplay the Holocaust — the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews or two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population — during World War II.

He accused the party of wanting to ban the kosher slaughter of meat.

"If the AfD wants to curtail Jewish dietary laws, that is a threat to Jewish life," Klein told the newspaper.

Klein, who was appointed as the government's antisemitism commissioner in 2018, then turned to next year's election in the eastern state of Thuringia, where the AfD has the support of more than a third of voters, according to a recent poll.

He called for candidates to be scrutinized for their position on democracy before they can take party in the vote, adding that while the AfD is a legal party "there are indications that anti-democratic forces are at work."


Spy agency warns of 'extremist factions' within AfD

The chief of Germany's domestic intelligence agency, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), warned this week that the AfD is treading a more radical path, noting how the far-right party has been taken over by extremist factions.

BfV head Thomas Haldenwang told DPA news agency that various AfD candidates have voiced right-wing extremist conspiracy theories.

The AfD promptly brought court proceedings against Haldenwang and demanded an emergency injunction, prompting the spy agency to temporarily refrain from further criticism of the party as the case proceeds.

New EU law will help tackle antisemitism

Klein also spoke in support of the European Union's Digital Services Act, which takes effect this month. He said it would be a "decisive turning point in the fight against antisemitism."

He said the new law requires internet platforms like Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter, to not only delete unlawful content but provide information about those publishing such information to the police.

"This will make investigations much easier," Klein said.
AfD readies for European Parliament elections

Last weekend, the AfD voted to join a far-right bloc in the European Parliament, which will boost EU funding for the party as well as networking opportunities with other conservative parties.

This weekend, the party's conference continues in the eastern city of Magdeburg, where some 530 delegates will select candidates for next year's European Parliament elections.


The selection process has already generated controversy in Germany as several members have made anti-EU remarks.

A draft AfD electoral program published in June called for the "orderly dissolution of the EU."

Some AfD officials have called for Germany to leave the EU, in what is called "Dexit," combining the words Deutschland and exit.

mm/sms (AFP, dpa, EPD)


The Struggle Against Fascism
Begins with the Struggle Against Bolshevism (1939)

This article by Otto Rühle appeared in the American councilist journal Living Marxism (Vol. 4, No. 8, 1939)


AfD: German voters shift toward far right

Sabine Kinkartz
August 4, 2023

The AfD continues to gain ground in opinion polls amid high dissatisfaction with the government. Support for ending the taboo on cooperating with the populists is growing.

The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has received another boost in the polls: If federal elections were held this week, the populist party would win 21% of the vote, putting it firmly in second place behind the center-right bloc of Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU), which remain the strongest force at 27%, despite taking some small losses.

That is according to the latest edition of the representative "Deutschlandtrend" survey, for which pollster infratest reached out to 1,297 eligible voters via phone or email between July 31 and August 2.

As in the previous months' surveys, Germany's center-left government again failed to win a majority. Chancellor Olaf Scholz's Social Democratic Party (SPD), the largest party in the three-way coalition, would garner 17% — down from 25.7% when it came to power in the last general election in 2021.

The Greens now have 15% support, which is what they had in that election — but a far cry from the high-flying 25% during a brief spike in popularity just over one year ago. The neoliberal Free Democrats (FDP) stand at 7%, down from their strong showing of 11.5% in 2021.

The socialist Left Party was found to be slipping further. According to the latest survey, it would fail to clear the 5% threshold for representation in the federal parliament, the Bundestag.

Only one in five respondents said they were satisfied with the work of the federal government, and even within the ranks of the three parties' supporters, approval ratings are low.

Chancellor Scholz is also becoming increasingly unpopular: Only three out of 10 eligible voters (31%) say they are satisfied with his work, the lowest approval rating since he took office in December 2021.
Unfair conditions in Germany?

Voters are not only dissatisfied with the chancellor and his government, but also with the overall situation in the country. Some 58% say that burdens are not shared fairly in Germany. That feeling has to do with the distribution of wealth, but also with the fact that certain groups in the population feel that their views and interests are not being taken into account enough by the political mainstream.

Respondents to the survey believe that certain groups in society are not being heard by the political leadership, especially low-income earners, people in rural areas, pensioners and young families. As many as 62% of respondents said politicians focus too much on the interests of those who are wealthy, while 48% think that politicians focus too much on the needs of refugees.

Despite the fact that the opposition conservative parties are leading in the polls, only 19% said they believe that they would do a better job at solving the country's problems — in fact, 21% said they would do an even worse job, and 53% said they'd expect a conservative-led government's overall performance to be similar.

The CDU/CSU led Germany's federal governments for most of the almost 80 years since the end of World War II — in coalition with the FDP or SPD.

The low expectations for a CDU-led federal government correspond to the poor rating of CDU leader Friedrich Merz. Only three out of 10 respondents said they think he is a good party leader, and only 16% said they thought he would make a good chancellor. Perhaps even worse for Merz, only one in three CDU supporters want him to become the next head of government after the general election in 2025

The CDU needs to work on itself

The Christian Democrats are also seen to have little to offer in terms of policy: Only 33% of CDU supporters said they know exactly what the party stands for, and a similar number, 31%, said they believe that the CDU has a feel for what's currently on people's minds.

The CDU/CSU has been thrown into turmoil by the question of whether the decision to disassociate itself from the far-right AfD should apply at all political levels. This comes after Merz suggested in an interview with public broadcaster ZDF in July that cooperation with AfD representatives on a local level was sensible common practice.He walked his comments back the following day in response to an immediate backlash, including from figures within his own party.

Overall, 64% of those surveyed for the Deutschlandtrend poll said they think it is right for the CDU to rule out cooperation with the AfD in principle, while 29% are open to considering it. However, there are considerable differences when the western and eastern German states are considered separately.

While two-thirds of eligible voters in western Germany welcome the CDU's official stance of rejecting cooperation with the AfD, in eastern Germany, the former German Democratic Republic (GDR), only half of the eligible voters agree. There, the AfD is the strongest party, polling at over 30%.

Some 70% of all respondents called for more pragmatism: They say that support of individual AfD motions in the parliaments of cities, municipalities and districts should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

In eastern Germany, as many as 81% of respondents said they were in favor of more pragmatism, compared with 67% in western Germany. Nationwide, it is only Green supporters (51%) where a majority say that all AfD motions should be rejected on principle.

This article was originally written in German
.
TO SEE GRAPHS 

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)