Japan Sells Lethal Weapons Responding to US Demand, Using Ukraine as Excuse

by Reiho Takeuchi Posted onMay 09, 2024

Some media reported Japan’s recent policy change to sell weapons to the US as a break from its pacifist principle. However, Washington and Tokyo have been watering it down for a long time.

Co-development of Next-Generation Aircraft

On December 9, 2022, the leaders of the UK, Italy, and Japan issued a Joint Leader’s Statement regarding cooperation in the joint development of next-generation fighter aircraft, and the three countries signed on December 14, 2023.

Accordingly, on March 26, 2024, the Japanese government amended the Implementation Guidelines for the Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology, avoiding discussion in the Diet. The amendment enables Japan to export the finished aircraft to other countries.

The arms exports are limited to the countries that concluded a promise with Japan to use the weapons Japan exports in a manner that meets the Charter of the United Nations’ purpose and principle. According to the Japanese Defense Ministry, as of March 26,  the countries that fulfill this term are the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Australia, India, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and UAE.

Tokyo stated that Japan needs the amendment because if Japan can not export the co-developed jets to other countries directly, it can not contribute to reducing the cost of development and production. To achieve a fighter jet that meets Japan’s necessary performance, Japan has to obtain the ability to negotiate in joint development.

Article 3 of Japan’s Three Principles requires that the countries to which Japan exports weapons and technology obtain prior consent from Japan before transferring weapons and technology to third parties. In December 2022, the Japanese government specified the procedure in the Guidelines to conduct co-developed weapons transfers to third parties smoothly.

On April 25, 2024, the Japanese Diet started discussing the idea of a treaty to establish an international organization responsible for aircraft co-development.

Three Principles on Arms Exports and Their Related Policy Guidelines

Before the Japanese government adopted the Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology in 2014, Japan had long adopted the Three Principles on Arms Exports and Their Related Policy Guidelines. The old Three Principles, not legislation, embodied Japan’s pacifist policy.

On April 21, 1967, at Diet, Prime Minister Eisaku Sato explained the Ministry of International Trade and Industry’s (present Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) criterion that Japan didn’t permit the export of weapons to the three areas: communist countries, countries where the United Nations resolution banned weapon exports, and countries being at war or possibly being at war. This statement was the so-called Three Principles on Arms Export, not a new policy.

The word weapon was defined as military uses and for combat directly.

On February 27, 1976, Prime Minister Takeo Miki submitted the Governmental Unified Opinion on Arms Export, which Miki read at the Diet. This paper was not a new statement either, but it showed a policy formed by the Japanese government.

Since Sato explained at Diet, Tokyo had stated that weapons export to areas the Three Principles didn’t ban were permitted but showed a deliberate attitude. The Governmental Unified Opinion read the exports were refrained.

After that, the government explained that refraining meant Japan couldn’t export weapons as a rule. The Three Principles still showed Japan’s pacifist policy.

Exceptions

There are roughly two exceptions to the Three Principles: weapons exports to the US and particular cases. These exceptions watered down the Principles. The US has been clearly a party to conflicts, but the Japanese government regards the US as an exception.

In 1983, the Yasuhiro Nakasone administration enabled the provision of weapons technology to the US. In 2004, the Junichiro Koizumi administration decided to launch the joint development and production of a Ballistic Missile Defense System and permitted related exports to the US. In these cases, logically, even if Japan judges the US as a country at war, Japan can offer weapons and technologies.

On the other hand, since 1991, Tokyo has permitted the export of weapons in particular cases. Almost every time, the Japanese government stated that it maintained the basic idea of the Three Principles. These specific cases are taking out necessary weapons for the Japanese Self-Defense Forces’ overseas operations, mutual offers with allies or friendly countries, support to removing landmines, implementation of disposal of abolished chemical weapons, support for measures against terror and pirates, and supplying ammunition to the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, etc.

In 2011, the Yoshihiko Noda administration further deregulated the Three Principals. Therefore, Japan can make a comprehensive exception concerning peace contribution, international cooperation, and joint development and production of weapons for Japan’s security.

In 2014, the Shinzo Abe administration abolished the Three Principles on Arms Exports and established the Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology, which are still in force.

In the new Three Principles, The government “reexamined its past policy on the overseas transfer of defense equipment and technology, and, while giving due consideration to the roles played by the past policy,  comprehensively consolidated it to adapt to the new security environment, reflecting the past exemption measures made to date, and set out clear principles as Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology,” and declared to carry forward with the transfer of defense equipment and technology in the joint public and private efforts.

Japan Helps Destroying Ukraine

On March 8, 2022, the Japanese government decided to provide Ukraine with non-lethal supplies to support the invaded country, such as bulletproof jackets, helmets, clothes for cold weather, cameras, tents, sanitary goods, emergency foods, and generators. However, the Three Principles didn’t specify whether Japan could transfer bulletproof jackets to Ukraine, so Tokyo revised the Implementation Guidelines the same day. Also, Japan provided Ukraine with 101 Self-Defense Force vehicles from May 2023 to March 2024.

The old Three Principles didn’t strictly specify the countries at war or possibly at war. The new Three Principles defines parties to the dispute as countries where the UN Security Council takes measures to sustain or recover international peace and security after a military attack occurs. So, the rule doesn’t apply to Ukraine. Under this criterion, Japan can transfer weapons even to Israel.

On December 22, 2023, the Japanese government amended the new Three Principles and its Guidelines. The amendment enables Tokyo to export finished lethal weapons manufactured by Japan to the patent country. On the same day, Japan decided to export the Patriot missile to the US because the US demanded Japan make up the US stock shortage caused by the Russia-Ukraine war. This export was the first finished lethal weapon transfer since Tokyo established the new Three Principles, and Japan helped the US prolong the devastating war.

Japan’s Public Opinion

Japan can’t refuse the US’s request. For instance, in 2014, there was a symbolic happening.

On July 17, 2014, the Japanese government officially decided to export the seeker gyro part of the Patriot PAC-2. The Japanese defense company Mitsubishi Heavy Industries manufactured the parts for the Japanese Self-Defense Force, receiving a license from Raytheon. Though the US planned PAC-2 exports to other countries, Raytheon had already ended the gyros production. So, the US demanded Japan supply the part. However, before Tokyo decided, the US signed an agreement with Qatar on July 14 to sell weapons, including the Patriots. The Japanese government’s discussion and decision were only a formality.

The US seems to have influenced the next-generation jet project. Washington and Tokyo agreed to co-develop autonomous systems capabilities to support the aircraft’s combat. Thus, the US backs to profit from the joint development of the UK, Italy, and Japan.

Japan’s public has long opposed weapons exports. Though the Japan Business Federation has requested that the government strengthen the defense industry and weapons transfer, and even if the US demands it, Tokyo cannot change its principles or guidelines rapidly. Japanese defense companies, which also make civilian goods, are reluctant to be merchants of death. Since Tokyo adopted the new Three Principles in 2014, Japan has exported only air defense radars to the Philippines as finished weapons.

Some Japanese media and experts are using the Russian invasion of Ukraine and China’s threats to promote weapons exports and appeal to public opinion.

According to a poll that the Kyodo News conducted in May 2023, 20% of Japanese people said that Japan should lift the ban on exporting lethal weapons, 54% said that Japan should limit its weapons exports to non-lethal weapons, and 23% said that Japan should ban weapons exports completely. 77% of Japanese opposed lethal weapons exports.

Also, according to a poll on exporting joint-developed defense equipment to other countries that the Japan Broadcasting Corporation conducted in March 2024, only 4% of Japanese people said Japan should permit it, 54% said Japan should limit the countries, and 32% said Japan should not permit it.

However, considering what has happened until now, Japan will probably move forward with weapons transfers slowly, repeating government changes.

Reiho Takeuchi is a Japanese journalist whose work focuses on international politics. He has written a series of articles titled US Military and Modern Colonialism on substack.

War Culture Hates the Ethical Passion of the Young

In the Thrall of a Dominant Death Culture

by Norman Solomon Posted onMay 10, 2024

Originally appeared at TomDispatch.

Persisting in his support for an unpopular war, the Democrat in the White House has helped spark a rebellion close to home. Young people — least inclined to deference, most inclined to moral outrage — are leading public opposition to the ongoing slaughter in Gaza. The campus upheaval is a clash between accepting and resisting, while elites insist on doing maintenance work for the war machine.

I wrote the above words recently, but I could have written very similar ones in the spring of 1968. (In fact, I did.) Joe Biden hasn’t sent U.S. troops to kill in Gaza, as President Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam, but the current president has done all he can to provide massive quantities of weapons and ammunition to Israel — literally making the carnage in Gaza possible.

A familiar saying — “the more things change, the more they stay the same” — is both false and true. During the last several decades, the consolidation of corporate power and the rise of digital tech have brought about huge changes in politics and communications. Yet humans are still humans and certain crucial dynamics remain. Militarism demands conformity — and sometimes fails to get it.

When Columbia University and many other colleges erupted in antiwar protests during the late 1960s, the moral awakening was a human connection with people suffering horrifically in Vietnam. During recent weeks, the same has been true with people in Gaza. Both eras saw crackdowns by college administrators and the police — as well as much negativity toward protesters in the mainstream media — all reflecting key biases in this country’s power structure.

“What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and that love without power is sentimental and anemic,” Martin Luther King, Jr., said in 1967. “Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love.”

Disrupting a Culture of Death

This spring, as students have risked arrest and jeopardized their college careers under banners like “Ceasefire Now,” “Free Palestine,” and “Divest from Israel,” they’ve rejected some key unwritten rules of a death culture. From Congress to the White House, war (and the military-industrial complex that goes with it) is crucial for the political business model. Meanwhile, college trustees and alumni megadonors often have investment ties to Wall Street and Silicon Valley, where war is a multibillion-dollar enterprise. Along the way, weapons sales to Israel and many other countries bring in gigantic profits.

The new campus uprisings are a shock to the war system. Managers of that system, constantly oiling its machinery, have no column for moral revulsion on their balance sheets. And the refusal of appreciable numbers of students to go along to get along doesn’t compute. For the economic and political establishment, it’s a control issue, potentially writ large.

As the killing, maiming, devastation, and increasing starvation in Gaza have continued, month after month, the U.S. role has become incomprehensible — without, at least, attributing to the president and the vast majority of Congressional representatives a level of immorality that had previously seemed unimaginable to most college students. Like many others in the United States, protesting students are now struggling with the realization that the people in control of the executive and legislative branches are directly supporting mass murder and genocide.

In late April, when overwhelming bipartisan votes in Congress approved — and President Biden eagerly signed — a bill sending $17 billion in military aid to Israel, the only way to miss the utter depravity of those atop the government was to not really look, or to remain in the thrall of a dominant death culture.

During his final years in office, with the Vietnam War going full tilt, President Lyndon Johnson was greeted with the chant: “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” Such a chant could be directed at President Biden now. The number of Palestinian children killed so far by the U.S.-armed Israeli military is estimated to be almost 15,000, not counting the unknown number still buried in the rubble of Gaza. No wonder high-ranking Biden administration officials now risk being loudly denounced whenever they speak in venues open to the public.

Mirroring the Vietnam War era in another way, members of Congress continue to rubberstamp huge amounts of funding for mass killing. On April 20th, only 17% of House Democrats and only 9% of House Republicans voted against the new military aid package for Israel.

Higher learning is supposed to connect the theoretical with the actual, striving to understand our world as it truly is. However, a death culture — promoting college tranquility as well as mass murder in Gaza — thrives on disconnects. All the platitudes and pretenses of academia can divert attention from where U.S. weapons actually go and what they do.

Sadly, precepts readily cited as vital ideals prove all too easy to kick to the curb lest they squeeze big toes uncomfortably. So, when students take the humanities seriously enough to set up a protest encampment on campus and then billionaire donors demand that a college president put a stop to such disruption, a police raid is likely to follow.

A World of Doublethink and Tone Deafness

George Orwell’s explanation of “doublethink” in his famed novel 1984 is a good fit when it comes to the purported logic of so many commentators deploring the student protesters as they demand an end to complicity in the slaughter still underway in Gaza: “To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it.”

Laying claim to morality, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has, for instance, been busy firing media salvos at the student protesters. That organization’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, is on record flatly declaring that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism” — no matter how many Jews declare themselves to be “anti-Zionist.” Four months ago, ADL issued a report categorizing pro-Palestinian rallies with “anti-Zionist chants and slogans” as antisemitic events. In late April, ADL used the “antisemitic” label to condemn protests by students at Columbia and elsewhere.

“We have a major, major, major generational problem,” Greenblatt warned in a leaked ADL strategy phone call last November. He added: “The issue in the United States’ support for Israel is not left and right; it is young and old… We really have a TikTok problem, a Gen-Z problem… The real game is the next generation.”

Along with thinly veiled condescension toward students, a frequent approach is to treat the mass killing of Palestinians as of minimal importance. And so, when New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote in late April about students protesting at Columbia, he merely described the Israeli government’s actions as “failings.” Perhaps if a government was bombing and killing Douthat’s loved ones, he would have used a different word.

A similar mentality, as I well remember, infused media coverage of the Vietnam War. For mainline news outlets, what was happening to Vietnamese people ranked far below so many other concerns, often to the point of invisibility. As media accounts gradually began bemoaning the “quagmire” of that war, the focus was on how the U.S. government’s leadership had gotten itself so stuck. Acknowledging that the American war effort amounted to a massive crime against humanity was rare. Then, as now, the moral bankruptcies of the political and media establishments fueled each other.

As a barometer of the prevailing political climate among elites, the editorial stances of daily newspapers indicate priorities in times of war. In early 1968, the Boston Globe conducted a survey of 39 major U.S. newspapers and found that not a single one had editorialized in favor of an American withdrawal from Vietnam. By then, tens of millions of Americans were in favor of such a pullout.

This spring, when the New York Times editorial board finally called for making U.S. arms shipments to Israel conditional — six months after the carnage began in Gaza — the editorial was tepid and displayed a deep ethnocentric bias. It declared that “the Hamas attack of October 7 was an atrocity,” but no word coming anywhere near “atrocity” was applied to the Israeli attacks occurring ever since.

The Times editorial lamented that “Mr. Netanyahu and the hard-liners in his government” had broken a “bond of trust” between the United States and Israel, adding that the Israeli prime minister “has been deaf to repeated demands from Mr. Biden and his national security team to do more to protect civilians in Gaza from being harmed by [American] armaments.” The Times editorial board was remarkably prone to understatement, as if someone overseeing the mass killing of civilians every day for six months was merely not doing enough “to protect civilians.”

Learning by Doing

The thousands of student protesters encountering the edicts of college administrations and the violence of the police have gotten a real education in the true priorities of American power structures. Of course, the authorities (on and off campuses) have wanted a return to the usual peaceful campus atmosphere. As military strategist Carl von Clausewitz long ago commented with irony, “A conqueror is always a lover of peace.”

Supporters of Israel are fed up with the campus protests. The Washington Post recently featured an essay by Paul Berman that deplored what has become of his alma mater, Columbia. After a brief mention of Israel’s killing of Gazan civilians and the imposition of famine, Berman declared that “ultimately the central issue in the war is Hamas and its goal… the eradication of the Israeli state.” The central issue. Consider it a way of saying that, while unfortunate, the ongoing slaughter of tens of thousands of children and other Palestinian civilians doesn’t matter nearly as much as the fear that nuclear-armed Israel, with one of the most powerful air forces in the world, is in danger of “eradication.”

Pieces similar to Douthat’s and Berman’s have proliferated in the media. But they don’t come to grips with what Senator Bernie Sanders recently made clear in a public message to the Israeli prime minister: “Mr. Netanyahu, antisemitism is a vile and disgusting form of bigotry that has done unspeakable harm to millions. Do not insult the intelligence of the American people by attempting to distract us from the immoral and illegal war policies of your extremist and racist government.”

College protesters have shown that they will not be distracted. They continue to insist — not flawlessly, but wonderfully — that all people’s lives matter. For decades, and since October in a particularly deadly fashion, the U.S.-Israel alliance has proceeded to treat Palestinian lives as expendable. And that is exactly what the protests are opposing.

Of course, protests can flicker and die out. Hundreds of U.S. campuses shut down in the spring of 1970 amid protests against the Vietnam War and the American invasion of Cambodia, only to become largely quiescent by the fall term. But for countless individuals, the sparks lit a fire for social justice that would never be quenched.

One of them, Michael Albert, a cofounder of the groundbreaking Z Magazine, has continued with activist work since the mid-1960s. “A lot of people are comparing now to 1968,” he wrote in April. “That year was tumultuous. We were inspired. We were hot. But here comes this year and it is moving faster, no less. That year the left that I and so many others lived and breathed was mighty. We were courageous, but we also had too little understanding of how to win. Don’t emulate us. Transcend us.”

He then added:

“The emerging mass uprisings must persist and diversify and broaden in focus and reach. And hey, on your campuses, again do better than us. Fight to divest but also fight to structurally change them so their decision makers — which should be you — never again invest in genocide, war, and indeed suppression and oppression of any kind. Tomorrow is the first day of a long, long potentially incredibly liberating future. But one day is but one day. Persist.”

Persistence will be truly essential. The gears of pro-Israel forces are fully meshed with the U.S. war machinery. The movement to stop Israel’s murderous oppression of Palestinians is up against the entire military-industrial-congressional complex.

The United States spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined (and most of them are allies), while maintaining 750 military bases overseas, vastly more than all of its official adversaries put together. The U.S. continues to lead the nuclear arms race toward oblivion. And the economic costs are stunning. The Institute for Policy Studies reported last year that 62% of the federal discretionary budget went to “militarized programs” of one sort or another.

In 1967, Martin Luther King, Jr., described this country’s spending for war as a “demonic, destructive suction tube,” siphoning tremendous resources away from human needs.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

With transcendent wisdom, this spring’s student uprising has rejected conformity as a lethal anesthetic while the horrors continue in Gaza. Leaders of the most powerful American institutions want to continue as usual, as if official participation in genocide were no particular cause for alarm.

Instead, young people have dared to lead the way, insisting that such a culture of death is repugnant and completely unacceptable.

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

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

Copyright 2024 Norman Solomon

 

NYTimes Ignites China Doping Controversy Leading Into the Olympics

by Rick Sterling Posted onMay 10, 2024

Western accusations of doping by Chinese swimmers threaten to exacerbate China-US tensions, undermine the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and seriously harm the upcoming Paris Olympics.

The controversy was ignited by investigation reports at the New York Times and  German TV broadcaster ARD.  These media outlets suggest there has been a cover-up of a mass doping incident among Chinese top swimmers with connivance of  the Chinese Anti Doping Agency (CHINADA) and complicity from the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA).  This story served as red meat to the hyper aggressive leader of the US Anti Doping Agency (USADA), Travis Tygart.  It has prompted western swimming competitors to loudly complain. For example the NY Times reports that US team swimmer Paige Madden thinks medals from the Tokyo Olympics should be reallocated. “I feel that Team USA was cheated.”  British swimmer James Guy says, “Ban them all and never compete again.” What might be considered whining and poor sportsmanship is effectively being encouraged by western media.

The NYTimes and ARD are the same two media that precipitated the accusations of “state sponsored doping” in Russia. It did enormous damage to thousands of Russian athletes and resulted in different levels of banning starting with the Rio Olympics in 2016.  Although widely accepted as “truth” in the West, the claims of widespread Russian doping were weak when evidence was required.  Most Russian athletes who challenged their banning were exonerated. The major accusers, the Stepanovs and Grigory Rodchenkov, were themselves guilty of doping and profiting from doping. Despite this, the banning has continued and escalated after the Russian intervention in Ukraine.  The accusations and banning were useful in propelling the “new cold war” and “new McCarthyism”.

NYT and ARD, and their anonymous informants, may be seeking to do something similar to China.  USADA has issued a response in which they say China may be engaging in “systematic doping” under a  “coordinated doping regime”. On May 6 USADA’s Tygart escalated his attacks. He implies the Paris Olympics will be a “train wreck” because of WADA complicity in China’s “cheating”. He hopes the US government will “step in and help lead and fix this.”  Surely a recipe for success.

What happened

On Jan 1-3 in 2021, the Chinese swim team was having a domestic swim meet. It was in the midst of covid lockdown.  As usual, the team was drug tested but this time a strange thing happened: many swimmers tested positive for a trace amount of the banned medication trimetazadine (TMZ).

The China Anti Doping Agency (CHINADA) investigated and reported the facts to the World Anti Doping Agency as required.  They found:

• 23 swimmers tested positive for a very small amount of trimetazadine (TMZ)
• the swimmers were from different regions of China with different coaches and trainers
• all 23 were staying at the same hotel eating in the same dining room
• none of the swimmers staying at a different hotel tested positive
• some of the swimmers tested positive one day, negative the next
• tests in the hotel kitchen showed the presence of  TMZ on the air vent and counters

CHINADA concluded the positive TMZ tests were from hotel food and the athletes were not at fault.

They reported the incident and investigation to the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and the international swimming federation now known as World Aquatics (formerly FINA). Both organizations examined the facts and agreed with the findings.

Because the athletes were deemed to have no fault, the incident and names of the athletes were not publicized. WADA regulations indicate that there should be no publicity or naming of athletes deemed innocent and without an “Anti Doping Rule Violation” (ADRV).

How it has been reported  

Approximately a year later, in 2022,  anonymous sources reported this incident to the NY Times and ARD.  Since then, the two media outlets have done further investigation but kept the story secret until two weeks ago.

They suggest something shady happened back in early 2021. They suggest WADA may be complicit in covering up anti doping violations. They almost encourage western athletes to challenge the Chinese swimming accomplishments and be “angry”. On April 20 the story was “Top Chinese Swimmers Tested Positive for Banned Drug, Then Won Olympic Gold“. On April 21 the story was “‘Team USA Was Cheated’: Chinese Doping Case Exposes Rift in Swimming“. On April 22 the story was “Top Biden Official Calls for Inquiry Into Chinese Doping Case.”

These reports ignited a flood of other sensational and accusatory reports and editorials. The Guardian report is titled “Poison in the pool: why the latest Chinese doping row is proving so toxic”. Sports Yahoo says “Extremely concerned Olympians will not let the Chinese doping allegations die”. The PBS News Hour had a video report titled “Chinese doping ‘swept under the carpet’: US anti-doping chief says”. Sports Illustrated said the news may alter the distribution of medals from the 2021 Tokyo Olympics.

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into the situation.

The NY Times and ARD say they have been investigating this story for two years. The release appears timed to have maximum impact and possible damage, just months before the Paris Olympics. 

USADA accuses WADA  

The US Anti Doping Agency (USADA) is led by the hyper-aggressive Travis Tyler. He has used the reports to claim that WADA is complicit in a Chinese “cover-up”.  In a TV interview before a large national audience Tygart said, “China didn’t follow the rules. They effectively swept this under the carpet because they didn’t find a violation. They didn’t announce a violation. They didn’t disqualify the athletes from the event at which they tested positive. And this is absolutely mandatory under the world anti-doping code that all nations are required to follow.”

WADA has responded that Tygart’s comments seem “politically motivated”.  They say CHINADA followed the rules, investigated and reported as required.  They say China did NOT have to announce it to the world, or name the individual athletes for the very good reason that false accusations of doping can destroy a career. WADA regulations say the names of athletes should NOT be publicized until or unless it is confirmed they have an Anti Doping Rule Violation. 

WADA appoints independent investigator

WADA is the international organization charged with supervising global anti-doping in sports. With its headquarters in Canada and most of its leaders from NATO countries, it is a largely western organization.

They are highly sensitive to criticism from the West. It has pushed back against some of the most extreme criticism, for example from the USADA head. They have also appointed an independent investigator to review what happened in China and whether WADA was correct to accept the Chinese investigation and report.

WADA appointed Eric Cottier, the prosecutor general of a Swiss region. WADA headquarters are in Canada but the organization is registered in Switzerland. USADA has criticized the appointment suggesting that Cottier is not sufficiently “independent”.

Thoms Bach, head of the International Olympic Committee, has voiced support for WADA.

WADA has defended their actions in a press conference and fact sheet about the case.

The controversy may quiet down. But a lot of poison has been spread around. Encouraged by the NY Times and other media,  numerous western athletes now claim they feel “cheated” out of medals at the Tokyo Olympics since 5 medals were won by Chinese swimmers involved in the  TMZ “doping scandal”.

It is also possible the controversy will continue. Will the “Sports Czar” of the Biden Administration get involved? Will the FBI be designated to investigate?  These are now possible in the wake of the Rodchenkov Anti Doping Act which passed Congress in 2020.

Reader comments following articles indicate there is a wellspring of anti-China hostility encouraged by the accusations. The most popular comment on this article says, “When will democracies learn that authoritarian regimes play dirty, and should be viewed as suspect not deserving of good faith.”  Another says,”No one knows doping like China knows doping, China knows doping best.”  Another one says, “China cheats. Russia cheats. Just like the East Germans did before them. Their governments will meet the same fate as they did.”

Pushback  

There has been some pushback to the sensational anti-China accusations. For example Denis Cotterell is a world class coach who has trained both  Australian and Chinese Olympic swimmers. He has spoken out strongly in support of the Chinese swimmers. He says, “I can see what they (the swimmers) go through. I see the measures… The suggestion that it’s systemic is so far from anything I have seen here the whole time. They are so adamant on having clean sport.”

An insightful article from an Australian academic sports authority and popular sports commentator suggests there are political forces at work: “WADA – like the United Nations and other organizations – finds itself in the cross hairs of the great power struggle of our time: a rising China and its challenge to US dominance.” 

Geopolitical Consequences

According to the “2024 Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community”, China is “challenging longstanding rules of the international system as well as U.S. primacy within it.” China’s positive “international image” is a challenge to U.S. leadership. By this logic, it is in the US interests to damage China’s international reputation and standing.

This raises the question: How did the TMZ get into the hotel kitchen and into the food being served to these Chinese athletes?

In February 2022, accusations of intentional doping were heaped on the Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva. A trace amount of trimetazadine (TMZ) was detected in a drug test taken seven weeks before the Beijing Olympics.  There are similarities to the Chinese case: same drug, same trace amount detected, same mystery as to how it was ingested.

Because she could not explain how it got there, Valieva was condemned in the West and ultimately had her international career destroyed. The Russian figure skating sweep was prevented and the Russian team lost their gold medals.  The controversy distracted and partially ruined the Beijing Olympics. The “intelligence community” undoubtedly considers this a success.

How did the TMZ get in the hotel kitchen in China?  Who are the “whistle blowers” who informed the New York Times and ARD and supplied the names of the athletes who tested positive for the trace amount of TMZ?

The anti doping crusade is being manipulated  by powerful forces with ignoble intentions.

Rick Sterling is an independent journalist in the San Francisco Bay Area. He can be contacted at rsterling1@gmail.com.

Veterans Support Students Protesting Genocide in Palestine

“The students are absolutely right, and may be saving our humanity.”

by Veterans for Peace / May 7th, 2024

Veterans For Peace applauds the students who are protesting against the US/Israeli genocide in Palestine.  These courageous young students are doing the right thing at the right time.

“The students are absolutely right, and they may actually be saving our humanity,” said Veterans For Peace president Susan Schnall. “Peace-loving people should applaud them, help them and join them. We are grateful that many people – including veterans – are doing just that.

Nonviolent student encampments on hundreds of college campuses in the U.S. and around the world are providing a light of hope in an otherwise hopeless and shameful moment in human history. The U.S. and European governments are complicit in Israel’s daily crimes against humanity in Gaza, while the world’s governments and the United Nations are unable or unwilling to act.

As much as we are grateful for the young people taking the lead in resisting genocide, Veterans For Peace is equally appalled at the violent repression of peaceful protesters by university administrations in collusion with local and state police.  We remember the massacres of antiwar students at Kent State and Jackson State University in 1970.  We absolutely reject House Speaker Mike Thompson’s call for the National Guard to be deployed to the campuses.

We categorically reject the slander and lies from our so-called political leaders that are being faithfully broadcast by corporate media. We have heard all this before: baseless charges of violence, ”chaos,” “outside agitators” and “anti-Semitism.”

We note that many Jewish students and organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace have taken a leading role in these protests, along with Palestinian-Americans and students of many backgrounds, creeds and faiths. While we condemn hate speech against any human beings, we know from first-hand experience that these protests against genocide and war crimes have been powerful expressions of love, unity and mutual understanding.

As military veterans who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, we cherish the First Amendment – freedom of the press and freedom to speak our minds. These Constitutionally-guaranteed rights are now under attack by university administrators and also in the U.S. Congress, where the House just passed a bill officially describing criticism of Israel as “anti-Semitsm,” and threatening to defund universities that do not crack down on campus protests.

In the meantime, Israel’s genocide in Gaza continues unabated. Benjamin Netanyahu, who seems to care nothing at all for the fate of the Israeli hostages, is promising the worst massacre of all, in Rafah on the border with Egypt in the days to come. Children are being blown up – 14,000 children murdered – thousands missing legs and arms, and babies are being starved to death. This is absolutely unacceptable.

All over the world, the experts agree: only the United States government has the power and influence to stop this genocide.  Instead, the Biden Administration makes weak noises about protecting civilians, while continuing to provide Israel with 2,000 pound bombs to continue the massacre.

So God Bless the Student Protesters. Veterans For Peace stands with you. Many of our members are already supporting you.  This week, we are putting out a Call to Action to all veterans. Stand with the students and against the genocide. This may be the last chance to save our humanity.

Veterans For Peace is a national organization founded in 1985 by military veterans opposed to the Reagan administration's war against the people of Central America. It includes men and women veterans of all eras and duty stations spanning the Spanish Civil War, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, other conflicts and periods in between. Read other articles by Veterans for Peace, or visit Veterans for Peace's website.

Israel’s Battle Against Free Speech: The Shuttering of Al Jazeera

by Binoy Kampmark / May 7th, 2024

“Politics,” as the harsh, albeit successful German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck claimed, “is the art of the possible, the attainable – the art of the next best.”  To that hould be added the stark awareness of being prudent, gingerly wise, appropriately cautious.  Mind how you go in avoiding any foolishness on the way.

Going after the motley press and news outlets while claiming to be a card-carrying member of the democracy club is far from prudent and more than a touch foolish, bound to make the critics croak and other fellow members decry.  And this is exactly what has happened in the context of Israel’s decision to shut down the Qatar-backed station Al Jazeera.

On May 5, police raided the offices of the network at the Ambassador hotel in Jerusalem.  According to Israeli Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, equipment had been seized in the raid.

Al Jazeera duly released a statement strongly condemning and denouncing “this criminal act that violates human rights and the basic right to access of information.”  The network went on to affirm “its right to continue to provide news and information to its global audiences.”  Oddly enough, the ban is far from being a watertight one, as the channel remains accessible in Israel via Facebook.

Al Jazeera has had a troubled relationship with Israel.  Sounding like paranoid family members who have imbibed a bit too much, accusations have frothed from various politicians accusing the network of being a Hamas front.  In a dubious honour, the network’s name became associated with a law passed by the Israeli Knesset on April 1.

The instrument authorises the Minister of Communication, with the consent of the Prime Minister and the Ministerial Committee on National Committee, to shut down foreign news outlets operating in Israel deemed a national security threat.  This entails halting broadcasts by Israeli content providers, restricting access to the relevant provider’s website, shutting down transmitters in Israel and the seizure of devices used in supplying the channel’s content, including mobile phones.  Betraying the Netanyahu government’s continued suspicion of the country’s judicial process, the law shackles the judiciary from overturning such a decision, notwithstanding any belief that it should be.

The dust had barely settled on the vote before Minister Karhi revealed plans had been hatched to shutter Al Jazeera’s operations in Israel on the grounds that it “promotes terrorism”.  According to a statement from the Israeli Communications Ministry, “There will be no freedom of expression to Hamas mouthpieces in Israel.”

Akiva Eldar, a political scribe who pushes pieces for Haaretz, suggested that the closing of the network was “a very populistic move to feed the beast of the public opinion that is very disappointed from the conduct of the government in Gaza and in the international arena”.  The tail-end of the remark did little to stir convention, as the move was designed “to please the partners from the radical right”.

The passage of the law prompted a High Court of Justice filing by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) on April 4.  The petition argues for the cancellation of “the temporary order allowing sanctions to be imposed on foreign broadcasting channels from Israel.”  On May 2, with rumours of imminent action being taken against the Qatari broadcaster, the same organisation sought an interim injunction, refused by the court, to instruct the government to refrain from issuing orders to a foreign broadcaster till the petition was decided.  The ACRI had every reason to be disappointed with the ruling, given that Al Jazeera had been refused a prior right of plea and denied effective judicial review.

On May 6, a further filing was made to join a separate proceeding in the Tel Aviv District Court regarding the sanctions imposed on Al Jazeera, with the ACRI challenging the propriety of the administrative process involved and whether there was, in fact, a “real security risk” posed by the network.

The Al Jazeera law is not a singular instance of state repression regarding matters of free speech. The signs point to a chronic ailing in the Israeli polity.  Adalah, a Palestinian-run non-profit NGO advocating for the rights of Palestinians in Israel has noted, by way of example, the “severe crackdown on the freedom of expression rights of Palestinian students seeking to suspend or even expel them for their posts on social media platforms.”  The posts in question “vary widely, ranging from expressions of solidarity with the people of Gaza, to Quranic verses, to scathingly critical views of the Israeli military’s actions, to seemingly arbitrary content unrelated to Hamas or to the war.”

On April 18, the Israeli police, in all its intimidating glory, entered the home of Professor Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian in the Old City of Jerusalem.  Shalhoub-Kevorkian, who holds the Global Chair in Law at Queen Mary University of London and a post at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, was subsequently detained for comments made the previous month on the Makdisi Street podcast.

Of particular interest to the authorities were comments purportedly calling for the abolition of Zionism and the uncontroversial call to halt the genocidal actions in Gaza.  She was strip-searched, handcuffed and interrogated, and denied access to such necessities as food, water and medication for a number of hours.  Her frigid cell also lacked blankets, while she was inadequately clothed. Her release on bail precipitated further interrogation sessions, with the police keen to tease out incriminating matters from previously published academic papers.

From targeting academics, activists and students, to drawing the covers over a network of renown, the Israeli state has made a vulgar statement against the role of free speech.  Such creeping authoritarianism, however, shows itself to be one-eyed and, eventually, self-defeating.  Ultimately, in the gallop, it is bound to fall over itself.

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.

Will a Gaza Ceasefire be as Successful as the Two-state Solution?

by Paul Larudee / May 8th, 2024

Who proposed a two-state solution? Not the Palestinians. Not Israel. It was conceived in the young United Nations, and proclaimed there in November, 1947. But it was never successfully implemented, despite on-and-off negotiations continuing for the better part of a century. The Zionist leadership briefly promoted it prior to the 1947 UN vote, but only to gain legitimacy for its intentions to implement Plan Dalet for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and its independent proclamation of the state of Israel six months after the UN vote. The closest the Palestinians came to accepting the solution was a “Roadmap“, that was never seriously pursued but which created the quisling Palestinian Authority.

Let’s be honest. The two-state solution was never proposed by either side, and never wanted by either of them. The Palestinians always wanted a single non-Zionist state from the river to the sea, and the Zionists wanted the river to the sea exclusively for their state. The two-state solution was a fantasy imposed by the colonial West to get the British off the hook and use the Zionists to their domestic advantage. Nevertheless, both the Zionists (Israel) and the Palestinians thought that they could best gain their ends by working through the post-colonial UN/Western power structure and its insistence – genuine or otherwise – on a two-state solution. It has been purposely deadlocked ever since, because the West continues to promote the two-state solution while the Palestinians and Israelis have little or no interest in actually implementing it. In fact, everyone seems to have a different idea about what the two-state solution should look like, which also changes over time.

A lot of the same applies to the idea of a ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinian resistance, led by Hamas. True, they came to a brief, temporary agreement in November, 2023, but that was for very limited objectives and was neither intended nor expected to be permanent. The idea of a permanent ceasefire, promoted by peace groups and millions of demonstrators worldwide, as well as the UN, sounds like a great idea until you get to the details of what it entails and how to implement it. Everyone agrees (or will at least pay lip service) to stopping the killing of civilians, providing massive humanitarian aid and releasing captives. But then what? The ceasefire cannot be permanent without resolving questions of the status of Gaza and the rights it will enjoy.

Those questions place the aims of Israel and the Palestinian resistance completely at odds and largely irreconcilable. Prior to October 7th, Hamas had been preparing its strategic capability for years, creating the technology and resources for a sustained, effective resistance against the Israel occupation, not merely occasional actions. The decision to finally launch the operation was due to multiple factors, but a major one was the increasing marginalization of the Palestinian cause and its potential abandonment by former ostensible supporters, such as the Arab countries that concluded “normalization” agreements with Israel. The proximate prospect of just such an agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia plus the advanced state of readiness of the resistance forces may have been the deciding factors for the launching.

As for Israel, if its intelligence was not, in fact, taken by surprise but actually expecting the revolt, it had reasons for inviting it. First, the Zionist leadership had for many years been concerned that the Palestinian population was becoming greater in number than that of Jews in what it often calls “greater Israel”, including both Israel and the occupied territories under its control: the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza Strip, plus small bits of Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This was intolerable to the Zionist leadership, and interfered with their intentions to annex those territories. They would therefore welcome a pretext to reduce that population, by whatever means necessary.

Second, while Israel has been gradually confiscating Palestinian lands and establishing Jewish settlements in the West Bank, no such effort is being made in Gaza. In fact, by evacuating the Jewish settlements in 2005 and making Gaza a sealed concentration camp of 2.3 million Palestinians, it guaranteed a ferment of Palestinian nationalism and resistance. Israel would prefer to simply be rid of it – but not the land, only the people. A revolt in Gaza would offer the opportunity to expel or exterminate the population while keeping the land.

Third, the discovery and partial mapping of a large natural gas field in Gaza waters became a powerful motive for creating a means for laying claim to both the land and its resources. From a strategic as well as economic point of view, the Israeli leadership felt unsurprisingly compelled to avoid allowing the prize to fall into Palestinian hands, and to keep it for themselves.

Finally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is highly motivated to remain in power, partly because he avoids prosecution for corruption by doing so, but also in order to become a national hero by “redeeming” another portion of “Eretz Israel” (land of Israel), through genocide and ethnic cleansing. The revolt by Hamas and the rest of the Palestinian resistance provides the pretext for implementing such a plan through genocide and ethnic cleansing, then annexation.

The potential motives of the two sides for a ceasefire are thus totally different, if they exist at all. For the resistance it is national liberation, freedom, independence and complete sovereignty, comparable to any other nation on earth. They are aware that it will require huge sacrifices for the Palestinian people, but neither the leaders of the resistance nor the people of Gaza will accept to return to the status quo ante (or worse). These aims are clear in the three-stage ceasefire proposal that Hamas accepted on May 6, 2024. That proposal culminates in a sovereign, independent Gaza, in total control of its economy, security and international relations.

Israel, on the other hand, requires the elimination of Hamas as a minimal condition for a ceasefire. But even if Hamas agreed to disband, many if not most of its adherents would refuse to do so, and continue, if only under a new name, which Israel would also seek to eliminate. It is a disingenuous requirement, because Israel merely wishes to block a ceasefire and get on with eliminating the population.

How will it end? I’m sorry to say that Israel may have its genocide, with the invasion of Rafah as the next phase, and even the trickle of food and relief supplies being closed. Other than Yemen, there is no evidence that any nation will intervene to stop the carnage or bring relief to the starving people of Gaza. But as I wrote four months ago, genocide will neither save Israel nor stop Hamas and the rest of the Palestinian resistance. Israel is a pariah state as never before, with countries abandoning it on a scale unseen since its founding. Even its support among diaspora Jews is withering, and Israeli Jews are fleeing the country by hundreds of thousands since October 7th. The settlements in the north and south have been evacuated, with many of the former inhabitants living in temporary housing in the larger Israeli cities or joining the exodus abroad. Many businesses have closed. Only the lifeline to the US keeps Israel afloat. But for how long?

Hamas, on the other hand, is at its most popular, enjoying unprecedented support in all of Palestine and beyond, and receiving more recruits than it can train. There is no sign that it is flagging, and every indication that it can carry on indefinitely.

It is unwise to underestimate either side, but if this is a fight to the finish, it may turn out to be Israel’s third defeat, after the ones in Lebanon in 2000 and 2006, and clearly more consequential. It is an open question who will be left standing at the end of Israel’s current struggle with Hamas, even if the victory is pyrrhic for the survivor

Paul Larudee is a retired academic and current administrator of a nonprofit human rights and humanitarian aid organization. Read other articles by Paul.