Drop the Just War Theory

Mairead Maguire

Rome.

Laity and religious meeting in Rome appeal to Pope Francis to share with the world an encyclical on nonviolence and just peace and for the church to no longer use or teach ‘Just War theory’

It was a joy for me to join eighty people from around the world meeting in Rome 11-12th April, 2016, to contribute to the important discussion ‘Nonviolence and Just Peace Contributing to the Catholic Understanding of and Commitment to Nonviolence’.

Members of the three day event co-hosted by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and the International Catholic Peace Movement Organization, Pax Christi, strongly called on Pope Francis ‘to share with the world an encyclical on nonviolence and Just Peace; and on the Church to ‘no longer use or teach ‘just war theory’; and continue advocating for the abolition of war and nuclear weapons’.

The statement of Appeal to the Pope also said:

‘We believe there is no ‘just war’. Too often the ‘just war theory’ has been used to endorse rather than prevent or limit war. Suggesting that a ‘just war’ is possible also undermines the moral imperative to develop tools and capacities for nonviolent transformation of conflict’.

The gathering in Rome consisted of lay people, theologians, members of religious congregations, priests and bishops from Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania and the welcoming address was given by Cardinal Turkson of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, who read a Statement from Pope Francis.

The Final Statement entitled ‘An Appeal to the Catholic Church to re-commit to the Centrality of Gospel Nonviolence offers the visions and concrete proposals.

This was indeed a historic gathering and the participants made a brave and history-making call to Pope Francis and the Church. It calls upon Pope Francis to give strong spiritual Leadership to the world’s Christians and reject war for peace and nonviolence.

We are all conscious of the growing militarization of our societies and countries and the myth being perpetrated that militarism, nuclear weapons and war, are acceptable.

I hope that Pope Francis calls Catholics not to join the military and so reminds them that killing cannot be with Christ.

I believe the misguided age of ‘blessing wars, militarism and killing’ must become abolished and the responsibility lies with Pope Francis and religious/spiritual leaders to be true shepherds of Peace and Nonkilling/nonviolence following the command of Jesus to love our enemies and not kill each other.

I hope also that Pope Francis will unambiguously proclaim that ‘Violence is always wrong, it is not the way of Jesus’ and reject militarism thereby calling upon Catholics not to join armies and take up arms to kill people, thus becoming a true peace church.

The Appeal is now in the hands of Pope Francis, and we can now work, fast, pray, for an Nonkilling/Nonviolence Encyclical – and hope that Pope Francis will continue to show courage, be brave and bold, a true Prophet, a loving Shepherd and a bright light in these dark days for all the human family, which he has so rightly describes as ‘this unique and terrible world war in instalments’.

Kashmir and Postcolonialism

Nyla Ali Khan

The uncertainty about the status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir has loomed large since 1947. Is Jammu and Kashmir a postcolonial state? Postcolonialism refers to a historical phase undergone by many of the world’s countries after the decline of the European empires by the mid-twentieth century. Following the dismantling of the empires, the people of many Asian, African, and Caribbean states were left to assess the cultural, linguistic, legal, and economic effects of colonial rule, and create new governments and national identities.

As a phenomenon, nationalism often arises at times of conflict between nations, or between colonizers and colonized, and perhaps most commonly, in postcolonial periods. Over the years, tremendous political and social turmoil has been generated in the Jammu and Kashmir by the forces of religious fundamentalism and by an exclusionary nationalism that seeks to erode the cultural syncretism that is part of the ethos of Kashmir. These forces are responsible for the shutting down of dissenters who voice cultural critique, repression of women, political anarchy, economic deprivation, lack of infrastructure, and mass displacements that have been occasioned by these events.

A visitor to Kashmir is required to take in the unpleasant reality of India and Pakistan, which is full of redoubtable paramilitary troops, barbed wire, and invasive searches; marginalization of the Kashmiri populace; dispossessed youths trained in Pakistani training camps to unleash a reign of disorganized and misguided terror in the state; custodial killings in detention centers and mothers whose faces tell tales of woe waiting outside those gloomy detention centers to catch glimpses of their unfortunate sons (an exercise in futility); burqa-clad women afraid of the wrath of fundamentalist groups as well as of paramilitary forces bent on undercutting their self-respect. Such occurrences do not enable the visitor to glimpse an autonomous Kashmiri life, devoid of the pressures that Kashmiris have been subjected to since 1947.

Since the inception of the insurgency in 1989, Kashmiris have been systematically alienated in their own home by the dominant political and military culture and by state-sponsored agencies. It has become a pipe dream to lead a sovereign and dignified existence which is not invaded by the unruly presence of paramilitary troops and militant organizations. Not only have Kashmiris been deprived of their sovereignty in the purportedly democratic republic of India, but they are treated like nationless pariahs in other parts of the world as well. When I applied for the renewal of my passport at the Indian Consulate in New York City in the early 2000s, it was an ordeal for a Kashmiri to get her/his passport renewed at an Indian consulate in any part of the world. The regular procedure allows most Indian citizens to get their passports renewed at a consulate within a day; the rules were different for people of Kashmiri descent.  A person of Kashmiri descent was required to submit innumerable documents which were then sent to the government of Jammu and Kashmir for validation. This entire process takes a couple of months. During that nerve-wracking period, the individual was required to remain without her/his most important travel document in a foreign country where paranoia was a reality post 9/ 11. I was categorically told by an official at the consulate that the renewal of my passport would take a while because of my ethnicity.

This engenders a question that gnaws at me: which nation or nationality is the identity of the ordinary Kashmiri tied with? Is nationhood a myth which fails to represent the diversity of the actual national community and does it only represent and consolidate the interests of the dominant power groups within the Indian polity? Until these questions remain unanswered, Kashmir will remain a space in which the discursive forces of power operate on and through the people. Kashmir will be unable to legitimately claim the status of a postcolonial state.

Escalating U.S. Air Strikes Kill Hundreds of Civilians in Mosul, Iraq

Nicolas J.S Davies

USA Today revealed on April 19th that U.S. air forces have been operating under looser rules of engagement in Iraq and Syria since last fall.  The war commander, Lt Gen McFarland, now orders air strikes that are expected to kill up to 10 civilians without prior approval from U.S. Central Command, and U.S. officials acknowledge that air strikes are killing more civilians under the new rules.

U.S. officials previously claimed that air strikes in Iraq and Syria had killed as few as 26 civilians.  A senior Pentagon official who is briefed daily on the air war told USA Today that was unrealistic, since air strikes that have destroyed 6,000 buildings with over 40,000 bombs and missiles have inevitably killed much higher numbers of civilians.

As the U.S. escalates its air strikes on Mosul, the largest city occupied by Islamic State, reports of hundreds of civilians killed by air strikes reveal some of the human costs of the U.S. air war and the new rules of engagement.

Award-winning Iraqi environmental scientist and Mosul native Souad Al-Azzawi (Ph.D. Colorado School of Mines) has compiled a partial list of air strikes that have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure from reports by Mosul Eye, Nineveh Reporters Network, Al Maalomah News Network, other Iraqi media and contacts in Mosul:

–        Many government buildings have been destroyed.  As U.S. officials told USA Today, attacks are often conducted at night to minimize civilian casualties, but they have killed security guards and civilians in neighboring buildings.

–        Telephone exchanges have been systematically bombed and destroyed.

–        Two large dairies were bombed, killing about 100 civilians and wounding 200 more.

–        Multiple daytime air strikes on Mosul University on March 19th and 20th killed 92 civilians and wounded 135, mostly faculty, staff, families and students.  Targets included the main administration building, classroom buildings, a women’s dormitory and a faculty apartment building.

–        50 civilians were killed and 100 wounded by air strikes on 2 apartment buildings, Al Hadbaa and Al Khadraa.

–        A mother and 4 children were killed in an air strike on a house in the Hay al Dhubat district of East Mosul on April 20th, next door to a house used by Islamic State that was undamaged.

–        22 civilians were killed in air strikes on houses in front of Mosul Medical College.

–        20 civilians were killed and 70 wounded by air strikes on the Sunni Waqif building and nearby houses and shops.

–        U.S. air strikes on April 24th damaged the Rashidiya water treatment plant in West Mosul and the Yarmouk power station in East Mosul.

–        The Central Bank of Mosul in Ghazi Street and several branches of Rafidain and Rasheed banks were bombed, with heavy civilian casualties, despite all cash reportedly being removed after the first bank was struck.

–        Three workers were killed and 12 wounded in an air strike on the former Pepsi bottling plant.

–        An air strike on a fuel depot in an industrial area ignited an inferno with 150 casualties on April 18th.

–        Bombs have damaged a food warehouse, power stations and sub-stations in West Mosul, and flour mills, a pharmaceutical factory, auto repair shops and other workshops across Mosul.

–        The Al Hurairah Bridge was destroyed by air strikes.

At the very least, U.S. air strikes have killed hundreds of civilians in Mosul and destroyed much of the civilian infrastructure that people depend on for their lives in already dire conditions.  And yet by all accounts, this is only the beginning of the U.S.-Iraqi campaign to retake Mosul. One and one-half million civilians are trapped in the city, 30 times the UN’s estimate of the number of civilians in Fallujah before the November 2004 assault that killed 4,000 to 6,000 people, mostly civilians.  Meanwhile ISIL prevents civilians from evacuating the city, believing that their presence protects its forces from even heavier bombardment.

International humanitarian law strictly prohibits military attacks on civilians, civilian areas and civilian infrastructure.  The presence of several thousand ISIL militants in a city of 1.5 million people does not justify indiscriminate bombing or attacks on civilian targets.  As the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq warned U.S. officials in a Human Rights Report in 2007, “The presence of individual combatants among a great number of civilians does not alter the civilian nature of an area.”  UNICEF protested the bombing of a water treatment plant in Syria last December as “a particularly alarming example” of how “the rules of war, including those meant to protect vital civilian infrastructure, continue to be broken on a daily basis.”

The fundamental contradiction of the militarized “war on terror” has always been that U.S. aggression and other war crimes only reinforce the narratives of jihadis who see themselves as a bulwark against foreign aggression and neocolonialism in the Muslim world.  Meanwhile U.S. wars and covert operations against secular enemies like Hussein, Gaddafi and Assad create new zones of chaos where jihadis can thrive.

President Obama has acknowledged publicly that there is therefore“no military solution” to jihadism.  But successive U.S. administrations have proven unable to resist the lure of military escalation at each new stage of this crisis, unleashing wars that have killed about two million people, plunged a dozen countries into chaos and exploded Wahhabi jihadism from its original safe havens in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan to countries across the world.

If the U.S. and its Iraqi allies follow through with their threatened assault on Mosul, the resulting massacre will join Fallujah, Guantanamo and U.S. drone wars as a powerful catalyst for the next mutation of Wahhabi jihadism, which is likely to be more globalized and unified.

But although Al Qaeda and Islamic State have proven adept at manipulating U.S. leaders into ever-escalating cycles of violence, the jihadis cannot directly order American pilots to bomb civilians.  Only our leaders can do that, making them morally and legally responsible for these crimes, just as Islamic State’s leaders are responsible for theirs.

Celebrating Mother Jones

Rivera Sun

“In all my career I have never advocated violence. I want to give the nation a more highly developed citizenship.”

– Mother Jones

This week commemorates the anniversary of the Haymarket Affair, International Workers’ Day, and the claimed birthday of Mother Mary Harris Jones.  While the United States’ official Labor Day falls in September, the international community celebrates workers and workers rights on May 1st, in recognition of actions taken by Americans in 1886, and the events that led up to the Haymarket Massacre.

On May 1, 1886, more than 300,000 workers in 13,000 businesses across the United States walked off their jobs in the first May Day celebration in history. In Chicago, the epicenter for the 8-hour workday organizers, 40,000 went out on strike. The strike continued for three days, and, though violence broke out between strikers and police in one location, the bulk of the strikers remained nonviolent.

On May 4th, a large rally was held in Chicago’s Haymarket Square, calling for the establishment of an eight-hour workday. The police were trying to disperse a public assembly when an unidentified person threw a bomb at the police. The police responded by firing on the workers, killing four demonstrators. Eight officers were also killed, and scores of people were wounded. One of the survivors of the events was “Mother” Mary Harris Jones.

“Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living,” was Mother Jones’ notorious motto.

While Mother Jones sometimes used violent rhetoric in her inflammatory speeches, the actions she organized were nonviolent actions – boycotts, strikes, marches, walk-outs, work stoppages, rallies, speeches, and picketing. For all her appearance as a five-foot tall, one hundred pound, grandmother dressed in old-fashioned (even for the era) black dresses, Mother Jones was one of the most popular and effective labor organizers of her time. She was present at the Haymarket Massacre, and it is in recognition of these events that she began to claim her birthday as May 1st.

The exact date of her birth is uncertain, but we do know she was born in Cork, Ireland. When she was barely 10 years old, she witnessed the horrors of the potato famine, which drove her family from their homeland to Toronto, Canada. At 23, she moved to the United States, and in 1861, she married George Jones. Six years, later, a yellow fever epidemic struck Memphis, killing George and their four children.

Biographer Elliott Gorn writes, “Now a 30-year-old widow, Jones returned to Chicago and dressmaking, where her tiny shop was burned out in the great fire of 1871. For the next quarter century, she worked in obscurity. As the new 20th century approached, Mary Jones was an aging, poor, widowed Irish immigrant, nearly as dispossessed as an American could be. She had survived plague, famine, and fire, only to confront a lonely old age.”

Beginning with rebuilding work after the great fire of 1871, Jones became involved with the Knights of Labor. When they dissolved, she began organizing with the United Mine Workers. She cofounded the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World), which at its founding was the only labor organization that included women, immigrants, African Americans and Asians in the same organization. Mother Jones traveled the country by rail and foot. From the late 1870s through the early 1920s, Mother Jones participated in hundreds of strikes in all regions of the country.

“My address is like my shoes,” she said, “It travels with me. I abide where there is a fight against wrong.”

In 1903, Jones organized children who were working in mills and mines to participate in a “Children’s Crusade,” a march from Philadelphia to the summer home of President Theodore Roosevelt in New York with banners demanding “We want to go to school and not the mines!” The campaign succeeded in raising public awareness, and was widely covered by the newspapers during the two months of the march.

She died on November 30th, 1930 and claimed to be 100 years old. At one point in her life, when she was denounced on the floor of the United States Senate as the “grandmother of all agitators,” she replied: “I hope to live long enough to be the great-grandmother of all agitators.”

Research That's A Blessing And Research That's A Threat

Anwar Khursheed

Science through its application brought terrific benefits to society, yet upon closer analysis environmental pollution, ecological imbalances, radiation causing indescribably horrific sufferings. There is a thin line between research that's a blessing and research that's a threat.

Professor Lisa Bortolotti, University of Birmingham while discussing philosophy of cognitive science in her book titled “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science” (John Wiley and Sons Ltd) provided a lively and accessible introduction to ethical implications of scientific research. She paid special attention to the complex relationship between the advancement of science, policymaking, and public interest and to the continuity between scientific research and other human activities. David Papineau says “In a way, bioethics is the science of science.

Bioethics is the moral discernment as it relates to medical policy, practice, and research concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, and philosophy. The scope of bioethics includes cloning, gene therapy, life extension, human genetic engineering, astroethics and life in space. There is no dearth of examples of conflicting science; to name a few;

The experimental mutation of rare viruses, development of nuclear weapon in the name of power generation and nuclear medicine through uranium enrichment, thought policing by using Brain scanning to accurately read a person's thoughts could be a valid apprehension of misuse; otherwise an extraordinary tool to enhance security or the treatment of brain damaged patients unable to move or communicate, the charge of artificial rains over the coffee plantation is initially a fiction but could be reality in future. The best possible elucidation to global warming is manipulating Earth's environment on a planetary scale through geoengineering, Prenatal diagnosis lies in the fragments of DNA to develop fetal genetic screening raising the thorny ethical issues.

The experimental mutation of rare viruses can do either help in developing new strains to curb potential hazards or create a new deadly virus which could be potential bio-weapon. The possibility of such a situation does exist in many scientific fields, whose enquiry may cause serious threat to the global security. The ethical issues as the outcome of many researches could create painful social dilemmas.

Separation of radioisotopes for nuclear power generation and nuclear medicine production could be very tempting, but the same could be used for development of nuclear weapons, the same research could either be bane or boon. Uranium found in nature consists largely of two isotopes, U-235 and U-238. The production of energy in nuclear reactors is from the 'fission' or splitting of the U-235 atoms, a process which releases energy in the form of heat. U-235 is the main fissile isotope of uranium. Natural uranium contains 0.7% of the U-235 isotope. The remaining 99.3% is mostly the U-238 isotope which does not contribute directly to the fission process. Isotope separation is a physical process to concentrate (‘enrich’) one isotope relative to others from 0.7% to 3% to 5% U-235 in their fuel. The extent of enrichment extended beyond 90% is sufficient to make a bomb. Because the chemistry of the various isotopes is almost identical, sorting one from another has always been one of the major barriers to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Today's state-of-the-art technology involves cascades of thousands of centrifuges, and huge infrastructure, normally difficult to perform secretly; the stalemate of Iran and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the most recent episode.

Alternatively, lasers can be used quickly, quietly and more efficiently to excite the levels associated with the desired isotope and, together with other technology; can sort the uranium-235 from the rest. Nearly a decade back South Korea applied laser technology to enrich uranium-235 to near weapon’s purity in a matter of weeks. However, it remained unnoticed and undetected for years together and was unearthed accidently.

This advent of laser which started with the separation of Calcium-48 for medical use in the diagnosis of bone disorders; and Nickel-64, a promising agent for cancer therapy developed by Texan researcher Mark Raizen. The desired isotopes push electrons into higher energy states by the cheap and tunable laser whose wavelength of operation can be altered in a controlled manner. Despite acute shortage of medical isotopes the high risk of nuclear proliferation does exist. Opinion is divided; Raizen argued that it is unlikely that his technique will work well for heavy elements such as uranium but others stress that laser-enrichment technology should be undertaken with caution as it make ends up into unsafe hands or even terrorists.

Thought policing by using Brain scanning to accurately read a person's thoughts could be a valid apprehension of misuse; otherwise an extraordinary tool to enhance security or the treatment of brain damaged patients unable to move or communicate. Accurately reading a person's thoughts could be an extraordinary breakthrough namely; application in criminal’s arrest, brain damaged patients cure, recovery of voice, taste, touch, movements and other feelings through functional MRI.

At the same time each person's brain is different; it's far from clear that scientists will ever come up with a general-purpose 'mind-reading' algorithm for all. For another, functional MRI machines could not easily be deployed in airports. Even if they were, a simple shake of the head would throw them off. “You can't build a detector that says 'this person is going to blow up a plane now”. The entrepreneurship in 'neuromarketing' has already introduced lie-detection and tools of measuring an individual's subconscious emotional responses to stimuli. All this please us till it is used for well being, but the moment it comes to mind that someone could use a machine to gain access to your most secret inner thoughts the prospect of such a device raises hackles.

The best possible elucidation to global warming is manipulating Earth's environment on a planetary scale through geoengineering; for instance ambient temperature control through solar -radiation management by virtue of tiny particle spraying in the stratosphere to reflect or attract the incoming sunlight or shifting of excess carbon dioxide from the air through algal blooming of large water bodies by nutrient seeding (iron) to shift the carbon dioxide from the air to the ocean floor.

The charge of artificial rains over the coffee plantation is initially a fiction but could be reality in future. The conservationists perhaps rightly expect that geoengineering might be reckless in the extreme and further ignite the volatile politics of climate change. The Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project of the British government consisted of pumping water up a one-kilometer tall hose and spray it into the air to test solar-radiation management to investigate the technique which could produce the same type of global cooling effect as a large volcanic eruption – such as Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in June 1991 (but without any disruption from hot lava, ash or smoke, which would not be present). In the two years following that eruption the Earth cooled on average by about half a degree Celsius. The objective of SPICE research project was to understand whether or not these natural processes can be mimicked and, if so, with what effect, but the project was halted out of the concerns about the lack of government regulation of such geoengineering projects were raised. The opinion was much split on – those who favour says the altitude is too low to alter the climate, and there is plenty of water vapour already up there, David Keith, a geoengineering specialist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts says “It doesn't pose a risk other than the hose falling on someone's head,”, however on the other side of the fence environmentalists sounded the alarm on moral hazard in addition to unintended consequences such as accidentally shifting rainfall patterns and triggering droughts. The environmental organizations such as Ottawa, Canada based ETC Group; its director Pat Mooney argues that the very presence of such an experiment may make politicians think that there's a way to wriggle out of emissions caps underway on climate negotiations stalled around the world and “It will be an easy way for governments to sidestep their obligations,”.

Prenatal diagnosis lies in the fragments of DNA to develop fetal genetic screening to understand the baby's future behaviour and health. Cure of specific diseases based on this method are already a reality; for example Down’s syndrome detection in the embryo itself is more than 95% sensitive, making it comparable to more invasive tests such as amniocentesis. Because it carries no risk, says Dennis Lo, a pathologist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Other genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis may also be detected during early pregnancy, but it raises some thorny societal questions and many more pregnancies might be terminated, there are countries that are very concerned about mental retardation and might be willing to enforce genetic selection to avoid it, insurance companies or public-health services might resist paying for the care of disabled children if their birth could have been avoided opined Henry Greely, a bioethicist at Stanford University in California. Developments in genomics have made full foetal sequencing possible and affordable, might raise even more contentious issues like termination of pregnancy due to high disease risk even though that disease might occur much later in old age in the future, or might never occur at all, given that it is currently impossible to predict whether this condition or the vast majority of other diseases will occur on the basis of genetic information alone.

At present, there are no guidelines on how to counsel prospective parents about the avalanche of genetic information they may be about to receive. Dennis Lo’s predicament is how to convince parents before birth about a disease that could be cured within a child's lifetime. “Who knows where medical science will be in 60 years?”

The ethics or philosophy of science has in more recent times become an increasingly important subject, but the modern day scientific ethics has their roots under the ethics or morality underpinning Islamic Science. Incisive thought from one of the greatest Muslim scholars of all time, Al-Ghazali (1058-1111) and great historian Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406)), states that "total reflection also includes inner reflection, and the pursuit of knowledge should not be divorced from ethical and value criteria." Hence, one could indeed argue that experimental and empirical efforts cannot be completely divorced from one's heart, inner intuition, insight or conscience. Reason and revelation go hand in hand, it would then seem, while science and knowledge are at once personal and social. Consideration for higher ethics under Islam is expressed in many ways. As early as the 9th century, the physician Ishaq bin Ali Rahawi wrote the first treatise on`adab al-tabib, i.e. medical ethics. In this treatise, Rahawi labels physicians as "guardians of souls and bodies" and in this treatise he spells out all the deeds and acts a Muslim physician must observe. Muhammad ibn Zakariya ar-Razi (854-925), too, in his medical work did so much to `humanise' medicine by taking into consideration the patient's problems and attitudes and God imposed on physicians the oath not to compose mortiferous remedies."

The modern history of ethics in science started with Renaissance when science got popular with the masses, but most of the scientists remained cautious about the application and use of their work. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) drew a distinction between offensive and defensive warfare, and emphasized the role of good defenses in protecting people’s liberty from tyrants. He refused to divulge the details of his plans for submarines out of his apprehension. John Napier (1550-1617), the inventor of logarithms, also experimented with a new form of artillery. Upon seeing its destructive power, he decided to keep its details a secret, and even spoke from his deathbed against the creation of new kinds of weapons. Robert Boyle (1627-1691) a pioneer of physics and chemistry concealed all his inventions related to a variety of potentially harmful subjects, including poisons, invisible ink, counterfeit money, explosives, and kinetic weaponry and said ‘my love of Mankind has obliged me to conceal, even from my nearest Friends’. Alfred H. Lloyd (1905) Ethics and Its History (American Journal of Sociology, 11, No. 2) is a detailed discourse on this topic published more than a century back describing the Dependence of Ethics on Natural Science, and the Important Difference between Ethics as Personal Experience and Ethics as a Social Profession.

The golden principle is the dissemination of knowledge; despite the fact that people did not always think that the benefits of freely disseminating knowledge outweighed the harms. F.S. Taylor’s in his book “The Alchemists,” (H. Schuman, 1949) says, “Alchemy was certainly intended to be useful .... But [the alchemist] never proposes the public use of such things, the disclosing of his knowledge for the benefit of man. …. Any disclosure of the alchemical secret was felt to be profoundly wrong, and likely to bring immediate punishment from on high. The reason generally given for such secrecy was the probable abuse by wicked men of the power that the alchemical would give …. The alchemists, indeed, felt a strong moral responsibility that is not always acknowledged by the scientists of today.

The intention is not to create panic but to just press the alarm button that “look we should not be swayed by the rosy claims rather go by the ethics”, if benefits greatly outweigh the risks.

The Shameless Indian Celebrity

Vaidyananth Nishant

The debate on Television, in recent weeks, over Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s role as brand ambassador of the Amrapali Group and his decision to quit from that after a few angry people protested against the cricketer for endorsing flats sold by the builder in New Delhi’s neighbourhood where promises were not kept and work still incomplete has raised questions over the ‘ethics of endorsement’. While it is indeed a matter of doubt as to whether such endorsements lead to better sales of commodities across the spectrum – one wonders if people purchase residential flats only because a celebrity endorses that even while conceding that children get swayed by such endorsement of food products, beverages or fashion goods – the fact is celebrities do impact lifestyle and the way a people think and behave many a times. In any case, endorsing products, is indeed a means to capital gains for the celebrities and in most instances, if not all, the ethical aspect has hardly mattered to them.

As for instance, the list of celebrities who have endorsed Coca-Cola is long: Sachin Tendulkar, HrithikRoshan, Farhan Akthar, Deepika Padukone, Aishwarya Rai, Aamir Khan, etc. And the most ironic among them is Aamir Khan; he recently joined hands with the Devendra Fadnavis government in Maharashtra and introduced the ‘SatyamevJayate Water Cup’ and launched the ‘Paani Foundation’ with its aim of solving water crisis and achieving a drought-free Maharashtra in five years. He is also the face of ‘JalYuktShivir’, a parallel campaign for the same cause by the State Government. It was this same Aamir Khan who was the brand ambassador of Coca-Cola in India when the corporate was exploiting the water resources in Plachimada.

A short account on Plachimada and Coca-Cola is in order. In the 2005, the Coca-Cola plant in Plachimada village in the ChitturTaluk of Palakkad District, Kerala was forced to stop operation. The closure was the fallout of days of protest by the residents of this village and those who joined them from elsewhere, mostly adivasis and farmers along with activists. The Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited had established the plant in 1998-99. The 40 acres of farm land was acquired under the procedure established by law and aided by the then State Government where Coca Cola set up their plant to ‘quench the thirst of Indians’. According to a PUCL Bulletin, the plant sunk more than 65 bore-wells to extract water for industrial needs; as much as about 15 million litres of ground water was extracted per day.

Very soon, such exploitation of ground water left the people of this village and the adjacent region without water and the existing wells were left with brackish water. The damage was not restricted to depletion of ground water resources. The residue silt from the plant was soon getting dumped into the nearby canals and farm lands. Meanwhile, Sachin Tendulkar, who went about endorsing the virtues of Coca Cola enticed one and all to `enjoying’ it sought to balance his deeds (his karma if one goes by the tenets of Gita) by endorsing LivPure (water purifiers) subsequently. Probably he thought that the residents of Plachimada should use LivPure and drink potable water rather than protesting against the contamination of the water bodies in the village and its neighbourhood! Well, Sachin Tendulkar made money out of both and will live to endorse some medicine that may be put out by some pharmaceutical giant to `cure` the ill effects of the cola they consumed earlier. All this can be justified either as karma or simply brazened out as everything is fair in making money and war!

How else does one make sense of Aamir Khan who went about singing praises for Coca-Cola when the farm lands in Kerala were being plundered of its water resources and people were left to suffer? And it is a tragedy that such an unethical face is now talking of solving the water crisis in Maharashtra. It is a shame that this Khan does not even care to apologise for having endorsed Coca-Cola for over a decade. And this is not made a point in any of the debates in the media; asking for too much when the media remained the platform from where all these endorsements were transmitted and the fact being they too made a good share of the money that was spent on these. The ethics of advertisements are flouted as much to help free circulation of news and views and to make profits.

Sachin Tendulkar, the master blaster, and one of the finest cricketers the world has seen, too has fallen prey to this greed over endorsements. He might be a great sportsman; but is equally true that he failed to show sportsmanship when it came to real life. It was all profit and no ethics as this Member of Parliament keeps taking up endorsements even now and he, like many others of his ilk, pulled all the stops to avail of deductions while paying tax on his income. In 2011, for instance, Sachin claimed to be an actor and a cricketer in order to save tax. It may be argued that he did nothing illegal and had only sought to avail of the tax concessions provided under the law.

And this was not the first instance. Earlier, he had happily accepted a Ferrari 360 Modona from Fiat as he was its brand ambassador and claimed exemption from paying the import duty on it (which was 120% of the car’s value which happened to be around Rs. 1.1 crore); and he sold off the car to a Gujarati businessman subsequently. In response to this, Tushar Gandhi had tweeted, “When Sachin got his Ferrari as a ‘gift’, he wanted duty & excise exemption; now that he has sold it will he ask for capital gains exemption?”

Going back to the 2011 case, Sachin had appealed to the Income Tax Tribunal that he was an actor and not a cricketer; he did this to avail of the tax deduction facility according to section 80RR of Income Tax Act. Under this section, deduction is allowed to an extent for income from foreign sources. And Sachin showed a large amount as expenses in order to avail deduction which was rejected by the Tribunal. Sachin Tendulkar has not been the only one who has shamelessly gone asking for deduction. He is among such others like Harsha Bhogle and Sunil Gavaskar. It is really hilarious that Harsha and Amitabh Bachchan, who are now having a phoney war over being patriotic and over the chanting of ‘holy’ verses as proof of such patriotism and yet both belonged to the same league when it came to not paying taxes.

Interestingly, Sachin Tendulkar had then leaned on Amitabh Bachchan while arguing his case for deduction under Section 80 RR of the Income Tax Act before the Income Tax Tribunal. The fact that it was the cricketer in Sachin Tendulkar that the advertisement makers and the viewers wanted was not accepted by the legend. And today, this legend appears before us in campaigns for a Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (MSDE) to trumpet that people doing all kinds of labour will be respected and treated as equals.

The advertisement shows Tendulkar claiming equal status with a carpenter. The campaign promises better wages and dignity of labour. Perhaps, Mr. Tendulkar could first pay tax that would help in the growth of the nation and the development of its people, particularly those belonging to the ‘other’ strata of the society which he is now trying ‘hard’ to empower.

It is pertinent here to revisit Mahatma Gandhi’s understanding of varna. Gandhi, at a certain point in his life, had held that the the four varnas are like the four vital organs of the body. If anyone stopped working, the rest would all fail. Hence, no occupation is superior to another and every skilled labourer has his/her own importance in the society. It would have been better if the Ministry had adopted this while considering such a programme than allowing tax evaders to campaign for such a programme.

But the biggest of the double speaks turns out to be one of India’s best actor, who also does not seem to be aware that the national anthem of India should be sung in 52 seconds. Amitabh Bachchan, recently, got caught when names of those who held secret accounts in tax havens (the Panama Papers) were put out in the public domain. He had made a lot of offshore investments in bogus firms and this money was used for all kinds of notorious activities. He is not only guilty of tax evasion, but also of illegal activities. But then, he claimed that he did not know how his name appeared in the list of Indians who had invested in the Panama Islands. It could have been Amjad Khan, if Sholay is to be revisited and this was Gabbar Singh’s way of getting back at Veeru! But then, the Panama papers belong to the real world and not the reel world!

And this man has been endorsing brands, everyday; from Maggi to agarbathis and a scooter and probably any product under the sun which would favour him to make further investments offshore. He agreed to become the brand ambassador of Gujarat state much after that very government was responsible for the murder of innocent Muslims in 2002.

If we take the case of Indian celebrities there are many such incidents. Was Salman Khan ‘being human’ when he murdered one and injured four others while driving drunk? It might be due to the spirit of adventure and the adrenaline rush he got through excessive consumption of Thumbs-up! Or Malayalam actor and an officer in the Territorial Army, Mohan Lal, endorses Malabar Gold in the morning and asks people to buy gold as it is auspicious. The same person comes on Television, soon after, to ask the same viewers to pledge their gold for money as he endorses a Gold Finance company.

There is an array of celebrities who empathise with the hungry, starving children who suffer malnutrition but go about endorsing beauty products with fruit extracts and vitamins.

It is time our celebrities stop endorsing brands and products just for profit. They carry a heavier responsibility on their shoulder; their responsibility towards the people of this nation. They must come forward and apologise if they have been responsible for any kind of degradation in the society and stop further degrading it with their greed for money. And above all, us citizens must sue such thieves and realise, it is these shameless beings who are the actual anti-nationals and not the ones who are blamed to be today. It is time to say it loud and clear that campaigning for Coca-Cola is indeed terrorism? It is not the refusal to say ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ that makes one anti-national; instead tax evasion and endorsing such products that are made looting our resources and depriving our people of those is what makes one a terrorist.

TTIP Leaked Documents Show Obama Demands Killing Paris Accord Against Climate Change

Eric Zuesse

"248 pages of leaked Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiating texts” show that the American negotiating position, as Greenpeace put the matter, allows "No place for climate protection in TTIP,” and, though "We have known that the EU position was bad, now we see the US position is even worse.”

Jorgo Riss, Director of Greenpeace EU, said, "The effects of TTIP would be initially subtle but ultimately devastating. It would lead to European laws being judged … disregarding environmental protection and public health concerns.”

A 70-year-old EU rule, which allows nations to restrict trade in order “to protect human, animal and plant life or health," or for "the conservation of exhaustible natural resources,” would end, if U.S. President Barack Obama gets what he wants.

Furthermore, the “Precautionary principle is forgotten”: it’s currently enshrined in the EU Treaty, but Obama wants it gone; it is stated in the EU Treaty as allowing "rapid response in the face of a possible danger to human, animal or plant health, or to protect the environment. In particular, where scientific data do not permit a complete evaluation of the risk, recourse to this principle may, for example, be used to stop distribution or order withdrawal from the market of products likely to be hazardous.” Obama wants there to be no ability for EU nations to withdraw from the market “products likely to be hazardous.” All products would be assumed safe, unless proven not to be.

Other TTIP developments in recent days:

Britain’s Independent headlined on April 29th, "TTIP could cause an NHS sell-off and UK Parliament would be powerless to stop it, says leading union”, and reported that a labor union, “Unite,” was determined to block TTIP from going into effect in the UK: "Gail Cartmail, Unite assistant general secretary, said that it was 'a scandal' that MPs [Members of Parliament] may not have the democratic power to stop TTIP, which she said 'threatens the irreversible sell-off of our NHS [National Health Service]’.” Privatization of government assets is favorably viewed by Obama.

Tamara Hervey, a professor of EU law at the University of Sheffield, told the Independent, "The UK government could include a reservation in the agreement to say that it does not include the NHS. As far as I understand, that isn't on the table, even though several other EU countries have already put such reservations in the negotiating text.” British Prime Minister David Cameron, like Obama, is strongly in favor of privatization.

The Independent said, "Obama used a recent visit to the EU to push for the completion of TTIP, promising it would remove 'regulatory and bureaucratic irritants and blockages to trade’.” Now, we know that in his mind the EU’s existing regulations concerning environmental protection and product safety belong in that category: “bureaucratic irritants and blockages to trade.”

Britain’s Guardian banners on May 1st, “Leaked TTIP Documents Cast Doubt on EU-US Trade Deal”, and Arthur Nelson in Brussels, reports that, "Because of a European ban on animal testing, 'the EU and US approaches remain irreconcilable and EU market access problems will therefore remain’,” which is yet further indication of Obama’s free-market convictions: he doesn’t accept any ban on animal-testing of products. Presumably, he wants to allow corporations to determine what the cheapest way to determine a product’s safety or dangerousness is, regardless of whether the animal model that’s used tells anything reliable about the product’s safety on humans. If one nation’s testing procedure is less reliable than another’s, then Obama wants the two to compete as equals, so that the incentive will exist for all corporations to use the cheapest method, regardless of the method’s reliability, or even humaneness. Obama didn’t run for President as a libertarian, but he turns out to be remarkably libertarian in his policies. He’s pushing for a vigorous race to the bottom, in all sorts of regulations.

Polls show Obama to have extremely high approval-ratings in European countries, such as 62% in Germany (far higher than any German national politician). Polls also show TTIP to be extremely unpopular there. The contradiction apparently isn’t noticed by respondents — approval of a politician has no clear correlation with the politician’s policies. Obama is black, and he speaks well; and, perhaps that’s enough. Perhaps Europeans don’t really care very much about such things as global warming, product-safety, or humaneness toward animals. If that’s true, then EU Parliamentarians can likewise ignore such matters and simply vote to approve TTIP, notwithstanding the merely nominal opposition to it amongst the electorate. The percentage of voters who really care about such issues might actually be inconsequential. If that’s the situation, then corruption makes sense, because the money that a politician thereby obtains for his/her campaign will far outbalance the potential loss of voters’ support that results from violating their interests — only words will matter, a politician’s actual record won’t, in terms of the given politician’s support by voters. If that’s true, then the results of democracy might be no better than the results of dictatorship; there might be no real difference.

Certainly, the disabling of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change would have enormous impact; but, if a politician’s rhetoric has a bigger effect on his favorability-rating than his policies do, Obama might be highly regarded even when the planet is burning up as a consequence of his policies.

Volkswagen works council and IG Metall back executive bonuses

Dietmar Henning

The social reality of modern capitalism is being put on full display at the world’s second largest automaker, Volkswagen. While thousands of VW workers around the world face the loss of jobs in the aftermath of the emissions scandal, a clique of top executives and wealthy shareholders have not only escaped any accountability, they are pocketing millions in bonuses.

As for the trade unions and works council, which claim to “represent” VW workers, they have functioned as co-conspirators in this looting operation. At the same time, the organisations have signalled their support for the elimination of more than 10,000 jobs.

In early March, Wolfgang Porsche whose family owns a majority of Volkswagen shares, said that the company would carry out job cuts “if it was determined that we have an excess of personnel in individual areas.” According to Deutsche Welle, “Porsche’s words were welcomed by the head of the company’s works council, Bernd Osterloh, who saw them as a departure from the board’s earlier ‘policy of speechlessness’ over its decision to cut VW’s overhead costs by 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion) a year in the wake of its emissions scandal.”

Defying the angry protests of workers and media criticism, the supervisory board decided at its April 23 meeting to make no changes in the bonus system. Although the company has suffered billions in losses from the scandal, the committee announced that the paying of bonuses would be delayed, but not cut, and certainly not eliminated.

In an effort to pacify opposition, the company will retain 30 percent of the bonuses and set them aside. In three years, the board members will be paid in full. This will happen even if the company’s share value by 2019 continues to fall from the already low level brought about by the emissions scandal. If the share price rises, the board members will receive correspondingly more. A capping of the bonus will only occur if the share price doubles.

The “employees’ representatives” on the supervisory board gave their full backing to this slap in the face. VW central works council chair Bernd Osterloh called the agreement a “hard-fought compromise.” Similar sentiments were expressed by Lower Saxony state premier and VW board member Stefan Weil (Social Democrat) who both said they would push for a cut, or even better the elimination, of the bonuses.

The supervisory board determines the level of executive compensation. The works council and IG Metall trade union, together with the SPD and Green Party-run state government of Lower Saxony, have a majority of 12 votes on the board allowing them to veto any pay proposal. “It would have been possible in purely legal terms to compel the executive to largely give up the bonus payments,” a supervisory board member admitted to Die Welt .

The works council, trade unions and SPD did not do so because they are part of the group of speculators in the company’s leadership.

It is unclear what payouts to the multi-millionaire executives are actually covered by the bonus agreement. In the media, the terms “bonus” and “variable remuneration” are generally used as synonyms. But they are not.

VW’s remunerations report for 2014 distinguishes between variable remunerations based on the last business year, bonuses on the basis of the last two business years and the long-term incentive (LTI), for which the last four business years and other factors are included in the calculations to determine the figure.

Since then, former Porsche chief Martin Müller has replaced Martin Winterkorn as CEO. Müller will likely obtain a similar income to his predecessor, who resigned in the wake of the emissions manipulation in September 2015. For Winterkorn, the 2014 report reveals fixed remuneration of €1.9 million (US$2.17 million), one-year variable remuneration of €3.1 million (US$3.55 million), bonus remuneration over a two-year time period of €6.3 million (US$7.21) and LTI of €4.3 million (US$4.92). This comes to total compensation for 2014 of roughly €15.6 million (US$17.85 million).

If 30 percent of the entire variable remuneration is withheld, this would amount to roughly €3.9 million for Winterkorn. He would still receive €12 million. If only 30 percent of the bonus portion of the variable remuneration as referred to in the report is withheld, there would only be a loss of €1.9 million. Winterkorn would then still receive €14 million.

Winterkorn himself, as well as all past and current executive members, have no reason to fear losing a cent over the emissions manipulation. After the last supervisory board meeting, VW announced that the late April release of a report on the issue of responsibility would be postponed indefinitely.

The US-based legal firm Jones Day, which has been conducting a months-long internal investigation, has blame second-tier managers, which, they said, decided to use software to manipulate emissions in November 2006. Top-level executives, the law firm claims, allegedly knew nothing. The Jones Day law firm has a notorious record. In 2012-13 it conspired with wealthy bondholders to throw the city of Detroit into bankruptcy, which led the slashing of public employee pensions and the selloff of public assets.

According to the investigation, it cannot be proven that Winterkorn knew about the manipulation of software on VW vehicles sold around the world. A trained engineer who boasted that he knew “every bolt” on a VW vehicle, Winterkorn was allegedly given evidence in spring 2014 of “inconsistencies” in the emissions results from the EA 189 engine. But “if and how much notice Mr. Winterkorn took of this note at the time is not documented,” VW wrote in a statement.

Thus Winterkorn, along with all other current members of the executive, will continue to obtain millions. His contract, which he insisted be paid out in spite of his resignation, continues until the end of this year.

The same applies to former VW finance director and current supervisory board chairman Hans Dieter Pötsch. He has been at the centre of the discussions over recent weeks about the VW bonuses. Pötsch, prior to his shift from VW’s executive to the supervisory board in October 2015, quickly negotiated a bonus payment because as finance director he received around five times more than his current salary of €1.5 million as supervisory board chairman.

It is now clear he did not agree on €10 million, but €20 million in bonuses. “Pötsch only reached this record sum by means of a trick,” Spiegel Onlinereported. In order to calculate his potential income until 2017, which was the length of his contract on the VW executive, business figures were used from 2014, the most successful year in the history of VW. With this accounting trick, Pötsch evaded the huge losses of 2015.

Pötsch and the executive are, however, not the only ones lining their pockets. Pötsch, who also leads Porsche SE Holdings, VW’s majority shareholder, suggested in his capacity as CEO, to reduce the dividend on Porsche shares to 20 cents per share. Ultimately, VW only transferred €17 million to Porsche Holdings, down from €719 million last year.

The executive dismissed this proposal last Monday, deciding to pay out a dividend of €1 per share. The money, €308 million, will be withdrawn from saved funds. More than €150 million will go to the two family clans, Porsche and Piëch, who own the core shares, and another €150 million to owners of preferential shares, “mostly private individuals, banks and insurers,” as the Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote.

The deputy chairman of the Porsche Holding supervisory board, Porsche central works council chair Uwe Hück, “explained” this policy of enrichment to the Süddeutsche Zeitung by saying it was necessary to send a signal about the company’s future capabilities. VW would soon be on a successful path once again, he said. “A minuscule 20 cent per share dividend would raise doubts about that.” At this reduced rate, dividends for the two Porsche families would have amounted to “just” €30 million in earnings.

The works councils, trade unions and SPD have been complicit in this process. Their main argument is that the multi-million euro bonuses of the executive cannot be challenged because they are contractually regulated. This is simply a matter of legalities, VW works council head Osterloh claimed.

But how do things stand with the workforce? They also have contracts. But the works council and unions have no problem tearing up whatever remains of the contractual protections of the past. On the contrary, they have accepted mass layoffs through local plant agreements.

While Osterloh and Co. accept the enrichment of top management, they are working at the same time on a drastic cost-cutting programme. The more than €16 billion set aside for fines, legal challenges, repurchasing vehicles, repairs and customer compensation, is to be squeezed out of the 620,000 global workforce.

German army prepares for cyberwar

Johannes Stern

Germany’s Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) are massively stepping up their capability in the field of electronic warfare. Last Tuesday, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (CDU, Christian Democratic Union) issued a “general order” that provides for the establishment of a new and separate department in the defence ministry and the establishment of a military organization for cyberwar.

With an Inspector General at its head, the new unit will have the de facto status of a new service within the Bundeswehr. It will be led from a Cyber and Information Command (KdoCIR) in Bonn, with around 13,500 staff (unofficial figures already speak of up to 20,000 cyber warriors).

Its establishment will be carried out in two stages. According to the order of the day, “a new department Cyber/IT (CIT) will be established by the fourth quarter of 2016 with bases in Bonn and Berlin,” and then “by the second quarter 2017, a new and sixth military unit for Cyber and Information Resources (CIR).”

According to the official defence ministry website, the aim is “to gather together the tasks of cyber, IT, military intelligence, geo-information and operative communications.” The plans go back “to the work of an establishment team, which the minister had ordered last year to make the Bundeswehr future-proof in cyberspace.” The team was led by Deputy Inspector General of the Bundeswehr, Lieutenant General Markus Kneip, and the Commissioner for Strategic Defence Control, Gundbert Scherf.

While von der Leyen is seeking to justify the establishment of the new cyber department by citing “the protection of Germany and its citizens,” the official “final report on the Cyber and Information Resource” by Kneip and Scherf makes clear what is really at stake: the formation of a powerful department to conduct offensive cyberwarfare.

The report makes clear that the Foreign Ministry, the Interior Ministry and the Defence Ministry have agreed to “the common cyber security architecture ... in the context of the White Paper.” The 2016 White Paper elaborates the ministry of defence's new doctrine for the Bundeswehr and provides, among other things, for the deployment of the Bundeswehr at home and an expansion of operations abroad, independently of Germany’s post-war allies.

It is exactly these objectives that are being followed by the creation of a new branch of the armed force for cyber defence. It means in practice shelving the prohibition of Bundeswehr missions at home, as well as the separation of the police and army that were anchored in the constitution following the experiences of the Kaiser’s Empire, the Weimar Republic and the Nazi dictatorship. “In no other field of activity are internal and external security so intertwined and therefore can only be guaranteed holistically and by the whole state,” the final report says.

“With regard to the issue of cooperation in cyber security and defence, the fluid boundaries between domestic and foreign, the BMI [Federal Interior Ministry] and BMVg [Ministry of Defence] have therefore developed a common understanding of the complementary and closely interlinked arrangements.” These include the “joint protection of critical infrastructure.” The Bundeswehr must therefore “make an increasingly important contribution to general government preventive security.”

Contrary to the official propaganda that the new department would only serve for the “defence” against cyber-attacks, the final report makes clear that the Bundeswehr is prepared to enter into its own offensive cyberwarfare.

There was a broad understanding that “defensive and offensive skills are always needed to conduct effective cyber action,” the report says. Other countries also keep “the option open of using the full range of military assets against cyber-attacks in the context of deterrence.” The “military relevance of the CIR as a dimension of its own in addition to land, air, sea and space” should therefore be “taken fully into account.”

In fact, the cyber warfare measures named in the defence ministry report, such as “espionage, information manipulation, possible cyber terrorism, including up to large-scale sabotage attacks against critical infrastructure,” have been an integral component of the imperialist wars of aggression in which the Bundeswehr has played an increasingly prominent role.

The Kosovo war (1998-1999), the first international combat mission by German soldiers since Hitler’s defeat in the Second World War, is generally regarded as the first actual cyber war. During their bombing operations, NATO disrupted Serbian air defences, including the use of high-frequency microwave radiation, crippled the Yugoslav telephone network and hacked into Russian, Greek and Cypriot banks to access the accounts of Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic. On the other side, Serbian units disrupted NATO computer servers and listened in to unprotected NATO communications.

Since then, NATO, and especially the United States, have greatly expanded their capabilities for cyberwarfare. At the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, the military alliance formulated its aspiration to “offer assistance to alliance members on demand in defending against a cyberattack.” Shortly afterwards, NATO established the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in Tallinn in Estonia to “defend the information sphere.”

Officially, the massive stepping up of NATO’s cyber capabilities, and now also Germany’s, is being justified by pointing to the “hybrid warfare” conducted by Russia and the danger of international terrorism. In reality, it has long been planned and is considered necessary by all the imperialist powers to defend their economic and geo-strategic interests in the 21st century.

In a lecture to the German Atlantic Association, former Inspector General of the Bundeswehr and chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Klaus Naumann, already stated in 2008: “All in all, the 21st century promises to be a rather turbulent century in which there will be some conflicts, and next to the familiar war between states there will also be new forms of armed conflict such as cyberwarfare and the struggle by transnational forces against states. It will in the beginning, and probably for the foreseeable future, be a world without world order, not least because the Pax Americana has lost its significance in Europe, no longer really applies in the Middle East, but is irreplaceable and only remains a stability factor par excellence in the Pacific.”