Silence in NGO Discourse

Michael Barker

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) maintain a ubiquitous presence in most peoples lives (whether they realize it or not). It therefore should be a commonsense act that we scrutinize NGO activities to ascertain their exact political function within the “our” neoliberal world order, yet this is not normally the case. In response to this deliberative void, Issa Shivji, a professor of law based at the University of Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) argues the urgent need for such critical inquiry’s in his useful booklet Silence in NGO Discourse: The Role and Future of NGOs in Africa (Pambazuka Press, 2007). As Firoze Manji observes in the publications foreword: often “dressed up with the verbiage of participatory approaches,” “[o]ver the last two decades, development NGOs have become an integral, and necessary, part of a system that sacrifices respect for justice and rights.” Shivj’s own background, helps inform his work, and in his introduction he notes:

“Before I begin, I must make two confessions. First,my paper is undoubtedly critical, sometimes ruthlessly so, but not cynical. Second, this criticism is also self-criticism, since the author has been involved in NGO activism for some 15 years. Finally I must make clear that I do not doubt the noble motivations and good intentions of NGO leaders and activists. But we do not judge the outcome of a process by the intentions of its authors. We aim to analyse the objective effects of actions, regardless of their intentions.” (p.2)

This is an important point, and so after summarizing some of his criticisms of the NGO community, I aim to to “analyse the objective effects of” Shivji’s booklet in an attempt to determine the limitations of his scathing polemic.

Shivji correctly diagnoses that the rise and rise of the nonprofit sector is closely aligned to neoliberal growth imperatives which “banishe[d] issues of equality and equity to the realm of rights, not development.” In this way, “’rights’ are reduced to the purview of advocacy NGOs, no longer a terrain for popular struggle.” “NGOs by accepting the myth of being non-political contribute to the process of mystification, and therefore objectively side with the status quo, contrary to their expressed stand for change.” While such a troubling discourse had been vigorously challenged both from within academia and on the streets, unfortunately, as Shivji points out: “A large part of the African intellectual elite has been co-opted and accommodated within the neoliberal discourse.” Thus his thesis is “that the sudden rise of NGOs and their apparently prominent role in Africa are part of this neoliberal” offensive. He argues that NGOs merely represent the “continued domination of imperialism… in a different form.”

“Within this context, NGOs are neither a third sector, nor independent of the state. Rather they are inextricably imbricated in the neoliberal offensive, which follows on the heels of the crisis of the national project. Unless there is awareness on the part of NGOs of this fundamental moment in the struggle between imperialism and nationalism, they end up playing the role of ideological and organisational foot soldier of imperialism, however this is described.” (p.29)

According to Shivji, silences in the NGO discourse shield the public from the following five facts: (1) NGOs are very much a part of the neoliberal onslaught on democracy, indeed the “anti-state stance of the so-called donor-community was the real push behind the upsurge in NGO activity”; (2) “NGOs are led by and largely composed of the educated elite” (falling into three categories, those “previously engaged in political struggles,” altruistic individuals who are “morally motivated,” and a mainstream “careerist” elite motivated by personal ambitions); (3) an “overwhelming number of NGOs are donor funded”; (4) “perhaps the most dominant” form of NGOs are donor-driven”; and (5) “[i]ncreasingly the model for the ‘successful’ NGO is the corporation.”

On top of these unspoken and self evident truths, it is clear that the contemporary political landscape is less amenable to human directed social change than in past years. Thus in former years “radical intellectual discourse was integrated with militant activism,” however:

“The NGO discourse in the current period of apparent imperial ‘triumphalism’ eschews theory, and emphasizes and privileges activism. In the African setting in particular, whatever is left of critical intellectual discourse, largely located in the universities, runs parallel to and is divorced from NGO activism. The requirements of funding agencies subtly discourage, if not exhibiting outright hostility to a historical, social and theoretical understanding of development, poverty and discrimination. Our erstwhile benefactors now tell us: ‘just act, don’t think’; and we shall fund both.” (pp.34-5)

Bias against theory within NGOs is manifested in various ways which include the managerial “penchant for project funding,” a single issue focus (which means “its interconnectedness to other issues and the whole is lost”), and finally “issue-orientated and time-limited projects do not allow for any long-term basic research based on solid theoretical and historical premises.” This theoretical detachment from the world around them means that “the ‘common sense’ theoretical assumption of the current period underpinning NGO roles and actions is neoliberalism in the interest of global imperialism.” Here Shivji cites Brian Murphy who writes that: “What the corporate PR manager understands implicitly as economic propaganda, NGO people often repeat as articles of faith.”

“To pretend that society is a harmonious whole of stakeholders is to be complicit in perpetrating the status quo in the interest of the dominant classes and powers. In the struggle between national liberation and imperialist domination, and between social emancipation and capitalist slavery, NGOs have to choose sides. In this there are no in-betweens.” (p.41)

Shivji concludes that: “In spite of these limitation, I do believe that NGOs can play some worth role. But we do have to recognise what we are not.” This may be true, but I would like to suggest that Shivji’s decision to provide no discussion of the imperialist history of liberal philanthropy clouds his readers’ ability to differentiate between obviously manipulative donors like the World Bank, and the US Agency for International Development, and what are often considered (falsely) to be benign donors, like liberal foundations. This is problematic as understanding the long and dirty history of liberal philanthropy is integral to comprehending the deeper phenomena that undergird the imperialist evolution of the NGO-driven change industry.

It is perhaps too much to ask to expect that Shivji should turn on the hand that feeds him, and so in this regard it is important to extend his criticisms by examining the background of his booklets publishers, Pambazuka News. Prefacing his work, the publisher is described as such:

“Pambazuka News is the authoritative pan-African newsletter and platform for social justice in Africa, offering comprehensive weekly coverage, cutting edge commentary and in-depth analysis on politics and current affairs, development, human rights, refugees, gender issues and culture in Africa. It is intended as a tool for progressive social change.” (p.xi)

What is not mentioned is that Pambazuka News, which is produced and published by Fahamu: Networks For Social Justice, is itself funded by the world’s leading liberal elites, including groups like Christian Aid, the Ford Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa. As history has shown, such elites are quite willing to fund and even promote radical critiques of society (within limited circles at least), if only so they are better placed to co-opt their ideological adversaries more effectively. In fact, Shivji’s fairly superficial critique of NGOs is just the type of work that is typically promoted by reformist elites; while by way of a contrast, more radical criticisms, like for example, INCITE!’s edited book The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit Industrial Complex (South End Press, 2007), are conveniently ignored.

This is not to say that much useful information cannot be gleamed from Shivji, but we should understand that people who have been embedded in the non-profit industrial complex for a long time are not necessarily the best people to critique it. Therefore, instead of just relying upon elite-dominated universities to provide such criticism we need to turn to the people around us, and work together with them to develop the type of research bodies that will be need to meld theoretical and activist concerns in a manner that can truly promote revolutionary social change.

Enemy of Reason: Behind the Mask of Pro-GMO Neoliberal Ideology

Colin Todhunter

Professor Shanthu Shantharam recently wrote a response to Viva Kermani’s well thought out article about injecting some honesty into the debate about genetically modified (GM) food and crops. Both pieces appeared the Indian publication Swarajya.

Shantharam’s response is typical of what we have come to expect from him: a mixture of abuse, personal attacks and gross misrepresentation of both issues and facts.

He says of Kermani’s piece:

“The article seems to be borrowed from the manifesto of the global anti-GM propaganda machinery that has been in vogue for as long as the GM crops have been around.”

It is highly convenient that he chooses to ignore the agritech cartel’s substantial army of public relations agencies, politicians, scientists and media figures who engage in pseudo-science to promote GM, misrepresent scientific findings, carry out well-planned strategies to attack scientists whose findings are not to the liking of the industry and who produce smear-pieces on prominent figures. The industry has rolled-out what has become a very transparent playbook to depict those who express concern about GM as ideologues, ignorant and anti-science.

At the same time, it tries to portray critics as being authoritarian, elitist and undemocratic. This from an industry run by privileged multi-millionaire white men who belong to Fortune 500 companies. A taxpayer-subsidised industry driven by self-interest, profit and personal gain. An industry that uses well-paid figures and career scientists (like Shantharam who makes a living outside of India in a prestigious US university) to do its bidding in the media. And an industry that hides its corporate science behind the guise of proprietary and intellectual knowledge, while setting out to undermine democratic processes.

Whether it is the Science Media Centre in the UK, Jon Entine, Kevin Folta, Tony Trewavas, Bruce Chassey or any other number of individuals or institutions, the façade of independence has been peeled away and their links to the GMO agritech sector and/or fundamentalist right-wing neoliberal lobby groups exposed.

Shantharam claims that GMOs are safe as determined by all regulatory agencies in charge of assessing the safety of food. He says the safety of GMOs have also been vouched for by leading scientific organisations. The implication being that there is an overwhelming consensus on GM among respected scientific bodies.

A September 2014 report by Food & Water Watch goes to great lengths to show the backing that Shantharam claims exists only in his mind. He should read the report, which concludes there is no consensus on safety among institutions and independent scientists, nor within the scientific literature.

Moreover, Shantharam seems to assume supposedly independent, evidence-based, public watch dogs are actually doing their job to protect the public. He has nothing to say on how the agritech/agribusiness cartel has written the rules on intellectual property rights and trade rules, has been the guiding hand behind the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture in India and has co-opted, colluded with and infiltrated public bodies across the globe, from the UK, India and the EU to the US and the WTO.

Like all good neoliberal/agritech business apologists, he talks much about democracy and choice while saying nothing about how agritech corporations have subverted both, including the restriction of cotton seed options in India and Monsanto’s illegal entry into the Indian market.

The ‘free’ market and choice exist only in the warped delusions of neoliberal ideologues like Shantharam.

More specifically, in trying to promote the myth that GMOs are equivalent to conventional breeding, Shantharam says:

“Kermani must realise that in the 10,000 year history of human effort to grow food, people have artificially modified all that was growing wildly to adapt them to their needs. Therefore, there is nothing natural about agriculture.”

Again, this is another industry myth designed to be repeated at every available opportunity in the hope that if said often enough it will become accepted public ‘knowledge’. There is enough evidence (see this as well) to show that GMOs are not substantially equivalent to conventionally bred crops or food derived from them. Substantial equivalence was an industry ploy designed to avoid proper testing and regulation of GM.

According to Shantharam, GM crops are specially tested in accordance with international food safety standards prescribed by the Codex Alimentarius commission where global scientific experts meet to develop global standards for food safety testing. This is simply not true.

Steven Druker has demonstrated that such claims are false:

“It’s evident that the system for regulating GE foods has been, and remains, markedly defective worldwide and that a large number of these products have entered the market absent the kind of safety testing that has been called for by the experts… .”

Despite saying, “Scientific literature is awash with thousands of high-class, peer-reviewed literature that testifies to the fact that GM crops are substantially equivalent to their non-GM counterparts, and therefore, they do not present any new unique safety concerns,” Shantharam cites no sources. Or perhaps he is relying on big list studies like Nicolia, which show nothing of the sort in terms of saftey.

He also argues that GM crops are being cultivated in almost 30 countries for the past 20 years without a single proven instance of any harm to any human or animal being. Where is his evidence? Can he show the data from any studies to support this claim?  It is nothing but PR. And bad PR at that. (see section three of this report).

Shantharam says:

“Kermani must read the scientific opinions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to ascertain the safety of all GM crops that it has reviewed, and also two gigantic reports of GM safety research funded by the EU for more than 25 years. It is the politics of GM crops in the EU that completely ignores its own funded research reports.”

Of course, we cannot say for sure to which reports he refers to as, again, he cites no sources. Perhaps he means the discredited ‘A decade of EU-funded GMO Research‘ or maybe GRACE, which is also seriously wanting.

He then says:

“That the agricultural industry has saved more lives than all pharma industries put together can be asserted by a simple fact that the green revolution saved millions from starvation and death in the middle of the last century. GM crops are being cultivated in almost 30 countries for the past 20 years without a single proven instance of any harm to any human or animal being. How much more proof does one need of its safety?”

Again, where is the data to support his claims? Perhaps he should read Raj Patel’s piece before making baseless claims about the green revolution. And maybe he should work his way through Rosemary Mason’s fully-referenced work to understand how agrochemicals are a major contributor to spiralling rates of illness and disease.

And when he is finished there, he might want to look at how the green revolution he cherishes so much and the geo-politicised, globalised system of food production it is wedded to is leading to the worldwide eradication of the small farm (the bedrock of complex cropping systems and sustainable, nutritional food production), bad food, poor health, rigged trade, environmental devastation, mono-cropping and diminished food and diet diversity, the destruction of rural communities, ecocide, degraded soil, water scarcity and drought, destructive and inappropriate models of development and farmers who live a knife-edge existence and for whom debt has become a fact of life.

Shantharam attacks Kermani for advocating organic farming, something he says has led and would lead again to food scarcity and starvation. Perhaps it is too much to expect Shantharam – who is after all only a microbiologist – to grasp historical and more recent contexts that have led to starvation, food deficit areas and food insecurity. He promotes the myth that a lack of food productivity led to famines or has led to present-day food insecurity. Maybe Shantharam should read academics who actually specialise in this area, which he does not.

While he might think a science PhD qualifies him to speak authoritatively on issues beyond his limited realm of expertise, Shantharam is not an economist, political scientist, trade policy analyst or historian, nor does he possess expertise in any other number of disciplines that would help him to develop a deeper understanding of development issues, history, hunger, malnutrition, poverty and sustainable, productive farming. His only concern is to lobby relentlessly on behalf of his corporate masters for a bogus GM techo-fix.

We just have to look at the outcome of GM technology since GM crops were commercialised over 20 years ago. Has it reduced pesticides use? No. Has it increased yields? No. Have companies who control the technology and its associated proprietary inputs (e.g. Roundup/glyphosate) made a financial killing? Yes (see this and this).

Despite Shantharms’s propaganda about the successes of Bt cotton in India, he might also want to look at how when his cherry-picked data and analysis of the story of GM cotton in India is put to one side, Bt cotton has been a failure and is a major contributory factor in farmer distress and suicide.

Monsanto has sucked over $900 million from Indian farmers for a failed technology and has done so illegally. By way of contrast, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant brought in $13.4 million in 2014 alone, according to Bloomberg. Yet, Shantharam still tries to spin the message of GM cotton success while poor farmers in India are under pressure from seed company agents and a pay a high financial and social cost.

While lobbying for GM he seeks to denigrate not only critics but genuine solutions. And regardless of Shantharam implying that GM will not be the only route to feeding the world, the very logic of capitalism is to capture markets and destroy competition (by any foul mean possible ) and to impose a certain model of agriculture on the world.

It is a capitalism and a system of agriculture propped up by the blood money of militarism (Ukraine and Iraq), ‘structural adjustment’ and strings-attached loans (Africa) or slanted trade deals (India), whereby transnational agribusiness drives a global agenda to suit its interests and eradicate impediments to profit. And it doesn’t matter how much devastation ensues or how unsustainable their model is, ‘crisis management’ and ‘innovation’ fuel the corporate-controlled treadmill it seeks to impose.

Of course, much of this is being aided and forced through by directives from the likes of the World Bank with its ‘grow’ campaign or ‘enabling the business of agriculture’.

As a microbiologist, Shantharam seems oblivious to the reality of how the world actually functions. In his desperation, he resorts to smears and personal insults. Those who express valid concerns about GM are not to be so easily dismissed as ’ignoramuses’, ‘leftists’ or ‘anti-GM’. They are pro-democracy, pro-transparency and anti-corruption. People are demanding transparency, genuine independent testing and genuine independent evaluations of the health, social, economic and environmental impacts of GM. They also require fair and open debate.

Instead, what we get from Shantharam is industry-inspired dogma and spin underpinned by his usual pomposity that reaches its zenith by labelling anyone who questions his pseudo-facts, corporate science and PR clichés as “ignoramuses.”

When you are part of a problem and fuel and benefit from it, you will do your best to attack and denigrate anything or anyone that challenges your interests. It’s the usual case of a pro-GMO scientist-cum-lobbyist being blinded by technology and wedded to ideology.

The Empire’s Fifth Column in Africa: Morocco

Aidan O’Brien

Dublin.

In 1984 Morocco turned it’s back on Africa because the Organisation of African Unity refused to support it’s 1975 conquest of Western Sahara. For the next few decades Morocco followed the example of apartheid Israel and looked only towards Europe and America. Morocco, for example, applied (and failed) to join the European Economic Community in 1987. While today (since 2008) it is considered an “advanced” EU neighbour. And militarily it became a NATO partner in 1994 and a major non-NATO US ally in 2004.

Morocco in other words did everything it could to be an honorary white man: it shamelessly raped part of Africa and looked down on the black man. And the white man rewarded it by investing in it.

A few weeks ago however (January 31, 2017) Morocco suddenly rejoined Africa. In Addis Ababa the African Union decided to accept Morocco as a member, even though Western Sahara remains in Moroccan hands. Why the sudden change of policy in Morocco and in the African Union? In a word: the killing of Muammar Gaddafi.

The present scramble for Africa is the overall reason. But Gaddafi was the last pan African barrier to Western imperialism 2.0 in Africa. His removal opened the floodgates to 21st century Western power in Africa. The French are now back in Mali. AFRICOM (the US military) is all over the place. And now Morocco wants to be African again.

Morocco’s new found interest in Africa complements NATO’s attack on Africa. The Dubai based Al Arabia website reported as much a month before the killing of Gaddafi (October 2011).

“…..When Libyan rebels announced their victory towards the end of August [2011], Morocco was one of the first countries to send its foreign minister, Taeib Fassi Fihri, to Benghazi to express support for the new regime.

“….In this context, NATO’s intervention in Libya and the active role of France in the collapse of Qaddafi’s regime could change the regional situation. It may lead the international community to press for a rapid solution to the Western Sahara conflict.

“The cards will be reshuffled, and in terms of the requests the countries of the south could make on the north, Morocco could include the Western Sahara,” said Khadija Mohsen-Finan, a researcher at Paris-VIII University

“Now, a new partner [for Morocco] has come out of the woods: NATO,” Finan, a specialist in north African affairs, added….”

Today, six years later, the “reshuffled” deck of cards is being played. With the support of NATO quietly behind it, Morocco is confidently presenting itself as a born again believer in African unity. This despite the fact that it’s colonisation of Western Sahara continues.

And the African Union’s ability to resist Morocco’s deviant arrogance – after the killing of Gaddafi – is minimal. Gaddafi gave the African Union (AU) a backbone. The AU today however is under siege by the West. And without Gaddafi it has no vision of a way out. In the words of TIME:

“….Gaddafi’s vision for Africa crystallized in a proposal for a United States of Africa, complete with a single currency, a united military and one common passport. That call for African unity was also the theme of his time as chair of the African Union in 2009…”

NATO’s destruction of Libya completely humiliated the African Union. It tore the heart out of an alternative African future. And left Africa seriously exposed once again to the Western imperial virus: a virus contemporary Morocco carries.

The proof of Morocco’s contaminated status is to be found in Yemen. In this war torn land Morocco is part of the royalist invasion led by Saudi Arabia. The fact is that Morocco isn’t just a NATO partner but is also a partner of the GCC (the Gulf Cooperation Council) which is tearing Yemen apart. Of course NATO and the GCC are themselves strategic partners. And caught in the middle – a plaything of both – is Morocco.

Further evidence of Morocco’s duplicitous identity is the part it played in the infamous “Safari Club” in the 1970s. This secret “club” was a CIA inspired organisation that aimed to “protect” Africa from communism. Morocco’s “partners” that time included the usual suspects Saudi Arabia, Israel and France. Plus ça change.

Morocco’s body may be in Africa but it’s mind is in the North Atlantic and the Persian Gulf. In the scramble for Africa it is a significant bridgehead for imperial investors and invaders. From the brand new giant port in Tangier to the plan for pipelines connecting Marrakesh to the Sahara and the recent deals made with Rwanda: Morocco and it’s “partners” are ready to plunder. The rape of Western Sahara is just a foretaste.

The Morocco we speak of however is just one man: it’s billionaire king – Mohammed VI (and before him it was his father Hassan II). Moroccan power rotates around him. And he rotates around Paris and Riyadh. The Moroccan people, in truth, are as voiceless as those in Western Sahara – the Sahrawi. Poverty is their prison while the king plays.

The Moroccans though can learn from the Sahrawi (a people Gaddafi aided). Their resistance to colonialism is a model for resistance to royalism. Indeed – as Chomsky says – it was the protests of the Sahrawi in October and November 2010 which started the Arab Spring.

In fact the great Moroccan people themselves have already produced the answer to their jailers: Mohammed VI and Western imperialism. That answer is Ben Barka. This Moroccan (perhaps the greatest of them all) was as important as Patrice Lumumba. In the 1960s Barka was so close to Cuba that it was he who organised the 1966 Tricontinental Conference in Havana. But Barka was murdered before seeing his vision materialise: Third World Solidarity. In 1965 he was “disappeared” in Paris.

The Empire and it’s kings can kill and bribe as many Africans as it wants. But Africa and the Third World will win. Time and truth is theirs. The Empire and it’s kings can wear an African mask. But their skull and bones are clearly visible. Their neoliberal lies have been exposed. For these reasons: there is no alternative to the visions of the Sahrawi, Gaddafi and Ben Barka.

Russia, Ukraine, and the ICJ: Opening Arguments at The Hague

Binoy Kampmark 

Matters have been far from plain sailing for the parties in the Ukrainian conflict, and Kiev was determined to remind international audiences about matters in taking Russia to the International Court of Justice.

This action is one of several fronts the Ukrainian government has been using against the persistent Russian bogey.  In addition to making good its January 2016 promise to bring a claim against Russia under the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the state has also made moves in the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court.

Those scrutinising the case see these points as minor, and here, international relations assumes that of a show enacted in a court of law.  “The issues pertaining to terrorism financing and racial discrimination,” argues Iryna Marchuk, “are largely peripheral to the major issue at stake.” (The same issue arose in the ICJ case of Georgia v Russia.)

The real issue, argues Marchuk, lies in the use of force, lawful or otherwise.  But here, Ukraine and Russia are disputants sailing by in the troubled night, with no actual treaty that generates the true jurisdictional nature to address grievances.  The Terrorism Financing Convention and CERD (specifically on the issue of banning the Majlis of the Crimean Tartar people) are, to that end, hooks by which to bring Moscow into the room.  Russia also accepts the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

Article 22 of the CERD suggests that any dispute between two or more State Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of that convention “shall be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, unless the disputants agree to another mode of settlement.”

What interested the conventional networks covering the opening of the ICJ case was the surprise registered at the display by the British advocate representing the Russian case.  London lawyer Samuel Wordsworth QC tiptoed with balletic grace around the issue of intention in perpetrating various acts of alleged terror.

This is where the bone of contention is both vigorously contested and problematic: was there a link of intention running through the Russian command that led to the shooting down of MH17? Countries such as Australia were already prematurely adjudicating that case ahead of any inquiry findings.

The reaction from certain news outlets at the display of British counsel was one of disbelief.  “An extraordinary thing happened in The Hague this week,” sparkled a disbelieving Steve Cannane for the ABC.  Russia’s lawyer, it was said, had “gone off script” in not issuing a standard denial about any role in the downing of MH17.

Cannane referenced Russian Defence Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenko’s gruff remarks in response to the Dutch-led joint investigation team findings that a Buk missile brought across the Ukrainian-Russian border from Russia had found its way into a pro-Russian separatist village, and used to shoot down the ill-fated airliner. “Russian missile defence systems, including ‘BUK’, have never crossed the Russian-Ukraine border.”

This, it was said, did not quite match the slick presentation.  “There is no evidence before the court, plausible or otherwise, that Russia provided weaponry to any party with the intent or knowledge that such weaponry be used to shoot down civilian aircraft, as would of course be required under Article 2.1 [of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism].”

Any remotely engaged spectator would have to appreciate the difficulty of trying to impute crystal clear awareness to any actor caught in the unnerving fog of war. Death and desperation flounder in a confused dance, idiocy is enthroned, and mistakes rule. The idea of coherent battle plans and clear methods of war is a generally hard one to entertain, and even more so in the scrap that is the mess in eastern Ukraine. Not even Germanic precision or the doctrinaire approach of Clausewitz could ever dispel the notion that war is not only nasty, but nigh impossible to predict.

For that reason, bringing war into the court room, one messily charged with non-state actors, or supposedly sponsored ones, is problematic. The layers of control and accountability blur, and in some cases, diminish. The idea of constructive responsibility remains difficult to saddle and pad down. While the laws of war and humanitarian conflict stretch for volumes, the reality of their effect on the ground remains contested.

With predictable certainly, sides will present their positions with moral superiority and clarity. The Ukrainian government insists that Russia is a sponsor of state terrorism, a position that paves over the complex nationalist concerns in the east of the country.  The Russian position on this has always been that such support does not exist; in any case, the Ukrainians made a meal of it in ignoring separatist and pro-Russian tendencies to begin with.

It is now left to the judges on the bench of the ICJ to deliberate over the distinctly untidy situation it faces.  Success is likely to measured, less in leaps and bounds than tactical moves of a symbolic nature.  As former ICJ judge Bruno Simma explained, one such “success” could be an interim injunction, followed by a determination on jurisdiction a year later. The blood of the conflict may still be moist by then.

Why Trump Should Stay Out of Yemen

Patrick Cockburn

The Trump administration is making its first radical policy change in the Middle East by escalating American involvement in the civil war in Yemen. Wrecked by years of conflict, the unfortunate country will supposedly be the place where the US will start to confront and roll back Iranian influence in the region as a whole.

To this end, the US is to increase military support for Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and local Yemeni allies in a bid to overthrow the Houthis – a militarised Shia movement strong in northern Yemen – fighting alongside much of the Yemeni army, which remains loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

If ever there was a complicated and unwinnable war to keep out of, it is this one.

Despite Saudi allegations, there is little evidence that the Houthis get more than rhetorical support from Iran and this is far less than Saudi Arabia gets from the US and Britain. There is no sign that the Saudi-led air bombardment, which has been going on for two years, will decisively break the military stalemate. All that Saudi intervention has achieved so far is to bring Yemen close to all out famine. “Seven million Yemenis are ever closer to starvation,” said Jamie McGoldrick, the UN humanitarian coordinator for Yemen in an appeal for more aid this week.

But at the very moment that the UN is warning about the calamity facing Yemen, the US State Department has given permission for a resumption of the supply of precision guided weapons to Saudi Arabia. These sales were suspended last October by President Obama after Saudi aircraft bombed a funeral in the capital Sana’a, killing more than 100 mourners. Ever since Saudi Arabia started its bombing campaign in March 2015, the US has been refuelling its aircraft and has advisors in the Saudi operational headquarters. For the weapons sales to go ahead all that is needed is White House permission.

A bizarre element in Trump’s decision to take the offensive against Iran in Yemen is that the Iranians provide very little financial and military aid to the Houthis. Saudi propaganda, often echoed by the international media, speaks of the Houthis as “Iran-backed”, but Yemen is almost entirely cut off from the outside world by Saudi ground, air and sea forces.

Even food imports, on which Yemenis are wholly reliant, are more and more difficult to bring in through the half-wrecked port of Hodeida on the western coast.

The resumption of the supply of precision-guided munitions is not the first indication that the Trump administration sees Yemen as a good place to put into operation a more hawkish strategy in the region. On 29 January, days after he took office, Trump sent some 30 members of US Navy Seal Team 6, backed by helicopters, to attack an impoverished village called al Ghayil in al-Bayda province in southern Yemen. The purpose of the raid, according to the Pentagon, was intelligence-gathering – though it may well have been a failed attempt to kill or capture Qassim al Rimi, the head of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Whatever the aim of the attack, it swiftly turned into a bloody fiasco, with as many 29 civilians in al Ghayil killed along with one Seal, Chief Petty Officer William Owens. The Pentagon’s explanation of what happened sounds very much like similar attempts to explain away civilian killed and wounded over the past half century in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. The head of the US military’s central command, General Joseph Votel, told a Senate hearing that between four and 12 civilians might have died in the raid, adding that an “exhaustive after-action review” had not found incompetence, poor decision making or bad judgement.

For its part, the Trump administration tried to shut down any investigation into what had really happened at al Ghayil by saying that an inquiry would be an affront into the legacy of the fallen Seal, William Owens. This stance was swiftly criticised by the father of the dead man, Bill Owens, who said the government owed his son an inquiry. “Don’t hide behind my son’s death to prevent an investigation,” he said.

In the event, the White House and the Pentagon have so far hidden fairly successfully from any real examination of the destruction of this remote Yemeni village, perhaps calculating that no independent journalist could make the dangerous journey to the site of the attack. But a lengthy on-the-spot report by Iona Craig, entitled “Death in al Ghayil” and appearing in the online investigative magazine The Intercept, convincingly rebuts the official version of events, little of which appears to be true.

Craig quotes surviving villagers as saying that the Seal team came under heavy fire from the beginning and attack helicopters were sent in. She writes: “In what seemed to be blind panic, the gunships bombarded the entire village, striking more than a dozen buildings, razing stone dwellings where families slept, and wiping out more than 120 goats, sheep and donkeys.” At least six women and 10 children were killed in their houses as projectiles tore through the straw and timber roofs or were mown down as they ran into the open.

The Trump administration says this was a “highly successful operation” and there had been an assault on a fortified compound – except that there are no such compounds in the village. Trump claimed that a “large amount of vital intelligence” had been obtained and the Pentagon released video footage seized in al Ghayil only to later admit that the footage had been around for 10 years and contained nothing new.

Ironically, the villagers who fought back against the Seal team actually belonged to the forces opposing the Houthis and the pro-Saleh forces and, on the night of the assault, “local armed tribesmen assumed the Houthis had arrived to capture their village”. It was only when they saw coloured laser lights coming from the weapons of the attacking force that they realised that they were fighting Americans. As the Seals retreated, with one dead and two seriously wounded, the MV-22 Osprey that was to extract them crash-landed and had to be destroyed by other US aircraft.

The Trump administration’s first counter-terrorism operation was a failure for the US and much worse for the Yemeni villagers who are dead, wounded, homeless and have seen their livestock, on which they depended for their livelihoods, all killed. But when Senator John McCain, who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that the raid has been a failure he was promptly denounced by Trump who said that Owens “had died on a winning mission” and to debate its outcome would “only embolden the enemy”.

International media coverage tends to focus on the wars in Syria and Iraq, but in those countries Trump and the Pentagon are largely following the policies and plans of Obama.

It is in Yemen that new policies are beginning to emerge as the Trump administration carries out its first counter-terrorism operation against al Qaeda – if that was what it was – leading to the slaughter of civilians and a botched cover-up. Yemen may soon join Afghanistan and Iraq as wars in which the US wishes it had never got involved.

Malaysia And The Question Of North Korea

Chandra Muzaffar

The Malaysian government has done the right thing in keeping the channels of communication with the North Korean Government open. It wants an amicable resolution of the friction arising from the murder of Kim Jong-Nam, the elder brother of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Un, at KLIA (Kuala Lumpur International Airport) 2 on the 13th of February 2017. Prime Minister Najib Razak has made it very clear that Malaysia has no intention of severing diplomatic ties with North Korea.

The North Korean government has also adopted a positive stance. It has given a firm assurance to its Malaysian counterpart that the nine Malaysians who are still at the Malaysian Embassy in Pyongyang are safe and are allowed to carry on with their daily routine. However, they are barred from leaving North Korea.The Malaysian government has reciprocated by reiterating that North Koreans in Malaysia who are prohibited from leaving the country will not be harmed in any way.

These positive vibes from both sides should encourage the two governments to begin serious negotiations on a variety of issues pertaining to the current crisis. It is quite conceivable that the talking has already commenced. If a facilitator is required, the Chinese government would be the best candidate. It remains — in spite of its disillusionment with Pyongyang — North Korea’s only real ally. At the same time, China and Malaysia are close friends.

Apart from lifting the bans on nationals from each other’s country that Pyongyang and Putrajaya have imposed, the two governments will have to address the central question of Kim Jong-Nam’s murder and the investigations being conducted by the Malaysian authorities.  North Korea will have to concede that Malaysia has been rational and professional in its approach. It has adhered to international law and established norms in the handling of cases of this sort. For these reasons Pyongyang should extend its fullest cooperation to Putrajaya.

Going on the basis of North Korea’s past record, it will not be easy to persuade its leadership to uphold the principles of international law. As a case in point, in spite of six sets of UN Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests, it continues to conduct such tests. The latest was its firing of two powerful Musudon medium-range missiles on the 1st of March 2017 one of which flew 400 kilometres into the Sea of Japan.

North Korea has often argued that it conducts these tests because the United States of America and South Korea continue to hold annual military war-games in its vicinity. The Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, has proposed that North Korea suspend its nuclear and missile tests while the US and South Korea halt their military exercises. A quid pro quo approach he hopes can bring the three parties to the negotiating table.

Once negotiations begin other outstanding issues can also be addressed. The recent deployment of the US’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system in South Korea has undoubtedly exacerbated relations between South and North Korea and between South Korea, on the one hand, and China and Russia, on the other. China and Russia perceive THAAD as a system that alters significantly the balance of power within the region. THAAD, and the larger question of the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula should be discussed among all concerned parties.

In fact, denuclearisation was the focus of a six-party discussion from 2003 to 2008. North Korea, China and Russia, together with South Korea, Japan and the United States constituted the six parties and they met in Malaysia. Though the talks did not achieve their desired goal, there is no reason why an attempt should not be made to revive it. Immediate concerns such as missiles and THAAD rather than denuclearisation should be the main items on the agenda this time.