Hundreds of thousands to participate in worldwide “March for Science”

Bryan Dyne

Hundreds of thousands of scientists, researchers, workers and youth are poised to participate in today’s “March for Science.” The main rally will take place in Washington, DC, with sister demonstrations and marches taking place in more than 600 locations across the world, involving people in at least 130 countries and encompassing six continents. It is slated to be the world’s largest pro-science demonstration to date.

The initial impulse for the march arose when the Trump administration deleted all references to climate change from the official White House web site minutes after Trump’s inauguration. Scientists across the United States saw this as the opening salvo in a much broader attack on science generally, leading to the creation of the March for Science Facebook group calling for a demonstration in Washington, DC, mirroring the protests against the Trump administration before, during and in the weeks following Trump’s first days as president.

More broadly, the March for Science reflects the general anti-Trump sentiment in the majority of the US and world’s population. The fact that the Facebook group has attracted more than 830,000 members shows just how many people, both scientists and non-scientists from all corners of the globe, are seeking an avenue to oppose the Trump administration and its reactionary policies.

One measure of this is the fact that the march has been endorsed by virtually every US organization with an orientation towards science and several international scientific institutions, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Planetary Society, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. The notable exceptions are endorsements from the official scientific agencies of various governments, such as ESA or NASA, though no doubt individuals from these organizations support and will be participating in the marches.

The event is being led by three honorary co-chairs, Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, Bill Nye “the Science Guy” and Dr. Lydia Villa-Komaroff, all of whom have been involved on some level as advocates for science in the political arena. Dr. Hanna-Attisha fought to expose lead poisoning in Flint, Bill Nye has repeatedly spoken out against climate change deniers and Dr. Villa-Komaroff pioneered the field of biotechnology.

Despite this, however, and despite the anti-Trump origins of the March for Science, the organizers have taken great pains to avoid any discussions of the anti-science policies of various Trump administration officials, from EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, to Secretary of Energy Rick Perry to Trump himself. No mention has been made of the policies that allow for the destruction of the environment, attacks on public education or various forms of censorship that scientists in the US and internationally often face, much less the increasing danger of nuclear war and the existential threat that this poses to all life on Earth.

These limitations are summed up in the declaration that attacks on science “are not a partisan issue.” While the mission statement for the March for Science correctly notes that science has been attacked by both Republicans and Democrats, it does not fully explain the inherently political nature of this question.

This is particularly striking when one considers that one of the three honorary co-chairs for the event is Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, director of the Flint Hurley Medical Center’s pediatric residency program, and the person who first revealed the doubling and tripling of lead in the blood of Flint children since April 2014. The science behind lead poisoning has been understood for decades, particularly the potentially deadly effect it has, especially on children.

This has become an intensely political issue for the residents of Flint, who are outraged over the fact that this problem was known to city and state officials but ignored by state appointed Emergency Manager Darnell Earley to slash city operating costs in order to pay city debts to Wall Street banks. Dr. Hanna-Attisha herself was attacked by city and state officials for tampering with the data even as residents were becoming ill and dying.

The forces that suppressed the lead poisoning data in Flint can trace their political heritage to those that have denied the dangers of nuclear winter for nearly four decades, those that attacked the theory of evolution during the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, and even as far back as the reactionary methods used to suppress Copernicus’ idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun. In every one of these cases, the scientists threatened material and political interests and were forcefully attacked.

The challenge for those participating in today’s march is not merely the “celebration of science,” but of connecting the attacks on science to the broader attacks on all progressive aspects of modern society by capitalism, a social and economic system in which all human activity is subordinated to the profit motive. As such, scientists and their supporters must connect the defense of science to the struggle of the most progressive social force in society, the working class, against the corporate elite.

Tense standoff continues on Korean peninsula

Peter Symonds

The confrontation on the Korean Peninsula is continuing as the US threatens military action against North Korea unless it moves to dismantle its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The American and international media is compounding tensions with speculation that Pyongyang could conduct a nuclear or missile test to mark its Military Foundation Day on Tuesday.

The nuclear aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, and its strike group of guided missile destroyers and cruiser are due to arrive in nearby waters on the same day. According to the Korea Herald, the aircraft carrier strike group will join the South Korean navy in a “massive maritime drill.”

The US and South Korean militaries have been engaged in huge joint war games that began in March and are due to continue until the end of April. The basis for these exercises shifted in 2015 from nominally defensive to “pre-emptive” under Oplan 5015, which reportedly includes sabotage inside North Korea and “decapitation” raids to kill North Korean leaders.

South Korea’s Unification Ministry spokesman Lee Duk-haeng indicated that US and South Korean forces were on heightened alert. “We are closely watching the situation and will not be letting our guards down,” he said.

Lee pointed to the very tense standoff on the Korean peninsula “where a lot of exercise equipment is amassed in North Korea and also a lot of strategic assets are situated on the Korean peninsula because of the South Korea-US military drills.”

The US is applying a great deal of pressure on Beijing to compel Pyongyang to bow to Washington’s demands. Trump told a press conference on Thursday he was confident that Chinese President Xi Jinping would “try very hard” to rein in North Korea and referred to “some very unusual moves” that Xi had made in the previous few hours. Trump provided no details.

A senior Trump administration official told CNN: “Nobody thinks the Chinese are going to press North Korea militarily or bring the regime to its knees, but the strategy looks to China to find a political solution more than anything else.” The White House is pushing Beijing to exploit Pyongyang’s dependence on trade with China, including for food and oil, to bully it into submission.

At the same time, China is reportedly preparing for possible conflict. A US official told CNN the Chinese air force appeared to have put land-attack, cruise-missile-capable bombers “on high alert” on Wednesday. The official said the US has also seen an extraordinary number of Chinese military aircraft being brought up to full readiness through intensified maintenance. Unsubstantiated reports earlier this month indicated that the Chinese military had moved 150,000 troops to the border with North Korea.

In Russia, a Kremlin spokesman refused to comment on media reports based on observations by local residents that its military was moving hardware and troops toward Russia’s own border with North Korea.

The Trump administration is continuing to ramp up diplomatic pressure on North Korea, pushing through a resolution in the UN Security Council on Thursday condemning its latest failed missile test last weekend. The US conceded to Russian demands to include a cosmetic reference to the need for “dialogue” with North Korea. At the same time, the resolution threatened “further significant measures”—a threat of more crippling sanctions.

US Vice President Mike Pence arrived in Australia last night on the final leg of his Asian trip that also included South Korea and Japan. He has used the trip for discussions with Washington’s chief allies in Asia and to issue menacing warnings to North Korea that “all options are on the table”—that is, including pre-emptive military attacks.

After meeting with Pence on Tuesday, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pledged his government’s support for the US administration’s threats against North Korea. He declared that “dialogue for the sake of dialogue is valueless,” adding: “It is necessary for us to exercise pressure on North Korea so that it comes forward and engages in this serious dialogue.”

The Asahi Shimbun reported Japanese preparations for the mass evacuation of Japanese nationals from South Korea in the event of conflict. According to government officials, Tokyo was considering bringing citizens home on US as well as Japanese military aircraft and vessels.

Top officials on North Korea from the US, South Korea and Japan are due to meet in Tokyo on Tuesday. According to South Korea’s foreign ministry, the meeting will “discuss plans to rein in North Korea’s additional high-strength provocations, to maximize pressure on the North, and to ensure China’s constructive role in resolving the North Korea nuclear issue.”

This weekend a highly secretive meeting of the heads of the intelligence agencies from the “Five Eyes” network, comprising the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, is due to take place in New Zealand. While no details have been released, the gathering is taking place under conditions of heightened geo-political tensions and will undoubtedly discuss North Korea.

In parallel with the Trump administration’s threats against North Korea, the US and international media continue an endless stream of propaganda denouncing Pyongyang as a “rogue regime” and openly debating the pros and cons of various forms of military action in a bid to condition public opinion.

A chilling article in Washington Post entitled, “Twenty-five million reasons the US hasn’t struck North Korea,” outlined the consequences for the 25 million residents of the South Korean capital of Seoul in the event of war with North Korea. Even if nuclear weapons were not used, North Korea has large numbers of long-range artillery pieces and rocket launchers that would have a devastating effect.

A 2012 Nautilus Institute study estimated that North Korean artillery would be able to fire about 4,000 rounds an hour into the Seoul area, killing over 2,800 people in the first volley and 64,000 on the first day, the majority in the first three hours. Some of the casualties would be American because the US military has personnel stationed on bases close to the Demilitarised Zone between the two Koreas.

The Washington Post suggested the massive death toll as a reason why the Trump administration would not launch a military attack on North Korea. However, there is no reason to believe that the White House would pull back from war. Trump officials have repeatedly declared that “all options are on the table” and the US would “solve North Korea” alone if China failed to do so.

The result would be a devastating conflict that would not be confined to the Korean peninsula and could draw in other nuclear-armed powers such as China and Russia.

France’s election at gunpoint

Alex Lantier

The first round of the elections in France is being held against the backdrop of an attempt by the state and the media to use the violent incident on the Champs Elysées, involving a gunman who is alleged to have been acting on behalf of ISIS, to create an atmosphere of political hysteria.

With over 50,000 soldiers and policemen set to deploy to polling stations tomorrow, the elections are to be held at gunpoint.

As facts emerge about the background of the alleged gunman, it is virtually impossible not to conclude that this shooting was a provocation involving elements of the security forces, over half of whom plan to vote for Marine Le Pen’s neo-fascist National Front (FN).

Karim Cheurfi, a French citizen and career criminal, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison in 2003 for shooting and nearly killing two policemen, but later released on appeal, was last arrested in February after demanding weapons and stating he wanted to kill policemen. He was released supposedly because the “level of danger” he posed was not at the priority level. Though he was an Islamic State (IS) sympathizer who was being followed by French domestic intelligence at least since March, his case was treated as a common law, not terrorist, case.

Despite France’s strict gun control laws, Cheurfi was somehow able to amass an arsenal, including an automatic rifle, a shotgun and several knives, which he had with him during the attack.

The day before the shooting, right-wing media such as Le Figaro demanded that Islamic terrorism be “at the center of the end of the election campaign." The newspaper wrote: "It is a critical issue, but one that has been too little dealt with.” The shooting was the signal for a coordinated political offensive. As security forces put much of downtown Paris on lockdown, the right-wing candidates speaking in Thursday night’s presidential debate demanded stepped-up law-and-order policies and even a shutting down of the election campaign.

Conservative candidate François Fillon demanded the eradication of “Islamist totalitarianism” and called for the “suspension” of the campaign. Le Pen denounced the “incredible laxity of the courts” and demanded the expulsion of all foreigners with intelligence files. Fillon, Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron, the candidate of the On the March movement, backed by France’s Socialist Party (PS) government, all canceled their campaign events yesterday.

In a remarkable incident at the debate that points to the political atmosphere emerging in France, police confronted New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) candidate Philippe Poutou, who had appealed for police to be unarmed. They called him a “faggot” and said they would keep their weapons.

This attempt to shut down the campaign and fill the airwaves with anti-Muslim propaganda is driven by a deep political crisis. The PS faces a historic collapse, after having been discredited by its austerity measures and its state of emergency, which suspends basic democratic rights. It is terrified of rising antiwar sentiment in the aftermath of the unprovoked US strikes against Syria on April 7, which benefited Jean-Luc Mélenchon of the Unsubmissive France movement. Macron, Le Pen, Fillon and Mélenchon are now in a virtual tie, and over one-third of voters are still undecided.

The ruling elite is well aware of explosive class tensions in France and across Europe. Two-thirds of the French people say class struggle is a daily reality of life. At the same time, voters say their main concerns are not terrorism, but social issues such as jobs, wages and social conditions.

The programs of the main candidates—which include calls for mass job cuts, tens of billions of euros in austerity measures, military spending increases and a return of the draft—make clear that the ruling class totally opposes these demands. There are also fears that financial markets could react to a surprise election result with a crash, wiping out trillions of dollars in paper wealth.

With the election outcome still in the balance, the French financial aristocracy aims to fill the airwaves with law-and-order, anti-Muslim propaganda in the final hours of the campaign.

It relies critically on the cowardice of what passes for the “left” in France, which has accepted official claims that the Champs-Elysées attack is merely the outcome of a series of police errors, though each error is so grotesque as to defy belief. Mélenchon himself reacted by declaring on Twitter his “personal solidarity” with Le Pen, Fillon and Macron.

A precursor of today’s situation in France is Italy’s “Years of Lead” in the 1970s and 1980s, when the state responded to popular radicalization and massive class struggles by letting far-right terrorists tied to Italian intelligence mount attacks they blamed on left-wing groups. These attacks included the murder of three Carabinieri police in the Peteano car bombing of 1972 and the 1980 bombing of the Central Station in Bologna.

Several far-right terrorists involved in this “strategy of tension” were caught. Judge Felice Casson explained to the BBC that they aimed to “create tension in the country to promote conservative, reactionary social and political tendencies.” One convicted terrorist, Vincenzo Vinciguerra, told the Observer: “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the State to ask for greater security.”

As it seeks to slash workers’ living standards and rearm itself for war, the financial aristocracy is well aware that it faces deep popular opposition. It will stop at nothing in an attempt to preserve its rule.

Preventing Disabilities in the Elderly

Cesar Chelala

People grow old gradually and as people age, so do their disabilities. The number of disabled elderly is growing rapidly in many countries worldwide. Disability is usually defined as restrictions in the capacity to perform activities of daily living (ADL), or in the inability to function independently in terms of basic or instrumental ADL.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 10 per cent of the world’s population has some form of disability. Among them, 20 percent of those aged 70+ and 50 percent of those 85+ are disabled. In the United States, it is estimated that the number of Americans who will suffer functional disability will increase at least 300 percent by 2049.

Frequent diseases among the elderly

Several diseases can affect the elderly. The major chronic conditions are cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, stroke, diabetes, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), muscular-skeletal conditions including arthritis and osteoporosis, mental health conditions such as dementia and depression, and blindness and visual impairment. To these conditions should be added injuries due to falls and to road traffic accidents.

The WHO argues that old age starts at age 75, although with increasing longevity this criteria is changing rapidly, reaching older years. The very old are the most rapidly growing sector of the population, and it is among them that severe disability is the highest.

Some chronic conditions that frequently lead to disability include stroke, diabetes, cognitive impairment, arthritis and visual impairment. Cognitive problems and depression are frequent among the elderly, and require special attention. While visual loss is associated with increased risk of falling, hearing and visual impairment increase the risk of social isolation and depression.

It was found that for adults with arthritis the odds of disability rise with age, diminish with education and is higher for those who are not married. Osteoporosis is frequent among the elderly, particularly women, and their falls are more likely to result in fractures.

Almost 75 percent of the elderly have at least one chronic illness, and about 50 percent have two. Chronic conditions such as hip fractures and stroke can provoke some severe and immediate disabilities. They can also lead to progressive disabilities that affect older people’s ability to care for themselves.

The costs for caring and treating the elderly with chronic conditions are high and continue to grow. Home care expenses contribute to these high costs. Because of their higher health care needs, the elderly are more likely than younger people to incur high expenses for home health care.

Overall, women experience disability more often than men. However, women generally survive longer and with greater disability than men. The reasons for this difference are not yet well understood.

There is a strong relationship between poverty and disability. Poverty can lead to malnutrition, inadequate health services and sanitation. Unsafe living and working conditions that can lead to disability trap people in a life of poverty. Differences in education also contribute to the prevalence of disability. In general, older adults with less education are also more prone to suffer disability than the more educated ones.

One cannot disregard the effect of the environment in its effects on increasing or preventing disabilities. Poor living conditions are conducive to isolation and, therefore, to an increase in disability. On the other hand, while a polluted environment that affects healthy living also increases disability, a healthy environment that fosters independent living can make a significant difference in the lives of those suffering from disabilities.

Aspects of management

Several studies have shown that keeping physically and mentally active when getting older or after retirement is critical to prevent or alleviate disabilities. According to Dr. Claude Bouchard, director of the human genomics laboratory at Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana, no pill comes close to what exercise can do. Any exercise program should include stretching activities, strength training and aerobics. Low-impact exercises such as walking and table tennis are very beneficial for older adults, since it can lead to improved physical and visual coordination.

Stimulation of mental activities through games and language learning can alleviate –and to some extent prevent- the negative effects of some mental conditions, such as poor memory. Also important is carrying out actions that provide a feeling of being useful, particularly through participation in community activities and helping in the education and care of younger people. When activities are carried out among people of like-minded interests the beneficial effects are even greater.

Because cognitive impairment and depression are frequent among the elderly, the company of a pet can significantly improve their situation. Pets can not only reduce depression and lessen loneliness, but also reduce stress, lower blood pressure and help improve social interaction.

Appropriate nutrition is critical to keeping in good health. One aim is to provide minimum nutrition requirements including adequate dietary fiber and vitamin D that tends to be low in older people. In addition, folic acid and vitamin B12 benefit cognitive function among the elderly.

Physical exercise provides a wide range of beneficial effects. Appropriate exercise increases strength and mobility, improves balance and cardiovascular function, decreases fatigue, helps prevent weight gain and improves mood. In regard to that last aspect, laughing has proven to be a good medicine. As George Bernard Shaw said, “You don’t stop laughing when you grow old. You grow old when you stop laughing.”

The Military Occupation of Haiti

Yves Engler

Last week the UN Security Council finally voted to end its military occupation of Haiti. Instigated by the US, France and Canada, MINUSTAH has been responsible for countless abuses during the past 13 years.

At the same time as the Security Council voted to draw down its military force (a police contingent will remain), the Associated Press published an in depth investigation confirming widespread sexual abuse by UN troops in Haiti. The foreign soldiers had sex with minors, sodomized boys and raped young girls. An internal UN report uncovered by AP implicated 134 Sri Lankan troops in a sex ring that exploited nine children from 2004 to 2007. None of the MINUSTAH soldiers were imprisoned.

In early 2012 video footage came to light of five Uruguayan soldiers sexually assaulting an 18-year old Haitian. In that case as well the soldiers were sent home, but no one was punished.

At the time Haïti Liberté complained, “there are also almost monthly cases of UN soldiers sexually assaulting Haitian minors, all of which have gone unpunished.” According to the Status Forces Agreement signed between the UN and Haiti’s 2004-06 coup government, MINUSTAH is not subject to Haitian laws. At worst, soldiers are sent home for trial. Despite committing countless crimes, very few MINUSTAH soldier have ever been held to account at home.

Beyond sexual abuse, the UN’s disregard for Haitian life caused a major cholera outbreak, which has left 10 000 dead and nearly 1 million ill. In October 2010 a UN base in central Haiti recklessly discharged sewage, including the feces of newly deployed Nepalese troops, into a river where people drank. This introduced the water-borne disease into the country. Even after the deadly cholera outbreak, UN forces were caught disposing sewage into waterways Haitians drank from. While they partly apologised for introducing cholera to the country, the UN has failed to compensate the victims of its recklessness or even spend the sums needed to eradicate the disease.

“Imagine if the UN was going to the United States and raping children and bringing cholera,” Mario Joseph, a prominent Haitian lawyer, told AP. “Human rights aren’t just for rich white people.”

These abuses aren’t an unfortunate outgrowth of a well-meaning peacekeeping effort. Rather, MINUSTAH was established to consolidate the US, France and Canada’s anti-democratic policies and usurp Haitian sovereignty.

As former Haitian soldiers swept through the country killing police officers in February 2004, the UN Security Council ignored the elected government’s request for peacekeepers to restore order in a country without an army. The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) called upon the Security Council to deploy an emergency military task force to assist the elected government and on February 26, three days before President Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s removal, the Organization of American States’ permanent council asked the UN Security Council to, “take all the necessary and appropriate urgent measures to address the deteriorating situation in Haiti.” This appeal for assistance was flatly rejected by the world’s most powerful nations, but immediately after US/French/Canadian troops ousted the elected government the Security Council passed a motion calling for intervention to stabilize Haiti.

Immediately after US marines whisked Aristide from the country on February 29, 2004, 2000 US, French and Canadian soldiers were on the ground in Haiti. For years a Canadian led MINUSTAH’s police contingent and for six months 500 Canadian troops were part of the UN mission that backed up the coup government’s (2004-2006) violent crackdown against pro-democracy protesters. The UN force also killed dozens of civilians directly in pacifying Cité Soleil, a bastion of support for Aristide. The worst incident was on July 6, 2005 when 400 UN troops, backed by helicopters, entered the densely populated neighbourhood.

Eyewitnesses and victims of the attack claim MINUSTAH helicopters fired on residents throughout the operation. The cardboard and corrugated tin wall houses were no match for the troops’ heavy weaponry, which fired “over 22,000 rounds of ammunition”, according to a US embassy file released through a Freedom of Information request. The raid left at least 23 civilians dead, including numerous women and children. The UN initially claimed they only killed “gang” leader Dread Wilme. (Graphic footage of victims dying on camera can be viewed in Kevin Piña’s Haiti: We Must Kill the Bandits.)

During the height of the violence Canadian diplomats pressured MINUSTAH to get tough. In early 2005 the head of the UN mission, General Augusto Heleno Ribeiro, told a congressional commission in Brazil that “we are under extreme pressure from the international community [specifically citing Canada, France and the US] to use violence.” Later Canadian Ambassador Claude Boucher openly called for greater UN violence in the pro-Aristide slum of Cité Soleil.

It is good UN soldiers will soon be removed from Haiti. Haitians, however, will continue to suffer the consequences of MINUSTAH for years.

Brexit: Britain’s Opening to China?

THOMAS HON WING POLIN

Assembling, then ruling a globe-girdling Empire over two centuries must have given Britain a peerless nose among Western nations for sniffing out the turning points of world affairs. This prescience seems to have continued long after the formal death of the British Empire.

That certainly was the case vis-a-vis China. Back in January 1950, Britain stunned the world by becoming the first Western country to recognize the fledgling People’s Republic, even as the People’s Liberation Army was still mopping up. Indeed, the Chinese themselves were so surprised that they spurned London’s request for formal ties, putting off the consummation for two decades. Two years ago, the UK once again led the West in joining the Chinese-inspired Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a spearhead for the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), Beijing’s megaproject to transform the EurAsian landmass. London’s decision spurred at least a half-dozen European nations quickly to follow suit.

Brexit surely presents another historic crossroads. Among other things, Britain’s exit from the European Union will mean looser ties and reduced dependence on Europe and the United States. More importantly, it will mark the first time any member of the US-centered Empire is able to distance itself from it — to any extent. That others might, once again, follow London’s lead, is perhaps the biggest nightmare for the Western elites who control the Empire.

For the savvy Brits, it’s clearly a time to rethink their position in the new world that is emerging. Though their country will retain extensive links to the old world dominated by the Empire, post-Brexit Britain will be freer than any constituent of the imperium to chart a genuinely fresh and relatively independent course.

Above all, that points East — especially to China, economic hope of the 21st century and potential first-among-equals in the emerging EurAsian order. Britain can have a strategic place in that project — as its natural end-point in the West. And now that Trumpist America has abandoned its role as chief advocate of global free trade and protectionist winds are blowing elsewhere in the West, Beijing and London can join forces to push in the opposite direction.

The signs are plentiful that Britain’s elites have been thinking along such lines, starting from the virtually unprecedented reception lavished on President Xi Jinping when he visited London late 2015. Principals range from Prime Minister Theresa May and the Royal Family to leading politicians and thinkers. The recent opening of the first direct train service from China to Britain, traversing 7,400 miles and ten countries, is perhaps a harbinger of the future.

As far back in the 18th century, Britain had also led the West in perceiving the vast opportunities in trading with China. Unfortunately, the imperialist mindset led London to pursue its objectives by force, producing the catastrophes of the Opium Wars and the Opium Holocaust. In the 21st century, a scaled-down UK has a historic opportunity to atone for those historical crimes against the Chinese nation. It can do so by simply reaching out to the Chinese in genuine friendship, participating constructively in BRI, and acting as an honest broker between China and the West. Today’s pragmatic leaders in Beijing would demand no more than that. If it materializes, such a scenario would spell win-win far beyond the two principals.

Political Economy of Cow-Mentality in India

Parvez Alam

India is a mosaic of great cultures. Not now. The culture which we inherited from our founding fathers and martyrs who wanted to preserve the greatness would be ashamed to see India today. India today which is digital, India which is nuclear  and India one of the fastest growing economies of the world is now also the land of cynical, hysterical and emotional people. In today’s India citizenship is redefined based on emotions for cows. Gaurakshaks (Cow protectionists) are now new citizens. In hierarchy of citizenship, they are on the top. They are beyond the limits of constitution. They are limitless. No laws are applicable on them. They are new police. Sometimes it’s their responsibility to police the Police also. Police is now spectator and governments are theatre troupes and gaurakshaks are directors. They are directing the new India. Disciplining and punishing is now their prerogative.

For the last two years it is very evident that if you are part of a mob which is intending to lynch your neighbor who is earning more in the free and competitive market, a mere rumour about beef can get your things done. You do not have to employ a sharpshooter to annihilate your competitor. Cow is now more powerful weapon than the Kalashnikov or AK-47. These are the same people who have overlapping membership of a political party, a cultural organization and a mob. They are the one who have been involved in disciplining youths during valentine days and attacking pubs on the eve of the New Year. These are the people who are running after rationalist and civil society activists in the country. These are the people who are engaged in mob violence in different states.

From Dadri to Una to Alwar, they are unchecked. They find shelter of politicians. Their vigilantism has paid dividend to those politicians who side with them. It is also evident that in every case they have been proven false and the victims have been found innocent. Is innocence of victim and guilt of perpetrators of violence create narratives other than what has been already established? No. It is the tactics and methodology of those political ideologues to maintain the narratives alive which quite naturally is created on the idea of ‘otherisation’. And the same kind of violence is repeated in very similar fashion somewhere else and the very news reverberates in different locations, where similar kind of incidents has already taken place in the past. Hence, polarization gets frozen in those ‘sensitive’ areas which are divided into binaries.

Even if civil society members make hue and cry and try to do justice with the victims, they cannot stop the next incident to happen. Legal recourse may give sigh of relief to civil society members but not a breathing space to the victims’ family at large. Violence done with intention pays back not very immediately but it pays back definitely in a given time. There is no conception of repentance or remorse of such an act because it is motivated action and not an accident. It is pathetic for any society where politics is not based on compassion and empathy but hunger for power and subjugation of others.

Like traditions are invented to perpetuate hegemony, the creation of new normal adds to those structures of power. In redefined normality sahansheelta (tolerance) and ahimsa (non-violence) are lesser virtues. We Indians are now not frightened and disturbed while seeing dead bodies; we are now not disturbed because of violence. Our private spaces, our entertainment choices and our games are flooded with the themes of violence. Our cinemas are flooded with anti-hero characters. In the new normal, people are instinctively becoming violent.

It is mix of that psyche of violence and lack of compassion and empathy which has reduced a human being lesser than an animal. The sacredness of a deity which was tangible and static in the temples is now roaming around in each nook and corner of the villages and urban spaces. This is another way of capturing space. Sacredness is now installed into the body of an ‘animal’ by shifting the holiness of a temple which lacks utility in time and space. The moment body of an ‘animal’ is attacked, that will infuriate the worshippers and amount to desecration of sacred space. This is high symbolism and more apt political ideology to woo the masses who can easily understand this desecration than the complex theories.

As the politics of the nation is changing dramatically for the last two decades or so, the scientific temperament is cornered by the false and crafted emotionalism by certain sections of political class which has utilized tactically prejudices and myths prevailing in the society to consolidate and homogenized uneducated masses who are now biggest assets to right-wing politics. Tyranny of the majority is in offing in India because of the lack of value education to the citizens of this country by the previous liberal governments. The new liberal and market controlled education do not promote critical attitude hence conformity. Realities and truths are getting redefined. Emotions are getting consolidated and homogenized on communal line. Evil is no more evil, if it can win elections. Consent for crime is sought through elections and past crimes are getting endorsement in the binary politics. ‘Us’ and ‘them’ politics is precisely to win elections. Issues are no more issues if they do not have electoral utility. Poverty, unemployment, price rise and accumulation of wealth by few people are non-issue today. Politics is now looked narrowly in terms of elections. This is new normal. Intellectuals are no more intellectuals. With the tag of intellectuals, they are busy in earning fame and post by conforming to the power centers.

Individuals are no more citizens, they are divided into beef-eaters, romeos, nationalists/anti-nationalists, love jihadis, Marxists, and sanghis (those from cultural organization called Rashtriya Swaymsevak Sangh). Institutions are no more independent, they have to align with the parties in power. Teachers are turning into ideologues and politicians. Students are becoming party workers and foot soldiers of those ideologies. The universities, colleges and schools are encroached not by ideas but by guns, lathis (sticks) and abuses.

The era we are living in is the era of whispering and murmuring. One is on surveillance of the other. People are now becoming more sentimental and one should be careful about flagging issues about religion, castes and even questioning the leader, which might culminate into hurt-sentiment and consequently lynching. Families are now conscious of suggesting their kids and children not to enter into discussions over sentimental issues. This is new normal.

We are happy in identifying enemies than friends. We are living in the time where friends should agree with each other. There is no process of dialectics in discussions and deliberations. No counter questions. Agree, agree and agree if you want to avoid becoming enemy and getting targeted publicly. Uniformity is new normal. Conformity is new normal. Absolutism is new normal. Bestiality is new sacredness and man-eating is virtuous than beef-eating.

We have less confused and curious minds and more absolutist and rigid minds. We are living in the era of cacophony. Sharing and learning together is outdated things. If you can scream more in the discussion then that signifies you are speaking truth.

Criminals are rewarded for their criminality and hence aspirants are heading towards becoming like them. The best profession in our times is politics. The best method in our time to become a politician is to become gaurakshak (cow protectionist). It is guaranteed that, you will be rewarded with greater posts in your political career. I am aghast and appalled by the fact that the ghettoisation is becoming new normal, ghettoisation of not only minorities/communities but also ideas. This is higher version of governmentality. This is gaumentality (cow-mentality).

Australia: After ABC program, Labor calls for investigation into One Nation

Cheryl Crisp 

The government-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC) flagship program “Four Corners” this month initiated a campaign against the populist right-wing, anti-immigrant One Nation party and its leader Senator Pauline Hanson, alleging breaches of electoral laws.

The April 3 program, airing accusations by former members about One Nation’s inner workings, could signal a turn by the media and political establishment against Hanson. There is fear in these circles of her potentially destabilising impact on the increasingly discredited two-party parliamentary order on which capitalist rule has depended.

The ABC program alleged that One Nation, Hanson and her chief of staff, James Ashby, breached the Commonwealth Electoral Act by failing to declare income used for the benefit of One Nation. Under the act, donations or gifts to a political party from an individual or organisation totalling more than $13,000 must be declared to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), including the donor’s name, address and/or the name of the donor organisation.

“Four Corners” highlighted dissension in the party, centring on Ashby’s influence and a “brutal dictatorship” by him and Hanson. Disaffected former One Nation candidates and office-bearers aired various grievances, including the disendorsement of candidates, arbitrary expulsions, demands that candidates use Ashby’s printing services and a preference vote-swapping deal negotiated with the Liberal Party in last month’s Western Australian state election.

The central allegations made by former party treasurer Ian Nelson and ex-national secretary Suraya Beric are that Hanson had use of a plane during last year’s federal election campaign that was not declared to the AEC. It is also alleged that Victorian property developer Bill McNee donated the funds to purchase the Jabiru light plane and $70,000 in cash, also undeclared. McNee denied making any donations.

Exploiting the ABC allegations, the Labor Party immediately wrote to the AEC to demand an investigation, raising the possibility of criminal charges being laid. Greens spokesperson Senator Lee Rhiannon supported Labor’s call, advocating “repercussions” for any breaches of the legislation. The federal government’s Special Minister of State Scott Ryan also wrote to the AEC requesting an investigation.

James Ashby came to prominence in 2012 when, as a staffer of the then-Speaker of the House of Representatives Peter Slipper, he alleged Slipper had sexually harassed him. The Federal Court threw out Ashby’s legal action in December 2012. The judge ruled that it amounted to a politically-motivated abuse of judicial process in which Ashby had conspired with several people, including Liberal National Party (LNP) powerbroker in Queensland Mal Brough.

Ashby appealed to the Full Federal Court, which ruled his case could proceed to a hearing, but in June 2014 Ashby dropped it. Within a few months, he had contacted One Nation with a printing offer described by Nelson as “too good to be true.” By early 2015, Ashby was appointed to One Nation’s executive. Then he became Hanson’s chief of staff, running the party office.

There are echoes of the late 1990s frame-up orchestrated against Hanson and One Nation by the corporate media and the Howard Liberal-National Coalition government. After adopting many of Hanson’s anti-refugee and anti-welfare policies, John Howard’s government moved against her when One Nation secured 25 percent of the vote in the 1998 Queensland state election, threatening the two-party system.

A concerted political dirty tricks campaign resulted in the jailing in 2003 of Hanson and One Nation’s co-founder David Ettridge for supposed breaches of anti-democratic political party registration legislation. The conviction on trumped-up charges was eventually overturned on appeal after they had served three months of their three-year non-parole sentence, but One Nation was crippled. Tony Abbott, then workplace relations minister, played a leading role in the operation against One Nation.

Whatever the veracity of the present allegations, the decision to air them now is bound up with political calculations. Hanson’s use of the plane has been known for almost two years and many of the other grievances have festered since last July’s federal election. Comparatively speaking, the amounts allegedly involved are tiny compared to the millions of dollars received and spent by the two major parties during their election campaigns.

As in the 1990s, the mechanism being utilised against One Nation is electoral legislation that requires all political parties to submit detailed, audited, annual returns listing donors and all expenditure. Parties without sitting members of parliament must provide extensive membership lists to obtain registration to contest elections. These measures, which trample over basic democratic rights, are particularly designed to impose onerous conditions on new and smaller parties.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called an election last July in a bid to clear the Senate of third-party “crossbench” members and secure the passage of legislation that had been blocked since 2014 because of intense public opposition to the government’s austerity cuts to health, education and other essential social programs.

The result was the opposite. Due to the deepening popular disaffection with both the government and Labor, more than 26 percent of votes in the election were cast for “other” parties, boosting their Senate numbers. This trend, fuelled by deteriorating living standards and widening social inequality, has intensified. Recent media surveys indicate that the level of support for “other parties” is reaching 30 percent.

The initial beneficiaries of this discontent have been right-wing populist formations such as One Nation and the Nick Xenophon Team, which have been used to channel the hostility in nationalist and xenophobic directions. While claiming to represent ordinary people mistreated by the banks and political elites, One Nation blames the most vulnerable sections of society—immigrants, the unemployed, indigenous people and welfare recipients—for the growing distress and insecurities of vast sections of the population.

Because of One Nation’s usefulness in diverting the mounting unrest, the media and political establishment were at pains after the July election to treat One Nation as a legitimate participant in political debate. Former Prime Minister Howard, under whose government Hanson was prosecuted and jailed, declared she was “entitled to be treated in a respectful fashion by the rest of the parliament.”

Turnbull government ministers applauded Hanson’s maiden Senate speech, which was afforded uncritical blanket coverage. In it she declared the country was “in danger of being swamped by Muslims” or being taken over by the “oppressive communist” Chinese government. Single parents and jobless youth were “thieves” collecting “thousands of dollars a week.” She called for bans on “Muslim immigration” and the wearing of burqas, advocated the monitoring of mosques, and called for an “Australian identity card.”

For all Hanson’s oppositional posturing, One Nation’s senators have been the Turnbull government’s most reliable parliamentary supporters. It has relied on One Nation’s four votes in the Senate to pass 90 percent of the legislation that it has managed to enact since last July’s election. This relationship may be shifting. In response to the “Four Corners” program, Hanson has threatened to withdraw support for all government bills unless the government cuts the ABC’s funding by $600 million over four years in the May 9 federal budget.

The campaign to destabilise One Nation has nothing whatsoever to do with any political differences with Hanson’s reactionary program. Instead, it is driven by anxieties that One Nation could threaten the stability of the parliamentary system, even more than it did in the late 1990s, amid ever-deepening inequality and social tensions. With a Queensland state election due early next year, and some media poll predictions that One Nation could win enough seats to be included in the next state government, measures are being taken that could undermine or break up Hanson’s party.

Indian elite hails US bombings in Syria and Afghanistan

Deepal Jayasekera

Underlining its readiness to more closely integrate with Washington’s military-strategic agenda, India’s ruling elite has hailed the April 7 cruise-missile attack on Syria and the April 13 Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bombing in Afghanistan.

While Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made no official statement on the US assaults, national upper house parliamentarian Subramanian Swamy, a member of Modi’s Hindu-supremacist Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP), tweeted his support.

“In my personal capacity & analysis I welcome US strike against Syria as retaliation for the horrible poisonous chemical attack on civilians,” Swamy declared. He thus parroted the bogus US claims that its actions were in response to an alleged Syrian military chemical weapons attack on Khan Sheikhun in southern Idlib province. The US has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate its allegations against the Assad government.

Notwithstanding Swamy’s insistence that his tweet was in a “personal capacity,” he is a leading BJP member. This underscores the reality of the Modi government’s enthusiastic support for the US attack on Syria.

Swamy later also endorsed Washington’s MOAB bombing of Afghanistan—unleashing the most destructive weapon ever used since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He called for the involvement of India in a US-led strategic alliance, including Israel, in the name of fighting “terror.”

Swamy tweeted: “US President Trump’s blasting with Mother of all bombs the ISIS hideout in Afghanistan is Super. Need US Israel India compact against terror.”

Opposition Congress Party national spokesman Manish Tewari likewise welcomed the MOAB attack. He called for similar bombings in Pakistan to target various Islamic extremist groups and those fighting Indian rule in Kashmir. He tweeted: “If US can drop MOAB on ISIS Khorasan, how is LET, Jaish-e-Mohmmad, Jamat-Ul-Dawa any different? Why not one on Muridke? Terror is seemless.”

LET (Lashkar-e-Taiba), Jaish-e-Mohmmad and Jamat-Ul-Dawa are Kashmir separatist groups operating from Pakistan. Muridke is a commercial city in Pakistan’s Punjab province and the operational headquarters of LET. If heeded, Tewari’s bloodthirsty calls for Washington to bomb Pakistani cities, towns and villages would result in the death of tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

The US military attacks in Syria and Afghanistan have nothing to do with retaliating against the alleged use of chemical weapons or fighting ISIS terror respectively. Trump used the unprovoked US assaults to make clear to Russia, Iran and China that Washington will not hesitate to use any weapon against perceived adversaries.

This was spelled out on Monday by US Vice President Mike Pence during a visit to South Korea. “In the past two weeks the world witnessed the strength and resolve of our new president in actions taken in Syria and Afghanistan,” he declared. “North Korea would do well not to test his resolve or the strength of the armed forces of the United States in this region.”

Washington’s threats against North Korea are in preparation for military conflict against China, its principal ally.

In their support for the US attacks on Syria and in Afghanistan, the leaders of India’s principal parties—the BJP and Congress—are expressing their readiness to line-up with US war preparations and pursue the Indian ruling elite’s own global power ambitions.

India’s military-strategic ties with the US were initiated under the BJP Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, from 1998 to 2004, and further developed by the successive Congress governments of Manmohan Singh. Prime Minister Modi has taken this to a qualitatively higher level, transforming India into a “frontline state” in Washington’s military-strategic agenda against China.

Irrespective of various tactical differences between the BJP and Congress over how far they should go with Washington in pursuing India’s geo-political ambitions, Swamy’s and Tewari’s remarks underscore the basic agreement in the Indian ruling elite over forging close military ties with US.

Hindu extremist groups associated with the BJP have seized on the US bombing in Afghanistan to push for a similar Indian attack on Pakistan, posing the danger of a major military conflict between these two nuclear-armed South Asian countries, with potentially deadly consequences for millions of people in the region.

Addressing a public event in Jamshedpur on April 14, Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Pravin Togadia declared: “Trump showed how it’s ‘America First’ for him by bombing IS hideouts in Afghanistan, which is more than 10,000 kilometres from Washington. Our government should show similar resolve of ‘India First’ by bombing Pakistan, which is barely 800 kilometres from New Delhi and securing the Indian soldier’s release.”

Togadia’s call for the release of an Indian soldier is a reference to former Indian navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav, who was allegedly arrested by Pakistan authorities in Pakistan’s Baluchistan Province and sentenced to death by a military court after being accused of espionage.

Three dead as millions demonstrate across Venezuela

Eric London

Millions of supporters and detractors of the Venezuelan government led by President Nicolas Maduro are demonstrating across Venezuela, bringing tensions to their highest point since 2015. On Wednesday, clashes between the two groups left three dead, including two opposition protesters and one soldier.

The opposition demonstration Wednesday, billed as the “mother of all marches,” was a right-wing show of force aimed at appealing to the Venezuelan military, factions of the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela, and US imperialism to secure more favorable bargaining terms with the government. The PSUV, which also held a sizable rally of its own on Wednesday, has been in power since the election of ex-president Hugo Chavez in 1998. Maduro became president in 2013 after Chavez’s death.

In a move intended to provoke a government crackdown, opposition leaders directed Wednesday’s massive crowd over an elevated highway situated above a river and led them toward government buildings in the city center. Opposition leader Henrique Capriles then used the resulting clashes as a pretext to call for continued demonstrations Thursday.

The demonstrations took place with Caracas under martial law. On Tuesday, Maduro enacted “Plan Zamora,” a domestic military operation that involved placing Caracas’s highways, public buildings, and key television antennas under military control. General Jose Ornelas, military commander of the capital region, explained: “We must defend Caracas.” In addition, local police across the country have been placed under the authority of the National Guard.

The extent of the military presence reflects the nervousness within government circles that increasing divisions are emerging in the government. Three weeks ago, the Venezuelan Supreme Court stripped the legislature of its lawmaking powers in a move that was later reversed after being opposed by Maduro’s own attorney general, Luisa Ortega Diaz. In a statement released Wednesday, Ortega abstained from repeating Maduro’s claim that demonstrators are “terrorists” and instead appealed to both opposition leaders and the military to refrain from violence.

On Tuesday, the government announced the arrest of four junior army officers—three first lieutenants and a captain—for “conspiracy and planning terrorist actions.” Speaking Tuesday, Maduro said the officers “are playing with the most sacred thing the Republic has, which is national unity, civil-military unity, and peace.”

The arrests were a shot across the bow to silence opposition in the armed forces, which have provided the PSUV with a key base of support over the last two decades. Elements within the army’s senior command have greatly enriched themselves since Chavez—a former military officer—took power in 1998. On Monday, Maduro appeared at a rally of thousands of soldiers and officers, praising them for “repudiating sedition against the country and traitors of the country.” Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez pledged the armed forces’ “unconditional” loyalty to Maduro.

Aware of growing divisions and hoping to work out a deal on behalf of American oil companies, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Wednesday that the Venezuelan government is “not allowing the opposition to have their voices heard” and is “violating its own constitution.”

The Trump administration has signaled a policy of more-active involvement in Venezuela. In February, Trump launched a new round of sanctions against Venezuelan Vice President Tareck El Aissami and met personally with the wife of ultra-right-wing opposition leader Leopold Lopez. These moves come despite the Maduro government’s US$500,000 gift, funneled through Citgo, the US subsidiary of the Venezuelan state oil company, to fund Trump’s inauguration festivities, according to U.S. Federal Elections Commission filings released Wednesday.

Washington’s record of military interventions and support for Latin American dictators and death squads shows that Tillerson’s statements about defending “free speech” in Venezuela are beyond hypocritical. Before joining the White House, Tillerson was CEO of ExxonMobil, which has been exploiting Venezuela’s oil since 1921. Chavez nationalized ExxonMobil’s extraction facilities in 2007, and the company is searching for ways to “tap” Venezuelan oil once again.

The working class largely abstained from this week’s demonstrations, and there was no uptick in strikes or walkouts.

The unpopularity of Maduro’s government among the working class is outpaced only by popular hatred for the opposition, which is concentrated among upper-middle-class layers, including students, operating under the direction of groups with close ties to the Central Intelligence Agency and US State Department.

Groups associated with the US government and US corporations give tens of millions of dollars to the Venezuelan opposition, much in the form of “youth outreach” to recruit members of the right-wing opposition. In 2008, the Cato Institute gave its Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty and a cash prize of US$500,000 to an opposition student leader. The opposition’s attempts to denounce Maduro’s crackdown on free speech are a fraud. In March, opposition leader Julio Borges called for the military to establish a dictatorship.

But support for the chavista government has evaporated in the midst of an unprecedented collapse in living standards for the Venezuelan working class.

The pro-capitalist, nationalist policies of the Chavez-Maduro governments, based almost entirely on oil exports, left the economy vulnerable to the drop in the international price of oil. The government responded by orchestrating a massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the pockets of international finance capital, slashing social programs to make interest payments to its creditors.

As a result of these policies, 75 percent of the population—some 22 million people—lost an average of 19 pounds of body weight in 2016 alone due to lack of food. A recent university study shows that 93 percent of the country has insufficient income to purchase basic food, while a third of the population eats fewer than three meals per day, nearly triple the figure from 2015.

Mass hunger and malnutrition gave rise to a series of spontaneous demonstrations in working class neighborhoods in the first half of 2016, in which residents attacked government food storage warehouses and sacked shops where owners were hoarding food. Conditions have only continued to deteriorate.

Under these conditions, the chavista and opposition factions of the ruling class fear a social explosion. Former Interior Minister Miguel Rodriguez Torres hinted at this in February when he said the government must “open space for participation to dissipate the violence” in order to “pay homage to those who died in ’89.”

This was a reference to the mass protests of February-March 1989, in which demonstrations in the town of Guarenas near Caracas over a rise in bus fares spread rapidly across the country, igniting a social powder keg. The government of Carlos Andres Perez responded by suspending the constitution, declaring martial law, and massacring more than 1,000 people.

This event looms large in the memory of both factions of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie. Both the chavistas and the opposition are planning their strategies with the overarching goal of preventing an outbreak of the class struggle.

US preparing to seek the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

Kevin Reed 

According to a CNN report Thursday, the US Department of Justice has prepared the charges it needs to seek the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been living in asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since June 2012.

US officials told CNN reporters that investigators have “proof that WikiLeaks played an active role in helping Edward Snowden, a former NSA analyst, disclose a massive cache of classified documents.”

This represents a distinct shift in the focus of US efforts to persecute the WikiLeaks founder, from targeting the website’s publication of documents and materials provided by Chelsea Manning and other whistleblowers, i.e., acting as a recipient of leaks, to claiming that WikiLeaks was a participant in the leaking of material by Snowden.

Although stopping short of naming Assange, when asked about the matter at a press conference on Thursday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said, “We’ve already begun stepping up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail.”

CNN spoke with Assange’s lawyer Barry Pollack about the report. Pollack said, “We've had no communication with the Department of Justice and they have not indicated to me that they have brought any charges against Mr. Assange.”

Pollack added, “They've been unwilling to have any discussion at all, despite our repeated requests, that they let us know what Mr. Assange's status is in any pending investigations. There's no reason why Wikileaks should be treated differently from any other publisher.”

The CNN report comes one week after CIA Director Mike Pompeo gave a highly publicized speech before the Center for Strategic and International Studies where he attacked both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. Pompeo said during the question and answer period that Assange was not a US citizen and “has no First Amendment freedoms.”

Assange responded with a statement last Friday calling Pompeo’s remarks “dangerous” and an attempt to “stifle speech.” The WikiLeaks statement also compared Pompeo’s effort to demonize Assange to the campaign against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Both the Pompeo speech and the leaked report of impending charges against Assange are clear indications that the Trump administration is moving swiftly to a direct attack on First Amendment rights. Of a piece with its reckless war policies, the administration is attempting to silence any further exposures of the criminal activities of the military-intelligence apparatus of the state.

The timing of the Justice Department charges is connected with the recent confirmation of president-elect Lenín Moreno as the winner of Ecuador’s presidential election over Guillermo Lasso after a recount. The US was planning to exploit a defeat of Moreno, who has defended Assange up to this point and opposed his extradition from the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

The Justice Department is counting on the enthusiastic support of both the US Congress and the subservient corporate media to back its assault on democratic rights. In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Rep. Peter King, R-New York said, “I'm glad that the Justice Department has found a way to go after Assange. He's gotten a free ride for too long.”

Pakistan and the Panama Papers Verdict

Rana Banerji

The long awaited Panama Papers verdict on 20 April, 2017, by the five-judge bench of Pakistan's Supreme Court has stopped short of disqualifying Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and given him a temporary reprieve by ordering investigation by a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) of officials, including those from the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Military Intelligence (MI), within 60 days, under Court supervision.

 

The 3-2 split verdict suggests that while there may have been enough substance to justify that Sharif may not have been either `sadiq’ (honest) or `ameen’ (trustworthy), thus meriting disqualification under Articles 62 and 63 of their Constitution, this power could not be exercised by the Supreme Court in its `original jurisdiction’ powers under Art 184(3), as it did not relate to a question of public importance related to a Fundamental Right. It purports though, that there were enough grounds to believe that the prime minister and his family members had obfuscated the money trail about the off-shore accounts and especially, the transaction pertaining to purchase of the Mayfair flats in London. 

 

The JIT has been tasked to work on a `thirteen point’ list of items pertaining to the money trail covering the setting up of the Gulf Steel Mill in Dubai; subsequent sales in Saudi Arabia and Qatar; and details of purchase transactions of the Mayfair flats. The judgment virtually dismisses the veracity of the Qatari Sheikh, Jabbar al Thani’s bailout letters about the money transactions. It also opens up the possibilities of re-opening of the Hudaibiya Paper Mills money laundering investigations of the early 1990s by either the Federal Investigation Authority (FIA) or the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The role of NAB Chief Qamar Zaman in not challenging the September 2014 Lahore High Court verdict exonerating the Sharifs in the Hudaibiya case has been castigated. The JIT’s would now be `a criminal investigation’, which would have to be placed before a fresh bench of the Supreme Court to finally decide on the matter.

 

Ironically enough, in the convoluted social milieu of denial that prevails in Pakistan, the judgment was `celebrated’ with distribution of sweets and `bhangras’ by both the plaintiffs and the respondents. The Opposition, led by the leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), Imran Khan, hailed the landmark verdict and called for the prime minister's resignation. Pakistan's former President and Pakistan Peoples Party's (PPP) Asif Zardari criticised the majority judgment while hailing the dissenting notes recorded by the two senior judges, Justices Asif Saeed Khosa and Gulzar Ahmed, both of whom could ascend to the post of Chief Justice after the incumbent’s term ends in January, 2019. 

 

Khosa in particular, has been very caustic in commenting on Nawaz Sharif’s lack of probity, belying any familial loyalty or leanings toward views of his father-in-law, late Chief Justice Nasim Hassan Shah, who restored Nawaz Sharif to power briefly in June 1993 - after Ghulam Ishaq Khan had dismissed him as prime minister - using powers under the now abolished Article 58(2)(b).

 

Ruling party sources have chosen to ignore the `Damocles’ sword’ that still hangs on their leader. Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (PML(N)) supporters take succor from the fact that four of the JIT's six members would be appointees of the civilian leadership. The JIT itself may effectively lead to a dead end. It is unlikely that a JIT comprising government officers would be able to press the ruling family to retrieve official documents from the British Virgin Islands (BVI) registrar of companies or the BVI Financial Services Commission (BVIFSC) regarding beneficial ownership of all offshore companies linked to them, or be able to prove that these were transferred in their name only in 2006 and that too from the Qatari royal family. Obtaining unavoidable documentary evidences from offshore jurisdictions without proper information sharing agreements would be difficult. Without these documents from offshore jurisdictions, complicated riddles regarding beneficial ownership of offshore companies and the year of their transfer in the name of the Sharifs would not be resolved.

 

Views of the legal fraternity in Pakistan have been mixed. Some luminaries have deemed the verdict as appropriate though definitely not bereft of political overtones. Noted Human Rights activist and lawyer Asma Jehangir felt `confused’ over the import of the judgment. The PPP’s Aitzaz Ahsan suspected that the formation of the JIT could enable the Sharifs to eventually wriggle out from the clutches of law.

 

What is concerning about the composition of the JIT is the inclusion of two Military Intelligence representatives. This sends a signal about the judiciary’s lack of institutional trust in civilian institutions or even about its own role in the past, acquiescing in the `doctrine of necessity’ to validate repeated military takeovers. It may be quite another matter whether the Army leadership under Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa would like to involve itself in this probe. If past precedents are to be relied upon, there could be no guarantee of soft peddling merely because Nawaz selected Bajwa to head the Army despite his low position on the eligible Generals’ seniority list. It goes without saying that during this interregnum, Nawaz Sharif would hardly be able to undertake any India friendly initiatives on matters of security policy.

 

The judgment reveals yet again how long-standing political families in Pakistan have been able to use the system to enhance their personal wealth. Credit for pushing that simple idea, both intuitively and with circumstantial evidence to support it all the way to the Supreme Court, and against a serving prime minister, must go to Imran Khan and his PTI. Whether this can be converted to political benefit in the 2018 polls is too early to predict and would depend on how effectively he can contain or dismantle the grip the Sharifs have so assiduously built up over the biradari (clan) networks in a still predominantly feudal rural Punjab.