23 Jan 2020

The prosecution of Glenn Greenwald and the global war on free speech

James Cogan

The “criminal conspiracy” charges leveled by the Brazilian government against Intercept Brasil publisher and renowned investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald is the latest in a series of state attacks internationally on the hard-won historical right to freedom of speech. The arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has opened the floodgates for a global war on independent and critical journalism and the imposition of sweeping censorship.
The allegations made in Brazil against Greenwald are essentially identical to the first charge issued in April 2019 by the US Department of Justice to file for the extradition of Assange from the United Kingdom to stand trial in the United States. Both men have been accused of “assisting” whistleblowers to access information that, once published, exposed criminality and corruption at the highest levels of the state apparatus.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald listens to a question during a press conference [Credit: AP Photo/Ricardo Borges]
In Greenwald’s case, a prosecution is being prepared on the pretext that he “conspired” with people to “hack” messaging accounts and obtain information that proved top officials had used a corruption investigation to undermine the political opponents of fascistic demagogue Jair Bolsonaro. In the lead-up to the 2018 presidential election, which was won by Bolsanaro, former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was convicted of corruption and imprisoned and his Workers Party mired in scandal.
In the case of Julian Assange, he has been charged with “conspiring” with courageous American whistleblower Chelsea Manning in 2009-2010 to access troves of classified documents that exposed US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the sordid intrigues carried out around the world to prop up pro-US regimes and assert American strategic and corporate interests. A further 17 counts of espionage were then added to the charge list, threatening him with a life sentence of 175 years if he is extradited and condemned by a show trial in the US.
Greenwald has not yet been arrested, but it is almost certain that US intelligence agencies are involved in the legal moves to prosecute him. He would have been on their hitlist of priority media targets since he played a key role in 2013 in publishing the leaks made by National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden. The Snowden leaks exposed the staggering degree to which the NSA spies on the communications of virtually every American citizen and much of the world’s population.
Julian Assange sought to protect himself from the revenge of the US state by gaining political asylum in 2012 in the tiny Ecuadorian embassy in London, until he was evicted and arrested last April. Just prior to Assange’s eviction, Chelsea Manning was sent back to prison for refusing to appear before a grand jury and retract her categorical testimony during her trial that she acted alone—without any assistance from Assange and WikiLeaks—to access the information she leaked.
The imprisonment of Manning and arrest of Assange was quickly followed by the Macron government initiating moves to prosecute eight journalists over the exposure of France’s complicity in Saudi Arabia’s illegal war in Yemen. In June 2019, unprecedented police raids on journalists’ homes and media offices took place in Australia. Three journalists are threatened with prosecution over the publication of leaks exposing war crimes committed by Australian troops in Afghanistan and plans to legalise mass surveillance.
Glenn Greenwald had not visited the US since 2013 due to his legitimate concern that he would be arrested. With Bolsanaro now in power, the hands of the CIA, NSA and FBI can well and truly reach into Brazil, where Greenwald has residency rights through his partner.
The WSWS warned in 2010 that if Julian Assange was not defended—after his detention in Britain over blatantly fabricated allegations that he had committed sexual offences in Sweden—it would open the way for a full-scale assault to terrorise and silence genuine journalism. Then vice-president Joe Biden in Barack Obama’s Democratic Party administration had labelled Assange a “high-tech terrorist.” The Labor government in Australia, where Assange holds citizenship, had denounced WikiLeaks’ publications as “illegal activity.”
Within a matter of months, however, the vast majority of the ex-left and ex-liberal political and media fraternity lined up with the US state and its allies against Assange. Publications such as the New York Times and the Guardian —which had worked with WikiLeaks to publish the Manning leaks because they were going to be published anyway—devoted their resources to slandering Assange as a “suspected” rapist and self-serving narcissist, undeserving of any popular sympathy and support. The unions and fake left organisations internationally actively opposed any campaign in his defence, refusing to discuss his case and boycotting all actions taken to demand his freedom.
The political reasons this turn against WikiLeaks took place must never be forgotten. It occurred in the wake of massive social upheavals, which were in part triggered by information contained in the Manning leaks, that brought down US-backed regimes. Foreign Policy magazine nervously asked in January 2011 if Tunisia was the first “WikiLeaks Revolution.” Just weeks later, the seemingly all-powerful dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak was overthrown by a mass movement of the Egyptian working class.
The establishment “left” parties, unions and media are tied by a thousand threads to the financial and corporate oligarchy and benefit from the ruthless exploitation of the vast majority of the world’s population. The way in which the truth had motivated ordinary people to rise up in open rebellion against entrenched elites was viewed in these circles with horror. A mass upheaval demanding an end to social inequality and political injustice in the United States, for example, would threaten the wealth and power of the capitalist class and privileged upper middle class, of which they are part and which they serve.
The instinctive response of the establishment organisations and media was to join with the state apparatus in seeking to prevent or censor future exposures. As New York Times editor Bill Keller bluntly wrote in November 2010 in response to WikiLeaks: “When we find ourselves in possession of government secrets, we think long and hard about whether to disclose them… Freedom of the press includes freedom not to publish, and that is a freedom we exercise with some regularity.” [emphasis added]
The hatred of the ex-liberal publications for Assange reached visceral levels in 2016 when WikiLeaks published leaked emails that shed further light on the militarist, big business and authoritarian agenda of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party—their preference in the US presidential election. The Times and the Guardian spearheaded the campaign to promote the fabrications that Assange had “conspired” with Russian intelligence to hack the emails and to smear him as a “tool” of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.
In July 2019, a US court dismissed the allegations that WikiLeaks had worked with Russian agencies as “entirely divorced from the facts” and defended its right to publish the leaks as “plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.”
The Times and Guardian, however, have never retracted their false accusations and slanders. To this day, the Times and the Democratic Party machine publicly advocate that Assange be criminally prosecuted over their incessant claims that Russian “interference” cost Clinton the 2016 election. In April 2019, the Times published comments that described the first conspiracy charge against Assange as an “indisputable crime.”
Given its record, the New York Times plumbed the depths of hypocrisy in its editorial on January 22 on the charging of Glenn Greenwald. It asserted that Greenwald’s publication of leaks in Brazil “did what a free press is supposed to do: they revealed a painful truth about those in power.” The editorial concluded: “Attacking the bearers of that message is a serious disservice and a dangerous threat to the rule of law.”
The reality is that the Times, along with numerous ex-left and ex-liberal organisations and publications, has proven through its complicity in the persecution of Assange and WikiLeaks that its class allegiances lie with the corporate oligarchy and the capitalist state.
A genuine defence of persecuted journalists and whistleblowers will only be taken forward by the working class, whose right to know the truth they have courageously served.
Julian Assange is imprisoned in Britain and his extradition trial begins on February 24 in London. Chelsea Manning is in a cell in the United States, Edward Snowden is in forced exile in Russia and now Glenn Greenwald is under threat in Brazil. All those who defend the fundamental democratic rights at stake in their cases have the responsibility to fight for the greatest possible independent mobilisation of workers and young people to demand their immediate and unconditional freedom.

22 Jan 2020

Swedish Institute She Entrepreneurs Program 2020 for Women in MENA Region

Application Deadline: 4th February 2020.

Eligible Countries: Countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) regions: Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine*, Sweden, Syria, Tunisia or Yemen
To be taken at (country): Sweden

About the Award: She Entrepreneurs is a recognised leadership programme for young emerging women social entrepreneurs in the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA) and Sweden. Intended for women who have already started to build a social business, She Entrepreneurs offers participants a chance to take their social business initiative to a whole new level.
The She Entrepreneurs programme is an intensive programme with a full-day schedule and many evening activities and all selected participants have to commit to participating in all activities of both module 1 and 2.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Offered Since: 2011

Eligibility: To apply to She Entrepreneurs you have to:
  • have the drive, ambition and interest to use social entrepreneurship to implement a social business initiative that you have already started working on
  • your social business initiative should be based and implemented in your country of citizenship or in one of the countries of the She Entrepreneurs programme listed above
  • be between 20 and 36 years old
  • have a good working knowledge of both written and spoken English.
Selection Criteria: A selection committee consisting of staff from the Swedish Institute as well as representatives from partner organisations and field experts evaluates the applications according to the following criteria:
  • applicant’s social business initiative that will be the focus of the programme
  • applicant’s drive, motivation and commitment, as well as her answers to the questions of the She Entrepreneurs application form
  • assessment of the applicant’s CV.
Selection Process: Around 60 shortlisted applicants are called for interviews as a second step in the selection process. The interviews are conducted through Skype. This offer is valid only under the condition that the participant obtains a visa to travel to Sweden. SI will facilitate the visa application process, but cannot guarantee a visa. In recent years, applicants living in conflict-ridden areas have in a few cases seen their visa applications rejected.
She entrepreneurs will accept references who speak English, Arabic and French.

Number of Awardees: Around 28

Value of Programme: She Entrepreneurs participants will build on their knowledge of business elements, from branding to risk-taking. The programme offers a competitive advantage as participants develop their own social business initiative and acquire personal skills and innovative tools.
The programme also allows women entrepreneurs to meet, inspire each other and share experiences on common challenges. Participants will emerge with a strong and active network of likeminded women who support each other in driving important changes in society.

Duration of Programme: A total of two and a half weeks

How to Apply:

Visit Program Webpage for details

UK Government Go Global Africa 2020 for African Entrepreneurs (Fully-funded to UK)

Application Deadline: 3rd February 2020 (5 pm)

Eligible Countries: Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa

To be taken at (country): UK

About the Award:  The UK Government’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport is launching a new International Tech Hub Network in 2020, in partnership with the British High Commission in Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. The hubs are one pillar of a broader Digital Access Programme which aims to catalyse digital inclusion across Africa.
This is a fantastic opportunity for start-ups using technology to solve local issues, to participate in an exciting and intensive programme in the UK to learn how to build their business to develop global solutions.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: Applications are open to tech startups from Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa who meet ALL of the following criteria:
1. Work in one of the following four verticals: AgriTech, FinTech, HealthTech or Clean Energy
2. Post-MVP stage, fully operating in market
3. Can demonstrate a clear business model with evidence of customer traction
4. Looking to raise their first round of funding
5. Can demonstrate clear social impact potential
6. Can demonstrate commitment to strengthen the local ecosystem by passing on learnings to other startups
7. Ambition to expand internationally in the future


Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
  • Travel costs, accommodations and most meals.
  • Successful applicants will be sponsored to join a delegation of ambitious African start-ups to the UK for an immersive programme in March 2020.
  • The programme will help companies to improve their business skills and capability, build links with the UK’s thriving tech sector and work with UK expertise to take their business to the next level.
Duration of Programme: Shortlisted participants notified by 7 February

Pitch finals:
(South Africa) 25 February
(Nigeria) 26 February
(Kenya) 28 February


In-country masterclass series:
(South Africa) 4-6 March
(Nigeria) 10-12 March
(Kenya) 17-19 March


UK programme 23-27 March

How to Apply: 
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

The People of Colombia are Cracking the Walls of War and Authoritarianism

Justin Podur

The protests that started with the national strike called by Colombia’s central union on November 21 to protest pension reforms and the broken promises of the peace accords have persisted for two months and grown into a protest against the whole establishment. And the protests have continued into the new year and show no signs of stopping.
The end of the decade has seemed to bring an unstoppable march of the right wing in Latin America as elsewhere. The 2016 coup in Brazil that ended with fascist Jair Bolsonaro in power, the 2019 coup in Bolivia, the continuously rolling coup in Venezuela, all showcased the ruthlessness of the U.S. in disposing of left-wing governments in the region. Right-wing victories at the ballot box occurred in Chile in 2017 and in Colombia in 2018, where the electorate rejected the left-wing Gustavo Petro and embraced Iván Duque, a protege of the infamous former president Álvaro Uribe Vélez. But with the new wave of protests, the unstoppable right-wing juggernaut is facing many challenges.
In Chile, three months of protests, still going, are demanding the resignation of President Sebastián Piñera and the reversal of a range of neoliberal policies. Even in the face of the police and army using live fire against protesters, they have not let up.
Ecuador is another peculiar case, in which Lenín Moreno ran as a candidate who would continue left-wing policies, but who promptly reversed course upon reaching power in 2017, including revoking the asylum of Julian Assange, who is now in a UK prison. Reopening drilling in the Amazon, opening a new U.S. airbase in the Galapagos, getting rid of taxes on the wealthy, and doing a new package of International Monetary Fund austerity measures was enough to spark a sustained protest. Moreno’s government was forced to negotiate with the protesters and has withdrawn some of the austerity measures.
In Haiti, protests have gone on for over a year. Sparked in July 2018 by a sharp increase in fuel prices (the same spark as for the Ecuador protests), they have expanded to call for the president’s resignation. In Haiti, as the protests have dragged on, some of the country’s elite families have joined the call for the president’s resignation, which will make it even more difficult to find a constitutional exit from the crisis.
In Colombia, after winning the runoff in 2018, President Duque may have felt that he had a mandate to enact right-wing policies, which in Colombia have usually included new war measures in addition to the usual austerity. But combining pension cuts with betraying the peace process was simply stealing too much from the future: Young people joined the November 21 protests in huge numbers (the lowest estimates are 250,000).
The sustained nature of the protests is striking. Rather than one-offs, the protests have been committed to staying on until change is won. We may hear more this year from post-coup Brazil and Bolivia as well.
At the heart of Colombia’s protest is the issue of war and peace. To say Colombians are war-weary is an understatement. The war there that began (depending on how you date it) in 1948 or 1964 has provided the pretext for an unending assault on people’s rights and dignities by the state. Afro-Colombians were displaced from their lands under cover of the war. Indigenous people were dispossessed. Unions were smeared as guerrilla fronts and their leaders assassinated. Peasants and their lands were fumigated with chemical warfare. Narcotraffickers set themselves up inside the military and intelligence organizations, creating the continent’s most extensive paramilitary apparatus. Politicians signed pacts with these paramilitary death squads. The war gave the establishment an excuse for the most depraved acts, notably the “false positives” in which the military murdered completely innocent people and dressed their corpses up as guerrillas to inflate their kill statistics. Even though the guerrillas, with their kidnapping and too-frequent accidental killings of innocents, were never popular with the majority, Colombians have backed peace processes when given the chance. And Colombians didn’t look kindly at the major betrayals of peace processes in the past, like the one in the 1980s, when ex-guerrillas entering politics were assassinated by the thousand. From 2016, when the new peace accords were affirmed, until mid-2019, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) tallied 138 of their ex-guerrillas murdered; more than 700 other activists were killed in the same period, including more than 100 Indigenous people since Duque came to power in 2018.
At the end of August, a group of FARC members led by their former chief negotiator, Iván Márquez, announced that they were returning to the jungle and to the fight. They argued that the assassination of their members and the refusal of the government to comply with the other aspects of the accords demonstrated that there was no will for peace on the side of the government. Those FARCs who announced they were giving up on the accords were treated as having gone rogue: The government labeled them as criminal groups. Aerial bombardment (a war measure not normally the first recourse in dealing with “criminals”) quickly followed. When a bombing (also in August) by the Colombian air force of one of these rogue groups in Caquetá killed eight children and Duque labeled it “strategic, meticulous, impeccable, and rigorous,” he was greeted with much-deserved public revulsion. Duque was shaping up to deliver the same kind of war as always, only now under the flag of peace, its victims labeled criminals instead of guerrillas.
Eternal war does benefit some: those in the arms and security business especially, and those who want to commit crimes under the cover of war. But despite the many benefits of eternal war for the elite, normalcy also exerts a powerful draw. When Duque’s mentor Álvaro Uribe Vélez was elected president in 2002 and 2006, it was with the promise of normalcy—of peace—through decisive victory over the guerrillas. Instead, he delivered narco-paramilitarism, false positives, and, very nearly, regional wars with Ecuador and Venezuela.
One of Uribe’s early acts was to negotiate a peace agreement with the paramilitaries. Since the paramilitaries were state-backed, organized, and armed, this was a farcical negotiation of the government with itself. But when some of the paramilitary commanders began to speak publicly about their relationships with the state and multinational corporations, they found themselves deported to the U.S. At the time, the scandal was given a name—“para-política.” But to some of the investigators, it was better-termed “para-Uribismo.” Paramilitary commander Salvatore Mancuso—who had the temerity to talk about the Chiquita banana corporation and who is apparently going to return to Colombia sometime soon—is just the best-known name. Many others have found that being a paramilitary leads to a considerably shortened lifespan. Uribe, mayor of Medellín and governor of Antioquia during the heyday of the cartels, is named in numerous official documents as being close to both the narcotraffickers and the paramilitaries. The evidence keeps coming, as courts, now trying Uribe’s brotherkeep getting closer to the man himself.
After the first round of “Uribismo,” it was time to try a peace process. The betrayal of that process, initiated in 2012, and the new president Duque’s promise of yet another decade of “Uribismo,” has been a motivating force of the recent protests.
Uribismo entangles endless war with austerity and inequality. In a recent Gallup poll, 52 percent of Colombians surveyed said the gap between rich and poor had increased in the past five years; 45 percent struggled to afford food in the previous 12 months; and 43 percent lacked money for shelter. The social forces that typically fight for social progress and equality—unions and left-wing political parties—have traditionally been demonized as proto-guerrillas. With the government declaring the war over—and with great fanfare—people want the freedom to make economic demands without being treated as civil war belligerents.
But when faced with the November 21 protests, the government went straight to the dirty war toolkit, murdering 18-year-old protester Dilan Cruz on November 25, imposing curfew, detaining more than 1,000 people, and creating “montajes,” the time-tested use of agents provocateurs to commit unpopular and illegal acts to provide a pretext for state repression. Government officials have also tried to claim that Venezuela and Russia (of course) were behind the protests.
Part of the dirty war toolkit is to negotiate, and the government has been doing so with the National Strike Committee. No doubt hoping that the protests will exhaust themselves and any agreements can be quietly dropped as numbers dwindle, the government is dangling the possibility of dropping some austerity demands. Meanwhile, the negotiators are being threatened by paramilitary groups, and another mass grave of those murdered as military “false positives” has been unearthed. Uribismo has wormed its way into every structure of the state: Real change will have to be deep. By not giving up easily, the protesters have shown the way. These protests could be a crack in the walls of fascism that seem to have sprung up everywhere in the past decade.

The Media and the Military Mindset

Melvin A. Goodman

U.S. national media have been lazy in their treatment of our military—pandering to the military itself and using retired general officers with ties to the military-industrial complex as spokesmen.  The United States is largely in an arms race with itself, but the media typically ignore bloated defense spending.  It is past time to reinforce Martin Luther King’s address to the Riverside Church in 1967 that linked chronic domestic poverty and military adventurism.
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Department of Defense has been playing an outsize role in the implementation of U.S. foreign policy and has too much clout in the production of intelligence analysis.  The administrations of Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump have given the Pentagon an unprecedented position of power and influence, including huge increases in defense spending and a dominant voice in the making of national security  policy.  The media, relying for the most part on retired general officers, have been insufficiently critical of this militarization.
The news on cable television relies on retired general officers to analyze and assess the military actions of the United States.  Nearly all of these retired generals and admirals have high-level positions at various arms manufacturers, but this is rarely noted.  General Jack Keane, one of Donald Trump’s favorite generals, is a frequent analyst on Fox News, but it is never mentioned that the retired general is executive chairman of AM General, a leading defense contractor, best known as the manufacturer of the Humvee and other tactical military vehicles.  Keane obviously has a direct financial interest in the use of force.
NBC News and MSNBC, the so-called liberal voice of cable television, rely on a former student of mine at the National War College, retired Admiral James Stavridis, who is described as the networks’ “chief international security analyst.”  The networks never mention that Stavridis, the former supreme allied commander at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, currently works for the Carlyle Group, advising Carlyle on its multibillion-dollar portfolio of defense companies.
According to a recent article in the Washington Post, CBS’s in-house military expert is retired Admiral James Winnefeld Jr., a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but also a member of the board at Raytheon, a major defense manufacturer.  CNN relied on retired General James Marks in the early years of the Iraq War, without mentioning Marks’ role in obtaining military and intelligence contracts for McNeil Technologies.  Marks is back at CNN, but the network never mentions that now he is a venture partner and adviser to a company that invests in military companies.
The Washington Post is guilty of the same kind of enabling of the military.  In the wake of the killing of Qassim Soleimani, Stephen Hadley, President George W. Bush’s national security adviser, endorsed the actions of the Trump administration, arguing that the killing could open the door to diplomacy.  The Post needed to mention that Hadley is a director at Raytheon, which manufactures components of the drone that killed Major General Soleimani.  In other words, it should be noted that Hadley has a vested financial interest in the war.  As a letter writer to the Post noted, drone targeting systems aren’t cheap.
In the field of intelligence reporting, MSNBC relies almost entirely on the views of former CIA director John Brennan and deputy director John McLaughlin.  Brennan is a peculiar choice because he supported the policy of torture and abuse while serving on the executive staff of the Central Intelligence Agency as well as aiding in the cover-up of the CIA’s role in shooting down a missionary plane over Peru in a botched mission to stop drug trafficking.  Brennan was also responsible for the order to CIA lawyers and technicians to hack into the computers of the Senate intelligence committee to remove sensitive documentary evidence of the sordid acts of CIA officers.
McLaughlin is a bizarre choice as an intelligence analyst because he led the effort to craft the spurious speech that Secretary of State Colin Powell gave to the United Nations only six weeks before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.  The speech was designed to convince a domestic and international audience of the (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraqi inventories.  The speech was particularly successful in fooling the editorial and oped writers of the Washington Post, who claimed they were “convinced” that Iraqi WMD justified Bush’s war.
The U.S. reliance on military force has damaged U.S. national interests at a time when the global community is facing severe economic stress.  The Iraq and Afghan wars have cost trillions of dollars and have not made America more secure.  The war on terror has created more terrorists than it has eliminated, and recent secretaries of state have failed to question the strategic and geopolitical implications of a wider war in Southwest Asia.  The budget of the Department of Defense, exceeding levels reached during the worst days of the Cold War, receives overwhelming bipartisan support.
Even so-called liberal organizations are attracted to these policies.  The Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and their scholars—Michael O’Hanlon and Robert Kagan, respectively—have advocated the use of military force in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Meanwhile, the media largely ignore the loss of civilian life as they do the destruction of civilian economies, including hospitals, schools, and infrastructure.
Nearly sixty years after President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial complex, the United States must come to terms with its elevation of the role of the military; its cult of military spending that has become sacrosanct; and the culture of militarism that has placed U.S. bases all over the globe.  The American public is in danger of knowing only those military policies and actions that the government wants it to know, and the media are insufficiently aggressive in uncovering the nature of U.S. militarism the world over.

Global Ecological Restoration: The Leaves of the Tree Will Heal the Nations

Glen Barry

The ecological fabric of being is fraying and Earth is at imminent risk of become uninhabitable. The collapse of major ecological systems that provide for the well-being of all life is intimately entwined with the personal despair, and political and social chaos, roiling global societies. Many growing social ills such as poverty, violence, and addiction are ultimately driven by environmental decline; and can only worsen if nature is not protected and restored.
Here I will first review our ecological predicament, before referring (as an atheist) to biblical wisdom as to the role trees play in our healing.
The Age of Industrial Affluence whereby illusory human material advancement briefly occurred through the liquidation of natural ecosystems is ending. We are well into the Age of Ecocide as drawdowns of natural capital – water, soil, atmosphere, fish, wildlife – have exceeded their regenerative capacity. Everywhere the ecologically attuned eye looks, tawdry natural plant communities and wildlife populations are collapsing and dying.
Humanity has surpassed the carrying capacity of the atmosphere, ecosystems, and the biosphere.
Simultaneously, and as a direct result, human societies are distressed. Shocking levels of inequality exist whereby billions lack basic needs as a small group of billionaires live a life of grotesque opulence. Both extremes further squeeze the Earth.
The economic bubble of an industrial growth economy based upon ecocide has burst. Violence, drug dependency, sexual abuse, depression, suicide, perma-war, racism, and even a resurgence in slavery are rife. All are related to the lessened prospects of material comfort for the lower and middle classes as there exists fewer natural areas to plunder for money. And to a general sense of lack of meaning in lives devoid of nature. The entire premise of capitalism, that an economy can grow forever by razing natural systems, has been revealed to be nonsensical malarkey that threatens to kill us all.
Exponential growth in population and consumption drive the fatally unsustainable resource consumption that liquidates natural ecosystem habitats. This relentless growth in everything at the expense of the natural world is the ultimate source of biodiversity loss, ecosystem diminishment, a fatally diminished climate, and ultimately a decline in human prospects for meaningful, universal, and lasting advancement.
Entering this new era of natural scarcity had led to greater competition between both individuals and nations, and to spiraling conflict and malignancies of all types. The final assault upon the Planet’s last natural ecosystem engines can only lead to collapse of societies and the biosphere.
And the end of being.
The key point: human well-being (and indeed all life) is intimately dependent upon natural ecosystems. Indeed, humanity is part of the ecological whole, as goes nature goes humanity. Critically we have gone from a state of nature surrounding humanity, to humanity enveloping sickened natural remnants. As ecology has dwindled under a centuries old assault, human mid-to-long term prospects have declined in tandem.
After years of human advancement in liberty, human rights, and equality; the current rise of authoritarian fascism is the natural consequence of a sick global environment. In the global rise of right-wing anti-science populism we are witnessing fits of petulance when people and nations hit the limits to growth and can’t have infinitely more of everything for everybody. Ignorance, including regarding ecology, has lead to serious misdiagnoses of societal problems.
Humanity is hell-bent upon destroying their habitat and the natural capital which makes possible and enriches their existence. As the collapse of global ecosystems intensifies, together we face a brief period of unimaginably grim social strife that threatens decades of conflict and pain; before humanity, all life, and the biosphere die.
Unless we plant more trees to restore the environment and our culture.
The decline in natural ecosystems, and the reduction in economic opportunity from their clearance, is a driving force behind a range of social ills including perma-war, violence, addiction, depression, suicide, and poverty. Only widespread tree planting to regenerate natural and agro-ecosystems in an Age of Ecological Restoration can avoid collapse of societies and ultimately the biosphere.
Leaves Heal Nations
As an atheist rejecting worship of mythical ghosts, I’m not one to quote scripture. My spirituality is found in self-evident truths such as nature. Yet I recently became aware of the bible verse “The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations,” and it deeply resonates with me. The quote occurs within the context of Revelation’s grim self-fulfilling prophecy of the end of the world as a result of sinful pestilence and war.
Stripped of Abrahamic myth, the quote contains an important secular truth that nations and their peoples are ultimately dependent upon the productivity and ecological health of their land, water, air, and seas. From trees and related natural ecosystems come the food, fiber, air, water, and livelihoods upon which the well-being of human and kindred life is utterly dependent. And when societies are in despair, it is ultimately nature and trees which can best heal the wounds of greed, war, and personal pain.
Innumerable cultural traditions – many of them massacred by christians – have understood humanity’s oneness with, and utter dependence upon, trees and nature. Destroying your shared environment is the ultimate sin for which redemption may not be possible if you wait too long.
As tree planting brings you closer to nature it may provide spiritual wonderment and awe
As tree planting brings you closer to nature it may provide spiritual wonderment and awe
The core nugget of universal, objective truth found in this bible verse is that tree leaves can heal nations. Tree planting will help heal all nations and restore a personal state of natural awe and well-being. More tree and other plant leaves will lead inexorably to more fertile soil, plentiful water, full stomachs, sustained wildlife, full employment, peace, prosperity, and an operable climate. While planting trees is good, doing so with the intent of restoring natural forest and agro-ecosystems is even better.
There exists tremendous potential to restore local ecosystems in a manner that improves landscape health and ultimately allows nature to once again provide the context for humanity. Remaining natural ecosystem fragments can have their margins secured to allow natural succession and their expansion to occur. This natural regrowth can be augmented with the planting of dominant natural tree species. Ecosystem restoration along with simultaneous rapid reductions in fossil fuel emissions (covered in other essays) are humanity’s only remaining hope to avoid destroying our one shared biosphere home.
Several large contiguous large forest wildernesses, and significant fragments of natural ecosystems, remain and for now are the ecosystem engines that are powering the global environment. Despite the fragments being nearly universally distributed; they are often small, isolated, and are thus unable to provide the full range of ecological and economic benefits necessary for the well-being of human and all life. And wherever old trees stand they continue to be assaulted under the quasi-religious dogma of economic development.
These last naturally evolved ecological gems can be eliminated in a futile attempt to prop up continued exponential growth. Or the pressure can be taken off of the leaves of the trees; as natural ecosystems are assisted to regenerate, expand, reconnect, and ultimately become fully productive again.
Multiple goals can be pursued. Core ecological areas that are large and connected enough to maintain the entire panoply of life, and which provide ecosystem services upon which all life depends, must be protected and/or re-established. Within this landscape matrix areas of production of food and fiber can co-exist. This will run the gamut from perma-culture gardens of fruits, nuts, and vegetables; to natural plantations of fiber for shelter and other necessities, all enmeshed within the core areas. Local species and genotypes will be favored, yet due to abrupt climate change it may be necessary to use species assemblages that occur together in nearby hotter climates.
There exist hundreds of millions of denuded acres globally that can immediately be marked as zones of ecological restoration (given consent of local peoples and plans for their economic benefit). In many areas, small tawdry patches of naturally evolved plant stocks remain, that if the pressure were taken off, could quickly regenerate, particularly in the tropics. And huge areas can be planted with diverse poly-cultures of native species and other species of use to humans. There will be millions of jobs for local peoples in plant nurseries; and tree planting, care, and harvest. While some core areas must remain involatile to remain ecologically intact, small communities of forest keepers will live sustainable, fulfilling lives throughout the rest. And critically indigenous land tenure, including to stolen lands, will be restored and solidified.
Ecosystem restoration of landscapes across bioregions can ultimately lift the souls of dispirited citizens, provide continuously for their righteous livelihoods, regenerate the health and well-being of entire nations, while ensuring sustainability of our one shared biosphere.
The Age of Global Ecological Restoration
Please hear the clarion call of millions already working to usher in an Age of Global Ecological Restoration. We must come together as a global family to restore ecologically the places we inhabit and which we and our forebearers have senselessly allowed to be destroyed. One last time lets beat guns into ploughshares, to make the shovels necessary to plant the trees whose leaves we need to cool the frustrations of diminished prospects and restore hope in a mortally threatened world.
Large scale tree planting to restore natural forest and agro-ecosystems will help avoid global ecological collapse
By reconstituting ecology, society will reconnect to the wonders of nature. A sense of communal well-being will come; as guns, hard drugs, suicide, and over-consumption fade away. The focus will be upon shared advancement, well-being, and experience rather than insular, anxious lusting for the accumulation of more stuff. As planting of trees brings you closer to nature, it may provide spiritual wonderment and awe, and become a form of ritual worship for some.
In many a glen, after a day of hard work planting and caring for trees, people will gather in new forests of their making for feasts under the moon and stars; and again find community and make love.
We will marvel at creation and the miracle of being as we work for her continuation. Once again, we will feel in our very cells our own intimate connection with kindred species with which we share this billions of years long evolutionary journey. There will be a resurgence in self-expression as art, sport, music, theater, science (and other knowledge), and the written word rise in prominence. Emerging technologies will be used appropriately, and only to the extent that they augment ecology, and are used exclusively for social good.
Frequent long-distance travel, the military-industrial complex, fossil fuels, big government, abject despair, extreme poverty, and social want will fade away as a more just society based upon equitable and sustainable bioregional plenty re-emerges.
Together the human family has arrived at the point where only the leaves of the tree can heal the nations. We have one last chance, and a closing window of opportunity, to restore the ecosystems that humans need to both survive and thrive. We must power down, demilitarize, reject industrial ecocide, and embrace centuries of ecological restoration as the penultimate focus of human endeavors.
Only more leaves on the trees can heal your and our many nations’ brokenness. Please plant trees, restore ecosystems, and love nature and others.

Tasmanian premier’s resignation highlights political discontent across Australia

Mike Head

In yet another backroom leadership switch in Australia, Tasmanian Liberal Party state Premier Will Hodgman suddenly resigned last week and was this week replaced by Treasurer Peter Gutwein. While the abrupt changeover occurred in the country’s smallest state, it is another indicator, along with the worsening fallout from the bushfire catastrophe, of a deepening social and political crisis throughout the continent.
After being installed unopposed by the party’s members of parliament on Monday, Gutwein claimed he would lead a “compassionate” government. He promised to “do more” to fix the health service, house the homeless and address climate change. His comments inadvertently pointed to the mounting popular discontent behind the switch.
The corporate media—echoed by the Labor Party and Greens—paid tribute to Hodgman, hailing him as one of the most “successful” and “popular” premiers in the state’s history. But the reality is one of acute social polarisation. A so-called economic boom, substantially based on tourism and Chinese investment, has been produced by gutting public health and housing, eliminating public sector jobs and imposing the lowest wages and worst rates of poverty in the country.
Gutwein, who has been central to the government’s brutal policies since it took office in 2014, nervously sought to soften his budget-cutting image. “Our government will be a government of conviction, of compassion and importantly, one of opportunity for all,” he said. In the same breath, he declared there would be no “radical divergence” from the government’s “sensible, responsible” economic plan. That means continuing to feed corporate profits at the expense of the working class.
Like Hodgman, 50, who offered the customary explanation of “family reasons” for his resignation, Gutwein, 55, is a member of the Liberal Party’s supposed “moderate” faction, aligned with ousted Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Gutwein’s main rival, ex-Health Minister Michael Ferguson, an adherent to the “hard-right” wing of Turnbull’s replacement, Scott Morrison, pulled out of the leadership contest just minutes before the Liberal Party room meeting. It seems that, despite reportedly having the parliamentary numbers to win the ballot, Ferguson was advised that his ascension would fuel the popular hostility to both the state and federal Liberal-led governments.
Under successive governments, both Liberal and Labor, Tasmania has become a microcosm of the financial and social devastation being inflicted on millions of young people and working class households throughout Australia.

Public health:

Out of a population of just over half a million, more than 200,000 Tasmanians have at least two chronic health conditions and the state has the country’s second-worst General Practitioner bulk-billing rate under the Medicare system. About 50 percent of patients are forced to pay upfront fees and extra out-of-pocket costs for basic doctors’ services.
Public hospitals are chronically starved of resources and staff. The Royal Hobart Hospital’s emergency department had more than 1,800 patients wait longer than 24 hours in the last financial year, but faces a $50 million cut this year.
Confronted by protests from patients, doctors, nurses and other health workers, Hodgman dumped Ferguson as health minister last June, but the situation only worsened.

Housing, homelessness and poverty:

Workers, young people and the poor face an acute housing crisis, as the result of sky-high rents, soaring property prices, a booming short-stay accommodation sector and a growing public housing waiting list.
More than 3,000 people are waiting for social housing, with an average wait time of more than a year and three months. The state was gripped by a homelessness crisis in the depth of winter last year, due to a severe shortage of affordable housing, particularly in the capital, Hobart, where rents rose 10 percent in the past year alone.
An estimated 120,000 people are living in poverty, even by the understated official calculations.

Public sector, education and wages:

In its first year in office alone, the Liberal government eliminated 1,200 public sector jobs, including school and TAFE teachers and health workers, on top of the 1,000 jobs destroyed by the previous Labor-Greens coalition government following the 2008 global financial crisis.
Average wages, both in the public and private sectors, are the lowest in the country, under conditions where wages nationally have stagnated or fallen compared to inflation for the past six years, with young and other “gig economy” workers the worst hit. Unemployment is at nearly 7 percent, almost two points above the national average, even on the understated official figures.
Tasmanian teachers took strike action last year, demanding a cap on class sizes and more in-class support and professional development, as well as against pay rises being pegged at 2 percent per annum for all public sector workers, a measure introduced by the Labor-Greens government in 2011. The Australian Education Union eventually pushed through a sell-out deal, continuing a long record of betrayal.
The government assault is intensifying. Last May, Gutwein handed down a state budget that imposed an “efficiency dividend” across the public service, aiming to cut social spending by $450 million over four years. This was expected to mean the slashing of another 1,500 jobs.
For all the “economic success” stories, the state government faces a $280 million cut in its share of Goods and Services Tax revenue to 2022-23 because of the national and global slump. The state Treasury Department last year declared that the state could be up to $30 billion in debt by 2033-34 without quick intervention to cut spending.
Under pressure from the corporate elite, the government is scheduled to push ahead this year with pro-logging and gambling measures, draconian anti-protest laws and barbaric mandatory sentencing legislation. Over the past year already, it has suffered a series of scandals and defections.
Far from being “popular,” the Liberal government narrowly avoided defeat at the last state election in 2018, retaining a one-seat majority of 13 seats out of 25 in the lower house. This was just four years after the landslide rejection of the previous Labor-Greens government. Hodgman, a third generation corporate politician, survived largely because of the continued hostility toward Labor and the Greens, who jointly imposed the burden of the global financial meltdown while in office from 2010 to 2014.
It is not yet clear whether Hodgman’s support for Chinese investment played a part in his departure. Pro-US strategic thinktanks had expressed concern that he was too close to China, which has become the state’s biggest export market, worth almost $1 billion a year. Within a year of a visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping to the island state in 2014, cherry exports rose by 46 percent, apples 281 percent, salmon 5,217 percent and Chinese tourist numbers 38 percent.
Hodgman’s resignation certainly reflects wider concerns about the fragility of the federal Liberal-National Coalition government. Prime Minister Morrison last week voiced regret at Hodgman’s departure, nominating him as a “Liberal legend.”
Significantly, Tasmania’s Labor and Greens leaders were equally praiseworthy. Labor leader Rebecca White hailed Hodgman’s “love for Tasmania and his passion for this great state.” Greens leader Cassy O’Connor, said there was “no question Will [Hodgman] has left his mark as a popular Liberal premier.”
Both White and O’Connor were key figures in the last Labor-Greens government, whose cuts and attacks on workers paved the way for Hodgman. If the state government were to fall, they would be called into office again to step up the pro-business offensive, backed by the trade unions.

UK: Johnson government plans draconian new anti-terror laws

Thomas Scripps

Conservative Home Secretary Priti Patel intends to rush through a further raft of anti-terror legislation, with a bill to be brought before Parliament by mid-March.
The counter-terrorism bill would introduce minimum 14-year prison terms for those convicted of preparing acts of terrorism or directing a terrorist organisation and lie-detector tests for those on or seeking probation. Annual spending on counter-terror policing will be increased by £90 million next year, to nearly a billion pounds (£906 million).
Also under consideration are plans to criminalise the simple possession of “terrorist propaganda,” i.e., anything deemed to glorify or encourage extremism. Currently, only the distribution of such material, or possession of material considered useful to the commissioning of a terrorist act, are criminal.
These announcements spearhead a law-and-order campaign with grave consequences for democratic rights. Long minimum sentences will do nothing to address the complex roots of terrorist atrocities, not least in the foreign policy of the UK government. They will be used to pave the way for harsher sentencing in all other areas.
The lie detector proposals were criticised as “untested” and “knee-jerk” by civil rights group Liberty. Lie detectors are currently only used by probation officers in England and Wales on convicted sex offenders and domestic abuse perpetrators. Given their unreliability, with an accuracy rate as low as 60 percent according to some critics, their results cannot be used as evidence in a UK court. This proposal may signal a broader change. Their introduction will be used to provide excuses to ignore rehabilitation work and justifications for further attacks on individual rights.
In defending these measures and their rush into law, ministers have invoked the November 2019 London Bridge terror attack, which saw Usman Khan, formerly convicted of terrorism offences and recently released early from prison, murder two young Cambridge graduates. One of these victims, Jack Merritt, had worked extensively in prisoner rehabilitation. His father stated publicly after the tragedy, “Jack lived his principles; he believed in redemption and rehabilitation, not revenge, and he always took the side of the underdog.
“We know Jack would not want this terrible, isolated incident to be used as a pretext by the government for introducing even more draconian sentences on prisoners, or for detaining people in prison for longer than necessary.”
When Justice Secretary Robert Buckland was asked about these concerns in an interview with Sky News, he responded bullishly, “I make no apology for putting public protection at the top of the agenda.”
Merritt’s father has also called the government’s lie detector proposals a “cynical, headline-grabbing gimmick” and criticised plans for long minimum sentences: “Keeping terrorists in prison longer will not per se keep people safe, particularly if they are exposed to radicalisation inside.”
Responding to the threats to make possession of extremist material a criminal offence, Liberty officer Rosalind Comyn said, “The UK already has oppressive counter-terror laws which put our freedom to think, debate and learn in jeopardy. Making the law even more heavy handed would undermine our freedom of thought and our right to free expression, without making us any safer.”
David Gottlieb, a defence lawyer in many major terrorism trials, raised the dangerous implications of this proposal given the UK’s “broad and far-reaching” definition of terrorism.
Both comments point to the huge range of powers now accrued by the state under anti-terror legislation. Individuals can be detained without charge for 28 days, held and searched at ports, airports and international railways stations, placed under indefinite house arrest and have their electronic devices, browsing history and bank details accessed by the authorities—all solely on the “suspicions” of the intelligence services.
The recent 2019 Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act made it an offence to stream or in any way view online material deemed likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism—even in the absence of any demonstrable criminal intent. It also criminalised travelling to or remaining in certain designated overseas areas and outlawed “reckless” “expressions of support” for a proscribed organization—an extension of the already dangerously broad offence of “inviting support” for such organisations.
In 2018, the “Stansted 15” were found guilty of terrorism offences for blocking the departure of a deportation flight from London Stansted Airport.
In 2013, terror legislation was used to detain and seize the journalistic materials of David Miranda, the partner of former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, at Heathrow Airport. Greenwald had been working with US whistleblower Edward Snowden on his revelations of global and industrial-scale state surveillance.
Patel’s latest announcements come just days after it was revealed that dozens of left-wing and environmental protest groups are included in a “guidance document” for the Prevent counter-terrorism programme, an initiative which already violates the right to privacy and free expression.
The government’s dictatorial intentions are now so far exposed that its chief adviser on extremism, Sara Khan, felt obliged to call for a rethink on the use of the “extremist” designation. Khan said, “It is right that CTPSE (Counter Terrorism Policing South East) have recalled their guidance on Extinction Rebellion. Our police, security and statutory bodies have a duty to assess complex risks every day to protect the young and vulnerable from extremism which can present itself from a diverse range of ideologies as our work has shown.
“I believe it is in our country’s interest that we have a clearer description and consensus of extremism which can be used by the police, government and public bodies to help them carry out their roles.
“A clearer description will also help build a whole society response by providing a better understanding.”
Khan’s words make clear that she is a trusted instrument of the establishment. She welcomed Lord Carlile’s appointment to lead an “independent” review of Prevent last August, four months before he was forced to step down after a legal challenge by Rights Watch UK over questions of his impartiality. The fact that she is voicing concerns is a mark of just how far and fast Patel and the Tory party intend to go.
While even the government’s own mandarins are balking at the speed of the turn to authoritarianism, the Labour Party is attacking the government from the right. Beating the law-and-order drum as loudly as possible, the “left” Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott commented, “After 10 years in government, a major overhaul now is actually an admission of failure. Major terrorist outrages have occurred all too frequently, including attacks by perpetrators who were known to the security services.
“The fight against terrorism has been undermined by cuts to policing, including community policing, a lack of effective coordination between police and security services as well as the flawed Prevent programme. All of these need to change if we are going to improve the safety of our citizens.”