Facebook deletes 87 accounts linked to Brazilian right as WhatsApp restricts messaging

Miguel Andrade

On July 25, Facebook announced it was deleting 87 accounts linked to the Brazilian far-right Movimento Brasil Livre (MBL - Free Brazil Movement) organization, due to violations of the platform’s “authenticity” rules, adding, in a remarkably blunt, dystopian language, that the spreading of “fake news” was not the central issue in the removal, but instead it was due to the existence of “a coordinated hidden network with the use of false accounts” used for “the goal of sowing divisions.”

Among the deleted accounts were those personally used by some of the organization’s most well-known leaders.

Facebook’s investigation of the accounts, which would have been analyzed by Mexican, US, Dutch and Indian experts, concluded that their goal was to “manipulate public debate,” through “non-authentic, coordinated behavior, in which multiple accounts work together to mislead people.”

The news came only five days after the Facebook-owned WhatsApp messaging app announced that, worldwide, it would cut the maximum number of recipients for forwarded messages from 250 to 20, under the pretext of limiting the spread of fake news after the Indian government alerted the company to a series of incidents of mass hysteria and lynchings supposedly coordinated with the use of the app.

Both measures are the most aggressive so far in a back-to-back campaign by the press and the government, first and foremost major conglomerates built with state support that used to exercise a monopoly over public discourse, such as Globo, O Estado de São Paulo and Folha de São Paulo, helped by “experts” in academia, to promote the need for “gatekeepers” to control public debate due to the supposed backwardness of the Brazilian population, and the working class in particular.

According to a Reuters Institute survey from 2016, 72 percent of Brazilians get their news through social media, far outstripping television news.

These measures must be understood by the working class as a direct response to the widespread use of social media, principally WhatsApp, in the May-June truckers strike. Involving more than 500,000 truckers in opposition to fuel hikes imposed over the last two years, it was largely coordinated by WhatsApp and developed against the open hostility from the unions and the largest part of the pseudo-left.

The strike, which brought the country to a halt and had, even in the face of massive shortages, 87 percent support from the Brazilian population, highlighted the explosive political situation amid persistent economic crisis after an 8 percent GDP drop between 2015 and 2016. These conditions have led to the dismal 3 percent approval rating for the current administration of President Michel Temer, the most widely despised president during any democratic period in Brazil’s history.

Under such conditions, there are an ominous political calculations behind the supposed targeting of hate speech and the despicable far-right figures of the MBL who, after making populist appeals to bring down the government of Dilma Rousseff in 2016, have dedicated themselves to stoking the most backward forces. This has included gate-crashing exhibitions containing nudism in name of fighting pedophilia, propping up the “Escola Sem Partido” (No Parties in Schools) campaigns to persecute history, literature and arts teachers and professors all over the country over allegations of spreading “leftist” views and slandering the Rio de Janeiro councilwoman Marielle Franco, who was executed by unknown assailants for her criticism of police violence.

The goal of this political operation by Facebook, in deep coordination with the state and US imperialism, is to erode democratic consciousness and legitimize police-state measures against social unrest and political opposition—i.e., the “sowing of divisions,” “manipulation of public debate,” “coordinated actions” and “non-authentic behavior” which doesn’t conform to the government’s view of legitimacy.

Amid a hopeless economic situation generating the highest levels of internecine warfare, the ruling class in Brazil is ever more rapidly preparing for a dictatorship. This has been evident from former Workers Party (PT) President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s “war on drugs” to the brutal government repression of the 2013 demonstrations against the rising cost of living and the army’s operations in Rio’s favelas, all of which have been supported by both the PT and the former right-wing opposition parties. This has further extended from the ouster of Rousseff on trumped-up charges of budget manipulations, to the sting operation against Temer by the Federal Police in 2017 and the threats of a military coup on the eve of a Supreme Court ruling on Lula’s freedom in April.

Under the pretext of guaranteeing the “fairness” of the October general elections, on June 28, the Brazilian state, through its highest ranking official on the matter, Supreme Court Justice and Electoral Court President Luiz Fux, signed with Facebook and Google an empty and generalized “memorandum” on the spread of “fake news.” O Estado de S. Paulo reported a day later that the records of the six months of meetings between the state and the two companies, beginning last December, are classified. The action against the far right is the first shot across the bow.

The supposed struggle against “fake news” has also exposed the absence of any democratic constituency within—and the dismally low level of political culture among—the middle class layers obsessed with identity and lifestyle politics united around the pseudo-left PSOL (Socialism and Liberty Party) and much of the “alternative media,” including outlets such as Nexo, Agência Pública and Piauí magazine. With social media a primary source of information for Brazilians, it is ever more on the shoulders of the “alternative media” to give a left cover for the machinations of the ruling class, whose traditional outlets have been largely discredited in Brazil, as internationally.

These outlets had already, in early November, built a platform for Google’s and Facebook’s lies with the “i3 Journalism Festival,” which was predictably funded by the CIA front, the Ford Foundation. The festival, in which much was said, predictably, about “black,” “feminist” and “green” journalism, paved the way for the adherence of Piauí magazine to the Facebook “fact-checking” program designed to flag content not conforming to “authoritative sources”–in Facebook’s Orwellian newspeak, CIA mouthpieces such as the  New York Times and the  Washington Post.

Two months later, in his Nexo column of January 18, Denis Burgierman, also a writer for HBO Brazil’s “Greg News” comedy show, modeled on the conformist US “comic news” genre, offered a rationale for the adherence to the CIA and “democratic imperialism,” writing of Russia that “its agents are in power everywhere,” and “they share lies and cheat social media algorithms in favor of Putin’s global strategy,” concluding that “they won, even here.”

Facebook’s first notorious right-wing operation was its mid-June flagging as “fake” news the report by Brasil247 and other Workers Party mouthpieces that Pope Francis had sent the jailed former president Lula a rosary through a Vatican official, Juan Grabois.

Since the PT, which traces its origins in part to the Liberation Theology factions of the Catholic Church, considers the Dirty War Pope a great progressive, it hailed the report as proof of its thesis that Lula is a political prisoner, and the criminal charges against him are unrelated to the generalized corruption of bourgeois rule in Brazil.

Acting as mouthpieces for Brazil’s most right-wing layers, for whom the Pope’s demagogic relations with “social movements” is both implausible and unacceptable, and the charge of political motivations in Lula’s case intolerable, Piauí’s “fact-checking” branch, Lupa, flagged the news and prompted Facebook to threaten the Brasil247 and others with disciplinary action. A series of corrections of official statements by Vatican News later settled the matter, with the story that Grabois had asked the Pope for the rosary, a sufficiently ambiguous answer so as to feed the PT’s populist appeals and not compromise Vatican diplomacy.

Facebook’s announcement of the deletion of MBL’s accounts prompted both the Maoist-Stalinist Communist Party of Brazil and the Pabloite-Morenoite consortium of PSOL to fall into line with the intelligence agencies. Their respective presidential candidates, Manuela D’Ávila and Guilherme Boulos, both called for further state action to expose the “financing” of the accounts and called Facebook’s actions “belated.”

Their endorsement of Facebook’s actions—for violation of authenticity rules—is in essence an adoption of the CIA line of delegitimizing any recourse to anonymity in political discussions, a bedrock of oppositional politics in the face of repression, a policy that furthermore allows the far-right to demagogically pose as defenders of democratic rights.

Lafarge investigation exposes US-French collusion with ISIS in Syria

Francis Dubois

Investigations of Franco-Swiss cement and construction firm Lafarge on charges of “financing terrorism” over its ties to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militia are bringing to light the political criminality of the French ruling elite and NATO. French government and business circles financed and defended ISIS in a war for regime change targeting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, while denouncing it as terrorist to the population.

The 2015 terror attacks in Paris and similar terror attacks across Europe were thus prepared with the financial and political aid of powerful forces within the ruling class. Its policies of neo-colonialist militarism in the Middle East and deep austerity in Europe are overwhelmingly opposed by working people, so Paris covertly used ISIS to wage a dirty war in Syria and justify police state repression in France. If police did not arrest ISIS members traveling across Europe to wage terror attacks, it was because they enjoyed state protection as useful proxy forces for war in Syria.

French President Emmanuel Macron declared in 2017 that “my enemy is ISIS.” It is ever clearer, however, that officials at the highest summits of the state have made themselves guilty of collaboration with this enemy, which was in fact a tool of their filthy imperialist policy in Syria. The question is raised: what was the role of then-French President François Hollande, his adviser Emmanuel Macron, his defence minister (now foreign minister) Jean-Yves Le Drian, or of Hollande’s foreign minister Laurent Fabius?

Investigations had already established in 2017 that Lafarge, a multibillion-dollar transnational, had made financial deals with terrorist groups including ISIS and the Al Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front in 2012–2014, handing $15 million to ISIS in “donations,” “taxes” and “commissions.” Lafarge also brought petrochemicals from ISIS and raw materials for cement from ISIS-held mines.

Eight top Lafarge executives have been charged and two of its directors have resigned. Over the last month, the investigation has been widened to include not only individual executives but the transnational as a whole. Charges of “complicity in crimes against humanity” have been added to the charges of financing terrorism.

To defend themselves, Lafarge executives are now laying blame for this policy on state officials they worked with. Many such statements have now been corroborated. Lafarge was constantly in touch with French intelligence officials in Syria and worked with them so closely that it seems impossible to delineate their cement-making from their intelligence activities.

Lafarge security chief Jean-Claude Veillard, who testified most recently in April 2018, said Lafarge security staff provided information that they sent en bloc to different intelligence agencies. At this time, they were also in touch with Hollande’s military liaison staff. Asked by investigating magistrates whether Lafarge security staff “had to meet leaders of armed groups,” Veillard replied, “Their main mission was to get intelligence. If such meetings could help them to obtain information, they could do it.”

Apparently, various French intelligence services continued to closely follow events at the factory after it was taken over by ISIS on September 19, 2014. Veillard even says that ISIS proposed through an intermediary to reopen the factory under ISIS control.

In the summer of 2013, moreover, as the Hollande administration was preparing a military strike on Syria with the Obama administration, Paris was in continuous contact with Washington.

According to Le Monde, “Laurent Fabius had multiple exchanges with his US counterpart, John Kerry, to set up a military intervention against Damascus.” The same day after ISIS seized the Lafarge factory, Lafarge executives Christian Herrault and Jean-Claude Veillard went to the foreign ministry at the Quai d’Orsay and asked them to contact Washington to ensure the factory was not bombed by the US Air Force.

Speaking as a witness in the inquiry, Hollande’s foreign minister in 2012–2016, Laurent Fabius, said he had not received any information on the operations of Lafarge—a multibillion-euro firm listed on the CAC-40 index of France’s 40 largest firms—in Syria while he was in office.

On July 20, he told investigating magistrates that he had never “seen an issue concerning Lafarge raised, I am categorically sure of that.” He insisted, “If the question is to determine whether or not I knew that there was a Lafarge factory in Syria, I have no precise memories.”

These statements of Fabius have no credibility whatsoever. Already in 2014, two years before he left the foreign ministry, the press was reporting on Lafarge’s operations in Syria. It is not credible to claim that the foreign minister was unaware of the existence of this factory that was at the heart of US-French intelligence cooperation in Syria, which was a subject of communications between Paris and Washington at the highest levels.

If Fabius claims not to have heard anything about it, moreover, it simply raises the question: Who were the top officials who in fact did know something about Lafarge’s operations in Syria? What did Hollande, Macron, Le Drian or other top ministers and advisers know?

Investigators are also examining another devastating aspect of the case: the sale of cement to ISIS. Three months after ISIS seized the factory, Lafarge chiefs were still apparently discussing the prospect of selling cement to the terrorist group.

The lawyer of Sherpa, the NGO that brought the complaint against Lafarge, asked: “Does this mean that in France, a foreign minister was voluntarily kept in the dark about a crucial affair like a French corporation’s decision to stay in a war-torn country beset by terrorism, which meant it would have no other choice than to finance ISIS in order to continue its business operations?”

All available information points to official and corporate complicity with groups, like Al Qaeda and ISIS, whose members were preparing terrorist attacks in France and across Europe. The Kouachi brothers, members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula who organized the attack on Charlie Hebdo in January 2015, had their four-year surveillance lifted in the summer of 2014. The ISIS members who led the November 13, 2015 attacks in Paris were allowed to freely travel to and from Europe and prepare their attacks, even though they were known to the state.

It is impossible to understand these developments outside of the broader strategic objectives of the PS government: regime change in Syria at all costs and the imposition of bitterly unpopular austerity measures inside France itself.

In the summer of 2013, the military attack on Assad that Hollande was plotting with Washington did not take place, as London and Washington backed down at the last minute. The two best organized enemies of Assad on the ground were Al Nusra and ISIS, which were occupying a large portion of the country, financed from Qatar and Saudi Arabia with US logistical support.

While the PS claimed to the French people it was backing “democratic forces” struggling against “a dictator,” it was in fact waging a neo-colonial war backing spies and terrorists in a violent attempt at regime change targeting a former French colony.

The details emerging in the Lafarge investigation also invalidate the reasons invoked for suspending democratic rights under the November 2015 state of emergency, transformed into the so-called anti-terrorist law by Macron. The state of emergency served to establish the structure and practices of a police state and fight workers’ opposition to the austerity policies of Hollande. Now, this continues in the form of Macron’s labour decrees, moves to privatise the railways and to slash public health care, pensions, unemployment insurance and other essential social services.

This assault on basic social and democratic rights is led by government officials who oversee the organization, behind the backs of the people, of entirely criminal operations whose murderous consequences they used to justify repressing legitimate working-class opposition.

What is behind the talk of a Brexit “national emergency?”

Julie Hyland 

Each day brings ever more shrill warnings of a national crisis in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

With the March 2019 deadline for Britain's leaving the European Union (EU) approaching, no agreement has been struck on the terms of withdrawal.

Prime Minister Theresa May’s plans for a “softer” Brexit, keeping some form of regulatory and judicial arrangements with the EU, has been vetoed by her own euro-sceptics. At the same time, the EU, under pressure from US trade sanctions and mounting national antagonisms within the bloc, has thus far refused any accommodation with the UK—fearing a domino effect.

Government ministers, including May herself, are touring European capitals, hoping to secure a breach in the alliance. Brussels has rejected UK proposals for the City of London to have an enhanced “equivalence” model-similar to that of the US and Singapore’s-to preserve access to the bloc. The announcement earlier this week that Deutsche Bank has moved almost half of its euro-clearing business from London to Frankfurt created alarm.

On Wednesday, the head of the Food and Drink Federation called for a “crisis meeting” with the government over the probability that a hard Brexit—leaving the Single Market and Customs Union—would lead to rising prices and food shortages, under conditions in which 44 percent of trade is with the EU. The same day, planning documents from local authorities gathered by Sky Newsshowed that many were preparing for “possible repercussions of various forms of Brexit, ranging from potential difficulties with farming and delivering services to concerns about civil unrest.”

This followed statements by Dominic Grieve, Conservative MP and leading Remainer, that crashing out of the EU without a deal would be “absolutely catastrophic” for the UK. “We will be in a state of emergency,” he said. “[B]asic services we take for granted might not be available.”

John Manzoni, the chief executive of the civil service, told MPs of the “horrendous consequences” of inaction. “There are supply chains for food and medicines; we have to put in place contingencies for those.”

The contingency measures include turning the 10-mile-long section of the M26 in Kent into a giant lorry park to cope with tailbacks from the port of Dover caused by sudden imposition of customs checks. James Hookham, deputy chief executive of the Freight Transport Association, said, “It would effectively mean that Cobra [government emergency council] had taken over the road network as a matter of national security.”

May rejected suggestions that the army would be involved but has said people should “take comfort” from government plans, including the stockpiling of food and medicines, in the event of no deal. The government is to start issuing weekly advice to businesses and households on how to prepare for a “disorderly” Brexit.

According to reports, 40 business representatives met with Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab, during which Doug Gurr, head of Amazon in the UK, warned of “civil unrest” if the UK leaves without a deal.

Amazon would not confirm the remarks, apparently made in the presence of the heads of Barclays, Lloyds, Shell and other corporate leaders, but admitted it was planning for a wide range of outcomes. Aerospace giant Airbus and Jaguar Land Rover have already warned they may switch jobs and investment outside the UK.

Commentators speculate that the apocalyptic warnings are part of the government’s political brinkmanship with the EU to reinforce its insistence that the UK will not blink first.

For their part, leading supporters of a hard Brexit reject the threats as “Project Fear” by Remainers in furtherance of overturning the referendum result.

Both play a role.

Writing in the Guardian, one of the leading proponents of a second referendum to overturn the result of the first, Timothy Garton Ash, warned that a no Brexit deal risked “descent into Weimar Britain.”

While he didn’t seriously envisage, “a new Hitler coming to power, or a world war started by [former foreign secretary] Boris Johnson,” he wrote, it was necessary to “overdramatise the risk” in order to “get everyone to wake up to it.”

Pleading for EU/UK pragmatism, he argued this was the only way to ensure the British parliament could have a “meaningful vote” on the final terms.

But even the Financial Times editorialised that “the notion of a no-deal Brexit had little support in parliament beyond an extremist fringe...”

No deal in place by March guaranteed “chaos on all fronts. It would spell international isolation, as well as a shock to the economy and a political backlash. No competent government could contemplate such an option.”

The sense of impending doom overhanging the powers-that-be confirms the correctness of the Socialist Equality Party’s call for an active boycott of the 2016 referendum. It warned that the ballot was a filthy manoeuvre aimed at settling a fight between two equally right-wing factions of the Tory Party and its fringes. The campaign of both the Leave and Remain camps were predicated on anti-migrant chauvinism, kowtowing to big business and continuing austerity.

The SEP explained, “There can be no good outcome of such a plebiscite. Whichever side wins, working people will pay the price. It is not a question of choosing the ‘lesser evil’—both options are equally rotten. Any possibility of an independent voice for the working class being registered has been deliberately excluded.”

A significant element of the referendum, it insisted, was an attempt to divert social tensions outwards. Pointing to the initial manifestations of a resurgence in the class struggle, it stressed that the only way forward for British workers was in solidarity with the working class across Europe and internationally against all factions of the ruling elite.

None of those involved in this manoeuvre expected or prepared for a Leave vote. All were taken by surprise when a well of anti-establishment sentiment produced a narrow vote to quit.

Underlying the result, and the febrile atmosphere that has developed since, are explosive class tensions. This is being acknowledged by some commentators.

Writing in the Financial Times, Martin Sandbu opined that Brexit showed the days in which Britain was riven by extremes.

“To borrow a Marxian term,” he explained, “the social contradictions are more acute than elsewhere...”

This was the only way to make sense of the “violent swings in national direction... Bringing to the surface the repressed tension of British society leaves deep uncertainty about how those contradictions are ultimately resolved. That is the thing with opposed extremes: their force may give the semblance of stability to the revolution simmering underneath.”

“The greater a society’s contradictions, the more disruptive the snap is when it comes.”

In the Telegraph, Jeremy Warner wrote that “the root cause of Britain’s distress is all too obvious—too many people scratching a living in rubbish, low wage, low productivity, dead end jobs, and the all too evident social alienation that goes with such a dispiriting state of affairs.”

Warner was commenting on a report by the Office for National Statistics that showed that for the first time since Margaret Thatcher’s government, households were spending more than they earned. The average family was £900 in the red last year, with a total national shortfall of £25 billion—and only managing to keep afloat through credit or savings.

Even at the time of the 2008 financial crisis, the ONS warned, “the country did not reach a point where the average household was a net borrower.”

The richest 10 percent of households had disposable income—after taxes and housing costs—of more than £78,000 last year, of which they spent less than half. In contrast, the poorest 10 percent had disposable income of just £5,000 but spent nearly £13,000. Financial experts warned that such debt was “unsustainable” and “profoundly worrying.”

Bottom 40 percent of Americans have a negative net income

Gabriel Black 

The bottom 40 percent of households in the United States have an average net pre-tax income of negative $11,660 a year, according to a new report by Reuters.

The report, “Poorer Americans Buckling as US Economy Booms,” published July 23 and written by lead author Jonathan Spicer, exposes how life really is for most Americans in the midst of the supposedly booming economy. While the official unemployment rate is low and growth rates are rising, the reality is that the working class is stretched to its limit, relying heavily on borrowing and working two or more low-wage jobs to survive.

The report’s data shows that the bottom two quintiles of households make, on average, $11,587 and $29,414 a year in pre-tax income, respectively. Their expenses, meanwhile, are $26,144 and $38,187, respectively. This means that the bottom quintile has an average net loss of $14,557 a year and the next quintile a loss of $8,773, prior to taxes.

How is it that the bottom 40 percent of households are losing, on average, well over $10,000 every year?

The data covers students, who are taking on student debt, and recipients of food stamps and federal benefits, who may receive small sums to help pay for expenses. However, the bottom 40 percent of households is overwhelmingly composed of low-wage workers, who, despite their immense sacrifices, are unable to cover the basic cost of living.

The next 20 percent, the middle quintile of the country, is not faring well, either. With an average pre-tax income of $51,379, it is able to achieve a net income of only $2,836 before taxes. A family making $50,000 a year in 2017 would have to pay $3,448 in federal income tax, plus state and FICA taxes. This means that even the middle 20 percent of the population is unable to save money and is, on average, taking on some form of debt.

This growing burden of debt on the bottom 60 percent of the population is expressed in the sharp drop in the US personal savings rate over the past three years, declining from 6 percent in 2015 to between 2.5 and 3 percent in the past few months. Likewise, the rate of credit cards becoming seriously delinquent rose from 3.5 percent in 2016 to 4.7 percent in March 2018. Subprime auto loan delinquencies are now higher than what they were at the height of the financial crisis.

This data from Reuters exposes the real character of the post-2008 “economic recovery.” It is a recovery for the rich at the expense of the living standards of the majority of working people. While the stock market has surged to astronomical heights, and the wealth of the millionaires and billionaires has surged alongside it, the majority of the American people are substantially worse off than they were prior to the financial crisis.

This is no accident.

The post-2008 recovery, led first by Barack Obama and now overseen by Donald Trump, was based on slashing the wages and living standards of the working class to extract more profit for the capitalists. Starting with the autoworkers and spreading to every major section of workers in the country, employers demanded “sacrifices” that they, and the unions, promised would be made up after the recovery.

The “recovery,” however, has arrived, and none of the sacrifices workers made are being paid back. Instead, it is the ultra-rich that are cashing in. This year will see a record level of share buybacks and divided payments, exceeding $1 trillion. These parasitic financial measures, which take money out of investment in new jobs, research and infrastructure, allow people like Safra Catz, CEO of Oracle, to pocket $250 million in a single year.

Data from Reuters shows that while the bottom 60 percent of the population generally saw its expenses outpace its income between 2012 and 2017, the income of the top 20 percent increasingly outpaced its expenses over this same period. On average, the top 20 percent of the population makes $188,676 and spends $112,846. This layer makes more money than all of the other income quintiles combined.

The amount the top 20 percent of the population is able to save each year ($75,831) is more than six times the average income of the bottom quintile and more than two-and-a-half times the income of the next quintile. Within the top 20 percent, there is immense social differentiation, its low end composed of workers in decent-paying professions and its high end composed of millionaires and billionaires.

The report notes that the surge in debt and general economic precariousness of the bottom half of the population threaten to trigger a new financial crisis. The authors write: “As many of the most vulnerable workers sink deeper into the red, the nearly decade-long economic expansion may be more vulnerable to a further spike in gasoline prices or an escalation of trade conflicts.”

The authors call attention to how, historically, US consumption growth is dominated by the top 40 percent of earners. However, in the past few years, the bottom 60 percent of earners has accounted for the majority of consumption as it ran down its savings. Consumption makes up for over 70 percent of all economic activity in the United States and plays a critical role in economic growth.

In the past few years, the United States has been wracked by opioid addiction, increasing suicide rates and declining life expectancy. The fundamental cause of this immense and growing social crisis is the impoverishment of the working class, the broad mass of the people.

President Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers states that the war on poverty is “largely over.” This is obviously a lie.

The Trump administration and before it the Obama administration have been fighting a war. But, it is not against poverty. They have been fighting a class war to impoverish the working population in order to further enrich the financial oligarchy that they represent.

The working class, however, is ready for a counter-offensive. Heralded by the teachers’ strikes earlier this year in West Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona, workers are prepared to enter into struggle to take back the wealth they have created and gain control of their workplaces.

Facebook censorship targets the left

Andre Damon

One year ago, workers and young people throughout the world were horrified by a neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville, Virginia. The Nazis held torch-lit marches, chanting “Jews will not replace us,” gave the Nazi salute, flew flags with swastikas, and marched in Ku Klux Klan uniforms. One of the fascists rammed a car into a counter-demonstration, murdering one woman and injuring 35 others.

Earlier this year, the organizers of the August 12, 2017 Charlottesville rally, known as “Unite the Right,” announced a plan to hold another demonstration on its anniversary, this time in Washington D.C. In response, over a dozen left-wing organizations and dozens of prominent individuals, including Whistleblower Chelsea Manning, called a counter-protest on the same day.

As part of a campaign to block what it called “divisive,” “violent,” and “extremist” activity, Facebook, working in conjunction with US intelligence agencies, announced Tuesday that it had blocked not the Nazi rally, but an event page for the demonstration protesting it.

Facebook justified its action by declaring that the counter-protest was set up by a group that showed signs of “inauthentic activity,” a claim that it backed up with neither details nor evidence.

The No Unite the Right 2 – DC rally removed by Facebook

The statements accompanying Facebook’s action make clear that the blocking of the counter-demonstration is a deliberate effort to repress and criminalize left-wing political views, setting a far-reaching and dangerous precedent.

Facebook’s blog post announcing the blocking of the event, together with 32 other accounts, cited an analysis by the Atlantic Council think-tank noting that all the accounts targeted by Facebook were left-wing, including accounts opposing police violence, attacks on immigrants, and the Trump administration’s promotion of fascist groups.

The Atlantic Council’s report said the pages shut down by Facebook targeted “the left of the political spectrum,” and “sought to promote divisions and set Americans against one another.”

The accounts promoted “protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. President Donald Trump’s tax plan” and “protests against Trump’s Muslim ban.”

Both Facebook’s post and the Atlantic Council report are filled with Orwellian and authoritarian language. Who is Facebook to determine what constitutes “inauthentic activity,” a term so broad as to be capable of including anything? And who gave Facebook the right to shutdown pages that “promote divisions,” as if such divisions do not already exist, with no need of being “promoted,” in a society characterized by historically unparalleled levels of social inequality?

These themes were continued in a hearing by the Senate Intelligence Committee Wednesday featuring testimony from “security” companies and think-tanks closely aligned with the US intelligence agencies.

Renee DiResta is Director of Research at New Knowledge, a consultancy firm that claims to protect the reputations of businesses from what it calls “suspicious communities.”

DiResta said “malign narratives” have “existed for a very long time,” but in “today’s influence operations” the “propaganda is shared by our friends, often in the form of highly effective, shareable, immediately graspable memes.”

“Disinformation, misinformation, and social media hoaxes have evolved from a nuisance into high-stakes information war,” she said.

With reference to “fake” ads run ahead of the 2016 election, she noted that the accounts promoted statements “targeting the left,” aiming “to paint Secretary Clinton in a negative light as compared to candidates Jill Stein or Senator Bernie Sanders.”

An event published by one of the groups taken down by facebook

She noted that such “Influence operations” are increasingly appealing to “ideological true believers” and “non-state extremists.” In other words, they are directed at people fed up with the capitalist system and looking for a socialist or left-wing alternative—the implication being that such conceptions are “extremist” and must be criminalized.

Another participant in the hearing, Graphika CEO John W. Kelly, said that “automated accounts” on the “extremes” of the political spectrum “produce as many as 25 to 30 times the number of messages per day” as “genuine political accounts across the mainstream.”

A definite narrative is being created, resurrecting American anti-Communism’s long tradition of labeling “outside agitators” as the source of “social disturbances.” Any political viewpoint critical of capitalism is to be labelled an “inauthentic influence operation” promoted by “extremists,” and therefore liable for suppression by the state and the technology monopolies.

In so doing, the factions of the state aligned with the Democratic Party and the intelligence agencies, who are locked in a bitter factional battle with Trump over issues related to foreign policy, find themselves in alliance with the White House against the emergence of left-wing political opposition. This has manifested itself, in this case, in an effort to target those protesting a fascist rally, and, by extension, the defense and legitimization of the fascists.

The moves to delegitimize and criminalize political opposition by all factions within the US political establishment must be understood in class terms. After decades of continuous upward redistribution of wealth, three people now control as much wealth as the bottom half of American society. Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man, has a net worth of $143 billion.

This financial oligarchy, together with a broader periphery within the top 10 percent of income earners who have also been enriched by the boom in share values, see themselves besieged by an angry and hostile working class that is increasingly turning to socialist politics.

Amidst stagnating or declining real wages, endless cuts to health care and pensions and a string of major contracts expiring over the next several months, the stage is set for an eruption of militant labor struggles unlike anything seen since the sit-down strikes of the 1930s. The growth of the class struggle is increasingly pitting workers in direct conflict with the trade unions, which the ruling class has relied on for decades to suppress the class struggle and facilitate the redistribution of wealth to the rich.

Under these conditions, the ruling elite sees the criminalization and suppression of independent political opposition as a vital necessity in the defense and expansion of its social privileges. The creation of an apparatus of mass censorship by Facebook, Google, and Twitter is a vital weapon in the hands of the ruling elite in this life-and-death class struggle.

But the eruption of workers’ struggles that the oligarchy so fears also provides the only basis for defending fundamental democratic rights. In their coming struggles, workers will take up the demand for the free and open Internet and freedom of speech as part of a mass movement, in the United States and internationally, to overturn the capitalist system and establish a socialist society.

Chinese Sharp Power and Taiwan-India Relations

Tai-Wei Chen


Beijing has extended its 'sharp power' strategy to the Taiwan-India relationship. It is important to understand how Chinese sharp power is deployed against the Taiwan-India relationship, and for both countries to proactively initiate counter-measures to safeguard this critical bilateral link.

The concept of China's sharp power was ideated by a report, Sharp Power: Rising Authoritarian Influence, published by the US-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in early December 2017. According to it, sharp power involves three core methods: psychological operations, media manipulation, and legal warfare. This strategy is based on the asymmetry between a tightly controlled press and internet in China on the one hand, and an open society in its rivals on the other. Sharp power therefore weaponises the tools of soft power. In the Taiwan-India case, China is using the media to make India comply with a rigid 'One China' policy. Though each individual Indian concession is small and seemingly a public relations exercise, they add up to a deliberate Chinese strategy of using 'One China' to create a legal trap for India, even while China continues to undermine Indian sovereignty through similar means. Simultaneously this weakens India's ties with possible economic and security partners like Taiwan. 

Although Taiwan has no formal diplomatic relations with India, both countries have great opportunities for synergy. Taiwan's has a burgeoning hi-tech sector with a ready job market, and the country has a deep understanding of the Chinese military. India's need for job creation and search for greater knowledge of the Chinese military offer opportunities for a closer working relationship. Then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao initiated informal contact by establishing the India-Taipei Association. Since then, Taiwan and India have been consistently building contact. The two sides have signed many bilateral agreements on trade, investment, technology, education and culture. Current Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also advanced the relationship. The slow consolidation of relations between India and Taiwan can be traced back to 1995. Then BJP official (now prime minister) Modi visited Taiwan in 1999, and as chief minister of Gujarat in 2011 he hosted the largest Taiwanese delegation sent to India. However, while 'India first' is the cornerstone of Modi's foreign policy, it does not seem be the kind of hard-line patriotism that emphasises military hegemony and expansion, and is instead based on the idea of the “world as one family.”

Similarly in her first press conference after taking charge in 2014, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said at the time that if China wants India to recognise the 'One China' policy, then China should also respect the 'One India' policy. Although 'One India' does not currently have a clear definition, it contextually refers to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh whose control by India is disputed by China - the latter considers it to be 'South Tibet'. China appears to have violated the 'One India' principle by investing in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, promoted as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and sending troops to patrol with the Pakistani army. 

Indian strategists therefore seem to see India's Taiwan policy through the prism of these ongoing Chinese violations of an as yet nebulous 'One India' policy. This brings in the third aspect of sharp power discussed above: lawfare. In forcing India to accept the clearly defined 'One China' principle, while constantly undermining the ill-defined 'One India' principle, China uses asymmetry to legally entrap India into concessions it may not willing to reciprocate. Though India has not stopped developing relations with Taiwan because of China's pressure based on economic and other development needs, the question is, how far can such lawfare be taken towards completely undermining Taiwan-India relations? 

Indian Prime Minister Modi recently attended an informal summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Wuhan. The two sides agreed to strengthen cooperation and there was some concern in Taiwan that this would be at the cost of Taiwan. The recent commotion over Air India renaming Taiwan to 'Chinese Taipei' was seen as indicative of this. However, what is to note here is that India did not change the name to what China requested, i.e., "China, Taiwan" but to "Chinese Taipei," which would be a less than the desired result for China, even if it was a victory. Though insignificant by itself, it certainly damaged morale in Taiwan and the upward momentum of India-Taiwan ties.

The relationship however is fragile and both sides will need to take proactive measures to safeguard it. Indian policymakers must understand the nature of Chinese sharp power and how it has been played against India in the recent past. Taiwanese policymakers should understand the need to constantly showcase their relevance to India given the lack of formal channels. In particular, Taiwan should work to enhance the exchange of scholars, students and intelligence-sharing given that Chinese research is Taiwan's internationally acknowledged strength. In short, both countries must wake up to Chinese asymmetric strategies and insulate themselves from the effects of Chinese sharp power deployment. 

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf: Performance in the Provinces & Potential Challenges Ahead

Sarral Sharma


Amid reports and allegations of election rigging and other irregularities by the opposition political parties, Pakistan's cricketer-turned-politician and Chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, Imran Khan, emerged victorious in the highly controversial general election in Pakistan in July 2018. He will be crowned the next Wazir-e-Azam (prime minister) of Pakistan on 11 August.

Although the PTI emerged as the single largest party in the National Assembly (NA) with 115 seats of the total 270, it has not yet managed to achieve the majority figure of 136. Consequently, Khan will require support from other smaller parties and some independent candidates to form the new government. 

PTI's Performance in the Provinces 
PTI's electoral performance in Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) provincial assemblies came as a bit of surprise. Its mandate in Punjab and Balochistan came on the lines of pre-poll projections. While PTI retained a comfortable majority in the KP assembly, it is currently making desperate efforts to form the government in Punjab and Balochistan with the help of other regional parties and independent candidates. In Sindh, PTI surprisingly replaced the Mutahhida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) and assumed the position of the second largest party. 

In the fierce battle for Punjab, ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) emerged as the single largest party, winning 129 seats of the total 295, with a slight edge over PTI's 123. Neither party managed to achieve the majority mark of 149. Clearly, the 28 independent candidates, the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) with seven seats, and other smaller parties will decide the outcome in Punjab. PTI made deep inroads in the Sharifs' home-turf in the 2018 election, winning majority seats in north and south Punjab, and made a significant dent in the central region. The south had already deserted the Sharifs after strong prompting by the military establishment; and the shrine-dominated central Punjab was convinced to abandon the PML-N over issues such as the Khatam-e-Nabuwat clause controversy. Furthermore, terror outfits such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ) were politically mainstreamed to cut into PML-N's right-wing votes in Punjab. Additionally, the widespread participation of the Sunni Barelvi outfit, Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLY), in the 2018 election reduced the PML-N's chances of winning.

Factors responsible for such a mandate in Punjab include Khan's anti-corruption movement against the Sharifs; the military establishment's alleged role in arm-twisting the 'electables' in PTI's favour; and local governance issues in the province. Pakistan's military establishment might help PTI form the government in Sharif's bastion by pressurising the victorious independent candidates. That would be a severe jolt for the PML-N given how it is already voted out at the Centre. 

The PTI retained its majority in the KP provincial assembly with an overwhelming mandate. In the final tally, the party won 66 seats of the total 97, whereas the main opposition parties—the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal Pakistan (MMA), and the Awami National Party (ANP)—won merely 10 and five seats respectively. Despite several allegations of corruption, intra-party differences and other governance related shortcomings, PTI managed to win a popular mandate in a province infamous for its anti-incumbency pattern of voting. The ANP and other Pashtun parties could not capitalise on the recent Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), and the supposed anti-incumbency factor against PTI was clearly ruled out after the results. 

In the Sindh provincial assembly, PTI won 23 seats of the total 130, emerging second after the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) which won 73 seats. PTI thus replaced the MQM-P which won 16 seats. More importantly, in the polls to the National Assembly in Sindh, PTI dethroned MQM-P in its bastion, Karachi, by winning 14 NA seats of the total 21, compared to merely one seat they had won in the 2013 general elections. Factors such as the fragmented political representation of the Mohajir community; MQM-London Chief Altaf Hussain's call for election boycott; PTI candidates' local campaigning; and Khan's popularity could have worked in PTI's favour. PTI's performance in Sindh is a wake-up call for the ruling PPPP and an existential threat for MQM-P in future elections.

In Balochistan provincial assembly, PTI won only four seats of the total 51 but struck a post poll alliance with the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP)—the single largest party in Balochistan which won 15 seats—to form a coalition government in the province. BAP, which also won four NA seats, has promised to support PTI at the Centre. Interestingly, it has been alleged that both these parties were supported by the military establishment. Nonetheless, due to the fragmented mandate, it is still unclear as to who will form the government in Balochistan. Other smaller parties such as MMA, Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M), Balochistan National Party-Awami (BNP-A) and Hazara Democratic Party (HDP) have won nine, six, three and two seats respectively. Despite their ideological differences, these parties may join hands to claim majority in the provincial assembly. Moreover, four independent candidates who won too might play a deciding role in the coming days.

Challenges for the New Government
PTI ran a successful anti-corruption election campaign to dethrone the PML-N government in the 2018 election. Among other factors, Khan's popularity among the youth; his forward-looking vision of the 'naya (new) Pakistan'; and the alleged involvement of Pakistan's military establishment possibly led to Khan's victory. As he prepares to take charge as prime minister, he will need to go beyond election rhetoric to address Pakistan's domestic and foreign policy issues. 

On the political front, the PTI government's foremost challenge would be to prove its majority in the parliament, and more importantly, to sustain the coalition setup. Secondly, in September 2018, the new dispensation is scheduled to elect the country's new president in consultation with the opposition. Main opposition parties such as PML-N, PPP, MMA and ANP have already agreed to form a new political alliance in the NA to effectively counter the PTI-led government. The new government could face hurdles while passing crucial bills in the parliament due to such a coalition. However, Khan's proximity to the military establishment may work in his government's favour to pull the strings of the opposition parties in a crisis like situation, at least in the initial few months.

Furthermore, the country is facing a dire economic situation with shrinking foreign reserves, a free falling currency, and a gaping trade deficit. Khan's strategy to address these pressing issues will become clear only after the new cabinet is formed. In the current scenario, Pakistan may seek US$ 10-15 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, this might not come easy given how the IMF could demand in exchange an implementation of a reforms agenda that includes a privatisation programme and revamping of the tax infrastructure. Furthermore, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently warned that there is "no rationale" for a potential IMF bailout to pay off Chinese loans for Pakistan. In such a situation, Pakistan might have to seek more loans from China. 

In addition to domestic issues, Khan's government will face multi-pronged foreign policy challenges such as balancing relations with China and the US; addressing the Afghanistan issue; and maintaining the status quo with India while simultaneously attempting to make the Kashmir as core issue. Moreover, the new government will possibly have to take action against some Pakistan-based terror outfits to negotiate its exit from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 'grey list'. 

China will remain the first foreign policy priority for the new government. Islamabad will continue to rely on Beijing for diplomatic, economic and military support for the next five years. Khan has even envisioned following China's development model at a time when the Pakistan-US relationship is at a new low. Nonetheless, the new government in Islamabad will make efforts to reach out to the Trump administration. Still, contentious issues such as terrorism in Afghanistan, Pakistan's strategic reliance on China, and its "brotherly" relations with Iran could complicate matters. 

In South Asia, Khan's government may prioritise its relations with Afghanistan. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has already invited Khan to Afghanistan and the latter has reportedly accepted the invitation—suggesting that Khan will visit Kabul in his first foreign visit as prime minister. It is conceivable that the two leaders may work towards improving Afghanistan-Pakistan relations during the initial months of the new dispensation in Islamabad. On India, Khan will continue to follow the status quo and may not repeat his predecessor Nawaz Sharif's 'mistake' of 'cosying up' with New Delhi. Nevertheless, a meeting between Khan and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi could take place on the sidelines of a multilateral summit. 

Overall, parliamentary arithmetic could complicate matters for the new government. Decisions on contentious issues may be delayed as the opposition parties may raise questions about rigging allegations and other irregularities during the elections, both in parliament and on the streets. If that happens, it will be a deja vu moment for Imran Khan who initiated widespread protests in 2013, alleging rigging in 2013 general elections. Nevertheless, with the possible backing of the country's powerful military establishment, Khan might manage to tide over the opposition's attempts at least for the time being.

Africa London Nagasaki (ALN) Masters Scholarship for African Students 2019/2020

Application Deadline: 31st August 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible African Countries: Sub-Saharan Africa

To be taken at: Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki, Japan and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK

About Scholarship: The scholarship funds a candidate to undertake an MSc in a subject relevant to the control of infectious disease in Africa at either the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki, Japan or at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK.
Both residential and distance learning MSc courses are available at LSHTM. Candidates offered a course at the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki will be required to reside in Japan for the duration of the course.
Successful candidates are required to write a formal report on completion of their course.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Candidates applying for an Africa London Nagasaki (ALN) MSc scholarship must meet the following criteria.
LSHTM
Candidates applying for a Scholarship at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine must:

1. be of African nationality and normally be resident in sub-Saharan Africa,
2. be fluent in English. If the applicant’s first language is not English or if the studies at university have not been conducted wholly in the medium of English candidates must take and pass one of the approved internet-based tests (IELTS, TOEFL or a Pearson Test of English) (http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/prospectus/english.html). The standard of English needed to pass the tests is high and is in line with the level of English required by the UK Border Authority in order to issue a student visa.
3. have a first or upper second class BSc degree or equivalent from an established university in a relevant area of science (a medical degree is not essential),
4. usually have had at least two years’ prior research experience in an area relevant to the study of infectious diseases, and
5. have the support of the head of their institution for undertaking their chosen course.

TMGH
Candidates applying for a Scholarship at the School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki, must:

1. be of African nationality and normally be resident in sub-Saharan Africa,
2. be fluent in English,
3. have obtained an MB ChB or equivalent medical qualification from a recognised university,
4. have had at least two years of clinical experience following graduation,

How Many Funding Positions are available? Four or Five

What are the benefits? Up to a maximum award of US$50,000 each to cover tuition fees, travel and living expenses

How to Apply:

1. Identify an MSc course at either LSHTM or NEKKEN that you would like to study, but do not apply to the university.
2. Ensure you are eligible for the MSc course and ALN Scholarship. Please note NEKKEN applicants must have a medical qualification.
3. Register to create an account with ALN. You must have an account before you can apply.
4. Log in to download the application form. Complete and submit the application form by Saturday 12th September 2014. No supporting documentation is required at this stage.
5. Applications will be considered by a selection committee and four candidates will be offered Scholarships by mid February.
6. Successful candidates to apply for the MSc course at the specified university by 1 March.
7. Scholarship awardees that are given a place at university start their MSc course in September at LSHTM and October at NEKKEN.

Visit scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: Africa London Nagasaki Scholarship Fund

The Ongoing Decline of British Power

Patrick Cockburn

The British government purports to be re-establishing the UK as an independent nation state by leaving the EU, but British power and ability to decide its own policies are continuing to ebb in the real world. The latest evidence of this is the decision by the Home Secretary Sajid Javid to give precedence to the US in putting on trial two alleged Isis members from London, who belonged to the notorious “Beatles” group in Syria that specialised in torturing and beheading their captives.

The humiliating admission by a country that it is incapable of dealing effectively and legally with its worst criminals is normally made by states like Colombia and Mexico, which extradite drug lords to the US. Their governments are implicitly confessing that they are too feeble and corrupt to punish their most powerful lawbreakers.

The British authorities are encouraging the Syrian Kurds holding El Shafee Elsheik and Alexanda Kotey to extradite them to the US rather than Britain. The declared motive for this is that there is a better chance of a speedy trial and exemplary sentence before a US court than in a British one, though the record in the US since 9/11 makes this a dubious argument.

What does come across is that Britain is in a messy situation regarding Isis prisoners and the return of jihadis to UK, with which it is unable to cope. The decision is now being reviewed by a judge in the UK.

As with Mexico and Colombia, the overall impression left by Javid’s actions is one of weakness and incapacity.

First, he made the baffling and unexplained decision to drop the usual British condition that the UK would provide evidence and intelligence for a trial only if the death penalty was ruled out. Moreover, he not only abandoned the longheld British principle of opposing state executions but did so in secret, suggesting the government knew all too well the significance of its change of policy.

The simplest explanation for not seeking a “death penalty assurance” from the US is that Theresa May, Javid and Boris Johnson, foreign secretary when the decision was made, saw the “Beatles” as a political hot potato.

They would be squeezed between those who demand that Elsheik and Kotey be punished with extreme rigour, and those who believe that the worst way to respond to Isis is to be lured into some form of lynch law. It is possible that the Trump administration unofficially insisted that Britain step back from its open opposition to the death penalty.

An alternative solution would be to hand over the two accused men to the International Criminal Court in the Hague – the only real objection to this being that the US refuses to recognise the court and the British priority in the age of Brexit is, above all else, to keep onside with Washington.

Isis benefits from the imbroglio over these Beatles because its atrocities have always aimed at instilling fear, but at the same time provoking an over-reaction by those it targets. This strategy worked well for al-Qaeda after 9/11 when US judicial credibility was damaged beyond repair in the eyes of the world by rendition, waterboarding, imprisonment without trial at Guantanamo and ritualised mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

At every stage in the conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, successive British governments have made unforced errors. They never seem to grasp the nature of these civil wars and how difficult it is to give a fair trial to anybody caught up in them because anybody detained on the vaguest suspicion may be sent to prison, tortured into a confession and summarily executed.

I was in Taji, a Sunni Arab area north of Baghdad in June this year, a place which used to be an Isis stronghold. A farmer told me that several of his neighbours have not made the hour-long journey to Baghdad for 10 years because they are frightened of being detained at government checkpoints, imprisoned and forced into false confessions.

The same fears are pervasive in Syrian government areas. Several years ago, I was talking to Sunni Arab refugees living in a school in the partly ruined city of Homs, where fighting was particularly intense. I said that it must be dangerous for any man of military age to move on the roads.

This was greeted with bitter laughter from the older men who said they were in just as much danger as their younger relatives.

Often the only way to get out of prison is not proof of innocence, but a bribe to the right officials. This is expensive and does not always work because the bribe-takers do not necessarily deliver on their promises. Iraqis and Syrians commonly believe that those most likely to buy their way out of prison are Isis militants who can come up with large sums of money and are too dangerous to be short-changed by officials they have bribed.

After the capture of Mosul, the de facto Isis capital in Iraq, in 2017, local people told me they were aghast at seeing former Isis officials back on their streets after a short detention. They claimed that this was because of the wholesale bribery of Baghdad government security forces.

Iraqi soldiers in the front line were equally cynical and concluded that there was no point sending live prisoners back to Baghdad so they executed them on the spot.

The Beatles are more famous because they killed and mistreated Westerners, but otherwise they were no different from other cruel and murderous Isis gangs. It is claimed that one reason they could not be tried in Britain is that information from the intelligence agencies could not be used without compromising sources. This might be true but whenever secret intelligence from government agencies has been revealed by public inquiries over the past 15 years, it has turned out to be far shakier and less compelling than originally claimed.

Knowing who really was in Isis and what they did there is impossible in countries where torture is pervasive and false confessions the norm. The time to have dealt with British jihadis and the tens of thousands of other fanatical foreign fighters was several years ago when they were freely crossing the Turkish border into Syria.

But the British government and its allies showed little concern because the priority then was forcing regime change in Damascus, an aim shared by the jihadis.

Sajid Javid pretends that the principle of government opposition to the death penalty will only be set aside in this single exceptional case, though principles that can be discarded so easily at convenient moments automatically cease to be principles.

The controversy over the legal fate of the “Beatles” underlines once again the truth of Cicero’s saying that “the laws are silent in times of war”.