Search here...
Home Blog Page 23

Survey warning on Papua ‘box ticking’ mega estates project goes unheeded

By
Cafe Pacific Publisher
-
0
Security forces watch from behind barbed wire as indigenous Papuans from Merauke in the Indonesia-ruled Melanesian region protest in Jakarta
Security forces watch from behind barbed wire as indigenous Papuans from Merauke in the Indonesia-ruled Melanesian region protest in Jakarta last month against plans to convert indigenous and conservation lands into sugar cane plantations and rice fields. Image: Pusaka Bentala Rakyat

By Stephen Wright for Radio Free Asia

Indonesia’s plan to convert over 2 million ha of conservation and indigenous lands into agriculture will cause long-term damage to the environment, create conflict and add to greenhouse gas emissions, according to a feasibility study document for the Papua region mega-project.

The 96-page presentation reviewed by Radio Free Asia was drawn up by Sucofindo, the Indonesian government’s inspection and land surveying company.

Dated July 4, it analyses the risks and benefits of the sugar cane and rice estate in Merauke regency on Indonesia’s border with Papua New Guinea and outlines a feasibility study that was to have been completed by mid-August.

COP29 BAKU, 11-22 November 2024
COP29 BAKU, 11-22 November 2024

Though replete with warnings that “comprehensive” environmental impact assessments should take place before any land is cleared, the feasibility process appears to have been a box-ticking exercise. Sucofindo did not respond to questions from RFA, a news service affiliated with BenarNews, about the document.

Even before the study was completed, then-President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo participated in a ceremony in Merauke on July 23 that marked the first sugar cane planting on land cleared of forest for the food estate, the government said in a statement.

Jokowi’s decade-long presidency ended last month.

Excavators destroy villages
In late July, dozens of excavators shipped by boat were unloaded in the Ilyawab district of Merauke where they destroyed villages and cleared forests and wetlands for rice fields, according to a report by civil society organisation Pusaka

Hipolitus Wangge, an Indonesian politics researcher at Australian National University, told RFA the feasibility study document does not provide new information about the agricultural plans.

But it makes it clear, he said, that in government there is “no specific response on how the state deals with indigenous concerns” and their consequences.

The plan to convert as much as 2.3 million ha of forest, wetland and savannah into rice farms, sugarcane plantations and related infrastructure in the conflict-prone Papua region is part of the government’s ambitions to achieve food and energy self-sufficiency.

Previous efforts in the nation of 270 million people have fallen short of expectations.

Echoing government and military statements, Sucofindo said increasingly extreme climate change and the risk of international conflict are reasons why Indonesia should reduce reliance on food imports.

Taken together, the sugarcane and rice projects represent at least a fifth of a 10,000 square km lowland area known as the TransFly that spans Indonesia and Papua New Guinea and which conservationists say is an already under-threat conservation treasure.

Military leading role
Indonesia’s military has a leading role in the 1.9 million ha rice plan while the government has courted investors for the sugar cane and related bioethanol projects.

The likelihood of conflict with indigenous Papuans or of significant and long-term environmental damage applies in about 80 percent of the area targeted for development, according to Sucofindo’s analysis.

The project’s “issues and challenges,” Sucofindo said, include “deforestation and biodiversity loss, destruction of flora and fauna habitats and loss of species”.

It warns of long-term land degradation and erosion as well as water pollution and reduced water availability during the dry season caused by deforestation.

Sucofindo said indigenous communities in Merauke rely on forests for livelihoods and land conversion will threaten their cultural survival. It repeatedly warns of the risk of conflict, which it says could stem from evictions and relocation.

“Evictions have the potential to destabilize social and economic conditions,” Sucofindo said in its presentation.

If the entire area planned for development is cleared, it would add about 392 million tons of carbon to the atmosphere in net terms, according to Sucofindo.

That is about equal to half of the additional carbon emitted by Indonesia’s fire catastrophe in 2015 when hundreds of thousands of acres of peatlands drained for pulpwood and oil palm plantations burned for months.

Then-President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo participates in a sugar-cane planting ceremony in Merauke
Then-President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo participates in a sugar-cane planting ceremony in the Merauke regency of South Papua province in July. Image: Indonesian presidential office handout/Muchlis Jr

Indonesia’s contribution to emissions that raise the average global temperature is significantly worsened by a combination of peatland fires and deforestation. Carbon stored in its globally important tropical forests is released when cut down for palm oil, pulpwood and other plantations.

In a speech last week to the annual United Nations climate conference COP29, Indonesia’s climate envoy, a brother of recently inaugurated president Prabowo Subianto, said the new administration has a long-term goal to restore forests to 31.3 million acres severely degraded by fires in 2015 and earlier massive burnings in the 1980s and 1990s.

Indonesia’s government has made the same promise in previous years including in its official progress report on its national contribution to achieving the Paris Agreement goal of keeping the rise in average global temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius.

“President Prabowo has approved in principle a program of massive reforestation to these 12.7 million hectares in a biodiverse manner,” envoy Hashim Djojohadikusumo said during the livestreamed speech from Baku, Azerbaijan.

“We will soon embark on this programme.”

Prabowo’s government has announced plans to encourage outsiders to migrate to Merauke and other parts of Indonesia’s easternmost region, state media reported this month.

Critics said such large-scale movements of people would further marginalise indigenous Papuans in their own lands and exacerbate conflict that has simmered since Indonesia took control of the region in the late 1960s.

Republished from BenarNews with permission.

NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill ‘inviting civil war’, says former PM Shipley

By
Cafe Pacific Publisher
-
0

RNZ Saturday Morning

A former New Zealand prime minister, Dame Jenny Shipley, has warned the ACT Party is “inviting civil war” with its attempt to define the principles of the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi in law.

The party’s controversial Treaty Principles Bill passed its first reading in Parliament on Thursday, voted for by ruling coalition members ACT, New Zealand First and National.

National has said its MPs will vote against it at the second reading, after only backing it through the first as part of the coalition agreement with ACT.

ACT leader David Seymour and former prime minister Jenny Shipley
ACT leader David Seymour and former prime minister Jenny Shipley . . . “You don’t just throw [the Treaty relationship] in the bin and then try and rewrite it as it suits you.” Image: Samuel Rillstone/ RNZ/Craig McCulloch

Voting on the bill was interrupted when Te Pāti Māori’s Hauraki Waikato MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke tore up a copy of the bill and launched into a haka, inspiring other opposition MPs and members of the public gallery to join in.

Dame Jenny, who led the National Party from 1997 until 2001 and was prime minister for two of those years, threw her support behind Maipi-Clarke.

“The Treaty, when it’s come under pressure from either side, our voices have been raised,” she told RNZ’s Saturday Morning.

“I was young enough to remember Bastion Point, and look, the Treaty has helped us navigate. When people have had to raise their voice, it’s brought us back to what it’s been — an enduring relationship where people then try to find their way forward.

“And I thought the voices of this week were completely and utterly appropriate, and whether they breach standing orders, I’ll put that aside.

“The voice of Māori, that reminds us that this was an agreement, a contract — and you do not rip up a contract and then just say, ‘Well, I’m happy to rewrite it on my terms, but you don’t count.’

Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipa-Clarke led a haka in Parliament after the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill
Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipa-Clarke led a haka in Parliament and tore up a copy of the Treaty Principles Bill at the first reading in Parliament on Thursday . . . . a haka is traditionally used as an indigenous show of challenge, support or sorrow. Image: RNZ/Samuel Rillstone

“I would raise my voice. I’m proud that the National Party has said they will not be supporting this, because you cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth.

“And I think any voice that’s raised, and there are many people — pākeha and Māori who are not necessarily on this hikoi — who believe that a relationship is something you keep working at. You don’t just throw it in the bin and then try and rewrite it as it suits you.”

Her comments come after Prime Minister Christopher Luxon called the bill “simplistic” and “unhelpful”, and former Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson — who negotiated more settlements than any other — said letting it pass its first reading would do “great damage” to National’s relationship with Māori.


Haka disrupts the Treaty Principles Bill reading vote.    Video: RNZ News

Dame Jenny said past attempts to codify Treaty principles in law had failed.

“While there have been principles leaked into individual statutes, we have never attempted to — in a formal sense — put principles in or over top of the Treaty as a collective. And I caution New Zealand — the minute you put the Treaty into a political framework in its totality, you are inviting civil war.

“I would fight against it. Māori have every reason to fight against it.

“This is a relationship we committed to where we would try and find a way to govern forward. We would respect each other’s land and interests rights, and we would try and be citizens together — and actually, we are making outstanding progress, and this sort of malicious, politically motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to politicise the Treaty in a new way should raise people’s voices, because it is not in New Zealand’s immediate interest.

‘I condemn David Seymour for his using this, asking the public for money to fuel a campaign that I think really is going to divide New Zealand in a way that I haven’t lived through in my adult life. There’s been flashpoints, but I view this incredibly seriously.’

“And you people should be careful what they wish for. If people polarise, we will finish up in a dangerous position. The Treaty is a gift to us to invite us to work together. And look, we’ve been highly successful in doing that, despite the odd ruction on the way.”

She said New Zealand could be proud of the redress it had made to Māori, “where we accepted we had just made a terrible mess on stolen land and misused the undertakings of the Treaty, and we as a people have tried to put that right”.

“I just despise people who want to use a treasure — which is what the Treaty is to me — and use it as a political tool that drives people to the left or the right, as opposed to inform us from our history and let it deliver a future that is actually who we are as New Zealanders . . .  I condemn David Seymour for his using this, asking the public for money to fuel a campaign that I think really is going to divide New Zealand in a way that I haven’t lived through in my adult life. There’s been flashpoints, but I view this incredibly seriously.”

‘Equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights’
In response, David Seymour said the bill actually sought to “solve” the problem of “treating New Zealanders based on their ethnicity”.

“Te Pāti Māori acted in complete disregard for the democratic system of which they are a part during the first reading of the bill, causing disruption, and leading to suspension of the House.

“The Treaty Principles Bill commits to protecting the rights of everyone, including Māori, and upholding Treaty settlements. It commits to give equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights to every single New Zealander.

“The challenge for people who oppose this bill is to explain why they are so opposed to those basic principles.”

On Thursday, following the passing of the bill’s first reading, he said he was looking forward to seeing what New Zealanders had to say about it during the six-month select committee process.

“The select committee process will finally democratise the debate over the Treaty which has until this point been dominated by a small number of judges, senior public servants, academics, and politicians.

“Parliament introduced the concept of the Treaty principles into law in 1975 but did not define them. As a result, the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have been able to develop principles that have been used to justify actions that are contrary to the principle of equal rights. Those actions include co-governance in the delivery of public services, ethnic quotas in public institutions, and consultation based on background.

“The principles of the Treaty are not going away. Either Parliament can define them, or the courts will continue to meddle in this area of critical political and constitutional importance.

“The purpose of the Treaty Principles Bill is for Parliament to define the principles of the Treaty, provide certainty and clarity, and promote a national conversation about their place in our constitutional arrangements.”

He said the bill in no way would alter or amend the Treaty itself.

“I believe all New Zealanders deserve tino rangatiratanga — the right to self-determination. That all human beings are alike in dignity. The Treaty Principles Bill would give all New Zealanders equality before the law, so that we can go forward as one people with one set of rights.”

The Hīkoi today was in Hastings, on its way to Wellington, where it is expected to arrive on Monday.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill haka highlights tensions between Māori tikanga and rules of Parliament

By
Cafe Pacific Publisher
-
0

BACKGROUNDER: By Lillian Hanly, Craig McCulloch and Te Manu Korihi

Te Pāti Māori’s extraordinary display of protest — interrupting the first vote on the Treaty Principles Bill — has highlighted the tension in Aotearoa New Zealand between Māori tikanga, or customs, and the rules of Parliament.

When called on to cast Te Pāti Māori’s vote, its MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke instead launched into a haka, ripping a copy of the legislation in half.

She was joined by other opposition MPs and onlookers, prompting Speaker Gerry Brownlee to temporarily suspend Parliament and clear out the public gallery.

Brownlee subsequently censured Maipi-Clarke, describing her conduct as “appallingly disrespectful” and “grossly disorderly”.

Maipi-Clarke was named and suspended, barring her from voting or entering the debating chamber for a 24-hour period. She also had her pay docked.


Te Pāti Māori about to record their vote.   Video: RNZ/Parliament

‘Ka mate, ka mate’ – when is it appropriate to perform haka?
The Ngāti Toa haka performed in Parliament was the well-known “Ka mate, Ka mate,” which tells the story of chief Te Rauparaha who was being chased by enemies and sought shelter where he hid. Once his enemies left he came out into the light.

Ngāti Toa chief executive and rangatira Helmut Modlik told RNZ the haka was relevant to the debate. He said the bill had put Māori self-determination at risk – “ka mate, ka mate” – and Māori were reclaiming that – “ka ora, ka ora”.

Haka was not governed by rules or regulation, Modlik said. It could be used as a show of challenge, support or sorrow.

“In the modern setting, all of these possibilities are there for the use of haka, but as an expression of cultural preferences, cultural power, world view, ideas, sounds, language – it’s rather compelling.”

Modlik acknowledged that Parliament operated according to its own conventions but said the “House and its rules only exist because our chiefs said it could be here”.

“If you’re going to negate . . .  the constitutional and logical basis for your House being here . . . with your legislation, then that negates your right to claim it as your own to operate as you choose.”

He argued critics were being too sensitive, akin to “complaining about the grammar being used as people are crying that the house is on fire”.

“The firemen are complaining that they weren’t orderly enough,” Modlik said. “They didn’t use the right words.”

Robust response expected
Modlik said Seymour should expect a robust response to his own passionate performance and theatre: “That’s the Pandora’s Box he’s opening”.

Following the party’s protest yesterday, Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi told reporters “everyone should be proud to see [the haka] in its true context.”

“We love it when the All Blacks do it, but what about when the ‘blackies’ do it?” he said.

Today, speaking to those gathered for the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti in Rotorua, Waititi said the party used “every tool available to us to use in the debates in that House”.

“One of those tools are the Māori tools we take from our kete, which is haka, which is waiata, which is pōkeka — all of those things that our tīpuna have left us. Those are natural debating tools on the marae.”

What does Parliament’s rulebook have to say?
Parliament is governed by its own set of rules known as Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings. They endow the Speaker with the power and responsibility to “maintain order and decorum” in the House.

The rules set out the procedures to be followed during a debate and subsequent vote. MPs are banned from using “offensive or disorderly words” or making a “personal reflection” against another member.

MPs can also be found in contempt of Parliament if they obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions.

Examples of contempt include assaulting, threatening or obstructing an MP, or “misconducting oneself” in the House.

Under Standing Orders, Parliament’s proceedings can be temporarily suspended “in the case of any grave disorder arising in committee”.

The Speaker may order any member “whose conduct is highly disorderly” to leave the chamber. For example, Brownlee ejected Labour MP Willie Jackson when he refused to apologise for calling Seymour a liar.

The Speaker may also “name” any member “whose conduct is grossly disorderly” and then call for MPs to vote on their suspension, as occurred in the case of Maipi-Clarke.

Members of the public gallery can also be required to leave if they interrupt proceedings or “disturb or disrupt the House”.

‘Abusing tikanga of Parliament’
Seymour has previously criticised Te Pāti Māori for abusing the “the tikanga of Parliament,” and on Thursday he called for further consequences.

“The Speaker needs to make it clear that the people of New Zealand who elect people to this Parliament have a right for their representative to be heard, not drowned out by someone doing a haka or getting in their face making shooting gestures,” Seymour said.

Former Speaker Sir Lockwood Smith told RNZ the rules existed to allow rational and sensible debate on important matters.

“Parliament makes the laws that govern all our lives, and its performance and behaviour has to be commensurate with that responsibility.

“It is not just a stoush in a pub. It is the highest court in the land and its behaviour should reflect that.”

Sir Lockwood said he respected Māori custom, but there were ways that could be expressed within the rules. He said he was also saddened by “the venom directed personally” at Seymour.

Lillian Hanly is an RNZ News political reporter, Craig McCulloch is RNZ‘s deputy political editor, and Te Manu Korihi report. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ and Asia Pacific Report.

Caitlin Johnstone: To be pro-Israel is to be pro-war

By
Cafe Pacific Publisher
-
0
Being pro-Israel is being pro-war
Being pro-Israel is being pro-war, because the state of Israel cannot exist in its present iteration without nonstop US-backed military violence. Image: caitlinjohnstone.com.au

COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

The way raw video evidence debunked the “Amsterdam pogrom” narrative in real time in full view of the entire world is exactly why Israel hates journalists. It’s why it won’t let the Western press visit Gaza, and it’s why it murders Palestinian journalists at every opportunity.

❖

Trump’s “America First” cabinet is being packed full of swamp monsters who want to pour American money into helping Israel destroy the Middle East, pour American money into the unwinnable proxy war in Ukraine, and prepare American troops to fight a war with China to defend Taiwan.

❖

And just as we’re reacting to the news of Trump filling his new cabinet with murderous warmongers, the Biden administration comes in with a helpful reminder that they too are evil blood-soaked monsters. The White House has announced that it will be imposing zero consequences on Israel for failing to abide by its 30-day deadline to let more aide into Gaza. The “deadline” was a phony election ploy, just as we said it was at the time.

❖

Friendly reminder that Biden could still end the genocide in Gaza right now. He could end it today. He could have ended it any day over the last thirteen months. Israel’s atrocities will continue into the next administration because the Biden administration wants them to.

❖

Everything American liberals are worried will be done to them by the Trump administration are things that were done to people in other countries by the Biden administration.

❖

Anyone who supported Trump on anti-war grounds already has more than enough evidence to stop doing so. If you’re still supporting him after his cabinet picks thus far you’re going to support him no matter what he does on foreign policy, because you don’t really care about peace  —  you just care about your favorite political party winning.

❖

I’m already getting Trump supporters all over my replies telling me that the hawkish inclinations I’m seeing from the incoming administration aren’t what they look like. They did this throughout his entire first term. Four fucking years of morons telling me the insane acts of warmongering I was witnessing were actually fine and good, or even brilliant strategic maneuvers against the deep state warmongers. Really not looking forward to another four years of this shit.

❖

Being pro-Israel is being pro-war, because the state of Israel cannot exist in its present iteration without nonstop US-backed military violence. Supporting Israel necessarily means supporting endless Western military interventionism in the Middle East. Trump supporters keep lying to themselves about this.

It was obvious that Trump’s “anti-neocon” schtick was bullshit even before his cabinet picks. You cannot be “anti-neocon” and also be Israel’s BFF. That’s not a thing. US military support for Israel is absolutely central to the neoconservative ideology  —  just research the history of neocons and PNAC (Project for the New American Century). Trump and his allies talk a big game about massively unpopular Bush-era neocons, but Trump has always been fully aligned with those same neocons on Israeli warmongering. He had actual PNAC members in his cabinet like Elliott Abrams and John Bolton for fuck’s sake, and he has openly admitted to being bought and owned by the Adelsons.

So the Trump faction is doing this weird cognitive dissonance straddle where they’re more or less completely aligned with the neocons on middle east policy (and China policy as well for the record) while posturing as big opponents of neoconservatives and warmongers. There is a faction of the “MAGA” movement which is anti-Israel, or at least anti US aid for Israel, but they are a much smaller and far less powerful contingent. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

❖

When people defend the Gaza genocide by saying “those Arabs hate gay people” or whatever, they’re admitting that they think someone having different beliefs than their own justifies wiping out their entire population.

You normally hear this argument from right wing Israel supporters speaking to left-wing Palestine supporters. They assume it’s a debate-winning argument because they know leftists support LGBTQ rights, so upon hearing this the leftist will say “Oh okay, we’ll kill them all then.”

Leaving aside the premise that all Palestinians hate gay people (which is of course silly), the fact that they project this assumption onto others says a lot about their own worldview. Anyone making this argument is telling you they would support the mass military slaughter of you and everyone who thinks like you if given the opportunity, because they believe those who think differently than themselves should be exterminated.

❖

Leftists, liberals and rightists all mean very different things when they say they support free speech.

When an anti-imperialist socialist says they support free speech, they mean they want the freedom to hold power to account, scrutinise their government’s actions, and share dissident ideas and information. This is the original reason freedom of speech has been enshrined as an important value in our society, and it’s why leftists (the real kind) aggressively defend it.

When a rightist says they support free speech, they typically mean they want to be able to say racist things without any consequences and make mean jokes about trans people on social media. It’s less about holding power to account and more about being able to say what you want wherever you want for its own sake, because not being allowed to say what you want doesn’t feel very nice. This is what you’re looking at when you see Trump talking about the importance of free speech rights while also saying he wants to jail people for burning the American flag and telling donors he’ll crack down on pro-Palestine protests. He’s not promising the freedom to speak truth to power, he’s promising the freedom to say racial slurs.

When a liberal says they support free speech, they typically mean they support free speech for themselves and people who think like them, and for the citizens of enemy countries like Iran and China. They’re more than happy to see speech critical of the powerful curbed in the name of stopping “disinformation” or “Russian propaganda”. They support Silicon Valley tech platforms collaborating intimately with US government agencies to suppress dissident ideas and information, so long as doing so doesn’t benefit a rival political faction. They believe their worldview is the way, the truth and the light, and that information needs to circulate in a way that helps others believe this too.

There are of course exceptions and variations on this; American libertarians are often an odd hybrid of the leftist and rightist schools of thought on free speech, for example. It’s good to be aware that when someone says they support free speech, they could mean something very, very different from what you mean when you say it.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

The last voyage of the Rainbow Warrior – Rongelap podcast series

By
Cafe Pacific Publisher
-
0
Rainbow Warrior crew help Rongelap islanders load up the ship
Rainbow Warrior crew help Rongelap islanders load up the ship with their dismantled village in May 1985. Image: David Robie/Eyes of Fire

ABC Radio Australia and RNZ

You probably know about the last moments of the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior in 1985.

But what do you know about the environmental campaign ship’s last voyage before it was bombed by French secret agents in New Zealand on 10 July 1985?

Where had it come from, why was it there and what was it doing?

Find out in The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior, a six part podcast series produced by an ABC Radio Australia and RNZ partnership.

The series was written and hosted by James Nokise of the ABC with writers and producers Justin Gregory (RNZ) and Sophie Townsend.

The series was assisted by Pacific journalist David Robie, author of Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior; and editor Giff Johnson, Eve Burns and Hilary Hosia of the Marshall Islands Journal; along with many Marshall Islanders who spoke to the podcast crew or helped with this project.

Episode 1: The other Cold War (13 November 2024)
The crew of the Rainbow Warrior should have felt safe and welcome when they arrived in Auckland, New Zealand. We all know what happened next, and who was responsible. But how much do you know about what went down before that?

Episode 2: The Day of Two Suns (13 November 2024)
The Atomic Age arrives in the Marshall Islands as the US turns the region into a nuclear testing ground. But after one massive detonation, nothing will ever be the same for the people of Rongelap Atoll.

Episode 3: Project 4.1
In the days after the Castle Bravo detonation, the people of Rongelap desperately need help. It arrived. But with that help came something they didn’t expect, and never agreed to.

Episode 4: The Land and the Soul
Jeton Anjain has had enough. He decides to act to save his people. And with the help of some well-connected friends, he pulls off one of the great humanitarian acts of the 20th century.

Episode 5: Operation Satanique
Back in New Zealand, public anger is at its peak as the hunt begins for those responsible for bombing the Rainbow Warrior. Shockwaves ripple across the globe when it’s discovered who did it.

Episode 6: Legacies
The people of Rongelap have a new, safer home. But at what cost? What does the future hold? And can they ever go home again?

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Caitlin Johnstone: Biden’s legacy is genocide, war, and nuclear brinkmanship

By
Cafe Pacific Publisher
-
0
President Joe Biden has been facilitating Israeli atrocities in the Middle East
President Joe Biden has been facilitating Israeli atrocities in the Middle East with US military expansionism in the region and bombing operations in Yemen, Iraq and Syria. He will spend his lame duck months backing Israel’s scorched earth demolition of southern Lebanon. Image: caitlinjohnstone.com.au

COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

Biden’s legacy is genocide, war, and nuclear brinkmanship. That’s all anyone should talk about when this psychopath finally dies.

Anything positive he may have accomplished in his political career is a drop in the ocean compared to the significance of these mass-scale abuses.

Biden spent his entire career promoting war and militarism at every opportunity, and then spent the twilight years of his time in Washington choosing to continue supplying an active genocide that is fully dependent on US-supplied arms.

He refused off-ramp after off-ramp to the horrific war in Ukraine that has burned through a generation of men in that country, which he knowingly provoked by amassing a military proxy threat on Russia’s border in ways the US would never tolerate being amassed on its own border.

In the early weeks of the conflict Biden and his fellow empire managers sabotaged peace talks to keep the war going for as long as possible with the goal of bleeding Moscow, and at one point his own intelligence agencies reportedly assessed that the probability of a nuclear war erupting on this front was as high as 50–50.

Coin toss odds on nuclear war. To call this a crime against humanity would be a massive understatement.

Biden has been facilitating Israeli atrocities in the Middle East with US military expansionism in the region and bombing operations in Yemen, Iraq and Syria. He will spend his lame duck months backing Israel’s scorched earth demolition of southern Lebanon.

Pivotal role over Iraq
This is who Biden is. It is who he has always been. It is true that his brain has begun to rot away just like his conscience has rotted, but in his lucid moments he adamantly defends his administration’s decisions as the only correct course of action, and it aligns perfectly with his past.

To know this, one need only to look at the pivotal role he played in pushing the Iraq invasion, or his extremist rhetoric about how “If there were not an Israel we’d have to invent one.”

This is the legacy that Democrats were forced to spend the last election cycle pretending is great and awesome. It’s no wonder they lost.

So now, as a parting gift from Joe Biden, Americans and the world get another four years of Donald Trump.

That’s the story of Joe Biden. That’s the whole entire thing. Anything on top of that is irrelevant narrative fluff.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

Rising Tide climate crisis ‘Protestival’ to go ahead despite court ruling

By
Cafe Pacific Publisher
-
0
The Newcastle coal port 24-hour blockade protest in 2023
The Newcastle coal port 24-hour blockade protest in 2023 . . . conducted safely and in cooperation with police. Image: Lee Illfield/Michael West Media

The NSW Supreme Court has issued orders prohibiting a major climate protest that would blockade ships entering the world’s largest coal port in Newcastle for 30 hours. Despite the court ruling, Wendy Bacon reports that the protest will still go ahead next week.

SPECIAL REPORT: By Wendy Bacon

In a decision delivered last Thursday, Justice Desmond Fagan in the NSW Supreme Court ruled in favour of state police who applied to have the Rising Tide ‘Protestival’ planned from November 22 to 24 declared an “unauthorised assembly”.

Rising Tide has vowed to continue its protest. The grassroots movement is calling for an end to new coal and gas approvals and imposing a 78 percent tax on coal and gas export profits to fund and support Australian workers during the energy transition.

The group had submitted what is known as a “Form 1” to the police for approval for a 30-hour blockade of the port and a four-day camp on the foreshore.

If approved, the protest could go ahead without police being able to use powers of arrest for offences such as “failure to move on” during the protest.

Rising Tide organisers expect thousands to attend of whom hundreds would enter the water in kayaks and other vessels to block the harbour.

Last year, a similar 24-hour blockade protest was conducted safely and in cooperation with police, after which 109 people refused to leave the water in an act of peaceful civil disobedience. They were then arrested without incident. Most were later given good behaviour bonds with no conviction recorded.

Following the judgment, Rising Tide organiser Zack Schofield said that although the group was disappointed, “the protestival will go ahead within our rights to peaceful assembly on land and water, which is legal in NSW with or without a Form 1.”

Main issue ‘climate pollution’
“The main public safety issue here is the climate pollution caused by the continued expansion of the coal and gas industries. That’s why we are protesting in our own backyard — the Newcastle coal port, scene of Australia’s single biggest contribution to climate change.”

In his judgment, Justice Desmond Fagan affirmed that protesting without a permit is lawful.

In refusing the application, he described the planned action as “excessive”.

“A 30-hour interruption to the operations of a busy port is an imposition on the lawful activities of others that goes far beyond what the people affected should be expected to tolerate in order to facilitate public expression of protest and opinion on the important issues with which the organisers are concerned,” he said.

During the case, Rising Tide’s barrister Neal Funnell argued that in weighing the impacts, the court should take into account “a vast body of evidence as to the cost of the economic impact of global warming and particularly the role the fossil fuel industry plays in that.“

But while agreeing that coal is “extremely detrimental to the atmosphere and biosphere and our future, Justice Fagan indicated that his decision would only take into account the immediate impacts of the protest, not “the economic effect of the activity of burning coal in power plants in whatever countries this coal is freighted to from the port of Newcastle”.

NSW Court hearing nov 2024
Protest organisers outside NSW Court last week. Image: Michael West Media

NSW Police argued that the risks to safety outweighed the right to protest.

Rising Tide barrister Neal Funnell told the court that the group did not deny that there were inherent risks in protests on water but pointed to evidence that showed police logs revealed no safety concerns or incidents during the 2023 protest.

Although he accepted the police argument about safety risks, Justice Fagan acknowledged that the “organisers of Rising Tide have taken a responsible approach to on-water safety by preparing very thorough plans and protocols, by engaging members of supportive organisations to attend with outboard motor driven rescue craft and by enlisting the assistance of trained lifeguards”.

The Court’s reasons are not to be understood as a direction to terminate the protest.

NSW government opposition
Overshadowing the case were statements by NSW Premier Chris Minns, who recently threatened to make costs of policing a reason why permits to protest could be refused.

Last week, Minns said the protest was opposed because it was dangerous and would impact the economy, suggesting further government action could follow to protect coal infrastructure.

“I think the government’s going to have to make some decisions in the next few weeks about protecting that coal line and ensuring the economy doesn’t close down as a result of this protest activity,” he said.

Greens MP and spokesperson for climate change and justice Sue Higginson, who attended last year’s Rising Tide protest, said, “ It’s the second time in the past few weeks that police have sought to use the court to prohibit a public protest event with the full support of the Premier of this State . . . ”

Higginson hit back at Premier Chris Minns: “Under the laws of NSW, it’s not the job of the Premier or the Police to say where, when and how people can protest. It is the job of the Police and the Premier to serve the people and work with organisers to facilitate a safe and effective event.

“Today, the Premier and the Police have thrown this obligation back in our faces. What we have seen are the tactics of authoritarian politics attempting to silence the people.

“It is telling that the NSW Government would rather seek to silence the community and protect their profits from exporting the climate crisis straight through the Port of Newcastle rather than support our grassroots communities, embrace the right to protest, take firm action to end coal exports and transition our economy.”

Limits of police authorised protests
Hundreds of protests take place in NSW each year using Form 1s. Many other assemblies happen without a Form 1 application. But the process places the power over protests in the hands of police and the courts.

In a situation in which NSW has no charter of human rights that protects the right to protest, Justice Fagan’s decision exposes the limits of the Form 1 approach to protests.

NSW Council for Civil Liberties is one of more than 20 organisations that supported the Rising Tide case.

In response to the prohibition order, its Vice-President Lidia Shelly said, “Rising Tide submitted a Form 1 application so that NSW Police could work with the organisers to ensure the safety of the public.

“The organisers did everything right in accordance with the law. It’s responsible and peaceful protesting. Instead, the police dragged the organisers to Court and furthered the public’s perception that they’re acting under political pressure to protect the interests of the fossil fuel industry.”

Shelly said, “In denying the Form 1, NSW Police have created a perfect environment for mass arrests of peaceful protestors to occur . . .

“The right to peaceful assembly is a core human right protected under international law. NSW desperately needs a state-based charter of human rights that protects the right to protest.

“The current Form 1 regime in New South Wales is designed to repress the public from exercising their democratic rights to protest. We reiterate our call to the NSW Government to repeal the draconian anti-protest laws, abolish the Form 1 regime, protect independent legal observers, and introduce a Human Rights Act that enshrines the right to protest.”

Wendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who was professor of journalism at University of Technology Sydney (UTS). She worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism. She is a long-term supporter of a peaceful BDS movement and the Greens. Republished with the permission of the author.

Behind settler colonial NZ’s paranoia about dissident ‘persons of interest’

By
Cafe Pacific Publisher
-
0
Activist author Maire Leadbeater
Activist author Maire Leadbeater . . . new book exposes state spying on issues of peace, anti-conscription, anti-nuclear, decolonisation, unemployed workers and left trade unionism and socialist and communist thought in Aotearoa New Zealand. Image: David Robie/Asia Pacific Report

COMMENTARY: By Robert Reid

The Enemy Within, by Maire Leadbeater is many things. It is:

• A family history
• A social history
• A history of the left-wing in Aotearoa
• A chilling reminder of the origin and continuation of the surveillance state in New Zealand, and
• A damn good read.

The book is a great example of citizen or activist authorship. The author, Maire Leadbeater, and her family are front and centre of the dark cloud of the surveillance state that has hung and still hangs over New Zealand’s “democracy”.

What better place to begin the book than the author noting that she had been spied on by the security services from the age of 10. What better place to begin than describing the role of the Locke family — Elsie, Jack, Maire, Keith and their siblings — have played in Aotearoa society over the last few decades.

And what a fitting way to end the book than with the final chapter entitled, “Person of Interest: Keith Locke”; Maire’s much-loved brother and our much-loved friend and comrade.

In between these pages is a treasure trove of commentary and stories of the development of the surveillance state in the settler colony of NZ and the impact that this has had on the lives of ordinary — no, extra-ordinary — people within this country.

The book could almost be described as a political romp from the settler colonisation of New Zealand through the growth of the workers movement and socialist and communist ideology from the late 1800s until today.

I have often deprecatingly called myself a mere footnote of history as that is all I seem to appear as in many books written about recent progressive history in New Zealand. But it was without false modesty that when Maire gave me a copy of the book a couple of weeks back, I immediately went to the index, looked up my name and found that this time I was a bit more than a footnote, but had a section of a chapter written on my interaction with the spooks.

But it was after reading this, dipping into a couple of other “person of interest” stories of people I knew such as Keith, Mike Treen, the Rosenbergs, Murray Horton and then starting the book again from the beginning did it become clear on what issues the state was paranoid about that led it to build an apparatus to spy on its own citizens.

These were issues of peace, anti-conscription, anti-nuclear, decolonisation, unemployed workers and left trade unionism and socialist and communist thought. These are the issues that come up time and time again; essentially it was seditious or subversive to be part of any of these campaigns or ideologies.

Client state spying
The other common theme through the book is the role that the UK and more latterly the US has played in ensuring that their NZ client settler state plays by their rules, makes enemies of their enemies and spies on its own people for their “benefit”.

Trade unionist and activist Robert Reid
Trade unionist and activist Robert Reid . . . “The book could almost be described as a political romp from the settler colonisation of New Zealand through the growth of the workers movement and socialist and communist ideology from the late 1800s until today.” Image: David Robie/Asia Pacific Report

It was interesting to read how the “5 Eyes”, although not using that name, has been in operation as long as NZ has had a spying apparatus. In fact, the book shows that 3 of the 5 Eyes forced NZ to establish its surveillance apparatus in the first place.

Maire, and her editor have arranged this book in a very reader friendly way. It is mostly chronological showing the rise of the surveillance state from the beginning of the 19th century, in dispersed with a series of vignettes of “Persons of Interest”.

Maire would probably acknowledge that this book could not have been written without the decision of the SIS to start releasing files (all beit they were heavily redacted with many missing parts) of many of us who have been spied on by the SIS over the years. So, on behalf of Maire, thank you SIS.

Maire has painstakingly gone through pages and pages of these primary source files and incorporated them into the historical narrative of the book showing what was happening in society while this surveillance was taking place.

I was especially delighted to read the history of the anti-war and conscientious objectors movement. Two years ago, almost to the day, we held the 50th anniversary of the Organisation to Halt Military Service (OHMS); an organisation that I founded and was under heavy surveillance in 1972.

We knew a bit about previous anti-conscription struggles but Maire has provided much more context and information that we knew. It was good to read about people like John Charters, Ormand Burton and Archie Barrington as well more known resisters such as my great uncle Archibald Baxter.

Within living memory
Many of the events covered take place within my living memory. But it was wonderful to be reminded of some things I had forgotten about or to find some new gems of information about our past.

The Enemy Within, by Maire Leadbeater.
The Enemy Within, by Maire Leadbeater. Image: Potton & Burton

Stories around Bill Sutch, Shirley Smith, Ann and Wolfgang Rosenberg, Jack and Mary Woodward, Gerald O’Brien, Allan Brash (yes, Don’s dad), Cecil Holmes, Jack Lewin are documented as well as my contemporaries such as Don Carson, David Small, Aziz Choudry, Trevor Richards, Jane Kelsey, Nicky Hager, Owen Wilkes, Tame Iti in addition to Maire, Keith and Mike Treen.

The book finishes with a more recent history of NZ again aping the US’s so-called war on terror with the introduction of an anti and counter-terrorism mandate for the SIS and its sister agencies

The book traverses events such as the detention of Ahmed Zaoui, the raid on the Kim Dotcom mansion, the privatisation of spying to firms such as Thomson and Clark, the Urewera raids, “Hit and Run” in Afghanistan. Missing the cut was the recent police raid and removal of the computer of octogenarian, Peter Wilson for holding money earmarked for a development project in DPRK (North Korea).

When we come to the end of the book we are reminded of the horrific Christchurch mosque attack and massacre and prior to that of the bombing of Wellington Trades Hall and the Rainbow Warrior. Also, the failure of the SIS to discover Mossad agents operating in NZ on fake passports.

We cannot but ask the question of why multi-millions of dollars have been spent spying on, surveilling and monitoring peace activists, trade unionists, communists, Māori and more latterly Muslims, when the terrorism that NZ has faced has been that perpetrated on these people not by these people.

Maire notes in the book that the SIS budget for 2021 was around $100 million with around 400 FTEs employed. This does not include GCSB or other parts of the security apparatus.

Seeking subversives in wrong places
This level of money has been spent for well over 100 years looking for subversives and terrorists in the wrong place!

Finally, although dealing with the human cost of the surveillance state, the book touches on some of the lighter sides of the SIS spying. Those of us under surveillance in the 1970s and 1980s remember the amateurish phone tapping that went on at that time.

Also, the men in cars with cameras sitting outside our flats for days on end. Not in the book, but I have one memory of such a man with a camera in a car outside our flat in Wallace Street, Wellington.

After a few days some of my flatmates took pity on him and made him a batch of scones which they passed through the window of his car. He stayed for a bit longer that day but we never saw him or an alternate again.

Another issue the book picks up is the obsession that the SIS and its foreign counterparts had with counting communists in NZ. I remember that the CIA used to put out a Communist Yearbook that described and attempted to count how many members were in each of the communist parties all around the world.

In NZ, my party, the Workers Communist League, was smaller than the SUP, CPNZ and SAL, but one year near the end of our existence we were pleasantly surprised to see that the CIA had almost to a person, doubled our membership.

We could not work out why, until we realised that we all had code names as well as real names and we were getting more and more slack at using the correct one in the correct place. Anyone surveilling us, counting names, would have counted double the names that we had as members! We took the compliment.

Thank you, Maire, for this great book. Thank you and your family for your great contribution to Aotearoa society.

Hopefully the hardships and human cost that you have shown in this book will commit or recommit the rest of us to struggle for a decolonised and socialist Aotearoa within a peaceful and multi-polar world.

And as one of Jack Locke’s political guides said: “the road may be long and torturous, but the future is bright.”

Robert Reid has more than 40 years’ experience in trade unions and in community employment development in Aotearoa New Zealand. He is a former general secretary the president of FIRST Union. Much of his work has been with disadvantaged groups and this has included work with Māori, Pacific peoples and migrant communities. This was his address last night for the launch of The Enemy Within: The Human Cost of State Surveillance in Aotearoa New Zealand, by Maire Leadbeater.

Kamala Harris’s support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza ‘betrayal of true feminism’

By
Cafe Pacific Publisher
-
0

Democracy Now!

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, “War, Peace and the Presidency.” I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: As we continue to look at Donald Trump’s return to the White House, we turn now to look at what it means for the world, from Israel’s war on Gaza to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. During his victory speech, Trump vowed that he was going to “stop wars”.

But what will Trump’s foreign policy actually look like?

AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by Fatima Bhutto, award-winning author of several works of fiction and nonfiction, including The Runaways, New Kings of the World. She is co-editing a book along with Sonia Faleiro titled Gaza: The Story of a Genocide, due out next year. She writes a monthly column for Zeteo.

Start off by just responding to Trump’s runaway victory across the United States, Fatima.


Fatima Bhutto on the Kamala Harris “support for genocide”.   Video: Democracy Now!

FATIMA BHUTTO: Well, Amy, I don’t think it’s an aberration that he won. I think it’s an aberration that he lost in 2020. And I think anyone looking at the American elections for the last year, even longer, could see very clearly that the Democrats were speaking to — I’m not sure who, to a hall of mirrors.

They ran an incredibly weak and actually macabre campaign, to see Kamala Harris describe her politics as one of joy as she promised the most lethal military in the world, talking about women’s rights in America, essentially focusing those rights on the right to termination, while the rest of the world has watched women slaughtered in Gaza for 13 months straight.

You know, it’s very curious to think that they thought a winning strategy was Beyoncé and that Taylor Swift was somehow a political winning strategy that was going to defeat — who? — Trump, who was speaking to people, who was speaking against wars. You know, whether we believe him or not, it was a marked difference from what Kamala Harris was saying and was not saying.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Fatima, you wrote a piece for Zeteo earlier this year titled “Gaza Has Exposed the Shameful Hypocrisy of Western Feminism.” So, you just mentioned the irony of Kamala Harris as, you know, the second presidential candidate who is a woman, where so much of the campaign was about women, and the fact that — you know, of what’s been unfolding on women, against women and children in Gaza for the last year. If you could elaborate?

FATIMA BHUTTO: Yeah, we’ve seen, Nermeen, over the last year, you know, 70 percent of those slaughtered in Gaza by Israel and, let’s also be clear, by America, because it’s American bombs and American diplomatic cover that allows this slaughter to continue unabated — 70 percent of those victims are women and children.

We have watched children with their heads blown off. We have watched children with no surviving family members find themselves in hospital with limbs missing. Gaza has the largest cohort of child amputees in the world. And we have seen newborns left to die as Israel switches off electricity and fuel of hospitals.

So, for Kamala Harris to come out and talk repeatedly about abortion, and I say this as someone who is pro-choice, who has always been pro-choice, was not just macabre, but it’s obscene. It’s an absolute betrayal of feminism, because feminism is about liberation. It’s not about termination.

And it’s about protecting women at their most vulnerable and at their most frightened. And there was no sign of that. You know, we also saw Kamala Harris bring out celebrities. I mean, the utter vacuousness of bringing out Jennifer Lopez, Beyoncé and others to talk about being a mother, while mothers are being widowed, are being orphaned in Gaza, it was not just tone deaf, it seemed to have a certain hostility, a certain contempt for the suffering that the rest of us have been watching.

I’d also like to add a point about toxic masculinity. There was so much toxicity in Kamala Harris’s campaign. You know, I watched her laugh with Oprah as she spoke about shooting someone who might enter her house with a gun, and giggling and saying her PR team may not like that, but she would kill them.

You don’t need to be a man to practice toxic masculinity, and you don’t need to be white to practice white supremacy, as we’ve seen very clearly from this election cycle.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, Fatima Bhutto, if you look at what Trump represented, and certainly the Muslim American community, the Arab American community, Jewish progressives, young people, African-Americans certainly understood what Trump’s policy was when he was president.

And it’s rare, you know, a president comes back to serve again after a term away. It’s only happened once before in history.

But you have, for example, Trump moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem. You have an illegal settlement named after Trump in the West Bank. The whole question of Netanyahu and his right-wing allies in Israel pushing for annexation of the West Bank, where Trump would stand on this.

And, of course, you have the Abraham Accords, which many Palestinians felt left them out completely. If you can talk about this? These were put forward by Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who, when the massive Gaza destruction was at its height, talked about Gaza as waterfront real estate.

FATIMA BHUTTO: Absolutely. There’s no question that Trump has been a malign force, not just when it concerns Palestinians, but, frankly, out in the world. But I would argue there’s not very much difference between what these two administrations or parties do. The difference is that Trump doesn’t have the gloss and the charisma of an Obama or — I mean, I can’t even say that Biden has charisma, but certainly the gloss.

Trump says it. They do it. The difference — I can’t really tell the difference anymore.

We saw the Biden administration send over 500 shipments of arms to Israel, betraying America’s own laws, the fact that they are not allowed to export weapons of war to a country committing gross violations of human rights. We saw Bill Clinton trotted out in Michigan to tell Muslims that, actually, they should stop killing Israelis and that Jews were there before them.

I mean, it was an utterly contemptuous speech. So, what is the difference exactly?

We saw Bernie Sanders, who was mentioned earlier, write an op-ed in The Guardian in the days before the election, warning people that if they were not to vote for Kamala Harris, if Donald Trump was to get in, think about the climate crisis. Well, we have watched Israel’s emissions in the first five months of their deadly attack on Gaza release more planet-warming gases into the atmosphere than 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations release in a year.

So, I don’t quite see that there’s a difference between what Democrats allow and what Trump brags about. I think it’s just a question of crudeness and decorum and politeness. One has it, and one doesn’t. In a sense, Trump is much clearer for the rest of the world, because he says what he’s going to do, and, you know, you take him at his word, whereas we have been gaslit and lied to by Antony Blinken on a daily basis now since October 7th.

Every time that AOC or Kamala Harris spoke about fighting desperately for a ceasefire, we saw more carnage, more massacres and Israel committing crimes with total impunity. You know, it wasn’t under Trump that Israel has killed more journalists than have ever been killed in any recorded conflict. It’s under Biden that Israel has killed more UN workers than have ever been killed in the UN’s history. So, I’m not sure there’s a difference.

And, you know, we’ll have to wait to see in the months ahead. But I don’t think anyone is bracing for an upturn. Certainly, people didn’t vote for Kamala Harris. I’m not sure they voted for Trump. We know that she lost 14 million votes from Biden’s win in 2020. And we know that those votes just didn’t come out for the Democrats. Some may have migrated to Trump. Some may have gone to third parties. But 14 million just didn’t go anywhere.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Fatima, if you could, you know, tell us what do you think the reasons are for that? I mean, the kind of — as you said, because it is really horrifying, what has unfolded in Gaza in the last 13 months. You’ve written about this. You now have an edited anthology that you’re editing, co-editing. You know, what do you think accounts for this, the sheer disregard for the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed in Gaza?

FATIMA BHUTTO: It’s a total racism on the part not just of America, but I’m speaking of the West here. This has been betrayed over the last year, the fact that Ukraine is spoken about with an admiration, you know, Zelensky is spoken about with a sort of hero worship, Ukrainian resisters to Russia’s invasion are valorised.

You know, Nancy Pelosi wore a bracelet of bullets used by the Ukrainian resistance against Trump [sic]. But Palestinians are painted as terrorists, are dehumanised to such an extent. You know, we saw that dehumanisation from the mouths of Bill Clinton no less, from the mouths of Kamala Harris, who interrupted somebody speaking out against the genocide, and saying, “I am speaking.”

What is more toxically masculine than that?

We’ve also seen a concerted crackdown in universities across the United States on college students. I’m speaking also here of my own alma mater of Columbia University, of Barnard College, that called the NYPD, who fired live ammunition at the students. You know, this didn’t happen — this extreme response didn’t happen in protests against apartheid. It didn’t happen in protests against Vietnam in quite the same way.

And all I can think is, America and the West, who have been fighting Muslim countries for the last 25, 30 years, see that as acceptable to do so. Our deaths are acceptable to them, and genocide is not a red line.

And, you know, to go back to what what was mentioned earlier about the working class, that is absolutely ignored in America — and I would make the argument across the West, too — they have watched administration after, you know, president and congressmen give billions and billions of dollars to Ukraine, while they have no relief at home.

They have no relief from debt. They have no relief from student debt. They have no medical care, no coverage. They’re struggling to survive. And this is across the board. And after Ukraine, they saw billions go to Israel in the same way, while they get, frankly, nothing.

AMY GOODMAN: Fatima Bhutto, we want to thank you so much for being with us, award-winning author of a number of works of fiction and nonfiction, including The Runaways and New Kings of the World, co-editing a book called Gaza: The Story of a Genocide, due out next year, writes a monthly column for Zeteo.

Coming up, we look at Trump’s vow to deport as many as 20 million immigrants and JD Vance saying, yes, US children born of immigrant parents could also be deported.

Republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

Chris Hedges: The politics of cultural despair – and the American nightmare

By
Cafe Pacific Publisher
-
0
Decayed societies, where a population is stripped of political, social and economic power, instinctively reach out for cult leaders
Decayed societies, where a population is stripped of political, social and economic power, instinctively reach out for cult leaders . . . such as Donald Trump. Image: X/LennartWen/Banksy

ANALYSIS: By Chris Hedges

In the end, the US election was about despair. Despair over futures that evaporated with deindustrialisation. Despair over the loss of 30 million jobs in mass layoffs.

Despair over austerity programmes and the funneling of wealth upwards into the hands of rapacious oligarchs. Despair over a liberal class that refuses to acknowledge the suffering it orchestrated under neoliberalism or embrace New Deal-type programmes that will ameliorate this suffering.

Despair over the futile, endless wars, as well as the genocide in Gaza, where generals and politicians are never held accountable. Despair over a democratic system that has been seized by corporate and oligarchic power.

This despair has been played out on the bodies of the disenfranchised through opioid and alcoholism addictions, gambling, mass shootings, suicides — especially among middle-aged white males — morbid obesity and the investment of our emotional and intellectual life in tawdry spectacles and the allure of magical thinking, from the absurd promises of the Christian right to the Oprah-like belief that reality is never an impediment to our desires.

These are the pathologies of a deeply diseased culture, what Friedrich Nietzsche
calls an aggressive despiritualised nihilism.

Donald Trump is a symptom of our diseased society. He is not its cause. He is what is vomited up out of decay. He expresses a childish yearning to be an omnipotent god. This yearning resonates with Americans who feel they have been treated like human refuse. But the impossibility of being a god, as Ernest Becker writes, leads to its dark alternative — destroying like a god. This self-immolation is what comes next.

Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party, along with the establishment wing of the Republican Party, which allied itself with Harris, live in their own non-reality-based belief system.

Smug, ‘moral’ crusade
Harris, who was anointed by party elites and never received a single primary vote, proudly trumpeted her endorsement by Dick Cheney, a politician who left office with a 13 percent approval rating. The smug, self-righteous “moral” crusade against Trump stokes the national reality television show that has replaced journalism and politics.

It reduces a social, economic and political crisis to the personality of Trump. It refuses to confront and name the corporate forces responsible for our failed democracy. It allows Democratic politicians to blithely ignore their base — 77 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents support an arms embargo against Israel.

The open collusion with corporate oppression and refusal to heed the desires and needs of the electorate neuters the press and Trump critics. These corporate puppets stand for nothing, other than their own advancement. The lies they tell to working men and women, especially with programmes such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), do far more damage than any of the lies uttered by Trump.

Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West predicted that, as Western democracies calcified and died, a class of “monied thugs,” people such as Trump, would replace the traditional political elites. Democracy would become a sham. Hatred would be fostered and fed to the masses to encourage them to tear themselves apart.

The American dream has become an American nightmare.

The social bonds, including jobs that gave working Americans a sense of purpose and stability, that gave them meaning and hope, have been sundered. The stagnation of tens of millions of lives, the realisation that it will not be better for their children, the predatory nature of our institutions, including education, health care and prisons, have engendered, along with despair, feelings of powerlessness and humiliation. It has bred loneliness, frustration, anger and a sense of worthlessness.

Collective mood to sadness
“When life is not worth living, everything becomes a pretext for ridding ourselves of it . . .,” Émile Durkheim wrote. “There is a collective mood, as there is an individual mood, that inclines nations to sadness. . . .  For individuals are too closely involved in the life of society for it to be sick without their being affected. Its suffering inevitably becomes theirs.”

Decayed societies, where a population is stripped of political, social and economic power, instinctively reach out for cult leaders. I watched this during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. The cult leader promises a return to a mythical golden age and vows, as Trump does, to crush the forces embodied in demonised groups and individuals that are blamed for their misery.

The more outrageous cult leaders become, the more cult leaders flout law and social conventions, the more they gain in popularity. Cult leaders are immune to the norms of established society. This is their appeal. Cult leaders seek total power. Those who follow them grant them this power in the desperate hope that the cult leaders will save them.

All cults are personality cults. Cult leaders are narcissists. They demand obsequious fawning and total obedience. They prize loyalty above competence. They wield absolute control. They do not tolerate criticism. They are deeply insecure, a trait they attempt to cover up with bombastic grandiosity. They are amoral and emotionally and physically abusive. They see those around them as objects to be manipulated for their own empowerment, enjoyment and often sadistic entertainment.

All those outside the cult are branded as forces of evil, prompting an epic battle whose natural expression is violence.

We will not convince those who have surrendered their agency to a cult leader and embraced magical thinking through rational argument. We will not coerce them into submission. We will not find salvation for them or ourselves by supporting the Democratic Party.

Whole segments of American society are now bent on self-immolation. They despise this world and what it has done to them. Their personal and political behaviour is willfully suicidal. They seek to destroy, even if destruction leads to violence and death. They are no longer sustained by the comforting illusion of human progress, losing the only antidote to nihilism.

Work essential for human dignity
Pope John Paul II in 1981 issued an encyclical titled Laborem Exercens, or “Through Work.” He attacked the idea, fundamental to capitalism, that work was merely an exchange of money for labour. Work, he wrote, should not be reduced to the commodification of human beings through wages. Workers were not impersonal instruments to be manipulated like inanimate objects to increase profit. Work was essential to human dignity and self-fulfillment. It gave us a sense of empowerment and identity. It allowed us to build a relationship with society in which we could feel we contributed to social harmony and social cohesion, a relationship in which we had purpose.

The Pope castigated unemployment, underemployment, inadequate wages, automation and a lack of job security as violations of human dignity. These conditions, he wrote, were forces that negated self-esteem, personal satisfaction, responsibility and creativity. The exaltation of the machine, he warned, reduced human beings to the status of slaves. He called for full employment, a minimum wage large enough to support a family, the right of a parent to stay home with children, and jobs and a living wage for the disabled. He advocated, in order to sustain strong families, universal health insurance, pensions, accident insurance and work schedules that permitted free time and vacations. He wrote that all workers should have the right to form unions with the ability to strike.

We must invest our energy into organising mass movements to overthrow the corporate state through sustained acts of mass civil disobedience. This includes the most powerful weapon we possess — the strike. By turning our ire on the corporate state, we name the true sources of power and abuse. We expose the absurdity of blaming our demise on demonised groups such as undocumented workers, Muslims or Blacks.

We give people an alternative to a corporate-indentured Democratic Party that cannot be rehabilitated. We make possible the restoration of an open society, one that serves the common good rather than corporate profit. We must demand nothing less than full employment, guaranteed minimum incomes, universal health insurance, free education at all levels, robust protection of the natural world and an end to militarism and imperialism.

We must create the possibility for a life of dignity, purpose and self-esteem. If we do not, it will ensure a Christianised fascism and ultimately, with the accelerating ecocide, our obliteration.

Republished from the Chris Hedges X page.

1...222324...107Page 23 of 107

Popular Posts

Twitter

Follow, subscribe, interact via Café Pacific's social platforms (below).

DavidRobie.nz

The latest

Caitlin Johnstone: You don’t hate the mass media enough

Articles 0
COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone There was another IDF massacre in...

Ramzy Baroud: Pathetic attempt to achieve by Gaza decree what US-Israel failed to gain through brute force

Analysis 0
COMMENTARY: By Ramzy Baroud UNSC Resolution 2803 is unequivocally rejected....

New Pacific Media journal launched with a focus on region’s challenges and geostrategic rivalries

Analysis 0
Asia Pacific Media Network Pacific Media, a new regional research...

Subscribe

© 2023 DavidRobie.nz. All Rights Reserved. Served by Multimedia Investments Ltd.