US and NATO representatives keep trying to convince the world that Afghanistan is not a corruption-ridden quagmire of violence, and US Defence Secretary, General Mattis,told reporters in Kabul on September 28 that “uncertainty has been replaced by certainty” because of new US policy, and that “the sooner the Taliban recognizes they cannot win with bombs, the sooner the killing will end.”
At the same press conference NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that following a Taliban attack on Kabul airport that day, which he described as “a sign of weakness, not of strength,” he “would like commend the Afghan Security Forces which are handling these kind of attacks and it is yet another example of how professional they are, how committed they are and how they are able to handle this kind of security threat.” (In September the US Air Force dropped more bombs on Afghanistan “than in any other month for nearly seven years.”)
In the following month, from October 17 to 23, there were six major insurgent attacks which demonstrated that the militants are far from weak:
At least 71 people were killed and hundreds wounded in suicide and gun attacks on police and soldiers in Ghazni and Paktia Provinces… Some 50 soldiers were killed in a Taliban assault on a military base in Kandahar province… A suicide bomber blew himself up in a Shiite mosque during evening prayers in Kabul, killing 56 people and wounding 55 others and another suicide bombing killed at least 33 people at a mosque in the central province of Ghor… A further suicide bomber killed 15 army officer cadets travelling in a bus in Kabul, and four policemen were killed in a Taliban attack on a security post in Ghazni province.
So the carnage continues, as do the visitors, and the New York Timesreported that on October 23, the same day as the Ghazni policemen were killed, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson “made a secret two-hour visit” and the Washington Postnoted he “flew from Doha to Bagram [the massive US base]” while “a total news blackout was imposed until after they left the country and returned to Qatar.”
The Times was forthright in stating how shocking it is “that top American officials must sneak into this country after 16 years of war, thousands of lives lost and hundreds of billions of dollars spent” and considered the furtive two-hour stopover to be “testimony to the stalemate confronting the United States because of a stubborn and effective Taliban foe that is increasingly ascendant.” But deception capers went further than disguising the visit itself.
It was noted by the BBC that both the Afghan and US governments said the meeting between Mr Tillerson and Afghanistan’s President Ghani took place in Kabul, as tweeted by the State Department (“Today, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met with #Afghanistan’s President @ashrafghani in Kabul”). And this was right and proper, because visiting foreign government representatives should call on heads of state and not vice versa, and it seemed that appropriate civility had been observed.
Except that it hadn’t, because Tillerson didn’t go to the President’s office in Kabul, but spent his entire two hours at the heavily guarded US air base at Bagram. He didn’t dare travel the 50 kilometres from Kabul to Bagram to meet President Ghani, but President Ghani had to travel to Bagram to meet with him, which tells us a great deal about how Washington regards Afghanistan and its elected president. And then the attempt to have the world believe that the meeting took place in Kabul didn’t work out.
The deception collapsed because of a difference in a photograph of the meeting. According to the Times, “a press release from the US embassy in Afghanistan includes a photo with the wall above the two men’s heads cropped out” by photoshopping, but another photograph showed a clock on the wall displaying international time, which indicated that the photograph was taken at the US base and not in the President’s office in Kabul. (A helpful State Department spokesperson suggested that “the Afghan Government changed those photos probably to make it aesthetically more pleasing” which at least added a little humour to an otherwise gruesome farce.)
It isn’t clear what the visit was supposed to achieve, given that the Tillerson-Ghani meeting lasted less than an hour, although there was an eight-minute “media availability” at which four questions were asked by the six American journalists who were travelling with Tillerson in his aircraft. No Afghan reporters were permitted to be present, a decision indicative of the character of the visit as a whole, and it can hardly be expected that their exclusion would be regarded with approval by the Afghan government or media The conduct of this visit gave the Taliban and all other anti-American elements in the country a boost that is unquantifiable but is bound to be substantial.
Which takes us to another disastrous episode in US-Afghanistan relations, in May 2014, at which there were no aesthetically displeasing clocks in photographs when President Obama visited Afghanistan, because there was no meeting between him and the then Afghan Head of State, President Karzai.
Like Mr Ghani with the Tillerson visit, Mr Karzai had not been told in advance that Obama was coming to Afghanistan, but when eventually he was informed of his arrival he refused to travel to Bagram to call on him. A US official said that President Karzai had been “offered a meeting with Mr Obama during the brief visit but declined… We did offer him the opportunity to come to Bagram, but we’re not surprised that it didn’t work on short notice.”
The condescending contempt of that statement and the arrogance of the US attitude did not escape the citizens of Afghanistan, and the Wall Street Journalobserved that “Afghans praised President Hamid Karzai for refusing to meet with President Barack Obama during a brief visit to their country.” But it is disgraceful that the President of the United States (and any Washington administration official, such as Tillerson) can visit Afghanistan without informing its president beforehand. It wouldn’t work with France or China or Tahiti — but it seems that Afghanistan isn’t important enough to matter.
The ultimate insult of the Obama visit was that he brought “country music star Brad Paisley with him to provide entertainment for the troops,” which may have added to the vexation of President Karzai whose office issued a statement that “The president of Afghanistan said he was ready to warmly welcome the president of the United States in accordance with Afghan traditions but had no intention of meeting him at Bagram.”
Three years ago the president of Afghanistan made it clear that the president of the United States had failed to observe international custom and common courtesy and would be treated appropriately for his patronising conduct. But things have changed since then, and when a US official now visits Afghanistan, and scorns custom and courtesy, the current president of Afghanistan has to ignore the condescension and bow his knee by obeying orders to go to the visitor’s security cocoon in the Bagram base.
It is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in Afghanistan that after sixteen years of US military operations and expenditure of over 800 billion dollars it is unsafe for the Secretary of State to visit the place unless his travel is kept entirely secret from the world — including the president of the country he is visiting. But it is even more appalling that the United States treats Afghanistan like a US colony, as evidenced by the fact that the US Secretary of State can summon the Afghan president to meet him in a US military base, rather than paying him basic respect as he would to a national leader anywhere else in the world.
Washington has not yet learned that winning wars and influencing people takes more than brute force. Trump declared in August that “Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win. From now on, victory will have a clear definition… preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan.” But he’ll never do that if the United States continues to behave like a colonial master.
In early 2003 it was claimed that Iraq was a threat to other countries. Despite ten years of crushing economic sanctions plus intrusive inspections, supposedly Iraq had acquired enough “weapons of mass destruction” to threaten the West. It was ridiculous on its face but few people in power said so. Establishment politicians and media across the U.S. promoted the idea. In the Senate, Joe Biden chaired the committee looking into the allegations but excluded knowledgeable critics such as Scott Ritter. This led to the invasion of Iraq.
Swedish Doctors for Human Rights say they have found evidence that the chemical attack in Syria was a ‘false flag’ by the White Helmets.
Today we have something similarly ridiculous and dangerous. Supposedly the Syrian government decided to use a banned chemical weapon which they gave up in 2013-2014. Despite advancing against the insurgents, the Syrian government supposedly put sarin in a Russian chemical weapon canister and dropped this on the town Khan Shaykhun which has been under the control of Syria’s version of Al Qaeda for years. To top off the stupidity, they left paint markings on the canister which identify it as a chemical weapon. Supposedly the Syrian government did this despite knowing there are many “White Helmet” activists in the town along with with their cameras, videos, computers, internet uplinks and western social media promoters. Supposedly the Syrian government did this despite knowing that neo-conservatives, neo-liberals and zionists are keen to prolong the conflict and drag the US and NATO into it. Supposedly the Syrian government did this despite knowing the one thing that could trigger direct US aggression in the conflict is the use of chemical weapons …. the “red line” laid down by Barack Obama.
If the above sounds unlikely, it is. But even if these accusations should be laughed out of the room, as they should have been in 2002, let’s take the claims about the event at Khan Shaykun in Syria on 4 April 2017 seriously. Certainly the consequences will be serious if the trend is not reversed.
What Happened at Khan Shaykhun?
The report titled “Seventh report of the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism” was provided to select governments and media on Thursday 26 October. Media announced the key finding without criticism or question. They highlighted the sentence that the committee is “confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin in Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017”.
About 36 hours later, the report was leaked via the internet. But the die was already cast as establishment media had “confirmed” Syrian guilt.
Following are key contradictions and inconsistencies in the report produced by the Joint Investigative Mechanism of the UN and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
The Investigation Ignores the Essential Element of Motive.
The three essentials in criminal investigation are Motive, Means and Opportunity. All three must be present. Yet the investigation team ignores the question of motive. The Syrian government has every motive to NOT use proscribed weapons. On the other side, the armed opposition has a strong motive to implicate the Syrian government. They have been calling for US and NATO intervention for years. They are losing ground, recruits and allies. Yet these facts are never considered.
The Investigation Relies Primarily on Biased Sources.
On page 1 the Joint Investigative Mechanism claims they have conducted a “rigorous independent examination”. But most experts and witnesses are biased toward the “regime change” policies of western governments. On page 4 the report says “The Mechanism engaged several internationally recognized forensic and specialist defense institutes… to provide forensic and expert support to the investigation.”
Any “defense institute” connected or contracting with France, UK or USA will have inherent assumptions and bias since these governments have actively promoted overthrow of the Syrian government.
The Investigation Ignores Credible but Critical Analyses.
The Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) team makes no mention of the published analysis and findings of numerous researchers, investigative journalists and scientists. For example:
– MIT Professor Theodore Postol has analyzed the Khan Shaykhun incident. He persuasively challenges the main theory about the crater site and munition.
– American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has also written about he incident. His information from U.S. military and intelligence officers reveal that the American military knew about the forthcoming attack in advance. He reports the Syrian jet attack was “not a chemical weapons strike …. That’s a fairy tale.”
The above “open source” analysis and information was published well before the current report but apparently not considered. A “rigorous, independent examination” needs to evaluate investigations such as these.
Victims Appear before the Attack.
On pages 28-29 it is reported that
“Certain irregularities were observed in elements of information analyzed. For example, several hospitals appeared to start admitting casualties of the attack between 0640 and 0645 hours…. in 57 cases patients were admitted in five hospitals before the incident in Khan Shaykhun….in 10 such cases, patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 125 km away from Khan Shaykhun at 0700 hours while another 42 patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 30 km away at 0700 hours.”
It is reported that “The Mechanism did not investigate these discrepancies and cannot determine whether they are linked to any possible staging scenario, or to poor record-keeping in chaotic conditions”. Given the importance of determining whether this incident was caused by the Syrian government or staged by elements of the armed opposition and their supporters, why were these discrepancies not investigated further? Clearly it is not possible that victims were transported 125 kms and delivered to a hospital in 15 minutes. This is potentially powerful evidence of a staged event.
“’Operation Mass Appeal’ was an MI6 campaign to plant stories in the media about WMDs in Iraq. Used to sell the war.”
‘White Helmets’ Were Warning of a Chemical Weapon Attack before the Attack.
On page 20 it says “The Mechanism collected information from witnesses to the effect that a first warning of a possible upcoming chemical attack was received by “Syrian Civil Defense” (also known as the “White Helmets”) and spotters in Kahn Shaykun…. The witness stated that the alert advised residents to be careful as the aircraft was likely carrying toxic chemicals.”
It seems reasonable to ask: Was the advance talk of “toxic chemicals” a signal to get ready for a staged event? How would a plane spotter know there was a one-time chemical bomb aboard? This is another area that needs more investigation.
Were Syrian Planes over Khan Shaykhun at the Critical Time?
The basic question of whether or not there were Syrian jets over Khan Shaykhun is unanswered. The Syrian military says they did NOT fly over Khan Shaykhun in the early morning.
Page 21 documents that the Syrian pilot and log books record that the Su-22 jet was executing attacks at other nearby towns and not closer than 7 – 9 kms from Khan Shaykhun. Radar track data from the U.S. appears to support this, indicating the Syrian jet path was 5 kms from Khan Shaykun.
On page 7 it says “SAAF aircraft may have been in a position to launch aerial bombs”. On page 22 it says,
“the witness reported waking up at around 0700 hours on 4 April 2017 to the sound of explosions. The witness stated that there had been no aircraft over Khan Shaykhun at the time and that aircraft had only started launching attacks at around 1100 hours.”
There are conflicting testimonies on this issue but curiously no video showing jet fighters at the time of the explosions in Khan Shaykun. It is unconfirmed how the ground explosions occurred.
The Investigation Team Did Not Try to Visit the Scene of the Crime.
On page 3 the report says
“The Mechanism did not visit the scenes of the incidents…. While the Leadership Panel considered that a visit to these sites would have been of value, such value would diminish over time. Further, the panel was required to weigh the security risks against the possible benefits to the investigation.”
While it is certainly appropriate to consider security, the actual scene of a crime provides unique opportunities for evidence. The OPCW has previously stated the necessity of having access to a crime site then taking and transferring samples to a certified lab with a clear chain of custody.
If the insurgents still controlling Khan Shaykhun have nothing to hide, they should welcome the investigation.
Furthermore, Russian authorities offered to guarantee the safety of the inspection team. Yet the investigation team apparently made no effort to visit the site. Why? In an investigation of this importance, with potentially huge political consequences, visiting and analyzing the scene of the crime should be a requirement if at all possible.
The Material Evidence Come from Insurgents with No Verifiable Chain of Custody.
On page 23 it says “Samples taken from the crater and its surroundings were found by the Fact Finding Mission to contain sarin.” On the day of the event, insurgents took soil samples and victims to Turkey where they were received and subsequently tested. Without verified origins and “chain of custody”, this data cannot be verified and must be considered skeptically.
As indicated in the report, one theory about the 4 April 2017 event is that it was staged to implicate the Syrian government. If that theory is correct, it is predictable that the plotters would have samples prepared in advance, including sarin samples with markers matched to the Syrian stockpile. The Syrian sarin was destroyed aboard the US vessel “MV Cape Ray”. Given the heavy involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Syrian conflict it is likely they analyzed and retained some portion.
The Report Repeats Discredited Claims about Bomb Fragment and Filler Cap.
On page 26 it is reported that
“two objects of interest … were the filler cap from a chemical munition and a deformed piece of metal protruding from deep within the crater. According to information obtained by the Mechanism, the filler cap, with two closure plugs, is uniquely consistent with Syrian chemical aerial bombs.”
This information may come from a Human Rights Watch report which has been discredited. The “filler cap” was supposedly a match for an external plug for a Russian chemical weapon bomb but was found to not match and to be based on a 1950’s era museum photo. An insightful and amusing critique of the HRW report is here.
The authenticity of the fragments in the crater is also challenged by the lack of a tailfin or any other bomb fragments. A chemical weapon bomb is designed to release and not burn up the chemical and therefore the munition casing should be on site.
Strange Actions Suggesting a Staged Event.
On page 28 the report notes methods and procedures “that appeared either unusual or inappropriate in the circumstances.” For example they observe that a Drager X-am 7000 air monitor was shown detecting sarin when that device is not able to detect sarin, and “para-medical interventions that did not seem to make medical sense, such as performing heart compression on a patient facing the ground.”
On page 29 it is reported that one victim had blood test showing negative for sarin and urine test showing positive. This is an impossible combination. Also on page 29 it is noted that some of the rescue operations were inappropriate but might have been “attempts to inflate the gravity of the situation for depiction in the media.”
The report does not mention the video which shows “White Helmet” responders handling victims without any gloves or protection. If the patients truly died from sarin, touching the patients’ skin or clothing could be fatal. Incidents such as these support the theory that this was a contrived and staged event with real victims.
The Team Is “Confident” in Their Conclusions yet Basic Facts Are in Dispute.
On page 22, the report acknowledges that “To date the Mechanism has not found specific information confirming whether or not an SAA Su-22 operating from Al Shayrat airbase launched an aerial attack against Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017.”
How can they be “confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017” when such basics have not been confirmed?
Conclusion
The report of the Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) gives the impression of much more certainty than is actually there. Seizing on the false “confidence”, the White House has denounced the “horrifying barbarism of Bashar al Assad” and “lack of respect for international norms” by Syria’s ally Russia. International diplomacy is being steadily eroded. .
Most western “experts” were dead wrong in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Are these same “experts”, institutes, intelligence agencies and biased organizations going to take us down the road to new aggression, this time against Syria?
In contrast with the JIM report, Gareth Porter reached the opposite conclusion: “The evidence now available makes it clear that the scene suggesting a sarin attack at the crater was a crudely staged deception.” That is also more logical. The armed opposition had the motive, means and opportunity.
Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He can be contacted at [email protected]
On November 2, Iran Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the CIA and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) think tank of spreading fake news using the Bin Laden files that were released by the CIA on November 1.
In a tweet, Zarif accused both the CIA and the FDD of selectively releasing documents that link Iran with al-Qaeda in order to accuse Iran of playing a role in the 9/11 attack.
A record low for the reach of petrodollars: CIA & FDD fake news w/ selective AlQaeda docs re: Iran can’t whitewash role of US allies in 9/11
Back on November 1, the FDD highlighted one of the Bin Laden’s files that describes an alleged deal between al-Qaeda and Iran. Al-Qaeda planned to strike US interests in “Saudi Arabia and the Gulf” in exchange for Iran offering them “money, arms, [and] training in Hezbollah camps in Lebanon.” The file was allegedly written by one of bin Laden’s lieutenants.
This was not the first time western think tanks attempted to accuse Iran of participating in 9/11. The FDD itself is known for its anti-Iran studies and reports. Such think tanks are usually founded by Arabian Gulf countries, or Israel.
Even after 16 years after 9/11 most of mainstream think tanks and main stream media still ignore the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks were Saudi citizens when they provide coverage of the horrifying terrorist attack.
The Ministry of Security and Justice of the Netherlands will not expose a number of documents related to the crash of Flight MH17 of Malaysia Airlines over the Donbass in 2014.
According to the Broadcasting Corporation of the Netherlands (HTK), the decision was made by the Supreme Court of the country. According to the court, “the right of the government to secrecy of its activities, the unity of state policy and sensitivity of the question outweigh the importance of disclosure.”
Thus, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands has revoked a decision of a lower court that earlier ruled that the information about the air crash should be exposed to the general public.
Shortly after the air crash over the Donbass, the Broadcasting Corporation of the Netherlands, RTL TV channel and Volksrant newspaper requested relevant information from the government to restore the sequence of actions of the authorities that followed the tragedy that occurred on July 17, 2014. The request from the media outlets was based on the law on freedom of access to information.
The Ministry of Security and Justice of the Netherlands published several hundreds of documents in February and April 2015, but most of information in them was retouched so much it was difficult to understand what the documents were saying.
It soon became clear that a whole package of documents on the subject had never been declassified. The department said, however, that exposing the data may complicate the relationship with other countries and international organisations.
A court subsequently confirmed the right of the media to receive information. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court sided with the government and ministers.
HTK, RTL and Volksrant currently consider prospects to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court.
On July 17, 2014, Boeing 777 of Malaysia Airlines bound from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed in the east of the Donetsk region., killing all 298 on board, including 196 Dutch nationals.
A fresh and compelling new account of the Russian revolution to mark its centenary concludes by paying tribute to the Bolsheviks for acting as history’s switchmen, a term derived from the small booths that dotted the railway tracks across the Russian empire, where local revolutionaries had long gathered for clandestine meetings.
Against those so-called ‘legal Marxists’ who in 1917 used the term as an epithet to scorn those who would try to divert the locomotive of history on its route from the feudal to the capitalist political station it was scheduled to arrive at before it could depart for its final socialist destination, China Miéville asks:
‘What could be more inimical to any trace of teleology than those who take account of the sidings of history?’ What makes October 1917 not only ‘ultimately tragic’ but still ‘ultimately inspiring’ is that it showed it was possible to act decisively so as to engage ‘the switches onto hidden tracks through wilder history’ (Miéville, 2017, pp. 1, 318-19).
There were, of course, no hidden tracks. If the metaphor were to continue to be deployed, it would require recognizing that the tracks which would form a branch line away from the siding of the October 1917 insurrection had yet to be forged and laid. The Bolsheviks who led the insurrection, above all Lenin and Trotsky, certainly weren’t intending to construct a parallel branch line. Rather they believed that those trains already far ahead of Russia’s on history’s track were scheduled to imminently reach capitalism’s final station (the “highest”, as Lenin had designated it in his 1916 pamphlet on imperialism).
And they expected that those trains would hasten to leave that station, once inspired by the determination of the Russian switchmen, who would then reengage the switches to merge onto history’s track to the socialist station. But, as was quickly signaled by the failure of the German communist revolution of 1919, the trains on the main track failed to leave the capitalist station. The result, as Miéville puts it, was that the ‘months and years to follow will see the revolution embattled, assailed, isolated, ossified, broken. We know where this is going: purges, gulags, starvation, mass murder’ (Miéville, 2017, p. 306).
Actual Construction
The branch line that was actually constructed – tortuously winding from the Civil War through the marketized NEP of Lenin’s last years to Stalin’s centrally planned industrialization and forced agricultural collectivization – made two-track time a reality for most of the twentieth century. The revolutionaries who broke most sharply with the practice of ‘socialism in one country’, and suffered grievously from its particular methods, still believed that, as Trotsky put it in exile in 1932, ‘capitalism has outlived itself as a world system’ (Trotsky, 2016, pp. 208).[1]
And even amidst the American-led capitalist dynamism of the post-1945 era, it was the Soviet track to industrialization that most impressed revolutionaries – and a good many reformists – in developing countries. Yet it turned out that it was the parallel branch line that was constructed from the siding of the October revolution which culminated in an historical dead-end. Before the century was out, eying the high-speed trains now running on the capitalist track, new switchmen appeared all too eager to engage the switches once more and merge with the track on which capitalism sped into the 21st century to who knows where.
It is time to dispense with the metaphor. And what should also be dispensed with is the proclivity to proclaim the imminent ‘end of capitalism’ (Streeck, 2016). However useful historical materialism still proves in revealing how capitalism displaced previous modes of production – and thereby in revealing the possibility of a post-capitalist future – there are no hidden tracks through history. There are still only people making history under conditions not of their choosing. And however essential Marxist analyses of capitalism’s old and new contradictions may be for understanding those conditions, neither constraints on the development of productive forces, nor economic crises, or even ecological ones, will themselves end capitalism. Only people capable of making history can do that, and if that new history is to be a socialist one, they will have to become capable of doing that too.
It should be noted in this respect that there is also a strong trace of teleology inherent in the all too common view that, in diverting Russia from its presumed ‘natural path of development’, October 1917 signifies an arbitrary act organized behind the back of Russian society by a group of Marxist ideologues who were bent on carrying out their so-called ‘socialist experiment’ at any price. In fact, what still lends October ‘historical legitimacy, as David Mandel reminds us in another new book commemorating the centenary, is how extensive was the support for it. ‘October was indeed a popular revolution’ (Mandel, 2016, p. 155).
Insofar as the centenary of the Russian revolution occasions some new reflections on the possibility of a transition from capitalism to socialism a quarter century after the demise of Communism, this is much to be welcomed, with two provisos. First, the proper place to start is a quarter century before 1917, i.e., with the novel political phenomenon of the widespread emergence of organized mass socialist parties deeply embedded in the working classes. And second, the point of this returning must be to identify and learn from not only the possibilities they evinced but also their misconceptions and limitations, the better to see whether and how these might be, if not avoided, then at least transcended in new attempts that will no doubt be made under 21st century capitalist conditions to develop new political parties to act as the organizational and strategic fulcrum between working class formation, on the one hand, and capitalist state transformation, on the other.
Social Democracy’s Legacy
Subordinate classes had throughout history engaged in slave revolts, or in bread riots usually led by women, but such long standing institution building as was involved in the mass working class political parties spawned by the late 19th century were an entirely new historical phenomenon. They did not come out of nowhere. They often involved the confluence of various previous formations which had been unable to be as encompassing of the working classes or sustain such longevity. But it was for the most part the socialist parties which emerged between the 1870s and 1920s out of previous attempts at political organization and revolt as well as a myriad of trade union struggles that, as Eley affirms,
‘consistently pushed the boundaries of citizenship outward and onward, demanding democratic rights where anciens regimes refused them, defending democratic gains against subsequent attack and pressing the case for ever-greater inclusiveness. Socialist and Communist parties – parties of the Left – sometimes managed to win elections and form governments, but more important, they organized civil society into the basis from which existing democratic gains could be defended and new ones could grow’ (Eley, 2002).
As C.B. Macpherson once put it, even though
‘the principle introduced into predemocratic liberal theory in the nineteenth century to make it liberal-democratic… [was] a concept of man as at least potentially a doer, an exerter and developer and enjoyer of his human capacities, rather than merely a consumer of utilities’, the practical advancement of such a conception largely depended on the emergence of these entirely new forms of political agency which were explicitly aiming for a ‘maximization of democracy’ through ‘a revolution in democratic consciousness’ of the working classes (Macpherson, 1973, pp. 51-2, 173-4, 182-4).
A good deal of the inspiration these parties took from Marx and Engels’ 1848 Communist Manifesto was the stress it had put on ‘the formation of the proletariat into a class, and hence a political party’ (Marx, 1996, p. 13). And when Marx and Engels had even earlier contended that
‘the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution’, their notion of both ‘movement’ and ‘revolution’ was conceived not so much as a spontaneous cathartic moment of insurrection, but rather as involving a long process of class organization and institution building through which workers’ capacities could be developed, so they would ‘become fitted to found society anew’ (Marx, 1947, p. 69; see also Carver and Blanks, 2014a; 2014b; Nimtz, 2000).
They were likely thinking here of something like the German Workers Educational Society founded in London in 1840, which advertized on one of its posters:
“The main principle of the Society is that men can only come to liberty and self-consciousness by cultivating their intellectual faculties. Consequently, all the evening meetings are devoted to instruction. One evening English is taught, on another, geography, on a third history, on the fourth, drawing and physics, on a fifth, singing, on a sixth, dancing and on the seventh communist politics” (Bender, 1988, p. 10).
The Communist Leaguers who as part of ‘their historic mission to change the world’ had founded that educational society and later commissioned the Manifesto – let alone ‘the quarante-huitards that soon crowded the streets of Paris’ (Gabriel, 2011, pp. 109, 132) – could hardly qualify as a party in the sense that this would come to be understood some four decades later by the time the Second International of mass socialist parties was founded on Bastille Day in 1889. When the Communist League broke up in 1850 amidst a factional dispute, Marx defined the issue behind the fatal split as the difference between his sides’ materialism and the other sides’ idealism in their approach to revolutionary time: ‘The materialist standpoint of the Manifesto has given way to idealism. The revolution is seen not as the product of realities of the situation but as the result of an effort of will.
Whereas we say to the workers: You have 15, 20, 50 years of civil war to go through in order to alter the situation and to train yourselves for the exercise of power, it is said we must take power at once, or else we may as well take to our beds’ (Marx, 1978, p. 626; see also Nimtz 2016, pp. 248-52).
Marx’s timeline for party building was remarkably prescient. The new Social Democratic parties which emerged over the following 15, 20, 50 years, with mass working class involvement over these decades, premised their activities on the understanding that, as Engels himself put in 1895, ‘the time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what it is they are going for, body and soul. The history of the last 50 years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long persistent work is required’ (Engels, 1960, pp. 199-200).
The Marxist legacy these new parties drew on, and to no little extent manufactured, involved bringing the Manifesto back from relative obscurity as a key aid in their own role of forming ‘the proletariat into a class’. This was explicitly seen as involving a patient process of organization building and mass popular education. The most recent and comprehensive analysis of socialist party programmes before 1914 – starting with the foundational 1891 German Erfurt programme but also covering those of the Belgian, Swedish, French and Russian Social Democratic parties as well as of the British Labour party – clearly demonstrates that inspirational socialist goals were always linked to the articulation of more immediate reforms. These ranged from those designed to improve living and work conditions, to those aimed at the extension of the suffrage, freedom of association and the rule of law, to those designed to secure full equality for women, separation of church and state, universal secular education and the democratization of arts and culture. They showed to broadly-defined working classes, as August Bebel once put it, that the parties ‘were acting for them in practice, and not simply referring them to some future socialist state, the date of whose arrival nobody knows.’ Even so, they were also seen as crucial ‘to equip the working class intellectually and culturally to master its own political destiny’, which involved, above all, developing the self-governing capacities of the working classes.
To be sure, Marx’s early admonition of the German party for its statist tendencies in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program of the German Social Democratic Party, in sharp contrast with the admiration he had expressed for the forms of democratic administration briefly evinced in the Paris Commune, stands as a notable marker that something was always amiss here. In any case, by the time Marx died, it was by no means clear that the German Social Democratic (SPD) would survive its legal proscription by the 1878 Anti-Socialist Law.[2]
Forcing the law’s repeal by 1890 was an historic victory but it was also notable that Engels critique of the SPD’s 1891 Erfurt programme warned that, ‘fearing a renewal of the Anti-Socialist law’, a certain ‘opportunism’ was gaining ground in the party. This he saw as not only reflected in the programme’s apparent acceptance that all of the party’s demands could be achieved within the ‘present legal order in Germany’, but even more so in the programme’s implication that ‘present-day society is developing toward socialism’ (Engels, 1970, pp. 434-5).
What Engels was discerning here, avant la lettre Bernstein so to speak, was what later became known as ‘revisionism’.[3] The issue was not so much whether a peaceful road to socialism was possible; it was rather what ‘opportunism’ represented in terms of the growing autonomy of the leadership of the party from the mass membership amidst a host of internal party practices which inhibited rather than developed workers’ revolutionary ambitions and democratic capacities. So far had this gone in the first decade of the 20th century that Roberto Michels could conclude his famous study of the operation of ‘iron law of oligarchy’ within the SPD by pinning his hopes instead on the public education system ‘to raise the intellectual level of the masses so they may be enabled, within the limits of what is possible, to counteract the oligarchical tendencies of the working class movement.’
Still, even Michels did not ‘wish to deny that every revolutionary working class movement, and every movement sincerely inspired by the democratic spirit, may have a certain value as contributing to the enfeeblement of oligarchic tendencies’ (Michels, 1962, pp. 368-9).
It was this democratic spirit which had infused Rosa Luxemburg’s famous series of articles in 1898-99 on ‘Social Reform or Revolution’, written as a direct response to Eduard Bernstein’s explicit justification and elaboration of the view that ‘present-day society is developing toward socialism’. Bernstein asserted that the social reforms produced by trade union and parliamentary action, sustained by the concentration and socialization of production and finance accompanying the full development of capitalism, would prove to have an inherent socialist character. Against this, Luxemburg argued that pursuing only this type of reform would ensure that ‘the daily practical activity of Social Democracy loses all connection with socialism’ (Luxemburg, 2004e, p. 141).
With razor sharp clarity, Rosa Luxemburg foresaw that a strategic perspective premised on the compatibility of capitalist and working class interests, with the party treating ‘immediate practical results, the social reforms… as the principal aim’, could only lead to the adoption of a ‘policy of compensation, a policy of horse-trading, and an attitude of sage diplomatic conciliation’. And in this context a revolutionary perspective based on a ‘clear-cut irreconcilable class standpoint’ would come to be seen by the party as an obstacle to be overcome.
What would be foregone thereby was ‘the great socialist significance of the trade-union and parliamentary struggles’ – which was precisely ‘that through them the awareness, the consciousness of the proletariat becomes socialist, and it is organized as a class. But if they are considered as instruments for the direct socialization of the capitalist economy, they lose not only their supposed effectiveness, but also cease to be a means of preparing the working class for the proletarian conquest of power.’ Luxemburg pithily summed up the revolutionary perspective as follows:
“Socialism will be the consequence only of the ever growing contradictions of capitalist economy and the comprehension by the working class of the unavoidability of the suppression of these contradictions through a social transformation. When the first condition is denied and the second rejected, as is the case with revisionism, the labor movement is reduced to a simple cooperative and reformist movement, and moves in a straight line toward the total abandonment of the class standpoint” (Luxemburg, 2004, p. 142).
This was initially articulated in the late 1890s as a defense of the party’s revolutionary strategy ‘on which up to now everybody agreed’: but it would very accurately capture the predominant revisionist practice of Social Democracy, certainly from the turn of the century onward. This would culminate in 1914 in the historic split of Second International Social Democracy between those who supported each particular state and ruling class at the outset of the Great War, on the one side, and those who sustained a revolutionary perspective, on the other.
Yet there was much that was deeply problematic in the articulation of this revolutionary perspective against the revisionist one at the turn of twentieth century. And this reflected problems deeply embedded in the Marxist legacy as it was both inherited and manufactured by the mass socialist parties. The first of these had to do with what Luxemburg simply called ‘The Breakdown’.
In rejecting what Bernstein claimed was capitalism’s propensity to ‘adaptation’ which would smooth its contradictions and facilitate its morphing into socialism, Luxemburg insisted that socialist theory’s ‘point of departure for a transition to socialism’ was not just ‘a general and catastrophic crisis’, but the ‘fundamental idea’ that as a result of ‘its own inner contradictions’, capitalism moves to the point ‘when it will simply become impossible’ (Luxemburg, 2004, p. 132).
Engels had admitted that in his 1895 Preface to Marx’s Class Struggles in France (originally published in the wake of the 1848 defeats) that he and Marx – ‘and all who thought like us’ – were wrong in thinking at the time that conditions were ‘ripe for the elimination of capitalist production’, insofar as the second half of the 19th century had proved that capitalism still had ‘great capacity for expansion’ (Engels, 1960, pp. 191-2).
But by the end of the century most revolutionary Marxists, including Engels, generally shared Luxemburg’s view that this very expansion had ‘accelerated the coming of a general decline of capitalism.’ Against Bernstein’s claim that the spread of financial credits accompanying the concentration of capital in cartels allowed for the mobility of capital so as to overcome otherwise ‘fettered productive forces’, Luxemburg insisted that this only reflected the ‘greater anarchy of capitalism’ and aggravated ‘the contradiction between the international character of the capitalist world economy and the national character of the capitalist state’ (Luxemburg, 2004e, pp. 134-9).
This perspective – so fundamental to revolutionary strategy in the years before World War One as well as after (indeed, right through the Great Depression of the 1930s) – neither foresaw the capitalist state’s capacity for adaptation so as to contain severe capitalist crises, nor capitalism’s continuing dynamic expansion of productive forces (Panitch and Gindin, 2011, pp. 1-20). And it is precisely this which now allows us to see exactly how problematic was a strategy which presented socialism as a ‘historical necessity’, as Luxemburg put it, on the basis of the expectation of systemic capitalist collapse on a world scale at the beginning of the 20th century.
To be fair, for revolutionaries who were, if anything, obsessed with the importance of working class agency, the notion of socialism as a ‘historical necessity’ did not, ipso facto, imply an economistic conception of history. Rather, it stressed the importance, on the basis of the material conditions and the contradictions capitalism had created, of actively engaging in working class formation so as to develop the potential for its revolutionary agency. Indeed, Luxemburg explicitly rejected ‘a mechanical conception of social development… positing for the victory of the class struggle a time fixed outside and independent of class struggle’. She argued instead that – since it was ‘impossible to imagine that a transformation as formidable as the passage from capitalist to socialist society can be realized in one act’ – the proletariat would ‘necessarily have to come to power “too early” once or several times before it can enduringly maintain itself in power’ (Luxemburg, 2004e, p. 159).
There was nevertheless a fundamentally problematic disjuncture between, on the one hand, a strategic orientation based on the imminent collapse of capitalism (usually combined, moreover, as it was by Luxemburg herself, with an expectation of ‘the abandonment by bourgeois society of the democratic conquests won up to the present’) and, on the other hand, a strategic recognition of the sheer length of time and the amount of political space that would be needed for ‘preparing the working class for the proletarian conquest of power’ (Luxemburg, 2004, p. 153). This was further aggravated by the enthusiastic embrace of the no less problematic strategic conception of this ‘conquest’ in terms of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, a concept which only further obscured the ‘long and persistent work’ involved in workers ‘training themselves for the exercise of power’ (see Panitch, 1985, pp. 231-40).[4]
Luxemburg’s allowed, citing Marx, for the possibility of ‘the peaceful exercise of the dictatorship of the proletariat’, even while insisting it was impossible to imagine that ‘the henhouse of bourgeois parliamentarism’ could usher in ‘the most formidable social transition in history, the passage of society from the capitalist to the socialist form’ (Luxemburg, 2004, p. 157). But her Social Reform or Revolution completely left aside what she would so famously identify as ‘the problem of dictatorship’ twenty years later in her critical comments on Lenin’s The State and Revolution:
“Lenin says: the bourgeois state is an instrument of oppression of the working class; the socialist state, of the bourgeoisie. To a certain extent, he says, it is only the capitalist state stood on its head. This simplified view misses the most essential thing: bourgeois class rule has no need of the political training and education of the entire mass of the people, at least not beyond certain narrow limits. But for the proletarian dictatorship that is the life element, the very air without which it is not able to exist” (Luxemburg, 2004d, pp. 304-5).
The Russian Revolution
The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) was always something of an outlier among the parties of the Second International. The social and political conditions in Western Europe by the 1890s, which led Engels to insist that insurrections were a thing of the past, simply did not obtain at the time in Russia. Although the RSDLP grounded itself in the rapid growth of an industrial proletariat in the cities of the Russian empire, it was the peasantry which remained by far the larger subordinate class.
Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was still more like Germany had been in 1848 than what it had become half a century later. Moreover, Russia’s Czarist regime afforded almost none of the political space available to the SPD and its affiliated unions in Germany by the 1890s. This is precisely why Lenin told the RSDLP’s first Congress ‘that in Russia, the Social Democrats would need to work underground, create false identities, and rely on other forms of deception’. As he explicitly put it: ‘Without a strengthening and development of revolutionary disciplines, organization and underground activity, struggle against the government is impossible’ (Ali, 2017, p. 79).
As Lars Lih has shown, the organization of the RSDLP as a vanguard-led party was thus more a matter of its operation in the Czarist regime in Russia than of Lenin’s rejection of the German mass social democratic party model (Lih, 2005, pp. 517, 527, 547-8).[5] To be sure, Lenin stood steadfastly with the revolutionary wing of German Social Democracy: What Is To Be Done (1902) opens with a decisive rejection of the Bernsteinian revisionist ‘trend’ in Social Democracy for its attempt to change it ‘from a party of social revolution into a democratic party of social reforms’. Yet the stress this seminal tract placed on ‘training in revolutionary activity’ had nothing to do with mastering techniques of violent insurrection, but rather with developing hegemonic capacities.
‘Working class consciousness cannot be genuine political consciousness unless workers are trained to respond to all cases of political tyranny, oppression and abuse no matter what class is affected… unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist analysis of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata and groups in the population.’
This could only take root through the party developing the capacity
‘to organize sufficiently wide, striking and rapid exposures of all the shameful outrages… to bring before the working masses prompt exposures on all possible issues… to deepen, expand and intensify political exposures and political agitation’ (Lenin, 1970, pp. 175-7).
The emphasis here was similar to Luxemburg’s in terms of the party’s key role in ‘preparing the working class for the proletarian conquest of power’. But Lenin gave much less weight than she did to trade-union and parliamentary struggles through which ‘the consciousness of the proletariat becomes socialist, and it is organized as a class’. This was only to be expected given how restricted all such activity was in Russia. And it was a highly significant measure of how limited trade union and parliamentary activity in Germany itself had become in terms of developing class capacities that Luxemburg came to see the 1905 mass strikes in Russia as spontaneously showing what the SPD itself needed to most be attuned to instead.
The central argument of her famous 1906 pamphlet on this was that ‘the mass strike in Russia does not represent an artificial product of premeditated tactics on the part of the Social Democrats, but a natural historical phenomenon.’ The development in absolutist Russia of ‘large-scale industry with all its consequences [of] modern class divisions, sharp social contrasts, modern life in large cities and the modern proletariat’ had come at a time when ‘the whole cycle of capitalist development had run its course’ in the more advanced capitalist countries. The result of this, she claimed, was that bourgeoisies – not only in Russia, but everywhere – were ‘partly directly counterrevolutionary, partly and weakly liberal’. And this in turn meant that Russia, far from being the outlier in what should be the Second International’s strategic considerations, had become the leading edge:
“The present revolution realizes in the particular affairs of absolutist Russia the general results of international capitalist development, and appears not so much as the last successor of the old bourgeois revolutions as the forerunner of the new series of proletarian revolutions of the West. The most backward country of all, just because it has been so unpardonably late with its bourgeois revolution, shows ways and methods of further class struggle to the proletariat of Germany and the most advanced capitalist countries” (Luxemburg, 1971, pp. 70-3).[6]
If this was similar in substance to the theory of ‘uneven and combined development’, it went beyond what even Trotsky, let alone Lenin, would yet claim, at least in terms of the strategic implications to be drawn from it. The stakes involved were signaled by Luxemburg in her address to the fifth Congress of the RSDLP in 1907, decrying the ‘very negative attitude to the general strike [that] prevailed in the ranks of the German Social-Democratic Party; it was thought to be a purely anarchistic, which meant reactionary slogan, a harmful utopia’.
It may have been more wishful thinking than entirely accurate when she went on to tell them that the German proletariat itself ‘saw in the general strike of the Russian proletariat a new form of struggle… and hastened fundamentally to change its attitude to the general strike, acknowledging its possible application in Germany under certain conditions’ (Luxemburg, 2004a, p. 201).
But what is certainly the case is that both the trade union and the party leadership were determined that their memberships should not come to see things this way; hence Luxemburg’s subsequent polemics against Kautsky’s steadfast insistence that the mass strike actually signaled Russia’s backwardness, and that to emulate it in Germany would be the worst strategic blunder (Luxemburg, 2004f, pp. 208-31). The intra-party struggle between revolutionists and reformists in the SPD was thus taken to another level, foretelling the historic split that was soon to come.
But Luxemburg was also concerned with what the mass strike revealed about the Russian party, which as early as 1904, as well as subsequently, she criticized for a lethal combination of ultra-centralism with vanguardist factionalism. As was also the case with the ‘more temporizing parties… in Germany and elsewhere’, it could not accept ‘the insignificant role of a conscious minority in shaping tactics… in the face of great creative acts, often of spontaneous, class struggle’ (Luxemburg, 2004c, p. 256; see also 2004b pp. 266-80).
In any case, amidst massive state repression as well as the unmistakable waning of the strike wave between 1907 and 1911, the RSDLP collapsed from over a hundred thousand members to a few thousand. While the Menshevik wing of the party looked more and more toward a strategic alliance with the small liberal bourgeoisie, Lenin in exile clung, as Miéville tells us, “to a pitiful optimism, managing to interpret any scrap – an economic dip there, and up-tick in radical publications here – as a ‘turning point’” (Miéville, 2017, p. 27). When the Bolsheviks failed to predict the renewed labour upsurge of 1912-14 in Russia, this appeared to confirm Luxemburg’s general claim that ‘the initiative and conscious leadership of social democratic organizations played an extremely insignificant role’ in such developments.
Yet this did not prevent the Bolsheviks from this point onwards becoming ‘the dominant political force in the labour movement’ (Leblanc, 2016, p. xi). After the massive demonstrations of January 9, 1917 – the twelfth anniversary of 1905’s ‘Bloody Sunday’ – it was the Bolsheviks who were most acutely attuned to keeping pace with the many waves of protests and strikes that shook the old regime right up to the moment it collapsed at the end of February.
What they were especially attuned to was that through the course of this popular upsurge “to be a ‘worker’ took on important social and political meaning, even if one worked as a waiter in a Petrograd café or a cab driver in Piatogoirsk” (Koerner and Robinson, 1992, p. 135). As a fascinating study of the press at the time has shown, what especially distinguished the Bolshevik’s strike reports was the recognition that “activist behaviour by generally ‘dormant’ workers like shop assistants, and women laundry employees was itself a matter of real political import.” Moreover, not only the editors of the Bolshevik papers, but ‘socialist editors of all persuasions appeared to portray class struggle, as illustrated by the strike movement, in the broadest possible terms, encouraging diverse segments of the labour force to abandon their narrow interests and to identify with a working class that transcended the limits of manufacturing industries.’ The conclusion drawn from this is especially important:
“The very identification of shop assistants with leather workers, laundresses with industrial workers, could not help but suggest a broad commonality of interest and an aggregate workers’ ‘class’, legitimately entitled on these grounds to share in determining the political future of Russia. In these circumstances, the competitive identity of ‘citizen’… was seriously compromised… and the liberal values, on which Provisional Government authority was based, were likewise weakened” (Koerner and Robinson, 1992, p. 143).
Trotsky’s own monumental History of the Russian Revolution, written in the first years after his forced exile by Stalin from the USSR, captured exactly this in relating two significant incidents in the days just before the February revolution, both of a kind that go unrecorded in most accounts. The first describes a street encounter of workers and Cossacks which
“a lawyer observed from his window, and which he communicated to the deputy… [This] was to them an episode in an impersonal process: a factory locust stumbled against a locust from the barracks. But it did not seem that way to the Cossack who had dared wink to the worker, nor to the worker who instantly decided that the Cossack ‘had winked in a friendly manner’. The molecular interpenetration of the army with the people was going on continuously. The workers watched the temperature of the army and instantly sensed its approach to the critical mark.”
Trotsky’s account of the second incident is based on a quote from a senator’s incensed report against a tramcar conductor (“I can still see the face of that unanswering conductor: angrily resolute, a sort of wolf look”) who on encountering a street demonstration had immediately told everyone to get off. On which Trotsky comments:
“That resolute conductor, in whom the liberal official could already catch a glimpse of the ‘wolf look’ must have been dominated by a high sense of duty in order all by himself to stop a car containing officials on the streets of imperial Petersburg in a time of war. The conductor on Liteiny boulevard was a conscious factor of history. It had been necessary to educate him in advance” (Trotsky, 1934, pp. 167-8).
Thus does Trotsky introduce his brilliant critique of ‘spontaneity’:
“The mystic doctrine of spontaneousness explains nothing. In order correctly to appraise the situation and determine the moment for a blow at the enemy, it was necessary that the masses or their guiding layers should make their examination of historical events and have their criteria for estimating them. In other words, it was necessary that there should be not masses in the abstract, but masses of Petrograd workers and Russians in general… It was necessary that throughout this mass should be scattered workers who had thought over the experience of 1905, criticized the constitutional illusions of the liberals and Mensheviks, assimilated the perspectives of the revolution, meditated hundreds of times about the question of the army, watched attentively what was going on in its midst – workers capable of making revolutionary inferences from what they observed and communicating them to others. And finally, it was necessary that there should be in the troops of the garrison itself progressive soldiers, seized, or at least touched, in the past by revolutionary propaganda.
“In every factory, in each guild, in each company, in each tavern, at the military hospital, at the transfer stations, even in the depopulated villages, the molecular work of revolutionary thought was in progress. Everywhere were to be found the interpreters of events, chiefly from among the workers, from whom one inquired: ‘What’s the news’ and from whom one awaited the needed words. These leaders had often been left to themselves, had nourished themselves upon fragments of revolutionary generalizations arriving in their hands by various routes, had studied out by themselves between the lines of the liberal papers what they needed. Their class instinct was refined by a political criterion, and though they did not think all their ideas through to the end, nevertheless their thought ceaselessly and stubbornly worked its way in a single direction. Elements of experience, criticism, initiative, self-sacrifice, seeped down through the mass and created, invisibly to a superficial glance but no less decisively, an inner mechanics of the revolutionary movement as a conscious process” (Trotksy, 1934, p. 169).
Dual Power
It was their attunement to this that led the Bolsheviks, gradually and not without considerable divisions among the leadership, to move strategically as they did between February and October. Even if they initially accepted what Trotsky admitted was the “equivocal formula ‘democratic dictatorship’” in reference to cross-class party alliances constituted in the Duma ‘at a time when the official Social Democratic programme was still common to the Bolsheviks and Menshiviks’, the Bolsheviks themselves nevertheless stayed out of any such parliamentary alliances (Trotsky, 1934, p. 337). Their acute sense was that the Russian bourgeoisie, whatever promises were made, would not be able to actually accommodate even the eight hour day, let alone ‘land reform as the peasants wanted it – without compensation’, or the workers’ ubiquitous demands for the right to elect representatives to factory committees which would ‘oversee internal work rules’ as well as hiring and firing in the factories (Mandel, 2016, pp. 119-54). As the Bolsheviks took ever greater distance from the various attempts other socialist parties made to sustain alliances with the representatives of the propertied classes, popular support for them increasingly grew.
The novel notion of ‘dual power’ – which placed the haphazard democracy of various layers of representation in the workers and soldiers councils (‘soviets’) at the centre of Bolshevik strategy, was developed in this context. But there were many fits and starts, entailing much controversy within the leadership, before the Bolsheviks moved to adopt an unequivocal stance just before the October insurrection in favour of an immediate ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ under the heady slogan of ‘All Power to the Soviets’.
To be sure, this was Lenin’s inclination from time he arrived in Petrograd from exile earlier in the spring, once he observed, as did Trotsky later, just how far ‘elements of experience, criticism, initiative, self-sacrifice, seeped down through the mass and created, invisibly to a superficial glance but no less decisively, an inner mechanics of the revolutionary movement as a conscious process.’ Yet what must be kept in mind is that the central message of Lenin’s famous April Theses – already proclaiming the passage ‘from the first stage of the revolution… to its second stage, which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants’ (Ali, 2017, p. 162) – was not primarily conceived with the intention of launching what anti-revolutionists derided as an irresponsible socialist ‘experiment’ on the morrow of taking power. It was rather, as it always had been, strategically bound up with breaking the capitalist chain at its weakest link – that is, with what decisively ending Russia’s participation in the terrible imperialist war would also do by way of inspiring a revolution in Germany and elsewhere in the more advanced capitalist countries. Lenin, as well as Trotsky, still saw this as the sine qua non for rendering viable any transition from capitalism to socialism.
The diffuse but palpable anger at the suffering and chaos of Russia’s continued participation in the Great War, together with an accumulating sense that a pro-Czarist counterrevolution against the weak and vacillating Kerensky government might succeed, is what lay behind the mass popular support for the October revolution. That said, David Mandel is completely convincing in his assessment that a crucial factor in addition to this was the fear among militant class conscious workers, whom the Bolsheviks had not only influenced but whose attitudes they were always most attentive to, that employers were about to resort again to the prolonged lockouts that had broken the 1905 uprising. Yet in terms of what happened after the Bolsheviks took power, he is no less convincing in showing that ‘the Bolshevik organization in the capital almost disappeared in the year following the October revolution. The politically active workers – and most of these were organized in the Bolshevik party – felt that, now that the people had taken power in its hands, the task was to work in the soviets, in the economic administrations, to organize the Red Army’ (Mandel, 2016, p. 162).
To this should be added Sheila’s Fitzpatrick’s insightful observations on how ‘radical intellectuals who knew… little about the working of bureaucracy…, whose study of Marx had given them some understanding of economic interest but none of institutional’ responded once they entered the highest offices of the old state.
‘It was a shock to members of the first Soviet government when they found that being socialists, bound by Party discipline, did not automatically produce consensus once they were put in charge of a particular sector – industry, education, the army – and started to see the world through its eyes’ (Fitzpatrick, 2015, p. 184).
The notion that creating a totalitarian state was the whole object of the revolutionary exercise was always either a figment of the counter-revolutionaries’ imaginations, or a cynically-deployed arrow from their ideological toolbox. The anti-Marxist historians’ position has always been to claim contingency rather than inevitability regarding the revolution itself, but ‘when the contingency in question applied to the revolution’s Stalinist outcome… to insist on inevitability’ (Fitzpatrick, 2017, p. 13).
There was no direct passage from Lenin to Stalin’s leadership, and even under the latter, as all of Fitzpatrick’s great historical work on the USSR has shown, both the party and the state were much less monolithic, if not any less bureaucratic, that they looked from the outside.
Lenin’s own antipathy to bureaucratic statism was evident in The State and Revolution, written on the very eve of the October revolution. While extolling some aspects of the planning capacity of the wartime German state (especially the post office), his central concern was with showing how a ‘workers’ state’ founded on the soviets which had formed in the process of making the revolution would displace the ‘bourgeois state’ with something like ‘facility and ease’ (Krausz, 2015, p. 183). Even if that is regarded more as unrealistic rhetoric than as a sober assessment of possibilities, Lenin was also concerned to show that he was not ‘utopian’ in this respect, explicitly recognizing that ‘an unskilled labourer or cook cannot immediately get on with the job of state administration’. The key point is that in challenging the prejudiced view that only ‘officials chosen from rich families are capable of administering the state’, Lenin was explicitly defining the central revolutionary task as the preparation of workers for this task. Lenin’s first proclamation after the October revolution “To the Population” as Chairman of the new council of People’s Commissars clearly drew on this perspective: ‘Comrades, working people! Remember that now you yourselves are at the helm of state. No one will help you if you yourselves do not unite and take into your hands all affairs of the state. Your Soviets are from now on the organs of state authority, legislative bodies with full powers’ (Lenin, 2016, p. 173).
Whatever capacities workers and soldiers may have developed through the soviets during the course of 1917, how far they could respond adequately to such an exhortation was bound to be most severely tested, especially in wake of the failure of German revolution, during the civil war, exacerbated as it was by the interventions, military and otherwise, of the victorious capitalist states in World War One. As Miéville puts it:
‘Under such unrelenting pressures, these are months and years of unspeakable barbarity and suffering, starvation, mass death, the near-total collapse of industry and culture, of banditry, pogroms, torture and cannibalism. The beleagured regime unleashes its own Red Terror’ (Miéville, 2017, p. 311).
Far from the soviet democracy of workers and peasants the revolutionaries had envisaged and promised, thus was established the dictatorship of what from 1918 was called the Russian Communist Party (bolsheviks). If it was in any sense a dictatorship of the proletariat, it was only one that would ‘at best represent the idea of the class, not the class itself’, as Isaac Deutscher later insightfully put. The Bolsheviks had not merely ‘clung to power for its own sake’, he insisted. In identifying the new republic’s fate with their own – banning opposition parties and reconstructing the soviets as well as trade unions as agents of the new party-state as ‘the only force capable of safeguarding the revolution’ – they were steadfastly refusing to allow ‘the famished and emotionally unhinged country to vote their party out of power and itself into a bloody chaos.’ Nevertheless, his key point was this:
“They had always tacitly assumed that the majority of the working class, having backed them in the revolution, would go on to support them unswervingly until they had carried out the full programme of socialism. Naive as the assumption was, it sprang from the notion that socialism was the proletarian idea par excellence and that the proletariat, having once adhered to it, would not abandon it… It had never occurred to Marxists to reflect whether it was possible or admissible to try to establish socialism regardless of the will of the working class” (Deutscher, 1954, pp. 505-6).
What Rosa Luxemburg discerned within the October revolution’s first year would soon come to definitively mark the outcome. The revolutionary party itself would become a ‘clique affair’ where ‘in reality only a dozen outstanding heads do the leading and an elite of the working class is invited from time to time to meetings where they are to applaud the speeches of the leaders, and to approve proposed resolutions unanimously.’ The great danger, Luxemburg foresaw, was that in a state ‘without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element’ (Luxemburg, 2004d, pp. 304-6).
Lenin himself admitted in 1923 that virtually no progress had been made in developing capacities for popular administration. He lamented that state institutions still bore all the traces ‘of the overbearing, centralized, merciless Russian Bureaucracy, inherited in large part from the tsarist system.’ Tamas Krausz has recently aptly summed Lenin’s quandary in coming to this conclusion shortly before his death:
“Because of the limits imposed by historical circumstances and individual mortality, Lenin was able to provide only a limited Marxist answer to the issue of having to resort to a dictatorship even against its own social base for the sake of preserving Soviet power. On the one hand, he tried to compensate for political oppression by proclaiming, in opposition to the remaining and ever stronger state power, that ‘the working class must defend itself against its own state’. He left unexplained how it could do so with the support of that very state. In other words, the workers must confront the state, yet defend the state and all its institutions at the same time. There was no dialectical solution for such a contradiction” (Krausz, 2015, pp. 342, 368).
The effects of this on working class consciousness and democratic capacities was chillingly captured by what a leader of a local trade union committee at the Volga Automobile plant expressed in 1990, just before the USSR collapsed:
‘Insofar as workers were backward and underdeveloped, this is because there has in fact been no real political education since 1924. The workers were made fools of by the party’ (Panitch and Gindin, 1992, p. 19).
The words here need to be taken literally: the workers were not merely fooled, but made into fools; their democratic capacity was undermined. The Russian revolution yielded not so much a ‘deformed workers state’ in the authoritarian communist regimes as a deformed working class. There is indeed a lesson here. If the revolution party, after a long and active process of class formation, proves incapable of effecting a state transformation that in fact yields a ‘maximization of democracy’, the effect of this will be class deformation.
Conclusions
From our 21st century perspective amidst neoliberal global capitalism it is very clear that the understanding of the revolutionists within the Second International – that capital concentration plus social reform, far from gradually tipping capitalist societies into socialist ones, could at best only ameliorate certain contradictions and conflicts within capitalism while intensifying others – has been proven completely correct. Moreover, the parlous state of the liberal democracies today, where increasingly precarious and disorganized working classes have been left politically naked before xenophobic appeals, depressingly reveals the consequences of an absence of mass socialist parties engaged in developing democratic capacities through their role in class formation. This brings us back to where we began – with the historical importance of such parties as the fulcrum between class formation and state transformation.
Redeeming this historical fact is not a matter of nostalgia. It was for good reason that Simone Signoret forty years ago already titled her autobiography, Nostalgia Isn’t What It Used to Be (Signoret, 1976). Nor is it the ‘left-wing melancholia’ so haunted by ‘the defeated revolutions of the past’ as to be rendered immobile in the present, and thus effectively negate the admirably positive spin Enzo Traverso today proposes to give to the notion of a ‘fruitful melancholia’ which ‘does not mean to abandon the idea of socialism or the hope for a better future; it means to rethink socialism at a time in which memory is lost, hidden, and forgotten and needs to be redeemed. This melancholia does not mean lamenting a lost utopia, but rather rethinking a revolutionary project in a nonrevolutionary time’ (Traverso, 2016, p. 20).[7]
The various attempts that were made at ‘redeeming the revolutionary project’ via new Leninist parties in the wake of the heady spirit of 1968 proved so barren precisely because they did not encourage such rethinking. As Ralph Miliband noted in his famous ‘Moving On’ essay in the 1976 Socialist Register:
‘All these organizations have a common perception of socialist change in terms of the revolutionary seizure of power on the Bolshevik model of October 1917. This is their common point of departure and of arrival, the script and scenario which determines their whole mode of being’.
It was this ‘basic perspective’ rather than some innate ‘sectarianism, dogmatism, adventurism and authoritarianism’ that explained not only why they ‘failed to become mass parties or even large parties’ but even ‘why they have scarcely become parties at all’, and it was ‘their isolation which at least in part if not wholly produces their unpleasant characteristics’ (Miliband, 1976, pp. 138-9).
The final demise of the authoritarian communist regimes between 1989 and 1991 hardly rated as very significant in itself for a 1960s left generation which had been radicalized not because of but rather in spite of the example of ‘actually – existing socialism.’ Nor was it necessary to await the ‘realism without imagination’ that the craven accommodation to neoliberalism of the Blairite ‘Third Way’ represented by the late 1990s to recognize that social democracy’s own reformist historical course had long before this reached its own dead end. As traditional working class supporters of both Communist and Social Democratic parties were left bereft of any ideological – let alone material – buffers against the grotesquely rising class disparities of the early 21st century (advanced capitalism, advanced inequality, one might call it), it should not be surprising to see them falling prey today to the patriotism of political scoundrels.
The accumulating failures of both Communist and Social Democratic parties over the past 50 years was accompanied by a marked shift on the radical left toward a broad-ranging ‘movementism’ – whether in its pressure-group or protest-oriented dimensions. As Jodi Dean has recently argued, those trying thereby to escape ‘the constraints of party’ often reduced it to ‘the actuality of its mistakes’ while ‘its role as concentrator of collective aspirations and affects [was] diminished if not forgotten.’ She observes that more and more movement actors themselves today
‘increasingly recognize the limitations of a politics conceived in terms of issue- and identity-focused activisms, mass demonstrations which for all intents and purposes are essentially one-offs, and the momentary localism of anarchist street fighting. Thus they are asking again the organizational question, reconsidering the political possibilities of the party form’ (Dean, 2016, pp. 202-3, 205).
It is just this which also serves to heighten a sense of the importance, and yet also the inadequacies, of Syriza and Podemos among the newer parties, as well as of the Corbyn/Momentum and Sanders/Our Revolution insurgencies in the old ones (Panitch and Gindin, 2016).
These have emerged in direct response to the severe demobilizing effects of the old social democratic reformism even vis-à-vis its own base. Yet they also clearly have regarded the Bolshevik model as anachronistic. What new party forms will emerge to succeed both of these in the very different conditions of the 21st century, with all that will mean for class formation as well as state transformation, remains to be seen. But one thing is very clear. The question of the party – which appeared to have been relegated to the political scrapheap of history, rather like the steam locomotives that once powered certain teleological representations of historical materialism – is palpably back on the agenda of the left. •
Leo Panitch is emeritus professor of political science at York University, co-editor (with Greg Albo) of the Socialist Register and author (with Sam Gindin) of the Making of Global Capitalism (Verso).
This article will appear in the forthcoming issue of the journal Constellations on the Russian Revolution.
Antentas, J. M. (2016). Daniel Bensaid, melancholic strategist. Historical Materialism 24 (4), 51-106.
Bender, F.L. (1988). Introduction to The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. New York: Norton.
Carchedi, G. (1987). Class analysis and social research. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carver, T. and Blank, D. (2014). Marx and Engels’s “German Ideology” manuscripts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carver, T. and Blank, D. (2014). A political history of the editions of Marx and Engels’s “German Ideology Manuscripts”. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dean, J. (2016). Crowds and party. New York: Verso.
Deutscher, I. (1954). The prophet armed. London: Oxford University Press.
Eley, G. (2002). Forging democracy: the history of the left in Europe, 1850-2000. New York: Oxford University Press.
Engels, F. (1960). Preface to The Class Struggles in France by Karl Marx. In Marx-Engels selected works volume I. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Engels, F. (1970). Critique of draft social-democratic programme of 1891. In Marx-Engels selected works volume III. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Fitzpatrick, S. (2015). A spy in the archives. London: I.B.Taurus.
Fitzpatrick, S. (2017, March). What’s left? London Review of Books 39 (7).
Gabriel, M. (2011). Love and capital. London: Little Brown.
Koerner, D. and Robinson, W.G. (1992). Perceptions and realities of labour protest, March to October 1917. In E. R. Frankel, J. Frankel, and B. Knei-Paz (Eds.), Revolution in Russia: reassessments of 1917. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krausz, T. (2015). Reconstructing Lenin: an intellectual biography. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Lenin, V.I. (1970). Selected works in three volumes. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Lenin, V.I. (2016). To the population. In P. Le Blanc and D. Mandel (Eds.), October 1917: workers in power. London: Merlin Press.
Lewin, M. (2005). Lenin’s last struggle. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lih, L. T. (2005). Lenin rediscovered: what is to be done? in context. Chicago: Haymarket Press.
Luxemburg, R. (1971). The Mass Strike, The Political Party and the Trade Unions, New York: Harper.
Luxemburg, R. (2004a). Address to the fifth congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party. In P. Hudis and K. B. Anderson (Eds.), The Rosa Luxemburg Reader. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Luxemburg, R. (2004b). Credo: on the state of Russian social democracy. In P. Hudis and K. B. Anderson (Eds.), The Rosa Luxemburg Reader. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Luxemburg, R. (2004c). Organizational questions of Russian social democracy. In P. Hudis and K. B. Anderson (Eds.), The Rosa Luxemburg Reader. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Luxemburg, R. (2004d). The Russian Revolution. In P. Hudis and K. B. Anderson (Eds.), The Rosa Luxemburg Reader. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Luxemburg, R. (2004e). Social reform or revolution? In P. Hudis and K. B. Anderson (Eds.), The Rosa Luxemburg Reader. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Luxemburg, R. (2004f). Theory and practice. In P. Hudis and K. B. Anderson (Eds.), The Rosa Luxemburg Reader. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Mandel, D. (2016a). The legitimacy of the October Revolution. In P. Le Blanc and D. Mandel (Eds.), October 1917: workers in power. London: Merlin Press.
Mandel, D. (2016b). Economic power and the factory committees in the Russian Revolution. In P. Le Blanc and D. Mandel (Eds.), October 1917: workers in power. London: Merlin Press.
Marx, K. (1996). Manifesto of the Communist Party. In T. Carver (Ed.), Later Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meeting of the Central Authority, September 15, 1850. (1978). In Marx and Engels Collected WorksVolume 10.
Marx, K. (1947). The German Ideology. R. Pascal (Ed.). New York: International Publishers.
Michels, R. (1962). Political parties: a sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. New York: Collier.
Miliband, R. (1976). Moving on. In R. Miliband (Ed.), The Socialist Register 1976. London: Merlin Press.
Nimtz Jr., A. H. (2000). Marx and Engels: their contribution to the democratic breakthrough. Albany: SUNY Press.
Nimtz Jr., A. H. (2016). Marx and Engels on the revolutionary party. In L. Panitch and G. Albo (Eds.), Rethinking democracy: Socialist Register 2017. London: Merlin Press.
Panitch, L. and Gindin, S. (2010). Capitalist crises and the crisis this time. In L. Panitch and G. Albo (Eds.), The crisis this time: Socialist Register 2011. London: Merlin Press.
Panitch, L. and Gindin, S. (1992). Moscow, Togliatti, Yaroslavl: perspectives on perestroika. In D. Benedict (Ed.), Canadians look at Soviet auto workers’ unions. Toronto: Canadian Auto Workers.
Panitch, L. and Gindin, S. (2016). Class, party and the challenge of state transformation. In L. Panitch and G. Albo (Eds.), Rethinking revolution: Socialist Register 2017. London: Merlin Press.
Signoret, S. (1976). Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be. New York: Harper and Row.
Streeck, W. (2016). How will capitalism end? London: Verso.
Traverso, E. (2016). Left-wing melancholia: Marxism, history, and memory. New York: Columbia University Press.
Trotsky, L. (2016). “In defense of October.” In P. Leblanc and D. Mandel (Eds.), October 1917: workers in power. London: Merlin Press.
1. While stressing the ‘seamy side of the Soviet economy,’ Trotsky (2016, pp. 204-5) noted that its industrial production had increased fourfold since 1925, while in America industrial production was cut in half by 1932; only a socialist revolution along the lines of October would be able to harness America’s ‘unbounded practical initiative, its rationalized technique, its economic energy’ to the benefit of humanity.
2. There were no less than ‘332 trade unions linked to the SPD dissolved, 1,300 newspapers and magazines banned, more than 1000 activists sent underground and 1500 members imprisoned for at least a year’, before the law was finally repealed in 1890 in the face of increasing working class support for the party despite all this repression (see Ali, 2017, p. 116).
3. Engels (1970, pp. 434-5) insisted against the SPD’s ‘opportunists’ that the ‘semi-absolutist’ Wilhemine regime in Germany did not allow for a peaceful transition to socialism there – as might happen in a constitutional monarchy like the UK, or democratic republics like France and the USA, his main argument in the 1890s was that in Germany – ‘our Party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form of the dictatorship of the proletariat…’ Notably when Engels new introduction to Marx’s Class Struggles in France was published in the party newspaper De Neue Zeit in 1895 crucial passages were omitted. What was included was the stress Engels put on the positive effects of mass suffrage and the legal political space already secured by the working classes, on the one hand, and on the other, the greatly increased capacity of the state’s coercive apparatuses as well as important changes in urban form over the previous decades which impeded the construction of barricades and street fighting. What was omitted was this: ‘Does that mean that in the future street fighting will no’ longer play any role? Certainly not. It only means that the conditions since 1848 have become far more unfavourable for civilian fighters and far more favourable for the military. In future, street fighting can, therefore, be victorious only if this disadvantageous situation is compensated by other factors. Accordingly it will occur more seldom in the beginning of a great revolution than in its further progress; and will have to be undertaken with greater forces’ (Engels, 1960, pp. 199-200; for a more thorough account see Carchedi, 1987, pp. 12-14).
4. For my own long-standing critique of this concept, as well as the concepts of ‘smashing the state’ and the ‘withering away of the state’, see Panitch, 1985, chapter 9 “The State and the Future of Socialism”, especially pp. 231-40.
5. The famous split at the 1903 party congress was originally over whether affiliated membership should be allowed, not over ‘democratic centralism’ which was in fact a term first adopted by the Mensheviks.
6. Emphasis in text. Chapter ten of Luxemburg’s The Mass Strike (from which this quotation is drawn) is not included in Hudis and Anderson’s 2006 compilation of Luxemburg’s writings, perhaps because parts of it were used by Luxemburg again in her 1910 ‘Theory and Practice’ polemic with Kautsky, which is included there. See Luxemburg, 2004f, pp. 225-6.
7. Traverso (2016) ascribes such fruitful melancholia to Walter Benjamin in the 1930s, and to Daniel Bensaid in the 1990s. See also Antentas, 2016, pp. 51-106.
A perversidade inerentemente degragante do sistema capitalista, deploravelmente redutor da existência no planeta, pode ser facilmente entendida a seguir por dizer respeito à tão declarada paixão global: envolve o nível vertiginosamente descendente do futebol mundial há mais de três décadas.
Esta modalidade esportiva começou a se transformar, proporcionalmente muito mais que as outras no mesmo período, em um bilionário negócio transnacional, fonte de lucro fácil e exorbitante para empresários e dirigentes a partir do final dos anos de 1970 e início dos de 1980 através, sobretudo, das negociações em massa de jogadores ao exterior especialmente os do chamado Terceiro Mundo, particularmente atletas sul-americanos, exportados aos financeiramente poderosos clubes europeus.
Concomitantemente, e nem poderia ser diferente, acabou florescendo também a indústria do marketing esportivo como complemento a este emergente mercado que “revolucionava” o futebol mundial, transformando a tudo e a todos – inclusive atletas – em meras marcas esportivas a serem exploradas pela mídia e por empresários, produtos comercializáveis acima de tudo ainda que se tratassem de vidas humanas.
A alma do marketing esportivo, que acabou virando até carreira universitária no início do século XXI, é vender marcas, imagens de atletas e de clubes de futebol ao público e ao próprio mercado, é claro. Alguém já notou que grandes pernas-de-pau, clubes falidos, desorganizados e dirigentes de futebol dos mais incompetentes e picaretas em muitos casos são, “misteriosamente”, idolatrados por jornalistas e alguns tietes a mais? Pois é. Trata-se da elitização bandida e completamente ilusória do futebol, no sentido que nem sempre – ou na minoria das vezes, até – premia o melhor, mas inevitavelmente os interesses do mercado.
Diante disso tudo, o assunto principal dos “debates” futebolísticos contemporâneos (igualmente empobrecidos pelo sistema) já não era mais a graça do futebol, o bem-estar de atletas e torcedores, a justa elaboração de torneios e calendários das competições esportivas, mas sim como estes poderiam melhor se adequar ao lucro financeiro.
O foco passou a ser o quanto o futebol pode ser rendoso aos burocratas que regem o esporte, a empresários de atletas e de marcas esportivas, e aos principais meios de comunicação em nada preocupados com a qualidade dos espetáculos esportivos em primeiro lugar, passando desapercebido do grande público o quanto o futebol tem se nivelado por baixo, cada vez mais.
Não por mera coincidência, já em meados da década de 1980 o mundo passou a assistir desoladamente à queda vertiginosa da qualidade dos jogos de futebol, vendo logo sua denominada era romântica que se estendia por quase meia década desmanchar-se no ar. Tal ciclo foi encerrado na Copa do Mundo do México em 1986, com o futebol já em visível decadência técnica.
No caso particular do Brasil, logo em maio de 1985 já se sentia os efeitos nefastos da globalização do mercado do futebol: em 1985, enquanto se preparava para o Mundial do ano seguinte com Evaristo de Macedo no comando técnico, entre uma série de jogos sofríveis veio a primeira derrota para a então fraquíssima Colômbia, até então sem nenhuma tradição no futebol sul-americano: 1-0 em Bogotá, onde a seleção “canarinho” levou um “vareio”. Ali, sinais bastante claros já eram dados de que o futebol estava se nivelando por baixo e o Brasil viria a colecionar, nos anos seguintes, derrotas inéditas no cenário esportivo internacional.
Eis que após uma participação com bons jogos na Copa do México no ano seguinte, quando o Brasil do brilhante técnico Telê Santana em determinados momentos fez lembrar o futebol espetáculo de anos anteriores, tendo perdido injustamente nos pênaltis para a boa França, veio a Copa América de 1987 no Chile: a melancólica participação da “amarelinha”, que já havia desfilado como melhor seleção do mundo por várias décadas, foi finalizada ainda na primeira fase com estrondosa, vergonhosa derrota para os donos da casa:4-0 para os chilenos.
A Copa seguinte, em 1990 na Itália, do primeiro ao último jogo marcou o início da nova era de apresentações futebolísticas patéticas, sem a menor graça em sua grande maioria que em nada lembravam um passado que enchia os olhos e os corações de paixão em todo o mundo. Mesmo naqueles que outrora se haviam consagrado como grandes clássicos mundiais, já se havia instalado a pateticidade o notável desfile de interesses mercadológicos que afetavam diretamente a qualidade dos jogos e, paradoxalmente, retiravam o interesse das pessoas.
Nas Eliminatórias de 1993 para a Copa do ano seguinte, a ser disputada nos Estados Unidos, também marcada pelo baixo nível técnico, outra derrota histórica do Brasl: 2-0 para a fragilíssima Bolívia em La Paz; mais uma apresentação de uma longa série, para trás e adiante, que em nada fazia lembrar a velha seleção brasileira a não ser a cor do uniforme. E mais: o Brasil, sempre muito forte politicamente junto à dona FIFA dos negócios tão bilionários quanto obscuros, recebeu naquela competição, como é tradicional na história, uma mão bastante amiga das arbitragens para chegar à disputa nos EUA, o que se repetiria gritantemente em Eliminatórias posteriores.
Um relance interno: quem não se lembra – e sente saudades – dos campeonatos estaduais até meados da década de 1980, especialmente do Paulista com seus belos clássicos e jogos pelo interior do Estado? Guarani, Ponte Preta, Bragantino, Inter de Limeira, Ferroviária, São Bento, Taubaté, XV de Piracicaba, Portuguesa Santista, XV de Jaú, América, Juventus, Paulista, Noroeste, Marília, Santo André, São José, Botafogo, Comercial, Taquaritinga, Francana, Prudentina, União São João, Ituano, Novorizontino, Rio Branco, Mogi-Mirim… Como eram apaixonantes aqueles jogos, e o quanto era complicado a qualquer equipe grande, de São Paulo e do Brasil, jogar contra esses clubes! E quantos jogadores cada um desses clubes revelou ao longo da história! Um tempo que, lamentavelmente, já se foi há muito.
Saindo novamente das fronteiras esportivas brasileiras: a Taça Libertadores dos anos de 1960, 70 e 80, que reunia apenas campeão e vice de cada país sul-americano, era outro espetáculo à parte, jogo a jogo. Outra saudosa paixão, por mais que de vários anos ara cá, exatamente em nome dos interesses financeiros, inchem a competiççao continental com jogos caça-níquies, sem a menor graça mesmo envolvendo os históricos grandes clássicos.
E essa tendência apenas piora ano a ano tanto quanto, claro sinal dos tempos, a empáfia desses atletas-produtos contemporâneos cujas “personalidades” não fazem, em nada, lembrar aquelas dos jogadores das épocas áureas do futebol quando dava gosto ouvi-los falar, era prazeroso conversar e ouvir entrevistas de atletas daquela época à áltura da paixão com que jogavam bola (Zico, Sócrates, Falcão, Pita, Zenon, Casagrande, Basílio, Edu Marangon, Careca, Silas, Ademir da Guia, Dudu, Afonsinho, Luís Pereira, Evair, Pelé, Murici Ramalho, Chicão, Leandro, Andrade, Júnior, Roberto Dinamite, João Leite, Reynaldo, Oscar, Dario Pereyra, Rivellino, Tostão, Gerson, Carlos Alberto Torres, Jairzinho, Clodoaldo, Nilton Santos, Zagallo, Zito, Garrincha, Bellini etc), entresistecendo uma comparação com as figuras dos perfeitos idiotas dos tempos atuais.
Vale ressaltar que também se deve ao sistema capitalista a feroz briga entre jornalistas esportivos pelo famoso jabá, isto é, uma porcentagem financeira “presenteada” por empresários e cartolas àqueles que valorizam, artificialmente, seus atletas de estimação em comentários na TV, no rádio e na mídia impressa, cada vez que uma negociação é efetivada.
E a própria qualidade dos jornalistas acabou afetada por essa maximização do capitalismo no esporte: são simplesmente incomparáveis os grandes especialistas em futebol do passado – com alguns remanescentes hoje, tais como como Jorge Kajuru, José Trajano e Juca Kfouri -, que além da maestria em analisar a modalidade esportiva ainda colocavam no contexto de suas ideiais questões políticas e sociais como deve ser, em relação aos aloprados do presente, panfletários e polemizadores mais rasos que palram o dia inteirinho sobre futebol, sem acrescentar absolutamente nada a não ser expor sua própria imbecilidade, a mais evidente ausência da visão de mundo e do próprio esporte.
E como esporte tem tudo a ver com sociedade e política, conforme o óbvio sugerido acima, tal sistema ratificado por jornalistas alienados e elitistas acaba também retirando a identidade nacional do futebol, além de afastar os setores populares, as massas de torcedores apaixonados dos estádios, transformados em “arenas” com shopping centers, boates etc.
The work to transform society involves two parallel paths: resisting harmful systems and institutions and creating new systems and institutions to replace them. Our focus in this article is on positive work that people are doing to change current systems in ways that reduce the wealth divide, meet basic needs, ensure sustainability, create economic and racial justice and provide people with greater control over their lives.
When we and others organized the Occupation of Washington, DC in 2011, we subtitled the encampment ‘Stop the Machine, Create a New World’, to highlight both aspects of movement tasks — resistance and creation. One Popular Resistance project, It’s Our Economy, reports on economic democracy and new forms of ownership and economic development.
Throughout US history, resistance movements have coincided with the growth of economic democracy alternatives such as worker cooperatives, mutual aid and credit unions. John Curl writes about this parallel path in “For All the People,” which we summarized in “Cooperatives and Community Work are Part of American DNA.”
Mahatma Gandhi’s program of nonviolent resistance, satyagraha, had two components: obstructive resistance and constructive programs. Gandhi promoted Swaraj, a form of “self-rule” that would bring independence not just from the British Empire but also from the state through building community-based systems of self-sufficiency. He envisioned economic democracy at the village level. With his approach, economics is tied to ethics and justice — an economy that hurts the moral well-being of an individual or nation is immoral and business and industry should be measured not by shareholder profit but by their impact on people and community.
Today, we suffer from an Empire Economy. We can use Swaraj to break free from it. Many people are working to build a new economy and many cities are putting in place examples of economic democracy. One city attempting an overall transformation is Cooperation Jackson in Jackson, Mississippi.
Economic Democracy in response to neoliberalism
In his new book, “Out of the Wreckage: A New Politics for an Age of Crisis,” George Monbiot argues that a toxic ideology of greed and self–interest resulting in extreme competition and individualism rules the current economic and political culture. It is built on a misrepresentation of human nature. Evolutionary biology and psychology show that humans are actually supreme altruists and cooperators. Monbiot argues that the economy and government can be radically reorganized from the bottom up, enabling people to take back control and overthrow the forces that have thwarted human ambitions for a more just and equal society.
In an interview with Mark Karlin, Monbiot describes how neolibealism arose over decades, beginning in the 1930s and 40s with John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek and others, and is now losing steam, as ideologies do. Monbiot says we need a new “Restoration Story.”
We are in the midst of writing that new story as people experience the injustice of the current system with economic and racial inequality, destruction of the environment and never ending wars. Indeed, we are further ahead in creating the new Restoration Story than we realize.
Cooperatives
New research from the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s Center for Cooperatives(UWCC) has found there are 39,594 cooperatives in the United States, excluding the housing sector, and there are 7 million employer businesses that remain “potential co-op candidates.” These cooperatives account for more than $3 trillion in assets, more than $500 billion in annual revenue and sustain nearly two million jobs. This May, the Office of Management and Budget approved including coop questions in the Economic Census so that next year the US should have more accurate figures. The massive growth of cooperatives impacts many segments of the economy including banking, food, energy, transit and housing among others.
In cooperatives, workers or consumers decide directly how their business operate and work together to achieve their goals; it is a culture change from the competitive extreme capitalist view dominated by self-interest.
In Energy Democracy: Advancing Equity in Clean Energy Solutions, editors Denise Fairchild and Al Weinrub describe energy cooperatives that are creating a new model for how we organize the production and distribution of energy, which is decentralized, multi-racial and multi-class.
Lyn Benander of Co-op Power, a network of many cooperatives in New England and New York, writes that they transform not just energy but also their communities:
“First, people come together across class and race to make change in their community by using their power as investors, workers, consumers, and citizens ready to take action together. Then, they work together to build community-owned enterprises with local capital and local jobs to serve local energy needs. It’s a proven strategy for making a real difference.”
In Lancaster, CA, the mayor has turned the town into a solar energy capital where they produce power not just for themselves, but also to sell to other cities. They are also moving to create manufacturing jobs in electric buses, which more cities are buying, and energy storage. Research finds that rooftop solar and net-metering programs reduce electricity prices for all utility customers, not just those with solar panels. The rapid growth of rooftop solar is creating well-paying jobs at a rate that’s 17 times faster than the total U.S. economy. Rooftop solar, built on existing structures, such as homes and schools, puts energy choices in the hands of customers rather than centralized monopolies, thereby democratizing energy.
Related to this are community land trusts. A section of land is owned in a trust run as a non-profit that represents the interests of local residents and businesses. Although the land is owned by the trust, buildings can be bought and sold. The trust lowers prices and can prevent gentrification.
Universal Basic Income
Another tool gaining greater traction is a universal basic income. James King writes in People’s Policy Project that “. . . a universal basic income (UBI) – a cash payment made to every person in the country with no strings attached – is becoming increasingly popular in experimental policy circles. . . payments [would be] large enough to guarantee a minimum standard of living to every person independent of work. In the US, that would be roughly $12,000 per person based on the poverty line.”
The wealth divide has become so extreme in the United States that nearly half of all people are living in poverty. A small UBI would provide peace of mind, financial security and the possibility of saving money and building some wealth. A report by the Roosevelt Institute, this week, found that a conservative analysis of the impact of a UBI of $1,000 per month would grow the economy by 12.56 percent after an eight-year implementation, this translates to a total growth of $2.48 trillion.
Public Finance
Another major area of economic democracy is the finance sector. At the end of 2016 there were 2,479 credit unions with assets under 20 million dollars in the United States. Members who bank in credit unions are part of a cooperative bank where the members vote for the board and participate in other decisions.
Another economic democracy approach is a public bank where a city, state or even the national government creates a bank using public dollars such as taxes and fee revenues. Public banks save millions of dollars that are usually paid in fees to Wall Street banks, and the savings can be used to fund projects such as infrastructure, transit, housing, healthcare and education, among other social needs. Public banks can also partner with community banks or credit unions to fund local projects. This could help to offset one of the negative impacts of Dodd-Frank, which has been a reduction in community banks. In testimony, the Secretary of Treasury, Stephen Munchin, said we could “end up in a world where we have four big banks in this country.”
North Dakota is the only state with a public bank, and it has the most diverse, locally-owned banking system in the country. Stacey Mitchell writes that “North Dakota has six times as many locally owned financial institutions per person as the rest of the nation. And these local banks and credit unions control a resounding 83 percent of deposits in the state, more than twice the 30 percent market share such banks have nationally.” Public banking campaigns are making progress in many parts of the country, among them are Oakland, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Santa Fe, and other areas.
Mutual Aid
When crises occur, no matter what their cause, people can work together cooperatively and outside of slow and unresponsive state systems to meet their needs. This is happening in Athens, Greece, which has been wracked by financial crisis and austerity for years. People have formed “networks of resistance” that meet in community assemblies organized around needs of the community, such as health care and food. They started with time banks as a base for a new non-consumer society.
Similar efforts are underway in Puerto Rico following the devastation of Hurricane Maria. A group called El Llamado is coordinating more than 20 mutual aid efforts, and providing political education and support for self-organizing at the same time.
As George Monbiot describes it, this is consistent with the truth about what human beings are:
We survived despite being weaker and slower than both our potential predators and most of our prey. We did so through developing, to an extraordinary degree, a capacity for mutual aid. As it was essential to our survival, this urge to cooperate was hard-wired into our brains through natural selection.
As we face more crises, whether in lack of access to health care, education, housing, food or economic and climate disasters, let’s remember that we have the capacity to meet our needs collectively. In fact, every day, people are putting in place a new economic democracy that allows people to participate based on economic and racial justice as well as real democracy. As these alternatives are put in place, they may become dominant in our economy, communities and politics and bring real democracy and security to our lives.
A gunman identified as 26-year-old Devin Kelley received a bad conduct discharge from the military in 2014.
Reportedly he entered the town’s First Baptist Church, lethally shooting two dozen worshipers, another two outside, wounding around two dozen others.
The incident was the deadliest mass-shooting in state history. Texas Department of Public Safety regional director Freeman Martin said Kelley “was seen dressed in all black. He started firing at the church.”
“He moved to the right side of the church and continued to fire, then he went in the church. (He was) dressed all in black tactical type gear and was wearing a ballistic (bullet-proof) vest.”
They’re legal, available over-the-counter in some states or can be bought online. In Illinois, my home state, it’s illegal to wear body armor while armed with a dangerous weapon during the commission or attempted commission of an offense.
It’s standard police attire in Chicago and elsewhere in America. Alleged shooter Kelley reportedly was armed with a Ruger AR assault rifle.
It’s a legal semi-automatic weapon, typically loaded with a 30-round magazine. Larger magazines carrying 75 to 100 rounds are commercially available. They’re unwieldy and prone to jamming.
If Kelley used the smaller capacity magazine, he had to reload several times. He killed or wounded around 50 individuals.
Not every round fired hits targets. In multiple shootings, most rounds usually miss them. Alleged shooter Kelley could have fired a couple of hundred rounds or more, requiring multiple reloadings – unless multiple gunmen involved.
No one tried intervening until the gunman or gunmen left the crime scene. An unidentified individual chased Kelley while allegedly fleeing. He was found dead, lethally shot in his vehicle some distance from the church – conveniently unable to tell tales.
Local authorities claiming it’s unknown if he was lethally shot attempting to escape or by a self-inflicted gunshot leaves key questions unanswered?
If Kelley wanted to take his own life, why did he flee the scene, that’s what happened? Makes no sense.
Who was the unidentified individual chasing him, likely responsible for his death?
Reports indicated all worshipers inside the church were killed or wounded. Were multiple gunmen involved? Solid evidence proved the Las Vegas one-gunman claim was a bald-faced lie.
Shooting came from multiple directions. Suspect Stephen Paddock is dead so he can’t talk. From what’s known, he appears used as a convenient patsy.
So were all others accused in previous high-profile US and European violent incidents – proven false flags. Was Sutherland Springs, Texas the latest one?
Kelley’s pursuer was likely outside the church since everyone inside was reportedly killed or wounded.
Texas gun laws are lax. Residents can carry them openly. Americans can easily obtain semi-automatic weapons wherever they live, even if local ordinances ban them. They’re practically as available as toothpaste, yet high-priced.
If Kelly was responsible for what happened, no motive is known. Ealier he was a bible studies teacher. His wife teaches children at the church where the shooting took place.
They have two young children. They reportedly live in the luxury home of Kelley’s parents. All of the above are reasons to live, not die, or be imprisoned.
First Baptist Church Pastor Frank Pomeroy and his wife were out of town at the time of the shooting – not preaching to parishioners on Sunday.
High school friend Patrick Boyce called Kelley “fairly normal.” From what’s known so far, there’s reason to be suspicious about the official account of what happened.
High-profile incidents like Sunday’s always warrant suspicions. Virtually always, official accounts turn out to be false, important evidence conveniently suppressed to conceal hard truths – the FBI taking over investigations to control the information flow.
Sutherland Springs, Texas could be the latest US false flag? The fullness of time will likely explain more.
Today, Israel kicked off its largest international aerial training exercise ever – coined: Blue Flag 2017.
Air-forces from nine countries with about 50 planes are now starting to drill in the most southern region of the country utilizing Uvda Air Base in Israel.
Teams from India, the United States, Greece, Poland, France, Italy and Germany with be flying over 300 sorties simulating ‘real war’.
Throughout the first week of the two-week-long exercise, the international aircrews will acclimate themselves to the base and get to know each other. Throughout the second week, the participants will rehearse complex scenarios and coalition flights.
During some of the sorties, the participants will fly against the “Flying Dragon” Squadron, the IAF’s aggressor squadron, which will simulate enemy forces via “enemy” aircraft, SAM (Surface-to-air missile) batteries and MANPADS (Man-portable air-defense systems).
Lt. Col. Nadav, Commander of the 133rd Squadron (“Knights of the Twin Tail”), which operates “Baz” (F-15) fighter jets and is heading up the drill says,
“…the Blue Flag exercise is a significant quantum leap in our ability to hold an exercise and provide our multi-national participants with a quality training experience as performed in Israel. This is a significant milestone in our relationship with the international air forces, some of which are arriving in Israel to train for the first time. This exercise will allow us to continue cooperating with these forces in the future as well.”
The Indian Air Force sent a C-130J transport plane, other countries sent fighter jets, transport planes and refueling aircraft. Israel Defense notes some other various types of aircraft participating in the war games,
Participating on behalf of Israel are a “Baz” (F-15) squadron, a “Sufa” (F-16I) squadron and two “Barak” (F-16C/D) squadrons, alongside tactical transport aircraft, helicopters, UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) and EL (Electronic Warfare).
The US, Hellenic, and Polish air forces arrived with F-16 fighters; the French with “Mirage” 2000D fighters; the Germans with “Eurofighter Typhoon” jets; the Italians with variants of the “Panavia Tornado” multirole fighter and the Indians with a C-130J “Super Hercules.”
According to Maj. (res.) Tal, Head of the Blue Flag Management Team:
“One of the more significant ways to improve international relationships and connect countries is to create military cooperation. The IAF is Israel’s ‘display window,’ and the direct encounter between the air forces is an inseparable part of forming strong, continuous relationships with other countries, near or far.”
* * *
Meanwhile, across the sand dunes this evening, a far more interesting story is developing, and could shed light on the end game for Blue Flag 2017.
Yesterday we reported that the Saudis intercepted a ballistic missile over the nation’s capital of Riyadh. Now the Saudis call the missile attack from Yemen a “blatant act of aggression” allegedly by Iran and “could be considered act of war”.
The smell of war is in the air and simultaneously Israel and other countries are drilling for ‘real war’ [against Iran]. As, what we’ve seen before – drills sometime go live.
Women of Japanese nationality have been erased in relation to the history of the wartime ‘comfort women’.
For many decades after the war the existence of military ‘comfort women’ as a whole was ignored, and Japanese women, too, were ignored, at least in respect of their status as victims of wartime sexual violence. As we know, this deadlock over the history of the so-called comfort women was broken in the 1990s by survivors publicly testifying about their experiences, specifically those from North and South Korea.
These women spoke widely about their experience of violence and abuse at the hands of the Japanese military, and campaigned for the restoration of their human dignity, compensation for their suffering, and for the Japanese state to take responsibility for apology and reparation. It was this bravery that gradually turned invisibility into visibility for the former ‘comfort women’, and led to the restoration of their individual subjectivity and dignity as survivors. This achievement was attained not on the basis of just one public action; it took years of persistent campaigning, and not just by survivors. Many individuals and organisations supported their work.
This successful work was undertaken, moreover, in the face of dogged opposition from powerful political forces that sought to again make invisible the existence of former ‘comfort women’ as survivors of wartime sexual violence. The struggle of survivors and their supporters was waged in the knowledge that any small relaxation in their persistence of efforts would lead, again, to the suffering of survivors being consigned to the dustbin of history. On this basis, in an extremely pressurised environment, and in the face of continuing intimidation and threats, they continued daily efforts at the front line of political struggle.
In the midst of this hard-fought struggle between erasure and visibility, however, the former ‘comfort women’ of Japanese nationality were doubly erased. Local women interned in comfort stations from countries and areas invaded and colonised by imperial Japan were typically the victims of both racism and sexism, and they endured this double oppression within the context of war as the most violent of settings, and at the hands of the military, as the most violent of institutions. As a result, they suffered a fate of the most brutal kind. However, in the case of the Japanese ‘comfort women’, in the absence of colonial racist discrimination, no discrimination was recognised as exercised against them. We might expect sexist discrimination to be recognised even in the absence of racism, but, inexplicably, in the case of multiple intersecting oppressions, it seems that the absence of any oppression except sexism renders the fact of multiply experienced oppressions no longer recognisable. Oppression, discrimination and violence all become matters of no historical consequence. This is the unique mechanism operating at the base of sexist discrimination. Usually only in combination with forms of oppression and discrimination experienced also by men does sexism become clearly recognisable. At the same time, and strangely, when sexism is thus recognised, it is then equated with, or subordinated to, other forms of oppression and discrimination, and no longer recognised on its own terms. In this way, rather than a direct violent expression of sexist discrimination, rape is rendered merely violence. Similarly, rather than sexist discrimination exercised through relations of power in the workplace, sexual harassment is rendered mere illegal sexual conduct.
While a black youth being brutally murdered by a white person is recognised as the most despicable form of hate crime, innumerable women are murdered by men each year, but no-one names the phenomenon gender-based hate crime. Each one of these crimes is just individually labelled a murder over and over. Unless some other form of oppression or discrimination is pertinent to the crimes, moreover, none of them are seen as manifesting any type of oppression or discrimination in the first place. For example, in the case of child pornography, its violation of human rights is recognised on the basis of the relationship of power that exists between adults and children. But for pornography involving adults, no such violation is recognised, and the material is merely deemed a hobby or expression of free speech. Its existence is defended even by leftists and human rights advocates.
Because of this unique mechanism operating at the base of sexist oppression, the victimisation of former ‘comfort women’ of Japanese nationality specifically has never been recognised as an historical harm because racist discrimination did not feature. Japanese women have always been excluded from the category of victim in relation to military sexual slavery.
Another reason for the double erasure of Japanese ‘comfort women’ is their widely assumed involvement in Japan’s pre-war legalised sex industry as ‘prostitutes’. It was the case that most Japanese women who went abroad into comfort stations during the war had been in some form of prostitution beforehand. In Japan’s male dominant culture, prostitution is not perceived as systematised sex discrimination or exploitation; at worst, it is seen as a necessary evil. Sometimes it is held up as something to be celebrated, even in the current day. The problem with this is that prostitution escapes attribution to the men who are its customers, its entrepreneurs, and its whole-of-society male supporters. Rather, it is seen as wholly the problem of individual women in prostitution, and these women are seen as ‘prostitutes’ who are sullied and no longer eligible for marriage and normal womanhood. In a Japanese culture that upholds the Madonna/whore sexist division of women, ‘prostitutes’ were the ones sent abroad to service the sexuality of conscripts and officers, and buffer their wholesale raping of local women. This task was held up as their essential wartime mission, and the women were viewed as nothing more than a sexual resource who were collectively suited to be used in this way.
However, most women in Japan’s pre-war sex industry were the daughters of poor families, were trafficked, and were direct victims of violence and exploitation. But because male dominant societies see systems of prostitution as necessary, even if poverty (i.e., relations of economic dominance), trafficking or violence are deeply implicated in the prostitution of these daughters, these things often escape recognition. Like the Midas touch that turns everything to gold, for the institutions that undergird male dominant societies, things like violence and oppression don’t exist, and instead are rendered freedom, free choice, or some other legitimate concept like ‘work’.
These mutually intertwined mechanisms rendered the Japanese ‘comfort women’ invisible. This invisibility arises from the fact of prostitution being a bedrock institution of male dominant society that is considered a necessary evil, or even fortunately necessary. Confronting the invisibility of the Japanese ‘comfort women’, therefore, involves confronting one of the pillars of male dominant sexist culture.
The book edited by the Violence Against Women in War Research Action Center (VAWW-RAC) titled Japanese ‘comfort women’: Nationalism and trafficking is the first instance of a written work that confronts this double erasure of Japanese comfort women.
The book is the joint work of 13 authors from Japan and South Korea. As longstanding activists in the ‘comfort women’ advocacy movement, the authors for three years contributed to a project team specifically convened to examine the history of the ‘comfort women’ of Japanese nationality. They constructed a three-dimensional picture of these women in history through examining a wide range of primary sources, including pre-war police and court records, military documents and other public records, as well as innumerable media articles and memoirs, testimonies and interviews of victims, and various reports.
The book comprises three parts, covering how the women were recruited, how they were treated, and how they fared after the war. But the content of each section is not strictly demarcated, and information about recruitment appears in the second section, and information about local conditions of women’s internment in the first. I will review each section in turn, but with the understanding that information common to the sections is found across the whole monograph.
With regard to how Japanese women were recruited for comfort station internment, and how they were moved into the stations, the authors reveal that, just as the Japanese military (or Home Ministry) ordered the recruitment of women in the colonies and conquered areas, the same was done in Japan. This was undeniably an action of the Japanese state, and a policy of it. The entities that acted upon these orders and actually recruited and trafficked the women abroad were private sector businesses and individuals. The funds used to entrap the women in prostitution abroad through debt bondage were illegal in international law at the time, and were outlawed even in Japanese domestic law. In spite of this, advanced loans were able to be used in this way on the basis of official sanction by Japan’s home ministry and military. However, because the legal exemption was not known about in some parts of Japan (because the military believed its arbitrary legalising of the military prostitution system might bring into disrepute the name of the emperor, it implemented the policy in some secrecy), regional police in Japan sometimes found themselves dealing with the contradiction as part of their official duties.
For example, in a January 1938 case, a Wakayama policeman named Tanabe detained three men who had been picked up for recruiting women to send abroad in the local restaurant district. However, these three men testified that they were not predators, but merely acting on a request from military high command (army general Sadao Araki) to recruit barmaids for Shanghai comfort stations. They had already trafficked 70 women to the stations, and for this purpose had received certification from police stations in both Osaka and Nagasaki. When Wakayama police checked this story with their Osaka and Nagasaki counterparts, they found it generally checked out. In the end, Tanabe released the trio on the basis that he was able to confirm their story about military comfort stations, and because Osaka police had been able to pass on their permit relating to barmaid recruitment. Accordingly, with involvement by the state and the military, what had originally been criminal conduct no longer had such a quality (p. 92).
VAWW-RAC’s book records various means by which private brokers recruited women for comfort stations. First was through offering women who were already debt bonded or subject to other horrific contracts of servitude inducement to encourage their agreement to go abroad. These women had often been sold into prostitution as children by their parents. The military could buy out their debt contracts, or could guarantee an individual’s manumission from prostitution within a period that compared favourably to the conditions they faced in the civilian sex industry. This arrangement for the recruitment of women was the least heinous of the tactics used. Those Japanese women who were recruited this way early on, and who managed to return home to Japan before the war intensified, tend to recall relatively favourably their experience of the comfort stations. But this favourable recollection is wholly a product of the inhuman conditions in which they were interned in civilian prostitution, and the lack of hope for the future that tended to accompany debt bondage in Japan’s peacetime sex industry. It does not detract from the historical fact of their status as victims of wartime sexual violence.
A second means of recruitment involved recruiters directly approaching impoverished households and buying their daughters. This was a standard trafficking technique. For example, one trafficker recalls making sure local rice dealers accompanied him whenever he approached impoverished households because, even more than offering money, families would respond to the immediate prospect before their eyes of having that day’s meal taken care of. Negotiations over how many bags of rice the daughter was worth would be conducted on the spot (p. 164).
A third means of recruitment involved whole businesses moving abroad as military comfort stations in the case of high-class geisha restaurants catering to military officers.
Fourthly, using the same technique that was widely used against local women outside Japan, women would be tricked into entering comfort stations abroad on the ruse they were being recruited as nurses and the like. This kind of manipulation, which is a well-known form of forced recruitment, was not uncommon for Japanese women. For example, officer Gengo of the 59th division garrisoned in Shandong’s capital Jinan recalls a day in 1941 when 200 Japanese women from the ‘continental comfort squad’ of the Patriotic Women’s Association visited the area. They came with the intention of cooking for the troops and the like, but instead they were forced into military prostitution. In another example, a girl who had just graduated from school in Kyushu and had been recruited for administrative work with the military was forced into prostitution in a station for officers. She had relayed this story in tears (p. 117).
Even though, formally, the military at the time did not admit to going so far as to trick women into travelling abroad, no record exists of the military taking any action to suppress such activity. In fact, the illegal manipulation of women to travel abroad had become an easier crime to undertake after the military had legalised the recruitment of women for cross-border trafficking into comfort stations. After all, it is very difficult to differentiate among those who are in prostitution abroad on the basis of free will, and those on the basis of fraud.
For the women mentioned above who were recruited from Japan’s sex industry, their agreement to travel abroad was secured on the basis of one other important strategy, in addition to the provision of debt relief and limited contracts of comfort station internment. This was nationalism, and it explains the VAWW-RAC book sub-title, which refers to the trafficking of Japanese women into military comfort stations that was crucially organised on the basis of their ‘love of country’. Many Japanese survivors after the war talked about having agreed to go abroad ‘for their country’ or in the belief they would be interred in Japan’s Yasukuni Shrine if they died while serving the military. But their hopes were betrayed. In this regard, the former Japanese comfort woman Yamanaka Keiko said the following:
If Mr Yokoi was a sacrifice of war then so was I. I went for the sake of the emperor, but it ended up being really just for the army. But that’s what we were told [that we were going for the sake of the emperor], dammit. I want the welfare ministry to know that I agreed to go thinking I would be treated the same as a veteran when I got back, since I wouldn’t be able to get married after the war (p. 26).
For people who are socially subordinated in peacetime society, war and nationalism hold out the hope of being treated as equal members of the nation if they work hard. This hope is alluring. It led, for example, before the war, to burakumin leaders being co-opted in efforts towards militarism. However, as Clausewitz writes, war is just the continuation of politics by other means. As a thoroughly sexist state in peacetime, imperial Japan was unlikely to treat women as equals in war. On the contrary, in wartime this inequality escalated to the point of heinousness. The existence of huge numbers of comfort women in battle zones manifested the extreme end of the aggravated inequality that was enacted in wartime. The problem with this is not the post-war unequal treatment of former ‘comfort women’ after their contribution to the nation in war, but, rather, the fact they were made into ‘comfort women’ in the first place. This is problematic for being a typically standard way of enacting female inequality. It is for this very reason that the women found themselves after the war ignored, and left out of consideration of historical memory.
With regard to the way Japanese women were treated as ‘comfort women’ once they had moved abroad, it is first necessary to note that their treatment, compared to that of Korean women, was relatively tolerable, and this was the case particularly for Japanese women who entered stations catering to officers rather than rank-and-file recruits. They were generally older than Korean victims, and had a better chance of eventually leaving the stations. Racist discrimination was exercised in extreme terms by the military, and the amount of the advance loans and payments made to Japanese victims while in the stations were generally higher. However, this creation of hierarchy and rank among a population that was subject to exactly the same form of wartime sexual violence represents nothing more than a strategy of divide and rule. Nishino Rumiko writes the following in this regard:
The provision of special privileges to Japanese comfort women worked to obscure the discrimination, victimisation and sexism that these women were nonetheless subject to. The superiority complex that came with being a comfort woman of Japanese nationality came on the flipside of the discrimination and contempt that was shown Korean comfort women. This construction of privilege based on ethnic hierarchy worked against the Japanese comfort women in that their own experience of discrimination was thereby concealed (pp. 130-131).
Additionally, in comparison to victims recruited from the Korea peninsula who were, stereotypically, young virgins untouched by venereal disease, from the outset Japanese women were sourced from the sex industry (p. 132). It was believed that Japanese troops encountering pure Japanese female youth in the stations would be demoralising and therefore counterproductive. This consideration did not arise out of respect for Japanese women but, rather, the Madonna/whore dichotomy that was maintained for the Japanese female population who were divided by status into wholesome young women and mothers, and prostitutes. Each group served a different purpose as a sex-based ‘resource’. (It might be parenthetically noted that today’s LDP government and the business world in Japan use similar language in reference to women.) In other words, the former group served a reproductive function in birthing and bringing up new imperial soldiers, and the latter functioned as a physiological resource in servicing the sexuality of soldiers.
The conditions in which Japanese women were interned in wartime comfort stations were hardly better than horrendous. One former ‘comfort woman’ testified that, ‘after each one I raced to the bathroom to douche. When I would return to the room, there would be another waiting. It was just man after man after man’ (p. 124). Another commented that, ‘I served around 30 per day. I wore not even a dressing gown. I just lay on the mattress and waited for them’. A third former ‘comfort woman’ testified that she was led around by the Japanese military from one front line to another, and in total spent eight years interned in comfort stations in various locations. She ‘returned home with absolutely nothing but one free public transport ticket’ (p. 127).
Among the recruitment tactics described above, the first-mentioned scheme of recruitment was noted as comparatively less heinous, and the second-mentioned tactic involving trafficking was noted as revealing the operation of domestic schemes of female sexual exploitation in Japan. In relation to such schemes, a Japanese survivor of a Taiwan-based comfort station, Shirota Suzuko, has noted of her time in civilian prostitution in Japan that her debts would not decline, even after half a year’s internment in a brothel (p. 129).
Lastly, in regard to the post-war experiences of Japanese former ‘comfort women’, it must be first noted that the vast majority of Japanese returnees of wartime comfort stations never surfaced publicly, and their experiences never entered the historical record (p. 136). Japanese society after the war, which manifested a climate that had persisted widely and over a long historical period, orchestrated their silence. This climate held prostituted women and victims of sexual assault in contempt, and oversaw discrimination against them. Because there were so few survivors able to give testimony, it was difficult to confirm particular characteristics and historical patterns among their experiences, given the recorded pool of these experiences was so shallow. Accordingly, it has been necessary, in the case of the former ‘comfort women’ of Japanese nationality, to present individual case studies in the most sympathetic way possible. This is also the approach of the VAWW-RAC book.
Among the case studies presented is the abovementioned example of Shirota Suzuko. Her post-war experienced involved returning from abroad as the ‘third wife’ of a Japanese man, but then leaving his household to enter the sex industry in Hakata catering to occupying American troops.After this, in 1955, as a result of incidentally reading about a women’s welfare facility in the Sunday Mainichi, Shirota exited prostitution and entered a women’s residential facility called Jiairyou. It was at this facility that Shirota became a Christian.
Next, after suffering a range of illnesses and after a number of hospitalisations, Shirota moved to a public welfare residential facility for women, Izumiryou,1 Lastly, Shirota moved to the Chiba-based Kanita Women’s Village, and it was there she spent her last years. Since becoming a Christian at the previously facility, Shirota had begun testifying as to her wartime experience as a ‘comfort woman’, and it was while she was based at Kanita that she recorded the precious testimony of her life that is featured in the biography Maria no sanka published in 1971. Also while at Kanita she expressed the strong desire to have a memorial constructed to ‘comfort women’ who did not survive the war. She is recorded as commenting that, ‘I’m the only one able to speak out [as a former ‘comfort woman’]. No one who survived [a comfort station] would ever speak out about such an embarrassing experience’ (p. 217). In line with her wishes, in 1986, a memorial to former ‘comfort women’ was erected at the top of the hill on which Kanita sits. Shirota spent her final days in Kanita’s aged nursing care wing, and is recorded as saying that, ‘all I ever wanted was to live my life in a quiet hospital room. I prayed and prayed for it every night. Now God has answered my prayers!’ Shirota passed away in 1993 (p. 219).
Other comfort station survivors of Japanese nationality discussed in the VAWW-RAC book remained overseas after the end of the war. One woman from Nagasaki at age 19 or 20 was lured to the South Pacific on the ruse of paid work, but was interned in a comfort station in Singapore. According to part of her testimony recorded in tears, Japanese soldiers were repatriated at the end of the war, but women interned in comfort stations were not even informed of the end of the war, let alone repatriated. She remained in Singapore after marrying a kind-hearted local man. She never returned to Japan out of concern that returning to her hometown in Japan might have involved hardship for her family if neighbours found out about her wartime experience and discriminated against her family as a result (pp. 220-221).
This experience of military prostituted women being left abroad after the war is unfortunately common in the case of Korean and Chinese women, and the VAWW-RAC book shows its occurrence also for women of Japanese nationality.
The end of the war did not spell the end of the Japanese government’s ‘comfort women’ policy. After the war, it deployed the same policy for the sake of occupying forces in Japan. It feared suffering the same fate as had been inflicted by Japanese troops against colonised and invaded populations in the war who suffered rape and pillage. Via a directive issued by the head of the security agency in the Home Affairs Ministry, sex industry entrepreneurs operating around domestic military bases in Japan were required to establish comfort stations. Thereby commenced the ‘Recreation and Amusement Association’ (RAA) system of prostitution, which, in spite of common misunderstanding, was an organisation operating not throughout Japan but was limited to the Tokyo metropolitan area (pp. 225-226). In this instance, too, it was prostituted women who were organised to enter the venues, and again the inducement to ‘serve the country’ was used against them. The puppet government of the time had not changed a bit. Still, for these men, women were nothing more than a sexual resource to be used in the exercise of statecraft.
In spite of the long post-war history of democracy in Japan, right-wing and conservative politicians in Japan to the current day have not extricated themselves from such thinking. There continues to be the public statements of Osaka mayor Hashimoto, for example, as well as the endless arguments of the conservative right. These men have fundamentally not changed. As such, the history of the ‘comfort women’ is not yet a historical problem of a bygone era; it remains today a problem of utmost seriousness.
In conclusion I would like to cite analysis by Hirayama Kazuko advanced in her thesis examining the RAA system of post-war Japan.
Roughly seventy years after the wartime defeat, the system enacted by Article 9 of the Constitution that was embraced by the Japanese people is being hollowed out in the name of ‘leaving behind the post-war regime’ by the second Abe Shinzou government. In the guise of ‘re-interpretation’, the system is being snuffed out. But those of us who examine the historical human rights violations of the wartime and post-war ‘comfort women’ systems know that, in the event of war, the Japanese military (i.e., the state) will not only fail to protect its female citizens, but will push us forward in sacrifice to its own protection. In light of this grievous history, it is incumbent upon us (both men and women) to forge ideas and practices that overcome the Madonna/whore division of women (in which good women are protected and other women sacrificed), which is rhetoric used endlessly in the process of militarisation.
This article was published in Joukyou, Vol. 4, November 2015, pp. 185-193.
Morita Seiya lectures at Kokugakuin University in Marxist political economy, and is the translator of Catharine MacKinnon and David Harvey’s work into Japanese. His most recent book is a translation and commentary of an unpublished Marx manuscript from 1866. For over a decade, Morita has campaigned against prostitution and pornography in Japan via two organisations: the Anti-Pornography and Prostitution Research Group (APP) and People Against Pornography and Sexual Violence (PAPS). His textbooks on Marxist political philosophy attract a growing following, as do his regular public lectures on the topic.
Caroline Norma is a research fellow at RMIT University in Australia researching the history of the Japanese military ‘comfort women’ system in wartime New Guinea. She is the author of The Japanese Comfort Women and Sexual Slavery during the China and Pacific Wars (2016).
Note
1Translator’s note: This facility is still in operation in Tokyo, and continues to prioritise women survivors of prostitution among its cohort intake. Its director is active in anti-prostitution and pornography campaigning.
Donald Trump, accompanied by a coterie of minders and corporate executives, departed yesterday for a 12-day tour of what US foreign policy strategists now officially designate as the “Indo-Pacific.”
This will be one of the longest official trips to Asia ever undertaken by an American president, and its objectives are clear. In the short-term, Washington is seeking to stiffen the backbone of its allies for a catastrophic and potentially nuclear war against North Korea. In the longer term, US imperialism is seeking to maintain its waning global dominance by exerting military and economic pressure on China in order to undermine, and ultimately shatter, its growing influence.
Trump has left the US with his administration mired in disarray and under siege from its political rivals. There is consensus, however, within American ruling circles and both the Republican and Democratic parties, on utilising every means available to prevent China from emerging as a serious challenge to US hegemony. Regime-change in North Korea, on China’s border, is viewed as a means of radically altering the balance of forces in Asia, to the strategic detriment of Beijing.
One of the leading generals in Trump’s cabinet, National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster, bluntly spelled out the message to be delivered to the region. “The president,” McMaster insisted on Thursday, “recognises that we’re running out of time [before a war with North Korea] and will ask all nations to do more.”
Trump will make state visits to Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam and the Philippines, and attend the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in Vietnam. Capitulating to a torrent of criticism, he has changed his schedule and will stay for at least the first day of the East Asia Summit (EAS), being held this year in the Philippines, November 13–14.
In advance of the tour, the American establishment was so concerned that the US president’s chauvinist and boorish personality could result in a diplomatic disaster, it insisted he undergo weeks of “briefings”—on everything from whom he will meet; what he can say or tweet; what colour clothing he can wear; and, one suspects, where he cannot put his hands. As one “Washington-based Asia expert” told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Trump has been instructed to “just stick with the script.”
Symbolically, Trump’s visit began Friday in Hawaii, with a visit by the president to the Pearl Harbor naval base, where the war between the US and Japan for dominance over Asia began in December 1941. This was preceded by talks with Admiral Harry Harris, the commander of US Pacific Command (PACOM), on the 21st century war being prepared against North Korea. Harris has at his disposal one of the largest US naval armadas ever assembled. Three aircraft carrier battle groups are converging on waters off the Korean Peninsula, along with at least two cruise missile-armed submarines, an undisclosed number of nuclear missile-armed subs, and South Korean, Japanese and Australian warships.
The naval force, along with several hundred aircraft on the carriers, is complemented by B-2, B-1 and B-52 bombers, F-22 stealth fighters, a squadron of F-35 “fifth generation” fighters and hundreds of F-16 fighters and F-18 fighter-bombers, deployed at bases in South Korea, Guam, Japan and Alaska.
If Trump gives Harris the order, he can unleash hundreds of cruise missiles against North Korea in a matter of minutes, followed by wave after wave of air strikes.
On Sunday, Trump is set to arrive in Japan. His daughter Ivanka was dispatched prior to his arrival to hold talks with recently re-elected Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, presumably so the Japanese leader would not have to air controversial issues between the two powers, especially over trade, with Trump himself. The highlight of their interaction will be a game of golf. They will then co-host a meeting with the families of Japanese citizens abducted by the North Korean regime between 1977 and 1983, which will be used in Japan and the US to further demonise Pyongyang and propagandise for war.
Abe’s ultra-nationalist government has given unconditional backing to Trump’s threat to “totally destroy” North Korea, despite massive popular opposition in Japan to militarism and war. Abe has also fully aligned Japanese imperialism, in its own self-interest, with the US preparations for confrontation and war with China initiated in 2011 with the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia.”
On November 7, Trump will arrive in South Korea, where the population faces the prospect of hundreds of thousands of deaths and ruination if the United States provokes war on the peninsula. He will deliver a speech to the country’s National Assembly, which is expected to focus on the necessity for South Korea to support US plans to attack North Korea on the pretext of preventing the impoverished country from developing its limited nuclear arsenal.
The venality of the South Korean ruling elite is underscored by its acceptance of the US military taking full command over its own armed forces as soon as hostilities begin.
On November 8, Trump will travel to Beijing. His meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping has reportedly generated the most nervousness among his minders. While ahead of the talks both governments have issued statements referring to the strength of their relations, the true state of affairs is one of ever-growing tension and sources of conflict.
Trump’s task, for which numerous American strategists consider him woefully inadequate, is to advance the demands of US imperialism that China make far-reaching strategic and economic concessions.
He will insist, firstly, that Xi and his regime stand aside in the event of war with North Korea, a country with which China has a formal military alliance. Secondly, Trump is expected to stipulate that Beijing accept the pro-imperialist United Nations court ruling of 2016, which rejected its territorial claims over islets and reefs in the South China Sea. Finally, he will table demands for greater access to the domestic Chinese market for American and other transnational corporations.
From China, Trump will proceed to Vietnam, where the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum is convening on November 10 in the city of Da Nang. The Vietnamese regime has increasingly aligned itself with Washington against Beijing and reportedly intends to bestow extravagant state honours on the US president.
Whether Trump will use the occasion of APEC to hold talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who will be there, is not yet clear. Beset by accusations that his election victory was the outcome of “Russian interference,” a meeting between Trump and Putin could be explosive, particularly given Moscow’s vocal opposition to any military action against North Korea.
From Vietnam, Trump will travel to the Philippines, where he will participate in an official state meeting with the country’s fascistic president, Rodrigo Duterte. The White House has brushed aside concerns over Duterte’s reign of terror and his agenda of murdering thousands of people in the name of a “war on drugs.” Anything is acceptable to the American ruling class providing the Philippines continues to serve as a frontline US client state. Under Obama and now under Trump, the US has used Manila’s territorial disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea as one of the justifications for its military build-up in the region.
Whilst in the Philippines, Trump has scheduled meetings with Malcolm Turnbull, the prime minister of Australia, and Jacinda Ardern, the newly elected Prime Minister of New Zealand.
Australia is considered by the US strategic and military establishment to be a critical ally in the preparations for, and waging of, a war with China. The country serves as one of the most vocal supporters of American foreign policy internationally, hosts key US military facilities, and has dispatched naval forces to join the US fleet that is gathering off the Korean Peninsula. New Zealand is likewise a member of the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance and hosts significant US spying bases. Ardern and her right-wing Labour coalition government have signalled that they will align more closely with the US against China.
The APEC talks and East Asia Summit will bring into stark focus the dilemma confronting every Asian state, as China’s economic weight continues to expand and the global role of the United States continues to decline.
Beijing is offering participation in its multi-billion-dollar “One Belt One Road” projects, aimed at developing energy and transport links between East Asia and Europe.
Donald Trump, the personification of the degeneration and decay of American imperialism, is offering ultimatums to China and the region that they accept the destruction of North Korea and the economic dictates of his administration, or face the prospect of nuclear war.
DAMASCUS, Syria. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said today that the Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump will soon hold a meeting in Vietnam where they will discuss several important issues, the settlement of the Syrian crisis including.
During a press conference on Saturday, Peskov said that arrangements are being made to prepare a meeting between the two leaders, where particular attention will be paid to the settlement of the Syrian crisis.
The meeting will take place in scope of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit, which will be held between November 10th and 11th in Vietnam.
Peskov pointed out to plenty of the topics to be discussed, stressing they are in the interest of both, Kremlin and the White House.
He noted that the settlement of the Syrian crisis has recently seen lots of positive developments, adding that the whole thing now requires more joint efforts and coordination between different sides in order to take it to a whole new level so that the crisis itself would be over much sooner.
“Search for nothing anymore, nothing except truth.
Be very still and try to get at the truth.
And the first question to ask yourself is: How great a liar am I?”
– D. H. Lawrence, Search For Truth
Like existential freedom, honesty and truth-seeking demand a perpetually renewed commitment. No one ever fully arrives, and all of us are blown off course on the journey. Even when we think we have reached our destination, we are often startled by the enigma of arrival, and must set sail again. We are all in the same boat. The search for truth is a process, an experiment, an essay – a trying without end.
Yet surely it is not an exaggeration to say that most people are liars and self-deceivers. Honesty, while touted as a virtue, is practiced far less than it is praised. There is almost nothing that people are less honest about than their attitudes toward honesty. Few think of themselves as dishonest, and even to hint that someone is so is received as a great insult that usually elicits an angry response. So most people follow the advice of the character Jean-Baptiste Clamence from Albert Camus’ The Fall: “promise to tell the truth and then lie as best you can.” In that way you satisfy your own and others’ secret desires for deception and play-acting, and other people will love you for it.
However, it is widely accepted that political leaders and the mass media lie and dissemble regularly, which, of course, they do. That is their job in an oligarchy. Today we are subjected to almost total, unrelenting media and government propaganda. Depending on their political leanings, people direct their anger toward politicians of parties they oppose and media they believe slant their coverage to favor the opposition.
Trump is a liar. No, Obama is a liar. And Hillary Clinton. No, Fox News. Ridiculous! – it’s CNN or NBC. And so on and so forth in this theatre of the absurd that plays out within a megaplex of mainstream media (MSM) propaganda, where there are many shows but one producer, whose overall aim is to engineer the consent of all who enter while setting the different audiences against each other. It is a very successful charade that evokes name-calling from all quarters.
In other words, for many people their opponents lie, as do other people, but not them. This is as true in personal as well as public life. Here the personal and the political converge, despite protestations to the contrary.
Sartre and Bad Faith
Lying and dissembling are ubiquitous. Being lied to by the MSM is mirrored in people’s personal lives. People lie and want to be deceived. They choose to play dumb, to avoid a confrontation with truth. They want to be nice (Latin, nescire, not to know, to be ignorant) and to be liked. They want to tuck themselves into a safe social and cultural framework where they imagine they will be safe. They choose to live in what Jean Paul Sartre called bad faith (mauvaise foi): He put it as follows:
In bad faith it is from myself that I am hiding the truth. But with this “lie” to myself, the one to whom the lie is told and the one who lies are one and the same person, which means that I must know in my capacity as deceiver the truth which is hidden from me in my capacity as the one deceived.
Such bad faith allows people to fabricate a second act of bad faith: that they are not responsible for their ignorance of the truths behind the government’s and corporate media’s lies and propaganda, even as the shades of the prison house ominously close around us and the world edges toward global death that could arrive in an instant with nuclear war or limp along for years of increasing suffering.
Those of us who write about the U.S. led demented wars and provocations around the world and the complementary death of democracy at home are constantly flabbergasted and discouraged by the willed ignorance of so many Americans. For while the mainstream media does the bidding of the power elite, there is ample alternative news and analyses available on the internet from fine journalists and writers committed to truth, not propaganda. There is actually far too much truth available, which poses another problem. But it doesn’t take a genius to learn how to research important issues and to learn how to distinguish between bogus and genuine information. It takes a bit of effort, and, more importantly, the desire to compare multiple, opposing viewpoints and untangle the webs the Web weaves. We are awash in information (and disinformation) and both good and bad reporting, but it is still available to the caring inquirer.
The problem is the will to know. But why, why the refusal to investigate and question; why the indifference? Stupidity? Okay, there is that. Ignorance? That too. Willful ignorance, ditto. Laziness, indeed. Careerism and ideology? For certain. Upton Sinclair put it mildly when he said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on not understanding it.” Difficult? No, it’s almost impossible.
But then there are many very intelligent people who have nothing to lose and yet adamantly refuse to entertain alternative possibilities to the reigning orthodoxies that have them in their grip.
As do many others, I know many such people who will yes me to death and then never fully research issues. They will remain in limbo or else wink to themselves that what may be true couldn’t be true. They close down. This is a great dilemma and frustration faced by those who seek to convince people to take an active part in understanding what is really going on in the world today, especially as the United States wages war across the globe, threatens Russia and China, among others, as it expands and modernizes its nuclear weapons capabilities.
Jacques Ellul on Propaganda
The French sociologist, Jacques Ellul, has argued convincingly that modern propaganda in a technological mass society is more complicated than the state and media lying and deceiving the population. He argues that propaganda meets certain needs of modern people and therefore the process of deceit is reciprocal. The modern person feels lost, powerless, and empty. Ellul says, “He realizes that he depends on decisions over which he has no control, and that realization drives him to despair.” But he can’t live in despair; desires that life be meaningful; and wants to feel he lives in a world that makes sense. He wants to participate and have opinions that suggest he grasps the flow of events. He doesn’t so much want information, but value judgments and preconceived positions that provide him with a framework for living. Ellul wrote the following in 1965 in his classic book Propaganda:
The majority prefers expressing stupidities to not expressing any opinion: this gives them the feeling of participation. For they need simple thoughts, elementary explanations, a ‘key’ that will permit them to take a position, and even readymade opinions….The man who keeps himself informed needs a framework….the more complicated the problems are, the more simple the explanations must be; the more fragmented the canvas, the simpler the pattern; the more difficult the question, the more all-embracing the solution; the more menacing the reduction of his own worth, the greater the need for boosting his ego. All this propaganda – and only propaganda – can give him.
Another way of saying this is that people want to be provided with myths to direct them to the “truth.” But such so-called truth has been preconceived within the overarching myth provided by propaganda, and while it satisfies people’s emotional need for coherence, it also allows them to think of themselves as free individuals arriving at their own conclusions, which is a basic function of good propaganda. In today’s mass technological society, it is essential that people be convinced that they are free-thinking individuals acting in good faith. Then they can feel good about themselves as they lie and act in bad faith.
The Spirit of Existential Rebellion
In the wake of World War II and the complete shattering of any illusion about the human capacity for evil, there arose in Western Europe, particularly in France and Germany a “philosophy” called existentialism. More an attitude towards life rather than a formal philosophy, and with its roots going back at least as far as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in the 19th century, existentialism emphasized individual freedom, authenticity, personal responsibility, and the need to confront the unimaginable horrors of World War II and the absurd situation in which human beings had created nuclear weapons that could obliterate the planet in a flash, as the United States had used to incinerate Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How to respond to the birth of global state nuclear terrorism became a task for the existential imagination.
The traditional belief that an all-powerful God could bring the world to an end had now been replaced by the idolatry of nuclear madmen who had hubristically violated the limits that the Greeks had long ago warned us not to exceed by making themselves into gods. Having unleashed the Furies, these false gods have created a world in which the droning sound of nuclear intercontinental missiles haunts the secret nightmares of the world. We have been living with this unspeakable and unspoken truth for more than seventy years.
Opposition to the nuclear standoff and its accompanying proxy wars has waxed and waned over the years. Dissident minorities and sometimes many millions across the globe have mobilized to oppose not only nuclear weapons but the war makers who have waged continuous wars of aggression throughout the world and have created the national-security warfare state, seemingly intent on world destruction.
However, today the sound of silence fills the empty streets, as passivity has overtaken those who oppose the growing nuclear threat and the ongoing U.S.- led wars throughout the world. The spirit of resistance has gone to sleep. The German writer Karl Kraus understood this in the days of Hitler’s rise during the 1930s when he said, “The real end of the world is the destruction of the spirit; the other kind depends on the insignificant attempt to see whether after such destruction the world can go on.”
We need to somehow resurrect the spirit of resistance that will bring together millions of people across the world who oppose the death dealers. I think it is time to recall the power and possibility implicit in the spirit of existential thought.
The existential emphasis on individual responsibility and authentic truth telling in the works of various writers, including Jean Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Gabriel Marcel, and Albert Camus (who didn’t consider himself and existentialist but whose work emphasized many of the same themes, Image left), inspired large numbers of people in the late’ 50s into the mid-to-late’60s, including the international anti-nuclear movement and young American anti-war activists. Contrary to popular understanding, existentialism is not about navel gazing and hopelessness, but is about responding freely and authentically to the situations people find themselves in, which today, is the end- time that is a time when the fate of the world lies in the hands of nuclear madmen.
But by the end of the 1960s this existential spirit of rebellion started to dissipate. Academic gibberish replaced this rebellious spirit with the introduction of ideas, such as post structuralism, leading eventually to postmodernist nonsense that not only refuted the need for personal responsibility, but eliminated the person altogether. By 1999 a leading exponent of postmodern rhetoric, Jean Baudrillard, was dismissing everything the existentialists emphasized. He said, “No one needs this kind of ‘existential garb’ any more. Who cares about freedom, bad faith, and authenticity today?”
If such words were just the ranting of an intellectual lost in a fantasy world of abstractions, that would be one thing. But they are a form of propaganda echoed throughout western societies, particularly the United States, through the repeated emphases over the decades that people are not free but are the products of biological brain processes, etc. Deterministic memes have become dominant in cultural mind control. Such postmodern abstractions have denied everything that makes possible the fight against nuclear annihilation and the warfare states’ domination of western Europe and NATO, led by the United States.
The self is an illusion. Freedom is an illusion. Responsibility is an illusion. Guilt is an illusion. Everything is an illusion. A kaleidoscopic mad world in which no on exists and nothing really matters. This deterministic and nihilistic message has become the main current in western cultural propaganda since the late 1960s and has reached a crescendo in the present day. It is responsible for the growth of passivity and denial that dominates contemporary public consciousness. It underlies the refusal of so many otherwise intelligent people to engage themselves in the search for truth that would lead to their joining forces with others to create a mass anti-war movement.
While many people think of existentialism as only an atheistic approach to existence, this is incorrect. There are atheist and agnostic existentialists, yes, , but existentialism’s core emphases have deep roots in the various religious traditions, such as Judaism and Christianity, etc. That is because freedom, authenticity, truth telling, and social responsibility, while often buried within the institutional structures of these faiths, lie at their core. So if we are going to resurrect the spirit of rebellion necessary to transform today’s world, we need to renew the virtues that the existentialists emphasize.
The first step in this process is to ask with D.H.Lawrence the question, “How great a liar am I?”
Anti-war activist and author of the indispensable book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, James Douglass, made an intriguing suggestion in another book, Lightning East to West, when he said:
The exact opposite of the H bomb’s destructive purpose, but psychic equivalent of its energy, is the Kingdom of Reality which would be the final victory of Truth in history –a force of truth and love powerful enough to fuse billions of individual psyches into a global realization of essential oneness. There is no reason why the same psyche which, when turned outward, was able to create the condition for a self-acting force of over 100 million degrees of heat, thus realizing an inconceivable thermonuclear fusion, cannot someday turn sufficiently inward to create the condition for an equally inconceivable (but nature balancing) fusion in its own psychic or spiritual reality. An end-time can also be a beginning.
Gandhi said:
‘When the practice of the law becomes universal, God will reign on the earth as God does in heaven. Earth and heaven are in us. We know the earth, and we are strangers to the heaven within us.’
While Gandhi’s words are couched in religious language, their meaning can resonate with secular-minded people as well. These words speak to the power implicit in the human spirit as a whole. That power begins and builds when people of all persuasions are convinced that they must freely pursue the truth at all costs. As the poet Theodore Roethke wrote, “In a dark time, the eye begins to see.”
In these very dark times – these end- times created by nuclear weapons – seeing the truth is dependent on the will to truth, and the will to truth only arises when people believe they are free to alter the circumstances in which they find themselves. This belief in freedom is at the core of all existential thought and is why we need to resurrect it today.
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/
What a weekend it has been. The Manus Island detention centre in Papua New Guinea may well have closed, but the protests, and those resident at the camp, continue to defy and prevaricate. At a protest in Melbourne on Saturday, Australian Greens MP Adam Bandt decided to get down and indignant with his calls to the Australian government.
“These people,” claimed Bandt, referencing those refusing to leave the Lombrum naval base, “have committed no crime other than to do what every single one of us would do if we thought our lives, or our family’s lives, were at risk.”
The immigration minister, Peter Dutton, stonily silent, was singled out for special mention. “To look at the face of Peter Dutton is to stare into the eyes of someone who is prepared to kill people for political gain, and it’s time he was held to account for his crime against humanity.”[1]
Dutton, for his part, insists that the new facilities are better, a sort of accommodation promotion. On Channel 9’s Today Show on November 2, the minister explained that the new residences constituted a “much better facility that where people are at the moment and I’d just say to the advocates here who are telling people not to move, to resist moving centres; that they’re not doing those people any favours.”[2]
The new facilities, comprising three sites for accommodation, have been given a curiously travel touch up in some reports. Peter Hartcher of The Age, for instance, describes the East Lorengau Refugee Transit Centre as having “room for 400 people” with healthcare and “security for the protection of the residents.”[3]
West Lorengau Haus has room for a further 300 refugees. “For confirmed refugees, the PNG government pays an allowance for food and other necessities but they need to cook their own food.” The third facility, Hillside Haus, covers those whose claims for refugee status have failed, one which will receive catered mills.
The sting in Hartcher’s commentary lies in pouring cold water, and more, on the claims that there is a crisis, or at least one that has not been manufactured by Australian or PNG authorities. The former detention facility at Lombrum navy base, for instance, had been open for some 18 months, “with asylum seekers able to come and go as they pleased”. They merely had to return to the centre at night.
These descriptions fortify the line of the irresponsible refugee, dandified, coddled, indignant and even fraudulent. This, despite the legal ruling by the PNG Supreme Court that such a facility was illegal, not to mention the numerous accounts of violence that have been documented by Human Rights Watch.
On the ground, not much coddling is taking place and few are buying the paradise packaged rhetoric that hope is around the corner. One such unflappable sceptic is Behrouz Boochani, who has been incessant on his Twitter account, streaming updates with pious, pilgrim-like dedication. Of latest concern in the next chapter of whether a move to the designated sites at Lorengau will take place centred on the heart condition of one of the refugees.
“The refugee with heart problems just arrived in Lorengau, about 40 kilometres from here [the camp]. Such a terrible night, will write about it later.”[4] Then followed a tweet that the situation was “critical in Manus” and that a doctor was tending to the patient after four and a half hours. “Such a long time for emergency cases.”
Boochani, as is his wont, then shot a moral warning, a call to Australian authorities on complicity. “Anything bad [sic] happen for the refugee with heart pain Australia is responsible. You can not continue to kill people because of medical neglect.”[5]
The infliction of death is a matter of relative assessment. The Australian government, backed by the Labor opposition, holds that a policy detaining people in tropical centres in the Pacific away from the mainland saves foolish lives and retards the “people smuggling industry”.
This fine cut fiction is based largely on a brutish assumption that the problem vanishes, when it, in fact, merely moves elsewhere. Where there are means to flee, and individuals happy to capitalise on assisting, there will be trade, however bestial and risky it may be. (What would Dutton make of the people smugglers of the post-Second World War period?)
The global problem on accepting and processing refugee claims, and the issue of settlement and integration, remain ones where wealthy states, on the whole, remain stern and austere in the face of desperation. Poorer states, challenged by a lack of infrastructure, are left to foot the bill, the modern serfs of the international humanitarian system. The Australian solution, singular and very colonial in inspiration, is to pay middlemen states and outsource legal obligations.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
In 1917, the British government unleashed the Zionist Jewish colonial enterprise that is now Israel. In the process, it meted out on Palestinians destruction, dispossession and oppression that are ongoing to this day.
The language used in the document that facilitated this disaster, the Balfour Declaration, is devious and self-serving, the kind of language that can be found in every document to which the Palestinian people have been subjected — and supposedly drafted by an impartial power — only to be revealed later as a Zionist instrument.
For example, the final clause of the Balfour Declaration includes the so-called “safeguard” for Palestinian Arabs. It reads:
“… it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by the Jews in any other country.”
The craftily phrased reference to “non-Jewish communities” is especially galling and fraudulent, as it was written to conceal the true ratio between Palestinian Arabs (91% at the time) and Jews — “an Arab population with a dash of Jew. Half of the Jews were recent arrivals” as it has been described, and thereby to make easier the suppression of the indigenous population.
Notice also in this infamous clause that “civil and religious rights” qualify “non-Jewish communities in Palestine” and “political status” is added only about Jewish rights — a political bias against Palestinian Arabs and for Jewish colonial supremacy in Palestine that is flagrantly evident to this day, not only in the UK, but also in the US.
Here are eight memes that explain the terrible triple bind Palestinians continue to suffer under the Balfour Declaration:
Meme One: The Balfour Declaration taught the Zionist movement that a Jewish state in Palestine relying on a superpower patron will have impunity from censure.
(L-R) Chaim Weizmann, future president of Israel, with Louis Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice, in Palestine, 1919. The two were instrumental in obtaining the Balfour Declaration, a British document that many feel was a critical step in the establishment of Israel. Zionists’ promise that they would get the U.S. to join Britain in “the Great War” was the enticement.
Meme Three: Zionism’s Jewish-state mission had its own independent sources of finance & support, besides those offered by Britain’s Balfour Declaration. [See Zionism: World Zionist Organization (WZO)
Meme Four: Double Whammy! Unlike most other colonized peoples, Palestinians had to fight against not only the foreign colonial Jewish entity in their midst but also the Balfour Declaration. [See Rashid Khalidi: Balfour Declaration Must be Matched by National Home for Palestinians]
Meme Five: The legality accorded to the Balfour Declaration by the League of Nations also explains the challenges facing Palestinians trying to retain their ancestral homeland. [Read The Real Story of How Israel Was Created]
The bind in which Palestinians find themselves because of the Balfour Declaration is a triple whammy. They continue to fight not only the well-funded Jewish Zionist colonization of Palestine but also the Zionist-propelled machinations of imperial powers, both in the waning British and rising American empires. And as the Declaration was accepted by the League of Nations, Palestinians also must face the “legality” of a corrupt international order [Read Why is it so difficult to reform the United Nations Security Council?].
Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.
Sexual harassment – it’s revelation, that is – is all around at the moment, a toxic cold that is giving political establishments not so much a sneeze as debilitating pneumonia. In Britain, the cold covered various parties, initiating investigations, concerns and the promise of further actions.
It also hit Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary who found himself without a portfolio, resigning for having engaged in conduct that fell, in the words of his resignation letter, “below the high standards that we require of the Armed Forces and that I have the honour to represent.”
Those standards were allegedly given a good dumping in past remarks made to Andrea Leadsom, leader of the House of Commons. On Monday, Leadsom wished to give some instruction about what needed to be done. “I have made it clear that the issue is around, first, those who are made to feel uncomfortable: I am setting the bar significantly below criminal activity. If people are made uncomfortable, that is not correct.”[1]
Not that all whom he has allegedly touched feel the same way. Journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer had no desire to be considered a “victim” of Fallon’s advances fifteen years ago, her knee the unfortunate excuse for ending a ministerial career. Fallon has been busy on that front, effusively expressing apologies for placing his hand on Hartley-Brewer’s knee at a Tory party conference dinner in 2002. Hartley-Brewer, for her own part, thought it all ridiculous, an over-egging of an already overdone pudding.
The letter from Prime Minister Theresa May did everything to mollify and ease the fall of the axe. Was Fallon to be remembered as deviant, fondler and ogler, one inclined to press flesh rather than move armaments and send men and women to their deaths? Or perhaps a mighty figure of the realm, swaddled in the blue of good British conservatism in the fight against terror?
May insisted that his qualities be remembered. “You should take particular pride in the way the United Kingdom has risen to the challenge of tackling the barbaric threat of Daesh. Thanks to the bravery of our Armed Forces, Daesh is being defeated, and three million people have been freed from its murderous rule.”[2]
Well he might have had “a long and impressive Ministerial career”, having served in four departments under four prime ministers. He had also been Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party. But for all that, the smear cloaked and caked with sufficient force. May is simply too vulnerable to treat these matters as farcical utterances and suspicions. Nor can she afford having encores.
The Tories have decided to engage in, much in the manner of what they have done at stages of their muddle through history, some promised, and ultimately failed behavioural modification. The bad Tory intends becoming good, entailing some awakening and self-chastening. As always, it is a cursory case of moral response: codify conduct that is bound to be undermined at every given moment.
When John Major won the election as Margaret Thatcher’s successor in 1992, his moral insistence on angelic purity for members of his party was disastrous. Major himself was found out to be having more than just his hand in the cookie jar.
Now, Prime Minister May is insisting on fundamental “minimum standards” for members of the party fuelled by the doctrine of taking “all reasonable steps” to investigate concerns raised over inappropriate conduct. An element of independence in the process is also being encouraged.
This procedure is one which replaces the voluntary code embraced in 2014. It all sounds prosaic, determinative and expected, the material that suggests what has been essentially considered in the order of normality. Conservative members must “treat others with civility, courtesy and respect” and avoid using “their position to bully, abuse, harass or unlawfully discriminate against others.”
On the Labour side of politics, investigations are also being undertaken into two of its MPs. Suspensions have taken place, with Kelvin Hopkins having to cool off over allegations made by Labour activist Ava Etemadzadeh that he embraced her inappropriately after a student event in 2014.[3] A new complaints procedure has been introduced, though the need for an external, independent body is also being mooted.
In the aftermath of Fallon’s fall, the relieved and the delighted are directing their bolts. But they mention, less the issue of his alleged misbehaviour than the general sense that he has been an atrocious being worthy of overthrow.
The New Statesman reminded readers that he had sterling form, the sort that terriers and attack dogs tend to have for their owners. Fallon had described the current Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, as a “Labour lackey who speaks alongside extremists”.[4] He had also attempted to box Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn in a category comfortable with terrorist insurrection.
The bigger, more besmirched picture is one where cultures are being outed, behaviour given a wringing. From Hollywood to Westminster, the veils are being lifted on power, misguided hands and more. Fallon’s problem is hardly unique, or individual. Given a society where sex is deemed problematic, dysfunctional and dirty, harassment is bound to given a further layering of significance.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge and lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email:[email protected]
Phil Murphy, a former banker with a double-digit lead in New Jersey’s race for governor, has made a state-owned bank a centerpiece of his platform. If he wins on November 7, the nation’s second state-owned bank in a century could follow.
A UK study published on October 27, 2017 reported that the majority of politicians do not know where money comes from. According to City A.M. (London) :
More than three-quarters of the MPs surveyed incorrectly believed that only the government has the ability to create new money. . . .
The Bank of England has previously intervened to point out that most money in the UK begins as a bank loan. In a 2014 article the Bank pointed out that “whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.”
The Bank of England researchers said that 97% of the UK money supply is created in this way. In the US, the figure is about 95%. City A.M. quoted Fran Boait, executive director of the advocacy group Positive Money, who observed:
“Despite their confidence in telling the public that there is ‘no magic money tree’ to pay for vital services, politicians themselves are shockingly ignorant of where money actually comes from.
“There is in fact a ‘magic money tree’, but it’s in the hands of commercial banks, such as Barclays, HSBC and RBS, who create money whenever they make loans.”
For those few politicians who are aware of the banks’ magic money tree, the axiom that the people should own the banks – or at least some of them – is a no-brainer. One of these rare politicians is Phil Murphy, who has a double-digit lead in New Jersey’s race for governor. Formerly a Wall Street banker himself, Murphy knows how banking works. That helps explain why he has boldly made a state-owned bank a centerpiece of his platform. He maintains that New Jersey’s billions in tax dollars should be kept in the state’s own bank, where it can leverage its capital to fund local infrastructure, small businesses, affordable housing, student loans, and other state needs. New Jersey voters go to the polls on November 7.
That means New Jersey could soon have the second publicly-owned depository bank in the country, following the very successful century-old Bank of North Dakota (BND). Other likely contenders among about twenty public banking initiatives now underway include Washington State, which has approved a feasibility study for a state bank; and the cities of Santa Fe in New Mexico and Los Angeles and Oakland in California, which are exploring the feasibility of their own city-owned banks.
A Bank Is Not Simply an Intermediary
An article in City Watch LA critical of the idea of a city-owned bank observed that Los Angeles formerly had a bank that failed, closing its doors in 2003 due to insolvency. The argument illustrates the confusion over what a bank is and what it can do for the local government and local communities. The Los Angeles Community Development Bank was not a bank. It was a loan fund, and it was designed to fail. It was not chartered to take deposits or to create deposits as loans, and it was only allowed to lend to businesses that had been turned down by other banks; in other words, they were bad credit risks.
With a loan fund, a dollar invested is a dollar lent, which must return to the bank before it can be lent again. By contrast, as the Bank of England acknowledged in its 2014 paper, “banks do not act simply as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them.” A chartered depository bank can turn one dollar of capital into ten dollars in bank credit, something it does simply by creating a deposit in the account of the borrower. If the bank’s books don’t balance at the end of the day, it borrows very cheaply from other banks, the Federal Home Loan Banks, or the repo market. It borrows at bankers’ rates rather than retail rates, and that is one of the many perks that a publicly-owned bank can recapture for local governments. Borrowing from banks rather than the bond market actually expands the circulating money supply, stimulating the local economy.
Compelling Precedents
Public sector banks, while rare in the US, are common in other countries; and recent studies have shown that they are actually more profitable, safer, less corrupt, and more accountable overall than private banks.
This is particularly true of the Bank of North Dakota, currently the only publicly-owned depository bank in the US. According to the Wall Street Journal, it is more profitable than Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase. The BND is risk-averse, lends conservatively, does not gamble in derivatives or put deposits at risk. It is able to lend at lower than market rates because its costs are very low.
The BND holds all of its home state’s revenues as deposits by law, acting as a sort of “mini-Fed” for North Dakota. It has seen record profits for almost 15 years. It continued to report record profits after two years of oil bust in the state, showing that it is highly profitable on its own merits because of its business model. It does not pay bonuses, fees, or commissions; has no high paid executives; does not have multiple branches; does not need to advertise; and does not have private shareholders seeking short-term profits. The profits return to the bank, which either distributes them as dividends to the state or uses them to build up its capital base in order to expand its loan portfolio.
The BND does not compete but partners with local banks, which act as the front office dealing with customers. It does make loans that community banks are unable to service, but this is not because the borrowers are bad credit risks. It is because either the loans are too big for the smaller banks to handle by themselves or the smaller banks cannot afford the regulatory burden of lending in rural communities where they get only a few loans a year.
Among other cost savings, the BND is able to make 2% loans to North Dakota communities for local infrastructure — half or less the rate paid by local governments in other states. The BND also lends to state agencies. For example, in 2016 it extended a $200,000 letter of credit to the State Water Commission at 1.75% and a $56,000 loan to the Water Commission to pay off its bond issues. Since 50% of the cost of infrastructure is financing, the state can cut infrastructure costs nearly in half by financing through its own bank, which can return the interest to the state.
If Phil Murphy wins the New Jersey governorship and succeeds in establishing a New Jersey state-owned bank, expect a wave of public banks to follow, as more and more elected officials come to understand how banking works and to see the obvious benefits of establishing their own.
For the moment it looks as if Russian three-dimensional geopolitical chess moves in the turbulent Middle East have thrown a giant monkey wrench into Washington plans to create an independent Kurdistan. In September the Kurdish population in Iraq voted apparently overwhelmingly for creation of an independent Kurdistan that would control some of the richest oil fields of Iraq in and around Kirkuk as well. Today, a month later, Massoud Barzani, the US and Israel-backed Kurd leader, is facing a major loss of powers from the Iraq Kurd Parliament. In the middle of the fast-changing developments—whose outcome is decisive to far more than the Middle East—is Russia and the Russian state-owned oil giant, Rosneft.
Contrary to the slick US and EU propaganda that has portrayed former President Massoud Barzani and his Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) as champions of western-style democracy, Barzani is a clan warlord who has ruthlessly pursued ethnic cleansing against a Yazidi and Christian Assyrian minority in order to gain control of oil lands those peoples had historically occupied until 2014. The Barzani clan and his Peshmerga military arm were trained beginning the late 1960s by Israeli Mossad Lt Colonel Tzuri Sagi, initially to go against Saddam Hussein’s rule. Israeli ties to the Barzani clan have remained since.
Since that time the Massoud Barzani clan has built a dictatorial power in the Kurdish region of Iraq using assassination, corruption and since 2014, control of sales of Iraqi oil via Turkey. Such is Barzani’s mafia-power, despite the fact that his term as President of the Iraqi Kurdistan ended in 2015 and the Kurd regional parliament refused to renew it, he has ruled since without any legal basis by preventing the parliament from convening and formally ousting him. Massoud’s son controls the region’s security council and all all military and civilian intelligence.
Barzani, with open backing of Israel’s Netanyahu, despite major opposition from most of the world, went ahead with a referendum for an independent Kurdish state. It was to have been the beginning of a domino-style reshaping of the geopolitical map of the entire Middle East along the lines of US Army Col. Ralph Peters’ 2006 Armed Forces Journal, “Blood Borders: How a Better Middle East Would Look.”
Since the British and French carved up the oil-rich lands of the collapsing Ottoman Empire in the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 during the First World War, the ethnic peoples known as Kurds were divided, deliberately, between the borders of Iran, Iraq, Syria and of Turkey. To now create a single Kurdish state would destabilize the entire region and beyond. The issues among the various ethnic Kurds themselves are as well vast with differences in Kurd dialects sometimes being as vast as that between English and modern German. The political differences as well are significant.
Had the US and Israel succeeded in forming an independent Kurdish state in Iraq as a precursor to a Greater Kurdistan of some 23 million people, it would have thrown the entire region from Iran to Iraq to Syria and Turkey into war, the kind of really big war the Pentagon neoconservatives have salivated over since they concocted the fake proof in 2003 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Interesting to note, the same California PR firm, Russo Marsh & Rogers, that created Move America Forward (MAF), as a pro-war lobby for the 2003 war against Saddam Hussein, using fabrications to whip up popular support in the US for war in Iraq, is the PR firm used since 2005 by the Barzani clan to promote the idea in the US that Kirkuk oil should be part of an independent Kurdistan.
One month later…
One month later and how the Iraqi Kurd landscape has changed. In a blitz military action that was clearly supported by a strong anti-Barzani faction of the Kurds, the Baghdad army retook Kirkuk and the key oilfields occupied since 2014 illegally by Barzani’s forces.
This meant that the financial key to Barzani and Tel Aviv’s “independent” Iraqi Kurdistan, the oil revenues from Kirkuk and Bai Hasaan fields of around 1.2 million barrels per day are no longer in the hands of the Barzani mafia.
After Barzani’s gang took control of the Kirkuk oil-rich region in 2014, driving hundreds of thousands of ethnic Yazidis and Assyrian Christians from their homes, US oil interests helped to build Barzani’s power. Rex Tillerson as CEO of ExxonMobil defied the Baghdad government and invested in the Kurd region of Iraq along with Chevron after 2014 as a clear part of the US preparation for an independent oil-rich Kurdistan.
Amidst the chaos of the conquests of ISIS across Iraq and Syria after 2014, a conquest that was initially facilitated by Barzani in his bid to grab Kirkuk oil, Barzani’s clan made an illegal deal with the family of Turkish President Erdogan to sell the oil via Turkish pipelines where it was sold on to Israel earning Barzani’s clan billions of dollars. By August 2015 the Jerusalem Post reported that as much as 77% of Israel oil imports were coming from Kurd-occupied Kirkuk region, via pipeline from Turkish Ceyhan to the Israel oil port at Ashkelon.
Following Barzani’s bombastic declaration of a 93% independence referendum yes vote, the Iraq government, as did others including that of Turkey and Iran, declared the vote illegal. Baghdad swiftly moved to impose sanctions on the Iraqi Kurdish region. Erdogan’s Turkey, fearing a spread of Kurdish independence to Turkish Kurds, a significant minority bordering Syria and Iraq, cut off Kurd pipeline flows.
Then Baghdad held secret talks with the opposition Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) of the recently deceased Jalal Talabani. PUK had opposed the idea of referendum, and it was their soldiers who largely controlled Kirkuk.
According to Bafel Talabani, the son of recently-deceased Jalal Talabani, just before the Iraqi forces, in a joint operation of the Iraqi army and the Shiite Hashd al-Shaabi militias were moving to retake Kirkuk, a deal was reached with Baghdad to peacefully withdraw PUK-controlled Peshmerga forces from the city, opening the way for dialogue and saving thousands of lives. Talabani called the decision of Barzani to go ahead with a referendum, despite clear warnings of the consequences, a “colossal mistake.”
On October 29, Massoud Barzani announced he would step down as (illegitimate) President of the Iraqi Kurdish region, acknowledging the utter failure of the Israel-backed referendum ploy.
Russian Oil Geopolitics
A crucial if little-noted factor in making the strategic shift in the geopolitical energy field of the Iraqi and Syrian Kurdish regions in the last months has been Russia, specifically Russia’s giant state-owned Rosneft.
Surprising many, just after the September 25 Iraqi Kurd referendum vote, Rosneft CEO, Igor Sechin announced that Rosneft had agreed to buy control of Iraqi Kurdistan’s main oil pipeline, boosting its investment in the autonomous region to $4 billion according to remarks by Sechin on October 18 at a conference this author attended in Italy two days before the signing of the deal.
Rosneft plans to increase pipeline capacity to 950,000 bpd. Under the agreement Rosneft will control the majority 60% with the rest held by the current operator, the Kurdish KAR Group in Erbil. In addition to investing $3.5 billion into the Kurdish pipeline, Rosneft earlier this year lent the regional Kurdish government $1.2 billion to ease a budget crisis, making Russia far and away the largest foreign investor in the Iraqi Kurdish region.
The same day, October 19, the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), strongly backed by US weapons and training, in the ongoing war in Syria’s oil and gas-rich Deir Ezzor province, made a surprise deal to turn over the rich gas field to troops of the Russian Ground Forces, according to a report in the Beirut Almasdar News.
The report that the Kurdish SDF agreed to turn over Al-Tabiya gas field it had just taken from ISIS control on September 23 suggests more than a minor role of Russia in both Syrian and in Iraqi oil and gas developments as well, of course, in Kurdish developments. The Al-Tabiya gas field, formerly operated by Conoco of the US had the largest capacity of any field in Syria, capable of producing 13 million cubic meters of natural gas per day. The Almasdar News report states that the Russians will turn control back to the Syrian Damascus government. The deal followed secret talks between Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, Special Presidential Envoy for the Middle East in the self-declared Kurdish autonomous zone of Rojava to meet with Kurdish and Syrian leaders in the northern city of Qamishli.
On October 25 Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al Abadi met with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara, a significant thaw in their relations. The US-Israeli-backed Kurdistan independence ploy of Barzani has completely backfired. Again, Washington geopolitical stupidity and neoconservative war mania has driven hitherto geopolitical foes to cooperate in ways unimaginable just three years ago.
Russia has shrewdly played a game of geopolitical chess. Moscow knows that if Rosneft holds the trump card in the Iraqi Kurdish energy economy, the Kurds have no option to get their oil out but via Turkey. Two years ago, before Erdogan offered a rapprochement to Russia over the shooting of a Russian jet over Syria, Turkey was financing ISIS against the regime of Bashar al Assad and at the same time reportedly facilitating export sales of oil from Syria via a Turkish state company. Qatar was spending billions of dollars to finance Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS and other Salafist terror groups in Syria. Now Turkey has to deal with Rosneft for Iraqi gas and with Damascus where Bashar al Assad remains firmly entrenched with Russian support. And Turkey seems to be doing just that, one reason for the growing hostility between Ankara and Washington.
Further setback for Washington is the development around Qatar. Since Washington and Israel goaded the incalculable Saudis last summer into the laughable idea of creating an “Arab NATO” of Sunni oil states (plus Israel), aimed at Iran, that “Arab NATO” as its first act imposed an economic embargo against former Gulf Cooperation Council ally and Muslim Brotherhood-backed Qatar. Qatar was targeted by the Saudis because they had openly sought the cooperation of former arch foe Iran in building a common gas route to the EU. Now Qatar is working with Iran, Turkey, Russia and China in a new geopolitical alignment opposed by Saudi Arabia.
Russia, placing herself in the midst of the Kurdish regions of Iraq and Syria has managed a brilliant political coup against the Anglo-American and Israeli designs for a Greater Kurdistan and a NATO-controlled Greater Middle East.
Checkmate! Washington. You have just lost the Middle East. The unfolding of further events with Russia and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, are just a matter of time, as the unprecedented recent visit of the Saudi King to Moscow to ask for Russian weaponry suggests.
The neocons around D.J. Trump and his neophyte son-in-law, 36-year-old “Senior Advisor” Jared Kushner, and the increasingly pathetic ExxonMobil Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, are a sad bunch. The world has tired of their wars of destruction. It’s time to build up new.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
US journalists and commentators, politicians and Sinologists spend considerable time and space speculating on the personality of China’s President Xi Jinping and his appointments to the leading bodies of the Chinese government, as if these were the most important aspects of the entire 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (October 18-24, 2017).
Mired down in gossip, idle speculation and petty denigration of its leaders, the Western press has once again failed to take account of the world-historical changes which are currently taking place in China and throughout the world.
World historical changes, as articulated by Chinese President Xi Jinping, are present in the vision, strategy and program of the Congress. These are based on a rigorous survey of China’s past, present and future accomplishments.
The serious purpose, projections and the presence of China’s President stand in stark contrast to the chaos, rabble-rousing demagogy and slanders characterizing the multi-billion dollar US Presidential campaign and its shameful aftermath.
The clarity and coherence of a deep strategic thinker like President Xi Jinping contrasts to the improvised, contradictory and incoherent utterances from the US President and Congress. This is not a matter of mere style but of substantive content.
We will proceed in the essay by contrasting the context, content and direction of the two political systems.
China: Strategic Thinking and Positive Outcomes
China, first and foremost, has established well-defined strategic guidelines that emphasize macro-socio-economic and military priorities over the next five, ten and twenty years.
China is committed to reducing pollution in all of its manifestations via the transformation of the economy from heavy industry to a high-tech service economy, moving from quantitative to qualitative indicators.
Secondly, China will increase the relative importance of the domestic market and reduce its dependence on exports. China will increase investments in health, education, public services, pensions and family allowances.
Thirdly, China plans to invest heavily in ten economic priority sectors. These include computerized machinery, robotics, energy saving vehicles, medical devices, aerospace technology, and maritime and rail transport. It targets three billion (US) dollars to upgrade technology in key industries, including electrical vehicles, energy saving technology, numerical control (digitalization) and several other areas. China plans to increase investment in research and development from .95% to 2% of GDP.
Moreover, China has already taken steps to launch the ‘petro-Yuan’, and end US global financial dominance.
China has emerged as the world’s leader in advancing global infrastructure networks with its One Belt One Road (Silk Road) across Eurasia. Chinese-built ports, airports and railroads already connect twenty Chinese cities to Central Asia, West Asia, South-East Asia, Africa and Europe. China has established a multi-lateral Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (with over 60 member nations) contributing 100 billion dollars for initial financing.
China has combined its revolution in data collection and analysis with central planning to conquer corruption and improve the efficiency in credit allocation. Beijing’s digital economy is now at the center of the global digital economy. According to one expert, “China is the world leader in payments made by mobile devices”, (11 times the US). One in three of the world’s start-ups, valued at more than $1 billion, take place in China (FT 10/28/17, p. 7). Digital technology has been harnessed to state-owned banks in order to evaluate credit risks and sharply reduce bad debt. This will ensure that financing is creating a new dynamic flexible model combining rational planning with entrepreneurial vigor (ibid).
As a result, the US/EU-controlled World Bank has lost its centrality in global financing. China is already Germany’s largest trading partner and is on its way to becoming Russia’s leading trade partner and sanctions-busting ally.
China has widened and expanded its trade missions throughout the globe, replacing the role of the US in Iran, Venezuela and Russia and wherever Washington has imposed belligerent sanctions.
While China has modernized its military defense programs and increased military spending, almost all of the focus is on ‘home defense’ and protection of maritime trade routes. China has not engaged in a single war in decades.
China’s system of central planning allows the government to allocate resources to the productive economy and to its high priority sectors. Under President Xi Jinping, China has created an investigation and judicial system leading to the arrest and prosecution of over a million corrupt officials in the public and private sector. High status is no protection from the government’s anti-corruption campaign: Over 150 Central Committee members and billionaire plutocrats have fallen. Equally important, China’s central control over capital flows (outward and inward) allows for the allocation of financial resources to high tech productive sectors while limiting the flight of capital or its diversion into the speculative economy.
As a result, China’s GNP has been growing between 6.5% – 6.9% a year – four times the rate of the EU and three times the US.
As far as demand is concerned, China is the world’s biggest market and growing. Income is growing – especially for wage and salaried workers. President Xi Jinping has identified social inequalities as a major area to rectify over the next five years.
The US: Chaos, Retreat and Reaction
In contrast, the United States President and Congress have not fashioned a strategic vision for the country, least of all one linked to concrete proposals and socio-economic priorities, which might benefit the citizenry.
The US has 240,000 active and reserve armed forces stationed in 172 countries. China has less than 5,000 in one country – Djibouti. The US stations 40,000 troops in Japan, 23,000 in South Korea, 36,000 in Germany, 8,000 in the UK and over 1,000 in Turkey. What China has is an equivalent number of highly skilled civilian personnel engaged in productive activity around the world. China’s overseas missions and its experts have worked to benefit both global and Chinese economic growth.
The United States’ open-ended, multiple military conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Niger, Somalia, Jordan and elsewhere have absorbed and diverted hundreds of billions of dollars away from productive investments in the domestic economy. In only a few cases, military spending has built useful roads and infrastructure, which could be counted a ‘dual use’, but overwhelmingly US military activities abroad have been brutally destructive, as shown by the deliberate dismemberment of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya.
The US lacks the coherence of China’s policy making and strategic leadership. While chaos has been inherent in the politics of the US ‘free market’ financial system, it is especially widespread and dangerous during the Trump regime.
Congressional Democrats and Republicans, united and divided, actively confront President Trump on every issue no matter how important or petty. Trump improvises and alters his policies by the hour or, at most, by the day. The US possesses a party system where one party officially rules in the Administration with two militarist big business wings.
US has been spending over 700 billion dollars a year to pursue seven wars and foment ‘regime changes’ or coups d’état on four continents and eight regions over the past two decades. This has only caused disinvestment in the domestic economy with deterioration of critical infrastructure, loss of markets, widespread socioeconomic decline and a reduction of spending on research and development for goods and services.
The top 500 US corporations invest overseas, mainly to take advantage of low tax region and sources of cheap labor, while shunning American workers and avoiding US taxes. At the same time, these corporations share US technology and markets with the Chinese.
Today, US capitalism is largely directed by and for financial institutions, which absorb and divert capital from productive investments, generating an unbalanced crisis-prone economy. In contrast, China determines the timing and location of investments as well as bank interest rates, targeting priority investments, especially in advanced high-tech sectors.
Washington has spent billions on costly and unproductive military-centered infrastructure (military bases, naval ports, air stations etc.) in order to buttress stagnant and corrupt allied regimes. As a result, the US has nothing comparable to China’s hundred-billion-dollar ‘One Belt-One Road’ (Silk Road) infrastructure project linking continents and major regional markets and generating millions of productive jobs.
The US has broken global linkages with dynamic growth centers. Washington resorts to self-defecating, mindless chauvinistic rhetoric to impose trade policy, while China promotes global networks via joint ventures. China incorporates international supply linkages by securing high tech in the West and low cost labor in the East.
Big US industrial groups’ earnings and rising stock in construction and aerospace are products of their strong ties with China. Caterpillar, United Technologies 3M and US car companies reported double-digit growth on sales to China.
In contrast, the Trump regime has allocated (and spent) billions in military procurement to threaten wars against China’s peripheral neighbors and interfere with its maritime commerce.
US Decline and Media Frenzy
The retreat and decline of US economic power has driven the mass media into a frenzy of idiotic ad hominem assaults on China’s political leader President Xi Jinping. Among the nose pickers in print, the scribes of the Financial Times take the prize for mindless vitriol. Mercenaries and holy men in Tibet are described as paragons of democracy and ‘victims’ of a …flourishing modernizing Chinese state lacking the ‘western values’ (sic) of floundering Anglo-American warmongers!
To denigrate China’s system of national planning and its consequential efforts to link its high tech economy with improving the standard of living for the population, the FT journalists castigate President Xi Jinping for the following faults:
1.) For not being as dedicated a Communist as Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaopeng
2.) For being too ‘authoritarian’ (or too successful) in his campaign to root out corrupt officials.
3.) For setting serious long-term goals while confronting and overcoming economic problems by addressing the ‘dangerous’ level of debt.
While China has broadened its cultural horizon, the Anglo-Saxon global elite increases possibility of nuclear warfare. China’s cultural and economic outreach throughout the world is dismissed by the Financial Times as ‘subversive soft power’. Police-state minds and media in the West see China’s outreach as a plot or conspiracy. Any serious writer, thinker or policymaker who has studied and praised China’s success is dismissed as a dupe or agent of the sly President Xi Jinping. Without substance or reflection, the FT (10/27/17) warns its readers and police officials to be vigilant and avoid being seduced by China’s success stories!
China’s growing leadership in automobile production is evident in its advance towards dominating the market for electric vehicles. Every major US and EU auto company has ignored the warnings of the Western media ideologues and rushed to form joint ventures with China.
China has an industrial policy. The US has a war policy. China plans to surpass the US and Germany in artificial intelligence, robotics, semi-conductors and electric vehicles by 2025. And it will —because those are its carefully pronounced scientific and economic priorities.
Shamelessly and insanely, the US press pursues the expanding stories of raging Hollywood rapists like the powerful movie mogul, Harvey Weinstein, and the hundreds of victims, while ignoring the world historic news of China’s rapid economic advances.
The US business elites are busy pushing their President and the US Congress to lower taxes for the billionaire elite, while 100 million US citizens remain without health care and register decreased life expectancy! Washington seems committed to in State-planned regression.
As US bombs fall on Yemen and the American taxpayers finance the giant Israeli concentration camp once known as ‘Palestine’, while China builds systems of roads and rail linking the Himalayas and Central Asia with Europe.
While Sherlock Holmes applies the science of observation and deduction, the US media and politicians perfect the art of obfuscation and deception.
In China, scientists and innovators play a central role in producing and increasing goods and services for the burgeoning middle and working class. In the US, the economic elite play the central role in exacerbating inequalities, increasing profits by lowering taxes and transforming the American worker into poorly-paid temp-labor – destined to die prematurely of preventable conditions.
While Chinese President Xi Jinping works in concert with the nation’s best technocrats to subordinate the military to civilian goals, President Trump and his Administration subordinate their economic decisions to a military-industrial-financial-Israeli complex.
Beijing invests in global networks of scientists, researchers and scholars. The US ‘opposition’ Democrats and disgruntled Republicans work with the giant corporate media (including the respectable Financial Times) to fund and fabricate conspiracies and plots under Trump’s Presidential bed.
Conclusion
China fires and prosecutes corrupt officials while supporting innovators. Its economy grows through investments, joint ventures and a great capacity to learn from experience and powerful data collection. The US squanders its domestic resources in pursuing multiple wars, financial speculation and rampant Wall Street corruption.
China investigates and punishes its corrupt business and public officials while corruption seems to be the primary criteria for election or appointment to high office in the US. The US media worships its tax-dodging billionaires and thinks it can mesmerize the public with a dazzling display of bluster, incompetence and arrogance.
China directs its planned economy to address domestic priorities. It uses its financial resources to pursue historic global infrastructure programs, which will enhance global partnerships in mutually beneficial projects.
It is no wonder that China is seen as moving toward the future with great advances while the US is seen as a chaotic frightening threat to world peace and its publicists as willing accomplices.
China is not without shortcomings in the spheres of political expression and civil rights. Failure to rectify social inequalities and failure to stop the outflow of billions of dollars of illicit wealth, and the unresolved problems with regime corruption will continue to generate class conflicts.
But the important point to note is the direction China has chosen to take and its capacity and commitment to identify and correct the major problems it faces.
The US has abdicated its responsibilities. It is unwilling or unable to harness its banks to invest in domestic production to expand the domestic market. It is completely unwilling to identify and purge the manifestly incompetent and to incarcerate the grossly corrupt officials and politicians of both parties and the elites.
Today overwhelming majorities of US citizens despise, distrust and reject the political elite. Over 70% think that the inane factional political divisions are at their greatest level in over 50 years and have paralyzed the government.
80% recognize that the Congress is dysfunctional and 86% believe that Washington is dishonest.
Never has an empire of such limitless power crumbled and declined with so few accomplishments.
China is a rising economic empire, but it advances through its active engagement in the market of ideas and not through futile wars against successful competitors and adversaries.
As the US declines, its publicists degenerate.
The media’s ceaseless denigration of China’s challenges and its accomplishments is a poor substitute for analysis. The flawed political and policy making structures in the US and its incompetent free-market political leaders lacking any strategic vision crumble in contrast to China’s advances.
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on China’s Strategic Economic Planning versus America’s Failed Capitalism
US journalists and commentators, politicians and Sinologists spend considerable time and space speculating on the personality of China’s President Xi Jinping and his appointments to the leading bodies of the Chinese government, as if these were the most important aspects of the entire 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (October 18-24, 2017).
Mired down in gossip, idle speculation and petty denigration of its leaders, the Western press has once again failed to take account of the world-historical changes which are currently taking place in China and throughout the world.
World historical changes, as articulated by Chinese President Xi Jinping, are present in the vision, strategy and program of the Congress. These are based on a rigorous survey of China’s past, present and future accomplishments.
The serious purpose, projections and the presence of China’s President stand in stark contrast to the chaos, rabble-rousing demagogy and slanders characterizing the multi-billion dollar US Presidential campaign and its shameful aftermath.
The clarity and coherence of a deep strategic thinker like President Xi Jinping contrasts to the improvised, contradictory and incoherent utterances from the US President and Congress. This is not a matter of mere style but of substantive content.
We will proceed in the essay by contrasting the context, content and direction of the two political systems.
China: Strategic Thinking and Positive Outcomes
China, first and foremost, has established well-defined strategic guidelines that emphasize macro-socio-economic and military priorities over the next five, ten and twenty years.
China is committed to reducing pollution in all of its manifestations via the transformation of the economy from heavy industry to a high-tech service economy, moving from quantitative to qualitative indicators.
Secondly, China will increase the relative importance of the domestic market and reduce its dependence on exports. China will increase investments in health, education, public services, pensions and family allowances.
Thirdly, China plans to invest heavily in ten economic priority sectors. These include computerized machinery, robotics, energy saving vehicles, medical devices, aerospace technology, and maritime and rail transport. It targets three billion (US) dollars to upgrade technology in key industries, including electrical vehicles, energy saving technology, numerical control (digitalization) and several other areas. China plans to increase investment in research and development from .95% to 2% of GDP.
Moreover, China has already taken steps to launch the ‘petro-Yuan’, and end US global financial dominance.
China has emerged as the world’s leader in advancing global infrastructure networks with its One Belt One Road (Silk Road) across Eurasia. Chinese-built ports, airports and railroads already connect twenty Chinese cities to Central Asia, West Asia, South-East Asia, Africa and Europe. China has established a multi-lateral Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (with over 60 member nations) contributing 100 billion dollars for initial financing.
China has combined its revolution in data collection and analysis with central planning to conquer corruption and improve the efficiency in credit allocation. Beijing’s digital economy is now at the center of the global digital economy. According to one expert, “China is the world leader in payments made by mobile devices”, (11 times the US). One in three of the world’s start-ups, valued at more than $1 billion, take place in China (FT 10/28/17, p. 7). Digital technology has been harnessed to state-owned banks in order to evaluate credit risks and sharply reduce bad debt. This will ensure that financing is creating a new dynamic flexible model combining rational planning with entrepreneurial vigor (ibid).
As a result, the US/EU-controlled World Bank has lost its centrality in global financing. China is already Germany’s largest trading partner and is on its way to becoming Russia’s leading trade partner and sanctions-busting ally.
China has widened and expanded its trade missions throughout the globe, replacing the role of the US in Iran, Venezuela and Russia and wherever Washington has imposed belligerent sanctions.
While China has modernized its military defense programs and increased military spending, almost all of the focus is on ‘home defense’ and protection of maritime trade routes. China has not engaged in a single war in decades.
China’s system of central planning allows the government to allocate resources to the productive economy and to its high priority sectors. Under President Xi Jinping, China has created an investigation and judicial system leading to the arrest and prosecution of over a million corrupt officials in the public and private sector. High status is no protection from the government’s anti-corruption campaign: Over 150 Central Committee members and billionaire plutocrats have fallen. Equally important, China’s central control over capital flows (outward and inward) allows for the allocation of financial resources to high tech productive sectors while limiting the flight of capital or its diversion into the speculative economy.
As a result, China’s GNP has been growing between 6.5% – 6.9% a year – four times the rate of the EU and three times the US.
As far as demand is concerned, China is the world’s biggest market and growing. Income is growing – especially for wage and salaried workers. President Xi Jinping has identified social inequalities as a major area to rectify over the next five years.
The US: Chaos, Retreat and Reaction
In contrast, the United States President and Congress have not fashioned a strategic vision for the country, least of all one linked to concrete proposals and socio-economic priorities, which might benefit the citizenry.
The US has 240,000 active and reserve armed forces stationed in 172 countries. China has less than 5,000 in one country – Djibouti. The US stations 40,000 troops in Japan, 23,000 in South Korea, 36,000 in Germany, 8,000 in the UK and over 1,000 in Turkey. What China has is an equivalent number of highly skilled civilian personnel engaged in productive activity around the world. China’s overseas missions and its experts have worked to benefit both global and Chinese economic growth.
The United States’ open-ended, multiple military conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Niger, Somalia, Jordan and elsewhere have absorbed and diverted hundreds of billions of dollars away from productive investments in the domestic economy. In only a few cases, military spending has built useful roads and infrastructure, which could be counted a ‘dual use’, but overwhelmingly US military activities abroad have been brutally destructive, as shown by the deliberate dismemberment of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya.
The US lacks the coherence of China’s policy making and strategic leadership. While chaos has been inherent in the politics of the US ‘free market’ financial system, it is especially widespread and dangerous during the Trump regime.
Congressional Democrats and Republicans, united and divided, actively confront President Trump on every issue no matter how important or petty. Trump improvises and alters his policies by the hour or, at most, by the day. The US possesses a party system where one party officially rules in the Administration with two militarist big business wings.
US has been spending over 700 billion dollars a year to pursue seven wars and foment ‘regime changes’ or coups d’état on four continents and eight regions over the past two decades. This has only caused disinvestment in the domestic economy with deterioration of critical infrastructure, loss of markets, widespread socioeconomic decline and a reduction of spending on research and development for goods and services.
The top 500 US corporations invest overseas, mainly to take advantage of low tax region and sources of cheap labor, while shunning American workers and avoiding US taxes. At the same time, these corporations share US technology and markets with the Chinese.
Today, US capitalism is largely directed by and for financial institutions, which absorb and divert capital from productive investments, generating an unbalanced crisis-prone economy. In contrast, China determines the timing and location of investments as well as bank interest rates, targeting priority investments, especially in advanced high-tech sectors.
Washington has spent billions on costly and unproductive military-centered infrastructure (military bases, naval ports, air stations etc.) in order to buttress stagnant and corrupt allied regimes. As a result, the US has nothing comparable to China’s hundred-billion-dollar ‘One Belt-One Road’ (Silk Road) infrastructure project linking continents and major regional markets and generating millions of productive jobs.
The US has broken global linkages with dynamic growth centers. Washington resorts to self-defecating, mindless chauvinistic rhetoric to impose trade policy, while China promotes global networks via joint ventures. China incorporates international supply linkages by securing high tech in the West and low cost labor in the East.
Big US industrial groups’ earnings and rising stock in construction and aerospace are products of their strong ties with China. Caterpillar, United Technologies 3M and US car companies reported double-digit growth on sales to China.
In contrast, the Trump regime has allocated (and spent) billions in military procurement to threaten wars against China’s peripheral neighbors and interfere with its maritime commerce.
US Decline and Media Frenzy
The retreat and decline of US economic power has driven the mass media into a frenzy of idiotic ad hominem assaults on China’s political leader President Xi Jinping. Among the nose pickers in print, the scribes of the Financial Times take the prize for mindless vitriol. Mercenaries and holy men in Tibet are described as paragons of democracy and ‘victims’ of a …flourishing modernizing Chinese state lacking the ‘western values’ (sic) of floundering Anglo-American warmongers!
To denigrate China’s system of national planning and its consequential efforts to link its high tech economy with improving the standard of living for the population, the FT journalists castigate President Xi Jinping for the following faults:
1.) For not being as dedicated a Communist as Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaopeng
2.) For being too ‘authoritarian’ (or too successful) in his campaign to root out corrupt officials.
3.) For setting serious long-term goals while confronting and overcoming economic problems by addressing the ‘dangerous’ level of debt.
While China has broadened its cultural horizon, the Anglo-Saxon global elite increases possibility of nuclear warfare. China’s cultural and economic outreach throughout the world is dismissed by the Financial Times as ‘subversive soft power’. Police-state minds and media in the West see China’s outreach as a plot or conspiracy. Any serious writer, thinker or policymaker who has studied and praised China’s success is dismissed as a dupe or agent of the sly President Xi Jinping. Without substance or reflection, the FT (10/27/17) warns its readers and police officials to be vigilant and avoid being seduced by China’s success stories!
China’s growing leadership in automobile production is evident in its advance towards dominating the market for electric vehicles. Every major US and EU auto company has ignored the warnings of the Western media ideologues and rushed to form joint ventures with China.
China has an industrial policy. The US has a war policy. China plans to surpass the US and Germany in artificial intelligence, robotics, semi-conductors and electric vehicles by 2025. And it will —because those are its carefully pronounced scientific and economic priorities.
Shamelessly and insanely, the US press pursues the expanding stories of raging Hollywood rapists like the powerful movie mogul, Harvey Weinstein, and the hundreds of victims, while ignoring the world historic news of China’s rapid economic advances.
The US business elites are busy pushing their President and the US Congress to lower taxes for the billionaire elite, while 100 million US citizens remain without health care and register decreased life expectancy! Washington seems committed to in State-planned regression.
As US bombs fall on Yemen and the American taxpayers finance the giant Israeli concentration camp once known as ‘Palestine’, while China builds systems of roads and rail linking the Himalayas and Central Asia with Europe.
While Sherlock Holmes applies the science of observation and deduction, the US media and politicians perfect the art of obfuscation and deception.
In China, scientists and innovators play a central role in producing and increasing goods and services for the burgeoning middle and working class. In the US, the economic elite play the central role in exacerbating inequalities, increasing profits by lowering taxes and transforming the American worker into poorly-paid temp-labor – destined to die prematurely of preventable conditions.
While Chinese President Xi Jinping works in concert with the nation’s best technocrats to subordinate the military to civilian goals, President Trump and his Administration subordinate their economic decisions to a military-industrial-financial-Israeli complex.
Beijing invests in global networks of scientists, researchers and scholars. The US ‘opposition’ Democrats and disgruntled Republicans work with the giant corporate media (including the respectable Financial Times) to fund and fabricate conspiracies and plots under Trump’s Presidential bed.
Conclusion
China fires and prosecutes corrupt officials while supporting innovators. Its economy grows through investments, joint ventures and a great capacity to learn from experience and powerful data collection. The US squanders its domestic resources in pursuing multiple wars, financial speculation and rampant Wall Street corruption.
China investigates and punishes its corrupt business and public officials while corruption seems to be the primary criteria for election or appointment to high office in the US. The US media worships its tax-dodging billionaires and thinks it can mesmerize the public with a dazzling display of bluster, incompetence and arrogance.
China directs its planned economy to address domestic priorities. It uses its financial resources to pursue historic global infrastructure programs, which will enhance global partnerships in mutually beneficial projects.
It is no wonder that China is seen as moving toward the future with great advances while the US is seen as a chaotic frightening threat to world peace and its publicists as willing accomplices.
China is not without shortcomings in the spheres of political expression and civil rights. Failure to rectify social inequalities and failure to stop the outflow of billions of dollars of illicit wealth, and the unresolved problems with regime corruption will continue to generate class conflicts.
But the important point to note is the direction China has chosen to take and its capacity and commitment to identify and correct the major problems it faces.
The US has abdicated its responsibilities. It is unwilling or unable to harness its banks to invest in domestic production to expand the domestic market. It is completely unwilling to identify and purge the manifestly incompetent and to incarcerate the grossly corrupt officials and politicians of both parties and the elites.
Today overwhelming majorities of US citizens despise, distrust and reject the political elite. Over 70% think that the inane factional political divisions are at their greatest level in over 50 years and have paralyzed the government.
80% recognize that the Congress is dysfunctional and 86% believe that Washington is dishonest.
Never has an empire of such limitless power crumbled and declined with so few accomplishments.
China is a rising economic empire, but it advances through its active engagement in the market of ideas and not through futile wars against successful competitors and adversaries.
As the US declines, its publicists degenerate.
The media’s ceaseless denigration of China’s challenges and its accomplishments is a poor substitute for analysis. The flawed political and policy making structures in the US and its incompetent free-market political leaders lacking any strategic vision crumble in contrast to China’s advances.
The main elements in Taiwan’s green power shift are reviewed, with focus on developments since the election of the DPP government in early 2016 and its commitment to phase out nuclear power in Taiwan by 2025. The drivers of the shift are identified, concentrating on solar PV power and the potential for offshore wind power. Like other countries in East Asia similarly pursuing a green shift, Taiwan is as much concerned with the business and export prospects for green industry as with reducing carbon emissions. The argument is developed that further progress in Taiwan is linked to liberalization of the electric power sector, creating genuine competition for the quasi-monopoly, TaiPower.
Since the election of the DPP government led by Tsai Ing-wen, in Jan 2016, the goal of an energy transformation in Taiwan has been pursued vigorously. The most significant element of the shift is the phasing out of nuclear power, guided by the oft-repeated policy of achieving a nuclear-free homeland by 2025. But politics is never easy, and a major power outage in August, lasting for five hours, and caused by malfunction of a gas supply valve in a gas-fuelled power generator, prompted widespread debate and recriminations. Both the Minister for Economic Affairs (Lee Chih-kung) and the Chairman of the gas supply company CPC Corp. (Chen Chin-te) resigned in order to take symbolic responsibility for the disastrous incident.
Nuclear-powered electricity generation has already shown signs of a sharp reduction, down from 400 TWh in 2015 to 300 TWh in 2016, and anticipated further reductions to zero by 2025 as no new starts are to be allowed. But debate over the possible future of nuclear power in Taiwan continues, and the power outage in August (the ‘815 incident’) has prompted calls for the restart of nuclear reactors that have been shuttered.
The DPP government has pursued a strong commitment to raising the contribution of green sources (meaning: power sourced from water, wind and sun) to electric power generation. In proportional terms the contribution from WWS sources has risen from 4.8% in 2015 to 6.6% in 2016 (including 1.5% of pumped hydro storage), with a target of 20% to be reached by 2025, i.e. over the next eight years. Excluding nuclear, this is planned to come largely from a strong expansion of the solar PV sector, being raised from a capacity of 1.3 GW in 2016 to 20 GW by 2025. Over the same period wind power is to be raised in capacity from 755 MW to 4200 MW (4.2 GW). But again complexities in approvals processes mean that progress in actually installing the new capacity for solar PV and wind power is slow. It was a welcome development when a new offshore wind farm, the Formosa1 project, saw turbines installed and delivering power to the grid. Taiwan has attracted support from foreign renewable energy companies, notably the Danish energy giant DONG Energy as partner in the new Formosa1 wind farm project.
The DPP government has an energy security policy commitment which focuses on natural gas as interim bridging fuel while nuclear is wound back and renewables are wound up – more or less as in the case of Germany’s energy transformation (Energiewende) program. The contribution of coal is to be wound back, with its proportional contribution being lowered from 45% down to 30% of electricity generated by 2025, while gas is seen as the bridging power source and is projected to peak at 50% of power generation by 2025.
The arresting feature of Taiwan’s green shift is that it is part of a comprehensive industrial strategy that sees new industries and innovation as the driver of the next phase of Taiwan’s industrial development. The present government’s strategy has morphed into what is called the ‘5+2’ industrial innovation plan. The aim is to shift Taiwan’s industrial base, which is still very strong in manufacturing industry, away from traditional reliance on contract manufacturing and focus instead on higher value-added service and green oriented business models. President Tsai’s election campaign in late 2015 had as one of its central elements the anticipated promotion of ‘Five Pillar Industries’ to drive growth in the future – the Internet of Things (IoT) (also known as the ‘Asian Silicon Valley’ project), biomedical industries, green energy, smart machinery and defence. Since the election of the DPP government in January 2016 the focus has broadened to encompass two new concepts, namely a ‘new agricultural paradigm’ and the ‘circular economy’ so that the project became known as the ‘5+2’ industrial strategy. It has since broadened even further to encompass the digital economy and cultural innovation – but the name ‘5+2’ remains. Taiwan is distinctive amongst industrial powers in its clear conception of linking green energy and wider economy goals with industrial development strategy.
Meanwhile there are moves to further liberalize Taiwan’s electric power market, reducing the monopoly control of Taiwan Power Co. (TaiPower) with its legacy commitments to nuclear power and fossil fuels, in a bid to promote green entrepreneurial initiatives and innovation in the power sector.
Taiwan thus presents a fascinating case of the global green shift that is underway, where the commitment to move to a green power system is reinforced by a political shift to the DPP, and the government is taking every possible measure to strengthen its green shift with supportive industrial strategy aimed at building innovative green industries for the future. In this sense Taiwan is pursuing a renewable energy strategy that is common across East Asia – in China, Japan, Korea as well as Taiwan. To borrow the phrase used by DeWit in relation to Japan, this may be termed a strategy of building ‘energy resilience’.2
Clean energy targets: Green shift in electric power generation
The situation in terms of electric power generation in Taiwan in 2016 is shown in Fig. 1 – the situation at the start of the country’s green shift. The legacy of thermal power (burning fossil fuels) and nuclear is clearly strong. Total power generation in 2016 amounted to 2257 TWh (or billion kWh), with 37% coming from coal and 36% from gas. The changes in Taiwan’s electric power generation, and anticipated changes in capacity, are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. and Table 1. Fig. 2 depicts the history of the changes in power sources and Fig. 3 the new renewable energy targets for 2025 (i.e. in 8 years’ time), in the proportions as anticipated and in the amounts generated, assuming only marginal growth in electric power generation overall due to efficiency improvements and direct solar power generation.
Figure 1. Taiwan’s electricity generation, 2016 Source: Based on data from TaiPower
Source: Based on data from TaiPower
Figure 2. Changing electricity sources in Taiwan, 1950-2016 Source: Based on Taiwan Power Company historical data, re-organized by Justin Chou
Source: Based on Taiwan Power Company historical data, re-organized by Justin Chou
Table 1. Renewable energy capacity expansion target, by Taiwan Bureau of Energy
Figure 3 depicts the anticipated proportions in 2025, and probable actual generation levels, based on what we assume to be total generation in that year of 2400 TWh. This is plausible if consumption growth is constrained by energy efficiency measures and growth in direct solar photovoltaic (PV) generation.
Figure 3. Changing sources for electric power generation in Taiwan, 1950-2016
In October 2016 the Taiwan government (Executive Yuan) issued short-term targets for solar PV growth and again in June 2017 for wind power. The solar PV program is to be phased out over two years, raising solar PV capacity to 1.5 GW. Measures are to be taken to release land needed for the development of solar PV farms, including rooftops in public buildings owned by the central government, factories, farms and agricultural production facilities, land used by the salt industry, aquatic areas such as reservoirs, irrigation ponds, fish farms (collectively known locally as ‘floatovoltaics’) and landfills. The program will also be addressing planning and regulatory controls that are inhibiting rapid shift to solar PV power.3 In addition to the national policy goals there is strong promotion of renewables at municipal level, particularly by Taipei, Tainan, Kaohsiung and Taoyuan local jurisdictions.
Wind power is to be promoted under a four-year plan that aims at enhancing domestic demand and taking a balanced approach to both onshore wind and offshore wind power. The target is to reach an extra capacity of 3 GW offshore wind power and 1.2 GW in onshore (land-based) capacity, making 4.2 GW of wind power over the period 2017 to 2020, and calling for investment of NT$610 billion (US$19.2 billion). In keeping with the tradition of formulating pragmatic industrial policies in Taiwan, the offshore wind power program is to be supported with promotion of special purpose piers and industrial zones in ports, by fleets of construction ships for building the offshore wind turbines, better grid connections via submarine cables and landing points, as well as harmonizing of offshore power regulations, standards and third-party certification.4
These programs are designed to connect with programs that go back to those of previous governments including the ‘Thousand wind turbines and million solar roofs’ project, under which feed-in tariffs are offered to promote household adoption of solar PV rooftop power.
The green shift industrial strategy
As noted above, Taiwan is distinctive in pursuing a green shift that is underpinned by a strong industrial policy. According to the New Energy Policy, the Executive Yuan of Taiwan has taken decisive action in short term and long term strategy designed to achieve a non-nuclear homeland by 2025.5 This has included stabilizing thermal power supply with better efficiency, adopting demand respond (DR) and price differentiation on electricity, and planned reductions in energy consumption levels. In the medium – term, natural gas power generator will play the role of bridging fuel and will be expected to peak at 50% of power generation. Overall renewable energy sources are anticipated to reach 20% of the power generation by 2025. To achieve this goal, smart grid and metering have to be implemented and large energy storage solution such as more hydro pump is required.
By having a goal of strengthening the industry of Taiwan, MOEA aims to increase the manufacturing GDP share of green energy and emergent technology to 30% of total manufacturing in Taiwan by 20206, which was only 4% in 2008. The Taiwanese government aims to export its green energy total solution worldwide to boost economic growth by first setting up large demonstration sites and creating a domestic market before seeking to penetrate foreign markets.
The green shift in Taiwan is being pursued across a number of fronts. Let us review progress made in the following sectors: manufacturing of solar cells; the Shalun greentech industrial park; green transport; smart grid promotion and liberalization of the electric power sector.
Manufacture of solar PV cells
Taiwan has been a strong contender in manufacturing solar PV cells, and great efforts have been expended to generate a local value chain encompassing production of silicon and other components needed to produce solar PV modules. Yet as in other manufacturing activities, the Taiwan model of low-cost manufacturing (frequently without branding, through contract manufacturing) has prevailed.
Taiwan had risen to second largest solar PV manufacturing country by 2008/9, when it overtook both Japan and Germany as a producer – through the efforts of companies such as Gintech, Motech, NeoSolarPower (NSP). Indeed, three companies – NeoSolar, Gintech and SolarTech – announced a merger in late 2017, to consolidate manufacturing in Taiwan. And there is diversification along the value chain: Motech recently announced its plan to build a 400MW solar farm in the south tip of Taiwan with PingTung county government, thus indicating a significant move for the company from manufacture to power generation.7
The situation in global solar PV cell manufacturing up to 2015 is depicted in Fig. 4. As the 2nd largest PV cell manufacturing nation, Taiwan has been facing price competition with China and USA’s anti-dumping duty (ADs). Although the cell capacity is about 15% of the world market, Taiwan’s module capacity only takes 2%, indicating that domestic PV installation demand is still weak.8 A new strategy led by DPP government with a goal of 20GW PV installation by 2025 is considered as antidote to increase domestic demand and create value-added products. Taiwanese PV manufacturing is leaving the price competition game with China (which rose to global dominance over the years 2005 to 2010) and moving towards higher efficiency PV cell production.
Figure 4. Global manufacturing of solar PV cells, 1995 to 2015 Source: JC, based on data from IEA PVPS
Source: JC, based on data from IEA PVPS
Shalun Green Energy Park
A green energy technology park has been launched in the south of the island, with a ceremony marking its inauguration being staged at the end of 2016. Now the Shalun Green Energy Technology Park (or Science City) is advancing, with vigorous promotion by the Tainan mayor. (This is a feature of the DPP’s ‘5+2’ innovation program, which features collaboration on each facet of the program between the central government administration and local cities.) The Shalun park is intended to promote a cluster of green industries spearheading green energy development, with key ministries designated as the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MoEA) and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST). A dedicated green energy research institute is to be established. The park is being laid out on a site spanning 23 hectares, located next to the Tainan high-speed rail station, thus linking it to the capital Taipei and the Hsinchu Science Park.
Green transport
In transport, electric vehicles and particularly two-wheeled vehicles (scooters and electric bicycles?) are making great strides, stimulated by successive government programs of tax exemptions. The Taiwan government through the MoEA adopted a Smart EV Development Strategy and Action Plan, offering subsidies and incentives particularly a five-year exemption from the Commodity Tax for EV purchases, covering small passenger cars, motorcycles, taxis and buses available in Taiwan. This program builds on an earlier tax exemption policy introduced in January 2011, then extended a second time to January 2021. The Plan envisages extra sales of electric cars of 5,939 units, while sales of electric motor-scooters are anticipated to increase by 150,000. While some Tesla components are supplied from Taiwan, the tax exemption program also benefits Tesla suppliers by boosting green energy manufacturing GDP in Taiwan. With investment from National Development Fund, now new start-ups like Taipei-based Gogoro are leading the way. Gogoro is famous in Taiwan for its smart, stylish scooters, which have captured 8.3% of the market in Taiwan, and more than 10% in Taipei itself – according to an article published by the Hong Kong Trade Development Council.9
Promotion of the smart grid
Deployment of smart electricity consumption meters for households is expected to be rolled out from 2017, with a first round of 200,000 meters to be installed within two years and a total of three million to be installed by 2026 – thereby making the grid fit for coping with fluctuating power sources and facilitating demand-response energy conservation and efficiency improvement programs. These measures will facilitate the policy goal in Taiwan of integrating measures taken to improve energy generation, energy storage and energy conservation.
There are clear parallels between developments in Taiwan and those in other East Asian countries pursuing a green shift, notably Korea, Japan and China. All these countries are promoting the smart grid as both a means of facilitating the input of fluctuating sources of renewable power, and as a means of building export platforms for the future. China is doing so perhaps most robustly of all, because the necessity to create energy security is so keenly felt as a political imperative. Japan is pursuing smart grid initiatives in the name of national energy resilience, while Korea has been pursuing such initiatives under the rubric of ‘green growth’ and most recently as a ‘creative economy’ initiative. But progress in Taiwan is widely viewed as being linked to liberalization of the electric power market, to reduce the quasi-monopoly control of TaiPower.
Liberalization of Taiwan electric power market
The heavily regulated monopoly of power generation and distribution maintained by Taiwan Power Co. (TaiPower) with its legacy of commitment to nuclear power and fossil fuels, has long been viewed as an obstacle to any green energy shift in Taiwan. Now there is some movement towards liberalization under way. In January 2017 the Taiwan legislature passed amendments to the Electricity Act, that regulates the power grid monopolized by TaiPower, allowing independent green power producers to sell their power direct to consumers, and not just to TaiPower. The rates at which such sales can be effected were stated in the feed-in tariffs that are promulgated from time to time. These changes to the law are now on the point of being put into practice. ‘Power distributors will be able to start applying for permits to transmit and distribute power from renewable energy suppliers to customers at the end of next month at the earliest,’ a Bureau of Energy official Lee Chih-yuan told the Taipei Times at the ministry in September.10
Greening of agriculture and the circular economy
To demonstrate the broad appeal of greening strategies, Taiwan is also playing a lead role in developing new green approaches to enclosed systems of agriculture (‘new agricultural paradigm’) and the development of a circular economy to reduce waste generation and improve resource efficiency. Many of the agricultural initiatives were displayed at the first Asia AgriTech Expo & Forum staged in Taipei in September 2017, where vegetable growing in enclosed systems, using hydroponics and LED lighting, were demonstrating clean, green urban food production. One of the companies exhibiting was Tatung, with its ‘Smart Farms’ range of food production systems.
Incoming President Tsai Ing-wen announced in her inaugural address in 2016 that ‘We will bring Taiwan into an age of circular economy, turning waste into renewable resources’. This is a welcome move where Taiwan can learn lessons from both Japan’s and China’s decade-long commitment to improve its resource efficiency via circular economy initiatives.11 Some specific industrial ecological initiatives taken by companies include the following.
Semiconductors and electronic waste: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), the world’s largest semiconductor contract manufacturer that is based in Taiwan, currently recycles 15% of its waste materials – and has published plans to raise this level to 61% by 2020. Often the manufacturing process requires so much water, TSMC is already turning waste sulfuric acid into electronics-grade acid and recycles water for 3.5 times use.
Steel: Taiwan’s leading steel producer, China Steel Corp. (CSC), produces 5.6 million tonnes of waste products per year (e.g. blast furnace slag and waste refractory materials), and the company is increasingly re-using these as raw materials at its Linhai industrial park or supplying them to other firms. One project involves recovering iron by recycling desulphurizing slag, a project completed in 2015 at a cost of NT$ 2 billion (US$64.5 million). CSC also shares energy resources – steam, heat and power – with other companies in the Linhai park.
Paper: Cheng Loong Corp. (CLC), a leading producer of packaging paper, states that 94% of the 1.69 million tonnes of raw material it uses each year is recycled paper. The company uses the recycled paper in producing, e.g. shoe boxes for Nike. Other circular flow initiatives include using sludge from papermaking to feed the steam power cogeneration system (along with other fuels) and recovering fly and bottom ash from its papermaking operations to be onsold to cement producers.
Tyres: Taiwan has as much as 120,000 tonnes of used tyres to be put away each year. The simplest ways are typically by burning or put to landfill. One company, Enrestec Ltd, invented a pyrolysis process that can thermally decompose tyre chips to useful materials such as pyrolysis oil, flammable gas, steel wire, and high grade carbon black from used tyres for reuse in new tyre making and printer cartridge, while the Jia Qian Rubber Tech Corp. transforms used tyres into rubber mats for playgrounds.12
Concluding remarks
Taiwan’s green shift is now clearly getting under way, driven by a strong commitment by the incoming DPP government to a fresh industrial strategy with a focus on green energy and a greening more generally of the economy. But problems in terms of moving quickly to implement the medium-term solar and wind power goals, and upgrade the grid to enhance stability, resilience and to accommodate fluctuating power sources, are still clearly evident.
Despite a strong will led by DPP government to pursue the development of green energy economy, through green governance, the energy transformation is backed by a powerful coalition of Taiwanese citizens. There is indeed a strong popular green movement in Taiwan, and this is what drives the anti-nuclear decisions of the DPP government and the new emphasis on shifting to green power systems. The short-term economic constraint from increasing electricity price and unstable grid service will require more advocacy, public support, and passion from local citizens so the progress of heading a green (circular) economy is continuously achievable.
The next phase in the green shift will likely be felt across several sectors, encompassing green power and energy storage, as well as transport (electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles), industry and agriculture. After a slow start, Taiwan is now beginning to close the gap with the world’s leaders in the green shift, including China and Germany.
Acknowledgment: Our thanks to Ms Carol Huang for assistance in preparing the graphics.
***
Justin Chou is a doctoral candidate in the Institute of Technology Management at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan, and currently also a consultant for fuel cell technology, assisting early technology adopters to realize future energy solutions (i.e. fuel cell and electromobility). He can be reached at [email protected].
8The value chain for solar photovoltaics (PV) runs from silicon ingot to solar cell production to module assembly and then installation on rooftop or other insulated locations. The focus of manufacture in Taiwan has been on cell production rather than module production.
Has Saudi Arabia’s brinkmanship and heavy-handed policies of intervention in the Middle East come back to haunt the desert kingdom?
After decades of playing the role of middle man between foreign states and establishing itself as a regional power, Saudi Arabia’s policies of meddling in the affairs of neighbor states and support for terror appear to have finally exacerbated issues in the country which could threaten to plunge it into chaos. Growing anger over attempted austerity cutbacks, economic issues due to the fluctuating price of oil and tell tale signs of royal disagreement over the successor to King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud mean that Saudi adventures abroad are preparing a perfect storm for civil conflict which could lead to further instability in the Middle East. The disruption comes as other states such as Iran and Turkey are positioning themselves as potential competitors to the de facto leader of the Arab world.
I. Saudi Arabia Is Experiencing Increasing Signs Of Instability
Saudi Arabia has experienced a number of issues which contribute to internal destabilization. In April 2017, Bloomberg reported that King Salman was forced to restore bonuses and allowances for state employees, reversing attempts to reform Saudi Arabia’s generous austerity programs. The Saudi government insisted that the move was due to “higher than expected revenue” despite the fact that observers were noting in March that Saudi Arabia’s foreign reserves were plunging as one third of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) of United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait have seen their credit ratings slashed and have increasingly disagreed on common foreign policy towards Iran.
The kingdom’s increasing financial problems are due in part to the falling price of oil. In January 2016, The Independent noted that the dropping value of oil would put Saudi Arabia’s man spending programs in jeopardy and that a third of 15 to 24-year-olds in the country are out of work. The Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering estimates that Saudi Arabia will experience a peak in its oil production by 2028, but this may be an incredible underestimation. The Middle East Eye has noted that experts in the United States who state that Saudi Arabia’s net oil exports began to decrease in 2006, continuing to drop annually by 1.4% each year from 2005 to 2015. Citigroup has estimated that the Kingdom may run out of oil to export entirely by 2030. The end of the Kingdom’s cash cow is likely to cause problems in a nation that The Atlantic has accused of running itself like a “sophisticated criminal enterprise.”
II. Increasing Signs Of Internal Conflict In Saudi Arabia
There are a number of indications that Saudi Arabia’s royal family is also experiencing a significant amount of internal strife. King Salman has caused significant upheaval in the kingdom by taking the controversial step of totally overhauling Saudi Arabia’s line of succession and appointing his son, Mohammed bin Salman, as crown prince. The move is a dangerous one given that it has caused division in the royal family. Foreign Policy has noted that Saudi Arabia’s security forces are not under a single command authority, meaning that the military runs the risk of becoming fractured in the event of an internal conflict.
In 2015, The Independent spoke with a Saudi prince who revealed that eight of Salman’s 11 brothers were dissatisfied with his leadership and were contemplating removing him from office, replacing him with former Interior Minister Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz. NBC News revealed that the promotion of Salman’s son to the position of crown prince has also angered Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, who was previously in line for the throne and is known for his hardline stance towards Iran. On June 28th, 2017, the New York Times reported that Nayef had been barred from leaving Saudi Arabia and was confined to his palace in Jidda with his guards replaced by others loyal to Mohammed bin Salman.
Nayef rules over Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Region, which is described as one of the provinces most likely to rebel in the event of civil conflict due to the region’s large population of Shi’a Muslims. He is generally believed to be one of the leading advocates for the 2016 execution of Shi’a cleric Nimr al-Nimr, a move which caused serious anger amongst Iranians. Nayef’s family also has historic ties to insurgent groups used by Saudi Arabia as a foreign policy tool. His father, Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, served as Interior Minister and controlled Saudi Arabia’s internal intelligence services, police, special forces, drug enforcement agency and mujahideen forces.
King Salman has used the war in Yemen to counteract elite dissatisfaction by causing what the Washington Postdescribes as a surge in nationalist sentiment among citizens. The move also served as an attempt to take proactive steps against Iranian support for Yemeni Houthi rebels and prevent destabilization from the Arab Spring. But while intervention may have provided Saudi Arabia with short term benefits, it has also contributed to further fracturing of the Middle East and allowed neighbor states to take steps to replace Saudi Arabia as the region’s dominant power.
III. Geopolitical Changes Increase The Likelihood Of Conflict
It is not merely Yemen that causes the Saudis concern. Years of meddling now mean that the kingdom is increasingly conducting its foreign affairs with the goal of avoiding internal destabilization and balancing a regional house of cards. Wikileaks releases of diplomatic cables from Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs show that officials are committed to continuing to destroy the Syrian regime out of fear that Assad’s government might engage in reprisals for the destructive civil war there. Saudi Arabia has helped fuel the war through their support of Islamic terror groups. State Department cables released by Wikileaks show that Saudi Arabia is considered to be the most significant funder of Sunni terror groups internationally. But like foreign intervention, terrorism as a foreign policy tool serves as a means of directing destructive energy at best.
There have long been fears that the method could grow out of hand and create problems for the benefactors of terror. Saudi security forces have routinely had issues with infiltration by terror groups. In 2001, Stratfor noted the royal family’s growing concern over the increase in terror sympathizers amongst the military due to fears that some of the insurgent groups were not friendly towards the kingdom. Terror groups such as ISIS have in the past several years engaged in a number of attacks against Saudi targets, including suicide attacks which targeted the holy Islamic city of Medina and the Grand Mosque in Mecca.
Traditionally, power in the Middle East has been split between the Israeli and Saudi governments. This regional order may be starting to shift however, due to a combination of changing U.S. strategy and attempts by other Middle Eastern states to become more important players in the region. In March 2016, Julian Assange noted to the New Internationalist that U.S. strategists such as John Brennan increasingly viewed the Israeli-Saudi nexus as getting in the way of broader American strategic interests, especially in regards to Iran.
This political shift is now playing out with the current crisis in Qatar. Qatar has historically positioned itself as a diplomatic center in the Middle East, staying friendly with Iran and providing multiple insurgent groups such as the Taliban with a venue for negotiation. Emails from John Podesta reveal that Qatar has supported terror groups such as ISIS alongside Saudi Arabia, but does so with the intent of vying for influence with terror groups. Factions in Qatar have also leant support to Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, Hamas and the Taliban. Additionally, Qatar’s Al-Jazeera outlet has also provoked Saudi Arabia by providing hard hitting coverage of previously unacknowledged issues in the Middle East (though critical coverage of Qatari politics has been off limits). NPR has also noted that Qatar openly competed with Saudi Arabia during the Arab Spring, when the two sides supported opposing factions in nations such as Egypt. The conflict with Qatar creates a very real risk that hostilities could spill into Saudi Arabia, given both sides’ support of terror groups.
The recent flare up has also revealed the emergence of a new order in the Middle East: states which stand behind the old, Saudi-Israeli nexus and those who wish to redraw the balance of power. Saudi Arabia is supported by Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Yemen and the Maldives. Qatar has been supported by Saudi Arabia’s regional opponent Iran and Turkey. Turkey has been steadily increasing its role in the Middle East in recent years, and is seen by the United States as a suitable player to balance Saudi influence in nations like Pakistan. Turkey and Iran now are now actively posturing to challenge Saudi Arabia, as Turkey deploys troops to Qatar and Iran supports the small gulf state with food aid. Should the two states survive the destabilization of coups and terrorism, they are well positioned to benefit from any future reduction in Saudi influence.
IV. Dangers Of A Saudi Civil Conflict
A civil war or internal conflict in Saudi Arabia would quickly become international in nature. Defense contractorsare being increasingly courted by Saudi cash as part of an effort to overhaul the military, part of which includes the recent $100 billion arms deal with the United States. Saudi Arabia has also increasingly used private military corporations such as Blackwater, which currently provides personnel to the Saudi-lead coalition in Yemen.
The specter of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East also raises concerns that weapons could fall into the wrong hands or be used indiscriminately. Julian Assange has repeated 2010 claims from the head of Al-Jazeera that Qatar is in possession of a nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia itself also is suspected of possessing nuclear arms. In 2013, BBC News reported that Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons “on order” from Pakistan, whose nuclear program was bankrolled by the Saudis. In 2012, the Saudis also entered into an Atomic Collaboration Deal with China which projects that Riyadh will construct 16 nuclear reactors in the country by no later than 2030. Arab acquisitions of weapons of mass destruction have created concern among Israeli intelligence officials, who fear that the countries acquiring these weapons systems will not use them effectively.
Should the conflict with Qatar (or any of the multiple regions where Saudi Arabia has intervened) spiral out of control, the potential proliferation of nuclear arms systems pose a serious danger. International conflicts, regional interventions and terror operations all create the risk that these weapons, whether intentionally or inadvertently, might be used. A Saudi civil war also creates risk for the international community, as there would be widespread unrest should the holy cities of Mecca and Medina be damaged during a conflict.
Falling currency reserves, a dwindling supply of oil, conflict within the royal family and the ever present threat that terror networks will cause backlash for their benefactors all indicate that Saudi Arabia is on a crash course for a crisis. With the Qatari conflict continuing to heat up, the real questions should not be about the potential end of terrorism or the ethics of further weapons sales to Arab nations, but what the world hopes that the Middle East will look like once the dust clears.
The Versailles Treaty was eventually signed on 28 June 1919 without Soviet Russia being involved. Even so, this treaty cancelled the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Under Article 116 of the Versailles Treaty, Russia could claim compensation from Germany;yet, consistent with its demand for peace without any annexation or any claim for compensation, it did not do so. What mattered most to Soviet Russia was that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk should be cancelled and the territories that Germany had annexed in March 1918 be given back to the peoples to whom they had belonged (the Baltic, Polish, Ukrainian and Russian peoples), in accordance with the principle of peoples’ right to self-determination upheld by the new Soviet government.
Treaties with the Baltic Republics, Poland, Persia and Turkey
This principle was also called upon in the first article of each of the peace treaties signed between Soviet Russia and the new Baltic States in 1920: Estonia on 2 February, Lithuania on 12 July and Latvia on 11 August. The peace treaties resembled one another and the independence of those States – that had been forceably integrated into the Tsarist Empire – was systematically asserted in the first or second article. Through such treaties, Russia reasserted its opposition to the domination of financial capital and its determination to repudiate Tsarist debts. Indeed the treaty that was signed with Estonia on 2 February 1920 states: “Estonia will bear no responsibility for any of Russia’s debts or other obligations (…). All claims of the creditors of Russia for the share of the debt concerning Estonia should be addressed to Russia only.” Similar dispositions appeared in the treaties signed with Lithuania and Latvia. As well as asserting that peoples did not have to pay illegitimate debts that were contracted in their names though not in their interest, Soviet Russia also acknowledged the oppressive role played by Tsarist Russia towards minority nations within the Empire.
Signature of the Tartu treaty between Estonia and Russia, February 2nd, 1920.
To be fully consistent with the principles it upheld, Soviet Russia went even further. In those peace treaties, it committed itself to restoring to the oppressed Baltic nations all property and articles of value that had been removed by the Tsarist regime (especially cultural and academic property such as schools, libraries, archives, museums) as well as personal goods that had been removed from the Baltic territories during the First World War. As compensation for war damage resulting from the involvement of Tsarist Russia, Soviet Russia stated that it would grant fifteen million gold roubles to Estonia, 3 million gold roubles to Lithuania and 4 million gold roubles to Latvia, as well as concessions for those three States to exploit Russian forests across the borders. While Russian State loans to citizens of the Baltic states were transferred to the newly independent governments, the peace treaties signed with Lithuania and Latvia stipulated that claims against smallholders against the former Russian agricultural banks since nationalized should not be transferred to the new governments but “purely and simply cancelled”. The same measures also applied to Estonian smallholders under article 13 of the Peace Treaty with Estonia, which stated that “if, when such Treaties are concluded, Russia grants to any one of these new States or to its subjects special exemptions, rights or privileges, these shall be extended in full immediately and without special agreement to Estonia and its subjects.”
By signing these treaties, Soviet Russia meant to try and break out of the isolation to which it had been confined by the imperialist powers since the October Revolution, while at the same time implementing principles the new state wanted to uphold.. The Baltic States were the first to breach the blockade imposed upon Russia, and those peace agreements opened the way to trade contracts between the various parties. In March 1921, a similar peace agreement was signed between Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus on the one hand and Poland on the other. This document released Poland from the obligation to pay any share of the debts of the former Russian Empire, committed Russia to restoring property that had been removed by Tsarist Russia, and specified that Russia and the Ukraine would pay 30 million gold rubles in compensation to Poland. This treaty was even more significant than the one with the Baltic States, as Poland was seen by the allied capitalist powers as key to the isolation of Russia.
The friendship treaty signed between Soviet Russia and Persia on 26 February 1921 is a further token of Soviet Russia’s determination to contribute to the emancipation of oppressed people and to their right to self-determination. In this treaty Russia officially broke away from the tyrannical policies of Tsarist Russia’s colonizing governments and gave up all its territories and economic interests in Persia. The very first article declares all treaties and conventions between Persia and Tsarist Russia, which denied the rights of the Persian people, to be null and void. Article 8 unambiguously cancelled debts owed by Persia to the Tsarist regime: the new Russian government definitively “renounced the economic policy pursued in the Orient by Tsarist regime, which consisted of lending money to the Persian government, not for the economic development of the country but rather for its political subservience.” |1| Consequently it cancelled all Russian claims on Persia.
Fraternization between soldiers and workers
A few weeks later the Soviet government similarly renounced all liabilities, including monetary, that Turkey had towards Russia as a consequence of agreements signed by the Tsarist government. |2|
Eric Toussaint is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France. He is the author of Bankocracy(2015); The Life and Crimes of an Exemplary Man (2014); Glance in the Rear View Mirror. Neoliberal Ideology From its Origins to the Present, Haymarket books, Chicago, 2012 (see here), etc. See his bibliography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ric_Toussaint He co-authored World debt figures 2015 with Pierre Gottiniaux, Daniel Munevar and Antonio Sanabria (2015); and with Damien Millet Debt, the IMF, and the World Bank: Sixty Questions, Sixty Answers, Monthly Review Books, New York, 2010. Since the 4th April 2015 he is the scientific coordinator of the Greek Truth Commission on Public Debt.
Notes
|1| Quoted in Jeff King. 2016. The Doctrine of Odious Debt in International Law: A Restatement, Cambridge University Press, p. 84.
|2| Edward H. Carr. 1952. (A History of Soviet Russia), The Bolshevik Revolution (1917-1923) Vol. 3, Norton Paperback Editions, New York, 1985 (Macmillan, 1953) pp. 311-312.
A new analysis of satellite data found 29.7 million hectares of tree cover was lost in 2016. The number represents a 51 percent jump over 2015.
The analysts say fire is the big culprit. The data indicate big upticks in fires around the around the world, both in areas where fire naturally occurs as well as wetter areas of the tropics where fire is a rare phenomenon.
El Nino coupled with human-caused land disturbance like slash-and-burn clearing is thought to have been a big contributor to increase in fire activity around the world.
Preliminary data indicate 2017 may also be a big fire year. The analysts recommend improved forest management to lower the risks of fire and tree cover loss.
Last year the world lost an area of tree cover the size of New Zealand, according to satellite data. That’s around 29.7 million hectares (297,000 square kilometers) – and was a 51 percent jump over 2015.
The tree cover loss data came from the University of Maryland (UMD) and were analyzed by World Resources Institute (WRI). While the data don’t just represent deforestation (they also lump in tree plantation harvesting), the analysts attribute most of the tree cover loss to human impacts affecting forests such agriculture, logging and mining.
But why the big jump in tree cover loss from 2015 to 2016? The analysis points specifically to fire as the primary culprit. The data indicate big upticks in fires around the world, both in areas where fire naturally occurs — like northern Alberta, Canada — and wetter areas of the tropics where fire is (or perhaps more accurately, used to be) a rare phenomenon.
One of these latter areas is the Brazilian Amazon. Rainforest is, by definition, rainy and moist, and the Amazon rainforest is no exception. Rainforest shouldn’t burn on its own — and yet, WRI’s analysis found understory fires contributed to a tripling of tree cover loss in the Brazilian Amazon (3.3 million hectares) over that time.
Brazil also showed high fire activity this year, with particularly high levels in the state of Para. The fires shown were detected in the first week of October, 2017. Fire data provided by VIIRS via NASA/NOAA.
Researchers believe many of these fires were set intentionally by people seeking to clear land for agriculture and other developments. Compounding the problem was an unusual dryness in the region, the result of climatic shifts like El Nino.
“At risk is maintenance of the hydrological cycle and the Amazon as a system,” Thomas Lovejoy, an ecologist and Amazon expert at George Mason University, told the Washington Post last year. “When the drought is combined with more people using fire AND more people who are inexperienced using fire, the opportunity for things to get out of control gets considerably larger.”
Indonesia also saw an increase in tree cover loss last year. The WRI analysts attribute this in part to the lingering effects of the wildfire crisis that wracked the country (as well as downwind portions of mainland Southeast Asia) during the latter part of 2015 and resulted in an estimated 100,000 deaths.
Peatland draining and slash-and-burn agriculture are considered the primary causes of the 2015 fires. In response, Indonesia present Joko Widodo implemented a nationwide ban on peatland clearing in the hopes of heading off future catastrophic fires.
In addition to fire, the analysis points to logging and agroindustrial expansion as contributors to Indonesia’s tree cover loss. In particular, West Papua – which has so far avoided the large-scale conversion of its rainforests that has heavily affected other parts of the country – showed an uptick in clearing for oil palm plantations in 2016.
Together, the analysis found Brazil’s and Indonesia’s loss numbers amounted to more than 25 percent of the world’s 2016 tree cover loss. It also called out Portugal (which lost 4 percent of its tree cover in one year), the Republic of Congo (which experienced one of the largest Central African fires ever recorded), and Canada.
A forest fire burns in Tanzania. Photo by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay.
With the loss of forests comes the loss of valuable habitat for wildlife and ecosystem services for human communities. Trees are also big storehouses of carbon; if they’re destroyed, that carbon is released into the atmosphere, advancing global warming. Scientists worry that a warming world will, in turn, lead to more forest fires as once-moist tropical regions dry and fire seasons in northern temperate areas lengthen.
WRI’s analysis cautions that while 2016 has “record” levels of tree cover loss, initial numbers for 2017 indicate this year may be giving it a run for its money. Indeed, figures from the Brazilian government show more than 208,000 fires were recorded by October 5, putting 2017 on track to be a record year of fire activity. Of those fires, nearly half were detected in September alone.
The WRI analysts say better forest management is needed to stop such high levels of tree cover loss.
“Recent blazes in Brazil, California, Portugal and elsewhere suggest that forest fires are not going away – indeed, they may only get worse as the planet warms,” the analysts write. “The large scale of forests affected by fire and other drivers in 2016 makes it clear that, now more than ever, we need to work together towards better forest management.”
These assertions are some of many unearthed in newly revealed government documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Following a deadline 25 years in the making, the National Archives on Thursday evening released a horde of JFK files. President Donald Trump blocked the release of some documents at least temporarily, citing national security concerns, leaving researchers, conspiracy theorists and interested onlookers 52 previously unreleased full documents and thousands in part to sift through.
Here are some of the highlights from the trove so far:
Sabotaging plane parts
A national security council document from 1962 — before Kennedy’s murder — referenced “Operation Mongoose,” a covert attempt to topple communism in Cuba.
CIA-mafia plot on Castro
A 1975 document from the Rockefeller Commission detailing the CIA’s role in foreign assassinations said plans to assassinate Castro were undertaken in the early days of the Kennedy administration.
The report said Attorney General Robert Kennedy, the President’s brother, told the FBI he learned the CIA hired an intermediary “to approach Sam Giancana with a proposition of paying $150,000 to hire some gunman to go into Cuba and kill Castro.”
The attorney general said that made it hard to prosecute Giancana, a Sicilian American mobster.
“Attorney General Kennedy stated that the CIA should never undertake the use of mafia people again without first checking with the Department of Justice because it would be difficult to prosecute such people in the future,” the report reads.
The report also said the CIA was later interested in using mobsters to deliver a poison pill to Castro in order to kill him.
During Operation Mongoose in 1960, the CIA also considered staging terror events in Miami and blaming it on pro-Castro Cubans.
“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of a Cuban agent and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.”
The FBI got a death threat on Oswald the day before his murder A document dated November 24, 1963, showed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover addressing the death of Oswald at the hands of Jack Ruby.
“There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead,” Hoover begins.
Hoover said the FBI’s Dallas office received a call “from a man talking in a calm voice,” saying he was a member of a committee to kill Oswald.
He said they pressed the Dallas chief of police to protect Oswald, but Ruby was nevertheless able to kill the gunman.
“Ruby says no one was associated with him and denies having made the telephone call to our Dallas office last night,” Hoover said.
Hoover went on to say the FBI had evidence of Oswald’s guilt and intercepts of Oswald’s communications with Cuba and the Soviet Union. He said he was concerned there would be doubt in the public about Oswald’s guilt and that President Lyndon Johnson would appoint a commission to investigate the assassination.
In the transcript, Helms said he thought former President Richard Nixon believed the CIA was responsible for the death of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, who died following a coup linked to the CIA.
“There is absolutely no evidence of this in the agency records and the whole thing has been, I mean rather — what is the word I want — heated by the fact that President Johnson used to go around saying that the reason President Kennedy was assassinated was that he had assassinated President Diem and this was just … justice,” Helms said.
Helms added:
“where he got this from, I don’t know.”
The deposition continues, with him being asked if Oswald was in “some way a CIA agent or an agent,” before the document cuts off.
Alleged Cuban intel officer said he knew Oswald A cable from the FBI in 1967 quoted one man quipping Oswald must have been a good shot.
The alleged Cuban officer returned, “oh, he was quite good.”
Asked why he said that, the officer said, “I knew him.”
Soviets said killing was an ‘organized conspiracy’ FBI Director Hoover forwarded a memo to the White House in 1963, shortly after Kennedy’s death. The memo, obtained by the Church Committee and classified top secret, detailed US sources’ sense of the reaction in the USSR to Kennedy’s death.
“According to our source, officials of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union believed there was some well-organized conspiracy on the part of the ‘ultraright’ in the United States to effect a ‘coup,’” the memo said. “They seem convinced that the assassination was not the deed of one man, but that it arose out of a carefully planned campaign in which several people played a part.”
The source said the Soviet officials claimed no connection between Oswald and the USSR, and described him as “a neurotic gunman.”
CIA intercepts call from Oswald to KGB
A CIA memo from the day of Kennedy’s assassination outlined a CIA intercept of a call from Oswald, then in Mexico City, to the Russian embassy in Mexico. Oswald spoke to the consul, Valeriy Vladimirovich Kostikov, an “identified KGB officer” “in broken Russian.”
The memo’s author said he was told by the FBI’s liaison officer that the bureau believed Oswald’s visit was to get help with a passport or visa.
Featured image is from JFK Presidential Library and Museum.
Forget the hacked/leaked emails showing that the Democratic National Committee stole the primary from Sanders and handed it to Clinton.
Forget whether the Ruskies hacked the emails in an attempt to throw the election to Trump or whether a DNC insider leaked the emails to Wikileaks.
The former interim Chair of the DNC, Donna Brazile, just confirmed in writing that the DNC rigged the election for Hillary.
Specifically, she says that a signed agreement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign gave all decision-making power to Clinton – and hosed Sanders – because the DNC was flat broke, and the Clinton campaign agreed to bail it out (and then more or less laundered money through the DNC).
Remembers, Sanders might have beat Trump had the DNC and Clinton campaign not sabotaged the primary.
So can we all forget about the emails and focus for one minute on the real story: this episode of collusion … and the corruption of the mainstream parties?
Last year the African Union resisted Western pressure to intervene militarily in Burundi. On October 26, Burundi officially completed its withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) without being indicted. The next day the Non-Aligned Movement of 120 member nations rejected the UN Commission of Inquiry’s report accusing Burundi of human rights crimes within its own borders. That’s quite a list of anti-imperial accomplishments for a tiny East African nation that’s always ranked among the 10 poorest in the world.
Burundi is the first African nation to withdraw from the ICC’s jurisdiction. Neither the US, Russia, China, nor Israel have ever accepted its jurisdiction, and it has prosecuted Africans almost exclusively. In 2011, it indicted Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi for alleged human rights crimes and issued an arrest warrant that became part of NATO’s case for bombing Libya. Other African nations have said they plan to withdraw from the ICC as well, but they haven’t yet filed formal notice.
Western powers, NGOs, and press have accused Burundi of human rights abuse within its own borders but not of invading another country. I asked Canadian lawyer David Paul Jacobs, an expert in international law, to contextualize this distinction:
David Paul Jacobs: The context of this is that none of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals that sprang to life after the end of the Cold War had the power to indict any state or any other party for the crime of aggression. And that’s really important in this case because Burundi has made very credible claims that it’s been attacked by agents of neighboring Rwanda, but the attackers have escaped back into Rwanda, where they have state protection.
At the ICC, Rwanda is absolutely immune from prosecution for the crime of aggression against Burundi. The problem is that without a mechanism for trying crimes of aggression, what you’re left with is simply the context of violence and problems going on within a state. The fact that the violence and the problems within the state can be instigated by aggression from an outside state is outside of the court’s purview.
To understand this, you have to roll the clock back to look at what should be our lodestone for understanding international law, and that is the Nuremberg Tribunal. And the Nuremberg Tribunal declared fairly famously that:
“War is essentially an evil thing, and the consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime. It is a supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulative evil of the whole.”
Within the Nuremberg Principles drafted after World War II there are three types of war crimes. One is the crime of aggression, which is initiating a war contrary to international treaties establishing the boundaries of nations. The other two subordinate crimes are crimes against humanity and war crimes, but it’s only those two subordinate crimes that the international criminal court, or any international criminal court, has the power to look at. So people of states can and do accuse other states of those two crimes when they want to initiate “regime change.
Aggressor states such as Rwanda, or the United States, can thus wage war against other states with impunity at the ICC, as Rwanda has in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or as the US has in Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, etc. These aggressor states enlist the international criminal courts to indict the leaders of their target states, and then these courts become accomplices in the supreme international law crime, which is the crime of aggression, also known as a crime against peace.
Ann Garrison: So if an army invades another country, even with armed forces, fighter bombers, drones, and the other country captures and tortures some invading soldiers, the torture would be a crime that the ICC could prosecute, but the invasion would not.
DPJ: Yes, at the International Criminal Court.
However, invasion is in fact a war of aggression subject to indictment by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which was created by the UN Charter and which codified the Nuremberg Principles drafted after World War II. The ICJ did try the United States for supporting the contra terrorists in Nicaragua, and the US argued that it was a humanitarian intervention. The ICJ responded that international law doesn’t recognize the legality of any such intervention and then convicted the US, but of course the US just ignored it.
The Nuremberg Principles, the UN Charter, and the International Court of Justice all preceded the international criminal tribunals which weakened them. What’s called the “responsibility to protect” then weakened them further and made the world a very dangerous place.
AG: Okay. Some African people, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, have said that despite the ICC’s failings, it should continue to exist in the hope that it can be reformed because Africans living under dictatorship have no other legal protection from the human rights abuse of their own leaders. What’s your response to that?
DPJ: My guess is there are few Africans who say that. Burundi is the first country to formally withdraw from the ICC, but it’s not the first country to complain about it. South Africa’s withdrawal seems to be on hold at the moment because of technical issues. South Africa’s Deputy Minister of Justice wrote:
“The International Criminal Court isn’t the court we signed up for. It’s diverted from its mandate, and allowed itself to be influenced by powerful non-member states. We signed up for court that would hold human beings accountable for their war crimes regardless of where they were from. We perceive that it’s turning out to be a proxy instrument for these states. We see no need to subject ourselves to its persecution of African leaders and its regime change goals on the continent.
***
Given this continent’s history of colonialism, the problem is obvious. And the problem, of course, is the selective nature of prosecution before the ICC. Nobody can be confident that the ICC is going to punish what you described as dictators who are inflicting human rights abuses on their own country. One need only look at the examples like President Kagame of Rwanda, who is widely considered to be running a murderous dictatorship. Not just that, but he’s also violating the sovereignty of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
As you know, nations have said that Rwandan forces have been responsible for the death of literally millions of people. How do we look at that? You say ‘Well, OK’ to Kagame who has absolute immunity, as do the successive presidents of the United States and prime ministers of Britain who are complicit in illegal wars, and the death of hundreds of thousands of people in places like Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the list could go on and on.”
AG: Okay, but we still have African people who imagine that the court could change. A Congolese author told me this week that he hoped the court would survive and be reformed, because Africans have no recourse if they’re living under dictatorship without a judicial system that could offer them any legal protection. And that’s even though the US and its Western allies have put many of those dictators in place.
DJP: I think it’s quixotic to rely on a court with colonial roots and selective prosecution to punish their own leaders. To be fair, such a court would have to prosecute violations of sovereignty, which the ICC does not do. At the end of the day, one of the great things that happened at the end of World War II was the enactment of the UN Charter to prevent future wars. It said that each nation in the world was sovereign and equal. The idea that an extra sovereign power has the power of life and death over your nation and your people, whether that’s the US military or a court that the US ensconced, violates those principles.
Another argument against the ICC is that the African Union itself is trying to create an international court that all African nations will join.
AG: That’s the African Court of Human and People’s rights that is hearing Victoire Ingabire’s appeal of her conviction and 15-year sentence in Rwanda, right?
DPJ: Yes.
***
David Paul Jacobs is a lawyer and an expert in international law practicing in Toronto, Ontario Canada. He is the author of the essay “How the International Criminal Law Movement Undermined International Law—Michael Mandel’s Groundbreaking Analyses”. The essay appears in the Baraka Books anthology “Justice Belied, The Unbalanced Scales of International Criminal Justice.”
Significantly, Robert Fisk notes US, UK and French intentions to kill citizens who join ISIS, or might. 1 All three countries lecture the world on human rights. They claim to respect the right of anyone, no matter their views, to a fair trial.
Yet US envoy, Brett McGurk, says:
“Our mission is to make sure that any foreign fighter who is here, who joined ISIS from a foreign country and came into Syria, will die here in Syria.”
Germany offers its citizens consular services but US citizens in Raqqa, according to McGurk, will be shot dead in Raqqa.
It is the crossing of a moral line. It is a bad idea, morally, to kill people you don’t like, or whose views you don’t like, because you then become the phenomenon you claim to oppose.
But it also indicates, again, a world view that rejects science. This month is the hundredth anniversary of the October Revolution. It was the first successful revolution against capitalism. It denounced the imperialist blood-bath of WW1, supported by “socialists”, killing 18 million.
It also opened new ways of thinking, more realistic ways. Lenin died too soon. He was an innovative thinker. 2 Revolution requires intellectual innovation at every level. Marx’s view was innovatively philosophical, not just political and economic. 3 The philosophical is harder than the political.
It can affect how you see yourself, and how you think.
Lenin pursued it. He described the mechanics of intellectual innovation. He said knowing the world, including its people, is like a passage through dark waters. There’s risk: moral risk. It cannot be otherwise because we understand the world starting from ourselves.
The latter is a well-known truth, but much distorted by post-modernists and constructionists who deny truth altogether. They make the left ineffective. 4 Lenin read Hegel, and scribbled notes in the margins. Hegel got the dialectic wrong but he understood interconnectedness. Lenin’s notes are worth reading.
We learn why the moral failure in killing ISIS members, without trial, is not as interesting as the denial of science. A few hundred years ago, European philosophers drew a distinction between facts about how the world is – science – and facts about how it ought to be – ethics. In so doing they undermined ethics.
In North American universities, ethicists do not discuss the nature of reality, or how to know it. They leave this for philosophers of science. They think ethics does not require science.
Marx thought differently. So did Lenin, and Gramsci, and José Martí. They knew how capitalism and imperialism makes human beings, or some, unknowable. It is not a moral issue. It is a factual issue. Morality, if we believe in it, requires knowing human beings.
The Buddha, 2500 years ago, had no truck with the so-called “fact/value distinction”. It wouldn’t have occurred to him. It took European philosophers to come up with the idea. They didn’t need truth.
And so it continues. Yet, to know how to live, we have to know people, including “non-persons”, who happen to be the majority. We have to know what is shared, humanly: that which makes us who we are, as human beings.
Lenin identified a highly unscientific view of freedom, promoted even by socialists. Commenting on Hegel, he writes:
“In actual fact, men’s ends are engendered by the objective world and presuppose it … But it seems to man as if his ends are taken from outside the world, and are independent of the world (‘freedom’)”. 5
It is partly why Lenin described knowledge as a “passage through dark waters”. If your very own thinking presupposes the “objective world”, you have to lose your attachment to that thinking in order to learn what lies beyond it: the world as it is. Lenin was a realist. So was Marx, and Martí, and the Buddha.
Lenin’s passage through dark waters, by itself, opened new ways of thinking. It was so in South America. José Ingenieros, brilliant Argentinean psychiatrist who turned his copious talents to anti-imperialism after the First World War, led a movement for educational reform, across the continent.
Like Lenin, he died too soon. Ingenieros saw that the entire educational system had brought South America to the feet of the imperialists. 6 He singled out the hypocrisy of philosophers, engaged in intellectual game-playing when they could have been deepening and broadening understanding of the human condition.
They could have explained how we know, and why it matters for ethics and political philosophy. Instead, they argued. And so it goes on. Fidel Castro said in Caracus 1999,
“They discovered smart bombs. We discovered that people think and feel.”
That is, Cubans discovered, or rediscovered, the ancient truth that human beings know the world dialectically. How we are plays a role in what we can know.
So the moral line-crossing, which, as Fisk notes, has been happening all along, is not most interestingly a moral failing, although it is that. It is part of a disastrous worldview that denies the intricate connection between who we are and what we can know.
In an interview in 2005, Fisk said that nothing gives him hope for the Middle East, at least nothing political. But he added that the dignity of ordinary people, speaking out, does give him hope. In The Great War for Civilization he describes such dignity, found in unusually horrible situations.
Dehumanizing situations. Fisk’s book gave me hope. It tells things as they are. It exposes the hypocrisy of those who claim to respect human rights, hypocrisy the depth of which is not always easy to detect. It is better to see that hypocrisy than to remain “pathologically upbeat” about a failed (liberal) world view.
For this, we need Lenin, among others. But we need him also as a philosopher.
And we need Ana Belén Montes. 7 She spoke up about hypocrisy. She is in jail, in the US, under harsh conditions, having hurt no one. Please sign petition here.
“We’ll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American people believe is false.” – William Casey, Director of the CIA under Ronald Reagan (1981)
“’Conspiracy theory’ is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events as off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States, raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.” – Professor James F. Tracy
(To read the original CIA Document 1035-960, that is the origin of the term that weaponized the term “conspiracy theory, go to this site)
***
It has been 54 years since President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Many eyewitnesses who were on the scene heard multiple gun shots, some of them coming from the “grassy knoll” at Dealey Plaza. One expert eyewitness at Parkland Hospital ER, a surgeon, has testified many times that he saw a small round entry wound in the front of the neck and large exit wound in the back of his head, which contradicts the official “no-conspiracy” “single shooter” theory.
Ever since that fateful day, every attentive, alert, non-distracted, truth-seeking American patriot who wants and needs to know the truth of the matter has been asking questions and doing independent investigations because they don’t believe the official, approved story and have no reason to believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission. With every deceptive, dismissive or untruthful answer, these patriots know that they have been duped.
Being treated as ignoramuses or loony “conspiracy theorists” has a way of energizing intelligent folks who have seen through official attempts at obfuscation, which is why more and more inquiring people are losing confidence in our nation’s over-privileged and often sociopathic, serially-lying elites, politicians, corporatists, multibillionaires, militarists, talking heads, media celebrities and other so-called leaders.
I also have been energized to find out the truth about what were the institutions or who were the individual conspirators that behind the obvious, censored-out plans to assassinate JFK, MLK, RFK and orchestrate the many false flag operations (which, by definition, are conspiracies in that more than one conspirator has to have been involved in planning a false flag op.
Two of the most obvious false flag ops that justified recent US wars were 1) the Gulf of Tonkin incident that justified the massive bombing campaigns against North Vietnam and 2) the controlled demolitions of 9/11/01 that justified the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (for simply planes hitting skyscrapers wouldn’t have done it by itself).
Being treated with disdain by elites who can punish whistle-blowers (and their paid trolls) is why 9/11 Truth-seekers are such committed tellers of unwelcome truths.
The examples of false flag operations from history are legion (google “The Ever-Growing List of ADMITTED False Flag Attacks” for scores of examples of US military and/or intelligence service false flag ops).
Over the 50+ years since the JFK assassination (which could rightfully have been considered a coup d’etat) many honorable, patriotic and independent investigators have uncovered a plethora of documented proof that has directly contradicted the “no conspiracy” theories about
1) the “lone gunman” Lee Harvey Oswald,
2) the “lone gunman” James Earl Ray” (MLK’s falsely accused killer),
3) the “lone gunman” Sirhan Sirhan (one of RFK’s assassins) or, for that matter,
4) the “lone gunman” James Holmes (the ‘Batman shooter’ of Aurora, CO who undoubtedly did not act alone), or
5) Stephen Paddock (the alleged ‘Las Vegas shooter’ who, it appears, may have been only a patsy rather than the “lone gunman”. Thus each of those history-altering events actually were conspiracies as has been documented by many expert observers who have examined the evidence and connected the dots).
Every attempt by independent, courageous, non-brain-washable investigators to establish documentary proof that contradicts official secret service agency stories provokes studied outrage and vigorously attempts to discredit the whistle-blower or otherwise tries to debunk incriminating information.
The same type of attempts at pseudo-scientific debunking happens all the time when corruption in Big Business is exposed. Every Big Business has full-time lobbyists that are well-placed in positions of power. These lobbyist/trolls are – as part of their job description – supposed to try to obfuscate or contradict any unwelcome information that weakens their paymaster’s profitability or credibility.
Such “trolls” have often carefully developed cozy relationships with politicians, bureaucratic agencies and the mainstream media, which gives them powerful control over any message that gets past the censorship and manages to get out to the public. The same thing happened my medical clinic offices, when Big Pharma’s sales “reps” used to wine and dine me in order to get me to listen to their sales pitches. This time-honored technique has been used by snake oil salesmen, political lobbyists and legitimate salespersons from time immemorial. The professional lobbyist reality explains how it is that pro-corporate legislation gets such favorable treatment by politicians whose corporate paymasters, behind closed doors, demand a return on their “investment” (AKA demanding pay-back for their campaign bribery/donations). He who pays the piper, calls the tune.
Peace and justice activists have learned similar lessons about clever sales techniques as well, having to endure spooks, cunning FBI agents or secret service “agents provocateur” who infiltrate their groups in order to spy on them or to get them to engage in dubious activities that could lead to legal charges and destruction of the group.
Last week the Trump administration tried to OK the lawful release of some of the previously top secret, censored-out Warren Commission papers that were sealed from public scrutiny after their infamous hearings had been completed. The release of the censored-out documents had been legislated to occur after 25 years had passed. But the scheduled releases had been repeatedly delayed by every subsequent administration since the 1980s. As has become obvious, the CIA and FBI have been very selective in what documents were released. Knowing the nature of the Deep State that is in control of our alleged democracy, we will probably never know everything that needs to be known in order to make sense of America’s conspiratorial history.
Planning and executing secret conspiracies is what all spy agencies do. and the CIA and FBI are no exception. Keeping secrets and planning conspiracies is their nature and the justification for it is in their founding documents and traditions; and since they refuse to talk and reveal what those conspiracies are all about, the duty of every patriot who is a seeker of justice is to investigate the secrets. Hence being a conspiracy theorist is an honorable endeavor, especially when the conspirators may be performing unethical activities or cover-ups of crimes.
The Warren Commission was charged to investigate the JFK assassination, but the appointed individuals, especially the arch-spook Allen Dulles, were all rabid Cold Warriors. The decision to regard certain testimony as top secret national security issues came about because the members of the commission felt that we naïve and simple-minded taxpayers couldn’t handle the truth. Instead, fearful of incurring the wrath of their own CIA or FBI operatives (or risking assassination themselves?), the commission criminally conspired to hide the hideous truths about those agency’s involvement in the JFK assassination.
Knowing the track record of the many covert operations that American intelligence agencies have orchestrated around the world ever since World War II, there are no politicians that have dared to oppose the power of the CIA or FBI (or the Mafia, for that matter). JFK, MLK, RFK and Paul Wellstone were the last ones to try. JFK famously proclaimed that he was going to “smash the CIA into a million pieces and scatter it to the wind” and every politician who similarly wanted to “drain the swamp” at Langley or the Pentagon has learned the lesson about who is really in charge in DC. RFK was going to expose the real conspirators, especially the Mafia, when he became president, and Wellstone was going to investigate 9/11 when he was re-elected Senator.
Dear Readers, some of you are pushing me to continue with the Las Vegas shooting story (ballistics evidence proving multiple shooters using different weapons at different locations – GGK Note) while others are asking to know what to make of the release of files pertaining to President Kennedy’s assassination. I appreciate that you are interested and are unsatisfied with official explanations.
My answer is that we already know, thanks to exhaustively researched books such as James W. Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable (Simon & Schuster, 2008), far more than is in the released files.
My answer is also that it doesn’t matter what we know or what the facts are, the official story will never be changed. For example, we know as an absolute indisputable fact that Israel intentionally attacked the USS Liberty inflicting enormous casualties on US Navy personnel, and the US government continues the coverup that it was all a mistake despite unequivocal statements to the contrary by the Moorer Commission, led by Admiral Tom Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
My answer also is that time is better spent in trying to prevent conspiracies in the making, such as the endless stream of lies and accusations against Russia that are turning a friendly country into an enemy and renewing the risk of nuclear armageddon. Indeed, the biggest conspiracy theory of the present time is the one issuing from the military/security complex, the Democratic National Committee, and the presstitute media that Russia in collusion with Donald Trump hacked the US presidential election.
The Russian government knows that this is a lie, and when they see a lie repeated endlessly now for one year without a shred of evidence to support it, the Russian government naturally concludes that Washington is preparing the American people for war. I cannot imagine a more reckless and irresponsible policy than destroying Russia’s trust in Washington’s intentions. As Putin said, the main lesson life has taught him is that “if a fight is unavoidable, strike first.”
If you really want to know who killed President Kennedy and why, read JFK and the Unspeakable. Yes, there are other carefully researched books that you can read.
Douglass concludes that Kennedy was murdered because he turned to peace. He was going to work with Khrushchev to end the Cold War. He refused the CIA US air cover for the Bay of Pigs invasion. He rejected the Joint Chiefs’ Operation Northwoods, a plan to conduct false flag attacks on Americans that would be blamed on Castro to justify regime change. He refused to reappoint General Lyman Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He told US Marine commandant General David Shoup that he was taking the US out of Vietnam. He said after his reelection he was going to “break the CIA into 1,000 pieces.” All of this threatened the power and profit of the military/security complex and convinced military/security elements that he was soft on communism and a threat to US national security.
The film of the motorcade taken by Zapruder shows that the bullet that killed Kennedy hit him from the front, blowing out the back of his head. You can see Kennedy’s wife Jackie reaching from the back seat onto the trunk of the limo to recover the back of his head. Other tourist films show moments before the shot the Secret Service agents being ordered off of the presidential limo so that a clear shot at Kennedy is possible. The film shows one Secret Service agent protesting the order.
The medical “evidence” that Kennedy was hit from behind was falsified by medical doctors under orders. Navy medical corpsmen who helped the Navy doctors with the autopsy testified that they were dismayed by orders from Admiral Calvin Galloway to ignore entry wounds from the front. One of the corpsmen testified “all at once I understood that my country was not much better than a third world country. From that point on in time, I have had no trust, no respect for the government.”
Dr Charles Crenshaw, one of the doctors forced to lie, later broke his silence with a book and was rewarded with a fierce media campaign to discredit him.
Lt. Commander William Pitzer, director of the Audio-Visual Department of the Bethesda Naval Hospital, filmed the autopsy. The film clearly showed the entry wound from the front. Pitzer was found shot to death on the floor of the production studio of the National Naval Medical Center. It was ruled a suicide, as always.
J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI knew that Oswald, who Douglass believes was on the payroll of both the CIA and FBI, was sent to Cuba by the CIA in order to establish the story for the patsy role Oswald was unaware was being prepared for him. However, Hoover, along with LBJ, Earl Warren and the members of the Warren Commission understood that it was impossible to tell the American people that their president has been assassinated by the US military and US security agencies. At a dicey time of the Cold War, clearly it would have been reckless to destroy Americans’ trust in their own government.
Finian Cunningham presents a summary of much of the accumulated evidence. All experts long ago concluded that the Warren Commission report is a coverup.
I am not an expert. I have not spent 30 years or longer, as has Douglass, investigating, interviewing witnesses, tracking down unexplained deaths of witnesses, and piecing together the available voluminous information. if you want to know what happened, put down your smart phones, close your video screens, and read Douglass’ or a similar book.
***
Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. In the decade prior to his retirement, he practiced what could best be described as “holistic (non-drug) and preventive mental health care”. Since his retirement, he has written a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, an alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns mostly deal with the dangers of American imperialism, friendly fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, and the dangers of Big Pharma, psychiatric drugging, the over-vaccinating of children and other movements that threaten American democracy, civility, health and longevity and the future of the planet. Many of his columns are archived at
Nippon Kaigi [The Japan Conference], established in 1997, is the largest right-wing organization in Japan. The organization is a major supporter of the current Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, and both Japanese and foreign media report that Abe, and many of his cabinet, are prominent member of its Diet Members League. Despite Nippon Kaigi’s influence on governmental policies of Japan, the organization was little known to the general public until 2015. In 2016, however, numerous books and magazine articles focusing on Nippon Kaigi were published, some becoming best sellers. This created a “Nippon Kaigi boom” in the publishing world.2
These 2016 works on Nippon Kaigi, however, were not the first. A number of journalists, scholars and activists have long paid attention to the history and activism of Nippon Kaigi. Tawara Yoshifumi, a leading specialist on education and textbook adoption issues, and the secretary general of Children and Textbooks Japan Network 21, has published articles and books that on Nippon Kaigi over the years.
The article translated here appeared in the December 2016 volume of the magazine, Heiwa Undō (Peace Movement), and summarizes his most recent book Nippon Kaigi no Zenbō: Shirarezaru Kyodai Soshiki no Jittai[The Complete Picture of Nippon Kaigi: The Unknown Reality of an Mammoth Organization.] (Kadensha 2016.) In the book, Tawara utilized data on Nippon Kaigi accumulated over a long period of time to describe Nippon Kaigi’s history, organizational structure, “grassroots” movement style, and goals.
Tawara traces the history of the right-wing movement that led to the formation of Nippon Kaigi from the 1970s, starting with a movement to legalize imperial era names. The two organizations that played significant roles in this movement, namely, Nihon wo Mamoru Kokumin Kaigi [National Conference to Protect Japan] and Nihon wo Mamoru Kai [Association to Protect Japan], merged in 1997 to form Nippon Kaigi. Tawara points out that unlike these organizations, Nippon Kaigi appointed business leaders and intellectuals as board members and hid its right-wing priorities, but the nature of the organization remained unchanged. Tawara then introduces various affiliated organizations of Nippon Kaigi, such as its Diet Members’ League and Local Assembly Members’ League, its women’s section called Japan Women’s Association, and Nihon Seinen Kyōgikai [Japan Youth Council]. Nippon Kaigi has various front organizations for independent issues, such as the Utsukushii Nippon no Kenpō wo Tsukuru Kokumin no Kai [National Citizens’ Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan] promoting constitutional reform. Mobilizing local branches and various affiliated organizations across Japan in national and local levels, Tawara shows, Nippon Kaigi operates a “grassroots right-wing movement,” while maintaining strong ties with the Abe administration.
Tawara emphasizes that Nippon Kaigi presents the Constitution, education, and defense as a set of interlocking issues, an approach shared with Prime Minister Abe’s policy priorities. Tawara particularly focuses on two issues: education and the Constitutional amendment. Tawara’s greatest contribution centers on education, reflecting his long-term commitment to issues of education and textbooks, from Ienaga Saburō’s textbook trials beginning in 1965 to the present.
Tawara shows how the Abe administration’s concept of Kyōiku Saisei [education rebuilding] seeks to overturn the foundations of contemporary education. The 2006 revision of the Fundamental Law of Education, which defined the goal of education not to serve students but the state by emphasizing patriotic education, was a major victory of the first Abe administration (2006-7). This had a tremendous impact on the direction of education – not simply in schools but also in communities and even in families (the revised Law includes an article on “family education”.) Abe’s modification of the Board of Education system in 2014 made it much easier for governors and mayors to intervene in education and the textbook adoption process. Under this new system, Tawara notes, members of the Nippon Kaigi Local Assembly Members League have played significant roles in promoting a conservative and revisionist history and civic textbooks published by Ikuhōsha (connected with the Japan Education Rebuilding Organization) and Jiyūsha (connected with the Society for History Textbook Reform).
Moreover, under the second Abe administration, “moral education” (dōtoku) was introduced as an “official subject” (i.e., with grades assigned, based on evaluation of degree of patriotism among other rubrics) in elementary and junior high schools, which has been criticized for potentially interfering with children’s freedom of thought. As of September 2017, the adoption process of elementary school moral education textbooks to be used from 2018 is under way. The textbook published by Kyōiku Shuppan includes members of the Japan Education Rebuilding Organization among its editors, and has an especially patriotic content, with photos of conservative politicians, including Abe Shinzo, in the text.3 In the translated text, Tawara stresses the danger of the next Gakushū Shidō Yoryō [Education Guideline], which fundamentally changes the guidelines for all aspects of schools, families and communities. Tawara insists that the aim of education became two-fold in the new guideline: to strengthen “human resources” for the sake of the state by promoting patriotism, and also in the service of large corporations by promoting neoliberal policies.
Currently the most important goal for Nippon Kaigi is undoubtedly to amend the post-war Constitution. Nippon Kaigi founded the National Citizens’ Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan in 2014, to promote a constitutional revision movement based on a “national referendum” to be held during Abe’s administration. The organization has actively pursued approaches introduced in the 1970s to pass legislation that requires the use of imperial era names, ranging from a massive “10 million” signature drive, collecting petitions from local assemblies, holding gatherings in such major venues as Nippon Budōkan of Tokyo, conducting small study group meetings across Japan, distributing leaflets and a DVD, and broadcasting videos on YouTube. It is important to note that while there is no doubt that amendment of Article 9 receives the greatest attention, Nippon Kaigi calls for seven important constitutional revisions including the making of a new clause on emergency powers and the addition of a family protection clause to Article 24.5 On May 3, 2017, Prime Minister Abe delivered a video message at a symposium held by the National Citizens’ Association. There, he called for making “explicit the status” of the self-defense forces in Article 9 of the Constitution by the year 2020. Clearly, Article 9 has become a priority for Nippon Kaigi.
On August 15 this year, I visited the booth of the National Citizens’ Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan at a street near Yasukune Shrine. There flags and signs included “Write the SDF into the Constitution” and “Thank you, SDF,” along with a photo of journalist Sakurai Yoshiko, who is also one of the co-chairs of the National Citizens’ Association. I also received a flyer “Thank you, SDF.” Despite heavy rain, Nippon Kaigi was holding a gathering in a tent on the grounds of the shrine. The main speaker was LDP Upper House representative and former SDF member Sato Masahisa discussing the importance of the SDF and the need to revise the Constitution. It was obvious that the goal of amending the Constitution by 2020, by writing the SDF into Article 9 of the Constitution, remains a Nippon Kaigi priority as it is of the Abe administration.
The flags at the booth of the Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan in front of Yasukuni Shrine on August 15, 2017.
The flyer “Thank you, SDF” by the National Citizens’ Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan.
Picture book, Jieitai tte Naani? [What is the SDF?] (Author: Sonoda Haru, Meiseisha 2017), sold at the Nippon Kaigi booth of Yasukuni Shrine on August 15, 2017. The book is recommended by LDP Upper House Representative, Sato Masahisa.5
On September 28, Prime Minister Abe Shinzo dissolved the lower house of the parliament, and a snap election was held on October 22. Abe’s LDP and its coalition partners secured a major victory, with more than half of the seats won by the LDP. As the LDP and the Komeito Party that currently form a coalition government, gained two-third of the Lower House, which is the number of votes needed to assure a national referendum for constitutional revision, the likelihood is that a proposal to hold a national referendum will be submitted to the Diet in the very near future. Under Japan’s national referendum law, a majority (more than 50%) vote is required to amend the Constitution, with no stipulation as to the minimum number of votes cast. Since 2014, with its “10 million signature campaign,” the priority for Nippon Kaigi has been holding a successful national referendum to amend the constitution.
The new Kibō no Tō (Party of Hope) led by Tokyo governor Koike Yuriko was formed immediately before the election, absorbing a significant number of candidates from the then-biggest opposition party, the Democratic Party of Japan. Koike, a former LDP representative, was once the vice president of the Nippon Kaigi’s Diet Members’ League. Like Abe, she supports constitutional revision, and in a press conferenceheld on September 22, she indicated her commitment to constitutional revision efforts, and encouraged further discussion of the issue in her new party. In 2003, Koike stated in Voice magazine that she considers it possible for Japan to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Journalist Aoki Osamu reports that Koike may not have a very close relationship with Nippon Kaigi compared to other conservative politicians at this moment, but it is entirely possible that she may become closer to Nippon Kaigi in future.6 Breaking with the practice of previous Tokyo governors, including conservative Ishihara Shintarō, Koike declined to send eulogies to the commemoration of Korean victims massacred at the time of the Great Kanto Earthquake in 1923, which also suggests her historical revisionist stance.7Akahata reported on September 28 that six members of the Party of Hope belong to the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members’ League. The Party of Hope struggled in the election, failing to become the main opposition party, while the LDP scored a landslide victory. On the other hand, a newly established Rikken Minshu-tō [Constitutional Democratic Party] led by Edano Yukio, former DPJ politician who did not join the Party of Hope, won 55 seats, and became the second biggest party in the Lower House after the LDP. The party’s platform included opposition to the revision of the Article 9, the Constitution’s peace clause.
The National Citizens’ Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan announced plans to hold a “National Citizens’ Rally” in Tokyo on October 25 to promote constitutional revision. The National Citizens’ Association is inviting representatives from the LDP, Komeitō Party, Nippon Ishin no Kai and the Party of Hope to forge a cross-party coalition, especially to revise the Article 9. The struggle regarding constitutional revision will become much more intense in the coming months. (TY)
What is the Aim of Nippon Kaigi, The Ultra-Right Organization that is a Pillar of Japan’s Abe Administration?
What is Japan’s largest ultra-right organization, Nippon Kaigi, whose slogan is “Build a nation with pride”? On its official website, Nippon Kaigi explains: “We, the Nippon Kaigi, are a civic group that presents policy proposals and promotes a national movement for restoring a beautiful Japan and building a proud nation.” Nippon Kaigi is a national movement organization with a nationwide grassroots network that was established on May 30, 1997 by the merger of Nihon wo Mamoru Kokumin Kaigi [National Conference to Protect Japan] and Nihon wo Mamoru Kai [Association to Protect Japan]. We will briefly look at these two organizations.
Forerunners of Nippon Kaigi
The Nihon wo Mamoru Kai was a religious-affiliated rightwing organization formed in April 1974 as a Shintō and Buddhist-affiliated religious group by the (then) chief abbot, Asahina Sōgen, of Kamakura’s Enkakuji Temple. The central religious association at the time of its founding was Seichō-no-Ie [House of Growth]. In July 1978, springing from the Nihon wo Mamoru Kai, the Gengō Hōseika Jitsugen Kokumin Kaigi [National Conference to Establish Reign Era Name Use as Law] Legislate Era Names (chaired by the late Ishida Kazuto, a former Supreme Court judge) was formed.8 Centered on this organization, a “national movement” [kokumin undō] was launched, and on June 6, 1979, the Diet passed a bill on era names, making the practice into law.
This rightwing organization, having successfully led a movement to pass a law formalizing era names, reorganized in October 1981 into the Nihon wo Mamoru Kokumin Kaigi (or Kokumin Kaigi — National Conference), as a standing rightwing organization for promoting a “national movement” to revise the Constitution and establish a unity government.9
At its launch, its officials included Chairman Kase Shunji (Japan’s first ambassador to the United Nations; now deceased), Steering Committee Chairman Mayuzumi Toshirō (musician, later chairman of Kokumin Kaigi; deceased), Secretary General Soejima Hiroyuki (permanent consultant to Meiji Shrine, former senior member of the Nippon Kaigi; deceased), Executive Secretary Kabashima Yūzō (currently Executive Secretary of Nippon Kaigi).
The first issue of Kokumin Kaigi’s official organ Nihon no Ibuki [Japan’s Breath of Energy] was issued on April 15, 1984. It was not a monthly publication then, and prior to the launching of Nippon Kaigi, about 113 issues had been published. Even after it became the official organ of Nippon Kaigi, it continued to be published with the same name, and labeled, “an opinion magazine aiming at building a country that has pride” (As of Nov. 2016, the total number of issuespublished is 348).
In a keynote report at the inaugural plenary meeting of the Kokumin Kaigi, then-Steering Committee Chairman Mayuzumi Toshirō outlined the basic goal of “revising” the Constitution and forming a nation centered on the Emperor:
In order to protect Japan, there are two major problems: that of defense or protecting
the country with physical military power, and of education or protecting the country
with our minds and spirit. In unifying these two, the Constitution is a main obstacle, but
I believe that the heart of protecting the country boils down to how we perceive our
nation state or, in other words, how we perceive the role of the Emperor.
When we call for amending the Constitution, it depends first of all on our thinking about
the national consciousness. We also must consider starting from the establishment
of a clear national polity linked to the Emperor. In other words, I believe that if
there is to be a proper national consciousness, the problems of the Constitution,
education, and defense must be approached by starting from the root problem of the
mind – that is to say, the establishment of a proper patriotic spirit. (Nihon no Ibuki, #2,
July 15, 1984)
In October 1982, Kokumin Kaigi held a “Conference to Consider the Textbook Problem,” and proposed an independent textbook. Then, in December 1983, by consolidating rightwing forces, the “National Conference to Normalize Textbooks” was established, and the organization began to write a history textbook. It was Kokumin Kaigi that worked on the task.
At the plenary meeting of the Kokumin Kaigi, Secretary General Soejima Hiroyuki (now deceased, but at the time, permanent consultant to Meiji Shrine), who had proposed a “Basic Policy for a National Movement in Showa 59 (1984),” stated: “In tackling such tasks as publishing a textbook, I would like to lay the ideological groundwork for constitutional revision” (Nihon no Ibuki, #2, July 15, 1984). In this way, Kokumin Kaigi positioned the publishing of a high-school history textbook as “forming an ideal flow” toward meeting the goal of amending the Constitution in order to create a national polity centered on the Emperor. Moreover, placing the Constitution, defense, and education on the agenda, Kokumin Kaigi considered it necessary to publish a high school Japanese history textbook that would nurture a national consciousness or patriotism. The association issued an officially approved textbook that passed the Ministry of Education’s screening, Shinpen Nihon Shi [New Edition of Japanese History] (Hara Shobō, now published by Meiseisha as Saishin Nihon Shi [Most Recent Japanese History]), in commemoration of the 60th year of the reign of the Showa Emperor.
After that, Kokumin Kaigi, while making constitutional revision its central goal, developed other tactics, such as education and the textbook issue, a movement to justify Japan’s war of aggression and its atrocities, a movement to respect and love the Imperial Household, a movement to denounce the displays of peace materials in halls set up by local authorities across the country. At this time, Kokumin Kaigi strengthened its ties with rightwing Diet members in the LDP and other parties, becoming the central organization of the rightwing movement.
Mergers Lead to Birth of Nippon Kaigi: Business executives became officials.
On May 30, 1997, Kokumin Kaigi merged with the Nihon wo Mamoru Kai to launch Nippon Kaigi as an organization dedicated to amending the Constitution and to promoting Imperial rule.
Looking at Kokumin Kaigi’s officials and members, most people could conclude that it was a rightwing organization, but after it became Nippon Kaigi, it hid its rightwing nature by appointing as officials, others such as business executives, university professors, and intellectuals. However, its true nature did not change. Among the first generation of chairmen of the Kokumin Kaigi was the late Tsukamoto Kōichi (then chairman of an intimate apparel company, Wacoal). He was succeeded as the second chairman (June 2000-December 2001) by Inaba Kōsaku (now deceased), who was then head of the Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Former Supreme Court justice Miyoshi Tōru became the third chairman in December 2001, and on April 16, 2015, Takubo Tadae, a former journalist and college professor, was appointed the fourth chairman, with Miyoshi becoming the honorary chair.
The executive secretary is now Kabashima Yūzō (chairman of Nihon Kyōgikai [Japan Council] and Nihon Seinen Kyōgikai[Japan Youth Council]), who was the executive secretary of both organizations when they merged in 1997. The vice chairs are Anzai Aiko (musician), Odamura Shirō (former president of Takushoku University, representative of worshippers at Yasukuni Shrine), Kobori Keiichirō (professor emeritus at Tokyo University), Tanaka Tsunekiyo (president of Jinja Honchō [Association of Shinto Shrines]). The director is Amitani Michihiro (chief priest at Meiji Jingū and head of the association of worshippers at Meiji Jingū). The executive director is Matsumura Toshiaki (executive director of Nippon Kaigi). Those listed as consultants are Ishii Kōichirō (president of Bridgestone Bicycle), Kitashirakawa Michihisa (executive director of Jinja Honchō), Takatsukasa Naotake (head of Ise Shrine). Among those named above, five of the 12 officers are connected to religious organizations, and five are officials of rightwing organizations, such as Kaikōsha and Eirei ni Kotaeru Kai [the Association to Respect Deceased Soldiers (at Yasukuni Shrine). Of the 40 representative committee members, 16 are associated with religious organizations, such as the head priest at Yasukuni Shrine (as of July 1, 2016).
After its founding, Nippon Kaigi launched an organizational system, starting with the establishment of headquarters in prefectures across the country, and specialized
committees. (According to records of Nippon Kaigi, in August 1997, “headquarters in the prefectures were established one after another.”)
In order to conduct research on a new Constitution and promote the revision of the current Constitution, Nippon Kaigi took over Shin Kenpō Kenkyū Kai [New Constitution Study Group] (headed by Vice Chairman Odamura Shirō), which Kokumin Kaigi had established in June 1995. And in June 1997, it established “the Seisaku Kenkyūkai [Policy Committee] to Consider the Current Situation and Policy Agenda” (headed by then Executive Director Ōhara Yasuo). In January 1999, Nippon Kaigi launched the Kokusai Kōhō Iinkai [International Public Relations Committee’ For Broadcasting Japan’s New Image to the World] (chaired by the committee member, Takemoto Tadao), and in March, it established the “Nihon Kyōiku Kaigi [the Japan Educational Conference] for Promoting Educational Reforms” (chaired by Adviser Ishii Koichirō, with Takahashi Shirō (currently a board member of the Japan Education Rebuilding Organization [Nihon Kyoiku Saisei Kikō] as principal investigator.
Along with the New Constitution Study Group, the Policy Committee, the International Public Relations Committee, and the Japan Educational Conference, the Japan Women’s Association [Nihon Josei no Kai] and the Japan Youth Council [Nihon Seinen Kyōgikai] functions as its daily operations organizations of Nippon Kaigi. In addition, in response to various challenges of the times, various affiliated front organizations rose to carry out specialized activities. Among them, there was a particular front organization for the constitutional revision movement, as explained below, and another for activities related to the historical consciousness issue, which Sankei Shimbun now calls the “history wars.” For this purpose, on October 1, 2016, Nippon Kaigi established the “Historical Awareness Research Committee” [Rekishi Ninshiki Mondai Kenkyūkai]. When the organization was established, it was chaired by Takahashi Shirō, and its vice chairman and executive secretary was Nishioka Tsutomu, and one of its advisers was Sakurai Yoshiko.10 It is made up of key “theorists” of Nippon Kaigi. On the issue of historical views toward the comfort women and the Nanjing Incident, the organization states: “Anti-Japan views of history have damaged Japan’s diplomacy and damaged our country’s honor and national interests.” It also states: “In response to criticism of Japan regarding historical consciousness, we will present materials for rebuttal, based on historical facts.”
Closely-Linked Round-Table Conference of Diet Members of Nippon Kaigi
On May 29, 1997, the day before Nippon Kaigi was launched, the LDP’s Obuchi Keizō and Mori Yoshirō (both of whom later became prime ministers), together with then Shinshintō [New Frontier Party] member Ozawa Tatsuo, formed a non-partisan Round Table Conference of Diet Members of Nippon Kaigi (a.k.a. Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League), with the aim of fully backing and linking to Nippon Kaigi. After it was launched, Nippon Kaigi was closely aligned with these Diet Members and promoted various maneuvers behind the scenes, such as efforts to revise the Constitution and the Basic Education Law. The group also promoted the adoption of a textbook that distorted Japanese history. In order to Support the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform [Atarashii Rekishi Kyōkasho wo Tsukurukai] that predated the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League, in February 1997, Nippon no Zento to Rekishi Kyōiku wo Kangaeru Wakate Giin no Kai [The Young Diet Members For Japan’s Future and History Education (a.k.a. Textbook Parliamentarians’ League) was launched centered on Nakagawa Shōichi (now deceased), Abe Shinzō, and Etō Seiichi. In February 2004, the word “young” was removed from the association, and it had an extremely close relationship with the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League.
At its launch, the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League had 189 members from both chambers. The number continued to increase, and as of November 2015, there were 281 members (mostly LDP), and the members of the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League were the largest force in both houses with around 40 percent of the 717 Diet members. This rightwing league was behind the launching of the three Abe cabinets. Abe was the League’s key person as party president and prime minister. In the 3rd Abe Cabinet, 16 out of the 20 (80 percent) of the ministers are members of the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League.
The Nippon Kaigi, with its close ties to the Diet Members League, is now running Japanese politics. One example can be seen in the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), which from 2002 has distributed, to all elementary and middle-school children, supplemental educational pamphlets called Kokoro no Nōto [Notes for the Heart] (four levels: 1st and 2nd graders, 3rd and 4th graders, 5th and 6th graders, and middle-school use). The materials promote official moral values, starting with love of country, and are aimed at controlling the minds of children.
Nippon Kaigi proposed that such materials be drafted and disseminated, and in March 2000, Upper House member Kamei Ikuo (now deceased), a Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League member, brought the subject up in the Diet. Then Education Minister Nakasone Hirofumi, also a League member, replied that he would consider the proposal, and almost immediately, it was budgeted. A week later, then Parliamentary Vice-Minister of Education Kawamura Takeo, another League member, replied in the Diet: “We will publish and distribute (the pamphlets) to schools across the nation.” In March 2001, at a general meeting on policies proposed, Nippon Kaigi touted the success of this one, stating, “Taking the opportunity of Diet interpellations on the House floor, the MEXT minister decided to draw up a moral educational material to be titled Notes for the Heart. A frightful precedent was created in which the request of a rightwing group was brought up in the Diet by lawmakers linked to it, and then was implemented as national policy.
Further, Notes for the Heart was later completely revised and distributed in April 2014 to elementary and middle schools across the country as Watashi tachi no Dōtoku [Our Moral Values.] The Education Minister Shimomura Hakubun and MEXT made use of the teaching materials mandatory. The Abe administration and MEXT in March 2015 elevated moral education to a regular classroom subject, calling it a “special subject.”
Our Moral Values for the first and second grade students of elementary schools.
And for fiscal 2018, approved textbooks will be published, fully carrying out the new policy. Even for 2015, in order to promote the policy before it is put into effect and the textbook published, the Ministry ordered that Our Moral Values be used as a “textbook” and that it be used jointly with the approved textbooks after it came out.
In addition, the author of the textbook Our Moral Values, Kaizuka Shigeki (professor at Musashino University, who is a member of MEXT’s round-table of promoting moral values as educational material, as well as a board member of the Japan Organization for Educational Reform) has been promoting the issuance of educational material on morality, asserting that the book Our Moral Values would become a model for approved textbooks. (For more detail, see Textbook 21’s booklet Sweeping Criticism! Children Being Warped by the Moral Education Textbook ‘Our Moral Values’, 2014.
Sweeping Criticism! Children Being Warped by the Moral Education Textbook ‘Our Moral Values’, Gōdō Shuppan, 2014.
Nippon Kaigi’s Development of a Grass-Roots Rightwing Movement
Nippon Kaigi is Japan’s largest rightwing unity organization. It promotes a policy aimed to make Japan a nation centered on the Emperor, a nation that can fight in wars, by revising the Constitution. It has set up headquarters in prefectures across the country and branch organizations in the regions. Its slogan is “Build a nation that has pride.” Prime Minister Abe’s slogan, “Beautiful Country Japan” [Utsukushi Kuni Nihon] , has also been used by Nippon Kaigi
In September 2001, Nippon Kaigi established as its organization for women, Nihon Jyosei no Kai [Japan Women’s Association] (then chaired by Anzai Aiko, who was vice chairperson of the Nippon Kaigi; the following chair was Onoda Machie.)11 What became the central campaign of this women’s association was the so-called “gender backlash,” that is, repeated attacks on such issues as gender equality measures, separate surnames for married couples, and gender equal education.
Currently, Nippon Kaigi is making every effort to advance constitutional revision, which Prime Minister Abe has been promoting. Targeting a female audience, it has hosted “cafes” across the country, where “women get together to chat about the Constitution.” The Japan Women’s Association is taking up that challenge.
In addition, the rightwing Nihon Seinen Kyōgikai [ Japan Youth Council], founded in 1970 by Etō Seiichi (now an assistant to Prime Minister Abe), Takahashi Shirō (board member of the Japan Education Rebuilding Organization), and former education committee chairman for Saitama Prefecture), Kabashima Yuzō, et al., has now become in effect Nippon Kaigi’s youth organization. This organization is carrying out secretariat activities for Nippon Kaigi; it is an “action squad” which carries out a “national caravan” campaign several times a year.
Nippon Kaigi is the central organization of such activities as a round-table conference of intellectuals to “reform Japanese education” by promoting amendments to the Fundamental Law of Education (Private Ad Hoc Committee on Education, established in 2003 and chaired by Nishizawa Jun’ichi, as well as “Japan and the Constitution in the 21st Century”, a group that promotes revising the Constitution, a.k.a. Private Ad Hoc Committee on the Constitution, established in 2001 and then headed by Miura Shumon. ) This group has generated a “national movement” to amend the Constitution, and every March, it holds a rally, sponsored by the Private Ad Hoc Committee on the Constitution, to call for constitutional revision.
On May 3, 2016, the Private Ad Hoc Committee on the Constitution, together with the Utsukushii Nippon no Kenpō wo Tsukuru Kokumin no Kai [National Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan” (Kokumin no Kai)], sponsored the 18th public forum on the Constitution, titled, “Calling for an Initiative to Realize Speedy Revision of the Constitution! We Propose that Each Political Party Hold Discussions on the Constitution to Respond to the Emergency Situation” (1,200 people attended according to the organizers).
In a video message, Prime Minister Abe, who was then travelling abroad, exhorted the assembly: “Do not fall into a brain-dead state of not daring to even lay a finger on the Constitution or even avoid debating it. We will create with our own hands a constitution appropriate for the times.
Let us unite to revise the Constitution.” The LDP President’s special assistant, Shimomura Hakubun, was present and asserted to the crowd: “There are many people who feel it is thanks to the presence of Article 9 in the Constitution, that Japan has not been drawn into war.” He cited as an example the Great East Japan Earthquake as a situation demanding an emergency provision in the Constitution: “Since the terms of Diet members are limited by the Constitution, we cannot legally make an exception. If an emergency situation occurs, the terms should be extended as a special case. No one would have any reason to oppose this” (as reported by Asahi Shimbun, May 4, 2016).
In a keynote address, Sakurai Yoshiko rejected constitutionalism, saying: “The notion that the Constitution is a basic set of rules that pits the state against the people and fetters the state does not suit Japan.” She continues, “We must aim at having our own Constitution that protects what is characteristic of Japan.” She proposed: “Why not make a fresh start by proposing a provision for emergency situations that one might call the biggest campaign pledge of each political party?” Many speakers insisted on the emergency powers provision, and the declaration presented asserted that “lack of provision for emergency powers is a fundamental flaw in the Constitution” and deemed the provision of emergency powers an “urgent task” that would strengthen the government’s authority in such situations. It called for “an early motion for constitutional reform, as well as a popular referendum.”
Prime Minister Abe, his administration, and the LDP share this view. Moreover, in addition to Shimomura and Sakurai, also attending were Matsubara Jin (Democratic Party, Lower House member), Eguchi Katsuhiko (adviser to the Diet members’ group Initiatives from Osaka [Osaka Ishin no Kai]), Nakayama Kyoko (head of the Nihon no Kokoro wo Taisetsu ni suru Tō [The Party for the Japanese Kokoro]), Uchida Fumihiro (secretary general of the Kokumin no Kai), Hara Masao (former mayor of Koriyama City in Fukushima Prefecture), Nishi Osamu (professor emeritus of Komazawa University), Aoki Shōgo (vice chairman of the Junior Chamber International Japan), Yamamoto Mizuki (student, Faculty of Law, Keio University), and Momochi Akira (professor emeritus of Nihon University).
With the return of the Abe administration presenting an ideal opportunity, Nippon Kaigi developed a “national movement” to amend the Constitution and campaigned to have local assemblies issue “position papers calling for early realization of constitutional revision.” The concrete realization of these efforts would become the Kokumin no Kai, an organization that I explain in detail below.
Nippon Kaigi, since its establishment, has set up prefectural headquarters, and at present, it has an office in every prefecture. Moreover, from 2000, it started to establish local branches. This project did not proceed well at first. However, from 2006 and 2007, the organization put its efforts into establishing branches, aiming at 300 nationwide. It began that effort in order to counter the launching of 9-jō no Kai, the Article 9 Association, and the activities of that group across the country. The Article 9 Association was established in June 2004 by nine prominent people,12 and in response to their appeals, branches were established across the country in different localities and sectors. Membership in the Article 9 Association by 2006 surpassed 5,000 people. Through a series of lectures across the nation, the Article 9 Association, as well as the activities of related local or specialized groups, public opinion toward constitutional revision greatly changed. In a public opinion poll in 2004 by the Yomiuri Shimbun, 65 percent were found to approve amending the Constitution, while 22 percent disapproved. But by 2006, the same poll showed the approval rate to have dropped to 55 percent, while the disapproval rate rose to 32 percent. Then, in the 2007 poll, approval plummeted to 46.2 percent, with the disapproval rate rising to 39.1 percent, or around three times that of 2004.
In 2007, the gap between approval and disapproval had narrowed to only seven points. (Currently, the approval and disapproval rates are about the same.) In order to compete with the Article 9 Association, Kokumin no Kai worked to establish local branches. At the end of September 2016, there were 250 branches (author’s survey), and those cities with more than 10 branches included Tokyo (19), Saitama (17), Kumamoto (17), Okayama (13), Aichi (12), Niigata (10), and Hiroshima (10). There were also prefectures, like Nagano (4), Shiga (4), and Tottori (4), where branches were few but still covered the entire prefecture.
These prefectural headquarters and branches were linked to such organizations as the Nippon Kaigi Local Assembly Members’ League [Chihō Giren], the Japan Women’s Association, and the Japan Youth Council. In each locality they developed grassroots rightwing and constitutional revision movements.
The main efforts of the movements were such activities as promoting the revision of the Constitution, adopting the school textbook published by Ikuhōsha by the Nihon Kyōiku Saisei Kikō [Japan Education Rebuilding Organization] and Kyōkasho Kaizen no Kai [the Textbook Improvement Association], as well as the one published by Jiyūsha of the Society for History Textbook Reform. Other activities included efforts to distort history by justifying Japan’s war of aggression and atrocities, and denying the system of military “comfort women” and the Nanjing Incident. They also included pressuring school boards of education to require schools to display the Hinomaru national flag and sing the Kimigayo national anthem. In addition, prefectural assemblies were pressured to display the flag, and in the schools, even homework and tests were monitored for content, leading to further pressure on school boards and schools themselves. In addition, there were activities to stir up nationalism over territorial issues.
Formation and Activities of the Nippon Kaigi Local Assembly League
Nippon Kaigi Chihō Giin Renmei (Chihō Giren) [Nippon Kaigi Local Assembly Members League], chaired by Kanagawa Prefecture assembly member Matsuda Yoshiaki, was established on November 11, 2007, under the slogan “Building a Country with Pride, Starting with Local Assemblies.” As of March 2016, it was supported by 1,633 members (author’s survey), and, breaking this figure down, there were two governors, 31 mayors, 795 assembly members, and 805 local heads. (Because this organization is an assembly members’ league, once a member becomes governor or mayor, they cease to be a member, but I included them in the list so that we can know their political stance.)
When we look at the share the league holds in prefectural assemblies, we find that they make up more than 70 percent in Yamaguchi, more than 60 percent in Yamagata, Ibaraki, and Ehime, more than 50 percent in Miyagi and Nagasaki, and over 40 percent in Akita, Gumma, Saitama, Chiba, Tokyo, Gifu, Shizuoka, Kyoto, Okayama, Fukuoka, Miyazaki, and Kagoshima. Such an unusual situation also prevails in 19 prefectures, where Nippon Kaigi has hijacked the assemblies with over 40 percent being members. Moreover, in city assemblies, 47.7 percent of the Osaka City assembly and 43.8 percent of the Yashiro City assembly in Kumamoto Prefecture are members.
The Local Assembly Members League, by working through local assemblies, is developing such activities as promoting the adoption of textbooks published by Ikuhōsha and Jiyūsha, denouncing other textbooks, and organizing constitutional revision activities in the local area. Assembly members belonging to The Local Assembly Members League have blocked the adoption of history textbooks published by Jikkyō Shuppan during the process of selecting textbooks for high schools. Members have intervened with questions in the local assemblies, and they have pressured local school boards, aiming to block the adoption of this textbook. For example, in Saitama Prefecture, during the school textbook adoption process in 2013, the high school, as well as the Board of Education, chose the textbook published by Jikkyō Shuppan. To reverse this decision, the education committee of the prefectural assembly held two sessions when the assembly was in recess, and denounced the authors of the Jikkyō textbook, and summoned and examined the principals of the eight schools that adopted the Jikkyō textbook. The assembly then passed a resolution to reverse their choice. The Local Assembly Members League was behind this campaign. Similar cases of using the assembly to pressure for schoolbook choices occurred in Chiba Prefecture, Kanagawa Prefecture, Yokohama City, and Kawasaki City. In all cases, The Local Assembly Members League members organized the campaign. In Osaka, the campaign was led by the assembly members of Osaka Ishin no Kai [The Osaka Restoration Association].
Branches of Nippon Kaigi linked up with the Local Assembly Members League to promote their cause. In connection with history education and textbook adoption, the Nippon Kaigi and its related organizations (members and local branches) have begun to submit petitions and appeals to the local assembly, with the Local Assembly Members League members becoming facilitators, bringing up those issues in the assemblies, and making it easier for textbooks published by Ikuhōsha and Jiyūsha to be adopted.
In 2014, the Abe administration revised the board-of-education system, making it easier for the heads of local government to intervene in the education system and textbook selection. Given this change, such organizations as the Japan Education Rebuilding Organization and the Society for History Textbook Reform, which have close ties to Nippon Kaigi, are calling on their local organizations, members and supporters to recruit assembly members who will cooperate in choosing textbooks during assembly sessions, as well as engage in joint activities to promote “education rebuilding.” In response to this, Nippon Kaigi developed activities to link up with other local assembly leagues and branches so that junior high school textbooks selected in 2015 would be those proposed by Ikuhōsha and Jiyūsha.
On the issue of the Hinomaru national flag and Kimigayo national anthem, as well, maneuvers behind the scenes are linking local assembly leagues and local branches of Nippon Kaigi across the country. For example, a petition circulated by the local branch of Nippon Kaigi in 2013 in Nakano Ward in Tokyo called on all public elementary and middle schools to display the national flag daily. Three Ward assembly members belonging to the Local Assembly Members League introduced the petition and worked to persuade other assembly members to support it. Then, at a full session, the number of approvals and disapprovals was tied. However, with the approval of the assembly leader, the petition was adopted. A similar movement toward schools and petitions on the floor of local assemblies seeking to display the national flag was promoted by cooperation between both organizations. It is expected that such activities will be increased in the future.
Kokumin no Kai’s Movement to Collect 10 Million Signatures
The task that Nippon Kaigi has put most of its efforts into has been the promotion of a grassroots campaign to revise the Constitution, a long-cherished goal that has united it with the Abe administration.
At New Year’s in 2016, an unusual scene could be seen within the grounds of Shinto shrines, crowded with people paying their first visits of the year. At Shinto shrines all over Japan, the shops and donation boxes had signs exhorting worshippers to sign a petition calling for constitutional revision. The petitions stated, “I approve of revising the Constitution.” At Nogi Shrine in Tokyo, there were banners displayed with such slogans as, “Aiming for a proud Japan,” and, “The Constitution is ours.” There was a tent holding a large framed poster of Sakurai Yoshiko. On the poster was printed, “Let us, the people, make a beautiful Japanese Constitution with our own hands”; and, “We are now collecting 10 million signatures. Please cooperate.”
The signatures to urge constitutional revision were not the work of limited number of shrines. The religious corporation Jinja Honchō, The Association of Shinto Shrines, reportedly encompasses 80,000 shrines nationwide who “aligned with the movement of the ‘National Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan (Kokumin no Kai),’ and promoted a signature campaign based on the actual situation in each shrine.” (Tokyo Shimbun, 1/23/2016) Based on a directive from the Association of Shinto Shrines, the prefectural shrine associations ordered shrines under their jurisdiction to collect signatures.
Although the signature campaign was carried out by the Kokumin no Kai, it is an organization for constitutional revision established by Nippon Kaigi on October 1, 2014.
On November 13, 2013, Nippon Kaigi held a convention of representatives from all over the country under the slogan “Bring about Constitutional Revision!” (800 participated, according to the sponsor). The body passed a resolution at the meeting calling for amending the Constitution within three years. Those attending the convention and giving speeches included Sakurai Yoshiko, who gave the keynote speech, Takaichi Sanae (then LDP Policy Affairs Research Chairperson), Hiranuma Takeo (Diet representative of the Japan Restoration Party [Nihon Ishin no Kai]), Matsubara Jin (Diet Steering Committee Chairman of the DPJ), Asao Keiichirō (Secretary General of Your Party), and Etō Seeichi (Prime Minister’s assistant).
The meeting opened with such slogans as “Bring about a national referendum to amend the Constitution, one written by the people’s own hands!” and “Pass resolutions in all prefectural assemblies and 1,742 local assemblies demanding a national referendum!” Miyoshi Toru, then chairman of Nippon Kaigi, in his remarks as the representative of the convention’s sponsor, stated: “This convention aims to bring about constitutional revision through the powerful efforts of Nippon Kaigi.” In the written resolution of the convention, it was decided to “establish headquarters for amending the Constitution in all 300 election districts in order to attain half of the national referendum votes for amending the Constitution.” It also called for planning the formation of a grand national alliance to promote a national movement to approve constitutional revision (Nihon no Ibuki, January 2014).
After a year of preparation, Kokumin no Kai emerged. It was described as a “national organization to develop at the grass-roots level a movement to promote amendment of the Constitution.” At the meeting to formally establish the organization, co-leader Sakurai Yoshiko gave a speech titled, “Breathe Life into Constitutional Revision!” It was followed by a speech by Hasegawa Michiko (professor emeritus of Saitama University and NHK board member), titled, “Conditions for an Independent State and Paragraph 2 of Article 9.” The co-leaders of Kokumin no Kai are key members of Nippon Kaigi: Takubo Tadae, chairman of the Nippon Kaigi (professor emeritus of Korin University), honorary chairman Miyoshi Tōru (former Supreme Court justice), and Sakurai Yoshiko. Listed as promoters were 40 well-known rightwing figures connected to Nippon Kaigi, and appointed as Kokumin no Kai members were 500 people representing various circles. These included The Association of Shinto Shrines’ President Tanaka Tsunekiyo, Hyakuta Naoki (Writer, Commentator and former member of the NHK Board), Hasegawa Michiko, Sugiyama Koichi (composer), Yayama Taro (critic, Representative director of the Association to Revise Textbooks, associated with the Ikuhosha Publishing Company).
Seven Topics and Explanations in the Leaflet of Kokumin no Kai
As explained above, Kokumin no Kai is conducting a campaign to collect collect 10 million signatures supporting constitutional revision. The signature form includes a space for writing in one’s name, address, and telephone number. If there is a national referendum, it is expected that 60 million would vote. The 10 million who signed their names would form the base for a predicted 30 million votes of approval.
Displayed on the front of the signature form is a color photo of four children against the backdrop of Mt. Fuji, with the following slogans: “With your cooperation, we will reach 10 million signatures of approval to bring about constitutional revision”; and, “For a beautiful Japan, for our children.” On the back of the form, there is the name of the person who is introducing the supporter, as well as the names, addresses and telephone numbers of 10 supporters. There is also a leaflet, made up of three pages of A-4 sized sheets of paper. It has the same slogans as the signature form, and on the back is a message from Sakurai Yoshiko, titled, “Rainbow of Hope for a Beautiful Japan – People’s Power to Revise the Constitution.” The contents consist of seven statements that promote constitutional revision.
The front and back pages of the signature form for the 10-million signature campaign by Kokumin no Kai.
The seven headings and explanatory notes in the leaflet are exactly the same as another educational flier on constitutional revision, titled, “Let us now begin a national debate on amending the Constitution,” which was issued by Nippon Kaigi during the national convention of representatives in November 2013, as mentioned above. At that time, Miyoshi stated, “We are raising seven themes promoting constitutional revision.” This example is proof that the Kokumin no Kai is an organization run by Nippon Kaigi.The organization, in its founding declaration, stated: “Conditions have been prepared for passing a National Referendum Law that would set in motion the process for amending the Constitution, and a national referendum to propose that the Diet amend the Constitution would then be carried out.” It went on to state, “We will begin the activities listed below, aiming at bringing about constitutional revision in two years, having gathered the number of votes needed in the Diet for adoption of the referendum measure, and then carrying out a national referendum coinciding with the next Upper House election in 2016.”
The three activities mentioned are:
Promote a signature campaign among Diet members, as well as a resolution campaign among local assemblies, seeking early realization of constitutional revision.
Establish “associations of prefectural residents” across all 47 prefectures, and promote an educational movement that will rouse public opinion to favor constitutional revision.
Promote an expanded movement of 10 million supporters for creating a Constitution for abeautiful Japan.
The organizations engaged in promoting Kokumin no Kai’s signature campaign and educating the public on the “constitutional revision” are the prefectural headquarters of Nippon Kaigi and local branches, the assembly members who belong to the Nippon Kaigi Local Assembly Members’ League, and the Japan Women’s Association. In order to carry out the activities of the Kokumin no Kai, Nippon Kaigi sponsored rallies in regional blocks (Hokkaido, Tohoku, Kanto, Hokuriku, Tokai, Kinki, Shikoku, Chugoku, and Kyushu), calling for early amendment of the Constitution. Block rallies, covering the entire country, continued until the end of December 2014 with lecturers including Kokumin no Kai coleaders Sakurai Yoshiko and Takubo Tadae.
Following the rallies, Kokumin no Kai by November 3, 2015 had established the associations of prefectural residents in all 47 prefectures aiming at creating a constitution for a beautiful Japan. It also developed in each region street-corner campaigns and signature collecting activities. Further, it introduced a system of promoters to expand the number of supporters to 10 million. The roles of each promoter (organized in committees) were to: 1) make daily efforts to build public opinion in favor of amending the Constitution; 2) to expand the number of supporters by over 30 people; and 3) once the Diet to amend the Constitution was in session, to promote an expanded movement of supporters calling for Diet approval of a national referendum.
In addition, contributions were solicited (minimum of 5,000 yen per person) for a “Constitutional Revision Movement Fund.” Such organizations as the Nippon Kaigi prefectural headquarters and branches, as well as the Japan Women’s Association, carried out the establishment of such organized activities and directed signature campaigns.
At the founding plenary of the Kokumin no Kai, the members of Nippon Kaigi Diet Members’ Association, such as Upper House representative Etō Seiichi (Prime Ministerial Assistant), Lower Hosue representative Hiranuma Takeo (The Party for Future Generations), Lower House representative Matsubara Jin (Democratic Party of Japan), Upper House representative Matsuzawa Narufumi (Your Party) attended and gave greetings. (Positions of Diet members as of November 2015.)
Prime Ministerial Assistant Etō Seiichi delivered the following important remarks, under the title, “The Final Switch”:
The time is upon us to press the final switch. The LDP, since its founding, has flown the banner of Constitutional revision, but in 2003, when the LDP fell from power, its leaders proposed that the party should remove the plank about establishing an independent Constitution from its platform. At that time, 10 young LDP members, including the late Nakagawa Shōichi and Abe Shinzō, argued heatedly against that in a party leaders’ study group of about 30 lawmakers. As a result, during the debate, arguments were made that if the LDP were going to drop its efforts to amend the Constitution, they should dissolve the party.
Accordingly, it was decided that the LDP would ‘draft a constitution that would be appropriate for the current era.’ Now, the key members at that time have formed a second Abe administration (2012 present). In other words, it is no exaggeration to say that the Abe Cabinet was founded for the ultimate purpose of amending the Constitution. (Nihon no Ibuki, November 2014)
10,000 Person Convention Held at Nippon Budōkan (Chiyoda Ku, Tokyo).
On November 15, 2015, Kokumin no Kai held a “10,000 Person Convention at Nippon Budōkan: We Must Now Revise the Constitution!” From all over the country, 11,300 people (sponsor’s number) gathered for the rally. Prime Minister Abe, as LDP president, provided a video message shown on a giant screen on stage.
At the convention, it was reported that the signature campaign to gather 10 million supporters for “creating a Constitution for a beautiful Japan” that Kokumin no Kai was promoting had reached 4,452,991 names, and that 417 members in the Diet from various parties had signed up as supporters (422 according to the website of the Nippon Kaigi Local Assembly Members’ League, that 31 prefectural assemblies had issued resolutions, and that the Kenmin no Kai (Prefectural Residents’ Association), which was collecting signatures, were established in all 47 prefectures.
Local assembly resolutions as of October 2016 had been passed in 35 prefectures and in 51 city and town assemblies. Moreover, as of the end of October 2016, 7.54 million people had signed petitions, and the targets in 24 prefectures had been reached (Miyagi, Yamagata, Gumma, Chiba, Niigata, Toyama, Ishikawa, Gifu, Shizuoka, Aichi, Osaka, Hyogo, Nara, Wakayama, Okayama, Ehime, Kochi, Fukuoka, Saga, Nagasaki, Kumamoto, Aichi, Miyazaki, and Kagoshima).
The Kokumin no Kai is showing all over the country a documentary film (DVD) on constitutional revision. It is titled, “The World Has Changed: How about Japan?” It was produced by Hyakuta Naoki, supervised by Sakurai Yoshiko and Momochi Akira, and narrated by actor Tsugawa Masahiko.
The Abe Administration and Nippon Kaigi’s Policy of Education Rebuilding [Kyōiku Saisei]
Nippon Kaigi present the Constitution, education, and defense as one set of issues, which coincides with Prime Minister Abe’s own policy approach. The Abe administration, under the rubric of “Education Rebuilding”, has sought to overturn conventional education from its very foundation. It aims to thoroughly change the classroom environment and school textbooks based on the Fundamental Law of Education of 2006. It has sought to change the original goal of education from being for the sake of children to one of being for the sake of the state, national interests, and global corporate interests. The coming version of the Gakushu Shidō Yōryō [Education Guidelines] promotes Abe’s “education rebuilding” policy.
The Abe administration has two policy aims: 1) economic policy (Abenomics), which seeks to make large companies more competitive so that they can succeed in the global market; and 2) amending Article 9 of the Constitution to make Japan into a “war-waging” country. For that second policy goal, he rammed security legislation through the Diet in September 2015 (war laws) in violation of Article 9 of the Constitution.
The Abe administration’s “education rebuilding” policy was realized with the passage of the revised Fundamental Law of Education in 2006. The policy aims to create “human resources” (jinzai) to carry out the goals of the new law. Abe’s “education rebuilding” policy aims at 1) the cultivation of human resources sought by large corporations seeking to win in global competition; and 2) education that will produce a “national army” and supporters of the same. In both aims for human resources education, there must be inculcated in the schools a sense of “patriotism” and “morality,” and in order to realize these aims, the system of education and type of textbook are essential. The Abe administration stresses that “education rebuilding is the foundation for realizing a society in which there is “dynamic engagement of all 100 million citizens” [ichioku sōkatsuyaku].
Setting up a council to carry out education rebuilding, the Abe administration moved forward at a fast pace with various “educational reforms” to nurture such human resources. The main reforms included: 1) strengthening control over the contents of education; 2) nurturing effective human resources for the sake of the large corporations; and 3) controlling school administrators and teachers.
To accomplish that, the system of screening textbooks was revised. What had been treated as a “special course” of “moral education” [dōtoku] was elevated to the status of official subject entailing evaluation, (on a par with courses such as mathematics). The education guidelines were greatly revised to make this possible.
The next version of the education guidelines comprehensively control the education system with the state setting not only the contents of what is being taught but also the instructional method used by teachers, the way schools should be run, and even the relationship between schools and the home and local community. The system has changed from one in which the dignity of children is respected and the aim is character development to one shifted 180 degree toward creating “human resources” that will serve the state, national interests, and the interests of corporate giants. (Regarding this point, please see Textbook 21’s book, Dai Mondai! Kodomo Fuzai no Shin Gakushū Shidō Yōryō: Gakkao ga Ningen wo Sodateru ba de nakunaru. [Huge Problem Ahead! The New Education Guidelines Ignore Children’s Views, Schools No Longer Will Be Places to Nurture Human Beings!] Gōdō Shuppan 2016, Japanese Only.)
Conclusion
As we have seen, Nippon Kaigi is Japan’s largest far right organization and a powerful citizens’ body supporting the Abe administration. Nippon Kaigi and Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League have strengthened their links and are promoting through a “grassroots rightwing movement” centered on such organizations as Kokumin no Kai, which is a front organization of Nippon Kaigi, the Constitutional revision advocated by the Abe administration, to result in the creation of a “war-waging” country.
The importance of the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League, which penetrated the first, second, and third Abe cabinets, has grown greater than that in any other cabinet. The second cabinet reshuffle of Abe’s third term, has resulted in 16 out of 20 ministers (80 percent) being members of the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League. Three of the prime minister’s assistants and two of his deputy chief cabinet secretaries are members of the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League. It might be said that the Cabinet has been hijacked by Nippon Kaigi, and that it has taken political control over Japan.
It is critical to inform the Japanese people about the actual state and nature of this organization and its Diet Members League. I think that this is also the role of the media, as well as peace groups and civic groups.
8The requirement for the use of reign era names, instead of the Western calendar years, would signify that it goes back to prewar practice, and its association with the imperial reign is particularly problematic, especially when it is required by law.
9The word, “yokusan,” used by Tawara here to explain these rightwing organization is used in the case of the pre-war Taisei Yokusan Kai, the Imperial Rule Assistance Organization.
10As of September 2017, the organization’s chairman is Nishioka Tsutomu, and Takahashi Shirō is the vice chairman.
11Currently the organization has no chairperson.
12The nine people were: writer Inoue Hisashi (deceased), philosopher Umehara Takeshi, writer Oe Kenzaburo, constitutional scholar Okudaira Yasuhiro (deceased), activist and writer Oda Makoto (deceased), critic Kato Shuichi (deceased), writer Sawachi Hisae, critic Tsurumi Shunsuke (deceased), and activist and the wife of former Prime Minister Miki, Miki Mutsuko (deceased.)
All images are from The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus.
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on What Is the Aim of Nippon Kaigi, the Ultra-Right Organization that Supports Japan’s Abe Administration?
Nippon Kaigi [The Japan Conference], established in 1997, is the largest right-wing organization in Japan. The organization is a major supporter of the current Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, and both Japanese and foreign media report that Abe, and many of his cabinet, are prominent member of its Diet Members League. Despite Nippon Kaigi’s influence on governmental policies of Japan, the organization was little known to the general public until 2015. In 2016, however, numerous books and magazine articles focusing on Nippon Kaigi were published, some becoming best sellers. This created a “Nippon Kaigi boom” in the publishing world.2
These 2016 works on Nippon Kaigi, however, were not the first. A number of journalists, scholars and activists have long paid attention to the history and activism of Nippon Kaigi. Tawara Yoshifumi, a leading specialist on education and textbook adoption issues, and the secretary general of Children and Textbooks Japan Network 21, has published articles and books that on Nippon Kaigi over the years.
The article translated here appeared in the December 2016 volume of the magazine, Heiwa Undō (Peace Movement), and summarizes his most recent book Nippon Kaigi no Zenbō: Shirarezaru Kyodai Soshiki no Jittai[The Complete Picture of Nippon Kaigi: The Unknown Reality of an Mammoth Organization.] (Kadensha 2016.) In the book, Tawara utilized data on Nippon Kaigi accumulated over a long period of time to describe Nippon Kaigi’s history, organizational structure, “grassroots” movement style, and goals.
Tawara traces the history of the right-wing movement that led to the formation of Nippon Kaigi from the 1970s, starting with a movement to legalize imperial era names. The two organizations that played significant roles in this movement, namely, Nihon wo Mamoru Kokumin Kaigi [National Conference to Protect Japan] and Nihon wo Mamoru Kai [Association to Protect Japan], merged in 1997 to form Nippon Kaigi. Tawara points out that unlike these organizations, Nippon Kaigi appointed business leaders and intellectuals as board members and hid its right-wing priorities, but the nature of the organization remained unchanged. Tawara then introduces various affiliated organizations of Nippon Kaigi, such as its Diet Members’ League and Local Assembly Members’ League, its women’s section called Japan Women’s Association, and Nihon Seinen Kyōgikai [Japan Youth Council]. Nippon Kaigi has various front organizations for independent issues, such as the Utsukushii Nippon no Kenpō wo Tsukuru Kokumin no Kai [National Citizens’ Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan] promoting constitutional reform. Mobilizing local branches and various affiliated organizations across Japan in national and local levels, Tawara shows, Nippon Kaigi operates a “grassroots right-wing movement,” while maintaining strong ties with the Abe administration.
Tawara emphasizes that Nippon Kaigi presents the Constitution, education, and defense as a set of interlocking issues, an approach shared with Prime Minister Abe’s policy priorities. Tawara particularly focuses on two issues: education and the Constitutional amendment. Tawara’s greatest contribution centers on education, reflecting his long-term commitment to issues of education and textbooks, from Ienaga Saburō’s textbook trials beginning in 1965 to the present.
Tawara shows how the Abe administration’s concept of Kyōiku Saisei [education rebuilding] seeks to overturn the foundations of contemporary education. The 2006 revision of the Fundamental Law of Education, which defined the goal of education not to serve students but the state by emphasizing patriotic education, was a major victory of the first Abe administration (2006-7). This had a tremendous impact on the direction of education – not simply in schools but also in communities and even in families (the revised Law includes an article on “family education”.) Abe’s modification of the Board of Education system in 2014 made it much easier for governors and mayors to intervene in education and the textbook adoption process. Under this new system, Tawara notes, members of the Nippon Kaigi Local Assembly Members League have played significant roles in promoting a conservative and revisionist history and civic textbooks published by Ikuhōsha (connected with the Japan Education Rebuilding Organization) and Jiyūsha (connected with the Society for History Textbook Reform).
Moreover, under the second Abe administration, “moral education” (dōtoku) was introduced as an “official subject” (i.e., with grades assigned, based on evaluation of degree of patriotism among other rubrics) in elementary and junior high schools, which has been criticized for potentially interfering with children’s freedom of thought. As of September 2017, the adoption process of elementary school moral education textbooks to be used from 2018 is under way. The textbook published by Kyōiku Shuppan includes members of the Japan Education Rebuilding Organization among its editors, and has an especially patriotic content, with photos of conservative politicians, including Abe Shinzo, in the text.3 In the translated text, Tawara stresses the danger of the next Gakushū Shidō Yoryō [Education Guideline], which fundamentally changes the guidelines for all aspects of schools, families and communities. Tawara insists that the aim of education became two-fold in the new guideline: to strengthen “human resources” for the sake of the state by promoting patriotism, and also in the service of large corporations by promoting neoliberal policies.
Currently the most important goal for Nippon Kaigi is undoubtedly to amend the post-war Constitution. Nippon Kaigi founded the National Citizens’ Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan in 2014, to promote a constitutional revision movement based on a “national referendum” to be held during Abe’s administration. The organization has actively pursued approaches introduced in the 1970s to pass legislation that requires the use of imperial era names, ranging from a massive “10 million” signature drive, collecting petitions from local assemblies, holding gatherings in such major venues as Nippon Budōkan of Tokyo, conducting small study group meetings across Japan, distributing leaflets and a DVD, and broadcasting videos on YouTube. It is important to note that while there is no doubt that amendment of Article 9 receives the greatest attention, Nippon Kaigi calls for seven important constitutional revisions including the making of a new clause on emergency powers and the addition of a family protection clause to Article 24.5 On May 3, 2017, Prime Minister Abe delivered a video message at a symposium held by the National Citizens’ Association. There, he called for making “explicit the status” of the self-defense forces in Article 9 of the Constitution by the year 2020. Clearly, Article 9 has become a priority for Nippon Kaigi.
On August 15 this year, I visited the booth of the National Citizens’ Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan at a street near Yasukune Shrine. There flags and signs included “Write the SDF into the Constitution” and “Thank you, SDF,” along with a photo of journalist Sakurai Yoshiko, who is also one of the co-chairs of the National Citizens’ Association. I also received a flyer “Thank you, SDF.” Despite heavy rain, Nippon Kaigi was holding a gathering in a tent on the grounds of the shrine. The main speaker was LDP Upper House representative and former SDF member Sato Masahisa discussing the importance of the SDF and the need to revise the Constitution. It was obvious that the goal of amending the Constitution by 2020, by writing the SDF into Article 9 of the Constitution, remains a Nippon Kaigi priority as it is of the Abe administration.
The flags at the booth of the Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan in front of Yasukuni Shrine on August 15, 2017.
The flyer “Thank you, SDF” by the National Citizens’ Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan.
Picture book, Jieitai tte Naani? [What is the SDF?] (Author: Sonoda Haru, Meiseisha 2017), sold at the Nippon Kaigi booth of Yasukuni Shrine on August 15, 2017. The book is recommended by LDP Upper House Representative, Sato Masahisa.5
On September 28, Prime Minister Abe Shinzo dissolved the lower house of the parliament, and a snap election was held on October 22. Abe’s LDP and its coalition partners secured a major victory, with more than half of the seats won by the LDP. As the LDP and the Komeito Party that currently form a coalition government, gained two-third of the Lower House, which is the number of votes needed to assure a national referendum for constitutional revision, the likelihood is that a proposal to hold a national referendum will be submitted to the Diet in the very near future. Under Japan’s national referendum law, a majority (more than 50%) vote is required to amend the Constitution, with no stipulation as to the minimum number of votes cast. Since 2014, with its “10 million signature campaign,” the priority for Nippon Kaigi has been holding a successful national referendum to amend the constitution.
The new Kibō no Tō (Party of Hope) led by Tokyo governor Koike Yuriko was formed immediately before the election, absorbing a significant number of candidates from the then-biggest opposition party, the Democratic Party of Japan. Koike, a former LDP representative, was once the vice president of the Nippon Kaigi’s Diet Members’ League. Like Abe, she supports constitutional revision, and in a press conferenceheld on September 22, she indicated her commitment to constitutional revision efforts, and encouraged further discussion of the issue in her new party. In 2003, Koike stated in Voice magazine that she considers it possible for Japan to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Journalist Aoki Osamu reports that Koike may not have a very close relationship with Nippon Kaigi compared to other conservative politicians at this moment, but it is entirely possible that she may become closer to Nippon Kaigi in future.6 Breaking with the practice of previous Tokyo governors, including conservative Ishihara Shintarō, Koike declined to send eulogies to the commemoration of Korean victims massacred at the time of the Great Kanto Earthquake in 1923, which also suggests her historical revisionist stance.7Akahata reported on September 28 that six members of the Party of Hope belong to the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members’ League. The Party of Hope struggled in the election, failing to become the main opposition party, while the LDP scored a landslide victory. On the other hand, a newly established Rikken Minshu-tō [Constitutional Democratic Party] led by Edano Yukio, former DPJ politician who did not join the Party of Hope, won 55 seats, and became the second biggest party in the Lower House after the LDP. The party’s platform included opposition to the revision of the Article 9, the Constitution’s peace clause.
The National Citizens’ Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan announced plans to hold a “National Citizens’ Rally” in Tokyo on October 25 to promote constitutional revision. The National Citizens’ Association is inviting representatives from the LDP, Komeitō Party, Nippon Ishin no Kai and the Party of Hope to forge a cross-party coalition, especially to revise the Article 9. The struggle regarding constitutional revision will become much more intense in the coming months. (TY)
What is the Aim of Nippon Kaigi, The Ultra-Right Organization that is a Pillar of Japan’s Abe Administration?
What is Japan’s largest ultra-right organization, Nippon Kaigi, whose slogan is “Build a nation with pride”? On its official website, Nippon Kaigi explains: “We, the Nippon Kaigi, are a civic group that presents policy proposals and promotes a national movement for restoring a beautiful Japan and building a proud nation.” Nippon Kaigi is a national movement organization with a nationwide grassroots network that was established on May 30, 1997 by the merger of Nihon wo Mamoru Kokumin Kaigi [National Conference to Protect Japan] and Nihon wo Mamoru Kai [Association to Protect Japan]. We will briefly look at these two organizations.
Forerunners of Nippon Kaigi
The Nihon wo Mamoru Kai was a religious-affiliated rightwing organization formed in April 1974 as a Shintō and Buddhist-affiliated religious group by the (then) chief abbot, Asahina Sōgen, of Kamakura’s Enkakuji Temple. The central religious association at the time of its founding was Seichō-no-Ie [House of Growth]. In July 1978, springing from the Nihon wo Mamoru Kai, the Gengō Hōseika Jitsugen Kokumin Kaigi [National Conference to Establish Reign Era Name Use as Law] Legislate Era Names (chaired by the late Ishida Kazuto, a former Supreme Court judge) was formed.8 Centered on this organization, a “national movement” [kokumin undō] was launched, and on June 6, 1979, the Diet passed a bill on era names, making the practice into law.
This rightwing organization, having successfully led a movement to pass a law formalizing era names, reorganized in October 1981 into the Nihon wo Mamoru Kokumin Kaigi (or Kokumin Kaigi — National Conference), as a standing rightwing organization for promoting a “national movement” to revise the Constitution and establish a unity government.9
At its launch, its officials included Chairman Kase Shunji (Japan’s first ambassador to the United Nations; now deceased), Steering Committee Chairman Mayuzumi Toshirō (musician, later chairman of Kokumin Kaigi; deceased), Secretary General Soejima Hiroyuki (permanent consultant to Meiji Shrine, former senior member of the Nippon Kaigi; deceased), Executive Secretary Kabashima Yūzō (currently Executive Secretary of Nippon Kaigi).
The first issue of Kokumin Kaigi’s official organ Nihon no Ibuki [Japan’s Breath of Energy] was issued on April 15, 1984. It was not a monthly publication then, and prior to the launching of Nippon Kaigi, about 113 issues had been published. Even after it became the official organ of Nippon Kaigi, it continued to be published with the same name, and labeled, “an opinion magazine aiming at building a country that has pride” (As of Nov. 2016, the total number of issuespublished is 348).
In a keynote report at the inaugural plenary meeting of the Kokumin Kaigi, then-Steering Committee Chairman Mayuzumi Toshirō outlined the basic goal of “revising” the Constitution and forming a nation centered on the Emperor:
In order to protect Japan, there are two major problems: that of defense or protecting
the country with physical military power, and of education or protecting the country
with our minds and spirit. In unifying these two, the Constitution is a main obstacle, but
I believe that the heart of protecting the country boils down to how we perceive our
nation state or, in other words, how we perceive the role of the Emperor.
When we call for amending the Constitution, it depends first of all on our thinking about
the national consciousness. We also must consider starting from the establishment
of a clear national polity linked to the Emperor. In other words, I believe that if
there is to be a proper national consciousness, the problems of the Constitution,
education, and defense must be approached by starting from the root problem of the
mind – that is to say, the establishment of a proper patriotic spirit. (Nihon no Ibuki, #2,
July 15, 1984)
In October 1982, Kokumin Kaigi held a “Conference to Consider the Textbook Problem,” and proposed an independent textbook. Then, in December 1983, by consolidating rightwing forces, the “National Conference to Normalize Textbooks” was established, and the organization began to write a history textbook. It was Kokumin Kaigi that worked on the task.
At the plenary meeting of the Kokumin Kaigi, Secretary General Soejima Hiroyuki (now deceased, but at the time, permanent consultant to Meiji Shrine), who had proposed a “Basic Policy for a National Movement in Showa 59 (1984),” stated: “In tackling such tasks as publishing a textbook, I would like to lay the ideological groundwork for constitutional revision” (Nihon no Ibuki, #2, July 15, 1984). In this way, Kokumin Kaigi positioned the publishing of a high-school history textbook as “forming an ideal flow” toward meeting the goal of amending the Constitution in order to create a national polity centered on the Emperor. Moreover, placing the Constitution, defense, and education on the agenda, Kokumin Kaigi considered it necessary to publish a high school Japanese history textbook that would nurture a national consciousness or patriotism. The association issued an officially approved textbook that passed the Ministry of Education’s screening, Shinpen Nihon Shi [New Edition of Japanese History] (Hara Shobō, now published by Meiseisha as Saishin Nihon Shi [Most Recent Japanese History]), in commemoration of the 60th year of the reign of the Showa Emperor.
After that, Kokumin Kaigi, while making constitutional revision its central goal, developed other tactics, such as education and the textbook issue, a movement to justify Japan’s war of aggression and its atrocities, a movement to respect and love the Imperial Household, a movement to denounce the displays of peace materials in halls set up by local authorities across the country. At this time, Kokumin Kaigi strengthened its ties with rightwing Diet members in the LDP and other parties, becoming the central organization of the rightwing movement.
Mergers Lead to Birth of Nippon Kaigi: Business executives became officials.
On May 30, 1997, Kokumin Kaigi merged with the Nihon wo Mamoru Kai to launch Nippon Kaigi as an organization dedicated to amending the Constitution and to promoting Imperial rule.
Looking at Kokumin Kaigi’s officials and members, most people could conclude that it was a rightwing organization, but after it became Nippon Kaigi, it hid its rightwing nature by appointing as officials, others such as business executives, university professors, and intellectuals. However, its true nature did not change. Among the first generation of chairmen of the Kokumin Kaigi was the late Tsukamoto Kōichi (then chairman of an intimate apparel company, Wacoal). He was succeeded as the second chairman (June 2000-December 2001) by Inaba Kōsaku (now deceased), who was then head of the Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Former Supreme Court justice Miyoshi Tōru became the third chairman in December 2001, and on April 16, 2015, Takubo Tadae, a former journalist and college professor, was appointed the fourth chairman, with Miyoshi becoming the honorary chair.
The executive secretary is now Kabashima Yūzō (chairman of Nihon Kyōgikai [Japan Council] and Nihon Seinen Kyōgikai[Japan Youth Council]), who was the executive secretary of both organizations when they merged in 1997. The vice chairs are Anzai Aiko (musician), Odamura Shirō (former president of Takushoku University, representative of worshippers at Yasukuni Shrine), Kobori Keiichirō (professor emeritus at Tokyo University), Tanaka Tsunekiyo (president of Jinja Honchō [Association of Shinto Shrines]). The director is Amitani Michihiro (chief priest at Meiji Jingū and head of the association of worshippers at Meiji Jingū). The executive director is Matsumura Toshiaki (executive director of Nippon Kaigi). Those listed as consultants are Ishii Kōichirō (president of Bridgestone Bicycle), Kitashirakawa Michihisa (executive director of Jinja Honchō), Takatsukasa Naotake (head of Ise Shrine). Among those named above, five of the 12 officers are connected to religious organizations, and five are officials of rightwing organizations, such as Kaikōsha and Eirei ni Kotaeru Kai [the Association to Respect Deceased Soldiers (at Yasukuni Shrine). Of the 40 representative committee members, 16 are associated with religious organizations, such as the head priest at Yasukuni Shrine (as of July 1, 2016).
After its founding, Nippon Kaigi launched an organizational system, starting with the establishment of headquarters in prefectures across the country, and specialized
committees. (According to records of Nippon Kaigi, in August 1997, “headquarters in the prefectures were established one after another.”)
In order to conduct research on a new Constitution and promote the revision of the current Constitution, Nippon Kaigi took over Shin Kenpō Kenkyū Kai [New Constitution Study Group] (headed by Vice Chairman Odamura Shirō), which Kokumin Kaigi had established in June 1995. And in June 1997, it established “the Seisaku Kenkyūkai [Policy Committee] to Consider the Current Situation and Policy Agenda” (headed by then Executive Director Ōhara Yasuo). In January 1999, Nippon Kaigi launched the Kokusai Kōhō Iinkai [International Public Relations Committee’ For Broadcasting Japan’s New Image to the World] (chaired by the committee member, Takemoto Tadao), and in March, it established the “Nihon Kyōiku Kaigi [the Japan Educational Conference] for Promoting Educational Reforms” (chaired by Adviser Ishii Koichirō, with Takahashi Shirō (currently a board member of the Japan Education Rebuilding Organization [Nihon Kyoiku Saisei Kikō] as principal investigator.
Along with the New Constitution Study Group, the Policy Committee, the International Public Relations Committee, and the Japan Educational Conference, the Japan Women’s Association [Nihon Josei no Kai] and the Japan Youth Council [Nihon Seinen Kyōgikai] functions as its daily operations organizations of Nippon Kaigi. In addition, in response to various challenges of the times, various affiliated front organizations rose to carry out specialized activities. Among them, there was a particular front organization for the constitutional revision movement, as explained below, and another for activities related to the historical consciousness issue, which Sankei Shimbun now calls the “history wars.” For this purpose, on October 1, 2016, Nippon Kaigi established the “Historical Awareness Research Committee” [Rekishi Ninshiki Mondai Kenkyūkai]. When the organization was established, it was chaired by Takahashi Shirō, and its vice chairman and executive secretary was Nishioka Tsutomu, and one of its advisers was Sakurai Yoshiko.10 It is made up of key “theorists” of Nippon Kaigi. On the issue of historical views toward the comfort women and the Nanjing Incident, the organization states: “Anti-Japan views of history have damaged Japan’s diplomacy and damaged our country’s honor and national interests.” It also states: “In response to criticism of Japan regarding historical consciousness, we will present materials for rebuttal, based on historical facts.”
Closely-Linked Round-Table Conference of Diet Members of Nippon Kaigi
On May 29, 1997, the day before Nippon Kaigi was launched, the LDP’s Obuchi Keizō and Mori Yoshirō (both of whom later became prime ministers), together with then Shinshintō [New Frontier Party] member Ozawa Tatsuo, formed a non-partisan Round Table Conference of Diet Members of Nippon Kaigi (a.k.a. Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League), with the aim of fully backing and linking to Nippon Kaigi. After it was launched, Nippon Kaigi was closely aligned with these Diet Members and promoted various maneuvers behind the scenes, such as efforts to revise the Constitution and the Basic Education Law. The group also promoted the adoption of a textbook that distorted Japanese history. In order to Support the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform [Atarashii Rekishi Kyōkasho wo Tsukurukai] that predated the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League, in February 1997, Nippon no Zento to Rekishi Kyōiku wo Kangaeru Wakate Giin no Kai [The Young Diet Members For Japan’s Future and History Education (a.k.a. Textbook Parliamentarians’ League) was launched centered on Nakagawa Shōichi (now deceased), Abe Shinzō, and Etō Seiichi. In February 2004, the word “young” was removed from the association, and it had an extremely close relationship with the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League.
At its launch, the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League had 189 members from both chambers. The number continued to increase, and as of November 2015, there were 281 members (mostly LDP), and the members of the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League were the largest force in both houses with around 40 percent of the 717 Diet members. This rightwing league was behind the launching of the three Abe cabinets. Abe was the League’s key person as party president and prime minister. In the 3rd Abe Cabinet, 16 out of the 20 (80 percent) of the ministers are members of the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League.
The Nippon Kaigi, with its close ties to the Diet Members League, is now running Japanese politics. One example can be seen in the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), which from 2002 has distributed, to all elementary and middle-school children, supplemental educational pamphlets called Kokoro no Nōto [Notes for the Heart] (four levels: 1st and 2nd graders, 3rd and 4th graders, 5th and 6th graders, and middle-school use). The materials promote official moral values, starting with love of country, and are aimed at controlling the minds of children.
Nippon Kaigi proposed that such materials be drafted and disseminated, and in March 2000, Upper House member Kamei Ikuo (now deceased), a Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League member, brought the subject up in the Diet. Then Education Minister Nakasone Hirofumi, also a League member, replied that he would consider the proposal, and almost immediately, it was budgeted. A week later, then Parliamentary Vice-Minister of Education Kawamura Takeo, another League member, replied in the Diet: “We will publish and distribute (the pamphlets) to schools across the nation.” In March 2001, at a general meeting on policies proposed, Nippon Kaigi touted the success of this one, stating, “Taking the opportunity of Diet interpellations on the House floor, the MEXT minister decided to draw up a moral educational material to be titled Notes for the Heart. A frightful precedent was created in which the request of a rightwing group was brought up in the Diet by lawmakers linked to it, and then was implemented as national policy.
Further, Notes for the Heart was later completely revised and distributed in April 2014 to elementary and middle schools across the country as Watashi tachi no Dōtoku [Our Moral Values.] The Education Minister Shimomura Hakubun and MEXT made use of the teaching materials mandatory. The Abe administration and MEXT in March 2015 elevated moral education to a regular classroom subject, calling it a “special subject.”
Our Moral Values for the first and second grade students of elementary schools.
And for fiscal 2018, approved textbooks will be published, fully carrying out the new policy. Even for 2015, in order to promote the policy before it is put into effect and the textbook published, the Ministry ordered that Our Moral Values be used as a “textbook” and that it be used jointly with the approved textbooks after it came out.
In addition, the author of the textbook Our Moral Values, Kaizuka Shigeki (professor at Musashino University, who is a member of MEXT’s round-table of promoting moral values as educational material, as well as a board member of the Japan Organization for Educational Reform) has been promoting the issuance of educational material on morality, asserting that the book Our Moral Values would become a model for approved textbooks. (For more detail, see Textbook 21’s booklet Sweeping Criticism! Children Being Warped by the Moral Education Textbook ‘Our Moral Values’, 2014.
Sweeping Criticism! Children Being Warped by the Moral Education Textbook ‘Our Moral Values’, Gōdō Shuppan, 2014.
Nippon Kaigi’s Development of a Grass-Roots Rightwing Movement
Nippon Kaigi is Japan’s largest rightwing unity organization. It promotes a policy aimed to make Japan a nation centered on the Emperor, a nation that can fight in wars, by revising the Constitution. It has set up headquarters in prefectures across the country and branch organizations in the regions. Its slogan is “Build a nation that has pride.” Prime Minister Abe’s slogan, “Beautiful Country Japan” [Utsukushi Kuni Nihon] , has also been used by Nippon Kaigi
In September 2001, Nippon Kaigi established as its organization for women, Nihon Jyosei no Kai [Japan Women’s Association] (then chaired by Anzai Aiko, who was vice chairperson of the Nippon Kaigi; the following chair was Onoda Machie.)11 What became the central campaign of this women’s association was the so-called “gender backlash,” that is, repeated attacks on such issues as gender equality measures, separate surnames for married couples, and gender equal education.
Currently, Nippon Kaigi is making every effort to advance constitutional revision, which Prime Minister Abe has been promoting. Targeting a female audience, it has hosted “cafes” across the country, where “women get together to chat about the Constitution.” The Japan Women’s Association is taking up that challenge.
In addition, the rightwing Nihon Seinen Kyōgikai [ Japan Youth Council], founded in 1970 by Etō Seiichi (now an assistant to Prime Minister Abe), Takahashi Shirō (board member of the Japan Education Rebuilding Organization), and former education committee chairman for Saitama Prefecture), Kabashima Yuzō, et al., has now become in effect Nippon Kaigi’s youth organization. This organization is carrying out secretariat activities for Nippon Kaigi; it is an “action squad” which carries out a “national caravan” campaign several times a year.
Nippon Kaigi is the central organization of such activities as a round-table conference of intellectuals to “reform Japanese education” by promoting amendments to the Fundamental Law of Education (Private Ad Hoc Committee on Education, established in 2003 and chaired by Nishizawa Jun’ichi, as well as “Japan and the Constitution in the 21st Century”, a group that promotes revising the Constitution, a.k.a. Private Ad Hoc Committee on the Constitution, established in 2001 and then headed by Miura Shumon. ) This group has generated a “national movement” to amend the Constitution, and every March, it holds a rally, sponsored by the Private Ad Hoc Committee on the Constitution, to call for constitutional revision.
On May 3, 2016, the Private Ad Hoc Committee on the Constitution, together with the Utsukushii Nippon no Kenpō wo Tsukuru Kokumin no Kai [National Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan” (Kokumin no Kai)], sponsored the 18th public forum on the Constitution, titled, “Calling for an Initiative to Realize Speedy Revision of the Constitution! We Propose that Each Political Party Hold Discussions on the Constitution to Respond to the Emergency Situation” (1,200 people attended according to the organizers).
In a video message, Prime Minister Abe, who was then travelling abroad, exhorted the assembly: “Do not fall into a brain-dead state of not daring to even lay a finger on the Constitution or even avoid debating it. We will create with our own hands a constitution appropriate for the times.
Let us unite to revise the Constitution.” The LDP President’s special assistant, Shimomura Hakubun, was present and asserted to the crowd: “There are many people who feel it is thanks to the presence of Article 9 in the Constitution, that Japan has not been drawn into war.” He cited as an example the Great East Japan Earthquake as a situation demanding an emergency provision in the Constitution: “Since the terms of Diet members are limited by the Constitution, we cannot legally make an exception. If an emergency situation occurs, the terms should be extended as a special case. No one would have any reason to oppose this” (as reported by Asahi Shimbun, May 4, 2016).
In a keynote address, Sakurai Yoshiko rejected constitutionalism, saying: “The notion that the Constitution is a basic set of rules that pits the state against the people and fetters the state does not suit Japan.” She continues, “We must aim at having our own Constitution that protects what is characteristic of Japan.” She proposed: “Why not make a fresh start by proposing a provision for emergency situations that one might call the biggest campaign pledge of each political party?” Many speakers insisted on the emergency powers provision, and the declaration presented asserted that “lack of provision for emergency powers is a fundamental flaw in the Constitution” and deemed the provision of emergency powers an “urgent task” that would strengthen the government’s authority in such situations. It called for “an early motion for constitutional reform, as well as a popular referendum.”
Prime Minister Abe, his administration, and the LDP share this view. Moreover, in addition to Shimomura and Sakurai, also attending were Matsubara Jin (Democratic Party, Lower House member), Eguchi Katsuhiko (adviser to the Diet members’ group Initiatives from Osaka [Osaka Ishin no Kai]), Nakayama Kyoko (head of the Nihon no Kokoro wo Taisetsu ni suru Tō [The Party for the Japanese Kokoro]), Uchida Fumihiro (secretary general of the Kokumin no Kai), Hara Masao (former mayor of Koriyama City in Fukushima Prefecture), Nishi Osamu (professor emeritus of Komazawa University), Aoki Shōgo (vice chairman of the Junior Chamber International Japan), Yamamoto Mizuki (student, Faculty of Law, Keio University), and Momochi Akira (professor emeritus of Nihon University).
With the return of the Abe administration presenting an ideal opportunity, Nippon Kaigi developed a “national movement” to amend the Constitution and campaigned to have local assemblies issue “position papers calling for early realization of constitutional revision.” The concrete realization of these efforts would become the Kokumin no Kai, an organization that I explain in detail below.
Nippon Kaigi, since its establishment, has set up prefectural headquarters, and at present, it has an office in every prefecture. Moreover, from 2000, it started to establish local branches. This project did not proceed well at first. However, from 2006 and 2007, the organization put its efforts into establishing branches, aiming at 300 nationwide. It began that effort in order to counter the launching of 9-jō no Kai, the Article 9 Association, and the activities of that group across the country. The Article 9 Association was established in June 2004 by nine prominent people,12 and in response to their appeals, branches were established across the country in different localities and sectors. Membership in the Article 9 Association by 2006 surpassed 5,000 people. Through a series of lectures across the nation, the Article 9 Association, as well as the activities of related local or specialized groups, public opinion toward constitutional revision greatly changed. In a public opinion poll in 2004 by the Yomiuri Shimbun, 65 percent were found to approve amending the Constitution, while 22 percent disapproved. But by 2006, the same poll showed the approval rate to have dropped to 55 percent, while the disapproval rate rose to 32 percent. Then, in the 2007 poll, approval plummeted to 46.2 percent, with the disapproval rate rising to 39.1 percent, or around three times that of 2004.
In 2007, the gap between approval and disapproval had narrowed to only seven points. (Currently, the approval and disapproval rates are about the same.) In order to compete with the Article 9 Association, Kokumin no Kai worked to establish local branches. At the end of September 2016, there were 250 branches (author’s survey), and those cities with more than 10 branches included Tokyo (19), Saitama (17), Kumamoto (17), Okayama (13), Aichi (12), Niigata (10), and Hiroshima (10). There were also prefectures, like Nagano (4), Shiga (4), and Tottori (4), where branches were few but still covered the entire prefecture.
These prefectural headquarters and branches were linked to such organizations as the Nippon Kaigi Local Assembly Members’ League [Chihō Giren], the Japan Women’s Association, and the Japan Youth Council. In each locality they developed grassroots rightwing and constitutional revision movements.
The main efforts of the movements were such activities as promoting the revision of the Constitution, adopting the school textbook published by Ikuhōsha by the Nihon Kyōiku Saisei Kikō [Japan Education Rebuilding Organization] and Kyōkasho Kaizen no Kai [the Textbook Improvement Association], as well as the one published by Jiyūsha of the Society for History Textbook Reform. Other activities included efforts to distort history by justifying Japan’s war of aggression and atrocities, and denying the system of military “comfort women” and the Nanjing Incident. They also included pressuring school boards of education to require schools to display the Hinomaru national flag and sing the Kimigayo national anthem. In addition, prefectural assemblies were pressured to display the flag, and in the schools, even homework and tests were monitored for content, leading to further pressure on school boards and schools themselves. In addition, there were activities to stir up nationalism over territorial issues.
Formation and Activities of the Nippon Kaigi Local Assembly League
Nippon Kaigi Chihō Giin Renmei (Chihō Giren) [Nippon Kaigi Local Assembly Members League], chaired by Kanagawa Prefecture assembly member Matsuda Yoshiaki, was established on November 11, 2007, under the slogan “Building a Country with Pride, Starting with Local Assemblies.” As of March 2016, it was supported by 1,633 members (author’s survey), and, breaking this figure down, there were two governors, 31 mayors, 795 assembly members, and 805 local heads. (Because this organization is an assembly members’ league, once a member becomes governor or mayor, they cease to be a member, but I included them in the list so that we can know their political stance.)
When we look at the share the league holds in prefectural assemblies, we find that they make up more than 70 percent in Yamaguchi, more than 60 percent in Yamagata, Ibaraki, and Ehime, more than 50 percent in Miyagi and Nagasaki, and over 40 percent in Akita, Gumma, Saitama, Chiba, Tokyo, Gifu, Shizuoka, Kyoto, Okayama, Fukuoka, Miyazaki, and Kagoshima. Such an unusual situation also prevails in 19 prefectures, where Nippon Kaigi has hijacked the assemblies with over 40 percent being members. Moreover, in city assemblies, 47.7 percent of the Osaka City assembly and 43.8 percent of the Yashiro City assembly in Kumamoto Prefecture are members.
The Local Assembly Members League, by working through local assemblies, is developing such activities as promoting the adoption of textbooks published by Ikuhōsha and Jiyūsha, denouncing other textbooks, and organizing constitutional revision activities in the local area. Assembly members belonging to The Local Assembly Members League have blocked the adoption of history textbooks published by Jikkyō Shuppan during the process of selecting textbooks for high schools. Members have intervened with questions in the local assemblies, and they have pressured local school boards, aiming to block the adoption of this textbook. For example, in Saitama Prefecture, during the school textbook adoption process in 2013, the high school, as well as the Board of Education, chose the textbook published by Jikkyō Shuppan. To reverse this decision, the education committee of the prefectural assembly held two sessions when the assembly was in recess, and denounced the authors of the Jikkyō textbook, and summoned and examined the principals of the eight schools that adopted the Jikkyō textbook. The assembly then passed a resolution to reverse their choice. The Local Assembly Members League was behind this campaign. Similar cases of using the assembly to pressure for schoolbook choices occurred in Chiba Prefecture, Kanagawa Prefecture, Yokohama City, and Kawasaki City. In all cases, The Local Assembly Members League members organized the campaign. In Osaka, the campaign was led by the assembly members of Osaka Ishin no Kai [The Osaka Restoration Association].
Branches of Nippon Kaigi linked up with the Local Assembly Members League to promote their cause. In connection with history education and textbook adoption, the Nippon Kaigi and its related organizations (members and local branches) have begun to submit petitions and appeals to the local assembly, with the Local Assembly Members League members becoming facilitators, bringing up those issues in the assemblies, and making it easier for textbooks published by Ikuhōsha and Jiyūsha to be adopted.
In 2014, the Abe administration revised the board-of-education system, making it easier for the heads of local government to intervene in the education system and textbook selection. Given this change, such organizations as the Japan Education Rebuilding Organization and the Society for History Textbook Reform, which have close ties to Nippon Kaigi, are calling on their local organizations, members and supporters to recruit assembly members who will cooperate in choosing textbooks during assembly sessions, as well as engage in joint activities to promote “education rebuilding.” In response to this, Nippon Kaigi developed activities to link up with other local assembly leagues and branches so that junior high school textbooks selected in 2015 would be those proposed by Ikuhōsha and Jiyūsha.
On the issue of the Hinomaru national flag and Kimigayo national anthem, as well, maneuvers behind the scenes are linking local assembly leagues and local branches of Nippon Kaigi across the country. For example, a petition circulated by the local branch of Nippon Kaigi in 2013 in Nakano Ward in Tokyo called on all public elementary and middle schools to display the national flag daily. Three Ward assembly members belonging to the Local Assembly Members League introduced the petition and worked to persuade other assembly members to support it. Then, at a full session, the number of approvals and disapprovals was tied. However, with the approval of the assembly leader, the petition was adopted. A similar movement toward schools and petitions on the floor of local assemblies seeking to display the national flag was promoted by cooperation between both organizations. It is expected that such activities will be increased in the future.
Kokumin no Kai’s Movement to Collect 10 Million Signatures
The task that Nippon Kaigi has put most of its efforts into has been the promotion of a grassroots campaign to revise the Constitution, a long-cherished goal that has united it with the Abe administration.
At New Year’s in 2016, an unusual scene could be seen within the grounds of Shinto shrines, crowded with people paying their first visits of the year. At Shinto shrines all over Japan, the shops and donation boxes had signs exhorting worshippers to sign a petition calling for constitutional revision. The petitions stated, “I approve of revising the Constitution.” At Nogi Shrine in Tokyo, there were banners displayed with such slogans as, “Aiming for a proud Japan,” and, “The Constitution is ours.” There was a tent holding a large framed poster of Sakurai Yoshiko. On the poster was printed, “Let us, the people, make a beautiful Japanese Constitution with our own hands”; and, “We are now collecting 10 million signatures. Please cooperate.”
The signatures to urge constitutional revision were not the work of limited number of shrines. The religious corporation Jinja Honchō, The Association of Shinto Shrines, reportedly encompasses 80,000 shrines nationwide who “aligned with the movement of the ‘National Association to Create a Beautiful Constitution for Japan (Kokumin no Kai),’ and promoted a signature campaign based on the actual situation in each shrine.” (Tokyo Shimbun, 1/23/2016) Based on a directive from the Association of Shinto Shrines, the prefectural shrine associations ordered shrines under their jurisdiction to collect signatures.
Although the signature campaign was carried out by the Kokumin no Kai, it is an organization for constitutional revision established by Nippon Kaigi on October 1, 2014.
On November 13, 2013, Nippon Kaigi held a convention of representatives from all over the country under the slogan “Bring about Constitutional Revision!” (800 participated, according to the sponsor). The body passed a resolution at the meeting calling for amending the Constitution within three years. Those attending the convention and giving speeches included Sakurai Yoshiko, who gave the keynote speech, Takaichi Sanae (then LDP Policy Affairs Research Chairperson), Hiranuma Takeo (Diet representative of the Japan Restoration Party [Nihon Ishin no Kai]), Matsubara Jin (Diet Steering Committee Chairman of the DPJ), Asao Keiichirō (Secretary General of Your Party), and Etō Seeichi (Prime Minister’s assistant).
The meeting opened with such slogans as “Bring about a national referendum to amend the Constitution, one written by the people’s own hands!” and “Pass resolutions in all prefectural assemblies and 1,742 local assemblies demanding a national referendum!” Miyoshi Toru, then chairman of Nippon Kaigi, in his remarks as the representative of the convention’s sponsor, stated: “This convention aims to bring about constitutional revision through the powerful efforts of Nippon Kaigi.” In the written resolution of the convention, it was decided to “establish headquarters for amending the Constitution in all 300 election districts in order to attain half of the national referendum votes for amending the Constitution.” It also called for planning the formation of a grand national alliance to promote a national movement to approve constitutional revision (Nihon no Ibuki, January 2014).
After a year of preparation, Kokumin no Kai emerged. It was described as a “national organization to develop at the grass-roots level a movement to promote amendment of the Constitution.” At the meeting to formally establish the organization, co-leader Sakurai Yoshiko gave a speech titled, “Breathe Life into Constitutional Revision!” It was followed by a speech by Hasegawa Michiko (professor emeritus of Saitama University and NHK board member), titled, “Conditions for an Independent State and Paragraph 2 of Article 9.” The co-leaders of Kokumin no Kai are key members of Nippon Kaigi: Takubo Tadae, chairman of the Nippon Kaigi (professor emeritus of Korin University), honorary chairman Miyoshi Tōru (former Supreme Court justice), and Sakurai Yoshiko. Listed as promoters were 40 well-known rightwing figures connected to Nippon Kaigi, and appointed as Kokumin no Kai members were 500 people representing various circles. These included The Association of Shinto Shrines’ President Tanaka Tsunekiyo, Hyakuta Naoki (Writer, Commentator and former member of the NHK Board), Hasegawa Michiko, Sugiyama Koichi (composer), Yayama Taro (critic, Representative director of the Association to Revise Textbooks, associated with the Ikuhosha Publishing Company).
Seven Topics and Explanations in the Leaflet of Kokumin no Kai
As explained above, Kokumin no Kai is conducting a campaign to collect collect 10 million signatures supporting constitutional revision. The signature form includes a space for writing in one’s name, address, and telephone number. If there is a national referendum, it is expected that 60 million would vote. The 10 million who signed their names would form the base for a predicted 30 million votes of approval.
Displayed on the front of the signature form is a color photo of four children against the backdrop of Mt. Fuji, with the following slogans: “With your cooperation, we will reach 10 million signatures of approval to bring about constitutional revision”; and, “For a beautiful Japan, for our children.” On the back of the form, there is the name of the person who is introducing the supporter, as well as the names, addresses and telephone numbers of 10 supporters. There is also a leaflet, made up of three pages of A-4 sized sheets of paper. It has the same slogans as the signature form, and on the back is a message from Sakurai Yoshiko, titled, “Rainbow of Hope for a Beautiful Japan – People’s Power to Revise the Constitution.” The contents consist of seven statements that promote constitutional revision.
The front and back pages of the signature form for the 10-million signature campaign by Kokumin no Kai.
The seven headings and explanatory notes in the leaflet are exactly the same as another educational flier on constitutional revision, titled, “Let us now begin a national debate on amending the Constitution,” which was issued by Nippon Kaigi during the national convention of representatives in November 2013, as mentioned above. At that time, Miyoshi stated, “We are raising seven themes promoting constitutional revision.” This example is proof that the Kokumin no Kai is an organization run by Nippon Kaigi.The organization, in its founding declaration, stated: “Conditions have been prepared for passing a National Referendum Law that would set in motion the process for amending the Constitution, and a national referendum to propose that the Diet amend the Constitution would then be carried out.” It went on to state, “We will begin the activities listed below, aiming at bringing about constitutional revision in two years, having gathered the number of votes needed in the Diet for adoption of the referendum measure, and then carrying out a national referendum coinciding with the next Upper House election in 2016.”
The three activities mentioned are:
Promote a signature campaign among Diet members, as well as a resolution campaign among local assemblies, seeking early realization of constitutional revision.
Establish “associations of prefectural residents” across all 47 prefectures, and promote an educational movement that will rouse public opinion to favor constitutional revision.
Promote an expanded movement of 10 million supporters for creating a Constitution for abeautiful Japan.
The organizations engaged in promoting Kokumin no Kai’s signature campaign and educating the public on the “constitutional revision” are the prefectural headquarters of Nippon Kaigi and local branches, the assembly members who belong to the Nippon Kaigi Local Assembly Members’ League, and the Japan Women’s Association. In order to carry out the activities of the Kokumin no Kai, Nippon Kaigi sponsored rallies in regional blocks (Hokkaido, Tohoku, Kanto, Hokuriku, Tokai, Kinki, Shikoku, Chugoku, and Kyushu), calling for early amendment of the Constitution. Block rallies, covering the entire country, continued until the end of December 2014 with lecturers including Kokumin no Kai coleaders Sakurai Yoshiko and Takubo Tadae.
Following the rallies, Kokumin no Kai by November 3, 2015 had established the associations of prefectural residents in all 47 prefectures aiming at creating a constitution for a beautiful Japan. It also developed in each region street-corner campaigns and signature collecting activities. Further, it introduced a system of promoters to expand the number of supporters to 10 million. The roles of each promoter (organized in committees) were to: 1) make daily efforts to build public opinion in favor of amending the Constitution; 2) to expand the number of supporters by over 30 people; and 3) once the Diet to amend the Constitution was in session, to promote an expanded movement of supporters calling for Diet approval of a national referendum.
In addition, contributions were solicited (minimum of 5,000 yen per person) for a “Constitutional Revision Movement Fund.” Such organizations as the Nippon Kaigi prefectural headquarters and branches, as well as the Japan Women’s Association, carried out the establishment of such organized activities and directed signature campaigns.
At the founding plenary of the Kokumin no Kai, the members of Nippon Kaigi Diet Members’ Association, such as Upper House representative Etō Seiichi (Prime Ministerial Assistant), Lower Hosue representative Hiranuma Takeo (The Party for Future Generations), Lower House representative Matsubara Jin (Democratic Party of Japan), Upper House representative Matsuzawa Narufumi (Your Party) attended and gave greetings. (Positions of Diet members as of November 2015.)
Prime Ministerial Assistant Etō Seiichi delivered the following important remarks, under the title, “The Final Switch”:
The time is upon us to press the final switch. The LDP, since its founding, has flown the banner of Constitutional revision, but in 2003, when the LDP fell from power, its leaders proposed that the party should remove the plank about establishing an independent Constitution from its platform. At that time, 10 young LDP members, including the late Nakagawa Shōichi and Abe Shinzō, argued heatedly against that in a party leaders’ study group of about 30 lawmakers. As a result, during the debate, arguments were made that if the LDP were going to drop its efforts to amend the Constitution, they should dissolve the party.
Accordingly, it was decided that the LDP would ‘draft a constitution that would be appropriate for the current era.’ Now, the key members at that time have formed a second Abe administration (2012 present). In other words, it is no exaggeration to say that the Abe Cabinet was founded for the ultimate purpose of amending the Constitution. (Nihon no Ibuki, November 2014)
10,000 Person Convention Held at Nippon Budōkan (Chiyoda Ku, Tokyo).
On November 15, 2015, Kokumin no Kai held a “10,000 Person Convention at Nippon Budōkan: We Must Now Revise the Constitution!” From all over the country, 11,300 people (sponsor’s number) gathered for the rally. Prime Minister Abe, as LDP president, provided a video message shown on a giant screen on stage.
At the convention, it was reported that the signature campaign to gather 10 million supporters for “creating a Constitution for a beautiful Japan” that Kokumin no Kai was promoting had reached 4,452,991 names, and that 417 members in the Diet from various parties had signed up as supporters (422 according to the website of the Nippon Kaigi Local Assembly Members’ League, that 31 prefectural assemblies had issued resolutions, and that the Kenmin no Kai (Prefectural Residents’ Association), which was collecting signatures, were established in all 47 prefectures.
Local assembly resolutions as of October 2016 had been passed in 35 prefectures and in 51 city and town assemblies. Moreover, as of the end of October 2016, 7.54 million people had signed petitions, and the targets in 24 prefectures had been reached (Miyagi, Yamagata, Gumma, Chiba, Niigata, Toyama, Ishikawa, Gifu, Shizuoka, Aichi, Osaka, Hyogo, Nara, Wakayama, Okayama, Ehime, Kochi, Fukuoka, Saga, Nagasaki, Kumamoto, Aichi, Miyazaki, and Kagoshima).
The Kokumin no Kai is showing all over the country a documentary film (DVD) on constitutional revision. It is titled, “The World Has Changed: How about Japan?” It was produced by Hyakuta Naoki, supervised by Sakurai Yoshiko and Momochi Akira, and narrated by actor Tsugawa Masahiko.
The Abe Administration and Nippon Kaigi’s Policy of Education Rebuilding [Kyōiku Saisei]
Nippon Kaigi present the Constitution, education, and defense as one set of issues, which coincides with Prime Minister Abe’s own policy approach. The Abe administration, under the rubric of “Education Rebuilding”, has sought to overturn conventional education from its very foundation. It aims to thoroughly change the classroom environment and school textbooks based on the Fundamental Law of Education of 2006. It has sought to change the original goal of education from being for the sake of children to one of being for the sake of the state, national interests, and global corporate interests. The coming version of the Gakushu Shidō Yōryō [Education Guidelines] promotes Abe’s “education rebuilding” policy.
The Abe administration has two policy aims: 1) economic policy (Abenomics), which seeks to make large companies more competitive so that they can succeed in the global market; and 2) amending Article 9 of the Constitution to make Japan into a “war-waging” country. For that second policy goal, he rammed security legislation through the Diet in September 2015 (war laws) in violation of Article 9 of the Constitution.
The Abe administration’s “education rebuilding” policy was realized with the passage of the revised Fundamental Law of Education in 2006. The policy aims to create “human resources” (jinzai) to carry out the goals of the new law. Abe’s “education rebuilding” policy aims at 1) the cultivation of human resources sought by large corporations seeking to win in global competition; and 2) education that will produce a “national army” and supporters of the same. In both aims for human resources education, there must be inculcated in the schools a sense of “patriotism” and “morality,” and in order to realize these aims, the system of education and type of textbook are essential. The Abe administration stresses that “education rebuilding is the foundation for realizing a society in which there is “dynamic engagement of all 100 million citizens” [ichioku sōkatsuyaku].
Setting up a council to carry out education rebuilding, the Abe administration moved forward at a fast pace with various “educational reforms” to nurture such human resources. The main reforms included: 1) strengthening control over the contents of education; 2) nurturing effective human resources for the sake of the large corporations; and 3) controlling school administrators and teachers.
To accomplish that, the system of screening textbooks was revised. What had been treated as a “special course” of “moral education” [dōtoku] was elevated to the status of official subject entailing evaluation, (on a par with courses such as mathematics). The education guidelines were greatly revised to make this possible.
The next version of the education guidelines comprehensively control the education system with the state setting not only the contents of what is being taught but also the instructional method used by teachers, the way schools should be run, and even the relationship between schools and the home and local community. The system has changed from one in which the dignity of children is respected and the aim is character development to one shifted 180 degree toward creating “human resources” that will serve the state, national interests, and the interests of corporate giants. (Regarding this point, please see Textbook 21’s book, Dai Mondai! Kodomo Fuzai no Shin Gakushū Shidō Yōryō: Gakkao ga Ningen wo Sodateru ba de nakunaru. [Huge Problem Ahead! The New Education Guidelines Ignore Children’s Views, Schools No Longer Will Be Places to Nurture Human Beings!] Gōdō Shuppan 2016, Japanese Only.)
Conclusion
As we have seen, Nippon Kaigi is Japan’s largest far right organization and a powerful citizens’ body supporting the Abe administration. Nippon Kaigi and Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League have strengthened their links and are promoting through a “grassroots rightwing movement” centered on such organizations as Kokumin no Kai, which is a front organization of Nippon Kaigi, the Constitutional revision advocated by the Abe administration, to result in the creation of a “war-waging” country.
The importance of the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League, which penetrated the first, second, and third Abe cabinets, has grown greater than that in any other cabinet. The second cabinet reshuffle of Abe’s third term, has resulted in 16 out of 20 ministers (80 percent) being members of the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League. Three of the prime minister’s assistants and two of his deputy chief cabinet secretaries are members of the Nippon Kaigi Diet Members League. It might be said that the Cabinet has been hijacked by Nippon Kaigi, and that it has taken political control over Japan.
It is critical to inform the Japanese people about the actual state and nature of this organization and its Diet Members League. I think that this is also the role of the media, as well as peace groups and civic groups.
8The requirement for the use of reign era names, instead of the Western calendar years, would signify that it goes back to prewar practice, and its association with the imperial reign is particularly problematic, especially when it is required by law.
9The word, “yokusan,” used by Tawara here to explain these rightwing organization is used in the case of the pre-war Taisei Yokusan Kai, the Imperial Rule Assistance Organization.
10As of September 2017, the organization’s chairman is Nishioka Tsutomu, and Takahashi Shirō is the vice chairman.
11Currently the organization has no chairperson.
12The nine people were: writer Inoue Hisashi (deceased), philosopher Umehara Takeshi, writer Oe Kenzaburo, constitutional scholar Okudaira Yasuhiro (deceased), activist and writer Oda Makoto (deceased), critic Kato Shuichi (deceased), writer Sawachi Hisae, critic Tsurumi Shunsuke (deceased), and activist and the wife of former Prime Minister Miki, Miki Mutsuko (deceased.)
All images are from The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus.
The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg Politics and other media said Trump will announce his nomination of Powell at 3:00 PM in the White House Rose Garden – according to sources familiar with the decision.
Former Goldman Sachs official/current Treasury Secretary Mnuchin pushed for his selection, according to an unnamed administration advisor.
Both men know each other well, Mnuchin reportedly calling him a safe pick. He, current Fed chairman Yellen, former Goldman Sachs CEO/current National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, and former Fed governor/investment banker and right-wing Hoover Institution fellow Kevin Warsh reportedly are the four finalists for the position – one remaining if reports are accurate, very likely at this stage.
According to Bloomberg, Powell favors more financial deregulation than already and gradual interest rate increases.
Interest rate strategist Gennadiy Goldberg said he represents “continuation of the status quo…a perfect candidate for Trump,” a Wall Street favorite, essential to be considered for the position.
His business background includes legal work in the 1980s and investment banking on Wall Street. He was a Treasury Department official under Nicholas Brady, chosen by GHW Bush as Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance.
Later, he was a managing director for Banker’s Trust and a Carlyle Group partner, founder of its Industrial Group and US Buyout Fund.
In 2005, he founded Severn Capital Partners, a private investment firm. In 2008, he became a managing partner for the Global Environment Fund, a private equity and venture capital firm investing in sustainable energy.
From 2010 – 2012, he was a visiting scholar at the so-called Bipartisan Policy Center, an establishment think tank, supporting Washington’s imperial agenda and war on social justice, notorious for advocating deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.
Powell currently serves as a Fed governor, nominated by Obama. Fed chairmen and governors require Senate confirmation.
If nominated and confirmed as expected, Powell will shift positions at future Fed meetings from around the table to head it.
As Fed governor, he supported policies Janet Yellen favors. On February 3, her four-term expires.
Regardless of who serves as Fed chairman and governors, what matters is who owns and controls it.
The 1913 Federal Reserve Act ranks as perhaps the most disastrous US legislation ever enacted, letting Wall Street control the nation’s money.
It’s the most important policymaking tool, more powerful than standing armies for the global wreckage it can cause without firing a shot.
Giving the Fed this power violated the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8, saying Congress alone is empowered to control the nation’s money.
In 1935, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot constitutionally delegate this power to another group or body. That’s precisely what happened, most Americans none the wiser.
The Fed isn’t federal as commonly believed. It’s a privately owned cartel run by powerful bankers, headquartered in Washington as part of the subterfuge.
Most people know nothing about money and banking. They have no idea how Fed policy affects their lives and welfare, other than raising or lowering interest rates.
At the Wharton School, I took a required money and banking course, teaching me everything but what I most needed to know, ignoring Wall Street’s control.
Later I learned how the Fed operates on my own, long before quantitative easing (QE) was used as monetary policy tool, a bonanza for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street, “monetary heroin,” according to David Stockman.
One day, it’ll “kill the patient,” he said earlier, adding it’s the closest thing to “legalized bank robbery.”
It constrains economic growth. It doesn’t create jobs. It benefits investors instead of ordinary Americans.
It works if used constructively. Money injected responsibly into the economy creates growth and jobs. When people have money they spend it. A virtuous cycle of prosperity is possible.
Former Fed official Andrew Huszar managed its $1.25 trillion mortgaged-backed security purchase program – responsible for initial Fed QE.
He called it “the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time,” a scam most Americans don’t understand.
Sold as a way to help Main Street, the Fed’s bond-buying spree was a bonanza for Wall Street, part of the greatest ever wealth transfer scam from ordinary people to rich investors – money printing madness exponentially increasing the nation’s national debt.
One day the chickens will come home to roost, the house of cards collapsing, Wall Street and most other large investors able to weather the storm, ordinary people slammed, the way things work under a predatory system.
Fed chairmen and governors are appointed to maintain things, especially since the neoliberal 90s, the nation systematically thirdworldized.
Wall Street and America’s super-rich never had things better. Ordinary people lose out so they can benefit.
Featured image: Workers at the U.S. military dioxin dumpsite near Kadena Air Base. November 2016. Jon Mitchell
In 2011, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus published the first detailed research into the usage of U.S. military defoliants, including Agent Orange, on Okinawa.1 Six years later, official documents, photographs and testimonies from hundreds of veterans suggest Vietnam War defoliants were stored, sprayed and buried throughout the island.
In 2014, all components of Agent Orange were discovered at a former military dumpsite in Okinawa City; 2in June 2015, nearby water was found to be contaminated with dioxin, the poison which makes defoliants so dangerous, at 21,000 times safe levels.3
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has reluctantly begun to award compensation to veterans claiming exposure on the island. To date, at least seven service members have been granted assistance — including those exposed on Kadena Air Base, Naha Military Port and the Northern Training Area.4
However because the Pentagon denies that defoliants were ever present on Okinawa, many more veterans have been refused support from the VA.
Now new evidence has emerged on the usage of defoliants on Okinawa: interviews with the veterans who inventoried them at Kadena Air Base, indications that missing supplies of Agent Pink, a defoliant more toxic than Agent Orange, ended up on the island and the case of a U.S. Airman whose death in 2014 suggests that dioxin contamination remains a threat to Okinawa today.
During the Vietnam War, Kadena Air Base was one of the busiest airports on the planet as an estimated one million military flights shuttled troops and supplies to the conflict.5 Such a massive operation required a well organized logistical workforce; two of those involved were Allan Davis and his future wife, Eileen.
Allan was stationed at Kadena with the 824th Supply Squadron from 1968 to 1971.
“I was responsible for counting and inventorying Agent Orange. It came to the ports at Naha and other locations on Okinawa. The barrels had federal stock numbers and were entered into the base computer system.”
Eileen, a USAF computer specialist, worked at Kadena Air Base between 1969 and 1971; her duties involved making records of all assets on the installation, including Agent Orange.
“Agent Orange was sprayed as a weed killer for vegetation control around the perimeter of the military base and I was subject to herbicide exposure.”
Today both husband and wife are sick with illnesses they believe were caused by Agent Orange; Eileen suffered a miscarriage, their surviving son was born with a birth defect and she required a hysterectomy at the age of 25.
Corroborating the Davis’s assertions that Agent Orange was present at Kadena is a 1971 U.S. Army report produced by Fort Detrick, the center for the Pentagon’s bio-chemical weapons research. Titled “Historical, logistical, political and technical aspects of the herbicide/defoliant program,” the document details the military’s herbicide campaign against Vietnam and it cites a stockpile of herbicides at Kadena Air Base.6
Kadena Air Base has a history of contamination stretching back decades. Jon Mitchell.
Other veterans were exposed there, too.
According to VA records, a U.S. Marine truck driver who transported barrels of Agent Orange from Okinawa’s ports for storage at Kadena Air Base between 1967 and ’68, developed prostate cancer as a result of his exposure. The VA awarded him compensation in 2013.
However, the Davis’s are facing an uphill struggle to receive similar assistance because, according to VA regulations, prior decisions do not set a precedent for other cases.
So just how many veterans have claimed they are sick from Agent Orange exposure on Okinawa?
The VA says it doesn’t keep records.
In response to a request under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, in May 2015 Bertha Brown, Compensation Service FOIA officer, stated that the Veterans Benefits Administration “does not track claims for Agent Orange (AO) exposure based on Okinawa service.”
But the Board of Veterans Appeals maintains a publicly-accessible database of rulings. Detailed searches reveal that at least 250 service members have filed plausible claims for compensation for exposure to Agent Orange on Okinawa.
However, these 250 are merely the tip of the iceberg. The database only lists cases which the VA initially rejected, then the veteran chose to appeal and a ruling was issued. Unknown is the number of veterans who applied for help in the first place, those who were immediately awarded benefits, those who chose not to appeal their denials or those who died before they could do so. Some claims can take up to a decade for a verdict to be reached. This has given rise to a saying among veterans:
“The VA will delay and deny until all of us die.”
In some of the cases where Okinawa veterans have won their claims, the deciding factor has been testimonies — or “buddy statements” — from fellow service members. To collate such accounts and assist those exposed, the author has begun to collate such statements on his homepage .
Name: John Ponticelli ([email protected])
I was Tdy in Okinawa Kadena AFB 3 times: 1967-68-69. My job as an ACFT mech, entailed many duties: field maintenance, flight mech, tire shop mech.
On several occasions we were ordered to spray a herbicide (defoliant) on the cracks of the flight line, fence lines and hangars without protective gear. Within a day of the spraying the weeds were dead. I was told it was agent orange.
As of now I am a borderline diabetic, have heart disease. quadruple bypass and a mitro valve replacement. In addition to the spraying I was continually exposed to several now considered toxic and hazardous chemicals which left me with no or very little sensation in my fingers and my finger nails turned white. Some were Mek, jp4, hydraulic oil, acft cleaning solvents.
When I applied to the VA I was told there was never any agent orange used in Okinawa. I need other vets who can verify that they sprayed defoliants also.
New information suggests that Agent Orange was not the only – or the worst – defoliant sprayed on Okinawa.
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military used at least 12 different types of herbicides in southeast Asia to kill crops and destroy jungle where enemies could hide. Many of these defoliants were stored in barrels painted with colored stripes which identified their formulae and lent them their nicknames; for example Agent Orange, the most commonly-used defoliant.
Another of these defoliants was Agent Pink. In 2003, the scientific journal, Nature, estimated Agent Pink contained dioxin at an average of 65.5 parts per million – a concentration of up to 22 times higher than Agent Orange.7 Researchers also revealed the Pentagon had ordered at least 464,000 liters of Agent Pink but the USAF only had records for spraying 50,000 liters; the remainder was missing.
Now it appears that some of that Agent Pink found its way to Okinawa.
Between 1975 and 1976, U.S. Marine Daniel Glanz was stationed on Camp Foster. During this time, he witnessed Marines and Okinawan base workers spraying herbicides around the barracks.
Glanz also saw the barrel from which they filled their equipment.
“None of us ever exchanged dialogue concerning the presence of the barrel, but the pink band around its middle stood out like a neon sign. We understood its purpose but gave little thought as to its potential harm to us.”
Glanz only realized the significance of what he had seen many years later when he heard about Caethe Goetz.
Goetz, whose account was reported by The Japan Times in August 2011, was a Marine stationed at Camp Foster at the same time as Glanz.8 Sprayed with herbicides while walking on the base, she developed multiple myeloma which her doctors believed was a result of dioxin poisoning. Her children and grandchildren also developed illnesses associated with chemical exposure.
As with so many other veterans, Goetz’s claims were denied by the U.S. government. She continued to campaign for the military to come clean about its usage of defoliants on Okinawa until her death in November 2012.
Throughout the mid-1970s, Okinawa was inundated with surplus supplies from the war in Vietnam including herbicides, pesticides and solvents. According to documents released in 2015 under FOIA, careless storage of these chemicals at Machinato Service Area (today named USMC Camp Kinser) caused a series of fish kills and widespread contamination from dioxin, the toxic pesticide DDT and carcinogenic PCBs.9
The author at Yomitan Village Hall where he lectured on military contamination. November 2016.
In recent years, wildlife trapped near Camp Kinser showed high levels of PCBs and DDT, suggesting that the base is still contaminated today.10
An 8,700-page cache of military reports also obtained under FOIA reveals extensive ongoing contamination on Kadena Air Base, too.11 The documents show pollution from substances including PCBs, dioxin, PFOS, asbestos and lead.
Alarmingly obvious in these Kadena Air Base reports is the negligence with which the military acted on the installation throughout much of the twentieth century. No records had been kept for the disposal of toxic PCBs – and possibly other hazardous substances – in the 1960s and ’70s. Moreover checks of on-base drinking water supplies were only conducted from one tap once a year until at least 1999.
Lax safety standards at Kadena Air Base might now be returning to haunt the 20,000 USAF members and their families living and working on the installation.
“John loved the Air Force. He was a true hero and a patriot who gave his life for his country. But he has received no recognition for his sacrifice because the military won’t acknowledge the cause of his disease.”
Jennifer Agger’s husband, John, spent a total of six years on Kadena Air Base, with his final tour ending in 2006.
In 2014, at the age of 36, he died of pancreatic cancer.
Since the disease was so unusual for a man of his age, post-mortem tests were ordered. They revealed levels of dioxin in his tissue so high, his doctor noted, that “if found in a food, would be 2-3 times above the acceptable safety limited for consumption.”
The same doctor surmised:
“the evidence seems to me very strongly suggestive of a link between John’s pancreatic cancer and his exposure to dioxins.”
Determined to alert current service members stationed at Kadena Air Base of the risks, Jennifer took the post-mortem results to her congress member who contacted the USAF.
“I received essentially a canned statement from the USAF. Even after reiterating my concerns, I received a second letter that was word for word the same.”
Such opacity seems sadly all too common.
Among the veterans I’ve interviewed during the past five years, three of them – including Goetz – have died waiting for the military to respond to their concerns or those of their families. Scott Parton, the shirtless Marine pictured in the now well-known photograph of a barrel of Agent Orange at Camp Schwab, died in April 2013. Gerald Mohler, a Marine exposed to herbicides near Camp Courtney, died in September 2013.
US veterans were not the only ones exposed. It seems that Okinawan residents were also exposed.
In July 1968, 230 Okinawan children swimming at a beach in Gushikawa (today Uruma City) suffered chemical burns to their bodies. According to a U.S. soldier and Okinawan base employee, the shoreline had recently been sprayed with large volumes of Agent Orange to clear vegetation. Dozens of deformed frogs had also been discovered in the vicinity.12
At Camp Schwab, high rates of cancers among employees have been attributed to the defoliants they were ordered to spray in the 1960s and ’70s.
Given the persistence of dioxin below ground, it is unsurprising that the number of former military sites where it has been detected is rising. The soccer pitch in Okinawa City where 108 barrels were found. A residential area in Chatan. An old airfield in Yomitan. A shuttered military housing area at Nishi Futenma.
Because SOFA does not allow checks within bases, nobody knows the extent of dioxin contamination on currently-operational U.S. installations. Likewise the Okinawa prefectural authorities and Japanese government have never conducted any epidemiological surveys of local residents or former military employees.
Masami Kawamura, director of the Informed-Public Project, an Okinawa-based organization working on environmental issues, blames this on apathy at both the prefectural and national level.13
In 2012, prefecture officials indicated they’d consider running health checks if firm evidence of contamination was ever found, she explains.
“But even after high levels of dioxin were discovered in Okinawa City, they did nothing. It is as if they don’t want to create extra work for themselves.”
“Also Okinawa Defense Bureau tries to downplay the severity of contamination. They take the side of the U.S. government over the side of Okinawan residents. That’s why they hire scientific experts chosen to deny the presence of defoliants.”
This is a revised and expanded version of an article which appeared in The Japan Times on April 27, 2016.
Jon Mitchell is a British Journalist and correspondent for Okinawa Times. He was awarded the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan Freedom of the Press Award for Lifetime Achievement for his reporting about human rights issues – including military contamination – on Okinawa.
4The author’s homepage maintains an updated list of veterans’ VA wins, including links to decisions to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, can be found here.
Featured image: Workers at the U.S. military dioxin dumpsite near Kadena Air Base. November 2016. Jon Mitchell
In 2011, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus published the first detailed research into the usage of U.S. military defoliants, including Agent Orange, on Okinawa.1 Six years later, official documents, photographs and testimonies from hundreds of veterans suggest Vietnam War defoliants were stored, sprayed and buried throughout the island.
In 2014, all components of Agent Orange were discovered at a former military dumpsite in Okinawa City; 2in June 2015, nearby water was found to be contaminated with dioxin, the poison which makes defoliants so dangerous, at 21,000 times safe levels.3
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has reluctantly begun to award compensation to veterans claiming exposure on the island. To date, at least seven service members have been granted assistance — including those exposed on Kadena Air Base, Naha Military Port and the Northern Training Area.4
However because the Pentagon denies that defoliants were ever present on Okinawa, many more veterans have been refused support from the VA.
Now new evidence has emerged on the usage of defoliants on Okinawa: interviews with the veterans who inventoried them at Kadena Air Base, indications that missing supplies of Agent Pink, a defoliant more toxic than Agent Orange, ended up on the island and the case of a U.S. Airman whose death in 2014 suggests that dioxin contamination remains a threat to Okinawa today.
During the Vietnam War, Kadena Air Base was one of the busiest airports on the planet as an estimated one million military flights shuttled troops and supplies to the conflict.5 Such a massive operation required a well organized logistical workforce; two of those involved were Allan Davis and his future wife, Eileen.
Allan was stationed at Kadena with the 824th Supply Squadron from 1968 to 1971.
“I was responsible for counting and inventorying Agent Orange. It came to the ports at Naha and other locations on Okinawa. The barrels had federal stock numbers and were entered into the base computer system.”
Eileen, a USAF computer specialist, worked at Kadena Air Base between 1969 and 1971; her duties involved making records of all assets on the installation, including Agent Orange.
“Agent Orange was sprayed as a weed killer for vegetation control around the perimeter of the military base and I was subject to herbicide exposure.”
Today both husband and wife are sick with illnesses they believe were caused by Agent Orange; Eileen suffered a miscarriage, their surviving son was born with a birth defect and she required a hysterectomy at the age of 25.
Corroborating the Davis’s assertions that Agent Orange was present at Kadena is a 1971 U.S. Army report produced by Fort Detrick, the center for the Pentagon’s bio-chemical weapons research. Titled “Historical, logistical, political and technical aspects of the herbicide/defoliant program,” the document details the military’s herbicide campaign against Vietnam and it cites a stockpile of herbicides at Kadena Air Base.6
Kadena Air Base has a history of contamination stretching back decades. Jon Mitchell.
Other veterans were exposed there, too.
According to VA records, a U.S. Marine truck driver who transported barrels of Agent Orange from Okinawa’s ports for storage at Kadena Air Base between 1967 and ’68, developed prostate cancer as a result of his exposure. The VA awarded him compensation in 2013.
However, the Davis’s are facing an uphill struggle to receive similar assistance because, according to VA regulations, prior decisions do not set a precedent for other cases.
So just how many veterans have claimed they are sick from Agent Orange exposure on Okinawa?
The VA says it doesn’t keep records.
In response to a request under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, in May 2015 Bertha Brown, Compensation Service FOIA officer, stated that the Veterans Benefits Administration “does not track claims for Agent Orange (AO) exposure based on Okinawa service.”
But the Board of Veterans Appeals maintains a publicly-accessible database of rulings. Detailed searches reveal that at least 250 service members have filed plausible claims for compensation for exposure to Agent Orange on Okinawa.
However, these 250 are merely the tip of the iceberg. The database only lists cases which the VA initially rejected, then the veteran chose to appeal and a ruling was issued. Unknown is the number of veterans who applied for help in the first place, those who were immediately awarded benefits, those who chose not to appeal their denials or those who died before they could do so. Some claims can take up to a decade for a verdict to be reached. This has given rise to a saying among veterans:
“The VA will delay and deny until all of us die.”
In some of the cases where Okinawa veterans have won their claims, the deciding factor has been testimonies — or “buddy statements” — from fellow service members. To collate such accounts and assist those exposed, the author has begun to collate such statements on his homepage .
Name: John Ponticelli ([email protected])
I was Tdy in Okinawa Kadena AFB 3 times: 1967-68-69. My job as an ACFT mech, entailed many duties: field maintenance, flight mech, tire shop mech.
On several occasions we were ordered to spray a herbicide (defoliant) on the cracks of the flight line, fence lines and hangars without protective gear. Within a day of the spraying the weeds were dead. I was told it was agent orange.
As of now I am a borderline diabetic, have heart disease. quadruple bypass and a mitro valve replacement. In addition to the spraying I was continually exposed to several now considered toxic and hazardous chemicals which left me with no or very little sensation in my fingers and my finger nails turned white. Some were Mek, jp4, hydraulic oil, acft cleaning solvents.
When I applied to the VA I was told there was never any agent orange used in Okinawa. I need other vets who can verify that they sprayed defoliants also.
New information suggests that Agent Orange was not the only – or the worst – defoliant sprayed on Okinawa.
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military used at least 12 different types of herbicides in southeast Asia to kill crops and destroy jungle where enemies could hide. Many of these defoliants were stored in barrels painted with colored stripes which identified their formulae and lent them their nicknames; for example Agent Orange, the most commonly-used defoliant.
Another of these defoliants was Agent Pink. In 2003, the scientific journal, Nature, estimated Agent Pink contained dioxin at an average of 65.5 parts per million – a concentration of up to 22 times higher than Agent Orange.7 Researchers also revealed the Pentagon had ordered at least 464,000 liters of Agent Pink but the USAF only had records for spraying 50,000 liters; the remainder was missing.
Now it appears that some of that Agent Pink found its way to Okinawa.
Between 1975 and 1976, U.S. Marine Daniel Glanz was stationed on Camp Foster. During this time, he witnessed Marines and Okinawan base workers spraying herbicides around the barracks.
Glanz also saw the barrel from which they filled their equipment.
“None of us ever exchanged dialogue concerning the presence of the barrel, but the pink band around its middle stood out like a neon sign. We understood its purpose but gave little thought as to its potential harm to us.”
Glanz only realized the significance of what he had seen many years later when he heard about Caethe Goetz.
Goetz, whose account was reported by The Japan Times in August 2011, was a Marine stationed at Camp Foster at the same time as Glanz.8 Sprayed with herbicides while walking on the base, she developed multiple myeloma which her doctors believed was a result of dioxin poisoning. Her children and grandchildren also developed illnesses associated with chemical exposure.
As with so many other veterans, Goetz’s claims were denied by the U.S. government. She continued to campaign for the military to come clean about its usage of defoliants on Okinawa until her death in November 2012.
Throughout the mid-1970s, Okinawa was inundated with surplus supplies from the war in Vietnam including herbicides, pesticides and solvents. According to documents released in 2015 under FOIA, careless storage of these chemicals at Machinato Service Area (today named USMC Camp Kinser) caused a series of fish kills and widespread contamination from dioxin, the toxic pesticide DDT and carcinogenic PCBs.9
The author at Yomitan Village Hall where he lectured on military contamination. November 2016.
In recent years, wildlife trapped near Camp Kinser showed high levels of PCBs and DDT, suggesting that the base is still contaminated today.10
An 8,700-page cache of military reports also obtained under FOIA reveals extensive ongoing contamination on Kadena Air Base, too.11 The documents show pollution from substances including PCBs, dioxin, PFOS, asbestos and lead.
Alarmingly obvious in these Kadena Air Base reports is the negligence with which the military acted on the installation throughout much of the twentieth century. No records had been kept for the disposal of toxic PCBs – and possibly other hazardous substances – in the 1960s and ’70s. Moreover checks of on-base drinking water supplies were only conducted from one tap once a year until at least 1999.
Lax safety standards at Kadena Air Base might now be returning to haunt the 20,000 USAF members and their families living and working on the installation.
“John loved the Air Force. He was a true hero and a patriot who gave his life for his country. But he has received no recognition for his sacrifice because the military won’t acknowledge the cause of his disease.”
Jennifer Agger’s husband, John, spent a total of six years on Kadena Air Base, with his final tour ending in 2006.
In 2014, at the age of 36, he died of pancreatic cancer.
Since the disease was so unusual for a man of his age, post-mortem tests were ordered. They revealed levels of dioxin in his tissue so high, his doctor noted, that “if found in a food, would be 2-3 times above the acceptable safety limited for consumption.”
The same doctor surmised:
“the evidence seems to me very strongly suggestive of a link between John’s pancreatic cancer and his exposure to dioxins.”
Determined to alert current service members stationed at Kadena Air Base of the risks, Jennifer took the post-mortem results to her congress member who contacted the USAF.
“I received essentially a canned statement from the USAF. Even after reiterating my concerns, I received a second letter that was word for word the same.”
Such opacity seems sadly all too common.
Among the veterans I’ve interviewed during the past five years, three of them – including Goetz – have died waiting for the military to respond to their concerns or those of their families. Scott Parton, the shirtless Marine pictured in the now well-known photograph of a barrel of Agent Orange at Camp Schwab, died in April 2013. Gerald Mohler, a Marine exposed to herbicides near Camp Courtney, died in September 2013.
US veterans were not the only ones exposed. It seems that Okinawan residents were also exposed.
In July 1968, 230 Okinawan children swimming at a beach in Gushikawa (today Uruma City) suffered chemical burns to their bodies. According to a U.S. soldier and Okinawan base employee, the shoreline had recently been sprayed with large volumes of Agent Orange to clear vegetation. Dozens of deformed frogs had also been discovered in the vicinity.12
At Camp Schwab, high rates of cancers among employees have been attributed to the defoliants they were ordered to spray in the 1960s and ’70s.
Given the persistence of dioxin below ground, it is unsurprising that the number of former military sites where it has been detected is rising. The soccer pitch in Okinawa City where 108 barrels were found. A residential area in Chatan. An old airfield in Yomitan. A shuttered military housing area at Nishi Futenma.
Because SOFA does not allow checks within bases, nobody knows the extent of dioxin contamination on currently-operational U.S. installations. Likewise the Okinawa prefectural authorities and Japanese government have never conducted any epidemiological surveys of local residents or former military employees.
Masami Kawamura, director of the Informed-Public Project, an Okinawa-based organization working on environmental issues, blames this on apathy at both the prefectural and national level.13
In 2012, prefecture officials indicated they’d consider running health checks if firm evidence of contamination was ever found, she explains.
“But even after high levels of dioxin were discovered in Okinawa City, they did nothing. It is as if they don’t want to create extra work for themselves.”
“Also Okinawa Defense Bureau tries to downplay the severity of contamination. They take the side of the U.S. government over the side of Okinawan residents. That’s why they hire scientific experts chosen to deny the presence of defoliants.”
This is a revised and expanded version of an article which appeared in The Japan Times on April 27, 2016.
Jon Mitchell is a British Journalist and correspondent for Okinawa Times. He was awarded the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan Freedom of the Press Award for Lifetime Achievement for his reporting about human rights issues – including military contamination – on Okinawa.
4The author’s homepage maintains an updated list of veterans’ VA wins, including links to decisions to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, can be found here.
An October 24th article by Colin P. Clarke of the Rand Corporation — the main think-tank for the Pentagon — is headlined “The Moderate Face of Al Qaeda”, and a section of it is headed “A Moderate Alternative,” presenting Al Qaeda as the moderate alternative to ISIS. That article praises the 5 July 2005 decision, by Al Qaeda’s then #2 leader — who now is their #1 leader after the killing of Osama bin Laden — Ayman al-Zawahiri; Clarke’s article praises there Zawahiri’s decision to chastise the founder of ISIS, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was then in Iraq. Zawahiri chastised Zarqawi for slaughtering Shia Muslims. However, if one looks at the Zawahiri letter, Zawahiri actually says there that Shia ought to be slaughtered, but not now, because most Muslims won’t understand why Shia deserve death. The matter is presented by Zawahiri as a severe PR problem for jihadists at this stage of building the fundamentalist Sunni movement to establish a global Islamic Caliphate or theocracy, if they slaughter Shia Muslims (such as ISIS does), and not only non-Muslims (such as Zawahiri recommended). Here are excerpts from Zawahiri’s letter to Zarqawi, on that:
The majority of Muslims don’t comprehend this and possibly could not even imagine it. For that reason, many of your Muslim admirers amongst the common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shia. … My opinion is that this matter won’t be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue. … And can the mujahedeen kill all of the Shia in Iraq? … You are justified. However this does not change the reality at all, which is that the general opinion of our supporter does not comprehend that.
Clarke’s article opens by noting with approval that:
Throughout 2016, al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate underwent a series of rebrandings — from Jabhat al-Nusra to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham — all in an attempt to present itself as a moderate alternative to more extreme groups operating in Syria, including the Islamic State (ISIS).
And although the rebranding was regarded as a bald-faced feint by many counterterrorism scholars, it just might have worked to recast al Qaeda’s image within Syria. Al Qaeda in Syria’s carefully calculated decision to distance itself from its parent organization was an effort to portray itself as a legitimate, capable, and independent force in the ongoing Syrian civil war. Another objective was to prove that the militants were dedicated to helping Syrians prevail in their struggle. Finally, it would give al Qaeda central a modicum of plausible deniability as it paves the way for its erstwhile allies to gain eligibility for military aid from a collection of external nations.
Those unnamed “external nations” are America’s allies, the fundamentalist-Sunni Arabic oil kingdoms: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait — and definitely don’t include any Shia at all, because they’re all (except, recently Qatar, which no longer is) at war against Shia. And, just as Zawahiri in 2005 was, in this letter, hoping, all of those countries did continue, in secret, to fund and arm Al Qaeda.
Later in the article comes this:
A Moderate Alternative
One of al Qaeda’s first steps in presenting itself as more evenhanded was to denounce blatant sectarianism and work to convince one of its main franchise groups, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), to jettison sectarianism as a guiding principle. In what has become an infamous incident, in July 2005, al Qaeda’s future leader Ayman al-Zawahiri penned a letter to the leader of AQI, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, chastising him for his group’s wanton slaughter of Shiites. Zawahiri stressed the harm that Zarqawi’s approach was having on the overall al Qaeda brand and urged him to eschew targeting other Muslims. Zarqawi essentially ignored Zawahiri’s advice, cementing AQI’s reputation as a ruthless and sectarian organization.
U.S. policy in Syria during Barack Obama’s Presidency was to protect Al Qaeda there; and until 9 September 2016, Obama was steadfast in not allowing his second Secretary of State, John Kerry, to agree to his Russian counterpart, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s insistence that in order for any cease-fire and peace talks to start so as to end the U.S.-Saudi-Qatari-UAE-Kuwaiti-Turkish war against Syria,
Syria’s ally Russia would be allowed to continue its bombing against both ISIS and Al Qaeda forces there. President Obama wanted bombing to continue only against ISIS, but not against Al Qaeda; but Putin insisted that there be no protections for either of those two main jihadist groups, who were trying to overthrow and replace Syria’s Government.
Kerry didn’t want to protect Al Qaeda, but his boss Obama demanded it until finally allowing Kerry to sign with Lavrov, on 9 September 2016, a cease-fire, in which Russia was allowed to continue bombing both ISIS and Al Qaeda. (The U.S. relied heavily upon Al Qaeda in Syria. Both America and Russia were against ISIS, but only Russia and its allies were also against Al Qaeda.) Then, the cease-fire went into effect, on September 12th; and, just five days later, on September 17th, the Lavrov-Kerry peace-process abruptly halted, when the U.S. violated the agreement and bombed Syrian Government forces in Deir Ezzor, where ISIS forces were fighting against the Syrian army in order to grab control of Syria’s oil-producing region, of which Deir Ezzor is the capital. That sabotage, by Obama, against Kerry’s effort and against Kerry’s year-long effort to achieve a cease-fire with Russia, ended any trust that Russian President Vladimir Putin still had in Obama’s basic decency; and, so, Putin promptly started, along with Iran, and with Russia’s new semi-ally Turkey (against which Obama and NATO had perpetrated a failed coup-attempt on 15 July 2016), began their own peace-process for Syria, without America’s participation, the peace-talks that are still ongoing in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan.
After the U.S. coup-attempt against Turkey, Turkey has been a neutral country, and far less cooperative with America’s NATO than it had previously been. Turkey therefore greatly reduced its cooperation also with America’s other regional allies: Israel, the Saud family, and all of the Sauds’ Gulf Cooperation Council’s fellow fundamentalist-Sunni kingdoms, all of which (but especially the Sauds, who own Saudi Arabia, and the Thanis, who own Qatar) are heavy financial backers of Al Qaeda. So, Obama’s failed coup-attempt against Turkey helped, along with Obama’s sabotage of the September 9th Lavrov-Kerry peace-process, to generate Putin’s Astana peace-process.
Israel, of course, is also a member of the U.S.-Saudi alliance against Shia. Thus, in a late April 2012 email, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said:
The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad. … Speaking on CNN’s Amanpour show last week, [Israel’s]Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that “the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran…. It’s the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world…and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.” Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.
The alliance’s anti-Shia war continues under U.S. President Donald Trump. For example, at an October 26th press conference, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asserted:
As we’ve said many times before, the United States wants a whole and unified Syria with no role for Bashar al-Assad in the government.
Al Qaeda, yes; but al-Assad, no (just like ISIS, no). America’s main goal in Syria is conquest of Syria, and Al Qaeda in Syria has been providing the leadership for all of the jihadist groups there, except ISIS. Without Al Qaeda, America wouldn’t be able to do anything to Syria. As I’ve previously quoted from a news-report that was dated 12 December 2012:
“The head of the [U.S.-backed] Syrian National Coalition, which was recognized yesterday by the United States as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, is urging the US to drop its designation of the Al Nusrah Front as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. … And lest we think he is alone, 29 Syrian opposition groups have signed a petition that not only condemns the US’s designation, but says ‘we are all Al Nusrah.'”
Syria at present has a hammer lock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf — through closure of Iraq’s pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey. … Faced with three belligerent fronts, Assad would probably be forced to abandon his policy of closure of the pipeline. …
Perhaps it’s no coincidence that the Boston Marathon Bombing was carried out by the Tsarnaev brothers, two Chechens who happen to have formerly been in-laws of Graham Fuller. His daughter had married into the Tsarnaev family but divorced prior to the Boston Marathon bombing. With a father who was so sympathetic toward fundamentalist Sunnis, Samantha Ankara Fuller (married name Tsarnaev) might, as a child, have heard favorable things not only about Ankara Turkey, but about Sunni fundamentalism, which was rising in Turkey at the time.
So: the recent article from the Rand Corporation is entirely in accord with U.S. Government tradition on the Syria matter.
So: the reason why Pentagon think-tanks and the Pentagon itself and all U.S. Administrations play down the dangers and evils of fundamentalist Sunnis, and vastly exaggerate the dangers and evils of all Shia, is that the U.S. aristocracy, and the fundamentalist-Sunni aristocracies, and the Israeli aristocracy, are allied together against Shia, and against the major ally of Shia, namely Russia. Protecting the public is irrelevant, to each of these aristocracies, including the U.S. aristocracy.
The extremely destructive and deadly firestorms in California were not simply an act of nature or a result of global warming. Extensive and compelling evidence implicates “climate intervention” programs (also known as geoengineering) as a major factor in the firestorm catastrophes.
Geoengineering is the science term that applies to processes of climate intervention on a global scale. Climate engineering programs are completely disrupting natural weather and climate cycles all over the world, destroying the ozone layer, and decreasing the overall hydrological cycle (which, in turn, fuels record drought and firestorms).
The short video below highlights numerous verifiable factors implicating ongoing climate intervention operations as a major causal component in skyrocketing occurrences of unprecedented, deadly firestorms.
The stated purpose of geoengineering and solar radiation management (SRM) operations is to slow down or temporarily mitigate an unfolding runaway greenhouse scenario on Earth (potentially triggering “Venus Syndrome”).
Climate engineering also creates a phenomenon known as “global dimming.” Solar obscuration (blocking the sun) is a primary stated objective of geoengineering / SRM programs. Though “official sources” claim much of the global dimming phenomenon is a result of aircraft “condensation” trails, this narrative is a cover-up for the ongoing climate engineering operations.
A primary process of climate engineering operations involves jet aircraft spraying of atmospheric aerosol particulates. These elements are then manipulated with powerful ground based radio frequency / microwave transmissions. Available evidence makes clear governments around the globe are cooperating on climate engineering operations due to the cross-border ramifications of geoengineering (the massive military of the U.S. is unarguably the largest participant).
Evidence to confirm the reality of geoengineering includes a 750 page senate document, historical presidential reports, U.S. military documents, film footage, and an extensive list of climate engineering patents. The initial focus of climate intervention programs appears to have been concentrated over the polar regions. However, ongoing geoengineering programs have long since been become global in their scope and scale.
Known consequences of ongoing climate engineering operations are many, and are increasing rapidly. Despite verifiable, immense destruction being inflicted on the biosphere and the entire web of life by climate engineering, all official agencies and sources still deny the geoengineering reality.
In some mainstream publications, geoengineering has recently been referred to as being “our only hope.” After some 70 years of covert climate engineering/solar radiation management operations, all available data makes clear – global geoengineering programs are making an already dire climate scenario far worse (not better). Further, heavy metal particulates utilized in climate engineering operations have effectively contaminated the entire biosphere.
Toxic heavy metal fallout from ongoing aerosol operations has been confirmed by lab tests from the U.S., and other locations around the globe. Environmental protection agencies have not disclosed this verifiable contamination which is inflicting catastrophic damage on the atmosphere, the environment, and human health. A major percentage of these airborne particulates is made up of aluminum and barium, this creates an incendiary dust that coats foliage and structures (also contributing to the ferocity of firestorms).
In an apparent attempt to hide this unfolding reality from the public for as long as possible, an illegal federal “gag order” has been placed on all National Weather Service and NOAA employees. Why would our government need to silence weather and climate scientists?
Additional legal filings / FOIAs are being prepared by the LASG team of attorneys. LASG attorneys intend to fully expose the covert and illegal global climate engineering programs which have been carried out for decades without public knowledge or consent. A public outcry against geoengineering operations is desperately needed to bring the operations to light and to a halt.
Crown Prince Mohamed bin-Salman is such a darling of the global mainstream media that many call him, affectionately, by his initials MBS. The new strongman of the Kingdom has often mentioned the need for reforms and modernization of Saudi Arabia, both socially and economically. Can MBS walk the talk of his enticing narrative? The Crown Prince’s charm offensive is, at least partially, a way to cover up his failed attempt to bully Qatar into submission back in June 2017. But what could be his intentions beside creating a smoke screen to hide what has been so far his badly botched regional assertion of force againstQatar?
Everything considered, to describe the timid push for change in Saudi Arabia as a “cultural revolution,” like most of the press in the west and elsewhere are doing in their shameless public relations efforts in favor of Crown Prince Mohamed bin-Salman, is completely disingenuous. The only two significant reforms that the Crown Prince has pushed so far are the largely symbolic lift on the driving ban for women and a slight curtailment of the power of the religious police, who have lost the authority to arrest people outright. Regardless of the hyped intentions of reform, Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, de facto ruled by a Crown Prince who has consolidated in his own hands almost all powers, after a palace coup. Saudi Arabia is still very much an authoritarian regime where cinemas, theaters, and alcohol are banned and where men and women who are not related are basically segregated. It is a country of 33 million people that extensively practices the archaic oppression of gender apartheid, a social pressure cooker under the lid of ultra-conservative Wahhabist clerics, where 55 percent of the population is under 25-years-old and with more than 35 percent unemployment.
“I will return Saudi Arabia to moderate Islam,” said bin-Salman in a recent interview.
But this is historically inaccurate, as the ideological pillar shoring up the House of Saud, since its inception, was and still remains the most fundamentalist brand of Islam, which is Wahhabism. The full statement from bin-Salman is worth mentioning, as it is full of inaccuracies:
“We are simply reverting to what we followed – a moderate Islam open to the world and all religions. What happened in the last 30 years is not Saudi Arabia. What happened in the region in the last 30 years is not the Middle East. After the Iranian revolution in 1979, people wanted to copy this model in different countries, one of them is Saudi Arabia. We didn’t know how to deal with it, and the problem spread all over the world. Now it is time to get rid of it.”
The attempt by bin-Salman to blame the Iranian revolution for the region’s problems and for the revival of fundamentalist Islam ironically sounds like the domino-effect doctrine from the United States Cold War era anti-communist propaganda. This statement will certainly please the West, especially the US in the context of the renewed anti-Iranian sentiment, but it is historically and geopolitically inaccurate. Indeed, King Faisal bin-Abdulaziz, who ruled Saudi Arabia from 1964 to 1975, put in place policies of modernization and reforms, including a formal abolition of slavery, some religious inclusiveness, and the introduction of television broadcast. The efforts by Faisal to reform Saudi Arabia brought forth his assassination, by his own nephew, on behalf of the ultra-conservative Wahhabists.
Therefore, the sociological regression in Saudi Arabia came about four years before Iran’s revolution. It was not caused by it, but by some power and ideological struggles within the Kingdom. Forty-two years later, some of those forces remain at play. Bin-Salman’s somewhat ruthless recent consolidation of power within the dynasty has created serious animosity within the House of Saud. King Faisal’s fate should be a cautionary tale for the young Crown Prince who has disturbed the delicate traditional balance of power within the dynasty itself.
Historically, the notion of an original moderate open Islam in Saudi Arabia is a fallacy. In the Middle East, moderate Islam can still be found in Lebanon, but not in the Gulf. The ruling family in Saudi Arabia would not survive a real cultural or social revolution. As for any fundamentalist religions that back up an absolute power, the Wahhabist Iman’s job is to control the population’s ideology and all its social behaviors. Without Wahhabism and its clerics, the House of Saud would be a house of cards.
There is a dichotomy between what the Saudis say and what they really do. For more than 40 years they have financed Jihadists and the construction of Mosques run by fundamentalist clerics all over the world. By doing so, they have been a major support of terrorism, along with Qatar. Unless they recognize, denounce, and stop such activities, I do not see the possibility of any transformation. Within Saudi Arabia, unless fundamentalist clerics stop running everything in daily life, from the curriculum in schools to public order laws, such as repressive dress codes, nothing can change. The current hypocrisy resides in this: without the support of the hardliner clerics, the authoritarian absolute monarchy regime could and would be questioned, and considering the demographic and inequality pressures, it would eventually collapse.
The lofty talk of social revolution is largely a smoke screen. The real story could be more prosaically about following the money: bin-Salman is creating the mirage of a future open society to lure international investors. The Crown Prince is trying to raise money for a $500 billion project involving Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. The big-ticket item is a giant bridge across the Red Sea, between Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as well as a huge urban development area inspired by Dubai.
There is a caveat in regard to this Red Sea economic zone, which is supposed to be completed by 2025: Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, key backer of the plan, has been depleted for years by poor management, massive weapons purchases, the war effort in Yemen, as well as low oil prices. The fund currently has $230 billion; therefore bin-Salman is planning an initial public offering (IPO) in 2018 on Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest company controlling all of the Kingdom’s oil assets. Bin-Salman intends to sell 5 percent of Aramco, which is expected to raise several hundred billion. Cynically but objectively, the prospect of this IPO on the Jewel of the Crown of the Kingdom has worldwide mega-investors salivating. This decrease in financial sovereignty, which may grow in terms of percentage with time, could mark the beginning of the end for the House of Saud.
On October 27, Tomas Ojea Quintana, UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the DPRK (who has never been in the DPRK) stated: “’I was alarmed by reports that sanctions may have prevented cancer patients from access to chemotherapy and blocked the import of disability equipment,’” he said, following meetings with members of the Security Council”
On October 25, he stated to the UN General Assembly:
“I am concerned with the possibility that these sanctions might have a negative impact on vital economic sectors, and therefore, a direct consequence on the enjoyment of human rights. Let me share with you some examples: it was brought to my attention that the sanctions implemented by the Security Council may have prevented access to chemotherapeutic medicine for cancer patients and other medical supplies. The shipment of wheelchairs and essential equipment for persons with disabilities may have also been constrained. In addition, humanitarian actors are now facing difficulties to source much-needed supplies and carry out international financial transactions.”
“History shows us that sanctions can have devastating impact on the civilian population. It is my conviction that a comprehensive assessment of the sanctions regime is needed in order to avoid negative impact on human rights, especially economic, social and cultural rights, and that the sanctions regime does not impose what would effectively constitute a collective punishment on the ordinary citizens of the DPRK…..The pursuit of denuclearization should not be at the risk of a nuclear war, and I urge all relevant actors to maintain an environment favourable to an open dialogue….Overall, the rise in military sanctions in the Korean Peninsula over the past year has been a serious impediment to an open human rights dialogue.”
Among the many other victims of the UN Security Council sanctions are the children of North Korea, as one of the world’s finest children’s hospital, the Okryu Children’s Hospital in Pyongyang is now prohibited, by the sanctions, from receiving indispensable equipment for medical diagnostic tests. The sanctions on the DPRK prevent entry of crucial life-saving equipment, such as CT-scans and other essential medical devices and medicines. Dr. Kim Un-Song stated:
“This is inhumane and against human rights. Medicines children need is under sanctions.”
According to Eva Bartlett, in an excellent article describing her August 2017 visit to DPRK,
“Dr. So-Yung works in the tele-consultation department of the Okyru Children’s Hospital, and stated: “I cannot suppress my anger about the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and other countries.”
This crippling of the Okyru Children’s Hospital medical network, which services the entire country, and the deprivation of crucial medical supplies to all other medical facilities constitutes egregious human rights violations for which the UN Security Council sanctions regime is responsible, and must be held accountable. This stealthy destruction of the remarkable network of medical care in the DPRK is criminal. If these obstructions imposed by the sanctions are not immediately removed, the UN Security Council is ultimately liable for indictment for crimes against humanity.
According to an August 2, 2016 report by Kwonjune J. Seung, Molly Frank and Stephen Linton in PLOS Medicine,
“The North Korean government has actively sought international partnership in the area of Tuberculosis Control.”
However, I recently spoke with the leader of a Humanitarian organization providing effective treatment for the deadly multi-drug resistant strain of tuberculosis, and he stated that they are unable to fulfill their planned commitment to treat MDR TB patients in North Korea because of obstructions “in Washington.” PLOS Medicine stated:
“No matter the cost of scale-up, it is certainly dwarfed by the human cost of not intervening to stop this epidemic. MDR TB is an infectious airborne disease that will continue to spread in North Korea unless there is widespread access to effective treatment…MDR TB treatment should be scaled up immediately to the many North Koreans who need it.”
But the sanctions are scaling down the treatment of MDR TB to the point where an untreated epidemic could wipe out a large sector of the population of North Korea. Perhaps this is not an “unintended” result of the imposition of the sanctions on the DPRK. It is possible that there are those who regard pestilence as a form of population control.
All this information exposing and condemning the widespread suffering and deaths of the Korean people, caused by the UN Security Council sanctions, must be known to Federica Mogherini, the European Union foreign policy chief, who, with gross irresponsibility, boasted before the EU Summit:
“We adopted on Monday tougher sanctions on North Korea, the toughest sanctions regime the EU has in the world.”
The world is becoming aware of the immense suffering of the Korean people as a result of the sanctions. Even the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the DPRK stated that he is “alarmed” about this. Yet Mrs. Mogherini would inflict even more brutal collective punishment on the adults, the elderly and the children of the DPRK. Is she ignorant of the human suffering she is celebrating? Has Mrs. Mogherini no decency?
Federica Mogherini speaks for the European Union, which is guilty, together with the UN Security Council, of the crimes described above, and both must ultimately be held accountable for inflicting crimes against humanity against the people of North Korea. Mrs. Mogherini’s own country, Italy, in violation of Article 2 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, illegally hosts American nuclear weapons.
The European Union, together with the UN Security Council, are responsible for dooming an increasing number of North Korean men, women and children to agonizing deaths from untreated cancers, tuberculosis and other illnesses, deaths that might otherwise have been prevented and illnesses cured, had not medical treatment been withheld as a result of these criminal sanctions. This is an unconscionable form of physical and psychological torture of the people of North Korea, for which these sanctions, and their infamous perpetrators are condemned by history. The reckoning has begun.
Carla Stea is Global Research’s Correspondent at United Nations headquarters, New York.
In 1987, the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development published “Our Common Future” (1). Written under the chairmanship of Gro Harlem Brundtland who was then Prime Minister of Norway, this report presents the results of a broad global consultation aimed at proposing a comprehensive program of change for sustainable development. Thirty years later, what is retained of the Brundtland report and what progress do we observe on our way to sustainability?
Accurate statements and lucid recommendations
The Brundtland Commission’s report clearly identifies the most serious environmental problems of the 1980s: uncontrolled population growth, excessive deforestation and grazing, destruction of tropical forests, extinction of living species, increased greenhouse effect causing climate change, acid rain, erosion of the stratospheric ozone layer, etc. It also emphasizes the social-economic aspects and in particular the perverse effects of unbridled economic growth and over-consumption of resources by the better-off.
The Commission proposes a definition of sustainable development that is now widely recognized:
“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. “
With a view to sustainable development, the Commission identifies a series of strategic objectives that include changing the quality of economic growth, controlling demographics, meeting basic human needs, preserving and enhancing the resource base, taking into account the environment in developing new technologies and integrating ecological and economic concerns into decision-making.
It then proposes solutions that apply on a global scale. For example, reduce energy consumption in industrialized countries and promote the development of renewable energies, encourage massive reforestation in countries affected by desertification, implement tax and land reforms to reduce pressures on ecosystems, adopt an international convention for the protection of species. Although these measures are aimed primarily at protecting the environment, the Brundtland Report stresses the importance of combating poverty and injustice, which are both causes and effects of environmental problems.
To realize and finance this ecological shift, the Brundtland Commission proposes a reform of international institutions, notably the World Bank and the IMF, which should better take into account social and environmental objectives and alleviate the debt of the poorest countries. The Commission also recommends a reorientation of military spending for the fight against poverty and inequality and challenges large companies to engage in more responsible production and consumption.
The Brundtland Report actually demonstrates that the global economy and ecology are now deeply intertwined. Beyond the economic interdependence of nations, we must now deal with their ecological interdependence. Since the development crisis is global, the solutions must be as well (2).
Impressive international spin-offs
The recommendations of the Brundtland Report have catalyzed the UN’s sustainable development approach and encouraged the engagement of governments, businesses and civil society around the world. In 1992, at the Rio Earth Summit, participants set the basic principles and established the Agenda 21, which became the basis for so many sustainable development initiatives. Following the recommendations of the Brundtland report, the Summit also saw the adoption of a declaration on sustainable forest management and three important conventions on biodiversity, the fight against climate change, and the fight against desertification (3).
The Millennium Summit, held in September 2000 at United Nations Headquarters in New York, concluded with the adoption of the Millennium Declaration, which set out the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDG) (4); these objectives inspired by the Brundtland report expiring in 2015.
To succeed them, the UN has worked with governments, civil society and partners to harness the momentum of the MDGs and develop an ambitious post-2015 agenda: “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda”. It is organized around 17 Global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (5).
The MDGs and SDGs, like Agenda 21, are development strategies to which Member States must be subject to the risk of being ostracized on the international stage. The adoption of the SDGs has led to a myriad of initiatives to encourage States to implement them: principles and frameworks, monitoring indicators, assessment of the situation, etc.
Although the concept of sustainable development presents itself as a promising solution, the imposition of the master plan for sustainable development comes up against different visions of development (6) and can be seen as an interference in state governance and more especially emerging countries which must henceforth follow this master plan, to have access to international financing.
The Brundtland Report and major UN summits have also guided action by governments, civil society and business. Over the years, we have seen the development of organic farming, environmental certification, corporate social responsibility, renewable energy production, responsible investment, green economy, life cycle analysis, the greening of production processes and green marketing, all too often misguided in greenwashing (7), offering unscrupulous businesses the opportunity to unduly polish their image as a good corporate citizen.
Its impact in Quebec
Like other states such as the Netherlands, Norway or Canada (8), Quebec has been heavily influenced by the Brundtland Report (9). After having participated in the financing of its French version published in 1988 (10), the Québec government has resolutely embarked on the path of sustainable development and has carried out various initiatives. In 1988, the Quebec Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (11) was created, which in 1989 organized the first Québec Forum on Sustainable Development, and the Interdepartmental Committee on Sustainable Development (CIDD) was established in 1991. Subsequently, Quebec was particularly noted for its very active participation in the 1992 Earth Summit of Rio de Janeiro, as part of the Canadian delegation, notably by strongly supporting the adoption of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Montreal has also been hosting the Convention on Biological Diversity since 1995.
In spite of a few ministerial initiatives, it will be necessary to wait until the Johannesburg Summit, in 2002, to note a real progress of the file at the governmental level. Let’s mention for the record that in 2000, the issue of sustainable development, which became almost inactive within the Ministry of the Environment, was revived in extremis during a program review. A new team under my leadership took the initiative of preparing Québec’s participation in the Johannesburg Summit and developing a government framework for sustainable development. In 2001, an opinion from the Conseil de la science et de la technologie (Quebec Science and Technology Council) recommended that the Québec government make sustainable development a priority and demonstrated the value of such an approach (12). Following a change of government in 2003, the Ministry of the Environment conducted a public consultation in 2005, which led the following year to the adoption of the Quebec Sustainable Development Act, a law that is still exemplary today (13).
Under this legislation, the government created the position of Sustainable Development Commissioner responsible for measuring government performance in this area. It has also committed to consider 16 principles of sustainable development in its activities, as well as to adopt and implement a strategy that needs to be the subject of periodic implementation reports and which needs to be reviewed every five years (14). The Act also requires government departments and agencies to prepare and implement sectoral action plans.
The Brundtland Report has also inspired a number of non-governmental initiatives, such as the ÉcoSommet (15) of 1996, born of the desire of environmental groups to continue the turnaround initiated at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The same year, Québec hosted the World Conservation Union’s First World Conservation Congress, under the theme “Caring for the Earth”, and the Union for Sustainable Development organized the International Forum “Major Works and Sustainable Development” ( 16). In 1997, the Nikan congress on territorial applications of sustainable development is held in Jonquière. Nearly 550 participants from 42 countries attended this meeting. The Nikan Congress recognized the critical role of indigenous peoples in defining and applying the principles of sustainable development, and the need for partnership among all peoples to ensure the well-being of present and future generations and the preservation of the environment (17). In recent years, the dynamism of civil society and the academic community in terms of sustainable development has been reflected in Québec (as everywhere in the world) by a myriad of activities and initiatives.
Inspired by the Brundtland Report and its spin-offs, many non-governmental organizations have sprung up in Quebec or have simply integrated the concept of sustainable development into their activities. For example, the UQCN (who became Nature Québec), the Regional Councils for the Environment and Sustainable Development, the Conseil patronal de l’environnement du Québec (Quebec Employers’ Council for the Environment), Équiterre, Earth Day Québec, and the Monique-Fitzback Foundation, instigator of the Quebec Brundtland Green Schools Network. This is also the case for the university community, which has expanded teaching programs, chairs and research centers on sustainable development.
What “progress” since Brundtland?
The sustainable development desired by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 called for a paradigm shift. If a paradigm shift has occurred in the world, it is certainly not the one described in “Our Common Future” (18).
Much progress has been made since the publication of the Brundtland Report. We have significantly reduced the number of people living in extreme poverty, more people have access to safe drinking water, fewer children die in early childhood and fewer mothers die during childbirth (19). Despite the fact that some countries are experiencing unprecedented levels of prosperity, this prosperity is only apparent. The plundering of natural resources and the degradation of the environment continue unabated, climate change threatens more than ever the most vulnerable people and ecosystems, and the planet’s carrying capacity is about to be exceeded (20, 21). The gap between rich and poor is steadily widening (22), food insecurity (23) and indebtedness (24) are advancing, democracy is on the wane and unique thinking is invading the media (25). And, worrying statistics illustrating the degradation of living conditions, in 40 years the number of sperm produced by men has fallen by nearly 60% in rich countries (26), the number of obese children and adolescents has been multiplied by 10 (27), and wild vertebrate populations decreased by 58% (28).
The progress dictated by economic growth is in fact based on the impoverishment of the middle classes (29), the indebtedness of nations and individuals, the hegemony and economic control of banks, overconsumption and the waste of natural resources (30, 31) and the growth of inequalities between humans (32). Not to mention the relocation of industrial jobs (33) and the social exploitation of workers in the South (34). In 2017, the public and private indebtedness of the 44 richest countries reached 235% of GDP compared with 190% in 2007 (35).
Concerning governance, the corruption of elected representatives and proxyholders continues to grow (36). Most mainstream media are controlled by large industrial groups and banks (37, 38). Military budgets are constantly increasing (a rise of 43.6% since 2000 in the US to reach $ 611 billion in 2016 (39)). The demonization of patriotism (40) leads to a loss of autonomy for nations whose development is under the control of multinational corporations, banks (41) and lobbies (42).
Despite a strong commitment by governments to sustainable development, significant action on this path is slow to take hold. The engineer and author Philippe Bihouix rightly points out that “our leaders are pretending to press the brakes with a lenient speech on sustainable development, while they fully push on the accelerator!” (43). I would add that political leaders seem to be more inclined to respond to the demands of oligarchic lobbies than to the legitimate expectations of their constituents.
For example, despite their commitment to reduce GHG emissions, G20 governments spend nearly 4 times more on fossil fuels than developing renewable energy (44) . Between 2013 and 2015, Canada provided $ 3 billion a year in public funding for oil, gas and coal, compared to only $ 171 million a year for clean energy (45).
The challenges of sustainable development
Thanks to the Brundtland Report, the world has gained a deeper understanding of the interconnected challenges we face and that sustainable development offers the best opportunity for people to choose their future (46).
The success of the concept of sustainable development is due to the fact that the Brundtland Report was essentially right in uncovering fundamental truths that were subsequently confirmed (46, 47). The need to respect biophysical limits and to remedy physical deficiencies is now better understood. Similarly, the interdependence of environmental protection and the reduction of poverty is more widely recognized (46).
Despite this awareness and the good faith efforts of a growing number of individuals, the situation continues to deteriorate to the point of undermining our optimism. What can be done to improve the situation?
Like Pierre Rabhi, promoter of happy sobriety (48), and Serge Mongeau, a leader of voluntary simplicity (49), the ecologist Pierre Dansereau advocated joyful austerity (50), aimed at reducing consumption of assets and resources while providing room for more responsible investment. But how could we convince the rich to take such a turn? How could we be convinced to consume less? I will also refer to the four-point ecological strategy proposed in 1984 by Michel Jurdant in his book “Le défi écologiste” (51): raising awareness, demystifying quantitative progress, proposing alternative lifestyles, and encouraging a democratic public debate. I would add that we must constantly educate young and old about the principles of sustainable development (52), further regulate and reduce the power of banks and the financial community (53), focus on subsidiarity (54), encourage accountability of elected officials and leaders (55), promote independent information (56), and especially learn to recognize the influence of interest groups (57).
A work program that concerns us all on the path of a development centered on collaboration, sustainability, well-being, prosperity and peace. Let us remember, to guide our efforts, the wise words attributed to the indigenous leader Geronimo: “When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money.”(58, 59)
Jacques Prescott is Associate Professor, Chair in Eco-Advising, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi; a former public servant at the Ministry of the Environment, he was at the heart of Québec’s sustainable development approach.
Notes
1. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York. 400 p.
2. For many, this finding reinforced the idea of establishing global governance of environmental issues to the detriment of the sovereignty and accountability of nations. It would have encouraged Mondialism, this doctrine which aims to realize the political unity of the world considered as a unique human community.
6. See for example : Parizeau, M.-H. et S. Kash (eds), 2017. À chacun son développement durable? De la diversité culturelle aux nanotechnologies. Presses de l’Université Laval, Québec, 384 p.
10. Commission mondiale sur l’environnement et le développement, 1988. Notre avenir à tous. Éditions du Fleuve / Les publications du Québec, Montréal, Québec, Canada, 434 p.
11. However, this consultation structure was abolished in 1997.
Not even a day had passed after the funeral rites for Thailand’s revered and respected former head of state, King Bhumibol Adulyadej before the Western media began launching attacks on his heir and current Thai head of state, King Maha Vajiralongkorn.
It is a development widely predicted – with the United States and its European partners long-eager to pursue regime change in Thailand as part of a wider strategy to either control or destabilize Southeast Asia as a means of hindering China’s regional and global rise.
First Shots
The AFP in its article, “Protected by draconian law, King Rama X begins to make his mark,” would cite rumors and half-truths in an attempt to depict Thailand’s new head of state as a shadowy, unpopular, and despotic figure that remains “unpredictable.”
The article claims that Thailand’s “draconian law” prevents criticism of its highest institution, citing the arrest of a “student activist” for sharing a BBC article slandering the head of state.
What AFP and other articles consistently and intentionally fail to mention is that these “student activists” are US and European funded and directed agitators, enjoying direct support from the US, British, and EU diplomatic missions in Thailand. Embassy staff often accompany their agitators to police stations and appearing in public with their family members.
Canadian embassy staff publicly supporting the family of the above mentioned jailed “student activist” Jatupat Boonpattararaksa, exposing such “activism” as little more than foreign-backed agitation and subversion.
In other words, those targeted by Thailand’s “draconian law” are engaged in both treason and sedition and could easily be charged and sentenced for either – or both – and are instead granted lesser sentences, many of which are pardoned long before they are fully served.
Similar articles have been appearing in the BBC, CNN, AP, and other mainstays of Western propaganda before and after the passing of King Bhumibol Adulyadej last year and upon the succession of his son and heir.
The Reality of Thailand’s Monarchy
Thailand’s monarchy represents an entire institution and spans centuries with the current dynasty being nearly 300 years old. It has united and protected Thailand from foreign domination – leaving Thailand as the only nation in Southeast Asia to avoid colonization.
On all sides Thailand – then called Siam – was surrounded by colonized Southeast Asian states. It remains the only Southeast Asian state to avoid Western colonization.
When French, British, and later American imperialism swept through Asia, finding and exploiting socioeconomic and cultural fault lines in each nation to divide and conquer them along, the unifying nature of Thailand’s highest institution and its cunning geopolitical maneuvering left Thailand a bastion of stability and strength that remains to this day unconquered.
Over the centuries, the monarchy has reinvented itself. Thailand – then known as Siam – voluntarily abolished slavery in a period of time when in Western nations conflict and race wars were waged – the effects of which still reverberate in modern Western society. The Thai monarchy has also – for over 80 years – been a constitutional monarchy unlike the West’s closest allies in the Middle East – several of which are some of the last absolute monarchies on Earth.
As is in the case of any nation targeted by Western destabilization – any attempt at all to rein in agitators and even outright terrorists is condemned by the West’s network of faux-rights advocates and its media as “draconian.” At a time when the United States bemoans alleged Russian interference in its own domestic political affairs, its meddling abroad in places like Thailand and its neighbors in Southeast Asia continues unabated.
Today, the unity and geopolitical maneuvering characteristic of earlier heads of state continues.
Thailand has incrementally shifted away from the United States and its influence in Asia Pacific toward its regional neighbors including China.
At a time when the United States’ Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) lies in ruins, major infrastructure projects have been inked between Bangkok and Beijing and are beginning construction including a network of high-speed railways that will interlink Thailand’s major cities as well as link Thailand with its neighbors and with China.
Thailand is also systematically replacing its Vietnam War-era US-made arsenal with Chinese, Russian, and European equipment. It is replacing its main battle tanks with Chinese VT-4s, as well as its armored personnel carries with Chinese-made systems.
The acquisition of Chinese submarines, joint-development of multiple rocket launcher systems with China, and an increasing number of joint Thai-Chinese military exercises marks a dramatic shift away from the West, and focused more within Asia itself. It is a process that has been unfolding for years, carefully cultivated by Thailand’s independent institutions at a time when its “elected leaders” backed by the West sought to bankrupt, divide, and derail the nation.
The transition from King Bhumibol Adulyadej to King Maha Vajiralongkorn will have no impact on this process. The Thai monarchy is above all, an institution that consists of not only the head of state, but a circle of highly skilled and experienced advisers whom King Maha Vajiralongkorn has retained from his father’s council ensuring continuity for this well-thought out policy.
The only real change that has occurred is the perceived window of opportunity the West has to target and sow doubt in the minds of Thais and the world regarding Thailand’s sensitive transition as a means to once again attempt to destabilize and divide the country.
In the Following Months
The United States and its European partners maintain an extensive network of foreign-funded fronts in Thailand posing as “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs). They include media fronts and faux rights advocates like Prachatai, the Issan Record, Thai Netizens, iLaw, and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights – all funded by the US State Department via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and US-based corporate foundations like convicted financial criminal George Soros’ Open Society.
The majority of their activity focuses not on actual rights advocacy, but on attacking and undermining Thailand’s independent institutions – namely the military and monarchy – and both promoting the opposition as well as covering up the abuses, impropriety, violence, and the foreign-backed nature of the opposition.
There is the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT) based in downtown Bangkok in which most Western media outlets house their offices and where they regularly hold joint events aimed at “making news” rather than reporting it. This includes providing Western-funded agitators with a platform and an international audience, as well as inviting Western diplomats to come and comment on Thailand’s internal political affairs.
There is also US proxy Thaksin Shinawatra, his Pheu Thai Party (PTP), and his ultra-violent street front, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) also known simply as the “red shirts.” Shinawatra – ousted from power in 2006 and his sister ousted from power in 2014 – has been the recipient of US support since the 1990s. Since 2006 he has received lobbying services from some of the largest firms in Washington while his political network receives Western support and funding within Thailand.
Often, all three – foreign correspondents from outlets like AP, AFP, and the BBC, along with PTP and UDD leaders, and members from America’s network of faux-NGOs can be seen meeting at the FCCT at the same time along with foreign diplomats from the US, British, and EU diplomatic missions in Thailand.
This interconnected network has and will continue over the next several months to mount pressure on the military-led government to rush through with elections the US hopes it can sufficiently manipulate to place a PTP-led government into power. From there, the continued division and destruction of Thailand will continue.
What the West fears most is further delays in Thailand’s next election, further eroding its proxy’s political momentum which is already suffering greatly as its populist policies have been put on hold and as the current, military-led government addresses many of the socioeconomic plights PTP has exploited for well over a decade to acquire political dependence from the nation’s populous northeast region.
And as Thailand’s new head of state fulfills his role, the window will close on doubts – real or imagined among the Thai population – over “unpredictability.” A diminished PTP together with a stable economy, military, and monarchy will close the window of opportunity further still for would-be regime changers in Washington, London, and Brussels.
With the facts in hand, articles pushed out by the Western media attempting to malign Thailand’s leadership can be exposed and their effect on manipulating public perception diminished. Ensuring that such propaganda gains no traction is the best inoculation against the firestorm of violent regime change that has consumed other nations. While genuine activists and media members have helped expose and derail US plans in places like Syria, preventing conflict from erupting in the first place is better still.
Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Not even a day had passed after the funeral rites for Thailand’s revered and respected former head of state, King Bhumibol Adulyadej before the Western media began launching attacks on his heir and current Thai head of state, King Maha Vajiralongkorn.
It is a development widely predicted – with the United States and its European partners long-eager to pursue regime change in Thailand as part of a wider strategy to either control or destabilize Southeast Asia as a means of hindering China’s regional and global rise.
First Shots
The AFP in its article, “Protected by draconian law, King Rama X begins to make his mark,” would cite rumors and half-truths in an attempt to depict Thailand’s new head of state as a shadowy, unpopular, and despotic figure that remains “unpredictable.”
The article claims that Thailand’s “draconian law” prevents criticism of its highest institution, citing the arrest of a “student activist” for sharing a BBC article slandering the head of state.
What AFP and other articles consistently and intentionally fail to mention is that these “student activists” are US and European funded and directed agitators, enjoying direct support from the US, British, and EU diplomatic missions in Thailand. Embassy staff often accompany their agitators to police stations and appearing in public with their family members.
Canadian embassy staff publicly supporting the family of the above mentioned jailed “student activist” Jatupat Boonpattararaksa, exposing such “activism” as little more than foreign-backed agitation and subversion.
In other words, those targeted by Thailand’s “draconian law” are engaged in both treason and sedition and could easily be charged and sentenced for either – or both – and are instead granted lesser sentences, many of which are pardoned long before they are fully served.
Similar articles have been appearing in the BBC, CNN, AP, and other mainstays of Western propaganda before and after the passing of King Bhumibol Adulyadej last year and upon the succession of his son and heir.
The Reality of Thailand’s Monarchy
Thailand’s monarchy represents an entire institution and spans centuries with the current dynasty being nearly 300 years old. It has united and protected Thailand from foreign domination – leaving Thailand as the only nation in Southeast Asia to avoid colonization.
On all sides Thailand – then called Siam – was surrounded by colonized Southeast Asian states. It remains the only Southeast Asian state to avoid Western colonization.
When French, British, and later American imperialism swept through Asia, finding and exploiting socioeconomic and cultural fault lines in each nation to divide and conquer them along, the unifying nature of Thailand’s highest institution and its cunning geopolitical maneuvering left Thailand a bastion of stability and strength that remains to this day unconquered.
Over the centuries, the monarchy has reinvented itself. Thailand – then known as Siam – voluntarily abolished slavery in a period of time when in Western nations conflict and race wars were waged – the effects of which still reverberate in modern Western society. The Thai monarchy has also – for over 80 years – been a constitutional monarchy unlike the West’s closest allies in the Middle East – several of which are some of the last absolute monarchies on Earth.
As is in the case of any nation targeted by Western destabilization – any attempt at all to rein in agitators and even outright terrorists is condemned by the West’s network of faux-rights advocates and its media as “draconian.” At a time when the United States bemoans alleged Russian interference in its own domestic political affairs, its meddling abroad in places like Thailand and its neighbors in Southeast Asia continues unabated.
Today, the unity and geopolitical maneuvering characteristic of earlier heads of state continues.
Thailand has incrementally shifted away from the United States and its influence in Asia Pacific toward its regional neighbors including China.
At a time when the United States’ Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) lies in ruins, major infrastructure projects have been inked between Bangkok and Beijing and are beginning construction including a network of high-speed railways that will interlink Thailand’s major cities as well as link Thailand with its neighbors and with China.
Thailand is also systematically replacing its Vietnam War-era US-made arsenal with Chinese, Russian, and European equipment. It is replacing its main battle tanks with Chinese VT-4s, as well as its armored personnel carries with Chinese-made systems.
The acquisition of Chinese submarines, joint-development of multiple rocket launcher systems with China, and an increasing number of joint Thai-Chinese military exercises marks a dramatic shift away from the West, and focused more within Asia itself. It is a process that has been unfolding for years, carefully cultivated by Thailand’s independent institutions at a time when its “elected leaders” backed by the West sought to bankrupt, divide, and derail the nation.
The transition from King Bhumibol Adulyadej to King Maha Vajiralongkorn will have no impact on this process. The Thai monarchy is above all, an institution that consists of not only the head of state, but a circle of highly skilled and experienced advisers whom King Maha Vajiralongkorn has retained from his father’s council ensuring continuity for this well-thought out policy.
The only real change that has occurred is the perceived window of opportunity the West has to target and sow doubt in the minds of Thais and the world regarding Thailand’s sensitive transition as a means to once again attempt to destabilize and divide the country.
In the Following Months
The United States and its European partners maintain an extensive network of foreign-funded fronts in Thailand posing as “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs). They include media fronts and faux rights advocates like Prachatai, the Issan Record, Thai Netizens, iLaw, and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights – all funded by the US State Department via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and US-based corporate foundations like convicted financial criminal George Soros’ Open Society.
The majority of their activity focuses not on actual rights advocacy, but on attacking and undermining Thailand’s independent institutions – namely the military and monarchy – and both promoting the opposition as well as covering up the abuses, impropriety, violence, and the foreign-backed nature of the opposition.
There is the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT) based in downtown Bangkok in which most Western media outlets house their offices and where they regularly hold joint events aimed at “making news” rather than reporting it. This includes providing Western-funded agitators with a platform and an international audience, as well as inviting Western diplomats to come and comment on Thailand’s internal political affairs.
There is also US proxy Thaksin Shinawatra, his Pheu Thai Party (PTP), and his ultra-violent street front, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) also known simply as the “red shirts.” Shinawatra – ousted from power in 2006 and his sister ousted from power in 2014 – has been the recipient of US support since the 1990s. Since 2006 he has received lobbying services from some of the largest firms in Washington while his political network receives Western support and funding within Thailand.
Often, all three – foreign correspondents from outlets like AP, AFP, and the BBC, along with PTP and UDD leaders, and members from America’s network of faux-NGOs can be seen meeting at the FCCT at the same time along with foreign diplomats from the US, British, and EU diplomatic missions in Thailand.
This interconnected network has and will continue over the next several months to mount pressure on the military-led government to rush through with elections the US hopes it can sufficiently manipulate to place a PTP-led government into power. From there, the continued division and destruction of Thailand will continue.
What the West fears most is further delays in Thailand’s next election, further eroding its proxy’s political momentum which is already suffering greatly as its populist policies have been put on hold and as the current, military-led government addresses many of the socioeconomic plights PTP has exploited for well over a decade to acquire political dependence from the nation’s populous northeast region.
And as Thailand’s new head of state fulfills his role, the window will close on doubts – real or imagined among the Thai population – over “unpredictability.” A diminished PTP together with a stable economy, military, and monarchy will close the window of opportunity further still for would-be regime changers in Washington, London, and Brussels.
With the facts in hand, articles pushed out by the Western media attempting to malign Thailand’s leadership can be exposed and their effect on manipulating public perception diminished. Ensuring that such propaganda gains no traction is the best inoculation against the firestorm of violent regime change that has consumed other nations. While genuine activists and media members have helped expose and derail US plans in places like Syria, preventing conflict from erupting in the first place is better still.
Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The Iran-Contra scandal is branded into my consciousness. It happened during the years of 1983-1988 when the Reagan administration was violating Congressional mandates not to arm the Contras in Nicaragua who were trying to overthrow the elected leftist government in that nation. Reagan ignored the law and armed the Contras anyway leading to much death and destruction.
There are many stories linked to that time but two stand out for me. One is about a small Arkansas county prosecutor who went to then Gov. Bill Clinton and said he had clear proof that the CIA was running guns and drugs in and out of Central America from a tiny airport in his county. The prosecutor pleaded with Gov. Clinton to help him with state funds to take on the CIA. Clinton told the prosecutor to go home and he’d get back to him ASAP. The prosecutor never heard back from Clinton. Instead Clinton used the situation to help grease the skids for his eventual run for the presidency by showing he’d play ball with the CIA.
A second story is about a toy maker from Atlanta, George by the name of Bob Fletcher. Fletcher was a Republican small businessman who one day found himself with an offer he could not refuse. A man walked into his shop and offered him a large amount of money to buy his business and then paid Bob to stay on to run the operation. Soon Bob realized that the new owner had no interest in the business, it was collapsing, and instead very shady guys were coming in and out of the toy company and meeting with the new owner behind closed doors.
Eventually Bob challenged the new owner who opened a drawer and handed Bob a flyer for a Hellfire missile system and told Bob,
“This is what we are selling now and you’d better keep your mouth shut or you will be dead.”
Bob figured he’d better get the hell out of town right away and moved to Orlando, Florida where I was living and working for the Florida Coalition for Peace & Justice.
By then the Iran-Contra hearings were going full bore in Congress and one day Bob was watching a retired general testify before the investigating committee and recognized him as one of the men who would come to the Atlanta toy business to meet the new owner behind closed doors. Knowing that his business had been turned into a CIA weapons front operation Bob called the FBI in Miami and told them the whole story plus he had lots of documentation to back it all up. The FBI set up an interview with Bob and copied all his documents – they told him to go home and they’d get back to him right away. He waited and never got a call. Eventually Bob called the FBI back and they told him they had lost all his documents and his testimony.
At that point Bob really began to suspect that the entire Iran-Contra Congressional hearing process was a sham. By this time I had met Bob and organized a speaking tour for him around Florida with various peace groups. You can hear his story here.
Bob next tried to get Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence E. Walsh to listen to his story. Walsh had Bob meet with his staff but nothing ever came from the meeting. Bob became quite disillusioned with the entire process, realizing that the congressional hearings were rigged, and decided to run for Congress against right-wing Rep. Bill McCollum who himself was heavily involved in funding the whole US covert war in Central America. I remember doing some phone banking for Bob’s campaign right before the election. For a relatively unknown guy Bob did pretty well but still lost the election.
In the end the Iran-Contra hearings found that the sale of weapons to Iran was not deemed a criminal offense but charges were brought against five individuals for their support of the Contras. Those charges, however, were later dropped because the administration refused to declassify certain documents. The indicted conspirators faced various lesser charges instead. In the end, fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal. The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W. Bush, who had been Vice President at the time of the scandal. The Iran-Contra Affair and the ensuing deception to protect senior administration officials including President Reagan has been cast as an example of post-truth politics.
So the bottom line was that no one went to jail – no one really faced any repercussions – in fact Col. Oliver North (who had helped to run the entire guns/drug operation from a cash filled safe in his White House office) became a hero in the right-wing community and got a well paid job on FOX News.
Bob was so disgusted that he moved to Montana and joined the militia. Years later I saw him on TV news one night being interviewed about the militia’s opposition to the US government. A search on the Internet reveals that still today Bob is tilting at windmills – telling his story and trying to get the public to see that our government is corrupt.
As I watch the current version of the Iran-Contra hearings in Washington – this time the so-called Russian influence peddling story – I can see that it is really nothing more than a big distraction and in the end few, if any, will pay any real price. The big boys are always protected either by having charges dropped or by a presidential pardon.
Our government is run by a corporate criminal syndicate. They ensure that both parties are protected from any real prosecution for their criminality. The rest of us – the so-called ‘little people’ – are the ones that are held to the letter of the law.
Featured image: Hezbollah’s supporters at Liberation Day, Bint Jbeil, Lebanon, 25 May 2014. (Source: Shutterstock/Gabirelle Pedrini)
Western-backed militants are in retreat, Bashar al-Assad remains president, Hezbollah has stretched its wings regionally, Israeli power is in decline, and Iran is on the rise. Not a pretty result for Washington’s multi-billion dollar investment in the Syrian conflict, especially if it was intended to change the map of the region to favor U.S. interests.
The Trump administration is therefore moving to hit its regional adversaries on alternative, non-military fronts—mainly, employing the sanctions tool that can cripple economies, besiege communities, and stir up public discontent.
The first step was to decertify the nuclear agreement struck between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1), which would open up a pathway to further U.S. sanctions against Iran.
The second step is to resuscitate the Hezbollah “threat” and isolate the organization using legal maneuvers and financial sanctions—what one pro-U.S. Lebanese Central Bank official calls “the new tools of imperialism.”
The U.S. listed Hezbollah as a “terrorist organization” 20 years ago this month. Most other states, as well as the United Nations Security Council, have not.
Two weeks ago, at a State Department briefing on the Hezbollah “threat,” National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas J. Rasmussen tried to paint a picture of an organization that was directing “terrorism acts worldwide” and posing a threat “to U.S. interests” including “here in the homeland.”
“Prior to September 11,” Rasmussen claimed, “I think everybody knows Hezbollah was responsible for the terrorism-related deaths of more U.S. citizens than any other foreign terrorist organization.”
This was news indeed.
A check with a State Department spokesperson confirmed that the “deaths of more U.S. citizens than any other foreign terrorist organization” claim was in reference to the following incidents:
“Hezbollah is responsible for multiple large scale terrorist attacks, including the 1983 suicide truck bombings of the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut; the 1984 attack on the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut; and the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, during which U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem was murdered,” explained the spokesperson in an email.
The 1983 attack on the Beirut barracks took the lives of 241 Americans. The 1983 U.S. embassy bombing killed 17 Americans, and the 1984 attack on the relocated embassy facilities killed two Americans.
Hezbollah has officially and consistently denied involvement in these suicide bombings and was not even established as an organization until 1985. Some write off this important discrepancy by arguing that the bombings would have been conducted by one of Hezbollah’s “precursor organizations,” albeit without providing evidence to prove the point. The U.S. secretary of defense at the time of the bombings, Caspar Weinberger, told PBS almost two decades later, in 2001:
“We still do not have the actual knowledge of who did the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut Airport… and we certainly didn’t then.”
What was the U.S. reaction to the Beirut bombings in 1982? Did it retaliate against this phantom Hezbollah or its “precursor” organizations? No. In what was the heaviest shore bombardment by a U.S. naval vessel since the Korean war, the Americans retreating from Lebanon launched 300 missiles inland, killing hundreds of Druze and Shia non-combatants. In their book Best Laid Plans: The Inside Story of America’s War Against Terrorism, David C. Martin and John Walcott write about the incident:
In a nine-hour period, the U.S.S. New Jersey fired 288 16-inch rounds, each one weighing as much as a Volkswagen Beetle. In those nine-hours, the ship consumed 40 percent of the 16-inch ammunition available in the entire European theater…in one burst of wretched excess.
It wasn’t until 2003 that Hezbollah was officially fingered in the embassy bombing. In a 30-page decision that resulted from a lawsuit filed by the victims’ families, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said Hezbollah carried out the attack at the behest of Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security. This was based in part with an alleged Hezbollah bomber who said he was directed “to go forward with attacks” in Lebanon at that time. Critics have called this a “show trial,” comparing it to the 2016 U.S. trial that blamed Iran for the September 11 terrorist attacks, despite the fact that 15 Saudis (and no Iranians) were among the hijackers and the U.S. intelligence community has identified links between Saudi officials and some of the perpetrators.
Meanwhile, the Beirut barracks bombing targeted servicemen from the U.S. and France. This was in the context of Israel’s invasion and occupation of Lebanon in 1982. The Israeli military at the time had been heavily armed and outfitted by the United States. The victims were not non-combatants—they were military forces belonging to governments that were perceived by Lebanese as aiding the aggression against sovereign Lebanon.
Whatever the case and whomever the perpetrator, you don’t get to call such an action “terrorism.” It’s an irrational American narrative that time and time again confounds the Middle East: If the U.S. kills you, you are collateral damage. But if you shoot back, you are a terrorist.
Not Hezbollah
“It’s not really Hezbollah’s modus operandi,” mused former UK Ambassador Frances Guy about the massive car bomb that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri along Beirut’s seafront. We were discussing likely perpetrators during my visit to Beirut in 2010, and Guy told me that the Lebanese resistance group doesn’t really “do” high-octane car bombings in public spaces.
Nonetheless, four Hezbollah operatives stand accused of assassinating Hariri by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), a highly politicized UN investigative body that shifted its focus from one western political adversary to another, until finally settling on Hezbollah.
A revealing Wikileaks cable from 2008 shows the STL’s chief investigator begging the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon to provide the names of “leads” to pursue in Syria. “You are the key player,” he implores Ambassador Michele Sison, adding that the U.S. has “a big investment in the Tribunal.”
In a rare candid moment during an off-the-record meeting in 2011, another senior British official dropped this bombshell:
“The [UN] Tribunal is useful for us to keep the Iranians in line. We don’t have too many tools left to do that.”
Shortly after my meeting with Ambassador Guy in 2010, she was raked over the coals for a blog she posted on the passing of Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah—a Lebanese Shia cleric the U.S. has consistently, and many believe incorrectly, called “Hezbollah’s spiritual leader.” She wrote:
When you visited him you could be sure of a real debate, a respectful argument and you knew you would leave his presence feeling a better person…The world needs more men like him willing to reach out across faiths, acknowledging the reality of the modern world and daring to confront old constraints. May he rest in peace.
Israelis were incensed by Guy’s admiration for the Hezbollah-supporting cleric, and her blog post was scrubbed. But the UK nevertheless sent an official to pay condolences at Fadlallah’s Hassanein mosque, followed by a procession of ambassadors from France, Belgium, Poland, and Denmark. The French and Spanish ambassadors and the UN secretary general sent condolences to Hezbollah too.
Foreign Policy magazine published a piece upon Fadlallah’s death, subtitled: “How the United States got Lebanon’s leading Shiite cleric dead wrong—and missed a chance to change the Middle East forever.” That cryptic sentence refers, of course, to the monumentally misguided off-the-books assassination attempt against Ayatollah Fadlallah organized by CIA Director William Casey in the aftermath of the barracks and embassy bombings—despite the fact that the U.S., per Weinberger’s claims, had no clue who did not.
According to an interview Casey gave to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the CIA chief arranged for Saudi funding for the covert operation using Lebanese militias to do the dirty work. Fadlallah escaped death, but 80 others died in the southern Beirut suburb that day, including the brother of a young Imad Mughniyeh, who went on to become a leader of Hezbollah’s security operations.
He had been only nine years old in July 1972, when the Israelis set off Beirut’s first car bomb near the southern suburb where he lived, killing Palestinian poet Ghassan Kanafani and others.
Mughniyeh, you may recall, was himself killed in a car bomb in Damascus in February 2008. In the immediate aftermath of that assassination, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnellseemed to misdirect reporters:
“There’s some evidence that it may have been internal Hezbollah. It may have been Syria. We don’t know yet, and we’re trying to sort that out.”
No, it wasn’t Hezbollah and it wasn’t Syria. Seven years later, a series of orchestrated leaks to Newsweek and the Washington Post revealed that the Mughniyeh car bombing came courtesy of a joint operation by the CIA and Mossad.
No Threat to Americans
“Hezbollah is not plotting against us,” former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told a small group of anti-government Syrians on the sidelines of the UN’s General Assembly plenary session a year ago.
Kerry’s comments were caught on an audio tape acquired by the New York Times. Asked why the U.S. fights extremist Sunni groups and not Shia ones, he replied:
The reason for [airstrikes against the Sunni Extremists] is because they have basically declared war on us, and are plotting against us, and Hezbollah is not plotting against us— Hezbollah is exclusively focused on Israel, who they’re not attacking now, and on Syria, where they are attacking in support of Assad.
Now, a mere year later, Rasmussen wants us to believe:
“We in the Intelligence Community do, in fact, see continued activity on behalf of Hezbollah here inside the homeland.”
So which is it? Is Hezbollah targeting Americans or not? The evidence of this is extremely slim and is peppered with more use of qualifying terms—-“allegedly,” “reportedly,” “assessments,” “linkages”—than any objective journalist can comfortably swallow. So too are U.S. reports of Hezbollah’s “international terrorist activities.”
American investigative reporter Gareth Porter has done deep dives on various allegations of Hezbollah-linked “terrorism” in Argentina, Bulgaria, Washington, DC, India, Saudi Arabia and other places. The State Department lists many of these incidents as evidence of the “global threat” Hezbollah poses, but always, upon further scrutiny, the accusations ring hollow.
If there was compelling evidence of the Lebanese resistance group’s involvement in all these attacks, then why have so few nations clamored onto the Hezbollah-is-a-terrorist-organization bandwagon? Until the conflict in Syria kicked off, it was restricted to a smattering of western states and Israel. But relentless U.S. pressure, and the seismic battle currently underway in the Middle East between pro-U.S. states and pro-Iran states vying for hegemony, have produced a smattering few recent additions.
In early 2016, the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) designated Hezbollah a terrorist group, followed a few days later by the 21-member Arab League, with Lebanon and Iraq voting against the measure.
Both organizations are heavily dominated by the immensely wealthy and sectarian (read: anti-Shia) Saudis, financial patrons to many Sunni leaders in the region, and a country entrenched in existential proxy battles in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Bahrain (against Hezbollah ally and U.S. foe, Iran).
What stands out, instead, is the European Union’s fuzzy position on Hezbollah. Despite U.S. insistence that the group in its entirely is a terrorist organization, the EU lists only Hezbollah’s “military wing” as such—and that designation was made only in 2013, when the Syrian conflict exploded and nations started taking hard sides in the Middle East. The “military wing” caveat is a critical distinction that reveals there are more layers to this onion than we see in State Department sound bites.
For Lebanon, Hezbollah is more than just the first Arab force to militarily expel the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from its territory permanently. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is a political party too, with members of parliament and seats in the cabinet. The group runs a remarkable array of social services across the country, from subsidized schools, hospitals and clinics, to agricultural centers and environmental programs.
Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan introduced a more nuanced image of the group to a Washington think tank audience in 2009:
Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization in the early ’80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization … And so, quite frankly, I’m pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion.
Furthermore, Hezbollah’s appeal is not limited to Lebanon’s Shia community. Since 2006, Hezbollah has been in a political alliance with the country’s largest Christian-based political party, the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), whose leader, General Michel Aoun, is currently president of Lebanon.
Aoun’s close association with Hezbollah is an irritant to Washington, and so the Trump administration is pushing to tighten the sanctions noose on Lebanon, too. In September, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to strengthen the 2015 Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Act. Congressmen claim the new measures won’t harm regular Lebanese civilians, but there is a dangerous trend underway to punish anyone who supports Hezbollah’s civic, social, and religious initiatives.
This concern by the Lebanese is fully justified if you listen to State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism Nathan A. Sales, who insists:
Money given to a terrorist organization, even for purportedly non-terroristic purposes, ends up assisting the group’s terroristic activities. If you give money to the so-called peaceful side of an organization, money is fungible. And so that frees up resources that can then be used for malign activities that have nothing to do with charitable work or other purposes that we might regard as legitimate. And so it’s important for us to maintain that distinction as false. The distinction between political and terroristic is false.
The Lebanese resistance was formed in reaction to Israel’s illegal invasion and occupation of Lebanon. As Kerry says, that’s where Hezbollah’s real fight is—with Israel.
Washington should leave it to the two to duke it out. This is not America’s fight. Hezbollah has saved Lebanon—and much of the Levant—not once, but twice, from bloody aggressions. In fact, maybe I’ll take them out to lunch in Beirut and pay the bill. I daresay that could be regarded as a financial contribution to Hezbollah, and that would make me a “terrorist,” too.
Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Mideast geopolitics, based in Beirut.
President Bashar al-Assad asserted that the United States and its Western allies are to blame for the failure of latest ceasefire, because terrorism and terrorists are for them a card they want to play on the Syrian arena.
In an interview given to the Serbian newspaper Politika, President al-Assad said that Russia is very serious and very determined to continue fighting the terrorists, while the Americans base their politics on a different value as they use the terrorists as a card to play the political game to serve their own interests at the expense of the interests of other countries in the world.
President al-Assad pointed out that Western countries wanted to use the humanitarian mask in order to have an excuse to intervene more in Syria, either militarily or by supporting the terrorists.
Following is the full text of the interview.
Question 1: Mr. President, why has the latest Syria ceasefire failed? Who is to blame for that?
President Assad: Actually, the West, mainly the United States, has made that pressure regarding the ceasefire, and they always ask for ceasefire only when the terrorists are in a bad situation, not for the civilians. And they try to use those ceasefires in order to support the terrorists, bring them logistic support, armament, money, everything, in order to re-attack and to become stronger again. When it didn’t work, they ask the terrorists to make it fail or to start attacking again. So, who’s to blame? It’s the United States and its allies, the Western countries, because for them, terrorists and terrorism are a card they want to play on the Syrian arena, it’s not a value, they’re not against terrorists. For them, supporting the terrorists is a war of attrition against Syria, against Iran, against Russia, that’s how they look at it. That’s why not only this ceasefire; every attempt regarding ceasefire or political moving or political initiative, every failure of these things, the United States was to be blamed.
Question 2: But which country is supporting terrorism? Saudi Arabia? Qatar?
President Assad: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey…
Journalist: Turkey?
President Assad: Because they came through Turkey with the support of the government, direct support from the government.
Journalist: Directly?
President Assad: Direct support from the government, of course.
Journalist: With money or with armament?
President Assad: Let’s say, the endorsement, the greenlight, first. Second, the American coalition, which is called “international coalition,” which is an American. They could see ISIS using our oil fields and carrying the oil through the barrel trucks to Turkey under their drones…
Journalist: This is the Syrian oil?
President Assad: In Syria, from Syria to Turkey, under the supervision of their satellites and drones, without doing anything, till the Russians intervened and started attacking ISIS convoys and ISIS positions and strongholds. This is where ISIS started to shrink. So, the West gave the greenlight to those countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, and actually those countries, those governments are puppets; puppets to the West, puppets to the United States, they work as puppets, and the terrorists in Syria are their proxy, the proxy of those countries and proxy of the West and the United States.
Question 3: But money for marketing this oil, who has the money? Turkey?
President Assad: In partnership between ISIS and Turkey. Part of the money goes to ISIS because this is how they can make recruitment and pay salaries to their fighters. That’s why ISIS was growing before the Russian intervention, it was expanding in Syria and in Iraq. And part of the money is going to the Turkish government officials, mainly Erdogan himself and his family.
Journalist: Erdogan himself?
President Assad: Of course, of course. They were directly involved in this trade with ISIS.
Question 4: Mr. President, do you believe the Russians and Americans can ever agree over Syria? Can Russia and the USA be partners in the war against terrorists in Syria?
President Assad: We hope, but in reality, no, for a simple reason: because the Russians based their politics on values, beside their interest. The values are that they adopt the international law, they fight terrorism, and the interest that if you have terrorists prevailing in our region, that will affect not only our region but Europe, Russia, and the rest of the world. So, the Russians are very serious and very determined to continue fighting the terrorists, while the Americans based their politics on a different value, completely different value, their value is that “we can use the terrorists.” I mean the Americans, they wanted to use the terrorists as a card to play the political game to serve their own interests at the expense of the interests of other countries in the world.
Question 5: The situation about bombing the Syrian Army near the airport in Deir Ezzor… How did the American air attack on the Syrian Army happen? Was it a coincidence or not?
President Assad: It was premeditated attack by the American forces, because ISIS was shrinking because of the Syrian and Russian and Iranian cooperation against ISIS, and because al-Nusra which is Al Qaeda-affiliated group had been defeated in many areas in Syria, so the Americans wanted to undermine the position of the Syrian Army; they attacked our army in Deir Ezzor. It wasn’t by coincidence because the raid continued more than one hour, and they came many times.
Journalist: One hour?
President Assad: More than one hour. There were many raids by the Americans and their allies against the Syrian position. At the same time, they attacked a very big area; they didn’t attack a building to say “we made a mistake.” They attacked three big hills, not other groups neighboring these hills, and only ISIS existed in Deir Ezzor. There is no… what they called it “moderate opposition.” So, it was a premeditated attack in order to allow ISIS to take that position, and ISIS attacked those hills, and took those hills right away in less than one hour after the attack.
Journalist: ISIS attacking Syrian position after American…?
President Assad: Less than one hour, in less than one hour, ISIS attacked those hills. It means that ISIS gathered their forces to attack those hills. How did ISIS know that the Americans would attack that Syrian position? It means they were ready, they were prepared. This is an explicit and stark proof that the Americans are supporting ISIS and using it as a card to change the balance according to their political agenda.
Journalist: And after that, America said sorry, huh?
President Assad: They said they regret, they didn’t say sorry. [laughs]
Question 6: Mr. President, who is responsible for the attack on the Red Cross convoy near Aleppo, and what weapons were used for the destruction of the Red Cross convoy?
President Assad: Definitely the terrorist groups in Aleppo, because those are the ones who had an interest. When we announced the truce in Aleppo, they refused it. They said “no, we don’t want a truce.” They refused to have any convoys coming to eastern Aleppo, and that was public, it’s not our propaganda, it’s not our announcement, they announced it. And there was a demonstration by those militants to refuse that convoy. So, they have interest in attacking that convoy, we don’t have. It wasn’t in an area where you have Syrian troops, and at the same time there were no Syrian or Russian airplanes flying in that area anyway. But it was used as part of the propaganda, as part of the narrative against Syria in the West; that we attacked this humanitarian convoy, because the whole war now in Syria, according to the Western propaganda, is taking the shape of humanitarian war. This is the Western mask now; they wanted to use the humanitarian mask in order to have an excuse to intervene more in Syria, and when I say intervene it means militarily or by supporting the terrorists.
Journalist: This is like the situation in former Yugoslavia, in the war in Yugoslavia, also in the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the war in Kosovo, humanitarian problems.
President Assad: It’s a different era, maybe, a different shape, but the same core, what happened in your country, and what’s happening now in our country.
Question 7: And the Western propaganda spoke about the problem of using the chemical weapons and the barrel bombs.
President Assad: The same, to show that you have a black-and-white picture; very very bad guy against very very good guy. It’s like the narrative of George W. Bush during the war on Iraq and on Afghanistan. So, they wanted to use those headlines or those terms in their narrative in order to provoke the emotions of the public opinion in their countries. This is where the public opinion would support them if they wanted to interfere, either directly through military attacks, or through supporting their proxies that are the terrorists in our region.
Question 8: I see the news in the last days, the Amnesty International condemned a terrorist group for using the chlorine, the chemical weapons in Aleppo.
President Assad: In Aleppo, exactly, that happened a few days ago, and actually, regardless of these chemical attacks, we announced yesterday that the terrorists killed during the last three days more than 80 innocent civilians in Aleppo, and wounded more than 300. You don’t read anything about them in the Western mainstream media. You don’t see it, you don’t hear about it, there’s nothing about them. They only single out some pictures and some incidents in the area under the control of the terrorists just to use them for their political agenda in order to condemn and to blame the Syrian government, not because they are worried about the Syrians; they don’t care about our children, or about innocents, and about civilization, about infrastructure. They don’t care about it; they are destroying it. But actually, they only care about using everything that would serve their vested interests.
Question 9: And now, your army… you are the supreme commander of Syrian military forces. Your army now has not any chemical weapons?
President Assad: No, we don’t. Since 2013, we gave up our arsenals. Now, no we don’t have. But before that, we have never used it. I mean, when you talk about chemical weapons used by the government, it means you are talking about thousands of casualties in one place in a very short time. We never had this kind of incidents; just allegations in the Western media.
Question 10: Mr. President, when do you think the Syrian war will end?
President Assad: When? I always say less than one year is enough for you to solve your internal problem, because it is not very complicated internally. It’s becoming more complex only when you have more interfering by foreign powers. When those foreign powers leave Syria alone, we can solve it as Syrians in a few months, in less than one year. That’s very simple, we can, but providing that there’s no outside interference. Of course, that looks not realistic, because everybody knows that the United States wanted to undermine the position of Russia as a great power in the world, including in Syria. Saudi Arabia has been looking how to destroy Iran for years now, and Syria could be one of the places where they can achieve that, according to their way of thinking. But if we say that we could achieve that situation where all those foreign powers leave Syria alone, we don’t have a problem in solving our problem.
How? First of all, by stopping the support of the terrorists by external countries like the regional ones like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, and by the West, of course, mainly the United States. When you stop supporting terrorists in Syria, it won’t be difficult at all to solve our problem.
Question 11: Mr. President, is it true that Syria is the last socialistic country in the Arab world?
President Assad: Today, yes. I don’t know about the future, how is it going to be. We are socialist, but of course not the closed type.
Journalist: Humane socialism, because your government is supporting the education with the subvention, like the Swedish-type socialism.
President Assad: I don’t know a lot about the Swedish-type, but let’s say that in Syria, we have an open economy, but at the same time we have a strong public sector, and that public sector played a very important role in the resilience of the Syrian society and the government during the war. Without that public sector, the situation would have been much more difficult. So, we’re still socialist, and I think the war proved that the socialism system is very important for any country, taking into consideration that I’m talking about the open socialism, that could allow the freedom of the public sector to play a vital role in building the country.
Question 12: And your big companies… this is the state companies or private companies?
President Assad: We have both. But usually in such a situation, the public sector always plays the most important part. As you know, the private sector could feel the danger more and could suffer more and in some areas could quit the whole arena, the economic arena, because of the insecurity. So, that’s why you have to depend in such a situation more on the public sector, but still the private sector in Syria plays a very important part beside the public.
Question 13: And you have very very tolerance atmosphere with other churches, Christians, Muslims, and…
President Assad: It’s not tolerance, actually; they are part of this society. Without all different colors of the society – Christians, Muslims, and the different sects and ethnicities – you won’t have Syria. So, every Syrian citizen should feel fully free in practicing his rituals, his traditions, his beliefs. He should be free in order to have a stable country. Otherwise you won’t have Syria as a stable country. But I wouldn’t call it tolerance. Tolerance means like we accept something against our will; no, Muslims and Christians lived together for centuries in Syria, and they integrate in their life on daily basis, they don’t live in ghettos.
Question 14: No separate schools for Muslims, for Christians, young people, no?
President Assad: No, no. You have some schools that belong to the church, but they are full of Muslims and vice versa. So, you don’t have, no. We don’t allow any segregation of religions and ethnicities in Syria, that would be very dangerous, but naturally, without the interference of the government, people would like to live with each other in every school, in every place, in every NGO, in the government, that is the natural… That’s why Syria is secular by nature, not by the government. The Syrian society has been secular throughout history.
Question 15: And, Mr. President, it’s been one year since Russian air forces took part in the Syrian war, how much has Russia helped you?
President Assad: Let’s talk about the reality. Before the Russian interference, ISIS was expanding, as I said. When they started interfering, ISIS and al-Nusra and the other Al Qaeda affiliated groups started shrinking. So, this is the reality. Why? Of course, because it’s a great power and they have great army and they have great firepower that could support the Syrian Army in its war. The other side of the same story is that when a great country, a great power, like Russia, intervene against the terrorists, in coordination with the troops on the ground, and in our case, it’s the Syrian Army, of course you’re going to achieve concrete results, while if you talk about the American alliance, which is not serious anyway, but at the same time they don’t have allies on the ground, they cannot achieve anything. So, the Russian power was very important beside their political weight on the international arena, in both ways they could change the situation, and they were very important for Syria in defeating the terrorists in different areas on the Syrian arena or battlefield.
Question 16: Is the Syrian society divided by the war today?
President Assad: Actually, it’s more homogenous than before the war. That could be surprising for many observers because the war is a very deep and important lesson for every Syrian. Many Syrians before the war didn’t tell the difference between being fanatic and being extremist, between being extremist and being terrorist. Those borders weren’t clear for many, because of the war, because of the destruction, because of the heavy price that affected every Syrian, many Syrians learned the lesson and now they know that the only way to protect the country and to preserve the country is to be homogenous, to live with each other, to integrate, to accept, to love each other. That’s why I think the effect of the war, in spite of all the bad aspects of any war like this war, but this aspect was positive for the Syrian society. So, I’m not worried about the structure of the Syrian society after the war. I think it’s going to be healthier.
Question 17: And a question about the American presidential elections; who would you like to win in USA presidential elections, Trump or Hillary?
President Assad: I think in most of the world, the debate about this election is who’s better, Clinton is better or Trump. In Syria, the discussion is who’s worse, not who’s better. So, no one of them, I think, would be good for us, let’s say, this is first. Second, from our experience with the American officials and politicians in general, don’t take them at their word, they’re not honest. Whatever they say, don’t believe them. If they say good word or bad word, if they were very aggressive or very peaceful, don’t believe them. It depends on the lobbies, on the influence of different political movements in their country, after the election that’s what is going to define their policy at that time. So, we don’t have to waste our time listening to their rhetoric now. It’s just rubbish. Wait for their policies and see, but we don’t see any good signs that the United States is going to change dramatically its policy toward what’s happening in the world, let’s say, to be fair, or to obey the international law, or to care about the United Nation’s Charter. There’s no sign that we are going to see that in the near future. So, it’s not about who’s going to be President; the difference will be very minimal, each one of them is going to be allowed to leave his own fingerprint, just personal fingerprint, but doesn’t mean change of policies. That’s why we don’t pin our hopes, we don’t waste our time with it.
Question 18: Mr. President, the last question: The relation between Serbia and Syria, do you have any message for people in Serbia?
President Assad: I think we didn’t do what we have to do on both sides in order to make this relation in a better position, before the war. Of course, the war will leave its effects on the relation between every two countries, that would be understandable, but we have to plan for the next time because your country suffered from external aggression that led to the division of Yugoslavia and I think the people are still paying the price of that war. Second, the war in your country has been portrayed in the same way; as a humanitarian war where the West wanted to intervene in order to protect a certain community against the aggressors form the other community. So, many people in the world believe that story, the same in Syria; they use the same mask, the humanitarian mask.
Actually, the West doesn’t care about your people, they don’t care about our people, they don’t care about anyone in this world, they only care about their own vested interest. So, I think we have the same lessons, may be a different area, we are talking about two decades’ difference, maybe different headlines, but actually the content is the same. That’s why I think we need to build more relations in every aspect; cultural, economy, politics, in order to strengthen our position, each country in his region.
Question 19: But Syrian government, you and Syria’s state, supporting Serbia in the problem of the Kosovo?
President Assad: We did, we did, although the Turks wanted to use their influence for Kosovo, in Kosovo’s favor, but we refused. That was before the war, that was seven or eight years ago, and we refused, in spite of the good relation with Turkey at that time. We supported Serbia.
Journalist: Mr. President, thank you for the interview, thank you for your time.
President Assad: Not at all. Thank you for coming to Damascus.
Featured image: The Fukushima disaster of March 11, 2011
Introduction: Nuclear Energy in Asia
by Mel Gurtov
The Fukushima nuclear disaster of March 2011 has raised serious questions about nuclear power.
In our work since Fukushima, we have tried to answer two questions: What is the current status of nuclear energy in Asia? Does nuclear power have a future in East Asia? By answering those questions, we hope to contribute to the global debate about nuclear energy. To be sure, questions of such magnitude can rarely be answered with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Decisions on energy are made at the national level, on the basis of both objective factors such as cost-effectiveness and notions of the national interest, and less objective ones, such as influence peddled by power plant operators, corruption, and bureaucratic self-interest. Nevertheless, by closely examining the status and probable future of nuclear power plants in specific countries, the authors of this volume come up with answers, albeit mostly of a negative nature. At the start of 2017, 450 nuclear power reactors were operating in 30 countries, with 60 more under construction in 15 countries. Thirty-four reactors are under construction in Asia, including 21 in China. The “Fukushima effect” has clearly had an impact in Asia, however. In China, no new construction took place between 2011 and 2014, although since then there has been a slow increase of licenses. Nevertheless, the full story of China’s embrace of nuclear power, as told in this volume by M. V. Ramana and Amy King, is that the onset of a ‘new normal’ in economic growth objectives and structural changes in the economy have led to a declining demand for electricity and the likelihood of far less interest in nuclear power than had once been predicted. On the other hand, in South Korea, which relies on nuclear power for about 31 per cent of its electricity, Lauren Richardson’s chapter which is presented here, shows that the Fukushima disaster and strong civil society opposition have not deflected official support of nuclear power, not only for electricity but also for export.
Meanwhile, the 10 countries that comprise the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are divided about pursuing the nuclear-energy option, with Vietnam deciding to opt out in 2016, and Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines at various stages of evaluation. Even so, the chapter by Mely Caballero-Anthony and Julius Cesar I. Trajano shows that only about 1 per cent of ASEAN’s electricity will derive from nuclear power in 2035, whereas renewables will account for 22 per cent.
How viable nuclear power is finally judged to be will depend primarily on the decisions of governments, but increasingly also on civil society. ASEAN has established a normative framework that emphasises safety, waste disposal, and non-proliferation; and civil society everywhere is increasingly alert to the dangers and costs, above-board and hidden, of nuclear power plants. As Doug Koplow’s chapter shows, for example, the nuclear industry, like fossil fuels, benefits from many kinds of government subsidies that distort the energy market against renewable energy sources. Costs are politically as well as environmentally consequential: even if construction begins on a nuclear power plant, it will be cancelled and construction abandoned in 12 per cent of all cases. It is important to note that of the 754 reactors constructed since 1951, 90 have been abandoned and 143 plants permanently shut down. When construction does proceed, it takes between five to 10 years on average for completion (338 of 609), with some 15 per cent taking more than 10 years. And, in the end, old and abandoned reactors will have to be decommissioned, as Kalman A. Robertson discusses, with costs that may double over the next 15–20 years. As Robertson points out, the problem of safe disposal of radioactive waste and the health risk posed by radiation released during decommissioning should be factored into the total price that cleanup crews and taxpayers will eventually pay. On top of all that, there isn’t much experience worldwide in decommissioning. Then there is the issue of trust in those who make decisions. Tatsujiro Suzuki’s chapter shows that in Japan, the chief legacy of Fukushima is public loss of trust in Japanese decision-makers and in the nuclear industry itself. Several years after the accident, costs continue to mount, a fact that pro-nuclear advocates elsewhere in Asia might want to consider. They also need to consider the issue of transparency for, as Suzuki shows, the nuclear industry has consistently dodged the fairly obvious lessons of Fukushima with regard to costs, nuclear energy’s future, and communication with the public. Similarly, in Taiwan, as Gloria Kuang-Jung Hsu’s study shows, transparency about safety issues has been notoriously lacking, and a history of efforts to obfuscate nuclear weapon ambitions means that constant vigilance over nuclear regulators is necessary. Of course, if public opinion does not count in a country—say, in China and Vietnam—the issue of trust is muted. But we know that, even there, people are uneasy about having a nuclear power plant in their backyard. Issues of hidden cost and public trust are also embedded in the biological and health threat posed by nuclear energy. Tilman A. Ruff, a long-time student of radiation effects on human health, demonstrates how these effects have been underestimated. He offers a detailed explanation of what exposure to different doses of radiation, such as from the Fukushima accident, means for cancer rates and effects on DNA. Timothy A. Mousseau and Anders P. Møller, who have undertaken field research for many years on the genetic effects of the Chernobyl accident, look at how nuclear plant accidents affect the health of humans and other species. Combined, these two chapters offer a potent, often overlooked, argument against the nuclear option.
This introduction by Mel Gurtov and the following article by Lauren Richardson are adapted from Peter Van Ness and Mel Gurtov, eds., Learning From Fukushima. Nuclear Power in East Asia. Australian University Press.
***
Protesting Policy and Practice in South Korea’s Nuclear Energy Industry
by Lauren Richardson
Japan’s March 2011 (3/11) crisis spurred a revival in anti-nuclear activism around the globe. This was certainly the case in South Korea, Japan’s nearest neighbour, which was subject to some of the nuclear fallout from Fukushima. This chapter examines the puzzle of why the South Korean anti-nuclear movement was apparently powerless in the face of its government’s decision to ratchet up nuclear energy production post-3/11. It argues that its limitations stem from the highly insulated nature of energy policymaking in South Korea; the enmeshing of nuclear power in the government’s ‘Green Growth Strategy’; and certain tactical insufficiencies within the movement itself. Notwithstanding these limitations, the movement has successfully capitalised upon more recent domestic shocks to the nuclear power industry, resulting in a slight, yet significant, curtailing of the South Korean government’s nuclear energy capacity targets.
Introduction
The March 2011 (3/11) earthquake in northeastern Japan and ensuing nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant had profound reverberations for the global nuclear industry. In the wake of the disaster, countries as far-reaching as Germany and Switzerland brought their nuclear energy programs to a complete halt. Closer to the source of the calamity, the Taipei government initiated a gradual phase-out of its nuclear reactors and suspended plans for the construction of a fourth nuclear plant. These policy shifts were precipitated by nationwide anti-nuclear demonstrations that erupted in response to the Fukushima crisis. Somewhat surprising, however, was that Japan’s nearest neighbour, South Korea, reacted to the complete contrary. Despite the fact that Korean territory was subject to some of the nuclear fallout from Fukushima (see Hong et al. 2012), the South Korean government proceeded to ratchet up its nuclear energy program post-3/11 and pushed ahead with plans to become a major exporter of nuclear technology. Indeed, within only months of Japan’s disaster, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak reiterated his administration’s goal of doubling the number of domestic reactors, and reaffirmed nuclear technology as a primary export focus.
This response was puzzling for a number of reasons. First, similarly to the cases of Germany, Switzerland, and Taiwan, the South Korean anti-nuclear movement expanded to unprecedented proportions in the aftermath of Fukushima, yet ostensibly to no avail. This expansion was driven by a marked decline in public trust in the safety of nuclear reactors, and witnessed activists mounting a formidable challenge to nuclear energy policy. Moreover, since overthrowing the nation’s long-standing authoritarian regime in the late 1980s, South Korean civil society has evolved to wield powerful influence across a variety of policy domains; activists, though, were apparently powerless in the face of their government’s decision to increase nuclear-generating capacity. This is somewhat perplexing given that, in the very same year of the Fukushima calamity, South Korean civic groups contributed to undercutting a proposed security accord between Seoul and Tokyo, and ‘comfort women’ victims compelled their foreign ministry to pursue compensation from Japan more vigorously on their behalf―to name but two realms of policy influence.
Why then was South Korea’s anti-nuclear movement unable to subvert the South Korean government’s nuclear energy policy? Does the movement’s lack of evident success suggest that it exerted no tangible influence on nuclear energy development in South Korea? What factors have served to impede its effectiveness? This chapter addresses these questions through an analysis of the movement’s campaign to alter policy and practice in the South Korean nuclear energy industry, from the late-1980s to 2016. As the challenges encountered by the movement stem in part from the structural development of nuclear energy in South Korea, the chapter begins by outlining the evolution of this process. It proceeds to assess the efficacy of the anti-nuclear movement in pre- and post-Fukushima contexts, with reference to its aims and pressure tactics. It then assesses the reasons behind the government’s lack of responsiveness to the movement, before finally examining two emergent encumbrances to nuclear energy policy.
The chapter advances three broad arguments. First, the anti-nuclear movement has had considerable success in preventing the construction of nuclear waste disposal sites; this endeavour has been more fruitful than strategies that sought to undermine the establishment of new nuclear power plants. Second, the movement’s inability to abort nuclear energy production stems from the highly insulated nature of energy policymaking in South Korea, the enmeshing of nuclear power in the government’s ‘Green Growth Strategy’, and certain tactical insufficiencies in the anti-nuclear movement. Third, notwithstanding these limitations, the movement has capitalised upon recent domestic shocks to the nuclear power industry, resulting in a curtailing of the government’s nuclear energy capacity targets.
The evolution of South Korea’s nuclear energy policy
Since its post-Korean War (1950‒53) inception, energy policy in South Korea has been driven by the need to spur economic growth, minimise dependence on imports, and ensure long-term energy security. In the late 1950s, the South Korean government opted to develop a nuclear power program as a means to fuel the restoration of its war-shattered economy. Officials presumed that nuclear reactors would provide a stable source of energy, facilitate export-oriented growth, and reduce the nation’s reliance on costly oil, coal, and gas imports. Toward this end, Seoul joined the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1957, and thereafter enacted Framework Act No. 483 on Atomic Energy (1958) and established an Office of Atomic Energy (1959).
Under the iron grip of a succession of authoritarian leaders from the 1960s to the late 1980s, nuclear energy legislation proceeded mostly unhindered by public resistance. Indeed, the Park Chung-hee dictatorship (1961‒79) was quick to charge would-be demonstrators with violating anti-communism and national security laws, and resorted to barrages of tear gas and martial law to restrain them. It was against this backdrop that the nation’s first reactor, a small research unit, was brought to criticality in 1962. Some 10 years later, the Park government commissioned the construction of the Kori nuclear power plant in the port city of Busan, and this began generating in 1978 (Hwang and Kim 2013: 196).
In addition to the authoritarian milieu, South Korea’s alliance with the United States constituted a further driving force in its development of nuclear energy. Once Seoul embarked on its nuclear power program, a confluence of interests emerged between the American nuclear industry, business conglomerates (chaebol) and officials in South Korea. Nuclear power companies in the US had a specific agenda to promote the advancement of nuclear technology in non-communist countries, and thus viewed South Korea as an attractive business prospect. In fact, the American firm Combustion Engineering (later incorporated into Westinghouse Electric) supplied South Korea with its first nuclear reactor in 1978―the Kori-1 unit―and thereupon imparted technological know-how to the fledgling industry.
The Fukushima disaster of March 11, 2011
The US government, meanwhile, sought a degree of control over its ally’s nuclear energy policy; this was predicated on dissuading South Korea from developing an indigenous nuclear weapons capability. Prompted by mounting military pressure from Pyongyang and the withdrawal of thousands of US troops from South Korea in 1971, Park started harbouring aspirations of nuclear weapons development and proliferation (Hayes and Moon 2011). Through the enactment of the Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of Atomic Energy in 1972, Washington attempted to curb these ambitions by pledging to provide nuclear materials and technology to Seoul on the condition that they be used exclusively for energy production purposes. The terms of the agreement further undermined Seoul’s nuclear weapons potential by prohibiting uranium enrichment and limiting its fuel cycle options and raw material supply. When the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute attempted to circumvent these terms by purchasing reprocessing plants from Belgium in the mid-1970s, the US and Canadian governments thwarted the deal by exerting financial leverage vis-à-vis Seoul, and Washington further threatened to cut off support for its ally’s nuclear power program (Hayes and Moon 2011: 51‒3). Under the weight of this pressure, Park eventually abandoned his weapons development and proliferation plans at the end of the decade.
Throughout the early to mid-1980s, the expansion of South Korea’s nuclear energy capacity proceeded mostly unencumbered by civic dissent. This was largely owing to the preoccupation of the populace with achieving democratisation (Leem 2006). In this context, the state-owned Korea Electric Power Company (KEPCO) oversaw the construction of an additional eight reactors, through the assistance of American nuclear firms. By the end of the decade, South Korea’s nuclear energy industry had evolved to supply 45 per cent of the nation’s energy needs and had virtually attained technical self-reliance. Nuclear power thus became closely correlated with South Korea’s rapid industrialisation and economic rise.
The bottom-up movement against nuclear energy
As the transition to democracy began in the late-1980s, however, the nuclear energy industry began to encounter significant social resistance. After a decade of sustained civil uprisings against the authoritarian leadership, South Korean citizens started to question Park’s development model, in particular its driving force of nuclear energy. This questioning, which was fueled by increasing political liberalisation, gradually gave rise to a nascent anti-nuclear movement. In its early stages, this movement remained fairly localised around nuclear reactor sites. Yet the Fukushima crisis served to galvanise and encourage its transnational expansion. Although the movement’s overarching objective of achieving a nuclear-free South Korea ultimately proved abortive, it did succeed in stymieing the construction of a number of nuclear waste disposal sites. This section examines the movement’s opposition tactics before and after 3/11.
Phase 1: Pre-Fukushima
The South Korean anti-nuclear movement emerged as an amalgamation of various environmental and other civic-minded groups. Spurred in part by the numerous nuclear power plant-related accidents that had occurred by the end of the 1980s, including the Chernobyl disaster, citizens joined forces to prevent further environmental damage and curb the nation’s steadily increasing pollution. As a first step they jointly established the National Headquarters for Nuclear Power Eradication, and thereupon launched a bottom-up campaign against nuclear energy.
One of the first major rallying points of the movement was the matter of radioactive waste disposal. Given that close to 50 per cent of the nation’s electricity was being derived from nuclear power by the 1980s, spent fuel repositories were reaching capacity and the storage of radioactive waste had begun to pose a formidable challenge. Activists perceived this state of affairs as a potential environmental disaster. When the government first announced its candidate sites for nuclear waste disposal in 1986―and every instance thereafter―impassioned civic resistance thus followed. Brandishing messages about the dangers of nuclear materials, citizens staged large-scale protests at government complexes and proposed waste sites. These early grassroots efforts met with overwhelming success: over a period of eight years, the anti-nuclear movement thwarted the construction of 12 nuclear waste disposal sites (Sayvetz 2012).
In an attempt to circumvent further public obstruction, the South Korean government began targeting remote locales to play host to waste depositories. In the mid-1990s, officials designated Gulup Island, a small landmass off South Korea’s western coast, as a potential site. This plan was instigated without public consultation and when news of it was leaked to the public, anti-nuclear activists rallied in anger. The Korean Federation for Environmental Movements (KFEM) elected to head a campaign to prevent the site’s construction. Boasting a membership of more than 13,000, the KFEM worked in tandem with various civic groups to advocate for the Gulup Island residents, who were strongly averse to the prospect of a nuclear waste dump in their residential vicinity (Sayvetz 2012). In a show of broad-based consensus against the proposed site, the KFEM convened mass rallies and filed an oppositional petition that attracted thousands of signatures.
When the government belatedly agreed to convene a public hearing regarding the site, representatives from a number of civic groups voiced their concerns about the presence of a geological fault on the island. Their apprehensions, however, ostensibly fell on deaf ears. Public pressure thus continued to mount, and in the Spring of 1995, over 300 residents in the nearby Deokjeok Island―who were also fearful of the site’s potential consequences―staged a protest in front of the Ministry of Science and Technology in Seoul. Faced with this unrelenting opposition, government officials were impelled to solicit experts from the IAEA to conduct a survey on the proposed site. Their findings revealed the presence of a fault, confirming residents’ suspicions that the site was particularly perilous for the storage of nuclear waste. In light of this development, the central government decided to abort the Gulup Island plan in November 1995.
The movement continued to challenge the construction of radioactive waste sites throughout the 1990s and into the early twenty-first century. These attempts tended to remain localised in nature and dissipated once a proposal was successfully undermined.
Phase 2: Post-Fukushima
Following the meltdown of the three reactors in Fukushima, South Korea’s anti-nuclear movement underwent somewhat of a resurgence. This was characterised by the mobilisation of a broader spectrum of activists and an increase in the breadth of the movement’s anti-nuclear activities. As images of the triple meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant filtered through South Korean media outlets, various religious groups, unions, co-ops, professional associations, non-governmental organisations, academics, and parents groups joined the appeal for a nuclear-free future. The 3/11 crisis moreover spurred the South Korean movement to transnationalise its anti-nuclear efforts through joining forces with like-minded activists in the region. This was instigated by a group of Catholic South Korean dioceses who pledged to form an East Asian civil society network with anti-nuclear activists in Japan and China; their objective was to present a united front of opposition to the nuclear power industry regardless of the tensions between their respective countries. As described in their initial prospectus, ‘the more we share information on the dangers on nuclear power and spread technology and wisdom regarding natural energy, the more East Asia will become the center of peace, not conflict; of life, not destruction’ (East Coast Solidarity for Anti-Nuke Group 2012). Under the nomenclature of the East Coast Solidarity for Anti-Nuke Group, the group debuted on the first anniversary of the Fukushima disaster with a declared membership of 311 citizens, signifying that the South Korean movement was no longer a domestic phenomenon localised around nuclear waste sites.
In accordance with the expansion of its constituents, the movement increased the scope of its anti-nuclear efforts in the aftermath of Fukushima. Moving beyond the initial focus of countering the construction of new waste storage sites and plants, activists began to advocate more broadly for the cessation of nuclear energy production; accordingly, they targeted existing plants. The logic driving the movement’s post-Fukushima campaign was essentially fourfold: (1) uranium sources will eventually be exhausted, and therefore nuclear energy is not a viable permanent energy source; (2) most of the developed countries around the world are no longer constructing new nuclear reactors and, since Fukushima, are seriously rethinking their nuclear energy policies; (3) when factoring in the social costs, nuclear energy cannot be considered cost-effective; and (4) as the mining and processing of uranium produces carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear power cannot be conceived of as an environmentally friendly source. Meanwhile, the overarching logic informing the movement was that Japan’s ‘March 11 disaster has proven that nuclear power plants are not safe’ (Nagata 2012).
First among the anti-nuclear movement’s post-3/11 objectives was to nullify the lifespan extensions of the nation’s two oldest nuclear reactors―Kori-1 and Wolsong-1. The former unit, which was already running beyond its technological lifespan, had experienced a number of technical problems in the Spring of 2011, and was consequently temporarily shut down. Yet shortly thereafter nuclear officials declared it suitable for operation and allowed it to resume power generation. Likewise, the latter unit, which began operating in 1983 at a plant in North Gyeongsang province, was taken offline for extended maintenance in June 2009. As its operating license was due to expire in 2012, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) spent ₩560 billion (US$509 million) on refitting the unit with the hope of prolonging its lifespan. Ultimately, the reactor was cleared for restart in June 2011.
These decisions by nuclear energy officials were made in close succession to the Fukushima disaster, and thus aroused fears among local residents of a similar catastrophe occurring in their own vicinity. Under the banner of a group called Collective Action for a Nuclear Free Society, residents demanded that the life extensions of the reactors be nullified. Toward this end, they staged protests in front of the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) in Seoul, where officials deliberated the fate of the reactors, and chanted anti-nuclear slogans. In spite of these objections, however, nuclear officials permitted Kori-1’s continued operation. And although they agreed to shut down Wolsong-1 at the conclusion of its lifespan in November 2012, they later backtracked, granting permission for it to restart in February 2015 and operate for a further 10 years. These two decisions constituted a major setback for the movement.
In addition to focusing on aged reactors, the anti-nuclear movement continued on its mission to abort the construction of new nuclear power plants. Activists concentrated on the candidate sites of Samcheok and Yeongdeok, two cities on the east coast of South Korea in which the government proposed to build eight new reactors (four at each site). The local government of Samcheok had originally agreed to host a nuclear power plant in 2010. Yet following the Fukushima disaster, anti-nuclear sentiment swept throughout the city, culminating in the formation of the Pan-Citizen Alliance for Cancelling the Samcheok Nuclear Power Plant. To signal their changed stance on nuclear power to the central government, the city residents elected a new mayor, Kim Yang-ho, who had campaigned on an anti-nuclear platform. In order to elicit a collective anti-nuclear expression, Kim held a referendum in October 2014. As he anticipated, the majority of citizens indicated their opposition to the plant’s construction: among the 69.8 per cent of the voting population who participated in the referendum, 85 per cent voted against the proposed site. Due to the fact that the referendum was not legally sanctioned, however, the national government declared it non-binding and thus ignored the result.
In the second candidate city of Yeongdeok, a similar outcome transpired. Being a rural and coastal county with a dwindling population and struggling economy, Yeongdeok residents had initially been enthused about the prospect of economic revitalisation that a nuclear power plant would offer. Not only would it bring much needed employment opportunities, but the South Korean government had pledged to provide ₩1.5 trillion (US$1.35 billion), over a 60-year period, to compensate for any potential associated dangers. Having lost their earlier (2005) bid to host a storage site for low-level radioactive waste, the citizens of Yeongdeok were particularly keen to secure the nuclear power plant venture. Their enthusiasm quickly dissipated, however, in the face of Japan’s 3/11 disaster. Indeed, residents had not foreseen the possibility of tsunami damage to the plant when originally submitting their host bid. In the aftermath of Fukushima, local citizens thus called for a county referendum to overturn the plan. In this instance, the mayor was unwilling to support the initiative and therefore residents organised it on their own accord. Perhaps owing to this lack of official backing, the referendum failed to attract the requisite one-third of voters for it to hold legal sway (Kim 2015). In any case, national officials dismissed both the Samcheok and Yeongdeok voter outcomes on the grounds that central government projects are not subject to local referenda results.
Evidently, the pressure tactics of the South Korean anti-nuclear movement have produced mixed results. Early protests were successful in undermining nuclear waste site proposals and plans for the construction of a small number of nuclear power plants. Yet in the post-Fukushima period, the movement largely failed in its aims to abrogate the lifespan extensions of aged reactors and reverse site selection decisions for new nuclear power plants.
Explaining the limited policy change
Despite the magnitude of the Fukushima crisis and ensuing tide of pressure from the anti-nuclear movement, Seoul’s nuclear power policy showed no immediate signs of deceleration―at least on the surface. The disaster only prompted limited government measures aimed at counteracting potential contamination from Japan’s meltdown, and enhancing the safety of domestic nuclear installations. In the two months following 3/11, all 30,000 passengers that entered South Korea from Japan (by ship or aircraft) were screened for radioactivity; only two people, however, required decontamination (Korean Government 2011). Over the same two months, the central government ordered nuclear officials to carry out a special safety inspection of all nuclear power plants throughout the country, yet ultimately no abnormalities were detected. Finally, in June 2011, the South Korean National Assembly passed a bill to establish the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, a regulatory body tasked with protecting public health and safety.
Together these measures constituted the extent of the South Korean government’s responsiveness to 3/11 and the subsequent pressure from the anti-nuclear movement. South Korea continues to stand as the sixth largest consumer of nuclear energy in the world, second in Asia only to Japan. There remain 24 nuclear reactors operating nationwide, with another five under construction. Government officials continue to emphasise the safety and low-cost efficiency of nuclear power, while largely eschewing the development of renewable energy sources. Expanding the nuclear energy industry is still a national strategic priority, as exemplified in the Ministry of Science and Technology’s (2006) Third Comprehensive Plan for Nuclear Energy Development (2007‒11). The government predicted in this report that the nation would derive 59 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power sources by 2030.
In addition to these domestic ambitions, nuclear energy technology has evolved to become a major export industry for South Korea. The Ministry of Knowledge Economy intends to export another 80 reactors, worth a total of US$400 billion, by 2030. The nation secured its first major international contract in 2009, when KEPCO signed a US$40 billion deal to construct four nuclear reactors for the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Undeterred by the Fukushima meltdown, President Lee embarked on an official visit to the UAE on 13 March 2011―a mere two days after Japan’s crisis began to unfold―to reaffirm his plans for future energy cooperation. Besides the UAE deal, Seoul has secured a US$173 million contract to build a nuclear research reactor in Jordan, and to construct several reactors in Saudi Arabia worth a total of US$2 billion. Other target export countries for South Korea’s nuclear industry include China, Finland, Hungary, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, and Vietnam.
What explains the failure of the anti-nuclear movement to subvert the development of nuclear energy in South Korea? Pressure tactics cannot singularly account for the limited policy change. Rather, a combination of three factors have served to militate against substantial nuclear power reform. These include (1) the highly insulated and top-down nature of nuclear energy policymaking in South Korea; this has restricted the number of legislative handles around which activists can mobilise to influence policy decisions; (2) the centrality of nuclear energy to the South Korean government’s Green Growth Strategy, a factor that has legitimated its continued expansion; and (3) shortcomings in the anti-nuclear movement’s pressure strategy, specifically, its laxness in articulating a feasible alternative energy strategy to nuclear power.
The insularity of nuclear power policymaking
The primary hurdle faced by the movement has been the elite-driven nature of policymaking on nuclear energy. In contrast to the many other policy domains in South Korea which allow for substantial input from citizens, decisions on nuclear energy continue to be formulated exclusively by government officials and technocrats, in a highly insulated environment. The key actors engaged in this process include the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy; the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy; the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning; the NSSC; and various chaebol and bureaucratic authorities. Each of these institutions is in turn informed by pro-nuclear politicians and technocrats, producing an iron triangle of decision-making that excludes civil society. This triangular structure was particularly reinforced with the installation of Lee―a former chaebol leader (Hyundai executive)―as South Korean president in 2008.
As a corollary of this elite-driven process, nuclear energy policy is implemented through a top-down dynamic. This has been characterised by a ‘decide-announce-defend’ sequence (Norman and Nagtzaam 2016: 250), whereby the central government enacts a policy, proceeds to impose it on local government and citizens, and then seeks to placate any objections by offering financial rewards and other incentives. This sequence was vividly evinced in the Gulup Island fiasco. As this strategy, though, has proved abortive on a number of occasions, the government has attempted since 2004 to move toward a slightly more consultative mechanism that incorporates citizens’ preferences. Activists continue, however, to face significant barriers in shaping the nuclear energy agenda. The elite-driven and top-down dynamic of the policy process has in fact steered their pressure tactics away from government lobbying, toward the more viable strategy of obstructing policy implementation.
Nuclear power as ‘green’ energy
A further inhibiting factor for the movement has been the enmeshing of nuclear power in the South Korean government’s Green Growth Strategy. Essentially, this has added another layer of insularity to nuclear energy policy in South Korea.
As a consequence of South Korea’s rapid industrialisation over the last few decades, its greenhouse gas emissions virtually doubled between 1990 and 2005―an increment exceeding most of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. At the same time, Seoul’s annual mean temperature increased by 1.5degrees Celsius, surpassing the global average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (von Hippel, Yun, and Cho 2011). These developments, coupled with an emergent international consensus on the need to address climate change, forced the South Korean government to consider ways to curtail its carbon dioxide emissions. Being at once low-carbon and cost-effective, nuclear energy was seized upon by South Korean officials as a convenient solution to the nation’s environmental and climate woes, and also as a means to deal with rising energy demands. In 2009, the Lee administration announced a national Green Growth Strategy premised on three major objectives: reducing fossil fuel use, tracking greenhouse gas emissions, and establishing several new nuclear power plants. Renewable energy was relegated only a marginal status under the plan.
This linking of nuclear power to the national environmental and climate strategy was institutionalised through the government’s Five Year Plan for Green Growth (2009‒13), and the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth(2010). As a result of this process, the political opportunity structure surrounding nuclear energy became less favourable to activists. The discursive framing of nuclear power as both a means to reduce carbon emissions and promote energy independence, enabled the South Korean government to legitimise its plans to expand nuclear power domestically and export nuclear technology abroad. Indeed, Lee boasted to his constituencies that the planned export of four reactors to the UAE would equate to ‘40 million tons of carbon mitigation’ (Lee 2010: 11‒12).
To challenge this stance of the government, the anti-nuclear movement has attempted to counter-frame nuclear power as an environmentally unfriendly energy source. As previously mentioned, activists have argued that the mining and processing of uranium produces carbon dioxide emissions. The movement has furthermore underscored the clause of the South Korea‒US atomic energy agreement that prohibits the reprocessing of spent fuel, and thus renders the necessity of environmentally hazardous radioactive waste sites. As many of South Korea’s nuclear power plants are located in coastal areas that are subject to occasional earthquakes, activists have also raised the possibility of the occurrence of a Fukushima-style disaster. This counter-frame, however, has yet to tip the cost-benefit analysis of nuclear energy by the wider populace. Indeed, there remains an overriding belief within South Korean society that nuclear power holds the key to combating climate change, as argued by the government.
Tactical insufficiencies in the anti-nuclear movement
The limited policy change in nuclear energy development can further be attributed to insufficiencies in the tactics of the anti-nuclear movement. Throughout their campaign against nuclear power, activists have neglected to formulate a feasible alternative energy source. Instead of demanding new policies (Hermanns 2015: 276), they have tended towards the reactionary tactics of undercutting policy implementation and emphasising the hazards inherent in nuclear energy. In view of the fact that South Korea is lacking in natural resources and its economy is structured around manufacturing, this approach of the movement has been problematic for the offsetting of nuclear power. In the absence of a strategy delineating how the nation’s energy needs might otherwise be met―accounting both for energy security issues and projected industrialisation―it is improbable that the South Korean government would eschew nuclear power as a major energy source. Formulating such a strategy is all the more necessary in light of the nation’s dense population, relatively small landmass, and mountainous terrain, all of which render certain forms of renewable energy―such as wind farms―less conceivable than in other countries.
And while the anti-nuclear movement has significantly increased in scope since Fukushima, its pressure tactics have not resulted in a marked change in public opinion vis-à-vis nuclear power. According to annual polls conducted by the Korea Nuclear Energy Agency, South Korean citizens have upheld consistent views about the importance of nuclear-generated energy throughout recent years, with national support for nuclear power plants hovering between 80 per cent and 90 per cent―even after Fukushima. This has served to further bolster the government’s mandate to expand its nuclear energy program. The 3/11 disaster did, however, result in lowered perceptions regarding the safety of nuclear reactors and radioactive waste management in South Korea, with 39 per cent and 24 per cent of survey respondents expressing their confidence in these respective realms. Additionally, polls conducted one year prior to and one year after Fukushima indicated a decline of 8 per cent (from 28 per cent to 20 per cent) in local acceptance of nuclear power (Dalton and Cha 2016). These statistics reflect the fact that opposition to nuclear power is highly localised to rural areas―where nuclear power plants and waste sites are concentrated―while support for nuclear power rests with the larger cities, such as Seoul, where the power-brokers reside and nuclear power plants are a rare sight.
In effect, the downturn in local approval of and confidence in the safety of nuclear reactors has complicated the policy implementation process in South Korea. At the same time, though, the sustained broad-based support for nuclear power generation has functioned to attenuate the pressure tactics of the anti-nuclear movement.
New challenges to South Korea’s nuclear energy industry
Notwithstanding the limitations of the anti-nuclear movement in shaping energy policy in South Korea, recent years have seen the emergence of two new challenges to the government’s nuclear power strategy. Manifesting both endogenously and exogenously, effectively these have sent shockwaves throughout the industry, forcing Seoul to curb its generating capacity ambitions. For its part, the anti-nuclear movement has seized upon these shocks as opportunities to whip up further opposition to nuclear energy among South Korea’s populace.
Corruption scandals
The first of these challenges manifested as a series of corruption scandals implicating nuclear officials, and a consequent erosion of public trust in nuclear energy regulation. As part of Seoul’s bid to expand its nuclear-generating capacity, 11 new reactors had been planned for construction in the period 2012‒21. This proposal was derailed, however, when it was found—during a routine inspection—that the plant manager had covered-up a reactor power failure (KHNP 2012). When the reactor in question had lost power, the emergency diesel generator failed to start, signalling a host of potential dangers. The plant manager refrained from reporting the mishap due to a fear of inciting a public backlash and ‘worsening the plant’s credibility’ (IAEA‒NSNI 2012: 3).
Given Kori’s location in South Korea’s second most populous city of Busan, this act of cover-up provided ample opportunity for the anti-nuclear movement to stoke public concerns about regulatory practices. Thus, amidst the controversy, the KFEM and the No Nukes Busan Citizen Countermeasure Commission simulated a radioactive leak (on the scale of the Chernobyl disaster) at the plant, to determine the probable effects. The results were published in a report, and predicted that such an accident would produce roughly 900,000 casualties in Busan, and ₩628 trillion (US$533 billion) worth of property damage (Yi 2012). This scenario, which was reminiscent of the safety regulatory failure at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, struck widespread fear in the minds of residents. While a panel of experts from the IAEA proceeded to declare the two reactors as safe, their assurances failed to allay the concerns of local citizens who were quickly losing trust in nuclear officials (IAEA 2012).
On the heels of this incident a second corruption scandal occurred, further highlighting the lack of transparency in the regulation of nuclear power plants in South Korea. This unravelled in November 2012, when regulators discovered that at least 5,000 small reactor components at the Yeonggwang nuclear power plant lacked proper certification, and that at least 60 of the quality assurance certificates for these components were fake. After launching an official investigation, the KHNP announced that between 2003 and 2012, the plant had been supplied with a total of 7,682 items with forged quality certificates (LaForge 2013‒14). In light of these revelations, the KHNP was compelled to shut down two of the plant’s six reactors until the dubious reactor components were replaced. As citizen protests erupted over the controversy, nuclear authorities were prompted to inspect the components of all 23 reactors nationwide. This led to the discovery of copious forged safety certificates for reactor parts at the Kori and Wolseong plants. Consequently, the Kori-2 and Shin Wolseong-1 units were shut down in June 2013, and Kori-1 and Shin Wolseong-2 were ordered to remain offline while the unauthorised parts were refitted. In the ascription of culpability for these scandals, 100 people were indicted on bribery charges, including a former chief executive of the KHNP and a vice-president of KEPCO (LaForge 2013‒14).
Once again these events triggered an upsurge in anti-nuclear ferment in South Korea. Citizens attributed the corrupt practices in safety certification to the culture of secrecy shrouding the nuclear energy industry. These sentiments were evinced in protests that erupted in response to the shut down of the Yeonggwang reactors, which attracted as many as 2,500 citizens. Calling for an overall safety review of South Korea’s nuclear power plants, participants burned effigies of the KHNP and brandished placards claiming, ‘We feel uneasy!’ To placate the public outcry, Cho Seok, the chief executive officer of the KHNP, issued a public apology in September 2013 conceding that the corruption scandals constituted the ‘utmost crisis’ ever faced by the nuclear sector, and vowed to reform South Korea’s corporate culture.
Together these controversies engendered a loss of overall public trust in the government’s capacity to regulate nuclear energy production. This outcome was inevitably reinforced by the parallels that citizens drew between the regulatory shortcomings at Fukushima Daiichi and that of their national nuclear power plants.
Cyber-attacks on nuclear power plants
The second formidable challenge to South Korea’s nuclear energy program emerged in the form of a cyber-attack. This occurred in December 2014 when a hacker leaked the partial blueprints and operating manuals for three domestic nuclear reactors, in addition to the personal data on 10,000 KHNP employees (Baylon, Livingstone, and Brunt 2015). The material was first published online via a blog, and then on a Twitter account under the profile ‘president of the anti-nuclear reactor group’. The hacker, whose identity was unknown (the South Korean government suspected Pyongyang), issued a threat to the effect that unless three specific reactor units―Kori-1, Kori-3, and Wolseong-2―were shut down by Christmas, they would systematically be destroyed and further data would be published online. ‘Will you take responsibility when these blueprints, installation diagrams and programs are released to the countries that want them?’ the hacker threatened in Korean. The three nuclear reactors at the centre of the controversy had long been targeted by the anti-nuclear movement, given their close proximity to populous areas.
Despite having accessed the reactors’ blueprints and manuals, however, the hacker was unable to obtain critical technical data pertaining to the nuclear facilities; indeed, this information is stored securely within the KHNP’s control monitoring system, which is separate from its internal network. The attacks nevertheless prompted the government to raise its cyber-crisis alert level to ‘attention’―the second on a five-step scale―and to run a series of cyber-warfare drills on its various nuclear power plants. More worrisome for government and nuclear officials was that the cyber-attack and its attendant threats provided further fuel for the anti-nuclear movement and stirred greater social unrest among residents in the Kori and Wolseong plant vicinities. In the eyes of local citizens, the susceptibility of the KHNP’s internal server to cyber-attacks constituted yet another danger associated to nuclear energy production. These apprehensions were buttressed by the hacker’s pronouncement that anyone living in proximity to the plants should vacate their homes immediately (McCurry 2014).
What was the combined impact of these challenges on South Korea’s nuclear energy program? In short, the rise in anti-nuclear sentiment in relation to the scandals essentially reined in the government’s nuclear power aspirations. Faced with unprecedented criticism over the safety standards and regulatory practices at domestic nuclear power plants, South Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy was compelled to drastically lower the national nuclear energy capacity target. Whereas the initial goal was to attain 59 per cent capacity by 2030, in the aftermath of the scandals, this was reduced to a more modest 22‒29 per cent (by 2035) (Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy 2014: 40). The justification provided for this revision was the need to avoid ‘excessive expansion’ of nuclear energy, and doubtlessly was premised on the increasing concerns of citizens. As a further ramification, the KHNP agreed to permanently shut down the Kori-1 reactor in June 2017 on the advice of the central government, rendering it the first of South Korea’s nuclear power units to enter the decommissioning phase. The controversies moreover necessarily imposed a significant financial burden on the KHNP: a congressional hearing in October 2013 estimated this cost to be as high as US$2.8 billion (Cho 2013).
The overarching effect of the scandals is that South Korea’s nuclear energy industry has been rendered more accountable to the public. This status quo is being reinforced by the recent corruption charges levelled against the Park Geun-hye administration, and the consequent presidential impeachment proceedings. As allegations emerged that President Park―daughter of Park Chung-hee―had colluded with a confidante in the embezzlement of large sums of public funds, over a million South Korean citizens took to the streets in protest. Their refusal to accept their president’s apology and to continue to call for her resignation, is stark evidence of society’s diminished tolerance for government malfeasance.
Conclusion: The post-Fukushima legacy of the South Korean anti-nuclear movement
The Fukushima disaster of March 2011 was a vivid reminder for the world that nuclear power plants can cause catastrophic damage. A number of governments accordingly aborted or considerably slowed the pace of their nuclear energy programs, taking heed of rising concerns about the safety of nuclear reactors among their populaces. Yet, as we have seen, South Korea conversely pushed ahead with its ambition to become a foremost nuclear powerhouse after 3/11. This was in spite of the anti-nuclear movement gaining significant traction and mounting a concerted effort to alter policy and practice in the industry. The aim of this chapter has been to explain the limited effect of the movement through an examination of its anti-nuclear campaigns in pre- and post-Fukushima contexts.
It found that, owing to the fact that nuclear power became firmly ensconced in Seoul’s energy policy long before the advent of anti-nuclear activism, the movement faced formidable structural obstacles from its incipient stages. This entrenchment of nuclear energy occurred as a consequence of decades-long dictatorial rule, the US‒South Korea alliance, and the export-oriented development model installed by former President Park Chung-hee. Early collaboration among activists on opposing nuclear energy was hampered primarily by two factors: the dictates of authoritarian leadership and the preoccupation of the South Korean citizenry with achieving democratisation.
Once the anti-nuclear movement eventually materialised in the late-1980s, it proceeded to challenge various facets of nuclear energy policy with mixed results. In the earlier stages of its campaign, activists attained a degree of success in thwarting the construction of new nuclear power plants and radioactive waste disposals. They largely failed, though, in their post-Fukushima objectives of countering the lifespan extension of reactors due for decommissioning, and overturning county-level agreements (enacted pre-3/11) to host new nuclear power plants.
This limited policy change, it was argued, cannot solely be understood in terms of deficiencies within the movement. Rather, a combination of factors have served to constrain the opportunity structure for activists, including the insulated and top-down nature of nuclear energy policymaking in South Korea, and the integrality of nuclear power to the government’s Green Growth Strategy. For its part, the movement has neglected to formulate a viable alternative to nuclear energy, which has long constituted a driving force of economic growth for the nation.
While the anti-nuclear movement failed to achieve a phase-out of nuclear power in South Korea, it would be imprecise to conclude that its efforts have been ineffectual. In fact, activists have succeeded in politicising nuclear energy and weakening its public support base. This process was facilitated by the recent revelations of endemic corruption within the industry (and government writ large), as well as the cyber-attacks targeting the more notorious nuclear reactors in the country. The movement capitalised upon these scandals to mobilise further anti-nuclear sentiment, and to fuel public mistrust in the regulation of nuclear energy. As a result, the South Korean government’s policy of expanding nuclear energy is now subject to an increasingly hostile domestic atmosphere, which stands in sharp contrast to the earlier authoritarian era. Furthermore, the movement partially eroded the government’s monopoly over nuclear energy, by compelling the industry to enhance its transparency, improve the safety of existing reactors, and to conform to greater public scrutiny. But perhaps the most significant legacy of the movement thus far, is that it helped to persuade the government to scale back its target for nuclear power generation by as much as 30 per cent.
Nevertheless, South Korea remains on track to cement its status as a nuclear power stronghold. In order to change this status quo, the anti-nuclear movement will need to exert constant pressure, citing the lessons of Fukushima, and to formulate a feasible alternative to nuclear energy. This in turn will help the South Korean government to resolve its dilemma of being reliant on nuclear reactors to sustain economic growth and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, on the one hand, and subject to rising anti-nuclear views from its electorate, on the other.
If Seoul continues to pursue the further development of nuclear power without establishing a consultative mechanism that adequately incorporates the views of South Korean citizens, effectively it will only add greater fuel to the anti-nuclear movement. As surmised by Yeon Hyeong-cheol of the KFEM:
Nuclear power plants are directly connected to the lives of the residents, yet the government has ignored citizens’ opinions and insisted on a policy in favour of expanding nuclear power plants. Now that we have confirmed the [anti-nuclear] thoughts of the citizens, we will actively engage in movements to close down old nuclear power plants and to oppose the construction of new nuclear power plants nationwide (Choi 2014).
Dr. Lauren Richardson is a Teaching Fellow in Japanese-Korean Relations and Politics at the University of Edinburgh, and incoming Lecturer and Director of Studies in the Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy at the Australian National University.
Mel Gurtov is Professor of Political Science and International Studies emeritus in the Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University, Portland OR 97201 and an Asia-Pacific Journal Contributing editor. His most recent book is coedited with Peter Van Ness, Learning From Fukushima. Nuclear Power in East Asia, Australian National University Press.
Sources
Baylon, Caroline, David Livingstone, and Roger Brunt, 2015. Cyber security at civil nuclear facilities: Understanding the risks. Chatham House Report. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Cho, Mee-young, 2013. Stung by scandal, South Korea weighs up cost of nuclear energy. Reuters, 28 October.
Choi, Seung-hyeon, 2014. Referendum on Samcheok nuclear power plant ends in overwhelming opposition, a true victory for citizen autonomy: Expected to accelerate anti-nuclear movements in other regions. Kyunghyang Shinmun, 10 October.
Dalton, Toby, and Minkyeong Cha, 2016. South Korea’s nuclear energy future. The Diplomat, 23 February.
East Coast Solidarity for Anti-Nuke Group, 2012. Pamphlet. Seoul.
Hayes, Peter, and Chung-in Moon, 2011. Park Chung Hee, the CIA, and the bomb. Global Asia 6(3): 46‒58.
Hermanns, Heike, 2015. South Korean nuclear energy policies and the public agenda in the 21st century. Asian Politics & Policy 7(2): 265‒82.
Hong, G. H., M. A. Hernández-Ceballos, R. L. Lozano, Y. I. Kim, H. M. Lee, S. H. Kim, S.-W. Yeh, J. P. Bolivar, and M. Baskaran, 2012. Radioactive impact in South Korea from the damaged nuclear reactors in Fukushima: Evidence of long and short range transport. Journal of Radiological Protection 32(4): 397‒411.
Hwang, Hae Ryong, and Shin Whan Kim, 2013. Korean nuclear power technology. In Asia’s Energy Trends and Developments, vol. 2, edited by Mark Hong and Amy Lugg, 193‒204. Singapore: World Scientific.
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 2012. IAEA completes expert mission to Kori 1 nuclear power plant in Republic of Korea. Press release, 11 June.
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)‒NSNI (Division of Nuclear Installation Safety), 2012. Report of the expert mission to review the station blackout event that happened at Kori 1 NPP on 9 February 2012, Republic of Korea. 4‒11 June. http://kfem.or.kr/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/1419321177_zkGfGz.pdf (accessed 6 February 2017).
Kim, Se-jeong, 2015. Referendum on nuke plant turns invalid. Korea Times, 13 November.
Korean Government, 2011. Policy Issue 0: Report of the Korean government response to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. https://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/fukushima/documents/Korea_2011_08Policy00GovernmentResponsetoFukushimaAccident.pdf (accessed 25 January 2017).
LaForge, John, 2013‒14. Defective reactor parts scandal in South Korea sees 100 indicted. Nukewatch Quarterly Winter: 7.
Lee, Myung-bak, 2010. Shifting paradigms: The road to global green growth. Global Asia 4(4): 8‒12.
Leem, Sung-Jin, 2006. Unchanging vision of nuclear energy: Nuclear power policy of the South Korean government and citizens’ challenge. Energy & Environment 17(3): 439‒56.
McCurry, Justin, 2014. South Korean nuclear operator hacked amid cyber-attack fears. The Guardian, 23 December.
Ministry of Science and Technology, 2006. Je 3-cha wonjaryeok jinheung jonghap gyehoek [Third comprehensive plan for nuclear energy development]. Seoul: Ministry of Science and Technology.
Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy, 2014. Je 2-cha eneoji gibbon gyehoek [The second national energy plan]. Seoul: Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy.
Nagata, Kazuaki, 2012. Fukushima puts East Asia nuclear policies on notice. Japan Times, 1 February.
Norman, Andrew, and Gerry Nagtzaam, 2016. Decision-Making and Radioactive Waste Disposal. Abingdon: Routledge.
Von Hippel, David, Sun-Jin Yun, and Myung-Rae Cho, 2011. The current status of green growth in Korea: Energy and urban security.Asia-Pacific Journal 9(44)4: 1‒15.
Yi, Whan-woo, 2012. Potential nuclear risk. Korea Times, 21 May.
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on The Post-Fukushima Legacy: Nuclear Energy in Asia, South Korea’s Nuclear Energy Industry
Featured image: The Fukushima disaster of March 11, 2011
Introduction: Nuclear Energy in Asia
by Mel Gurtov
The Fukushima nuclear disaster of March 2011 has raised serious questions about nuclear power.
In our work since Fukushima, we have tried to answer two questions: What is the current status of nuclear energy in Asia? Does nuclear power have a future in East Asia? By answering those questions, we hope to contribute to the global debate about nuclear energy. To be sure, questions of such magnitude can rarely be answered with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Decisions on energy are made at the national level, on the basis of both objective factors such as cost-effectiveness and notions of the national interest, and less objective ones, such as influence peddled by power plant operators, corruption, and bureaucratic self-interest. Nevertheless, by closely examining the status and probable future of nuclear power plants in specific countries, the authors of this volume come up with answers, albeit mostly of a negative nature. At the start of 2017, 450 nuclear power reactors were operating in 30 countries, with 60 more under construction in 15 countries. Thirty-four reactors are under construction in Asia, including 21 in China. The “Fukushima effect” has clearly had an impact in Asia, however. In China, no new construction took place between 2011 and 2014, although since then there has been a slow increase of licenses. Nevertheless, the full story of China’s embrace of nuclear power, as told in this volume by M. V. Ramana and Amy King, is that the onset of a ‘new normal’ in economic growth objectives and structural changes in the economy have led to a declining demand for electricity and the likelihood of far less interest in nuclear power than had once been predicted. On the other hand, in South Korea, which relies on nuclear power for about 31 per cent of its electricity, Lauren Richardson’s chapter which is presented here, shows that the Fukushima disaster and strong civil society opposition have not deflected official support of nuclear power, not only for electricity but also for export.
Meanwhile, the 10 countries that comprise the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are divided about pursuing the nuclear-energy option, with Vietnam deciding to opt out in 2016, and Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines at various stages of evaluation. Even so, the chapter by Mely Caballero-Anthony and Julius Cesar I. Trajano shows that only about 1 per cent of ASEAN’s electricity will derive from nuclear power in 2035, whereas renewables will account for 22 per cent.
How viable nuclear power is finally judged to be will depend primarily on the decisions of governments, but increasingly also on civil society. ASEAN has established a normative framework that emphasises safety, waste disposal, and non-proliferation; and civil society everywhere is increasingly alert to the dangers and costs, above-board and hidden, of nuclear power plants. As Doug Koplow’s chapter shows, for example, the nuclear industry, like fossil fuels, benefits from many kinds of government subsidies that distort the energy market against renewable energy sources. Costs are politically as well as environmentally consequential: even if construction begins on a nuclear power plant, it will be cancelled and construction abandoned in 12 per cent of all cases. It is important to note that of the 754 reactors constructed since 1951, 90 have been abandoned and 143 plants permanently shut down. When construction does proceed, it takes between five to 10 years on average for completion (338 of 609), with some 15 per cent taking more than 10 years. And, in the end, old and abandoned reactors will have to be decommissioned, as Kalman A. Robertson discusses, with costs that may double over the next 15–20 years. As Robertson points out, the problem of safe disposal of radioactive waste and the health risk posed by radiation released during decommissioning should be factored into the total price that cleanup crews and taxpayers will eventually pay. On top of all that, there isn’t much experience worldwide in decommissioning. Then there is the issue of trust in those who make decisions. Tatsujiro Suzuki’s chapter shows that in Japan, the chief legacy of Fukushima is public loss of trust in Japanese decision-makers and in the nuclear industry itself. Several years after the accident, costs continue to mount, a fact that pro-nuclear advocates elsewhere in Asia might want to consider. They also need to consider the issue of transparency for, as Suzuki shows, the nuclear industry has consistently dodged the fairly obvious lessons of Fukushima with regard to costs, nuclear energy’s future, and communication with the public. Similarly, in Taiwan, as Gloria Kuang-Jung Hsu’s study shows, transparency about safety issues has been notoriously lacking, and a history of efforts to obfuscate nuclear weapon ambitions means that constant vigilance over nuclear regulators is necessary. Of course, if public opinion does not count in a country—say, in China and Vietnam—the issue of trust is muted. But we know that, even there, people are uneasy about having a nuclear power plant in their backyard. Issues of hidden cost and public trust are also embedded in the biological and health threat posed by nuclear energy. Tilman A. Ruff, a long-time student of radiation effects on human health, demonstrates how these effects have been underestimated. He offers a detailed explanation of what exposure to different doses of radiation, such as from the Fukushima accident, means for cancer rates and effects on DNA. Timothy A. Mousseau and Anders P. Møller, who have undertaken field research for many years on the genetic effects of the Chernobyl accident, look at how nuclear plant accidents affect the health of humans and other species. Combined, these two chapters offer a potent, often overlooked, argument against the nuclear option.
This introduction by Mel Gurtov and the following article by Lauren Richardson are adapted from Peter Van Ness and Mel Gurtov, eds., Learning From Fukushima. Nuclear Power in East Asia. Australian University Press.
***
Protesting Policy and Practice in South Korea’s Nuclear Energy Industry
by Lauren Richardson
Japan’s March 2011 (3/11) crisis spurred a revival in anti-nuclear activism around the globe. This was certainly the case in South Korea, Japan’s nearest neighbour, which was subject to some of the nuclear fallout from Fukushima. This chapter examines the puzzle of why the South Korean anti-nuclear movement was apparently powerless in the face of its government’s decision to ratchet up nuclear energy production post-3/11. It argues that its limitations stem from the highly insulated nature of energy policymaking in South Korea; the enmeshing of nuclear power in the government’s ‘Green Growth Strategy’; and certain tactical insufficiencies within the movement itself. Notwithstanding these limitations, the movement has successfully capitalised upon more recent domestic shocks to the nuclear power industry, resulting in a slight, yet significant, curtailing of the South Korean government’s nuclear energy capacity targets.
Introduction
The March 2011 (3/11) earthquake in northeastern Japan and ensuing nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant had profound reverberations for the global nuclear industry. In the wake of the disaster, countries as far-reaching as Germany and Switzerland brought their nuclear energy programs to a complete halt. Closer to the source of the calamity, the Taipei government initiated a gradual phase-out of its nuclear reactors and suspended plans for the construction of a fourth nuclear plant. These policy shifts were precipitated by nationwide anti-nuclear demonstrations that erupted in response to the Fukushima crisis. Somewhat surprising, however, was that Japan’s nearest neighbour, South Korea, reacted to the complete contrary. Despite the fact that Korean territory was subject to some of the nuclear fallout from Fukushima (see Hong et al. 2012), the South Korean government proceeded to ratchet up its nuclear energy program post-3/11 and pushed ahead with plans to become a major exporter of nuclear technology. Indeed, within only months of Japan’s disaster, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak reiterated his administration’s goal of doubling the number of domestic reactors, and reaffirmed nuclear technology as a primary export focus.
This response was puzzling for a number of reasons. First, similarly to the cases of Germany, Switzerland, and Taiwan, the South Korean anti-nuclear movement expanded to unprecedented proportions in the aftermath of Fukushima, yet ostensibly to no avail. This expansion was driven by a marked decline in public trust in the safety of nuclear reactors, and witnessed activists mounting a formidable challenge to nuclear energy policy. Moreover, since overthrowing the nation’s long-standing authoritarian regime in the late 1980s, South Korean civil society has evolved to wield powerful influence across a variety of policy domains; activists, though, were apparently powerless in the face of their government’s decision to increase nuclear-generating capacity. This is somewhat perplexing given that, in the very same year of the Fukushima calamity, South Korean civic groups contributed to undercutting a proposed security accord between Seoul and Tokyo, and ‘comfort women’ victims compelled their foreign ministry to pursue compensation from Japan more vigorously on their behalf―to name but two realms of policy influence.
Why then was South Korea’s anti-nuclear movement unable to subvert the South Korean government’s nuclear energy policy? Does the movement’s lack of evident success suggest that it exerted no tangible influence on nuclear energy development in South Korea? What factors have served to impede its effectiveness? This chapter addresses these questions through an analysis of the movement’s campaign to alter policy and practice in the South Korean nuclear energy industry, from the late-1980s to 2016. As the challenges encountered by the movement stem in part from the structural development of nuclear energy in South Korea, the chapter begins by outlining the evolution of this process. It proceeds to assess the efficacy of the anti-nuclear movement in pre- and post-Fukushima contexts, with reference to its aims and pressure tactics. It then assesses the reasons behind the government’s lack of responsiveness to the movement, before finally examining two emergent encumbrances to nuclear energy policy.
The chapter advances three broad arguments. First, the anti-nuclear movement has had considerable success in preventing the construction of nuclear waste disposal sites; this endeavour has been more fruitful than strategies that sought to undermine the establishment of new nuclear power plants. Second, the movement’s inability to abort nuclear energy production stems from the highly insulated nature of energy policymaking in South Korea, the enmeshing of nuclear power in the government’s ‘Green Growth Strategy’, and certain tactical insufficiencies in the anti-nuclear movement. Third, notwithstanding these limitations, the movement has capitalised upon recent domestic shocks to the nuclear power industry, resulting in a curtailing of the government’s nuclear energy capacity targets.
The evolution of South Korea’s nuclear energy policy
Since its post-Korean War (1950‒53) inception, energy policy in South Korea has been driven by the need to spur economic growth, minimise dependence on imports, and ensure long-term energy security. In the late 1950s, the South Korean government opted to develop a nuclear power program as a means to fuel the restoration of its war-shattered economy. Officials presumed that nuclear reactors would provide a stable source of energy, facilitate export-oriented growth, and reduce the nation’s reliance on costly oil, coal, and gas imports. Toward this end, Seoul joined the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1957, and thereafter enacted Framework Act No. 483 on Atomic Energy (1958) and established an Office of Atomic Energy (1959).
Under the iron grip of a succession of authoritarian leaders from the 1960s to the late 1980s, nuclear energy legislation proceeded mostly unhindered by public resistance. Indeed, the Park Chung-hee dictatorship (1961‒79) was quick to charge would-be demonstrators with violating anti-communism and national security laws, and resorted to barrages of tear gas and martial law to restrain them. It was against this backdrop that the nation’s first reactor, a small research unit, was brought to criticality in 1962. Some 10 years later, the Park government commissioned the construction of the Kori nuclear power plant in the port city of Busan, and this began generating in 1978 (Hwang and Kim 2013: 196).
In addition to the authoritarian milieu, South Korea’s alliance with the United States constituted a further driving force in its development of nuclear energy. Once Seoul embarked on its nuclear power program, a confluence of interests emerged between the American nuclear industry, business conglomerates (chaebol) and officials in South Korea. Nuclear power companies in the US had a specific agenda to promote the advancement of nuclear technology in non-communist countries, and thus viewed South Korea as an attractive business prospect. In fact, the American firm Combustion Engineering (later incorporated into Westinghouse Electric) supplied South Korea with its first nuclear reactor in 1978―the Kori-1 unit―and thereupon imparted technological know-how to the fledgling industry.
The Fukushima disaster of March 11, 2011
The US government, meanwhile, sought a degree of control over its ally’s nuclear energy policy; this was predicated on dissuading South Korea from developing an indigenous nuclear weapons capability. Prompted by mounting military pressure from Pyongyang and the withdrawal of thousands of US troops from South Korea in 1971, Park started harbouring aspirations of nuclear weapons development and proliferation (Hayes and Moon 2011). Through the enactment of the Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of Atomic Energy in 1972, Washington attempted to curb these ambitions by pledging to provide nuclear materials and technology to Seoul on the condition that they be used exclusively for energy production purposes. The terms of the agreement further undermined Seoul’s nuclear weapons potential by prohibiting uranium enrichment and limiting its fuel cycle options and raw material supply. When the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute attempted to circumvent these terms by purchasing reprocessing plants from Belgium in the mid-1970s, the US and Canadian governments thwarted the deal by exerting financial leverage vis-à-vis Seoul, and Washington further threatened to cut off support for its ally’s nuclear power program (Hayes and Moon 2011: 51‒3). Under the weight of this pressure, Park eventually abandoned his weapons development and proliferation plans at the end of the decade.
Throughout the early to mid-1980s, the expansion of South Korea’s nuclear energy capacity proceeded mostly unencumbered by civic dissent. This was largely owing to the preoccupation of the populace with achieving democratisation (Leem 2006). In this context, the state-owned Korea Electric Power Company (KEPCO) oversaw the construction of an additional eight reactors, through the assistance of American nuclear firms. By the end of the decade, South Korea’s nuclear energy industry had evolved to supply 45 per cent of the nation’s energy needs and had virtually attained technical self-reliance. Nuclear power thus became closely correlated with South Korea’s rapid industrialisation and economic rise.
The bottom-up movement against nuclear energy
As the transition to democracy began in the late-1980s, however, the nuclear energy industry began to encounter significant social resistance. After a decade of sustained civil uprisings against the authoritarian leadership, South Korean citizens started to question Park’s development model, in particular its driving force of nuclear energy. This questioning, which was fueled by increasing political liberalisation, gradually gave rise to a nascent anti-nuclear movement. In its early stages, this movement remained fairly localised around nuclear reactor sites. Yet the Fukushima crisis served to galvanise and encourage its transnational expansion. Although the movement’s overarching objective of achieving a nuclear-free South Korea ultimately proved abortive, it did succeed in stymieing the construction of a number of nuclear waste disposal sites. This section examines the movement’s opposition tactics before and after 3/11.
Phase 1: Pre-Fukushima
The South Korean anti-nuclear movement emerged as an amalgamation of various environmental and other civic-minded groups. Spurred in part by the numerous nuclear power plant-related accidents that had occurred by the end of the 1980s, including the Chernobyl disaster, citizens joined forces to prevent further environmental damage and curb the nation’s steadily increasing pollution. As a first step they jointly established the National Headquarters for Nuclear Power Eradication, and thereupon launched a bottom-up campaign against nuclear energy.
One of the first major rallying points of the movement was the matter of radioactive waste disposal. Given that close to 50 per cent of the nation’s electricity was being derived from nuclear power by the 1980s, spent fuel repositories were reaching capacity and the storage of radioactive waste had begun to pose a formidable challenge. Activists perceived this state of affairs as a potential environmental disaster. When the government first announced its candidate sites for nuclear waste disposal in 1986―and every instance thereafter―impassioned civic resistance thus followed. Brandishing messages about the dangers of nuclear materials, citizens staged large-scale protests at government complexes and proposed waste sites. These early grassroots efforts met with overwhelming success: over a period of eight years, the anti-nuclear movement thwarted the construction of 12 nuclear waste disposal sites (Sayvetz 2012).
In an attempt to circumvent further public obstruction, the South Korean government began targeting remote locales to play host to waste depositories. In the mid-1990s, officials designated Gulup Island, a small landmass off South Korea’s western coast, as a potential site. This plan was instigated without public consultation and when news of it was leaked to the public, anti-nuclear activists rallied in anger. The Korean Federation for Environmental Movements (KFEM) elected to head a campaign to prevent the site’s construction. Boasting a membership of more than 13,000, the KFEM worked in tandem with various civic groups to advocate for the Gulup Island residents, who were strongly averse to the prospect of a nuclear waste dump in their residential vicinity (Sayvetz 2012). In a show of broad-based consensus against the proposed site, the KFEM convened mass rallies and filed an oppositional petition that attracted thousands of signatures.
When the government belatedly agreed to convene a public hearing regarding the site, representatives from a number of civic groups voiced their concerns about the presence of a geological fault on the island. Their apprehensions, however, ostensibly fell on deaf ears. Public pressure thus continued to mount, and in the Spring of 1995, over 300 residents in the nearby Deokjeok Island―who were also fearful of the site’s potential consequences―staged a protest in front of the Ministry of Science and Technology in Seoul. Faced with this unrelenting opposition, government officials were impelled to solicit experts from the IAEA to conduct a survey on the proposed site. Their findings revealed the presence of a fault, confirming residents’ suspicions that the site was particularly perilous for the storage of nuclear waste. In light of this development, the central government decided to abort the Gulup Island plan in November 1995.
The movement continued to challenge the construction of radioactive waste sites throughout the 1990s and into the early twenty-first century. These attempts tended to remain localised in nature and dissipated once a proposal was successfully undermined.
Phase 2: Post-Fukushima
Following the meltdown of the three reactors in Fukushima, South Korea’s anti-nuclear movement underwent somewhat of a resurgence. This was characterised by the mobilisation of a broader spectrum of activists and an increase in the breadth of the movement’s anti-nuclear activities. As images of the triple meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant filtered through South Korean media outlets, various religious groups, unions, co-ops, professional associations, non-governmental organisations, academics, and parents groups joined the appeal for a nuclear-free future. The 3/11 crisis moreover spurred the South Korean movement to transnationalise its anti-nuclear efforts through joining forces with like-minded activists in the region. This was instigated by a group of Catholic South Korean dioceses who pledged to form an East Asian civil society network with anti-nuclear activists in Japan and China; their objective was to present a united front of opposition to the nuclear power industry regardless of the tensions between their respective countries. As described in their initial prospectus, ‘the more we share information on the dangers on nuclear power and spread technology and wisdom regarding natural energy, the more East Asia will become the center of peace, not conflict; of life, not destruction’ (East Coast Solidarity for Anti-Nuke Group 2012). Under the nomenclature of the East Coast Solidarity for Anti-Nuke Group, the group debuted on the first anniversary of the Fukushima disaster with a declared membership of 311 citizens, signifying that the South Korean movement was no longer a domestic phenomenon localised around nuclear waste sites.
In accordance with the expansion of its constituents, the movement increased the scope of its anti-nuclear efforts in the aftermath of Fukushima. Moving beyond the initial focus of countering the construction of new waste storage sites and plants, activists began to advocate more broadly for the cessation of nuclear energy production; accordingly, they targeted existing plants. The logic driving the movement’s post-Fukushima campaign was essentially fourfold: (1) uranium sources will eventually be exhausted, and therefore nuclear energy is not a viable permanent energy source; (2) most of the developed countries around the world are no longer constructing new nuclear reactors and, since Fukushima, are seriously rethinking their nuclear energy policies; (3) when factoring in the social costs, nuclear energy cannot be considered cost-effective; and (4) as the mining and processing of uranium produces carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear power cannot be conceived of as an environmentally friendly source. Meanwhile, the overarching logic informing the movement was that Japan’s ‘March 11 disaster has proven that nuclear power plants are not safe’ (Nagata 2012).
First among the anti-nuclear movement’s post-3/11 objectives was to nullify the lifespan extensions of the nation’s two oldest nuclear reactors―Kori-1 and Wolsong-1. The former unit, which was already running beyond its technological lifespan, had experienced a number of technical problems in the Spring of 2011, and was consequently temporarily shut down. Yet shortly thereafter nuclear officials declared it suitable for operation and allowed it to resume power generation. Likewise, the latter unit, which began operating in 1983 at a plant in North Gyeongsang province, was taken offline for extended maintenance in June 2009. As its operating license was due to expire in 2012, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) spent ₩560 billion (US$509 million) on refitting the unit with the hope of prolonging its lifespan. Ultimately, the reactor was cleared for restart in June 2011.
These decisions by nuclear energy officials were made in close succession to the Fukushima disaster, and thus aroused fears among local residents of a similar catastrophe occurring in their own vicinity. Under the banner of a group called Collective Action for a Nuclear Free Society, residents demanded that the life extensions of the reactors be nullified. Toward this end, they staged protests in front of the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) in Seoul, where officials deliberated the fate of the reactors, and chanted anti-nuclear slogans. In spite of these objections, however, nuclear officials permitted Kori-1’s continued operation. And although they agreed to shut down Wolsong-1 at the conclusion of its lifespan in November 2012, they later backtracked, granting permission for it to restart in February 2015 and operate for a further 10 years. These two decisions constituted a major setback for the movement.
In addition to focusing on aged reactors, the anti-nuclear movement continued on its mission to abort the construction of new nuclear power plants. Activists concentrated on the candidate sites of Samcheok and Yeongdeok, two cities on the east coast of South Korea in which the government proposed to build eight new reactors (four at each site). The local government of Samcheok had originally agreed to host a nuclear power plant in 2010. Yet following the Fukushima disaster, anti-nuclear sentiment swept throughout the city, culminating in the formation of the Pan-Citizen Alliance for Cancelling the Samcheok Nuclear Power Plant. To signal their changed stance on nuclear power to the central government, the city residents elected a new mayor, Kim Yang-ho, who had campaigned on an anti-nuclear platform. In order to elicit a collective anti-nuclear expression, Kim held a referendum in October 2014. As he anticipated, the majority of citizens indicated their opposition to the plant’s construction: among the 69.8 per cent of the voting population who participated in the referendum, 85 per cent voted against the proposed site. Due to the fact that the referendum was not legally sanctioned, however, the national government declared it non-binding and thus ignored the result.
In the second candidate city of Yeongdeok, a similar outcome transpired. Being a rural and coastal county with a dwindling population and struggling economy, Yeongdeok residents had initially been enthused about the prospect of economic revitalisation that a nuclear power plant would offer. Not only would it bring much needed employment opportunities, but the South Korean government had pledged to provide ₩1.5 trillion (US$1.35 billion), over a 60-year period, to compensate for any potential associated dangers. Having lost their earlier (2005) bid to host a storage site for low-level radioactive waste, the citizens of Yeongdeok were particularly keen to secure the nuclear power plant venture. Their enthusiasm quickly dissipated, however, in the face of Japan’s 3/11 disaster. Indeed, residents had not foreseen the possibility of tsunami damage to the plant when originally submitting their host bid. In the aftermath of Fukushima, local citizens thus called for a county referendum to overturn the plan. In this instance, the mayor was unwilling to support the initiative and therefore residents organised it on their own accord. Perhaps owing to this lack of official backing, the referendum failed to attract the requisite one-third of voters for it to hold legal sway (Kim 2015). In any case, national officials dismissed both the Samcheok and Yeongdeok voter outcomes on the grounds that central government projects are not subject to local referenda results.
Evidently, the pressure tactics of the South Korean anti-nuclear movement have produced mixed results. Early protests were successful in undermining nuclear waste site proposals and plans for the construction of a small number of nuclear power plants. Yet in the post-Fukushima period, the movement largely failed in its aims to abrogate the lifespan extensions of aged reactors and reverse site selection decisions for new nuclear power plants.
Explaining the limited policy change
Despite the magnitude of the Fukushima crisis and ensuing tide of pressure from the anti-nuclear movement, Seoul’s nuclear power policy showed no immediate signs of deceleration―at least on the surface. The disaster only prompted limited government measures aimed at counteracting potential contamination from Japan’s meltdown, and enhancing the safety of domestic nuclear installations. In the two months following 3/11, all 30,000 passengers that entered South Korea from Japan (by ship or aircraft) were screened for radioactivity; only two people, however, required decontamination (Korean Government 2011). Over the same two months, the central government ordered nuclear officials to carry out a special safety inspection of all nuclear power plants throughout the country, yet ultimately no abnormalities were detected. Finally, in June 2011, the South Korean National Assembly passed a bill to establish the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, a regulatory body tasked with protecting public health and safety.
Together these measures constituted the extent of the South Korean government’s responsiveness to 3/11 and the subsequent pressure from the anti-nuclear movement. South Korea continues to stand as the sixth largest consumer of nuclear energy in the world, second in Asia only to Japan. There remain 24 nuclear reactors operating nationwide, with another five under construction. Government officials continue to emphasise the safety and low-cost efficiency of nuclear power, while largely eschewing the development of renewable energy sources. Expanding the nuclear energy industry is still a national strategic priority, as exemplified in the Ministry of Science and Technology’s (2006) Third Comprehensive Plan for Nuclear Energy Development (2007‒11). The government predicted in this report that the nation would derive 59 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power sources by 2030.
In addition to these domestic ambitions, nuclear energy technology has evolved to become a major export industry for South Korea. The Ministry of Knowledge Economy intends to export another 80 reactors, worth a total of US$400 billion, by 2030. The nation secured its first major international contract in 2009, when KEPCO signed a US$40 billion deal to construct four nuclear reactors for the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Undeterred by the Fukushima meltdown, President Lee embarked on an official visit to the UAE on 13 March 2011―a mere two days after Japan’s crisis began to unfold―to reaffirm his plans for future energy cooperation. Besides the UAE deal, Seoul has secured a US$173 million contract to build a nuclear research reactor in Jordan, and to construct several reactors in Saudi Arabia worth a total of US$2 billion. Other target export countries for South Korea’s nuclear industry include China, Finland, Hungary, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, and Vietnam.
What explains the failure of the anti-nuclear movement to subvert the development of nuclear energy in South Korea? Pressure tactics cannot singularly account for the limited policy change. Rather, a combination of three factors have served to militate against substantial nuclear power reform. These include (1) the highly insulated and top-down nature of nuclear energy policymaking in South Korea; this has restricted the number of legislative handles around which activists can mobilise to influence policy decisions; (2) the centrality of nuclear energy to the South Korean government’s Green Growth Strategy, a factor that has legitimated its continued expansion; and (3) shortcomings in the anti-nuclear movement’s pressure strategy, specifically, its laxness in articulating a feasible alternative energy strategy to nuclear power.
The insularity of nuclear power policymaking
The primary hurdle faced by the movement has been the elite-driven nature of policymaking on nuclear energy. In contrast to the many other policy domains in South Korea which allow for substantial input from citizens, decisions on nuclear energy continue to be formulated exclusively by government officials and technocrats, in a highly insulated environment. The key actors engaged in this process include the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy; the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy; the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning; the NSSC; and various chaebol and bureaucratic authorities. Each of these institutions is in turn informed by pro-nuclear politicians and technocrats, producing an iron triangle of decision-making that excludes civil society. This triangular structure was particularly reinforced with the installation of Lee―a former chaebol leader (Hyundai executive)―as South Korean president in 2008.
As a corollary of this elite-driven process, nuclear energy policy is implemented through a top-down dynamic. This has been characterised by a ‘decide-announce-defend’ sequence (Norman and Nagtzaam 2016: 250), whereby the central government enacts a policy, proceeds to impose it on local government and citizens, and then seeks to placate any objections by offering financial rewards and other incentives. This sequence was vividly evinced in the Gulup Island fiasco. As this strategy, though, has proved abortive on a number of occasions, the government has attempted since 2004 to move toward a slightly more consultative mechanism that incorporates citizens’ preferences. Activists continue, however, to face significant barriers in shaping the nuclear energy agenda. The elite-driven and top-down dynamic of the policy process has in fact steered their pressure tactics away from government lobbying, toward the more viable strategy of obstructing policy implementation.
Nuclear power as ‘green’ energy
A further inhibiting factor for the movement has been the enmeshing of nuclear power in the South Korean government’s Green Growth Strategy. Essentially, this has added another layer of insularity to nuclear energy policy in South Korea.
As a consequence of South Korea’s rapid industrialisation over the last few decades, its greenhouse gas emissions virtually doubled between 1990 and 2005―an increment exceeding most of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. At the same time, Seoul’s annual mean temperature increased by 1.5degrees Celsius, surpassing the global average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (von Hippel, Yun, and Cho 2011). These developments, coupled with an emergent international consensus on the need to address climate change, forced the South Korean government to consider ways to curtail its carbon dioxide emissions. Being at once low-carbon and cost-effective, nuclear energy was seized upon by South Korean officials as a convenient solution to the nation’s environmental and climate woes, and also as a means to deal with rising energy demands. In 2009, the Lee administration announced a national Green Growth Strategy premised on three major objectives: reducing fossil fuel use, tracking greenhouse gas emissions, and establishing several new nuclear power plants. Renewable energy was relegated only a marginal status under the plan.
This linking of nuclear power to the national environmental and climate strategy was institutionalised through the government’s Five Year Plan for Green Growth (2009‒13), and the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth(2010). As a result of this process, the political opportunity structure surrounding nuclear energy became less favourable to activists. The discursive framing of nuclear power as both a means to reduce carbon emissions and promote energy independence, enabled the South Korean government to legitimise its plans to expand nuclear power domestically and export nuclear technology abroad. Indeed, Lee boasted to his constituencies that the planned export of four reactors to the UAE would equate to ‘40 million tons of carbon mitigation’ (Lee 2010: 11‒12).
To challenge this stance of the government, the anti-nuclear movement has attempted to counter-frame nuclear power as an environmentally unfriendly energy source. As previously mentioned, activists have argued that the mining and processing of uranium produces carbon dioxide emissions. The movement has furthermore underscored the clause of the South Korea‒US atomic energy agreement that prohibits the reprocessing of spent fuel, and thus renders the necessity of environmentally hazardous radioactive waste sites. As many of South Korea’s nuclear power plants are located in coastal areas that are subject to occasional earthquakes, activists have also raised the possibility of the occurrence of a Fukushima-style disaster. This counter-frame, however, has yet to tip the cost-benefit analysis of nuclear energy by the wider populace. Indeed, there remains an overriding belief within South Korean society that nuclear power holds the key to combating climate change, as argued by the government.
Tactical insufficiencies in the anti-nuclear movement
The limited policy change in nuclear energy development can further be attributed to insufficiencies in the tactics of the anti-nuclear movement. Throughout their campaign against nuclear power, activists have neglected to formulate a feasible alternative energy source. Instead of demanding new policies (Hermanns 2015: 276), they have tended towards the reactionary tactics of undercutting policy implementation and emphasising the hazards inherent in nuclear energy. In view of the fact that South Korea is lacking in natural resources and its economy is structured around manufacturing, this approach of the movement has been problematic for the offsetting of nuclear power. In the absence of a strategy delineating how the nation’s energy needs might otherwise be met―accounting both for energy security issues and projected industrialisation―it is improbable that the South Korean government would eschew nuclear power as a major energy source. Formulating such a strategy is all the more necessary in light of the nation’s dense population, relatively small landmass, and mountainous terrain, all of which render certain forms of renewable energy―such as wind farms―less conceivable than in other countries.
And while the anti-nuclear movement has significantly increased in scope since Fukushima, its pressure tactics have not resulted in a marked change in public opinion vis-à-vis nuclear power. According to annual polls conducted by the Korea Nuclear Energy Agency, South Korean citizens have upheld consistent views about the importance of nuclear-generated energy throughout recent years, with national support for nuclear power plants hovering between 80 per cent and 90 per cent―even after Fukushima. This has served to further bolster the government’s mandate to expand its nuclear energy program. The 3/11 disaster did, however, result in lowered perceptions regarding the safety of nuclear reactors and radioactive waste management in South Korea, with 39 per cent and 24 per cent of survey respondents expressing their confidence in these respective realms. Additionally, polls conducted one year prior to and one year after Fukushima indicated a decline of 8 per cent (from 28 per cent to 20 per cent) in local acceptance of nuclear power (Dalton and Cha 2016). These statistics reflect the fact that opposition to nuclear power is highly localised to rural areas―where nuclear power plants and waste sites are concentrated―while support for nuclear power rests with the larger cities, such as Seoul, where the power-brokers reside and nuclear power plants are a rare sight.
In effect, the downturn in local approval of and confidence in the safety of nuclear reactors has complicated the policy implementation process in South Korea. At the same time, though, the sustained broad-based support for nuclear power generation has functioned to attenuate the pressure tactics of the anti-nuclear movement.
New challenges to South Korea’s nuclear energy industry
Notwithstanding the limitations of the anti-nuclear movement in shaping energy policy in South Korea, recent years have seen the emergence of two new challenges to the government’s nuclear power strategy. Manifesting both endogenously and exogenously, effectively these have sent shockwaves throughout the industry, forcing Seoul to curb its generating capacity ambitions. For its part, the anti-nuclear movement has seized upon these shocks as opportunities to whip up further opposition to nuclear energy among South Korea’s populace.
Corruption scandals
The first of these challenges manifested as a series of corruption scandals implicating nuclear officials, and a consequent erosion of public trust in nuclear energy regulation. As part of Seoul’s bid to expand its nuclear-generating capacity, 11 new reactors had been planned for construction in the period 2012‒21. This proposal was derailed, however, when it was found—during a routine inspection—that the plant manager had covered-up a reactor power failure (KHNP 2012). When the reactor in question had lost power, the emergency diesel generator failed to start, signalling a host of potential dangers. The plant manager refrained from reporting the mishap due to a fear of inciting a public backlash and ‘worsening the plant’s credibility’ (IAEA‒NSNI 2012: 3).
Given Kori’s location in South Korea’s second most populous city of Busan, this act of cover-up provided ample opportunity for the anti-nuclear movement to stoke public concerns about regulatory practices. Thus, amidst the controversy, the KFEM and the No Nukes Busan Citizen Countermeasure Commission simulated a radioactive leak (on the scale of the Chernobyl disaster) at the plant, to determine the probable effects. The results were published in a report, and predicted that such an accident would produce roughly 900,000 casualties in Busan, and ₩628 trillion (US$533 billion) worth of property damage (Yi 2012). This scenario, which was reminiscent of the safety regulatory failure at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, struck widespread fear in the minds of residents. While a panel of experts from the IAEA proceeded to declare the two reactors as safe, their assurances failed to allay the concerns of local citizens who were quickly losing trust in nuclear officials (IAEA 2012).
On the heels of this incident a second corruption scandal occurred, further highlighting the lack of transparency in the regulation of nuclear power plants in South Korea. This unravelled in November 2012, when regulators discovered that at least 5,000 small reactor components at the Yeonggwang nuclear power plant lacked proper certification, and that at least 60 of the quality assurance certificates for these components were fake. After launching an official investigation, the KHNP announced that between 2003 and 2012, the plant had been supplied with a total of 7,682 items with forged quality certificates (LaForge 2013‒14). In light of these revelations, the KHNP was compelled to shut down two of the plant’s six reactors until the dubious reactor components were replaced. As citizen protests erupted over the controversy, nuclear authorities were prompted to inspect the components of all 23 reactors nationwide. This led to the discovery of copious forged safety certificates for reactor parts at the Kori and Wolseong plants. Consequently, the Kori-2 and Shin Wolseong-1 units were shut down in June 2013, and Kori-1 and Shin Wolseong-2 were ordered to remain offline while the unauthorised parts were refitted. In the ascription of culpability for these scandals, 100 people were indicted on bribery charges, including a former chief executive of the KHNP and a vice-president of KEPCO (LaForge 2013‒14).
Once again these events triggered an upsurge in anti-nuclear ferment in South Korea. Citizens attributed the corrupt practices in safety certification to the culture of secrecy shrouding the nuclear energy industry. These sentiments were evinced in protests that erupted in response to the shut down of the Yeonggwang reactors, which attracted as many as 2,500 citizens. Calling for an overall safety review of South Korea’s nuclear power plants, participants burned effigies of the KHNP and brandished placards claiming, ‘We feel uneasy!’ To placate the public outcry, Cho Seok, the chief executive officer of the KHNP, issued a public apology in September 2013 conceding that the corruption scandals constituted the ‘utmost crisis’ ever faced by the nuclear sector, and vowed to reform South Korea’s corporate culture.
Together these controversies engendered a loss of overall public trust in the government’s capacity to regulate nuclear energy production. This outcome was inevitably reinforced by the parallels that citizens drew between the regulatory shortcomings at Fukushima Daiichi and that of their national nuclear power plants.
Cyber-attacks on nuclear power plants
The second formidable challenge to South Korea’s nuclear energy program emerged in the form of a cyber-attack. This occurred in December 2014 when a hacker leaked the partial blueprints and operating manuals for three domestic nuclear reactors, in addition to the personal data on 10,000 KHNP employees (Baylon, Livingstone, and Brunt 2015). The material was first published online via a blog, and then on a Twitter account under the profile ‘president of the anti-nuclear reactor group’. The hacker, whose identity was unknown (the South Korean government suspected Pyongyang), issued a threat to the effect that unless three specific reactor units―Kori-1, Kori-3, and Wolseong-2―were shut down by Christmas, they would systematically be destroyed and further data would be published online. ‘Will you take responsibility when these blueprints, installation diagrams and programs are released to the countries that want them?’ the hacker threatened in Korean. The three nuclear reactors at the centre of the controversy had long been targeted by the anti-nuclear movement, given their close proximity to populous areas.
Despite having accessed the reactors’ blueprints and manuals, however, the hacker was unable to obtain critical technical data pertaining to the nuclear facilities; indeed, this information is stored securely within the KHNP’s control monitoring system, which is separate from its internal network. The attacks nevertheless prompted the government to raise its cyber-crisis alert level to ‘attention’―the second on a five-step scale―and to run a series of cyber-warfare drills on its various nuclear power plants. More worrisome for government and nuclear officials was that the cyber-attack and its attendant threats provided further fuel for the anti-nuclear movement and stirred greater social unrest among residents in the Kori and Wolseong plant vicinities. In the eyes of local citizens, the susceptibility of the KHNP’s internal server to cyber-attacks constituted yet another danger associated to nuclear energy production. These apprehensions were buttressed by the hacker’s pronouncement that anyone living in proximity to the plants should vacate their homes immediately (McCurry 2014).
What was the combined impact of these challenges on South Korea’s nuclear energy program? In short, the rise in anti-nuclear sentiment in relation to the scandals essentially reined in the government’s nuclear power aspirations. Faced with unprecedented criticism over the safety standards and regulatory practices at domestic nuclear power plants, South Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy was compelled to drastically lower the national nuclear energy capacity target. Whereas the initial goal was to attain 59 per cent capacity by 2030, in the aftermath of the scandals, this was reduced to a more modest 22‒29 per cent (by 2035) (Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy 2014: 40). The justification provided for this revision was the need to avoid ‘excessive expansion’ of nuclear energy, and doubtlessly was premised on the increasing concerns of citizens. As a further ramification, the KHNP agreed to permanently shut down the Kori-1 reactor in June 2017 on the advice of the central government, rendering it the first of South Korea’s nuclear power units to enter the decommissioning phase. The controversies moreover necessarily imposed a significant financial burden on the KHNP: a congressional hearing in October 2013 estimated this cost to be as high as US$2.8 billion (Cho 2013).
The overarching effect of the scandals is that South Korea’s nuclear energy industry has been rendered more accountable to the public. This status quo is being reinforced by the recent corruption charges levelled against the Park Geun-hye administration, and the consequent presidential impeachment proceedings. As allegations emerged that President Park―daughter of Park Chung-hee―had colluded with a confidante in the embezzlement of large sums of public funds, over a million South Korean citizens took to the streets in protest. Their refusal to accept their president’s apology and to continue to call for her resignation, is stark evidence of society’s diminished tolerance for government malfeasance.
Conclusion: The post-Fukushima legacy of the South Korean anti-nuclear movement
The Fukushima disaster of March 2011 was a vivid reminder for the world that nuclear power plants can cause catastrophic damage. A number of governments accordingly aborted or considerably slowed the pace of their nuclear energy programs, taking heed of rising concerns about the safety of nuclear reactors among their populaces. Yet, as we have seen, South Korea conversely pushed ahead with its ambition to become a foremost nuclear powerhouse after 3/11. This was in spite of the anti-nuclear movement gaining significant traction and mounting a concerted effort to alter policy and practice in the industry. The aim of this chapter has been to explain the limited effect of the movement through an examination of its anti-nuclear campaigns in pre- and post-Fukushima contexts.
It found that, owing to the fact that nuclear power became firmly ensconced in Seoul’s energy policy long before the advent of anti-nuclear activism, the movement faced formidable structural obstacles from its incipient stages. This entrenchment of nuclear energy occurred as a consequence of decades-long dictatorial rule, the US‒South Korea alliance, and the export-oriented development model installed by former President Park Chung-hee. Early collaboration among activists on opposing nuclear energy was hampered primarily by two factors: the dictates of authoritarian leadership and the preoccupation of the South Korean citizenry with achieving democratisation.
Once the anti-nuclear movement eventually materialised in the late-1980s, it proceeded to challenge various facets of nuclear energy policy with mixed results. In the earlier stages of its campaign, activists attained a degree of success in thwarting the construction of new nuclear power plants and radioactive waste disposals. They largely failed, though, in their post-Fukushima objectives of countering the lifespan extension of reactors due for decommissioning, and overturning county-level agreements (enacted pre-3/11) to host new nuclear power plants.
This limited policy change, it was argued, cannot solely be understood in terms of deficiencies within the movement. Rather, a combination of factors have served to constrain the opportunity structure for activists, including the insulated and top-down nature of nuclear energy policymaking in South Korea, and the integrality of nuclear power to the government’s Green Growth Strategy. For its part, the movement has neglected to formulate a viable alternative to nuclear energy, which has long constituted a driving force of economic growth for the nation.
While the anti-nuclear movement failed to achieve a phase-out of nuclear power in South Korea, it would be imprecise to conclude that its efforts have been ineffectual. In fact, activists have succeeded in politicising nuclear energy and weakening its public support base. This process was facilitated by the recent revelations of endemic corruption within the industry (and government writ large), as well as the cyber-attacks targeting the more notorious nuclear reactors in the country. The movement capitalised upon these scandals to mobilise further anti-nuclear sentiment, and to fuel public mistrust in the regulation of nuclear energy. As a result, the South Korean government’s policy of expanding nuclear energy is now subject to an increasingly hostile domestic atmosphere, which stands in sharp contrast to the earlier authoritarian era. Furthermore, the movement partially eroded the government’s monopoly over nuclear energy, by compelling the industry to enhance its transparency, improve the safety of existing reactors, and to conform to greater public scrutiny. But perhaps the most significant legacy of the movement thus far, is that it helped to persuade the government to scale back its target for nuclear power generation by as much as 30 per cent.
Nevertheless, South Korea remains on track to cement its status as a nuclear power stronghold. In order to change this status quo, the anti-nuclear movement will need to exert constant pressure, citing the lessons of Fukushima, and to formulate a feasible alternative to nuclear energy. This in turn will help the South Korean government to resolve its dilemma of being reliant on nuclear reactors to sustain economic growth and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, on the one hand, and subject to rising anti-nuclear views from its electorate, on the other.
If Seoul continues to pursue the further development of nuclear power without establishing a consultative mechanism that adequately incorporates the views of South Korean citizens, effectively it will only add greater fuel to the anti-nuclear movement. As surmised by Yeon Hyeong-cheol of the KFEM:
Nuclear power plants are directly connected to the lives of the residents, yet the government has ignored citizens’ opinions and insisted on a policy in favour of expanding nuclear power plants. Now that we have confirmed the [anti-nuclear] thoughts of the citizens, we will actively engage in movements to close down old nuclear power plants and to oppose the construction of new nuclear power plants nationwide (Choi 2014).
Dr. Lauren Richardson is a Teaching Fellow in Japanese-Korean Relations and Politics at the University of Edinburgh, and incoming Lecturer and Director of Studies in the Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy at the Australian National University.
Mel Gurtov is Professor of Political Science and International Studies emeritus in the Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University, Portland OR 97201 and an Asia-Pacific Journal Contributing editor. His most recent book is coedited with Peter Van Ness, Learning From Fukushima. Nuclear Power in East Asia, Australian National University Press.
Sources
Baylon, Caroline, David Livingstone, and Roger Brunt, 2015. Cyber security at civil nuclear facilities: Understanding the risks. Chatham House Report. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Cho, Mee-young, 2013. Stung by scandal, South Korea weighs up cost of nuclear energy. Reuters, 28 October.
Choi, Seung-hyeon, 2014. Referendum on Samcheok nuclear power plant ends in overwhelming opposition, a true victory for citizen autonomy: Expected to accelerate anti-nuclear movements in other regions. Kyunghyang Shinmun, 10 October.
Dalton, Toby, and Minkyeong Cha, 2016. South Korea’s nuclear energy future. The Diplomat, 23 February.
East Coast Solidarity for Anti-Nuke Group, 2012. Pamphlet. Seoul.
Hayes, Peter, and Chung-in Moon, 2011. Park Chung Hee, the CIA, and the bomb. Global Asia 6(3): 46‒58.
Hermanns, Heike, 2015. South Korean nuclear energy policies and the public agenda in the 21st century. Asian Politics & Policy 7(2): 265‒82.
Hong, G. H., M. A. Hernández-Ceballos, R. L. Lozano, Y. I. Kim, H. M. Lee, S. H. Kim, S.-W. Yeh, J. P. Bolivar, and M. Baskaran, 2012. Radioactive impact in South Korea from the damaged nuclear reactors in Fukushima: Evidence of long and short range transport. Journal of Radiological Protection 32(4): 397‒411.
Hwang, Hae Ryong, and Shin Whan Kim, 2013. Korean nuclear power technology. In Asia’s Energy Trends and Developments, vol. 2, edited by Mark Hong and Amy Lugg, 193‒204. Singapore: World Scientific.
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 2012. IAEA completes expert mission to Kori 1 nuclear power plant in Republic of Korea. Press release, 11 June.
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)‒NSNI (Division of Nuclear Installation Safety), 2012. Report of the expert mission to review the station blackout event that happened at Kori 1 NPP on 9 February 2012, Republic of Korea. 4‒11 June. http://kfem.or.kr/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/1419321177_zkGfGz.pdf (accessed 6 February 2017).
Kim, Se-jeong, 2015. Referendum on nuke plant turns invalid. Korea Times, 13 November.
Korean Government, 2011. Policy Issue 0: Report of the Korean government response to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. https://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/fukushima/documents/Korea_2011_08Policy00GovernmentResponsetoFukushimaAccident.pdf (accessed 25 January 2017).
LaForge, John, 2013‒14. Defective reactor parts scandal in South Korea sees 100 indicted. Nukewatch Quarterly Winter: 7.
Lee, Myung-bak, 2010. Shifting paradigms: The road to global green growth. Global Asia 4(4): 8‒12.
Leem, Sung-Jin, 2006. Unchanging vision of nuclear energy: Nuclear power policy of the South Korean government and citizens’ challenge. Energy & Environment 17(3): 439‒56.
McCurry, Justin, 2014. South Korean nuclear operator hacked amid cyber-attack fears. The Guardian, 23 December.
Ministry of Science and Technology, 2006. Je 3-cha wonjaryeok jinheung jonghap gyehoek [Third comprehensive plan for nuclear energy development]. Seoul: Ministry of Science and Technology.
Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy, 2014. Je 2-cha eneoji gibbon gyehoek [The second national energy plan]. Seoul: Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy.
Nagata, Kazuaki, 2012. Fukushima puts East Asia nuclear policies on notice. Japan Times, 1 February.
Norman, Andrew, and Gerry Nagtzaam, 2016. Decision-Making and Radioactive Waste Disposal. Abingdon: Routledge.
Von Hippel, David, Sun-Jin Yun, and Myung-Rae Cho, 2011. The current status of green growth in Korea: Energy and urban security.Asia-Pacific Journal 9(44)4: 1‒15.
Yi, Whan-woo, 2012. Potential nuclear risk. Korea Times, 21 May.
What do the the international experts on terrorism believe? The Central Intelligence Agency in the USA has said for decades that terrorist interest in weapons of mass destruction or WMD is growing. When former Secretary of Defence Robert Gates was asked in 2010 by the media what kept him up at night, Gates replied, “It’s the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear.”
There’s a reason why Gates responded in such a way.
And yet, it has been over many years since such assessments about the use of WMD by terrorists began to be publicised. There still has been no major WMD attack by any terrorist group in the world to date. Still, Gates knows what the threat really is.
The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) was launched specifically to understand these potential threats. In the Nuclear Materials Security Index (2014), its Co-Chairman and former US Senator Sam Nunn claimed,
“Today, nearly 2,000 metric tons of weapons-usable nuclear materials . . . are stored at hundreds of sites around the world”.
Some of those materials, according to Nunn, are poorly secured and vulnerable to theft or sale on the black market. Terrorist organisations have plainly stated their desire to use nuclear weapons, and Nunn says that the terrorists need not go where there is the most material; they will go where the material is most vulnerable.
Just because an attack with WMD has not taken place doesn’t mean to say the threat has gone away, and that doesn’t mean that terrorists have not got WMD already. The proof that WMD are indeed available to be acquired comes from the CIA itself.
The World Factbook also known as the CIA World Factbook is a reference resource produced by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with almanac-style information about the countries of the world. The Factbook is partially updated every week. It provides a two- to three-page summary of the demographics, geography, communications, government, economy, and military of each of 267 international entities including U.S.-recognised countries, dependencies, and other areas in the world.
Itis prepared by the CIA for the use of U.S. government officials, however, it is frequently used as a resource for academic research papers and news articles. As a work of the U.S. government, it is in the public domain in the United States.
The Cold War was a state of geopolitical tension after World War II between powers in the Eastern Bloc and powers in the Western Bloc that lasted from 1947 to 1991.
The CIA Factbook lists a number of years of incidents. Here are just some of the more interesting ones from incidents reported in just one year. One has to say though that the total number of reported incidents in this document only covers the years 1993 – 1996 – further research is required of the FactBook to find more incidents. But this highlights the extreme dangers of having nuclear material in the first place.
December 1995
A former Greenpeace president revealed that the organization had been offered a nuclear warhead by a disgruntled former Soviet officer keen to highlight la x security, according to press accounts. The former Greenpeace official stated in a recently published book that a Soviet officer with access to nuclear weapons offered Greenpeace an 800 kg nuclear Scud warhead for public display in Berlin. The offer was made shortly before 7 September 1991.
November 1995
Italian prosecutors reportedly have asked Spanish authorities for permission to question the Archbishop of Barcelona about his role in an international criminal syndicate involved in smuggling radioactive materials, according to Italian press accounts. Accusations against the Archbishop arose after Italian officials tapped a telephone conversation in which the Archbishop was named as playing a leading role in the criminal enterprise. Both the Archbishop and the Vatican have vehemently denied the accusations. The Spanish Justice ministry has characterized the Italian request as “not very well thought out.” The Italian investigation grew out on an earlier probe into money laundering operations which reportedly uncovered information that a criminal enterprise involving a self-professed Italian intelligence official, was attempting to sell 7.5 kg osmium for $63,000 per gram, according to Italian press accounts.
1994 – updated November 1995
The German parliamentary commission investigating the 1994 plutonium smuggling incident, reportedly has uncovered German government documents indicating that the three smugglers offered to supply 11 kilograms of Russian-origin, weapons-grade plutonium, which they claimed was enough to build three nuclear weapons, according to press reports.
December 1995
According to press reports, the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) arrested nine members of a criminal organization in Novosibirsk and seized a quantity of radioactive material. The material was identified in press reports as “enriched” uranium-235. The material had been transported to Novosibirsk by middlemen, possibly from Kazakstan. The ultimate destination may have been South Korea, according to press reports.
December 1995
Italian prosecutors have arrested an individual, Roger D’Onofrio, with reported links to the U S Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Italian-American mafia as part of their investigation of smuggling radioactive materials, money-laundering and arms trafficking. D’Onofrio, 72, reportedly has dual Italian and U.S. citizenship and retired from t he CIA only two years ago. The ring he is alleged to have been part of is said to have been active from the early 1990s up to this year. Italian investigators reportedly suspect that D’Onofrio is the mastermind behind an international ring which laundered dirty money and smuggled gold, weapons, and radioactive material. His name also appears in another investigation into an arms smuggling operation between Italy and the Middle East, according to press reports. D’Onofrio was taken into preventive custody o n charges of money laundering and acting as a broker in illegal currency dealing. According to press, the prosecutors had so far ascertained money laundering for over 2.5 billion dollars on behalf of secret service and organised crime sources in complicit y with diplomats, the ruling families in Kuwait, Morocco and Zambia, bankers, prelates and others.
UPDATE (7 Nov 95): A German court sentenced Adolph Jaekle, a German businessman, to 51/2 years in prison for smuggling weapons grade plutonium into the country, according to press reports. Investigators made the first in a series of contraband plutonium seizures in Germany when they raided Jaekle’s home, in the southern town of Tengen in May, 1994, and found a lead cylinder containing 6.15 grams of plutonium 239. Jaekle had pleaded not guilty to the plutonium charge, arguing that he did not know what the substance was.
October 1995
Russian mafia figures reportedly were behind the 1993 theft of radioactive beryllium from a Russian nuclear laboratory and the failed attempt to sell the material in the West, according to press reports. The theft, which was widely reported in 1993, was seized by police in Lithuania and remains today in the bank vault where it was first discovered. According to press, the smugglers were preparing to sell the beryllium to an Austrian middleman who in turn had a mystery buyer who reportedly was willing to pay as much as $24 million for the material. The buyer, although never identified, was said to be Korean. Beryllium, which is used in missile guidance system s, is a highly efficient neutron reflector, according to public statements by nuclear scientists.
April 1995
Slovak police culminated a long investigation with the discovery of 18.39kg of nuclear material, 17.5 kg of which apparently is U-238, in a car stopped near Poprad in eastern Slovakia. Altogether, three Hungarians, four Slovaks, and two Ukrainians were arrested. This gang was connected to three other nuclear material smuggling incidents.
April 1995
Documents recovered by Japanese police in the investigation of Aum Shinrikyo involvement in the Tokyo subway sarin gas attack reportedly indicated that the terrorists were collecting information on uranium enrichment and laser beam technologies. A spokesman for Russia’s prestigious nuclear physics laboratory, Kurchatov Institute, acknowledged that at least one Aum Shinrikyo follower was working at the institute .
January 1995
Italian police arrested one Nicola Todesco for murder in a plutonium smuggling case gone awry when the murder victim did not have the money to pay for a quantity of plutonium smuggled out of Bulgaria. Todesco claimed he threw 5g of plutonium into the Adige river, but no trace of it was found after an extensive search. (Comment: Although an official Italian spokesman believed the plutonium was “enriched for military use,” it had not been analyzed and may be another scam involving ‘plutonium screws’ from smoke detectors.
We live in an age of ‘outrage.’ Make one crass politically incorrect comment on air, and it could well be the end of your career.
But if you‘re a right-wing neocon, peddling the most outrageous anti-Russian historical revisionism and downplaying the crimes of the Nazis, you can be sure the ‘Establishment Thought Police’ won’t come knocking on your door. Far from it, you’ll probably be lauded by other members of ‘The Club’ for your ‘great work.’
Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan claimed in a British Sunday newspaper column last weekend that while the Nazis had killed 17 million, communism had killed 100 million.
Between 60 and 85 million people were killed in World War Two, the bloodiest war in human history, including 27 million citizens of the Soviet Union. So how does Hannan arrive at his figure of just 17 million deaths attributable to the Nazis, without whom there would have been no war in the first place? Is he adding the victims of Hitler and his Axis allies, on to the Soviet Union, the country which played an absolutely critical role in defeating the Wehrmacht? If so, this is taking ‘blaming the victim’ to an all-time moral low.
According to Hannan’s figures communism killed over five times more people than Nazism. But this simply can’t be true if we hold the Nazis responsible for the majority of the deaths in World War Two.
No one disputes that mass killings took place under Mao in China, in the Soviet Union under Stalin and under some other communist governments at other times. While it’s difficult to calculate the number of people killed under communism, especially since a large proportion of the deaths which are usually included were due to famines, Hannan’s figure looks too high if we go by average estimates and way too high if we take the figures at the lower end of the scale. Earlier in the day I read another article which put the tally at 95 million, one million higher than the controversial Black Book of Communism, published in 1997.
No doubt, in the next article I read tomorrow, it’ll be 105 million, and this time next week if the inflation continues, 140 million. All this comes just six years after historian and Yale professor Timothy Snyder, a man hardly known for a pro-communist bias, admitted
“the total number of civilians killed by the Soviets, however, is considerably less than we had believed. We know now that the Germans killed more people than the Soviets did.”
It would be easy to dismiss Hannan’s piece as the work of a very ignorant person who‘s never picked up a history book in his life. The thing is though, he isn’t. He attended a top HMC public school (Marlborough) and got a first-class degree in Modern History from Oriel College, Oxford.
I also know that Hannan is not an ignoramus because I once met him at a party. He was bright and sparky and certainly knew the price of fish. Another journalist friend of mine said he thought Hannan was one of the smartest people he had ever met. So where has he gone wrong?
The only conclusion one can draw is that Dan is peddling propaganda in pursuance of a political agenda. No prizes for guessing his stance in the current ‘Cold War.’ Yes, it’s a virulently anti-Russian one.
In November 2015, he wrote an article for a Conservative website entitled ‘Why we must back Turkey against Putin,’after Turkey had shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 flying over Syria and its pilot was killed by ‘rebels’ on the ground.
In September of that year, he attacked the anti-war movement for not protesting against Russia’s (legal) intervention against terrorists in Syria.
Russia is sending aircraft and ground forces to Syria. Where are our anti-war protesters? Not so much as a disapproving Tweet from @STWuk.
In January 2017, he penned a piece for the Washington Examiner entitled ‘Why you can’t reason with Putin,’ in which he accused the Russian President of “sponsoring wars in contiguous countries,” “threatening to switch off gas supplies,” “propping up Bashar Assad in Syria” and “meddling in US elections”. He didn’t accuse Putin of eating his pet hamster, but that probably came in a later column.
In his latest article for the paper, he attacks – you’ve guessed it – RT, accusing it of dealing in “cartoonish propaganda.”
You could say that description applies more aptly to his article on Sunday. It’s clear that going for the very highest estimates of people killed under communism is one way of scoring anti-Russian points today. Never mind that Russia is no longer run by the Bolsheviks and that Stalin was a Georgian, ‘The Kremlin’ has always been the same: the home of sinister individuals hell-bent on killing lots of people and threatening the ‘civilized West.’ Repeat after Me (by Order of the neocons): Lenin, Stalin, Putin; Lenin, Stalin, Putin.
There’s another agenda also at play. Namely to frighten people away from any socialistic or genuinely progressive alternatives to neo-liberal globalization. In the second part of his piece, Hannan homes in on British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn and his Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell. “For all its faults, our main left-wing party never fell for the violent revolutionary socialism that was common across Europe……Until now.”
Hannan is appalled that Jeremy Corbyn, “dismissed throughout his career as too extreme to be taken seriously,” is ahead in the polls. In the next paragraph, he tells us that Mao’s regime “exterminated tens of millions of Chinese.” Got the message? Just in case you haven’t, he then compares Jezza to Karl Marx. “In death, Marx became the thing he most despised; the founder of a false religion… Now another bearded prophet is intoning the old incantations, and, horrifyingly, the cult is growing.”
So there you have it. If you vote for Corbyn, a mild-mannered moderate social democrat who wouldn’t hurt a fly, you’ll end up with mass killings, a new Maoist ‘Cultural Revolution’ and probably be carted off to the gulag. Better to play safe and keep faith with the Tories, eh?
Hannan’s piece is just one of a plethora of articles that have appeared recently to mark the centenary of the Russian Revolution which are designed to further the geopolitical ambitions of the Western elites.
What all these articles lack is a sense of balance.
Communism is reduced to the very worst periods of oppression- i.e., the Mao ‘Great Leap Forward’ in China and Stalin’s ‘Great Terror’ in the Soviet Union, with no recognition at all that experiences were quite different in other countries at other times. There was a world of difference for instance between the Soviet Union of the 20s and 30s and Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 80s, but we tend to hear only about the former. My wife wrotean account of growing up in Hungary under the relatively liberal ‘goulash communism’ (where there was arguably more freedom to express alternative opinions than there is in the ‘thought-policed’ West today) but guess what? She hasn’t found a publisher because her account goes against the dominant ‘everyone was in gulags and there were secret police on every corner’ narrative promulgated by the likes of Daniel Hannan.
Exaggerating and focusing obsessively on the crimes of communism, also conveniently diverts attention away from other great historical crimes. The industrial bloodbath otherwise known as the First World War claimed the lives of over 18 million people and left many more injured and paralyzed. They can’t blame that on communists – in fact, it was Lenin and his comrades who, on coming to power pulled Russia out of the war.
Over 10 million Congolese are believed to have perished after King Leopold II of Belgium decided to claim Congo as his own personal fiefdom. In his article on the topic for the Guardian in 2002, Seumas Milne drew attention to the many millions killed by Western imperialism in Africa and Asia. To this number, we must also add the genocide against the native Indian population of America. But hey – focusing on these horrific bloodbaths doesn’t serve the elite’s current agenda – of demonizing Russia and scaring people away from socialism, so let’s no go there, shall we?
Neither are we meant to spend too much time discussing the millions of people killed by ‘democratic’ states in the so-called US-led ‘war on terror,‘ and other neocon wars/destabilization campaigns against sovereign nations in recent years.
The timely release of the new film ‘Death of Stalin’ keeps us focused on what the establishment wants us to focus on. Meanwhile, while the elites obsess about Russia and communists, fascism goes from strength to strength.
Fascism killed 17 million people, so we detest it. Communism killed 100 million, so why do we keep falling for it?https://t.co/vE1t7YBOIR
In his tweet promoting his article Hannan says that ‘we’ detest fascism, but that is not the case if the “we” he is referring to is the West. The shocking truth is that Nazism is being rehabilitated at the very highest levels. In 2014, the Western elites supported an illegal ‘regime change’ operated in Ukraine in which neo-Nazis provided the cutting edge to anti-government protests. An EU and NATO member-state Latvia, Waffen SS veterans openly hold marches, and to the best of my knowledge, there’ve been no protests from ‘crusaders’ for democracy like John McCain. Looking at it even more deeply, some would argue that the leading Western powers, with their endless warmongering, and increasing intolerance of dissent, have descended, or are descending, into a 21st-century form of fascism.
Things are certainly worse now than in the old Cold War. Then, Nazi crimes were not minimized, and the enormous sacrifices the Soviet Union had made in World War Two were, as commentator John Wight has pointed out, acknowledged even by anti-communist conservatives, like Sir Winston Churchill.
The classic 1973 ITV series The World at War, which is still repeated on UK networks, was scrupulously fair in its episodes dealing with the Soviet Union and the war. At the end of the series, the program’s historical adviser Dr. Noble Frankland dismissed the idea that after the war one tyrannical system was replaced by another equally tyrannical one in Eastern Europe.
Today though, as Hannan’s article demonstrates, we’ve gone beyond a ‘communism was just as bad as Nazism’ moral equivalence to an even more dangerous position, namely holding communism to be far, far worse. This can’t be justified by reference to the historical record. But as Seumas Milne noted in his piece about revisionism, this really isn’t about history, but the battle for the future. The question is, where’s the outrage?
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66
Did you know that thanks to the contributions of our readers, we have been able to maintain complete independence? This means that we do not accept support from any private foundations, which now more than ever are seeking to control and manipulate the alternative news media.
You can help Global Research make information available to the widest possible readership. Our contributors and correspondents are scattered across the globe in order to report the issues with accuracy and insight. We ask that you consider making a donation to Global Research so that we may continue to support independent analysts in their battle against mainstream media disinformation.
If Jewish leaders such as Chaim Weizmann could call on the Jewish Diaspora in America to use their influence to bring the United States into the war to rescue a desperate situation, then Britain would do what it could to help bring to fruition the Zionist dream of a Jewish state in Palestine.
The U.N. recently launched a scathing critique of Israel’s occupation when the U.N. rapporteur for human rights in the occupied territories delivered a report condemning Israel’s conduct to date.
Balfour himself was not a Zionist. He didn’t even like Jews. Nor did most of the British élite of the day. Youssef Munayer even calls Balfour a “white supremacist,” which is precisely right.
Britain assisted the Zionists as best it could, given the need to weigh its imperial interests. Restrictions on immigration were introduced under the severe strain of a three-year armed uprising by Palestinians, determined to prevent their country being given away.
The statement noted that Britain, during its occupation of Palestine, worked by all means to implement the Balfour Declaration and appointed pro-Zionist British officials to pave the way for the establishment of a “national homeland for Jews in Palestine” ignoring the rights of the Palestinian population of this country.
The tensions over the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration are accelerating to the long-expected fever pitch, outside Israel-Palestine and nowhere more so than in Britain.
November 3rd, 2017 by Friends of the Earth International
Tomorrow, ahead of the UN climate talks (6-17 November) – hosted by Fiji but opening next week in Bonn, Germany – Friends of the Earth International will join Friends of the Earth Germany and thousands of activists in a demonstration of ‘people power’ calling for an urgent coal phase out in Germany and globally.
Hubert Weiger, chair of Friends of the Earth Germany said:
“The new German government needs to follow the example of Canada, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK, which have announced a coal phase out before 2030. Chancellor Merkel needs to announce a coal phase out here in Bonn and implement it in Berlin. Climate policy starts at home.”
This year’s climate talks are taking place on the doorstep of one of the largest, most polluting coal mining regions in Europe. Worldwide, some 1,600 new coal plants are currently planned in 850 locations, undermining efforts to keep global temperature rise below the Paris Agreement’s stated goal of 1.5 degrees, or even 2 degrees.
Global average temperature rise has already exceeded 1 degree and we are facing a planetary emergency: floods, storms, droughts and rising seas are causing devastation, and hitting the poorest and most vulnerable people hardest.
In Bonn, Friends of the Earth International will call for ending dirty energy, including coal, as a key solution to the climate crisis, and for a new energy system that is clean, fair, community-led and transformative of people’s lives.
The current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and finance from developed countries lack the ambition needed to drive urgent transformation in the global North and a people-centred energy revolution in the global South. According to Friends of the Earth International, this is an injustice, as those most affected by climate change are the ones who did not create the crisis in the first place.
Karin Nansen, Chair of Friends of the Earth International, said:
“Putting a stop to coal and other forms of dirty energy is crucial in addressing the global climate emergency. It is nonsensical to conduct abstract discussions about climate ambition inside a conference centre without addressing the continued pursuit of fossil fuels outside. We urge developed country governments to stop exploiting dirty energy now and to stop financing dirty energy projects at home and in developing countries. Not only are these projects harming the climate, they are harming communities through dangerous pollution and land grabs.”
Friends of the Earth groups around the world are calling for an end to coal and all forms of dirty energy as a solution to the climate crisis.
Nur Hidayati, Director of WALHI, Friends of the Earth Indonesia, said:
“For many Indonesian communities, the forest is life. Coal destroys forests and people’s livelihoods, ignores clean energy alternatives and compromises Indonesia’s pledge to reduce carbon emissions under the Paris Agreement. We must mobilize to stop coal mining, in Indonesia and everywhere.”
Friends of the Earth International stands with communities resisting dirty energy and taking control of their own clean energy futures. Friends of the Earth International stands with those facing the devastating impacts of climate change now.
Nansen concluded:
“From Germany to Indonesia and across the world, people want a renewable, safe, sustainable, just energy future. The transition to this future must be just for workers and communities. The transition to the future cannot involve gas, which is also a dirty energy. We need an energy transformation now. We need climate justice now.”
Dr. George Szamuely, a distinguished member of the Global Policy Institute of London Metropolitan University, is a British citizen and not a partisan of US politics. He has carefully investigated the so-called Russian dossier and reports that it was entirely the work of the Hillary Democrats.
This fact was known at the beginning both to former CIA director John Brennan and to former FBI director James Comey. Yet both went along with the DNC-invented story of Russian election hacking and Christopher Steele’s fake “dossier” on Trump’s imagined relations with Russians.
The presstitute media told the lies that they were supposed to tell. The consequence of this plot has been to waste the first year of Trump’s presidency and to prevent President Trump from reducing the dangerously high tensions with nuclear power Russia. This is a disservice not only to President Trump but also to the American people and the planet itself.
Dr. Szamuely delivers the sordid details of the plot by a corrupt American establishment to destroy a president selected by the people and not by the ruling interest groups.
The arrest of Paul Manafort by former FBI director Robert Mueller is a further indication of the corrupt character of Washington and the “law” that it utilizes as a weapon. Mueller is supposed to be investigating “Russiagate.” His arrest of Manafort has nothing whatsoever to do with Russiagate. Mueller arrested Manafort on the basis of allegations that in 2006, a decade prior to “Russiagate,” Manafort did not report as income payments he received as an unregistered agent for the Ukrainian government.
According to newspaper reports at the time, Zionist Neoconservative Richard Perle, a former member of the Defense Policy Board and an Assistant Secretary of Defense, served as an unregistered agent for Turkey and was not arrested for his violation of the registration act.
But Manafort is different. By arresting Manafort, who served for a time as Trump’s presidential campaign manager, Mueller can pile on false charges until Manafort buys his way out by providing Mueller with false charges against Trump.
In US federal courts today, charges no longer have to be proven, just asserted. If Trump’s surrender to the military/security complex and abandonment of his intention to normalize relations with Russia do not suffice to make Trump acceptable to the military/security complex, Mueller can squeeze Manafort until Manafort agrees to whatever story Mueller hands him. The last thing Manafort or Trump can count on is justice. There has been no justice in the US “Justice” system for decades.
This article was originally published by Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.
A coalition of around 220 left-wing organizations has announced plans to demonstrate in Seoul during President Donald Trump‘s upcoming state visit to South Korea, with the groups fiercely critical of the US leader for ramping up tensions with North Korea.
The groups have promised to mobilize thousands of protesters during Trump’s visit, scheduled for November 7 and 8, the second leg of the president’s 11-day trip through Asia. The demonstrators say they will begin to show their opposition to Trump’s visit and his policies even before he arrives in South Korea, with the first rally due to start on Saturday, November 4, outside the US Embassy in central Seoul.
The anti-US alliance has adopted the slogan “No Trump, No War People’s Rally” and is demanding that efforts be made to engage North Korea rather than to threaten the regime of Kim Jong Un. Members of other groups that are joining the movement have additional demands, including members of agricultural cooperatives who want to scrap a trade deal that they believe puts South Korean farmers at a disadvantage in trade.
The U.N. General Assembly has voted 191 to 2 for the lifting of the U.S. blockade on Cuba as the United States and Israel were the only countries to vote against the resolution.
Delegate after delegate called for the end of the blockade, highlighting the progressive and positive role Cuba plays in the international community.
Speaking at the General Assembly, titled, “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba,” the representative of African states called the hardline stance taken by the current U.S. administration against Cuba as being “a step backward” that hampers Cuba’s sustainable development.
He recalled Cuba’s proud history on the African continent, actively participating in liberation struggles and its ongoing contribution to improving healthcare.
“The people of Africa will continue to remember this contribution,” he said, adding that Cuba has long been a responsible member of the international community.
Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez approached the podium to an abundance of applause. He responded to U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley‘s comments by stating that the United States has no moral ground to stand on in its condemnation of the Caribbean island due to its “flagrant violation of human rights,” citing the arrest and deportation of minors and undocumented immigrants; the killing of African-Americans by U.S. police; the lack of guarantees for education and healthcare and restrictions on union organization; and the refusal of U.S. companies to sell life-saving medical supplies to Cuban healthcare services.
The Venezuelan representative speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement expressed full opposition to the promulgation of the economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba, which has lasted for over 55 years. He noted that the blockade is not only a contravention of international law, it is also a “criminal act” perpetrated by the most powerful government in the world to prevent a small Caribbean island from creating its own society.
The diplomat added that the blockade violates Cuba’s right to interact with the international community, due to its extra-territorial reach in the forms of fines and restrictions on people and businesses that travel to and engage with Cuba.
After criticizing member states and their representatives for condemning the U.S. economic blockade and calling the annual vote “political theater,” Haley directed her speech to the Cuban people. In doing so, she declared that her government, though standing alone in its promulgation of the 55-year-old blockade, will express solidarity with all Cubans by voting in favor of maintaining it.
The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia responded to Haley’s speech by reminding U.N. members of Cuba’s contribution to humanity. He quoted Nelson Mandela who stated that Cuba’s role in the Angolan liberation struggle, which included the “decisive defeat of the aggressive apartheid forces destroyed the myth of the invincibility of the white oppressor.” Hence, Cuba has been, and continues to be, at the “service of others,” he said.
Sacha Sergio Llorenty Soliz emphasized that while the United States wants to teach everybody lessons on democracy and human rights, it turns its back on international law, believing that multilateralism is a farse and continues to promote torture and turns Guantanamo base into an illegal prison.
“They want us to believe that they are exceptional” despite harboring governments that run counter to the aspiration of all peoples who want to see an end to the 55-year-old economic blockade against Cuba.
Rodriguez noted that every single Cuban family and social service has been adversely affected by the blockade.
“Haley speaks on behalf of an empire,” Rodriguez emphasized, one that promotes global insecurity, tramples upon international law and the U.N. Charter, “which she cynically invoked.”
He noted that Haley at least recognized “the total isolation of the United States” in its continued support of the economic blockade, disregarding the “weight of truth” expressed by the international community.
Rodriguez reminded U.N. member states and representatives that the current U.S. administration “lost the popular vote” and its attempt at undermining the Cuban Revolution “is doomed to failure.”
He quoted Cuban President Raul Castro when asserting that the U.S. and Cuba can coexist recognizing their difference, but it should not be expected that in order to do this, Cuba would yield to U.S. demands or accept any preconditions. He reiterated that the Cuban people will never “renounce its purpose” of building a socialist, sovereign, sustainable country.
In closing, Rodriguez thanked the majority of the people of the United States for supporting the lifting of the blockade.
The United States vote follows an Oct. 3 decision to expel 15 Cuban diplomats following allegations of “sonic attacks” on U.S. diplomatic staff stationed in the U.S. embassy in Havana, which the Cuban government has investigated and denied.
Since 1992, successive administrations have voted “no” on the annual resolution before the general assembly. Former U.S. President Barack Obama broke with this predictability by abstaining from the vote in 2016 as part of a new strategy of thawing relations with the socialist country.
Trump has rebuked his predecessor’s decision to open relations with Cuba. The administration has planned to re-impose strict travel restrictions for U.S. citizens to the island nation and close holes in the blockade that made it possible for investment in certain areas of the Cuban economy, including agriculture, technology, and tourism.
The annual resolution has been all but universally supported by the 193-member body of the general assembly. Only two countries have consistently voted against the resolution in recent years — the U.S. and Israel.
It could not have been scripted better for the demagogues and security hysterics. With the country still grieving in confusion in the aftermath of the Las Vegas slayings, inflicted by an individual who resisted the classification of terrorist at the hands of the Nevada authorities, in came Sayfullo Saipov. Saipov, who fit the fanatic’s bill, the ideologue’s cut, and popular lack of imagination.
He was a profiler’s cartoon inspired dream: menacing beard, smouldering eyes, determined and pious. He came from Uzbekistan, a place many Americans would struggle finding on a map (which “stan” might that be?), but that hardly mattered. He supplied the authorities exactly what they wanted: a speedy, even relieved confession, an expression of unswerving belief, and a sense that he had been planning his attack in New York City for some time.
That attack, it is said, manifested in a form that has become something of a murderous tradition. A space occupied by citizens becomes a death strip for a vehicle speeding and manoeuvring with lethal success. It has also become mandatory for such reports to suggest that things could always have been much worse.
That caveat is always necessary to suggest flaws, chinks in the plan or the means of attack. Saipov, in the aftermath of the Halloween assault, has been portrayed as a fanatic-in-preparation, carrying out trial runs with a rental truck in October, and wondering if he might have used Islamic State flags on the truck while going about his murderous work. (He was not evidently that dazed to think that the gesture might attract attention.)
Nor was Saipov a virgin behind the big wheel: he had been doing tens of thousands of miles from Denver to Detroit, and Canton, Mass. to Salt Lake City on his semi-truck.[1] The New York Times documented the journey of an immigrant rootless and dejected, finding doors to the hotel business closed, and windows shuttered. Anger crept in; tempers grew.
More and more, it started to look as if Islamic State was a convenient conduit, an instructive, and ultimately destructive escape. The BBC suggests that he was “inspired by 90 graphic and violent propaganda videos found on his phone – in particular, one in which IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi asks what Muslims are doing to avenge deaths in Iraq.”[2]
By the time he had finished with his rented Home Depot truck on a bike lane in lower Manhattan, six had been killed at the scene, with two dying in hospital. Of the twelve injured, four remained in a critical condition. And, claimed an imam in Florida, he “did not learn religion properly. That’s the main disease in the Muslim community.”
If the authorities were delighted by the stereotypical ease in reading the event, and its suspect, President Donald J. Trump was overwhelmed. With a “told you so” pouty menace, he rode over any criticism or perspective that might have qualified any rush to assessments.
From the lowly summit of Twitter came the message that will make any defence lawyer cringe:
“NYC terrorist was happy as he asked to hang ISIS flag in his hospital room. He killed 8 people, badly injured 12. SHOULD GET DEATH PENALTY.”
Trump has also stormily attacked the diversity lottery programme, one which Saipov availed himself of in entering the country. For all its curious administrative perversions, the programme supplies a perfect point of difference for those who see the violence inflicted by a bad egg who chooses the US, as opposed to the rotten number born in the land of the free.
The lottery has certainly attracted trenchant critics, among them David Frum.
“Good and bad qualities are randomly distributed in the human population, and randomly is how the diversity lottery distributes its rewards.”
It also followed, given such a random distribution, that “one member of the class of ’09 proved to be a mass murdering terrorist.”[3] (It is worth noting that such randomness also afflicts local gun-toting fanatics.)
The diversity lottery programme was meant to be a fix, an effort to cope with the effects of the immigration laws adopted in 1965 and the corrective Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986. The latter was notable for legalising some 3 million undocumented immigrants in the US, mostly from Mexico.
Others, including Irish Americans, were pegged back in this immigration reform, inspiring then Representative Chuck Schumer and Senator Edward Kennedy to pitch for the lottery as a solution. The beneficiaries, fascinatingly enough, have not followed historical logic, and applications now stem from poor continents, notably Africa.
While Saipov has been appointed standard-bearer for the programme’s problems, Trump’s broader goal is simpler and unrefined. One is to avoid addressing the classic dysfunction of the US psyche in evaluating violence: when done by unhinged locals, a stars and stripes exemption (it’s merely criminal) is granted. If inflicted by the foreign element, terrorism is presumed.
This is clothed in the act of abandoning paralysing political correctness. Focus, he urged his cabinet members, on more aggressive vetting and winding back the lottery. Immigrants are dangerous, even if they are, as Jim Dwyer explains,
“no more an existential threat to New York than bicycle paths.”[4]
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge and lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
Politics is endlessly unpredictable. If you could have listed the things which might threaten the delivery of Brexit last year, you wouldn’t have included sexual allegations against a Hollywood movie producer. But the Harvey Weinstein scandal is now causing chaos at the top of British politics, with Michael Fallon resigning over his (largely unspecified) past behaviour and others expected to follow. If even half the rumours swirling around Downing Street are true, we could also see MPs standing down, with a series of by-elections chiseling away at Theresa May’s majority.
The Fallon resignation came as government resistance against the release of the infamous Brexit impact reports collapsed. Keir Starmer, who has brought tactical nous to Labour’s parliamentary operation, used an obscure and archaic procedure to force the government’s hand. Moderate Tories peeled away during the afternoon and the whips eventually gave up the ghost. As is the government’s habit now when it realises it is going to lose, it gave up all opposition whatsoever and the motion passed unanimously.
Even that was not quite enough though. First there were attempts to claim that the motion was not binding. Then when that failed, they briefed journalists that they would redact the document ahead of publication. They will do anything to avoid publishing these things. It does not suggest a confident government operation, but a catastrophically foolish and self-sabotaging one.
Meanwhile the Electoral Commission announced it was opening an investigation into Aaron Banks, the millionaire funder of Brexit and Ukip. They were putting the funding from Banks’ ‘Better for the Country Limited’ under the spotlight, looking at whether the company was the true source of donations to Ukip, Grassroots Out and other pro-Brexit campaigns. The obvious shadow looming over the investigation is that of Vladimir Putin. There is nothing like a smoking gun yet, but it seems inconceivable that Russia interfered so heavily in the French and US elections but did not bother to do so in the Brexit referendum. Some in Washington believe it is already setting up shop in Scotland to foment demands for another independence referendum.
Meanwhile, the falsehoods and misrepresentations of Brexit supporters were unravelling in a rather less dramatic manner in various committee hearings. Appearing before the international trade committee, Liam Fox was forced to admit that EU trade arrangements with other countries, like Israel, South Korea and the US, could not be rolled over after Brexit and would need to be negotiated. This directly contradicted former trade minister Lord Price who had insisted “all have agreed roll over”.
Ed we won’t only have WTO in event of no EU Trade deal. We will roll over the 60 odd other deals we are party to currently.
This doesn’t stop the nonsense, of course. Fox was still insisting he can sort all of these arrangements by the time the UK leaves the EU in March 2019. But in fact there are 759 arrangements, according to the Financial Times, on everything from customs arrangements to agricultural quotas to pharmaceutical rules.
Meanwhile, David Davis was admitting to a Lords committee that the withdrawal agreement “will probably favour the [European] Union”. He also – and this went unnoticed by most of the media – effectively ruled out no-deal.
David Davis says whatever happens "we will have a basic deal – I think of it as a deal without the bits we want"
The distinction he drew was between the trade deal and the technical aspects of leaving – things like sorting out our nuclear regulatory infrastructure or our aviation arrangements with the continent. Now Davis admitted, despite all the macho posturing about no-deal preparation, that he was unwilling to walk away from the table.
Wherever you look, the project is falling apart. The government’s grip over parliament is slipping, the data on the economic impact of Brexit is being prised from its grip, questions are being raised about the legitimacy of the referendum campaign, and ministers are starting to admit that they have been misleading the public.
Is Brexit finished? Not even remotely. Labour is still officially supportive of it, there has been comparatively little change in public opinion, MPs remain herd-like in their support of it, and most of the political class backs it. But it is wounded and vulnerable. Those who remain fatalistic in their acceptance of it are clearly mistaken. It can be stopped.
As ever, the greatest weapon in the Remain armoury is the ineptitude of their opponents.
The U.N. recently launched a scathing critique of Israel’s occupation when the U.N. rapporteur for human rights in the occupied territories delivered a report condemning Israel’s conduct to date.
According to the report, published October 23, the “duration of this occupation is without precedent or parallel in today’s world.” In fact, Israel has “driven Gaza back to the dark ages” due to its particularly stringent denial of water and electricity and its restrictions on movement since 2007.
According to Mondoweiss, the U.N. rapporteur didn’t hold back at a press conference. He demanded the international community be held accountable for Israel’s actions:
“At a press conference about his report, S. Michael Lynk, a Canadian professor of law and human rights expert, said it is time the international community reach into its ‘toolbox’ of enforcement mechanisms, so as to ‘raise the stakes’ against the occupation and change international ‘opinion’ of Israel. The country had been worried by the Goldstone Report in 2009 and is today worried by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), Lynk said; so if the international community took ‘unified actions on an escalating basis’ to declare the occupation illegal and demand Israel’s withdrawal, Israel would respond.”
Mondoweiss suggested Mr. Lynk was indirectly advocating for the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement that has started to take off in recent years.
The report notes that the Special Rapporteur has indicated his desire to conduct a mission to the Occupied Palestinian Territory but that Israeli authorities have not granted permission. Even at the time of the report’s publication last week, he was yet to receive a reply from a request as far back as March this year. Conversely, the report even went so far as to thank the Palestinian government for its cooperation.
Regarding the human rights situation inflicted by the Israeli authorities, the report stated:
“In the 50th year of the occupation, the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is in a state of severe deterioration. The human rights and humanitarian law violations associated with the occupation impact every aspect of life for Palestinians living in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza.”
The report didn’t hold back in its criticism of the illegality of Israel’s actions with respect to the occupied territories:
“In June 2017, Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territory – the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza – marked its 50th anniversary. This is the longest-running military occupation in the modern world. Notwithstanding insistent calls by the international community, most recently in 2016, that the Israeli occupation must come to a complete end, that many of its features are in profound breach of international law, and that its perpetuation both violates the fundamental right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and undermines the possibility of a two-state solution, it has become more entrenched and harsher than ever. Indeed, the Israeli occupation has become a legal and humanitarian oxymoron: an occupation without end.”
Though most major media outlets have failed to pay much attention to the report, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said Friday that the U.S. was “deeply disturbed” by the report’s findings and by Mr. Lynk’s support for the “economic and academic boycott” of Israel.
Considering the report’s content, Haley’s rejection of its findings is not remotely surprising. For example, while Mr. Lynk didn’t directly use the term apartheid, Mondoweiss notes that this is essentially what his report has accurately described. It stated:
“According to recent reports by the World Bank and the United Nations, the expanding Israeli settlement enterprise and the supporting apparatus of occupation has deepened the already separate and distinctly inferior civil and economic conditions imposed upon Palestinians in the West Bank. There, the Palestinians are subject to a harsh and arbitrary legal system quite unequal to that enjoyed by the Israeli settlers.”
The report also seemed to acknowledge something akin to ethnic cleansing, stating:
“Israel employs practices that in some cases may amount to the forcible transfer of Palestinians, primarily those living in rural areas, as a means of confiscating land for settlements…As for East Jerusalem, the occupation has increasingly detached it from its traditional national, economic, cultural and family connections with the West Bank because of the Wall, the growing ring of settlements and related checkpoints, and the discriminatory permit regime…”
While it is certainly progress to have the Special Rapporteur explicitly state the truth regarding Israel’s brutal occupation, America’s longstanding support of Israel will most likely entail that the country will have free rein to continue its discriminatory policies with impunity.
America’s deeply corrupted political system is too debauched to fix. Virtually daily, clear evidence proves it overwhelmingly.
A bipartisan criminal class runs things. Malevolent deep state power directs Washington’s agenda. Fantasy democracy gives the system cover.
Simple due diligence reveals what’s going on, a tyrannical nation bent on world conquest and dominance, more dangerous and ruthless than any others in history.
Humanity’s fate hangs in the balance, catastrophic nuclear war virtually certain if things proceed on their present course.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department claims it has enough evidence to charge over six Russian military and intelligence officials with hacking DNC computers before last year’s US presidential election.
Fact: It has none except what it may have invented. No Russian hacking occurred. More on this below.
America’s intelligence community accused Vladimir Putin of ordering a campaign to help Trump defeat Hillary.
Fact: The claim is a bald-faced lie. Not a shred of evidence of alleged Russian hacking or Putin’s involvement was presented in over a year since accusations first surfaced.
Fact: Months of House, Senate and special council Robert Mueller investigations found nothing – because there’s nothing to find.
Yet investigations continue, wasting time and money, part of longstanding Russia bashing, along with distracting public attention from more pressing issues, including:
— endless US wars of aggression against nonbelligerent states – the highest of high crimes;
— other wars perhaps readying to be launched – North Korea and Iran prime targets;
— bipartisan war on social justice – heading toward eliminating it altogether;
— the unprecedented wealth transfer from ordinary people to super-rich ones;
— monied interests exploiting ordinary people – supported by presidents and Congress;
— the nation increasingly a ruler-serf society – thirdworldized, poverty the leading growth industry;
— freedom-destroying police state laws, and much more, proving America is a tyrannical plutocracy, not a democracy.
I’ve written numerous articles debunking the phony Russian hacking story – delegitimizing Trump for the wrong reasons and relentlessly bashing Russia, why the malicious campaign surfaced last year and continues, even though it doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Last March, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray explained claims about Russian US election hacking were fabricated.
“The source of these emails and leaks has nothing to do with Russia at all,” he said.
“I discovered what the source was when I attended the Sam Adam‘s whistleblower award in Washington,” he explained. “The source of these emails comes from within official circles in Washington DC. You should look to Washington not to Moscow.”
“WikiLeaks has never published any material received from the Russian government or from any proxy of the Russian government. It’s simply a completely untrue claim designed to divert attention from the content of the material.”
Misinformation and Big Lies repeated enough get most people to believe them – why polls show most Americans believe the phony Russian hacking story. Media scoundrels suppress vital truths exposing the ruse.
Last summer, highly respected investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed that the CIA is behind Russiagate.
Claims about Russian US election hacking, along with alleged improper or illegal Trump team ties to Moscow, were fabricated – a John Brennan operation.
DNC staffer Seth Rich leaked its emails. WikiLeaks published them – Rich later lethally shot in Washington.
America’s intelligence community’s accusation about Russian hacking is a fabricated Big Lie. No hacking occurred!
Hersh and Craig Murray exposed Russiagate, its Big Lies invented and spread by the CIA.
Russia didn’t interfere in America’s election or any others. Washington does it repeatedly against numerous countries.
The Wall Street Journal published fabricated accusations it should have debunked as malicious malarkey!
Aaron Carapella, a Cherokee Indian, has taken it upon himself to create a map that shows the Tribal nations of the U.S. prior to European contact. The map is of the contiguous United States and displays the original native tribal names of roughly 595 tribes, and of that, 150 tribes are without descendants. Without descendants means that there is no one known to be alive from that tribe and are believed to be extinct.
Aaron Carapella, a self-taught mapmaker in Warner, Okla., has designed a map of Native American tribes showing their locations before first contact with Europeans.
Aaron’s journey to making the Native American Nations map began 14 years ago. At the age of 19, Aaron had already gained a great deal of knowledge from listening to stories from his family, elders from his tribe, and reading books on Native American history. To explain where his knowledge came from Aaron said,
“My Grandparents would tell me, you’re part Native American and that’s part of your history. They would give me books to read about different tribes’ histories, so, I grew up with a curiosity of always wanting to learn more about Native American history.”
After reading the many books on Native tribes and not finding any authentic type maps which failed to accurately represent the hundreds of modern day and historical tribes, Aaron decided to start creating a map for himself that would be authentic and cultural.
“The maps in the books were kind of cheesy, they only had maybe 50 to 100 tribes on them,” said Aaron.
The inspiration for the map to depict original tribal names came from a book that he was reading which explained the real names of tribes and reason they were given the names they have today.
“I didn’t want to make a map with just tribe’s given names on it. I wanted it to be accurate and from a Native perspective,” said Aaron.
The process to collect tribes’ real names led Aaron from books, to making many phone calls to tribes across the country, asking them one seemingly simple question, what is the actual native name of your tribe?
“Some tribes, once contacted, wouldn’t know that information,” he said, but they would get him in contact with an elder or someone that would have the information he needed. “Every tribe I’ve contacted, I’ve noticed they are really good about getting back to you about cultural questions, they had a really good response time,” said Aaron.
On the map there are approximately 175 merged tribes, listed among the 595. The map displays what others fall short of, to make known the significant fact that is overlooked every day and that is, that tribes inhabited the entire U.S. and not just small portions of it.
“It is kind of sad that I can’t find a tribe’s real name because they aren’t here anymore,” said Aaron about learning the truth of what happened to many tribes. Some tribes were victims of genocide, some dwindled away from disease or other life threatening situations and some were merged forcefully or willingly with other tribes to make one large tribe. “Today some small tribes are enumerated under larger tribes, and do not have separate sovereignty. A good example of that is the Delaware Tribe of Oklahoma who recently split from the Cherokee Nation,” said Aaron explaining about how some tribes have merged.
“To be honest, in general in the United states, Americans are very ignorant about Native American history and the only time they deal with Native history or reality is when tribes have enough money to fight back against injustice happening to them. In my small way, making this map is to reinforce the true history of the injustice and the genocide that occurred,” Said Aaron.
Aaron has not received any funding to create the map and any profit from the map sales will go towards Aaron’s future map projects, which will include an in-depth look at the tribes of the states of California and Washington. A map of the First Nations in Canada is already in the works and close to being complete.
What just used to be rumors, suddenly, became official facts. The Government of the United States of America, which for years and decades has been sick and tired of the ‘rebellious UN agency’, decided to leave it, slamming the door behind its back. In its official Press Statement, the U.S. Department of State declared:
“On October 12, 2017, the Department of State notified UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova of the U.S. decision to withdraw from the organization and to seek to establish a permanent observer mission to UNESCO. This decision was not taken lightly, and reflects U.S. concerns with mounting arrears at UNESCO, the need for fundamental reform in the organization, and continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO.”
“Good riddance!” several members of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization exclaimed in front of me, but of course off-the record. No statements of that nature were produced in public, although the Director-General Irina Bokova made sure to demonstrate her disappointment at the US decision:
“At the time when conflicts continue to tear apart societies across the world, it is deeply regrettable for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations agency promoting education for peace and protecting culture under attack. This is a loss to the United Nations family. This is a loss for multilateralism.”
Shamelessly, since 2011, the U.S. has been literally ‘starving’ UNESCO. Its unpaid dues have mounted to approximately half a billion dollars, sharply reducing the organization’s ability to operate effectively in some of the toughest and most devastated parts of the world, including Syria, Yemen, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Perhaps that was the goal, as UNESCO has been working closely with several countries and areas that the West has been trying to de-stabilize, and even destroy. But an official ‘justification’ of the Empire reducing and even stopping flow of funds: UNESCO member states voted to recognize Palestine as a full member the organization.
Of course the member states voted democratically and independently, and their choice had nothing to do with the leadership of UNESCO. But the Western Empire is so used to the fact that all the democratic aspiration of people and nations all over the world are regularly oppressed on its behalf, that it could not ‘forgive’ UNESCO for accepting results of the vote, and yielding to the will of its member states.
‘Untouchable’ Israel, with countless despicable crimes against humanity that it has been committing for decades, as well as its appalling apartheid regime, are fully backed by the U.S. and most of its Western allies.
UNESCO on the other hand has for decades been something of a ‘black sheep’ inside the mostly obedient family consisting of submissive (to the West) U.N. agencies. An intellectual and internationalist institution encircled by mostly technocratic organizations, it has been nevertheless ‘infiltrated’ by great Cuban and other progressive Latin American educators and thinkers (including such individuals as Argentinian writer Julio Cortazar), by socially oriented scientists, and by illustrious cultural figures from all corners of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.
Its first Secretary General (since 1946) was, after all, Sir Julian Sorell Huxley, the renowned British evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and internationalist, and the brother of Aldous Huxley, the author of “Brave New World”.
It is essential to remember that Julian Huxley’s term of office, (six years in the Charter), was cut down to just two years at the request of the U.S. delegation. It was obviously because of his left-wing beliefs and internationalist principles. Before being literally ousted, Julian Huxley published a 60-page long essay “UNESCO – It’s Purpose and Philosophy”, which managed to become the organization’s official document, as well as one of the great internationalist manifestos of the 21st century.
From the outset it became apparent that the United States was going to be unwilling to leave the organization ‘in peace’, and allowing it to serve its (mostly poor) member states. The West turned its policy towards UNESCO into some sort of ‘policy of revolving doors’. The U.S. left the organization during Reagan era in 1984, claiming that UNESCO “showed hostility towards free market”, among other things; the U.K. walked out during the reign of Ms. Thatcher. The era of manipulation and Western imperialist control was far from over then, as it is far from over even now.
*
Like parrots, most of the major US and UK-based newspapers have been reprinting the same clichés and empty lines about UNESCO being “known for designating World Heritage sites such as the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and the Grand Canyon National Park.” I read this in 10 different mainstream publications. In fact, there are more than 1,000 places, as diverse as the Sunderbans in Bangladesh and the Complex of Koguryo Tombs in North Korea, included in the ‘world heritage sites’ list. But that is not the point! To protect and help to maintain these sites is just a tiny fragment of UNESCO’s activities.
The Western mainstream media patently refuses to acknowledge the main reasons why UNESCO is continuously battered by the West and its allies, including Israel and Japan. That core reason is: the organization’s attempt to break cultural hegemony of a handful of imperialist and capitalist countries that are ruling the world. And that hegemony encompasses culture, education and yes, even the science.
Following the U.S. lead and example, the state of Israel is now also threatening to leave UNESCO, soon (or is it the other way around, really?). Japan has ‘withheld’ its contribution; right after UNESCO inscribed (in 2016) the Nanking Massacre into its powerful program – “Memory of the World”.
*
For years, I have been enjoying a professional and intellectual association with the organization.
The situation inside UNESCO is increasingly maddening. There are still dozens of great thinkers in its ranks, many true internationalists, but UNESCO is being prevented from flying, from achieving its full potential. It still manages to do great work in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, in Africa, and in many other parts of the world, but it is doing it despite regular interference from the Western countries.
To keep UNESCO at bay, the West, particularly the United States, is using money as a weapon. But UNESCO so far refuses to budge: on Palestine or on the Japanese atrocities in China. Compared to other UN agencies, it is often cash-strapped, but at least it does not seem to have blood on its hands.
Recently, the executive board of the organization elected a new Director-General. Virtually every Western country had sidelined the highly respected candidate from China. A Moroccan-French lady, of Jewish descent was elected. Rumors circulating at UNESCO are that the U.S. may wait and see how things will turn out, and only then decide whether to leave the organization after all.
“Bastards are bluffing; they will not leave after this vote for the new DG,” one of the senior staffers of UNESCO sarcastically declared. She, naturally, did not want to be identified.
“No pasaran!” proclaimed a leading educationalist of the organization, without any hesitation or any further comment.
UNESCO is perhaps ‘starved’, suffering from malnutrition, but its brain is very clear. It has still plenty to say and do. The West is horrified, thinking that the organization may get on its feet again, and snap at the Empire’s plans to brainwash the world by means of ‘culture’ and ‘education’.
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are his tribute to “The Great October Socialist Revolution” a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.
This article was originally published by New Eastern Outlook.
He’s a warrior president, waging phony war on terrorism, opposing diplomatic conflict resolution, flagrantly violating campaign promises made.
America has illegal military bases in northern and southern Syrian territory.
According to Major General James Jarrard, head of US special operations in Syria and Iraq, 4,000 Pentagon troops are in Syria. Trump claimed 500.
It’s an open secret that far more US military personnel are deployed in combat and other theaters, Pentagon commanders suppressing what’s vital to know.
Trump claimed around 5,300 US troops in Iraq. The actual force may be double or triple this number. Their regional presence has nothing to do with combating ISIS, a scourge Washington supports, along with al-Qaeda, its al-Nusra offshoot and other terrorist groups, used to advance America’s imperium.
Russia and Washington submitted separate Security Council resolutions on extending the OPCW/UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM), investigating use of CWs in Syria, falsely blamed on Damascus despite no evidence proving it.
Russia wants the JIM extended until May 16, 2018. Washington proposed another 24 months.
The sinister US text includes a provision for invoking the UN Charter’s Chapter VII, authorizing “action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Russia strongly opposes efforts to escalate conflict in Syria or anywhere else. America’s position appears polar opposite, using the JIM report on last April’s Khan Sheikhoun incident as justification.
Its unacceptable conclusions were distorted and one-sided. OPCW inspectors never visited sites requiring examination.
Russia called its report sloppy and “amateurish,” based on “a layman’s methodology,” lacking credibility. Moscow’s draft SC resolution calls for revising JIM’s conclusions.
Work done failed to conform to international standards, it said. It called for JIM inspectors to visit Kahn Sheikhoun and Shayrat airbase, the alleged site of the alleged CW attack – what they failed to do since last April, drawing conclusions based on phony evidence supplied by anti-Syrian sources, including the al-Qaeda-linked White Helmets.
Moscow called for a credible full-scale investigation, according to Chemical Weapons Convention standards, what hasn’t been done so far, rendering JIM report an attempt to present phony conclusions, lacking credibility.
Washington lied, calling JIM’s findings serious and trustworthy.
On November 2, US permanent representative to the Conference on Disarmament, Robert Wood, falsely accused Syria of CW use in Khan Sheikhoun, saying:
“The international community must squarely confront this reality and hold Syria accountable for its continued use of chemical weapons,” adding:
JIM “findings make clear that Syria has not renounced chemical warfare. These findings further underscore the risks posed by Syria’s failure to declare the true magnitude and scope of its chemical weapons program and arsenals.”
Is the Trump administration seeking a pretext for escalated war on Syria, using the UN Charter’s Article VII to justify what’s unjustifiable?
Washington’s phony accusations of Syrian CW use appear to be how it’ll claim the right to strike government military and other targets at a time of its choosing.
In March 2011, Obama launched war on the country, using terrorist foot soldiers as proxy fighters, aided by US-led terror-bombing since September 2014 – massacring civilians, destroying vital infrastructure, on the phony pretext of combating ISIS, the scourge America supports.
After taking office, Trump escalated US involvement. Hawkish generals run things, wanting endless war and regime change.
They oppose peaceful conflict resolution, Trump co-opted to go along, out-of-the-loop, likely only aware of what he’s told, having delegated warmaking to Mattis, McMaster and Pentagon commanders.
As long as Washington wants war, not peace, resolving it diplomatically will remain unattainable.
Fighting could continue for years, despite significant progress against ISIS and other US-supported terrorists.
Jean Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Gabriel Marcel, and Albert Camus (who didn’t consider himself and existentialist but whose work emphasized many of the same themes, Image left), inspired large numbers of people in the late’ 50s into the mid-to-late’60s, including the international anti-nuclear movement and young American anti-war activists. Contrary to popular understanding, existentialism is not about navel gazing and hopelessness, but is about responding freely and authentically to the situations people find themselves in, which today, is the end- time that is a time when the fate of the world lies in the hands of nuclear madmen.
The kingdom’s increasing financial problems are due in part to the falling price of oil. In January 2016, 
