Baltimore and the media tyranny of non-violence

The violence never starts with protesters on the streets - that's just the moment the cameras decide to start filming.

Rachel Shabi

Rachel Shabi is a journalist and author of Not the Enemy: Israel's Jews from Arab Lands.

@rachshabi

If it were ever in doubt, the protests in Baltimore have shown us once again that only some types of violence are visible, or really matter. As demonstrations in this US city surged following the death in police custody of 25-year-old Freddie Gray, the terrible violence of that death - on top of so many more, at the hands of US police - was sidelined out of the story.

Gray was arrested when he fled after "catching the eye" of a police officer and his neck was broken while in police custody, but it was the smashed glass storefronts on Baltimore's streets that became the focus of concern.

The US media went into overdrive with its depiction of "chaos, violence and lawlessness" as MSNBC put it. Collective establishment heads were shaken at the looting.

The clear racist overtones in the coverage of "black rioters", as news website Breitbart.com headlined it or of "thugs" on a rampage, as so many more news organisations depicted it, was routinely denied, while widespread haranguing using the trump card of "protest violence" took hold.

Peaceful protests

CNN host Wolf Blitzer demanded that Baltimore community organiser Deray McKesson denounce violence and support only peaceful protests.

"You are suggesting broken windows are worse than broken spines," came the response to this attempt to redefine the significant details of the story, in a city that has already paid out nearly $6m to alleged victims of police brutality, including a grandmother and a pregnant woman.

And so here it is again: The stealthy tyranny of the "non-violent" proviso demanded of popular protests. Events in Baltimore are symptomatic of and particular to the US and its bloody history of state and social violence, in all its forms, against black Americans from slavery to the streets today. But the unrepresentative and wholly marginal violence of broken windows is invariably invoked against all protests that are struggles against power and its abuses.

From the streets of England during its riots of 2011, or back to the anti-capitalists protests against the WTO in Seattle in 1999; the IMF in Prague and the G8 summit in Genoa; from the protests engulfing marginalised French suburbs, to Ferguson in the US, right across to the Palestinian struggle to be free from occupation - all these movements against inequality and injustice are bound by the media depiction of protest as suddenly, senselessly "violent".

Such loaded appraisals are wilfully blind to the fact that situations never go from total calm to sudden violence. There is a daily, pervasive state violence that is never spoken of, much less acknowledged: for Palestinians living under a brutal military occupation; for marginalised, disenfranchised young people in British cities or French suburbs; for African Americans disproportionately impoverished, disadvantaged and preyed upon by US police, surviving generation upon generation of institutionalised and violent racism; for the global South diminished and drained by neo-liberal policies imposed upon it by the IMF and the WTO.

The violence never starts with protesters on the streets - it's just that this is the moment the cameras decide to start filming. In this context, it takes a special kind of struggle-free, reality-blind sanctimony for media commentators to start preaching about the need for non-violence.

Moreover, the disproportionate focus on the violence of broken windows and looted shops ignores the full panorama of these issues: the lengthy, ongoing debates within protest movements over the merits and drawbacks of violence (against property, not people) as a tactic; the attempts within communities to prevent and guard against violence, or dissipate tensions, or take action to clear up in the aftermath; the pressure-cooker conditions created by ramped up, over-militarised, heavy-handed and often provocative policing; the simple fact that movements unite over causes if not always tactics; or just that understanding why a few people might steal trainers during protests is not at all the same as justifying such behaviour.

Instead, the "non-violence" theme is rolled out precisely to prevent any such debate over causes, context or history. This media preoccupation is in place to ensure that we stop talk about anything else.

We know the Martin Luther King quote: "A riot is the language of the unheard." The question is why, after so long, are these voices still not listened to? And who is it that doesn't want us to hear them?

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/04/baltimore-media-tyranny-violence-150430070102282.html

This is an American Torture Story

By Noam Chomsky 

April 29, 2015 

 - Majid Khan was at the mercy of CIA interrogators for 1,200 days -- at least. During that time, he was stripped. He was forced into ice water baths. He was "hung up" for a day in a sleep deprivation position. He was denied solid food for seven days.

After about a year, Majid Khan went on hunger strike to protest the treatment he was receiving. The CIA responded with "involuntary rectal feeding and rectal hydration." Majid's lunch tray, consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raisins, was "pureed" and "rectally infused." This happened repeatedly. Eventually, Majid Khan attempted to cut his wrists.

I'm interested in the power of words. Terms like "enhanced interrogation" or "rectal feeding" are clever disguises for the true term we should be using to describe the CIA's treatment of Majid and more than 100 others: Torture.

The CIA can try to bury the truth of these atrocities, but it's up to us to hold the agency responsible. Tell U.S. authorities that no one should get away with torture.

From 2002 to 2008, the U.S. government disappeared more than 100 men and subjected dozens of them to torture using some of the same "interrogation methods" they used against Majid Khan.

Despite the release of a report recently issued by a Senate committee, which provides evidence of these horrific crimes, the U.S. Justice Department refuses to act.

In fact, the department apparently refuses to even read the report - keeping it in a sealed envelope, unopened.

But the truth is undeniable, and no amount of wordplay can disguise it. Tell the U.S. Department of Justice that it must read and respond to the Senate's report on torture.

Torture is a crime and no one should get away with it. It's up to us to enforce that. Join us in telling this American torture story and use the power of your voice to speak out for justice.



Sincerely,

Professor Noam Chomsky 


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41711.htm

Australian advocacy ruined most arguments for a Bali 9 duo reprieve

Jack Waterford

Editor-at-large, The Canberra Times

I'm fairly unmoved by the executions of two Australian drug smugglers in Indonesia. I do not believe at all in the death penalty, but I have a strong feeling that our attempts to get some exception from its operation for two of our citizens ruined almost every good argument against it.

First, I do not believe in the death penalty at all. I don't think it's OK for Indonesians, or Chinese, or Americans, but wrong when those selected for death are Australians. A good many Australians are like me – totally opposed to judicial execution in any circumstances – but they rarely make much of a fuss unless Australians are involved. Why? As often as not, indeed as in this case, Australians are capable of seeming more guilty – even deserving – than others about whose executions we say not a word.

Some of those believing that an exception should be made in favour of the Australians suggested that the sentence was in some way vitiated by the corruption of the Indonesian justice system, or, perhaps, even doubt about their guilt. I have no doubt that there are corrupt cops, judges, politicians and officials in Indonesia (I am not entirely sure they exist at a higher rate than in Australia). But my understanding is that there was never any doubt that both men were involved at an organisational level in drug distribution. And is it not, indeed, well known that the automatic penalty for trafficking, particularly on a large scale, is death? If, thus, corruption and improper bargaining and potential bribery were involved, it was not about perverting the proper verdict, but dickering about whether some discretion or exception could be made so that the usual standard was not followed. 

Executed ... Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran have been put to death in Indonesia. Photo: SMH

I may agree until the cows come home that we should not automatically execute drug traffickers. But if someone is going to do so, I cannot see that it was, of itself, wrong to execute this particular duo. The mere fact that some alleged intermediary of a cop, a judge or an official asked for money, does not undermine the verdict.

Likewise, I can well understand why the professional advocates of the men, and the families, would fall upon every argument, of no matter what logical or legal worthiness, to argue for mercy, delay or discretion. But the fact that I would, personally and emotionally, prefer that such mercy was extended does not mean that I am obliged to think that the refusal of the Indonesian courts, or the executive authorities, was a reflection of their blindness, idiocy, corruption or obtuseness. Indeed I think a point was reached, several weeks ago, in which the dipping into the bottom of the barrel became a form of torture of the victims and their families. It had become obvious that workable arguments had been exhausted.

This does not suggest that there were no longer arguments against the carrying out of the death penalty in general. But no one seemed to be arguing that, as such. They were arguing that an exception should be made for these men. These arguments had been made, and heard, and considered. Perhaps they were good arguments. But, from the point of view of Indonesians, they were not the only considerations. Were I the president of Indonesia, considering matters from the national interest point of view, I doubt that I would have found them convincing. What's so marvellous about Australia that it, and apparently it alone, is suspended from the operation of the general Indonesian law. And what was so marvellous about the reformation of these men that it entitled them, alone of others in their position, to exemption from the laws of the land ?

One might have thought, moreover, that if the arguments against the death penalty were entirely one way that our great and powerful friends, the United States, or our greatest trading partner, China, would have already seen the light. Both countries execute people at a far higher rate than Indonesia, but without any Australian backlash. The justice system of both countries is in at least as poor repair as that of Indonesia. If our only concern is the fate of Australians, and our lack of protest to our other friends is a reflection of the fact that they have had the good sense not to execute our folk, even as they execute people they do not like, just what principle are we supporting? That Australians are special and exempt from the law of other countries?

The best case the Australian government had in seeking reprieve for the men involved requests for mercy, not least based on evidence of some rehabilitation while in jail. That was recognised early, not least by Malcolm Turnbull.

But an argument for mercy, by lawyers or others, is not easy to mount while simultaneously the justice of the verdict is being assailed, the propriety of the process attacked, and almost every official, from top to bottom, is defamed. I do not suggest that anyone's behaviour must be exempt simply because "we" are trying to butter them up, in the hope that they will exercise a discretion in our favour. What I suggest is that it is hard to beg a favour while simultaneously administering knees to the testicles, publicly doubting the integrity of those being asked, and pandering to the worst excess of the Australian media. It is also hard to listen to plainly desperate arguments for delay in circumstances where one knows they would not get a moment's attention in an Australian court. The general tendency of Australian reportage was to suggest that every argument was a clincher, and that every rejection of such an argument was a proof of Indonesian stupidity, cupidity or corruption.

Recent months have seen a self-imposed censorship in Australia. It became obvious that even a neutral article on the case of the two drug smugglers would be quoted in the Indonesian press to indicate Australian popular indecision or equivocation about execution. No one wanted to be cited as in favour of due process of law if the effect was to stiffen the mood of the authorities. This happened, for example, to me when I criticised the exceptionalist arguments of Tony Abbott as being more likely to cause Indonesia to execute than to step back from the brink.

Meanwhile, any amount of campaigning based on the idea of Australian exceptionalism has been published here without rebuttal. That coverage has, in effect, equated judicial execution with ordinary killing, and, in some cases, murder. The hysterical tone in some reportage has seemed to think the matters at issue are on a par with ISIS beheadings, or the death toll from Nepal. The coverage has lacked balance and proportion – and only because Australians were involved. Right now one feels some pressure to advance them on the path to canonisation. 

I feel sad for them, and for their families, but, frankly, this regret is not pressing me hard compared with other local, national and international matters. I'd rather that Australian empathy was focused on the citizens of Nepal. Or refugees in Libya. Or Syria or Iraq. Indeed, I can think of cases of people facing imminent execution who, on the face of things, are entirely innocent. 

If we want no more Australians judicially executed, we should be consistent in both our argument and practice by steadily campaigning against any more people, of any nationality, being executed anywhere. We should criticise any nation that does, even when they are powerful friends and partners. 

There's nothing special about Australian criminals, and certainly nothing particularly special about these victims. And, if we actually want an achievement in fighting capital punishment, other than some pleasure in morally grandstanding against a country which does not have much time or inclination to wonder or care about what we think, we should focus our attention on persuading legislatures in the US, a nation very much like us, but which, in terms of attitudes to the death penalty, is sunk in barbarism.

If we dare call the US – which, as often as not has more trouble than Indonesia in delivering a convincing result when minorities are involved – barbarous, we might begin to develop the right to worry about our next-door neighbour, a country which has been badly affected and corrupted by our national taste for illicit drugs, and which may not relish our thinking ourselves their moral superiors.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/australian-advocacy-ruined-most-arguments-for-a-bali-9-duo-reprieve-20150430-1mw57t.html

Censorship by the National Portrait Gallery

Just heard to  the Director of the National Portrait Gallery in Canberra on Radio National.  He left me sadder than ever.  

This is censorship to suit what he calls  his 'alignment' with the  political views  of  the Australian Government.  Censorship that is scary  and sad. Coming, as it does, from a leading cultural  institution this  is the worst kind of Nationalism.

I found this statement by the censored  photographer  Adam Ferguson , on his Facebook page.

"I’m saddened to hear the news of the Bali Nine. The death sentence is archaic and my thoughts are with the families. Last September, I had the opportunity to photograph the Indonesian president for a Time Magazine cover and one of the photographs was selected in the current Australian National Photographic Portrait Prize that is currently exhibited at the National Portrait Gallery in Canberra. I was notified today that my photograph has been temporarily removed from the exhibition because of the public response to the Bali Nine executions and out of respect for the victims and their families. I am totally perplexed that a leading Australian artistic institution would take such action. Art is about a social and political dialogue. Leading galleries strive to promote discussion and ask questions of their audiences. I would have thought that allowing people to engage with the photo that I created would be now more important given the circumstances."


 I could not agree with him more.   

Good on ya Mate !

US Asks Iran to Help With Yemen Peace Talks

Hopes Iran Can Help Get Houthis to the Table

by Jason Ditz, 

US officials today confirmed that during Monday’s talks between Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian FM Javad Zarif, Kerry had asked Iran to help facilitate peace talks in Yemen.

Interestingly, Iran has been the one pushing for peace in Yemen for weeks now, while the US has loudly endorsed the Saudi war. US officials now seem to think Iran is the key to getting the Houthis to the negotiating table.

Yet the Houthis never seemed to be averse to negotiations in the first place, and it has been the Saudis and their allies that have demanded unconditional Houthi surrender before any talks would even be considered.

It’s unclear what the US expects Iran to do in this case, as their influence with the Houthis is almost certainly overstated, and their ability to get them to agree to terms agreeable to the Saudis, who seem eager to continue the sectarian war, is likely non-existent.

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/04/29/us-asks-iran-to-help-with-yemen-peace-talks/

Key Iraq Cleric Threatens US Over Plans to Declare Sunnis, Kurds ‘Countries’

Sadr Says He Will Reform Mehdi Army's Military Wing

by Jason Ditz

Influential Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr today warned against the House military budget, which aims to declare Iraq’s Kurds as well as certain Sunni Arab militias separate “countries” in their own right, to allow the Pentagon to directly arm them.

“In the event of approving this bill by the US Congress, we will find ourselvesobliged to unfreeze the military wing and start targeting American interests in Iraq – even abroad,” Sadr cautioned in a statement.

Sadr’s militia, the Mehdi Army, was disbanded when the US ended its previous occupation of Iraq. He has expressed disquiet over the resumption of US military operations in Iraq, and is even more alarmed that the US Congress is looking to unilaterally declare other factions inside Iraq as countries.

The recognition of the Kurdish Peshmerga and certain Sunni tribal militias as “countries” reflects a desire among Congressional officials to start directly arming them. US law obliges all military aid to a friendly country be provided through that country’s government, and Congress is hoping to circumvent that.

Iraq’s central government has been averse to too much armament being sent to rival factions, particularly the Kurds, as they have made clear they intend to eventually secede, and the US arms could speed the path toward such secession greatly.

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/04/29/key-iraq-cleric-threatens-us-over-plans-to-declare-sunnis-kurds-countries/

In order to break the stalemate in the ongoing conflict in Yemen, Saudi Arabia has reportedly started training hundreds of Yemeni tribesmen to fight the Houthis on the ground, while Riyadh continues its bombardment campaign.

“You cannot win a war against the Houthis from the air – you need to send ground forces in, but now there's a program to train tribal fighters on the border,” a Doha-based military source familiar with the matter told Reuters.

According to another Yemeni official source, some 300 fighters have already managed to return to Yemen after getting Saudi training. They were allegedly send the Sirwah district in the central Marib province to battle Houthis in the area. According to the source the newly trained unit managed to push the rebels back.

Saudi Arabia’s coalition spokesman failed to either confirm or deny the reports.

“We always confirm that we are helping the resistance and the popular groups, the loyal army ... but we cannot go into details on where, how, how much,”Brigadier Ahmed Asseri said.

The training received by the Yemeni tribesmen in Saudi Arabia allegedly includes light weapons and tactical advice knowledge. According to another Reuters source, the Kingdom plans to boost deployment of such units to fight the Houthis resistance.

Rhiayad is reportedly gathering all tribal leaders loyal to the ousted president Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, who fled to Saudi Arabia, to unite their tribal forces against those of the Houthis.

“Saudi Arabia wants to unite tribal leaders in this meeting but the feeling is that there's not much hope for that,” a Yemeni source in Riyadh told Reuters. Apparently the tribal delegations seem more concerned battling the jihadi elements in Yemen in addition to the Houthi opposition.

“The Saudis have decided that they are going to intensify the unstable situation by providing arms to an oppositional group, a group that has been traditionally oppositional to the Houthis,” Ajamu Baraka, Middle East expert told RT.

On the ground in Yemen, the Shiite Houthi fighting force and army units loyal to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh are in control of central and southern areas.

Read moreSaudi Arabia bombs Yemen runway ‘to stop Iranian flight landing’ (VIDEO)

The fighting is ongoing on a number of major fronts. In Aden, the Houthis are engaging tribesmen who are supported by Saudi-led air forces. In Yemen’s third largest city, Taiz, Houthis are fighting the Sunni Islamist fighters. The Houthis and their allies have been also fighting both Islamists and local tribesman in Marib and in Shabwa provinces.

The forces in Yemen which Saudi Arabia is arming can turn jihadi, Baraka says, as they have some “traditional, Whabis, Islamic leanings,” which is the “main ideological, Islamic foundation for Al Qaeda.”

“The only force that is gaining as a consequence of this conflict is in fact Al-Qaeda,” he went on to stress.

Meanwhile, the airstrikes continued throughout the country on Wednesday, targeting Houthi forces in Aden, Saada, Hajja, Taiz, Ibb and Bayda.

The fighting in Yemen continues despite all sides of the conflict being willing to hold peace talks.

“The Saudis have an objective which is connected to the interest of Israel which is basically to perpetuate the narrative that Houthis are the proxy force of Iran,” Baraka said, adding that such policy also suits Washington.

Since the Saudi-led bombings started on March 26, more than 1,000 people, including an estimated 551 civilians have been killed, the United Nations said last week. UNICEF said at least 115 children were among the dead.

http://rt.com/news/254369-saudi-training-yemen-tribes/

The Limits of Propaganda

By Dmitry Orlov


 As Paul Craig Roberts has recently reported, the US government is in the process of launching an all-out war on truth. Those who express views contrary to the party line out of Washington will be labeled a threat. Eventually they may find themselves carted to one of the concentration camps which Halliberton (Dick Cheney's old company) has constructed for $385 million. But that may take a while. In the meantime, we can expect lots of other, less dramatic developments. Indeed, some of these are already happening. Here they are, listed in order of severity.

1. Self-censorship. Those who have previously tried to get the truth out no matter what become more reticent and prone to equivocation when reporting on “hot” issues.

2. Topic-avoidance. They start avoiding certain “hot” issues that they feel are most likely to get them into trouble.

3. Response to harassment. A few incidents of mild official harassment cause certain blogs to start watering down their content, or pulling down content in response to harassment.

4. Blacklisting. The officials start censoring content on a case-by-case basis, blocking or shutting down certain internet sites that they consider seditious.

5. Blocking communications. The officials start dealing with the “hard cases” of uncooperative individuals who remain, shutting down their communications by disabling their cell phones, shutting down internet access, and by imposing travel restrictions so that the “hard cases” are forced to remain in places where they can be watched.

6. Detention. Those found to be truly uncooperative, who try to circumvent the restrictions, are rounded up and shipped off to the above-mentioned camps.

This may seem like a dire prognosis, but actually I just want to present a relatively complete list of public measures for your consideration. Yes, there will be a few “hard cases” who will insist on getting right in the face of Washington officialdom in futile hopes of somehow affecting the political process or winning over a few of their compatriots. But at some point such individuals become indistinguishable from people with mental problems. That is because if you live in the US, actually know how the political system there operates, and still think that the US is a democracy, then you DO have a mental problem. You can't have it both ways: either you buy into the official propaganda, or you don't.

Also, it bears pointing out that the vast majority of people in the US are quite happy listening to Washington's propaganda, be it from Fox or NPR, don't consider it propaganda, and have been conditioned to consider anyone who attempts to tell them the truth to be tin hat-wearing conspiracy theorist nut case. And that means that tin hat-wearing conspiracy theorist nut cases have a role to play. They are important to have, in the same way that a village idiot is important to have, so that children can learn what idiocy looks and sounds like. So, why bother sending them to a concentration camp?

And so it seems likely that the village idiots... ahem, truth-tellers will remain free-range for the time being, unless they really lose it and start tilting at windmills. But then that becomes a bona fide mental health issue.

Unless, of course, full-on war hysteria breaks out. In that case, while the external goons are busy pretending to be “not winning, not losing” but somehow “keeping America safe” in yet another wretched part of the world, the internal goons have to be kept busy. Rounding up undesirables would give them something to do.

That's the state of affairs in the United States and its subservient territories: Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand and a few others. But Washington's propaganda isn't working at all well in the rest of the world, be it Russia or China or Latin America. In all of these places, Washington's message control has more or less failed. This is why the people in Washington are in a bit of a panic, and labeling internal dissidents as a “threat” is just them flailing in search of an answer. They can't stop lying, and they can't even pretend to rule the world if everyone knows that they are lying, so their only option is to try to squelch every voice except their own. They may succeed at this within the US (some would say they already have) but as far as the rest of the world—good luck!

Dmitry Orlov is a Russian-American engineer and a writer on subjects related to "potential economic, ecological and political decline and collapse in the United States," something he has called “permanent crisis”. http://cluborlov.blogspot.com

Bali 9 executions: Joko Widodo's portrait taken down by National Portrait Gallery

Sally Pryor Arts Editor at The Canberra Times.

Indonesian President Joko Widodo's portrait has been removed from the walls of the National Portrait Gallery to avoid being defaced  following the executions of Bali nine pair Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran on Wednesday morning.

Australian photographer Adam Ferguson reacted with confusion when told by the gallery they would remove his portrait of Indonesia's president from public display.

The portrait was a finalist in the National Photographic Portrait Prize, and was set to be on display until June 8.

Ferguson, who shot the image as part of a cover shoot for Time magazine, said he would have preferred to see the work damaged than for it to be removed from the wall.

Speaking from Nepal, where he is covering the recent earthquake on assignment forTime, he said he had been contacted personally by gallery director Angus Trumble to inform him of the gallery's decision.

"Angus wrote to me and called me in Nepal and explained his position, which was kind of generous of him," he said.

He said while Mr Trumble had explained his concern that the work would be damaged, he thought the decision had been misguided.

"They don't actually own it, I own it. They haven't bought it off me, it's not like it's a high-value piece of work that they own," he said.

"He did mention that until yesterday they were determined not to take it down unless someone tried to deface it, which seems like a stupid thing because I don't think anyone in Australia would do that."

Adam Ferguson's photographic portrait of Indonesian President Joko Widodo. Photo: Adam Ferguson

He said he would have preferred the image had stayed on the wall as a statement in itself, even if it were to be damaged.

"I think anybody that misconstrued the issues of national law in a sovereign country with a picture of the leader of that country has a totally misguided comprehension of the story and what's gone on. It seems to act in anger against the picture, it seems quite ridiculous," he said.

Mr Trumble told Fairfax Media he had taken the pre-emptive action to remove the portrait temporarily, in the wake of the news of and public reaction to the executions.

"My feeling yesterday [Wednesday] morning was that in view of the circumstances and our operations, and my best assessment of the risk of damage to the work of art, it was necessary to remove it from public display," he said.

"Also, I was swayed by the statements of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and of course the position of the Parliament  and the recall of our ambassador. So it's a temporary measure."

He said while there had not been any incident relating to the work and taking it down had been a preventive measure, he had a responsibility to protect all works in the gallery.

"My primary responsibility is the care of the works in our collection and the safety of our visitors," he said. 

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bali-9-executions-joko-widodos-portrait-taken-down-by-national-portrait-gallery-20150430-1mwrpo.html

  I just heard the  director explaining the reason for taking down  the portrait . .   the  potential for  damage was not mentioned.  He  was primarily "swayed" by an over reactive politics and has made a  very political  statement that  just kowtows to  the  sorry politics  of the Australian reaction. 

Sad  !

Cultural institutions should be bridges across cultures. 

‘Endangered Okinawa dugong’s habitat to be bulldozed for the sake of US military base’

If the US military base in Okinawa is relocated to Henoko, the habitat of the endangered Okinawa dugong sea mammal, will be wiped off the map, said Peter Galvin of the Center for Biological diversity. The species is already down to a few dozen, he added.

RT:What is so wrong about the re-location of the US base from an ecological prospective?

Peter Galvin: The organization I work for, The Center for Biological Diversity focuses on the wildlife environmental protection [of] endangered species. Our focus is to protect wildlife and animals and the environment where they are threatened. And in the case of Okinawa we have a situation where there is an endangered marine mammal, the Okinawa dugong - a very, very rare population of dugongs which is kind of like a sea cow, a little bit like a manatee that they have in the US. And these gentle giants of the ocean... there is between 12 and 15 dugongs remaining in Okinawa... They are a critically endangered population and the site of their habitat in Okinawa, the primary habitat is the site that US and Japanese governments want to fill in to expand a military base in Henoko.

Read more‘Don’t rape the sea!’ Hundreds protest US military base relocation plan in Japan

The base controversy has a strong environmental component to it, as well as folks in Okinawa that are concerned about peace issues, sovereignty issues, and military threat issues. Our focus is environmental issues. In this situation there is a convergence of a variety of issues including environmental issues, peace, Okinawa sovereignty issues - all playing together in one action. It is a very controversial proposal. The base plan would fill in a very rich area of coral reef in a place called Oura Bay which is on the eastern side of Okinawa, north east Okinawa. And it would be just an enormous landfill project into the ocean which has a huge number of people in Okinawa, in Japan, throughout the world up in arms that in this day and age the US and Japanese governments would pay so little heed to the local population, that they would basically just bulldoze over the local opposition and literally bulldoze over the coral reef and fill it in. So the dugong is a desperately endangered marine mammal that we’ve been working to protect for two decades. Our group along with several other groups launched a lawsuit in US Federal Court, a number of years ago to stop this base expansion project. Our case still continues through the court system. But unfortunately, the project is in the beginning phases now. And as you can see there’s a huge amount of controversy in Okinawa over it that is now manifesting.

U.S. Marine base Camp Schwab on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa (Reuters / Kyodo)

RT: Could you give examples of how the re-location of the US base to Henoko is harming flora and fauna? We've heard about concrete blocks in the ocean. Any other examples?

PG: Literally, you used the word concrete. And yes, as a matter of fact one of the aspects of any kind of project like this is the contractors bore into the ocean at different places to see the strength of the material at the ocean floor. The sound of the drilling, the construction process, and all the ships out there dumping the concrete pilings into the ocean. ... Dugongs are herbivores and they feed on sea grass, they graze like a cow... The huge amount of disturbance in the area is causing the dugongs to change their patterns and that’s a risk enough. But here is the real problem: after these boring surveys and the concrete blocks, if the project continues literally millions and millions of tons of soil are brought in and the ocean itself is filled and land is created from the ocean, the coral reef will be entirely decimated, the sea grass in that entire area will be gone. This is the prime feeding habitat for the endangered Okinawa dugong. These species is down to a few dozen individuals and this is its primary habitat. The impact from the base cannot be understated or overstated and will literally wipe this area of the habitat off the map.

MORE:

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

http://rt.com/op-edge/254113-okinawa-dugong-endangered-species-us/

Charlie Hebdo cartoonist: ‘I will no longer draw Mohammed’

French cartoonist Luz has stated that he will no longer draw the prophet Mohammed. Luz made an illustration of the prophet on the front cover of the Charlie Hebdo magazine following the terrorist attack, which killed 12 people at the magazine’s office.

"He [prophet Mohammed] no longer interests me," Luz said in an interview with the French magazine Inrockuptibles, which was published on Wednesday and cited by Reuters.

"I've got tired of it, just as I got tired of drawing Sarkozy. I'm not going to spend my life drawing them."

Renald Luzier, who is otherwise known as Luz, was responsible for producing the front cover image on January 14. It showed a cartoon of a tearful Mohammed holding a “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) sign below the headline: “Tout est pardonné” (All is forgiven).

Luz narrowly missed being caught up in the terrorist attack, as he was 30 minutes late for work. He had overslept on the morning of January 9 as two Islamist gunmen entered the magazine’s office and killed 11 people, leaving another 11 injured.

“The terrorists did not win,” Luz told Les Inrockuptibles. “They will have won if the whole of France continues to be scared,” he added, accusing the far-right National Front of trying to stir up fear in the wake of the attacks.

The post attack issue managed to raise a total of €8 million ($8.9 million) in sales. Five million copies hit newsstands on January 14, in 16 different languages on Wednesday, each selling for €3 ($3.35).

All proceeds from the sale of the edition went directly to Charlie Hebdo and the families of the victims.

http://rt.com/news/254317-charlie-hebdo-mohammed-cartoonist/

Iran calls for Nuclear Disarmament by US, Israel, World

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) 

At a summit on Monday, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif turned the tables on the countries demanding that Iran keep its nuclear program for solely civilian, electricity generation. Zarif called for all countries to give up nuclear weapons, including Israel and the US. Iran does not have a nuclear bomb and gives no signs of trying to develop one.

The speech is a welcome reminder of how topsy-turvy Washington discourse on Iran is. Iran is viewed suspiciously as going for broke to get an atomic bomb, when there is no evidence for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. That the US has a massive nuclear arsenal is not mentioned. 

That the only nuclear-armed country in the Middle East is Israel is not mentioned. That George W. Bush was alarmed that an Israeli PM brandished the threat of a nuclear strike against Iraq is not mentioned. That Israel is not inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency but Iran is, is not mentioned. That Western countries have actively connived to give Israel a nuclear weapons capability and to improve it is not mentioned. So US politicians constantly warn that if Iran gets a bomb it will kick of a nuclear arms race in the region, ignoring the fact that Israel has a bomb, which has already driven such a race (it was why Iraq in the 1980s sought bomb-making capabilities).

Zarif spoke on behalf of the Group of the Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons at the 2015 NPT Review Conference in New York, saying that the NPT is the essential framework for the whole world and that a complete disarmament should be the end game. He said,

“The nuclear-weapon-States have not made progress in eliminating their nuclear weapons. The role of nuclear weapons in security policies of the nuclear-weapon-States has not diminished. Some nuclear weapons States are modernizing their nuclear arsenals and planning research on new nuclear warheads, others have announced their intention to develop new delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons.”

Zarif went on to point to the power imbalance between the nuclear states and the non-nuclear states, and the failure of the former to provide credible security guarantees to the latter:

“The non-nuclear-weapons States Parties have not yet received unequivocal and legally binding security assurances. The transfer of nuclear technology continues to face impediments inconsistent with the Treaty, and no progress has been made to achieve universal adherence to the Treaty in the Middle East; to give but a few examples of the lack of implementation of the 1995, 2000 and 2010 agreements.”

Cole: It should be noted that the 2003 US invasion of Iraq was the invasion by a secure, nuclear-armed state of a poor, weak insecure non-nuclear state. What better incentive could there be for poor weak states to try to get a bomb as soon as possible?

Zarif went on to complain about violations of the spirit of the NPT by the nuclear-armed states:

” The improvement of existing nuclear weapons and the development of new types of nuclear weapons violate the commitments undertaken by the nuclear-weapon States at the time of the conclusion of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty… We call upon the nuclear-weapon States to immediately cease their plans to further invest in modernizing and extending the life span of their nuclear weapons and related facilities.”

He also complained about nuclear-armed states threatening to use their atomic bombs on others:

“We firmly believe that any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity and a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular international humanitarian law. In this regard, we strongly call for the complete exclusion of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons from military doctrines.”

As for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, Zarif added:

“We underline the right of all States parties to participate in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. We strongly reject, and call for the immediate removal of, any restrictions or limitations posed on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including restrictions on exports to other States parties of nuclear material, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes.”

Zarif conveyed the Non-Aligned Movement’s unease with Israel being the only nuclear-armed country in the Middle East and with continued Western technology transfers to that country’s nuclear weapons programs:

“The Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Movement, in their Tehran Summit Declaration of 2012, reiterated their support for the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and as a priority step to this end, reaffirmed the need for the speedy establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East. They also called upon all parties concerned to take urgent and practical steps for the establishment of such a zone and, pending its establishment, demanded that Israel, the only one in the region that has neither joined the NPT nor declared its intention to do so, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons, to accede to the NPT without precondition and further delay, to place promptly all its nuclear facilities under IAEA full-scope safeguards and to conduct its nuclear related activities in conformity with the non-proliferation regime. They expressed great concern over the acquisition of nuclear capability by Israel which poses a serious and continuing threat to the security of neighboring and other States, and condemned Israel for continuing to develop and stockpile nuclear arsenals. They also called for the total and complete prohibition of the transfer of all nuclear-related equipment, information, material and facilities, resources or devices and the extension of assistance in the nuclear related scientific or technological fields to Israel.”

The Non-Aligned Movement is right that the Middle East needs to be a nuclear weapons-free zone. It is too unstable a region to stockpile atomic bombs there!

http://www.juancole.com/2015/04/nuclear-disarmament-israel.html