Category Archives: Government Oppression

It is truly bizarre that, at a moment when the Trump administration is sending in federal stormtroopers to threaten peaceful protesters in Portland, Oregon, conservatives are claiming that it is liberals who threaten the foundation of our democratic republic. It all started with Trumps speech at Mt. Rushmore on July 4th.

Seventeen seventy-six represented the culmination of thousands of years of western civilization and the triumph not only of spirit, but of wisdom, philosophy, and reason.

And yet, as we meet here tonight, there is a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for, struggled, they bled to secure.

Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children

This attack on our liberty, our magnificent liberty, must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly. We will expose this dangerous movement, protect our nations children, end this radical assault, and preserve our beloved American way of life

Make no mistake: this left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution.

That was followed up by a speech from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the National Constitution Center to unveil the first report from his Commission on Unalienable Rights. The secretary had established the commission a year ago in order to ground our foreign policy in this countrys founding ideals. The first thing to note is that Pompeo thinks that it is necessary to prioritize which unalienable rights are most important.

the report emphasizes foremost among these rights are property rights and religious liberty. No one can enjoy the pursuit of happiness if you cannot own the fruits of your own labor, and no society no society can retain its legitimacy or a virtuous character without religious freedom.

Of course, what a Christian nationalist like Pompeo means when he talks about religious liberty is the freedom of white evangelical Christians to do what they please and all other religions be damned. That one has a lot of human rights advocates pointing out that it is the rights of women and LGBTQ persons to be treated as equal citizens under the law that are getting thrown under the bus.

Pompeo mentioned Trumps speech at Mt. Rushmore when he launched into his own attack on those who are protesting against police brutality.

President Trump spoke about this at Mount Rushmore on the Fourth of July. And our rights tradition is under assault.

The New York Timess 1619 Project so named for the year that the first slaves were transported to America wants you to believe that our country was founded for human bondage.

They want you to believe that Americas institutions continue to reflect the countrys acceptance of slavery at our founding.

They want you to believe that Marxist ideology that America is only the oppressors and the oppressed. The Chinese Communist Party must be gleeful when they see the New York Times spout this ideology.

Some people have taken these false doctrines to heart. The rioters pulling down statues thus see nothing wrong with desecrating monuments to those who fought for our unalienable rights from our founding to the present day.

This is a dark vision of Americas birth. I reject it. Its a disturbed reading of history. It is a slander on our great people. Nothing could be further from the truth of our founding and the rights about which this report speaks.

The commission reminds us its got a quote from Frederick Douglas, himself a freed slave, who saw the Constitution as a glorious, liberty document. That it is.

That quote from Frederick Douglass is a favorite among conservatives. What they dont tell you is that it comes from his speech titled, What to the Slave is the Fourth of July? given in 1852nine years before the Civil War. Speaking to a white audience, Douglass refers to your National Independence, and of your political freedom (emphasis mine), making it clear that it doesnt apply to those who were enslaved. You can almost see the tongue-in-cheek way that he talks about what led up to the Declaration of Independence from British rule.

Feeling themselves harshly and unjustly treated by the home government, your fathers, like men of honesty, and men of spirit, earnestly sought redress. They petitioned and remonstrated; they did so in a decorous, respectful, and loyal manner. Their conduct was wholly unexceptionable. This, however, did not answer the purpose. They saw themselves treated with sovereign indifference, coldness and scorn. Yet they persevered. They were not the men to look back

Oppression makes a wise man mad. Your fathers were wise men, and if they did not go mad, they became restive under this treatment. They felt themselves the victims of grievous wrongs, wholly incurable in their colonial capacity. With brave men there is always a remedy for oppression. Just here, the idea of a total separation of the colonies from the crown was born! It was a startling idea, much more so, than we, at this distance of time, regard it. The timid and the prudent (as has been intimated) of that day, were, of course, shocked and alarmed by it.

It seems pretty clear that Pompeo has never read Douglasss whole speech. So it might surprise him to learn that the man he quoted referred to our founding fathers as oppressed, but wise men who chaffed under their treatment by the home government. The Declaration of Independence was actually a protest document.

But by the end of his speech, Douglass made it clear that these founding ideals were not extended to people like him.

I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July isyours, notmine.Youmay rejoice,Imust mourn.

That is the part of Douglasss speech that Pompeo doesnt want you to hearmuch less read himself. There are people who are still mourning the fact that American hasnt lived up to its ideals. They are taking to the streets to protest and this administration is doing everything in their power to vilify, threaten, and stop them.

It is worth noting that it was this countrys first African American president who drew ourattention to the words contained in the preamble to the Constitution during his 2008 speech about race in America (emphasis mine).

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Heres what Obama said.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty and justice and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part through protests and struggles, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience, and always at great risk to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

With the passing of John Lewis over the weekend, this is also a time to remember the words Obama spoke to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the march he led across the bridge in Selma, Alabama.

As we commemorate their achievement, we are well-served to remember that at the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them. Back then, they were called Communists, or half-breeds, or outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse - they were called everything but the name their parents gave them. Their faith was questioned. Their lives were threatened. Their patriotism challenged.

And yet, what could be more American than what happened in this place? What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America than plain and humble people - unsung, the downtrodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth or privilege, not of one religious tradition but many, coming together to shape their countrys course?

What greater expression of faith in the American experiment than this, what greater form of patriotism is there than the belief that America is not yet finished, that we are strong enough to be self-critical, that each successive generation can look upon our imperfections and decide that it is in our power to remake this nation to more closely align with our highest ideals?

Thats why Selma is not some outlier in the American experience. Thats why its not a museum or a static monument to behold from a distance. It is instead the manifestation of a creed written into our founding documents: We the People in order to form a more perfect union. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

It is people like Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo who are in the process of threatening the ideals on which this country was founded. They are the ones who are calling protesters everything but the name their parents gave them and serving up the modern-day equivalent of the billy clubs used against people like John Lewis on Bloody Sunday.

The great divide in this country has always been the one between those in power who will do anything to maintain the status quo and those who revere our founding ideals enough to join the struggle to perfect our union. Its once again time to choose a side.

Read the original:

The Protesters Are the True Patriots - Washington Monthly

DENIS ROGATYUK: The fight to bring Julian home has been a monumental challenge since his unjust conviction. But it has certainly become much more difficult since his expulsion from the Ecuadorian embassy in March 2019. What have been the primary actions that you and the campaign have undertaken since then?

JOHN SHIPTON: Well we fight against the United Kingdom, Sweden, the United States, and to a certain extent Australia. They have marshaled all of their forces and broken every law in human rights and due process in order to send Julian to the United States and destroy him.

Before our eyes, we have watched the gradual murder of Julian through psychological torture, through ceaseless breaking of procedures and due process. So that is what we fight against.

During the latest hearing, the judge Barrett asked Julian to prove that he was unwell, that he didnt come onto the video. So again, we see a process that we witness over and over again, blaming the victim.

In the case of Australia, the Australians say that theyve offered consular assistance. When I say the Australians, DFAT (the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade), and the prime minister, and the foreign minister, Marise Payne, say that they have consular assistance over and over again. Their consular assistance consists offering last weeks newspaper and to see if hes still alive. Thats about the extent of it.

So consular assistance, I think they maintain, DFAT maintains that theyve made 100 offers. Well this is a profound testimony to failure.

Its now 11 years; Julian has been arbitrarily detained 11 years. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention declared that Julian was arbitrarily detained, and should be compensated and freed straightaway.

The latest of their reports was February 2018. It is now 2020 and Julian is still in maximum security Belmarsh prison under lockdown 23 hours a day.

DENIS ROGATYUK: And how would you describe the relationship between the current campaign for his release and the Wikileaks organisation?

JOHN SHIPTON: Well WikiLeaks continues its work and continues to hold the most extraordinary library of the American, United States diplomacy since 1970. Its an extraordinary artifact that any journalist or any historian, any of us can look up the names of those who have been involved in diplomacy with the United States, in their own countries or with the United States. This is a great resource. It continues to be maintained.

Just the week before last, WikiLeaks released another set of files, so WikiLeaks continues its work.

The people who defend Julian include Wikileaks, but include 100,000 people all around the world who are working constantly to bring about Julians freedom and stop this oppression of the free press, of publication, of publishers, and of journalists. We work constantly to do that.

There are about 80 websites around the world that publish and agitate for Julians freedom. And about 86 Facebook pages devoted to Julian. So there are many of us. And the upswelling of support continues, despite Covid. Covid slowed us down a little bit. Now that Covid-19 is withdrawing, the upswelling continues.

And it will do so until the Australian Government and the United Kingdom recognise that this is the crime, the oppression of Julian, is the great crime of the 21st century.

DENIS ROGATYUK: The latest superseding indictment of Julian regarding the alleged conspiracy with unnamed anonymous hackers appears to be another attempt to fast-track his extradition. Do you believe this is a symptom of desperation on the part of the Department of Justice of the United States?

JOHN SHIPTON: No I dont. The people who work in the Department of Justice get paid, whether this succeeds or not. Whether Julian is extradited they get paid; if hes not extradited they still get paid. They still go home, and have a glass of wine, take the kids to the movies, and then come to work the next day, and think up another instrument of torture for Julian. This is their job.

So I dont know why, but I could speculate or guess, if you like, that the Department of Justice would like to see the trial delayed, the hearing delayed, until after the American election (in November 2020). So there will be appeals by the lawyers in court that they havent had time to accommodate and that the judge, they asked the judge to move the hearing date. Thats what I imagine.

But I dont think its an act of desperation at all. If anything it is giving us who defend Julian more things to worry about, so that our energies are not focused singularly upon getting Julian out. So the conversation drifts over to this further indictment and about who is included in it.

It is Siggi and Sabu, both of whom are not credible witnesses. Siggi (Sigurdur Thordarson, or Siggi hakkari) is a convicted sex offender, a con man, who stole $50,000 from Wikileaks and so on. There are not credible witnesses (to these allegations). I guess that it is either to delay the hearing and or to cause the conversation to drift away from what is important.

DENIS ROGATYUK: I wish to move to the second part of our interview now, exploring Julians life.

A lot has been researched and published about Julians life and early days in the 1990s. I would like to discuss the aspects of his life that have given him the resilience and the strength to withstand the challenges that he faces now.

Julian is incredibly committed to telling the truth in his interviews. He is very articulate and he is very careful about communicating and choosing the exact words to describe things. Is this something that his family taught him or is it something special about Julian?

JOHN SHIPTON: I dont really know, you know, it is sort of a gift that I would like to have myself. So I dont know where it came from. I guess you would have to ask the gods, maybe they know the answer.

The path he has forged is distinct and distinctly his. I admire and am proud of him for his capacity to adapt, and his capacity to continue fighting, despite 11 years of ceaseless psychological torture. That doesnt come without cost. It cost him a lot.

However, we believe that we will prevail. And Julian will be able to come home to Australia, and maybe live in Mullumbimby for a little bit, or in Melbourne; he used to live here down the corner.

Oh actually I dont like the word, if I may withdraw that sentence, I dont like the word hope. Hope sort of makes a really nice breakfast, and a bad dinner. So we will prevail in this fight is what I would say.

DENIS ROGATYUK: Julian displayed incredible physical and mental resilience these past 9 years, particularly nearly 8 years he spent in the Ecuadorian embassy and this past year in the Belmarsh prison. Where do you think this strength is coming from his moral and political convictions or something he developed in his early life in Australia?

JOHN SHIPTON: I think its a gift that he has, that he will continue to fight for what he believes. And if there are elements of truth in what he is fighting for, well then he never surrenders. Its an aspect of character.

I dont mind in fact myself, but I am invigorated by fighting for Julian. And each insult or offence against Julian increases my determination to prevail, and the determination of Julians supporters to prevail. Each insult increases our strength.

And so you can see, when the second a lot of indictments were brought down week before last, supporters around the world raised their voices in disbelief, and began again to raise awareness of Julians situation.

So its really interesting, the Department of Justice might think one thing that it causes us to fracture, but what actually happens is the upswelling of support continues unabated.

DENIS ROGATYUK: John, I wish to ask you a more personal question. How does it feel to be the father of a man like Julian, and to see his son son go through all this hardship and slander, and to keep traveling and fighting for his liberation across the world?

JOHN SHIPTON: Well some of it is hard to believe, what people say about Julian. You know those American politicians are shooting, and you know the UC Global employees in Spain, who were supposed to look after the security of the Ecuadorian embassy, who speculated on how to poison Julian at the behest of CIA and Mossad and Sheldon Adelson, whatever whatever you want to call those bunch of creeps.

Im surprised, but you know I ignore it. For myself I take not the slightest bit of notice. Im surprised that people put their energies into calling Julian names, and theyve never met him, never even set eyes on him, some people, and yet they find the time and energy to write scurrilous things.

I think maybe they dont have anybody to go out with, or theres no friends at home, or something like that, or their their wife cant stand them, so they go down the backyard with their laptops and write scurrilous things about Julian or whatever, or their neighbors dog.

Im very surprised that people put the energy into that sort of thing.

DENIS ROGATYUK: But how does it feel to keep this campaign for a liberation going? Because you have done a lot of travel around the world; you have been advocating for his release everywhere you go. So what has that journey been like for you, personally?

JOHN SHIPTON: Uh Denis, I dont count the costs, not even for a minute. I do what Im here today with you, I do what comes before me, and then I go on to the next thing. But I never, ever count costs.

DENIS ROGATYUK: And for the last part of our interview I wanted to actually discuss your thoughts and your opinions on some of the more important and more prominent issues of our day.

Ever since the extradition hearings began, against Julian, the US government, particularly Trump, Mike Pence, and Mike Pompeo, have been doubling down on their attacks against Julian and WikiLeaks. Pompeo even called it a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.

The US establishment appears to be dead set against them, and both major parties are playing along. So what do you think ought to be the strategy of activists and journalists in the US to challenge this?

JOHN SHIPTON: Well first of all, Mike Pompeo, dear oh dear, I mean a failed secretary of state and a failed CIA director, declares war on WikiLeaks in order to get the CIA support for his future ambitions to run for president. And he moves now from secretary of state to the Senate for Kansas.

The secretary of state is an important position. However Mike Pompeo doesnt strike me as being a historically significant personality.

The US establishment must fall in line with what the CIA wants and thinks. So Pompeo in that address on the (13th) of April 2017 that you just quoted, he just wants to get all of his workers to support him in his bid for presidency.

And also to oppress and intimidate journalists all over the world, and publishers and publications his sole aim is to ruin your capacity to bring to the public ideas and information, and our capacity as members of the public to talk amongst ourselves and sort out things through conversation with each other, on what we ought to do and how we ought to go about life.

They just want to have it all their own way, declare war on whomever, murder another million people, destroy Yemen, destroy Libya, destroy Iraq, destroy Afghanistan, the list goes on destroy Syria, millions of people refugees, flooding the world, and moving into Europe; the Maghreb in turmoil, the Levant in turmoil, Palestinians murdered this is their aim.

And so for us, we depend upon you to bring us truthful information, so that we can have fair opinions of how the world is moving around us.

What Pompeo wants is for what he says to be believed. Well you can see his history. They say it may be up to 5 million people since 1991 died as a result of the United States and its allies moving on Iraq in an illegal war.

You can watch Collateral Murder and you can see a good samaritan dragging a wounded man into his car to take him to the hospital, taking his children on the way to school, murdered before your eyes. The pilots of the helicopter begging for instructions to be able to shoot a wounded man, two kids, and two good samaritans, begging for instructions from their controller.

So they dont want us to see that. However we depend upon you journalists, publishers, publications to bring to us the crimes that governments commit so that we are energized, so that we place our shoulders to preventing these murders with all of the determination and energy we can muster, to prevent the murder and destruction of an entire country.

If I may remind you, in Melbourne, there were a million people marched against the Iraq War. All over the world I think a total of 10 million people. We dont want war. They lie to us in order to have wars, for whatever satisfaction, I cant make out myself.

Who would want to see and hear the lamentation of widows, the cries of children, the groans of men? Who would want that? Its monstrous.

And so we need the information in order to say no.

DENIS ROGATYUK: The new cold war between the United States and the European Union on one side and China and Russia on the other, threatens to pull the ordinary people of the world into another confrontation on behalf of these political and economic elites among these countries.

From your experience of seeking international support for Julian, what are the best ways of forging solidarity across borders in this new conflict that seems to be developing?

JOHN SHIPTON: I think the best way is to talk to your friends and discuss things, gathering friends and discussing things, becoming aware outside of what the mass communication outlets want us to see and hear.

So just face-to-face conversations and then conversations over social media is sufficient. Each day you will see, the last two weeks, Facebook and YouTube and Twitter removing, as platforms of discussion, certain subjects, and certain YouTube channels. They remove them because we are succeeding, not because nobody watches them, nobody goes there. Its because we are succeeding to educate ourselves as to what governments do in our name.

To bring peace between or fair relationships between the members of the European Union and Australia and China and Russia, ordinary people the Sochi World Cup, soccer world cup, was the greatest success, fabulous success. Everybody who went to Russia came back full of admiration for Russia and Russian hospitality.

Well this is what is needed, just ordinary people getting to know each other and discussing matters of importance, not depending upon CNN or any other talking head for how you should feel about this or that subject. Just talk to friends, talk to groups of people, talk amongst each other, exchange ideas, exchange where to get good information, and things will change.

I have an undying belief in the capacity and goodness of general humanity. And I am proved right every time, because 10 million people marched against the Iraq War, but a few hundred manipulated the nations by blowing up railway stations, what they called terrorism, just a few hundred manipulated those nations into destroying Iraq.

Ordinary people dont want war; we want to be able to just talk to our friends, look after our families, thats all.

DENIS ROGATYUK: And one final question, John. The Covid-19 pandemic has not only revealed the inadequacies of the neoliberal economic order, but it has also revealed its increasing instability and desperation to maintain itself.

This is also true with regards to prominent right-wing governments the United States, Brazil, and Bolivia seeking to silence journalists and reports regarding their mismanagement of the pandemic.

We are seeing independent journalism under attack around the world, through censorship, intimidation threats, and assassinations.

What do you think should be the best way of fighting back against them?

JOHN SHIPTON: These governments, they cant even look after their own populations, let alone order the world in a decent way. And their ambitions are to order the world, while they cant even look after the people of Seattle.

Its just, if it wasnt so tragic, it would be just amusing, you would read about it just to get a laugh every morning.

Of course they oppress the journalists; of course they oppress publications; of course the warrants that allow you to broadcast on a certain spectrum are removed; platforms are removed. Because we continue to understand and expose their shortcomings.

The shortcomings are criminal. They actually consider the phrase herd immunity to be something scientific. They actually contemplate allowing hundreds of thousands of old people or older people to die. And they use phrases like, Oh well, they had comorbidities. Everybody over 60 has a comorbidity. You dont get older and get weller; you get older and get a little bit sick, or a little bit not so strong.

The actual contemplation of doing away with the steadying part of a society older people steady the young; the young are full of vigor, and the old are full of caution; this is a fair balance in society allowing them to die off, for whatever reason we cant discern. We cannot discern; it doesnt cost any more money to look after a section of society and prevent Covid. You dont lose anything from it; you actually gain access to the experience and judgment of the older section of your society.

So it is incomprehensible, like neoliberalism itself, nobody quite understands why weve got, it but its there.

Denis is a Russian-Australian freelance writer, journalist and researcher. His articles, interviews and analysis have been published in a variety of media sources around the world including Jacobin, Le Vent Se Lve, Sputnik, Green Left Weekly, Links International Journal, Alborada and others.

View original post here:

Assanges father speaks out, calls oppression of WikiLeaks founder a great crime of 21st century - The Grayzone

Mayawati 

New Delhi: Former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati launched a scathing attack on Shivraj Singh Chouhan-led BJP government in Madhya Pradesh over Guna incident saying the party talks about Dalit empowerment but indulges in their harassment.

He further said that the oppression of Dalits continue under the BJP and the Congress saying they need to ponder over the fact too.

A couple in MPs Guna consume poison after they were manhandled by police during an anti-encroachment drive.

The incident took place on Tuesday when the police tried to remove people who had encroached land allotted for college in the district.

Tehsildar N Singh said that the duo is in stable condition and claimed that the land which had been allotted for college was encroached upon by people and that the cops were there to remove it.

Taking to her Twitter, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BJP) chief said that the condition of Dalits remains unchanged under Congress or the BJP rule and said that they need to think about it.

Meanwhile, after the incident, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan directed immediate removal of Collector and SP of Guna and also ordered a high-level inquiry into the incident.

To force that couple to attempt suicide by forcing the couple to attempt suicide by borrowing the crop from the JCB machine in the name of encroachment by the Guna Police and Administration of Madhya Pradesh.

The nationwide condemnation of this incident is natural and the government should take strict action, tweeted Mayawati.

The video of the incident went viral on social media showed the police beating the man with batons severely.

Talking to the media, District Collector S Vishwanathan said that the farm was reserved for a government model college and said that Rajkumar Ahirwar (38) and his wife Savitri (35) were working on the land which was encroached by Gabbu Pardi.

See original here:

Oppression common under Congress-BJP rule, Dalits need to ponder over the situation: Mayawati on Guna incident - Times Now

It was an ordinary day for Palestinians under Israels rule. Ordinary, in the sense that the many ways that Israel oppresses Palestinians continued as usual, be it through military orders, court rulings, or direct state violence.

July 1 was the earliest launch date for Israels de jure annexation of parts of the occupied West Bank. Yet it was also a day that Israel simply continued doing what it pleases to Palestinians throughout the territory: Its infrastructure of oppression has already been in place for decades. But one thing is both certain and fixed: how oppressive, demeaning, and brutal this reality is.

The Israeli state has effectively annexed Palestinian lives. That on July 1 certain parts of the occupied West Bank did not switch their designation to de jure annexation was another arbitrary Israeli decision, in this case spelling out the occupying powers preference to continue to subjugate Palestinians in one certain way instead of through a novel approach. In that same arbitrary vein, this very decision may still changeor not.

More coverage of the Middle East

Though nothing changed on the ground, the political ground in Washington may be shifting.

Not at AIPAC. The so-called pro-Israel lobbying group has begun telling lawmakers that they are free to criticize Israels looming annexation plansjust as long as the criticism stops there, according to reports. Similarly, a leaked memo from the civil rights watchdog Anti-Defamation League offered parallel talking points: providing a space for local and national leaders to express their criticism of Israels decision while neutralizing anti-Israel legislative proposals, e.g. condemning and singling out its human rights record and conditioning its military aid.

In other words, it seems that the Israeli government and certain Jewish organizations have read the recent statement by some 50 U.N. experts, that [t]he lessons from the past are clear: Criticism without consequences will neither forestall annexation nor end the occupation. These American Jewish groups appear to be in agreement that genuine consequences may actually make a differenceand thus they are working diligently to keep the noise on a meaningless level, dialed precisely to allow criticism without leading to consequences.

Yet thanks to all the focus on potential de jure annexation, we can now see the difference between those still committed to expressing deep concern without taking any action and those refusing to continue with complicity.

In Washington, D.C., a letter signed by 191 House Democrats urge[d] the Israeli government to reconsider its annexation plans. The text is framed exclusively from the perspective of Israels interests; it fails to mention Palestinians human rights or their past, current, and future oppression. It also refrains from even hinting that there could be potential consequences if their urging is ignored.

But this business-as-usual acquiescence was soon eclipsed by a very different text, led by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pramila Jayapal, Betty McCollum, and Rashida Tlaib, and signed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, among others. Calling things by their proper names, the letter addresses the path toward an apartheid system. It details human rights violations from limitations on freedom of movement to continued demolitions of Palestinian homes. And it introduces meaningful consequences, leveraging the $3.8 billion of U.S. military funding to Israel.

Your donation keeps this site free and open for all to read. Give what you can...

SUPPORT THE PROSPECT

In Europe, one can witness a similar divide. On the one hand, the letter signed by more than a thousand European lawmakers calling for commensurate consequences and resolutions demanding action by parliaments in Belgium and the Netherlands. On the other, op-eds published by the European Unions foreign policy chief Josep Borrell and several EU ambassadors to Israel. Borrells op-ed barely mentions Palestinians. Instead, he puts great effort into trying to explain to Israelis whats in their best interest (Annexation is not the way to create peace with the Palestinians and to improve Israels security), and goes out of his way to spell out that for Brussels the path forward is paved with carrots, not sticks: Peace cannot be imposed Peace can also bring new possibilities for EU-Israel relations to further grow. Europe, internally dividedand humiliatedthrough Israels open alliances with the rising authoritarian forces on the continent, seems, so far, unable and unwilling to wake up to realitythe very reality arrived at to no small extent as a result of Europes failed foreign policy to date.

July 1 proved to be a very ordinary day in our reality. Other ordinary days will follow, in a path paved by Israeli bulldozers, backed by Israeli courts, trampling over Palestinian homes and rights and dignity. The talk of de jure annexation might focus global attention, but that attention may fade if weeks pass and Israel decides that its preferred method of further oppressing Palestinians is by means of long-lasting de facto annexation, without adding to it a dash of de jure. For one way or another, it is the government of Israel that controls everyone and everything between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

It is essential that this lesson does not fade awayand that the ongoing reality of de facto annexation is not further normalized. Dont wait for formal legalization, or release a sigh of relief if that possibility is set aside for now. Do commit to an action-based rejection of the existing, appalling, reality on the ground.

De jure or de facto, Israels oppression of Palestinians already demands consequences.

Link:

Waiting for Annexation - The American Prospect

MURRAY Though Robert E. Lee presided over the surrender of Confederate troops to effectively end the Civil War, Calloway County leaders signaled Wednesday they have no intention of surrendering in the fight over his likeness standing on the courthouse lawn.

In the face of a significant push over the last month and a half to remove the Confederate soldiers memorial thats stood for over 100 years at the courthouse, the Calloway County Fiscal Court voted unanimously Wednesday morning to leave the monument where it stands.

That evening, protestors again made their presence felt, with several dozen engaging in often heated exchanges with a small group of the statues supporters.

For hours, the two groups shouted back and forth about racism, history, crime, treason and the Civil War, with some interactions hostile enough that law enforcement officers removed participants from both camps at various times.

The only speaker at the fiscal court meeting, Murray State University Professor Kevin Elliott, told the governing body that the monument is bringing out the worst in our community.

In requesting the fiscal court to explore options for moving the statue, Elliott focused on its placement at the courthouse, lamenting that a statue honoring the Confederacy stands where everyone should feel their voice is heard.

The monument stands for the idea that the power of the government belongs exclusively to the white members of the community, Elliott said.

Throughout Elliotts time speaking, County Attorney Bryan Ernstberger routinely expressed skepticism at Elliotts estimation of the legal ease and simplicity of moving the monument.

After Elliotts presentation during which he also discussed the cost of the removal as likely less than people would expect, and potential placement at an abandoned cemetery that could easily be appropriated by the government, the fiscal court voted on a resolution that Elliott later said came as a surprise.

The resolution, which notes the negative connotations that the Monument may hold for some and unreservedly condemns slavery and racial oppression, also says the monument was erected simply to honor Calloway County residents who fought for the Confederacy and not as several have argued, for the purpose of promoting continued oppression.

Magistrate Paul Rister noted during the meeting that he took a survey of 280 people in his constituency, which he said he randomized by only approaching people who were outside during his survey. According to Risters calculations, 77% of his constituents supported leaving the monument where it stands.

Magistrate Don Cherry during the meeting said he believed the county was approaching the issue the right way, and lamented the idea of mob rule.

We cannot run our country that way. If we make decisions by mob rule then weve lost control of our government.

At that evenings protest, some urged supporters of the statue to consider racial disparities in the justice system and in health care.

Counter-protesters asserted that Black people commit violent crimes at significantly higher rates than white people, but said they werent claiming that Black people are naturally more violent or less civil than white people.

At times protesters brought up the prohibition on displaying Nazi symbols in Germany, but were not Germany came as a standard reply.

Counter-protesters, displaying an #alllifematters sign, routinely expressed concerns about erasing history and accused the protesters of not being Calloway residents that assertion drew guffaws and raised hands from many in the crowd proclaiming their local residency.

Though she was initially flanked by fellow protesters, as the night went on Murray resident Linda Arakelyan found herself surrounded by counter-protesters throwing rude hand gestures toward her TEAR IT DOWN sign and, she said, threatening her.

They tried intimidating me, Arakelyan said in a Thursday interview.

If anything, it kind of empowered me more, seeing how much they hated it.

Shawn Jackson, who moved to Murray from Mayfield, said that hes experienced a lot of racist stuff in the area, and said residents opposed to the statue have a right to have this taken down, the same right they have to keep it up.

People say put the past in the past, he said.

Were not putting the past in the past, because were still looking the past in the face.

Quintin Walls, who said he grew up in Murray before moving away then returning about a decade ago, said the statue doesnt represent anything good to me.

I ride by it, look at it and have bad thoughts about it, said Walls, who is Black.

It represents more dead American soldiers than any other war, and for a cause that wasnt good. It represents the losers and people who were really traitors to the United States of America.

Walls said that, if the statue remains up, the community could find potential business partners or residents less likely to move in.

People need to get involved, vote, protest peacefully and get this thing out of here, he said.

Im not saying destroy it. It just doesnt have to be on our court square.

Arakelyan said shes been involved in social justice movements before, but that she had never even known the statue topping the monument was an image of Robert E. Lee until Sherman Neal, a football coach at Murray State University, wrote a letter a month and a half ago that helped to spark the recent protests.

I definitely think its going to come down one day, whether its when were older or if its just right now through having meaningful conversations with those in opposition even continually pushing Judge (Kenneth) Imes and the magistrates to reconsider their opinion.

Arakelyan said near the beginning of the protest, two armed men stood atop a nearby building, which she perceived as intimidating, before police made them come down.

She called her experience protesting the statue eye opening in a good and bad way.

Im seeing people who, growing up, I would have never thought would be on the same side as me. Its also eye opening, the fact that theres still so many people who are so passionate and full of hate that they want something like that (statue) up.

Original post:

'Still looking the past in the face': Murray statue continues to draw protests - The Trib

The slugfest between China and the U.S. over the treatment of media workers in each country appears to have paused. Rather than expel each others journalists, as they did a few months ago, each side in early July imposed registration and reporting requirements on those remainingstill many more Chinese in the U.S. than Americans in China.

Many observers say the U.S. government has badly misplayed its hand, resulting in the decimation of American media operations in China while Chinese operations in the U.S. suffer much less impact. And, even though a group of experts is working on recommendations to repair the damage, prospects for recovery are dim.

I imagine China is pretty happy with the way things are now, said James McGregor, a business consultant, longtime China resident, and former Wall Street Journal reporter who chairs APCO Worldwides greater China operation.

The expulsion from China of prominent reporters from The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal who had pioneered reporting on everything from COVID-19 to mass incarceration of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang was not the stated intent of the U.S. As Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in March, after the U.S. effectively expelled dozens of Chinese journalists: We expect Beijing to take a more fair approach towards American and other foreign press inside of China. Where the Chinese Communist Party has imposed increasingly harsh surveillance, harassment, and intimidation on our independent and world-class journalists, we will respond to achieve reciprocity.

Instead, The U.S., by taking on this issue the way they have, have played into the hands of all the bad actors in the Chinese system and given them carte blanche to get rid of American journalists, said Richard McGregor (no relation to James McGregor), senior fellow at Australias Lowy Institute, a private think tank. If the idea was to strengthen the leverage over a countrys nationals working in China, it has backfired spectacularly.

I think we fell into Chinas trap, said Minxin Pei, a Chinese politics specialist at Claremont McKenna College, arguing that China has long wanted to rid itself of the U.S. journalists.

As Richard McGregor, previously stationed in China and the U.S. for the Financial Times, said: The Chinese journalists in America, however many there are, add nothing to the greater universe of knowledge about America at all. If they stopped working tomorrow, I dont think anyone in China would be less wise about whats happening in the U.S. because the U.S. system is open, and well reported on by the locals.

By contrast, he said, restrictions on the local press in China are severe, leaving it to foreigners to dig into news and trends.

James McGregor agrees: Most of what you know about China that China doesnt want you to know comes out of those journalists [who are now expelled]. He adds that its a loss for the business community that needs to know what is happening in China.

The conflict has brewed for years, as China abused and oppressed foreign journalists, or those trying to gain entry. CPJ has documented repeated cases of China delaying or refusing to grant visas to those who wrote stories that China found embarrassing. On the ground in China, reporters frequently face harassment from security officials who do not accept rights of foreign correspondents to travel freely and interview anyone willing to talk to them. The number of Chinese willing to talk to a foreign journalist has also declined, as interviewees can face harassment or even arrest. Every year, the Foreign Correspondents Club of China documents the sad deterioration of the working environment for foreign correspondents in an annual report.

Meanwhile, as China blocked access to The New York Times and other news websites, the U.S. freely admitted hundreds, possibly thousands, of Chinese journalists and allowed them to roam the country and do what they wanted. (While the State Department apparently wasnt counting, the U.S. government should now have access to data on Chinese journalists, since forcing them to register as foreign missions.) China Global Television Network (CGTN) set up its own U.S. broadcast operation. Some Chinese outlets were openly propaganda controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.

Or worse: Some of them are spies; thats a fact, Pei told CPJ.

How to rectify the imbalance has long vexed journalists, China specialists and U.S. diplomats. Keith Richburg, head of the media program at Hong Kong University and a longtime foreign correspondent for The Washington Post, recalled a conversation with a U.S. diplomat in Beijing from 2011 where Richburg suggested casually that the U.S. go for reciprocity and get tough on issuing visas to Chinese. The diplomat responded that the U.S. could never win by going down that road. And, Richburg said, Whats happened so far was what all the people opposed to reciprocity always said would happen.

China described its retaliatory measures as entirely necessary and reciprocal countermeasures that China is compelled to take in response to the unreasonable oppression the Chinese media organizations experience in the U.S. It did not mention the history of its mistreatment of foreign correspondents in China.

Orville Schell, Arthur Ross Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society, told CPJ that the rupture over media personnel was inevitable.

The Chinese had us in a stranglehold, Schell said. China was just flooding the place with journalists, executives, spies, you name it. We had limited numbers of journalists, constantly getting expelled and threatened. Its just total madness and total inequality and totally lacking in reciprocity.

The Trump administration said this was not sustainable, said John Pomfret, a former Washington Post Beijing bureau chief. And to that extent, I agree with them.

This isnt to say that either Schell or Pomfret applaud Trump administration tactics, which Schell calls inept and clumsy.

Whats next? Schell heads an Asia Society task force drawing up recommendations for the U.S. government. He suggests looking back to the Soviet era to see how the Soviet Union and the U.S. managed differences. Pomfret, part of the task force, suggested that each side cap media visas at a number, perhaps 100, and that under the cap each side would have total freedom to decide who gets the visas to send into the other country. If more U.S. journalists want China visas than allowed, a non-profit entity would decide who gets them. Pomfret then suggested that issues such as Chinese broadcasting in the U.S. and websites or broadcasts by U.S. outfits be negotiated as a trade issue.

Susan Shirk, chair of the 21st Century China Center at the University of California, San Diego, said a further round of expulsions that could reduce the headcount to zero in each country is a real possibility. At the same time, drawing on her experience in the State Department during the Clinton administration, she said the key is to start with something simple and achievable, such as a cap on visa numbers, on the assumption that China values the presence of its media operations in the U.S. enough to overcome its distaste of hosting foreign correspondents in China.

While Minxin Pei sees no prospect for movement under the Trump administration, he said a truce followed by agreement on stationing journalists in each country could be a relatively easy win for the two countries if they want to patch up relations, given the complexity of other issues of conflict.

Others are more skeptical, especially on the idea of reciprocal numbers. China probably would not go for it because they have far more journalists in the U.S. operating freely than they would allow in China, Richburg said.

James McGregor said Chinas media outlets can easily replace expelled reporters with experienced, out-of-work U.S. journalists.

What pressure point could you put on the Chinese to get them to treat American journalists better? Richburg asked, unable to provide an answer. It was better to have journalists working in China under those conditions rather than having them all kicked out.

No one knows how to roll back the clock, much less broadly improve the treatment of foreign correspondents in China.

The State Department declined to comment when CPJ asked whether it had proposed negotiations to China. The Chinese Foreign Ministrys International Press Center and the Department of Consular affairs did not respond to CPJs emailed requests for comment.

There are no good answers here, James McGregor said.

See the article here:

Prospects bleak for recovery of US media presence in China - CPJ Press Freedom Online

Around 30 U.S. lawmakers and officials have decried the Chinese communist regimes 21-year-long campaign to eradicate the spiritual practice Falun Gong, resulting in the brutal suppression of millions of adherents.

Marking the 21st anniversary of the start of the persecution on July 20, Sam Brownback, U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom; Gary Bauer, commissioner at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF); and 29 bipartisan lawmakers expressed support for Falun Gong practitioners and called on the Chinese regime to stop its assaults on the practice.

For 21 years, the Chinese Communist Party has been waging an intensive, comprehensive, and unforgiving campaign against those who practice Falun Gong, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) wrote in a letter.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) wrote: Falun Gongs followers have been subject to abuse, torture, illegal imprisonment, and extremely cruel practice of organ harvesting.

This brutal persecution is intolerable and must stop.

The U.S. officials were among hundreds of lawmakers around the world who issued or signed statements condemning the Chinese Communist Partys (CCP) suppression of Falun Gong. More than 600 current and former lawmakers from 30 countries signed a joint statement demanding an immediate end to the persecution and the unconditional release of all detained practitioners and other prisoners of conscience in China.

The Chinese Communist Party is at war with faith. It is a war they will not win, Ambassador Brownback said in a video statement. A persons belief is stronger than somebody that seeks to oppress them.

Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, is a spiritual discipline that includes meditative exercises a set of moral teaching based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance. Since its introduction in 1992, the practice spread widely in China with around 70 million people practicing by the end of the decade, according to government estimates at the time. Threatened by this popularity, the CCP banned the practice on July 20, 1999, launching an expansive campaign of persecution.

Since then, vast swathes of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained or imprisoned as a result of their faith. Millions of adherents have been detained, and hundreds of thousands have been tortured, according to estimates by the Falun Dafa Information Center. More than 4,000 practitioners are confirmed to have died from torture, according to Minghui.org, a clearinghouse for information about the persecution of Falun Gong. However, due to the difficulty of obtaining information from China, the true death toll is likely to be many times higher.

USCIRF Commissioner Bauer denounced the CCP for continuing to detain Falun Gong practitioners earlier this year when it should have been focused on containing the coronavirus pandemic.

Many officials also expressed outrage over the Chinese regimes practice of forced organ harvesting from detained Falun Gong practitioners. Evidence of this grisly practice has mounted since allegations first emerged in 2006. An independent peoples tribunal in 2019, after a yearlong investigation, found beyond a reasonable doubt that the CCP hasand continues tokill imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners for their organs for sale on the transplant market.

There is no place in the 21st century for forced organ harvesting, Bauer said in a recorded statement.

Brownback said the administration would continue to raise this issue before international bodies and ask Beijing to open its organ transplant records to let the rest of the world see where their organs are coming from in the transplants that theyre doing.

A November study published in the scientific journal BMC Medical Ethics found that there was highly compelling evidence that the Chinese regime was systematically falsifying its organ donation data. It found that the official figures conformed almost precisely to a mathematical formula, a quadratic equation.

Bauer said the USCIRF urges the United States to conduct a thorough investigation into Beijings state-sanctioned organ harvesting.

We believe an official U.S. government investigation will help shine a greater spotlight on this issue, and mobilize the political support necessary to take concrete action against Communist China for its crimes, he said.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) was among many who expressed hope that the persecution would not be extended into the 22nd year.

I hope that one day soon Falun Gong practitioners in China and all over the world may exercise their principles free of oppression, she wrote in a letter.

Other U.S. lawmakers who issued statements expressing solidarity with Falun Gong practitioners were: Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.); and Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Ron Kind (D-Wis.), William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.), Bill Foster (D-Ill.), Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.), Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.), Jack Bergman (R-Mich.), Van Taylor (R-Tex.), Angie Craig (D-Minn.), Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.), David Trone (D-Md.), Daniel Crenshaw (R-Texas), Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), Ron Wright (R-Texas), Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.), and Del. Eleanor Norton (D-DC).

From The Epoch Times

More:

US Lawmakers Decry Beijing's 21-Year-Long 'Unforgiving' Persecution of Falun Gong - NTD

The issues putting pressure on the U.S.-Iraqi relationship are daunting. The confrontation between Iran and the United States frequently plays out on Iraqi streets. COVID-19 is spreading at alarming rates and overwhelming Iraqs beleaguered healthcare system. The collapsing oil market has the countrys finances on the brink. Washington has focused its support to Baghdad on much-needed economic and political reforms, while also encouraging the governments more assertive stance against Popular Mobilization Forces militias operating beyond the states control. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has sought to help the Iraqi military maintain pressure against the remnants of ISIS while continuing to reduce the number of American troops in the country.

Given everything happening in the bilateral relationship, why was a historical archive based in California on the agenda of the recent U.S.-Iraq Strategic Dialogue?

The State Department is currently in the process of returning to Iraq some 6.5 million pages of documents from Saddam Husseins regime. The archive in question, currently at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, contains mountains of seemingly mundane paperwork generated by the bureaucracy running a single-party state. But it also includes sensitive material pertaining to the membership files of the former ruling Bath Party, regime informants, and information gathered by the security services on prominent political figures and ordinary citizens alike.

The U.S. governments longstanding relationship with Mustafa al-Kadhimi, Iraqs new prime minister who is deeply familiar with the issue of the documents, offers a valuable opportunity for cooperation on this matter and a number of related historical and archival issues. Although improved cultural ties will not mitigate the severe fiscal, public-health, and political challenges facing Iraq, positive developments on this front may create a better environment to address other issues as well. Increased American political support for ongoing diplomatic efforts should help strengthen U.S.-Iraqi relations, foster an increasingly positive relationship between Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government, and continue to safeguard an important part of Iraqs historical patrimony for all of its citizens.

History of the Bath Party Archive

Secured as a result of the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Bath Regional Command Collection, also known as the Bath Party Archive, will be the final Saddam-regime collection of documents returned to Iraq that were transferred outside the country during the 1991 and 2003 wars. The documents have been in the possession of the Iraq Memory Foundation, a non-governmental organization registered first in Washington, D.C. and later Baghdad, since 2003. In 2005, with the approval of Iraqs interim government, the Defense Department airlifted the documents out of Iraq for safekeeping in the United States. At the time, the security situation in Baghdad was rapidly deteriorating as the country descended into civil war. Pentagon officials under then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz supported the airlift on the grounds that the documents were useful for understanding the predominantly Sunni-based insurgency battling U.S. troops in central and western Iraq. Upon arriving in West Virginia, Defense Intelligence Agency personnel completed the digitization of the documents, a process that had begun in Baghdad.

The removal of the archive from Iraq was vocally condemned by then-Director of the Iraqi National Library and Archive Saad Eskander, along with archivists and academics abroad. American and Canadian archivists criticized the move as a possible act of pillage and called for the immediate repatriation to Iraq of all records held by U.S. institutions. After a potential deal with Harvard University fell through, the Bath Party Archive was subsequently moved and has been held at the Hoover Institution since 2008. Upon returning to Iraq, the archive will join the much larger collection of Saddam-regime documents an estimated 100 to 120 million pages along with audio and video records quietly returned to Iraq by the Pentagon under the Obama administration in May 2013. In the long story of the documents first secured by Iraq Memory Foundation activists, recent developments in Iraqi politics have been central to the final chapter covering the return of the documents to the country.

A New Day and a Final Chapter in Iraq?

Mustafa al-Kadhimi Iraqs former spy chief and one of the three co-founders of the Iraq Memory Foundation became prime minister in May. His political rise has expedited discussions between U.S. and Iraqi officials about the repatriation of the Bath Party Archive and several other cultural issues. For instance, the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Iraq Strategic Dialogue in early June announced, On the cultural front, the two governments discussed plans to return important political archives to the Government of IraqThe two sides also discussed artifacts and plans to return the Baath Party archives to Iraq.

Kadhimi co-founded the Iraq Memory Foundation shortly before the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, and after years working in exile as a democracy and human rights advocate in opposition to Saddams regime. In this capacity, he worked alongside Kanan Makiya and Hassan Mneimneh, both of whom had worked to document the atrocities of Bathist rule dating back to the early 1990s at the U.S.-based Iraq Research and Documentation Project.

Their successor organization aimed to help Iraq come to terms with the legacies of dictatorship through the creation of a museum, a public outreach initiative working with primary and secondary school teachers and students, preservation of the former regimes records, and a research facility that would ultimately be linked to Iraqs university system. Kadhimi served as the Baghdad-based director of the foundation from 2003 to 2010, where he led its oral history initiative, which sought to put a human face on the suffering often dryly documented in Bath-era records. The resulting Iraqi Testimonials Project interviewed a wide cross-section of Iraqis about their experiences of oppression under Saddams regime. The oral histories subsequently aired on Iraqi television in four seasons between 2005 and 2008.

Kadhimi is not the only Iraqi leader with a longstanding interest in the documents of Saddams regime and Iraqi historical patrimony. In 1991, it was Barham Salih, Iraqs current president, who informed Makiya about the existence of large quantities of regime documents in the possession of the Kurdish Peshmerga, secured in the course of the uprising against the Bath Party in the wake of the Gulf War. Salih also served as Jalal Talabanis personal envoy in talks with U.S. Senate staffer Peter Galbraith about the future of the documents. Both the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and Kurdish Democratic Party turned over the documents in their possession for safekeeping in the United States in the early 1990s, where they were moved to the University of Colorado Boulder in 1998. The Justice Department quietly returned the documents to Iraq in 2005, in preparation for trials against Saddam and his inner circle. The documents have remained in the custody of the Iraqi High Tribunal and Ministry of Justice in Baghdad over the past 15 years, contrary to inaccurate reports in the Iraqi media earlier this year that they were in North Carolina.

Beyond documenting Bathist rule over northern Iraq, the archive contains evidence of the 1988 Anfal campaigns, in which Iraqi forces killed an estimated 100,000 Kurds and thousands of Assyrians, Turkomans, Yazidis, Shabak, and Kakais. Against the backdrop of the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s and domestic insurgency waged primarily by Kurdish rebel groups, the Bath regimes counter-insurgency efforts escalated into a series of systematic campaigns using chemical weapons and village destruction to alter the physical geography and demographic composition of northern Iraq.

A Role for the Documents in Advancing Peace

U.S. officials should encourage Kadhimi to return the Bath regimes records documenting the Anfal campaigns to northern Iraq. This would be an important goodwill gesture to improve increasingly positive relations between Erbil and Baghdad. Pending the future establishment of a Kurdish national library and archive, the collection could be transferred to the Kurdistan Regional Government or in consultation with all concerned parties, to a non-governmental institution, such as the Zheen Archive Center, which already holds a digitized copy of the documents.

As a human rights advocate who personally interviewed survivors of the Anfal campaigns, Kadhimi is well-aware of how emotional the subject remains for Iraqi Kurds in particular. Erbil- and Baghdad-based officials should support initiatives to help the families of all victims, while encouraging the study of Iraqs past in a way that helps defuse ethnic and sectarian tensions in the present. Although not his responsibility, Kadhimis gesture would make good on the initial agreement between the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Kurdish parties for the safekeeping and future restitution of the records to Iraqi Kurdistan, which a Justice Department task force knowingly or unknowingly abrogated when it transferred custody of the documents to the central Iraqi authorities in Baghdad.

U.S. officials should also work closely with their Iraqi counterparts to ensure that the Bath Party Archive documents remain safe upon their return to Iraq, and that Iranian-backed and sectarian political actors do not take possession of them. In his previous role as director of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service starting in 2016, Kadhimi helped oversee the interagency effort charged with safekeeping the 100 to 120 million pages of documents returned to Iraq by the Pentagon in 2013. He was widely recognized for depoliticizing and professionalizing the agency during his tenure as director. Nevertheless, U.S. officials should also encourage Kadhimi to investigate to what extent the documents repatriated to Iraq in 2013 were exploited by former Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the security services loyal to him, efforts that likely exacerbated sectarian tensions as Iraq was sliding back into chaos and ISIL was ascendant. While looking into the Maliki governments actions may be challenging politically, its essential to discover the truth of what happened.

In light of the fact that recently replaced Iraqi National Security Advisor Falih al-Fayyad signed the Relinquishment of Possession for the records the Pentagon repatriated to Iraq in 2013, his subsequent involvement with the documents should be closely scrutinized. Fayyad has enjoyed close ties to highly sectarian and Iran-backed figures, such as Hadi al-Amiri, Qais and Laith al-Khazali, and the late Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo named Fayyad as one of the Iranian proxies responsible for abetting the attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad last December. When I informed a former U.S. diplomat with extensive experience in Iraq that Fayyad signed on behalf of the Iraqi government in 2013, he remarked, It is a pretty good assumption that if Falih al-Fayyad had custody of the documents, they were used for sectarian purposes.

The United States should organize a final repatriation ceremony that includes American diplomats and military officials and their Iraqi counterparts. Such an event should take place after the documents are all securely back in Iraq. While an official ceremony runs the risk of drawing unwanted attention to the documents, media coverage and public awareness may make it more difficult for them to be exploited. Neither the Iraqi nor the American public was informed of the 2005 and 2013 repatriations. Based on conversations I have had with American policymakers, it appears that although U.S. officials stopped tracking the whereabouts of the records formerly in the Pentagons possession upon their return to Iraq in 2013, they continued to receive queries from some of their Iraqi counterparts who were themselves unaware of the repatriation.

Beyond potential sectarian exploitation of the documents, the broader historical and social import pertains both to studying the past and awareness of the degree to which the Bath Party eventually intruded into practically all aspects of daily life during its rule over Iraq between 1968 and 2003. As Kanan Makiya explained to me in a recent phone conversation, The true sensitivity and horror of the documents come from the ways in which ordinary people were caught up in the system. As such, the Bath Party Archive and other documents from Saddams regime will be of interest to Iraqis who were alive then, along with those too young to remember or born after the end of Bath Party rule.

None of the documents repatriated to Baghdad in 2005 and 2013 have been made available to researchers in Iraq, although these records and the Bath Party Archive should in theory be subject eventually to legislation passed by Iraqs parliament in 2008 and 2016. Digitized copies of records in the Pentagons possession were made available to researchers in Washington, D.C. at the Conflict Records Research Center from 2010 to 2015, a project that awaits being rebooted or transferred to another institution. The digitized copy of the Bath Party Archive, along with other digitized collections in the Iraq Memory Foundations possession, have been available to researchers at the Hoover Institution since 2010. Since the closing of the Conflict Records Research Center, the Hoover Institution has hosted the only archives of Saddams regime open for research anywhere in the world.

Due to Iraqs fiscal crisis and the persistent problem of institutional capacity, a partnership with the Hoover Institution or other American academic institutions could be an effective means for supporting future research by Iraqis in Iraq. Such an initiative would be in keeping with efforts to increase the capabilities of Iraqi universities mentioned in the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Iraq Strategic Dialogue. The template may prove to be The ISIS Files, formerly in the possession of the New York Times. In addition to launching a website for research featuring documents and studies based on them, George Washington Universitys Program on Extremism has formed a research partnership with the University of Mosul.

Although very different with respect to geopolitical circumstances, the 2005 to 2020 repatriation of the Saddam-regime archives to Iraq will have transpired over a timeframe comparable to the post-World War II repatriation of captured Nazi records to the Federal Republic of Germany between 1953 and 1968. Historically, although generally not at the top of meeting agendas, the repatriation of archives has nevertheless been an important step in improving diplomatic relations between countries in the aftermath of armed conflict. In the case of U.S.-Iraqi ties, given Kadhimis personal involvement with the history of the Bath Party Archive, his plan of leading the Iraqi delegation that will meet with Vice President Mike Pence and Pompeo in the next round of talks in the U.S.-Iraq Strategic Dialogue should offer a chance for U.S. officials to speak with him directly on the issue. Last but definitely not least, increased attention to the subject of Iraqi archives more broadly may facilitate additional positive steps on top of those already made by U.S. and Iraqi officials toward a final arrangement for the Iraqi Jewish Archive. Such a deal will address the concerns of the Iraqi Jewish diaspora, international Jewish groups, and Iraqi political leaders, academics, and citizens.

The Future of the Bathist Past Lies in Iraq

Three decades of conflict have intertwined the histories of Iraq and the United States on numerous levels. Continued efforts to help safeguard Iraqs historical patrimony are a low-cost and responsible means to strengthen U.S.-Iraq relations, expand the working relationship with Iraqs new prime minister, and encourage warming ties between Baghdad and Erbil. The return of the Bath Party Archive to Iraq may be the final chapter in the story of the repatriation of records captured from Saddams regime, although their future in the country remains to be determined. The same is true with respect to uncovering the full story of, circumstances surrounding, and consequences stemming from the quiet repatriation of records to Iraq in 2005 and 2013.

Iraq has a young population and more than 17 years have passed since the toppling of Saddams regime. Nevertheless, Iraqs older political elites experienced the Bathist period inside the country, in exile, or in some combination of both. Events during the Bathist period were formative in shaping the ideological and political worldview of most if not all of them. At the same time, the legacies of dictatorship combined with the consequences of the U.S.-led invasion have cast a long shadow over Iraqi politics since 2003. Historical memory of the Bathist period continues to hold potential for either political weaponization or reconciliation. At long last, the remaining balance of official documentary sources for either endeavor will be back in Iraq.

Michael P. Brill is a Ph.D. candidate in Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, where his research focuses on Bathist Iraq.

Image: Wikicommons (Photo by U.S. Air Force, Staff Sgt. Cherie A. Thurlby)

More:

Setting the Records Straight in Iraq - War on the Rocks

As Black Lives Matter protests spread across the globe, Russia has proven a notable exception. There have been solidarity demonstrations and localized movements against racism and police violence in Helsinki; Almaty, Kazakhstan; and Vilnius, Lithuania; but no such scenes in Moscow. Instead, Russia has used the civil unrest in the United States to continue its history of reflecting the United States most unbecoming aspects on itself. The Russian government and its liberal opposition alike have used their platforms to discredit the relatively peaceful spirit of the demonstrations and project ideas of U.S. weakness. And in doing so, the opposition stands to harm its larger fight against Russian state oppression.

The development of the Russian Lives Matter social media movement is perhaps the strongest example of how the liberal opposition in Russia has unwittingly aided its government in subverting a global anti-racist effort. Russian Lives Matter started after police raided a home in Yekaterinburg and killed a resident on May 31. Since the police shooting, members of Russias libertarian movement, including Libertarian Party leader Mikhail Svetov, have used the hashtag to shed light on Russian police violence against citizens. The hashtag is not a show of solidarity with the internationally known Black Lives Matter movement. Instead, #RussianLivesMatter has been used to undermine the American fight against systemic racism by downplaying the impact of racism against African Americans, by suggesting police killings of Black Americans were deserved, and by framing empathy towards victims of police violence in Russia as a zero-sum game.

The hashtag itself hints at the exclusionary undertones of the movements participants. In a recent podcast interview with the independent Russian media site Meduza, Svetov made clear that his concern was not racism, but police violence against ethnic Russians (a point he drove home by using the word russkie, meaning ethnic Russian, rather than the more all-encompassing rossiyane). Asked whether policing in Russia is influenced by race, Svetov demurred saying it depended on the region, noting that in Chechnya, for example, police violence is focused on Russians. In truth, much Russian police violence is targeted at ethnic minorities and migrants from Central Asia, Africa, and elsewhere, as can be seen in recent cases such as the September 2019 police torture of two Uzbek migrants and the June interrogation of Afro-Russian blogger Mariya Tunkara.

The omission of minorities from the Russian Lives Matter movement coincides with outright dismissals of Black Lives Matter, as Meduza noted, with supporters on Twitter saying things such as I dont give a damn about blacks in America when theyre lynching Russians in Yekaterinburg. Prominent Russian journalist Oleg Kashin added to the racist imagery online by posting a meme of Martin Luther King Jr. surrounded by shoeboxes and cellphone boxes with the text Martin Looter King.

Such racist sentiments have placed members of the Russian opposition in strange proximity to the government. Russian liberals who have vociferously opposed President Vladimir Putins regime are now silent at best and parrot Moscows messaging at worst. Russian liberals such as Ksenia Sobchak, who ran against Putin in 2018, and the high-profile journalist Yulia Latynina have gone a step further, writing articles and creating social media posts that focus on looting, property damage, and a perceived lack of law and order in the United Statesa near mirroring of government media, which portrays U.S. society in a state of chaos. Sobchak recently lost her job as a spokeswoman for Audi after posting a racist tirade on Instagram describing Black Americans as stupid and lazy. Latyninas recent op-ed in Novaya Gazeta compared the Black Lives Matter movement with Ukraines Euromaidan protests to undermine African American complaints of racism. That is why it is ridiculous and shameful to regard these pogroms as rebellion against the system, and to equate the rioters and even peaceful protests with those who really risk their lives when they go to the Maidan or Tiananmen Square. The protests, she wrote, were pogroms and the protesters hooligans.

The language echoes that of Russian state-controlled media. News sites such as RT and Sputnik have published articles decrying the woke mafia and focusing on an alleged rise in crime following demands to defund the police. Even the famous film Brother 2 received a new endingRussian viewers of state-controlled Channel One were surprised to see images of looting and police violence at the U.S. protests juxtaposed with the song Goodbye America.

Moscow, meanwhile, has used the opportunity to undermine U.S. legitimacy at home. In a recent interview, Putin pointed to the U.S. protests and Washingtons mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic to contrast Russias rigorous law-and-order response.

This instance is hardly the first time Russia has sought to exploit U.S. racial issues, particularly police and civilian violence towards African Americans, for domestic and geopolitical purposes. During the 2016 presidential election, Russian operatives targeted African American communities with disinformation, including posts on police mistreatment of African Americans and posts on Instagram promoting Black women and beauty. The Internet Research Agency also created content on YouTube that focused on the Black Lives Matter movement.

These well-documented efforts demonstrate how systemic racism and police brutality against American civilians and specifically African Americans present a national security problem for the United States. Of course, the genesis of the threat is not Russias meddling, but the United States failure to address centuries-old systemic racism, which hands authoritarian regimes such as Russias an opportunity to undermine U.S. foreign policy in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. When Russia uses state-sanctioned violence against ethnic minorities and political opponents, can the United States project itself as a counter to this regime? As U.S. policymakers learned in the competition against the Soviet Union for influence in the newly independent African states during the 1960s, they cannot successfully promote democratic values abroad when U.S. citizens are denied their rights at home.

With the 2020 election on the horizon, Ukraines pivot toward the European Union, and an impending revision of the Russian Constitution that would extend Putins term limit, it is a critical moment for U.S.-Russia relations. And the failure of Washington to uphold fundamental rights within the United States will endanger the opposition in Russia and elsewhere.

Russias opposition, for its part, has missed a critical chance to build transnational solidarity against police brutality. In using the notoriety of the United States Black Lives Matter slogan and American white supremacy logic to shed light on Russian police brutality and promote ethnic Russian nationalism, opposition members have undermined their own cause. In its eagerness to ignore the role of racism in Russia, the Russian Lives Matter movement has inadvertently stumbled on the same messaging as Putins regime. In the long run, this can only hurt its cause. Putin has no problem using the police and accusations of hooliganism to stop public demonstrations against his regime. Now, Moscow can point to the very logic of the opposition regarding the protests in the United States amid any accusations of state oppression.

See original here:

How Black Lives Matter Has Been Coopted by Russia's Government and Its Opposition - Foreign Policy

[In response to Confederate Monuments Remind Us of Our History, June 24, Xpress:] When this controversy over people wanting to remove Confederate statues in the South first crossed my radar, I really knew nothing about it. Up until that point, I didnt even realize our country had many hundreds of these statues of Confederate generals and the like.

Hearing protesters wanting them removed, claiming they glorify not only racism, but the slavery of Black people, I could very much see where they were coming from. I can understand how these statues could be offensive to people, but why do we have hundreds of Confederate monuments throughout the Southern United States in the first place? As far as I can tell, the Civil War was about the Southern states, the Confederacy, wanting to keep slavery in place, whereas the rest of the country had come to terms with the fact that slaverys f**ked up and, like, we should probably stop doing that. The Confederacy was trying to secede from the United States of America and keep slavery alive. Fortunately, the Confederacy lost the Civil War, the states were reabsorbed back into the Union, and slavery was outlawed throughout the land.

So given the history, why the bleep are there people upset that these statues are coming down, and why were they even erected in the first place?

You got to love the internet I was able to look up a video by Vox on YouTube that breaks this part of the history down really well. Turns out there was this effort about 30 years after the war by a group of wealthy Southern elites under the name of the United Daughters of the Confederacy to propagandize to the youth in schools and erect all of these Confederate statues and monuments to sort of rewrite history, painting the South as fallen victims of big government oppression. Unbelievable stuff really, but these are the facts. I highly recommend checking out the Vox video on this called How Southern Socialites Rewrote Civil War History or look up the Wikipedia page on the United Daughters of the Confederacy or the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.

So, the next time someone says that removing these statues is erasing their history, ask them what history theyre talking about, because the history the statues and monuments are meant to represent pretends that the Civil War wasnt about slavery (kind of like denying the Holocaust) and by leaving the statues up, theyre promoting this falsified propagandized version of history, or as I loathe to refer to it: Fake news!#doyourresearch.

David AylwardAsheville

More:

Letter: Confederate monuments, the fake news of the time - Mountain Xpress