Saturday, November 2, 2019

Syria: Exposing Western Radical Collaboration with Imperialism


Syria: Exposing Western Radical Collaboration with Imperialism


“Western radicals must take a consistent anti-imperialist position despite the internal contradictions or problems that exist within a state in the Global South.”
Despite so many self-defined radicals’ reading and claims to understand Gramsci’s corrective to Marxism-Leninism’s mechanistic understanding of the relationship between the base and the ideological superstructure, the ease by which some radicals are manipulated by the crude ideological machinations of the ruling class is truly astonishing. It is quite understandable that liberals would be manipulated by fairly innovative ideological gimmicks like the notion of “humanitarian intervention” and the “responsibility to protect,” which relied on the assumption, proving correct, that the liberal consciousness would react favorably to appeals to oppose “authoritarians” and authoritarian systems. However, I suspect that state propagandists didn’t realize the potential effectiveness of this ideological device when they first began to disseminate this framework for its ability to also mobilize radicals to the side of the bourgeois state and imperialist adventures. 
The latest misadventures in Syria over the last few weeks revealed just how effective the bourgeois ideological apparatus has been in winning over not only liberals to support the “regime change” policies of the Obama administration in Syria, but also radicals and self-defined revolutionaries throughout the Western world. 
“The ease by which some radicals are manipulated by the crude ideological machinations of the ruling class is truly astonishing.”
The construction of the narrative in which street demonstrations against the Assad government would go from supposedly non-violent demonstrations to a “justifiable” call for armed struggle in a matter of weeks and gain support from Western radicals was an amazing feat. 
Without rehashing the details and timeline of this sad spectacle — which resulted in millions internally displaced and as refugees,hundreds of thousands dead, the Syrian nation divided by sectarianism, and the state constricted with its territory occupied — it is, however, important to be reminded that the armed wing of the rebellion that received uncritical support from liberals and Westernized radicals was the “Free Syrian Army (FSA).” 
When some of us warned Western radicals that they were being manipulated, that the so-called revolution in Syria had become fraudulent because it lacked an organic, independent social base, and was being driven by imperialist forces who cared little about democratic reforms, the working class or Syria as an independent sovereign state, we were condemned as “Assadists” and “Putin puppets.”  
Expunged from acceptable discourse was any consideration of the relationship between oppressor and oppressed states, the real geostrategic and economic class and national interests in contention in Syria and the region, or the legality of intervention outside the framework of the United Nations Charter. 
Instead, the hegemonic framing of Syria was driven by the convergence of a left-right, paternalistic form of white saviorism ethically legitimized by the concept of humanitarian intervention, itself constructed on the normalized belief in the superiority of  the white West, be it in its’ current capitalist form or its’  imagined socialist future. Politically, the logical stance for both versions of this Eurocentric self-delusion is that any people striving to emulate either of those Eurocentric visions should be supported. 
“The hegemonic framing of Syria was driven by the convergence of a left-right, paternalistic form of white saviorism ethically legitimized by the concept of humanitarian intervention.”
However, in the case of Syria, that carefully constructed ideological framing is now imploding as a result of its own internal contradictions. The white supremacist “responsibility to protect,” the 21st century version of the “white man’s burden,” requires an adolescent bad guy-good guy framing. The dictator/authoritarian figure and the suffering people longing for freedom -- Western style freedom that is- provided a familiar cultural framing for this epic struggle between “good” and “evil.”  
In Syria, Assad was the villain and the Kurds the virtuous other who took on the savage forces of ISIS -- that appeared out of nowhere according to this version of the story. While the Kurds were saving Western civilization from ISIS -- and that is how it was framed because it is the only way real support is generated for non-European life (you have to be saving white folks) -- the good guy revolutionaries and moderate opposition in the form of the FSA were fighting Assad to liberate the millions of people who didn’t seem to understand that they were being oppressed by Assad. 
But all of that has now been turned on its head with the Trump administration’s decision to abandon the Kurds and give a greenlight to the illegal invasion of Syria by Turkeywith none other than the FSA acting as the point of the spear operating with the Turkish army to crush the Kurds. 
“The white supremacist ‘responsibility to protect,’ the 21st century version of the ‘white man’s burden,’ requires an adolescent bad guy-good guy framing.”
In the anger toward Trump, the corporate press forgot the memo that the FSA were the good guys who had been supported by U.S. authorities from the very beginning of the manufactured war. The new framing became the “Turkish supported FSA,” especially after gruesome videos began to circulate that demonstrated in graphic images what many of us knew, along with the CIA and most of the honest foreign policy community, that the FSA was always al-Qaeda’s Syria operation in the form of Jabhat al-Nusra and other jihadist militias.  
Independent journalist Aaron Mate, who was one of the many journalist smeared as an Assadist simply because he attempted to raise objective questions about what was unfolding in Syria and the impact of U.S. policies in the regionsuggests that now that it is no longer viable to pretend that the FSA and the so-called moderate rebels ever existed, all those who smeared independent analysts on this question should apologize. 
I am confident that an apology of that sort will never happen; nor do I think Aaron believes that either because arrogance and self-righteousness is so deeply ingrained into the cultural DNA of most Westerners. Similarly to how U.S. radicals desperately tried to find a revolutionary entity to support in Syria to justify their objective alignment with U.S. imperialism, they will find a way to explain away what everyone can clearly see today, that the war on the people of Syria was a monstrous crime against humanity. 
“It is no longer viable to pretend that the FSA and the so-called moderate rebels ever existed.”
Instead of apologies, real justice demands that there should be international prosecutions beginning with Obama, Clinton and all the Western leaders who perpetrated this crime. 
The ideological struggle is real. It shapes consciousness and informs actions. There is no middle ground. Western radicals must take a consistent anti-imperialist position despite the internal contradictions or problems that exist within a state in the Global South. This is their task and responsibility, especially of those individuals and organizations that reside at the center of the empire. 
What distinguishes the Western radical from its counterparts in the global South is the fact that Southern-based radicals understand that any nation that finds itself in the crosshairs of U.S. and Western imperialism is a nation that, in one way or another, is considered a threat to imperialist domination. It’s time Western radicals understood this as well and stopped aligning themselves with the enemies of collective humanity.
Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. Baraka serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council and leadership body of the United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC). He is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch. He was recently awarded the US Peace Memorial 2019 Peace Prize and the Serena Shirm award for uncompromised integrity in journalism.    

Friday, October 4, 2019

The peace movement needs to oppose 5G, require the Precautionary Principle for the new technology


Kevin Zeese kbzeese@gmail.com

                                                              A woman stands at the booth of Huawei featuring                                                                                                                  5G technology at the PT Expo in Beijing, China                                             September 28, 2018. Reuters/Stringer provided by China Out



Dear readers of the MPD Blog:

Imagine being targeted by a neo-Nazi. Imagine having daily panic attacks and being afraid to answer the phone.
That’s exactly what Tanya Gersh, a Jewish woman from Whitefish, Montana, experienced after she was singled out for a massive “troll storm” orchestrated by neo-Nazi leader Andrew Anglin.
Anglin, founder and editor of the Daily Stormer — the largest neo-Nazi website on the internet — published 30 articles urging his racist, antisemitic followers to harass and intimidate Gersh and her family.
She and her family received more than 700 threatening emails, texts, letters, phone calls and postcards, including a horrifying image of her 12-year-old son being crushed by a Nazi tank.
We sued Anglin on Tanya’s behalf in 2017 – and thanks to determined supporters like you, WE WON. Just weeks ago, after a two-year legal battle, a judge ordered Anglin to pay $14 million in damages — the largest award of its kind!
It’s a critical victory. This ruling sends a powerful message to other extremists that “weaponizing” the internet will not be tolerated. Anglin and his vile followers learned that there is no First Amendment right to harassment and intimidation.
More than four decades ago, we pioneered the use of civil litigation to decimate the Ku Klux Klan. Since then, we’ve bankrupted 10 of the country’s most notorious white supremacist groups with crushing court verdicts.
Now, we’re fighting a new generation of white supremacists – and this ruling establishes protection against intimidation on a new battleground, the internet.
Sincerely,

David Dinielli
Deputy Legal Director and lead counsel on Tonya’s case
Southern Poverty Law Center

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Save SF Bay organization sues Trump's EPA




Today, we have big news to announce – Save The Bay and three other organizations are suing the Trump Administration's Environmental Protection Agency because it has failed to protect San Francisco Bay wetlands, putting people and wildlife at risk. 

We haven’t sued to defend the Bay for almost 20 years. But, we are outraged by Trump’s attacks that have gutted Bay protections, including the Obama-era provision for "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. 

At the heart of this attack are Cargill’s Redwood City salt ponds. According to Trump’s EPA, they are no longer protected. Now, luxury home developer DMB Associates is making a plan to develop the area, which will destroy 1400 acres of restorable wetlands.

What Does This Mean For Our Bay?

It means our Bay is at risk. And, it’s not just our Bay, it’s the communities and wildlife that will feel the long-term impacts for generations. 

It will increase water pollution, put people in the direct path of rising sea levels, destroy fish and wildlife habitats and escalate carbon emissions. 

It eliminates federal protections that are supported by local EPA officials and sets a bad precedent...one that could allow other developers to pave the Bay.

What Can You Do? 

You can JOIN US, and stand behind our Don’t Pave The Bay campaign. 
https://savesfbay.org/donate-page-v1?gclid=Cj0KCQjw_absBRD1ARIsAO4_D3uOnV9TouDTEKl6mjTMYgRJ-0VKgplOmSgPjfbmhJyUXBLDY4K_uasaAur1EALw_wcB

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Rep. Gabbard to President Trump: Words on Saudi Arabia Are a “Betrayal”




“I and my fellow service members are not your prostitutes. 
You are not our pimp”
DES MOINES, Iowa -- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the first female combat veteran to run for President, called President Trump’s recent comments and policy toward Saudi Arabia a “betrayal” of the men and women serving in the armed forces, the American people and our Constitution. Rep. Gabbard released the following statement.
 
“President Trump yesterday offered to place our military—my brothers and sisters in uniform—under the command of Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, the dictator of the Islamist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
   
Mr. President, as you know, I have never engaged in hateful rhetoric against you or your family, and I never will. But your offering our military assets to the dictator of Saudi Arabia to use as he sees fit, is a betrayal of my brothers and sisters in uniform who are ready to put our lives on the line for our country—not for the Islamist dictator of Saudi Arabia.
 
For you to think that you can pimp out our proud men and women in uniform to the Prince of Saudi Arabia is disgraceful and once again shows that you are unfit to be the commander-in-chief.
 
As a member of Congress and as a soldier, I and all of my brothers and sisters in uniform have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and nothing in our Constitution gives you the power to go to war without the express consent of Congress, what to speak of giving you the power to offer our military to a foreign power like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to use as they wish.
 
In short, your words and actions are a betrayal of my brothers and sisters in uniform, the American people, and our Constitution. I and my fellow service members are not your prostitutes. You are not our pimp.”
 
###

About Tulsi Gabbard:

Saturday, September 14, 2019

Tomorrow marks 56 years since the murder of four young girls at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama.




Tomorrow marks 56 years since the murder of four young girls at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama.
In an act of terror intended to intimidate civil rights activists who used the predominantly African-American church as a rallying point and organizing hub, Ku Klux Klan members planted a bomb under the building’s steps. It detonated at 10:22 a.m. on Youth Sunday, a day dedicated to the church’s young members, as the girls were getting ready for the service in a basement lounge.
During his eulogy for Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Cynthia Wesley and Addie Mae Collins, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. called the attack “one of the most vicious and tragic crimes ever perpetuated against humanity.” He sent a telegram to then-Alabama Gov. George Wallace, telling the state’s top segregationist: “The blood of our little children is on your hands.” Ten days before the bombing, Wallace had railed against the civil rights movement to The New York Times, saying, “What this country needs is a few first-class funerals.”
At that time, violent attacks on the civil rights movement were common in the city dubbed “Bombingham.” And in the decades since, researchers have laid bare the lack of political will to convict the perpetrators. Then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover blocked prosecution of the case, and the FBI failed to turn over thousands of files to prosecutors, including audio surveillance tapes.
It wasn’t until 1977 that the first of four Klansmen behind the crime was brought to trial by the state attorney general and convicted. Two others were convicted in the mid-1990s by federal prosecutors. A fourth died before being charged.
In 1987, the SPLC would win an unrelated, and unprecedented, civil lawsuit against the same Klan group behind the bombing – the United Klans of America – after its members murdered a black teenager in Alabama six years earlier. The $7 million verdict bankrupted the United Klans, finally putting an end to the group whose members had also killed civil rights activist Viola Liuzzo after the Selma-to-Montgomery march.
The church bombing did not slow the momentum of the civil rights movement. Instead, it became a seminal moment that galvanized the nation and propelled the  movement forward. Ten months later, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing segregation in public accommodations.
Today, a memorial named “Four Spirits” stands across the street from the church with the inscription “A love that forgives” – the title of the pastor’s undelivered sermon on Sept. 15, 1963. 
During this moment of remembrance for these and all civil rights martyrs – those who fought and died for freedom – let us reflect on the words of Dr. King’s eulogy for the girls. And let us remember that deadly violence remains an all-to-common response to the ongoing struggle for civil rights in this country:
“[T]his afternoon, in a real sense [the four girls] have something to say to each of us in their death. They have something to say to every minister of the gospel who has remained silent behind the safe security of stained-glass windows.
“They have something to say to every politician who has fed his constituents with the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism. … They say to each of us, black and white alike, that we must substitute courage for caution. They say to us that we must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced the murderers.
The Editors

Thursday, September 12, 2019

As D.A., Kamala Harris prosecuted a mentally ill woman shot by police. The jury didn’t buy it.


U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris is campaigning for the White House as a "progressive prosecutor."
Photo by Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)


When San Francisco police broke down a door inside a group home for mentally disabled people in 2008 and shot a 56-year-old resident, then-District Attorney Kamala Harris didn’t charge the officers with a crime. Instead she prosecuted the schizophrenic woman who was severely injured in the shooting.
Harris charged Teresa Sheehan with assaulting the officers, alleging she came at them with a kitchen knife after they forced their way into her room. But the jury was not convinced. It deadlocked in favor of acquitting Sheehan on the assault charges, and found her not guilty of threatening to kill a social worker who had called the police for help to get Sheehan into a psychiatric hospital. 
“Somebody used very poor judgement in deciding to bring these charges,” said Laurie Levenson, a criminal law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. 
“If (Harris) actually looked at it and said, ‘This is a righteous case, I want to go after a mentally ill woman who was shot,’ then you question that decision. If she didn’t know about it, then you question her management skills.”
Today Harris, California’s junior U.S. senator, is trying to win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination by highlighting her experience as a “progressive prosecutor.” The Sheehan case, though, is an example of her complicated record in criminal justice.
Harris did not re-try the case after the jury deadlocked, and Sheehan went on to sue the police for excessive force. After a legal battle that lasted several years and included arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, Sheehan won a $1 million settlement. Her civil suit also resulted in a landmark appellate court ruling that says police must take more care when interacting with people they know have a mental illness. 
Harris was not involved in the civil suit. Her campaign spokesperson declined to say how involved Harris was in making decisions about the criminal case, but said she appropriately did her job in charging Sheehan.
“It was the responsibility of the District Attorney’s office to pursue accountability for individuals who may have committed assault against police officers,” Kate Waters wrote in an email. 
Over her years as district attorney and California attorney general, Harris developed a reputation for being cautious on criminal justice issues and took criticism from across the political spectrum. Those on the left deride her for upholding wrongful convictions and the death penalty, while law enforcement and moderate Democrats were upset that in 2004 she declined to seek the death penalty for a man who had killed a police officer.
Harris recently released a plan for criminal justice reform that involves reversing some of her earlier positions. She now supports independent investigations of police shootings — though she didn’t back proposals to do the same thing in California when she was attorney general. She says she wants a tougher national legal standard allowing police to use deadly force only when necessary — a standard California just signed into law. But a key part of the new state law holds officers accountable for their actions leading up to a shooting — a provision that allows officers to be prosecuted if they escalate a confrontation before it’s become deadly. 
In the Sheehan case, Harris cleared the officers of wrongdoing, and her office wrote an article in the San Francisco police officer union’s monthly newsletter touting a judge’s decision to allow the charges against Sheehan to go to trial.
“San Francisco District Attorney Kamala D. Harris announced that Teresa Sheehan… was held to answer on charges of assaulting two San Francisco police officers with a deadly weapon and threatening to kill a social worker,” said the article from October 2008.
“The police subdued the defendant by shooting her several times.”
Such articles were routine during Harris’ time as district attorney. She had a regular spot in the police union’s newsletter where she highlighted developments in key cases. The articles were part of her effort to build rapport with the police department — a dynamic that got off to a bad start when Harris declined to pursue the death penalty against a cop killer just a few months after she was sworn in.
“I think the relationship between the DA’s Office and the average police officer has come a long way since I first took office four years ago,” Harris said in an interview in the police newsletter in March 2008. “There is more trust and a better understanding that the DA’s Office is committed to working with the Police Department to get dangerous criminals off our streets and make San Francisco a safer city.” 
That Sheehan could be considered a dangerous criminal was unfathomable to her attorney. 
“She had no record. There was no reason to believe that this was criminal behavior,” Kleigh Hathaway, Sheehan’s public defender, told CalMatters.
Hathaway said she thought she’d be able to quickly get the case dismissed, and was surprised how hard the district attorney’s office fought it.
“It was really clear hearing from potential jurors how outraged they were,” Hathaway recalled.
“There was this complete surprise and shock that this (56)-year-old Japanese-American woman who was in a wheelchair (from her injuries) was being charged with all these horrible crimes.”
Sheehan declined to be interviewed. Court records describe what happened the day she was shot: She had been off her medication and behaving strangely when a social worker decided she needed to be hospitalized and called police for help. Two officers entered her room, and found Sheehan lying on her bed. She then picked up a knife from a plate beside her, and came toward the officers shouting threats. They retreated to the hallway, and Sheehan closed the door. 
“With the door being closed and us not having the ability to see what she was doing, we had no way of knowing whether… she had an avenue of escape” or access to other weapons, one of the responding officers said in court records. “And so in my opinion, as soon as that door was closed, the threat became more scary for us.” 
The officers called for backup and drew their weapons. They broke down the door and pepper-sprayed Sheehan as she allegedly moved toward them with the knife. Then they shot her.   
Hathaway argued that backup officers had arrived with bean-bag projectiles and that there was no need for the first two officers to break in and shoot. The jury deadlocked with 11 of 12 jurors voting to acquit Sheehan on the charges of assaulting the police officers. Afterward, one juror told the San Francisco Chronicle that police used excessive force and that Sheehan should not have been criminally charged. Others said they doubted if she was mentally capable of standing trial
The assistant district attorney who handled the case declined to be interviewed for this article. 
Hathaway, Sheehan’s public defender, said she never dealt directly with Harris on the case and didn’t know how involved she was in making decisions about it. 
But, she said, “This wasn’t progressive at all. This was completely unsympathetic.” 
Hathaway said she later went on to vote for Harris, and has been impressed with her performance as a senator. Though she hasn’t decided who she’s supporting for president, Hathaway says she’s intrigued by Harris’ campaign. 
Harris defined her idea of a progressive prosecutor in “The Truths We Hold,” the book she published earlier this year:
“My vision of a progressive prosecutor was someone who used the power of the office with a sense of fairness, perspective, and experience, someone who was clear about the need to hold serious criminals accountable and who understood that the best way to create safe communities was to prevent crime in the first place,” Harris wrote.
Sheehan’s sisters have a different view, shaped by frustrations they faced advocating for their sister in 2008. They were flabbergasted that she could be put on trial after police broke in and shot her, and upset by the quality of medical care she received in jail for gunshots and shattered bones that have left her with a sunken face and a metal rod in her leg. 
Frances Sheehan said she repeatedly asked Harris and then-mayor Gavin Newsom to meet with her, but both of them refused. Her sister Patricia said that’s shaped her political views ever since.
“I just couldn’t cast my vote for either one of them, no matter what,” Patricia Sheehan said in a recent interview. “They didn’t even have the courtesy to give five minutes to my sister Frances when she begged and begged… to listen to what was going on with Teresa.”
Editors’ note: This story was updated to clarify that Harris’ office wrote the article in the police officer union’s newsletter.
Hear more about Sheehan’s case in an upcoming episode of the Force Of Law podcast, which explores California’s attempt to reduce police shootings.