

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Two of the world's most important powers, India and Pakistan, are locked into an extremely dangerous confrontation over the bitterly disputed Himalayan mountain state of Kashmir. Both are nuclear armed.
Kashmir has been a flashpoint since Imperial Britain divided India in 1947. India and Pakistan have fought numerous wars and conflicts over majority Muslim Kashmir. China controls a big chunk of northern Kashmir known as Aksai Chin.
In 1949, the UN mandated a referendum to determine if Kashmiris wanted to join Pakistan or India. Not surprisingly, India refused to hold the vote. But there are some Kashmiris who want an independent state, though a majority seek to join Pakistan.
India claims that most of northern Pakistan is actually part of Kashmir, which it claims in full. India rules the largest part of Kashmir, formerly a princely state. Pakistan holds a smaller portion, known as Azad Kashmir. In my book on Kashmir, 'War at the Top of the World,' I called it 'the globe's most dangerous conflict.' It remains so today.
I've been under fire twice on the Indo-Pak border in Kashmir, known as the 'Line of Control,' and once at 15,000 feet atop the Siachen Glacier on China's border. India has over 500,000 soldiers and paramilitary police garrisoning its portion of Kashmir, whose 12 million people bitterly oppose often corrupt and brutal Indian rule - except for local minority Hindus and Sikhs who support it. A bloody, bitter uprising has flared on against Indian rule since 1989 in which some 42,000 people, mostly civilians, have died.
About 250,000 Pakistani troops are dug in on the other side of the ceasefire line.
What makes this confrontation so dangerous is that both sides have important tactical and nuclear forces arrayed against one another. These are mostly short/medium-ranged nuclear tipped missiles, and air-delivered nuclear bombs. Strategic nuclear weapons back up these tactical forces. A nuclear exchange, even a limited one, could kill millions, pollute much of Asia's ground water, and spread radioactive dust around the globe - including to North America.
India's new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, is a Hindu hardliner who is willing to confront Pakistan and India's 200 million Muslims, who make up over 14% of the population. In February, Modi sent warplanes to attack Pakistan after Kashmir insurgents ambushed Indian forces. Pakistan shot down an Indian MiG-21 fighter. China, Pakistan's closest ally, warned India to back off.
Modi is very close to President Donald Trump and Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, both noted for anti-Muslim sentiments. Modi just revoked article 370 of India's constitution that bars non-Kashmiris from buying land in the mountain state, and shut down its phone and internet systems.
The revocation means that non-Kashmiris can now buy land there. Modi is clearly copying Israel's Netanyahu by encouraging non-Muslims to buy up land and squeeze the local Muslim population. Welcome to the Mideast conflict East. China is also doing similar ethnic inundation in its far western, largely Muslim, Xinjiang (Sinkiang) region.
In an ominous sign, Delhi says it will separate the high altitude Ladakh region (aka 'Little Tibet') from its portion of Kashmir. This move suggests India plans to chop up Indian Kashmir into two or three states, a move sure to further enrage Pakistan and thwart any future peace settlement.
There's little Pakistan can do to block India's actions. India's huge armed forces outnumber those of Pakistan by 4 or 5 to one. Without nuclear weapons, Pakistan would be quickly overrun by Indian forces. Only massive Chinese intervention would save Pakistan.
Meanwhile, Kashmir, the world's longest-running major dispute, continues, threatening a terrible nuclear conflict. Making matters worse, both India and Pakistan's nuclear forces are on a hair-trigger alert, with a warning time of only minutes. This is a region where electronics often become scrambled. A false alert or a flock of birds could trigger a massive nuclear war in South Asia.
India and Pakistan, where people starve in the streets, waste billions on military spending because of the Kashmir dispute. Now some of India's extreme Hindu nationalists warn they want to reabsorb Pakistan, Bangladesh, and even Sri Lanka into Mother India.
Previous Indian leaders have been cautious. But not PM Modi. He is showing signs of power intoxication.
An editorial in a newspaper run by the Chinese Communist Party sharply criticized the U.S. in the midst of the current debate over gun control--a debate that's been resolved for decades in most of the world's industrialized countries--and accused the U.S. of hypocrisy in touting its human rights record.
"It's inhumane for the U.S., which boasts about its human rights record, to turn a blind eye to gun violence, snub increasing calls for gun control, and risk more innocent lives," read the opinion column in the English-language version of the Global Times. "The U.S. has no other choice but to adopt gun control. The right of life is the most fundamental human right. The right to bear arms cannot overpower the individual's right to live."
While the U.S. government acts as an arbiter of human rights abuses around the world, the paper said, it has failed to protect its own citizens as many legislators accept donations from the National Rifle Association (NRA), the powerful gun lobby which has opposed even widely popular gun reforms like universal background checks and has aggressively marketed military-style semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15, frequently used in mass shootings, as an appropriate firearm for hunting and home-defense.
" Washington has been pointing an accusing finger at other countries over human rights... However, more Americans have been killed by gunfire in the country than American soldiers being killed in all U.S. wars," read the column. "Gun ownership in China is strictly regulated, which helps reduce gun-related crimes and deaths. The U.S. should learn from China and genuinely protect human rights."
While China has its own record of human rights abuses, its stringent gun control measures have kept mass shootings like the one the that took place in Parkland, Florida last week from becoming the regular occurrence that they are in the U.S.
In China's annual report on global human rights last year, it noted the U.S. government's "serious infringement on right to life [and] personal security."
"In 2016, the U.S. government exercised no effective control over guns, law enforcement departments abused their power, and crimes were not effectively contained," wrote China's State Council Information Office. "As a result, civil rights, especially the right to life, were seriously threatened and people's personal rights were continuously infringed upon."
The report listed several recent deadly mass shootings, and also decried the incarceration rate in the U.S.--higher than any other country in the world.
Media reports claim President Donald Trump let loose on his generals behind closed doors, blasting them royally for their startling failures in Afghanistan, America's longest war.
The president has many faults and is a lousy judge of character. But he was absolutely right to read the riot act to the military brass for daring to ask for a very large troop and budget increase for the stalemated Afghan War that has cost $1 trillion to date.
Media reports claim President Donald Trump let loose on his generals behind closed doors, blasting them royally for their startling failures in Afghanistan, America's longest war.
The president has many faults and is a lousy judge of character. But he was absolutely right to read the riot act to the military brass for daring to ask for a very large troop and budget increase for the stalemated Afghan War that has cost $1 trillion to date.
Of course, the unfortunate generals are not really to blame. They have been forced by the last three presidents to fight a pointless war at the top of the world that lacks any strategy, reason or purpose - and with limited forces. But they can't admit defeat by lightly-armed Muslim tribesmen.
The truth is, simply, that America blundered into the Afghan War under President George W. Bush who needed a target for revenge after the humiliating 9/11 attacks. Instead of blaming Saudi Arabia, a US protectorate which was clearly involved in the attacks, Bush went after remote but strategic Afghanistan and cooked up the Osama bin Laden bogeyman story.
Sixteen years later, the US is still chasing shadows in the Hindu Kush Mountains, rightly known to history as 'Graveyard of Empires.'
The US invasion of Afghanistan was based on the unproven claim that anti-communist fighter Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. We have yet to see conclusive proof. What we have seen are phony documents and faked videos put out by bin Laden's foes, the Afghan communists and their Northern Alliance drug-dealing allies.
As I've written in my books on South Asia, the so-called 'terrorist training camps' in Afghanistan were mostly bases for training anti-Indian Kashmiri liberation groups run by Pakistani intelligence. Claims by the right-wing US media that Afghanistan would become a jihadist base if the 9,800 US troops there now withdrew are nonsense. The 9/11 attacks were planned and mounted from Germany, Spain and Florida, not Afghanistan. They could have come from anywhere.
After sixteen years, the US military and its Afghan mercenaries troops have failed to defeat the Afghan Pashtun tribal resistance forces, Taliban. In fact, the Taliban alliance now controls at least half of Afghanistan and keeps US and government forces pinned down. The US installed 'president,' Ashraf Ghani, barely clings to power.
What keeps the US in control of parts of Afghanistan is the US Air Force and naval air power. US warplanes from Afghanistan, Qatar, and aircraft carriers keep a 24/7 combat air patrol over distant Afghanistan and can reply in minutes to attacks on US or Afghan ground units. No other nation could do this - or afford the immense cost.
Gasoline trucked into Afghanistan over the Khyber Pass from Karachi costs $400 per gallon delivered. The authoritative 'Aviation Week' magazine reports that keeping US warplanes on station over Iraq and Syria costs an astounding $600,000 per mission. It's even more over Afghanistan.
But without 24/7 US airpower, US forces in Afghanistan would be soon isolated, then driven out. This is just what happened to the British and Soviets, dooming their efforts to crush the independence-loving Pashtun, Afghanistan's largest ethnic group.
Bereft of new ideas, the US keeps repeating its mistakes in Afghanistan: colluding with the worst, most corrupt elements of Afghan society; condoning torture and murder; relying on the big, drug dealing tribal chiefs.
The UN reports that opium (the base for heroin) exports doubled last year. The sputtering Afghan economy runs on opium and hashish.
The United States is now the proud owner of the world's leading producer of opium and morphine base. If the drug trade is ever cut off, the government in Kabul and its warlords will collapse. Ironically, when Taliban ruled Afghanistan before 9/11, the drug trade was almost wiped out. But you will never read this in the tame US media.
Now America's imperial generals are asking Trump for 4,000 more troops. A basic law of military science is concentration of force. Penny packets of troops are a fool's strategy. The main function of US troops in Afghanistan is to protect the strategic Bagram and Kandahar air bases and US installations in Kabul.
Now, hard right Republicans are pushing a daft proposal to contract the Afghan War to a US-paid mercenary army led by an imperial viceroy in Kabul. Shades of Queen Victoria. Break out the pith helmets.
Trump has proposed pressuring Pakistan, India and China to end the war. What an absurd idea. For Pakistan, Afghanistan is its blood brother and strategic hinterland. China plans to turn mineral-rich Afghanistan into a Tibet-style protectorate. India wants to outflank Pakistan by taking over Afghanistan. India and China are in a growing military confrontation in the Himalayas.
Trump had better come up with a better idea. My solution to the 17-year war: emulate the example of the courageous Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. He pronounced his Afghan War unwinnable, told his angry generals to shut up, and ordered the Red Army out of the war in Afghanistan.
The killing of an Indian man named Srinivas Kuchibhotla in Olathe, Kan., on Feb. 22 has heightened concerns over hate crimes against people of color in Donald Trump's America.
The killing of an Indian man named Srinivas Kuchibhotla in Olathe, Kan., on Feb. 22 has heightened concerns over hate crimes against people of color in Donald Trump's America.
Kuchibhotla was a tech worker at the GPS manufacturer Garmin. He was out for drinks with his friend and fellow Indian techie, Alok Madasani, when a 51-year-old white Navy veteran named Adam Purinton allegedly gunned him down after yelling, "Get out of my country."
Purinton had confronted the two men earlier in the evening, demanding to know if they were in the U.S. illegally. Kuchibhotla and Madasani, like many Indian nationals in the U.S., were filling a great demand for high-tech workers and were in the country on work visas.
While the Trump White House initially dismissed any links between Kuchibhotla's killing and the president's divisive rhetoric about Muslims and immigrants as "absurd," Madasani's father, Jaganmohan Reddy, attributed the incident to a new wave of hate. He told The Washington Post, "The situation seems to be pretty bad after Trump took over as the U.S. president. I appeal to all the parents in India not to send their children to the United States in the present circumstances."
On Tuesday, the same day the FBI announced it would investigate the incident as a hate crime, Trump finally mentioned the killing in his address to a joint session of Congress, saying that it reminds us "that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms."
But the condemnation rang hollow, even though he began his speech claiming to bring a "message of unity and strength."
Trump's minimal acknowledgement of the Kansas shooting is no surprise, given that the incident does not fit within his narrative of immigrants as dangerous and American citizens as innocent. Had the roles been reversed and a brown-skinned foreign national fatally shot a U.S. citizen, the victim's family would have been on display at Trump's address Tuesday. But the Kuchibhotla family was not invited, nor was their son's name even mentioned. Instead, Trump trotted out four relatives of people killed by undocumented immigrants as props for his speech.
Trump's words are unlikely to have much effect on the safety of Americans (studies have found that immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita than native-born U.S. citizens and that sanctuary cities are safer). In fact, they are likely to fuel the exact opposite: violence by U.S. citizens against immigrants and those perceived to be foreigners.
Unless Trump offers proof that fomenting violence against brown-skinned people is not his intention, we can only judge him by his words and assume that he condones and encourages hate crimes.
In Trump's upside-down world, the dominant group is the most victimized: straight white men like him. The rest of us are all potential criminals. To Trump, those who are truly the most vulnerable people in American society--undocumented immigrants, people of color, Muslims and transgender children and adults--are the predators, not the victims. His White House has no plans to protect them and has instead unleashed forces, both official and unofficial, to attack them. Refugees are barred, immigrants are deported, Muslims are demonized, transgender children are left without protection to use the restroom of their gender identity, and so on.
Even George W. Bush, once the least popular president in modern history, is embarrassed by Trump. Bush, who rarely speaks to the press anymore, said, "I don't like the racism, and I don't like the name-calling, and I don't like the people feeling alienated."
Just weeks after Trump's inauguration, many of his own supporters are aghast at his policies. A Syrian-American family in Pennsylvania that supported Trump was shocked when their relatives, who were emigrating to the U.S. with valid green cards, were deported after landing in the country. Residents of a small town in Illinois that overwhelmingly voted for Trump are upset that their friend and neighbor, Juan Carlos Hernandez-Pacheco, is facing deportation. "I knew he was Mexican, but he's been here so long, he's just one of us," said one resident. Farm owners in central California who voted for Trump are now worried that his policies will affect the cheap labor force of undocumented farm workers their businesses rely on.
There are many other examples of buyer's remorse among Trump voters, including those who are worried about their president taking away the health insurance they've come to rely on, and Caitlyn Jenner, who is upset over Trump's revocation of federal guidelines on transgender student rights. Indeed, there is a Twitter account dedicated entirely to retweeting the regrets of Trump voters.
I have no sympathy for Americans who voted for Trump. He was very clear throughout his campaign about his agenda and how aggressively he would work to achieve it. It is telling that many Trump voters do not want to publicly identify themselves. A self-described "Silicon Valley liberal" named Sam Altman, who traveled around the country interviewing Trump voters, relayed that "almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to me, but almost none of them wanted me to use their names." The desire for secrecy suggests that these Americans are ashamed over having picked a president who has unleashed so much racism and hate in the nation. But they should publicly own their actions and face the responsibility they bear in helping to bring Trump into the White House. The blood of Srinivas Kuchibhotla is on their hands, as well as Trump's.
Trump and his supporters are also responsible for the less publicized examples of how the U.S. has suddenly become a much more unwelcoming nation in the past few weeks. These include:
A U.S.-born NASA scientist named Sidd Bikkannavar who was detained at a U.S. airport and asked to turn over his phone and the code to unlock it.
An elderly couple from Calgary, Canada, were stunned to have to undergo fingerprinting and have mug shots taken simply for crossing through the U.S. from Mexico to their home.
Beloved Australian children's author Mem Fox was aggressively interrogated at a U.S. airport and wondered if she would ever return to the U.S.
Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi, who won his second Academy Award for best foreign film--this time for "The Salesman"--refused to attend the ceremony in protest of Trump's "Muslim ban," which includes his home country. Farhadi chose not to apply for an artistic waiver to the ban.
Syrian cinematographer Khaled Khatib was barred from entering the U.S. to attend the Academy Awards for his film "White Helmets," which also won an Oscar for best documentary. Khatib has a valid U.S. visa.
Juan Garcia Mosqueda, an Argentinian citizen who was a legal resident in the U.S. for the past 10 years while he ran an architecture and design studio in New York, was deported to Buenos Aires for no apparent reason.
Henry Rousso, a French Holocaust historian, was detained at a Houston airport for nearly half a day, with no reason given for his detention.
Members of a women's soccer team from Tibet were denied visas to travel to Dallas for a tournament because, apparently, they had "no good reason to visit the U.S."
The result of Trump's vision is that America will rapidly become a pariah nation for visitors who do not want to risk being humiliated or targeted. If this is what Trump's voters desired when they cast their ballots for an openly bigoted candidate, their wish is quickly coming true. Travel publications already are reporting a "Trump Slump," a significant drop in visitors to the U.S. since this president took office.
Kuchibhotla's mother has vowed not to let her younger son, who was also working in the U.S., return to this nation, and who can blame her?
At this rate, the U.S., already an international laughingstock because of the election, will be seen as an undesirable destination around the globe. Not only will the travel and tourism industry suffer, but so will the economy as a whole, given the extent to which immigrants--legal and undocumented, high-tech and low-wage--contribute. In attacking nonwhite Americans and tacitly encouraging his followers to do the same, Trump is attacking America itself.
The Trudeau government says talks toward a Canada-China Free Trade Agreement could begin as early as February 2017.
CBC reports, "International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland says Canada is tentatively booked to begin talks with China in February as the two countries explore a free trade agreement."
While the Harper government expressed support for a free trade agreement with China in 2007, there is a new momentum behind these talks. In December 2015, China's ambassador to Canada, Luo Zhaohui, stated, "At the policy level, we need to start the negotiation and conclusion of a free trade agreement sooner rather than later." In June 2016, The Globe and Mail reported, "[Trudeau] has made re-engagement with China a key foreign policy initiative as his government presses for a free-trade deal with the world's second-largest economy." And in August 2016, the Canadian Press reported, "After meeting with Trudeau, [Chinese premier Li Keqiang stated] that Canada and China will launch a feasibility study on an eventual free-trade deal."
A free trade agreement with China would likely include an 'investment protection' provision that would make it that much harder to subsequently constrain the growth of the tar sands or to reject new pipelines.
In February 2013, Chinese state-owned CNOOC Ltd. purchased the Canadian oil and gas giant Nexen Inc. for $15.1 billion. At that time, Reuters reported, "[With this takeover} CNOOC gains control of Nexen's Long Lake oil sands project in the oil-rich province of Alberta, as well as billions of barrels of reserves in the world's third-largest crude storehouse - the oil sands in the province of Alberta." And in August 2009, PetroChina Co. Ltd. (whose parent company is the state-owned China National Petroleum Corp.) bought a 60 per cent interest in two undeveloped projects near Fort McMurray that contain an estimated 5 billion barrels of tar sands oil.
The Globe and Mail has noted, "China wants to forge a historic free-trade deal with Canada, but a senior Chinese official said this will require Canadian concessions on investment restrictions [notably in the oil and gas sector] and a commitment to build an energy pipeline to the coast." In September 2016, CTV reported, "[Former Conservative prime minister Brian] Mulroney says that growing trade between Canada and China depends on Trudeau approving the Energy East Pipeline. Mulroney [says] Trudeau 'could have a nation building exercise that would then allow him to service the Chinese and others more beneficially for Canada', if Energy East and other pipelines are built."
Canada could also be promoted as a country ready for China's water-intensive industries.Estimates vary, but in 2011 it is believed tar sands operations used about 170 million cubic metres of water, the same amount of water as 1.7 million homes in Canada. The tar sands also create 250 million litres of toxic waste every day.
The rapid industrialization of China has consumed massive amounts of water and has contributed to a terrible water crisis there. It has been estimated that 90 percent of groundwater in their cities and 75 percent of their rivers and lakes are polluted and as such some 700 million people drink contaminated water every day. It has also been forecast that by 2020 there could be as many as 30 million environmental refugees in China due to water stress.
Because of that water pollution, China sees Tibet as a source of bottled water. Last week, The Globe and Mail reported, "Using tax breaks and other forms of government encouragement, the country wants its companies to bottle five million tonnes a year of Tibet water by 2020 and double that by 2025. Companies are siphoning water from sacred mountains like Mount Kailash and protected areas, including Mount Everest. One firm, Qomolangma Glacier Water, has built its bottling operation inside the Qomolangma National Nature Preserve."
It's not unreasonable to think that China might also see Canada as a source for bottled water. Canada could also be promoted as a country ready for China's water-intensive industries.
In May 2011, Globe and Mail columnist Eric Reguly wrote, "A UBS Investment Research study implies that water-intensive industries will have to migrate from water-scarce to water-rich regions of the planet. China's semiconductor industry shares a troubling feature with China's steel industry: Both use outrageous amounts of water in a country where water resources are getting scarce. Once you understand that China has to phase out its thirstiest industries or risk starving itself, you might see how water-rich Canada could emerge as one of the world's great manufacturing countries."
Reguly highlighted, "Every few years, some Canadian entrepreneur hatches an idea to export bulk water to the United States or elsewhere by pipeline or tanker ship. Each effort has failed. But with bulk-water export legislation open to interpretation, and the United States getting thirstier, the next attempt could succeed. That would be economic stupidity. Best to make the jobs come to the water instead."
The Council of Canadians opposes a Canada-China Free Trade Agreement and sees it as detrimental to people and the environment in both Canada and China.
Bottled water companies are notorious for creating demand for their products because they sell one of the most basic and ubiquitous resources on the planet. They often resort to old Madison Avenue mind games, like exploiting our subconscious interest in exclusivity or suggesting that their products are purer than tap water.
Perrier was once extolled as the "champagne of water." For a time, Evian partnered with fashion designer Christian Lacroix to sell its water in limited-edition blinged-out bottles. Tibet Spring sources its water from the Himalayas. The list goes on--these companies and a bevy of competitors seek to differentiate themselves while trying to make us forget that what they're pushing isn't much different from the stuff that flows from our taps for fractions of a penny per glass.
The latest entry into the bottled water market threatens to overshadow all of these in sheer preposterousness, thanks to Kona Deep and its "premium deep ocean water." If the prospect of washing down your lunch (or cocktail hour crudites, if we're still being fancy) with a mouthful of saltwater sounds unappealing, don't worry; Kona Deep has you covered. This is not just any water from the ocean, it's desalinated water from the sea.
But water is not a luxury; it's a human right, and bottling water already squanders tons of resources. According to the Pacific Institute, bottled water manufacturing, production, and transportation are 1,100 to 2,000 times as energy intensive as the treatment and distribution of tap water, using enough oil to fuel between 1.2 and 2.1 million cars a year. Then there are the bottles, which use up about 23,000 tons of plastic annually- between 0.8 million and 1.4 million barrels of oil- 80 percent of which are not recycled.
Desalination, which separates salt from seawater to create fresh water for irrigation and drinking, is also a significant energy drain. The National Research Council estimates that seawater desalination in California is nine times more energy-intensive than surface water treatment and 14 times more energy-intensive than groundwater treatment. Moreover, emissions from desalination plants contribute to global climate change. There's also the cost--desalinated water is often twice as expensive as water from municipal systems, which ironically, is where much of the bottled water sold today comes from.
Bottled water is already a drain on our wallets and resources; we don't need to exacerbate its financial and environmental impacts by combining it with another irresponsible water extraction process, particularly for profit. Nor should we intensify its adverse effects on the environment by shipping it from Hawaii to the mainland--another significant waste of energy. But that's precisely what Kona Deep is doing, even as it tries to romanticize its product by claiming it comes from "melted glacial water, which sunk into the ocean floor" over a millennium ago.
While that tagline sounds better than "it comes from the ocean, where slimy things live," consumers would be wise to put down the Kona Deep and turn to the tap instead.
In April, the student senate at Earlham College, a Quaker liberal arts institution in Indiana, approved a resolution by consensus recommending the college endowment divest from three U.S. companies (Motorola, Hewlett Packard and Caterpillar) which are directly supporting the Israeli occupation in violation of international law. The resolution (thus far ignored by the college's board of trustees) follows decisions by a number of Quaker-affiliated organizations -- as well as the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, and other nonprofit groups -- to divest from these companies.
The response was swift. Within weeks, the Indiana state legislature passed a bipartisan resolution condemning the boycott/divest/sanctions campaign as "anti-Jewish," accusing it of "promoting a climate of hatred, intimidation, intolerance, and violence against Jews." Despite the absurdity of the notion that the consensus of an elected body of students at a college rooted in a Christian pacifist tradition would promote "violence against Jews" or anybody else, the resolution received near-unanimous support from both Republicans and Democrats.
A similar resolution passed in the Tennessee legislature as well, also with virtually unanimous bipartisan support.
The tactic of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) has been used for years to pressure U.S. companies to stop illegally profiting from foreign occupations, particularly in cases where the United States has blocked the United Nations from enforcing its resolutions calling for withdrawal of occupation forces in accordance with the U.N. Charter.Boycott and divestment campaigns in previous decades targeted companies supporting South Africa's occupation of Namibia and Indonesia's occupation of East Timor. A campaign is currently underway, particularly strong in Europe, in support of BDS against the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara.
In the case of the Israeli occupation, however, supporters of the Israeli occupation and the right-wing Israeli government have mounted a strong counter-attack.
For example, Hillary Clinton -- the front runner for the 2016Democratic presidential nomination -- has declared that the BDS movement was working to "malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people." Similarly, the Democratic-controlled State Assembly in California passed a non-binding resolution declaring BDS advocacy"anti-Semitic activities" which should "not be tolerated" on state university campuses.
For decades, student activism in solidarity with oppressed peoples in the Global South has attracted a variety of supporters, ranging from Christian pacifists to proponents of armed revolution, and from liberal Democrats to Marxist-Leninists. Similarly, while the BDS movement has attracted some hard line pro-Palestinian elements which could reasonably be considered anti-Israel (and, in a few cases, even anti-Semitic), the vast majority are sincere and principled supporters of human rights and international law.
This tendency by Democratic politicians to malign BDS supporters as the movement's most extreme elements is politically damaging for the party, which depends heavily on young progressive student volunteers. For example, Obama's very narrow victory in Indiana in the 2008election was made possible in part by the hundreds of students from Earlham and other colleges in the state going door-to-door. These statements and resolutions are giving a signal that supporters of BDS and other campaigns for corporate responsibility are no longer welcome in the party.
A number of prominent Democratic politicians first became politically engaged while in college, working on divestment campaigns targeting apartheid South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. Their contemporaries will be much less inclined to become involved with a party which attacks them and unfairly portrays their human rights activism as a form of bigotry. As a result, the Democrats are in jeopardy of losing many of the very kind of idealistic young people with strong organizing skills the party needs.
The anti-BDS fervor has gone beyond statements and nonbinding resolutions. This spring, the Illinois legislature passed a unanimous measure sponsored by Democratic leaders which requires divesting state pension funds from companies that invest in Iran or Sudan, but ronically also calls for divesting from companies that boycott Israel, Israeli settlements, or otherwise use economic means to oppose the occupation.
As a result, state pension fund shares in any publicly-traded company-- even one that invests in Israel -- now have to be sold if they hada policy of boycotting the illegal settlements in the occupied territories. These would include socially-conscious companies like Ben& Jerry's, which manufactures and sells its ice cream in Israel but refuses to buy products used in their manufacturing if produced in Israeli settlements.
Support for the settlements through discouraging BDS has also been included in federal legislation. A clause in the "fast track" bill to help insure passage of the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership which became law in June forces the Obama administration to pressure potential U.S. trading partners to no longer boycott products made in illegal settlements or to discourage their companies from supporting the Israeli occupation.
There appears, then, to be a growing acceptance by politicians of both parties of the neoconservative view that the enforcement of international humanitarian law -- such as provisions that bar companies from supporting illegal occupations -- should be opposed (at least as it applies to the United States and its allies) and that those who support the universal applications of such principles should be attacked, marginalized and punished, such as by labeling proponents as anti-Semitic or by hurting their businesses.
This bipartisan willingness to defame and punish those advocating socially-responsible investment policies also may be based upon the belief that defending corporate profits for companies like Motorola, Hewlett Packard, and Caterpillar is a higher priority than defending human rights. It may be only a matter of time before groups like Students for a Free Tibet -- which calls for boycotts and related activities targeting the Beijing government and U.S. companies that support that occupation of Tibet -- will be labeled as anti-Chinese racists. One can imagine other scenarios in which those who advocate divestment and similar actions against carbon polluters, arms manufacturers, and others will also be targeted by politicians.
Some have cautioned against interpreting such statements and legislation too broadly, arguing that politicians who support anti-BDS measures do so only because it impacts Israel and that they are being forced by some kind of rich cabal of Jews behind the scenes. Such rationalizations, however, really are anti-Semitic. No one has ever lost an election for refusing to attack advocates of socially-responsible investment policies.
This is why even those who do not necessarily support the BDS campaign against Israel or the Israeli occupation should oppose such efforts. At root, these anti-BDS efforts are about defending corporate profits,regardless of the moral and legal implications.
It's no secret that there's a divide between the global North and South. Most people know about the huge wealth gap between the industrialized and so-called "developing" worlds, and that rates of pollution, resource use, greenhouse gas emissions - and much more - vary widely between them. But there's another gap, one that's rarely discussed in the media, or even by NGOs. It involves changing attitudes to farming, to the land and the soil - something worth considering in this UN-designated "International Year of Soils.'
It's no secret that there's a divide between the global North and South. Most people know about the huge wealth gap between the industrialized and so-called "developing" worlds, and that rates of pollution, resource use, greenhouse gas emissions - and much more - vary widely between them. But there's another gap, one that's rarely discussed in the media, or even by NGOs. It involves changing attitudes to farming, to the land and the soil - something worth considering in this UN-designated "International Year of Soils.'
All over the Western world, increasing numbers of people are leaving their desk-bound lives to rediscover the joys of getting their hands dirty. The passion for soil is on the rise as more and more people grow food on their balconies or rooftops, or turn their lawns into a mixture of wilderness and vegetables. People are also reaching out to farmers, joining Community Supported Agriculture schemes or starting food co-ops. The permaculture, ecovillage and transition movements now have huge followings, with thousands of people undergoing training and reconnecting to each other through growing food. Interest in slow food, organic food, agroecology and regenerative agriculture are also increasing. Central to all these movements is localization - the shortening of distances from the farm to the table. At same time that local food economies rebuild the relationship between consumers and farmers, they encourage highly diversified organic, small-scale agriculture, contributing to sustainable food systems.
Things are very different in the global South. While nearly half the population is still connected to the soil, farmers are being encouraged to leave the land by the millions. Throughout the developing world, food producers are struggling with a range of problems, including debt, GMOs, soil degradation, climate change and dependency on an increasingly volatile global marketplace. Just as importantly, they are being made to feel ashamed of their farming traditions, ashamed of having their hands in the soil. Western-style schooling, the media and advertising all romanticize an urban consumer lifestyle, while farming is seen as "backward" and primitive. I witnessed this first-hand during the many years I lived in Ladakh, or "Little Tibet". Sometimes the message was subtle, sometimes it was overt, like in a schoolbook I came across, which said:
"The pace of development of our villages is not very rapid. In the developed countries, such as the USA and Canada, only a few persons are farmers. This small group of farmers not only produces food for the entire population but also exports it to other countries. In our country, the majority of the people living in the villages are engaged in agriculture but their income from agriculture is not sufficient to enable them to lead a happy life."
In Ladakh, as elsewhere in the South, the overall trend is a shift away from a life connected to the soil and towards urbanization. This is continually reinforced by the notion that in the modern, glittering cities of the West, people enjoy incredible leisure, wealth and power. Rural people don't hear about our epidemic of depression, about the pollution, the escalating rates of cancer, the poverty and unemployment, the senseless violence. The result is what I have described as the "psychological pressure to modernize." Combined with political and economic pressures, the result is an exodus for the city: it is estimated that by 2050 there will be an additional 400 million urban dwellers in India, nearly 300 million more in China, and over 200 million more in Nigeria, with similar increases expected throughout the less-developed world.[1] A few may find the city to be the consumer paradise that was advertised, but the vast majority will end up in one of the urban slums appended to the South's mega-cities. Cut off from the land and forced into ruthless competition for the few available jobs, their prospects are dismal.
We urgently need a media campaign throughout the South that puts soil, seeds and farmers at the center, and that makes visible the many trends in the West that are diametrically opposite to what is being foisted on millions of land-based people worldwide.
Fortunately, many of the agricultural traditions of the South have not yet been lost, and there is a lot left to build upon. There are also a growing number of indigenous grassroots organizations bringing together small-scale farmers to share knowledge and build solidarity. One of these, Via Campesina, has more than 200 million members in 73 countries. Movements like these can be strengthened and expanded, thereby counteracting the mainstream messages that drive people from the land.
Around the world, soil is common currency. It binds us to each other and to the earth. This currency lies at the heart of a movement towards rebuilding local economies. I call it 'the economics of happiness', because at the deepest level localization reweaves our spiritual connection to others and to nature, something that is essential for our wellbeing. People all over the North are discovering its benefits, while people in the South are still being told that McDonald's is 'cool', and that farming is not. It's time to close the information gap.
[1] United Nations, "World's population increasingly urban with more than half living in urban areas", July 10, 2014 https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanizati...
On July 2, former secretary of state and frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination Hillary Clinton wrote a letter to Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, a strong supporter of the right-wing Netanyahu government, denouncing human rights activists who support boycott/divestment/sanctions (BDS) against the Israeli occupation.
In the letter, made public a few days later, Clinton made a number of statements which are not only demonstrably false but raise serious concerns regarding what kind of policies she would pursue as president.
She claimed that the BDS movement was working to "malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people." Though some BDS activists target Israel as a whole, most efforts on college campuses and elsewhere focus solely on the Israeli occupation, particularly companies that profit from that occupation and support illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. In any case, the BDS campaign does not "malign and undermine" Jews. This cynical effort to depict the movement as anti-Semitic could be an indication of the kind of rhetoric she would use as president to discredit human rights activists who challenge her policies elsewhere.
Clinton claims in the letter that initiatives through the United Nations critical of Israeli violations of international humanitarian law are inherently "anti-Israel," thereby implying that those who raise concerns about a given country's human rights record do so not because of a desire to uphold universally recognized ethical and legal principles, but because of an ideological bias against a particular country. Although some UN agencies have disproportionately targeted Israel for criticism, the vast majority of such reports and resolutions have been consistent with findings and concerns raised by reputable international human rights organizations (such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) and Israeli groups (such as the B'tselem human rights group and the veterans' organization Breaking the Silence.)
Clinton further argues that it is illegitimate to use sanctions to "dictate" that an occupying power should end its illegal colonization of occupied territory and withdraw to within its internationally recognized boundaries in accordance with UN resolutions and international law. Indeed, she rejects any kind of "outside or unilateral actions" against such flagrant violations of international legal norms. Instead, she insists that resolution to such conflicts be based solely on negotiations between an occupying power and those under occupation regardless of the gross asymmetry in power between the two parties and a series of UN Security Council resolutions, rulings of the International Court of Justice, and longstanding international legal principles that recognize the illegitimacy of any country expanding its borders by force and moving settlers into occupied territory.
Clinton's lack of concern for international law is also evidenced in her reference to the predominantly Palestinian Old City of Jerusalem as being part of Israel, even though it was seized by Israeli forces in the 1967 war and is recognized by the UN and the international community as being under foreign belligerent occupation.
She also proudly references her condemnation of the 2009 report by the UN Human Rights Council--headed by the distinguished South African jurist Richard Goldstone (a Zionist Jew)--which documented war crimes by both Israel and Hamas. In the letter, she implies that the report denied Israel's right to self-defense, when it in fact explicitly recognized Israel's right to do so. The report's only objections to Israeli conduct were in regard to attacks on civilian targets, not its military actions against extremist militias lobbing rockets into Israel. The implication, therefore, is that Hillary Clinton believes killing civilians can constitute legitimate self-defense.
Her reference to Israel as "a vibrant democracy in a region dominated by autocracy"--while certainly true on a number of levels--ignores Israel's denial of democratic rights to Palestinians under occupation. Furthermore, it ignores her history as a senator and secretary of state of backing Arab dictatorships in the face of pro-democracy struggles by their own peoples, which has contributed to the predominance of autocratic rule in the Middle East.
In the letter, she also reiterates the romantic Western myth that Israel is "a vibrant bloom in the middle of the desert." Although Israelis are certainly responsible for impressive advances in irrigation technology in the Negev region and elsewhere, it ignores centuries of agriculture and urban settlement in what is now Palestine, Lebanon, and the western parts of Jordan and Syria, long known as the "Fertile Crescent." Indeed, Israel originally seized much of its fertile lands by force from Palestinian farmers.
There are other troubling aspects of the two-page letter as well: She boasts about her efforts to block UN recognition of Palestinian statehood. She pledges to work with Republicans to fight BDS activists, who are mostly registered Democrats. She links anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and the terrorist attacks against Jews in France. In addition, by denouncing BDS because it "singles out Israel," she is implying that any human rights group that focuses on one country (i.e., Tibet, Burma, Western Sahara, Syria, or Iran) is thereby illegitimate.
Finally, her pledge to "defend Israel at every turn" and that as president she will "always stand up for Israel" is particularly troubling, given her propensity to equate "Israel" with the policies of its right-wing government.
Taken altogether, this letter raises very troubling questions regarding the kind of president Hillary Clinton would be, not just in regard to Israel and Palestine, but in relation to human rights and international law overall and her reaction to those who support such principles.
A powerful 7.9 magnitude earthquake that struck central Nepal overnight has devastated populated areas across the Himayalan region, causing buildings to crumble and killing hundreds, if not thousands, of people on Saturday.
| #NepalEarthquake Tweets |
A spokesperson for Nepal's Home Ministry, Laxmi Prasad Dhakal, told the New York Times early on Saturday morning that the preliminary death toll stood at 686, nearly all in the valley around Katmandu, and that thousands more had been injured.
According to the Guardian, which is offering live updates on the situation, the number of people across four countries who have died is well above 1,000 and this number is expected to rise. In addition to the highest numbers in Nepal, several deaths and injuries related to the quake were reported in Tibet, India, and further to the east in Bangladesh.
The initial quake, originally calculated by the USGS as 7.8 on the Richter scale but subsequently adjusted to 7.9, occurred just after midnight (GMT) with the epicenter near the city of Lamjung, not far from the capital of Katamandu, where heavy damage and a high number of casualties is being reported. A large aftershock, approximately 30 minutes later, came in at 6.6 magnitude.
The tremors also unleashed a severe avalanche on Mt. Everest, among world's tallest and most famous mountains, which claimed additional lives.
Reuters reports:
The worst quake to hit the impoverished Himalayan nation in 81 years also caused damage in neighboring Indian states and Bangladesh. The quake was shallow, intensifying the amount of energy released over a relatively small area.
A police spokesman said the death toll had reached 449 in Nepal according to an initial estimate, most from the Kathmandu Valley. There was little information coming from the outlying areas of the mountainous country and helicopters were circling overheard to get a better sense of the damage.
"Hundreds of people are feared dead and there are reports of widespread damage to property. The devastation is not confined to some areas of Nepal. Almost the entire country has been hit," said Krishna Prasad Dhakal, deputy chief of mission at Nepal's Embassy in New Delhi.
The Associated Press provided this early raw footage from impacted areas:
Regarding the avalancy on Mt. Everest, AP reports:
An avalanche swept the face of Mount Everest after the massive earthquake struck Nepal on Saturday, killing at least eight people and leaving an unknown number missing and injured near the mountain's most dangerous spot, an official said.
The avalanche struck between the Khumbu Icefall, a notoriously treacherous rugged area of collapsed ice and snow, and the base camp where most climbing expeditions are, said Ang Tshering of the Nepal Mountaineering Association.
An official with Nepal's mountaineering department, Gyanendra Shretha, said the bodies of eight people had been recovered and an unknown number remain missing or injured.
And on Twitter: