Symposium on the Current Crisis in Myanmar: Inching Closer to a Historic Universal Jurisdiction Case in Argentina on the Rohingya Genocide

Tun Khin and Tomas Ojea Quintan 30.09.21 | 0 Comments [Tun Khin is President of the Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK and Tomás Ojea Quintana is a former UN Special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.] On 18 August, in a court in downtown Buenos Aires, Argentina, six women made history in the Rohingyas’ long struggle for justice. For the first time anywhere in the world, Rohingya victims of the decades-long genocide wrought by Myanmar were allowed to testify in a court of law. The women, who dialled in from their current homes in refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, spoke of how they had been victims of sexual violence by soldiers in Chuk Pyin, Rakhine State, in 2017. For Rohingya – and people in Myanmar anywhere who have suffered at the hands of the military – it was a momentous occasion. Adding to the symbolism was the fact that the hearing took place just one week before 25 August, the fourth anniversary of the brutal “clearance operations” in 2017, when the Tatmadaw (Myanmar military) and its proxies killed thousands and drove close to 800,000 Rohingya to flee into Bangladesh. The hearing of course also took place little more than six months after the Tatmadaw’s coup on 1 February, and as such was significant not just to address crimes of the past, but also violations by the same military still happening this very day in Myanmar. The court hearing was part of the universal jurisdiction case brought by the Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK (BROUK) to Argentina in November 2019. We have written about our decision to petition for universal jurisdiction case in Argentina for Opinio Juris before, as well as how the case has progressed through the Argentinian judiciary. By way of quick summary: the case was initially rejected by the Court of First Instance, mainly over concerns that it would overlap with the investigation announced by the International Criminal Court. On appeal, however, the Federal Criminal Appeal Court in Buenos Aires in May 2020 overturned the rejection, ruling that more information should be sought from the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC. The hearing on 18 August was the latest stage of this process, where the Appeal Court heard arguments for and against taking up the case. The fact that Rohingya victims – which also included Tun Khin himself – were allowed to testify in a court of law was hugely significant to a community that has fought for justice for generations. The bravery of the women, whose names were withheld to protect their identities, cannot be overstated, not least since sexual violence is often considered taboo in the conservative Rohingya culture, and brings risk of social stigma. Despite this, the women spoke movingly about the horrific violence they had both witnessed – including the killing of their husbands – and been subjected to. Similarly, one of us, Tun Khin, testified despite facing threats which have resulted in him being afforded protection by the office of the UN Special rapporteur Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. The Appeal Court should be commended for allowing such testimony to form part of the hearing. The Court also dedicated significant resources to making it a reality, including by providing “double translation” from Rohingya to English, and then from English into Spanish. It should also be noted that this is the same Appeal Court that in May 2020 overturned the initial rejection of the case, meaning its judges were well-informed of the situation facing the Rohingya, and had seen the value in consulting further with the ICC. In terms of the substance of the arguments discussed, they covered a wide range of issues, including the potential of a universal jurisdiction case in Argentina duplicating the investigation currently ongoing at the ICC. Over the past year, in official diplomatic communication between the Office of the Prosecutor (OOP) of the ICC and the Argentinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the OOP has clarified that – because Myanmar is not a party to the Rome Statute – it is only investigating crimes which have at least partly been committed on Bangladeshi territory. The ICC investigation therefore does not include a range of crimes committed by the Tatmadaw inside Rakhine State, including murder, enforced disappearances and sexual violence, including that described by the Rohingya witnesses during the hearing. The massive sexual violence perpetrated by the Tatmadaw and its proxies in Rakhine State is something that should be prioritised by international justice processes. It is crucial that such crimes are not only investigated and addressed, but that such processes respect the specific needs of victims who have suffered such abuse. Based on this response from the OOP, it is in our opinion clear that the case brough BROUK would not duplicate efforts in the Hague, but instead complement and add significantly to this case. Related to this, during the hearing we also stressed the fact that a case in Argentina would also be manifestly different to the genocide case The Gambia brought against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice. That case, while hugely significant, addresses intra-state responsibility, while a case in Argentina would examine individual criminal responsibility, including of senior Tatmadaw officials. Another issue raised by representatives of the Court of First Instance was whether conditions currently exist inside Myanmar for independent and impartial prosecution of perpetrators of crimes against the Rohingya. While in May 2019 seven soldiers were convicted for the killing of 10 Rohingya men, they were tried in military courts, where any further such cases are also likely to be trialled. International human rights law is clear on the fact that military courts do not meet the requisite standards of fairness and impartiality in these cases. It was also discussed whether Myanmar’s own Independent Commission of Enquiry (ICOE) could be seen as a domestic route to accountability. ICOE released a report in January 2020 which admitted that “war crimes and serious human rights violations” had been committed in Myanmar but denied crimes against humanity or an ongoing genocide. It also claimed that crimes had been committed by rogue soldiers acting without their superiors’ knowledge. The UN Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar has, however, clearly stated that ICOE – which is not a judicial body – “will not and cannot provide a real avenue for accountability”. It is also notable that no judicial proceedings in Myanmar are known to have been opened after the ICOE report was published. The fact that the OOP decided to open an investigation, and that the Independent International Investigative Mission on Myanmar (IIMM) was established in 2020, is further evidence of a lack of confidence in ICOE’s ability to contribute to any meaningful justice process. Of course, the Tatmadaw’s coup in February 2021 makes domestic justice an even more remote possibility. A further argument put forward by the Court of First Instance representatives was that for a universal jurisdiction case to be launched in a country, that country needs to have some sort of link to the region where the crimes were committed – be they political, cultural or historical. We believe this is an unfounded argument. Universal jurisdiction rests on the principle that some crimes, including crimes against humanity and genocide, can be tried anywhere in the world. In Argentina, a universal jurisdiction case does not require that the victim of the defendant are present in its territory. The seriousness of such crimes means that they concern humanity as a whole, and no other “connection” is needed than the fact that they have been committed in the first place. During the hearing, we furthermore stressed that a universal jurisdiction case in Argentina would not be an ad hoc or arbitrary occurrence, that illegally interfere in Myanmar’s domestic jurisdiction. Rather, it would form part of a wider strategy developed by the United Nations to seek justice according to international law for the decades-long effort to destroy the Rohingya as a people. The FFM, for instance, specifically called on states to pursue their own universal jurisdiction cases as part of wider efforts to bring responsible Myanmar officials to justice. In our case, the IIMM has also expressed open support for a case in Argentina, and has committed to share resources and information if the case moves forward. We also stressed that a universal jurisdiction case is not just about holding those responsible to account, but also about meeting the victims’ rights to obtain justice. This is a right that is increasingly emphasised in international human rights law and also enshrined in the Argentinian domestic legal framework. Finally, we want to stress that the coup in February has changed the significance of our case. There are cautious signs of a change in discourse in Myanmar. Tun Khin and many other Rohingya have been inundated on social media with messages from mainly ethnic Bamar people apologising for spreading hatred against the Rohingya. Some, like the family members of medical students, have even issued official apologies. The military’s brutality since the coup – more than 1,000 people killed and thousands more arbitrarily arrested – has been shocking, and likely amounts to crimes against humanity. As such, a universal jurisdiction case in Argentina is not just about Rohingya, but about all people in Myanmar who have suffered at the hands of the Tatmadaw, before and after the coup. In terms of next steps, we are now eagerly awaiting a final decision by the Appeal Court on whether a case can proceed in Argentina. If it does, it will be the first ever universal jurisdiction case regarding of the situation of Rohingya anywhere in the world. We hope that, in the not-too-distant future, we will be able to celebrate another historic milestone in the Rohingyas’ struggle for justice.

Top Rohingya Refugee Leader Mohibullah Shot Dead in a Camp in Bangladesh

DHAKA, Bangladesh — An international representative of ethnic Rohingya refugees was shot to death in a camp in Bangladesh by unknown gunmen late Wednesday, police said. Mohibullah, who is in his 40s, was a teacher who emerged as a key refugee leader and a spokesman representing the Muslim ethnic group in international meetings. He visited the White House in 2019 for a meeting on religious freedom with then-President Donald Trump and spoke about the suffering and persecution faced by Rohingya in Myanmar. That same year, he was bitterly criticized by Bangladeshi media after he led a massive rally of 200,000 refugees to mark the second anniversary of the crackdown by Myanmar’s military that caused about 700,000 Rohingya, including Mohibullah, to flee to neighboring Bangladesh. The unidentified attackers shot Mohibullah at the Kutupalong refugee camp at Ukhiya in Cox’s Bazar district, said Naimul Haque, an commander of the Armed Police Battalion in Cox’s Bazar. He was rushed to a hospital where he was declared dead. No groups claimed responsibility and it was not clear immediately who was behind the attack. Human Rights Watch called Mohibullah a vital voice for the Rohingya community. “He always defended the rights of the Rohingya to safe and dignified returns and to have a say in the decisions concerning their lives and future. His killing is a stark demonstration of the risks faced by those in the camps who speak up for freedom and against violence,” Meenakshi Ganguly, the rights group’s South Asia director, said in a statement. “Mohibullah’s death undermines not only the struggle of Rohingya refugees for greater rights and protection in the refugee camps, but also their efforts to safely return to their homes in Myanmar. Bangladesh authorities should urgently investigate Mohibullah’s killing along with other attacks on Rohingya activists in the camps,” she said. Amnesty International urged Bangladeshi authorities and the U.N. Refugee Agency to work together to ensure the protection of people in the camps, including refugees, activists and humanitarian workers from both the Rohingya and local community, many of whom have shared concerns about their safety. “His killing sends a chilling affect across the entire community,” said Saad Hammadi, Amnesty International’s South Asia Campaigner. Overall, Bangladesh has been sheltering more than 1.1 million Rohingya refugees from Myanmar after previous waves of persecution.

Afghanarchism: What American Radicals Can Learn From the Pashtuns BY NICKY REID

There is a narrative commonly held by observers in the west that the Afghans are a people defined by perpetual warfare. Like many stereotypes, this one comes with a cornel of truth. After all, the people of Afghanistan just got done throttling the bare hind quarters of the greatest empire Satan ever devised for the last twenty years with little more than rusty Soviet junk and raw grit. The rural highlands of southern Afghanistan have certainly fostered a distinctly martial culture that has aided its people in resisting generations of conquest, but to simply sum these people up by the wars they’ve fought completely misses the context of why they fight and what they were fighting for. You see the Afghan people, in particular the Pashtuns who have made up the bulk of the Taliban, are a people who simply refuse to be ruled by anyone or anything besides their own distinctly stateless culture. The Pashtuns of Afghanistan’s rugged borderlands are essentially anarchists and their successful centuries old resistance to conquest didn’t begin with the Soviets or the British or even Alexander the Great. It began with the first taxman sent by a local emir to those mountains, who was returned riddled with bullets for his trouble. The rugged mountainous region now separated superficially by the Durand Line forming the border between what is now modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan has always been a distinctly wild country populated by hard men who love their rifles and hate being told what to do. This region was traditionally known as Yaghistan which roughly translates to the land of lawlessness and rebellion. But this title was clearly bestowed upon the rural Pashtuns by another simple minded outsider, for even though these people are certainly stateless, they are anything but lawless. Pashtun society is governed by a strict code of honor known as Pashtunwali, or the way of the Pashtuns, which is upheld by decentralized local councils of elders and religious figures known as Jirgas. For centuries it has been the Jirgas and the Jirgas alone which have governed the land of lawlessness by settling disputes among the tribes. Every other form of rule has been stubbornly rejected and successfully resisted. No single entity has ever managed to hold a monopoly on the use of force in those mountains and many have tried. It wasn’t until the 1940s, with advent of tanks and aerial bombardment in the region, that a central Afghan state was even able to successfully quell a tribal uprising and this fire superiority only gave Kabul the upper hand for a few decades before the Pashtuns could outfox them. This is the real reason why 99% of all Afghan central governments, be they foreign or domestic, have failed, and this is why the Taliban has, against all logical odds, succeeded twice in consolidating power against seemingly insurmountable opposition. Despite this motley crew’s crude brand of cruelty, they have always respected the rural Pashtun’s iron will to rule themselves. And the Pashtuns in kind have found the Taliban’s unique services to be quite useful. The Pashtuns view of the state is remarkably similar to that of their fellow Islamic anarchists in Somalia’s short lived Islamic Courts Union. They will tolerate the existence of a central power provided that it is purely used as a voluntary means of neutral conflict resolution. The Pashtuns come to the government, and never the other way around, solely for judicial reasons, to seek an impartial third party to judge tribal disputes and prevent permanent warfare, and even then they do not seek out the traditional carceral role of a conventional western justice system, but merely a means of conflict resolution. It is only at the behest of the Pashtun anarchist Jirgas that the Taliban exists, not the other way around, and the Taliban knows it. The only reason these tribal renegades don’t seek to overthrow power in Kabul is because they don’t need to. Through pure force of will they have rendered the state totally irrelevant to their way of life and this is a phenomenal achievement. This is not to say that Yaghistan is some kind of utopia. I did not choose to write this piece as a blind defense of some romanticized western view of the noble savage. Rural Pashtun society is rough and cruel. They have little respect for women and absolutely no use for Queer people like myself. Like many societies in Central Asia, theirs is rife with deep seated rivalries and seemingly endless blood feuds. But none of these flaws can take away from the fact that those people have made an astonishing achievement simply by existing as they do. The Pashtuns have succeeded where anarchists from Catalonia to Ukraine have failed. They have remained unruled for centuries under the constant bombardment of violent state meddlers of every conceivable variety. Kabul has been occupied by monarchs, communists, and capitalists and the borderlands have remained anarchist. I can’t help but to be inspired by this magnificent achievement and yet most of my fellow left anarchists are too consumed with identity politics to see these people as anything but backwoods savages in desperate need of western anarchist condescension to cure them of their evil ways. I don’t like the Pashtun approach to most social issues myself but for me, as an American transwoman, to assume I have the solutions to these specifically indigenous problems is nothing short of intellectual colonialism and only serves to further highlight why so many bougie white westerners have failed where the Pashtuns have succeeded. Internationalism is a convenient distraction from local autonomy. So how do we do it? How can first world anarchists succeed like the Pashtuns have? What is the secret to their success and could it ever translate to the modern world? I believe that, at least on some level, it can. The Pashtuns have succeeded against all odds because they have constructed a culture defined by statelessness where as many others have developed cultures defined by subjugation. Anarchism is more than just politics to them, it is a way of life as old as the mountains themselves. This kind of deeply cultural anarchism can’t be manufactured. A bunch of white kids can’t just grow beards and move to the mountains. But many, if not most pre-existing cultures, even in the metropolitan wastelands of the west, have their own unique stateless roots that can and should be tapped into. This is particularly true in the live-free-or-die countryside of rural America. We need to foster our own unique spirit of independence tied to our own local cultures and the distinct bioregions that defined them. This could be something as old as the hillbillies of Appalachia or the Mormon pioneers of the Deseret. For me it’s something as post-modern as my fellow Queer hicks in the rural Rustbelt, and it could be something even more niche than that, so long as it’s authentic and it has local roots. It should always be remembered that there is nothing Kropotkin can teach you that the land can’t teach better. From there we don’t so much as rebel as we simply live. The Pashtuns never waited for some grand revolution to smash the state, they simply existed in spite of it like the Amish with Kalashnikovs. The new tribes of American anarchism need to do the same by creating parallel institutions that provide alternatives to the resources the state uses to blackmail and control us. We need our own currency, our own economy, our own schools, militias, agriculture, and perhaps above all else, judicial systems. One thing the Pashtuns learned long ago that is universal is that we do not exist for the state, the state exists for us, and it’s only as powerful as we decide it should be. As for the Afghan people themselves back in the war torn Hindu Kush, I’m not worried. They’ve survived far worse things than the collapse of another foolish imperial project. The Taliban are bastards and the Chinese can be every bit as rapacious as any western empire, but the Pashtuns don’t need them. If the Taliban becomes foolish enough to believe that Afghanistan can be an actual country like their assimilationist neighbors and Beijing becomes greedy enough to try to mine those mountains for smartphone making minerals, they have a history lesson to learn and the Pashtuns will be more than happy to teach it to them. Nicky Reid is an agoraphobic anarcho-genderqueer gonzo blogger from Central Pennsylvania and assistant editor for Attack the System. You can find her online at Exile in Happy Valley.

The Official History of the Successful War in Afghanistan BY GARY LEUPP

The quasi-official history of the Afghan War has now be written by cable news house historians. Key elements: 1. The terrorist organization al-Qaeda was headquartered in Afghanistan at the time of 9/11 and so HAD to be destroyed to prevent further attacks on our Homeland. It was a “war of necessity,” as President Obama said as he continued it. The allied forces succeeded in killing hundreds of terrorists and driving al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. And there has not been another 9/11. It was a success. That’s the MAIN point. 2. The Taliban, the organization governing Afghanistan, had been hosting al-Qaeda and was/is itself a terrorist organization. It had to be toppled also, to prevent future terrorist attacks on the Homeland. The allied forces accomplished this goal successfully too, with ease, within weeks. 3. After being overthrown, the Taliban were unexpectedly resilient. They soon regained control of much of the country. More U.S. troops had to be introduced, to protect all the democratic reforms being implemented, and to fight a “counterinsurgency” war against the Taliban rebels “rebels” against the legitimate government we’d set up for them. So tens of thousands of Afghan soldiers were recruited, trained and supplied. This was another success. But the Afghan government was corrupt and incompetent. Our efforts to engender democracy suffered from the people’s unfamiliarity with the process of standing in line to vote for leaders when there were already ones in power. There was mounting contempt for our handpicked leaders like Hamid Karzai. Election turnout was low, the process was drenched in corruption; the 2019 result was contested and even the U.S. rejected its results. U.S.-style “democracy” never took root in Afghanistan. Our efforts to educate women and girls were noble. But they were undermined by not just the Taliban but our warlord friends and by traditional fathers who opposed their daughters’ schooling by secular teachers. Our efforts to discourage the burqa were stymied when we realized most Afghan women had worn the burqa long before the Taliban came along; it was felt appropriate not just by the Taliban but by many of the U.S.’s allies in the counterinsurgency war. (We had perhaps generated too high expectations when we associated the conquest of Afghanistan with the liberation of Afghan women from “the veil” so vilified as a symbol of Taliban brutality even before the war began.) Our efforts to train a modern army didn’t succeed completely because of the poor quality of the recruits, who were often illiterate (unable to read manuals), uneducated (unaware of the heliocentric system), addicted to the ubiquitous hashish and opium, extremely prone to desertion, and increasingly inclined to turn their guns around in “green-on-blue” incidents. Our troops had been told that they were giving the Afghans democracy, and couldn’t understand why the Afghans didn’t seem to want it, or to want them on their soil. We spent trillions of dollars to build a 300,000 man military. Then we were assured by the Afghan officers that they could repulse the 75,000 rag-tag, lightly armed Taliban militants. But the U.S.-trained government forces buckled, showing that billions of dollars and years of U.S. effort at nation-building could not win a war. We did our best, winning every battle, but Afghanistan was too backward to become a democracy like us. 4. The withdrawal was necessary (the expert concludes), because the mission was impossible. The organization of evacuation was flawed because we didn’t have the time we expected because the incompetent Afghan army tanked and crooked Pres. Ashraf Ghani flew off with millions. But hell, we got out 140,000 people in record time! Unfortunately, we were not able to bring out as many translators as we wanted, our beloved allies against the Taliban. Since they may be rounded up and charged with treason—just because they joined us in our fruitless effort to control their country and associate themselves with all the atrocities accompanying that mission—they may even be executed. More than having “U.S. ties,” many participated actively in our military effort to crush those who’ve now regained power. We feel bad for them, embarrassed that we can’t save all those who were loyal to us in the failed war to reshape their country. It is sad too, that so many girls getting an education, learning English, cherishing an American Dream, are left behind. Oh, and sad too about that mistaken drone strike at the very end. The last drone strike of the war was first reported as a successful strike against ISIL-K. Then when observers contacted the press about what they’d seen, the U.S. military was obliged to admit it had been a mistake, killing 7 children, in broad daylight in downtown Kabul. It almost raises questions about how many of the “combatants” killed in drone strikes in less well-observed locations over twenty years were really innocent parents and kids. ***** So the four components of this postwar apologetic are: (1) justification for the ancient assault on the Bora Bora camp that eliminated al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; (2) validation for the separate 20-year war against the Afghani “insurgency” based on the initial (ignorant) conflation of (the Arab-internationalist jihadi terror group) al-Qaeda and the (Pashtun-nationalist, Sunni-fundamentalist, xenophobic) Taliban; (3) attribution of the U.S. failure to remold the country as planned to the ethnic and cultural characteristics of the Afghan people; and (4) remorse that the withdrawal was botched (mostly due to Afghan incompetence) such that tens of thousands of Afghans wanting to leave on evacuation flights were unable to do so. No rethinking, No self-criticism. No regrets about the initial invasion; indeed, the media is back to calling the Taliban “terrorists” thus reminding us of the vapidity of that term as deployed (awarded and retracted) by the U.S. in general. No questioning of the right of the U.S. to topple a government and occupy a country because a terrorist with a few hundred militants living at a remote site had attacked the U.S. No mention—of course!—about how longtime post-Taliban president Hamid Karzai was hand-picked at the U.S.-sponsored Loya Jirga (by U.S. envoy and Paul Wolfowitz protégé Zalmay Kalilzad ) over the popular favorite, the former king. No mention of how U.S. plans for Afghanistan (like those later for Iraq) were rooted in U.S. ignorance of both societies. More than just ignorance. Ignorance of the consequences of ignorance. (Once asked as a political candidate George W. Bush was asked what he wanted “History” to record about him. “History?” smirked the one-time Yale history major, who had graduated with a C average, “We’ll all be dead!”) The U.S. never saw the need to study the history, the context, whether of Afghanistan or Iraq: the point was to use bombs, house raids, firefights, sheer terror, alongside trillions of dollars to build roads, bridges, schools, industries that any normal person would welcome! Why would people be resentful? What could go wrong? Such were the depths of ignorance of the invaders, if they were ever serious in their expectations. (I do recall John Bolton was hoping in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion that any new puppet regime would recognize Israel!) Whatever gave them the idea that with the fall of the Taliban women and girls would flock to schools, learning to read and write as they did in the 1980s, when the Soviet-backed government actually brought up female literacy significantly, especially in Kabul where the burqa became rare and women could walk the streets uncovered.? (As you recall the Soviets withdrew in 1989, “evacuating” thousands of Afghans including these educated women who now perhaps like in Uzbekistan.) Did they not understand that the Taliban aside, Afghan society is extraordinarily conservative, tribal, and patriarchal? And that fathers and brothers have been raised in a system that encourages them to control their female relatives, restrain their ambitions, protect them from heresy and temptation? And that warlords the U.S. was partnering with were deeply misogynistic? The U.S. Occupiers were clueless about Afghan society, Afghan realities. Is it any wonder fine schools were built, just to be torched? And what the hell made them think that they could build a modern 300,000 strong Afghan military? Those bemoaning the abandonment of the girls’ education project should give some thought to the issue of boys’ education in the country. The foreigners failed to instill morale, or even give the troops a clear cause to fight for, other than to repress the Taliban. Yes, they could attract such loyal allies as the translators appearing in cable TV interviews recently; they all have their American dreams. We don’t see interviews with the rank and file government troops that turned over their guard posts cordially to the Talibs, hoping there will finally be real peace. I recall seeing a poll ten years after the end of the Vietnam War, asking, “Was the Vietnam War a heroic cause, or a mistake?” I thought at the time that one could as well ask: “Was the Nazi invasion of Russia a heroic cause, or a mistake?” Neither of the above, obviously. Both were crimes against peace and humanity. The official assessment is that the Afghan War was a heroic cause (how could it not have been, it was waged by the USA!), its main goals were achieved. But it was a mistake to rely on Afghan leadership, to tolerate its investment in the opium trade, It was a mistake to expect to mold illiterate low-motivated troops into a modern army. It was perhaps a mistake to think the U.S. could transform traditional Afghan ideas about gender overnight. (But this is what the official assessment highlights: the transcendent goodness of the U.S. campaign to educate and liberate Afghan women!) The official assessment says nothing about how the Taliban and al Qaeda were fundamentally dissimilar; how the Taliban swept to power after bin Laden was already secure in his camp in 1996; how the relationship with bin Laden expressed Pashtunwali hospitality and recognition of bin Laden’s role in the anti-Soviet war rather than solidarity with international jihad. It downplays the fact that bin Laden and many other al-Qaeda leaders escaped Afghanistan to Pakistan, and that the al-Qaeda killed in Afghanistan were in the low hundreds. But the emerging official history counts the bombing of Tora Bora as a win. The official history still also sees the 2001 toppling of the Taliban as a victory, even though the Taliban left the cities voluntarily after clerics and elders advised them to do so to avoid civilian bombing deaths. And they never disappeared; indeed, they won in the end. This was an abject defeat, like Vietnam. And, like Vietnam, a crime against humanity. That’s the real recent history of the U.S. in Afghanistan, in a nutshell. But lest the masses dwell on the criminality and shamefulness of it all, and the disastrous region-wide regime-change project that has followed, the expert commentators focus of the sad plight of the schoolgirls and the translators who are now unable to leave their country. We are informed that the schoolgirls will be denied further education, even though the Taliban has stated girls will be able to attend schools through a certain level; we are in any case urged to believe the worst, because it makes the Taliban seem that much worse, and somehow better justifies the long U.S. war against them. Translators we’re told need to get out because the Taliban will kill them. I do not know this is the case; I would think some might have skills the Taliban can use. But even if they were to systematically punish collaborators, did not the French resistance do so to citizens cooperating with the German invader? We keep hearing about how the translators “worked for us,” “sided with America,” as these are good things in themselves. Those who note the translators’ service cannot see the war and occupation as a crime and thus cooperation with the invader criminal as well—surely in the eyes of many of the people (not just necessarily the Taliban) of Afghanistan. Thus withdrawal is followed by self-righteousness, self-congratulation, regret at our allies’ interminable incompetence and failure to implement the democracy we gave them, and praise for the efficiency and humanity of the final mission. But then there was (as I wrote this) CENTPAC chief. Gen McKenzie acknowledging that the final drone strike launched by the U.S. (on a Kabul target, Aug. 28) killed 10 civilians including seven children. The military had earlier announced a successful strike against terrorists threatening the evacuation. In the last couple years, drone strikes in Afghanistan greatly intensified and the death toll soared. There have been numerous reports about drone strikes killing civilians in the hinterland, easy to deny. But this attack had been in Kabul, in the clear light of day, caught on multiple cameras. McKenzie had to ‘fess up under the circumstances. But oh, how totally appropriate that the crime end there, with a public apology by the top brass for doing something it was doing from October 2001: killing innocent civilians for no good reason. Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion.

Our 20-year ‘Reign of Terror’, full circle by Daniel Larison

The war on terror is still not over, and Spencer Ackerman’s new book Reign of Terror: How the 9/11 Era Destabilized America and Produced Trump is essential reading for understanding why it persists. Ackerman, one of the best national security reporters of the last twenty years, has traced the post-9/11 growth of the U.S. security state and the expansion of the war on terror that is as endless as it is toxic. He shines a light on the brutality and cruelty of American militarized counterterrorism since 2001, and he is unsparing in identifying the failures of each administration responsible for implementing and persisting in these policies. Reading Reign of Terror is an infuriating but edifying experience as Ackerman reminds us of the countless outrages of the last twenty years from the invasion of Iraq to the attack on the Capitol. Many of the stories he includes are familiar, but Ackerman’s account helps to tie everything together. While he pays close attention to the death and destruction that the United States has inflicted on numerous countries over the last two decades, he also documents how the war warped our system of government, poisoned our political culture, and both fed off of and reinforced the worst elements of our society. The lesson of the last twenty years is that the war on terror cannot be tamed or civilized. It must be shut down once and for all. Until it is, we will be living under a reign of terror. One of the defining features of the war on terror is the complete lack of accountability. The people responsible for ordering and carrying out torture never had to answer for their crimes, and the only Americans that ever paid a personal or professional price were those who blew the whistle on outrageous abuses. During the Obama years, it was taken for granted that it was better not to dwell on the wrongdoing in the past and thus give an effective pass to those officials responsible for our government’s use of torture. Instead of punishing the criminals, the Obama administration accommodated them for fear of provoking partisan backlash and hostility from the security state, thus ensuring that the war on terror became “sustainable” by reducing the number of American casualties and normalizing the killing of people with drone strikes. Perhaps the most significant legacy bestowed by Obama’s presidency was in turning the war on terror into a permanent part of U.S. foreign policy. As the U.S. war in Afghanistan ended in defeat this week, it is useful to remember that there was an opportunity very early in the war to end it on much better terms. Ackerman notes that the Taliban offered terms for a negotiated end to the war in December 2001, just two months after the U.S. intervention began, but the Bush administration wasn’t interested. He quotes Rumsfeld declaring that a “negotiated end” was “unacceptable to the United States.” Ackerman observes, “as a predictable consequence of the United States’ defining its enemy broadly, its focus on ousting the Taliban and installing a new Afghan regime allowed Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to flee. This cost the United States its first chance to win the War on Terror, to the degree the war’s conceptional flaws allowed such a possibility.” As that war went on, it would only get broader and eventually expand under Obama to include “associated forces.” These were groups scattered around the world that could not have had anything to do with attacks that predated their existence. The 2001 authorization for use of military force (AUMF) was construed so broadly that it would even be used to justify military action against the Islamic State, an open rival of Al Qaeda by the time the U.S. started bombing its forces in 2014. “By treating ISIS as indistinct from al-Qaeda,” according to Ackerman, “ [Obama] erased the most salient fact about ISIS.” Now the remnants of ISIS are used by successive administrations to justify open-ended missions in Iraq and Syria. While President Biden rightly ordered the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, he has since justified the decision in part by pointing to the many other groups in Syria, Somalia, and elsewhere that he thinks Washington should now focus its efforts against in the name of counterterrorism. It is one of the many absurdities of the war on terror that the policy of militarized counterterrorism that began 20 years ago after 9/11 will evidently outlast the U.S. commitment in the first theater of the war. The “logic” of this war, such as it is, ensures that it can never really end because its objectives are and have always been fantastical. Despite the official rhetoric and denials of the Bush and Obama administrations, the war on terror always has been an intensely anti-Muslim project that has promoted Islamophobia here and in Europe to the detriment of minority communities that did nothing to warrant the abusive treatment meted out to them. The longer the war on terror drags on, the more toxic and hateful it has become. Trump exploited and encouraged that hatefulness, tapping into nationalist and anti-Muslim attitudes of those Americans who wanted to fight the war on terror even more aggressively. At the same time, “Trump successfully positioned himself as an opponent of the War on Terror simply through his derision of the status quo,” Ackerman notes. “None of his escalations, at home or abroad, undermined that narrative in the eyes of either elite media or his supporters.” Trump was a product of the destabilization throughout the Greater Middle East created by the War on Terror, and then he destabilized the country even more as president. Bush laid the foundations of endless war, Obama institutionalized and normalized it, and Trump exploited it and ultimately turned it against his domestic opponents. Throughout, a cowed and compliant Congress served as a willing rubber stamp for egregious encroachments on civil liberties and a permanent state of emergency that has defined the post-9/11 era. For the most part, media outlets have served as eager cheerleaders for policies that have heavily militarized our foreign policy, subjected religious and ethnic minorities to harassment and abuse, and broken domestic and international law. The existing culture of elite impunity has only grown stronger as architects of illegal wars and the regimes of torture and indefinite detention face no consequences for their crimes. The war on terror summoned up our worst national demons and has let them run amok for a generation. In the process, our government’s policies have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the displacement of millions, and the destabilization of entire regions. As Ackerman conveys very well in this book, America has been destabilized as well, and we will be dealing with the political fallout for a long time to come. The war has left us with neither peace or victory; but only more violence and devastation.

Imran Khan Paints Pakistan as Victim of US Ungratefulness

NEW YORK (AP) — Prime Minister Imran Khan sought to cast Pakistan as the victim of American ungratefulness and an international double standard in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Friday. In a prerecorded speech aired during the evening, the Pakistani prime minister touched on a range of topics that included climate change, global Islamophobia and “the plunder of the developing world by their corrupt elites” — the latter of which he likened to what the East India Company did to India. It was for India's government that Khan reserved his harshest words, once again labeling Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist government “fascist.” But the cricketer turned posh international celebrity turned politician was in turn indignant and plaintive as he painted the United States as an abandoner of both Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan. “For the current situation in Afghanistan, for some reason, Pakistan has been blamed for the turn of events, by politicians in the United States and some politicians in Europe,” Khan said. “From this platform, I want them all to know, the country that suffered the most, apart from Afghanistan, was Pakistan when we joined the U.S. war on terror after 9/11.” He launched into a narrative that began with the United States and Pakistan training mujahedeen — regarded as heroes by the likes of then-President Ronald Reagan, he said — during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. But Pakistan was left to pick up the pieces — millions of refugees and new sectarian militant groups — when the Soviets and the Americans left in 1989. Khan said the U.S. sanctioned its former partner a year later, but then came calling again after the 9/11 attacks. Khan said Pakistan's aid to the U.S. cost 80,000 Pakistani lives and caused internal strife and dissent directed at the state, all while the U.S. conducted drone attacks. “So, when we hear this at the end. There is a lot of worry in the U.S. about taking care of the interpreters and everyone who helped the U.S.,” he said, referring to Afghanistan. “What about us?” Instead of a mere "word of appreciation,” Pakistan has received blame, Khan said. Despite Khan's rhetoric espousing a desire for peace, many Afghans have blamed Pakistan for the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan because of close links. The United Nations in August also rejected Pakistan's request to give its side at a special meeting on Afghanistan, indicating the international community's shared skepticism. In his speech, Khan echoed what his foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, told The Associated Press earlier this week on the sidelines at the U.N.: the international community should not isolate the Taliban, but instead strengthen the current Afghan government for the sake of the people. He struck an optimistic tone about Taliban rule, saying their leaders had committed to human rights, an inclusive government and not allowing terrorists on Afghan soil. But messages from the Taliban have been mixed. A Taliban founder told the AP earlier this week that the hard-liners would once again carry out executions and amputated hands — though this time after adjudication by judges, including women, and potentially not in public. “If the world community incentivizes them, and encourages them to walk this talk, it will be a win-win situation for everyone,” he said. Khan also turned his ire on that same community for what he perceives as a free pass given to India. “It is unfortunate, very unfortunate, that the world’s approach to violations of human rights lacks even-handedness, and even is selective. Geopolitical considerations, or corporate interests, commercial interests often compel major powers to overlook the transgressions of their affiliated countries,” Khan said. He went through a litany of actions that have “unleashed a reign of fear and violence against India’s 200 million strong Muslim community,” he said, including lynchings, pogroms and discriminatory citizenship laws. As in years past, Khan — who favors delivering his speeches in his British-inflected English, in contrast to Modi's Hindi addresses — devoted substantial time to Kashmir. “New Delhi has also embarked on what it ominously calls the ‘final solution’ for the Jammu and Kashmir dispute,” Khan said, rattling off a list of what he termed “gross and systematic violations of human rights” committed by Indian forces. He specifically decried the “forcible snatching of the mortal remains of the great Kashmiri leader, ” Syed Ali Geelani , who died earlier this month at 91. Geelani's family has said authorities took his body and buried him discreetly and without their consent, denying the separatist leader revered in Kashmir a proper Islamic burial. Khan called upon the General Assembly to demand Geelani's proper burial and rites. Kashmir is divided between India and Pakistan and has been claimed by both since they won independence from the British empire and began fighting over their rival claims. He said Pakistan desires peace, but it is India’s responsibility to meaningfully engage.

Israeli Forces Injure 12 Palestinians in Beita, Kafr Qaddum

At least 12 Palestinians were injured on Friday by the Israeli army during clashes in the villages of Beita and Kafr Qaddum in the occupied West Bank, according to the Palestinian Red Crescent (PRC). The official Palestinian news agency WAFA reported that Israeli occupation soldiers fired live gunfire, rubber-coated rounds and stun grenades at Palestinian protesters in Beita, injuring at least eight of them, one of them seriously. Another 18 cases of suffocation from teargas were reported. Some of the protesters also sustained injuries after falling on the ground while being chased by soldiers. Meantime, according to WAFA, four Palestinian protesters were injured by Israeli gunfire during the weekly protest in the village of Kafr Qaddum. For near five months, Palestinians from Beita and neighboring villages have been holding almost daily protests against Israel’s construction of an illegal settlement outpost, Evaytar, on the Jabal Sabih mount, which is adjacent to the village. Several Palestinian protesters have been killed and dozens wounded by Israeli occupation forces during recurrent clashes over the past five months. (WAFA, PC, Social Media)

Palestinian man shot dead by Israeli forces in the West Bank

Israeli security forces have shot dead a Palestinian man in the West Bank during a protest against settlement expansion, the Palestinian health ministry said. The victim was killed after being hit in the head by live fire on Friday, the ministry said, in the flashpoint town of Beita, a scene of regular demonstrations against Israeli settlement expansion. A family member identified the dead man as Mohammed Ali Khabisa, 27. He was taken to hospital in the northern West Bank city of Nablus where he died shortly afterward, the ministry said. Another eight Palestinians were wounded by rubber-coated bullets, the official Palestinian news agency Wafa reported. The Israeli military had no immediate comment when contacted by AFP. Beita residents have been demonstrating since May against the wildcat Jewish settlement outpost of Eviatar, which has been set up nearby without Israeli permission. The outpost was evacuated in early July but Israeli army troops remain stationed there while authorities deliberate on its fate. If the settlement is approved, its founders will be allowed to take up residence more permanently. Beita's residents have vowed to continue their campaign until the army also leaves the outpost. Several protesters have been killed and hundreds wounded in clashes with the Israeli security forces since May. Israel occupied the West Bank during the 1967 war and all Jewish settlements in the territory are considered illegal by most of the international community. Almost half a million people live in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, alongside 2.8 million Palestinians.

the MoD says that there has been one civilian casualty during the RAF bombing campaign in Syria and Iraq against Islamic State during more than 10,000 missions since August 2014. An MoD spokesperson said the amount of compensation paid in each case was determined by a mixture of legal principles as well as local customs and practices. “Every civilian death is a tragedy and the UK always seeks to minimise the risk of civilian casualties through our rigorous targeting processes, but that risk can never be removed entirely,” they added. The MoD has previously said that it has reviewed allegations of SAS involvement in extra judicial executions, and said there was “insufficient evidence for prosecution”. The stakes could not be higher. The full cost of U.S. war-making during the past 20 years is tremendous. The Costs of War, a Brown University Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs project, recently estimated that post‑9/​11 U.S. wars have killed between 897,000 and 929,000 people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and other countries since 2001. The true number may be even higher: One study conducted by Opinion Research Group estimates that more than 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of the Iraq War since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Bombings In 2007, former President George W. Bush started the airstrike campaign in Somalia, and since then at least 254 declared U.S. actions have taken place in the country. Airwars, which took over the work of recording airstrikes from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in 2019, estimates that anywhere between 70 to 143 civilian deaths in Somalia are the result of 31 U.S. separate actions between 2007 and 2021, 18 to 21 of those children. U.S. Forces only concede to five of those civilian casualties, the rest of which are either unacknowledged or claimed to be ​“unsubstantiated.” The current administration has continued this lethal campaign. On July 20, the U.S. military carried out its first airstrike in Somalia under Biden, followed by another airstrike only three days later, a sign that the undeclared war will continue to take lives. U.S. ​“counterterrorism” operations officially began in Yemen in 2009 (although there were other bombings before that), with both the U.S. military and CIA launching airstrikes on the country. Since then, the country has seen possibly over 100 civilian deaths from U.S. airstrikes alone. U.S. forces only concede to 13 civilian deaths, according to Airwars. However, most civilian casualties in Yemen are the result of Saudi-coalition bombings, which began in 2015 and are backed and supported by U.S. intelligence, as well as weaponry sales. After 23,470 coalition air raids, which consist of multiple individual air strikes, nearly 10,000 people were injured and nearly 9,000 dead as a direct result of the Saudi-led campaign. In February 2021, Biden announced that the United States would end offensive support in Yemen while also helping Saudi Arabia ​“defend its sovereignty” against ​“threats from Iranian-supplied forces.” However, the announcement did not come with solid plans shared with Congress, and the Biden administration has failed to share details or plans to distinguish between offensive and defensive aid. The bombings in Somalia and Yemen are just the tip of the iceberg. Based on official U.S. military data, Airwars concluded that the United States has carried out at least 91,340 airstrikes since 9⁄11 in the global ​“War on Terror.” The total number of civilian deaths directly attributed to U.S. airstrikes is estimated to be at least 22,679 but could be as high as 48,308. The data is collected from U.S. operations in Afghanistan since 2006, Iraq from 2003 to 2013, Iraq and Syria from 2014 to 2021, Libya since 2012, and a once-secret drone campaign in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. Overall civilian harm is likely higher because of the collateral consequences of U.S. bombings and other military actions in these regions. Bloated budget Despite withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, the U.S. war budget continues to expand. The watchdog group Public Citizen notes that the Biden administration actually requested a 1.7% increase in overall military spending — for a whopping $753 billion, an increase that is roughly on par with inflation. While some members of Congress resist high levels of military spending, 14 House Democrats recently sided with Republicans to increase the request by almost $25 billion. The primary justification for more spending is the increasingly confrontational stance toward China. Sara Kate Baudhuin of Public Citizen recognized that the requested budget for the Department of Defense would be larger than the budget for the Departments of State, Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency combined. On the topic of defense funding, Brown University’s Costs of War project reported the Pentagon has spent $14 trillion dollars of public funds from 2001to 2021. One-third to one-half of this total went to five weapons companies: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrup Grumman. Investments in defense stocks are now worth almost 10 times what they were when the war in Afghanistan first started. Public Citizen called this out for what it is, saying that ​“The only ​“winner” of the Afghanistan war was the military industrial-complex.” Biden’s proposed budget allocated $15.2 million for a ​“Sea-Launched Cruise Missile,” a nuclear weapon Biden himself called a ​“bad idea” during his campaign. The plans are a remnant of the Trump administration and, while Biden could have cancelled it, his administration has chosen to maintain the project and add to what Kingston Reif, the director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, describes as the U.S. military’s ​“already extensive and growing nuclear arsenal.” The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation calls the project​“a costly solution to a nonexistent problem.” It was eliminated by the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The bloated budget is a continuation of total military spending on the ​“War on Terror.” The Institute of Policy Studies reviewed publicly-available Office of Management and Budget data, reporting that the United States has spent $21 trillion on foreign and domestic militarization, surveillance, and repression between the federal years of 2002 to 2021. Global empire All the while, the United States maintains military bases around the world. Maps of U.S. military presence are not readily available and many bases are intentionally kept secret. There are also many military affiliated spaces that hold U.S. weaponry, but are not deemed official ​“U.S. bases.” David Vine, an anthropologist at American University, said the United States might have ​“800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad.” In 2007, the United States established U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). Since then, U.S. military presence on the continent increased from 2,600 personnel to 7,000 by 2019. Military presence through official and unofficial bases spans the continent from coast to coast. The Intercept, citing official Pentagon records, revealed that, as of 2019, there were 29 verifiable bases across 15 different countries or territories within the AFRICOM ​“area of responsibility,” which covers all countries across the continent besides Egypt. In 2017, it was revealed that U.S. commandos were actively engaged in military action, despite AFRICOM’s claims that they were only providing ​“advice and assistance.” U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), which has an ​“area of responsibility” spanning most of East Asia and the Pacific Island nations, asked Congress for $27 billion in additional funds between 2022 and 2027. The funds are meant to ​“boost deterrence against China,” as Defense News put it, with new missiles, air defenses, radars, supply depots, testing ranges, and more. Communities in the Pacific Ocean are still suffering from the remnants of U.S. military nuclear testing, while the United States is continuing its escalation against China. The network of overseas bases not only creates a harmful presence, but also actively makes conflict and war more likely. Scholar David Vine, in his book The United States of War, explains that after World War II, the United States has had ​“unparalleled military power and an unparalleled global military presence.” Troops are permanently deployed worldwide in strategic locations, ready to further U.S. economic, political and military interests under the threat of violence. SanctionsMeanwhile, the United States is continuing to engage in other forms of warfare such as sanctions targeting Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and other countries in the Global South. U.S. sanctions against Cuba began in the 1960s. In 1992, with the Torricelli Act, U.S. presidents gained the ability to sanction countries that aided Cuba and prohibit foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies from trading with Cuba. In June 2021, a total of 184 countries voted in favor of a resolution to demand the end of the U.S. economic blockade on Cuba — only the United States and Israel voted against. Food and medicine shortages are widespread; this has contributed to the unrest erupting across the country. The island has faced its worst food shortages in 25 years. Cuba’s national food import company, which is vital since it imports 70% to 80% of its food, reported that it lost $45 million because it could not engage in direct transactions with U.S. banks. Even though the United States technically allows the sale of food to Cuba, the tightening of economic sanctions hinders Cuba’s ability to afford adequate food supplies. U.S. officials often say that humanitarian aid is exempt from the sanctions. However, humanitarian exemptions are not very effective in practice. Even though medicine and medical supplies can technically be licensed for export to Cuba, many restrictions and barriers have resulted in a ​“de facto ban on critical medical and other assistance,” a reality taht the American Association for World Health pointed out in 1997 that persists to this day. The conditions governing the licensing process, meanwhile, make export extremely difficult. As for Venezuela, the oil embargo imposed under Trump and maintained under Biden, has been very harmful, since the country receives 90% of its revenue from the oil industry. Like Cuba, Venezuela imports a majority of its food, and the fall in oil production has caused currency devaluation and a contraction of food imports. The reduction in food imports due to sanctions has resulted in the steady worsening of malnourishment over the past six years, with 2.5 million Venezuelans severely food insecure. The United States has also been imposing economic sanctions on Iran, in varying degrees of extremity, since 1979. In 2018, the Trump administration pulled the United States unilaterally out of the Iran nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and re-imposed what it termed ​“maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. The administration tacitly admitted that the sanctions were meant to make people suffer to induce protests. Many Trump-era sanctions remain in place. While U.S. sanctions technically exempt medicine and medical equipment, the fear of secondary sanctions have left many countries that produce Iran’s necessary medicines unable to find banks that are willing to authorize transactions for supplies going to Iran. The most stringent sanctions on Iran’s financial sector have made it nearly impossible to transact in these goods. Even though Iran manufactures 97% of its medicine needs, the 3% that it has traditionally imported include essential treatments for serious diseases like cancer. Covid-19 has also absolutely ravaged the country, with more than 115,000 deaths from February 2020 to mid-September 2021, and Iranian doctors have warned that the sanctions have made the outcomes far worse. Natasha Hakimi Zapata, writing for In These Times, criticizes the United States for imposing sanctions on two-dozen countries ​“from the Balkans to Zimbabwe” as of 2021. Sanctions are a bipartisan project of U.S. imperialism. The Biden administration has maintained the harsh sanctions on Nicaragua, Venezuela, Sudan, and Ukraine from the Trump era, additional sanctions on Cuba, Iran, China, Syria and Russia, and brand-new sanctions on the Balkans,Belarus and Burma. While the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan is the first necessary step in ending the U.S. legacy of violence, much is yet to be uncovered about the true toll of the U.S. invasion and 20-year-occupation. Malalai Joya, a women’s rights and human rights activist and former Afghan Parliamentarian, told Democracy Now! in July, ​“For years I have called for the withdrawal of the foreign occupation from our country… Now it has been proved for our people, as well, that U.S. and NATO were not honest for them… The blood of Afghan people has no value for them.” In addition to pursuing refuge for those fleeing for their lives and reparations for the people of Afghanistan as well as Iraq, it is time to end all U.S. wars, shut down all U.S. military bases, and put an end to U.S. militarization and sanctions impacting countless people in the Global South. We need a reinvigorated anti-war movement led by and taking direction from people of color and those who are directly harmed by U.S. wars and militarization. The people of the Global South cannot afford any more U.S. militarization and violence. It is on us to put a stop to it. The author would like to thank law students Erum Kidwai and Divya Babbula fortheir research support for this article.

UK forces linked to deaths of nearly 300 Afghan civilians

British forces are linked to the deaths of 86 children and more than 200 adult civilians during the Afghanistan conflict, with compensation of just £2,380 paid on average for each life lost, new figures reveal. They are recorded in official Ministry of Defence (MoD) compensation logs, obtained by a series of freedom of information requests. According to the data, the youngest recorded civilian victim was three years old. One of the most serious incidents listed in the records is the award of £4,233.60 to a family following the death of four children who were mistakenly “shot and killed” in an incident in December 2009. Some of the payments amounted to less than a few hundred pounds. In February 2008, one family received £104.17 following a confirmed fatality and damage to a property in Helmand province, while another was compensated £586.42 for the death of their 10-year-old son in December 2009. The data was compiled by Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), which examined the logs to coincide with the withdrawal of western forces from Afghanistan last month culminating in the chaotic airlift from Kabul airport. There is renewed focus on civilian casualties in Afghanistan after the US was forced to admit that a drone strike last month killed 10 civilians including seven children – and not militants from Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), as was first claimed. A “terrible mistake” was made, said Gen Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of US Central Command, as he offered his “profound condolences to the family and friends of those who were killed”. In the British logs, many of the incidents are recorded only briefly. Murray Jones, the author of the research, said: “These files do not make for easy reading. The banality of language means hundreds of tragic deaths, including dozens of children, read more like an inventory.” AOAV estimates 20,390 civilians were killed or injured by international and Afghan forces during the 20-year conflict – although that is one-third of the number killed by the Taliban and other insurgents. A total of 457 British soldiers also died during the period. Overall the compensation logs show £688,000 was paid out by the UK military for incidents involving 289 deaths between 2006 and 2013, the last year of British combat operations in the country, meaning the average compensation paid by the MoD per civilian killed was £2,380. Payments recorded also relate to operations involving the SAS, which has been accused of being involved in the execution of civilians during the conflict. The family of three Afghan farmers allegedly killed in cold blood in 2012 received £3,634 three weeks after the incident. The logs describe the money as an “assistance payment to be made to calm local atmopherics [sic]”. In some cases, payments for property damage were greater than those recorded for the loss of life. During 2009-10, the MoD awarded compensation of £873 for a damaged crane and £662 for the death of six donkeys “when they wandered on to the rifle range”. The payout data is one of the few ways to establish how many civilians were likely to have been killed by British forces in Afghanistan, as the MoD has said in response to other freedom of information requests that it does not hold any figures centrally. British officials say that efforts are routinely made to minimise the impact of military operations on civilians. But in other contexts the UK has only made limited admissions: the MoD says that there has been one civilian casualty during the RAF bombing campaign in Syria and Iraq against Islamic State during more than 10,000 missions since August 2014. An MoD spokesperson said the amount of compensation paid in each case was determined by a mixture of legal principles as well as local customs and practices. “Every civilian death is a tragedy and the UK always seeks to minimise the risk of civilian casualties through our rigorous targeting processes, but that risk can never be removed entirely,” they added. The MoD has previously said that it has reviewed allegations of SAS involvement in extra judicial executions, and said there was “insufficient evidence for prosecution”.

Book Review: Refugee: Unsettled as I Roam: My Endless Search for a Home by Azmat Ashraf

Last night, I came across the book, Unsettled as I Roam: My Endless Search for a Home. It is written by Azmat Ashraf whom I had the pleasure of knowing as a fellow cadet at Ayub (later renamed Rajshahi) Cadet College for four years (1966-1970) before he graduated in 1970, a year before the birth of Bangladesh in an ocean of blood, mostly of the innocents on all the sides of the divide. He was a year senior to me. His two younger brothers Hasnat and Hannan were also students there whom I had known. But we came from two different divides of the 1971 tragedy. He came from the minority Bihari background, and I was a Bangladeshi (whose parents did not have to be a refugee from India). Soon after the liberation of Bangladesh, when the classes resumed in early 1972, and I reported back to the cadet college campus to complete my last year of the pre-college/university academic (HSC) program, I learnt of the tragedy suffered by many of our cadets, including those of our (so-called) Bihari (Urdu-speaking) friends, seniors and juniors. Hasnat miraculously survived, but his younger brother Hannan was mercilessly killed by the Bengalis during the 1971 liberation war. I met Hasnat many years later in the USA in the early 1990s when he visited NY to meet some of our old common friends of the ORCA. I had also come there to meet him. But I did not have the strength to ask Hasnat about his tragedy in the then East Pakistan, as if the least said the better. Azmat Ashraf, in his book, has detailed the tragedy of the Ashraf family in a superb, captivating way. I could not stop reading the book until it was too late at night. And even then I did not have a good sleep last night, haunted by the trauma that his family went through. He details his personal tragedy and provides info that are important for all of us to know so that we are prepared to avoid a repeat of such a tragedy. As a human rights activist, I am well aware of the fact that all the refugees have their own stories about why and how they became refugees. It is often the tragic circumstances back home, which have forced them to migrate. But I don't know too many of the refugees that had to change their home countries six times, hoping to be safe. And this is what has happened to Azmat Ashraf. I wish I could meet him and personally say that "I am sorry" for the crimes of my (Bengali-speaking) people against his family, who spoke Bengali, by the way, fluently. His family members need not die for the conspiracies and crimes concocted at the top! As our world sees the influx of refugees, I hope we all empathize with them and do the needful to help. There is surely nothing better than prevention. I recommend this book strongly for all our readers. Link: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1525563831?pf_rd_r=QGNTFCCMWHA7ZVFF6G16&pf_rd_p=8fe9b1d0-f378-4356-8bb8-cada7525eadd&pd_rd_r=779021ab-b0ba-4bde-8b88-196cf84551ff&pd_rd_w=jQl5E&pd_rd_wg=uY26c&ref_=pd_gw_unk

Revisiting U.S. Policy in Myanmar

WRITTEN BY Michael Martin Myanmar, also known as Burma, is locked in a political impasse in which neither Senior General Min Aung Hlaing’s State Administrative Council (SAC) nor the self-declared National Unity Government (NUG) can effectively govern the nation. Meanwhile, the country’s decades-old civil war continues to spread and intensify. On September 7, the NUG’s acting president, Duwa Lashi La, called for a “revolt against the rule of military terrorists led by Min Aung Hlaing in every corner of the country.” SAC spokesperson General Zaw Min Tun dismissed the announcement, referring to the NUG as “extremists.” Some of the nation’s ethnic armed organizations (EAOs), people’s defense forces (PDFs), and civil society organizations that have sustained the anti-SAC protests have reportedly expressed support for the NUG’s call for revolution. Myanmar is shifting from being a failed state to a warring state. It is too early to tell how much Myanmar’s civil war will intensify in the weeks ahead. Many, but not all, of the country’s more than 20 EAOs will likely increase their attacks on bases and forces belonging to Myanmar’s military, known as the Tatmadaw. Virtually all of the estimated 150 PDFs that have formed since the Tatmadaw deposed the civilian side of the hybrid civilian-military Union Government on February 1 can be expected to join the revolt. However, the resulting armed struggle is unlikely to be well coordinated and may lack a clear overall strategy for defeating Min Aung Hlaing and the SAC. The Tatmadaw will attempt to exploit what it perceives as weaknesses in the anti-SAC alliance. The nation’s political impasse and intensifying civil war are both indicators that current U.S. policy in Myanmar has been ineffective in the seven months since the military coup. U.S. efforts to promote the “restoration of democracy” and an end of violence in Myanmar have shown little evidence of progress. The September 8 statement by an unnamed State Department spokesperson, who said, “The United States does not condone violence as a solution to the current crisis in Burma and calls on all sides to remain peaceful,” appears out of touch with the real situation in the country. It is time for the Biden administration and Congress to revisit U.S. policy in Myanmar and to develop a strategy that is consistent with the current political and military situation in the nation. First, the escalation of violence in Myanmar has generated thousands of new refugees in India and Thailand, as well as tens of thousands of internally displaced persons (IDPs) inside the country, who are in desperate need of basic humanitarian assistance. So far, the governments in India and Thailand have resisted international efforts to provide coordinated aid to the new refugees. The United States should apply pressure on both governments to allow international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) greater access to the refugees and lead a multiparty campaign to finance the effort. The humanitarian assistance to refugees and IDPs should be channeled directly to the INGOs, without the involvement of the SAC or the NUG. Neither the SAC nor the NUG have the capability or the willingness to impartially deliver the necessary aid. Organizations that have past experience in providing aid to Burmese refugees and IDPs, such as The Border Consortium in Thailand, should be utilized when possible. Congress and the Biden administration should also consider working with some of the EAOs to deliver humanitarian assistance to IDPs in areas they control. Additional humanitarian assistance to these refugees and IDPs should not come at the expense of the nearly one million Rohingya refugees who remain in Bangladesh four years after the genocidal attack launched by the Tatmadaw. Although conditions in the camps in Cox’s Bazar have improved a bit, the plight of the Rohingyas remains severe and the refugees should not be allowed to suffer from “assistance fatigue” by the international community. Second, the United States should significantly intensify and broaden the current sanctions imposed on Myanmar’s military leaders and senior SAC officials. The Treasury Department’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) list contains 71 persons or entities currently subject to financial restrictions under President Joe Biden’s Executive Order 14014, including the Tatmadaw-controlled Myanmar Economic Corporation Limited (MEC) and the Myanma Economic Holdings Public Company Limited (MEHL). The targeted sanctions imposed to date are much too narrow and limited to have any appreciable impact. Congress or the Biden administration should broaden these sanctions to include a ban on all trade and investment with entities owned or controlled by the Tatmadaw, its senior officers, or supporters of the SAC. Some observers fear that broader sanctions will harm the people of Myanmar more than the military. This view overlooks several aspects of Myanmar’s current economic situation. Very little of the profits generated by military-controlled companies, such as MEC and MEHL, trickle down to the people of Myanmar. Since the military coup, people have turned to the nation’s massive “gray economy” to survive, which will insulate them from the effects of the proposed sanctions. By contrast, the broader sanctions will likely starve the SAC and the Tatmadaw of the necessary funding to continue to finance the war effort. Finally, in numerous media reports, representatives of the anti-SAC organizations have repeatedly called for the imposition of more sanctions. Presumably, they are in a better position to judge the possible impact of the sanctions. In addition, the United States should utilize existing laws to prevent the use of U.S. financial institutions to provide financial services to facilitate trade or investment with sanctioned persons or entities. In particular, the governments of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Thailand should be told that they risk the loss of access to the U.S. banking system if they provide financial services for trade and/or investment with Tatmadaw-controlled entities or senior Tatmadaw officers. Third, the State Department should reestablish public ties to the EAOs, as well as open direct communications with the leaders of the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM)—the nationwide effort to deprive the junta of its ability to govern via mass strikes and protests—and the various PDFs. The goal would be to better understand their political goals and seek means of advancing them. Since the palace coup, the State Department has been too focused on discussions with the NUG and the SAC. The political landscape in Myanmar is much broader than those two entities, and public meetings by senior State Department officials with the EAOs, the PDFs, and the CDM would demonstrate U.S. awareness of the complex political reality in Myanmar and possibly facilitate cooperation among the various anti-SAC organizations. Representatives of several of the EAOs frequently meet in Chiang Mai, Thailand. A high-profile visit by Secretary of State Antony Blinken to meet with the EAOs would send a strong signal to the world that the United States is exploring all options to overturn the coup and restore civilian rule in Myanmar. Similarly, the U.S. ambassador and his staff could meet with representatives of the CDM and the PDFs in secure locations in Yangon and other cities to learn more about what they would like to see the United States and the international community do to help their cause. For many years, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has successfully maintained relations with both the Tatmadaw and many of the EAOs, giving the PRC significant leverage in Myanmar, although neither the Tatmadaw nor the EAOs particularly like the PRC. One of the weaknesses of U.S. policy in Myanmar over the last decade was the limited interaction with the EAOs, which undermined the image of the United States among Myanmar’s ethnic minorities. Fourth, the United States should aggressively lead a global ban on military assistance, including arms and training, to the Tatmadaw, the Myanmar Police Force, and pro-SAC security forces in Myanmar. In addition, Congress should pass legislation banning military assistance to Myanmar’s security forces, as the current U.S. arms embargo is based on executive action. The PRC, Russia, and Ukraine are likely to oppose such a ban, but strong U.S. leadership on the issue would likely secure support from U.S. allies and friends, as well as demonstrate to the people of Myanmar who are their friends and who are not. Fifth, President Biden or Secretary Blinken should at long last declare the Tatmadaw’s 2017 attack on the Rohingya as an act of genocide and crimes against humanity. In addition, the statement should also indicate that similar acts of violence against ethnic minorities in the states of Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon, and Shan committed by the Tatmadaw and Myanmar’s security forces over the last 60 years, including since the coup, also constitute genocide, crimes against humanity, and/or war crimes. As part of this declaration, the State Department should provide to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Prosecutors Office of the International Criminal Court (ICC) the evidence it collected in 2018, and pledge U.S. support for efforts to prosecute Burmese officials culpable for these crimes in the ICC, ICJ, or some other form of international tribunal. Sixth, Congress should pressure President Biden to nominate a candidate for the position of “special representative and policy coordinator for Burma,” as provided for by Section 7 of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta’s Anti-democratic Efforts) Act of 2008, and the Senate should consider confirmation of the appointment. The ambassador-level position has been allowed to remain vacant since Derek Mitchell was confirmed as U.S. ambassador to Myanmar in 2012. Under the current circumstances, the appointment of a new special representative and policy coordinator for Burma would facilitate the coordination of interagency policy on Myanmar, centralize efforts to organize multiparty opposition to the Tatmadaw’s coup, and improve communications with Congress on framing U.S. policy in Myanmar, including improved oversight and possible new legislation—all duties mentioned in the JADE Act. Michael F. Martin is an adjunct fellow (non-resident) with the Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

Germany’s New Neo-Nazis: The Reichsbürger BY THOMAS KILKAUER – MEG YOUNG

Only a few weeks ago, a Reichsbürger in Germany shot a police officer with a crossbow during a house’s search in a remote town called Linden, in the north of Hessen. The Reichsbürger is accused of attempted manslaughter and he was sent to prison until his court hearing. Violent attacks by the right-wing extremist Reichsbürger are nothing out of the ordinary in Germany. Germany’s antisemitic and semi-fascistic Reichsbürger, also known as sovereign citizens – were at the forefront when a mob of right-wing extremists attacked Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag in August 2020. Like many other right-wing extremists, Reichsbürger too, use anti-lockdown rallies as cover to conjure up supports for its reactionary ideology. At Germany’s parliament, three policemen were fighting the crowd of Reichsbürger, Neo-Nazis, anti-vaxxers, and tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy fantasies believers until reinforcements arrived preventing a German version of what has happened in Washington in January 2021. At the Bundestag, the Reichsbürger waved Germany’s black-white-red imperial flag which signifies the Reich. A few days before their attack, Reichsbürgers and QAnon supports had already announced (falsely) that Donald Trump had landed in Berlin to liberate Germany. Despite the non-appearance of Donald Trump, German Reichsbürgers regarded their rally as a success. With stunts like these, the Reichsbürgers continue to receive high levels of public attention. One reason for the publicity surrounding the Reichsbürger was the murder of a police officer in Georgensgmünd by a so-called Reich-citizen. Reichsbürgers tend to be well-armed and extremely violent. On that day, police had stormed the gunman’s house confiscating his 31 firearms. The man had marked his property with a yellow line and a sign saying, Regierungsbezirk Wolfgang – Reich area Wolfgang (his name). Reichsbürger Wolfang then shot a police officer and injured several others – one of them fatally. Reichsbürger Wolfgang was sentenced to life in prison. Ideologically, Reichsbürger rejects the legitimacy and sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany. Some even think that Germany is still at war and currently occupied by Allied Forces – perhaps even “alien” (!) forces. Hallucinations like these are encouraged by the lack of a formal peace treaty after WWII. Some Reichsbürger even claim that Germany is running some secret power behind the Allies. Worse, Reichsbürger are also convinced that Germany is actually a company – a kind of Germany Ltd. Accordingly to this conspiracy fantasy, only private and business law – not state law – applies to Germans. As a consequence of all this, the German Reich continues to be the lawful state representing all Germans. Hence, there is a strong belief in the Reich and to be citizens of that Reich, i.e. Reichsbürger. Of course, out of this comes the phantasm that Reichsbürgers must act to restore the Reich, the 4th Reich, after Hitler’s III. Reich. Other Reichsbürgers believe that they can, individually, leave the Federal Republic. As a consequence, they declare themselves to be “individual sovereigns”. Some Reichsbürgers even have their own state often ornamented with fanciful, mythical, Germanic, and right-wing names. Moreover, some Reichsbürgers are driven by the actions of the self-proclaimed Reich Chancellor Wolfgang Ebel – the original Reichsbürger. During a several Berlin court cases, Ebel formed an imperial Reichs-ideology that eventually became the guiding ideology of the Reichsbürger. Later, Eibel claimed to have been informed by Allied intelligence officers. These officers had entrusted Eibel with the task of changing Germany towards the Reich. Subsequently, Ebel pretends to be Supreme Commander of the German Reich, the Minister of Transport (for some reason), and Reich-chancellor of Germany’s Reichs-Government in-Waiting. It is a government which he founded, of course. For the antisemitic Reichs-Commander Ebel, the Federal Republic of Germany is an illegal association working as a cover-up for a Jewish-Masonic conspiracy. Since today’s Germany is illegal and until the Reich comes, Reichsbürger should not have to pay taxes, any fees, and fines issued by the state. As expected, this has led to numerous legal disputes. Reichsbürger, and Ebel in particular, are much feared by Germany’s bureaucracy. They tend to send pages after pages of longwinded and semi-delusional justifications for the non-existence of the Federal Republic of Germany. As the true Reichs-government, they issued death sentences, preferably against German civil servants because of their treason and because they work for an illegal state. In addition, Reichsbürgers offer paid courses in which they inform often rather naïve and unsuspecting people about the true legal situation in today’s illegal Germany. Thankfully, Reichsbürger sells official Reichs-documents such as Rechs-passports and Reichs-driver’s licenses. Reichsbürgers believe these are real documents. Yet, the recent growth of the Reichsbürger has led to tensions within its organisation leading to several internal splits. This process continues. A recent report by Germany’s secret service lists about 20,000 Reichsbürger in Germany – up from 19,000 the year before. Among them are about 1,000 Reichsbürger classified as extremely dangerous and violent right-wing extremists. On online platforms like Telegram – the Reichsbürger Channel – more than 60,000 subscribers are listed. This makes it clear that their support is much stronger than the officially counted Reichsbürger. The right-wing milieu from which Ebel originated – also describing himself as sovereignist – provides a unifying ecosystem and ideology spiced up with conspiracy fantasies. The term “sovereignist” might also be suitable when describing Reichsbürger. Beyond that, Reichsbürger also operate in a transnational contexts. The term Reichsbürger tends to narrow one’s view to a German and Austrian specific ideology. Yet, many conspiracy ideologies like those of the Reichsbürger are closely linked, in terms of history, with anti-Semitism, right-wing extremism, and of course, Nazism. These reach far beyond the confines of Germany and Austria. Like Neo-Nazism, the Reichsbürger too, believe that the Federal Republic of Germany is oppressing the German people. Almost self-evidently, their freeing of Germans includes a return to Kasier’s Reich or to Hitler’s Reich and the Nazi Volksgemeinschaft. The word Volksgemeinschaft almost automatically means the exclusion of all non-Aryan, and, in its final consequence, Auschwitz. Some of today’s Reichsbürger used to be members of Germany’s established Neo-Nazi party, the NPD. Of course, the NPD was taken over by the most successful Neo-Nazi party of post-Nazi Germany, the AfD. Many inside the AfD also long for the past days of a German Reich. In a similar vein, today’s Reich-Chancellor Wolfgang Ebel also believes in restoring the German Empire – whether the Kaiser’s Reich or Hitler’s Reich or a mixture of both. Until their militarism can start taking over Germany and, subsequently, start conquering again, Reichsbürgers will have to confine their imperial ambitions to the territory of the German state. As such, Reichsbürger, just like the AfD, Germany’s right-wing populists, the Identitarian Movement, and Neo-Nazis, are part of Germany’s so-called new right. Reichsbürger do not just superficially talk about Hitler’s Nazi Reich. They actively lament on the lack of sovereignty of Germany while pining for a return to the heroic Reich. Reichsbürgers openly proclaim the establishment of the German Empire. Many Reichsbürgers live in the ideological tradition of nationalism, chauvinism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, tradition conspiracy ideologies – pretty much the standard fare of German right-wing extremism. Crucially, the core ideological makeup of the Reichsbürger remains inextricably linked to the liberation from Nazism – something the Reichsbürger do not see as a liberation but as a defeat. Since the unconditional surrender of the Wehrmacht on 8th April 1945, right-wing extremists, Neo-Nazis, and now the Reichsbürger continue to strive for a rather different solution from what exists since 1945. They seek to initiate the political, ideological, institutional, and territorial restoration of the German Reich. According to their right-wing ideology, the German Reich had not ceased to exist with the surrender of the Wehrmacht. Instead, the Reichsbürger still regarded the arrest of Hitler’s successor – Karl Dönitz – as an illegal act by the Allied Forces. As a consequence, they see themselves as a resistance movement and as a national opposition against present-day Germany, which is ruled by some forms of evil democracy. Of course, Reichsbürgers like to dish up the old Nazi myth of a Jewish world conspiracy again and again. Unless the Reichsbürgers act, these dark and deeply conspiratorial forces will bring the entire world into a Jewish world order. In their twisted ideology, the Nazi Reich was the antithesis against abstract idea of modernity, Enlightenment, and democracy. For the Reichsbürger, fascistic ideologies like these remain relevant, just as they do for one of Germany’s most dangerous – the Neo-Nazi demagogue, Horst Mahler. Since the late 1990s, Mahler and adjacent Neo-Nazis have been aiming to establish the Fourth Reich. Neo-Nazi super ideologue Mahler combines Holocaust denial with standard Reichsbürger propaganda. He also claims that Germans aren’t free again until the German Reich is re-established. This is the only way to the glorious German Reich which will lead to the overthrow of Jewish foreign rule. This Jewish foreign rule will collapse with the exposure of the Auschwitz lie, so Mahler tells his followers. Top Neo-Nazi Mahler also announced the setting up of a Reichsbürger-Movement, envisioning himself to run the show together with Wolfgang Ebel’s Provisional Reich Government. Even several convictions for hate speech and several prison sentences have failed to deter Mahler from his anti-Semitic demagogy. Instead, Mahler continued to publish Neo-Nazi propaganda from prison. Next to Mahler, Germany’s most prominent Holocaust deniers – Ursula Haverbeck-Wetzel and Manfred Roeder – are already members of Mahler’s Reichsbürger organizations. Today’s anti-Semitic Reichsbürger also include, Neo-Nazi video blogger Nikolai Nerling, who likes to present himself as a Volkslehrer – people’s teacher – ready to serve his Volksgemeinschaft. Almost self-evidently, Reichsbürger, right-wing anti-Vaxxers, and hygiene rally supporters mix very well particularly since the beginning of the Coronavirus pandemic. These tin-foil-hat and Neo-Nazi rallies provide Reichsbürgers with an ideal platform to spread their toxic propaganda, recruit new members, and move people ever deeper into Germany’s Neo-Nazi orbit. One of the main organizing platform for such right-wing extremist rallies is Querdenken 711. It is run by conspiracy fantasy believer Michael Ballweg, who is convinced that the Coronavirus pandemic was invented by Bill and Melinda Gates who, through their money control the WHO, and also controls Angela Merkel. Ballweg harbours strong sympathies for the Reichsbürger. At his rallies, Germany’s imperial Reich flag is visible and Reichsbürger propaganda is handed out. One of Germany’s main and more thoughtful ideologue of Neo-Nazism is Jürgen Elsässer. He is also the editor of the semi-Reichsbürger, deeply conspiratorial, and anti-Semitic Compact magazine. His latest plan is to give the imperial Reich flag, what he calls, a pop star status. The idea is to make it acceptable to the wider public. He also pushes the insignia “1871” (the year when Germany’s Reich was founded). Elsässer believes that this will resonate with the wider movement. For some reason, he thinks that it is because the Kaiser’s Reich was the last true state on German soil. In his twisted mind, the Weimar Republic did not really exist because it was forced onto Germans by the victorious powers of Versailles. Beyond all that, German Reichsbürgers are also linked to today’s QAnon. Reichsbürgers share many QAnon conspiracy myths. QAnon’s right-wing fantasies which are linked to Christian end-of-the-word themes appeal to Reichsbürger. So does the hallucination that Donald Trump will free the USA and ultimately the world from a conspiracy of paedophile Satanists. These might no longer live in the basement of a Washington Pizza shop. Aligned to QAnon, Reichsbürger expected that right at the beginning of the pandemic in Germany in spring 2020, planned NATO war games would signal Trump’s arrival to liberate Germans. 20,000 American soldiers would secretly eliminate the hated Federal Republic of Germany. Trump would conclude a peace treaty restoring the beloved Reich. Sadly for the Reichsbürger, the war games were cancelled. Yet, the delusion of the liberator Trump had established itself in their minds. Instead of liberation from democracy and the establishment of the Reichsbürger’s glorious Reich, something worse happened to the Reichsbürger. Their right-wing extremist Reichsbürger and known anti-Semite Attila Hildmann was arrested. He had attended a Reichsbürger rally together with QAnon and former Neo-Nazi party (NPD) member and long-serving Reichsbürger Rüdiger Hoffmann. Hoffmann’s staatenlos.info is a website that tells you how Bill Gates wants to take over Germany, why Adolf Eichmann was a great guy, and how NATO and the USA manipulate the weather to further global warming. In the end, one is tempted to dismiss the Reichsbürger as a few right-wing madman. Yet, the Reichsbürgers show an extremely dangerous level of brutality and violence having already killed a policeman. Beyond that, Germany’s 20,000 Reichsbürgers are well armed. They live in the delusion that they defend their Reich against government authorities. They are also convinced that anyone who does not believe that the next Reich is upon us – is a threat. Worse, the Coronavirus pandemic and recently so-called hygiene rallies have given Reichsbürgers new recruitment opportunities.

Egypt: Prisoners offered amnesty in exchange for PR appearance, says report

Dozens of prisoners in Egypt have reportedly been offered amnesty in exchange for participating in a scripted conference with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi planned in Tora prison next month, a local independent publication reported on Sunday. According to Mada Masr, three lawyers representing detainees in the Tora, Minya and Wadi al-Natrun prisons had been informed by their clients that officials from Egypt’s National Security Agency had reached out to hundreds of prisoners, offering early release should they agree to speak about incarceration conditions in a favourable light during the conference. Dozens of prisoners have reportedly been transferred from Minya and Wadi al-Natrun to Tora ahead of the conference planned for early October. Those allegedly scheduled to receive amnesty reportedly include Islamists and other political prisoners - amid longstanding accusations of a crackdown on political opposition under Sisi. A government source also told Mada Masr that a number of amnesties were expected around 18 October, which marks Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. A number of prisoners had previously been released this summer ahead of the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha. Middle East Eye could not independently verify the report. Egypt: Prisoners at risk of scabies due to poor incarceration conditions Read More » The president denied on Wednesday that the country had any political prisoners, adding: “There are no forms of human rights violations in Egypt.” Sisi said last week that he was poised to launch “a full American-style” prison that will be followed by "seven or eight" other similar projects across the country. The new project will take the number of prisons in Egypt to 79. More than a third of them - 27 in total - have been built under Sisi, who became president in 2014 after a military coup toppled his democratically elected predecessor Mohamed Morsi a year earlier. Rights groups have accused his government of jailing some 60,000 activists and political opponents under the pretext of fighting terrorism. In March, a UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) statement decried Egypt's stifling of dissent, in a country considered the world's third-worst jailer of journalists behind China and Turkey. This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition.

Indian farmers remain defiant, a year after ‘black laws’ passed

New Delhi, India – It is a humid and sweaty morning. The nearby drain, overflowing with overnight monsoon rains, stinks. A few metres away, pigs rummage through the rubbish. But the weather or stink does not dissuade Bapu Nishtar Singh, who has been protesting for nearly 10 months against a set of agricultural laws passed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government in September last year. KEEP READING ‘Modi gov’t anti-farmer’: Thousands rally against India farm laws ‘Pind California’: US doctor camps with India’s agitating farmers ‘Black Day’: Indian farmers mark six months of farm law protests The 85-year-old from Punjab state’s Ludhiana district is among thousands of farmers from across India camping at Singhu outside capital New Delhi, the epicentre of nationwide protests that have posed the biggest challenge for Modi since he came to power seven years ago. Last September, Modi’s right-wing government passed three laws aimed at “modernising” the country’s agricultural system. The government said the laws will benefit the farmers by increasing their income and give them additional choices to sell their produce. ‘Hand-in-glove with corporates’ But farmers like Bapu Nishtar Singh say the laws are an attempt to erode a longstanding minimum support price (MSP) for their crops assured by the government and will enable a few corporations to control the vast agriculture sector. The protesting farmers at Singhu border on the outskirts of New Delhi [Bilal Kuchay/Al Jazeera] Bapu Nishtar Singh fears the new laws will put his 1.5 acres (0.6 hectares) of agricultural land, on which he mainly grows rice and wheat, at the mercy of corporations – a common view shared by other farmers as well. “We don’t understand why they are enforcing these laws on us. We never demanded them. The government didn’t talk to us before they brought these legislations,” he told Al Jazeera. “The government says the laws are for the betterment of farmers but we know they are hand-in-glove with the corporates and the laws are meant to benefit them [corporates], not the farmers.” Two months after the laws were passed, hundreds of thousands of farmers, mainly from Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh states marched on their tractors, motorbikes and on foot to New Delhi to put pressure on the government to repeal them. When they were stopped from entering the capital, they decided to camp outside New Delhi, braving the region’s biting cold, extreme heat and monsoon rains for months now. Play Video Hundreds of tents have been pitched along three key highways leading to Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh states – where they have set up makeshift kitchens, clinics, and even libraries – sending out a clear message to the government that they are ready for a long haul. Farm distress In these nine months, Singh has been home only once just for five days to see his ailing wife. “Earlier this year, my wife called me and said she is not well and I should visit her before she dies,” he told Al Jazeera. “That was the only time when I went back to my home since November 26 last year.” As soon as his wife recovered, Bapu Nishtar Singh rushed back to join the protest. The elderly farmer said he did not expect the government would turn apathetic towards the farmers, often called “annadata” or providers, by their politicians. Indian farmers and their supporters attend a gathering in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh [File: Rajat Gupta/EPA] Once accounting for a third of India’s gross domestic product (GDP), the agricultural sector now makes only 15 percent of India’s $2.9 trillion economy. More than half of the country’s farmers are in debt, with 20,638 dying by suicide due to debt and crop failures in 2018 and 2019, according to India’s National Crime Records Bureau. According to Samyukta Kisan Morcha, or Joint Front of Farmers, at least 537 farmers have died in nearly 10 months of the ongoing protest, with most deaths taking place due to heart attacks, illnesses due to cold weather conditions, and in road accidents. In July, however, the government claimed it had no record of the protesting farmers who died. Last month, police in Haryana baton-charged farmers demonstrating at a highway toll plaza in the state’s Karnal district. Farmers alleged at least one person died and nearly 10 others were wounded in the attack. The farmers withdrew their protest after the state government, headed by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), ordered an investigation into the violence. The government also sent a police officer, caught on tape allegedly telling policemen to “break the heads” of the farmers, on leave. Eleven rounds of talks between the farmers’ unions and the federal government to seek an end to the protests have yielded no results. The last time the two sides met was on January 22 this year. In the same month, India’s Supreme Court suspended the implementation of the farm laws and set up a committee to consult the stakeholders and assess the effect of the legislation on them. Despite the burgeoning protests, the government has repeatedly ruled out repealing the laws. “The day we embarked on a march to New Delhi, we were hopeful that the government would accept our demands and we would be back to our villages in a couple of days,” he said. “But that did not happen and we are here. But we are not going back unless our demands are fulfilled.” Gurcharan Singh, 65, who hails from Punjab’s Patiala district, has also been at Singhu since the beginning of the protests. “Unless and until the government doesn’t take the black laws back, we will not move from here,” Gurcharan Singh told Al Jazeera. Gurcharan Singh from Patiala, Punjab, protesting at Singh border outside New Delhi [Bilal Kuchay/Al Jazeera] According to food and trade policy analyst Davinder Sharma, the principles on which the farm laws are based have failed to enhance the income of farmers anywhere in the world. “In all the rich countries, farmers are suffering. Agriculture distress is huge despite the market reforms being there for the last several decades. My argument is if these reforms have not worked [in the United States and European nations], how do you think the same reforms will work in India?” Sharma told Al Jazeera. Sharma said if the government really wants to increase the income of the farmers, it should make MSP a legal right, which means no trading of produce can take place below that price. The second thing, he said, is to rectify the issues in the government-designated markets for food grains, called “mandis”, and expand their network across India. Parliamentarian Manish Tewari of the opposition Congress party says the government has handled the farmers’ protests in the “most insensitive manner possible”. “In a democracy, you do not allow elderly men, women and children to sit on the streets on the borders of the national capital for one year,” he told Al Jazeera. “It’s highly authoritarian, dictatorial and completely heavy-handed to say the least.” Tewari, who is a politician from Punjab, said the government thinks it is “tiring these people out, but it does not know the spirit of the Punjabis”. Raghbir Singh, left, of the Indian Farmers Association says they will campaign against BJP in state polls [Bilal Kuchay/Al Jazeera] Raghbir Singh of the Indian Farmers Association said they will campaign against the BJP in upcoming regional elections early next year, mainly in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state. “In the upcoming polls in Uttar Pradesh, we will travel across the state and campaign against the BJP. The party will have to pay for its anti-farmer laws,” he said. BJP spokesman Syed Zafar Islam dismissed the farmers’ charges, saying their campaign against the BJP will not affect the election results. “All the farmers are not against the three farm laws, but only a section of them. And the BJP leadership is more than keen to engage with them to understand the shortcomings in the law and keen to rectify them,” he told Al Jazeera, claiming the BJP was a “pro-farmer party” which has taken “several pro-farmer initiatives since it came to power in 2014”. But Raghbir Singh questioned the government’s intentions behind trying to enforce the laws when the farmers themselves do not see them as beneficial. “It is the farmers who should decide whether or not the new laws are beneficial, and not the government,” he told Al Jazeera. SOURCE: AL JAZEERA