Showing posts with label Argentina. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Argentina. Show all posts

Tuesday, 11 September 2018

The forgotten victims of September 11th


Since the atrocities in 2001, the 11th of September has become a national day of mawkish commemoration in the United States, despite the fact that the same kind of extreme Islamist terrorists are still wreaking havoc across Europe and the Middle East, largely thanks to the US invasion of Iraq that followed 9/11 and ended up creating the biggest lawless terrorism breeding ground on earth.

It would take an extremely blinkered view of history to not know that in the 1980s the US actually funded, supplied and trained Al Qaida in Afghanistan, when they were considered "brave freedom fighters" against the Soviet occupation by the western media. 

It would take more historical ignorance/revisionism to fail to realise that the US intervened to fight alongside Islamist militias in Kosovo in the late 1990s, support for Islamist fanatics that was provided several years after the first Al Qaida attack on the World Trade Center in 1993!

And it would take a severe level of self-deception to deny that the September 11th terrorist attacks are "blowback" from the United States' foreign policy tactics from the mid 20th Century onward.

Over the space of just a few years we've seen Al Qaida morph from US funded and supported allies in places like Afghanistan and Kosovo into supposedly the greatest ever threat to American freedom in history. A threat that has been used to impose all kinds of unconstitutional and totalitarian attacks on the liberties of American citizens (and citizens of the rest of the world) such as the "Patriot" Act and the incredible expansion of NSA spying activities

This rapid conversion of Al Qaida from US allies to dangerous terrorists was bad enough, but the 9/11 remembrance ceremonies in 2013 were marred by the fact that the US government were straining at the leash to actually help Islamist terrorists in Syria by bombing the Syrian government and creating yet another Iraq style power vacuum for them to thrive in.

Just 12 years since after the 9/11 attacks and the US administration were assuming the American public to be so gullible and compliant that they would accept the US openly siding with the same kind of Islamist terrorists as those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, and inordinately more innocent civilians in Iraq,Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and in terrorist atrocities across Europe too during the last 17 years.


The extreme ignorance and gullibility that would be necessary for the American public to accept the idea that the US political establishment openly siding with Al Qaida and other extreme Wahabi Islamist terrorist groups in Syria, simply because their terrorist activities there coincide with American imperialist interests is also on display in the fact that so many Americans still believe the absurd narrative that "America fights for freedom and democracy across the World".


40 years ago the US backed a violent coup d'etat in Chile and the
imposition of a brutal neoliberal regime led by Augusto Pinochet.
One of the clearest demonstrations of the American determination to actually undermine and destroy freedom and democracy came in Chile after a US-backed military coup that took place on September 11th 1973.

This coup marked the birth of the toxic neoliberal ideology pushed by the Chicago school pseudo-economists. 


In 1973 neoliberalism was a fringe anti-communist economic ideology supported by virtually nobody, today this bankrupt pseudo-economic gibberish is the global economic orthodoxy adhered to by almost all political parties in the West, and enforced across the globe by the machinery of the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation.

To say that neoliberalism had a painful birth in Chile would be an understatement. The man that the neoliberals backed in Chile was a brutal dictator called General Pinochet. 

During his dictatorship over 3,000 people were "disappeared" (captured and tortured to death) whilst another 28,000 were detained without trial, most of them suffering torture and in many cases sexual abuse too. 

Aside from those tortured and killed and the families that survived them, other victims of this brutal US backed dictatorship included protesters that were burned alive in the streets by the police and musicians who had their fingers broken before being machine gunned to death.
 
The Americans weren't the only ones to back
Pinochet's murderous right-wing dictatorship,
The Thatcher government in Britain
supported him too.
 
This brutal and oppressive Chilean regime was supported by the US administration because to successive American governments and their corporate backers, right-wing military dictatorship, imprisonment without trial, torture, rape and extrajudicial killings were an insignificant price to pay when it came to securing access to the Chilean economy so that it could be used as a playground for the neoliberal pseudo-economists from the Chicago School, and opened up for exploitation by US corporations.

The Chilean regime was part of the US financed Operation Condor, which was a plan to control the population of the southern cone of South America through the instillation of  brutal right-wing military dictatorships. 

The members of this anti-democratic group were the Pinochet military dictatorship in Chile, the Stroessner dictatorship in Paraguay, the Banzer military dictatorship in Bolivia, the Brazilian military dictatorship that lasted from 1964 to 1985 and the 12 year military dictatorship in Uruguay. 

Undoubtedly the most brutal members of Operation Condor were the US backed Argentine Junta that joined in 1976, after the military coup against Isabel Perón.


Photos of the disappeared in Buenos Aires, 2004.
The US backed military dictatorship in Argentina was yet another playground for the Chicago school neoliberal pseudo-economists. 

Whilst the US backed military dictatorship were busy murdering an estimated 30,000 Argentine civilians and torturing countless thousands more, "the Chicago Boys" were imposing their favoured economic ideology (deregulation, mass privatisation, lax tax enforcement, massive tax cuts for the rich, regressive tax hikes for the poor and ordinary, destruction of welfare provision, revocation of rights and liberties, wage repression ... ), resulting in poverty and chaos for millions of Argentines. 

The state terrorism of this savage regime meant that few people dared to speak out against this US-backed economic vandalism.

Some of the favoured tactics of the Argentine junta included torture, extrajudicial killings, throwing people out of aeroplanes without parachutes (death flights) and the kidnapping of pregnant women in order to steal their babies to give to supporters of the regime, after which the mothers were executed without trial.

In the late 1970s the US and the Argentine junta collaborated in "Operation Charly" to export their model of brutal right-wing dictatorship to Central America (Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala) and in 1980 the Argentine junta, the US administration and the Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie collaborated to assist the "Cocaine Coup" in Bolivia which installed Luis García Meza. 

Meza was another brutal dictator and upon his instillation in power he immediately outlawed all political parties, exiled opposition leaders, banned trade unions, silenced the press and oversaw the murder of over 1,000 people in just 13 months in power.

The 45th anniversary of the US backed military coup in Chile will pass virtually unnoticed in the United States, and great swathes of the public will continue to believe the comforting lies that the US has a history of promoting democracy and freedom, rather than a demonstrable history of deliberately and callously undermining them.

The millions of victims of the vile US backed Latin American dictatorships are not the only people that should be remembered on September the 11th. 

The countless global victims of the vile "greed is a virtue" neoliberal pseudo-economic ideology devised by the Chicago Boys, supported by the US government and born in Chile on this day in 1973 also just as worthy of remembrance as the victims of the September 2001 atrocities.
                        

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Friday, 24 August 2018

Where is the media outrage?


After spending an entire week banging on about Jeremy Corbyn laying a wreath four years ago in a Tunisian graveyard where none of the Munich terrorists are even actually buried, you would have thought that the mainstream media might have expressed at least a tiny bit of outrage at the Tory Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt meeting up with and fawning all over a bona fide war criminal. But somehow no.

Henry Kissinger was the architect of some of the United States' most disgusting and deadly foriegn policy interventions. Here are a few of his most notorious:

Cambodia and Laos

During the Vietnam War Kissinger was heavily involved in the secret and completely illegal bombing campaigns against the non-combatant states of Laos and Cambodia.

Over two million tons of bombs were dropped during these illegal bombing campaigns. That's more than the total tonnage that the United States dropped on Japan during the Second World War, and yet the US never actually declared war on either Laos or Cambodia!

Hundreds of thousands of people were killed during these illegal US bombing raids, and people are still dying and being maimed today as a result of the thousands of tons of unexploded munitions, especially unexploded 'bomblets' from cluster bombs.

Latin America

Henry Kissinger was one of the chief architects of the US foreign policy of toppling stable democracies and replacing them with murderous right-wing military dictatorships.

In Chile the United States carried out a coup against the democratically elected President Salvador Allende that resulted in his death. Following on from the installation of the murderous Pinochet regime, Kissinger actively intervened to support Chilean political repression by cancelling a letter warning the Pinochet government not to carry out political assassinations.

In a grotesque letter to the Chilean dictator Kissenger actually portrayed the murderous coup-leading tyrant as a victim by saying "my evaluation is that you are a victim of all left-wing groups around the world and that your greatest sin was that you overthrew a government that was going Communist"!

In Argentina the United States turned a blind eye to an even more repressive right-wing dictatorship as they killed some 30,000 people (often by throwing them out of aircraft without parachutes). 

Thousands of others were detained in torture centres, and some 500 pregnant women had their babies stolen before being killed by the military junta. 

Documents declassified in 2016 revealed that Kissinger personally undermined the Carter administration's efforts to stop the killings.

The two most famous examples of US-backed Latin American military juntas were Argentina and Chile, but numerous other Latin American states were subjected to US-backed military take-overs during Kissinger's reign including Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil, and Uruguay.

East Timor

In 1975 the brutal Suharto regime in Indonesia expressed their intention to annex the nascent state of East Timor. At a meeting in Jakarta Kissinger and the then US President Gerald Ford agreed to allow the annexation of East Timor with guarantees that US relations with the Suharto dictatorship would remain strong. Their only proviso was that the invasion be carried out after they'd Indonesian territory.

Suharto delayed the invasion by one day to allow time for Kissinger and Ford to leave, then invaded the territory. The death toll of the invasion and occupation was well over 100,000 (around one quarter of the Timorese population.

Bangladesh

When the US Consul in East Pakistan Archer Blood sent telegrams back to the US warning of "genocide" in the Bangladesh War of Liberation, Kissinger sneered at those who "bleed for the dying Bangladeshis". When Blood continued raising concerns he was stripped of his post.

During the period Kissinger also described the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi as a "bitch" and a "witch" and said "the Indians are bastards".

Russian Jews

During the flight of Jews from the Soviet Union to Israel in the 1970s Kissinger said "if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern".

Recent times

It's hardly outlandish to call Kissinger a war criminal given that he's incredibly careful of where he travels to, for fear of being extradited to to face charges for his war crimes, and his support for murderous right-wing dictatorships.


Where is the outrage?

Kissinger's involvement with the grotesque war crimes in Cambodia and Laos are beyond question. His support for tyrannical military dictatorships across the world are a matter of public record. His contempt for the plight of Jews in the Soviet Union and his racist comments about Indians are also a matter of public record.

So how on earth does the Tory Foreign Secretary get away with fawning all over this absolute ghoul, and then actually bragging about it on Twitter?

The answer is twofold. The first reason is that the mainstream media is shockingly biased towards the Tory party, meaning they're loathe to draw attention to anything that might damage them. The second is that Kissinger is an American, and it doesn't matter how many hundreds of thousands of people died in his illegal carpet bombing campaigns, or in the torture centres of the dictatorships he supported ... the professional scribes of the hard-right neoliberal orthodoxy that Kissinger promoted will never hold him to account for his actions.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Friday, 16 September 2016

Is Theresa May "a bigger threat to the Falklands than Argentina"


Remember back in January 2016 when Jeremy Corbyn suggested that Britain and Argentina should enter negotiations to co-operate over the Falkland Islands so that both countries can share in the prosperity, rather than restricting economic opportunities through animosity, trade sanctions, antagonism and militaristic posturing?



Remember how the Tories and the right-wing press spouted lie after lie after lie about what Corbyn was suggesting and even tried to claim that Corbyn's policy was to give away the Falkland Islands?

Remember how the Tory defence minister Michael Fallon even claimed that Jeremy Corbyn is "a bigger threat to the Falklands than Argentina"?

Remember how this hyperbolic nonsense was spouted ad nauseum by the mainstream press and  how David Cameron even got in on the act by including it in one of his most incredibly evasive* and downright dishonest "answers" ever at PMQs (see image) in which he lied five times in the space of thirty seconds? 


Fast-forward just eight months and Theresa May has sent Alan Duncan over to Argentina in order to come up with a deal to ... erm ... work out a deal for Argentina and the UK to co-operate over the Falkland Islands.

Where are the shrieking headlines about the Tories surrendering to the Argies? Where are the bile dripping editorials? Why isn't Michael Fallon attacking his Tory colleague as "a bigger threat to the Falklands than Argentina" for doing exactly what Jeremy Corbyn suggested just eight months previously?


The Falkland Islanders are apparently delighted that the Tories have pinched Jeremy Corbyn's idea, and are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of an end to the decades of crippling trade sanctions on hydrocarbons, fishing, shipping and tourism.

Not only did the Tories (and their attack-dogs in the mainstream press) savage Jeremy Corbyn for suggesting an entirely sensible policy of economic co-operation between the UK and Argentina rather than militaristic antagonism, the Tories have actually gone and nicked it off him within the space of a year!

The lack of bile-dripping articles in the mainstream press about how Theresa May is "a bigger threat to the Falklands than the Argentinians" for doing precisely what Jeremy Corbyn was slaughtered for proposing just eight months ago is indicative of the extraordinary levels of pro-Tory bias of the UK mainstream press.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

* = The Jeremy Corbyn question that Cameron was evading was about the sweetheart deal the Tories had concocted to allow Google to pay an effective tax rate of just 3%.

Tuesday, 10 September 2013

The forgotten victims of September 11


Since the atrocities in 2001, the date September 11 has become a national day of American mawkishness and self-pity. The remembrance ceremonies in 2013 will be particularly Orwellian, given that Al Qaida, the official perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocities, were back in vogue with the US government under their new brandname ISIS.

It would take an extremely blinkered view of history to not know that in the 1980s the US funded, supplied and trained Al Qaida in Afghanistan, when they were considered "brave freedom fighters" against the Soviet occupation. It would take more historical ignorance/revisionism to fail to realise that the US intervened to fight alongside Islamist militias in Kosovo in the late 1990s, support for Islamist fanatics that was provided several years after the first Al Qaida attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

Over the space of just a few years Al Qaida morphed from US funded and supported allies into supposedly the greatest ever threat to American freedom in history. A threat that has been used to impose all kinds of unconstitutional and totalitarian attacks on the liberties of American citizens (and citizens of the rest of the world) such as the "Patriot" Act and the incredible expansion of NSA spying activities. This rapid conversion of Al Qaida from US allies to dangerous terrorists was bad enough, but the 9/11 remembrance ceremonies in 2013 were marred by the fact that the US government were straining at the leash to help Islamist terrrorists in Syria by bombing the Syrian government and creating yet another Iraq style power vacuum for them to thrive in.

Just 12 years since after the 9/11 attacks and the US administration imagined that the American public were so gullible and compliant that they would accept the US openly siding with the same kind of Islamist terrorists as those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and have killed countless American soldiers (and inordinately more innocent civilians) in Iraq and Afghanistan during the last decade too.


The extreme ignorance and gullibility that would be necessary for the American public to accept the idea that the US political establishment openly siding with Al Qaida in Syria, simply because their terrorist activities there coincide with American imperialist interests, is also on display in the fact that so many Americans still believe the absurd narrative that "America fights for freedom and democracy across the World".


40 years ago the US backed a violent coup d'etat in Chile and the
imposition of a brutal neoliberal regime led by Augusto Pinochet.
One of the clearest demonstrations of the American determination to undermine and destroy freedom and democracy came in Chile after a US backed military coup that took place on September 11th 1973.

This coup marked the birth of the toxic neoliberal ideology pushed by the Chicago school pseudo-economists. In 1973 neoliberalism was a fringe anti-communist economic ideology supported by virtually nobody, today this bankrupt pseudo-economic gibberish is the global economic orthodoxy adhered to by almost all political parties in the West and enforced across the globe by the machinery of the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation.


To say that neoliberalism had a painful birth in Chile would be an understatement. The man that the neoliberals backed in Chile was a brutal dictator called General Pinochet. During his dictatorship over 3,000 people were "disappeared" (captured and tortured to death) whilst another 28,000 were detained without trial, most of them suffering torture and in many cases sexual abuse too. Aside from those tortured and killed and the families that survived them, other victims of this brutal US backed dictatorship included protesters that were burned alive in the streets by the police and musicians that had their fingers broken before being machine gunned to death.

This brutal and oppressive Chilean regime was supported by the US administration because to successive American governments and their corporate backers, military dictatorship, imprisonment without trial, torture, rape and extrajudicial killings were an insignificant price to pay when it came to securing access to the Chilean economy so that it could be used as a playground for the neoliberal pseudo-economists from the Chicago School, and opened up for exploitation by US corporations.

The Chilean regime was part of the US financed Operation Condor, which was a plan to control the population of the southern cone of South America through the instillation of numerous brutal military dictatorships. The members of this anti-democratic group were the Pinochet military dictatorship in Chile, the Stroessner dictatorship in Paraguay, the Banzer military dictatorship in Bolivia, the Brazilian military dictatorship that lasted from 1964 to 1985 and the 12 year military dictatorship in Uruguay. 

Undoubtedly the most brutal members of Operation Condor were the US backed Argentine Junta that joined in 1976, after the military coup against Isabel Perón.


Photos of the disappeared in Buenos Aires, 2004.
The US backed military dictatorship in Argentina was yet another playground for the Chicago school neoliberal pseudo-economists. Whilst the US backed military dictatorship were busy murdering an estimated 30,000 Argentine civilians and torturing countless thousands more, the Chicago Boys were imposing their favoured economic ideology (deregulation, privatisation, lax tax enforcement, massive tax cuts for the rich, regressive tax hikes for the poor and ordinary, destruction of welfare provision, revocation of rights and liberties, wage repression ... ), resulting in poverty and chaos for millions of Argentines. The state terrorism of this savage regime meant that few people dared to speak out against this economic vandalism.

Some of the favoured tactics of the Argentine junta included torture, extrajudicial killings, throwing people out of aeroplanes without parachutes (death flights) and the kidnapping of pregnant women in order to steal their babies to give to supporters of the regime, after which the mothers were executed without trial.

In the late 1970s the US and the Argentine junta collaborated in "Operation Charly" to export their model of brutal right-wing dictatorship to Central America (Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala) and in 1980 the Argentine junta, the US administration and the Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie collaborated to assist the "Cocaine Coup" in Bolivia which installed Luis García Meza. Meza was another brutal dictator and upon his instillation in power he immediately outlawed all political parties, exiled opposition leaders, banned trade unions, silenced the press and oversaw the murder of over 1,000 people in just 13 months in power.

The 40th anniversary of the US backed military coup in Chile passed virtually unnoticed in the United States and great swathes of the public will continue to believe the comforting lies that the US has a history of promoting democracy and freedom, rather than a demonstrable history of deliberately and callously undermining them.

The millions of victims of the vile US backed Latin American dictatorships are not the only people that should be remembered on September the 11th. The countless global victims of the vile "greed is a virtue" neoliberal pseudo-economic ideology devised by the Chicago boys, supported by the US government and born in Chile on this day in 1973 also just as worthy of remembrance as the victims of the September 2001 atrocities.
                        

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Thursday, 22 August 2013

Theresa May, David Miranda and the Guardian Hard Drives

If you haven't heard about Edward Snowden, David Miranda and the Guardian hard drives then you mustn't have been paying much attention to the news this summer.

Just to recap:

Edward Snowden is the American whistleblower that has released lots of information about the massive scale of secret surveillance by the British (GCHQ) and American (NSA) secret services. Some of the things he has revealed include:
David Miranda is the partner of the Guardian writer Glen Greenwald, who is the lead journalist on the Edward Snowden story. Miranda was detained at Heathrow Airport by the British authorities under anti-terrorism legislation. He was kept in custody for the maximum permissible time of 9 hours (most people detained under section 7 of the Terrorism Act are detained for less than an hour). He than had his personal property confiscated.

The Guardian hard drives were the ones that were destroyed as a result of David Cameron instructing Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood to ensure that the Guardian copies of the documents leaked by Edward Snowden were either handed over to the British government, or destroyed. The Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger chose to destroy the drives rather than hand them over to David Cameron.

There is clearly plenty of material here for sufficient chapters to fill a book. Chapters could include: The terrifying scale of the surveillance operations; the impact on international relations; the distribution of stolen private data to hundreds of thousands of private sector operatives, and the likelihood that some of this stolen data has been used corruptly; the American operational influence over British secret services; the constitutional implications of mass surveillance in America; the way the UK surveillance operations have grown through function creep, rather than through due parliamentary process; William Hague's fascistic "nothing to hide, nothing to fear defence"; the collective punishment of family members; the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation; and the direct curtailment of press freedom by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

The aspect I am going to concentrate on for the rest of this article is the bizarrely contradictory "operational independence" justifications from the United Kingdom government.

After it was first revealed that David Cameron and Theresa May were both aware of the detention of the journalist David Miranda under anti-terrorism legislation, the government trotted out the age-old, "we don't comment on individual cases" / "it's an operational matter" lines.

The Tories were forced to revise their "no further comment" stance after the former Lord Chancellor Charles Falconer condemned the detention as misuse of anti-terrorism legislation, saying "I am very clear that this does not apply, either on its terms or in its spirit, to Mr Miranda" and the former Tory prisons minister Crispin Blunt said "Using terrorism powers for something that doesn't appear to be a terrorism issue brings the whole remit of the laws passed by parliament to address terrorism into disrepute".

Even before we begin comparing it with other things, the justification the Tories came up with is utterly absurd. Theresa May's justification for not intervening was twofold. Firstly, she openly approved of the detention of a journalist under anti-terrorism legislation and the confiscation of his personal items, and overtly praised the police for doing it. Secondly, she stated that the police have absolute "operational independence", which is claim that politicians are somehow powerless to intervene in the operation of the legal system. This "operational independence" line was later reiterated by David Cameron's office, before Theresa May went one step further to imply that anyone raising doubts about the tactic of using anti-terrorism legislation to intimidate journalists, is guilty of condoning terrorism.

The "condoning terrorism" line is simply a reiteration of the George W. Bush "you either support us or you support the terrorists" stance and has been rightfully torn to shreds. The former Director of Public Prosecutions Ken MacDonald's described Theresa May's "with us or against us stance" as "ugly and unhelpful" before going on to say that "people who are concerned about these issues are not condoning terrorism. They are asking a perfectly legitimate question, which is: are we striking the balance in the right place between security and liberty?"

In my view the "operational independence" line is just as bad as Theresa May's blatant smear tactics. The thing that is so obviously wrong with the "operational independence" stance is that it creates a "get out of jail free" card for politicians. If this stance is accepted, it means that politicians are exempted from blame, no matter how corruptly, immorally or unlawfully they know that the police of members of the criminal justice system have acted, or how little they did to stop it once they found out.

The claim of absolute operational independence is farcical. Imagine politicians knew about a bunch of corrupt undercover police officers stealing the identities of dead babies, infiltrating protest groups, acting as agent provocateurs, forming sexual relationships and fathering children, before disappearing completely leaving several women with no financial maintenance. Imagine that politicians knew all about a vast police cover-up to hide their culpability in the deaths of 96 innocent football supporters through the mass falsification of statements and a smear campaign against the deceased fans.

OK these things are not at all hard to imagine, they actually happened, and it seems extremely unlikely that no politicians knew about these operations as they were happening.

Let's try considering something even more extreme than the theft of dead baby identities, rape by the state, mass falsification of disaster reports and smear campaigns against the dead:

Imagine that the Argentine dictator Jorge Rafael Videla had been allowed to use the "absolute operational independence" defence to explain away his involvement in the policy of kidnapping pregnant left-wing women, holding them as political prisoners until they gave birth, extrajudicially executing the mothers, then handing the babies over to supporters of his military junta. Even if the prosecution in his trial for crimes against humanity had been able to show that he knew all about, and openly approved of these barbaric practices, he could simply claim that he was "powerless to intervene" due to the sanctity of the "operational independence" of the Argentine Naval taskforce that oversaw these practices. Perhaps this is how Theresa May would like absolute operational independence to work? No matter how despicable the actions of the state, and no matter how much the political class knew about it, or approved of it, in her mind "operational independence" exempts them from all blame.

This "you can't blame us because we were powerless to intervene" stance from Theresa May and David Cameron contrasts quite rudely with David Cameron's words about the the Barclays Chief Executive Bob Diamond and the Libor rigging scandal. Here's what Cameron said back in 2012: "people have to take responsibility for the actions and show how they're going to be accountable for these actions" and that "it is very important that goes all the way to the top of the organisation". Note how these sentiments are absolutely incompatible with the "we're powerless to intervene because of operational independence" narrative.

The "absolute operational independence" line is absolutely ludicrous because it can quite clearly be used to excuse politician's knowledge of, and refusal to act against corruption, criminality and immorality. It clearly represents a complete abnegation of moral responsibility by the government.

To his credit, the Tory MP David Davis picked up on this attempt to abnegate moral responsibility when he told the BBC that "[the government] didn't direct it, nobody is suggesting they directed it. But they approved it by implication. If the home secretary is told this is going to happen and she doesn't intervene then she is approving it". He is absolutely right. If the home secretary is fully aware that the police are brazenly misusing anti-terrorism legislation in order to intimidate journalists, she has a moral obligation to, at the very least raise some concerns about it. Instead, she did nothing, and then paraded around in front of the press openly praising the police for their action and smearing anyone that dared to ask the questions that she should have been asking herself.

The really damning evidence comes when this "powerless to intervene in legal matters" argument is contrasted with the enforced destruction of the Guardian hard drives. An attack on press freedom by the government so egregious it even drew condemnation from the Americans!

The idea that government ministers are absolutely powerless to intervene in legal matters (even if they suspect that the police are behaving unlawfully) is absolutely blown out of the water by the fact that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom considers himself to have the powers to gave a direct ultimatum to a newspaper to either hand over their source material, or to destroy it. If Cameron's attack on press freedom is not an absolutely clear cut example direct of government intervention in legal matters, I'm not sure what would be.

It is frankly ludicrous that the Tories believe that anyone would accept the idea that the government will intervene to bully a newspaper into destroying their source material, yet later claim to be utterly powerless to ever intervene in legal matters, no matter how unlawfully they believe the police might be behaving. 


 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.



Wednesday, 7 August 2013

Godfrey Bloom: intemperate language, political non-apologies and outright lies.

In July 2013 the UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom made a number of statements about the UK foreign aid budget that illustrate what a borderline racist party UKIP actually is.

He told an approving crowd of UKIP supporters in the West Midlands that Britain should stop sending aid to "Bongo Bongo Land" and that most of the UK foreign aid budget is spent on ""to buy Ray-Ban sunglasses, apartments in Paris and Ferraris".

It took several weeks for the fuss to reach the national press, when they picked up on a radio interview where he tried to defend the use of the phrase "Bongo Bongo Land". Within hours of the mainstream press furore Nigel Farage condemned Bloom's use of the phrase "Bongo Bongo Land" and instructed him to pen a public apology. It is worth noting that Farage's only criticism of Bloom, was for his "wrong language", which was quantified with a statement of 100% support for Bloom's assertions about the UK foreign aid budget, here's exactly what he said:

"Godfrey 100% right over foreign aid budget but pleased he's apologised over the wrong language he used."


Thus it seems that Nigel Farage agrees 100% with the ridiculous false assertion that most of the UK foreign aid budget is spent on luxury items, sports cars and apartments in Paris. There's not really any other way of interpreting 100% support is there?

Alongside the statement of support for Bloom's ridiculous comments about Ray-Bans and apartments in Paris, Farage included a link to Bloom's public apology, which is yet another example of the political non-apology where the politician apologises for any "offense that might have been caused", rather than apologising for having made the statement in the first place. Bloom also tries the ridiculous defence that he didn't think that referring to poor countries as "Bongo Bongo Land" could be seen as offensive. If it is true that he didn't realise that "Bongo Bongo Land" could be deemed offensive, this just goes to illustrate the insular mindset of the UKIP community, where barely concealed racism is not considered offensive by anybody.

For me, the most important element of Bloom's abject so-called apology is a bit of rabble-rousing rhetoric in the penultimate paragraph, where he makes the unsubstantiated assertion that UK foreign aid has been used by the Argentine government to buy Mirage fighter jets. This is a grotesque misrepresentation at best, and an outright lie at worst. Here's what he said:

"My aim, successful as it appears, was to demonstrate the immorality of sending [money abroad], some to buy arms - Mirage fighters in Argentina is just one example."
After a bit of research, I found that according to the Daily Express (which may pass as a reliable source in UKIP circles, but not here) the total UK contribution to Argentine between 2007 and 2013 is supposedly to £27 million . £7 million from a contribution to a joint EU fund, and £20 million in the form of a World Bank loan. I found absolutely no evidence (reliable or otherwise) to justify an assertion that any of this cash had been spent of Mirage fighter jets.

It is absolutely clear where the £7 million contribution to the €50 million EU Development and Cooperation Fund is allocated (source).

  • Education to increase social inclusion and vocational training capacity (32.9%)
  • Economic competitiveness for small businesses (35%)
  • Strengthening EU-Argentina relations (32.1%)
If Godfrey Bloom has evidence that any of this EU money was spent on Mirage fighter jets instead, I'd like to see it because it would be a massive fraud. If it is the case that Mr Bloom has evidence that Argentina used EU social development funds to purchase military hardware, it is somewhat surprising that it hasn't been widely publicised by UKIP, given their ideological opposition to the EU.

It is a bit of a stretch to even consider the £20 million contribution to the $450 million World Bank loan to Argentina as foreign aid, given that it takes the form of a repayable loan, so it should be considered foreign investment rather than foreign aid. However, for the sake of clarity I'll explain what that loan is too.

The World Bank loan to Argentina is "
to support the Government of Argentina’s strategy towards increasing rural productivity in the regional economies of the country (areas outside of the Pampas) and supporting the development of a knowledge economy". All funds provided through this loan facility are also clearly allocated (source):

  • $300 million will support investments in public infrastructure and services in rural areas, as well as complementary on-farm and off-farm private investments, in the Regional Economies. All investments will be aligned with the Provincial Agricultural Development Strategies.
  • $150 million supports the expansion of Argentina’s capacity to generate productive innovation in knowledge-based areas by creating highly skilled human capital; facilitating the creation of new knowledge-based companies; fostering private–public collaborations in the priority areas of information and communication technologies (ICT), nanotechnology and biotechnology; upgrading research-infrastructure; and strengthening the system’s overall policy framework.
Again if Mr Bloom has any evidence that these World Bank loan funds have been spent on Mirage fighters, rather than on rural development and the development of the Argentine "knowledge economy", perhaps it would be good of him to hand his evidence over to the World Bank?

There is one further point that some drooling UKIP reactionary may try to raise, that this £7 million in clearly allocated foreign aid and £20 million in clearly allocated foreign investment could allow the Argentine government to spend some extra money on acquiring Mirage fighters. Lets have a little think about how many Mirage fighters one could buy with £27 million. It turns out that it is actually impossible to buy a new Mirage fighter, since the aircraft went out of production in 2006.

It seems that Bloom is referring to the purchase by Argentina of 20 second hand Mirage fighters from the Spanish Airforce. These fighter were built in the mid 1980s and are badly outdated, hence the Spanish government getting rid of them. Even if the entire £27 million in aid and loans was diverted to this fighter plane purchase (which it clearly wasn't), it would only have funded the transfer of 3 of these outdated jets.

Bloom provides no source at all to justify his assertion that EU and World Bank funds have been misappropriated in this way, and it seems that the subject of Argentine fighters was only raised in a pathetic effort to get narrow minded reactionaries on his side by invoking the "Argentine bogeyman".

I believe that filling out what is purportedly a public apology for offensive language with a pack of lies (or unsubstantiated assertions at absolute best) is hardly a good strategy. Lying to the electorate is contemptible enough, but doing it in a public apology must be some kind of all-time low.


There are a number of issues about the way UK foreign aid is allocated (especially the fact that George Osborne has opened a new tax loophole to allow British based companies to avoid tax on their profits from countries that receive UK foreign aid). Far too much UK foreign aid ends up in corporate hands, and not enough in the hands of the genuinely needy. Nigel Farage's 100% endorsement of Bloom's ridiculous comments and outright lies does absolutely nothing to enhance the debate over the way foreign aid is spent, it simply clarifies the fact that Farage endorses the misleading rhetoric and lies spouted by one of his senior UKIP colleagues.


Whether or not you find Bloom's intemperate language offensive, the essential point to I would like you to take from this post is that the telling of lies about the foreign aid budget clouds the water and makes having a rational debate on foreign aid spending that much more difficult. It is clear that Bloom and Farage don't want to have a rational debate about the way foreign aid is spent as they claim, they simply want to whip up a frenzy of xenophobia with a pack of lies.

The liar is the enemy of honest and objective debate.

 



Another Angry Voice is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for Another Angry Voice is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.



More articles from
ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE
            
  How can we stop our politicians lying to us?
                    
The Iain Duncan Smith fallacy: Libeling the evidence
   
A coalition of Lying Thieving Bastards
    
A warped Tory redefinition of "rights"
                   
David Cameron's debt reduction lie
                      
The economic case against tax-dodging
              

Secret Courts and the very Illiberal Democrats
       
                     
Retroactive laws are fascist laws
                    
What is ... a justification narrative?