asiapacificresearch--2020-11-05--Indonesia Balances War on Illegal Fishing with International Obligations

Since Susi Pudjiastuti left her post atop the Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries in 2019 , the nation ’ s fisheries policy has undergone major changes .
Besides reviving a controversial lobster larvae export program that Susi had banned and ending her policy of sinking foreign poaching boats , now the ministry is formulating regulations on how to promptly release illegal foreign fishing vessels caught by Indonesian authorities .
So is it the best time to have such a regulation in Indonesia ?
Indeed , the obligation for granting a prompt release for illegal foreign fishing vessels and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS ) .
UNCLOS not only grants a sovereign right to a coastal state to explore and exploit natural resource in its exclusive economic zone ( EEZ ) , but also the right to conduct law enforcement against any breach of national regulations if there are a foreign fishing vessels illegally fishing in the coastal state ’ s EEZ .
However , UNCLOS also imposes a limitation on law enforcement in the EEZ , since coastal states only have sovereign rights over natural resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 2 ) , for instance , states that if vessels and their crews are caught for illegal fishing practices in the EEZ , they should be promptly released upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other security .
Since Indonesia is a party to UNCLOS , it is bound to the obligation to grant prompt release under Article 73 ( 2 ) .
To date , however , Indonesia does not have specific regulations on how to implement this obligation for prompt release .
On the other hand , Indonesia has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it impossible to implement prompt release .
Under the Indonesian fisheries law , for instance , it is permissible to immediately sink an illegal foreign fishing vessel based on sufficient preliminary evidence without the need for a final and binding court decision .
Therefore , Indonesia can implement its policy of sinking vessels and disregard the obligation for prompt release .
One of the major directions that President Joko Widodo gave to the new fisheries minister , Edhy Prabowo , is to create a friendlier business environment in the fisheries sector , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fisheries exports .
To implement the president ’ s direction , Edhy has changed some of the previous policies , including no longer sinking illegal foreign fishing vessels in Indonesian waters .
He argued that it is better to use the vessels for Indonesian fisheries training rather than to sink them .
Even though many have praised Susi Pudjiastuti for successfully promoting the sustainable use of the oceans as well as the war against illegal , unreported and unregulated ( IUU ) fishing .
It seems that the president was not satisfied with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector , therefore replacing her with a new minister .
Now , as part of his goals in creating a more business-friendly fisheries sector in Indonesia as well as to ensure compliance with UNCLOS , he is formulating the regulation to implement the obligation for prompt release .
Indonesia ’ s former fisheries minister Susi Pudjiastuti leads the capture of an illegal fishing boat in the Natuna Islands .
Image courtesy of the fisheries ministry .
Indeed , prompt release has been a serious concern for the international community .
Since the International @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was established in 1994 , there have been at least nine cases regarding the failure to grant prompt release by coastal states .
And in some major cases , such as those of the vessels MV Virginia G and Monte Confurco , the tribunal has emphasized the importance of the prompt release obligation to balance the interest of coastal states and flag ( vessel ) states .
Therefore , it is not impossible for Indonesia in the future to be brought before the tribunal by any country that demands a prompt release if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s because there aren ’ t national regulations that make the prompt release possible , and the Indonesian fisheries law makes it possible to sink illegal fishing vessels with only preliminary evidence and no chance of a prompt release .
But this article argues that the policy to sink poaching vessels is not necessarily a breach of UNCLOS if the offer of prompt release has been made and the flag state country fails to express interest in paying a reasonable bond for the release .
That being said , indeed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party to UNCLOS to have national regulations to implement the obligation for prompt release .
That way there will be a certainty of the legal framework that currently does not exist .
However , it doesn ’ t mean that granting a prompt release should be a compromise to any illegal fishing practices in Indonesian waters .
Indonesia still has to focus on the sustainable use of the oceans by having strong sanctions against any illegal fishing practices without breaching any international obligations .
Therefore , prompt release should not mean that Indonesia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war against illegal , unreported and unregulated fishing , but more to balance the coastal states ’ and flag states ’ rights under UNCLOS .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Aristyo Rizka Darmawan is a researcher and lecturer in international law at the Centre for Sustainable Ocean Policy at the Faculty of Law , University of Indonesia .
His research focuses on the law of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He holds a master ’ s degree in international law from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University .
Featured image : A bucket of fish at a market in Labuan Bajo , Indonesia .
Image by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay .

Since Susi Pudjiastuti left her post atop the Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries in 2019, the nation’s fisheries policy has undergone major changes. Besides reviving a controversial lobster larvae export program that Susi had banned and ending her policy of sinking foreign poaching boats, now the ministry is formulating regulations on how to promptly release illegal foreign fishing vessels caught by Indonesian authorities. So is it the best time to have such a regulation in Indonesia?
Indeed, the obligation for granting a prompt release for illegal foreign fishing vessels and crews is laid out under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). UNCLOS not only grants a sovereign right to a coastal state to explore and exploit natural resource in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ), but also the right to conduct law enforcement against any breach of national regulations if there are a foreign fishing vessels illegally fishing in the coastal state’s EEZ.
However, UNCLOS also imposes a limitation on law enforcement in the EEZ, since coastal states only have sovereign rights over natural resources and not full sovereignty. Article 73(2), for instance, states that if vessels and their crews are caught for illegal fishing practices in the EEZ, they should be promptly released upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other security.
Since Indonesia is a party to UNCLOS, it is bound to the obligation to grant prompt release under Article 73(2). To date, however, Indonesia does not have specific regulations on how to implement this obligation for prompt release. On the other hand, Indonesia has national laws that might contradict and make it impossible to implement prompt release.
Under the Indonesian fisheries law, for instance, it is permissible to immediately sink an illegal foreign fishing vessel based on sufficient preliminary evidence without the need for a final and binding court decision. Therefore, Indonesia can implement its policy of sinking vessels and disregard the obligation for prompt release.
One of the major directions that President Joko Widodo gave to the new fisheries minister, Edhy Prabowo, is to create a friendlier business environment in the fisheries sector, so there will be an increase in Indonesian fisheries exports. To implement the president’s direction, Edhy has changed some of the previous policies, including no longer sinking illegal foreign fishing vessels in Indonesian waters. He argued that it is better to use the vessels for Indonesian fisheries training rather than to sink them.
Even though many have praised Susi Pudjiastuti for successfully promoting the sustainable use of the oceans as well as the war against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. It seems that the president was not satisfied with Susi’s relationship with the business sector, therefore replacing her with a new minister. Now, as part of his goals in creating a more business-friendly fisheries sector in Indonesia as well as to ensure compliance with UNCLOS, he is formulating the regulation to implement the obligation for prompt release.
Indonesia’s former fisheries minister Susi Pudjiastuti leads the capture of an illegal fishing boat in the Natuna Islands. Image courtesy of the fisheries ministry.
Indeed, prompt release has been a serious concern for the international community. Since the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea was established in 1994, there have been at least nine cases regarding the failure to grant prompt release by coastal states. And in some major cases, such as those of the vessels MV Virginia G and Monte Confurco, the tribunal has emphasized the importance of the prompt release obligation to balance the interest of coastal states and flag (vessel) states.
Therefore, it is not impossible for Indonesia in the future to be brought before the tribunal by any country that demands a prompt release if Indonesia does not grant prompt release. That’s because there aren’t national regulations that make the prompt release possible, and the Indonesian fisheries law makes it possible to sink illegal fishing vessels with only preliminary evidence and no chance of a prompt release. But this article argues that the policy to sink poaching vessels is not necessarily a breach of UNCLOS if the offer of prompt release has been made and the flag state country fails to express interest in paying a reasonable bond for the release.
That being said, indeed, it is important for Indonesia as a party to UNCLOS to have national regulations to implement the obligation for prompt release. That way there will be a certainty of the legal framework that currently does not exist.
However, it doesn’t mean that granting a prompt release should be a compromise to any illegal fishing practices in Indonesian waters. Indonesia still has to focus on the sustainable use of the oceans by having strong sanctions against any illegal fishing practices without breaching any international obligations. Therefore, prompt release should not mean that Indonesia must take a weaker stance toward the war against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, but more to balance the coastal states’ and flag states’ rights under UNCLOS.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Aristyo Rizka Darmawan is a researcher and lecturer in international law at the Centre for Sustainable Ocean Policy at the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia. His research focuses on the law of the sea and maritime security in Southeast Asia. He holds a master’s degree in international law from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Featured image: A bucket of fish at a market in Labuan Bajo, Indonesia. Image by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay.


asiapacificresearch--2020-11-06--Treadmill of Magic Seeds and Broken Promises: Dismantling the Myth of Bt Cotton Success in India

Political posturing aligned with commercial interests means that truth is becoming a casualty in the debate about genetically modified ( GM ) crops in India .
The industry narrative surrounding Bt cotton is that it has been a great success .
The current Modi-led administration is parroting this claim and argues its success must be replicated by adopting a range of GM food crops , amounting to what would be a full-scale entry of GM technology into Indian agriculture .
Currently , Bt cotton is India ’ s only officially approved commercially cultivated GM crop .
With the aim of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event took place on Friday , 6 September in New Delhi at the Constitution Club of India during which it was declared that Bt cotton has been a costly and damaging failure .
Speakers included prominent environmentalists Aruna Rodrigues and Vandana Shiva who presented a good deal of information based on official reports , research papers and documents submitted as evidence to the Supreme Court on Bt cotton .
It was argued that even the government ’ s own data contradicts its tale of Bt cotton success and that the consequences of irresponsibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a false narrative would be disastrous for the country .
In the early 2000s , Bt cotton was being heavily promoted in India on the basis it would cut pesticide use dramatically , boost yields and contribute to the financial well-being of farmers .
However , pesticide use is back to pre-Bt levels and yields have stagnated or are falling .
Moreover , some 31 countries rank above India in terms of cotton yield and of these only 10 grow GM cotton .
As will be shown , farmers now find themselves on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with an increasing number of Bt/insecticide resistant pests and rising costs of production .
For many small-scale cotton farmers , this has resulted in greater levels of indebtedness and financial distress .
Over 90 % of cotton sown in India is now Bt .
Although initially introduced to the country in 2002 , its adoption was only about 12 and 38 % respectively in 2005 and 2006 .
A good deal of data was contained in the media briefing that accompanied the event in Delhi .
In it , Aruna Rodrigues and Vandana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2005-2006 ) , average yields had already reached the current plateau of about 450-500 kg/ha .
Average all-India Bt cotton yields hovered around or below 500 kg/ha during the period 2005-2018 .
What is particularly revealing is that cotton production for 2018-2019 will be the lowest in a decade , down to an estimated 420.72 kg/ha , according to a press release issued in July by the Cotton Association of India .
Furthermore , the argument is that increases in yields that may have occurred were in any case due to various factors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-yielding hybrid seeds , and not Bt technology .
The data presented by Rodrigues and Shiva shows that cotton yield in the pre-Bt era increased significantly from its 191 kg/ha low in 2002 to 318 kg/ha in 2004-2005 , registering an increase of 66 % in just three years ( the baseline for Bt cotton is 2005-2006 as prior to this adoption rates were not significant ) .
The two environmentalists say this was a result of increased acreage under hybrids and a new class of insecticides .
They note that the momentum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bt era and had nothing to do with that technology .
Their argument is that Bt cotton has failed but is being trumpeted as a success under the cover of increased fertiliser use , hybrid seed trait yield ( not attributable to Bt technology ) , better irrigation and insecticide seed coating .
Bt technology was used in conjunction with high-yielding hybrids ( as opposed to pure line varieties ) and has no trait for intrinsic yield .
This , Rodrigues and Shiva argue , conveniently allowed a smudging of the yield data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yield would prove to be difficult ) and also provided a ‘ value-capture ’ mechanism for Monsanto : the introduction of these hybrids disallows seed saving , forcing farmers to buy new expensive hybrid Bt cotton seed each year ( hybridisation gives one-time vigour ) .
Prior to Bt cotton , the extensive use of insecticides to cope with the Pink Bollworm ( PBW ) , which is native to India , had become a problem .
Spraying for PBW caused outbreaks of the American Bollworm ( ABW ) .
The ABW is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extensive insecticide use and became the target for Bt cotton .
Although Bt cotton was supposed to control both species of bollworm , PBW resistance to Bt toxin has now occurred and the ABW is also developing resistance .
Moreover , post 2002 , new pests have appeared , such as whitefly , jassids and mealybugs .
However , Rodrigues and Shiva note that resistance in PBW now occurs to both Monsanto ’ s Bollgard I and Bollgard II Bt cotton ( BGI and BG II ) .
BGI was replaced by BG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six years after its introduction because the PBW had developed resistance .
The ABW is also now developing resistance to stacked Bt toxins in BG II .
Hybrids are input intensive and are sown at suboptimal wide spacing .
Unlike in other countries that grow Bt cotton , they are long season cottons and are thus more susceptible to pest build-up .
With this in mind , Rodrigues and Shiva refer to Dr K R Kranthi , former director of the Central Institute for Cotton Research , who says : “ Insecticide usage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development in sucking pests to imidacloprid and other neonicotinoid insecticides—by 2012 insecticide usage was at 2002 levels and will continue to increase inducing further outbreaks of insecticide and Bt resistant pests.
” Bt cotton hybrids also require more human labour and perform better under irrigation .
However , 66 % of cotton in India is cultivated in rain fed areas , where yields depend on the timing and quantity of highly variable monsoon rains .
Unreliable rains , the high costs of Bt hybrid seed , continued insecticide use and debt have placed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a situation of severe financial hardship .
In fact , Professor A P Gutierrez argues that Bt cotton has effectively put these farmers in a corporate noose : his research has noted a link between Bt cotton , weather , yields , financial distress and farmer suicides .
Rodrigues and Shiva note that Monsanto was allowed a ‘ royalty ’ on Bollgard I seed without having a patent on it .
Drawing on conservative estimates ( by K R Kranthi ) , on average , the additional expenditure on seeds ( compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rs 1,179 per hectare and the Indian farmer may have spent a total extra amount of Rs 14,000 crores ( 140 billion ) on Bt cotton seeds during the period 2002-2018 .
The trait value charged ( 2002-2018 ) is around Rs 7,000 crores .
This excludes royalties accruing to Mahyco-Monsanto , which were illegal on Bollgard I ( first generation Bt cotton ) and yet allowed by the regulators .
Overall net profit for cotton farmers was Rs 5,971/ha in 2003 ( pre-Bt ) but plummeted to average net losses of Rs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kg/ha exhibited a 2.2-fold increase .
As Bt technology was being rolled out , costs of production were thus increasing .
And these costs were increasing in the face of stagnant yields .
At this point , it is worth broadening the scope of this article by noting that in 2010 , an indefinite moratorium was placed on Bt brinjal , which would have been India ’ s first GM food crop .
Despite the current push for a full-scale entry of GM into Indian agriculture , the moratorium is still in place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , negligence and lack of competence inherent in the GM regulatory process that were acknowledged at that time remain unaddressed .
It would therefore be grossly irresponsible to roll out GM .
If the experience of Bt cotton tells us anything , it would also be extremely unwise to proceed without carrying out independent health , environmental and socio-economic risk assessments .
Of course , establishing the need for GM – crops that outperform current non-GM options currently available – is paramount but totally absent .
With this in mind , Rodrigues and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and newer methods outperform GM agriculture at much less cost , release fewer carbon emissions and earn much greater profits for farmers .
Given this situation ( the fraud of GM and its dubious track record aside ) , anyone could be forgiven for thinking that the plan to get GM into Indian agriculture is solely driven by ideology and commercial interest .
Instead of drawing on proven traditional knowledge and practices to ensure food security , the strategy seems to be to place farmers on biotech-chemical treadmills for the benefit of corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green Revolution , it too was also sold under the guise of ‘ feeding the world ’ .
But in India , according to Professor Glenn Stone , it merely led to more wheat in the diet , while food productivity per capita showed no increase or actually decreased .
Nevertheless , there have been dire consequences for the Indian diet , the environment , farmers , rural communities and public health .
More generally , the Green Revolution dovetailed with an international system of chemical-dependent , agro-export mono-cropping and big infrastructure projects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sovereign debt repayment and World Bank/IMF directives , the outcomes of which included a displacement of the peasantry , the consolidation of global agri-food oligopolies and the transformation of many countries into food deficit regions .
Often regarded as Green Revolution 2.0 , the ‘ gene revolution ’ is integral to the plan to ‘ modernise ’ Indian agriculture This means the displacement of peasant farmers , further corporate consolidation and commercialisation based on industrial-scale monocrop farms incorporated into global supply chains dominated by transnational agribusiness and retail giants .
It would also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
GM-based agriculture is key to what would amount to a wholesale corporate capture of the agri-food sector : a sure-fire money spinner that would dwarf the amount drained from India courtesy of Monsanto ’ s ‘ royalties ’ on Bt cotton .
This wholesale shift to industrial agriculture would have devastating impacts on the environment , rural communities , public health , local and regional food security , seed sovereignty , nutritional yield per acre , water tables and soil quality , etc .
Industrial agriculture has massive health , social and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public and taxpayers , certainly not by the ( subsidised ) corporations that rake in the massive profits .
It is no surprise , therefore , that an increasing international consensus is emerging on the role of agroecology .
In this respect , smallholder farmers are not to be regarded as residues from the past but as being crucial to the future .
And this is not lost on Rodrigues and Shiva who note the vital importance and productivity of small farms ( which outperform industrial-scale enterprises and feed most of the global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farming .
They refer to the recent UN FAO High Level Panel of Experts which concludes that agroecology provides greatly improved food security and nutritional , gender , environmental and yield benefits compared to industrial agriculture .
Furthermore , according to Rodrigues and Shiva , regenerative organic farming can draw down excess carbon from the atmosphere and put it in the soil , thereby reversing climate change and making agriculture climate resilient .
They argue that organic systems are competitive with conventional yields and leach no toxic chemicals .
As for cotton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cotton varieties are highly amenable to low-cost organic farming , providing an excellent opportunity for India to emerge as a global leader in organic cotton .
The take-home message is that if GM food crops are to be rolled out – based on a narrative about Bt cotton that relies more on industry spin than actual facts – it would be disastrous for India .
Given the evidence , it ’ s a warning that should not be taken lightly .
An eight-page briefing was issued to coincide with the media event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and numerous informative charts .
It can be accessed here .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research .
Featured image is from Abhishek Srivastava / Flickr / CC BY 2.0

First published in 2019.
Political posturing aligned with commercial interests means that truth is becoming a casualty in the debate about genetically modified (GM) crops in India. The industry narrative surrounding Bt cotton is that it has been a great success. The current Modi-led administration is parroting this claim and argues its success must be replicated by adopting a range of GM food crops, amounting to what would be a full-scale entry of GM technology into Indian agriculture. Currently, Bt cotton is India’s only officially approved commercially cultivated GM crop.
With the aim of putting the record straight, a media event took place on Friday, 6 September in New Delhi at the Constitution Club of India during which it was declared that Bt cotton has been a costly and damaging failure. Speakers included prominent environmentalists Aruna Rodrigues and Vandana Shiva who presented a good deal of information based on official reports, research papers and documents submitted as evidence to the Supreme Court on Bt cotton.
It was argued that even the government’s own data contradicts its tale of Bt cotton success and that the consequences of irresponsibly rolling out various GM crops based on a false narrative would be disastrous for the country.
PR and broken promises
In the early 2000s, Bt cotton was being heavily promoted in India on the basis it would cut pesticide use dramatically, boost yields and contribute to the financial well-being of farmers. However, pesticide use is back to pre-Bt levels and yields have stagnated or are falling. Moreover, some 31 countries rank above India in terms of cotton yield and of these only 10 grow GM cotton.
As will be shown, farmers now find themselves on a chemical-biotech treadmill and have to deal with an increasing number of Bt/insecticide resistant pests and rising costs of production. For many small-scale cotton farmers, this has resulted in greater levels of indebtedness and financial distress.
Failure to yield
Over 90% of cotton sown in India is now Bt. Although initially introduced to the country in 2002, its adoption was only about 12 and 38% respectively in 2005 and 2006. A good deal of data was contained in the media briefing that accompanied the event in Delhi. In it, Aruna Rodrigues and Vandana Shiva show that, even then (2005-2006), average yields had already reached the current plateau of about 450-500 kg/ha. Average all-India Bt cotton yields hovered around or below 500 kg/ha during the period 2005-2018.
What is particularly revealing is that cotton production for 2018-2019 will be the lowest in a decade, down to an estimated 420.72 kg/ha, according to a press release issued in July by the Cotton Association of India.
Furthermore, the argument is that increases in yields that may have occurred were in any case due to various factors, such as increased fertiliser use and high-yielding hybrid seeds, and not Bt technology.
The data presented by Rodrigues and Shiva shows that cotton yield in the pre-Bt era increased significantly from its 191 kg/ha low in 2002 to 318 kg/ha in 2004-2005, registering an increase of 66% in just three years (the baseline for Bt cotton is 2005-2006 as prior to this adoption rates were not significant). The two environmentalists say this was a result of increased acreage under hybrids and a new class of insecticides.
They note that the momentum of this upward swing carried into the Bt era and had nothing to do with that technology. Their argument is that Bt cotton has failed but is being trumpeted as a success under the cover of increased fertiliser use, hybrid seed trait yield (not attributable to Bt technology), better irrigation and insecticide seed coating.
Biotech treadmill and ecological disruption
Bt technology was used in conjunction with high-yielding hybrids (as opposed to pure line varieties) and has no trait for intrinsic yield. This, Rodrigues and Shiva argue, conveniently allowed a smudging of the yield data (isolating the precise impact of hybrid yield would prove to be difficult) and also provided a ‘value-capture’ mechanism for Monsanto: the introduction of these hybrids disallows seed saving, forcing farmers to buy new expensive hybrid Bt cotton seed each year (hybridisation gives one-time vigour).
Prior to Bt cotton, the extensive use of insecticides to cope with the Pink Bollworm (PBW), which is native to India, had become a problem. Spraying for PBW caused outbreaks of the American Bollworm (ABW). The ABW is a secondary pest that was induced by extensive insecticide use and became the target for Bt cotton.
Although Bt cotton was supposed to control both species of bollworm, PBW resistance to Bt toxin has now occurred and the ABW is also developing resistance. Moreover, post 2002, new pests have appeared, such as whitefly, jassids and mealybugs.
However, Rodrigues and Shiva note that resistance in PBW now occurs to both Monsanto’s Bollgard I and Bollgard II Bt cotton (BGI and BG II). BGI was replaced by BG II as early as 2007-8, just six years after its introduction because the PBW had developed resistance. The ABW is also now developing resistance to stacked Bt toxins in BG II.
Irresponsible roll out
Hybrids are input intensive and are sown at suboptimal wide spacing. Unlike in other countries that grow Bt cotton, they are long season cottons and are thus more susceptible to pest build-up. With this in mind, Rodrigues and Shiva refer to Dr K R Kranthi, former director of the Central Institute for Cotton Research, who says:
“Insecticide usage is increasing each year because of resistance development in sucking pests to imidacloprid and other neonicotinoid insecticides—by 2012 insecticide usage was at 2002 levels and will continue to increase inducing further outbreaks of insecticide and Bt resistant pests.”
Bt cotton hybrids also require more human labour and perform better under irrigation. However, 66% of cotton in India is cultivated in rain fed areas, where yields depend on the timing and quantity of highly variable monsoon rains. Unreliable rains, the high costs of Bt hybrid seed, continued insecticide use and debt have placed many poor (marginal) smallholder farmers in a situation of severe financial hardship.
In fact, Professor A P Gutierrez argues that Bt cotton has effectively put these farmers in a corporate noose: his research has noted a link between Bt cotton, weather, yields, financial distress and farmer suicides.
Monsanto’s profiteering
Rodrigues and Shiva note that Monsanto was allowed a ‘royalty’ on Bollgard I seed without having a patent on it. Drawing on conservative estimates (by K R Kranthi), on average, the additional expenditure on seeds (compared to non-Bt seeds) was at least Rs 1,179 per hectare and the Indian farmer may have spent a total extra amount of Rs 14,000 crores (140 billion) on Bt cotton seeds during the period 2002-2018. The trait value charged (2002-2018) is around Rs 7,000 crores. This excludes royalties accruing to Mahyco-Monsanto, which were illegal on Bollgard I (first generation Bt cotton) and yet allowed by the regulators.
Overall net profit for cotton farmers was Rs 5,971/ha in 2003 (pre-Bt) but plummeted to average net losses of Rs 6,286 in 2015, while fertiliser use kg/ha exhibited a 2.2-fold increase. As Bt technology was being rolled out, costs of production were thus increasing. And these costs were increasing in the face of stagnant yields.
Why GM anyway?
At this point, it is worth broadening the scope of this article by noting that in 2010, an indefinite moratorium was placed on Bt brinjal, which would have been India’s first GM food crop. Despite the current push for a full-scale entry of GM into Indian agriculture, the moratorium is still in place: the conflicts of interest, secrecy, negligence and lack of competence inherent in the GM regulatory process that were acknowledged at that time remain unaddressed.
It would therefore be grossly irresponsible to roll out GM. If the experience of Bt cotton tells us anything, it would also be extremely unwise to proceed without carrying out independent health, environmental and socio-economic risk assessments.
Of course, establishing the need for GM – crops that outperform current non-GM options currently available – is paramount but totally absent. With this in mind, Rodrigues and Shiva cite evidence that traditional plant breeding and newer methods outperform GM agriculture at much less cost, release fewer carbon emissions and earn much greater profits for farmers.
Given this situation (the fraud of GM and its dubious track record aside), anyone could be forgiven for thinking that the plan to get GM into Indian agriculture is solely driven by ideology and commercial interest. Instead of drawing on proven traditional knowledge and practices to ensure food security, the strategy seems to be to place farmers on biotech-chemical treadmills for the benefit of corporate interests.
Green Revolution to ‘gene revolution’
If we look at the Green Revolution, it too was also sold under the guise of ‘feeding the world’. But in India, according to Professor Glenn Stone, it merely led to more wheat in the diet, while food productivity per capita showed no increase or actually decreased. Nevertheless, there have been dire consequences for the Indian diet, the environment, farmers, rural communities and public health.
More generally, the Green Revolution dovetailed with an international system of chemical-dependent, agro-export mono-cropping and big infrastructure projects (dams) linked to loans, sovereign debt repayment and World Bank/IMF directives, the outcomes of which included a displacement of the peasantry, the consolidation of global agri-food oligopolies and the transformation of many countries into food deficit regions.
Often regarded as Green Revolution 2.0, the ‘gene revolution’ is integral to the plan to ‘modernise’ Indian agriculture . This means the displacement of peasant farmers, further corporate consolidation and commercialisation based on industrial-scale monocrop farms incorporated into global supply chains dominated by transnational agribusiness and retail giants. It would also mean the undermining of national food security.
GM-based agriculture is key to what would amount to a wholesale corporate capture of the agri-food sector: a sure-fire money spinner that would dwarf the amount drained from India courtesy of Monsanto’s ‘royalties’ on Bt cotton.
Agroecological solutions
This wholesale shift to industrial agriculture would have devastating impacts on the environment, rural communities, public health, local and regional food security, seed sovereignty, nutritional yield per acre, water tables and soil quality, etc. Industrial agriculture has massive health, social and environmental costs which are borne by the public and taxpayers, certainly not by the (subsidised) corporations that rake in the massive profits.
It is no surprise, therefore, that an increasing international consensus is emerging on the role of agroecology. In this respect, smallholder farmers are not to be regarded as residues from the past but as being crucial to the future.
And this is not lost on Rodrigues and Shiva who note the vital importance and productivity of small farms (which outperform industrial-scale enterprises and feed most of the global population) and the advantages of agroecological farming. They refer to the recent UN FAO High Level Panel of Experts which concludes that agroecology provides greatly improved food security and nutritional, gender, environmental and yield benefits compared to industrial agriculture.
Furthermore, according to Rodrigues and Shiva, regenerative organic farming can draw down excess carbon from the atmosphere and put it in the soil, thereby reversing climate change and making agriculture climate resilient. They argue that organic systems are competitive with conventional yields and leach no toxic chemicals. As for cotton, they state that ‘desi’ species of cotton varieties are highly amenable to low-cost organic farming, providing an excellent opportunity for India to emerge as a global leader in organic cotton.
The take-home message is that if GM food crops are to be rolled out – based on a narrative about Bt cotton that relies more on industry spin than actual facts – it would be disastrous for India. Given the evidence, it’s a warning that should not be taken lightly.
An eight-page briefing was issued to coincide with the media event and contains relevant references, additional data and numerous informative charts. It can be accessed here.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.
Featured image is from Abhishek Srivastava / Flickr / CC BY 2.0


asiapacificresearch--2020-11-06--Australia: Are the “Chooks Coming Home to Roost” for the British Empire, and Their Treatment of Slav

Australia: Are the “Chooks Coming Home to Roost” for the British Empire, and Their Treatment of Slaves Around the World?

This article was originally published in June 2020 .
Australia ’ s Admission to the treatment of the indigenous people , as their slaves , came to light recently when Prime Minister Morrison revealed some of the detail of Australia ’ s “ treatment of slaves ” .
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has apologised for saying on Thursday that there was no slavery in Australia , after he was accused of ignoring the nation ’ s history of forced labour .
Speaking on a Sydney radio on Thursday , Scott Morrison argued against the idea and claimed that Australia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of other countries of the colonial era .
“ Well , when you ’ re talking about Captain James Cook , in his time he was one of the most enlightened persons on these issues you could imagine , ” he said .
“ While slave ships continued to travel around the world , when Australia was established , sure it was a pretty brutal settlement … but there was no slavery in Australia.
” The exploitation of Aboriginal labour took place until the 1970s , with wages being paid not directly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Protection Acts ” .
Last year the Queensland government agreed to pay 10,000 Indigenous people a total of $ 190 million for wages unpaid between 1939 and 1972 .
How will Britain answer for their treatment and exploitation of the people from India , who were sent as slaves to South Africa , Fiji , and elsewhere around the world – to work in the sugar cane fields .
Those people sent from India , were slaves of the British Empire .
Let the flood gates open .
A very sorrowful state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people from not only India ; what about Africa ?
Let the “ movement ” change what has been wrong for so many years .
Britain ’ s time to answer the questions , and compensate .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Gordon J Brigsley is a writer , contributing to the information flow , in creating a thinking and understanding in challenging what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and challenging the mainstream media “ news ” .
Gordon is a professional , with a passion to see the wrongs of the world analysed and shared with those who have an enquiring mind , and ( hopefully ) those who can be enlightened through accurate and honest reporting .
Gordon can be contacted at [ email protected ]

This article was originally published in June 2020.
Australia’s Admission to the treatment of the indigenous people, as their slaves, came to light recently when Prime Minister Morrison revealed some of the detail of Australia’s “treatment of slaves”.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has apologised for saying on Thursday that there was no slavery in Australia, after he was accused of ignoring the nation’s history of forced labour.
“My comments were not intended to give offence and if they did, I deeply regret that, and apologise for that,” Morrison said on Friday, admitting that there have been “all sorts of hideous practices” in Australia.
Speaking on a Sydney radio on Thursday, Scott Morrison argued against the idea and claimed that Australia’s record was better than that of other countries of the colonial era.
“Well, when you’re talking about Captain James Cook, in his time he was one of the most enlightened persons on these issues you could imagine,” he said. “While slave ships continued to travel around the world, when Australia was established, sure it was a pretty brutal settlement … but there was no slavery in Australia.”
The exploitation of Aboriginal labour took place until the 1970s, with wages being paid not directly to them but to the state through special “Protection Acts”. Last year the Queensland government agreed to pay 10,000 Indigenous people a total of $190 million for wages unpaid between 1939 and 1972.
How will Britain answer for their treatment and exploitation of the people from India, who were sent as slaves to South Africa, Fiji, and elsewhere around the world – to work in the sugar cane fields. Those people sent from India, were slaves of the British Empire.
Let the flood gates open. A very sorrowful state – Britain – which lead the enslaving of people from not only India; what about Africa?
Let the “movement” change what has been wrong for so many years. Britain’s time to answer the questions, and compensate.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Gordon J Brigsley is a writer, contributing to the information flow, in creating a thinking and understanding in challenging what is really happening in our world today; and challenging the mainstream media “news”. Gordon is a professional, with a passion to see the wrongs of the world analysed and shared with those who have an enquiring mind, and (hopefully) those who can be enlightened through accurate and honest reporting. Gordon can be contacted at [email protected].


asiapacificresearch--2020-11-06--Rising Trend of Islamophobia in India

Rising Trend of Islamophobia in India

This article was originally published in April 2020 .
As we know that the world is in the grip of a raging coronavirus pandemic and uncertainty and fear are gripping everywhere .
Amidst the widespread of Covid 19 when every country is taking steps to contain and trying to find a way to tackle one of the worst disease of recent times , TV anchors and media organisations and right wing hatemongers in India are leaving no opportunity to demonize , harass and vilify Indian Mulsims .
Indian media is busy in spreading bigotry and communal hatred in relation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media is reporting on Tablighi Jamaat and Islam plays a role in the spread of Islamophobia .
Islamophobic hashtags and memes started soon on social media after the alleged so called Tablighi Jamaat event .
Since the right-wing hatemongers and fringe groups have taken advantage of people ’ s fears and vulnerabilities amid coronavirus pandemic in order to push disinformation , fake news and Islamophobic tweets and posts on digital platforms to vilify Muslims .
As a result of their actions , attacks against Muslim escalate and call for economic boycott of Muslims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of routine .
The hashtag # Islamophobia_In_India is in response to right-wing hatemongers , unbridled media trial & vilification of Tablighi Jamaat and unending witch-hunt of Muslim scholar-activists as well .
Social media users especially Arabian and Indian Muslims and their followers stood against Islamophobia as well anti-Muslim propaganda by turning the hashtag # Islamophobia_In_India into top trending topic on Twitter for several hours in worldwide and particularly in India .
Earlier , the hashtag # coronajihad was used nearly 300,000 times between March 29 and April 3 , predominantly in India and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a South Asian digital human rights group based in the U.S .
The organization tracked hundreds of anti-Muslim hashtags , many of which depict Muslims as suicide bombers strapped with “ virus bombs ” and included terms like ” # IslamicVirus , # BioJihad , and # MuslimVirus.
” ( reported by huffington post ) News headlines ran with the story that the Tablighi conference was the source of the national Covid-19 outbreak .
In swift order , Hindutva nationalists took to social media , dubbing the virus “ Corona Jihad ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labels were accompanied by vile caricatures of Muslims spitting on bystanders and physicians , and doctored videos of Muslims disobeying stay at home orders .
OIC ’ s tweet on growing tide of Islamophobia in India The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation ’ s Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission ( OIC-IPHRC ) alleged that “ Islamophobia ” is on the rise in India and had urged India to take “ urgent steps ” to protect rights of the Muslim community .
“ OIC-IPHRC condemns the unrelenting vicious # Islamophobic campaign in # India maligning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as their negative profiling in media subjecting them to discrimination & violence with impunity.
” “ [ We ] urge the Indian Govt to take urgent steps to stop the growing tide of Islamophobia in India and protect the rights of its persecuted Muslim minority as per its obligations under international Human Rights law , ” wrote in another tweet .
Calling on the Indian government to take steps to protect Muslim minorities who are being “ negatively profiled , ” facing “ discrimination and violence ” amidst the COVID-19 crisis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OIC ) has criticised what it called “ growing Islamophobia ” in India .
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on sunday said on Twitter that COVID-19 does not see race , religion , colour , caste , creed , language or borders before striking .
Our response and conduct thereafter should attach primacy to unity and brotherhood .
We are in this together .
Many social media users shared a tweet of UAE Princess Hend Al Qassimi widely in which she had warned those who are writing anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic posts on social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Khan , Muslim activist raised voice against state suppression and ongoing witch-hunt of Muslim scholar-activists .
She wrote on Twitter that A tweet by Kuwaiti based scholar Dr. Abdullah Al Shoreka went viral on social media in which he had wrote that We hope that the Gulf states and the world will expel every racist person who incites human rights violations in India and incites crimes against humanity .
In his another tweet , he emphasized the importance of syncretic culture in India , said that The calamitous outbreak of Covid-19 virus and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the existing architecture and design of Islamophobic persecution and spree arrest of Muslim activists in India now has been firmly in place .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Md Irshad Ayub is an English editor at millat times and Delhi-based freelance journalist .

This article was originally published in April 2020.
As we know that the world is in the grip of a raging coronavirus pandemic and uncertainty and fear are gripping everywhere. Amidst the widespread of Covid 19 when every country is taking steps to contain and trying to find a way to tackle one of the worst disease of recent times, TV anchors and media organisations and right wing hatemongers in India are leaving no opportunity to demonize, harass and vilify Indian Mulsims. Indian media is busy in spreading bigotry and communal hatred in relation to the Tablighi Jamaat event. The way media is reporting on Tablighi Jamaat and Islam plays a role in the spread of Islamophobia. Islamophobic hashtags and memes started soon on social media after the alleged so called Tablighi Jamaat event.
Since the right-wing hatemongers and fringe groups have taken advantage of people’s fears and vulnerabilities amid coronavirus pandemic in order to push disinformation, fake news and Islamophobic tweets and posts on digital platforms to vilify Muslims. As a result of their actions, attacks against Muslim escalate and call for economic boycott of Muslims in India has been increasingly becoming everydayness of routine. The hashtag #Islamophobia_In_India is in response to right-wing hatemongers, unbridled media trial & vilification of Tablighi Jamaat and unending witch-hunt of Muslim scholar-activists as well. Social media users especially Arabian and Indian Muslims and their followers stood against Islamophobia as well anti-Muslim propaganda by turning the hashtag #Islamophobia_In_India into top trending topic on Twitter for several hours in worldwide and particularly in India.
Earlier, the hashtag #coronajihad was used nearly 300,000 times between March 29 and April 3, predominantly in India and the U.S., according to Equality Labs, a South Asian digital human rights group based in the U.S. The organization tracked hundreds of anti-Muslim hashtags, many of which depict Muslims as suicide bombers strapped with “virus bombs” and included terms like ”#IslamicVirus, #BioJihad, and #MuslimVirus.” (reported by huffington post)
News headlines ran with the story that the Tablighi conference was the source of the national Covid-19 outbreak. In swift order, Hindutva nationalists took to social media, dubbing the virus “Corona Jihad” and the “Muslim Virus.” These labels were accompanied by vile caricatures of Muslims spitting on bystanders and physicians, and doctored videos of Muslims disobeying stay at home orders.
OIC’s tweet on growing tide of Islamophobia in India
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (OIC-IPHRC) alleged that “Islamophobia” is on the rise in India and had urged India to take “urgent steps” to protect rights of the Muslim community.
The body tweeted,
“OIC-IPHRC condemns the unrelenting vicious #Islamophobic campaign in #India maligning Muslims for spread of #COVID-19 as well as their negative profiling in media subjecting them to discrimination & violence with impunity.” “[We] urge the Indian Govt to take urgent steps to stop the growing tide of Islamophobia in India and protect the rights of its persecuted Muslim minority as per its obligations under international Human Rights law,” wrote in another tweet. Calling on the Indian government to take steps to protect Muslim minorities who are being “negatively profiled,” facing “discrimination and violence” amidst the COVID-19 crisis, the 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has criticised what it called “growing Islamophobia” in India.
PM Modi calls for unity and brotherhood
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on sunday said on Twitter that COVID-19 does not see race, religion, colour, caste, creed, language or borders before striking. Our response and conduct thereafter should attach primacy to unity and brotherhood. We are in this together.
Many social media users shared a tweet of UAE Princess Hend Al Qassimi widely in which she had warned those who are writing anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic posts on social media. She wrote on Twitter that
“The ruling family is friends with Indians, but as a royal your rudeness is not welcome. All employees are paid to work, no one comes for free. You make your bread and butter from this land which you scorn and your ridicule will not go unnoticed.”
Nabiya Khan, Muslim activist raised voice against state suppression and ongoing witch-hunt of Muslim scholar-activists. She wrote on Twitter that
“Real inciters and instigators of violence are having a free run whereas the voices that have peacefully been demanding something as noble as equality & justice and called for end to hate are being silenced brazenly. The irony is for everyone to see.”
A tweet by Kuwaiti based scholar Dr. Abdullah Al Shoreka went viral on social media in which he had wrote that We hope that the Gulf states and the world will expel every racist person who incites human rights violations in India and incites crimes against humanity. In his another tweet, he emphasized the importance of syncretic culture in India, said that
“India is a country of security and peace in which people live in mutual respect, but the actions of some organizations and people are spoiling the beauty of India.”
The calamitous outbreak of Covid-19 virus and pandemic was unanticipated and unprecedented, but the existing architecture and design of Islamophobic persecution and spree arrest of Muslim activists in India now has been firmly in place.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Md Irshad Ayub is an English editor at millat times and Delhi-based freelance journalist.


asiapacificresearch--2020-11-06--Hong Kong’s Paradoxical “Independence” Movement

In line with the ongoing crisis in Hong Kong , we repost this article that was originally published on APR in 2018 .
Prominent Hong Kong opposition leader Edward Leung was sentenced to 6 years in prison for assaulting police and his role in leading riots in 2016 .
The Guardian in its article “ Hong Kong jails independence leader Edward Leung for six years , ” would report : Western pundits decried the jail sentence as the breakdown of the “ rule of law ” in Hong Kong .
Yet the riots were violent and destructive , and most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kong not to jail Leung for his role in criminal activity would constitute an actual breakdown of the rule of law .
Edward Leung had been serving as spokesman and by-election candidate for the Hong Kong Indigenous political group .
The group seeks the unrealistic goal of stopping influence from mainland China as part of a wider Western-sponsored political movement to maintain Hong Kong as a pressure point vis-a-vis Beijing .
The movement also attempts to hold Beijing to the parting demands made by British occupiers in 1997 including the “ One Country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the legal framework Western-sponsored agitators use to justify their activities and notions of “ independence.
” And while the Hong Kong “ independence movement ” claims to represent the “ indigenous ” people of Hong Kong and its autonomy – it is in reality a creation of Washington and in no way represents the people of Hong Kong or the concept of “ independence ” in any way .
Other groups among Hong Kong ’ s opposition have already been exposed as US-sponsored agitators .
This includes the entire core leadership of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests , also known as the “ Umbrella Revolution.
” The Western media has attempted to dismiss this .
The New York Times in an article titled , “ Some Chinese Leaders Claim U.S. and Britain Are Behind Hong Kong Protests , ” would claim : Yet what the protest leaders claim , and what is documented fact are two different things .
Accusations of US interference are based on evidence – some of which recipients of US funding have attempted to erase or hide .
But even the New York Times article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Times and Hong Kong opposition deny this funding has gone to protesters specifically , annual reports from organizations opposition members belong to reveal that it has .
Joshua Wong : “ Occupy Central ” leader and secretary general of the “ Demosisto ” party .
While Wong and other have attempted to deny any links to Washington , Wong would literally travel to Washington once the protests concluded to pick up an award for his efforts from NED subsidiary , Freedom House .
Audrey Eu Yuet-mee : the Civic Party chairwoman , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ functions side-by-side with Benny Tai , is entwined with the US State Department and its NDI elsewhere .
She regularly attends forums sponsored by NED and its subsidiary NDI .
In 2009 she was a featured speaker at an NDI sponsored public policy forum hosted by “ SynergyNet , ” also funded by NDI .
In 2012 she was a guest speaker at the NDI-funded Women ’ s Centre “ International Women ’ s Day ” event , hosted by the Hong Kong Council of Women ( HKCW ) which is also annually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , much of the evidence was first exposed by independent bloggers .
Evidence that was picked up by larger media networks was admitted to .
Other evidence that was not , has since been deleted .
One wonders if the evidence had not contradicted denials by “ Occupy Central ” leaders regarding US funding , why would they have systematically deleted entire webpages and even annual reports from the Internet .
In terms of foreign ties , Edward Leung is no exception .
He and his associates have also been implicated with maintaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Edward Leung and other “ Independents ” Caught Meeting US Diplomats In one South China Morning Post article titled , “ ‘ Not some kind of secret meeting ’ : Hong Kong Indigenous leaders meet with American diplomats , ” the Post , Edward Leung and fellow “ Hong Kong Indigenous ” member Ray Wong would attempt to explain why they were caught secretly meeting with the US consulate in Hong Kong .
And of course , foreign forces – specifically Washington – is confirmed to have been funding and backing virtually every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked if he had been approached by other consulates apart from the US , he replied while laughing : Virtually every comment Ray Wong made was untrue .
Had photos of his and Edward Leung ’ s meeting not been leaked online , he and the rest of Hong Kong Indigenous would have categorically denied any ties or meetings with the US government – just as many other Occupy Central groups have attempted to do .
It is also unlikely that Leung and Wong were simply informing the US of their “ beliefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been underwriting their movement and the rest of Occupy Central for years now .
What would Leung and Wong have told the US consulate that Martin Lee and Anson Chan hadn ’ t already told representatives of the US government during their over one-hour talk in front of the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington D.C. in 2014 ?
Or during numerous other meetings stretching back for years and documented within Wikileak ’ s archive of US diplomatic cables ?
Ray Wong ’ s final answer about not being able to discuss other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – indicating impropriety that only additional documentation and evidence will be able to force an acknowledgement of – along with excuses – regarding an “ independence ” movement apparently and completely dependent on Washington .
As Beijing dismantled and diminishes this foreign-funded network in Hong Kong , it is important to not only keep the above facts in mind , but keep them in mind in regards to the intentional and repetitious lies told by the Western media to portray individuals like Edward Leung and organizations like Hong Kong Indigenous as “ pro-democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truly are .
Tony Cartalucci is Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer , especially for the online magazine “ New Eastern Outlook ” where this article was originally published .
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research .
All images in this article are from the author .

In line with the ongoing crisis in Hong Kong, we repost this article that was originally published on APR in 2018.
Prominent Hong Kong opposition leader Edward Leung was sentenced to 6 years in prison for assaulting police and his role in leading riots in 2016.
The Guardian in its article “Hong Kong jails independence leader Edward Leung for six years,” would report:
Hong Kong’s leading independence activist has been jailed for six years for his involvement in some of the city’s worst protest violence for decades. Edward Leung was convicted in May of rioting over the 2016 running battles with police, when demonstrators hurled bricks torn up from pavements and set rubbish alight in the commercial district of Mong Kok.
Western pundits decried the jail sentence as the breakdown of the “rule of law” in Hong Kong. Yet the riots were violent and destructive, and most certainly against the law. For Hong Kong not to jail Leung for his role in criminal activity would constitute an actual breakdown of the rule of law.
Edward Leung had been serving as spokesman and by-election candidate for the Hong Kong Indigenous political group. The group seeks the unrealistic goal of stopping influence from mainland China as part of a wider Western-sponsored political movement to maintain Hong Kong as a pressure point vis-a-vis Beijing.
The movement also attempts to hold Beijing to the parting demands made by British occupiers in 1997 including the “One Country, Two Systems” principle which serves as the legal framework Western-sponsored agitators use to justify their activities and notions of “independence.”
Hong Kong “Independence” = Dependence on Washington
And while the Hong Kong “independence movement” claims to represent the “indigenous” people of Hong Kong and its autonomy – it is in reality a creation of Washington and in no way represents the people of Hong Kong or the concept of “independence” in any way.
Other groups among Hong Kong’s opposition have already been exposed as US-sponsored agitators. This includes the entire core leadership of the 2014 so-called “Occupy Central” protests, also known as the “Umbrella Revolution.”
The Western media has attempted to dismiss this. The New York Times in an article titled, “Some Chinese Leaders Claim U.S. and Britain Are Behind Hong Kong Protests,” would claim:
Protest leaders said they had not received any funding from the United States government or nonprofit groups affiliated with it. Chinese officials choose to blame hidden foreign forces, they argued, in part because they find it difficult to accept that so many ordinary people in Hong Kong want democracy.
Yet what the protest leaders claim, and what is documented fact are two different things. Accusations of US interference are based on evidence – some of which recipients of US funding have attempted to erase or hide. But even the New York Times article itself admits that:
…the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit directly supported by Washington, distributed $755,000 in grants in Hong Kong in 2012, and an additional $695,000 last year, to encourage the development of democratic institutions. Some of that money was earmarked “to develop the capacity of citizens — particularly university students — to more effectively participate in the public debate on political reform.”
While the New York Times and Hong Kong opposition deny this funding has gone to protesters specifically, annual reports from organizations opposition members belong to reveal that it has.
“Occupy Central” leaders and organizations receiving US support include:
Benny Tai: a law professor at the University of Hong Kong and a regular collaborator with the US NED and NDI-funded Centre for Comparative and Public Law (CCPL) also of the University of Hong Kong. In the CCPL’s 2006-2007 annual report, (PDF, since deleted) he was named as a board member – a position he has held until at least as recently as last year. In CCPL’s 2011-2013 annual report (PDF, since deleted), NED subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI) is listed as having provided funding to the organization to “design and implement an online Models of Universal Suffrage portal where the general public can discuss and provide feedback and ideas on which method of universal suffrage is most suitable for Hong Kong.”
In CCPL’s annual report for 2013-2014 (PDF, since deleted), Tai is not listed as a board member but is listed as participating in at least 3 conferences organized by CCPL, and as heading at least one of CCPL’s projects. At least one conference has him speaking side-by-side another prominent “Occupy Central” figure, Audrey Eu. The 2013-2014 annual report also lists NDI as funding CCPL’s “Design Democracy Hong Kong” website.
Martin Lee: a senior leader of the Occupy Central movement. Lee organized and physically led protest marches. He also regularly delivered speeches according to the South China Morning Post. But before leading the Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong, he and Anson Chan were in Washington D.C. before the NED soliciting US assistance (video).
During a talk in Washington titled, “Why Democracy in Hong Kong Matters,” Lee and Chan would lay out the entire “Occupy Central” narrative about independence from Beijing and a desire for self-governance before an American audience representing a foreign government Lee, Chan, and their entire opposition are ironically very much dependent on. NED would eventually release a statement claiming that it has never aided Lee or Chan, nor were Lee or Chan leaders of the “Occupy Central” movement.
But by 2015, after “Occupy Central” was over, NED subsidiary Freedom House would not only invite Benny Tai and Joshua Wong to Washington, but also Martin Lee in an event acknowledging the three as “Hong Kong democracy leaders.” All three would take to the stage with their signature yellow umbrellas, representing their roles in the “Occupy Central” protests, and of course – exposing NED’s lie denying Lee’s leadership role in the protests. Additionally, multiple leaked US diplomatic cables (here, here, and here) indicate that Martin Lee has been in close contact with the US government for years, and regularly asked for and received various forms of aid.
Interestingly enough, much of the evidence was first exposed by independent bloggers. Evidence that was picked up by larger media networks was admitted to. Other evidence that was not, has since been deleted. One wonders if the evidence had not contradicted denials by “Occupy Central” leaders regarding US funding, why would they have systematically deleted entire webpages and even annual reports from the Internet.
In terms of foreign ties, Edward Leung is no exception. He and his associates have also been implicated with maintaining inappropriate relations with the US government.
Edward Leung and other “Independents” Caught Meeting US Diplomats
In one South China Morning Post article titled, “‘Not some kind of secret meeting’: Hong Kong Indigenous leaders meet with American diplomats,” the Post, Edward Leung and fellow “Hong Kong Indigenous” member Ray Wong would attempt to explain why they were caught secretly meeting with the US consulate in Hong Kong.
The article would claim:
The photos, published by news website Bastille Post on Wednesday night, showed three members of the group – including Edward Leung Tin-kei and Ray Wong Toi-yeung – meeting two consulate staffers. The quintet reportedly chatted for around an hour and a half, speaking in Putonghua at times, before going their separate ways.
Some mainland media and Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying have both claimed that there were foreign forces behind the city’s pro-democracy protests of 2014.
And of course, foreign forces – specifically Washington – is confirmed to have been funding and backing virtually every aspect of the 2014 protests.
Ray Wong would claim:
I think it’s perfectly normal to meet with consulates of different countries. I know it is a practice for consulates of different countries to meet and communicate with civil organizers and politicians. Our meeting with the US consulate was not private. It took place at a rather public setting.
In the past, for them to understand localists and us, they did it through foreign media and (other) media. But most of the media have established views, or are bias in order to create news value. I guess the most direct way is for us to tell them our beliefs and stances.
When asked if he had been approached by other consulates apart from the US, he replied while laughing:
Yes, but I cannot discuss that.
Virtually every comment Ray Wong made was untrue. Had photos of his and Edward Leung’s meeting not been leaked online, he and the rest of Hong Kong Indigenous would have categorically denied any ties or meetings with the US government – just as many other Occupy Central groups have attempted to do.
It is also unlikely that Leung and Wong were simply informing the US of their “beliefs and stances” since the US has been underwriting their movement and the rest of Occupy Central for years now. What would Leung and Wong have told the US consulate that Martin Lee and Anson Chan hadn’t already told representatives of the US government during their over one-hour talk in front of the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington D.C. in 2014? Or during numerous other meetings stretching back for years and documented within Wikileak’s archive of US diplomatic cables?
Ray Wong’s final answer about not being able to discuss other meetings with foreign consulates speaks for itself – indicating impropriety that only additional documentation and evidence will be able to force an acknowledgement of – along with excuses – regarding an “independence” movement apparently and completely dependent on Washington.
As Beijing dismantled and diminishes this foreign-funded network in Hong Kong, it is important to not only keep the above facts in mind, but keep them in mind in regards to the intentional and repetitious lies told by the Western media to portray individuals like Edward Leung and organizations like Hong Kong Indigenous as “pro-democracy” rather than the US proxies they truly are.
*
Tony Cartalucci is Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
All images in this article are from the author.


asiapacificresearch--2020-11-06--New Film Explores U.S. Suppression of Key Footage from Hiroshima and Nagasaki

This article was originally crossposted in June 2020 .
Last month , I completed work on my first film , writing and directing a documentary titled Atomic Cover-up .
Below you can watch via a link four brief clips .
The story for me began , however , thirty-eight years ago this month .
That day also helped set me on the path to spending four weeks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki soon after , and subsequently writing three books on the subject ( including one to be published in July ) , hundreds of articles , and a lifelong engagement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warfare .
In June 1982 , the grassroots antinuclear movement in the U.S. ( and much of the world ) was cresting .
The June 12th march and rally in New York City would draw well over half a million protesters , with some observers calling it the largest such gathering in the country ’ s history .
Many new films with nuclear themes suddenly appeared , including the popular Atomic Cafe .
As someone who came of age in the 1950s and 1960s , I had experienced the terror of the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I had never attended an “ anti-bomb ” protest .
My knowledge of the debate surrounding the dropping of two atomic bombs over Japan in 1945 was only skin-deep .
But one day in June 1982 , I took notice when the Japan Society in New York announced it would screen the first movie drawing on footage shot in vivid color in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by an elite American military team , then suppressed for decades by the U.S. government .
One of the U.S. Army officers who was part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its suppression for the first time .
I was a member of the Japan Society–they had even arranged my recent interview with film director Akira Kurosawa–and always loved a good “ cover-up.
” So I attended the event a few days later .
The film , produced in Japan , was called Prophecy .
Someone connected with it introduced former Army lieutenant Herbert Sussan , who went on to a long career as a producer/director in the emerging television industry .
He described being recruited near the end of 1945 from the Army @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hollywood ( where he had met Ronald Reagan , among others ) to join a major U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey project to shoot the first and only color footage documenting the destruction of Japanese cities from the air during the war .
It seemed to offer a free , triumphant , trip for the young man until the crew arrived by train at their first stop : Nagasaki .
He would be haunted by what he saw there , and then in Hiroshima , for the rest of his life .
I suppose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I could say that I would be haunted by his words , and the film we would see , for the rest of my life .
Sussan described filming , in blazing color–still rarely used by documentarians at the time–the badly injured , burned or radiation-plagued patients in hospitals .
The cameraman was often Akira “ Harry ” Mimura , from the major Toho studio who had shot Kurosawa ’ s first film , Sanshiro Sugata , and also worked in Hollywood .
Americans back home , to this point , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see grainy , black and white images of rubble in the atomic cities , never the victims , who were mainly women , elderly men and children .
The U.S. had also seized , or banned publication in Japan of photographs of bombing victims taken by Japanese , a ban that remained throughout the Occupation years to 1952 .
When he returned to New York after filming in numerous other bomb-ravaged Japanese cities , Sussan was determined to show the world what he had experienced , hoping that this might halt the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent a dangerous nuclear arms race with the Russians .
Instead , he found that all of the footage had been classified top secret and buried by the U.S. military .
Some of it would eventually be used in training films , but none of it was shown to the public .
The color images were just too revealing not only of unfathomable destruction of buildings , but above all the long-lasting damage to human bodies .
Seized at the same time by the U.S. and hidden for the next quarter of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and white footage shot earlier by the leading Japanese newsreel company , Nippon Eiga Sha .
Sussan tried for twenty years to find and make use of his footage–Americans still had not been exposed to color images of any kind from Hiroshima and Nagasaki–but he got nowhere , even after personally approaching everyone from famed newsman Edward R. Murrow to former President Harry S. Truman .
Image on the right : Frame from color footage that Sussan saw at photo exhibit .
Finally , he would , almost by accident , play a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the world .
Around 1979 he attended an exhibit of photos from the atomic cities at the United Nations near his apartment .
To his dismay , he spotted several color enlargements of frames from the footage his team had shot in 1946..
He said to a Japanese man , Iwakura Tsotumu , who had helped arrange the exhibit , something to the effect , “ I shot the footage this photo is taken from.
” Imagine Iwakura ’ s surprise .
Iwakura did some digging at the National Archives in Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been declassified , very quietly , a few years earlier .
If no one knew about this , it was just the same as still being classified .
Iwakura went back to Japan and launched what became known as the “ 10 Feet Movement , ” a grassroots project that encouraged people ( including school kids ) to raise and contribute funds to buy back copies of all of the color footage in increments of ten feet .
When they reached their goal in 1980 , he made the footage available to Japanese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with more in the works .
The creators of the film that I saw , Prophecy , directed by Hani Susumi , were able to track down some of the survivors shown in the 1946 footage and then contrast the badly-scarred images of them in 1946 with images from interviews with them from the early 1980s .
Soon Americans started making use of the color footage–although only in brief passages–in their own films .
Sussan was gravely ill ( one of his doctors would tell him it was at least possible that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1946 ) .
But my interest had been sparked by listening to him and watching Prophecy .
Later in 1982 , when I became the editor of the leading American magazine for the anti-nuclear movement , Nuclear Times , the first feature I assigned was on Herbert Sussan .
I joined in the interview and became a friend .
I also tracked down in California the man who led the U.S. filming project , Lt. Col. Daniel A. McGovern .
On why the footage was suppressed , McGovern informed me that officials and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the horror it contained .
…because it showed effects on men , women and children…They didn ’ t want that material out because they were working on new nuclear weapons.
” He also sent to me dozens of pages of formerly secret documents from his files , including the original military orders to shoot the footage , his attempts to use the Japanese and/or American footage in films for the public , and the official orders denying that , plus logs of all the classified footage .
I would also talk with Erik @ @ @ @ @ @ @ films who in 1970 had created the first film to make use of the long-suppressed black and white Nippon Eiga Sha footage , Hiroshima-Nagasaki 1945 .
It aired over public television in the U.S. at its full sixteen-minute length , and drew wide attention , although at least one local station refused to air it .
Aiming to gain firsthand experience , I secured a journalism grant via Akiba Tadatoshi ( much later the mayor of Hiroshima ) to spend a month in Hiroshima and Nagasaki , meeting among others some of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I wrote articles on various aspects of that trip for The New York Times and Washington Post , among others , and dozens of articles about the atomic bombings for numerous other outlets .
I would even interview Paul Tibbets , the pilot of the Enola Gay , which deposited the bomb over Hiroshima , and meet his counterpart on the Nagasaki mission , Charles Sweeney .
A decade later , I penned a small section on the color footage in my book with Robert Jay Lifton , Hiroshima in America .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book about the saga of the footage , Atomic Cover-up , which was excerpted here at The Asia-Pacific Journal .
It even plays a role in my new book to be published next month , The Beginning or the End : How Hollywood–and America–Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb , on the MGM docudrama of that name , also shot in 1946 .
The MGM movie was directly inspired by warnings from the atomic scientists against building bigger bombs and an arms race with the Russians , but was soon transformed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the White House and the military .
Any mention of Nagasaki , for example , was left on the cutting room floor .
Finally , last year , I set out to fulfill the vision I had , decades ago , of paying tribute to those who shot both the Japanese newsreel and U.S. military footage in 1945-1946 .
I arranged for the first super-high definition transfers of the Japanese footage and several reels of the color footage from the National Archives .
I also obtained relevant portions of books by or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Japanese footage , and the memoir of Harry Mimura , and had key sections translated from the Japanese .
( Abe Markus Nornes , the leading American authority on the Japanese footage , served as an advisor . )
Starting in March , working remotely with an editor in New York , I directed a subtle , perhaps artful , 47-minute documentary , with an original musical score , also titled Atomic Cover-up .
It ’ s told completely through the once-buried Nippon Eiga Sha and American footage , and via @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or produced it in voice-overs .
I am happy to provide four brief excerpts : The first features Lt. McGovern describing his arrival in Nagasaki and Hiroshima for the first time , accompanied by the striking color images .
The second reveals the seizure of the Nippon Eiga Sha footage by the U.S. occupation authorities and how the filmmakers responded–by hiding a print in the ceiling .
The third finds Lt. Sussan paying tribute to the doctors and nurses at the partly destroyed Red Cross Hospital in Hiroshima , which has particular resonance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world cope with the still-horrendous Covid-19 crisis .
And the final one documents the beginning of Sussan ’ s attempts to locate the footage by approaching everyone from Truman to Robert F. Kennedy .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Greg Mitchell is the author of a dozen books , including most recently The Tunnels : Escapes Under the Berlin Wall ( Crown ) and The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America–Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb .
All images in this article are from APJJF

This article was originally crossposted in June 2020.
Last month, I completed work on my first film, writing and directing a documentary titled Atomic Cover-up. Below you can watch via a link four brief clips. The story for me began, however, thirty-eight years ago this month. That day also helped set me on the path to spending four weeks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki soon after, and subsequently writing three books on the subject (including one to be published in July), hundreds of articles, and a lifelong engagement with political and ethical issues surrounding nuclear warfare.
In June 1982, the grassroots antinuclear movement in the U.S. (and much of the world) was cresting. The June 12th march and rally in New York City would draw well over half a million protesters, with some observers calling it the largest such gathering in the country’s history. Many new films with nuclear themes suddenly appeared, including the popular Atomic Cafe.
The Atomic Cafe (1982) – Re-Release Trailer
As someone who came of age in the 1950s and 1960s, I had experienced the terror of the most dangerous years of the nuclear arms race, but I had never attended an “anti-bomb” protest. My knowledge of the debate surrounding the dropping of two atomic bombs over Japan in 1945 was only skin-deep.
But one day in June 1982, I took notice when the Japan Society in New York announced it would screen the first movie drawing on footage shot in vivid color in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by an elite American military team, then suppressed for decades by the U.S. government. One of the U.S. Army officers who was part of that team would discuss the film and its suppression for the first time. I was a member of the Japan Society–they had even arranged my recent interview with film director Akira Kurosawa–and always loved a good “cover-up.” So I attended the event a few days later.
The film, produced in Japan, was called Prophecy. Someone connected with it introduced former Army lieutenant Herbert Sussan, who went on to a long career as a producer/director in the emerging television industry. He described being recruited near the end of 1945 from the Army’s famous wartime film studio in Hollywood (where he had met Ronald Reagan, among others) to join a major U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey project to shoot the first and only color footage documenting the destruction of Japanese cities from the air during the war. It seemed to offer a free, triumphant, trip for the young man until the crew arrived by train at their first stop: Nagasaki. He would be haunted by what he saw there, and then in Hiroshima, for the rest of his life.
The Prophecy (Part 1 of 6)
I suppose, no doubt to a lesser degree, I could say that I would be haunted by his words, and the film we would see, for the rest of my life.
Sussan described filming, in blazing color–still rarely used by documentarians at the time–the badly injured, burned or radiation-plagued patients in hospitals. The cameraman was often Akira “Harry” Mimura, from the major Toho studio who had shot Kurosawa’s first film, Sanshiro Sugata, and also worked in Hollywood.
Hiroshima after the bombing, 1945
Americans back home, to this point, he pointed out, had only been allowed to see grainy, black and white images of rubble in the atomic cities, never the victims, who were mainly women, elderly men and children. The U.S. had also seized, or banned publication in Japan of photographs of bombing victims taken by Japanese, a ban that remained throughout the Occupation years to 1952.
When he returned to New York after filming in numerous other bomb-ravaged Japanese cities, Sussan was determined to show the world what he had experienced, hoping that this might halt the building of new and bigger weapons and prevent a dangerous nuclear arms race with the Russians.
Instead, he found that all of the footage had been classified top secret and buried by the U.S. military. Some of it would eventually be used in training films, but none of it was shown to the public. The color images were just too revealing not only of unfathomable destruction of buildings, but above all the long-lasting damage to human bodies.
Seized at the same time by the U.S. and hidden for the next quarter of a century was all of the searing black and white footage shot earlier by the leading Japanese newsreel company, Nippon Eiga Sha.
Sussan tried for twenty years to find and make use of his footage–Americans still had not been exposed to color images of any kind from Hiroshima and Nagasaki–but he got nowhere, even after personally approaching everyone from famed newsman Edward R. Murrow to former President Harry S. Truman.
Image on the right: Frame from color footage that Sussan saw at photo exhibit.
Finally, he would, almost by accident, play a central role in the footage becoming known to the world. Around 1979 he attended an exhibit of photos from the atomic cities at the United Nations near his apartment. To his dismay, he spotted several color enlargements of frames from the footage his team had shot in 1946.. He said to a Japanese man, Iwakura Tsotumu, who had helped arrange the exhibit, something to the effect, “I shot the footage this photo is taken from.”
Imagine Iwakura’s surprise. Iwakura did some digging at the National Archives in Washington and discovered that the color footage had been declassified, very quietly, a few years earlier. If no one knew about this, it was just the same as still being classified.
Iwakura went back to Japan and launched what became known as the “10 Feet Movement,” a grassroots project that encouraged people (including school kids) to raise and contribute funds to buy back copies of all of the color footage in increments of ten feet. When they reached their goal in 1980, he made the footage available to Japanese filmmakers, who soon completed two documentaries, with more in the works.
The creators of the film that I saw, Prophecy, directed by Hani Susumi, were able to track down some of the survivors shown in the 1946 footage and then contrast the badly-scarred images of them in 1946 with images from interviews with them from the early 1980s. Soon Americans started making use of the color footage–although only in brief passages–in their own films.
Sussan was gravely ill (one of his doctors would tell him it was at least possible that his lymphoma stemmed from radiation exposure in 1946). But my interest had been sparked by listening to him and watching Prophecy. Later in 1982, when I became the editor of the leading American magazine for the anti-nuclear movement, Nuclear Times, the first feature I assigned was on Herbert Sussan. I joined in the interview and became a friend.
I also tracked down in California the man who led the U.S. filming project, Lt. Col. Daniel A. McGovern. On why the footage was suppressed, McGovern informed me that officials and the military “were fearful because of the horror it contained. …because it showed effects on men, women and children…They didn’t want that material out because they were working on new nuclear weapons.” He also sent to me dozens of pages of formerly secret documents from his files, including the original military orders to shoot the footage, his attempts to use the Japanese and/or American footage in films for the public, and the official orders denying that, plus logs of all the classified footage.
I would also talk with Erik Barnouw, the legendary writer on documentary films who in 1970 had created the first film to make use of the long-suppressed black and white Nippon Eiga Sha footage, Hiroshima-Nagasaki 1945. It aired over public television in the U.S. at its full sixteen-minute length, and drew wide attention, although at least one local station refused to air it.
Hiroshima-Nagasaki 1945: The Original Footage
Aiming to gain firsthand experience, I secured a journalism grant via Akiba Tadatoshi (much later the mayor of Hiroshima) to spend a month in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, meeting among others some of those filmed by Sussan and McGovern. Then I wrote articles on various aspects of that trip for The New York Times and Washington Post, among others, and dozens of articles about the atomic bombings for numerous other outlets. I would even interview Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, which deposited the bomb over Hiroshima, and meet his counterpart on the Nagasaki mission, Charles Sweeney.
A decade later, I penned a small section on the color footage in my book with Robert Jay Lifton, Hiroshima in America. A few years later, I wrote a book about the saga of the footage, Atomic Cover-up, which was excerpted here at The Asia-Pacific Journal.
It even plays a role in my new book to be published next month, The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood–and America–Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, on the MGM docudrama of that name, also shot in 1946. The MGM movie was directly inspired by warnings from the atomic scientists against building bigger bombs and an arms race with the Russians, but was soon transformed into falsified, pro-bomb propaganda under pressure from the White House and the military. Any mention of Nagasaki, for example, was left on the cutting room floor.
Finally, last year, I set out to fulfill the vision I had, decades ago, of paying tribute to those who shot both the Japanese newsreel and U.S. military footage in 1945-1946. I arranged for the first super-high definition transfers of the Japanese footage and several reels of the color footage from the National Archives. I also obtained relevant portions of books by or about several of the cameramen and producers of the Japanese footage, and the memoir of Harry Mimura, and had key sections translated from the Japanese. (Abe Markus Nornes, the leading American authority on the Japanese footage, served as an advisor.)
Starting in March, working remotely with an editor in New York, I directed a subtle, perhaps artful, 47-minute documentary, with an original musical score, also titled Atomic Cover-up. It’s told completely through the once-buried Nippon Eiga Sha and American footage, and via the first-person accounts of those who shot or produced it in voice-overs.
I am happy to provide four brief excerpts:
The first features Lt. McGovern describing his arrival in Nagasaki and Hiroshima for the first time, accompanied by the striking color images.
The second reveals the seizure of the Nippon Eiga Sha footage by the U.S. occupation authorities and how the filmmakers responded–by hiding a print in the ceiling.
The third finds Lt. Sussan paying tribute to the doctors and nurses at the partly destroyed Red Cross Hospital in Hiroshima, which has particular resonance today as health workers there and throughout the world cope with the still-horrendous Covid-19 crisis.
And the final one documents the beginning of Sussan’s attempts to locate the footage by approaching everyone from Truman to Robert F. Kennedy.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Greg Mitchell is the author of a dozen books, including most recently The Tunnels: Escapes Under the Berlin Wall (Crown) and The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood–and America–Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
All images in this article are from APJJF