asiapacificresearch--2020-06-12--Battles over Education: Australia, China and Unsafe Universities

Entering a university should be , to some degree , unsafe .
Away from the gazing eyes of parents , institutional structures for the child , the entrant faces , or at least should face , the prospect of something truly daunting : To think , to entertain discomfort , to see old ideas and presumptions die gloriously in the inferno of learning .
None of this is easy , but all of it should be encouraged .
The modern university is , however , an infantilizing coddle of an experience , a managerial pit-heap , and a spreadsheet-directed mire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It has “ alignments ” with industries .
It embraces “ Five Year Plans ” which would warm the boilersuit dictators of old .
It hires the legions of public relations as a matter of course .
All this serves to encourage an absence of thought , the dolling out of degrees for purchase , and a range of other additions that make the modern university susceptible to manipulation .
With all this in mind , the China-Australia “ education wars ” ( dare one even go that far ? )
serve to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that matters in the debate .
Relations between Beijing and Canberra have cooled .
Australia ’ s education sector , having buried itself so deeply in its reliance on Chinese students , is bleeding .
Jobs are for the chop .
And the insistence by the Morrison government in taking the lead on the China containment agenda , from limiting the reach of Huawei to the issue of an inquiry into the origins and handling of the novel coronavirus , has served to irritate and estrange .
Retaliation has been forthcoming .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broken out , a surely devastating thing for “ the world ’ s most China-dependent economy ” .
Beijing has imposed tariffs on Australian barley .
Beef exports from four Australian abattoirs banned .
Now , it is the turn of Australian universities and the Chinese student market .
China ’ s Education Bureau has decided to change its tune on the Australian education market , warning students that resuming classes in July might endanger them .
Students should “ conduct a good risk assessment and be cautious about choosing to go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study.
” It is also all tease and prodding , reversing the entire narrative on COVID-19 .
If you do go to Australia , you might be at risk of the pandemic .
This warning also chimed with one that had been issued by the Chinese Ministry of Culture and Tourism on June 6 .
Australia ’ s Education Minister Dan Tehan , a truly rough , unwashed piece to behold , made sure to bring out the pom poms for the sector he is meant to be representing in a statement to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underscore the one thing Tehan and Australian university Vice-Chancellors understand : cash .
As for the issue of pandemic safety , Tehan reminded any critics that Australia has been fairly credible when it comes to stifling the COVID-19 spread .
( Cue the self-flattery , back-patting , congratulations . )
Students have found themselves in a geopolitical sandwich , and an unpleasant one it is too .
Chinese students have been telling the ABC that the issue is one of indignation between political representatives rather than the “ people ” , who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as tolerate the increasingly commercialised tertiary sector .
One Mr Zhen , who is studying a Masters degree in biomedicine at the University of Adelaide , was keen to stay apolitical .
The June 6 travel warning had been unnecessary ; the further warning for returning students had “ gone too far ” .
Another University of Adelaide student , postdoctoral candidate Primo Pan , conceded to enduring a few instances of racism during the pandemic , though had no desire to throw in the towel .
Australian universities have their palace defenders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowing which side his bread is buttered on , insists that This is all too rosy , and even disingenuous .
International students have been excluded from protective income measures that would have made retaining Australia as a destination viable .
The approach in terms of assistance packages has been piecemeal , shoddy and deeply bureaucratic .
Universities still demand top dollar from their students , and a generous , collective waiver of fees has not been embraced .
Such students are currency , and the contempt towards them shows .
The Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way quite different to its assumption .
Students are being harmed , but not in the way they might realise .
They are certainly not being made to feel unsafe through rigorous academic standards of the sort Tehan boasts about .
Australian universities have adjusted admission standards and tailored courses that are less challenging in order to increase and retain foreign students .
Those exposing this farce have been attacked .
The function of learning has been replaced by the nature of process and delivery .
Note to readers : please click @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College , Cambridge .
He lectures at RMIT University , Melbourne .
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research .
Email : [ email protected ]

Entering a university should be, to some degree, unsafe. Away from the gazing eyes of parents, institutional structures for the child, the entrant faces, or at least should face, the prospect of something truly daunting: To think, to entertain discomfort, to see old ideas and presumptions die gloriously in the inferno of learning. None of this is easy, but all of it should be encouraged.
The modern university is, however, an infantilizing coddle of an experience, a managerial pit-heap, and a spreadsheet-directed mire of gobbledygook. It seeks cash. It has “alignments” with industries. It embraces “Five Year Plans” which would warm the boilersuit dictators of old. It hires the legions of public relations as a matter of course. All this serves to encourage an absence of thought, the dolling out of degrees for purchase, and a range of other additions that make the modern university susceptible to manipulation.
With all this in mind, the China-Australia “education wars” (dare one even go that far?) serve to show that learning is the last thing that matters in the debate. Relations between Beijing and Canberra have cooled. Australia’s education sector, having buried itself so deeply in its reliance on Chinese students, is bleeding. Jobs are for the chop. And the insistence by the Morrison government in taking the lead on the China containment agenda, from limiting the reach of Huawei to the issue of an inquiry into the origins and handling of the novel coronavirus, has served to irritate and estrange.
Retaliation has been forthcoming. A trade war in all but declaration has broken out, a surely devastating thing for “the world’s most China-dependent economy”. Beijing has imposed tariffs on Australian barley. Beef exports from four Australian abattoirs banned. Now, it is the turn of Australian universities and the Chinese student market.
China’s Education Bureau has decided to change its tune on the Australian education market, warning students that resuming classes in July might endanger them. Students should “conduct a good risk assessment and be cautious about choosing to go to Australia or to return to Australia to study.” It is also all tease and prodding, reversing the entire narrative on COVID-19. If you do go to Australia, you might be at risk of the pandemic.
This warning also chimed with one that had been issued by the Chinese Ministry of Culture and Tourism on June 6.
“Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, racial discrimination and violence against Chinese and Asian people in Australia have seen a significant increase.”
Australia’s Education Minister Dan Tehan, a truly rough, unwashed piece to behold, made sure to bring out the pom poms for the sector he is meant to be representing in a statement to the ABC.
“Australia is a popular destination for international students because we are a successful, multicultural society that welcomes international students and provides a world-class education.”
All of these platitudes underscore the one thing Tehan and Australian university Vice-Chancellors understand: cash.
As for the issue of pandemic safety, Tehan reminded any critics that Australia has been fairly credible when it comes to stifling the COVID-19 spread. (Cue the self-flattery, back-patting, congratulations.)
“Our success at flattening the [coronavirus] curve means we are one of the safest countries in the world for international students to be based in right now.”
Give the man an advertising position.
Students have found themselves in a geopolitical sandwich, and an unpleasant one it is too. Chinese students have been telling the ABC that the issue is one of indignation between political representatives rather than the “people”, who have more important things to do, such as tolerate the increasingly commercialised tertiary sector. One Mr Zhen, who is studying a Masters degree in biomedicine at the University of Adelaide, was keen to stay apolitical. The June 6 travel warning had been unnecessary; the further warning for returning students had “gone too far”. Another University of Adelaide student, postdoctoral candidate Primo Pan, conceded to enduring a few instances of racism during the pandemic, though had no desire to throw in the towel.
“There was an increase in racism targeting Chinese people in Australia, but it’s still a safe place where your personal security is not threatened.”
Australian universities have their palace defenders. He-Ling Shi of Monash University, knowing which side his bread is buttered on, insists that
“Australian universities have taken various measures and tried to help overseas students… and also facilitated their studies in Australia.”
This is all too rosy, and even disingenuous. International students have been excluded from protective income measures that would have made retaining Australia as a destination viable. The approach in terms of assistance packages has been piecemeal, shoddy and deeply bureaucratic. Universities still demand top dollar from their students, and a generous, collective waiver of fees has not been embraced. Such students are currency, and the contempt towards them shows.
The Chinese Education Bureau is correct, but in a way quite different to its assumption. Students are being harmed, but not in the way they might realise. They are certainly not being made to feel unsafe through rigorous academic standards of the sort Tehan boasts about. Australian universities have adjusted admission standards and tailored courses that are less challenging in order to increase and retain foreign students. Those exposing this farce have been attacked. The function of learning has been replaced by the nature of process and delivery.
*
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.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]


asiapacificresearch--2020-06-17--Korybko to Indian Media: India Is Doing America’s Bidding Against China

Andrew Korybko gave an interview to Indian journalist Parth Satam last weekend about India ’ s relations with China , the US , and Russia , just days before Monday night ’ s deadly clash between Indian and Chinese troops .
Two excerpts were ultimately included in the article that Mr. Satam was writing about this topic .
Given its importance in light of the latest clash , OneWorld is publishing the interview in its entirety with Mr. Satam ’ s permission .
Parth Satam : Can the present India-China border standoff be viewed as a larger part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pullout in Afghanistan , the abrogation of Article 370 ( special status for Kashmir ) by the Modi government , and the growing Indian proximity to the US where India is toeing the American line on Chinese issues ( e.g .
joining the anti-China chorus on the COVID pandemic ) ?
Andrew Korybko : Absolutely , that ’ s the most accurate way to assess the current situation .
The preexisting differences between China and India on a host of issues were exacerbated by India ’ s abrogation of Article 370 .
Beijing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the disputed region , then some Indian officials reaffirmed their claims to Aksai Chin , which provoked a defensive reaction from China .
This escalating issue was then exploited by the US , which has a shared interest with India in “ containing ” China , as they both perceive it .
That ’ s why American officials have started comparing the latest incident to the situation in the South China Sea in an attempt to draw a parallel of so-called “ Chinese aggression ” and therefore justify their ever-intensifying “ comprehensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per what they both agreed to call it during Trump ’ s visit in February ) .
It was therefore predictable that there would eventually be a flare-up since the situation is so tense , and India is being encouraged by the US to assert its claims .
It naturally follows that India is also toeing the American line on other anti-Chinese issues as well , especially those related to the COVID-19 pandemic and “ poaching ” foreign companies from the People ’ s Republic so as to re-engineer global supply chains in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grand strategic goals .
PS : Strategists from both side of the political divide in India ( albeit suspicious towards China ) broadly agree that China does not intend to go to war with India despite its technological , military , and industrial superiority due to larger geopolitical priorities and is undertaking this current intrusion into Indian territories to signal to not threaten its interests in PoK and other anti-Chinese Indian moves ( joining the QUAD , support to the Dalai Lama ) etc .
What ’ s your response to this assessment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the characterization of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan as “ PoK ” , as well as describing the latest border incident as a Chinese “ intrusion ” , but I do agree with the spirit of the view that China does not intend to go to war with India .
However , that doesn ’ t necessarily mean that India doesn ’ t intend to go to war with China , even if only a brief border one similar in essence to what transpired between India and Pakistan in February 2019 .
Should that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predict that there would be a similar outcome , namely that India will not achieve its military objectives , though it might very well succeed with certain strategic ones .
For instance , India — whether rightly or wrongly , and irrespective of whether one supports its view or not — feels uncomfortable about China ’ s de-facto leadership of both BRICS and the SCO .
New Delhi ’ s efforts to court Moscow as part of a grand “ balancing ” act have only been mildly successful but not enough to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of China as India is .
If there ’ s a Chinese-Indian border war , however , then India would send several powerful signals to the whole world even if it militarily loses the likely brief conflict .
First , India would position itself as the country most directly “ countering/containing ” China , which would appeal to its new American ally and the latter ’ s network of like-minded allies as well .
Secondly , India would compel Russia to either choose a side ( unlikely ) or more vigorously “ balance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ default , any further tilt towards India along the lines of Russia ’ s present trend ( e.g .
selling more advanced offensive weapons systems ) would be interpreted very negatively by China , potentially weakening their strategic partnership to New Delhi and Washington ’ s indirect advantage .
And thirdly , BRICS and the SCO would never be the same again , which also serves American interests .
I don ’ t endorse that scenario because I personally hope that it doesn ’ t transpire , but I ’ d certainly understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the event that it happens .
India also desperately needs another external enemy other than Pakistan to rally its domestic audience and distract them from the current economic difficulties and sharp partisan divides that have recently developed in the country .
By presenting itself as the “ American bulldog ” against China , India hopes that it would receive preferential investment and other forms of support from the US and its allies , also enabling it to reach a more equitable trade deal with America later on .
PS : What is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US ?
Is the Russian Federation frustrated with India merely maintaining a transactional relationship in terms of weapons purchases or does it wish to take the partnership in newer dimensions ( i.e .
wanting it to be a part of the Eurasian Economic Union project ) ?
AK : I ’ m not an official representative of the Russian government so I can ’ t speak about their formal position , but from what I ’ ve observed , they ’ ve expressed both sentiments in recent years .
Lavrov described the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ artificially imposed concept ” created by the US during a press conference in February 2019 , and he repeated his skepticism about it during the Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi back in January .
At that second-mentioned time , however , he expressed hope that Russia ’ s “ Indian friends are smart enough to understand ” that the US is simply trying to use this scheme to “ contain ” China .
Nevertheless , Russia has regularly reiterated its commitment to diversifying relations with India beyond their present mostly transactional nature largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidenced by the joint statement that was released during Prime Minister Modi ’ s attendance at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok as President Putin ’ s guest of honor , where both leaders reaffirmed their strategic relations and promised to take them further than ever before .
Two projects that are presently in the works are the Vladivostok-Chennai Maritime Corridor ( VCMC ) and selling BrahMos missiles to ASEAN states .
Russia ’ s position on India ’ s growing proximity to the US appears to be a mirror image of India @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growing proximity to China .
Both Great Powers respect the other ’ s sovereign right to reach whichever partnerships they ’ d like , though they ’ d prefer that neither of them occur at the other ’ s expense ( whether real , perceived , or speculatively latent ) .
One solution for stabilizing their relations into the future would be to jointly lead a new Non-Alignment Movement ( Neo-NAM ) , which I elaborated on in an article that I co-authored earlier this month for the official journal of the Moscow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , which is run by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs .
Titled “ The Prospects of Russia and India Jointly Leading a New Non-Aligned Movement ” , it can be read in full for free here .
The proposal is already being actively discussed in one of Russia ’ s top think tanks , the Valdai Club , and certainly deserves further study given the important “ balancing ” role that it can play in the future international system .
In a gist , the idea calls for both of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diplomatic and economic ) towards creating a third pole of influence in the increasingly bipolar world led by the American and Chinese superpowers .
Not only could that help maintain trust between Russia and India , but it could also prevent one or the other from becoming their counterpart ’ s “ junior partner ” , something that they each fear for understandable reasons .
That said , I ’ ve since expanded on my academic proposal to incorporate my prior work on the importance of Russian-Pakistani relations , which I explain at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Improved Russian-Pakistani Relations Will Help Moscow Balance The New Bipolarity “ .
I assert that this could perfect Russia ’ s “ balancing ” act by upholding its trust with China despite any progress that might be made on the Neo-NAM simultaneously with making India think twice about the consequences of more fully pivoting towards the US .
In sum , the solution to the dilemma posed by Russia ’ s increasingly close relations with China as perceived by India and India ’ s increasingly close relations with the US as perceived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come together to jointly lead a Neo-NAM , though Moscow ’ s chances of successfully maintaining this complex “ balancing ” act between China and India would be greatly strengthened by the continued improvement of its relations with Pakistan for the aforementioned reasons .
This scenario presents what I sincerely believe to be the best outcome for all five players — Russia , India , China , the US , and Pakistan — and would therefore greatly contribute to establishing a relative sense of order in today ’ s extremely anarchic international arena @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
This article was crossposted from OneWorld .
Mr. Satam ’ s article that included the two earlier mentioned excerpts from this interview was published at the Mission Victory India autonomous defence think tank under the title “ What is China ’ s Intent ?
The Answer is in the Regional Diplomatic Scenario & the New Cold War with the US “ .
Mr. Satam can be followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia , China ’ s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity , and Hybrid Warfare .
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research .

First published on APR in June 2020.
Andrew Korybko gave an interview to Indian journalist Parth Satam (June 2020) about India’s relations with China, the US, and Russia, just days before Monday night’s deadly clash between Indian and Chinese troops. Two excerpts were ultimately included in the article that Mr. Satam was writing about this topic. Given its importance in light of the latest clash, OneWorld is publishing the interview in its entirety with Mr. Satam’s permission.
***
Parth Satam: Can the present India-China border standoff be viewed as a larger part of the changing geopolitical scenario driven by the US pullout in Afghanistan, the abrogation of Article 370 (special status for Kashmir) by the Modi government, and the growing Indian proximity to the US where India is toeing the American line on Chinese issues (e.g. joining the anti-China chorus on the COVID pandemic)?
Andrew Korybko: Absolutely, that’s the most accurate way to assess the current situation. The preexisting differences between China and India on a host of issues were exacerbated by India’s abrogation of Article 370. Beijing condemned New Delhi for violating UNSC Resolutions on the disputed region, then some Indian officials reaffirmed their claims to Aksai Chin, which provoked a defensive reaction from China. This escalating issue was then exploited by the US, which has a shared interest with India in “containing” China, as they both perceive it. That’s why American officials have started comparing the latest incident to the situation in the South China Sea in an attempt to draw a parallel of so-called “Chinese aggression” and therefore justify their ever-intensifying “comprehensive global strategic partnership” with India (per what they both agreed to call it during Trump’s visit in February). It was therefore predictable that there would eventually be a flare-up since the situation is so tense, and India is being encouraged by the US to assert its claims. It naturally follows that India is also toeing the American line on other anti-Chinese issues as well, especially those related to the COVID-19 pandemic and “poaching” foreign companies from the People’s Republic so as to re-engineer global supply chains in a way that supports the US’ grand strategic goals.
PS: Strategists from both side of the political divide in India (albeit suspicious towards China) broadly agree that China does not intend to go to war with India despite its technological, military, and industrial superiority due to larger geopolitical priorities and is undertaking this current intrusion into Indian territories to signal to not threaten its interests in PoK and other anti-Chinese Indian moves (joining the QUAD, support to the Dalai Lama) etc. What’s your response to this assessment?
AK: I personally disagree with the characterization of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan as “PoK”, as well as describing the latest border incident as a Chinese “intrusion”, but I do agree with the spirit of the view that China does not intend to go to war with India. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that India doesn’t intend to go to war with China, even if only a brief border one similar in essence to what transpired between India and Pakistan in February 2019. Should that be the case, then I also predict that there would be a similar outcome, namely that India will not achieve its military objectives, though it might very well succeed with certain strategic ones.
For instance, India — whether rightly or wrongly, and irrespective of whether one supports its view or not — feels uncomfortable about China’s de-facto leadership of both BRICS and the SCO. New Delhi’s efforts to court Moscow as part of a grand “balancing” act have only been mildly successful but not enough to the point of making Russia as openly suspicious of China as India is. If there’s a Chinese-Indian border war, however, then India would send several powerful signals to the whole world even if it militarily loses the likely brief conflict.
First, India would position itself as the country most directly “countering/containing” China, which would appeal to its new American ally and the latter’s network of like-minded allies as well. Secondly, India would compel Russia to either choose a side (unlikely) or more vigorously “balance” between it and China. By default, any further tilt towards India along the lines of Russia’s present trend (e.g. selling more advanced offensive weapons systems) would be interpreted very negatively by China, potentially weakening their strategic partnership to New Delhi and Washington’s indirect advantage. And thirdly, BRICS and the SCO would never be the same again, which also serves American interests.
I don’t endorse that scenario because I personally hope that it doesn’t transpire, but I’d certainly understand what goals India is aiming for in the event that it happens. India also desperately needs another external enemy other than Pakistan to rally its domestic audience and distract them from the current economic difficulties and sharp partisan divides that have recently developed in the country. By presenting itself as the “American bulldog” against China, India hopes that it would receive preferential investment and other forms of support from the US and its allies, also enabling it to reach a more equitable trade deal with America later on.
PS: What is the Russian position on the Indian proximity to the US? Is the Russian Federation frustrated with India merely maintaining a transactional relationship in terms of weapons purchases or does it wish to take the partnership in newer dimensions (i.e. wanting it to be a part of the Eurasian Economic Union project)?
AK: I’m not an official representative of the Russian government so I can’t speak about their formal position, but from what I’ve observed, they’ve expressed both sentiments in recent years. Lavrov described the so-called “Indo-Pacific” as “an artificially imposed concept” created by the US during a press conference in February 2019, and he repeated his skepticism about it during the Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi back in January. At that second-mentioned time, however, he expressed hope that Russia’s “Indian friends are smart enough to understand” that the US is simply trying to use this scheme to “contain” China.
Nevertheless, Russia has regularly reiterated its commitment to diversifying relations with India beyond their present mostly transactional nature largely dependent on military-technical cooperation. This is evidenced by the joint statement that was released during Prime Minister Modi’s attendance at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok as President Putin’s guest of honor, where both leaders reaffirmed their strategic relations and promised to take them further than ever before. Two projects that are presently in the works are the Vladivostok-Chennai Maritime Corridor (VCMC) and selling BrahMos missiles to ASEAN states.
Russia’s position on India’s growing proximity to the US appears to be a mirror image of India’s position towards Russia’s growing proximity to China. Both Great Powers respect the other’s sovereign right to reach whichever partnerships they’d like, though they’d prefer that neither of them occur at the other’s expense (whether real, perceived, or speculatively latent). One solution for stabilizing their relations into the future would be to jointly lead a new Non-Alignment Movement (Neo-NAM), which I elaborated on in an article that I co-authored earlier this month for the official journal of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), which is run by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Titled “The Prospects of Russia and India Jointly Leading a New Non-Aligned Movement”, it can be read in full for free here. The proposal is already being actively discussed in one of Russia’s top think tanks, the Valdai Club, and certainly deserves further study given the important “balancing” role that it can play in the future international system. In a gist, the idea calls for both of them to pool their collective resources (especially diplomatic and economic) towards creating a third pole of influence in the increasingly bipolar world led by the American and Chinese superpowers.
Not only could that help maintain trust between Russia and India, but it could also prevent one or the other from becoming their counterpart’s “junior partner”, something that they each fear for understandable reasons. That said, I’ve since expanded on my academic proposal to incorporate my prior work on the importance of Russian-Pakistani relations, which I explain at length in my analytical piece about how “Improved Russian-Pakistani Relations Will Help Moscow Balance The New Bipolarity“. I assert that this could perfect Russia’s “balancing” act by upholding its trust with China despite any progress that might be made on the Neo-NAM simultaneously with making India think twice about the consequences of more fully pivoting towards the US.
In sum, the solution to the dilemma posed by Russia’s increasingly close relations with China as perceived by India and India’s increasingly close relations with the US as perceived by Russia is for them both to come together to jointly lead a Neo-NAM, though Moscow’s chances of successfully maintaining this complex “balancing” act between China and India would be greatly strengthened by the continued improvement of its relations with Pakistan for the aforementioned reasons. This scenario presents what I sincerely believe to be the best outcome for all five players — Russia, India, China, the US, and Pakistan — and would therefore greatly contribute to establishing a relative sense of order in today’s extremely anarchic international arena.
*
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.
This article was crossposted from OneWorld.
Mr. Satam’s article that included the two earlier mentioned excerpts from this interview was published at the Mission Victory India autonomous defence think tank under the title “What is China’s Intent? The Answer is in the Regional Diplomatic Scenario & the New Cold War with the US“. Mr. Satam can be followed on Facebook and Twitter.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from OneWorld


asiapacificresearch--2020-06-18--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?

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 ’ s record was better than that of other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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--2020-06-18--New Film Explores U.S. Suppression of Key Footage from Hiroshima and Nagasaki

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 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 dangerous years of the nuclear arms race , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , no doubt to a lesser degree , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 pointed out , had only been allowed to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 filmed by Sussan and McGovern .
Then I wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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


asiapacificresearch--2020-06-18--Modi’s Major Himalayan Mistake Crushed the Indian Military’s Morale

The death of at least 20 members of the Indian military during non-firearm clashes with China along their disputed frontier in Kashmir has been extremely demoralizing for this already distressed institution , but it ’ s all due to Modi ’ s major Himalayan mistake in thinking that he can reap immediately tangible benefits from his new American patron by making a show out of “ containing ” China .
Modi ’ s Latest Mistake Was His Worst One Yet At least 20 members of the Indian military were killed during non-firearm clashes with China earlier this week along their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the morale of this already distressed institution .
Publicly financed Russian international media outlet Sputnik , citing Indian government sources , reported that they died after Chinese soldiers attacked them with “ stones ” and “ iron rods as well as batons wrapped in barbed wire ” .
Sputnik also said that “ Many of the unarmed men ( OneWorld Note : this means that they weren ’ t armed with firearms but could have conceivably had other weapons just like their Chinese counterparts did ) jumped into the Galwan River in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported , “ who were critically injured at the standoff location died after exposure to sub-zero temperatures.
” This epic disaster wouldn ’ t have happened , however , had it not been for Modi ’ s major Himalayan mistake in thinking that he can reap immediately tangible benefits from his new American patron by making a show out of “ containing ” China .
Before explaining the strategic drivers behind India ’ s misguided strategy of aggression against China , it ’ s important to emphasize just how demoralizing of a development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed forces .
According to a report from Modern Diplomacy asking “ Why more Indian soldiers die in suicides and fratricides than in combat ?
“ , “ One jawan ( OneWorld Note : this means ‘ soldier ’ ) commits suicide every third day.
” Quite clearly , there are deep systemic problems driving this epidemic in the military , including discrimination against soldiers by their superiors for ethno-religious or caste-based reasons , insufficient rations that leave some recruits on the brink of starvation , and a lack of support for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the suicides take place and the latest clash with China occurred .
Against this backdrop , one can only imagine how crushing it was to the Indian military ’ s already dismal morale to have so many of their members killed by the Chinese without a shot being fired and die of the cold simply because their military couldn ’ t rescue them .
Many in India had hitherto been brainwashed by their government-pressured media into thinking that China was a so-called “ paper tiger ” , but recalling that their country proudly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elephant ( patient but powerful , as its proponents allege ) , India itself can be described as a “ paper elephant ” following the recent disaster in Kashmir .
So many of its military members died in brutal face-to-face combat , not because someone pulled a trigger or pressed a button from far away .
Others fled in fear and basically committed suicide by jumping off the mountains into a nearby river , while still others died unnecessarily of the cold because their military lacked the political will and/or physical means to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ India as a so-called “ superpower ” was conclusively shattered once and for all , which explains society ’ s literal shock at what happened and its leadership ’ s inability to even comment on the matter immediately after it transpired .
The “ politically inconvenient ” fact is that the “ paper elephant ” was just shredded by a real tiger .
India should have known better than to have tested China ’ s resolve by invading its territory under the mistaken belief that the People ’ s Republic was supposedly just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it did so anyhow for two interconnected reasons as the author wrote in his recent piece for CGTN about how “ India Must Urgently Refrain From Its Strategy Of Regional Aggression “ .
The Hindu nationalist BJP wants to carve “ Akhand Bharat ” ( Greater India ) out of “ Greater South Asia ” ( which includes parts of China ’ s Xinjiang and Tibet regions ) so as to impose a “ Hindu Rashtra ” ( Hindu fundamentalist state ) upon the region .
It ’ s been encouraged by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since America regards India as a proxy for “ containing ” China .
Prime Minister Modi thought that he could reap immediately tangible benefits from his country ’ s new ally through India ’ s failed foray , but America has thus far refrained from formally intervening in the conflict , whether militarily or diplomatically .
Three of the author ’ s recent pieces shed some relevant insight on the US ’ strategic aims in this proxy war and should be reviewed by the reader in order to familiarize themselves with its Machiavellian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ India Is Intensifying Its American-Backed Hybrid War On China “ • 17 June 2020 : “ Korybko To Indian Media : India Is Doing America ’ s Bidding Against China “ • 18 June 2020 : “ Korybko To Indian Media : The Indian-Chinese Clash Will Hamstring BRICS & The SCO “ In summary , the American goal is to misportray China as the “ aggressor ” , solidify its emerging trans-regional alliance against it in response , restructure supply chains away from the People ’ s Republic , and thus “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely provide some tangible form of these envisioned benefits to India with time , but the fact that they haven ’ t immediately materialized in the aftermath of the recent clash has humiliated India as a country and especially its armed forces .
The ultra-nationalist sentiment that the ruling party has cultivated over its past six years in power is at risk of backfiring against it since approximately 1,3 billion people have just realized that they ’ ve been lied to by their leaders this entire time about their civilization-state supposedly being a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposed as the “ paper elephant ” that it ’ s always been .
This dangerously means that the authorities might undertake another military foray against what they consider to be a less formidable military foe in order to “ save face ” and distract the agitated masses .
This scenario could take the form of another false flag provocation against Pakistan like last February ’ s ( with predictably similar self-inflicted humiliation ) , an attack against Nepal , or another “ surgical strike ” against Naga rebels hiding out in Myanmar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the status quo ante bellum wherein India unconvincingly tried to deceive China into thinking that its much-ballyhooed policy of so-called “ multialignment ” with the US wasn ’ t really a strategic pivot aimed at “ containing ” the People ’ s Republic .
India learned the hard way that there ’ s a tremendous difference between its domestically-targeted propaganda against China and the cold reality of the Chinese military .
Just as there ’ s no returning to the prior state of affairs between the two countries , so too is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indian previously perceived of their military ’ s strength .
The “ paper elephant ” was shredded into pieces by the Chinese tiger without a shot being fired , and the Indian military was unprecedentedly humiliated .
The resultant demoralization that ’ s expected to take hold of the entire armed forces in the aftermath of Modi ’ s major Himalayan mistake will likely ensure that it ’ ll never regain its prior confidence , which could prove catastrophic when it comes to defending what it regards as its national interests .
Note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
This article was originally published on OneWorld .
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia , China ’ s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity , and Hybrid Warfare .
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research .

The death of at least 20 members of the Indian military during non-firearm clashes with China along their disputed frontier in Kashmir has been extremely demoralizing for this already distressed institution, but it’s all due to Modi’s major Himalayan mistake in thinking that he can reap immediately tangible benefits from his new American patron by making a show out of “containing” China.
Modi’s Latest Mistake Was His Worst One Yet
At least 20 members of the Indian military were killed during non-firearm clashes with China earlier this week along their disputed frontier in Kashmir, which crushed the morale of this already distressed institution. Publicly financed Russian international media outlet Sputnik, citing Indian government sources, reported that they died after Chinese soldiers attacked them with “stones” and “iron rods as well as batons wrapped in barbed wire”. Sputnik also said that “Many of the unarmed men (OneWorld Note: this means that they weren’t armed with firearms but could have conceivably had other weapons just like their Chinese counterparts did) jumped into the Galwan River in an attempt to escape.” Others, they reported, “who were critically injured at the standoff location died after exposure to sub-zero temperatures.” This epic disaster wouldn’t have happened, however, had it not been for Modi’s major Himalayan mistake in thinking that he can reap immediately tangible benefits from his new American patron by making a show out of “containing” China.
Systemic Demoralization In The Indian Armed Forces
Before explaining the strategic drivers behind India’s misguided strategy of aggression against China, it’s important to emphasize just how demoralizing of a development this was for the country’s armed forces. According to a report from Modern Diplomacy asking “Why more Indian soldiers die in suicides and fratricides than in combat?“, “One jawan (OneWorld Note: this means ‘soldier’) commits suicide every third day.” Quite clearly, there are deep systemic problems driving this epidemic in the military, including discrimination against soldiers by their superiors for ethno-religious or caste-based reasons, insufficient rations that leave some recruits on the brink of starvation, and a lack of support for their illegal occupation of Kashmir where most of the suicides take place and the latest clash with China occurred. Against this backdrop, one can only imagine how crushing it was to the Indian military’s already dismal morale to have so many of their members killed by the Chinese without a shot being fired and die of the cold simply because their military couldn’t rescue them.
“Paper Elephant”
Many in India had hitherto been brainwashed by their government-pressured media into thinking that China was a so-called “paper tiger”, but recalling that their country proudly associates itself with the image of the elephant (patient but powerful, as its proponents allege), India itself can be described as a “paper elephant” following the recent disaster in Kashmir. So many of its military members died in brutal face-to-face combat, not because someone pulled a trigger or pressed a button from far away. Others fled in fear and basically committed suicide by jumping off the mountains into a nearby river, while still others died unnecessarily of the cold because their military lacked the political will and/or physical means to rescue them. The Bollywood-propagated myth of India as a so-called “superpower” was conclusively shattered once and for all, which explains society’s literal shock at what happened and its leadership’s inability to even comment on the matter immediately after it transpired. The “politically inconvenient” fact is that the “paper elephant” was just shredded by a real tiger.
Ideology & Geopolitics
India should have known better than to have tested China’s resolve by invading its territory under the mistaken belief that the People’s Republic was supposedly just a “paper tiger”, but it did so anyhow for two interconnected reasons as the author wrote in his recent piece for CGTN about how “India Must Urgently Refrain From Its Strategy Of Regional Aggression“. The Hindu nationalist BJP wants to carve “Akhand Bharat” (Greater India) out of “Greater South Asia” (which includes parts of China’s Xinjiang and Tibet regions) so as to impose a “Hindu Rashtra” (Hindu fundamentalist state) upon the region. It’s been encouraged by the US in pursuit of this ideological-geopolitical goal since America regards India as a proxy for “containing” China. Prime Minister Modi thought that he could reap immediately tangible benefits from his country’s new ally through India’s failed foray, but America has thus far refrained from formally intervening in the conflict, whether militarily or diplomatically.
The American Proxy
Three of the author’s recent pieces shed some relevant insight on the US’ strategic aims in this proxy war and should be reviewed by the reader in order to familiarize themselves with its Machiavellian objectives:
In summary, the American goal is to misportray China as the “aggressor”, solidify its emerging trans-regional alliance against it in response, restructure supply chains away from the People’s Republic, and thus “contain” it.
“Saving Face”
The US will likely provide some tangible form of these envisioned benefits to India with time, but the fact that they haven’t immediately materialized in the aftermath of the recent clash has humiliated India as a country and especially its armed forces. The ultra-nationalist sentiment that the ruling party has cultivated over its past six years in power is at risk of backfiring against it since approximately 1,3 billion people have just realized that they’ve been lied to by their leaders this entire time about their civilization-state supposedly being a “superpower”, only to be exposed as the “paper elephant” that it’s always been. This dangerously means that the authorities might undertake another military foray against what they consider to be a less formidable military foe in order to “save face” and distract the agitated masses. This scenario could take the form of another false flag provocation against Pakistan like last February’s (with predictably similar self-inflicted humiliation), an attack against Nepal, or another “surgical strike” against Naga rebels hiding out in Myanmar.
Concluding Thoughts
There’s no going back to the status quo ante bellum wherein India unconvincingly tried to deceive China into thinking that its much-ballyhooed policy of so-called “multialignment” with the US wasn’t really a strategic pivot aimed at “containing” the People’s Republic. India learned the hard way that there’s a tremendous difference between its domestically-targeted propaganda against China and the cold reality of the Chinese military. Just as there’s no returning to the prior state of affairs between the two countries, so too is there no return to how the average Indian previously perceived of their military’s strength. The “paper elephant” was shredded into pieces by the Chinese tiger without a shot being fired, and the Indian military was unprecedentedly humiliated. The resultant demoralization that’s expected to take hold of the entire armed forces in the aftermath of Modi’s major Himalayan mistake will likely ensure that it’ll never regain its prior confidence, which could prove catastrophic when it comes to defending what it regards as its national interests.
*
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.
This article was originally published on OneWorld.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


asiapacificresearch--2020-06-18--China and India Increase Mutual Violence

Tensions have risen sharply on the China-India border .
The two countries – which have the largest populations and the largest armies in the world , as well as nuclear weapons – started a recent conflict in the Himalayas , causing the death of dozens of people , recovering the scene of violence experienced in the early 1960s when both entered a war for the same reason , from which China emerged victorious .
In early May , tensions in the region increased after the Indian press said Chinese forces had set up tents , dug trenches and transported heavy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its territory .
The move came after India built hundreds of kilometers ’ road into access to a high-altitude air base .
India blamed China for the situation .
The case worsened after approximately 250 soldiers from both nations clashed on the night of May 5 , in the Pangong lake area , leaving more than 100 wounded on both sides .
The confrontation only ended after a meeting between local leaders .
“ During the ongoing process in the Galwan valley , a violent confrontation occurred ( … ) with victims on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement from the Indian Army .
China , meanwhile , asked India “ not to take unilateral action or create problems ” , and China ’ s Foreign Ministry spokesman , Zhao Lijian , said it was India , not China , that crossed over the border , “ provoking and attacking the Chinese people , resulting in serious physical confrontation between border forces on both sides ” .
The confrontation of narratives is a striking feature in conflict scenarios .
But , in fact , while one government accuses the other , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoided .
In 1993 and 1996 , China and India signed agreements on peacekeeping in disputed regions .
India accuses China of violating the terms of these agreements .
This is already the biggest clash between both countries since the end of the Sino-Indian war in 1962 .
From all perspectives , a new war between India and China would be disastrous , not just for the Kashmir region , but for the whole world , which would deal with the risk of a nuclear war .
A “ small ” nuclear war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drastically reduce the world capacity for food production and circulation , in addition to causing a major migratory crisis and , consequently , political dissatisfaction in all affected countries .
Still , China and India are members of the BRICS group and , in theory , this means that both countries should maintain friendly and mutual cooperation relations , aiming to increase their emerging powers at the dawn of a multipolar world .
A war between two BRICS members is the worst case scenario for the group and the damage could be irreversible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time for a war than a global pandemic scenario .
However , international tensions around the world only tend to increase as the media coverage of the virus serves as an excellent excuse to ignore military movements and attacks .
In the midst of the pandemic , some conflicts have been escalated , which is definitely a serious strategic blow for any country .
The West did not take long to try to assert its interests in the region .
In late May , American President Donald Trump expressed an interest in “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was the only head of state in the world who volunteered to do so .
In his account on a social network , the American president wrote : “ We have informed both India and China that the United States is ready , willing and able to mediate or arbitrate their now raging border dispute .
Thank you !
” .
Trump ’ s readiness to guarantee peace in Asia is curious when the same president vehemently accuses China of creating the new coronavirus , which leads us to the question : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States wants to negotiate in Kashmir ?
A war between China and India would benefit the West , destabilizing two great emerging powers with great growth potential , delaying the multipolar agenda .
However , both countries are demonstrating their sovereignty and their ability to reach peace agreements without any outside interference .
After a long meeting , the chancellors of China and India agreed to reduce the violence immediately , not going ahead with the possibility of war .
Although tensions are far from over and the border remains occupied by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a willingness to negotiate peace and , even more , a true sovereign attitude , dispensing with US mediation and arbitration and initiating independent talks , in which the chances of reaching an agreement are higher than with Washington trying to impose its agenda .
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 .
This article was originally published on InfoBrics .
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de Janeiro .

Tensions have risen sharply on the China-India border. The two countries – which have the largest populations and the largest armies in the world, as well as nuclear weapons – started a recent conflict in the Himalayas, causing the death of dozens of people, recovering the scene of violence experienced in the early 1960s when both entered a war for the same reason, from which China emerged victorious.
In early May, tensions in the region increased after the Indian press said Chinese forces had set up tents, dug trenches and transported heavy equipment several kilometers into what India considered its territory. The move came after India built hundreds of kilometers’ road into access to a high-altitude air base. India blamed China for the situation. The case worsened after approximately 250 soldiers from both nations clashed on the night of May 5, in the Pangong lake area, leaving more than 100 wounded on both sides. The confrontation only ended after a meeting between local leaders.
“During the ongoing process in the Galwan valley, a violent confrontation occurred (…) with victims on both sides,” says an official statement from the Indian Army. China, meanwhile, asked India “not to take unilateral action or create problems”, and China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Zhao Lijian, said it was India, not China, that crossed over the border, “provoking and attacking the Chinese people, resulting in serious physical confrontation between border forces on both sides”.
The confrontation of narratives is a striking feature in conflict scenarios. But, in fact, while one government accuses the other, people die in clashes that could be avoided. In 1993 and 1996, China and India signed agreements on peacekeeping in disputed regions. India accuses China of violating the terms of these agreements. This is already the biggest clash between both countries since the end of the Sino-Indian war in 1962.
From all perspectives, a new war between India and China would be disastrous, not just for the Kashmir region, but for the whole world, which would deal with the risk of a nuclear war. A “small” nuclear war in the region would be enough to drastically reduce the world capacity for food production and circulation, in addition to causing a major migratory crisis and, consequently, political dissatisfaction in all affected countries. Still, China and India are members of the BRICS group and, in theory, this means that both countries should maintain friendly and mutual cooperation relations, aiming to increase their emerging powers at the dawn of a multipolar world. A war between two BRICS members is the worst case scenario for the group and the damage could be irreversible.
Still, there is no worse time for a war than a global pandemic scenario. However, international tensions around the world only tend to increase as the media coverage of the virus serves as an excellent excuse to ignore military movements and attacks. In the midst of the pandemic, some conflicts have been escalated, which is definitely a serious strategic blow for any country.
The West did not take long to try to assert its interests in the region. In late May, American President Donald Trump expressed an interest in “mediating” peace between both countries – he was the only head of state in the world who volunteered to do so. In his account on a social network, the American president wrote: “We have informed both India and China that the United States is ready, willing and able to mediate or arbitrate their now raging border dispute. Thank you!”. Trump’s readiness to guarantee peace in Asia is curious when the same president vehemently accuses China of creating the new coronavirus, which leads us to the question: is it really the peace that the United States wants to negotiate in Kashmir?
A war between China and India would benefit the West, destabilizing two great emerging powers with great growth potential, delaying the multipolar agenda. However, both countries are demonstrating their sovereignty and their ability to reach peace agreements without any outside interference. After a long meeting, the chancellors of China and India agreed to reduce the violence immediately, not going ahead with the possibility of war.
Although tensions are far from over and the border remains occupied by the military, China and India show a willingness to negotiate peace and, even more, a true sovereign attitude, dispensing with US mediation and arbitration and initiating independent talks, in which the chances of reaching an agreement are higher than with Washington trying to impose its agenda.
*
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.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Featured image is from InfoBrics


asiapacificresearch--2020-06-18--The Conviction of Maria Ressa: Press Freedom in the Philippines

It has long been said that countries in Southeast Asia take a dim view of the fourth estate .
Various legal measures have been deployed against those irritable scribblers over the years : old , colonial-era security legislation ; defamation suits ; traditional forms of lengthy detention without charge .
Such states have mastered the supreme sensibility of their colonial forebears : Maintain the appearance of propriety ; inflict the harm under the cover of law .
The Philippines has become something of an exemplar in this regard .
According to Joshua Kurlantzick of the Council on Foreign Relations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ one of the highest numbers of journalists killed of any country in the world ” , with the International Federation of Journalists putting it ahead of , say , Cambodia , “ whose overall media climate is more constrained.
” President Rodrigo Duterte ’ s blustery coming to power in 2016 ushered in a feast of killing , but even prior to this , journalists had good reason to fear for their safety .
One particularly sanguinary episode stood out : the November 2009 massacre of 32 journalists in Maguindanao province in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 58 were butchered , including relatives and supporters of the town mayor Esmael “ Toto ” Mangudadatu .
Mangudadatu had expressed his interest in running for the post of governor against then governor Andal Ampatuan Sr. , whose son , Andal Ampatuan Jr. , also had ambitions for office .
Mangudadatu tasked his pregnant wife , Genalyn to file the relevant papers for his candidacy .
At Ampatuan , the entire crew was ambushed by a hundred armed men in what has been touted as the worst single-day murder of journalists in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jr. already had the culprits in mind : the Moro Islamic Liberation Front .
A decade later , a judge in Manila found him guilty , along with several other members of the Ampatuan family , on multiple murder counts .
This might all make the treatment of Ressa seem mild by comparison .
On Monday , she was found guilty of cyber libel in connection with a story published on the news site she edits , Rappler .
The story had been penned by Rappler journalist Reynaldo Santos Jr , alleging links @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice Renato Corona .
Keng had supposedly lent his sports utility vehicle to Corona .
The property developer was also said to be under surveillance by the National Security Council for alleged involvement in drug smuggling and human trafficking .
Santos was also convicted and , along with Ressa , faces up to six years in prison .
The beastly little instrument used in securing the convictions was the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 , though this outcome was achieved in rather laborious fashion .
For one thing , it came into force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed , though another version of it corrected of typographical error was reposted in 2014 .
In 2017 , Keng filed a cyber libel complaint over the article in question .
The National Bureau of Investigation cybercrime division had little time for it : the complaint had been filed out of time , given the date of the article ’ s publication .
But in 2018 , the Department of Justice added a distinct , sharp twist to the saga , extending the life of cyber libel for up to 12 years and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Cyber Crime Prevention Act .
The Manila Regional Trial Court Branch found that Rappler had not verified the information on Keng , nor did it publish his side of the story .
“ The court finds that the subject [ article ] was republished with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not .
This clearly shows actual malice.
” While the site was not deemed liable , both Ressa and Santos were ordered to pay 200,000 Philippine pesos in moral damages and another 200,000 pesos in exemplary damages .
Keng @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that laws , whatever their content , needed to be obeyed .
“ Ressa portrays herself as an alleged defender of press freedom and as a purported target of the Philippine government , but this in no way exempts her from respecting and following Philippine laws.
” David Kaye , the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression , urged the reversal of the verdicts , claiming that “ the law used to convict Ms Ressa , and the journalist who authored the article which led to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Philippines ’ obligations under international law ” .
He also took issue with the Cybercrime Prevention Act , a distinctly harsh instrument designed to chill expression .
The authorities have been getting tetchy with journalists of late .
Ressa could already see the warning signs with the closure of television station ABS-CBN .
Both have been keen to run copy on Duterte ’ s particularly vicious war on drugs and his less than competent handling of the COVID-19 pandemic .
Ressa already had an inkling of how grim things would become , managing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confession from Duterte , then Mayor of Davao City , that he had killed three people .
“ When I said I ’ ll stop criminality , I ’ ll stop criminality , ” he boasted .
“ If I have to kill you , I ’ ll kill you .
Personally.
” Philippine authorities are particularly preoccupied with prosecuting cases for the charge of “ spreading fake news ” in connection with the COVID-19 response , the effect of which is to malign any constructive critique of such efforts .
In April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 24 suspects had been arrested on that charge , ostensibly for using social media portals .
Eight were also arrested for spreading false information .
The hope for Ressa and Santos , slim as it might be , lies in the appeals process .
Ressa was stoic and reflective at the press conference after the hearing .
“ Are we going to lose freedom of the press ?
Will it be death by a thousand cuts , or are we going to hold the line so that we protect the rights that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , those cuts run deep , a few cuts run deeper to freedom of expression that the laws of libel .
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 .
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College , Cambridge .
He lectures at RMIT University , Melbourne .
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research .
Email : [ email protected ]

It has long been said that countries in Southeast Asia take a dim view of the fourth estate. Various legal measures have been deployed against those irritable scribblers over the years: old, colonial-era security legislation; defamation suits; traditional forms of lengthy detention without charge. Such states have mastered the supreme sensibility of their colonial forebears: Maintain the appearance of propriety; inflict the harm under the cover of law.
The Philippines has become something of an exemplar in this regard. According to Joshua Kurlantzick of the Council on Foreign Relations, the country is particularly dangerous, boasting “one of the highest numbers of journalists killed of any country in the world”, with the International Federation of Journalists putting it ahead of, say, Cambodia, “whose overall media climate is more constrained.”
President Rodrigo Duterte’s blustery coming to power in 2016 ushered in a feast of killing, but even prior to this, journalists had good reason to fear for their safety. One particularly sanguinary episode stood out: the November 2009 massacre of 32 journalists in Maguindanao province in the southern Philippines. In total, 58 were butchered, including relatives and supporters of the town mayor Esmael “Toto” Mangudadatu. Mangudadatu had expressed his interest in running for the post of governor against then governor Andal Ampatuan Sr., whose son, Andal Ampatuan Jr., also had ambitions for office. Mangudadatu tasked his pregnant wife, Genalyn to file the relevant papers for his candidacy. At Ampatuan, the entire crew was ambushed by a hundred armed men in what has been touted as the worst single-day murder of journalists in the country’s history. Andal Ampatuan Jr. already had the culprits in mind: the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. A decade later, a judge in Manila found him guilty, along with several other members of the Ampatuan family, on multiple murder counts.
This might all make the treatment of Ressa seem mild by comparison. On Monday, she was found guilty of cyber libel in connection with a story published on the news site she edits, Rappler. The story had been penned by Rappler journalist Reynaldo Santos Jr, alleging links between businessman Wilfredo Keng and impeached chief justice Renato Corona. Keng had supposedly lent his sports utility vehicle to Corona. The property developer was also said to be under surveillance by the National Security Council for alleged involvement in drug smuggling and human trafficking. Santos was also convicted and, along with Ressa, faces up to six years in prison.
The beastly little instrument used in securing the convictions was the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, though this outcome was achieved in rather laborious fashion. For one thing, it came into force some months after the original story was filed, though another version of it corrected of typographical error was reposted in 2014.
In 2017, Keng filed a cyber libel complaint over the article in question. The National Bureau of Investigation cybercrime division had little time for it: the complaint had been filed out of time, given the date of the article’s publication. But in 2018, the Department of Justice added a distinct, sharp twist to the saga, extending the life of cyber libel for up to 12 years and filing charges under two statutes, including the Cyber Crime Prevention Act.
The Manila Regional Trial Court Branch found that Rappler had not verified the information on Keng, nor did it publish his side of the story. “The court finds that the subject [article] was republished with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. This clearly shows actual malice.” While the site was not deemed liable, both Ressa and Santos were ordered to pay 200,000 Philippine pesos in moral damages and another 200,000 pesos in exemplary damages. Keng felt vindicated, citing the standard argument that laws, whatever their content, needed to be obeyed. “Ressa portrays herself as an alleged defender of press freedom and as a purported target of the Philippine government, but this in no way exempts her from respecting and following Philippine laws.”
David Kaye, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, urged the reversal of the verdicts, claiming that “the law used to convict Ms Ressa, and the journalist who authored the article which led to their prosecution, is plainly inconsistent with the Philippines’ obligations under international law”. He also took issue with the Cybercrime Prevention Act, a distinctly harsh instrument designed to chill expression.
The authorities have been getting tetchy with journalists of late. Ressa could already see the warning signs with the closure of television station ABS-CBN. Both have been keen to run copy on Duterte’s particularly vicious war on drugs and his less than competent handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ressa already had an inkling of how grim things would become, managing, in 2015, to obtain a confession from Duterte, then Mayor of Davao City, that he had killed three people. “When I said I’ll stop criminality, I’ll stop criminality,” he boasted. “If I have to kill you, I’ll kill you. Personally.”
Philippine authorities are particularly preoccupied with prosecuting cases for the charge of “spreading fake news” in connection with the COVID-19 response, the effect of which is to malign any constructive critique of such efforts. In April, the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group revealed that 24 suspects had been arrested on that charge, ostensibly for using social media portals. Eight were also arrested for spreading false information.
The hope for Ressa and Santos, slim as it might be, lies in the appeals process. Ressa was stoic and reflective at the press conference after the hearing. “Are we going to lose freedom of the press? Will it be death by a thousand cuts, or are we going to hold the line so that we protect the rights that are enshrined in our constitution?” Undeniably, those cuts run deep, a few cuts run deeper to freedom of expression that the laws of libel.
*
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.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]