therealnews--2020-12-22--Faith and the fight against climate change, Part 4

In a society increasingly driven by science and technology , world religions and the communities they inspire remain a vast and rock-solid political force .
Going by the numbers alone , Pew Research Center estimated in 2015 that there were over 5 billion people of faith in our contemporary world , belonging to Christianity , Islam , Hinduism , Buddhism , and other faith-based cosmologies , including Indigenous and Native belief systems .
Despite their outsized influence on so many aspects of our personal , social , and political lives , religious thinking and morality don ’ t have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of critical issues confronting our world today , including climate change and environmental justice , consumer capitalism , and solidarity struggles .
In this four-part series , host and climate correspondent Aman Azhar shines a light on how faith-based cosmologies inform and influence our political conduct , even in the most intimate of ways .
These interdisciplinary conversations with thought leaders from different faith groups explore the intersections of religion and the politics of climate change .
What sort of political actions do—and can—these worldviews inspire ?
Do the gods and followers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a say in the future of our warming planet ?
If the answer is a resounding “ Yes , ” then why can ’ t we hear their voices more in popular media ?
Have they been muted ?
If so , why ( and by whom ) ?
In Part 4 of “ Faith and the Fight Against Climate Change , ” Aman Azhar engages Codi Norred—director of Interfaith Power and Light—a national nonprofit working with hundreds of congregations and faith organizations across America “ to save energy , go green and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ponders how faith ties into the quest for sustainable living and whether there ’ s a consensus between various faith groups in the United States on tackling the climate emergency .
Norred argues faith groups are uniquely situated as organizations that think about morality as a way of being and caring for the neighbors and the planet .
But the question remains if the faith has enough pull on the faithful given the competition from science , consumer culture and wholesale media punditry .
Aman Azhar : Hello and welcome to another round @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Network .
I ’ m your host , Aman Azhar .
And my guest today is a Program Director at the Georgia Interfaith Power and Light , Mr. Codi Norred .
It ’ s a nonprofit organization , mobilizing faith communities for environmental action .
Thank you , Mr. Norred for taking out time and speaking with us today .
Codi Norred : Yeah , thanks for having me .
Aman Azhar : Okay , so let me fire away with my first question .
Could you give us a sense of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how matters of faith , power the work that you do ?
Codi Norred : Sure .
So Georgia Interfaith Power and Light has been around for about 16 years , mobilizing and inspiring congregations within Georgia to take part in faithful environmental action .
So that both means educating congregations theologically , so that from their faith background they have the moral foundation to propel them into environmental work .
That ’ s what sustains that work for faith communities .
But then also have the practical tools to engage in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in community action around actually achieving solutions .
So that can be as simple as energy efficiency , water efficiency , solar onsite .
It can be as complex as trying to do coastal policy around offshore drilling or addressing energy burden in cities across Georgia .
Aman Azhar : Great .
Do you think there ’ s enough consensus between the various faith groups in the United States that climate justice and climate crisis is the single most important issue of our time ?
Codi Norred : Oh , that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t think so necessarily , but I think that all of the major faiths within the United States and the world have the potential to see that as one of the most important issues of our time .
The environment is not only set up to be one of the places that God interacts with the world the most and holy texts and traditions , but it also is an incredibly intersectional issue .
So if you want to talk about environmental justice , you want to talk about racial justice , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All of those things have to do with the environment and climate change at large , or resource depletion and mismanagement across the world .
So the potential both on the religious grounds to have it as a theological tenet is there .
And then also as a social tenat , especially for faith groups that are more organized and in touch with social action as a part of their faith .
Aman Azhar : Yeah , okay .
So I guess what I ’ m trying to say is that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have a global pandemic ravaging the planet , which in so many ways is tied to these extractive practices of our times .
So is that sense of urgency that you see beyond the potential to do something more ?
Codi Norred : Absolutely .
I ’ d say it varies from congregation to congregation .
But across the nation , we obviously have , and we have about 35 Interfaith Power and Light affiliates in different states , all of whom have congregations leading the charge in their states on extractive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to oil pipelines , to CAFOs and the way that we do farming , to nuclear disposal , we have offshore drilling , we have energy burning , which I talked about .
And I think that faith groups are uniquely situated as organizations that think about morality as a way of being , and treating neighbors and planet as something that is holy work to do so .
I say a lot here in Georgia , that the more energy that we use here , we kill our neighbors faster because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the way that we dispose of .
And I think faith groups understand , that they have a tenet not only to love God , but also usually have a tenant to care for neighbor and to care for community .
And I think that they are on the front lines of that struggle , especially here in Georgia .
Aman Azhar : So despite all this hard work , Codi , that you mentioned , why is it that this consensus failed to manifest in the political choices that we make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political administration which is firing up coal energy and dismissing climate crisis as a hoax .
Codi Norred : Right , so I think something that is often hard to get people to understand is that in a society in which people are already stressed and burdened for a number of reasons , especially when it comes to climate change and environmental injustice , that those processes and systems I think are intentionally designed to be complex , hard to understand , hidden , hard to see , hard to find .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposed to those issues in a way that they can see how it ’ s actually affecting them in their communities , they can actually see how it ’ s affecting their state , as opposed to a nebulous idea about climate change or a nebulous idea about fossil fuel industry .
But when they see it ravaging their coasts or they see it poisoning their neighbors through coal ash ponds , or they see it contaminating their rivers and their waters , then I think they actually start to pay attention more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They have to experience it .
I think it ’ s hard when it ’ s such a nebulous idea for people to get a hold of what ’ s actually going on .
Aman Azhar : And do you- Codi Norred : And I think that utilities generally play a very important part in state infrastructure and jobs , especially in rural parts of states .
And so those are the lifeblood of different parts of the state .
And so I think people fear that there may not be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might hope for , for the people who are employed by the fossil fuel industry , for the types of money that that pumps into different parts of the state and the nation .
Aman Azhar : So in the middle of all these myriad of issues and complexities , what kind of clarity does faith bring ?
Do you think faith has enough pull these days , having competition by Disney and Netflix and Amazon and everything like that ?
Codi Norred : Well , I ’ ll speak for the Southeast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the United States is uniquely faith-based .
I mean , especially Christian roots in the Southeast still hold a lot of pull and people design their lives around that moral fabric , either subconsciously or consciously .
And so I do think that those moral values bring a lot to the table sometimes for supporting our cause , sometimes for not .
But I think the challenge is to get into the discourse about theology and about faith to demonstrate why caring for neighbor , caring about environmental justice , caring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embedded foundation of what it means to be faithful .
And I think that what faith can do that a lot of other ideas can ’ t do , is there ’ s a long history of what it means to be prophetic .
What it means to stand up to injustices .
What it means to scream in the middle of the town square and for no one to hear you , but to speak that truth over and over .
To call attention to the destruction and the injustices , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s what faith calls people to do , is to move into the world and to challenge injustice and to try to make that difference .
Aman Azhar : And how do you think that Georgia IPL is trying to connect with the larger national political discourse with the grassroots activism that you ’ re doing on a day-to-day basis ?
Codi Norred : That ’ s right .
Yes , so we start from building power from the grassroots .
Getting people to speak for themselves and their congregations and their communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these environmental issues are coming to bear exactly where they are .
Now after that , we try to give them tools and demonstrate how being engaged in the system is actually what ’ s necessary .
Because a lot of these utilities span several states , a lot of the issues that we have , span several states .
So while we might get a victory in one state , it could mean a loss in another , if we ’ re not paying attention to what each other ’ s doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific as possible at the grassroots level , so that people are really doing what they need to do for their community and being able to use their voice .
But also being able to pay attention to what ’ s going on nationally .
I personally think that right now , especially in the Southeast , we have a lot more potential in our cities and our states to do some things on the ground and at the more local level , that the federal government can ’ t actually regulate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge strides without having to be so concerned necessarily with what ’ s going on on the national stage .
We can actually take that power at the local level to make the changes that we want to see .
Aman Azhar : And could you also touch a little bit upon the political advocacy work- Aman Azhar : … that you ’ re doing , especially in terms of influencing the legislatures ?
Because we see that when it comes to Congress , it ’ s just as divided and incapable of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come around that ?
Codi Norred : That ’ s right .
So here we do a lot at the state legislature , and a lot of that work has to do with clean water issues and environmental justice issues .
I think at the end of the day , no matter where people are on the spectrum , they want clean air and they want clean water .
And there are effective measures that can be taken to ensure that that ’ s the case for the communities that everybody lives in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bipartisan issue .
We ’ re a nonpartisan organization and people want clean water .
So I think when it comes to coal ash , especially , which is a huge problem here .
In a lot of cases , those are both coal ash ponds in cities .
Those are coal ash ponds in rural counties that ’ s leaching into the groundwater and poisoning all of those people .
And I think when that case is brought to the surface , people really pay attention to those issues .
I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We work a lot on offshore drilling with our partners , Oceana and One Hundred Miles , a lot in that area .
And when people are threatened on their coast where their homes are , then they begin to understand what some of the problems with offshore drilling might be like and whether it ’ s really worth the risk .
So I think it ’ s all drilling down to being able to have some examples about what is actually happening , where we live in our state , showing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How that then connects with the people that we serve and we love , and then providing some practical solutions forward .
So not only saying , “ Hey , this is a problem , ” but actually , “ Hey , this is a different way of thinking about it and a more productive solution.
” Aman Azhar : And do you think you ’ re also influencing the ultra right-wing religious groups because they tie into the political circle as well .
And it ’ s a lot of powers that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is from the ultra right-wing groups .
Codi Norred : Sure .
Yeah .
I mean , it ’ s complicated , the intersection of faith and politics is complicated , especially in the South .
And I think , I try not to get too caught up in what we might call the right-wing or people on the left .
What I would say is that , even for the most conservative people that we work with or exist in our nation , a lot of those people still have some faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important .
And I think what has to be done is to come to the table and to demonstrate why actually , because of the faith that those people already have , why they actually already care about the environment and their neighbor .
And there are different ways to think about it and move them towards action .
So it doesn ’ t have to be a , “ Oh , this is a liberal issue because they ’ re very concerned about climate and we don ’ t believe in that.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is about taking care of our neighbors , taking care of our children , taking care of our land and water resources that are holy , that are God entrusted to human beings to take care of .
And I think that those types of arguments get at the morality foundation , which is really what helps people make decisions and move in these justice realms .
It ’ s not really about throwing facts back and forth .
It ’ s about tapping into what do you care about and why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that some of the foundations are there religiously to make that happen .
Aman Azhar : Right .
Do we really need God to tell us how to care for the planet ?
Codi Norred : Oh , I don ’ t think so .
Not necessarily .
But I think for people who believe in a God , regardless of their tradition , that it is difficult to be faithful without caring for the environment and caring for people .
So I ’ m not super interested in proselytizing God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s pretty difficult to believe in a God and not also care for the environment as a major tenet of that religion and also care for people .
Aman Azhar : Well , then we don ’ t really understand why we are in a situation that we are today .
And I guess this also brings me to my last point , which is how does this pandemic and climate urgency shape your work going forward ?
Codi Norred : Yeah .
I mean , I think there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think the pandemic highlights some injustices that we already knew existed , and I think are showing them in different ways to different people .
It shows a light on the way that we treat our environment and deforestation .
It sheds a light on our food systems , which is some things that we already knew about .
And it demonstrates how seriously we really need to be taking this .
It isn ’ t a thing where , “ Oh , there are island nations who will experience the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nations who are less wealthy who will experience the problems with climate change.
” This demonstrates that no one is safe .
The same way that no one has saved from this pandemic , no matter how much money you have or where you think you live in the world , the reality is that it will still get to you .
And the same is true for climate change .
That those , what that will do to the world and to people , will spill over in ways that we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s very serious .
Aman Azhar : Well , this brings us to the end of this conversation .
Thank you , Mr. Codi Norred , for your time and sharing all the brilliant work that Georgia Interfaith Power and Light is doing in the United States .
And thank you again .
Goodbye for now and be well .


therealnews--2020-01-30--Torture Is the Central Issue in the Guantanamo Trials

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Marc Steiner : Welcome to The Real News .
I ’ m Marc Steiner .
Great to have you all with us .
When you hear the word Guantanamo , what pops into your head ?
9/11 and the Al-Qaeda prisoners who ’ ve been held there for a long time .
What also pops into some of our minds is the word torture , and legal battles that had been raging all these years with detainees suing the United States government , the CIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bruce Jessen who implemented , designed and carried out what ’ s called enhanced interrogation techniques , like waterboarding , slamming heads into walls , putting people in 21 by 30 inch boxes , and keep them naked in freezing temperatures .
Some , as the detainees ’ lawyers argue , would call it torture .
Now , after eight years of pretrial hearings , trials may begin of people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others who were involved in 9/11 .
Along with the allegations of torture are unknowns , like who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Are the FBI , the CIA and the U.S. Government keeping classified so , as some would argue , to keep the truth and the names of the authorisers and those who carried out their orders hidden from the light of day ?
Are there still black sites around the world ?
Does tortures still continue ?
What are these hearings and trials really telling us ?
What ’ s about to happen here ?
We talk today with one of the people who ’ s been covering this for a long time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Julian Borger , world affairs editor for The Guardian , who has been a correspondent throughout the world , the United States , Middle East , Eastern Europe , the Balkans .
His book on the pursuit and capture of the Balkan war criminals , the Butcher ’ s Trail , is published by other press and William Borger… Excuse me .
Julian Borger , welcome .
Good to have you with us .
Julian Borger : Good to be here .
Marc Steiner : Can we take a step back just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about that eight years of history and what has been going on , just a brief outline for a second for our viewers about what we what we ’ re about to talk about , what has led up to it ?
Julian Borger : Well , these are detainees , five detainees who ’ ve been in Guantanamo now for 14 years .
And these were still in pretrial hearings , this is eight years of pretrial hearings .
There ’ s supposed to be a trial starting next year , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trial would actually start next year .
So we are a stuck in a kind of legal morass caused really by the nature of the detention and later treatment of these detainees who are on trial .
Marc Steiner : I mean this appears to be kind of standing amount of time for pretrial hearings .
So I mean why is it taking this long ?
This is an inordinate amount of time to try and men who have been charged with these heinous crimes and also their defense attorneys were also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking so long ?
Julian Borger : This is because these people were picked up in Afghanistan , Pakistan around the world and interrogated by the CIA who were under the belief that they could give information that could stop a second wave of attacks after the 9/11 attacks .
And so as we ’ ve been hearing from the witnesses this week , they didn ’ t really care about due process .
They were just wanting to get information out to them they believe would stop a second attack .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided they are going to prosecute these people and pursue the death penalty , then the way they treated them , the torture that they underwent becomes a very important part in terms of whether these people will go to trial .
And obviously the defense is saying that neither the statements they gave under torture or after torture should be admissible in court because of the history of torture and the fact that these were statements given under duress .
So some of the defense are asking for the whole case to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these statements that they gave in 2007 which really is the core of the prosecution case should not be admissible , and this is a legal limbo this case has been stuck out now for eight years .
Marc Steiner : So let ’ s talk about some of the people involved here that you mentioned in your article , the James Mitchell who has been testifying this week , and I think you said to me before we went on the air together that Bruce Chessen is about to testify .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Tell us about them .
Julian Borger : Okay .
These were two psychologists who had worked for the US Air Force and had taken on as CI , as private contractors .
And initially they went out to these CIA black sites to observe what was going on and make recommendations as the CIA wanted to step up the pressure on these detainees to cough up information .
But they ended up making these recommendations about how to set up interrogation based on US survival techniques as they train US pilots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to evade and resist interrogation when they ’ re captured .
And they wanted to bring these techniques that are used on US service members and make it the guidelines , the outline for what they called the enhanced interrogation techniques .
And so they ended up designing this program and then they were asked by the CIA to apply this program .
So in effect , they became hired torturers although they were contractors and eventually set up a company , Mitchell Jessen and Associates that sold these services to the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of money .
I think it was your article , I believe it was in your article and it could ’ ve been someone else ’ s I read so much this morning that they made almost $ 81 million over like a four or five year period or did I read that wrong ?
Julian Borger : No , that ’ s what they were paid .
But that was to provide a whole lot of security guards .
They ended up providing all the security guards for the black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all contracted out .
So that wasn ’ t your profit .
That was what the total of government paid him .
I think Mitchell was paid something around one and a half million and Justin ’ s slightly less .
Marc Steiner : A little more than you are making a year but there ’ s other people involved here .
One we don ’ t know about called the preacher and the new sheriff , I guess a man named Charlie Wise who passed away some years back .
But they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this in terms of that knowing who they are .
This is kind of tip of the iceberg , the secrets that we may never know .
Julian Borger : That ’ s right .
I think Mitchell has been pushing back over the past week that he was the face on the totality of the enhanced interrogation system , and he has been pointing out and there is a lot of evidence that was a big bureaucracy and infrastructure around the use of torture .
This was a sort of whole of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it looks like more involved than they have made out in the past .
And it went throughout the CIA and of course up to the top ranks of the Bush administration .
So this was a large and organized use of torture that involved other characters like the preacher , like Charlie Wise , who we ’ ve only found out his identity after he ’ s died .
But the CIA will not be classify them .
They won ’ t make any of the CIA officials or former officials so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ except these two contractors .
So Mitchell and Jessen .
And so because in a way the CIA has been prepared to throw these two to the wolves , we know about them .
But there ’ s a whole lot more that we don ’ t know about .
Marc Steiner : I mean you wrote in the piece , your most recent piece in The Guardian that almost everyone else involved in the extensive program involving a network of black sites around the world has remained in the shadows in terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dark side of the moon .
So I mean , for all we know a , these black sites can keep going on the tortures that see people say are torture , there ’ s a place in Guantanamo could still be going on .
We don ’ t know how far up the chain this could go .
Does it go to the [ inaudible 00:08:35 ] ?
Does it go to George Bush or to Obama or whoever else was in charge at the moment .
So there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a lot we may never know .
So I mean what do you think could come out in this trial hearing , if anything that could lead us to any conclusions ?
Julian Borger : Well , I think we ’ re a long way from conclusions .
I think the CIA would really have to change their attitude towards declassification or be forced to by the military commission or by habeas cases in the outside courts forced to declassify more than they ’ ve let on because even the Senate report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small fragment of the kinds of documentation that is out there .
So it is possible if this ever went to trial that we would learn a whole lot more about the use of torture by the US in this period .
It is possible .
For example , in the pretrial hearings that Abu Zubaydah , who was the first to undergo these enhanced interrogation techniques might be allowed to stand as a witness .
Now up to now the government is resisting that but that has been challenged in court .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote about this being the 40th hearing in eight years and that they ’ ve changed the rules as they go .
That the things that were declassified and put in books were not classified , again as secrets so they can ’ t use them in court .
So clearly the government is using everything they can to not let a lot of information out through the course of this trial which could affect everything as well as our understanding of the truth .
Julian Borger : Yeah .
They have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they want to enter them into evidence and then reclassifying them when it is possible that the defense might be able to use it to their advantage , and this was a good example .
Just days before this hearings began , prosecution introduced a third version of the classification rules that made a material that had been published and been subject to CIA pre-publication review made that classified once more so that there was a question about whether defense councils in court over the past week could refer to books that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Marc Steiner : It ’ s one of the things I think is important talk just for a moment about , I mean this whole question of torture and how we define with torture is .
I mean the UN and various human rights groups have declared things like waterboarding , I mean literally pouring water into somebody ’ s face and throat for up to 40 seconds at a time as torture .
People feel they ’ re drowning and more , some people have died .
And some other techniques @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the rectal cavity .
Those things also have been said by doctors to be not medically suitable .
Nobody uses these techniques , and they ’ re classified as torture .
So what about this argument about torture ?
I mean , what do we take from this ?
Julian Borger : Well , I think even by the very narrow definition produced by the Bush administration about not causing lasting psychological or physical harm , even by that very narrow definition , clearly what went on in these years in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Geneva convention on torture and cruel degrading and inhuman treater treatment , there is no question that many of these techniques amounted to torture .
And of course , Barack Obama admitted that that amounted to torture when he said , “ Yes .
Well , we tortured some folks.
” Marc Steiner : Exactly .
And no matter which administration it was , this goes on and people like James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen , who we talked about a moment ago who implemented all this and designed some of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and some secret settlement was made .
And now they ’ re testifying , trying to blame on others and even getting , I think as you wrote , getting tearful in the courtroom .
Julian Borger : That ’ s right .
Mitchell choked up on several occasions when looking back at the kind of choices he had to make and the sacrifices that in his view he made to protect the country , which was really something that really struck me that when prescribing waterboarding and the other techniques , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wink .
It was very strange .
But then when talking about his own dilemmas and sacrifices , he would choke out very easily and say , “ This is a sort of guy who cries while watching dog food commercials.
” So there was something very strange about that distinction between him talking about himself and talking about what he did to other people .
Marc Steiner : Well , when you wrote that in which we ’ re just speaking about , it reminds me sometimes of the things that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were just very normal .
Everyday human beings carry this stuff out , and there are many , many other people involved as high as Mitchell and Jessen and they live their lives daily , they take care of their children , they do whatever they do for their lives in the midst of torturing other human beings because of whatever circumstance it was .
I mean , that to me is what ’ s glaring and all of this .
And let me just stop there for a moment .
Julian Borger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of way , the kind of banality of it all .
They sold themselves as doing a job , they were psychologists and they framed it all in various kind of technical language .
But this again reinforces , this impression that we got from the past week of hearings of how this came on from on high , because at one point in August , 2002 , Mitchell believed that he brought Abu Zubaydah around .
He did put him under enough of these enhanced interrogation techniques to make him compliant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we should stop now .
We ’ ve done enough.
” And there were these cables coming back from CIA headquarters saying , “ No , we think you should carry on .
Stay to the course.
” And some messages coming from his superiors in Washington calling them pussies and calling their manhood into question and also putting the onus on them saying , “ Well if there is another catastrophic attack on the US in which Americans die , well it ’ ll be on you.
” And so this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justified the whole process .
This conviction that these people , the people that they were torturing held this information that can save thousands of American lives .
Marc Steiner : Yeah , I know .
Well foreign correspondence , military correspondence can have deep analysis , can also get very john just after years of watching this kind of stuff and reporting on it and seeing what happens to the human condition .
But I wonder where you think this trial and this moment may lead us .
Any possibilities of kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changing the way governments behave .
I mean I ’ m just curious where you think this might all take us over the next couple of years .
Julian Borger : I ’ m not all that optimistic that it is going to change minds .
I mean we ’ ve been exposed to the realities of this now for several years and you only have to look at the spy museum where they bought up an exhibit on torture , describing what was done and waterboarding and these small boxes in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the exhibit , they were these buttons you could press and it asked you if you thought that you could present or prevent another attack , would you carry out this torture .
And the majority of the visitors of the museum pressed yes , the button saying yes , I would carry out these techniques .
Marc Steiner : Well , we ’ ll leave it there for the moment and I hope to talk to you very soon as this unfolds , even more and see what you find when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the others at The Guardian .
First Julian before I said thank you , let me say thank you for all the work you ’ ve done , the reporting you ’ ve done all these years and thank you for taking your time with us at The Real News today .
Marc Steiner : And I ’ m Marc Steiner of The Real News network .
We will be doing more of this .
We have to stay on top of it .
Take care .

The CIA is hiding the names of those who ordered and carried out the torture of Guantanamo detainees. Even after years of legal battles, the United States is likely still using black sites and torture.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Marc Steiner: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. Great to have you all with us. When you hear the word Guantanamo, what pops into your head? 9/11 and the Al-Qaeda prisoners who’ve been held there for a long time. What also pops into some of our minds is the word torture, and legal battles that had been raging all these years with detainees suing the United States government, the CIA, and psychologists like James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen who implemented, designed and carried out what’s called enhanced interrogation techniques, like waterboarding, slamming heads into walls, putting people in 21 by 30 inch boxes, and keep them naked in freezing temperatures. Some, as the detainees’ lawyers argue, would call it torture.
Now, after eight years of pretrial hearings, trials may begin of people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others who were involved in 9/11. Along with the allegations of torture are unknowns, like who was the preacher who oversaw torture? Are the FBI, the CIA and the U.S. Government keeping classified so, as some would argue, to keep the truth and the names of the authorisers and those who carried out their orders hidden from the light of day?
Are there still black sites around the world? Does tortures still continue? What are these hearings and trials really telling us? What’s about to happen here? We talk today with one of the people who’s been covering this for a long time and just got back from Guantanamo himself. Julian Borger, world affairs editor for The Guardian, who has been a correspondent throughout the world, the United States, Middle East, Eastern Europe, the Balkans.
His book on the pursuit and capture of the Balkan war criminals, the Butcher’s Trail, is published by other press and William Borger… Excuse me. Julian Borger, welcome. Good to have you with us.
Julian Borger: Good to be here.
Marc Steiner: Can we take a step back just for a moment and when I talked about that eight years of history and what has been going on, just a brief outline for a second for our viewers about what we what we’re about to talk about, what has led up to it?
Julian Borger: Well, these are detainees, five detainees who’ve been in Guantanamo now for 14 years. And these were still in pretrial hearings, this is eight years of pretrial hearings. There’s supposed to be a trial starting next year, but not everyone in Guantanamo is confident that the trial would actually start next year.
So we are a stuck in a kind of legal morass caused really by the nature of the detention and later treatment of these detainees who are on trial.
Marc Steiner: I mean this appears to be kind of standing amount of time for pretrial hearings. So I mean why is it taking this long? This is an inordinate amount of time to try and men who have been charged with these heinous crimes and also their defense attorneys were also arguing about torture. Why is it taking so long?
Julian Borger: This is because these people were picked up in Afghanistan, Pakistan around the world and interrogated by the CIA who were under the belief that they could give information that could stop a second wave of attacks after the 9/11 attacks. And so as we’ve been hearing from the witnesses this week, they didn’t really care about due process. They were just wanting to get information out to them they believe would stop a second attack.
So when they then changed their mind and decided they are going to prosecute these people and pursue the death penalty, then the way they treated them, the torture that they underwent becomes a very important part in terms of whether these people will go to trial. And obviously the defense is saying that neither the statements they gave under torture or after torture should be admissible in court because of the history of torture and the fact that these were statements given under duress.
So some of the defense are asking for the whole case to be dismissed. Others are saying that these statements that they gave in 2007 which really is the core of the prosecution case should not be admissible, and this is a legal limbo this case has been stuck out now for eight years.
Marc Steiner: So let’s talk about some of the people involved here that you mentioned in your article, the James Mitchell who has been testifying this week, and I think you said to me before we went on the air together that Bruce Chessen is about to testify. Why are they testifying and who are they? Tell us about them.
Julian Borger: Okay. These were two psychologists who had worked for the US Air Force and had taken on as CI, as private contractors. And initially they went out to these CIA black sites to observe what was going on and make recommendations as the CIA wanted to step up the pressure on these detainees to cough up information. But they ended up making these recommendations about how to set up interrogation based on US survival techniques as they train US pilots and other US members of armed forces to evade and resist interrogation when they’re captured.
And they wanted to bring these techniques that are used on US service members and make it the guidelines, the outline for what they called the enhanced interrogation techniques. And so they ended up designing this program and then they were asked by the CIA to apply this program. So in effect, they became hired torturers although they were contractors and eventually set up a company, Mitchell Jessen and Associates that sold these services to the US government.
Marc Steiner: And made a lot of money. I think it was your article, I believe it was in your article and it could’ve been someone else’s I read so much this morning that they made almost $81 million over like a four or five year period or did I read that wrong?
Julian Borger: No, that’s what they were paid. But that was to provide a whole lot of security guards. They ended up providing all the security guards for the black sites and rendition. So it was all contracted out. So that wasn’t your profit. That was what the total of government paid him. I think Mitchell was paid something around one and a half million and Justin’s slightly less.
Marc Steiner: A little more than you are making a year but there’s other people involved here. One we don’t know about called the preacher and the new sheriff, I guess a man named Charlie Wise who passed away some years back. But they’re key to a lot of this in terms of that knowing who they are. This is kind of tip of the iceberg, the secrets that we may never know.
Julian Borger: That’s right. I think Mitchell has been pushing back over the past week that he was the face on the totality of the enhanced interrogation system, and he has been pointing out and there is a lot of evidence that was a big bureaucracy and infrastructure around the use of torture. This was a sort of whole of government effort that the FBI was, it looks like more involved than they have made out in the past. And it went throughout the CIA and of course up to the top ranks of the Bush administration.
So this was a large and organized use of torture that involved other characters like the preacher, like Charlie Wise, who we’ve only found out his identity after he’s died. But the CIA will not be classify them. They won’t make any of the CIA officials or former officials so the defense have asked a question available except these two contractors. So Mitchell and Jessen. And so because in a way the CIA has been prepared to throw these two to the wolves, we know about them. But there’s a whole lot more that we don’t know about.
Marc Steiner: I mean you wrote in the piece, your most recent piece in The Guardian that almost everyone else involved in the extensive program involving a network of black sites around the world has remained in the shadows in terms of legality. It’s still the dark side of the moon. So I mean, for all we know a, these black sites can keep going on the tortures that see people say are torture, there’s a place in Guantanamo could still be going on. We don’t know how far up the chain this could go.
Does it go to the [inaudible 00:08:35]? Does it go to George Bush or to Obama or whoever else was in charge at the moment. So there’s a lot we don’t know and a lot we may never know. So I mean what do you think could come out in this trial hearing, if anything that could lead us to any conclusions?
Julian Borger: Well, I think we’re a long way from conclusions. I think the CIA would really have to change their attitude towards declassification or be forced to by the military commission or by habeas cases in the outside courts forced to declassify more than they’ve let on because even the Senate report on torture is a summary and a small fragment of the kinds of documentation that is out there. So it is possible if this ever went to trial that we would learn a whole lot more about the use of torture by the US in this period.
It is possible. For example, in the pretrial hearings that Abu Zubaydah, who was the first to undergo these enhanced interrogation techniques might be allowed to stand as a witness. Now up to now the government is resisting that but that has been challenged in court.
Marc Steiner: Because I think you wrote about this being the 40th hearing in eight years and that they’ve changed the rules as they go. That the things that were declassified and put in books were not classified, again as secrets so they can’t use them in court. So clearly the government is using everything they can to not let a lot of information out through the course of this trial which could affect everything as well as our understanding of the truth.
Julian Borger: Yeah. They have been using classification rules, tactically declassifying things when they want to enter them into evidence and then reclassifying them when it is possible that the defense might be able to use it to their advantage, and this was a good example. Just days before this hearings began, prosecution introduced a third version of the classification rules that made a material that had been published and been subject to CIA pre-publication review made that classified once more so that there was a question about whether defense councils in court over the past week could refer to books that have been out in print for years.
Marc Steiner: It’s one of the things I think is important talk just for a moment about, I mean this whole question of torture and how we define with torture is. I mean the UN and various human rights groups have declared things like waterboarding, I mean literally pouring water into somebody’s face and throat for up to 40 seconds at a time as torture. People feel they’re drowning and more, some people have died. And some other techniques like the rectal hydration and force feeding for the rectal cavity.
Those things also have been said by doctors to be not medically suitable. Nobody uses these techniques, and they’re classified as torture. So what about this argument about torture? I mean, what do we take from this?
Julian Borger: Well, I think even by the very narrow definition produced by the Bush administration about not causing lasting psychological or physical harm, even by that very narrow definition, clearly what went on in these years in the black sites was torture. But by the Geneva convention on torture and cruel degrading and inhuman treater treatment, there is no question that many of these techniques amounted to torture. And of course, Barack Obama admitted that that amounted to torture when he said, “Yes. Well, we tortured some folks.”
Marc Steiner: Exactly. And no matter which administration it was, this goes on and people like James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who we talked about a moment ago who implemented all this and designed some of this were sued by detainees in the past and some secret settlement was made. And now they’re testifying, trying to blame on others and even getting, I think as you wrote, getting tearful in the courtroom.
Julian Borger: That’s right. Mitchell choked up on several occasions when looking back at the kind of choices he had to make and the sacrifices that in his view he made to protect the country, which was really something that really struck me that when prescribing waterboarding and the other techniques, he was entirely detached and would sometimes laugh and wink. It was very strange. But then when talking about his own dilemmas and sacrifices, he would choke out very easily and say, “This is a sort of guy who cries while watching dog food commercials.”
So there was something very strange about that distinction between him talking about himself and talking about what he did to other people.
Marc Steiner: Well, when you wrote that in which we’re just speaking about, it reminds me sometimes of the things that a number of trials in other places were just very normal. Everyday human beings carry this stuff out, and there are many, many other people involved as high as Mitchell and Jessen and they live their lives daily, they take care of their children, they do whatever they do for their lives in the midst of torturing other human beings because of whatever circumstance it was. I mean, that to me is what’s glaring and all of this. And let me just stop there for a moment.
Julian Borger: No, absolutely. And the kind of way, the kind of banality of it all. They sold themselves as doing a job, they were psychologists and they framed it all in various kind of technical language. But this again reinforces, this impression that we got from the past week of hearings of how this came on from on high, because at one point in August, 2002, Mitchell believed that he brought Abu Zubaydah around. He did put him under enough of these enhanced interrogation techniques to make him compliant.
And he said, “Okay, we should stop now. We’ve done enough.” And there were these cables coming back from CIA headquarters saying, “No, we think you should carry on. Stay to the course.” And some messages coming from his superiors in Washington calling them pussies and calling their manhood into question and also putting the onus on them saying, “Well if there is another catastrophic attack on the US in which Americans die, well it’ll be on you.” And so this is how they drove, rationalized and justified the whole process. This conviction that these people, the people that they were torturing held this information that can save thousands of American lives.
Marc Steiner: Yeah, I know. Well foreign correspondence, military correspondence can have deep analysis, can also get very john just after years of watching this kind of stuff and reporting on it and seeing what happens to the human condition. But I wonder where you think this trial and this moment may lead us. Any possibilities of kind of changing the way we behave, changing the way governments behave. I mean I’m just curious where you think this might all take us over the next couple of years.
Julian Borger: I’m not all that optimistic that it is going to change minds. I mean we’ve been exposed to the realities of this now for several years and you only have to look at the spy museum where they bought up an exhibit on torture, describing what was done and waterboarding and these small boxes in which people were confined. And as part of the exhibit, they were these buttons you could press and it asked you if you thought that you could present or prevent another attack, would you carry out this torture. And the majority of the visitors of the museum pressed yes, the button saying yes, I would carry out these techniques.
Marc Steiner: Well, we’ll leave it there for the moment and I hope to talk to you very soon as this unfolds, even more and see what you find when you go back to Guantanamo, you and the others at The Guardian. First Julian before I said thank you, let me say thank you for all the work you’ve done, the reporting you’ve done all these years and thank you for taking your time with us at The Real News today.
Julian Borger: Thank you. A pleasure.
Marc Steiner: And I’m Marc Steiner of The Real News network. We will be doing more of this. We have to stay on top of it. Take care.
Studio: Cameron Granadino, Bababtunde Ogunfolaju
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Bababtunde Ogunfolaju, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-30--Lula’s Foreign Minister on Iran Diplomacy and Brazil’s Sharp Turn to the Right

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wilpert : It ’ s the Real News Network , and I ’ m Greg Wilpert in Arlington , Virginia .
Brazil ’ s far-right and many even say neofascist President Jair Bolsonaro continues to turn the clock back when it comes to how his government deals with both foreign and domestic policies .
On the foreign policy front , Bolsonaro recently livestreamed himself while watching President Trump ’ s address following the assassination of Iran ’ s General Qassem Soleimani earlier this month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bolsonaro had the following to say .
Translator : I want to say only one thing .
Mr. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva , while he was president , he went and defended that that regime be allowed to enrich uranium above 20 % .
That is for peaceful means .
Translator : I would only add one thing .
We need to follow our laws .
We can ’ t extrapolate .
Really , it needs to be part of our day-to-day lives that we want peace in the world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was president , he was in Iran and he defended at that time together with Mr. Ahmadinejad that that country enrich uranium above 20 % for peaceful means .
Greg Wilpert : Bolsonaro was referring to how the center-left government of President Lula da Silva attempted to help mediate the creation of a nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran as early as 2009 .
Now , with the Trump administration tearing up the nuclear agreement in 2017 , Brazil has taken a position of solid support for Trump , thus completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Joining me now to discuss the far right Bolsonaro government in Brazil is Celso Amorim .
He was foreign minister and defense minister in the cabinet of President Lula da Silva , and was directly involved in the talks between Brazil and Iran at the time .
He ’ s also author of the book Acting Globally : Memoirs of Brazil ’ s Assertive Foreign Policy , which was published in 2017 with Rowman & Littlefield .
Thanks for joining us today , Mr. Amorim .
Greg Wilpert : I want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolsonaro is reversing practically everything that was done under Lula .
This affects both international and domestic policy , but I wanted to start with the foreign policy .
Recently , Lula actually spoke about the Iran deal as well in an interview that he conducted with the website Brasil Wire and Michael Brooks .
We have a clip here from that interview and let me show it .
Translator : I remember when I decided to go to Iran .
Hillary Clinton worked hard against the idea .
She even called the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me not to go .
I arrived in Moscow and met with Medvedev , and Obama had called him asking to help convince me not to go because I would be tricked .
Translator : It was a very disagreeable situation .
What was my impression ?
The rich countries , undoubtedly influenced by the U.S. State Department , did not accept having a protagonist in the area .
In their minds , Brazil was not big enough to get involved in an issue of that scale .
Greg Wilpert : Give us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as to why did Lula try to get involved in the conflict between the U.S. and Iran back in 2009 .
Celso Amorim : Well , President Lula didn ’ t have any special intention of getting involved in that .
It was actually a request by President Obama , who [ inaudible 00:04:02 ] in Italy , in a meeting of what we used to call G8 plus five .
It was five being developing countries that participated .
During that meeting , he had a side rendezvous with Obama .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama , he basically said three things in relation to his efforts to normalize relations with Iran .
He said , “ I reached out and I was not corresponded.
” Second , he said the problem of the nuclear program in Iran is probably the most important security issue in the world today .
The third question , he said , “ I need friends who talk with people who I can not talk to.
” That was a clear message .
I am just summarizing it , of course , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an hour or so .
Just after that , we received emissaries .
I myself received [ inaudible 00:05:12 ] , who later on became chairman of the Carnegie Foundation , a very high official in the State Department .
They explained to me in detail a kind of agreement that would be useful .
Of course , it would be not a definite agreement , a definitive agreement that would solve all the problems .
It would be , as President Obama later on reiterated in a letter to Lula , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we worked .
It was a very long story that ’ s actually in the book , so I don ’ t need to repeat to you , but we got exactly , exactly what President Obama had asked .
Well , maybe with some rhetoric that Iran considered important about equality of states , things like that , but the agreement , which was really a swap agreement , which had three elements , very practical and very measurable elements , was the quantity of light enriched uranium that should be taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would go to another country… There was a quantitative element , a place element , and a time element .
The time element was that Iran should do that immediately without waiting for receiving whatever they would receive in exchange .
We together with the Turks , by the way , at the time it was Minister Davutoglu , in concert with Erdogan , the prime minister , after more than six months of negotiations more or less , we got precisely what President Obama had asked .
There was no doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our going to Tehran , President Lula ’ s visit to Iran , we received , or President Lula received and I read of course a letter by President Obama in which he reiterated point by point the same questions that I am mentioning to you .
Just apart from these three very clear points , there was a fourth point of a more formal nature , that Iran should do that not just in a letter to Brazil or to Turkey , but it should be contained in a letter to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s what was done .
There was no doubt .
Point by point , we did what President Obama had requested President Lula to do .
I ’ ll just mention one short story .
You didn ’ t ask , but I think it ’ s important to note .
About four or five days before our departure , Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called us , and she added two other questions that were not contained there .
One of them included a question about 20 % enrichment , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question of the stock already , the enriched uranium and light enriched uranium that Iran already had and had to be disposed of .
We said , “ Well , that ’ s fine .
We agree with that .
We don ’ t disagree .
But os our president said , this is a confidence-building measure or confidence-building gesture , and these two points are not mentioned in the letter of our president , and then alongside as followed in our phone call.
” Just to reply to the question that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objective of the agreement was precisely , precisely to preempt Iran from having the 20 % uranium , because they alleged that they needed this 20 % uranium for their research reactor , which produced isotopes for medical use or for other medical uses .
That would be either the reason or the pretext , I don ’ t know , for them to continue enriching uranium still above the 3 to 4 % level , because that was the level used for electrical electricity .
The object of our agreement was precisely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they wished to have to have the 20 % enrichment , so it ’ s totally wrong what he said .
Someone told him something which he didn ’ t understand , or someone didn ’ t understand .
Greg Wilpert : I want to stay with the history of this briefly before we move on to Bolsonaro .
That is , why do you think this agreement that you and Lula negotiated with Iran , why did that not in the end become implemented ?
What do you think happened ?
Celso @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political situation… First , it took a long time .
Iran was not easy , and maybe other forces in the United States also operated .
We were also getting near the midterm elections .
Obama might have another , some other priorities like the Obamacare or whatever .
Hillary , who I think already thought of being president , was probably subject to other groups .
I don ’ t want to use the word lobbyists , because I ’ m not sure , but I am still telling you this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Three weeks before going to Iran , we received a letter by President Obama reiterating the points .
When the agreement was ready , when we came with the agreement , I said , there is a way of saying in Portuguese , “ She didn ’ t read , but she didn ’ t like.
” Many people , I can [ inaudible 00:11:07 ] for instance Roger Cohen from the New York Times , no lover of Ahmadinejad or whoever , he said , “ Well , the goalposts are being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also from Mohamed ElBaradei , who had been the chairman of Vienna , the International Atomic Energy , who said , “ They can ’ t take yes for an answer , ” because we delivered exactly what had been asked .
I think there was probably some internal situations .
I think maybe there was some discomfort with the fact that Brazil and Turkey , two middle countries being able to do what the P5 were not being able to do .
I don ’ t know .
Maybe some other aspects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mind you , I know from declarations by Obama that they were very fearful of Israeli military action .
This was not [ inaudible 00:12:17 ] .
Obama was really concerned with that possibility .
That ’ s why they reiterated the conditions , because I think that either Obama or his people thought that we would not get these conditions .
It took a long time to convince Iran to have the full quantity of 1,200 kilos , to have them sending it to another country , in that case it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately before they received the [ inaudible 00:12:49 ] for their reactor .
All that seemed very difficult to get , and maybe because of that , they wrote the letter expecting that we would not get that , but we got it .
That was the problem .
Greg Wilpert : I want to turn to the present situation , now that the Trump administration has decided to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement .
As we saw in the clip in the introduction , President Bolsonaro has basically completely sided with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why do you think that is , and who do you think Brazil… That is , who in Brazil is supporting him in this policy reversal and why ?
Celso Amorim : Well , President Bolsonaro supported him .
So did the Islamic State , because they were very much afraid about General Soleimani .
Now , I don ’ t want to go deeply into that .
Many American politicians or U.S. politicians have already said that that was an act of war .
That was state terrorism .
It doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to get into that .
I think the very least that Brazil should do , if you can not help in brokering , in helping peace , at least stay out because this is not our war , I would say , for sure .
I think there is an economic damage to Brazil .
It ’ s an important importer of Brazil ’ s agricultural products .
There is also , depending on how things may evolve… Apparently they are not evolving in such a serious situation right now , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even a risk in terms of security for our country and for our nationals .
At the very least , if Brazil can not help in having peace , at least stay out , not support a bellicose , aggressive action .
That ’ s what I think it should do .
Greg Wilpert : Now , I finally want to turn to a more recent policy issue that seems to characterize the Bolsonaro government , which is the decision of a prosecutor in Brazil to file charges against the journalist Glenn Greenwald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a criminal organization and of having hacked the phones of government officials .
Now , this action of course has been widely condemned across the world , and even in Brazil , as an attack on freedom of the press .
Now , how does this attack on Greenwald fit into the larger context of the far-right agenda of the Bolsonaro government ?
That is , just how extreme would you say is Bolsonaro , and what other policy examples would you say are there that would illustrate a slide into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call neofascist ?
Celso Amorim : Let me put it the way I see it .
I don ’ t like the Bolsonaro government .
I don ’ t like his foreign policy .
I don ’ t like many things he does , but in that particular case , it is a judge who is doing that .
I think that our problem in Brazil really is more serious .
You probably have read that the secretary of agriculture was recently dismissed because he really [ inaudible 00:16:08 ] one speech .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ absorb Nazi , extreme-right values by a strong section of Brazilian society , and this is extremely dangerous and extremely worrying .
I think this judge… Personally , I don ’ t know , but I don ’ t believe he was necessarily receiving orders by Bolsonaro .
Maybe , but certainly he was trying to please Bolsonaro , which is very bad because judges shouldn ’ t be looking to please anyone .
They should be doing justice .
So it ’ s very bad , but what I want to stress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is a strong section of Brazilian society , acting by the media , acting later on by fake news , people who think that the communists , I don ’ t know from where , are invading Brazil , Venezuela , and so forth , and whatever .
This is not something to be taken lightly .
I think it ’ s regrettable .
I think it ’ s certainly , totally incompatible with our own tradition of freedom of the press .
Of course , Bolsonaro really condoned it because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a president of a country that claims to be a democracy .
But look , Brazil in terms of foreign policy is trying to get near Trump , and Europe like Hungary and Poland are strong , are trying to be defenders of Christianity or their version of Christianity against other religions and against other peoples .
This attitude which mixes elements of Nazi ideology with racism , with xenophobia , with hatred against homosexuals and discrimination against women , they all go together .
On the question of the Iran agreement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the pressure by Israel became so big in relation to the United States to act militarily against Iran that one of the most important… a person who had been one of the most important advisors to Hillary Clinton , Anne-Marie Slaughter , wrote an article in the Financial Times in which she concludes , “ Maybe now it ’ s time for us to look back to that Turkish-Brazilian proposal.
” Greg Wilpert : Okay .
On that note , we ’ re going to have to leave it there for now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Brazil ’ s former minister of foreign affairs and of defense under President Lula da Silva .
Thanks again , Mr. Amorim , for having given us your precious time today .
Celso Amorim : Thank you .
Thank you .
It ’ s a pleasure .
Greg Wilpert : And thank you for joining the Real News Network .

Celso Amorim, who served as Brazil’s foreign minister and as defense minister under President Lula da Silva, talks about the enormous effort Brazil put into securing a nuclear deal with Iran, how it was ignored, and how current president Bolsonaro is following an extreme right agenda.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wilpert: It’s the Real News Network, and I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia. Brazil’s far-right and many even say neofascist President Jair Bolsonaro continues to turn the clock back when it comes to how his government deals with both foreign and domestic policies. On the foreign policy front, Bolsonaro recently livestreamed himself while watching President Trump’s address following the assassination of Iran’s General Qassem Soleimani earlier this month. After Trump’s address concluded, Bolsonaro had the following to say.
Jair Bolsonaro: [foreign language 00:00:37].
Translator: I want to say only one thing. Mr. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, while he was president, he went and defended that that regime be allowed to enrich uranium above 20%. That is for peaceful means.
Jair Bolsonaro: [foreign language 00:01:03].
Translator: I would only add one thing. We need to follow our laws. We can’t extrapolate. Really, it needs to be part of our day-to-day lives that we want peace in the world. I repeat, Lula, when he was president, he was in Iran and he defended at that time together with Mr. Ahmadinejad that that country enrich uranium above 20% for peaceful means.
Greg Wilpert: Bolsonaro was referring to how the center-left government of President Lula da Silva attempted to help mediate the creation of a nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran as early as 2009. Now, with the Trump administration tearing up the nuclear agreement in 2017, Brazil has taken a position of solid support for Trump, thus completely reversing Brazil’s foreign policy orientation.
Joining me now to discuss the far right Bolsonaro government in Brazil is Celso Amorim. He was foreign minister and defense minister in the cabinet of President Lula da Silva, and was directly involved in the talks between Brazil and Iran at the time. He’s also author of the book Acting Globally: Memoirs of Brazil’s Assertive Foreign Policy, which was published in 2017 with Rowman & Littlefield. Thanks for joining us today, Mr. Amorim.
Celso Amorim: My pleasure.
Greg Wilpert: I want to start with the historical background of how Bolsonaro is reversing practically everything that was done under Lula. This affects both international and domestic policy, but I wanted to start with the foreign policy. Recently, Lula actually spoke about the Iran deal as well in an interview that he conducted with the website Brasil Wire and Michael Brooks. We have a clip here from that interview and let me show it.
Jair Bolsonaro: [foreign language 00:02:52].
Translator: I remember when I decided to go to Iran. Hillary Clinton worked hard against the idea. She even called the Emir of Qatar asking him to convince me not to go. I arrived in Moscow and met with Medvedev, and Obama had called him asking to help convince me not to go because I would be tricked.
Jair Bolsonaro: [foreign language 00:03:10].
Translator: It was a very disagreeable situation. What was my impression? The rich countries, undoubtedly influenced by the U.S. State Department, did not accept having a protagonist in the area. In their minds, Brazil was not big enough to get involved in an issue of that scale.
Greg Wilpert: Give us some more context, Mr. Amorim, as to why did Lula try to get involved in the conflict between the U.S. and Iran back in 2009.
Celso Amorim: Well, President Lula didn’t have any special intention of getting involved in that. It was actually a request by President Obama, who [inaudible 00:04:02] in Italy, in a meeting of what we used to call G8 plus five. It was five being developing countries that participated. During that meeting, he had a side rendezvous with Obama. I was present, of course.
President Obama, he basically said three things in relation to his efforts to normalize relations with Iran. He said, “I reached out and I was not corresponded.” Second, he said the problem of the nuclear program in Iran is probably the most important security issue in the world today. The third question, he said, “I need friends who talk with people who I cannot talk to.” That was a clear message. I am just summarizing it, of course, because it was a broader conversation, half an hour or so.
Just after that, we received emissaries. I myself received [inaudible 00:05:12], who later on became chairman of the Carnegie Foundation, a very high official in the State Department. They explained to me in detail a kind of agreement that would be useful. Of course, it would be not a definite agreement, a definitive agreement that would solve all the problems. It would be, as President Obama later on reiterated in a letter to Lula, a confidence-building gesture.
In that understanding, we worked. It was a very long story that’s actually in the book, so I don’t need to repeat to you, but we got exactly, exactly what President Obama had asked. Well, maybe with some rhetoric that Iran considered important about equality of states, things like that, but the agreement, which was really a swap agreement, which had three elements, very practical and very measurable elements, was the quantity of light enriched uranium that should be taken out of Iran, the fact that it would go to another country… There was a quantitative element, a place element, and a time element. The time element was that Iran should do that immediately without waiting for receiving whatever they would receive in exchange.
We together with the Turks, by the way, at the time it was Minister Davutoglu, in concert with Erdogan, the prime minister, after more than six months of negotiations more or less, we got precisely what President Obama had asked. There was no doubt about that, because three weeks before our going to Tehran, President Lula’s visit to Iran, we received, or President Lula received and I read of course a letter by President Obama in which he reiterated point by point the same questions that I am mentioning to you. Just apart from these three very clear points, there was a fourth point of a more formal nature, that Iran should do that not just in a letter to Brazil or to Turkey, but it should be contained in a letter to the Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.
That’s what was done. There was no doubt. Point by point, we did what President Obama had requested President Lula to do. I’ll just mention one short story. You didn’t ask, but I think it’s important to note. About four or five days before our departure, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called us, and she added two other questions that were not contained there. One of them included a question about 20% enrichment, and the other that she mentioned also was the question of the stock already, the enriched uranium and light enriched uranium that Iran already had and had to be disposed of.
We said, “Well, that’s fine. We agree with that. We don’t disagree. But os our president said, this is a confidence-building measure or confidence-building gesture, and these two points are not mentioned in the letter of our president, and then alongside as followed in our phone call.”
Just to reply to the question that was mentioned by President Bolsonaro. The objective of the agreement was precisely, precisely to preempt Iran from having the 20% uranium, because they alleged that they needed this 20% uranium for their research reactor, which produced isotopes for medical use or for other medical uses. That would be either the reason or the pretext, I don’t know, for them to continue enriching uranium still above the 3 to 4% level, because that was the level used for electrical electricity. The object of our agreement was precisely to take away from Iran whatever pretext they wished to have to have the 20% enrichment, so it’s totally wrong what he said. Someone told him something which he didn’t understand, or someone didn’t understand.
Greg Wilpert: I want to stay with the history of this briefly before we move on to Bolsonaro. That is, why do you think this agreement that you and Lula negotiated with Iran, why did that not in the end become implemented? What do you think happened?
Celso Amorim: Well, I think maybe the political situation… First, it took a long time. Iran was not easy, and maybe other forces in the United States also operated. We were also getting near the midterm elections. Obama might have another, some other priorities like the Obamacare or whatever. Hillary, who I think already thought of being president, was probably subject to other groups. I don’t want to use the word lobbyists, because I’m not sure, but I am still telling you this was proposed maybe six months before. Three weeks before going to Iran, we received a letter by President Obama reiterating the points.
When the agreement was ready, when we came with the agreement, I said, there is a way of saying in Portuguese, “She didn’t read, but she didn’t like.” Many people, I can [inaudible 00:11:07] for instance Roger Cohen from the New York Times, no lover of Ahmadinejad or whoever, he said, “Well, the goalposts are being changed.” I can say a quote also from Mohamed ElBaradei, who had been the chairman of Vienna, the International Atomic Energy, who said, “They can’t take yes for an answer,” because we delivered exactly what had been asked.
I think there was probably some internal situations. I think maybe there was some discomfort with the fact that Brazil and Turkey, two middle countries being able to do what the P5 were not being able to do. I don’t know. Maybe some other aspects as well, as I said. Mind you, I know from declarations by Obama that they were very fearful of Israeli military action. This was not [inaudible 00:12:17]. Obama was really concerned with that possibility. That’s why they reiterated the conditions, because I think that either Obama or his people thought that we would not get these conditions. It took a long time to convince Iran to have the full quantity of 1,200 kilos, to have them sending it to another country, in that case it would be Turkey, and to do it immediately before they received the [inaudible 00:12:49] for their reactor. All that seemed very difficult to get, and maybe because of that, they wrote the letter expecting that we would not get that, but we got it. That was the problem.
Greg Wilpert: I want to turn to the present situation, now that the Trump administration has decided to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement. As we saw in the clip in the introduction, President Bolsonaro has basically completely sided with Trump on this issue. Now, why do you think that is, and who do you think Brazil… That is, who in Brazil is supporting him in this policy reversal and why?
Celso Amorim: Well, President Bolsonaro supported him. So did the Islamic State, because they were very much afraid about General Soleimani. Now, I don’t want to go deeply into that. Many American politicians or U.S. politicians have already said that that was an act of war. That was state terrorism. It doesn’t matter. I don’t want to get into that. I think the very least that Brazil should do, if you cannot help in brokering, in helping peace, at least stay out because this is not our war, I would say, for sure.
I think there is an economic damage to Brazil. It’s an important importer of Brazil’s agricultural products. There is also, depending on how things may evolve… Apparently they are not evolving in such a serious situation right now, but we never know. There may be even a risk in terms of security for our country and for our nationals. At the very least, if Brazil cannot help in having peace, at least stay out, not support a bellicose, aggressive action. That’s what I think it should do.
Greg Wilpert: Now, I finally want to turn to a more recent policy issue that seems to characterize the Bolsonaro government, which is the decision of a prosecutor in Brazil to file charges against the journalist Glenn Greenwald. He is being charged for being part of a criminal organization and of having hacked the phones of government officials. Now, this action of course has been widely condemned across the world, and even in Brazil, as an attack on freedom of the press. Now, how does this attack on Greenwald fit into the larger context of the far-right agenda of the Bolsonaro government? That is, just how extreme would you say is Bolsonaro, and what other policy examples would you say are there that would illustrate a slide into the far-right policies that some even would call neofascist?
Celso Amorim: Let me put it the way I see it. I don’t like the Bolsonaro government. I don’t like his foreign policy. I don’t like many things he does, but in that particular case, it is a judge who is doing that. I think that our problem in Brazil really is more serious. You probably have read that the secretary of agriculture was recently dismissed because he really [inaudible 00:16:08] one speech. I think there is a tendency to absorb Nazi, extreme-right values by a strong section of Brazilian society, and this is extremely dangerous and extremely worrying.
I think this judge… Personally, I don’t know, but I don’t believe he was necessarily receiving orders by Bolsonaro. Maybe, but certainly he was trying to please Bolsonaro, which is very bad because judges shouldn’t be looking to please anyone. They should be doing justice. So it’s very bad, but what I want to stress is that it goes beyond Bolsonaro. There is a strong section of Brazilian society, acting by the media, acting later on by fake news, people who think that the communists, I don’t know from where, are invading Brazil, Venezuela, and so forth, and whatever.
This is not something to be taken lightly. I think it’s regrettable. I think it’s certainly, totally incompatible with our own tradition of freedom of the press. Of course, Bolsonaro really condoned it because it made comments which were not proper for a president of a country that claims to be a democracy. But look, Brazil in terms of foreign policy is trying to get near Trump, and Europe like Hungary and Poland are strong, are trying to be defenders of Christianity or their version of Christianity against other religions and against other peoples. This attitude which mixes elements of Nazi ideology with racism, with xenophobia, with hatred against homosexuals and discrimination against women, they all go together.
On the question of the Iran agreement, about one and a half years later, the pressure by Israel became so big in relation to the United States to act militarily against Iran that one of the most important… a person who had been one of the most important advisors to Hillary Clinton, Anne-Marie Slaughter, wrote an article in the Financial Times in which she concludes, “Maybe now it’s time for us to look back to that Turkish-Brazilian proposal.”
Greg Wilpert: Okay. On that note, we’re going to have to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Celso Amorim, Brazil’s former minister of foreign affairs and of defense under President Lula da Silva. Thanks again, Mr. Amorim, for having given us your precious time today.
Celso Amorim: Thank you. Thank you. It’s a pleasure.
Greg Wilpert: And thank you for joining the Real News Network.
Studio: Adam Coley, Cameron Granadino
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Cameron Granadino, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.