therealnews--2020-02-20--War Criminal Omar Bashir Faces Trial in the Hague as Sudan Aligns Itself with the West

MARC STEINER : Welcome to The Real News .
I ’ m Marc Steiner .
Good to have you with us .
We ’ re about to delve deeper into the developing situation in the Sudan , as we continue our conversations with Dr. Khalid Ahmed .
Sudan has experienced over the last decades genocide , dictatorships , civil war , famine .
But what we ’ ve seen in just over a year since the massive demonstrations forced the downfall of Omar Bashir ’ s dictatorship is really nothing short of a revolution , though a very complex one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sworn in last August , wasted no time in putting former president Omar Bashir on trial .
First , he was charged with receiving a bribe from Saudi Arabia , which he eventually admitted to .
But on Tuesday , the Civilian Council announced that it will allow Bashir to be tried by the International Criminal Court , the ICC , for war crimes and crimes against humanity because of his role in the genocide in Darfur , which killed 300,000 people or more in 2003 .
Now , Omar Bashir ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extradition decision is not yet final .
Let ’ s listen to this .
MOHAMMED AL-HASSAN : We do not consider that this decision is complete because it must first pass through all institutions , including the armed forces .
The president has been the supreme leader of the armed forces all these years and he represents them and has fought with them .
All the groups which were recently formed oppose his rule , and now these groups want to see him on trial .
If there were crimes , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts where justice will be served reasonably .
MARC STEINER : We ’ ll talk about that , and Netanyahu ’ s visit to Sudan , and how Sudan is in some ways trying to get back into the graces of the Western World as we start a conversation with Dr. Khalid Ahmed .
Welcome .
Good to have you back with us .
KHALID AHMED : Thank you for having me .
MARC STEINER : Dr. Ahmed , I should tell you , is a political science professor in African Studies at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked with the United Nations in Sudan in 2007 .
We ’ ve been talking about this for a while , and we ’ re going to do it again today .
It is really interesting .
I was looking at the last conversation you had here with The Real News when you were talking to my colleague Greg Wilpert .
And you said at the end , the Military Council which took over in 2019 didn ’ t want to extradite Bashir to the ICC because he would name names and implicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But what has changed , if anything ?
Will there be an extradition , do you think ?
I mean , that can be very dicey .
Maybe he ’ ll be tried inside of Sudan itself by the ICC .
But how do you think this is going to play out politically .
And what about those political battles within about Bashir being a tried by the ICC ?
KHALID AHMED : You ’ re right , Marc .
The generals who took over the Transitional Military Sovereign Council have stated several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand over Bashir to the International Criminal Court .
However , I think recently we ’ ve realized that there are many backdoor deals that are been going on , and I think the government , the current traditional government ’ s hand has been twisted , so to speak , in order for them to receive financial assistance and for the name of Sudan to be lifted from the terrorist list , the US terrorist list where Sudan has been there since late ’ 99 .
It seems that they are , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of conditions , and one of them is the handover of Bashir to the Hague , to the ICC .
MARC STEINER : I mean , so you think that will happen ?
KHALID AHMED : Well , it has to happen for several reasons .
One of them is that , as I mentioned that Sudan is in a dire need to regain its placing within the international community , and the international community has refused to accept that before certain conditions are met .
The current government can not continue running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going on right now because of the financial crises that are taking place at the moment .
There are shortages of everything from bread to gas to basic needs or the hospitals or medications .
Sudan is in dire need of financial assistance .
And some of the conditions that have been applied to Sudan in order to remove it from the terrorist list , is for them to really prove… Three conditions have been actually proposed : that they prove that they have no longer interest in a terrorist acts ; number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are no longer associating themselves with any terrorist organizations ; and three , to pay for the USS Cole victims who Sudan was accused of .
And this current government has agreed to all these conditions .
MARC STEINER : I mean , let ’ s explore this a bit more deeply for a moment .
I mean , Netanyahu just paid a visit to the government in Sudan to negotiate .
Clearly , some people are saying he is playing a role to get them off the list , and he talked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sudan .
You mentioned the $ 30 million that are paying to the families of the USS Cole that was blown up in 2000 off the coast of Yemen , and they have agreed to that .
Now the whole thing with Bashir maybe being sent to the ICC , to the Hague , and it looks like that might happen ; let ’ s talk about the political dynamic here .
I mean , there ’ s two things going on , but let me talk about one first and get to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sudan itself .
It seems there ’ s a major push by the military and the Civilian Council to come into the West ’ s favor and with Israel being in the mix , and Israel also means that the Sudan will no longer be against Israel and Saudi Arabia will no longer be against Israel .
All that ’ s taking place .
There ’ s a shift going on here politically , with the west in Northeast African .
Talk a bit about that .
How does that play into all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s a very good question and a very important one .
I ’ ll tell you .
Africa in general , and Sudan specifically , has been plagued by foreign intervention and Western intervention in particular with regard to their sovereignty and their decision- making .
I think the issue right now for the West and Western countries in general is to , who should lead Sudan in the future and who should really be in charge , and how to make sure that Sudan is run by someone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Western interests .
In order to do that , it seems that they ’ re positioning Burhan at the moment to do that .
The head of the military , the Sovereign Council in Sudan .
By the way , Burhan himself has been , was wanted by the International Criminal Court and his Vice President Hemeti , the both of them are wanted for the atrocities in Darfur .
But they seem to be getting impunity for some reason .
I think in exchange they ’ re handing over Bashir to tho @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting away with the murders that they ’ ve committed in Darfur .
But let me go back to the point of sovereignty , and how Africa really lacks the ability , and Sudan in particular lacks the ability to really make its own decisions .
Western countries have historically been intervening in Africa and Sudan ever since colonialism ended .
Therefore , now in Sudan we see pressure put on this government to behave in a certain way , and to accept specific policies with regard to its relationship to Israel and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , $ 30 million the US Cole victims , and also to send Bashir to the International Criminal Court .
I mean , don ’ t get me wrong .
Bashir is a criminal who deserves to be tried , and he deserves to be convicted of all the atrocities that was committed in the past 30 years .
There is no doubt about it .
But it seems that the deal has been done in a way that would get more than just Bashir going to the ICC .
It seems like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that the Western countries are making sure that certain people remain in power in Sudan , and the transition period goes in a specific direction that is favorable to Western interests .
MARC STEINER : Let ’ s take the two final points here .
And picking up on that before we go back to the ICC ; we ’ ll close with that .
What do you think would be the dynamic coming up between other Civilian Council and the military government ?
Which was , most of the people that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the inner circle or they wouldn ’ t be in the positions they ’ re in .
People that have been fighting the push for a real democratic election and a change towards democracy in Khartoum .
How do you think that ’ s going to play out over this ?
I mean , this could just erupt either way .
People could take to the streets again .
The military could take over another coup .
A lot could change in the next couple of months .
KHALID AHMED : Absolutely .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military and the civilian partners in the transitional government .
I ’ ll tell you why .
The Military Council itself shouldn ’ t be really part of the government .
This was not the mandate of the people who went out on the streets and demonstrated against the military rule of Al-Bashir .
But external powers–again , going back to the point that I keep referring to–have insisted that the Burhan and Hemeti remain in power .
And that particular has happened because of the blessing of the US , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arab Emirates .
They are there to serve a specific purpose ; namely , to keep the soldiers of Sudan in Yemen fighting alongside the Saudi government and the UAE government .
Also to make sure that his soldiers now , as the news keeps coming , are fighting in Libya alongside General Haftar .
KHALID AHMED : They want to make sure that they have them in power , Hemeti and Burhan because they know who , that they will actually obey to their commands and they will answer their questions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll find the forces of freedom and change are the ones who are backing the Prime Minister of Hamdok .
They are inexperienced in politics .
They have the aspirations of the Sudanese people , but there seems to be some cracks appearing in their relationship with Burhan and Hemeti , in particular with what to do with regard to the issue of the financial situation .
Burhan seems to be leaning more towards having the relationship with Israel restored and having Israel in return , mediate with the US , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the terrorist list .
Hamdok , the Prime Minister seems to be interested , and I don ’ t know if you ’ ve heard of that or not , but he actually sent a request to the United Nations , asking for Chapter Seven .
MARC STEINER : What does that mean , Chapter Seven ?
KHALID AHMED : He ’ s asking for a full UN intervention in Sudan .
He ’ s asking for the Sudanese , for the United Nations to intervene into helping Sudan rebuild its institutions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he will receive support from the UN in all the aspects that Sudan are going through right now .
He will also have training for the officers and for the military .
He ’ s kind of state-building on a state-building deal here .
Most Sudanese are also suspicious about that .
But he believes that this is the only way to receive the funding that are necessary to rebuild the country .
He has no money–not even $ 150 million , according to him–in the Bank of Sudan .
He has no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment that people need on the ground .
So , they are torn between Hamdok ’ s vision of leaning more towards the United Nations and Burhan ’ s vision of seeking more alliances with the US and getting Sudan ’ s name lifted off their terrorist watch .
MARC STEINER : We can ’ t do it today , but I think when we conclude here , which what you ’ re saying is that it ’ s a really… We need to probe what ’ s happening with the Western powers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the Arab countries moving into Africa , especially in East Africa at this moment , to flex its muscle in terms of its influence .
This is a real shift in international politics going on , and it ’ s being played out in the heart of Sudan .
KHALID AHMED : Actually , the Western powers have been historically very much involved in the Horn of Africa , Eastern Africa .
This is not really new to Africa .
Sudan and other neighboring countries have been plagued by Western intervention- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it cleaves this sphere of the West ?
KHALID AHMED : Absolutely .
Absolutely .
By the way , there are a lot … I mean , I personally think that Bashir should be sent to the ICC .
However , that doesn ’ t mean that I ’ m in favor of ICC or I think favorably of the ICC .
The ICC is no more than an extension of Western hegemony over African countries .
I agree with those who criticize this and those who have already withdrawn from it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Africa and who criticized it for being built specifically for political reasons towards Africa .
MARC STEINER : The only people they ’ ve tried are people from the continent .
KHALID AHMED : Look Marc , since its inception , it had 26 trials .
All of them were Africans .
KHALID AHMED : No one from outside of Africa have been indicted or incriminated by the court .
Many people are starting to wonder , is this a new form of new colonialism or why is it only focusing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself in 2018 said that as far as , and I quote , “ As far as the United States is concerned , the ICC has no jurisdiction , no authority and no place.
” The United States itself is very worried about the ICC and incriminating his soldiers from wars committed in Afghanistan and Iraq .
It ’ s very understanding that Africans themselves feel like there ’ s something fishy out about the ICC .
But I hope to see the African Union actually develop and improve the African Court of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rights , which is supposed to at some point in the future , has being happening , developing slowly , but it needs to be set up quickly so it can deal with these issues within Africa , by African people and set precedents in Africa for other presidents who might think in the future of doing anything wrong , that they will be tried and tried fairly by the African Union .
MARC STEINER : Well , Dr. Khalid Ahmed , thank you so much once again for joining us here on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ ll keep this up with you and see how all this unfolds .
Thank you so much .
KHALID AHMED : Thank you , Marc , for having me .
I appreciate it .
MARC STEINER : It ’ s been my pleasure .
I ’ m Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network .
Thank you all for joining us .
Take care .

Sudan has been through a revolution, but it’s unclear what former President Bashir’s extradition to the ICC indicates for the future of the country. Has Sudan been seduced by Western power and capital?
Story Transcript
MARC STEINER: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. Good to have you with us.
We’re about to delve deeper into the developing situation in the Sudan, as we continue our conversations with Dr. Khalid Ahmed. Sudan has experienced over the last decades genocide, dictatorships, civil war, famine. But what we’ve seen in just over a year since the massive demonstrations forced the downfall of Omar Bashir’s dictatorship is really nothing short of a revolution, though a very complex one. The Civilian Council, which was sworn in last August, wasted no time in putting former president Omar Bashir on trial.
First, he was charged with receiving a bribe from Saudi Arabia, which he eventually admitted to. But on Tuesday, the Civilian Council announced that it will allow Bashir to be tried by the International Criminal Court, the ICC, for war crimes and crimes against humanity because of his role in the genocide in Darfur, which killed 300,000 people or more in 2003. Now, Omar Bashir’s lawyer Mohammed al-Hassan tried to claim that the extradition decision is not yet final. Let’s listen to this.
MOHAMMED AL-HASSAN: We do not consider that this decision is complete because it must first pass through all institutions, including the armed forces. The president has been the supreme leader of the armed forces all these years and he represents them and has fought with them. All the groups which were recently formed oppose his rule, and now these groups want to see him on trial. If there were crimes, then any trial must go forth to Sudanese courts where justice will be served reasonably.
MARC STEINER: We’ll talk about that, and Netanyahu’s visit to Sudan, and how Sudan is in some ways trying to get back into the graces of the Western World as we start a conversation with Dr. Khalid Ahmed. Welcome. Good to have you back with us.
KHALID AHMED: Thank you for having me.
MARC STEINER: Dr. Ahmed, I should tell you, is a political science professor in African Studies at the University of Toronto, and he worked with the United Nations in Sudan in 2007. We’ve been talking about this for a while, and we’re going to do it again today. It is really interesting. I was looking at the last conversation you had here with The Real News when you were talking to my colleague Greg Wilpert. And you said at the end, the Military Council which took over in 2019 didn’t want to extradite Bashir to the ICC because he would name names and implicate a lot of his own generals.
But what has changed, if anything? Will there be an extradition, do you think? I mean, that can be very dicey. Maybe he’ll be tried inside of Sudan itself by the ICC. But how do you think this is going to play out politically. And what about those political battles within about Bashir being a tried by the ICC?
KHALID AHMED: You’re right, Marc. The generals who took over the Transitional Military Sovereign Council have stated several times that they are not going to hand over Bashir to the International Criminal Court.
However, I think recently we’ve realized that there are many backdoor deals that are been going on, and I think the government, the current traditional government’s hand has been twisted, so to speak, in order for them to receive financial assistance and for the name of Sudan to be lifted from the terrorist list, the US terrorist list where Sudan has been there since late ’99. It seems that they are, they have to fulfill a specific number of conditions, and one of them is the handover of Bashir to the Hague, to the ICC.
MARC STEINER: I mean, so you think that will happen?
KHALID AHMED: Well, it has to happen for several reasons. One of them is that, as I mentioned that Sudan is in a dire need to regain its placing within the international community, and the international community has refused to accept that before certain conditions are met. The current government cannot continue running the Sudan the way it’s going on right now because of the financial crises that are taking place at the moment. There are shortages of everything from bread to gas to basic needs or the hospitals or medications.
Sudan is in dire need of financial assistance. And some of the conditions that have been applied to Sudan in order to remove it from the terrorist list, is for them to really prove… Three conditions have been actually proposed: that they prove that they have no longer interest in a terrorist acts; number two, to provide evidence that they are no longer associating themselves with any terrorist organizations; and three, to pay for the USS Cole victims who Sudan was accused of. And this current government has agreed to all these conditions.
MARC STEINER: I mean, let’s explore this a bit more deeply for a moment. I mean, Netanyahu just paid a visit to the government in Sudan to negotiate. Clearly, some people are saying he is playing a role to get them off the list, and he talked very highly what was going on in Sudan. You mentioned the $30 million that are paying to the families of the USS Cole that was blown up in 2000 off the coast of Yemen, and they have agreed to that. Now the whole thing with Bashir maybe being sent to the ICC, to the Hague, and it looks like that might happen; let’s talk about the political dynamic here.
I mean, there’s two things going on, but let me talk about one first and get to what’s happening maybe inside the Sudan itself. It seems there’s a major push by the military and the Civilian Council to come into the West’s favor and with Israel being in the mix, and Israel also means that the Sudan will no longer be against Israel and Saudi Arabia will no longer be against Israel. All that’s taking place. There’s a shift going on here politically, with the west in Northeast African. Talk a bit about that. How does that play into all of this?
KHALID AHMED: Marc, that’s a very good question and a very important one. I’ll tell you. Africa in general, and Sudan specifically, has been plagued by foreign intervention and Western intervention in particular with regard to their sovereignty and their decision- making. I think the issue right now for the West and Western countries in general is to, who should lead Sudan in the future and who should really be in charge, and how to make sure that Sudan is run by someone who is closely aligned to Western ideals and Western interests. In order to do that, it seems that they’re positioning Burhan at the moment to do that. The head of the military, the Sovereign Council in Sudan.
By the way, Burhan himself has been, was wanted by the International Criminal Court and his Vice President Hemeti, the both of them are wanted for the atrocities in Darfur. But they seem to be getting impunity for some reason. I think in exchange they’re handing over Bashir to tho the ICC, and they’re getting away with the murders that they’ve committed in Darfur. But let me go back to the point of sovereignty, and how Africa really lacks the ability, and Sudan in particular lacks the ability to really make its own decisions. Western countries have historically been intervening in Africa and Sudan ever since colonialism ended.
Therefore, now in Sudan we see pressure put on this government to behave in a certain way, and to accept specific policies with regard to its relationship to Israel and with regard to paying the USS Cole, $30 million the US Cole victims, and also to send Bashir to the International Criminal Court. I mean, don’t get me wrong. Bashir is a criminal who deserves to be tried, and he deserves to be convicted of all the atrocities that was committed in the past 30 years. There is no doubt about it. But it seems that the deal has been done in a way that would get more than just Bashir going to the ICC. It seems like what’s happening right now, is that the Western countries are making sure that certain people remain in power in Sudan, and the transition period goes in a specific direction that is favorable to Western interests.
MARC STEINER: Let’s take the two final points here. And picking up on that before we go back to the ICC; we’ll close with that. What do you think would be the dynamic coming up between other Civilian Council and the military government? Which was, most of the people that you just pointed out were part of the inner circle or they wouldn’t be in the positions they’re in. People that have been fighting the push for a real democratic election and a change towards democracy in Khartoum. How do you think that’s going to play out over this? I mean, this could just erupt either way. People could take to the streets again. The military could take over another coup. A lot could change in the next couple of months.
KHALID AHMED: Absolutely. I anticipate a lot of struggle between the military and the civilian partners in the transitional government. I’ll tell you why. The Military Council itself shouldn’t be really part of the government. This was not the mandate of the people who went out on the streets and demonstrated against the military rule of Al-Bashir.
But external powers–again, going back to the point that I keep referring to–have insisted that the Burhan and Hemeti remain in power. And that particular has happened because of the blessing of the US, and with encouragement from Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. They are there to serve a specific purpose; namely, to keep the soldiers of Sudan in Yemen fighting alongside the Saudi government and the UAE government. Also to make sure that his soldiers now, as the news keeps coming, are fighting in Libya alongside General Haftar.
MARC STEINER: Right.
KHALID AHMED: They want to make sure that they have them in power, Hemeti and Burhan because they know who, that they will actually obey to their commands and they will answer their questions. However, on the other hand you’ll find the forces of freedom and change are the ones who are backing the Prime Minister of Hamdok. They are inexperienced in politics. They have the aspirations of the Sudanese people, but there seems to be some cracks appearing in their relationship with Burhan and Hemeti, in particular with what to do with regard to the issue of the financial situation.
Burhan seems to be leaning more towards having the relationship with Israel restored and having Israel in return, mediate with the US, and guts the Sudan off the blacklist of the terrorist list. Hamdok, the Prime Minister seems to be interested, and I don’t know if you’ve heard of that or not, but he actually sent a request to the United Nations, asking for Chapter Seven [Note: Sudan’s prime minister is requesting Chapter Six of the UN Charter, not Chapter Seven.]
MARC STEINER: What does that mean, Chapter Seven?
KHALID AHMED: He’s asking for a full UN intervention in Sudan. He’s asking for the Sudanese, for the United Nations to intervene into helping Sudan rebuild its institutions. By that, he receives funding and he will receive support from the UN in all the aspects that Sudan are going through right now. He will also have training for the officers and for the military.
He’s kind of state-building on a state-building deal here. Most Sudanese are also suspicious about that. But he believes that this is the only way to receive the funding that are necessary to rebuild the country. He has no money–not even $150 million, according to him–in the Bank of Sudan. He has no hard currency to export anything at the moment that people need on the ground. So, they are torn between Hamdok’s vision of leaning more towards the United Nations and Burhan’s vision of seeking more alliances with the US and getting Sudan’s name lifted off their terrorist watch.
MARC STEINER: We can’t do it today, but I think when we conclude here, which what you’re saying is that it’s a really… We need to probe what’s happening with the Western powers: the United States, Israel, some of the Arab countries moving into Africa, especially in East Africa at this moment, to flex its muscle in terms of its influence. This is a real shift in international politics going on, and it’s being played out in the heart of Sudan.
KHALID AHMED: Actually, the Western powers have been historically very much involved in the Horn of Africa, Eastern Africa. This is not really new to Africa. Sudan and other neighboring countries have been plagued by Western intervention-
MARC STEINER: What I mean is, it cleaves this sphere of the West?
KHALID AHMED: Absolutely. Absolutely. By the way, there are a lot … I mean, I personally think that Bashir should be sent to the ICC. However, that doesn’t mean that I’m in favor of ICC or I think favorably of the ICC. The ICC is no more than an extension of Western hegemony over African countries. I agree with those who criticize this and those who have already withdrawn from it, such as Burundi and other countries in Africa and who criticized it for being built specifically for political reasons towards Africa.
MARC STEINER: The only people they’ve tried are people from the continent.
KHALID AHMED: Look Marc, since its inception, it had 26 trials. All of them were Africans.
MARC STEINER: Exactly.
KHALID AHMED: No one from outside of Africa have been indicted or incriminated by the court. Many people are starting to wonder, is this a new form of new colonialism or why is it only focusing on Africa? By the way, Trump himself in 2018 said that as far as, and I quote, “As far as the United States is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no authority and no place.” The United States itself is very worried about the ICC and incriminating his soldiers from wars committed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It’s very understanding that Africans themselves feel like there’s something fishy out about the ICC. But I hope to see the African Union actually develop and improve the African Court of Justice and Humans and People’s Rights, which is supposed to at some point in the future, has being happening, developing slowly, but it needs to be set up quickly so it can deal with these issues within Africa, by African people and set precedents in Africa for other presidents who might think in the future of doing anything wrong, that they will be tried and tried fairly by the African Union.
MARC STEINER: Well, Dr. Khalid Ahmed, thank you so much once again for joining us here on The Real News. Interesting conversation. We’ll keep this up with you and see how all this unfolds. Thank you so much.
KHALID AHMED: Thank you, Marc, for having me. I appreciate it.
MARC STEINER: It’s been my pleasure. I’m Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network. Thank you all for joining us. Take care.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-20--Ilhan Omar’s ‘Pathway to Peace’ Would Revolutionize US Foreign Policy

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota introduced a package of seven bills last week , which she calls the Pathway to Peace .
This legislation , if it were passed , would mean nothing short of a revolution in the way that U.S. foreign policy is conducted .
Last year , Omar already said that she plans to make U.S. foreign policy more ethical .
ILHAN OMAR : I want to make sure that here in the United States we understand that there are other countries who take in so many people of the world ’ s most pained people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do better .
GREG WILPERT : The package of seven bills would end arm sales to countries that violate human rights , provide foreign aid to youth in developing countries , shift $ 5 billion from the Pentagon to the state department for a global peace building fund and grant Congress oversight over U.S. economic sanctions .
Also , the bills would have the U.S. sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child , a global migration agreement , and the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court .
Joining me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s proposal is Kate Kizer .
She ’ s the Policy Director at Win Without War , a national grassroots advocacy organization that works to help establish a more progressive foreign policy for the United States .
Thanks for joining us today , Kate .
KATE KIZER : Thanks for having me .
GREG WILPERT : The chances that this package of bills would be approved by congress , particularly by the Republican controlled senate , and then not be vetoed by the president , is pretty slim .
So what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pathway to Peace ?
KATE KIZER : It ’ s a really important marker of what Progressive ’ s want to see on foreign policy .
For a long time there ’ s been little to no debate within the Democratic Party of how we would actually reform U.S. foreign policy to meet the values that the U.S. says it stands for .
So it ’ s very exciting to see Representative Omar lay down such bold markers of how we would change U.S. engagement with the world , and not only to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress , even if they won ’ t end up becoming law this year , but also to signal what we would expect to see from a progressive White House in the future .
GREG WILPERT : Now , in an article that you wrote for The American Prospect about the Pathway to Peace , you point out that the United States has historically pushed for a rules-based international system , but you also point out that the U.S. has at the same time considered itself to be an exception to these rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , the U.S. is the only country in the world not to have signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child , and one of the few that hasn ’ t supported the International Criminal Court or the UN compact on migration .
Now , getting the U.S. to abide by these UN conventions would imply a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy .
Is there support among the Democratic Party and presidential candidates for such a shift , and if not , how might such support be built ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ think there absolutely is support for these ideas of being an internationalist , of being a multilateralist in foreign policy .
The U.S. government says it supports the multilateral system , but as you just mentioned , it ’ s my analysis that we actually act to undermine it , which weakens that system , and prevents us from actually positively reforming the system to meet the needs of the 21st century .
So it ’ s been very exciting to see Senator Warren and Senator Sanders on the campaign trail really stake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and it would absolutely require the U.S. to not only join these international conventions that set out the rule of the road , but also to establish more norms and standards that it not only holds itself accountable to but other countries .
Without holding ourselves accountable to these standards , we can ’ t then act for accountability for other countries .
Ultimately , that undermines any U.S. power to implement these rules of the road .
GREG WILPERT : Now currently , not only hasn ’ t the U.S. signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it also flaunts international law when it imposes unilateral economic sanctions on countries such as on Venezuela , Russia , or Iran .
That is , according to the UN charter it is illegal for countries to engage in collective punishment .
Now , the Pathway to Peace includes a bill that would require Congress to approve of economic sanctions , but it would still mean that sanctions could violate international law actually .
I mean wouldn ’ t a bill that would outlaw all non-UN-approved sanctions be better ?
KATE KIZER : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctions has really become a reflexive tool in the toolkit that many policymakers don ’ t see as a form of warfare , is very problematic .
I think Congresswoman Omar recognized this .
She ’ s obviously been an advocate for an end to U.S. blanket sanction regimes that violate international law and cause undue hardship to regular people in sanctioned countries .
But I think she ’ s strategic in that she recognizes that many members of Congress in particular are not ready to just do away with all U.S. sanctions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is really staking out what a first step in sanctions reform look like .
First Congress must A , have to affirmatively vote to approve any sanctions .
In doing so it would force Congress with having to reckon with whether or not sanctions actually can achieve the policy goals that they say they want to achieve , which the academic literature indicates they can ’ t and don ’ t .
And they would also have to reckon with the humanitarian impact of sanctions , which Congress largely ignores at this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the world ’ s worst humanitarian crises as we ’ re seeing in Venezuela , and North Korea , and Iran .
GREG WILPERT : Now , while the U.S. sanctions governments it does not like , it actually arms governments that it does like such as Saudi Arabia , and it arms them to the teeth even when they violate human rights or wage war .
Now , one of these bills in Omar ’ s package , the Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act , would dramatically change this practice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether countries engage in human rights abuses lest they be cut off from U.S. arms .
Now , if this bill were to become law , we can though be fairly certain I would say that a president such as Trump would not rule a country such as Israel or Saudi Arabia to be a violator of human rights .
Wouldn ’ t it be better to have an independent commission make such a judgment on human rights abuses ?
KATE KIZER : Actually , the Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been modeled off of the international commission for religious freedom .
How that works in practice is , there is independent commissioners who evaluate the human rights records and evidence of human rights abuses of a subject country , and they would essentially tier them on whether or not they meet the threshold for a cutoff of assistance .
The nice thing about this bill is , despite the fact that there are human rights protections in current U.S. foreign assistance and arm sales laws , they ’ re not regularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and generally written that they ’ re difficult to enforce , and the incentive at the state department and the department of defense is to continue sending out weapons and other assistance to countries versus trying to halt assistance .
So this would take those decisions out of the hands of those bureaucracies and instead provide independent analysis to determine whether or not countries are violating the thresholds that Miss Omar ’ s bill identifies .
So , again , it would be a really strong step in the right direction in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for civil society to influence whether or not the U.S. is providing security assistance , police officer training , or weapons to a subject country , and create a much more transparent process .
GREG WILPERT : Okay .
Well , we ’ re going to leave it there for now , but we ’ ll continue to see how this bill fares in Congress .
I was speaking to Kate Kizer , Policy Director at Win Without War .
Thanks for joining us today Kate .
KATE KIZER : Thanks for having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you for joining The Real News Network .

The seven bills would steer US foreign policy towards international norms and remove support for human rights violators. While the chances are slim that these bills will pass, they outline a progressive foreign policy.
Story Transcript
GREG WILPERT: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia.
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota introduced a package of seven bills last week, which she calls the Pathway to Peace. This legislation, if it were passed, would mean nothing short of a revolution in the way that U.S. foreign policy is conducted. Last year, Omar already said that she plans to make U.S. foreign policy more ethical.
ILHAN OMAR: I want to make sure that here in the United States we understand that there are other countries who take in so many people of the world’s most pained people, and in the United States we could do better.
GREG WILPERT: The package of seven bills would end arm sales to countries that violate human rights, provide foreign aid to youth in developing countries, shift $5 billion from the Pentagon to the state department for a global peace building fund and grant Congress oversight over U.S. economic sanctions. Also, the bills would have the U.S. sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a global migration agreement, and the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court.
Joining me now to analyze Representative Ilhan Omar’s proposal is Kate Kizer. She’s the Policy Director at Win Without War, a national grassroots advocacy organization that works to help establish a more progressive foreign policy for the United States. Thanks for joining us today, Kate.
KATE KIZER: Thanks for having me.
GREG WILPERT: The chances that this package of bills would be approved by congress, particularly by the Republican controlled senate, and then not be vetoed by the president, is pretty slim. So what’s the significance of Representative Omar’s Pathway to Peace?
KATE KIZER: It’s a really important marker of what Progressive’s want to see on foreign policy. For a long time there’s been little to no debate within the Democratic Party of how we would actually reform U.S. foreign policy to meet the values that the U.S. says it stands for. So it’s very exciting to see Representative Omar lay down such bold markers of how we would change U.S. engagement with the world, and not only to socialize these ideas amongst her peers in Congress, even if they won’t end up becoming law this year, but also to signal what we would expect to see from a progressive White House in the future.
GREG WILPERT: Now, in an article that you wrote for The American Prospect about the Pathway to Peace, you point out that the United States has historically pushed for a rules-based international system, but you also point out that the U.S. has at the same time considered itself to be an exception to these rules and not bound by them. For example, the U.S. is the only country in the world not to have signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and one of the few that hasn’t supported the International Criminal Court or the UN compact on migration.
Now, getting the U.S. to abide by these UN conventions would imply a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy. Is there support among the Democratic Party and presidential candidates for such a shift, and if not, how might such support be built?
KATE KIZER: In rhetoric, I think there absolutely is support for these ideas of being an internationalist, of being a multilateralist in foreign policy. The U.S. government says it supports the multilateral system, but as you just mentioned, it’s my analysis that we actually act to undermine it, which weakens that system, and prevents us from actually positively reforming the system to meet the needs of the 21st century.
So it’s been very exciting to see Senator Warren and Senator Sanders on the campaign trail really stake out an internationalist position that supports multilateralism, and it would absolutely require the U.S. to not only join these international conventions that set out the rule of the road, but also to establish more norms and standards that it not only holds itself accountable to but other countries. Without holding ourselves accountable to these standards, we can’t then act for accountability for other countries. Ultimately, that undermines any U.S. power to implement these rules of the road.
GREG WILPERT: Now currently, not only hasn’t the U.S. signed these conventions that we mentioned, but it also flaunts international law when it imposes unilateral economic sanctions on countries such as on Venezuela, Russia, or Iran. That is, according to the UN charter it is illegal for countries to engage in collective punishment. Now, the Pathway to Peace includes a bill that would require Congress to approve of economic sanctions, but it would still mean that sanctions could violate international law actually. I mean wouldn’t a bill that would outlaw all non-UN-approved sanctions be better?
KATE KIZER: I think that the fact that U.S. sanctions has really become a reflexive tool in the toolkit that many policymakers don’t see as a form of warfare, is very problematic. I think Congresswoman Omar recognized this. She’s obviously been an advocate for an end to U.S. blanket sanction regimes that violate international law and cause undue hardship to regular people in sanctioned countries. But I think she’s strategic in that she recognizes that many members of Congress in particular are not ready to just do away with all U.S. sanctions power.
So what she is doing is really staking out what a first step in sanctions reform look like. First Congress must A, have to affirmatively vote to approve any sanctions. In doing so it would force Congress with having to reckon with whether or not sanctions actually can achieve the policy goals that they say they want to achieve, which the academic literature indicates they can’t and don’t. And they would also have to reckon with the humanitarian impact of sanctions, which Congress largely ignores at this point, and it has led to some of the world’s worst humanitarian crises as we’re seeing in Venezuela, and North Korea, and Iran.
GREG WILPERT: Now, while the U.S. sanctions governments it does not like, it actually arms governments that it does like such as Saudi Arabia, and it arms them to the teeth even when they violate human rights or wage war. Now, one of these bills in Omar’s package, the Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act, would dramatically change this practice, and require the president to certify whether countries engage in human rights abuses lest they be cut off from U.S. arms.
Now, if this bill were to become law, we can though be fairly certain I would say that a president such as Trump would not rule a country such as Israel or Saudi Arabia to be a violator of human rights. Wouldn’t it be better to have an independent commission make such a judgment on human rights abuses?
KATE KIZER: Actually, the Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act would establish an independent human rights commission that’s been modeled off of the international commission for religious freedom. How that works in practice is, there is independent commissioners who evaluate the human rights records and evidence of human rights abuses of a subject country, and they would essentially tier them on whether or not they meet the threshold for a cutoff of assistance.
The nice thing about this bill is, despite the fact that there are human rights protections in current U.S. foreign assistance and arm sales laws, they’re not regularly enforced because they’re so broadly and generally written that they’re difficult to enforce, and the incentive at the state department and the department of defense is to continue sending out weapons and other assistance to countries versus trying to halt assistance.
So this would take those decisions out of the hands of those bureaucracies and instead provide independent analysis to determine whether or not countries are violating the thresholds that Miss Omar’s bill identifies. So, again, it would be a really strong step in the right direction in that it would essentially provide a huge way for civil society to influence whether or not the U.S. is providing security assistance, police officer training, or weapons to a subject country, and create a much more transparent process.
GREG WILPERT: Okay. Well, we’re going to leave it there for now, but we’ll continue to see how this bill fares in Congress. I was speaking to Kate Kizer, Policy Director at Win Without War. Thanks for joining us today Kate.
KATE KIZER: Thanks for having me Greg.
GREG WILPERT: Thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-21--Joe Biden Was Instrumental in Launching the Iraq War

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

A new documentary detailing Joe Biden’s pivotal role in launching the Iraq War exposes just how far he’s trying to distance himself from his war vote. We speak to the film’s director, Mark Weisbrot.
Documentary: WORTH THE PRICE? Joe Biden and the Launch of the Iraq War
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wilpert: It’s the Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore.
In the race for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, several candidates have criticized Vice President Joe Biden for support for the war in Iraq. And in early February, in New Hampshire, Biden tried to parry the attacks by saying that he was duped by President George W. Bush and now regrets his support for the war.
Joe Biden: I made a mistake. I said it 14 years ago. I trusted George Bush to keep his word. He said he was not going to go into Iraq. He said he was only using this to unite the United Nations to insist we get inspectors in to see what Saddam was doing.
Greg Wilpert: Neither the other candidates nor the debate moderators ever followed up on the issue to point out just how instrumental Biden was in making the Iraq War possible.
A new documentary titled, Worth The Price? Joe Biden and the Launch of the Iraq War, does just that. Here is a clip from the documentary of one of Biden’s speeches in support of the war.
Joe Biden: The objective is to compel Iraq to destroy its illegal weapons of mass destruction and its program to develop and produce missiles and more of those weapons. Saddam is dangerous. The world would be a better place without him. But the reason he poses a growing danger to the United States and its allies is that he possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons. And unlike my colleague from West Virginia and Maryland, I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it’s a march to peace and security.
Greg Wilpert: Even nine months after the Iraq War vote, Biden said he continued to support Bush and his vote for the war.
Joe Biden: The president of the United States is a bold leader and he is popular. The stakes are high and the need for leadership is great. I wish he’d used some of his stored up popularity to make what I admit is not a very popular case, but I and many others will support him.
Nine months ago, I voted with my colleagues to give the president of the United States of America the authority to use force and I would vote that way again today.
Greg Wilpert: The Iraq War destabilized the entire Middle East, wasting up to $6 trillion dollars, killing as many as one million Iraqi citizens, over 4,500 US soldiers and 1,500 military contractors and wounding tens of thousands of US personnel.
Joining me now to discuss the Biden documentary is its director and producer, Mark Weisbrot. Also, he is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Thanks for joining us again, Mark.
Mark Weisbrot: Thanks for inviting me, Gregory.
Greg Wilpert: So let’s start with the main topic of the film, just how involved was Biden in making the Iraq War happen? I mean, Biden generally acts as if he’s, as if the only thing that he did for the war was to vote for it, which passed the Senate in a vote of 77 to 23 with 29 out of 50 Democratic senators voting in favor. Now, what was Biden’s role in actually making this happen?
Mark Weisbrot: Well, he had the most important role of any elected official outside of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. He was the one who pushed it through the Senate. You posted one of the arguments he made, but it wasn’t even his voice that was most important. It was his control over who the Senate got to hear, and also that meant a lot of what the media got to hear as well.
So he was the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and he chose all 18 witnesses and he chose witnesses who mostly one after another tried to justify the war and promoted a whole number of false narratives, the weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons program they talked about. They even talked about and put it in the resolution itself, the some, this mythical connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, which was, as a film describes, ridiculous. You got to remember this was October, well, July to October 2002 and this is a time not that far from the catastrophe of September 11th and so they were really playing on these fears like the Bush Administration was.
So could it have passed the Senate without all the things that he did to control the debate and use his influence? I’m not sure, but he definitely played a huge role. And you can imagine if he had gone the other way and tried to stop it, it would, it could have possibly stopped the war.
Greg Wilpert: Now as we saw in that clip earlier, Biden repeatedly apologized for his vote and he seems to argue that that should be good enough to leave the matter alone. What do you think? Just how relevant is Biden’s support for the war and what he did? How relevant is that for the campaign, his campaign, to become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee?
Mark Weisbrot: Well, I think it’s huge. I mean, first of all, what does it say if there is no accountability at all if somebody can start this war that killed thousands of US soldiers and by the best estimates as many as a million Iraqis and made a mess out of the Middle East and parts of North Africa spreading war and terrorism everywhere and really created this cycle of violence that continues to this day and is used to justify more wars and endless wars. I think this is something that, it shouldn’t, it should be disqualifying for anybody to run for president or for the nomination of the largest political party in this country.
Greg Wilpert: But I mean, the United States isn’t currently facing any wars except the one in Iran, so I mean, as a possibility. So in what context, I mean, would this be an issue on?
Mark Weisbrot: Well, I mean, first of all, we’re still in Iraq as well, but I think that the context, this context is so huge. I mean, first of all, President Trump almost got us in a war just recently with Iran by ordering the assassination of General Soleimani. And he might have a war even before the election. These endless wars are also are a huge issue, but they’re even more than that.
For 50 years, you’ve had the Peace Movement rightly pointing out that every time you build another fighter jet you’re giving up on healthcare for thousands of people. But it’s even worse than that now because now you have a point where, and we’ve talked about this a little on the show before, you’re at a point where the leaders of the so-called national security state are planning a shift from, and beginning a shift, from what they call the War on Terror to a great power rivalry and that means an arms race with China.
And China, as you know, is already, their economy is 30% larger than ours by the measure that economists use to make these international comparisons and will be twice as big as us now in 10, within 10 years. Now, we had an arms race with the Soviet Union when it was only a quarter of the size of the United States. We’ve never faced anything like this. This would preclude anything like a Green New Deal, or any really almost any conversion towards a zero carbon emissions, any Medicare For All. All of these things we’d have to sacrifice if we really want to build this military capacity to continue the US supremacy in the world. That’s the dominant view right now in our foreign policy establishment.
So if you give Biden a pass for creating this horribly destructive war that everybody now realizes was not only built on lies, but it was a horrible failure from any point of view, then you’re basically saying that business on, as usual, is okay and you’re excluding most of the things that people want to do going forward.
Greg Wilpert: Now it seems surprising to me that the other Democrats running for the presidency have made relatively little out of Biden’s role. That is, they certainly point out every time that he voted in favor of it, but once he apologizes, they pretty much leave it at that and never push him on that he really did a lot more just as your documentary shows. So why do you think this is being ignored by both the candidates and also by the media?
Mark Weisbrot: Well, it’s interesting. I think, first of all, there is a general prejudice not to talk much about foreign policy among the candidates because that’s not what most people vote on. Second, while this is a country with the historical memory of a fish in our political culture at least, and so this is just history.
But I think there is one other thing the media is not talking about either. Even though they did, CNN and The New York Times, and I left this out of the film because I wanted to focus on what Biden actually did, but they actually accused him of lying about his positions on the war following after the war started. And I think the media is, they tend to ignore what Congress does even though it’s kind of ironic because in this country the legislature has more of a role in foreign policy than it has in most other countries, including almost all of the high income countries.
And yet, you don’t see that the media kind of treats war as though it’s the prerogative and the responsibility and the right of the president and they leave Congress out of it as much as they can. It’s been a struggle to get them to report, for example, on the historic votes in the Senate and the House that was led by Bernie Sanders in the Senate on the War Powers Resolution to order the US military to get out of the war in Yemen, which has killed hundreds of thousands of people. That ought to be a major issue in the media that both houses of Congress…
We have a Constitution. Article I of the Constitution assigns to the Congress the responsibility for allowing a war or declaring war, but also allowing it. It’s not the president’s responsibility. And yet, the media pretty much ignores that violation of the Constitution. So I think that’s part of the general prejudice of the media. It isn’t just that they’d be covering up for him or they have a position on that so much, it’s more that they tend to ignore the role of Congress in these wars.
Greg Wilpert: Okay. Well, we’re going to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and director of the documentary, Worth the Price? Joe Biden and the Launch of the Iraq War. The documentary, actually I should mention, was narrated by the actor and Real News Network board member, Danny Glover. We will provide a link to the documentary together with this interview. Thanks again, Mark for having joined us today.
Mark Weisbrot: Thank you, Gregory.
Greg Wilpert: And thank you for joining the Real News Network.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-21--Police Arrest Man for Holding a Sign, But That Was Just the Beginning

The arrest of an auditor for holding a sign was just the first in a series of questionable charges that @ @ @ @ @ true imperative of American policing .

Host & Producer
Stephen Janis is an award winning investigative reporter turned documentary filmmaker. His first feature film, The Friendliest Town was distributed by Gravitas Ventures and won an award of distinction from The Impact Doc Film Festival, and a humanitarian award from The Indie Film Fest. He is the co-host and creator of The Police Accountability Report on The Real News Network, which has received more than 10,000,000 views on YouTube. His work as a reporter has been featured on a variety of national shows including the Netflix reboot of Unsolved Mysteries, Dead of Night on Investigation Discovery Channel, Relentless on NBC, and Sins of the City on TV One.
He has co-authored several books on policing, corruption, and the root causes of violence including Why Do We Kill: The Pathology of Murder in Baltimore and You Can’t Stop Murder: Truths about Policing in Baltimore and Beyond. He is also the co-host of the true crime podcast Land of the Unsolved. Prior to joining The Real News, Janis won three Capital Emmys for investigative series working as an investigative producer for WBFF. Follow him on Twitter.


Mayoral Transportation Forum

Voting local is the single most important thing you can do to make Baltimore a more livable city. Join us to hear from Mayoral candidates about their visions for Baltimore’s transportation future. This forum is hosted by Bikemore in Action 501(c)(4), and developed in partnership with The Real News Network, Central Maryland Transportation Alliance, Baltimore Transit Equity Coalition, other transportation advocacy organizations, and transit riders and operators. Confirmed candidates: Sheila Dixon Mary Miller Brandon Scott Thiru Vignarajah Mary Washington
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-21--Unreported Opposition Violence Continues in Venezuela

Mike Fox : On the evening of February 8 , a warehouse belonging to Venezuela ’ s National Telephone Company , Cantv and its affiliate Movilnet , was set on fire in the state of Carabobo .
According to the Venezuelan government , all of the equipment there was destroyed .
The government denounced the attack as an attack of sabotage and terror .
For those not following Venezuela closely , this may seem a strange occurrence , but in fact , ongoing violence and attacks by the U.S.-backed opposition are quite common in Venezuela , although you rarely hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This was the scene last year , on a random weekend in Caracas , at the local headquarters of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela in the working-class neighborhood of San Augustin .
Marvi Devia , Resident : At about 3am , we smelled some very thick smoke .
And some neighbors realized that they were burning tires .
So we ran downstairs , with fire extinguishers , and we were able to put out the fire .
But 21 families live here and we have little children and grandparents .
So it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation .
Orlando Acevedo , Community Member , PSUV : They tried to burn down this headquarters , which is the home of all of spaces of representation of the community , and where people live upstairs .
The idea was to burn down this headquarters with the people inside .
Mike Fox : Those responsible were not caught , but they left threatening fliers , demanding Maduro ’ s removal .
This was far from the first time .
Venezuela ’ s opposition has a long history of burning government buildings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headquarters of its social missions .
Such incidents happen continuously , but flared up particularly during the opposition ’ s months-long street blockades , known as “ guarimbas , ” in 2014 and 2017 .
On the day of the failed April 30 coup , last year , by opposition leader Juan Guaido , members of the opposition raided this neighborhood center , in the working class Caracas barrio of Caricuao , where numerous social offices and community programs are held .
The forces behind these violent actions are the same , linked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heralded by both U.S. president Donald Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a democrat and a freedom fighter .
Acts of opposition violence are rarely covered in the press .
What is covered , often ad nauseum , are the pro-government collectives from 23 de Enero , a working class neighborhood , and long-time bastion of support for the Bolivarian process .
The opposition and most mainstream outlets says these collectives are armed and dangerous — shock troops at the service of the governments .
Jose Lugo , from the Alexis Vive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong .
Jose Lugo , Alexis Vive : If it ’ s alright , let me take you to our weapons facility .
Come with me , please .
I am going to show you the weapons park of the collectives .
Here we have the area where we cut the pieces of the collective .
We are making shirts .
Shirts for our country ’ s boys and girls .
Over here , [ indicating a sewing machine ] we have an AK47 .
Oh , sorry , this is a 757K @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called Overlock .
Over here , we have another weapon [ indicating another sewing machine ] .
It ’ s a 757K .
This fires almost 500 projectiles per second .
Can you shoot it , Margarita ?
She ’ s firing .
Mike Fox : This sewing collective is just one piece of El Panal commune , which was founded by the Alexis Vive collective over a decade ago .
Jose Lugo , Alexis Vive : [ Walking onto a basketball court ] Here we have a youth concentration camp .
Be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are all in prison , and chained , in this concentration camp .
Look how we make them play basketball and listen to music .
This is part of the social and economic development .
This is a court we built with our own resources , thanks to the effort of Alexis Vive .
This collective of assassins made this court here .
Lina Arregocés , El Panal Border Studies and Research Center : Wherever we go , we are spreading the word .
We have a local research center and a radio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this information isn ’ t for the libraries and the intellectuals .
It ’ s knowledge for the people .
Jose Lugo , Alexis Vive : We are Alexis Vive and we are the commune .
We are the same people from the community .
There is no separation .
There is no difference .
You can ’ t see us as separate from 23 de Enero .
There is no difference .
Mike Fox : Down the hill , the collective as the Coordinador Simon Bolivar took over a former police headquarters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a neighborhood center .
Juan Contreras , Coordinador Simon Bolivar : This is the Francisco Miranda community school of modern languages .
Here is the infocenter , with more than 30 computers .
A community bookstore .
The local civil registry office .
A community radio .
Over there , you have an elderly club and a neighborhood veterinarian .
This is the center of grassroots organization in the sector of La Cañada in the region of 23 de Enero .
And I would dare to say that it has an important impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Fox : These neighborhood groups continue with their ongoing community work and services .
But they ’ re still demonized in the press .
Meanwhile , the violence sown by Juan Guaido ’ s opposition is ignored and overlooked .

Venezuela’s opposition has a long history of burning government buildings, health clinics, and the local headquarters of the country’s social missions. The violence continues, but these acts of opposition violence are rarely covered in the press.
Story Transcript
Mike Fox: On the evening of February 8, a warehouse belonging to Venezuela’s National Telephone Company, Cantv and its affiliate Movilnet, was set on fire in the state of Carabobo. According to the Venezuelan government, all of the equipment there was destroyed. The government denounced the attack as an attack of sabotage and terror.
For those not following Venezuela closely, this may seem a strange occurrence, but in fact, ongoing violence and attacks by the U.S.-backed opposition are quite common in Venezuela, although you rarely hear about them in the mainstream press.
This was the scene last year, on a random weekend in Caracas, at the local headquarters of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela in the working-class neighborhood of San Augustin.
Marvi Devia, Resident: At about 3am, we smelled some very thick smoke. And some neighbors realized that they were burning tires. So we ran downstairs, with fire extinguishers, and we were able to put out the fire. But 21 families live here and we have little children and grandparents. So it was very scary to be in this situation.
Orlando Acevedo, Community Member, PSUV: They tried to burn down this headquarters, which is the home of all of spaces of representation of the community, and where people live upstairs. The idea was to burn down this headquarters with the people inside.
Mike Fox: Those responsible were not caught, but they left threatening fliers, demanding Maduro’s removal.
This was far from the first time.
Venezuela’s opposition has a long history of burning government buildings, community health clinics, and the local headquarters of its social missions. Such incidents happen continuously, but flared up particularly during the opposition’s months-long street blockades, known as “guarimbas,” in 2014 and 2017.
On the day of the failed April 30 coup, last year, by opposition leader Juan Guaido, members of the opposition raided this neighborhood center, in the working class Caracas barrio of Caricuao, where numerous social offices and community programs are held.
The forces behind these violent actions are the same, linked to Juan Guaido, who was recently heralded by both U.S. president Donald Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a democrat and a freedom fighter.
Acts of opposition violence are rarely covered in the press. What is covered, often ad nauseum, are the pro-government collectives from 23 de Enero, a working class neighborhood, and long-time bastion of support for the Bolivarian process.
The opposition and most mainstream outlets says these collectives are armed and dangerous — shock troops at the service of the governments.
Jose Lugo, from the Alexis Vive collective, says they have it all wrong.
Jose Lugo, Alexis Vive: If it’s alright, let me take you to our weapons facility. Come with me, please. I am going to show you the weapons park of the collectives.
Here we have the area where we cut the pieces of the collective. We are making shirts. Shirts for our country’s boys and girls.
Over here, [indicating a sewing machine] we have an AK47. Oh, sorry, this is a 757K, which is a machine that is called Overlock.
Over here, we have another weapon [indicating another sewing machine]. It’s a 757K. This fires almost 500 projectiles per second. Can you shoot it, Margarita? She’s firing.
Mike Fox: This sewing collective is just one piece of El Panal commune, which was founded by the Alexis Vive collective over a decade ago.
Jose Lugo, Alexis Vive: [Walking onto a basketball court] Here we have a youth concentration camp. Be careful here, because the youth here are all in prison, and chained, in this concentration camp. Look how we make them play basketball and listen to music.
This is part of the social and economic development. This is a court we built with our own resources, thanks to the effort of Alexis Vive. This collective of assassins made this court here.
There’s also a communal bank and a community radio.
Lina Arregocés, El Panal Border Studies and Research Center: Wherever we go, we are spreading the word. We have a local research center and a radio through which we share information. And this information isn’t for the libraries and the intellectuals. It’s knowledge for the people.
Jose Lugo, Alexis Vive: We are Alexis Vive and we are the commune. We are the same people from the community. There is no separation. There is no difference. You can’t see us as separate from 23 de Enero.
There is no difference.
Mike Fox: Down the hill, the collective as the Coordinador Simon Bolivar took over a former police headquarters and interrogation center and converted it into a neighborhood center.
Juan Contreras, Coordinador Simon Bolivar: This is the Francisco Miranda community school of modern languages. Here is the infocenter, with more than 30 computers. A community bookstore. The local civil registry office. A community radio. Over there, you have an elderly club and a neighborhood veterinarian.
This is the center of grassroots organization in the sector of La Cañada in the region of 23 de Enero. And I would dare to say that it has an important impact on all of 23 de Enero.
Mike Fox: These neighborhood groups continue with their ongoing community work and services. But they’re still demonized in the press. Meanwhile, the violence sown by Juan Guaido’s opposition is ignored and overlooked.
Michael Fox for The Real News, Caracas, Venezuela.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-21--International Banks and Law Firms Are at the Heart of South Africa’s Corruption

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Mark Steiner : Welcome to The Real News .
I ’ m Mark Steiner , good to have you all with us .
In South Africa , they call corruption in politics state capture , and it ’ s at the heart of the political struggle in South African politics now .
Because it refers to the idea that government can not act in the interest of the public if it ’ s fully in the pocket of powerful business people .
It was one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May ’ s national elections in South Africa , and the reason that the ruling ANC , the African National Congress , that led the revolution against the apartheid state , received fewer votes than ever before , while maintaining its majority , a 62 % majority .
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa , promised to fight against state capture , but he himself was accused of doing the bidding of capital groups like the Gupta brothers .
Now , Cyril Ramaphosa has gone , went from a revolutionary leader of the mine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owner and investor in mines .
Former South African president Jacob Zuma has been under investigation for corruption .
And last week , the court issued an arrest warrant against him , to force him to appear before the court , and answer allegations of corruption .
Here is Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge [ Vaya Palay 00:01:09 ] .
Vaya Palay : in this instance , Counsel for Mr. Zuma was notified in advance , in the middle of January , that this document , or that sound evidence is required to justify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that evidence , this court can not do anything else but issue a warrant of arrest .
Mark Steiner : A new report , which was just published by Open Secrets and Shadow World Investigations , deals with the issue of state capture on South Africa , but from a very different angle .
It ’ s entitled The Enablers , a report which focuses not on the direct relationship between capitalists and politicians , but rather on the people in between layers , the lawyers , the accountants , the bankers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the authors of that report is Andrew Feinstein , who is of Shadow World Investigations , is now joining us to discuss the report .
He ’ s the Executive Director of Corruption Watch UK , and author of The Shadow World Inside The Global Arms Trade , which was the basis of a documentary film , that explores world ’ s largest and most corrupt arms deals that took place .
And previously , Andrew Feinstein worked with the ANC , under the previous South African presidents , Nelson Mandela and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Good to have you back on The Real News .
Andrew Feinstei… : Thank you .
Good to be here .
Mark Steiner : Let ’ s start with some background very quickly for our viewers .
And let ’ s take a look at who the Gupta brothers are , and what went on with the former president , Jacob Zuma , who ’ s now being called before the commission , and what led us to this in the first place , what this means .
Andrew Feinstei… : So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gupta brothers are two brothers from India , previously based in Delhi , I think , where they ran a company called Sahara Computers .
They got involved , in a peripheral way in South Africa , under the previous president , Thabo Mbeki , who , one of his ministers actually first introduced them into South Africa .
And they forged relationships across the AMC , most importantly , with then-Deputy President Jacob Zuma .
Zuma toppled Mbeki from power .
And when he moved into the Union Buildings , our presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though he took with him the Gupta brothers .
And the process of what we described as state capture is really the process of giving state contracts to private interests , who are both unable to deliver on those contracts , but also pocket enormous amounts of money for those contracts .
So , an enormous number of very large government contracts , worth hundreds of millions of dollars , billions of South African Rand , were given to Gupta companies , many of them established as special purpose vehicles only for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , very little if anything was delivered , and hundreds of millions , billions of dollars , in fact , was siphoned out of the South African state , and into bank accounts around the world , most prominently in Dubai .
Mark Steiner : So let ’ s go to the report itself for a moment .
I mean , I everybody agrees that capitalists have to be exposed for giving bribes , and controlling the political world , and controlling government .
And politicians have to be exposed for betraying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those capitalist powers , instead of the people themselves .
But why did you focus on the accountants , the bankers , the lawyers that hammered out these deals , and did it in secret ?
So talk about the focus of this , and why that happened , and the way you did it .
And what ’ s the significance ?
Andrew Feinstei… : So we have done a series of reports , on various of these instances , of what we refer to as state capture .
But what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single case , is there was very prominent South African , and global financial institutions , auditing firms , law firms and management consultants , who made tens of millions of dollars , out of effectively facilitating these contracts that undermined the state .
In addition to which , they played the crucial role in laundering the illicit proceeds from these contracts , that accrued to the Gupta brothers , but also to key South African politicians , who had awarded the Gupta brothers these contracts .
And without those enablers or facilitators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult for this phenomenon of state capture to have taken place , and especially to have taken place to the extent that it has .
Because during the Zuma years , Jacob Zuma was president of South Africa for eight years , it is estimated that around one-third of the country ’ s GDP has been lost to state capture .
That could never have happened without the involvement of banks like HSBC , The Bank of Baroda , standard bank here in South Africa , and a bank called First National Bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly Bain Consulting , and McKinseys , and a variety of others .
The audit firms that we ’ ve all heard about , KPMG , Deloitte , PWC , all of these entities , played an absolutely essential role at every part of the process of state capture .
And while we are demanding that the South African judicial process deals with the politicians , who have been the recipients of the bribes paid by the Guptas , it is as important , not just for South Africa , to ensure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this country , but for many other countries around the world , including the United States of America , which you could argue , under President Trump , is also experiencing state capture , to ensure that these companies to face prosecution , both in South Africa and in their home markets , wherever those might be .
Mark Steiner : So , [ inaudible 00:07:39 ] , so clearly , the Gupta brothers , the way you ’ re describing things , are , on the face of this , and you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just said , I mean this , this goes way deeper , much deeper than the Gupta brothers , much deeper in their relationship with Zuma .
This has to do with the role , or the way you ’ re describing it , of international capital of the banks , of the finance industry , or the international arms industry , I ’ m sure , which you ’ ve covered intensely in your work before .
Mark Steiner : So this is , this really it goes to the heart of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you got on the air , which is , one of the reasons why , when the AMC finally took control of South Africa and ended the apartheid state , it was almost impossible to take on these capitalist powers who really were controlling everything .
And what you are doing is uncovering what that really means .
Am I right ?
Andrew Feinstei… : Absolutely .
So we have a situation where the apartheid state , too , wasn ’ t able to survive , and sadly , prosper , through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , foreign governments , and a variety of foreign companies who broke the UN oil embargo against South Africa , and of course the UN arms embargo , against apartheid South Africa .
Now , the system of apartheid was not only morally corrupt , as a racist oligarchy , it was materially corrupt as well .
About 50 % of the budget was off the book , and was used for indecent , corrupt purposes .
And that was facilitated and enabled by the private sector around the world .
Sadly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption of the later apartheid period , alighted into our democratic era .
So , when I was an ANC member of Parliament in this country , I tried to investigate an arms deal , in which we bought $ 10 billion of weapons that we had absolutely no need of , and that we barely used today .
It ’ s estimated that around three to $ 400 million of bribes were paid on those deals .
But the intermediaries , who enabled and facilitated those deals , like Barclays Bank , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms dealers based in Germany , and Belgium , and various other parts of the world .
These were the same people who had enabled and facilitated the corruption of the apartheid era .
So had we dealt with the economic dimensions of apartheid during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission , it is quite likely that this massive arms deal , which was really the point at which the AMC and our nascent democracy lost its innocence , lost its moral compass , it is quite likely that that would not have happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crucial .
And from the arms deal , which was the point at which the AMC made clear , that it was fine to plunder the state treasury , for personal and party political gain .
From that point on , it was inevitable that we would reach the point we did under Jacob Zuma , where effectively , the state became a tool in the hands of private interests , the Gupta brothers , but also , all of these companies , who were making millions and millions of dollars , out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mark Steiner : Which is why your report is so important , because it goes beyond the Gupta brothers into what really fueled all of this , and how it actually happened .
And also explains , when you open your report , and as we conclude this , I mean , you talk about the human cost of this corruption .
You just mentioned , one-third of the GDP being the being , becoming part of this corruption , in lots of South Africa , means that , as you wrote about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poverty .
People die because of this .
This is , this has a huge human and societal cost .
Andrew Feinstei… : Mark , the arms deal that I mentioned , the first point of the corruption of the democratic South African state , took place at a time when our then-President Thabo Mbeki , told the six million citizens of our country , who were living with HIV or AIDS , that we could not afford to buy the antiretroviral medication .
I remember him alive .
As a consequence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Harvard , over the following five years , 365,000 South Africans died avoidable deaths .
Thirty-two thousand babies every year were born HIV positive , because we couldn ’ t afford mother to child transmission treatment , but we could afford to spend billions on jet fighters , that we can ’ t afford to fuel , let alone fly .
And as we go into the state capture of the Guptas , every single dollar that is stolen from the Ciscos in this country , means that the two million people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get that housing .
That ’ s the millions of school children , who either don ’ t have a school , or have an inadequate school , and inadequate teaching .
I ’ m likely to get a decent education , but those people who require public healthcare are unlikely to get it .
So quite literally , our own politicians , aided and abetted by these global banks , lawyers , auditing firms and management consultancies , are effectively stealing the livelihood out of the pockets of ordinary South Africans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a victimless crime need only look at South Africa .
The complicity of American and global companies in these crimes can not be avoided .
And so , what we are stating in this report , is that those companies too must face the legal consequences of their corrupt activities .
Mark Steiner : Well , Andrew Feinstein , I really look forward to seeing how this unfolds more , as this report comes out , and we see how South Africa wrestles with this , and the work that you do , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing in the mine workers union , to equate a really true democratic South Africa , that comes to the fore .
And look forward to many more conversations , and just seeing where this takes South Africa and the world .
Andrew , thanks so much for your work , and thank you for being with us today .
Andrew Feinstei… : Thank you so much for your time .
Mark Steiner : It ’ s been my pleasure .
And I ’ m Mark Steiner here , for The Real News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us .
Please let us know what you think .
Take care .

In South Africa, corruption is called state capture. A new report by Shadow World Investigations reveals how world bankers, lawyers, and accountants manipulate politicians. We speak with Andrew Feinstein, the report’s author.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Mark Steiner: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Mark Steiner, good to have you all with us. In South Africa, they call corruption in politics state capture, and it’s at the heart of the political struggle in South African politics now. Because it refers to the idea that government cannot act in the interest of the public if it’s fully in the pocket of powerful business people.
It was one of the main issues in the last May’s national elections in South Africa, and the reason that the ruling ANC, the African National Congress, that led the revolution against the apartheid state, received fewer votes than ever before, while maintaining its majority, a 62% majority. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, promised to fight against state capture, but he himself was accused of doing the bidding of capital groups like the Gupta brothers.
Now, Cyril Ramaphosa has gone, went from a revolutionary leader of the mine workers, to himself becoming a wealthy owner and investor in mines. Former South African president Jacob Zuma has been under investigation for corruption. And last week, the court issued an arrest warrant against him, to force him to appear before the court, and answer allegations of corruption. Here is Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge [Vaya Palay 00:01:09].
Vaya Palay: in this instance, Counsel for Mr. Zuma was notified in advance, in the middle of January, that this document, or that sound evidence is required to justify his absence from court. And without that evidence, this court cannot do anything else but issue a warrant of arrest.
Mark Steiner: A new report, which was just published by Open Secrets and Shadow World Investigations, deals with the issue of state capture on South Africa, but from a very different angle. It’s entitled The Enablers, a report which focuses not on the direct relationship between capitalists and politicians, but rather on the people in between layers, the lawyers, the accountants, the bankers who enable this relationship to flourish.
One of the authors of that report is Andrew Feinstein, who is of Shadow World Investigations, is now joining us to discuss the report. He’s the Executive Director of Corruption Watch UK, and author of The Shadow World Inside The Global Arms Trade, which was the basis of a documentary film, that explores world’s largest and most corrupt arms deals that took place.
And previously, Andrew Feinstein worked with the ANC, under the previous South African presidents, Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki, and Andrew, welcome. Good to have you back on The Real News.
Andrew Feinstei…: Thank you. Good to be here.
Mark Steiner: Let’s start with some background very quickly for our viewers. And let’s take a look at who the Gupta brothers are, and what went on with the former president, Jacob Zuma, who’s now being called before the commission, and what led us to this in the first place, what this means.
Andrew Feinstei…: So I think the situation is that the Gupta brothers are two brothers from India, previously based in Delhi, I think, where they ran a company called Sahara Computers. They got involved, in a peripheral way in South Africa, under the previous president, Thabo Mbeki, who, one of his ministers actually first introduced them into South Africa.
And they forged relationships across the AMC, most importantly, with then-Deputy President Jacob Zuma. Zuma toppled Mbeki from power. And when he moved into the Union Buildings, our presidential house in Pretoria, it was as though he took with him the Gupta brothers. And the process of what we described as state capture is really the process of giving state contracts to private interests, who are both unable to deliver on those contracts, but also pocket enormous amounts of money for those contracts.
So, an enormous number of very large government contracts, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of South African Rand, were given to Gupta companies, many of them established as special purpose vehicles only for that contract. In the majority of cases, very little if anything was delivered, and hundreds of millions, billions of dollars, in fact, was siphoned out of the South African state, and into bank accounts around the world, most prominently in Dubai.
Mark Steiner: So let’s go to the report itself for a moment. I mean, I everybody agrees that capitalists have to be exposed for giving bribes, and controlling the political world, and controlling government. And politicians have to be exposed for betraying the trust of voters and promoting the interests of those capitalist powers, instead of the people themselves.
But why did you focus on the accountants, the bankers, the lawyers that hammered out these deals, and did it in secret? So talk about the focus of this, and why that happened, and the way you did it. And what’s the significance?
Andrew Feinstei…: So we have done a series of reports, on various of these instances, of what we refer to as state capture. But what was apparent to us, in every single case, is there was very prominent South African, and global financial institutions, auditing firms, law firms and management consultants, who made tens of millions of dollars, out of effectively facilitating these contracts that undermined the state. In addition to which, they played the crucial role in laundering the illicit proceeds from these contracts, that accrued to the Gupta brothers, but also to key South African politicians, who had awarded the Gupta brothers these contracts.
And without those enablers or facilitators, it would have been far more difficult for this phenomenon of state capture to have taken place, and especially to have taken place to the extent that it has. Because during the Zuma years, Jacob Zuma was president of South Africa for eight years, it is estimated that around one-third of the country’s GDP has been lost to state capture.
That could never have happened without the involvement of banks like HSBC, The Bank of Baroda, standard bank here in South Africa, and a bank called First National Bank, global law firms, consultancies, particularly Bain Consulting, and McKinseys, and a variety of others.
The audit firms that we’ve all heard about, KPMG, Deloitte, PWC, all of these entities, played an absolutely essential role at every part of the process of state capture. And while we are demanding that the South African judicial process deals with the politicians, who have been the recipients of the bribes paid by the Guptas, it is as important, not just for South Africa, to ensure that state capture comes to an end in this country, but for many other countries around the world, including the United States of America, which you could argue, under President Trump, is also experiencing state capture, to ensure that these companies to face prosecution, both in South Africa and in their home markets, wherever those might be.
Mark Steiner: So, [inaudible 00:07:39], so clearly, the Gupta brothers, the way you’re describing things, are, on the face of this, and you can… But from what you’ve just said, I mean this, this goes way deeper, much deeper than the Gupta brothers, much deeper in their relationship with Zuma. This has to do with the role, or the way you’re describing it, of international capital of the banks, of the finance industry, or the international arms industry, I’m sure, which you’ve covered intensely in your work before.
Andrew Feinstei…: Yeah.
Mark Steiner: So this is, this really it goes to the heart of, what we talked about even before you got on the air, which is, one of the reasons why, when the AMC finally took control of South Africa and ended the apartheid state, it was almost impossible to take on these capitalist powers who really were controlling everything. And what you are doing is uncovering what that really means. Am I right?
Andrew Feinstei…: Absolutely. So we have a situation where the apartheid state, too, wasn’t able to survive, and sadly, prosper, through the role of international banks, international lawyers, foreign governments, and a variety of foreign companies who broke the UN oil embargo against South Africa, and of course the UN arms embargo, against apartheid South Africa.
Now, the system of apartheid was not only morally corrupt, as a racist oligarchy, it was materially corrupt as well. About 50% of the budget was off the book, and was used for indecent, corrupt purposes. And that was facilitated and enabled by the private sector around the world. Sadly, what happened in South Africa was the corruption of the later apartheid period, alighted into our democratic era.
So, when I was an ANC member of Parliament in this country, I tried to investigate an arms deal, in which we bought $10 billion of weapons that we had absolutely no need of, and that we barely used today.
It’s estimated that around three to $400 million of bribes were paid on those deals. But the intermediaries, who enabled and facilitated those deals, like Barclays Bank, in the United Kingdom, like certain arms dealers based in Germany, and Belgium, and various other parts of the world. These were the same people who had enabled and facilitated the corruption of the apartheid era.
So had we dealt with the economic dimensions of apartheid during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it is quite likely that this massive arms deal, which was really the point at which the AMC and our nascent democracy lost its innocence, lost its moral compass, it is quite likely that that would not have happened. So that his vision is absolutely crucial.
And from the arms deal, which was the point at which the AMC made clear, that it was fine to plunder the state treasury, for personal and party political gain. From that point on, it was inevitable that we would reach the point we did under Jacob Zuma, where effectively, the state became a tool in the hands of private interests, the Gupta brothers, but also, all of these companies, who were making millions and millions of dollars, out of corrupting the South African state.
Mark Steiner: Which is why your report is so important, because it goes beyond the Gupta brothers into what really fueled all of this, and how it actually happened. And also explains, when you open your report, and as we conclude this, I mean, you talk about the human cost of this corruption.
You just mentioned, one-third of the GDP being the being, becoming part of this corruption, in lots of South Africa, means that, as you wrote about, millions of people are trapped in poverty. People die because of this. This is, this has a huge human and societal cost.
Andrew Feinstei…: Mark, the arms deal that I mentioned, the first point of the corruption of the democratic South African state, took place at a time when our then-President Thabo Mbeki, told the six million citizens of our country, who were living with HIV or AIDS, that we could not afford to buy the antiretroviral medication.
I remember him alive. As a consequence of which, according to a study undertaken at Harvard, over the following five years, 365,000 South Africans died avoidable deaths. Thirty-two thousand babies every year were born HIV positive, because we couldn’t afford mother to child transmission treatment, but we could afford to spend billions on jet fighters, that we can’t afford to fuel, let alone fly. And as we go into the state capture of the Guptas, every single dollar that is stolen from the Ciscos in this country, means that the two million people who require housing are less likely to get that housing.
That’s the millions of school children, who either don’t have a school, or have an inadequate school, and inadequate teaching. I’m likely to get a decent education, but those people who require public healthcare are unlikely to get it.
So quite literally, our own politicians, aided and abetted by these global banks, lawyers, auditing firms and management consultancies, are effectively stealing the livelihood out of the pockets of ordinary South Africans. So anybody who believes that corruption is a victimless crime need only look at South Africa.
The complicity of American and global companies in these crimes cannot be avoided. And so, what we are stating in this report, is that those companies too must face the legal consequences of their corrupt activities.
Mark Steiner: Well, Andrew Feinstein, I really look forward to seeing how this unfolds more, as this report comes out, and we see how South Africa wrestles with this, and the work that you do, and the work that other people are doing in the mine workers union, to equate a really true democratic South Africa, that comes to the fore.
And look forward to many more conversations, and just seeing where this takes South Africa and the world. Andrew, thanks so much for your work, and thank you for being with us today.
Andrew Feinstei…: Thank you so much for your time.
Mark Steiner: It’s been my pleasure. And I’m Mark Steiner here, for The Real News Network. Thank you all for joining us. Please let us know what you think. Take care.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.