Monthly Archives: August 2013

Even if Assad used chemical weapons, the West has no mandate to act as a global policeman

Hans Blix writes: It is true that the UN security council is not a reliable global policeman. It may be slow to take action, or paralysed because of disagreement between members. But do we want the US or Nato or “alliances of willing states” as global policemen either? Unlike George Bush in 2003, the Obama administration is not trigger-happy and contemptuous of the United Nations and the rules of its charter, which allow the use of armed force only in self-defence or with an authorisation from the security council. Yet Obama, like Bush and Blair, seems ready to ignore the council and order armed strikes on Syria with political support from only the UK, France and some others.

Such action could not be “in self-defence” or “retaliation”, as the US, the UK and France have not been attacked. To punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons would be the action of self-appointed global policemen – action that, in my view, would be very unwise.

While much evidence points to the guilt of the Assad regime, would not due process require that judgment and consideration of action take place in the UN security council and await the report of the inspectors that the UN has sent to Syria – at the demand of the UK and many other UN members?

We may agree with John Kerry, the US secretary of state, that the use of gas is a “moral obscenity”, but would we not feel that “a measured and proportionate punishment”, like striking at some missile sites or helicopter bases, is like telling the regime that “you can go on with your war but do stay away from the chemical weapons”? And what is the moral weight of the condemnation by nuclear weapons states of the use of gas as a serious war crime when they themselves will not accept a norm that would criminalise any first use of their own nuclear weapons?

It is hard to avoid the impression that the political and military developments now in overdrive stem partly from pressure exerted by the rebel side to trigger an American military intervention – by trying to hold President Obama to an earlier warning to Assad that a use of chemical weapons would alter his calculation. Equally, if not more important, may be a need felt by the Obama administration to avoid criticism for being hesitant and passive – and appearing like a paper tiger to countries such as Iran that have been warned that the US will not allow them to have nuclear weapons. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013

The following comes from the USG unclassified intelligence report released today:

Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.

Local social media reports of a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs began at 2:30 a.m. local time on August 21. Within the next four hours there were thousands of social media reports on this attack from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area. Multiple accounts described chemical-filled rockets impacting opposition-controlled areas.

Three hospitals in the Damascus area received approximately 3,600 patients displaying symptoms consistent with nerve agent exposure in less than three hours on the morning of August 21, according to a highly credible international humanitarian organization. The reported symptoms, and the epidemiological pattern of events – characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers – were consistent with mass exposure to a nerve agent. We also received reports from international and Syrian medical personnel on the ground.

We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve agent exposure. The reported symptoms of victims included unconsciousness, foaming from the nose and mouth, constricted pupils, rapid heartbeat, and difficulty breathing. Several of the videos show what appear to be numerous fatalities with no visible injuries, which is consistent with death from chemical weapons, and inconsistent with death from small-arms, high-explosive munitions or blister agents. At least 12 locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at the general times and locations described in the footage.

We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack.

We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials were witting of and directed the attack on August 21. We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence. On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations. At the same time, the regime intensified the artillery barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical attacks occurred. In the 24 hour period after the attack, we detected indications of artillery and rocket fire at a rate approximately four times higher than the ten preceding days. We continued to see indications of sustained shelling in the neighborhoods up until the morning of August 26.

Facebooktwittermail

Syria: it takes more courage to say there is nothing outsiders can do

Simon Jenkins writes: The urge of much of Britain’s political establishment to attack Syria is in retreat. The prime minister’s eagerness to join an American bombing run on Damascus hit a humiliating reverse in the Commons on Thursday evening. The prime minister now appears to accept there will be no British intervention in Syria.

Prior to the vote, Downing Street had been swerving and skidding to avoid the Iraq trap. It wisely published the intelligence report indicating the Assad regime used chemical weapons in a raid on a Damascus suburb, possibly in random retaliation for an attempt on his life. Such weapons are illegal under international law. While it was wrong to rush to judgment with inquiries still in train, there is justice in a desire to enforce the law. But enforcement must be meticulous in its legality. Otherwise what is dispensed is anarchy, not law.

The government claimed it could attack Syria under the UN’s “responsibility to protect” doctrine, where people in a foreign state are abused by their own government. We know from the Iraq invasion that British politicians are adept at finding lawyers to say what they want. But facts are facts. The UN’s resolution 1674 on responsibility to protect plainly states that such action must be “through the security council in accordance with the charter”. That process was absent. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

U.S. intelligence ‘black budget’ reveals that Israel poses a national security threat to America

The Washington Post reports: U.S. spy agencies have built an intelligence-gathering colossus since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but remain unable to provide critical information to the president on a range of national security threats, according to the government’s top-secret budget.

The $52.6 billion “black budget” for fiscal 2013, obtained by The Washington Post from former ­intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, maps a bureaucratic and operational landscape that has never been subject to public scrutiny. Although the government has annually released its overall level of intelligence spending since 2007, it has not divulged how it uses the money or how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress.
[…]
Among the notable revelations in the budget summary:

● Spending by the CIA has surged past that of every other spy agency, with $14.7 billion in requested funding for 2013. The figure vastly exceeds outside estimates and is nearly 50 percent above that of the National Security Agency, which conducts eavesdropping operations and has long been considered the behemoth of the community.

● The CIA and the NSA have begun aggressive new efforts to hack into foreign computer networks to steal information or sabotage enemy systems, embracing what the budget refers to as “offensive cyber operations.”

● Long before Snowden’s leaks, the U.S. intelligence community worried about “anomalous behavior” by employees and contractors with access to classified material. The NSA planned to ward off a “potential insider compromise of sensitive information” by re-investigating at least 4,000 people this year who hold high-level security clearances.

● U.S. intelligence officials take an active interest in friends as well as foes. Pakistan is described in detail as an “intractable target,” and counterintelligence operations “are strategically focused against [the] priority targets of China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Israel.” The latter is a U.S. ally but has a history of espionage attempts against the United States. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

If the United States was a democracy a military strike could not be the unilateral decision of a single man

The United States has ruled out unilateral military action against Syria and is conferring with allies on potential punitive strikes that could last for more than a day, a senior US official said Wednesday.

“Any military action would not be unilateral. It would include international partners,” the senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told reporters.

That was yesterday. Now it’s clear that the U.S. will not have British support, the administration seems to have reversed its position on unilateral action. If the President of the United States issues a royal decree, the soldiers under his command will follow their orders — they answer to their commander, America’s king, not its people.

CNN reports: The United States may have to take action against Syria without the support of one of its staunchest allies, U.S. officials said Thursday after British lawmakers voted down a proposal for military action.

Washington will continue to consult with Britain, but “President Obama’s decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States,” National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement issued Thursday evening.

“He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable,” Hayden said.

And a senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said unilateral action was “a possibility” after the late-night vote in London.

“We care what they think. We value the process. But we’re going to make the decision we need to make,” the official said.

Facebooktwittermail

Cameron forced to rule out British attack on Syria after defeat in parliament

The Guardian reports: David Cameron indicated on Thursday evening that Britain would not take part in military action against Syria after the British government lost a crucial vote on an already watered-down amendment that was designed to pave the way to intervention in the war-torn country.

In a devastating blow to his authority, the prime minister lost a government motion by 272 votes to 285 – an opposition majority of 13 – after scores of Tory MPs voted with Labour.

Ministers had thought they were secure after a Labour amendment was defeated, in the first vote of the night, 332 votes to 220, a government majority of 112.

Labour claimed that the government ran into trouble when deputy prime minister Nick Clegg struggled, in the closing minutes of the debate, to answer concerns on all sides of the house that the government motion would have taken Britain closer to joining a US military operation against the Assad regime in Syria after last week’s chemical weapons attack.

One MP shouted “resign” as the results were read out by the speaker. David Cameron said the government would respect the decision of parliament which means that Britain will not take part in military strikes against Syria.

Facebooktwittermail

Does Obama need congressional approval to bomb Syria?

Yahoo News: If President Barack Obama chooses to unilaterally launch a military attack against Syria in retaliation for the government’s alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians last week, he is certain to face criticism that he’s overstepping his executive authority.

The president has already run up against resistance from some members of Congress, who argue that under the 1973 War Powers Resolution and the U.S. Constitution he must seek the body’s full approval before taking military action against the country.

The disagreement is part of a larger and thorny constitutional and legal argument over how far Congress can go to check the chief executive’s war powers and what types of military actions constitute war.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., has said it would be “unquestionably unconstitutional” for Obama to bomb the country without Congress’ approval, and he has authored legislation to withhold funds from the effort. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia also has suggested the president might be on shaky legal ground if he doesn’t get a congressional OK. More than 100 members of Congress signed a letter to the president warning him to seek their approval before attacking another country.

Interestingly, Obama himself made a similar argument while on the campaign trail six years ago. He told the Boston Globe in 2007 that no president can use military force absent an “actual or imminent threat to the nation” without first getting Congress’ approval. (Vice President Joe Biden, for his part, vowed to impeach President George W. Bush in 2007 if he bombed Iran without first getting approval from Congress.)

Facebooktwittermail

A military strike on Syria shouldn’t be triggered by proving that Assad used chemical weapons

At least there was one useful outcome from the war in Iraq: Western governments no longer have the luxury of being able to launch wars based on pretexts that escape careful scrutiny. We are no longer purely at the mercy of rumors from shadowy figures like “Curveball.” We are however still vulnerable to specious lines of reasoning.

Here’s how the current hoax is operating largely without impediment:

President Obama set a “red line” a year ago on Syria’s use of chemical weapons — except it wasn’t red and it wasn’t a line.

In August last year, Obama said:

We have been very clear to the [Assad] regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

Even if the phrase “being utilized” seemed unambiguous, it certainly wasn’t clear what “whole bunch” and “moving around” were supposed to mean.

Over the following year, following reports of chemical weapons indeed being assembled, moved around, and utilized, Obama’s red line seemed to morph and its implied meaning became that if Assad used chemical weapons and killed a whole bunch of Syrians then the line would have been crossed.

Yet even if an implied definition of the red line emerged, to call it red always suggested that on the other side of the line there was some tangible threat — yet there never was. Obama had said that if Assad crossed the line, this would change Obama’s “calculus” and “equation.” That could mean anything. It could for instance mean that such an action would change Obama’s opinion about Assad and his regime.

When the Bush-style phrase “red line” slipped from Obama’s lips, it seems he instantly recognized he’d made a mistake and so his effort at damage control was to give his red line an indecipherable definition. But it didn’t work. In political discourse, “red line,” is a much stronger meme than “change my calculus.”

So, even if Obama did not think he was committing himself to military action a year ago, that’s what he did.

The argument he had inadvertently constructed was simple and moronic: If Assad uses chemical weapons, America will become directly engaged in the war in Syria.

If the use of chemical weapons by Assad’s forces can be proved, then U.S. military action logically follows.

Almost everyone now, having become slaves to that logic, is insisting on seeing the proof that chemical weapons have been used, yet fewer challenge the logic itself.

Let’s suppose that over the next week or so, the Obama administration can put together a very compelling case based on detailed intelligence and forensic evidence that chemical weapons were used and that they were indeed used by Assad’s own forces. Obama by that point will have won three-quarters of the argument. The doubters will have been sidelined and the proponents of military action further empowered.

Yet military action to what end?

Assad misbehaved and now he’s getting punished and if the punishment is suitably measured he won’t misbehave again?

Sorry, but psychology that might be applicable in a kindergarten probably isn’t applicable to a regime that is fighting for its survival.

Assad didn’t reach into a cookie jar without permission. After which having been appropriately scolded he can’t necessarily be expected to behave properly.

The regime might already be fragmenting and the risk of further use of chemical weapons might not come from them falling into the hands of Jabhat al-Nusra — it may come from units inside the Syrian army who are already in control of these weapons and who start to operate as independent militias.

Obama’s real calculus now is the worst one upon which any decision to engage in military action can be based: how can I avoid looking weak? He wants to fire just enough cruise missiles so that he and the United States can avoid getting mocked and not so many that they provoke retaliation. To accomplish what?

The use of military action for no other purpose than as a show of strength is really a demonstration of the opposite — a fear of appearing weak.

If Obama really wants to engage in an action that could have tangible positive results — though it would require immense political courage — he should set aside his strike plans and target lists and pick up the phone to call Tehran.*

President Hassan Rouhani is fluent in English, has a doctorate in constitutional law, and Iran has more political leverage in Syria than any other country in the region. Iranians also have had the experience of being victims of chemical warfare. If anyone has the power to break the stalemate in Syria, it’s Iran. Indeed, a diplomatic opening between Washington and Tehran would probably act as a much more powerful incentive than any other for Bashar al-Assad to start exercising caution and stop killing so many of his people.

*This suggestion comes from Marsha B. Cohen of Lobe Log.

Facebooktwittermail

State Dept admits it doesn’t know who ordered Syria’s chemical strike

Foreign Policy reports: With the United States barreling toward a strike on Syria, U.S. officials say they are completely certain that Bashar al-Assad’s government is responsible for last week’s chemical weapons attack. They just don’t know who in the Syrian government is to blame.

On Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf admitted as much. “The commander-in-chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership, even if … he’s not the one that pushes the button or said, ‘Go,’ on this,” Harf said. “I don’t know what the facts are here. I’m just, broadly speaking, saying that he is responsible for the actions of his regime. I’m not intimately familiar with the command and control structure of the Syrian military. I’m just not. But again, he is responsible ultimately for the decisions that are made.”

On Tuesday, The Cable reported that U.S. officials are basing their assessment that the Assad regime bears responsibility for the strike largely on an intercepted phone call between a panicked Ministry of Defense official and a commander of a Syrian chemical weapons unit. But that intelligence does not resolve the question of who in the government ordered the strike or what kind of command and control structures are in place for the use of such weapons. “It’s unclear where control lies,” one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable Tuesday. “Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?”

Because of that lack of clarity, Harf took a beating on Wednesday. In a testy exchange during her daily briefing, Harf very nearly admitted that it makes no difference who in the Syrian government ordered the attack, a reflection of the lack of certainty that still shrouds U.S. understanding of the chemical attack that may have left as many as 1,000 people dead.

It wasn’t “very nearly” — she was quite explicit in saying that Assad will be held responsible irrespective of who ordered the attack and that she has no specific information on the chain of command.

Facebooktwittermail

Cameron government resorts to cursing opposition leader on lack of support for Syria strike

The Guardian reports: A furious row between Downing Street and the Labour leadership has erupted after No 10 accused Ed Miliband of giving “succour” to the Assad regime after he moved to block an early Commons vote on military action.

As Cameron rejected a Labour amendment on Syria, the prime minister’s spokesperson accused Miliband of “flipping and flopping” and of having moved the goalposts in negotiations over the past 48 hours.

Asked whether Miliband was giving succour to the Assad regime, another Downing Street spokesperson said: “Yes. The fact is that a lot of the arguments over this could give succour to the regime.”

Labour immediately hit back. A spokesman said: “That is frankly insulting. Language like that demeans Downing Street.”

Miliband was already angry after a government source used expletives overnight to criticise Miliband. A government source told the Times on Wednesday night: “No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a fucking cunt and a copper-bottomed shit.” [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Cameron says no ‘single smoking piece of intelligence’ that Assad regime used chemical weapons

The Guardian reports: A British military attack on Syria will have to be a “judgment call” as there is no “single smoking piece of intelligence” that the regime used chemical weapons, David Cameron said at the beginning of the emergency Commons debate on Syria.

Arguing in favour of military intervention, the prime minister said he believed that forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad did use poisonous gas against the Syrian people “right in front of our eyes”.

Cameron told MPs there were at least 95 “horrific videos” of people dying in a gas attack in a suburb of Damascus two weeks ago, and added there was further evidence in the form of witness and social media reports.

However, the prime minister did concede that there could be no 100% certainty about the intelligence on which Britain would have to make a decision on whether to intervene in Syria. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

British intelligence report offers no explanation about why Assad would order chemical attacks

The Guardian reports: The report by Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee on the Syrian chemical warfare attacks fails to answer a central question – about the motivation of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Its conclusion that the Syrian government was “highly likely” to be responsible largely rests on precedent and the firm view that the opposition was not capable of carrying out attacks on this scale.

The JIC did say that it had “some intelligence” to suggest “regime culpability” for the August 21st attack, which it says resulted in at least 350 fatalities. David Cameron, according to a covering letter from the JIC chairman, Jon Day, has had access to it all. But there is no further elaboration on this central point.

There is also a striking lack of any scientific evidence in the document.

The committee’s most unequivocal statement is that it was “not possible” for the anti-Assad opposition to have carried out a CW attack on this scale. The Syrian regime and supporters such as Russia (“with a good degree of confidence”) claim (though without producing supporting evidence) that that is exactly what did happen. The JIC addressed this point simply by noting that a number of (unidentified) opposition groups “continue to seek a CW capability”.

Overall, Day told the prime minister, the JIC had “high confidence” in the accuracy of all its assessments. But there was one significant qualification: “Except in relation to the regime’s precise motivation for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time – though intelligence may increase our confidence in the future.” [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Sorry, Obama. There were no ‘other avenues’ for Snowden’s whistle-blowing

Jennifer I. Hoelzer writes: Edward Snowden went over the president’s head, and the president thinks it was totally not cool of him. At a news conference earlier this month, he said: “There were other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred.” Furthermore, “[w]ell before Mr. Snowden leaked this information,” the president reminds us, he signed an order that “for the first time … provided whistle-blower protection to the intelligence community.”

The president even says he “called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations before Mr. Snowden made these leaks.”

In other words, according to President Obama, Edward Snowden didn’t have to go over the commander-in-chief’s head to get his concerns addressed, because not only does the president support whistle-blowers — and thus would have taken Snowden’s concerns seriously — he was already in the process of addressing the issues Snowden went above him to get addressed.

I see a few problems with this.

First of all, it’s unclear exactly what avenues the president believes Snowden should have taken to raise concerns about the NSA’s secret surveillance programs. Last week, he told Jay Leno: “If you think that the government is abusing a program … you can come … to the appropriate individuals and say, ‘Look, I’ve got a problem with what’s going on here. I’m not sure whether it’s being done properly.’ ”

He has a point. If Edward Snowden had concerns that one of his co-workers was abusing the NSA’s surveillance authority to — for example — collect data on a former girlfriend or blackmail a member of Congress, he could have reported his concerns to a supervisor, and it’s highly likely that person would have done something about it.

But, contrary to what the president seems to think, Edward Snowden wasn’t concerned that the NSA was “improperly” collecting information on hundreds of millions of Americans. He was concerned that the government was collecting information on hundreds of millions of Americans. And how exactly does the president think Snowden should have raised that concern?

Snowden’s former employer, Booz Allen, which requires employees to report “all suspected violations of the law” and cautions them to “take care to not report a violation to someone that [they] believe is involved in the matter.”

Well, nearly everyone Edward Snowden worked for — up to and including the president of the United States — was involved in the matter. So, again, whom exactly should he have gone to with his concerns? [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Obama is closer to Nixon than to MLK

Paul Rosenberg writes: Because Barack Obama is the United States’ first black president, there are many who still automatically associate him with Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. And with the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, it’s virtually a knee-jerk reaction to associate his presidency with the fulfillment of King’s dream.

But, as the almost-simultaneous sentencing of Chelsea nee Bradley Manning to 35 years in prison should remind us, a more accurate historical comparison to that time would link Obama to Richard Nixon, rather than King. Nixon, after all, tried to have Daniel Ellsberg jailed for revealing the Pentagon Papers, and Ellsberg himself has said, “I’m sure that President Obama would have sought a life sentence in my case.”

Elaborating further, Ellsberg said, “Various things that were counted as unconstitutional then have been put in the president’s hands now. He’s become an elected monarch. Nixon’s slogan, ‘when the president does it, it’s not illegal’, is pretty much endorsed now. Meaning not only Obama but the people who come after him will have powers that no previous president had.” [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

NYPD designates mosques as terrorism organizations

The Associated Press reports: The New York Police Department has secretly labeled entire mosques as terrorist organizations, a designation that allows police to use informants to record sermons and spy on imams, often without specific evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Designating an entire mosque as a terrorism enterprise means that anyone who attends prayer services there is a potential subject of an investigation and fair game for surveillance.

Since the 9/11 attacks, the NYPD has opened at least a dozen “terrorism enterprise investigations” into mosques, according to interviews and confidential police documents. The TEI, as it is known, is a police tool intended to help investigate terrorist cells and the like.

Many TEIs stretch for years, allowing surveillance to continue even though the NYPD has never criminally charged a mosque or Islamic organization with operating as a terrorism enterprise.

The documents show in detail how, in its hunt for terrorists, the NYPD investigated countless innocent New York Muslims and put information about them in secret police files. As a tactic, opening an enterprise investigation on a mosque is so potentially invasive that while the NYPD conducted at least a dozen, the FBI never did one, according to interviews with federal law enforcement officials.

The strategy has allowed the NYPD to send undercover officers into mosques and attempt to plant informants on the boards of mosques and at least one prominent Arab-American group in Brooklyn, whose executive director has worked with city officials, including Bill de Blasio, a front-runner for mayor. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

It won’t be long before intelligence agencies can’t find any employees

Charles Stross writes: The public perception of America as being a democratic republic that values freedom and fairness under the rule of law is diametrically opposed to the secretive practices of the surveillance state. Nationalist loyalty is highly elastic, but can be strained to breaking point. And when that happens, we see public servants who remain loyal to the abstract ideals conclude that the institution itself is committing treason. And an organization that provides no outlet for the concerns of loyal whistle-blowers like Thomas Drake is creating a rod for its own back by convincing the likes of leaker Edward Snowden that it is incapable of reform from within and disloyal to the national ideals it purports to serve.

Snowden is 30; he was born in 1983. Chelsea Manning is 25. Generation Y started around 1980 to 1982. But the signs of disobedience among Generation Y are merely a harbinger of things to come. Next up is Generation Z — the cohort born since the millennium.

Members of Generation Z are going to come of age in the 2020s, in a world racked by extreme climate events. Many of them will be sibling-less only children, for the demographic transition to a low birthrate/low death rate equilibrium lies generations in their past. They may not be able to travel internationally — energy costs combined with relative income decline is slowly stripping the middle classes of that capability — but they’ll be products of a third-generation Internet culture.

To the Z cohort, the Internet isn’t a separate thing; it has been an integrated part of their lives since infancy. They do not remember a time before the Internet or a life without smartphones. All of them will have had Facebook pages, even though they had to lie about their age to sign up (and even though having a social network presence is officially a no-no for spooks). All of them have acquired long histories visible on the Internet, even if only through the tagged photographs of their schoolmates. Mostly they photograph everything (even though taking photographs or being photographed is officially a no-no for spooks). Many of them even use lifeloggers (which has got to be a career-killer if your career lies in the shadows). They grew up in a surveillance state; they might want privacy, but they are under no illusions that the centers of authority will permit them to have it. Steeply climbing university fees and student-debt loading have turned a traditional degree into their version of Generation X’s unattainable job for life; their education will be vocational or acquired piecemeal from MOOCs (massive open online courses), and their careers will be haphazard, casual, and dominated by multiple part-time contracts.

They saw their grandparents’ and parents’ generations screwed by the great intergenerational transfer of wealth to the baby boomers — their great-grandparents, many of whom are lingering on into their twilight 80s. To Generation Z’s eyes, the boomers and their institutions look like parasitic aliens with incomprehensible values who make irrational demands for absolute loyalty without reciprocity. Worse, the foundational mythology and ideals of the United States will look like a bitter joke, a fun house mirror’s distorted reflection of the reality they live with from day to day.

Generation Z will arrive brutalized and atomized by three generations of diminished expectations and dog-eat-dog economic liberalism. Most of them will be so deracinated that they identify with their peers and the global Internet culture more than their great-grandparents’ post-Westphalian nation-state. The machineries of the security state may well find them unemployable, their values too alien to assimilate into a model still rooted in the early 20th century. But if you turn the Internet into a panopticon prison and put everyone inside it, where else are you going to be able to recruit the jailers? And how do you ensure their loyalty?

If I were in charge of long-term planning for human resources in any government department, I’d be panicking. Even though it’s already too late.

Facebooktwittermail

Iranian parliament pursuing lawsuit against CIA for 1953 coup

The Los Angeles Times reports: A week after declassified CIA documents came to light verifying that the U.S. spy agency was behind a 1953 coup in Iran, parliamentarians in the Islamic Republic voted Tuesday to fast-track a lawsuit against Washington for interfering in Iranian domestic political affairs.

Sections of an internal CIA history of the operation that ousted Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq and paved the way for the return of the exiled Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi were declassified two years ago but made public only Aug. 19 by the National Security Archive, an independent documentation research center in Washington.

The shah’s return was followed by years of brutal political reprisals and confrontation, leading to the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the shah’s second flight into exile. The deposed monarch took refuge in several countries before being granted a brief U.S. stay for medical treatment that poisoned to this day relations between Washington and the religious leadership in Tehran. The shah died in Egypt in 1980.

Iranian lawmakers will begin Wednesday debating how to take the U.S. government to international court following a vote by the 290-seat parliament that was broadcast on state radio and reported by Iran’s Press TV. The plan to fast-track a lawsuit received 173 votes. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Anti-Muslim monk stokes Burmese religious tensions

BBC News reports: This week, religious violence has once again flared in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. Hundreds of Muslim homes have been burnt to the ground in Sagaing region after being attacked by Buddhist mobs.

In just over a year more than 200 people, mostly Muslims, have been killed and many more displaced as unrest has spread from Rakhine state in the west to towns across the country.

Many are blaming a controversial monk and the nationalist organisation he helps lead for the rising tensions.

In a classroom at one of Mandalay’s most famous monasteries, a teacher is at work. Shin Wirathu is taking a class of young monks at Masoeyin through the five precepts or pillars of the Buddhist faith.

This morning, he is lecturing on the importance of avoiding sexual misconduct.

“Yes venerable monk,” the young men chant in unison, as Wirathu softly delivers his advice on the need to avoid temptation.

When the class is over, he shows me outside. On the wall of the monastery courtyard are graphic posters of the Buddhist victims of recent religious and ethnic violence in Rakhine state in western Myanmar.

They are unpleasant viewing. The pictures from October last year show dead children with their heads cut open and the bodies of women with their internal organs spilling out of their torsos.

Wirathu said he put them up as a reminder to Buddhists that the country is under attack from Muslim “invaders”.

“Muslims are only well behaved when they are weak, ” he said. “When they become strong, they are like a wolf or a jackal, in large packs they hunt down other animals.”

Wirathu believes there is a Muslim “master plan” underway to turn Myanmar into an Islamic state.

If he is right, it is a long-term project. Latest estimates suggest that of Myanmar’s 60 million people, 90% are Buddhist and about 5% Muslim.

“Over the past 50 years, we have shopped at Muslim shops and then they became richer and wealthier than us and can buy and marry our girls,” Wirathu said. “In this way, they have destroyed and penetrated not only our nation but also our religion.”

Wirathu’s solution lies in a controversial nationalist organisation called 969. It calls on Buddhists to shop, sell property and marry within their own religion.

Small, brightly-coloured stickers have been distributed to clearly brand businesses as Buddhist-owned.

Supporters of 969 argue it is a purely defensive organisation, created to protect Buddhist culture and identity. Listening to the rhetoric of Wirathu and 969’s leaders, there is no doubt it is squarely aimed at Muslims. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail