Harmeet Sooden NZ Herald Aug. 18, 2015
New Zealand's intervention in Iraq is being sold to the public as an exercise in stopping ISIS's atrocities, especially those against the people of Iraq. The reality, however, is that many of Iraq's civilians are caught between Scylla and Charybdis - between two dire alternatives: on the one side, opposition groups including ISIS; on the other, the US-led coalition and Iran. While human rights violations committed by ISIS are widely condemned, those committed by New Zealand's coalition partners, including Iraq, are underreported.
The Iraqi Government, in particular, is responsible for widespread abuses, mainly against Iraq's Sunni population. Iraqi security forces have engaged in: torture, hostage-taking, and summary execution of civilians, including women and children; beheading, lynching, and immolating captives, desecrating corpses, and celebrating the atrocities in photographs and videos posted online; looting and wanton destruction of property, and shelling and bombing residential areas and hospitals. Iraqi and Kurdish authorities sometimes prevent families fleeing the fighting from reaching safer parts of the country.
UN agencies warn that Iraq is "on the brink of humanitarian disaster" due to the escalating conflict between the US-led coalition and opposition forces, and the severe shortfall in international funding. At least 3.1 million Iraqis have been internally displaced since January 2014. A total of 8.2 million people now require immediate humanitarian support. The UN has concluded that civilians are the primary targets of the conflict in Iraq.
In late June, New Zealand's Task Group Taji completed its first eight-week training course for troops from the 76th Brigade, a formation within the Iraqi Army's 16th Division. The division was formed to replace the US-trained units that collapsed in 2014 when ISIS seized the Mosul region. It is composed of new recruits as well as soldiers who fled during last year's assault.
The training cannot address the root causes of the coalition's human rights violations, including the structural corruption and sectarianism introduced into Iraq's military and state institutions after the 2003 US-led invasion. As the 76th Brigade deploys to the frontline, possibly to join the Ramadi offensive, the NZDF cannot eliminate the risk of the training offering the Iraqi army greater means to worsen the human rights situation.
Several Iraqi soldiers being trained at Taji have openly told journalists that "they actively served on their days off with Shiite militia - some...still listed by the US as terrorist groups", some also sponsored by Iran. The UN has reported pro-government militias, including the popular mobilisation forces (PMF), "seem to operate with total impunity, leaving a trail of death and destruction in their wake" that often rivals the depredations of ISIS.
UNICEF has confirmed reports of children being recruited by militias from all sides, including those supported by the Iraqi Government. The PMF is reportedly providing combat training to children in summer camps established throughout the country. Militias fighting alongside Iraqi and Kurdish forces are using armed boys and girls on the frontline - some as young as 10. Enlisting children under the age of 15 or using them to engage in hostilities is a war crime.
NZDF personnel are also deployed in unidentified roles in Baghdad and other undisclosed locations. The military role New Zealand's intelligence services are playing in the conflict is secret. The full extent of New Zealand's activities in Iraq is therefore not subject to public scrutiny.
Sectarian abuses continue unabated under the government of the new Iraqi leader, Haider al-Abadi. Yet, the New Zealand Government insists on backing a regime that is showing little regard for civilians. When coalition forces were poised to re-conquer Tikrit in March, Prime Minister al-Abadi said in a speech to the Iraqi parliament: "There is no neutrality in the battle against ISIS. If someone is being neutral with ISIS, then he is one of them." His words epitomise the dilemma civilians face in areas where ISIS is active.
There is a straightforward way New Zealand can begin to protect the people of Iraq: namely, by withdrawing its support for the human rights violators in the coalition, and accepting that worthwhile alternatives exist.
Harmeet Sooden has recently returned from Iraqi Kurdistan, where he was working on a human rights project assessing communal tensions in a camp for internally displaced persons. [Abridged]
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11498976
Tuesday, 25 August 2015
The migration crisis will define this decade
Natalie Nougayrède GuardianUK 21 August 2015
After calling the shots on Ukraine last year and leading Europe’s reaction to the Greek conundrum, Angela Merkel has assumed responsibility for forging a common European strategy on migration. It’s not that this is a new idea, but the political impetus from Berlin may finally yield more convincing results than those achieved so far. She is ready to tackle the issue head-on. The imponderable is whether fellow European leaders will let her.
For immigration remains a political hot potato, prompting most European leaders to retreat to the safe political territory of the nation state. David Cameron’s attitude has been a case in point, but look too at Slovakia, which has said it will take only Christian refugees, and it is clear that populism is rising across the continent.
Throughout Europe, leaders are succumbing to the keep-them-out syndrome. Hungary is building a fence (along its border with Serbia). Spain has done the same (in Ceuta and Melilla). Bulgaria followed suit (on the border with Turkey). More fencing is springing up in Calais. In Macedonia, which is not in the EU, they are deploying armoured vehicles against migrants. Will this work? Unlikely. When you flee atrocities and war, the desperation to reach a haven will always be stronger than security fences and dogs.
In dealing with the refugee flows that will be a fact of life for years to come, Europe must both concentrate on its needs and live up to its humanitarian standards. Without a decent common asylum policy, the EU will flout the fundamental values that go to the very essence of the European project. And without immigration, Europe will grow old and squander opportunities for future generations. So now might be a good time to take the long view. This was Angela Merkel’s message last weekend when she said refugees will “preoccupy Europe much more” than the Greek euro crisis. The issue of asylum “could be the next major European project”, pronounced the chancellor. Whatever ambiguities exist, few can now doubt her priorities.
The solutions aren’t simple, but they are fairly well identified. The only sustainable way to prevent deaths at sea and other dramatic scenes at borders is to open up alternative, legal routes for migration: ways for asylum seekers to apply for protection in Europe without having to embark on needlessly perilous journeys. And the only way Europeans will come to grips with the deeper issue of immigration – as we must – is by looking closely at ourselves and, more practically, by noting that demographic trends ultimately demand new inflows.
Germany is, along with Sweden, the country that to date has welcomed the largest number of asylum seekers. Applications are set to reach a record number of 800,000 for 2015, three times more than in previous years. There is a psychological imperative at work. Public attitudes shaped by the nation’s history make it difficult for Germany to pursue the “keep-them-out” approach. Its government has shown more generosity than most in distributing aid packages to arriving refugees. But there is pragmatism too. Low fertility rates make the need for migrants a reality. This is an important part of the analysis in Berlin. Some projections show the country’s population is set to drop by 18 million people by 2060.
Merkel is right to frame this as a strategic issue for Europe for reasons that resonate in Berlin and beyond. Germany is faced with a major increase in asylum demands not just from Syria but from the Balkans – one of the EU’s weaker geopolitical flanks. Addressing the migration question will likely become a growing part of the overall task of stabilising the Balkans, whose integration into the EU remains unfinished. Merkel knows that if solutions aren’t found, populism and xenophobia will grow in Germany as elsewhere in the EU.
What Merkel seems to want is for an issue that has been tackled piecemeal to be addressed holistically. It’s a tough message; that the current denial of realities amounts to a collective stupidity. Europe needs migrants and for that to happen in a decent, sustainable way, legal channels need to be opened, and resources devoted to integration. This is an existential issue, not one that can be solved by haggling or bickering over quotas.
Merkel, with her prioritisation, has it right. There is a moral obligation to save people in need, but there must also be collective recognition that we have entered a defining era, and a collective effort is needed to meet the challenge. [Abridged]
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/21/angela-merkel-migration-crisis-europes-biggest-challenge
After calling the shots on Ukraine last year and leading Europe’s reaction to the Greek conundrum, Angela Merkel has assumed responsibility for forging a common European strategy on migration. It’s not that this is a new idea, but the political impetus from Berlin may finally yield more convincing results than those achieved so far. She is ready to tackle the issue head-on. The imponderable is whether fellow European leaders will let her.
For immigration remains a political hot potato, prompting most European leaders to retreat to the safe political territory of the nation state. David Cameron’s attitude has been a case in point, but look too at Slovakia, which has said it will take only Christian refugees, and it is clear that populism is rising across the continent.
Throughout Europe, leaders are succumbing to the keep-them-out syndrome. Hungary is building a fence (along its border with Serbia). Spain has done the same (in Ceuta and Melilla). Bulgaria followed suit (on the border with Turkey). More fencing is springing up in Calais. In Macedonia, which is not in the EU, they are deploying armoured vehicles against migrants. Will this work? Unlikely. When you flee atrocities and war, the desperation to reach a haven will always be stronger than security fences and dogs.
In dealing with the refugee flows that will be a fact of life for years to come, Europe must both concentrate on its needs and live up to its humanitarian standards. Without a decent common asylum policy, the EU will flout the fundamental values that go to the very essence of the European project. And without immigration, Europe will grow old and squander opportunities for future generations. So now might be a good time to take the long view. This was Angela Merkel’s message last weekend when she said refugees will “preoccupy Europe much more” than the Greek euro crisis. The issue of asylum “could be the next major European project”, pronounced the chancellor. Whatever ambiguities exist, few can now doubt her priorities.
The solutions aren’t simple, but they are fairly well identified. The only sustainable way to prevent deaths at sea and other dramatic scenes at borders is to open up alternative, legal routes for migration: ways for asylum seekers to apply for protection in Europe without having to embark on needlessly perilous journeys. And the only way Europeans will come to grips with the deeper issue of immigration – as we must – is by looking closely at ourselves and, more practically, by noting that demographic trends ultimately demand new inflows.
Germany is, along with Sweden, the country that to date has welcomed the largest number of asylum seekers. Applications are set to reach a record number of 800,000 for 2015, three times more than in previous years. There is a psychological imperative at work. Public attitudes shaped by the nation’s history make it difficult for Germany to pursue the “keep-them-out” approach. Its government has shown more generosity than most in distributing aid packages to arriving refugees. But there is pragmatism too. Low fertility rates make the need for migrants a reality. This is an important part of the analysis in Berlin. Some projections show the country’s population is set to drop by 18 million people by 2060.
Merkel is right to frame this as a strategic issue for Europe for reasons that resonate in Berlin and beyond. Germany is faced with a major increase in asylum demands not just from Syria but from the Balkans – one of the EU’s weaker geopolitical flanks. Addressing the migration question will likely become a growing part of the overall task of stabilising the Balkans, whose integration into the EU remains unfinished. Merkel knows that if solutions aren’t found, populism and xenophobia will grow in Germany as elsewhere in the EU.
What Merkel seems to want is for an issue that has been tackled piecemeal to be addressed holistically. It’s a tough message; that the current denial of realities amounts to a collective stupidity. Europe needs migrants and for that to happen in a decent, sustainable way, legal channels need to be opened, and resources devoted to integration. This is an existential issue, not one that can be solved by haggling or bickering over quotas.
Merkel, with her prioritisation, has it right. There is a moral obligation to save people in need, but there must also be collective recognition that we have entered a defining era, and a collective effort is needed to meet the challenge. [Abridged]
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/21/angela-merkel-migration-crisis-europes-biggest-challenge
Tuesday, 18 August 2015
Discarded Deities
By Ian Harris Otago Daily Times Aug. 14, 2015
History is littered with discarded deities – and any god that has run out of puff should be gently laid to rest. Such gods die only if they cease to be real to people and their communities, and religious leaders sensitive to their times will join in seeing them off. That doesn’t mean the end of any God worthy of the name, however. For the impulse that led to the creation of those once-potent deities does not die. The drive to find meaning, purpose and hope amid the twists and turns of life continues as before.
Adventurous minds then find new insights and new ways of expressing them that speak to their own time and place. Some will discover new lines of approach within the old faith. Some will turn to other faiths or philosophies. Others, of course, will cling more firmly to the security of the past.
All those responses are evident in New Zealand today. In the churches, diminishing numbers suggest that one God is slowly dying – but there are signs that another is quietly emerging. Or, more precisely, one human image of God is being challenged by another that many find more in tune with the modern world.
Both groups would say they are being faithful to core insights of their Christian heritage – and so they are. But they are viewing their tradition from different vantage points. One insists that the hallowed doctrines and forms of the past are non-negotiable. The other seeks to interpret that same tradition through the lens of present-day understanding.
All this came bubbling to the surface when Anglican Bishop Richard Randerson, of Wellington, was interviewed on radio last month about his memoir Slipping the Moorings. There he sets aside the theistic image of God as a supernatural Being or Person, in favour of a concept of God as the living heart of all being. “The question of faith,” he writes, “is not one of intellectual assent to the existence of ‘God as a Being’, but arises out of our experience of ‘God as Being’, a reality at the heart of human life.”
Randerson cites four shortcomings in theism:
* It is framed within a three-tier physical universe of heaven, earth and hell.
* God is conceived anthropomorphically in a human image (though with supernatural add-ons).
* Theism stirs needless controversy with science over the origins of the universe and of life.
* It leads to legitimate questioning about an all-powerful, all-loving God co-existing with evil and tragedy.
On radio he spoke of “a sense of God as mystery, something other, something bigger. It’s characterised by love, by spirit, by transcendence. It gives me a sense of connection . . . and for Christians, of course, the mystery is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.” Randerson has clearly slipped the moorings of theism, but not of Christian experience.
He is in impressive episcopal company. In England, Bishop John Robinson believed that entering into arguments about the existence of God as a celestial Being, even a celestial Person, was to miss the point. Look rather to the truth that image is trying to convey, he said, namely that “in personal relationships we touch the final meaning of existence as nowhere else” – and Jesus fleshed that out.
“Jesus never claims to be God, personally: yet he always claims to bring God, completely,” said Robinson. Jesus provides a window into God through the way he lived his life. Central to this approach is a fundamental orientation to love, grace and transformation, and an affirmation of the potential of men and women to somehow live beyond ordinary human limitations.
That is basic to Christian insight, but Robinson believed that binding it to theism turned many people off engaging with it today. They have discarded that God. American Bishop John Spong concurs. “I believe passionately in God,” he says. “Yet I now find the theistic definition of God far too limiting.”
Instead, “the meaning and the reality of God are found in the experience of human wholeness flowing in life-giving ways through all that we are. God is experienced when we open life to transcendent otherness, when it is called beyond every barrier into an expanded humanity.”
It follows that in the modern world Christian faith no longer depends on believing in the existence of God but, more appropriately, on the experience of God (or Godness). Jesus’ followers enter into this first by taking him with ultimate seriousness, and then by orienting their lives accordingly.
A corresponding shift in the church’s focus is now in order.
History is littered with discarded deities – and any god that has run out of puff should be gently laid to rest. Such gods die only if they cease to be real to people and their communities, and religious leaders sensitive to their times will join in seeing them off. That doesn’t mean the end of any God worthy of the name, however. For the impulse that led to the creation of those once-potent deities does not die. The drive to find meaning, purpose and hope amid the twists and turns of life continues as before.
Adventurous minds then find new insights and new ways of expressing them that speak to their own time and place. Some will discover new lines of approach within the old faith. Some will turn to other faiths or philosophies. Others, of course, will cling more firmly to the security of the past.
All those responses are evident in New Zealand today. In the churches, diminishing numbers suggest that one God is slowly dying – but there are signs that another is quietly emerging. Or, more precisely, one human image of God is being challenged by another that many find more in tune with the modern world.
Both groups would say they are being faithful to core insights of their Christian heritage – and so they are. But they are viewing their tradition from different vantage points. One insists that the hallowed doctrines and forms of the past are non-negotiable. The other seeks to interpret that same tradition through the lens of present-day understanding.
All this came bubbling to the surface when Anglican Bishop Richard Randerson, of Wellington, was interviewed on radio last month about his memoir Slipping the Moorings. There he sets aside the theistic image of God as a supernatural Being or Person, in favour of a concept of God as the living heart of all being. “The question of faith,” he writes, “is not one of intellectual assent to the existence of ‘God as a Being’, but arises out of our experience of ‘God as Being’, a reality at the heart of human life.”
Randerson cites four shortcomings in theism:
* It is framed within a three-tier physical universe of heaven, earth and hell.
* God is conceived anthropomorphically in a human image (though with supernatural add-ons).
* Theism stirs needless controversy with science over the origins of the universe and of life.
* It leads to legitimate questioning about an all-powerful, all-loving God co-existing with evil and tragedy.
On radio he spoke of “a sense of God as mystery, something other, something bigger. It’s characterised by love, by spirit, by transcendence. It gives me a sense of connection . . . and for Christians, of course, the mystery is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.” Randerson has clearly slipped the moorings of theism, but not of Christian experience.
He is in impressive episcopal company. In England, Bishop John Robinson believed that entering into arguments about the existence of God as a celestial Being, even a celestial Person, was to miss the point. Look rather to the truth that image is trying to convey, he said, namely that “in personal relationships we touch the final meaning of existence as nowhere else” – and Jesus fleshed that out.
“Jesus never claims to be God, personally: yet he always claims to bring God, completely,” said Robinson. Jesus provides a window into God through the way he lived his life. Central to this approach is a fundamental orientation to love, grace and transformation, and an affirmation of the potential of men and women to somehow live beyond ordinary human limitations.
That is basic to Christian insight, but Robinson believed that binding it to theism turned many people off engaging with it today. They have discarded that God. American Bishop John Spong concurs. “I believe passionately in God,” he says. “Yet I now find the theistic definition of God far too limiting.”
Instead, “the meaning and the reality of God are found in the experience of human wholeness flowing in life-giving ways through all that we are. God is experienced when we open life to transcendent otherness, when it is called beyond every barrier into an expanded humanity.”
It follows that in the modern world Christian faith no longer depends on believing in the existence of God but, more appropriately, on the experience of God (or Godness). Jesus’ followers enter into this first by taking him with ultimate seriousness, and then by orienting their lives accordingly.
A corresponding shift in the church’s focus is now in order.
Fighting Austerity’s Impact on Mental Health
Dawn Foster Guardian/UK 19 August 2015
For Stephen Weatherhead, a 37-year-old clinical psychologist working in Lancaster, and for a lot of other psychologists, this week is going to involve walking 100 miles from Leicester to London, sleeping rough, and meeting dozens of people along the way.Walk the Talk, an awareness-raising trek from the British Psychological Society (BPS) offices in Leicester to its headquarters in the capital, will take in visits to food banks, supported housing, homelessness services and mental health centres, recording testimonies from people whose psychological wellbeing has been jeopardised by the benefits system and Work Programme. The participants will meet people at points on the route, so other psychologists, social workers, and anyone who agrees with their concerns, can join the march.
Weatherhead and his colleagues see the effect that the benefits system has on extremely vulnerable people every day, but the day-to-day impact on people’s lives remains hidden from the public, especially in terms of mental health, due to the ongoing stigma attached to psychological illness. “I work in brain injury and it’s been stressful to see the effect the benefits system has, with patients being pushed through traumatic assessments or being pressured into work when they’re not ready,” he says. “I came up with the idea of Walk the Talk, to see if we could draw attention to the impact social policy is having on people’s mental health every day.”
For people working in mental health, any progress is tempered by the external problems created by the rise in sanctions and the cuts to employment support allowance and the independent living fund. “People’s psychological experience is exacerbated by their social situation. Some people are really struggling to feed their families, or worrying about whether they can pay their heating bills over the winter. Their debts are mounting up and they’re not able to find a way out,” Weatherhead says.
“It feels a bit crass trying to work with someone on their depression or anxiety, when that depression or anxiety is well-founded because they’re at risk of losing their home, or not being able to feed their kids.” Stress, depression and anxiety can be completely debilitating, he says, and when this stress is caused by hardship, trying to combat it through talking therapies feels like ignoring the reality of the situation.
What has worsened over the past five years in terms of what psychologists are seeing on wards? “Debt, poverty and homelessness – I see an increasing number of clients who have lost their home or are struggling to retain their home, as well as people not able to access services as well as they could if they had stable accommodation,” Weatherhead says.
Clinicians who are joining the walk say that they’ve seen an increase both in appointments being missed because patients daren’t miss compulsory jobcentre appointments for fear of being sanctioned, and also in parents declining psychological therapy for their children, because they simply cannot afford the weekly transport costs.
Weatherhead has also witnessed patients who fear that any small step to recovery will see their benefits stopped before they are healthy, or that even going outside means they’ll be reported to the Department for Work and Pensions. “I have clients who are going through recovery, who are being pushed into work when they’re not ready. I was trying to get one client to walk around her local park as part of her recovery,” he says. “But she’s afraid to in case she’s then told she’s fit for work, when she’s clearly not able to work, and loses her benefits. It’s really traumatic: it’s probably the biggest problem facing mental health in this country.”
The group sets out its concerns online: “Emotional wellbeing does not exist or develop in a bubble; it is affected by our social contexts. Some of these, such as ethnicity, gender, ability or socio-economic status, bring with them institutional marginalisation or discrimination, which increase experiences of inequality. Figures demonstrate that individuals in more unequal societies have poorer overall mental health and emotional wellbeing.”
The BPS states that as a profession, psychologists aim to “reduce psychological distress and enhance and promote psychological wellbeing”. The walk participants and supporters point out that this is not possible while social inequalities, cause, ingrain and perpetuate psychological distress. The BPS president, professor Jamie Hacker-Hughes, is leading the walk with Weatherhead.
[Abridged] walkthetalk2015.org/walk
For Stephen Weatherhead, a 37-year-old clinical psychologist working in Lancaster, and for a lot of other psychologists, this week is going to involve walking 100 miles from Leicester to London, sleeping rough, and meeting dozens of people along the way.Walk the Talk, an awareness-raising trek from the British Psychological Society (BPS) offices in Leicester to its headquarters in the capital, will take in visits to food banks, supported housing, homelessness services and mental health centres, recording testimonies from people whose psychological wellbeing has been jeopardised by the benefits system and Work Programme. The participants will meet people at points on the route, so other psychologists, social workers, and anyone who agrees with their concerns, can join the march.
Weatherhead and his colleagues see the effect that the benefits system has on extremely vulnerable people every day, but the day-to-day impact on people’s lives remains hidden from the public, especially in terms of mental health, due to the ongoing stigma attached to psychological illness. “I work in brain injury and it’s been stressful to see the effect the benefits system has, with patients being pushed through traumatic assessments or being pressured into work when they’re not ready,” he says. “I came up with the idea of Walk the Talk, to see if we could draw attention to the impact social policy is having on people’s mental health every day.”
For people working in mental health, any progress is tempered by the external problems created by the rise in sanctions and the cuts to employment support allowance and the independent living fund. “People’s psychological experience is exacerbated by their social situation. Some people are really struggling to feed their families, or worrying about whether they can pay their heating bills over the winter. Their debts are mounting up and they’re not able to find a way out,” Weatherhead says.
“It feels a bit crass trying to work with someone on their depression or anxiety, when that depression or anxiety is well-founded because they’re at risk of losing their home, or not being able to feed their kids.” Stress, depression and anxiety can be completely debilitating, he says, and when this stress is caused by hardship, trying to combat it through talking therapies feels like ignoring the reality of the situation.
What has worsened over the past five years in terms of what psychologists are seeing on wards? “Debt, poverty and homelessness – I see an increasing number of clients who have lost their home or are struggling to retain their home, as well as people not able to access services as well as they could if they had stable accommodation,” Weatherhead says.
Clinicians who are joining the walk say that they’ve seen an increase both in appointments being missed because patients daren’t miss compulsory jobcentre appointments for fear of being sanctioned, and also in parents declining psychological therapy for their children, because they simply cannot afford the weekly transport costs.
Weatherhead has also witnessed patients who fear that any small step to recovery will see their benefits stopped before they are healthy, or that even going outside means they’ll be reported to the Department for Work and Pensions. “I have clients who are going through recovery, who are being pushed into work when they’re not ready. I was trying to get one client to walk around her local park as part of her recovery,” he says. “But she’s afraid to in case she’s then told she’s fit for work, when she’s clearly not able to work, and loses her benefits. It’s really traumatic: it’s probably the biggest problem facing mental health in this country.”
The group sets out its concerns online: “Emotional wellbeing does not exist or develop in a bubble; it is affected by our social contexts. Some of these, such as ethnicity, gender, ability or socio-economic status, bring with them institutional marginalisation or discrimination, which increase experiences of inequality. Figures demonstrate that individuals in more unequal societies have poorer overall mental health and emotional wellbeing.”
The BPS states that as a profession, psychologists aim to “reduce psychological distress and enhance and promote psychological wellbeing”. The walk participants and supporters point out that this is not possible while social inequalities, cause, ingrain and perpetuate psychological distress. The BPS president, professor Jamie Hacker-Hughes, is leading the walk with Weatherhead.
[Abridged] walkthetalk2015.org/walk
Monday, 10 August 2015
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Stephan Lendman Counterpunch Pub. by Common Dreams 9Aug. 2015
August 6 marks the 70th anniversary of one of history’s great crimes, followed three days later by incinerating Nagasaki. At least 200,000 died, many others scarred for life, future generations to this day harmed by radiologically caused birth defects and other serious health problems.
Big Lies still claim bombing both cities hastened war’s end and saved many lives. Truman informed the public deceitfully saying bombing Hiroshima “destroyed its usefulness to the enemy.” “It was to spare the Japanese people from (further) utter destruction…If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the likes of which has never been seen on this earth.”
Nuclear bombing both cities were two of numerous American genocides – beginning with a conquering the new world from sea to shining sea, ravaging and destroying one country after another ever since, endless wars of aggression continuing today.
Japan was defeated ready to surrender when Truman authorized testing America’s new toy in real time – twice, not once. Not to win a war already won. To show Soviet Russia America’s new might, what its leadership already knew, what might follow against its cities if Washington decided to attack its wartime ally. US leaders always considered human lives expendable. Many thousands of Japanese victims were considered a small price to pay.
Terror bombing is an international high crime. Article 25 of the Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907 Hague IV Convention) states: “The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or building which are undefended is prohibited.” Post-WW II Geneva IV protects civilians in time of war – prohibiting violence of any type against them, requiring sick and wounded be treated humanely.
The 1945 Nuremberg Principles forbid “crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity,” including “inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,” – notably indiscriminate killing and “wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.” In his book, The Good War: An Oral History of World War II, the late Studs Terkel explained its good and bad sides through people experiencing it. The good was America “was the only country among the combatants that was neither invaded nor bombed. Ours were the only cities not blasted to rubble,” said Terkel.
The bad was it “warped our view of how we look at things today (seeing them) in terms of war” and the notion that they’re good or why else fight them. This “twisted memory….encourages (people) to be willing, almost eager, to use military force” to solve problems, never mind how they exacerbate them.
Wars are never just or good. In the nuclear age they’re “lunatic” acts – horrific by any standard. On February 24, 1945, Japan wanted surrender, asking only to retain its emperor. Roosevelt wanted war continued. So did Truman after his April 1945 death.
The late Howard Zinn said “(t)he bombing of Hiroshima remains sacred to the American Establishment and to a very large part of the population in this country.” It’s been falsely portrayed as an expeditious way to end war and save lives – a myth believed to this day by most Americans, ignoring appalling gratuitous mass murder by any standard.
“Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unforgivable atrocities,” Zinn explained – “perpetrated on a Japan ready to surrender…a wanton act of gargantuan cruelty (not) an unavoidable necessity.” What “could be more horrible than the burning, mutilation, blinding, irradiation of hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women, and children?” “And yet it is absolutely essential for our political leaders to defend the bombing because if Americans can be induced to accept that, then they can accept any war, any means, so long as the war-makers can supply a reason.” Endless US wars of aggression from summer 1945 to this day killed countless millions from conflict, subsequent violence and chaos, starvation, untreated wounds and diseases, as well as overall deprivation. “There is endless room for more wars, with endless supplies of reasons” justifying the unjustifiable, said Zinn.
Before bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Secretary of War Henry Stimson briefed Dwight Eisenhower on their imminent use, saying: “Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.” After its use, Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral William Leahy called the atom bomb “a barbarous weapon. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” In mid-July, four days before Truman, Churchill and Stalin met in Potsdam to discuss post-war issues (two months after Nazi Germany’s defeat), a Japanese Foreign Minister Togo telegram to ambassador Sato in Moscow discussing negotiated surrender terms said:
“It is his Majesty’s heart’s desire to see the swift termination of the war.” Washington intercepted the message. Japanese codes were broken before war began. At least from summer 1940, US intelligence began reading Japan’s diplomatic messages. Earlier in 1945, Japan sent peace feelers.
Two days before the February Yalta conference, General Douglas MacArthur sent Roosevelt a 40-page summary of its terms. They were nearly unconditional. The Japanese would accept an occupation, cease hostilities, surrender its arms, remove all troops from occupied territories, submit to criminal war trials, let its industries be regulated, asking only that their Emperor be retained. Roosevelt categorically refused. So did Truman. They wanted war continued followed by unconditional surrender.
America “was determined to drop those bombs,” said Zinn. Churchill advisor PMS Blackett called using them “the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia.” The bombs of August are an ominous reminder that what happened to Japan can repeat whenever lunatics in Washington believe it’s to their advantage. Humanity may not survive their madness.
© CounterPunch Stephen Lendman http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/08/09/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-gratuitous-mass-murder
August 6 marks the 70th anniversary of one of history’s great crimes, followed three days later by incinerating Nagasaki. At least 200,000 died, many others scarred for life, future generations to this day harmed by radiologically caused birth defects and other serious health problems.
Big Lies still claim bombing both cities hastened war’s end and saved many lives. Truman informed the public deceitfully saying bombing Hiroshima “destroyed its usefulness to the enemy.” “It was to spare the Japanese people from (further) utter destruction…If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the likes of which has never been seen on this earth.”
Nuclear bombing both cities were two of numerous American genocides – beginning with a conquering the new world from sea to shining sea, ravaging and destroying one country after another ever since, endless wars of aggression continuing today.
Japan was defeated ready to surrender when Truman authorized testing America’s new toy in real time – twice, not once. Not to win a war already won. To show Soviet Russia America’s new might, what its leadership already knew, what might follow against its cities if Washington decided to attack its wartime ally. US leaders always considered human lives expendable. Many thousands of Japanese victims were considered a small price to pay.
Terror bombing is an international high crime. Article 25 of the Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907 Hague IV Convention) states: “The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or building which are undefended is prohibited.” Post-WW II Geneva IV protects civilians in time of war – prohibiting violence of any type against them, requiring sick and wounded be treated humanely.
The 1945 Nuremberg Principles forbid “crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity,” including “inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,” – notably indiscriminate killing and “wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.” In his book, The Good War: An Oral History of World War II, the late Studs Terkel explained its good and bad sides through people experiencing it. The good was America “was the only country among the combatants that was neither invaded nor bombed. Ours were the only cities not blasted to rubble,” said Terkel.
The bad was it “warped our view of how we look at things today (seeing them) in terms of war” and the notion that they’re good or why else fight them. This “twisted memory….encourages (people) to be willing, almost eager, to use military force” to solve problems, never mind how they exacerbate them.
Wars are never just or good. In the nuclear age they’re “lunatic” acts – horrific by any standard. On February 24, 1945, Japan wanted surrender, asking only to retain its emperor. Roosevelt wanted war continued. So did Truman after his April 1945 death.
The late Howard Zinn said “(t)he bombing of Hiroshima remains sacred to the American Establishment and to a very large part of the population in this country.” It’s been falsely portrayed as an expeditious way to end war and save lives – a myth believed to this day by most Americans, ignoring appalling gratuitous mass murder by any standard.
“Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unforgivable atrocities,” Zinn explained – “perpetrated on a Japan ready to surrender…a wanton act of gargantuan cruelty (not) an unavoidable necessity.” What “could be more horrible than the burning, mutilation, blinding, irradiation of hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women, and children?” “And yet it is absolutely essential for our political leaders to defend the bombing because if Americans can be induced to accept that, then they can accept any war, any means, so long as the war-makers can supply a reason.” Endless US wars of aggression from summer 1945 to this day killed countless millions from conflict, subsequent violence and chaos, starvation, untreated wounds and diseases, as well as overall deprivation. “There is endless room for more wars, with endless supplies of reasons” justifying the unjustifiable, said Zinn.
Before bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Secretary of War Henry Stimson briefed Dwight Eisenhower on their imminent use, saying: “Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.” After its use, Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral William Leahy called the atom bomb “a barbarous weapon. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” In mid-July, four days before Truman, Churchill and Stalin met in Potsdam to discuss post-war issues (two months after Nazi Germany’s defeat), a Japanese Foreign Minister Togo telegram to ambassador Sato in Moscow discussing negotiated surrender terms said:
“It is his Majesty’s heart’s desire to see the swift termination of the war.” Washington intercepted the message. Japanese codes were broken before war began. At least from summer 1940, US intelligence began reading Japan’s diplomatic messages. Earlier in 1945, Japan sent peace feelers.
Two days before the February Yalta conference, General Douglas MacArthur sent Roosevelt a 40-page summary of its terms. They were nearly unconditional. The Japanese would accept an occupation, cease hostilities, surrender its arms, remove all troops from occupied territories, submit to criminal war trials, let its industries be regulated, asking only that their Emperor be retained. Roosevelt categorically refused. So did Truman. They wanted war continued followed by unconditional surrender.
America “was determined to drop those bombs,” said Zinn. Churchill advisor PMS Blackett called using them “the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia.” The bombs of August are an ominous reminder that what happened to Japan can repeat whenever lunatics in Washington believe it’s to their advantage. Humanity may not survive their madness.
© CounterPunch Stephen Lendman http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/08/09/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-gratuitous-mass-murder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)