Conflict

Listen to this article Richard Falk September 14, 2021 Modified responses on Aug. 23rd to questions posed by Zahra Mirzafarjouyan, Mehr News Agency, and originally published on Falk’s homepage. • 1 Why could the Taliban capture Kabul and gain power so rapidly without considerable resistance from people and the army? The U.S. led NATO Afghan intervention and occupation was flawed in mission from its outset in 2001, and indeed in the period before the attack and large-scale, ambitious regime-changing, state-building occupation. In the post-colonial world, the military superiority of Western intervening powers has proved unable to shape the political outcomes of a prolonged struggle for the control of non-Western sovereign spaces, especially if the society is beset by unresolved tribal and ethnic conflicts, as well as by warlordism and drug cartels. In Afghanistan, as elsewhere, this line of observation proved to be once again validated, despite trillions of dollars spent...

September 11, 2021 Can be read together with this article which contains all the documentation When people ask me what I think of “9/11” my answer has always been: “I have not done any research on it myself but to me the official explanation leaves too many questions unanswered, such as: 1 • Why was the discussion only about who did it and how did they do it but never about why did someone do this? If you look at the fact that the objects of the attacks were the centers of the US/world’s financial, military and political power – and not just a train station or some infrastructure – you’d have a diagnostic indicator. 2 • Why did no US Airforce plane take off from St. Andrews Air Base? The standing mission of it is to keep the air space over Washington clean and shoot down anything that should...

Brilliant cartoon from 2010… August 23, 2021 Jeffrey Sachs is professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. He’s a leading intellectual on global economic affairs in general and sustainable development in particular. Here he chooses the unusual way of communicating: Instead of going into a lot of “academic” issues and dimensions of the US-led war on Afghanistan since 2001, he characterises the underlying mentality, decision quality and level of knowledge by using the word “stupidity” a number of times. And that’s what this US policy has been: stupid. Repeatedly stupid. We find it important that people proven excellent intellectuals do not feel that they have to separate the personal and academia and feel free to express themselves in plain language – indicating also, of course, a sense of frustration and anger over that very ignorance . . . stupidity and its tragic human consequences. Perhaps...

, in Washington and New York, everybody talked about who could have done it, how they did it and with what means. The only thing never brought to the fore was: WHY would somebody want to do something like 9/11 to the United States of America? By not asking the Why question, the US could stand as the innocent victim of cataclysmic violence. It would not have to do any soul searching and therefore no change of its global militarist policy. 9/11 was not a response to US foreign policy – but it needed a response. The world felt sympathy for the American suffering – much more so than for the suffering and deaths in other countries around the world. The fact is that the 9/11 attack targeted the US’ global finance-capital (World Trade Center), its global military (Pentagon) and its political (White House, however not hit) centres – not...

John Scales Avery TFF Associate July 14, 2021 I would like to announce the publication of a book which discusses the reasons why the institution of war continues to threaten human civilization and the biosphere, and the steps that might be taken to rid the world of war. The book may be downloaded and circulated free of charge from the following link: A new freely downloadable book Albert Einstein’s letter to Sigmund Freud “Why War?” – the title of this book, was also the title of a famous letter written to Sigmund Freud by Albert Einstein. In 1931, the International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation invited Albert Einstein to enter correspondence with a prominent person of his own choosing on a subject of importance to society. The Institute planned to publish a collection of such dialogues. Einstein accepted at once, and decided to write to Sigmund Freud to ask his opinion about...

Photo: Martin Luther King. [bswise / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0] Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon June 29, 2021 The MLK tributes are sure to pour on the anniversary of the civil rights hero’s death, but don’t expect them to acknowledge his anti-militarist ideals. The anniversary of his assassination always brings a flood of tributes to Martin Luther King Jr., and this Sunday will surely be no exception. But those tributes — including from countless organizations calling themselves progressive — are routinely evasive about the anti-militarist ideals that King passionately expressed during the final year of his life. You could call it evasion by omission. The standard liberal canon waxes fondly nostalgic about King’s “I have a dream” speech in 1963 and his efforts against racial segregation. But in memory lane, the Dr. King who lived his last year is persona non grata. Originally published April 21. 2021 at scheerpost.com The pattern is positively Orwellian....

Biljana Vankovska, TFF Associate June 22, 2021 There is a comprehensive, independent-minded “alternative” analysis of NATO’s crisis in general and the membership of North Macedonia in it. Dr Vankovska writes in the intro to her analysis that: “North Macedonia (hereafter in the text, Macedonia) was officially admitted to NATO on 27 March 2020 as its 30th member state. It was supposed to look like a dream come true for generations of Macedonian citizens and the political elites across the ethnic divides. However, the act was hardly met with any euphoria… Although Macedonia has joined NATO the political narrative and public (media and intellectual) rhetoric have not changed a bit. The military alliance is still seen through rose-coloured eyeglasses with not much relation to the objective state of affairs. It shows that the submissive and even naïve position in the mind and behaviour of the political elites is unlikely to change...

Lea Suter, TFF Associate June 21, 2021 Lea Suter, founder of “PeacePrints – Following the Footprints of Peacebuilders” for Peace Reporting on Post-Conflict Countries, Switzerland – and new TFF Associate. Lea has been working in the area of international relations since 2011. First, for the UN, later for a think tank on foreign policy and currently she is the Secretary-General of the UN Association in Switzerland. Originally from Switzerland, she lived in Russia and volunteered in humanitarian projects in Mongolia and Colombia. In 2017, she founded “PeacePrints – Following the Footprints of Peacebuilders” – a blog for which she travels as peace reporter to post-conflict countries to report about outstanding individuals committed to bringing a positive change. Here Lea speaks about her work and how important it is that we know, follow, learn from and honour those millions of fellow citizens around the world who cross borders, reach out and...

The famed source of the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg, has made another unauthorized disclosure — and wants to be prosecuted for it. By Charlie SavagePublished May 22, 2021 • Updated May 23, 2021 • 阅读简体中文版閱讀繁體中文版 WASHINGTON — When Communist Chinese forces began shelling islands controlled by Taiwan in 1958, the United States rushed to back up its ally with military force — including drawing up plans to carry out nuclear strikes on mainland China, according to an apparently still-classified document that sheds new light on how dangerous that crisis was. American military leaders pushed for a first-use nuclear strike on China, accepting the risk that the Soviet Union would retaliate in kind on behalf of its ally and millions of people would die, dozens of pages from a classified 1966 study of the confrontation show. The government censored those pages when it declassified the study for public release. The document...

Jan Oberg May 15, 2021 The conflict between the US/West and China will shape humanity’s future more than any other conflict. Therefore, it is not a bilateral issue but a global concern. I believe it ought to be on top of the agenda at the peace research institutions that have not turned state-dependent and/or US-mainstreamed.Both the Trump and the Biden Administrations have determined that what is going on in Xinjiang in China is a genocide and lots of mainstream media, editorials, policy statements and experts have spread this ”determination” as the truth. However, not one has checked the accusation’s documentation, the stated “independence” of the producing institutes or the experts’ ideological connections. This was originally posted as an editorial on Transcend Media Service, TMS, on May 3, 2021 here The world has a right to expect that the extremely serious genocide accusation is based on rock-solid evidence. To find out...

En kritisk analys av en rapport från Newlines Institute och Raoul Wallenberg Center Gordon Dumoulin, Jan Oberg och Thore Vestby Transnationella Stiftelsen för Freds- och Framtidsforskning, TFF, Lund, Sverige TFF@transnational.org • The Transnational • Ph +46 (0) 738 525200 Översättning av engelska utgåvan: Rolf Nilsson Den 5. maj, 2021 Den 8 mars 2021 publicerade Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy i Washington en rapport, The Uyghur Genocide: An Examination of China’s Breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention i samarbete med Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights i Montreal. Den säger att ”Denna rapport är den första oberoende experttillämpningen av folkmordskonventionen från 1948 för den pågående behandlingen av uigurerna i Kina. Det genomfördes av Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy, i samarbete med Raoul Wallenberg Center for Human Rights, som svar på framväxande redogörelser för allvarliga och systematiska grymheter i Xinjiang-provinsen, särskilt riktade mot uigurerna, en etnisk minoritet, för att fastställa...

The United States, Britain and European nations have a history of ‘weaponising’ human rights in foreign policy. Throughout late imperial history, China has rarely blamed other nations, their religion or race, for domestic problems. Martin PowersAn opinion piece in South China Morning PostMarch 4, 2021 The term “human rights” is properly a feature of the modern world, but people have been calling out cruelty for centuries. Who gets blamed for human tragedy reveals a lot about how a nation values human life. Western nations, chief among them the United States, have long assumed the promotion of human rights as one of their natural duties, but in recent years some have questioned their qualifications for doing so. Last Fall in the journal Foreign Affairs James Goldgeier and Bruce W. Jentleson itemised the failures of America’s “tarnished model”, taking note of that “internationally controversial war in Iraq” and a major financial crisis in 2008. Following a...