I Was Meant to Talk About Palestinian Kids at the UN. Israel Forced Me Out

By Brad Parker

Belgium caved into Israeli pressure to disinvite me from the Security Council. In doing so, they helped undermine human rights work for Palestinian children.

***

Last week, the government of Belgium caved in to intense Israeli government pressure and effectively disinvited me from briefing the UN Security Council in New York today.

Ironically, the decision to exclude my voice as a representative of Defense for Children International – Palestine (DCIP), a Palestinian human rights organization, exemplifies and reinforces the message I had prepared to deliver before the Council.

I was invited by Belgium’s Permanent Mission to the UN in late January to brief members of the Security Council on violations of children’s rights in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

Belgium, which holds the rotating Security Council presidency for this month, is a leader of the UN’s global agenda on children and armed conflict, and as such wanted to highlight these specific themes during the Council’s monthly meeting on the Middle East and Palestine Question. The Belgians wrote in their invitation that this focused discussion would help “to enrich the debate” on the Palestinian issue.

I gladly accepted. The fact that Belgium was willing to invite a local Palestinian human rights organization like DCIP to brief the Council was commendable, as civil society space at the UN has been shrinking for years. While they urged me to be “balanced” in my statement (which I had shared with them for feedback), they understood that Palestinian children overwhelmingly and disproportionately bear the brunt of the kinds of violations they sought to highlight.

Then the troubles began.

The UN Security Council, December 18, 2015 (United Nations Photo)

As soon as Israeli diplomats were informed of my attendance, Emmanuel Nahshon, the Israeli Ambassador to Belgium and Luxembourg, reportedly asked the Belgian government in early February to cancel the invitation. The Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry summoned Belgium’s Deputy Ambassador to Israel, Pascal Buffin, on two separate occasions to formally object to the invitation. These requests were initially rejected.

Israeli officials and right-wing organizations, like NGO Monitor, and their affiliates subsequently mounted a well-orchestrated political and media disinformation campaign to press the Belgians to capitulate.

Then, four days ago, I received an early morning phone call informing me that Brussels had decided to change the Security Council event from an open meeting to a closed meeting — meaning that I was no longer a participant.

Targeted defamation campaigns

Belgium’s acquiescence to Israel’s demands is a frustrating and devastating blow. Not only is it a shameful act of censorship, but it also boosts longstanding efforts to delegitimize human rights work and basic tenets of international law when it comes to Palestinians.

Over the past two weeks, I have falsely been called everything from an “extreme anti-Israel activist” and “minor American propogandist,” to a “terror supporter” and “diplomatic terrorist.”

Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, even wrote a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres calling DCIP “an arm of the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) in order to enact diplomatic terror against Israel,” adding, “A place that promotes peace and security in the world has no room for people like Parker.”

DCIP and other civil society organizations in Palestine and Israel have been increasingly targeted and attacked by Israeli officials, government ministries, and a rising network of right-wing and nationalist social forces in Israel, the U.S., the U.K., and across Europe. A key strategy of these forces is to launch targeted and organized defamation campaigns, based on a range of allegations that try to link us to national counter-terrorism legislation in order to undercut our work.

For DCIP specifically, officials like Ambassador Danny Danon, the Israeli Strategic Affairs Ministry, NGO Monitor, and UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) are alleging that we support and further terrorist acts. They amorphously claim that DCIP board and staff members are “affiliated,” “linked,” or have “alleged ties” to the PFLP.

Yet, no evidence is presented on how DCIP’s work — our field research, documentation, legal services, and advocacy — is in any way involved in supporting terrorist acts. Moreover, no trials or indictments have been initiated by Israeli authorities against DCIP board or staff members on such accusations during their time with the organization.

Rather than demand Israeli authorities stop unlawfully killing Palestinian child protesters in Gaza with live ammunition, or end ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian child detainees, or hold perpetrators accountable, these actors are disseminating misinformation aimed at silencing, defunding, and eliminating legitimate human rights work and criticism of illegal Israeli policies toward Palestinians. And unfortunately — wittingly or unwittingly — governments like Belgium are helping them.

Exempted from UN blacklist

So, if Belgium had not crumbled to the pressure, what did the Israeli government not want me to tell the UN Security Council today?

First, using largely UN-verified information, I would have explained how Palestinian children are disproportionately affected by armed conflict at the hands of Israeli forces. Second, I would have highlighted how the persistent failure of the UN Secretary-General to hold Israel accountable has fostered impunity for such grave violations against children.

My planned statement offered a solution. Each year the UN Secretary-General submits a report to the Security Council detailing the situation of children’s rights in specific situations of armed conflict, including Israel and the State of Palestine.

Security Council Resolution 1612, adopted in 2005, formally established a UN-led, evidence-based monitoring and reporting mechanism on grave violations against children during armed conflict. The six violations include killing and maiming; child recruitment; sexual violence; attacks on schools or hospitals; denial of humanitarian access for children; and abduction.

Where armed forces or groups are found to commit such violations against children, the Secretary-General is obligated to list them in the annex of his annual report. This list has become known as the UN’s child rights “blacklist” or “list of shame.”

The mechanism has proven to be a strong tool to bolster protections for children during armed conflict over the past decade. But despite persistent reports by UN agencies like UNICEF and local groups like DCIP, both Guterres and his predecessor Ban Ki-moon refused to include Israeli armed forces on the blacklist.

This was despite the fact that Ban Ki-moon, for example, noted in his 2014 report that there had been a “dramatic increase in the number of children killed and injured, especially in Gaza,” with at least 557 Palestinian children and four Israeli children killed, and 4,249 Palestinian children and 22 Israeli children wounded.

While he expressed alarm at the “unprecedented and unacceptable scale” of destruction and harm caused by Israel’s military operation that year, he still omitted Israel’s forces from the annex. Reportedly, he caved in to significant pressure from the U.S. and Israel.

Defending international law

Ban Ki-moon’s decision, and Guterres’ continuation of that decision, has effectively transformed a strong accountability mechanism into a politicized process where powerful governments can exempt themselves from scrutiny and the rules of international law.

As I wrote in my planned statement to the Security Council, Israel’s absence from the blacklist essentially gives it “tacit approval to continue committing grave breaches of international law with impunity. We are still, today, dealing with the impact of this decision.”

Today, I had hoped to reaffirm a message that Hagai El-Ad, Executive Director of the human rights organization B’Tselem, had brought to the Council in 2018: a rules-based international order will not defend itself.

If the UN’s children and armed conflict agenda is to remain relevant and credible, it is imperative that the listing process does not give an exception to Israel for its grave violations. Year after year, Palestinian children must deal with the compounded failures of these policymakers, and without accountability, these violations will continue bleeding from one year to the next.

Given the attacks and campaigns against Palestinian human rights defenders and civil society, Belgium’s actions are entirely irresponsible. When a supposed champion of these values lifts you up, knowing full well that it may place a target on you, it is disheartening to seem them give in to such pressure. This lack of political will all but ensures systemic impunity will remain the norm for Palestinian children.

*Brad Parker is a Senior Adviser for Policy and Advocacy at Defense for Children International – Palestine.

Turkey’s Losing Bet in Syria

By Tony Cartalucci

Turkey has allegedly lost another 33 troops in Syria this week amid its refusal to withdraw from Syrian territory amid Syrian government gains in the northern governorate of Idlib. 

The BBC in its article, “Syria war: 33 Turkish troops killed in air strike in Idlib,” would report:

At least 33 Turkish soldiers have been killed in an air strike by Syrian “regime forces” in north-western Syria, a senior Turkish official has said.

More were hurt in Idlib province, said Rahmi Dogan, the governor of Turkey’s Hatay province. Other reports put the death toll higher.

Turkey later retaliated against Syrian troops government targets.

The US-led proxy war against Syria is all but over. It is just a matter of time before Damascus and its allies restore control over the entire nation and begin rebuilding.

The US-armed and funded terrorists that have ravaged the country since 2011 have been exposed, depleted, and cornered. So desperate is the state of this proxy war that in recent years the US and its allies including Turkey and Israel have resorted increasingly to direct military action against Damascus itself as their proxies are no longer capable of carrying out sustained military operations themselves.

And despite brazen aggression against Damascus and its forces – the combined military might of the US, Turkey, and Israel have failed to produce any noteworthy or sustainable gains in contrast to Damascus’ imminent victory.

Giving Up a Graceful Exit 

Turkey has been a NATO member since the 1950’s and was an eager participant in Washington’s proxy war on Syria allowing its territory and resources to be used to flood Syria with terrorists, weapons, equipment, and money to fuel the destructive 9 year conflict.

Despite Turkey’s integral role in facilitating Washington’s malice and destructive proxy war, Syria’s allies – seeing the conflict as ending in Damascus’ favor – attempted to create a graceful exit for Turkey and the possibility of playing a more constructive role in the region they – not Washington – would now be shaping.

This included economic and military ties with Russia and Iran to help ease pressure from Washington who was attempting to cut both to punish and increasingly uncompliant Ankara.

However, recent events appear to indicate that Turkey has rejected this graceful exit. Turkish forces find themselves increasingly escalating directly against Syrian forces and now even their nuclear-armed Russian allies.

Nothing Turkey can do short of total war in northern Syria will reverse their flagging fortunes.

The occupation of northern Syria through the use of depleted proxies is no longer sustainable. The invasion and occupation of northern Syria by Turkish forces capable of repelling Syrian government forces backed by nuclear-armed Russia is also not a viable policy.

Discovering whatever Ankara is still being promised – or threatened with – by Washington to continue its policy of belligerence and disruption in northern Syria will be key to dissuading Turkish cooperation with the US – or formulating a strategy to frustrate and defeat the lingering machinations of Washington and its two chief partners – Turkey and Israel.

Turkey now finds itself in the unenviable position of having all but abandoned promising ties with the winners of the Syrian conflict and a constructive role in reorganizing the region in the conflict’s aftermath – and now also doubling down on a clearly lost war that will cost Turkey not only blood and treasure, but also its standing in the region in the near to intermediate future.

‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ and Contemporary Nationalism in India

by Ram Puniyani

Like most of the political phenomenon, even the practice of Nationalism is not a static one. It changes with the changing political equations of the political forces and assumes the expressions which are very diverse. As such the phenomenon of Nationalism has a long journey and various state policies in particular have used it for purposes which relate more to the power of the state ‘vis a vis’ its people, power of the state ‘vis a vis’ the neighboring countries among others.

In India there has been a certain change in the practices of the state which have transformed the meaning of Nationalism during last few years. Particularly with BJP, the Hindu Nationalist outfit gaining simple majority, it has unfolded the policies where one can discern the drastic change in the meaning and application of Nationalism in regard to its citizens, particularly those belonging to minority community, with regard to those who are liberal, and with those who stand with the concept of Human rights.

Our former Prime Minister of Dr. Manmohan Singh hit the nail on the head when he said that “Nationalism and the “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” slogan are being misused to construct a “militant and purely emotional” idea of India that excludes millions of residents and citizens. Former Prime Minister recently stated this in an apparent attack on the BJP.” The occasion was the release of a book, ‘Who is Bharat Mata’, edited by Purushottam Agarwal and Radhakrishna. This is a compilation of significant extracts from writings of Nehru, and important assessments of and contributions of Nehru by prominent personalities.

Dr. Singh went on to add “With an inimitable style…Nehru laid the foundation of the universities, academies and cultural institutions of Modern India. But for Nehru’s leadership, independent India would not have become what it is today,” This statement of Dr. Singh has great importance in contemporary times, as Nehru is being denigrated by Hindu nationalists for all the problems which India is facing today and attempts are on to undermine his role and glorifying Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. This is also significant as it gives us the glimpses of what Nationalism meant for Nehru.

As Singh’s statement captures the present nationalism being practiced by BJP and company, the Hindu nationalists, immediately shot back saying that Dr. Singh is supporting the anti India activities at JNU and Jamia and his party is supporting the anti India nationalists. They asked whether Singh likes the nationalism of the likes of Shashi Tharoor or Manishankar Ayer who are provoking the Shaheen Bagh protest rather than making the protestors quiet. Whether he likes the anti national protests which go on at JNU or Jamia? As per them there is no Nationalism in Congress. One more example being cited is the private visit of Shatrughan Sinha who talked to Pakistani President during his visit there recently!

Most of the arguments being used to oppose Dr. Singh are very superficial. What is being referred to; is not opposition to Indian nationalism and its central values which were the core of anti colonial struggles. While ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ may not be acceptable to a section of population, even the book he was releasing has the title ‘Who is Bharat Mata’. What is being stated by Singh is the twist which slogan ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ has been used by Hindu nationalists to frighten the religious minorities.

Indian nation came into being on the values, which later were the foundation of Indian Constitution. Indian Constitution carefully picked up the terminology which was away from the concepts of Hindu or Muslim nationalism. That’s how the country came to be called as ‘India that is Bharat’. The freedom of expression which was the hallmark of freedom movement and it was given a pride of place in our Constitution. It respected the diversity and formulated rules where the nation was not based on particular culture, as Hindu nationalists will like us to believe, but cultural diversity was centrally recognized in the Constitution. In addition promoting good relations with neighbors and other countries of the World was also part of our principles.

JNU, Jamia and AMU are being demonized as most institutions so far regard the freedom of expression as a core part of Indian democracy. These institutions have been thriving on discussions and debates which have base in liberalism. Deliberately some slogans have been constructed to defame these institutions. While Constitution mandates good relations with neighbors, creation of ‘Anti Pakistan hysteria’ is the prime motive of many a channels and sections of other media, which are servile to the ideology of ruling Government. They also violate most of the norms of ethical journalism, where the criticism of the ruling party is an important factor to keep the ruling dispensation in toes.

A stifling atmosphere has been created during last six years. In this the Prime Minster can take a detour, land in Pakistan to have a cup of tea with Pakistan PM, but a Congress leader talking to Pakistani President is a sign of being anti National. Students taking out a march while reading the preamble of Indian Constitution are labeled as anti-national; and are stopped while those openly wielding guns near Jamia or Shaheen Bagh roam freely.

Nationalism should promote amity and love of the people; it should pave the way for growth and development. Currently the nationalism which is dominant and stalking the streets has weakened the very fraternity, which is one of the pillars of our democracy. Nehru did explain that Bharat Mata is not just our mountains, rivers and land but primarily the people who inhabit the land. Which nationalism to follow was settled during the freedom movement when Muslim nationalism and Hindu nationalism were rejected by the majority of people of India in favor of the Nationalism of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Maulana Azad, where minorities are equal citizens, deserving affirmative action. In today’s scenario the Hindu nationalists cannot accept any criticism of their policies.

Ram Puniyani was a professor in biomedical engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, and took voluntary retirement in December 2004 to work full time for communal harmony in India. He is involved with human rights activities from last two decades.He is associated with various secular and democratic initiatives like All India Secular Forum, Center for Study of Society and Secularism and ANHAD. 

Iran and the US: A path back from the brink

Seyed Hossein Mousavian
Once the situation is de-escalated, there could be a chance for a breakthrough in relations, especially after upcoming presidential elections

Protesters warn against a war with Iran in Washington on 9 January (AFP)

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, containment has been the default Iran policy of every US administration. Presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have pursued an ill-advised and barely disguised policy of regime change, through imposing harsh economic sanctions and political pressure.

There are perhaps two exceptions. The first occurred during former US President Barack Obama’s second term, when he tried an engagement policy with Iran. It was a success: a long-lasting nuclear crisis was resolved through diplomacy, alongside other positive developments, including the swift release of detained US sailors. 

Regionally, Iran agreed to attend international negotiations to resolve the Syrian war, sitting with adversaries the US and Saudi Arabia, and Iran and European powers made progress in talks to end the Yemen war.

Maximum pressure policy

Former US President George W Bush once warned that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three. Through the Iran nuclear deal, agreed between world powers and Iran, Obama laid a new foundation on nuclear disarmament,noting that Iran had agreed “to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear programme in history”.

By withdrawing from the nuclear deal and pursuing a “maximum pressure” policy, Donald Trump has secured a legacy of being the first US president to launch a political, security and economic war on Iran - a second exception to the norm in bilateral relations. 

The question today is whether rapprochement between the two countries is realistic anymore - and if not, how can we prevent all-out war?

Moreover, he ordered theassassination of the most popular Iranian general, Qassem Soleimani, by drone strike in January. Inretaliation, Iran launched a barrage of missiles on a US military base in Iraq, injuring 109 troops - the first military strike by a nation on a US military base by any country since World War Two.

In pursuing such dangerous actions and policies, Trump has pushed the US and Iran to the brink of war.

Yet, neither Trump nor Iranian leaders genuinely desire war. The question today is whether rapprochement between the two countries is realistic anymore - and if not, how can we prevent all-out war? There are two reasons to believe that an effective rapprochement is not realistic - at least not during the first term of Trump’s presidency.

Firstly, Trump has crossed many Iranian red lines, recklessly designating the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group, ordering the assassination of Soleimani, and sanctioning Iran’s supreme leader and foreign minister, both of whom are key to the negotiations process. 

Secondly, detente will be impossible as long as Trump continues to follow the Israeli playbook. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has revealed that he requested Trump to impose maximum pressure on Iran, pull out of the nuclear deal and designate the Revolutionary Guards as terrorists.

Containing tensions

Furthermore, former Secretary of State John Kerry revealed that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel urged the US to bomb Iran. It is thus vital for maintaining international peace and security to contain the rising tensions between Washington and Tehran and prevent a possible war. A number of practical measures could lead to that end.

Firstly, a reliable and highly confidential channel should be established for unofficial communications between Tehran and Washington on sensitive issues. Both sides should have a chance to clarify their intentions, communicate red lines and correct possible misperceptions.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani walks past a portrait of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran on 16 February (AFP)

A limited deconfliction channel should be used in specific areas of operation of mutual concern, such as Iraq, Syria and the Strait of Hormuz. Localised incidents or actions by armed groups that could trigger a broader regional conflict must be managed and contained.

In addition, possible confidence-building measures and other ideas to maintain the current tactical pause should be tested, while both sides work towards de-escalation. There must be an exchange of views to determine how a direct or indirect dialogue could be initiated, addressing the broader security concerns of both sides.

Finally, the US, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia should establish regular lines of communication to avert potential misunderstandings, and to ensure that they can calm things down before a situation spirals out of control.

Maintaining peace

To achieve success, both sides must take small, but concrete steps to build confidence and establish credibility. In the current situation, larger steps will not work. But after de-escalation, there could be a chance for a breakthrough in relations, especially after the upcoming US and Iranian presidential elections this year and next.

Any possible future deal will require a firm commitment to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the 2015 nuclear deal.

With the US seeking assurances that Iran will never possess a nuclear bomb, this can be achieved by secularising and operationalising the nuclear fatwa issued by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which bans the production, possession and stockpiling of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

Such an initiative should include regional arms control and security building; the establishment of mechanisms to prevent and resolve regional conflicts; the preservation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all countries in the region; a commitment to non-intervention and non-aggression; and new mechanisms for regional cooperation on humanitarian issues, including the treatment of migrants, refugees and displaced people.Regionally, countries need to establish a new mechanism to maintain peace, stability and security through cooperation. US Senator Bernie Sanders, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, recentlynoted: “We can bring the Saudis and the Iranians together, tell them that we’re sick and tired as a nation [of] spending trillions of dollars on endless wars. They’re going to have to get their act together, and we have the resources to help bring that about.”

Seyed Hossein Mousavian

Seyed Hossein Mousavian is Middle East security and nuclear policy specialist at Princeton University and a former chief of Iran’s National Security and Foreign Relations Committee. His book, “Iran and the United States: An Insider’s view on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace” was released in May 2014. His next book, A Middle East Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction, is due to be published in April 2020.

Even NATO is unwilling to touch Turkey’s Idlib mess with a ten-foot pole

By Scott Ritter

"Information Clearing House" - Having been hit by the Syrian Air Force in Idlib, Turkey has called on NATO’s protection, but as much as the alliance would like a fight with Assad and his ally Russia, it’s refused to back Ankara’s questionable adventure.

Turkey engaged NATO in Article 4 consultations, seeking help regarding the crisis in Syria. The meeting produced a statement from NATO condemning the actions of Russia and Syria and advocating for humanitarian assistance, but denying Turkey the assistance it sought.

The situation in Idlib province has reached crisis proportions. A months-long military offensive by the Syrian Army, supported by the Russian Air Force and pro-Iranian militias, had recaptured nearly one-third of the territory occupied by anti-Assad groups funded and armed by Turkey. In response, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan dispatched thousands of Turkish soldiers, backed by thousands of pieces of military equipment, including tanks and armored vehicles, into Idlib to bolster his harried allies.

The result has been a disaster for Turkey, which has lost more than 50 soldiers and had scores more wounded due to Syrian air attacks. For its part, Russia has refrained from directly engaging Turkish forces, instead turning its attention to countering Turkish-backed militants. Faced with mounting casualties, Turkey turned to NATO for assistance, invoking Article 4 of the NATO charter, which allows members to request consultations whenever, in their opinion, their territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened.
Dangerous precedents
Among the foundational principles of the NATO alliance, most observers focus on Article 5, which declares that an attack against one member is an attack against all. However, throughout its 75-year history, Article 5 has been invoked only once – in the aftermath of 9/11 – resulting in joint air and maritime patrols, but no direct military confrontation. The wars that NATO has engaged in militarily, whether in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya or Iraq, have all been conducted under Article 4, when NATO made a collective decision to provide assistance in a situation that did not involve a direct military attack on one of its member states.
With that in mind, Turkey’s decision to turn to Article 4 was a serious undertaking. For additional leverage, Ankara linked the NATO talks with a separate decision to open its borders to refugees seeking asylum in Europe, abrogating an agreement that had been reached with the European Union to prevent uncontrolled migration into Europe through Turkish-controlled territory and waters. Through this humanitarian blackmail, Turkey sought to use the shared economic and political costs arising from the Syrian situation as a bargaining chip for NATO support.
A failed gamble
The best Turkey could get from its Article 4 consultation, however, was a lukewarm statement by Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general, condemning Syria and Russia while encouraging a diplomatic resolution to the fighting in Syria that focused on alleviating the unfolding humanitarian crisis regarding refugees. This is a far cry from the kind of concrete military support, such as the provision of Patriot air defense systems or NATO enforcement of a no-fly zone over Idlib, Turkey was hoping for.
The provision of military support under Article 4 is serious, involving as it does the entire weight of the NATO alliance. This was underscored by recent comments made by the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, US General Tod Wolters, which linked NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture to current Article 4 NATO operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. At a time when NATO is focused on confronting Russia in the Baltics, opening a second front against the Russians in Syria is not something the alliance was willing to support at this time.
While the US was vocal in its desire to support Turkey at the consultations, NATO is a consensus organization, and the complexities of Turkey’s Syrian adventure, which extend beyond simple Russian involvement to include issues involving the legality of Turkey’s presence inside Syria, and the fact that many of the armed groups Turkey supports in Idlib are designated terrorist organizations, precluded a NATO decision to intervene on Turkey’s behalf. Having failed in its effort to get NATO support in Syria, Turkey is now left with the Hobson’s choice of retreating or doubling down. Neither will end well for Turkey, and both will only further exacerbate that humanitarian disaster taking place in Idlib today.

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector.

Trump Has a New Strategy for Fighting Corruption—Make It Legal!

With his 11 pardons this week, Trump proved that he is trying to Make Corruption Great Again.

By Elie Mystal

"Information Clearing House" - Politicians have been campaigning against government corruption probably since “campaigning” was invented. Usually, people asking for power promise to root out the corruption and graft committed by the officials they hope to replace. But Donald Trump and the modern Republican Party are trying to put a new twist on this old saw: They’re making corruption go away by making graft and self-dealing perfectly legal for public officials. Trump isn’t draining “the swamp”; he and his cronies are trying to make the swamp very legal, and very cool.
Yesterday, longtime Trump aide and confidant Roger Stone was sentenced for his conviction on charges of lying to Congress and tampering with witnesses. The sentencing guidelines called for a prison sentence of seven to nine years, but District Judge Amy Berman Jackson gave Stone just 40 months. The light sentence comes after Attorney General William Barr overruled his prosecutors on the case, and asked that Stone be let free with no jail time. Judge Jackson, an appointee of President Barack Obama, probably wasn’t unduly influenced by Barr’s request that she go light on one of Trump’s homies. But Barr’s meddling and Stone’s close relationship with the president make Jackson’s leniency appear unfair.
Meanwhile, just two days earlier, Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of 11 people, including former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik. Kerik is a close friend of another Trump crony, Rudy Giuliani. In fact, all those granted clemency were able to make some sort of personal connection with Trump, either directly or through the state propaganda network, Fox News. Some had hosted campaign fundraisers or inauguration parties for Trump. And then there’s former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. Blagojevich’s conviction for abusing his power by trying to sell Barack Obama’s former Senate seat was widely cited as an on-point comparison for Trump’s own abuse of power. Trump might as well have been looking in the mirror when he commuted Blagojevich’s sentence.
Trump’s use of the pardon power in this way is, by itself, a corrupt abuse of power. The issue, as with all issues of public corruption, is not whether the official has the authority to do something, it’s whether the official did the thing for a “corrupt purpose.” Donald Trump can pardon people. All presidents have that power. But if he does it for a corrupt purpose, if he does it for his personal political or financial self-interest and not the interest of the country, then that is supposed to be illegal.Trump’s willingness to use his pardon power to spring people he likes on TV is likely just a preview. Many expect Trump to now pardon his former associates Stone, former Trump campaign CEO Paul Manafort, and former national security adviser Michael Flynn. And if Giuliani ever gets convicted for his potentially corrupt dealings, we can certainly expect a pardon for him, too. What links all these men—other than the fetid aroma that wafts off their decayed moral characters—is that they are the ones who kept their mouths shut and didn’t rat on Trump. The one who didn’t continue to lie, Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, is unlikely to receive any clemency from the president. I don’t have to wonder why.
But Trump will not be held accountable for these or future abuses of power. That’s because the Republican Senate acquitted him of impeachment charges over the abuse of his power. Republicans decided, for the first time in American history, that abuse of power is not at odds with the American system of government. That he can abuse the powers of his office with impunity is the only lesson Trump learned from impeachment, Susan Collins.
As brazenly corrupt as post-impeachment Trump has been, he is, as usual, just a manifestation of our national sickness and not its root cause. When it comes to public corruption, all branches of government are in on grift.
Even before Trump took office—in fact, just as he clinched the Republican nomination for president in June 2016—the Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, to overturn a bribery conviction against former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell. McDonnell had been accused and convicted of bribery after he took a series of meetings with the CEO of a pharmaceutical company in exchange for “gifts” and loans to help the governor with his financial troubles. In McDonnell v. US, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for an 8-0 majority, determined that McDonnell took no “official acts” in exchange for the gifts. The Supreme Court would have us believe that merely selling access is not a crime for public officials.
The court’s “meh, whatever” approach to public corruption is unlikely to be limited to McDonnell. Already, Bill Baroni and Bridget Kelly, the only two people to be held accountable for the scheme to punish Chris Christie’s political rivals by grinding traffic to a halt across the tri-state area (colloquially known as “Bridgegate”), have appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court under the McDonnell precedent. We’re still waiting for the court’s ruling, but indications from oral arguments were that the justices are inclined to declare that it’s not a crime for government officials to lie about their corrupt motives.
The Supreme Court, the Republican-controlled Senate, and the current president all seem to be saying the same thing: Public corruption no longer matters. In the words of Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, we’re all supposed to “get over it.”
To make matters worse, the media also seems to have decided not to care about public corruption. Arguably, the fourth estate’s most essential job in a democracy is to expose corruption that would otherwise go unnoticed. But the media today seem as inured to it as the Republican-controlled branches of government. During this week’s Democratic presidential debate in Nevada, the moderators didn’t even ask a question about corruption, Trump’s pardons, or whether anybody on stage was willing to do anything about it.
The Democrats are trying to fight back against this societal willingness to turn a blind eye to corruption in the government. House Democrats have passed HR 1, a sweeping anti-corruption bill that focuses on election integrity and campaign ethics. But it languishes because Mitch McConnell will not bring it up for a vote. It’s amazing that McConnell is ever allowed to speak in front of a camera without being asked why he refuses to bring a nonpartisan, anti-corruption measure to the Senate floor.
Among the Democrats left running for president, only Elizabeth Warren has made the fight against corruption a centerpiece of her campaign. She, and Kamala Harris when she was in the race, have been the only ones promising to do everything they can to hold Trump and his cronies accountable for their actions.
Warren’s proposals are far more detailed and lawful than Trump’s despotic and petty threats to “lock up” his political rivals. She has been pushing her Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act since 2018. The bill addresses public conflicts of interest and applies ethics rules to all senior government officials, including White House staff.
And she’s promised to instruct her Department of Justice to establish a task force to look into crimes and corruption committed by this administration. This is a huge departure from the approach taken by the last Democratic president, Barack Obama, when he had an opportunity to address the misdeeds of the antecedent administration. Obama chose not to pursue prosecutions for war crimes and self-dealing on the part of Dick Cheney and his band of Republican charlatans. Obama felt it was more important for the country to move forward, past the George W. Bush era, and didn’t want to become embroiled in the partisan fights of the past. Rhetorically, it was the right note. Practically, it was wrong message. Why should Donald Trump fear post-presidential accountability when Dick Cheney bamboozled the country into a full-scale war and still gets to roam around free?
Warren sees things differently: “If we are to move forward to restore public confidence in government and deter future wrongdoing, we cannot simply sweep this corruption under the rug in a new administration, “
The task force and the commitment to codify ethical standards into law are, to me, the most important distinguishing feature of Warren’s campaign. That task force would take the decision to prosecute out of her hands, or the hands of her political appointees, and instead allow career civil servants to do the work. Warren’s idea is the antithesis to how Attorney General William Barr has turned the Justice Department into Trump’s personal revenge squad.
We cannot defeat Trump and then just go back to business as usual. We cannot focus on our future without first reckoning with our past. If Trump and his cronies are allowed to get away with what they’ve done, then Trump and the Republicans will have essentially made corruption a valid and legal strategy. No president ever again will fear consequences for abusing their power, at least so long as they can maintain control of their party in the Senate.
Fighting corruption, fighting to “clean up” government, is always an uphill battle. Everybody from Teddy Roosevelt to Fiorello La Guardia to Ralph Nader has found that even their victories were fleeting. But if we abandon the fight, as the Supreme Court has done, as the Republican Party has done, and as even some Democrats are willing to do, then we don’t deserve the democratic self-government Trump is trying to take away from us.
Trump must be held accountable by the next administration, or else Trumpism has already won.


Elie Mystal is The Nation's Justice Correspondent—covering the courts, the criminal justice system, and politics—and the force behind the magazine's monthly column, "Objection!" He is also an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. 

Exploiting religion for political purposes has never been a good idea

Mohammad Ayesh

Dar Al-Iftaa in Cario, Egypt [Wikipedia]

Nothing is worse than having “scholars of the Pharaoh”, who employ religion in the service of politics in order to lend religious legitimacy to man-made political regimes. And there is nothing uglier than a scholar or a sheikh who issues religious opinions (“fatwas”) on a political basis, according to the diktats of the security services in his country and not according to the Divine teachings of the religion that he claims to embrace.

One of the Pharaoh’s scholars appeared on social networks recently with a religious fatwa prohibiting public chants in support of Al-Aqsa Mosque; the scholar also attacked Turkey and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He said that what a number of Turkish pilgrims did inside the Grand Mosque in Makkah, when they chanted in support of Al-Aqsa Mosque and condemned the Israeli occupation, was nothing but a forbidden act.

The same sheikh has not issued any fatwas prohibiting the killing of innocent children and civilians in Yemen and Libya. He has not spoken about the detention of more than 60,000 Muslims in another Arab country or about the killing and dismemberment of a journalist by an allied state.

All of this is permissible in the religion embraced by the sheikh, but chanting for Al-Aqsa Mosque while walking briskly between Safa and Marwah in Makkah is forbidden. Likewise the killing of children, about which he keeps quiet, but if you ask him about songs and music, he will not hesitate to say that they are “haram”.

Similarly, as far as this sheikh and his ilk are concerned, adultery is permissible if the ruler commits it. However, they still prohibit men from shaking hands with women, talking to them or mixing with them. Illicit intimacy is allowed, as long as it is not the ordinary poor people who are involved.

Scholars of the many pharaohs in the Arab world are strange creatures. They do not hesitate to issue a religious fatwa and then issue fatwas that are the opposite of their original fatwas a few years later, as if Islam changes at the beginning of each year, or with the change of the regime.

Israel attacks Al-Aqsa Mosque with the help of Arab nations – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

Fighting in Syria against the regime of Bashar Al-Assad, according to the Pharaoh’s scholars, was commendable jihad until 2016, after which, and without warning, it became terrorism. No one can understand when the fighting is jihad and when it becomes terrorism unless they understand the political position of the country to which that fraud sheikh belongs, because in such cases, the terrorist is anyone who opposes the political regime that the sheikh is affiliated with.

Scholars of the pharaohs are not a new phenomenon, just as the use of religion in politics is not new. Since the Umayyad period (661-1031) and throughout Arab and Islamic history, this phenomenon has existed. The thing that distinguishes the stage in which we live today is the immorality characterised in the hypocrisy towards the ruler and his political regime.

Moreover, pharaonic scholars have become more exposed these days thanks to social media. With fatwas and opinions shared and accessible online, old and new opinions on the same topic can still be viewed and compared, revealing possible contradictions and giving us an insight into how fatwas can be issued according to instructions from the Pharaoh and not religious texts.

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is reported to have said, “If you see a scholar trying to get close to the Sultan, you must know that he is a hypocrite.” Today, however, we find scholars who not only try to get close to rulers, but rather take orders from them and issue their fatwas based on the rulers’ wishes. They receive money from their pharaohs as a price for their fatwas which lend an air of legitimacy to the regime, which is why we see fatwas being issued which are wrapped in politics and have nothing to do with religion. Exploiting religion for political purposes has never been a good idea, but it is prevalent today.