$1.1 Billion And Counting For Navy’s Obstinance In Shutting Down Fuel Tanks

Col. (Ret.) Ann Wright, Popular Resistance. March 25, 2022


https://popularresistance.org/1-1-billion-and-counting-for-navys-obstinance-in-shutting-down-leaking-fuel-tanks/


Navy Decisions on Red Hill Jet Fuel Tanks Very Costly to Military Families, Taxpayers and Hawaii’s Environment.

Total Congressional funding for all aspects of the Navy’s Red Hill water contamination debacle is now over $1.1 billion according to Hawai’i Congressional representative Ed Case and billions more are needed to complete clean-up, defueling and closing of the massive leaking Red Hill jet fuel storage facility.

In a news release on March 9, 2022, Rep. Case said, “These funds ($700 million) are in addition to the $403 million in emergency funding we obtained in another bill we passed just weeks ago, bringing Congress’ total funding for all aspects of Red Hill in the current fiscal year alone to over $1.1 billion. But billions more will be required to complete all aspects of the cleanup, stabilization, defueling and closing of Red Hill and the relocation of its fuel and build fuel storage capacity elsewhere.”

The Red Hill funding appropriation includes $50 million to the Navy for planning and design of future water treatment and distribution infrastructure projects to address the Red Hill drinking water contamination.

A paltry $5 million was included for the improvement of the safety of underground fuel storage tanks at Red Hill as the Navy works to defuel the facility.

The majority of the Red Hill funding includes “$686 million for continued support to displaced service members, civilians and their families.” Thousands of military families were housed in Waikiki hotels for up to three months and were provided temporary living allowances for food and other services.

The appropriation requires the Pentagon give Congress a report within 90 days that would identify future military construction and remediation requirements for Red Hill’s permanent shutdown.

While the Red Hill water crisis strained relations between military leaders and lawmakers, Hawaii’s congressional delegation has lobbied their Congressional counterparts to increase military budgets and operations in Hawaii and the Pacific, not only for Red Hill issues, but other military items, including the “will-it-ever-die” Homeland Defense Radar and Pearl Harbor shipyard.

After two months of military teams “flushing” main pipes and household water taps in the affected areas and testing of only 5% of the 9,715

homes, on March 17, 2022, the Hawai’i State Department of Health cleared the drinking water for the last of 19 zones that contained military and civilian family housing and Navy operational buildings that were contaminated by jet fuel.

With the amendment of the health advisory, the military housing offices for the residential areas notified by email residents from the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH) commanding officer stating their water is safe to drink.

The families who are still occupying temporary alternate lodging are expected to return to their residences within two days.

Most families are not using the water coming from the housing taps. With clean water distribution sites that have provided clean water to families for over 3 months being discontinued on March 21, many families have told local media that they will be purchasing water for drinking and showering as they do not trust the water coming from their “flushed” taps.

Military families who have returned to their homes are reporting air contamination in their homes with many persons having headaches and needing to leave their homes for fresh air. Tap water poured into pans is still showing sheens of fuel. Pets are still refusing to go into yards that have been sprayed with water from sprinkler systems.

Additionally, three months into the health crisis, the military has still not sent a toxicology team to the military medical facilities to help address the long term health concerns of the families.

The Honolulu Board of Water Supply has now appealed to Oahu residents and businesses to voluntarily reduce their water consumption with 20% of Honolulu’s drinking water wells offline in an attempt to reduce the jet fuel plume from moving into more of O’ahu’s aquifer.

Should voluntary water reduction not work, a mandatory reduction will occur in the summer months.

Citizen activism continues to shut down Red Hill in less than the projected one year The Department of Defense projects. The possibility of further major leaks remains a possibility as long as the massive 20 story jet fuel tanks contain fuel only 100 feet above Honolulu’s water supply.

Many Native Hawaiians say the success in the shut down of Red Hill fuel storage facility may be a turning point for the wider island community to join Native Hawaiians in challenging the military’s role in Hawai’i.

University of Hawaiʻi Professor of Hawaiian Studies Kamanamaikalani Beamer said at the heart of that conflict is the military’s terrible record of care of Hawaiʻi’s natural resources.

“Trust is based off of historical relationships and evidence and people’s behavior and all we really have to go off of here in Hawaiʻi, unfortunately, is a series of actions that have been negligent to our islands’ resources,” Beamer said.

Healani Sonoda-Pale, a Native Hawaiian community leader, said, “It’s unfortunate that this crisis happened, but the silver lining is being able to raise the consciousness of other communities and groups that otherwise would never actually critique the role of the military here in Hawaiʻi.”

The water contamination at Red Hill brought together federal, state and local officials as well as a large and vocal group of citizens in opposition to the massive jet fuel storage tanks remaining open.

Sonoda-Pale said the “community’s perception of the military will play a critical role in conversations around its soon-to-expire state land leases, such as the Pohakuloa and Kahuku training areas.”

The strained relations of the Hawai’i public with the U.S. military caused Rear Admiral Tim Kott, Commander of the Navy Region Hawaiʻi, to issue a statement that the Navy is deeply committed to restoring the trust of all people of Hawaiʻi, including Native Hawaiians.

“We know, however, that process will take time and must be earned through our actions not just words. We’ve committed to the closure of Red Hill and have made great strides to return safe drinking water to families in military housing; however, much work remains.”

“As we continue our efforts to close the fuel storage facility, we hope to work with the Native Hawaiian community to help guide us towards a better future that balances the interests of the environment, the native host culture, as well as the nation,” Kott told Hawaiʻi Public Radio.

Ann Wright served 29 years in the US military and retired as a Colonel. She was also a US diplomat and served in US Embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. She resigned from the U.S. government in March 2003 in opposition to the U.S. war on Iraq. She is the co-author of Dissent: Voices of Conscience.

‘The Ukrainian Army Has Been Defeated’

Mike Whitney,

The Unz Review. March 25, 2022



https://popularresistance.org/larry-c-johnson-the-ukrainian-army-has-been-defeated-whats-left-is-mop-up/





“What’s Left Is Mop-Up.”

Question 1– Can you explain to me why you think Russia is winning the war in Ukraine?

Larry C. Johnson– Within the first 24 hours of the Russian military operation in Ukraine, all Ukrainian Ground Radar Intercept capabilities were wiped out. Without those radars, the Ukrainian Air Force lost its ability to do air to air intercept. In the intervening three weeks, Russia has established a de facto No Fly Zone over Ukraine. While still vulnerable to shoulder fired Surface to Air Missiles supplied by the U.S. and NATO to the Ukrainians, there is no evidence that Russia has had to curtail Combat Air Operations.

Russia’s arrival in Kiev within three days of the invasion also caught my attention. I recalled that the Nazi’s in Operation Barbarossa took seven weeks to reach Kiev and the required 7 more weeks to subdue the city. The Nazis had the advantage of not pulling punches to avoid civilian casualties and were eager to destroy critical infrastructure. Yet many so-called American military experts claimed that Russia was bogged down. When a 24 mile (or 40 mile, depends on the news source) was positioned north of Kiev for more than a week, it was clear that Ukraine’s ability to launch significant military operations had been eliminated. If their artillery was intact, then that column was easy pickings for massive destruction. That did not happen. Alternatively, if the Ukrainian’s had a viable fixed wing or rotary wing capability they should have destroyed that column from the air. That did not happen. Or, if they had a viable cruise missile capability they should have rained down hell on the supposedly stalled Russian column. That did not happen. The Ukrainians did not even mount a significant infantry ambush of the column with their newly supplied U.S. Javelins.

The scale and scope of the Russian attack is remarkable. They captured territory in three weeks that is larger than the land mass of the United Kingdom. They then proceeded to carry out targeted attacks on key cities and military installations. We have not seen a single instance of a Ukrainian regiment or brigade size unit attacking and defeating a comparable Russian unit. Instead, the Russians have split the Ukrainian Army into fragments and cut their lines of communication. The Russians are consolidating their control of Mariupol and have secured all approaches on the Black Sea. Ukraine is now cut off in the South and the North.

I would note that the U.S. had a tougher time capturing this much territory in Iraq in 2003 while fighting against a far inferior, less capable military force. If anything, this Russian operation should scare the hell out of U.S. military and political leaders.

The really big news came this week with the Russian missile strikes on what are de facto NATO bases in Yavoriv and Zhytomyr. NATO conducted cyber security training at Zhytomyr in September 2018 and described Ukraine as a “NATO partner.” Zhytomyr was destroyed with hypersonic missiles on Saturday. Yavoriv suffered a similar fate last Sunday. It was the primary training and logistics center that NATO and EUCOM used to supply fighters and weapons to Ukraine. A large number of the military and civilian personnel at that base became casualties.

Not only is Russia striking and destroying bases used by NATO regularly since 2015, but there was no air raid warning and there was no shutdown of the attacking missiles.

Question 2– Why is the media trying to convince the Ukrainian people that they can prevail in their war against Russia? If what you say is correct, then all the civilians that are being sent to fight the Russian army, are dying in a war they can’t win. I don’t understand why the media would want to mislead people on something so serious. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Larry C. Johnson– This is a combination of ignorance and laziness. Rather than do real reporting, the vast majority of the media (print and electronic) as well as Big Tech are supporting a massive propaganda campaign. I remember when George W. Bush was Hitler. I remember when Donald Trump was Hitler. And now we have a new Hitler, Vladimir Putin. This is a tired, failed playbook. Anyone who dares to raise legitimate questions about is immediately tarred as a Putin puppet or a Russia stooge. When you cannot argue facts the only recourse is name calling.

Question 3– Last week, Colonel Douglas MacGregor was a guest on the Tucker Carlson Show. His views on the war are strikingly similar to your own. Here’s what he said in the interview:


“The war is really over for the Ukrainians. They have been ground into bits, there is no question about that despite what we hear from our mainstream media. So, the real question for us at this stage is, Tucker, are we going to live with the Russian people and their government or we going to continue to pursue this sort of regime change dressed up as a Ukrainian war? Are we going to stop using Ukraine as a battering ram against Moscow, which is effectively what we’ve done.” (Tucker Carlson– MacGregor Interview)

Do you agree with MacGregor that the real purpose of goading Russia into a war in Ukraine was “regime change”?

Second, do you agree that Ukraine is being used as a staging ground for the US to carry out a proxy-war on Russia?

Larry C. Johnson– Doug is great analyst but I disagree with him—I don’t think there is anyone in the Biden Administration that is smart enough to think and plan in those strategic terms. In my view the last 7 years have been the inertia of the NATO status quo. What I mean by that is that NATO and Washington, believed they could continue to creep east on Russia’s borders without provoking a reaction. NATO and EUCOM regularly carried out exercises—including providing “offensive” training—and supplied equipment. I believe reports in the United States that the CIA was providing paramilitary training to Ukrainian units operating in the Donbass are credible. But I have trouble believing that after our debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, we suddenly have Sun Tzu level strategists pulling the strings in Washington.

There is an air of desperation in Washington. Besides trying ban all things Russian, the Biden Administration is trying to bully China, India and Saudi Arabia. I do not see any of those countries falling into line. I believe the Biden crew made a fatal mistake by trying to demonize all things and all people Russian. If anything, this is uniting the Russian people behind Putin and they are ready to dig in for a long struggle.

I am shocked at the miscalculation in thinking economic sanctions on Russia would bring them to their knees. The opposite is true. Russia is self-sufficient and is not dependent on imports. Its exports are critical to the economic well-being of the West. If they withhold wheat, potash, gas, oil, palladium, finished nickel and other key minerals from the West, the European and U.S. economies will be savaged. And this attempt to coerce Russia with sanctions has now made it very likely that the U.S. dollar’s role as the international reserve currency will show up in the dustbin of history.

Question 4– Ever since he delivered his famous speech in Munich in 2007, Putin has been complaining about the “architecture of global security”. In Ukraine we can see how these nagging security issues can evolve into a full-blown war. As you know, in December Putin made a number of demands related to Russian security, but the Biden administration shrugged them off and never responded. Putin wanted written assurances that NATO expansion would not include Ukraine (membership) and that nuclear missile systems would not be deployed to Romania or Poland. Do you think Putin’s demands are unreasonable?

Larry C. Johnson– I think Putin’s demands are quite reasonable. The problem is that 99% of Americans have no idea of the kind of military provocation that NATO and the U.S. have carried out over the last 7 years. The public was always told the military exercises were “defensive.” That simply is not true. Now we have news that DTRA was funding biolabs in Ukraine. I guess Putin could agree to allow U.S. nuclear missile systems in Poland and Romania if Biden agrees to allow comparable Russian systems to be deployed in Cuba, Venezuela and Mexico. When we look at it in those terms we can begin to understand that Putin’s demands are not crazy nor unreasonable.

Question 5– Russian media reports that Russian “high precision, air-launched” missiles struck a facility in west Ukraine “killing more than 100 local troops and foreign mercenaries.” Apparently, the Special Operations training center was located near the town of Ovruch which is just 15 miles from the Polish border. What can you tell us about this incident? Was Russia trying to send a message to NATO?

Larry C. Johnson– Short answer—YES! Russian military strikes in Western Ukraine during the past week have shocked and alarmed NATO officials. The first blow came on Sunday, March 13 at Yavoriv, Ukraine. Russia hit the base with several missiles, some reportedly hypersonic. Over 200 personnel were killed, which included American and British military and intelligence personnel, and hundreds more wounded. Many suffered catastrophic wounds, such as amputations, and are in hospital. Yet, NATO and the western media have shown little interest in reporting on this disaster.

Yavoriv was an important forward base for NATO (see here). Until February (prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine), the U.S. 7th Army Training Command was operating from Yavoriv as late as mid-February. Russia has not stopped there. ASB Military news reports Russia hit another site, Delyatyn, which is 60 miles southeast of Yavoriv (on Thursday I believe). Yesterday, Russia hit Zytomyr, another site where NATO previously had a presence. Putin has sent a very clear message—NATO forces in Ukraine will be viewed and treated as combatants. Period.

Question 6– Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been lionized in the western media as a “wartime leader” and a modern-day “Winston Churchill”. What the media fails to tell its readers is that Zelensky has taken a number of steps to strengthen his grip on power while damaging fragile democratic institutions in Ukraine. For example, Zelensky has “banned eleven opposition-owned news organizations” and tried to bar the head of Ukraine’s largest opposition party, Viktor Medvedchuk, from running for office on a bogus “terrorist financing” charge. This is not the behavior of a leader that is seriously committed to democracy.

What’s your take on Zelensky? Is he really the “patriotic leader” the media makes him out to be?

Larry C. Johnson– Zelensky is a comedian and an actor. Not a very good one at that in my view. The West is cynically using the fact he is Jewish as a diversion from the size-able contingent of Neo-Nazis (and I mean genuine Nazis who still celebrate the Ukrainian Waffen SS unit’s accomplishments while fighting with the Nazis in WW II). The facts are clear—he is banning opposition political parties and shutting down opposition media. I guess that is the new definition of “democracy.”

Question 7– How does this end? There’s an excellent post at the Moon of Alabama site titled “What Will Be The Geographic End State Of The War In Ukraine“. The author of the post, Bernard, seems to think that Ukraine will eventually be partitioned along the Dnieper River “and south along the coast that holds a majority ethnic Russian population.” He also says this:


“This would eliminate Ukrainian access to the Black Sea and create a land bridge towards the Moldavian breakaway Transnistria which is under Russian protection. The rest of the Ukraine would be a land confined, mostly agricultural state, disarmed and too poor to be build up to a new threat to Russia anytime soon. Politically it would be dominated by fascists from Galicia which would then become a major problem for the European Union.”

What do you think? Will Putin impose his own territorial settlement on Ukraine in order to reinforce Russian security and bring the hostilities to an end or is a different scenario more likely?

Larry C. Johnson– I agree with Moon. Putin’s primary objective is to secure Russia from foreign threats and effect a divorce with the West. Russia has the physical resources to be an independent sovereign and is in the process of making that vision come true.

US Peace Council Statement On Russia’s Military Intervention In Ukraine

By U.S. Peace Council. March 25, 2022



https://popularresistance.org/u-s-peace-council-statement-on-russias-military-intervention-in-ukraine/



What we all hoped would not happen has happened. The Russian Federation sent troops into Ukraine on February 24 in response to decades of relentless US-led NATO provocation. The present situation puts many serious, fundamental questions before the global peace movement.

A fierce propaganda campaign, long simmering with Russiagate and the onset of a new Cold War, demonizing the Russian president and state has intensified. Wholesale condemnation of Russia has assumed global proportions, instigated by the US and allies, and supported by their sycophantic media. Alternative views and voices of opposition to the official anti-Russian narrative have been suppressed or shut down.

Not surprisingly, many people subjected to this toxic bombardment of massive imperialist propaganda have placed all the blame on Russian aggression. Various reasons are given to justify their, in our view dangerous, position. Let us look at some of these justifications and assess the degree of their moral, legal, and political validity.
Applying the UN Charter

The first and most morally justifiable reason given is the argument that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is in violation of the Charter of the United Nations. Based on this fundamental principle, shouldn’t the U.S. Peace Council, a staunch supporter and advocate of the Charter, also condemn Russia as a violator?

Let us look at the UN Charter to see whether we can firmly decide that Russia is in violation:

Article 2

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.


4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.


Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations….

Looking at Article 2, especially paragraph 4, it can be argued that Russia is in violation. But based on Article 51, the Russian Federation has invoked its right to self-defense and has duly informed the Security Council. Russia presents important arguments in favor of its use of force under Article 51.

The Ukraine government has acted as the US and NATO’s proxy in hostilely encircling the Russian Federation. Ukraine military and paramilitaries have attacked Donetsk and Lugansk since 2014, resulting in the deaths of some 14,000 of their own people, many of whom were Russian speakers and some Russian citizens. Most recently, Russia discovered an imminent Ukrainian government plan for a large-scale invasion of the Donetsk and Lugansk that border Russia. Russia now recognizes these two republics as independent states, after they asked Russia to aid in their defense.

Russia clearly asked for security guarantees from the US and NATO, which refused to adequately respond to Russia’s concerns. Ukraine was planning to host US/NATO nuclear weapons on its territory that could reach Moscow in a matter of five minutes. This took place in the alarming context of the US decision in 2019 to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia.

If this is not an act of war against Russia, what is it? Aren’t those who are complicit in an act of murder equally guilty of murder? This is not to say that Russia was right in its decision. Rather we are insisting that the UN Charter should be applied to Ukraine on the basis of facts, as a specific case with a given historical background.

Second, the United Nations itself has been unsuccessful in upholding its own Charter in the face of blatant violations by the NATO states. Here, our intention is not to justify the Russian action, but to provide a realistic context for the need to uphold the UN Charter.

Since the end of the Soviet Union, when the US became the sole superpower, Washington has blatantly ignored the UN Charter in its drive to impose global “full spectrum” dominance. We should understand NATO as more than just an “alliance” of nominally sovereign states, but as an imperial military integrated under US command.

Let us look at two of the relevant articles of the UN Charter that have been trampled upon by the imperialist powers since the end of the century:

Article 6.

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.


Article 25.

The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.


US, NATO, and their allies have increasingly violated these and other articles of the UN Charter over the past two decades. Here are just a few examples:

— In 1998 for 78 days, NATO attacked, dropped 28,000 bombs, and shattered Yugoslavia into pieces without the consent of the United Nations.

— In 2001, as a response to the 9/11 attack, US declared an indefinite “war on terror,” affecting at least 60 countries, including seven targeted for illegal regime change.

— In 2003, US and the members of its “coalition of the willing” illegally attacked and invaded Iraq in defiance of the UN Security Council.

— In 2011 US, UK, and France unilaterally and without the consent of the UN Security Council attacked Libya and killed its leader, Moammar Qaddafi.

— Starting in 2011, US, NATO, and regional allies started a proxy war in Syria by arming and funding terrorist groups, a war which is still taking innocent lives.

— In 2014, the US staged a coup with the help of neo-Nazi forces in Ukraine and established a pro-NATO government, which led to the massacre of Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine.

— Throughout this period, the US and its European allies have imposed illegal unilateral economic sanctions on more than 40 countries of the world, causing the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

— And, of course, one should mention the illegal occupation and annexation of Syrian and Palestinian territories by Israel with full support of the United States.

The crisis facing us in Ukraine today is a result of the UN’s inability to uphold its charter against such illegal actions by the sole superpower and its NATO allies, which has enabled US/NATO to push Russia and other targeted nations of the world into such an impossible situation.

Yes, we should defend the UN Charter, but not selectively as imperialism hypocritically wants us to. We should not allow ourselves to be duped by imperialism’s “blame the victim” narrative when the victim is forced to defend itself.
Inter-Imperialist War

Many, especially on the left, have taken the position that Russia is a capitalist/imperialist state, that this is an inter-imperialist war, and that we have to condemn both sides equally. But whether or not Russia is an imperialist state is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

First, such a position implies that only countries with certain socio-economic systems need to be defended against imperialist aggression and others should be left to fend for themselves. Given the fact that the majority of countries targeted by imperialism are capitalist themselves, such a position leads to weakening the anti-imperialist struggle.

The second and more important problem with this kind of argument is that it removes the whole issue of aggression from the picture. It no longer matters who is the aggressor and who is the victim. It obviates the fact that the US seeks to be the world’s hegemon with global “full-spectrum” dominance. In short, US imperialism generated a war without using US soldiers.

Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that Russia is indeed an imperialist state and that what is going on is nothing but an inter-imperialist war. Even so, isn’t this inter-imperialist war going to impact the future of humanity? Don’t we all have a stake in its outcome?
False Equivalency of US/NATO and Russian Roles

As a peace organization, we cannot principally agree with the escalation of the Ukraine conflict to the level of military confrontation. However, we oppose the one-sided position of condemning Russia alone.

Some others have taken a more “balanced” position of condemning both sides, by simultaneously calling a halt in NATO expansion and the withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine. But this position, too, ignores the causal relationships inherent the Ukraine situation. It places the cause and effect on the same level, while ignoring the fact that the NATO expansion is the material cause of the Russian military response. For these reasons, the position of equivalent blame superficially looks balanced but, in reality, isn’t.

Second, the natures of the two demands are different. The first is a general, strategic, long-term demand;
the second is an immediate and concrete one. By formulating the demands in this way, such a position inevitably ends up putting the main pressure on Russia alone.

Third, the first demand about NATO expansion is not specific to the case of Ukraine while the second one is. It ignores the fact that US/NATO has flooded Ukraine with hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of military equipment along with dispatching military and covert operations personnel to “advise.” A correct demand would be recognition of Ukraine as a neutral state, removal of all foreign weapons and military personnel (including mercenaries) from Ukraine, and full implementation of Minsk II agreement.

NATO’s success in its effort to expand to the Ukraine-Russia border would create a hellish world and lead to the possibility of a nuclear war. Let us not forget that the story would not end there, and Belarus could be the next target. So, it is imperative for the peace movement to do everything we can to guarantee Ukraine’s neutrality and US/NATO’s recognition of it.
U.S. Peace Council Assessment

The US with its NATO allies have not only provoked this tragedy but have sought to prolong it in their refusal to engage in negotiations for a ceasefire. While no one wins in a war, the US has had the most to gain: further unifying NATO under US domination, reducing Russian economic competition in the European energy market, justifying increasing the US war budget, and facilitating sales of war materiel to NATO vassals. A Europe further divided between the EU/UK and Russia benefits none but the imperial US.

On the basis of this assessment of the present situation in Ukraine, the U.S. Peace Council raises the following immediate demands, in order of priority and urgency:

1. Immediate ceasefire and dispatch of humanitarian aid to Ukraine, including the self-proclaimed independent republics.

2. Recognition of the neutrality of Ukraine.

3. Withdrawal of foreign militaries, weapons, and equipment – including mercenaries – from Ukraine.

4. Resumption of negotiations for a permanent settlement of internal conflicts in Ukraine with the participation of all parties concerned.

Bessemer Alabama Amazon Workers Continue Struggle To Unionize

By Saladin Muhammad, Black Agenda Report. March 25, 2022



https://popularresistance.org/bessemer-alabama-amazon-workers-continue-struggle-to-unionize/





The mostly Black labor force at an Amazon fulfillment center in Bessemer, Alabama will have a second opportunity to vote for unionization.

Bessemer, Alabama – The second Bessemer Alabama Amazon workers and Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) labor board union vote will be counted starting on March 28th. It comes as a result of the National Labor Relations Board ruling that Amazon’s anti-union actions in the 2021 union campaign, was in violation of laws in the National Labor Relations Act.

When looking at the challenges and meaning of the Bessemer Amazon union campaigns, It’s important to have a long view of organizing labor in the South. Transnational corporations like Amazon are attracted to the South, because of the low wages, its anti-union laws and the racist divisions in the working-class.

The 75% Black worker majority at the Bessemer Amazon warehouse in 2021, gave many in the labor and social justice movements a glimmer of hope, that the Bessemer workers union campaign amidst the Black Lives Matter climate, might become a spark for organizing labor across the South.

With the technological changes in production and the US and international supply chain, Amazon has emerged as a 21st Century core industry in the US national and global economy. It was prepared to do whatever was necessary to crush the Bessemer Amazon union vote, even if its actions were in violation of the law.

It did not matter that newly elected President Biden released a public press statement expressing support for the right of workers to unionize (even though it did not explicitly endorse the Amazon pro-union campaign and vote). It reflects the growing dominance of corporate power over all levels of US government.

During the last two months leading up to the 2021 Bessemer union vote, national solidarity actions in support of the Bessemer union vote were held in 50 cities and 20 states across the US. These actions were responding to a call for holding a National Day of Action in Solidarity with Bessemer Amazon worker’s union vote, made by the Southern Workers Assembly (SWA). The SWA is a network of developing local worker assemblies and industrial and sector unity councils, helping to build an infrastructure for organizing social movement unionism in the South.

Self-organized rank-n-file committees in Amazon warehouses and delivery centers, organizing groups like Amazonians United and some labor union interests in organizing in Amazon, became more visible, as the breath of national solidarity for Bessemer began to show itself. The Queens and Staten Island New York Amazon workers’ independent union initiatives and the Starbucks union campaigns are part of this growing and expanding rank-n-file social movement.

They are engaging in concerted actions, fighting around issues and winning improvements in working conditions. A recent first multistate walkout took place involving night shift Amazon workers in two delivery stations in New York and one in Maryland, demanding a $3-dollar an hour wage increase.

Several estimates of high Bessemer Amazon worker turnover since the 2021 union vote, indicate that nearly half of the 6000 workers eligible to participate in this 2022 union vote, are new employees. This makes a mainly union card signing and mobilizing for labor board votes organizing approach more difficult, especially when it is a single workplace campaign and against a behemoth corporation like Amazon, the 2nd largest corporation in the US with 1.1 million employees.

Whatever the outcome of the union vote, the Bessemer Amazon union campaign has helped to highlight the importance of making organizing Amazon, one of the major priorities for rebuilding the strength of the US national labor movement, and for organizing labor in the South.

Win or lose the union vote, the Bessemer Amazon workers should maintain their organization, join the social movement unionism developing throughout Amazon and help to expand it throughout the South.

Devastation In Postwar Afghanistan

By Baher Kamal, Consortium News.

March 26, 2022



https://popularresistance.org/devastation-in-postwar-afghanistan/


What the U.S. left behind: Baher Kamal reports on the widespread misery left in the wake of the 20-year brutal war by the U.S.-led military coalition.


NOTE: The Libertarian Institute reports: “The White House has canceled meetings with the Taliban over its refusal to allow young girls to attend high school, scrapping talks intended to address Afghanistan’s crumbling economy and a looming humanitarian catastrophe.

A State Department official confirmed the move on Friday, telling Reuters that Washington called off talks set for Qatar over the weekend after the Taliban-led government made a “deeply disappointing and inexplicable reversal of commitments to the Afghan people.”

“We have canceled some of our engagements, including planned meetings in Doha, and made clear that we see this decision as a potential turning point in our engagement,” the unnamed official said.”

Following 20 long years (2011-2021) of brutal war on Afghanistan by the U.S.-led military coalition, which ended up delivering the country to the Taliban in August 2021, 23 million Afghans now face a devastating humanitarian crisis: severe and acute hunger, economic bankruptcy, healthcare system collapse and unbearable family indebtedness.

People in Afghanistan are today facing a food insecurity and malnutrition crisis of “unparalleled proportions,” Ramiz Alakbarov, deputy special representative for the U.N. secretary general, reported on March 15.

“The rapid increase in those experiencing acute hunger – from 14 million in July 2021 to 23 million in March 2022 – has forced households to resort to desperate measures such as skipping meals or taking on unprecedented debt to ensure there is some food on the table at the end of the day.”

“These unacceptable trade-offs have caused untold suffering, reduced the quality, quantity, and diversity of food available, led to high levels of wasting in children, and other harmful impacts on the physical and mental wellbeing of women, men, and children,” the U.N. high official warned.

Human Rights Watch reported last week that 1-in-10 newborns have died since the start of this year, 13,000 in total.

In Afghanistan, a staggering 95 per cent of the population is not eating enough food, with that percentage rising to almost 100 per cent for female-headed households. It is a figure so high that it is almost inconceivable. Yet, devastatingly, it is the harsh reality, added Alakbarov.

Hospital wards are filled with children suffering from malnutrition: smaller than they should be, many weighing at one year what an infant of six months would weigh in a developed country, and some so weak they are unable to move. 

Facing Debt

As Afghanistan continues to grapple with the effects of a terrible drought, the prospect of another bad harvest this year, a banking and financial crisis so severe that it has left more than 80 percent of the population facing debt, and an increase in food and fuel prices, the crisis reality facing communities cannot be ignored. Enormous challenges lie ahead, said the U.N. humanitarian coordinator for Afghanistan.

“Acute malnutrition rates in 28 out of 34 provinces are high with more than 3.5 million children in need of nutrition treatment support. Afghanistan’s health system is on the brink of collapse. Unless urgent action is taken, the country faces an imminent humanitarian catastrophe, warned the U.N. top humanitarian official, Martin Griffiths, last September, that’s just one month after the U.S.-led military coalition abandoned the country in a sudden, chaotic withdrawal.

“Allowing Afghanistan’s health care delivery system to fall apart would be disastrous,” said Griffiths, the U.N. undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator.

“People across the country would be denied access to primary healthcare such as emergency caesarean sections and trauma care,” she said.
 

Combined Shocks

The combined shocks of drought, conflict, Covid-19 and an economic crisis in Afghanistan, have left more than half the population facing a record level of acute hunger, according to a U.N. assessment published at the end of last October.

An Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) report co-led by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Food Program (WFP), revealed by the end of last October that the lives, livelihoods and access to food for 22.8 million people will be severely impacted.

“It is urgent that we act efficiently and effectively to speed up and scale up our delivery in Afghanistan before winter cuts off a large part of the country, with millions of people –including farmers, women, young children and the elderly – going hungry in the freezing winter”, FAO Director-General QU Dongyu said at the time. “It is a matter of life or death.”

The IPC report found that more than 1-in-2 Afghans would face Phase 3 crisis or Phase 4 emergency levels of acute food insecurity from November through the March lean season, requiring an urgent international response to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. This is the highest number of acutely food insecure people ever recorded by the U.N., during 10 years of conducting IPC analyses in Afghanistan.

Globally, the country is home to one of the largest numbers of people facing acute hunger.
 

Children Dying

“Hunger is rising and children are dying”, the WFP Executive Director David Beasley said in October. “We can’t feed people on promises – funding commitments must turn into hard cash, and the international community must come together to address this crisis, which is fast spinning out of control.” The report revealed a 37 percent surge in the number of Afghans facing acute hunger since its last assessment in April.

Last month, WFP and the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF) warned that without immediate life-saving treatment, one million children risked dying from severe acute malnutrition.

And for the first time, urban residents are suffering from food insecurity at similar rates to rural communities.

Meanwhile, rampant unemployment and a liquidity crisis are putting all major urban centers in danger of slipping into a Phase 4 emergency level of food insecurity, including formerly middle class populations.

In rural areas, the severe impact of a second drought in four years continues to affect the livelihoods of 7.3 million people who rely on agriculture and livestock to survive.

This has been the horrifying cost of another brutal war on unarmed human beings.

Abolish Frontex And Demilitarize Europe’s Borders

By People's Dispatch. March 26, 2022




https://popularresistance.org/eat-nato-for-breakfast-abolish-frontex-and-demilitarize-europes-borders/


The war in Ukraine has revealed the double standards in how the EU treats refugees.

What are the roots of this hypocrisy, and why must we fight it?

As the war in Ukraine enters its fourth week, EU authorities are increasingly revealing their double standards in how they treat refugees. European countries have welcomed white Ukrainian refugees, quickly integrating them into the labor market and schools. Meanwhile, Black and Brown refugees from the Global South continue to experience Europe’s racist border regime.

Reports coming out in news globally shows that people from the African continent who have lived in Ukraine for years are not receiving the same treatment as white Ukrainians. Refugees trying to reach Europe from Africa and West Asia are violently rejected, as exemplified by the brutality on the border between Morocco and Spain surrounding Melilla, occurring just a couple of days after European governments opened their doors to Ukrainian refugees.

In the span of 2 weeks, Europe absorbed 3 million Ukrainian refugees. When the Syrian war was at its peak—a war escalated by NATO bombing—around a million black and brown refugees who fled to Europe were met with closed borders, militarized guards, and xenophobia.

Episode 7 of the “Eat NATO for Breakfast” show addressed the militarization of European borders and the double standard in the treatment of migrants and refugees. Here we offer a summary of the arguments presented by Sara Reader and Carrie Hou from Abolish Frontex.
What Is Frontex?

Frontex is the European Union’s border agency, and plays a key role in enforcing the EU’s racist, colonial and militarized border regime. Frontex began as a small agency in Poland, but has become the most powerful agency in the EU, with a budget of 5.6 billion euros for the years of 2021-2027. Although Frontex is overseen by the EU Commission, in practice it operates as a rogue agency with little transparency and accountability. The EU Commission, in turn, distances itself from Frontex.

The agency now purchases its own equipment, such as ships, helicopters and drones, from the arms, security and surveillance companies which have lobbied to become influential in shaping the EU’s border and defense policies.

Frontex aims to have its own army of 10,000 armed border guards by 2027 to “guard” against those seeking asylum. These are refugees of conflict and violence, often due to Western and NATO bombing or occupation.

Since 1993, 44,764 people have died because of the militarized policies of Fortress Europe: drowned in the Mediterranean, shot at borders, killed by suicide at detention centers, or tortured and killed post-deportation. All of these deaths were avoidable; many of these people fled their homes for political, climate, health or economic reasons, all in which EU and NATO actions have played a decisive role.
Frontex Violates Human Rights

Frontex is responsible for human rights violations in its operations: illegal pushbacks, violence against migrants, deportations, and in its role in strengthening EU borders.

Frontex also uses “risk analyses”: analytical reports which determine the level of the so-called “risk” that the “migration threat” poses to the EU. Frontex uses these reports to influence how the EU acts in accordance with the purported “risk” level, thus reinforcing border control, expanding Frontex’s deployments and growing the agency’s resources.

Frontex often depicts migration as a “threat”, adding fuel to the flames of nationalism, racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia.
Europe, A Warmongering Continent

Security and protection are central topics in the official agenda of the European Union. These concepts are based on the history of unequal relations between the center of imperial capitalism and its peripheries. Europe’s richest countries built themselves on centuries of the underdevelopment of the Global South using colonialism, imperialism, violence, slavery, exploitation, oppression and exclusion.

This legacy continues: The EU continues to fuel wars, instability and repression through arms sales and other forms of support to countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel. Military operations cause the death, destruction and destabilization of countries, communities and economies. Unequal trade relations, exploitation and exclusion maintain and exacerbate poverty. The EU is one of the main drivers of climate change through its extractivist and fossil-fuel dependent economy.

For all of Europe’s proclamations regarding “defending liberal democracy and human rights”, Europe is and has been one of the largest exporters of human rights violations.

We must challenge the idea of “security” and “defense”, and understand whose interests are being defended and whose lives are considered disposable. Through its influence on European governments and institutions, the arms industry has created a militarized concept of security. Whether the issue is migration, climate change, civil unrest and protest, or a pandemic, the arms industry frames these issues as “threats”.
Europe’s Hypocrisy

As has been made clear over the past month: the EU is capable of welcoming refugees with open arms. The question is not capacity, instead it is political will. The way Europe has responded to the 3 million white refugees who have fled Ukraine is remarkable when compared to how Black and Brown refugees have been and continue to be treated.

The so-called “refugee crisis” of 2015 was used to further militarize Europe’s borders. Only 1 million people entered Europe over the course of a year due to panic over migrants. The people fleeing Ukraine surpassed that number only in the first week of war. This hypocritical double standard must be eliminated.
The Situation In Eastern Europe

Since the 1990s, EU member states and the Schengen Area have built nearly 1000 km of walls to prevent displaced people from migrating into Europe. These physical walls are accompanied by even longer “maritime walls”, i.e. naval operations patrolling the Mediterranean, as well as “virtual walls”, i.e. border control systems that seek to stop people entering or even traveling within Europe.

Poland has begun construction on a wall to prevent undocumented migrants from crossing its border. The wall, spanning over 180 kilometers and reaching heights of up to 5.5 meters, will be equipped with motion detectors and thermal cameras. Less than six months ago, Poland declared a state of emergency at its border with Belarus when thousands of people, primarily Kurdish people from Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, and Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, were trapped at the border in freezing weather conditions without food or medical attention.

The government has sent in thousands of military personnel and created a two-mile militarized zone, barring health workers, aid workers and journalists from entering. Several people have died on both sides of the border, and few were able to apply for asylum. Many were immediately pushed back into Belarus and beaten by border guards. 1,500 people were stuck in detention centers inside Poland.

Poland’s president Andrzej Duda declared: “The time has come when you need to defend your homeland. We need to guard our borders more than before.” Frontex director Fabrice Legerri visited the Polish-Belarus border in October 2021, and was “impressed by the means deployed to secure the border”, thanking Poland for cooperating with Frontex through ongoing exchange of information and providing the Agency with data on the situation in the Polish section of the external border. These are the same borders which are now welcoming millions of white refugees from Ukraine.
What Are The Demands Of The Abolish Frontex Movement?

The main demand of Abolish Frontex is the institution of safe migration routes for all, permanently, not only in times of crisis. But Frontex is only the tip of the iceberg. Abolish Frontex wants to build a radical platform that connects and amplifies different demands, such as the right for all to move and live freely, an end of illegal detentions and deportations, an end to the surveillance, criminalization and repression of migrants, and the demilitarization of borders.

Abolish Frontex, inspired by the police abolition movement in the US, wants to provide concrete steps towards abolishing the EU border regime and the system it represents. Over 115 groups have joined the campaign since the launch.

The pandemic laid bare the impact of years of austerity politics and the decimation and privatization of national health services as well as globalized and unjust trade relations in Europe. As governments scrambled to respond to the crisis and provide enough hospital beds, staff, protective equipment and ventilators, it became obvious, even to those uncritical of militarism, that the concept of security being sold to us does not, in reality, keep us safe.

There is an urgent need to tackle the root causes of climate change, inequality and conflict fueled by the European weapons industry. Europe needs radical social change and investment in welfare, housing, education, the transition to a low-carbon economy, healthcare and other public services.

Europeans need to build and strengthen internationalist, anti-capitalist and decolonial movements, and understand the economic and political system as a whole and the role that war, militarism and the arms trade serve to maintain the colonial, capitalist system.

The Minneapolis Teachers’ Strike Isn’t Over Until The Workers Decide It’s Over

By Tatiana Cozzarelli, Left Voice. March 26, 2022




https://popularresistance.org/the-minneapolis-teachers-strike-isnt-over-until-the-workers-decide-its-over/





The Minneapolis Public School District reached a tentative agreement with the teachers’ union and only a few hours later, called families and teachers to say the strike is over.

But teachers have the right to read the proposed agreement, discuss and decide. The strike isn’t over until rank and file teachers say it is.

As Minneapolis teachers are nearing the end of the third week of their strike, a tentative agreement was reached early Friday morning between the union’s negotiating team and the Minneapolis public school district.

Before the agreement was even released to the teachers, the district began flooding parents and educators with messages that classes are back on Monday.

This is a lie.

A tentative agreement does not end a strike.

Only the workers on strike (in this case, the teachers and support staff) have the ability to do that — and they need time and space to read the tentative agreement, discuss it among their co-workers, community members and families, and then vote on it. The TA will be voted on by the rank and file on Sunday. Educators have the right to vote in favor or against the agreement.

The strike is not over until the teachers say it is. And it’s certainly not over before teachers even get to read the contract.

Make no mistake, the goal of the school district here is to create confusion, intimidate teachers, and erode community support for the strike.

Throughout the strike, there has been broad community support for the strike, expressed in donuts delivered to picket lines, in cars honking in solidarity as they pass, and even a student occupation of the Davis Center, where negotiations are being held.

Now that a tentative agreement has been reached, the district is lying to parents and families — giving them the idea that the strike is over and that kids will be back in the classroom on Monday. Now, if teachers vote down the tentative agreement — which is their right — the district will try to spin it to erode community support.

It’s a disgusting, strike-breaking tactic on the part of the district. But the teachers don’t buy it; as they have chanted over and over: they plan to “hold the line.” And teachers must hold the line until the rank and file have decided that this is a satisfactory agreement. Or, if they don’t find it satisfactory, they must hold the line until an acceptable agreement is reached.

At the Henry High School picket line, one teacher, speaking on the megaphone to a crowd of staff and students said: “Don’t believe [the robocalls]. We have to vote on the contract first. It is a tactic that MPS is using to get us to vote ‘yes’ on the contract, but we are still in charge. We are in charge. Who’s got the power? We got the power!

”The community understands that teachers are on strike to improve the learning conditions for their kids. This is a strike for Minneapolis kids and the Minneapolis community, as much as it’s a strike about teachers.

Teachers are striking not only for salary increases, but also for a better education for all students. This includes hiring more guidance counselors, recruiting and retaining teachers of color, and offering smaller class sizes. They are also demanding higher wages for Educational Support Professionals who earn as little as $24,000 a year. They know that Minneapolis has the money — the city just increased wages for police officers, and there is a $9 billion surplus in the state of Minnesota.

Some teachers are demanding that the Tentative Agreement not be voted on until Monday. As one teacher said to us: “We need more time to look at the contract … The strike is not over. We are still here, wondering what agreement has been made. We need to meet as a school community to decide if we should approve it or vote no on it.”

Similarly, students who have been occupying the Davis Center, where contract negotiations were taking place, said: “We know how the MPS said we would be going back to school on Monday. But we’re waiting for the call from [the union], we are waiting for your guys’ approval because I know you want what is best for me and my peers. We will be by your side if we go back to school on Monday, in three weeks…”
“We are Not One, We are All of Us”

When students organized a sit-in at the Davis Center, one of the administrators asked a few students to meet privately, away from their peers, to discuss their demands. The students refused. They argued that anything that had to be said should be said in front of all students.

“We are not one, we are all of us,” one student declared.

The same spirit applies here. It’s not up to a handful of people to decide when the strike is over. It’s up to all the teachers and ESPs. And it’s essential that those on strike have time and space and structure to discuss the contract.

Every morning, teachers are on picket lines at their school. Sometimes they get in a circle and listen to announcements. Now, teachers need to meet, with the tentative agreement in hand and decide on whether this is an acceptable contract. Each school, where teachers and community members have been gathering to fundraise, have coffee or share a meal, should become a space for democratic discussion — to listen to each other, to weigh the options and then to vote.

A tentative agreement does not mean the strike is over. The teachers must discuss and democratically decide on their plan of action.