Our discussion of the first two chapters of Capital. Since it's a decent sized group we have two meetings each week and people attend whichever works for them. We'll be reading about 60-70 pages a week. If you're interested in starting a local reading group and discussing with us, or interested in any other communication please reach out to lpfjody@gmail.com.
Saturday, July 24, 2021
Monday, July 12, 2021
Capital 1: Introduction & Forewords
This was the first few meetings of a reading group for Capital. It includes an introduction meeting (where some had read the introduction and some hadn't) and two meetings on the introduction and forewords. Since it's a decent sized group we have two meetings each week and people attend whichever works for them. We'll be reading about 60-70 pages a week. If you're interested in starting a local reading group and discussing with us, or interested in any other communication please reach out to lpfjody@gmail.com.
Tuesday, March 9, 2021
Grundrisse Reading Group Part 1 (Part of Foreword)
This was the first meeting of a group of four comrades engaged in reading Grundrisse. We decided to post our notes publicly in case they may be useful to others engaged in this study (or may encourage others to engage in this study). We will be meeting regularly to discuss and taking notes on our discussions of the text. If others wish to engage in this study as well, we would welcome other reading groups which could come together at certain points for a more broad discussion!
Saturday, April 20, 2019
The Supposed Anti-Imperialism of Mike Gravel
Mike Gravel has amassed a following of young socialists in the US. He's running for president in the democratic primary, with a stated goal of pushing the party left. His apparent anti-imperialist positions and drift towards some social democratic policies has brought him support from even some Marxist-Leninists. In this text I seek to prove that Gravel's 'anti-imperialism' is based in empire apologia, blaming individuals, and an ahistorical analysis. It is not anti-imperialism, it is soft imperialism, an apology and excusal of what the US is fundamentally based on. The multitude of contradictions in his autobiography are glossed over, and I see only two possibilities; that he's desperately clinging to an obviously backwards analysis, or his motivations are not what he claims. Since he seems fairly aware of the consistent horror of US history, I strongly suspect the second is true. From what I've read, I even suspect that his counterintelligence career has not truly ended.
Counterintelligence Background
When Gravel was 18 he took a bus "heading for New York with the purpose of joining the Israeli forces in their fight to defend their new state" (128)." He ended up turning back, and was only 18, but his later actions can't be chalked up to youthful ignorance (including his continued support of the Israeli state). Gravel was due to be drafted into the imperialist war against Korea, so he decided to join the counterintelligence corps since he was "still a patriot" despite some criticism of US foreign policy (Gravel 108). While he was in South Carolina after training, he decided to become an officer since he "wanted to be a leader and... wanted to go to Korea" (109). Gravel didn't get his wish to join the brutal imperialist forces in Korea and was assigned to Germany instead. There he was "opening people's mail and listening to their telephone conversations... [and paying] off spies" (109) Gravel was happy to contribute to the anti-communist spy network in Germany since the job was "full of adventure" (109).
He was "a little uncomfortable spying mostly on perfectly innocent civilians", but continued and was transferred to France where he was "infiltrating communist rallies" (110). Someone who worked in counterintelligence and spied on communists is now a politician popular in some anti-imperialists circles. He was second in command in Germany for the Communications Intelligence Service (now the Army Security Agency) (109). I suppose Gravel's supporters will claim this should not be concerning since he felt "a little uncomfortable" spying on communists. All politicians are immediately suspect, as politicians in the US are of course opportunists. A politician who worked in counterintelligence brings up the possibility of even more hidden motivations.
Gravel's Theory of Imperialism I: Interrupting the "American Revolution":
Gravel claims that "we need to conclude the interrupted American Revolution against Britain, which sought to make the people sovereign, not their representatives" (262). The American Revolution was never about making 'the people' sovereign, it was about continuing settler genocide and increasing the American bourgeoisie's exploitative profits. Gravel even admits some of the errors in this myth. He acknowledges some of the horror US settlers inflicted upon indigenous people, even calling it a "white man's war of ethnic cleansing" (89). The contradiction here is ignored, because the American origin story Gravel is pushing has nothing to do with history or facts, it's a mythology to justify US existence, and those that support the US must protect it at all costs. The US is upheld as a beacon of democracy and justice, the complete opposite of reality.
Belief in this mythology necessitates some mental gymnastics when confronted with the realities of US history and present policy. The most common approach, which Gravel uses frequently, is to separate the actions which contradict this mythology and consider each to be an individual aberration. To avoid cracks in the mythology, these flaws can't be linked, can't be traced back to their roots, since that would pull the cloak away and reveal the genocidal basis of the United States. Gravel (incorrectly) claims Teddy Roosevelt was America's first overseas imperialist president, claiming he "infused unprecedented powers into the executive branch... [After Panama] There ensued the long history of twentieth century US covert and overt military interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean, an area marked off for empire by President Monroe back in 1823" (97). In this Gravel is blaming Teddy Roosevelt for a subversion of America, preserving the mythology.
While he acknowledges that the founders had a vision of rights and government only for wealthy white men, he also says that "Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Wilson, and others were defending a principle of the Declaration of Independence that said 'people' could change their government whenever they wanted" (231). He acknowledges the racism and class interests of the founders, but simultaneously mentions them in glowing terms, saying they "helped change my idea of America" (84). Washington apparently was "mindful of protecting indigenous Americans but war was inevitable. He 'awed the Indians' so settlers could plow ahead"(88). Creating brutal shock troops which massacred native people is not being "mindful of protecting indigenous Americans". Washington fully supported the genocidal behavior of settlers, which Gravel partially acknowledges when he admits that "Washington used [his standing army] to expand America's territory by putting down uncooperative Indians" (89). 'Uncooperative' is a description which doesn't seem to fit 'people struggling for their lives'. The only massacre Gravel actually mentions is the Battle of the Wabash, a "massacre of 623 American militiamen" (89). Settlers massacred native peoples fighting for their right to live and even those that didn't or could not fight. Children and infants were indiscriminately killed. Settlers took trophies from those they killed, and proudly bragged about it. Comparing that to a military defeat where genocidal settlers were killed is disgusting.
Modern day politicians are also blamed for pulling us in the wrong direction. According to Gravel,
"abuse of power used to be something to hide. Bush flaunts it" (229). Abuse of power is what the US was founded upon. Gravel claims to stand for some mythical United States, but materially that means support for the genocidal reality of the United States. Gravel's most famous act as a Senator was reading the Pentagon Papers into record, which allowed them to be released to the public. However, he claimed that even this exposure of the disgusting actions of the US in Vietnam was "in the name of helping this great nation we all love" (28). Anyone who loves the United States is in no way an anti-imperialist. According to Gravel, "this country emerged as a republic after violently revolting against a monarchy and empire. But it has itself grown into a global empire built through surrogate rulers and direct occupation" (239). This country was never a 'republic', it was a dictatorship of slave-owners and other wealthy settlers.
Gravel's Theory of Imperialism II: It's Unnecessary:
Gravel claims that anti-intervention "would likely have been the reasoned approach of founders like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, who set the rational tone of the early republic" (209). This leads us to the next piece of Gravel's warped 'anti-imperialism'. Not only is imperialism a betrayal of these imaginary American values, it's also an irrational betrayal of the founders reasoned plans. A common chant by US socialists is "money for jobs and education, not for war and exploitation". While this is well intentioned, it also speaks to a very dangerous concept pushed by many in the US social democrat tradition. They claim that the US is 'wasting' money on foreign wars when it could be used domestically. These wars are not a waste of money, they are a means to bring more money into the US, by defending and expanding imperialist control. Gravel pushes this flawed concept wholeheartedly, claiming that "Wilson's naiveté and stubbornness drove America unnecessarily into the First World War... [because of a] belief in his own moral superiority and a naïve desire to dictate to others how long-term peace should be achieved" (98-99). Entering World War I wasn't a naive action, it was a calculated decision to expand US empire in Africa and to open markets for US goods. While outwardly claiming the war was to protect democracy, internal documents have clearly shown that Wilson entered the war for the very rational interests of empire. Gravel goes on to acknowledge that there may have been reasons apart from Wilson's well-meaning naivete, but only mentions the wartime impact on the economy, not the US gains in expanding empire.
Gravel continues with this analysis in other areas. He claims the fear of communism is unfounded, saying before his Pentagon Papers reading that "the first and foremost reason our nation is in a mess today and going towards bankruptcy is a result of our paranoiac fear of communism. This is unfounded for the simple reason we have far and away a superior military and economy... we as leaders and as a nation are party to the killing daily of innocent people for no apparent reason... certainly it does not add to our security" (28). The US fight against the Soviet Union was not irrational, and the killing of people fight for liberation was not 'for no apparent reason'. The US fight against socialism is not irrational, it's a fight to preserve and expand imperialist interests. Gravel applies the same line to the invasion of Iraq, claiming "Bush had no reason to suspend habeas corpus, torture prisoners, spy on Americans, sign statements to avoid enforcing laws he doesn't like, and enrich his backers with wars of plunder" (229). The end of that statement contradicts the rest of the sentence of course. There wasn't 'no reason', the actions of Bush were driven by the fundamental basis of the United States: the imperialist push to continuously increase plunder of the global south.
Gravel's Theory of Imperialism III: Bumbling Empire, Good Intentions, and Blowback:
If one accepts the entirely ahistorical premise in the previous section, it follows that the US must be making mistakes in engaging in these wars, a concept I refer to as the 'bumbling empire theory'. Along with this comes blowback theory, where the violent actions of empire-sponsored groups are seen as an unfortunate side-effect, instead of the intended results. In line with his protection of US mythology, Gravel claims this is a result of a new assault on rational politics: "instead American machismo- with our concept of 'manifest destiny' now fused into our imperial goal of global hegemony- prevailed over the Age of Reason. The Enlightenment was under assault by the rise of the Religious Right in the Reagan era. As the US confronted the limits of its overseas power, rather than work within those limits to preserve sensible American interests, more brute force was exerted" (209). Here he also endorses a less blatant imperialism, only objecting to brute force, not preserving US interests.
Gravel ascribes good intentions to a plethora of politicians. According to Gravel, "we all wanted to see a democratic and prosperous Iraq at peace with its neighbors. But the Bush administration foolishly thought invasion and occupation would bring it about" (16). Biden is likewise given the benefit of the doubt, Gravel saying "I like him, but I think he's dead wrong on many things, especially how to solve Iraq" (16). Neither Bush, Biden, or any other politician supporting the Iraq war had good intentions. They are knowing war criminals, and their actions have paid off for US empire. Gravel goes even further to absolve democrats, claiming Hillary "and most Democrats in both Houses calculated that looking patriotic, even if it meant giving credibility to a phony threat, was better than being right" (16). Their motivations were purely political according to Gravel, with nothing to do with their relationship with oil companies and other US interests. The impacts of these imperialist wars are accidents according to Gravel, as he claims "The Taliban harbored bin Laden after 9/11, and there was justification in overthrowing that vile regime. But stability was not brought to Afghanistan, partly because the mission was diverted to Iraq" (227). Stability was never an intention of US policy in the Middle East. Gravel portrays the outcome as a mistake, the unfortunate results of actions by a 'bumbling empire'.
Gravel has kind words for Eisenhower, calling him "a great leader in Lao Tzu's sense, teaching people to lead themselves. As president he wasn't a great politician, but he was a very courageous leader during the war" (140-141). High praise for the imperialist president Eisenhower from a supposed anti-imperialist. He also promotes the Kennedy mythology, endorsing Arthur Krock's claim that "the CIA refused to listen to JFK and did its own thing in Vietnam. Kennedy also wanted less spent on war and more on domestic needs. It was a monumental loss we are still suffering from" (144). JFK was only opposed to certain outward displays of strength, preferring a more covert but no less brutal form of imperialism. Gravel claims that the US had nothing to do with "the collapse of the Soviet economy, Mikhail Gorbachev's unprecedented reforms, popular democracy movements in the Eastern Bloc, and the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan all contributed... Did Reagan's arms buildup hurt the Soviet economy?" (213). Reagan's arms buildup absolutely hurt the Soviet economy. Resources and labor which could have gone to improving the lives of the Soviet people instead had to be spent on the military. The CIA knew this very well, but Gravel pretends not to.
Gravel's Theory of Imperialism IV: Individual Error:
Since imperialist crimes are errors according to Gravel's contradictory theories, the source of imperialist actions can't be fundamental to the US economy or political system. It follows that the source must be individual. Gravel claims that "Truman changed America forever" (104) by increasing executive power and creating a larger military establishment. While it's true that the tools of imperialism increased in power severely under Truman, this was not an individual choice. This was a natural development as empire expanded and imperialist capital demanded more protection from a government entirely under its control. On Reagan, Gravel says "that Reagan hasn't gone down in history as one of the biggest knaves to inhabit the White House is beyond me" (212). Reagan hasn't gone done in infamy because he didn't subvert the US way, he embodied it.
The anti-communist crackdown in the 50's is likewise dismissed as an individual decision. Gravel claims that "McCarthy's hysteria was based largely on his own lust for power and notoriety" (106). Again this speaks to the supposed irrationality of the imperialist government. The attacks under McCarthy were not irrational, they were a calculated way to crush rising dissent. They viciously attacked many leaders such as Paul Robeson, shutting him out of the music industry and the US media. These leaders were building solidarity with the global south, attempting to build a US movement between colonized people within the US and their natural allies overseas. This posed a great danger to US power, recognized by McCarthy and many others. Instead Gravel portrays it as one man's irrational crusade.
Gravel exposes his true beliefs on empire with his thoughts on the events following World War II. He claims that "FDR had proposed post-war colonies be put under UN trusteeship, but Churchill thunderously opposed. As a result, nationalist movements mostly turned to Communism, or at least pretended to, to get Soviet aid to throw off their colonial masters" (118). The implication is that UN trusteeship would have carried out imperialist goals in a neoimperialist fashion, subverting nationalist movements and controlling colonies without outright war.
Motivations: Political Gain?
The first major vote on militarist matters with Gravel in the senate was on a missile defense system. Gravel's words on his apparent indecision reveal something very concerning: "though I had pretty much made up my mind [to oppose it], I enjoyed the attention of being one of the last undecided. The longer I stayed on the fence the more press I got. I was soaking it up... By holding out I had gone from obscurity to being a national figure almost overnight" (162). He didn't even attend a closed door session on the bill, as he was watching the Apollo 11 launch in Florida instead. Is that a commitment to opposing militarism? His attraction to the spotlight seems to explain much of his career, choosing controversial opinions to gain media attention. The opportunist qualities of all US politicians, including Gravel, are no coincidence. Not only are opportunists attracted to politics, they are the only ones able to succeed in the US political system. Gravel describes his methods to gain political office: "everyone I met I sized up as someone who could potentially help me. Self-promotion held no shame" (136). He tells a story of his run for the legislature: "Rita Martin was the girlfriend of a woman I was seeing. While I was running for the Legislature she was running for a statewide beauty contest. I recognized we both had to be visible. So I hit on her and told her we needed each other to reach our goals" (136). Gravel went so far as to create a relationship because it was politically expedient.
Gravel also saw native peoples of Alaska as a useful group politically: "the key to winning I thought was with native Alaskans... It was the first time a white politician had ever visited these remote communities. I saw two purposes to this: to hold hearings on the concerns of a people who were here long before white men arrived, but who now were mostly ignored, and to build a base to beat Rivers. It was simultaneously morally right and politically advantageous to me" (146). The primary importance of the political side of this action is revealed in his campaigning tactics: "I would arrive at the first village at dawn knocking on doors, sometimes waking families. We couldn't speak each other's language, but I left a bumper sticker or a card" (147). He didn't even take the time to find a translator, or find a way to communicate with native people. He had no interest in their concerns or their struggle, and only saw them as a way to win political office. When he was first running he didn't even take a strong stance against the Vietnam war. He admits that this was partly for political reasons, and while he claims it was also due to unformed anti-war views, at other points in the book he traces his anti-war views to before this election. He was an opportunist in every way, determined to climb in politics in any way he could. In Gravel's own words, "Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president" (169).
Anti-Communism and Slander of Anti-Imperialist Struggles
In line with Gravel's claims of empire being unnecessary, he slanders anti-imperialist countries in their healthy mistrust and necessary defense against imperialism. He claims under McCarthy, "a legitimate problem is deliberately overblown" (106), showing his clear allegiance to anti-communism. Stalin is called a "murderous dictator" (111), the Soviet Union a "police state" (116), and the struggle of the USSR against imperialism is dismissed. Gravel claims that "Stalin also exaggerated the American threat. It was convenient for him to have an external enemy to enforce unity at home. Like-wise, al-Qaeda and some elements in Iran exaggerate the American threat. They keep their people from contact with American ideas to preserve their hollow, fundamentalist dictates" (111). The US had plans to attack the USSR in any way possible, and showed that these weren't idle threats with brutality in other countries. Iran today is under constant imperialist attack, with infiltrating NGOs, the constant threat of open military attack, and crippling economic warfare. I don't think it would be possible for Iran today or Stalin last century to exaggerate the American threat.
The USSR's rejection of the Marshall Plan, correctly recognizing it as 'dollar imperialism', is considered by Gravel "Moscow's biggest contribution to the start of the Cold War [!!!]." He continues: "the Soviet leadership put its own survival ahead of the Russian people. Rather than take the Marshall Plan help to rebuild his country, Stalin imprisoned millions of people whom he used virtually as slave labor in the reconstruction" (117). He applies blame to the Soviet Union for starting the cold war by rejecting imperialist 'aid', an absurd accusation. The rejection of this strings-attached aid is also apparently to blame for struggles of the Soviet people. According to Gravel, paying criminals full wages and giving them extensive rights is 'slave labor'. What's stunning is that after making these baseless accusations Gravel goes on to admit that the Marshall Plan did exactly what the USSR was claiming. He terms the arms race a win for the Politboro and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, claiming they benefited from militarism just like the US. The USSR was forced into military development from the United State's threats, and it hurt the development of socialism severely. The Eastern Bloc counterrevolutions are of course termed 'democracy movements', another trope in anti-communist propaganda. Gravel celebrates FDR's victory against communism, pointing out that he "was right to claim after his 1936 re-election that he had saved capitalism from the excesses of a Communist or anarchist revolt. There was great anger in the land and labor unrest. It is not widely understood today how popular Communism and anarchism had become. Several public buildings were bombed and businessmen and their allies in congress genuinely feared social revolution" (78).
Gravel's Plans
The same narratives are pushed on Gravel's current campaign website. The cover page is a counter of the cost of "regime change" wars. It doesn't count the deaths of civilians or the impact on the economies of countries ruined by imperialism however, it counts the dollars spent on these wars. In his autobiography he claims that "the way to fight terrorism is through international police work, not invasion and occupation... we need a global agency along the lines of Interpol to fight terrorism with coordinated police work" (227). While this doesn't appear to be in his current platform, there are still policies that position the US as a positive force in international affairs. On his current campaign website Gravel calls for the US to engage in mutual aid with other countries. This plays into modern 'soft' imperialist strategy. Economic attacks disguised as mutual aid are a common tool of the US against colonized countries. Gravel also doesn't advocate for eliminating the US military or empire in entirety. He calls for a 50 percent cut in military spending, a move McNamara says won't have any visible effect on military operations. He also calls for a stronger enforcement of required congressional approval for war. All of this still leaves the door open for militarism and foreign wars, only improving appearance.
On his campaign website he calls the DPRK government 'a troubled one', and calls for the US to continue pushing for denuclearization. While he does advocate for US troop withdrawal, he also wants to "promote cultural exchange between the United States, South Korea, and North Korea". This certainly sounds like a 'soft' imperialist approach. Gravel pushes the anti-semitic trope that AIPAC is responsible for US policy with regards to Israel. The US supports Israel because it's furthering US interests throughout the world. He doesn't take a strong stance on Palestinian liberation, considering a two-state solution as one option. Much of the rest of his platform relies on minor reforms which would be immediately reversed if they got through in the first place.
One of Gravel's big ideas is direct initiative legislation, where US Americans could vote directly to influence government policy. This is based on some absurd assumptions, made by all who see electoralism as a way to end imperialism or capitalism. The thought that the US dictatorship would allow people to vote against imperialist interests is absurd, and it's doubtful that the US public even would vote against it in many cases. In his 2008 run for president Gravel also supported the libertarian fair tax, which "would add 23 percent to all purchases of new goods and services... prices of new goods would decline with the elimination of corporate taxes" (236-237). I hardly think I even need to comment on that position. This clearly shows that Gravel has no coherent political ideology. He bounces around to extreme positions to attract attention.
Gravel's campaign is run by teenage meme socialists. According to one of them the people that are really getting out there politically are "a lot of young white guys", although it's "wrong to portray the movement as only being that". This was in response to a question about young white guys' political heroes always being old white guys. They didn't push back and mention socialist heroes who aren't white or male, likely because they don't have any. They promote the popular blasé ironic 'leftist' humor on his twitter, joking about issues like the Iraqi blood on Joe Biden's hands. Politics appears to be a game for them, and while I don't doubt they believe much of what they say, their analysis appears to be skin-deep. They differ with Gravel on some points, including 9/11 (Gravel believes it was an inside job while the teens say that "absolutely" neither of them are 9/11 truthers).
We don't have the evidence to draw a definite conclusion with regards to Gravel's motives, but a scenario kept playing out in my head. If you're working in intelligence, what's the best way to establish cover for an asset as an anti-imperialist? Take a document which is already leaked to the press and likely to be publicized soon anyway, and have them be the hero that releases it to the public. They then have established anti-imperialist credentials without a downside, as it would have gotten out anyway. It also renews faith in the US government to have an elected official reveal this document. When Gravel worked with a Beacon publishing to release the pentagon papers in book form, "an anonymous donor on Long Island gave Beacon a large donation to finance the project. I still don't know who it was" (51). At best Mike Gravel is an opportunist who's adopted 'anti-imperialism' as a way to once again win fame. At worst Gravel's counterintelligence work never ended.
More Concerning Quotes From Gravel's Autobiography:
"I took part in the massive intelligence work of infiltrating and suppressing [partisans'] movements in Europe, even though some had no ties to the Soviets" (116)
On quitting the army: "even the thrill of espionage could not keep me" (127)
"That was something to celebrate. There was no enemy even closely comparable to America in military strength. There was no reason to continue wasting money on defense." (216)
"Roosevelt could communicate hope and do something about it..." (78)
"I read Jefferson and learned that questioning authority and the official version of history was at the very core of what it meant to be American... He also helped plant the idea in my head that people can rule their own lives." (83-84)
"Congress agreed with Washington's request for the small standing army until 'the United States shall be at peace with the Indian tribes.' That would take a century, once most of them were wiped out through disease or war" (89)
"Gruenig showed the courage Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and other senators did not when they voted for a similarly bogus resolution giving Bush authority to invade Iraq" (150)
"I was fortunate to be in the Senate when it was breaking out of its Cold War stupor to stand up to Nixon, a great executive power abuser. A rebellious populace and a vibrant press, aware of its Constitutional responsibilities, aided his downfall" (202)
"If I've got to push people around, I push them around" (146) A reference to lying about an offer of chairmanship to convince an opponent to drop out.
"[Gruening] went as far as calling the United States the 'agressor'. I took a more ambivalent position. That was partly because my anti-war views hadn't fully formed yet and, frankly, for political reasons. I had to position myself to Gruening's right on the war if I were to differentiate myself from him and provide voters an alternative... I also rejected unilateral US withdrawal, arguing that it would be a 'field day' for Ho Chi Minh's 'brutality' as he led communist victories across Asia. My views would change radically once I visited Vietnam" (150)
"He got Truman to ignore Ho Chi Minh's six letters asking for an alliance. Acheson cabled the US consul in Hanoi in 1949: 'in light Ho's known background, no other assumption possible but that he outright Commie...' After thus driving Ho into the Soviet camp..." (122)
Selling missiles to Egypt and Saudi Arabia "I supported the idea that in the long run it would be better for Israel's security" (202)
"Much of the Iranian leadership opposes [Ahmadinejad's] reckless anti-US and anti-Israel rhetoric. He is politically weak, given the failure of his economic policies" (227)
The source for all quotes is Gravel's autobiography unless indicated otherwise.
Counterintelligence Background
When Gravel was 18 he took a bus "heading for New York with the purpose of joining the Israeli forces in their fight to defend their new state" (128)." He ended up turning back, and was only 18, but his later actions can't be chalked up to youthful ignorance (including his continued support of the Israeli state). Gravel was due to be drafted into the imperialist war against Korea, so he decided to join the counterintelligence corps since he was "still a patriot" despite some criticism of US foreign policy (Gravel 108). While he was in South Carolina after training, he decided to become an officer since he "wanted to be a leader and... wanted to go to Korea" (109). Gravel didn't get his wish to join the brutal imperialist forces in Korea and was assigned to Germany instead. There he was "opening people's mail and listening to their telephone conversations... [and paying] off spies" (109) Gravel was happy to contribute to the anti-communist spy network in Germany since the job was "full of adventure" (109).
He was "a little uncomfortable spying mostly on perfectly innocent civilians", but continued and was transferred to France where he was "infiltrating communist rallies" (110). Someone who worked in counterintelligence and spied on communists is now a politician popular in some anti-imperialists circles. He was second in command in Germany for the Communications Intelligence Service (now the Army Security Agency) (109). I suppose Gravel's supporters will claim this should not be concerning since he felt "a little uncomfortable" spying on communists. All politicians are immediately suspect, as politicians in the US are of course opportunists. A politician who worked in counterintelligence brings up the possibility of even more hidden motivations.
Gravel's Theory of Imperialism I: Interrupting the "American Revolution":
Gravel claims that "we need to conclude the interrupted American Revolution against Britain, which sought to make the people sovereign, not their representatives" (262). The American Revolution was never about making 'the people' sovereign, it was about continuing settler genocide and increasing the American bourgeoisie's exploitative profits. Gravel even admits some of the errors in this myth. He acknowledges some of the horror US settlers inflicted upon indigenous people, even calling it a "white man's war of ethnic cleansing" (89). The contradiction here is ignored, because the American origin story Gravel is pushing has nothing to do with history or facts, it's a mythology to justify US existence, and those that support the US must protect it at all costs. The US is upheld as a beacon of democracy and justice, the complete opposite of reality.
Belief in this mythology necessitates some mental gymnastics when confronted with the realities of US history and present policy. The most common approach, which Gravel uses frequently, is to separate the actions which contradict this mythology and consider each to be an individual aberration. To avoid cracks in the mythology, these flaws can't be linked, can't be traced back to their roots, since that would pull the cloak away and reveal the genocidal basis of the United States. Gravel (incorrectly) claims Teddy Roosevelt was America's first overseas imperialist president, claiming he "infused unprecedented powers into the executive branch... [After Panama] There ensued the long history of twentieth century US covert and overt military interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean, an area marked off for empire by President Monroe back in 1823" (97). In this Gravel is blaming Teddy Roosevelt for a subversion of America, preserving the mythology.
While he acknowledges that the founders had a vision of rights and government only for wealthy white men, he also says that "Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Wilson, and others were defending a principle of the Declaration of Independence that said 'people' could change their government whenever they wanted" (231). He acknowledges the racism and class interests of the founders, but simultaneously mentions them in glowing terms, saying they "helped change my idea of America" (84). Washington apparently was "mindful of protecting indigenous Americans but war was inevitable. He 'awed the Indians' so settlers could plow ahead"(88). Creating brutal shock troops which massacred native people is not being "mindful of protecting indigenous Americans". Washington fully supported the genocidal behavior of settlers, which Gravel partially acknowledges when he admits that "Washington used [his standing army] to expand America's territory by putting down uncooperative Indians" (89). 'Uncooperative' is a description which doesn't seem to fit 'people struggling for their lives'. The only massacre Gravel actually mentions is the Battle of the Wabash, a "massacre of 623 American militiamen" (89). Settlers massacred native peoples fighting for their right to live and even those that didn't or could not fight. Children and infants were indiscriminately killed. Settlers took trophies from those they killed, and proudly bragged about it. Comparing that to a military defeat where genocidal settlers were killed is disgusting.
Modern day politicians are also blamed for pulling us in the wrong direction. According to Gravel,
"abuse of power used to be something to hide. Bush flaunts it" (229). Abuse of power is what the US was founded upon. Gravel claims to stand for some mythical United States, but materially that means support for the genocidal reality of the United States. Gravel's most famous act as a Senator was reading the Pentagon Papers into record, which allowed them to be released to the public. However, he claimed that even this exposure of the disgusting actions of the US in Vietnam was "in the name of helping this great nation we all love" (28). Anyone who loves the United States is in no way an anti-imperialist. According to Gravel, "this country emerged as a republic after violently revolting against a monarchy and empire. But it has itself grown into a global empire built through surrogate rulers and direct occupation" (239). This country was never a 'republic', it was a dictatorship of slave-owners and other wealthy settlers.
Gravel's Theory of Imperialism II: It's Unnecessary:
Gravel claims that anti-intervention "would likely have been the reasoned approach of founders like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, who set the rational tone of the early republic" (209). This leads us to the next piece of Gravel's warped 'anti-imperialism'. Not only is imperialism a betrayal of these imaginary American values, it's also an irrational betrayal of the founders reasoned plans. A common chant by US socialists is "money for jobs and education, not for war and exploitation". While this is well intentioned, it also speaks to a very dangerous concept pushed by many in the US social democrat tradition. They claim that the US is 'wasting' money on foreign wars when it could be used domestically. These wars are not a waste of money, they are a means to bring more money into the US, by defending and expanding imperialist control. Gravel pushes this flawed concept wholeheartedly, claiming that "Wilson's naiveté and stubbornness drove America unnecessarily into the First World War... [because of a] belief in his own moral superiority and a naïve desire to dictate to others how long-term peace should be achieved" (98-99). Entering World War I wasn't a naive action, it was a calculated decision to expand US empire in Africa and to open markets for US goods. While outwardly claiming the war was to protect democracy, internal documents have clearly shown that Wilson entered the war for the very rational interests of empire. Gravel goes on to acknowledge that there may have been reasons apart from Wilson's well-meaning naivete, but only mentions the wartime impact on the economy, not the US gains in expanding empire.
Gravel continues with this analysis in other areas. He claims the fear of communism is unfounded, saying before his Pentagon Papers reading that "the first and foremost reason our nation is in a mess today and going towards bankruptcy is a result of our paranoiac fear of communism. This is unfounded for the simple reason we have far and away a superior military and economy... we as leaders and as a nation are party to the killing daily of innocent people for no apparent reason... certainly it does not add to our security" (28). The US fight against the Soviet Union was not irrational, and the killing of people fight for liberation was not 'for no apparent reason'. The US fight against socialism is not irrational, it's a fight to preserve and expand imperialist interests. Gravel applies the same line to the invasion of Iraq, claiming "Bush had no reason to suspend habeas corpus, torture prisoners, spy on Americans, sign statements to avoid enforcing laws he doesn't like, and enrich his backers with wars of plunder" (229). The end of that statement contradicts the rest of the sentence of course. There wasn't 'no reason', the actions of Bush were driven by the fundamental basis of the United States: the imperialist push to continuously increase plunder of the global south.
Gravel's Theory of Imperialism III: Bumbling Empire, Good Intentions, and Blowback:
If one accepts the entirely ahistorical premise in the previous section, it follows that the US must be making mistakes in engaging in these wars, a concept I refer to as the 'bumbling empire theory'. Along with this comes blowback theory, where the violent actions of empire-sponsored groups are seen as an unfortunate side-effect, instead of the intended results. In line with his protection of US mythology, Gravel claims this is a result of a new assault on rational politics: "instead American machismo- with our concept of 'manifest destiny' now fused into our imperial goal of global hegemony- prevailed over the Age of Reason. The Enlightenment was under assault by the rise of the Religious Right in the Reagan era. As the US confronted the limits of its overseas power, rather than work within those limits to preserve sensible American interests, more brute force was exerted" (209). Here he also endorses a less blatant imperialism, only objecting to brute force, not preserving US interests.
Gravel ascribes good intentions to a plethora of politicians. According to Gravel, "we all wanted to see a democratic and prosperous Iraq at peace with its neighbors. But the Bush administration foolishly thought invasion and occupation would bring it about" (16). Biden is likewise given the benefit of the doubt, Gravel saying "I like him, but I think he's dead wrong on many things, especially how to solve Iraq" (16). Neither Bush, Biden, or any other politician supporting the Iraq war had good intentions. They are knowing war criminals, and their actions have paid off for US empire. Gravel goes even further to absolve democrats, claiming Hillary "and most Democrats in both Houses calculated that looking patriotic, even if it meant giving credibility to a phony threat, was better than being right" (16). Their motivations were purely political according to Gravel, with nothing to do with their relationship with oil companies and other US interests. The impacts of these imperialist wars are accidents according to Gravel, as he claims "The Taliban harbored bin Laden after 9/11, and there was justification in overthrowing that vile regime. But stability was not brought to Afghanistan, partly because the mission was diverted to Iraq" (227). Stability was never an intention of US policy in the Middle East. Gravel portrays the outcome as a mistake, the unfortunate results of actions by a 'bumbling empire'.
Gravel has kind words for Eisenhower, calling him "a great leader in Lao Tzu's sense, teaching people to lead themselves. As president he wasn't a great politician, but he was a very courageous leader during the war" (140-141). High praise for the imperialist president Eisenhower from a supposed anti-imperialist. He also promotes the Kennedy mythology, endorsing Arthur Krock's claim that "the CIA refused to listen to JFK and did its own thing in Vietnam. Kennedy also wanted less spent on war and more on domestic needs. It was a monumental loss we are still suffering from" (144). JFK was only opposed to certain outward displays of strength, preferring a more covert but no less brutal form of imperialism. Gravel claims that the US had nothing to do with "the collapse of the Soviet economy, Mikhail Gorbachev's unprecedented reforms, popular democracy movements in the Eastern Bloc, and the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan all contributed... Did Reagan's arms buildup hurt the Soviet economy?" (213). Reagan's arms buildup absolutely hurt the Soviet economy. Resources and labor which could have gone to improving the lives of the Soviet people instead had to be spent on the military. The CIA knew this very well, but Gravel pretends not to.
Gravel's Theory of Imperialism IV: Individual Error:
Since imperialist crimes are errors according to Gravel's contradictory theories, the source of imperialist actions can't be fundamental to the US economy or political system. It follows that the source must be individual. Gravel claims that "Truman changed America forever" (104) by increasing executive power and creating a larger military establishment. While it's true that the tools of imperialism increased in power severely under Truman, this was not an individual choice. This was a natural development as empire expanded and imperialist capital demanded more protection from a government entirely under its control. On Reagan, Gravel says "that Reagan hasn't gone down in history as one of the biggest knaves to inhabit the White House is beyond me" (212). Reagan hasn't gone done in infamy because he didn't subvert the US way, he embodied it.
The anti-communist crackdown in the 50's is likewise dismissed as an individual decision. Gravel claims that "McCarthy's hysteria was based largely on his own lust for power and notoriety" (106). Again this speaks to the supposed irrationality of the imperialist government. The attacks under McCarthy were not irrational, they were a calculated way to crush rising dissent. They viciously attacked many leaders such as Paul Robeson, shutting him out of the music industry and the US media. These leaders were building solidarity with the global south, attempting to build a US movement between colonized people within the US and their natural allies overseas. This posed a great danger to US power, recognized by McCarthy and many others. Instead Gravel portrays it as one man's irrational crusade.
Gravel exposes his true beliefs on empire with his thoughts on the events following World War II. He claims that "FDR had proposed post-war colonies be put under UN trusteeship, but Churchill thunderously opposed. As a result, nationalist movements mostly turned to Communism, or at least pretended to, to get Soviet aid to throw off their colonial masters" (118). The implication is that UN trusteeship would have carried out imperialist goals in a neoimperialist fashion, subverting nationalist movements and controlling colonies without outright war.
Motivations: Political Gain?
The first major vote on militarist matters with Gravel in the senate was on a missile defense system. Gravel's words on his apparent indecision reveal something very concerning: "though I had pretty much made up my mind [to oppose it], I enjoyed the attention of being one of the last undecided. The longer I stayed on the fence the more press I got. I was soaking it up... By holding out I had gone from obscurity to being a national figure almost overnight" (162). He didn't even attend a closed door session on the bill, as he was watching the Apollo 11 launch in Florida instead. Is that a commitment to opposing militarism? His attraction to the spotlight seems to explain much of his career, choosing controversial opinions to gain media attention. The opportunist qualities of all US politicians, including Gravel, are no coincidence. Not only are opportunists attracted to politics, they are the only ones able to succeed in the US political system. Gravel describes his methods to gain political office: "everyone I met I sized up as someone who could potentially help me. Self-promotion held no shame" (136). He tells a story of his run for the legislature: "Rita Martin was the girlfriend of a woman I was seeing. While I was running for the Legislature she was running for a statewide beauty contest. I recognized we both had to be visible. So I hit on her and told her we needed each other to reach our goals" (136). Gravel went so far as to create a relationship because it was politically expedient.
Gravel also saw native peoples of Alaska as a useful group politically: "the key to winning I thought was with native Alaskans... It was the first time a white politician had ever visited these remote communities. I saw two purposes to this: to hold hearings on the concerns of a people who were here long before white men arrived, but who now were mostly ignored, and to build a base to beat Rivers. It was simultaneously morally right and politically advantageous to me" (146). The primary importance of the political side of this action is revealed in his campaigning tactics: "I would arrive at the first village at dawn knocking on doors, sometimes waking families. We couldn't speak each other's language, but I left a bumper sticker or a card" (147). He didn't even take the time to find a translator, or find a way to communicate with native people. He had no interest in their concerns or their struggle, and only saw them as a way to win political office. When he was first running he didn't even take a strong stance against the Vietnam war. He admits that this was partly for political reasons, and while he claims it was also due to unformed anti-war views, at other points in the book he traces his anti-war views to before this election. He was an opportunist in every way, determined to climb in politics in any way he could. In Gravel's own words, "Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president" (169).
Anti-Communism and Slander of Anti-Imperialist Struggles
In line with Gravel's claims of empire being unnecessary, he slanders anti-imperialist countries in their healthy mistrust and necessary defense against imperialism. He claims under McCarthy, "a legitimate problem is deliberately overblown" (106), showing his clear allegiance to anti-communism. Stalin is called a "murderous dictator" (111), the Soviet Union a "police state" (116), and the struggle of the USSR against imperialism is dismissed. Gravel claims that "Stalin also exaggerated the American threat. It was convenient for him to have an external enemy to enforce unity at home. Like-wise, al-Qaeda and some elements in Iran exaggerate the American threat. They keep their people from contact with American ideas to preserve their hollow, fundamentalist dictates" (111). The US had plans to attack the USSR in any way possible, and showed that these weren't idle threats with brutality in other countries. Iran today is under constant imperialist attack, with infiltrating NGOs, the constant threat of open military attack, and crippling economic warfare. I don't think it would be possible for Iran today or Stalin last century to exaggerate the American threat.
The USSR's rejection of the Marshall Plan, correctly recognizing it as 'dollar imperialism', is considered by Gravel "Moscow's biggest contribution to the start of the Cold War [!!!]." He continues: "the Soviet leadership put its own survival ahead of the Russian people. Rather than take the Marshall Plan help to rebuild his country, Stalin imprisoned millions of people whom he used virtually as slave labor in the reconstruction" (117). He applies blame to the Soviet Union for starting the cold war by rejecting imperialist 'aid', an absurd accusation. The rejection of this strings-attached aid is also apparently to blame for struggles of the Soviet people. According to Gravel, paying criminals full wages and giving them extensive rights is 'slave labor'. What's stunning is that after making these baseless accusations Gravel goes on to admit that the Marshall Plan did exactly what the USSR was claiming. He terms the arms race a win for the Politboro and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, claiming they benefited from militarism just like the US. The USSR was forced into military development from the United State's threats, and it hurt the development of socialism severely. The Eastern Bloc counterrevolutions are of course termed 'democracy movements', another trope in anti-communist propaganda. Gravel celebrates FDR's victory against communism, pointing out that he "was right to claim after his 1936 re-election that he had saved capitalism from the excesses of a Communist or anarchist revolt. There was great anger in the land and labor unrest. It is not widely understood today how popular Communism and anarchism had become. Several public buildings were bombed and businessmen and their allies in congress genuinely feared social revolution" (78).
Gravel's Plans
The same narratives are pushed on Gravel's current campaign website. The cover page is a counter of the cost of "regime change" wars. It doesn't count the deaths of civilians or the impact on the economies of countries ruined by imperialism however, it counts the dollars spent on these wars. In his autobiography he claims that "the way to fight terrorism is through international police work, not invasion and occupation... we need a global agency along the lines of Interpol to fight terrorism with coordinated police work" (227). While this doesn't appear to be in his current platform, there are still policies that position the US as a positive force in international affairs. On his current campaign website Gravel calls for the US to engage in mutual aid with other countries. This plays into modern 'soft' imperialist strategy. Economic attacks disguised as mutual aid are a common tool of the US against colonized countries. Gravel also doesn't advocate for eliminating the US military or empire in entirety. He calls for a 50 percent cut in military spending, a move McNamara says won't have any visible effect on military operations. He also calls for a stronger enforcement of required congressional approval for war. All of this still leaves the door open for militarism and foreign wars, only improving appearance.
On his campaign website he calls the DPRK government 'a troubled one', and calls for the US to continue pushing for denuclearization. While he does advocate for US troop withdrawal, he also wants to "promote cultural exchange between the United States, South Korea, and North Korea". This certainly sounds like a 'soft' imperialist approach. Gravel pushes the anti-semitic trope that AIPAC is responsible for US policy with regards to Israel. The US supports Israel because it's furthering US interests throughout the world. He doesn't take a strong stance on Palestinian liberation, considering a two-state solution as one option. Much of the rest of his platform relies on minor reforms which would be immediately reversed if they got through in the first place.
One of Gravel's big ideas is direct initiative legislation, where US Americans could vote directly to influence government policy. This is based on some absurd assumptions, made by all who see electoralism as a way to end imperialism or capitalism. The thought that the US dictatorship would allow people to vote against imperialist interests is absurd, and it's doubtful that the US public even would vote against it in many cases. In his 2008 run for president Gravel also supported the libertarian fair tax, which "would add 23 percent to all purchases of new goods and services... prices of new goods would decline with the elimination of corporate taxes" (236-237). I hardly think I even need to comment on that position. This clearly shows that Gravel has no coherent political ideology. He bounces around to extreme positions to attract attention.
Gravel's campaign is run by teenage meme socialists. According to one of them the people that are really getting out there politically are "a lot of young white guys", although it's "wrong to portray the movement as only being that". This was in response to a question about young white guys' political heroes always being old white guys. They didn't push back and mention socialist heroes who aren't white or male, likely because they don't have any. They promote the popular blasé ironic 'leftist' humor on his twitter, joking about issues like the Iraqi blood on Joe Biden's hands. Politics appears to be a game for them, and while I don't doubt they believe much of what they say, their analysis appears to be skin-deep. They differ with Gravel on some points, including 9/11 (Gravel believes it was an inside job while the teens say that "absolutely" neither of them are 9/11 truthers).
We don't have the evidence to draw a definite conclusion with regards to Gravel's motives, but a scenario kept playing out in my head. If you're working in intelligence, what's the best way to establish cover for an asset as an anti-imperialist? Take a document which is already leaked to the press and likely to be publicized soon anyway, and have them be the hero that releases it to the public. They then have established anti-imperialist credentials without a downside, as it would have gotten out anyway. It also renews faith in the US government to have an elected official reveal this document. When Gravel worked with a Beacon publishing to release the pentagon papers in book form, "an anonymous donor on Long Island gave Beacon a large donation to finance the project. I still don't know who it was" (51). At best Mike Gravel is an opportunist who's adopted 'anti-imperialism' as a way to once again win fame. At worst Gravel's counterintelligence work never ended.
More Concerning Quotes From Gravel's Autobiography:
"I took part in the massive intelligence work of infiltrating and suppressing [partisans'] movements in Europe, even though some had no ties to the Soviets" (116)
On quitting the army: "even the thrill of espionage could not keep me" (127)
"That was something to celebrate. There was no enemy even closely comparable to America in military strength. There was no reason to continue wasting money on defense." (216)
"Roosevelt could communicate hope and do something about it..." (78)
"I read Jefferson and learned that questioning authority and the official version of history was at the very core of what it meant to be American... He also helped plant the idea in my head that people can rule their own lives." (83-84)
"Congress agreed with Washington's request for the small standing army until 'the United States shall be at peace with the Indian tribes.' That would take a century, once most of them were wiped out through disease or war" (89)
"Gruenig showed the courage Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and other senators did not when they voted for a similarly bogus resolution giving Bush authority to invade Iraq" (150)
"I was fortunate to be in the Senate when it was breaking out of its Cold War stupor to stand up to Nixon, a great executive power abuser. A rebellious populace and a vibrant press, aware of its Constitutional responsibilities, aided his downfall" (202)
"If I've got to push people around, I push them around" (146) A reference to lying about an offer of chairmanship to convince an opponent to drop out.
"[Gruening] went as far as calling the United States the 'agressor'. I took a more ambivalent position. That was partly because my anti-war views hadn't fully formed yet and, frankly, for political reasons. I had to position myself to Gruening's right on the war if I were to differentiate myself from him and provide voters an alternative... I also rejected unilateral US withdrawal, arguing that it would be a 'field day' for Ho Chi Minh's 'brutality' as he led communist victories across Asia. My views would change radically once I visited Vietnam" (150)
"He got Truman to ignore Ho Chi Minh's six letters asking for an alliance. Acheson cabled the US consul in Hanoi in 1949: 'in light Ho's known background, no other assumption possible but that he outright Commie...' After thus driving Ho into the Soviet camp..." (122)
Selling missiles to Egypt and Saudi Arabia "I supported the idea that in the long run it would be better for Israel's security" (202)
"Much of the Iranian leadership opposes [Ahmadinejad's] reckless anti-US and anti-Israel rhetoric. He is politically weak, given the failure of his economic policies" (227)
The source for all quotes is Gravel's autobiography unless indicated otherwise.
Saturday, March 9, 2019
CANVAS: The Secrets Behind Venezuelan 'Student Protests' and Juan Guaidó
CANVAS Founders and History
CANVAS (Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies), was founded in 2003 in Serbia by Srdja Popovic and Slobodan Djinovic. It came out of an organization called 'OTPOR!' (Отпор in Serbian cyrillic, Serbian for 'resistance'), a student group founded in 1998 to oppose the Serbian government under Milošević [1]. OTPOR! became a leading group during the overthrow of Milošević in 2000, and then became an NGO to pressure the subsequent government to align with Western interests. In 2003 they became a political party but after failing to find political success they merged with the Democratic Party and Popovic and Marovic founded CANVAS, to promote counterrevolution throughout the world. CANVAS was instrumental in the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and some Arab Spring movements [1]. CANVAS draws much of its methodology from the work of Gene Sharp, who created the Albert Einstein Institute, a similar tool of counterrevolution. Sharp's work, funded by all the usual US government actors, was influential in many of the color revolutions and other imperialist projects framed as 'pro-democracy struggles'.
CANVAS Funding and Partners
According to a Stratfor analyst, "US AID is involved closely", and the funding is likely similar to that of OTPOR!, which "was funded by Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, National Endowment for Democracy, Open Society Institute, USAID and the United States Institute of Peace, among others" [2]. CANVAS lists their 'friends' on their website, including a multitude of US funded imperialist tools, some of which I'll cover briefly. The Gene Sharp-founded Albert Einstein Institution works on similar methods of counterrevolution, and was funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Institute, and the United States Institute for Peace, among others [3]. Those are all US government or government adjacent NGOs, and the funding was used to promote counterrevolution in a variety of countries. IREX is a self-described leader in "strengthening independent media and empowering youth through education and leadership development" [4]. They are most present in Asia, and work to propagandize and develop reactionary cadres of young people. Their donors is a veritable who's who of agents of US empire, including the Ford Foundation, the State Department, Radio Free Asia, Open Societies Foundation, USAID, and the World Bank [5]. BAM (Build A Movement) is an organization which trains and provides secure communication for 'activists', in countries including Venezuela, Syria, and Cambodia [6]. They promote CANVAS material on their website and their leadership is primarily Slobodan Djinovic, a founder and leader of CANVAS, and Raphaël Mimoun, who interned for CANVAS in 2013 [7, 8].
Methods and Purpose of CANVAS
CANVAS offers literature and training to spread their methods of attack on anti-imperialist governments, and they help organizations form networks and build movements, forming their own network in over 50 countries [1]. They focus on college students and young people, and argue for non-violent resistance "not for ideological reasons... but because non-violence actually works better than violence" [9]. Their 'core curriculum' is written like a college textbook to appeal to their primary target, and outlines their basic methods [10]. The basics of this text are outlined below, and the numbers correspond to chapter numbers, useful for reference later:
These methods are highly effective, and many have often been used historically by socialist movements, but are being used by CANVAS to promote reaction. The recent move by Juan Guaidó to return illegally to Venezuela perfectly demonstrates point 12, the 'dilemma situation'. He puts the government in a lose lose situation: arrest him and he'll label them repressive, don't arrest him and that's proof that they have no control or popular legitimacy. The prominence of the Venezuelan Student Movement in opposition organizing and the use of CANVAS tactics shows that CANVAS has had a major role in the development of the situation in Venezuela.
Juan Guaidó, Trainee of CANVAS?
Popovic denies Guaidó's involvement in CANVAS, claiming "He was not with me in Belgrade for training". However, Popovic calls Guaidó "a friend", stating that "many representatives of the Venezuelan democratic movement are my friends, that we have known each other for years and have talked countless times about the political situation in this beautiful but unhappy country" [11]. Popovic's main role in these regime change operations is as a trainer for 'activists', and he says that "I would do everything in my power to help him [Guaidó] to fight against the regime" [11]. According to Stratfor analysts, who were in direct contact with CANVAS, on October 5, 2005, "five [emphasis mine] student leaders from Venezuela arrived in Belgrade for training" [12]. The only sources I can find on this training list four of those students: Ronel Galo, Geraldine Alvarez, Rodrigo Diamanti and Eliza Totaro [13]. This means that one of the students trained has not been named publicly, and it would certainly make sense if that student was Guaidó, protecting his identity since he was chosen as a future leader. Even in 2010, CANVAS was trying to keep their involvement in Venezuela secret according to Stratfor emails, as they told employees not to make the information passed on public [14]. Regardless of whether Guaidó himself was trained by CANVAS (and I see no reason to take Popovic at his word when other sources disagree [15, 16]), some of his cadre certainly was, and they've used methods which CANVAS teaches.
Sources:
[1] About Us - CANVAS
[2] Stratfor: Re: Guidance: Exxon and Venezuela
[3] The Albert Einstein Institute: Report on Activities 1993-1999
[4] About Us - IREX
[5] Our Supporters - IREX
[6] About BAM - Build a Movement
[7] BAM 2016 Tax Form 990-EZ
[8] LinkedIn - Raphaël Mimoun
[9] Blueprint for Revolution - Canvas
[10] CANVAS - Core Curriculum
[11] Balkan Insight: 'Serbian Activist Denies ‘Training’ Venezuela’s Guaido [sic] in Rebellion'
[12] Stratfor: Information on CANVAS
[13] B92: Anti-Chavez Venezuelan Students in Belgrade
[14] Stratfor: Re:DIARY FOR COMMENT
[15] Mint Press: The Making of Juan Guaido
[16] Con el Mazo Dando: Opinión: ¿Hasta cuándo creer que Guaidó existe?
CANVAS (Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies), was founded in 2003 in Serbia by Srdja Popovic and Slobodan Djinovic. It came out of an organization called 'OTPOR!' (Отпор in Serbian cyrillic, Serbian for 'resistance'), a student group founded in 1998 to oppose the Serbian government under Milošević [1]. OTPOR! became a leading group during the overthrow of Milošević in 2000, and then became an NGO to pressure the subsequent government to align with Western interests. In 2003 they became a political party but after failing to find political success they merged with the Democratic Party and Popovic and Marovic founded CANVAS, to promote counterrevolution throughout the world. CANVAS was instrumental in the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and some Arab Spring movements [1]. CANVAS draws much of its methodology from the work of Gene Sharp, who created the Albert Einstein Institute, a similar tool of counterrevolution. Sharp's work, funded by all the usual US government actors, was influential in many of the color revolutions and other imperialist projects framed as 'pro-democracy struggles'.
CANVAS Funding and Partners
According to a Stratfor analyst, "US AID is involved closely", and the funding is likely similar to that of OTPOR!, which "was funded by Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, National Endowment for Democracy, Open Society Institute, USAID and the United States Institute of Peace, among others" [2]. CANVAS lists their 'friends' on their website, including a multitude of US funded imperialist tools, some of which I'll cover briefly. The Gene Sharp-founded Albert Einstein Institution works on similar methods of counterrevolution, and was funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Institute, and the United States Institute for Peace, among others [3]. Those are all US government or government adjacent NGOs, and the funding was used to promote counterrevolution in a variety of countries. IREX is a self-described leader in "strengthening independent media and empowering youth through education and leadership development" [4]. They are most present in Asia, and work to propagandize and develop reactionary cadres of young people. Their donors is a veritable who's who of agents of US empire, including the Ford Foundation, the State Department, Radio Free Asia, Open Societies Foundation, USAID, and the World Bank [5]. BAM (Build A Movement) is an organization which trains and provides secure communication for 'activists', in countries including Venezuela, Syria, and Cambodia [6]. They promote CANVAS material on their website and their leadership is primarily Slobodan Djinovic, a founder and leader of CANVAS, and Raphaël Mimoun, who interned for CANVAS in 2013 [7, 8].
Methods and Purpose of CANVAS
CANVAS offers literature and training to spread their methods of attack on anti-imperialist governments, and they help organizations form networks and build movements, forming their own network in over 50 countries [1]. They focus on college students and young people, and argue for non-violent resistance "not for ideological reasons... but because non-violence actually works better than violence" [9]. Their 'core curriculum' is written like a college textbook to appeal to their primary target, and outlines their basic methods [10]. The basics of this text are outlined below, and the numbers correspond to chapter numbers, useful for reference later:
- A 'Vision for Tomorrow': A concrete goal for society after counterrevolution, taking into account various social groups and listening to people's needs.
- Understand the sources of political power: They describe six sources of power: authority, human resources, skills and knowledge, material resources, intangible factors, and sanctions. They teach 'activists' to identify the sources of power they can gain, and to convince people that the current system is not immovable, and that the government derives its power from the complacency of the people.
- 'Pillars of Support': These are social institutions which support the government or the counterrevolutionaries. CANVAS teaches 'activists' to try to steal pillars of support from the government.
- Obedience: CANVAS identifies ten reasons people are obedient to a government: habit, self-interest, fear of sanctions, indifference, absence of self-confidence, moral obligation, super-human factors, helplessness/hopelessness, and majority doing it. Through understanding why people obey the government, counterrevolutionaries can attempt to shift that obedience.
- Mechanisms of change in non-violent action: CANVAS identifies four methods of change: conversion (shifting people's loyalties), accommodation (creating situations where the opponent will compromise), coercion (forcing change), and disintegration (where the entire power structure collapses). They indicate the most useful approach is often to convert lower level people, accommodate the middle ranks, and coerce the leadership, but note that this varies.
- Methods of change in non-violent action: CANVAS lists three primary methods: protest/persuasion, non-cooperation, and intervention (parallel power building and shutting down institutions). They recommend analyzing the situation and choosing targets and participants to maximize the impact of the action, setting achievable goals and promoting unity to prevent being discredited to moderates.
- Strategy and principles: CANVAS identifies three methods for strategy: unity, deliberate planning, and non-violent discipline, used maintain popular support and keep tight ranks.
- Power graph: a way to map the changing loyalties of the sources of power outlined in point 2.
- Impacting audiences/communicating messages: CANVAS emphasizes crafting the message to the target and then changing it based on feedback. One of the targets they focus on is 'international target audiences' including "NGOs, foreign media, [and] governments" to "support and promote your vision of tomorrow".
- Communication tools and types/categories of targeted communication: this section focuses on choosing the right type of communication, and mentions 'black' targeted communication, where the message appears to come from another source, to pin it on the enemy.
- Leadership: CANVAS identifies seven principles of leadership: personal example, know the people, proficiency in carrying out responsibilities, accept responsibility, give others credit for success, learn from experience, and delegate. They warn that too much democracy in a movement may give way to division.
- Dilemma actions: these are situations where the opponent is forced into a difficult decision. CANVAS identifies four steps in creating these situations: determine policies which restrict the population, identify policies that run counter to popular beliefs, and create an action which will force the government to either back down on the policy or appear repressive to the masses, and then to exploit either reaction by heavily propagandizing it.
- Fear/overcoming the effects of fear: this section primarily covers the fear of repression, and encourages activists to either avoid high-risk confrontation or have leadership which will remain calm and give others confidence in those situation. It also includes psychological techniques to calm supporters, including humor, breathing, and prayer.
- Contaminants and security culture: six contaminants that may damage movements are identified: violence, foreign nationals, actions outside the strategic plan, exclusionary policies, excessive secrecy, and poor organizational structure. CANVAS teaches to assume enemy infiltration, that changing routines calls attention to yourself, and to teach security culture in your movement.
- Plan format: in this section five elements of plan format are outlined: situation analysis, mission statement, execution, mission statement, administration/logistics, and coordination/communication.
These methods are highly effective, and many have often been used historically by socialist movements, but are being used by CANVAS to promote reaction. The recent move by Juan Guaidó to return illegally to Venezuela perfectly demonstrates point 12, the 'dilemma situation'. He puts the government in a lose lose situation: arrest him and he'll label them repressive, don't arrest him and that's proof that they have no control or popular legitimacy. The prominence of the Venezuelan Student Movement in opposition organizing and the use of CANVAS tactics shows that CANVAS has had a major role in the development of the situation in Venezuela.
Juan Guaidó, Trainee of CANVAS?
Popovic denies Guaidó's involvement in CANVAS, claiming "He was not with me in Belgrade for training". However, Popovic calls Guaidó "a friend", stating that "many representatives of the Venezuelan democratic movement are my friends, that we have known each other for years and have talked countless times about the political situation in this beautiful but unhappy country" [11]. Popovic's main role in these regime change operations is as a trainer for 'activists', and he says that "I would do everything in my power to help him [Guaidó] to fight against the regime" [11]. According to Stratfor analysts, who were in direct contact with CANVAS, on October 5, 2005, "five [emphasis mine] student leaders from Venezuela arrived in Belgrade for training" [12]. The only sources I can find on this training list four of those students: Ronel Galo, Geraldine Alvarez, Rodrigo Diamanti and Eliza Totaro [13]. This means that one of the students trained has not been named publicly, and it would certainly make sense if that student was Guaidó, protecting his identity since he was chosen as a future leader. Even in 2010, CANVAS was trying to keep their involvement in Venezuela secret according to Stratfor emails, as they told employees not to make the information passed on public [14]. Regardless of whether Guaidó himself was trained by CANVAS (and I see no reason to take Popovic at his word when other sources disagree [15, 16]), some of his cadre certainly was, and they've used methods which CANVAS teaches.
Sources:
[1] About Us - CANVAS
[2] Stratfor: Re: Guidance: Exxon and Venezuela
[3] The Albert Einstein Institute: Report on Activities 1993-1999
[4] About Us - IREX
[5] Our Supporters - IREX
[6] About BAM - Build a Movement
[7] BAM 2016 Tax Form 990-EZ
[8] LinkedIn - Raphaël Mimoun
[9] Blueprint for Revolution - Canvas
[10] CANVAS - Core Curriculum
[11] Balkan Insight: 'Serbian Activist Denies ‘Training’ Venezuela’s Guaido [sic] in Rebellion'
[12] Stratfor: Information on CANVAS
[13] B92: Anti-Chavez Venezuelan Students in Belgrade
[14] Stratfor: Re:DIARY FOR COMMENT
[15] Mint Press: The Making of Juan Guaido
[16] Con el Mazo Dando: Opinión: ¿Hasta cuándo creer que Guaidó existe?
Sunday, December 9, 2018
Raleigh PD Surveillance and IMSI Catchers
 |
| leaked photo of IMSI catchers owned by Florida police |
IMSI Catchers in Raleigh
A few days ago I was bored and looking through FOIA requests (because that's what kids do for fun these days) to Raleigh agencies, when I found a request to Raleigh PD for information on their purchase and use of IMSI catchers. IMSI catchers are essentially fake cell phone towers that trick phones within a certain radius to use the catcher instead of a real tower. The IMSI catcher can then determine the IMSI (unique id number) of the phone, determine the phone's location, and can even decrypt SMS messages and other data sent from the phone.
As it turns out, in 2009 Raleigh PD purchased a KingFish IMSI catcher from Harris Corporation for $122,364.00 including training. Raleigh PD purchased an IMSI catcher system in 2016 for $490,302.75 from KeyW and spent another $42,700.00 on training, to bring the grand total to $655,366.75 spent on IMSI devices [1]. Why would Raleigh PD pay over half a million dollars for this technology? While the KeyW product's capabilities are unknown, the KingFish is a handheld IMSI which can both track location and intercept communications, though it doesn't appear Raleigh PD has bought the software package to enable communications interception yet [2, 1]. Even without the interceptor package the KingFish could be brought to protests to log the phones of every protester present and identify the most consistent/active protesters. It also could be used to establish the identity of people present at a protest where something illegal allegedly occurred.
The use of IMSI catchers by police and other law enforcement is something that's not well studied due to secrecy of corporations and law enforcement. It appears the Department of Homeland Security often funds local police departments' purchases of the device [3]. Like indefinite detention and fusion centers, the IMSI catcher programs were initially claimed for terrorism, but now they've been used for various other investigations. Police departments are hiding behind a non-disclosure agreement with Harris Corporation to avoid obtaining warrants for IMSI catcher use, and to avoid providing most information about their use to the public. They claim the terms of the non-disclosure agreement supersede the legal requirement to obtain a warrant [4]. Some court decisions have approved the use of StingRays without a warrant [5]. The devices are also likely violating privacy rights regardless, as they can't target a specific phone, and instead collect data on all phones in the area.
As of November 2018, the ACLU has identified 75 state and local police departments in 27 states and 14 federal agencies that use IMSI catchers [6]. These numbers are likely far below the actual use, as many police departments have ignored or declined FOIA requests. In North Carolina, the State Bureau of Investigation, Raleigh PD, Durham PD, Charlotte PD I & II, Wilmington PD, and New Hanover Sheriff's Department all have IMSI catchers [6].
For a time Harris Corporation had cornered the market in IMSI catchers in the US, forming a complete monopoly as they were the only company approved by the FCC. However, it appears KeyW has been selling IMSI catchers to US law enforcement since at least 2016, as the Raleigh PD FOIA response showed what we can only presume is an IMSI catcher [1]. In 2016 a new CEO, army captain William Weber, took over KeyW. Weber had previously worked with a number of companies with military contracts, and it appears he was able to get KeyW connected, as in the same year they were named an official provider for national cyber-security education and training [7, 8]. The use of private companies in the production of high-tech police state equipment is increasingly common. The legal challenges this poses for those fighting for transparency is still undetermined.
What Can We Do?
Being aware of the security measures the state is likely using against activists is immensely important. Unfortunately cell phones are often important at protests- to coordinate security, to communicate with jail support, to video police misconduct, etc... There are other options though- use secure messaging app 'Signal' for communications- even if an IMSI catcher intercepts the data and breaks the network encryption, it's encrypted separately. To find out if your local PD has IMSI catchers you can search for FOIA requests here, just fill in your local police department under 'agency' on the right. If you find out they do, raise awareness, force the media to cover it. If there's no requests, file one yourself- MuckRock charges to file requests, but you can copy their format or ask your local ACLU to help. Certain apps for android phones can detect IMSI catchers, including SnoopSnitch, Cell Spy Catcher, and GSM Spy Finder. These apps are worth a try, but IMSI catchers may be able to evade detection on them, so if there are not IMSI catchers detected that may be a false negative [9].
Sources:
- MuckRock: "Contracts and Policies Regarding IMSI Catchers (Raleigh Police Department)" [archive]
- "Harris Corporation Catalog 2008"
- ACLU: "Documents Reveal Unregulated Use of Stingrays in California" [archive]
- Manahan, Torin: Built to Lie: "Investigating Technologies of Deception, Surveillance, and Control", The Information Society (2016) [archive]
- Farivar, Cyrus: "Appeals Court: It Doesn't Matter How Wanted Man Was Found, Even if Via StingRay", Ars Technica (2016) [archive]
- ACLU: "Stingray Tracking Devices: Who's Got Them?" [archive]
- Linkedin: "Bill Weber"
- GlobeNewsWire: "KeyW's Parrot Labs Named an Official Provider in National Cyber Education and Training Catalog" [archive]
- Cox, Joseph: "Stingray Detection Apps Might Not Be All That Good, Research Suggests", Motherboard (2017) [archive]
Monday, April 23, 2018
Exploring the Cheonan Sinking
The ROKS Cheonan
*note* KCNA links only work for Japanese IP addresses, alternative links are listed in citations
Summary
The Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group report on the sinking of Republic of Korea naval vessel ROKS Cheonan is based on faulty science, manufactured evidence, and ignoring any opposing evidence. Evidence points to a mine explosion as a potential cause of the sinking, likely a mine laid by the Republic of Korea Navy. The sinking was used by the right wing in the ROK in an attempt to solidify power and discredit leftists as 'too soft' on the DPRK. It was used by the United States as a way to strengthen alliances and increase military control in the region. Dissent against the US/ROK narrative in the ROK was suppressed in an attempt to hide the reality of the situation. Despite consistent push by the DPRK, China, and peace advocacy groups in the ROK, the government has refused to launch additional investigations into the incident.
Sinking of ROKS Cheonan and JIG Report
On March 26 2010, the ROKS Cheonan, a Republic of Korea naval ship sank off the coast of Baengyeong island, killing 46 people. This event was blamed on the DPRK initially by some groups, and an initial report was released on May 20 "conducted by the Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group of the Republic of Korea with the participation of international experts from Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, and the Multinational Combined Intelligence Task Force, comprising the Republic of Korea, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States" [1]. The finalized version of the report was released in September 2010 (from here on referred to as the 'JIG report') and agreed with the initial report [2 - finalized report]. The report claims that a non-contact explosion caused a "strong shockwave and bubble effect causing the splitting and the sinking of the ship", based on physical evidence on this ship, seismic evidence, the bodies of those killed, and witness statements [1]. This claim isn't disputed by the DPRK or a later Russia Navy analysis, which stated the sinking was caused by a "non-contact explosion below the ship" [3]. The JIG report also claims that investigators found "propulsion parts" matching the "specifications on the drawing presented in introductory materials provided to foreign countries by North Korea for export purposes", and that the writing on the parts was "consistent with the marking of a previously obtained North Korean torpedo" [1].
Fig 1: writing 'similarities' on the fragments allegedly found in Cheonan wreckage (left) [1]
Russian Navy Report
The Russian Navy report notes a number of discrepancies and errors in the JIG report. They acknowledge the torpedo parts may have been manufactured in the DPRK, but note that the writing is in the wrong place. The Russian Navy report also claims that the torpedo appeared to be underwater for at least six months based on visual examination. While the JIG report claims the explosion occurred at 21:21:58 (hour:minute:second), the CCTV image in the ship cut off at 21:17:03, and soldiers reported injuries with their cell phones beginning at 21:12:03, almost ten minutes before the JIG report claims the explosion occurred [3].
The Russian Navy report offers an alternative explanation: the explosion of an underwater mine as the ROKS Cheonan ran aground [3]. During the Korean war, naval mines were laid by the DPRK in the same area the the ROKS Cheonan sank. The island the ROKS Cheonan was off the coast of, Baengyeong, is a part of the city of Incheon. In September 1950, according to US naval reports, a DPRK ship was discovered laying mines off the coast of Incheon [4]. Mines were also laid by the ROK in the area in the 1970s. The Russian report states that the damage to the propeller was inconsistent with damage expected from an explosion, as "all wing blades of its right screw (propeller) and two wing blades of its left screw (propeller) were damaged, and the damaged propellers were scratched so baddly [sic] that they became shiny and wide areas of the screws were scratched by friction. The body and the end parts of the aforementioned propeller wing blades were additionally stretched. One wing blade of the right propeller has a metallic crack at the edge" [3]. An explosion could have damaged the propeller, but it the scratches and stretching are consistent with the propeller hitting the ocean bottom. The ROK's explanation for the damage is a sudden stoop of the axle, but the metallic crack isn't consistent with that theory. While the ROK claimed that no fishing zones were in the zone of the ship's voyage, "remnant fishing nets were found entangled around the right screw axle" [3]. The entanglement of the fishing net and damaged propeller may have restricted the maneuverability of the ship, which may have led to it running into a mine.
Bubble Simulation
Dr. Seunghun Lee is a professor of physics at Virginia, and Jae-Jung Suh is a professor of politics and international affairs at International Christian University, specializing in international relations with the Korean peninsula. They argue that the JIG report failed to show conclusive evidence that there was an explosion, that sinking was due to an external explosion, and that the DPRK was responsible for alleged explosion. The simulation used in the JIG report was leaked, and failed to show that a bubble produced by an outside explosion could split the ship in half. Even the ROK defense ministry admitted that "it [had] yet to produce a bubble simulation consistent with the information presented in the JIG report" at the time of Suh and Lee's paper [5]. Suh and Lee claim that a bubble, even if it could split the ship, should show a concave bubble-shaped deformity on the ship, but instead the "bottom of the front part of the ship is pushed up in an angular shape" (see fig. 2) [5]. There also should have been a pre-bubble shock-wave from an explosion outside the ship. Suh used a calculations from Reid [6] to determine that the pressure of that shock-wave should have been 5000 psi, a powerful shock-wave incompatible with the condition of the ship. Somehow "internal instruments and parts remain[ed] intact in their original place; and none of the crew members suffered the kind of injuries expected of such a shock" [5].
Fig 2: Angular deformity of ROKS Cheonan and leaked simulation [5]
The JIG report claims the absorbed materials on the torpedo and the ship matched. This is well proven through XRD and EDS analysis, however the reason these materials matched is less definitive. From the JIG data, the "intensity ratio of the oxygen peak and the aluminum peak in their EDS data of the [adsorbed materials] is very different from that of the alumina, Al2O3, that the JIG argues is formed during the explosion" [5]. This implies that the adsorbed materials were "likely aluminum that has rusted after exposure to moisture or water for a long time", as the intensity ratio better matches aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3) [5]. The JIG's own test explosion failed to produce a similar adsorbed material to that on the torpedo and ship. They claimed the difference was due to a slower cooling rate in their test, leading to less oxidized aluminum. However, in a test carried out by Lee heating and rapidly cooling aluminum as would have happened in the explosion, "only a fraction of the aluminum was oxidized", leaving a strong crystal Al signal in XRD analysis [5] (fig. 3). Experiments studying real explosions "reported that the resulting Al-related compounds are crystalline aluminum, crystalline α-Al2O3, and amorphous γ-Al2O3" [7]. Lee claims the EDS analysis of the JIG test sample is incorrect, perhaps entirely faked. JIG declined to release samples of the adsorbed material from the test explosion, claiming they "used up all the AM-III samples", despite the tests performed requiring an extremely minute amount of material [7]. The JIG report claims the supercooling would have led to amorphous aluminum oxide, explaining the lack of an reading in XRD analysis, but Lee's results dispute this claim.
The heavy corrosion on the torpedo part, if the JIG report is correct, would be due to the heat of the explosion burning off the paint. The ink marking which the JIG report has used to link the torpedo to the DPRK remained however. According to Suh and Lee, "ink has a lower boiling point, typically around 150 degrees in Celsius, than paint does – typically 350 degrees Celsius – and thus the ink marking should have burnt away just like the outer paint" [5]. Song Tae-ho, from the Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, responded to this criticism, using the equation PVγ=C to demonstrate that the bubble could have cooled quickly enough for the ink to not melt. Lee addresses this argument by first pointing out that this disputes the JIG's claims that "the 'adsorbed materials' are aluminum oxide stuck to the propeller as a result of the explosion... [and] that the paint on the exterior of the torpedo burned" [8]. With Song's method, the bubble would have been below freezing when it reached the propeller, making it impossible for the aluminum oxide to still be melted or able to adhere. Song's methodology is also simply wrong, as PVγ=C should be used for reversible processes where the pressure inside and outside the bubble remain the same, whereas in reality the "pressure inside the bubble created by an explosion of a 250kg explosive is well over 100 thousand times greater than the pressure outside" [8]. While an exact estimation is impossible, temperature would have been around 1000 degrees when it reached the propeller in reality [8]. While an explosion could have caused the sinking, the JIG report failed to prove that was even possible, much less definitive, and leveling accusations against the DPRK without adequate science was irresponsible and malicious.
Evidence of Mines
The JIG report in August dismissed the possibility of a mine, claiming it was "impossible" due to the environmental conditions of the area and the fact that no other mines were found by later sweeps [2]. They admitted that "a non-contact torpedo detonation causes identical damage as a non-contact mine detonation" and thus the damage profile didn't rule out a mine explosion based on the JIG report [2]. The impossibility of mines in the area is contradicted by locals- a "Baengnyeong Island resident, who has been diving for seafood for more than 20 years, said a number of the other divers there reported seeing mines", and he himself had seen scarring on rocks which "wasn't natural" [9]. An electric engineering specialist who was involved in placement of mines in the area in 1970, speaking anonymously out of fear for retribution from the ROK government, stated that the "land control mines were designed with waterproof casings and fiber-reinforcement polymers to resist corrosion by seawater, and in the testing prior to the fitting of the electrical detonator (a USFK Mark 6), they were sensitive enough to be triggered when the gauge was used to measure their current" [9]. The JIG report claims the mines were planted too long ago, but the waterproofing should have been sufficient, as they were designed to last under ocean water.
The Russian investigative team claimed the netting on the Cheonan shows the ship could have drug a mine from the bottom, leading to the explosion. The JIG report maintains that the ship sunk at a depth of 47 meters, making a mine on the ocean bottom not strong enough to split the ship in half. However, on July 9 "Captain Park Yeon-soo, operation officer on duty the day of the incident, testified that at the time of the explosion, the ship’s equipment showed they were 20m deep" [9]. The JIG investigators have refused to release the ship's route to the public, but still maintain the 47 meter depth. They also claimed the weight of the mine made movement impossible, but "Dr. Lee Pan-mook of the Marine System Security Research Center under the Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute said at the time, “mines can become loosened by currents and are known to float around" [9].
From the JIG report: "the LCM technical expert who had participated in the emplacement of the land controlled mines at the shore of Yeonhwari, Baekryong Island in the late 1970s... emphasized that there is enough possibility, based on the volta battery principle and the experiment in which he found the detonator to be sensitive enough to explode when he measured the electric current with a measuring device. He presented that he had seen measurements of approximately 1V and 5~10mA. However, the explosive experts from ADD assessed that there is low possibility for the explosion of a mine due to naturally induced electric power because most electric power is discharged into the seawater even if it is induced and because there were doubts whether the zinc and copper wire together can produce enough electric power for the detonation" [2]. While the JIG report also claims tests they ran confirmed that the volta battery principle didn't produce any electric current in the wire, Dr. Kim So-Gu, "an expert in big vessel and ship structures... said that electrical charges abound in a vessel, pointing out as example the ICCP unit, which is used to prevent the outer part of the ship from corroding" [9]. This shows that there's a reasonable possibility of detonation of the mines laid in the 1970s.
Based on seismic data from research stations in the area, Dr. So-Gu and Dr. Yefim Gitterman determined that "the seismic yield would be about 136 kg of TNT, which is equivalent to the individual yield of a large number of land control mines... abandoned in the vicinity of the ROKS Cheonan incident by the Republic of Korea (ROK) Navy in the 1970s" [10]. Their findings contradicted the JIG report's claim of a 250 kg of TNT seismic yield, indicating that a mine was more likely.
Submarine Operation in These Waters
The JIG report claims that "the tidal difference, water speed, and wave height are not limiting factors for a torpedo attacks (sic) by a submarine" [2]. However, the dangerous currents and shallow waters make the operation of submarines difficult and the possibility of mistakes made by the ROKS Cheonan crew more likely. Before the JIG report was released, the former ROK Navy Chief of Staff Song Young-Moo said that "Some people are pointing the finger at North Korea, but anyone with knowledge about the waters where the shipwreck occurred would not draw that conclusion so easily" [11]. An expert at a missile manufacturer disputed the JIG report's claim that a Korean People's Army midget submarine could have fired the torpedo, claiming that "Sango class submarines... apparently do not have an advanced system to guide homing weapons... [and] if a smaller class submarine was involved, there is a bigger question mark" [12]. The ability of the DPRK to sink the Cheonan with a torpedo has not been addressed, much less proven by JIG investigators.
The Ink Marking
According to the JIG's own report, they "concluded that the ingredient of the blue ink [on the torpedo] was 'Solvent Blue 5' that had [been] patented by a South Korean company, Monami, and they said that it cannot be traced to North Korea" [8]. They didn't explain how the DPRK could have obtained that ink, and neglected to address that concern at all in the report. One of the initial investigators on the JIG team claimed "The magnified photo of the evidence showed that the marking was written on the rusted surface... [but] if it were the North who marked it, the marking should have been written on a smooth surface" [13]. The photos released to the public in the report don't seem to be detailed enough to be conclusive on this front (unsurprisingly), and the JIG report claims "salt was precipitated on the marking and corroded interior steel was found to be risen above the ink" [2] (see Fig. 1 under 'Sinking of ROKS Cheonan and JIG Report'). It appears in the picture in the JIG report, the ink marking isn't altered by corrosion, as one would expect if the marking had been on the torpedo initially.
The style of writing also may not point towards the DPRK, as "According to Yang Moo Jin, a professor of North Korean studies at Kyongnam University, South Korea, it is not North Korean custom to label numbers with the letter 번 (for example '1번', '2번', '3번'), instead North Korea tends to indicate numbers using the word '호' (such as 1호, 2호, 3호 etc. -- this is pronounced as 'ho' and can be translated as code in English, for example, code 1, code 2...)" [14, translation in 15].
Other Discrepancies
While I think it is bad journalistic practice to lend much credibility to an unnamed source, if we apply the same standard that the US media has with their coverage of the DPRK, a "military expert, who spoke on condition of anonymity, cautiously raised the possibility of an 'internal act of terror'" [11]. Immediately after the explosion on the ROKS Cheonan "another naval ship... opened fire at an 'unidentified object' without rescuing sailors of the sinking Cheonan... [thinking] that an enemy vessel was fleeing after an attack" [16]. However, the defense ministry "concluded that the object on its radar was a flock of birds" [16]. This shows the tendency of the ROK's military to shoot first without confirming an attack, a tendency to remember when analyzing events where it's claimed the DPRK shot first.
The JIG report includes testimonies from survivors of the incident, and none of them reported seeing a water column. However, later in the report the JIG investigators speak of the water column's role in destroying the ship [2]. This contradiction is never explained in the report.
The DPRK told the ROK that they would send an "inspection group through the area under the joint control of the north and the south in the west coastal area" to investigate the site of the sinking "at 10:00 on May 22 and [urged the ROK] to take measures for its field activities including its passage through the Military Demarcation Line and guarantee of its safety" [17]. The ROK refused to allow this group access, stating that the investigation they conducted was correct. The DPRK also offered to provide pieces of their torpedoes in November 2010, claiming that "aluminum alloy fragments prove themselves that the torpedo was not from the north" [18]. If the JIG investigation was sufficient, allowing another party access shouldn't be a problem once the investigation is concluded, as the only danger would be that the DPRK would find contradictory evidence.
The 'international' team of investigators included primarily investigators from allies of the US/South Korean position, with Sweden as the only non-aligned country and no allied countries with the DPRK invited. Sweden's Accident Investigation Board (SHK) assisted with the JIG investigation, but they have refused to entirely support the conclusions of the JIG report. An official involved in the report from SHK stated that the Swedish investigative team was "not in a position to express its position on the findings regarding the responsible party in the Cheonan sinking" [19]. It appears that the Swedish team worked on and supports the conclusion that an explosion caused the damage to the ROKS Cheonan, but not the separate conclusion that the DPRK was responsible.
Who Stands to Benefit?
One South Korean citizen interviewed for a BBC article brought up an important question: "why has North Korea put a signature at the bottom of the torpedo" [20]. If the attempt was to attack the ROK without being caught, using a marked torpedo of a variety the international world knows they produce hardly seems logical. If they were trying to openly attack the ROK they wouldn't have so vehemently denied responsibility.
The DPRK at the time was working to strengthen their economy, and as KCNA notes "development presupposes peace, the DPRK at present requires peaceful external environment more than ever before" [21]. Increased tensions would at best create a new round of sanctions, further harming their economic growth, and at worst create an open war, ruining any hope of developing their peacetime economy. The US on the other hand used the situation to strengthen alliances and to "tighten its military domination over [the region] as evidenced by the order issued by it to its forces in south Korea to be combat ready to cope with another Korean war" [21]. The United States to this day retains OPCON (Operation Control, the power to command troops in a wartime situation) in the ROK. The transition was supposed to occur on April 17 2012, but in June 2010 "in consideration of the changes in the security environment, the two countries agreed to adjust the timing of the OPCON transition... to December 1, 2015" [22, p. 18]. The factors later cited for that shift in decision include "the risk of threat of military provocation through incidents such as the ROKS Cheonan attack" [22, p. 83]. The ROK also engaged in a joint drill with the US and came out with the May 24 Measures', which "restricted economic cooperation, exchange, and human contact between the two Koreas" [23]. These actions show that the US was the primary benefactor of the ROKS Cheonan sinking, and the DPRK's interests were severely harmed by the event.
As KCNA notes, the GNP (Grand National Party, a conservative party in the Republic of Korea now known as the Liberty Korea Party) was facing a serious threat in the local elections of June 2010, as the Democratic Party (which later merged into the Democratic United Party) was growing in strength. KCNA allges that the GNP was attempting to "create 'a security crisis' for the purpose of weathering out its 'election' crisis" [24]. Since GNP runs on a platform of strong military defense and antagonism towards the DPRK, an attack on the ROK by the DPRK would be advantageous, and the GNP began pushing the theory of the DPRK's responsibility well before the May 20 report. The use of the ROK Cheonan sinking for political advantage may have proven to be a failure at first, as in the June elections the GNP lost big in every category, doing slightly over half as well as 2006. In the long run however, this may have helped Park Geun-hye solidify the party's conservative nationalist base.
Popular Reaction and Repression
In a BBC article, surely among the least friendly news organisations to the DPRK, of the six South Koreans interviewed, three expressed doubts about the official report, and only one was in favor of strong retaliatory measures [20]. Shin Sang-chul was initially a part of the JIG investigation, after serving in the ROK navy and working as a ship-builder for seven years. He denied the claim that the sinking was due to a torpedo from the DPRK, and the ROK Ministry of National Defense "formally requested to replace [him]" [25]. On August 26 he was indicted on charges of "defamation for claiming that the government and military have been covering up the cause of the Cheonan sinking, and that the real cause was that the ship had run aground or collided with another object" [26]. Shin was worried that the indictment wouldn't go through, claiming that he would "prove that the investigation team’s announcement was a lie in the courtroom" [26]. On December 7 he was sentenced to three years in prison for libel [27]. According to a study on freedom of expression in South Korea, after the Cheonan incident the "response to the questions and criticisms was not an open debate but suppression, using criminal defamation charges to intimidate the opposition and increasing control over media and social media content dealing with North Korea" [27]. Shin Sang-chul is just one example of the repressive action the ROK government took towards dissenting opinions on the Cheonan. Starting on May 7 the government also investigated Park Sun-won, "former President Roh Moo-hyun’s secretary for national security, on charges that he spread false information about the sinking" [13]. This approach not only is concerning in itself, as it contradicts the western narrative of the ROK's free and open society, but it also casts doubt on the reliability of the JIG investigation- if their approach was sound why is dissent silenced not disproven?
[1]: UN Security Council - Letter dated 4 June 2010 from the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council
[2]: Joint Investigative Report on the Attack Against ROK Ship Cheonan
[3]: The Hankyoreh - Russian Navy Expert Team’s Analysis On the Cheonan Incident (27 July 2010)
[4]: Marolda, Edward J. - Mine Warfare (2000)
[5]: The Asian Pacific Journal - Suh & Lee - Rush to Judgment: Inconsistencies in South Korea's Cheonan Report (12 July 2010)
[6]: Reid - The Response of Surface Ships to Underwater Explosions (1996)
[7]: Lee & Yang - Were the “Critical Evidence” presented in the South Korean Official Cheonan Report fabricated? (2010)
[8]: The Hankyoreh - [Column] Pieces of the Cheonan puzzle (5 Aug. 2010)
[9]: The Hankyoreh - New evidence that Cheonan was sunk by an old mine (14 Sept. 2012)
[10]: So-Gu & Gitterman - Underwater explosion (UWE) analysis of the ROKS cheonan incident - Pure and Applied Geophysics 170(4) (Apr. 2012)
[11]: The Chosun Ilbo - What Caused the Cheonan to Sink? (29 March 2010)
[12]: The Korea Times - Questions raised about smoking gun (20 May 2010)
[14]: Left21 - 조사단 발표는 또 다른 의혹을 낳고 있다 (2010)
[15]: LINKS - South Korea: The story of ROKS Cheonan- repression, lies and half truths (1 Sept. 2010)
[16]: The Korea Herald - Military plays down N.K. foul play (2 April 2010)
[17]: KCNA - S. Side Urged to Receive NDC Inspection Group (22 May 2010) (backup)
[18]: Reuters - North Korea offers samples to refute ship sinking (2 Nov. 2010)
[21]: KCNA - Who Got Benefit from "Cheonan Case" (26 May 2010) (backup)
[24]: KCNA - AINDF Calls for Anti-GNP Struggle (19 May 2010) (backup)
[25]: The Korea Times - Gov’t seeks to replace Cheonan investigator (13 May 2010)
[26]: The Hankyoreh - Cheonan investigation team member indicted (27 Aug. 2010)
[27]: Haggard & You - Freedom of Expression in South Korea (18 Aug. 2013)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
CANVAS Founders and History CANVAS (Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies), was founded in 2003 in Serbia by Srdja Popovic an...
-
leaked photo of IMSI catchers owned by Florida police IMSI Catchers in Raleigh A few days ago I was bored and looking through FOIA ...
-
Our discussion of the first two chapters of Capital. Since it's a decent sized group we have two meetings each week and people attend wh...
