Tag Archives: journalism

The Panama Papers: Dirty Money or Dirty Media?

Panama PapersOn 3 April 2016, the first few of the so-called Panama Papers were published by mainstream media across the West. The Panama Papers are a collection of allegedly 2.6 TB of data and documents by and related to Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian law firm providing offshore trust services.

The leak, given by an anonymous whistle-blower to Bastian Obermayer of the German Süddeutsche Zeitung, consists of 11.5 million documents created between the 1970s and late 2015 by Mossack Fonseca. A consortium of journalists, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) subsequently organised the research and review of the documents.

These documents allegedly provide proof of the rich and powerful in the world storing their massive stashes of money in tax havens across the world like the British Virgin Islands (BVI), Guernsey, The Netherlands, etc. This practice is called tax avoidance, and is usually not illegal. It is highly questionable from a moral standpoint though. Billions of euros or dollars flow through thousands of shell companies that provide no benefit to society in terms of services, goods and employment. And the country of residence of the billionaire in question doesn’t receive tax income which could be put to better use to improve society rather than sit on an anonymous bank account on the Cayman Islands.

Media Bias

Putin_mediaOne of the first things that struck me as odd, but that is sadly no longer surprising, was the incredibly one-sided reporting done on this by the media. On 3 April, lots of articles appeared about the Panama Papers, and they strongly implied that President Putin of Russia was mentioned in these documents. Even though Putin was not mentioned in the few actual documents released to this point, the mainstream media strongly implied (by using photographs depicting Putin, for instance), that Putin is personally involved with the arrangements mentioned in the documents by Mossack Fonseca. The BBC Panorama documentary entitled “Tax Havens of the Rich and Powerful Exposed” is also strongly biased in their editing, showing documents on-screen for only a few nanoseconds behind an unclear background. When you stop the video and zoom in you can clearly see that the documents shown are from the British Virgin Islands, while this British overseas territory is not mentioned even once in the documentary itself, while they are droning on about Putin and the Icelandic former Prime Minister Gunnlaugsson.

Why this massive media bias? Why is it necessary to remind us that leaders from countries like Russia, China, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Syria etc. are corrupt? We know that. That is not news. What would be news is to reveal hard evidence that Western billionaires like George Soros are just as corrupt, and worse, that they influence politics and world affairs using their massive stashes of money.

The reason why the bias is so strong is partly due to the methodology used, and partly because of other interests. The Süddeutsche Zeitung gives a detailed explanation on how these documents were searched for interesting titbits. One of the things they did is focus on countries that may be violating UN sanctions, which might explain in part why the bias is on non-Western countries as it is. Also note that these documents only come from one law firm in Panama. If there would be another leak from, say, a law firm on the BVI, then we might find other people involved.

As Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan has written, Western journalists, the corporate media gatekeepers, are withholding the vast majority of the actual documents from the public. If we truly want to know what the impact of the Panama Papers is, without spin from the media, we should have access to the actual raw documents. Raw docs or it doesn’t exist, so to speak. If you don’t release 99% of the documents, you’re engaged in 1% journalism by definition. This is why I like the work that WikiLeaks is doing. They work very hard to publish the original source documents responsibly so that we can all learn how the world works from the original and authoritative source material. And then all journalists can read these documents on an equal standing. It’s been a pet-peeve of mine for many years that mainstream media don’t link to their sources like bloggers do. If a story is clearly based on documents like in this case the Panama Papers, just release the source documents together with your explanatory articles. Why is this such a problem?

Or are the journalists who have access to these documents afraid of possible blow-back if they report on the hand that feeds them?

Who is funding this?

Because that is the big elephant in the room. Who could be funding this propaganda extravaganza? Let’s have a look at the ICIJ’s site shall we?

Soros

George Soros at the Festival of Economics 2012, Trento. Photo by Niccolò Caranti.

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists is based in Washington, D.C, and is a project of the Center for Public Integrity. There, on the funding page, you can read that amongst the big institutional funders are names like the Omidyar Network (Pierre Omidyar, owner of The Intercept and founder of eBay), the Open Society Foundations (George Soros), the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Rockefellers, The Democracy Fund (again: Omidyar), and many others.

The OCCRP (Organized Crime and Corruption USAIDReporting Project) is also heavily involved with the Panama Papers project, and is sponsored, by (again) the Open Society Institute of George Soros, and also USAID, which is a US government agency and front organisation posing as a charity and frequently used as an instrument of regime change.

Is it strange that which such backers the very first news reports that came out were so incredibly biased? Given how much the US administration would like to see regime change in Russia, are these reports bashing the Russian President a surprise? No, sadly, I’m not surprised any more. What I find despicable, is that so many journalists who worked on this, like to think of themselves as independent and the ultimate arbiters of truth, when evidently, they are not.

Why are there not reports about the vast amount of wealth stashed away in tax havens by George Soros? Mark Zuckerberg? Warren Buffet? The journalists sacrificed a token Western leader like Gunnlaugsson from Iceland, so they can claim to be bias-free (“look, we’re also publishing on Western leaders!”), while in reality, their entire enterprise is funded by the rich and powerful in the West. So I think I can quite confidently predict that for instance George Soros’s financial arrangements in various tax havens will not be published. Mark my words.

With Politicians Like These, Who Needs Terrorists?

The text on the cover says: "Love is stronger than hate."

The text on the cover says: “Love is stronger than hate.”

Last week, on the 7th of January 2015, the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo‘s office in Paris was attacked by Islamic fundamentalists. Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical magazine featuring jokes, cartoons, reports etcetera. that is stridently anti-conformist in nature. They make fun of politics, Judaism, Christianity and Islam and all other institutions. Like all of us they have every right to freedom of expression. But alas, fundamentalists did not agree, and opted to violently attack their office in Paris with assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades, leaving 12 people killed and 11 wounded. This was a terrible attack, and my heart goes out to the families and their colleagues and friends who have lost their loved ones.

After the attack, there was (rightly so) worldwide condemnation and the sentence “Je suis Charlie,” French for “I am Charlie,” became the slogan of millions. What I am afraid of however, is not the terrorists who perpetrate these attacks. What frightens me more, is the almost automatic response by politicians who immediately see reasons to implement ever more oppressive legislation, building the surveillance state. After all, the goal of terrorism is to change society by violent means. If we allow them to, the terrorists have already won. Their objective is completed by our own fear.

Hypocrites At The March

When I was watching footage of the march in Paris for freedom of expression I saw that a lot of government leaders were present, most of whom severely obstructed freedom of expression and freedom of the press in their home countries. Now they were were at the march, claiming the moral high ground and claiming to be the guardians of press freedom.

Here’s an overview of some of the leaders present at the march and what they did in relation to restricting press freedom in their own countries, courtesy of Daniel Wickham, who made this list and published it on his Twitter feed:

Politicians like the ones mentioned above, but also the likes of May (UK Home Secretary), Opstelten (the Netherlands’ Justice Minister) and many others are jumping on the bandwagon again to implement new oppressive laws limiting freedom of expression and the civil and human rights of their peoples. With leaders like these, who needs terrorists? Our leaders will happily implement legislation that will severely curtail our freedoms and civil liberties instead of handling the aftermath of tragic events like these as grown-ups. It would be better if they viewed participating in the march as a starting point to start improving the situation in the areas of freedom of expression and freedom of the press at home.

The Political Consequences Of Terrorist Attacks

What frightens me is the fact that people like Andrew Parker, head of MI5, the kind of person who normally never makes headlines, is given all the space he needed to explain to us “why we need them,” to put it in the words of High Chancellor Adam Sutler, the dictator from the film “V for Vendetta,” which is set in a near-future British dystopia. UK Chancellor George Osborne immediately said in response to the piece by Andrew Parker that MI5 will get an extra £100 million in funding for combating Islamic fundamentalism. David Cameron has confirmed this.

Politicians are using the tragic events in Paris as a way to demand more surveillance powers for the intelligence community in a brazen attempt to curtail our civil liberties in a similar way to what happened after the 9/11 attacks.

All the familiar rhetoric is used again, how it’s a “terrible reminder of the intentions of those who wish us harm,” how the threat level in Britain worsened and Islamic extremist groups in Syria and Iraq are trying to attack the UK, how the intelligence community needs more money to gather intelligence on these people, how our travel movements must be severely restricted and logged, the need for increased security at border checks, a European PNR (Passenger Name Record) (which, incidentally would mean the end of Schengen, one of the core founding principles on which the EU was founded — freedom of movement). The list goes on and on.

A trend can be seen here. UK Home Secretary Theresa May wants to ban extremist speech, and ban people deemed extremist from publicly speaking at universities and other venues. The problem with that is that the definition of extremist is very vague, and certainly up for debate. Is vehemently disagreeing with the government’s current course in a non-violent way extremist? I fear that May thinks that would fit the definition. This would severely curtail freedom of speech both on the internet and in real life, since there are many people who disagree with government policies, and are able to put forward their arguments in a constructive manner.

Before we can even begin to implement laws like these we need to discuss what extremism means, what vague concepts like “national security” mean. There are no clear definitions for these terms at this point, while the legislation that is being put into place since 9/11 is using these vague notions intentionally, giving the security apparatus way too much leeway to abuse their powers as they see fit.

I read that Cameron wants to ban all encrypted communications, since these cannot be decrypted by the intelligence community. This would mean that banks, corporations and individuals would leave themselves vulnerable to all kinds of security vulnerabilities, including identity theft among others, vulnerabilities which cryptographic technologies are meant to solve.

Cryptography is the practice of techniques for secure communication in the presence of adversaries. Without cryptography, you couldn’t communicate securely with your bank, or with companies that handle your data. You also couldn’t communicate securely with various government agencies, or health care institutions, etcetera. All these institutions and corporations handle sensitive information about your life that you wouldn’t want unauthorised people to have access to.  This discussion about banning cryptography strongly reminds me of the Crypto Wars of the 1990s.

Making technologies like these illegal only serves to hurt the security of law-abiding citizens. Criminals, like the people who committed the attacks at Charlie Hebdo, wouldn’t be deterred by it. They are already breaking the law anyway, so why worry? But for people who want to comply with the law, this is a serious barrier, and restricting cryptography only hurts our societies’ security.

Norwegians’ Response to Breivik

Instead of panicking, which is what these politicians are doing right now, we should instead treat this situation with much more sanity. Look for instance to how the Norwegians have handled the massacre of 77 people in Oslo and on the Norwegian island of Utøya by Anders Behring Breivik on July 22nd, 2011.

Breivik attacked the Norwegian government district in Oslo, and then subsequently went to Utøya, where a large Labour Party gathering was taking place. He murdered 77 people in total.

The response by the Norwegians was however, very different from what you would expect had the attack taken place in the UK, the US or The Netherlands, for instance. In these countries, the reaction would be the way it is now, with the government ever limiting civil liberties in an effort to build the surveillance state, taking away our liberties in a fit of fear. The Norwegians however, urged that Norway continued its tradition of openness and tolerance. Memorial services were held, the victims were mourned, and live went on. Breivik got a fair trial and is now serving his time in prison. This is the way to deal with crises like this.

Is Mass Surveillance Effective?

The problem with more surveillance legislation is the fact that it isn’t even certain that it would work. The effectiveness of the current (already quite oppressive) surveillance legislation has never been put to the test. Never was a research published that definitively said that, yes, storing all our communications in dragnet surveillance has stopped this many terrorist attacks and is a valuable contribution to society.

In fact, even the White House has released a review of the National Security Agency’s spy programmes in December 2013, months after the first revelations by Edward Snowden, and this report offered 46 recommendations for reform. The conclusion of the report was predictable, namely that even though the surveillance programmes have gone too far, that they should stay in place. But this report has undermined the NSA’s claims that the collection of meta-data and mass surveillance on billions of people is a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

The report says on page 104, and I quote:

“Our review suggests that the information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of Section 215 telephony meta-data was not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional Section 215 orders.”

And shortly after Edward Snowden’s revelations about the existence of some of these programmes were published, former director of the NSA Keith Alexander testified to the Senate in defence of his agency’s surveillance programmes. He claimed that dozens of terrorist attacks were stopped because of the mass surveillance, both at home and abroad. This claim was also made by President Obama, who said that it was “over 50.” Often, 54 is the exact number quoted. Alexander’s claim was challenged by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO), who said that they “had not seen any evidence showing that the NSA’s dragnet collection of Americans’ phone records has produced any valuable intelligence.” The claim that the warrant-less global dragnet surveillance has stopped anywhere near that number of terrorist attacks is questionable to say the least, and much more likely entirely false.

More oppressive dragnet surveillance measures aren’t helping with making the intelligence community any more efficient at their job. In fact, the more intelligence gets scooped up in these dragnet surveillance programmes, the less likely it becomes that a terror plot is discovered before it occurs, so that these may be stopped in time. More data needs to be analysed, and there’s only so much automatic algorithms can do when tasked with filtering out the non-important stuff. In the end, the intel needs to be assessed by analysts in order to determine their value and if necessary act upon it. There is also the problem with false positives, as people get automatically flagged because their behaviour fits certain patterns programmed into the filtering software. This may lead to all sorts of consequences for the people involved, despite the fact that they have broken no laws.

Politicians can be a far greater danger to society than a bunch of Islamic terrorists. Because unlike the terrorists, politicians have the power to enact and change legislation, both for better and for worse. When we are being governed by fear, the terrorists have already won.

The objective of terrorism is not the act itself. It is to try and change society by violent means. If we allow them to change it, by implementing ever more oppressive mass surveillance legislation (in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)), or legislation that restricts the principles of freedom of the press and freedom of speech, enshrined in Article 10 of the ECHR, freedom of assembly and association enshrined in Article 11, or of freedom of movement which is one of the basic tenets on which the European Union was founded, the terrorists have already won.

Let’s use our brains and think before we act.

Talk at Logan Symposium 2014, London

A few weeks ago, I was in London at the Logan Symposium 2014, which was held at the Barbican Centre in London from 5 to 7 December 2014. During this event, I gave a talk entitled: “Security Dilemmas in Publishing Leaks.” (slides, PDF) The event was organised by the Centre for Investigative Journalism in London.

The audience was a switched-on crowd of journalists and hacktivists, bringing together key figures in the fight against invasive surveillance and secrecy. and it was great to be there and to be able to provide some insights and context from a technological perspective.

The Ukrainian Veto: Why The MH17 Report Will Not Reveal The Truth

On November 26, 2014 it was revealed by the Dutch news outlet RTL Nieuws that there exists a confidentiality agreement that was signed by the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia and the Kiev regime in Ukraine that gives each of the signatories a veto on any information that comes out of the investigation.

The existence of this confidentiality agreement is confirmed by the Australian Government, more specifically by Melissa Stenfors, Acting Director of the Crisis Management & Contingency Planning Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade:

Veto_Australia_Ukraine_MH17Later, the authenticity of this letter was confirmed by the Australian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the following statement to RTL Nieuws:

“The letter to which you refer is authentic. Australia, The Netherlands, Belgium and Ukraine have signed a non-disclosure agreement with respect to the criminal investigation into the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17.

This agreement requires consensus among the parties before information regarding the investigation can be released. The non-disclosure of information is important to avoid jeopardising the investigation or prejudicing a future judicial proceeding arising from the investigation.

The Joint Investigation Team non-disclosure agreement was communicated in confidence by foreign governments, and, as a result, cannot be made public.”

(emphasis mine)

An Elsevier magazine Freedom of Information Act (Wob) request to reveal the contents of the confidentiality agreement mentioned above, along with 16 other documents concerning the investigation was denied by the Dutch cabinet.

geweigerd

Unanswered Questions

So far, the investigation into the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 is poorly done. The Dutch Safety Board (Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid) published a preliminary report about MH17 on 9 September 2014. This report was unsatisfactory for many parties. Basically it only says that the damage to the front section of the fuselage and the cockpit indicates that the plane was hit by a large number of high-energy projectiles coming from outside the aircraft, and that the damage pattern does not match with any damage one would expect in case of failure of the aircraft’s engines or other systems. In any case, there are no indications of any technical or operational problems with the aircraft or its crew prior to the CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) and FDR (Flight Data Recorder) stopping their recordings at 13:20:03 hours.

Important questions still remain unanswered, like whether the damage was caused by an air-to-air missile (which would support the Russians’ claims of a Ukrainian fighter jet near the Malaysian airliner), or surface-to-air (which supports the Buk weapons system theory). In the case of a surface-to-air missile, it still remains to be seen who fired the weapon at the time. Satellite pictures that claim that the Buk was operated by the rebels and then transported out of eastern Ukraine into the Russian Federation are very grainy, and one cannot discern any important details, let alone confirm their authenticity. These questions have not yet been answered, let alone asked by the investigation team (at least as far as we know).

The existence of the confidentiality agreement however, is very problematic. Especially if it contains, as sources seem to indicate, a veto right for all parties, including Ukraine. What if the investigation does reveal something that might point to the Ukrainians being behind the MH17 disaster? Would that ever get published? I think not, given the fact that they have a veto. Basically, the way this investigation was set-up, almost guarantees an outcome that will absolve the Ukrainians of any blame in the disaster. When the report does come out eventually, it will no doubt serve as new fuel on the pyre, with the West trying to blame Russia for the downing of MH17. Another reason why the investigation might be slow-going, besides the obvious difficulties in collecting all the evidence, is because the release of the final report might need to be carefully timed, released only when there’s a lull in the anti-Putin rhetoric, and this could then serve to ignite people’s anger and play on emotions to start a war with Russia. Which is a horrible thought, and I certainly do not hope things will play out this way.

But just as we have been stumbling into World War One, some of the signs are seen again nowadays. For instance, just look at the sheer level of propaganda found in the mainstream media, impervious to facts and reason. We are stumbling into another World War before we realise what happened. As the distinguished journalist John Pilger so brilliantly said during his speech at the Logan Symposium in London this month, “the most effective propaganda is not found in the Sun or on Fox News, but beneath a liberal halo.” We need to find the counter-narrative, figure out what is really going on to try and prevent this tragedy from happening.

It pains me to see how the U.S. is using Europe as its playground, themselves safely removed far away across the Atlantic Ocean, and we Europeans are allowing them to. Why should we be so subservient to a nation whose foreign policy in the past 70 years has only contributed to igniting crises and wars across the world? South America was ravaged by U.S. foreign policy, as was Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Cuba, and countless of other countries. Innocent citizens across the globe now have to live with the very real and daily fear of extra-judicial murder in the form of drone strikes, personally ordered and authorised by President Obama every Tuesday, extraordinary renditions (kidnapping) to “black sites” in countries like Poland and Romania where people are subject to CIA torture, as the executive summary of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Torture Report (PDF) recently revealed.

And the sad thing is, I’m not seeing any significant change in the US, where pundits the likes of Dick Cheney are still trumpeting torture (euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation”). When the Nazi’s were defeated after the Second World War, they were brought before the court during the Nuremberg trials, and some of the people deemed mainly responsible for the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed under Hitler’s regime were executed for their crimes. In the US, there isn’t even the slightest hint of a criminal investigation into the people responsible for the torture committed by CIA personnel and contractors, either directly or indirectly.

The Second Cold War

The coup in Ukraine was used to try and lure Russia into a second Cold War. A massive misinformation campaign was mounted in the Western press which totally ignored the real cause of the current crisis in Ukraine, namely the US putsch to oust the pro-Russian Yanukovich from power and install the pro-US Yatsenyuk. Yanukovich was democratically elected, Yastenyuk was not. On Maidan square, snipers attacked both the pro- and anti-Yanokovich protesters. The telephone conversation Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State) held with Geoffrey Pyatt (U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine) that was intercepted and posted to YouTube was blacked out from the mainstream media. This offered compelling evidence that the Ukrainian crisis was a U.S. led coup.

I have written extensively about the coup previously, explaining that NATO expansion after the Cold War ended has put Russia on edge, as they are obviously concerned about their national security. When the Soviets did a similar thing in Cuba, this led to Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. Why is it OK for the U.S. to respond by blockading Cuba, but when it’s Russia’s national security that is being threatened by NATO’s military bases, these legitimate concerns are hand-waved away and ignored? American exceptionalism has no place in the 21st century, or in fact, in any century.

After the referendum on the status of the Crimea, where the vast majority of the (mostly ethnic Russian) population (96.77% in fact) voted to re-join the Russian Federation, after the separation of the Crimea from Russia by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954, the Russians were immediately blamed for annexing the area. However, there were no such outcries when Kosovo declared itself independent from Serbia (without a referendum, mind you). In the case of Kosovo, it suited the Western powers, in the case of the Crimea, it did not.

The Crimea is of strategic importance to the Russians, as their Black Sea Fleet is based in the Crimean city of Sevastopol. When the Ukrainian coup started, Russia was getting increasingly concerned about whether it would be able to continue its lease of the military base, which was set to expire in 2042. Losing access to the base would be difficult, as Sevastopol’s warm water port, its natural harbour and the extensive infrastructure already in place there currently makes it one of the best-outfitted naval bases in the Black Sea. Sevastopol also allows the Russians relatively quick and easy access to the Mediterranean. The Russian Mediterranean Task Force, which is based in Sevastopol, was previously used to remove Syrian chemical weapons and conduct anti-piracy operations near Somalia.

All I hope is that the current crisis will be resolved quickly, as the path we currently seem to be on (one almost inevitably leading to war), is a foolish endeavour, and we need to realise that talking and diplomacy will get us much further than empty threats and baseless allegations. We’ve previously seen what US interference does to countries, like in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the sanctions that were put in place before that. Millions of people have been displaced and killed in that conflict alone. We need to stop this madness and start the dialogue to understand and hear the valid concerns put forward. Only then can war be avoided.

The Ukrainian Putsch: NATO’s Imperialistic Expansion and the Role of the Mainstream Media

As I’ve written earlier, the position the main stream media is taking seems to be one of being an extension of the powers that be. Rarely are the critical questions asked, and for the most part, with rare exceptions here and there, there is a significant bias to the reporting done.

An excellent example of this bias is when you look at the reporting done on the current crisis in Ukraine. This is a case that I want to look into in a bit more detail, now that several more things have become clear. In the Western media, the opinion seems to be that Vladimir Putin is bad, and NATO is good. They call the Russian position in this case imperialism, but forget their own role in creating and supporting this crisis in the first place.

In this article, I’ll explain some history about NATO expansion, and then go on trying to place the Ukrainian crisis into that historical framework, and subsequently I’ll take a look at the role the (Western) media have been playing so far, and what improvements can be made, to both our own governments’ positions relating to the U.S., and to media reporting.

Regime change and broken promises

As the phone call between Victoria Nuland (U.S. Assistant Secretary of State) and Geoffrey Pyatt (U.S. ambassador to Ukraine) reveals, the U.S. had made a plan of regime change for Ukraine. Nuland specifically mentioned Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Yanukovich’s successor and talk it through (“Yats is our man!”, “Have the UN help glue this thing”, “If it does gain altitude the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it.”, “Fuck the EU”). How convenient then, that when  Viktor Yanukovich is ousted, and the dust settles in Kiev, Yatsenyuk is suddenly prime minister? And what is the first thing he does? Instead of attending to the problems in Ukraine and finding a peaceful resolution to the crisis, he flies off to the very people who put him in power, and visits the United States. No doubt to thank them, I would presume.

Meanwhile, Western nations have been trying to punish Russia for annexing the Crimea (which, by the way, was originally part of the Russian SFSR, before it was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR by Nikita Khruchev in 1954). The sanctions don’t seem to have a big effect on Russia, and Russia has signed a new $400 billion 30-year gas deal with China on 21 May to try and make itself less dependent on Western gas customers. Russia is currently the biggest supplier of natural gas to Europe, and without the Russian gas, nations like Germany and Italy, as well as the Baltic states will get into trouble. There has been movement from these nations to try and become less dependent on Russia, and similarly, Russia has now signed a deal with China to become less dependent on the Western market, thereby significantly weakening any effect the sanctions were aimed at having.

NATO’s broken promiseNATO Expansion

NATO has been steadily expanding, despite the promise made in 1990 to the last Soviet president, Mikhail Gorbachev, who agreed that East- and West-Germany could be united and become a member of NATO, on the condition that NATO would not move one inch further east. Since then, NATO, mistakenly assuming that they had somehow “won” the Cold War, went on and happily incorporated 12  Eastern European nations into their fold, within Moscow’s sphere of influence, with the largest expansion eastwards taking place in 2004. Here’s an overview:

  • In 1999: Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were added to NATO,
  • In 2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia,
  • In 2009: Albania and Croatia.

Just imagine what would have happened had 12 South American nations joined the former Warsaw Pact? Now that would be something the U.S. would not accept. Similarly, Russia does not accept the continued expansion of NATO into their sphere of influence.

It looked like Ukraine was all set on becoming a future member of NATO. The prospect of Ukraine becoming a member state of the U.S.-led NATO is understandably a threat to Russian national security. They operate a major naval base in the Crimean city of Sevastopol, which is the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and from Sevastopol, the Russian fleet has quick access to the Mediterranean Sea. The Russians used to lease the base from the Ukrainians. However, the future of the lease might have been severely compromised if Ukraine would become part of NATO.

That the Russians feel threatened by the continued expansion of NATO is understandable given the fact that the U.S. military-industrial complex and their partners in Europe have been busy for many years expanding the “Star Wars” missile defense system in Eastern Europe, ostensibly to protect against a missile launch from Iran. The “Star Wars” program was established by President Reagan on 23 March 1983 as Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and renamed to Ballistic Missile Defense Organisation (BMDO) by the Clinton administration on 13 May 1993, then later renamed to Missile Defense Agency (MDA) in 2002 by the George W. Bush administration. I wonder why all the name changes were deemed necessary? To obfuscate and redirect unwanted media attention maybe? But I digress.antimissile

The hypocrisy of U.S. policy amazes me, because as some people still remember, when the Soviet Union did a similar thing in Cuba in 1962 (hint: supplying weapons to the Cubans to counter a possible future U.S. invasion attempt in Cuba after the failed CIA-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion, and also sparked because the U.S. stationed nuclear weapons in Turkey), this in turn sparked anger from the United States and led to the Cuban Missile Crisis and subsequently, the Cuban Blockade.

A relic from the Cold War

In my opinion, NATO is a relic from the Cold War, which serves no purpose any longer and is now used as a way of furthering U.S. military hegemony in the world. With the revelations of Edward Snowden this last year, and hopefully with many more revelations to come, we should, as Europeans, ask whether we are still willing to continue to play the role of subservient lap dog of the U.S.. A role we’ve been playing since the end of the Second World War. We should start thinking about how we can safeguard the safety and security of European citizens, which by the way, is exactly what our governments, by definition, should worry about. Do we want to keep our own sovereignty? Because if we don’t, the game is up.

Instead, our governments seem more interested in giving our private data to U.S. corporations, and (by extension) their intelligence agencies. This in many cases significantly hurts European companies, for the powers of intelligence agencies are mostly used for industrial espionage purposes, not to combat terrorism. In fact, there has not been a single documented case of the NSA’s spying programs actually stopping any terrorists. President Obama claimed that 54 terrorist plots had been prevented (PDF, first page, 4th paragraph, published on 1 August 2013) thanks to the intel gathered by the NSAs metadata program, but this number is most likely pulled out of thin air, because there is no justification for this number, nor a way of checking that number independently.

The funny thing is, that the behaviour of the NSA is also significantly hurting U.S. companies, who see their European customers flee in droves for better alternatives that protect their privacy more. This is a negative economic effect the spying is having on the U.S. economy, as I’ve written about before, in November.

Our governments’ subservient attitude towards the U.S. is completely unjustified. For the people who claim that we would all be speaking German today had it not been for the Americans, they should retroactively get an F for history and re-take their history classes. For had it not been for the Soviets who suffered tremendous sacrifices combating Hitler (20 million Soviet civilians were killed during the war, not counting military personnel, more than 3 times the estimated 6 million Jews who died during the Holocaust), the Western allies would probably not have been able to land on the beaches of Normandy, as Hitler would not have to split his forces, and could then focus solely on the Western front.

America only got involved in the Second World War in 1941, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. Britain was left for years to fend for themselves, being bombed heavily by the German Luftwaffe. Massive kudos should be given to the Royal Air Force for keeping the British isles free of German occupation (with the notable exception of the Channel Islands just off the coast of France, as that was the only part of British soil occupied by the Germans during the war). To be clear, I don’t want to deny the American war effort, and I surely want to give credit where credit is due, but on the other hand, it wasn’t the “America saved the world” that many people think it is.

There simply is no further need for NATO to exist. The North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation was created on 4 April 1949 as a defensive alliance of Western countries to protect Western Europe from encroachment by the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union no longer exists, and modern-day Russia closely cooperates with Europe, despite the current diplomatic difficulties. With the increasing interdependence between Russia and Europe there’s less and less need for an organisation like NATO to continue to exist.

Nowadays, NATO’s only reason for existence seems to be to contain Russia, and further the U.S. military/industrial complex and the militarist hawks are trying to prove the necessity of NATO by means of the Ukrainian crisis. The United States sees the future of NATO increasingly as an offensive organisation that is meant to further U.S. interests, and will not only include former Soviet republics into their fold, but plans are already under way to expand NATO’s influence even further, and cooperate even more closely with the current “Partners across the globe,” namely Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, South Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand and Pakistan. Why are we such willing accomplices in that scheme?

The Role of the Mainstream Media

What struck me when watching the Ukrainian crisis unfold was the total and utter complacency and subservient attitude towards the official Western “party line” when the mainstream media reported on the crisis. There were hardly any critical questions asked when the telephone conversation between Nuland and Pyatt become publicly available, and no questions were asked as to the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian coup-imposed government.

Dare to ask the critical questions!

I would gladly watch the mainstream media more if they start being a bit more critical to the establishment, and not always simply copy/paste press releases, and actually try to analyse the matter for themselves and dare to ask the tough questions to the people in power.

This is again so lacking when it comes to coverage of the Ukrainian crisis, where there seems to be a unanimous consensus in the West that Putin is an evil imperialist, and NATO/EU/US is good, without even considering what really happens in Ukraine and the strategic and national interests involved, let alone the role the U.S. played in organising the coup d’état.

Of course the media can be critical towards Russia as well, and in fact they should. Truth be told, Russia still has a lot of problems to deal with, as do Western countries. And the media’s job should be to keep people informed so that they can freely form their opinions about the world around them, not just blindly copy the official party line. As then I might start watching again, and the employees of these media organisations might one day earn the title of “journalist.”

Country X: The Country That Shall Not Be Named

On Monday, 19 May 2014, Glenn Greenwald published his report entitled Data Pirates of the Caribbean: The NSA is recording every cell call in the Bahamas, in which he reported about the NSA SOMALGET program, which is part of the larger MYSTIC program. MYSTIC has been used to intercept the communications of several countries, namely the Bahamas, Mexico, Kenya, the Phillipines, and thanks to Wikileaks we now know that the final country, redacted in Glenn Greenwalds original report on these programs, was Afghanistan.

MYSTICSOMALGET can be used to take in the entire audio stream (not just metadata) of all the calls in an entire country, and store this information for (at least) 30 days. This is capability the NSA developed, and was published by The Washington Post in March this year.

Why the Censorship?

The question however, is why Glenn Greenwald chose to censor the name of Afghanistan out of his report. He claims it has been done to protect lives, but I honestly can’t for the life of me figure out why lives would be at risk when it is revealed to the Afghani’s that their country is one of the most heavily surveilled on the planet? This information is not exactly a secret. Why is this knowledge that’s OK for the Bahamians to possess, but not the Afghani’s? The US effectively colonized Afghanistan and it seems that everyone with at least half a brain can figure out that calling someone in Afghanistan might have a very high risk of being recorded and analysed by NSA. Now we know for certain that the probability of this happening is 1.

Whistleblowers risk their lives and livelihoods to bring to the public’s attention, information that they deem to be in the gravest public interest. Now, whistleblowers carefully consider which information to publish and/or hand out to journalists, and in the case of intelligence whistleblowers, they are clearly more expert than most journalists when it comes to security and sensing which information has to be kept from the public in the interest of safety of lives and which information can be published in the public interest. After all, they have been doing exactly that for most of their professional lives, in a security-related context.

Now, it seems that Greenwald acts as a sort of filter between the information Edward Snowden gave him for publication, and the actual information the public is getting. Greenwald is sitting on an absolute treasure-trove of information and is clearly cherry picking which information to publish and which information to withhold. By what criteria I wonder? Spreading out the publication of data however, is a good strategy, given that about a year has passed since the first disclosures, and it’s still very much in the media, which is clearly a very good thing. I don’t think that would have happened if all the information was dumped at once.

But on the other hand: Snowden has risked his life and left his comfortable life on Hawaii behind him to make this information public, a very brave thing to do, and certainly not a decision to take lightly, and has personally selected Greenwald to receive this information. And here is a journalist who is openly cherry-picking and censoring the information given to him, already preselected by Snowden, and thereby withholding potentially critical information from the public?

So I would hereby like to ask: By what criteria is Greenwald selecting information for publication? Why the need to interfere with the whistleblower’s judgement regarding the information, who is clearly more expert at assessing the security-related issues surrounding publication?

Annie Machon, whistleblower and former MI5, has also done an interview on RT about this Afghanistan-censoring business of Greenwald, whistleblowers deserve full coverage. Do watch. Whistleblowers risk their lives to keep the public informed of government and corporate wrongdoing. They need our support.

Update: Mensoh has also written a good article (titled: The Deception) about Greenwald’s actions, also in relation to SOMALGET and other releases. A highly recommended read.

Speaking Truth to Power: Integrity in the Mainstream Media

RT Front page

Yesterday I watched a public discussion (last link in Dutch) on Sargasso between Jeroen Wollaars, NOS reporter, and Arjen Kamphuis, futurist, writer, and co-founder and CTO at Gendo. During his talk at OHM2013 (titled: Futureshock), someone asked Arjen a question that went somewhat like this: “If we cannot trust the mainstream media anymore to supply us with the information we need to act as informed citizens, what is the alternative?” To which Arjen replied that, if you want to be better informed about what happens in the Western world, RT (Russia Today) is pretty good.

Now it is important to be very nuanced here. You probably shouldn’t believe the RT reporting done on stuff that is happening in Russia, as RT is, just like any media organization, selective in the information they broadcast, and probably won’t be objective when it comes to Russia, just like the Western media aren’t objective on Western subjects. But on Western issues, and informing us about all the stuff the Western governments are doing, the RT reporting is very good because unlike the Western mainstream media, the Russians dare to ask the questions that need to be asked. Questions that you won’t hear from the Western mainstream media, and the Dutch media in particular.

So many questions..Collateral Murder

Why are the people who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in an attack helicopter during the Iraq War under the Bush Administration still allowed to walk free, whereas Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years for simply exposing those very same war crimes? How come Manning was sentenced to 35 years, while Anders Breivik was sentenced to just 21? Isn’t that a bit off? A man who ruthlessly and pointlessly murdered 77 people gets less years in prison than someone who exposed the dirty laundry of the powers that be?

When exactly did Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende know about the contents of the Downing Street Memos? Remember, these were the memos that proved definitively that “facts were being fixed around the policy” and that Governor Bush was set in his ways on provoking a war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. His administration claimed that Saddam had WMDs (which was a blatant lie, even then), and they even tried to connect Saddam to Al-Qaeda.

AIVDWhere is the coverage about our own intelligence agencies, like the AIVD, MIVD etc. in relation to the revelations on PRISM? Do they have the same capabilities, do they request data on Dutch citizens from their UK and US partners? What kind of data sharing is done with these inter-agency cooperations? We know the Americans spy on Dutch citizens as well (just like they do on every person on the planet connected to the Internet or phone networks), but where are the critical questions from the media? Where are the tough talk shows and debates that really question a few high-ranking politicians about these very important issues? The Germans have at least asked these questions to their politicians.

What is the underlying reason for the massive nation-wide push for the RFID OV-chipkaart public transport ticket (at the expense of normal paper tickets), the ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) cameras above the nation’s highways (which are also used by police), or the fingerprints on the RFID chip on our passports? The government seems intent on tracking our every move.

And these are just a handful of questions the Dutch media didn’t bother to ask and issues they didn’t bother to cover.

The problem with the Dutch mainstream media

The Dutch mainstream media are unfortunately excruciatingly bad at journalism. For instance, the whole Manning case is barely on the news here, but whenever the American presidential elections draw near, the whole Dutch mainstream media press corps gets their knickers in a twist in trying to report on the American ‘elections’ in excruciating and nitty-gritty detail.

There are more important things going on in the world than reporting on an election that is principally undemocratic to begin with. After the 2000 presidential election, Governor Bush squatted the White House for 8 years, while Al Gore won the popular vote. It sure was convenient that Bush’s brother Jeb happened to be Governor of Florida when the electoral votes for that state were the deciding factor in who would win the presidency. And there’s stuff like voter suppression and gerrymandering going on in the US as well, which can influence elections quite substantially. But this fixation the Dutch media has with the US elections has always surprised me, given the fact that the coverage is almost on par with our own elections!

The Dutch media stopped asking the critical questions, and are now almost exclusively broadcasting propaganda from Washington. No questions asked, no background stories, no critical analyses, no audi alteram partem. They now mostly copy-paste the press releases from PR departments, and I really miss the critical tone. Most articles are less than 3 paragraphs long.

I will gladly watch the NOS and other Dutch media again (online, for free, not behind a paywall, and using open standards to provide streaming video) when they start being critical of the government which decides on their budget, and start speaking truth to power.

And this is the main reason why I use RT (among others) to keep me updated on the stuff our Western governments are doing. Unlike the Western mainstream media, RT is asking the questions, they currently speak truth to (Western) power. And again, nuance is important: you shouldn’t believe RT too much when it comes to Russia, just like you shouldn’t believe the Western media too much when it comes to the West. It’s both propaganda, one way or the other. The Russians are at least open and frank about where RT gets their money from; in the West they are much more indirect and subtle about these matters. It’s always best to get your news from as many sources as possible, and make your own decisions on who is more likely to tell you the truth.