Chris Hedges's Blog, page 600

Did John Bolton Leak Intelligence to Sabotage a Trump-Kim Deal?

The still-unscheduled Donald Trump-Kim Jong Un summit offers the opportunity for a denuclearization deal that would avoid a possible nuclear war, but that potential deal remains vulnerable to a hostile corporate media sector and political elites in the United States. At the center of this hostility is national security adviser John Bolton, who’s not just uninterested in selling a denuclearization deal to the public. He’s working actively to undermine it.

Strong circumstantial evidence indicates that he leaked intelligence to a Washington think tank sympathetic to his views in order to generate media questioning about the president’s announced plan to reach an agreement with North Korea’s leader.

Bolton made no secret of his visceral opposition to such a deal before Trump announced that Bolton would become national security adviser, arguing that Kim Jong Un would never let go of his nuclear weapons, especially since he is so close to having a real nuclear deterrent capability vis-a-vis the United States.

Even after meeting Trump on March 6 to discuss joining the administration, Bolton was not expecting the announcement of a Trump-Kim summit. Trump tweeted about progress in talks with North Korea that day, but when asked about such talks in an interview with Fox News later that same day, Bolton dismissed the whole idea. He portrayed Kim’s willingness to have discussions as aimed at diverting Washington’s attention from Pyongyang nearing its goal of having a “deliverable nuclear weapon.”

After the Trump-Kim summit was announced on March 9, Bolton made a tactical adjustment in his public stance toward talks with Kim to avoid an open conflict with Trump. He started suggesting in interviews that Trump had cleverly “foiled” Kim’s plan for long, drawn-out talks by accepting the proposal for a summit meeting. But he also urged Trump to assume a stance that would guarantee the meeting would fail.

In an interview with Fox News on the day of the summit announcement, Bolton suggested a peremptory demand by Trump to Kim: “Tell us what ports should American ships sail in, what airports American planes can land to load your nuclear weapons.” And in a second interview with Fox that day, Bolton suggested that Trump demand that Kim identify the ports and airfields to be used to “dismantle your nuclear program and put it at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where Libya’s nuclear program lives.” Bolton’s invocation of the Libyan example of giving up a nuclear weapons program was an ostentatious way of conveying his intention to keep open the option of using force to overthrow Kim’s regime.

Bolton was staking his opposition to negotiations with Kim primarily on the argument that North Korea would simply exploit such negotiations to complete its testing of a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). But former CIA Director Mike Pompeo got a concrete commitment from Kim to end all tests during their meetings in Pyongyang on April 7-8, which Kim then announced officially on April 20.

Pompeo’s report on Kim’s commitment, coming just before Bolton’s first day in the White House on April 9, immediately vitiated Bolton’s chief argument against a denuclearization agreement. But Bolton had another argument to fall back on. When a Fox News interviewer asked him on March 6 about a possible nuclear testing freeze, Bolton replied, “A freeze won’t work. The only inspections system that you could have with any prospect of finding out what they’re up to would have to be so intrusive it would threaten the stability of the regime.”

As an argument that a testing halt wouldn’t work, that comment was nonsensical: The United States has no intrusive inspections to detect a test of a long-range North Korean missile or of a nuclear weapon. But Bolton could use the need for an intrusive inspection system that North Korea would resist as an argument against a denuclearization agreement. He was well aware that in 2008, Vice President Dick Cheney forced Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to change the agreement she had reached with North Korea in October 2007 to require an intrusive verification system at a different stage of implementation—before the United States had taken North Korea off the terrorism list and ended the application of the Trading with the Enemy Act rather than after that, as had been originally agreed. North Korea refused to accept the new verification demand and then denounced the agreement in late 2008.

Within a few days of Bolton taking over as national security adviser, someone leaked intelligence to a Washington think tank on a North Korean facility allegedly intended to produce nuclear-grade graphite, a key component of nuclear reactors. The leak resulted in a post by David Albright, the executive director of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), on April 20 with satellite images of what he identified as a North Korean nuclear-grade graphite plant. Albright wrote that a “knowledgeable government official” had identified the site of the factory on the Yalu River, which divides North Korea from China.

Albright suggested that the factory “violates the spirit of the upcoming summit processes with the United States and South Korea.” And he concluded that any agreement with North Korea “must contain its verifiable commitments not to proliferate nuclear goods and abide by internationally recognized strategic export control regimes.”

But Albright presented no evidence that the building under U.S. intelligence surveillance had any bearing on negotiations on denuclearization. His report made it clear that analysts had only suspicions rather than hard evidence that it was for nuclear-grade graphite, referring to “the suspect site” and to “the suspect facility.” Albright also admitted that nuclear-grade graphite is a “dual use” material, and that an existing North Korean facility produces it for components of domestic and foreign ballistic missiles, not for nuclear plants.

Albright nevertheless implied that nuclear-grade graphite is produced and traded covertly. In fact, it is sold online by trading companies such as Alibaba like any other industrial item.

On April 21, despite the absence of any real link between the “suspect facility” and a prospective denuclearization agreement, The Washington Post published an article by intelligence reporter Joby Warrick, based on Albright’s post, that suggested such a link. Warrick referred to a “suspected graphite production facility” that could allow North Korea’s “weapons program” to “quietly advance while creating an additional source of badly needed export revenue.”

Adopting Bolton’s key argument against a denuclearization agreement, Warrick wrote, “It is unclear how the United States and its allies would reliably verify a suspension of key facets of North Korea’s nuclear program or confirm that it has stopped selling weapons components to partners overseas.” North Korea has “a long history of concealing illicit weapons activity from foreign eyes,” Warrick argued, adding that, unlike Iran, it “does not allow inspectors to visit its nuclear facilities.”

But Warrick failed to inform readers that North Korea had allowed 24-hour, 7-day-a-week inspections of their nuclear facilities from the time the agreed framework was adopted in 1994 until December 2002, after Bolton had successfully engineered the George W. Bush administration’s open renunciation of that Clinton administration agreement. And in the negotiations in 2007-08, Pyongyang only had objected to the U.S. demand for intrusive inspection—including military sites—before the United States had ended its suite of hostile policies toward North Korea.

The graphite factory episode would not be the first time Bolton had used alleged intelligence to try to block a negotiated agreement. In early 2004, Bolton, as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, was determined to prevent the British, French and German governments from reaching an accord with Iran that would frustrate Cheney’s plan for an eventual U.S. military option against Iran. Bolton gave satellite images of Iran’s Parchin military complex to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claiming that they were appropriate for certain kinds of nuclear weapons testing, as Seymour Hersh later reported. Bolton demanded that the IAEA inspect the sites, evidently hoping that Iran would refuse such an intrusive inspection and allow the Bush administration to accuse Iran of hiding covert weapons activities.

But the IAEA failed to refer to the satellite images of Parchin in two 2004 reports on Iran. Then the State Department provided them to ABC News, which reported that a State Department official “confirmed the United States suspects nuclear activity at some of [Parchin’s] facilities.” But the ABC report also quoted a former senior Department of Defense official who specialized in nuclear weapons as saying the images did not constitute evidence of any nuclear weapons-related activities. Iran let the IAEA inspect 10 Parchin sites in two separate visits in 2005. Taking environment samples in each case, the inspectors found no evidence of nuclear-related activity.

Bolton’s hopes of keeping the option of U.S. war on Iran flopped in 2004, but he still believes in a first strike against North Korea, as he urged in an op-ed in late February. And he can be expected to continue to use his position in the White House to try to keep that option open as he did with Iran in 2004, in part by covert leaks of information to allies outside the government.

Nine Journalists Among Dead in Afghanistan Blasts

KABUL, Afghanistan—Two Islamic State suicide bombers struck in Afghanistan’s capital on Monday, killing 25 people, including nine journalists who had rushed to the scene of the first attack, in the deadliest assault on reporters since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.

An Agence France-Presse photographer and a cameraman for the local Tolo TV station were among the fatalities, police said. Two reporters for the Afghan branch of Radio Free Europe and a third who was to begin working there soon also were killed, Radio Free Europe said. At least 45 people were wounded in the attacks, according to Kabul police spokesman Hashmat Stanekzai, who said four police were among those killed.

The attack was the latest in a relentless string of large-scale bombings and assaults in the capital and elsewhere in Afghanistan this year.

A few hours later, in the southern Kandahar province, a suicide car bomb targeting a NATO convoy killed 11 children from a nearby religious school, police said. The children had gathered around the NATO convoy for fun when the bomber struck, said Abdul Rahim Ayubi, a lawmaker from Kandahar. Eight Romanian NATO soldiers were wounded.

The Islamic State group claimed the Kabul bombings in a statement posted online, saying it targeted the Afghan intelligence headquarters. The statement did not say anything about specifically targeting journalists. The blasts took place in the central Shash Darak area, home to NATO headquarters and a number of embassies and foreign offices — as well as the Afghan intelligence service.

Stanekzai said the first suicide bomber was on a motorbike, while the second targeted those scrambling to the scene to aid victims. He said the second attacker was on foot in a crowd of reporters, pretending to be a member of the press, when he set off his payload.

AFP said the news agency’s chief photographer in Kabul, Shah Marai, was among those killed. Hundreds of people attended his funeral later on Monday.

Media watchdog Reporters Without Borders said it was the deadliest attack targeting reporters since the U.S.-led invasion that overthrew the Taliban in 2001.

The Paris-based group named the nine journalists killed, who worked for media organizations from multiple countries, and said another six reporters were wounded. The group, also known by its French acronym RSF, said 36 media workers have been killed in Afghanistan in attacks by IS or the Taliban since 2016.

In a separate attack in the eastern Khost province, a 29-year-old reporter for the BBC’s Afghan service was shot dead by unknown gunmen. The BBC confirmed the death of Ahmad Shah, saying he had worked for its Afghan service for more than a year. BBC World Service Director Jamie Angus called it a “devastating loss.”

Survivors of the attacks in Kabul recounted scenes of mayhem.

“When the explosion happened, everywhere was covered with dust and fire, it was such a horrific scene,” said Jawed Ghulam Sakhi, a 28-year-old taxi driver. “I saw journalists covered with blood.”

Masouda, a young woman who was with her husband when he was wounded in the attack, lashed out at the authorities.

“I don’t know who is responsible for all these attacks. Every day we lose our loved ones and no one in this government is taking responsibility for the killing of these innocent people,” she said. Like many Afghans, she has one name.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani condemned the attacks, as did the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

“We extend our deepest condolences to the families, friends, and colleagues of all the victims, including a number of brave journalists among the dead and injured,” the embassy said. “Where media are in danger, all other human rights are under greater threat.”

In other violence Monday, insurgents killed at least four Afghan policemen in an ambush in the northern Balkh province, said Sher Mohammad Abu-Tariq, the district chief in Nahri Shahi. In the eastern Nangarhar province, an explosion killed an Afghan police officer and wounded four other people, said Attuhullah Khogyani, spokesman for the provincial governor.

No one claimed responsibility for the attacks. The IS affiliate in Afghanistan first emerged in Nangarhar a few years ago, then expanded its footprint across the country.

IS and the more firmly established Taliban carry out regular attacks, with the Taliban usually targeting the Afghan government and security forces, and IS targeting the country’s Shiite minority, whom the militants view as apostates.

The relentless assaults underscore the struggles that Afghan security forces have faced since the United States and NATO concluded their combat mission at the end of 2014. Both armed groups want to establish strict Islamic rule in Afghanistan.

Last week, an Islamic State suicide bomber attacked a voter registration center in Kabul, killing 60 people and wounding at least 130 others. The month before, an IS suicide bomber targeted a Shiite shrine in Kabul where people had gathered to celebrate the Persian new year. That attack killed 31 people and wounded 65 others.

___

Associated Press writers Maamoun Youssef in Cairo, Angela Charlton in Paris and Alison Mutler in Bucharest, Romania, contributed to this report.

‘Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World’

Editor’s note: Truthdig columnist and best-selling author Nomi Prins examines how the 2007-2008 financial crisis triggered a massive shift in the global order in her new book, “Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World,” published by Nation Books, an imprint of the Hachette Book Group. In the following excerpt, Prins looks at the the U.S.-China relationship and the 2016 presidential election.

“Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World” Purchase in the Truthdig Bazaar

THE BREXIT EFFECT

Prospects for the first post-Brexit G20 meeting were bright for China. The September meeting was a major step toward a reorganization of European cooperation. Concerns about currency markets increased with Brexit in regard to volatility, a rise of protectionism, and more conjured-money policies, as was evident by the Bank of England cutting rates a few weeks after the Brexit vote.

The September 4-5, 2016, G20 Hangzhou meeting was the eleventh G20 meeting and the first to be held on Chinese soil. The schedule included sixty-six events held in twenty different cities in China. China also met with the BRICS before the Hangzhou event. The goal was to rethink priorities of G20 economies and the way they have been solving the problems of global economic growth. The United States and China were at odds about which nation would reign over that growth.

In general, the United States and China continued to distrust each other through the 2016 US presidential election. The race pitted two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump, neither of whom was especially warm to China, against each other. China’s trajectory scared the United States, yet the two superpowers had to be pragmatic about finding common ground, if anything because their alliances were up for grabs. That’s why China pressed for the yuan to be included in the SDR and Zhou tried to communicate his brand of monetary policy beyond his prior thresholds. Lagarde and the IMF required his transparency to maintain their own balancing act between the United States and China in the superpower realignment wars.

The PBOC increased its cash injections on September 14, 2016, to a five-month high. The move raised speculation that it was working to steady the Chinese financial markets a la Fed-type strategy. The total amount of money provided was RMB 385 billion (US$57.7 billion). It was the highest addition since April. As a consequence, the yuan appreciated, motivated by the inclusion in IMF reserves. That wasn’t all. On September 20, the PBOC announced that the Bank of China New York branch was approved to be the first yuan clearing bank in the United States.

The moment for which Zhou had been angling for more than a decade had finally arrived. On October 1, 2016, the IMF, historically imbedded in Western monetary protocol, moved to include China’s currency, the renminbi (RMB), in its special drawing rights basket of major reserve currencies. IMF leader Christine Lagarde characterized the decision as a “historical milestone” for the “international monetary system” and the “ongoing evolution of the global economy.” With its position in the SDR basket, China automatically assumed a more prominent role in global markets.

The PBOC proclaimed the inclusion “a milestone in the internationalization of the renminbi, and is an affirmation of the success of China’s economic development and results of the reform and opening up of the financial sector.” Zhou’s work had paid off. As he said on October 7, “We welcome relevant researches and discussions by the IMF on expanding the use of the SDR. China has already published its foreign reserves, balance of payments and international investment positions in both the US dollar and SDR, and the World Bank has also issued SDR-Denominated bonds in China. China is willing to work with all relevant parties to promote the international monetary system reform, improve global economic governance, and maintain global financial stability.”

The United States, not supporting the inclusion to begin with, downplayed it. US Treasury secretary Jack Lew was condescending about the true impact-“being part of the SDR basket at the IMF is quite a ways away from being a global reserve currency,” which to him would require from China more reforms and market liberalization.

Such minimizing of China’s global position would not be up to Lew much longer. For China, the election of Donald J. Trump as US president on November 8, 2016, was a mixed blessing.

He had campaigned against China’s “job-stealing” propensity, which resonated with his voters. Regardless of the rhetoric, as president, he would have to contend with the growth of China as an economic and political superpower and what opposing the multilateral trade agreements would ultimately mean for the hegemony of the United States and the dollar. The more China traded with other countries, the less it would trade with the United States, meaning the idea of Trump securing “better deals” would be unattainable simply because the United States would have reduced leverage. In addition, the more countries would trade with China, the more they would be cutting the United States out of the picture, bit by bit.

YEAR OF THE ROOSTER

On January 17, 2017, President Xi Jinping touted China’s proactive approach on the world stage. In a keynote speech, referencing Charles Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities, he addressed three thousand elite businesspeople and politicians at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

He urged the world to “rise above the debate” over “fiscal stimulus or more monetary easing.” Innovation was the way forward. Protectionism was not. He defended the positive attributes of globalization. “Those who push for protectionism are shutting themselves inside a dark house. They have escaped the rain and clouds outside, but also missed the light and air.” He added, “A trade war will only lead to suffering on both sides.”

It was an ambitious proclamation given the extent of central bank intervention that had taken place. His message followed eight years of China criticizing the Fed’s cheap-money policy, which had inflated speculative bubbles but had not funded development projects to the extent that China had, regionally and globally.

China’s policy of fiscal stimulus for its domestic economy would continue, but China was preparing for the grander phase-deploying money into lasting global development projects and the political, and possibly military, alignments that came with them. Xi did not mention President Trump by name, but his embrace of globalization and disdain for money being deployed into speculation in the financial markets rather than growth was clear. What the United States wouldn’t do, China would.

On his third day in office, on January 23, 2017, President Trump made good on one of his key campaign promises. He issued a presidential memorandum followed by signing an executive order to “permanently withdraw” the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement penned under the Obama administration.

Because China hadn’t been a part of that major agreement spanning twelve countries and 37.4 percent of global GDP to begin with, the US exit meant China would have a freer rein in reinforcing and growing its other regional partnerships absent competition from the United States. China would have more latitude to pursue its broader free trade agreement, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which spanned sixteen countries, including Japan, almost one-third of global GDP, and almost half the world’s population. China stood ready to capitalize on linking with any countries Trump ostracized through nationalism, bombastic style, or broken bilateral agreements, such as Mexico.

President Trump’s Treasury secretary, former Goldman Sachs partner Steven Mnuchin, repeatedly signaled wanting a strong US dollar, whereas President Trump wanted US trade to be more competitive, which meant a weaker dollar. That bipolarity characterized what would become the Trump administration’s global economic policy.

On February 3, the PBOC raised short-term interest rates by a modest 10 basis points, which signaled the possible start of a tightening period. China’s export-import growth had rebounded to multiyear highs. The PBOC had repeatedly asked commercial lenders to curb new loans to temper any US‑style lending frenzy and reduce financial leverage. It was being careful with China’s future.

According to a February 14 editorial by Caixin chief editor Hu Shulion, “The shift in tone indicated that while keeping its monetary policy stable, it will lean toward tightening it in order to curb the emergence of asset bubbles and to mitigate financial risks.” He added, “A volatile international economic environment also poses challenges to China’s monetary policy.” US president Donald Trump’s pledge to “revive US trade” made it harder to predict the Federal Reserve’s future policy swings. Any move by the Fed has a strong effect on the yuan’s exchange rate and China’s capital outflows.

China’s growth was no longer slowing down. Its position in the world, and ability to finance it, was thus increasing. On April 22, 2017, Zhou addressed the annual spring meeting of the IMF and World Bank in Washington, DC. In his speech, he noted that “China’s economic growth has stabilized” and its “GDP growth in 2016 reached 6.7 per cent, contributing 30 per cent of the global growth.” That figure can be compared to the US GDP growth of 1.6 percent and EU GDP growth of 1.8 percent.

He used the platform to reinforce the threat he saw in asset bubbles and the need for prudent monetary and, implicitly, bank regulation policy. “Going forward,” Zhou said, “the Chinese government will continue to maintain the soundness and consistency of macroeconomic policies. Monetary policy will remain prudent and neutral, striking a better balance between stabilizing growth and the task of deleveraging, preventing asset bubbles, and containing the accumulation of systemic risks.”

He professed his ongoing support for “the IMF’s work on broadening the role of the SDR, and remarked that he expected more targeted and sustained efforts focused on addressing the inherent weaknesses in the existing international monetary system.” It was nearing a decade since Zhou had first catapulted into prominence by criticizing the US‑dollar-centric monetary system in the wake of the US‑caused financial crisis. His strides, with respect to his own influence and that of China’s, would only increase as the United States conceded its spot on the world stage, whether it wanted to or not.

By the time the twelfth G20 summit kicked off in Hamburg on July 7-8, 2017, China had a solid read on President Trump and his protectionist stance, except when it came to military or territorial disputes. Thus, much of that meeting, though the US media focused on the relationship between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin, was really about the accelerated realignment of countries away from the United States. Isolationism is truly a one-way street. Absent a major war, from an economic standpoint, it makes enemies of friends and friends of enemies, depending on resulting realignments borne of necessity. In the battle for economic survival and dominion over the future of the global economy, one country’s isolationism would prove another country’s opportunity to forge new relationships with its former partners.

China was pragmatic. Its leaders understood Trump’s role for his four years as president, and, in a way, his isolationist stance drove it to enhance its targeting of US allies for trade. Thus, China approached former US strategic partners like Germany and Saudi Arabia and forged more alliances with Russia. Russian president Vladimir Putin in turn began tending more toward agreements with Germany and China than with the United States. The world was becoming China-Russia-Germany-centric and would continue on that path.

What began as a US bank-instigated financial crisis at the hands of an enabling Federal Reserve manifested in a super power realignment further fueled by the election of “outsider” Donald Trump as US president. Those events catalyzed a major shift in the prevailing monetary system and superpower hierarchy, propelling China to a leadership role and Xi to epochal status. Trump’s isolationist and protectionist policies only accelerated China’s positioning. It will take decades to realize this shift completely, but looking back from the future, we will one day see clearly how those monetary and financial forces irrevocably altered world order.

Meanwhile, the ongoing escalation of war talk between the United States and North Korea, along with pressure that Trump placed upon China to pick a side, led the People’s Bank of China to tell its banks to stop doing business with North Korea, from the standpoint of ceasing to open new accounts with North Korean customers and winding down existing loans, in support of US economic sanctions against North Korea. China did not go so far as to halt trade with North Korea, but it remained on alert for US directives as well as its own interests in the region.

As for the yuan, calls from inside the Chinese government, business community, and the People’s Bank of China itself intensified to “free” the currency from central bank intervention. It was a further sign of the internal battle in China as to how to continue to strengthen its position in the global financial markets. In late September 2017, the China Finance 40 Forum, a prominent circle of national economists, including ones from inside the People’s Bank of China, released a paper advocating for a more free-floating policy regarding the yuan. It was a clear sign that the yuan stood ready to take its place as a dominant reserve currency. Adopting such a policy would not mean no central bank intervention because, in practice, central banks existed to protect and defend their currencies, among their other tasks, but it did signal an enhanced internal drive to promote the yuan on the world stage, in a very public way.

In addition, after being the longest-serving major central bank leader, the reign of sixty-eight-year-old Zhou Xiaochuan was coming to an end as he considered his retirement. He reigned through a period of three different Chinese presidents and three different US Federal Reserve chairs. Zhou had initiated that free-floating currency process by removing the official peg, or link, that the yuan had to the dollar. His successor would carry that torch.

Elsewhere in the region, Japan remained mired in a precarious allegiance balance between its US ally, its collaboration with China, and securing its own independent future in the rapidly changing global landscape.

Truthdig is co-sponsoring Truthdig columnist Nomi Prins’ book release event for “Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World” in Los Angeles on Saturday, May 5, at 7 p.m. Truthdig contributor Greg Palast will be the moderator. Click here for multiple ticketing options, which give Truthdig readers a substantial discount. See a calendar of Prins’ public events schedule around the country.

A Royal Ponzi Scheme

This article was first published on The Ghion Journal on April 25.

The departure and arrival of two social icons set the news ablaze this past weekend. The death of Barbara Bush and the birth of William Louis and Catherine Middleton’s third son created a feeding frenzy in mainstream and social media. Wall-to-wall coverage dedicated to two luminaries as more than 7 billion people who walk this earth took a back seat to America’s “first family” and England’s “royal family.” Millions in the United States mourned the death of a political matriarch while hundreds of millions more throughout the world celebrated the emergence of Buckingham’s new prince.

It was during these latest personality-driven clamors that I had an encounter with someone who was rendered invisible by a celebrity-obsessed public. As I was leaving the gym on Sunday, a disheveled young lady approached me with a mix of trepidation and anxiety. She spoke timidly with her voice full of anguish. Before she even started to speak, I knew she was going to ask for money. Yet something about her struck me, her pain was so overwhelming that I paused before I took countermeasures to evade her inquiry. Instead of shrugging my shoulders and telling her I have no money, I was moved to listen to her plea.

In her hand, she had an eviction notice. She pointed at the piece of crumpled paper frantically. With tears streaming down her face, she asked me to help her get something to eat. She started to tell me how she’s never begged before and that she was five months pregnant. At that exact moment, I told her that she did not have to explain anything to me. I gave her the money that I had and tried my hardest to lift her spirits. I told her about my own bout with homelessness and implored her to not give into hopelessness. She hugged me in tears and I hugged her back holding back my own–my past being manifested in the tribulation of a stranger.

I don’t write these things to advertise my small act of charity. In truth, I spent more paying my cell phone bill this weekend than the money I gave to a fellow human who was facing a bleak future. I’ve had the hardest time shaking my encounter with the distressed woman on Van Dorn Street in Alexandria. I keep wondering how she is going to navigate the next couple of months as she prepares to bring a child into the world. While society is too busy being transfixed on a prince an ocean away, a soon-to-be mother walks the streets of Northern Virginia looking to find shelter for a lesser prince the world will never know of—these things take on biblical overtones.

Each time I witnessed the pomp and circumstance lavished upon the rich and wealthy these past few  days, it made me ponder how we treat the poor and needy. The gentry have it made. Already living in opulence that exactly none of us will ever experience, the excesses of the aristocracy is made innumerably greater by the way we elevate them to the level of gods and masters. Upon reflection, I realize why we deify the rich and famous as we neglect the meek who live with meager means. This is the trap of a capitalistic society.

Most of us are but one or two missed paychecks from joining the army of refugees who are stacking up in towns and cities throughout America. In a way, looking past the dispossessed becomes a form of self-preservation. Not only do we not want to feel helpless to change the woes of the world, we also don’t want to face our own uncertainties. Our penchant of discounting the plight of the poor is exacerbated by the need too many of us have to fawn over the fortunes of the gentry. We glom on to the well-to-do because we too want to be wealthy. The status quo remains fixed because the working and middle class are fed the illusion of one day joining the 1 percent while we’re simultaneously conditioned to fear poverty.

Our priorities and our judgment have become victims of this warped reality show we have morphed into. Politics, economics and social conversations are being driven by abundance for the few while the rest of us are nose deep in either financial insolvency or beset by pervasive anxieties. Just a few months ago, a $1.5 trillion tax bill was championed by Trump and his fellow Republicans that transferred even more wealth to the uber privileged after the same moneyed interests were showered with riches by Obama and his fellow Democrats. Meanwhile, we keep being told that there is not enough to take care of the rest of us. We are asked to tighten our belts so the rich can feed like swine at thetrough of injustice. Sadly, we keep accepting these outrageous iniquities as we insist on bowing before high society.

The Waltons are worth over $135 billion, yet the average full-time worker at Walmart is hovering at the poverty line. Walmart make fortunes for institutional investors in large part because they field a mega-labor force that is dependent on government assistance to subsidize their incomes. Jeff Bezos is the richest man on earth for the same reason. Predatory capitalism is eradicating small businesses and locally based entrepreneurs in order to feed the maniacal greed of the oligarchy. Corporations are racing to the bottom when it comes to our wages while sky high is the potential for the bourgeoisie and the wealthy. Instead of resisting this level of gluttony and consolidated power, we empower the plutocracy by offering them our backs to build their empires. The world has become a Ponzi scheme. The bottom 99 percent are the base, and the 1 percent have become the neo-pharaohs.

The kingdom of Kemet built pyramids that even modern science has not been able to emulate. However, the great towers of Giza pale compared to the towers we make of men and women in our time. Our addiction to the lifestyles of the affluent has become a form of self-medication. We talk incessantly about the “elites” in the mistaken belief that their status makes them more valuable than the rest of humanity. But in the end, our ego is the problem. Helping the poor is not nearly as boastworthy as having a picture taken next to a cultural idol. If only kindness instead of indulgence was the moral compass of the world, we would stop being fixated on the rich—the virtue of giving would supersede the vice of taking.

Yet in the end, the world breaks even. While the nobility, with their unimaginable wealth, have a hard time satiating their avarice and insist on getting more regardless of the riches they already own, the poor are thankful for the little they are given. Perhaps it is time to stop worshiping people who breath and bleed just like us. After all, royalty is not about crowns and titles. True royalty is measured through unselfish giving and kindness. While the rich give a fraction of their wealth as a way to elevate their Q ratings and claim charity on their taxes, the poor share their limited resources and are thankful for the little they are given.

This system of capital greed is not sustainable. A tower built on the premise of perpetual growth will one day fall upon itself. The era of individual edacity will eventually give way to a spirit of community and cooperation. When that time arrives, the meek shall truly inherit the earth.

The Truth About the Cosby Verdict: Women Are Not Believed

Moments after Bill Cosby was convicted of three counts of committing aggravated indecent assault against Andrea Constand at his Pennsylvania mansion in 2004, Gloria Allred, the lawyer who represented her and many of Bill Cosby accusers, stood before the press and said, “We are so happy that finally we can say, women are believed—and not only in a hashtag #MeToo, but also in a court of law.”

Five women besides Constand testified for the prosecution, relating how Cosby also had drugged and raped them, but this retrial took place after a mistrial and after a total of 60 women came forward with accusations of rape or other sexual attacks by Cosby. Is this a victory for women as Allred contends?

I don’t think this outcome is any sort of victory. If anything, this verdict is an anomaly, serving as a token judgment for women. It does not change all the years of previous injustices in the legal system or the norm of how rape is handled in contemporary jurisprudence, much less the pervasive reality of rape today. Will women now be believed when it comes to rape? The reality is, most things uttered by women—stereotyped as the “weaker sex”—are not believed. And rape is just one of many expressions of structural oppression to which women are subjugated.

Don’t be surprised if media reports question whether the judgment was racist, suggesting that the #MeToo movement sealed Cosby’s fate (oh look, I spoke too soon), or that Constand was a “con artist” who used a false claim of rape to capitalize even more on the $3.38 million settlement she made with Cosby in 2005 after prosecutors refused to charge him with sexual assault.

In these examples alone, we see the media’s archetypes of women that frame our lives and act as subtitles to the words that rape victims speak: the greedy manipulator, the vengeful subject who extorts money from her alleged rapist and then seeks to make him suffer again, the woman who cannot tell the truth about sex because she is angry, jilted, and/or just plain old crazy. These are not new archetypes. They are the typical, recycled objects of old that still function as the go-to response for woman haters the world over.

We know the statistics for how the criminal justice system reacts to rape accusations: Out of 1,000 rapes, 310 cases are reported to the police, 57 of these result in arrests, 11 are referred to prosecutors, seven lead to a felony conviction, and only six rapists will be incarcerated. Out of 1,000 rapes, 994 perpetrators will walk free. Comparing these figures to robbery, the conviction rate in 1,000 robberies is 22 and the incarceration rate is 20. For assault and battery, the conviction rate is double that of robbery.

When men are victims of crime, they are not asked about what they were wearing, if they might have led on the assailant, or if they might have sent “mixed signals” about their desire to be beaten up or not.

Yet in the 21st century, females still are beholden to a system that treats them as out of touch with their intellectual faculties and unable to speak clearly and truthfully.

This is what feminists refer to when they say “rape culture.” Men do not fear that we will lie about being raped. They fear we will tell the truth. So the myth of the lying, extorting, brokenhearted, manipulative female gets airtime, over and over again. The misogyny at the heart of the Cosby legal case relies upon one central and paradoxical ingredient regarding Constand’s credibility: Women are not believed.

Rainn.org

Don’t believe me? Try this experiment: Enter into Google News’ search engine two words, “man attacked,” and in a separate window do the same with “woman raped.” Now open up a half-dozen articles from each of your search results and read them. You will find that in most media stories involving women who are sexually assaulted a permutation of the word “alleged” appears throughout the story: she was allegedly raped, the alleged incident, and her alleged attacker.

Strangely enough, when men are victims of crime, all doubts about the men’s veracity vanish.

And this experiment extends far beyond Google into all levels of our society and political structures. They replicate the confirmation of men’s experience of any sort of violence and women’s fragile relationship with reality when they report sexual violence. Viewed from another planet, one would almost think that women speaking out about sexual assault is the act of terror here and not the violence of a serial rapist.

But hey, Cosby is appealing the verdict, so why not make the most of his time at The Meadows, a rehab center in Arizona? Cosby will be in good company with Harvey Weinstein, who sets the bar a bit higher than Cosby with more than 80 women accusing him of sexual harassment or sexual assault. And this will do wonders for Kevin Spacey, who is small change compared to these two sexual predators as he is being investigated for “unwanted sexual advances” and sexual assault by over 30 men. But since Spacey’s accusers are male, their accusations are taken far more seriously since men are to be believed, right? And who needs to compare sexual harassment and rape against “unwanted sexual advances”? That would be like analyzing details such as the fact that “unwanted sexual advances” has pretty much nothing to do with rape or sexual harassment. But who’s counting?

In awaiting his appeal, Cosby and his fellow predators can pass their time at The Meadows engaging in any number of activities from horseback riding, yoga, tai chi, acupuncture and meditation while they allegedly deal with their “problem.” Or as Tracey Ullman’s “Some Sort of Therapy Centre” skit communicates: “Our team of presumably therapists is here to help you tell the world, ‘It’s OK, I’m dealing with this myself, no need for the police.’ It’s the perfect place to relax, unwind and avoid facing the consequences of your actions.”

Speaking out about sexual assault and moving through trauma instead of harboring it as a unique space of anger has power. Cosby’s victims show the potential power of speech. But the realist in me knows that this verdict is a one-off performance of the law, especially in an era where reality is never real enough for some who still insist upon Cosby’s innocence. To that point, Rose McGowan’s tweet for Cosby fans was most fitting: “I’m sorry if you loved a lie.”

The Cosby verdict proves the imbalance of truth and how normal it is for females to be disbelieved: It took 60 women to be sexually attacked for one to be believed.

For all of the media scrutiny about the ‪#MeToo movement sealing Cosby’s fate, one anomaly of justice surprised millions of people more than 50 years of serial rape. Cosby was found guilty not because one woman came forward. He was found guilty because 60 did. All but one were denied due process. Constand received justice. The rest did not.

What does the future of women’s rights look like from here? A world where only 59 victims are needed for a guilty verdict? Why not aim for two dozen? That sounds better, right?

Let’s not go crazy and hope that one woman’s voice might matter where jurisprudence recognizes her human right to not be raped in the first place.

Allegedly.

Israel’s Use of Live Fire in Gaza Protests Faces Legal Test

JERUSALEM — Israel’s Supreme Court on Monday heard the first legal challenge of the military’s open-fire rules, after 39 Palestinians were killed and more than 1,700 wounded by Israeli fire during mass protests on the Gaza border over the past month.

The hearing came amid growing international criticism of Israel for its use of lethal force and a mounting casualty toll since the weekly protests, organized by Gaza’s ruling Hamas, began in late March. Organizers say the mass demonstrations are to continue for at least two more weeks, with some threatening a mass border breach.

The court is not expected to rule before next week, in what human rights lawyer Michael Sfard said is the first broad review of the army’s rules of engagement in almost three decades.

On Monday, six human rights groups asked the Supreme Court to declare as unlawful any regulations that allow soldiers to open fire at unarmed civilians.

Lawyers for the groups said Israel’s response to the Gaza protests must follow the rules of engagement for law enforcement officers, who are barred from using lethal force unless they face imminent danger to “life and limb.”

The Israeli military argued that the protests are taking place in the context of a long-running armed conflict with the Islamic militant group Hamas, and that open-fire regulations are subject to the rules of armed conflict. Such rules provide greater leeway for the use of lethal force than those governing law enforcement practices.

Sfard said the army’s rules of engagement don’t meet international standards of law enforcement and that the laws of armed conflict don’t apply in this case. “Lethal force against unarmed civilians who do not pose danger is illegal,” he said. “This is the crux of the case.”

Michael Oren, a deputy Israeli Cabinet minister, said the protests “are designed to break down the border and any army is charged with defending a border.” He acknowledged that mistakes might have been made in some of the shootings and that “bullets can do unpredictable things.”

The weekly marches are aimed in part at trying to break a border blockade of Gaza, imposed by Israel and Egypt after Hamas overran the territory in 2007, a year after winning Palestinian parliament elections. Organizers say the marches also press for the “right of return” of refugees and their descendants to what is now Israel.

The protests, dubbed the “Great March of Return,” are to culminate in a mass gathering on the border on May 15, a day Palestinians mark as their “nakba,” or catastrophe, to commemorate their mass uprooting during the 1948 war over Israel’s creation.

Hamas leaders have issued warnings about a possible border breach, but stopped short of specific threats. “Our steadfast national decision is to continue the March of Return and of breaking the siege,” Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said Monday. He said he hoped the idea would catch on in the West Bank and elsewhere.

In the weekly protests, thousands of Palestinians have been heading toward Gaza’s border area with Israel. A majority stay in or near five tent camps, each set up several hundred meters (yards) from the border fence. Typically, smaller groups move closer to the fence, throwing stones, burning tires and or hurling firebombs.

Soldiers, including snipers, are perched behind protective sand berms on the other side of the border.

Last Friday, hundreds of Palestinians converged on a stretch of fence, trying to burn and rip through it before drawing heavy Israeli fire. Three Palestinians were killed and dozens were wounded in the incident, the most serious attempt so far by a large group to break down the barrier.

The rights groups that petitioned the high court said that even if protests turn into riots, lethal force against unarmed demonstrators can only be used a last resort — in the event of a life-threatening situation. The groups said that in several cases caught on video, protesters were targeted while standing dozens of meters from the fence, or while trying to take cover. Among those killed were four minors and two journalists.

The Israeli military said Hamas has used the protests as cover to damage the fence and carry out attacks. On Sunday night, Israeli troops fatally shot two Palestinians who infiltrated from Gaza and attacked soldiers with explosives, the military said. A third Palestinian was killed during an attempted border breach, it said.

In its court brief, the army said Gaza militants have planted some two dozen explosives along the fence.

___

Laub reported from Jericho, West Bank.

‘May Day’ Militancy Is Needed to Create the Economy We Need

Seventy years of attacks on the right to unionize have left the union movement representing only 10 percent of workers. The investor class has concentrated its power and uses its power in an abusive way, not only against unions but also to create economic insecurity for workers.

At the same time, workers, both union and nonunion, are mobilizing more aggressively and protesting a wide range of economic, racial and environmental issues.

On this May Day, we reflect on the history of worker power and present lessons from our past to build power for the future.

In most of the world, May Day is a day for workers to unite, but May Day is not recognized in the United States even though it originated here. On May 1, 1886, more than 300,000 workers in 13,000 businesses across the US walked off their jobs for the first May Day in history. It began in 1884, when the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions proclaimed at their convention that workers themselves would institute the 8-hour day on May 1, 1886. In 1885 they called for protests and strikes to create the 8-hour work day. May Day was part of a revolt against abusive working conditions that caused deaths of workers, poverty wages, poor working conditions and long hours.

May Day gained permanence because of the Haymarket rally which followed. On May 3,  Chicago police and workers clashed at the McCormick Reaper Works during a strike where locked-out steelworkers were beaten as they picketed and two unarmed workers were killed. The next day a rally was held at Haymarket Square to protest the killing and wounding of workers by police. The rally was peaceful, attended by families with children and the mayor himself. As the crowd dispersed, police attacked. A bomb was thrown—no one to this day knows who threw it—and police fired indiscriminately into the crowd, killing several civilians and wounding forty. One officer was killed by the bomb and several more died from their own gunfire. A corrupt trial followed in August concluding with a biased jury convicting eight men, though only three of them were present at Haymarket and those three were in full view of all when the bombing occurred. Seven received a death sentence, the eighth was sentenced to 15 years, and in the end, four were hanged, one committed suicide and the remaining three were pardoned six years later. The trial shocked workers of the world and led to annual protests on May Day.

The unity of workers on May Day was feared by big business and government. That unity is shown by one of the founders of May Day, Lucy Parsons, who was of Mexican American, African American, and Native American Descent. Parsons, who was born into slavery, never ceased her work for racial, gender, and labor justice. Her partner was Albert Parsons, one of those convicted for Haymarket and hanged.

Solidarity across races and issues frightens the power structure. In 1894 President Grover Cleveland severed May Day from its roots by establishing Labor Day on the first Monday in September, after pressure to create a holiday for workers following the Pullman strike. Labor Day was recognized by unions before May Day. The US tried to further wipe May Day from the public’s memory by President Dwight Eisenhower proclaiming “Law and Order Day” on May 1, 1958.

Escalation of Worker Protests Continues to Grow

Today, workers are in revolt, unions are under attack and the connections between workers’ rights and other issues are evident once again. Nicole Colson reports that activists on a range of issues, including racial and economic justice, immigrant rights, women’s rights, a new economy of worker-owners, transitioning to a clean energy economy with environmental and climate justice, and a world without war, are linking their struggles on May Day.

There has been a rising tide of worker militancy for years. The ongoing Fight for $15 protests, helped raise the wages of 20 million workers and promoted their fight for a union. There are 64 million people working for less than $15 an hour. Last year there was also a massive 36-state strike involving 21,000 mobility workers.

Worker strikes continued into 2018 with teacher strikes over salaries, healthcare, pensions and school funding. Teachers rejected a union order to return to work. Even though it included a 5 percent raise, it was not until the cost of healthcare was dealt with that the teachers declared success. Teachers showed they could fight and win and taught others some lessons on striking against a hostile government. The West Virginia strike inspired others, and is followed by strikes in Oklahoma, Kentucky, Colorado, and Arizona. These strikes may expand to other states, evidence of unrest has been seen in statesincluding New Jersey and Pennsylvania as well as Puerto Rico because courage is contagious.

Graduate students have gone on strike, as have transit and UPS workers and low-wage workers. The causes include stagnant wages, spiraling healthcare costs, and inadequate pensions. They are engaged in a fight for basic necessities. In 2016, there wasn’t a single county or state in which someone earning the federal minimum wage could afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment at market rate.

Workers are also highlighting that women’s rights are worker’s rights. Even before the #MeToo movement took off, workers protested sexual harassment in the workplace. Worker’s in thirty states walked off the job at McDonald’s to protest, holding signs that said “McDonald’s Hands off my Buns” and “Put Some Respect in My Check.”

Last year on May Day, a mass mobilization of more than 100,000 immigrant workers walked off their jobs. This followed a February mobilization, a Day Without Immigrants. The Cosecha Movement has a long-term plan to build toward larger strikes and boycotts. There will be many worker revolts leading up to that day.

The Poor People’s Campaign has taken on the issues of the movement for economic, racial, environmental justice and peace. Among their demands are federal and state living wage laws, a guaranteed annual income for all people, full employment, and the right to unionize. It will launch 40 days of actionsbeginning on Mother’s Day. Workers announced a massive wave of civil disobedience actions this spring on the 50th anniversary of the sanitation strike in Memphis, at a protest where they teamed up with the Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for Black Lives.  Thousands of workers walk off their jobs in cities across the country.

Unrealized Worker Power Potential Can Be Achieved

The contradictions in the US economy have become severe. The wealth divide is extreme, three people have the wealth of half the population and one in five people have zero wealth or are in debt. The U.S. is ranked 35th out of 37 developed nations in poverty and inequality.  According to a UN report, 19 million people live in deep poverty including one-quarter of all youth. Thirty years of economic growth have been stagnant for most people in the US. A racial prism shows the last 50 years have made racial inequality even wider, with current policies worsening the situation.

May 5 is the 200th anniversary of the birth of economic philosopher, Karl Marx, the failure of US capitalism has become evident. Over the last fifty years, in order for the few to exploit the many, labor laws have been put in place the weaken workers’ rights and unions. Andrew Stewart summarizes some of the key points:

“First, the National Labor Relations Act, signed by FDR, that legalized unionization. Or more precisely, it domesticated unions. When combined with the Taft-Hartley Act, the Railway Labor Act, and Norris-La Guardia Act, the union movements of America were forced into a set of confines that reduced its arsenal of tactics so significantly that they became a shell of their pre-NLRA days. And this, of course, leaves to the side the impact of the McCarthy witch hunts on the ranks of good organizers.”

In addition, 28 states have passed so-called “right to work” laws that undermine the ability of workers to organize. And, the Supreme Court in the Janus case, which is likely to be ruled on this June, is likely to undermine public unions. On top of domestic laws, capitalist globalization led by US transnational corporations has undermined workers, caused de-industrialization and destroyed the environment. Trade must be remade to serve the people and planet, not profits of the few.

While this attack is happening, so is an increase in mobilizations, protests, and strikes. The total number of union members grew by 262,000 in 2017 and three-fourths of those were among workers aged 35 and under and 23% of new jobs for workers under 35 are unionized. With only 10 percent of workers in a union, there is massive room for growth at this time of economic insecurity.

Chris Hedges describes the new gig economy as the new serfdom. Uber drivers make $13.77 an hour, and in Detroit that drops to $8.77. He reports on drivers committing suicide. One man, who drove a cab over 100 hours a week to compete in the new gig driving economy, wrote, “I will not be a slave working for chump change. I would rather be dead.” Drivers compete for tiny hourly wages while the former CEO of Uber, one of the founders, Travis Kalanick, has a net worth of $4.8 billion. The US has returned to pre-20th Century non-union working conditions. Hedges writes that workers now must “regain the militancy and rebuild the popular organizations that seized power from the capitalists.”

Solidarity across racial and economic divides is growing as all workers suffer from abuses of the all-powerful capitalist class. As those in power abuse their privilege, people are becoming more militant. We are seeing the blueprint for a new worker movement in the teacher strikes and Fight for $15. A movement of movements including labor, environmentalist, anti-corporate advocates, food reformers, healthcare advocates and more stopped the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This shows the potential of unified power.

In recent strikes, workers have rejected proposals urged by their union and have pushed for more. Told to go back to work, they continued to strike. The future is not unions who serve to calm labor disputes, but unions who escalate a conflict.

The future is more than re-legalizing unions and raising wages and benefits, it is building wealth in the population and creating structural changes to the economy. This requires a new economy where workers are owners, in worker cooperatives, so their labor builds power and wealth. Economic justice also requires a rewoven safety net that ensures the essentials of healthcare and housing, as well as non-corporatized public education, free college education, a federal job guarantee and a basic income for all.

The escalation of militancy should not demand the solutions of the past but demand the new economy of the future. By building community wealth through democratized institutions, we will reduce the wealth divide and the influence of economic inequality over our lives.

Nobel for S. Korea Leader? Moon Says Trump Can Take It if Peace Is Won.

SEOUL, South Korea — South Korean President Moon Jae-in has shaken off a suggestion that he receive the Nobel Peace Prize, saying that U.S. President Donald Trump “can take the Nobel prize” as long as the Koreas receive peace in return.

Moon made the comment Monday in response to a suggestion that he receive the award by the widow of late South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000 after a summit with then North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.

Moon held a summit with current leader Kim Jong Un last week in which Moon and Kim, the son of Kim Jong Il, walked together across the tense border and agreed to a raft of initiatives meant to ease animosity. Moon responded to the suggestion of Nobel glory by saying, “President Trump can take the Nobel prize. The only thing we need is peace,” according to the South’s presidential office.

South Korea also said Monday that it will remove propaganda-broadcasting loudspeakers from the border with North Korea this week as the rivals move to follow through with their leaders’ summit declaration that produced reconciliation steps without a breakthrough in the nuclear standoff.

During their historic meeting Friday at a Korean border village, Kim and Moon agreed to end hostile acts against each other along their tense border, establish a liaison office and resume reunions of separated families. They also agreed to achieve a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, but failed to produce specific time frames and disarmament steps.

Seoul’s Defense Ministry said it would pull back dozens of its front-line loudspeakers on Tuesday before media cameras. Ministry spokeswoman Choi Hyunsoo said Seoul expected North Korea to do the same.

South Korea had already turned off its loudspeakers ahead of Friday’s summit talks, and North Korea responded by halting its own broadcasts.

The two Koreas had been engaged in Cold War-era psychological warfare since the North’s fourth nuclear test in early 2016. Seoul began blaring anti-North Korean broadcasts and K-Pop songs via border loudspeakers, and North Korea quickly matched the action with its own border broadcasts and launches of balloons carrying anti-South leaflets.

Seoul’s announcement came a day after it said Kim told Moon during the summit that he would shut down his country’s only known nuclear testing site and allow outside experts and journalists to watch the process.

South Korean officials also cited Kim as saying he would be willing to give up his nuclear programs if the United States commits to a formal end to the Korean War and a pledge not to attack the North. Kim had already suspended his nuclear and missile tests while offering to put his nuclear weapons up for negotiations.

The closing of the Punggy-ri test site, where all six of North Korea’s atomic bomb tests occurred, could be an eye-catching disarmament step by North Korea. But there is still deep skepticism over whether Kim is truly willing to negotiate away the nuclear weapons that his country has built after decades of struggle.

According to a summit accord, Kim and Moon agreed to achieve “a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula through complete denuclearization,” rather than clearly stating “a nuclear-free North Korea.” North Korea has long said the term “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” must include the United States pulling its 28,500 troops out of South Korea and removing its so-called “nuclear umbrella” security commitment to South Korea and Japan.

Kim could offer more disarmament concessions during his meeting with Trump, expected in May or June, but it’s unclear what specific steps he would take. Some experts say Kim may announce scraping North Korea’s long-range missile program, which has posed a direct threat to the United States.

U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton reacted coolly to word that Kim would abandon his weapons if the United States pledged not to invade.

Asked on CBS’s “Face the Nation” whether the U.S. would make such a promise, Bolton said: “Well, we’ve heard this before. This is — the North Korean propaganda playbook is an infinitely rich resource. What we want to see from them is evidence that it’s real and not just rhetoric.”

Kim’s meeting with Moon was his second summit with a foreign leader since he took office in late 2011. In March, he traveled to Beijing and met with Chinese President Xi Jinping. While meeting with Xi, Kim suggested he prefers a step-by-step disarmament process in line with corresponding outside rewards, according to Chinese state media. U.S. officials want the North to take complete, verifiable and irreversible disarmament measures.

China said Monday that its foreign minister, Wang Yi, will visit Pyongyang, North Korea’s capital, on Wednesday and Thursday.

China is North Korea’s only major economic partner, but trade has declined by about 90 percent following Beijing’s implementation of economic sanctions imposed over the North’s nuclear and missile tests. Some analysts say Kim’s recent charm offensive was aimed at weakening the sanctions.

Also on Monday, the North’s parliament adopted a decree to sync its time zone with South Korea’s this Saturday. North Korea’s official news agency said the move was made at the proposal of Kim, who found it was “a painful wrench to see two clocks indicating Pyongyang and Seoul times hanging on a wall of the summit venue.”

Moon’s office said Sunday that Kim made similar remarks to Moon during the summit.

The North in 2015 had set its clocks 30 minutes behind South Korea and Japan, saying the measure was aimed at rooting out the legacy of Tokyo’s 1910-45 colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula.

Syria Monitor: Sunday’s Missile Attack Kills 26, Mostly Iranians

BEIRUT — A missile attack targeting government outposts in Syria’s northern region killed 26 pro-government fighters, mostly Iranians, a Syria war monitoring group said Monday, amid soaring Mideast tensions between regional archenemies Israel and Iran.

Iranian media gave conflicting reports about the overnight incident amid speculation that it was carried out by neighboring Israel.

The attack came hours after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talked to President Donald Trump on the phone. The White House said the two leaders discussed the continuing threats and challenges facing the Middle East, “especially the problems posed by the Iranian regime’s destabilizing activities.”

A day earlier, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ratcheted up the Trump administration’s rhetoric against Iran and offered warm support to Israel and Saudi Arabia in their standoff with Tehran.

“We remain deeply concerned about Iran’s dangerous escalation of threats to Israel and the region and Iran’s ambition to dominate the Middle East remains,” Pompeo said after a nearly two-hour meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “The United States is with Israel in this fight,” he added on his first trip abroad as America’s top diplomat.

Israel has cited Iran’s hostile rhetoric, support for anti-Israel militant groups and development of long-range missiles.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the late Sunday night attack appears to have been carried out by Israel and targeted an arms depot for surface-to-surface missiles at a base in northern Syria known as Brigade 47. The Observatory said four Syrians were also among the casualties.

It said the death toll could rise as the attack also wounded 60 fighters and there were several others still missing.

Iranian state television, citing Syrian media, reported the attack.

However, an Iranian semi-official news agency denied reports that Iranian fighters were killed or that Iranian-run bases were hit. The Tasnim news agency quoted an unnamed Iranian informed official in its report but did not elaborate on the denial.

Another semi-official news agency, ISNA, said the strike killed 18 Iranians, including a commander, in a suburb of the central city of Hama. It cited “local sources and activists” for its report.

The missiles targeted buildings and centers which likely include a weapons depot, ISNA reported.

The Syrian government-owned Tishrin newspaper quoted what it called “sources on the ground” as saying that the attack on military positions in Aleppo and Hama provinces consisted of nine ballistic missiles fired from American-British bases in north Jordan. The report could not be independently confirmed.

There was also no immediate comment from Israel, which rarely confirms or denies its attacks in Israel. Israeli media reported that the security cabinet will hold an unscheduled meeting later Monday on the subject of the nuclear deal with Iran.

President Donald Trump has set a May 12 deadline to decide whether to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal — something he appears likely to do despite heavy pressure to stay in from European and other parties.

Tehran has sent thousands of Iran-backed fighters to back Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces in the country’s seven-year civil war.

The attack comes amid soaring tensions between Iran and Israel following an airstrike earlier this month on Syria’s T4 air base in central province of Homs that killed seven Iranian military personnel. Tehran has vowed to retaliate for the T4 attack.

Syria, Iran and Russia blamed Israel for that T4 attack. Israel did not confirm or deny it.

On Monday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the time when Iran’s enemies can “hit and run” is over.

“They know if they enter military conflict with Iran, they will be hit multiple times,” he said in comments during a meeting with workers, according to his website. He did not specifically refer to the latest attack in Syria.

Israel Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said in an interview published last Thursday that his country will strike Tehran if attacked by archenemy Iran, escalating an already tense war of words between the two adversaries.

Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency on Monday quoted chief of Fatimayoun Brigade, an Iran-backed Afghan militia in Syria fighting alongside Iranian forces, as saying their base near Aleppo was not targeted during the strikes and they had no casualties. It did not elaborate.

Earlier on Monday, Syrian TV reported a “new aggression,” with missiles targeting military outposts in northern Syria. The state-run television reported that the missiles targeted several military positions before midnight Sunday outposts in the Hama and Aleppo countryside.

Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar daily, that is considered close to the militant Iranian-backed Hezbollah group and the Syrian government said the attack targeted “important arms depots used by the (Syrian) army and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.” It said that missiles used in the attack appear to have been bunker buster.

Syria-based opposition media activist Mohamad Rasheed said that base that came under attack is about 10 kilometers (7 miles) outside the city of Hama, adding that the airstrike led to several explosions in the arms depot. He added that the area is known as the Maarin Mountain or Mountain 47.

Rasheed said that some of the exploding missiles in the arms depot struck parts of Hama, adding that residents in areas near the base fled their homes. He said the base has been run by Iranian and Iran-backed fighters from Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

___

Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, and Ilan Ben Zion in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

The Crime of Being Poor and Black

NEWARK, N.J.—This is the story of Emmanuel Mervilus, who got locked up for a crime he did not commit, whose life was derailed and nearly destroyed by the experience and who will graduate this spring from Rutgers University. It is a story of being a poor black man in America, with the exception being that most poor black men never get a second chance.

The only reason Mervilus got a second chance was because of one man, history professor Don Roden, who founded the Mountainview Program at Rutgers for formerly incarcerated students. This program accepts, among others, the students I teach in prison, one of whom, Ron Pierce, also will graduate this spring.

There are only a few saints in this world. Professor Roden is one.

Mountainview staff, students, professors and families gathered Friday at Rutgers’ Newark campus to speak of the struggles and hardships endured by students such as Mervilus and Pierce. Those at the two-hour meeting spent much of the time weeping or fighting back tears.

Mervilus is 6 feet tall and broad-shouldered and has long, thick dreads. He was never in a gang. He was not a drug dealer. He had a job. He came from a good and loving family. But he was cursed with being black and poor and living in a city, Elizabeth, N.J., where if you are black and poor you are always one step away from being arbitrarily shot or arrested or tossed into jail. This is true in nearly every city in America.

There are cops in poor communities who hunt black boys and men as if they are prey. To them it is a sport. These cops are not always white, although they are often white. But they are always sadists. Intoxicated by the power to instill fear, use lethal force indiscriminately and destroy lives—and allowed to do so by a judicial system that no longer protects the most basic rights of the poor, including due process, adequate legal representation and the right to a jury trial—they circle around their victims like human vultures. If we were to use the strict dictionary definition, these police officers are criminals.

“There is a cop who used to tell me when I was a boy he was going to give me my first adult charge,” Mervilus said. Mervilus said he did not want to name the officer, now a detective, for fear of retribution.

This cop made good on his threat when Mervilus turned 18 and was a senior in high school. He saw Mervilus on the street smoking a joint. Mervilus ran. The cop chased him. Mervilus turned, put his arms up and shouted, “I give up! I give up!” The cop threw him on the hood of a police car.

“I don’t remember anything after that,” he said. “I saw a flash. Next thing I’m in the back of the police car. There are scratches on my face.”

“I’m not a saint,” Mervilus said to me. “I did things. But everything I did I owned up to.”

When he got to the police station he was charged with having a dozen bags of marijuana. The charge was a lie.

“They need more than simple possession to lock you up so they plant drugs,” he said. “It makes the charge stick.”

He was in the county jail for two weeks and was assigned a public defender who told him to plead guilty. “The public defender told me, ‘How are you going to prove this [your innocence]?’ ” he said.

“No one wants to believe cops lie,” Mervilus said. “Why would a cop lie? Lots of reasons. Promotion. Quotas. And I don’t look like a regular citizen. I’m black. I got dreads. I fit the description. I figured I ran. I didn’t know much of anything at that time, you feel me? So, I said, I’ll take it. I thought that probation could be expunged if I did good. But I was wrong. From that day on, I said I would never, ever, plead guilty to something I didn’t do.”

He went back to high school, repeated senior year, and graduated. He got a job in the kitchen of a nursing home in Linden, N.J. He earned minimum wage. It was 2005. He was 21. He was living at home. He was stopped randomly one afternoon on the street by a cop. The cop ran his name in the system.

“He says there is a warrant for my arrest,” he said. “He says I just jumped two fences and put something under a rock. It was a total lie. I am arrested with another guy for manufacturing and distribution. I spent a month in Union County jail. And when you spend a month in Union County jail it makes you want to plead guilty. You’re confined to a little area. You don’t get out.”

“I was first put in a holding tank with someone else, some type of drug dealer going through withdrawal,” he said. “It was nasty. Throwing up. Diarrhea. Two steel bunks. One steel toilet. No windows.

“They put my bail at $75,000,” he said. “I paid $7,500—10 percent—and bailed out. I tried to get my old job back. They refused to let me back, said ‘abandonment of work.’ I didn’t want to hustle [illegal drugs]. When your back is against the wall, you can’t find a job, and you have to pay a lawyer, often all you can do is hustle. But if I hustled I’d probably catch another charge and go to prison.”

Eventually, his girlfriend’s stepfather helped him get a job at the port in Newark. He was making $12 an hour. But the criminal justice system was not done with Mervilus. On leaving a Dunkin’ Donuts in October 2006 he met a friend and they started walking down the street. Cops stopped them. There had just been a stabbing and robbery. The victim told the cops that Mervilus and his friend had attacked him.

“Why would he [the victim] point a finger at me?” Mervilus asked searchingly. “I look the part, a black man with dreads. But there was no evidence to corroborate his story. I didn’t have any blood on me. He said we stole his bookbag.”

The cops rushed him and his friend. They shouted, “Put your hands on the wall!” He complied. He was put in jail, and his bail was set at $100,000.

The loss of his job while he was in jail meant he could no longer support his mother, who was dying of breast cancer, his sister and two brothers. His father had left the family.

“Rent has to be paid, everything has to go on as if I’m there,” he said. So he told his family not to use their paltry resources to bail him out. “My younger brother was 16. I played the father role. The system failed me. It failed him. He lost me.”

His family believed the cops. That hurt the most.

“I’m Haitian,” he said. “My family is looking at me like, what? This guy’s robbing people? He stabbed someone who almost died? I get blackballed. No one comes to see me, not even my mom. My mom raised me better than that. All these Haitian people were saying, ‘Well, why is he locked up if he didn’t do it?’ I was hurt and depressed.”

One night after he had been in jail for seven months he was jolted awake in his cell. “It felt like there were claws digging into my stomach,” he said. “The pain was horrible.”

His mother, he found out later when his brother visited, died that night. She was 52. After the visit he insulted another prisoner and got into a fistfight. “It didn’t fill the void,” he said.

He finally got out on bail. His family had taken his mother’s body back to Haiti for burial, and he visited her grave. It was made out of white painted cement blocks and surrounded by a small gate. He brought flowers.

“I told my mom I was sorry I wasn’t there when she died,” he said. “I told her I was innocent. I wasn’t going to plead guilty. I told her I had let her down by not watching over my little brother. I was sitting talking to her for two or three hours. It was very emotional. It was the first time I cried. Her dying [always had been] my biggest fear. My mom would be asleep; I would stand at the door looking in to make sure she was breathing. I was a momma’s boy. Serious. Every day when I came home from work I brought her a chicken sandwich with mayo and pickles from Wendy’s.”

The prosecutor offered him a deal of five years in prison if he would plead guilty to the crime in which the man was stabbed and robbed. He refused. He was facing 20 years. He went to trial. The victim changed his story several times and at one point when asked if his assailant was in the courtroom pointed to someone other than Mervilus. It did not matter. Mervilus was sentenced to 11 years for first-degree robbery.

His younger brother worked at any job he could find to pay for a lawyer for Emmanuel. When the brother got the $12,000 needed to retain an attorney, Emmanuel filed an appeal. The lawyer exposed a series of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of the man who had been stabbed. Mervilus was retried, acquitted by a jury and freed after having been behind bars for four years. The process, which cost his brother $32,000, achieved an almost unheard-of result for a poor person in our dysfunctional court system. The lawyer, John Caruso, called the acquittal “a Halley’s Comet occurrence.”