Craig Murray's Blog, page 130

On Disappearing People

If you thought things had much changed under Obama, think again. There has been much publicity for the news that US forces have captured an alleged ISIS chemical weapons expert, Suleiman al-Afari. There was considerably less publicity for the news that he is being held in yet another new US black prison detention site. It is situated on the territory of the USA’s Kurdish allies in Irbil, Iraq, but was constructed and is run entirely by the US military. Many detainees have vanished into its gates. Very few, if any, have come out again.

Yet again the US is simply disappearing people into secret prisons on foreign soil. Obama has in effect maintained the Bush doctrine that “enemy combatants” are neither alleged criminals nor soldiers. They do not get the rights of alleged criminals to decent treatment and a fair trial, nor do they get the Geneva Convention rights of soldiers captured during a war. They are non-persons who can simply be pitched into a black hole.

Even if they actually are terrorists, that does not leave them devoid of rights. I would also argue that to treat terrorists other than as common criminals, deserving of formal criminal process, contributes to their glorification and gives them a status they do not deserve. But formal process is essential because we know for certain that they often pick up people who are entirely innocent.

I leave aside the argument that it is the United States which caused the collapse of Iraq and it is with Blair and Bush that the guilt ultimately lies. But I leave it aside with the comment that it is an argument deserving of much weight.

I never quite made up my mind whether Obama was a decent man who was corrupted/bullied into adopting the neo-con agenda, or whether he was a play-acting sociopath all along. I do know that Clinton is a hardened warmonger who positively relishes the notion of “enemies” being killed. She is just a sociopath; she doesn’t bother much with the acting.

The post On Disappearing People appeared first on Craig Murray.

On Being Far Left

I have found myself described as far left, quite often recently. I find this rather puzzling. I would not even describe myself as a socialist. Economically, I wish to see much greater worker share ownership, limitations on extreme pay differentials between management and staff, and strong regulation of casino banking with a far smaller, taxed and regulated derivatives market. I support state ownership of natural monopolies, such as rail, roads, and public utilities. I support state welfare provision and excellent state health and education services. But that is as far as it goes. I do not advocate central planning and in general prefer to keep the state out of commercial activity – which is why I support the EU so strongly in removing barriers to the mobility of all factors of production. I am not a socialist.

This blog is read by many people who have known me since university, some even earlier. I think I am right in saying that my beliefs have not changed in any fundamental way over 40 years. What I outline above was what I believed in 1976. I stand open to confirmation or correction.

Yet in 1976 I was a Liberal, and politically centre or only slightly left of centre. My views were absolutely mainstream and were voiced in mainstream media every day.

While standing still, I now find myself far left as the mainstream political spectrum rushed rightwards past me.

Is this because the Thatcherite revolution, carried on so enthusiastically by Blair and New Labour, proved wildly successful? Is it because deregulation and privatisation has brought prosperity, harmony and an inarguably better society?

No, not at all. The new right wing consensus has been a disaster. It led directly to the great crash of 2008 and the resulting austerity, which will dog us for another two decades at this rate. It led to massive, astonishing inequality of wealth and a society in which it is considered normal for top executives of an organisation to be paid 100 times more than the lowest employee. It led to hedge fund managers owning our politicians, and to Russian mafia owning our football clubs. It led to a world where Save the Children can pay its chief executive £375,000 a year of donation money yet nobody pukes. It led to collapse in manufacturing and to vast areas of blight and hopelessness, to a generation who will never afford a house while buy to let multi millionaires abound, to QE transferring yet more money straight to financial institutions.

The great right wing experiment has been a disaster for the country. Outwith the economic field, we have seen a massive attack on civil liberties, the growth of the 100% surveillance state, and end of respect for international law including the invasion of Iraq and the programme of torture and extraordinary rendition.

Yet although the disastrous failure of Britain’s forty year far right experiment is evident all around us, public opinion continued to move inexorably ever more to the right. It did so because the sheer propaganda power of the corporate media, led by the BBC, pushed it in that direction and had the power to do so. Dissident voices were excluded from the airwaves. The positions I agree with and which I heard regularly on the airwaves forty years ago no longer get airtime, even where they retain majority public support, such as nationalisation of the railways.

Some of my views have become more radical, and they relate to the need to break up the institutions of the right wing state. I believed in Scottish independence forty years ago, but it is much more central to my thinking now. Forty years ago I would have been shocked by the idea that the BBC should be utterly destroyed, but now that seems to me the only sensible approach.

I am not without hope. There is no doubt that the Sanders/SNP/Corbyn phenomenon represents a reaction to the dreadful inequality of society and all the evils which I have described. But I would also argue that this reaction has only been practical because of the new maturity of social media, weakening the grip of corporate media on the popular field of debate and the popular imagination.

Perhaps then, without moving, I became revolutionary just in time.

The post On Being Far Left appeared first on Craig Murray.

Why Immigration Concern Is Racist

Since 1979 UK governments have deliberately and systematically pursued policies which prioritised the speculative financial industries of London and damaged large scale manufacturing. The apotheosis of this policy was the massive transfer of money from everybody in the land to the bankers in 2008 by Gordon Brown.

There are two major results of this forty year policy. The first is that the deliberately engineered manufacturing decline has caused social and economic devastation in the UK outside South East England. The second has been an astonishing accumulation of wealth in a tiny number of hands as income inequality levels have risen to the highest disparity in all of human history, wealth centred in South East England.

This has naturally led to rising discontent among many people in many areas, despite the concentrated use of mass communication media under elite control to spread narratives to contain or divert discontent. But as unrest has continued to threaten control, a particular diversionary narrative has become dominant.

In truth, the cause of mass poverty amidst great wealth is the existence of state structures which direct economic activity to the exclusive benefit of a tiny elite of the ultra-rich. But rather than the ultra-rich who control the state structures, ordinary people are encouraged to blame their own lack of access to resources on immigrants. A false narrative is created whereby the cause of poverty is not the billions and billions monopolised by the ultra-rich, but rather that poor foreigner over there.

This is an argument of stunning intellectual paucity. It depends on a totally false narrative of an economy as a thing of fixed size. In fact, immigration is a massive driver of economic growth. If immigration really made countries poorer, then the United States would be the poorest country in the world and Germany the second poorest. That is plainly untrue. Immigration is not the cause of poverty, quite the reverse. It is only the benefit of millions of energetic new migrants that has prevented deflation in the UK these last few years.

Yet, despite being obvious nonsense, the argument sticks. The ultra-rich succeed in diverting the anger of society at inequality of resources, away from themselves and onto that poor foreigner over there.

And why does this obvious nonsense work? Because it appeals to a deep-rooted, basic, instinct of atavism. Because it appeals to a xenophobia that transcends logic and intelligence. Because it is a simple appeal to racism.

Concern about immigration is racism. A racism deliberately whipped up to divert people from their real enemies.

The post Why Immigration Concern Is Racist appeared first on Craig Murray.

Outrageous to Criticise Pharisees, Says Archbishop

The Archbishop of Enterprise Oil, Justin Welby, has explained that it is outrageous to criticise Pharisees who have a natural concern to maintain a very sensitive religious hierarchy. We also need to listen and pay due respect to the view of money-changers who would suffer severe dislocation if arrangements for conducting their legitimate business were to be subject to any violent disruption. It is, he added, perfectly natural and must not be condemned for decent people to be concerned to halt any possible influx of bloody foreigners.

The post Outrageous to Criticise Pharisees, Says Archbishop appeared first on Craig Murray.

“Moderate Rebels” Use Yellow Phosphorus on Kurds in Aleppo

Cameron’s “moderate rebels” – Saudi supplied Wahhabi jihadists – have this past 48 hours been bombing civilian areas of Aleppo with yellow phosphorus. The BBC, which went to such extraordinary lengths to fake reports of chemical attacks by Assad, has not reported these genuine chemical attacks at all. Probably because it is too difficult to explain not just why Cameron’s allies are using chemical weapons – and who gave them the chemical weapons – but also why these “friendly” jihadists are attacking Cameron’s other allies, the Kurds, all during a ceasefire.

This video of Robert Stuart is a must see. Let me pin my colours to the mast and say that I am absolutely convinced that the BBC did deliberately and knowingly fake evidence of chemical attacks.

The most egregious BBC propaganda this year has been about the “starvation” of the town of Madaya. The BBC seem to have taken the most glaring example down from YouTube so I can’t embed it. But here on the BBC’s own website you can see the report which claims the Syrian government are deliberately starving civilians in the siege of Madaya. There then appear a string of genuinely heart-rending clips of starving children. The only problem is that none of that footage was shot in Madaya at all, and if you listen very, very carefully you will be able to work out the BBC does not directly affirm that it was. Then we have real comedy at 1 min 30s in, when genuine citizens of Madaya appear to verify their starvation in the shape of four women who are – there is no kind way of saying this – distinctly fat. If double chins are a proof of starvation, then things must be pretty bad.

It is clever propaganda because careful analysis of the text reveals a story very different to the overall picture being deliberately portrayed. Just after the women appear, the reporter slips in that the hardship is caused by hoarding by rebels – i.e. it is actually David Cameron’s moderate forces, not the government, who are causing suffering to the civilians. But you would have to be following very closely and analysing very carefully to pick up on that.

The BBC really has become one of the more outrageous vehicles of government propaganda on the international scene.

The post “Moderate Rebels” Use Yellow Phosphorus on Kurds in Aleppo appeared first on Craig Murray.

Tel Aviv Pins Hopes on Clinton

There has never been such a fascinating US Presidential race, both I a good way and in a bad way. I would never have believed somebody as genuine and bright as Bernie Sanders could get this close to becoming President. I would never have believed something as florid and off the wall as Donald Trump could become this close to becoming President.

One of the things that makes both Trump and Sanders so entirely different from the mainstream US political class is that neither of them genuflects to Tel Aviv and both of them take the idea that Palestinians have rights too. In fact the only chance of Israeli dominance of US foreign policy appears to rest with Hillary Clinton. She may be Goldman Sachs’ dog in this fight, but she is also Tel Aviv’s.

Unfortunately, despite continuing wins and trouncing Clinton in debate, it seems most unlikely Sanders will get the nomination. Clinton control of party machinery and firm position with those who have made an extremely fat living for themselves personally out of identity politics (sorry heroes of the civil rights movement), should ensure that. Can I commend you to read The Catholic Orangemen of Togo to see how just one ride in a car with Jesse Jackson put me right off him.

It is extraordinary that, with Trump riding a wave of anti-Establishment populism that is undoubtedly a global political phenomenon, the establishment should choose to put up against him the most corrupt, compromised and untrustworthy figure available (except for Henry Kissinger. But don’t worry, he is in there advising her). Hillary is the unacceptable face of unacceptable faces. Her insincerity shines through every word, every gesture, every breath.

With Trump we are left with the hope that he does not actually mean what he says; that his right wing populism and blustering persona is just a brilliant act to get elected. With Hillary we have the stone cold certainty that she does not mean a word she says, that she is triangulating to the left to counter Bernie, and that she has no interest at all except furthering the interests of banks and big corporations.

If I were absolutely forced, under pain of death, to have dinner with either Trump or Clinton, I would choose Trump. Wouldn’t you? Presuming suicide is not an option?

The post Tel Aviv Pins Hopes on Clinton appeared first on Craig Murray.

International Women’s Day

Today is International Women’s Day. It is good to be called to focus on how much remains to be done in achieving equality worldwide on equal pay, equality of opportunity, female education and women’s health issues. The lack of freedom of choice for women in very many societies worldwide remains a major challenge. It is interesting that, despite the lip service paid by the West to the issue, in practice its foreign policy shows that it does not put any genuine weight at all on the issue. The western powers’ closest allies are regimes which are among the worst abusers of women.

On a lighter note, it is also rather charming that International Women’s Day, designed by Communists as a rather heavy handed propaganda vehicle, morphed through the actions and desires of ordinary human beings into a celebration of romance. Throughout the Eastern Bloc, International Women’s Day became indistinguishable from the Western practices of Valentine’s Day, only with the gifts and flowers and dining taken to even higher levels of corniness. Restaurants throughout the UK will be busy today as couples involving at least one partner from our brilliant new large Eastern European population go out to celebrate. Including us.

Valentine’s Day, incidentally, is banned in Uzbekistan by the nutty President Karimov who views it as another example of “Western decadence”. The ban is actually enforced by Uzbekistan’s all pervasive police state. To take people’s mind off it, 14 February has been declared (entirely fictitiously) to be the birthday of the Emperor Babur and a national day of celebration. Only don’t celebrate by buying flowers or taking your partner out to dinner…

The post International Women’s Day appeared first on Craig Murray.

Spanish Steps

For a smooth transition to Scottish independence, it is essential to negate the hostility of Spain which could derail acceptance by the EU. My two decades of experience in diplomatic negotiations teaches me that the answer to this is finding a ladder for Spain to climb down; some Spanish steps, in fact.

Scotland has to be accepted in the EU, and Spain has to secure a victory in a recognition that this is in no way a precedent for Catalonia. In every diplomatic agreement everybody has to sacrifice something, and I am afraid what Scotland has to sacrifice here is the principle of solidarity with our Catalan friends.

In the event of a Brexit, France and Germany, assisted by the EU Commission, will immediately open channels to Holyrood in order positively to encourage Scotland to go independent and remain within the EU. As part of any agreement, the principle can be enumerated that there is a right for a “region” (sorry, we will have to swallow that transitory description to win the Spanish) to secede and form a new state, in order to remain within the EU when a state in which that region is incorporated is leaving the EU.

Spain will be able to accept this formulation as it sets no precedent for Catalonia, given that Spain is not exiting the EU.

It remains my strong opinion that, in the event of a Brexit, things will move very swiftly to UDI for Scotland. There will be no requirement for a second referendum as Nationalists will have won overwhelmingly in both Westminster and Holyrood elections within a year. As I repeatedly explain, the sole test of a state’s independence is recognition by the UN (and there is no security council veto). With EU support Scotland should be able to achieve international recognition extremely quickly; the UK, thanks to Blair, Brown and Cameron, is very unpopular with the large majority of member states.

Let’s Chat 8.30pm Tonight

At 8.30pm tonight I am going to have a streamed live chat with Independence Live, on various subjects including of course Scottish Independence. It is interesting because they are setting it up using Blab, a programme which enables you to appear and join in the conversation. This is experimental for me. I believe that you may need a twitter account to sign in to blab and join in, but that you should be able just to watch on the Independence Live website without signing in. I am investigating if it will be possible to stream it on this site as well.

If we like the technology, I might use it to host a series of chats on this site, where I sit down with a whisky in hand and ruminate, and you can pop up and join in.

Join the Blab!

This is a livestream, Blab interview. If you would like to jump on and join the panel then follow the link below. You will need your Twitter login details to join panel, or you can just observe. https://blab.im/independence-live-craig-murray-interview

Remote Snooping

It is nine years since I published in Murder in Samarkand that the security services can listen to you through your mobile telephone, even when it is apparently switched off. You could only prevent this by removing the battery. Shortly thereafter many mobile phone manufacturers started producing sealed phones from which you could not easily remove the battery. That was not especially a result of my publication. But I know for certain that the western security services had cooperated with the mobile phone companies in securing the software backdoor which enabled them to switch on the microphone when the phone appeared to be off. I am therefore inclined to believe the development of phones where it was hard to take the battery out was also encouraged by the security services.

Knowledge of the remote switch on was disseminated more widely after I met Richard Stallman, a hero of mine, and was able to tell him about it. He publicised it to the tech-savvy community. Eventually Edward Snowden released precisely the same information, and the mainstream media finally started reporting it, seven years after I first published it. Now, the security services themselves have admitted to having this capability, rather to the horror of extreme right wing commentators.

I learnt that the security services can bug you through your mobile phone, even if it appears to you switched off, in the course of my official duties. I was among those allowed to know, and could tell it with 100% certainty.

I have now been told something new for which I cannot give a 100% guarantee of truth, though I have no reason to doubt the good faith of the person who gave me the information, and I can say for sure they would have the access to know this officially. I am told by a good source that the security services can now activate the microphone, even if the battery has been removed and there is no power source in the phone.

To a non-technological person like me, that sounds impossible. How do you remotely power something? If it is true, will I not need a cable for my television one day? I find the notion fascinating. I have taken on board that removing the battery may not be enough, but would welcome thoughts on the plausibility of this information.