International Criminal Court: cause and effect?

“As detailed in previous reporting, the Office has found that the information available provides a reasonable basis to believe that crimes under articles 7 and 8 of the Statute have been committed in the situation in Afghanistan, including crimes against humanity of murder under article 7(1)(a), and imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty under article 7(1)(e); murder under article 8(2)(c)(i); cruel treatment under article 8(2)(c)(i); outrages upon personal dignity under article 8(2)(c)(ii); the passing of sentences and carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court under article 8(2)(c)(iv); intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population or against individual civilians under article 8(2)(e)(i); intentionally directing attacks against personnel, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance under article 8(2)(e)(iii); intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to education, cultural objects, places of worship and similar institutions under article 8(2)(e)(iv); and treacherously killing or wounding a combatant adversary under article 8(2)(e)(ix).” [International Criminal Court (ICC), The Office of the Prosecutor, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities (2015), p27]

It is hard not to suspect a link between the International Criminal Court and Austraiian Defence Force investigations, given that the preliminary ICC investigation would have begun sometime between 2013 to 2015 and the Australian Government would have been aware that it might become one of the nations under formal criminal investigation.

CAUSE?

On 30 October 2017 the Presidency of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague was notified by the Prosecutor and on 3 November the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was assigned to Pre-Trial Chamber III with the following composition: Judge Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua ,Judge Chang-ho Chung and Judge Raul C. Pangalangan.

The New York Times, 3 November 2017:

The International Criminal Court’s prosecutor said Friday that she would request permission to open an Afghanistan investigation, a step that may lead to the court’s first indictments of Americans for war crimes.

The prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, has been collecting information on the war in Afghanistan for years. She has suggested before that she has evidence for a prosecution — not only of allegations of atrocities committed by combatants in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, the Afghan armed forces and the United States military, but of related crimes in other countries where C.I.A. operatives once held and tortured Afghan prisoners.

Ms. Bensouda said she would ask the judges in the court, which is based in The Hague, for authorization to pursue a formal investigation. If they agree, the Afghanistan investigation and any resulting indictments could pose a legal test for the United States — which does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction — to cooperate with it, especially if any defendants are American.

“In due course, I will file my request for judicial authorization to open an investigation, submitting that there is a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed in connection with the armed conflict in Afghanistan,” Ms. Bensouda said in a statement.

Should the judges grant her request, she said, her office will conduct an independent and impartial investigation into accusations of atrocities “committed by any party to the armed conflict.”

EFFECT?

ABC News, 11 July 2017:

Hundreds of pages of secret defence force documents leaked to the ABC give an unprecedented insight into the clandestine operations of Australia’s elite special forces in Afghanistan, including incidents of troops killing unarmed men and children.

The ABC can reveal that some of the cases detailed in the documents are being investigated as possible unlawful killings.

This comes a day after the ABC revealed the alleged cover up of the killing of an Afghan boy and another alleged incident in which a father and son were shot dead during a raid.

The documents, many marked AUSTEO — Australian Eyes Only — suggest a growing unease at the highest levels of Defence about the culture of Australia’s special forces as they prosecuted a bloody, secretive war against insurgents across a swathe of southern Afghanistan.

One document from 2014 refers to ingrained “problems” within special forces, an “organisational culture” including a “warrior culture” and a willingness by officers to turn a blind eye to poor behaviour.

Another document refers to a “desensitisation” and “drift in values” among elite Special Air Service soldiers serving in Afghanistan, while others allude to deep divisions between the two elite units which primarily comprise the special forces - the SAS based in Perth and 2 Commando Regiment based in Sydney.

A large proportion of the documents are reports on at least 10 incidents between 2009-2013 in which special forces troops shot dead insurgents, but also unarmed men and children.

The Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force is investigating at least two of the incidents as part of its inquiry into the conduct in Afghanistan of special forces, which includes alleged unlawful killing.

Just in case you missed it: civilian deaths in Mosul

Crikey.com.au, 2 October 2017

The Australian Defence Force revealed on Friday its troops had been involved in incidents in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul that are believed to have resulted in the deaths of eight civilians, including two children. The first incident was in March this year. An aircraft that was part of the coalition forces (that include Australia, the US, the UK and others) bombed a residential building in Mosul, which resulted in the deaths of seven civilians. Australian aircraft weren’t involved, but a member of the ADF was part of the “decision making chain” that authorised the strike, which was targeting Islamic State forces thought to be 300 metres from Iraqi forces. In an incident in June, Australian hornet aircraft were called to assist Iraqi forces, with a strike on a residential building. 

“They [the Iraqi forces] found themselves within 20 metres of a building in which Daesh fighters were,” Vice Admiral David Johnston told the media.

“They were engaged by small arms fire and were pinned down, unable to move.

“We had a pair of hornets that were airborne at the time … they performed a strike, it was a single precision guided weapon, a low-collateral weapon.”

It is believed a child was killed in that incident.

This was covered on the front page of The Age (after an AFL wrap-around of 20 pages) and the The Australian — we’re not in any way suggesting journos weren’t doing their jobs. But issues like this don’t stick in the minds of the public when there’s footy to watch and barbecues to attend. The report was embargoed until midnight on Saturday. It’s also possible the announcement, while coming months after the actual incidents, was timed to coincide with an announcement from the US’ Combined Joint Task Force, which detailed investigations of civilian deaths in Iraq and Syria.

US President Trump continues to chase 'his' war

It is becoming clear that Donald Trump wants an all-stops-out war with North Korea and damn the global consequences.

The Atlantic, 20 September 2017

President Donald Trump dispensed with diplomacy at the United Nations, vowing in his maiden speech to the General Assembly that the United States “will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea” if it is forced to defend itself or its allies.

The remarks, reminiscent of those of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s vow in 1968 to “bury” the West, is likely to raise tensions with North Korea, whose nuclear-weapons and missile programs have raised the alarm in Asian capitals and Washington. North Korea, with its regular battery of missile tests, as well as a recent nuclear test, is believed to be close to—if it doesn’t already possess—the ability to strike the United States with an intercontinental ballistic missile armed with a nuclear warhead.

“Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime,” Trump said at the UN on Tuesday, a reference to Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader. “The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary.”……

Before Trump’s remarks on Tuesday, his administration, after several false starts, appeared to have coalesced around a common message on North Korea: one that favored diplomacy to defuse the threat posed by Kim Jong Un’s nuclear and missile programs, while keeping all options on the table. After the president’s remarks, it’s once again unclear what the U.S. policy on North Korea is.

BACKGROUND

North Coast Voices, 21 August 2017, This Is The Face Of The Greatest Threat To World Peace in 2017

This Is The Face Of The Greatest Threat To World Peace in 2017

NOTE: This post will be updated throughout 2017

“North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. He has been very threatening beyond a normal statement and as I said they will be met with fire and fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before.” [United States President Donald John Trump, Associated Press, 8 August 2017]

NORTH Korea has retaliated to Donald Trump’s warning of “fire and fury like the world has never seen” by threatening a missile strike on a US Pacific territory frighteningly close to Australia.

The reclusive state announced it was “carefully examining” a plan to attack Guam, just hours after the US President issued an apocalyptic warning following reports North Korea had produced a missile-ready nuke.

Kim Jong-un plans to fire intermediate range ballistic missiles at the Micronesian island, which is situated in the Western Pacific 4447 kilometres north of the Australian coast, according to state-run media. [news.com.au, 8 August 2017]

"The people of our country are safe. Our allies are safe. And I will tell you this: North Korea better get their act together or they're going to be in trouble like few nations ever have been in trouble in this world.....Maybe it wasn't tough enough. They've been doing this to our country for a long time, for many years. And it's about time that somebody stuck up for the people of this country and for the people of other countries." [United States President Donald John Trump, doorstop announcement, 10 August 2017]

"The Bible gives President Trump the moral authority to use whatever force necessary including assassination or even war to take out an evildoer like Kim Jong-un and I think most Christians understand that." [Pastor Robert Jeffress, personal spiritual adviser to Donald Trump speaking on Fox News, 10 August 2017]

Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, said Trump in recent days has been restless to share his thoughts on what she termed “one of the juiciest, newsiest periods of his presidency.” [The Washington Post, 10 August 2017]

“Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely.” [U.S. President Donald J. Trump, Twitter, 11 August 2017] 

The S&P500 fell 1.5% and volatility spiked over tensions between US and North Korea

Gold rose to a two-month high and is predicted to soon top $US1300 if tensions grow [The Sydney Morning Herald at 4:38pm on 11 Aug 2017]

NORTH KOREA has warned Australia it has committed a “suicidal act” by pledging its allegiance to the US and sending defence force members to join military exercises with American and South Korean forces.

Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull last week told 3AW that an ANZUS treaty would be invoked and Australia would send troops to the aid of the US “if there is an attack” on the ally.

“In terms of defence, we are joined at the hip,” Mr Turnbull said.North Korean news agency KCNA has since reported that Australia’s allegiance to the US and its decision to take part in a military drill in South Korea was a “suicidal act”. [news.com.au, 21 August 2017]

“I worry about frankly, you know the access to nuclear codes. If in a fit of pique he decides to do something about Kim Jong Un there is actually very little to stop him.  The system, the whole system’s built to ensure rapid response if necessary. So there is very little in the way of controls you know over exercising a nuclear option. Which is pretty damn scary”

[James Clapper, national security analyst & former US Director of Intelligence, CNN Tonight (@CNN) 23 August 2017]

“Military action would certainly be an option.  Is it inevitable?  Nothing is inevitable.  It would be great if something else could be worked out.  We would have to look at all of the details, all of the facts.  But we've had Presidents for 25 years now -- they've been talking, talking, talking -- and the day after an agreement is reached, new work begins in North Korea, continuation on nuclear. So I would prefer not going the route of the military, but it’s something certainly that could happen.  Our military has never been stronger.  We are in a position now -- and you know the new orders.  You see the new numbers just like I see the new numbers.  It’s been tens of billions of dollars more in investment.  And each day new equipment is delivered -- new and beautiful equipment, the best in the world, the best anywhere in the world, by far. Hopefully we're not going to have to use it on North Korea.  If we do use it on North Korea, it will be a very sad day for North Korea.”  [United States President Donald John Trump, White House press conference, 7 September 2017]

“We will respond to the barbaric plotting around sanctions and pressure by the United States with powerful counter measures of our own.” [North Korea government representative, Third Annual Eastern Economic Forum in Russia, 7 September 2017] 

'We've been kicking the can down the road, and we're out of road. For those ... who have been commenting on a lack of a military option, there is a military option.' [White House National Security Adviser HR McMaster report quoted by Sky News, 16 September 2017]

‘Our final goal is to establish the equilibrium of real force with the US and make the US rulers dare not talk about military option for the DPRK.' 

 [North Korean state agency report quoted by Sky News, 16 September 2017]

“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.  Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.” [U.S. President Donald John Trump, speech at 72^nd Session of United Nations Assembly, 19 September 2017]

"The speech made by the US president in his maiden address on the UN arena in the prevailing serious circumstances, in which the situation on the Korean peninsula has been rendered tense as never before and is inching closer to a touch-and-go state, is arousing worldwide concern.

"Shaping the general idea of what he would say, I expected he would make stereo-typed, prepared remarks a little different from what he used to utter in his office on the spur of the moment as he had to speak on the world's biggest official diplomatic stage.

"But, far from making remarks of any persuasive power that can be viewed to be helpful to defusing tension, he made unprecedented rude nonsense one has never heard from any of his predecessors.

"A frightened dog barks louder.

"I'd like to advise Trump to exercise prudence in selecting words and to be considerate of whom he speaks to when making a speech in front of the world.

"The mentally deranged behavior of the US president openly expressing on the UN arena the unethical will to "totally destroy" a sovereign state, beyond the boundary of threats of regime change or overturn of social system, makes even those with normal thinking faculty think about discretion and composure.

"His remarks remind me of such words as "political layman" and "political heretic" which were in vogue in reference to Trump during his presidential election campaign.

"After taking office Trump has rendered the world restless through threats and blackmail against all countries in the world. He is unfit to hold the prerogative of supreme command of a country, and he is surely a rogue and a gangster fond of playing with fire, rather than a politician.

"His remarks which described the US option through straightforward expression of his will have convinced me, rather than frightening or stopping me, that the path I chose is correct and that it is the one I have to follow to the last.

"Now that Trump has denied the existence of and insulted me and my country in front of the eyes of the world and made the most ferocious declaration of a war in history that he would destroy the DPRK, we will consider with seriousness exercising of a corresponding, highest level of hard-line countermeasure in history.

"Action is the best option in treating the dotard who, hard of hearing, is uttering only what he wants to say.

"As a man representing the DPRK and on behalf of the dignity and honor of my state and people and on my own, I will make the man holding the prerogative of the supreme command in the U.S. pay dearly for his speech calling for totally destroying the DPRK.

This is not a rhetorical expression loved by Trump.

"I am now thinking hard about what response he could have expected when he allowed such eccentric words to trip off his tongue.

"Whatever Trump might have expected, he will face results beyond his expectation.

"I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged US dotard with fire." [Supreme Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Kim Jong-un, quoted in The Independent, 22 September 2017]

The Pentagon says B-1B bombers from Guam and F-15 fighter escorts from Okinawa, Japan, have flown a mission in international airspace over the waters east of North Korea.

The U.S. says it’s the farthest north of the Demilitarized Zone that divides the Korean Peninsula that any American fighter or bomber has flown this century.

Defense Department spokesman Dana White says in a statement that the mission shows how seriously the U.S. takes what he calls North Korea’s “reckless behavior.”

His statement says the flights are a “demonstration of U.S. resolve and a clear message” that President Donald Trump “has many military options to defeat any threat.”

White says “we are prepared to use the full range of military capabilities to defend the U.S. homeland and our allies. [Associated Press, 24 September 2017]

“Just heard Foreign Minister of North Korea speak at U.N. If he echoes thoughts of Little Rocket Man, they won't be around much longer!” [U.S. President Donald J. Trump, tweet, 24 December 2017]

US President Donald Trump has declared war on North Korea, Pyongyang says, adding that it reserves the right to take countermeasures, including shooting down US bombers even if they are not in its air space.

"The whole world should clearly remember it was the US who first declared war on our country," Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho told reporters in New York.

"Since the United States declared war on our country, we will have every right to make countermeasures, including the right to shoot down United States strategic bombers even when they are not inside the airspace border of our country.

"The question of who won't be around much longer will be answered then," Mr Ri added in a direct reference to a tweet by Mr Trump on Saturday.

In response, the Pentagon said it would be providing Mr Trump with "options" on how to deal with Pyongyang.

"If North Korea does not stop their provocative actions, you know, we will make sure that we provide options to the President to deal with North Korea," Pentagon spokesman Colonel Robert Manning said. [Representatives of North Korea and United States of America, ABC News, 26 September 2017]

Turnbull Government not exactly charging ahead in latest Newspoll - which is unlikely to foster calm and considered decision making on the part of the prime minister

These polling numbers represent a dangerous period for the people of Australia.

We already have Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull quickly popping over to a war zone this month for a photo opportunity in a flak jacket (left) and he is scheduled to meet with President Trump on 4 May 2017 to talk about the Korean situation, China and whatever thought bubble is exercising the U.S. president's mind at the time.

No prizes for suspecting Turnbull will offer more support for Trump's attempt to force a breakdown of the almost 64 year-old military armistice agreement between the United Nations and Korean People's Army & Chinese People's Volunteers and, a recommencement of the hostilities with North Korea.

After all, becoming a war leader is almost always good for polling numbers - at least in the first heady rush into combat - and both Turnbull and Trump have persistently low voter satisfaction levels which neither can currently shake off as well as unhealthy budget deficits and/or public debt levels*.

Both the U.S. governing Republican Party and the Australian governing Liberal-Nationals Coalition go the ballot box again in 2018, with mid-term elections for the U.S on 6 November and a general election in Australia anytime from 4 August 2018 through to 18 May 2019.

* In January 2017 the US Government budget deficit was an est. US$559 billion and public debt stood at est.US$14.8 trillion. While the Australian Government budget deficit stood at est. AUD$42.5 billion and public debt at AUD$323.8 billion net. 

Before the flag waving hype over Trump's latest bombing in Syria gets out of control, think about this......

It's not just the Syrian Government, Russia, ISIS or rebel groups killing innocent civilians, it is also the US-led Coalition and the nations which support it.

That includes Australia which is involved in the air war in Syria.

On 9 September 2015, Prime Minister Tony Abbott indicated that Australia would expand its commitment to Syria, with RAAF airstrikes to be extended to Islamic State targets there, following a request from the US Government. Prime Minister Abbott noted that the extended operations would mirror the efforts of other allied nations already operating in Syria to 'help protect Iraq and its people from [Islamic State] attacks inside Iraq and from across the border'. The expansion of operations to Syria was justified on the basis that the anti-Islamic State effort directly relates to Iraq's collective self‑defence and the continued commitment of humanitarian efforts in the region. The Syrian state's inability to exert control over that area and address the Islamic State threat, negates its right to object under the circumstances. [www.aph.gov.au, Parliamentary Library Briefing Book: Iraq and Syria]

The Federal Government says it will continue Australia's bombing missions over Syria in the wake of a mistaken operation that killed dozens of Syrian soldiers…..

[SBS News, 19 September 2016]

Perspectives on the situation on the ground......

The Telegraph, 7 April 2017:

US missile strikes on a Syrian air base [al-Shayrat] have reportedly killed nine civilians - including four children - as Donald Trump launched the first direct American attack on Bashar Assad's regime.

RT, 7 April 2017:

The governor of Homs province, Talal Barazi, said the US strike on a Syrian airfield 
has led to civilian casualties in a village near the base, as well as the airbase itself. At least five people have been left dead and seven wounded, he told RT.

Politicus USA, 7 April 2017:

For most people who have lost innocent loved ones to violence, the means of their relatives' demise is completely irrelevant; a senseless death is a senseless death. It doesn't matter if innocent civilians are killed as a result of terrorism, civil unrest, a civil war, or an American caused human catastrophe; a needless death is exactly that, a needless death.

Over the past couple of days Americans, including Trump, have made an issue over the deaths of innocent Syrians, and displaced Iraqis, allegedly killed by the Syrian military using chemical weapons. Of course it is a big issue, but while the Americans and the international community are outraged over the deaths of an estimated 86 innocent civilians in Syria, no-one is the least bit concerned, much less outraged, over the estimated 1,472 civilian casualties, all Muslim casualties, in the month of March alone and all at the hands of the United States of America under the Trump regime.

One can fairly say it would be a sure and safe bet that none of the family members of either the 86 innocent Syrian civilians or 1,472 innocent Syrian and Iraqi civilians really care about how their innocent loved ones were massacred; they just know their loved ones died. And yet all the attention is being focused solely on the 86 deaths by chemical weapons as opposed to 1,472 civilians killed by American-made and delivered bombs in the month of March alone.

As an investigative journalist who heads a British monitoring group, "Airwars," Chris Woods reported:

"This is worse than anything we have ever seen from the coalition, and it's up there with the levels of allegations we saw against Russia a year ago. Something is shifting — a lot more [innocent Muslim] civilians are dying, and it's happening on Donald Trump's watch."

It is believed by many international experts and a few American pundits unafraid of being labeled "un-American" that the "dramatic jump in civilian casualties" is the direct result of a Trump order to change the "risk/reward calculations" when determining how many innocent civilians, innocent Muslim civilians, are acceptable casualties when America launches airstrikes against what it certainly knows are heavily-populated civilian areas.

It is worth reiterating that Trump pledged during the campaign that if he was controlling America's military, he would direct them to "bomb the shit" out of ISIS'; in Trump-speak ISIS means Muslims. And, it is noteworthy to mention that despite the outrageous numbers of innocent Muslim civilians killed as a result of Trump "bombing the shit" out of "them," neither he, his administration's spokespeople, or Republicans have uttered even one word about the catastrophic deaths of innocent civilians under Trump.

Newsweek, 31 March 2017:

U.S.-led coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria may have already killed 1,484 civilians in just Iraq and Syria this month alone, more than three times the number killed in President Barack Obama's final full month in office, according to British monitoring group Airwars. For the first time, the number of alleged civilian casualties in events carried out by the U.S.-led coalition has exceeded the death toll of attacks launched by Russia.

Vox, 28 March 2017:

Syria, too, has been hit by US airstrikes with some remarkable civilian casualties this month. A US strike in a rural area of Raqqa province killed up to 30 noncombatants who had taken shelter in a school last week, according to residents' reports. And the week prior, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claimed that 42 people, most of whom were civilians, were killed by a US bombing in the town of Al Jinah, in what it deemed a "massacre." The US military said it had a legitimate military target in the area, but noted it would investigate possible civilian loss of life.

I Am Syria:

Civilian Death Tolls: March 2017

- Government forces: 417
- Russian forces: 224
- ISIS: 129
- Armed opposition factions: 14
- International Coalition forces: 260
- Other Parties: 84
- Kurdish Forces: 11

[my yellow highlighting]

UPDATE

The New York Times reported that the direct US attack on Syrian Government forces and property ordered by Donald Trump was internationally an illegal act and domestically may be a breach of US law. According to The Guardian “Malcolm Turnbull has hinted that Australia may be involved in an expanded US-led military strike on Syria, after outrage at Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack in Idlib”.

Apocalypse then, but what now?

“Political reforms are mostly ineffectual, in part because they are often aimed at the balance of power between the straightforwardly wealthy and the politically powerful, rather than the lot of the have-nots.”

Walter Scheidel, Dickason Professor in the Humanities, Professor of Classics and History, Catherine R. Kennedy and Daniel L. Grossman Fellow in Human Biology and Director of Graduate Studies in Classics at Stanford University, delivers the bad news…….

The Economist, 2 March 2017:

As a supplier of momentary relief, the Great Depression seems an unlikely candidate. But when it turns up on page 363 of Walter Scheidel’s “The Great Leveler” it feels oddly welcome. For once—and it is only once, for no other recession in American history boasts the same achievement—real wages rise and the incomes of the most affluent fall to a degree that has a “powerful impact on economic inequality”. Yes, it brought widespread suffering and dreadful misery. But it did not bring death to millions, and in that it stands out.

If that counts as relief, you can begin to imagine the scale of the woe that comes before and after. Mr Scheidel, a Vienna-born historian now at Stanford University, puts the discussion of increased inequality found in the recent work of Thomas Piketty, Anthony Atkinson, Branko Milanovic and others into a broad historical context and examines the circumstances under which it can be reduced.

Having assembled a huge range of scholarly literature to produce a survey that starts in the Stone Age, he finds that inequality within countries is almost always either high or rising, thanks to the ways that political and economic power buttress each other and both pass down generations. It does not, as some have suggested, carry within it the seeds of its own demise.

Only four things, Mr Scheidel argues, cause large-scale levelling. Epidemics and pandemics can do it, as the Black Death did when it changed the relative values of land and labour in late medieval Europe. So can the complete collapse of whole states and economic systems, as at the end of the Tang dynasty in China and the disintegration of the western Roman Empire. When everyone is pauperised, the rich lose most. Total revolution, of the Russian or Chinese sort, fits the bill. So does the 20th-century sibling of such revolutions: the war of mass-mobilisation.

And that is about it. Financial crises increase inequality as often as they decrease it. Political reforms are mostly ineffectual, in part because they are often aimed at the balance of power between the straightforwardly wealthy and the politically powerful, rather than the lot of the have-nots. Land reform, debt relief and the emancipation of slaves will not necessarily buck the trend much, though their chances of doing so a bit increase if they are violent. But violence does not in itself lead to greater equality, except on a massive scale. “Most popular unrest in history”, Mr Scheidel writes, “failed to equalise at all.”

Perhaps the most fascinating part of this book is the careful accumulation of evidence showing that mass-mobilisation warfare was the defining underlying cause of the unprecedented decrease in inequality seen across much of the Western world between 1910 and 1970 (though the merry old Great Depression lent an unusual helping hand). By demanding sacrifice from all, the deployment of national resources on such a scale under such circumstances provides an unusually strong case for soaking the rich.

Income taxes and property taxes rose spectacularly during both world wars (the top income-tax rate reached 94% in America in 1944, with property taxes peaking at 77% in 1941). Physical damage to capital goods slashed the assets of the wealthy, too, as did post-war inflations. The wars also drove up membership in trade unions—one of the war-related factors that played a part in keeping inequality low for a generation after 1945 before it started to climb back up in the 1980s……..

Read the rest of the article here.

Doomsday Clock: three Democrats attempt to bell the cat

An attempt in the U.S. House of Representatives to limit President Tantrump’s access to nuclear weapons:

Introduced in House (09/27/2016)

Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2016

This bill prohibits the President from using the Armed Forces to conduct a first-use nuclear strike unless such strike is conducted pursuant to a congressional declaration of war expressly authorizing such strike.

"First-use nuclear strike" means a nuclear weapons attack against an enemy that is conducted without the President determining that the enemy has first launched a nuclear strike against the United States or a U.S. ally.

Sponsored by: Ted Lieu, District 33 California

Co-sponsored by: James McGovern, District 2 Massachusetts and Raul M. Grijalva, District 3 Arizona

TEXT

114th CONGRESS 2d Session

H.R 6179

To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress.

---

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 27, 2016

Mr. Ted Lieu of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

---

A BILL

To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2016”.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.

(a) Findings.—Congress finds the following:

(1) The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war.

(2) The framers of the Constitution understood that the monumental decision to go to war, which can result in massive death and the destruction of civilized society, must be made by the representatives of the people and not by a single person.

(3) As stated by section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93–148; 50 U.S.C. 1541), “the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”.

(4) Nuclear weapons are uniquely powerful weapons that have the capability to instantly kill millions of people, create long-term health and environmental consequences throughout the world, directly undermine global peace, and put the United States at existential risk from retaliatory nuclear strikes.

(5) By any definition of war, a first-use nuclear strike from the United States would constitute a major act of war.

(6) A first-use nuclear strike conducted absent a declaration of war by Congress would violate the Constitution.

(b) Declaration Of Policy.—It is the policy of the United States that no first-use nuclear strike should be conducted absent a declaration of war by Congress.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CONDUCT OF FIRST-USE NUCLEAR STRIKES.

(a) Prohibition.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President may not use the Armed Forces of the United States to conduct a first-use nuclear strike unless such strike is conducted pursuant to a declaration of war by Congress that expressly authorizes such strike.

(b) First-Use Nuclear Strike Defined.—In this section, the term “first-use nuclear strike” means an attack using nuclear weapons against an enemy that is conducted without the President determining that the enemy has first launched a nuclear strike against the United States or an ally of the United States.

In 1947 the Atomic Clock was set at 7 minutes to midnight & by 2016 the clock stood at 3 minutes to midnight - Donald Trump's presidency has moved its hands to 2 minutes 30 seconds

Six days after Donald John Trump was sworn in as the 45^th President of the United States of America the Atomic Doomsday Clock moved closer to Armageddon.

Image found at Business Insider Australia

It is two and a half minutes to midnight

2017 Doomsday Clock Statement

Science and Security Board

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Editor, John Mecklin

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the Doomsday Clock, a graphic that appeared on the first cover of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists as it transitioned from a six-page, black-and-white newsletter to a full-fledged magazine. For its first cover, the editors sought an image that represented a seriousness of purpose and an urgent call for action. The Clock, and the countdown to midnight that it implied, fit the bill perfectly. The Doomsday Clock, as it came to be called, has served as a globally recognized arbiter of the planet’s health and safety ever since.

Each year, the setting of the Doomsday Clock galvanizes a global debate about whether the planet is safer or more dangerous today than it was last year, and at key moments in recent history. Our founders would not be surprised to learn that the threats to the planet that the Science and Security Board now considers have expanded since 1947. In fact, the Bulletin’s first editor, Eugene Rabinowitch, noted that one of the purposes of the Bulletin was to respond and offer solutions to the “Pandora’s box of modern science,” recognizing the speed at which technological advancement was occurring, and the demanding questions it would present.

In 1947 there was one technology with the potential to destroy the planet, and that was nuclear power. Today, rising temperatures, resulting from the industrial-scale burning of fossil fuels, will change life on Earth as we know it, potentially destroying or displacing it from significant portions of the world, unless action is taken today, and in the immediate future. Future technological innovation in biology, artificial intelligence, and the cyber realm may pose similar global challenges. The knotty problems that innovations in these fields may present are not yet fully realized, but the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board tends to them with a watchful eye.

This year’s Clock deliberations felt more urgent than usual. On the big topics that concern the board, world leaders made too little progress in the face of continuing turbulence. In addition to the existential threats posed by nuclear weapons and climate change, new global realities emerged, as trusted sources of information came under attack, fake news was on the rise, and words were used in cavalier and often reckless ways. As if to prove that words matter and fake news is dangerous, Pakistan’s foreign minister issued a blustery statement, a tweet actually, flexing Pakistan’s nuclear muscle—in response to a fabricated “news” story about Israel. Today’s complex global environment is in need of deliberate and considered policy responses. It is ever more important that senior leaders across the globe calm rather than stoke tensions that could lead to war, either by accident or miscalculation.

I once again commend the board for approaching its task with the seriousness it deserves. Bulletin Editor-in-Chief John Mecklin did a remarkable job pulling together this document and reflecting the in-depth views and opinions of the board. Considerable thanks goes to our supporters including the Carnegie Corporation of New York, MacArthur Foundation, Ploughshares Fund, David Weinberg and Jerry Newton, as well as valued supporters across the year.

I hope the debate engendered by the 2017 setting of the Clock raises the level of conversation, promotes calls to action, and helps citizens around the world hold their leaders responsible for delivering a safer and healthier planet.

Rachel Bronson, PhD

Executive Director and Publisher

26 January, 2017

Chicago, IL

It is two and a half minutes to midnight

Editor’s note: Founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock two years later, using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet. The decision to move (or to leave in place) the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock is made every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 15 Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and new technologies emerging in other domains. A printable PDF of this statement, complete with the executive director’s statement and Science and Security Board biographies, is available here.

To: Leaders and citizens of the world

Re: It is 30 seconds closer to midnight

Date: January 26, 2017

Over the course of 2016, the global security landscape darkened as the international community failed to come effectively to grips with humanity’s most pressing existential threats, nuclear weapons and climate change.

The United States and Russia—which together possess more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons—remained at odds in a variety of theaters, from Syria to Ukraine to the borders of NATO; both countries continued wide-ranging modernizations of their nuclear forces, and serious arms control negotiations were nowhere to be seen. North Korea conducted its fourth and fifth underground nuclear tests and gave every indication it would continue to develop nuclear weapons delivery capabilities. Threats of nuclear warfare hung in the background as Pakistan and India faced each other warily across the Line of Control in Kashmir after militants attacked two Indian army bases.

The climate change outlook was somewhat less dismal—but only somewhat. In the wake of the landmark Paris climate accord, the nations of the world have taken some actions to combat climate change, and global carbon dioxide emissions were essentially flat in 2016, compared to the previous year. Still, they have not yet started to decrease; the world continues to warm. Keeping future temperatures at less-than-catastrophic levels requires reductions in greenhouse gas emissions far beyond those agreed to in Paris—yet little appetite for additional cuts was in evidence at the November climate conference in Marrakech.

This already-threatening world situation was the backdrop for a rise in strident nationalism worldwide in 2016, including in a US presidential campaign during which the eventual victor, Donald Trump, made disturbing comments about the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons and expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board takes a broad and international view of existential threats to humanity, focusing on long-term trends. Because of that perspective, the statements of a single person—particularly one not yet in office—have not historically influenced the board’s decision on the setting of the Doomsday Clock.

But wavering public confidence in the democratic institutions required to deal with major world threats do affect the board’s decisions. And this year, events surrounding the US presidential campaign—including cyber offensives and deception campaigns apparently directed by the Russian government and aimed at disrupting the US election—have brought American democracy and Russian intentions into question and thereby made the world more dangerous than was the case a year ago.

For these reasons, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has decided to move the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock 30 seconds closer to catastrophe. It is now two minutes and 30 seconds to midnight.

The board’s decision to move the clock less than a full minute—something it has never before done—reflects a simple reality: As this statement is issued, Donald Trump has been the US president only a matter of days. Many of his cabinet nominations are not yet confirmed by the Senate or installed in government, and he has had little time to take official action.

Just the same, words matter, and President Trump has had plenty to say over the last year. Both his statements and his actions as president-elect have broken with historical precedent in unsettling ways. He has made ill-considered comments about expanding the US nuclear arsenal. He has shown a troubling propensity to discount or outright reject expert advice related to international security, including the conclusions of intelligence experts. And his nominees to head the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency dispute the basics of climate science.

In short, even though he has just now taken office, the president’s intemperate statements, lack of openness to expert advice, and questionable cabinet nominations have already made a bad international security situation worse.

Last year, and the year before, we warned that world leaders were failing to act with the speed and on the scale required to protect citizens from the extreme danger posed by climate change and nuclear war. During the past year, the need for leadership only intensified—yet inaction and brinksmanship have continued, endangering every person, everywhere on Earth.

Who will lead humanity away from global disaster?

The full transcript can be found at http://thebulletin.org/sites/default/files/Final%202017%20Clock%20Statement.pdf.