democracynow.org
Stories:
As Canada mourns the death of a soldier gunned down while standing guard at the National War Monument in Ottawa, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is pushing new antiterrorism legislation that would expand surveillance and intelligence sharing with foreign governments. In the days since the shooting, the gunman, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, has been identified as a convert to Islam with a history of drug abuse, criminal activity and mental illness. The incident came two days after another violent attack on Canadian troops in Quebec. Martin Couture-Rouleau, also identified as a "radicalized" Muslim convert, drove a car into two soldiers, killing one of them. The incidents have sparked fears of blowback shortly after Canada joined the U.S.-led war against Islamic State militants in Iraq. But the violence has also raised questions about Canada’s treatment of the mentally ill and others on the margins. Zehaf-Bibeau had been dealing with a serious crack-cocaine addiction and living in and out of homeless shelters. On Monday, the Canadian government introduced an antiterrorism measure that was to have been unveiled the same day as the Ottawa attack. We are joined by two guests: Ihsaan Gardee, executive director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims; and Harsha Walia, a social justice activist, founder of No One Is Illegal, and author of the book, "Undoing Border Imperialism."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AARON MATÉ: We begin in Canada, as it grapples with the aftermath of last week’s gun attack on the nation’s Parliament in Ottawa. On Wednesday, a gunman named Michael Zehaf-Bibeau shot and killed Corporal Nathan Cirillo, a soldier guarding the National War Memorial. Zehaf-Bibeau entered the nearby Parliament, where he was shot dead in a gunfight. The attack occurred as Parliament was filled with lawmakers, journalists and staffers, who were forced to hide for hours. The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, was just one door away when the shooting broke out. Corporal Cirillo was buried Friday in a national ceremony. A Canadian soldier read a statement from his family.
CAPT. ROBERT ANDRUSHKO: On behalf of our family, we want to say thank you to the entire nation. On October 22nd, we lost a son, a brother, a father, a friend and a national hero. We are not only mourning as a family, but also a country. When we lost Nathan, we all mourned as one. There are no words to express the sadness that has fallen upon us all. We take comfort in knowing Nathan has done our country proud. The support of the nation in this devastating time provides a measure of comfort and helps make this almost bearable.
AMY GOODMAN: In the days since the shooting, the gunman, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, has been identified as a convert to Islam with a history of drug abuse, criminal activity and mental illness. The incident came two days after another violent attack on Canadian troops in Quebec. Martin Couture-Rouleau, also identified as a "radicalized" Muslim convert, drove a car into two soldiers, killing one of them. The attacks have sparked fears of blowback shortly after Canada joined the U.S.-led war against Islamic State militants in Iraq. One witness said Zehaf-Bibeau yelled about Iraq during the shooting. On Monday, Canadian police said Zehaf-Bibeau had made a video referencing Canadian foreign policy and the Islamic faith.
AARON MATÉ: But the violence has also raised questions about Canada’s treatment of the mentally ill and others on the margins. Zehaf-Bibeau had been dealing with a serious crack-cocaine addiction and living in and out of homeless shelters in the weeks before. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has attempted to link the violent incidents to foreign terrorism. In a speech the day after the Ottawa attack, Harper called on lawmakers to increase government powers on surveillance and detention.
PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER: Last week our government proposed amendments to the legislation under which the Canadian intelligence—Canadian Security Intelligence Service operates. And as you know, Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks I have been saying that our laws and police powers need to be strengthened in the area of surveillance, detention and arrest. They need to be much strengthened. And I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that work, which is already underway, will be expedited.
AARON MATÉ: On Monday, Harper introduced an antiterrorism measure that was to have been unveiled the same day as the Ottawa attack. The measure includes a bolstering of information sharing with foreign intelligence agencies. In an appearance before lawmakers, the head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Bob Paulson, also called for greater authority to detain and monitor suspects, saying the standards for evidence should be lowered.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we go to Canada. We’re joined by two guests. In Ottawa, Ihsaan Gardee is with us, executive director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which helped publish a guide book titled United Against Terrorism: A Collaborative Effort Towards a Secure, Inclusive and Just Canada. And in Victoria, British Columbia, we’re joined by Harsha Walia, a social justice activist, founder of No One Is Illegal, and author of the book, Undoing Border Imperialism.
Let’s go first to Ottawa to Ihsaan Gardee. Can you talk about the attack and the response to it, Ihsaan?
IHSAAN GARDEE: Thank you for having me on the show. The attack came, obviously, as a shock to everyone, including the RCMP, our national police service here in Canada. As the events unfolded, you know, we started getting calls at the office, text messages and so forth. Like everybody else, we were watching with a great deal of concern. And to their credit, for the most part, media, as well as most politicians, were very restrained and balanced in their commentary, because as information came out, there was very little that was known in the early, early hours of the attack—of the attacks, including the one at the War Memorial and the attack on Parliament Hill, about who the shooter was, their background and so forth. Of course, as the hours went by, more information slowly started to trickle out, and we found out, you know, a little bit more about the background of the perpetrator. And it was something that was very scary and that, as I said, came as a shock to all Canadians. There was a shared sense of grief, anger, you know, just these mixed emotions as things developed.
AARON MATÉ: I want to go to Harsha Walia in Victoria. Harsha, you live in Vancouver. You work and organize in the Downtown Eastside. That’s the community where the gunman, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, battled drug addiction and was in and out of homeless shelters. What’s your take on the response to the shooting? And what do you think has been missing from the discussion?
HARSHA WALIA: Thanks, Aaron. Thanks for having me. I think there’s a few things that have been operating. One, of course, is that the dominant discourse is one that’s really racialized and Islamophobic. You know, Stephen Harper, as well as various media pundits, came out right after the shooting and really emphasized that this was Canada’s 9/11, this really hyperbolic, fear-mongering-type response, which led to, you know, really Islamophobic responses, including a number of hate crimes on mosques. And, you know, now we see, as you’ve mentioned, the passing of legislation that’s clearly trying to connect the Ottawa shooting to the war on terror, as well as Canada and other countries’ re-entry into northern Iraq.
At the same time, there’s this parallel reality and equal reality of the fact that Michael lived throughout homeless shelters, spent a brief time in the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver, which is Canada’s poorest neighborhood, where people battle with drug addictions, mental health issues and other barriers related to poverty and being on the street. And so, you know, that’s definitely connected to the fact that there’s a decreasing amount of supports around mental health and for people living in poverty to be supported in their different struggles.
But even in that, I do want to mention that, you know, that kind of lone wolf who’s suffering and battling with mental health issues is really racialized, because Michael—Michael’s adoptive father was from Libya. So, some of the stories that are more explicitly racist tend to emphasize his dad’s connection to Libya, the fact that he was apparently radicalized into Islam, all of those other kinds of narratives that try to link him to so-called radical, political Islam in that Islamophobic response. But even the stories that emphasize his struggles with mental health and addictions, in those stories, because his biological mother is white, they tend to frame him as the lone white man, the white wolf, who’s suffering with mental health. So even that story, I would argue, even though it presents him in a more holistic way, in a more sort of sympathetic light, battling with his different mental health and addictions, even that tends to emphasize a kind of racist discourse as, you know, the lone white man who was lured into radical Islam due to his mental health struggles.
So, I think regardless of the kinds of stories that have come out about Michael, underpinning it is a racialized narrative of how the war on terror has played out, which is a really racist one, one that immediately targets Muslims, you know. And my news feed the day of the shooting was actually filled with a whole lot of speculation about his appearance. And we had reporters reporting on, you know, the fact that apparently witnesses said he looked dark, or he was wearing an Arab scarf. It was almost comical, because some reporters said he looked indigenous aboriginal, others said he looked Latino, others said he looked Arab. So, right away, the kind of racialization and racism that underpins this story, I think, is actually what’s missing, which is, what are the ways in which we as a society and media and government immediately, almost intuitively, tend to link attacks such as this one as quickly as possible and as opportunistically as possible to the war on terror and to Islam?
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to John Horgan, opposition leader with the New Democratic Party in British Columbia. In remarks warning about a rush to expand security laws, Horgan called the Ottawa shootings, quote, "a loss of innocence for our country."
JOHN HORGAN: As we reflect upon the loss of life today and the loss of innocence for our country, I think we also have to recognize that our democratic institutions must—must—be open and accessible to the people who send us here. As important as security measures will be over the next number of hours and days and weeks, not just here and in Ottawa, but in every legislature in this country, we have to always keep in the forefront of our mind, in the forefront of the decisions that we make around security, that this institution belongs to the people.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to get your response, Ihsaan Gardee, to the media coverage, whether there’s a backlash against Muslims. The Daily Beast said, "Terrorist Ends Canada’s Innocence." The Telegraph newspaper published a story following the attack, "How an Oasis of Tranquility Became a Breeding Ground for Terrorists." So, how has this affected the Muslim community? And in your handbook, you have tips for Muslims on how to identify so-called "radicalized" Muslims.
IHSAAN GARDEE: Well, this obviously has affected the Canadian Muslim community, like it’s affected our fellow Canadians. It’s something that we take extremely seriously. And, of course, there’s a natural concern, as you said, regarding a backlash. And as your other guest mentioned, there have been some incidents that have been reported, including vandalizing of mosques. There’s been a mosque in Cold Lake, Alberta, that had bricks thrown through its window and the words spray-painted on it, "Canada" and "Go home," which the feedback we’re getting from our fellow Canadians is that this is the most un-Canadian of responses to these kinds of events.
As you mentioned, our handbook, which is the United Against Terrorism handbook—I have it here with me—which is available on our website at NCCM.ca for download, so any of your viewers and listeners can read that for themselves, really it’s split into five sections. It talks about, for example, as you mentioned, signs and symptoms of individuals who could be becoming radicalized towards extremist violence. It talks about the RCMP and what their role is in national security, helping Canadian Muslim communities across this country understand what their role is in national security and the role of other security agencies. And there’s a section, as well, from our organization, the NCCM, talking about what are the rights of Canadian citizenship, but equally, what are the responsibilities. So there’s a balance there.
Now, this is just one response to this phenomenon, and it was something that actually took place over 14 months, started with conversation cafes that were held in Winnipeg discussing this issue of radicalization towards extremist violence. And it really collected and put together in a handbook all the discussions that came out and the questions that came out to act as a guide for communities across this country. Other initiatives that have and continue to take place include, for example, a conference was held last month in Calgary called "OWN IT," directly looking at this topic of radicalization towards extremist violence.
And we have to remember that, you know, the discourse and the dialogue, it’s important—the terminology and how we phrase these things is important, as well. Radicalization, in and of itself, is not necessarily the issue. It’s radicalization towards extremist violence, when the individual makes that distinction that their only choice in terms of expressing their grievance or frustration or venting that is through violent action. Others in the past have been called or perceived as radical. For example, Martin Luther King was called a radical. The protesters in the Vietnam War were called radical. So it’s important that we distinguish between the two and ensure that the conversation is clear.
Again, as your other guest mentioned, as well, there are a number of facets to this issue of radicalization towards extremist violence. You know, search for identity, belonging and so forth certainly seem to play a role. As your other guest mentioned, as well, these individuals, they both seem to come from troubled backgrounds. So, social services has to be a part of the conversation. There’s been indications of mental health issues, so mental health services need to be brought in. And again, we want to be careful there, as well. As was mentioned, we don’t want to stigmatize an already stigmatized community by laying the blame at the feet of any particular cause, until we actually have more research and study into this phenomenon. The Internet and the role of the Internet, certainly not as possibly a causal factor, but it absolutely plays a facilitating role in allowing those who would push out extremist messages of extremist violence and propaganda that targets our most vulnerable and those who are most impressionable.
And we have to remember that while there has been a focus, for example, on converts or on the young, what we have seen from individuals who have been radicalized towards extremist violence—those who have left Canada, for example, to fight overseas—is that they don’t seem to come from any single profile. They’ve come from different socioeconomic backgrounds, different ages. So, as tempting as it is, as tempting as it is—and we understand that desire to have sort of a silver-bullet, magic-potion solution to be able to say, you know, this is the issue—this is a multifaceted problem, a multifaceted challenge, and it’s going to require a multipronged, short-, medium- and long-term approach.
As was mentioned, our government has introduced new legislation to expand the powers of our security agencies, and obviously we’re watching that with a great deal of concern. There’s actually a conference being held in Ottawa tomorrow called "Arar +10," or 10 years after the Arar inquiry, to discuss how issues of national security and human rights have been dealt with in the wake of 9/11, in the wake of the Arar inquiry, and how we are seeing—
AMY GOODMAN: And just to say—
IHSAAN GARDEE: —greater and greater encroachments on civil liberties and human rights in the name of security—
AMY GOODMAN: Just to say, Ihsaan—Ihsaan, just to—
IHSAAN GARDEE: —and making sure that that discussion is alive and well.
AMY GOODMAN: Just to say, Ihsaan, Arar, you mean Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen who the U.S. ultimately, through extraordinary rendition, got at a U.S. airport, took him when he was coming back from vacation, just transiting through the U.S. to Canada, and sent him to Syria, where he was tortured for almost a year. Ultimately, he was sent back to Canada, and they awarded him millions of dollars, and the U.S. has never apologized for what they did to him.
IHSAAN GARDEE: That’s correct. And that’s just one case, the case of Mr. Arar. There are other cases of Canadians who were detained overseas and tortured—Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El-Maati, Muayyed Nureddin in the Iacobucci inquiry with Justice Iacobucci; other Canadians like Abousfian Abdelrazik; Canadians who are still being detained abroad, like Huseyincan Celil, who’s being held in China, or Bashir Makhtal, who’s being held in Ethiopia. And these are all cases that we’re continuing to follow and there’s continuing concern about.
And actually, at this conference tomorrow, Justices O’Connor, Iacobucci and Major will be speaking together on a panel, the first time Justice O’Connor will be speaking publicly after the Arar inquiry. And one of the key recommendations that he made, Justice O’Connor, in his report that was produced as result of this inquiry, was for the creation of a comprehensive oversight body for our security agencies. And we’ve received, you know, a lot of assurances from government that the recommendations have been looked at and implemented, but there’s been no transparency, no reporting to ensure that that takes place.
It’s important to remember that, you know, we are—obviously, national security affects all of us, and violent extremism affects all of us. So, we need to all be a part of this discussion, and it can’t be viewed that this is something that is simply or solely the issue or problem of the Muslim community or Muslim communities alone to solve. We need government to be involved in this discussion, security agencies, as I mentioned, mental health services, social services and other levels of society. For example, as I mentioned, this conference in Calgary, we had the University of Calgary participating and saying that they were there, they were wanting to help, wanting to research this phenomenon better so we have a better understanding and so that the solutions and the strategies that are proposed are not simply Band-Aid solutions that will make us look or make us feel better, but may not be effective at all in actually addressing the issues.
AMY GOODMAN: Harsha Walia, as we wrap up, have you seen this attack on the Canadian Parliament being used to justify Canada joining in the U.S. attacks in Canada—in Iraq and Syria?
HARSHA WALIA: Yes, absolutely. I mean, right shortly after the shootings, right after, you know, there was statements by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as well as the statements by the RCMP, that essentially linked this attack to ISIS and attempted to link it to fighting for the Islamic State, suggesting that Michael wanted to travel to Syria—in some reports, it said Libya, some reports said Syria—although it turns out he wanted to travel to neither country. But so, despite the facts, there’s been an attempt to link the Ottawa shooting to ISIS.
And, of course, this is right at the same time as Canada, as well as the United States, is entering and re-entering into northern Iraq. Canada has sent combat troops on at least a six-month mission to fight in Iraq. And so, there’s no doubt that the Ottawa shooting has provided a really necessary pretext, an ongoing pretext, to justify war and occupation in the Middle East, Canada’s foreign policy in the Middle East, as it follows the United States to go to war, as well as the ongoing war at home, if you will, right, to continue to curtail civil liberties, to continue to surveillance and spy on people.
And I think we really do have to question the logic and the justification given for these security measures, right? Like, it becomes really easy to become apologists for state surveillance. It becomes really easy to play into fear mongering, to play into racism and to really believe this right-wing opportunistic moment, that this is Canada’s 9/11. This is not Canada’s 9/11. You know, the shooting is not Canada’s loss of innocence, if you will. Canada has not been innocent for a very long time in terms of its foreign and domestic policy when it comes to settler colonialism and empire. And so, I think we have to be really attuned and vigilant to the ways that even we, as social justice activists, reproduce and justify the surveillance state. There is absolutely no need for increased surveillance measures. There’s no need to be working with security agencies. I think we need to reject that logic, you know, because violence, in all of its kind of abhorrent forms, exists within a social political context.
AMY GOODMAN: Harsha Walia—
HARSHA WALIA: And so, the root issues—
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us, founder of No One Is Illegal, author of Undoing Border Imperialism. She has joined us from Victoria, Canada. Ihsaan Gardee is the National Council of Canadian Muslims head in the CBC studios in Ottawa. Thank you so much for both being there.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we’ll go to Jakarta, Indonesia. The new president of Indonesia has been inaugurated, and he’s holding his first Cabinet. Who did he choose as his Cabinet members? Stay with us.
|
Colorado and Oregon could soon become the first states in the nation to pass ballot initiatives mandating the labeling of food products containing genetically modified organisms. Earlier this year, Vermont became the first state to approve GMO labeling through the legislative process, but the decision is now being challenged in the courts. Numerous items are already sold in grocery stores containing genetically modified corn and soy, but companies are currently not required to inform consumers. Advocates of Prop 105 in Colorado and Measure 92 in Oregon say GMO foods can be harmful to human health due to pesticide residues and the altered crop genetics. Opponents say the effort to label genetically modified food is overly cumbersome and will spread misinformation. Leading corporations opposing the labeling measures include Monsanto, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo Inc., Kellogg Co. and Coca-Cola. By some accounts, opponents of labeling have contributed roughly $20 million for campaigning against the proposed laws, nearly triple the money raised by supporters of the initiatives. In Oregon, the fight for GMO labeling has turned into the most expensive ballot measure campaign in the state’s history. We speak to Tufts University professor Sheldon Krimsky, editor of "The GMO Deception: What You Need to Know about the Food, Corporations, and Government Agencies Putting Our Families and Our Environment at Risk."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AARON MATÉ: Food fights are raging in Colorado and Oregon—that is, the fights over ballot initiatives that would require the labeling of genetically engineered food. On Election Day, voters will cast a "yay" or "nay" for Proposition 105 in Colorado and Measure 92 in Oregon. The states could become the first to mandate labeling laws for genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, possibly affecting industry labeling practices across the country. [Earlier this year, Vermont became the first state to approve GMO labeling through the legislative process, but the decision is now being challenged in the courts.] Numerous items are already sold in grocery stores containing GMO corn and soy, but companies are currently not required to inform consumers. Advocates of Prop 105 in Colorado say GMO foods can be harmful to human health due to pesticide residues and the altered crop genetics. Several celebrities have banded together to support the Right to Know campaign with this playfully ironic PSA that begins with actor Danny DeVito.
DANNY DEVITO: What makes you think you have the right to know?
JILLIAN MICHAELS: Who do you think you are?
BILL MAHER: You shouldn’t know whether your food is genetically modified.
JOHN CHO: You might do something dumb.
GLENN HOWERTON: Like you’d be looking at labels and making decisions.
DANNY DEVITO: Knowing if you’re eating or buying genetically engineered food is not your right.
KAITLIN OLSON: Ooh, maybe move to Europe or Japan if you want that right.
GLENN HOWERTON: Or a lot of countries where people have the right to know.
BILL MAHER: But not here, baby.
KADEE STRICKLAND: Unless you demand that GMOs get labeled.
GLENN HOWERTON: Vote, and you get to know what’s in your food.
UNIDENTIFIED: Vote yes for the right to know.
AMY GOODMAN: An ad by the Right to Know Colorado campaign. Opponents of Prop 105 say the effort to label genetically modified food is overly cumbersome and will spread misinformation. This ad was released by the No on 105 campaign.
DON AMENT: Agriculture is crucial to Colorado’s economy. Proposition 105 would hurt Colorado food producers by forcing them to use misleading labels that conflict with national standards. It would require many food products that we export to be labeled as genetically engineered, even when they’re not.
AARON MATÉ: That’s an ad by the No on 105 campaign. Leading corporations opposing the labeling measures include Monsanto, Kraft Foods, Pepsi, Kellogg and Coca-Cola. By some accounts, opponents of labeling have contributed roughly $20 million for campaigning against the proposed laws, nearly triple the money raised by supporters of the initiatives. In Oregon, the fight for GMO labeling has turned into the most expensive ballot measure campaign in the state’s history.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Sheldon Krimsky, editor and author of several contributions in the new book, The GMO Deception: What You Need to Know about the Food, Corporations, and Government Agencies Putting Our Families and Our Environment at Risk. He’s a professor of urban and environmental policy and planning at Tufts University, as well as an adjunct professor in the Department of Public Health and Family Medicine at Tufts School of Medicine. Professor Krimsky is also a board member of the Council for Responsible Genetics.
Sheldon Krimsky, welcome to Democracy Now!
SHELDON KRIMSKY: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: So, I just flew back from Austria, which is GMO-free. And they’re very puzzled when they look at the United States. I mean, they are GMO-free. They don’t allow genetically modified foods to grow there. They’re puzzled when they look at the United States that we’re not talking about GMO-free country, we’re talking about labeling the foods that are genetically modified. You can be for GMOs and still support labeling for them.
SHELDON KRIMSKY: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about the significance of these ballot initiatives. I mean, what’s going on in Colorado is a true battle, Monsanto and these other corporations pouring in millions. Now Chipotle has joined Ben & Jerry’s and lot of environmental groups in saying that they want the labeling. Why do you think the labeling is such a problem? What is the problem with GMOs?
SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, I think we have to go back to the history of regulation in the United States. The Dan Quayle commission produced a position paper, basically, on how to regulate biotechnology. Out of that, they said that you don’t have to regulate genetically modified food. So, if you put a chemical into a processed food, you have to go through FDA regulations. But if you put a foreign gene into a plant, according to the FDA, you don’t have to go through regulations. They give the corporations the opportunity to decide whether they want to market the food or not. So when you start with that assumption, where they think and believe that putting foreign genes into food is no different than just creating hybrid crops, once you follow that logic, and they say there’s no need for labeling—Europeans have never followed that logic. They say you have to test each of these products, because you don’t know what the outcome is going to be.
AARON MATÉ: Your book makes the case that the science on GMOs has been corporatized, that companies like Monsanto have had such a huge influence over the research and the conclusions of scientists. How has that come to be, when, for example, on the issue of fossil fuels, we have a consensus of climate scientists that fossil fuel extraction causes global warming and needs to be stopped, even though that would be harmful to major companies? How is it that agribusiness has come to control the science, as you claim in your book?
SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, there are some independent scientists, and they have produced some animal studies on the effects of GMOs, and some of those studies have shown that the effects are not good. And every time a scientist produces such a study, they are vilified by other scientists and other people who are tied to the industry. So, we have seen from our own research that the science has been politicized, and there are many cases where we can show that scientists have been treated unfairly and unethically, just because they have found negative outcomes with respect to the animal studies.
AMY GOODMAN: While on the campaign trail in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to label GMO foods, if elected.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Here’s what I’ll do as president: I’ll immediately implement country-of-origin labeling, because Americans should know where their food comes from. We’ll let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified, because Americans should know what they’re buying.
AMY GOODMAN: That was candidate Obama. What has President Obama done?
SHELDON KRIMSKY: Nothing. On the biotechnology area, he has not taken any initiatives at all. The FDA has held pretty much to their original position that labeling is irrelevant for GMOs and that it would add no useful information to consumers. The fact is that, when polled, most consumers feel there should be labeling on GMOs to give them a choice. Everyone has the right to be a first user or a late user of a new product or technology. Remember Olestra, the artificial fat substance? Some people said, "Oh, you know, I’ll just go for it." Other people said, "Oh, no. Not me. I’m going to wait until several million people have tried it." And we don’t have that choice with GMOs unless we buy organic, because the government standard does say that organic foods are not supposed to have more than 1 percent GMOs in them. So that’s the only choice people have, and organic is usually more expensive.
AARON MATÉ: On top of labeling, what other measures would you want to see implemented around the issue of GMOs?
SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, for one thing, the Europeans have taken a position that these products have to be tested, that you cannot assume a priori that they’re going to be safe. The United States has taken exactly the opposite position, that they don’t have to be tested. We have evidence—in the least, I found 22 studies have shown that the animals that are fed GMOs have had some negative effects. We don’t know whether these 22 studies will stand up when they’re retried, but nobody can tell us that these studies in peer-reviewed journals are not important or relevant. And sometimes, the few negative studies that you have are more important than the dozens of positive studies, which show nothing. So, we have to take a very serious look at the studies that have been done which have shown that there are some negative effects.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the major players in the ballot initiatives in Oregon and Colorado who are against labeling? For example, like Monsanto?
SHELDON KRIMSKY: Well, the large corporations don’t want to label, for obvious reasons. They don’t want to have segmented, patchwork communities where they have to present products to different states in different conditions. It doesn’t work well for the efficiency of a corporation. So, they would prefer to have one rule for every state and every city. Now, when California requires labeling on products because of environmental effects, those labels go to every other city and state in the country. So we all benefit from some of the California initiatives on toxic chemicals. And that could also be true with GMOs. If they label in Oregon, if they label in Colorado, they can just label everywhere. And the company is not going to lose out on that.
They’re trying to instill fear in the people that the food prices will skyrocket if they do that. Well, that’s just fear tactics. We have some labeling, voluntary labeling, on genetically modified products used to make milk, bovine growth hormones. You can buy milk that says, you know, "no bovine growth hormone." It hasn’t skyrocketed the products of—the cost of milk.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we have a chapter of your book online at democracynow.org. Sheldon Krimsky, editor and author of a number of contributions in the new book, The GMO Deception: What You Need to Know About the Food, Corporations, and Government Agencies Putting Our Families and Our Environment at Risk. He is a professor of urban and environmental policy and planning at Tufts University, as well as adjunct professor in the Department of Public Health and Family Medicine at Tufts School of Medicine.
|
Indonesia’s new president, Joko Widodo, has held his first Cabinet meeting amidst criticism from human rights activists for picking a new defense minister who once defended military killings of civilians. In July, the former Jakarta governor known as "Jokowi" defeated the U.S.-trained former army general Prabowo Subianto, who had been accused of mass killings when he headed the Indonesian special forces in the 1990s. While human rights groups hailed the defeat of Prabowo in July’s election, the new president is facing opposition for picking former Army Chief of Staff Ryamizard Ryacudu to be Indonesia’s new defense minister. Over the past decade, Ryamizard has defended the military’s actions in West Papua and Aceh and publicly claimed that civilians become legitimate army targets if they "dislike" army policy or have "the same voice" as anti-government rebels. We are joined from Indonesia by veteran investigative journalist Allan Nairn, whose dispatches shook up the presidential race when he reported on human rights abuses committed by Prabowo and the U.S.-trained general’s statement that Indonesia needs "a benign authoritarian regime" because the country was “not ready for democracy." Nairn also discusses his latest major report, revealing that a top adviser to Indonesia’s new president has admitted "command responsibility" in the 2004 assassination of the country’s leading human rights activist, Munir Thalib.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AARON MATÉ: We turn now to Indonesia. On Monday, the country’s new president, Joko Widodo, held his first Cabinet meeting a week after being sworn in. In July, the former Jakarta governor, known as "Jokowi," defeated the U.S.-trained former army general Prabowo Subianto, who had been accused of mass killings when he headed the Indonesian special forces in the 1990s. Over the weekend, President Jokowi said he wanted to form a, quote, "clean Cabinet."
PRESIDENT JOKO WIDODO: [translated] The process of choosing ministers was done carefully and cautiously. Carefully and cautiously. This is a priority, because this Cabinet will be working for five years, and we want to choose clean people. We choose not only those capable in their fields, but candidates who are also strong in operational leadership and have great managerial ability.
AMY GOODMAN: While human rights groups hailed the defeat of General Prabowo in July’s election, President Jokowi is facing criticism for picking former Army Chief of Staff Ryamizard Ryacudu to be Indonesia’s new defense minister. Over the past decade, Ryamizard has defended the military’s actions in West Papua and Aceh, and publicly claimed civilians become legitimate army targets if they "dislike" army policy or have "the same voice" as anti-government rebels.
Joining us from Jakarta, Indonesia, is investigative reporter Allan Nairn, who has reported on Indonesia for more than 20 years. His reporting shook up the presidential race when he reported on human rights abuses committed by Prabowo, the U.S.-trained general. Nairn also revealed that in 2001 Prabowo told him, in an off-the-record interview, that Indonesia needs "a benign authoritarian regime," because the country was, quote, "not ready for democracy." Just this week, Allan Nairn broke another major story. He revealed that General A.M. Hendropriyono, a top adviser to Indonesia’s new president, Jokowi, had admitted "command responsibility" in the 2004 assassination of the country’s leading human rights activist, Munir.
Allan, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you start off by talking about the significance of Jokowi’s election, the new president of Indonesia, and then the significance of who he’s chosen to be in his Cabinet?
ALLAN NAIRN: Well, Jokowi—the biggest significance was who Jokowi defeated. General Prabowo, who had worked with U.S. intelligence, was openly calling for the abolition of direct presidential elections. When Prabowo spoke to me, he was musing about a fascist dictatorship. He is the general most implicated in the mass killing of civilians. He is the general closest to Washington. And if he had taken power, it could have brought Indonesia back to the Suharto era.
Jokowi is a civilian, and he comes from a poor neighborhood. He speaks a language like poor people do. And there was hope that he could represent the beginning of a departure from the tradition of military dictatorship. But in the campaign, he was surrounded by killers. Prabowo, his opponent, was a killer, but Jokowi was surrounded by killers. And some of those killers are now contending to be in his Cabinet. One of them, General Ryamizard, as you just mentioned, is already in. There are a few others in contention now.
One very significant thing happened in the past few days. General Wiranto, who was perhaps the worst mass murderer aside from Prabowo, he was penciled in to be the coordinating minister for security in Jokowi’s Cabinet. In that job, he could have taken de facto control of the army, police and intelligence. Word of that came out on Friday at noon. I was able to confirm that and put that out. And people, activists mobilized. And by Saturday night, Jokowi had yanked Wiranto from the Cabinet. And Jokowi told his staff that it was because of that pressure he received from activists on the outside. So that was a victory. That kind of thing could not have happened in any previous administration.
But there are still contenders now to be intelligence chief, which hasn’t been decided yet. One of them is a man named As’ad, who worked with the CIA along with Hendro and was implicated in the assassination of Munir, the leading human rights activist. Another is a general named Sutiyoso, who was implicated in the assassination of journalists in Balibo during the Timor invasion. Another is a general named Sjafrie, who’s been implicated in massacres in Aceh, in the repression in Jakarta in '98 and in Timor in ’99. Sjafrie got five U.S. Special Forces courses in the U.S., and he said, after one of them, that he had been trained by U.S. Special Forces just back from Peru, and they had trained him in "how to create terror." And these are candidates in the running to be intelligence chief. Again, activists are weighing in now, trying to oppose this. And it's possible they can be stopped, because—but there’s a huge struggle for power going on.
AARON MATÉ: And, Allan, you mentioned Munir. Last month was the 10th anniversary of his death. He was flying from Jakarta to Holland and poisoned on board. What new revelations have you learned?
ALLAN NAIRN: Munir was poisoned with a massive dose of arsenic. This was given to him by an agent from BIN, the intelligence agency, which at that time was being run by General Hendropriyono, the man I just interviewed a week ago. And General Hendro admitted to me that he bore command responsibility for the Munir assassination. This is a breakthrough development. He also agreed, after—I had about two hours with him and just was able to repeatedly question him and press him on three major atrocities—Munir, a massacre at Talangsari, the ’99 massacres in Timor—and was able to get him to say in the end that, one, he accepted command responsibility in the Munir assassination, that, two, he was willing to stand trial for those three atrocities, and that, three, he would call for the release of all Indonesian—secret Indonesian government documents and U.S. documents, from the CIA and the NSA and the Pentagon, and the White House, as well, relating to those cases.
So this sets a very important precedent, because, of course, Indonesian generals and U.S. generals and U.S. presidents have made an art form of evading accountability for murders that they commit. The reason the U.S. did not continue its large troop presence in Iraq was that they were unable to negotiate an agreement under which U.S. forces would be exempt from prosecution for atrocities. There was the same issue in Afghanistan. A few years ago, the Obama administration sent Harold Koh to an ICC, International Criminal Court, conference in Africa to try to rewrite the definition of "aggression" so the U.S. couldn’t be touched. Israel has been threatening the Palestinian authorities not to go to the International Criminal Court. Nobody wants accountability. None of these powers want to be held to the same standards that an ordinary person does if they commit murder.
But now, General Hendropriyono, who is one of the biggest figures in Indonesia—he’s the dominant figure in intelligence in the army, he was the CIA’s man in Indonesia—he has made these admissions and concessions: command responsibility, willing to be put on trial. So now the question becomes: If Hendro, General Hendro, is willing to be put on trial, why not the other generals? And since at the time of the Munir assassination he was also working with the CIA, and since his admission of command responsibility means that this was a BIN operation, BIN intelligence operation, therefore the CIA could also be legally liable for this. And if Jokowi allows Hendro to be put on trial, as Hendro says he’s ready to accept, CIA and Pentagon personnel could then be subpoenaed by the Indonesian courts as witnesses, to see what information they have and what role they had in these and other atrocities. And it sets a precedent. If an Indonesian general is willing to accept accountability, is willing to stand trial, why not the American generals, why not the American presidents, once and for all, be willing to sit down in court, like everyone else has to, when you cause the death of a civilian?
AMY GOODMAN: Allan Nairn, can you talk about the significance, for those aren’t familiar with Indonesian politics, of who Munir was, the leading human rights activist in Indonesia, and then why it was that the general, Hendropriyono, was willing to have you at his mansion and answer your questions? I mean, you were instrumental in bringing another general, Prabowo, down. I mean, he—it was possible—was going to win the presidency of Indonesia before you exposed what he had said.
ALLAN NAIRN: Well, that was the reason, apparently, that Hendro received me, because—according to Hendro, because he saw me as having helped to bring Prabowo down, and Hendro was on the other side in that campaign. Hendro was on the side of Jokowi. So, when we started, before I could say anything, Hendro said, "I’m very"—it shocked me. He said, "I’m honored to receive you, because of the way you hurt Prabowo." In the campaign, Prabowo ended up filing criminal charges against me. His people said it was in part for inciting hatred of the army and for causing Prabowo to lose. So I think that was the reason Hendro let me into the room. During the campaign, though, I had also called for Hendro to be put on trial for crimes against humanity, as well as other Jokowi generals. But it was the damage I did to Prabowo that caused him to receive me.
Munir was a giant in Indonesian politics and society. He was the pioneering human rights activist. He exposed atrocities by Hendropriyono, by Wiranto, by all of the generals. He did it impartially and evenhandedly. He was also extremely brilliant. He was one of the clearest, most brilliant thinkers I’ve ever met. He was a friend of mine. And he died vomiting to death on a plane, because BIN, which was in liaison with the CIA, slipped him a massive dose of arsenic. And today Munir is a legend, especially among the young people of Indonesia. And it’s appropriate. It’s one of those rare cases where historical credit goes to the person who actually deserves it—there are Munir T-shirts, there are songs about Munir—because people know that he was one who stood up for the people and they killed him for it.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Allan Nairn, his responsibility, Hendropriyono’s responsibility, in the 1999 terror campaign in East Timor? When the Timorese were voting for their independence, Indonesia burned almost all of it to the ground. You survived that. You covered it to the end, the last Western journalist in Timor at that time. Hendropriyono’s responsibility, but then going back, as you were saying, to the United States?
ALLAN NAIRN: Hendropriyono at the time was the minister of transmigration. According to the U.N. truth commission in Timor, Hendro was one of the architects of the militia terror campaign that burned down 80 percent of the structures in Timor, included massacres, rape, machete attacks on churches, etc. And he was also the one who, they said, masterminded the mass deportation, forced deportation of almost 400,000 Timorese—an astonishing operation. And as that was going on, the U.S. was still backing the Indonesian army. The Clinton White House was still backing the Indonesian army. And it was only the rising crescendo of world press coverage of the arson and the rape and the terror that was happening, and pressure from Congress, that finally, at the last minute, caused Clinton to relent, say, "OK," he gave the concession, "we will cut off aid to the Indonesian army," finally, all of it. And within about a day after that, the Indonesian army announced that they were giving up and pulling out of Timor and would allow the U.N.-sponsored referendum in which the Timorese had voted for independence, allow that to go into effect.
And during that campaign, at the end, as I was there, left in Dili, I was arrested on the streets by Wiranto’s army and held as prisoner in the military headquarters. And I could see, from inside that military headquarters, the militia, the men in red headbands, in civilian dress, who would go out and commit the atrocities. And they were running right out of the army bases. But now Hendro, General Hendropriyono, says he’s willing to be put on trial for that, as well as the Talangsari massacre, as well as the Munir assassination. So now it’s up to President Jokowi to see whether he will allow such trials to go forward.
And it sets a precedent. Imagine, trials for generals like Hendropriyono; trials for the American CIA directors, like George Tenet, who met with Hendropriyono, who were sponsoring people like that; trials for the American generals, who were committing similar atrocities, directly in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, indirectly in places like Guatemala and Salvador and Gaza, countless other places; trials for the American presidents who sponsored this. The kinds of concessions that Hendropriyono made set very important precedents. Just beginning with the release of all those secret documents from the CIA, from the NSA, from the White House, from the Indonesian police, intelligence and military, it would be opening a Pandora’s box. And it’s long overdue, because we have to know the truth about state mass murder, and we have to put those who commit it on trial, be they Indonesians, be they Americans, anyone.
AMY GOODMAN: Allan Nairn, I want to thank you for being with us, journalist and activist, has reported from Indonesia for decades, previously exposing government killings of civilians, as well as in Latin America, an award-winning journalist. We have been speaking to him in Jakarta, Indonesia. We’ll link to his reports at democracynow.org.
When we come back, voters in Colorado and Oregon are going to the polls. They want labeling for genetically modified foods. Monsanto is pouring in a fortune to prevent that from happening. We’ll talk to the editor of a new book, The GMO Deception. Stay with us.
|
U.N. Criticizes State Ebola Quarantines; U.S. Troops Isolated
The Obama administration has released new protocols for people who have been in contact with Ebola patients amidst global condemnation of state quarantines. The new policy from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requires a checkup and phone call with a local health authority, but does not automatically place workers under confinement. The update comes after New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie agreed to release a nurse who was placed in an isolated tent inside a Newark hospital after returning from Sierra Leone. Kaci Hickox had denounced her treatment publicly after she was confined despite having no Ebola symptoms. In a statement read by a spokesperson, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon criticized the state measures.
Stéphane Dujarric: "Returning healthcare workers are exceptional people who are giving of themselves to humanity. They should not be subjected to restrictions that are not based on science. Those who develop infections should be supported, not stigmatized. The secretary-general reiterates that the best way for any country to protect itself from Ebola is to stop the outbreak at its source in West Africa. This requires considerable international healthcare worker support, and in return for this support, we have an obligation to look after them."
The U.S. Army is quarantining soldiers returning from Liberia. The group placed under 21-day monitoring includes Major General Darryl Williams, commander of U.S. Army Africa.
AIDS Activists Protest Ebola Quarantines in New York City
A group of AIDS activists gathered outside Bellevue Hospital in New York City, where a doctor who became the state’s first Ebola patient is reportedly in serious condition. The activists condemned the quarantining of other health workers who have been in contact with Ebola patients, comparing it to the intense stigma associated with the early days of HIV/AIDS.
Jennifer Flynn, executive director of VOCAL-NY: "This is actually an extreme exaggeration. This is hysterical response, the quarantining of people who are not symptomatic of Ebola. And so we’re here in solidarity to make that case and that connection."
Nigeria: Boko Haram Captures 30 More Youths
In Nigeria, the militant group Boko Haram has reportedly captured at least 30 more young people. A local chief in the village of Mafa said those taken include girls as young as 11.
ISIS Video Shows U.K. Hostage John Cantlie in Kobani
Islamic State militants have released a new propaganda video that appears to show British hostage John Cantlie in the contested Syrian city of Kobani. For weeks, U.S.-led airstrikes have sought to beat back an ISIS assault on the city. In the video, Cantlie says Kobani is poised to fall entirely under ISIS control.
Two Attacks Kill Dozens in Iraq
In Iraq, a suicide attacker killed at least 27 pro-government Shiite militiamen just south of the capital Baghdad. The bomber drove a Humvee loaded with explosives into a checkpoint. Further north in downtown Baghdad a suicide bomber killed at least 14 people near a commercial strip.
Ukraine: Pro-Western Parties Sweep Parliamentary Election
In Ukraine, pro-Western parties are set to dominate the country’s new Parliament. The outcome marks a victory for President Petro Poroshenko as he seeks to strengthen ties with Europe. Pro-Russian rebels blocked the vote in some areas of eastern Ukraine, which they seized following the ouster of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych earlier this year.
Tunisia: Secular Party Tops Islamists in Landmark Parliamentary Race
In Tunisia, a secular opposition party has won a major victory in the country’s first full parliamentary elections since the 2011 Arab Spring revolution. Early results show the secular Nida Tunis party taking the most seats, beating the Islamist Ennahda party, which previously dominated the Parliament.
Climate Report Predicts "Pervasive and Irreversible" Impacts
Delegates from more than 100 countries are meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, this week to approve a new report on the effects of climate change. Known as the synthesis report, the draft warns an ongoing rise in greenhouse gas emissions is "increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts." Denmark’s energy minister, Rasmus Helveg Petersen, opened the meeting.
Rasmus Helveg Petersen: "Today we can measure the rising temperatures, the rising seas and our rising insurance bills, and tomorrow we’ll have to measure our rising debt to the future generations. As fossil fuel is burning, so is the platform underneath us. We can stop the fire, or we can jump into the sea — and the first solution does cost money, and the second seems to be free, but it isn’t."
The meeting in Copenhagen comes ahead of the 2014 U.N. climate summit in December in Lima, Peru. Democracy Now! will be broadcasting live from the summit.
Georgia: 8 Arrested Protesting Disappearance of 40,000 Voter Records
In the United States, eight people were arrested at a Moral Monday protest in Georgia over the alleged disappearance of 40,000 voter registration records, most of them from people of color. The New Georgia Project has filed a lawsuit against the office of Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp, saying about half of the 80,000 voter registration forms it submitted as part of a recent drive do not appear on state rolls.
Report: Postal Service Approved 50,000 Requests to Monitor Mail
A newly obtained audit shows the U.S. Postal Service approved nearly 50,000 requests last year from law enforcement and its own inspection unit to secretly monitor Americans’ mail. The New York Times reports the number is far higher than what the Postal Service had previously disclosed.
Report: FBI IDs Whistleblower Who Exposed Watchlist Details to The Intercept
A new report says the FBI has identified the whistleblower who provided documents about the U.S. terrorist watchlist to The Intercept news site. Citing unnamed sources, Michael Isikoff reports in Yahoo News the FBI recently searched the home of the employee of a federal contractor in northern Virginia, while federal prosecutors have opened a criminal probe. Isikoff said the case relates to an August story by investigative journalists Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux based on a classified document which showed nearly half of those on the U.S. government’s massive terrorist watchlist are not linked to any known terrorist group. Intercept editor John Cook said the stories had revealed "crucial information" about the excesses of the U.S. watchlisting system, and that "any attempt to criminalize the public release of those stories benefits only those who exercise virtually limitless power in secret with no accountability." Last week on Democracy Now!, Scahill described the significance of the revelations.
Jeremy Scahill: "This document and others like it had been long sought after by the American Civil Liberties Union and other legal organizations and lawyers who represent clients who have been unjustly placed on the no-fly list. We saw an immediate impact from what this extremely principled and brave whistleblower did, in that it’s already been used in court cases. A federal judge has declared the aspects of the watchlisting program that disallow people from knowing their status on the watchlist to be unconstitutional."
The existence of a second whistleblower is also noted at the end of Laura Poitras’ new documentary "Citizenfour," about National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. Scahill has not discussed his source, but told Isikoff, "The Obama administration in my view is conducting a war against whistleblowers and ultimately against independent journalism."
____________________________
207 W 25th Street, 11th Floor
New York, New York 10001 United States
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment