by MILLION BELAY

Late last month, officials from across the continent gathered in Zambia to discuss the next decade of Africa’s agricultural policy. Yet what was marketed as an “inclusive multi-stakeholder consultative process” bringing together a diversity of African voices was instead a contentious process driven by external influences and corporate agendas.

The African Union (AU) body coordinating the talks – the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Blue Economy, and Sustainable Development (DARBE) – is severely underfunded and understaffed. Consequently, much of the facilitation and funding was outsourced to USAID-backed agencies and organisations like the influential Gates Foundation-funded Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). Throughout the meeting in Lusaka, the sway of these Western entities in driving the process was palpable, overshadowing the voices of African farmers, civil society, and grassroots organisations.

The Zambia conference was arranged by the AU to discuss the next ten years of agricultural policy across the continent. In 2003, African leaders agreed to the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), committing to allocate 10% of their national budgets to agriculture with the aim of achieving 6% annual growth in productivity. In 2014, governments reaffirmed their joint strategy by signing the Malabo Declaration that set the stage for the following decade of efforts to transform African agriculture.

The ongoing post-Malabo discussions are leading up to the Kampala Declaration slated for approval in January 2025. However, the dominance of entities like AGRA – which has been heavily criticised for its focus on use of synthetic fertilisers and corporate-led agenda – raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the process and its ability to represent the interests and realities of African farmers. The talks have so far been characterised by a lack of transparency and inclusivity. The drafting the Kampala Declaration is being conducted behind closed doors, excluding African civil society and farmer organisations.

Concerns and omissions

The effects of this restricted and opaque approach are clear from the outcomes of the Lusaka meeting. Several critical issues emerged during the talks that demand urgent attention.

Firstly, it was concerning to learn that the post-Malabo programme of work will be aligned with the African Development Bank’s (AfDB) “Feed Africa: Food Sovereignty and Resilience” initiative. As highlighted by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa’s (AFSA), the AfDB’s 40 country plans threaten land rights, seed diversity, biodiversity, and community livelihoods across the continent through its one-size-fits-all approach and emphasis on large-scale monocropping. Aligning the Kampala Declaration with these compacts risks entrenching corporate control over Africa’s agricultural future, undermining the continent’s food sovereignty

Secondly, it was alarming to hear that agroecology and food sovereignty were described in the talks as “controversial concepts that will face problems with governments” and that “several actors” resisted their inclusion.

African Arguments for more

DEMOCRACY NOW

Ukraine’s government has denied a Wall Street Journal report this week that Kyiv approved the plan to blow up the Russian-owned Nord Stream pipelines in 2022. According to the newspaper, a crew of Ukrainian civilians and active-duty soldiers used a rented yacht to reach the pipelines, which deliver Russian natural gas to Germany via the Baltic Sea, and used explosives to sever three of the four pipelines. This comes as Poland says it was unable to carry out a German arrest warrant for a new suspect in its investigation into the Nord Stream attack, a 44-year-old Ukrainian diving professional who is alleged to have attached explosive charges to the pipelines. Polish authorities say the suspect fled to Ukraine in July. For more on the investigation, we speak with German journalist Holger Stark, deputy editor-in-chief and head of the investigative team at Die Zeit, who has been reporting on the Nord Stream attack for years.

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman.

We end today’s show looking at how a top adviser to the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has denied a report in The Wall Street Journal that his government approved a plan to blow up the Nord Stream pipelines nearly two years ago.

In September of 2022, a six-member crew of Ukrainian civilians and active-duty soldiers reportedly used a rented yacht, satellite navigation, sonar, and seabed maps to reach the Nord Stream pipelines on the bottom of the Baltic Sea. Then divers used an explosive and timer-controlled detonators to rupture the pipelines, triggering a massive release of methane gas. The blasts severed three of the four pipelines that carried Russian gas to Europe.

President Zelensky reportedly approved the plan, but later tried to stop it after a Dutch intelligence agency learned of the plot and told the CIA. But his commander-in-chief at the time, Valery Zaluzhnyi, forged ahead despite Zelensky’s U-turn.

This comes as Poland says it was unable to carry out an arrest warrant issued by Germany for a new suspect in the investigation into the Nord Stream attack, a 44-year-old Ukrainian diving professional identified as “Volodymyr Z.” who’s alleged to have attached explosive charges to the pipelines. Polish authorities say the suspect fled to Ukraine in July.

For more, we’re joined in Berlin by Holger Stark, deputy editor-in-chief and head of the investigative team at Germany’s biggest weekly, Die Zeit. He co-wrote this new exclusive report, “Has the mystery of the Baltic Sea attack been solved?” as well as last year’s deep dive, headlined “Who Blew Up Nord Stream?”

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Holger. Can you just lay out what you found? We summarized your results.

HOLGER STARK: Good morning, Amy, and thanks for having me.

Yes, we know, after a almost two-year-long investigation now, that at least one Ukrainian citizen is highly suspected to be a part of this six-people crew that blew up Nord Stream. He’s a father of a son. He was born in Kyiv. He is an engineer by training but also served in the Ukrainian army. We know that he’s a patriot. He posted on Facebook, together with his colleagues, highly patriotic Ukrainian posts, that he would defend until death his home country.

And his traces were found by German investigators. He was brought by a shuttle service, a driver from Ukraine, from Kyiv over Poland, via Poland to Germany. A speed camera, funnily, made a photo of that transport crew. He was identified on that photo, as well. So the German authorities are deeply convinced that he was on that sailing boat.

Democracy Now for more

by NAVJOT GILL-CHAWLA

Movies can be effective media for spreading health information. Indian cinema, encompassing various regional film industries, holds sway over public perceptions and societal norms.

Movie reviewers and caregiving advocates also note the influence of films on the perception of dementia. Health researchers have also explored dementia in Indian cinema, and highlighted how these films can be a medium to understand cultural issues related to dementia.

Dementia, a complex condition affecting memory, cognitive functions and behaviour, often carries stigma and misunderstanding in many communities, including South Asian communities. Alzheimer’s disease is the most common type of dementia. It involves parts of the brain that control thought, memory and language.

My research focuses on understanding the experiences of people living with dementia and their care partners in Canadian South Asian communities, including their understanding of dementia.

Do experts have something to add to public debate?

Indian cinema has played an role in raising awareness and promoting empathy surrounding dementia. Yet more nuanced and accurate portrayals could go a long way towards informing the public about what can be expected and avoiding reinforcing stereotypes. Such portrayals could also model best practices to support people living with dementia.

Research and culturally inclusive care

Research underscores the importance of culturally inclusive care for people living with dementia. Studies indicate that cultural beliefs and stigma surrounding dementia can hinder the timely diagnosis and management of dementia.

Indian cinema, with its broad reach, can play a pivotal role in addressing these cultural barriers.

By incorporating accurate and sensitive portrayals of dementia, Indian films can educate the public about early symptoms, treatment options and the importance of supportive care-giving environments.

Realistic, detailed portrayals

Films like Thanmathra, (2005, Malayalam) and Astu, (2013, Marathi) helped bring discussion of Alzheimer’s and dementia into public discourse in South Asian communities. Both these films are notable for their realistic and detailed portrayal of dementia.

The Conversation for more

by B. R. GOWANI

one of the 41,414 Palestinian victims of Israel’s inhumane bombing

can’t see the victim’s face – as the body is covered in shroud

nor do we see the face of the woman embracing the lifeless body

as the woman’s face is hidden by her elbow thus invisible

the relation is that of an aunt, 36-year-old Inas Abu Maamar

with 5-year-old Saly, whose life ended before it had barely begun

Saly’s mother and sister were killed too —

victims of the Israeli armed forces

the picture depicts agony and anguish evident, yet hidden …

Mohammed Salem’s photo* brings to mind the unforgettable Pieta

Mary holding dead Jesus in Michelangelo‘s Pieta exudes serene sorrow

one could wow for realism of Michelengelo’s sculpted tortured Jesus …

here neither the murdered body nor the aunt’s hidden face reveal much

yet, you can’t escape the inner anguish and tormented state of the aunt

nor can you escape feeling intense grief for loss of an innocent child’s life

B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com

How Amazon “lied, spied, cheated its way to the top”: WSJ reporter Dana Mattioli

DEMOCRACY NOW

We speak with Wall Street Journal reporter Dana Mattioli about her new book, The Everything War, which examines how Amazon came to dominate the U.S. economy through its “scorched-earth” tactics. “I found just a ton of business practices driven by this toxic culture at Amazon, where the company lied, spied, cheated its way to the top,” she says. Mattioli also discusses the threat of antitrust lawsuits to Amazon and other Big Tech firms, political pressure on Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and more.

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Teamsters President Sean O’Brien asked both conventions if he could address them. The Republican National Convention said yes. This is what Sean O’Brien had to say.

SEAN O’BRIEN: And here’s another fact: Against gigantic multinational corporations, an individual worker has zero power. It’s only when Americans band together in democratic unions that we win real improvements on wages, benefits and working conditions. Companies like Amazon are bigger than most national economies.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Sean O’Brien, the president of the Teamsters. Dana Mattioli, you are the author of the new book The Everything War: Amazon’s Ruthless Quest to Own the World and Remake Corporate Power. Talk about what Sean O’Brien was talking about. And talk about Amazon, when it comes to the Republicans, when it comes to the Democrats, when it comes to its power in the world.

DANA MATTIOLI: I mean, Sean O’Brien is right. Amazon’s sales are bigger than the GDPs of many nations. And my book chronicles its rise from unlikely successful garage startup to the most dominant force in American business history, almost like the equivalent of a modern-day Standard Oil, and the tactics it uses, illegal or unethical or anti-competitive, to put its finger on the scale and dominate industry after industry, and the effects that has on our economy, job creation, or, you know, losing jobs, bankruptcies and innovation.

And, you know, Amazon has had a really bumpy history with both the Republicans, specifically Donald Trump, and also the Democrats. You know, Biden has been really tough on Amazon. He put in place Lina Khan, the head of the Federal Trade Commission, the agency overseeing them. And she brought forward this historic monopoly lawsuit against the company last year. So, they’ve had this scorched-earth approach to government relations and public relations that has made enemies on both sides of the aisle.

AMY GOODMAN: And why did you decide to write an entire book on Amazon?

Democracy Now for more

Inside the brutal business practices of Amazon—and how it became “too toxic to touch”

by JACK MCCORDICK

In an interview with Vanity Fair, reporter Dana Mattioli reveals how the company systematically stifles criticism, squeezes out competitors, and even pits its own employees against one another. “People tend not to last,” she says, “because it’s very aggressive and it can be bruising.”

In May of 2020, seven members of the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee penned a letter to then CEO of Amazon Jeff Bezos. “On April 23,” their message began, The Wall Street Journal “reported that Amazon employees used sensitive business information from third-party sellers on its platform to develop competing products.” The article contradicted previous sworn testimony from the company’s general counsel, possibly rendering the testimony “false or perjurious,” the seven congressional leaders wrote.

The Journal’s exposé, which ultimately spurred Bezos’s first-ever congressional testimony, was written by Dana Mattioli as part of the paper’s wide-ranging investigation into Amazon’s business practices. At the time, Mattioli, a longtime business reporter, had recently moved into the Amazon beat, her interest piqued by the corporation’s tentacular infiltration of nearly every aspect of American economic life. Now, four years later, she’s out with The Everything War, a new book-length examination of Amazon that explores everything from its rise to power to its lobbying efforts and the brewing backlash against it.

In this interview with Vanity Fair, edited for length and clarity, Mattioli and I spoke about the challenges of reporting on an infamously secretive and combative company, Amazon’s forays into political-influence peddling, its new foe in the Biden administration, and which candidate she thinks Amazon execs want to see back in the White House come January 2025.

Vanity Fair: What first got you interested in covering Amazon?

Dana Mattioli: I was The Wall Street Journal’s mergers-and-acquisitions reporter for six years, and in that role, my job was to cover which companies are buying other companies across industries globally. Something fascinating happened during my tenure in that role. It wasn’t just retail companies that were nervous about Amazon. I’d speak to the bankers, the lawyers, the CEOs, the board members at different companies, and they started talking about how they were worried about Amazon invading their industry. Over the course of those six years, those questions got louder. It started bleeding into other sectors where you wouldn’t even really think about Amazon at the time. The company seemed to stretch into every vertical and its tentacles kept spreading. It occurred to me that this was the most interesting company, but also one of the most secretive companies in business history. That to me seemed like such a fun challenge to dig in and see what was going on behind the scenes.

What are the sorts of challenges reporters covering the company face?

Vanity Fair for more

by MOLLY BALL

When you’re trying to restructure the entire American economy, you take your allies wherever you can find them. And so Lina Khan, the liberal chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission, welcomes her growing group of Republican fans.

“Antitrust and antimonopoly has historically been deeply bipartisan,” Khan said in a recent interview in her spacious Washington office lined with 1920s political cartoons. “Conceptually, conservatives view concentration of power skeptically, and there has been a recognition that concentration of corporate power can in some instances be deeply antithetical to liberty.”

Since being appointed by President Biden three years ago, the 35-year-old Khan has turned the obscure federal agency into a high-profile battleship aimed at the big corporations she says have distorted markets and harmed consumers. Her aggressive actions against Big Tech and other industries have inflamed the business community, and not all have been successful. But in an anomaly in this partisan age, a group of conservatives has cheered her efforts, seeing her as a fellow traveler in the populist cause.

The “Khanservatives,” as they call themselves, tend to be younger and Trumpier, part of the growing ranks of Republicans who question unfettered markets and see big corporations as an adversary to their constituents.

“As the Republican Party becomes more working class, we’re less captive to the neolibertarian view that everything big business does to people is OK,” said Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, who has interviewed Khan on his Newsmax show. His party, he said, “can’t be whores for big business and be the voice of the working class at the same time.”

MSN for more

by ILAN PAPPE

Hamas’s assault of October 7 can be likened to an earthquake that strikes an old building. The cracks were already beginning to show, but they are now visible in its very foundations. More than 120 years since its inception, could the Zionist project in Palestine – the idea of imposing a Jewish state on an Arab, Muslim and Middle Eastern country – be facing the prospect of collapse? Historically, a plethora of factors can cause a state to capsize. It can result from constant attacks by neighbouring countries or from chronic civil war. It can follow the breakdown of public institutions, which become incapable of providing services to citizens. Often it begins as a slow process of disintegration that gathers momentum and then, in a short period of time, brings down structures that once appeared solid and steadfast.

The difficulty lies in spotting the early indicators. Here, I will argue that these are clearer than ever in the case of Israel. We are witnessing a historical process – or, more accurately, the beginnings of one – that is likely to culminate in the downfall of Zionism. And, if my diagnosis is correct, then we are also entering a particularly dangerous conjuncture. For once Israel realizes the magnitude of the crisis, it will unleash ferocious and uninhibited force to try to contain it, as did the South African apartheid regime during its final days.

1.

A first indicator is the fracturing of Israeli Jewish society. At present it is composed of two rival camps which are unable to find common ground. The rift stems from the anomalies of defining Judaism as nationalism. While Jewish identity in Israel has sometimes seemed little more than a subject of theoretical debate between religious and secular factions, it has now become a struggle over the character of the public sphere and the state itself. This is being fought not only in the media but also in the streets.

One camp can be termed the ‘State of Israel’. It comprises more secular, liberal and mostly but not exclusively middle-class European Jews and their descendants, who were instrumental in establishing the state in 1948 and remained hegemonic within it until the end of the last century. Make no mistake, their advocacy of ‘liberal democratic values’ does not affect their commitment to the apartheid system which is imposed, in various ways, on all Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Their basic wish is for Jewish citizens to live in a democratic and pluralist society from which Arabs are excluded.

The other camp is the ‘State of Judea’, which developed among the settlers of the occupied West Bank. It enjoys increasing levels of support within the country and constitutes the electoral base that secured Netanyahu’s victory in the November 2022 elections. Its influence in the upper echelons of the Israeli army and security services is growing exponentially. The State of Judea wants Israel to become a theocracy that stretches over the entirety of historical Palestine. To achieve this, it is determined to reduce the number of Palestinians to a bare minimum, and it is contemplating the construction of a Third Temple in place of al-Aqsa. Its members believe this will enable them to renew the golden era of the Biblical Kingdoms. For them, secular Jews are as heretical as the Palestinians if they refuse to join in this endeavour.

The two camps had begun to clash violently before October 7. For the first few weeks after the assault, they appeared to shelve their differences in the face of a common enemy. But this was an illusion. The street fighting has reignited, and it is difficult to see what could possibly bring about reconciliation. The more likely outcome is already unfolding before our eyes. More than half a million Israelis, representing the State of Israel, have left the country since October, an indication that the country is being engulfed by the State of Judea. This is a political project that the Arab world, and perhaps even the world at large, will not tolerate in the long term.

2.

The second indicator is Israel’s economic crisis. The political class does not seem to have any plan for balancing the public finances amid perpetual armed conflicts, beyond becoming increasingly reliant on American financial aid. In the final quarter of last year, the economy slumped by nearly 20%; since then, the recovery has been fragile. Washington’s pledge of $14 billion is unlikely to reverse this. On the contrary, the economic burden will only worsen if Israel follows through on its intention to go to war with Hezbollah while ramping up military activity in the West Bank, at a time when some countries – including Turkey and Colombia – have begun to apply economic sanctions.

New Left Review for more

by STEPHEN McCLOSKEY

[This article is part of a series called Answering Ireland’s Call: Thoughts for a new republic (Freagairt ar Ghlaoch na hÉireann: Smaointe ar phoblacht nua). The series will publish articles discussing the reunification of Ireland but within the context of early 21st Century ills such as the climate crisis, capitalism and fascism. If you like what you read, please share the articles far and wide. If you have insights and ideas on the subject and want to make a contribution, the project team would love to hear from you via irelandscall@mailbox.org.]

A toxic debate constantly swirls around the issue of immigration that often deploys myths and stereotypes to ‘other’ immigrants as an impediment to development, competition for native employment, a drain on resources or a threat to border security.  Incendiary political statements and policies on immigration can spread racism and hostility to migrants, and put wind in the sails of the far-right.  Where Ireland might once have been considered a European outlier of the far-right, evidence from the European Union and Local Council elections held on 7 June showed new far-right parties gaining a political foothold.  One of these parties, Independent Ireland, won a seat in the European Parliament in the Midlands North-West constituency receiving 57,000 first preference votes.  The Irish Freedom Party and National Party each managed to each get a local council candidate elected and are the first-ever members of registered far-right parties to hold office in Ireland.  Three independent far-right candidates were also elected to local councils but the return of five councillors was a small percentage of the more than one hundred people who stood for far-right parties or as far-right independents. 

Whilst it is important not to exaggerate the influence of the far-right on the Irish political system, the election of a small number of far-right candidates signals the extent to which immigration has become an increasingly inflamed issue in Irish society as the country has struggled to provide state accommodation for more than 100,000 refugees from Ukraine accepted since February 2022.  Earlier this year, hundreds of asylum-seekers were forced to live in tents in central Dublin due to the lack of availability of state-provided accommodation until being moved to the less conspicuous Crooksling in south-west County Dublin.  But the tents returned to central Dublin as newly arriving homeless asylum-seekers set up makeshift camps along the city’s quay that have been targeted by men armed with knives and steel bars.  On 16 July, fifteen Palestinian and Somali international protection applicants sleeping in tents on the quays were set upon late at night, had their tents slashed and thrown into the river Liffey, and had to flee for their lives.  In Coolock, an area of high deprivation on Dublin’s Northside, there has been serious unrest including the throwing of petrol bombs, at the siting of a former paint factory for an accommodation centre for asylum-seekers.  While Ireland’s national economy has improved, deprivation and disadvantage continues to plague inner city areas like Coolock.  The migrant debate has been a trigger point for local anger, particularly at the lack of consultation with local representatives on the siting of the accommodation centre.  But essentially, we are seeing an increasingly mobilised far-right preying upon the effects – not the causes – of neoliberal policies, including cuts to services, the lack of social housing and persistent levels of unemployment.

Z Network for more

by KYLE FERRANA

Every winter, I enjoy attending the Studio Ghibli film festival at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. There’s a great nostalgia among certain Americans these days, a desire to relive pieces of their turn-of-the-millennium childhood and I won’t pretend to be an exception. Seeing classic films like Porco Rosso and Princess Mononoke on the IMAX screen can recreate what that time meant for many of us, for just a little while, and catching The Boy and the Heron this year was almost as magical. There’s one such film the museum shows that I’ll probably only see once, though: Isao Takahata’s 1988 masterpiece The Grave of the Fireflies.

Those who have seen it understand why. But if audiences everywhere find it difficult to sit through its characters’ gut-wrenching fate, it’s no less difficult here to confront the how Takahata portrays Americans in his film. That is, not at all—only as the faceless, indifferent operators of distant terror machines that rain down fire on women and children from the sky. It’s not very comforting to realize that this is how much of the world still sees us.

Japan today is an occupied country. U.S. military planes and helicopters enjoy exclusive access to much of its airspace and have passed overhead for decades after the events depicted in the film. The Japanese government, perpetually controlled by the U.S.-backed Liberal Democratic Party, is compelled to defray the cost of a U.S. garrison of fifty thousand troops within its borders, most of which abide menacingly in the southwestern Ryukyu Islands (also known as Okinawa), where they are notorious for their abuses.¹ Only this summer, news broke that the government had covered up five sex crimes committed by U.S. soldiers in Okinawa Prefecture just since last year, one of which involved the kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor, most of which had gone unprosecuted.² Similar incidents have occurred throughout at least the past few decades in Japan, as well as in South Korea, which also hosts tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers and the largest overseas U.S. military base at Camp Humphreys.³

We know why the Ryukyuans and Koreans suffer—so we could fight Russia. And then China. Then North Korea, then China, then Vietnam, then China, and then Russia again, but always and now especially China. Japan’s ideal strategic location commands the coast of East Asia, and the United States has waged open warfare or economic siege all along that coast for half a century. With the same bland indifference as the warplanes of 1945, the U.S. high command has acknowledged that it ended the lives of one million Korean civilians in the early 1950s.⁴ Hundreds of thousands of Cambodians and Laotians were killed by the U.S. Air Force in the same manner in the 1960s and ’70s, and millions of acres of the Vietnamese jungle were defoliated with chemical weapons that continue to kill today. Google “Agent Orange hydrocephalus.” You won’t thank me.

Of course, there is no end of propaganda in the United States, then and now, to justify all this mass murder, explicitly or otherwise. Korea and Vietnam had invaded themselves—surely, we couldn’t stand by and let such a thing happen? Even prominent members of Congress still publicly defend the atomic bombing of Japanese civilian populations as necessary to end the war in the Pacific, ignoring a growing consensus among historians, based partly on the now-available Soviet archives, that the Soviet Union’s offensive against Japanese-controlled Manchuria was far more concerning to Japan’s wartime leaders than atomic weapons.⁵ It is, unfortunately, quintessentially American to believe that foreign countries will only respond to force and can only be truly intimidated by a really big bomb.

As you read these words, the drums of war are beating again. China and North Korea, we are told, are escalating tensions, issuing new threats and provocations, performing more military exercises, and conducting more missile tests. Seldom is it mentioned why such escalations are happening. They don’t seem to have a cause at all; they could not possibly be countermoves in response to escalations by the United States, because nothing the United States does can be in any way escalatory.

Monthly Review Online for more