logo
Eye-openers: from Vietnam to Gaza, ways to hold power to account

Eye-openers: from Vietnam to Gaza, ways to hold power to account

The Hindu01-05-2025

On April 30, Vietnam celebrated 50 years of the reunification of the North and South after the decades-long Vietnam War ended with the government of Saigon surrendering to the North Vietnamese forces in 1975. The American entanglement in the South East Asian country began in November 1955, with the U.S. fearing a communist takeover of the South by North Vietnam. After U.S. Army troops landed in South Vietnam in 1965, it dragged on for 10 more years.
By the mid and late 1960s, however, there was growing disenchantment with the war effort and the rising numbers of the dead. Stories were emanating about atrocities committed by the U.S. troops in Vietnam and anti-war protests began to grow across campuses and in cities including in the capital Washington D.C.
In 1969, journalist Seymour Hersh's attention was drawn to a small news item that a certain Lieutenant William Calley had been charged with the 'murder of 102 'Oriental human beings'' in the hamlet of My Lai in Vietnam.
Journalists get to work
Hersh tracked Calley and other members of the 'Charlie Company' who had led the assault on March 16, 1968, and reconstructed the story of the atrocity.
His book, My Lai 4: A Report on the Massacre and its Aftermath, is a chilling read about over-reach, and how the killing began without warning, with even women and babies not being spared. The purpose of American troops to be at My Lai that day — to stop the Vietcong troops in their tracks — wasn't served either.
Hersh, like Daniel Ellsberg later with The Pentagon Papers leak, was going against the grain of what most journalists were covering on the Vietnam war. Most of them supported the 'noble cause'. The Pentagon Papers: The Secret History of the Vietnam War, by Neil Sheehan and others, first appeared as a series of articles in The New York Times in 1971, on the study, revealing in detail, 'and in the government's own words', how several U.S. administrations had blundered through a disastrous war. The study had been commissioned in 1967 by then Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara, who had created a unit in the Pentagon to 'collect as many internal documents as possible on the Vietnam War.' There were 47 volumes in all, covering all aspects of the U.S. involvement in Indochina for decades. Sheehan, a celebrated Vietnam reporter, had got wind of the study and pursued Ellsberg, a senior member of the government-funded Rand Corporation who was privy to it, to share them with him. The war finally ended in 1975, with the Pentagon Papers playing a crucial role in its closure.
Bearing witness
In the face of fierce opposition in the late 1960s, philosopher and writer Bertrand Russell, then in his nineties, brought together prominent cultural and political personalities to 'bear witness to unrestrained American military action' in Vietnam. In his book, Vietdamned, Clive Webb brings to light the peace activism of Russell and other luminaries of the literary world including Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and Peter Weiss to end the war.
They were derided for their activism but Webb sees the tribunal as a cautionary tale and writes about it as a reminder of the 'ruthlessness with which politicians and the press attempted to discredit their evidence, and the lessons to be learned about our continued need to hold to account those in power.'
That's what journalist Omar El Akkad does in his recent book, One Day, Everyone Will Always Have Been Against This. He wonders aloud why the U.S. and the West have been largely immune to the unimaginable suffering of civilians in Gaza unleashed by Israel since the October 7 Hamas attack.
In chapters with titles including Departure, Witness, Fear, Resistance, Language, Arrival, Akkad tries to make sense of the happenings in Gaza; why, for instance, was an 18-month-old found with a bullet wound to the forehead.
The Egyptian-Canadian journalist and writer watched the Gulf War on CNN — 'Baghdad cityscapes detonating sporadically in balls of pale white light' — and was soon surprised that there was no reaction at all. 'It was just what happened to certain places, to certain people: they became balls of pale white light. What mattered was, it wasn't us.' As a journalist, Akkad has travelled to several countries in West Asia and also to Afghanistan, and his view on political malice is fierce: 'Rules, conventions, morals, reality itself: all exist so long as their existence is convenient to the preservation of power.'
The Gaza tragedy
Things came crashing down after October 2023, he writes, when Israel with the support of a vast majority of the Western world's political power centres enacted a 'campaign of active genocide' against the Palestinian people, documented for posterity. More than 50,000 people have died, thousands injured and millions displaced. Death by disease and famine stalks a population wilfully denied aid and medical help. 'Over and over, residents were ordered from their neighbourhoods into 'safe zones', and then wiped out.'
Akkad is scathing when he writes that 'once far enough removed, everyone will be properly aghast that any of this was allowed to happen. But for now, it's so much safer to look away.'
The antidote, of course, is to 'slip the leash' as Wilfred Burchett put it when he fled from the embedded journalists with Allied forces in Japan in 1945 and set out for Hiroshima. He then went on to record the annihilation he witnessed after the atomic bombing and despatched his piece with the words: 'I write this as a warning to the world' (Tell Me No Lies/Ed. John Pilger).

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court Expands Reverse Discrimination Claims for Majority Groups, ET LegalWorld
Supreme Court Expands Reverse Discrimination Claims for Majority Groups, ET LegalWorld

Time of India

time27 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Supreme Court Expands Reverse Discrimination Claims for Majority Groups, ET LegalWorld

A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' - without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group - Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," Jackson court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's "largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups."Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans."Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing "background circumstances" that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such Jackson wrote that "this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute."

Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Companies: Supreme Court Blocks Mexico's Gun Lawsuit Against US Companies, ET LegalWorld
Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Companies: Supreme Court Blocks Mexico's Gun Lawsuit Against US Companies, ET LegalWorld

Time of India

time27 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Companies: Supreme Court Blocks Mexico's Gun Lawsuit Against US Companies, ET LegalWorld

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels, harming its government. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App The justices embraced the argument made by the companies for dismissal of Mexico's suit under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these Supreme Court decided that while it has little doubt that U.S. companies are aware of some unlawful sales to Mexican gun traffickers, Mexico's lawsuit failed to allege that the companies had aided and abetted such illegal firearms sales by deliberately helping to bring about the transactions."Mexico's plausible allegations are of 'indifference' rather than assistance," Kagan wrote. "They are of the manufacturers merely allowing some unidentified 'bad actors' to make illegal use of their wares." The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. The Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case on March 4, declined to resolve the proximate cause question after finding that Mexico's suit failed to adequately allege aiding and Arrocha Olabuenaga, the legal adviser for Mexico's Foreign Ministry, vowed that Mexico will continue pursuing its legal fight."While we are disappointed with the decision from this Supreme Court, we are convinced of the strength of our arguments and the evidence that upholds them, and we are encouraged by the support at home and abroad for Mexico's actions," he in the lawsuit had sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico."The Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group that backed the U.S. gun companies in the case, welcomed Thursday's ruling."The lawsuit, dreamt up by multiple gun control groups, had one goal - bankrupt the American firearms market by allowing civil liability to apply for the criminal misuse of its products," the group said in a social media post. "Thankfully the Supreme Court stepped in and squashed it."Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million Perez Ricart, an international affairs researcher at Mexico's Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), criticized the ruling."Once again, the industry is shielded. It doesn't matter how many bullets cross the border or how many people are killed on the Mexican side. Bullets are not the only things that kill; so does the legal impunity guaranteed by Washington," Ricart said in a social media post.

He does this to his dad, Shashi Tharoor quips after son's curveball on Op Sindoor
He does this to his dad, Shashi Tharoor quips after son's curveball on Op Sindoor

India Today

timean hour ago

  • India Today

He does this to his dad, Shashi Tharoor quips after son's curveball on Op Sindoor

In a rare and heartwarming moment during India's diplomatic outreach in Washington DC following the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor found himself fielding a question from his son, Ishaan senior Tharoor, who is part of an all-party delegation visiting key global capitals to highlight the Pahalgam carnage and India's response to it, was pleasantly surprised when Ishaan - introducing himself jokingly as asking "in a personal capacity and mostly to say hi before you go off for your next engagement" - posed a pointed query about terrorism advertisementAs Ishaan took the mic, Shashi Tharoor smiled and gestured for him to raise it properly before he responded. The question, both timely and probing, was whether any country had asked the Indian delegation for evidence of Pakistan's involvement in the Pahalgam attack, given Pakistan's repeated denials. "I'm very glad you raised this. I didn't plant it, I promise you. This guy does this to his dad," Tharoor said candidly. He stated that "no one had any doubt," and that the delegation was not asked for evidence by any foreign government. However, he acknowledged that the media in "two or three places" did raise the question."Let me say very clearly that India would not have done this without convincing evidence," he said. Citing three reasons for international understanding, Tharoor highlighted the 37-year pattern of terror attacks originating from Pakistan, each followed by habitual reminded the audience of Pakistan's disavowal of knowledge of Osama bin Laden's whereabouts, even when he was eventually found in a compound adjacent to an army camp in Abbottabad. He also mentioned Pakistan's denial of involvement in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks."So we know what Pakistan's all about. They will dispatch terrorists, they will deny they did so until they're actually caught with red hands," he also dismissed the idea of American mediation between India and Pakistan. The US has, on several occasions, taken credit for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, with President Donald Trump claiming that he strongarmed the two nuclear nations with the threat of trade and tariffs. India, however, has denied the claim on several occasions. "Mediation is not a term that we are particularly willing to entertain. You're implying an equivalence which simply doesn't exist," he said. He added, "There is no equivalence between terrorists and their victims. There is no equivalence between a country that provides a safe haven to terrorism and a country that's a flourishing multi-party democracy that's trying to get on with its business."Addressing US diplomatic engagement following the attacks, Tharoor said the PM Modi-led government had received calls at high levels from the US, and that India appreciated the concern and interest. However, he said, "They must have been making similar calls at the highest levels to the Pakistan side. Because that's the side that needed persuading to stop this process... But that's guesswork on my part."advertisementReiterating the nature of India's actions in Operation Sindoor, Tharoor drew a sharp contrast between the two nations' conduct. "India hit terror bases in Pakistan, while Pakistan hit civilians in retaliation, since there are no terror bases in India," he asserted. "There are no terrorist organisations in India listed in the UN or the State Department anywhere else. So, what do you hit? You hit civilians, innocent people. That is the asymmetry of this particular conflict."Tharoor said India's response was "precise and calibrated", and stressed that India has "systematically signalled" it is not interested in war with Pakistan. "We're not interested in attacking Pakistani civilians, ordinary people. This is about India versus terrorism," he the question of Chinese military technology and Pakistan's alleged use of it, Tharoor said India responded innovatively and effectively during the conflict. The Thiruvananthapuram MP spoke about China's interest in Pakistan, but added that despite Islamabad's use of Beijing's technology, India was able to manoeuvre its military plans to give a befitting reply to supposed to be something called a kill chain that the Chinese specialise in. We simply did things in a different way. Otherwise, we wouldn't have been able to hit 11 airfields," he explained. He acknowledged the depth of China's investment in Pakistan through the Belt and Road Initiative, particularly the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, and said India had "no illusions" about China's strategic stake in on the broader context, Tharoor described the war as "a distraction" for India, but "fundamental" to the Pakistani military's sense of self-importance."There was a lot of chuckling in Delhi," Tharoor remarked wryly, "when the failed general became a field marshal by promoting himself, as you said, with an extra star".Tune InTrending Reel

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store