Monday, 24 July 2017


There are many people doing things that go totally unrecognized by the majority. Certainly, they'll see it when the media talks about people being saved from a burning building , and this is worth commending. They will also talk about cops and the military, the overwhelming majority of who are not involved in anything non-predatory. They are NOT heroes. And then there are those like the young woman being interviewed here, who has dedicated her life to standing with the oppressed in the world. She is a hero. Read it.

Ferguson activist Ashley Yates talks Oakland, Assata Shakur and Black Woman leadership

Ashley Yates
Ashley Yates is co-founder of the Ferguson-based grassroots organization, Millennial Activists United (MAU).  Originally from Florissant, Mo., Yates was one of the early on-the-ground organizers following the unjust police killing of Mike Brown on Aug, 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Mo.  In 2015, she was a Black Lives Matter representative at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.  
As one of the more vocal activists at the forefront of the Ferguson Rebellion, Yates’ many contributions have helped provide key leadership to a new generation of young freedom fighters and Black abolitionists.  Affectionately described by CNN as a “disruptor of the status quo,” Yates’ thoughts and critiques on racism and state violence have been featured on NPR, Democracy Now! the Huffington Post and MSNBC.  Read along as we discuss Assata Shakur, Black woman leadership and the recent housing developments in Oakland, Calif.
Lamont Lilly:  Ashley, thank you so much for your time and willingness to talk with me. Though you’re still connected to the ground in Ferguson and St. Louis, you’re actually living in Oakland, California, now. When did you move to Oakland?
Ashley Yates: I moved out here in mid-December 2014, shortly after Darren Wilson’s nonindictment. [While a police officer, Wilson fatally shot  Mike Brown.]
LM: What brought you out to Oakland?
AY:  There were a few different factors that went into that. A few personal things that happened made it clear that my life had drastically changed after I decided to take a stand for Mike Brown and Black lives, especially in a place like Ferguson and the St. Louis area. I realized my life was different and it was not going to go back to the way it was. I also knew I needed some space to heal and grow.
I also came to Oakland to connect with the history here, more specifically the Black Panther Party. I wasn’t a scholar on the Black Panthers or anything, but I did know that this was the founding place. I also didn’t know much about the city, or who was doing what. It just seemed like a place where I could learn and grow, and to soak up some of the organizing history.
I’ve taken a different path than what I expected, but it’s been a huge blessing. Ideally, I wanted to just jump right in and be like, “Yo, take me to every spot the Black Panthers were at.” But it doesn’t work like that. That’s just being idealistic. It’s taken me a few years to build relationships with people, but the city has given me a lot.
LL: In addition to police terror and state violence, there is another major struggle in Oakland — gentrification and affordable housing. What are the housing conditions like in Oakland, particularly within the Black community? What are you seeing there?
AY: In Oakland, there are entire tent cities and it’s concentrated. I can think of at least six tent cities off the top of my head — congregations and communities of folks without housing! And I barely know the city like that. It’s almost indescribable. When you add the developers to the multimillion-dollar corporations, along with the backdoor deals of the courts and city officials, it becomes a multilayered struggle just to keep people in their homes — or to stop an eviction. The rate at which it’s happening is just mind-blowing.
What’s happening in Oakland is a direct effect of Silicon Valley and the tech industry. These people could not be more directly responsible than if they walked in and literally “punched” people out of their homes. For me not to name that would be an injustice to Oakland.
These industries and corporations are violently displacing people, yet they’re wiping their hands clean. On top of that, some of these corporations aren’t paying any local taxes. They’re making more money, yet poor people are being pushed out of their homes.  If you allow it to, it will make your head hurt. The average rent in the Bay Area now is $3,000.
LL:  I just want to make sure I’m hearing you correctly. Did you say the average rent in the Bay Area is $3,000 per month?
AY:  I’m sorry. Let me not be hyperbolic. The number that we pulled from Forbes last year was actually $2,975. I would just round that up to $3,000. That’s absurd!
Last year here in Oakland, I was looking at two-bedroom apartments, ranging from 900 to 1,100 square feet.  Those were $2,400 a month. I saw one apartment I thought about briefly, but it was $1,800 a month. People are paying $2,000 plus for a studio apartment in Oakland now. I just can’t afford that. Also, there are not many Black communities left in Oakland. Gentrification is wiping them out. East Oakland is pretty much what’s left here.
LL: You were recently abroad in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  What was your purpose in going? What were some of the things you learned?
AY:  Funny story about Brazil, I’m still not quite sure how that happened. Out of the blue, I received an email invite to this conference in Brazil. When I contacted the sender, there were some language barriers, but I eventually found out that I was being invited by the Brazilian government to attend their first state conference on racism and anti-Blackness.
The conference was a week long. Everyone wanted to hear about the Black Lives Matter movement in the U.S. People wanted to hear about Ferguson and Baltimore, and some of our strategies of resistance and grassroots organizing. The events were so powerful and political, but also very cultural, and full of art and music. I was the only representative there from the United States.
We also got a chance to visit and build with folks in the favelas, the equivalent of “the hood” in the U.S., the shanty towns. These were the communities that were forced into the most undesirable parts of the city and country — the hillsides and highlands — where the poor were forced to create their own infrastructure. We’re talking strongholds of Afro-Brazilian communities that are direct descendants of African captives, who have thrived in the highlands for quite some time.
This was right after the World Cup. There were units of SWAT teams still present in the favelas. They were charged with “cleaning up the streets” for these huge international events, to make it look a certain way.
This process of “cleaning things up” had been taking place for several months. Developers were coming into the favelas and kicking people out of their homes. These same communities were once undesirable.  But now that people have been there for decades, now that plumbing and piping and foundations have been set up, not to mention the gorgeous view — these favelas have become points of interest for luxury housing. Now, there are thousands of Afro-Brazilians being violently removed from their homes to make way for the rich and their new condominiums.
Being able to witness this for myself was so powerful. It really put a lot of things into perspective for me. It was a reminder of why it’s so important to create these relationships, to learn from each other.
One of the things I found out while I was down there is that, in addition to Israel, Brazil has also been a training site for U.S. law enforcement. We’re talking about the Los Angeles Police Department, the FBI and the Chicago Police Department, who flew down to share tactics and information with Brazilian authorities and state police. We certainly cannot ignore these international partnerships that perpetuate our oppression, both locally and globally. If our oppressors are organizing globally, we should be organizing globally just as hard for our liberation.
LL:  I wanted to ask you about the infamous “Assata Taught Me” tee, which can also be purchased as a hoodie. It has become a staple of movement apparel. Where did the idea of such a simple, but powerful statement come from? What does the phrase “Assata Taught Me” mean to you?
AY:  Right after the murder of Mike Brown, we formed a small unit on West Florissant Street. I hate to say this or perpetuate such an analogy, but when you’re in a war, you have to form a unit of survival. These were groups of people that you would show up with, or connect with throughout the day. You checked in on each other, made sure folks ate or got home safely.
At one of those first meetings of our unit, after some conversation, we knew that we would need a name. We decided on MAU, for Millennial Activists United. We eventually got tees made up, and other people really began to support them, and we were very down with that. But my concern was that a bunch of people, many of whom we didn’t even know, were going to wear our name — but be involved in different types of activities, doing whatever they wanted to do. When you consider the history of the state and their treatment of Black Liberation organizations, I didn’t think that would be a good idea. We were already being demonized by the national media.
On the back of the MAU tee was the Assata Shakur chant. We started to close out our nights with it and bring it to the streets. We originally picked it up from a Black Lives Matter session with a brilliant sister activist, Sister Malkia [Cyril], from the Center for Media Justice. She was the one who pulled this out and made it a mantra on the West Coast.
One night, I was at MoKaBe’s Coffee House and Jamilah Lemieux (from Ebony Magazine) was sitting right across from me. I was talking to her about the Assata chant and about the fact that we needed shirts with a popular movement message, but without MAU on them. Somehow in the conversation “Assata Taught Me” just came to me. It’s not an original phrase, by any means, but it was something that I felt would really resonate with people. Who else better as a symbol of resistance — from the New Jersey Turnpike, to being broken out of prison, to living in exile in Cuba? It’s the real-life story line of a Black woman legend.
The design of the shirt was created right in MoKaBe’s. Jamilah helped me pick out the font because I’m picky as hell about everything. I was just going for something strong, simple and straightforward. After Jamilah helped me through my self-doubt, we said, “Yeah, that looks good.” We put it on Teespring and went from there.
I just hope people feel empowered by it and feel a sense of community when they wear it. I hope they feel the resistance, the ancestors and unapologetically Black. You’re not only wearing Assata Shakur.  You’re also wearing the Black Liberation Army. They were the ones who rescued Assata. I’m just glad people like the shirt. The feedback has been incredible.
LL:  Speaking of women warriors, when we talk about Black Lives Matter, we must also talk about the critical role of Black woman leadership. What does it mean to you to be a Black woman on the frontlines?  And in your case, a queer Black woman on the frontlines?
AY: It’s quite sensitive, to say the least, for so many reasons. I say that because of all of the attention and the kind of misunderstanding around intersectionality, specifically — and identity politics, more largely. A lot of people don’t know this, but after Mike Brown was murdered in Ferguson, it was actually MAU (Millennial Activists United) who were the first to mention anything in reference to “queer” and “movement” in the same breath. We were definitely the first advocates of this specific intersection coming out of Ferguson.
We hear a lot about the Black Lives Matter Network being queer and women now — but the first body to really raise this question was MAU. You can date back what I’m saying now to the interview we did with Darnell Moore and The Feminist Wire. We specifically did this interview to uplift the narrative of our lived experiences. (See
At the time, a lot of the mainstream media was only focused around the narratives of our two brothers, Tef Poe and Tory Russell, who are certainly honorable, but two men nonetheless. Just to be clear, that wasn’t their fault. We absolutely love Tef and Tory! It’s not a reflection of them; it’s an acknowledgement of how mainstream media works in this country.
We live in a very patriarchal society, you know. But MAU was also very active on the ground, and people were following us, as Black women. It was so important for this narrative to be uplifted as well. And although the media didn’t understand, Tef and Tory were actually a major part of uplifting our narrative. At the time, at least half of our organization was queer women. We just didn’t want that to be left out.
I think that Feminist Wire interview helped to set a new precedent about what it looks like to do this work in a way that honors our ancestors, but also honors the mistakes that were made, the erasure that happened.  There was a time when folks like Bayard Rustin and Marsha P. Johnson couldn’t fight like we fight today because of the times and the politics of those times. As a Black queer woman, it was part of my duty to pick up this mantle and to build on it.
How can we talk about resistance without mentioning the Stonewall Rebellion? How can we talk about the Black Liberation Movement without mentioning James Baldwin? We can’t! I can’t imagine a movement without Black queer people, whether we’re talking 1965 or 2014.
In reference to Black women in general, we’ve been pushing back against that narrative since Harriet Tubman and Ida B. Wells. It’s a shame that Black women still have to be invited to a table that we helped create. As Solange [Knowles] would say, we’ve earned our seat at the table. We’ve earned several seats! Without Black women, there wouldn’t be no damn seats, no table, no nothing!
LL: Thank you so much for talking with me, Ashley, and sharing your experiences. You really are an amazing freedom fighter. Salute to you, Sis!
AY: Thank you, Lamont. Let’s stay in touch and keep building. ■
A North Carolina-based activist, Lamont Lilly was the 2016 Workers World Party vice presidential candidate. In 2015, he was also a U.S. delegate at the International Forum for Justice in Palestine in Beirut, Lebanon. He is also an organizer and journalist in the Black Lives Matter movement.

Sunday, 23 July 2017


This is a perfect example of how just because something is "legal", it doesn't make it right.....

Alert! Supreme Court Again Upholds Trump’s Total Barring of Refugees.
Resist the Muslim Ban!

July 20, 2017 | Revolution Newspaper |

On Wednesday, July 19, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower-court ruling that would have allowed about 24,000 refugees into the United States—these refugees are part of the Trump/Pence regime’s ban on refugees and people from six Muslim-majority countries.
In early July, the Supreme Court upheld sections of the Trump/Pence Muslim Ban 2.0 that barred all refugees and visitors and immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries without “bona fide relationships” to people in this country. The Trump/Pence regime then declared that the relationship between people living here in the U.S. and their grandparents (and some other relatives) in those countries was NOT considered “bona fide relationships.” A federal judge in Hawai'i ruled against the ban on grandparents, and also said that refugees already certified by a resettlement agency should be allowed in.
Now, the latest Supreme Court ruling shuts the door on those refugees. While the ruling does go against the Trump/Pence regime’s efforts to include grandparents among those banned from the six Muslim-majority countries, overall this is a continuation of the escalation of a war on Muslims represented by the Supreme Court’s reinstatement of major parts of the Muslim ban. In October, the Court will take up reinstating the entire ban.
And the fact is that the Trump/Pence regime, with its open contempt for legal challenges and court rulings, has been going ahead with aggressively implementing measures that effectively amount to a Muslim ban. This is gone into in a July 8 New York Times op-ed, “How Trump Is Stealthily Carrying Out His Muslim Ban,” by two representatives of Muslim Advocates. will be writing more about this soon.
The “highest court in the land” is putting a stamp of approval on dehumanizing and terrorizing Muslims in the U.S.—and around the world. This has very serious implications—intensifying a situation where all Muslims in this country must seriously fear legal persecution or violence and terror at the hands of “unofficial” fascist thugs. It ratchets up the hellish conflict between Western imperialism and fundamentalist Islamic Jihad. And to the extent that these fascist developments are not met by widespread outrage and protest, a toxic climate is further fanned in society—where people remain silent, pretending not to see, while others around them are hounded and rounded up... as happened in Nazi Germany.
The Muslim ban must be opposed and stopped—in the name of humanity.

Thursday, 20 July 2017


After reading the following unfuckingbelievable article, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that the u.s.a. has any fucking moral authority to condemn or intervene in any fucking country on this dying planet .

A Real-Life Horror Story for Women: Arkansas Law Would Force Rape Survivors to Notify Their Attacker Before Getting an Abortion

July 13, 2017 | Revolution Newspaper |

Imagine you’re a woman who has been assaulted and raped. To add to the agony, you find that you are pregnant. But that’s not the end to the horror. In order to get an abortion, the state is compelling you to let the rapist know about the procedure!
This may seem like a nightmarish scenario out of a novel about a dystopian future. But it’s happening right now—in 2017 America. The state of Arkansas has just passed an anti-abortion law that makes it illegal for women to have an abortion without notifying the man who impregnated her—including if that man is someone who had raped her.
Adding to the reactionary perversity of this law, known as the “Tissue Disposal Mandate,” is that it is a provision being added to an existing law, called the Final Disposition Act, that gives family members of a person who has died say over what happens to the deceased’s body. Under the new provision just passed and set to go into effect at the end of July, the aborted fetus would be considered a deceased family member—and the man who impregnated the woman would have equal say with the woman regarding the disposal of the fetal tissue.
This is totally outrageous—and right in line with the Christian fascist anti-abortion movement’s fanatical, anti-scientific lies about how a fetus is a full human being with “rights” and claiming abortion is “murder.” No! Fetuses are not babies. Abortion is not murder. And women are notincubators—they are full human beings!
As Bob Avakian points out:
Unbelievable as it may seem, in the 21st century there are still people—including people in positions of power and authority—who are determined to force women to bear children, regardless of the situation, the feelings, and the better judgment of those women themselves. That is a way of enslaving women to the dictates of an oppressive male supremacist, patriarchal system; and that is what the cruel fanatics who are determined to deny women the right to abortion are really all about. (From “ON ‘PRINCIPLED COMPROMISES,’ AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY”)
While the new Arkansas law does not explicitly give the man involved in the pregnancy the right to force the cancellation of an abortion, the law requires that there must be agreement on the method of “disposal” of the fetal tissue—and the man could go to court if there is a difference of opinion. Doctors who performed abortion procedures could face criminal penalties if they failed to inform the man about how the tissue would be disposed of. If a woman is forced to go to court over this matter, she could be forced to delay getting an abortion beyond the point where abortion is legal in Arkansas—right now, the state bans abortions after 22 weeks of pregnancy.
On top of the Tissue Disposal Mandate, Arkansas has passed three other recent anti-abortion laws:
*A ban on dilation and evacuation abortion, a safe and common procedure used in second-trimester abortions.
*A requirement that abortion providers disclose private medical information on patients under 17 to the police and preserve fetal tissue from abortions for those patients as “evidence.”
*A requirement that abortion doctors obtain medical records of a patient’s “entire pregnancy history”—a medically unnecessary measure that could result in the woman not being able to get an abortion before the 22-week cutoff.
Arkansas is a “leader” in anti-abortion laws at the state level—but it is hardly alone. While abortion still remains legal under the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, a barrage of state laws in recent years have put increasingly onerous restrictions on women’s right to abortion. Just in the first three months of 2017, 431 anti-abortion measures were introduced in various state legislatures, and five states (Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Utah, and Wyoming) passed 10 new laws adding to restrictions on abortion. Abortion clinics and doctors continue to be targets of violent threats and attacks from the anti-abortion movement.
And now there is a fascist regime in power in Washington that is taking the already intolerable situation faced by women under this system of capitalism-imperialism to a whole new level. Trump, the predator-in-chief, repeatedly tweets gross and violently misogynist attacks—helping to further whip up a culture of sexual assault, crude degradation, and objectification aimed at women. Mike Pence, the Christian fascist leader next in line behind Trump, vows to send Roe v. Wade “into the ash heap of history.”
There is a way to beat back the escalating assaults on women’s right to abortion—and to break all the chains that bind women under this system. This won’t happen by pinning hopes on the Democrats—under whose “legal but rare” stand on abortion, the Christian fascists continued to gain force and momentum. But it can happen by building massive political resistance to the war on abortion, as part of the movement for an actual revolution to overthrow the whole system of capitalism-imperialism at the soonest possible time and replace it with socialism—a radically new and better society moving toward a world free of all forms of exploitation and oppression (see the Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North Americaauthored by Bob Avakian and adopted by the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA). And right now, there is an immediate and urgent need for people in their millions upon millions to be out in the streets as part of demanding, in the interests of humanity, that the Trump/Pence fascist regime must go!
Women Are Full Human Beings!
Fetuses Are NOT Babies!
Abortion Is NOT Murder!
Abortion on Demand and Without Apology!

Wednesday, 19 July 2017


Guess who voted in favour of getting rid of nuclear weapons and who opposed it ? Fuck the amerikkkan imperialists and their fucked up allies.

United Nations Adopts Historic Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

North Korea, Alone Among Nuclear States, Voted “Yes” on Res. L.41 Authorizing this Treaty

  47  9 
At approximately 11AM on July 7, 2017, following a recorded vote of 122 states in favor, 1 opposed (Netherlands in opposition, on behalf of all NATO states), and 1 abstention (Singapore), Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gomez, Costa Rican Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, and President of the “United Nations Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, Leading Towards their Total Elimination,” announced the adoption of this treaty, which had been awaited for 70 years, the legally binding norm prohibiting nuclear weapons. 
Following Ambassador Whyte’s announcement, the entire assembly of ambassadors, other delegates and non-government organizations in Conference Room 1 immediately stood, many embraced and all 122 States in support exultantly applauded this historic and long overdue achievement by the majority of member states of the United Nations, none of whom possess nuclear weapons, and all of whom are unified in seeking to end the reign of terror imposed on the world by certain of the states possessing nuclear weapons.
Excerpts from the preamble to this landmark treaty state:
“The States Parties to this Treaty,
PP1:  Determined to contribute to the realization of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
PP2:  Deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons, and recognizing the consequent need to completely eliminate such weapons, which remains the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances,
PP4:  Cognizant that the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons cannot be adequately addressed, transcend national borders, pose grave implications for human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security and the health of current and future generations, and have a disproportionate impact on women and girls, including as a result of ionizing radiation,
PP5:  Acknowledging the ethical imperatives for nuclear disarmament and the urgency of achieving and maintaining a nuclear-weapon-free world, which is a global public good of the highest order, serving both national and collective security interests,
PP9:  Basing themselves on the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, in particular the principle that the right of parties to an armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited, the rule of distinction, the prohibition against indiscriminate attacks, the rules on proportionality and precautions in attack, the prohibition on the use of weapons of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, and the rules for the protection of the natural environment,
PP10: Considering that any use of nuclear weapons would be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, in particular the principles and rules of international humanitarian law,
PP11:  Reaffirming that any use of nuclear weapons would also be abhorrent to the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience,
PP14:  Concerned by the slow pace of nuclear disarmament, the continued reliance on nuclear weapons in military and security concepts, doctrines and policies, and the waste of economic and human resources on programmes for the production, maintenance and modernization of nuclear weapons,”
The 24 paragraphs of the preamble set forth incontestable reasons for the imperative and immediate adoption of this treaty by all member states of the United Nations. Reference to the full text of this treaty makes this imperative explicit, and in great detail.
The operative section of the treaty includes 20 Articles. Article 1, entitled “Prohibitions” states:
“1.   Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:
  • Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
  • Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly;
  • Receive the transfer of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly or indirectly;
  • Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
  • Assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;
  • Seek or receive any assistance, in any way, from anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;
  • Allow any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or at any place under its jurisdiction or control.”
Although none of the states possessing nuclear weapons participated in the negotiations leading to the adoption of this treaty, it is, nevertheless a major achievement of the United Nations, and a fulfillment of one of the most important sections of the United Nations Charter. It is the expectation of those member states who participated in this long and grueling process culminating in the successful adoption of this treaty, that the very establishment of this treaty provides a legal norm which will exert significant pressure upon the states possessing nuclear weapons, and places the nuclear weapons states in de facto violation of international law. This newly adopted United Nations based legal norm stigmatizes the nuclear weapons states precisely for their possession of these ultimate weapons of mass destruction.
During the September 26, 2016 meeting calling for this treaty, it was emphasized that there are treaties prohibiting the possession and use of biological weapons, there are treaties prohibiting the possession and use of chemical weapons, but at that time there was absolutely no legal prohibition against the possession and use of the most devastating and horrific of all weapons of mass destruction ever devised by the human species, nuclear weapons. At that time powerful calls for this just adopted treaty were made by many states, in particular, forceful and eloquent speeches by South Africa, Sweden and numerous others.
On October 27, 2016 the UN General Assembly voted on Resolution L.41, to convene negotiations in 2017 on a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.” It is of great significance that, alone among the states possessing nuclear weapons, only the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea voted “yes,” in support of these negotiations to create a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons,” which is powerful and virtually incontestable evidence that North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons is purely and exclusively defensive.
The Press Statement by the US, UK, and France
At 12:51 AM on July 7, a joint press statement was issued by the Ambassadors of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, and reads:
“France, the United Kingdom and the United States have not taken part in the negotiation of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it.”
The statement then comments, irrationally, and absurdly, that the new treaty will create “even more divisions at a time when the world needs to remain united in the face of growing threats, including those from the DPRK’s ongoing proliferation efforts.
This treaty offers no solution to the grave threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear program.” No sane person would consider that the tiny number of defensive nuclear weapons allegedly possessed by the  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea could possibly be a threat in any way comparable to the more than 15,000 advanced, sophisticated nuclear weapons possessed by the US, the UK and France, a nuclear arsenal capable of obliterating all life on earth. The exploitation of the DPRK’s tiny defensive weapons as a cynical justification for retaining the gargantuan arsenals possessed by the authors of this press statement also reveals dangerous paranoia by the most militarily powerful nations on earth. Indeed, even The New York Times, on July 9, page 10 acknowledges that:
“During the Korean War, North Korea was hit with thousands of tons of American bombs. The conflict technically continues, and North Korea claims it needs a robust defense program to protect itself in case of a renewed American attack.”
It is surprising that the U.S., the U.K. and France have issued a statement flaunting their violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty: they are required by Article 6 of that treaty “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,” which is precisely what the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons constitutes.
The authors of this press statement evidently consider themselves above international law, and not beholden to any legal restrictions on their use of force. With this press statement, the US, the UK and France have forfeited moral legitimacy, and as permanent members of the Security Council are divested of any authority to sanction North Korea. Further, they should themselves be sanctioned for their violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Their indifference to this new treaty’s basis in international humanitarian law, one of the treaty’s pillars, gives the lie to their pretense of concern for humanitarian considerations which they frequently cite, deceptively, during their speeches at the Security Council.
But July 7, 2017 will remain a pivotal date in the history of the United Nations, the day on which the majority of countries of the developing world, and many of the responsible and mature nations of the “developed world” have confronted the nuclear states with the uncivilized character of their possession of nuclear weapons, and the moral and practical imperative of divesting themselves of these insane instruments of horror.
Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y.