Let the Chagossians return to their paradise islands

Whatever your appreciation of John Prescott, he is right on the case of Chagos these days:

Last year I wrote about one of the worst cases of forced ­repatriation in British history.

Two thousand people were scared into fleeing their island ­paradise after their dogs were rounded up and gassed to death.

The Chagos Islands were leased to the US for 50 years by the Harold Wilson government as part of a squalid deal on nuclear weapons. The islanders were made to flee because the US wanted to turn one of the islands, Diego Garcia, into an ­American ­military base.

Further reading.

Should the Chagos Islands be resettled?

Summary and conclusion of an academic paper.
In conclusion, after exploring on the different arguments for and against the resettlement of the Chagos islands, the author of this paper strongly believes that the Chagos islands should be resettled. Although the resettlement would be costly and would entail expensive underwriting by the British taxpayer for an open-ended period, in September 2010 the Conservative MEP, Charles Tannock, was told by the European Commissioner for development, that if the UK requested the Commission to explore options whether it would be willing to make a financial contribution towards the cost of resettlement under the Overseas Association 2001/822/EC, it would happily be willing in doing so
22
. One supports the arguments which have been put forward by David Snoxell, a former British High Commissioner to Mauritius 2000-2004 and Deputy Commissioner of BIOT 1995-1997, about the resettlement on the outer islands of the Chagos archipelago as well as an agreement on sovereignty of such islands. The British government is currently on a contract with the US with regards to Diego Garcia where the US military base is located, it would be highly preposterous to expect the US to abandon their base or to welcome resettlement there. As Snoxell argues that it is possible for the British government to restore the Chagossians right of return to the outer islands of the Chagos archipelago without prejudice to the security of the US military base
23
. Finally, the resettlement of the Chagos islands would be a great opportunity to right a great wrong as well as to wipe a national shame of the British government, the Chagossians should no longer be the victims of an injustice that deprived them of their birth right

The forgotten people of Chagos

UK Appeal Court hearing - government must address Chagossians' situation without delay, new report - MRG press release

On the eve of a case in the UK's Appeal Court challenging the creation of the Chagos Marine Protected Area, Minority Rights Group International (MRG) calls on the UK government to address the situation facing the Chagossians without delay.

In 2010 the UK government created the world's largest marine reserve around the Chagos Islands, an archipelago in the Indian Ocean. The Islands' original inhabitants were evicted 50 years ago to make way for a US air base on the island of Diego Garcia.

A new MRG report says that the creation of the Marine Protected Area, and the subsequent banning of commercial fishing in its waters, effectively bars Islanders from returning to their homes. Under international law, the Chagossians have a right to return to their homeland, unless such return is not feasible, in which case they should be offered appropriate compensation.

‘The Court case highlights the pressing need for a new feasibility study to clarify, once and for all, the possible means and arrangements for return to the islands,' says Lucy Claridge, MRG's Head of Law.

‘Given that the 2002 investigation commissioned by the UK government on resettlement of the Chagos Islands was found to be seriously flawed, it is imperative that any new feasibility study must be carried out with the full participation of the Chagossians,' she adds.

The Islanders' struggle to return home has led to a decades-long legal battle in the UK courts, and culminated in a December 2012 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) dismissal of their claims to return, citing reasons based on technical grounds.

Over a year has passed since the ECtHR's decision, and the situation confronting the Chagos Islanders remains unresolved.

The report, Still dispossessed - the battle of the Chagos Islanders to return to their homeland, summarises the case as it now stands and reminds the world of the Chagossians' plight. It also discusses some of the potential ways forward for addressing this prolonged violation of human rights.

‘Apart from the right to return, the Chagossians have the right to an effective remedy and reparation for the violations of their rights. No satisfactory explanation has ever been advanced for the unwarranted forced relocation of them from their homeland,' says Lucy Claridge.

‘At the very least the UK government should issue a formal apology for the injustice suffered by the Chagossian people over the past 50 years,' she adds.

MRG has supported the islanders in their long struggle to return home, and was a joint intervener in the case before the ECtHR. The case at the UK Court of Appeal will be held on 31 March 201

- See more at: http://www.minorityrights.org/12326/press-releases/uk-appeal-court-hearing-government-must-address-chagossians-situation-without-delay-new-report.html#sthash.Ghbxh71u.dpuf

Where international law stops

A thesis on Chagos and international law: Chagos - Where international law stops, Utrecht 2012, written by Mihai Martoiu Ticu.

Conférence sur Chagos à Saint-Paul, La Réunion

Mercredi 20 février 2013 à 18h15, à l’Espace Leconte de Lisle à Saint-Paul, le professeur André Oraison donnera une conférence programmée par les « Amis de l’Université », en partenariat avec le « Comité Solidarité Chagos La Réunion » (CSCR). La conférence a pour titre : « Diego Garcia : une importante base militaire américaine au cœur de l’océan Indien ». La conférence sera suivie d’un débat. Elle sera accompagnée de photographies montrant les îles Chagos ainsi que les luttes des Chagossiens. « Il s’agit donc d’un thème d’une actualité brûlante, précise le CSCR dans un communiqué, et directement lié à la lutte menée par les Chagossiens pour faire reconnaître — enfin, après 40 ans ! — leur droit imprescriptible au retour. Nous vous attendons nombreuses et nombreux à cette conférence. »

Diego Garcia : une importante base militaire américaine au cœur de l’océan Indien

« Dans un premier accord — accord secret — anglo-américain conclu en 1961, les États-Unis s’engagent à créer une base militaire dans l’océan Indien à la double condition que le territoire anglais retenu pour l’abriter échappe au processus de décolonisation et que sa population en soit totalement évacuée. Pour satisfaire ces exigences, les Britanniques ont fait des îles Chagos une nouvelle colonie de la Couronne par un décret-loi en date du 8 novembre 1965 avant de déporter la plupart de leurs habitants vers Maurice, entre 1967 et 1973. Pour faire face à la menace soviétique croissante dans l’océan Indien, les États-Unis et la Grande-Bretagne ont, par la suite, signé le 30 décembre 1966 un second traité portant cession à bail stratégique des Chagos pour une période initiale de 50 ans, éventuellement renouvelable au 30 décembre 2016. Dans ce contexte conflictuel, le récif corallien de Diego Garcia — l’île principale des Chagos — est devenu une importante base militaire en vertu d’un nouveau traité anglo-américain signé le 25 février 1976. « Malte de l’océan Indien », « Nouvelle Okinawa », « Œil du Pentagone » : en vérité, les formules ne manquent dans les états-majors des grandes Puissances maritimes et nucléaires comme dans la presse spécialisée pour qualifier une base stratégique qui a déjà joué un rôle déterminant lors des opérations « Tempête du désert » et « Liberté immuable » déclenchées par les Nations unies, respectivement contre l’Irak en 1991 et l’Afghanistan en 2001. De fait, Diego Garcia abrite aujourd’hui la plus grande base militaire américaine à l’extérieur du territoire des États-Unis et — en raison des menaces qui s’accumulent depuis plusieurs années au Proche-Orient et dans le golfe Arabo-Persique — il en sera vraisemblablement ainsi à l’avenir. Dès lors, la lutte des Chagossiens pour le droit au retour sur leurs terres natales ou la terre de leurs ancêtres doit faire l’objet de tout notre soutien. »

Source.

UN tribunal may challenge status Chagos

Britain's colonial-era decision to sever an Indian Ocean archipelago from Mauritius and turn it into a US military base will have to be justified before an international tribunal – a process that could lead to the return of the islands' exiled inhabitants.

The unexpected ruling this month by the permanent court of arbitration in The Hague that it can hear the case is a challenge to the UK's unilateral declaration in 2009 of a marine protected area around the Chagos Islands.

Decisions by the tribunal, which arbitrates in disputes over the United Nations law of the sea, are binding on the UK. At the preliminary hearing the UK's attempt to challenge the court's jurisdiction was defeated. Britain is now obliged to explain highly sensitive political decisions dating back to 1965.

Further reading.

Prominent Labour politician Prescott pleads for Chagossians

The scandal of what happened to the ­people of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean is a terrible injustice.
Imagine you lived on a paradise island. Your ­family could trace its roots back more than 200 years.

Life was good. Home was a four-bedroom house and nearly everyone had a job – unemployment was only 3 per cent.

But then, without warning, you were told everyone was being ­expelled – you’d been sold out ­because your country had done a deal with a foreign power to get a discount on an arms deal.

And just in case you resisted, more than 1,000 dogs were rounded up and gassed to death, the threat being it could happen to you if you didn’t leave.

So you were frightened into ­leaving and dumped on the ­dockside of a foreign land 1,000 miles away with no money and no home. You had to live in a slum, seven people ­sharing one room and ­treated as second-class citizens by the local population.

This actually happened. But it wasn’t an African dictatorship that did this.

It was British ­governments, and the people ­expelled were ­British subjects.

Former UK vice-prime-minister John Prescott in the Sunday Mirror for further reading.

"Partout où je regarde, je vois Diego"

En 1965, au cœur de l’océan Indien, l’évacuation des îles Chagos est ordonnée. Quelques années plus tard, il ne reste plus un Chagossien aux Chagos. Sur l’île principale de Diego Garcia, une base militaire américaine est construite et toute approche civile interdite. 1971 : l’ONU déclare l’Océan Indien « zone de paix » (résolution 2832). En vain. Un demi siècle après le drame, les Chagossiens se rallient plus que jamais à leur mot d’ordre historique : « L’an prochain aux Chagos ». Et l’océan Indien cristallise les enjeux de ce nouveau siècle.
Suite.

Minority Rights Group on ECHR decision

Minority Rights Group International (MRG) today reiterated its call for the UK government to recognise the Chagos islanders’ fundamental right to go home, following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights today that their case was inadmissible on technical grounds. The Chagossians were expelled from their island home in the 1960s and 1970s so that it could be turned into a US military base. MRG has supported the islanders in their long struggle and was an intervenor before the European Court.

“Having expelled a whole people from their homes, the United Kingdom government is now washing its hands of all responsibility,” says Mark Lattimer, Executive Director of Minority Rights Group International. “The government has not even tried to defend what the Court today described as its ‘callous and shameful treatment’ of the islanders, but has simply relied on jurisdictional arguments.”

“The court described the legislation in this area as a ‘colonial remnant’, but the UK has shown that it is still determined to pursue the colonial mentality," he adds.

“The UK government is happy to defend the rights to self-determination of the Falkland Islanders, but when the Chagos Islanders appeal for protection from their government they are abandoned.”

MRG has been supporting the Chagos Islanders in their lengthy battle with the British government for the right to return home to their Indian Ocean archipelago home, a British overseas territory. They were forcibly removed in the 60s and 70s because Britain wanted to lease the biggest island, Diego Garcia, to the US for a top-secret military base.

Following an initial court victory by the Chagos Islanders in 2000, the then-foreign secretary chose not to appeal. But after 9/11, the military base of Diego Garcia became more important - including as a transit point for the US's illegal ‘rendition' of terrorist suspects. In 2004, the Foreign Office used the ancient powers of sovereign prerogative to overturn the earlier court ruling. Although in 2006 and 2007, judges found this use of the sovereign prerogative was illegal, the law lords upheld Foreign Office action, forcing the Chagos Islanders to go to the European Court of Human Rights.

The Decision in full

ECHR agrees glass beads and mirrors should calm Chagossians down

Exiled Chagos Islanders living in Britain and Mauritius have said they are "dumbstruck" by a European court ruling that it has no jurisdiction to examine their forced expulsion by the British government in the 1960s.

Their comments followed a decision by the European court of rights in Strasbourg which declared that the islanders "effectively renounced" their claims 30 years ago when they received compensation for resettlement from the UK authorities.

The ruling dashed the Chagossians' hopes of returning and appeared to block all legal avenues through the ECHR by concluding that individual Chagossians had no right of individual petition to the court in future.

"These proceedings were settled in 1982 on payment of £4m by the United Kingdom and provision of land worth £1m by Mauritius," the decision by the seven judges declared.

"In so settling, the islanders agreed to give up their claims. In the later Chagos Islanders case, the [UK] high court found that an attempt to claim further compensation and make further claims arising out of the expulsion and exclusion from the islands was an abuse since the claims had been renounced by the islanders."

Further reading.

Judgement postponed

R (Bancoult) v. Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Divisional Court, 21 November 2012: read judgment. (T)the Divisional Court was due to hear the Chagossians’ challenge to the designation of the waters around the islands as a Marine Protected Area, which prohibited all fishing. They said that this designation was motivated by a decision to stymie any remaining economic viability which the islands may have – the Chagossians’ traditional livelihood arose out of fishing. The main hearing of this challenge was due this week. The Court has now adjourned it, to be heard sometime in the New Year.

Rest of the story.

New colonial objections against return of Chagossians

The manoeuvres by which the Chagossians were evicted from their islands in the Indian Ocean, the late 1960s and early 1970s, so to enable the US to operate an air base on Diego Garcia, do not show the UK Foreign Office in its best light. Indeed, after a severe rebuke from the courts in 2000, the FCO accepted that the original law underlying their departure was unlawful, and agreed to investigate their possible resettlement on some of their islands. The first of these new cases is an environmental information appeal concerning the next phase of the story – how the FCO decided that it was not feasible to resettle the islanders in 2002-2004. This decision was taken in the modern way – backed by a feasibility study prepared by consultants supporting the stance which the FCO ultimately were to take. And this case concerns the islanders’ attempts to get documents lying behind and around the taking of this decision. From the islanders’ point of view, this decision by the FCO was more of the same. Unfeasible and uneconomic resettlement suited the FCO nicely. Yes, we moved you unlawfully 30 years ago, but you have to stay where you are because we now say it is impractical to move you back. The FCO countered – it is unfeasible, the islands need significant investment in infrastructure and employment (which the Chagossians could not provide from their own resources), and our consultants who carried out the review agree with us.

Further reading.

Diego

Caasya

Portraits of Chagossians

To be seen online.

A many-sided secret

The US has been a shadowy puppet master behind the UK's crimes against the indigenous people of the Chagos Archipelago. In the 1960s and 1970s, the UK forcibly removed the Chagossians from their islands to enable the US to build a military base on Diego Garcia, one of the islands in the Archipelago. Diego Garcia is also where rendition planes allegedly stopped before spiriting people, such as Libyan dissident Abdel Hakim Belhaj, away to torture.

The expulsion of the Chagossians for the construction of the Diego Garcia military base is a "many-sided secret," to quote a 2002 cable signed by former US ambassador to the UK, William Stamps Farish. This secret received renewed attention when The Guardian recently reported how the UK lied about the Chagossians to avoid international outcry about their expulsion. Newly released archival documents from the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) show that in 1970, the UK conspired to call the Chagossians "contract labourers" to ensure that no alarm bells would sound over the forced expulsion of the indigenous population.

Elena Landriscina on Chagos (further reading).

Chagos and the Falklands - the contrast revisited

Forty years ago: Chagos.
Thirty years ago: Las Malvinas.
Guess which anniversary does not get attention?

The Malvinas and Chagos

These are the days when patriotism runs wild again about some foggy rocks near Antarctica, belonging to "this great nation" (the incedrible phrase used by the co-chairman of the Tory party on Question Time, Jan. 20th) and the right to self-determination of the inhabitants of these rocks is highlighted.

The days when the contrast to Diego Garcia and Chagos is yet a bit more poignant than usually.
John Pilger happens to write about Chagos.

And in London there will be the theatre piece Some Man Fridays in February and March. Check it out if you can.

Lalit on UK & US conspiracy, lies and impunity

It is not every day in our shared history that we find ourselves interconnected in such a matrix of struggles: the struggle against military bases and occupation, the struggle against decolonisation, the struggle to protect human rights and ecosystems. Diego Garcia represents this matrix. These struggles intersect at this atoll in the middle of the Indian Ocean in the Chagos Archipelago, which is part of the Mauritius territory. The military base on Diego Garcia is not a coincidence in this matrix; it is at the very heart of the United States and Great Britain's military strategy.

What we are dealing with here in this part of our shared history is a criminal plot concocted by the British State and the American State; a conspiracy that the governments of UK and US have been trying to keep secret from us, from their own people and from the rest of the world. The role Great Britain has played on Chagos and Diego, sometimes on its own, sometimes alongside the prime mover, the United States of America, has been one of secrecy, conspiracy and a web of lies.

And, what is happening on Diego Garcia today can have important repercussions globally.

Further reading.

Football and Chagos

"Our situation is like a football match. The superpower countries are the players, and we are just the ball to be kicked around."

- A young Pakistani civilian,
North Waziristan

Nima Shirazi

The Great Game is indeed alive and kicking. This summer's World Cup tournament is providing yet another way for the United States to project its power across the globe, though not as a result of the American national team's action on the pitch.

Rather, this year, the subjugation will be televised.

While the presence of U.S. Marine Corps recruiting advertisements at each and every commercial break is perhaps mundane at this point, far more surprising is the frequent, scripted announcement by various British and Scottish play-by-play commentators on ESPN that "we'd like to welcome our men and women in uniform, serving in over 175 countries and territories, watching today's 2010 FIFA World Cup match on AFN, the American Forces Network." Other various comments have also been made about how proud the ESPN color men are of the American troops, what a fine job they are doing, and that the commentators are "glad to have them with us" and "sincerely hope [the soldiers] are enjoying the broadcast."

Beyond the surreal fact that announcers from the UK, like Adrian Healey, Martin Tyler, and Ian Darke, are eagerly praising American soldiers and sailors during the broadcast as their own ("our brave men and women..."), how can the rest be said with a straight face or without the most shameful sense of hypocrisy? That there are US troops stationed in over 175 countries around the world is a stunning fact in itself - although well-known by now if you've been paying attention at all for the past decade. At this point, there's probably an 'App' for that.

But again, this is the World Cup, and overseas ESPN announcers are lauding the attention, entertainment, and service of U.S. world domination forces, a military that has invaded, occupied, overthrown, exploited, bombed, blasted, burned, and reduced to rubble many - if not most - of the countries that now vie for the cup of all cups. The same Armed Force that now gets to enjoy the harmonious excitement of the 'beautiful game' in all its High Def glory has stoked tension and supported instability (to say the least) in countries as Greece (in 1947-49, over 500 U.S. armed forces military advisers sent to administer hundreds of millions of dollars in their civil war), Brazil (in 1964, U.S. backs a coup d'etat to overthrow popular president João Goulart), Chile (in 1973, U.S.-supported military coup overthrows - and murders - democratically-elected president Salvador Allende and brings dictatorship of Pinochet to power), Uruguay (in 1973, U.S.-backed coup brings military dictatorship to power), Argentina (in 1976, military junta deposes government of Isabel Perón with U.S. support), Honduras (besides past interventions in 1905, 1907, 1911, and 1943, in 1983 over 1000 troops and National Guard members were deployed to help the Contra fight against Nicaragua, not to mention the U.S. support for last year's coup), Slovenia and Serbia (in 1992-6, U.S. Navy joins in a naval blockade of Yugoslavia in Adriatic waters while in 1999, U.S. participated in months of air bombing and cruise missile strikes in Kosovo 'war').

The U.S military is still essentially occupying Germany (52,440 troops in over 50 installations), Japan (35,688 troops with an additional 5,500 American civilians employed by the DoD - oh yeah, and Japan pays about $2 billion each year for the US to be there as part of the 'Omoiyari Yosan,' or 'compassion budget'), and South Korea (28,500 U.S. troops). There are 9,660 U.S troops still stationed in Italy, 9,015 in the United Kingdom, over 1,300 in Serbia and over 1,200 in Spain.

Furthermore, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Algeria, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, and Uruguay all suffer the presence of at least a few American soldiers who are officially stationed there; some of these countries are forced to host 400-800 US troops. All told, there are about 78,000 American military personnel in Europe, along with approximately 47,240 in East Asia and the Pacific, 3,360 in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia (obviously not including the 92,000 troops in Iraq and about 100,000 in Afghanistan and Pakistan), 1,355 in sub-Saharan Africa, and an additional 1,940 in the Western Hemisphere outside the United States itself.

When broadcasting from the new Moses Mabhida Stadium in Durban on the east coast of South Africa, Scottish announcer Derek Rae has made sure to point out that "U.S. sailors and Marines are with us today...on AFN, the American Forces Network."

As of 2008, the U.S. Navy had over 90,000 sailors afloat in and around the United States and its satellite territories around the world. Another 18,280 are deployed in foreign waters, accompanied by over 4,300 Marines. There are about 10,500 Naval personnel stationed in East Asia and the Pacific alone.

Continuing, Rae states, "We'd like say hello to the crews of all the ships at sea. And we are just a stone's throw from the ocean ourselves, the Indian Ocean, in this case. Great to have you with us."

The island of Diego Garcia, located about 1,000 miles from the southern coasts of India and Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean, is a British colony, part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and serves as a massive U.S. military naval and airbase under an arrangement made in 1971 (for which the UK does not charge the U.S. any rent). The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius. (Reportedly, the U.S. is "opposed to anyone other than military personnel and their employees living anywhere in the Chagos archipelago, asserting that security will be compromised." Since the U.S. has always had such an ironic sense of humor when it comes to unabashed ethnic cleansing - whether in the Americas, Palestine, or the Indian Ocean - it should come as no surprise that the island's military base was named "Camp Justice" until 2006.) Currently, about 50 British military staff are stationed on the island, with more than 3,200 U.S. personnel.

The Diego Garcia installation acts as a refueling and support station for the U.S. Navy and Air Force and is home of a U.S. naval prepositioning squadron (responsible for the readiness of naval vessels as part of the Military Sealift Command in the Indian Ocean). The aerial bombardment and invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq were launched from the island. More recently, Diego Garcia is home to forward deployed U.S. guided missile nuclear submarines, in stark violation of the African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty, and has been used as a "black site" in the Bush administration's illegal extraordinary rendition program, a program protected and continued by Obama.

Earlier this year, the Scottish Sunday Herald revealed that "hundreds of powerful US 'bunker-buster' bombs" had been "shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran." The cargo included "195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs," which are "used for blasting hardened or underground structures" such as Iran's fortified nuclear energy facilities. Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London and co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran, has stated that the United States is "gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran...US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours."

The only country in this year's World Cup proceedings without any substantial or even token United States military presence is - surprise - North Korea. Yet even this might change if Obama gets his way. That would put American troops in every single one of the 32 countries currently competing in South Africa, along with over 140 others.

A press release distributed by U.S. Africa Command (US AFRICOM) this week reports, "Through the cooperation of a host of international television licensees, the American Forces Network Broadcast Center (AFN-BC) has been granted permission by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to distribute the full complement of matches of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa."

A recent article in Stars and Stripes, quotes Lt. Col. Steve Berger, an intelligence planner with U.S. Army Africa stationed in Vicenza, Italy, as saying, "It’s really great for the soldiers to see, especially for an emerging sport in the U.S.” (So that they can get a glimpse of the kinds of people they'll be ordered to conquer and kill next?) Even more exciting is the fact that, "Because AFN doesn’t pay for programming, it was important that it receive the rights to the World Cup for free, AFN chief of affiliate relations Larry Sichter said." Apparently, the military can invade your country and station troops there indefinitely, but it sure as hell won't pay for television broadcasting! Especially not with the $531 billion allocated this fiscal year for U.S. military spending (a total which is expected to rise by $18 billion next year along with an additional $272 billion for the ongoing occupation of Iraq, the escalation in Afghanistan, the illegal predator drone bombings in Pakistan, and rebuilding and updating a nuclear arsenal in clear violation of the requirements of the NPT). The U.S. armed forces just can't spare a square.

Perhaps FIFA had no choice but to comply with the requests of the U.S. military for fear of having their offices occupied or blown to pieces. What a relief a deal was struck! How global! How peaceful! How imperial! How obvious, unsurprising, and embarrassing.

"Having the most-watched sports event on the planet play out on AFN is a real feather in our cap," notes Jeff White, Executive Director of AFN-BC, in the text of the military press release filed from Riverdale, CA via Stuttgart, Germany. "But more importantly," White continues, "we'll be able to deliver the entire compliment [sic] of matches to the side that means the most -- our brave men and women in uniform serving their country overseas and in harm's way. It doesn't get any better than this."

That, out of the planetary pride, representation, and unification that the World Cup is supposed to be all about, the U.S. military would be "the side that means the most" is in itself upsetting - but hey, it's a military press release and the guy's name is White after all.

But White is wholly wrong about "it" not getting "any better than this." There is a very simple way for things to be much, much better. If the U.S. reduced its dominating and destructive presence and aggressive involvement around the world and dismantled the hundreds of foreign installations and imperial infrastructure that keep the rest of the world in submission and under American occupation, these "brave men and women in uniform" could - and should - be watching these 64 soccer games from the comfort of their own homes in the United States, on the couch with their families.

For the sake of the entire world, it truly wouldn't get any better than that.

Source.