Michael Flynn pleads guilty to lying to FBI on contacts with Russian ambassador

Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty on Dec. 1 to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

By Carol D. Leonnig, Adam Entous, Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotosky December 1 at 5:18 PM

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty Friday to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, an ominous sign for the White House, as Flynn is cooperating in the ongoing probe of possible coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election.

When he was forced out of the White House in February, officials said Flynn had misled the administration, including Vice President Pence, about his contacts with Kislyak. But court records and people familiar with the contacts indicated he was acting in consultation with senior Trump transition officials, including President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, in his dealings with the diplomat.

Flynn’s plea revealed that he was in touch with senior Trump transition officials before and after his communications with the ambassador.

The pre-inauguration communications with Kislyak involved efforts to undermine policy decisions being made by the Obama administration — on sanctions on Russia and a U.N. resolution on Israel — potential violations of the law.

[Read the charge against Flynn]

Flynn said in a statement: “It has been extraordinarily painful to endure these many months of false accusations of ‘treason’ and other outrageous acts. Such false accusations are contrary to everything I have ever done and stood for. But I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong, and, through my faith in God, I am working to set things right.

“My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel’s Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country. I accept full responsibility for my actions.”

Michael Flynn exits the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in Washington on Friday. (Essdras M Suarez for The Washington Post)

Flynn admitted in his plea that he lied to the FBI about several December conversations with Kislyak. In one, on Dec. 22, he contacted the Russian ambassador about the incoming administration’s opposition to a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli settlements as illegal and requested that Russia vote against or delay it, court records say. The ambassador later called back and indicated Russia would not vote against it, the records say.

In another conversation, on Dec. 29, Flynn called the ambassador to ask Russia not to escalate an ongoing feud over sanctions imposed by the Obama administration, court records say. The ambassador later called back and said Russia had chosen not to retaliate, the records say.

Flynn admitted as a part of his plea that when the FBI asked him on Jan. 24 — four days after Trump was inaugurated — about his dealings with the Russians, he did not truthfully describe the interactions. But perhaps more interestingly, he said others in the transition knew he was in contact with Kislyak.

[Timeline: What Flynn copped to — and what he didn’t]

Flynn admitted that before speaking with the ambassador, he called a senior transition official, whose name is not listed in court records, at the Mar-a-Lago resort on Dec. 29 “to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions” and learned that transition members did not want Russia to escalate the situation. And when the ambassador later informed him Russia would not retaliate, Flynn told senior members of the transition team, court records say.

The records say that a “very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team” directed Flynn to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia, about the U.N. resolution on Israel. That official is also not named, but people familiar with the matter said it refers to Kushner. According to one transition team official, Kushner told Flynn that blocking the resolution was a top priority of the president-elect.

Abbe Lowell, Kushner’s attorney, declined to comment.

[Mueller just penetrated the White House gates with Flynn’s guilty plea]

Flynn is the highest-profile Trump ally — and the first aide who worked in the White House — to face charges in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. Trump developed a close rapport with Flynn on the campaign trail, where the general delivered fiery denunciations of Hillary Clinton, including leading a “Lock her up!” chant at the Republican National Convention.

Outside the courthouse Friday, a small group of protesters shouted “Lock him up!” at Flynn as he left the building.

Team Trump’s ties to Russian interests VIEW GRAPHIC 

The Washington Post reported in February that Flynn had privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador before Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials. Soon after that, acting attorney general Sally Yates warned the White House that the national security adviser might be susceptible to Russian blackmail because he had misled senior officials.

Flynn was forced to resign, but after that, Trump said that his ouster might have been a mistake. Trump’s request of then-FBI Director James B. Comey to be lenient with Flynn has also come under scrutiny by the special counsel, and Flynn’s cooperation could prove important to Mueller’s ongoing probe of whether the president attempted to obstruct justice.

Trump has said previously that he did not direct Flynn to discuss sanctions with the Russian ambassador but that he “would have directed him because that’s his job.” There is a law — the Logan Act — that bars U.S. citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes with another country. But the statute has not been used in a prosecution in modern history, and it would not be uncommon for incoming administrations to interface with foreign governments with whom they will soon have to work.

In a statement on Flynn’s guilty plea, White House lawyer Ty Cobb said: “The false statements involved mirror the false statements to White House officials which resulted in his resignation in February of this year. Nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn. The conclusion of this phase of the Special Counsel’s work demonstrates again that the Special Counsel is moving with all deliberate speed and clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion.”


Here’s what we know about the charges and a timeline of events. VIEW GRAPHIC

In recent weeks, Trump’s attorneys have expected Flynn to plead guilty, particularly after one of Flynn’s attorneys, Robert Kelner, said he could no longer communicate about the probe with Trump’s lawyers.

Flynn’s negotiations to cooperate with Mueller’s team began early last month, according to two people briefed on the discussions. At some point, Mueller’s investigators warned Flynn’s attorneys that they planned to indict Flynn and also could charge his son, according to the two people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. Flynn’s attorneys, Kelner and Stephen Anthony, provided a proffer of what information Flynn could provide, and then Flynn met with Mueller’s team.

 The Wednesday before Thanksgiving, White House lawyer John Dowd contacted Flynn’s team in a sporadic “check-in” call he made to other defense counsel personnel in the Russia probe every few weeks, people familiar with the matter said. Kelner told Dowd on the call that he could no longer communicate with the White House lawyers. That signaled that Flynn had begun to cooperate or was already actively seeking to cooperate with the special counsel’s office, because in either case his lawyers would have a duty to shut off communications with other defense teams.

[Flynn’s lawyer shuts down communications with Trump’s team, a sign he may be cooperating with Mueller probe]

As part of Flynn’s negotiations, his son, Michael G. Flynn, is not expected to be charged, according to a person with knowledge of the talks.

The elder Flynn’s case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Rudolph “Rudy” Contreras, 55, a 2012 Obama appointee and veteran federal lawyer who joined the civil division of the U.S. attorney’s office in the District in 1994, rising to head the civil division of the Delaware federal prosecutor’s office before returning to take the same position in the District in 2006. Contreras also serves on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The plea caps a stunning fall for the general. A native of Rhode Island who grew up in a large family of modest means, Flynn joined the Army officer school and chose early in his career to specialize in intelligence. Among his mentors was Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who praised Flynn’s ability in Afghanistan to bond with his soldiers and get results. In 2012, Flynn was named director of the Defense Intelligence Agency but rankled some subordinates there who questioned his temperament and decision-making. President Barack Obama removed Flynn from the DIA post in October 2014.

Though Flynn gave Trump much-needed national security credentials, he had a mixed reputation among other Trump aides, who thought he gave the president questionable information and worried about some of his business dealings.

Flynn has been a major investigative target of the FBI’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. A key question for investigators is whether any Trump associates coordinated with Russian officials to try to sway the presidential race.

Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak, who stepped down from his ambassador post in July, are a key issue in the probe, and the plea deal could open new doors for investigators trying to determine what, if anything, Trump knew about such contacts.

Flynn has also come under scrutiny for having a secret financial stake in major foreign policy decisions while advising Trump during the campaign, the transition and the brief period he served in the administration.

In his agreement, Flynn acknowledged lying in his foreign-agent disclosure forms when he claimed that he did not know the extent of the Turkish government’s involvement in a contract his firm had obtained and when he claimed that an op-ed he wrote encouraging the U.S. government to expel a rebel cleric and enemy of the Turkish president was at his own initiative.

The maximum penalty for making a false statement is five years in prison, though both sides said Flynn would face a recommended sentence of up to six months in prison under federal guidelines.
Josh Dawsey, Spencer S. Hsu and Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.

Ireland will have final say on progress of Brexit talks, says EU

Donald Tusk says that if Ireland cannot accept UK offer for its border, EU will not allow negotiations to move on to trade

 Donald Tusk (right) with the Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar. Photograph: Aidan Crawley/EPA

Lisa O'CarrollBrexit correspondent-Friday 1 December 2017 20.47 GMT

Ireland will have the final say on whether the UK has made sufficient progress in Brexit negotiations to move on to the next stage, Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, has said.

In a strongly worded statement expressing solidarity with Ireland, Tusk said Brexit problems were of Britain’s own making, but Ireland’s problems were the EU’s.

He warned that progress would not be possible if the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, was not satisfied with the UK’s offer on the Irish border, which is scheduled to be tabled in Brussels on Monday.

Ireland, which is looking for written commitment that there will be no return to a hard border with Northern Ireland, has threatened to veto progress if Britain does not come up with a satisfactory and firm offer this weekend.

“Let me say very clearly: if the UK offer is unacceptable for Ireland, it will also be unacceptable for the EU. I realise that for some British politicians this may be hard to understand,” said Tusk.

It was “logic” that the EU would support Ireland before a member state that was leaving the bloc.

“This is why the key to the UK’s future lies – in some ways – in Dublin, at least as long as Brexit negotiations continue,” the council president said.

Speaking in Irish Gaelic, Tusk made clear that the EU stood full square behind Ireland: “Ní neart go cur le chéile” [There is no strength without unity].

His words were an indication of clear and unambiguous support from the EU as Monday’s deadline for an offer on the Irish border, the divorce bill and EU citizens’ rights closes in, placing relations between the EU27 and the UK on a knife edge.

Earlier on Friday, Ireland’s deputy taoiseach and foreign minister, said he believed a Brexit deal on the Irish border question was “doable”, and confirmed that his government had held talks on the subject with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist party.

Simon Coveney said a breakthrough was possible before Theresa May’s crunch meeting with Jean-Claude Juncker, the European commission president, on Monday.

“I think it is doable ... We are not where we need to be today, but I think it is possible to get to be where we need to be in the next few days,” he said.

After what some in Ireland have dubbed “gunboat diplomacy” by the DUP, Coveney moved to calm the storm.
“We can work through this. We want to listen to unionism. They are of equal importance, but at the same time we can’t allow one party to dictate what is acceptable and what is not,” he said.

His comments follow accusations by the DUP MP Ian Paisley Jr that Ireland had acted disgracefully in demanding Northern Ireland have separate legal status to the rest of the UK.

But Coveney warned that Ireland would remain stubbornly firm on the issue of the hard border and was prepared to pull the plug on the Brexit talks.

“There is not an anti-British bone in my body. Britain is a great country and we want a good deal. A good deal for Britain is a good deal for us, but Ireland will not be steamrolled on this issue,” he said.
EU Brexit taskforce officials have been working intensely with British officials over the past few days, but Dublin said it had not seen any wording.

Varadkar said he was an optimist, adding : “[We are prepared to continue] the intensive work with the taskforce that is negotiating for the EU27 to secure a positive outcome, allowing us to move on to talks about transition and the future relationship between the UK and the EU.”

The last-minute meeting between Tusk and Varadkar ended a week of heightened tensions between Ireland and unionists in Northern Ireland, who see the Republic’s position as a threat to the UK and a step on the path to a united Ireland.

On Thursday the DUP threatened to pull the plug on its £1bn deal propping up the Conservatives if May offered any deal that would decouple Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK.

Tusk said he had agreed that Varadkar would be consulted fully before the guidelines for negotiations on Brexit transition arrangements were circulated among the 27 member states before the council summit on 14 December.

There, the states will decide formally whether or not the “sufficient progress” test will be met on three issues: the financial settlement, EU citizens’ rights and the Irish border.

Pope holds emotional meeting with refugees, says "Rohingya" for first time

Philip Pullella, Krishna N. Das-DECEMBER 1, 2017

DHAKA (Reuters) - Pope Francis had an emotional meeting with Muslim refugees from Myanmar in Bangladesh on Friday and used the word Rohingya to describe them for the first time on his Asian trip, calling for them to be respected.

He also urged the world not to ignore refugees, persecuted minorities, the poor and vulnerable.

The encounter took place at an inter-religious peace meeting on his first full day in Bangladesh, to where 625,000 Rohingya from Myanmar’s Rakhine state have fled from an army crackdown.

Refugees have said scores of Rohingya villages have been burnt to the ground, people killed and women raped. Myanmar’s military has denied accusations of “ethnic cleansing” by the United States and United Nations.

The pope had earlier in the week visited Myanmar, where he met its leader Aung San Suu Kyi and Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.

But there he avoided using the word Rohinngya, a term the authorities reject. Many people in Myanmar regard the largely stateless Rohingya as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.

At the Bangladesh meeting, however, he said: “The presence of God today is also called Rohingya.”

Addressing about 5,000 people at the gathering on the grounds of the Roman Catholic archbishop’s residence, Francis said: “How much our world needs this heart to beat strongly, to counter the virus of political corruption, destructive religious ideologies, and the temptation to turn a blind eye to the needs of the poor, refugees, persecuted minorities, and those who are most vulnerable.”

Aid workers brought 16 Rohingya refugees from camps in Cox’s Bazar, about 430 km (260 miles) southeast of Dhaka on the border with Myanmar, to join other Muslims, as well as Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and charity workers.

The pope looked sombre as each member of the group, which included 12 men and four women, including two young girls, told him their stories through interpreters. Francis looked pained as he listened.

“In the name of all those who persecute you, who have persecuted you, those who have hurt you, above all for the indifference of the world, I ask for forgiveness, forgiveness.”

Pope Francis meets a group of Rohingya refugees in Dhaka, Bangladesh December 1, 2017. REUTERS/Max Rossi

Francis said in improvised comments.

Before that, in his calls for peace in Myanmar and Bangladesh, he had not publicly used the word Rohingya to describe the refugees -- disappointing human rights groups and other prominent figures in the West who have condemned the repression.

He had decided to follow the advice of Myanmar Church officials, who said his use of the word could prompt a backlash against Christians and hurt Myanmar’s fragile path to democracy.

One of the women refugees told Reuters before the meeting:

“Myanmar military captured me and some other women, tortured us. I still bleed, there is pain in the abdomen, my back hurts, I get headaches. Medicines have not helped much.”

“I will share my pain with him,” the woman as her young daughter clutched at her burqa garment.

DECISIVE MEASURES

The pope spoke under a huge tent-like canopy held up by bamboo poles and covered with red, white and scarlet fabric to guard against the afternoon sun. He had first visited the cathedral and then was taken to the tent in a flower-bedecked peddle rickshaw that a man pushed up the central aisle.

In his address, Francis said: “Religious concern for the welfare of our neighbour, streaming from an open heart, flows outward like a vast river, to quench the dry and parched wastelands of hatred, corruption, poverty and violence that so damage human lives, tear families apart, and disfigure the gift of creation,” he said.

The pope has called for decisive measures to resolve the political reasons that caused the refugee crisis and urged countries to help the Bangladesh government deal with it.

Earlier this year from the Vatican, the pope twice defended the Rohingya by name, once saying that they had been “tortured, killed simply because they wanted to live their culture and their Muslim faith”.

The Myanmar military launched the crackdown in response to Rohingya militant attacks on an army base and police posts in August and says it is a legitimate counter-insurgency operation.

The Rohingya tragedy shows human solidarity is a lie

The Rohingya tragedy has shown how a UN member State can have an internal policy built on racial and religious discrimination, writes Karman [Showkat Shafi/Al Jazeera]

by Tawakkol Karman-1 Dec 2017

Nobody argues any more about what is happening in Myanmar. The United Nations, international human rights organisations and world capitals all agree that the war being waged on the RohingyaMuslims is a clear example of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

According to international reports, the number of people who have fled Myanmar military operations in Rakhine state have reached approximately 600,000 refugees by October.

The crisis continues to get worse, fanned on one hand, by the Myanmar government's intolerance and insistence on continuing their racist exclusionary policies, and on the other hand, by the fact that the world's interest in what is happening in Myanmar is just not deep enough.

Human solidarity

The most dangerous thing the Rohingya tragedy has uncovered is that the idea of "human solidarity" may be nothing more than a big lie.

Those who call and fight for freedoms and human rights regardless of race or religion or colour or ideology - and I am one of those - are facing a huge conundrum. Why is this happening? Why is this human holocaust, happening right before our eyes, not being stopped? Are there unknown conditions that must be met in order to show human solidarity and offer the support needed to end a particular people's suffering?

These are questions whose answers, I fear, will be terrifying. Is human solidarity something afforded only to the strong and rich who have political or economic power in the international arena?

The Rohingya tragedy has confirmed what we've said about the use of 'terrorism' by dictatorships as a useful excuse to realise political goals and destroy opposition or political opponents.

Many are starting to understand that human solidarity does not extend to Muslims. Regardless of how accurate that opinion is, it is an indicator of the doubts that have taken root in the minds of some, and that is not a good thing.

And this is not the only loss that has come out of the Rohingya tragedy. The regime in Myanmar, which is perpetrating horrific violations every day, can still find allies who defend what it is doing. The Myanmar regime's responsibility for the extermination of the Rohingya is clear and its statements denying what is happening are mendacious.

Sacrificing her past as a fighter for rights and freedom in order to embrace tyranny, Aung San Suu Kyi - leader of the Myanmar government and Nobel Peace Prize laureate - serves as a prime example of the damage that can befall someone we thought would keep her principles no matter what. 

It is truly tragic that Aung San Suu Kyi is defying reality and denying with confidence the violence and ethnic cleansing, to an extent that Amnesty International has classified her affirmations as "a mix of untruths and victim blaming". Aung San Suu Kyi could have fought and won a victory for human rights or for her own conscience at the very least. But she preferred to fight for her "nation" and its military vision built on exclusion, marginalisation and rejection of diversity. What a tragic end for a woman who so many counted on.

The 'terrorism' excuse

The Rohingya tragedy has confirmed what we've said about the use of "terrorism" by dictatorships as a useful excuse to realise political goals and destroy opposition or political opponents.

The world has seen how entire villages are destroyed and their inhabitants killed or displaced, all atrocities committed in the name of the "war on terror"; who can accept these justifications? I would think no one.

The truth is that using "terrorism" as an excuse to suppress opponents and to enable tyrannical political leadership to strengthen its bases is an old ruse that everyone can see through. The UN and international community have to be brave and prevent the use of "terrorism" in this way.

Authoritarian regimes must be deprived of the opportunity to use a just cause such as fighting "terrorism" for their own ends. Not only that, but there must also be a real accounting of those who have perpetrated human rights violations for any reason.

Fighting racism

There are numerous calls to end the military operations against the Rohingya today. This can be seen as a positive development, and although it comes very late - better late than never.

In spite of that fact, the regime in Myanmar likely will not respond to these calls unless there is a unified international stance against the crimes against humanity that are being perpetrated there. The military in Myanmar are still the ones who call the shots, and they don't see anything wrong with denying the Rohingya their rights.

The Rohingya tragedy has shown how a UN member state can have an internal policy built on racial and religious discrimination without any international consequences. Therefore pressure must be increased on the regime in Myanmar if we are to see real course correction. 

It is time to take a firm stance on Myanmar. We should not pacify a state promoting apartheid policies. It is time to stop a human tragedy that has persisted for decades.

A few days ago, Bangladesh and Myanmar reached an agreement that allows the repatriation of Rohingya refugees, who were subjected to a campaign of persecution and forcible displacement by the Myanmar army only two months ago. But this agreement, even if implemented, is not enough to go on as if nothing happened.

It is true that the repatriation of the Muslim-majority Rohingya is very important to put an end to this tragedy, but what guarantees will the Myanmar government provide for not repeating its ethnic cleansing campaign?

Nevertheless, this agreement should be a prelude to the end of abhorrent discrimination against the Rohingya who should be given political and civil rights as citizens of Myanmar.

The Rohingya have lived for a long time without knowing the true meaning of humanity and justice. Would it not be wonderful if they could find some of that now? We must work to realise that with all our strength, not just for them, but for all of us. 

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Tawakkol Karman

Tawakkol Karman, a co-recipient of the 2011 Nobel peace prize, is a Yemeni journalist and hu

Proposed U.S. Cuts to AIDS Funding Could Cause Millions of Deaths: Report

While the Trump administration praises its progress on the AIDS fight, health campaigners warn they are making the fight that much harder.

The Kenwa Center for HIV positive women in Nairobi, Kenya in December, 2006. (Brent Stirton/Getty Images) 

BY ROBBIE GRAMER-DECEMBER 1, 2017, 11:25 AM

The State Department is trumpeting U.S. progress combating HIV and AIDS worldwide, but nongovernmental organizations warn that the Trump administration’s plans to slash AIDS funding could lead to millions more infected, with many dying.

“The U.S. government, under the leadership of President Trump, continues to lead the way in the global HIV/AIDS response,” said Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan at a State Department event on Thursday commemorating World AIDS Day, which is Dec. 1. “We are closer than ever before to ending this pandemic,” he said.

A blistering new report from the ONE Campaign, an international nonprofit focused on poverty and preventable disease, argues that the administration’s proposed budget cuts would derail all the progress made to date, just when an end to the disease is in sight.

The Trump budget “would have led to the first global increase in new HIV infections since 1995, with nearly 200,000 additional HIV infections in the first year,” according to the report, “Red Ribbon or White Flag? The Future of the U.S. Global AIDS Response.”

In its budget proposal for fiscal year 2018, the Trump administration proposed cutting some $800 million from the global fight against HIV and AIDS, including the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program former President George W. Bush established in 2003. PEPFAR has provided treatment to nearly 8 million HIV-infected people in developing countries and is estimated to have saved some 11 million lives.

New proposed cuts, if enacted, could force initiatives such as PEPFAR to scale back their treatment programs, potentially leading to 26 million additional infections and 4 million additional deaths in the next 15 years in sub-Saharan Africa alone, the report said. “The billions of dollars that Congress has already invested in fighting AIDS would be squandered at the very moment when control of the disease is in sight,” it said.

The Trump administration’s proposed budget request calls for eliminating PEPFAR funding entirely to seven countries — Brazil, Djibouti, Liberia, Mali, Nepal, Senegal, and Sierra Leone — and reducing funding to 17 countries, including the Democratic Republic of Congo and other sub-Saharan African countries still struggling to recover from the disease: South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Namibia. Seventy percent of the nearly 37 million people with HIV/AIDS globally are in sub-Saharan Africa, and only half receive treatment.

U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Ambassador Deborah Birx declined to respond to the ONE Campaign report, but told reporters Thursday that the United States has “dramatically increased results” in 2017 even with a flat budget, and that lower funding doesn’t mean a lessened commitment.

“Translating that money into the most effective programs that we can, that reaches the most lives in the most impactful way — that’s our job,” she said.

ONE Campaign spokesman Sean Simons said advocacy groups are pinning their hopes on Congress to stop Trump’s plan. “If the Trump Administration once again tries to cut funding for global HIV/AIDS programs in the future, Congress must do the responsible thing and restore the money,” he said.

On Wednesday, a group of nearly 40 advocacy groups sent a letter to Congress urging them to push back against the Trump administration’s plans to slash global health funding. “We are writing to sound the alarm,” the letter said.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have pushed back on the Trump administration’s budget proposals, especially the drastic cuts to the State Department and USAID. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, took aim at the proposed PEPFAR cuts on Friday.

“Success is possible,” he said. “Cutting funding now – shrinking from our commitment now, instead of sustaining it – will negate the investments and progress we have made so far.”

Killing the Biosphere to Fast-track Human Extinction

Some people argue that it is genetic: human beings are innately violent and, hence, destructive behaviors towards themselves, others and the Earth are ‘built-in’ to the human organism; for that reason, violence cannot be prevented or controlled and humans must endlessly destroy.

by Robert J. Burrowes-Nov 30, 2017

(November 30, 2017, Victoria, Sri Lanka Guardian) Several years ago in Cameroon, a country in West Africa, a Western Black Rhinoceros was killed. It was the last of its kind on Earth.

Hence, the Western Black Rhinoceros, the largest subspecies of rhinoceros which had lived for millions of years and was the second largest land mammal on Earth, no longer exists.

But while you have probably heard of the Western Black Rhinoceros, and may even have known of its extinction, did you know that on the same day that it became extinct, another 200 species of life on Earth also became extinct?

This is because the sixth mass extinction event in Earth’s history is now accelerating at an unprecedented rate with 200 species of plants, birds, animals, fish, amphibians, insects and reptiles being driven to extinction on a daily basis. And the odds are high that you have never even heard of any of them. For example, have you heard of the Christmas Island Pipistrelle, recently declared extinct? See ‘Christmas Island Pipistrelle declared extinct by IUCN’.

Apart from the 200 species extinctions each day however, and just to emphasize the catastrophic extent of this crisis, myriad local populations of many species are driven to extinction daily and millions of individual lifeforms are also killed. See ‘Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines’.

For a taste of the vast literature on this subject touching only on impacts in relation to insects, see ‘Death and Extinction of the Bees’, ‘Insectageddon: farming is more catastrophic than climate breakdown’ and ‘“Decimated”: Germany’s birds disappear as insect abundance plummets 76%’.

Is anything being done to end this omnicide (the destruction of all life)?

Not really, although there is plenty of rhetoric and limited action in some contexts as all bar a few committed individuals and organizations ignore this onslaught while even fewer take action that addresses the underlying cause and/or fundamental drivers of this killing. Unfortunately, most effort is still wasted on lobbying elites.

For example, in the latest example of the foolishness of lobbying elites to take action in our struggle to defend Earth’s biosphere, the European Union has again just renewed Monsanto’s licence to keep poisoning (and otherwise destroying) our world – see ‘German vote swings EU decision on 5-year glyphosate renewal’ – despite the already overwhelming evidence of the catastrophic consequences of doing so. See, for example, ‘Killing Us Softly – Glyphosate Herbicide or Genocide?’ and ‘GM Food Crops Illegally Growing in India: The Criminal Plan to Change the Genetic Core of the Nation’s Food System’.

Of course, massive poisoning of the biosphere is only one way to destroy it and while elites and their agents drive most of this destruction they nevertheless often rely on our complicity. To itemize just a few of these many techniques for destroying our biosphere in most of which we are complicit, consider the following. We destroy rainforests – see ‘Cycles of Wealth in Brazil’s Amazon: Gold, Lumber, Cattle and Now, Energy’ – we contaminate and privatize the fresh water – see ‘Groundwater drunk by BILLIONS of people may be contaminated by radioactive material spread across the world by nuclear testing in the 1950s’ and ‘Nestlé CEO Denies That Water is an Essential Human Right’ – we overfish and pollute the oceans – see ‘New UN report finds marine debris harming more than 800 species, costing countries millions’ – we eat meat despite the devastating impact of animal agriculture on Earth’s biosphere – see ‘The True Environmental Cost of Eating Meat’ – we destroy the soil – see ‘Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues’ – and we use our cars and air travel (along with our meat-eating) as key weapons in our destruction of Earth’s atmosphere and climate with atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide levels all breaking new records in 2016. See ‘Greenhouse Gas Bulletin’.

But if you think that is bad enough, did you know about the out-of-control methane releases into the atmosphere that we have triggered – see ‘7,000 underground gas bubbles poised to “explode” in Arctic’ and ‘Release of Arctic Methane “May Be Apocalyptic,” Study Warns’ – and did you know that scientists at the University of Leicester warn that we are destroying the Earth’s oxygen? See ‘Global warming disaster could suffocate life on planet Earth, research shows’ and ‘The Extinction Event Gains Momentum’.

In addition, relying on our ignorance and our complicity, elites kill vast areas of Earth’s biosphere through war and other military violence (without even considering the unique, and possibly life-ending, devastation if the recently and repeatedly threatened nuclear war eventuates) – see, for example, the Toxic Remnants of War Project and the film ‘Scarred Lands & Wounded Lives’ – subject it to uncontrolled releases of radioactive contamination – see ‘Fukushima Radiation Has Contaminated The Entire Pacific Ocean – And It’s Going To Get Worse’ – and use geoengineering to wage war on its climate, environment and ultimately ourselves. See, for example, ‘Engineered Climate Cataclysm: Hurricane Harvey’, ‘Planetary Weapons and Military Weather Modification: Chemtrails, Atmospheric Geoengineering and Environmental Warfare’, ‘Chemtrails: Aerosol and Electromagnetic Weapons in the Age of Nuclear War’ and ‘The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use’.

Of course, all of this is done at immediate cost to human beings, particularly indigenous peoples – see, for example, ‘Five ways climate change harms indigenous people’ –  and those who are in the worst position to resist – see ‘Global Poverty: How the Rich Eat the Poor and the World: The Big Lies’ – but elites know they can ignore our lobbying and occasional, tokenistic and disorganized protests while relying on the fear and powerlessness of most of us to ensure that we do nothing strategic to fight back.

And given the unrelenting criminal onslaught of the insane global elite – see ‘The Global Elite is Insane’  – directed against Earth’s biosphere, together with the elite’s many sycophantic academic, bureaucratic, business, legal, media, military, political and scientific servants who deny science and threaten human survival in the interests of short-term personal privilege, corporate profit and social control, it is long past time when those of us who are genuinely concerned should be developing and implementing a strategy that recognises the elite and its many agents as opponents to be resisted with a careful and powerful strategy.

So, in essence, the problem is this: Human beings are destroying the biosphere and driving countless lifeforms, including ourselves, to extinction. And there is little strategic resistance to this onslaught.

There is, of course, an explanation for this and this explanation needs to be understood if we are to implement a strategy to successfully halt our omnicidal assault on Earth’s biosphere in time to save ourselves and as many other species as possible in a viable ecological setting.

This is because if you want to solve a problem or resolve a conflict, then it is imperative to know and act on the truth. Otherwise you are simply acting on a delusion and whatever you do can have no desirable outcome for yourself, others, the Earth or its multitude of creatures. Of course, most people are content to live in delusion: it averts the need to courageously, intelligently and conscientiously analyse what is truly happening and respond to it powerfully. In short: it makes life ‘easier’ (that is, less frightening) even if problems keep recurring and conflicts are suppressed, to flare up periodically, rather than resolved.

And, of course, this is how elites want it. They do not want powerful individuals or organizations interfering with their scheme to (now rapidly) consolidate their militarized control over the world’s populations and resources.

This is why, for example, elites love ‘democracy’: it ensures disempowerment of the population. How so? you might ask. The fundamental flaw of democracy is that people have been deceived into surrendering their personal power to act responsibly – in relation to the important social, political, economic, environment and climate issues of the day – to elected ‘representatives’ in government who then fearfully represent the elites who actually control them (whether through financial incentives, electoral support or other means), assuming they aren’t members of the elite themselves and simply represent elite priorities out of shared interest (as does Donald Trump).

And because we delegate responsibility to those powerless politicians who fearfully (or out of shared interest) act in response to elite bidding, the best scientific information in relation to the state of the Earth is simply ignored or rejected while conservative ‘scientific warnings’ advocating ‘strategies’ that must fail are widely circulated. See, for example, ‘World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice’.

So this widespread failure to respond thoughtfully and powerfully is a fundamental reason that we are killing the biosphere and destroying life on Earth. Too few humans are willing to accept personal responsibility to understand why the violence is occurring and to participate in a carefully designed strategy to avert our own extinction, let alone save countless other species from premature entry into the fossil record. It is easier to leave responsibility to others. See ‘The Delusion “I Am Not Responsible”’.

And, clearly, time is running out, unless you are gullible enough to believe the elite-sponsored delusion that promotes inaction, and maximizes corporate profits in the meantime, because we are supposed to have until ‘the end of the century’. Far from it, however. As some courageous scientists, invariably denied access to mainstream news outlets, explain it: near-term human extinction is now the most likely outcome.

One of these scientists is Professor Guy McPherson who offers compelling evidence that human beings will be extinct by 2030. For a summary of the evidence of this, which emphasizes the usually neglected synergistic impacts of many of these destructive trends (some of which are noted above) and cites many references, listen to the lecture by Professor McPherson on ‘Climate Collapse and Near Term Human Extinction’.

Why 2030? Because, according to McPherson, the ‘perfect storm’ of environmental assaults that we are now inflicting on the Earth, including the 28 self-reinforcing climate feedback loops that have already been triggered, is so far beyond the Earth’s capacity to absorb, that there will be an ongoing succession of terminal breakdowns of key ecological systems and processes – that is, habitat loss – over the next decade that it will precipitate the demise of homo sapiens sapiens.

In relation to the climate alone, another scientist, Professor Kevin Anderson, who is Deputy Director of the UK’s premier climate modelling institution, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, has warned that emissions are now out of control and we are heading for a world that is 6 degrees hotter; he pointed out that even the International Energy Agency, and conservative organisations like it, are warning that we are on track for a 4 degree increase (on the pre-industrial level) by 2040. He also accused too many climate scientists of keeping quiet about the unrealistic assessments put out by governments. See ‘What They Won’t Tell You About Climate Catastrophe’.

So be wary of putting any credence on ‘official’ explanations, targets and ‘action-plans’ in relation to the climate that are approved by large gatherings, whether governmental or scientific. Few people have the courage to tell the truth when it guarantees unpopularity and can readily manifest as career-extinction and social and scientific marginalization.

As an aside, it is perhaps worth mentioning that most people have long forgotten that a decade ago (when the global temperature was .8 degrees above the pre-industrial level) it had been suggested that a decrease in global temperature to not more than .5 degrees above the pre-industrial level was actually necessary to achieve a safe climate, with the Arctic intact (although there was no clear feasible method for humans to reduce the global temperature to this level with any speed). Sadly we have made little progress in the past decade apart from to keep raising the ‘acceptable’ limit (whether to 2 degrees or ‘only’ 1.5). Most humans love to delude themselves to avoid dealing with the truth.

Hence, for those of us committed to responding powerfully to this crisis, the fundamental question is this: Why, precisely, are human beings destroying life on Earth? Without an accurate answer to this question, any strategy to address this crisis must be based on either guesswork or ideology.

So let us briefly consider some possible answers to this question.

Some people argue that it is genetic: human beings are innately violent and, hence, destructive behaviors towards themselves, others and the Earth are ‘built-in’ to the human organism; for that reason, violence cannot be prevented or controlled and humans must endlessly destroy.

However, any argument that human beings are genetically-predisposed to inflict violence is easily refuted by the overwhelming evidence of human cooperation throughout the millennia and there are endless examples, ranging from the interpersonal to the international, of humans cooperating to resolve conflict without violence, even when these conflicts involve complex issues and powerful vested interests. There are also plentiful examples of humans, particularly indigenous communities, living in harmony with, rather than destroying, nature.

Other analysts argue that human violence and destructiveness are manifestations of political, economic and/or social structures – such as patriarchy, capitalism and the state, depending on the perspective – and while I agree that (massive) structural violence actually occurs, I do not believe that these structures, by themselves, constitute an adequate explanation of the cause of violence.

This is simply because any structural explanation cannot account for violence in all contexts (including the violence that led to creation of the structure in the first place) or explain why it doesn’t happen in some contexts where a particular perspective indicates that it should.

So is there another plausible explanation for human violence? And can we do anything about it? Let me offer an explanation and a way forward that also takes advantage of the insights of those traditions that have critiqued structural violence in its many forms.

I have been researching why human beings are violent since 1966 and the evidence has convinced me that the origin of all human violence is the violence inflicted by adults on children under the guise of what sociologists call ‘socialization’. This violence takes many forms – what I call ‘visible’, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ violence – and it creates enormously damaged individuals who then personally inflict violence on themselves, those around them (including their own children) and the Earth, while creating, participating in, defending and/or benefiting from structures of violence and exploitation. For a full explanation of this point, see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

Hence, in my view, the evidence is overwhelming that if we want to end human violence, whether inflicted on ourselves, others or the Earth, then the central feature of our strategy must be to end adult violence against children. See ‘My Promise to Children’. I claim that this must be ‘the central feature of our strategy’ for the simple reason that each damaged child grows up to become a willing and active perpetrator of violence when, if they were not so damaged, they would be powerful agents of peace, justice and sustainability committed to resisting violence and exploitation in all contexts until it is eliminated.

This profound evolutionary inheritance – to be an individual of integrity who consciously chooses and lives out their own unique, powerful and nonviolent life path – has been denied to virtually all of us because humans endlessly terrorize their children into mindless obedience and social conformity, leaving them powerless to access and live out their conscience.

And this makes it very easy for elites: By then using a combination of our existing fear, indoctrination (via the education system, corporate media and religion) and intimidation (via the police, legal and prison systems), sometimes sweetened with a few toys and trinkets, national elites maintain social control and maximize corporate profits by coercing the rest of us to waste our lives doing meaningless work, in denial of our Selfhood, in the corporate-controlled economy.

As I implied above, however, we need not be content with just working to end violence against children. We can also work to end all other manifestations of violence – including violence against women, indigenous peoples, people of color, Islamic and working class people, and violence against the Earth – but recognize that if we tackle this violence without simultaneously tackling violence at its source, we fundamentally undermine our effort to tackle these other manifestations of violence too.

Moreover, tackling structural violence (such as capitalism) by using direct violence cannot work either. Because violence always feeds off fear it will always proliferate and remanifest, whether as direct, structural, cultural or ecological violence, however beneficial any short-term outcome may appear.

Importantly then, apart from understanding and addressing the fundamental cause of this crisis, we must implement a comprehensive strategy that takes into account and addresses each and every component of it. There is no point working to achieve a single objective that might address one problem no matter how important that particular problem might be. The crisis is too far advanced to settle for piecemeal action.

Hence, if you wish to tackle all of this violence simultaneously, you might consider joining those participating in the comprehensive strategy simply explained in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’. If you wish to tackle violence in a particular context, direct, structural or otherwise, consider using the strategic approach outlined in Nonviolent Campaign Strategy or Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

And if you would like to publicly commit yourself to participate in the effort to end all human violence, you can do so by signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

Killing the biosphere is the most effective way to destroy life on Earth because it destroys the ecological foundation – the vast array of incredibly diverse and interrelated habitats – on which organisms depend for their survival. And we are now very good at this killing which is why averting human extinction is already going to be extraordinarily difficult.

Hence, unless and until you make a conscious personal decision to participate strategically in the struggle to save life on Earth, you will be one of those individuals who kills the biosphere as a byproduct of living without awareness and commitment: A person who simply over-consumes their way to extinction.

So next time you ponder the fate of humanity, which is inextricably tied to the fate of the Earth, it might be worth considering the unparalleled beauty of what Earth has generated. See, for example, ‘Two White Giraffes Seen in Kenyan Conservation Area’.

And as you do this, ask yourself how hard you are willing to fight to save life on Earth.

Biodata: Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is here.