President Donald Trump on July 4 signed into law an omnibus reconciliation bill, branded in MAGA propaganda (and much of corporate media) as the “Big Beautiful Bill.” The legislation scraped up just enough votes to narrowly pass in both chambers of the Republican-controlled Congress, with 51 to 50 votes in the Senate and 218 to 214 in the House.

The focal point of the bill is a $4.5 trillion tax cut, partly paid for by unprecedented slashes in funding for healthcare and food assistance. The wealthiest 10% will gain $12,000 a year from the legislation, while it will cost the lowest-earning 10% of families $1,600 annually. Media addressed the fiscal aspects of the bill, though more often through a fixation on the federal debt rather than looking at the effect of the budget on inequality (FAIR.org, 7/17/25).

But it’s not just a question of money. Many of the bill’s key provisions—including Medicaid, SNAP and clean energy cuts, as well as handouts to the fossil fuel, military and detention industries—will be literally deadly for people in the US and abroad, in both the near and long term.

FAIR’s Belén Fernandez (7/9/25) closely examined the dramatic lack of coverage of the vast expansion of the government’s anti-immigrant capacities. But the deadly consequences of the other aspects of the bill were also remarkably underexplained to the public.

To see how major media explained the contents and consequences of the reconciliation bill to the public before its enactment, FAIR surveyed New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and NPR news coverage from the Senate’s passage of the final version of the bill on July 1 through July 4, the day Trump signed the bill into law. This time frame, when the actual contents of the bill were known and the House was deliberating on giving it an up or down vote, was arguably the moment when media attention was most critical to the democratic process.

‘We all are going to die’

This USA Today article (7/1/25) was one of the more informative in detailing the impact of the bill, but it still fell short of detailing the projected cost in human lives.

While corporate media reported that the finalized bill with the Senate’s revisions would significantly cut healthcare funding to subsidize the tax breaks, they rarely explained the social consequences of such cuts. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill will reduce $1.04 trillion in funding for Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and the Children’s Health Insurance Program over the next decade. This will strip health insurance from 11.8 million people.

The New York Times (7/1/25), acknowledging these statistics, quoted Democrats who opposed the bill due to “the harmful impact it will have on Medicaid,” and who noted that people will soon “see the damage that is done as hospitals close, as people are laid off, as costs go up, as the debt increases.”

But the outlets in our sample, at this crucial time of heightened attention, failed to mention the most significant consequence of cutting Medicaid: death.

These outlets (New York Times, 5/30/25; NPR, 5/31/25; CNN, 5/31/25;  Washington Post, 6/1/25) had all earlier acknowledged what the Times called Sen. Joni Ernst’s (R-IA) “morbid” response to her constituents’ concerns about deaths from Medicaid cuts: “Well, we all are going to die.”

But as the House deliberated on whether these cuts would become law, these outlets failed to reference credible research that projected that the large-scale loss of health insurance envisioned by the bill would have an annual death toll in the tens of thousands. One USA Today piece (7/1/25) did headline that “Trump’s Tax Bill Could Cut Medicaid for Millions of Americans,” but didn’t spell out the potential cost in human lives.

Before the Senate’s revisions, researchers from Yale’s School of Public Health and UPenn’s Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (Penn LDI, 6/3/25) projected that such massive cuts to healthcare would result in 51,000 deaths annually. That number is expected to be even higher now, as the calculation was based on an earlier CBO estimate of 7.7 million people losing coverage over the next decade (CBO, 5/11/25).

‘Harms to healthcare’—not to people

CNN (7/4/25) euphemized life-threatening withdrawal of care as “harm to the healthcare system.”

CNN (7/4/25), in a piece on “Who Stands to Gain From the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill.’ And Who May Struggle,” similarly failed to spell out the dire consequences of the Medicaid cuts. It wrote that low-income Americans would be “worse off” thanks to those cuts, yet it extensively described only the fiscal impacts, as opposed to the costs in life and health, on lower- and middle-class families.

Hospitals would also be “worse off” due to the bill, as it would “leave them with more uncompensated care costs for treating uninsured patients.” This rhetorically rendered the patient, made uninsured by legislation, a burden.

The article quoted American Hospital Association CEO Rick Pollack, who said that

the real-life consequences…will result in irreparable harm to our healthcare system, reducing access to care for all Americans and severely undermining the ability of hospitals and health systems to care for our most vulnerable patients.

But CNN refused to spell out to readers what that “harm to the healthcare system” would mean: beyond “reducing access,” it would cause people to die preventable deaths.

Outlets often seemed more concerned with the impact of the bill on lawmakers’ political survival than its impact on their low-income constituents’ actual survival. The Washington Post (7/4/25), though acknowledging that their poll revealed that “two-thirds [of Americans] said they had heard either little or nothing about [the bill],” made little or no effort to contribute to an informed public. Instead, it focused on analyzing the “Six Ways Trump’s Tax Bill Could Shape the Battle for Control of Congress.”

The New York Times (7/1/25) similarly observed that the Senate Republicans’ “hard-fought legislative win came at considerable risk to their party’s political futures and fiscal legacy.” In another article (7/1/25), they noticed that it was the “more moderate and politically vulnerable Republicans” who “repeated their opposition to [the bill’s] cuts to Medicaid.”

‘Winners and losers’

“Opponents of the bill say the proposed cuts will leave millions of adults and children hungry”; the New York Times (7/1/25) apparently doesn’t know whether that’s true or not.

The Medicaid cuts aren’t the only part of the bill that will result in unnecessary deaths. The bill will cut $186 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a program that helps low-income individuals and families buy food. CBO (5/22/25) estimated that 3.2 million people under the age of 65 will lose food assistance. This contraction is expected to be even more deadly than the healthcare cutbacks: The same researchers from UPenn (7/2/25), along with NYU Langone Health, projected that losing SNAP benefits will result in 93,000 premature deaths between now and 2039.

SNAP cuts were mostly only mentioned alongside Medicaid, if at all (Washington Post, 7/3/25; New York Times, 7/3/25; CNN, 7/4/25). And when they did decide to dedicate a whole article to the singular provision, they rarely ventured beyond the fiscal impacts of such cuts into real, tangible consequences, such as food insecurity, hunger and death. The New York Times (7/1/25) asked “how many people will be affected,” but didn’t bother to ask “how will people be affected?”

What’s more, according to the Center for American Progress (7/7/25), the bill’s repeal of incentives for energy efficiency and improved air quality “will likely lead to 430 avoidable deaths every year by 2030 and 930 by 2035.”

The New York Times (7/3/25), however, analyzed this outcome as a changing landscape with “energy winners and losers.” It described how the bill will eliminate tax credits that have encouraged the electrification of homes and alleviated energy costs for millions of families. Somehow, the “loser” here (and all throughout the article) is the abstract concept of “energy efficiency” and private companies, not actual US families.

Another little-discussed provision in the bill is the funding for the Golden Dome, an anti-missile system named for and modeled on Israel’s Iron Dome. The bill set aside $25 billion for its development, along with another $128 billion for military initiatives like expanding the naval fleet and nuclear arsenal.

Media, though, did little more than report these numbers, when they weren’t ignored entirely (CBS, 7/4/25; CNN, 7/4/25). The New York Times (7/1/25) characterized these measures to strengthen the military/industrial complex as “the least controversial in the legislative package”; they were “meant to entice Republicans to vote for it.” In utterly failing to challenge $153 billion in spending on a military that is currently being deployed to bomb other countries in wars of aggression and to suppress protests against authoritarianism at home, the media manufacture consent for militarism as a necessity and an inevitability.

Ignorance a journalistic fail

The Washington Post’s headline and article (7/3/25) perfectly exemplified the paradox with today’s media—calling out how “The Big Problem With Trump’s Bill [Is That] Many Voters Don’t Know What’s in It.” Yet it tosses in an unsubstantial explanation about how “it deals with tax policy, border security, restocking the military/industrial complex, slashing spending on health and food programs for the poor—as well as many, many other programs.”

By reducing sweeping legislative consequences to vague generalities and by positioning ignorance as a voter issue rather than journalistic failure, media outlets maintain a veneer of critique while sidestepping accountability.

Featured image: PBS  depiction (7/30/25) of President Donald Trump signing the reconciliation bill. (photo: Alex Brandon/Pool via Reuters.)

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Shirlynn Chan.

Below is a statement by Gretchen Goldman, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“Thanks to this bill, millions of people will lose access to federal safety net programs, like food assistance and health care, to fund tax cuts that benefit the ultra-wealthy. The bill also trades the health and well-being of people across the country for the profits of oil, gas and coal companies. Our country will be paying the price for these reckless policies for decades to come.

“In passing this bill, lawmakers repeatedly overrode the needs and interests of their constituents. When benefits are lost, when energy prices spike, when major clean energy and clean transportation investments are canceled, when jobs are cut, when climate-exacerbated extreme weather disasters hit, people should know who they have to thank.

“This bill is a damning indictment of Congress' priorities and values. Our country needs policymakers willing to confront the challenges of our time and fight for a better tomorrow, not sell out America for the benefit of a few.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

“This bill will raise costs for consumers and folks in need, while destroying American innovation and lowering taxes for the already super rich,” said David Watkins, director of government affairs for the Climate and Energy Program at UCS. “Not only is this bill shockingly cruel in the depth of cuts it would impose, it shows the majority and president are totally cut off from reality. In their fantasy world, people deserve to fall through the massive holes cut in the U.S. social safety net, consumers should pay more for energy and transportation to support the oil and gas industries, and billionaires deserve lower taxes. In addition, Congress went out of its way to create a loophole by which the administration can target nonprofits the president doesn't like without due process—stunning and shameful.”

Below is information about the sections of the bill UCS analysts are following.

Energy sections of the bill, including those that would:

o Undermining the clean electricity tax credits threatens to send electricity prices soaring, severely slowing the deployment of the lowest-cost sources of electricity generation right as demand is expected to surge.

o Shifting eligibility to “placed in service” would further accelerate the credit phaseout and threaten to fully derail future projects.

Clean transportation sections of the bill, including those that would:

o While drivers can save hundreds of dollars a year in reduced fuel and maintenance costs by switching to electric, the upfront cost of electric cars and trucks can be a hurdle, which is why the tax credits were targeted to increase everyone’s accessibility to EVs.

o Lack of access to charging stations is cited as one of the most common barriers for drivers interested in switching to electric. Repealing this credit would only benefits the oil industry, at the expense of suppliers manufacturing the charging infrastructure, union workers installing and maintaining the chargers, and drivers and fleet operators looking to save money and clean the air by switching to electric.

o Eliminating the global warming pollution rules would increase fuel and maintenance costs for new vehicles by $6,000 over the life of the vehicles; rolling back the commonsense CAFE standards would increase fuel costs by $23 billion through 2050.

o The vehicles, vessels, and equipment that move freight create hot spots of some of the worst air quality in the country and contribute significantly to climate change. There is no safe level of soot to breathe, and despite making up a small fraction of vehicles on the road, heavy duty vehicles are disproportionately responsible for global warming emissions, soot and smog-forming pollution.

SNAP and ag sections of the bill, including the plan to:

Defense sections of the bill that would:

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

UltraViolet, along with over 300 national organizations including the ACLU, the National Women’s Law Center, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Women’s March, and Reproductive Freedom for All, publicly opposed HR 9495 when it was introduced in 2024 and again in 2025.

In reaction to the announcement, Nicole Regalado, Vice President of Campaigns at UltraViolet, a leading national gender justice organization which has been fighting to preserve the work of gender justice, issued the following statement:

“HR 9495 threatens to create a chilling effect on advocacy groups nationwide, arming the Trump administration with a tool to go after its political opponents. The bill would give the Trump administration the power to suppress free speech, silence dissent, and target a range of nonprofits, from civil rights groups to humanitarian aid foundations for any justification—with virtually no recourse or due process.

“Without the freedom to voice dissent and organize, the administration’s attacks on women will only get worse. Already, the Trump administration has gutted critical women’s health research, undermined federal protections that ensure women can access capital and credit, while continuing to criminalize pregnancy and reproductive healthcare. Make no mistake: this is about silencing our voices and the voices of advocacy groups fighting these attacks.

“Not one Democrat should vote for this immoral reconciliation package. Voting yes on this bill would give a fascist administration more power to hurt women, gender expansive people, LGBTQ+ people—all of our communities.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

The sprawling proposal, released in the dead of night, includes dozens of provisions that would benefit the oil and gas industry and other corporations, at the expense of American families.

A markup of the draft legislative text is scheduled for May 6.

In response, Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program, released the following statement:

“This proposal is a corporate polluter’s wishlist. The only way it could be friendlier to Big Oil CEOs would be if they wrote it themselves. Let’s be clear, this proposal is a means to an end. The end is tax cuts for billionaires, and the means are selling off the public lands that belong to the American people. These provisions enable drilling and mining as quickly, lucratively, and free from public scrutiny as possible, even allowing the fossil fuel industry to buy their way out of judicial oversight. It’s a giveaway to industry, and Americans should not stand for it.”

Among the draft proposals are:

• Handing over our public lands to corporate polluters:
  • Mandating oil and gas lease sales in the Arctic Refuge
  • Ending protections for the pristine Boundary Waters watershed
  • Reinstating canceled leases for the proposed Twin Metals mine
• Expanded drilling on public lands:
  • Requiring at least four lease sales per year for oil and gas drilling in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, along with any other state with “available land” under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA).
  • Forbidding the Bureau of Land Management from adding new stipulations or mitigation measures to leases – only those from applicable land use plans
  • Reauthorizing noncompetitive leasing
• Rolling back common-sense fiscal reforms that hold the fossil fuel industry accountable to pay their fair share:
  • Reinstating a 12.5% royalty rate, which was first put in place more than 100 years ago from current level of 16.67%
  • Authorizing royalty reductions for noncompetitive and reinstated leases “due to uneconomic or other circumstances”
• Gutting bedrock environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
  • If project sponsors pay a fee (equal to 125% of estimated costs of preparing NEPA document), environmental assessments must be finalized within six months and environmental impact statements within one year –
  • Prohibiting judicial review for any sponsored EAs/EISs
• Fast-tracking drilling permits:
  • Extending Application for Permit to Drill (APD) terms to 4 years (from 3 years under current federal rules)
  • Requiring regulations within two years establishing “permit-by-rule” – operators may certify compliance with the regulations and begin drilling within 45 days
  • Forgoing federal permits, bonds or mitigation measures for drilling on certain non-federal lands overlying federal oil and gas resources
• Scrapping Resource Management Plans (RMPs):
  • Prohibiting the implementation of the Rock Springs, Miles City, Buffalo, North Dakota and Colorado River Valley/Grand Junction resource management plans

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

“This bill would be devastating for American wildlife and the habitats they depend on,” said Robert Dewey, vice president of government relations at Defenders. “It puts a bullseye on already imperiled polar bears, whales and hundreds of other species that depend on the integrity of federal lands and waters for their survival. Congress shouldn't be handing over these vital and cherished wildlife habitats on public lands to oil and other extractive companies for bigger profits.”

Among other harmful provisions, the proposed text will:

• Circumvent the National Environmental Policy Act by allowing pay-to-play permitting, expediting environmental reviews and barring administrative or judicial review for projects by companies that pay an additional fee.
• Require no fewer than four mandated lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge in not less than 10 years.
• Amend the purpose of the National Petroleum Reserve Production Act to mandate an oil and gas leasing program in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska.
• Increase timber production by requiring annual issuance of 20-year contracts in each region for the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
• Require quarterly lease sales of onshore oil and gas in any state with available land, including Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Nevada, and Alaska.
• Require no fewer than 30 offshore lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico in a 15-year period.
• Require no fewer than six lease sales in Cook Inlet, Alaska over a 10-year period.
• Allow the Secretary of the Interior to waive any requirement under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act that the Secretary determines would delay issuance of a lease under a lease sale.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

We go to Damascus for an update on the state of affairs in Syria after the surprise collapse of the long-reigning Assad regime, with BBC Middle East correspondent Lina Sinjab. She is reporting in Syria for the first time in over a decade, after she was forced to flee the country in 2013. She relays the “sense of freedom and joy” now present on the streets of Damascus, where ordinary Syrians, for the first time in generations, “feel that they are liberated and they are proud of where they are today.” Current estimates put the number of forced disappearances under the Assad government at 300,000 likely tortured in prisons and buried in mass graves. We discuss Syria’s new transitional government, led by the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and whether it can fulfill its promises of inclusion and accountability for all Syrians. “There’s no way for peace and stability to happen in Syria without a prosecution, without a legal system that will hold those who have blood on their hands accountable, for the sake of reconciliation in the country,” says Sinjab.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

“It is outrageous that President Adama Barrow praised his country’s press freedom record at the UN General Assembly on the day journalists Musa Sekou Sheriff and Momodou Justice Darboe were detained and later charged with ‘false news’ over their reporting on his chosen successor and exit plan ahead of the 2026 presidential election,” said Angela Quintal, head of CPJ’s Africa Program, in New York. “The charges must be dropped immediately, and the Gambia’s false news law must be repealed to ensure that journalism is not criminalized as it was under former dictator Yahya Jammeh.”

Authorities arrested Sheriff and Darboe at police headquarters on September 26 in the capital city of Banjul when they arrived for questioning a day after they received a letter from the president’s lawyer threatening a civil defamation lawsuit  . The letter, reviewed by CPJ, demanded that the newspaper apologize and retract an article alleging the president was working on an exit plan and had chosen a successor for the 2026 presidential election. 

Darboe was detained and charged with false publication and broadcasting, released September 28 on 25,000 dalasi (US$357) bail. Sheriff was released then detained again on September 30, charged with false publication and broadcasting before being released on bail with a bond of 50,000 dalasi (US$714).  

If convicted, the journalists face up to a year in prison and a fine of not less than 50,000 Dalasi (US$714) and not exceeding 250,000 Dalasi (US$3,597).

Barrow’s lawyer, Ida Drameh, national police spokesperson Modou Musa Sisawo, and Justice Minister and Attorney-General Dawda A. Jallow did not return requests for comment sent via WhatsApp.

Barrow’s press director Amie Bojang-Sissoho acknowledged CPJ’s request for comment but had yet to reply at the time of publication.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Today is the 24th anniversary of renegade and failed businessman George Speight’s coup in 2000 Fiji. The elected coalition government headed by Mahendra Chaudhry, the first and only Indo-Fijian prime minister of Fiji, was held hostage at gunpoint for 56 days in the country’s new Parliament by Speight’s rebel gunmen in a putsch that shook the Pacific and the world.

Emerging recently from almost 24 years in prison, former investigative journalist and publisher Josefa Nata — Speight’s “media minder” — is now convinced that the takeover of Fiji’s Parliament on 19 May 2000 was not justified.

He believes that all it did was let the “genie of racism” out of the bottle.

• READ MORE: Coup coup land: the press and the putsch in Fiji – David Robie
• FIJI: I was just PR consultant — Joe Nata
• USP 2000 coup student journalism archive

He spoke to Islands Business Fiji correspondent, Joe Yaya on his journey back from the dark.

The Fiji government kept you in jail for 24 years [for your media role in the coup]. That’s a very long time. Are you bitter?

I heard someone saying in Parliament that “life is life”, but they have been releasing other lifers. Ten years was conventionally considered the term of a life sentence. That was the State’s position in our sentencing. The military government extended it to 12 years. I believe it was out of malice, spitefulness and cruelty — no other reason. But to dwell in the past is counterproductive.

If there’s anyone who should be bitter, it should be me. I was released [from prison] in 2013 but was taken back in after two months, ostensibly to normalise my release papers. That government did not release me. I stayed in prison for another 10 years.

To be bitter is to allow those who hurt you to live rent free in your mind. They have moved on, probably still rejoicing in that we have suffered that long. I have forgiven them, so move on I must.

Time is not on my side. I have set myself a timeline and a to-do list for the next five years.

What are some of those things?

Since I came out, I have been busy laying the groundwork for a community rehabilitation project for ex-offenders, released prisoners, street kids and at-risk people in the law-and-order space. We are in the process of securing a piece of land, around 40 ha to set up a rehabilitation farm. A half-way house of a sort.

You can’t have it in the city. It would be like having the cat to watch over the fish. There is too much temptation. These are vulnerable people who will just relapse. They’re put in an environment where they are shielded from the lures of the world and be guided to be productive and contributing members of society.

It will be for a period of up to six months; in exceptional cases, 12 months where they will learn living off the land. With largely little education, the best opportunity for these people, and only real hope, is in the land.

Most of these at-risk people are [indigenous] Fijians. Although all native land are held by the mataqali, each family has a patch which is the “kanakana”. We will equip them and settle them in their villages. We will liaise with the family and the village.

Apart from farming, these young men and women will be taught basic life skills, social skills, savings, budgeting. When we settle them in the villages and communities, we will also use the opportunity to create the awareness that crime does not pay, that there is a better life than crime and prison, and that prison is a waste of a potentially productive life.

Are you comfortable with talking about how exactly you got involved with Speight?

The bulk of it will come out in the book that I’m working on, but it was not planned. It was something that happened on the day.

You said that when they saw you, they roped you in?

Yes. But there were communications with me the night prior. I basically said, “piss off”.

So then, what made you go to Parliament eventually? Curiosity?

No. I got a call from Parliament. You see, we were part of the government coalition at that time. We were part of the Fijian Association Party (led by the late Adi Kuini Speed). The Fiji Labour Party was our main coalition partner, and then there was the Christian Alliance. And you may recall or maybe not, there was a split in the Fijian Association [Party] and there were two factions. I was in the faction that thought that we should not go into coalition.

There was an ideological reason for the split [because the party had campaigned on behalf of iTaukei voters] but then again, there were some members who came with us only because they were not given seats in Cabinet.

Because your voters had given you a certain mandate?

Well, we were campaigning on the [indigenous] Fijian manifesto and to go into the [coalition] complicated things. Mine was more a principled position because we were a [indigenous] Fijian party and all those people went in on [indigenous] Fijian votes. And then, here we are, going into [a coalition with the Fiji Labour Party] and people probably
accused us of being opportunists.

But the Christian Alliance was a coalition partner with Labour before they went into the election in the same way that the People’s Alliance and National Federation Party were coalition partners before they got into [government], whereas with us, it was more like SODELPA (Social Democratic Liberal Party).

So, did you feel that the rights of indigenous Fijians were under threat from the Coalition government of then Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry?

Perhaps if Chaudhry was allowed to carry on, it could have been good for [indigenous] Fijians. I remember the late President and Tui Nayau [Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara] . . .  in a few conversations I had with him, he said it [Labour Party] should be allowed to . . . [carry on].

Did you think at that time that the news media gave Chaudhry enough space for him to address the fears of the iTaukei people about what he was trying to do, especially for example, through the Land Use Commission?

I think the Fijians saw what he was doing and that probably exacerbated or heightened the concerns of [indigenous] Fijians and if you remember, he gave Indian cane farmers certain financial privileges.

The F$10,000 grants to move from Labasa, when the ALTA (Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Act) leases expired. Are you talking about that?

I can’t remember the exact details of the financial assistance but when they [Labour Party] were questioned, they said, “No, there were some Fijian farmers too”. There were also iTaukei farmers but if you read in between the lines, there were like 50 Indian farmers and one Fijian farmer.

Was there enough media coverage for the rural population to understand that it was not a one-sided ethnic policy?

Because there were also iTaukei farmers involved. Yes, and I think when you try and pull the wool over other people, that’s when they feel that they have been hoodwinked. But going back to your question of whether Chaudhry was given fair media coverage, I was no longer in the mainstream media at that time. I had moved on.

But the politicians have their views and they’ll feel that they have been done badly by the media. But that’s democracy. That’s the way things worked out.

Pacific journalism educator, David Robie, in a paper in 2001, made some observations about the way the local media reported the Speight takeover. He said, “In the early weeks of the insurrection, the media enjoyed an unusually close relationship with Speight and the hostage takers.”

He went on to say that at times, there was “strong sympathy among some journalists for the cause, even among senior editorial executives”.

David Robie is an incisive and perceptive old-school journalist who has a proper understanding of issues and I do not take issue with his opinion. And I think there is some validity. But you see, I was on the other [Speight’s] side. And it was part of my job at that time to swing that perception from the media.

Did you identify with “the cause” and did you think it was legitimate?

Let me tell you in hindsight, that the coup was not justified
and that is after a lot of reflection. It was not justified and
could never be justified.

When did you come to that conclusion?

It was after the period in Parliament and after things were resolved and then Parliament was vacated, I took a drive around town and I saw the devastation in Suva. This was a couple of months later. I didn’t realise the extent of the damage and I remember telling myself, “Oh my god, what have we done? What have we done?”

And I realised that we probably have let the genie out of the bottle and it scared me [that] it only takes a small thing like this to unleash this pentup emotion that is in the people. Of course, a lot of looting was [by] opportunists because at that time, the people who
were supporting the cause were all in Parliament. They had all marched to Parliament.

So, who did the looting in town? I’m not excusing that. I’m just trying to put some perspective. And of course, we saw pictures, which was really, very sad . . .  of mothers, women, carrying trolleys [of loot] up the hill, past the [Colonial War Memorial] hospital.

So, what was Speight’s primary motivation?

Well, George will, I’m sure, have the opportunity at some point to tell the world what his position was. But he was never the main player. He was ditched with the baby on his laps.

So, there were people So, there were people behind him. He was the man of the moment. He was the one facing the cameras.

Given your education, training, experience in journalism, what kind of lens were you viewing this whole thing from?

Well, let’s put it this way. I got a call from Parliament. I said, “No, I’m not coming down.” And then they called again.

Basically, they did not know where they were going. I think what was supposed to have happened didn’t happen. So, I got another call, I got about three or four calls, maybe five. And then eventually, after two o’clock I went down to Parliament, because the person who called was a friend of mine and somebody who had shared our fortunes and misfortunes.

So, did you get swept away? What was going on inside your head?

I joined because at that point, I realised that these people needed help. I was not so much as for the cause, although there was this thing about what Chaudhry was doing. I also took that into account. But primarily because the call came [and] so I went.

And when I was finally called into the meeting, I walked in and I saw faces that I’d never seen before. And I started asking the questions, “Have you done this? Have you done that?”

And as I asked the questions, I was also suggesting solutions and then I just got dragged into it. The more I asked questions, the more I found out how much things were in disarray.

I just thought I’d do my bit [because] they were people who had taken over Parliament and they did not know where to go from there.

But you were driven by some nationalistic sentiments?

I am a [indigenous] Fijian. And everything that goes with that. I’m not infallible. But then again, I do not want to blow that trumpet.

Did the group see themselves as freedom fighters of some sort when you went into prison?

I’m not a freedom fighter. If they want to be called freedom fighters, that’s for them and I think some of them even portrayed themselves [that way]. But not me. I’m just an idiot who got sidetracked.

This personal journey that you’ve embarked on, what brought that about?

When I was in prison, I thought about this a lot. Because for me to come out of the bad place I was in — not physically, that I was in prison, but where my mind was — was to first accept the situation I was in and take responsibility. That’s when the healing started to take place.

And then I thought that I should write to people that I’ve hurt. I wrote about 200 letters from prison to anybody I thought I had hurt or harmed or betrayed. Groups, individuals, institutions, and families. I was surprised at the magnanimity of the people who received my letters.

I do not know where they all are now. I just sent it out. I was touched by a lot of the responses and I got a letter from the late [historian] Dr Brij Lal. l was so encouraged and I was so emotional when I read the letter. [It was] a very short letter and the kindness in the man to say that, “We will continue to talk when you come out of prison.”

There were also the mockers, the detractors, certain persons who said unkind things that, you know, “He’s been in prison and all of a sudden, he’s . . . “. That’s fine, I accepted all that as part of the package. You take the bad with the good.

I wrote to Mr Chaudhry and I had the opportunity to apologise to him personally when he came to visit in prison. And I want to continue this dialogue with Mr Chaudhry if he would like to.

Because if anything, I am among the reasons Fiji is in this current state of distrust and toxic political environment. If I can assist in bringing the nation together, it would be part of my atonement for my errors. For I have been an unprofitable, misguided individual who would like to do what I believe is my duty to put things right.

And I would work with anyone in the political spectrum, the communal leaders, the vanua and the faith organisations to bring that about.

I also did my traditional apology to my chiefly household of Vatuwaqa and the people of the vanua of Lau. I had invited the Lau Provincial Council to have its meeting at the Corrections Academy in Naboro. By that time, the arrangements had been confirmed for the Police Academy.

But the Roko gave us the farewell church service. I got my dear late sister, Pijila to organise the family. I presented the matanigasau to the then-Council Chairman, Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba (Roko Ului). It was a special moment, in front of all the delegates to the council meeting, the chiefly clan of the Vuanirewa, and Lauans who filled the two buses and
countless vehicles that made it to Naboro.

Our matanivanua (herald) was to make the tabua presentation. But I took it off him because I wanted Roko Ului and the people of Lau to hear my remorse from my mouth. It was very, very emotional. Very liberating. Cathartic.

Late last year, the Coalition government passed a motion in Parliament for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Do you support that?

Oh yes, I think everything I’ve been saying so far points that way.

Do you think it’ll help those that are still incarcerated to come out and speak about what happened in 2000?

Well, not only that but the important thing is [addressing] the general [racial] divide. If that’s where we should start, then we should start there. That’s how I’m looking at it — the bigger picture.

It’s not trying to manage the problems or issues of the last 24 years. People are still hurting from [the coups of] 1987. And what happened in 2006 — nothing has divided this country so much. Anybody who’s thought about this would want this to go beyond just solving the problem of 2000, excusing, and accusing and after that, there’s forgiveness and pardon.

That’s a small part. That too if it needs to happen. But after all that, I don’t want anybody to go to prison because of their participation or involvement in anything from 1987 to 2000. If they cooked the books later, while they were in government, then that’s a different
matter.

But I saw on TV, the weeping and the very public expression of pain of [the late, former Prime Minister, Laisenia] Qarase’s grandchildren when he was convicted and taken away [to prison]. It brought tears to my eyes. There is always a lump in my throat at the memory of my Heilala’s (elder of two daughters) last visit to [me in] Nukulau.

Hardly a word was spoken as we held each other, sobbing uncontrollably the whole time, except to say that Tiara (his sister) was not allowed by the officers at the naval base to come to say her goodbye.

That was very painful. I remember thinking that people can be cruel, especially when the girls explained that it was to be their last visit. Then the picture in my mind of Heilala sitting alone under the turret of the navy ship as she tried not to look back. I had asked her not to look back.

I deserved what I got. But not them. I would not wish the same things I went through on anyone else, not even those who were malicious towards me.

It is the family that suffers. The family are always the silent victims. It is the family that stands by you. They may not agree with what you did. Perhaps it is among the great gifts of God, that children forgive parents and love them still despite the betrayal, abandonment, and pain.

For I betrayed the two women I love most in the world. I betrayed ‘Ulukalala [son] who was born the same year I went to prison. I betrayed and brought shame to my family and my village of Waciwaci. I betrayed friends of all ethnicities and those who helped me in my chosen profession and later, in business.

I betrayed the people of Fiji. That betrayal was officially confirmed when the court judgment called me a traitor. I accepted that portrayal and have to live with it. The judges — at least one of them — even opined that I masterminded the whole thing. I have to decline that dubious honour. That belongs elsewhere.

This article by Joe Yaya is republished from last month’s Islands Business magazine cover story with the permission of editor Richard Naidu and Yaya. The photographs are from a 2000 edition of the Commonwealth Press Union’s Global Journalist magazine dedicated to the reporting of The University of the South Pacific’s student journalists. Joe Yaya was a member of the USP team at the time. The archive of the award-winning USP student coverage of the coup is here.   

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

What is happening to us in Fiji?

How did we get to this stage?

The brutal attack and senseless death of [35-year-old carpenter] Apakuki Tavodi in [a roadside stabbing] in Saweni, Lautoka, is a shocking reminder about how fragile life can be.

• READ MORE: Farmer questioned and released in relation to Saweni stabbing
• Fiji police investigate ambush attack
• Maqalevu drug bust – tests confirm white substances to be methamphetamine
• The Fiji Times: Drug bust a chilling wake-up call for Fiji

It is a reminder as well about the importance of life, and questions how much value we place on that.

Let’s face it.

There is grief, and there is bound to be fear in the community.

We must stand united in shock and sorrow as we mourn the loss of a young life.

As we grapple with the nature of this act, and the death of someone in this fashion, we must all demand for justice and action.

The brutality displayed cannot be ignored. Is this what is lurking beneath the face that we have of society?

We must not allow ourselves to become numb to such acts.

This young man’s life mattered to those who knew him, and those who loved him, and there has to be a thorough and swift investigation that brings those responsible to justice.

In saying that, we must also ask ourselves the difficult questions: how did we get here?

What factors have contributed to the erosion of safety and respect for human life in our community?

The answers may be complex, but they cannot be avoided.

Should we see this tragedy as an isolated incident?

Or do we consider it a symptom of a deeper malaise that needs to be addressed.

Let’s not wait for the police to act and try to solve this case. Let’s not sit back and hope that nothing like it happens again.

Let’s unite and talk about this.

Let’s talk about peace and reconciliation and work together for a society where violence is unacceptable.

It may not be easy, but it must be done, for everyone’s sake.

It must be done for the peace and security, and for our country.

That will need us to stand up for what is right.

There must be trust and confidence in the law, and those tasked to uphold them.

There must be hope in our systems, and processes, and we need confidence in the long arm of the law being there for everyone irrespective of who they are in society.

Let’s see this death as a wake-up call.

Let’s see it as a reminder for us that we cannot take our safety or our sense of community for granted.

We must work together to build a future that places peace and security on a very high plane.

As a community, we can choose to heal, to unite, and to build a society where violence is not an option.

This editorial was published in The Sunday Times under the title “Call for action” today, 21 January 2024.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Fiji’s Parliament has passed a motion for the coalition government to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission “to facilitate open and free engagement in truth telling” to resolve racial differences and concerns in the country.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka had announced in December 2022 after forming a coalition that the setting up of such a body “to heal the pains and scars left by the events of the 1987, 2000 and 2006 coups” was one of its top priorities.

On Wednesday, 28 MPs voted for the motion, 23 voted against while four did not vote.

• READ MORE: Threat of another coup still ‘one of biggest dangers’ for Fiji, says Ratuva
• Other Fiji coup culture reports

While tabling the motion in the Parliament, Fiji’s Assistant Minister for Women Sashi Kiran said people were still hurting from “political upheavals” and “many unresolved issues” from the past.

Kiran said the commission would offer “closure and healing” to individuals who were still affected by Fiji’s turbulent history.

In May, the Methodist Church of Fiji initiated a national prayer and reconciliation programme during the Girmit Day celebrations. Kiran said the participation of leaders and various faith groups at the event signalled that Fijians were ready for the healing process.

“Some may ask whether this is the time for it. Some may say we should focus on cost of living and on better public services and I understand [that],” she said.

‘Many unresolved issues’
“I know from many long years of personal engagement with our people a lot of people are hurting. There are many unresolved issues that need closure.

“Can we be a prosperous society if we live in fear and insecurity, if we do not trust our neighbours and carry wounded hearts.”

She said Fiji had been plagued by political turmoil for more than three decades with four coups.

“We are not looking deep inside ourselves to learn the lessons of the past. It is easier to look away from the painful events and perhaps pretend that they did not happen.

“But constant echoes of divide, narratives of the past remind us that there are deep rooted wounds in may hearts unable to heal.”

An emotional Rabuka said the commission would “remove the division between the two main communities that have co-existed since well before independence” in 1970.

He said the opposition did not have any reason to oppose the motion.

‘I am opening it up’
“I have, but I am opening it up. I would probably want to hide a long of things I know [but] none of you [MPs] has anything to hide so we should cooperate and work for this,” Rabuka said.

However, opposition MPs did not back the motion, saying a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would do more harm than good.

Tackle ‘deep-rooted problems’ – Naupoto
FijiFirst MP and former military commander Viliame Naupoto, in a teary intervention, said “the problem we have is the divide in our society”.

“The divide along racial lines, now there’s even a bigger divide along political lines. I think the big task we have is try and narrow the divide as much as we can and keep working on it,” Naupoto said.

“When we have the Truth and Reconciliation Commission you are opening wounds of the past. If it needs to be opened, it needs to be treated so that it can heal.”

Naupoto cautioned that political leaders needed to ensure they were not creating new wounds by opening wounds of the past.

“Equality that we strive for can be dealt with policies that unite us,” he said.

“When we see that most of the things that were put in place by the government of the past it means also that the 200,000 voters that voted for us are feeling bad . . . and so our divide widens now.

“I plead that if you want and work on that utopian dream of this country that is prosperous and peaceful and stable, we have to be tough and face the deep-rooted problems that we have.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

History unfolded live at the Vodafone Arena at Laucala Bay in Suva yesterday when the Methodist Church of Fiji and Rotuma and descendants of the Girmitya exchanged apologies and forgiveness in a solemn church service marking the fourth day of the inaugural Girmit Day celebrations.

An emotional Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, fought back tears as he sought forgiveness for the hurt and pain inflicted on Fijians of Indian origin during the colonial era and the political upheavals of 1987 and 2000.

“I am not making this confession as Prime Minister of Fiji, as I do not hold the government accountable for my actions of 1987,” he said.

• READ MORE: Other Girmitya reports

“I do not claim to be making this confession on behalf of the vanua of Navatu, I am not Tui Navatu and I am just a member of the Yavusa Navatu of Cakaudrove.

“But I make this confession on behalf of all those that took part with me in the military coup of May 14, 1987.

“We confess our wrongdoings, we confess that we have hurt so many of our people in Fiji, particularly those of our Indo-Fijian communities at that time and among them were sons and daughters of those that were indentured as labourer from India between 1879 and 1960.”

Rabuka said they had every right to be angry about what was done to them.

‘I ask for your forgiveness’
“I stand here to confess and ask for your forgiveness. I have made our confession to some who were affected by our deeds in 1987.

“To those I did not reach, I hope [this is] coming through for us here, please forgive us.

“As you forgive, you release us and you are released. You are released from hatred and from your anger and we begin to feel the peace of God coming to our beings and our lives.”

In an emotional response, former prime minister and Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry said it was a great day for the nation and worth celebrating.

It would go down well in history and everyone must build on it.

“I am deeply honoured by this gesture. Prime Minister Rabuka, I also accept your apology. In your personal capacity you apologised,” he said.

“I accept the apologies of the Turaga na Vunivalu na Tui Kaba, Marama Roko Tui Dreketi and the Tui Cakau. Thank you very much for your magnanimity.

“I think the spirit is there now, that we can all work together, may God bless Fiji.”

‘One nation of different beliefs’
Fiji Times journalist Navnesh Reddy reports that on Saturday Prime Minister Rabuka spoke at the Western Girmit Day Remembrance Celebration held at Churchill Park in Lautoka.

“Today I am wearing the Hindu salusalu and have accepted the ‘tika’ on my forehead because we are now one nation of different beliefs.

“We are now one nation of different cultures and rather than offend the young student who put that on me, I accept it because my custom now is acceptance and to co-exist harmoniously.”

Rabuka said that as the nation moved forward, there was a need to create more awareness on how Fijians could overcome their differences.

“The underlying theme of the new Girmit Day holiday is about unity and I believe we all — the descendants of the Girmitya, the indigenous people and the chiefs — [must] live in harmony and we have to lay that foundation now.

“Our children need to know that we cannot build a new future by relying on our vision and beliefs from the past.”

He also acknowledged the organisers for putting together a programme that envisaged what the Coalition government believed in.

“This morning we came together and worshipped in three different religions and heard prayers from the Pundit, Reverend, and also the Imam.

“This is a very special time for Fiji because we are now coming together as a nation to observe the first public holiday to acknowledge and honour the Girmitya of India, who came to Fiji between 1879 to 1916.”

Arieta Vakasukawaqa is a Fiji Times journalist. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Methodist Church of Fiji is seeking forgiveness from the descendants of Indian indentured labourers, or Girmitiyas, for the transgressions of the last 36 years.

The racially motivated violent coups of 1987 and 2000 and the military coup d’état of December 2006 have left a permanent scar on race relations within the country.

The 1987 and 2000 coups were supported by the church’s then-leadership.

• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: Methodist Church delivers an official apology 
• READ MORE: Other Fiji race relations reports

But in a historic move, the church is launching a 10-year campaign to heal the wounds of the past — starting with an apology to coincide with the inaugural Girmit Day celebrations next Sunday.

Reverend Ili Vunisuwai is leading the official apology at the national reconciliation service on May 14 as the head of the largest Christian denomination in Fiji.

“The time is right to launch a campaign for national reconciliation and give the people of all races a chance to confess their weaknesses,” Reverend Vunisuwai said.

“Let’s seek forgiveness from those they regard as their enemies. We strongly believe that by confession with pure hearts and humility, our transgression can be forgiven,” he said.

“As we look back, the dark days of social upheavals of coups of 1987, 2000 as well as 2006, and then, unfolding events of hatred and discrimination, which resulted in fear and uncertainties, I think there’s a lot to be done by the church to bring the two races together.”

The timing of the event has much significance as the country of under a million people marks 144 years since the arrival of the first of more than 60,000 indentured labourers or Girmitiyas as they later came to be known.

Girmitiyas were brought to Fiji between 1879 to 1916 by British colonial rulers to work in plantations across the island.

As a result of the indentured labour system, Fijians of Indian descent make up the second largest ethnic population in Fiji today — slightly over 34 percent, while the iTaukei or indigenous people comprise 62 percent.

Chair to the Girmit Celebrations, Assistant Minister for Women Sashi Kiran, is calling the apology efforts a start of a peaceful future for the nation.

‘We acknowledge the pain’
‘I’m very humbled, and I’m very, very touched at the strength of the Committee and of the leadership of the Methodist Church,” Kiran told RNZ Pacific.

“They’re willing to look at the problem in the eye and say, ‘Well, let’s talk about it. We apologise, we can’t change the past, but we are sorry for the hurt that we have caused’.”

But while Kiran accepts the apology from the church, she acknowledges that many in the Indo-Fijian community may not be ready.

“Any pain cannot be underrated,” she said. “What people went through was their pain, and it’s their journey so by no means can we judge what people are feeling or going through”

“We acknowledge the pain. We acknowledge the pain of the past,” she added.

However, she admits that events of the past cannot be undone, and the way forward is through healing.

“In the interest of healing the nation, in the interest of future generations that they born into a healed nation…we ask you to please open your hearts and open your inner feelings,” she appealed to Fijians.

“Let’s talk about it [past atrocities], and let’s work on healing and come into that space.”

She said it was also “okay” for those people who still “need time” to heal from the racial troubles, adding “at least we begin to talk about this.”

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, who has publicly apologised for his actions in 1987 repeatedly, accepts that many will still remember the dark past that made him notorious worldwide.

“The man that we did not want to know about, we shied away from his name, addressed us…and he does not bite, he’s not an angry young man,” Rabuka told the 12th World Hindi Conference in Nadi in February.

“He is just an old man who understands the feelings of the descendants of the Girmitiyas who are now his age, looking at their grandchildren and children growing up in the land they now call home.”

RNZ Pacific asked Reverend Vunisuwai why it has taken the Methodist Church of Fiji 35 years to apologise to the Indo-Fijian community?

“The current government has allowed the celebration of the Girmitiyas, and that’s probably a good time for national reconciliation regarding all the upheavals of the past 30 years or so.”

• The official Girmit week celebrations kicks off on Wednesday.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The post Reconciliation Does Not Mean Forgetting in Nicaragua appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Jill Clark-Gollub.

Wars are initiated over specific grievances, real or believed. The particulars of each case often cause a neglect of long-term and overriding factors.  During times of escalating conflicts, one is tempted both to up the level of threat and to blame the adversary's behavior as the reason why this new level is necessary. Typically, each new level of threat or act of aggression is described as a moral outrage against an incorrigible and dangerous opponent. Civilian populations are bombarded with images of the enemy and criticism of one's own increasing military build-up, and intervention is viewed as weak and giving in to a tyrant. Increasing the ante is presented as the needed path to create an enemy back down. This thesis was articulated at the height of the cold war by strategist Herman Kahn's theory of escalation dominance. Kahn described an escalation ladder in which 44 gradually increasing moves would be prepared for and enacted until the enemy got the message and gave up.

The risk of escalation toward nuclear war calls for a time to step back and consider conciliatory policies that might lead the world in a safer direction.

A report by the Rand Corporation reviewed Soviet, Western, and other national concepts of escalation (Concepts and Models of Escalation, ND). The generalized model is purportedly related to gaming or decision theory. Game theory is a mathematical theory of rational choice. The theory classifies situations according to specified properties: Are the payoffs a constant sum in which the winnings of one side add exactly to the losses of the other? Is full information available, as in chess, or is chance, or probability, involved, as in poker? Some controversial applications of the theory, culminated in Kahn's 44-Step Escalation Ladder. Steps ranged from modest critical notices to embassies through threatening military provocation, and on to the actual use of nuclear weapons targeting cities of the adversary.

During times of active military conflict, we typically witness countering narratives as to who are the responsible parties? In the current Ukraine crisis, Russia claims support for its military actions by previously occupied portions of Ukraine and blames a threat posed by the US and other NATO nations. The provision of extensive military and economic aid to Ukraine by NATO has been used to argue that we are dealing with a proxy war following a model in which the US and Soviet Union empires fought wars by assisting factions of other nations in order to buy influence and allegiance.  The clearly illegal Russian incursion in Ukraine does not preclude aspects of the conflict that justify the designation of a proxy war reflecting a long- term strategic and economic conflict. The two empires appear embarked upon steps in the escalation model. Russian steps have included armed action, bombing of infrastructures and threats of military action against NATO members. US steps have included announcements that Putin is guilty of genocide and must be replaced, providing weapons to Ukraine authorities. enacting economic sanctions against Russia, and providing logistic information used to target high ranking Russian military officers and Soviet warships. The escalation playbook is in operation.  Where will it lead?

The escalation model has been subject to serious criticism. It can be played by both parties in a conflict. It holds no assurances that the opposing party will back down despite the severity of the costs. In fact, the pain inflicted can become a rallying cry to seek retribution in the form of new steps. Actual application of the escalation model would require a formal quantitative evaluation to measure the pain associated with the particular move. Such measures, however, are highly subjective. Moreover, such assessments during times of war are likely to be wrong. Robert McNamara, US Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam war, described the "Fog of War,"—the propensity to misjudge the true effects of tactics and strategies amidst a blinding array of life and death details. This fog hid the failure of the escalation model and the need for deception to pursue a failing model of military escalation in Vietnam. That deception was detailed by an examination of The Pentagon Papers revealed by whistleblower Dan Ellsberg. A similar documentation of deception sustaining war-time escalation occurred over twenty years reported in the Afghanistan Papers.

The escalation model is not the only alternative for the conflict in Ukraine or elsewhere. An alternative, Graduated Reciprocation in Tension Reduction, (GRIT), An Alternative to War or Surrender was proposed by Charles Osgood. The model called for one party to initiate small conciliatory moves on a unilateral basis. The moves would be pre-announced. If reciprocated the magnitude of the conciliatory moves would increase, leading if successful, to a détente.

A controlled laboratory test affirmed some efficacy for the GRIT model. A partial test was made of the hypothesis that a renewed strategy of small conciliatory moves, preceded by honest prior announcements, will induce reciprocation from an adversary, even after a deadlock of distrust. The task was a version of the prisoner's dilemma extended to permit graduations in cooperative response and cast in the simulated settings of an arms race. False-feedback conditions permitted the experimenter to contrast the effects of the conciliatory strategy with another group who played against a foe with a tit for tat strategy. A control group of natural pairs was left to make their moves without experimenter intervention.  The effects showed the efficacy of conciliatory moves and honest communication of intentions against both matching strategies and natural sequences of play.

The potential danger of the escalation model applied in a conflict involving the two countries most capable of using nuclear laden ballistic missiles defies imagination. Wars frequently involve; by accident or intent, levels of destruction greater than decision-makers had conceived as possible. The combined effects of blast, firestorm, and radiation produce a destruction of people, habitat, and the possibility for recovery. The absolute horror of nuclear war contributes to a denial of the possibility. Some measure of this denial is present among the defense professionals and military suppliers whose life meanings are derived from proficiency in waging war.

The risk of escalation toward nuclear war calls for a time to step back and consider conciliatory policies that might lead the world in a safer direction. Small moves that might lesson the hostile language, promise of full international media coverage of all offers for dialogue arrange for safe passage of civilians, safe return of soldiers, promises of reductions in nuclear weapons in Europe, announcing a "no first use" policy, assuring international monetary relief to cushion the economic consequences of transition from fissile fuels or of making universal the availability of vaccines.  Initiatives call for creativity and patience. They could become steps toward building a world with better outcomes for all parties. 

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Marc Pilisuk.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Ryan Grim.