Social Items

TPQ
Gearóid Ó Loingsigh ☭ writing in Substack on 5-May-2026.

Photo: GOL: Cocaine laboratory, Catatumbo.

The drugs issue is never far from the news in Colombia, nor from political, economic, peace proposals and so forth. But there are rarely real debates on how to proceed. They are limited on the one hand to continuing with the prohibitionist model and all that it entails: prison, fumigations, military operations, the destruction of lives and a fake discourse that is used to justify counterinsurgency operations. And on the other hand there is the proposal for legalisation, which can be heard from time to time but as it has never been a central element of the debates in Colombia, it remains undeveloped.

I would like to explore some of the implications of breaking with the prohibitionist model and I would like to state beforehand that I am in favour of doing so, but it what it means and how to do it has to be discussed. I begin with a brief history of the prohibitionist paradigm, to then go on to put forward some aspects to bear in mind when we propose to bury the rotten corpse of more than a century of attempts to reduce the consumption of some, though not all drugs, through repression. This article is partly motivated by the statement from the ELN that for the second time proposes the legalisation of drugs. However, it is not a response to the ELN. What it puts forwards is for all of society and many elements dealt with have been discussed in other settings around the world, though in Colombia it is a nascent debate.

The origins of the prohibitionist paradigm

When we say we are in favour of legalising certain drugs we fall into a mistake that cannot be easily corrected in the public imagination. What we really mean is relegalising, as it was once the case that the recreational use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, cannabis and other derivatives of plants such as opium, coca and cannabis was perfectly legal. Moreover, the consumption of those drugs was more commonly associated with the monied classes. It is not for nothing that the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes was portrayed as an opium and cocaine addict.

In the USA the impetus behind the prohibitionist movement came from Christians and their campaigns against alcohol in the 19th century and the later campaigns against opium. They were moralistic campaigns against all types of stimulus, a moralistic element that never quite disappeared. Realpolitik is of greater importance nowadays, but it is frequently wrapped up in a moralist and/or religious discourse and is rarely treated as a public health problem. However, the US’s own interest was not a moral crusade against what the Christians saw as a moral degeneration of society, but rather the economic and geopolitical interests of the emerging superpower that was the USA.

The British Empire carried out, not one, but two wars against China (1839-1842 and 1856-1860) for the right of its drug traffickers to import opium from India, which was at the time a British colony comprising the modern countries of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. The US thought that promoting a prohibitionist agenda would favour them in their economic relations with China. So the first international conference was the Shanghai Conference of 1909, where the colonial powers under the auspices of the International Opium Commission met to discuss the future of the opium trade. Prior to that the US began to take internal measures against consumption such as the Pure Food Act of 1906 and then following Shanghai the Harrison Act of 1914.

After 1909 a number of international treaties on the trade in opium and other drugs were approved in the years 1912-1953, the first of them being the Hague International Opium Convention. In 1961 all these treaties were subsumed into one document, the Single Convention of 1961. As its name indicates the idea was to replace all the previously existing treaties. In the prior discussions, the prohibition of alcohol, as some Islamic countries wanted, and tobacco were discounted. The reason behind not including these two drugs had nothing to do with public health, but rather western economies made a lot of money from those two activities which they dominated. Any attempt to ban wine, beer, whiskey would have led to the negotiations failing. This point is important, as at no stage were they concerned about health as both those drugs at the time killed more people in the northern countries than any controlled substance. It continues to be the case nowadays and we can state without fear of contradiction that tobacco and alcohol kill more people in the entire world than all illegal drugs together.[1] In the USA it is calculated that around 480,000 people die from smoking per year.

So it was that the three prohibitionist conventions of the UN were passed. There are those who state that technically speaking these conventions don’t ban anything but rather regulate, and it is true, but they regulate to the point that with the exception of medicinal and scientific use there is no difference between their regulation and prohibition.

The first one is the Single Convention of 1961. This is the most relevant convention for Colombia. It prohibits various substances, such as opium and also cocaine. But, moreover the said document bans the coca plant itself and obliges states to destroy wild plants. Article 26.2 reads:

The Parties shall so far as possible enforce the uprooting of all coca bushes which grow wild. They shall destroy the coca bushes if illegally cultivated.

And Article 49.2(e) demands that “Coca leaf chewing must be abolished within twenty-five years from the coming into force of this Convention.''  Even coca tea was banned, Article 27.1 states that:

The Parties may permit the use of coca leaves for the preparation of a flavouring agent, which shall not contain any alkaloids.

No indigenous community extracts the alkaloid from the leaves they sell to make tea, nor do they have the technology to do so. However, they may be bought in many parts, but if US or European Customs finds a packet in your case it can have serious consequences, even though many tourists take the risk every year.

The second convention, that of 1972 basically regulates synthetic drugs such as LSD and pharmaceuticals and unlike the coca leaf or cocaine, the drugs covered by this convention are subject to national regulations more than anything. And lastly there is the 1988 Vienna Convention that deals with the issue of trafficking itself, the precursor chemicals and money laundering, amongst other things and obliges states to introduce national legislation to challenge trafficking, production, money laundering, possession etc. The northern countries were so concerned about the dynamics of power that it took them 27 years following the Single Convention to do something about their own role in the illegal drugs industry.

This is the international institutional set up on drugs.[2] Now when drug legalisation is being proposed, or breaking with the prohibitionist model what is being proposed is a battle with the UN institutions, the member states, particularly the most influential ones in the INCB (International Narcotics Control Board),and the CND (Commission on Narcotic Drugs such as the European countries and the USA.

There are various options. One is to unilaterally break with all of the prohibitionist institutions. It is not very feasible, it would provoke a furious reaction from not only the USA but also the European Union, the imposition of economic sanctions and even a military invasion with the eternal excuse of a war on drugs. There are economic consequences to breaking with them in this fashion, trade relations, membership of certain international institutions etc. Perhaps a group of countries breaking like this could work, but we have seen how almost all the countries in Latin America did nothing about the kidnapping of the Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro or the blockade of Cuba. We have to doubt their word. Colombia promised to resist the USA and quickly got down on its knees.

You can try to reform it from within. This option is not as easy as our social democratic friends in the NGOs would have us believe. The UN General Assembly is not going to vote for substantial changes to the treaties and the bureaucratic set up. Neither will they accept amendments. Bolivia tried to put forward an amendment on the traditional consumption of the coca leaf  18 countries objected and it had to withdraw from the treaty and sign up again with a reservation, a legally doubtful manoeuvre that has caused tensions in the system.

Uruguay legalised the production and sale of cannabis for medical and recreational purposes entering into conflict with the international treaties. It was not a simple nor easy path and it has caused some difficulties for the country, not least with its banking system. There exists home growing, cannabis clubs and sale through pharmacies. Each option is tightly regulated by the state and each citizen can obtain a maximum of 40 grams per month. Uruguay immediately ran into a problem that can happen to any country that tries to throw off the yolk of prohibitionism. The sellers of legal cannabis in places authorised by the state itself could not deposit their profits in the banking system, not even with the Bank of the Republic. They had to resort to methods akin to money laundering in order to circulate their lawfully earned money.[3] Something similar happens in various states of the USA where the recreational sale is allowed. Not even an internal legalisation is without risk, so much so that the American Bankers Association has fought for years for a change in federal banking legislation regarding the legal sale of cannabis in various states.[4] It is worth bearing in mind that what they propose is to legislate for the entry of money from the legal sale of cannabis in the USA and at no stage do they deal with the question of money coming in from banking systems outside the USA.

Public Health

Part of the proposal to legalise drugs and break with the prohibitionist paradigm is to treat it as a public health issue. Even in European countries that have not broken with prohibition many elements of the public health model are to be found, due to pressure from their own societies, medical associations and of course grassroots organisations that campaign against prohibition.

What does it mean to treat it as a public health problem?

Well, first of all we would have to release all those prisoners sentenced for non-violent drugs offences and not imprison any more people for the same offence. It is relatively simple as the treaties demand that states pursue trafficking and consumption, but do not lay down specific sentences for each crime. So a state does not have to imprison consumers, broadening the own use concept and being creative with the penalisation of each crime. But that brings a series of problems with it. If it is not a criminal matter but rather one of health, then the health system has to be up to the task. So detox centres are required, psychologists, social workers and a whole series of social supports for the drug addict who obviously can’t have access to a health system that is different to that which the rest of the population gets. In the case of Colombia, there is absolutely no chance of decriminalising or legalising drugs and treating it as a public health issue under the current system. None! A total structural reform is required in which health takes precedence over the profits of health companies i.e. a national health system. A free public high quality system for all citizens, without exceptions, with prompt attention. Sometimes in the spiel that some come out with on the issue they forget that drug addiction is not a problem of capitalism, it has always existed but the current levels are specific to capitalism and cannot be resolved with market based solutions. This can be seen in countries which have tried it out.


All of this generates economic costs, which I believe as a society we should be willing to pay, but we shouldn’t fool ourselves. There are costs to be paid. The public health proposal generates enormous expenses which require a rethinking of the health system. In fact, I don’t really believe that under capitalism that drugs can be successfully treated as a public health problem, though progress may be made on various aspects. It is worth recalling that amongst the commissioners from the Global Commission on Drugs[5] that the ELN has as an interlocutor is the former Colombian president Cesar Gaviria who privatised the health system in Colombia through Law 100 and made medical care in the country unreliable. That man is not interested in treating drug consumption as a public health problem but rather as an opportunity for private gain.

In the private health system there are companies that provide health services. Their aim is not to cure nor save lives but to generate profits. In fact, their legal duty to the shareholders is to generate the highest rate of profit possible within the legal framework of the country. And in order for a private company to be profitable the public health system must be weakened just like Cesar Gaviria and Juan Manuel Santos did. Patients in the public health system must experience greater problems in being seen by specialists, exams, medicines etc. They must get sick more, not be cured in a timely fashion and some must die. Otherwise the patient has no reason to pay into the private system. The private companies are genuine merchants of death, just like all the politicians who are part of the Global Commission, and not just the Colombians. So we have to fight not just for the legalisation of drugs, but also against the merchants of death and their health systems.

There is a hippy tale that legalisation would mean the inward flow of great resources to the state with which any health programme could be financed. This hippy tale is part of the cheap talk from Petro’s milieu and his inept functionaries who live off it. The truth is another matter. First of all part of the final price is due to its illegal nature and the price would fall with legalisation.

If Colombia legalises cocaine and opium, this won’t generate large profits for the country. Just like in Bolivia, the coca leaf could circulate freely within the country and perhaps the medicinal cocaine as well for use in Colombia only. Under no circumstances will the INCB authorise Colombia to compete with the legal crops in Peru that are harvested to produce medicinal cocaine. The medicinal cocaine market is very small. The INCB calculates the global needs and authorises the traffic of this product to the hospitals and laboratories of the world. According to its most report, Bolivia produced 25,728 tonnes of coca leaf for traditional uses in the framework of the reservation it made when it adhered again in 2013 and the global production of licit medicinal cocaine reached just 377.4 kilos.[6] The global production of licit medicinal cocaine is small in scale and Colombia needs the permission of the INCB to trade and compete with the Peruvian production. It should be pointed out that Peru produces the leaf and not the final product, which is under the control of the northern countries. The principal producers are the US and Britain which account for 90.3% of world production and Britain is at the same time the main exporter.[7]

Something similar can be seen with cannabis production, a market dominated by Canada which accounts for 45% of global production with 248.2 tonnes, followed by Britain with 95 tonnes or 17.2%. Canada is also the main exporter of medicinal cannabis with 145.8 tonnes or 57.3% of global exports. Colombia accounts for less than 2% of global production and 4.6% of exports with 11.7 tonnes.[8]

If the production of recreational cocaine is legalised we face the same problem as with the medicinal cocaine: quality. The cocaine produced in the mountains does not meet the requirements of the medicinal market and neither would it meet those of a hypothetical recreational market and it would most certainly be the Canadian and British companies which would come to dominate such a legal market for recreational cocaine. So, as happens with coffee, the value added and the largest share of profits would be generated outside of Colombia, unless in addition to breaking with the prohibitionist model there was a break with imperialism and the way in which it dominates countries in the south and markets for primary products such as coffee, tea and other cash crops.

None of this means that we shouldn’t break with the prohibitionist paradigm. All it means is that the challenge is enormous, greater than what some naïve social democrats believe. It requires inverting the current health model around the world, breaking with imperialism and its domination of global markets for southern products. It is not easy but the debate has to be a serious one bereft of the naïve when not deceitful declarations that characterise the majority of NGOs in Colombia.

References

[1] To delve deeper into the role of the USA in the development of prohibitionism see Bewley Taylor, D.R (1999) The United States and International Drug Control 1909-1997. Pinter. New York.

[2] For an overview of international drugs treaties see Sinha, J. (2001) The History and Development of the Leading International Drug Control Conventions. Prepared for the Canadian Senate. Library of Parliament 

[3] Galain, P. (2018) Mercado regulado de cannabis vs. política bancaria. ¿Un mercado obligado a operar fuera del sistema financiero? Revista Penal No. 42. Tirant Lo Blanch. Valencia. pp 82-98. 

[4] See communiqué.

[5] See.

[6] UNODC (2026) Narcotic Drugs 2025: Estimated World Requirements for 2026. P.14 

[7] Ibíd., p.54

[8] Ibíd., p.53

⏩ Gearóid Ó Loingsigh is a political and human rights activist with extensive experience in Latin America.

What If We Legalise Drugs In Colombia?

Christopher Owens 🔖 Since his death in 2005, Will Eisner has been rightly lauded as not only one of the pioneers of the comic book format but also the graphic novel.


As the Wall Street Journal put it:

They may not realize it, but the millions of readers who have made bestsellers out of Art Spiegelman’s “Maus” (1991), Daniel Clowes’s “Ghost World” (1997), Marjane Satrapi’s “Persepolis” (2003) and other graphic novels have Will Eisner to thank. A pioneering figure in the history of comic books, Eisner also served as the form’s artistic conscience, a beloved writer-illustrator who explored personal themes within and then beyond the superhero genre. Yet as legendary as Eisner remains to comics aficionados and to the comics industry itself—there’s a reason the medium’s equivalent to the Oscars is called the Eisner Awards—he remains little known to the greater public while pioneers of the form such as Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, and Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster (the last two of “Superman” fame) have received their due.

Born in New York to Jewish immigrants in 1917, the young Will was very much influenced by his father who had gone from painting Catholic churches in Vienna to painting backdrops for vaudeville and the Jewish theatre in order to keep the family afloat while his mother struggled to raise and feed the family, imploring her son to ensure that he never gives a woman worries like the ones his dad’s precarious finances did to her.

Selling newspapers to support his family during the Great Depression and becoming a standout in high school art classes alongside future Batman co-creator Bob Kane, the book firmly plants Eisner at the heart of what is now referred to as the Golden Age of Comics, seeing the creation of characters like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Eisner’s own The Spirit. It was a brand-new American art form that has lasted for nearly a century and led to multi-million-dollar franchises.

While it’s maybe not the most exciting or action-packed tale in the world, writer Stephen Weiner does a commendable job of demonstrating how poverty and artistic ambition fuelled the young Eisner, how the burgeoning comic book industry took to him and how personal tragedies would fuel A Contract with God, his first graphic novel and a game-changer for many. He depicts Eisner as a curious and driven young man, as if he sees the world as a continuing puzzle that must be solved, which he does in middle age.

Artist Dan Mazur is clearly a fan of Eisner in that he throws in one or two visual references that those who have read A Contract with God will immediately clock, but he is very much his own man and he largely avoids painting New York as an overcrowded series of slums, instead highlighting how bare the rooms could be and the streets are remarkably clean, indicating that pride in one’s neighborhood was very much in vogue among these immigrant families.

Maybe not the most essential read (that would very much be A Contract with God) but it’s nice to see a pioneer be treated with the respect he deserves in a format he helped pioneer.

Stephen Weiner (Author), Dan Mazur (Artist), 2025, Will Eisner: A Comics Biography. NBM Publishing. ISBN: 978-1681123578
 
⏩ Christopher Owens was a reviewer for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland. He is currently the TPQ Friday columnist and is the author of A Vortex of Securocrats and “dethrone god”.

Will Eisner 📚 A Comics Biography

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Sixty Five

 

A Morning Thought @ 3139

Maryam Namazie ✊ In this compilation of various interviews for WBAI NYC Radio, BBC 5 Live, and Times Radio, which has been edited for clarity, Maryam Namazie argues that the real struggle in Iran is not between rival powers but between authoritarianism and the people who refuse to live under it.

March 10, 2026

First published: Iran: Between Bombs and Theocracy, The Freethinker, 10 March 2026

What is happening inside Iran now? How is the war affecting ordinary people?

Maryam Namazie: The impact on people inside Iran is already severe and will almost certainly prove far greater than what can currently be documented, because the war is ongoing and the regime-imposed internet blackout makes independent verification difficult and prevents many people from contacting family members or obtaining reliable information about nearby strikes. Information about the war is also shaped by broader media restrictions. In Iran, it is through state censorship, including death threats against those who report on the situation. Media aligned with Western governments also repeat official narratives about the conflict, while reporting in Israel and several Gulf states is subject to wartime censorship laws that criminalise the publication of material deemed harmful to military operations. These restrictions limit public visibility of the full human cost of the war.

What is clear is that the conflict has spread across large parts of the country and the civilian toll is already high. The Human Rights Activists News Agency has documented more than 1,200 civilian deaths, including nearly 200 children, with thousands more injured.

One of the deadliest incidents was the strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ primary school in Minab, where more than 160 children were killed.

Political prisoners are particularly vulnerable. Human rights organisations warn about deteriorating conditions and shortages of food and water in prisons such as Evin and Qarchak.

An attack on a major petroleum refinery has also produced heavy black smoke and chemical fallout, with residents reporting black rain and growing fears about public health, long-term contamination of water supplies, and the environment.

The war is also hitting a society that had already experienced a major political uprising. During the Dey protests at the end of December and early January, Iranian rights groups reported more than 50,000 arrests and tens of thousands injured. Several thousand deaths have been confirmed, but investigative reporting and testimony from medical workers suggest the real toll may be significantly higher, with some estimates reaching up to 30,000.

At the same time, the conflict is expanding beyond Iran’s borders. The regime’s targeting of neighbouring countries and escalating Israeli attacks on Lebanon, with hundreds of civilian deaths, increase the risk of a prolonged regional war, while cities inside Iran are increasingly militarised and civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, residential areas, and schools, has been damaged.

Without basic protections such as sirens or bomb shelters for civilians, these developments are pushing the country toward a serious humanitarian catastrophe.

Some argue the real choice is between war and the Islamic Republic. How do you respond?

Maryam Namazie: That framing reduces a complex society to a geopolitical choice between external military intervention and internal repression, erasing the role of Iranian society itself.

The argument usually runs as follows: if you oppose war, you are effectively accepting the regime’s violence. But that assumes war actually produces freedom. When we look at the historical record, there is little evidence for that claim.

Claims by Benjamin Netanyahu or Donald Trump that military escalation is intended to ‘help the Iranian people’ should also be rejected. Such rhetoric functions largely as political cover for strategic geopolitical objectives. States pursue regional power, security interests, and influence, not democratic transformation in other societies. Presenting war as humanitarian assistance obscures the reality that the population living under bombardment bears the human cost of those strategic calculations.

Undoubtedly, many people welcomed the death of Ali Khamenei, given the brutality of the system he presided over. But the Islamic regime is not simply one man. The rapid appointment of his son illustrates that removing a leader does not dismantle the political system that sustains authoritarian rule.

Removing individuals through assassination is also different from justice. In societies emerging from authoritarian rule, justice normally involves public accountability, trials, and historical reckoning with crimes committed by the state. When officials are assassinated, the truth about what occurred often remains buried and victims are denied the accountability they deserve.

Recent attempts to use war as a tool of political transformation show a consistent pattern. In the last several decades, conflicts presented as projects of ‘liberation’, such as in Iraq or Afghanistan, removed rulers but also destroyed infrastructure, killed and displaced millions, and left societies struggling with instability, armed factions, and weakened institutions. War may remove rulers, but it often damages the social and institutional foundations necessary for democratic politics to emerge.

War can also strengthen authoritarian regimes internally. When countries come under attack, governments expand security powers and further suppress dissent. The Islamic regime itself consolidated power during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, when opposition movements were crushed in the name of defending the ‘Islamic’ nation.

The ‘either war or regime’ binary ignores a political reality: authoritarian systems often appear immovable until they fall. The Shah’s regime in Iran in 1979 and apartheid in South Africa both looked deeply entrenched shortly before they collapsed under sustained social and political pressure.

If we look at how authoritarian systems have actually been dismantled, a different pattern appears. Apartheid in South Africa ended through decades of internal resistance, labour mobilisation, and sustained international political and economic pressure. Democratic transitions in Eastern Europe in 1989, as well as movements in countries like Chile, were driven primarily by mass social mobilisation and internal crises rather than foreign military intervention.

Iran itself has a long history of such struggles. Over the past decades, there have been repeated waves of protest, including student movements, labour strikes, and the Woman, Life, Freedom uprising in 2022. Most recently, the Dey protests at the end of December and early January 2026 were met with mass arrests and killings, demonstrating both the scale of repression and the depth of social opposition.

The real political actors in Iran are therefore not foreign militaries but the people who continue to challenge authoritarian rule despite immense risks.

The central question is not a choice between war and the regime. It is whether the social forces inside Iran that are struggling for freedom are strengthened, or whether the social ground on which those struggles depend is destroyed.

History suggests that lasting political change emerges from organised movements within society, not from bombs.

Could war weaken the regime and open space for an uprising?

Maryam Namazie: It is a common assumption that war weakens governments and therefore creates opportunities for revolt. But research on revolutions shows that uprisings depend on two things happening at the same time: a state losing control, and a society that still has the capacity to organise collectively.

Popular uprisings emerge from dense social networks: workplaces where workers can strike, universities where students mobilise, neighbourhood networks where people organise, and communication systems that allow ideas and strategies to spread. Revolutions are not spontaneous explosions; they are built through these everyday social connections. Under war conditions, people are forced to focus on survival rather than collective political action.

At the same time, war strengthens the institutions organised around coercion. Military and intelligence structures gain authority, emergency laws expand, and dissent is more easily framed as collaboration with the enemy. Destroying the networks through which people organise politically does not create the conditions for revolution.

Some analysts warn that this war could strengthen militant groups and religious nationalism and increase geopolitical rivalry. Do you see that danger?

Maryam Namazie: War reshapes the ideological environment in which politics operates, thereby further empowering religious right movements. The Islamic Republic is a theocratic state that derives legitimacy from religious authority. External attack allows it to frame the conflict as a defence of faith and nation, strengthening the ideological narratives on which it relies. At the same time, religious nationalist currents in Israel and the United States, namely powerful Christian evangelical and Jewish religious nationalists, interpret the conflict in civilisational or theological terms. When conflicts are framed this way, they become a recruiting ground for extremists who mobilise around religious identity and revenge. We have seen this dynamic before. The Iraq war, for example, helped create the conditions in which ISIS was able to recruit and expand.

Alongside these ideological dynamics, there is also a geopolitical layer. The United States and Israel pursue strategic objectives related to regional power and security, while Russia and China position themselves in ways that expand their own leverage.

These are conflicts between states, far-right religious movements, and geopolitical actors, while the populations living in the region bear the devastating consequences.

Some opposition figures abroad, including Reza Pahlavi and organisations such as the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), present themselves as alternatives to the Islamic regime. Do they represent a path forward?

Maryam Namazie: One recurring misconception in discussions about Iran is the idea that political transformation can be engineered by identifying a replacement leadership abroad and installing it as an alternative to the current regime.

In reality, democratic transitions rarely occur that way. They emerge when organised social forces within a country become capable of reshaping political institutions.

The monarchy represents a political system that Iranians already overthrew in 1979. The Pahlavi state itself was an authoritarian system built on repression. The current political project around Reza Pahlavi also centres heavily on personal leadership and nationalist symbolism rather than democratic institutions rooted in Iranian society.

The MEK presents a different problem. It operates as a highly centralised and hierarchical organisation built around a cult of leadership, with strict ideological control and enforced loyalty. Its alliance with Saddam Hussein during the Iran–Iraq war also severely damaged its legitimacy among many Iranians.

Another issue that is often overlooked is the information environment surrounding the Iranian diaspora and international media.

Inside Iran, people are exposed primarily to the narrative of the Islamic regime through state media and censorship. Outside Iran, a different distortion can occur: diaspora media amplifies a narrow segment of opposition politics, particularly monarchist narratives, far beyond their actual presence inside the country.

A recent academic study analysing around 4,500 protest videos from December and January found that slogans referring to ‘Shah’ or ‘Pahlavi’ accounted for roughly 17% of the total, while 83% were broader anti–Islamic Republic demands. Yet diaspora broadcasters amplified the monarchist narrative far beyond its presence in the protests. During the same period, Iran International devoted about 81% of its protest-related coverage to content promoting Reza Pahlavi, while BBC Persian devoted about 35%. The study also found that these outlets collectively ignored or omitted roughly 68% of protest videos circulating on social media.

The result is a dual distortion of reality. Inside Iran, the regime portrays protests as foreign conspiracies or limited disturbances. Outside Iran, parts of the diaspora media ecosystem present them as if they were primarily monarchist movements centred on a single political figure.

Complex social movements are thereby reduced to a single personality or faction rather than understood as broader struggles within Iranian society. The future of Iran will not be decided by personalities in exile but by the social forces within Iranian society that are struggling for democratic change.

What role should governments play?

Maryam Namazie: No government involved in this conflict is acting in the interests of Iranian civilians. The Islamic regime and its allies pursue their own interests, including survival, regional influence, and ideological legitimacy. Western governments also act according to strategic calculations. The real question is what policies can weaken authoritarian power without destroying the society that must eventually replace it.

A more rational approach would focus on political and legal pressure on the regime itself rather than military escalation. That means measures that target the state and its officials rather than the population: ending diplomatic relations with the regime, expelling diplomats, freezing assets held abroad by state institutions and officials responsible for repression, and pursuing legal accountability for human rights crimes through international courts.

Governments could also restrict the regime’s institutional networks abroad and end the activities of state-backed religious or cultural centres that are used for political influence or monitoring diaspora communities.

Financial pressure can also be directed more precisely. The Islamic regime controls extensive assets through state foundations and commercial networks operating internationally. Freezing these assets and restricting their financial channels would weaken the regime’s power structures without imposing collective punishment on the population.

There are also historical precedents for this kind of political pressure. During the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, for example, governments and civil society organisations used sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and international boycotts to increase the political costs of maintaining a system of racial segregation. A similar approach could be applied today in response to sex apartheid and systematic discrimination against women.

Another important step is political isolation in international institutions. For decades, the regime has maintained diplomatic legitimacy while continuing repression at home. At the same time, the international community can expand support for Iranian civil society by defending access to information, supporting independent media, protecting activists and dissidents who face threats from the regime beyond Iran’s borders, and granting asylum to those fleeing persecution.

There is rarely political will for this kind of pressure unless it is forced by sustained public mobilisation and solidarity from progressive movements internationally, as happened during the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Without that pressure, governments revert to business as usual, where geopolitical interests and profit take precedence over people’s rights and freedoms.

For the public and democratic movements, the goal should be clear: isolate the regime politically and legally while strengthening the social forces inside Iran—women, workers, students, and civil society movements—that are struggling for freedom and democratic change.

What message would you send to democratic and feminist movements internationally?

Maryam Namazie: Do not accept the false choice between war and authoritarian rule. The primary struggle in Iran is between society and the state. Solidarity means standing with the women, workers, students, and progressive activists inside Iran who continue to challenge authoritarian rule despite immense risk.

The most meaningful solidarity with Iran therefore lies in supporting the social forces inside Iran that continue the struggle for Woman, Life, Freedom. That movement challenges the Islamic regime at its foundations because it confronts the structures of repression that organise everyday life under the system.

Beneath the bombs and the theocracy is a society that has repeatedly risen in revolt. Iran’s future will not be determined by war or by rulers claiming power from above, but by the people who refuse to live under authoritarian rule.

Maryam Namazie is a  is a British-Iranian secularist,
communist and human rights activist, commentator, and broadcaster.

Iran 💣 Between Bombs And Theocracy

Merrion Press 🔖 has just published a new book by J.P. O'Sullivan.



Veil Of Silence
How the Irish State Covered Up an IRA Murder and Framed a Garda Whistleblower

J.P. O'Sullivan

A story of State betrayal, complicity, cover-up and one man’s quest for justice.


In 1985 John Corcoran, a garda informer within the ranks of the Cork IRA, was abducted and brutally executed by the IRA. No one has ever been charged with his murder, but for decades, speculation was rife that gardaí of the highest rank allowed Corcoran – a father of eight – to be murdered to protect Sean O’Callaghan, the state’s most prized IRA informer during the Troubles.

Now, for the first time, J.P. O’Sullivan, Corcoran’s Special Branch handler, breaks his silence. He reveals the chain of events leading to the killing, including detailed reports he filed warning of potential threats to his informant’s life that were systematically ignored by garda intelligence. He recounts how he was inexplicably sidelined from the investigation into Corcoran’s murder and later framed and convicted for a crime he did not commit in order to silence him and bury the truth.

O’Sullivan’s account is a damning indictment of garda complicity in covering up an IRA murder. It exposes murky manoeuvres, a flawed investigation, and the devastating cost paid by a detective who refused to back down. This is a story of betrayal and justice denied in a state under siege, and one man’s quest for justice.
Paperback • €18.99|£17.99 • 244pages • 226mm x 153mm • 9781785375880
About The Author: J.P. O’Sullivan is a former Special Branch detective, who served in the Garda Síochána for thirty-two years. During the period of the Northern Ireland Troubles he was involved in intelligence operations against the IRA in the Munster region. A native of Kerry, he has lived in Cork for many years and is married with two daughters.

Out Now 📚 J.P. O'Sullivan

Caoimhin O’Muraile  ☭ When Vladimir Putin ordered his armed forces over the border signifying the invasion of neighbouring Ukraine it was expected he would score an easy quick victory. 

Nothing could have been further from the truth as the Ukrainian army have put up a sturdy fight not- withstanding the Russian Army and Ukrainian forces were once part of the formidable Soviet Red Army receiving the same training and kit. That is all history now and the giant Russian machine which invaded on 24-February-2022 expecting Ukrainian forces to go belly up and surrender has not happened. Ukraine have earned many merits over the Russians who frankly have three times the manpower and kit but appear to have no idea how to use these advantages. Despite all these advantages these Russian forces appear to be making a mess of things, similar to the USA in Vietnam where they had to retreat pretty fast form Saigon. 

Could Ukraine become Russia’s Vietnam? Quite possibly as Putin toys with the idea of interim nuclear weapons but somehow, I don’t think he would be so stupid. Donald Trump on the other hand whose technology and military hardware have failed to bring the feudal religious nutter led Iran to heel is capable of doing just that! Trump appears to be suffering from serious ‘arrested mental development’, thinking bombing weaker countries a laugh as would a ten-year old child playing with toy soldiers.

When the crisis first started the Twenty-Six-County Dail, all parties, were bending over backwards to show the world how anti-Putin they were. The Twenty-Six-County government led by taoiseach Micheal Martin were proving to the world how much they hate Putin and his ‘imperialist venture’ into his neighbour. Martin declared Ireland's outrage, calling it an “immoral and totally beyond comprehension.” Ukraine has always been considered by Russia, rightly or wrongly, to be part of their sphere of influence in much the same way the USA considers the Americas, from Brazil, to Argentina, to Venezuela up to Mexico and now Canada under the Monroe doctrine to be within the US sphere of influence. So eager were the Dail administration to prove to the rest of the EU, and the UK, how anti-Putin they are they decided to open up the flood gates for refugees. There was no harm in that, no harm whatsoever, but if we are going to invite people over for tea, we must make sure the larder is full. Housing these well deserving people was a problem and should not have been one. Ireland is not overpopulated, as those neo-fascist half-wits on the far right would have us believe along with some former left-wing organisations and individuals. Malachy Steenson, for example, started out on the far-left with Sinn Fein/the Workers Party and was eventually fucked out of there. Then he tried to find a niche within the Provisional movement and was shown the door, I understand. So the intrepid political traveller finds a home with those whose ideologies he once vehemently opposed on the far-right. Gone are his hammer and sickle badges often worn in his hat. Very fickle these would-be politicians - the German Nazi Party was full of them former would-be communists turned Nazi when opportunity knocked.

Those on the far-right keep telling us ‘Ireland is full’ which is not the case. Countries like Belgium have a smaller land mass than we do yet a far higher population and far more refugees. Very few problems are present because all aspects of society were discussed and planned out. Holland has a land mass the size of Leinster with a population round 19million many are refugees and again few major problems, though the local far-right are trying to create some and, alas, a few people are starting to listen when will they learn? The Twenty-Six County administration should have started building pre-fabricated homes for Ukrainian refugees whose aims are to return to their country once it is safe to do so. Instead we appear now to be telling these ‘International Protection Seeker’s’ to get out, we no longer want or need you is the perceived message! After making the Ukrainians welcome we appear now to be turning our backs on them,’Cead mile failte’ appears non-applicable to refugees any more as gangs led by far- right and former left-allies appear to want these people out with attacks on International Protection Seekers accommodation centres.

The far-right arguments are now being fuelled by government who no longer see the political millage in taking the pro-refugee line. With the US President - and much to the disappointment of the Taoiseach - being good mates, it appears with Putin, a Vladimir and Donald level of friendship, time for a change of political direction perhaps? For these reasons Martin and Harris obviously feel they are not getting the same publicity as they did when everybody was anti-Putin. The Ukrainian Refugees who had been guaranteed a roof over their head as long as it was needed are being told they must leave state paid accommodation. Ukrainian refugees, and they did not ask for this, were placed on full state benefits when they arrived only to have such benefits over time removed. Refugees arrived in Ireland to a gold-plated land, not of their asking, insisted by the government. Now they are being told by Simon Harris, Tanaiste, “Ukrainians living in rent-free State accommodation is not fair”. 

These refugees could have been given a home. A plan could and should have been in place a plan to build pre-fabs housing which served well in Britain after World War II to ease the housing crisis there. Easy to build with full amenities and opportunities for employment, they should have been part and parcel of the plan. Pre-fabs would have been ideal for a people who wish, once it’s safe, to go home again. The problem with this solution is there is no ‘make Micheal look good’ factor involved. What the Twenty-Six-County government are doing to these Ukrainians, in a strange land with the once guaranteed safety nets removed, is bordering on inhuman. 

Why did they promise these people the world in the first place? Simple, there was loads of looking good factor, the administration could benefit from yard after yard of political millage. That feeling appears now to be wavering and Ukrainian refugees, once an asset, are now a liability and the government are increasingly leaning on far-right nonsense about overcrowding. For the record the state has had a housing problem since the passing of the Anglo/Irish treaty in 1922. There were no refugees or migrants to blame then, just inept government policies, as is the case today, as tenement buildings housing numerous families collapsed under the human weight of habitation in Church Street.

Maybe Micheal Martin and his cohorts should have put a figure on the number of refugees we could accommodate competently, and I do mean all refugees not only Ukrainians. Perhaps a figure may have been 100,000 whom we could house in pre-fabs, feed, end employ. Not rocket science really but apparently for Micheal and (simple) Simon a little beyond their mental capabilities! “The move comes after the Government cut the length of time newly arriving refugees can stay in state accommodation from 90 days to 30. The Finance Minister said he was proud of the response to the Ukrainian war but added that there was a need to learn from every crisis” (Irish Daily Mirror 30th 4th 2026). The truth an eternal cynic might think is there is no crisis, only one of Harris and Martin's own making. If this had been given priority, and accommodation awaited these refugees along with amenities and employment it would have been a smooth transition. 

The problem with smooth transitions is not a lot of political milage can be gained. It would not have been possible to ingratiate themselves with other bigger world leaders, the ultimate prize being Trump but alas for poor Micheal and Simon the Mad President was more inclined towards Putin than first may have been thought, a bit of a bastard really eh lads! Still plenty of milage with the Germans, the British, the French all taking an anti-Putin position. 

Now with events in the Middle East putting Ukraine into the shadow as the real bourgeois interests - the price of oil - take world stage the plaudits received for being nice to Ukrainians are no longer forthcoming. Therefore they are no longer any real use so fuck them out on the streets which will cause another right-wing backlash. They really have no idea how to administer a long-term humanitarian programme. 

Firstly, how many people can be reasonably looked after? This does not include supplying tents to live in, they may have done that in bomb torn Ukraine. Why not then integrate to a certain extent with the indigenous homeless as pre-fabricated housing for all would be built before peoples very eyes? The far-right argument would be non-existent because the use of hotels and unsuitable buildings would not be necessary. It is possible the government wanted a far-right bogey man to frighten the left off with so they created the conditions for one to come out of the ground? Well, that’s not working either as I understand a far-right meeting was kicked off the street last month including leading Nazis in uniforms of types, including one of Dublin’s so-called leading Nazis who once boasted his admiration of Hitler being a great “leader”!

These Ukrainian refugees escaping Russian bombs have been used in an unashamed fashion by the Irish bourgeoisie and their government lackeys. From “Cead Mile Failte” one of Irelands famous sayings meaning “one hundred thousand welcomes” the twenty-six-county state, as far as Ukrainian and other refugees are concerned, has turned into ‘the worst nightmare’ - homeless in a strange country with the safety nets once provided withdrawn. Perhaps facing Putin’s bombs might have been a better bet! 

The government have through some of their media, who have shifted policy accordingly, not too well camouflaged anti-refugee statements have managed to unleash the lumpenproletariat of Ireland which appears a larger group than I would have imagined. Thankfully anti-fascists are hitting back and not before time. Perhaps the message here is; don’t go to Ireland if you are a refugee from any land, Ukraine, Somalia, Yemen, Palestine because you will be used, abused, and discarded when your use value has expired !!!
     
Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Used, Abused, And Discarded In A Grotesque Manner

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Sixty Four

 

A Morning Thought @ 3138

Jim Duffy ✍ It is shameful. 


Peter Burke is holding an inquiry into it. If it is confirmed it has crippling sanctions ready to impose on it. Hopefully the report will be truthful and not a whitewash.

Well done to Senator Clonan on raising the issue. He is a campaign for neutrality. He is literally the only neutrality campaigner to condemn Ireland aiding Russia's illegal war. There was not a peep from any of the others. Not a peep from Sinn Féin, from PBP, not from PANA. They aren't anti-war at all, just anti-The West. They almost had a melt down in outrage when they found out that in keeping with with international law and conventions, the Irish military were training the Ukrainian military in de-mining, something the UN and anti-mining organisations also do and which is entirely allowed under neutrality. The Irish military are international experts on removing mines. But the neutrality activists almost freaked out at what is an entirely legal action all neutrals do.
 
Yet the same activists were entirely silent when Russian Tupolev TU-95 “Bear” bombers repeatedly breached Irish-controlled airspace, including twice in three days in March 2020. There wasn't a peep out of them when Russian spy ship Yantar repeatedly behaved illegally over Irish interconnectors and had to be ordered away by the Irish navy backed up by the Royal Navy. (It had to be backed up as due to chronic underfunding, there was only one maintenance expert left to main guns on Irish ships, and so the Irish ship didn't have working guns. So it needed armed back-up from other countries.)

The same activists didn't under a peep of criticism when Russia sent a Russian nuclear-armed nuclear submarine into Irish territorial waters and into Cork harbour on a spying mission. Not did they say a word of criticism when Russia sent a Russian nuclear-armed nuclear submarine to just off the east coast as part of its studying for Irish vulnerabilities in the event of war.
 
And they were dead silent when Russia illegally planned to hold military manoeuvres by its navy in Ireland's Exclusive Economic Zone. Ships have a right to travel through EEZs and territorial waters for "innocent" purposes. Holding military manoeuvres without the approval of the state who have exclusive economic use of an EEZ, using spy ships, or ships flying false flags, are deemed non-innocent and so illegal under the UN Convention on Law of the Seas, in force since 1994.
 
Yet they have a freak out when a US military plane, with full legal right under an agreement with Ireland dating back to World War II and constantly renewed, flies through Irish-controlled airspace. But they are silent when Soviet and now Russian planes enter Irish-controlled airspace. And they were dead silent when Russian spy planes were spotted over the Curragh, studying the headquarters of the Department of Defence, the headquarters of the Defence Forces, and Irish troops training on the Curragh.

Senator Clonan at least is consistent in his belief in neutrality. I frequently disagree with some of the things he says. His argument that authorisation of the use of the Defence Forces by Dáil Éireann and the Government would be unacceptable without UN Security Council approval, is frankly bizarre. Every other democracy on earth judges approval by the government and parliament acceptable. Not a single other country, not one, requires UN Security Council approval to use their own military. All the other neutrals judge Ireland's triple lock entirely nuts. One Swiss Foreign Minister questioned whether a country that does not give control of the use of its military to its elected government and elected parliament, but instead requires permission from other countries, is even sovereign at all. He compared Ireland's triple lock to the mindset of a colony.
 
I have challenged Tom over and over to explain why is Ireland so special that the standard requirement in every other democracy for parliamentary and executive approval is not adequate. He has never once answered. He goes on then about Ireland could be dragged into war? How, when it has just four ships functioning in its naval service, with only two used at the one time, an air corps with no fighter jets that is incapable of intercepting planes in its airspace, and a military with only 7,000? The chance of Ireland ever entering a war is Infinitesimally small. Even if wanted to, it doesn't have the means to.
 
Neutral Switzerland has not fought a war in two hundred years, and it just needs the approval of the government and parliament. Sweden was neutral from 1812 to 2024. It requires the approval of parliament and government and has fought any war since the Russo-Swedish War (1808-09). No neutral other than Finland (when like its neighbours it was continually attacked by Russia/The Soviet Union, who attacked it twice in the 20th century) and Cyprus (which was invaded by Turkey) have been a war against anyone, and both were attacked. They did not attack anyone. And they all simply require parliamentary and government approval.
 
So the idea that simply requiring government and Dáil approval would see Ireland go to war is bonkers. Even if it had the sort of defence spending normal neutrals have it would be incapable of entering a war. It would simply have the capacity to defend itself. So, the idea that the triple lock prevented Ireland going to war is laughable. It is just the mindset of a colony - that we need the approval of our betters to use our own military.
 
I have been waiting to hear of a single credible argument that justifies the triple lock. Not a single credible argument for it has been made. Tom has tried at least to make arguments, but his argument is full of holes.
 
But at least his arguments on neutrality are consistent and applied to all. Very few supporters of neutrality are consistent. They just hate The West, while grovelling towards Russia and China - are silent on their actions. They seem to ludicrously blame The West and in particular NATO for everything. 

It is a wonder they didn't blame it for Storm Eowyn too! 🤣

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Not A Peep

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)