“The story goes on beyond this judgement. We will continue to hold people involved in war crimes to account. The responsibility for these atrocities does not end with Ben Roberts-Smith”, said Nine Entertainment’s managing director of publishing, James Chessell, after the court finding that Roberts-Smith, Australia’s most decorated soldier, was a murderer and war criminal. Nine publishes the Age and Sydney Morning Herald, both formerly owned by Fairfax Media. They have spent the last few weeks congratulating themselves for their reporting on Roberts-Smith’s war crimes. 
Chessell highlighted that the problem is not just one rogue soldier. Indeed, the 2020 Brereton inquiry into Australian war crimes in Afghanistan recommended that nineteen special forces soldiers be investigated by police for possible war crimes, including evidence of 39 murders.
Some attention, though fleeting, has been drawn to the role of officers higher up the chain of command who, even if they lacked precise knowledge of the crimes committed, seem at best to have turned a blind eye to the actions of their soldiers. A report by defence consultant Samantha Crompvoets into the cultural problems in the special forces found: “According to the people who approached me, a lot of behaviour goes largely unchecked ... and there is intense pressure not to report things up”.
But outside of those in the military, responsibility also rests with those who campaigned for and launched the war in Afghanistan. The brutal crimes of the special forces reflect the brutal nature of the invasion itself. 
This includes politicians from the Labor and Liberal parties and the media that parroted their lies and campaigned for the war. It wasn’t just the reactionary Murdoch press, but liberal publications like the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age that joined the chorus for bloodshed following the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. 
They even attempted to give the war, waged by the hard-right neoconservative US administration of George W. Bush, a progressive and feminist gloss. Pamela Bone, then an associate editor of the Age, argued that the invasion was an opportunity to liberate Afghan women. “If there’s a war on”, she wrote in a 2004 opinion piece, “we should be clear about who is the real enemy of civilisation. Despite the reservations any liberal would feel for some policies of the present Administration, the enemy is not America”.
In light of the revelations of systemic war crimes, the idea that there was any moral authority guiding the invasion of Afghanistan is now much more obviously absurd.
But if you thought their role in reporting these crimes had led the Age and Sydney Morning Herald to repent from their warmongering journalism, you would be mistaken. Earlier this year, both publications ran a three-part propaganda special about the need to “psychologically” prepare for a war with China in as little as three years. Drawing on five hand-picked “security experts”, the “Red Alert” series argued across the newspapers’ front pages that Australia needs to double the defence budget, reintroduce a form of conscription and consider hosting US nuclear weapons. 
If a war does break out between China and the West, the crimes committed by Australian special forces soldiers in Afghanistan will pale in comparison to the human cost of such a conflict.
The investigative journalism of Nick McKenzie and Chris Masters is commendable, and the Nine publications’ exposure of war crimes contrasts favourably with the apologism seen in the Murdoch press and the disgraceful campaigning in Ben Robert-Smith’s favour from Kerry Stokes and his Seven West Media. But for managers at Nine to gloat about their mastheads’ role in exposing these crimes while continuing their hawkish campaigning reeks of hypocrisy. We need media that are not only opposed to the illegal excesses of war, but to the entire project of Australian militarism.

Tom Gilchrist

The hypocrisy of the warmongering media

Ali Jan travelled by donkey to the small village of Darwan, Afghanistan, to pick up flour and shoes for his six children on 10 September 2012. The next day, Australian special forces soldier Ben Roberts-Smith kicked him, handcuffed, off a cliff into the dry riverbed ten metres below. After Ali Jan survived the fall with severe injuries, Roberts-Smith ordered a subordinate soldier to shoot him dead.
This was one of several murders of unarmed prisoners that Roberts-Smith, Australia’s most decorated living veteran, committed in Afghanistan.
That we know about these murders is thanks to the testimony of current and former soldiers, and to the investigative work of journalists Nick McKenzie, Chris Masters and David Wroe. That they are now a matter of public record is thanks to the defamation case initiated by Roberts-Smith, which was dismissed last week.
Roberts-Smith and his legal team launched the defamation proceedings in an act of elite arrogance, attempting to silence the journalists and soldiers who had spoken out against him, by smearing them as jealous liars. Kerry Stokes, chairman of Seven West Media and billionaire backer of Roberts-Smith, paid for a public relations firm to spin this narrative in the media and funded the defamation case. Meanwhile, Roberts-Smith intimidated soldiers who he suspected were speaking out against him. He accused them of breaking the special forces’ “code of silence” and hired a private investigator to profile them.
Several other establishment figures backed Roberts-Smith throughout the trial. Former defence minister and Australian War Memorial director Brendan Nelson provided character testimony during the defamation trial, describing him as the “the most respected, admired and revered Australian soldier in more than half a century”.
But the sheer amount of evidence has won out. Now the approach is not denial, but damage control. In his response to the defamation ruling, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese insisted that the standing of the Australian Defence Force is still “extraordinarily strong”.
It is a delicate situation for the establishment. In the wake of the 2020 Brereton inquiry, which found evidence of 39 murders committed by special forces soldiers in Afghanistan, the government established an Office of the Special Investigator. Currently, only one person has been charged. There are renewed calls for criminal charges to be laid against Roberts-Smith and other soldiers.
If these crimes remain unaddressed, it will stink of a cover-up, but thorough criminal trials will continue to expose the brutal truth of Australia’s war in Afghanistan. With imperialist tensions on the rise, this was not the sort of press the armed forces wanted.
Ben Roberts-Smith is a particularly nasty symptom of the broader sickness that is Australian imperialism. The war crimes committed by special forces soldiers cannot be separated from the context of the war itself, in which the Australian establishment deployed the military as a violent occupying force. While Roberts-Smith and his murderous comrades should stand trial for their crimes, there can be no real justice until the vicious cycle of deadly imperialist wars is ended.

Ben Roberts-Smith: war criminal

Australian vice-chancellors continue to rake in huge salaries even as they propose pay cuts for university staff. <a href="blank">Figures compiled</a> by James Guthrie of Macquarie Business School show that at least twelve vice-chancellors were paid more than a million dollars last year, and several of them served for only part of the calendar year. 
The huge salaries are particularly galling in light of the cuts to pay and conditions being proposed by university bosses in the current round of enterprise bargaining. At Western Sydney University, where Vice-Chancellor Barney Glover receives $988,380 a year, the new wages agreement imposes a cut in real wages of more than 7 percent over the life of the agreement for most of the university’s staff. 
And high salaries are only one component of many vice-chancellors’ total benefits. For instance, on top of his $1.6 million salary, former University of Sydney Vice-Chancellor Michael Spence was also given rent-free accommodation in a mansion in Sydney’s eastern suburbs. It has since been sold for $9 million. 
Vice-chancellors also receive additional remuneration from board memberships and directorships. The highest paid vice-chancellor in the country, Duncan Maskell of the University of Melbourne, is also a non-executive director of CSL Limited and a director of the Melbourne Business School, the Group of Eight Limited, Universities Australia Limited and the Grattan Institute. 
“While any remuneration for board memberships is not disclosed”, Guthrie notes, “non-executive directors of large publicly listed companies such as CSL can receive in the vicinity of $1,000,000”.
The heads of Australian universities are among the highest paid in the world. While most universities in Australia are public, over the last decades they have come to function in a similar way to private companies. The University of Melbourne no longer even calls itself a public university—instead, it is a “publicly spirited institution”. 
The corporatisation of Australian universities is also reflected in their governance structures. Beginning in the 1980s under the Hawke government’s education minister, John Dawkins, there was a shift in power away from academic senates to corporatised university councils, which included fewer student and staff representatives and more external appointments from the business world. 
The Academic Salaries Tribunal, which centrally determined the pay of academic staff and had some oversight over vice-chancellor salaries, was abolished in 1986. This removed any government control over vice-chancellor pay, which sharply increased in the 1990s and has continued to increase since. Research by academics Rebecca Boden and Julie Rowlands found that in 2018 vice-chancellors were paid sixteen times more than the average lecturer, compared to triple the amount in 1975. 
While they act like big businesses, in some ways universities face less scrutiny than many major companies. Unlike those listed on a securities exchange, for example, universities are not required to disclose their remuneration packages, which means the total pay received by a vice-chancellor and the criteria used to determine it are often shrouded in secrecy. 
While both the exorbitant pay packages and the surrounding secrecy have come under scrutiny in recent years, the attempts to address them have been little more than token gestures. 
Some vice-chancellors took pay cuts at the start of the pandemic, but there is no indication that university councils intend to start systematically reducing vice-chancellor salaries, even as staff continue to face reduced pay and degraded working conditions, and as courses are cut. 
In fact, vice-chancellor pay is trending in the other direction, with more vice-chancellors joining the million-dollar-a-year club, and those with the highest pay pushing well past it. This swollen rot at the top is as strong an indication as any of the problems with the corporatisation of Australian universities and the need to restore a fully funded public education system.

University bosses’ pay increases while workers’ wages fall

Revolutions have happened repeatedly throughout history, dramatically changing what seems possible in a short period of time. Some of the great revolutions, like the French Revolution of 1789 or the Russian Revolution of 1917, overthrew monarchies that had existed for centuries. The “Arab Spring” uprisings of 2011 likewise rapidly brought down several decades-old regimes that previously seemed all-powerful. 
Capitalism repeatedly drives people to this sort of action, even after long periods of relative passivity, whether because of brutal wars, economic chaos or other crises brought about by the anarchic nature of the system. Today is no exception. So although revolution is not immediately on the cards in Australia, it is nevertheless useful to understand why and how they happen and what can help them win in the future.
Importantly, revolutions don’t usually start because people set out to overthrow the social order. Much more often, they start because of relatively minor grievances. The 2019 revolution in Sudan, for example, started off with protests about the rising costs of living, but ended up bringing down the government. 
Sometimes, struggles emerge in response to some particularly egregious attack from the ruling class, such as the 2021 revolution in Myanmar, which began with protesters opposing a right-wing military coup. In the course of fighting for particular reforms, it can become apparent to people that more radical change is desirable. It can begin to seem like there is no good reason to go back to the iniquities and profit-obsessed priorities of the existing order once a mass democratic alternative seems like a possibility.
Mass struggles and revolutions therefore aren’t just a challenge to the power of the ruling class. They also have a transformative effect on the people who participate in them. Much of the time, the reality of powerlessness means that people feel they have no choice but to resign themselves to the system. When it seems like there’s nothing you can do to change things, and politicians and journalists are telling you there’s no alternative to the status quo, it seems the only option is to accept the world as it is and adapt to it. In contrast, when people get a taste of their own power in the course of struggles, it can expand their sense of possibility rapidly and profoundly. 
This process occurs in many struggles, but it goes to its extreme in revolutions. One of the most striking things about reading accounts of revolutions is the descriptions of the effect on those involved. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian revolutionary, described this transformation during the mass occupations of the factories in Italy in 1919:
“It was very necessary to see with one's own eyes old workers, who seemed broken down by decades upon decades of oppression and exploitation, stand upright even in a physical sense during the period of the occupation ... It was necessary to see these and other sights, in order to be convinced how limitless the latent powers of the masses are, and how they are revealed and develop swiftly as soon as the conviction takes root among the masses that they are arbiters and masters of their own destinies.”
If you feel yourself to be powerless, resigning yourself to the system can make some sense: any other alternative appears impractical. When you experience your own power to shape the world around you, suddenly it makes sense to think about what that world should be like. 
For workers used to being downtrodden and oppressed by the system, this is a liberating experience. Karl Marx summarised this process when he wrote, “Revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew”.
Revolutions present a challenge to all the usual backward and divisive ideas of capitalism. In Egypt in 2011, sectarian religious divides were challenged and overcome as the common goal of fighting for democracy took hold. In Tahrir Square, occupied by masses of protesters, Coptic Christians defended Muslims at their prayers from attack, and joint prayers of Copts and Muslims were held. In many revolutions, from the revolutionary Paris Commune in 1871 to the 2021 uprising in Myanmar, sexist stereotypes have been challenged, reflected in the significant numbers of women playing leading roles. 
Ordinary people have often found creative ways to solve the practical problems thrown up during struggle. The following is a description of the area controlled by young revolutionaries in Khartoum during the Sudanese revolution in 2019: “Street outside: full of rubbish with plastic bags strewn across the roads. Street inside: clean of rubbish—bags to put your garbage placed strategically around and young men with long hair and skinny jeans roaming around, picking up trash and encouraging others to help. Overnight as the crowds thin out, they wash the roads in teams”.
City squares and other public places tend to became collective organising spaces, with people taking pride in maintaining them. The observer in Sudan went on to describe volunteer pharmacists organising medicine for those who needed it, blood donation trucks organising blood for injured protesters, and protesters organising “cash contributions and bags of money left at the side of the road for anyone to take if they need money to get home”.
When they happen, revolutions can involve and be led by a wide variety of social forces. For a revolution to go beyond just replacing the rule of one minority with that of another, however, it must mobilise the mass of the working class and involve the democratisation of the workplaces and key industries that keep society running. This means the mass of people who produce the wealth of society also making the political decisions about how it is used and organised. The working class uniquely has the power to create this sort of directly democratic society, run in the collective interest rather than in the interests of a powerful minority. 
One of the key questions that a workers’ revolution faces is how to organise production. A mass strike can’t continue indefinitely. There comes a point when it is logical and necessary to restart production under the democratic control of workers. 
This transforms the workplace from a site of authoritarian control dedicated to profit, to one in which politics and economics converge. A journalist in revolutionary Germany in 1918 wrote the following account of workers’ control: “The workers arrive on time, then take off their coats, read their newspapers and slowly begin work. This is interrupted by debates and meetings. The employers are as powerless as the managerial staff. All power is in the hands of the workers’ committees”.
In a revolution, there can be a dynamic interplay between issues in broader society and in the workplace. In the Portuguese Revolution in 1974, the overthrow of the authoritarian government raised questions about the little authoritarians in the factories and farmlands. A movement of workers’ councils and land seizures developed that posed a direct challenge to capitalism. 
Political developments flow the other way as well. You can’t change society from just one workplace. Workers’ councils have been established in numerous revolutions as a way to coordinate across neighbourhoods, cities and regions. They can in turn help bring more workplaces under democratic control. 
These councils are the basis for a form of revolutionary democracy very different to the capitalist democracy we have today. In contrast to the privileged, unaccountable parliaments of capitalism, delegates to workers’ councils are elected directly from workplaces and are directly recallable. They aren’t given special privileges or pay, but paid the same wage as a skilled worker. Directly accountable to workers, these councils therefore become a way for the mass of workers to exercise their democratic authority. First developed in some capacity in the 1871 Paris Commune, workers’ councils have been formed in a variety of later revolutionary struggles around the globe, in places as seemingly varied as Russia, Spain, Chile and Iran. 
At the heights of the most successful movements, workers’ councils have begun to operate as a sort of alternative government, becoming a way to deal with the key political and economic questions of the day. This is the power on which socialism—a society of mass democracy in which production is geared towards meeting human need—is based. 
Unfortunately, it isn’t just workers who get organised during a revolution. The ruling class and other supporters of capitalism will also organise to defend and maintain their power. As a workers’ revolution develops, there arises a situation Marxists refer to as “dual power”, in which an emerging workers’ government competes with a capitalist government trying to restore capitalist normality. This is an inherently unstable situation, which the ruling class recognises as a threat to its rule.
One of the ways the ruling class tries to reassert its power is through force. Much of the violence associated with revolutions in fact comes from the counter-revolutionary violence that capitalists resort to in order to maintain their power. From the tens of thousands of revolutionaries murdered during the “bloody week” that suppressed the Paris Commune to the violence unleashed by Myanmar’s military over the last year in repressing the uprising against their coup, violence is essential for a minority to intimidate a majority. Their intention is not just to defeat the working class physically, but to undo the transformations in people’s confidence and consciousness that occur during revolutionary uprisings. 
Just as they rely on workers to run their businesses, however, the capitalists depend upon the mass of rank-and-file soldiers in the military to maintain their authority. Any great revolutionary movement will tend to have an impact upon this rank and file, many of whom are recruited from the working class and oppressed by their officers. At key points in revolutions, key sections of the armed forces have joined the revolution and turned against their generals. In Russia in 1917, soldiers refusing to shoot protesters in February led to the quick collapse of the tsarist monarchy, and over the course of the revolution, soldiers’ councils were established based upon the workers’ councils, democratising the army and bringing the revolution into the barracks. 
Direct repression, however, is only one way of fighting back against a revolutionary movement. Political ideas can also be powerful weapons. 
Revolutions may challenge old ideas about society, but the developments in workers’ consciousness are always contradictory. Participation in mass rebellion might open workers to new possibilities, but all the lessons learnt through a life under capitalism aren’t wiped away all at once. Neither are the various political parties and media outlets of capitalism. The various political traditions that exist in different countries have a significant impact on how revolutionary struggles develop. 
To counter this, revolutions must be both organisationally solid and politically well developed. The more workers who understand what will be required to defeat the old order and establish a genuinely democratic society, the better. This is the purpose of a revolutionary socialist organisation or current within the working class. 
Unfortunately, most struggles of the past have lacked a strong revolutionary socialist current. The dominant political forces have been the various parties committed to running capitalism in some form or another rather than overthrowing it. Frequently, this has led even great struggles to stagnate or compromise, allowing the ruling class to reassert their authority and leaving the fundamental problems of society unsolved. That’s a key reason why we argue that we can’t wait until a revolution begins to start organising a revolutionary current. 
Not every crisis or struggle automatically develops in a revolutionary direction. But throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, we’ve seen how revolutions are as much a part of capitalism as economic crisis and war. We will invariably see more revolutions develop in the coming decades. These open up the potential for a society freed of all the inequality and oppression of capitalism. By building a revolutionary socialist organisation today, we’re doing what we can to equip our side with the political clarity and capacity to make the most of the struggles of the future.

What do we mean by revolution?

When was the last time you heard the army announce that it had run out of soldiers and was bringing in extras on 457 visas? You didn’t. Because the military, unlike the healthcare system, doesn’t face resource problems.
There is always money for new hardware, whether it gets used or not. In January, the federal government announced another $3.5 billion to upgrade Australia’s tanks and armoured vehicles. All up, it will spend between $30 and $42 billion on armoured vehicles in coming years. This is despite the fact that the last time the Australian army <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-commits-to-3-5-billion-tank-purchase-from-the-us-20220109-p59mub.html">deployed a tank in combat was during the invasion of Vietnam</a>.
There are almost 60,000 active Australian military personnel, few of whom are deployed. They get paid simply to hone their skills and wait in their barracks until the government decides to use them—usually in some offensive invasion of another country. There are another 30,000 reserve personnel paid to do weekend training each year and wait to be activated.
By contrast, nurses are worked to exhaustion 24/7. You will never walk into a hospital to find scores of nurses just training, waiting for something to cause a surge in patients—like a natural disaster or a pandemic. Yet we should have more nurses than we need at any given time precisely so that the system can cope with patient surges. 
Hospitals are regularly stretched to their limits even without surges. Wait times for treatment and beds have grown across the country in recent years. “Ramping”, when patients are treated in parked ambulances outside of hospitals due to lack of free beds in emergency rooms, has become a common practice and reduces the number of available ambulances.
This is considered good sense by politicians: keep the costs as low as possible and make up the shortfall with overtime from overworked and underpaid healthcare workers. The idea that you would provide enough funding not only for regular healthcare needs but also for surge capacity to deal with threats like a pandemic is anathema to the entire cost-cutting logic of our healthcare system. 
In fact, hospitals have been turning to the Australian Defence Force for extra support, as <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10416421/PM-confirms-military-sent-Victoria-help-hospitals-overwhelmed-Covid.html">has occurred in Victoria during the current code brown emergency declaration</a>, military personnel being brought in to drive ambulances. 
There’s a completely different logic at play when it comes to war. There’s no cost-cutting, just permanent funding increases. 
The billions spent on each generation of new fighter jets and submarines is meant to help Australia match and outpace the military capacities of its imperialist rivals. This logic of competition drives an ever increasing military budget. Defence Minister <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/defence-spending-to-reach-50b-a-year-says-dutton-20211025-p592t0">Peter Dutton has been quite explicit</a> that the attempt to push back China is behind a move to increase military spending to 2.5 percent of GDP. 
But if the machines of war are ever put to use in a conflict with China, it will mean death and destruction on an enormous scale. And you know what we’ll need more of then? Nurses. 
If the army can get billions for new tanks despite not using them, hospitals should be able to receive funding and resources well in excess of their current capacity. After all, when the army actually is used, it’s a killing machine for Australian imperialism. When hospitals are used, they provide health care and save lives. They should get all of the funding and resources they need to do that.

They should treat the healthcare system like they do the military

The US government has won its appeal against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, with the UK’s High Court overturning an earlier decision to block Assange’s extradition to the US. The case will now be sent back to the Magistrates Court with instructions to allow the UK Home Secretary Priti Patel to approve or deny the extradition request.
This is a massive blow to press freedom. Assange faces one charge of conspiracy and 17 espionage charges, begun by the Trump administration but continued by the Biden administration. These 17 espionage charges relate to the publication and release of secret government documents, a crucial right for serious journalists trying to hold governments to account. As a statement from Wikileaks in response to the ruling puts its, Assange is “accused of publishing true information revealing crimes committed by the US government in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and details of CIA torture and rendition”.
For telling the truth about these war crimes Assange has faced a decade long campaign of persecution. As Amnesty International’s Europe Director Nils Muižnieks said in response to the High Court decision: “The US government’s indictment poses a grave threat to press freedom both in the United States and abroad. If upheld, it would undermine the key role of journalists and publishers in scrutinising governments and exposing their misdeeds, and would leave journalists everywhere looking over their shoulders.” Muižnieks has labelled the decision a “travesty of justice”.
In the earlier decision in January which blocked Assange’s extradition, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled that the harsh conditions of the US prison system would put Assange at an unreasonable risk of suicide. The High Court has allowed the appeal against this decision on the basis of various “assurances” given by the US government to Assange. These included assurances that he would not be subjected to Special Administrative Measures which restrict contact with the outside world, and that he would be allowed to serve his sentence in Australia if the Australian government made such a request.
These assurances, however, come with caveats. The US government has said that they must be allowed to hold Assange in these restrictive conditions if they fear he could be responsible for a “breach” of “national security”. As Muižnieks argues “The fact that the US has reserved the right to change its mind at any time means that these assurances are not worth the paper they are written on”.
Earlier this year an investigative report from Yahoo! News revealed that leading figures in the US government had discussed the possibility of kidnapping or assassinating Assange during the seven years he was taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Over the last decade it has subjected Assange to a campaign of persecution which Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, says amounts to psychological torture. The idea that this same government is now able to give assurances that it cares about the health and safety of Assange is absurd. As Stella Moris, Assange’s partner, says “How can it be fair, how can it be right, how can it be possible, to extradite Julian to the very country which plotted to kill him?”
Moris is a part of Assange’s legal team and says they will be appealing the decision. Such an appeal would be heard by the UK Supreme Court. Assange, meanwhile, remains imprisoned indefinitely in a maximum-security UK prison.
As one of the world’s most high-profile political prisoners, and an Australian national, the Australian media and government might be expected to be up in arms over the plight of Assange. But the shameful lack of concern about his fate persists. Loyalty to the US empire, and willingness to cover up its many crimes, comes first for Australian capitalism.

Assange facing extradition to US: where is the outrage?

For more than a decade, the US government and its allies have sought to destroy Julian Assange. They have smeared him and his work, hounded him with spurious charges and imprisoned him. causing his mental and physical health to collapse. 
Thanks to a <a href="https://uk.news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london-shoot-out-inside-the-ci-as-secret-war-plans-against-wiki-leaks-090057786.html">recent investigative report from Yahoo! News</a>, we now know that this campaign of persecution included explicit discussions within the CIA about the possibility of kidnapping or assassinating him. According to a former senior counterintelligence official, discussion of plans to kidnap or kill Assange took place “at the highest levels” of the Trump administration, and “[t]here seemed to be no boundaries” as to what was considered.
The US government has had Assange in its sights since the 2010 release of the Afghan war logs and Iraq war logs. Assange and his organisation, WikiLeaks, have exposed the crimes of the US empire in the Middle East and beyond. The empire now wants revenge, and to make an example of him for anyone else considering speaking out. 
For the CIA, the ongoing release of the “Vault 7” documents, which began in 2017, prompted an escalation of this campaign of persecution. The Vault 7 documents, the largest leaks in CIA history, contain sensitive information on the CIA’s hacking and electronic spying tools, detailing the agency’s ability to hack into various consumer electronic devices. This includes turning smart TVs into listening devices and hijacking the vehicle control systems of modern cars and trucks. 
In the wake of these revelations, Trump’s then newly appointed CIA director, Mike Pompeo, sought to reclassify WikiLeaks from a journalistic outfit to a hostile spy agency. He declared in his first public statements in the role of CIA director in April 2017: “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia”. This new public designation of WikiLeaks accompanied the internal discussions of the possibility of kidnapping or assassinating Assange. 
It also accompanied a renewed attempt to extradite Assange to the US. While the Yahoo! News report shows that options like poisoning had been considered, it has ultimately been this campaign of legal persecution that has been the preferred way to destroy Assange. For close to a decade, Assange has been imprisoned in one way or another. From 2012 to 2019, he was trapped inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he sought and received political asylum to avoid a justifiably feared extradition to the US. The six and a half years which he spent in the embassy were considered by the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention to be a form of arbitrary confinement. 
According the Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, during Assange’s imprisonment in the embassy, he was a political prisoner subjected to psychological torture. In <a href="https://www.exberliner.com/features/julian-assange-trial-2020/nils-melzer-assange/">a September 2020 interview</a>, Melzer describes how “inside the embassy [Assange] was constantly surveilled, deprived of his privacy, exposed to death threats, isolated, humiliated and demonised”. Two separate medical experts who examined Assange in May 2019 found that he “showed typical signs of prolonged exposure to psychological torture”.
In April 2019, Assange’s citizenship and protection were revoked by the Ecuadorian government. He was subsequently dragged from the embassy by British police and has since been held in prison by British authorities. Despite this nearly decade-long imprisonment, the only crime which Assange has been convicted of is an administrative charge: bail infringement for charges that have now been dropped. For this minor offence, Assange was sentenced to 50 weeks in a maximum security prison. 
This sentence has been well and truly served. Due to good behaviour, the sentence was cut down to 25 weeks, which means that since September 2019 Assange has been held in a maximum security prison in order to facilitate ongoing attempts to extradite him to the US. In late 2017, US prosecutors secretly filed criminal charges against Assange of conspiring with celebrated whistleblower Chelsea Manning to gain access to a government computer in 2010. These charges were revealed on 11 April 2019, at the same time as Assange was arrested by British authorities. US prosecutors later added 17 further charges. If extradited and convicted in the US, Assange faces up to 175 years in prison. 
Despite the British courts ruling against Assange’s extradition in January of this year, his legal persecution continues. Ongoing attempts by the US to appeal this ruling have become a basis for the indefinite imprisonment of Assange. In late October, the British High Court held a two-day hearing to consider the US government’s appeal. A decision is expected in the coming weeks.
The January ruling against extradition was on the basis of Assange’s mental health, and that the harsh conditions of the US prison system would unreasonably increase the risk of Assange committing suicide. The US government is appealing on the basis that this decision wrongly assessed the risk. In the appeal, representative for the US government James Lewis has made much of a series of “assurances” given by the US that Assange will not be subjected to harsh measures such as super-maximum security prison or “special administrative measures” which restrict contact with the outside world.
As Assange’s defence pointed out, revelations of CIA assassination plots make these assurances laughable. And as a report on the proceedings in the Dissenter noted, “In spite of the assurance related to [special administration measures], Lewis still told the judges the US government must be allowed to hold Assange in these restrictive conditions if they fear he could be responsible for a ‘breach’ of ‘national security’. Otherwise, he would have a ‘blank check to do whatever he liked’.”
Regardless of the decision, the court cases are only beginning. If the appeal is successful, the case will go back to a lower court for a new decision, while whoever loses this current appeal can also apply for a further, final appeal in the UK’s supreme court. These proceedings could take years.
The ongoing attempts to extradite Assange constitute the most important political trial of the century. It is not just Assange on trial, but the entire idea of a free press and the ability of journalists to report on the war crimes of empire. Apart from the initial charges relating to conspiracy, the other 17 charges relate to the publication and release of secret government documents, something that has generally been standard practice for serious journalists and news outlets. These charges, begun by the Trump administration but continued by current US President Joe Biden, put into legal form the reclassification by Pompeo of WikiLeaks from journalism to “a non-state hostile intelligence service”. To criminalise this reporting in an era of growing imperial tensions is a disturbing precedent.
This trial, let alone the revelations of assassination plots against a journalist hailing from Australia, should have the media here up in arms. After years of prevarication, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/pm-should-urge-us-to-abandon-pursuit-of-julian-assange-20210105-p56ry5.html">most liberal editorials</a> have now come out against the espionage charges and the Australian government’s apparent lack of concern about them, worried by the precedent set for journalism. But the response by the media should match the extremity of the outrages against free reporting that are being carried out by the most powerful governments in the world. Instead, there has been a generally muted response.
Assange embarrassed the US government. Over many years, he has revealed its secrets and many crimes. His work has shown, in shocking detail, the violence and brutality that are a daily part of the US empire’s operations. For these crimes, crimes of telling the truth, he has faced a relentless campaign of persecution and the possibility of life in jail. It is our duty to stand in solidarity with him.

The plot to destroy Julian Assange

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, there basically hasn’t been a public health measure the loony right hasn’t fervently opposed. 
On 29 March 2020, just eight days after social distancing measures began, Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt was insisting, “Australians could be back at work in two weeks”. In July, as hundreds of new cases were being found daily in Victoria, Bolt came out against something as basic as the mask mandate. 
For the right, nothing can be allowed to take precedence over business as usual and the sacred accumulation of profit, including public health. Even relatively innocuous measures, like the mask mandate, must be opposed because they lend credence to the idea that COVID-19 is a serious issue that requires a serious response, and perhaps even a reordering of priorities on the part of governments and corporations. Allowing the profits of the tourism, airline or hospitality industries to be interrupted for the sake of the social good sets a dangerous precedent. If public health is prioritised during a pandemic, what’s next? Prioritising the planet during a climate crisis? 
To advance the case of their COVID-19 death cult, this hypocritical brood of vipers is willing to say absolutely anything. 
Last year we had Peter Dutton criticising Queensland’s border restrictions and calling for a reopening, claiming these restrictions were “having a very negative impact on people’s mental health and it is really devastating families”. This is the man who, as minister for home affairs, oversaw Australia’s anti-refugee border regime, which included forcing refugees to abandon their families in order to receive resettlement in the US, not something that is known to improve mental health outcomes. And his commitment to free movement has never surfaced in the more than two decades in which the Liberal Party has thrived on imposing cruel border restrictions.
It’s not just Dutton. Last year, Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Health Minister Greg Hunt put out a joint statement criticising Victoria’s lockdown, claiming to be “deeply concerned about the mental health impacts of a prolonged lock down on Melbourne residents”. 
For the same right-wingers who have implemented or supported cuts to social and health services to be crying about the mental health impacts of public health measures is cynicism of the highest order. But in the last two weeks, Bolt has upped the ante in the cynical stakes. 
In his 2 May Herald Sun column, Bolt became an overnight anti-racist, arguing the government’s ban on flights from India was “so mean and irrational that I must also blame racism. I can’t believe we would impose such a travel ban on white Australians fleeing from, say, England”. 
This is the same Andrew Bolt who in 2018 penned an article headlined “Foreign Invasion”, warning about Australia being “swamped by non-English-speaking immigrants”. This is the same man who last year sought to blame Victoria’s second wave on “tribalism” and “diversity—taken to extremes”. The same man who has repeatedly denied the legitimacy of the Stolen Generations. If you were to pick one journalist who encapsulated the racism of the Australian media, it would be Andrew Bolt. 
Bolt doesn’t care about racism, just as Peter Dutton doesn’t care about separating families and Scott Morrison doesn’t care about your mental health. They are just grabbing at any excuse to stir up opposition to public health measures. And if their arguments go against everything they’ve previously stood for, all the better for entrapping and befuddling the naive. 
Predictably, an embarrassing number of liberals and leftists on Twitter and related platforms promoted this line, congratulating Bolt on his stance. “Andrew Bolt has actually said something good for once”, trumpeted Junkee, describing his having “called out racism for what it was” as a welcome “pivot”. His history of depraved, pro-death opposition to public health measures seemed to be forgotten the minute he cynically invoked racism in pursuit of his disgraceful cause. 
There is plenty to criticise this government for. That an adequate national quarantine system still hasn’t been implemented more than a year into this pandemic is an absolute outrage. If the government had bothered to construct a proper quarantine system, we could easily begin not only the repatriation of the 9,000 or so Australians in India, but also restart the refugee intake, which has been on hold since March of last year. 
But Bolt is not worried about this. All he is concerned about is sowing doubt about the seriousness of COVID-19 and fuelling opposition to the necessary public health measures to contain it. The pandemic has so far discredited much of the far right. The left should not be helping to rehabilitate it.

Andrew Bolt will say anything so long as it means more people die of COVID-19

In Israel, an apartheid system ensures the domination of the Jewish population over Palestinians. As Human Rights Watch notes in its recent report, “A threshold crossed: Israeli authorities and the crimes of apartheid and persecution”:
“Every day a person is born in Gaza into an open-air prison, in the West Bank without civil rights, in Israel with an inferior status by law, and in neighboring countries effectively condemned to lifelong refugee status, like their parents and grandparents before them, solely because they are Palestinian and not Jewish.”
To understand how Israeli apartheid operates, it is important to know that all territory between Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, whether legally part of Israel or part of the occupied Palestinian territories, is part of a single regime of Israeli control. As Yariv Levin, the speaker of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, put it in 2014: 
“The correct policy, from the point of view of Israeli interests regarding our political ability at the moment, is to combine the attempt to hold the maximum amount of territory and apply sovereignty over the maximum amount of territory while keeping the Arab population within it to a minimum.”
Apartheid is enforced in several ways in the pursuit of this goal.
There are discriminatory migration policies. After the mass expulsions of Palestinians with the foundation of Israel, the Knesset passed the Law of Return in 1950. This law bestows the right on all Jewish people, no matter where they were born, to migrate to Israel with full citizenship rights. 
No such right of return is granted to non-Jewish Palestinians who were driven from the territory, or to their family members. In fact, the 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law explicitly denies citizenship or residency to inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which would normally be available for those marrying an Israeli citizen. 
Discriminatory migration policies aren’t enough, however—Israel faces what Zionists term the “demographic threat”. Palestinians make up around 20 percent of Israel’s citizens. But Palestinians are roughly half of the 14 million people living within the combined area making up the state of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. While Palestinian citizens of Israel face discrimination in health, housing and employment, they have at least some rights compared to Palestinians in the occupied territories, including the right to vote in Israel’s elections. To grant all Palestinians the same rights as Israelis would be an immediate threat to Jewish supremacy. 
Officially, the occupied territories, seized in 1967 by Israel, are a temporary military occupation, whose final status is to be determined by future negotiations. But there is nothing temporary about an occupation that has lasted more than half a century.
Ostensibly, Israel shares authority over parts of the occupied territories with the Palestinian Authority, which engages in “security coordination” with Israel. 
That is, the Palestinian Authority acts as a police force of the Israelis—in return, its leaders get to pretend that they lead a quasi-autonomous territory. But Israeli security forces have the right to act against whoever they want throughout the occupied territories; throughout most of the West Bank, they exercise sole authority. Israel also maintains control over the population registry, voting rights and borders of the territories. 
While Israel doesn’t directly occupy the Gaza Strip, it maintains complete control over its borders and airspace. Israel decides who gets to enter and leave, and what can be imported and exported. The blockade that it has imposed since 2007 has been devastating. While Israel has the highest COVID-19 vaccination rate in the world, only 36,000 people in Gaza have been vaccinated out of a population of more than 2 million. During the 14 years of the blockade, Israel has regularly bombed the territory, but blocks the import of construction materials that would be required to rebuild. 
The façade of a separation between Israel and the occupied territories enables Israeli sovereignty over the entire region while denying basic rights to the 5 million Palestinians who live within those territories.
In many instances, Israel maintains separate codes of law for Israeli Jews and non-Jewish Palestinians. Apart from East Jerusalem, Palestinians in the West Bank are under military rule. In East Jerusalem, which Israel has annexed, most Palestinians are defined as permanent residents, which grants them additional but still limited rights. But the more than 441,000 Jewish settlers throughout the occupied territories are given full rights as citizens of Israel and governed according to civil law. 
So while Jewish settlers in the West Bank have full voting rights, none of the Palestinians living in the same area have the right to vote in Israel’s parliamentary elections, despite the power that Israel exercises over their lives, while permanent residents in East Jerusalem are limited to voting in municipal elections. In theory, most Palestinians in the occupied territories have the right to vote in elections for the Palestinian Authority, but the last such election was in 2006. Even if elections were to take place, the Palestinian Authority is in practice completely subordinate to the Israeli state. 
The two codes of law, civil and military, which Jews and Palestinians live under in the West Bank, grant both groups dramatically different rights. Palestinians accused of crimes are tried in military courts with an almost 100 percent conviction rate. A 2014 report from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel found that “since the 1980s, all Israeli citizens brought to trial before the military courts were Arab citizens and residents of Israel”. Jewish settlers in the West Bank are tried in the regular Israeli court system.
Searching Jewish settlers requires a permit. Searching Palestinians does not. Jewish settlers, detained under Israeli law, must be brought before a judge within 24 or 96 hours, depending on the circumstances. Palestinians, detained under military law, can be held for up to eight days until they are required to be brought before a military judge. As citizens of Israel, Jewish settlers have rights to freedom of speech and assembly unless there is “near certainty” that it would harm security interests. Palestinians can be imprisoned for up to ten years for attempts to influence public opinion that “may” harm public peace. 
Palestinians in East Jerusalem are governed under civil law as permanent residents. A pathway to citizenship exists, but it requires recognising the Israeli occupation as legitimate. Most Palestinians do not apply for it, but of those who have, the vast majority have not received it. Permanent residency, in contrast to citizenship, is conditional and insecure. It can be revoked at any time by the minister of the interior. 
Israeli citizens can live and move freely throughout the territory Israel controls (except for the Gaza Strip). Palestinians from the West Bank are unable to enter Israel, East Jerusalem and large parts of the West Bank without difficult-to-obtain permits. Movement within the West Bank is restricted by hundreds of armed checkpoints. Security forces at these checkpoints can stop Palestinians without reason or leave them waiting at gunpoint for hours before allowing them to continue. 
Palestinians in the occupied territories require Israeli permission to travel internationally, a right they are routinely denied without explanation. While Israeli citizens can leave and re-enter the country at any time, residents of East Jerusalem who leave the city risk having their residency revoked. The minister of the interior has withdrawn residency from at least 14,701 Palestinians since 1967. 
Throughout all the areas it controls, Israeli policies discriminate in favour of the Jewish population and ensure greater Jewish control over the land. Adalah, a Palestinian-run legal centre in Israel, has documented some 65 laws that explicitly discriminate against Palestinians living in Israel. Palestinian citizens face discrimination in health, housing and employment. Discriminatory planning policies within the Israeli state confine Palestinians in overcrowded towns. While Palestinian citizens make up 20 percent of the population, Palestinian municipalities make up less than 3 percent of the land. The creation of more than 900 Jewish localities has been approved since 1948. For Palestinians, there have been none. 
According to the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Israel has demolished 7,591 Palestinian-owned structures in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 2009, displacing 11,408 people. It is extremely difficult for Palestinians to gain building permits throughout the territories. In East Jerusalem, a series of discriminatory laws enables settlers and settler organisations to evict Palestinians from their homes and transfer the latter to Jewish owners (as has occurred recently in the neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah). 
Throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem, at least 280 Jewish settlements have been established, home to more than 600,000 Jewish settlers. Discriminatory policies systematically favour Israeli settlers over Palestinians in these territories, including access to roads and water. The World Bank in 2009 found that Israelis in the West Bank consume four times more water than Palestinians.
That these interconnected regimes of oppression operate as a system of apartheid has long been recognised by Palestinian activists. As Palestinian writer Linah Alsaafin put it a decade ago in an article at the Electronic Intifada: “Apartheid is very much alive in occupied Palestine. It is our reality that we breathe through our congested lungs every minute of our waking lives”.
Recently, more mainstream human rights organisations have begun to catch up. In January this year, Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem released a position paper titled “A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid”. Last month, Human Rights Watch released the substantial report quoted above. These documents provide substantial details of the oppression faced by Palestinians.
At the same time, we need to go beyond the human rights framework of these NGOs. The Human Rights Watch report ends with a series of recommendations. These are all directed to various nation-states, in particular the United States and the countries of the European Union, or to international organisations like the International Criminal Court. When it comes to the liberation of Palestinians, this gets things totally backwards. 
It is not by accident that Western governments and their institutions so stridently back Israel. In the Middle East, a region with two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves, the alliance with Israel has been crucial for Western imperial strategy in the 20th and 21st centuries. As US President Joe Biden once put it, “<a>If there were not an Israel, we would have to invent one</a> to make sure our interests were preserved”. 
Imperialist states will not be persuaded by moral cases, no matter how compelling. And justice for Palestine cannot be won through international courts. The dismantling of the Israeli apartheid state and liberation for Palestinians will be won only through independent revolutionary struggle in Palestine and across the Middle East.

Israel is an apartheid state

“A cancer on democracy”: that’s how former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd describes Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp media empire. It’s a fitting description. News Corp controls around two-thirds of the daily newspaper circulation in Australia, giving the country one of the most concentrated levels of media ownership in the world. This dominance gives Murdoch enormous influence over political life, influence he uses to advance a vile right-wing agenda. 
From climate change denial to cheering on the invasion of Iraq, there is barely a reactionary cause Murdoch’s empire hasn’t championed. Moral panics are a specialty, journalists fabulating transgender agendas or racialised crimewaves in their fevered imaginations and shouting them in bold text on the front pages of daily tabloids, or in equally hateful serifs in the case of national broadsheet the Australian. 
This year, the Murdoch media have campaigned against public health measures to curb the spread of COVID-19, such as border closures, lockdowns and wearing masks. From the beginning of the pandemic, News Corp has pumped out a mix of misinformation and denialism straight out of the playbook of their decades-long campaign against climate science. The campaigning reached a fever pitch during the attacks on “Dictator Dan”—the Victorian premier—and the lifesaving lockdown that stopped Melbourne’s second wave. News Corp demanded a reopening of the economy that likely would have led to the sort of viral spread occurring elsewhere in the world. 
News Corp criticisms of lockdowns were temporarily silenced when their mates in the Liberal Party introduced restrictions in South Australia. Murdoch has a particularly cosy relationship with the Coalition. As Rudd notes, over the last decade, in nineteen out of the last nineteen federal and state elections, the Murdoch media have campaigned for the Coalition. 
The Coalition has done what it can to pay Murdoch back and expand his influence. Since 2017, the federal government has given $40 million in grants to the Murdoch-owned television subscription service Foxtel, while in the same period cutting $84 million from the ABC budget. A successful 2017 bill further loosened regulations on corporate ownership of the media, enabling an even greater level of concentration.
There are therefore plenty of good reasons why so many have flocked to sign Rudd’s petition for a royal commission into Murdoch’s empire and into media diversity. With more than 500,000 signatures, it is the largest e-petition in Australian history. 
As the text of the petition notes, the Australian media landscape has become less diverse in recent years, with a mix of corporate takeovers, the sacking of journalists and the growth of online monopolies all contributing to an increasingly homogenous corporate media.
These developments make it harder for critical voices to be heard. The reality, however, is that whether there are two, three or five corporations that own the newspapers and television networks in Australia, the media is still run by and for big business. 
Networks such as Nine and Seven have been just as enthusiastic in promoting a right-wing agenda. Both networks, for example, have facilitated One Nation leader Pauline Hanson’s return to federal politics. From 2016, Channel Seven gave regular paid appearances to the infamous racist on breakfast program Sunrise, helping to rebuild her public profile in the lead-up to the federal election, when she was elected as a senator. The weekly platform continued through to 2019, while similar regular appearances on Channel Nine’s Today Show continued through to June this year.
Kerry Stokes, the billionaire owner of the Seven network, has a special interest in defending Australia’s war criminals in the special forces. He’s taken alleged war criminal Ben Roberts-Smith under his wing, employing him as an executive and donating $1.9 million to his defamation case. In the wake of the Brereton report into war crimes in Afghanistan, Stokes offered to support the legal costs of accused war criminals, with a decades-old fund he established to support the SAS. It is therefore disturbing, but not surprising, to find Seven producing a reality show this year, SAS Australia, glorifying the criminal unit.
When it comes down to it, the entire mainstream media share the corporate, pro-capitalist worldview of Murdoch. They might be more or less critical of aspects of how the system is run, but no section of the mainstream media questions it’s basic premises: that profits rule, the rich and powerful run the show, and politics begins and ends in the dreary halls of parliament.
The billionaire owners of mainstream media outlets are part of the ruling class. Their TV channels and newspapers compete for advertising revenue. Their journalists and editors operate in, and are expected to respect, the world of the social elites, of business owners, bureaucrats and politicians. 
Labor politicians often fall foul of the likes of Murdoch, who nine times out of ten will back the Coalition, the open party of the bosses. Rudd himself gained Murdoch’s support in the 2007 election, only to become the target of a Murdoch smear campaign once elected—primarily in response to his proposed Minerals Resource Rent Tax. The campaign was a factor in Rudd’s ouster as prime minister in June 2010. 
Figures like Rudd can resent the corporate media’s power when it works against them. But because Labor wants to run Australian capitalism, it shares the underlying political outlook of the corporate media. Whether it’s backing the coal industry, supporting wars or locking up refugees, the reason Labor lines up with so many right-wing News Corp campaigns isn’t because the party’s been strong-armed by an all-powerful media, but because it fundamentally agrees with the premises of the argument: that profits come first, and that the interests of Australian capitalists must be advanced and defended. 
Murdoch has faced public inquiries and investigations before, notably in the UK in the wake of the 2011 News of the World phone hacking scandal. But a real challenge to Murdoch’s power requires more than a polite inquiry. It must involve a challenge to his ideas. 
On the few occasions that Labor has stood up to the Murdoch press, it has been able to win popular support against the seeming right-wing consensus. In Victoria, the Andrews government held fast to a lockdown strategy despite months of campaigning from all sections of the media. This approach won the government widespread support, including a big boost in the polls and a 71 percent approval rating for the premier. 
In Queensland, News Corp has a virtual monopoly on both Brisbane and regional print media. But likewise, in recent months Annastacia Palaszczuk’s Labor has stared down a Murdoch campaign to end border closures, winning re-election with an increased majority. 
These examples demonstrate what is possible, but they are exceptions to the rule. Usually, Labor governments capitulate or spontaneously embrace Murdoch’s agenda. What’s needed is a willingness to challenge the premises that underpin the corporate media’s politics. 
One of Rudd’s criticisms of News Corp is that it operates as a partisan political force. But the problem isn’t just that News Corp takes sides in elections. It’s that it, along with the rest of the media, is always on the side of capitalism. 
We need media that is unapologetically anti-capitalist. Red Flag is proud to be such a publication, to always take the side of workers and stand with the oppressed against the powerful. Our goal isn’t to sell advertising, win people to the status quo or otherwise be a loyal servant of the system. It’s to fight for a socialist alternative.

The hypocrisy of the warmongering media

Ben Roberts-Smith: war criminal

University bosses’ pay increases while workers’ wages fall

What do we mean by revolution?

They should treat the healthcare system like they do the military

Assange facing extradition to US: where is the outrage?

The plot to destroy Julian Assange

Andrew Bolt will say anything so long as it means more people die of COVID-19

Israel is an apartheid state

The 'cancer on democracy' is more than just Murdoch

Other Media

Shop

Conferences

Manage Your Subscription

Contact Us