Nearly 400 elephants have died in Botswana’s Okavango Delta since March, in what wildlife experts say is one of the largest elephant mortality events ever recorded. Conservationists have criticized the government’s handling of the matter and are urging them to speed up investigations.

Botswana’s environment ministry registered the first of these unexplained elephant deaths in the Okavango in March, but the discovery of carcasses has accelerated since May.

Many of the dead elephants have been found near natural watering holes, while some have been found on trails. Some of the animals were found collapsed on their chests, suggesting their death had been fast and sudden.

The authorities said at the start of June that they were investigating just over 100 elephant deaths. Media reports said poaching, poisoning and anthrax had been ruled out as possible causes by the authorities.

Anthrax occurs naturally in the ground in parts of Botswana and has been known to kill wildlife in large numbers; wildlife disease experts have told Mongabay that this could only be ruled out as a cause by laboratory tests. The government said it was sending samples from the carcasses to South Africa for further testing, according to local media reports. However, officials said the process could be delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

But international and local wildlife groups have criticized the government’s handling of the investigation. They say private surveys carried out in mid-June by conservationists, the results of which Mongabay has seen — show that almost 400 elephants have died.

They also say authorities have ignored offers to help with testing and investigation.

“There is evidence that suggests the real number of dead elephants is 400 so far,” Mark Hiley, operations director at the conservation group National Park Rescue, told Mongabay. “This is one of the biggest elephant mortality events of its kind, certainly this century.

“What needs to be done in a situation like this is to immediately take samples for testing. The government has bungled [taking these] urgently needed samples and failed to send them to a qualified lab for months.”

Hiley and others say samples were not quickly sent to labs for analysis as the government claims, delaying efforts to understand what is taking place in the Okavango.

“There is an urgent need to send in a professional, impartial team, with the proper resources and experience to carry out a full investigation,” Hiley added. “Offers have been made [by conservationists] but the government has failed to respond.”

Elephant carcass in the Okavango Delta.

Elephant carcass in the Okavango Delta.

There are more elephants in Botswana than in any other country. Measures to protect large wildlife, including hunting bans and “shoot-to-kill” policies to deter poachers, have seen the population grow from 80,000 in the late 1990s to an estimated 135,000 today.

But conservationists have raised the alarm over a rise in poaching since Mokgweetsi Masisi became president two years ago.

Having promised to reduce the number of elephants in the country amid rising human-wildlife conflicts as the human population grows, Masisi last year lifted a ban on hunting elephants. The ban had been introduced five years previously by his predecessor, Ian Khama.

Aerial surveys found a nearly six-fold rise in elephant poaching in the north of the country between 2014 and 2018. About 385 elephants were poached from 2017 to early October 2018, and 156 for the whole of 2018, including 90 identified in a single two-month period between July and September in a survey carried out with representatives of Botswana’s Department of Wildlife and National Parks. Government officials later disputed the findings.

“Given the high volume of professional poaching in the Okavango area since the COVID-19 lockdowns began, poison remains a likely candidate,” Hiley said.

Poachers often lay poison traps to kill wildlife and remove what they want from the carcasses afterward. Local activists said they had found the remnants of an improvised camp near to where some elephants had died.

But no evidence of removal of dead elephants’ tusks has been reported.

“There is a worrying lack of urgency about this situation,” Mary Rice of the U.K.-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) told Mongabay. “This is symptomatic of the change in philosophy of this new regime and the U-turn which has been seen in the country with regard to the protection of key species.”

Government officials did not respond when contacted by Mongabay about their investigation into the elephant deaths.

There is an urgent need for comprehensive testing and investigation, Hiley said.

Elephant carcass, Okavango Delta

Hundreds of elephants have died in Botswana’s Okavango Delta; the cause is yet to be determined.

“Horrific scenes were reported to me of dying elephants running around in circles, suggesting something — potentially neurotoxins — impacting brain function. Some elephants reportedly had their rear quarters paralyzed,” he said.

“It is possible that the disaster has implications for people living in and around the Okavango Delta region, but until a proper team is sent in [to collect and test samples], this cannot be known,” he said.

“If it’s poison, something can be done about it, but if it’s a new disease it could be worse, especially as elephants can travel such huge distances. This is why it is so important to do tests as quickly as possible.”

One expert on disease among African wildlife, who spoke to Mongabay on condition of anonymity, said they had “never seen any elephant mortality on this scale before.” But they urged against jumping to any conclusions until advanced tests had been done.

“Theoretically, anthrax could be responsible,” the expert said. “It is also possible that a pathogen has emerged and is virulent in the high-density elephant population in that area.

“Or it could be something like the mass deaths of the saiga antelopes [in Kazakhstan in 2015] which turned out in the end to be down to a not uncommon pathogen.

“The only way to find out is to do proper tests.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from The Ecologist

US Plans to Invade Venezuela Through Colombia

July 10th, 2020 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Colombia is under a pro-Washington government. The country’s current president, Iván Duque Márquez, has been noted for a series of policies of alignment with the United States, continuing the legacy of his predecessor, former president Juan Manuel Santos, who has made Colombia a NATO’s “global partner”, allowing the country to participate in joint military operations of the Western military alliance. In general, the long scenario of crises and tensions in Colombia, marked by drug trafficking and the conflict between criminal factions and rebel parties, has driven its governments towards a policy of alignment with Washington in exchange for security, which has increased in recent years.

However, not all Colombian politicians approve these measures. Recently, the leftist senator Iván Cepeda asked Colombian Congressional President Lidio García to convene a session to investigate and legally control the government in its collaboration with the constant arrival of American soldiers in the country. According to Cepeda, the presence of these military personnel is hostile to Colombia, deeply affecting the maintenance of national sovereignty.

Cepeda claims that the government should consult the National Congress before allowing the American military to arrive. A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Cundinamarca proved Cepeda right. According to the judges of the Court, the unilateral decision to allow the entry of foreign troops violates the Colombian National Constitution, and the Executive Branch must previously submit the matter to the Congress. For this reason, the Court asked the government to send information about the joint operations in progress, with the aim of clarifying the reason for the arrival of American troops. The deadline for sending the report was July 6 and was not met by the government – which claims it will appeal the decision. Due to the non-compliance, Cepeda filed a request for the establishment of a special congressional session.

The exact number of US military personnel in the country is uncertain, which further raises suspicions about the case. Some sources say there are more than 800 Americans, while others say they are between 50 and 60 military personnel. No official note was given by the government to explain the reasons and the exact number of soldiers. On the other hand, the American Embassy in Colombia, under pressure, commented on the case, giving an unsatisfactory answer. According to American diplomats, military personnel are arriving in Colombia to carry out joint operations to combat drug trafficking. Apparently, these operations would aim to carry out a siege against Venezuela and Nicolás Maduro, who, according to Donald Trump, has links with drug trafficking in the region. It is important to remember that Trump’s accusations against Maduro were never substantiated and any evidence was provided of such links between the Venezuelan president and drug trafficking.

Recently, Colombian mercenaries invaded Venezuela by sea in American vessels. Venezuelan security forces neutralized the attack, but since then it has become clear that Colombia is willing to collaborate with the US to overthrow the government of Nicolás Maduro. Apparently, therefore, American troops arriving in the country are preparing for a next step in this old American project to occupy Venezuela.

The justification that the Venezuelan government has links with drug trafficking becomes even more curious when the American ally is precisely Colombia, a state that historically has structural links with the organized crime and the illegal drug trade in South America, being considered by experts in the whole world as a true narco-state. Likewise, the United States is not innocent of scandals involving international trafficking. The CIA has repeatedly been accused of collaborating with criminal networks worldwide. The American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 guaranteed to the US the complete control of opium production in the region. In Mexico, in exchange for information and resources, American intelligence has collaborated several times with the activities of the so-called Guadalajara Cartel. Still, for years, American intelligence collaborated with Panamanian general Manuel Noriega, who has been publicly involved in drug trafficking since the 1960s, in exchange for military support against guerrillas in Nicaragua.

In fact, we can see that drug trafficking is a flawed and inconsistent justification for an invasion against Venezuela. Colombia and the United States have much more credible and notorious evidence of drug trafficking and are precisely the countries articulating this operation. We can imagine the real reasons behind this: unable to maintain its global hegemony, Washington desperately tries to guarantee its power in Latin America, and, for that, it tries to overthrow Maduro; Colombia provides support to the US in exchange for a mask for its own criminal activities, carried out in collusion by the government and criminal networks of drug trafficking groups – such activities will be falsely attributed to Maduro.

Anyway, what seems clear now is that the US plans to invade Venezuela through Colombia.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The United States and its NATO allies launched a military intervention in 1999 that helped the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) win its secessionist campaign against Serbia.U.S. officials justified that intervention on the grounds that Serbian security forces were committing pervasive war crimes against the Kosovar insurgents. American supporters of the KLA also asserted that the secessionists were staunch Western‐​style democrats mounting a noble resistance against Slobodan Milosevic’s corrupt, brutal regime, and that America had a moral obligation to support them. Speaking at a pro‐​Kosovo march in Washington D. C., Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) stated that the “United States of America and the Kosovo Liberation Army stand for the same human values and principles.… Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values.”

There was abundant evidence at the time that KLA leaders did not embody such values. Shortly after Kosovo became independent, KLA‐​supported mobs destroyed Serbian religious sites and waged a campaign of ethnic cleansing that expelled thousands of Serbs, as well as Roma and other minorities. Years later, evidence of utterly barbaric behavior during and after the war emerged. In 2010, an investigative report for the Council of Europe confirmed long‐​standing rumors that the KLA was involved in the trafficking of human organs, including killing Serb prisoners of war to harvest their kidneys and other organs. The lead investigator and author of the report was Swiss Senator Dick Marty, a highly respected champion of human rights.One of the suspects specifically named was Kosovo prime minister (currently president) Hashim Thaci. Yet U.S. leaders in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administration continued to back the KLA alumni who dominated Kosovo’s politics. The flow of foreign aid money from Washington continued unabated.

It now will—or at least should—be very difficult for Washington to persist in that policy.On June 24, Thaci and nine other former separatist military leaders were indicted on a range of crimes against humanity and war crimes charges by an international prosecutor probing their actions against ethnic Serbs and others during and after Kosovo’s 1998–99 war for independence against Serbia. The prosecutor for the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, a court based in The Hague, said Thaci and the nine others “are criminally responsible for nearly 100 murders” involving hundreds of Serb and Roma victims, as well as Kosovo Albanian political opponents. At the time of his indictment, Thaci was about to depart on one of his many trips to Washington to consult with U.S. officials on Balkan affairs.

This case is yet another shameful episode in which U.S. leaders have embraced thuggish geopolitical clients and portrayed them as committed democrats. At times, the United States has even gone to war on behalf of such odious clients.Washington’s support for Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress played a major role in America’s decision to wage the ill‐​advised military crusade in that country. More recently, Obama administration officials and many of their allies in the media have portrayed Islamic jihadists in Syria as freedom fighters seeking to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and, therefore, are worthy of U.S. backing.

Such chronic misrepresentations should not only cause U.S. leaders acute embarrassment, there needs to be a fundamental reexamination of America’s foreign policy to prevent such fiascos in the future. A good place to start is with a repudiation of the leaders Washington helped bring to power in Kosovo.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

To annex or not annex? This is the question bugging Israeli, Palestinian and international political figures since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu missed his July 1 deadline for beginning the process of formally annexing portions of the occupied West Bank. According to Netanyahu ally Ofir Akunis, Israeli officials are still working out the details of the annexation with the US Trump administration, but he expects this will take place during this month.

In an interview with Italian daily “It Fatto Quotidiano”, former Israeli Knesset speaker and peace activist Avraham Burg said, however, Donald Trump halted the annexation plan since “he doesn’t have time to help Netanyahu in implementing the annexation of the West Bank and Jordan Valley.” Asked when he thought implementation might go ahead, Burg replied it is “very difficult, if not impossible, to set expectations to the annexation, because there is no transparency in this plan, no one knows its details”. Burg made his name as a founder of Peace Now following Israel’s 1982 war on Lebanon and has since joined efforts to boycott goods and produce from Israel’s West Bank colonies. In 2015 he joined the leftist joint Arab-Jewish Hadash Party.

Having green-lighted  Netanyahu’s intention to annex Israel’s West Bank colonies and the Jordan Valley, 30 per cent of the territory, Trump could very well be “too busy” campaigning for reelection to back up his friend in a project which has been vehemently condemned as illegal by the UN, the European Union, the Arabs, the Palestinians, the remaining four permanent members of the Security Council, and other members of the international community.

Although he claims to be running on a “law-and-order” platform, Trump is not impressed by the fact that the West Bank is regarded by international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention as “occupied territory” and deems Israeli colonisation illegal.

Netanyahu’s coalition partner, Defence Minister Benny Gantz, who is less keen on annexation, argues it should wait until Israel contains Covid-19 cases which have spiked just as the country was beginning to ease restrictions. Gantz, in particular, should be concerned if annexation precipitates widespread Palestinian protests and violent resistance.  It will be his job to contain and crack down.

Since Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas‘ election in 2005, Israel has been largely free of the sort of attacks that took place during the Second Intifada due to security coordination between the Palestinian intelligence agencies and police and their Israeli counterparts. However, Abbas has cut contacts with Israel and halted security cooperation since Netanyahu returned to power and pledged to annex areas allocated to Israel in Trump’s “Deal of the Century” which has been roundly rejected of all and sundry.

Abbas has now taken a major step further. Along with Hamas’ leaders, he has agreed to support a common Fateh-Hamas Palestinian resistance campaign which could involve violence if and when Israel annexes West Bank territory. This campaign was announced last week by Jibril Rajoub, head of Fateh’s central committee, and Saleh Al Arouri, West Bank chief of Hamas. Both men have careers in militancy and have served long terms in Israeli prisons.

Rajoub and Arouri have vowed to “speak in a single voice”. Rajoub said they would launch “popular resistance in which everyone participates” and “put in place all necessary measures to ensure national unity”. He announced, “We will not raise a white flag, we will not give up. All the options are open if the Israelis start the annexation and slam the door on the two-State solution.” He did not rule out a Third Intifada to end the occupation and “remove annexation from the table”.

Arouri said the rival movements have set aside “issues on which we differ. We and Fateh and all the Palestinian factions are facing an existential threat, and we must work together”. Hamas, he said will use “all forms of struggle and resistance against the annexation project”.  He rightly pointed out, “Annexing any percentage of the West Bank now means that more will follow… If the occupation ends up controlling the Jordan Valley, Jerusalem and other areas then it will have an appetite for more.”

Since both men have made it clear that “all options” are open if Israel goes ahead with annexation, coming together on this issue appears to mark a turning point. Fateh and Hamas have adopted the same stand towards annexation. If Netanyahu goes ahead, Palestinian Authority security agencies would no longer prevent mass protests in the West Bank or hinder Fateh, Hamas and other groups from plotting and staging attacks on Israel and Israelis.

This does not mean that Fateh and Hamas, estranged since Hamas won the 1996 Palestinian legislative election, have reconciled. Cooperation on annexation does mot signify reconciliation but simply the need to join forces to counter Israel’s formal take-over of all or portions of the West Bank, which will make the emergence of a Palestinian state impossible. Near global opposition to such a move has given Palestinians the right to resist Israel’s latest and most consequential existential challenge. Without land they will continue to exist in a limbo, without a state, independence, and full membership in the international community which is open only to states. The Palestinians have no choice but to resist in any way, shape or form they choose. The late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat always kept “all options” in reserve, knowing full well that Palestinians have very little leverage over Israel and its allies.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Palestinian take cover as Israeli forces fire at protesters at the Gaza border on 14 December 2018 [Mohammed Asad/Middle East Monitor]

Do you want the true answer, or do you want the answer given by propaganda, official government versions and the mainstream media?

I will give you the true, medical answer: the tests do not answer any of these questions, they are unreliable, they give overly simplistic answers that can be used by governments to make people believe what they want them to believe.

There are two main types of tests:

  1. Molecular tests: RT-PCR
  2. Serological tests: looking for antibodies in blood

RT-PCR [1]

In cells taken from the back of the nose, RT-PCR searches for fragments of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA, forms the corresponding DNA using the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase (RT) and amplifies (multiplies) the RNA-DNA fragments found using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique. By a complicated technique, therefore subject to many missteps, we are told that this test could quantify the viral load.

This test, the results of which can take 2 to 7 days, is supposed to prove that you are infected (RT-PCR +) or not (RT-PCR -) by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and that you are contagious or not contagious.

This is not the truth.

Yet it has guided all medical decisions around the world to categorize patients into COVID and NON-COVID, to isolate the former and confirm them as COVID-19.

The presence of a clinical picture composed of major signs (including cough, fever) and minor signs, with in some cases a chest CT scan, has led to the classification of symptomatic patients as either suspicious (awaiting RT-PCR result) or confirmed (positive RT-PCR and/or evocative chest CT scan), with minor, moderate and severe forms.

This theory based on quicksand proves that human beings always prefer a logical and reassuring lie, simplistic, to the more complex and frightening truth.

Many studies and articles by recognized experts in their field, including some from prestigious universities, have shown the unreliability of RT-PCR, which can give false positive or false negative results or are disrupted by a lot of elements at all stages of its technique [2].

Clinical pictures and images from chest scans are not specific and can be found in any broad viral or infectious disease [3].

SARS-CoV-2 is part of a family of many similar viruses, most of which are benign: cold viruses.

It is most likely that this specific virus has had time to circulate in a large part of the population before the end of March and containment measures.

These strict isolation measures did not destroy the virus or extinguish the pandemic. On the contrary, they destroyed the economy of many countries and many lives (unemployment, loneliness, poverty, depression, untreated diseases, anxiety, famine).

 “Kerry Pollard, a microbiologist from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, performs a manual extraction of the coronavirus in the   extraction laboratory of the Pennsylvania Department of Health’s Office of Laboratories on Friday, March 6, 2020 ”  Source: flickr.com

Serological tests to help COVID-19 propaganda? [4]

Serological tests are done using blood, 8 ml taken in a dry tube or a single drop in the case of rapid tests.

The biologist looks for the presence of antibodies (Ac) or immunoglobulins (Ig) specific to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.

There are two main types of antibodies:

  1. IgM: recent or ongoing infection, phase of contagion.
  2. IgG: older infection, healing, more contagion

Some serological tests only detect IgG. Studies have shown that virtually all subjects with symptomatic COVID-19 produced detectable IgG antibodies as long as the blood sample was taken at least 3 weeks after the first symptoms [5].

There are several types of IgG.

S1/S2 IgG are neutralizing antibodies, protecting against the virus.

However, not all identified IgG antibodies are protective or neutralizing; in fact, the opposite is true with the phenomenon of facilitating infection via antibodies (ADE Antibody Dependent Enhancement, as in dengue fever). In this case, rather than blocking the key (Spike protein of the viral envelope) that allows the virus to enter the target cells (neutralizing antibodies), these facilitating antibodies promote the penetration of the virus into the target cells! [6-7]

Rapid tests, such as the one from BioLab Sciences [8] based in Scottsdale, Arizona (USA), allow rapid antibody detection within 10 minutes with a specificity of 98%. These are the claims of the laboratory. A drop of blood is enough, as in blood glucose tests with a fingertip prick.

There are several types of rapid tests, 12 tests approved by the FDA in the USA alone (as of June 1st), but also others in Malaysia, China or Europe.

A laboratory like the one in Scottsdale, Arizona, claims to be able to provide up to 9 million tests per week.

Interpretation of the quick-test results:

1. IgM positive alone: recent infection/contact (days), within the previous 4 weeks at most
2. IgM and IgG positive: infection/contact that occurred 4-8 weeks prior to the infection
3. IgG positive alone: infection/contact more than 8 weeks ago

Yes, so what?

What can we really conclude from this?

Let’s take a look at the theory of human immunity to better understand [9] :

The human immune defense is composed of two main lines.

  1. Innate or natural immunity
  2. Acquired or adaptive immunity

A. Innate immunity is not specific, it is very rapid, intervenes first in case of aggression and is often sufficient. It is not based on the production of antibodies. This means that antibodies are absolutely not essential to eliminate an infection. It also means that the absence of antibodies or a low level of antibodies in the blood does not rule out a viral infection that will have been managed by the exclusive innate immunity. This is even a sign of good immune health!

B. Adaptive immunity is specific, it is slower, it is only activated when innate immunity is overwhelmed or insufficient, and it is based, but not only, on the production of antibodies.

Therefore, to sum up an individual’s immune defence to his or her antibody production is as false and simplistic as summing up a country’s defence to its special forces. Yet this pirouette is the main dogma of immunology, the sacred basis of vaccinology.

What does the orthodox immune theory say?

Positive test

She said that a positive serological test (the presence of sufficient SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus-specific antibodies in the blood) indicates recent (IgM-days/weeks) or past (IgG-weeks/month) infection.

It also says that a positive IgG test (a sufficient level in the blood) means that the person is protected against a new infection.

But it’s not that simple.

Remember AIDS (HIV infection or HIV). Before AIDS, any seroconversion was considered a good sign, reflecting the adaptive immune system’s response to an infection.

After AIDS, seroconversion (the presence of antibodies to HIV) became a bad sign, leading to the diagnosis of an active disease: HIV-positive [10].

Negative test

The orthodox theory says that a negative test (little or no IgG in the blood) means that the person has not become infected and is not protected.

However, that is not entirely true.

The absence of IgG antibodies (or a low serum level) does not mean that a person has not been infected because he or she may have relied solely on innate immunity (immunity without antibodies) or may have relied on other types of antibodies such as Immunoglobulin A (IgA) secreted locally in infected mucous membranes (nasopharyngeal mucosa).

The antibodies are secreted by activated B-lymphocytes during the late, adaptive and specific immune response. However, this adaptive immunity also relies on other cells that do not produce antibodies, such as T lymphocytes, which also constitute a very important antiviral and antimicrobial line of defence, not taken into account by blood serologies that only measure serum antibodies.

In addition, there is an important immunological concept, that of cross-immunity [11]. Yes, doctors should re-read their immunology courses!

The coronavirus family is a large family!

For the most part, these viruses are benign and cause colds every year. By dint of early childhood, true coronavirus immunity has developed, facilitating the innate immune response to SARS-CoV-2 so that in many people it may have been enough to shorten viral multiplication.

The adaptive (antibody-mediated) immune response in all of these people did not have time to come into play, so there were no antibodies.

This is not bad at all and means, on the contrary, that the previous colds prepared the person to react well to SARS-CoV-2 (effective cross-immunity).

In summary, a negative serology (insufficient antibodies to SARS-CoV-2) DOES NOT EXCLUDE being infected and DOES NOT EXCLUDE the existence of protective immunity to a severe form of COVID-19.

IgG serology alone will underestimate the true rate of cured infections and the true immunity of the population to SARS-CoV-2!

It would be more interesting to assay the entire coronavirus antibody pool, not just those specific to SARS-CoV-2.

Immunological hypothesis to explain severe forms of COVID-19:

Severe forms (intensive care, death) have mostly been observed in elderly patients (even very elderly, >/= 80 years old) and/or with one or more chronic diseases (obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease…).

These chronic Western pathologies (increasingly global and mainly linked to sweet diets associated with excessive sedentary lifestyle) have become so commonplace that they are now overly commonplace in hospitals. It has almost become “normal” to be fat, hypertensive, quickly out of breath, diabetic or inactive.

However, this is THE scourge of modern times, much more than the lack of vaccination!

All of these diseases and lifestyle habits severely depress the immune system [12].

a) Innate, natural immunity has been unable in these people to eliminate the virus or slow its multiplication.

b) Adaptive, specific immunity, which produces antibodies of several types, may have led to the secretion of ADE antibodies, facilitating viral invasion in tissues with specific receptors for these antibodies, leading to an excessive, exaggerated inflammatory reaction (Th2 immunological response) and more destruction than cure [13], especially in the lungs.

In this case, the very high levels of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 rather reflected a bad situation, synonymous with severe infection and deleterious immune reactions!

CONCLUSIONS

Both molecular tests of RT-PCR type (diagnosis, contagiousness) and serological tests with IgM-IgG antibodies (diagnosis, immunity) are unreliable.

They do not take into account the cross-immunity to other coronaviruses (very similar to SARS-CoV-2 but more numerous and benign) which has certainly been able to play a great role in the protection of a whole section of the population, especially the young and relatively healthy individuals (60 to 85% of people are able to eliminate coronaviruses using only their innate immune system, without developing antibodies for this).

Many people are and will be protected by this cross-immunity, provided by all the ambient coronaviruses that we have been breathing without any concern or hardly (common cold) for decades and without going through the specific antibody box.

Moreover, it is not because the antibodies in question disappear quickly [14] or decrease very strongly in the bloodstream that the individual no longer has immune protection.

There are many lines of protection (helper T cells, cytotoxic, regulatory, other molecules made by B cells, innate immunity…) and to reduce everything to antibodies alone to say that you are protected or not is profoundly dishonest, or stupid.

Immunity is not only based on antibodies, far from it [15]!

Patients with moderate COVID-19 showed low levels of serum IgA and IgG specific for the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein.

Patients with severe COVID showed high levels of specific serum IgA and IgG, the higher the severity of the disease [16].

While the orthodox immunological theory would say that the sicker you are, the more Ac you make to protect yourself, in reality the high level of Ac is partly responsible for the severity of the disease (ADE phenomenon).

The high level of antibodies, far from reflecting protection, reflects an inadequate (maladjusted) immune response leading to a Th2 (humoral and inflammatory) rather than a Th1 (cellular) immune response. And this is not good.

Why is it not good?

Because of the overall poor health status of patients with severe IDVOC (one or more severe co-morbidities, high age)!

The most important thing is good coordination between the innate and adaptive immune systems and this is based on good health (dietary, physical, mental).

Low antibody levels may simply mean that your innate immune system has been effective and has been sufficient to protect you. That’s good!

Anything can be made to say at the tests, including serological (antibody) tests, and it all depends on the intention, benevolent and honest OR malevolent and dishonest, of those who will tell you what they want you to believe.

P.S. my advice as a doctor:

Strengthen your immunity by a healthy (balanced) diet, moderate, varied and regular physical activity and daily mental hygiene (meditation, self-hypnosis, sophrology, breathing, walking in nature without masks).

And if you and your children have colds, that’s fine.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Pascal Sacré graduated in medicine in Belgium in 1995. He started a specialization in anesthesia and intensive care in 1997, completed in 2002 and completed a specialization in critical care in 2003. He has been working in a hospital environment since then, in intensive care, with a 2.5 year stay in a centre for burn victims (Queen Astrid Military Hospital HMRA in Brussels) between 2009 and 2011. Since 2011, he has been working in a medical-surgical intensive care centre in Charleroi, Belgium. He is trained in hypnotherapy in a medical environment since 2014 and as such, he is responsible for stress management training for the staff of his hospital. He has been collaborating with the Centre for Research on Globalization since 2009.

Translation from French by Maya, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Featured Image is from Pixabay

Notes:

[1] Tutoriel prélèvement nasopharyngé : Un geste technique, essentiel à la fiabilité du test COVID-19

[2] Les tests: talon d’Achille du château de cartes COVID-19, mondialisation.ca, 28 mai 2020

[3] Utilité du CT-scan thoracique pour le diagnostic et le triage des patients suspects de COVID-19, Swiss Medical Journal RMS 2020, Vol. 16, 955-957. The role of CT in the management of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients remains uncertain.

[4] Place des tests sérologiques dans la stratégie de prise en charge de la maladie COVID-19

[5] Le Journal du Médecin, 4 juin 2020, n° 2632

[6] Anticorps facilitants et pathogénèse du COVID 19, Swiss Medical Journal 25 April 2020. This article highlights the complexity of the immune response. Complexity that prompts us to reflect on the meaning of the presence of antibodies: can a positive serology over time say that there is immunity? Moreover, as can be suspected in some severe cases, the immune response could play a role in the pathogenesis of the disease.

[7] Molecular Mechanism for Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Coronavirus Entry

[8] Rapid serological tests : RAPID RESULT COVID-19 TEST KITS

[9] Immunologie approfondie

[10] LE DIAGNOSTIC DE L’INFECTION PAR LE VIH, Diagnosis is made through a blood test that detects the presence of anti-HIV antibodies as early as three weeks after contamination.

[11] Immunité croisée entre les coronavirus des rhumes et SARS-CoV-2

[12] SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody responses in COVID-19 patients

[13] Antibodies to coronaviruses are higher in older compared with younger adults and binding antibodies are more sensitive than neutralizing antibodies in identifying coronavirus‐associated illnesses

[14] Coronavirus : les anticorps ne resteraient que deux à trois mois dans le sang

[15] Les anticorps ne sont PAS nécessaires pour la protection contre certains virus, article source en anglais : Antibodies are not required for immunity against some viruses

[16]  Systemic and mucosal antibody secretion specific to SARS-CoV-2 during mild versus severe COVID-19

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Test Set: Another Brick in the COVID-19 Disinformation Game Plan

If you look to Global Research as a resource for information and understanding, to stay current on world events, or to experience honesty and transparency in your news coverage, please consider making a donation or becoming a member. Your donations are essential in enabling us to meet our costs and keep the website up and running. Click below to become a member or to make a donation to Global Research now!

Click to donate:

*     *     *

COVID-19 Could Kill More People Through Hunger than the Disease Itself, Warns Oxfam

By Oxfam International, July 09, 2020

The report, The Hunger Virus, reveals how an estimated 122 million more people could be pushed to the brink of starvation this year as a result of the social and economic fallout from the pandemic including through mass unemployment, disruption to food production and supplies, and declining aid. This equates to as many as 12,000 people dying every day while the global mortality rate for COVID-19 reached a peak of 10,000 deaths per day in April 2020.

COVID-19 Cases in Africa Rising Sharply

By Abayomi Azikiwe, July 09, 2020

Concerns are mounting across the African continent and internationally over the exponential growth in COVID-19 infections.

At the time of this writing the African Center for Disease Control and Prevention (ACDC) reported a total of 508,584 cases resulting in 12,000 deaths. This same source says that 247,207 of those previously diagnosed as positive are now considered fully recovered.

The “Second Wave”: Politics Influences the “Science” of COVID-19. Flawed Data, Flawed Models

By Josh Mitteldorf, July 09, 2020

The global death rate from COVID-19 is down to about 4,000 per day. It is not even among the top ten causes. COVID is lower than traffic deaths, lower than diarrhea. Even compared to other respiratory infections, COVID is now a minority.

In the US, daily COVID deaths peaked in April, and are now down to 1/10 the peak rate, at about 400/day. COVID is now the sixth leading cause of death in America, but it no longer registers as a bump in total mortality.

120 Covid-19 Vaccine Projects are Underway

By Stephen Lendman, July 08, 2020

Vaccines affects human health — notably when development is rushed like now.

Instead of providing protection as claimed, vaccines time and again cause diseases they’re supposed to prevent.

Around 120 COVID-19 vaccine development projects are underway.

Either in pre-clinical or human trials, Big Pharma firms and their foreign counterparts are racing to develop and market what no one should touch when one or more vaccines become available — possibly later this year or in early 2021.

Coronavirus: Why Everyone Was Wrong. It is Not a “New Virus”. “The Fairy Tale of No Immunity”

By Beda M Stadler, July 08, 2020

At the end of 2019 a coronavirus, which was considered novel, was detected in China. When the gene sequence, i.e. the blueprint of this virus, was identified and was given a similar name to the 2002 identified Sars, i.e. Sars-CoV-2, we should have already asked ourselves then how far [this virus] is related to other coronaviri, which can make human beings sick. Now that we’re talking about developing a vaccine against the virus, we suddenly see studies which show that this so-called novel virus is very strongly related to Sars-1 as well as other beta-coronaviri which make us suffer every year in the form of a cold. Apart from the pure homologies in the sequence between the various coronaviri which can make people sick, [scientists] currently work on identifying a number of areas on the virus in the same way as human immune cells identify them. This is no longer about the genetic relationship, but about how our immune system sees this virus, i.e. which parts of other coronaviri could potentially be used in a vaccine.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) Owns Half of Moderna Vaccine: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr, July 08, 2020

New documents obtained by Axios and Public Citizen suggest that the National Institute of Health (NIH) owns half the key patent for Moderna’s controversial COVID vaccine and could collect half the royalties.

In addition, four NIH scientists have filed their own provisional patent application as co-inventors. Little known NIH regulations let agency scientists collect up to $150,000.00 annually in royalties from vaccines upon which they worked.

The Impacts of the Draconian Lockdowns: 1.1 Billion People At Risk of Starvation. Dr. John Ioannidis

By Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis and Patricia Claus, July 07, 2020

We have learned a lot within a short period of time about the prevalence of the infection worldwide. There are already more than 50 studies that have presented results on how many people in different countries and locations have developed antibodies to the virus. These numbers are anywhere between 5 times (e.g. Gangelt in Germany) and 600 times (e.g. Japan) more compared to the documented cases, depending on whether a lot or limited testing was already performed in different locations. We know that the prevalence of the infection varies tremendously across countries, but also within countries, within states, and even within population groups in the same location.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Flawed COVID-19 Data, Lockdown and Its Global Impacts

There have been for some time, esp. from libertarian quarters, accusations that the COVID-19 crisis has led to a state that has been called by some “medical martial law”. I believe the more accurate term and point of departure is “medical social engineering and management”. Martial law sounds more dramatic and seems simpler to understand. Yet we have to get beyond slogans and deal with long-term processes and policies if we are to find adequate responses today. Literary metaphors, like those found in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984 have been reduced to clichés. While their ideas may in part illustrate what today seems like prophecy, it is not enough just to imagine that there is or might be some underlying or even secret “plan”.

Much of this reporting creates the impression that some base of fundamental liberties (civil or human) is at risk here, only now. Sporadic attention is given to the relationships between pharmaceutical companies, the BMGF and governmental as well as international entities, e.g. WHO. This reporting is easily dismissed by a population that has been immunised to such reporting, pre-emptively since the introduction of such communication concepts as “fake news”. The developments in digital and especially internet-based mass communications have reinforced the belief that technology is independent and that science and what is called knowledge is not only independent but also inevitable in form and substance. We have internalised the beliefs in our own domination so that we cannot conceive it as domination at all. A sentimental reference to lost or endangered liberties is really a distraction from the problems at hand, even if such “liberties” may be part of the heritage we honestly want to save from destruction.

The long-term perspective is missing because it is difficult to render comprehensible. John Maynard Keynes was to have said, “in the long term we are all dead.” Yet by mimicking the news cycle, grasping for some novelty or titillation, and omitting the redundancies of historical context, writers and speakers with ambitions to overcome the propaganda barriers to political activism are unlikely to reach anyone but the converted.

In my February article Re-Orientation, I tried to give the emerging crisis, nominally triggered by the viral incidents in Wuhan, China, some of the historical context which even alternative media in their addiction to the “fear mongering news cycle” are wont to report. The first point is that there is no true, undeniable “origin”. We have to start with a problem and then draw on numerous sources and observations– research– to define the problem by giving it a context into which the history flows. We create a history by the way we define the problem. The origin is in fact the beginning—the value we pursue in uncovering events and translating them into fields of action rather than frustration.

If we assume that the governments of the West, in particular that of the US, are what they claim to be, then all the concern about the USG response to the so-called pandemic remains focussed on whether and how it meets the needs of the people on whose behalf it claims to govern. In other words framed in the propaganda terms specified by the regime itself. If however we recognize that the governments of the West, in particular the US, but also those governments it helped to reorganise after the subsequent world wars in the 20th century (most of the Western peninsula and much of the Western hemisphere) are Business operations or extensions of corporate power, then the focus changes fundamentally– depending on whether one is on the side of Business or its target.

The USG as an extension of Business, especially its monopolist/oligarchic forms, and has been firmly established as such since 1913 at the latest. It is also from about this time that the major oligarchs in Business set about organising first the US and then the rest of the world in ways amenable to system maintenance and control for Business. This strategic organisation pre-dates such post- WWII institutions like the IMF or UN and the quasi-conspiratorial committees so familiar now that they need not be mentioned here.

WWI was a milestone because it essentially created the current Anglo-American Empire through which Business rules to this day.

Without rehearsing all the actions and transformations along the way, it is useful to focus on some relevant policies or attitudes that became anchored in the West.

  1. The Bank of England became the model for international financial management and manipulation, after WWII it would become the model for all central banking. This was the significance of the so-called Aldrich Plan and the Federal Reserve Act.
  2. Military-led industrialization and economic organisation would prevail under so-called “scientific” management principles, promulgated by elite “business schools” where mathematical modelling would displace political contests. Alfred Marshall was one of the principal theorists for the creation of de-politicised “scientific” economics based on mathematics. Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford helped establish “scientific” industrial organisation.
  3. Mass media organisation would be integrated throughout state and commercial organizations– propaganda would be shared to promote Business. The formalisation of this practice derived from the work of the Creel Committee and was later theorised and intensified by Edward Bernays.
  4. Medicine would become the focus of all social engineering and management. Medicine would replace religion as the ideological vanguard of imperialism. This was the principal contribution of the Rockefeller tax dodges (General Education Board, Rockefeller University, Rockefeller Foundation et al.) under the management of Frederick T. Gates.

The problem we face here is that after a century of “scientific” management and medicine we are unable to reconstitute political contests. Even those people who claim to be trained in fields like economics are thoroughly dominated by the ideology of positivist science, which became the underlying religion of 20th century capitalism. Science in the West was adopted primarily as a weapon of anti-communism and against popular democratic movements.

We therefore have enormous almost insurmountable difficulties in challenging the State politically because there is only a scientific-technological framework (purified of any historical context). This framework asserts above all class neutrality– thus denying the political power struggle that is really the core of events. It is not an accident that one of today’s grand political managers, George Soros, named his espionage and political warfare operations after the concept popularised by Karl Popper, whose main ideological contribution was to insist that “real science” was only possible under capitalism in what he called the “Open Society”. What he actually meant was a translation of the US “Open Door” doctrine. The US regime’s “Open Door” is a euphemism for manifest destiny or Business domination through the Anglo-American Empire.

For several months now debate has focussed on the truth and accuracy or efficacy of the science and governmental actions supposedly derived from said science. This is best dramatized in the obsession on all sides with “body counts”. The factual basis of the pandemic is reduced to how many “pairs of ears” the COVID armed propaganda teams bring back from their raids. The constant repetition of the official pandemic narrative is illustrated by video footage of the same scenes every day, hours on end. If one watches at least TV reporting carefully one will notice that most of the video film shows practically empty wards, single patients at the most and lots of people in hazmat suits standing around machines. In footage from Brazil- a regime even more merciless toward its poor than the US—the images bear more resemblance to the Christo (1935-2020) public wrappings and happenings of the 1990s, promoting the sensationalism of the country’s archetypical telenovelas, rather than radical political action. Yet the repetition has its effect also by supplanting all other information. 30,000 deaths per day due to preventable starvation never got so much coverage as the deaths of an 88-year-old and 94-year-old this week, attributed to COVID.

There has been no serious challenge to the science per se or the claim that the government acts based on science rather than the interests of the people for whom it ostensibly governs (although it is clear that the “for whom” is Business and not real human beings).

Moreover the theology of economics has not been challenged either— as if this were a real science, e.g. something objective. Pronouncements from central banks and government ministries are presented as based on accurate measurement and analysis. A cursory review of the history reveals however that the definitions of such core concepts as “cost of living”, “unemployment”, “inflation”, “purchasing power” etc. are changed routinely to permit the Business regime to present data which is misleading at best. The benchmark figure, growth in GDP, bears little or no relation to the most important issue for real human beings, the capacity to generate enough income to sustain a decent living, i.e. home, food, clothing, education, healthcare, etc.

It is particularly telling that the same material misstatements in all manner of economic data are made by officials clothed with government or scientific authority are made now during the so-called pandemic.

For example it is no secret that unemployment is undercounted—all the time. For real people unemployment means lack of a source of adequate income. However the regime’s definition of unemployment is number of people who register under whatever narrowly specified conditions permit such registration. The informal sector is omitted as well as those who were previously self-employed but due to bankruptcy, illness or disability are no longer able to work. Then of course there are the deliberate deceptions like not counting people who have been assigned to “programs”, like training or part-time subsidised jobs of limited duration. Then of course there are people who are not counted because there is no one counting.

In the case of the pandemic, it must be said that the definition of “case” has also been changed from time to time to permit reporting in line with the prevailing political warfare agenda:

“A COVID-19 case includes confirmed and probable cases and deaths. This change was made to reflect an interim COVID-19 position statement issued by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists on April 5, 2020. The position statement included a case definition and made COVID-19 a nationally notifiable disease.”

Thus “probable cases” include–

“A probable case or death is defined as:

The “epidemiological evidence” means that you have been in close proximity (less than 6 feet) with a person who is a confirmed case. Clinical evidence means only that you have COVID-like symptoms and those include colds, flu, allergies, and much more.

This is abetted by the quasi-official status given to people who are in fact agents of Business—but then again the entire government apparatus is an extension of Business. Official sounding entities like the “Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists” suggest higher authority without any indication of who the members of this body are and what interests they may actually represent, let alone who constituted them with the colour of authority in the first place. The creation of “authorities” was one of the major innovations of the 20th century PR industry.

Why should we trust statistics or statements about COVID from people and entities that habitually lie and distort data as a matter of public policy? If they cannot count the living accurately, why should we believe when they pretend to count the dead? This data cannot be adopted seriously. There must be a presumption that it is at best wilfully misstatement intended to support the interests and policies of the Business in “disease”, as well as any other Business interests that may be conveniently so achieved.

Just as DuPont has more or less controlled the US atomic weapons program since its inception, the pharmaceutical cartel has controlled the chemical and biological weapons programs jointly managed by the Pentagon and the CDC/ NIH establishment. To determine for whom someone like Dr Fauci works is easy enough when one checks his patent and investment portfolio. It requires no feats of magic or sorcery to recognise that virtually every mass campaign leading into the COVID “pandemic” has been organised and promoted by Business. Moreover these campaigns have been focussed since 2016 on the removal of the present POTUS, Donald Trump, at all costs! To put this in perspective, we should remember that the Inquisition and the Crusades were colossal undertakings mainly for the benefit of controlling the Papacy in the Middle Ages. The Papacy as the titular head of the largest multinational corporation of its day (and still one of the “big players” today) was to the barbarians of the Western peninsula what the POTUS is today for the barbarians of the Anglo-American Empire.

Since we have lost the capacity to engage in politics and pursue a human political-economy, we are forced to accede to a form of rule which at present will become “corporate medical social engineering” in a pure form unmediated by any of the rituals of political process. In fact, it is a religious form of control just like the Inquisition was in its heyday. It relies upon fear of disease, instead of mere sin.

We are already witnessing the denunciatory culture, fanatical moralism, irrational fear, obsession with rituals, and all of those human practices that were supposedly banished by Enlightenment. Although it has been common sense for decades that viruses are vulnerable to the light of day and humans flourish in fresh air, Business—the universal Church of our era—is returning us all to our caves and huts, to the very conditions which led humanists to call that past era of Christendom—the DARK AGES.

That is a problem that needs to be taken seriously as a precondition for any critical attack on the kinds of actions and transactions that will – if continued—destroy the material basis for real human life and whatever civilisation we have been able to maintain despite Business and the Church.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

More people could die as a result of hunger linked to COVID-19 than could die from the disease, warned Oxfam in a new report published today.

The report, The Hunger Virus, reveals how an estimated 122 million more people could be pushed to the brink of starvation this year as a result of the social and economic fallout from the pandemic including through mass unemployment, disruption to food production and supplies, and declining aid. This equates to as many as 12,000 people dying every day while the global mortality rate for COVID-19 reached a peak of 10,000 deaths per day in April 2020.

Eight of the largest food and beverage companies in the world have paid out over $18 billion to their shareholders since the start of 2020 – more than 10 times the funding required for food and agriculture assistance to the most vulnerable communities in the UN COVID-19 humanitarian appeal.

Danny Sriskandarajah, Chief Executive of Oxfam GB, said:

“The knock-on impacts of COVID-19 are far more widespread than the virus itself, pushing millions of the world’s poorest people deeper into hunger and poverty. It is vital governments contain the spread of this deadly disease, but they must also prevent it killing as many – if not more – people from hunger.

“Governments can save lives now by funding the UN COVID-19 appeal and supporting the call for a global ceasefire to end conflict in order to tackle the pandemic. The UK could make a real difference by championing debt cancellation at the G20 finance ministers meeting next week to pay for social protection measures such as cash grants to help people survive.

“For many people COVID-19 comes as a crisis on top of a crisis. To break the cycle of hunger, governments must build fairer and more sustainable food systems that ensure small-scale producers and workers earn a living wage.”

The report reveals the world’s ten worst hunger ‘hotspots’, including Afghanistan, Syria and South Sudan where the food crisis is most severe and getting worse as a result of the pandemic. It also highlights emerging epicentres of hunger – middle income countries such as India, South Africa, and Brazil – where millions of people who were barely managing have been tipped over the edge by the pandemic. For example:

  • Yemen: Remittances dropped by 80 percent – or $253 million – in the first four months of 2020 as a result of mass job losses across the Gulf. Borders and supply route closures have led to food shortages and food price spikes in a country that imports 90 percent of its food.
  • Afghanistan: Border closures have hit food supplies and the economic downturn in neighbouring Iran has caused a drop in remittances. The number of people on the brink of famine has risen sharply from 2.5 million in September 2019 to 3.5 million in May 2020.
  • India: Travel restrictions left farmers without vital migrant labour at the peak of the harvest season, forcing many to leave their crops in the field to rot. Traders have also been unable to reach tribal communities during the peak harvest season for forest products, depriving up to 100 million people of their main source of income.

Women, and women-headed households, are more likely to go hungry despite the crucial role they play as food producers and workers. They make up a large proportion of already vulnerable groups, such as informal workers, that have been hit hard by the economic fallout of the pandemic and have also borne the brunt of a dramatic increase in unpaid care work as a result of school closures and family illness.

Kadidia Diallo, a female milk producer in Burkina Faso, said: COVID-19 is causing us a lot of harm. Giving my children something to eat in the morning has become difficult. We are totally dependent on the sale of milk, and with the closure of the market we can’t sell the milk anymore. If we don’t sell milk, we don’t eat.”

Since the pandemic began, Oxfam has helped 4.5 million of the world’s most vulnerable people with food aid and clean water, working together with over 344 partners across 62 countries. The international agency aims to reach a total of 14 million people by raising a further $113m.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

More than any other Arab state, Jordan’s past, present and future are inextricably linked to the question of Palestine. Jordan’s emergence is an outcome of British imperialism, which imposed the infamous Balfour Declaration and the Zionist settler-colonial project on the indigenous population of Palestine and the region. 

Settler-colonialism is the essence of the question of Palestine. All else is derivative. Jordan emerged out of this historical reality, and therefore, its present and future will always be subject to it.

The founder of present-day Jordan, Emir Abdullah bin Al-Hussein, successfully carved a new sovereign space in Transjordan. But this was only possible because of his cooperation with British imperialism and “collusion” with Zionist settler-colonialism. This tacit relationship resulted in mutual restraint between Jordan and Israel, even during their direct military confrontations.

National security interest

In 1994, Jordan and Israel signed the Wadi Araba peace treaty, turning their tacit understandings and secretive relationship into an official peace between the two countries – even if an unpopular one. This peace treaty would have been inconceivable without the 1993 Oslo Accord and the implied promise of Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, which were occupied in 1967 from Jordan and Egypt respectively, to establish an independent Palestinian state.

Land repatriation and Palestinian statehood hold a high national security interest for Jordan. Only the achievement of these two conditions can halt the border elasticity of the Israeli state and its expansion eastwards, which poses grave geographic and demographic threats to the Hashemite kingdom.

Besides the strategic significance, a Palestinian state would allow a substantial number of Palestinian refugees displaced in 1967 to return to the West Bank, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 237.

Yet, not only have neither of the two conditions been realised, but regional and international political dynamics have changed since 1994. In Israel, the political landscape has dramatically shifted to the far right, fuelling the settler-colonial practice of creating “facts on the ground” that make the prospect of Palestinian statehood and self-determination via the “peace process” a remote fantasy.

The political and material developments on the ground are complemented by complex regional and international dynamics. In particular, the Trump administration has taken a new approach towards most international conflicts, especially in the Middle East.

The Trump-Netanyahu plan (aka “the deal of century”) for Israel-Palestine promotes Israeli colonisation/annexation of the West Bank and sovereignty over the entirety of historic Palestine, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights.

Shifting geopolitics

Even worse for Jordanians and Palestinians, this plan enjoys the support of influential Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have stepped up their political rapprochement and normalisation with Israel.

The EU, a staunch supporter and sponsor of the so-called peace process and two-state solution, failed not only to reach a common position on the US plan, but also to condemn Israel’s plans to officially annex any part of the West Bank.

Amid the changing international and regional politics, Jordan’s alliance with the US and EU has been a letdown. Jordan has become a victim of its own foreign and security policy, which has grown interlinked with the US and, more recently, the EU.

While half of this alliance, the US, is promoting Israel’s annexation and sovereignty over Palestine, the other half, the EU, is unwilling to act decisively.

The annexation is planned to take place while the entire world, including Jordanians and Palestinians, and the media are exhausted by the coronavirus pandemic. It provides the needed distraction for Israel to complete the annexation quietly, without effective local and international scrutiny and resistance.

Covid-19 has further entrenched the nationalist-driven trend in the Middle East. Even before the outbreak, the Arab world was consumed by domestic concerns, showing few qualms about the Trump-Netanyahu plan or recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Israeli expansionism

The feeble Arab (including Palestinian and Jordanian) and international response to the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the relocation of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, has encouraged Israel and the US to press ahead and turn Israel’s de facto sovereignty over all of Palestine into de jure.

While this is all illegal under international law, it is a mistake to believe that empirical reality and time will not deflect, strain and fractureinternational law and legality.

Since 1967, the Israeli strategy has pivoted on two parallel components: empirical colonisation on the ground, coupled with the facade of a “peace and negotiations” public relations campaign to obfuscate the settler-colonial structure and market it to the international community, as well as Arab regimes.

With this strategy, Israel has expanded in the region both territorially, by de facto taking over Arab land, and politically, through overt and covert relations with most of the Arab states.

Only formal territorial annexation and gradual de-Palestinisation remains. The formal annexation of the West Bank, especially the Jordan Valley, officially torpedoes the century-old Jordanian foreign and security strategy of cooperation with its imperial patrons (Britain, then the US) and the Zionist movement, which evolved into a Jordanian-Israeli peace with an expected Palestinian buffer state between the two.

Another ethnic cleansing

It also puts Jordan face-to-face with a new reality with alarming cartographic and demographic consequences. The chances of another ethnic cleansing become a palpable prospect under the formulae of official annexation and a Jewish statehood in the entirety of Palestine, as articulated in the 2018 nation-state law meant to ensure a Jewish majority.

This is very much tied in with Jordanian fears grounded in previous (1948, 1967) and current experiences of forced migration in the Middle East. Against this backdrop, another ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, forcing a large number of Palestinians to flee to Jordan, is a real possibility. The transfer and elimination of Palestinians from Palestine are embedded in the settler-colonial structure of the Israeli state, which looks at Jordan as their alternative homeland.

While another population flow would be catastrophic for Palestinians, it would also adversely affect Jordan’s stability and future.

Beyond annexation, the Hashemite regime is witnessing a contestation of its custodianship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, which constitute a significant source of legitimacy for the regime. Even on this matter, the US plan unequivocally appoints Israel as the “custodian of Jerusalem”.

After five decades, Israel’s grip over and presence in the West Bank is ubiquitous and entrenched. Most of the West Bank is empirically annexed and Judaised, especially the Jordan Valley, Greater Jerusalem, parts of Hebron and Gush Etzion. The pretence of the peace process and negotiations has thus become superfluous.

‘Considering all options’ 

Only against this background may one understand the depth of the trepidations that underlie the warning of King Abdullah II that the Israeli annexation will trigger a “massive conflict” with Jordan and that he is “considering all options” in response.

This warning does not reveal a strategy to respond to what constitutes a “direct threat to Jordan’s sovereignty and independence”, as the former foreign minister of Jordan, Marwan Muasher, put it.

It displays, however, the difficult decisions that have to be taken. Indeed, King Hussein was prepared to discontinue the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty had Israel refused to supply the antidote for the poison its agents had used in an attempt to assassinate Khaled Meshaal, the former head of Hamas, in 1997. It remains to be seen whether the termination or suspension of this treaty and the realignment of alliances are currently options for Jordan.

The Jordanian response to Covid-19 has generated a unique, popular rally around the state – a perfect opportunity to conduct serious reforms to stamp out corruption and involve citizens in the decision-making process, in order to forge a nationally grounded response to Israel’s planned annexation of the West Bank.

Historically, the survival of the Hashemite kingdom has been at stake several times. But today, Jordan finds itself in an unprecedented political, security, economic and health emergency.

Whatever domestic, economic and foreign-policy decisions – or indecisions – that Jordan takes are likely to leave a long-lasting mark on the future of Jordan and the question of Palestine. Such existential decisions must be collective, with broader national consensus and real citizen participation.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Emile Badarin is a postdoctoral research fellow at the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) Chair, College of Europe, Natolin. He holds a PhD in Middle East politics. His research cuts across the fields of international relations and foreign policy, with the Middle East and EU as an area of study.

When it comes to Venezuela, Britain is suffering from split personality disorder. While the UK Foreign Office reportedly maintains ‘full, normal and reciprocal diplomatic relations’ with legitimately elected President Maduro’s government, and with Maduro’s UK ambassador, the British government has been actively supporting the self-appointed US-backed ‘leader’ Juan Guaido, who led the coup against Maduro in 2019.

Last week the High Court in London ruled that Juan Guaido was ‘unequivocally’ recognised as the President of Venezuela. There’s just one problem with the ruling however: Juan Guaido isn’t the President. He may have tried hard; he talked the talk, and walked the walk (clearly modelling himself on a cross between Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron, with sleeves rolled up like Barack Obama). He had just the right youthful, liberal image to front the US led regime change campaign in the South American nation. But last year’s coup, supported by the US and Colombia, dramatically backfired after the Venezuelan military refused to back him.

Nevertheless, it has been in the British government’s interest to prop up the would-be Venezuelan leader. The High Court’s verdict was in a case brought to the court by Maduro’s government, which is trying to access $1bn of its gold currently held by the Bank of England. It’s pretty straightforward – the bank doesn’t want to pay out, and is using Maduro’s ‘contested’ leadership as a reason not to do so. Suddenly it matters that Maduro’s presidency is questionable, never mind the fact that he was democratically re-elected in 2018.

Juan Guaido claims that the funds from the Bank of England gold would be used to ‘prop up the regime’, while the Venezuelan government has insisted that the money would go towards managing the coronavirus pandemic. Maduro has even said that once the gold is sold the money will be transferred to the UN Development Programme. In any case, the reason seems irrelevant; when was the last time you or I had to justify a withdrawal from our own bank accounts?

I spoke recently to the National Secretary of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign and senior lecturer at the University of Middlesex, Dr Francisco Dominguez, who said to me that the move by the High Court to block the transfer of Venezuelan gold constituted nothing more than ‘highway robbery’ and he condemned the UK’s use of Guaido in this case as a ‘legal device to steal Venezuela’s assets’. He stated:

‘It is abundantly clear the UK’s recognition of Guaido’s farcical “interim presidency” has nothing to do with “democracy” or “human rights” but with “colonial pillage”.  After all, there is nothing democratic or decent about Guaido: he colludes with Colombian narco-traffickers; he attempted a violent coup d’etat’; contracted US mercenaries to assassinate President Maduro and several Venezulean government high officials, vigorously promotes sanctions and aggression against his own nation, and he reeks of corruption.’

Dr Dominguez also pointed to direct collusion of the UK government with Guaido, as was recently uncovered by a British journalist. Newly obtained documents, exposed by John McEvoy, have recently shed light on the murky connection between the British government and the aspiring Venezuelan president. It was uncovered that a Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) Unit named the Venezuela Reconstruction Unit has been created which has not been officially acknowledged by either country. In the documents it was revealed that  Juan Guaidó’s representative in the UK, Vanessa Neumann, had spoken with FCO officials about the sustenance of British business interests in Venezuela’s ‘reconstruction’. A conversation of this nature obviously stinks of regime change, given the fact Venezuela sits on the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and that Neumann has previously links to oil companies. Britain is placing its stake in Venezuela’s demise.

Formally the UK government has a different position. In relation to Venezuela’s gold, former Treasury Minister Robert Jenrick said back in 2019 in response to the parliamentary question ‘what the legal basis was for the Bank of England’s decision to freeze approximately 1125 gold bars stored by the Venezuelan central bank in November 2018.’, that it was a ‘matter for the Bank of England’. Jenrick maintained that HM Treasury only has direct control over the UK government’s own holdings of gold within its official reserves, which are held at the Bank of England.’

However the facts paint a different picture. John Bolton’s White House memoir The Room Where It Happened’ reveals that UK Foreign Secretary at the time, Jeremy Hunt ‘was delighted to freeze Venezuelan gold deposits in the Bank of England so the regime could not sell the gold to keep itself going.’  As Bolton unashamedly admitted: ‘These were the sort of steps we were already applying to pressure Maduro financially.’ The former National Security Advisor relates in his book how proud he was to have been the driving force behind the 2019 power grab: ‘I was heartened that Maduro’s government promptly accused me of leading a coup’. Bolton openly describes how they discussed ways of delegitimizing the Venezuelan government as Trump reportedly said ‘Maybe it’s time to put Maduro out of business’.

The evidence suggests that the UK complied fully in Bolton’s masterplan to unseat Maduro, and is continuing to work with the US to undermine the Venezuelan leadership; only in truly subtle British fashion, surreptitiously, hoping no-one would notice. Who knows, when, if ever, the Venezuelans will see their gold. But you can be sure they won’t be investing with the Bank of England any time soon.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

We bring to the attention of our readers this important article of France Soir, translated from the French (by France Soir)

Each day brings new developments in what is now commonly known as the “LancetGate”. The WHO’s latest flip-flop, relayed by the many media who quickly relayed the fray against HCQ in the study published on May 22, is a perfect illustration of this. As is the one announcing tonight that The Lancet is withdrawing the Mehra et al. study after much criticism.

France Soir, far from following the media wolf pack, puzzled by these disturbing results, had already obtained and published on May 23 an exclusive interview with Dr. Mehra, the main author of this study.

The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra, a physician specializing in cardiovascular surgery and professor at Harvard Medical School, did not produce confidence, fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results.

We have already published the results of our initial investigations in several articles. However, the reported information that Dr. Mehra had attended a conference sponsored by Gilead – producer of remdesivir, a drug in direct competition with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) – early in April called for further investigation.

It is important to keep in mind that Dr. Mandeep Mehra has a practice at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) in Boston.

The study published on May 22 in The Lancet, based on the collection, processing and analysis of massive data from the shared medical records of 96,032 patients in 671 hospitals worldwide by Surgisphere, was preceded by another study published on May 1st, 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine, where Dr. Mehra was also the main author.

That study relied on the shared medical records of 8,910 patients in 169 hospitals around the world, also by Surgisphere.

Funding for the study was “Supported by the William Harvey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The development and maintenance of the collaborative surgical outcomes database was funded by Surgisphere.”

The study published on March 1st sought to “… assess the relationship between cardiovascular disease and drug therapy with in-hospital death in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 who were admitted between December 20, 2019 and March 15…”.

The study published on May 22 sought to evaluate the efficacy or otherwise of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination with a macrolide antibiotic.

It is therefore noteworthy that within 3 weeks, 2 large observational retrospective studies on large populations – 96,032 and 8,910 patients – spread around the world were published in two different journals by Dr. Mehra, Dr. Desai and other co-authors using the database of Surgisphere, Dr. Desai’s company.

These two practising physicians and surgeons seem to have an exceptional working capacity associated with the gift of ubiquity.

The date of May 22 is also noteworthy because on the very same day, the date of the publication in The Lancet of the highly accusatory study against HCQ,  another study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine concerning the results of a clinical trial of…remdesivir.

In the conclusion of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, “remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.”

Concretely: on the same day, May 22nd, one study demeaned HCQ  in one journal while another claimed evidence of attenuation on some patients through remdesivir in another journal.

It should be noted that one of the main co-authors, Elizabeth “Libby” Hohmann, represents one of the participating hospitals, the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, also affiliated with Harvard Medical School, as is the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where Dr. Mandeep Mehra practices.

Coincidence, probably.

Upon further investigation, we discovered that the first 3 major clinical trials on Gilead’s remdesivir were conducted by these two hospitals:

“While COVID-19 continues to circle the globe with scientists following on its trail, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) are leading the search for effective treatment.

“Both hospitals are conducting clinical trials of remdesivir.”

MGH has joined what the National Institute of Health (NIH) describe as the first clinical trial in the United States of an experimental treatment for COVID-19, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of NIH. MGH is currently the only hospital in New England to participate in this trial, according to a list of sites shared by the hospital.

It’s a gigantic undertaking, with patients registered in some 50 sites across the country, getting better.

“The NIH trial, which can be adapted to evaluate other treatments, aims to determine whether the drug relieves the respiratory problems and other symptoms of COVID-19, helping patients leave hospital earlier.

As a reminder, the NIAID/NIH is led by Antony Fauci, a staunch opponent of HCQ.

Coincidence, probably.

At the Brigham, two additional trials initiated by Gilead, the drug developer, will determine whether it alleviates symptoms in patients with moderate to severe illness over five- and ten-days courses. These trials will also be randomized, but not placebo controlled, and will include 1,000 patients at sites worldwide. Those patients, noted Francisco Marty, MD, Brigham physician and study co-investigator, will likely be recruited at an unsettlingly rapid clip.”

As a result, the first major clinical trials on remdesivir launched on March 20, whose results are highly important for Gilead, are being led by the MGH and BWH in Boston, precisely where Dr. Mehra, the main author of the May 22nd HCQ trial, is practising.

Small world! Coincidence, again, probably.

Dr. Marty at BWH expected to have results two months later. Indeed, in recent days, several US media outlets have reported Gilead’s announcements of positive results from the remdesivir clinical trials in Boston:

“Encouraging results from a new study published Wednesday on remdesivir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.

Brigham and Dr. Francisco Marty worked on this study, and he says the results show that there is no major difference between treating a patient with a five-day versus a 10-day regimen.

“Our understanding of the spectrum of severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the presentations of COVID-19 continues to evolve,” said Francisco Marty, MD, a physician specializing in infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.

“Gilead Announces Results of Phase 3 Remdesivir Trial in Patients with Moderate COVID-19 

  • One study shows that the 5-day treatment of remdesivir resulted in significantly greater clinical improvement compared to treatment with the standard of care alone
  • The data come on top of the body of evidence from previous studies demonstrating the benefits of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with IDVOC-19

“We now have three randomized controlled trials demonstrating that remdesivir improved clinical outcomes by several different measures,” Gilead plans to submit the complete data for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in the coming weeks.

These results announced by Gilead a few days after the May 22 publication of the study in the Lancet demolishing HCQ, a study whose main author is Dr. Mehra, are probably again a coincidence.

So many coincidences adds up to coincidences? Really?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Sources

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007621

May 1, 2020 – Mehra, Desai…- New England Journal of Medicine Publication – Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy and Mortality in Covid-19

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext#

May 22, 2020 – in The Lancet – Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without macrolide for the treatment of Covid19, an analysis of the Multinational Registry

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764 –

May 22, 2020 – Publication New England Journal of Medicine – Covid-19 Remdesivir – Preliminary Report

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/19/nation/trials-anticoronavirus-drug-launch-two-boston-hospitals/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/03/20/coronavirus-remdesivir-testing-trials-boston/

https://connectwithpartners.org/2020/04/02/at-the-center-of-a-search-for-covid-19-treatments-partners-hospitals

https://rally.partners.org/search?q=remdesivir

https://www.boston25news.com/news/health/new-study-shows-remedesvir-only-needed-5-days-be-effective-covid-19-patients/4RF6MCGHPJDHBPD6UHXS72GVUU/

https://whdh.com/news/brigham-and-womens-researchers-publish-results-from-new-remdesivir-study/

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200601005310/en/

https://hms.harvard.edu/about-hms/hms-affiliates

Chaos is spreading through the Turkish-occupied part of northern Syria.

Late on July 7, a car bomb explosion rocked the town of Tell Abyad killing at least seven people. Pro-Turkish sources immediately accused the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) of plotting this attack. However, such claims seem quite shaky given the ongoing armed confrontations between various Turkish-backed groups all vying for control over limited resources in the Turkish-occupied part of Syria.

Just recently, Tell Abyad and Ras al-Ayn were the site of armed confrontations between Turkish proxies. It is likely that these same groups could employ IEDs, car bombs and night raids in their internal struggle while blaming their use on the YPG and even ISIS.

A new US convoy with weapons and equipment entered northeastern Syria from Iraq. According to the available data, the convoy consisted of at least 27 vehicles and proceeded to the US military base at Qasraq Tal Baider. On July 8, sources close to the YPG-led Syrian Democratic Forces reported that some of the weapons will, as always, be delivered to the Kurdish group.

The Syrian Army killed 3 ISIS members and detained 3 others in an operation against the terrorist group’s cells in the countryside of al-Sukhna in Homs province. Syrian state media claimed that the terrorists entered the government-controlled territory from the area of al-Tanf, which remains in the hands of the US-led coalition.

Syrian and Russian sources have consistently been accusing the US of indirectly and even directly assisting ISIS cells operating against the Syrian Army on the western bank of the Euphrates. According to them, Washington has been doing this to undermine the stability in the part of the country controlled by the Damascus government and to instigate a new armed conflict in central Syria.

Meanwhile, at least one member of the National Defense Forces (NDF) reportedly died in an IED explosion in southern Raqqa, where the NDF and the army are also conducting a security operation against ISIS cells.

On July 7, the Russian Military Police and the Turkish Army conducted another extended patrol along the M4 highway in southern Idlib. The patrol started near Saraqib and covered about 66km reaching Bidama in the western countryside of Jisr al-Shughur.

Turkey has apparently come to at least a partial understanding with al-Qaeda-linked groups in Greater Idlib. This has allowed it to facilitate the implementation of joint patrols in the framework of the March agreement with Russia.

Now, Ankara will likely make another attempt to rebrand various terrorist organizations operating in Idlib as the so-called moderate opposition and neutralize factions which do not support this initiative. In previous years, numerous efforts by the US, Turkey and other ‘supporters of Syrian democracy’ to do this have failed. However, this time Ankara has deployed its own armed forces in the area and the terrorist groups have been weakened by a long string of losses to the Syrian Army. So, the Erdogan government may really achieve this goal if it has enough time and the situation does not get out of control.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Turkish Proxies Create Chaos in Northeastern Syria

COVID-19 Cases in Africa Rising Sharply

July 9th, 2020 by Abayomi Azikiwe

Concerns are mounting across the African continent and internationally over the exponential growth in COVID-19 infections.

At the time of this writing the African Center for Disease Control and Prevention (ACDC) reported a total of 508,584 cases resulting in 12,000 deaths. This same source says that 247,207 of those previously diagnosed as positive are now considered fully recovered. (See this)

These figures related to the numbers of COVID-19 deaths are greater than the worst outbreak of the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in three West African states in 2014-2015. Approximately 11,000 died from the EVD pandemic, most of whom were residents in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea-Conakry.

The World Health Organization (WHO) in a regional situation report noted that within the last five months the number of COVID-19 cases in African Union (AU) member-states has lagged behind other geo-political areas. However, over the last few weeks, the rate of infections has doubled in 22 countries. (See this)

Some of the leading economic and political states in Africa such as Algeria, Ghana, Egypt, South Africa and Nigeria account for 71% of the cases on the continent. The Republic of South Africa, the most industrialized country in the AU, is reporting 43% of the overall number of infections.

Nonetheless, the spread of the pandemic in Africa is not uniform. Some countries which have previously reported very few cases are now witnessing a growing number of infections.

WHO Africa Director Dr. Matshidiso Moeti said of the present situation:

“With more than a third of countries in Africa doubling their cases over the past month, the threat of COVID-19 overwhelming fragile health systems on the continent is escalating. So far the continent has avoided disaster and if countries continue to strengthen key public health measures such as testing, tracing contacts and isolating cases, we can slow down the spread of the virus to a manageable level.”

88% of the cases on the continent are among people under 60 years of age. This could be attributed to the predominantly youth population in Africa. However, those facing the greatest risk of death are over 60, while having co-morbidities that place them at higher risk for critical respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses requiring hospitalization.

As the infections spread the more healthcare workers are becoming sick. There are also the problems related to the shortages in personal protective equipment for clinics and hospitals along with equipment and medications needed to treat patients.

The WHO has been providing assistance to AU member-states since the beginning of the pandemic during the early months of the year. The organization has contributed technical assistance, the supplying of medical equipment including 3,000 oxygen concentrators, the remote instructional training of 25,000 healthcare workers, distributing 23,000 diagnostic testing machines and 4 million units of PPE.

These efforts by the WHO are taking place at a time of tremendous political and economic attacks by the United States President Donald Trump. The administration in Washington has attempted to scapegoat the WHO for purportedly misleading the international community about the character and threat of COVID-19.

Not only has the Director General of WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, strongly rejected the accusations from the White House by chronicling the historical trajectory of the identification and sharing of the scientific details related to the existence and spread of the virus. In actuality, it was the Trump administration which consistently denied the initial warnings about the dangers posed by the pandemic and since late March, provided contradictory statements and policies related to the mitigation efforts recommended by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and even the White House Task Force on the Coronavirus headed by Ambassador Dr. Deborah Birks.

On July 8, the White House in its usual fashion, refuted previous statements made by NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci related to the risks involved in social gatherings, work places and the proposed reopening of K-12 and higher educational institutions. The guidelines issued by the CDC in the U.S. for the resumption of school room instruction were amended by the White House because Vice President Mike Pence, the Chair of the White House Task Force, said the measures would delay the resumption of classes.

Also the previous day, July 7, the administration announced its formal severing of ties with the WHO in which funding had been suspended during April as COVID-19 cases spiraled out of control in many urban and rural areas of the U.S. Trump has repeatedly asserted that the WHO is aligned with the People’s Republic of China as if this is an established fact warranting the separation.

Africa, COVID-19 and the World

How does the African continent compare with other geo-political regions in regard to the attempts to suppress COVID-19? Although the first confirmed instances of the virus were reported in Wuhan, China during late 2019, the number of cases in Europe and the U.S. has far exceeded those in any other regions in the world.

African women in Tanzania wash hands during COVID-19 pandemic

Trump has fanned the flames of racism and xenophobia by referring to COVID-19 as the “China virus” while experts indicate that the pandemic in all likelihood entered the U.S. through the European continent. In Asia, there are vast differences in regard to the spread of the disease in China, Vietnam and the Koreas as opposed to the rapid rate of infections in India.

India, whose government under Prime Minister Narenda Modi, has won praise from the Trump administration on a number of foreign policy issues, particularly its hostility towards China. However, India is one of the fastest rising countries in regard to the numbers of cases globally.

The Indian Express newspaper stated in an article on July 8 that:

“The coronavirus has infected nearly 11.8 million people worldwide and killed over 500,000. The United States has the most number of infections, over three million, followed by Brazil (1.6 million), India (700,000) and Russia (600,000). Dr. Michael Ryan, emergencies chief of the WHO, said the rise in cases was not due to widespread testing, but because the epidemic was ‘accelerating’”.

In another article from the same Indian Express newspaper, the publication reports that Bengal has been placed on severe restrictions due to the spread of the virus among the population. All together as of July 8, over 20,000 people have died from the pandemic.

This media account says:

“Maharashtra continues to remain the worst-affected state with 217,121 cases including 9,250 deaths. Bihar on Wednesday (July 8) announced fresh lockdowns in several regions, including the worst-hit Patna district from July 10. Lockdowns will also be imposed in containment zones in West Bengal for seven days from 5pm Thursday. As the number of diagnostic tests for novel Coronavirus is increasing in the country, so is the positivity rate. This means more numbers of people, from among those who are being tested, are found to be infected with the disease. The positivity rate had crossed the 6 per cent mark for the first time on June 20, and has risen swiftly thereafter. At present, the positivity rate is around 7.09 per cent.”

Latin American countries have maintained different outcomes in their response to the pandemic. Cuban officials are reporting that the spread of the virus has been greatly curtailed and preparations are being made for a return to some sense of normalcy.

Granma International in a July 3 article credited Cuba’s scientific approach and its socialist system with controlling the impact of the pandemic. A high-level meeting of scientists reviewed the statistics related to the rise and decline of the pandemic inside the Caribbean state.

Nevertheless, the government does not want the public to believe that a lessening of restrictions on movement and work should mean that precautions and protective measures are no longer needed. This report says of the scientific meeting:

“As usual in these gatherings, Raúl Guinovart Díaz, dean of the University of Havana’s department of Mathematics and Computing, presented the well-known curve graphs depicting the evolution of active cases in Cuba, emphasizing that it would be a mistake for the population to think that in the recovery stage no preventative measures are needed, adding that special attention should be paid to crowded closed spaces, where outbreaks can occur.” (See this)

A completely different approach has prevailed in the South American state of Brazil, one of the largest nations in the world with a population of 212 million. Brazil has the second highest number of cases worldwide and on July 7, it was reported that the right-wing and neo-fascist President Jair Bolsonaro had tested positive for the virus after months of minimizing the threat of the pandemic in a fashion quite similar to Trump.

Imperialism Remains at the Core of the Healthcare Crisis

Although the number of COVID-19 cases in Africa remains far behind those in India, the U.S. and Brazil, the magnitude of the growth in confirmed illnesses and deaths requires an intensification of efforts to control the spread. Such an effort is hampered by the continuing economic dependency of the AU member-states under the system of world imperialism.

Under colonialism and neo-colonialism, priorities were placed on the extraction of natural wealth and the exploitation of labor based upon the economic interests of the European and North American ruling classes. The gross domestic products of the African countries are largely derived from their participation in the international economy which is still dominated by the leading capitalist nations.

Consequently, the role of socialist countries such as Cuba and China in addressing the plight of Africa in the present period is essential. Both China and Cuba are providing medical and technical assistance through the WHO and other institutions to address the needs of the AU member-states.

The economic downturn in the U.S. is worsening and therefore the ability and desire to provide humanitarian assistance is waning. Washington’s withdrawal from the WHO is a reflection of the internal crises as well as mounting hostility towards socialism and anti-imperialism.

Africa will be forced to further disengage from the imperialist system in order to guarantee its own survival and development. Socialism provides the only alternative to the current structures of exploitation and oppression. Only a policy of anti-capitalist development can embark upon the path of building adequate healthcare institutions which will ensure universal healthcare for all.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Ethiopian Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus of the WHO in Geneva; all images in this article are from the author

Washington’s War on Huawei Continues

July 9th, 2020 by Ulson Gunnar

For Washington, Chinese telecommunication giant Huawei presents a nearly unsolvable problem. We can draw this conclusion by looking at how the US has chosen to compete, or rather, what it is substituting instead for what should be competition.

CNET in an article titled, “White House reportedly considering federal intervention in 5G,” would explain:

5G networks across the US could get a boost from the federal government, according to a report Thursday by The Wall Street Journal. Trump administration officials are considering the move so they can compete better against Huawei globally, the report says.

The Trump administration has reportedly met with US networking companies including Cisco to discuss the acquisition of Western European networking giants Ericsson and Nokia. It’s also looking into giving tax breaks and financing to Ericsson and Nokia, the Journal reported, citing unnamed sources.

The article notes that the US government also sought to organize a meeting with other tech giants in addition to Nokia and Ericsson including Dell, Intel, Microsoft and Samsung to discuss “combatting” Huawei.

It is unclear how acquiring foreign networking companies already being outcompeted by Huawei would tip the balance in Washington’s favor or how companies like Ericsson and Nokia with respectable market shares would benefit from being drawn into economic warfare between the US and China, two nations both companies currently enjoy doing business in.

Even in the best-case scenario it is unlikely US efforts would materialize and begin showing results fast enough to significantly or permanently set Huawei back.

A Need for Competition, Not Coercion 

The US appears to have done everything in its power to fight Huawei besides actually competing against it.

Competition would involve the creation of technology similar or superior to Huawei’s either in terms of performance or cost, or both.

The US is unable to do this as even its own largest smartphone manufacturer, Apple, has all of its phones made in China. The fact that the US’ most recently announced and perhaps most drastic measures so far against Huawei involve “investments,” “equity firms,” “acquisitions” and “holding companies” rather than improving education in relevant fields, domestic manufacturing and technical expertise, reflects a fundamental inability for the US to compete against China on equal terms.

As long as the US insists on facing its growing problems by moving numbers around on financial ledgers rather than picking and placing components on circuit boards inside the US, it may temporarily delay Huawei’s rise but in no way stop it.

If anything, these roadblocks force Huawei and others to restructure themselves in more resilient ways that will make it even more difficult in the future when and if the US ever decides to take on China through actual competition.

Another note; Huawei’s 5G technology will undoubtedly do more than merely build Huawei up as a telecommunications company. It will give nations deploying Huawei’s 5G infrastructure an edge across a multitude of IT-related economic activities, giving them an advantage over other nations forced to settle on alternatives because of US pressure to do so.

If these alternatives truly suit a nation’s telecommunications infrastructure and serve its economic potential that is one thing, but if these alternatives were picked because of political reasons it will cost these nations not only politically with China, but also economically.

US vs. Huawei: Real Security Concerns or a Smear Campaign? 

The CNET article would also repeat the justification for Washington’s growing hostility and aggressive tactics turned toward Huawei, claiming:

Huawei was blacklisted last year by the US when it was added to the United States’ “entity list”. In addition, President Donald Trump at the same time signed an executive order essentially banning the company in light of national security concerns that Huawei had close ties with the Chinese government. Huawei has repeatedly denied that charge.  

These “national security concerns” have been expressed now for years by the US yet no evidence has been presented.

It is interesting that even attempts across the US-European and even Australian media to explain Washington’s growing obsession with Huawei generally admit these concerns are just an excuse and that protecting US dominance over global technology and the economic power and influence it provides, is the real goal.

ABC (Australia) in its article, “Huawei and Apple smartphones are both made in China, so what is the difference?,” would note:

Professor Clive Williams from the Australian National University’s Centre for Military and Security Law told the ABC that to his knowledge, no evidence has yet been provided of Huawei conducting espionage.

“Huawei is ahead of the field in 5G research so it could be an uncheckable way of reining it in and limiting its market share.

Uncheckable accusations (or later, proven-to-be-false accusations) have become the bread and butter of US foreign policy helping to grease the wheels of everything from economic warfare to literal wars.

Interestingly enough, there is real evidence that US intelligence agencies have infiltrated and compromised both software and hardware made in the West which could easily justify the same sort of measures the US is currently taking against Huawei to be turned back against US companies by the rest of the world.

MIT’s Technology Review magazine in a 2013 article titled, “NSA’s Own Hardware Backdoors May Still Be a “Problem from Hell”,” would admit (my emphasis):

In 2011, General Michael Hayden, who had earlier been director of both the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, described the idea of computer hardware with hidden “backdoors” planted by an enemy as “the problem from hell.” This month, news reports based on leaked documents said that the NSA itself has used that tactic, working with U.S. companies to insert secret backdoors into chips and other hardware to aid its surveillance efforts.

In other words the US is in fact guilty and has been for quite some time of exactly what it is accusing Huawei of allegedly doing. Yet nations around the globe have not attempted to cripple or shutter US tech companies or even ban them from their markets.

Government organizations around the globe may prudently opt for domestically produced telecommunications equipment, but in general, the world has been fairly lenient on the US despite just how compromised its tech industry is by intelligence agencies and the special interests they work for.

Not only does the US fall short in creating viable alternatives to Huawei products, the products it does have and the corporations making them are as tainted in reality by ties to Washington’s intelligence agencies as it claims (without evidence) Huawei is with the Chinese government.

It would appear that, like Washington’s many literal wars around the globe burning US cash and its reputation upon the global stage, Washington’s economic battles are also doomed to failure. Until constructive competition takes precedence over conquest and coercion, the US will continue down this unfortunate path where instead of promoting and showcasing American ingenuity, Washington opts to announcing its latest substitution for it.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Gunnar Ulson is a a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. 

Featured image is from NEO

Many of us are still shell-shocked by the changes in our lives that have been imposed this spring. We’re reacting to each unexpected event as it comes. But to anyone who has stepped back to make sense of this web of contradictory messages that pour out of our newsfeeds, it is clear that the government agencies and corporate news media are slanting their message toward fear. I am particularly concerned when they do this at the expense of honesty. This is a moment for the scientific community to be engaging in spirited dialog among diverse voices. Only with open debatei can we hope to shed light to guide the momentous public policy decisions that are being made, directing our culture and global economy into unexplored territory. But instead of robust debate, what I see is a monolithic message, and censorship of the few brave scientists who dissent from that message. I’m ashamed to say that the scientific community has been part of the problem.

I’m writing here about two issues:

(1) Numbers reported by CDC have been gamed to make it appear that America is in the second wave of a pandemic. Instead of reporting COVID deaths, they began reported COVID cases. Then they conflated recovered individuals (who test positive for antibodies) with current cases (who test positive for the active virus). No wonder numbers are rising!

(2) A new report featured prominently in Nature purports to show that lockdowns have stemmed the spread of the virus and have saved lives. The article is by the same team whose flawed models produced apocalyptic predictions last March that justified lockdowns in Europe and the US. The new computer model assumes from the start that the number of COVID deaths would have expanded exponentially from their March levels, and that social distancing is the only factor responsible for lower death rates. That is, it assumes exactly what it purports to prove. Where is accountability? Why is this perspective promoted in the world’s most prestigious journal, while reasonable doubts are swept aside?

Part One—CDC reporting

The global death rate from COVID-19 is down to about 4,000 per day. It is not even among the top ten causes. COVID is lower than traffic deaths, lower than diarrhea. Even compared to other respiratory infections, COVID is now a minority.

In the US, daily COVID deaths peaked in April, and are now down to 1/10 the peak rate, at about 400/day. COVID is now the sixth leading cause of death in America, but it no longer registers as a bump in total mortality.

But the headlines claim we are in the midst of a “second wave”, based on reported numbers of cases.

Deaths from COVID are being over-reported. Hospitals are incentivized to diagnose COVID with Medicare reimbursement rates that are higher than other diseases, and guaranteed coverage from every major insurer. Doctors are being instructed to report COVID as a cause of death when no testing is done, and when chronic illnesses contributed to the outcome. And with all this, the number of deaths continues to fall, even as the reported number of cases is rising. Why is this?

In part, the lower fatality rate is real. Doctors are learning from experience how to treat the disease. More chloroquine and zinc, less intubation. Like all viruses, this one is evolving toward greater contagion and lower lethality. But the most important explanation is an artifact in the way COVID cases are being reported. Before May 18, the “case count” was based on tests for the live virus, and counted only sick people. Then the definition was changed to count both people who tested positive for the virus and for antibodies to the virus. The latter group is mostly people who have recovered from COVID, or who developed antibodies with exposure. As the number of recovered patients increases, of course the rate of positive tests will increase.

Part Two—Models that “prove” lockdown has saved lives

In the past, Neil Ferguson’s group at Imperial College of London has produced scary computer models that overestimated the epidemics of Mad Cow Disease, Avian Flu, Swine Flu, and the 2003 SARS outbreak. In March, his group’s computer model was justification for England, Europe and America to shut down economies, prevent people talking and meeting, prohibit concerts and theater and church and every kind of public gathering, throw tens of millions of people out of work, deny the rights to freedom of assembly that are fundamental to democratic governance. His manuscript was not even peer reviewed, but only posted on a university server. Even before its details and assumptions were made known, the integrity of the model was assailed by other experts, including Stephen Eubank (UVA Biocomplexity Institute) and Yaneer Bar-Yam (New England Complex Systems Inst). After details of the assumptions were revealed at the end of April, the model was widely scorned by real experts (e.g. Andrew Gelman) and self-appointed pundits (Elon Musk).

I have enough experience with computer models to know that results are often highly leveraged with respect to details of the input. Sensitivity analysis is essential for interpreting results, but is almost never done. Too often, the output is reported without the qualification that small changes to the input produce very different results.

Against this background, the high-profile publication in Nature of Ferguson’s recent work is suspicious. I would have thought he had no credibility left among serious modelers of epidemiology, but I have ceased to be surprised when politics trumps competence for access to the most prestigious publication venues.

The Ferguson Article Vindicating Lockdown

They analyze spread of COVID in 11 Eurpoean countries this Spring, averaging over different countries but not contrasting the different local strategies. They take death counts as surrogate for case counts because reports of case counts are even more unreliable than death counts. But (one of several crucial failures) they don’t apply a time lag between death counts and case counts.

They take as input for each country the dates on which each of three different isolation strategies was implemented. They assume that the virus would have spread exponentially but for these measures, and credit the isolation measures with the entire difference between reported death rates and the theoretical exponential curve.

They conclude that Europe has dodged a bullet, that less than 4% of people had been infected, and by implication the lockdown has saved the other 96%. They imply but don’t state explicitly that there would have been about 4 million deaths in Europe instead of ~150,000 reported when the paper was written.

It is obvious that lockdown and social isolation slow the spread of the disease, but not obvious that they affect the eventual reach of the disease. Thus it is an open question whether the public policy prevented or only delayed deaths from COVID. This question can be addressed most directly by comparing regions that were locked down with regions that remained open. Instead of doing this, the Ferguson group lumped all regions together and compared their results with an unrealistic scenario in which the exponential curve would have expanded to infect every susceptible person in Europe.

Two schools of thought

There are fundamentally two hypotheses about the epidemiological events of this spring: Either the number of people exposed has been high and the fatality rate low, or else the number of people exposed has been low and the fatality rate higher. People in the first camp argue that the exposed population is over 50% in Europe and America, approaching or exceeding herd immunity, and the population death rate is in the range 0.0005. In the second camp, people estimate the population exposure about ten times lower (5%) and the fatality rate correspondingly higher (0.005).

The story told by people in the first camp is that social distancing slowed but did not prevent transmission of the disease through the population. By now, the presence of the virus is waning because people in many places have already been exposed.

The story of Ferguson and others in the second camp is that social distancing actually stopped spread of the virus, so that most people in Europe and American have never been exposed. It follows that if we ease restrictions, there is another wave of infections ahead, potentially 20 times larger than the first wave.

The deep flaw of the recent Ferguson paper is that his team does not consider the first scenario at all. Built into their model, they assume that population level immunity is negligible, and the only thing that has slowed spread of the virus has been social distancing. This is where they put the rabbit in the hat.

If they had considered the alternative hypothesis, how would it have compared?

To choose between the two hypotheses, we might compare a region before and after lockdown, or we might compare regions that locked down with regions that didn’t.

In a preprint response to Ferguson, Homburg and Kuhbandner do a good job with the first approach. They take Ferguson to task for not considering the immunity that spreads through the population along with the disease. They show that exponential expansion had already slowed in England before the effect of the lockdown on mortality data could have been felt.

Lockdown went into effect in Britain on March 23. If lockdown had a benefit, it would be in preventing new cases, and its effect on the death rate would show up about 23 days later (April 14), because 23 days is the median time to fatality for those patients who die of COVID. In the graph, we see that the death rate had already leveled off by April 14.

On this log graph, an exponential increase would appear as a straight line sloping upward. It’s clear that the exponential expansion phase ended long before the lockdown could have had any effect. Not only weren’t the numbers expanding exponentially, but the death rate had already started to decline before April 14, when the effect of lockdown was expected to kick in. The authors state they performed the same analysis for 10 other countries in the Ferguson study with similar results, though they show the graph for Great Britain alone.

“We demonstrate that the United Kingdom’s lockdown was both superfluous and ineffective.”
[Homburg and Kuhbandner]

Here in the US, there was a natural experiment when people emerged into the streets to protest racism and police brutality at the end of May. Social distancing in this environment has been impossible. Allowing for a 23-day lag, we should have seen a surge in US mortality starting mid-June. In the plot below, there appears to be a leveling off of the death rate since mid-June, but no new disaster. This alone is strong evidence that US has substantial herd immunity, and that most of the population has already been exposed to the virus.

A second way to distinguish between the two hypotheses is to compare regions that locked down with regions that didn’t. One of their 11 European countries was Sweden, where the economy was kept open and quarantine was limited to people who were symptomatic with COVID. It is a glaring defect in the Nature paper that Sweden is lumped in with the other ten countries when it should have been contrasted. In fact, the mortality curve for Sweden was typical for the other ten countries, even as commercial and cultural institutions in Sweden continued normal operations. Sweden has had a higher death rate than Austria, Germany, France, and Denmark, but lower than Belgium, Italy, Spain, or UK. There is no evidence that Sweden’s COVID mortality was higher for having bucked the trend to remain open, but some indication that Germany and Austria had particularly effective containment policies.

We can ask the same question of the different states in the USA. Comparing death rates from COVID in the 42 states that locked down with 8 states that did not lock down, this article finds that the death rates in locked down states was 4 times higher. (Caveat: there was no correction for urban vs rural or for demographic differences.) The author concludes, “With the evidence coming in that the lockdowns were neither economically nor medically effective, it is going to be increasingly difficult for lockdown partisans to marshal the evidence to convince the public that isolating people, destroying businesses, and destroying social institutions was worth it.”

I’ve prepared a comparison of all states ranked by COVID mortality which you can view here.

The Politics of COVID

In 1933, Roosevelt told America we had nothing to fear but fear itself. It is common for government leaders to dispel panic because they know that a nation can better thrive when people feel confident and secure. Even G.W. Bush responded to the terror attacks of 9/11 by telling the American people, “keep shopping.” On the other side, despots sow fear in their subjects when they want to consolidate autocratic power, and when they want to stir up fervor for war.

It is clear from messaging in the corporate media that the COVID pandemic is being hyped to create more fear than is warranted.

  • The fatality rate was vastly overestimated initially, and even now is probably overestimated at 0.002 to 0.005
  • Doctors were told to report deaths from COVID without proof that COVID was the cause
  • Reimbursement incentives for hospitals to diagnose COVID
  • Repeated warnings of a second wave, etc, which has not materialized.
  • Suppression of tests for well-studied, cheap treatments (chloroquine) while jumping into large-scale tests of vaccines that have not yet been tested on animals.
  • No mention of vitamin D, which is a simple, cheap, and effective way people can lower their risk. [refrefref]. Our own CDC is silent, while the British equivalent agency actively discourages vitamin D for COVID prevention.
  • The biggest scandal of all is that lockdown has been authorized in the US and elsewhere based on hypothetical safety benefits with no consideration of costs. Our health is affected by our communities, our cultural lives, our social lives, and our livelihoods. [Yale epidemiologist David Katz politely makes this point.]

Shamefully, the scientific community has been complicit in the campaign of fear. A handful of courageous doctors and epidemiologists have been outspoken. In addition to Katz, John Ioannidis and Knut Wittkowski are best known to me. But the most trusted journals continue to publish articles that are based on politics rather than sound science.

Who is benefiting from the international panic? Who is behind the media campaign and the distortion of science, and what is their intention?

I invite people who are more politically astute than I to speculate on these questions.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Josh Mitteldorf writes on his blog site where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from CODEPINK

From Nicaraguan civil society and from members of North American and European Networks in solidarity with Nicaragua’s Sandinista Revolution

 IACHR President: Sr. Joel Hernández García
IACHR First Vice-President: Sra. Antonia Urrejola Noguera
IACHR Second Vice-President: Sra. Flávia Piovesan
GIEI members: Sr. Amerigo Incalcaterra, Sra. Sofía Macher, Sr. Pablo Parenti and Sra. Claudia Paz y Paz Bailey
EAAF: Sra. Mercedes Doretti, Directora Programática Centro y Norteamérica
SITU: Brad Samuels, partner

IACHR reports on events in Nicaragua

We are writing to express our concern at what we believe to be very serious shortcomings in the video documentary your organizations released on May 30th this year, about events leading to the deaths of three Nicaraguan citizens demonstrating against their government two years earlier on May 30th 2018.

While your video documentary acknowledges there is no conclusive evidence, it still argues that circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly suggests that armed police officers or Sandinista supporters indiscriminately killed those three protesters who died that day, as well as other people also shot dead in the same set of incidents. Your video documentary acknowledges that two Sandinista supporters were also shot dead in related incidents that day, but you have selectively chosen to omit any consideration of how or why they might have been killed.

Your video documentary reinforces the unjust and extremely dishonest claim by Nicaragua’s political opposition, repeated, with no serious attempt at independent corroboration, by the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts organized by the Inter American Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States, that the country’s Sandinista government deliberately used disproportionate lethal force against peaceful protesters during the violent failed coup attempt between April 18th and July 17th 2018.

We have the following questions about this video documentary and sincerely hope you will respond and answer them in the interests of institutional transparency, democratic debate and genuine accountability.

  • Why does the video documentary mention the killing of two Sandinista supporters without noting that they were probably shot dead by armed opposition activists, completely undercutting the video documentary’s claim that the opposition protesters were unarmed and peaceful? Surely it then becomes practically impossible to dismiss the probability that the three opposition protesters who are the focus of your video documentary were killed in an exchange of gunfire that began in circumstances involving conflicting versions of the events in question? Why does your video documentary systematically exclude any discussion of that fact?
  • Why have you omitted from your video documentary footage, including video reports from the opposition media outlet Radio Corporación and other videos of opposition activists carrying firearms including automatic rifles and firing automatic pistols in the late afternoon of May 30th 2018, near the area from which you claim the fatal shots were fired killing the three protesters who are the focus of your documentary?
  • Why does your video documentary omit mentioning the wounding by gunfire in the same set of incidents covered in your documentary of 20 named police officers, a fact which completely contradicts your suggestion that all the opposition protesters were unarmed and peaceful?
  • Why does your video documentary portray the police and volunteer police with weapons without explaining that the reason they are heavily armed is that just two days previously, in the same area as the incidents covered by your video, one police officer was killed and five police officers wounded by armed opposition activists preventing those police officers from going to the aid of over 20 workers of Nueva Radio Ya which was under attack by armed opposition activists?
  • Why does your video documentary show no footage of police use of firearms which might have been presented to show that there were antecedents for what your organizations argue were the events of May 30th 2018, despite the claim in your video documentary that your organizations have reviewed thousands of videos showing examples of police repression?
  • Why does your video documentary omit mentioning that various official documents, press reports and witness testimony contradict the version of events your video documentary presents?
  • Why does your video documentary omit the strong possibility of a false flag attack similar to that at Puente Llaguno in Caracas during the failed coup attempt in Venezuela in 2002, since any genuinely scientific account of the events analyzed by your video documentary would have noted such contrary hypotheses and explained why they should be discounted?
  • Why does your video documentary not follow up the mention of evidence in the Knox Associates report’s sound analysis of the three shootings of “a firearm discharged near the video camera. It’s difficult to determine what type of firearm it is, … It could be a semi-automatic pistol or a rifle”, apparently referring to a weapon or weapons used by protesters at the demonstration?
  • Why does your video documentary mischaracterize the location of the police confronting the protesters on the Avenida Universitaria? Video footage from May 30, 2018 place them at a road junction 175 meters from the barricade, while a map on your archive website shows the police to be even closer. A comparison of the map in your video with Google maps clearly indicates that it is not to scale, and in fact shows a radius of 145-215 meters, which means that the police were not in the location from which your firearms expert said the fatal shots were fired.
  • Why does your video documentary only investigate the three shots supposedly responsible for killing the three protesters on whom you focus, given that Knox Associates’ evidence, even though it only covers a few minutes, indicates that there were other exchanges of fire, apparently from both sides?
  • In this context, why does the video ignore the admission on page 164 of the original GIEI report, of “the presence of four armed persons among the demonstrators” [GIEI “Informe sobre los hechos de violencia ocurridos entre el 18 de abril y el 30 de mayo de 2018,”], which appears to be referring to the same incident in Avenida Universitaria?
  • Why is the investigation portrayed in your video documentary limited to events on the west side of the national stadium when other shootings were taking place on the east side, and these would have influenced the behavior of the police in the entire area of the stadium, especially if they were actually under fire or had recently been under fire, as they had been on May 28th?
  • SITU Research and EAAF acknowledge financial support from corporate sources in the United States, including the Open Society Foundations, suggesting a strong ideological component in the production of this video. Who funded your organizations to produce it and how much money did they invest?

We look forward very much to your observations in response to our questions.

Alliance for Global Justice (USA)                                               

Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign Action Group (UK)

And signed by:

Blanca Segovia Sandino Arauz, Daughter of General Augusto C. Sandino, Nicaragua

Camilo Mejia, Human Rights Activist and former Amnesty International prisoner of conscience, Miami, USA

Patricia Villegas, Presidente TeleSur, Venezuela

S. Brian Willson, war veteran, author, lawyer, Granada, Nicaragua

As well as by the individuals and organisations in Nicaragua, USA and Europe listed below

Adrian Martínez Rodriguez, Secretario General , Confederación de Trabajadores por Cuenta Propia de Nicaragua CTCP Nicaragua

Al Burke Editor, Nordic News Network Sweden

Alberto Martínez Vargas, Retired Nicaragua

Alexandra Valiente, Editor Internationalist 360° Canada

Andrea Pérez Espinoza, Political scientist Nicaragua

Andreia Vizeu, Educator USA

Anne Mitchell,Deputy principal (retired) USA

Antonio Espinoza,Confederación Sindical de Trabajadores de la Agroindustria de Nicaragua CONFEDERACIÓN AGROINDUSTRIA Nicaragua

Arnold H. Matlin, M.D., F.A.A.P., Doctor USA

Augusto Enrique Castillo Sandino, Family of General Augusto C. Sandino Nicaragua

Aurora Elena Baltodano Toledo,Solidarity activist Italy

Becca Mohally Renk, Jubilee House Community Nicaragua

Ben Norton, Writer and editor of The Grayzone USA

Calvin McCoy, Nicaragua Solidarity Ireland Ireland

Carlos José Hurtado Ordoñez, Technical assistant Nicaragua

Carlos José Martínez Hernández, Editor, Radio La Primerísima Nicaragua

Cecilia Herrero, Painter Argentina

Coleen Littlejohn, Development economist (retired) Nicaragua

Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, New York USA

Coordinamento Associazione Italia, Nicaragua Solidarity group (Milan) Italy

Courtney Childs, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism USA

Dan Kovalik, Human rights lawyer USA

Daniel Hopewell, Director of community development NGO UK

Daniel Shaw, Professor USA

David Paul, Nurse USA

Declan McKenna. Nicaragua Solidarity Ireland Ireland

Diana Bohn, USA

Domingo Francisco Peréz Zapata, Secretario General, Unión Nacional de Empleados Públicos de Nicaragua UNE Nicaragua

Dr Francisco Dominguez, University professor UK

Dr. Agustín Velloso Santisteban, University professor Spain

Edgardo Garcia General Secretary, Asociación de Trabajadores del Campo Nicaragua

Eleanor Lanigan, Cuba Support Group, Ireland

Enrique Castillo Delgado, Technician, husband of Blanca Segovia Sandino Arauz Nicaragua

Erika Takeo, Coordinator, Friends of the ATC Nicaragua

Evile Umaña,, Secretaria General, Central de Trabajadores de Salud de Nicaragua FETSALUD Nicaragua

Executive Committee, Sao Paulo Forum, Washington D.C.  Maryland y Virginia, USA

Fausto Torrez, Secretary of International Relations, Asociación de Trabajadores del Campo Nicaragua

Fredy Franco, Secretario General, Federación de Profesionales Docentes de la Educación Superior FEPDES-ATD Nicaragua

Friends of Latin America, Solidarity organization USA

Gimmi Maria Cristini, Solidarity activist Italy

Herman van de Velde, Pedagogue / retired academic Nicaragua

Janet Pavone, Painter UK

Jennifer Atlee, Friendship Office of the Americas USA

Jeremy Cerna, Writer Germany

John Perry, Housing and migration researcher Nicaragua

Jon Barrenechea, Film marketing executive UK

Jorge Capelán, Journalist Nicaragua

José Angel Bermudez, Secretario Ejecutivo, Frente Nacional de los Trabajadores FNT Nicaragua

Judith Bello, Antiwar activist USA

Julio César Castillo Sandino, Family of General Augusto C. Sandino Nicaragua
Karen Sharpe, Editor, France

Kevin Zeese, Popular Resistance USA

Lauren Smith, Independent journalist USA

Leonardo Flores, Political analyst USA

Les Blough, Journalist Venezuela

Lisa Klein, Student Germany

Lucy Pagoad,a Teacher USA

Luis Adolfo Barboza Chavarría, Secretario general, Confederación Sindical de Trabajadores José Benito Escobar, CST-JBE Nicaragua

Madeliene Kießling Klein, Retired Germany

Magda Lanuza, Community worker and writer Nicaragua

Margaret Flowers, Popular Resistance USA

Maria de los Angeles Obando Medina, Secretario general Confederación de Trabajadores de la Pesca de Nicaragua, CONFEPESCA Nicaragua

Maritza Castillo, Nicaraguan activist Nicaragua

Maritza Espinales, Secretaria General, Federación de Sindicatos de Trabajadores Universitarios FESITUN Nicaragua

Mark Mayer, Solidarity activist USA

Martin Mowforth, Environmental Network for Central America. UK

Martin Roger, Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign UK

Max Blumenthal, Writer and editor of The Grayzone USA

Michael Boudreau, Compas de Nicaragua Nicaragua

Miguel Mairena, United Methodist missionary Mexico

Mike Woodard, Jubilee House Community Nicaragua

Mitchel Cohen, Author USA

Nan McCurdy, United Methodist Missionary Mexico

Nora Mitchell McCurdy, Researcher Nicaragua
Paul Richard Harris, Journalist, Canada

Paul Peulevé Baker, Ode to Earth coordinator Nicaragua

Professor Jose Antonio Zepeda, Secretario General, Confederación de Trabajadores de la Educación de Nicaragua CGTEN-ANDEN Nicaragua

Professor Michel Chossudovsky, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization Canada

Richard Kohn, Ph.D University professor USA

Richard Lanigan Physician/chiropractor UK

Richard Luckemeier, P.E. Water utility engineer USA

Rita Jill Clark-Gollub, Translator USA
Robert Navan,, Nicaragua Solidarity Ireland, Ireland

Roger Stoll, Writer USA

Sandra Edith Baltodano Gutierrez Solidarity activist Italy

Scott Hagaman, Physician USA

Sofía M Clark, Political researcher Nicaragua

Stansfield Smith, Writer USA

Stephen Sefton,Community worker and writer Nicaragua

Susan Lagos, Retired teacher, Friends of the ATC, activist, translator Nicaragua

Walter Ramiro Castillo Sandino, Family of General Augusto C. Sandino Nicaragua

William Camacaro, Venezuela Solidarity activist USA

William Grigsby Vado,Presidente Asociación de Profesionales de la Radiodifusión Nicaragüense (APRANIC) y Director General Radio La Primerísima Nicaragua

Zoltan Tiroler, Swedish-Cuban Friendship Association Sweden

US Policy Toward China Wrecking Bilateral Relations

July 9th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Both right wings of the US one-party state are of a single mind in wanting China’s economic, industrial, technological, and military advancement undermined.

Obama’s near-decade ago prioritization of asserting Washington’s Asia/Pacific presence was and remains key Dem and GOP policy.

Cold War politics never went away. It aims to marginalize, contain, isolate, and weaken key rivals China and Russia — as well as other nations unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to US interests.

That’s what Washington’s imperial project is all about, seeking dominance over all other nations, their resources and populations — wanting challengers to its preeminence neutralized or eliminated.

War by hot and other means is longstanding US policy. Challenging China and Russia this way could lead to WW III no one wants but could happen by accident or design, a frightening possibility.

Time and again, Sino/Russian good faith outreach to the US is rebuffed because it clashes with its aim of dominating other nations over mutual cooperation.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi tried again. On Thursday, he called for reconciling bilateral differences to avoid rupturing relations.

Beijing is not seeking to displace or undermine US superpower status, he said, suggesting ways to resolve differences.

“What is alarming is that the Sino-US relationship is one of the most important bilateral relations in the world, but is facing the most serious challenges since the establishment of diplomatic relations” over 40 years ago, he stressed, adding:

“China’s policies towards the US have not changed, and we still want to develop China-US relations in a sincere manner.”

Beijing will resume suspended talks “as long as the (Trump regime) is willing.”

“Only through exchanges can we stop lies, and only through dialogue can we avoid misjudgment.”

Wang and other Chinese officials know that good faith outreach to the US is virtually never good enough.

Time and again, it pledges to do one thing, then goes another way, why it can never be trusted whether Dems or Republicans run things.

Wang called for Chinese and US think tanks to compile three lists:

1. Major issues for both nations to address.

2. Issues where disputes exist, ones that can be resolved through dialogue.

3. Irreconcilable differences.

The latter category risks a major breach in bilateral relations, where things have been heading because of US unwillingness to compromise enough or at all.

Wang understands the challenges to Sino/US relations.

Yet he stressed that both sides “should properly manage…disputes and minimize the damage to (bilateral) relations…based on the spirit of seeking common ground while (respecting) differences.”

Both countries can cooperate on numerous fronts, he said, including on containment of COVID-19 outbreaks with the goal of halting them altogether.

On July 6, Trump continued his anti-China Twitterstorm, falsely accusing Beijing of “caus(ing) great damage to the United States and the rest of the world (sic).”

Clearly it’s the other way around. Time and again, the US blames other countries for its own wrongdoing.

Its relations with China show no signs of easing, a topic I continue to revisit and explain what’s going on, a worrisome situation.

Wang knows that things have deteriorated too much to restore normal bilateral relations.

Yet he stressed that both sides should avoid “decoupl(ing).”

If mutual cooperation between both countries remains unattainable on major issues, chances are relations will deteriorate further.

They’re highly unlikely to improve if Biden succeeds Trump in January.

The US is going all-out to prevent China from becoming the world’s major economy.

Trump’s trade war is all about wanting China’s development countered and undermined.

It’s a prescription for preventing resolution of bilateral differences.

US rage for global dominance made them irreconcilable with China, Russia, Iran, and other sovereign independent countries it doesn’t control.

That’s the stuff major wars are made of, a US specialty, notably throughout the post-WW II period.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump in a file image. Image: Youtube

It is only natural for many people to think Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro testing positive for COVID-19 is a karma for his insistence on minimizing the risks of the disease and a near non-existent management of the pandemic that has led to the death of more than 67,000 Brazilians. But from the perspective of political manoeuvring in Brazil, by receiving a positive test result could also work in Bolsonaro’s favor as his popularity plunges because of his handling of the pandemic.

The pro-American leader could use the contagion to his advantage, and if all goes well, he will become the embodiment of the argument he has been defending since the beginning of the pandemic – the virus is nothing more than a “minor flu” that passes in a few days and should not be exaggerated. It can even help him demonstrate that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment method, a claim that still divides scientists. The first thing he did after confirming that he was infected was to say that he had already taken the first tablet of the inexpensive anti-malarial tablet that can also supposedly treat coronavirus. Bolsonaro’s infection has not at all changed his policies or thoughts towards coronavirus and hydroxychloroquine. He remains the biggest supporter of using the drug and continues to downplay the severity of the disease despite tens of thousands of Brazilians dying.

“Everyone knew that [the virus] would affect a considerable part of the population sooner or later. For example, if I hadn’t had the test, I wouldn’t know the result, right? And it just turned positive. It tested positive,” he said.

After urging people to continue life as normal by not social distancing as he endlessly takes selfies with his supporters and only using a mask when absolutely necessary, Bolsonaro has not reflected on his policies once testing positive. During Bolsonaro’s announcement that he was infected, he took the opportunity to continue his recurring criticism against authorities for not having calibrated the economic impact that social isolation measures would have.

“Life continues. Brazil has to produce. You have to start the economy. Some criticized me in the past, saying that the economy recovers, life does not. Look, that is an absolute truth. I know that nobody recovers their life, but if the economy does not work it leads to other causes of death, suicide in Brazil. That was completely forgotten,” he said.

Bolsonaro will spend the next few days in his official residence, the Alvorada Palace, being treated by doctors, a luxury that many Brazilians do not have access to. Bolsonaro will recover like the vast majority of coronavirus sufferers and will likely continue to denounce rival mayors and governors who have been determined to “destroy the economy” with their “exaggerated” restrictions.

At the beginning of the pandemic Bolsonaro was already in the spotlight due to allegedly being infected with coronavirus. He had just returned from an official trip to Miami and more than 20 members of his party had been infected, including some very close ministers. Bolsonaro said that tests had been done and that they were negative. Doubts increased as the government did everything possible to not show the official results. Bolsonaro appealed in all legal instances until the Supreme Court forced him to show the results. In the end, after all the drama and speculation, his test results were shown to be negative.

It is curious that with a negative result Bolsonaro fought fiercely to defend his privacy. Now, with a positive result and when his popularity is drastically falling, he had no problem calling a press conference and calmly answered all questions from reporters. It is not accidental, and he will utilize this to push his agenda to return Brazil to normalcy at a time when tens of thousands of Brazilians are being infected every day.

When the pandemic was declared by the World Health Organization on March 11, Bolsonaro followed the footsteps of US President Donald Trump who brushed off the severity of the virus and insisted that the US would be back to full normalcy by Easter – which as we know did not occur. Bolsonaro has always defended the US and advocates for the maintenance of a Washington-led unipolar order. This policy has seen Brazil sever relations with Venezuela, make attempts to relocate the Brazilian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and not take the coronavirus seriously. It is therefore unsurprising that Brazil today is one of the worst countries in the world in handling the coronavirus with the second most total cases and deaths, behind only the US in both metrics.

By Bolsonaro openly declaring he is infected with coronavirus before speculation and rumors can take hold like what happened months earlier, he is attempting to control the narrative since he will most likely recover from coronavirus in the shortest period of time and will then emphasize that it truly is a “minor flu,” thus justifying the reopening of the economy. Bolsonaro promised economic growth and political stability when he was elected – he failed in both promises long before coronavirus even started, and both problems have only exacerbated because of the pandemic. He can now blame coronavirus for his failings, and use his own recovery as an example of why Brazil must be returned to full normalcy. This is all in the attempt to recover his declining popularity.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

UK Complicity with Saudi War Crimes in Yemen

July 9th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Britain operates as a US imperial project junior partner — allied with its preemptive wars against nonbelligerent nations threatening no one.

Both countries operate by a do what we say, not as we do standard.

While their lofty language expresses support for peace, stability, and human rights, their actions consistently and repeatedly breach their professed principles.

On Monday, UK Foreign Secretary Rabb announced sanctions on 20 Saudi nationals it holds responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi in October 2018 — crown prince/de facto ruler Mohammad bin Salman, responsible for ordering his assassination, omitted from the list.

Nothing about Britain’s longstanding ties to Riyadh was mentioned in Rabb’s remarks — in cahoots with the US — including in Yemen, at war with its people, starving them to death by endless war and a medieval blockade.

The US is by far the leading supplier of arms and munitions to Saudi Arabia.

In 2019, a UK court of appeals ruled that sales of weapons and munitions to the kingdom are illegal because its terror-bombing of Yemen is responsible for massacring civilians.

The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) welcomed the ruling that suspended UK arms sales to Riyadh, pending Westminster’s review of the longstanding policy.

In its ruling, the UK court noted that “(t)here was was a decision, or a change of position, so that there would be no assessment of past violations of IHL (international humanitarian law)” by Westminster that were and continue to be longstanding.

The Boris Johnson regime is now resuming arms sales to the kingdom.

While acknowledging ongoing Saudi war crimes, a statement by Johnson’s international trade secretary Liz Truss announced the resumption, saying the following:

An IHL analysis concluded that there was no “patterns of non-compliance” by the Saudis (sic), just “isolated incidents (sic),” adding:

No “lack of commitment on the part of Saudi Arabia to comply with IHL (sic).”

No “lack of capacity or systemic weaknesses which might give rise to a clear risk of IHL breaches (sic).”

The above remarks bear no relationship to reality on the ground.

Saudi crimes of war and against humanity occur multiple times daily, including the enormous harm from blockade.

Based on the above assessment, the Johnson regime maintains that “there is not a clear risk that the export of arms and military equipment to Saudi Arabia might be used in the commission of a serious violation of IHL (sic).”

Unmentioned by Truss is that evidence beyond dispute proves that Riyadh is one of the world’s leading human rights abusers, the foremost one among Arab states internally and in cahoots with Washington’s regional imperial agenda.

Her remarks came a day after Foreign Secretary Rabb’s announced UK sanctions on the kingdom, Russia and other countries for human rights abuses.

The London Independent noted that that Britain will “resume arms sales to Saudi Arabia despite (acknowledging) ‘possible’ war crimes by the kingdom (sic).”

One kingdom’s nefarious ties to another is no surprise. As long as Riyadh is oil and monetarily rich, there’s no shortage of nations in the West, region and elsewhere lining up to maintain dirty business as usual with the royal family.

For years, the Saudis have been and continue to be complicit with the US, UK, France, Israel, the UAE, and other countries in committing horrendous Nuremberg-level crimes of war, against humanity and genocide against millions of Yemenis.

Hundreds of thousands likely perished from US-initiated post-9/11 aggression against its people – succumbing to war, related violence, untreated diseases, famine, and overall deprivation.

Saudi terror-bombing targets hospitals, schools, marketplaces, food storage facilities, mosques, and other non-military sites, countless thousands of Yemenis perishing from its aggression.

Defenseless civilians comprise the vast majority of casualties in virtually all wars.

The US and UK are involved with the Saudis in enforcing an air and naval blockade of Yemen.

The vast majority of Yemenis are food insecure or facing starvation. Many risk death from lack of access to medical help for serious issues.

According to Houthi broadcaster Al Masirah, Saudi and coalition warplanes terror-bombed Houthi controlled areas scores of times in the past 24 hours alone.

On Wednesday, a statement by Houthi General Yahya Sare’a said the following:

“Saudi civilians or residents must stay away from the palaces of the wrongdoers, as they have become targets,” adding:

“Yemeni drones, as well as missiles, are heading towards their targets according to a pre-determined path, and civilians are only harmed by aggressive missiles that fall on them.”

“We succeeded, with God’s help, in implementing specific operations, which were concentrated strikes on sensitive targets within our target bank, and no force on the face of the earth will be able to stop our legitimate military operations.”

“(T)he forces of aggression (and) economic war will have grave consequences, and its fire may extend to your doorstep soon.”

Separately according to the Middle East Monitor, a declassified UK report explained Britain’s complicity in imposing a devastating blockade on Yemen — what’s unlawful under international law.

Imposing it is an act of war. Since Saudi aggression began in March 2015, Britain supplied Riyadh with billions of dollars worth of arms, munitions, and military equipment.

Britain’s navy provided training for Saudi and UAE naval forces, including on how to “board and search vessels (in) international waters or territorial seas.”

UK ties to Riyadh also involved establishing a so-called Exclusive Economic Zone Protection Officer course (EEZ).

It refers to waters that extend 200 miles off its coast for exclusive resource development and fishing.

Longstanding UK/Saudi relations continue largely unchanged to the present day, both nations complicit with each other’s regional war crimes — together with the US.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Al-Masdar News

The Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team, EAAF1, created in the mid-1980s, is a very prestigious human rights organization in Argentina and Latin America2 for, among other things, having found the mortal remains of the founder of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, Azucena Villaflor, and those of the heroic guerrilla, Ernesto Che Guevara. Even so, this organization has lent itself to a vile maneuver against the Nicaraguan people by endorsing a video produced on behalf of a network of false human rights operators in the service of NATO.

At the origin of EAAF lies a debate about the very concept of human rights in Argentina and the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean, the current state of affairs of which is illustrated by the example of the anti-Nicaraguan documentary produced by EAAF. The liberal-western concept of human rights may to some extent dissemble its underlying trend but eventually it does lead to outright complicity with the worst crimes against humanity. We will develop this reasoning in parts.

In May 2020, a fanciful “video reconstruction “3 made by EAAF together with the NGO SITU Research, New York, USA, was published about an alleged massacre of “students” carried out on 30 May 2018 by the Nicaraguan police during the violent acts that took place during the defeated “soft coup” attempt perpetrated against that country by the United States between April and July of that year.

As is clearly demonstrated in another journalistic work4 this video, far from being a documentary study of what really happened that day in Managua, is in fact a propaganda product which aims to provide legitimacy to the aggressive and destabilizing policy of the United States against the Central American country.5 This policy includes illegal, unilateral, indiscriminate coercive measures such as the Nica Act6, which affect all Nicaragua’s people by boycotting their access to funding from multilateral financial organizations for the fight against poverty.

The failed attempt at a “soft coup” financed by the United States in 20187, with violent roadblocks of highways and city streets which were known in the country as “the roadblocks of death”, caused serious damage to the economy of Nicaragua, which, until then, for several years had shown record figures of sustained growth (and poverty reduction in all its aspects). It is worth noting that the prejudicial EAAF video was published in May 2020, in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic seriously threatens countries like Nicaragua, which must devote enormous effort and resources to keep their health systems functioning while at the same time being unable to close their economies. The publication of the video in that context is undoubtedly part of a US policy of inadmissable intentions totally incompatible with the vocation of defending human rights that the EAAF claims to support.

A recent important part of this campaign was the request by OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro, in June 2020, that the organization, widely known as “the United States’ Ministry of the Colonies in Latin America”, apply the infamous “Democratic Charter “8 in order to isolate Nicaragua. In Latin America it is an open secret that the words “OAS” and “democracy” do not rhyme at all. From the CIA’s overthrow of the government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954 to the coup against Evo Morales (the latter a product of the conspiracy of the OAS itself9 ) in November 2019, the  OAS has sought to justify, where it has not openly supported, all ruptures of the democratic order carried out by interests serving the United States, when the US government has not directly intervened itself.

As of writing, 44 political leaders from Latin America and Spain have rejected the participation of the OAS in the role of electoral observation noting that its notorious and extremely controversial participation in Bolivia’s elections essentially triggered the coup d’etat against Evo Morales, nullifying his legitimate electoral victory.10 OAS institutions lack even minimal credibility given that the United States government is their main funder and refuses to submit to the jurisdiction of the OAS human rights bodies. That alone should be enough to make any respectable human rights organization refuse to cooperate with the OAS.

In the “video reconstruction” referred to in this article, the EAAF collaborated with a body known to be completely biased11 in favour of the opposition coup attempt in Nicaragua, namely the OAS Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts (GIEI)12 , as well as with the New York-based company SITU Research13, which specialises in producing virtual images and is associated with pro-Western organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, among others. This video reconstruction was in turn financed by the Soros Foundation14 (owned by the famous financial tycoon) and by the Oak Foundation (owned by multi-millionaire Charles Feeney), which in turn is a member of the US-based Council on Foundations15, an association of foundations that have been promoting pro-US policies abroad since 1949 and one of the main exponents of US cultural-philanthropic imperialism.16 As t be expected, the global dissemination of the EAAF/GIEI/SITU “video reconstruction” was carried out by the Spanish newspaper El País,17,18 a medium known for its virulent positions towards the progressive governments of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, ALBA.

It is undeniable that EAAF’s collaboration in this type of activity serves the the United States government’s imperialist policies in Latin America, a region whose peoples historically and to this day have been subjected to the most serious human rights violations by that superpower. Trying to understand how a human rights group like the EAAF that is seen as “progressive” in its country acts in complicity with the US Government that was responsible for supporting a dictatorship in Argentina that left 30,000 people disappeared, we spoke to a close collaborator of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo19, the most popular political and human rights organization in that country.

This collaborator explained to us that the Mothers do not work with EAAF, nor does the EAAF collaborate with them. They do not criticize the work of the EAAF as such, for example, finding the remains of people who disappeared during the dictatorship, but they do have reservations about the political-social concept of that work. This is because the Association of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo does not see itself as an organization guided by a liberal concept of “human rights”, but as a political organization with very clear principles of identifying with and continuing the transformation project for which their disappeared sons and daughters gave their lives.

These approaches are clearly expressed in three fundamental slogans raised by the organization since the beginning of the 1980s, which we quote below:

“No to exhumations: The Mothers of Plaza de Mayo reject exhumations because our children are not corpses. Our children are physically missing, but they live on in the struggle, the ideals and the commitment of all those who fight for justice and freedom for their people. The remains of our children must remain where they fell. No grave can lock up a revolutionary. A handful of bones does not identify them because after all they are the dreams, hopes and an example for generations to come.

We do not accept that a price can be put on life: Our children taught us the value of life. They put it at the service of all the oppressed, of those who suffer injustice. We, the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, reject financial reparation and say that life is only worth life. That life is only worth something when we put it at the service of others.

The life of a human being cannot be worth money, much less the life of a revolutionary. What needs to be made good with justice cannot be made good with money. The radicals and Menemists who forgave the murderers now want to cover up their crimes with money.

No one is going to put a price on the lives of our children. The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo will continue to insist that those who accept financial reparations are prostituting themselves.

We reject posthumous tributes: We reject plaques and monuments because that signifies burying the dead. The only possible tribute is to raise up again their banners of struggle and continue on the way they took. Posthumous tributes only serve to allow those who guaranteed impunity to wash away their guilt today. The only monument we can raise is an unwavering commitment to their ideals.”20

The issue of exhumations and reparations divided the movement of the mothers and relatives of victims who were fighting for justice after the crimes of the dictatorship, provoking a debate that has persisted to this day.21 One part of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo decided to accept the exhumations and reparations, and with them access to resources from the western “human rights” industry, splitting into another organization with the addition of “Línea Fundadora”. Also the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo, a movement of women looking for their grandchildren who were kidnapped and given up for adoption to other families during the dictatorship, decided to cooperate with groups like EAAF.22

The debate in Argentina continues, but in the case of Nicaragua what we can see from the example of EAAF’s insertion into the human rights industrial complex of NATO country NGOs funded by the wealthiest magnates of Western capitalism, is that embracing a liberal conception of human rights ultimately leads to open incorporation into the oppressive agenda of the greatest violators of human rights in history and the most relentless enemies of Latin America’s peoples.

Worse still, even by its own terms of reference, EAAF’s documentary video violates the very scientific principles that the organization claims to promote, as it dismisses evidence that contradicts the conclusions presented in its documentary video on Nicaragua. Indeed, EAAF, far from clarifying the truth about the events of 30 May 2018, misrepresents them. So its work on Nicaragua effectively denies justice to the victims of yet one more violent coup attempt against a Latin American people, promoted, as usual, by the US government.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

2 Dfe los restos del Che a los de Neruda: los casos que convirtieron al Equipo Argentino de Antropología Forense en un ícono mundial, Infobae, consultado el 24/06/20.
https://www.infobae.com/sociedad/2019/05/23/de-los-restos-del-che-a-los-de-neruda-los-casos-que-convirtieron-al-equipo-argentino-de-antropologia-forense-en-un-icono-mundial/

5 Behind Backdoors, consulted 24/06/20
USAID, from Georgia to Managua
https://bbackdoors.wordpress.com/2019/03/13/usaid-from-georgia-to-managua/
How the USAID prepared the conditions for a non-violent coup d’état against the Nicaraguan government. (Part I)
https://bbackdoors.wordpress.com/2018/11/06/how-the-usaid-prepared-the-conditions-for-a-non-violent-coup-detat-against-the-nicaraguan-government-part-i/
How the USAID prepared the conditions for a non-violent coup d’état against the Nicaraguan government. (Part II)
https://bbackdoors.wordpress.com/2018/11/14/how-the-usaid-prepared-the-conditions-for-a-non-violent-coup-detat-against-the-nicaraguan-government-part-ii/

6 “Pronunciamiento oficial del Gobierno de Nicaragua ante introducción de la Nica-Act (ESPAÑOL e INGLÉS)” en El 19 Digital, visitado el 26/06/20
https://www.el19digital.com/articulos/ver/titulo:59725-pronunciamiento-oficial-del-gobierno-de-nicaragua-ante-introduccion-de-la-nica-act

7 “Live from Nicaragua: Uprising or coup?”, Alliance for Global Justice, junio 2019.
http://www.tortillaconsal.com/live_from_nicaragua_june_2019.pdf

8 Twitter de la cuenta de Luis Almagro revisado por última vez el 26/06/20
https://twitter.com/Almagro_OEA2015/status/1273276618522480641

9 “Derechista admite rol de OEA en golpe contra Evo Morales en Bolivia”, en Prensa Latina visitado el 26/06/2020.
https://www.prensa-latina.cu/index.php?o=rn&id=346668&SEO=derechista-admite-rol-de-oea-en-golpe-contra-evo-morales-en-bolivia

10 “Grupo Puebla rechaza a OEA como observador electoral en la región” en Prensa Latina, visitado el 1/07/2020
https://www.prensa-latina.cu/index.php?o=rn&id=377797&SEO=grupo-puebla-rechaza-a-oea-como-observador-electoral-en-la-region
“Análisis respecto del rol desempeñado por la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) en las elecciones bolivianas de octubre de 2019”, Grupo de Puebla, visitado el 1/07/2020
https://www.grupodepuebla.org/analisis-respecto-del-rol-desempenado-por-la-organizacion-de-estados-americanos-oea-en-las-elecciones-bolivianas-de-octubre-de-2019/
“Puebla Group: Analysis Regarding the Role Played by the OAS in the October 2019 Bolivian Elections”, Orinoco Tribune, visitado el 1/07/2020.
https://orinocotribune.com/puebla-group-analysis-regarding-the-role-played-by-the-oas-in-the-october-2019-bolivian-elections/

11 “Organismos actuaban como punta de lanza de la intentona golpista” en El 19 Digital visitado el 27/06/2020
https://www.el19digital.com/articulos/ver/titulo:85459-organismos-actuaban-como-punta-de-lanza-de-la-intentona-golpista

16 The literature on the use of non profit foundations by Western cuntries for political intervention is abundant. here we only cite the seminal work of Robert Arnove: “Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad” (Boston: GK Hall, 1980). An interview with the author can be read in: “Foundations and Cultural Imperialism: An Interview with Robert Arnove”, in the blog Under the Mask of Philanthropy, of Michael Barker. Last visited 29/05/2020
https://underthemaskofphilanthropy.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/foundations-and-cultural-imperialism-an-interview-with-robert-arnove/

17 “Forenses argentinos reconstruyen el horror de Nicaragua en el régimen de Ortega”, El País, visited 29/06/2020
https://elpais.com/internacional/2020-05-30/forenses-argentinos-reconstruyen-el-horror-de-nicaragua.html

18 On the PRISA Group which owns Spain’s El País, the journalist and media researcher Pascual Serrano notes: “Among the eight big shareholders of Prisa, according to its own information, are the US fund  Amber Capital (withl 29.8%), HSBC, the most regularly fined bank in the world (with 9,1%) ; a Qatari fund  (with 5,1%) and two Mexican big businessmen Carlos Slim, to whom Felipe González is linked, and Carlos Fernández. Between them, these big foreign shareholders own 52.3% of PRISA. There may well be other smaller, less important foreign shareholders, but all of them, for various reasons are hostile to the government of Venezuela and one might add, the other ALBA governments like Cuba and Nicaragua. Given that PRISA has been taking losses for a gret many years one might well ask why these businesses invest in it. This may be one of the reasons for the disinformation policy of El País.”

En “La manipulación sistemática de El País contra Venezuela” en Rebelión, visited 26/06/20.
https://rebelion.org/la-manipulacion-sistematica-de-el-pais-con-venezuela/

 For  Grupo PRISA’s anti-Cuba stance, se: “Cuba, the Media, and the Challenge of Impartiality” de Salim Lamrani, Monthly Review Press, New York, 2015.
https://books.google.com.ni/books?id=1moFBgAAQBAJ

20 “Una historia de las Madres de Plaza de Mayo”, de Demetrio Iramain, 2017 ISBN 978-987-4127-36-5
http://madres.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Una-historia-de-las-Madres-de-Plaza-de-Mayo-autor-Demetrio-Irama%C3%ADn.pdf

21 “Polémica: Juan Gelman, las Madres de Plaza de Mayo y los ‘comisarios del olvido’”, Revista Sudestada, visited el 29/06/2020
https://www.revistasudestada.com.ar/articulo/531/polemica-juan-gelman-las-madres-de-plaza-de-mayo-y-los-comisarios-del-olvido/

22 “36 años de ciencia para la verdad y la justicia”, visited  29/06/2020
https://www.anred.org/2020/05/26/36-anos-de-ciencia-para-la-verdad-y-la-justicia/

“Hizo posible saber la verdad”, visited 29/06/2020
https://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-249962-2014-07-03.html

Featured image: Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo  (Photo Cuba Debate)

For America, international law has no meaning. In Washington’s view, it applies to other countries, but not to them. Sadly, this well-reasoned UN declaration is simply an exercise in frustration and irrelevance.

On paper, it sounds very copesetic: “… a single strike, one or two cars targeted, 10 individuals killed, in a non-belligerent country, surrounded by people unaware of and unprepared for an international armed conflict.”

With these words, Agnes Callamard, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, described the assassination of Qassem Soleimani in a report submitted to the Human Rights Council.

Callamard’s report covered the broad topic of ‘Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions’, and focused in particular on the use of armed drones for targeted killing. She observed that such acts are carried out by conventional means, such as Special Operations Forces, and as such her report “contains findings applicable to all forms of targeted killings, no matter their method.”

In her report, Callamard singled out the assassination (i.e., “targeted killing”) of General Soleimani as “the first known incident in which a State [e.g., the US] invoked self-defense as a justification for an attack against a State-actor, in the territory of another state, thus implicating the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.” It declares that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Callamard labeled the killing of Soleimani by a US drone strike an “arbitrary killing,” noting that while the US claimed that the strike was in response to an “escalating series of armed attacks in recent months” by Iran, the US claim “fails to describe even one ongoing attack.”

Instead, Callamard describes a series of separate and distinct attacks which are not, in and of themselves, escalating, related in time or at all. Moreover, by attacking Soleimani on Iraqi soil without the consent of Iraq, the US violated Iraq’s “territorial integrity.”

Callamard couches her case in the language of international law, noting that various international courts have “established that human rights treaty obligations can apply in principle to the conduct of a State outside its territory.” Moreover, as Callamard points out, the Human Rights Committee to whom she reports “has established that a State party has an obligation to respect and to ensure the right to life of all persons whose right to life is impacted by its military or other activities in a direct and reasonably foreseeable manner.” This obligation, Callamard argues, applies to drones strikes and their targets, which fall within the jurisdiction of the state operating the drone.

As Callamard notes, to date there is a refusal on the part of courts of jurisdiction to provide oversight regarding extra-territorial killings by armed drones, noting that “such matters are political, or relate to international relations between states and thus are non-justiciable.” Callamard rejects this excuse, noting that it “cannot be reconciled with recognized principles of international law, treaties, conventions, and protocols, and violates the rights to life and to a remedy.”

Callamard says that the US, in justifying the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, cites the self-defense clause of Article 51 of the UN Charter. But, as she points out, “even the legality of a strike under Art. 51 of the UN Charter does not preclude its wrongfulness under humanitarian or human rights law.”

International jurisprudence, as Callamard observes, suggests that self-defense could only be invoked against a threat that is already there. Void of such an imminent threat, the US action operates in violation of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits “arbitrary deprivations of life.”

At the end of the day, however, the Special Rapporteur’s report is, for all practicalities and solid reasoning, an exercise in frustration and irrelevance.

For laws to have any effect, they must be enforceable, and to be enforceable there must be jurisdiction. To decide that the US, through its extrajudicial and extraterritorial assassination of Soleimani, was in violation of Article 6 of the ICCPR is one thing; turning that decision into anything other than an act of moralistic chest-thumping is another.

One would think it should not be this way. After all, Article VI, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution makes treaties the supreme law of the land on the same footing with acts of Congress. The US Senate provided its advice and consent to the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which had been adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966, and signed on behalf of the US on October 5, 1977. Simply put, Article 6 of the ICCPR is the law of the land.

Not so fast. Senate ratification was contingent upon a number of “Reservations, Understandings, Declarations and Proviso,” including one which declared that “the United States declares that the provisions of Articles 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing.”

As such, regardless of whether issues pertaining to the entry into and ratification of the ICCPR make it sufficient to imbue its provisions as the “law of the land,” the fact that the US Senate expressly indicated that certain provisions of the ICCPR not to be self-executing means that Article 6 of the ICCPR cannot be seen as standing alone as the equivalent to an act of the legislature, but rather requiring a subsequent act of Congress before its provisions can be put into effect.

As the US Supreme Court once observed, “A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations. It depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the governments which are parties of it.”

The odds of the US Congress stepping up and enacting legislation that would confer legitimacy to the Special Rapporteur’s finding that the US acted in violation of Article 6 of the ICCPR when killing Soleimani are zero; it is not in the interest of Congress to do so, and anyone searching for a semblance of honor within Congress would have better odds canvassing a brothel.

International law, like the Constitution which imbues it with relevance as far as the US is concerned, only possesses the meaning and legitimacy that a society is willing to vest in it. The US, acting on legislation passed by Congress, has engaged in a whittling away of the rights and protections afforded to Americans and world citizens to the point that neither international law nor the Constitution have much meaning anymore.

It is not just the US Congress that has lost its voice when it comes to expressing moral outrage against the murder done in its name. “To date drones’ attacks and targeted killings are not the object of robust international debates and review,”Callamard concludes in her report. “The Security Council is missing in action; the international community, willingly or not, stands largely silent. That is not acceptable.”

Seen in this light, the words of Callamard take on a whole new level of urgency. “[T]he targeted killing of General Soleimani, coming in the wake of 20 years of distortions of international law, and repeated massive violations of humanitarian law, is not just a slippery slope. It is a cliff.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

Featured image is from OneWorld

A war crimes complaint has been filed against Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump adviser Jared Kushner in the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is now up to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor to decide whether the complaint should be pursued. If the prosecutor launches a preliminary examination and finds reason to believe they committed war crimes, the court could then authorize a full investigation.

The complaint, filed by Middlesex University law professor William Schabas on June 30 on behalf of four Palestinians who live in the West Bank, states “there is credible evidence” that Trump, Netanyahu and Kushner “are complicit in acts that may amount to war crimes relating to the transfer of populations into occupied territory and the annexation of the sovereign territory of the State of Palestine.” Under article 15 of the ICC’s Rome Statute, any individual, group or organization can bring a complaint to the Office of the Prosecutor.

Schabas’s complaint comes on the heels of unusual moves last month from the Trump administration, which declared a national emergency” in June in an effort to shield U.S. and Israeli officials from ICC accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Trump issued an executive order on June 11 declaring a national emergency because, he says, any ICC attempt to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute any personnel of the United States or its allies (Israel)without consent to the court’s jurisdiction “constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

The order authorizes the freezing of assets and family travel bans against ICC officials and others who have participated in, or provided assistance to investigations, arrests, detentions or prosecutions. It’s not necessary that a person be involved with an ICC action, however, to be subject to Trump’s new sanctions. His order covers any ICC employee or agent whom the secretary of state determines “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Trump’s Endorsement of Israel’s Illegal Annexation Is a War Crime

Schabas’s complaint alleges that the Trump administration’s endorsement of Israel’s annexation constitutes a war crime.

Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan endorses the illegal Israeli annexation of 30 percent of the West Bank which, Schabas alleges, “is intricately linked to the war crime of changing the population of an occupied territory.” The annexation, slated to occur on July 1, has been delayed, likely for political reasons.

Article 49  of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that an “occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies.” The Rome Statute says that an occupying power’s direct or indirect transfer “of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a war crime.

Sixty-seven special independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council declared in a statement that Israel’s annexation of occupied territory “is a serious violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions, and contrary to the fundamental rule affirmed many times by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly that the acquisition of territory by war or force is inadmissible.

Trump Claims the ICC Has No Jurisdiction Over Americans and Israelis

In his June 11 order, Trump states that the ICC’s “illegitimate assertion of jurisdiction” over nationals of the U.S. and its allies would “threaten to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.” Trump notes that the U.S. is not a party to the ICC’s Rome Statute and has never consented to the jurisdiction of the court.

Although Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute as he left office,  the United States never ratified it. In an unprecedented move, George W. Bush withdrew the U.S.’s signature from the statute in 2002. 

Even though the United States isn’t a party to the Rome Statute, U.S. nationals can still be held liable in the ICC for crimes that occurred in the territory of a country that is a party.  So although the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute, the ICC nevertheless has jurisdiction over crimes committed by U.S. nationals in the territory of  Afghanistan, which is a party.

On March 5, the ICC Appeals Chamber accepted Bensouda’s recommendation to proceed with an investigation of war crimes allegedly committed by U.S. military and CIA officials in Afghanistan and at CIA black sites.

Less than three months prior, on December 20, 2019, Bensouda had found a reasonable basis to believe that Israeli forces and Palestinians committed war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories. She recommended that the Pretrial Chamber launch an investigation if it decided the court had territorial jurisdiction over Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

The same day the Appeals Chamber announced its approval of an investigation of U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatened to “take all necessary measures to protect our citizens from this renegade, so-called court.”

With his new national emergency declaration, Trump aims to ensure that no U.S. or Israeli persons are brought before the international court to answer for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He cited the American Service-Members Protection Act, enacted after Bush removed the U.S.’s signature from the Rome Statute. The act contains the “Hague Invasion Clause,” which authorizes the U.S. military to use armed force to extricate any U.S. or allied national detained by the ICC. This provision has never been used but its ramifications are frightening.

U.S. Pressure on the ICC Didn’t Work the First Time

In November 2017, Bensouda’s preliminary examination found reasonable grounds to believe that,  pursuant to U.S. policy,  members of the U.S. military and the  CIA had committed  war crimes. They included torture and cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity and sexual violence against people in detention facilities in the territory of states parties to the Rome Statute, including  Afghanistan,  Romania, Poland and Lithuania.

The alleged crimes by the CIA and U.S. military “were not the abuses of a few isolated individuals,” but rather “part of approved interrogation techniques in an attempt to extract ‘actionable intelligence’ from detainees,” Bensouda wrote. She concluded there was “reason to believe” that crimes were “committed in the furtherance of a policy or policies … which would support US objectives in the conflict of Afghanistan.”

Bensouda requested that the ICC’s Pretrial Chamber approve an investigation into these allegations. The Trump administration threatened to deny visas to ICC judges and prosecutors and warned it would retaliate with sanctions if the court opened an investigation.

On April 5, 2019, the U.S. government revoked Bensouda’s visa to travel to the United States.

A week later, on April 12, 2019, the Pretrial Chamber apparently succumbed to U.S. pressure and declined to authorize Bensouda’s investigation. Although agreeing with Bensouda that there were reasonable grounds to believe that CIA members had committed war crimes, the Pretrial Chamber denied her request for an investigation “in the interests of justice.” That chamber cited the “extremely limited” possibility of an effective judicial process due to the likely refusal of U.S. and Afghan authorities to cooperate.

But in a landmark decision, on March 5, 2020, the Appeals Chamber overruled the Pretrial Chamber’s determination and authorized Bensouda to initiate an investigation.

Trump declared his “national emergency” three months later.

Bensouda Requested an Investigation of War Crimes Committed in Palestine

Trump’s June 11 executive order was also designed to shield Israeli officials from liability in the ICC for their war crimes.

On December 20, 2019, Bensouda told the Pretrial Chamber there was a reasonable basis to launch an investigation of “the situation in Palestine.” She had a reasonable belief that Israeli forces had committed war crimes of willful killing, willfully causing serious injury to body or health, disproportionate use of force, transfer of Israeli civilians into the Palestinian territory of the West Bank, and the killing of more than 200 Palestinians during protests at the Israel-Gaza fence. Bensouda also found a reasonable basis to investigate alleged war crimes by Palestinians, including intentional attacks against civilians, using civilians as human shields, and the commission of torture and willful killing.

Bensouda wrote that she was satisfied “(i) war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip (ii) potential cases arising from the situation would be admissible; and (iii) there are no substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice.”

But although Bensouda determined that the ICC has territorial jurisdiction over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza —she asked the Pretrial Chamber for a ruling on “the scope of the territorial jurisdiction” of the ICC.

Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute. But the ICC could take jurisdiction over Israelis if their crimes were committed in the territory of a state party. Israel maintains that Palestine is not a state so there is no ICC jurisdiction.

In 2012, the UN General Assembly recognized Palestine as a non-member observer state in the United Nations. Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute, thereby becoming a member of the States Parties of the International Criminal Court.

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) filed an amicus brief on March 16, 2020, urging the ICC to confirm its jurisdiction over Palestine. IADL bureau member Richard Harvey wrote:

The ICC’s normative power and legal authority will be strengthened by confirming its jurisdiction over the State of Palestine, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, and opening an investigation into the Palestinian situation. Thereby the equal rights of all peoples to justice for international crimes will receive much-needed affirmation.

ICC States Parties and UN Security Council Members Express “Unwavering Support” for ICC

Sixty-seven ICC member countries representing regions throughout the world issued a joint statement expressing their “unwavering support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution.” They pledged to remain “undeterred by any measures or threats against the Court, its officials, and those cooperating with it.”

Likewise, 10 members of the 15-member UN Security Council issued a statement to “reconfirm our unwavering support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution” and “preserve its integrity undeterred by any threats against the Court, its officials and those cooperating with it. The group, which included two permanent members of the Council – France and the United Kingdom – renewed their “resolve to stand against impunity which is at the core of the Rome Statute.”

The remarkable action of the Appeals Chamber in defying U.S. threats and blackmail and approving a war crimes investigation of U.S. officials indicates that the ICC is striving to fulfill its mandate to bring those who have committed the most serious crimes to justice.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.

Featured image is from IMEMC

120 Covid-19 Vaccine Projects are Underway

July 8th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Discussing permissible medical practices, the Nuremberg Code mandates consent and prohibits coercion, following Hippocratic Oath principles of doing no harm. 

What is the Significance Of The Nuremberg Code

The Nuremberg Code is one of several foundational documents that influenced the principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP).

Good Clinical Practice is an attitude of excellence in research that provides a standard for study design, implementation, conduct and analysis. More than a single document, it is a compilation of many thoughts, ideas and lessons learned throughout the history of clinical research worldwide.

Vaccines affects human health — notably when development is rushed like now.

Instead of providing protection as claimed, vaccines time and again cause diseases they’re supposed to prevent.

Around 120 COVID-19 vaccine development projects are underway.

Either in pre-clinical or human trials, Big Pharma firms and their foreign counterparts are racing to develop and market what no one should touch when one or more vaccines become available — possibly later this year or in early 2021.

All vaccines with no exceptions contain a toxic brew of harmful to human health substances.

Under normal conditions, vaccine development and testing takes years.

Rushing one or more to market is all about wanting to cash in big on a profit bonanza, potentially worth billions of dollars — regardless of the unacceptable risk to human health.

The World Health Organization (WHO) pushes Big Pharma interests.

It  pushes the Big Lie claim that COVID-19 vaccines  will protect public health and safety.

It promotes rushing COVID-19 vaccine development to make them available as soon as possible that risks making a bad situation worse.

Its goal is mass-vaxxing around two billion people before end of 2021.

Earlier it defied reality, falsely claiming that “(t)here is currently no evidence that wearing a mask by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

Wearing a face mask in public minimizes the risk of COVID-19 infection, along with proper hand-washing, avoiding large gatherings, and overall good health habits that include a healthy diet and daily exercise.

Studies reportedly show that around half of Americans will not permit themselves to be vaxxed for COVID-19, about another 25% hesitant about taking this step.

Anthony Fauci and other US public health officials promote Big Pharma interests — why trusting their advice is hazardous to human health, especially about hazardous to health vaccines, notably for COVID-19 when available.

The 2016 documentary film “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe” discusses the link between the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and autism.

The film exposes CDC corruption and fraud in deference to private industry profit-making — why it should be called the sickness, not the healthcare, industry.

Health and nutrition expert Gary Null and former senior  biotechnology and genomic industries research analyst Richard Gale warned that vaccines are “unsafe at any dose.”

When development is rushed like what’s going on to make COVID-19 vaccines available as soon as possible, they’ll be especially harmful to human health.

No one should allow themselves and family member to be part of a diabolical human experiment that’s all about maximizing Big Pharma profits.

Safety and efficacy claims by the industry and CDC aren’t supported by medical science.

An alarming correlation exists between mass childhood vaxxing and illnesses they experience, as well as autoimmune diseases in adults.

The CDC claim that vaccines are “unavoidably safe” is unsupported by scientific evidence.

No vaccine developed and marketed was safe as claimed.

COVID-19 vaccines when available are virtually certain to be hugely toxic and potentially extremely harmful to human health.

Why it’s essential to just say NO when all-out industry and government efforts push people to get vaxxed.

The Nuremberg Code includes 10 points:

1. Voluntary consent on matters relating to human health.

2. Procedures yielding positive results that benefit individuals and society.

3. Procedures based on positive experimentation results.

4. Physical and mental suffering prohibited.

5. Whatever risks death or disability is forbidden.

6. Risks taken should never exceed sought benefits.

7. Proper preparation in suitable facilities should precede procedures followed.

8. Only scientifically qualified individuals should conduct them.

9. At any time during treatment, individuals may cancel it at their discretion.

10. Scientifically qualified individuals involved must terminate procedures if too high a risk of harm to human health exists.

If ordered ahead in the US or elsewhere in cahoots with drug giants, mass-vaxxing for COVID-19 will be a flagrant Nuremberg Code breach.

The likely irreversible harm to vaxxed individuals will far outweigh claimed benefits that are unsupported by scientific evidence.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Natural News

In his recently revised and updated book The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, scientist Arthur Firstenberg has made both science and history comprehensible by explaining the importance and significance to life on Earth of a vital consideration that has long been ‘invisible’: electricity.

Indeed, as Firstenberg makes clear, if we want to understand life on Earth, we cannot do so without understanding the role that electricity plays in making life possible, healing it and, if abused, threatening us all.

Firstenberg’s book is unusual on at least two counts. Based on decades of scientific research, he carefully explains each point in language accessible to the non-scientist while documenting his case with exceptional clarity and detail complemented by a 138-page bibliography.

If you want to really understand this issue, and what is at stake, you will be doing yourself a favor by reading this book.

The Universe, Electricity and Life: In Brief

As Firstenberg’s subtitle promises, his book includes a history of electricity and its role in the Universe but particularly on Earth.

Almost all of the matter in the universe is electrically charged…. The stars we see are made of… charged particles in constant motion. The space between the stars and galaxies, far from being empty, teems with electrically charged subatomic particles, swimming in vast swirling electromagnetic fields, accelerated by those fields to near-light speeds. Plasma is such a good conductor of electricity, far better than any metals,  that filaments of plasma – invisible wires billions of light-years long – transport electromagnetic energy in gigantic circuits from one part of the universe to another…. Under the influence of electromagnetic forces, over billions of years, cosmic whirlpools of matter collect along these filaments, like beads on a string, evolving into the galaxies that decorate our night sky.

The Milky Way, the galaxy in which Earth is located, is a medium-sized spiral galaxy that is 100,000 light-years across; it rotates around its center every 250,000,000 earth years, generating around itself a galactic-size magnetic field. Filaments of plasma, 500 light-years long, generate additional magnetic fields.

Our sun, also made of plasma, sends out an ocean of electrons, protons and helium ions in a steady current called the solar wind. This wind bathes the Earth before diffusing out into the plasma between the stars.

The Earth, with its core of iron, rotates on its axis in the electric fields of the solar system and the galaxy, in turn generating its own magnetic field that traps and deflects the charged particles of the solar wind wrapping the Earth in an envelope of plasma called the magnetosphere. Some of the particles from the solar wind collect in layers we call the Van Allen belts where they circulate 600 to 35,000 miles overhead.

The sun also bombards the Earth with ultraviolet light and X-rays. In addition, atomic nuclei and subatomic particles (known as cosmic rays) shower the Earth from all directions as well. It is these cosmic rays from Space and the radiation emitted by uranium and other radioactive elements in Earth’s crust that provide the small ions that carry the electric currents that surround us in the lower atmosphere.

It is within this electromagnetic environment – a fairly constant vertical field averaging 130 volts per meter – that all life, including Homo Sapiens, evolved on Earth.

In fair weather, the ground beneath us has a negative charge and the ionosphere above us a positive charge. ‘Electricity courses through the sky far above us, explodes downward in thunderstorms, rushes through the ground beneath us, and flows gently back up through the air in fair weather.’ This happens in an endless cycle as about 100 bolts of lightning, each delivering a trillion watts of energy, strike the Earth every second.

Every living thing is part of this circuit. The current enters our heads from the sky, circulates through our meridians, and enters the earth through the soles of our feet. This current provides the energy for growth, healing, and life itself. See ‘Putting the Earth Inside a High-Speed Computer’.

The strength of the atmospheric electrical current is between 1 and 10 picoamperes (trillionths of an ampere) per square meter. Dr. Robert Becker found that 1 picoampere is all the current that is necessary to stimulate healing in frogs…. It is these tiny currents that keep us alive and healthy. See ‘Planetary Emergency’.

The fundamental point about all this is simple: The Earth is incredibly delicately balanced with a great many forces making up this balance and thus making life possible.

One of the many ways in which we have been disrupting this balance is by disturbing the global electrical circuit, that evolved over eons and sustains all life, without paying genuine and sincere attention to what we are doing and what this means for the Earth and all of its inhabitants, including us.

Given the profound implications of generating ‘electric pollution’, some might label this behaviour insane. It is certainly unaware.

Human-Generated Electricity on Earth

It was in 1746 that scientists were finally able to ‘capture’ electricity so that a start could be made on using it directly for human ends. Sure, the wider implications of its use were not considered but it offered opportunities not previously available. And when the damage from its use, on humans and other living organisms, started and then rapidly picked up pace, the association between the spread of electricity (particularly through the telegraph wires in the mid-nineteenth century and electric lighting a few decades later) and the adverse health and environmental impacts were not made, or ignored when they were. And so diseases not previously recorded in the medical literature started to appear: anxiety disorder, influenza, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

But it wasn’t just us that was impacted; so were the other living organisms of our planet.

And now we are bathed in the 60-cycle current in our house-wiring; the ultrasonic frequencies in our computers, Wi-Fi routers and modems; the radio waves in our televisions; the microwaves in our cell phones and the electromagnetic radiation generated by everything from baby monitors to ‘smart’ devices of all kinds, as well as the vast network of satellites, transmission towers and power lines all endlessly but variably impacting, adversely, virtually every human being on Earth. And if 5G is deployed, there will be nowhere on Earth that is safe for humans, insects, birds, animals and plants.

We will have fundamentally altered the very conditions that made the evolution of life on Earth possible.

An exaggeration?

Here is the briefest sample of the damage existing human-generated electromagnetic radiation is causing life on Earth.

Forests

Apart from being logged mercilessly, burned down to create cattle or soy farms or palm oil plantations, destroyed by the endless proliferation of mining for various mineral resources including coal and oil, damaged by dam construction, wildlife poaching and the extraction of resources like rayon, viscose and modal to make clothing, and adversely impacted in many other ways, forests are being destroyed by electromagnetic radiation inflicted by humans. While acid rain and global warming have been blamed for much of the ‘forest die-off’ that has occurred over the past 40 years, the evidence that electromagnetic radiation has been the real, or at least primary, cause is rather overwhelming once the full circumstances of the damage are seriously investigated. While Firstenberg cites many very compelling examples, the case of the Amazon rainforest makes the point rather starkly.

In 2005, it was noticed that trees were dying without obvious cause. This has been blamed on global warming which caused an unusual drought in that year.

However, on 27 July 2002, the US-financed and Raytheon-built System for Vigilance of the Amazon (SIVAM), a $US1.4 billion system of radars and sensors, began its monitoring activities in a two million square mile area of remote wilderness.

Ostensibly to deprive drug traffickers and guerrillas a safe haven, it also ‘required pretending that blasting the rainforest with radiation at levels that were unprecedented in the history of the world was of no consequence to the forest’s precious inhabitants, human or otherwise’. So the system’s ‘25 enormously powerful surveillance radars, 10 Doppler weather radars, 200 floating water-monitoring stations, 900 radio-equipped “listening posts”, 32 radio stations, 8 airborne state-of-the-art surveillance jets equipped with fog-penetrating radar, and 99 “attack/trainer” support aircraft’ can track individual human beings and ‘hear a twig snap’ anywhere in the Amazon.

Again, at the cost of electromagnetically damaging every living organism in the rainforest.

To reiterate though, the Amazon is not the only forest in the world adversely impacted by electromagnetic radiation with many studies examining the issue, wherever they are conducted, consistently revealing forest damage by electromagnetic radiation from civilian and military installations (and even recovery when, as happens occasionally, the local radiation stops).

Insects

In 1901, Marconi sent the world’s first long-distance radio transmission from the Isle of Wight, off the southern coast of England. By 1906 and now host to the greatest density of radio transmissions in the world, the island was almost empty of bees. ‘Thousands, unable to fly, were found crawling and dying on the ground outside their hives’. And healthy bees, imported from the mainland, began dying within a week of arrival. ‘Isle of Wight disease’ was then reported in European countries, South Africa, Australia and North America over following decades with almost everyone assuming it was infectious. Despite various suspected diseases and parasites accused over many decades, each was eventually ‘cleared’ of causing the problem.

But in the second half of the 1990s,  problem again accelerated and acquired the name ‘colony collapse disorder’ in 2007 as bee populations were decimated in many parts of the world. And despite the resistance of beekeepers (who are largely convinced that infectious diseases are driving bee losses and that toxic pesticides are necessary to kill mites), some scientists were starting to investigate the impact of electromagnetic radiation on bees. The simplest experiments involved placing a cell phone inside a bee hive: ‘The results of such experiments, considering the complete denial by our society that wireless technology has any environmental effects at all, have been almost unbelievable.’

‘The quickest way to destroy a bee hive, investigators have found, is to place a wireless telephone inside it.’ Landmark research conducted originally in 2009 and then subsequently, which involved placing two cell phones in a hive for 30 minutes at a time every few days, demonstrated that electromagnetic fields interfere with cellular metabolism: bees practically could not metabolize sugars, proteins or fats and, as in humans but far more rapidly, their cells become oxygen starved. Three months, at this modest level of exposure, would destroy a hive.

One particularly nasty development that occurred in the (northern) Winter of 2006-2007 that is considered by some the likely immediate cause of the disastrous colony collapse disorder at the time, is that the US military’s HAARP – High-frequency Active Auroral Research Project – in Alaska reached full power with the installation of the last of its 180 antennas at that time. HAARP is the most powerful radio transmitter on Earth and ‘turned the ionosphere itself – the life-giving layer of sky to which every creature is tuned – into a gigantic radio transmitter’. Why? HAARP was being used for US military communications, particularly with submarines.

Even in 1988, when HAARP was still being planned, physicist Richard Williams, a consultant to Princeton University’s David Sarnoff Laboratory, called the project ‘an irresponsible act of global vandalism’ given the power levels that were to be used.

In fact, according to other researchers, the HAARP project has also been used to research and develop electromagnetic weapons, such as directed energy beams. See ‘HAARP: Secret Weapon Used For Weather Modification, Electromagnetic Warfare’.

But whatever its functions, even though now transferred to the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ulrich Warnke points out that the frequencies of HAARP superimpose unnatural magnetic fields on the natural resonant frequencies of the sky, the daily variations of which have not changed since life appeared on Earth.This is disastrous for bees because they ‘lose an orientation that served them for millions of years as a reliable indicator of the time of day’.

Of course bees are not the only insects adversely impacted by this recent human obsession with electromagnetic radiation. Experiments with other insects, such as ants and fruit flies, again simply using exposure to cell phones rather than any specialized equipment, revealed equally instructive results. A few minutes exposure for a few days, for example, dramatically reduced the reproductive success of the flies. And exposed to phones turned off, in standby mode and then turned on, ants displayed a variety of behaviors including leaving their nest and taking all of their eggs, larvae and nymphs with them.

As an aside, experiments of this nature also revealed ‘intensity windows’ of maximal effect. This means that ‘the greatest damage is not always done by the greatest levels of radiation. Holding your cell phone away from your head may actually worsen the damage.’ And even a cell phone that is turned off but has the battery in it, is ‘clearly and obviously dangerous’.

Birds

The disastrous effects of radio waves on birds were first noted in the 1930s. It was immediately obvious, for example, to diverse groups of people who worked with pigeons – those involved in pigeon racing and those still using pigeons for military communications – when the birds lost their way during the rapid expansion of radio broadcasting. But by the late 1990s, as cell phone towers proliferated and vastly greater numbers of birds were unable to fly home, pigeon-racing plummeted compelling pigeon-fanciers to revisit an issue they had earlier set aside. Unfortunately, it was too late. In 1998, shortly after Motorola’s launch of 66 Iridium satellites had begun providing the first cell phone service from Space, 90% of pigeons being raced in various locations in the United States over a two-week period vanished.

Of course, it is not just pigeon populations that are being decimated. Wherever dramatic bird population declines are being studied and electromagnetic radiation is considered as a possible factor (which is not always the case), the results usually reveal a link even if the damaging impac
t is variable.

If electromagnetic radiation totally disorients pigeons, how do migratory birds navigate? Often enough, they don’t.

For example, in 2004, scientists at the University of Oldenburg in Germany were shocked to discover that migratory songbirds they had been studying were no longer able to orient themselves for their migratory journeys. Conducting a simple experiment – surrounding the aviaries of Europea robins with grounded aluminium sheeting to remove the influence of electromagnetic radiation – the immediate and positiveimpa
ct ‘on the birds’ orientation capabilities was profound’, they noted in a study published in 2014.

One series of studies was conducted by wildlife biologist Alfono Balmori Martínez in Spain for more than a decade from the 1990s, after noting the dramatic increase in leukemias, cancers, headaches, insomnia, memory loss, heart arrhythmias and acute neurological reactions suffered by people near a new installation of antennas adjacent to a local school.

His subsequently published research revealed, among many other points, the following:

  • kestrels vanishing from breeding sites after antennas for mobile telecommunications were installed, nest abandonment by storks near the radiation beams from telephone masts,
  • rock doves dead near phone masts,
  • plumage deterioration and locomotive problems in magpies at points highly contaminated with microwave radiation,
  • a dramatic decline in sparrow populations in irradiated areas, which matched a European-wide trend with, for example, sparrows in the UK declining by 75% between 1994 and 2002.

Balmori’s conclusion was simple: ‘This coincides with the rollout of mobile telephony.’

One of the problems peculiar to birds, already identified by Canadian researchers in the 1960s, is that ‘feathers make fine receiving aerials for microwaves’.

By the way, have a ponder what happens when a bird (or animal, reptile, amphibian, fish or even insect, for that matter) is radio tagged so that its behavior can be monitored. It exposes the creatures to immediate radiation, in comparison to that from distant cell phone towers, thus adversely impacting their functioning and altering their behavior! Firstenberg characterized this procedure, politely in my view, as ‘scientific folly’. Other scientists have documented many serious, adverse impacts from radio tagging but the practice is far from over with most wildlife scientists simply assuming that tagging has zero impact.

Amphibians

The ongoing serious decline of frogs, toads, salamanders and other amphibians all over the world has been notable since at least the 1980s. Not something you think about?

Well, amphibians have been falling silent for a range of reasons but, once again, electromagnetic radiation is a key one. Notably, even iconic species, such as the famous and highly protected Golden Toad, named for its brightly colored skin and resident of the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve in Costa Rica, have gone extinct without any real fight to save them.

Puzzling to most scientists was the fact that amphibians have been vanishing even in ‘many pristine, remote environments that they thought to be unpolluted’. And they were pristine, except for the ‘invisible pollutant’ that permeated even these environments: electromagnetic radiation.

Needless to say, the usual range of scientific studies has long since proved that exposure of amphibians to electromagnetic radiation is ‘incompatible with [their] survival’.

As Firstenberg notes:

Environmentalists, for the most part, like the rest of modern humanity, have one terrific blindspot: they don’t acknowledge electromagnetic radiation as an environmental factor, and they are comfortable with placing power lines, telephone relay towers, cell towers, and radar stations in the middle of the most remote, pristine mountainous locations, never realizing that they are intensely polluting those environments.

The key question is this: Will humanity, and not just environmentalists, wake up to the threat posed by electromagnetic radiation in time?

Humans

In this brief review, I am not going to discuss the extensive evidence of the damage to human health caused by electromagnetic radiation. But there is not a significant, modern human disease – diabetes, ‘influenza’, cancer, heart disease, strokes, obesity… – and a host of other mental and physical ill-effects (including anxiety, memory loss, impaired motor function, attention-deficit, sleep disturbance, reduced lung capacity, higher white cell counts and headaches as well as a disturbed balance in the boy/girl birth ratio) that can be fully understood without understanding the impact of living in a disturbed electrical environment. Again, Firstenberg spells it out in gruesome detail.

However, to briefly mention two examples: Firstenberg explains how electromagnetic radiation damages the mitochondria – thus inhibiting cellular metabolism – with disastrous consequences for those many individuals impacted. However, they are only rarely medically diagnosed as such. And the effects of radio waves on blood sugar are extremely well documented but none of this research has been done in the United States or western Europe.

As an aside, you might be interested to know that a large, rapid, qualitative change in the Earth’s electromagnetic environment has occurred six times in Earth’s history, as noted by Firstenberg: in 1889 power line harmonic radiation began (accompanied by the 1889 pandemic of influenza), in 1918 the radio era began (accompanied by the ‘Spanish’ influenza pandemic), in 1957 the radar era began (accompanied by the Asian flu pandemic), in 1968 the satellite era began (accompanied by the Hong Kong flu pandemic), and twice more coinciding with changes that you can read in the book.

Since a few months before the book was published in February 2020, however, the deployment of 5G technology has been proceeding in earnest, as discussed below. Interesting that during this time people have also been impacted by a ‘virus’ labeled COVID-19, don’t you think?

Anyway, as you probably guessed as well, electromagnetic radiation causes biological damage to fruit trees, crops, farm birds and animals too, with adverse implications for the human food supply (apart from the shocking impact from the mass killing of pollinators such as bees).

What is the State of Play Now?

Despite its enormous health hazards and implications for military violence, as well as its potential for intrusive surveillance, which is also extensively documented. See the following important articles:

How Big Wireless Lobbied Governments to Build 5G for Citizen Data Collection and Surveillance – and the vulnerability of satellites to cyber attacks with potentially horrific consequences –

Hackers could shut down satellites – or turn them into weapons’ – the deployment of 5G has begun. From the elite perspective, it is critical to implementation of the so-called fourth industrial revolution.

Techno-Tyranny: How The US National Security State Is Using Coronavirus To Fulfill An Orwellian Vision.

This means that the existing fleet of functional satellites orbiting Earth, which totaled 2,666 on 1 April 2020 – see ‘Satellite Database’ – but has already grown by a couple of hundred since then, will be vastly expanded to tens of thousands in the near future.

For example, the Elon Musk corporation SpaceX has already launched 538 satellites into Space and is planning to launch another 60 every two weeks into the ionosphere. See ‘538 Satellites and Counting’. Again: ‘The ionosphere is a source of high voltage that controls the global electric circuit, which in turn provides the energy for life.’

Moreover, on 26 May 2020 SpaceX filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the USA for 30,000 ‘next-generation’ (‘Gen2’) satellites. ‘If and when [SpaceX’s] Starlink signs up millions of paying customers, it is possible that nothing will survive – no humans, no animals, and no insects. It is likely that it will be blamed on COVID-19, unless this world wakes up in time.’ See ‘Putting the Earth Inside a High-Speed Computer’.

But SpaceX is not the only satellite corporation although it has a large scheme compared to most of its major competitors, except OneWeb (UK/USA) which submitted a plan to the FCC in the USA on 27 May 2020 for 48,000 satellites.

Some other private corporations or government agencies that have satellite constellations they are planning to expand include Boeing (USA), Spire Global (Luxembourg, Scotland, USA), Iridium (USA), Orbcomm (USA), Globalstar (USA), Telesat (Canada), Eutelsat (Europe), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Earth Observing System (USA), the Pentagon’s Space Development Agency (USA) with plans for hundreds or potentially thousands of satellites in seven layers – see ‘National Defense Space Architecture (NDSA), Systems, Technologies, and Emerging Capabilities (STEC)’ – the Russian Satellite Communications Company, GLONASS (Russia) and the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (China).

Yet other groups, such as Amazon, are planning major constellations – see ‘Amazon to offer broadband access from orbit with 3,236-satellite “Project Kuiper” constellation’ – and Facebook has an experimental satellite license.

In addition, the new corporation Lynk (USA) has been deploying ‘cell-towers-in-space’ satellites and boasts ‘We will connect all 5.2 billion mobile phones on the planet, everywhere.’ How? ‘Subscribers receive coverage from terrestrial towers when they have it and satellite towers when they need it, all from their existing phone.’

As has been noted before this, the slowly-evolving night sky that creatures from Earth have observed for billions of years will be rapidly obliterated in what will presumably be the first instance of astronomical pollution. Stars visible to the naked eye will vanish from view.

On 23 March 2020, the ‘Secure 5G and Beyond Act of 2020’ became law in the United States. See Secure 5G and Beyond Act of 2020. It’s purpose?

To require the President [within 180 days] to develop a strategy to ensure the security of next generation mobile telecommunications systems and infrastructure in the United States and to assist allies and strategic partners in maximizing the security of next generation mobile telecommunications systems, infrastructure, and software, and for other purposes.

So 5G technology is now being rapidly rolled out with elite agents in the telecommunications industry advertising bigger and faster downloads. They just don’t mention that it will kill us.

‘Why not?’ you might ask. ‘Won’t it kill them too?’

Yes, but they are insane which, in this case, means that their minds are incapable of paying attention to, and considering, the ‘big picture’ (including all of the ecological and social variables impacted by their decisions) because their focus is on limited imperatives, such as profit. This is why all of those scientific studies that have consistently exposed the extreme dangers of electromagnetic radiation over recent decades have not only been ignored but great effort, including through the corporate media, has been made to prevent public discussion of the impacts based on the knowledge in this research.

For brief explanations of this insanity,

see ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’

and ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’

with fuller explanations in ‘Why Violence?’ and Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice.

This insanity is why the global elite, through its corporate and political agents, is endlessly manipulating us into fighting their wars – even dragging us to the brink of nuclear war – destroying the climate and the environment, driving the collapse of biodiversity, and generating a vast range of political, economic and social crises without ever considering the fundamental outcome – its deleterious impact on all life – of their behaviors. 5G is just the latest manifestation of this insanity.

Of course, all of these crises could be resolved if we were dealing with people who were sane. And if most of us were not readily distracted from paying attention to reality.

See ‘The Disintegrated Mind: The Greatest Threat to Human Survival on Earth’.

Resisting the Deployment of 5G

Given the military and surveillance implications of 5G, if you think that governments are particularly concerned to investigate and consider the extensive evidence of the enormous hazards of 5G, you might find it sobering to read the dismissive three paragraphs given to the subject in the European Parliament’s official report on 5G.

See 5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia’.

The reality, as touched on just above, is that elite interests are shaping what happens. You still don’t think so?

In 2002, Gro Harlem Brundtland, the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the former Prime Minister of Norway, ordered people entering her office in Geneva to not carry a cell phone. Why? Because cell phones gave her a headache. The following year Brundtland was no longer the Director-General of the WHO. ‘No other public officials have repeated her mistake.’

See The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life.

Nevertheless, the resistance to 5G is rapidly gaining pace with concerned scientists and activists setting the pace. For example, you can see a ‘List of Cities, Towns, Councils and Countries that have Banned 5G’.

And if you wish to join those resisting the deployment of 5G, options include signing the International Appeal: Stop 5G on Earth and in Space, supporting legal challenges such as this one in Denmark – see ‘State of Play and Danish Suing FiveG Network’– and simply getting rid of your mobile (cell) phone. See ‘End Cellphones Here on Earth (ECHOEarth)’.

Moreover, if you wish, you can campaign strategically to halt the deployment of 5G. You can read a list of strategic goals, as well as how to develop a local strategy to prevent/halt the deployment of 5G, at Nonviolent Campaign Strategy.

Separately from this, if you would like to join the worldwide movement of people working to end all violence, you can do so by signing the online pledge of The Peoples Charter to Create a Nonviolent World.

Conclusion

So what is Arthur Firstenberg’s chilling conclusion?

‘You cannot contaminate the global electrical circuit with millions of pulsed, modulated electronic signals without destroying all of life.’

But, as outlined above, since ‘controlling’ electricity in 1746, humans have been increasingly contaminating the global electrical circuit and it has culminated in what will now be the final electromagnetic assault on Earth.

Which means that unless we can halt the launch of these 5G satellites and the rollout of the technology ‘on the ground’ we will be ‘destroying all of life’. And while some groups advocate measures to protect ourselves as individuals, inadequate though these must be in the unfolding circumstances, no amount of measures to individually protect ourselves from this electromagnetic radiation will protect ‘all of life’ in the wild.

According to Ross Adey, the grandfather of bioelectromagnetics and atmospheric physicist Neil Cherry, we are electrically tuned to the world around us and ‘the safe level of exposure to radio waves is zero’.

There is virtually no time left to understand and act powerfully on that knowledge. What will you do?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of Why Violence? His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. He is a frequent contributor to ‘Global Research’.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Invisible Rainbow: 5G Electromagnetic Radiation and the Evolution of Life on Planet Earth
  • Tags:

Russia-Baiting Is the Only Game in Town

July 8th, 2020 by Philip Giraldi

There is particular danger at the moment that powerful political alignments in the United States are pushing strongly to exacerbate the developing crisis with Russia.

The New York Times, which broke the story that the Kremlin had been paying the Afghan Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers, has been particularly assiduous in promoting the tale of perfidious Moscow. Initial Times coverage, which claimed that the activity had been confirmed by both intelligence sources and money tracking, was supplemented by delusional nonsense from former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who asks “Why does Trump put Russia first?” before calling for a “swift and significant U.S. response.” Rice, who is being mentioned as a possible Biden choice for Vice President, certainly knows about swift and significant as she was one of the architects of the destruction of Libya and the escalation of U.S. military and intelligence operations directed against a non-threatening Syria.

The Times is also titillating with the tale of a low level drug smuggling Pashto businessman who seemed to have a lot of cash in dollars lying around, ignoring the fact that Afghanistan is awash with dollars and has been for years. Many of the dollars come from drug deals, as Afghanistan is now the world’s number one producer of opium and its byproducts.

The cash must be Russian sourced, per the NYT, because a couple of low level Taliban types, who were likely tortured by the Afghan police, have said that it is so. The Times also cites anonymous sources which allege that there were money transfers from an account managed by the Kremlin’s GRU military intelligence to an account opened by the Taliban. Note the “alleged” and consider for a minute that it would be stupid for any intelligence agency to make bank-to-bank transfers, which could be identified and tracked by the clever lads at the U.S. Treasury and NSA. Also try to recall how not so long ago we heard fabricated tales about threatening WMDs to justify war. Perhaps the story would be more convincing if a chain of custody could be established that included checks drawn on the Moscow-Narodny Bank and there just might be a crafty neocon hidden somewhere in the U.S. intelligence community who is right now faking up that sort of evidence.

Other reliably Democratic Party leaning news outlets, to include CNN, MSNBC and The Washington Post all jumped on the bounty story, adding details from their presumably inexhaustible supply of anonymous sources. As Scott Horton observed the media was reporting a “fact” that there was a rumor.

Inevitably the Democratic Party leadership abandoned its Ghanaian kente cloth scarves, got up off their knees, and hopped immediately on to their favorite horse, which is to claim loudly and in unison that when in doubt Russia did it. Joe Biden in particular is “disgusted” by a “betrayal” of American troops due to Trump’s insistence on maintaining “an embarrassing campaign of deferring and debasing himself before Putin.”

The Dems were joined in their outrage by some Republican lawmakers who were equally incensed but are advocating delaying punishing Russia until all the facts are known. Meanwhile, the “circumstantial details” are being invented to make the original tale more credible, including crediting the Afghan operation to a secret Russian GRU Army intelligence unit that allegedly was also behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury England in 2018.

Reportedly the Pentagon is looking into the circumstances around the deaths of three American soldiers by roadside bomb on April 8, 2019 to determine a possible connection to the NYT report. There are also concerns relating to several deaths in training where Afghan Army recruits turned on their instructors. As the Taliban would hardly need an incentive to kill Americans and as only seventeen U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan in 2019 as a result of hostile action, the year that the intelligence allegedly relates to, one might well describe any joint Taliban-Russian initiative as a bit of a failure since nearly all of those deaths have been attributed to kinetic activity initiated by U.S. forces.

The actual game that is in play is, of course, all about Donald Trump and the November election. It is being claimed that the president was briefed on the intelligence but did nothing. Trump denied being verbally briefed due to the fact that the information had not been verified. For once America’s Chief Executive spoke the truth, confirmed by the “intelligence community,” but that did not stop the media from implying that the disconnect had been caused by Trump himself. He reportedly does not read the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), where such a speculative piece might indeed appear on a back page, and is uninterested in intelligence assessments that contradict what he chooses to believe. The Democrats are suggesting that Trump is too stupid and even too disinterested to be president of the United States so they are seeking to replace him with a corrupt 78-year-old man who may be suffering from dementia.

The Democratic Party cannot let Russia go because they see it as their key to future success and also as an explanation for their dramatic failure in 2016 which in no way holds them responsible for their ineptness. One does not expect the House Intelligence Committee, currently headed by the wily Adam Schiff, to actually know anything about intelligence and how it is collected and analyzed, but the politicization of the product is certainly something that Schiff and his colleagues know full well how to manipulate. One only has to recall the Russiagate Mueller Commission investigation and Schiff’s later role in cooking the witnesses that were produced in the subsequent Trump impeachment hearings.

Schiff predictably opened up on Trump in the wake of the NYT report, saying

“I find it inexplicable in light of these very public allegations that the president hasn’t come before the country and assured the American people that he will get to the bottom of whether Russia is putting bounties on American troops and that he will do everything in his power to make sure that we protect American troops.”

Schiff and company should know, but clearly do not, that at the ground floor level there is a lot of lying, cheating and stealing around intelligence collection. Most foreign agents do it for the money and quickly learn that embroidering the information that is being provided to their case officer might ultimately produce more cash. Every day the U.S. intelligence community produces thousands of intelligence reports from those presumed “sources with access,” which then have to be assessed by analysts. Much of the information reported is either completely false or cleverly fabricated to mix actual verified intelligence with speculation and out and out lies to make the package more attractive. The tale of the Russian payment of bribes to the Taliban for killing Americans is precisely the kind of information that stinks to high heaven because it doesn’t even make any political or tactical sense, except to Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and the New York Times.

For what it’s worth, a number of former genuine intelligence officers including Paul Pillar, John Kiriakou, Scott Ritter, and Ray McGovern have looked at the evidence so far presented and have walked away unimpressed. The National Security Agency (NSA) has also declined to confirm the story, meaning that there is no electronic trail to validate it.

Finally, there is more than a bit of the old hypocrisy at work in the damnation of the Russians even if they have actually been involved in an improbable operation with the Taliban. One recalls that in the 1970s and 1980s the United States supported the mujahideen rebels fighting against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. The assistance consisted of weapons, training, political support and intelligence used to locate, target and kill Soviet soldiers. Stinger missiles were provided to bring down helicopters carrying the Russian troops. The support was pretty much provided openly and was even boasted about, unlike what is currently being alleged about the Russian assistance. The Soviets were fighting to maintain a secular regime that was closely allied to Moscow while the mujahideen later morphed into al-Qaeda and the Islamist militant Taliban subsequently took over the country, meaning that the U.S. effort was delusional from the start.

So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on American soldiers intended to accomplish? It is probably intended to keep a “defensive” U.S. presence in Afghanistan, much desired by the neocons, a majority in Congress and the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated incompetence of Donald Trump. The end result could be to secure the election of a pliable Establishment flunky Joe Biden as president of the United States. How that will turn out is unpredictable, but America’s experience of its presidents since 9/11 has not been very encouraging.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Russian President Vladimir Putin By Harold Escalona/shutterstock And President Trump By Drop of Light/Shutterstock

“In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one can argue, to whom one can present grievances, on whom the pressures of power can be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless, we have a tyranny without a tyrant.” ― Hannah Arendt, On Violence

What exactly is going on?

Is this revolution? Is this anarchy? Is this a spectacle engineered to distract us from the machinations of the police state? Is this a sociological means of re-setting our national equilibrium? Is this a Machiavellian scheme designed to further polarize the populace and undermine our efforts to stand unified against government tyranny? Is this so-called populist uprising actually a manufactured race war and election-year referendum on who should occupy the White House?

Whatever it is, this—the racial hypersensitivity without racial justice, the kowtowing to politically correct bullies with no regard for anyone else’s free speech rights, the violent blowback after years of government-sanctioned brutality, the mob mindset that is overwhelming the rights of the individual, the oppressive glowering of the Nanny State, the seemingly righteous indignation full of sound and fury that in the end signifies nothing, the partisan divide that grows more impassable with every passing day—is not leading us anywhere good.

Certainly it’s not leading to more freedom.

This draconian exercise in how to divide, conquer and subdue a nation is succeeding.

Image on the right is by Rosa Pineda/Wikimedia Commons

It must be said: the Black Lives Matter protests have not helped. Inadvertently or intentionally, these protests—tinged with mob violence, rampant incivility, intolerance, and an arrogant disdain for how an open marketplace of ideas can advance freedom—have politicized what should never have been politicized: police brutality and the government’s ongoing assaults on our freedoms.

For one brief moment in the wake of George Floyd’s death, it seemed as if finally “we the people” might put aside our differences long enough to stand united in outrage over the government’s brutality.

That sliver of unity didn’t last.

We may be worse off now than we were before.

Suddenly, no one seems to be talking about any of the egregious governmental abuses that are still wreaking havoc on our freedoms: police shootings of unarmed individuals, invasive surveillance, roadside blood draws, roadside strip searches, SWAT team raids gone awry, the military industrial complex’s costly wars, pork barrel spending, pre-crime laws, civil asset forfeiture, fusion centers, militarization, armed drones, smart policing carried out by AI robots, courts that march in lockstep with the police state, schools that function as indoctrination centers, bureaucrats that keep the Deep State in power.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

How do you persuade a populace to embrace totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none?

You persuade the people that the menace they face (imaginary or not) is so sinister, so overwhelming, so fearsome that the only way to surmount the danger is by empowering the government to take all necessary steps to quash it, even if that means allowing government jackboots to trample all over the Constitution.

This is how you use the politics of fear to persuade a freedom-endowed people to shackle themselves to a dictatorship.

It works the same way every time.

The government’s overblown, extended wars on terrorism, drugs, violence, illegal immigration, and so-called domestic extremism have been convenient ruses used to terrorize the populace into relinquishing more of their freedoms in exchange for elusive promises of security.

Having allowed our fears to be codified and our actions criminalized, we now find ourselves in a strange new world where just about everything we do is criminalized, even our ability to choose whether or not to wear a mask in public during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Strangely enough, in the face of outright corruption and incompetency on the part of our elected officials, Americans in general remain relatively gullible, eager to be persuaded that the government can solve the problems that plague us, whether it be terrorism, an economic depression, an environmental disaster, or a global pandemic.

We have relinquished control over the most intimate aspects of our lives to government officials who, while they may occupy seats of authority, are neither wiser, smarter, more in tune with our needs, more knowledgeable about our problems, nor more aware of what is really in our best interests. Yet having bought into the false notion that the government does indeed know what’s best for us and can ensure not only our safety but our happiness and will take care of us from cradle to grave—that is, from daycare centers to nursing homes—we have in actuality allowed ourselves to be bridled and turned into slaves at the bidding of a government that cares little for our freedoms or our happiness.

The lesson is this: once a free people allows the government inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny.

Nor does it seem to matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm anymore. Indeed, the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government, whose priorities are to milk “we the people” of our hard-earned money (by way of taxes, fines and fees) and remain in control and in power.

Modern government in general—ranging from the militarized police in SWAT team gear crashing through our doors to the rash of innocent citizens being gunned down by police to the invasive spying on everything we do—is acting illogically, even psychopathically. (The characteristics of a psychopath include a “lack of remorse and empathy, a sense of grandiosity, superficial charm, conning and manipulative behavior, and refusal to take responsibility for one’s actions, among others.”)

When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, and then jails us if we dare step out of line, punishes us unjustly without remorse, and refuses to own up to its failings, we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic. Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.”

So where does that leave us?

Having allowed the government to expand and exceed our reach, we find ourselves on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives. And for as long as we let them, government officials will continue to trample on our rights, always justifying their actions as being for the good of the people.

Yet the government can only go as far as “we the people” allow. Therein lies the problem.

The pickle we find ourselves in speaks volumes about the nature of the government beast we have been saddled with and how it views the rights and sovereignty of “we the people.”

Now you don’t hear a lot about sovereignty anymore. Sovereignty is a dusty, antiquated term that harkens back to an age when kings and emperors ruled with absolute power over a populace that had no rights. Americans turned the idea of sovereignty on its head when they declared their independence from Great Britain and rejected the absolute authority of King George III. In doing so, Americans claimed for themselves the right to self-government and established themselves as the ultimate authority and power.

In other words, in America, “we the people”— sovereign citizens—call the shots.

So when the government acts, it is supposed to do so at our bidding and on our behalf, because we are the rulers.

That’s not exactly how it turned out, though, is it?

In the 200-plus years since we boldly embarked on this experiment in self-government, we have been steadily losing ground to the government’s brazen power grabs, foisted upon us in the so-called name of national security.

The government has knocked us off our rightful throne. It has usurped our rightful authority. It has staged the ultimate coup. Its agents no longer even pretend that they answer to “we the people.” Worst of all, “we the people” have become desensitized to this constant undermining of our freedoms.

How do we reconcile the Founders’ vision of the government as an entity whose only purpose is to serve the people with the police state’s insistence that the government is the supreme authority, that its power trumps that of the people themselves, and that it may exercise that power in any way it sees fit (that includes government agents crashing through doors, mass arrests, ethnic cleansing, racial profiling, indefinite detentions without due process, and internment camps)?

They cannot be reconciled. They are polar opposites.

We are fast approaching a moment of reckoning where we will be forced to choose between the vision of what America was intended to be (a model for self-governance where power is vested in the people) and the reality of what it has become (a police state where power is vested in the government).

This slide into totalitarianism—helped along by overcriminalization, government surveillance, militarized police, neighbors turning in neighbors, privatized prisons, and forced labor camps, to name just a few similarities—is tracking very closely with what happened in Germany in the years leading up to Hitler’s rise to power.

We are walking a dangerous path right now.

No matter who wins the presidential election come November, it’s a sure bet that the losers will be the American people.

Despite what is taught in school and the propaganda that is peddled by the media, the 2020 presidential election is not a populist election for a representative. Rather, it’s a gathering of shareholders to select the next CEO, a fact reinforced by the nation’s archaic electoral college system.

Anyone who believes that this election will bring about any real change in how the American government does business is either incredibly naïve, woefully out-of-touch, or oblivious to the fact that as an in-depth Princeton University study shows, we now live in an oligarchy that is “of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.”

When a country spends close to $10 billion on elections to select what is, for all intents and purposes, a glorified homecoming king or queen to occupy the White House and fill other government seats, while more than 40 million of its people live in povertymore than 40 million Americans are on unemployment, more than 500,000 Americans are homeless, and analysts forecast it will take a decade to work our way out of the current COVID-induced recession, that’s a country whose priorities are out of step with the needs of its people.

Be warned, however: the Establishment—the Deep State and its corporate partners that really run the show, pull the strings and dictate the policies, no matter who occupies the Oval Office—is not going to allow anyone to take office who will unravel their power structures. Those who have attempted to do so in the past have been effectively put out of commission.

Voting sustains the illusion that we have a democratic republic, but it is merely a dictatorship in disguise, or what political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page more accurately refer to as an “economic élite domination.”

In such an environment, the economic elite (lobbyists, corporations, monied special interest groups) dictate national policy. As the Princeton University oligarchy study indicates, our elected officials, especially those in the nation’s capital, represent the interests of the rich and powerful rather than the average citizen. As such, the citizenry has little if any impact on the policies of government.

We have been saddled with a two-party system and fooled into believing that there’s a difference between the Republicans and Democrats, when in fact, the two parties are exactly the same. As one commentator noted, both parties support endless war, engage in out-of-control spending, ignore the citizenry’s basic rights, have no respect for the rule of law, are bought and paid for by Big Business, care most about their own power, and have a long record of expanding government and shrinking liberty

We’re drowning under the weight of too much debt, too many wars, too much power in the hands of a centralized government run by a corporate elite, too many militarized police, too many laws, too many lobbyists, and generally too much bad news.

The powers-that-be want us to believe that our job as citizens begins and ends on Election Day. They want us to believe that we have no right to complain about the state of the nation unless we’ve cast our vote one way or the other. They want us to remain divided over politics, hostile to those with whom we disagree politically, and intolerant of anyone or anything whose solutions to what ails this country differ from our own.

What they don’t want us talking about is the fact that the government is corrupt, the system is rigged, the politicians don’t represent us, the electoral college is a joke, most of the candidates are frauds, and, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we as a nation are repeating the mistakes of history—namely, allowing a totalitarian state to reign over us.

Former concentration camp inmate Hannah Arendt warned against this when she wrote, “Never has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense and self-interest—forces that look like sheer insanity, if judged by the standards of other centuries.”

As we once again find ourselves faced with the prospect of voting for the lesser of two evils, “we the people” have a decision to make: do we simply participate in the collapse of the American republic as it degenerates toward a totalitarian regime, or do we take a stand and reject the pathetic excuse for government that is being fobbed off on us?

Never forget that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image: This file photo shows the US Supreme Court building located at One First Street, NE, in Washington.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Tyranny Without a Tyrant: The Deep State’s Divide-and-Conquer Strategy Is Working
  • Tags: ,

Launched preemptively in March 2011 by the Obama regime, escalated by Trump, US direct and proxy aggression in Syria will likely continue indefinitely no matter which right wing of its war party is in charge ahead.

Formed in September 2011, the so-called Committee of Inquiry on Syria (COI) is an instrument of pro-Western imperial propaganda.

Its reports largely blame Syria’s Bashar al-Assad government for high crimes of war and against humanity committed by US and so-called coalition partners, as well as ISIS and other jihadists used as imperial proxies.

Syria’s UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari earlier slammed its biased reports, saying the following:

They deliberately “blow things out of proportion…fully disregarding or downplaying core issues,” adding:

“There are blood-curdling scenes that flagrantly contravene the Syrians’ dignity and human rights regarding the crimes of the armed terrorist groups…”

They “rang(e) from eating human flesh, cutting throats, mutilating bodies, beheadings on sectarian and confessional grounds, throwing bodies from rooftops to committing hundreds of suicide bombings using car bombs in populated areas, recruiting children, abducting and slaughtering clergymen, assassinating scholars in mosques, issuing instigative fatwas on ‘sexual jihad,’ killing children on the charges of infidelity, robbing factories and transporting them to Turkey.”

COI reports largely ignore these horrors, focusing attention on vilifying Assad, wrongfully blaming his forces for atrocities committed by US-supported  terrorists and Pentagon-led terror-bombing.

Its latest report is similar to earlier ones.

Focusing on Idlib province areas controlled by US-supported jihadists during the November 2019 to June 2020 period, it once again largely blamed government and allied forces (Russia and Hezbollah) for their atrocities and other high crimes, saying the following:

“Syrian children, women and men endured unfathomable suffering during the military campaign launched late 2019 by pro-government forces to re-take the last remaining areas under armed groups’ control in Syria (sic).”

What the COI calls “armed groups” include ISIS, al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria), and likeminded terrorists — heavily armed, funded, trained and directed by the Pentagon and CIA.

“Deadly dangers awaited civilians at every turn,” the COI added — “from indiscriminate aerial bombardments and ground shelling (sic), to arrests and torture (sic), pillaging and dire displacement conditions at the border (sic)…”

“Now a perfect storm is in the making as this war-torn region faces the global pandemic” — that was made in a USA biolab and unleashed worldwide, the COI left unexplained, along with a whole lot more.

Time and again throughout over nine years of US state-sponsored direct and proxy aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic and its 17 million people, the COI reinvented reality on the ground — producing pro-Western propaganda reports, blaming victims for high crimes committed against them.

Throughout the new millennium, preemptive US wars against nonbelligerent states threatening no one continue endlessly — in Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria,  and Somalia.

Even in Iraq by Pentagon drone strikes at its discretion and ISIS jihadists, along with US-funded and supported endless Israeli war  on historic Palestine and its long-suffering people.

Ignoring US responsibility for endless war in Syria, COI chair Paulo Pinheiro said the following:

“It is completely abhorrent that, after more than 9 years, civilians continue to be indiscriminately attacked, or even targeted, while going about their daily lives (sic).”

Largely blaming government and allied forces for the above, he added:

“Children were shelled at school (sic). Parents were shelled at the market (sic). Patients were shelled at the hospital (sic)…and entire families were bombarded even while fleeing (sic).”

“What is clear from the military campaign is that pro-government forces…violated the laws of war and the rights of Syrian civilians (sic).”

To a lesser extent, he also blamed what he called “UN-designated terrorists” — meaning ISIS and al-Qaeda alone without naming them or including other US-supported jihadists in Syria.

He defied reality adding the following:

During the “military campaign to recapture Idlib and parts of western Aleppo, Syrian Government forces alongside the Russian Aerospace Forces carried out air and ground attacks which decimated civilian infrastructure (sic), depopulated towns and villages (sic), and claimed the lives of hundreds of Syrian women, men and children (sic).”

“Numerous hospitals, schools, markets and homes were destroyed by aerial and ground attacks (sic), the latter including the use of cluster munitions, in acts amounting to the war crimes of launching indiscriminate attacks, and deliberate attacks on protected objects (sic).

Throughout endless US direct and proxy war in Syria, the COI failed to explain and express support for the liberating struggle of its military and people, aided by Russia and Hezbollah.

Like many other countries throughout the post-WW II period, Syria and its people are victims of US-sponsored aggression that’s all about aiming to transform the country into a pro-Western vassal state.

Aerial attacks by Syrian and Russian warplanes are conducted solely against jihadist positions, great care taken to minimize civilian casualties.

They’re polar opposite Pentagon scorched-earth terror-bombing of Mosul, Iraq, Raqqa, Syria, and countless other targeted sites.

US new millennium wars of aggression alone are responsible for millions of casualties and vast destruction — in the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa.

The COI’s latest report reads like its earlier exercises of pro-Western propaganda.

They fail to lay blame entirely where it belongs for endless war, carnage, and human misery in Syria.

Nor did the latest COI report mention the US genocidal Caesar Act.

The legislation aims to starve 17 million Syrians into submission by threatened sanctions on nations, entities and individuals that maintain legitimate economic, financial, military, and intelligence ties to Damascus — their legal right under international law.

On all things related to endless war in the country, Damascus, Moscow, and Hezbollah are on the right side of history.

The US, its coalition partners and jihadist proxies are guilty of the highest of high crimes of war and against humanity.

COI reports consistently failed to focus on what’s most important.

Instead of explaining US-sponsored aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic and its people, its pro-Western propaganda supports regime change, a flagrant UN Charter breach.

A Final Comment

By its own admission, Israel’s IDF earlier said it conducted hundreds of airstrikes on Syrian targets in recent years.

COI reports since 2011 failed to mention Israeli aggression, what they should highlighted and condemned.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Syria News


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UN So-called Committee of Inquiry (COI) Casually Blames Bashar Al-Assad for US-Sponsored High Crimes Committed by Terrorist Proxies Against the People of Syria
  • Tags: , ,

New documents obtained by Axios and Public Citizen suggest that the National Institute of Health (NIH) owns half the key patent for Moderna’s controversial COVID vaccine and could collect half the royalties.

In addition, four NIH scientists have filed their own provisional patent application as co-inventors. Little known NIH regulations let agency scientists collect up to $150,000.00 annually in royalties from vaccines upon which they worked.

These rules are recipes for regulatory corruption.

NIH’s stake in the jab may explain why Anthony Fauci moved Moderna’s vaccine to the front of the line and to let Moderna skip animal trials despite the experimental technology and the inherent dangers of Coronavirus vaccines.

Every prior coronavirus vaccine has proven problematic and can be lethal to animals due to COVID’s unique penchant for “pathogenic priming.” Death occurs only after a vaccinated animal encounters the wild virus.

Public health advocates and scientists criticized Fauci’s decision to skip animal trials as reckless. It may also explain why Anthony Fauci arranged a $483 million grant to Moderna from a sister NIH agency, BARDA, despite the fact that Moderna has never brought a product to market or gotten approval.

Fauci publicly announced he was ‘encouraged’ by Moderna’s catastrophic Phase 1 clinical trials despite the fact that groups of super healthy volunteers had Grade 3 ‘severe or medically significant’ reactions following vaccination.

Fauci’s infusion made Moderna CEO Steve Bancel a billionaire and further enriched Fauci’s mentor and co-investor Bill Gates.

It may also explain why Fauci publicly announced he was “encouraged” by Moderna’s catastrophic Phase 1 clinical trials despite the fact that 20% of the high dose and 6% of the low dose groups of super healthy volunteers had Grade 3 “severe or medically significant” reactions following vaccination.

Those results would have spelled DOA for any other medical product. After getting the abysmal news, Bancel and four other Moderna executives immediately dumped more than $89 million in stock and Fauci was forced to make his optimistic public assessment to save Moderna’s plummeting shares from death spiral.

Fauci painted lipstick on that lame donkey and now he’s trying to convince everyone it’s a thoroughbred.

Moderna and NIH began manufacturing the first of 1 billion doses of the deadly vaccine this month. Fauci knows from experience that no matter how dangerous a vaccine is, the easy part is convincing people to take it. Pharma, after all, controls the media.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The World Is Changing – But Whose Voice Is Telling You How?

July 8th, 2020 by The Global Research Team

Dear Readers,

The world is changing – but whose voice is telling you how?

Global Research stands at a pivotal moment in its 19-year history. Increasingly we are faced with new challenges regarding how to keep our content flowing and accessible to all. The more people we reach, the better our chances to contain media manipulation.

We offer free access to the writings of a wide variety of expert authors from all over the world. In turn, Global Research needs support from its readership to unravel the web of deceit and media disinformation being fed to the general public. With your help we can grow our readership and contribute to an awakening of the people in these divisive times.

The Global Research fundraiser is underway. Thank you for your continued support during this critical period. Help us reach our goal of  $20,000 so we can continue to cover our running costs, please click here to donate or become a member.


CLICK TO DONATE:


CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER:


Your support is essential – We thank you for contributing to independent media!

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The World Is Changing – But Whose Voice Is Telling You How?

While the phrase “system of systems” has entered relatively common usage some years ago as a reflection of the need to field systems and assets with complementary capabilities that will operate as part of a synergistic whole in their respective domain of warfare, in the realm of aerospace combat the United States is moving in the direction of the “swarm” as the key organizing principle of its combat paradigm.

The US Air Force Future Operating Concept which attempts to envision USAF operations in the year 2035 places “interconnectedness” high on the list of buzzwords, and promotes such goals as “Global Integrated Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance” and “Global Precision Strike”, all being controlled from “Multi-Domain Operations Centers” whose ability to manage a wide variety of interconnected systems and assets would guarantee getting inside the adversary’s “Observe, Orient, Decide, Act” (OODA) Loop, a long-standing Holy Grail among US airmen ever since USAF Colonel John Boyd formulated the concept as a result of his Korean War experiences.

Advances in communications, sensors, and artificial intelligence have meant that munitions have progressed greatly beyond being little more than bullets, launched at a specific target and then guided to it by either its on-board sensors perceiving some aspect of the electromagnetic spectrum emanated by the target, or by an autopilot navigating it and its lethal payload to its destination.

The swarm approach apparently became attractive to the US military following the cruise missile strikes against targets in Syria, during which the slow-moving trickle of subsonic, non-maneuverable, but very expensive Tomahawk SLCMs was combed out of the sky by a variety of modern air defense systems. Evidently even the current sophisticated Tomahawk mission planning software is incapable of delivering the “time on target” response necessary to overcome local air defenses. On the other hand, an AI-enhanced swarm of smaller, cheaper munitions might succeed where the by now dated Tomahawk had failed.

In response, the US military had embraced the “swarm” idea with a vengeance, hoping that interconnectedness and AI will deliver the sort of technological overmatch of any and all adversaries that currently does not exist.

US Air Force and the US Navy have been enormously resistant to the idea of heavy unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) for much of the last decade. Many earlier experiments involving flying wing-style UCAVs such as the X-47 have failed to result in a deployed combat system. This hesitancy was driven by two factors. The first was the “fighter mafia” that rules the USAF and the naval aviation component of the USN, which is jealously guarding its elite status and which is not interested in “fighter jocks” being displaced by a bunch of kids with video game consoles controlling UCAVs. The second was the belief that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would live up to Lockheed-Martin propaganda and be that technological “silver bullet” in both air-to-air and air-to-ground applications, thanks to its stealth, advanced sensors, and the ability to share tactical information in real time. In actuality, however, the incredibly protracted F-35 development allowed for countermeasures to be developed, and secondly the fighter itself was found to have enough shortcomings to practically relegate it to a “niche” weapon system, a sort of second-generation F-117, rather than a workhorse to replace the vast fleet of F-16 fighters in US and allied use.

With the F-35’s flaws now in plain view, the UCAV has been given a second lease on life as a means of rescuing the most expensive combat aircraft program in history from failure. Remarkably enough, the first air force to recognize these problems was Australia’s, which launched the “loyal wingman” project for which Boeing, a competitor to Lockheed Martin, is already building prototypes. The US equivalent is the considerably more ambitious Skyborg which is still in the conceptual stage, but which also is pursuing the same aim that is close to being achieved in Russia with the Su-57—Okhotnik UCAV combination. While the information about Skyborg is still scarce, once operational it will be procured in large numbers to ensure each F-35 could take at least one into combat by its side.

USAF’s swarm principle is unlikely to stop there, and will also extend into munitions. The service awarded several contracts in the past couple of years to further the development of stand-off munitions that would be cheaper, longer-ranged, equipped with sensors, and interlinked, in order to facilitate their cooperation while in flight.

The US “space swarm” so far is the least developed of the three, but its rudiments are already visible. The SpaceX Starlink constellation of small satellites that was advertised as a means of providing the entire world with access to wireless internet has also been revealed to have direct military applications. The US Air Force has acknowledged it will rely on it for broadband access for its combat aircraft. Moreover, if combined with powerful enough signal processing capabilities, Starlink offers the prospect of a global aircraft detection system, possibly even capable of tracking large moving objects on the surface of the planet, such as aircraft carriers. It’s difficult to imagine USAF and USSF would forgot attempting to develop a technology which was demonstrated for the first time with the downing of the F-117 over Serbia in 1999.

Given the US military’s interest in reusable space-launch vehicles and developing the ability to surge launches whenever needed, it’s doubtful the Starlink will remain the only US application of the swarm concept in space. G_5 (A) – Done.  Sooner or later they will be supplemented by combat vehicles, likely based on the X-37 unmanned and reusable space shuttle that has logged an impressive number of hours in space, and whose payloads and activities remain a closely guarded secret. The recent tests of an anti-drone combat laser aboard a US warship suggest that such a weapon could eventually be deployed aboard X-37-derived combat spacecraft. While the small size of the X-37 means accommodating necessary power supplies to make the lasers effective would be a daunting task indeed, the absence of an atmosphere in low Earth orbit and the fragility of most satellites mean that a space-borne laser would be a more effective anti-satellite than anti-missile weapon.

The dream of interconnected aerospace swarms extending from the Earth’s surface into low Earth orbit and beyond will encounter major obstacles along the way, to the point that perhaps it will remain yet another US utopian technological project aiming at obtaining permanent military supremacy.

The first is the existence of the US Space Force, which will fight tooth and nail for organizational turf and control over space-capable assets. Ironically, the establishment of the USSF may undermine the drive toward integrated aerospace operations the same way as the creation of the US Air Force as an independent service led to the promotion of the idea of airpower winning wars entirely on its own, without collaboration with other services. While strategic airpower was a favorite among the US Army Air Corps leadership in part because, in the absence of a large land theater of operations against Germany, the bombers were the only means of bringing the war to Germany, the subordination to the Army meant tactical air could not be ignored. Once that independence from the Army was won, time and again tactical air support capabilities had to be engineered into various combat aircraft only after they became operational. One still remembers “not a pound for air to ground” that accompanied the creation of the F-15 Eagle.

By the same token, the creation of the USSF means the existence of an organization about as interested in watching USAF develop its space capabilities, which it seems very interested in doing, as USAF is in the US Army having its own fixed-wing combat aircraft. And just as USAF prioritized air superiority and strategic warfare over tactical air support, so is the USSF liable to lose sight of the fact the most important aspect of its mission is the support of combat operations in the atmosphere and on the Earth’s surface.

The sheer complexity of the goal of building a global swarm of swarms that links all the aerial and space platforms and munitions will also be a major challenge. It should be noted that many of the problems of the F-35 are actually software-based, for example the failed ALIS centralized maintenance monitoring system which USAF finally gave up on and decided to commission an entirely different system. Since US software development do not appear to be on a part with US military’s ambitions, there is no guarantee the US military will be able to achieve its end objective.

This is not the first time the US military has bet on a technological advance to provide a “game changer” that would give it an irresistible advantage. The Norden bombsight, the nuclear weapon, guided munitions, were all supposed to deliver a similar objective. None of them really delivered what they promised because other powers responded in kind, and the technological capabilities themselves fell short of what was advertised.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: The US Air Force’s “Swarm Approach”. Toward Aerospace Warfare Model of the 21st Century

New Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kazemi faces many challenges to his authority, including from powerful pro-Iranian Shi’ite militias like Kata’ib Hezbollah. On June 26, 14 militiamen of Kata’ib Hezbollah, commonly known as the Iraqi Hezbollah, were apprehended by Iraqi security forces under government orders. This is a significant event as it is the first time that members of a Shi’ite militia have been formally arrested by the federal authorities in Iraq.

Since Saddam Hussein’s accession to power in 1979, the Shi’ite Muslims of Iraq were marginalized despite forming a majority in the country. Although officially a secular society, Saddam Hussein favored Sunni Muslims as this was the sect of Islam he belonged to. The eventual fall of Saddam Hussein following the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 gave more power to the Shi’ites of Iraq, not just politically, but also militarily. With sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shi’ites reaching a peak in 2006-2009, Iranian-backed militias rose to prominence. They would however rise to even greater prominence between 2014 and 2017 as the Iraqi state struggled to contain the rapidly expanding power of ISIS.  Shi’ite militias were the only force who could successfully resist and challenge ISIS as the Iraqi army fled in panic, most notably in Mosul in June 2014 when 1,500 jihadists routed more than 20,000 Iraqi soldiers and police officers.

The Shi’ite militias growth in power and the government’s reliance on them for security has resulted in much more assertive political ambitions on the part of the militia leaders, many of whom are now full-fledged politicians, especially as each Shi’ite militia has its own political party that do participate in elections. Their operations can be described as a state within a state. However, as each militia has their own political party, it demonstrates that there are rivalries within Iraq’s Shi’ite community. These divisions have significantly contributed to making Iraq an ungovernable country. The five months prior to al-Kazemi accession on May 7 saw Iraq leaderless. The Prime Minister inherited a highly unstable situation because of a struggling economy and the fight for dominance in Iraq between Iran and the US. Both Iran and the US yield much influence in Iraq, politically and militarily.

Baghdad is trying to use what remains of its strategic partnership with the US to try and contain expanding Iranian influence that is being increasingly criticized by large segments of the population. The arrest of Iraqi Hezbollah fighters is part of Baghdad’s new policy in trying to curtail strong Iranian influence in its affairs. However, the 14 militiamen arrested spent only three days in prison before being released on June 29. This demonstrates that al-Kazemi has only limited influence and power as he cannot directly confront the power of the militias, whether it be politically or militarily.

Challenging these militias could signal a political death for anyone who attempts to stop them. Unable to face them head-on, a near miracle is needed to resolve the problem of integrating these numerous and extremely powerful factions, into the national Iraqi army. The main reason is that the economically strangled state struggles to pay its own soldiers. Better remunerated, these fighters often choose to join a Shi’ite militia.

As long as the Iraqi state does not have structural reforms, non-state actors like the Shi’ite militias will maintain very important influence, especially as Iran backs them and will continue supporting them. The problem therefore seems insoluble for the new government that is struggling to contain a strong rivalry between the US and Iran that is spilling over on its territory. This could create a crisis as al-Kazemi is close to the US. Despite the eventual outcome of the federal operation to arrest the 14 militiamen, the central state may have launched its first step in the reclamation of security power in Iraq.

This creates a dangerous precedence as we know Iraq is a battleground, militarily and politically, between the US and Iran. In response to a US drone strike that killed Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad on January 3, Iran launched Operation Martyr Soleimani in revenge. On January 8, barrages of missiles launched by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Corp targeted US bases at the Ayn al-Asad airbase in Al Anbar Governorate and an airbase in Erbil. Although the US denied any of their soldiers were killed or wounded, they later admitted that 110 soldiers were diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries. Iran claimed scores of American soldiers were killed.

By targeting Shi’ite militias, al-Kazemi is attempting to show Washington that he is willing to confront these Iranian-groups. It is unlikely that Iran will allow al-Kazemi to strip away the special status and privileges of these militias, which has the potential to reignite hostilities between the US and Iran. These militias are a strategic, military and political leverage for Iran, and therefore Tehran will not be willing to allow them to absorb into the Iraqi state so long as the US continues to have influence in Baghdad.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

After a short break, the military confrontation between the Libyan National Army mainly backed up by Egypt and the UAE and the Turkish-backed Government of National Accord has once again entered an open phase.

On July 5, aircraft of the Libyan National Army conducted nine pinpoint airstrikes on the Turkish-operated al-Watiya Air Base in western Libya. According to the LNA, the strikes destroyed a Hawk air-defense system, several radars and a KORAL electronic warfare system. The Hawk system and other equipment were deployed to the base by the Turkish military in early July.

Turkish state media confirmed the incident saying that the strikes “targeted some of the base’s equipment, which was recently brought in to reinforce the base, including an air-defense system”. Pro-Turkish sources claimed that the airstrikes were carried out not by the LNA, but rather by the Egyptian or UAE Air Force. According to them, the warplanes took off from Egypt’s Sidi Barrani Air Base. However, according to the LNA, the strikes were delivered by its aircraft deployed in Libya. Commenting on the situation, the GNA said that it would respond at the “right place and at the right time.”

While the GNA in fact has no resources to conduct extensive airstrikes deep inside the territory controlled by the LNA, Ankara will have to respond to this attack in some way if it really wants to demonstrate that Turkey is committed to achieving a military victory (or at least a partial military victory) in the conflict in Libya.

At least 5,250 Syrian militants out of 15,300 originally deployed in Libya have returned to Syria, according to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The SOHR claimed that 300 Syrian child soldiers are still fighting in Libya. All of them range in ages between 14 and 18. Most of them were recruited by the Turkish-backed al-Sultan Murad Division. It’s interesting to note that the numbers provided by the SOHR mostly fit other sources that argue that about 10,000 Turkish-backed Syrian militants are currently deployed in Libya.

Therefore, Ankara is apparently set to continue its offensive operations by the hands of the GNA and Syrian groups in the countryside of Sirte. This strategic port city is now the main priority of Turkish-led forces.

On the other hand, if Turkey continues escalating the conflict, it may force Egypt and the UAE, the main backers of the LNA, to provide direct military support to the LNA and directly intervene in the conflict. In this case, the Libyan ‘civil war’ will officially turn into a war between Turkey and the UAE-Egypt bloc.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Turkish Forces Lick Wounds After Airstrikes Hit Their Base in Libya

Of all the depressing sights witnessed during the insane process of Covid home imprisonment, stupid social distancing and mask madness, the regimentation of children into predesignated playground /classroom ‘chalked-off zones’ is the one I find the most blood chilling. 

There are a number of factors about this Covid-19 event that stand-out. Firstly, that it is an entirely fake event. Secondly, that it is utterly manipulative. And thirdly, that it reflects an essentially anti-life agenda using fear as its predominant tool of repression.

That may seem like a pretty brutal assessment of CV-19, but one cannot go on to speak about the way children have become a sacrificial element in this nightmarish agenda without first revealing the sheer manipulative audacity of the entire Covid master plan.

While the situation is slowly changing, the underlying psychology of ‘obedience to the rules’ is not.

This obedience has been taken to a new low as many schools and kindergartens have tried to apply the social distancing regulation to young school children. This has taken the form of chalking out two metre spaced apart circles or squares on the classroom and playground floor and ordering children to stay in them.

Young children have been told to sit or stand alone in what amount to individually tailored exclusion zones and psychological prisons. Children, medical advisers say, who are not even at any risk from what is called CV-19.

Nevertheless, there they are, sitting with sad faces as the politically correct mask clad teacher gives them their daily school instructions. The misery on the faces of these children deeply expresses the sense of horror surrounding the entire operation. A child instantly recognises a lie and exhibits the appropriate reaction. 

Under what kind of extreme conditions might such a regulation be considered supportive of the health and welfare of children? I can think of no situation, however potentially serious, in which innocent young boys and girls should be treated with such sickening disdain and lack of humanity. To do it even when there is no valid case for taking such a step, is truly shocking to behold and should be categorized as a criminal action.

At the beginning and end of the school day, parents must ‘deliver’ their child through the school gate or door – keeping distance – with the teacher not being allowed to touch the child. Such are the instructions coming down from some perverted ‘leaders’ at the World Health Organisation – and then blindly followed by government officials, teachers and parents. It is ‘sanitary preparation’ for life in the sterile ‘smart cities’ that are just around the corner, if the same people retain control over the daily workings of this world. 

The second Covid nightmare scenario to have been imposed on school children, and parents, is ‘e-education’. Sticking children behind computers for hours on end is never recommended, for obvious health reasons. But that is what is called-for in ‘e-education’, in which parents are also forced to be complicit by being instructed to take over the role of teacher ‘in the home’.

The tools of this trade comprise pre-designated ‘e’ tech software programmes that are essentially agents of stereotype mind control. To grow up healthy, a child needs the pleasurable interaction with other children – not sitting alone behind a flickering screen having their heads loaded with state education programming. What a shockingly heartless way to conduct the learning process!

Technology gives the illusion of providing a means to an end, and is often associated with acquiring ‘freedom’. More accurately, the acquisition of more and more technology is a road to slavery. The technology traps its users into dependency on a virtual reality world, while the real world is ignored or categorized as boring. A sure receipt for impaired mental stability.

What actually is going on here?

It all starts with the education system itself. The verb ‘to educate’ comes from the Latin ‘e-ducare’ meaning ‘to lead out from’. Now ‘to lead out from’ is very different than ‘to push into’, which is the format imposed by formal education having the ambition to brainwash the pupil into accepting ‘verbatim’ a whole lot of facts about that which is deemed necessary in order to eventually get a job and make money.

Contrast this with the idea of ‘leading out from’. Something which exists in all children is creative potential – in bucket loads. Drawing this creativity out – and thereby opening up the genius which lies at the heart of all innocent hearts and minds – is the true role of the teacher. One way closes down the life force and the other opens it up.

But if you do decide to go with ‘e-ducare’ you are not going to find it in the formal school programmes that have been designed and set under government supervision with the purpose of ensuring the next generation conform to exactly the same patters of thinking, behaving and conforming as the current and previous ones.

Or, to put it more bluntly, to ensure that people remain slaves to ‘the system’ whose controller’s ambition is to keep as many as possible in a state of hypnosis, unable to use their abilities for anything other than furthering the various facets of a dying status quo.

There are some exceptions to this standard dumbing down orthodoxy. For example, Rudolph Steiner’s anthroposophic teaching method for primary and secondary school ages, and Maria Montessori’s creative behavioural encouragement in young children. There are other experimental schools in existence, as well as the possibilities of teaching from home, but that still has to conform to the state programme.

The sight of depressed children being manipulated to sit quietly in their chalked out separate boxes for fear of infringing ‘the law’ would never be possible if our education system as a whole didn’t already start from this same position of fundamental suppression of the life force. A suppression resulting from its abject failure to follow the guidelines implicit in the origins of its name.

Children are the bright lights of pure spirit. Behind their deep and beautiful eyes lies a whole new future for the human race. A true teacher recognises the presence of a stream of vivid imagination and helps it emerge; nurturing its formation into evolving channels of creative/artistic expression.

This is a vocation of the highest merit. Like handling an infinitely precious gem stone. And because of what this gem might reveal, one must be humble enough to realise one is ultimately, during the ongoing development of this relationship, likely to land-up as the pupil.

In building the New Society that must emerge out of the debris of this calamitous civilisation, the way we treat children will emerge as a critical factor in setting the standard for all that follows.

There is a child at the centre of every one of us; if one is in doubt about the way to treat it, one is in doubt about one’s purpose for living.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc. 

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and teacher. His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is particularly prescient reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Is a Global Demographic Crisis Unavoidable?

July 8th, 2020 by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay

“Throughout history, any profound political and social change was preceded by a philosophical revolution, at least among a significant section of the population.“ —M. N. Roy (1887-1954), humanist and political figure from India, 1950.

“For social problems, to paraphrase the population doctrine of Thomas Malthus, have the unfortunate tendency to grow at a geometric ratio with the growth of the organism of which they are part, while the ability of man to cope with them, if it can be extended at all, grows only at an arithmetic ratio. —Which means that, if a society grows beyond its optimum size, its problems must eventually outrun the growth of those human faculties, which are necessary for dealing with them.“ —Leopold Kohr (1909-1994), Austrian economist and philosopher, 1957.

“I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet.“ —Albert Einstein (1879-1955), German-born physicist and professor, 1954.

When I was born, in 1939, the world’s population was around 2,240 million people. Twenty years later, in 1960, the world had a population of almost 3 billion, an increase of a third. At the turn of the century, in 2000, the 6 billion mark had already been crossed, as a result of the world’s population having doubled in only 40 years. And by 2020, the Planet was home to 7.8 billion people, and almost a quarter million more people are added to the world every day. This is the reality.

Will human population continue to explode exponentially in the coming years, and if so, will it cause serious transformations and crises? Average estimates and projections by the United Nations Population Division show that the earth’s population will reach almost 10 billion in 2050 and exceed 11 billion people in the year 2100. However, these average projections are based on hypotheses of a decline in fertility rates and an increase in life expectancy in many countries. This remains to be verified in fact.

Projections of future population growth are based on uncertain assumptions

The region of the world with the fastest population growth is also the region with the poorest countries, i.e., Africa. Indeed, this continent is expected to have more than half of the world’s population growth by 2050, while population growth will be negative in 55 other countries, notably in several European countries.

The reason is relatively simple: unlike other regions of the world, which have experienced significant declines in their fertility rates, those rates are still very high in Africa. For example, the average fertility rate in sub-Saharan Africa is 5.4 children per woman, compared to the world average of 2.5. Some African Muslim countries even have fertility rates of between 7 and 8 children per woman. (N.B. An index of the fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman is sufficient to replace the population).

Nevertheless, demographic projections are made in assuming that fertility rates overall will continue to decline in the future, under the influence of a greater literacy rate among women and more advances in family planning.

However, if fertility rates do not fall as predicted, and if governments do not get involved in finding solutions, while infant mortality continues to drop dramatically and life expectancy continues to rise, then, what will happen? Well, in the year 2100, there would not be 11 billion inhabitants in the world, as it is now logically expected, but the world population could reach astronomical levels, with figures that could range between 15 and 27 billion people at the end of the present century —that is to say in only 80 years.

Overpopulation can lead to major transformations and crises

Many major transformations and crises could result from such a demographic explosion.

To begin with, the climate crisis would almost certainly worsen, because it is, in part, linked to human activity, due to the high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere generated by industrial production, thus resulting in a greenhouse effect and global warming. More generally, such overcrowding would likely accentuate the ecological footprint of otherwise required production, and it would bring to the foreground the issue of the carrying capacity of the environment.

Secondly, rivalries and escalating conflicts over resources could intensify, given the shortages already observed, for example in the supply of drinking water. We currently observe several conflicts resulting from the lost of influence of international institutions, which were specifically created to prevent them.

Third, a high level of overcrowding may also hamper progress in the fight against poverty, hunger, and malnutrition in many countries. Similarly, the coverage and quality of health and education systems for a booming population could suffer.

Fourth, more advanced countries, in Europe and in North America, for instance, could feel destabilized by more or less controlled waves of immigration from poor and overcrowded countries, a phenomenon which, in turn, would pose many societal problems. Indeed, a certain number of countries have no choice but to offload their surplus population to other countries with limited capacities to integrate them. More worrisome perhaps are the instances when some leaders even use the surplus population in their countries as a weapon to blackmail other countries and threaten their stability and prosperity.

Fifth, generating economic growth rates high enough to meet the needs of a booming population would pose special challenges to countries and their governments. The economic and financial globalization of the past quarter century has already been questioned because its benefits have not been distributed equitably.

Conclusion

There is a lot of concern nowadays about the climate crisis. Perhaps a strong emphasis should also be placed on the upcoming demographic crisis, since the former is, in part, the result of the latter.

Land and resources on our Planet Earth are not unlimited, despite all the ingenuity that the human mind can deploy to cope with such scarcities.

The juxtaposition of global warming and overpopulation in certain parts of the world will be accompanied by frequent and devastating droughts impacting agriculture, while the disappearance of marine species will reduce the expected yields of commercial fishing.

Rising sea levels will also jeopardize human habitat in areas bordering certain heavily populated regions, which could force the migration of entire populations. This, in turn, could likely cause social and political tensions in many other countries.

All this to say that there is no guarantee that the economic, social and political progress recorded in the world during the last three quarters of a century—through the expansion of international trade and technological innovations—will proceed at the same rate in the future. This is not impossible, but the precautionary principle would require that the world be prepared to solve the great economic and environmental problems to come, or adapt to them.

An important international conference on this issue would be timely and would undoubtedly be very useful in raising awareness among leaders and populations of the challenges to come.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, of the book “The New American Empire”, and the recent book, in French « La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018 ».

Please visit Dr. Tremblay’s site: http://rodriguetremblay100.blogspot.com/

Netanyahu’s Annexation Drive

July 8th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Land seizures, annexations, and conquest.  These are words axiomatic to the state of Israel.  In the main, the state has maintained an uncomfortable position based on patience and attrition.  We have waited this long; you will wait longer.  Be it dispossessed Palestinians and their aspirations for state recognition or what are loosely described as the objections of the “international community”, Israel has imperial staying power.  Be patient, and the rage over the abuse of Palestinians will die down. 

It is that staying power that navigates the often feeble exhortations to international law that pullulate airwaves and diplomatic traffic.  Be it the legality of international settlements, attacks on sovereign countries that have not been given the legitimising wash of the UN Security Council, or Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons – all of these are frowned upon, condemned only to be assimilated into a ceremony of legitimacy.  Israel might well be condemned and scolded, but nothing more will come of it.  The game of semantics will be played, masking the exertion of brute force.

This pattern threatens to reassert itself in the latest warnings directed at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s promise of annexation.  The timetabling for this muscular assertion of land pinching remains vague. It is intended to apply to Jewish settlements in the West Bank and in the Jordan Valley from this month. 

The promise seems, on paper, audacious, foolish, and destructive – and that’s just for starters. Benny Gantz warned that there was little reason to take such action, given the coronavirus crisis and the country’s economic ills.  But for Netanyahu, every crisis needs a distraction, even if that distraction is another crisis.  

Accordingly, explanations for this annexation drive vary.  The “legacy” line of thinking is that Netanyahu wants to leave something to remember him by.  David Horowitz ponders the point.  “Has Netanyahu decided that this is to be his legacy – as the Israeli leader who formally, permanently reconnected modern Israel to its formative biblical territory?  Well, maybe.”  Then come those reasons motivated by psychology (keep the people busy with something else instead of focusing on the corruption trial) and ideology (habitual expansionist aided by Washington right-wingers). 

Various foreign governments have strong words on the point, but they are not likely to affect the balance sheet of considerations.  Netanyahu’s tactics in dealing with the Palestinians tend to be finessed upon domestic considerations and moderated by winds of Washington.  Those winds have tended to blow warmly in his favour.  In 2017, the Trump administration recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, though remained abstruse on the scope of sovereignty.  President Donald Trump’s peace plan gave Netanyahu much confidence to cock a snook at the Palestinians and his detractors.  As he explained to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.  “Israel is prepared to conduct negotiations on the basis of President Trump’s peace plan, which is both creative and realistic, and will not return to the failed formulas of the past.” 

European powers have done their bit to make a fuss.  European Union foreign policy chief Joseph Borrell promised in February that annexation, were it to be implemented “could not pass unchallenged.”  But opposition within the EU to the measure is taking place in different registers.  Germany, for instance, will not accept the imposition of economic sanctions, the very thing that Palestinian figures such as Saeb Erekat urge.

On July 7, the foreign ministers of Egypt, France, Germany and Jordan clubbed together to issue a joint warning.  “We concur that any annexation of Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 would be a violation of international law and imperil the foundations of the peace process.”  The ministers when on to state that they “would not recognise any changes to the 1967 borders that are not agreed by both parties in the conflict.”  Taking such steps “would have serious consequences for the security and stability of the region, would constitute a major obstacle to efforts aimed at achieving a comprehensive and just peace.”  An attempt to barb the statement was also made.  “It could also have consequences for the relationship with Israel.” 

The soothsayers are also in evidence in such publications as Foreign Policy. Philip H. Gordon and Robert Malley claim that this annexation push “won’t trigger a disaster.”  Interest will initially focus on Palestinian protest, the fate of the Palestinian Authority, the threats by Arab states to sever “budding ties” or the imposition of sanctions by European states.  The “aftermath”, however, promises to “be toxic for the Jewish state.”  Not only does it breach international law and violate Palestinian rights, it will poison the already troubled waters which nourish the state, affecting democracy even as it isolates Israel.  Israel’s already diminished fan club would get even smaller. 

In all this violent fuss, there may be yet another side to the overture: the pure bluff.  As Netanyahu likes to often claim in deflecting interest in his criminal charges, “There is nothing because there is nothing.”  Israel’s new opposition leader Yair Lapid, is simply not convinced by the plans, confining them to the already full bin of political spin.  Naftali Bennett of the Habayit Hayehudi party is even more direct.  “When I see Netanyahu talking about this so often, I’m convinced more and more that he’s not going to do it.  If you want to do it, then do it.” 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Another Day in the Empire

China accepts that India already made its geopolitical choice to become the US’ proxy in “containing” the People’s Republic, but it would prefer for their seemingly inevitable “decoupling” to be as manageable as possible, hence why it’s helping its rival “save face” by mutually disengaging for now.

China and India decided to pull back their forces 1,5 kilometers from the Line of Actual Control (LAC) on Monday following last month’s lethal non-armed clash in the Galwan Valley. This move is being misportrayed by some Indian media as a “Chinese retreat” when in reality it’s anything but since both countries are simultaneously disengaging their forces instead of this just being a unilateral Chinese move like they’re inaccurately making it seem. That narrative observation is the first lesson to be learned from this development.

The Indian population has been indoctrinated with jingoistic propaganda (yes, literal propaganda as in fake news and deliberately misleading “reports” for “perception management” purposes) since Modi’s election in 2014. The domestic perception situation has gotten so out of control since then that the Indian government can’t possibly acknowledge actual facts anymore lest they provoke the population into rioting for hyper-nationalist reasons. This explains why the mutual disengagement is being misportrayed as a unilateral one.

A lot of this has to do with the completely false notion that India is a “superpower“, a claim that’s objectively ridiculous by any standard but which is surprisingly believed by many of its own people after years of brainwashing. With this false view of their country in mind, there’s no way that they’d accept their government withdrawing from 1,5 kilometers of territory that they’ve consistently claimed as their own, especially not after fake news circulated throughout the country that Chinese casualties were 5x more than India’s last month.

Nevertheless, it’s inevitable that the facts will eventually trickle down to the masses and they’ll discover the truth sooner or later, hence why Prime Minister Modi made his highly publicized trip to the disputed frontier last week. This took place against the backdrop of what’s now revealed to have been the successful discussions between both sides over the mutual disengagement decision, meaning that this move was simply for “perception management” purposes in order to craft the narrative that China “backed down” because of him.

That’s not what happened, but it can conveniently allow India’s propagandists to claim that their country pulled back its own troops in order to help China “save face” despite that actually being China’s motivation vis-a-vis its Indian interlocutors’ jingoistic population. China established firm control over the disputed Galwan Valley after last month’s incident, but pulling back for the sake of de-escalation following India’s decision to do the same was meant to cushion the domestic “soft power” blow to Modi’s BJP.

The Chinese have millennia of diplomatic experience and appear to believe that this was a necessary move in order to slow the pace of India’s pro-American pivot since it seems almost impossible to reverse. There’s little doubt that India will continue to make piecemeal progress on its grand strategic goal of economically “decoupling” from China, but even its most hyper-nationalist strategists know that this can’t be accomplished right away like the jingoistic mobs falsely expected. It therefore makes sense for this to be a gradual process.

The Indian government would have been under immense grassroots pressure to do this as swiftly as possible had it not been for China agreeing to Monday’s mutual disengagement in order to help it “save face” and thus slow this process down in order to make it more manageable for both sides. The struggling Indian economy simply couldn’t survive the systemic shock of immediately cutting itself off from Chinese trade and investments, which would also have harmed the Chinese one as well even if not to anywhere near the same extent.

In other words, the mutual disengagement decision represents the onset of a cold peace (however short-lived) in the New Cold War between China and India that the author accurately predicted in his summer 2017 analytical series on this topic. China accepts that India already made its geopolitical choice to become the US’ proxy in “containing” the People’s Republic, but it would prefer for their seemingly inevitable “decoupling” to be as manageable as possible, hence why it’s helping its rival “save face” by mutually disengaging for now.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

Human Trafficking for Organs Removal: An Unseen Form of Exploitation

July 8th, 2020 by Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

This is an official report of the OSCE

Two-day online expert meeting to discuss recent developments and policy gaps in combating trafficking in human beings for the removal of organs concluded yesterday evening. The event was co-organized by the Office of the OSCE Special Representative for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings (OSR/CTHB), the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and co-sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Despite being mentioned explicitly in the internationally recognized definition of trafficking in human beings, trafficking in human beings for the removal of organs remains one of the least understood and addressed forms of human trafficking globally. The event aimed to share experiences addressing this challenge and examine possible ways to enhance the OSCE region’s response. The meeting, gathering legal, criminal justice, medical and victim-protection experts from over 20 OSCE participating States, Partners for Co-operation and international organizations, explored the scope of trafficking in human beings for the removal of organs in the OSCE region. They also discussed recent developments in international and national legal frameworks, and current needs for further awareness-raising, policy, and capacity building efforts. 

“One of the things I am struck by is how incredibly challenging it is to respond to trafficking in human beings. And yet I am also optimistic because we have been jointly developing some of the tools we need like on technology and financial investigations,” OSCE Special Representative and Co-ordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings Valiant Richey said. 

Exploitation without borders 

While the number of identified victims of this form of trafficking remains limited, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) indicates that this highly lucrative form of human trafficking is perpetrated by organized criminal networks able to operate over prolonged periods with high numbers of victims before being caught. Many participants pointed out the inadequacy of the legal instruments currently in use, and the crucial necessity to enhance cooperation between countries to make perpetrators accountable.

Participants stressed that attention needs to be devoted to situations with patients traveling abroad to get a transplant or coming from abroad with a donor. The crime often has a transboundary element, that makes it much harder for investigators and prosecutors to trace all the components of the crime and exercise jurisdiction over cases often encompassing numerous countries (victim from one country, the broker from another, recruiting in a third, for the surgery taking place in a fourth, possibly with a recipient for yet another country, for example). Without international judicial cooperation, these crimes -even when detected- will hardly be successfully prosecuted. 

The illegal organ trade is a crime involving global financial transactions at the expense of the most vulnerable. The role of financial investigations in detecting and countering flows of money alimenting and paying for these illegal services is vital, noted by the participants. 

Trafficking in human beings for the removal of organs is reportedly an age-specific and gendered crime, affecting adult males the most. The sale of cells and tissues, including ova, was discussed. During the meeting, a specific case of successful investigation and prosecution by Greeks authorities, in which perpetrators brought to justice, included doctors and lawyers, was presented as a case study.

Several other insightful elements emerged during the meeting. A crucial point in discussions was the critical role that can be played by the medical personnel, both in preventing these crimes from happening but also in reporting dubious situations, including when the origins/donor of the organ to be transplanted are not clear. Some participants suggested that assigning criminal liability to brokers and medical personnel involved could be an effective measure to deter some of these practices and put some pressure on traffickers, who now operate mostly undetected. 

Participants raised difficulties in establishing contact with victims of this form of trafficking. They encouraged to think of ways to build CTHB practitioners’ capacity and medical personnel to improve the identification of such victims. Better identification could also lead to enhanced assistance to survivors, which today is mostly lacking. And especially for such an unknown and unaddressed form of trafficking, engaging with and listening to survivors is crucial to understand the mechanism governing it. 

The OSCE Special Representative and Coordinator on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings closed the discussions by saying that

this two-day meeting served as an excellent basis upon which the OSCE will build future activities on the issue. We shed some light on a largely unaddressed issue, and we look forward to working with the wide range of our partners on a list of concrete recommendations”.  

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Manifest IAS

This article, translated from French, was written prior to the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic outbreak.

***

The WHO [OMS in French] is the World Health Organisation. ‘WHO’ in English – and that’s much more appropriate. WHO: who is it really?

Would the world be getting along any better without this outfit, which is in theory such a good idea? Would we be in better health?

The question is as serious as it is relevant.

Though even one death is one too many, compared with the alarmist forecasts from this professional organisation that were foisted on all the ministries of health the world over, one could say that the H1N1 viral pandemic, version 2009, has so far produced not much more than a mouse.

But what a fabulous show for the media!

What a brilliantly organized panic!

How many millions of euros spent, and best of all, what worrying rumours, about the health risks linked this time to the vaccination, which might not even work!

Thus arose a psychosis that might have stolen the headlines even from a much more palpable threat, much more deadly and with effects that have already been felt to the bone by a large part of the world’s population: the climatic effects of pollution and of the way of life engendered by the currently prevailing ideology, that of extreme and unfair capitalism, “deregulated” as it is called in the sober phraseology of its well-heeled master thieves.

Meanwhile the media, ignoring for a moment its celebrities and football matches, chose to focus the limelight – and thus the gaze of the spectator sheep – on the representatives, experts and spokespersons of this organization, the WHO. Until this year its existence may have been news to some people, but now its importance is plain to see.

We have been shown people with serious faces and a professional air, the sort to whom ordinary mortals tend to ascribe genuine competence and evident integrity.

Their herald, elevated by some to hero, is called Margaret Chan. If her manner does not excite much sympathy, her curriculum vitae speaks for itself.

WHO: the Facts

Like other world organisations born from the ashes of the war of 1940-45 (the WTO, successor to GATT, the IMF, the UN, successor to the League of Nations), the WHO is a sort of transnational superministry, in this case for health.

Its power overrides that of its national equivalents. It is not subjected to genuinely democratic electoral procedures, in the sense of representing the choice expressed by the populations of its member countries. This is true of all these organisations that in fact control our daily lives in their respective fields. Its constitution came into force on 7 April 1948.

All these organisations are in a way like the arms, the tentacles of an enormous octopus whose purpose is to coordinate, improve and reinforce significant action on a planetary scale.

To clarify a crucial point: it would be misleading to think that these organisations undertake anything at all independently of each other. One could as well imagine that the liver can go on doing its own thing without being at all involved with the heart or the kidneys.

All of them work towards the same goals, each in their own specialist sphere, and all of them answer to the UN and to those who provide their funding.

The WHO has nothing to blame itself for

If you go to the official WHO site, you will of course get the impression that this organisation has a spotless record, and deserves to be praised for its humanitarian deeds.

It’s a bit like Monsanto, this multinational that dominates the market in agribusiness and wants to impose on the whole world its GM seeds complete with the Terminator gene (1), yet which tries to make you believe that the well-being and development of poor countries is its main concern.

Anyway, as in any court of law, it’s democratic, enlightened, modern, to give the “accused” party the chance to put its case.

As for the accusations of corruption and collusion with the pharmaceutical companies in the context of the worldwide vaccination campaign of 2009, it is Margaret Chan in person who has stepped up to the plate to defend the reputation of the WHO.

It’s important to realise that the accusations are weighty, well argued, and made by institutions that are well established, and pronounced by scientists and investigative journalists who are credible and trustworthy. It is difficult to dismiss all of them as a handful of conspiracy theorists, as regularly happens nowadays as soon as an interesting and well-argued debate is launched on a sensitive issue (the official version of the 9/11 attacks, the GIEC’s theory of global warming, Iran’s nuclear intentions, and so on).

It’s true that there is a certain logic in having a measure of collaboration between the WHO and the pharmaceutical companies that produce the medications.

However it is legitimate to ask questions about the exact part played by these firms in the decisions finally taken by the WHO, and on their real influence.

According to the WHO, there are many guarantees in place for managing potential conflicts of interest, as well as how they are perceived by public opinion.

The external experts who advise the WHO are […] obliged to provide a declaration of absence of conflict of interest as well as full professional and financial details that might compromise the impartiality of their opinions. Procedures are in place to identify, research and evaluate any potential conflicts of interest, to divulge them and take appropriate measures, such as excluding an expert from a consultative body, an expert study group or a meeting.

Still according to the WHO, the members of the Emergency Committee have to swear to the absence of any conflict of interest. The members of the Committee are chosen from a list of about 160 experts covering a range of areas of public health. The international health regulations (IHR) that came into force in 2007 envisage also a ruling that aims to coordinate the response to public health emergencies on an international scale, such as the H1N1virus pandemic. But the IHR also includes provisions for setting up, if a pandemic arises, an Emergency Committee that advises the Director General on such questions as the need to raise the level of alert, to recommend temporary measures, and so on. All the members of the Emergency Committee will have signed a confidentiality agreement, provided a declaration of no conflict of interest, and agreed to devote time as a consultant to fulfil their duty, without compensation.

Admirable principles, but without any basis in fact!

More details regarding France:

Who are the French experts? On behalf of France, we find among the consultants for the WHO and the Group SAGE, several members of the Agence de Médecine Préventive (AMP), an agency that lists its industrial partner as Sanofi Pasteur, Sanofi Aventis. We also find Prof. Daniel Floret, President of the Comité Technique de Vaccination, who lists numerous collaborations with the pharmaceutical industry; several members of the Sanofi Pasteurlaboratory, declared as such; a member of the Sanofi Pasteur MSD laboratory; and some other members from the pharmaceutical industry who are based in France.

Thanks to the site Santé log for providing the extracts (in italic, above) of a document from the WHO.

The WHO must give an account of itself

If, unlike most people who only stop to admire the window display, we actually go into the shop, we’ll discover two things:

While the fine words are there to soothe our feelings of distrust, it is still true that the close ties between the WHO experts and the pharmaceutical industry are very dangerous, very obscure and difficult to unravel.

Without being a conspiracy theorist for the fun of it, as if it was a sport or a pastime – as the crusaders backing the official versions and the window-dressing of the official sites seem to think – one thing is clear to my mind, that being obscure does not sit well with being truthful.

If the complexity that characterizes all modern institutions bewilders the outsider and puts major hurdles in the way of ordinary people like me pursuing their interests, it is an unintended consequence of modernity and of the ever-multiplying range of tasks and objectives.

Being deliberately obscure is something else. It is intended to hide something, to conceal intentionally.

The financing of the WHO

Have you ever heard anything about public-private partnerships?

In the beginning, the WHO was supposed to receive funds only from the governments of United Nations members, but a few years ago, in order to swell its coffers WHO set up what it calls a “private partnership” that allows it to receive financial support from private industries. But which industries?

Since that time its credibility, seriously tarnished, has not improved very much, and its independence is seriously questioned because of its total lack of transparency with regard to the scientific proof that supports its recommendations, and its collusion with the multinationals. It is obvious that on the world stage, business and politics have a powerful influence on health. (2)

The spotless reputation of the WHO was already besmirched by a book that came out in 1997, Le OMS : Bateau ivre de la santé publique [The WHO, the drunken sailor of public health], ed. L’Harmattan, by Bertrand Deveaud, a journalist, and Bertrand Lemennicier, professor of economics, who had spent two years making enquiries throughout the world and consulting numerous official and confidential reports. Two medical journals well-respected by the profession had already sown doubts as to the integrity and the infallibility of the WHO, The British Medical Journal (BMJ) in regard to the management of the bird flu in 2005, and The Lancet (3), which described the WHO as an institution that was corrupt and on its last legs.

I leave you to ponder awhile these phrases, reported by the journalist Sylvie Simon in one of her articles (4), particularly the passages in bold (my emphasis):

Doctors Andrew Oxman and Atle Fretheim, from the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services and Dr John Lavis, from McMaster University in Canada, interviewed the management of the WHO and analysed its various recommendations. Andrew Oxman concluded that “it is difficult to evaluate the confidence thatone can have in the recommendations of the WHO without knowing how they were prepared.”* (*Obscurity).

“We know that our credibility is at stake,” admitted Dr Tikki Pang, director of research for the WHO. “The lack of time and the shortage of information and of money can sometimes compromise the work of the WHO.” Some senior officials of the organisation have also admitted that in many cases the proof that was supposed to be the basis of a recommendation did not exist.

Many testimonies have revealed that when the results don’t match those that the industries and companies are hoping for in order to validate their products, standards are altered and the results manipulated.

Contrary to any procedure that is genuinely scientific and independent, which should base its conclusions on the verified results of its experiments, it seems that the tendency is to do just the opposite, and that results are adapted to produce the desired conclusions; desired that is by the firms producing the medicines, vaccines, and other products concerned.

To cite one example:

Dr Oxman criticized the WHO for having its own quality control methods. In 1999 when its views on the treatment of hypertension were criticised, mainly because of the high price of the medicines recommended without any proof that they were more effective than cheaper ones, the Organisation published some “recommendations for preparing recommendations” which led to a revision of the advice on treating hypertension. (5)

Other murky issues have been brought to the surface by courageous researchers: cholesterol and statins (6), mobile telephony, with manipulation of the data on the harmfulness of electromagnetic radiation (7)…and of course, serious doubts are being expressed on the real danger of the 2009 viral H1N1 pandemic, which has enabled the pharmaceutical companies to rake in millions of dollars of profit.

The bank JP Morgan on Wall Street estimated that, thanks mainly to the pandemic alert issued by the WHO, the pharmaceutical giants, who also finance the work of the ESWI run by Albert Osterhaus, were set to make $7.5-$10 billion profit. (8)

The ESWI, European Scientific Working group on Influenza, describes itself as “a multidisciplinary group of leaders of opinion on the flu, whose purpose is to fight against the repercussions of a flu epidemic or pandemic”. As its members themselves explain, the ESWI, directed by Osterhaus, is the central pivot “between the WHO in Geneva, the Institut Robert Koch in Berlin and the University of Connecticut in the United States”.

The most significant thing about the ESWI is that its work is entirely financed by the same pharmaceutical laboratories that are making millions thanks to the pandemic emergency, while it is the pronouncements made by the WHO that compel the governments of the whole world to buy and to stock the vaccines. The ESWI receives funding from the manufacturers and distributors of the H1N1 vaccines, such as Baxter Vaccines, MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur and others, including

Novartis, who produces the vaccine, and the distributor of Tamiflu, Hofmann-La Roche.(9)

Who is Albert Osterhaus?

Nicknamed “Dr Flu”, Albert Osterhaus, the best known virologist in the world, official consultant on the H1N1 virus to the British and Dutch governments and head of the Department of Virology in the Medical Centre of Erasmus University, has a seat among the élite of the WHO gathered together in the SAGE Group, and is president of the ESWI, which is supported by the pharmaceutical industry.

In its turn the ESWI recommended extraordinary measures to vaccinate the whole world, considering that there was a high risk of a new pandemic which, they insisted, could be comparable to the terrifying pandemic of “Spanish” flu in 1918. (10)

Albert Osterhaus is not the only senior consultant to the WHO whose name is implicated in the dossiers on corruption and possible collusion between the WHO and the pharmaceutical firms, and an industry that wants to sell its products whatever it costs: others are David Salisbury (3)(9), Frederick Hayden (9), Arnold Monto (9), Henry L. Niman, Klaus Stöhr (11).

Professor David Salisbury, who is attached to the British Ministry of Health, is the head of SAGE at the WHO. At the same time he directs the Consultative Group on H1N1 at the WHO. Salisbury is a fervent defender of the pharmaceutical industry. In Britain the health action group One Click (10) accused him of concealing the proven correlation between vaccine use and the steep increase in autism in children, as well as the correlation between the vaccine Gardasil and cases of paralysis and even death.

Dr Frederick Hayden is at the same time member of SAGE at the WHO and of the Wellcome Trust in London; in fact he is one of the close friends of Osterhaus. In exchange for “consultative” services, Hayden receives money from Roche and from GlaxoSmithKline as well as from other pharmaceutical giants engaged in producing goods connected with the H1N1 crisis. (12)

There is yet another member of the WHO enjoying close relations with the vaccine manufacturers who profit from SAGE’s recommendations, in the person of Dr Arnold Monto, a consultant paid by the vaccine manufacturers MedImmune, Glaxo and ViroPharma. (13)

[interview with Wolfgang Wodarg]…Without going so far as outright corruption, which I’m sure exists, there are a hundred and one ways in which the labs can bring their influence to bear on decisions. I noticed specifically, for example, how Klaus Stöhr, who was the head of the epidemiology department at the WHO during the time of the bird flu, and who had therefore prepared the plans for dealing with a pandemic that I referred to earlier, had meanwhile become part of the senior management at Novartis. And similar links exist between Glaxo, Baxter, etc. and influential WHO members. These big firms have “their people” in the system and somehow manage things so that good political decisions are taken – that’s to say, decisions that enable them to pump the maximum amount of money out of the taxpayers. (14)

As for “Dr Flu” Osterhaus, it’s so bad that the Dutch Parliament (15) has serious doubts about him and has opened an enquiry into conflict of interest and bribery.

Outside the Netherlands and the Dutch media, only a few lines in the well-respected British journal Science(16) have made mention of the sensational investigation into the affairs of Osterhaus, who still has the confidence of his Minister of Health.

What all these experts have in common is the concealment of their connections with the pharmaceutical companies while they hold a senior and influential position in the decision-making hierarchy at the WHO, and the fact that they are never challenged. The conflict of interest is obvious, yet systematically minimized.

It is not their expertise or their intrinsic competence that is being questioned, but their independence and their integrity.

The whole matter is sufficiently serious, given the topic in question – our health, to sow doubt and to justify pursuing every investigation, every question, with means that match the urgency of the issue, and by organizations of irreproachable reputation that are truly independent.

It is not the WHO that should investigate the WHO

It’s as if the accused was allowed to lead the enquiry into the crimes imputed to them. If I were an impartial prosecutor, not aiming for scandal or publicity but only for the truth, whatever it may be, even if it is worse than the worst of the lies, I would call to the bar:

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, president of the Health Commission of the Council of Europe. This member of the German parliament, an epidemiologist, has just requested the Council for a commission of enquiry. In his interview with the paper Der Spiegel, Dr. Wodarg did not hesitate to talk about “one of the greatest medical scandals of the century”. (17)

Next, Alison Katz,

A researcher who spent 17 years at the WHO, and who on 22 January 2007 sent an open letter to the new director of the agency, the Chinese Margaret Chan, accusing the organisation of “corruption, nepotism, violation of its statutes and ineffectiveness in its internal control system”, and concluding that “the WHO has become a victim of neo-liberal globalisation”. She denounced “the commercialisation of science and the close ties between the industry and academic institutions” and “corporatist” private science, and considered that “the WHO ought to be the leader of a movement to transform the way in which scientific research is done, including its sources of funding, as well as the acquisition and use of knowledge” and that the officials of an international organization do not have the right “not to know”. (18)

Lastly, Tom Jefferson, a renowned epidemiologist, member of the Cochrane Collaboration, an organisation of independent scientists including a commission that evaluates all the studies carried out on influenza. In an interview given to the German magazine Der Spiegel, he revealed the consequences of the privatisation of the WHO and the way in which health has been turned into a money-making machine. (19)

Tom Jefferson: “[…] one of the most bizarre characteristics of this flu, and of all the saga that has played out, is that year after year people make more and more pessimistic forecasts. So far none of them has come true, but these people are still there repeating their predictions. For instance, what happened to the bird flu that was supposed to kill us all off? Nothing. But that doesn’t stop these people from making their predictions. Sometimes you get the feeling that the whole industry is starting to hope for a pandemic.”

Der Spiegel: “Who are you referring to? The WHO?”

  1. J: “The WHO and those in charge of public health, the virologists and the pharmaceutical laboratories. They’ve created a whole system around the imminence of a pandemic. There is a lot of money at stake, as well as networks of influence, careers and whole institutions! And the minute one of the flu viruses mutates we’d see the whole machine roll into action.” (20)

When he was asked if the WHO had deliberately declared a pandemic emergency in order to create a huge market for the H1N1 vaccines and medications, Jefferson replied:

“Don’t you find it remarkable that the WHO had changed its definition of a pandemic? The old one specified a new virus, one that spread rapidly, for which there was no immunity and that caused a high rate of illness and of death. Now these last two points on the levels of infection have been deleted, and that’s how the A flu became classed in the pandemic category.” (21)

Very conveniently, the WHO published the new definition of a pandemic in April 2009, just in time to enable them, on the advice coming from, among others, SAGE, “Dr Flu” (alias Albert Osterhaus), and David Salisbury, to declare that mild cases of the flu, renamed A H1N1, signalled a pandemic emergency. (22)

Yes, Tom Jefferson, Alison Katz, Wolfgang Wodarg, among others, and investigative journalists who are neither conspiracy fanatics nor yes-men, would be on my list of witnesses to call.

Conclusions

Strangely enough, while the media were so agitated at the peak of the virus panic during 2009, as soon as a few rumours started spreading about strange goings-on at the WHO involving some scarcely known names, they switched off the spotlights, preferring to redirect the docile spectators to more amusing topics such as the antics of Johnny Hallyday, the comeback in Belgian women’s tennis, the escapades of Michel Daerden or of Nicolas Sarkozy (politicians Belgian and French respectively), and the hopeful proclamations of Barack PeaceObama – at the same time hinting that, while that was all well and good, we should still, as our obedient ministers were saying, be sure to go and get vaccinated while the wicked flu was offering a brief respite.

The dirty conspiracy rumours of corruption, the names so well-known in the business but so unknown to the general public – let’s forget them! Above all, let’s not rock the boat!

The vaccines have been bought, the recommendations given and millions of doses of poison already injected.

Does the truth frighten us so much that we prefer lies, and more and more of them, in our controlled lives, even when it is our health that is at stake?

It may all look very complicated but actually it is very easy.

For each new item of information, a “lite” sweetened version is made up, relayed by the bought-and-paid-for media and sold to us, the viewers, who swallow it without question.

The main drivers of this globalisation are fear and ignorance, the result of this insipid simplification of everything, which takes away any depth, any questioning that is necessary, in fact indispensable, if one wants to understand what is really happening.

It’s the same again with terrorism, where any unexplained event is always blamed on the same scary monster: Al Qaeda – without raising the slightest query about this attribution.(23) An explosion? Al Qaeda. A hijacking? Al Qaeda. An attack on civilians? Al Qaeda. An earthquake? Al Qaeda.

It’s the same again with the dogmatic statements about manmade global warming. This no longer brooks any discussion, any further research, any questioning: it’s a heresy to even think of it. Human CO2 is the Al Qaeda equivalent of the uncertainty factor in global warming.

It’s the same again with pandemics and other health cataclysms of the future. As the GIEC tells us about CO2, the WHO simplifies the problem for us and we thank them: “Get vaccinated. Don’t ask any questions. We have the most trustworthy and competent experts. The pharmaceutical firms, overflowing with philanthropy, are working day and night to save us.” And we believe it.

Humanity of the 21st century is in grave danger, a deadly danger that lurks within each of us.

It’s not Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (24), this Nigerian student of 23, the Christmas present from Al Qaeda to the war strategy of Peace Obama.

It’s not a virus, the St Valentine’s present to Baxter, GSK, Novartis and the rest.

It’s not our CO2, Nature’s present to our bankrupt politicians. It’s not even Al Gore, that serial sweet talker, condemned by the courts in Great Britain for no less than 11 flagrant lies and misrepresentations noted in his film, which inconveniences only the truth. (25) It’s not Al Qaeda, or any other extremist Islamic organisation.

All those are nothing but scary monsters that press the fear button, that’s to say, they are enemies but relatively minor ones.

It’s our abdication. That’s our enemy number one.

We are living in a time when globalisation has not, as it was expected to in the beginning, brought about a world that is better governed, more just, more transparent, but on the contrary, has created a system that is harder to decipher and understand, and is all-powerful.

This brew of omnipotence and dense secrecy, of being all-powerful and totally resistant to democratic investigation, is deadly. That’s the greatest threat to mankind today.

We have surrendered, preferring to go on deluding ourselves, when so many signs that something is going wrong should have impelled us to regain control.

Instead of which we put ourselves in the hands of these great authorities who are suspected of bribery and corruption, endowed with bad faith and a cynicism that balks at nothing.

Guided by the media and looking only at the things they turn their spotlight on, held by the hand, we choose to believe them instead of asking questions.

Given the present situation, I’ll answer my own question without hesitating:

The world would be getting along much better without these international organisations whose original mission has been hijacked for the sake of financial profits for the few.

As far as the WHO is concerned, we would be in much better health.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Sources

WTO: World Trade Organisation, succeeded GATT in 1994.

GATT: General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, created in 1947. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade

IMF: international Monetary Fund, created in 1944. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMF

LON: League of Nations, created in 1919, in the aftermath of the First World War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

UN: United Nations Organisation, continuation of the LON, created in 1945. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

SAGE: Strategic Advisory Group of Experts. http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/SAGE_TORs_Full_21_11_08.pdf

Notes

1. Monsanto Terminator: http://www.greenpeace.org/france/news/ogm-monsanto

2. Article by Sylvie Simon, well-known journalist on health topics: http://www.lepost.fr/article/2009/12/23/1854889_l-oms-ocean-de-corruption-et-d-inefficacite.html

3. The Lancet, http://www.republicain-lorrain.fr/fr/permalien/article/1006828/La-credibilite-de-l-OMS-remise-en-question.html

4. Sylvie Simon, op. cit.

5. Ibid.

6. Cholesterol, lies and propaganda, http://www.lanutrition.fr/Le-lobby-du-cholest%C3%A9rol-au-bord-de-la-crise-cardiaque-a-1708-90.html

7. The worrying connections between Margaret Chan, Michael Repacholi, Bernard Veyret and the mobile phone manufacturers: http://www.next-up.org/pdf/Mobile_phones_and_real_pandemics_05_01_2010.pdfhttp://www.next-up.org/pdf/Serge_Sargentini_Mobilfunk_und_wahre_Pandemien_06_01_2010.pdf

http://videos.next-up.org/FoxNews/Protect_your_self_from_electromagnetic_waves/13_12_2009.html

Mobile phones: falsified data http://www.next-up.org/pdf/Adlkofer_Rudiger_Vienna_Scandal.pdf

8. Quoted in the Dutch article by Louise Voller & Kristian Villesen, “Stærk lobbyisme bag WHO-beslutningom massevaccination“, Information, Copenhagen, 15 November 2009.

9. http://www.voltairenet.org/article163315.html, article by F. William Engdahl, an American journalistwho has published many works devoted to questions of energy and geopolitics. engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Swine_Flu/Flu_Pope/flu_pope.html

Most recent books in French: Pétrole, une guerre d’un siècle : L’ordre mondial anglo-américain (Jean-

Cyrille Godefroy éd., 2007) et OGM : semences de destruction: L’arme de la faim (Jean-Cyrille Godefroy éd., 2008).

10. Ibid.

12. Jane Bryant et al., “The One Click Group Response: Prof. David Salisbury Threatens Legal Action”, 4 March 2009. Download

13. William Engdahl, op.cit.

14. L’Humanité: http://www.humanite.fr/Grippe-A-Ils-ont-organise-la-psychose

 15. Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal (Lower Chamber of the Dutch Parliament.)

16. Martin Enserink, in “Holland, the Public Face of Flu Takes a Hit”, Science, 16 October 2009, Vol. 326, n° 5951, pp. 350–351 ; DOI : 10.1126/science.326_350b.

17. L’Humanité, op.cit., http://www.mondialisation.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16818 TheEuropean Parliament will investigate the WHO and the “pandemic” scandal: http://www.santelog.com/modules/connaissances/actualite-sante-le-député-européen-w.-wodarg-dénonce-«-une-fausse-pandemie-»_2483.htm

18. Sylvie Simon, op. cit. http://www.next-up.org/pdf/AlisonKatzOpenLetterMargaretChanWHO.pdf

19. William Engdahl, op. cit.

20. Conversation with Tom Jefferson: C’est toute une industrie qui espère une pandémie de grippe, Der Spiegel, 21 July 2009.

21. Ibid.

22. Article in Dutch, Louise Voller & Kristian Villesen, “Mystisk ændring af WHO’s definition af enpandemi“, Copenhagen Information, 15 November 2009.

23. http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html

24. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17184

25. http://leconservateur.bafweb.com/index.php?2007/10/11/978-un-juge-britannique-met-en-garde-contre-le-film-d-al-gore-une-verite-qui-derange;timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article2632660.ece

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Politics and Corruption at the World Health Organization (WHO)
  • Tags:

Centenas de milhares de vítimas civis, mais de 2.400 soldados americanos mortos (e mais um número desconhecido de feridos), cerca de 1 trilião de dólares gastos: este é, em síntese, o orçamento dos 19 anos da guerra USA no Afeganistão, ao qual se acrescenta o custo para os aliados NATO (incluindo a Itália) e outros que se juntaram aos EUA na guerra.

O orçamento de falências para os EUA também do ponto de vista político-militar: a maior parte do território está agora controlada pelos Taliban ou disputada entre eles e as forças do governo apoiadas pela NATO.

Neste contexto, após longas negociações, a Administração Trump concluiu um acordo com os Taliban, em Fevereiro passado, que prevê em troca de garantias, a redução do número de tropas USA no Afeganistão de 8.600 para 4.500. O mesmo não significa o fim da intervenção militar dos EUA no Afeganistão, que continua com forças especiais, drones e bombardeiros. No entanto, o acordo abriria o caminho para uma diminuição do conflito armado.

No entanto, foi revogado alguns meses após a assinatura – não pelos talibãs afegãos, mas pelos democratas dos EUA. Aprovaram no Congresso uma emenda à Lei de Permissão, que destina 740,5 biliões de dólares para o orçamento do Pentágono no ano fiscal de 2021. A emenda, aprovada em 2 de Julho pela Comissão de Serviços Armados pela grande maioria com o voto dos Democratas, estabelece “limitar o uso de fundos para reduzir o número de forças armadas estacionadas no Afeganistão”.

Proíbe o Pentágono de gastar os fundos na sua posse para qualquer actividade que reduza o número de soldados dos EUA no Afeganistão, abaixo de 8.000: o acordo, que envolve a redução de tropas dos EUA no Afeganistão, está efectivamente bloqueado. É significativo que a emenda tenha sido apresentada não só pelo democrata Jason Crow, mas também pela republicana Liz Cheney, que fornece o seu aval em perfeito estilo bipartidário. Liz é filha de Dick Cheney, Vice Presidente dos Estados Unidos de 2001 a 2009, durante a Administração de George W. Bush, que decidiu a favor da invasão e da ocupação do Afeganistão (oficialmente para dar caça a Osama bin Laden).

A emenda condena explicitamente o acordo, argumentando que prejudica “os interesses de segurança nacional dos Estados Unidos”, “não representa uma solução diplomática realista” e “não fornece protecção às populações vulneráveis”. Para ser autorizado a reduzir as tropas no Afeganistão, o Pentágono deverá certificar que essa medida “não comprometerá a missão antiterrorista dos Estados Unidos”.

Não é por acaso que o ‘New York Times’ publicou um artigo, em 26 de Junho que, de acordo com as informações fornecidas (sem apresentar nenhuma prova) dos agentes de inteligência USA, acusa “uma unidade de inteligência militar russa de oferecer aos militantes Taliban um engenho militar para  matar soldados da Coligação no Afeganistão, visando principalmente os americanos”. As notícias foram divulgadas pela grande media americana, sem que nenhum caçador de fake news questionasse a sua veracidade.

Após uma semana, foi aprovada a emenda que impede a redução de tropas USA no Afeganistão. O que confirma o verdadeiro objectivo da intervenção militar USA/NATO no Afeganistão – o controlo dessa área de importância estratégica da maior importância. O Afeganistão está na encruzilhada do Médio Oriente, do centro, sul e leste da Ásia.

Nesta área (no Golfo e no Cáspio) existem grandes reservas de petróleo. Existem a Rússia e a China, cuja força está a crescer e afectar as estruturas globais. Como o Pentágono alertou num relatório de 30 de Setembro de 2001, uma semana antes da invasão americana do Afeganistão, “existe a possibilidade de surgir na Ásia, um rival com uma formidável base de recursos”. Possibilidade que agora se está a materializar.

Os “interesses da segurança nacional dos Estados Unidos” impõem que fiquemos no Afeganistão, custe o que custar.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

Siluro bipartisan contro l’accordo per l’Afghanistan

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos 

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Torpedo bipartidário contra o Acordo para o Afeganistão

Iran’s legitimate nuclear facilities have no military component, according to the IAEA nuclear watchdog organization and annual US intelligence community assessments of global threats.

Days earlier, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif explained that legitimate Iranian nuclear sites are subject to unprecedented scrutiny by the IAEA — devoting “92 percent of (its) inspections” to its facilities.

Nuclear armed and dangerous Israel permits no monitoring of its bomb development and producing sites.

The same goes for the US. Yet both countries, NATO, and their imperial allies are waging forever wars in multiple theaters — posing an unparalleled threat to humanity’s survival if things are pushed too far.

Over the past week, Iranian facilities experienced unexplained blasts, including a fire, reportedly caused by an explosion (possibly triggered by a cyberattack), causing extensive damage to its Natanz nuclear site last Thursday.

It’s Iran’s main uranium processing facility, located 279 km south of Tehran.

On Friday, Iran said it determined the cause of what happened. For security reasons, it’ll be announced at a later time, a statement said.

Last week, Iranian civil defense chief Gholamreza Jalali said the following:

“Responding to cyberattacks is part of the country’s defense might.”

“If it is prove(d) that our country has been targeted by a cyberattack, we will respond.”

The Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant is located on a 100,000 square meter site — much of it built eight meters underground. Around a one-story portion is above ground.

Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) cited Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi, saying that reconstruction of damage to the Natanz complex will begin straightaway, adding:

It’ll be on an enlarged site for advanced hardware to replace extensive damage to measuring equipment and precision instruments.

On Sunday, Iranian MP Abolfazl Amouei said a report of damage to Natanz was sent to the IAEA Board of Governors.

Separately, the IRNA news agency suggested that sabotage by the US or Israel may have caused the incident at Natanz, stopping short of accusing either country for what happened, a report saying:

“So far Iran has tried to prevent intensifying crises and the formation of unpredictable conditions and situations,” adding:

“But the crossing of red lines of the Islamic Republic of Iran by hostile countries, especially the Zionist regime and the US, means that strategy…should be revised.”

Unnamed Iranian officials blamed sabotage for the Natanz incident, stressing that the nation’s enemies carried out similar attacks in the past.

In spring 2010, Iranian intelligence discovered Stuxnet malware contamination.

The computer virus infected its Bushehr nuclear facility. At the time, operations were halted indefinitely.

Israel and the US were blamed. Had the facility gone online infected, Iran’s entire electrical power grid could have been shut down.

A more destructive virus called Flame malware was known at the time.

According to Internet security experts, it’s 20 times more harmful than Stuxnet.

Perhaps a state-of-the-art US and/or Israeli virus today is even more powerful and hard to detect until damage is done.

Iran’s military-industrial and legitimate nuclear sites are likely US/Israeli targets for maximum disruption — part of US-led longstanding war on the Islamic Republic by other means.

Separately, Iran’s IRGC said its military capability includes onshore and offshore “missile cities” — including underground bunkers and floating platforms.

According to IRGC Admiral Ali Reza Tangsiri:

“Iran has established underground onshore and offshore missile cities all along the coasts of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, which would be a nightmare for Iran’s enemies” if they preemptive attack the Islamic Republic, adding:

“The IRGC Navy is present everywhere in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, in every place that the enemy would not even think about.”

Reportedly, Iranian long-range ballistic missiles and state-of-the art military vessels are being readied for deployment.

Iran is the region’s leading proponent of peace, stability, and mutual cooperation with other nations.

It’ militarily preparedness is all about defending the nation if preemptively attacked.

The US, NATO, Israel, and their imperial allies pose the greatest threat to regional and world peace.

Given the grave threat to its security posed by these nations, it’s essential for Iran to be prepared to defend the nation if struck.

US rage to transform the Islamic Republic into a vassal state makes unthinkable war on the country possible.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

Leading epidemiologist Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University estimates that about 150-300 million or more people have already been infected by COVID-19 around the world, far more than the 10 million documented cases.

In an interview with Greek Reporter, the Greek American scientist warns, however, that the draconian lockdowns imposed in many countries may have the opposite effect of what was intended. “Globally, the lockdown measures have increased the number of people at risk of starvation to 1.1 billion, and they are putting at risk millions of lives,” he says.

It was just three months ago, soon after the onset of the coronavirus outbreak in the US, when Dr. Ioannidis wrote an article for the journal STAT excoriating the US and other countries for not conducting enough testing, and deploring how little real evidence there was of true infection rates, which he feared might soar and create widespread societal unrest.

Now, after the world has experienced approximately 490,000 deaths from the virus, Greek Reporter contacted Dr. Ioannidis to ask the professor for his opinion on several points he made in his March 17th article, and what he has observed in the fight against the virus as it has progressed around the globe.

***

Greek Reporter: You stated at that time, when everything seemed so very uncertain, that the evidence at that point for the number of actual infections was “utterly unreliable” and that the “vast majority” of infections were being missed. How do you think the US and other countries have progressed since then in pinning down the actual numbers of those suffering from the virus? You had said at that time “no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative, random sample of the general population.” Do you still believe that is true? Which countries have performed the best in this regard?

Dr. Ioannidis:  We have learned a lot within a short period of time about the prevalence of the infection worldwide. There are already more than 50 studies that have presented results on how many people in different countries and locations have developed antibodies to the virus. These numbers are anywhere between 5 times (e.g. Gangelt in Germany) and 600 times (e.g. Japan) more compared to the documented cases, depending on whether a lot or limited testing was already performed in different locations. We know that the prevalence of the infection varies tremendously across countries, but also within countries, within states, and even within population groups in the same location. COVID-19 attacks some disadvantaged and deprived communities (harder), and disadvantage and deprivation means different things in different countries. Of course none of these studies are perfect, but cumulatively they provide useful composite evidence. A very crude estimate might suggest that about 150-300 million or more people have already been infected around the world, far more than the 10 million documented cases. It could even be substantially larger, if antibodies do not develop in a large share of people who get through the infection without symptoms or sparse symptoms.

Greek Reporter: What about the 3.4 % death rate projected by the WHO at that time? What do you think it truly is at this point? At the time you had said that the population-wide Covid-19 case fatality rate of .05% was lower than that of influenza. Earlier you had also said that “reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio for the general population vary from .05% to 1%.” (This seemed to be based on the rather small example of the Diamond Princess cruise outbreak, but that was basically all you had to work from at that point.)

Dr. Ioannidis: 0.05% to 1% is a reasonable range for what the data tell us now for the infection fatality rate, with a median of about 0.25%. The death rate in a given country depends a lot on the age-structure, who are the people infected, and how they are managed. For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0%. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05-0.3%. For those above 70, it escalates substantially, to 1% or higher for those over 85. For frail, debilitated elderly people with multiple health problems who are infected in nursing homes, it can go up to 25% during major outbreaks in these facilities.

Greek Reporter: Are all the current figures being skewed by the complication that some jurisdictions are recording that people died OF Covid-19 when in reality they died WITH it? You had said on March 17, and this still gets lost in the noise of all the events that have taken place in these last turbulent months, that “a positive test for coronavirus does not mean necessarily that this virus is always primarily responsible for a patient’s demise”.

Dr. Ioannidis: This is still a major challenge. COVID-19 has become a notifiable disease so it is readily recorded in death certificates. What we do know, however, is that the vast majority of people who die with a COVID-19 label have at least one and typically many other comorbidities. This means that often they have other reasons that would lead them to death. The relative contribution of COVID-19 needs very careful audit and evaluation of medical records.

Greek Reporter: There is a huge amount of uncertainty each and every year just in the number of influenza deaths, and despite what you called the “successful surveillance systems” which have “long existed for influenza, the disease is confirmed in a laboratory in a tiny minority of cases.” Is this also true with Covid-19, where many people were no doubt infected and suffered only mild symptoms, thinking it was just the regular annual flu — perhaps even before January, 2020, when the disease officially landed on our shores? You gave the range then as differing a multiple of 2.5 times in trying to estimate how many people actually die every year from influenza.

Dr. Ioannidis: As above, the number of people infected with COVID-19 is far larger from the documented cases. The number of COVID-19 deaths can be both undercounted and overcounted, and the relative ratio of over- and under-counting varies across different locations. In most European countries and the USA it is more likely to be overcounted, especially if we are talking about “deaths by COVID-19”. For influenza we have a long-standing experience and the number of deaths can also be fairly well approximated based on the excess number of deaths that we record every winter, as the influenza wave sweeps around the world. For COVID-19 we are in early days, and we need to be careful to dissociate deaths from COVID-19 versus deaths that happened because of the disruption induced by lockdown.

Greek Reporter: You had earlier extrapolated 10,000 total US deaths using the Diamond Princess cruise ship analysis, using the case fatality rate among those infected, which was .3% (mid-range guess), with 1% of the US population becoming infected.  As we know now, the total amount of those dying with the disease was much higher but it was still not the astronomical, exponentially huge number that some had predicted. There had been only 68 American deaths by March 16, the day before your original article was published. The most pessimistic projection in March was 40 million deaths globally — the same as the 1918 flu. What do you really think it is now, bottom line?

Dr. Ioannidis: In the STAT article, I discussed two hypothetical extremes for illustrative purposes, one with just 10,000 deaths in the USA and another with 50 million deaths worldwide. I said that our data are so unreliable that the truth could be anywhere between these two amazingly different extremes. Based on what we know now, we seem to be closer to the optimistic end of the range. In terms of numbers of lives lost, so far the COVID-19 impact is about 1% of the 1918 influenza. In terms of quality-adjusted person-years lost, the impact of COVID-19 is about 0.1% of 1918 influenza, since the 1918 influenza killed mostly young healthy people (average age 28), while the average age of death with COVID-19 is 80 years, with several comorbidities.

Greek Reporter: We had been told that we needed to “flatten the curve” — and we did so in the US, did we not? No health system was completely overwhelmed, not even in NYC, where they did not completely run out of ventilators.

Dr. Ioannidis: The predictions of most mathematical models in terms of how many beds and how many ICU beds would be required were astronomically wrong. Indeed, the health system was not overrun in any location in the USA, although several hospitals were stressed. Conversely, the health care system was severely damaged in many places because of the measures taken.

Greek Reporter: Finally, you had stated in March that, regarding lockdowns, they may be “bearable for a time, but how can policymakers tell if they are doing more good than harm?” if they are protracted. “School closures,” you stated, ”may reduce transmission rates” but may also “diminish the chances of developing herd immunity.” Even more important, perhaps, is this point you made — “One of the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society and mental health.

“Unpredictable evolutions may ensue, including financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war and a meltdown of the social fabric.” Your thoughts, please, on how many of these things have indeed come to pass in this country as you had feared.

Dr. Ioannidis: I feel extremely sad that my predictions were verified. “Major consequences on the economy, society and mental health” have already occurred. I hope they are reversible, and this depends to a large extent on whether we can avoid prolonging the draconian lockdowns and manage to deal with COVID-19 in a smart, precision-risk targeted approach, rather than blindly shutting down everything. Similarly, we have already started to see the consequences of “financial crisis, unrest, and civil strife.” I hope it is not followed by “war and meltdown of the social fabric.”

Globally, the lockdown measures have increased the number of people at risk of starvation to 1.1 billion, and they are putting at risk millions of lives, with the potential resurgence of tuberculosis, childhood diseases like measles where vaccination programs are disrupted, and malaria. I hope that policymakers look at the big picture of all the potential problems and not only on the very important, but relatively thin slice of evidence that is COVID-19.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Greek Reporter

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Impacts of the Draconian Lockdowns: 1.1 Billion People At Risk of Starvation. Dr. John Ioannidis
  • Tags: ,

Both scientific and medical debate continues to unfold in not only the dubious nature of what we currently identify as COVID-19, but also – and more intensely perhaps – over the ongoing global response to the virus itself.  At the same time, however, this ever-important issue of COVID lockdowns is being glossed over daily by the more sensationalized stories of racial protests. 

In many ways, the protests provide an illegitimate cover; an unfortunate distraction of sorts which diverts the public’s attention away from the shoddy and unsustainable COVID precautions which clearly deserve to be further examined. Additionally, as is the classical tactic of any divisive agenda, the racial climate that we now find ourselves in has successfully (and incredulously) served to create even further partition between individuals, communities, groups, and even the very same ethnic races that have labored to overcome the oppression that has plagued the West for so long.  Ironically, we now find ourselves regressing to knee-jerk policies that actually promotesegregation rather than protect against it.

Consequently, this new division in our society has delayed our collective resolve to soberly examine the destructive response to SARS-COV-2.  According to a Pew Research Center poll from June 29th, there is a general trend of decreasing intensity when it comes to the public consumption of news around COVID-19.  The Pew study specifically mentioned that

“the June survey, which took place as demonstrations following the killing of George Floyd were dominating headlines, shows a decrease in those paying very close attention to the COVID-19 outbreak. The 39% of U.S. adults reporting this highest level of engagement is down from 46% in late April and 57% in late March, when the outbreak was first forcing shutdowns around the country” (Pew Research Center, June 29).  Similarly, an Ipsos Reid poll from June 18th concludes that “a majority of people in nine out of 16 major countries say there are much bigger issues to worry about than the coronavirus with all protests going on in the United States and elsewhere” (Ipsos Reid, June 18). 

I would agree that this diversion has also served to not only redirect the public focus, but by its very insistence as an urgent ‘social’ issue has also served to entrench the public’s original perceptions and beliefs around COVID-19 without any further critical thinking. 

In other words, by having to quickly readjust our concerns to the newly-created theatrics of racial demonstrations, we no longer have the time or sense of import to properly examine how the official responses to coronavirus are continuing – and will continue – to affect our civilization and our culture as a people. By default then, whatever we believed about COVID-19 before the racial unrest will simply remain our default perception, simply because we are now being encouraged to look in other directions. As such, the unspoken trend around the coronavirus at this point is that it no longer needs as much critical addressing and that we now simply need to acclimate to the “new normal.”  In the meantime, it is worth taking a fresh look at where public opinion now rests in regards to the lockdown culture.

As far as perspectives around the COVID-19 lockdown responses are concerned, I see two variations of people that make up the general bulk of the public body.

The most visible segment are those who are clearly on board with the standardized precautions that were put in place; things like social distancing, mask-wearing, hand sanitizing, business closures and sheltering-in-place.

It would also seem evident that this group is considerably the larger of the two, given the findings of a Pew Research poll from back in April 16th.  As the poll demonstrated,

“66% of Americans say they are more concerned that these (COVID) restrictions will be lifted too quickly, while 32% say they are more concerned they won’t be lifted quickly enough” (Pew Research Center, April 16).

Within this first group of people there exists a spectrum of belief as to how much precaution is actually necessary.  Accordingly, some will rigidly adhere to whatever source of personal protection is available to them in order to avoid getting the virus, while others will appear to casually meander in and out of protective motions almost at random – donning masks when the moment “seems right” or else socially distancing from complete strangers, yet not for people that are more familiar to them. In some ways, a double-standard of protective behavior can be seen in this end of the precautionary spectrum even though, to some degree, they ultimately do believe in the risk of transmission and likewise believe that it should be avoided.

The second group of people is much less visible.  In this group, the individuals have not necessarily bought into the official narrative of COVID-19 (much less the exhaustive protective measures to avoid getting it), yet they are largely seen to go along with the proverbial flow of everyone else for the reason that there appears to be no other appropriate recourse. As it is with any social animal, many of the people within this latter group do not see the sense in disrupting the established order and, for the sake of preservation of both the group and the self, are seen to blend in with the rest of the population while quietly (if not grudgingly) adhering to protective rituals whenever the situation demands it.

Like the first group, however, this second cluster of people has its own form of spectrum as well.  On one end of the spectrum are those who, while not buying into the sensationalism around COVID-19, will nevertheless wear their masks and will keep their social distance merely to protect against disapproval from others.  On the other end of the spectrum are those who, in recognizing the severe social deficits of such protective behaviors, actually do wish to demonstrate some form of resistance to the collective prescription.  These are the individuals whose aim is specifically geared towards the education and redirection of the public’s response to the lockdown culture, and who are willing to actually speak out against it.

Regardless of where anyone happens to be on the spectrum, the underlying concern for a COVID skeptic is ultimately around the cost of social deviance and the price to be paid for visibly stepping out of line amidst the virtual tidal wave of COVID propaganda.  Putting it simply, to not be part of the mainstream corona-collective brings with it the risk of a severe social backlash – primarily in the form of being accused as a ‘deviant’ and, by extension, as being categorically responsible for exacerbating the pandemic even further.

I would also argue that this identification and targeting of social deviance is enforced even further in times of civil urgency, as a recent situation in Australia appropriately demonstrates.

In response to a recent upsurge of reported coronavirus infections in the Australian state of Victoria, Premier Daniel Andrews has been urging the public to comply with mobile COVID-testing initiatives that were recently rolled out in a few municipalities.  In a press release on June 30th, the Premier lamented his finding that almost a thousand people had actually refused the request to be tested.  Interestingly, the suggested reasons for such refusals were labelled as “lack of understanding about the dangers of the virus, privacy reasons to feeling uncomfortable about the invasiveness of a nose or throat swab test,” according to University of NSW epidemiologist Professor Mary-Louise McLaws, who was quoted in an article published in the newspaper, The Age, later in the day.

Never mind mentioning the possibility that some of these refusals were born out of an educated principle to deliberately not comply.  Never mind the idea that some refusals were expressed specifically as a result of a citizen’s own personal research into the nature of the pandemic, and therefore had a constitutional right to refuse the test in the first place.

While the article does pay tribute to the ethical and constitutional problem of enforced COVID testing, there is an interesting caveat to this inconvenient freedom that is raised by Liberty Victoria spokesman Michael Stanton. While Stanton dutifully points to the importance of respecting people’s personal choice in the matter, he nevertheless reassures the public that the number of people who refused to be tested was pretty small by comparison, and therefore “statistically” insignificant. He added that “it would be too high a cost [on people’s personal liberties] to in effect forcibly require people to undertake a medical procedure against their will, especially when so many people are consenting.”  In other words, as long as the majority is on board with the official WHO-endorsed narrative, then it’s not worth worrying about the smaller numbers of insubordinates (The Age, June 30th).

Unsurprisingly, the response to these acts of social deviances in the state of Victoria led to an exhibition of public shaming by the Premier himself, who essentially derided the 928 refusers as posing an irresponsible risk to the rest of the population while simultaneously praising the recent 21,000 consenters as making a “powerful contribution to our fight against this virus.”

In other words, we are watching the narrative unfold in such as to now ascribe a currency of morality to the decision of consenting versus refusing.  Simply put, the idea is being generated that you are an irresponsible person for refusing to be tested, but that you are a morally righteous person for agreeing.  Furthermore, the portrayal of urgency in Victoria is such that the public is arguably given little time to coherently reflect on the principled questions around mobile testing initiatives, and consequently have to make some pretty quick choices about it.  Human nature being what it is, one is likely to justify the personal choices they make in any given situation – even if they find that they were rushed or cornered into doing so.

The result? A society that is divided even further based on moral ascriptions that do not critique; they merely assume.

The real problem, however, lies in the rapid way in which this moral ascription becomes an entrenched norm within a society.  To be clear, it is not the social dictator or a nation’s commander-in-chief who successfully secures the public’s perspective on a matter; it is the public itself that decides its own fate.  To be sure, the civil corporation that makes up a society is wholesale complicit in the shifting of that society’s norms.  Simultaneously, any individual that chooses to resist such shifting norms is viewed as socially deviant and possibly even antisocial.

In a 2016 edition of Sociological Research, Tatyana Shipunova made the decisive point that:

“The social control of deviance, like everything connected with it (e.g., institutions, policies, government officials, specialists, professionals, strategies, methods, etc.) is given a special status because it “functions” for the betterment of society, removing (eliminating) or minimizing the harm of deviance.  In this sense, social control acts as a moral idea with ‘ideological immunity.’  It is to be accepted prima facie, before the results (effects) of its institutions are known.  Its expansion is theoretically limitless, since the variety of forms and types of behavior that may cause social discontent (‘social evil’) is infinite” (Shipunova, Sociological Research, 2016, p.32).

In short, the widespread behavior of the public in response to a new social doctrine (i.e. a warning given by “experts”) that leads to the overall shifting of a norm so that it goes from “new” to standard.  The sooner it becomes entrenched, the more quickly the former standard will be forgotten.  What may initially be regarded as an inconvenience is eventually accepted as a necessary shift in public life due to the “evils” that it is purportedly preventing. Appropriately, Shipunova observes that “it is at the micro level that social control really takes place.” 

Finally, we see how profound a role the Internet itself plays in the formalizing of such new behaviors.  Shipunova describes how the overall Internet infrastructure, “with its administrators, moderators, website owners, online communities, and individual users, controls the parameters of social sui generis reality by reflecting on this reality, modifying existing social norms, rules, and patterns of behavior that are first broadcast horizontally via virtual communication from one user to another, which then become internalized – and transforming these patterns into everyday praxis.”  If this process is successful, it ultimately serves to “significantly modify social norms.”

With these things in mind, it is easier to observe how the public perception of lockdown measures has largely found itself in a decidedly consumer-oriented mentality – particularly since a robust sense of urgency has been applied to the situation. Consequently, anyone who finds themselves in a more open-minded frame of perspective faces the ever-challenging reality of being considered a risk to the rest of the society.  Effectively, what was once considered a dystopian social practice has very quickly been adopted as “prima facie” prescriptions that carry incredible power on account of being so morally-infused, as they are.

As we find ourselves in such a rapidly-shifting global environment that appears to be hell-bent on distracting the masses, my recommendation is that we hold firm allegiance to our original sense of curiosity. We pay honorable tribute to our innate intelligence by not getting swept up in the pseudo-morality that is now so suddenly ascribed to these global events (particularly referring to the cementing of poorly-contrived COVID-consumer values through the unusual diversion to racial injustice issues).

More specifically, consider that the newly-charged racial demonstrations and behavioral modifications that are being urged on society are simply there to eliminate dissension.  At the same time, however, they provide us with a unique opportunity to observe, learn, and be informed by.  At the end of the day, it is up to us at the individual level, as to whether our learning has been fostered by an agenda of wanting to avoid deviance, or to instead search diligently for what is actually helping us move forwards as a society.

I urge us all to choose the latter.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Brett Jordan, BSW, MSW, RSW, is a Registered Social Worker who works in a hospital ER in Metro Vancouver.  He writes predominantly on issues of spiritual, emotional and social phenomena.

Featured image is from Pixabay

Once again dishonest Democrats have engaged in another embarrassing political food fight against a lying President over an unsubstantiated “Russian bounties” story by the New York Times. Based on a report by an “intelligence operative” in Afghanistan and without any evidence, Russia supposedly has offered bounty payments to Taliban forces for killing Americans in Afghanistan. The absurdity of the story is multi-layered. While there is an ongoing movement for justice that has perplexed the weak Democrats, they found these new shenanigans are the best distraction to divert attention from the issue of police brutality to the fear of Russia, the old enemy.

Of course, President Trump, who lies constantly to line up his base; first denied seeing the report and then used the opportunity to divert the attention from the disastrous failure of the “White House Coronavirus Task Force” by playing the victim of the fake news. A fascistic-minded President Trump who had retweeted a video with the message of “White Power” for 3 hours found this attack by the Democrats a blessing for the sake of distraction! Kayleigh McEnany, White House Press Secretary (who has been making money by the number of fallacies and outright lies that she makes) in regard to the question, as to why the President doesn’t denounce the White Power video, said that “the President took down that video and that deletion speaks strongly [!]” However the fact is that President Trump purposely and knowingly inflames racial issues and intimidates minorities with his provocative tweets to divide the nation.

At the same time, the pro-war corporate media is eager to “punish” Russia swiftly for this “shocking” crime, it is unmoved about another crime that has happened not in Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan but at Fort Hood in Texas, United States.

A heinous crime against Specialist Vanessa Guillen was not “news” for the so-called News TV channels and their gimcrack “pundits”. Thanks to the Vanessa Guillen’s family determination, and rallies with the support of the Latino base organization (like LULAC and FIEL in Houston) the cover-up and reluctance of the Fort Hood authorities to investigate Ms. Guillen’s disappearance since April 23rd was exposed and got attention on a national level. On July 3rd, the fear of Guillen’s family who believed her death was linked to the sexual harassment she was enduring on base was confirmed. The gruesome details of this heinous act were revealed by FBI to the press. The report describes that Spc. Aaron David Robinson who sexually assaulted then murdered Vanessa Guillen on the base, with the help of his girlfriend, Cecily Aguilar.

Officials during a news conference at Fort Hood on Thursday told reporters that Aaron David Robinson “pulled a gun and shot himself”. Federal Prosecutors in Texas’ Western District has stated that Cecily Aguilar is in custody and “faces one count of conspiracy to tamper with evidence”. Sadly this sexual assault is not the first case at Fort Hood base. Vanessa’s younger sister, Lupe Guillen during a press conference said: “My sister was too afraid to report the harassment because no one would listen to her”. Both sisters (Mayra and Lupe) with their mother, Gloria Guillen have pleaded for justice during a powerful press conference that was held. Her mother said: “My daughter is my life, I want justice, I want justice for my little one.” Unfortunately, most cases of sexual harassment and assaults in the Fort Hood base are not fully investigated. In fact, in recent years, the number of sexual assaults at the United States military academies has risen. According to the Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military – Fiscal Year 2018,

“About 6.2 percent of active duty women indicated experiencing a sexual assault in the year prior to being surveyed. This rate reflects a statistically significant increase compared to the 4.3 percent for women measured in 2016.”

Now the question is, why Democratic Party Leadership, the Trump Administration, GOP and their media are not concern about this uncivilized culture that exists in the military.

Of course like any other political issue, there are some politicians (such as Congresswomen Sylvia Garcia and Tulsi Gabbard) who speak against this problem, but as always these voices will remain as minorities that look more like an illusion than a solution. But exceptional cases aside, both Democrats and Republicans tirelessly on one hand glorify the destructive role of the U.S. army around the world and on the other hand, leave the young servicemen and women defenseless. They send them to countries around the world for pointless missions to destroy countries that are incapable of attacking the United States militarily. When these soldiers who either have witnessed or participated in destroying and burning cities after cities and killing thousand innocent civilians and children return with all kinds of physical and mental trauma and injuries, the generals and politicians turn their back on them or at best they leave them with a long speech about the patriotism and empty promises. According to the American Psychological Association, “Approximately 17 U.S. veterans die by suicide every day”. Craig Bryan, executive director of the National Center for Veterans Studies at the University of Utah says: “Nobody really knows why suicide rates continue to climb”.

The degree of hypocrisy is unbelievable; the hypocrites have dominated U.S. political life. Some personalities in the media are lost in their own “Alternative Reality”. Obsessed with anti-Russia or anti-China nonsensical arguments demand a harsh punishment against these “old adversaries”! Rachel Maddow of MSNBC is extremely mad that President Trump did nothing when (and this is Ms. Maddow’s own facts) “Putin was paying [Taliban] $100,000 cash per corpse, per dead American soldier.” On the anti-China camp, Lou Dobbs the lone wolf of Fox Business, claims that “we know that biological warfare is part of [China] military doctrine”; then based on this “fact” (!) he raises the question that “if we don’t go to war [against China] over the loss of 31,000…American lives, what do we go to war over?” However, these mad people in the media with their bizarre political analysis are not the real threat to truth and democracy in the U.S.

The real threat to millions of hard-working families in towns and rural areas, immigrants, women, youth and minorities comes from the Fascistic minded President Trump. His speech at Mount Rushmore in Celebration of 4th July was actually against the American Revolution and Democratic Rights. His focus was not to unite the nation rather intimidate those who oppose his policies and his rightwing ideology as “far-left fascism”. He talked like a tyrannical leader inciting people by saying “our great Second Amendment which gives us the right to keep and bear arms”; “we will expose this dangerous movement, protect our nation’s children, end this radical assault, and preserve our beloved American way of life”; “we are building the wall”; and gave an ultimatum to “arrest the rioters and prosecute offenders to the fullest extent to the law.” He didn’t mention or offer any solutions to the existing social, political and economical crisis not to mention the disastrous public health situation. Once again he has shown that his aim is to divide the nation into two clear camps, that of pro-Trump and anti-Trump. HE MUST RESIGN NOW! November 3rd may be too late.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

Kanye’s decision to officially run for President won’t just siphon off African-American votes from the Democrats if he stays in the race long enough to get on some states’ ballots as an Independent, but might even direct more of this demographic towards Trump in the event that he pulls out of the campaign after generating a substantial amount of grassroots support and endorses the incumbent instead, thus turning him into the party’s top enemy ahead of November and potentially dooming their White House plans.

Kanye 2020?

Kanye’s decision to officially run for President wasn’t exactly a surprise since he publicly flirted with the idea a few years ago, but it still seriously complicates the Democrats’ efforts to unseat Trump this November. They’re rightly afraid that this well-known pop culture figure will siphon off African-American votes if he stays in the race long enough to get on some states’ ballots as an Independent (which isn’t a certainty in any case considering the technical requirements involved this late in the game), but the worst-case scenario from their perspective is if he inspires more of this demographic to vote for Trump. That isn’t a far-fetched possibility either since Kanye might pull out of the campaign after generating a substantial amount of grassroots support and endorse his incumbent friend instead (perhaps if he’s promised a position in the next administration).

A Personal-Political Vendetta

After all, Kanye broke with his fellow celebrities a few years back by proudly proclaiming his support for Trump, who he even met at the White House, so it’s possible that he’s doing this with the intent of influencing African-Americans to vote for anybody but the Democrats. It doesn’t matter whether that’s him or Trump since Kanye has an axe to grind with the party whose surrogates nastily smeared him over the past couple of years for defying their “politically correct” dogma after he condemned the Democrats for their historical mistreatment of African-Americans and consistently condescending attitude towards them. The party hoped to manipulate more African-Americans into voting for them than ever before by presenting themselves as the political champions of the “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) movement, but that master plan is now thrown into doubt.

The Democrats’ Strategy

A large part of the Democrats’ strategy for winning back the presidency isn’t so much to promote Biden as it is to denigrate Trump. Their candidate’s visible senility proves that he’s just a “deep state” puppet, which party loyalists love since it suggests that he’ll just do whatever the anti-Trump elite want while other more “moderate” voters rightly express concern about what it would mean for the future of their country’s democratic system if someone like Biden were to enter into office as someone else’s proxy. For this reason, the most effective strategy for the Democrats to employ is to incessantly attack Trump so that on-the-fence voters get so frustrated with him that they decide to vote for anyone else but the incumbent, with Biden (or rather, the “deep state” that he represents) being his only realistic rival.

Mobilizing The African-American Masses

Unlike last time around, however, the Democrats must absolutely ensure that African-Americans turn out en masse to vote for the party’s candidate otherwise they might realistically lose this upcoming election too. As the author wrote in his late-May analysis about how “Biden’s ‘You Ain’t Black’ Comment Embodies Everything Wrong With The Democrats“, the Center for American Progress noted in their report about “Voter Trends in 2016” that “If black turnout and support rates in 2016 had matched 2012 levels, Democrats would have held Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and flipped North Carolina, for a 323 to 215 Electoral College victory.” This astute observation explains why the Democrats and their Mainstream Media allies are going into overdrive trying to portray Trump as a “racist” so as to generate historic African-American turnout against him.

A Modern-Day Harrison Bergeron

Therein lies the strategic challenge that Kanye poses to the party since he’s one of the world’s most famous African-Americans but is adamantly opposed to the Democrats. He has tremendous pop culture appeal which could prove to be a game-changer in the ongoing Hybrid War of Terror on America that’s essentially the kinetic phase of its long-running “Culture War”. Never before has such an influential African-American broke ranks with the Democrats in a dramatic Harrison Bergeron-like manner to take on the forces that he personally blames for his demographic’s many socio-economic problems. He’s so well-known that he can’t realistically be censored and his views will inevitably reach tens of millions of African-American voters, potentially causing them to second-guess their support for the Democrats and either vote for Trump or consider staying home instead.

The Perfect Antidote To Decades Of Democrat Brainwashing

Instead of being herded like sheep by their Democrat “plantation masters” into voting for Biden, possibly being condescendingly pandered to do so by his potential pick of an African-American woman as his running mate, African-Americans now have the chance to liberate their minds by listening to what one of their most famous folks has to say about why they should think twice before doing this. They might not be interested in what Trump has to say just because of the color of his skin and the Democrat-allied Mainstream Media’s campaign to convince them that he’s a “racist”, but Kanye looks just like them, is regarded as “cool”, and is generally respected for having the courage to express himself however he wants even if it isn’t “popular”. In other words, he’s the perfect “antidote” for reversing decades of Democrat brainwashing and could really make a difference.

Party Enemy Number One?

For this very reason, the Democrats might consider him to be a greater threat to their party’s political prospects than Trump himself because of the game-changing impact that he could have on the election. Kanye supports the peaceful protests that are organized under the BLM banner but seems to be against the slew of crimes that have been committed in this movement’s name, which makes him representative of the silent majority of African-Americans. The party can’t afford for his “moderate” message of being a Trump-supporting African-American backer of BLM to reach the African-American mainstream, hence why they might intensify their smear campaign against him, but doing so is extremely risky since Kanye can then use every attack as an example to show African-Americans how desperate the Democrats are to retain control over their minds.

The Kanye Conundrum

They could just try to ignore him, but that could also backfire since his widespread popularity and immense social media reach mean that they’ll have to inevitably counter his message in one way or another if it starts gaining traction among the African-American community that the party previously took for granted as one of its constituent bases. Kanye therefore presents a serious conundrum for the Democrats that basically borders on a dilemma — they’re damned if they condemn him since he can flip it around to prove that the party will do anything to keep African-Americans on their “political plantation”, but equally damned if they let him spread his message unchallenged since it’s so “revolutionary” in the sense of inspiring African-Americans to break with the Democrats after decades of being disappointed by the party (the so-called “Blexit” movement).

Concluding Thoughts

Kanye’s official entrance into the presidential race could very well be the game-changer that Trump needs to doom the Democrats’ White House plans. The opposition is terrified at the thought of an extremely popular African-American celebrity using his political platform to condemn the party’s mental manipulation of the 40 million or so members of his demographic over the decades just months before the November election. This throws a serious spanner in their fear-mongering strategy of brainwashing African-Americans into believing that Biden’s defeat would basically result in their “re-enslavement” by what some of them have been convinced is the “Racist in Chief”. For these reasons, there’s a very high chance that Kanye might become the Democrats’ top enemy, and they’ll do whatever they can to silence, co-opt, and/or stop him, whether by hook or by crook.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

From the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, Tanzania’s President John ‘The Bulldozer’ Magufuli exposed the fraud behind the Covid-19 testing kits and criticized the mass hysteria in regards to the virus. Several mainstream media networks including Bloomberg News led an attack against Magufuli’s actions regarding how his government has responded to the pandemic. Bloomberg News reporter Antony Sguazzin published ‘Africa’s ‘Bulldozer’ Runs Into Covid-19, Claims God on His Side’, the title itself already mocks Magufuli for mentioning God when it comes to Covid-19, but Sguazzin conveniently bypasses what Magufuli actually said in his article and criticizes him to the point of hostility:

Tanzania’s maverick President John Magufuli has used his strong personality to cow corrupt civil servants and force foreign mining companies to pay millions of dollars in outstanding tax. The coronavirus may be less responsive

What a way for Antony Sguazzin to begin his propaganda piece by calling him the “maverick President”:

Last week, he became the first African leader to declare victory over the virus, even though health data haven’t been released for more than a month. He’s criticized the national laboratory for exaggerating the number of infections, dismissed health experts and discouraged the wearing of masks, all the while saying God will protect Tanzania. Restrictions on social gatherings such as weddings will be lifted from June 29, when schools can reopen

As Squazzin continued his attack by claiming that there were deaths and nighttime burials by health officials in a video published by Al Jazeera that neither confirms or denies the accusations. The video could have been filmed anywhere in the African continent where outbreaks like Ebola and other health crisis have emerged in the past. The US embassy had warned that contracting Covid-19 was “extremely high” in the main city of Dar es Salaam and that hospitals were overwhelmed despite the number of cases being reported by the Tanzanian government at 509 cases and with more than 21 deaths:

But the president’s optimism is belied by reports of deaths and nighttime burials by health officials wearing personal protective equipment. Dozens of Tanzanian truck drivers who had to undergo screening at border posts have tested positive. The U.S. Embassy warned last month that the risk of contracting the virus in the main city, Dar es Salaam, male was “extremely high” and that hospitals were overwhelmed

Sguazzin said that Magufuli’s response to activists who were detained because of their criticism towards his government of how he was handling Covid-19 pandemic was by intimidating the public:

Nicknamed “the bulldozer” for his no-nonsense approach when he was minister of works, Magufuli has made intimidation and bravado a feature of his presidency since assuming office in 2015. His campaign to fight graft — he often fired people while cameras were rolling — earned him widespread praise and elevated his authority within the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi party.

Crackdowns on the media and those who poke fun at the government mean that criticism of how Magufuli is handling the outbreak is mostly restricted to social media. Official information is limited and tightly controlled. At least 13 journalists, students and politicians have been detained since March 23 for distributing information about the virus, Tanzania’s Legal and Human Rights Centre said

The 13 journalists, students and politicians who are being held for distributing information about Covid-19 is a human rights issue and extreme to go that far if all allegations are true.

Magufuli’s government’s stance on the LGBTQ community is also extreme since they jail people up to 30 years in prison if you are convicted, but unfortunately that’s happens all over Africa and many countries around the world including in the most brutal dictatorship on the planet who is also a friend to the US is Saudi Arabia, where they execute people from the LGBTQ community but that is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media.

Since Magufuli was elected, he has slashed his own salary from $15,000 a month to $4,000 and reduced his government from 30 to 11 ministries. He also cut excessive government spending in various areas including foreign travel by government officials and canceling the World’s AIDs Day in Tanzania and decided to use the funds for AIDS medications.

Magufuli also suspended Independence Day in 2015 to declare a national cleanup day to reduce the spread of cholera and to improve the health system in the country. To increase domestic production, it was reported in 2017 that Tanzania banned exporting unprocessed ores for domestic smelting purposes.  Magufuli also amended laws to renegotiate mining contracts or even terminate them if fraud is suspected. It’s apparent that Magufuli is a nationalist. Magufuli has done some bad, but he also has done some good, especially when he exposed Covid-19 testing kits as a fraud. Now the Mainstream media is attacking his policies and what he says concerning the Covid-19 consensus. What angered the West and the mainstream media is not what Magufuli  is claiming about God, it is what he did to prove that the Covid-19 test kits were inaccurate and that’s what Sguazzin forgot to mention.  Magufuli has proved to the world that the covid-19 test kits are a fraud and what the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) claims are on the dangers of the virus is basically false.

Magufuli explains how he tested the test takers by instructing his country’s security services to send various samples to the Covid-19 testing labs that were not human:

We took samples from goats, we took samples from sheeps, we took samples from Pawpaws, we even took samples from car oil and we took samples from other different things and we took samples to the laboratory without them knowing and we even named all the samples, like the sample from the car oil, we named it Jabil Hamza, 30 years old, male, the results came back negative. When we took the sample from a jackfruit, we named it Sara Samuel, 45 years old, female. The results came back inconclusive. When we took the samples from a Pawpaw, we named it Elizabeth Ane, 26 years, female, the results from the Pawpaw came back positive, that it has corona. That means the liquid from the pawpaw is positive.” We took samples from (a bird type) called Kware, the results came back positive. We took samples from a rabbit, the results came back undeterminent. We took samples from a goat and the results came back positive. We took samples from a sheep and it came back negative and so on and so on

This is where Magufuli made his point:

So now when you see this, you have taken the samples and say they are humans and the results come back positive that they have corona, that means all the pawpaws should be in isolation also and when you take goat samples and they are also positive, that means all the goats that we have here by assumption or maybe the goat with the sample which was taken should also should also be in isolation. and when you take jackfruit (durian) and it’s also positive that liquid from the jackfruit (durian) which we named it Elizabeth, meaning Elizabeth the Jackfruit (Durian) that means all the Jackfruits (Durian) should be in isolation also so when you notice something like this, you must know there is a dirty game played in these tests

Magufuli also said that the people who work in the laboratories are most likely bought and paid for by special interests:

That there unbelievable things happening in this country, either the laboratory workers in there are bought by people with money, either they are not well educated which isn’t true because this laboratory is used for other diseases, either the samples which are brought in because even the reagents are imported, because even the swambs are also imported, so it’s a must that something is actually going on

Magufuli earned instant criticism from US and European media networks on his leadership with allegations of corruption and human rights abuses considering the imprisonment of journalists, students and politicians who criticized his government. Whether corruption in the Tanzanian government is true or not, many countries in Africa are corrupt with dictatorships. There was also regime change operations backed by Western powers including the US when they gave the CIA the green light to set up the assassination of Zaire’s President Patrice Lamumba in 1961 and in 1966, the CIA overthrew Ghana’s first president under its new independence, Kwame Nkrumah, a pan-Africanist and an anti-imperialist who authored a book titled ‘Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism’. We must also take into account the centuries old European colonialism since the Portuguese built its trading posts in the late 15th century, followed up by US interventions in Africa during the Cold War leading up to the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) which was created under the George W. Bush regime in 2007.  The US military and intelligence apparatus currently have numerous military bases all over Africa in efforts to stop Chinese and Russian influence and to control the natural resources which has basically put the African continent at a disadvantage in comparison to the rest of the world.  In this case, Magufuli has actually stood up to the powers that be and took a stand for his people.

Western Imperialism Did Not End: Population Control, Birth Control to Experimenting with Dangerous Vaccines

In 2018, liberal media network, CNN headlined with ‘Don’t Use Birth Control, ‘Tanzania’s President Tells Women In The Country’ said that “Tanzania’s President John Magufuli has told women in the East African nation to stop taking birth control pills because the country needs more people, according to local media reports.” Magufuli was quoted in a local newspaper called The Citizen in a public rally saying that “those going for family planning are lazy … they are afraid they will not be able to feed their children. They do not want to work hard to feed a large family and that is why they opt for birth controls and end up with one or two children only.” According to CNN, “he was quoted in a local newspaper, The Citizen, as saying that those advocating for birth control were foreign and had sinister motives.”Which by all means is true.

Magufuli’s understands how the depopulation agenda works. CNN mentions Jacqueline Mahon the representative for Tanzania for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) who was present at the time at least according to The Citizen quoted Magufuli saying that “I have traveled to Europe and I have seen the effects of birth control. In some countries they are now struggling with declining population. They have no labor force.” Then of course, in an old propaganda tactic which CNN loves to use, they criticized the President on other various issues including his stance on how women lawmakers should dress:

In another development, the speaker of the Tanzanian parliament banned female lawmakers from wearing fake nails and eyelashes in parliament.  “With the powers vested in me by the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, I now ban all MPs with false eyelashes and false finger nails from stepping into Parliament,” Job Ndugai said, a day after Magufuli’s comments.  The new rules also ban women MPs from wearing short dresses and jeans. Female visitors to parliament are also expected to adhere to the dress code

In September 2018, the World Economic Forum (WEF) website headlined with ‘Bill Gates has a warning about population growth’ it began with “rapid population growth in some of Africa’s poorest countries could put at risk future progress towards reducing global poverty and improving health, according to a report by the philanthropic foundation of Bill Gates.”

The site quoted what Gates had told reporters  “population growth in Africa is a challenge.” The WEF article mentioned what the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation’s own report had discovered in their research and it “found that poverty in Africa is increasingly concentrated in a few countries, which also have among the fastest-growing populations in the world.” The report claimed that “by 2050, it projected, more than 40 percent of world’s extremely poor people will live in just two countries: Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria.” Gates was asked about growing populations and an increase of poverty in Africa and he said that access to birth control combined with investments in health and education for the younger generation was necessary. Gates said that “the biggest things are the modern tools of contraception” and “If you have those things available then people have more control over being able to space their children.”

Forbes magazine recently published ‘Bill And Melinda Gates Have Sharp Words For U.S.’ Lack Of Leadership Role In Fighting Pandemic’ on a virtual Forbes philanthropy summit with the genocidal power couple, Melinda Gates spoke on who should get the vaccines first, and they are black and the indigenous people:

There are 60 million healthcare workers [around the world]. They deserve to get the vaccine first, they’re the ones dealing with this on the front lines, trying to keep us all safe. And then you have to start to tier from there, based on the countries and the populations. Here in the United States, it’s going to be Black people who really should get it first and many indigenous people, as well as people with underlying symptoms, and then elderly people 

In other words, black and the indigenous people will be guinea pigs once again.

Forbes also reported that “The couple, whose Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed more than $350 million to fight the coronavirus, plans to utilize two nonprofits—The Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance—to help equitably distribute therapeutics and vaccines to developing countries.”  There is good news in regards to Africa as Fox news reported about the Covid-19 vaccine trials in South Africa ‘Protest versus Africa’s 1st COVID-19 vaccine test shows fear’ said that “Protesters against Africa’s first COVID-19 vaccine trial burned their face masks Wednesday as experts note a worrying level of resistance and misinformation around testing on the continent” and that the “Anti-vaccine sentiment in Africa is “the worst I’ve ever seen,” the CEO of the GAVI vaccine alliance, Seth Berkley, told an African Union vaccine conference last week.” The Fox news report explains why the African people is concerned:

But the small band of demonstrators who gathered Wednesday at the University of the Witwatersrand, where the trial is based, reflect long-running fears among some in Africa over testing drugs on people who don’t understand the risks.

“The people chosen as volunteers for the vaccination, they look as if they’re from poor backgrounds, not qualified enough to understand” protest organizer Phapano Phasha told The Associated Press ahead of the event. “We believe they are manipulating the vulnerable”

The report also mentioned the controversial French doctor, Jean-Paul Mira, head of intensive care at Cochin hospital in Paris said “If I can be provocative, shouldn’t we be doing this study in Africa, where there are no masks, no treatments, no resuscitation?” comparing the corona virus to previous AIDS studies: “In prostitutes, we try things because we know that they are highly exposed and that they do not protect themselves.”

The imperial mentality by the west to control Africa’s population growth and to test Africans with vaccines has been proven time and time again to be dangerous and problematic for the African people.  Tanzania’s president John Magufuli has helped expose Western intentions in Africa especially when it comes to the Covid-19 testing kits giving false positive results.  The mainstream media quickly criticizes those who do not follow Western instituted depopulation programs from the US and Europe such as Magufuli who actually did something right in the face of Covid-19 hysteria. Magufuli is now the subject of Western media criticism and mockery not because he mentioned God, it’s because he is not following the program, it’s pretty obvious at this point.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from SCN

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Western Liberal Media Attacks Tanzania’s President John Magufuli for Exposing COVID-19 Tests and Population Control in Africa
  • Tags: , ,

We live in tumultuous days… one could say “the end of an era”.

It is clear that there is a storm coming, however, the question is will it be the sort of storm that provides sustenance and relief to drought-stricken and barren lands, or will it be the sort of storm that destroys indiscriminately and leaves nothing recognizable in its wake?

There is such a heavy tension in the air, the buildup we are told of centuries of injustice, oppression and murder. It feels like the entire world’s burden has laid itself upon one culprit and that it is high time that that villain pay for past blood spilled.

That villain is the United States.

It is common to hear that this nation was created under the hubristic banner of “Freedom from Empire”, while it brutally owned slaves and committed genocide on the indigenous people. That the “Declaration of Independence” and the “U.S. Constitution” are despicable displays of the highest degree of grotesque hypocrisy, and that in reality the U.S. was to replace one system of empire with another and far worse.

These are weighty charges indeed, and nobody can deny that great crimes against humanity have been committed. However, it is important that we review this history in full, for if we lose sight of the forest, we will be losing sight of an ongoing battle that is still waging.

We will have abandoned the work of past heroes that has been left unfinished and will have replaced it with the false idol of anarchy, mistaking its ‘empty-promises of liberty’ as a mark of what constitutes a ‘true freedom’.

How can we avoid such ‘empty-promises’ and strive for ‘true freedom’?

There is no better account in addressing such a question as that of Frederick Douglass (1817-1895), a former slave who would become an advisor to Abraham Lincoln during the dark days of the Civil War and the Consul General to Haiti in his elder years.

A through-and-through TRUE American hero (1).

From Slavery to Freedom

Frederick Douglass was born in Talbot County, in the State of Maryland. Though it was impossible to know his exact date of birth, he gathers that the month of February 1817 is as accurate as possible. The name given to him by his dear mother was, in the words of Douglass “no less pretentious and long” than Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey (Frederick’s mother was believed to be the only slave in the region who knew how to read).

Frederick recalls that in his youth

“I was just as well aware of the unjust, unnatural, and murderous character of slavery, when nine years old, as I am now. Without any appeals to books, to laws, or to authorities of any kind, to regard God as ‘Our Father’ condemned slavery as a crime.”

Already, by the age of nine, Frederick had set himself upon not only the idea of escape from this destitution, but was always mindful to an education wherever he could find it.

Luckily, in this unhappy state his only adult friend Miss Lucretia, (daughter of Captain Anthony the slaveholder of Frederick), arranged for Frederick, at the age of ten, to be sent away from the plantations to live in Baltimore with her husband’s brother Hugh Auld.

It was in Baltimore that Frederick would learn how to read.

Years go by and at around the age of fifteen or sixteen, Frederick is sent back to the plantations (over a family squabble), and not surprisingly is found to be wholly unfit for a life of hard-labour as an obedient slave. He is thus promptly sent to “Covey, The Negro Breaker” to lodge with for a period of one year.

For six months, Frederick was whipped and beaten on a regular basis. From the dawn of day till the complete darkness in the evening, he was kept hard at work in the fields, and was worked up to the point of his powers of endurance.

Until one day he decides finally that it is better to resist and risk the consequences than continue to live such a contemptible life as a mere brute. He decides one day to simply refuse to be treated as an animal, not to strike back but to oppose the striking.

As Frederick states

A man without force is without the essential dignity of humanity. Human nature is so constituted, that it cannot honor a helpless man, though it can pity him, and even this it cannot do long if signs of power do not arise. He only can understand the effect of this combat on my spirit, who has himself incurred something, or hazarded something, in repelling the unjust and cruel aggressions of a tyrant. Covey was a tyrant and a cowardly one withal. After resisting him, I felt as I had never felt before. It was a resurrection from the dark and pestiferous tomb of slavery, to the heaven of comparative freedom. I was no longer a servile coward, trembling under the frown of a brother worm of the dust, but my long-cowed spirit was roused to an attitude of independence. I had reached the point at which I was not afraid to die. This spirit made me a freeman in fact, though I still remained a slave in form. When a slave cannot be flogged, he is more than half free. He has a domain as broad as his own manly heart to defend, and he is really ‘a power on earth’. From this time until my escape from slavery, I was never fairly whipped. Several attempts were made, but they were always unsuccessful. Bruised I did get, but the instance I have described was the end of the brutification to which slavery had subjected me.”

The Abolitionist Cause in Light of the Preservation of the Union

“…that the fathers of the Republic neither intended the extension nor the perpetuity of slavery and that liberty is national and slavery is sectional.” – Frederick Douglass

To make a long story short, Frederick would successfully escape the South and on September 3rd 1838, arriving in New York at the age of 21, he would finally embark on a life as a free man.

It would be only four or five months living in New Bedford before Douglass would meet William Lloyd Garrison, one of the most prominent leaders of the Abolitionist movement. It did not take long for Douglass to be invited along their speaking tours to recount his story as a runaway slave from the South.

Though Douglass would owe much of his future as a great orator and writer in thanks to his Abolitionist friends who gave him a strong start in this direction and introduced him to many important figures, Douglass would eventually distance himself from the Abolitionist “scripture”.

This distancing was caused by Douglass’ later recognition that there was in fact, no “pro-slavery” character in the U.S. Constitution as Garrison had been stating.

Douglass states,

After a time, a careful reconsideration of the subject convinced me that there was no necessity for dissolving the union between the northern and southern states, that to seek this dissolution was not part of my duty as an abolitionist, that to abstain from voting was to refuse to exercise a legitimate and powerful means for abolishing slavery, and that the Constitution of the United States not only contained no guarantees in favor of slavery, but, on the contrary, was in its letter and spirit an antislavery instrument, demanding the abolition of slavery as a condition of its own existence as the supreme law of the land.”

During this time, Douglass would start his own anti-slavery newspaper called “The North Star”. Along with this new editorial responsibility, Douglass would no longer leave it to the “good advice” of his “more learned” Abolitionist friends, but would take the responsibility upon himself to seek out and come to know whether such assertions by the Abolitionists on the nature of the Republic were true.

 “My new circumstances compelled me to re-think the whole subject, and to study with some care not only the just and proper rules of legal interpretation, but the origin, design, nature, rights, powers, and duties of civil governments, and also the relations which human beings sustain to it. By such a course of thought and reading I was conducted to the conclusion that the Constitution of the United States – inaugurated to ‘form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty’ – could not well have been designed at the same time to maintain and perpetuate a system of rapine and murder like slavery, especially as not one word can be found in the Constitution to authorize such a belief…the Constitution of our country is our warrant for the abolition of slavery in every state of the Union…being convinced of the fact, my duty upon this point in the further conduct of my paper [The North Star] was plain.”

Abraham Lincoln would be elected as the President of the United States on March 4th, 1861. To which Douglass stated of the occasion:

It was Mr. Lincoln who told the American people at this crisis that the ‘Union could not long endure half slave and half free; that they must be all one or the other, and that the public mind could find no resting place but in the belief in the ultimate extinction of slavery.’ These were not the words of an abolitionist – branded a fanatic, and carried away by an enthusiastic devotion to the Negro – but the calm cool, deliberate utterance of a statesman, comprehensive enough to take in the welfare of the whole country…In a few simple words he had embodied the thought of the loyal nation, and indicated the character fit to lead and guide the country amid perils present and to come.

On Meeting Lincoln

“I still believed, and spoke as I believed, all over the North, that the mission of the war was the liberation of the slave, as well as the salvation of the Union…” – Frederick Douglass

With this newly discovered orientation, Douglass not only put the preservation of the Union as something necessary and expedient but, most importantly, something that could not be sacrificed in striving for the Abolitionist cause.

Douglass would be one of the first to encourage the recruitment, through his paper “The North Star”, of black soldiers to join the Union’s war against the Confederate South. The thought was that by these men joining the war, they would prove their mettle in the cause for emancipation.

These were hard days, since black soldiers were not given equal treatment nor protection in the Union army. They also risked, if captured by the South, being enslaved, a sentence in Douglass’ words “worse than death”. Douglass had been assured that equal treatment would eventually occur, but it was too slow moving in his eyes and he refused to continue recruiting black soldiers into the Union army.

It was at this point that Douglass was invited to meet with President Lincoln to discuss his concerns over the matter.

Douglass describes his first meeting with Lincoln:

I was never more quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man than in that of Abraham Lincoln…Long lines of care were already deeply written on Mr. Lincoln’s brow, and his strong face, full of earnestness, lighted up as soon as my name was mentioned…I at once felt myself in the presence of an honest man – one whom I could love, honor, and trust without reserve or doubt.

One of the points of concern Douglass discussed with the President, was on the unfair treatment of black soldiers as POWs and suggested that the North should retaliate and commit the same treatment on their Southern POWs to dissuade this unequal treatment, to which Lincoln responded,

Retaliation was a terrible remedy, and one which it was very difficult to apply – that, if once begun, there was no telling where it would end – that if he could get hold of the Confederate soldiers who had been guilty of treating colored soldiers as felons he could easily retaliate, but the thought of hanging men for a crime perpetrated by others was revolting to his feelings…Though I was not entirely satisfied with his views, I was so well satisfied with the man and with the educating tendency of the conflict I determined to go on with the recruiting.

Douglass reflects on his decision:

“It was a great thing to achieve American independence when we numbered three millions, but it was a greater thing to save this country from dismemberment and ruin when it numbered thirty millions. He alone of all our presidents was to have the opportunity to destroy slavery, and to lift into manhood millions of his countrymen hitherto held as chattels and numbered with the beasts of the field.”

The Emancipation Proclamation

“Since William the Silent, who was the soul of the mighty war for religious liberty against Spain and the Spanish Inquisition, no leader of men has been loved and trusted in such generous measures as was Abraham Lincoln.”

– Frederick Douglass

During the third year of the sanguinary Civil War, January 1st 1863, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Douglass states of the occasion: “the formal and solemn announcement was made that thereafter the government would be found on the side of emancipation…It must be the end of all compromises with slavery – a declaration that thereafter the war was to be conducted on a new principle, with a new aim.

It was at this point that Lincoln received criticism for extending the war unnecessarily. The South was ready to make certain concessions and the North was eager to end the war. By Lincoln announcing the Emancipation Proclamation, it was thought by many to be a reckless provocation making any possibility of peace fruitless.

On this subject, Douglass would meet with Lincoln for the last time, before he would be assassinated.

The main subject on which he wished to confer with me was as to the means most desirable to be employed outside the army to induce the slaves in the rebel states to come within the deferral lines. The increasing opposition to the war, in the North, and the mad cry against it, because it was being made an abolition war, alarmed Mr. Lincoln, and made him apprehensive that a peace might be forced upon him which would leave still in slavery all who had not come within our lines. What he wanted was to make his proclamation as effective as possible in the event of such a peace…He said he was being accused of protracting the war beyond its legitimate object and failing to make peace when he might have done so to advantage. He was afraid of what might come of all these complaints, but was persuaded that no solid and lasting peace could come short of absolute submission on the part of the rebels [the South]…He saw the danger of premature peace…I was the more impressed by this benevolent consideration because he before said, in answer to the peace clamor, that his object was to save the Union, and to do so with or without slavery. What he said on this day showed a deeper moral conviction against slavery than I had ever seen before in anything spoken or written by him. I listened with the deepest interest and profoundest satisfaction, and, at his suggestion, agreed to undertake the organizing of a band of scouts, composed of colored men, whose business should be somewhat after the original plan of John Brown, to go into the rebel states, beyond the lines of our armies, and to carry the news of emancipation, and urge the slaves to come within our boundaries.

…I refer to this conversation because I think that, on Mr. Lincoln’s part, it is evidence conclusive that the proclamation, so far at least as he was concerned, was not effected merely as a [political] ‘necessity’.

President Lincoln would be selected to continue a second term and was inaugurated on March 4th, 1865. About one month after the official end of the Civil War. Lincoln would be assassinated just a mere 41 days after his second inauguration.

Douglass writes, “His first inauguration arrested the fall of the Republic, and the second was to restore it to enduring foundations.” The fact that Lincoln’s leadership was savagely cut short was a tragedy for all who understood that the true foundation of the Republic was built upon the principle “liberty for all”.

In that sad moment, when the country heard of the death of their leader who was to bring them closer to this goal, Douglass states,

“We shared in common a terrible calamity, and this ‘touch of nature made us’ more than countrymen, it made us ‘kin’.”

Reflections on the Past

It is an utmost testament to the grace and nobility of Frederick Douglass’ character that an soon as the law and spirit of slavery had been broken, he made a point to no longer harbour hate and resentment for the past wrongs committed upon himself. He recognised that humanity was indeed inherently good and would ultimately strive towards goodness if left to its natural tendency… that to punish the children of those who committed crimes before them would destroy any good that ever existed in the world.

Douglass recounts,

If any reader of this part of my life shall see in it the evidence of a want of manly resentment for wrongs inflicted by slavery upon myself and race, and by the ancestors of…[those who once owned slaves], so it must be. No man can be stronger than nature, one touch of which, we are told, makes all the world akin. I esteem myself a good, persistent hater of injustice and oppression, but my resentment ceases when they cease, and I have no heart to visit upon children the sins of their father.

I will end here with an account of Douglass when he revisits the place where he was born a “slave” and sees his former “master” Captain Auld, upon his request on his deathbed, after his escape to the North over 25 years ago:

But now that slavery was destroyed, and the slave and the master stood upon equal ground, I was not only willing to meet him, but was very glad to do so…He was to me no longer a slaveholder either in fact or in spirit, and I regarded him as I did myself, a victim of the circumstances of birth, education, law, and custom.

Our courses had been determined for us, not by us. We had both been flung, by powers that did not ask our consent, upon a mighty current of life, which we could neither resist, nor control. By this current he was a master, and I a slave, but now our lives were verging towards a point where differences disappear, where even the constancy of hate breaks down and where the clouds of pride, passion, and selfishness vanish before the brightness of infinite light.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Cynthia Chung is a lecturer, writer and co-founder and editor of the Rising Tide Foundation (Montreal, Canada).

Note

(1) This paper has used Douglass’ account of American history from his writings in his autobiography “Life and Times of Frederick Douglass”, for which the full pdf version can be found here.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

The UK’s imposition of so-called “humanitarian sanctions” against 49 individuals from Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, and Saudi Arabia that it claims are supposedly involved in “human rights abuses” is nothing more than London following its “big brother’s” lead from “across the pond” in the post-Brexit era, proving that the former superpower is well past its geopolitical prime and is increasingly turning into an American proxy instead of taking the historic opportunity to pursue a more independent foreign policy.

***

The UK is well past its geopolitical prime as the former superpower that it once was two centuries ago and is increasingly turning into an American proxy in the post-Brexit era following its imposition of so-called “humanitarian sanctions” against 49 individuals from Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, and Saudi Arabia that it claims are supposedly involved in “human rights abuses”. Britain is following the lead of its “big brother” from “across the pond” as it struggles to carve out a place for itself in the world after leaving the EU four years ago.

Instead of pursuing a comparatively more independent foreign policy, its leadership has simply opted for switching one patron with another. Brussels demanded full compliance with the bloc’s domestic policies while Washington demands the same when it comes to its foreign policy. This development shouldn’t have been surprising since the author observed last month how “MI6 Might Become The CIA’s Proxy For Stopping Europe From Moving Towards Russia“, with this latest move just being the next more public step in that direction.

It was predictable enough that the UK would target Russia considering the fake news scandal a few years ago surrounding former spy Sergei Skripal‘s failed assassination that London decided to blame on Moscow, and so-called “rogue states” like Myanmar and North Korea are natural targets whenever a country wants to virtue signal its commitment to so-called “human rights”, but Saudi Arabia’s inclusion wasn’t foreseen by many considering that the UK sells lots of armaments to the Wahhabi Kingdom and supports its War on Yemen.

The Khashoggi Incident seems to have effected change in how the UK perceives its traditional ally, at least superficially, and it speaks to what might be a forthcoming pressure campaign against the Kingdom on a similar such “soft power” basis as Western countries seek to punish it for strengthening ties with their Russian and Chinese rivals like it’s done in recent years. Trump doesn’t seem too keen on this considering that he needs Saudi Arabia’s support to “contain” Iran, but a Biden Presidency might take this opportunity and run with it.

Missing from the list of countries where the sanctioned individuals are from is China, which warned just hours before the UK’s announcement that “Britain will have to bear the consequences if it treats China as a hostile country”. Although this was said in reaction to the UK’s possible move to restrict Huawei’s access to the country’s domestic market and following similar threats in response to London’s flirtation with granting residency to anti-government individuals from Hong Kong, the timing might not be coincidental.

It wasn’t a secret that the UK was considering so-called “humanitarian sanctions” after it passed the “Magnitsky Amendment” in 2018, but it had hitherto been unclear exactly who it would target. The ever-intensifying New Cold War between the US and China that entered an unprecedentedly fierce stage since the start of the year made it reasonable enough to assume that some Chinese officials might have been on the list seeing as how Britain’s “big brother” from “across the pond” is targeting some of them in Hong Kong and Xinjiang.

The UK, at least at this point in time, knows better than to “poke the dragon” due to these two countries’ very close economic ties, but it can’t be guaranteed that it won’t one day “cross the Rubicon” by targeting Chinese officials in order to please its new American patron. It would likely only do so in the scenario that the US offers it some tangible economic incentives to cushion the damage from any reciprocal Chinese moves, which might be exactly what CIA strategists are now plotting after London got the ball rolling with its recent sanctions.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

Leading global human rights abuser USA is followed by Britain close behind.

Time and again, ruling authorities of both countries accuse other nations for their own high crimes — notably relating to wars of aggression they wage against nonbelligerent states threatening no one, along with their longstanding human rights abuses internally and abroad.

Cold War politics is back with a vengeance on multiple fronts.

It never went away but today it’s at a fever pitch — China, Russia, and Iran the prime targets.

Other nations are also targeted for non-submissiveness to unacceptable hegemonic US demands.

On issues of war and peace, the rule of law, and human rights abuses, the US far and away is the main offender, Britain a junior partner in its imperial project.

The politically motivated US 2012 Magnitsky Act targets Russian officials to the present day for the death of Sergey Magnitsky no evidence proves they had anything to do with.

It calls for imposition of visa bans, asset freezes, and other sanctions on Russian nationals accused of committing human rights abuses — no corroborating evidence needed, US high crimes on a global scale ignored.

At the time of enactment, Sergey Lavrov called the measure “anti-Russia.” Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov warned of tough countermeasures, calling the hostile bill “outrageous…inadmissible” extraterritorial legislation.

A Russian Foreign Ministry statement called its enactment “cynical,” adding:

“We regret that (the Obama regime’s) declar(ation) (of) its commitment to the development of stable and constructive bilateral relations was unable to defend its stated position against those who look to the past and see our country not as a partner, but rather an opponent – fully in line with the canons of the Cold War.”

Vladimir Putin denounced the measure as a “purely political, unfriendly act,” adding:

“I don’t understand why Russian-US relations should be sacrificed for some domestic political gain.”

“The (Obama regime’s) stance is to ignore crimes against Russian orphans adopted by US parents and not to punish the criminals.”

“Russian observers are not even allowed to attend such trials, and I find this unacceptable.”

The measure was and remains one of many ways the US wages war on Russia by other means — why diplomatic outreach by its officials most often accomplishes little or nothing.

Magnitsky was a Russian attorney. In 2009, he died in police custody, his death drawing international media attention.

Specializing in civil law, he did anti-corruption work, uncovering evidence of tax fraud — implicating police, judiciary figures, tax officials, bankers, and Russia’s mafia.

On issues relating to courts, taxes, fines, and civil law, he was considered the “go to guy” in Moscow.

In November 2008, he was arrested, imprisoned, and mistreated — for 11 months denied family visits.

Serious health problems developed. Inadequate treatment followed.

On November 16, 2009, he died for reasons attributed to a “rupture to the abdominal membrane” and subsequent heart attack.

Weeks later, an independent Moscow Public Oversight Commission said he was subjected to “psychological and physical pressure…”

Initially his death was blamed on medical neglect. Later claims suggested murder.

An official investigation undertaken in July 2011 ruled that Magnitsky died from medical neglect.

His mistreatment, leading to death, at the hands of prison officials was no just cause to punish Russian ruling authorities.

This action and countless others like it risk rupturing bilateral relations or potentially something worse between the world’s dominant nuclear powers.

US war by hot and other means rages against all nations it doesn’t control, world peace and the rule of law ignored in pursuit of its imperial aims.

On July 6, UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Rabb announced new (unlawful) sanctions on Russia, citing Magnitsky legislation as unjustifiable justification.

Targeting Russia, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and North Korea, Moscow was target No. 1 — China notably omitted.

Separately, its envoy to Britain Liu Xiaoming accused the Boris Johnson regime of unlawful “gross interference” in China’s internal affairs, adding:

“(T)he UK has no sovereignty, jurisdiction or right of supervision over Hong Kong.”

Nor does the US or any other country. Liu’s remarks were over unjustifiable US-led criticism of Beijing’s new national security law.

UK’s Rabb dubiously accused 25 Russian nationals of “involve(ment) in the mistreatment and death of… Magnitsky…”

Why the unjustifiable act was resurrected by the Boris Johnson regime to continue Britain’s war on Russia by other means was left unexplained.

Rabb defied reality, reinventing Britain as “a global force for good (sic)…commit(ted) to the rules-based international system and to standing up for victims of human rights violations and abuses around the world (sic).”

Ignored were longstanding UK high crimes of war, against humanity, genocide, and other human rights abuses in one country after another in partnership with Washington’s imperial project.

Sanctions imposed on officials of Russia and other targeted nations have no validity under international law.

The same holds for all unilaterally imposed sanctions by one nation on others.

Rabb’s announced sanctions marked the first time Britain took this action on its own, separate from other European nations — imposing financial asset freezes and banning entry of targeted individuals into the UK, as well as forbidding their involvement in business dealings in the country.

Moscow’s Investigative Committee head Alexander Bastrykin, Deputy Prosecutor General Vikotr Grin, and Deputy Minister of the Interior Ministry Alexey Anichin were three of 25 Russian officials targeted.

Earlier they were sanctioned by the US for alleged involvement in Magnitsky’s death, part of longstanding US war on Russia by other means.

These actions were and remain largely symbolic. Separately from Rabb’s Monday remarks, Britain’s Foreign Office said the following:

Sanctions on targeted “individuals and organizations are the first wave of designations under the new regime, with further sanctions expected in the coming months.”

Twenty Saudi officials were sanctioned in connection with Jamal Khashoggi’s October 2018 murder.

Ordered by crown prince/de facto ruler Mohammad Bin Salman, he was not among named individuals targeted.

Pompeo praised Britain’s unlawful action, saying the following:

“This sanctions regime marks the beginning of a new era for UK sanctions policy and cooperation between our two democracies (sic),” adding:

“The United States will continue to seek out additional allies and partners to jointly leverage all tools at our disposal to deny access to the US and international financial systems to all those who engage in serious human rights abuses (sic).”

Omitted from the US/UK sanctions list are the world’s most grievous human rights abusers — namely themselves, Israel, and other key imperial allies that are complicit in the highest of high crimes.

Russia justifiably considers Magnitsky legislation and similar US actions a breach of its obligations under international law.

No nations may legally interfere in the internal affairs of others.

Acting this way is longstanding US policy, wars by hot and other means its favored strategies.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from TruePublica

Finally: A Way Out of this Mess!

July 7th, 2020 by Philip A Farruggio

First off, this writer is simply a Socialist- not a Marxist or Trotskyite or Stalinist, Leninist or whatever flavor of left wing tastes there are.

All of them are categorically better than what we here in Amerika (and most of the industrialized world) live under. That being Corporate Capitalism On Steroids! Yes, what Adam Smith proselytized hundreds of years ago is nothing like what this current mess is all about. This is actually as close to Fascism as one can get. Not being an economist I will leave it at that for now. Let’s just say that David Korten’s 1995 book ‘When Corporations Rule the World’ explains how Neo Liberal mindsets serve not only our Military Industrial Empire, but ALL the nations that are held hostage by this way of thinking.

Is there a way out of this mess? Why not this:

Tax the Super Rich – We need to institute a ‘Millionaire Surtax’. Easy to do. Just legislate a 50% Flat Surtax on any and all income over and above $ 1,000,000 per year. Let the super rich be taxed on their first million of income as they are now. Just surtax, with NO deductions, a flat 50% of anything over that first $ million. Come on, you mean someone currently earning let us say $ 10 million a year cannot survive and prosper keeping $ 4.5 million tax free? Why not do a poll amongst those of us earning up to $ 1 million per year, and see if they think this would be fair. Imagine how much revenue our Treasury would obtain. Imagine how those extra $ billions could be used for a myriad of things, from upgrading our sagging infrastructure, offering Medicare for All, better schools, libraries ( who need books so dearly), public transportation … and on and on.

Immediate cut of 25% from Military Spending – If you ask the average citizen how much of his or her federal taxes goes toward military spending, you will most likely get answers from 10% to maybe 20%. The sad reality is that over half, 50+%,  goes down that rabbit hole! What is publicized is that over $ 700 billion per year goes for just that. Factor in the ‘Black Budget’ of funds that go for similar means AKA NSA and CIA operations, and you can see the utter contempt that this empire has for its citizens. Imagine what $175+ billion per year can do to once again MAGA (Make America Great Again) , not for phony walls at the border or more overkill WMDs.

Closure of a multitude of our 1000 foreign military bases worldwide – Bringing home the majority of our personnel and equipment will save hundreds of billions of dollars, and take our jackboot off of the 100+ countries we  currently have bases in. Then, to the joy of our Governors and business community, we can restock our domestic bases with millions of military personnel. The towns around those bases would see real economic stimulus. Everybody wins… except the empire’s handlers.

Institute an immediate UBI (Universal Basic Income) – In 2008-09 Uncle Sam just created money electronically to bail out the failed predators and scoundrels in the banking and real estate sector. As public banking and UBI advocate Ellen Brown stated many times on my radio show, a Universal Basic Income of anywhere from $1000- $ 2000 per month per citizen is not only NON INFLATIONARY, but true ECONOMIC STIMULUS. This could mean the difference, for many of us, from being out on the street… Period!! Plus, it could see mega millions of working stiffs finally being able to afford a home or apartment of their own, instead of being at the whim of Absentee Landlords. With this current pandemic crisis one would think that the sharks who own hundreds of millions of rental properties would salivate when getting paid for back rent.

In conclusion, yes there are more needed changes in our current system. I think, for the time being, these four ideas can bear the fruit we all envision. Yes, this writer is what one would call a Reformer as opposed to a Revolutionary. Alas, with the state of the sophistication level of the majority of our fellow citizens, this should suffice.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image is from Newsmax.com

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”— George Santayana

Introduction:

The term “hybrid warfare” describes a strategy that employs conventional military force supported by irregular and cyber warfare tactics. … This change now requires the U.S. and its allies to adopt a new legal, psychological, and strategic understanding of warfare and use of force, particularly by state actors.

The term “hybrid warfare” describes a strategy that employs conventional military force supported by irregular and cyber warfare tactics.

Conventional Western concepts of war are incompatible and fundamentally misaligned with the realities of conflict in the twenty-first century. The emergence of a unipolar post-Cold War world order has resulted in a significant paradigm shift.[1]

One of the tactics used to achieve Hybrid-warfare goals is Propaganda warfare. Use of mass communication for propaganda. The growth of mass communication networks offers powerful propaganda and recruiting tools. The use of fake news websites to spread false stories is an element of hybrid warfare.[2] 

The Horn of Africa region has recently been the stage for a number of international actors that aim to expand their foreign policy reach. This can be seen from Turkey’s increasing relations with Somalia, China and Russia’s (Zylac-northern united Somalia) decision to establish military bases and the United Arab Emirates’ economic, political and military activities taking place particularly in Somalia and Djibouti.

More seriously, the UAE has injected itself in current Djibouti and Somali socio-political, security, and governance issues since early 2019 and culminating this year, bringing vast amount of political slush funds in order to destabilize, create social unrest the Federal Government and FM states and funding to local proxy politicians for outright regime changes in Djibouti and Mogadishu. 

UAE debacle in Somalia

Since late 2019 when the Somali federal gov. and the breakaway region of ‘Somaliland’ which was mediated by Ethiopian PM Abiyi Ahmed, initially in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The Talks between Somalia and the breakaway Somaliland region was hailed as historic, as kick-starting a political dialogue between the two to resolve their longstanding differences.

Somalia President Mohamed Abdullahi Formajo and Somaliland leader Moussa Bihi Abdi met on June 14th, in Djibouti, their neighbor in the Horn of Africa, in the presence of Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, the Nobel laureate who in 2020 brought the two sides together in Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital.[3]

The UAE using its fast networks of local proxies and available financial resources at its disposal, has created a dangerous political, social and security discourse among the governments as well. UAE and its allies local proxies are doing all they can, to smear to derail  the Somali Transitional Federal Government’s (TFG)  progressive course, and to arrest its increasingly positive and optimistic influence in uniting all Somali factions in peace and unity.

There is an unconfirmed report that the UAE has taken steps in bringing  lots of slush money (over $700 million) in support of its geostrategic and political goals in Somalia, aiming to use its local collaborators as proxies. The Abu Dhabi administration wants to cover up its failed foreign policy in  Somalia with the illusion of  creating dissolution of  the federal Somali parliament and resignation of current government of President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo  by creating a constitutional crisis and thus a coup d’état where speakers of both (upper +lower) Hses will claim personal  insecurities and threats to their safety and seek political asylum overseas in western countries.[4] The United Arab Emirates government ratchets up its hybrid war on both Djibouti and Somalia with a war chest of $700 million dollars since mid-may, 2020, taking advantage of internal discourses and  social upheavals in both nations.[4]

Local Opposition trying to capitalize diplomatic row

Somali opposition groups are seizing on the soured relations between Abdullahi Mohamed’s government and Abu Dhabi by accusing the government of actively moving towards the Turkish-Qatari alliance and thus endangering their vital relationship with other Gulf States. Ahmed Madobe, President of the Jubaland region in Somalia, expressed his support for the UAE back in May, while criticising the diplomatic strategy of Mogadishu. Abdullahi Mohamed’s rivals will likely continue to exploit this fractured relationship as they push for increased support from Gulf States in their efforts to expand influence within Somalia. If the UAE develops more relationship with local leaders, like it has done with Puntland, then it risks calling into question the legitimacy of Abdullahi Mohamed’s government and thus provide more incentive for conflict and power grabbing.[5]

The UAE needs to be aware that it is playing with fire if it exploits these divisions. Disrupting the fragile state of stability that Somalia is slowly working towards does nothing for the UAE’s ambition to be seen as a key peace broker in the region. The same can be said over the UAE’s refusal to take responsibility for its role in militant funding in the country.[6, 7]

Conclusion

Another country recently experiencing tension with the UAE is Djibouti. The relations between these two countries soured in February 2018 with Djibouti’s decision to nationalize the Doraleh Port, which was run by the UAE-based company DP World since 2009. Following a 30-year agreement in 2006 between Djibouti and DP World, the company was supposed to operate the port at a maximum capacity. However, the Djibouti administration realized that the Doraleh Port has been operating with less than %50 of its full capacity. The Djibouti government thus argued that DP World’s main motivation to keep Doraleh port at the lowest capacity was to sustain the maximum level of activity at the Dubai port, the leading location of maritime transport in the region.

The Djibouti government also claimed that the deal with DP World in 2006 was in contrast with the national interests due to malpractices of Djiboutian officials involved at that time, and this was the main reason for the cancellation of the agreement. In the aftermath of the decision, Djibouti forces seized the Doraleh Port and suspended the activities of DP World.

It is clear that there are deepening tensions between the UAE and two strategic players in the Horn of Africa, namely Somalia and Djbouti. It can be said that there are three major reasons for that. First of all, the UAE does not respect the national sovereignty of these countries and prioritizes its interests even if they contradict  these countries’ national sovereignty. The second reason is related to the nature of the UAE activities in the region. The Somalia and Djibouti governments are not comfortable with the UAE-sponsored ports and military bases, mainly because of their long-term negative impacts on these countries. The final reason is that there are a number of emerging international actors such as Turkey, Russia and China, which have developed good relations with Somalia and Djibouti. This has caused them to reconsider their relations with aggressive actors in the region such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia.[8, 9, 10]

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Prof. Dr. Bischara A. EGAL, is Executive director & Researcher at  The Horn of Africa Center for Strategic & International Studies (Horncsis.org).

Notes

1. Hybrid Warfare From Wikipedia,( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_warfare accessed on june11, 2020)

2. McCuen, John J. “Hybrid Wars.” Military Review. Mar/Apr 2008, Vol. 88 Issue 2, p. 107-113.

3. Ball, Joshua, What is Hybrid war? Non-linear combat at the 21stCentury(2019)https://globalsecurityreview.com/hybrid-and-non-linear-warfare-systematically-erases-the-divide-between-war-peace/(AccessedJune 11, 2020)

4. Somalia- Somaliland talks : Djibouti to mediate by and Ethiopian Govts with US, EU as facilitators ; Africanews, june 19, 2020 https://www.africanews.com/2020/06/19/somalia-somaliland-leaders-to-meet-in-djibouti-next-week//(accessedjuly2, 2020)

5. Xassan Cabdi Ceynaanshe : Soomaaliyey ogaadhe Khatarte Mucaaretka & Duulaanka Cadawga (accessed june 29, 2020) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwQcXZR1GF4&list=RDCMUCLtclOp7kgcAlSa_XG4s0rw&start_radio=1&t=738

6. Ibid      Gudoomiye –Yaasha labad Gole & Magalad –Qabiilka iyo Qaran(11june2020)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDjYevR0yLU&t=36s(accessedjune 21, 2020)

7. Deg Deg Imaaraatka & Kenya Oo Ka Shaqyenaya burburiinta Heswhiiska DF + S/Land https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG4QbiG8_Es&feature=youtu.be(accessedjune16, 2020)

8. Talci, Ismail Numan , “ From cooperation to Conflict: the UAE’s deepening Crisis with Somalia and Djibouti, April 26, 2018.https://politicstoday.org/from-cooperation-to-conflict-the-uaes-deepening-crisis-with-somalia-and-djibouti/(accessedjune 16, 2020)

9. Cold war in Somalia: Gulf States Game; Security and Influence. By Gulffutres.org. 12, 2020https://gulffutures.org/en/archives/2498(accessedjune 14, 2020)

10. https://smallwarsjournal.com/comment/47212(accessedJune 11, 2020)

11. Frank Hoffman, Conflict in the 21stCentury: The Rise of Hybrid War, (Arlington: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, 2007), 20-22.

12. Cold War in Somalia by https://gulffutures.org/en/archives/2982

13. https://www.dailysabah.com/op-ed/2017/11/17/united-arab-emirates-plays-destructive-role-in-somalia(accessedjune 14, 2020)

14. Qaran TV- Deg Deg diidneey in nala iibsado imaaraatka Oo isku dyaya Madaxda, July 1st, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgBt_GBti8E&feature=push-u-sub&attr_tag=ivUfMDzsim5nTL8V%3A6(accessedjuly 1st, 2020)

15. https://www.tesfanews.net/detention-torture-air-force-pilot-ignites-djibouti-protest/

16. Somalia rejects “ridiculous” UAE incentive to join Yemen War, June 30th, 2020 https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200630-somalia-rejects-ridiculous-uae-incentive-to-join-yemen-war/#.XwGKAapLhUE.twitter

All images in this article are from the author

Centinaia di migliaia di vittime civili, oltre 2.400 soldati Usa uccisi (più un numero imprecisato di feriti), circa 1.000 miliardi di dollari spesi: questo in sintesi il bilancio dei 19 anni di guerra Usa in Afghanistan, cui si aggiunge il costo per gli alleati Nato (Italia compresa) e altri che hanno affiancato gli Usa nella guerra.

Bilancio fallimentare per gli Usa anche sotto il profilo politico-militare: la maggior parte del territorio è oggi controllata dai Talebani o contesa tra questi e le forze governative sostenute dalla Nato.

Su tale sfondo, dopo lunghe trattative, l’amministrazione Trump ha concluso lo scorso febbraio un accordo con i Talebani, che prevede, in cambio di una serie di garanzie, la riduzione del numero delle truppe Usa in Afghanistan da 8.600 a 4.500. Ciò non significa la fine dell’intervento militare Usa in Afghanistan, che continua con forze speciali, droni e bombardieri. L’accordo, comunque, aprirebbe la via a una de-escalation del conflitto armato.

Pochi mesi dopo la firma, però, esso è stato rotto: non dai Talebani afghani ma dai Democratici statunitensi. Essi hanno fatto passare al Congresso un emendamento all’Atto di autorizzazione che stanzia 740,5 miliardi di dollari per il budget del Pentagono nell’anno fiscale 2021. L’emendamento, approvato il 2 luglio dal Comitato dei servizi armati a grande maggioranza con i voti del Democratici, stabilisce di «limitare l’uso di fondi per ridurre il numero di forze armate dispiegate in Afghanistan».

Esso proibisce al Pentagono di spendere i fondi in suo possesso per qualsiasi attività che riduca il numero dei soldati Usa in Afghanistan al di sotto degli 8.000: l’accordo, che comporta la riduzione delle truppe Usa in Afghanistan, viene così di fatto bloccato. Significativo è che l’emendamento sia stato presentato non solo dal democratico Jason Crow ma anche dalla repubblicana Liz Cheney, che fornisce il suo avallo in perfetto stile bipartisan. Liz è figlia di Dick Cheney, vicepresidente degli Stati Uniti dal 2001 al 2009 nell’amministrazione di George W.Bush, quella che decise l’invasione e occupazione dell’Afghanistan (ufficialmente per dare la caccia a Osama bin Laden).

L’emendamento condanna esplicitamente l’accordo, sostenendo che danneggia «gli interessi di sicurezza nazionale degli Stati uniti», «non rappresenta una realistica soluzione diplomatica» e «non fornisce protezione a popolazioni vulnerabili». Per essere autorizzato a ridurre le proprie truppe in Afghanistan, il Pentagono dovrà certificare che ciò «non comprometterà la missione antiterrorismo degli Stati uniti».

Non a caso il New York Times ha pubblicato il 26 giugno un articolo che, in base a informazioni fornite (senza alcuna prova) da agenti dell’intelligence Usa, accusa «una unità dell’intelligence militare russa di aver offerto a militanti talebani una taglia per uccidere soldati della Coalizione in Afghanistan, prendendo di mira soprattutto quelli americani». La notizia è stata diffusa dai principali media statunitensi, senza che nessun cacciatore di fake news ne mettesse in dubbio la veridicità.

Una settimana dopo al Congresso è passato l’emendamento che impedisce la riduzione delle truppe Usa in Afghanistan. Ciò conferma quale sia il reale scopo dell’intervento militare Usa/Nato in Afghanistan: il controllo di quest’area di primaria importanza strategica. L’Afghanistan è al crocevia tra Medio Oriente, Asia centrale, meridionale e orientale.

In quest’area (nel Golfo e nel Caspio) si trovano grandi riserve petrolifere. Si trovano Russia e Cina, la cui forza sta crescendo e influendo sugli assetti globali. Come aveva avvertito il Pentagono in un rapporto del 30 settembre 2001, una settimana prima dell’invasione Usa dell’Afghanistan, «esiste la possibilità che emerga in Asia un rivale con una formidabile base di risorse». Possibilità che ora si sta materializzando.

Gli «interessi di sicurezza nazionale degli Stati uniti» impongono di restare in Afghanistan, costi quello che costi.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Siluro bipartisan contro l’accordo per l’Afghanistan

Clashes between government forces and ISIS terrorists have continued in central Syria since July 2, when ISIS cells stormed army positions in eastern Homs. In response, the Syrians supported by the Russian Aerospace Forces launched a security operation in the desert. Sporadic clashes and airstrikes were reported in the area over the next few days.

On July 4, ISIS terrorists even ambushed a unit of the Syrian Army in eastern Homs. The military reportedly lost contact with 25 soldiers in eastern Homs. As of July 6, their fate remains unclear. It’s likely that, members of the dispersed unit are now returning to their permanent positions in the province.

Pro-opposition sources claim that over the past week, at least 20 soldiers were killed in clashes with ISIS members. Pro-government sources do not provide details regarding army casualties, but say that government forces were able to destroy 3 ISIS vehicles and neutralize up to 10 ISIS members.

As the Syrian government fights ISIS on the western bank of the Euphrates, the US-led coalition conducted a raid against the terrorist group in the town of Husayn on the eastern bank of the Euphrates.

On July 5, US helicopters landed near the town and US forces assisted by members of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) detained at least 4 suspects.

Meanwhile, the SDF leadership declared that it does not see a possibility to reach a comprehensive political agreement with Damascus because the government wants to restore full control over the provinces of Deir Ezozr and Raqqa in the framework of such a deal.

SDF Commander-in-Chief Abdi Şahin better known by his nom de guerre Mazlum Abdi declined such a possibility claiming that the Kurdish-led group wants to keep control of all the areas that it has seized. Abdi is a member of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which seeks to create an independent Kurdish state in southern Turkey and, if it’s possible, include into it territories of northern Syria and northern Iraq. Therefore, such a position of the SDF leadership is not a big surprise.

In 2019, the Syrian Army came to northeastern Syria to rescue the SDF from the Turkish military advance when the group then abandoned by the US-led coalition needed it. However, after this, the Kurdish leadership once again turned back from the Syrian people selling its loyalty to Washington for weapons and a share of oil revenue from the US-controlled Syrian oilfields.

Infighting among Turkish-backed militant groups erupted in the provinces of al-Hasakah and Raqqa on July 3 and July 5. Tell Abyad, al-Yabisah and Ras al-Ain are the man hot points. At least 5 militants and several civilians were killed. The main source of tensions is the intra-militant competition for control of roads, agricultural lands and trade in a small chunk of area occupied by Turkey in northeastern Syria. The funding from Turkey decreased after the de-escalation of the conflict in this part of the country. So, Turkish-backed fighters are now looting the captured areas to obtain the needed financial resources.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected]http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

To drive home just how superficial and empty recent protests in America are and how little besides further division and destruction will become of them – take the fate of two fictional characters recently put in the spotlight by baying activists – PepsiCo’s “Aunt Jemima” breakfast food brand and Mars Incorporated’s “Uncle Ben’s” rice products.

Both came into the crosshairs of “woke” America. Both fictional characters will now no longer be used.

It might appear like a huge victory for “woke” America.

CNN in their article, “The Aunt Jemima brand, acknowledging its racist past, will be retired,” would claim:

Quaker Oats is retiring the more than 130-year-old Aunt Jemima brand and logo, acknowledging its origins are based on a racial stereotype.

“As we work to make progress toward racial equality through several initiatives, we also must take a hard look at our portfolio of brands and ensure they reflect our values and meet our consumers’ expectations,” the Pepsi-owned company said in a statement provided to CNN Business.

And the London Guardian in their article, “Uncle Ben’s rice firm to scrap brand image of black farmer,” would claim:

The rice company Uncle Ben’s is to scrap the image of a black farmer the brand has used since the 1940s and could change its name, as companies react to growing concerns over racial bias and injustice.

The parent company, Mars, said Uncle Ben was a fictional character whose name was first used in 1946 as a reference to an African American Texan rice farmer.

While there is no doubt that both fictional characters represented stereotypes and are rooted in America’s racist past – “woke” America’s belief that somehow this was a priority or some form of victory begs belief. So does the fact that those opposed to expanding mobs and their “cancel culture” have crafted the most anemic counterpoints.

Some claim that the fictional characters were either inspired or portrayed by real African Americans who profited from the branding.

What neither side mentioned was the very real abuses both companies are guilty of – abuses that are both inhumane and rooted in extraordinary, inexcusable, and thus far utterly unaddressed racism.

PepsiCo and Mars Sponsor/Profit From Slavery and Mass Murder 

Both “woke” America as well as those trying to form opposition to it have entirely missed the fact that PepsiCo and Mars Inc. – two multi-billion dollar businesses – are literally engage in modern day slavery to create their products while sponsoring policy think-tanks that have engineered wars targeting African nations, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands and open-air slave markets where black people – today – are sold into bondage.

This would seem to be a much greater transgression against black people than their crude depictions in company branding and demand much more serious action than merely adjusting marketing strategies – such as demanding boards of directors to resign or full-spectrum, permanent boycotts for these businesses and their many subsidiaries and brands.

Unfortunately for “woke” America, fictional characters are a priority taken head-on all while activists blissfully munch on chocolate bars made by cocoa harvested by African slave labor and sip on drinks made by a corporation who sponsors US wars abroad in which blacks are mass murdered and enslaved.

Your Mars Inc. Chocolate Comes from Slave Labor

If you enjoy chocolate snacks like 3 Musketeers, Snickers, Mars, and Milky Way bars, the chocolate you ate most likely came from a developing nation with dismal working conditions and in many cases, child and slave labor.

Mars Inc. along with Nestle, Hershey, and many other chocolate companies, source cocoa from Africa and specially the nations of Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana.

A Washington Post article published just last year titled, “Cocoa’s child laborers,” would note:

Mars, Nestlé and Hershey pledged nearly two decades ago to stop using cocoa harvested by children. Yet much of the chocolate you buy still starts with child labor.

The article elaborated, noting:

About two-thirds of the world’s cocoa supply comes from West Africa where, according to a 2015 U.S. Labor Department report, more than 2 million children were engaged in dangerous labor in cocoa-growing regions.

When asked this spring, representatives of some of the biggest and best-known brands — Hershey, Mars and Nestlé — could not guarantee that any of their chocolates were produced without child labor.

Black children used as labor and under conditions and for wages bordering slavery to produce cocoa Mars Inc. knowingly uses in its products – and makes billions of dollars off of – seems like a much bigger issue than what is undoubtedly offensive labelling practiced by Mars Inc. through its “Uncle Ben’s” brand.

Indicative of the carefully controlled nature of ongoing protests is how the Washington Post has reported on Mars Inc.’s genuinely offensive, even criminal predation on black labor in Africa in the past as well as Mars Inc.’s offensive branding more recently, but failed to link the two in its most recent reporting – thus artfully avoiding a genuinely “woke” readership and any genuine damage real protests and boycotts would have on Mars Inc. and other corporations whose interests Washington Post regularly serves as a voice for.

Big-Biz like PepsiCo and Mars Inc. are an Affront to All

Mars Inc. – alongside PepsiCo, Nestle, and Hersey – was also involved in funding anti-labelling campaigns to prevent legislation from passing that would force food manufacturers to inform consumers their products contained genetically modified organisms (GMO).

Corporations spending money to hide dangerous ingredients from consumers endangers everyone’s health – black and white, left and right.

Mars Inc., PepsiCo, and others defend such campaigning, claiming that such legislation would be “costly” – as would ensuring  all of their ingredients are ethically procured and free of child and/or slave labor.

Yet Mars Inc., PepsiCo, and others are multi-billion dollar businesses. The Mars family which owns Mars Inc. consists mostly of family members who are billionaires – not mere millionaires – but billionaires.

Their daily “concerns” include ensuring their sprawling 82,000 acre ranches have enough water and that they receive the most lenient penalties when crashing their Porsche SUV’s into vans carrying families.

Mars Inc. and other multi-billion dollar businesses can afford to do better, simply at the cost of being slightly less well-off billionaires or perhaps even being demoted to millionaires – yet they simply and deliberately choose to profit off the backs of poorly informed consumers at home and exploited/enslaved labor abroad.

If what Mars Inc. and PepsiCo contributed too was only limited to cultivating ignorant consumers at home and using slave labor abroad it would be bad enough. And if America’s “woke revolution” was serious about justice, Mars Inc. and PepsiCo would be on the chopping block for much more than their crude, racist marketing, and would have more demanded of them.
But that is not all Mars Inc. and PepsiCo are contributing to.

Sponsoring Warmongering and Mass Murder in Africa (and everywhere else)

Both PepsiCo and Mars Inc. are sponsors of policy think tanks like the Brookings Institution whose “scholars” and “fellows” churn out the blueprints for US wars which are then rubber stamped by the US Congress and sold to the public by the corporate media.

Even as recently as Brooking Institution’s 2019 annual report (PDF) both companies – PepsiCo and Mars Inc. – are listed as sponsors as were both companies in 2011 (PDF).

Brookings and its corporate-sponsored staff worked diligently in 2011 to help sell the US military intervention in the North African nation of Libya. It was a key institution involved in creating and spreading the notion of “R2P” or the “responsibility to protect” used as flimsy cover for a long-planned US desire to effect regime change in Libya.

As early as February 2011, the Brookings Institution published articles and papers like, “United States Must Take Lead on Libya,” in which Brookings “Senior Fellows” – funded by the likes of PepsiCo and Mars Inc. – made the nascent calls for US military intervention that would eventually lead to the US arming militants openly and carrying out air strikes across the nation.

Indeed, the US armed militants in eastern Libya – a hotbed for racism and extremism and the epicenters of Al Qaeda in the country – as well as provided roving bands of armed gangs air support as they swept the nation.

When Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi was violently swept from power later that year, the estimated 2.5 million Africans from across the continent he took in, providing housing and living wages to, found themselves being hunted by US-backed militants.

To explain the blatant and explosive racism that predictably swept Libya in the wake of the US-backed war, articles like the CS Monitor’s “How Qaddafi helped fuel fury toward Africans in Libya,” would claim:

Many experts – and African migrant workers themselves – say the animosity stems from anti-African racism found throughout the Arab world. But some say the anger has been made much worse by Mr. Qaddafi’s moves to buy the loyalty of black Libyans from the south of the country as well as his decades-long efforts to build Africa-wide patronage networks at great cost to the country’s Arab majority.

In other words – the CS Monitor and the Western “experts” it cited claim Qaddafi “fueled fury toward Africans” by merely spending resources to help them. It is an oblique attempt to justify the racism-driven genocide US-backed militants carried out during their “victory lap” in Libya.

Black Africans living in Libya were either driven out of the country, across the Mediterranean and into Europe to face hardship and racism there or either mass murdered in Libya or rounded up and enslaved.

The Western media – partners with institutions like Brookings – denied this at first – or attempted to excuse it like the CS Monitor – but eventually covered the fallout US military intervention in Libya and its long-planned regime change agenda triggered.

Reuters in their article, “African workers live in fear after Gaddafi overthrow,” would admit:

Tens of thousands of foreign workers have fled Libya since the armed revolt against Gaddafi’s 42-year-rule began in February, with Africans afraid they have become targets for fighters who accuse them of being mercenaries for Gaddafi.

This antipathy appears to have spread to all Africans, leaving them vulnerable to attacks, robbery and other abuse by the gun-toting, mostly young, fighters who ousted Gaddafi.

Identity cards of nationals from Chad, Niger, Mali, Sudan and other African states have been found on the bodies of gunmen who anti-Gaddafi fighters say were paid to confront them.

The BBC in its article, “Libya migrant ‘slave market’ footage sparks outrage,” would admit:

Migrants trying to reach Europe have spoken of being held by smugglers and forced to work for little or no money.

The footage released by CNN appears to show youths from Niger and other sub-Saharan countries being sold to buyers for about $400 (£300) at undisclosed locations in Libya.

While these media sources covered the fallout of the 2011 US military intervention, they were careful not to link the fallout directly to the intervention.

The US war against Libya was a humanitarian catastrophe deliberately engineered by Western think tanks funded by big-business like PepsiCo, Mars Inc., and many others, rubber stamped by politicians in Washington – both Democrat and Republican – and eagerly sold to the public by the corporate media.

And even as recently as 2016, Brookings “Senior Fellow” Shadi Hamid in a piece published on Brookings’ site titled, “Everyone says the Libya intervention was a failure. They’re wrong,” would remain insistent in defending the US-led war and the decimated, racist, and dysfunctional Libya left in its wake.

He argues that if the US didn’t intervene, Qaddafi would have successfully eliminated the racist extremists in eastern Libya and particularly in Benghazi who would eventually carry out genocide against Libya’s black population. Hamid simply omits any mention of this or who actually was based in Benghazi and instead refers to them merely as “protesters.”

Thus, PepsiCo and Mars Inc. – alongside oil corporations and weapons manufacturers – are funding an institution that not only engineers and eagerly promotes wars, they fund an institution that is utterly unapologetic about the calamity these wars cause – including wars like in Libya ending tragically for 2.5 million black Africans.

“Woke” America needs to be conscious enough to recognize the true injustice underpinning American society. It is very likely that as protesters in America and online around the globe rail against “Aunt Jemima” and “Uncle Ben’s” many activists are eagerly enjoying many of the other products produced by and profiting PepsiCo and Mars Inc. – oblivious to the fact that the ingredients are procured through child and slave labor in Africa and the profits are directed into promoting wars that leave blacks abroad dead, displaced, or enslaved.

And as long as this is the case, nothing of any genuine substance will ever change in America or across the wider Western World.

If real justice is what Americans – all Americans – want, they need to truly wake up to this fact first.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

The no holds barred US-China strategic competition may be leading us to the complete fragmentation of the current “world-system” – as Wallerstein defined it.

Yet compared to the South China Sea, the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan Straits, India-China’s Himalayan border, and selected latitudes of the Greater Middle East, Central Asia shines as a portrait of stability.

That’s quite intriguing, when we consider that the chessboard reveals the interests of top global players intersecting right in the heart of Eurasia.

And that brings us to a key question: How could Kazakhstan, the 9th largest country in the world, manage to remain neutral in the current, incandescent geopolitical juncture?  What are the lineaments of what could be described as the Kazakh paradox?

These questions were somewhat answered by the office of First President Nursultan Nazarbayev. I had discussed some of them with analysts when I was in Kazakhstan late last year. Nazarbayev could not answer them directly because he has just recently recovered from Covid-19 and is currently in self-isolation.

It all harks back to what was Kazakhstan really like when the USSR dissolved in 1991. The Kazakhs inherited a quite complex ethno-demographic structure, with the Russian-speaking population concentrated in the north; unresolved territorial issues with China; and geographical proximity to extremely unstable Afghanistan, then in a lull before the all-out warlord conflagration of the early 1990s which created the conditions for the emergence of the Taliban.

To make it even harder, Kazakhstan was landlocked.

All of the above might have led to Kazakhstan either dispatched to political limbo or mired in a perpetual Balkan scenario.

Have soft power, will travel

Enter Nazarbayev as a fine political strategist. From the beginning, he saw Kazakhstan as a key player, not a pawn, in the Grand Chessboard in Eurasia.

A good example was setting up the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building measures in Asia (CICA) in 1992, based on the principle of “indivisibility of Asian security”, later proposed to the whole of Eurasia.

Nazarbayev also made the crucial decision to abandon what was at the time the fourth nuclear missile potential on the planet – and a major trump card in international relations. Every major player in the arc from the Middle East to Central Asia knew that selected Islamic nations were extremely interested in Kazakhstan’s nuclear arsenal.

Nazarbayev bet on soft power instead of nuclear power. Unlike the DPRK, for instance, he privileged Kazakhstan’s integration in the global economy in favorable terms instead of relying on nuclear power to establish national security. He was certainly paving the way for Kazakhstan to be regarded as a trustworthy, get down to business neutral player and a mediator in international relations.

The trust and goodwill towards Kazakhstan is something I have seen for myself in my pan-Eurasia travels and in conversations with analysts from Turkey and Lebanon to Russia and India.

The best current example is Astana, currently Nur-sultan, becoming the HQ of that complex work in progress: the Syrian peace process, coordinated by Iran, Turkey and Russia – following the crucial, successful Kazakh mediation to solve the Moscow-Ankara standoff after the downing of a Sukhoi Su-24M near the Syria-Turkish border in November 2015.

And on the turbulent matter of Ukraine post-Maidan in 2014, Kazakhstan simultaneously kept good relations with Kiev and the West and its strategic partnership with Russia.

As I discussed late last year, Nur-sultan is now actively taking the role of the new Geneva: the capital of diplomacy for the 21st century.

The secret of this Kazakh paradox is the capacity of delicately balancing relations with the three main players – Russia, China and the US – as well as leading regional powers. Nazarbayev’s office boldly argues that can be even translated to Nur-sultan placed as the ideal venue for US-China negotiations: “We are tightly embedded in the US-China-Russia triangle and have built trusting relationships with each of them.”

In the heart of Eurasia

And that brings us to why Kazakhstan – and Nazarbayev personally – are so much involved in promoting their special concept of Greater Eurasia – which overlaps with the Russian vision, discussed in extensive detail at the Valdai Club.

Nazarbayev managed to set a paradigm in which none of the big players feel compelled to exercize a monopoly on Kazak maneuvering. That  inevitably led Kazakhstan to expand its foreign policy reach.

Strategically, Kazakhstan is smack in the geographical heart of Eurasia, with huge borders with Russia and China, as well as Iran in the Caspian Sea. Its territory is no less than a top strategic bridge uniting the whole of Eurasia.

The Kazakh approach goes way beyond connectivity (trade and transport), two key planks of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), to get closer to the converging vision of BRI and the Russian-led Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU): a single, integrated Eurasian space.

Nazarbayev sees the integration of the Central Asian “stans” with Russia and with Turkic-speaking countries, including of course Turkey, as the foundation for his concept of Greater Eurasia.

The inevitable corollary is that the Atlanticist order – as well as the Anglo-American predominance in international relations – is waning, and certainly does not suit Asia and Eurasia. A consensus is forming across many key latitudes that the driving force for the reboot of the global economy post-Covid-19 – and even a new paradigm – will come from Asia.

In parallel, Nazarbayev’s office make a crucial point:

“A purely Asian or Eastern answer is unlikely to suit the collective West, which is also in search of optimal models of the world’s structure. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative clearly showed that Western countries are not psychologically ready to see China as a leader.”

Nur-sultan nonetheless remains convinced that the only possible solution would be exactly a new paradigm in international relations. Nazarbayev  argues that the keys to solve the current turmoil are not located in Moscow, Beijing or Washington, but in a strategic transit node, like Kazakhstan, where the interests of all global players intersect.

Thus the push for Kazakhstan – one of the key crossroads between Europe and Asia, alongside Turkey and Iran – to become the optimal mediator allowing Greater Eurasia to flourish in practice. That is the uplifting option:  otherwise, we seem condemned to live through another Cold War.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Selected Articles: Geopolitics, Human Rights and Big Pharma

July 7th, 2020 by Global Research News

We hope that by publishing diverse view points, submitted by journalists and experts dotted all over the world, the website can serve as a reminder that no matter what narrative we are presented with, things are rarely as cut and dry as they seem.

If Global Research has been a resource which has offered you some solace over the past few months, we ask you to make a financial contribution to our running costs so that we may keep this important project alive and well! We thank you for your support!

Click to donate:

*     *     *

Nicaragua – Virtual Reality and Human Rights

By Stephen Sefton, July 06, 2020

Ever since January 2007, the Western human rights industry has attacked Nicaragua’s Sandinista government for being undemocratic and repressive. For over a decade, Nicaragua’s social and economic development and successive democratic elections repeatedly contradicted that mendacious narrative. Frustrated by Nicaragua’s embarrassing example of undeniable, sovereign, socialist inspired social and economic progress, the US authorities, over several years, prepared, organized and finally openly supported the violent coup attempt of April 2018.

Reparations and Other Scams: Israeli Survivors Live in Poverty and Are Starving?

By Philip Giraldi, July 06, 2020

Israel and Jewish groups were major beneficiaries of the reparations and restitution programs that were created as a result of World War Two. The Luxembourg Agreement signed in 1952 committed West Germany to pay Israel a sum of 3 billion Deutsche Marks over the next fourteen years, which was at the time an enormous sum. An additional 450 million marks were paid to the World Jewish Congress. The payments that were made to the State of Israel regarded the government as the de facto heir to war victims who had no surviving family or who could not otherwise be identified. The money was mostly invested in the Israeli infrastructure and was significant in aiding in the initial development of the economy of the new state, but there were also considerable barter arrangements whereby Israel purchasing agents obtained German manufactured goods and raw materials.

Are the Democrats a Political Party or a CIA-Backed Fifth Column?

By Mike Whitney, July 06, 2020

The protests are largely a diversion aimed at shifting the public’s attention to a racialized narrative that obfuscates the widening inequality chasm (created by the Democrats biggest donors, the Giant Corporations and Wall Street) to historic antagonisms that have clearly diminished over time. (Racism ain’t what it used to be.) The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues “will and will not” be covered over the course of the campaign. And– since race is an issue on which they feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives as ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought– the Dems are using their media clout to make race the main topic of debate. In short, the Democrats have settled on a strategy for quashing the emerging populist revolt that swept Trump into the White House in 2016 and derailed Hillary’s ambitious grab for presidential power.

Key US Ally Indicted for Organ Trade Murder Scheme. CIA Backed Kosovo President Hashim Thaci

By Nicolas J. S. Davies, July 06, 2020

In 2008 an international prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, accused U.S.-backed Prime Minister Hashim Thaci of Kosovo of using the U.S. bombing campaign as cover to murder hundreds of people to sell their internal organs on the international transplant market. Del Ponte’s charges seemed almost too ghoulish to be true. But on June 24th, Thaci, now President of Kosovo, and nine other former leaders of the CIA-backed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA,) were finally indicted for these 20-year-old crimes by a special war crimes court at The Hague.

LancetGate: “Scientific Corona Lies” and Big Pharma Corruption. Hydroxychloroquine versus Gilead’s Remdesivir

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 05, 2020

There is an ongoing battle to suppress Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap and effective drug for the treatment of Covid-19. The campaign against HCQ is carried out through slanderous political statements, media smears, not to mention an authoritative peer reviewed “evaluation”  published on May 22nd by The Lancet, which was based on fake figures and test trials.

The study was allegedly based on data analysis of 96,032 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020 from 671 hospitals Worldwide. The database had been fabricated. The objective was to kill the Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) cure on behalf of Big Pharma.

Is Washington Provoking India into a War with China?

By F. William Engdahl, July 05, 2020

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a recent video conference suggested that the US might move some of its troops from Germany to the region around India, citing growing US security concerns in the Asian region. Given the dramatic rise in tensions between India and China over disputed borders in the region of Nepal and Bhutan where several soldiers from both sides reportedly died in hand-to-hand combat, the question is whether Washington is deliberately trying to fan fires of war between the two Asian giant powers. As unlikely as that might be at present, it indicates how unstable our world is becoming amid the ‘coronavirus economic depression’, and the perceived power vacuum of a US in retreat.

“No One Has Died from the Coronavirus”

By Rosemary Frei and Patrick Corbett, July 03, 2020

A high-profile European pathologist is reporting that he and his colleagues across Europe have not found any evidence of any deaths from the novel coronavirus on that continent.

Dr. Stoian Alexov called the World Health Organization (WHO) a “criminal medical organization” for creating worldwide fear and chaos without providing objectively verifiable proof of a pandemic.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Geopolitics, Human Rights and Big Pharma

The Coronavirus Seal: Victoria’s Borders Close

July 7th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Coronavirus Seal: Victoria’s Borders Close

Nicaragua – Virtual Reality and Human Rights

July 6th, 2020 by Stephen Sefton

Ever since January 2007, the Western human rights industry has attacked Nicaragua’s Sandinista government for being undemocratic and repressive. For over a decade, Nicaragua’s social and economic development and successive democratic elections repeatedly contradicted that mendacious narrative. Frustrated by Nicaragua’s embarrassing example of undeniable, sovereign, socialist inspired social and economic progress, the US authorities, over several years, prepared, organized and finally openly supported the violent coup attempt of April 2018.

During that coup attempt and ever since it failed, the North American and European human rights industry has falsely accused the Nicaraguan authorities of having brutally repressed peaceful opposition protests with disproportionate lethal violence. In doing so, reports by human rights organizations have systematically ignored numerous very serious crimes and even massacres by Nicaragua’s US supported right wing opposition and their allies. Between April 18th and July 17th 2018, 23 police officers were killed by opposition activists and 400 officers suffered gunshot wounds inflicted by opposition gunmen. Reports by Western human rights organizations have concealed that deliberate lethal opposition violence by systematically suppressing conventional witness testimony, documentary evidence and audiovisual material.

Conversely, no categorical evidence exists to support accusations of systematic human rights violations by Nicaragua’s government. But human rights organizations have lately sought to overcome that absence of evidence by using innovative virtual reality reconstruction. The Argentinian Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF) published a video on May 30th this year resulting from a collaboration between an Organization of American States body, the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts (GIEI), the EAAF itself and a New York based company called SITU Research, which has previously done virtual reality imaging for Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Ukrainian prosecuting lawyers.

The GIEI, the EAAF and SITU Research have all falsely claimed their video documentary proves that Nicaragua’s police used unprovoked, indiscriminate gunfire to kill unarmed protesters. However, their video shows no footage of police or Sandinista supporters firing on protesters and omits well known video footage by opposition media of opposition protesters carrying and using lethal firearms. It also omits essential context of armed opposition violence related to the events the video covers. Nor does it examine the strong possibility of false flag shootings similar to those that took place at Puente Llaguno in Caracas during the failed coup attempt of April 2002 in Venezuela. The video was funded with support from corporate funders including the Open Society Foundation, notorious for supporting the coup d’etat in Ukraine and other regime change movements elsewhere.

The EAAF-SITU Research video makes quasi-scientific claims attributing lethal gunfire to police or sandinista supporters making questionable use of professional analysis by Knox Associates of the sound of the shots fired. As John Perry notes in his analysis of the video, the Knox report makes clear that opposition activists with firearms were among the protesters. Even the GIEI report acknowledges this. Other readily accessible video footage shows opposition activists carrying automatic rifles and using automatic pistols in the same places and around the same times as the video claims the Nicaraguan police fired their weapons. The EAAF-SITU Research video omits this inconvenient information. Likewise, the video’s imaging material, put together by SITU Research, inaccurately confuses the distances, supplied by Knox Associates ballistics analysis, from which the shots heard in the video came.

This confusion and inaccuracy by SITU Research has antecedents in their video on the shootings in Kiev’s Maidan in Ukraine in 2014. The SITU Research video depicting some of the Maidan shootings was carefully analyzed by Ivan Katchanovski of the University of Ottawa. Katchanovksi concludesno expert knowledge or familiarity with the Maidan massacre or Ukraine is needed to see blatant misrepresentation of elementary data in that 3D model”. Among much else, he found that SITU Research’s 3D model had moved wound locations to suit the video’s conclusions. Katchanovksi’s analysis also draws on evidence omitted by SITU Research which contradicts their claims, just as SITU and EAFF have deliberately suppressed evidence contradicting the claims of their video on Nicaragua.

With surprising frankness Brad Samuels, founding partner of SITU Research, has publicly stated:

“…it’s about not allowing these narratives to become the reason that there’s no accountability… so that you can focus on what you do know and I just I think that that’s at play in all kinds of ways more than it ever has been,… this question of competing narratives, truth claims and facts and that’s really what we’re, this work is about ”.

red radius eaff-situ image

Still from EAAF/SITU Research video. The red radius incorrectly suggests the police were further from protesters’ barricades than they really were because the actual distances are much less than those in the graphic, which gives the false impression that the police were located at the distance which the firearms expert judged the fatal shots to have come from, which is not the case. (Research by John Perry)

Samuels here straighforwardly acknowledges that SITU Research suppresses inconvenient competing evidence contradicting the narrative on which they choose to focus. They did this in the Ukraine video and they have now done so too in the EAAF-SITU Research video about the events in Managua on May 30th 2018. The video documentary on Nicaragua by the EAAF and SITU Research dishonestly reinforces the GIEI’s false reports used to justify attacks in the OAS against Nicaragua’s government.

Both the video documentary and the GIEI reports systematically exclude or suppress references to audio visual material available here and here, documentary evidence, witness testimony and press reports here, here, here, here, and here, and an on-the-spot report by a veteran independent journalist, all of which challenge their version of events. Nicaragua’s case is a text-book example of how genuine human rights research has been subverted so as to produce highly biased reports from organizations like the EAAF and SITU Research, supporting the political agenda of neocolonial institutions like the Organization of American States.

Western populations are practically defenseless against this kind of anti-democratic disinformation tyranny. Co-opted by corporate elites, North American and European non governmental human rights organizations work closely with their counterparts in the corporate and alternative media industry. They support broad NATO country foreign policy and purposefully corrupt the workings of international human rights institutions as needed to support that foreign policy.

In practice, this means they make frequent opportunely scheduled attacks against Western government targets like Syria and Venezuela, and correspondingly less frequent, less critical attacks on, for example, Colombia or Israel. Human rights industry reports are essential reference points for press and media foreign affairs coverage as well as often extremely aggressive messaging on social media. They are also basic inputs into international human rights legal processes, as happened most notoriously in the case of Libya in 2011.

In this way, Western human rights organizations massively extend their market reach and scope, posing falsely as unbiased interlocutors in global human rights institutions. The aura of their messaging influences an enormous number of people who never even read their reports. This messaging aura is a human rights industry product just as important as their actual research. It consolidates their institutional credibility, hugely enhancing their capacity to manipulate news and social media.

This marketing aura is more than mere inauthentic consumer advertising. It facilitates shaping international opinion in favor of the industry’s corporate and government investors’ agenda, reinforcing the power and influence of Western elites. It radically delegitimizes opposition by implicitly setting limits to opinions and arguments that will be tolerated and ones that will not. Human rights organizations and leaders achieve this control not through intellectual rigor and legitimate achievement, but by accumulating mainstream prestige via corporate and governmental acceptance expressed in grants and awards.

That corporate and government investment endows human rights organizations with money, status and goodwill, facilitating two extremely cynical fundamental strategies. Firstly, the human rights industry markets itself dishonestly, but very powerfully, as if it were driven by humanitarian concern rather than ideological bias, effectively discrediting and marginalizing legitimate criticism. Secondly, the human rights industry systematically and dishonestly excludes or suppresses evidence discrediting the pretexts for sadistic North American and European economic and military aggression against countries around the world, from Iran and Syria to Cuba and Venezuela.

The false EAAF and SITU Research video documentary on Nicaragua produced for GIEI group reporting to the OAS is the latest example of this reality. It is a pseudo-innovative, neocolonial reprise of conventional imperialist domination abandoning historical truth to favor a narrative serving Western elites. It bears out Rodolfo Walsh’s famous remark: “History ends up looking like private property whose owners are the very same people who own everything else”. How bitterly ironic that a human rights group from Argentina should collaborate in a project seeking to exonerate US government supported criminals while demonizing their victims.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Tortilla con Sal.

Featured image: Armed opposition activists outside Managua’s national Baseball Stadium in Managua, May 30th 2018. (still from a video shot by the opposition  media outlet Radio Corporación included in the video “Un Plan para Sumar” by Juventud Presidente)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Nicaragua – Virtual Reality and Human Rights
  • Tags:

The issue of reparations and other compensation has been much in the news of late, most particularly in relationship to possible payments to descendants of slaves in the United States to compensate them for their disadvantages brought about by what is claimed to be a persisting racist culture in the country. There is, of course, considerable resistance on the part of millions of non-black citizens who will have to foot the enormous bill even though they were not involved in slavery in any way, having arrived in the U.S. long after 1865, when involuntary servitude was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Reparations have been around for a long time, normally being exacted by the winners in a war against the losers, who automatically are blamed as the aggressors and therefore liable for the damages. Often the compensation comes in the form of territory, witness for example the German acquisition of Alsace-Lorraine from the French after the Franco-Prussian war followed by its return to France after the First World War. The Germans also were made to endure considerable cash and in-kind payments, primarily to France, after losing the First World War. The terms of the Treaty of Versailles were so onerous that they were subsequently blamed for perpetuating Franco-German hostility, leading inevitably to the Second World War.

Israel and Jewish groups were major beneficiaries of the reparations and restitution programs that were created as a result of World War Two. The Luxembourg Agreement signed in 1952 committed West Germany to pay Israel a sum of 3 billion Deutsche Marks over the next fourteen years, which was at the time an enormous sum. An additional 450 million marks were paid to the World Jewish Congress. The payments that were made to the State of Israel regarded the government as the de facto heir to war victims who had no surviving family or who could not otherwise be identified. The money was mostly invested in the Israeli infrastructure and was significant in aiding in the initial development of the economy of the new state, but there were also considerable barter arrangements whereby Israel purchasing agents obtained German manufactured goods and raw materials.

The reparations program was modified at various points to expand those eligible for benefits and continued to operate long after the fourteen-year term initially envisioned had expired. As of 2012, when the program was 60 years old, it was still fully operational and Germany had paid the Jewish state an estimated $89 billion.

In the 1990s, Israel and Jewish groups began to go after other property that they claimed had either been sold at below market prices as Jews began to flee Germany or otherwise lost. Money trails in Swiss banks were investigated to chart the movement of funds that had originally been derived from Jewish owned property. Individual companies, mostly in Germany, were pressured by survivor groups to provide reparations to former forced laborers, leading the Berlin government in 1999 to establish a separate fund to assist survivors of the holocaust. The Swiss and Hungarians set up similar funds and The World Jewish Restitution Organization was established to organize these efforts. In America, the U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission pressured Germany in 1998-9 to compensate Jewish survivors who had arrived in the United States after the war.

Israel, of course, has a vested interest in continuing the flow of Euros by making Germans and other Europeans continue to feel guilty over the war. In 2007 the Israelis pressured the German government to expand the pension program for Jewish survivors of 1939-1945 who had wound up in Israel. In 2009 Israel demanded compensation of between 450 million and 1 billion Euros ($1,120,000,000 currently) for 30,000 claimed former slave laborer-survivors. And the requirements for eligibility for a payment or pension continue to become more permissive. A Jewish survivor qualifies if he lived in “a ghetto” for 12 months as will anyone who can demonstrate that he “hid from” the Nazis for at least six months. One acceptable “ghetto” is in Shanghai China. And given the destruction of many public records, there has been considerable fraud. In 2010 auditors found evidence of a scheme to use fake identification documents to defraud the German government of more than $42 million.

And new and innovative sources of money are constantly being developed. The United States and Israel are currently pressuring Poland, which was occupied by the Germans, to compensate Jewish property owners. It is particularly difficult to do as much of Warsaw and nearly all its public records were destroyed in 1944. In August 2019, no less than 88 U.S. Senators signed a letter urging Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to “act boldly and with urgency” to compel Poland to resolve the property issue. The Poles have argued that the proceedings would be subject to massive fraud and “frivolous lawsuits” while the demands could bankrupt the country.

Meanwhile the French and Dutch rail systems, also under German control, have been forced to pay compensation to survivors because their trains were used to transport Jewish prisoners to camps.

The story of reparations and compensation is of particular interest, not only because the Second World War ended 75 years ago last month, but also because of attempts by Israel and Jewish groups to squeeze some final payments out of the remaining survivors. Quite astonishing is a “campaign” email currently being circulated by an organization calling itself LATET – Israeli Humanitarian Aid. It promotes itself as a charitable foundation with “All donations…tax-deductible in Israel, the U.S., Canada, Australia, France and the U.K.” It describes its activity as:

“Due to Covid-19, many impoverished Holocaust survivors experience an extended stay in deficient and insecure homes. MORE THAN EVER, SUPPORT URGENT HOME REPAIRS THE SURVIVORS CAN’T AFFORD. 1 in 4 Holocaust survivors in Israel lives in poverty. As a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, our elders spend all their time at home, mostly alone, in run-down apartments and they have nobody to turn to. The need to eliminate all safety hazards and obstacles relating to mobility, safety and comfort has grown and dozens of survivors are waiting for urgent assistance. Latet is the only organization in Israel providing Holocaust survivors in need with a complete aid package, including monthly food boxes, social support and an Emergency Fund for crucial needs. Since 2013, Latet has carried out more than 1,200 home repairs to increase the survivors’ quality of life, at no cost to them. Everyday, 40 Holocaust survivors die. Let’s make sure they spend their last days in decent conditions.

“Donate now. Latet was founded in 1996 and is the largest Israeli NGO combating poverty. Acting as an umbrella organization, Latet provides for the basic needs of populations living in poverty and food insecurity, giving ongoing food assistance to over 200,000 people in Israel. The organization operates the leading national food bank and runs impactful aid programs. For the last 10 years it has been the only organization in Israel providing a comprehensive aid package to Holocaust survivors in need, including a monthly food box, emergency fund for medical and paramedical needs, home restorations as well as ongoing social support in the form of personal volunteers and social events throughout the year. For more information about Latet: www.latet.org.il/en/

One should not necessarily doubt the fundamental decency of LATET and what they are seeking to do, but their solicitation raises some serious questions about the Israeli government and Jewish charities that have been the recipients of more than $100 billion obtained as “reparations” from various foreigners, mostly Germans, specifically to address the needs of the so-called “Holocaust survivors.” How can the survivors be living in terrible conditions and even starving in a socialist country with a formidable safety net, one might ask Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when they have been granted pensions and other compensation since 1952?

The answer would appear to be pretty simple, that the money has gone directly to the Israeli government and not to survivors of the Holocaust as well as to to major Jewish private organizations.

Unfortunately, compensating for claims of Jewish suffering is a big business. The regular annual scandalous multi-billion dollar cash flow out of the United States Treasury to fill the Israeli coffers will continue seemingly forever. American taxpayers might be delighted to learn that during the past week Congress, beset by plague, civil unrest and a crumbling infrastructure, found time to move to approve an additional $500 million to Israel for its “defense.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on American Herald Tribune.

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Latet- Israeli Humanitarian Aid‘s Facebook page

Provocative US Military Drills Near Chinese Waters

July 6th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Imagine how the US and world community would react if Chinese, Russian, or Iranian warships conducted military exercises in the Gulf of Mexico or off America’s east or west coasts.

Bipartisan hardliners in Washington and establishment media might consider this action a casus belli.

Clearly it would provoke a sharp US reaction, including possible interdiction of foreign ships by Pentagon ones, risking a possible clash that could lead to something much more serious.

Numerous times before, Pentagon warships conducted provocative drills in the South China Sea and other parts of the world where they don’t belong —their presence posing a threat to regional countries.

In response to legitimate Chinese military exercises in its own waters, the Pentagon falsely accused Beijing of “the latest in a long line (of actions) to assert unlawful maritime claims and disadvantage its Southeast Asian neighbors in the South China Sea (sic),” adding:

The US will continue to monitor Chinese military activity — in a part of the world where US forces close to its borders are a hostile presence.

Beijing strongly opposes provocative US military drills near its territory, an earlier PLA statement saying:

“Reality has proved once again that the US is the biggest facilitator of the militarization of the South China Sea, and is a troublemaker for the region’s peace and stability,” adding:

“The PLA will remain on high alert, and adamantly safeguard national sovereignty, security, and development interests, as well as the peace and prosperity of the region.”

In response last May to US Naval Institute encouragement of privately owned ships to seize Chinese merchant vessels, the PLA slammed the call as promoting “act(s) of piracy,” adding:

“These actions are criminal activities explicitly prohibited under international laws, and will absolutely receive joint opposition and a severe backlash from the international community.”

A previous article explained that for the first time since the pre-1990 Cold War ended, three US aircraft carriers with other Pentagon warships are patrolling Asia/Pacific waters.

Two US aircraft carriers, the Reagan and Nimitz, are holding large-scale military drills in the South China Sea close to its waters, along with four other Pentagon warships.

Their stated purpose is to challenge what they called Beijing’s unlawful territorial claims (sic).

Two mainland USA Barksdale air force base, nuclear-capable, B52 warplanes that refueled in Guam are involved in the exercises, a statement by US 96th Bomb Squadron commander Lt. Col. Christopher Duff, saying:

“Bomber Task Force demonstrates US capability to rapidly deploy to a forward operating base and execute long-range strike missions,” adding:

“This sortie demonstrates our ability to reach out from a home station, fly anywhere in the world, and execute those missions, rapidly, regenerating from a forward operating base and continuing operations.”

Over the weekend, a US Navy statement said Pentagon military exercises in the South China Sea aim to protect against “possible attacks by the enemy” — at a time when no US foreign threats exist, so they’re invented to justify what’s unjustifiable.

What’s going on is a provocative Pentagon show of force far distant from US territory in a part of the world where its forces don’t belong.

According to an unnamed Chinese military expert, “(t)he US is saying one thing and doing another. It is applying different standards on China’s actions than it does on its own.”

China’s Foreign Ministry earlier called US Asia/Pacific military exercises Pentagon “flexing of muscles…thousands of miles away” from its homeland.

PLA Naval Military Studies Research Institute senior research fellow Zhang Junshe called US military exercises near Chinese waters a hostile action in the name of “freedom of navigation.”

Pentagon South China Sea military exercises come at a time of greatly deteriorated Sino/US relations.

Reportedly since South China Sea arbitration in 2016, the Pentagon refrained from multiple aircraft carrier exercises in its waters — the last one in 2014 until now.

According to retired PLA naval officer Wang Yunfei,

“China’s resolve to safeguard its territorial integrity, sovereignty and maritime interests will not waver (despite) the latest threat posed by the US.”

“The Chinese military is prepared and will deal with the (the US provocation) with ease.”

China’s Global Times explained that the PLA “has a wide selection of anti-aircraft carrier weapons like DF-21D and DF-26 ‘aircraft carrier killer’ missiles,” adding:

“The South China Sea is fully within the grasp of the PLA. Any US aircraft carrier movement in the region is at the pleasure of the PLA.”

The Pentagon’s global empire of bases and provocative actions against sovereign independent nations China, Russia, Iran, and others risk increased US war on humanity than already.

Instead of being the world’s leading proponent of peace, stability, and the rule of law, the US prioritizes dominance over other nations by whatever it takes to achieve its aims.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The Taiwanese government intends to compensate for its diplomatic problems in Africa by developing a relationship with the unrecognized Somaliland. The two sides announced just days ago that they are establishing official representative agencies in their respective territories. In recent years, Taiwan has lost many diplomatic allies. Since 2016, when the current government came to power on the island that mainland China considers a “rebel province,” Taiwan has lost recognition from seven countries. Today, the only country on the continent that maintains an official relationship with Taiwan is Eswatini, known as Swaziland until 2018. Moreover, the last recognition Taiwan got was from the Caribbean country of Saint Lucia in 2007.

Somaliland separated from Somalia in the midst of the brutal Somali Civil War in 1991. Despite their declaration of independence, the separatist territory has no recognition from UN member states. Although Somaliland has established representative offices in about 20 countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom and the EU, and has representative offices from eight countries, including neighboring Ethiopia, Somaliland has no official relations with China. Meanwhile, China has its first ever military base abroad in Djibouti, a neighboring country with Somaliland. In addition, Chinese ships are part of an international task force patrolling Somali waters to fight pirates that traverse the critical sea lanes.

Source: InfoBrics

On July 1, Joseph Wu, the head of Taiwan’s diplomatic mission, announced that Taiwan and Somaliland would open representative offices in each other’s capital, with the Taiwanese diplomat saying, “in essence, Somaliland is an independent country.” The two sides have maintained relations since 2009. The agreement on establishing a representative office was signed in February of this year but was only announced on July 1. Joseph Wu did not disclose details of the assistance Taiwan could provide to the unrecognized country, but he highlighted that Somaliland is rich in energy resources and other minerals.

It could be seen that Taiwan’s desire to expand its diplomatic sphere of influence with an unrecognized country is an attempt to form an alliance of unrecognized or partially recognized states. The Taiwanese government is in a complicated situation as the majority of the world recognizes mainland China as the true China. Obviously, this sense of marginalization is increasing and Taiwan pays close attention to the fate of territories that are in a similar situation.

Besides benefits to Taiwan, this will bring greater assistance to Somaliland, a territory that is plagued with international criminal organizations and Islamic extremism, albeit, to a much lower scale then the rest of Somalia. Due to its unrecognized status but having independence from Mogadishu in practice, Somaliland has become a center for laundered money made from the proceeds of crime. Somalilanders are one of the largest groups of African migrants abroad, and have a large community in Sweden. Many of them are involved in organized crime and use Somaliland as a safe base.

If Taiwan is creating a network of unrecognized and partially unrecognized states, especially as it already recognizes Kosovo, could Taipei in the near future approach the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (recognized as a part of Morocco), the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognized as a part of the Republic of Cyprus), South Ossetia and Abkhazia (recognized as a part of Georgia), the Republic of Artsakh (recognized as a part of Azerbaijan) and Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (recognized a part of Moldova)?

Taiwan could have success in achieving mutual recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, especially since Morocco recognizes mainland China and not Taiwan. However, in the case of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Pridnestrovye, Taiwan is unlikely to find success as they are effectively Russian protectorates. Moscow would be unwilling to antagonize Beijing for the sake of Taiwan and would not allow mutual recognition between these three states and Taipei.

The Republic of Artsakh, recognized as a part of Azerbaijan but in practice is an unrecognized province of Armenia, is also unlikely to open mutual recognition with Taiwan. China is Armenia’s third largest trading partner and in 2015, Armenia signed the Memorandum on Promotion of Cooperation in Building the Silk Road Economic Belt, known today as the Belt and Road Initiative.

A potential ally could be Northern Cyprus. Despite being a protectorate of Turkey, a country that plays a critical role in the Belt and Road Initiative, Ankara is not afraid to challenge Beijing. This is seen with Turkey’s constant denouncement of Beijing’s alleged treatment of the Turkic Uighur minority in China’s western Xinjiang province. Ankara could be willing to allow Northern Cyprus to open relations with Taipei knowing that it is unlikely China will abandon Turkey as a trading partner due to its geostrategic position that is pivotal to the Belt and Road Initiative.

Although Taiwan cannot create a complete coalition of unrecognized or partially unrecognized states, it can certainly strengthen its diplomatic positioning by opening relations with territories that it can, such as Somaliland and Kosovo, and potentially the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Northern Cyprus. This does not elevate Taiwan’s ambitions for recognition with UN Member States, but it does expand its influence into new regions, especially in the Horn of Africa where China is investing heavily into neighboring Djibouti and Ethiopia. Taiwan cannot dislodge Chinese influence in the Horn of Africa, but by Taipei making its presence felt in the region will certainly antagonize Beijing.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is Taiwan Creating a “Coalition of Unrecognized States” by Recognizing Somaliland?
  • Tags: ,