The world is awash with “promises”. Nearly everything we think of as having “value” is because of a promise behind it. A few examples; your bank accounts, retirement funds, bonds and even the dollar bills in your pocket. Your bank account for example, once you deposit the money it is no longer yours. You can argue this if you wish but we now know this is true for sure after recent “bail in” legislations passed throughout the west. When you deposit funds into a bank, it then becomes “their money” held for you …they “owe” it to you.

Do not take this lightly, lawmakers around the world have made this the new reality. A little known fact, in 1845 Britain passed banking law that made depositors (unsecured creditors), this is still precedent to this day. When you deposit money you “accept a liability” from your bank and are classified as an unsecured creditor. In other words, “get in line with everyone else”!

Same thing with many retirement accounts. Think about Social Security. When you get your annual statement form, it comes with an asterisk. This is to inform you they “might need to reduce benefits”. With any retirement account you are relying on the custodian to make payments to you upon retirement. Think about state and municipal retirement accounts promising the good life, they are nearly ALL underfunded. Meaning there is not enough money in there to make (promised) future payments unless some sort of magically higher returns are realized. These are underfunded by the TRILLIONS of dollars!

Bonds are an obvious asset class where a “promise” is relied on. Dollars on the other hand seem the most misunderstood by the public while being the biggest leap of faith in all asset classes. Dollars rely on the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government (a bankrupt entity) yet the populace sleeps through the night secure knowing they own dollars. ALL non backed, fiat currencies in the past have failed. The dollar is the widest spread and widely owned fiat the world has ever known, its failure will be spectacular upon arrival!

I wanted to point out the above “promises” as a basis to speak about trust or confidence. The financial world turns on the axis of “trust”. This trust was nearly broken in 2008 and is the reason the Federal Reserve needed to secretly lend $16 trillion all over the world. If the Fed had not come up with these funds, failures would have spread and trust would have been broken amongst the banks/other financial institutions and even between the central banks themselves! The Fed’s largesse worked and trust was maintained.

Now, I believe we are set for another “test” of trust. We have gone five+ years with QE this and QE that, the reality being outright monetization. In fact, central banks today are buying more sovereign bonds than are even being issued. The public and even the professional funds have backed away from the debt markets, you can’t blame them because the interest received does not even cover inflation not to mention a risk premium. Globally the pace of trade and business activity is slowing or even declining which will bring to a head the difficulties in meeting debt service and other “promises”.

I ask, what will happen when inevitably “trust” begins to wane? Or even fully break? It is at this point the system goes into “The Great Call”. Margin call? Of course, because nearly everything financial has leverage behind it but there is more to it than this. The “call” I am speaking of is for contracts of all sorts to “perform”. In particular I am thinking “derivatives” contracts will be called on to perform their contractual duties.

All in all, there are over $1 quadrillion worth of derivatives outstanding. The problem with this is the “tail” is bigger than the dog. In other words, the amount of derivatives outstanding dwarfs the total amount of money outstanding and thus the ability to “pay” and make good on the contracts. The other side of this coin are contracts promising to deliver something. Here I am thinking both gold and silver. There are far more (100-1 or more) obligations outstanding than there are ounces or kilos available to deliver. This is a default just waiting to happen.

If you listen to the Harry Dents of the world, the dollar will be the safe haven and where all fear capital will go. In a world based on nothing but trust and promises, will fear capital really pile INTO a currency based ONLY on trust and promises …when “trust” is exactly what is come into question. Actually, it can be said the dollar was originally set up in 1971 on a “never pay” model. The dollar (and bonds) only promise to pay “more dollars” and nothing else. This game worked for many years, now it looks like the Saudis after doing many deals with both Russia and China may be set to transact in currency other than dollars. Are they displaying confidence?

The Chinese are now net sellers of U.S. Treasuries. Ask yourself this question, if China could sell all of their Treasuries and turn it all into gold, silver, oil, copper and other real tangible assets (without destroying the Treasury market or making gold and silver go no offer), would they? I say yes, they absolutely would love to be out from under their Treasury position. Apologetic others might say China is comfortable, we will soon see.

Because confidence is the only thing at this point holding the game together …and its fickle nature, it is important for you to think this through. What will be standing when confidence breaks? Can banks globally survive “runs” when depositors come calling? Can commodity exchanges deliver all they promise? Can borrowers “borrow more” if they cannot redeem past issues with new debt? This is where we are headed both systemically and globally!

Before finishing I want to tie two connected thoughts together. First, the great Paul Craig Roberts said last week he feared precious metals could be suppressed forever. I received MANY fearful e-mails regarding this thought process. Mr. Roberts would be entirely correct if it were not for one small detail, REAL gold and REAL silver must be available to deliver. Otherwise the game comes to an end and the fraud is exposed. He is entirely correct, “price” can be jammed or rammed with enough “margin” posted. Dan Norcini once upon a time had it correct when he said, nothing will unnerve the shorts more than the longs standing for delivery …and making a call for the product. I would like to remind you, COMEX currently has only 11.7 tons of gold for delivery. This is roughly $400 million. If I were short, this paltry sum would not add to my confidence.

Another thought going hand in hand with this is where we are now versus 2008. Back then we were within overnight hours of the entire system coming down, this is fact. What has changed since then? “Nothing”, but in reality quite a bit. Nothing has changed from the standpoint of “tools used”. We have not altered or changed anything that “got us to the brink”… only done more of it! We have far more debt and more derivatives outstanding now. In fact, central banks and sovereign nations have even sacrificed their balance sheets to prolong the game. It has worked …so far. The only problem is the entire arsenal of the central banks have already been tried and failed to provide the real economy with any stimulus. The result has been capital pushed into financial markets and blowing the bubble(s) far larger than they were. Now, we have far larger markets with far more leverage than 2008. These will need to be met with central banks and sovereign treasuries with weaker balance sheets and almost no ability to borrow in an effort to reflate. It is a recipe for disaster.

We already know the sovereign debt markets are very thin on the bid side as liquidity has dried up. We also know equity markets are displaying horrible internal breadth. China is actually nearing a 1929 scenario and will be there shortly if they cannot steady. Confidence is a fickle girl, if it breaks, then we go back to the 2008 scenario and we’ll find out just how powerful the central banks really are. I believe the coming “Great Call” cannot nor will be met and only then will we see what is left standing. It is imperative here and now to position yourself in assets that do stand on their own, everything else will be a broken promise!

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Quadrillion Dollar Derivative Debt and the “Bail-in”: When you Deposit Funds in a Bank, it Becomes “Their Money”

Is Barack Obama trying to kill the economy on purpose?  On Sunday, we learned that Obama is imposing a nationwide 32 percent carbon dioxide emission reduction from 2005 levels by the year 2030.  When it was first proposed last year, Obama’s plan called for a 30 percent reduction, but the final version is even more dramatic.  The Obama administration admits that this is going to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars a year and that electricity rates for many Americans are going to rise substantially.  And what Obama is not telling us is that this plan is going to kill what is left of our coal industry and will destroy countless numbers of American jobs.  The Republicans in Congress hate this plan, state governments across the country hate this plan, and thousands of business owners hate this plan.  But since Barack Obama has decided that this is a good idea, he is imposing it on all of us anyway.

So how can Obama get away with doing this without congressional approval?

Well, he is using the “regulatory power” of the Environmental Protection Agency.  Congress is increasingly becoming irrelevant as federal agencies issue thousands of new rules and regulations each and every year.  The IRS, for example, issues countless numbers of new rules and regulations each year without every consulting Congress.  Government bureaucracy has spun wildly out of control, and most Americans don’t even realize what is happening.

American Flag Painting - Public Domain

In the last 15 days of 2014 alone, 1,200 new government regulations were published.  We are literally being strangled with red tape, and it has gotten worse year after year no matter which political party has been in power.

These new greenhouse gas regulations are terrible.  The following is a summary of what Obama is now imposing on the entire country

Last year, the Obama administration proposed the first greenhouse gas limits on existing power plants in U.S. history, triggering a yearlong review and 4 million public comments to the Environmental Protection Agency. In a video posted to Facebook, Obama said he would announce the final rule at a White House event on Monday, calling it the biggest step the U.S. has ever taken on climate change.

The final version imposes stricter carbon dioxide limits on states than was previously expected: a 32 percent cut by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, senior administration officials said. Obama’s proposed version last year called only for a 30 percent cut.

In America today, the burning of coal produces approximately 40 percent of the electrical power used by Americans each year.

So what is this going to do to our electricity bills?

You guessed it – at this point even the Obama administration is admitting that they are going to go up.  The following comes from Fox News

The Obama administration previously predicted emissions limitswill cost up to $8.8 billion annually by 2030, though it says those costs will be far outweighed by health savings from fewer asthma attacks and other benefits. The actual price is unknown until states decide how they’ll reach their targets, but the administration has projected the rule would raise electricity prices about 4.9 percent by 2020 and prompt coal-fired power plants to close.

In the works for years, the power plant rule forms the cornerstone of Obama’s plan to curb U.S. emissions and keep global temperatures from climbing, and its success is pivotal to the legacy Obama hopes to leave on climate change. Never before has the U.S. sought to restrict carbon dioxide from existing power plants.

And we must keep in mind that government projections are always way too optimistic.  The real numbers would almost surely turn out to be far, far worse than this.

In addition, these new regulations are going to complete Barack Obama’s goal of destroying our coal industry.  In a previous article, I included an excerpt from a recent news article about how some of the largest coal producers in America have just announced that they are declaring bankruptcy

On Thursday, Bloomberg reported that the biggest American producer of coking coal, Alpha Natural Resources, could file for bankruptcy as soon as Monday.

Competitor Walter Energy filed for bankruptcy earlier this month, and several others have done the same this year.

Barack Obama has actually done something that he promised to do.

He promised to kill the coal industry, and he is well on the way to accomplishing that goal.

Of course Hillary Clinton thinks that this is a splendid idea.  She called Obama’s plan “the floor, not the ceiling”, and she is pledging to do even more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  The following comes from the Washington Post

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged Sunday that if elected she will build on a new White House clean-energy program and defend it against those she called “Republican doubters and defeatists.”

Clinton was the first 2016 candidate to respond to the ambitious plan that President Obama will debut on Monday. Details of the program, which aims to cut greenhouse-gas pollution, were released over the weekend. The new regulation will require every state to reduce emissions from coal-burning power plants.

And you know what?

The climate control freaks will never be satisfied.  Since just about all human activity affects the climate in some way, they will eventually demand control over virtually everything that we do in the name of “saving the planet”.  That is why I call it “climate fascism” – in the end it is all about control.

During the month of September, the Pope is going to travel to the United Nations to give a major speech to kick off the conference at which the UN’s new sustainable development agenda will be launched.  As I have documented previously, this new agenda does not just cover greenhouse gas emissions and the environment.  It also addresses areas such as economics, agriculture, education and gender equality.  It has been called “Agenda 21 on steroids”, and it is basically a blueprint for governing the entire planet.

Unfortunately, that is ultimately what the elite want.

They want to micromanage the lives of every, man, woman and child on the globe.

They will tell us that unless people everywhere are forced to reduce their “carbon footprints” that climate catastrophe is absolutely certain, but their “solutions” always mean more power and more control in their hands.

Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform America, and he is doing it in hundreds of different ways.  These new greenhouse gas regulations are just one example.  Our nation is being gutted like a fish, and most Americans don’t seem to care.

What in the world will it take for this country to finally wake up?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obama’s “Climate Fascism”: Another Nail in the Coffin For the U.S. Economy

By VAL***

As a result of her high profile helping the people of Vietnam, Le Ly Hayslip of Global Village Foundation often receives letters from Vietnamese families asking for help. She recently received one such letter from a husband and wife with two twenty-eight year old sons who suffer from the effects of Agent Orange. The family has at least four letters from different doctors confirming that Agent Orange caused the genetic problems.

The father worked for the American military during the Vietnam War, running missions searching for Viet Cong after the Americans defoliated a forest by dumping Agent Orange from the air. The father still has his official papers from the US military.

Given our interest in Agent Orange, Le Ly arranged for us to visit the family at their home in a remote village near Hoi An. After a 3 hour drive, and a one-hour walk through the rice paddies under the hot Vietnamese sun, we interviewed the parents and met their sons.

Firstly, for some background about Agent Orange in Vietnam, please read “Apocalypse Still” by investigative reporter Robert Dreyfuss in Mother Jones in 2000:

In the years since the war’s end, however, the reality of America’s chemical warfare in Vietnam’s forests and rice paddies has slowly begun to unfold. Though thousands of American veterans of the war now receive government compensation for illnesses linked to Agent Orange, the United States has yet to accept responsibility for the devastating effects of its campaign on Vietnam. Millions, perhaps tens of millions of Vietnamese, combatants and civilians alike, were showered with Agent Orange, and then lived, worked, and breathed amid the residue of an especially virulent form of dioxin, a byproduct of one of the defoliant’s chemical components. This poison, a carcinogen once described as “the most toxic molecule ever synthesized by man,” infiltrated the country’s water and soil, entering the food chain and accumulating in people’s tissues, even passing from mother to child through breast milk. According to Vietnamese estimates, the millions of gallons of Agent Orange that soaked the southern half of Vietnam during the 1960s eventually killed or injured 400,000 people and reportedly contributed to birth defects in 500,000 children. Chillingly, its effects are still being felt, not only among older Vietnamese, whose cancers and other illnesses are often linked to Agent Orange, but among second- and third-generation children of the war, whose twisted bodies and crippled minds bear silent witness to the scourge.

Please read the rest, which Dreyfuss calls “One of my most important pieces. ” (see here (pdf) for the version of the article with photos)

The US government is still denying the extent of the problem, their culpability, and their liability. There are some positive-looking moves, however, with the US House Foreign Affairs holding some hearings last week called “Our Forgotten Responsibility: What Can We Do To Help Victims of Agent Orange?”

In our interview, the parents described their ordeal: When the twins were 3 years old, the parents realized that they were having developmental problems and took them to all the major hospitals in Central Vietnam for help. They were told that they only have two options; either take the children to a foreign country to get some medical treatment, or simply take the children home and try to look after them.

The family couldn’t afford to travel to seek medical attention, so the twins, now 28 years old, have been at home ever since. The twins can’t feed themselves, and they can’t talk. Their entire existence is lying on a shared, cane bed which has slits in it so that their bodily waste can fall through to the floor.

The twins appear to be able to communicate with each other via sounds and eye contact, and appeared to know that we were in their room, with one of them appearing to show us his bed sores.

The parents are both 60 years old and aren’t sure how long they will live. One of their main concerns, now, is that there isn’t anybody to look after their sons when the parents die.

We’d like to thank the family for sharing their story with us.

If you’d like to help the family, please contact us at [email protected] or contact Global Village directly: [email protected]

 

Copyright VAL**,Vietnam Anonymous Limited, 2015

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Agent Orange in Vietnam, “Apocalypse Still”. The Children of War Bear Silent Witness to the Scourge

Amnesty International has uncovered overwhelming evidence of Israeli war crimes committed in a relentless and massive bombardment of residential areas in the city of Rafah.

Amnesty’s report “Black Friday—Carnage in Rafah”, published last week, shows that Israel attacked Rafah with disregard for the suffering it inflicted on the civilian population. Furthermore, this was official policy designed to ensure that no Israeli soldiers were captured alive, even if it meant some of them were killed.

The human rights organisation said the horrific events constitute grounds for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute Israel.

The massacre that became known as Black Friday was one of the deadliest episodes of the 50-day war on Gaza last year.

The Israel Defence Force (IDF) carried out a massive aerial bombardment over a four-day period using F-16 fighter jets, drones, helicopters and artillery. It killed anywhere between 135 to 200 Palestinian civilians, including 75 children.

It followed the capture on August 1, 2014, of an Israeli officer, Lieutenant Hadar Goldin, by Hamas fighters in one of the tunnels in Rafah, the southernmost city in the Gaza Strip. A ceasefire had been due to come into effect that morning, as his capture was announced, and many civilians were returning to their homes in the belief that it was safe to do so.

The massive bombardment took place without warning when many people were walking or driving along the streets, leading to one of the worst incidents of the 50-day war on Gaza.

The war followed two previous wars in 2006 and 2012, as well as several prolonged assaults on Gaza since Hamas, the Islamist party, was elected to power in 2006.

The assault was distinguished by immense Israeli firepower directed at an essentially defenceless civilian population, who live like prisoners in an open-air jail surrounded by razor wire and fortifications on three sides and the sea on the fourth side.

According to UN figures, 2,251 Palestinians were killed, including 1,462 civilians of whom 551 were children. More than 11,200 Palestinians were injured; of this, more than 3,400 were children. In contrast, just 67 Israeli soldiers lost their lives in the fighting while six civilians were killed by Palestinian rockets and mortars fired from Gaza.

Almost 500,000 Palestinians were displaced. Some 100,000 are still without a permanent home, one year after the war. Twenty schools, kindergartens and colleges were completely destroyed and hundreds of others damaged. One hundred and seventeen hospitals, clinics and pharmacies were damaged or destroyed.

Amnesty’s evidence, based upon eyewitness accounts, videos, photos, satellite images and multimedia documentation of the carnage, was analysed by researchers at Forensic Architecture, a research centre at Goldsmiths, University of London. Using cutting-edge techniques, they established that Israel carried out the bombardment on locations that might be harbouring Goldin.

From this, Amnesty deduced that the IDF was trying to kill Goldin without any regard for the consequences for the neighbouring civilian population. Even ambulances, health facilities and medical professionals that may have been giving Goldin medical treatment were fair game, in an obscene defiance of the laws of war.

Israel sought to kill Goldin to prevent Palestinian militants using him as a bargaining chip. In 2011, after the capture and 5-year detention of Gilad Shalit in 2006, Israel was forced to agree to release some 1,027 Palestinian prisoners in order to secure Shalit’s release.

Philip Luther, director of Amnesty’s Middle East and North Africa programme, said,

“The ferocity of the attack on Rafah shows the extreme measures Israeli forces were prepared to take to prevent the capture alive of one soldier—scores of Palestinian civilian lives were sacrificed for this single aim.”

He said that entire districts of the city, included heavily populated areas, were bombarded without distinction between military and civilian targets.

The attacks continued even after the IDF had determined that Goldin had not been captured but had been killed in a gunfight in the tunnel. Based on this, as well as statements made by Israeli officials and soldiers, Amnesty concluded that at least some of the attacks were motivated by the desire to punish the population as revenge for his capture. Such collective punishment is a crime under international law.

One Israeli officer told Breaking the Silence, an organization of Israeli soldiers who have served in the West Bank and Gaza that “The motto guiding lots of people was, ‘let’s show them.’” According to Amnesty, other soldiers told the media that they had wanted “to settle accounts” or to “extract a price.”

Givati Brigade commander Ofer Winter, an ultra-nationalist religious Zionist who had led the tunnel incursion and ensuing shootout that led to Goldin’s death, bragged to the press, “We shredded them,” adding, “Anyone who abducts should know that he will pay a price.” He boasted, “They simply messed with the wrong brigade.”

But this was not simply an accident or the actions of some fascistic elements, but the outcome of official policy known as the Hannibal Directive, drawn up in the 1980s. This directive authorises the use of intense firepower should a soldier be captured, regardless of the risks to his life or to civilians in the vicinity, so as to ensure that Israel’s political leaders were not confronted with demands for concessions to ensure his or her release.

“Major D.”, a commander of the Givati anti-tank company, said, “When you enter such an incident, you prefer a body and not a kidnapped soldier.” He added,

“We made it clear many times to the troops about the threat of abduction, and the goal is to disrupt it if it happens—while hitting the enemy even at the price of harming your friend.”

“I told myself, even if I bring [back] a body, the main thing is to bring back the missing [soldier]. In such an incident, you do everything in order not to put the entire country into the whirlwind of Gilad Shalit.”

Amnesty’s report shows that implementing the Directive to prevent the taking of one live hostage led to the ordering of unlawful attacks on hundreds of civilians. From the IDF’s perspective, it had a further advantage. As Amnesty concluded, under the veil of the Hannibal Directive, the Israeli army enacted a “gloves off” policy,

“whereby it struck general targets from its ‘target banks’—a continuously updated list of targets prepared by the military intelligence—that were not previously authorized because they were determined to involve too high levels of collateral damage.”

The Israeli government dismissed the report as “fundamentally flawed” and “one-sided,” saying that the testimonies in the report were uncorroborated and potentially biased, bringing “into serious question Amnesty’s professional standards.”

The IDF predictably ruled that the overwhelming firepower unleashed on Black Friday was “proportionate.” But a year later, the military authorities have yet to complete their investigation into Black Friday.

Amnesty’s report follows countless similar reports about Israel’s war crimes that have been supported by Washington. A culture of impunity reigns, officially sanctioned at the highest political and military levels. So far, only three Israeli soldiers will face prosecution by the military authorities—for alleged looting during the ground invasion.

Within Gaza itself, one year on, the situation is truly devastating. There is only intermittent electricity and water, and sanitation networks have been damaged. The only repairs to homes damaged in the war have been to those partially damaged. Some 83,977 homes still await repairs, meaning that people are living in partially bombed out homes. A further 18,000 homes were totally destroyed, but work has only just begun on the first house to be rebuilt since the war.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Amnesty International Report Details Israeli War Crimes in 2014 Bombing of Rafah

When people say, ‘Follow the money,’ they forget that modern culture itself is about dollars, and where the big money goes tells you a great deal about the culture and its legalized crimes against the population. This isn’t hard to understand. It’s like saying, ‘The vampires who sell war do it for profit.’ And lo and behold, war and violence are a centerpiece of our culture. If you don’t understand that, just go to the movies.(The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

The recent California law (#SB277) ordering all public and private schoolchildren to receive the full schedule of vaccines has a context.

A money context.

I’m not just talking about corporate donations to legislators. I’m talking about the state of California itself and the businesses that operate here.

For example, the University of California system of colleges is a vast sprawling kingdom. Biomedical $$ grants pour in, and a significant portion of the money funds vaccine-related research.

I began searching for and itemizing such grants. They’re easy to find. But then, something overtook me: California companies that do biomed and biotech research and sell related products.

I plunged, in other words, into California culture. I say that because the number of these companies is staggering. They form a background context in which a mandatory vaccination law is easy to understand—just as a farm bill would be easy to understand in Iowa, or a bill about ranching would be easy to understand in various Western states.

California is biomed biotech “pasture and ranchland.”

At a site called labrat.com, I found a list of California“biotech, pharmaceutical, medical device, and chemical company jobs.”

I scrolled down the list and counted. It took a long time. I arrived at a total of 517 companies. I was somewhat taken aback. That’s a large number.

But then I found a site called biopharmguy.com. It featured its own list of “Biotech companies in San Diego and Southern California.” In just that part of the state, I counted an astonishing 660 biotech companies.

Now we’re talking context and culture. Big-time.

Money, money, money.

Along with war-making defense dollars, agriculture dollars, Silicon Valley and Hollywood dollars, California floats on biotech biomed money.

And in that context, a mandatory vaccine law is simply par for the course.

Individual rights re vaccination? The freedom to choose? Vaccine dangers? Never heard of it.

Yes, the natural health dollar is also significant in California, but it has yet to become a major political force. Proponents of a 2012 GMO ballot initiative to label GMO food couldn’t get their measure passed. And owing to a 2014 California law regulating agriculture, there will apparently be no more bans against growing or selling GMO food. Prior to the law, four California counties had banned GMOs.

Biotech, biomed, GMO, medical drugs, pesticides—all these areas overlap. The companies who do business in these sectors form a strong money culture. And state politicians, including Governor Jerry Brown, are aware of that fact.

Illustrating Brown’s position, here is a quote from James Fallows’ 2013 profile in The Atlantic:

 Brown’s reduced and balanced budget includes more spending for what he considers the big challenges of the future: clean-energy initiatives, an expensive (and controversial) north-to-south high-speed-rail project, new canals and aqueducts, even California-based medical-research projects beyond those sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.”(emphasis added)

Even with a reduced state budget, and even though there is already a flood of $$ for medical research, Brown saw fit to inject more.

Turning back, rejecting, stepping on the mandatory vaccination bill would have sent the wrong signal to biomed businessmen. It was never going to happen.

One of the largest natural health companies in California, Whole Foods, is no help, to say the least. Now that the US Congress is on the verge of denying any state the right to pass a mandatory GMO labeling law, Whole Foods is poised on the edge of a new upswing in sales. Why? Because it uses a private company to verify that many of its products are GMO-free. So it has a leg up. It produces its own food labels. Under the guise of stating “we don’t endorse political positions,” Whole Foods makes more money as the culture becomes more repressive. And the company knows that.

What about the business of doctors in California? A 2014 report titled, “California Physicians: Surplus or Scarcity?” from the California Healthcare Foundation Almanac, presents a mixed bag of very interesting figures:

From 1993 to 2011, the number of doctors in California has grown by 39%, double the rate of population growth. Patient demand for medical care will continue to expand.

However, nearly one-third of the doctors in California are moving close to retirement age. On top of that, 20% of the doctors in the state work less than 20 hours a week caring for patients.

And finally, nearly 20% of medical care in California is delivered by non-physicians (i.e., nurse practitioners and physicians’ assistants).

What do all these statistics imply? Increasingly, to serve (toxify) the population, medical care in California will become “automatic,” one-size-fits-all, quick in and out.

That’s a perfect climate for mass vaccinations, which will cover all the disease labels drug companies can exploit.

Again, context/culture is everything.

When searching for reasons governments pass laws, the money trails need to be followed—especially the trails that are not so obvious.

It turns out that California isn’t really the “health nut” state. It’s the biomed biotech state now. On every front. That’s where the dollars are, and where they are going.

The power players are on board.

~~~~

For the links to the sources of this report, click here.

~~~~

Mandatory vaccination was a slam-dunk from the start. It took a while to make it happen, but when the ducks were assembled in a row, the movers moved.

The last thing they care about or think about is the highly toxic effects of the vaccines.

As I’ve pointed out for the past 25 years, the medical cartel is intent on enrolling every person in a cradle-to-grave system of treatment. Trudging along a half-light somber path, the patient receives 40 or 50 diagnoses of diseases and disorders during his life, is drugged, and sliced and diced, into a debilitated state that ends in the graveyard.

Vaccines are a central feature of this plan. Aside from their toxic effects, the ongoing schedule of shots and boosters trains the patient in the vital item calledcompliance—which sets up the rest of the medical program through the years and decades.

Which is why the freedom to reject medical treatment is vital.

Which is why mandating vaccines is viewed by the cartel as phase one. Compulsory vaccines today, compulsory drugs tomorrow.

This is the covert op behind all national health insurance programs, including Obamacare.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections,  THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29thDistrict of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com andOutsideTheRealityMachine.

[email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mandatory Vaccination in California: Follow the Big Money

Washington Stunned by Attack on US Mercenaries in Syria

August 3rd, 2015 by Bill Van Auken

An attack by the Syrian Islamist militia affiliated with Al Qaeda upon a small US-trained mercenary force sent into the country has staggered the Obama administration, while underscoring the immense internal contradictions and outright duplicity of its policy in the region.

The attack came early Friday against a Syrian militia known as Division 30, which has been the central focus of a $500 million program initiated by the Obama administration and administered by the Pentagon to arm and train a US-controlled proxy force, ostensibly for fighting against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) inside Syria.

Launching the attack was the Al-Nusra Front, the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda and the most powerful of the Islamist militias that have been fielded in the Western, Saudi, Turkish and Qatari-backed war for regime change to oust the government of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad.

Friday’s attack came a day after the Nusra Front captured the head of Division 30, a Syrian army defector Col. Nadim al-Hasan, and another officer known as Abu Hadi, who was in command of the small band of US-trained fighters who have been funneled back into Syria from Turkey. Another six fighters were also taken prisoner.

The Pentagon initially issued carefully worded statements claiming that none of the US-trained fighters had been captured. These claims were dashed by Saturday, when the Syrian Al Qaeda front released a video in which the captured fighters appeared. One of them, speaking to the camera, explained how US trainers had, after a month and a half training in Turkey, provided him and others with M-16 assault rifles and cash and sent them into Syria.

The US-trained fighters are hardly a formidable force. According to the Pentagon’s own admission, barely 60 have been vetted and trained since the program was first proposed nearly a year ago, with the stated aim of fielding an army of 15,000 US-backed mercenaries.

The difficulties encountered by this program stem both from the inability of the Pentagon to vet Syrian fighters, who are overwhelmingly drawn from Islamist extremist groups like the Nusra Front, and the unwillingness of these same fighters to be identified as US-paid mercenaries.

The intervention of US warplanes bombing Al-Nusra positions was apparently the only thing that prevented the complete overrunning of Division 30, which has provided its members as a stable for Pentagon recruitment.

What is most striking about the event is the unconcealed dismay and surprise on the part of both the US-backed militia and Washington itself at being attacked by the Nusra Front.

Following the capture of its commander and the other fighters, Division 30 issued a communique appealing to “our brothers” in the Al-Nusra-dominated “Support Front” to “release the colonel and his companions as quickly as possible, avoiding shedding the blood of Muslims and out of eagerness to maintain a united front.”

The statement could not be clearer. The force being trained by the US military is attempting to operate as part of a “united front” with the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda, which the American people have been told for nearly 14 years represents the foremost threat to the US.

This same essential truth was driven home by the reaction of US officials to the Al-Nusra attack.

“In Washington, several current and former senior administration officials acknowledged that the attack and the abductions by the Nusra Front took American officials by surprise and represented a significant intelligence failure,” the New York Times reported Saturday.

The Times reported that officials said, “they expected the Nusra Front to welcome Division 30 as an ally.” It quoted one former senior US official, said to be working closely on Syrian issues until recently, as saying, “This wasn’t supposed to happen like this.”

Explaining the dismay of official Washington over the turn of events, theTimes adds:

“Division 30’s leaders expected to play a role in an ambitious new joint push by the United States and Turkey to help less radical Syrian insurgent groups seize territory from the fundamentalist militant fighters of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS….”

The reference is to the recent announcement of an agreement between Washington and Ankara to move ahead with Turkey’s long-stated goal of seizing a strip of Syrian territory alongside the Turkish border and turning into a “safe zone,” or as US officials have pitched it, an “ISIS-free zone.”

Turkey’s aims in pursuing this goal are two-fold: to escalate the four-year-old war for regime change in Syria and to crush the attempts by Kurdish groups to carve out their own autonomous region in this border area. Since announcing it was joining the fight against ISIS and allowing the US Air Force to use Turkish bases to launch strikes against ISIS, Turkey has concentrated its own bombardments not on the Islamist militia, but on the Kurds who have been fighting against it.

When the Times writes delicately about Division 30 leaders hoping to “help less radical Syrian insurgent groups” seize control of this buffer zone, it is speaking of the Nusra Front, the Al Qaeda affiliate and its closest allies. These forces have already managed to seize hold of a substantial part of this territory, thanks to arms and funds poured in by Washington’s main regional allies: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Washington’s apparent objective was to rely on the Nusra Front to serve as its principal proxy force while utilizing the US-trained mercenaries of Division 30 to influence the Al Qaeda-affiliated militia. The fighting at the end of last week has thrown this strategy into disarray.

This is only the latest fiasco produced by the US intervention in the region. Late last year, two of the last remaining “moderate rebel” groups backed and armed by Washington collapsed in the face of the Nusra Front. The groups voluntarily disbanded, ceded all of their US-supplied weapons to the Al Qaeda affiliate and released their members to join it. Among the sophisticated US weapons turned over to the Nusra Front were TOW anti-tank missiles and Grad rockets.

In the midst of the latest debacle with Division 30 and one year after the Obama administration began its bombing campaign against ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq, US military and intelligence officials have told the Associated Press that both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency have concluded that the strategy has resulted in “no meaningful degradation” of the number of fighters fielded by ISIS. US intelligence puts this number at between 20,000 and 30,000. Nor have any significant gains been registered in retaking Iraqi territory that has fallen under ISIS control.

This does not mean nothing has changed. The escalation of Washington’s criminal and predatory intervention in the region has left thousands more dead and maimed, driven many more from their homes and stoked sectarian divisions as a means of dividing and conquering both Syria and Iraq.

In the process, the Obama administration has succeeded in exposing the lies used to promote this intervention. What has been sold to the American people as a war against terrorism is in actuality being waged in a de facto alliance with Al Qaeda. Its real purpose is to oust a Syrian government allied with Russia and Iran and impose a US puppet as part of a strategy to impose US hegemony over the entire Middle East and prepare for global war.

With the successive failures of US attempts to field proxy forces in this struggle, there is the growing likelihood that the US military will be thrown directly into another major bloodbath.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington Stunned by Attack on US Mercenaries in Syria

Boy or girl. Public school or private school. If the Rhode Island child is middle-school age, it is now mandatory to receive a Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. The jab would most likely be a Gardasil shot, made by Merck – studied for less than two years in about 1,200 children under age 16 before it became licensed and fast-tracked by the FDA. Coincidentally, this vaccine is currently under investigation by the European Medicines Agency (but apparently it is turning out to be a weak one).

This proves once and for all how the side-effects of multi-trillion dollar pharma companies with bottomless salaries toward propagandists, plus bloated lawmakers and government agencies – is actually a dangerous form of insanityForced injections of chemical cocktails that have proven to be deadly in teenagers might have been recognized as child endangerment in the past. Now it’s just par for the course since the passing of California’s SB 277 which mandated vaccines for all students.

Rhode Island is just following suit – which is precisely why parents tried to stop SB 277. If some vaccines are mandated, what if all of them get thrown into the mix, including a couple hundred in the pipeline, and parents lose all control to decide when or if their child is jabbed?

As naturopath Rosanne Lindsay recently wrote:

In June, California became the first state to mandate vaccination for all children attending public and private schools. Similar mandates will apply to all adults working in daycare settings. There are currently 58 bills in 24 different states that would limit your rights when it comes to vaccines, or lose your job. A proposed Federal law will attempt to jab the entire nation.

The Associated Press has reported that starting this coming school year, middle school students must receive the jab unless they have medical or religious exemptions (both are difficult to obtain):

Tricia Washburn, chief of the office of immunization for the Rhode Island Department of Health, said the Centers for Disease Control found no safety concerns with the vaccine.

“The bottom line is that HPV is the most sexually transmitted disease in the U.S.” she said. “We are interested in protecting the public health. We feel it shouldn’t be treated any differently than any of the other vaccines recommended by the CDC.”

Actually, this vaccine in particular should be treated differently than other vaccines. By different, I mean extra banned – or for a person to have the secured freedom to opt-out. It has been shown to be deadly, injurious, and unnecessary given how the immune system can overcome warts. (Quick facts about HPV) By the summer of 2009, this fast-tracked vaccine already caused more than 15,000 thousand reports of vaccine reactions, including more than 3,000 injuries and 48 deaths.

Rhode Island incorporates all CDC-recommended vaccines into the state’s school immunization regulations because their Department of Health directly creates such laws/mandates. Virginia and Washington, D.C. have likewise joined in mandating the HPV shot.

Parents keep saying that if they knew that the HPV vaccine prevented cancer, of course they would do that for their child. Do they not know that HPV can be fought off with the human immune system? Do they not wonder at mandating this vaccine for boys? Do they not mind at losing the option of at least postponing the jab until their children reach their late teens?

A petition to repeal the regulation can be found through a Facebook group called Rhode Islanders Against Mandated HPV Vaccinations. Rhode Island will have a hearing in August to answer concerns.

So much more can be said about the dangers of the HPV vaccine. At least one documentary is devoted to shining light on the damage this abominable jab has done to ravage young women’s lives and rob them of bright futures. Not to mention, it was just reported on mainstream news this past Spring, thatGardasil vaccine can cause infection with higher risk HPV strain. Isn’t that akin to giving someone cancer? It is ridiculous how homeopathy and herbals are cast in a crazy light when they have safely and effectively brought remission to various types of wart manifestations.

But if that sounds like a pipe dream, consider this: a study using human test subjects found that ACHH(mushroom compound) fully eradicated HPV from some of the women who took the supplement for six months, due to its immune-boosting action supported by around 20 human trials. One article in March claimed that the disease didn’t even show up in a blood test after that time for some of the participants. That’s incredible given the dormant nature of viral warts.

From a monetary standpoint, the average $50 per bottle beats out the average $116 per HPV shot (3 shots are required) and any resulting side-effects which can include seizures, brain inflammation,POTS, autoimmune conditions like lupus and more.

That few hundred dollars would be much better spent on such a safe, effective option should teenagers find themselves in that situation. Either way, parents would probably prefer having that information and having those options open – instead of draconian measures that expose their child to high risk in order to benefit corporations that do not strive to provide safe products.

Mandates such as Rhode Island’s only further take away any incentive to bother with safety. There will be no accountability afterward. Parents who outsourced their responsibilities, however, will feel that accountability acutely should they find that their children’s health deteriorated after the gates are closed. This blatant removal of civil liberties cannot be acceptable.

Heather Callaghan is a natural health blogger and food freedom activist. You can see her work at NaturalBlaze.com and ActivistPost.com. Like at Facebook.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine (Gardasil) Mandated for All Rhode Island Middle School Students

While the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is not a regulatory agency, their release of a full report on glyphosate’s ability to cause cancer is making waves throughout the world. Glyphosate is the key component in Monsanto’s Roundup.

There are more than 750 products for sale in the USA alone which contain glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide that has been selling since the 1970s.

The agency is comprised of an international review board which determined that glyphosate is indeed carcinogenic. Considering that more than ‘80% of the biotech-created GM crops’ throughout the world were manufactured to be used with this herbicide – it would logically follow that the majority of our food supply is now contaminated by a cancer-causing agent(s).

Following the release of the report, the country of Sri Lanka decided to ban glyphosate completely, and other countries are considering a similar move. Is this information just too much to swallow for more immediate action to follow, or have governments been infiltrated so completely by biotech that the announcement that most of our food is covered in poison will simply be ignored?

The National Pesticide Information Center has done nothing to update its website to inform citizens that the IARC has declared that this herbicide is carcinogenic.

In fact, they instead post the following, word for word:

“Is glyphosate likely to contribute to the development of cancer?

Animal studies have not shown evidence that glyphosate exposure is linked to cancer. Studies with people have also shown little evidence that exposure to glyphosate products is linked with cancer.”

This is an outrageous lie that should be removed immediately – but it won’t be because we are dealing with an industry which regulates itself. Unless people around the world take massive, grass-roots action, instead of waiting on their governments to respond, Monsanto and the biotech industry will continue to sell known cancer-causing agents.

Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Monsanto Herbicide in GMO Crops is Carcinogenic: World Health Organization’s Full Report

Palestinian refugees “deserve their right to return home.” Yannis Mendez

Jeremy Corbyn, the surprise frontrunner in the leadership election for the UK Labour Party, says he would impose a two-way arms embargo on Israel if he were to become prime minister in 2020.

In an interview with The Electronic Intifada, the member of parliament for Islington, in central London, endorsed key elements of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

Corbyn is a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and is well known as an active supporter of Palestinian rights.

He told The Electronic Intifada his involvement in the movement took off after he entered parliament in 1983. He has visited Palestine nine times, as well as refugee camps in Lebanon and Syria.

Corbyn emphasized that the Palestinian right to return was “the key” to a solution.

He added that Israeli universities involved in arms research should be boycotted.

Corbyn, whose grassroots popularity has caused panic in the Labour establishment, said he would scrap the government’s controversial “anti-terror” strategy Prevent. Critics point to its frequent targeting of British Muslims for legitimate speech acts.

Arms embargo

“I think we have to push robustly for the limitation of arms supplies,” Corbyn said, adding that he believed Israel to be “in breach” of the human rights clauses of the EU-Israel trade agreement.

“Israel is after all facing an investigation … for war crimes, as indeed are the Hamas forces on a much different or lesser scale,” Corbyn said. “I think we should be very cautious about supplying arms in those circumstances.”

The current Conservative government recently announced it had ended a review into arms licenses to Israel started during the summer 2014 assault on Gaza.

“Certainly the trajectory of the Conservative government is to approve of continuous arms sales,” Corbyn said.

But he cited ample reasons for action including that Israel is “continuing with the imprisonment of [Palestinian] children, elected parliamentarians, expulsion of African asylum seekers from Israel, and of course the siege of Gaza, refusing to allow any reconstruction.”

He also cited Israel’s ongoing colonization of the West Bank and that it is “still trying to sell settlement productsas if they’re Israeli products through Western markets, even though that’s been declared completely illegal by the European Union.”

“A peace process will come about when Israel understands that there is not a military solution,” Corbyn said, and such a process would have to include Hamas.

He also called for four subsidiary factories of the Israeli arms firm Elbit in the UK to be converted to civilian use.

Campaigners recently blockaded these factories calling for them to be shut down. One of them, UAV Engines Limited, makes drone engines for Elbit. “I’m opposed to the use of drones,” Corbyn said.

Instead of firing workers in arms factories, Corbyn advocates converting them to other purposes, such as civil aviation, with support from a national investment bank.

Academic boycott “complicated”

He also endorsed the boycott of Israeli settlement goods.

On the wider BDS campaign, Corbyn said that the academic boycott was “very complicated” to implement without, for example, preventing Israeli dissidents such as Ilan Pappe coming to speak in the UK.

“If it is a university that is doing research into drones, taser weapons, or doing research into surveillance of the occupation in Gaza and elsewhere then they should be part of the boycott,” he said.

But he said he supports “dialogue” with “academics.”

However, the guidelines published by PACBI – the Palestinian academic and cultural boycott campaign – do not in any way exclude someone like Pappe, who does not represent a boycottable academic institution, from speaking.

Corbyn said he was unfamiliar with the guidelines but that he would study them.

Corbynmania

Corbyn entered the leadership election in June, securing the required number of nominations from fellow lawmakers just two minutes before the deadline.

At first, he was seen as the token left-wing candidate, with his three rivals more identified with the right of the party.

But the last two months have seen an explosion of what media are calling “Corbynmania.”

He has packed meeting halls all over the UK, with fans praising his self-effacing and inclusive style.

Corbyn’s campaign has been boosted by a wave of young people paying £3 ($5) to sign up as Labour party supporters, giving them a vote in the election which takes place from mid-August. The results will be known 12 September.

There is a touch of the 2008 Barack Obama about his campaign, something his team has playfully tapped into with the ironic twist on his nickname: “Jez We Can.”

Corbyn has now overtaken his rivals in recent opinion polls.

He has also won the most nominations from local Labour Parties, an indication of grassroots sentiment.

He has been formally endorsed by several trade unions, including the UK’s two biggest: Unite and Unison.

Liz Kendall, the right-wing candidate deemed closet to former Prime Minister Tony Blair, is expected to finish last.

While polls have proven unreliable predictors in recent UK elections, it would be a stunning turn of events for one of Labour’s most left-wing lawmakers to be elected leader, running on policies such as taking the railways and other utilities back into public ownership, abolishing the university tuition fees introduced by Blair and opposition to nuclear weapons.

Talk to Hamas

Corbyn has long argued that the UK needs to talk to Hamas as part of a “peace process.”

Media recently pilloried him for referring to representatives of Hamas and the Lebanese political party and resistance organization Hizballah who had been refused entry to the UK as “friends.”

“Some of our media prefer not to engage in major and serious issues and prefer instead to throw around emotive language,” he said in response to these criticisms.

“There has to be talks, there has to be negotiations with all the Palestinian forces, as well as with all the Israeli forces,” he said. “That means talking to Hamas, it means talking to Hizballah – does it mean you agree with what they say on social issues, on the death penalty? No it doesn’t, and you can make that very clear to them in the discussion.”

“But the reality is they do represent a very large sway of Palestinian opinion – if you don’t involve them you’re not going to get a deal,” he added.

Corbyn noted that it was also once considered anathema for the UK to talk to Sinn Féin, the political party associated with the Irish Republican Army. He was also attacked in the 1980s for bringing Sinn Féin leaderGerry Adams into the UK parliament for talks.

Recently, Adams met Corbyn on a return visit to parliament, but this time it was after Adams and his colleagues had visited 10 Downing Street for talks with Prime Minister David Cameron.


Corbyn points out that even former heads of Israeli intelligence think Israel should negotiate with Hamas – something it has already done, albeit indirectly, over prisoner exchanges and ceasefires in Gaza.

Prevent is divisive

Corbyn also questioned the government’s controversial “anti-terror” strategy Prevent.

Ostensibly a way to steer people away from extremist propaganda and groups like Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL), critics of Prevent say that the policy is far more insidious, and may even be inadvertently helping groups like ISIS to recruit.

In July, an Al Jazeera English report revealed that an Iranian British schoolboy had been referred to a Prevent program when only 15 and labelled “extremist” for wearing a “Free Palestine” badge. A pamphlet encouraging the boycott of Israel was deemed by police to be evidence of “terrorist-like” views.

Prevent “does need a complete rethink,” Corbyn said. “This requirement of surveillance over Muslim children by teachers … means they are in problems if they don’t report what could conceivably be recorded as anything extreme.”

Corbyn said that a high school student writing a paper on the history of the Middle East might need to look up the word “intifada” because “it’s central to the history of the Palestinian people and their relations with Israel.” But he warned that by “typing ‘intifada’ into their search engine, they’ll be deemed to be possibly a terrorist, because they’re thinking about intifada – this is nonsense.”

Corbyn argues for an approach promoting “cohesion and coherence in our society, absolutely opposed toIslamophobiaanti-Semitism or racism in any form,” rather than “singling it out and saying it is the Muslim community only that matters.”

One state?

What about the long-term solution? Is some sort of democratic one-state arrangement inevitable eventually in Palestine?

“I think it’s up to the people of the region to decide what kind of long-term solution there would be,” Corbyn argued.

“At the moment, all that’s on offer is the possibility of a two-state solution,” he said. But “it’s difficult to see how it would operate with the degree of settlements that are there. It’s half a million people Israel would have to move out of the settlements.”

Corbyn has an interesting analysis: “The three areas of Palestine that have got to be addressed are: one, settlements and occupation of the West Bank; two, the siege of Gaza and three, the issue of now fourth-generation refugees living in camps in Lebanon and some still in Syria. They deserve their rights too, they deserve their right to return home.”

So he supports the right to return of the Palestinian refugees? “Yes I do. Because that’s got to be the key to it. Whether they want to return or not is another matter. The rights have to be there.”

He concluded: “Can there be a settlement? Yes I think there can be.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK Labour Party Leadership Candidate Jeremy Corbyn Backs Boycott of Israeli Universities Involved in Arms Research

As Huffington Post pointed out, Donald Trump was once a central figure in the cast of characters covered by the New York Observer.

The Huffington Post‘s Michael Calderone (7/28/15) had a piece on the ethical dilemma posed for the weeklyNew York Observer by the fact that its owner and publisher, Jared Kushner, is married to Ivanka Trump, daughter of real estate mogul and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. One would expect theObserver to be all over the Trump story, given that its self-proclaimed mission is to cover “the city’s influencers in politics, culture, luxury and real estate who collectively make New York City unique,” but instead the paper has had next to nothing to say about Trump’s controversy-fueled presidential bid.

Calderone quotes from a memo sent by Observer editor Ken Kurson:

If we run something pro-Trump we will automatically be accused of carrying water for him (on account of the relationship to our publisher). If we run something anti-Trump, we will be accused of trying to curry favor with our peers in journalism or worse, intentionally being only a little hard on him so that later we can love him up and point to the earlier softball as proof that we’re fair. Normally, I don’t give a shit what people think of what we do — I just want us to try to do the right thing and people can say what they’re going to say. But this situation is unique.

It’s a rather odd ethical standard–being concerned about running a negative story about your publisher’s father-in-law because people might think you’re doing it only to “curry favor with our peers in journalism.” Presumably you would be “currying favor” with other journalists by impressing them with your journalistic ethics, which is an argument against ever doing anything in journalism simply because it’s the right thing to do.

On the other hand, if you’re worried that people will think you did an ethical thing only because it will help you to be unethical later–boy, you must really think people have a low opinion of you, huh?

Kurson wrote an opinion piece for the Observer (7/29/15) where he quoted more from his own memo–“As always, we will disclose relationship in the story…. In news stories, we should continue to play it straight, always”–and explained that an email exchange he had with International Business Times reporter Brendan James “underlines precisely why I was right to be reluctant for the Observer to write about Donald Trump.”

How so? In short, while James was asking Kurson for a quote about Trump, he was also asking other journalists what they thought about the Observer‘s Trump policy–or, as Kurson put it, “asking for dirt about any arrangement theObserver had not to cover Trump’s run.” While to those with a less finely honed ethical sense this might seem like a normal way a media reporter might cover a media story, to Kurson it revealed the kind of seamy muckracker James was, leading to this exchange:

Kurson: Your greasy trolling for Trump clicks by asking other journalists to comment on how the Observer does or does not cover Trump is exactly the reason I’m reluctant to cover Trump more than necessary.

James: So the Observer is refraining from covering Trump not because of any kind of pressure from its publisher but in fact because it finds the subject cheap and not newsworthy?

Kurson: The Observer has had zero pressure from its publisher in our coverage. Zero. You made up the words “cheap and not newsworthy.” As I toldHuffington Post, we are limiting our coverage because the perception of a conflict is unavoidable. As this unpleasant exchange has proven.

Of course, when someone refers to reporting on Trump as “greasy trolling for Trump clicks,” one might well wonder if that means they view the subject of Trump as “cheap and not newsworthy”–and ask them whether this is the case. (You can read James’ reporting on Trump and the Observer, and his own account of his exchange with Kurson, here.)

But the main takeaway from all this is that Kurson is very concerned about conflict of interest when it comes to his publisher’s wife’s relatives. This makes it all the more striking that the Observer editor does not seem to have much concern about conflict of interest when it comes to his publisher’s real estate investments.

The New York Observer called for a police crackdown in response to outdoor sleeping in Tompkins Square Park. (photo: Céline Haeberly/NY Observer)

Take an Observer editorial that ran on July 14, headlined “Take Back Tompkins Square Park. And New York City.”

Writing that “New York City has made tremendous progress over the past 20 years” as “whole swaths of the city once bereft of cultural opportunities or even a safe place to live are now blossoming anew for businesses and residents,” the editorial asserts that “there are unmistakable signs that New York City is creeping toward the bad old days.”

Exhibit A is the state of Tompkins Square Park, the central green space of Manhattan’s East Village neighborhood. Photography by the New York Post(7/10/15) “showed six homeless men sleeping in Tompkins Square Park,” the editorial pointed out, warning that “allowing homeless people to take over even a corner of the park invites more problems”:

Tompkins Square Park has been an accurate barometer of where the city is headed. Known for decades as “Needle Park,” its disarray and lawlessness reflected a dysfunctional, ungovernable city. The restoration of its beauty over the last 20 years has heralded an era where residents and a vibrant collection of small businesses near the park—is there a single better food in all of New York City than the jalapeno cheddar cream cheese at Tompkins Square Bagels?—have thrived. Let’s not allow that progress to slip through our fingers.

The article noted that Police Commissioner William Bratton had made a personal appearance at the park, apparently in response to press coverage–at least, the Observer hoped so. “But it will take more than a visit,” the editorial said. “The city needs a strategy and the determination to stick with it.”

The NYPD installed a mobile surveillance tower in Manhattan’s Tompkins Square Park in response to media complaints about the homeless (photo:@urbanmyths)

Shortly thereafter, Tompkins Square did get more than a visit–it got a guard post, a mobile police surveillance tower that was installed on July 21 as “a temporary ‘high-visibility’ police command post to address safety issues on a temporary basis,” according to a spokesperson for New York Mayor Bill deBlasio (Gothamist,7/22/15). The tower was emplaced, according to local blogger EV Grieve (7/21/15), “following the Post and the Observer‘s recent reports citing anecdotal evidence that there’s an influx of homeless people and drug users in the park.” The tower was removed a week later after widespread complaints from area residents (DNAinfo7/28/15).

What the Observer didn’t disclose in its successful call for a police crackdown on homelessness in Tompkins Square was that its publisher has a direct financial stake in the mix of classes using the park: Jared Kushner’s real estate company, Kushner Companies, has been buying up hundreds of rental units in the East Village, including in the blocks immediately surrounding Tompkins Square. The Kushner company is “now likely the largest landlord in the East Village with all [its] acquisitions, and will continue to buy more,” the Real Deal New York real estate magazine (2/15/13) quoted an industry insider. Kushner has been accused of “forcing residents out of two buildings he owns on East Second Street so he can gut the apartments and rent out luxury units to more well-heeled people,” according to the Daily News (7/10/14). This is a different perspective on what the Observer calls “whole swaths of the city…now blossoming anew for businesses and residents.”

As the blogger Grieve (7/15/15) noted, one of the buildings that Kushner owns is 165 Avenue A, the location of the same Tompkins Square Bagels that got a plug in the Observer‘s editorial. Yet Kurson, so concerned about the perception of conflict of interest when it comes to Trump, evidently doesn’t think any of this is worth disclosing. Maybe because demands for a police crackdown on poor people are less credible when you acknowledge that your boss stands to profit from it?

To disclose my own interest in this story: Having lived around the corner from Tompkins Square Park for the past 24 years, I’ve been in the park literally thousands of times at all times of day and have never felt remotely threatened. And Tompkins Square Bagels aside, the “vibrant collection of small businesses near the park,” along with the mix of classes and cultures that gives this neighborhood its unique character, is rapidly being destroyed by the gentrification that Kushner is spearheading–and that the Observer serves as a mouthpiece for.

Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on At New York Observer, Trump’s Too Close to Cover–but Promoting Publisher’s Real Estate Is No Problem

The greed for money and power undermines those in the power structure, from politicians to big business and trade negotiators, and even police. While they may view greed as a strength – it drives corrupt politicians and big business to consistently push for more power and money – it can also be a weakness by leading them to overreach and expose their corruption. We cannot count on those in the power structure to always undermine themselves, but when they do, we need to be there to point it out and help their mistakes ensure their defeat.

Trade Stalls, Pushing TPP Into the Election Year

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiators  in Hawaii were met by protesters, including the largest conch shell blow in world history, with four hundred people blowing conch shells outside the hotel where the negotiations were going on.

The negotiators did not reach the conclusion they had promised as major areas of disagreement remain between the big economies of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, particularly because of the aggressive positions of the US negotiators. The US is insisting on provisions that will protect the profits of pharmaceutical and other medical corporations and that will destroy some of the best healthcare systems in the world (Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). The US is using its bully power to force the failed and abusive US market model of privatized healthcare on countries that have strong public health systems. Many other big issues remain, among them are trade-related dairy and autos, biologic’s patent exclusivity periods, the role of Internet service providers regarding copyright and details of investor-state dispute settlement provisions.

“Your career is toast” protest in Senator Wyden’s office.

As a result, negotiators left Hawaii without a schedule for a next meeting.  Elections are complicating progress, with Stephen Harper in a close re-election race, Shinzo Abe of Japan’s popularity dropping and trade becoming an issue in US elections as political payback for the TPP Fast Track vote is  beginning. At this point, it looks like the delaymay mean that the TPP will not be reviewed in Congress until the 2016 election year starts.

The election year is an opportunity for the movement against trade rigged for big business to make the TPP a national issue and to push for a new direction for trade that puts protection of people and the planet before profits. Join us in organizing to stop the TPP and the other corporate treaties, the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). Click here to take the TPP action pledge.

On Medicare’s 50th Birthday, Healthcare in the US Changing for the Worse

While Medicare’s 50th Birthday was celebrated across the nation, with people advocatingfor Medicare to be improved and expanded to cover all Americans, there are signs of trouble in US healthcare.

The new slogan of the single payer movement is “Medicare for All: American as Apple PIE” with PIE standing for Protect, Improve, Expand.  But, the reality is that we know Medicare is under attack, constantly facing cutbacks and privatization,  and this attack is bi-partisan in nature showing the truth of the saying that the difference between Republicans who overtly want to dismantle Medicare and Democrats who are privatizing Medicare is Republicans stab you in the front while Democrats stab you in the back.

 

A protest in San Francisco against Sovaldi’s price. Credit AIDS Healthcare Foundation

On the broader healthcare issues the United States, already the most costly in the world, is the concern that the private health insurance industry is becoming more concentrated. Anthem Inc  announced its intent to buy Cigna Corp in a deal valued at $54.2 billion, creating the largest U.S. health insurer by membership. Three weeks ago Aetna Inc agreed to buy Humana Inc for $37 billion. Further concentration of the insurance industry is very likely to lead to higher prices and worse service.

At the same time private hospitals and vulture fund investors are seeking to buy up physician practices.  A report indicates private equity purchases of medical practices soared nearly 60% year-over-year, to a new record of $15.6 billion. Specialty practices have become targets of publicly traded corporate entities, too expensive for private funds.These purchases allow investors and hospitals to get control of medical practices and their patient base, raising important questions:

“If a for-profit, publicly traded or privately held venture-capital fund owns these doctors, what’s their fiduciary duty to the patients?”

The end of private, independent medical practices is going to be one more step in the destruction of healthcare in the United States. Add to that one more trend – the incredible increase in the price of pharmaceuticals (which as we note above the US is trying to push on the world). The cost of cancer drugs has doubled over the last decade, some new drugs cost as much as $1,000 per pill making it impossible for patients to take the medicine they need. Doctors are complaining and urging the lowering of prices.

So, as we celebrate Medicare’s fiftieth birthday there are lots of problems and challenges. It is the job of the movement to organize people to ensure that when the wheels fall off the Obamacare bus, the people are organized to demand the only solution – improved and expanded Medicare for All. The time may come sooner than we expect.

Inspiring Protests Against Shell Arctic Drilling Raise Public Awareness

This week there were inspiring protests in Oregon that delayed Shell Oil’s plan to drill the Arctic for oil. Protesters dangled from a bridge to block Shell from getting its ice breaker out to sea.  Theaction, which included 13 people hanging from the bridge while scores of kayactivists blocked the waters below, forced the boat to turn around and stay in port for 40 extra hours when every day matters as the Arctic drilling season window of opportunity is closing.  In the end the protesters were removed from the bridge and the Shell ice breaker left Portland after an inspiring delay. These were not the first protest of the sHELLNo campaign and will not be the last.

Shell is desperate to turn their finances around. “The protests coincide with Shell’s second quarter earnings report, which shows a $2.3 billion drop in profits. Thousands of layoffs are planned, among other adjustments, adding urgency to oil giant’s push to explore the Arctic.”

Shell and other oil companies are experiencing opposition to their continued extreme extraction practices because of immediate threats to the environment and because each additional project pushes the globe closer to the climate tipping point. The industry is under attack by concerned citizens and is trying to figure out how to respond, but at the same time prices for oil and gas are dropping and the reality of climate change and the demand for policies to address it are increasing.

While one participant expressed sadness – a day of tears – when the ice breaker went out to sea, and we share that disappointment, we also know this is part of an ongoing campaign and that people are working to stop carbon fuels in so many ways: fossil fuel divestmentfasting against FERC infrastructure, local protests at pipeline hearings,litigationpipeline blockades, and artful protest.  Each action inspires another and the movement gets stronger as the greed of the industry becomes more evident and the impact of their actions impact more of us and cause unpredictable environmental impacts likewidespread earthquakes.

Police Violence Against Communities of Color and Poor

Another area related to greed is the police violence and abuse that has become more evident against communities of color, not only Blacks but the Indigenous as well as againstthe poor.  This week the cries for justice for Sandra Bland grew louder. More people understand that it was Sandra’s standing up to institutional racism that led to her death; thatshe was a rebel standing up to abuse of power; and someone who realized it was her calling to stand up to a system of racism.

At her funeral Sandra’s mother told people that she had a calling to challenge racism and issued a call to action for others to join the struggle. And, others are joining. People gain strength when they see others stand up to abuse of power and then when people experience it, they join the struggle as well. This weeknearly 2,000 people marched through Newark protesting police violence. Hundreds gathered in Cleveland at the#BlackLivesMatter conveningand their views were strengthened when police used pepper spray against them. We are also strengthened when we see protests resulting in police indictments, something that never happened before and is happening more regularly.

As we look toward the upcominganniversary of the death of Michael Brown, we should all look with great pride at the #BlackLivesMatter movement – its growth, impressive leadership and accomplishments.  As the movement pushes for the radical transformation that is needed, it brings to light who is opposed to ending the injustice of abusive policing. It is the superwealthy who gain power, privilege and wealth from inequality, from keeping people poor and keeping communities of color down. Once again we learn the connection between the corrupt economy and the corrupt government and racism. And, we also see that that the power structure fears the movement as we learn they have beenmonitoring the activities of the movement for the last year.

Consensus Growing for Radical Change Not Mere Reform

Christian Parenti  writes about the roots of the American police state explaining: “At its heart, the new American repression is very much about the restoration and maintenance of ruling class power.” The modern police state’s roots are in the 1960s when “white supremacy, corporate power, capitalism, and the legitimacy of the US government, at home and abroad, all faced profound crisis.” He describes the history of the economic divide that sends money to the top while impoverishing most Americans and how racism is used to divide people to keep them from focusing on the political and economic establishment.

Police force is the foundational tool of the power structure to keep people hopeless, confused and divided.  But, divisions are becoming evident as those in power see they are part of a corrupt system. More politicians are recognizing they too are ruled by money.  Former president Jimmy Carter said: “Now [the United States is] just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congressmembers. … So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors …”

The consciousness of the country is changing. People who used to be reformers, stuck inside the limits set by the two parties, are breaking out and realizing the deep corruption that is system-wide from the police on the street to senators, judges and presidents. No longer is it enough to be a “liberal” or a “progressive,” the times requires more.

The radical transformation that is needed is not on the agenda of anyone running for president in either the Democratic or Republican primary.  The reality is that nothing offered by mainstream politics will achieve the transformational change that is needed.  A normally mainstream Democrat, Robert Kuttner writes: “This is one of those moments when there is broad popular frustration, a moment when liberal goals require measures that seem radical by today’s standards. . . . Muddle-through and token gestures won’t fool anybody.”

Consciousness is rising and with that so will the demands and actions of an organized populace. Sometimes it will take the shape of protests, other times a rebellion, sometimes cities will be shut down and there will be riots. The system is not responding to the reasonable demands for social, economic, racial and environmental justice. The failure to respond will result in uprisings and at the root will be the greed for money and power by those in the power structure who ignored these realities.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Greed for Money and Power Undermines those in the Power Structure

The CBC Ottawa Broadcast Centre and head office of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Sparks Street in Ottawa. A confidential letter published by WikiLeaks on Wednesday reveal that the Crown Corporation could be sold under the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Photo: OBERT MADONDO/The Canadian Progressive

A secret letter leaked by WikiLeaks on Wednesday reveals that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and Canada Post could be sold under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, being negotiated by Canada and 11 other countries this week in Maui, Hawaii.

The confidential letter, titled, “State-Owned Enterprises (SOE) Issues for Ministerial Guidance” (PDF), reveals the perils Canada’s key Crown Corporations now face under the Harper government’s burgeoning privatization and trade agenda.

The leaked document was prepared for a TPP Ministerial Meeting held in Singapore in December, 2013. According to the whistle-blowing website, the document “indicates a wide-ranging privatisation and globalisation strategy” whose main aim is to undermine state-owned enterprises (SOEs) – publicly owned corporations whose mandate is to deliver the public good with no or minimal commercial considerations. That will change under the TPP.

“Even an SOE that exists to fulfil a public function neglected by the market or which is a natural monopoly would nevertheless be forced to act ‘on the basis of commercial considerations’,” said WikiLeaks in a press release introducing the leak. “Foreign companies would be given standing to sue SOEs in domestic courts for perceived departures from the strictures of the TPP, and countries could even be sued by other TPP countries, or by private companies from those countries.”

The Council of Canadians, which leads the Canadian campaign against the TPP and other reckless trade agreements, is concerned that the “essence and mandate” of both the CBC and  Canada Post “are being traded away in favour of private corporate profit” under the TPP.

“The very mission of the CBC – telling the bilingual and multicultural story of Canada – will be reduced to simple profit making,”  said Sujata Dey, the Council’s trade campaigner. “Likewise, Canada Post will no longer function as a nation builder, but as a private company.”

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting says Harper’s “hidden agenda to damage public broadcasting” started in November, 2007, when he appointed Hubert Lacroix, a Montreal lawyer and Conservative Party supporter, as the President and CEO of the CBC. In 2014, Lacroix announced that the CBC would lay off between 1,000 and 1,500 employees by 2020. He also announced plans to shut down key in-house production of popular feature documentaries.

Meanwhile, since 2012, the Harper government has slashed the CBC’s budget by a quarter of a billion dollars. Garry Neil, the Council’s executive director, noted that, due to these cuts, the CBC is “already acting too commercially and straying from its essential public service mandate.”

Professor Jane Kelsey of the University of Auckland, who analyzed the leaked TPP document, found that the rules being pursued under the TPP “go beyond anything in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).” She suggested that the document set out a number of obligations, including the requirement by state-owned enterprises to act on the basis of “commercial considerations”, while abandoning their role of providing the public good.

“It looks like SOEs are not allowed to get government support or noncommercial assistance,” said Kelsey. “That kind of support is often essential for SOEs that provide public functions that are not profitable or are even loss-making.”

Kelsey may as well have been referring to Canada in general and Canada Post in particular. The Crown Corporation is on the fast-track to privatization through its ongoing five-year “restructuring plan”, which has already resulted in job cuts, higher mail prices, and the phasing out of home delivery in numerous communities around the country. The draconian restructuring exercise will rob 1.17 million Canadian households of door-to-door delivery in 2015, according to the CBC News.

memo obtained by Blackblock’s Reporter through an access to information request last year reveals that Harper commissioned a confidential study into the privatization of Canada Post.

“There have been other successful privatizations of national post services,” the memo said, according to Blackblock’s Reporter. “To privatize something, one has to show investors they will actually get a return.”

Then there is the Canadian Wheat Board, privatized by the government in 2012. The CWB is now owned by G3 Global Grain Group, a Winnipeg-based partnership between U.S. agribusiness giant Bunge Ltd and Saudi Arabia’s SALIC Canada Limited. According to theCBC News, SALIC Canada Limited is “a subsidiary of Riyadh-based Saudi Agricultural and Livestock Investment Company, Saudi Arabia’s main agriculture investment vehicle.”

“The TPP erects a ‘one size fits all’ economic system designed to advantage the largest transnational corporations. In this leak we see the radical effects the TPP will have, not only on developing countries, but on states very close to the centre of the Western system,” said WikiLeaks’ founder and editor, Julian Assange. “If we are to restructure our societies into an ultra-neoliberal legal and economic bloc that will last for the next 50 years then this should be said openly and debated.”

If it’s signed, the TPP will become the world’s largest economic trade agreement, encompassing more than 40 per cent of the world’s GDP. The 12 parties to the TPP are: United States, Canada, Chile, Australia, Peru, Mexico, Vietnam, Malaysia, New Zealand, Japan, and Singapore. The WikiLeaks document indicates that “developing countries such as Vietnam, which employs a large number of SOEs as part of its economic infrastructure, would be affected most.”

With the 2015 federal election around the corner, Canadians may as well consider voting to save the CBC and Canada Post.

Special Appeal: Please help The Canadian Progressive publish more stories like this. We recently launched this GoFundMe Fund-raising Initiative. If we reach our modest goal, we’ll be able to shine more light on Harper’s assault on our democracy, and improve the overall quality of our independent journalism. Please visit our GoFundMe fundraising page and make a donation today. Thank you!

Obert Madondo is an Ottawa-based progressive blogger, and the founder and editor of The Canadian Progressive. Follow me on Twitter: @Obiemad

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on WikiLeaks Reveals the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and Canada Post May Be Sold Under TPP Agreement

Puerto Rico: Troubled Commonwealth or Debt Colony?

August 3rd, 2015 by Eric Draitser

The crisis in Puerto Rico raises a deeper political question that for years has lurked just beneath the surface of the US territory, namely Puerto Rico’s true status: dependent US commonwealth or neocolonial possession?

It may not dominate international headlines as Greece has, but Puerto Rico is facing a strikingly similar crisis, one which threatens to tear apart the very fabric of its society. With a crushing debt burden poised to collapse the US commonwealth, many alleged experts have warned that only through painful “reforms” (read austerity) can the island territory make any economic progress. But at what price is this “progress” to be attained?

Protesters carrying a vulture puppet and chanting in Spanish marched outside the Park Avenue offices of a major holder of Puerto Rico

Protesters carrying a vulture puppet and chanting in Spanish marched outside the Park Avenue offices of a major holder of Puerto Rico’s debt on Thursday to protest proposed austerity measures. | Photo: Reuters

The question of ultimate responsibility is, just as with Greece, multifaceted. On the one hand, years of mismanagement have taken their toll on the economy, leading in part to the current crisis. On the other hand, Puerto Rico has been the victim of a predatory capitalist campaign waged by major Wall Street banks, as well as hedge funds and private speculators, who have become heavily overleveraged in Puerto Rican debt through reckless bond purchases while Wall Street has fattened itself playing the role of middleman.

But the crisis in Puerto Rico also raises a deeper political question that for years has lurked just beneath the surface of the US territory, namely Puerto Rico’s true status: dependent US commonwealth or neocolonial possession? While Greece has been a member of the European Union, thereby at the very least giving it the illusion of democratic representation, Puerto Rico has remained little more than a colonial possession – an economic and political vassal of the Empire, subject to its rules and at the mercy of its lenders, while having no political representation or legal recourse. In short, Puerto Rico’s crisis demonstrates unequivocally that the small island commonwealth, and its 3.5 million inhabitants, are little more than neocolonial subjects.

A Sick Patient, a Bitter Pill

Any close analysis of the financial crisis in Puerto Rico immediately shows that the current dire situation was by no means unexpected. In fact, when Governor Alejandro García Padilla declared that “The debt is not payable,” he was merely confirming what keen financial analysts had known for a long time: Puerto Rico was in a vicious downward spiral that would ultimately require extraordinary intervention in order to rescue the troubled island.

But one need not be a world class economist to understand that this was undoubtedly the case. The precipitous decline of Puerto Rico’s GDP growth, which dropped from a high of almost 10% in 2001 to its low of -3.3% by 2007, coincided directly with a massive explosion of debt accumulation in the form of bond selling. In 2000, Puerto Rico’s debt was 63.2% of its gross national product (GNP), but by 2015 it had reached a staggering 100.2% of GNP. The negative impact of such an obviously unsustainable rise of debt accumulation was magnified by a number of circumstances, including the expiration of Section 936, a tax incentive which attracted a number of large companies to invest in Puerto Rico, and the onset of the global financial crisis of 2008 which lowered tax revenues while everything from infrastructure to pension costs continued to soar. In addition, prices in the housing market have continued to decline, dropping by 27% since 2007, while the labor participation rate has fallen to around 40% and official unemployment has been around 12%.

Of course, everyone wants to place the blame somewhere. Generally, in such situations, political leaders are immediately singled out, and Padilla’s government has already received a good deal of criticism, some of which is somewhat unfair considering he only assumed the governorship in 2013. In fact, the statistics show that the debt increase was roughly equal in each of the preceding five terms from the four previous governors. Therefore, it’s quite clear that rather than obvious mismanagement and corruption, there was a structural and systemic problem that allowed the crisis to metastasize.

Rather than politicians, the real culprits are the Wall Street banks who have parasitically, and quite handsomely, profited from Puerto Rico’s financial straightjacket. Barclays, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America-Merrill Lynch, and many others rushed to underwrite massive loansin the form of bond purchases in order to then turn around and sell those bonds to hedge funds and other investors in the US and around the world, thereby raking in tremendous profits on the underwriting fees. Essentially, Wall Street banks came in with enormous capital then transferred the risk on to other speculators, while making handsome profits as middlemen.

Indeed it seems that many of the major hedge funds active in the Puerto Rico bond market were either short-sighted, or were outright swindled, by the big banks. As recently as late 2013, major hedge fund managers were predicting a rally in Puerto Rican bonds. As David Tawil, co-founder of New York-based Maglan Capital told Bloomberg, “Over the next two years, the government should be able to make progress in their plans… They will do a lot of fundamental changes; they will be seen as a reforming story, so that debt should trade up substantially.”

Aside from being woefully inaccurate, such predictions illustrate precisely why major hedge funds are now on the hook, and why mutual fund management giants OppenheimerFunds and Franklin Advisers are now intimately involvedin the debt restructuring negotiations with San Juan. Those two companies alone own roughly 15% of Puerto Rico’s debt, and while acting in their own interests, are surely also collaborating to prevent a collapse in bond values for their Wall Street cronies in the hedge fund world. Moreover, it was OppenheimerFunds, a unit of insurer MassMutual Financial Group and Franklin Templeton, which successfully sued the Puerto Rico Electric Power Utility (PREPA) to prevent it from restructuring its debt and possibly forcing financiers to take a haircut. And so, despite the passage of the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement & Recovery Act, US courts have effectively acted in the interests of speculators to block Puerto Rico from acting to restructure its debt.

All of this leads to the simple fact that, from the perspective of investors, financiers, and major institutions, the only option for Puerto Rico is brutal austerity, just as with Greece. And so, the big guns of neoliberalism have been brought in to justify the crushing policies of “fiscal responsibility,” made famous by the troika in Europe. Anne O. Krueger, former World Bank Chief Economist and the first deputy managing director of the IMF, co-authored a study entitledPuerto Rico – A Way Forward which was released at the end of June 2015. The report examined many of the causes of the crisis, while conveniently underplaying the insidious role of Wall Street banks, and presented a number of deeply odious “structural reforms.”

Chief among these austerity measures recommended by Krueger & Co. is an attack on workers including a proposed exemption from adherence to the US federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Additionally, the report suggests exemption from other labor laws including a redefinition of overtime, reduction of vacation days, elimination of end-of-year bonuses, relaxation of youth labor laws, as well as making it easier for employers to fire employees for any minor infraction, among other things. The report also recommends reducing the staffing of PREPA in order to lower costs (not, of course, reducing the cost of electricity to working class and poor Puerto Ricans), reducing and/or eliminating welfare programs aimed at poverty reduction such as food stamps, housing benefits, etc. Krueger and her cronies also call for the reduction of Medicaid benefits which provide health care coverage to those in the most extreme poverty. In short, the report reads like a manual for austerity in the near and long term.

Equally troubling is the fact that Governor Padilla has hired Stephen Rhodes, the bankruptcy judge infamous for his pro-banker rulings in Detroit, to act as consultant in Puerto Rico’s debt restructuring process. In a recent interview, Rhodes explained that the situation in Puerto Rico “is a result of the same sort of phenomena we saw in Detroit.” Naturally, the solution for Puerto Rico will likely be quite similar to what has been seen in Detroit, including the stealing of pensions, the stripping of publicly owned assets, and the raising of prices for basic needs and utilities. Of course, because Puerto Rico cannot file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection, the situation might be even worse in the commonwealth.

The Lesson: Debt as a Weapon

Speaking at the Summit Conference of the Organization of African Unity in 1986, the great African revolutionary leader Thomas Sankara famously said that “Those who lent money to us are the same people who colonized us, are the same who so long managed our states and our economies…We were not involved in the creation of this Debt, so we should not pay it.” His point, though specific to Africa, is in fact true for all colonized territories throughout the world. Latin America knows this fact well.

And, despite its having been a possession of the United States for more than a century, this point is no less true in Puerto Rico. It surely was not the working and poor people who took on the debt, who made profits from bond sales, who gained from the massive increase in debt. In fact, if anything, their quality of life has gone down as a result of the period of massive debt accumulation. And yet, these are the people who will have to bear the burden of the austerity, who will have to pay to make investors whole.

In effect, Puerto Rico has been thrust backwards in history, once again being made into a colony, this time not by the rifle and the sword, but by the debt. Its political process, like its economic development, remains captive to forces of the mainland United States. Once again, the island serves as an asset to be squeezed for every last drop by the forces of international capital. And once again, the people have no say in the matter. The lesson of Greece is here made immediately apparent: there is no democracy, there is no choice. There is only debt servitude.

Of course, there are examples in Latin America that could be followed. The legacy of Hugo Chavez and the growing independence of countries in the region should serve as a signal to Puerto Rico that, rather than submission and continued servitude, it might once again be time to rekindle that age-old struggle, to demand independence, and to accept nothing less.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. He is the editor of StopImperialism.org and host of CounterPunch Radio. You can reach him at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Puerto Rico: Troubled Commonwealth or Debt Colony?

The “Russian Military Map” series describes the ongoing military developments in Russia, shows the approximate locations of Russian military groups and drills.

This year NATO has increased the number of military exercises near Russian borders from 90-95 to 150 and the number of reconnaissance aviation flights has increased by 9 times since last year. Iran’s “nuclear problem” has been settled, but the United States is continuing the development of a missile defense system in Europe aimed almost exclusively at Russia. The Russian Federation must take military and technical measures in response to the U.S. missile “defense” system in Europe, NATO military activity and other security threats in Russia’s backyard.

Click to see the full-size high resolution map (2626×2193)

Click to see the full-size high resolution map (2626×2193)

Developments:

1. July 27, Russia has no plans to deploy Tu-22M3 bombers in Crimea. Russian Air Force Commander Colonel General Viktor Bondarev stated Russia had enough warplanes in Crimea “to ensure clear blue sky over us.” According to earlier reports, ten Tu-22M3 bombers were temporarily deployed in Crimea during a surprise combat readiness check this spring.

2. July 29, Russia’s new-generation anti-aircraft missile systems S-400 (NATO reporting name: SA-21 Growler) have been deployed on the Kamchatka Peninsula in the Russian Far East. The combat hardware has assumed combat positions near the port cities of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, which serves as the Pacific Fleet’s primary naval base, Yelizovo, which hosts the Fleet’s air base, and Vilyuchinsk, which accommodates the Fleet’s submarine base.

The S-400 surface-to-air missile system is designated to destroy any air targets at a distance of up to 400 km (248.5 miles) and at an altitude of up to 30 km (18.6 miles) and create defense in depth. The missiles have become operational in the Russian Armed Forces this year.

3. July 30, Russia’s airborne forces are building up the strength of airborne assault divisions to complement them with a third regiment. A rapid reaction force will be created on the basis of airborne troops. According to a source in the General Staff, the paratroops’ strength will grow noticeably from 45,000 men to 60,000. The source also mentioned plans for restoring the 104th airborne assault division and creating a new airborne assault brigade.

4. July 29, The Russian Defense Ministry reportedly plans to create 2 new battle tank armies, 1st Guards Tank Army and 20th Guards Combined Army, in the Western Military District by December 1 and another combined army will in fact be formed anew. The new battle tank armies will be the first to receive the newest Armata tanks and Kurganets infantry fighting vehicles.

Armata is a heavy unified platform serving as a base for a tank and an infantry combat vehicle. The new battle tanks have received unmanned turrets, all digital control and isolated armored crew capsules. The new electronics will make the tanks a part of a network which also includes drones, electronic countermeasure systems and targeting devices. The creators say it will take less than a minute after a target is detected for its exact coordinates to be transferred to weapons crews. The key armament of Armata is a 125-mm gun, but the use of a 152-mm gun is not ruled out for the future. Serial production of these tanks is expected to begin in 2017-2018.

5. July 31, Aircraft fitness in the Russian Air Force will reach 80% for the first time ever by the end of this year, a spokesman for Russia’s Defense Ministry reported on Friday. The task was set first for long-range aviation and then for all aviation forces. Meanwhile, a series of incidents including technical failures have occurred with Russian military aircraft. Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has said the breakdown incidence in military aviation continued to be a major problem.

6. A regiment of air defense missile systems S-400 Triumf will be formed for the newly-created Arctic Command and deployed on the Novaya Zemlya archipelago this year. Last year an air defense unit based in the Kola Peninsula was armed with S-400 systems and Pantsir-S1 systems were deployed on the Novosibirsk islands.

The new strategic Arctic Joint Strategic Command went operational on the basis of the Northern Fleet in December 1. The Arctic Strategic Command area of responsibility includes Russian territories in the Arctic, including the Novaya Zemlya Archipelago. The new military command is formed on the basis of the Russian Northern Fleet and it is planned to take control of various units, vessels and formations, previously part of the Western, Central and Southern military districts.

7. Orlan-10 drones were delivered to the permanent service base – the Anadyr-Ugolny aerodrome of the Eastern Military District in Chukotka. It is planned to organize a trial combat duty of the drone unit in Chukotka for objective terrain monitoring, drilling combat training tasks in the near maritime zone and performing flights in the area of stationing of the military district’s Arctic units on the Wrangel Island and Cape Otto Schmidt. The drones will ensure sea navigation security and conduct coastal air reconnaissance over Russian territorial waters. The first trial flights of the drones in the low temperature conditions were conducted in early 2015.

ORLAN 10 is an unmanned aerial vehicle produced for the Russian government at the Special Technological Centre of Saint Petersburg.

Click to see the full size image

Click to see the full size image

8. The Project 1356 lead frigate Admiral Grigorovich is scheduled to join the Russian Black Sea Fleet and reach Sevastopol on the Crimean peninsula by the end of this year. The Russian Black Sea Fleet has already completed forming crews for the Project 11356 frigates Admiral Grigorovich, Admiral Essen and Admiral Makarov. The crews of the small missile-carrying ships Serpukhov and Zeleny Dol built for the Black Sea Fleet in the Volga Republic of Tatarstan have also been formed and started training.

Drills:

9. July 22, Russia’s Strategic Missile Troops command is holding a snap check of operational status of the Irkutsk missile unit. Two regiments equipped with Topol mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles are involved in snap checks. Topol missiles are capable of hitting strategic targets at long distances. Most of the attention is focused on practicing deployment of regiments and launch of missiles.

10. July 24-29, A missile brigade of the Central Military District was alerted in a combat readiness check in the morning of July 24 and delivered to the Totsky shooting range. The brigade held firing exercises using Iskander-M tactical missile systems. More than 500 servicemen and 50 units of military equipment took part in the drills.

11. July 27, A heavy motor rifle formation held military drills at the Totsky shooting range. About a thousand servicemen destroyed a large base of simulated militants with the support of army aviation and artillery.

12. July 29, Military exercises involving Mikoyan MiG-31 (NATO reporting name: Foxhound) interceptors and Kamov Ka-27 (Helix) helicopters have started at the Yelizovo airbase in the Far Eastern Kamchatka Territory. During the training flights, the pilots have been practicing various assignments as part of fighters’ pairs and wings using helicopter radar equipment and airborne armaments. The crews will also drill parachute and landing operations.

13. July 29, The Guards Missile Brigade of the Baltic Fleet’s coastal troops based in Russia’s westernmost Kaliningrad Region held drills with simulated multiple and single missile launches. The brigade’s units practiced destroying a simulated enemy force’s subversive groups and reconnaissance teams, acting amid an air raid, crossing contaminated terrain, various obstacles and natural barriers and moving in the conditions of fires. The missile units were supported by Mil Mi-24 (NATO reporting name: Hind) attack helicopters and Sukhoi Su-24 (Fencer) bombers from the Baltic Fleet’s naval aviation.

Mil Mi-24 is a large helicopter gunship and attack helicopter and low-capacity troop transport with room for eight passengers.

Sukhoi Su-24 is a supersonic, all-weather attack aircraft/interdictor developed in the Soviet Union. This variable-sweep wing, twin-engined side-by-side two-seater carried the USSR’s first integrated digital navigation/attack system. Contemporary Su-24M models have gone through a life-extension and updating program, with GLONASS, upgraded cockpit with multi-function displays (MFDs), HUD, digital moving-map generator, Shchel helmet-mounted sights, and provision for the latest guided weapons, including R-73 (AA-11 ‘Archer’) air-to-air missiles.

14. July 29, The Russian destroyer Admiral Ushakov has practised gun fire in the Barents Sea against coastal targets.

15. July 31, Motor rifle and artillery units of Russia’s Central Military District have ended their military drills at the Totsky shooting range near Orenburg in the south Urals, the district’s press office reported on Friday. The drills involved over 3,000 personnel and more than 400 pieces of the armor, the press office said.

16. August 20-28, In accordance with a relative China-Russia agreement, the two countries will conduct a joint naval exercise in the Peter the Great Gulf and the Sea of Japan. The exercise tasks will include: organization of joint defense and joint military operations against the surface forces of a simulated enemy. Also, the sides will conduct a joint landing operation. A key purpose of the drills is to further enhance the sides’ capabilities of jointly coping with maritime security threats.

17. September, Air defense systems S-300 Favorit and S-400 Triumf, as well as combined mediumrange surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system Pantsir will be used in the CIS exercise Combat Commonwealth-2015. The exercise will be held at the Ashuluk test site, near Astrakhan, in September.

Production:

18. 7 Russian corporations have entered top 100 biggest military companies of 2015 based on the income records: №11 – Almaz-Antey, №14 – United Aircraft Corp, №23 – Russian Helicopters, №26 – United Engine-Building, №31 – Tactical Missiles, №52 – Uralvagonzavod, №69 – RTI.

19. Russia’s Systemprom Concern (subsidiary of the United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation) is developing a universal robotic platform that can transform into a combat robot, a vehicle machine or an electronic warfare system. The vehicle’s testing will begin at the end of the year. By installing a combat module on the platform it will be possible to create a strikereconnaissance vehicle, and installing electronic warfare systems on it will make it a combat EW vehicle. A communications relay or a mine clearance system can be mounted on the chassis. The robotic platform can also use military modules with small arms, electronic warfare modules, and reconnaissance models with flying components.

Depending on the type of design and armor, its weight can reach 7 tonnes, and the vehicle is capable of carrying of up to 2 tonnes of payload. “The vehicle’s length is about 3.5 meters, with a width of less than 2 meters. It has been designed to be transported by an army truck or air dropped.

20. September, Russia’s newest tank on the Armata platform will be put on display on the second day of the Russia Arms Expo – 2015 (RAE-2015) exhibition, which will be held in Nizhny Tagil in Russia’s Urals region.

21. Vladimir Kozhin, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aide on military-technical cooperation, stated that Russia is assembling a more advanced version of its S-300 surface-to-air missile defense system to begin its shipment to Iran by 2016. Also, Moscow is modernizing some parts of the system and changing contract terms such as the pricing. In April, Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan said that Iran will receive the Russian air defense systems S-300 in 2015. The sides will approximately sign the contract for the delivery of S-300 air defense systems during an upcoming Iran officials’ visit to Moscow this year.

The Russian Federation is raising the fitness of its Armed Forces, border security and strengthening the groups in key points and directions of its interests as the Black Sea and the Arctic regions. The ongoing success of Russian military reform has already caused concerns in the US/NATO headquarters actively militarizing Europe and exercising aggressively drills at the Russian borders. The development of the Russia-China military cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region will raise these concerns further despite the fact that US/NATO roughly expansion in the Russian’s and China’s spheres of influence became a main trigger of contemporary situation. Russia’s aim is to show the capability to successfully solve the problems in its operational zone by military forces in case of NATO’s choice to go further in military escalation. Thus, it gains the ground for diplomatic solutions of the crises by showing the NATO hawks that military pressure cannot be a winning strategy against Russia.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-NATO War Games on Russia’s Doorstep, Russia’s Military Drills and Deployments

On July 28th, Thom Hartmann interviewed former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and, at the very end of his show (as if this massive question were merely an aftethought), asked him his opinion of the 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision, both decisions by the five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. These two historic decisions enable unlimited secret money (including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial campaigns. Carter answered:

It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for President or being elected President. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. … At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell.

He was then cut off by the program, though that statement by Carter should have been the start of the program, not its end. (And the program didn’t end with an invitation for him to return to discuss this crucial matter in depth — something for which he’s qualified.)

So: was this former President’s provocative allegation merely his opinion? Or was it actually lots more than that? It was lots more than that.

Only a single empirical study has actually been done in the social sciences regarding whether the historical record shows that the United States has been, during the survey’s period, which in that case was between 1981 and 2002, a democracy (a nation whose leaders represent the public-at-large), or instead an aristocracy (or ‘oligarchy’) — a nation in which only the desires of the richest citizens end up being reflected in governmental actions.

This study was titled “Testing Theories of American Politics,” and it was published by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page in the journal Perspectives on Politics, issued by the American Political Science Association in September 2014. I had summarized it earlier, on 14 April 2014, while the article was still awaiting its publication.

The headline of my summary-article was “U.S. Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy Says Scientific Study.” I reported:

“The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it’s pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation’s ‘news’ media).”

I then quoted the authors’ own summary: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” The scientific study closed by saying: “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.” A few other tolerably clear sentences managed to make their ways into this well-researched, but, sadly, atrociously written, paper, such as: “The preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of ‘affluent’ citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.” In other words, they found: The rich rule the U.S.

Their study investigated specifically “1,779 instances between 1981 and 2002 in which a national survey of the general public asked a favor/oppose question about a proposed policy change,” and then the policy-follow-ups, of whether or not the polled public preferences had been turned into polices, or, alternatively, whether the relevant corporate-lobbied positions had instead become public policy on the given matter, irrespective of what the public had wanted concerning it.

The study period, 1981-2002, covered the wake of the landmark 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo, which had started the aristocratic assault on American democracy, and which seminal (and bipartisan) pro-aristocratic court decision is described as follows by wikipedia: It “struck down on First Amendment grounds several provisions in the 1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The most prominent portions of the case struck down limits on spending in campaigns, but upheld the provision limiting the size of individual contributions to campaigns. The Court also narrowed, and then upheld, the Act’s disclosure provisions, and struck down (on separation of powers grounds) the make-up of the Federal Election Commission, which as written allowed Congress to directly appoint members of the Commission, an executive agency.”

Basically, the Buckley decision, and subsequent (increasingly partisan Republican) Supreme Court decisions, have allowed aristocrats to buy and control politicians. Already, the major ‘news’ media were owned and controlled by the aristocracy, and ‘freedom of the press’ was really just freedom of aristocrats to control the ‘news’ — to frame public issues in the ways the owners want. The media managers who are appointed by those owners select, in turn, the editors who, in their turn, hire only reporters who produce the propaganda that’s within the acceptable range for the owners, to be ‘the news’ as the public comes to know it.

But, now, in the post-Buckley-v.-Valeo world, from Reagan on (and the resulting study-period of 1981-2002), aristocrats became almost totally free to buy also the political candidates they wanted. The ‘right’ candidates, plus the ‘right’ ‘news’-reporting about them, has thus bought the ‘right’ people to ‘represent’ the public, in the new American ‘democracy,’ which Jimmy Carter now aptly calls “subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors.”

Carter — who had entered office in 1976, at the very start of that entire era of transition into an aristocratically controlled United States (and he left office in 1981, just as the study-period was starting) — expressed his opinion that, in the wake now of the two most extreme pro-aristocratic U.S. Supreme Court decisions ever (which are Citizens United in 2010, and McCutcheon in 2014), American democracy is really only past tense, not present tense at all — no longer a reality.

He is saying, in effect, that, no matter how much the U.S. was a dictatorship by the rich during 1981-2002 (the Gilens-Page study era), it’s far worse now.

Apparently, Carter is correct: The New York Times front page on Sunday 2 August 2015 bannered, “Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving,” and reported that:

A New York Times analysis of Federal Election Commission reports and Internal Revenue Service records shows that the fund-raising arms race has made most of the presidential hopefuls deeply dependent on a small pool of the richest Americans. The concentration of donors is greatest on the Republican side, according to the Times analysis, where consultants and lawyers have pushed more aggressively to exploit the looser fund-raising rules that have fueled the rise of super PACs. Just 130 or so families and their businesses provided more than half the money raised through June by Republican candidates and their super PACs.

The Times study shows that the Republican Party is overwhelmingly advantaged by the recent unleashing of big-corporate money power. All of the evidence suggests that though different aristocrats compete against each other for the biggest chunks of whatever the given nation has to offer, they all compete on the same side against the public, in order to lower the wages of their workers, and to lower the standards for consumers’ safety and welfare so as to increase their own profits (transfer their costs and investment-losses onto others); and, so, now, the U.S. is soaring again toward Gilded Age economic inequality, perhaps to surpass the earlier era of unrestrained robber barons. And, the Times study shows: even in the Democratic Party, the mega-donations are going to only the most conservative (pro-corporate, anti-public) Democrats. Grass-roots politics could be vestigial, or even dead, in the new America.

The question has become whether the unrestrained power of the aristocracy is locked in this time even more permanently than it was in that earlier era. Or: will there be yet another FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) to restore a democracy that once was? Or: is a President like that any longer even possible in America?

As for today’s political incumbents: they now have their careers for as long as they want and are willing to do the biddings of their masters. And, then, they retire to become, themselves, new members of the aristocracy, such as the Clintons have done, and such as the Obamas will do. (Of course, the Bushes have been aristocrats since early in the last century.)

Furthermore, the new age of aristocratic control is not merely national but international in scope; so, the global aristocracy have probably found the formula that will keep them in control until they destroy the entire world. What’s especially interesting is that, with all of the many tax-exempt, ‘non-profit’ ‘charities,’ which aristocrats have established, none of them is warring to defeat the aristocracy itself — to defeat the aristocrats’ system of exploitation of the public. It’s the one thing they won’t create a ‘charity’ for; none of them will go to war against the expoitative interests of themselves and of their own exploitative peers. They’re all in this together, even though they do compete amongst themselves for dominance, as to which ones of them will lead against the public. And the public seem to accept this modern form of debt-bondage, perhaps because of the ‘news’ they see, and because of the news they don’t see (such as this).

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Jimmy Carter Is Correct: The U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy

Anti-TPP activists and a bevy of other groups would have had reason to cheer the delays that afflicted the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks in Hawaii last week. The obstacles seemed to loom so large that they, in the end, were irreconcilable.

There are various takes on this. One is that the delay will force negotiators into a Damascus conversion in the name of the public interest. In Ian Verrender’s words, writing from the Australian perspective, “this break will steel the resolve of our negotiators to actually fight for our interests”.[1] But this is wishful thinking, given that the entire philosophy of the TPP is corporate rather than individual, the executive memoranda stemming from unelected individuals, rather than parliamentary scrutiny and representation.

Australia has already done well to destroy its own standing on various domestic policies in a desperate attempt to bend over backwards to receive the mammon of “free trade”. It is willing to append its signature to a document that will abandon “reference pricing” to peg medicines to a set low price as part of its traditional Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Even as the Australian delegation is ready to slash the wrists of sovereign credibility, along with other colleagues in the TPP circle, the litigation mounted by Philip Morris continues to take place against Canberra in secret.Australia’s former treasurer Wayne Swan found himself in Singapore in February to provide evidence in that sizeable case, in which the tobacco giant is suing for lost profits occasioned by the plain packaging regime for cigarettes sold in Australia. Having had their case demolished in the High Court, the corporate giants swooped in on the provisions of the Hong Kong-Australian trade deal which had, crucially, an Investor-State Dispute Settlements clause. These have flowered like vicious weeds in trade deals since the 1990s, when they were deemed exceptional.

From the very beginning, the entire TPP negotiations came from a tilted plane, rather than an equal one. Partners are being treated, less as equals than discomforted stakeholders. The release by WikiLeaks of its latest round of cables, this time on the Tokyo-Washington relationship, continue to show that when it comes to treaties, economic agreements and commerce, an intelligence agency is around the corner doing the hoovering.[2] The US delegation remained impregnable on the issue of its dairy market, preventing such states as Australia and New Zealand from selling more milk, cheese and butter. In fact, the entire agricultural issue proved to be one of the most stubborn of sticking points, with negotiators salivating about getting access to the large US market.

Another point of unmoving obstinacy is that of intellectual property. The TPP is Washington’s Trojan horse in this regards, an attempt to insinuate pharmaceutical interests into several economies, thereby stifling the use of generic drugs and maintaining the monopoly of data protection on “biologics” for up to 12 years. The chairman of the US Senate Finance Committee, Orrin Hatch, has stated that support for a final deal could not be guaranteed without it. In contrast, Chile’s vice minister for trade, Andres Rebolledo, made it clear that his country wanted “an agreement that balances public policy goals for intellectual property in medicines.”

This is not so much a case of free trade, as a form of globalised protectionism of medical knowledge. “Such rules,” asserts Dani Rodrik of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, “tend to have an uncertain impact on innovation while generating substantial rents for US patent and copyright holders.”[3] It acts as a form of aggressive mercantilism: we will import less from you while our exports will be guaranteed access and protection in recipient markets.

The positions of the various 12 states varies, with some parties taking the high stand, and others taking a much lower one. Officials in Canberra have been pursuing tariff-free trade with an insentient, dogmatic insistence even as other countries resist opening agricultural markets and keeping their doors shut. All this callow enthusiasm, despite the US-Australia free trade arrangement resulting in the loss of $53 billion in trade, rather than the promised gain of $5.6 billion Canberra’s fantasists promised.[4]In the words of a Crawford School of Public Policy report from the Australian National University, “The evidence reveals [that the agreement] resulted in a fall in Australian and US regional trade with the rest of the world – that the agreement led to trade diversion.” Something in this may suggest why negotiations, and the entire process itself, has been cloaked in a secrecy that almost seems venal in nature. Transparency would kill it, precisely because the propaganda of infinite benefits would not cut the mustard.Again, the issue in such trade agreements lies less in the nature of what is free, so much as what is not. This has not prevented the detractors from being optimistic. New Zealand’s Trade Minister, Tim Groser, suggested that much “undergrowth has been cleared away in the course of the meeting in a manner that I would say is streets ahead of any other ministerial meetings we have had.”[5] May these delays continue to be chronic, extensive, and prolonged. As long as they are, there may still be some lifeblood, however little, in the veins of democratic sensibility.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email:[email protected]

Notes

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-03/verrender-why-we-should-welcome-tpp-talks-stalling/6667056

[2] https://wikileaks.org/nsa-japan/

[3] http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/regional-trade-agreement-corporate-capture-by-dani-rodrik-2015-06

[4] https://crawford.anu.edu.au/pdf/ajrc/wpapers/2015/201501.pdf

[5] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/01/us-trade-tpp-idUSKCN0Q52FL20150801?feedType=RSS&feedName=wtMostRead

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Stalling the Trans-Pacific Partnership: The Failure of the Hawaii Talks

ISIS or ISIL or IS are US recruited, trained, armed, funded and directed Pentagon proxy foot soldiers doing Obama’s dirty work – to destabilize and/or topple governments where they’re deployed.

Using them is part of Washington’s imperial strategy for unchallenged global dominance.

On August 2, the Wall Street Journal headlined “US to Defend New Syria Force From Assad Regime.” The so-called “new” force is the old one. They’re not Syrian rebels or others supporting the rights of its people.

They’re US enlisted death squads – cutthroat killers, trained in the art of committing the most brutal acts of murder, torture and other atrocities, including use of chemical and other illegal weapons.

The Journal said Obama “authorized using air power to defend a new US-backed fighting force in Syria if it is attacked by Syrian government forces or other groups, raising the risk of the American military coming into direct conflict with the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.”

What’s planned appears prelude to Libya 2.0 – airstrikes on Syrian military targets, likely others not yet struck, escalated war to topple Assad, lawless butchery, a US specialty.

According to the Journal, “US military officials played down the chances of a direct confrontation (with Syrian forces), at least in the near term.” The strategy appears designed to create a pretext to attack them directly – in other words, be IS’ air force, the same strategy used in Libya against Gaddafi.

White House National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey was deliberately vague, saying the administration will “take the steps necessary to ensure (its proxy foot soldiers can) successfully carry out their mission” – with no further explanation other than adding “defensive fires support (will) protect them.”

The latest escalation follows Obama/Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussions to let US warplanes use Ankara’s Incirlik and Diyarbakir air bases to bomb Syrian targets, as well as establish illegal buffer and no-fly zones in northern Syria bordering Turkey – seizing a portion of its territory ahead of aiming to grab it all.

Pentagon claims about recruiting so-called “rebels” to fight IS forces is part of Obama’s grand deception – no different from Big Lies proliferated in all US wars of aggression.

Defense Secretary Aston Carter’s claims about US efforts to turn the tide against IS is polar opposite US strategy. So is the Wall Street Journal reporting “Pentagon-backed force(s) explicitly directed not to conduct offensive operations against” Assad.

But they’re free to conduct any called “defensive” – code language for offensive on the pretext of defense – the same bogus argument Israel uses to attack Palestinian civilians.

New Pentagon rules of engagement don’t explicitly name Assad, said the Journal. At the same time, they permit strikes on any elements attacking so-called “rebels.”

Current plans have been in the works for months, the Journal explained – delayed because of administration “reluctance to spell out the conditions under which the US might find itself in a fight with” Assad forces.

Events suggest it’s coming – perhaps following a US-instigated false flag, blaming Assad for attacking so-called “rebels”, letting Pentagon warplanes begin bombing Syrian targets the way US-led NATO’s aggression against Libya was waged.

A repeat of that scenario looks increasingly likely. Regime change in Syria remains official US policy.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-NATO’s “Terrorist Foot Soldiers”: Obama Orders Airstrikes to Defend ISIS in Syria

The Fake War on ISIS: US and Turkey Escalate in Syria

August 3rd, 2015 by Eric Draitser

It is late July 2015, and the media is abuzz with the news that Turkey will allow US jets to use its bases to bomb Islamic State (ISIS) targets in Syria. There is much talk about how this development is a “game-changer,” and how this is a clear escalation of the much ballyhooed, but more fictional than real, US war on ISIS: the terror organization that US intelligence welcomed as a positive development in 2012 in their continued attempts to instigate regime change against the Syrian government led by Bashar al-Assad.

The western public is told that “This is a significant shift…It’s a big deal,” as a US military official told the Wall Street Journal. What the corporate media fail to mention, however, is the fact that Turkey has been, and continues to be, a central actor in the war in Syria and, consequently, in the development and maintenance of ISIS. So, while Washington waxes poetic about stepping up the fight against the terror group, and lauds the participation of its allies in Ankara, the barely concealed fact is that Turkey is merely further entrenching itself in a war that it has fomented.

Of equal importance is the simple fact that a “war on ISIS” is merely a pretext for Turkey’s military engagement in Syria and throughout the region. Not only does Turkey’s neo-Ottoman revanchist President Erdogan want to flex his military muscles in order to further the regime change agenda in Syria, he also is using recent tragic events as political and diplomatic cover for waging a new aggressive war against the region’s Kurds, especially Turkey’s longtime foe the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK).

In this way, Turkey’s recent moves should be seen as merely a new phase of its engagement in the regional war that it has helped foment. Contrary to western corporate media talking points, Turkey has not just recently become actively engaged in the conflict; Ankara has merely shifted its strategy and its tactics, moving from covert engagement to overt participation.

Same War, New Phase

The immediate justification for the launching of renewed airstrikes by Turkey and the US is the expansion of the war against ISIS. In the wake of the bombing in Turkey’s majority Kurdish town of Suruç, which killed 32 youth activists, the Turkish government has allegedly struck hard against both ISIS and PKK targets. It is against this backdrop that any analysis of the new phase of this war must be presented.

First and foremost is the fact that even if one were to accept the Turkish government’s official story – the suicide bomber was linked to the Islamic State (ISIS) – not at all a certainty, the question of ultimate responsibility becomes central. While Ankara would have the world believe that its hands are clean, and that it is the innocent victim of international terrorism, the reality is that Turkey has done everything to foster and promote the growth of ISIS from the very beginning. As such, it is the Turkish government who must shoulder much of the blame for the Suruç bombing.

Since at least 2012, Turkey has been the principal conduit for weapons flowing into Syria. In June of that year, the NY Times confirmed that the CIA was smuggling weapons to anti-Assad forces from the Turkish side of the border using agents of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, long-time assets of US intelligence. Also in 2012, Reuters revealed that Turkey had “set up a secret base with allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar to direct vital military and communications aid to Syria’s rebels from a city near the border… ‘It’s the Turks who are militarily controlling it. Turkey is the main coordinator/facilitator. Think of a triangle, with Turkey at the top and Saudi Arabia and Qatar at the bottom,’ said a Doha-based source.”

It is now also documented fact that Turkish intelligence (MIT) has been an active player in the ongoing campaign to arm and resupply the terror groups such as the al Nusra Front and others. The evidence of this fact was made public by the Turkish daily Cumhuriyet which published video footage along with transcripts from wiretaps confirming what many eyewitnesses have stated:  Turkish security forces have been directly involved in shelling and support operations for Nusra front and other jihadi groups in and around Kassab, Syria, among other sites. Many of the very same terrorists who have been armed and supported by the Turkish government are today being held up as enemies of Turkey, and rationalization of the need for Turkish military intervention.

So, with the inescapable understanding that Turkey’s government is the primary supporter and sponsor of terrorist groups in Syria, the justification for war becomes flimsy at best. But, if it’s not about fighting terror, then what exactly is Ankara’s objective? What does it hope to gain?

At the top of Erdogan’s agenda is using ISIS as a pretext for effecting the regime change in Syria that he has failed to bring about for these past four years. Despite providing weapons and cash, training sites and political cover, Turkey’s terror proxies have been roundly defeated by the Syrian Arab Army, Hezbollah, and allied forces. As such, Erdogan now needs to provide the overwhelming military superiority required to get the job done. This means air support and a “No Fly Zone” along the Turkey-Syria border, one which ostensibly will allow Turkey to fight ISIS, but in actuality is a means of securing territory for the terrorists who otherwise have been unable to do so. It is a de facto military intervention into Syria. Perhaps not even de facto, but outright declaration of war – a clear war crime.

Secondly, the alleged war on ISIS is a politically expedient cover for Erdogan to wage a full-scale war on the Kurds, and the PKK specifically. Within hours of announcing the new phase of the war, Turkish forces were bombing Kurdish targets in Syria andIraq, effectively declaring war on both countries, in blatant violation of international law, to whatever extent such a thing still exists. Indeed, Erdogan made his position quite clear when he stated, “It is not possible for us to continue the peace process with those who threaten our national unity and brotherhood.” Essentially, Erdogan has declared war on all Kurds of the region.

Perhaps most important, and almost never discussed in the West, is the simple fact that Turkey is perpetuating an outright myth in their supposed strategy to create “Islamic State-free zones” along the border; Turkey plans to work with “moderate opposition” and “Free Syrian Army” in this endeavor. However, the fact remains that there is really no such thing as the “moderates,” and those terrorists that had at one time been labeled such have all either gone home, fled the country, gone over to the Al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front, or are now fighting under the ISIS banner. And so, by stating such a plan, Erdogan is unwittingly admitting what this author has already reported numerous times – Turkey acts as military muscle for ISIS and al Qaeda in Syria and now Iraq.

But of course, were Turkey the only relevant party, these developments would not be of nearly the same global significance. Rather, it is the participation and collusion of the US and NATO that makes this troubling escalation far more dangerous.

Making Overt the Covert War

As of writing, NATO has not yet been convened to discuss Turkey’s war on Syria and the Kurds, though Ankara has called for the meeting under Article 4 of the NATO treaty which provides for consultation, but not necessarily collaborative military action. However, regardless of how the meeting proceeds, Turkey has been given overt support in its war by the US, which is, in effect, NATO.

Although the US feigns concern for the Kurds and the expansion of the war, Washington has in fact endorsed Turkey’s policy. White House spokesman Alistair Baskey noted that the US “strongly condemns” recent attacks by the PKK, reiterating the fact that Turkey is an important US and NATO ally. As Obama’s close adviser on national security matters Ben Rhodes stated, “The US, of course, recognises the PKK specifically as a terrorist organisation. And, so, again Turkey has a right to take action related to terrorist targets.”

While it would appear that Washington is taking a measured approach, cautiously supporting Turkey while trying to limit the scope of the operation, that illusion is merely for appearance’s sake. In fact, the Brookings Institution just last month issued a policy paper entitled Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country, which brazenly laid out a plan to, as political analyst Tony Cartalucci astutely pointed out, “divide, destroy, then incrementally occupy” Syria using the pretext of ISIS and terrorism. And that is precisely what we’re witnessing now.

But neither Cartalucci, nor this author, nor any other colleagues who have predicted this turn of events are clairvoyant. Rather, this development was very much expected. As noted above, those terrorists who now provide the rationale for a new war were the very same ones openly supported by the countries now waging the war. It was clear at the time that this would be their ultimate role. Sadly, the world has not effectively mobilized to stop this imperialist war thus far.

The question remains: will Syria survive? The answer depends on the continued resolve of the Syrian Arab Army and its allies, and on the global Resistance’s capacity to organize itself to effectively oppose the Empire in Syria and beyond.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Fake War on ISIS: US and Turkey Escalate in Syria
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The ISIL is in Ukraine: America’s “Agents of Chaos” Unleashed in Eurasia

Jean Kambanda, Convicted Without Trial” is the title of Chapter 16 of the book A History of Political Trials by Dr. John Laughland.

Jean Kambanda’s confession is widely considered to be the sole uncontested evidence that the former Rwandan government conspired and planned to commit a genocide against the Tutsis in 1994.

According to many ICTR defence counsel, the essential facts are that his confession is nothing but a miscarriage of justice, a world scandal and a shame for international justice.

Upon his arrest on the 18th of July 1997, the Prime Minister of Rwanda was never assigned a lawyer and, unlike other accused brought before the ICTR, he was not taken to appear before a judge on his arrest as required by the Tribunal’s own Statute.

Instead, he was taken to the national capital of Tanzania, Dodoma, several hundred kilometres away from Arusha, where the International Tribunal is located.

He was kept incommunicado in a hotel for nine months. During those nine months he was denied the right to see a lawyer and was denied contact with his family or friends.

During those nine months former Canadian police officers working with the ICTR continuously questioned him, and every day threatened him and his family if he did not cooperate, behaviour that can only be described as psychological torture.

[The] officer responsible for administering a “good dose of torture” to Mr. Kambanda was Pierre Duclos. Pierre Duclos is well known in his country, Canada. He was accused of perjury, fabricating evidence and obstructing justice in relation to the aborted trial of the Matticks brothers, a family involved in organized crime in Montreal.

Yes, the ICTR hires individuals with a sulphurous past. In fact, the Canadian prosecutor Louise Arbour, whose record as prosecutor is also a dark one, was responsible for hiring Pierre Duclos” according to Patrick Mbeko, a Canadian of Congolese origin, in his article: Rwanda: “Genocide of Tutsis”, The Biggest Lie of The Century.

According to our sources inside ICTR Tribunal, Mr Jean Kambanda was told every day that if he did not sign some sort of confession, his life was at risk and that of his family.

He endured this for 9 months but then finally gave in and agreed to sign a document in which he stated simply that he accepted responsibility for his government’s actions in 1994 in his role of prime minister.

Many ICTR lawyers and staff categorically affirm that Mr Jean Kambanda did not confess to genocide. He did not think that his government had done anything wrong in 1994.  (see Jean Kambanda’s Statement from Prison)

The document he signed, he was told, (English is not his first language) stated simply that he accepted political responsibility for whatever his government did during 1994. He did not understand the document he was about to sign stated that his government had committed genocide.

Remember, up to this stage, he had no access to a lawyer, was not told he had the right to remain silent and did not even know the charges against him nor the evidence the ICTR claimed to have.

However, once he signed that document, he was finally taken to Arusha to appear before a judge and then was assigned a lawyer. However, he was not told that the lawyer he was assigned was the best friend of the Prosecutor in charge of his case.

This lawyer then tricked him into agreeing to plead guilty. He thought he was only pleading “guilty” to political responsibility” for any actions his government took during the events of 1994 and was not a confession to a criminal act as such and he did not understand it to be a confession to war crimes or genocide.

His assigned lawyer,and friend of the prosecutor never discussed with him the events of 1994, whether any crimes had been committed and whether or not he had a defence nor did he advise the judges of the circumstances of Mr. Kambanda’s detention and violation of his rights and psychological pressures placed on him.

The prosecutor promised Mr. Kambanda that he would receive a 12 year sentence if he made a plea of guilty based on the document he had signed. However the day he appeared in court and made the plea the judges gave him a life sentence without any hearing on the sentence and in violation of the agreement the prosecutor had made.

He then spent the next couple of years pressing to be allowed to withdraw his plea as it was made under duress, in violation of his rights and by trickery.

Finally in 2001 he was allowed to appear before a panel of judges to argue that the plea should be rescinded and he should be given a trial in which he could present a defence and tell the wolrd what happened in Rwanda in 1994.

We have managed to speak to some ICTR Defence lawyers who were in the courtroom that day and watched the proceedings. They all recall how it was disgusting to watch what how he was treated.

The prosecution counsel appearing in the “court” that day was also a Canadian. Kambanda told the judges the facts of his arrest and detention and how he was manipulated into signing the “confession” document.

He stated repeatedly that neither he nor his government were responsible for planning or organising or conducting a genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda and he never intended to plead guilty to that nor understood that he had.

Mr. Kambanda demanded the right to a trial, the right to speak and the opportunity to tell the world what had really happened. But the Canadian prosecutor questioned him over and over asking simply “But you signed this document, did you not?

Kambanda would reply, “yes, but you’re not listening to what I am saying as to how I came to sign that document.” Then the same question was put-“You signed it?” And so on. At the end of the day they refused to allow him to withdraw his plea and he was taken away and silenced.

Why did they do this? Because it was clear to them that if he was allowed a trial he was in a position to tell the world what had really happened and it would be a disaster for the RPF and the US and UK that control the tribunal. They could not allow him to talk so they shut him up.

The ICTR needed to justify its existence and a reason for a second mandate.

In his article titled “Main Achievements of the ICTR”, published in International Criminal Justice Journal of September 2005, Judge Erick Mose, former president of the ICTR, justifies the role of the ICTR stating that “During the first mandate (1995^1999), the Tribunal delivered ground-breaking judgments concerning genocide, such as Akayesu and Kambanda”.

Since then many prisoners have refused to plead guilty and have insisted on trials. The accused used these trials especially the MIlitary I and Military II trials to bring out the truth the truth about the 4 year war in Rwanda and that in fact there was no government-sponsored genocide or planning of one against the Tutsis and that most of the accusations are false and that the RPF committed most of the atrocities.

In 2003, Jean Kambanda made a statement as to what his true position was and that statement was later made an exhibit in the MIlitary II trial involving the chiefs of staff of the Rwandan Army and Gendarmerie.  In his position, Jean Kambanda states:

16. I also swear also that the spread of trouble over the entire Rwandan territory was not caused by the government or by the FAR. The infiltrators of the RPF are responsible for that. We succeeded in capturing their plans, the names of their agents, and their arms caches in Kigali, Bisesero, Kibungo, etc. The mass graves dug deep by the accomplices of the RPF were discovered in many places. The terrorised population knew of this and considered it as a threat to their lives. The government, I at the head, never stopped to explain to the population that they cannot confuse the Tutsi and the RPF and that their accomplices [GR Ed. the US] must be arrested and brought before the authorities.

As this excerpt reveal, Jean Kambanda was set up and silenced so that the truth about what happened could not come out. But now it has.

Now ex-Prime Minister Kambanda is rotting in prison in Mali, without trial, without a voice. His case deserves to be known by all Rwandans and, in fact, by all Africans who care for justice.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Who Was Behind the 1994 Rwanda Genocide? Inside Story of Former Prime Minister Kambanda’s Court Case

In The Al Qaeda Network: A New Framework For DefiningThe Enemy, Katherine Zimmerman of the American Enterprise Institute describes the terrorist groups affiliated with Al Qaeda. Zimmerman is seen as a leading expert on the Al Qaeda network, having testified about it to Congress and written about it for The Washington Post, the Weekly Standard, and the Huffington Post.

Al Qaeda region 2In her analysis, Zimmerman identified the geographical locations of the groups said to be within the Al Qaeda network. These locations outline an area encompassing parts of Northern Africa and all of the Middle East. This region, in which the entire Al Qaeda network is based, represents about 15% of the total land on planet earth.

What is special about this land that might lead its inhabitants to a life of terrorism? Some, including Zimmerman, say that this region correlates to the land of Islam and that therefore the correlation is simply an indication that Muslims are prone to terrorism.

However, the known distribution of the world’s population of Muslims does not support that contention. According to the Pew Research Center, only about 55% of the world’s Muslims live inside the Al Qaeda network region.

The other possibility is that, since the area is rich in untapped resources, powerful people have used claims of terrorism as a pretext to invade. That possibility is definitely supported by evidence. For example, ten years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, U.S. officials began openly admitting that the war in Iraq was motivated by the desire to seize oil. U.S. military leaders including General John Abizaid, head of the U.S. military in Iraq, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel have said that the war was about oil. Even former Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted it.

Geographical correlation also supports this possibility much better. When the region outlined by Zimmerman’s Al Qaeda network is superimposed on a map of oil reserves by country, over 70% of the world’s oil reserves fall within the same area.

If one considers only oil reserves that are not yet fully within the control of the world’s superpowers (the U.S., Russia, China, and the E.U.), about 90% of what is left is within Zimmerman’s region. Only Venezuela, with 6.5% of the remaining oil, stands out. It is therefore not surprising that the U.S. government has recently declared Venezuela to be a national security threat.

The strong correlation between Al Qaeda and oil suggests that the terrorist group might be better named Oil Qaeda. However, the truth is a little more complex. As reported before, the geopolitical significance of this relatively small part of the world is as much about natural gas as it is about oil. Other critical resources, including lithium and gold, are motivators for those wanting control of the region.

Moreover, it has been seen that the invasion of Afghanistan probably had something to do with that country having the ideal climate for the production of opium. Just before the U.S. invasion in 2001, the Taliban had essentially eradicated the production of opium in Afghanistan. Under the U.S. occupation, opium production has reached record levels and the country now supplies 90% of the world’s heroin.

There’s no doubt that the Al Qaeda network serves multiple purposes. For those who want simple answers, there will continue to be propaganda about the region’s problems with “Islamic terrorism.” For those who can still think and see, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Al Qaeda and its associated network is largely an excuse for seizing resources.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Understanding “Oil Qaeda”. Using “Terrorism” as a Pretext to Wage War on Oil Rich Countries

If you want a sleepless night – or month – just listen to what Western security officials are saying these days about a possible confrontation with Russia.

“If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States,” warned General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, “I’d have to point to Russia.”

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former head of NATO, similarly inveighed about impending regional conflict. “Putin wants to restore Russia to its former position as a great power,” Rasmussen insisted. “There is a high probability that he will intervene in the Baltics” as he has in Ukraine.

It’s not just defense secretaries and generals employing language that conjures up the ghosts of the past. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton used a “Munich” analogy in reference to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and a common New York Timesdescription of Russia is “revanchist.” These two terms take the Ukraine crisis back to 1938, when fascist Germany menaced the world.

Yet comparing the civil war in Ukraine to the Cold War – let alone Europe on the eve of World War II – has little basis in fact. Yes, Russia is certainly aiding insurgents in eastern Ukraine, but there’s no evidence that Moscow is threatening the Baltics, or even the rest of Ukraine. Indeed, it’s the West that’s been steadily marching east over the past decade, recruiting one former Russian ally or Soviet republic after another into NATO.

Russia Reacts

Nor did the Russians start the Ukraine crisis.

It began when Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych turned down a debt deal from the European Union that would have required Kiev to institute draconian austerity measures, reduce its ties to Russia, and join NATO through the back door. In return, Ukraine would have received a very modest aid package.

Moscow, worried about the possibility of yet another NATO-allied country on its border, tendered a far more generous package. While the offer was more realpolitikthan altruism, it was a better deal. When Yanukovych took it, demonstrators occupied Kiev’s central square.

In an attempt to defuse the tense standoff between the government and demonstrators, France, Germany, and Poland drew up a compromise that would have accelerated elections and established a national unity government. It was then that the demonstrations turned into a full-scale insurrection.

There’s a dispute over what set off the bloodshed – demonstrators claim government snipers fired on them, but some independent investigations have implicated extremist neo-Nazis in initiating the violence. However, instead of supporting the agreement they’d just negotiated, the EU recognized the government that took over when Yanukovych was forced to flee the country.

To the Russians this was a coup, and they’re not alone in thinking so. George Friedman, head of the international security organization Stratfor, called it “the most blatant coup in history,” and it had Western fingerprints all over it. In a phone callbetter remembered for an impolitic F-word, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt were recorded talking about how to “midwife” the overthrow of Yanukovych and whom to put in his place.

Besides making Kiev a counterproposal on resolving its debt crisis, no one has implicated the Russians in any of the events that led up to the fall of Yanukovych. In short, Moscow’s subsequent annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine, while certainly aggressive, were largely reactive to events that Russia sees as deeply affecting its security, both military and economic.

Threat Inflation

Somehow these events have morphed into Nazi armies poised on the Polish border in 1939, or Soviet armored divisions threatening to overrun Western Europe during the Cold War. Were it not for the fact that nuclear powers are involved, these images would be almost silly: NATO spends 10 times what Moscow does on armaments, and there’s not a military analyst on the planet who thinks Russia is a match for the United States.

To compare Russia to the power of Nazi Germany or even the Soviet Union of old is to stretch credibility beyond the breaking point. So why are people doing it? The answer is complex because there are multiple actors with different scripts.

First, there are the neoconservatives from the Bush years. Many of them haven’t given up on the “Reaganite” dreams of the Project for the New American Century, the now defunct think tank that brought us the Iraq war and the broader “war on terror.” It’s no accident that Nuland is married to Robert Kagan, one of the project’s founders and leading thinkers. The group also includes Paul WolfowitzElliott Abrams, and John Bolton.

The neocons believe in aggressively projecting American military power and using regime change to get rid of leaders they don’t like. Disgraced by the Iraq debacle, they still have a presence in the State Department, and many are leading foreign policy advisers for Republican presidential candidates, including Rick PerryTed Cruz, andJeb Bush. They’re well placed and persistent, and if another Bush is elected president, there’s talk that Nuland will become secretary of state.

Then there are the generals, who have a number of irons in the fire.

There’s a current in NATO’s leadership that would like to see the alliance become a worldwide military confederacy, although the Afghan disaster has dampened the enthusiasm of many. In fact, there’s not even a great deal of support within NATO for enforcing the treaty’s provisions for “collective self-defense,” and virtually none forsending arms to Ukraine. Most NATO countries don’t even pony up the required level of military spending they’re supposed to, leaving the U.S. to pick up 70 percent of the bills.

But there’s nothing like conjuring up a scary Russian bear to loosen those purse strings for NATO’s militaries and their associated industries. And indeed, a number of former scofflaws have upped their military spending since the Ukraine crisis broke.

Shifting Poles

Right now there appears to be a split among U.S. decision makers over whether Russia or China is our major competitor. For the neocons and most of the Republican candidates, the Kremlin is the clear and present danger. For the Obama administration and most Democrats – including Hillary Clinton – China is the competition, hence the so-called “Asia pivot” to beef up military forces in the Pacific and establish a ring of bases and allies to obstruct Beijing’s ability to expand.

One can make too much of this “division,” because most of these currents merge at some point. Thus the sanctions targeting Russia’s energy industry also squeeze China, which desperately needs oil and gas.

In response to sanctions, Russia is shifting its supplies and pipelines east. Russia and China have also begun establishing alternatives to Western-dominated financial institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Asian Development Bank. Organizations like the BRICS countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – have established a development bank and currency reserves, and the new Chinese-initiated Asian Infrastructure Development Bank has already attracted not only Asian nations, but the leading European ones as well. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization now embraces over 3 billion people.

The U.S. has tried to derail a number of these initiatives. Its sanctions against Russia have made it difficult for Moscow to develop oil and gas in the arctic, and Washington pointedly told its allies that they should not join the China development bank. Yet only Japan and the Philippines heeded the American plea to boycott the bank, and Asia’s need for energy is overcoming many of the roadblocks created by the sanctions.

However, the campaign against Russia has damaged the Kremlin’s energy sales to Western Europe. The EU successfully blocked a Russian pipeline through Bulgaria, and the Americans have promised that the U.S. fracking industry will wean Europe off Russian energy. Fracking, however, is in trouble, because Saudi Arabia stepped up production and crashed oil prices worldwide. A number of U.S. fracking industries have gone belly up, and the industry is experiencing mass layoffs.

Stay tuned for EU-Russian energy developments.

Blowing Things Up

Why are we now in a dangerous standoff with a country that is not a serious threat to our European allies or ourselves, but does have the capacity to incinerate a sizable portion of the planet?

At least part of the problem is that U.S. foreign policy requires enemies so that it can deploy the one thing we know best how to do: blow things up. The fact that our wars over the past decade have led to one disaster after another is irrelevant, explained away by “inadequate” use of violence, lack of resolve, or weak-kneed allies.

Americans are currently looking at a host of major-party presidential candidates – excluding the quite sensible Bernie Sanders – who want to confront either Russia or China or both. Both are hideously dangerous policies and ones that are certainly not in the interests of the vast majority of Americans – let alone the rest of the planet.

It’s really time to change things. And no, the bear is not coming to get you.

Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Conn Hallinan can be read at www.dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and www.middleempireseries.wordpress.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Just Listen to What Western Officials Are Saying About Russia

Turkey Expands Military Campaign in Syria and Iraq

August 2nd, 2015 by South Front

Scroll down for Video.

Turkey has agreed to let the so-called “U.S.-led anti-ISIS” coalition to openly use Turkish airbases at Incirlik, Diyarbakir, Batman and Malatya for coalition aircraft conducting sorties against ISIS.  At the same time, Turkey began launching airstrikes targeting members of the PKK Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq.  Clearly, the Turkish agenda is not focused on combating ISIS. If it was, the Turks would have long ago sealed their borders with Syria, then ceased buying ISIS oil and training and facilitation of terrorist groups flowing into Syria from Turkish territory.

Turkey’s decision to help the “anti-ISIS coalition” is clearly motivated by its own strategic interests. One of them is limiting the expansion of armed Kurdish groups along the Turkish border.

Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan also called for a “buffer zone” on the Turkey/Syria border – which would be enforced by a no-fly zone – to “ensure security.”

The zone will extend forty to fifty kilometers into ISIS-held regions of Aleppo Province in northern Syria. Turkish sources referred to the region as a no-fly zone and claimed that Syrian Air Forces aircraft entering the zone would also be targeted. The U.S. officials including U.S. Special Envoy to the Anti-ISIS Coalition Gen. John Allen publically denied that the implementation of a no-fly zone had been “part of the discussion.” However, a real practice in the application of the ‘buffer zone” agenda will indicate opening a new staging ground allowing terrorists such as ISIS to conduct attacks deeper inside Syria. Thus, it will open for the US, Turkey and their moderate rebel allies new opportunities in opposing Bashar al-Assad’s government.

Also, a buffer zone in northern Syria will probably block any attempt by Syrian Kurdish forces to move into areas along the Turkish border west of the Euphrates River. This will allow ISIS and other extremist groups to avoid jeopardizing their supply routes through Turkey. The seizure of the border town of Tel Abyad in northern Syria from ISIS on June 15 by Kurdish YPG forces appears to have been the primary trigger which forced Turkey to reevaluate its border security policies. The prospect of further gains along the Syrian-Turkish border by Kurdish forces likely impacts Turkey to further engage with the Syrian conflict in order to ensure that the US-led campaign would evolve in line with Turkey’s own interests.

Nonetheless, the formal expansion of Turkey’s role in the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition will likely generate a reaction in the form of retaliatory attacks from ISIS inside of Turkey. Thousands of foreign fighters have utilized Turkey and its porous border with Syria as a pathway to join with ISIS forces in Syria and Iraq, including an estimated 1,000 Turkish citizens. The members of these networks represent a key threat to Turkey’s internal security. At the same time, Turkey also faces expanded internal turmoil in its southeastern Kurdish-majority provinces due to the resumption of hostilities with the Kurdish groups. These two simultaneous threat streams will likely interact to prompt instability inside of Turkey in coming weeks.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey Expands Military Campaign in Syria and Iraq

The Ohio State University College of Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio

Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?

Dr. Patterson: The utilization of Agent Orange (AO) and other herbicides by the United States during the Vietnam War was controversial at the time and remains a prominent topic of scrutiny even today due to the potential long-term health effects facing exposed military and civilian personnel. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) in accordance with the National Academy of Sciences publishes a semi-annual review of the scientific and medical data regarding the resultant medical effects of Agent Orange and other organochlorine chemical exposures, however, skin diseases are no longer comprehensively assessed.

Andrew T. Patterson, MD The Ohio State University College of Medicine The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Columbus, Ohio

This represents an important practice gap, as in our experience, we had encountered a significant number of patients inquiring whether their cutaneous ailment could be the result of Agent Orange exposure. Our goal was to perform a systematic review of the literature and produce a practical summary of the current evidence regarding cutaneous manifestations of organochlorine exposures that could be utilized by military and non-military dermatologists alike when responding to questions related to prior Agent Orange contact.

After examining the literature, there appears to be an increased risk for chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, cutaneous lymphoma, and soft-tissue sarcomas including dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans and leiomyosarcomas in organochlorine-exposed patients. Some evidence exists for a possible increased incidence of melanomas, non-melanoma skin cancers, milia, eczema, dyschromias, dysesthesias, and rashes not otherwise specified, but the data is not conclusive. Even less support exists for an association with psoriasis, seborrheic dermatitis, neurodermatitis, and hypertrichosis

Medical Research: What should clinicians and patients take away from your report?

Dr. Patterson: Age-appropriate patients who are given a diagnosis of porphyria cutanea tarda, cutaneous lymphomas, and soft-tissue sarcomas should be screened for industrial exposure or prior military service with subsequent Veterans Affairs referral for disability assessment based on Agent Orange-exposure status. When approached regarding a skin condition without an established association, physicians can reassure patients that it is unlikely that their condition is associated with Agent Orange while still encouraging veterans to see their local VA environmental health coordinator for official registration and evaluation if concerns persist. Providing support for veteran patients in light of potential underlying social and psychological needs remains paramount for any provider in these situations. Further information regarding herbicide use in the Vietnam War, the Agent Orange exposure registry, recognized disease associations, and disability claim procedures can be found on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs website under the Public Health section.

Additionally, while Agent Orange certainly serves as one of the more high profile organochlorine encounters, many large-scale occupational accidents and industrial exposures have occurred. Dermatologists should be cognizant of the potential development of these associated symptoms and conditions in their patients (particularly those involved with herbicide and pesticide manufacturing, paper mills, incineration/combustion, and metallurgy) and inquire regarding possible occupational hazards when appropriate.

Medical Research: What recommendations do you have for future research as a result of this study?

Dr. Patterson: Ultimately, an ideal next step for assessing dermatologic morbidity and mortality related to these organochlorine exposures would involve gathering a significant number of subjects via utilization of existing VA or military-centered databases and performing a case-control study with specific emphasis on skin diseases in the veteran population with skin disease assessment performed by dermatologists, not by self-report or by less rigorously trained physicians. This is an important problem with most of the skin disease research that has been published associated with organochlorines.  Additional opportunities also exist in the civilian realm for further inquiries into the toxicity, mechanism of disease, and epidemiologic trends associated with dioxins and other organochlorines by examining the long-term health outcomes for patients involved with some of the prominent mass industrial accidents where quantifying degree of exposure is more feasible.

Citation:

Skin diseases associated with Agent Orange and other organochlorine exposures

Andrew T. Patterson, Benjamin H. Kaffenberger, Richard A. Keller, Dirk M. Elston

Publication stage: In Press Corrected Proof
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2015.05.006

 

 

Andrew T. Patterson, MD (2015). Agent Orange May Raise Risk Of Several Skin Conditions and Cancers

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Agent Orange May Raise Risk Of Several Skin Conditions and Cancers

Friday’s fourth/dubbed “final” ministerial attempt to reach agreement failed. Global Trade Watch Director Lori Wallach called it a “Maui (Hawaii) meltdown.”

Congress went on five-week summer recess with lots of unfinished business awaiting members in September – notably the Iran nuclear deal and 12 annual spending bills.

Wallach expects no 2015 congressional action on TPP – especially with other nations disagreeing on key provisions still unresolved. She believes chances for agreement are reduced because of “opposition building in many countries.”

“It’s good news for people and the planet that no deal was done at this final do-or-die meeting given the TPP’s threats to jobs, wages, safe food, affordable medicines and more, she explained.

“Only the beleaguered negotiators and most of the 600 official US trade advisors representing corporate interests wanted this deal…” Polls show it’s unpopular in countries involved for good reason.

It’s hugely anti-consumer/anti-environment. It’s a trade deal only corporate predators would love – along with government bureaucrats and other officials doing their bidding.

Ministerial disagreement is prelude to strong opposition once congressional members and the public see specific provisions adversely affecting their lives and welfare.

“Given the damaging impacts that some TPP proposals could have for many people, it’s not surprising that the same set of issues including investor-state dispute resolution and medicine patents as well as market access issues like sugar, dairy, and rules-of-origin on manufactured goods like autos remain deadlocked given they will determine whether a final pact is politically viable in various TPP countries,” Wallach explained.

Twenty-eight House Democrats backed Fast Track authority to ram TPP through Congress with minimal debate and no amendments. Many said their continued support depends on provisions mandating strong enforceable labor and environmental standards along with no changes in access to medicines by patent regulatory changes – standards TPP doesn’t meet.

The Financial Times called failure in Maui a “major blow…potentially complicating further the politics of an already controversial project.”

Days of Maui ministerial discussions were billed as a final negotiating round. Lots of disagreements remain – including market access for dairy products, autos and sugar, intellectual property rules, patents on pharmaceuticals and environmental concerns.

After five years of on-and-off negotiations, much remains unresolved. US Trade Representative Michael Froman put on a brave face saying “(w)e are more confident than ever that TPP is within reach.”

The timing of another meeting is uncertain – perhaps not until late this year when presidential politics heats up and Congress is pressured near yearend to resolve spending and other key issues before adjourning.

The Wall Street Journal said “deep differences” remain. Whether resolvable so far is uncertain.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on TPP Ministerial Deadlock.”Good News for People on the Planet”. Worldwide Opposition to Trade Deal

U.S. Tries to Stir Ethnic Division in Crimea

August 2nd, 2015 by Eric Zuesse

On Saturday, August 1st, Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko (who now acknowledges that his government is illegitimate and that his predecessor Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in a February 2014 coup), sent greetings to an international conference of supporters of Tatars in Crimea, at the Second World Congress of the Crimean Tatars. He charged the current Crimean government (the government that Crimeans elected on 16 March 2014, rejoining Russia) of discriminating against Tatars.

His message attacked the “torn imperial policies of the Kremlin,” and the “temporary occupation of Crimea by Russia.” He said that, “The Crimean Tatar people are again experiencing terror, and tens of thousands are thus forced to flee.” He thanked America’s Sunni ally Turkey for hosting this conference of pro-Saudi, Sunni Muslim, Crimeans.

According to polls, the 12% to 15% of Crimeans who are Tatars (most of whom are Sunni Muslims) are overwhelmingly in support of Crimea’s having severed its ties with Ukraine and of having become instead a province of Russia, as Crimea had been part of Russia for centuries until the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea to Ukraine in 1954.

That linked poll there was taken in January 2015, but its findings were similar to earlier ones. For example, it showed that 82% of Crimeans said that they “endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea.” Another 11% said they “mostly endorse” it. That’s overall 93% approval. By comparison, an April 2014 Gallup poll of Crimeans showed that 82.8% said that, “The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status likely reflect the views of most people here.” Only 6.7% did not agree. So, those two polls seem to have agreed: both showed overwhelming acceptance by Crimeans of the referendum’s result: Crimea’s becoming again a part of Russia.

 An earlier (pre-referendum, even pre-coup), May 2013, Gallup poll of only Crimeans, found that 15% of their sample said they were “Tatar,” and that unlike all other ethnic groups in Crimea, none of Crimea’s Tatars considered themselves to be either “Ukrainian” or “Russian,” though they all were, at that time, technically Ukrainains. Back at that time, 68% of all Crimeans said they were “warm” toward Russia; only 5% said they were “cold” toward Russia; so, even if all of the respondents who were “cold” there were among the 15% of Crimeans who were Tatar, fully two-thirds of Crimea’s Tatars were not “cold” toward Russia. However, by contrast, only 6% of Crimeans said that they were “warm” toward the U.S.; 24% said they were “cold” toward it. So: at best (even if all Crimeans who are “warm” toward the U.S. are the Tatars) Crimea’s Tatars are actually as “cold” toward the U.S. as they are toward Russia. Besides the 15% of Crimeans who self-identified as being “Tatar,” there were 20% of Crimeans who self-identified as “Ukrainian,” and 59% who self-identified as “Russian.” So, that pre-coup breakdown helps to explain why the vast majority of Crimeans were “warm” toward Russia: most Crimeans, even before Crimea was restored to Russia in March 2014, already considered themselves to be “Russian.”

 That May 2013 poll was taken for the International Republican [Party] Institute, and for the (Obama) U.S. State Department-run agency, USAID, in preparation for the coup (by Obama, backed strongly by congressional Republicans). Back in May 2013, the U.S. State Department was already a few months into organizing the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected President, which coup occurred, or took place, actually, less than a year later, in February 2014. This poll was asking questions that were designed to tap into the prospects for winning the support of Crimeans, and especially of its Tatars, for the overthrow that was being planned, and for America’s intended yanking away from Russia of Russia’s centuries-long control over Russia’s Crimean naval base, which has been one of Russia’s top military assets ever since 1783.

Basically, what all three polls showed was that Crimeans were going to be appalled at the overthrow, but that Crimea’s Tatars would be more supportive of it than other Crimeans would.

And this is why America’s agent, Petro Poroshenko, is now courting Crimea’s Tatars. They may not like Ukraine, but they dislike it less than other Crimeans do.

Poroshenko is just doing his job for his American sponsors.

U.S. President Barack Obama says that Russia’s “conquest of land” to seek “great nation status” is what caused Crimea to switch from Ukraine to Russia, and that this “conquest of land” caused Russia’s consequent punishment for “Russia’s aggression.” He says that this “aggression” is the reason for the economic sanctions against Russia.

But actually, “The Anti-Crimean Pogrom that Sparked Crimea’s Breakaway” expressed the passionate hatred against Russians on the part of Ukraine’s Right Sector — the organization that the Obama Administration had, in fact, hired as the gunmen who carried out the anti-Russian coup d’etat in Ukraine next door to Russia during February 2014. The leader of Right Sector is Dmitriy Yarosh, who aspires to destroy Russia. He’s just the type of man Obama needed to mastermind this coup and so to carry out not only Obama’s will, but his own. Yarosh also masterminded “The Anti-Crimean Pogrom that Sparked Crimea’s Breakaway,” and also was one of the key leaders and masterminds of the massacre of the coup’s opponents inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building on 2 May 2014, the event that sparked Ukraine’s civil war. Obama hires the right people for a job, and these were far-right jobs.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Tries to Stir Ethnic Division in Crimea

Excerpted from Free Radicals: War Resisters in Prison by  CJ Hinke, forthcoming from Trine-Day in 2016.

The lines of resistance to war take many forms as these stories of resisters in prison in World Wars I (“the Great War”, “the war to end all wars”) and II (‘the good war”), the Cold War, the undeclared Korean “conflict”, the ‘Red Scare’ of the McCarthy period, the 1960s and, finally, the US war against Vietnam, demonstrate. There are as many reasons and methods to refuse war as there are refusers. The Department of Justice classified WWII resisters as religious, moral, economic, political, neurotic, naturalistic, professional pacifist, philosophical, sociological, internationalist, personal and Jehovah’s Witness.

Why are some awake and aware, why do some feel their conscience so strongly they cannot ignore it? As A.J. Muste proclaimed, “If I can’t love Hitler, I can’t love at all.” Why isn’t that spirit inside all of us? Most of us have unconsciously shut up the voice of our troublesome conscience to make our lives easier. I assure you, however, the world would be immeasurably better if we all learned to listen to even its faintest of stirrings.

The reason The Resistance was so effective against the draft is that meetings listened to everybody. This stratagem was learned in vivo from Quakers,  SNCC, and CNVA. The Resistance functioned because of its underlying commitment to principled consensus. Many of us—(does not play well with others)—went ahead to devise our own actions out of frustration with this long and often tedious performance. Sometimes others joined us seeing its value and sometimes they did not. If there were “leaders” of The Resistance, I never met any!

Consensus is not easy but it works. Consensus is a process rather than a conclusion. Consensus never succeeds by filibuster. Consensus works in precisely the way that majority rule and voting never do. Voting ends up with a large disaffected, unsatisfied group of constituents. Do you really want to vote for some second-best, had-to-run, mealy-mouthed, forked-tongue liar anyway?!?

Consensus is experiential. Voting is adversarial. Consensus builds community. Voting makes enemies, creates outsiders. So just listen already.

There are a hell of a pile-up of people on this planet and I may just be too idealistic. But in an ideal society, we would all be making decisions through participatory democracy rather than the essential disenfranchisement that is at the core of majority voting.

Among other tactics, the Resistance proposed employing the ancient Judæo-Christian and Mediæval law concept of sanctuary—a place of safety, a refuge— to military deserters and draft resisters under indictment.  One of the first to open its doors for sanctuary was the Washington Square Methodist Church, home to the Greenwich Village Peace Center.

More than 500 churches coast to coast, including Lutherans, United Church of Christ, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Jewish, Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, Mennonites, and some universities, also declared themselves safe havens. Arresting war resisters in a sanctuary was a chilling image.

Another tactic which provided us great inspiration was the destruction of draft board files to make the induction of soldiers impossible. This was followed by the destruction of corporate records for major war profiteers such as Dow Chemical, producers of napalm, and General Electric, producer of bomb components. Remember, if you can, this was decades before computerization; without those files, meat could not be fed into the maw of the war machine.

Staughton Lynd documents at least 15 actions against draft boards and war corporations from 1966-1970 resulting in the destruction of from a few hundred to more than 100,000 records. In 1969 the Women Against Daddy Warbucks not only destroyed draft files but removed all the ‘1’ and ‘A’ keys from New York draft board office typewriters so draftees could not be declared fit for duty.

Jerry Elmer, Esq., a year my junior to refuse to register, may hold the record for this tactic. He burglarized 14 draft boards in three cities! Jerry became Harvard Law School’s only convicted felon in the class of 1990.

The Internet offers a vast new world of opportunities for nonviolent activists, including networking with others for action in the real world. The practice of evil now requires computers and we can easily interrupt the processes of evil and greed. You can fuck up the system without ever leaving the couch.

Since 2010, American boots were on the ground in military incursions into Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Jordan, Turkey, Yemen, Somalia, Uganda, Chad, the Central African Republic, Sudan, and Mali. Threats to US national security were the reasons given. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Our “commander-in-chief” tells us America has “the greatest army the world has ever known”—and that’s a good thing?!?

In 2015, the United States will spend 741 billion dollars a year on its current military misadventures — $59,000 a minute — four and a half times its nearest competitor, China. No other country comes close. This figure, however, fails to include the the debt for past war spending. In all, 54% of the US budget is spent in war, 4.4% of our Gross Domestic Product, 73 cents of every US dollar. America’s military is a parasite.

That’s a trillion and a half dollars in total. Think of all the good in the world that inconceivable amount of money could do. We’d rather slaughter around the globe and decimate other countries. To put this in perspective, it would cost less than 1/10 of the U.S. military budget, $62.6 billion, to provide every American tertiary education for free!

If one examines history, it is easy to be overwhelmed because history is primarily the history of war. Although 619 million human beings have been slaughtered, there is not a war in humankind’s long history which would not have been “won” by attrition sooner rather than later.

Can anyone think black slaves would not have been freed and attained at least the level of “equality” seen in the 21st century if young American brothers and neighbors had not massacred each other in America’s bloodiest war of all time, the US Civil War?

Can anyone think Germany’s imperialist Nazi regime would not have collapsed on its own? Which course generates more suffering, waiting or slaughter?

Although the U.S. Constitution requires Congress to declare war, as does, more recently, the 1973 War Powers Resolution, it has not done so since World War II. Thus, the unilateral military incursions made by the U.S. military into Korea; Vietnam; Laos; Cambodia; Grenada; Panama; Iraq and Kuwait (“Desert Storm”); Afghanistan (“Enduring Freedom”); Iraq (“Iraqi Freedom”) were clearly illegal wars. U.S. wars on terror are really nothing more than wars of terror. They come at a terrible human cost, of course, but also are costing Americans $14 million an hour. Of course, I have only touched on the high points—there are dozens more minor military actions in sovereign nations. They call these military theaters, where real people die onstage.

As Noam Chomsky states, “If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.”

Perhaps I should not be so hard on the United States but, after all, its my country. In all six millennia of recorded human history, that human history records a grand total of merely 300 years of peace! But, of course, that doesn’t make war right…

The U.S. Constitution created a fine system for control of government powers, checks and balances from government’s three branches. However, the U.S. Government has spiraled out of control unchecked and unbalanced. The U.S.A. has existed for more than 235 years; in all that time, we have only seen 16 years of peace! Nearly every one of America’s wars have been wars of aggression and against self-determination deemed not in America’s national interest.

Schools, wedding parties, and funeral processions are our specialties. Remember “pacification”? We are a nation with at least three separate kill-lists for “targeted” assassinations decided on “Terror Tuesdays”. Is this your America? U.S. soldiers are not only terrorists to ordinary citizens but murderers without sanction. The acid test for war is to imagine its reverse, war happening to us, at home.

Tell me, please, which are the “good” wars? Neither politicians nor their sons are often soldiers. How long would a war last if all the 80-year old senators from both sides had to fight each other?!? As in gladiatorial contests. Bring on The Hunger Games for the 1%!

In the decades since America’s war on Vietnam, widespread support for conscientious objectors has diminished despite continued requirements for Selective Service registration. The U.S. government has also succeeded in minimizing public advocacy and peace activism against its so-called wars on “terrorism” domestically and overseas.

War is just terrorism with a bigger budget.

However, the War Resisters League still actively supports military objectors along with the Center on Conscience and War. War Resisters’ International and the Peace Pledge Union in the United Kingdom also support international resisters and document cases of military conscription in at least eleven countries, including Armenia, Eritrea, Finland, Greece, Israel, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, South Korea, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey and the USA.

Every single person must ask themselves the seminal question, “What would be worth dying for?” because there is certainly nothing worth killing for. At most, only about five percent of humans have ever killed another. Everyone knows the difference between right and wrong: human beings are both hardwired and programmed not to kill.  War turns soldiers inside-out, both literally and figuratively.

Militaries the world over torture and brainwashing young soldiers to overcome their nature not to kill by objectifying other young men as “the enemy”. War remakes the soldier as cipher then as casualty. The result is almost always a very damaged man or woman. 22 U.S. veterans commit suicide every day, more than 8,000 each year. America has used them up and thrown them away. Not only untreated, nearly 60,000 veterans are homeless.

Of course, we make our “enemies” out of nothing, both personally and by government policy. Radical, sensible concept: stop viewing any “others” as enemies! Dialogue, conversation, mediation, negotiation, compromise, conciliation, peacemaking, makes friends out of “enemies”.

The very terms applied to war, the “winners” and the “losers” can be equally applied to the courtroom. The atomic bomb and the death penalty are governments’ idea of victory. Wars and prisons are simply not a lasting solution precisely because they fail the most basic test of compassion for one’s fellow man. No war and no prison sentence has ever achieved a permanent solution for society’s problems. War and prison both are simply treadmills ending in turnstiles.

The first woman elected to the United States Congress, in 1916, Jeanette Pickering Rankin declared before the U.S. entry into World War I: “You can’t win a war any more than you can win an earthquake.” We obviously needed more of this kind of sentiment—full women’s suffrage was not enacted until 1920.

The United States is also world leader in weapons sales, including guns, ammunition, missiles, drones, military aircraft, military vehicles, ships and submarines, electronic systems, and much more. 2.7% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product is spent on weapons; however, the US GDP share is almost five percent. America rakes in 711 billion dollars on arms sales, 41% of the world’s total and, as with military spending, more than four times its nearest capitalist competitor, China. The USA sells antipersonnel weapons, cluster bombs and landmines to any country with money and calls its drones “Hunter-Killers”, their soft (read human) targets determined by “military intelligence”. Pop quiz: Which country deserves economic sanctions?

Prior to the Second World War, President Roosevelt declared, “The time has come to take the profit out of war.” President Eisenhower, a decorated World War II general, on his last day in office, warned of “a military-industrial-congressional complex”, linking the armed forces with corporations and politicians.

Perhaps this destructive trend could have been stopped by leaders in 1961; instead, they exploited it for gain. The US is profiting from the suffering of the victims of this heinous trade. I remember palmier days when America gave foreign aid and disaster relief to needy countries and exported education and manpower for development. Now we just export destruction.

Nine nations now are part of the nuclear “club” which spends over $100 billion on nuclear weapons every year. Russia has a few more warheads than the USA (8,500/7,700) but is busy selling off its plutonium cores to power nuclear reactors.

America’s nuclear strategy is far more aggressive, spending eight billion, 600 million dollars on maintaining nukes in readiness each year. Obama’s wrote his senior thesis at Columbia on the arms race and a nuclear freeze. However, his 2015 budget includes maintenance, design, and production of nuclear weapons, the highest figure ever, due to rise by seven per cent in 2016. Obama’s White House refused to present the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification…under two Secretaries of State.

The US has housed launch-ready nukes in South Korea since at least 1958. When North Korea tested in 2013, America decided to play chicken with them. And Israel’s got the bomb—yikes!

The fact we haven’t yet destroyed all life on Earth is not the result of high morals or political restraint—it’s been a lucky accident…so far. South Africa is the only country to have developed nuclear weapons and then dismantled them entirely. America is again recklessly gambling with our lives by spending $100 billion to build a new fleet of Trident nuclear submarines, updated from the subs on which I was arrested at Groton.

Prisons are always used with malicious intent; they are carrion birds—they feed on the bodies of the living dead. Prisons trade in misery. Like wars, prisons are simple blunt instruments of revenge, the antithesis of human civilization. The offender simply cannot offend again for the period of time he or she is locked up.

The irony is that the U.S. prison population remained stable, at around 250,000 prisoners, from 1930 to 1960. Only war, no less destructive to society than any war fought with weapons, escalated those numbers for the U.S. to become that largest prison system in the history of the world — the war on drugs. In 2010, there were 13 million people arrested in the United States;five years later, that number has certainly only increased. Some 500,000 of these accused can’t afford to pay bail or fines and remain caged.

And there are 140,000 Americans serving life sentences, 41,000 of them without possibility of parole. As Stalin’s chief of secret police said, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” Government has created a climate of public fear, sown seeds that we all need to be protected by…locking people up and throwing away the key.

James V. Bennett was the US government’s director of the Bureau of Prisons for 34 years. Appeals by COs went to Bennett. These were somewhat more civilized times, when prisons made minor attempts at rehabilitation and education. Today, the Bureau has 38,000 employees.

Today’s prison-industrial complex is a fully operational slave labor industry raking in millions for publicly-traded corporations such as the Orwellian-sounding Corrections Corporation of America, the GEO Group, and Community Education Centers. In capitalist America, government even shares the living dead with private prisons, using investment capital from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in regions far from the prisoner’s family and community.

US prisons today hold 2.6 million prisoners in more than 4,500 jails fueled by mandatory minimum and three-strikes sentencing. This figure amounts to 25% of all the prisoners in all countries combined. The US has 700,000 more prisoners than China, a country with four times its population. While there may be no generalized systematic torture, racial violence is endemic. Barely a noticeable occurrence for prisoners in any other country, in 2012 alone there were 216,000 incidences of reported prison rape, 10% of all US prisoners. Of course, the vast majority go unreported.

American prisoners are still vindictively stripped of their civil rights such as voting. Nearly seven million Americans are under some sort of ‘correctional’ supervision. That’s 2.9% of all Americans, the largest number of disenfranchised citizens in history, anywhere. 75% are nonviolent offenders. 26 million people have been incarcerated for marijuana!

Adding to this human misery, 34,000 are arrested by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) squads as illegal “aliens” every single day, denied the due process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. ICE detention facilities are administered by the Department of Homeland Security, treating the detainees as terrorists just because they happen to be foreign-born. Most of these detainees face deportation or indefinite incarceration for simply seeking a better life with more opportunity, doing jobs like picking strawberries or tobacco or cleaning swimming pools, that few native-born Americans would even consider. These are secret prisons: no one is notified of one’s arrest.

It costs $53.3 billion dollars to incarcerate the citizens of this disenfranchised country. In fact, the great state of California proposes to spend fully 10% of its budget on locking up its citizens. It costs up to $24,000,000 from arrest to execution for each prisoner sentenced to death. The population of America’s prisons is overwhelmingly the poor, people of color. It is therefore even more striking that the current director of prisons in a black man, Charles E. Samuels, Jr. Orange is the new black.

The director’s job would suit Nazi Adolf Eichmann, himself director of the Reich’s national network of gulags. Samuels, like Eichmann, directs a legal enterprise of soulless barbarity. Both bureaucrats merely meekly follow orders, what Hannah Arendt calls “the banality of evil”. British philosopher George Bernard Shaw commented in 1907 that prisons are like smallpox, “the thoughtless wickedness with which we scatter sentences of imprisonment”.

The Bureau of Prisons’ principal war crime is the use of solitary confinement, often for decades. No natural light, no fresh air, no sun or moon or stars or sea—for decades. In a concrete tomb. As of 2005, over 80,000 U.S. prisoners were in solitary. However, it is rather unlikely Samuels will be tried for his war crimes, the inevitable conclusion to be executed by hanging but Samuels is just as surely a major organizer of the American prison holocaust, a crime against humanity.

Three past directors of the BoP, war criminals Harley Lappin, Michael Quinlan, and Norman Carlson, have moved on to executive positions with private prison corporations, Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO group. Each of these publicly-traded companies profits with revenues of nearly two billion dollars made from human suffering.

Prisons are fast becoming a profitable US export, beginning with Colombia, followed by Mexico, Honduras, and South Sudan.

The crime against humanity is even more irrevocable in the case of the death penalty, a mistake which can never be undone. The USA ranks fourth in total number of executions, behind China, Iraq, and Iran. There are 3,095 prisoners on death rows in the United States. America legally murdered 43 people in 2012, halved from 98 in 1999. In the four decades 1974-2014, 144 prisoners were exonerated and freed. During the Great War, 17 American COs were sentenced to death. More than 50% of executions in 2013 took place in Florida and Texas. Texas claims 38% of all U.S. executions; two percent of U.S. counties are responsible for all death sentences. Victims’ families can watch…

Obama has the worst record of any president in history regarding clemency. He’s issued all of 39 pardons and no — zero — commutations of sentence. We have impunity for the powerful and imprisonment for the powerless.

All prisoners are political prisoners.

In 2014, the United States no longer has a military draft. But the Selective Service Act is still in place and young men are still required to register five days after their 18th birthdays.

More than 20 million American men of draft age have violated the Selective Service Act of 1980 by failing to register at age 19, failing to complete registration details such as Social Security number, late registration, and failing to keep Selective Service informed of their current address until age 26, making any effort to raise a standing army in the event of war unfeasible.

All these acts are punishable by five years in prison with the fine now raised to $250,000. (Good luck with that!) The statute of limitations on SSA violations expires when one turns 31. Further social penalties for noncompliance are ineligibility for student loans, government jobs and naturalization as citizens.

I myself still counsel, aid and abet these acts and conspire with others to do so.

There have been only 15 prosecutions so far and only nine prison sentences, between 35 days and five and a half months. Only a few outspoken activists were prosecuted. Government may have finally realized such a strategy could never be implemented.

As radical pacifist Roy Kepler observed about COs in prison, “…The biggest single mistake the government made was introducing us to each other. They helped build the pacifist network.”

However, dozens of countries around the world still conscript young people for military service and only a handful of Western “democracies” permit conscientious objection. In recent years, I have been working for the recognition of conscientious objector status and an end to conscription in Thailand which has been my home for more than two decades.

11,700 U.S. high schools administer the Armed Services Vocational Battery Test, given to 11,700 secondary students in 2013 without any parental consent. America’s “volunteer” military volunteers for three reasons. The young and poor and badly educated join the military because they are at a dead end with no opportunities for further education or jobs with a living wage. Military recruiters hoodwink the young and inexperienced with promises of basic paychecks and “education”. “Drone pilot” might not be such a marketable skill after leaving the military! We now have the videogame generation fighting America’s wars onscreen and in the electronic cockpits of America’s police cars. The dehumanization was easy to accomplish: they think you can shoot someone, they just get up and you can get to the next level of play.

However, it appears such ‘training’ does not ineluctably produce effective, unquestioning killing machines. Studies of soldiers finds that 50% of recruits choose to shoot into the air or over the heads of the “enemy” and the other 50% are psychopaths. Obedience to orders seem not to be enough for voluntary consent to killing.

Young men also volunteer because of a constant brainwashing for patriotism which begins with a kid’s first flag salute. Others join up for kicks or because it’s a tradition in their military families. The volunteer army has resulted in thousands of AWOLs and desertions and refusal to fight. American veterans have no support network nor does government provide them effective medical care. We have an army of damaged, traumatized and often homeless trained killers wandering our streets.

American anarchist Emma Goldman said it best, “If voting could change anything, it would be illegal.” I’ve never voted. I’ve always found the choice is voting for the lesser of two evils and that just doesn’t sound like democracy to me. The vote is gamed by politicians just as in an Atlantic City casino. The vote is rigged, the ballot box already stuffed. I wouldn’t vote if they paid me!

There can be no better example of this than Obama’s campaign under the slogans, “Hope” and “Change”. As a black man, we hoped he was able to identify with and raise up to real equality poor people and people of color and provide fair play for all immigrants legal and illegal. Blacks in America learn humility from a billy-club or an attack dog. Obama missed those lessons.

As a Constitutional legal scholar, we hoped he would uphold those guarantees of our liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights. As one of the youngest U.S. presidents, we hoped he would be open-minded, strong, and honest.

As a man, we hoped he would draw down America’s senseless wars and military misadventures spearheaded from US bases in more than 177 countries, including…at least 194 golf courses for troop morale, 2,874 holes. Secret operations by U.S. special forces train in 134 of those countries.

The U.S. provides some form of military assistance to 150 countries, more than 80% of the world. U.S. companies reap the spoils from suffering.

“Change you can believe in”??? Try Honest Abe: “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Change? For the worse: well over 600,000 Americans are homeless.

Obama sends his daughters to a Quaker school but assassinations, torture, and kidnapping are now free America’s stock in trade. Our nation is made of schadenfreude. History will not forgive you, Barry.

However, Obama has proved to be no commander-in-chief; we are, in fact, unsure just what secret powers are actually allowing him to command. All the American public got was the impunity occasioned by the arrogance of power. Obama’s one campaign promise was to close the extraterritorial prison at Guantánamo, stain on freedom since 2002. His legacy is to place American troops everywhere in the world…forever. That must be why he got the…Nobel Peace Prize! Hitler and Stalin killed 40 million—they were nominated, too!

Change? Why nothing’s changed at all. Think the next one will be any better? Politicians are lying liars—it’s part of the job description. Governments are flim-flam snake-oil smoke and mirrors. Bush Jr.’s and Obama’s regimes are the best examples I know for refusing to pay war taxes or, for that matter, any taxes. And Hillary’s up next?!?

The mass media is tasked with concealing the lie. Our society has devolved into one of panem et circenses, bread and circuses as in Ancient Rome, a diversion designed to nullify citizens’ sense of civic duty. Corporate media propaganda distracts us from the killing with sports scores and celebrity gossip.

Let’s face facts: Nobody wants to be an activist! We all want to be sitting in front of the box watching reruns and drinking Blatz. But sometimes there are issues that so tweak your conscience that you simply can’t walk by them—it feels exactly like new shoes that bite or the beginnings of a toothache, impossible to ignore. The results of such principled opposition are often pretty scary. That’s what makes us even more stubborn. When you listen to the stories in this book with an open mind, it’s the conscience saying, “Is that all you got?!?”

The root of civil disobedience is the word, ‘obey’. Soldiers must be taught to kill, to blindly obey without thinking. These don’t come naturally to sentient beings. Humans are the only species in nature with an intention to kill one another. Disobedience puts the thinking part first.

The point is, just one person can be a dynamic force for social change. It doesn’t take a mass movement. It only requires listening to your conscience and picking your issues. Gandhi called such individuals satygrahis, people who demand the truth. We can all be Gandhi!

As a small example, Thailand, which drafts one-third of all its 18-year old young men into military servitude, except of course, for those who can pay tea-money, records 25,000 draft evaders. This is a quiet and growing resistance.

This brings us up to today. America conducts its wars in secret. As British Prime Minister David Lloyd George said in 1917: “If people knew the truth, the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course they don’t know and they can’t know.” It is illegal even to photograph the returning, flag-draped coffins of dead soldiers; dead soldiers’ loved ones grieve in secret.

CCTVs, with facial recognition, and domestic drone surveillance follow all of us everywhere. Data harvesting throughout all electronic media makes privacy and anonymity impossible, except for a committed few. The homeland security state is responsible for the PATRIOT Act; anyone who questions or dissents is, by default, not patriotic.

As Cicero wrote, “Inter arma silent leges” [“During war, the laws are silent.”]

Yet we still resist. I am inspired by the Occupy and anti-globalization/anti-‘free’ trade movements, campaigns against America’s drug wars and for legalization of all drugs, Silk Road, the Darknet, Bitcoin, psychedelics researchers, prison abolitionists, Ships to Gaza to break Israel’s blockade of Palestine, The Pirate Bay and other creative anti-copyright efforts, Sea Shepherds’ defense of the oceans, drone and nuke protesters, anti-fracking activists, tar sands and pipeline blockades, the tree-sitters, the mining blockaders, the native activists of Idle No More and the Sacred Peace Walk, Ruckus Society, Raging Grannies, the weekly peace vigils, The Onion Router, the hacktivists of Anonymous, and WikiLeaks.

I applaud Sister Megan Rice, at 84 described as “the world’s most hardcore bad-ass nun”, who with a couple of youngsters (63 and 57)—the Transform Now Plowshares— walked past security to pour their own blood on nuclear weapons production at Oak Ridge, Tennessee in 2012. Thank you Megan, Greg, Michael.

The US calls its whistleblowers traitors. Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning, serving 30 years, Edward Snowden, in exile, and scores of others are evening the playing field between citizens and their governments at great personal sacrifice and gaining traction for resistance to oppression. We all need to honor them. Censorship and surveillance ensure conformity. Whistleblowers secure our freedoms.

I love Russia’s kick-ass art collective, Pussy Riot, and Ukraine’s activists in the FEMEN movement. And I am heartened by the growth of jury nullification; the juries who refused to convict runaway slaves are now saving drug victims.

In particular, I am inspired by the grassroots Mexico’s nonviolent guerrillas, the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional. The Maya in Chiapas, shook the power elite to its core in 1994 from behind their balaclavas. Traditional Mayan village life integrated with libertarian socialism, anarchism and Marxism to produce a working radical democracy. “Aquí manda el pueblo y el gobierno obedece.”—“Here the people govern and the government obeys.”

Zapatistas’ grassroots village organizing for land reform, full gender equality, public health, anti-globalization and revolution schools have been effectively eroding the status quo with little fanfare for nearly two decades. The EZLN communiqués cut precisely to the heart of social change and how to effect it. Inspired by the Zapatistas, the Piqueteros are now spreading nonviolent grassroots revolution to Argentina.

Canada has deported American military deserters to certain U.S. prison sentences in recent years. However, on June 3, 2013, the Canadian Parliament voted to cease all deportation and removal proceedings against such military resisters and started a program to normalize their status by applying for permanent residence in Canada.

The Western world celebrates its military holidays as occasions for beer and hotdogs and fireworks. Even the American national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner”, revels in its “bombs bursting in air”. Americans are sure good at blowing shit up.

However, only peace activists truly remember the meaning of war and their fallen soldiers on Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day to commemorate fallen soldiers of the U.S. Civil War, and Veterans Day or Remembrance Day, originally called Armistice Day in recognition of the end of World War I—never again! Just say no to war. Wear a white poppy! No more slaughter! No pasaran!

The advent of technology has made the world a very small place. There are some 300 billion webpages, growing by a billion a week. People everywhere are now able to have conversations with each other. This scares the shit out of every big government on the planet and so they grow ever more repressive.

This repression is like the Berlin Wall—it won’t hold for long. We’re taking back our privacy. All we need is a Declaration of Independence, to act on “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Spread the love around fearlessly. And governments will lose their iron grip on us. Nationalism poisons us all. And it’s a dead horse.

If you have any doubt of this, you haven’t listened to John Lennon singing “Imagine” enough yet. Time to play it again!

It’s only fitting to end this essay remembering Norman Morrison, the young Quaker who, in 1965, brought his infant daughter, Emily, to the Pentagon where he immolated himself under the office windows of the Secretary of War. Anne Morrison Welch: “I think having Emily with him was a final and great comfort to Norman… [S]he was a powerful symbol of the children we were killing with our bombs and napalm–who didn’t have parents to hold them in their arms.” Mo Ri Xon is still a hero in Vietnam. The American War on Vietnam lasted ten years more; the last US soldiers were withdrawn on my birthday in 1975.

Only thing that we did right
Was the day we refused to fight.

We activists who take great personal risks for the good of all and end up imprisoned by the state also suffer for our children. It lifts a great burden to know that others care enough to look out for them. Our humble thanks to the Rosenberg Fund for Children.

Prison is only the beginning. Julian Assange’s motto: “Courage is contagious.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America’s Wars: The Day We Refused To Fight. “War is just Terrorism with a Bigger Budget”

Social Democracy or Revolutionary Democracy: Syriza and Us

August 2nd, 2015 by Prof. Michael A. Lebowitz

All eyes on the Left are upon Greece. Not because of a general interest in the contradictions of capitalism in the midst of this particular crisis but because of Syriza. Unfortunately, what we are observing is not unique to Syriza. The story has been told before, and the story inevitably will occur again if we do not learn from it. Rather than debating the arguments of individuals (many of them good comrades) who may hold different views, I think it is essential to try to understand how this happened and why.

Let me begin by setting out my premises, which may be sufficient to draw a red line between my argument and that of some others:

1. For several years, Syriza has been the hope of the working-class in Greece, Europe and in every country suffering from neoliberalism and austerity. It was sending a message that a better opposition was possible; and as such it was an inspiration to similar anti-austerity struggles (in particular, that of Podemos in Spain).

2. European and Greek capital was determined to kill that messenger. Accordingly, it was and is relentless in its determination to send a quite different message: TINA, there is no alternative to neoliberalism and austerity.

3. Despite its programme as a party, the platform on which it was elected to govern and a strong popular vote endorsing its rejection of the demands of European capital, the Syriza government totally capitulated and accepted a colonial status for Greece.

4. It is never too late (or too soon) to unleash the creative power of the masses.

The Construction of Syriza

Syriza didn’t drop from the sky. It took shape as the result of a process through which different political groups gained experience in working together. Beginning in particular with the Space for Dialogue at the beginning of the century and continuing with the developments and protests in the Social Forum and in the common struggle against neoliberalism and austerity, the Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) emerged – one in which Synaspismos (the old eurocommunist formation), environmental, Trotskyist and Maoist formations found a common interest in working together. And that coalition attracted young people in particular because of its support of struggles in the streets in the context of the Social Forum (mobilized by the slogans of ‘people before profit’ and ‘another world is possible’), and it emerged increasingly as a pole of attraction as people rejected the neoliberal and austerity packages that right-wing and social democratic governments imposed following the dictates of the Troika. In the June 2012 elections, Syriza received almost 27 per cent of the vote and became the main opposition party to the governing coalition of rightwing and social democratic parties.

Syriza also didn’t drop from the sky in that its perspective reflected the ideas of socialism for the 21st century. Its founding document as a unitary party inJuly 2013 declared that the possible other world is the world of socialism with democracy and freedom, the world where the needs of people come before profit. There was the explicit rejection of capitalism but also the insistence that the socialist alternative is ‘inseparably tied to democracy’ – a conception of democracy in which workers can plan, manage and control with the purpose of satisfying social needs, a democracy not merely formal but necessarily incorporating direct democracy with the active participation of all.

Our goal, Syriza’s founding Congress declared, is socialism for the 21st Century, and its declaration reflected the understanding that this goal requires you to walk on two legs – both to capture the existing state and reverse policies supportive of capital and also to build and nurture the elements of a new socialist state based upon self-government from below.[1] Particularly urgent, of course, was the need to defeat the policy memoranda and to change the government, given the misery that these were imposing upon the Greek people. Accordingly, in its political resolution, Syriza declared it would cancel the memoranda and the implementing laws, would place the banking system under public ownership, would cancel planned privatizations and the looting of public wealth, would rehire all state employees who have been laid off, and would renegotiate the loan contracts and cancel their onerous terms following an audit of the debt. We commit ourselves, Syriza promised, to tackle any possible threats and blackmail from the lenders with all possible means we can mobilize, and we are certain that the Greek people will support us. As its old slogan, “no sacrifice for the euro,” indicated, Syriza’s absolute priority was to prevent humanitarian disaster and to meet social needs, and not to submit to obligations taken on by others.

To build the new economy based upon social solidarity, though, more than the rupture with neoliberal state policies through government degrees was necessary. A more profound rupture was required for a socialist regeneration – rupture with a society characterised by patriarchy, rupture with the drive toward ecological destruction, rupture with subordination of everything to the market. And, this was a lesson taught by the social and political movement through its struggles in the streets, its demonstrations, social solidarity networks and initiatives based on disobedience. Syriza, the programme declared, has learned from its participation with its forces in all these forms of social movements. It has learned the necessity for a broad self-governing movement in which direct democracy flourishes, and it recognizes the need to reform the entire local government and to nurture forms of popular self-organization that can systematically pressure institutions. To create the space in which governing from below can flourish, the political resolution declared that a Syriza government would introduce the concept and practice of democratic planning and social control at all levels of central and local government and that it would promote democracy in the workplace through workers’ councils composed of representatives elected by and recallable by workers. Here was the second leg upon which Syriza meant to advance – fostering the cells of a new socialist state from below.

But Syriza also learned another lesson through its direct participation in the social and political movements – the importance of a unified, mass, democratic, multi-tendency party. Drawing upon communist, radical, regenerative, anticapitalist, radical feminist, ecological, revolutionary and libertarian left streams, Syriza stressed the importance of respecting inevitable internal differences and thus the need to ensure that differing political assessments would be represented through internal democracy. Just as it had learned by participating in the movements to fully respect opposite opinions, so also did it seek to apply this internally. Syriza, the founding congress declared, “systematically endeavors to be a model of the society it seeks to build.”

The Path to Social Democracy

Something happened, however, in the approach to new elections. In September 2014, Syriza presented its electoral programme, the Thessaloniki Programme. As in its earlier positions, the programme stressed the need for a new government that would challenge the neoliberal austerity demands of the Troika and, in particular, would reduce the debt. Yet, there were some obvious differences. There was no pledge to cancel the memoranda and the implementing laws, no call for public ownership of the banks, no declaration that planned privatizations and the looting of public wealth would be canceled. Indeed, there was no explicit critique of capitalism.

In place of any anti-capitalist (let alone, socialist) measures was a National Reconstruction Plan which focused upon restarting the Greek economy through public investment and tax reduction for the middle class. Recovery and growth (along with a negotiated moratorium on debt servicing) would rescue the Greek economy and allow it to ‘gradually’ reverse all the memorandum injustices, ‘gradually’ restore salaries and pensions and rebuild the welfare state. Economically, the Thessaloniki Programme was based upon Keynesian (not even post-Keynesian) theory, and it supplemented its focus upon aggregate demand stimulation by proposed measures to deal with the humanitarian crisis (e.g., subsidies for meals, electricity, medical care and public transit for the poor and unemployed).

Although there was little sign of the earlier determination to use the state to make inroads upon capital, the Thessaloniki Programme did suggest the possibility of introducing measures which could foster development of the cells of a new state. A Syriza government, it pledged, would empower citizen’s democratic participation (including institutions of direct democracy) and would introduce democratic measures such as a people’s veto and a people’s initiative to call a referendum. Important democratic openings promised but, again, nothing challenging capital (as the demand for workers’ councils and workers’ control would). Everything in the electoral programme was consistent with support for capital. The proposal contained in that programme was to walk on two legs to social democracy.

Some may praise Syriza’s tactical ‘realism’ while others criticise it for deviating from its socialist programme. It is not the central issue. More significant is what followed Thessaloniki – a classic example of path dependency. While there may be extended discussion of steps along the way (‘errors’ and ‘mistakes’ identified) and new exciting revelations about events and threats, it must be admitted that, from its initial retreats in post-electoral negotiations with the Troika to its successive surrenders to its ultimate rout and capitulation, Syriza has followed the familiar trajectory of social democracy. And, it is, of course, the path followed earlier by PASOK which also promised social democracy and ended up enforcing the neoliberalism and austerity to which Syriza has now agreed. To this, the Syriza government has added the unique step of calling for a popular referendum against austerity proposals and then negating the Greek people’s negation.

Of course, Syriza (like PASOK before it) faced a very difficult situation when it came to relations with its European creditors – especially given its commitment to remaining in the eurozone. But there are always choices. In a talk in Cuba in 2004, I proposed that “when capital goes on strike, there are two choices, give in or move in.” Unfortunately, I noted, “when capital has gone on strike, the social-democratic response has been to give in” and the result is to reinforce the logic of capital.[2] Subsequently, in a private exchange with a Syriza activist in May 2013, I returned to this trope and wrote: “when the organized forces of finance capital of the European Union demand sacrifice from the working-class of Greece (and not only Greece but also Portugal, Spain, etc.) and have the power under the existing set of institutions, there are two choices: give in or move out. And, however these options may be muddied in the minds of both masses and Syriza leadership, as the crisis continues the clever dancing of Syriza leadership will be less and less convincing.”

Was the appropriate focus, then, upon moving out? “Would I call for an immediate departure from the euro? That would not be very wise,” I argued, “compared to an alternative of opening the books in order to ensure ‘fair’ taxation, canceling the debt, capital controls, nationalization of the banks, etc. i.e., policies which would be clearly presented as policies in the interests of the working-class, class policies. This would inevitably create a condition in which remaining within the euro zone would not be possible or, indeed, permitted. But, then, the departure would not be the result of the waving of a national flag but rather the result of class struggle politics. In short, I think the latter would necessarily lead to departure from the euro and I think that should be anticipated and planned for.”

As was always apparent (to both friends and enemies), though, the Syriza leadership was determined that Greece not move out of the eurozone and, above all, was committed to do everything possible to prevent it. So, it did give in but not before euros moved out of Greece.

Another Path is Possible

Any country that would challenge neoliberalism inevitably will face the assorted weapons of international capital. The central question, then, is whether a government is “willing to mobilize its people on behalf of the policies that meet the needs of people.”[3] And this was the question I posed about Syriza in 2013: “do the stances taken by the Syriza leadership (e.g. the strong reluctance to abandon the euro, the apparent backtracking on cancellation of the debt [negotiation], etc.) foster or weaken the movements from below? My worry, as you may guess, is that the latter is true.”

Unfortunately, it was true. A government can win the battle against neoliberalism, I argued in 2004, but only if it is “prepared to break ideologically and politically with capital, only if it is prepared to make social movements actors in the realization of an economic theory based upon the concept of human capacities.” If it is not, “such a government inevitably will disappoint and demobilize all those looking for an alternative to neoliberalism; and, once again, its immediate product will be the conclusion that there is no alternative.”[4] The Syriza government was not prepared to break ideologically and politically with capital, and it was not prepared to mobilize the masses.

There are always choices. We can take the path of ‘defeats without glory’ (Badiou) characteristic of social democracy or we can move in the direction of the revolutionary democracy that builds the capacities of the working-class. At the core of the latter is that it embraces the centrality of the concept of revolutionary practice – “the coincidence of the changing of circumstances and human activity or self-change.” It begins, in short, by grasping the ‘key link’ of human development and practice that Marx consistently stressed. Revolutionary democracy recognizes that every activity in which people engage forms them. Thus, there are two products of every activity – the changing of circumstance or things and the human product.

Recognizing the importance of the ‘second product’, the human product of activity, is absolutely essential for a government which is serious about building socialism because it stresses the necessity to build the capacities of the working-class. In a paper I wrote for Chavez in December 2006, I asked:

What’s the significance of recognizing this process of producing people explicitly? First, it helps us to understand why changes must occur in all spheres – every moment that people act within old relations is a process of reproducing old ideas and attitudes. Working under hierarchical relations, functioning without the ability to make decisions in the workplace and society, focusing upon self-interest rather than upon solidarity within society – these activities produce people on a daily basis; it is the reproduction of the conservatism of everyday life.

Recognizing this second side also directs us to focus upon the introduction of concrete measures which explicitly take into account the effect of those measures upon human development. Thus, for every step two questions must be asked: (1) how does this change circumstances and (2) how does this help to produce revolutionary subjects and increase their capacities?[5]

Despite all that has occurred, revolutionary democracy is still a path open to the Syriza government. As a government, it can introduce measures that can help to produce revolutionary subjects and to unleash the creative energies of the masses. Further, it can use its power as government not only to support the development of a new state from below but also to ensure that the existing state (with its police, judicial, military, etc powers) is not under the direct command of capital. These are possibilities for Syriza still as government, and it would be tragic if its story were to end as a defeat without glory.

But, as the story of PASOK demonstrates, this would not be the first time for such an ending. That is what makes the denouement of Syriza a ‘teachable moment.’ We can learn from both the promise of Syriza and its subsequent trajectory – both the way in which its direct involvement in the revolutionary democratic struggles of the social movements produced it as an important political force and also the way in which its refusal to break ideologically and politically with capital left it only with Keynesians of various stripes negotiating the terms of its surrender and with disappointed masses.

Certainly, there is a lesson here for future governments (and perhaps even the current Syriza government) – the absolute necessity to learn to walk upon two legs. But there is also a lesson for us – those of us without the present luxury of government. A socialist party must also walk upon two legs. Of course, it must struggle to capture the existing state from capital so that state can serve the needs of the working-class rather than capital. However, it also must “promote by all means possible new democratic institutions, new spaces in which people can develop their powers through their protagonism.” Through the development of communal councils and workers’ councils (essential cells of the new socialist state), the working-class develops its capacities and the strength to challenge capital and the old state.[6]

The lesson of Syriza should be to never forget the concept of revolutionary practice – the simultaneous changing of circumstances and human activity or self-change. It is never too late to remember and apply this… and never too soon. •

Michael A. Lebowitz is a professor emeritus of economics at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. His latest book is The Contradictions of “Real Socialism”.

Notes

1. See the discussion of the old state and the new state in Michael Lebowitz, Building Socialism for the 21st Century: the Logic of the State, the Fourth Annual Nicos Poulantzas Memorial Lecture, 8 December 2010 (published by the Poulantzas Institute in 2011). This talk appeared in an expanded version as “The State and the Future of Socialism” in the Socialist Register 2013 and is included as Chapter 10 of my new book, The Socialist Imperative: from Gotha to Now (Monthly Review, 2015).

2. This talk, presented at the annual Globalization Conference in Havana in February 2004, was published in Michael A. Lebowitz, Build it Now: Socialism for the 21st Century (Monthly Review Press, 2006), 39.

3. Lebowitz, Build it Now, 40.

4. Lebowitz, Build it Now, 42.

5. “Proposing a Path to Socialism: Two Papers for Hugo Chavez” is reproduced as Chapter 5 of The Socialist Imperative.

6. See the discussion of the socialist party and its relation to social movements and struggles in “End the System,” Chapter 11 of The Socialist Imperative.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Social Democracy or Revolutionary Democracy: Syriza and Us

The US Hand in the Syrian Mess

August 2nd, 2015 by Jonathan Marshall

Neocons and the mainstream U.S. media place all the blame for the Syrian civil war on President Bashar al-Assad and Iran, but there is another side of the story in which Syria’s olive branches to the U.S. and Israel were spurned and a reckless drive for “regime change” followed, writes Jonathan Marshall.

Syria’s current leader, Bashar al-Assad replaced his autocratic father as president and head of the ruling Ba’ath Party in 2000. Only 35 years old and British educated, he aroused widespread hopes at home and abroad of introducing reforms and liberalizing the regime. In his first year he freed hundreds of political prisoners and shut down a notorious prison, though his security forces resumed cracking down on dissenters a year later.

But almost from the start, Assad was marked by the George W. Bush administration for “regime change.” Then, in the early years of Barack Obama’s presidency, there were some attempts at diplomatic engagement, but shortly after a civil conflict broke out in 2011, the legacy of official U.S. hostility toward Syria set in motion Washington’s disastrous confrontation with Assad which continues to this day.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in front of a poster of his father, Hafez al-Assad.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in front of a poster of his father, Hafez al-Assad.

Thus, the history of the Bush administration’s approach toward Syria is important to understand. Shortly after 9/11, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark learned from a Pentagon source that Syria was on the same hit list as Iraq. As Clark recalled, the Bush administration “wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.”

Sure enough, in a May 2002 speech titled “Beyond the Axis of Evil,” Under Secretary of State John Bolton named Syria as one of a handful of “rogue states” along with Iraq that “can expect to become our targets.” Assad’s conciliatory and cooperative gestures were brushed aside.

The Assad regime received no credit from President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney for becoming what scholar Kilic Bugra Kanat has called “one of the CIA’s most effective intelligence allies in the fight against terrorism.” Not only did the regime provide life-saving intelligence on planned al-Qaeda attacks, it did the CIA’s dirty work of interrogating terrorism suspects “rendered” by the United States from Afghanistan and other theaters.

Syria’s opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and its suspected involvement in the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri deepened the administration’s hostility toward Damascus.

Covertly, Washington began collaborating with Saudi Arabia to back Islamist opposition groups including the Muslim Brotherhood, according to journalist Seymour Hersh. One key beneficiary was said to be Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian vice president who defected to the West in 2005. In March 2006, Khaddam joined with the chief of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood to create the National Salvation Front, with the goal of ousting Assad.

Thanks to Wikileaks, we know that key Lebanese politicians, acting in concert with Saudi leaders, urged Washington to support Khaddam as a tactic to accomplish “complete regime change in Syria” and to address “the bigger problem” of Iran.

Meanwhile, the Assad regime was striving mightily to reduce its international isolation by reaching a peace settlement with Israel. It began secret talks with Israel in 2004 in Turkey and by the following year “had reached a very advanced form and covered territorial, water, border and political questions,” according to historian Gabriel Kolko.

A host of senior Israelis, including former heads of the IDF, Shin Beit, and Foreign Ministry, backed the talks. But the Bush administration nixed them, as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek confirmed in January 2007.

As Kolko noted, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz then “published a series of extremely detailed accounts, including the draft accord, confirming that Syria ‘offered a far reaching and equitable peace treaty that would provide for Israel’s security and is comprehensive’ — and divorce Syria from Iran and even create a crucial distance between it and Hezbollah and Hamas.

The Bush Administration’s role in scuttling any peace accord was decisive. C. David Welch, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, sat in at the final meeting [and] two former senior CIA officials were present in all of these meetings and sent regular reports to Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. The press has been full of details on how the American role was decisive, because it has war, not peace, at the top of its agenda.

Isolating Assad

In March 2007, McClatchy broke a story that the Bush administration had “launched a campaign to isolate and embarrass Syrian President Bashar Assad. . . . The campaign, which some officials fear is aimed at destabilizing Syria, has been in the works for months. It involves escalating attacks on Syria’s human rights record. . . . The campaign appears to fly in the face of the recommendations last December of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which urged President Bush to engage diplomatically with Syria to stabilize Iraq and address the Arab-Israeli conflict. . . . The officials say the campaign bears the imprint of Elliott Abrams, a conservative White House aide in charge of pushing Bush’s global democracy agenda.”

Not surprisingly, Vice President Cheney was also an implacable opponent of engagement with Syria.

Attempting once again to break the impasse, Syria’s ambassador to the United States called for talks to achieve a full peace agreement with Israel in late July 2008. “We desire to recognize each other and end the state of war,” Imad Mustafa said in remarks broadcast on Israeli army radio. “Here is then a grand thing on offer. Let us sit together, let us make peace, let us end once and for all the state of war.”

Three days later, Israel responded by sending a team of commandos into Syria to assassinate a Syrian general as he held a dinner party at his home on the coast. A top-secret summary by the National Security Agency called it the “first known instance of Israel targeting a legitimate government official.”

Just two months later, U.S. military forces launched a raid into Syria, ostensibly to kill an al-Qaeda operative, which resulted in the death of eight unarmed civilians. The Beirut Daily Starwrote, “The suspected involvement of some of the most vociferous anti-Syria hawks at the highest levels of the Bush administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have combined with US silence on the matter to fuel a guessing game as to just exactly who ordered or approved Sunday’s cross-border raid.”

The New York Times condemned the attack as a violation of international law and said the timing “could not have been worse,” noting that it “coincided with Syria’s establishing, for the first time, full diplomatic relations with Lebanon. This was a sign that Syria’s ruler, Bashar Assad, is serious about ending his pariah status in the West. It was also a signal to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan that Assad, whose alliance with Iran they abhor, is now eager to return to the Arab fold.”

The editorial added, “if President Bush and Vice President Cheney did authorize an action that risks sabotaging Israeli-Syrian peace talks, reversing the trend of Syrian cooperation in Iraq and Lebanon, and playing into the hands of Iran, then Bush and Cheney have learned nothing from their previous mistakes and misdeeds.”

In an interview with Foreign Policy magazine, Syrian ambassador Imad Moustapha noted that his government had just begun friendly talks with top State Department officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “And suddenly, this [raid in eastern Syria] happens,” the ambassador said. “I don’t believe the guys from the State Department were actually deceiving us. I believe they genuinely wanted to engage diplomatically and politically with Syria. We believe that other powers within the administration were upset with these meetings and they did this exactly to undermine the whole new atmosphere.”

Despite these many provocations, Syria continued to negotiate with Israel through Turkish intermediaries. By late 2008, according to journalist Seymour Hersh, “Many complicated technical matters had been resolved, and there were agreements in principle on the normalization of diplomatic relations. The consensus, as an ambassador now serving in Tel Aviv put it, was that the two sides had been ‘a lot closer than you might think.’” Then, in late December, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead, a devastating assault on Gaza that left about 1,400 Palestinians dead, along with nine Israeli soldiers and three civilians.

Israeli Sabotage

The brief war ended in January, just before President Obama’s inauguration. Assad told Hersh that despite his outrage at Israel “doing everything possible to undermine the prospects for peace … we still believe that we need to conclude a serious dialogue to lead us to peace.” The ruler of Qatar confirmed, “Syria is eager to engage with the West, an eagerness that was never perceived by the Bush White House. Anything is possible, as long as peace is being pursued.”

Of Obama, Assad said “We are happy that he has said that diplomacy — and not war — is the means of conducting international policy.” Assad added, “We do not say that we are a democratic country. We do not say that we are perfect, but we are moving forward.” And he offered to be an ally of the United States against the growing threat of al-Qaeda and Islamist extremism, which had become major forces in Iraq but had not yet taken hold in Syria.

Assad’s hopes died stillborn. The new government of Israel under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which took office in March 2009, steadfastly opposed any land-for-peace deal with Syria. And the Obama administration lacked the clout or the will to take Israel on.

President Obama did follow through on promises to engage with Syria after a long period of frozen relations. He sent representatives from the State Department and National Security Council to Damascus in early 2009; dispatched envoy George Mitchell three times to discuss a Middle East peace settlement; nominated the first ambassador to Damascus since 2005; and invited Syria’s deputy foreign minister to Washington for consultations.

However, Obama also continued covert funding to Syrian opposition groups, which a senior U.S. diplomat warned would be viewed by Syrian authorities as “tantamount to supporting regime change.”

At home, Obama’s new policy of engagement was decried by neoconservatives. Elliott Abrams, the Iran-Contra convict who was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush and who directed Middle East policy at the National Security Council under President George W. Bush, branded Obama’s efforts “appeasement” and said Syrian policy would change only “if and when the regime in Iran, Assad’s mainstay, falls.”

Syria, meanwhile, rebuffed Washington’s demands to drop its support for Iran and for Hezbollah and reacted with frustration at the administration’s refusal to lift economic sanctions. Said Assad, “What has happened so far is a new approach. Dialogue has replaced commands, which is good. But things stopped there.”

As late as March 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continued to defend talks with Assad,saying: “There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”

But that stance would change a month later, when the White House condemned “in the strongest possible terms” the Damascus regime’s “completely deplorable” crackdown on political opponents in the city of Dara’a, ignoring the killing of police in the city.

That August, following critical reports from the United Nations and human rights organizations about the regime’s responsibility for killing and abusing civilians, President Obama joined European leaders in demanding that Assad “face the reality of the complete rejection of his regime by the Syrian people” and “step aside.” (In fact, a majority of Syrians polled in December 2011 opposed Assad’s resignation.)

Washington imposed new economic sanctions, prompting Syria’s U.N. ambassador, Bashar al-Jaafari, to assert that the United States “is launching a humanitarian and diplomatic war against us.” Obama’s policy, initially applauded by interventionists until he failed to send troops or major aid to rebel groups, opened the door to support from the Gulf States and Turkey for Islamist forces.

The Rise of the Salafists

As early as the summer of 2012, a classified Defense Intelligence Agency report concluded, “The salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq, later the Islamic State]” had become “the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.”

As Vice President Joseph Biden later admitted, “The fact of the matter is . . . there was no moderate middle. . . . [O]ur allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria. . . . They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and . . . thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad except that the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis.”

As with Iraq and Libya — do we never learn? — “regime change” in Syria may well bring about either fanatical Islamist state or a failed state and no end to the violence.

Recalling Israel’s folly in cultivating Islamist rivals to Fatah (notably Hamas), Jacky Hugi, an Arab affairs analyst for Israeli army radio, recently made the remarkable suggestion that “What Israel should learn from these events is that it must strive for the survival and bolstering of the current regime at any price.” He argued:

The survival of the Damascus regime guarantees stability on Israel’s northern border, and it’s a keystone to its national security. The Syrian regime is secular, tacitly recognizes Israel’s right to exist and does not crave death. It does not have messianic religious beliefs and does not aim to establish an Islamic caliphate in the area it controls.

“Since Syria is a sovereign nation, there is an array of means of putting pressure on it in case of conflict or crisis. It’s possible to transmit diplomatc messages, to work against it in international arenas or to damage its regional interests. If there’s a need for military action against it, there’s no need to desperately look for it amid a civilian population and risk killing innocent civilians.

Israel has experienced years of a stable border with the Syrian regime. Until the war broke out there, not a single shot was fired from Syria. While Assad shifted aggression toward Israel to the Lebanese border by means of Hezbollah, even this movement and its military arm is preferable to Israel over al-Qaeda and its like. It’s familiar and its leaders are familiar. Israel has ‘talked’ through mediators with Hezbollah ever since the movement controlled southern Lebanon. It’s mostly indirect dialogue, meant to serve practical interests of the kind forced on those who have to live side by side, but pragmatism guides it.

While Hezbollah fighters are indeed bitter enemies, you will not find among them the joy in evil and cannibalism, as seen in the last decade among Sunni jihadist organizations.

Washington need not go so far as to back Assad in the name of pragmatism. But it should clearly renounce “regime change” as a policy, support an arms embargo, and begin acting in concert with Russia, Iran, the Gulf states and other regional powers to support unconditional peace negotiations with Assad’s regime.

President Obama recently dropped hints that he welcomes further talks with Russia toward that end, in the face of prospects of an eventual jihadist takeover of Syria. Americans who value human rights and peace ahead of overthrowing Arab regimes should welcome such a new policy direction.

[Part Two of this two-part series is available at “Hidden Origins of Syria’s Civil War.“]

Jonathan Marshall is an independent researcher living in San Anselmo, California. Some of his previous articles for Consortiumnews were “Risky Blowback from Russian Sanctions”; “Neocons Want Regime Change in Iran”; “Saudi Cash Wins France’s Favor”; “The Saudis’ Hurt Feelings”; and “Saudi Arabia’s Nuclear Bluster.”]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US Hand in the Syrian Mess

ISIL and its So-Called Caliphate: Israeli-US Tools to Divide Iraq

August 2nd, 2015 by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

First produced in July 2014, the following GRTV documentary looks at the crisis in Iraq, prior to the launching of the US bombing campaign 

This short documentary examines the support that the US and Israel are providing to the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which use to call itself Al-Qaeda in Iraq and more recently calls itself the Islamic State, and its self-declared “caliphate.”

Audiences are presented with past analyses from the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya and Michel Chossudovsky, that connects the dots between the two crises in Iraq and Syria and the long war of the US that is ultimately aimed at controlling Eurasia.

The division of Iraq and the Middle East is part of a longstanding push into Eurasia by the US, Israel, and their allies that has consistently involved a set of pretexts and lies. Sectarian hatred between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims and between Kurds and Arabs is now falsely being presented as the basis for the conflicts in Iraq and Syria.

The US military cannot go into any country that it desires for regime change. This is why Washington has applied other techniques for regime change. In 2006, with the failure of the US to break the Resistance Bloc or Axis of Resistance in the Middle East, the US began its “redirection” policy and opted to use insurgencies, sectarianism, colour revolutions, and intensified covert operations.

One of the people that set the stage for the division of Iraq is Joseph Biden, the current vice-president of the United States. When Biden was a US senator in the US Congress, he presented the Biden Plan to divide Iraq into three sectarian entities in 2008. In part, the Biden Plan created one of the blueprints for the political face of the current crisis in Iraq.

The US also wants the federal government in Iraq to be replaced, because it refused to help the US and its allies in the war against Syria, its alliance with Iran, Iraq’s growing trade and purchases of military hardware from the Russian Federation, and Iraqi oil sales to China. Because of Washington’s desires for regime change in Baghdad and its plans to divide Iraq, the US government has been delaying aid to the Iraqi government. Russia and Belarus, on the other hand, have stepped in to militarily help Baghdad, alongside Iran and Syria.

While the US is covertly supporting the division of Iraq, Israel is overtly been supporting this as outlined by the Yinon Plan. After the ISIL’s 2014 offensive inside Iraq began, Iraqi officials reported that the Israelis were present in Iraqi Kurdistan and also involved in assisting the ISIL fighters inside Iraq’s borders. Tel Aviv has even openly told Washington to let the different groups in Iraq kill one another, just like Iran and Iraq were doing during the Iraq-Iran War. While Israel refuses to allow or recognize Palestinian independence, Israeli officials have called for the international community to recognize the dismemberment of Iraq by recognizing Iraqi Kurdistan as a separate republic. This is because Israel plans on using the Kurdish people as pawns and Iraqi Kurdistan as a regional outpost.

The Kurdistan Regional Government has used the ISIL’s 2014 offensive as an opportunity to takeover the multi-ethnic and oil-rich Iraqi city of Kirkuk and to announce that it plans to declare independence from Iraq. In part, petro-politics and control over energy is tied to the Kurdistan Regional Government’s plans of secession and its armed takeover of Kirkuk, which it has claimed as its historic capital. The Turkish government has already been making illegal energy deals with the leaders of the Kurdistan Regional Government for Iraqi oil. Reports are also surfacing that Israel will buy Iraqi oil from the Kurdistan Regional Government via Turkey.

With the takeover of Kirkuk, Iraqi oil will be sent to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, which is the Eastern Mediterranean export terminal for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline. This not only gives Israel access to Iraqi oil, but also endangers Eurasian energy integration and the
Banyias-Kirkuk Pipeline running from Iraq to Syria.

The Iraqi and Syrian people must stand united in the face of the project to divide their ancient societies and countries.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ISIL and its So-Called Caliphate: Israeli-US Tools to Divide Iraq

“The miracle meeting” has happened. The Syrian chief of the office of home security general Ali Mamlouk has visited Riyadh and met with the Saudi deputy Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman [son of current king] as a result of a Russian-brokered initiative. Differences were discussed. 

On the 19th of June, President Putin received the Saudi Minister of Defence the deputy Crown Prince. The meeting with the “uncrowned king” dealt with many files: Yemen, weapon deals, nuclear reactors, price of crude, and most importantly Syria and terrorism.

Clearly, Putin prepared for this meeting very well, as by then:

– The Russian prediction was that the nuclear deal with Iran was ready, constituting “bad news” for Riyadh.

– It was clear that ISIS has declared mutiny on its original supporters and turned into an international danger, especially for Saudi Arabia taking into account its status as the home of Islam. It is also a danger for Russia considering that many of its fighters come from central Asia.

– It became obvious that the war on Yemen was not going to be a walk in the park and may end up as a long protracted war. Saudi Arabia had already been giving signs of dissatisfaction from the inadequate American support and became convinced that any settlement will require a Russian role, especially that Russia has vetoed the Arab-initiated UNSC resolution seeking placing Yemen under Chapter Seven and which would prohibit any army shipments to the Houthis and enforces sanctions against their leaders.

It must be remembered that the previous Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal was one of the staunchest advocates of this failed resolution, together with Prince Bandar Bin Sultan who was sacked earlier on the 29th of April.

Moscow seized the moment and Putin laid out his vision of the situation in Syria to Mohamad Bin Salman: After four years of fighting, there is a tangible change of in the international mood. Geneva 3 is no longer on the table neither is Moscow 3 or Moscow 4. In the meanwhile, terrorism is creeping towards your homeland. In the meantime also, the position of the Syrian Army is improving on the ground and there are no other parties left who are convinced that the Syrian “regime” should fall other than Saudi Arabia and Turkey. There is no option but to cooperate with him [ Assad] in order to fight terrorism that is threatening everyone.

The Saudi Prince seemed convinced though very reluctantly that the essence of Putin’s harangue was that the Syrian “regime” is here to stay. This encouraged his host to go a step further and suggest a meeting between the Prince and a Syrian official without any preconditions.

Ten days later, on the 29th of June, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem together with his deputy Faisal Al-Makdad and Buthaina Shaaban who is a counsel for the Syrian President, arrived in Moscow. Putin renewed his commitment towards Syria’s “government and its people”. He suggested the formation of a quadrilateral anti-terrorism coalition to be comprised of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan. Iran was excluded as the Russians are careful not to intimidate the Saudis. The Syrian envoys were unable to hide that they were taken by surprise, and this is what Mouallem referred to later on when he said that this “will require a miracle”. Putin however insisted that the proposal be taken to President Assad and he [is Assad] agreed. The proposal remained confidential between Assad, Mouallem and the chief of home security general Ali Mamlouk.

The Russian secret service was given the task of communicating with Mamlouk to make it happen. Then there was a second communication from the Russians saying that the Saudis insist that the meeting should be held in Riyadh, and Damascus did not object. A few weeks later, a special plane carrying the deputy Russian chief of intelligence landed in Damascus and flew with general Mamlouk on board bound for Riyadh. The meeting was held in the presence of the Saudi chief of intelligence Saleh Al-Humaidan.

This will be the end of the actual translation. All of the above, including the introductory paragraph are actual translations of the original text (Al Akhbar). The remaining part of the original article dwell into the details of the talks, but the gist of it is actually captured in the introductory paragraph.

Both parties lashed at each other accusing each other of inflaming the situation. There is nothing to indicate that this was not done within the norms of diplomacy. The meeting concluded without reaching any results, but the ice has been broken.

The significance of this extremely historic meeting is enormous. It has the potential to be pivotal in whatever happens from this point on. It is very important to note at least the following ramifications, corollaries and conclusions :

  1. It confirms that the original anti-Syrian coalition has capitulated.
  2. It is a recognition of Syria’s upper hand on the situation on the ground.
  3. It implies an admission of failure on the part of Saudi Arabia.
  4. It further reconfirms Russia’s role and commitment towards Syria.
  5. It is a further proof that the US is disengaging in the Levant.
  6. In trying to reach a deal between Saudi Arabia and Syria, the only remaining obstinate foe of Syria, Turkey, will be left out alone in the cold. In any future negotiations, Turkey will have to strike a deal of its own without the support of any partners to count on. This will prove very difficult if and when the intended safety zone plan in the north of Syria fails.

No doubt many cynics will look at this step with their regular short-sighted cynicism. They will argue it is a sell-out, just like they did with the chemical weapons deal. Many will not be able to read in between the lines, and because this meeting did not conclude in any results per se, they will not see that the fact that is was actually held heralds a whole new and very bright chapter for the near, and possibly, very near future.

It is not unrealistic to see this meeting as the beginning of the end. There will be many hurdles to overcome, but the road is getting clearer and smoother for a huge victory.

Translation, Interpretation and Analysis by Ghassan Kadi

This text is a translation of an Al Akhbar article published in Arabic

http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/238963

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russian Brokered High Level Syria-Saudi Arabia Discussions: Al Assad’s Security Adviser meets Saudi Deputy Crown Prince

Erodoğan and Netanyahu Declare War

August 1st, 2015 by Prof. James Petras

Image:  (Kobi Gideon/Flah90/WEF/U.N./Graphics by Uri Fintzy)

Introduction

The rulers of the two most powerful authoritarian regimes in the Middle East are launching major wars to reconfigure the Middle East.   Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has declared war  by proxy  on Iran, announcing full-scale military mobilization within Israel (July 27 -29) and organizing the biggest political campaign of ultra Zionist Jews in Washington.   The purpose of this two-pronged propaganda blitz is to defeat the recently signed US-Iranian agreement and start another major Middle East war.   Ultimately, Netanyahu intends to take care of his ‘Palestinian Problem’ for good: complete the conquest and occupation of Palestine and expelling the Palestinian people from their homeland – the single most important foreign policy and domestic goal of the Jewish state.   In order to do this, Israeli leaders have had to systematically campaign for the destruction of the Palestinians regional supporters and sympathizers – Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

Erodoğan’ s Multiple Wars

At the same time, Turkish President Erodoğan has launched a major war against the Kurdish people and their aspirations for a Kurdish state.   This has followed closely on several recent incidents beginning with the bombing (with cooperation from Turkish intelligence ) of a Kurdish youth camp, killing and wounding scores of young secular activists.   Within days of the massacre of Turkish-Kurdish youth, Erodoğan ordered his air force to bomb and strafe Kurdish bases within the sovereign territories of Iraq and Syria and Turkish security police have assaulted and arrested thousands of Kurdish nationalists and Turkish leftist sympathizers throughout the country.   This has all occurred with the support of the US and NATO who provide cover for Erodoğan’s plans to seize Syrian territory, displace Kurdish civilians and fighters and colonize the northern border of Syria – under the pretext of needing a ‘buffer zone’ to protect Turkish sovereignty.   Such a massive land grab of hundreds of square kilometers will end the long standing support and interaction among Syrian, Iraqi and Turkish Kurdish populations who have been among the most effective opponents of radical Islamist groups.

Erdoğan’s newly declared war on the Kurds has complex domestic and regional components (Financial Times  7/28/15, p 9):   Within Turkey, the repression is directed against the emerging electoral-political power of the  Kurdish People’s Democratic Party.   Erodoğan plans to discredit or outright ban this political party, which had won a surprising number of seats in the recent parliamentary election, call for new elections, secure a ‘majority’ in Parliament and assume dictatorial ‘executive powers’.

Regionally, Erodoğan’s  invasion of Syria  is part of his strategy to expand Turkey’s borders southward and westward and to provide a platform from which Turkey’s favorite jihadi clients can launch assaults on the secular government in Damascus and Aleppo.   The bombing of Kurdish villages and camps in Iraq and Syria are designed to reverse the Kurd’s military victories against ISIS and will justify greater repression of Kurdish activists backing autonomy in southeastern Turkey.

Erodoğan is counting on Turkey’s agreements with the US and NATO for overt and covert collaboration against the Kurds and against Syrian national sovereignty.

Netanyahu’s Proxy Wars

Netanyahu’s multifaceted political offensive is designed to drag the US into a war with Iran.   His strategy operates at many levels and in complex complimentary ways.   The immediate  target  is the nuclear agreement recently signed between the White House and Iran.   Part of longer-term strategy to destroy Iran includes the formation of a coalition of Middle East states, especially Gulf monarchies, to encircle, confront and provoke war with Iran.     This political-military strategy is being pushed by leading Zionists within the highest circles of the US Government.

All the major Israeli political parties, and most Israeli voters support this dangerous policy against Iran.   The Presidents of the 52 Major American Jewish Organizations in the US have been mobilized to bully, bribe and bludgeon the majority of Congress into following Netanyahu’s dictates.   Every US Congressperson is being ‘visited’ and presented with propaganda sheets by leaders, activists and full time functionaries of AIPAC, the Jewish Confederations and their billionaire political donors.   All the major US press and TV media parrot Netanyahu’s call for ‘war on the peace accord’ despite massive US public opinion against any escalation of the conflict.

At the highest levels of US Executive decision-making top Zionist officials avoid association with AIPAC’s public polemics and thuggish bluster, all the while promoting their own political-military ‘final solution’  …for eliminating Iran as an adversary to Israeli-Jewish supremacy in the Middle East.   In the State Department and Departments of Commerce, Defense and Treasury, US-Israeli agents acting as  specialMiddle East advisers, ambassadors and insiders push Netanyahu’s policies to undermine any normalization of relations between the US and Iran.

A recent proposal written by Professor Phillip Zelikow in the  Financial Times(7/23/15, p. 9 ) entitled “To Balance (sic) the Nuclear Deal, Defeat ISIS and Confront Iran” is chilling.

The former ‘Executive Director of the ‘9/11 Commission Investigation Report’, uber-insider Zelikow promotes the formation of an ingenious coalition, in the name of fighting ISIS, but whose real purpose is to “confront Iranian ambitions”.     Zelikow’s “coalition” includes Turkey, which will be assigned to attack Iran’s regional allies in Syria and Lebanon (Hezbollah) – all in the name of “fighting ISIS”.

The bland, bespectacled and most respectable Professor Zelikow lays out Netanyahu’s own bloody hit list down to the most minute detail – but tidied up with a thin veneer of ‘confronting ISIS’  to obscure his real agenda.   This is no blustering AIPAC thug or open Neo-Con war monger beating the drums…

Zelikow’s ‘anti-ISIS coalition’ will ultimately go after the  Iraqi Shia militia  and their main supporters among Iran’s Revolutionary Guard – hewing closely to Netanyahu’s strategy!

Zelikow was a major inside advocate of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.     Twelve years after the US invaded, occupied and destroyed Iraq, Zelikow pops up again to promote a policy of sending US combat troops to serve Israel’s regional interest. He writes,   “The military side [of the ‘coalition’] will need more Americans on the ground to offer meaningful combat support among the coalition”. (FT  ibid).

Zelikow is clearly aware of US public opinion in favor of diplomacy with Iran and against the US engaging in more ground wars in the Middle East, when he writes that a ‘military effort is not an alternative to diplomacy.”   Zelikow and his bosses in the Israeli Foreign Office know any US military intervention  with  such a “coalition” would lead to the destruction of the US-Iran Agreement and another major ground war with US troops fighting for Israel once again!

Considering his position as a highly connected insider, Zelikow’s attempts to sabotage the Iran-US agreement presents a far greater danger to world peace than all the noisy lobbying by the 52 Zionist organizations active in Congress.

Zelikow has been a highly influential security adviser to the US Executive and State Department since the early 1980’s under Reagan. He was appointed ‘special adviser to the State Department’ in 2007, a position held earlier by Neo-Con operative Wendy Sherman and followed by war-monger, Victoria Nuland.   In 2011 President Obama appointed him to the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

He came to national prominence when President Bush appointed him Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission where he directed the highly controversial (and highly censored) 9/11 Commission Report against much public opposition.     The appointment was made after Bush first choice of Henry Kissinger had created a media storm – Kissinger was never a serious choice with an insider-gatekeeper like Zelikow waiting in the wings.   He was a controversial choice because of his role as intimate advisor to Condaleeza Rice and his authorship of the notorious Bush national security strategy promoting pre-emptive war, published in September 2002.

Phillip Zelikow suppressed any discussion of Israel’s role as a major catalyst for US involvements in the Afghan and Iraq wars. As executive-director of the 9/11 Commission Report,   Zelikow assumed the role of editor and censor.     He ignored the history of Israeli Mossad operations in the US, especially in the run-up to the attack on September 11, 2001.   The report made no mention the fake ‘moving’ van filled with Israeli spies arrested on September 11, 2001 while celebrating and photographing the destruction of the World Trade Center complex.   Nor did he discuss the quiet ‘deportation’ of the Israeli agents.   The report contains no discussion of the scores of phony Israel “art students” who operated in South Florida around US military installations and in the vicinity of the apartment of the alleged 9-11 hijackers.   They too were quietly arrested and deported.

He also suppressed discussion of the Defense Department’s ‘Able Danger Project’, which showed US intelligence awareness of the hijackers presence and activities much earlier dating back to 1997.

In October 2001, the first ‘anthrax attack’ occurred – first sickening and killing a photojournalist at a scandal sheet in Florida.   National news programs featured an interview with… the re-packaged ‘al Qaeda’ and ‘bioterrorism’ expert Professor Zelikow (his lack of Arabic and scientific credentials notwithstanding…) who declared the anthrax to be ‘weapons grade’ and ‘definitely from a state sponsored military lab’, implying Iraq.   (He was correct in the ‘military lab’ part of his declaration – only the facility was the US Weapons Lab at Fort Detrick.   Zelikow’s role in accusing the embargoed and beleaguered regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of the anthrax hysteria was crucial in the public build-up for the case to invade Iraq, echoed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s call for the destruction of Iraq.   Master-performance complete, ‘scientist’ Zelikow’s interview (among others) has disappeared from the ‘web’.

Zelikow’s ‘expertise’  (such as it is) and usefulness to Israel derives from his articles on the political  usefulness  of ‘false flags’ and catastrophes – events concocted or instigated by imperialist powers to push a traumatized public into  unpopular wars  and draconian domestic police state policies.   His work has centered on the manipulation and exploitation of ‘events’ to push public policy – and include the Cuban Missile Crisis, the re-unification of Germany, policing Northern Ireland, (but not Middle East studies or bio-weaponry’).   His expertise is in the historical use of the ‘public myth’- whether the Riechstag Fire or Pearl Harbor.   In  Foreign Affairs, November-December 1998, he co-authored an article with the current US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, entitledCatastrophe Terrorism  where a ‘watershed event’ could result in ‘horror and chaos’ pushing the US public to accept the destruction of ‘their civil liberties, wide-spread surveillance, detention and use of deadly force…

Zelikow continues to push the “false flag” script:   In 2001 with the “anthrax hysteria” and now with the “Iran threat hysteria” . . . What is not surprising is that in both instances he hews   closely to Israel’s strategic goal of utterly destroying countries, which have opposed Israel’s dispossession, occupation and expulsion of Palestinians – Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and now Iran.

Zelikow is a  long-term, major asset for Israel, working quietly and effectively while the AIPAC bullies break down the doors of Congress. He never held a prominent position in the Cabinet or White House post like the brazen Zion-Cons Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Perle, Abrams and Levey who aggressively pushed the country into war with Iraq. Wolfowitz and company have scuttle back into obscurity under the cover of lucrative private positions while Zelikow continues to work inside pushing the Iran war agenda out of the limelight.

Zelikow’s role is far more  discrete and important  to Israel  over the long haulthan the loudmouths and thugs of AIPAC and other Zionist fronts.   On the surface he pursues his academic and university administrative career (an excellent cover) while repeatedly inserting himself into crucial public discussions and quietly assuming strategic positions to advise on events or policies which have ‘turning point’consequences and where his deep ties to Israel are never discussed.

Zelikow has one asset, which his bullying and blustering Zionist comrades  lackand  another  which he  shares  with them.   Zelikow is a great con-man – claiming knowledge about anthrax, Middle East relations, and military strategy.   He spouts …. pure unadulterated rubbish with authoritative finesse!..   Claiming legal and  investigativeexpertise he controlled the 9/11 Commission Report and denied the American people any open and relevant discussion of the event.   He even likened the Commission Report skeptics to ‘an infection’  within American public opinion – apparently relying on his ‘expertise’ in biological warfare…

What Zelikow does have in common with the raging bulls of Zionism is his constant resort to  vituperation  against any country or movement identified as a target by Israel.   He consistently refers to the secular government of Syria (under attack by jihadi terrorists) as a “terrorist regime”.     He calls the Iraqi militia fighting ISIS “Shia torture squads”.   This is part of a build-up to push the US into ground war for Israel against Iran and its allies.

Unlike Turkey’s Erodoğan who uses his own armed forces to launch an all-out war to dispossess, terrorize and colonize ethnic Kurdish territories in Syria, Iraq and Turkey, Israel’s Netanyahu relys on his overseas (US)  high level operatives  to set in motion the wheels of war. Within days of attacks of September 11, 2001, Israel’s leading mouthpiece in the US Senate,   Joseph Lieberman presented the roadmap for US wars for the next decade and a half – declaring that “the US must declare war on Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Iran”, despite the complete absence of these countries’ involvement in the event.

Is he a prophet or just a highly successful agent?   Zelikow will push for a ‘coalition’  of Middle East dictators and monarchs to fulfill Israel’s dream as dictated by Joseph Lieberman in September 2001.   This is a dream of waging devastating war against Iran leading to its partition, similar to the de facto partition of Iraq, Syria and Libya, resulting in a Middle East forever ravaged by   sectarian strife, foreign occupations, balkanized and devoid of any possibility of regaining civilized life. Israel can then carry out its brutal final solution: the dispossession and expulsion of all Palestinians and establishment an expanded, purely Jewish state – surrounded by unspeakable destruction and destitution…

Conclusion

Erodoğan expands ‘Turkoman frontier’  into Syria and Iraq – despite the fact that Turkey has never shown any interest in the Turkoman minorities.   To that end, he allies with ISIS terrorists to uproot Kurds, everywhere extending into Turkey.   Erodoğan, like, Netanyahu, wants a ‘pure’ ethnic state – one Jewish, the other Turkish!   Both leaders have no regard for the sovereignty of neighboring states, let alone the security of their civilian populations.   Both depend on the military support of the US.   Both are in the process of igniting wider and more destructive wars in the Middle East.   Netanyahu and Erodoğan want to reconfigure the Middle East:   Turkey seizes Kurdistan and Syria; Netanyahu expands military dominance in the Persian Gulf through the destruction of Iran.

These two leaders appear to hate each other because they are so similar in arrogance and action…   But according to Professor Zelikow, the US will step in ‘god-like’ to ‘mediate’ the different power grabs among what he mindlessly refers to as the ‘partners of the coalition’.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Erodoğan and Netanyahu Declare War

On July 31, extremist Israeli settlers attacked at least two Palestinian homes in Duma village near Nablus. They arrived late at night.

They spray-painted anti-Palestinian racist hate slogans on the Dawabsha family home. They smashed a window, threw firebombs inside, set the structure ablaze, burned 18-month-old Ali Saad Dawabsha to death, inflicted third-degree burns (the most severe kind) on three other family members – his mother, father and brother aged four.

Their home was completely destroyed. An adjacent one was partly burned. The attack reflects more than criminal arson. It represents an extreme example of systemic settler violence and vandalism committed against nonthreatening Palestinians on their own land – vicious racist acts rarely punished.

IDF spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner called the attack “nothing short of a barbaric act of terrorism. A comprehensive investigation is underway in order to find the terrorists and bring them to justice.” We’ll see what follows.

Racist settler supporter Education Minister Naftali Bennett condemned the attack as “criminal…Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism,” he twittered.

What Israeli officials expressed outrage over its premeditated genocidal wars on Gaza, its ruthless persecution of millions of Palestinians for not being Jewish, its gulag filled with thousands of Palestinian political prisoners wanting freedom on their own land in their own country, a rogue state run by fascists, racists and religious zealots threatening world peace.

Settler crimes are a microcosm of issues of far greater consequence. So far this year, they carried out at least 120 West Bank/East Jerusalem acts of violence and/or vandalism – according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Often they happen with Israeli security force protection – or soldiers and police ignoring what’s occurring.

B’Tselem says

“(t)he undeclared policy of the Israeli authorities in response to these attacks is lenient and conciliatory. Perpetrators are rarely tried, and many cases are not investigated at all or are closed with no operative conclusions.”

The Yesh Din Volunteers for Human Rights group addressed the issue in a June report titled “Standing Idly By,” saying:

Israeli soldiers do virtually nothing to protect Palestinians from settler violence and vandalism. According to an unnamed IDF staff sergeant:

A Jew throws rocks. The soldiers will call the police. The soldiers won’t point their guns at him. They will not arrest him. They won’t do anything to him. The police likely won’t either, except for telling him off – if that.

Israeli Knesset members just passed legislation mandating up to 20 years imprisonment for Palestinians (including young children) accused of throwing stones with intent to cause harm – true or false. No evidence needed. Guilt by accusation is standard Israeli practice.

Yesh Din said “(t)he phenomenon of ‘standing idly by’ refers to incidents when soldiers witness violence by Israeli citizens against Palestinians and their property and do nothing to prevent the harm while the action is ongoing; refrain from detaining or arresting the perpetrators after the event; fail to secure the scene to allow the collection of evidence; or fail to testify about the event to the police.”

International law requires occupying powers to protect the welfare of people in territories they control. Israeli High Court rulings mandate this responsibility.

“(T)he IDF is obligated to maintain law and order in the West Bank,” Yesh Din stresses. Its actions are polar opposite – facilitating settler violence and vandalism, doing virtually nothing to prevent it or arrest guilty parties.

Dozens of Breaking the Silence soldier testimonies show they’re not aware of their obligation. They’re not trained to help Palestinians they control.

Only one soldier was ever held accountable for failing to provide protection as international law mandates. Disciplinary action alone followed, not criminal prosecution, Yesh Din explained.

It “demands that the phenomenon be addressed on the criminal level and be defined as a crime in the Military Justice Law, which should impose a deterring punishment on soldiers and officers who commit such offenses.”

“Offenses by Israeli citizens in the West Bank – settlers and others – have been tolerated for decades,” Yesh Din’s Eyal Hareuveni noted.

“In order to confront this long-standing and entrenched pattern, the IDF must issue clear and concise standing orders that clarify to the soldiers their powers as law enforcers and their duty to protect the Palestinian population,” he added.

“Likewise, the offense of standing idly by should be defined as a criminal offense in the Military Justice Law.”

Lawless Israeli occupation remains ongoing after nearly half a century.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at[email protected]

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

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Happened? Israeli Settlers Burned Palestinian Infant to Death

A prior Russia-drafted UN MH17 resolution already calls for an independent international investigation – yet it is Ukraine and the US which are withholding possibly useful data. So who’s actually an obstacle to clearing up the issue?

Russia bashing season is at its peak in Western press today after Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling for an international tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the shooting down of MH17 over Ukraine last year.

Russia’s veto is being presented as a shameful confession of guilt. However, as usual the Western press uses half-truths, hypocrisy and double standards in its spinning of the facts.

First and foremost a tribunal and an investigation are two completely different things. No one in the Western press bothered to remember that immediately after the disaster, the UN Security Council passed Russian drafted Resolution 2166 that among other things:

3. Supports efforts to establish a full, thorough and independent international investigation into the incident in accordance with international civil aviation guidelines” and

11. Demands that those responsible for this incident be held to account and that all States cooperate fully with efforts to establish accountability.

However more than a year after the tragedy the investigation has been far from “thorough” and not in full “accordance with international aviation guidelines”.

In an unprecedented move, Kiev has to this day refused to hand over the recording of Dnepropetrovsk tower communications, that would show the full picture of what was going on in the skies above Donbass.

Furthermore, since the start of the Donbass conflict in March of 2014, US has had satellites over the region, but has to this day released only Twitter-based evidence as proof of Russia’s involvement.

William Hearst, in the run up to the Spanish-American War was famous for saying “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war”. Unfortunately, when it comes to covering Russia-Ukraine crisis in general and the MH17 tragedy in particular, Western press has thrown the idea of investigative journalism out the window, and returned to the yellow press standards of early 20th century – “You furnish the tweets and I’ll furnish the war.”

Minutes after the crash, while the wreckage was still smoldering, the Western press knew for a fact who was responsible – Russia. No one cared about the fact that a few days before the tragedy Ukrainian TV showed Ukrainian BUKs in the area (now Ukraine says it sold all its BUKs years earlier, despite ample video evidence to the contrary), or that Kiev routed planes over east Ukraine despite obvious dangers of civil war on the ground – “Putin killed my child” plain and simple.

So this proposed tribunal was just another PR-stunt by the West to put Russia into a corner that would reinforce the “evilness” of Putin’s regime, but would in absolutely no way affect the investigation. But who needs facts and proof when blame has already been assigned minutes after the tragedy?

Twisting and ignoring facts is only part of Western media hypocrisy, however. If Russia’s veto is proof of Russia’s involvement, then, by that logic, Canada’s, Ukraine’s and the US’s “no” vote on last year’s UN resolution “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance ” proves that those three countries are Nazi-racist-xenophobes.

By the way, two out of three of the above mentioned countries have themselves shot down civilian aircraft.

In October 2001 Ukraine shot down a Russian Tu-154 over the Black Sea killing all 78 civilians aboard. While initially denying involvement, then-president Kuchma had the following to say about the tragedy:

Take a look around. What is going on in the world and in Europe. We are not the first or the last ones [to shoot down a civilian plane]. No need to make a tragedy out of this mistake. Mistakes happen all the time. Even bigger mistakes than this one.

The United States, too, has shot down civilian liners – an Iran Air flight 655 in July 1988 over Iranian airspace. After Iran called for the United Nations Security Council to condemn the United States for the downing, then vice president George H.W. Bush was even more blunt than Kuchma:

I will never apologize for the United States — I don’t care what the facts are… I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy.

But none of these present or historical facts are important to today’s Western press. They are out on a mission to stoke up tensions and create hatred, and this UN vote was expertly played out just for that: for the picture of Russia vetoing an illegal and unnecessary resolution. “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war”?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The MH17 Crash: Washington Wants a “Tribunal” Without an Independent Investigation

The soldiers carried assault rifles in their luggage, but had no approval, Kurier reported.

A few days ago, a group of American soldiers caused a security alert at Vienna’s Schwechat airport. The men were stopped while trying to travel with army weapons to Ukraine without any necessary permits, the newspaper wrote.

The Austrian police had to intervene and remove the weapons. An investigation into the case was launched.

The nine US soldiers were on their way from Washington to Ukraine, where they were to be deployed.

“However, since there were problems with their connecting flight after a stopover in Schwechat, they had to rebook their flight and, therefore, leave the transit area,” Colonel Michael Bauer, Defense Ministry spokesman said.

M16 assault rifles and pistols were discovered in the luggage of the American soldiers at a security checkpoint. The incident caused huge shock, because the weapons were not declared and registered and, thus, carried illegally.The soldiers had not obtained the required transit approval by Austria. In special cases, the stay or transit of foreign military forces may be officially allowed after completing the application procedure, but the US soldiers did not send any required requests.

The attempt by the American embassy to obtain the approval after the incident was rejected for legal reasons. Instead of going to Ukraine, the soldiers had to fly back home to Washington and were allowed to take the weapons with them, the newspaper reported.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Armed American Soldiers to be Deployed in Ukraine: Arrested in Vienna Airport

In a leaked conversation with a U.S. pro-Israeli group, the right-wing pro-war journalist said he favored war with Iran over the diplomatic Iran deal

A U.S.-based organization called Christians United for Israel and the Wall Street Journal’s longtime foreign affairs columnist and deputy editorial page editor Bret Stephens were discussing over the phone strategies to defeat the Iran deal set for a vote in the U.S. Congress soon.

A recording of the conversation that lasted for 30 minutes was leaked to the Intercept website Thursday.

During the phone call, Stephens said that a vote in favor of the Iran deal would be similar to the vote in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

“Someone should say, ‘this is going to be like your vote for the Iraq War. This is going to come back to haunt you. Mark my words, it will come back to haunt you. Because as Iran cheats, as Iran becomes more powerful, and Iran will be both of those things, you will be held to account. This vote will be a stain,’” the right-wing journalist was quoted as saying by the Intercept.

 

He added that lawmakers should be warned that they would lose their seats over a vote in favor of the Iran deal.

“You will have to walk away from it at some point or another. You will have to explain it. And some of you may in fact lose your seats because of your vote for this deal. You’ll certainly lose a lot of financial support from some of your previous supporters,” Stephens was heard saying in the recording.

A woman takes part in a rally July 22, 2015, on Times Square in New York opposing the nuclear deal with Iran. | Photo: AFP

The irony in Stephens’ comments, who was an editor at the Israeli Jerusalem Post newspaper, is that he was a steadfast advocate of the Iraq invasion and he never retracted that support despite the admissions by U.S. authorities that it was based on false evidence.

In fact, in an article in 2013, Stephens said that former U.S. President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was based on “solid intelligence” as he argued for a U.S. military action against Syria.

 

More alarming is the fact that he would compare the Iran deal, which is being hailed by balanced-minded analysts as a diplomatic peace initiative, to the Iraq invasion which left hundreds of thousands dead and saw major abuses by the U.S. and its allies, from unlawful killings to torture.

He went on to explain his view on the argument that a “no” vote on the Iran deal would lead to war. He said he saw that as a better option than a deal with Iran, a deal which according to him was “giving Iran the legal framework to obtain a weapon.”

Iran has repeatedly denied that it had been enriching uranium for the purpose of obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Moreover, reports by the United Nation nuclear watchdog and analysis by the U.S. intelligence say that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon, let alone being as close as “months” or at best a “year” away from having an atomic bomb, as both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu and Stephens assert.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Top Wall Street Journal Editor Plots with Pro-Israel Group to Thwart Iran Deal

The EU’s Greek Austerity Plan Rejected By The IMF

August 1st, 2015 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

I have maintained since the so-called Greek Debt “crisis” began back in 2010, I believe it was that the imposition of austerity on Greece could not possibly work and that the only solution was to write down the debt to a level that Greece could service and introduce reforms that loosen the hold the oligarchs have on the Greek economy. The current Greek government has taken the same position, and now the IMF has joined us.

The IMF has said that debt relief measures, that is, write-downs, are necessary and that this necessary measure goes far beyond what the eurozone has offered so far. Asked if the plan could succeed without debt relief, the director of the IMF said, “categorically, no.”

This has been obvious from the beginning to any economist worthy of the name. The fact that it has taken five years to establish an elementary fact shows how rapacious are the rich. Moreover, it proves in my opinion that the “crisis” was never about debt. It was about using the debt as a weapon to establish that creditors are not responsible for their mistakes when they overlend, and to force the centralization of member states’ tax and spending policies in the EU.

The austerity plan does not address debt. It imposes a draconian fiscal policy on the Greek government.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate.

He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books areThe Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The EU’s Greek Austerity Plan Rejected By The IMF

Para gliders are flying over the stunning emerald sea. Summer hordes are descending on a Greek island of Kos from all corners of increasingly aggressive European Union. On the faces of visitors, there seems to be no regret, no shame, that Europe just raped and humiliated Greece, forcing its government to cancel democracy, instead succumbing to dictate of the mighty Germany and other dictatorial powers.

Tourists are busy frying themselves, stuffing their stomachs with seafood and boozing up in countless cafes, bars and restaurants of the old city. Hotels and eateries are packed. It is yet another hot and sunny day. Crisis? What crises? Yes, it is somewhere… there, maybe in Athens, or maybe just outside the city center.

These lucky few Syrians just given papers to go to Athens

A few minutes away, in a local hospital, which is part of Greek collapsing national healthcare system; an Iraqi child is suffering, perhaps dying, from cancer. He is only 3 years old. His mother most likely passed away trying to reach Kos.

“We found him in a park”, explains Hara, a receptionist from Triton Hotel. “He looked terribly sick. We took him to the hospital, but there, nobody wanted to do anything. We had to scream and demand that this poor child would be attended. They put several IV tubes into his tiny body, and then… nothing else. We called Medicine Sans Frontiers in Athens, but they said they couldn’t deal with such a complicated case. We have no idea what to do. If action is not taken immediately, he will most likely die.”

In Kos, refugees are literally everywhere, but most of them are forced to sleep in the parks, or hide behind the bushes. There is no “official” camp here. Immigrants have been coming from Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and several other countries that got destabilized by the Western interventions, sanctions and foreign policy.

Refugees in Kos

At a provisory refugee center, based at a former hotel “Captain Elias”, several hundreds of mostly South Asians are now living in appalling conditions, with no drinking water and only on one meal a day. Here only 3 social workers come to help, for a few hours a day. Only one doctor pays regular visits to the facility where people suffer from countless serious diseases, as well as from exhaustion and constant stress.

“This is not a living”, I am told in one of big tents inhabited by several Pakistani men. “We don’t know how long it will take to get registered. I am already waiting for 15 days and it may take much longer. People here are desperate. There is hardly any help. We feel that we are on our own.”

Camps across the water, in Turkey, are much better and much more humane. They count with decent sanitation, food and water, even sports and recreational facilities. But these are just temporary refugee camps, for those fleeing regional conflicts, not some “waiting rooms” for entering the European Union. For those who want to go West, Turkish refugee facilities are basically useless.

Tension in Kos is high. One taxi driver began insulting me, right after learning that I am heading for Captain Elias provisory refugee center. He obviously hated the idea that I will be exposing plight of the refugees. “Are you a journalist? You journalists already destroyed local economy!” Journalists? I wonder aloud. Not Germans, not the European Union? As far as he, and some others, is concerned, Kos Island should be only promoted, as a paradisiacal tourist destination; it should not be defined as yet another part of the country that is now heading for almost inevitable collapse.

Greek patrol boat returning to Kos

Some Greeks show solidarity, by bring food to the refugees, but others treat them badly, and even stubbornly denying that there are already hundreds, perhaps thousands of them on the island. In fact, around 7.000 refugees crossed the sea and landed in Kos in the first 5 months of 2015. More than 2.000 died or are missing at sea, trying to cross Mediterranean to Southern Europe, in the same period of 2015.

Stories told by the refugees are inconsistent, and each testimony different. Refugees are scared or desperate or both. Some say that police is harassing them but that local people are “not bad”, while others blame local people but insisting that police is “OK”, mainly because “it does nothing”.

Lena, a young Russian lady from the Altai Mountains who already lives in Greece for more than eleven years, is working in a small inn located just down the road from the Captain Elias facility. She says that refugees who come to Kos are desperate, but decent human beings:

“There is no increase in crime rates since they arrived. We are not scared of them, but the entire situation is out of control.”

Battleship patrolling between Turkey and Greece

“Refugees are being smuggled by gangs, or they come on board tiny inflatable boats. When they are crossing from Turkey to Greece, they carry small knifes. If intercepted by coastguard of police, they destroy their boats and jump to the water. Greek authorities then have to rescue them and to take them to the island.” Lena has a boyfriend who is a policeman; she is well informed.

*

Bodrum, Turkish luxury resort and a historic city, shows no signs of economic hardship. It is well-organized, beautiful and confident city.

Just half an hour from Kos on board a Turkish high-speed catamaran (or one hour sail using slow Greek ferry), Bodrum is elegant, even hedonistic.

Bodrum does not have any refugee camps either, but many immigrants use it as a departure point for the European Union, namely Greece.

Could this really be a refugee camp in EU

Turkey is flooded with refugees, who are coming from all over the Middle East, destabilized or out rightly destroyed by the West. Many immigrants are travelling all the way from Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and numerous other places. Officially, from Syria alone, there are almost 2 million refugees on the Turkish territory. Refugee camps are located in the Southeast of the country (near Hatay), in Ankara and other areas, but not in and around the tourist centers like Bodrum.

Refugees transiting in Bodrum

At Bodrum central bus station, on the second floor, several Syrian, Bangladeshi, Afghani, Pakistani and other immigrants now inhabit almost entire market area. These are those who had chosen to go either to Greece/EU or to Turkey’s largest city – Istanbul. Turkish police is closing its eyes, or it simply does not know what to do.

“Here in Turkey we can easily register and get help”, explains an Afghani man in his early 30’s. “But then we would have to go to one of the official camps, and stay in Turkey.”

Alternatives are horrific: unsafe, mostly nocturnal travel over the sea to Greece, to one of the 15 islands that are near the Turkish coast.

I am told that the going rate per person/crossing is around 2.000 euro, and if one wants to travel all the way from Pakistan to Germany, the price could easily go as high as 5.000 to 6.000 euros. Some economic refugees get backing from their clans and villages back home, but for genuine refugees escaping war in places like Syria, such prices are simply astronomical.

I am then told a story: several Afghani and Pakistani refugees tried, recently, to cross from Bodrum to Kos. Their flimsy boat was intercepted by Greek armed vessel. I was told that the boat belonged to coastguard and that the refugees were pulled on board and attacked, severely beaten.

“They beat us up, hit our faces, and kicked us all over. Then they demanded 100 euro from each person. “

His back was kicked

They say he was beaten by Greek coast guard

A man had exposed ugly bruises on his arms, legs and back.

I have no way of confirming the story. Was it really Greek authority or some maritime mafia that attacked the refugees? It is a testimony of several people who tried to cross, but did not make it.

I know that they will try again, soon.

Is it worth it?

“Many of us prefer to stay in Turkey,” I am told. “They treat us much better here.”

But others are not giving up. To some, Europe means money. To others it means safety and future. They are trying; they are getting caught, trying again. Reception they get in Europe, not just in Greece, is horrific. But they are still ready to go. Back there, where they come from, there are burned villages and nightmares, wars, conflicts, destitute.

Whole countries, entire regions, are destroyed, ravished, by the West. Syria is at war provoked by Washington, London and now fed by Ankara and other NATO and regional allies of the West. ISIS armed and supported by the West are on insane rampage. Pakistan and Bangladesh are economically and socially ruined. Afghanistan and Iraq destroyed by direct attacks and occupations of both the United States and members of the European Union.

Most of inhabitants of Kos do not seem to understand the concept. Or they don’t want to. They see their own hardship, that of Greece. There is very little space left for suffering of others.

Flying from Kos to Athens, a Greek traveller had been reading my piece from his back raw seat, shamelessly. After landing, he began protesting:

“Bodrum is a Greek city, not Turkish!”

Then he went further:

“You write about the refugee crises? So why don’t you give us some solution?”

“Because I still did not finish my piece”, I tried to be patient.

“So what is the solution?” He insists. It all feels rough and confrontational.

“The United States and European Union should stop murdering people all over the Middle East and elsewhere. Then the refugees would have no reason to come!”

He does not understand the concept. He does not know what am I talking about:

“But as it is, Europe has no more space for the refugees!” he protests.

“Other countries do not have patience tolerating Western invasions”, I reply. “Refugees are coming only because their nations were ruined by the US and Europe! Before that, Syria, Libya and Iraq were rich countries. They were absorbing migrant workers from the entire region.”

Greece, itself battered, damaged, humiliated and destroyed by the European Union, does not seem to be able to translate its own experience to some global context.

Few hours earlier, a lady receptionist in one of the hotels in Kos suggested, “several leaders in the Middle East should get assassinated by Europe or the US.” That was her idea how to end the refugee crises.

*

Children refugees

On June 15, 2015, the UN Refugee Agency UNHCR produced Briefing Notes:

UNHCR is stepping up its field presence in the eastern Aegean islands of Greece where in recent weeks sea arrivals from Turkey have been averaging some 600 people a day, straining limited (and in some cases non-existent) local reception capacities.

In the first five months of 2015, over 42,000 people arrived by sea to Greece, most of them refugees. This is six times the level of the same period last year (6,500) and almost the same as the total for all of 2014 (43,500).

More than 90 per cent of the people arriving are from refugee-producing countries, principally Syria (over 60 per cent of arrivals this year), Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Eritrea.

All countries mentioned in this briefing are either totally destroyed or economically and socially damaged (often through crippling sanctions) by the West.

It takes great discipline not to see who is responsible for this crisis.

Greek people were, for years and decades, bombarded by mass media propaganda. Like most of their counterparts in Western Europe, they are now conditioned to blame victims, not the real perpetrators.

Even in the neighboring Turkey, there are loud and clear voices declaring: “We wanted to be ‘big boys’ of the Middle East, we helped to damage our neighbors, then it is now our responsibility to feed those who were forced to leave”. Editorials like this are allover Turkish newspapers.

Most of Greeks that I encountered do not see such connection: NATO – EU – and destruction of countless countries that is triggering the refugee crises.

They should see. Greece is still both NATO and the EU member. What was done to Greece, very recently, only shows that it is both a victim and a victimizer.

As a victimizer it has to take full responsibility for those whose lives were damaged by the “organizations” of which it is a full member.

As a victim, it should raise and fight against those who insulted and harmed it (and many others) – the EU, the NATO, the IMF – instead of throwing its wrath and spite against some poor, defenseless people who had lost their country, their home; everything except the bare lives!

*

Great cultures are not only based on their past. Great cultures have to be great now, and to be built on true internationalism, on humanism, on solidarity, generosity and compassion.

This little Iraqi boy, fighting for his life in the hospital in Kos, should be a rallying cry for the Greek humanists.

3 years old Iraqi child Mohammed going to Athens after all!

He should be helped by all means, instead of being abandoned to his terrible fate. But until now he is receiving very little help! He should be assisted especially now, when the Greece itself is in distress. Solidarity is the most precious during the most difficult times!

Wake up, people! The boy is not just some “Iraqi refugee”: he is a fellow human being. He is just 3 years old boy, damn it, and he is suffering from terrible pain, and soon he may die.

Battle for his life would be the real battle for great Greece; a country that could show how big is her heart, elevating herself well above that morally declining West!

As a child lies in agony, thousands of tourists nearby are downing expensive food and drinks. While the Greek social net and medical system is basically collapsing. Something is breaking right in front of my eyes, breaking irreversibly. What is left of “Western culture” is smashed to pieces. Europe, how dare you, shame on you!

Remember, this “Iraqi” boy in the hospital, he is your child too, Greece. But if you don’t act, he will turn to your specter!

*

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and Fighting Against Western Imperialism. Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Kos, Bodrum: The Mediterranean’s Desperate Refugees and a Dying Child

These days, Sweden is all agog. In the midst of the coldest summer in living history that deprived the Swedes of their normal sun-accumulating July routine, the country plunged into an exciting search for a Russian submarine in the Stockholm archipelago, and (as opposed to the previous rounds of this venerable Swedish maritime saga) this time they actually found the beast.

Now we know for certain the Russians had intruded into Swedish waters! The Swedish admirals and the Guardian journalists probably feel themselves vindicated, as they always said so. Does it matter that the U-boat was sunk one hundred years ago, in 1916? Surely it does not, for the Russians are the same Russians and the sea is the same sea!

I would continue in the same vein and have a lot of fun, but many innocent readers (especially on the internet) are not attuned for irony. If they read Swift’s Modest Proposal, they’d call the police. For the benefit of the reader in whom is no guile (John 1:47), I’ll say it in plain words: the Swedish Navy and the great British newspaper Guardian made fools of themselves again, as they blamed the Russian president Putin for sending a submarine that turned out to be a one hundred year old war relic.

The U-boat called Som (Catfish) had been built in the US in 1901 for the Russian Navy, served in World War I and went down with all hands in 1916. The Swedes admitted that much, but, as in the one-liner about a guest suspected of stealing silver spoons,the spoons were found, but the ill feeling loitered.

The previous round of this pleasant Swedish pastime took place last October 2014 when the search for Russian submarines in the Stockholm archipelago, that is, in the archipelago of thousands of islands in the Baltic Sea, began in earnest. Nessie of the Loch Ness would envy the hunt. In the newspapers, on radio and on television, they spoke only of the mysterious submarine, that allegedly had sent a distress signal to the Russian naval base in Kaliningrad from the Swedish waters. Millions of krona were spent on the futile search. A video of the U-boat rising was released. Eye witnesses reported they saw a man in black emerging from the sea near a tiny island. As the water temperature was about 10°C (50°F) this could not be a Swede, it’s got to be a Russian Spetznaz man, as they are immune to cold…

The old-timers told the press that the sailors of the damaged Russian submarine probably landed on an island in the archipelago and waited there for rescue. “There are many uninhabited cottages, they should be searched”, they proposed to the horror of wealthy Stockholmers, the cottage owners. Dozens of military vessels in cutting-edge-state-of-art Stealth armour ploughed the waters. Depth charges killed a few dolphins and other sea animals. Newspapers warned that of Russian naval commando hunts for Ukrainians in Stockholm pubs.

There were sane voices, too, but they rarely were given a chance to be heard. Wilhelm Agrella, a professor of Intelligence Analysis at Lund University spoke of “budget submarines” invented by the Swedish navy in order to boost its budget.

In the end, all sightings were accounted for. One was a Swedish private submarine belonging to a Lasse Schmidt Westrén, another one was a Dutch one that participated in NATO manoeuvres. The alleged distress signal has been sent by a Swedish transponder, and had nothing to do with Russia or Kaliningrad.

There was no Russian U-boat to hunt. The true goal of the hunters has been Swedish neutrality. Sweden was and remains notionally neutral, while the US wants to see the country integrated into NATO.

The Hunt for Red October in October 2014 was a new round in the Second Cold War, the war against independent Russia. As a Social Democrat government came to power in September 2014, the Swedish Army, Navy and pro-NATO media plotted to prevent a possible rapprochement of Russia and Sweden.

This is not the first plot of this kind. In 1982, the Swedish military conspired with their colleagues in the United States and Britain against its Social Democrat government. Although the Swedish navy knew that NATO submarines operate in the Swedish waters, they played along with the right-wing politicians and talked about the ‘Russian threat’. Only much later the truth was found out – the government commission appointed by the Social Democrats after their return to power showed that there were no Russian U-boats.

This was subsequently proven by a member of the Swedish government commission, a leading Norwegian military expert Ola Tunander in his detailed 400 page long work,The Secret War Against Sweden: US and British Submarine Deception in the 1980s (London: Frank Cass 2004).

In the eighties, Ola Tunander did not doubt the reality of Russian submarines, and had written several textbooks and manuals for Swedish sailors on the subject. Only after the fall of the Soviet Union, he gained access to all files at the request of the Swedish government, and came to the unequivocal conclusion that all the evidence about the Russian submarine incursions was falsified or invented.

Classified documents clearly point to the US and the UK as the culprits, and this was confirmed by the former US Secretary of Defence Weinberger and British commanders in the secret hearing, says Tunander. It turned out that in the seventies, after the Vietnam War, the Americans and their British allies were preoccupied with the pro-Soviet sympathies of the Swedes. The Swedes stubbornly refused to see the enemy in his great eastern neighbour. In 1976, only 6% of Swedes believe in the Russian threat, and another 27% thought the USSR is an unfriendly power.

Even the Afghan war had only marginally changed these figures. And only the submarine panic bore fruit – by the mid-80s, 42% of Swedes believed in the imminent Russian threat and 83% considered the USSR being an enemy. In order to achieve this revolution in the minds, the British and American submarines made hundreds of violations of Swedish waters. They intruded into the inner harbour of Stockholm, raised their periscopes and antennas in the archipelago, posing as “the Red Scare.”

The USSR did not have submarines of the class detected by the Swedish radar (35-40 meters long), but the United States had the submarine NR-1, that was used to penetrate the Soviet waters.

In 1981 there was an amusing accident – an old Soviet submarine lost its bearings and ran aground close to the Swedish coast. This single incident was been blown out of all proportion; rumours of Russian submarines in every bay flooded Sweden.

In October 1982, the Swedish fleet mounted a huge operation to capture or destroy a submarine sighted near the island of Muskö. The operation was attended by hundreds of journalists from all over the world.

Ola Tunander says the bridge of the sighted submarine had a NR-1’s square shape, not the shape of the Soviet submarines. The American submarine had been delivered to Stockholm waters by the American tanker Monongahela, coming on an official visit. They left the submarine, so it went around and scared the Swedes. The command of the Swedish navy had been warned, the navy knew about it, took part in the hunt for the submarine, and concealed the truth from the Social Democrat government.

So the Swedish military conspired with the Americans and British against their own country. The Swedes managed to hit the submarine, and it released a cloud of yellow-green dye – the distress signal of the US submarine fleet. Swedish sailors allowed the submarine to leave.

Henry Kissinger, the US Secretary of State, thanked the Swedish sailors for allowing the U-boat to leave and keeping mum. The Swedish government did not believe that this was a Russian submarine, but under pressure from the media and the navy, they were forced to lodge a protest to the Soviet Union. The Swedish – Russian relations soured.

In October 2014, the then (1982-1985) Foreign Minister Lennart Budström remembered this plot of the right-wing politicians and the Swedish military. He bitterly recalled in an interview for the newspaper Expressen how in 1982 the Swedish navy hunted an alleged Soviet submarine in Hårsfjärden thirty miles from Stockholm – it was the culmination of the scandal.

The government convened a commission to figure out where the submarine originated – in Russia or NATO. The most active member of the commission was the young right-wing politician Carl Bildt – he practically wrote the commission’s report, saying this was a Soviet submarine. He claimed there was an acoustic signal recording and other evidence. Only in 1988 it emerged that the Swedish army and navy did not intercept any signals from submarines. It was all a lie of Carl Bildt, says Budström.

Bildt (with American support) had spread panic in the press. He claimed the Russian submarines make their way right into the centre of Stockholm, land troops and prepare for the invasion. Russian submarine sailors sneak into Stockholm bars to drink beer and squeeze Swedish blondes. Army and Coast Guard supplied photo of submarine periscopes for the front pages of newspapers.

“You are welcome to sink these subs – calmly said the Secretary General Yuri Andropov in 1984, after listening to the Swedish prime minister Olof Palme’s complaint. – We’d only approve of such a move.”

Only twenty years later, the meaning of Andropov’s words became clear. The submarines in the Swedish waters were not Russian, but English and American. Instead of invasion, they had another plan, namely to sow enmity and distrust of Russia.

Budström retired as he stood for friendship with Russia, and in his stead, the Minister of Foreign Affairs became (and remained until recently) Carl Bildt, a staunch pro-American Atlanticist, a supporter of Swedish accession to NATO, the greatest enemy of the USSR and Russia. It is alleged that Bildt in his youth was associated with a clandestine anti-communist combat organization created by the Americans for the event of the Soviet occupation of Western Europe, known as Stay Behind or Gladio.

Its members founded the secret US Fifth Column in Europe. The State Department dispatches published by the Wikileaks, indicate that the US embassy and the State Department took care of Bildt and helped his career. Bildt was a personal friend of Karl Rove, Bush’s adviser, and actively supported the US intervention in Iraq.

Carl Bildt, the most inveterate enemy of Russia since the days of Karl XII, is a descendant of an aristocratic Scandinavian family (they had been Prime Ministers and Commanders since the 17th century). For a quarter of a century he was the most influential politician in Sweden, in government or in opposition, and he determined its anti-Russian course.

Carl Bildt has been closely associated with the submarine affair from the beginning to the end. In 1982, he denounced the Soviet invaders and earned brownie points. In 1990, Carl Bildt said that the Soviet Union has created a special force to attack Sweden. According to him, up to 22 Russian submarines participated in three annual manoeuvres in Swedish waters.

This fear-mongering has helped – in 1991 Bildt became the Prime Minister. In 1992 Bildt went to Moscow with the alleged old recordings of the submarine. Now we know for certain that these were sounds made by otters, but in Yeltsin’s days the thoroughly defeated Russian government agreed these were Russian submarines.

When the Social Democrats returned to power in 1994, says ex-minister Budström, a new commission was established, and it is completely refuted all allegations of Bildt. The first commission was composed of politicians, and the second – of scientists, and the findings were different. But that was too late. Sweden has been integrated it the EU and began to support American foreign policy.

One of the reasons is the media. The Atlanticist tendency in Sweden has almost complete control over the media. They manufacture a Russian threat a day, to scare the wits out of the Swedes. “Russia is a potential threat,” – says a leading Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet (30.05). In the same issue of the newspaper, its Moscow correspondent Anna-Lena Lauren says: “Russia is clearly threatening the Baltic States.”

NATO planes fly close to Russia borders through Swedish airspace, in violation of Swedish sovereignty and neutrality, but Swedish media hardly ever reports of such frequent incidents. However, Russian air force training flights that stay clear of Swedish airspace are presented as a proof that the Russians are preparing to invade not only Sweden, but all the Baltic countries.

Even a report on delivering Russian air defence systems to far away Syria has been used to portray Russia as an aggressive monster preparing to subdue Sweden. The army provided the newspapers with a grim prediction: “The Russians can take over Sweden in a few days.”

Perhaps it is true, but why should they? Neither now or in their greatest years of power has any Russian ruler—Tsar, General Secretary or President—ever wanted to invade Sweden. The last war between two neighbours took place over two hundred years ago. Russians have not the slightest intention to fight Swedes, but the Swedish army and the Swedish media are determined to present Russia as their mortal enemy. The army wants to increase the military budget; their political allies and their media say that only joining NATO would save the Swedish beauty from the Russian bear’s claws.

This attitude is not helpful for the well-being of the two great northern powers. They are closely related. Ancestors of the Swedes were among founders of Russia, many Swedish noblemen served the Russian Crown. The Swedes and the Russians have the same birch trees growing along the river banks; the same mushrooms and berries grow in the same forests on both sides of the Baltic sea. Swedes and Russians experimented with socialism, mined ore and coal, felled trees, love their sauna and hockey. Russians are quite fond of Swedes: Peter the Great drank the health of the Swedish generals and called them ‘his teachers’, after thrashing them at Poltava.

Russia and Sweden have no dispute, no common border to argue about, no historic mishaps. All major Swedish companies – Ikea and Volvo, to mention some – have a profitable trade in Russia. Russians, especially the dwellers of St Petersburg region, go to Sweden on weekends. It is a short drive via Finland. Many Russians settled in Sweden, and Swedish businessmen are accustomed to Russia.

Russian policies towards Sweden and the West are marked with moderation, restraint and conservatism. They do not want to invade or conquer Sweden or other Western countries. Russia wants to be treated with respect, keep foreigners out of its internal affairs, and it wants other countries to take Russia’s legitimate interests into account (read: Ukraine). But these Russian wishes are considered only when the West is not united.

After 1991, all of the major Western countries for the first time in world history were united (to some degree) under the military, political and economic leadership of the United States. They have a single united system of ideological control and hegemony via global media, social networks, and universities. I called this system “The Masters of Discourse.” Such setup is detrimental for Russia.

The Atlanticists want to keep the world united under their rule, military via NATO and ideological through the Masters of Discourse system. Russia does not want world domination, does not want to rule over Europe or Asia or Sweden. But it can’t accept the US hegemony either, for they would turn it into a snow-bound Nigeria, an oil-producing country of the third world.

***

For the Russians, normal relations with Sweden are an essential element of peace and stability in the Baltic Sea. Russia appreciates Swedish neutrality and the balanced policy of Sweden in Olof Palme’s times. It has no desires to meddle in Swedish affairs and would like to have friendly relations. Now, after Carl Bildt’s departure, there is hope for improved relations between the new Social Democrat government in Sweden and Russia. And now the old trick is played again, the scare of Russian submarines. We’ll see whether this government will manage the real threat of right-wing plots better than its predecessors.

Israel Shamir can be contacted at [email protected]

First published at the Unz Review

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Hunt for Red October. Russia-Sweden Relations and a Missing Submarine

Israeli officials throughout its history consistently showed contempt for Palestinian rights – from Ben-Gurion to Allon to Meir to Begin to Rabin to Peres to Sharon to Netanyahu and others, an array of rogue leaders, not a democrat in the bunch.

All believed in affording rights solely to Jews. None supported fundamental fairness. All committed high crimes against defenseless Palestinians – from Ben-Gurion’s Nakba to Netanyahu’s Protective Edge along with decades of racist persecution from 1948 through today – horrific barbarism against an entire population, flagrantly violating international law unaccountably.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin NetanyahuNetanyahu’s “shock” over 18-month-old Ali Saad Dawabsha’s immolation by settlers belies his reign of terror on Palestine, his genocidal Gaza war last summer, his daily persecution of millions of Palestinian victims, his contempt for the rule of law.

IDF spokesman Moti Amoz ludicrously said “I cannot recall such a serious incident in the past few years.”

What about deliberately targeting Gazan civilians during Operation Protective Edge, murdering scores of entire families in cold blood, reducing residential communities to rubble, ordering soldiers to shoot to kill all Palestinians in sight – including women, young children, infants as they slept, the elderly and infirm.

What about attacking refugee camps, UN safe havens, hospitals, schools, mosques, residential homes and numerous other civilian targets unrelated to military necessity.

What about teaching young Jewish children to hate Arabs – manipulating their minds when they’re too young to understand.

What about a nation facing no threats mobilized for war at all times. What about soldiers rampaging daily through Palestinian communities, breaking into homes pre-dawn, terrorizing families, traumatizing children, vandalizing property, making lawless arrests followed by brutal interrogations amounting to torture, then detention without right to counsel or family contacts for days or weeks, including for devastated young children.

What about a racist rogue terror state exceeding South African apartheid viciousness. What about Palestine a virtual free-fire zone – soldiers and other security forces brutalizing and killing with impunity.

Opposition Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog called baby Ali’s immolation “terror of the worst kind.” What about Israeli mass murder last summer for 51 horrifying days, affecting 1.8 million trapped Gazans.

Israel is its own worst enemy. An accompanying article said regular settler crimes are a microcosm of issues of far greater consequence – reflected in daily state sponsored terrorism against millions of defenseless Palestinians.

They’re persecuted, beaten, and murdered for protesting peacefully for rights everyone deserves. They’re targeted for the crime of “fishing.” They’re shot tilling their fields.

Young children are terrorized at home, at play or coming from or going to school. They’re arrested and now face up to 20 years in prison for the crime of stone-throwing. They’re killed or wounded by trigger-happy soldiers with impunity.

International leaders able to intervene responsibly yawn and do nothing – endorsing Israeli atrocities by silence or inaction.

Nations mobilized for war at all times, waging them constantly, persecuting their own people and others, showing contempt for rule of law principles, and serving its privileged few at the expense of all others are doomed to fail.

America and Israel are Exhibits A and B – partners in horrific crimes of war and against humanity. Their day of reckoning awaits.

The late Chalmers Johnson warned about “the sorrows of empire,” a culture of corruption and militarism, endless wars of aggression called humanitarian ones, collapse of constitutional governance, a nation run by criminals posing as democrats, a phony war on terror not ending in our lifetime.

An unavoidable day of reckoning awaits. Nemesis, the goddess of vengeance and punisher of hubris and arrogance in Greek mythology is among us, he said.

She’s unseen, patiently stalking our way of life, awaiting the moment to make her presence known. Johnson compared her to Wagner’s Brunnhilde in Der Ring des Nibelungen.

Unlike Nemesis, she collects heroes, not fools and hypocrites. They both announce their presence the same way: “Only the doomed see” them, unable to escape their sting.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hollow Israeli Sorrow Over Palestinian Baby Immolation by Jewish Settlers

GR editorial note. We have been unable to fully verify and corroborate the report presented in this article by Cyber Berkut. There are howver several media reports which suggest that the ISIS executions are staged.

In a rather stunning note, CyberBerkut, a Ukrainian group of hackers, claims to have hacked John McCain’s laptop while he was in the Ukraine, and as Techworm reports, what they have released from his June visit appears to be a fully staged production of an ISIS execution video

As Techworm reports, according to the hackersthey broke into the laptop of one of the American politicians, Senator McCain and after found a video with staged IS execution, which they decided to show to the world community.

It so happened that Senator John McCain had visited Ukraine on a official visit somewhere in the first week of June 2015. The hacktivists belonging to CyberBerkut somehow managed to access his laptop.

Here is what CyberBerkut said to John McCain…

We CyberBerkut received at the disposal of the file whose value can not be overstated!

Dear Senator McCain! We recommend you next time in foreign travel, and especially on the territory of Ukraine, not to take confidential documents. In one of the devices of your colleagues, we found a lot of interesting things. Something we decided to put: this video should become the property of the international community!

According to the hackers, they broke into the laptop of one of the American politicians, Senator McCain and after found a video with staged IS execution, which they decided to show to the world community.

The video they released is below..

From the video it can be seen that the entire set including the hostage is stage managed.  An actor dressed as an executioner of IS is holding a knife to behead the prisoner, and the “victim” depicts to be suffering.

It may be recalled that IS have been repeatedly publishing the videos of the executions of hostages and if this video is true, the victims may in fact be alive.

The authenticity of this video has not been independently verified.

*  *  *

Metabunk.org has attempted to debunk the hacker’s claims

The video shows a very brightly lit stage with simulated desert floor and a greenish backdrop.A film crew and multiple lights surround the stage, but they are strongly backlit. The video has no audio, and is very low resolution so no details can be made out. The kneeling man wears a head cover, to suggest that the head could be replaced by a computer generated image, or separately recorded video.

The video appears to be an attempt to replicate one of the “Jihadi John” beheading videos of 2014. In particular it appears to be an attempt to replicate the video of James Foley. None of those videos show actual beheadings, and instead show Jihadi John sawing at the neck with no apparent blood, and then they cut to a shot of a decapitated head posed on top of a body. This led to speculation that the videos were faked.

However we can tell it is not a video of the faking of any of the Jihadi John videos for a number of reasons.

*  *  *

While it is easy to point the finger at the pro-Russian hacker collective (and consider their motives in damaging US – especially McCain – influence) and deny the video’s truth, one can’t help but wonder – given just how well produced the final videos were in many cases, just who is behind the scenes of the widely known to be funded by US sources ISIS… just another conspiracy theory?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hackers Claim John McCain Knew ISIS Execution Videos Were Staged

Scroll down for Video Report. The Following text is the transcript

The US sea services have released a new maritime strategy, a plan that describes how the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard will design, organize, and employ naval forces in support its global dominance. The new strategy titled, “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower” highlighted “forward,” “engaged,” and “ready” as key words and kept the original theme of “ensuring our capability to intervene overseas.” It calls for increasing the Navy’s forward presence to 120 ships by 2020, up from about 97 ships today.

This includes forward-basing four ballistic-missile-defense destroyers in Spain and stationing another attack submarine in Guam by the end of 2015. The Navy is scheduled to increase presence in Middle East from 30 ships today to 40 by 2020. The strategy reinforces the continued need to strengthen partnerships and alliances by stressing the importance of operating in NATO maritime groups and participating in international training exercises. The US strategy emphasizes operating forward and making proxies across the globe, especially in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.

Thus, the hard anti-Russian rhetoric of the Washington is a side of the global stand-off. At the very same time, the United States is preparing to go deeper in deal with China. The US strategists are concerned about the rise of Chinese naval forces and its expansion to the Pacific Ocean.

Particularly, they aimed to prevent a situation when China will be able to defend particular zones of sea communications from foreign intervention. This is Chinese DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile purpose. In 2008 the U.S. Department of Defense estimated that China had 60-80 missiles and 60 launchers. The risk of establishing area denied operational environment, for instance in South China Sea, worries architects of the strategy. Since the American ‘pivot’ toward Asia, a tolerant term for the US deterrence policy against China, in 2011 United States Navy has deployed 60 percent of all it powers in Asia-Pacific region. Indeed, the US Navy is ready to deploy more in order to establish own control in China’s zone of interest.

Armed with its unparalleled navy, the US gets a louder voice and more power to restrict military or economy use of the oceans by other countries. In other words, it indicates the US intention to control the trade in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific or even monopolize it in those waters.

Here is the problem. In April China overtook the United States as the world’s top importer of crude oil and 80% of this oil and many other important resources China imports through the Malacca Strait which Chinese navy doesn’t control. In this context it’s clear why Beijing claims sovereignty over nearly all of the South China Sea and is building a military base in Djibouti.

China supports counter piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden, conducts humanitarian assistance and disaster response missions enabled by its hospital ship, and participates in large-scale, multinational naval exercises. Washington immediately protested against the China–Djibouti relations and expressed concern over China’s plans to build a military base in the Obock region, but to no avail. China has to defend the supply of oil at its long way and isn’t able to do it now. The problem is it doesn’t have enough naval bases at the vital shipping lines yet. “String of pearls” strategy initially suggested as a series of sea ports and naval bases stretching along the Indian Ocean has to solve the issue. The seaports will be support places and investments that could pay dividends on a strategic level while causing broader security amenities.

China’s naval defense strategy is grounded on the combination of “offshore waters defense” with “open seas protection” concepts. The “offshore waters defense” consists of two missions. One is to protect China’s eastern coastal area, which has the country’s most economically vibrant region. The other is to ensure the safety of the expanding shipping lines that are vital to China’s economic growth. “Open seas protection” concept also has two elements. One is to extend maritime protection to waters over 600 miles from the Chinese coast by building supply depots in the disputed South China Sea, trying to conduct submarine activities in the Indian Ocean and acquiring bases beyond the region.

The other is to develop capabilities to conduct non-conventional security operations outside the region, such as naval diplomacy, joint maritime law enforcement and humanitarian assistance.

Compared with the United States, the PLA Navy has sufficient self-defense capabilities, but deficiency in cross-region operations and force projection is evident, thought Beijing is trying to change that. On the other side China’s unique geographic location allows it to establish control over its local seas–the Yellow Sea, the East China Sea and the South China Sea. That is what the United States has accused China of doing in the last five to 10 years–the so-called “anti-access/area denial, A2/AD” or the “fortress fleet” strategy. This is the real reason of boiling over the China’s island-building work in South China Sea. Washington is sufficiently alarmed by a perspective to lose the maritime control in the region and has started the naval force race under an umbrella term of “all domain access”. Despite this, Beijing is adamant. In June, China said it was shifting work on disputed South China Sea islets from the dredging of land to the construction of military and other facilities.

The US containment policy against China includes not only holding of old alliances but a creating of new. In the recent strategy Washington pledges to strengthen cooperation with six long-standing allies: Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Thailand and lists eight new partners: Bangladesh, Brunei, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Micronesia, Pakistan, Singapore, Vietnam. With help of its Asian allies the US are going to seal off the PLA Navy in South China Sea and prevent its moving in operations space. Further, the Washington’s diplomatic rhetoric over the long-standing allies, shared strategic interests and cooperation in Asia, in fact, aimed on establishing a ground coalition against China.

Despite the fact the official U.S. strategy ignoring Taiwan issue, the island may easily become a flash point of the ongoing confrontation. And Western media machine has been already setting the ground for it. On July 22, U.S. magazine, The Diplomat, reported that “the People’s Liberation Army soldier is seen running towards a building that bears a striking resemblance to the Japanese-built Presidential Office in Taipei” during the Series C of this year’s live-fire Stride 2015 Zhurihe military exercises. The magazine argues 2 things. First is that PLA is practicing a storming the Presidential Office to bring pressure on Taiwan in the context of its presidential and legislative elections in January 16, 2016. Second is Chinese military has been preparing to invade the island. But the facts should be taken in its proper context. The military drills are signal not for Taiwan, but for the US. China shows its capacity to solve a Taiwan problem by force to predict an attempt to use the island for strengthening of U.S military presence, aggressive activity of U.S. special services through Taiwan or an economic sabotage threatening it. In other cases, Beijing would much prefer to reintegrate Taiwan without having to resort to force, but by cultural, economic and political tools. Moreover, it already has a successful experience of lost territories reintegration: Macau and Honk Kong.

Another area of the US-China geopolitical confrontation is the Indian Ocean. U.S. strategists, media outlets and public experts argue India is rival state for China. Monetary wealth and power growth of both states will result in inevitable clashes between them. According to them, motive behind “string of pearls” strategy isn’t solving logistical problems of China’s Maritime Silk Route but encircling India. If established commercial ports will be militarized with PLA Navy. The concerns about China’s influence in the Indian Ocean Region empower the US to involve India in the American area of influence as a part of the global anti-China strategy. Good news for Washington is India has been actively building a new powerful fleet including aircraft carrier groups. So, it could be a very useful tool. Directly, Chinese and Indian maritime interests face in Sri Lanka leaving the India’s area of influence under the impact of China’s economic projects. For Beijing, ports of Sri Lanka funded by Chinese investments are a cell in planned maritime infrastructure from South China to Pakistan, a natural opponent of India involved in China’s Maritime Silk Route. The US will likely use these features to set on fire China-India relations to use Indian political, military and economic power to discourage Beijing from adopting its maritime policy in the Indian Ocean.

The U.S. strategic purpose is to seal off the PLA Navy in South China Sea and prevent its moving in operations space and encircle China by land. In this order, the U.S. holds old and sets up new alliances with nations in Indo-Asia-Pacific region. The U.S. media machine has already started information aggression against China-Taiwan relations to support raise of the Washington’s influence in the island. Meanwhile, American special services will try to fuel Pakistan and Sri Lanka in order to make triangle where the US and India opposite China in Indian Ocean Region.

With Washington’s support, the tenses will also raise in the South China Sea where Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei, and the Philippines claim maritime territory. The US sea services will constantly strengthen its presence there, in the India Ocean, in the Pacific Ocean preparing to deal a crushing blow to Beijing.

China will answer with “fortress fleet” strategy in its local seas, building powerful Pacific fleet, putting into practice Maritime Silk Route project infrastructure in the Indian Ocean and developing the relations with Russian Federation in the Eurasia. Also, India and China can absorb a lot of profit from the mutually advantageous cooperation. The only thing that they need for it is a mediator to start a constructive dialogue. Russia, which has a good fellowship with both, may become it. This will solve the tensions in the region and allow the nations to go for the further development.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US-China Standoff in the Indo-Asia-Pacific Region

Scroll down for Video Report. The Following text is the transcript

The US sea services have released a new maritime strategy, a plan that describes how the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard will design, organize, and employ naval forces in support its global dominance. The new strategy titled, “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower” highlighted “forward,” “engaged,” and “ready” as key words and kept the original theme of “ensuring our capability to intervene overseas.” It calls for increasing the Navy’s forward presence to 120 ships by 2020, up from about 97 ships today.

This includes forward-basing four ballistic-missile-defense destroyers in Spain and stationing another attack submarine in Guam by the end of 2015. The Navy is scheduled to increase presence in Middle East from 30 ships today to 40 by 2020. The strategy reinforces the continued need to strengthen partnerships and alliances by stressing the importance of operating in NATO maritime groups and participating in international training exercises. The US strategy emphasizes operating forward and making proxies across the globe, especially in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.

Thus, the hard anti-Russian rhetoric of the Washington is a side of the global stand-off. At the very same time, the United States is preparing to go deeper in deal with China. The US strategists are concerned about the rise of Chinese naval forces and its expansion to the Pacific Ocean.

Particularly, they aimed to prevent a situation when China will be able to defend particular zones of sea communications from foreign intervention. This is Chinese DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile purpose. In 2008 the U.S. Department of Defense estimated that China had 60-80 missiles and 60 launchers. The risk of establishing area denied operational environment, for instance in South China Sea, worries architects of the strategy. Since the American ‘pivot’ toward Asia, a tolerant term for the US deterrence policy against China, in 2011 United States Navy has deployed 60 percent of all it powers in Asia-Pacific region. Indeed, the US Navy is ready to deploy more in order to establish own control in China’s zone of interest.

Armed with its unparalleled navy, the US gets a louder voice and more power to restrict military or economy use of the oceans by other countries. In other words, it indicates the US intention to control the trade in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific or even monopolize it in those waters.

Here is the problem. In April China overtook the United States as the world’s top importer of crude oil and 80% of this oil and many other important resources China imports through the Malacca Strait which Chinese navy doesn’t control. In this context it’s clear why Beijing claims sovereignty over nearly all of the South China Sea and is building a military base in Djibouti.

China supports counter piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden, conducts humanitarian assistance and disaster response missions enabled by its hospital ship, and participates in large-scale, multinational naval exercises. Washington immediately protested against the China–Djibouti relations and expressed concern over China’s plans to build a military base in the Obock region, but to no avail. China has to defend the supply of oil at its long way and isn’t able to do it now. The problem is it doesn’t have enough naval bases at the vital shipping lines yet. “String of pearls” strategy initially suggested as a series of sea ports and naval bases stretching along the Indian Ocean has to solve the issue. The seaports will be support places and investments that could pay dividends on a strategic level while causing broader security amenities.

China’s naval defense strategy is grounded on the combination of “offshore waters defense” with “open seas protection” concepts. The “offshore waters defense” consists of two missions. One is to protect China’s eastern coastal area, which has the country’s most economically vibrant region. The other is to ensure the safety of the expanding shipping lines that are vital to China’s economic growth. “Open seas protection” concept also has two elements. One is to extend maritime protection to waters over 600 miles from the Chinese coast by building supply depots in the disputed South China Sea, trying to conduct submarine activities in the Indian Ocean and acquiring bases beyond the region.

The other is to develop capabilities to conduct non-conventional security operations outside the region, such as naval diplomacy, joint maritime law enforcement and humanitarian assistance.

Compared with the United States, the PLA Navy has sufficient self-defense capabilities, but deficiency in cross-region operations and force projection is evident, thought Beijing is trying to change that. On the other side China’s unique geographic location allows it to establish control over its local seas–the Yellow Sea, the East China Sea and the South China Sea. That is what the United States has accused China of doing in the last five to 10 years–the so-called “anti-access/area denial, A2/AD” or the “fortress fleet” strategy. This is the real reason of boiling over the China’s island-building work in South China Sea. Washington is sufficiently alarmed by a perspective to lose the maritime control in the region and has started the naval force race under an umbrella term of “all domain access”. Despite this, Beijing is adamant. In June, China said it was shifting work on disputed South China Sea islets from the dredging of land to the construction of military and other facilities.

The US containment policy against China includes not only holding of old alliances but a creating of new. In the recent strategy Washington pledges to strengthen cooperation with six long-standing allies: Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Thailand and lists eight new partners: Bangladesh, Brunei, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Micronesia, Pakistan, Singapore, Vietnam. With help of its Asian allies the US are going to seal off the PLA Navy in South China Sea and prevent its moving in operations space. Further, the Washington’s diplomatic rhetoric over the long-standing allies, shared strategic interests and cooperation in Asia, in fact, aimed on establishing a ground coalition against China.

Despite the fact the official U.S. strategy ignoring Taiwan issue, the island may easily become a flash point of the ongoing confrontation. And Western media machine has been already setting the ground for it. On July 22, U.S. magazine, The Diplomat, reported that “the People’s Liberation Army soldier is seen running towards a building that bears a striking resemblance to the Japanese-built Presidential Office in Taipei” during the Series C of this year’s live-fire Stride 2015 Zhurihe military exercises. The magazine argues 2 things. First is that PLA is practicing a storming the Presidential Office to bring pressure on Taiwan in the context of its presidential and legislative elections in January 16, 2016. Second is Chinese military has been preparing to invade the island. But the facts should be taken in its proper context. The military drills are signal not for Taiwan, but for the US. China shows its capacity to solve a Taiwan problem by force to predict an attempt to use the island for strengthening of U.S military presence, aggressive activity of U.S. special services through Taiwan or an economic sabotage threatening it. In other cases, Beijing would much prefer to reintegrate Taiwan without having to resort to force, but by cultural, economic and political tools. Moreover, it already has a successful experience of lost territories reintegration: Macau and Honk Kong.

Another area of the US-China geopolitical confrontation is the Indian Ocean. U.S. strategists, media outlets and public experts argue India is rival state for China. Monetary wealth and power growth of both states will result in inevitable clashes between them. According to them, motive behind “string of pearls” strategy isn’t solving logistical problems of China’s Maritime Silk Route but encircling India. If established commercial ports will be militarized with PLA Navy. The concerns about China’s influence in the Indian Ocean Region empower the US to involve India in the American area of influence as a part of the global anti-China strategy. Good news for Washington is India has been actively building a new powerful fleet including aircraft carrier groups. So, it could be a very useful tool. Directly, Chinese and Indian maritime interests face in Sri Lanka leaving the India’s area of influence under the impact of China’s economic projects. For Beijing, ports of Sri Lanka funded by Chinese investments are a cell in planned maritime infrastructure from South China to Pakistan, a natural opponent of India involved in China’s Maritime Silk Route. The US will likely use these features to set on fire China-India relations to use Indian political, military and economic power to discourage Beijing from adopting its maritime policy in the Indian Ocean.

The U.S. strategic purpose is to seal off the PLA Navy in South China Sea and prevent its moving in operations space and encircle China by land. In this order, the U.S. holds old and sets up new alliances with nations in Indo-Asia-Pacific region. The U.S. media machine has already started information aggression against China-Taiwan relations to support raise of the Washington’s influence in the island. Meanwhile, American special services will try to fuel Pakistan and Sri Lanka in order to make triangle where the US and India opposite China in Indian Ocean Region.

With Washington’s support, the tenses will also raise in the South China Sea where Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei, and the Philippines claim maritime territory. The US sea services will constantly strengthen its presence there, in the India Ocean, in the Pacific Ocean preparing to deal a crushing blow to Beijing.

China will answer with “fortress fleet” strategy in its local seas, building powerful Pacific fleet, putting into practice Maritime Silk Route project infrastructure in the Indian Ocean and developing the relations with Russian Federation in the Eurasia. Also, India and China can absorb a lot of profit from the mutually advantageous cooperation. The only thing that they need for it is a mediator to start a constructive dialogue. Russia, which has a good fellowship with both, may become it. This will solve the tensions in the region and allow the nations to go for the further development.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US-China Standoff in the Indo-Asia-Pacific Region

Iraq: Widespread Use of Torture and Ill-Treatment

August 1st, 2015 by Hans von Sponeck

Hans von Sponeck: We appeal, first and foremost,  to the conscience of governments and  civil society but also to their legal-mindedness not to accept  impunity any longer.

Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ) is participating in the review of Iraq at the 55th session of the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT), from 27 July to 14 August 2015.

GICJ has submitted to the Committee its shadow report on torture in Iraq expressing its grave concern about the continued and widespread use of torture by different actors in the country.

GICJ has gathered extensive torture evidence. It has repeatedly brought such evidence to the attention of the United Nations Human Rights Council. GICJ therefore welcomes the review of Iraq’s record by the Committee against Torture, and hopes that the Committee will be able to take all actions within its power to seek an end to the use of torture in Iraq.

Dr. Hans-Christof von Sponeck, former UN Assistance Secretary General and President of Geneva International Centre for Justice, said that the current situation in Iraq, where state actors and others are able to torture with impunity, follows years of similar actions by US-led occupation forces following the 2003 invasion.

The report explains how the UN Convention against Torture and the Geneva Conventions have been violated in Iraq over many years by both organizations and governments. In this context, GICJ wants to underline that such torture practices have been recognized in detail by the December 2014 US Senate report on torture.

Mr. von Sponeck added and stressed that the world cannot forget the photo of the hooded man wired to receive  electric shocks in the Abu Ghraib prison. “I interviewed this victim of torture in Kuala Lumpur in 2012 and know first-hand how he was tortured. It is also widely known that such torture was not the humiliating act of one ordinary soldier alone. These practices were approved at the highest level, and those responsible must all be held accountable.”

Mr. von Sponeck appealed to the conscience of government and civil society, to concur by saying: “We will no longer accept impunity.”

The official report submitted by the Iraqi government to the UN committee appears woefully inadequate in dealing with the situation on the ground. The report highlights the various legal safeguards against torture, but fails to discuss the fact that the Iraqi judicial system does not adhere to domestic and international law. GICJ believes that what is important is not only the existence of laws which prohibit torture, but rather the actions taken to ensure the implementation of the prohibition.

To fully understand conditions in Iraq, it is crucial to point out that torture in Iraq is not only used by one set of state actors. Several sets of authorities are carrying out campaigns of abduction and detention which usually involve the use of torture. They include police units,  security forces, intelligence services and units of the Iraqi army as well as criminal groups, all of whom carry out abductions and torture on a large scale.

When the actions of militias are also considered, it becomes an even more dramatic situation. There are over 50 militias in Iraq with all of them exercising the authority of arrest, detention, torture and in many cases summary executions.

GICJ believes that the ongoing problem of torture within Iraq, and related acts such as illegal detentions, unfair trials and expedited executions, requires a concerted international effort for elimination. Torture is an issue of particular importance, because of its ability to permeate all other aspects of life. A judicial system which is dependent on and supportive of confessions elicited through torture is not one that serves the people.

GICJ however believes that in dealing with torture in Iraq, the origins must be examined. It is through this that we can put into context the situation in Iraq today and formulate a targeted strategy that puts pressure on the Iraqi government and other parties to end the use of torture once and for all.

Mr. von Sponeck concluded by saying that efforts must continue to find a court willing to hear the many cases of torture and ill-treatment that have taken place in Iraq and elsewhere “for the sake of justice, redress for victims and the urgently needed rehabilitation of international law”.

To download the full report submitted by GICJ please click here.

To read the Press Release in French, please click here.

To read the Press Release in Spanish, please click here.

To read the Press Release in Arabic, please click here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraq: Widespread Use of Torture and Ill-Treatment

Asylum Seekers and Migrants to the EU are the Victims of US-NATO-EU Wars

August 1st, 2015 by Geneva International Centre for Justice

Geneva International Centre for Justice released on 27 July 2015 its report ‘Swimming Against the Tides: Examining the EU Response to Irregular Migration through the Mediterranean Sea.’ GICJ has been following closely the recent developments at the European Commission with regards to irregular migration. GICJ wishes to highlight with this report the underlying causes of the crisis and the necessary steps that have to be taken to reach a sustainable solution.

The report shows that since the November 2014 cancelation of “Mare Nostrum”, the Italian search and rescue naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea, hundreds of lives have been lost at sea. Despite the dangers facing them however, migrants continue to make the journey to Europe by the boatload. Those risking everything to come to Europe are doing so because they face unimaginable conditions and horrors in their home country. Europe represents an opportunity to forge the life they deserve. For them, Europe is a chance to fulfill many of their rights which are affirmed in various international human rights treaties. To deny anyone of this right goes against the essence of the human rights field. For Europe to deny these rights is an act of the utmost hypocrisy from the continent which has championed and pioneered the universality of human rights. Yet, in the report GICJ explores the repeated efforts by European states to shirk responsibility in the past few months, despite the ever worsening situation.

Ifeoluwa Kolade, a researcher at Geneva International Centre for Justice, and the main author of the report, said that ‘Swimming Against the Tides’ examines the false perception across much of Europe that most arrivals are economic migrants is a key part of the problem. In their view, economic migrants should not be given leeway, because there no danger of violations of their human rights. However, looking at the country of origin of migrants crossing the Mediterranean, the myth of the economic migrant is discredited, Ms. Kolade added.

The report shows that main countries of origin are Syria, Eritrea, Somali and Afghanistan. Each of these countries has faced and continues to face war, internal conflict or a brutal dictator. Those who are fleeing are doing so as asylum seekers, because they persecution and other human rights abuses in their country. The term “economic migrant” is simply being used to mask the responsibility Europe has to provide asylum.

Yet the report tackles the position occupied by economic migrants. Though the majority of migrants crossing the Mediterranean are asylum seekers, there are still those who are economic migrants. What is important to emphasize in the case of the European response is that economic migrants also need a pathway to reach Europe. Economic migrants are coming to Europe from African countries which continue to face high poverty levels and lack of opportunity for youth. The high poverty levels and overall lower level of development are direct and indirect consequences of centuries of European exploitation of the continent. In as much as various international human rights treaties guarantee rights that cannot be realized in poverty, it becomes necessary to explore how these treaties can be promoted universally.

There must be a concerted effort by Europe to tackle the difficulties that drive all migrants. It is especially important that the EU policy shows awareness of the interconnected nature of development, poverty and migration. This report hopes to shed light on the history and underlying forces behind migration to the EU and lay groundwork for what must be done to effectively tackle the issue.

GICJ concludes its report by recommending the following steps:

  • A European migration policy that shows awareness of the interconnected nature of development, poverty and migration. The comprehensive migration policy must have provisions for tackling the root causes of migration such as underdevelopment, poverty and war. In dealing with underdevelopment, aid efforts are not undercut by economic policies and partnerships that impoverish the African continent, as well as other developing nations.
  • Ensuring that justice to African nations who have suffered disproportionately under the effects of slavery, colonialism and neo-colonialism is a key part of migrant intake programs and quotas.
  • An increase in the number of yearly refugee spots from 20,000.
  • A new policy towards immigration that allows more migrants to allow in Europe through legal channels. This new policy should not exclude low skilled workers, in fact, it should pay special attention to this category of migrants as they are the ones who find it must difficult to immigrate legally.
  • A different policy towards tackling the smuggling networks that endanger migrants’ lives. While it is important to target the smuggling networks, the use of force as proposed thus far threatens to exacerbate the problem.

To download the full report, please click here.

To read the press release on GICJ report on migration in Spanish, please click here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Asylum Seekers and Migrants to the EU are the Victims of US-NATO-EU Wars

Shell Oil Rig to begin Fossil Fuel Extraction in the Arctic?

July 31st, 2015 by Robert Barsocchini

US forces cleared kayakers out of the way and cut the cables connecting suspended climbers, making space for the government-escorted Shell oil rig to move through and continue on to the Arctic to begin the fossil fuel extraction process.

As the ship approached, one (hopelessly naive) onlooker shouted, “Where is President Obama?“, as if this were being done against his will.

Obama in 2012:

Now, under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. That’s important to know. Over the last three years, I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth and then some.

Here is the oil rig passing through the cleared blockade:

After the rig passed through, a cheer of appreciation for the climbers and kayakers rang out from the onlookers, along with shouts of “Thank you!”

20150730_175641

Image: Gov.-escorted Shell rig spews exhaust after passing through cleared blockade.

20150730_175713

Image: Exhaust fumes from oil rig wash over the climbers.

20150730_175737

Image: Drone watches from above.

20150730_175815

Image: Drone hovers.

Author focuses on force dynamics, national and global. @_DirtyTruths

Donations to help the environmental organizations with bail money, etc., can be made here and here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Shell Oil Rig to begin Fossil Fuel Extraction in the Arctic?

Below is a transcript of an email interview I did with writers Gregory Smulewicz-Zucker and Michael J. Thompson who co-authored the article “The Treason of Intellectual Radicalism and the Collapse of Leftist Politics” which appeared in the Winter 2015 edition of the academic journal Logos: A Journal of Modern Society and Culture. 

In the interview, we discuss the problems of current leftist theory, the collapse of the left, and if there is a way to rebuild leftist politics.

1. You write early in the article that “Today, leftist political theory in the academy has fallen under the spell of ideas so far removed from actual political issues[.]” Do you think that this is a failing that is solely in the academy? It seems that it is a widespread failure by the left as a whole, that they are more focused on the theoretical than anything that is truly concrete.

We agree that the problem is not solely with the academy. It is important to look at the academy because the kind of work that is done in the academy is, in part, often a reflection of what people think they can achieve on the ground. The main issue seems to be that moral revulsion has supplanted the critique of social mechanisms that produce the problems that outrage people. It is also important to stress that moral revulsion is not a substitute for, nor an equivalent of, political action and political strategy. The key, as we see it, is to understand that politics is about shaping not only the mentality of citizens and the norms of culture, but more crucially about organizing the legitimate power of the state to enforce laws that prevent social injustice and expand the horizon of social justice. This requires understanding the mechanisms of politics, of elections, of the law, of constitutional interpretation, and so on. The contemporary left has abandoned these concerns and has instead decided to view them as attributes of a system that needs to be rejected. This is simply absurd and, in our view, anti-political.

We also think that there is a problem with what theory has become. The only reason that a cleavage has developed between theory and practice is because the function of theory has been abandoned. It is important to recognize that what is now touted as theory is not actually theory. Theory plays a vital role in diagnosing and critiquing concrete political problems. People like Zizek and Badiou do not have theories. Their work is so convoluted and self-referential that there is no link to the concrete. It masquerades as theory. They are able to create their own fan clubs and say whatever they want because they purposefully construct so-called theories that allow them to evade critical evaluation. Esotericism has become a virtue unto itself. From this standpoint, the aversion to theory is understandable. So-called theory has become a world for the initiated. This is a distortion of theory. It is merely the flipside of a society that can dismiss evolution as “only a theory.”

2. You say that social movements are not focused on “unequal distributions of economic and political power which once served as the driving impulse for political, social and cultural transformation.” What would you say to those who push back on this idea and argue that there is a deeper analysis than just class?

There is more to social power and domination than class, it is true.  But movements for transforming social and cultural forms of exclusion – for women, minority groups, gay rights, etc. – have all occurred within the confines of the liberal state. Class is the one category that has gotten worse over the past 40 years, not better.  Radicals need not only to be able to call into question the backward, provincial views of the racist, the homophobe and the anti-feminist, but also to tie this into a more general theory of what a free, just society ought to be able to achieve and to be able to understand that ending these kinds of exclusion lead us to some radical kind of emancipation, but simply leave us within the liberal-capitalist consensus.

Radicalism must be able to craft a more comprehensive vision of what a free, just society would look like.  But it must keep in view the fact that economic power, the power of elite interests, are behind many of the cleavages in race, for instance.  That propertied interests have had something invested in preventing blacks from moving to white neighborhoods; that they have been behind the decisions to de-industrialize urban American cities, which has had an enormous destructive effect on contemporary black communities, and so on. The killings of black men that have elicited so much outrage over the past year cannot only be attributed to racism. They occupied a specific class status. Likewise, one of the interesting things about recent writings that have recast sex work as an expression of feminist self-assertion, is that they entirely ignore the fact that it is working class women who are compelled to do this work. Racism, homophobia, and sexism are social realities, but we must recognize that the vulnerability to violence and exploitation of these people is exacerbated by their class status.

Identity is simply not a stable enough concept to ground a radical politics.  Corporate power can often back culturally liberal causes such as gay rights, or the symbolic issues of the Confederate Battle flag.  But what remains after these (liberal) changes in our society and culture is economic power: the power to shape our educational system, to organize social production and consumption, and to chart the values of the society more generally.

3. Expand upon the statement: “This new radicalism has made itself so irrelevant with respect to real politics that it ends up serving as a kind of cathartic space for the justifiable anxieties wrought by late capitalism further stabilizing its systemic and integrative power rather than disrupting it.” What exactly do you mean by this? Also, couldn’t some push back and argue that in many ways, this new radicalism is disruptive, as can be seen by the Black Bloc, activists fighting against the Keystone XL pipeline, and those who engage in direct action?

This was not meant as a critique of those who participate in direct action. Direct action becomes the only means for combating injustices when concrete political programs fade away. What is worrying is the way direct action has supplanted political strategy much in the same way that so-called theory has become fetishized in and of itself.  Our critique questions the political salience of these actions as a general political program.  Neo-anarchism has become a model for political activity on the left. It has claimed for itself the mantle of engaged politics. We think this is a grave error.

When demonstrations occur, they are more often than not spaces for moral rage, not for political programs.  Take the Civil Rights movement. Yes, there were symbolic acts of direct action, but these were integrated into a more general movement that included a political strategy to influence political elites, crafting ideas for legislation to be enacted, as well as a new cultural understanding of civic rights.  To isolate ourselves to direct action without a larger movement, without a more radical program for action, for what you want to implement in a positive way through institutions, is simply not radical politics. This is the “cathartic space” we refer to: it grants a moral self-righteousness to the individual who has genuine anger against society.  But we should not confuse this with the hard work of political action that has in view the transformation of society through the shaping of law, winning elections, and so on.

Look at modern conservatives as an example. During the 1960s, they were a political, cultural and intellectual minority. Their ideas for destroying public schools (Milton Friedman championed the school voucher idea, considered insane at the time), for constitutional interpretation, for economic liberalization and privatization, and so on were policy non-starters. Now they have reframed American political life. Look at the last two vice presidential Republican candidates. As patently imbecilic as Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan are, the fact that such people are able to run in national elections and advocate political policies evidences how fringe ideas gained some degree of public approval because there is no rational radical left to oppose them. Radicals have no ideas about how to combat these policy imperatives, and this is simply absurd. How can we talk about radical politics that has any efficacy if we oppose the state, taking law, political parties, and so on seriously as mechanisms for change? Not to do so is to suffer from a kind of infantile disorder. This makes Leftists surrender their place in politics to the right. The dangers are real.

4. Do you think that class politics have weakened in the post-industrial age due to the fact that there was an illusion that one could move above their current station as well as had more access to credit and high tier goods? [Compared to the industrial age where one knew that they would always be a worker on the factory floor.]

The transition from a productivist to a consumerist paradigm of economic life is a crucial explanatory variable for the docility of American political consciousness.  The basic inequality of our society is just as bad as it was during the gilded age, but the overall size of the economic pie has simply gotten larger. There is just more wealth to be concentrated in the hands of elites. Reconciling individuals to this system has been a long process of legitimating the economic system and the values that underpin it.  The weakening of labor class struggles is partly due to economic and sociological shifts.  The main thrust is still, we think, ideological: There is no reason why new forms of labor – service, professional, freelance, and so on – should not be protected from the kinds of extractive power that private control over capital requires.  The fact is, capitalism has changed some of its contours, but still remains fundamentally the same in the sense that it requires the exploitation of labor for expanded growth and accumulation.

The problem is that the political critique of capital needs to be kept in view.  We need to ask again what the purposes and ends of our economy ought to be, to establish a critical discourse on what is necessary and what is merely a means for the opening up of new spaces for profit.

5. Would you say that the problem with the language that many radicals use is that there is an obsession with using the correct terminology rather than actually engaging in meaningful work? That the language in and of itself is an end?  

I’ve also thought that this has made it easier for opponents to infiltrate such groups.  

What are your thoughts on that?

Words matter, no question about it.  But words without concrete concepts simply create confusion at best and mask imbecility at worst. Language does not create reality, but it can distort it.  What the left needs is a coherent connection between the basic values that define its ends and the concepts and ideas it seeks to put out in the world.  It needs to see that moral ideas and values require some translation into political reality and this is never going to be perfect or ideal.  What makes a rational radicalism salient, what keeps it alive, and what will allow it to breathe new life into the world is its orientation to political reality. The correct terminology is useful if it can explain reality.

If the focus is on language at the expense of establishing a link between language and reality, the issue is not so much that opponents will infiltrate radical movements. On the contrary, opponents will actually be able to draw people out of radical movements. An anti-statist left can be drawn to an anti-statist right, especially when right-wing opponents of the state seem to enjoy actual electoral successes.  Even more, it can prevent the formation of a larger, more integrated movement since the fetish of language simply splinters our politics. This is why an objective science of politics is needed by radicals, not language, moral rage, or anything else. An objective vantage point anchored in political principles of social emancipation is what a mature radicalism should seek to achieve.

6. You bring up the fact that “Liberalism has been highly successful at incorporating many of the social movements that have emerged throughout the twentieth century.” However, do you think that liberalism is now failing since we are seeing the rollback of rights for women and minorities, the welfare state, jobs for working-class Americans, and the like? 

It’s not evident that rights for women and minorities have been receding. It is, however, demonstrably true that political rights are simply not enough. You need to reshape economic life to grant them any full social meaning. Blacks have been excluded by income just as much as by overt racial exclusion from migrating out of decaying cities to more affluent areas with superior public goods such as education.  Civic and cultural rights are expanding, but at the expense of economic rights that give them any kind of real significance and meaning.  The civic equality for excluded groups satisfies the narrow demand for recognition, but it does nothing for the richer need for creating a social context for genuine human growth and forms of modern social solidarity.

The emphasis on cultural liberalism as opposed to economic liberalism has also allowed the welfare state to be slowly chiseled away.  What is needed is a conception of economic justice that allows for the concrete development of individuals, that grants all equal access not only to “opportunity” but to the means for self-development and for human growth.  This is what liberalism cannot provide and what radicalism must insist upon.

7. Would you argue that liberalism has effectively defanged a number of previously radical movements and essentially acted as a co-optation of these movements on an ideological and strategic/tactical level?

Liberalism has historically been able to reconcile every major social movement into a more general legitimacy.  But it has done this not only because of its basic principles, but also because it is good for business. It is good for Wal-Mart to get women out of patriarchal structures of domestic life because it gives it a cheap labor force to exploit. The same can be said about ending homophobia in the workplace. Liberalism allows for the erasure of pre-liberal forms of inequality, but protects the class inequalities of bourgeois life.  It has had more success in allowing women, minority groups of all kinds inclusion into our political and cultural life.  But radicalism must push beyond liberalism: it must question the generic values and norms that pervade our reality not simply because they exist, but interrogate them on the basis of their ability to expand or to contract the realm of human development.

None of this means that liberal values are irrelevant, quite the opposite.  Radicals need to be vigilant against pre-liberal norms and practices: against racism, homophobia, gender discrimination, and the like.  But it must insist that these categories be tied to a concept of the public good, that they are not simply interests of minority groups, but part of a general public good to live in a society of self-development, expression, difference and non-exploitation.  The main issue is that economic forms of domination and exploitation are more universal and more damaging in modern societies.  The destruction of the planet, the amount of human waste (both as refuse and as “wasted” forms of life), the cultural realities of alienation, the withering of artistic and cultural life – all of it is tied to the increased, wasteful commodification and consumerism of late-capitalism.  Radicalism needs a more unified theory of all of this, and it needs to see the stakes clearly.

8. Please expand upon the collapse of Marxism within a US/Western context and how that has created both a political and intellectual vacuum which the liberal left has come to fill. It seems that there has been a massive collapse not only due to the triumph of global capitalism and the corporate state, but also inner conflicts and, most importantly, the attack on the Marxist left by the state itself. 

Of course the decline of Marxism is a complex, highly debated narrative.  There was good reason for members of the New Left in the 1960s to move away from categories of class since the overt racism of many unions and the labor movement made alliances with them odious.  But the reality is, the fall of the Soviet Union, the emergence of neoliberalism as a resurgent form of capitalism, and the new cultural mentalities cultivated by an empty, commodified culture have all come together to create a fertile ground for a post-marxist (postmodern, poststructuralist, and, simply post-rational) intellectual environment.  Mediating institutions like unions have been eroded; the suburbanization of several generations of people since the 1950s has atomized consciousness, and a unified culture industry has exerted strong pressures on the values and norms of the population.

Historically, Marxism was a challenge to the liberal state. When it went into decline, it ceased to be a threat. There is no longer need for the state to attack the Marxist left. Right-wing pundits might sound the alarm that President Obama is a socialist, but this is only a rhetorical tactic for trying to oust Democratic politicians from office. As for internal disputes, true believers of different sectarian castes mainly dominate them. Dogmatically invoking Marx or the Marxist theorists of past is not, on its own, sufficient to a revitalized radicalism. Their ideas are resources that can be built upon to confront our contemporary crises. Indeed, this is precisely what the best theorists did.

About all of this, the core values and ideas of Marx still have a lot to say and to explicate.  What we tried to call into question in our article was the lack of real political depth to the new radical intellectuals and their ideas about particularist forms of identity, puerile anti-statism, and abstract notions of freedom.  What is important is that we see that advanced capitalism has been able to destroy the very foundations and resources needed to advance a coherent, politically viable form of critique and movements for enlightened, rational, progressive political change.  Our polemic was aimed at those that do not realize that the conception of leftist politics they endorse are molded from the very stuff that ought to be critiqued.

9. Do you think that there is any way to reverse this trend of the Left falling further and further into the abyss of political irrelevancy?

Yes, there is a way.  Rediscover what politics actually is.  It is not a path to utopia.  It should not be a means to only vent frustrations. These are the qualities of a dogmatic and fractured left. Concrete political engagement through social movements directed at concrete aims forges solidarity. Part of why Occupy Wall Street was initially so successful was because it seemed to create solidarity around the issue of economic inequality. It got people out onto the streets. Part of why it failed was because, in its rejection of demands, it did not show how protests could lead to meaningful change. This was not true of the civil rights movement or the labor movement. In the midst of the AIDs crisis, gay rights activists protested to demand government action. Feminist activists mobilized to try to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed. These examples of movements were inspired by liberalism, but they attest to the fact that movements need an object. Recognizing that the state is an institution that can be used to serve the public good and is not some abstract apparatus gives the radical left a concrete object.

A rational radical politics would have the effect of exposing the irrelevance of anti-modern and irrational theories. It would marginalize self-righteous rebelliousness. A left that is concerned with realizing the public good has no use for self-indulgent flights from reality. It was in response to these dangerous and alarmingly prevalent distractions that we wrote our essay. A left that has nothing to say about the real world, material interests, mechanisms of exploitation, political policy, or the function of institutions in serving the public good will fall into the abyss of political irrelevance. But these are tendencies on the left that have come to prominence over the last forty years. It is not an accident that these tendencies occurred in tandem with the revitalization of capitalism. Yet, we believe that the current morass can and should serve as an impetus for making people articulate a rational radical politics, rather than encourage people to retreat into the kinds of theoretical incoherence, chic radicalism and cynicism, and romanticized rebelliousness that simply uphold the status quo.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Questioning The Left: Current Leftist Theory and the Collapse of the Left. How to Rebuild Leftist Policies

Times are tough for America’s “color revolution” industry. Perfected in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, and honed during the so-called “Arab Spring,” the process of backing subversion in a targeted country and overthrowing a sitting government under the cover of staged mass protests appears to be finally at the end of running its course.

That is because the United States can no longer hide the fact that it is behind these protests and often, even hide their role in the armed elements that are brought in covertly to give targeted governments their final push out the door. Nations have learned to identify, expose, and resist this tactic, and like Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime’s tactic of Blitzkrieg or “lighting war,” once appropriate countermeasures are found, the effectiveness of lighting fast, overwhelming force be it military or political, is rendered impotent.

656456456333

This was most recently observed in Armenia during the so-called “Electric Yerevan” protests – Yerevan being the capital of Armenia, and “electric” in reference to the alleged motivation of protesters – rising electric prices.

American-backed “color revolutions” always start out with a seemingly legitimate motivation, but soon quickly become political in nature, sidestepping many of the legitimate, practical demands first made, and focusing almost entirely on “regime change.” For the Armenian agitators leading the “Electric Yerevan,” they didn’t even make it that far and spent most of their initial momentum attempting to convince the world they were not just another US-backed mob.

The Stealth Coup 

Nikol Pashinyan and his “Civic Contract” party are transparently US-backed. So many found it suspicious that he was the most prominent voice insisting that the “Electric Yerevan” was not political and by no means a US-backed movement.

Verelq, an Armenian-based news website which inexplicably links to the US State Department’s Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Armenian site, would report in their article, “Nikol Pashinyan: Protest actions in Yerevan are of exclusively social nature,” that:

“Even if you look at the ongoing processes through the microscope, you cannot see any foreign political or domestic political components in the demonstrations. People do not want electricity to grow in price. That’s all,” said Pashinyan. He said electric power is first of all a product: the Electric Networks sells it and the citizens buy it. “The protest actions should be considered as protection of consumers’ rights. Politics is nowhere near,” he said.

But politics were very near, including politicians like Pashinyan himself, who made it a point to visit jailed protesters throughout the failed uprising and even at one point called for the construction of a “human wall” of prominent Armenian personalities between protesters and police. US State Department-funded Armenia Now (of the New Times Journalist Training Center) reported in their article, “Politics in the Middle: Lawmakers, public figures form “human wall” between police, protesters,” that:

The appeal to create a human wall was made by opposition lawmaker Nikol Pashinyan late on Tuesday as he urged all former and current MPs, scholars, show-biz representatives, lawyers, reporters, religious representatives and other public figures to visit the standoff site in order to ensure no force is applied against the protesters.

Other obvious ties between the protests, Pashinyan, and US-backed NGOs have been laid out by geopolitical analyst Andrew Korybko in his article, “‘Electric Yerevan’ is Sliding Out of Control.”

Despite these links, some have attempted to claim Pashinyan was merely an opportunist and that his US-backing, and attempts by US NGOs to manipulate the protests had little to do with the protests themselves. But nothing could be further from the truth.

Stealth Agitators

628x471America’s next generation of “color revolutions” attempt to obfuscate all possible ties between themselves and their agitators in an attempt to take back the strategic initiative by maintaining maximum plausible deniability. But if one knows where to look, they will find that no amount of obfuscation and subterfuge can cover the links between the US State Department and its mobs.

The protests were the work of  the “No To Plunder” group, led by lawyers and activists emanating from the US State Department National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, and Open Society-funded Armenian Young Lawyers Association (AYLA) and the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor Office who openly coordinated efforts with “No To Plunder” to pressure the government on a number of issues.

At least 2 members of AYLA, Ara Gharagyozyan and Arthur Kocharyan, were identified as core members of “No To Plunder.”  AYLA’s news website “Iravaban” would list a number of young lawyers and activists attending one of its internship programs in 2014. Iravaban would also cover the protests in intricate detail from start to end, as well as report on activities AYLA and the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor Office undertook to support the protests.

A number of other pro-protest “news sites” included Hetq, which while it admits it is funded by convicted financial criminal George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, does not list the US NED as a sponsor – NED however does list Hetq. There is also Media.am, funded by USAID as well as the European Endowment for Democracy. All of this adds up to a large network of locally-based but foreign funded and directed media outlets that help add the illusion of consensus to disinformation spread regarding the protests.

Together with US-funded training programs indoctrinating students and training lawyers and activists in the finer arts of sedition, then allowing them to go off on their own to lead mobs, the US believes sufficient plausible deniability has been created to hide ties between themselves and protest leaders. Similar efforts have been made in both Hong Kong and more recently in Thailand, where overtly US-backed mobs have been replaced by students trained, then unleashed by US-proxies.

Despite this careful arrangement, the “Electric Yerevan” protests never reached critical mass. The reason for this is simple – they were suspected of being US-backed and the more overt US assets that would eventually need to move in to lead the protests were unable to, lest they confirmed that suspicion and undermined the entire effort. Without these more mainstream assets moving in and providing support, larger protests are logistically and politically impossible.

How to Shoot Down a Stealth Coup

Russia’s emerging media influence on the world stage played an essential role in unmasking and disrupting America’s efforts to destabilize and overthrow the government in Armenia. The ability to be one step ahead of the Western-narrative and expose the players before they even take to the stage, meant that people already knew what to look for.

When the protesters hit the streets, and as the protests dragged on, US NGOs and Western media reports supporting the protests confirmed initial Russian warnings. When clumsy, overt assets like Pashinyan began getting involved, there was little doubt that electrical prices, while a real point of contention, were being used as a means to create a larger, more disruptive, and ultimately dangerous attempt at foreign-backed regime change.

In the future, the government of Armenia should be careful about giving such points of contention for foreign interests to use in the first place – meaning that dedication to economic and social progress cannot be ignored, even if one is confident they can tamp down potential protests.

Other nations around the world have a lot to learn from how Russia disrupted this latest attempt by America to project power beyond its shores and disrupt the lives of a sovereign people thousands of miles away. By simply informing people of what is really going on, following the money, and exposing the players involved, people in Armenia were able to assess for themselves whether or not to support the mobs – they chose wisely not to. Were Armenia to adopt similar laws as Russia’s regarding NGOs – mandating that they declare openly and often their foreign funding – people can better assess whether or not mobs these NGOs are supporting are truly marching for their interests, or Wall Street and Washington’s.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia Shoots Down “US Stealth Coup”: Tough Times for America’s “Color Revolution” industry.

The road to war is paved with a thousand lies. A fresh fib was tossed on the lie-cluttered warpath to Syria, when it was announced that the U.S. and Turkey would create a “safe zone” inside of Syria — supposedly to be aimed against ISIS.

This “safe zone” is a major escalation of war, but it was described in soft tones by the media. In reality a “safe zone” is a “no-fly zone,” meaning that a nation is planning to implement military air superiority inside the boundaries of another nation. It’s long recognized by the international community and U.S. military personnel as a major act of war.  In a war zone an area is made “safe” by destroying anything in it or around that appears threatening.

Turkey has been demanding this no-fly zone from Obama since the Syrian war started. It’s been discussed throughout the conflict and even in recent months, though the intended target was always the Syrian government.

And suddenly the no-fly zone is happening — right where Turkey always wanted it — but it’s being labeled an “anti-ISIS” safe zone, instead of its proper name: “Anti Kurdish and anti-Syrian government” safe zone.

The U.S. media swallowed the name change without blinking, but many international media outlets knew better.

For instance, the International Business Times reported “ [the safe zone deal]…could mark the end of [Syrian President] Assad…”

And The Middle East Eye reported:

…[the safe zone] marks a breakthrough for Turkey in its confrontation with the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria. If the no-fly zone does come into being it will be a body blow for Assad and his supporters

Even U.S. media outlets acknowledged that the primary goal of Obama’s safe zone ally, Turkey, was defeating the Kurdish fighters and the Syrian government, both of whom have been the most effective fighters against ISIS.

Syrian regime change is also the goal of the ground troops who will be filling the void left by ISIS, who The New York Times labeled “relatively moderate Syrian insurgents,” a telling euphemism.

The New York Times confirmed the goals of the safe zone allies:

 …both the Turks and the Syrian insurgents see defeating President Bashar al-Assad of Syria as their first priority…

If the Syrian government wasn’t the target of the safe zone, then Syrian government troops would be the ones to control the safe zone post ISIS, as they did before ISIS. And if regime change wasn’t the target, then the Syrian government would have been consulted and coordinated with to attack ISIS, since Syria is involved with heavy fighting against ISIS in the same region that the safe zone is being carved out.

These steps weren’t taken because the “safe zone” plan is much bigger than ISIS.

Obama hasn’t detailed who the “relatively moderate” fighters are that will control the safe zone, but it’s easy to guess. We only have to look at the Syrian rebels on the ground who are effective fighters and control nearby territory.

The most powerful non-ISIS group in the region recently re-branded itself as the “Conquest Army,” a coalition of Islamic extremists led by Jabhat al-Nusra — the official al-Qaeda affiliate — and the group Ahrar al-Sham, whose leader previously stated that his group was “the real al Qaeda.” The Conquest Army actively coordinates with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and is also populated with U.S.-trained fighters.

These groups share the ideology and tactics of ISIS, the only difference being their willingness to work with the United States and Turkey. It’s entirely likely that once the “safe zone” operation starts, many ISIS troops will simply change shirts and join Jabhat al-Nusra, since there is no principled difference.

Obama knows that the foreign ground troops controlling the “safe zone” are targeting the Syrian government; consequently, U.S. military planes will be acting as the de-facto air force for Al-Qaeda against the Syrian government.

Thus, direct military confrontation with the Syrian government is inevitable. President Assad is already attacking ISIS in the area that the U.S.-Turkey alliance wants to make “safe” via its coordinated military operation. Syrian fighter jets will eventually be targeted, since the goal is to allow extremist groups a “safe zone” to continue their attacks on the Syrian government after ISIS is dealt with.

This danger was also acknowledged by The New York Times:

“Whatever the goal, the plan [safe zone] will put American and allied warplanes closer than ever to areas that Syrian aircraft regularly bomb, raising the question of what they will do if Syrian warplanes attack their partners [“relatively moderate rebels”] on the ground.”

The answer seems obvious: U.S. and Turkish fighter jets will engage with Syrian aircraft, broadening and deepening the war until the intended aim of regime change has been accomplished.

This is exactly how events developed in Libya, when the U.S.-NATO led a “no-fly zone” that was supposedly created to allow a “humanitarian corridor,” but quickly snowballed into its real goal: regime change and assassination of Libya’s president. This epic war crime is still celebrated by Obama and Hillary Clinton as a “victory,” while Libyans drown in the Mediterranean to escape their once-modern but now obliterated country.

If Obama’s goal in Syria was actually defeating ISIS, this could have been achieved at any time, in a matter of weeks. It would simply take a serious and coordinated effort with U.S. regional allies, while coordinating with the non-allies already fighting ISIS: Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah.

If Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Jordan were involved in the fight on ISIS it would be quickly strangled of cash, guns, and troops, and be massively out-powered. War over.

The only reason this hasn’t happened is that the U.S. and its allies have always viewed ISIS as a convenient proxy against Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran, not to mention leverage against the Iran-friendly government of Iraq.

Turkey remains the biggest obstacle to defeating ISIS, since it’s been helping it for years. ISIS has long used the Turkish border to escape Syrian government attacks, seek medical assistance, and get supplies and reinforcements. ISIS is so welcomed inside Turkey that ISIS promotes Turkey on social media as the international transit hub for jihadis wanting to join ISIS. Turkish immigration and customs looks the other way as does the Turkish border control.

In discussing the “safe zone,” the U.S. media always ignore the concept of national sovereignty — the basis for international law. The boundaries of countries are sacred from the standpoint of international law. The only just war is a defensive one. When one country implements a no-fly zone in another country, national boundaries are violated and international law is broken by an act of war.

The Obama administration is aware of the above dynamics, but has again tossed caution to the wind as he did in 2013, during the ramp up to its aborted bombing campaign against the Syrian government.

A U.S.-Turkish no-fly zone will deepen an already regional war: Iran and Hezbollah have recently ramped up direct support of the Syrian government. As Turkish and the U.S. military enter the war space for the first time, confrontation is inevitable. Confrontation is the plan.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action. He can be reached at [email protected]

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obama’s “Safe Zone” in Syria Will Inflame the War Zone

NATO member Turkey has been busted supporting ISIS.

The Guardian reported this week:

US special forces raided the compound of an Islamic State leader in eastern Syria in May, they made sure not to tell the neighbours.

The target of that raid, the first of its kind since US jets returned to the skies over Iraq last August, was an Isis official responsible for oil smuggling, named Abu Sayyaf. He was almost unheard of outside the upper echelons of the terror group, but he was well known to Turkey. From mid-2013, the Tunisian fighter had been responsible for smuggling oil from Syria’s eastern fields, which the group had by then commandeered. Black market oil quickly became the main driver of Isis revenues – and Turkish buyers were its main clients.

As a result, the oil trade between the jihadis and the Turks was held up as evidence of an alliance between the two.

***

In the wake of the raid that killed Abu Sayyaf, suspicions of an undeclared alliance have hardened. One senior western official familiar with the intelligence gathered at the slain leader’s compound said that direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking Isis members was now “undeniable”.

“There are hundreds of flash drives and documents that were seized there,” the official told the Observer. “They are being analysed at the moment, but the links are already so clear that they could end up having profound policy implications for the relationship between us and Ankara.”

***

However, Turkey has openly supported other jihadi groups, such as Ahrar al-Sham, which espouses much of al-Qaida’s ideology, and Jabhat al-Nusra, which is proscribed as a terror organisation by much of the US and Europe. “The distinctions they draw [with other opposition groups] are thin indeed,” said the western official. “There is no doubt at all that they militarily cooperate with both.”

***

One Isis member says the organisation remains a long way from establishing a self-sustaining economy across the area of Syria and Iraq it controls. “They need the Turks. I know of a lot of cooperation and it scares me,” he said. “I don’t see how Turkey can attack the organisation too hard. There are shared interests.”

While the Guardian is one of Britain’s leading newspapers, many in the alternative press have longpointed out Turkey’s support for ISIS.

And expertsKurds, and Joe Biden have accuses Turkey of enabling ISIS.

Has Turkey Changed Its Ways?

On Tuesday, Turkey proclaimed that it will now help to fight ISIS.

Don’t buy it …

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and now distinguished adjunct professor of Government and Public Policy at William & Mary – asked yesterday:

What is [Turkish president] Erdogan’s ultimate purpose? He hates Assad. He’d love to bring him down. Is that why he’s doing this?

There’s also the Kurds …

As Time Magazine pointed out in June:

Ethnic Kurds—who on Tuesday scored their second and third significant victories over ISIS in the space of eight days—are by far the most effective force fighting ISIS in both Iraq and Syria.

And yet Turkey is trying to destroy the Kurds. Time writes:

Since [Turkey announced that it was joining the war against ISIS] it has arrested more than 1,000 people in Turkey and carried out waves of air raids in neighboring Syria and Iraq. But most of those arrests and air strikes, say Kurdish leaders, have hit Kurdish and left wing groups, not ISIS.

***

Kurds are an ethnic minority that live in parts of Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran. They have been persecuted for decades — from Turkey’s suppression of Kurdish identity and banning of Kurdish language to Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons on Kurdish communities. Their leaders, from the numerous different parties and rebel groups that represent them, have long sought an independent Kurdish state encompassing that territory and have fought against their respective governments to try to achieve that.

***

Hoshang Waziri, a political analyst based in Erbil, says the Kurds’ recent territorial gains in Syria along Turkey’s border and their increasing political legitimacy in the eyes of the West, have made the Kurds a bigger threat to Turkey than ISIS. “The fear of the Turkish state started with the Kurdish defeat of ISIS in Tel Abyad,” says Waziri.

***

The image in the West of the Kurds as a reliable ally on the ground is terrifying for Turkey,” says Waziri. “So before it’s too late, Turkey waged its war — not against ISIS, but against the PKK.

***

Some see the war against ISIS simply as a cover for an attack on Kurdish groups. Of the more than 1,000 people Turkey has arrested in security sweeps in recent days, 80% are Kurdish, associated either with the PKK or the non-violent Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), says İbrahim Ayhan, a member of parliament for the HDP.

***

Ayhan says the AKP needs a state of “chaos” to perusade voters that it is the only bulwark against chaos. As of yet no new government has been formed in Turkey and if that doesn’t happen in the next few weeks, new elections will be called. By that time Ayhad fears many of the leaders of his HDP party will be in jail and some even worry the HDP will be outlawed. At the same time, Erdoğan and his AKP hope they will have shown only they can defend Turkey from internal and external threats.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Turkey’s military activity against Islamic State does not stem from sudden realizations about threats from ISIS but appears designed to elicit international support for its fight against the Kurds.

The Kurdish Workers’ Party, known as the PKK, was locked in a bloody war with the Turkish state from the mid-1980s until 2013. The cease-fire has, for all intents and purposes, been destroyed. Turkey is battling both ISIS and the PKK under the guise of fighting terrorism. Yet Turkish attempts to conflate ISIS and the PKK–even in the wake of the suicide bombing in a Kurdish border town that killed 32 young people–effectively ask people to overlook some salient facts:

The Kurds are Islamic State’s ideological opposites. The Kurds have been fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq for some time; in particular, the Kurdish People’s Protection Unit (YPG) in northern Syria has been among the most effective forces at repelling ISIS efforts to take control of the Syrian-Turkish border. Kurdish military resistance in Syria and, to a lesser extent, the Kurdish autonomous government in Iraq have shouldered the lion’s share of the ground conflict against Islamic State, standing their ground at high cost and with limited support from the Western coalition.

***

A declaration of a state of emergency in Turkey would give the Justice and Development Party (or AKP), which lost its parliamentary majority in June elections, more flexibility to crack down on political opponents such as the Kurdish majority People’s Democratic Party. More than 1,300 people have been detained recently under the guise of cracking down on domestic PKK and ISIS elements in Turkey.

The AKP has declared the peace process with the Kurdish separatists dead and is trying to discredit the only recognized political representatives of the Turkish left and the Kurdish population; the Kurdish People’s Democratic Party won a 13% share of the Turkish parliament in the June elections–a sign of its rising popularity not only among Kurds but also with increasingly disgruntled Turkish liberals.

***

If a governing coalition isn’t formed, early elections will be held. The AKP appears to be hoping for that–under the thinking that a majority of voters would seek to maintain the status quo in a time of uncertainty and potential civil war, and that AKP’s standing in parliament would, in turn, be strengthened.

Zero Hedge adds:

Even the most mainstream of news outlets are unable to completely obscure the fact that Turkey’s ISIS “offensive” may amount to nothing more than a smokescreen, as Erdogan launches a renewed effort to crush the PKK and nullify opposition gains won at the ballot box early last month when, for the first time in more than a decade, AKP [Erdogan’s party] lost its parliamentary majority.

Coalition building efforts since the election have gone largely nowhere, and in what amounted to a sure sign that some manner of crackdown was likely just around the corner, Erdogan warned on June 21 that “if politicians are unable to sort [it] out, then the people are the only recourse” – a nod to his right under the constitution to call new elections.

Critically, AKP doesn’t need much to push them back over the top in terms of regaining their majority in parliament. Consider the following from WSJ:

Turkey’s government—which lost its parliamentary majority last month— bills its new two-front war against Kurdish militants and Islamic State as a much-overdue reaction to terrorism. But, on the third front of domestic politics, this violence could also help President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party regain control.

In the June 7 parliamentary elections, Mr. Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party, or AKP, lost its majority for the first time in 12 years, and has been in coalition talks since. If these negotiations fail in coming weeks, Mr. Erdogan has said he will send the country back to the polls.

A rise in nationalist feelings amid the bloodshed and an unfolding crackdown on the government’s Kurdish political foes could bolster AKP’s chances in such a new election, many analysts say.

A two-percentage point shift from the last election could restore AKP’s absolute majority, making concessions demanded by its potential coalition partners on press freedom, corruption prosecutions and foreign policy unnecessary. This could also allow Mr. Erdogan to proceed with controversial plans to turn Turkey into a presidential republic and solidify his personal power.

The last passage there is critical.

AKP needs but a two percentage point swing in order to pave the way for Erdogan’s power grab and there’s no better way to stoke a renewed sense of nationalism and turn voters away from HDP than to invent a conflict and then trot out a few casualities as proof of what can happen when Kurdish “terrorists” are emboldened by a victory at the ballot box.

Given this, one could be forgiven for casting a wary eye at the rather convenient series of events that has now culminated in Ankara going back to war with the PKK. Here’s a recap:

NATO representatives met in Brussels on Tuesday after Turkey made a rare Article 4 request which compels treaty parties to convene in the event a member state is of the opinion that its “territorial integrity, political independence or security” is being threatened.

That’s the case in Turkey, where the security situation has rapidly deteriorated over the past two weeks following a suicide bombing in Suruc (claimed by Islamic State) and the murder of two Turkish policemen in the town of Ceylanpinar (at the hands of the PKK, which claims the officers were cooperating with ISIS). Ankara responded by launching airstrikes against both Islamic State and PKK.

So, ISIS launches a suicide attack and the PKK (whose Syrian affiliate YPG is battling ISIS just across the border) retaliates by killing two Turkish policemen, an event which gives the government an excuse to tighten the screws on the Kurds with virtual impunity under the guise of stepping up its efforts against ISIS.

Better still, the ISIS red herring has allowed Ankara to effectively obtain NATO’s blessing for a brutal crackdown on its Kurdish political rivals. To wit, from Salon:

The choreography attaching to the accord authorizing Turkey’s entry into war as a combatant is, as often, so careful and predictable as to be self-evident. On Sunday Ankara announced that it had requested a meeting of NATO ambassadors to consider its new circumstance. The outcome was obvious from the first.

Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s Norwegian secretary-general, suggested Monday that Turkey was unlikely to get “any substantial NATO military support.”

This was a straw man: Material support is not what the Erdogan government wants. In its fight against ISIS and the Kurds—against both, note—it wants “solidarity and support from our NATO allies,” as the foreign ministry in Ankara later made clear.

Legitimacy, in other words. And it got it Tuesday in Brussels, where Stoltenberg announced, “We all stand united in condemning terrorism, in solidarity with Turkey.”  See the problem? Not “united against ISIS,” but “united in condemning terrorism.”

Erdogan understood. Within hours he declared that no peace process with the Kurds is possible—and then urged parliament to strip legislators with ties to the PKK of immunity from prosecution. An Istanbul source wrote Tuesday afternoon to say that some sitting parliamentarians have already been arrested.

So there you have it – mission accomplished. Erdogan has now secured Western support for his effort to nullify an election result he did not like.

***

Consider the following from Al Jazeera:

“When AK party lost [its] absolute majority [in parliament] on June 7, while HDP won, getting over the 10 percent barrier, the results showed how people started seeing that not every Kurd is a terrorist,”  Ilya U Topper, an Istanbul-based analyst on foreign affairs and democracy for the M’Sur, a Spanish media outlet added.

He noted that HDP was able to perform so well in June’s elections because there was peace.

“Two years of peace make people forget bloodshed and give them hope. Now we are back to square one. Kurds are ‘terrorists’ again,” he said. “If elections are repeated, HDP might fall under the barrier and AK party will achieve [an] absolute majority in the elections. The big question is why the PKK accepted that game.”

And that is a very good question.

Why would the PKK, whose political affiliate had just won a major victory at the ballot box, suddenly decide that now is the time to break a fragile cease fire, likely knowing that doing so would imperil further political gains and legitimacy for HDP?

***

In the final analysis, Turkey wants Assad out of Syria and that means backing anyone and everyone who is willing to help make that happen (including ISIS) with the exception of the PKK, who Ankara is keen on crushing especially after June’s election results. So now, Turkey will use ISIS as an excuse to procure NATO support for a politically motivated rout of Kurdish “terrorists”. The West will hope that ISIS will suffer more damage than YPG, Turkey will hope that PKK and, by extension, YPG will suffer more damage than ISIS, and everyone – Ankara, Washington, ISIS, and PKK – will hope the when the dust (and blood) finally settles, Bashar al-Assad will have met a Gaddafi-esque end.

So Turkey isn’t really going after ISIS … instead, the ruling party is going after its main political threat – the Kurds – and continuing its long-term effort to overthrow Syria’s Assad.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey Supports ISIS. … Now Declares “War Against ISIS”, But Instead Bombs Its Political Rival, Which Is the Most Effective Force Fighting ISIS

“National security secrecy may be appropriate to protect us from our enemies; it should not be used to protect our politicians from us.” Margot E. Kaminski, NYT, April 14, 2015.

It’s coming to you, roughly packaged, crudely thought out, and, we hope, incompetently executed. The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement is just about done and dusted, so claim those who have found it appropriate to keep this most “secret” of treaties under wraps. The Hawaii round of negotiations, taking place at the Westin Resort and Spa in Maui, will provide the final touches, though the delegates may be overly optimistic in assuming that their local parliaments will quite accept matters without a fight. If parliamentary sovereignty counts for anything, this will be it.

US negotiators were always in the main lane, suggesting that they would get what they wanted, breezing through the 21st century with Washington’s vision like modern buccaneers. Much of this is based on the illusory idea the future is calculable, that economic modelling becomes truth. Sign on the dotted line, and the Mammon shall be yours.

The US Treasury Department has come up with an astrological figure of increases in American exports to Asia by $123 billion. Other figures have been drawn out of hats, most of which will hardly cut muster when the deal is actually in place. Such deals have a habit of enriching unevenly, leaving a good deal of economic, and social pillage in their wake.

Hurdles to the arrangement include sugar, milk and drugs. Canada refuses to accept more dairy imports, which has put off the delegates of the US and New Zealand. Mexico continues to stall on the issue of opening its market to exports from Asia.[1]

But the quibbling, and to-and-fro nature of such talks belies something more important. The first is the technocratic presumption that what is being negotiated is going to be beneficial for the uninvolved and effectively disenfranchised subject. Naturally, a corporate “person”, and yes, the glories of Anglo-American law were good enough to give corporations personalities, will have the sun shining upon them. (The degree this sun was anticipated can be gauged by the amount of corporate money expended in influencing the trade delegations.[2]) But the TPP, in its entire negotiating process, has become a genuine punch to citizen sovereignty, a trickle-down bonanza of delusionary advances.

There have been voices in the political spectrum lamenting the pathological secrecy behind the entire process. Such behaviour goes beyond the realms of simple diplomatic protocol, the closed-doors approach which sees the shuffling of papers and provisions beyond press scrutiny. The TPP, one part of a US-led reorientation of markets and strategies, affects citizens who have no voice, or shape, in discussions.

The colourful Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii’s 2nd district, not essentially the picture of congressional participation, took to the floor to express her frustration at the lack of transparency in the entire process.[3] Even the locals were being left out in the cold by the business clerks. As legal scholar Margot E. Kaminski would explain in April, “Even if current negotiations over the trade agreement end with no deal, the draft chapter will remain classified for four years as national security information.”[4]

Such is the situation that even former trade officials are wondering why the process is being kept out of the critical eye of public discussion. Australia’s former Industries commission chief, Bill Carmichael, sees no problem adopting a more open approach to negotiations on such instruments. These are the industry and financial wonks who do believe that the link between parliament and the voter still prevails. Let the discussions rage.

Instead of taking the peripatetic walk of conversation in the name of national interest, the parties to the negotiations have muzzled their political representatives. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley explained in April that the public would not be able to peruse the document till the horse had bolted. “What’s wrong with it first and foremost that we’re not allowed to read it before the representatives vote on it.”[5]

O’Malley’s feeling here is that the El Dorado being sought is the lower wage bracket, obtained an exploited overseas market. Free trade is not so much a case of improving living standards as attempting to buffer the status quo with low grade incentives.

The same goes for other states involved in the negotiations. Members of parliament in Australia, for example, may see the document with their uncomprehending eyes, but must sign a four-year confidentiality provision. One of the requirements counters, if not repudiates the parliamentary spirit altogether: “I will not divulge any of the text or information obtained in the briefing to any party, I will not copy, transcribe or remove the negotiating text”.[6] This absurd state of affairs can only trigger suspicion.

Then come the dangers, in terms of use and price, to medicine and copyright. Weasel words are circulated – “digital governance” is a hot one, code for control, restriction and regulation. Embedded in the agreement is a form of copyright policing that seems both draconian and unrealistic. The US delegation still insists on copyright terms of 70 or more years with the necessary compensation for infringements.

Few on the medical side of things are convinced by this. Doctors without Borders has insisted that the TPP brings the kibosh to bear on cheaper pharmaceuticals, proving it to be “a bad deal for medicine.”[7] This is less a case of bring on the medicine than bringing on the money. “Unless damaging provisions are removed before negotiations are finalised, the TPP agreement is on track to become the most harmful trade pact ever for access to medicines in developing countries.”[8]

The horse trading has also reached degrees of cynicism that would make any Machiavellian hack proud. Deals have been done to paper over wretched human rights records – take the case of Malaysia, which was upgraded by the US State Department in the human trafficking stakes ahead of fresh talks in Hawaii. It had previously received the worst rating in terms of trafficking, something which bars the US from making trade deals.

Under Secretary of State Sarah Sewall would unconvincingly parry suggestions that the TPP had shadowed the moves. “No, no. no. The annual TIP Report reflects the State Department’s assessment of foreign government efforts during the reporting period to comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking persons, established under US law, under the TVPA.”[9]

Sheer coincidence, of course. Until you realise that these alignments tend to mount. The leaked environment chapter of the TPP shows how environmental degradation will be tolerated in favour of the profit principle. And if there is one thing that this agreement will enshrine, is the profit principle over that of representative democracy.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email:[email protected]

Notes

[1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/28/here-are-the-remaining-hurdles-to-obamas-massive-asia-trade-deal/?utm_content=buffer1032b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/23/us-trade-tpp-lobbying-idUSKCN0PX2JO20150723

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fC0qppnK_U

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/opinion/dont-keep-trade-talks-secret.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

[5] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/23/martin-omalley/martin-omalley-says-congress-wont-see-pacific-trad/

[6] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/02/australian-mps-allowed-to-see-top-secret-trade-deal-text-on-condition-of-confidentiality

[7] http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/tpp-negotiators-must-fix-most-damaging-trade-agreement-ever-global-health?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=social

[8] http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news-stories/briefing-document/trading-away-health-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-tpp

[9] http://www.democracynow.org/2015/7/28/headlines#7289

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The TPP Trade Agreement, Sovereignty, and Secrecy. Economic Dislocation, Environmental Degradation

Reporting from the scene:

US forces cleared kayakers out of the way and cut the cables connecting suspended climbers, making space for the government-escorted Shell oil rig to move through and continue on to the Arctic to begin the fossil fuel extraction process.

As the ship approached, one (hopelessly naive) onlooker shouted, “Where is President Obama?“, as if this were being done against his will.

Obama in 2012:

“Now, under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. That’s important to know. Over the last three years, I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth and then some.”

Here is the oil rig passing through the cleared blockade:

After the rig passed through, a cheer of appreciation for the climbers and kayakers rang out from the onlookers, along with shouts of “Thank you!”

Gov.-escorted Shell rig spews exhaust after passing through cleared blockade.

Exhaust fumes from oil rig wash over the climbers.

Drone watches from above.

Drone hovers.

Robert Barsocchini  focuses on force dynamics, national and global. @_DirtyTruths

Donations to help the environmental organizations with bail money, etc., can be made here and here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Forces Succeed in Clearing Peaceful Environmental Activists, Escorting Shell Rig Through and Sending on to Arctic

This is an updated version of John Pilger’s 2014 investigation which tells the unreported story of an unrelenting campaign, in Sweden and the US, to deny Julian Assange justice and silence WikiLeaks: a campaign now reaching a dangerous stage.

The siege of Knightsbridge is both an emblem of gross injustice and a gruelling farce. For three years, a police cordon around the Ecuadorean embassy in London has served no purpose other than to flaunt the power of the state. It has cost £12 million. The quarry is an Australian charged with no crime, a refugee whose only security is the room given him by a brave South American country. His “crime” is to have initiated a wave of truth-telling in an era of lies, cynicism and war.

The persecution of Julian Assange is about to flare again as it enters a dangerous stage. From August 20, three quarters of the Swedish prosecutor’s case against Assange regarding sexual misconduct in 2010 will disappear as the statute of limitations expires. At the same time Washington’s obsession with Assange and WikiLeaks has intensified. Indeed, it is vindictive American power that offers the greatest threat – as Chelsea Manning and those still held in Guantanamo can attest.

The Americans are pursuing Assange because WikiLeaks exposed their epic crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale killing of tens of thousands of civilians, which they covered up, and their contempt for sovereignty and international law, as demonstrated vividly in their leaked diplomatic cables. WikiLeaks continues to expose criminal activity by the US, having just published top secret US intercepts – US spies’ reports detailing private phone calls of the presidents of France and Germany, and other senior officials, relating to internal European political and economic affairs.

None of this is illegal under the US Constiution. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistleblowers as “part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal”. In 2012, the campaign to re-elect President Barack Obama boasted on its website that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers in his first term than all other US presidents combined. Before Chelsea Manning had even received a trial, Obama had pronounced the whisletblower guilty. He was subsequently sentenced to 35 years in prison, having been tortured during his long pre-trial detention.

Few doubt that should the US get their hands on Assange, a similar fate awaits him. Threats of the capture and assassination of Assange became the currency of the political extremes in the US following Vice-President Joe Biden’s preposterous slur that the WikiLeaks founder was a “cyber-terrorist”. Those doubting the degree of ruthlessness Assange can expect should remember the forcing down of the Bolivian president’s plane in 2013 – wrongly believed to be carrying Edward Snowden.

According to documents released by Snowden, Assange is on a “Manhunt target list”. Washington’s bid to get him, say Australian diplomatic cables, is “unprecedented in scale and nature”. In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has spent five years attempting to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy. The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers.

Faced with this constitutional hurdle, the US Justice Department has contrived charges of “espionage”, “conspiracy to commit espionage”, “conversion” (theft of government property), “computer fraud and abuse” (computer hacking) and general “conspiracy”. The Espionage Act has life in prison and death penalty provisions. .

Assange’s ability to defend himself in this Kafkaesque world has been handicapped by the US declaring his case a state secret. In March, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the “national security” investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was “active and ongoing” and would harm the “pending prosecution” of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rosthstein, said it was necessary to show “appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security”. Such is the “justice” of a kangaroo court. The supporting act in this grim farce is Sweden, played by the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny. Until recently, Ny refused to comply with a routine European procedure routine that required her to travel to London to question Assange and so advance the case. For four and a half years, Ny has never properly explained why she has refused to come to London, just as the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him on to the US under a secret arrangement agreed between Stockholm and Washington. In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the US.

Contrary to its 1960s reputation as a liberal bastion, Sweden has drawn so close to Washington that it has allowed secret CIA “renditions” – including the illegal deportation of refugees. The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation and in WikiLeaks cables. In the summer of 2010, Assange had flown to Sweden to talk about WikiLeaks revelations of the war in Afghanistan – in which Sweden had forces under US command.

Documents released by WikiLeaks since Assange moved to England,” wrote Al Burke, editor of the online Nordic News Network, an authority on the multiple twists and dangers facing Assange, “clearly indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters relating to civil rights. There is every reason for concern that if Assange were to be taken into custody by Swedish authorities, he could be turned over to the United States without due consideration of his legal rights.

Why hasn’t the Swedish prosecutor resolved the Assange case?  Many in the legal community in Sweden believe her behaviour inexplicable. Once implacably hostile to Assange, the Swedish press has published headlines such as: “Go to London, for God’s sake.”

Why hasn’t she? More to the point, why won’t she allow the Swedish court access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police extracted from the phone of one of the two women involved in the misconduct allegations? Why won’t she hand them over to Assange’s Swedish lawyers? She says she is not legally required to do so until a formal charge is laid and she has questioned him. Then, why doesn’t she question him? And if she did question him, the conditions she would demand of him and his lawyers – that they could not challenge her – would make injustice a near certainty.

On a point of law, the Swedish Supreme Court has decided Ny can continue to obstruct on the vital issue of the SMS messages. This will now go to the European Court of Human Rights. What Ny fears is that the SMS messages will destroy her case against Assange. One of the messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, “but the police were keen on getting a hold on him”. She was “shocked” when they arrested him because she only “wanted him to take [an HIV] test”. She “did not want to accuse JA of anything” and “it was the police who made up the charges”. (In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been “railroaded by police and others around her”.)

Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both have denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, “I have not been raped.” That they were manipulated by police and their wishes ignored is evident – whatever their lawyers might say now. Certainly, they are victims of a saga which blights the reputation of Sweden itself.

For Assange, his only trial has been trial by media. On August 20, 2010, the Swedish police opened a “rape investigation” and immediately – and unlawfully – told the Stockholm tabloids that there was a warrant for Assange’s arrest for the “rape of two women”. This was the news that went round the world.

In Washington, a smiling US Defence Secretary Robert Gates told reporters that the arrest “sounds like good news to me”. Twitter accounts associated with the Pentagon described Assange as a “rapist” and a “fugitive”.

Less than 24 hours later, the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, took over the investigation. She wasted no time in cancelling the arrest warrant, saying, “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” Four days later, she dismissed the rape investigation altogether, saying, “There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever.”  The file was closed.

Enter Claes Borgstrom, a high profile politician in the Social Democratic Party then standing as a candidate in Sweden’s imminent general election. Within days of the chief prosecutor’s dismissal of the case, Borgstrom, a lawyer, announced to the media that he was representing the two women and had sought a different prosecutor in the city of Gothenberg. This was Marianne Ny, whom Borgstrom knew well, personally and politically.On 30 August, Assange attended a police station in Stockholm voluntarily and answered all the questions put to him. He understood that was the end of the matter. Two days later, Ny announced she was re-opening the case. Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed, citing one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, “Ah, but she is not a lawyer.” Assange’s Australian barrister, James Catlin, responded, “This is a laughing stock… it’s as if they make it up as they go along.”

On the day Marianne Ny reactivated the case, the head of Sweden’s military intelligence service – which has the acronym MUST — publicly denounced WikiLeaks in an article entitled “WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers.” Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told by its US counterparts that US-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be “cut off” if Sweden sheltered him.

For five weeks, Assange waited in Sweden for the new investigation to take its course. The Guardian was then on the brink of publishing the Iraq “War Logs”, based on WikiLeaks’ disclosures, which Assange was to oversee. His lawyer in Stockholm asked Ny if she had any objection to his leaving the country. She said he was free to leave.

Inexplicably, as soon as he left Sweden – at the height of media and public interest in the WikiLeaks disclosures – Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant and an Interpol “red alert” normally used for terrorists and dangerous criminals. Put out in five languages around the world, it ensured a media frenzy.

Assange attended a police station in London, was arrested and spent ten days in Wandsworth Prison, in solitary confinement. Released on £340,000 bail, he was electronically tagged, required to report to police daily and placed under virtual house arrest while his case began its long journey to the Supreme Court. He still had not been charged with any offence. His lawyers repeated his offer to be questioned by Ny in London, pointing out that she had given him permission to leave Sweden. They suggested a special facility at Scotland Yard commonly used for that purpose. She refused.

Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote: “The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction… The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will. [Assange] has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step in their investigation? What are they afraid of?”

This question remained unanswered as Ny deployed the European Arrest Warrant, a draconian and now discredited  product of the “war on terror” supposedly designed to catch terrorists and organised criminals. The EAW had abolished the obligation on a petitioning state to provide any evidence of a crime. More than a thousand EAWs are issued each month; only a few have anything to do with potential “terror” charges. Most are issued for trivial offences, such as overdue bank charges and fines. Many of those extradited face months in prison without charge. There have been a number of shocking miscarriages of justice, of which British judges have been highly critical.

The Assange case finally reached the UK Supreme Court in May 2012. In a judgement that upheld the EAW – whose rigid demands had left the courts almost no room for manoeuvre – the judges found that European prosecutors could issue extradition warrants in the UK without any judicial oversight, even though Parliament intended otherwise. They made clear that Parliament had been “misled” by the Blair government. The court was split, 5-2, and consequently found against Assange.

However, the Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, made one mistake. He applied the Vienna Convention on treaty interpretation, allowing for state practice to override the letter of the law. As Assange’s barrister, Dinah Rose QC, pointed out, this did not apply to the EAW.

The Supreme Court only recognised this crucial error when it dealt with another appeal against the EAW in November 2013. The Assange decision had been wrong, but it was too late to go back. With extradition imminent, the Swedish prosecutor told Assange’s lawyers that Assange, once in Sweden, would be immediately placed in one of Sweden’s infamous remand prisons..

Assange’s choice was stark: extradition to a country that had refused to say whether or not it would send him on to the US, or to seek what seemed his last opportunity for refuge and safety. Supported by most of Latin America, the courageous government of Ecuador granted him refugee status on the basis of documented evidence and legal advice that he faced the prospect of cruel and unusual punishment in the US; that this threat violated his basic human rights; and that his own government in Australia had abandoned him and colluded with Washington. The Labor government of prime minister Julia Gillard had even threatened to take away his passport.

Gareth Peirce, the renowned human rights lawyer who represents Assange in London, wrote to the then Australian foreign minister, Kevin Rudd: “Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions… it is very hard to attempt to preserve for him any presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country, and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged.”

It was not until she contacted the Australian High Commission in London that Peirce received a response, which answered none of the pressing points she raised. In a meeting I attended with her, the Australian Consul-General, Ken Pascoe, made the astonishing claim that he knew “only what I read in the newspapers” about the details of the case.

Meanwhile, the prospect of a grotesque miscarriage of justice was drowned in a vituperative campaign against the WikiLeaks founder. Deeply personal, petty, vicious and inhuman attacks were aimed at a man not charged with any crime yet subjected to treatment not even meted out to a defendant facing extradition on a charge of murdering his wife. That the US threat to Assange was a threat to all journalists, to freedom of speech, was lost in the sordid and the ambitious.

Books were published, movie deals struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the back of WikiLeaks and an assumption that attacking Assange was fair game and he was too poor to sue. People have made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive. The editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published, “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years”. It became part of his marketing plan to raise the newspaper’s cover price.

With not a penny going to Assange or to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie. The book’s authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as a “damaged personality” and “callous”. They also revealed the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police outside, gloated on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”.

The injustice meted out to Assange is one of the reasons Parliament reformed the Extradition Act to prevent the misuse of the EAW. The draconian catch-all used against him could not happen now; charges would have to be brought and “questioning” would be insufficient grounds for extradition. “His case has been won lock, stock and barrel,” Gareth Peirce told me, “these changes in the law mean that the UK now recognises as correct everything that was argued in his case. Yet he does not benefit.” In other words, the change in the UK law in 2014 mean that Assange would have won his case and he would not have been forced to take refuge.

Ecuador’s decision to protect Assange in 2012 bloomed into a major international affair. Even though the granting of asylum is a humanitarian act, and the power to do so is enjoyed by all states under international law, both Sweden and the United Kingdom refused to recognize the legitimacy of Ecuador’s decision. Ignoring international law, the Cameron government refused to grant Assange safe passage to Ecuador. Instead, Ecuador’s embassy was placed under siege and its government abused with a series of ultimatums. When William Hague’s Foreign Office threatened to violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, warning that it would remove the diplomatic inviolability of the embassy and send the police in to get Assange, outrage across the world forced the government to back down. During one night, police appeared at the windows of the embassy in an obvious attempt to intimidate Assange and his protectors.

Since then, Julian Assange has been confined to a small room under Ecuador’s protection, without sunlight or space to exercise, surrounded by police under orders to arrest him on sight. For three years, Ecuador has made clear to the Swedish prosecutor that Assange is available to be questioned in the London embassy, and for three years she has remained intransigent. In the same period Sweden has questioned forty-four people in the UK in connection with police investigations. Her role, and that of the Swedish state, is demonstrably political; and for Ny, facing retirement in two years, she must “win”.

In despair, Assange has challenged the arrest warrant in the Swedish courts. His lawyers have cited rulings by the European Court of Human Rights that he has been under arbitrary, indefinite detention and that he had been a virtual prisoner for longer than any actual prison sentence he might face. The Court of Appeal judge agreed with Assange’s lawyers: the prosecutor had indeed breached her duty by keeping the case suspended for years. Another judge issued a rebuke to the prosecutor. And yet she defied the court.

Last December, Assange took his case to the Swedish Supreme Court, which ordered Marianne Ny’s boss – the Prosecutor General of Sweden Anders Perklev – to explain. The next day, Ny announced, without explanation, that she had changed her mind and would now question Assange in London.

In his submission to the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General made some important concessions: he argued that the coercion of Assange had been “intrusive” and that that the period in the embassy has been a “great strain” on him. He even conceded that if the matter had ever come to prosecution, trial, conviction and serving a sentence in Sweden, Julian Assange would have left Sweden long ago.

In a split decision, one Supreme Court judge argued that the arrest warrant should have been revoked. The majority of the judges ruled that, since the prosecutor had now said she would go to London, Assange’s arguments had become “moot”. But the Court ruled that it would have found against the prosecutor if she had not suddenly changed her mind. Justice by caprice. Writing in the Swedish press, a former Swedish prosecutor, Rolf Hillegren, accused Ny of losing all impartiality. He described her personal investment in the case as“abnormal” and demanded that she be replaced.

Having said she would go to London in June, Ny did not go, but sent a deputy, knowing that the questioning would not be legal under these circumstances, especially as Sweden had not bothered to get Ecuador’s approval for the meeting. At the same time, her office tipped off the Swedish tabloid newspaper Expressen, which sent its London correspondent to wait outside Ecuador’s embassy for “news”. The news was that Ny was cancelling the appointment and blaming Ecuador for the confusion and by implication an “unco-operative” Assange – when the opposite was true.

As the statute of limitations date approaches – August 20 – another chapter in this hideous story will doubtless unfold, with Marianne Ny pulling yet another rabbit out of her hat and the commissars and prosecutors in Washington the beneficiaries. Perhaps none of this is surprising.  In 2008, a war on WikiLeaks and on Julian Assange was foretold in a secret Pentagon document prepared by the “Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch”. It described a detailed plan to destroy the feeling of “trust” which is WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”. This would be achieved with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution”. Silencing and criminalising such a rare source of truth-telling was the aim, smear the method. While this scandal continues the very notion of justice is diminished, along with the reputation of Sweden, and the shadow of America’s menace touches us all.

For important additional information, click on the following links:

http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/assange-could-face-espionage-trial-in-us-2154107.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImXe_EQhUI

https://justice4assange.com/Timeline.html

https://justice4assange.com/Timeline.html

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/wikileaks_doj_05192014.pdf

https://wikileaks.org/59-International-Organizations.html

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1202703/doj-letter-re-wikileaks-6-19-14.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/23/julian-assange-ecuador-and-sweden-in-tense-standoff-over-interview?CMP=twt_gu

http://assangeinsweden.com/2015/03/17/the-prosecutor-in-the-assange-case-should-be-replaced/

https://justice4assange.com/Prosecutor-cancels-Assange-meeting.html

www.johnpilger.com

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Assange: The Untold Story of an Epic Struggle for Justice

A voice from Hellas, Greece. According to UNHCR about 50 million refugees are on the move every day on our globe. This is most likely an understatement, as this figure doesn’t take into account what takes place in the almost hermetically closed-off Central Africa, Congo, Zaïre, where western corporations are exploiting for a pittance and with millions of slaves precious metals, uranium, hydrocarbons and rare earths – and where millions have died over the past ten years, by butcher regimes supported and armed by the west – and where millions are on the run.

The real figure of refugees on the run is easily 60 to 65 million; forced migrants in temporary camps, in transit to nowhere and under the most horrible human and abject hygienic conditions, no running water, hardly any medical attention, sparse food if any. At least a quarter of them originate in the Middle East.

And most, if not all of these tens of millions, are fleeing countries destroyed directly or by proxy by the US empire and its European vassals. They try to escape as their homes have been burned to the ground, their families in many cases decimated. They are under constant threat of being bombed, by the ISIS and sorts, all fully funded by Washington, the EU, Turkey, the Saudis, Qatar – and militarily supported and trained by the CIA, Pentagon and NATO. This is not new. It has been known for years. But known to whom? The truth does still not penetrate the brain of most people. – Why? – Because the west is totally brainwashed with lies and distortions by its own corporate presstitute media.

I fully subscribe to Andre Vltchek’s  plea to the world – we must demand that at least public places like airports, railway stations, hotel lobbies switch channels from the bought rightwing, CNNs and BBCs of this world –to TeleSUR, CCTV, PressTV, RT and other emerging truth news channels. People must wake up. A growth swell of truth must engulf our western society – if we have any chance to be salvaged from ourselves.

When people are confused and ask in desperation – how to stop this flow of refugees? – The answer is simple:

stop the wars and conflicts, stop NATO; and for those who are NATO members like Greece and Turkey – quit NATO! – Stop the eternal war machine; stop the western business of killing – launch truth news against the propaganda lies, destroy them economically…

Yes you can! – boycott western economies. Join the peaceful eastern economies – the alliances of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), consisting of Russia, China and most of the Central Asian States, as well as the EEU (Eurasian Economic Union) with their new financial development institutions, the AIIB (the new Chinese-funded Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank), as well as the NDB (the BRICS’ New Development Bank).

Today TeleSUR reports that Javier Couso, a member of the European Parliament from the Spanish United Left, was threatened with death for admonishing the EU for slandering Venezuela, for defending the truth about Venezuela! – At the same time it is reported that Greece’s PM Tsipras, traitor not only of the Greek people, but of all of Europeans who strive to be free, is poised to sell the elite of the so-called ‘creditors’ (sic) – the troika – 1,200 of the Greek islands, as a fraction for paying off illegal debt! – Yes, totally illegal, as all contracts concluded under duress and corruption, as is the case with almost all of Greek’s debt – are void, null, illegal; and would be declared as such by any just international Court of Justice – if there is still something left like a just court of justice – that has not been corrupted by the west, or worse, whose judges are not yet coerced and threatened with their life if they deviate from the western norms and wants, irrespective of whether the law would stand behind them.

Dear Reader, this is as far as we have fallen since the ascent of neoliberalism in the last twenty-some years. No ethics, no moral, no law, just coercion for greed and ultimate hegemony – enslavement of the people while and after they are lulled and dulled with lies 24/7.

Dear Reader, dear Citizen of this World, dear Souls, Friends, Comrades – wake up! Wake up for your own sake, but also for the sake of solidarity and for the salvation of our planet, of our humanity! – There must be something badly wrong, if an EU parliamentarian who defends and proclaims the truth about a socialist country, Venezuela, which is denigrated, slandered and lied upon by the very European Commission, for propaganda and defeat – and the looting of its resources – if a representative of their own is threatened to death for telling the truth!

Friends – of this globe – there is something terribly wrong, if Greece, a member and brother of the very European Union, is forced to sell off its pristine islands to robbers, thieves, murderers, represented by entire governments and an assembly of governments called the EU! – Can you imagine! Selling your islands! – selling part of your country to settle illegal debt? – People, please wake up. Stop these crimes. NOW. – How? – By taking to the streets, by disobedience, by unlimited strikes, by staying home instead of going to work, by no more traveling, flying, no more consuming. Do whatever it takes to suffocate this killing system. – You are not lost. There is the East with another mindset, with peace and equality as an objective, with an alternative economic scheme, not based on destruction and dominance.

All the southern European countries that are being lynched to death by the world’s most horrendously deadly financial guns – the Zionist-run Wall Street and European banksters – would be more than welcome in this alliance that comprises more than 50% of the world population and controls more than one third of the globe’s economic output. Why accept the Washington-EU dictated financial waterboarding of the west? Economic terror – outright economic fascism? – Nobody needs the west. It’s an obsolete sinking ship.

People don’t know it. They are confused when they are told that the refugees – the endless and steadily growing flood of refugees – are the direct result of western destructive interventions in these peoples’ home countries – destroying not only their families, homes and employment – but also their hope for a decent life – their sense of living – not even living well, god forbid, just living a decent life, with food on the table, medical care and free education for their children; they had lives with rich cultures before the western killing machine destroyed their livelihoods for greed and hegemony. That’s what the West doesn’t know, because no presstitute media talks about it.

Greece is perhaps number one in receiving involuntary migrants, so called paperless refugees. At best (or worst) Greece and Italy compete for number one. But hardly anybody talks or writes about Greek refugees. – Why? – Because the western media, prostitutes to the western powers, cannot on the one hand help to financially strangle Greece to death, while also admitting that Greece, despite all its own misery still is a country with a sense of solidarity receiving thousands of refugees every day- so-called illegal immigrants, coming from countries illegally destroyed by the very west, mostly northern EU nations, Germany, France, UK, Netherlands, Belgium – the most vicious allies of Washington that refuses the most minimal shelter to those plundered and deprived souls, deprived by the west’s fascist war economies.

Greece and the refugees –most of them come from Turkey; many through Bodrum to the Greek Islands of Kos, Lesbos and Samos. Turkey is a hub – a sad hub – for about 2 million refugees, most of them, from Syria. Turkey has spent about 6 billion dollars for building and maintaining refugee camps. But, at the same time Turkey is in full connivance with Washington and the Saudis in funding the Jihadists, ISIS and whatever other pseudonyms they are given – to destroy Syria – to cause the flood of misery. Turkey is a shame.

Kos island hosts some 500-700 paperless migrants, in transit – in transit to where? – Some to Athens to refugee camps, some dream of going to Germany, France, Italy – they have no clue how unwelcome they are in those countries that helped destroy their homelands. In Kos, some 500 refugees from Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Sudan – live in an abandoned hotel “Captain Elias”. It is the epitome of misery; lack of hygiene, food, medical services – some volunteers come three times a week to help them clean the place, distribute food – a medical doctor shows up maybe once a week. The Greeks do what they can with their strangled economy.

Yesterday morning a little Iraqi boy of three years, let’s call him Tariq, has been found in a park in Kos, with his father. The boy has cancer – what doctors diagnose may be ‘terminal’. With the help of volunteer, Georgia, the boy was immediately delivered to the only local public hospital, where adequate treatment for his case cannot be obtained.  If there is the slightest chance to save him, he will be airlifted to a northern European city, where all will be done to save him. Georgia and her friend Hara are accompanying this boy with all their heart and attention. May this be a sign of solidarity – a cry to open the eyes of Europe, that there is more to our human civilization than war, greed and destruction. There is a little human life to be saved – a symbol of our own fragile lives.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik News, TeleSur, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

 

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Greece – The Refugee Crisis and the Horror of Europe

More Illegal US Sanctions against Russia

July 31st, 2015 by Stephen Lendman

Unilateral or jointly imposed sanctions by one or more countries against others are illegal. Authority rests solely with Security Council members.

They must first “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression,” as UN Charter, Chapter VII, Article 39 stipulates.

They may then “decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures,” as authorized under Article 41.

These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

It bears repeating. All unilateral or multilateral impositions of sanctions circumventing Security Council authority are illegal. America is by far the leading scofflaw – a lawless state operating by its own rules and standards exclusively, spurning fundamental rule of law principles repeatedly, ignoring what demands compliance.

On March 6, 2014, Obama signed Executive Order 13660 – a lawless diktat authorizing sanctions on individuals or entities allegedly involved in violating Ukraine’s sovereignty or territory.

On March 17, Executive Order 13661 followed – another extrajudicial diktat targeting Russia for its legitimate right to maintain a military presence in Crimea, its nonexistent undermining of so-called Ukrainian “democratic processes,” including nonsensical claims about threatening its peace, security, stability, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

On March 20, a third Executive Order “block(ed) property of additional persons contributing to the situation in Ukraine.”

Fact: No constitutional authority permits Executive Orders – other than stating “executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America (Article 2, Section 1).”

Its use is abused by bypassing Congress. “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives (Article 1, Section 1.).”

Constitutional checks and balances prevent empowering one governmental branch over another. Diktat power reflects tyranny.

On July 30, Obama imposed further sanctions on Russia by Executive Order – perhaps in response to its vetoing a Security Council resolution to establish a US-controlled MH17 kangaroo tribunal, one Washington wanted to hold Moscow and Donbass freedom fighters accountable for its own complicity in Kiev’s downing the commercial aircraft.

Eleven more individuals and 15 companies were targeted – including affiliates of oil giant Rosneft as well as others linked to Vnesheconombank (a state owned Bank of Foreign Economic Activity called the Russian Development Bank).

Eight have ties to Russian businessman Gannady Timchenko. Four are former Ukrainian Yanukovych administrations officials. Five are involved in Crimean port or sea ferry operations.

The US Treasury Office of Foreign Assets acting director John E. Smith commented, saying:

Today’s action underscores our resolve to maintain pressure on Russia for (its nonexistent violations of) international law (or involvement in) fueling the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Our message is clear. We will continue to act to ensure the effectiveness of our sanctions.

Other senior US officials lied saying Thursday’s action was “routine,” not an “escalation.” It’s further proof of Washington continuing to act provocatively, upping the stakes, headed toward likely direct belligerent confrontation if these actions along with military ones in Eastern Europe continue.

Longstanding US policy calls for regime change – replacing Russian sovereignty with US-controlled puppet governance, pillaging its resources, balkanizing its huge land mass for easier control and exploiting its people.

Paul Craig Roberts is right saying Washington “wants to coerce Russia into submission.” He cites the (Paul) Wolfowitz Doctrine – co-authored with his deputy Scooter Libby when he was Bush I’s Under Secretary of Defense.

Its core principles were part of the Bush (II) Doctrine – what the late Senator Edward Kennedy described as “a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept.”

Roberts explains US policymakers consider any country “capable of standing up to Washington” a threat to its national security. “Today there are two such countries, Russia and China.

Washington always needs an enemy in order to justify the one trillion dollar annual budget of the military/security complex” and endless wars of aggression waged against invented adversaries threatening no one.

America’s hegemonic ambitions aim for achieving unchallenged world dominance – madness risking WW III…

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on More Illegal US Sanctions against Russia

The Washington Post’s descent into the depths of neoconservative propaganda – willfully misleading its readers on matters of grave importance – apparently knows no bounds as was demonstrated with two deceptive articles regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin and why his government is cracking down on “foreign agents.”

If you read the Post’s editorial on Wednesday and a companion op-ed by National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, you would have been led to believe that Putin is delusional, paranoid and “power mad” in his concern that outside money funneled into non-governmental organizations represents a threat to Russian sovereignty.

The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians have enacted laws requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to register as “foreign agents” – and that one of the first funding operations to fall prey to these tightened rules was Gershman’s NED.

The Post’s editors wrote that Putin’s “latest move, announced Tuesday, is to declare the NED an ‘undesirable’ organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a ‘threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.’

“The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED’s grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin’s ramparts. …

“The new law on ‘undesirables’ comes in addition to one signed in 2012 that gave authorities the power to declare organizations ‘foreign agents’ if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage.”

But there are several salient facts that the Post’s editors surely know but don’t want you to know. The first is that NED is a U.S. government-funded organization created in 1983 to do what the Central Intelligence Agency previously had done in financing organizations inside target countries to advance U.S. policy interests and, if needed, help in “regime change.”

The secret hand behind NED’s creation was CIA Director William J. Casey who worked with senior CIA covert operation specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to establish NED in 1983. Casey – from the CIA – and Raymond – from his assignment inside President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council – focused on creating a funding mechanism to support groups inside foreign countries that would engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically organized and paid for covertly. To partially replace that CIA role, the idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity that would serve as a conduit for this money.

But Casey recognized the need to hide the strings being pulled by the CIA. “Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate,” Casey said in one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III – as Casey urged creation of a “National Endowment.”

NED Is Born

The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money — within NED — for the Republican and Democratic parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured. But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped write the legislation.

This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about to go to the House floor, the CIA’s congressional liaison came pounding at the door to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill. The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented, not fully recognizing the significance of the demand.

The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration’s choice of Carl Gershman to head the National Endowment for Democracy, again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future of the new entity and American foreign policy. Gershman, who had followed the classic neoconservative path from youthful socialism to fierce anticommunism, became NED’s first (and, to this day, only) president.

Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC. For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond wrote to two NSC Asian experts that

“Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.”

Currently, Gershman’s NED dispenses more than $100 million a year in U.S. government funds to various NGOs, media outlets and activists around the world. The NED also has found itself in the middle of political destabilization campaigns against governments that have gotten on the wrong side of U.S. foreign policy. For instance, prior to the February 2014 coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing an anti-Russian regime in Kiev, NED was funding scores of projects.

A second point left out of the Post’s editorial was the fact that Gershman took a personal hand in the Ukraine crisis and recognized it as an interim step toward regime change in Moscow. On Sept. 26, 2013, Gershman published an op-ed in the Washington Post that called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and explained how pulling it into the Western camp could contribute to the ultimate defeat of Russian President Putin.

“Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents,” Gershman wrote. “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.” In other words, NED is a U.S. government-financed entity that has set its sights on ousting Russia’s current government.

A third point that the Post ignored is that the Russian law requiring outside-funded political organizations to register as “foreign agents” was modeled on a U.S. law, the Foreign Agent Registration Act. In other words, the U.S. government also requires individuals and entities working for foreign interests and seeking to influence U.S. policies to disclose those relationships with the U.S. Justice Department or face prison.

If the Post’s editors had included any or all of these three relevant factors, you would have come away with a more balanced understanding of why Russia is acting as it is. You might still object but at least you would be aware of the full story. By concealing all three points, the Post’s editors were tricking you and other readers into accepting a propagandistic viewpoint – that the Russian actions were crazy and that Putin was, according to the Post’s headline, “power mad.”

Gershman’s Op-Ed

But you might think that Gershman would at least acknowledge some of these points in his Post op-ed, surely admitting that NED is financed by the U.S. government. But Gershman didn’t. He simply portrayed Russia’s actions as despicable and desperate.

“Russia’s newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for Democracy on Tuesday was declared an “undesirable organization” prohibited from operating in Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a worsening crisis of political legitimacy,”

Gershman wrote, adding:

“This is the context in which Russia has passed the law prohibiting Russian democrats from getting any international assistance to promote freedom of expression, the rule of law and a democratic political system. Significantly, democrats have not backed down. They have not been deterred by the criminal penalties contained in the ‘foreign agents’ law and other repressive laws. They know that these laws contradict international law, which allows for such aid, and that the laws are meant to block a better future for Russia.”

The reference to how a “foreign agents” registration law conflicts with international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is good for the goose in the United States isn’t good for the gander in Russia. But hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic impact of the op-ed.

So would an acknowledgement of where NED’s money comes from. How many governments would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in someone who would be compliant to that foreign power?

Not surprisingly, Gershman couldn’t find the space to include any balance in his op-ed – and the Post’s editors didn’t insist on any.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Russia Shut Down National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Fronts

The WHO has already declared that five of the major chemical herbicides used to grow GMO crops are either likely or definitely cancerous, yet the USA still makes secret trade deals that would allow biotech to push their genetically modified ‘food’ on Americans who don’t want to eat it.

Our right to know if we are even eating GMO crops is being taken away via legislation known as the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act (DARK) act. (This is officially known as the ‘Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act.)

More than 60 countries have already passed mandatory GMO labeling laws, and many will ban GMO crops altogether this year if they haven’t already. You can see a great map of these GM labeling bans here.

So are we really supposed to believe that genetically engineered crops are safe and that the average consumer in America who is practically begging for organic food is simply over-reacting, or are we to correctly assume that the United States has been bought by biotech?

The DARK act, otherwise known as Mike Pompeo’s bill to support Monsanto, is being fast tracked through Congress right now even though thousands of people have signed petitions to stop it. It’s clear that Congress isn’t looking out for the people, and has biotech’s interests in mind. Natural Society also made a petition you can sign here.

So while a huge number of countries throughout the world are smart enough to stand up against Monsanto and their biotech buddies, HR 1599 is almost on the books as a law that will prohibit mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (GMOs) at both the state and federal levels.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 64 Nations Say No to GMO, Yet US Government Nears Illegal GMO Labeling

NED’s duplicitous mission statement indicates a “dedicat(ion) to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world.”

Its practices are polar opposite – a State Department-funded agency created to undermine democracy wherever it exists.

It’s a global mischief-maker – a rogue agency financing anti-democratic groups and initiatives in scores of countries worldwide. Its objective is regime change – notably in independent nations like Russia. It subversively interferes in its electoral practices among other ways of targeting its sovereignty.

Moscow’s mid-year 2015 enacted Law on Undesirable Organizations justifiably targets foreign organizations posing a “threat to the constitutional order and defense capability or the security of the Russian state” – subversive groups no governments should tolerate.

On July 28, Russian Deputy Chief Prosecutor Vladimir Malinovsky

“signed a decree recognizing the activities of the National Endowment for Democracy, a foreign non-commercial organization, as undesirable in the territory of Russia in compliance with a law on measures of impacting people linked to the violation of basic human rights and freedoms and the rights and freedoms of the citizens of Russia.”

The document was sent to Russia’s Justice Ministry – including NED in its register of undesirable foreign organizations.

Action against the organization was long overdue along with targeting other US subversive ones. More on them below. Washington works aggressively against Russian interests – a longstanding campaign to marginalize, contain, weaken and isolate Moscow, with internal subversion one of many methods used.

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov called the undesirable organizations law “without any question a step in the right direction.” Many so-called NGOs (like NED) are agents of foreign governments.

In late May, Putin signed the new measure into law. It lets the Prosecutor General’s Office and Foreign Ministry declare activities of “undesirable foreign organizations” illegal – ones posing a “threat to the constitutional order and defense capability, or to the security of the Russian state.”

Non-compliance is punishable by administrative penalties. Repeated violations mandate imprisonment for up to six years. Russian citizens and organizations working with banned groups face fines only.

Russia’s 2012 Foreign Agents Law requires NGOs engaged in political activities to register as foreign agents or face stiff fines. They’re prohibited from supporting political parties. They’re free to engage in other activities.

NED is a longstanding political meddler. It’s named in a Russian upper house Federation Council “patriotic stop-list” – groups considered potentially threatening national security.

Speaker Valentina Matviyenko said the list was created out of concern about foreign organizations operating subversively in Russia.

A Federation Council statement said “(t)oday Russia faces its strongest attack in the past 25 years, targeting its national interests, values and institutes.”

Its main goal is to influence the internal political situation in the country, undermine the patriotic unity of our people, undermine the integration processes within the CIS space and force our country into geopolitical isolation.

Groups included in the Federation Council’s stop-list are “known for their anti-Russian bias.” They include:

NED, the Open Society Institute, the International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute, MacArthur Foundation, Freedom House;  Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Polish-based Education for Democracy Foundation, East European Democratic Center, Ukrainian World Congress, Ukrainian World Coordinating Council, and Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]

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

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Kicked out of Russia: Moscow Challenges Washington’s Orwellian “National Endowment for Democracy”

Does foreign investment make the US economy more vulnerable?

Apparently the New York Times believes it does. A lengthy article on the growth of Chinese foreign investment told readers:

But the show of financial strength [foreign investment by China] also makes China — and the world — more vulnerable. Long an engine of global growth, China is taking on new risks by exposing itself to shaky political regimes, volatile emerging markets and other economic forces beyond its control.

Any major problems could weigh on China’s growth, particularly at a time when it is already slowing.

Usually investing in other countries is thought to both increase returns to the country doing the investment and diversify risks, since it is unlikely that foreign countries will be subject to the same problems that may be hitting China (or the US) at the same time. It is interesting that the New York Times seems to hold the opposite perspective.

A New York Times graphic shows the share of Chinese investment in “risky countries” (red) and countries that are “not risky” (green).

The piece seems to imply that China is unusual in the demands it makes on the countries in which it invests:

China is forcing countries to play by its financial rules, which can be onerous. Many developing countries, in exchange for loans, pay steep interest rates and give up the rights to their natural resources for years. China has a lock on close to 90 percent of Ecuador’s oil exports, which mostly goes to paying off its loans.

The United States took the lead in establishing the International Monetary Fund, which often acts as its agent in disputes. For example, in the East Asian financial crisis, the IMF imposed very detailed programs on the countries of the region, which set tax and spending schedules, changed regulations throughout the economy and required the privatization of various industries. The conditions placed by China on the countries in which it invests may be different, but they are not without precedent.

The piece also bizarrely implies that labor abuses by US companies or their contractors are a thing of the past, telling readers:

Chinese mining and manufacturing operations, like many American and European companies in previous decades, have been accused of abusing workers overseas.

Of course there are many places in the world, most notably Bangladesh and Cambodia, where there are regular reports of workers, often children, working long hours in dangerous conditions to make goods under contract with U.S. corporations. Sometimes these workers are held against their will and have their pay stolen by their employers. This is an ongoing problem, not a historical concern.

In discussing the new Chinese infrastructure bank, the piece tells readers:

Washington is worried that China will create its own rules, with lower expectations for transparency, governance and the environment.

It would be helpful to know who in Washington says they are worried about these issues. Presumably all of Washington does not have these concerns. Also, just because politicians say these are their concerns, it doesn’t mean they are their actual concerns. For example, it may just be possible they fear competition from a Chinese investment bank.

Thanks to Keane Bhatt for calling this piece to my attention.

Economist Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. A version of this post originally appeared on CEPR’s blog Beat the Press (7/28/15).

You can send a message to the New York Times at [email protected], or to public editor Margaret Sullivan at [email protected] (Twitter:@NYTimes or @Sulliview). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on For the New York Times, US Labor Abuses Abroad Are a Thing of Decades Past

The Kurdish militias (YPG, PKK) have been Washington’s most effective weapon in the Fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But the Obama administration has sold out the Kurds in order to strengthen ties with Turkey and gain access to Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base. The agreement to switch sides was made in phone call between President Obama and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan less than 48 hours after a terrorist incident in the Turkish town of Suruc killed 32 people and wounded more than 100 others.

The bombing provided Obama with the cover he needed to throw the Kurds under the bus, cave in to Turkey’s demands, and look the other way while Turkish bombers and tanks pounded Kurdish positions in Syria and Iraq. The media has characterized this shocking reversal of US policy as a “game-changer” that will improve US prospects for victory over ISIS. But what the about-face really shows is Washington’s inability to conduct a principled foreign policy as well as Obama’s eagerness to betray a trusted friend and ally if he sees some advantage in doing so.

Turkish President Erdogan has launched a war against the Kurds; that is what’s really happening in Syria at present. The media’s view of events–that Turkey has joined the fight against ISIS–is mostly spin and propaganda. The fact that the Kurds had been gaining ground against ISIS in areas along the Turkish border, worried political leaders in Ankara that an independent Kurdish state could be emerging. Determined to stop that possibility,  they decided to use the bombing in Suruc as an excuse to round up more than 1,000 of Erdogans political enemies (only a small percentage of who are connected to ISIS) while bombing the holy hell out of Kurdish positions in Syria and Iraq. All the while, the media has been portraying this ruthless assault on a de facto US ally, as a war on ISIS. It is not a war on ISIS. It is the manipulation of a terrorist attack to advance the belligerent geopolitical agenda of Turkish and US elites. Just take a look at these two tweets from CNN Turkey on Saturday and you’ll see what’s going on under the radar:

@CNNTURK_ENG:
#BREAKING Sources tell CNN Türk last night Turkish jets made 159 sorties against #PKK camps in N.Iraq&hit 400 targetspic.twitter.com/oGVJmKsGbs

@CNNTURK_ENG:
#BREAKING Sources tell CNN Türk last night there was no air strike against #ISIS, targets were hit by tank fire near #Kilis.
(The tweets first appeared at Moon of Alabama)

Repeat: 159 air attacks on Kurdish positions and ZERO on ISIS targets. And the media wants us to believe that Turkey has joined Obama’s war on ISIS?

The Turks know who they’re bombing. They are bombing their 30-year long enemy, the Kurds.  Here’s more on the topic from Telesur:

A decades-old conflict between Turkey and the Kurdish PKK has been reignited. Turkey vowed Saturday to continue attacks against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), along with strikes against the Islamic State group.

The operations will continue for as long as threats against Turkey continue,” Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said, according to Turkey’s Anadolu Agency.

Ankara also confirmed it carried out airstrikes against PKK sites in Iraq. While Davutoglu said any organizations that “threaten” Turkey would be targeted in a crackdown on militants, on Friday President Tayyip Erdogan said the PKK would be the main focus of attacks.”  (“Turkey Says More Anti-PKK Strikes to Come“, Telesur)

Repeat: “Erdogan said the PKK would be the main focus of attacks.

For Washington, it’s all a question of priorities. While the Kurds have been good friends and steadfast allies,  they don’t have a spanking-new air base for launching attacks on Syria. Turkey, on the other hand, has a great base (Incirlik ) that’s much closer to the frontlines and just perfect for launching multiple sorties, drone attacks or routine surveillance fly-overs.  The only glitch, of course, is that Washington will have to bite its tongue while a former ally is beaten to a pulp. That’s a price that Obama is more than willing to pay provided he can use the airfield to prosecute his war.

It’s worth noting, that Turkey’s relationship with jihadi groups in Syria is a matter of great concern, mainly because Turkey appears to be the terrorists biggest benefactor.  Check this out from Turkey’s Hurriyet Daily News:

Naturally, one has to ask who fathered, breastfed and nourished these Islamist terrorists in hopes and aspirations of creating a Sunni Muslim Brotherhood Khalifat state? Even when Kobane and many Turkish cities were on fire, did not the Turkish prime minister talk in his interview with CNN about his readiness to order land troops into the Syrian quagmire if Washington agreed to also target al-Assad?
This is a dirty game….” (Editorial, “Kobane and Turkey are Burning“, Hurriyet Daily News)

And here’s more from author Nafeez Ahmed:

With their command and control centre based in Istanbul, Turkey, military supplies from Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular were transported by Turkish intelligence to the border for rebel acquisition. CIA operatives along with Israeli and Jordanian commandos were also training FSA rebels on the Jordanian-Syrian border with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. In addition, other reports show that British and French military were also involved in these secret training programmes. It appears that the same FSA rebels receiving this elite training went straight into ISIS – last month one ISIS commander, Abu Yusaf, said, “Many of the FSA people who the west has trained are actually joining us. (“How the West Created the Islamic State“, Nafeez Ahmed, CounterPunch)

Then there’s this from USA Today:

Militants have funneled weapons and fighters through Turkey into Syria. The Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, have networks in Turkey….

Turkish security and intelligence services may have ties to Islamic State militants. The group released 46 Turkish diplomats it had abducted the day before the United States launched airstrikes against it. Turkey, a NATO member, may have known the airstrikes were about to begin and pressured its contacts in the Islamic State to release its diplomats.

This implies Turkey has more influence or stronger ties to ISIS than people would think,” Tanir said. (“5 reasons Turkey isn’t attacking Islamic State in Syria”, USA Today)

The media would like people to believe that the bombing in Suruc changed everything; that Erdogan and his fellows suddenly saw the light and decided that, well, maybe we shouldn’t be supporting these ISIS thugs after all. But that’s just baloney. The only one who’s changed his mind about anything is Obama who seems to have realized that his takfiri proxy-warriors aren’t ruthless enough to remove Assad, so he’s decided to team up with Sultan Erdogan instead.  That means Erdogan gets a green light to butcher as many Kurds as he wants in exchange for boots on the ground to topple Assad. That’s the deal, although, at present, the politicians are denying it. Now check out this blurb from Foreign Policy “Situation Report”:

The nominee to be the next commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Robert Neller, didn’t really get off to a great start in his relationship with Senate Armed Services Committee chief Sen. John McCain. The general drew the ire of the Arizona lawmaker by telling the panel on Thursday that the Islamic State is essentially fighting to a draw in Iraq and Syria. McCain took the opportunity and ran with it, telling the Iraq vet that “I’m very disappointed in a number of your answers,” on the Islamic State, promising to send along more questions to push the general on his views. It was an unexpected ending to what had been a hum-drum confirmation hearing, and if McCain wants to press the issue, it could hold up a vote on Neller’s confirmation until after the August congressional recess. (Situation Report“, ForeignPolicy.com)

The point is, the Big Brass is telling US policymakers that ISIS  is notgoing to win the war, which means that Assad is going to stay in power.  That’s why Obama has moved on to Plan B and thrown his lot with Erdogan, because the Pentagon bigshots finally realize they’re going to need boots on the ground if they want regime change in Syria. But “whose boots”, that’s the question?

Not U.S. boots, that’s for sure. Americans have had it up to here with war and are not likely to support another bloody fiasco in the Middle East. That’s where Erdogan comes into the picture. Washington wants Turkey to do the heavy lifting while the US provides logistical support and air cover. That’s the basic gameplan. Naturally, the media can’t explain what’s really going on or it would blow Obama’s cover. But who doesn’t know that this whole campaign is aimed at removing Assad? You’d have to be living in a cave for the last three years not to know that.

The bottom line is that Erdogan has three demands. He wants a buffer zone on the Syrian side of the border to protect Turkey from ISIS and Kurdish attacks.  He wants a no-fly zone over all or parts of Syria. And he wants Syrian President Bashar al-Assad removed from power.  That’s what he wants and that’s what Obama has agreed to (as part of the Incirlik deal ) although the media is refuting the claim.   To help explain what’s going on, take a look at this article in  Reuters that was written back in October, 2014. Here’s an excerpt:

Turkey will fight against Islamic State and other “terrorist” groups in the region but will stick to its aim of seeing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad removed from power, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said on Wednesday…

We will (also) continue to prioritise our aim to remove the Syrian regime, to help protect the territorial integrity of Syria and to encourage a constitutional, parliamentary government system which embraces all (of its) citizens. …

But it (Turkey) fears that U.S.-led air strikes, if not accompanied by a broader political strategy, could strengthen Assad and bolster Kurdish militants allied to Kurds in Turkey who have fought for three decades for greater autonomy.

“Tons of air bombs will only delay the threat and danger,” Erdogan said…..

We are open and ready for any cooperation in the fight against terrorism. However, it should be understood by everybody that Turkey is not a country in pursuit of temporary solutions nor will Turkey allow others to take advantage of it. (“Turkey will fight Islamic State, wants Assad gone: President Erdogan“, Reuters)

That’s pretty clear, isn’t it?  Either the US helps Turkey get rid of Assad or there’s no deal. The Turkish president’s right-hand man, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, said the same thing  in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in February, 2015. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Turkey would be willing to put its troops on the ground in Syria “if others do their part,” Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in an interview that aired Monday.

We are ready to do everything if there is a clear strategy that after ISIS, we can be sure that our border will be protected. We don’t want the regime anymore on our border pushing people against — towards Turkey. We don’t want other terrorist organizations to be active there.”…

He said that American airstrikes in Syria were necessary but not enough for a victory.
“If ISIS goes, another radical organization may come in,” he said. “So our approach should be comprehensive, inclusive, strategic and combined …  to eliminate all brutal crimes against humanity committed by the regime.

“We want to have a no-fly zone. We want to have a safe haven on our border. Otherwise, all these burdens will continue to go on the shoulder of Turkey and other neighboring countries.”…

Turkey is trying to dispel the idea that the United States can become involved in Syria by going after ISIS but not al-Assad.” (“Turkey willing to put troops in Syria ‘if others do their part,’ Prime Minister says“, CNN)

Repeat: “Turkey would be willing to put its troops on the ground in Syria”, but Assad’s got to go. That’s the trade-off. Davutoglu has since backed off on this demand, but the basic deal hasn’t changed.  Leaders in the US and Turkey have just decided to be more discreet about what they tell the press. But the plan is moving forward.  For example, officials from the Obama administration have denied that they will provide a no-fly zone over Syria.  According to the New York Times, however, the US has agreed to create an “Islamic State-free zone” or “safe zone… controlled by relatively moderate Syrian insurgents.”   (“Turkey and U.S. Plan to Create Syria ‘Safe Zone’ Free of ISIS“, New York Times)

So the question is: Will the US provide air cover over this “Islamic State-free zone”?

Yes, it will.

Will Assad send his warplanes into this zone?

No, he won’t. He’d be crazy to do so.

Okay. Then what the US has created is a no-fly zone, right?  And this actually applies to all of Syria as well, now that US warplanes and drones are less than 500 miles from Damascus. The Incirlik deal means that the US will control the skies over Syria. Period. Here’s more from the Times trying to occlude the obvious details:

American officials say that this plan is not directed against Mr. Assad. They also say that while a de facto safe zone could indeed be a byproduct of the plan, a formal no-fly zone is not part of the deal. They said it was not included in the surprise agreement reached last week to let American warplanes take off from Turkish air bases to attack Islamic State fighters in Syria, even though Turkey had long said it would give that permission only in exchange for a no-fly zone…..(“Turkey and U.S. Plan to Create Syria ‘Safe Zone’ Free of ISIS”, New York Times)

What does this gibberish mean in English?  It means that, yes, the US has created a no-fly zone over Syria, but, no,  the administration’s public relations doesn’t want to talk about it because then they’d have to admit that Obama caved in to Turkish demands. Got that?

And just to show that the NYT hasn’t lost its sense of humor, here’s more in the same vein:

American officials in recent months have argued to Turkish counterparts that a formal no-fly zone is not necessary, noting that during hundreds of American-led strike missions against Islamic State in Syria, forces loyal to Mr. Assad have steered clear of areas under concerted allied attack….(NYT)

In other words, “American officials” are telling Erdogan that  ‘We don’t need to call this a no-fly zone, because once the F-16s start circling the skies over Damascus, Assad will get the message pretty quick.’

Can you believe that they would publish such circular palavering in the nation’s top newspaper?

And the same is true with the massive expropriation of Syrian sovereign territory, which the US and Turkey breezily refer to as  an “Islamic State-free zone”.  This just proves that Obama caved in to another one of Erdogan’s three demands, the demand for a buffer zone on the Syrian side of the border. Not surprisingly, this blatant violation of Syrian sovereignty hasn’t even raised an eyebrow at the United Nations where delegates have gotten so used to Washington’s erratic behavior that they don’t even pay attention anymore.

By the way, this issue of setting up buffer zones, shouldn’t be taken lightly. As State Department spokesman Mark Toner opined just weeks ago, “We’d essentially be opening the door to the dissolution of the Syrian nation-state.”

Indeed, isn’t that the point? Aside from the fact, that these “protected areas” will be used as launching grounds for attacks on the central government, they’ll also become autonomous regions consistent with the US strategy to redraw the map of the Middle East by breaking Iraq and Syria into smaller, tribal-governed cantons incapable of challenging regional hegemon, Israel, or global superpower, the US.  Author Thomas Gaist provides a little background on this phenom in a post at the World Socialist Web Site:

In a brief published Tuesday, “Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war,” the Brookings Institution detailed the application of this neocolonial strategy in Syria….The Brookings report argued that a “comprehensive, national-level solution” is no longer possible, and called for the carving out of “autonomous zones.

The only realistic path forward may be a plan that in effect deconstructs Syria,” the report argued. The US and its allies should seek “to create pockets with more viable security and governance within Syria.

This “confederal Syria” would be composed of “highly autonomous zones,” the report said, and would be supported militarily by the deployment of US-NATO forces into the newly carved-out occupation areas, including deployment of “multilateral support teams, grounded in special forces detachments and air-defense capabilities.

Past collaboration with extremist elements of the insurgency would not itself be viewed as a scarlet letter,” the Brookings report argued, making clear the extremist militant groups which have served as US proxy forces against the Assad government will not be excluded from the new partition of Syria. (“Turkey, Jordan discuss moves to seize territory in Syria“, Thomas Gaist, World Socialist Web Site)

Isn’t this precisely the strategy that is unfolding in Syria and Iraq today?

Of course, it is. Everything you’ve been reading about “Islamic State-free zones”, “safety zones”, or “no-fly zones”  is lies. I won’t even dignify it by calling it propaganda. It’s not.  Just like the idea that this new buffer zone (carved out of Syrian territory) is going to be administered by “relatively moderate Syrian insurgents”. (which is the NYT’s new innocuous-sounding sobriquet for al-Qaida terrorists.)  That’s another lie that’s intended to divert attention from the real plan, which is the Turkish occupation of Syrian territory consistent with Erdogan’s and Davutoglu’s commitment to put boots on the ground if the US agrees to their demands. Which Obama has, although the media denies it.

The US is not going to entrust this captured territory to “relatively moderate Syrian insurgents”, because as Gen. Robert Neller already admitted to McCain, the jihadis aren’t winning.  In other words, the jihadi plan is a flop. That’s what this whole Turkey-US alliance-thing is all about. It is a major shift in the fundamental policy. There’s going to be a ground invasion, and the Turks are going to supply the troops. It’s only a matter of time. Here’s how analyst Gaist sums it up:

Having failed to remove Assad using proxy militia forces alone, Washington is now contemplating the direct invasion of Syria by outside military forces for the purpose of carving out a large area of the country to be subsequently occupied by US and NATO troops. Plans for a new imperialist division of Syria and the broader Middle East have been brewing within the US ruling elite for decades.  (“Turkey, Jordan discuss moves to seize territory in Syria“, Thomas Gaist, World Socialist Web Site)

Naturally, Obama’s not going to tell the media what he’s up to. But that’s the plan.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Politics of Betrayal: Obama Backstabs Kurds to Appease Turkey