All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Six years of punishing economic sanctions have had a “devastating” humanitarian impact on Venezuela, the United Nations Special Rapporteur writes in a scathing report made public last month. It calls on the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union to lift the economic sanctions that have strangled Venezuela’s economy in violation of international law. 

The “Venezuelan government’s revenue shrunk by 99 percent, with the country currently living on 1 percent of its pre-sanctions income,” the report says, impeding “the ability of Venezuela to respond to the COVID-19 emergency.”

Moreover, the sanctions are “violations of international law” that have exacerbated Venezuela’s economic crisis with “ineffective and insufficient” carve-outs for humanitarian issues, said Alina Douhan, the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur. The report urges “the governments of the United Kingdom, Portugal and the United States and corresponding banks to unfreeze assets of the Venezuela Central Bank to purchase medicine, vaccines, food, medical and other equipment.” This would free up about $6 billion in frozen Venezuelan foreign assets so that Maduro’s government could purchase needed supplies to combat the pandemic.

On March 2, Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke with Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido on the phone. The United States has recognized Guaido as the rightful leader of Venezuela since January 2019 when he invoked the constitution to assume an interim presidency, arguing President Nicolas Maduro’s 2018 re-election was fraudulent.

On this phone call, Blinken emphasized the need to”increase multilateral pressure and press for a peaceful, democratic transition,” according to the State Department readout, suggesting that Washington will continue Trump-era pressure on Maduro to step aside — a move that is unlikely to happen, considering that Guaido has not yet coalesced an opposition on the ground strong enough to make him go.

Nevertheless, Guaido told an Argentine television channel March 2 that he had spoken with Blinken and Canadian Foreign Minister Marc Garneau “as part of the agenda of international alliances to rescue democracy in Venezuela.”

Meanwhile, a White House official told Reuters that the Biden administration is in “no rush” to lift U.S. sanctions on Venezuela. If Maduro takes confidence-building steps and shows he is ready to negotiate seriously with the opposition, the Biden administration “would consider” easing them, said the official.

As though playing right into official Washington’s hands, English-language media frequently portrays Venezuela’s grinding poverty as the direct result of Maduro’s corrupt leadership. Although an increasingly punishing campaign of economic sanctions have been in place, imposed by the United States, UK and EU since 2015, American and British news reports almost never mention them, or the crippling effect they have had on Venezuela’s ability to purchase desperately needed food and medical supplies.

John McEvoy with the media watchdog group FAIR recently highlighted that several mainstream  media outlets completely ignored the U.N. report. With the sole exception of CNN, none of the major media outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, BBC, the Guardian, CNBC, CBS, or the AP, covered the damning report on the humanitarian crisis currently unfolding in Venezuela.

Since the United States began its economic warfare campaign against oil-rich Venezuela in 2015, Venezuela has suffered from one of the world’s biggest displacement crises. An estimated 4 to 5 million Venezuelans have left in search of a better life, with its overall population estimated to fall to 27 million by 2021. Some 3.2 million children in Venezuela — or one in three — are in need of humanitarian assistance, according to the U.N. Children’s Fund. Since sanctions began six years ago, malnutrition has steadily risen, with now over 2.5 million Venezuelans classified as severely food insecure. As a consequence, the country has seen an increase in family crises, violence and separations, child labor, drug and human trafficking, forced labor, and migration.

The U.N. report describes a dystopia difficult for the average American to imagine: electricity lines that work at less than 20 percent of their capacity; public service agencies staffed at less than 30 to 50 percent their pre-crisis levels; even professional positions like doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, professors, judges, and police officers go mostly unfilled, resulting in internal disorganization in the country, and increased workloads for those employees who do remain in their posts.

The campaign to overthrow the Venezuelan government, the report adds, “violates the principle of sovereign equality of states and constitutes an intervention in domestic affairs of Venezuela that also affects its regional relations.”

The ever-increasing rounds of sanctions imposed on Venezuela have only increased the suffering on the poorest of the poor, at the worst possible time, while a global pandemic rages and the need for medical supplies is critical.

“Although sanctions do not seem to be physical warfare weapons, they are just as deadly, if not more so. Jeopardising the health of populations for political ends is not only illegal but also barbaric,” notes the Lancet, in a March 18 report about the U.S. “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran.

The United States and Venezuela have been down this road before with sanctions — sadly, we already know how this ends.

In 2019, mortality rates in five year-olds in Venezuela had doubled and children were succumbing to diseases like diphtheria and measles. UNICEF supplied 55 tons of medical supplies to 25 hospitals in Caracas, including midwifery kits, antibiotics, and malaria treatments to make up for shortfalls due to U.S. sanctions imposed that year by President Donald Trump.

By 2019, the medical journal Lancet reported that the impact of U.S. “sanctions on the Venezuelan population cannot be overstated.” Over 300,000 Venezuelans were at risk due to a shortage of medications and treatment, and an estimated 80,000 HIV-positive patients had no access to antiretroviral therapy since 2017. There were insulin shortages because U.S. banks refused to handle Venezuelan payments.

“Thousands to millions of people have been without access to dialysis, cancer treatment, or therapy for hypertension and diabetes. Particular to children has been the delay of vaccination campaigns or lack of access to antirejection medications after solid organ transplants in Argentina,” reports The Lancet. “Children with leukemia awaiting bone marrow transplants abroad are now dying. Funds for such health-assistance programmes come from the PDVSA state oil company. Those funds are now frozen.”

According to the U.N. Human Rights Council,

“The use of economic sanctions for political purposes violates human rights and the norms of international behavior. Such actions may precipitate man-made humanitarian catastrophes of unprecedented proportions. Regime change through economic measures likely to lead to the denial of basic human rights and indeed possibly to starvation, has never been an accepted practice of international relations.”

Earlier sanctions imposed between 2017-2018 were responsible for 40,000 deaths in Venezuela, according to economists Drs. Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs from the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

“We find that the sanctions have inflicted, and increasingly inflict, very serious harm to human life and health, including an estimated more than 40,000 deaths from 2017–2018; and that these sanctions would fit the definition of collective punishment of the civilian population as described in both the Geneva and Hague international conventions, to which the US is a signatory. They are also illegal under international law and treaties which the US has signed, and would appear to violate US law as well.”

Occasionally, U.S. officials have admitted the purpose of the sanctions, which is to force hostile governments into submission.

On March 22, 2019, a senior U.S. government official bragged that the “effect of the sanctions” against Venezuela “is continuing and cumulative.”

“It’s sort of like in Star Wars when Darth Vader constricts somebody’s throat, that’s what we are doing to the regime economically,” said the senior official, reported Univision.

Though Trump’s senior official is off the record, at the same meeting, National Security Director John Bolton put “the entire banking sector on notice and announced that persons operating in Venezuela’s financial sector may be subject to sanctions.”

U.S. Attorney General William Barr announced that it was “good timing, actually” to pile additional sanctions on Venezuela and Iran near the end of March 2020.

Although both countries were facing the coronavirus pandemic, in addition to the already daunting problems the countries had, Barr called this a “kick them while they’re down” approach, saying the Trump administration could capitalize on the COVID-19 pandemic to potentially spur their populations towards regime change.

Far from bringing about regime change, however, we now know this approach instead caused barbaric suffering in Venezuela among its most vulnerable populations.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration appears remained committed to pursuing the twin policies of economic sanctions and what they call “democratic transition,” as it confirmed last week during a State Department press briefing. When asked directly about whether Maduro “must go,” Price dodged the question, instead saying:

We believe and we support the democratic aspirations of the people of Venezuela. That is why we are committed to supporting the people through humanitarian measures and also targeting regime officials and their cronies involved in human rights abuses and corruption.

It’s time for officials in Washington to leave these failed policies in the past. The Biden administration should let go of any regime change aspirations left over from the Trump administration and lift sanctions, and let humanitarian aid reach Venezuela as quickly as possible.

*

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

Featured image: The US government continues to view Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido (left) as the rightful leader of Venezuela, not Nicolas Maduro (right). (Alexandros Michailidis/StringerAl/Shutterstock) 

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

March 19th, 2021 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on This Week’s Most Popular Articles

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

This article was originally published in March 2018.

March 19 2021 marks 18 years since the U.S.-U.K invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the American people have no idea of the enormity of the calamity the invasion unleashed. The US military has refused to keep a tally of Iraqi deaths. General Tommy Franks, the man in charge of the initial invasion, bluntly told reporters, “We don’t do body counts.” One survey found that most Americans thought Iraqi deaths were in the tens of thousands. But our calculations, using the best information available, show a catastrophic estimate of 2.4 million Iraqi deaths since the 2003 invasion.

The number of Iraqi casualties is not just a historical dispute, because the killing is still going on today. Since several major cities in Iraq and Syria fell to Islamic State in 2014, the U.S. has led the heaviest bombing campaign since the American War in Vietnam, dropping 105,000 bombs and missiles and reducing most of Mosul and other contested Iraqi and Syrian cities to rubble.

An Iraqi Kurdish intelligence report estimated that at least 40,000 civilians were killed in the bombardment of Mosul alone, with many more bodies still buried in the rubble.  A recent project to remove rubble and recover bodies in just one neighborhood found 3,353 more bodies, of whom only 20% were identified as ISIS fighters and 80% as civilians. Another 11,000 people in Mosul are still reported missing by their families.

Of the countries where the U.S. and its allies have been waging war since 2001, Iraq is the only one where epidemiologists have actually conducted comprehensive mortality studies based on the best practices that they have developed in war zones such as Angola, Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Kosovo, Rwanda, Sudan and Uganda. In all these countries, as in Iraq, the results of comprehensive epidemiological studies revealed 5 to 20 times more deaths than previously published figures based on “passive” reporting by journalists, NGOs or governments.

Two such reports on Iraq came out in the prestigious The Lancet medical journal, first in 2004 and then in 2006. The 2006 study estimated that about 600,000 Iraqis were killed in the first 40 months of war and occupation in Iraq, along with 54,000 non-violent but still war-related deaths.

The US and UK governments dismissed the report, saying that the methodology was not credible and that the numbers were hugely exaggerated. In countries where Western military forces have not been involved, however, similar studies have been accepted and widely cited without question or controversy. Based on advice from their scientific advisers, British government officials privately admitted that the 2006 Lancet report was “likely to be right,” but precisely because of its legal and political implications, the U.S. and British governments led a cynical campaign to discredit it.

A 2015 report by Physicians for Social Responsibility, Body Count: Casualty Figures After 10 Years of the ‘War on Terror,” found the 2006 Lancet study more reliable than other mortality studies conducted in Iraq, citing its robust study design, the experience and independence of the research team, the short time elapsed since the deaths it documented and its consistency with other measures of violence in occupied Iraq.

The Lancet study was conducted over 11 years ago, after only 40 months of war and occupation. Tragically, that was nowhere near the end of the deadly consequences of the Iraq invasion.

In June 2007, a British polling firm, Opinion Research Business (ORB), conducted a further study and estimated that 1,033,000 Iraqis had been killed by then.

While the figure of a million people killed was shocking, the Lancet study had documented steadily increasing violence in occupied Iraq between 2003 and 2006, with 328,000 deaths in the final year it covered. ORB’s finding that another 430,000 Iraqis were killed in the following year was consistent with other evidence of escalating violence through late 2006 and early 2007.

Just Foreign Policy’s “Iraqi Death Estimator” updated the Lancet study’s estimate by multiplying passively reported deaths compiled by British NGO Iraq Body Count by the same ratio found in 2006. This project was discontinued in September 2011, with its estimate of Iraqi deaths standing at 1.45 million.

Taking ORB’s estimate of 1.033 million killed by June 2007, then applying a variation of Just Foreign Policy’s methodology from July 2007 to the present using revised figures from Iraq Body Count, we estimate that 2.4 million Iraqis have been killed since 2003 as a result of our country’s illegal invasion, with a minimum of 1.5 million and a maximum of 3.4 million.

These calculations cannot possibly be as accurate or reliable as a rigorous up-to-date mortality study, which is urgently needed in Iraq and in each of the countries afflicted by war since 2001.  But in our judgment, it is important to make the most accurate estimate we can.

Numbers are numbing, especially numbers that rise into the millions. Please remember that each person killed represents someone’s loved one. These are mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sons, daughters. One death impacts an entire community; collectively, they impact  an entire nation.

As we begin the 16th year of the Iraq war, the American public must come to terms with the scale of the violence and chaos we have unleashed in Iraq. Only then may we find the political will to bring this horrific cycle of violence to an end, to replace war with diplomacy and hostility with friendship, as we have begun to do with Iran and as the people of North and South Korea are trying to do to avoid meeting a similar fate to that of Iraq.

*

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace, is the author of the new book, Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection. Her previous books include: Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote ControlDon’t Be Afraid Gringo: A Honduran Woman Speaks from the Heart, and (with Jodie Evans) Stop the Next War Now (Inner Ocean Action Guide). Follow her on Twitter: @medeabenjamin

Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq and of the chapter on “Obama At War” in Grading the 44th President: A Report Card on Barack Obama’s First Term as a Progressive Leader.

Featured image is from Oxfam International.

Dilma Rousseff

Brazil’s Lula in a Wilderness of Mirrors

By Pepe Escobar, March 18 2021

A surprising Supreme Court decision that, while not definitive, restores Lula’s political rights has hit Brazil like a semiotic bomb and plunged the nation into a reality show being played in a wilderness of shattered mirrors.

UK Breaks Law on Nukes: Boris Johnson Announced a 40% Increase in Britain’s Nuclear Arsenal

By Kate Hudson, March 18 2021

Yesterday Boris Johnson announced a 40% increase in Britain’s nuclear arsenal. Today the arsenal stands at around 200 nuclear warheads. Each is about 8 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb which killed over 200,000 people.

Myanmar: Hidden Opposition Violence

By Brian Berletic, March 18 2021

As is common with US-backed color revolutions around the globe, the Western media will attempt to cover up opposition violence for as long as possible until shifting the narrative toward a “reluctant civil war” in which opposition groups were “given no choice” but to take up arms.
.

A Budget to Defend the American People, Not the Weapons Makers

By Tristan Guyette, March 18 2021

Policymakers insist that they cannot afford to provide relief to millions of Americans struggling during a pandemic, cannot afford to provide universal health care, and cannot find funds for education. Despite this, the massive National Defense Authorization Act passes each year.

How the US Military Subverted the Afghan Peace Agreement to Prolong an Unpopular War

By Gareth Porter, March 18 2021

Appointed in the final days of Trump’s presidency to remove all US troops from Afghanistan, Douglas Macgregor tells The Grayzone how military leadership undermined the withdrawal and pressured Trump to capitulate.

China Advances in South America

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, March 18 2021

Washington’s gradual “negligence” in relation to the countries of the south of the American continent has opened up more and more space for the Chinese approach in the region.

“Russia-AgainGate”: Dead-End In US-Russia Relations? Putin “Must Pay A Price” for Election Meddling, Says Biden

By Stephen Lendman, March 18 2021

Given their world’s largest thermonuclear arsenals, other super-weapons, and long-range delivery capabilities able to strike targets everywhere with precision accuracy, no bilateral relationship is more crucial to keep peaceful and cooperative.

India’s Cunning De-escalation after Setting Kashmir Alight

By Tom Hussain, March 18 2021

Within the space of five years, they have meticulously manipulated the Kashmir dispute in ways which few if any people foresaw. Now they have managed to negotiate a de-escalation along both fronts in Kashmir set alight by their brinkmanship.

Palestinian Elections: Abbas Moves to Stamp Out Constructive, Strategic Change within Fatah

By Rima Najjar, March 18 2021

The 85-year-old Abbas is trying to nip in the bud this homegrown challenge to Fatah’s autocratic grip on the West Bank, once again demonstrating how averse the PA’s structure is to a true national liberation project.

Vaccine Passports, “Medical Martial Law” and the Stockholm Syndrome

By Jesse Smith, March 18 2021

Almost one year ago, former President Trump declared a national emergency and the White House announced a 15-day plan to slow the spread of the coronavirus. The upsurge in totalitarianism since these edicts were installed is mind-boggling.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Brazil’s Lula in a Wilderness of Mirrors, UK Breaks Law on Nukes, Myanmar: Hidden Opposition Violence

Manlio Dinucci, esperto di geopolitica e geografia umana, giornalista presso il Manifesto, scrittore di successo e curatore della rubrica L’Arte della guerra, interviene oggi sui temi del Sars-Cov2 evidenziandone la dimensione geopolitica e biopolitica.

Nel 2019, molto prima dello scoppio della pandemia in Cina, ci furono numerose operazioni in ambito speculativo finanziario che trovarono giustificazione solo a pandemia avvenuta. Ma come potevano saperlo prima? Il virus potrebbe anche avere un’origine naturale, ma ad oggi abbiamo le prove che l’emergenza sanitario politica è stata preparata.

Sentenza lapidaria che dovrebbe portare a riflettere chiunque abbia compreso il ruolo che hanno i mercati finanziari nel contesto postdemocratico descritto dal sociologo Colin Crouch.

Dinucci prosegue poi con denunciare il documento col quale la Rockfeller Foundation descriveva un mondo senza proprietà privata, completamente sotto il controllo delle multinazionali, che si stanno riconfigurando come moderni feudi di natura economica.

Tra i temi caldi,  la necessità di costruire un piano  di resistenza organizzato finalizzato ad una rinascita, e la necessità di recuperare le generazioni danneggiate dalla cultura del Covid.

E ancora la necessità di prender distanza dalla tanto decantata resilienza, laddove il cittadino per non spezzarsi è disposto a piegarsi, in favore del recupero di una cultura della resistenza. La resistenza è quella disposizione d’animo che non cede e non concede.

L’intervento si è dimostrato profondo e di ampio respiro, e ha saputo ricostruire la trama che collega l’emergenza pandemica ai desideri proibiti del potere. E le domande sono arrivate copiose.

Segui l’intervento completo!

***

 

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on VIDEO – Covid, Geopolitica e Geografia economica, incontro con Manlio Dinucci

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

In short order since replacing Trump two months ago by brazen election rigging, Biden and hardliners in charge of his geopolitical agenda have gone all out to wreck already greatly deteriorated Russian/US relations.

What’s going on is madness that’s likely to deteriorate further, not improve.

Given their world’s largest thermonuclear arsenals, other super-weapons, and long-range delivery capabilities able to strike targets everywhere with precision accuracy, no bilateral relationship is more crucial to keep peaceful and cooperative.

During Cold War years, relations between both countries were largely civil. Mutually assured destruction (MAD) prevented the unthinkable.

Things changed dramatically after Obama/Biden replaced democratic rule in Ukraine with Nazi-infested fascist tyranny in Europe’s heartland, bordering Russia.

The color revolution got Crimeans to rejoin their motherland, choosing democratic freedom over fascism.

Donbass in Ukraine’s southeast broke away from Kiev for the same reason, refusing to accept tyrannical rule.

Washington falsely accused Russia of invading Ukraine.

Sanctions war followed for nonexistent “Russian aggression” and other invented pretexts.

Putin earlier explained that during Trump’s tenure, the US (unlawfully) sanctioned Russia 46 times.

US war by other means included going all-out to block completion of Russia’s Nord Stream II gas pipeline to Germany and the so-called Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) – targeting Russia, Iran and North Korea.

 

Despite Trump’s objections to the hostile measure, calling it “seriously flawed,” House and Senate members overwhelmingly adopted it, DJT signing it into law in August 2017.

Only 5 of 535 US lawmakers voted against it.

The measure sanctioned Russia for (nonexistent) US election meddling, permitting Crimeans to rejoin their motherland, and involvement of Moscow in Syria — combatting US-supported jihadists, turning the tide of war, changing the dynamic on the ground, enabling Damascus to regain control over most of the country.

Notably on Wednesday, Russia recalled its envoy to Washington Anatoly Antonov for consultations. See below.

It came in response to a contrived US intelligence community assessment (ICA), falsely saying:

“We assess that…Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the (Dem) Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US (sic).”

Like virtually always when Washington accuses invented adversaries of all sorts of things they had nothing to do with, no corroborating evidence is presented because none exists.

Along with the above, Biden threatened to make Putin “pay a price” for nonexistent Kremlin US election meddling and other phony pretexts, claiming Russia’s leader doesn’t “have a soul (sic).”

Asked if he thinks he’s “a killer,” he responded: “Uh-huh. I do,” adding:

“The price he’s gonna pay we’ll– you’ll see shortly.”

Hostile US actions and Biden’s tough talk dangerously escalated bilateral tensions.

While both countries maintain diplomatic relations, they’re effectively in tatters.

Escalating US war on nonbelligerent Russia threatening no one and Vladimir Putin personally could rupture ties altogether — risking confrontation by accident or design.

On Wednesday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the following:

Antonov was recalled to Moscow “for consultations conducted with the aim of analyzing what should be done and where to go in the context of ties with the US,” adding:

He’ll “fly to Moscow for consultations on March 20.”

“He will hold meetings at the Russian Foreign Ministry and other government agencies to discuss ways of correcting the Russian-US ties, which are now in a crisis.”

“The current situation stems from Washington’s deliberate policy.”

US hardliners “ha(ve) been deliberately driving bilateral cooperation to a dead end in the recent years.”

The Biden regime’s “non-constructive policy towards our country is in the interest of neither Russia nor the United States, and certain reckless statements of US senior officials pose a threat of utter collapse to bilateral relations, which are already excessively confrontational.”

On Wednesday at a State Department press briefing, Blinken’s deputy press secretary Jalina Porter said the following about Biden regime actions against Russia:

“(W)e engage in ways that advance American interests.”

“We also remain clear-eyed about the challenges that Russia pose (sic). We can’t underscore that enough (sic).”

“(E)ven as we work with Russia to advance US interests, we’ll be able to hold Russia accountable for any of their malign actions (sic).”

Separately, Zakharova accused the Biden regime of recklessly bringing Russian/US relations “to a dead end,” adding:

Because “the atmosphere is already heated enough, I will simply say that I cannot remember anything like that” earlier.

In response to fabricated US accusations, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called them “absolutely groundless and unsubstantiated.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stressed that Biden is wrecking any chance for normalizing bilateral relations.

While Moscow seeks to avoid “irreversible degradation of ties,” that’s where things are heading at this time.

The US bears full responsibility for what’s going on.

Much the same is happening with Sino/US relations.

Note: Russia Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will visit Beijing on March 22 and 23 — recent events surely to be a topic for discussion.

*

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

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

Featured image is from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Russia-AgainGate”: Dead-End In US-Russia Relations? Putin “Must Pay A Price” for Election Meddling, Says Biden
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

In children and young adults from age birth to 19, the survival rate of COVID-19 is 99.997%.1,2 In most cases, symptoms are mild or nonexistent. Among children who were hospitalized, 0.19% of children died from COVID-19, with researchers concluding in a 2021 study, “Hospitalization and in-hospital death are rare in children diagnosed with COVID-19.”3

Despite the fact that COVID-19 has had little impact, physically, to children, health officials are setting the stage for widespread vaccination of this population. The University of Oxford, which is collaborating on a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, is already enrolling children between the ages of 6 years and 17 years and 8 months in their U.K. vaccine trial.4

A COVID vaccine for infants and children is every bit as unnecessary, dangerous and foolish as the hepatitis B vaccine is for infants that I have been railing against for the past two decades.

Moderna is also enrolling 3,000 children between the ages of 12 and 17 to test their COVID-19 vaccine, using the same dose given to adults,5 while Pfizer also expanded its clinical trials to include children as young as 12.6 Johnson & Johnson even announced on February 28, 2021, that it plans to test its COVID-19 vaccine on infants, including newborn babies, pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems.

“They did not get into a lot of detail about it but did make it clear they will be pursuing pediatric and maternal coronavirus immunization studies,” Dr. Ofer Levy, a member of the FDA’s advisory committee who reviewed Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine data, told The New York Times.7

It’s Gene Therapy — Not a Vaccine

The COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine in the medical definition of a vaccine. It’s more accurately an experimental gene therapy, of which the effectiveness and safety are far from proven. During the first six weeks the vaccine was available, more than 500 post-vaccination deaths and nearly 11,000 other adverse events were reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).8

According to Children’s Health Defense (CHD), professor Dolores J. Cahill, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and immunologist, “expects to see successive waves of adverse reactions to the experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) injections ranging from anaphylaxis and other allergic responses to autoimmunity, sepsis and organ failure.”9

Considering that children are at extremely low risk from COVID-19, vaccination offers them far more risk than benefit, and parents may be understandably reluctant to volunteer their children to receive this experimental and unlicensed gene therapy. Public health officials have made it clear, however, that vaccination of children is expected. CHD reported:10

“Already last April — when next to nothing was known about COVID’s epidemiology, and candidate vaccines had barely begun to be studied — Bill Gates set the stage for the pediatric push, declaring that the end goal is to make COVID-19 vaccines ‘part of the routine newborn immunization schedule.’”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), also stated that 85% to 90% of the U.S. population, including children, will need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine before life can return to normal, and he suggested that first graders may be authorized to be vaccinated by September 2021.11

Using ‘Herd Immunity’ to Justify Vaccinating Children

Since children themselves have little reason to get a COVID-19 vaccine, health officials are spinning the notion that children must be vaccinated for the sake of herd immunity. Now, they want you to think that not only should you look at the people around you as vectors of disease, but also the children, who could be asymptomatic carriers, silently bringing a deadly disease to grandma’s house.

What’s being largely ignored, however, are the studies showing that children are not driving the COVID-19 pandemic and, in fact, appear less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults.12

“In short, public health leaders say, parents must ‘vaccinate the young to protect the old.’ Given the federal government’s estimate that one vaccine injury results from every 39 vaccines administered, it seems clear that officials expect children to shoulder 100% of the risks of COVID vaccination in exchange for zero benefit,” CHD noted.13

Herd immunity, which occurs when enough people acquire immunity to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community, is calculated using reproductive number, or R-naught (R0), which is the estimated number of new infections that may occur from one infected person.14

R0 of below 1 (with R1 meaning that one person who’s infected is expected to infect one other person) indicates that cases are declining while R0 above 1 suggests cases are on the rise. It’s far from an exact science, however, as a person’s susceptibility to infection varies depending on many factors, including their health, age and contacts within a community.

The initial R0 calculations for COVID-19’s HIT were based on assumptions that everyone has the same susceptibility and would be mixing randomly with others in the community. But a study published in Nature Reviews Immunology suggested that the herd immunity threshold for COVID-19 may need to be adjusted because children are less susceptible to the disease:15

“Another factor that may feed into a lower herd immunity threshold for COVID-19 is the role of children in viral transmission. Preliminary reports find that children, particularly those younger than 10 years, may be less susceptible and contagious than adults, in which case they may be partially omitted from the computation of herd immunity.”

COVID Gene Therapy May Not Prevent Transmission

Another point being largely ignored in the mainstream media is that it’s unknown if the COVID-19 vaccines prevent transmission, putting a major hole in the push for vaccine-driven herd immunity.

Unlike conventional vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent, the COVID-19 injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nanolipid carrier compound,16 the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.

They do not actually impart immunity or inhibit transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.17,18

At a virtual press conference held by the World Health Organization (WHO) on December 28, 2020, WHO officials warned there is no guarantee that COVID-19 vaccines will prevent people from being infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and transmitting it to other people.19

In a New Year’s Day interview with Newsweek, Fauci reinforced the WHO’s admission that health officials do not know if COVID-19 vaccines prevent infection or if people can spread the virus to others after getting vaccinated.20

Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in December 2020 for Pfizer/BioNTech21 and Moderna22 to release their experimental mRNA vaccines for use in the U.S., the companies only provided evidence from clinical trials to demonstrate that their vaccines prevented mild to severe COVID-19 disease symptoms in vaccinated participants compared to unvaccinated trial participants.

The companies did not investigate whether the vaccines prevent people from becoming asymptomatically infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and/or transmitting it to other people.23,24

Meanwhile, if you or your child recovered from COVID-19 or had an asymptomatic case, you likely already have some level of protective immunity25 — another factor being largely ignored in the push to vaccinate children. In fact, trials suggested there’s no benefit to getting vaccinated among those who have been previously infected with COVID-19.26

Fauci’s Involvement With Medical Patents

Watch the video here.

While Fauci is not named on the patent of Moderna’s vaccine, the NIH has a 50% stake in it,27 and the recognition that would come with a successful vaccine launch would certainly include Fauci. NIH scientists may also collect royalties from vaccines they’re involved with.28

The video above, with David E. Martin, Ph.D., a national intelligence analyst, also goes into detail about Fauci’s involvement with medical patents. Martin has pointed out that even though Moderna “very clearly did not have the legal right, and they did not have the contractual rights, they didn’t have the licensing rights” required to enter into a federal contract, they were still somehow pushed to the front of the line by the NIH and Fauci.

In the Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier prepared by Martin, he describes multiple criminal violations he believes are associated with “COVID-19 terrorism,” including gain of function research that was carried out by NIAID in violation of an NIH moratorium. Part of the dossier also spells out some of Fauci’s patents in detail along with the NIAID’s “economic bonanza”:29

“Since the passage of the Bayh Dole Act (Pub. L. 96-517, December 12, 1980), federally funded research has been an economic bonanza for U.S. universities, federal agencies, and their selected patronage. For the first decade following Bayh Dole, NIH funding doubled from $3.4 billion to $7.1 billion. A decade later, it doubled again to $15.6 billion.

In the wake of September 2001, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) saw its direct budget increase over 300% without accounting for DARPA funds of as much as $1.7 billion annually from 2005 forward. In 2020, NIH’s budget was over $41 billion.

What has become of the $763 billion of taxpayer funds allocated to making America healthier since inventors have been commercially incentivized? Who has been enriched? The answer, regrettably, is that no accountability exists to answer these questions. The NIH is the named owner of at least 138 patents since 1980.

The United States Department of Health and Human Services is the named owner of at least 2,600 patents. NIAID grants or collaboration have resulted in 2,655 patents and patent applications of which only 95 include an assignment to the Department of Health and Human Services as an owner.

… NIAID’s Director, Dr. Anthony Fauci is listed as an inventor on 8 granted U.S. patents. None of them are reported in NIAID, NIH, or GAO reports of active licensing despite the fact that Dr. Fauci reportedly was compelled to get paid for his interleukin-2 ‘invention’ — payments he reportedly donated to an unnamed charity.”

Conflicts Are Rampant

It’s worth noting that Moderna has no legal rights to a key patent for its vaccine delivery system, and company executives are among those who have dumped their stock. Both Moderna and the NIH are essentially engaged in patent infringement, as a core part of the technology — the lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology that is part of the vaccine delivery system — belongs to a small Canadian biotech company called Arbutus.30

Moderna sought to invalidate the patent owned by Arbutus Biopharma, but lost the challenge at the end of July 2020.31 After losing the challenge, Moderna said their LNP technology is actually far more advanced than Arbutus’ and claimed “the LNP used to make mRNA-1273, its Covid-19 vaccine candidate, is not covered by the Arbutus patent.”32 “In short,” the Dossier notes:33

“… while Moderna enjoys hundreds of millions of dollars of funding allegiance and advocacy from Anthony Fauci and his NIAID, since its inception, it has been engaged in illegal patent activity and demonstrated contempt for U.S. Patent law.

To make matters worse, the U.S. Government has given it financial backing in the face of undisclosed infringement risks potentially contributing to the very infringement for which they are indemnified.”

Conflicts of interest are also rampant at NIH, where, since 2012, health researchers receiving federal funding have reported more than 8,000 significant financial conflicts of interest totaling at least $188 million.34 In 2006,35 evidence was also uncovered showing that 916 NIH researchers had secretly received royalty payments for drugs and other inventions while working for the government.

Fauci was among those who had “received tens of thousands of dollars in royalties for an experimental AIDS treatment they invented [interleukin-2]. At the same time, their office has spent millions in tax dollars to test the treatment on patients across the globe.”

While it appears inevitable that the experimental COVID-19 gene therapy injections will soon be pushed on children, considering the many unanswered questions and conflicts in place, some may prefer to put off getting vaccinated against COVID-19 for as long as possible while waiting for the real truth to emerge.

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.

The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.

In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.

Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.

*

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

Notes

1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 Children’s Health Defense February 11, 2021

2 U.S. CDC, COVID-19 Planning Scenario

3 European Journal of Pediatrics January 20, 2021

4 Oxford University Vaccine Trial

5 WCVB January 28, 2021

6 Business Insider India October 13, 2020

7 The New York Times February 28, 2021

12 Pediatrics 2020; doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-004879

14 The New York Times April 23, 2020

15 Nat Rev Immunol. 2020 Sep 9 : 1–2

16 The Scientist November 25, 2020

17 Johns Hopkins Medicine January 21, 2021

18 World Health Organization January 26, 2021

19 World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) Press Briefings: Dec. 28, 2020

20 Kim S. Dr. Fauci on Mandatory COVID Vaccines: ‘Everything Will Be on the Table.’ Newsweek Jan. 1, 2021

21 FDA. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Dec. 11, 2020

22 FDA. Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Dec. 18, 2020

23 CBS. FDA releases details on Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness against COVID-19. Dec. 8, 2020

24 Baumgaertner E. Can COVID-19 vaccines get us herd immunity? ‘The jury is definitely still out.’ Los Angeles Times Dec. 26, 2020

25 Reynolds CJ, Swadling L et al. Discordant neutralizing antibody and T cell responses in asymptomatic and mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. Science Immunology

26 WWMT January 29, 2021

27 Public Citizen June 25, 2020

28 Children’s Heath Defense July 7, 2020

29 The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier

30, 32 Forbes July 29, 2020

31 Reuters July 23, 2020

33 The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier, Page 24

34 ProPublica December 6, 2019

35 Alliance for Human Research Protection October 26, 2006

Video: Seven. Collapse of Building Seven on 9/11

March 18th, 2021 by AE911Truth

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

.

.

.

.

.

***

Click here for ways to donate as your gift is urgently needed to educate millions of people about Building 7.

Please donate by April 1.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Seven. Collapse of Building Seven on 9/11
  • Tags: ,

China Advances in South America

March 18th, 2021 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Once again, international trade and medical diplomacy have been playing a central role in international relations and defining alliances between countries and economic blocs. Washington’s gradual “negligence” in relation to the countries of the south of the American continent has opened up more and more space for the Chinese approach in the region. Like the strong Chinese presence in Central America and the Caribbean, it is possible that in the near future Beijing will have a major influence in South America.

Recently, at a commemorative event celebrating the 30th anniversary of the founding of Mercosur, a conference was held in Washington with the participation of the bloc’s foreign ministers. The event was organized by the think tank Atlantic Council and brought together Felipe Solá, from Argentina, Ernesto Araújo, from Brazil, Euclides Acevedo, from Paraguay and Francisco Bustillo, from Uruguay – completing the four founding countries of the South American bloc. At the time, the American government received severe criticism for not cooperating properly with the countries of the south. Bustillo was the author of the harshest criticisms. According to the Uruguayan diplomat, currently, only China is seeking the attention of South America and offering cooperation proposals.

In general, the diplomats’ common demand was for the US to pay more attention to South America and to be more solicitous with possibilities for international cooperation. The Chinese attempt to enhance its influence in the region certainly attracts these nations, but there is still a tendency in most countries on the American continent to seek to favor Washington in the first place, before any other nation. In general, despite any ideological differences or divergences of interests, the nations of Mercosur still see the US as their great international ally. This is most likely due to regional proximity and historical ties – even though these ties have always taken place in an exploratory and disrespectful way.

Mercosur is reluctant to go deeper into business with China because it fears the consequences that may come from the US and for that reason, they claim American attention. But, as Washington ignores them, more strength China gains to penetrate the region. Bustillo, in this regard, also openly stated that it is important for Washington to recognize that “there is still a bloc that supports the West”, making it clear that this situation of support may not last as long if the US does not rush to overcome Chinese proposals.

The points where South Americans most ask for help are in business partnerships and medical cooperation. The situation of the new coronavirus in South is on the brink of a real catastrophe – mainly in Brazil, where the numbers are already approaching the terrible mark of 3,000 deaths per day. The absence of any American support initiative with the distribution of vaccines creates an inclination in the South to cooperate with China, which is advancing strongly in its medical diplomacy with Coronavac.

As time passes and the pandemic worsens, economic instability in Latin countries leads to a rapid search for solutions. There is no way to overcome the current economic and social crisis without going through a comprehensive collective immunization plan, as emergency health measures, lockdown, and the number of sick and dead are the main reasons for the calamity. With this, the world power that offers the fastest solution to Mercosur on the issue of vaccines, will immediately have access to a greater availability of economic cooperation with these countries.

Currently, across Latin America, there are enough vaccine doses to vaccinate only less than 3% of the population. 87% of these doses are concentrated in Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Argentina. The president of the Argentine Red Cross, Diego Tipping, recently pointed out that “two thirds of the vaccines were destined for the most powerful countries and only 0.1% for the 50 poorest countries”. Equity in the global distribution of vaccines has been a strong agenda for Latin governments. However, it should be noted that, even with few doses, the Chinese vaccine is still the majority in Latin America, mainly in Mercosur – followed by Russia. This certainly inclines these countries to further increase medical cooperation and to elevate it to a status of economic partnership.

In parallel to this, some factors need to be considered. The long-awaited economic agreement between Mercosur and the European Union is finally showing signs that it will come out soon. The current presidency of the European bloc has already shown an interest in speeding up procedures and this may lead to a revitalization not only of bilateral relations between the EU and Mercosur but also of Mercosur itself, which for years has been practically paralyzed and with few active cooperation. This happens precisely in the midst of the beginning of a historic agreement between Europeans and Chinese. In turn, Mercosur approaches Vietnam and Indonesia as a way of gaining access to the Asian common market, the RCEP.

If Mercosur opens space for Chinese cooperation, we will have a broad scenario of global economic alliance, considering that, most likely, in parallel to the partnership with China, a partnership with the EU will come and this will insert South America in the EU-RCEP market route. With this situation, there would hardly be any possibility of a change in the outcome of the global trade war between China and the US, as conditions were being created for a global pro-China market.

But at present Mercosur leaders are still loyal to their relations with Washington and are taking their demands to the US. It remains to be seen whether Mercosur is in Joe Biden’s priority concerns.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Sick Society: Crisis of Chronic Diseases in America

March 18th, 2021 by Stephen Lendman

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

According to Fight Chronic Diseases.org, nearly half of Americans have one or more chronic diseases.

They’re responsible for around 70% of US deaths annually.

They’re disabling, destroy the quality of life and shorten lifespans.

The American Action Forum calls growing numbers of chronic diseases a national crisis that costs nearly $4 trillion annually, around 20% of GDP.

Spiraling healthcare costs make treatment unaffordable for millions of US households.

Health issues notably affect the aged. Yet US children are disproportionately ill.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense (CHD) calls “the chronic disease epidemic” affecting US children “the greatest crisis” the nation faces.

Mass-jabbing with experimental, high-risk, DNA altering, unapproved, rushed to market drugs based on Big Lies and mass deception is making crisis conditions far worse.

According to CHD, over half of US children suffer from one or more chronic diseases.

They include autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), asthma, allergies, pediatric autoimmune conditions and others.

In the last 30 years, the incidence of diseases in children grew dramatically — at a time of life when most US children were healthy and normal long ago.

No longer because of increased use of heavy metals, pesticides, fluoridated water, herbicides, toxic drugs, air pollutants, artificial food additives, hazardous to health GMO foods and ingredients, and other environmental toxins that risk the health and well-being of everyone.

Vaccines are another major culprit. None are safe. They don’t preserve health.

Time and again, they cause diseases they’re supposed to protect against.

They create customers for other drugs, the more taken, the greater the risk of serious adverse events and shortened lifespans.

In the 1950s, the US had one of the world’s highest life expectancy rates.

Today it’s one of the lowest among developed nations.

It has the world’s highest child poverty rate among developed nations and increasing social inequality.

US children have never been more adversely affected by chronic illnesses than today — what CHD calls the “sickest generation,” adding:

“Life expectancy is falling and infant mortality is rising.”

“US children are 76% more likely to die before their first birthday than infants in other wealthy countries.”

“A study conducted from 2001-2004 found that half of US youths (ages 13-18) had been diagnosed with at least one mental, emotional, and/or behavioral disorder.”

“Top military leaders report seven in ten young Americans aged 17-24 are unfit to serve in the US military because of obesity, asthma, hearing and eyesight problems and mental illness.”

Instead of fostering wellness as a national priority, an epidemic of sickness harms most Americans, including over half the nation’s children.

The world’s richest country is unhealthy, things worsening, not improving.

Among developed nations, Americans have shorter lifespans, more illnesses and injuries — despite around double the per capita amount spent on healthcare.

What should be a model system for the world community to emulate is dysfunctional for most of its people.

Sickness is prioritized over good health because the latter is unprofitable.

Among developed nations, the US has one of the highest per capita rate of infant mortality, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, strokes, respiratory illnesses and other diseases.

Millions of adverse prescription drug reactions happen annually.

Over 100,000 Americans die each year from prescribed drugs, including vaccines.

The above toll is rising sharply because of mass-jabbing with hazardous to health covid drugs.

Millions of Americans lack health insurance. Many millions more are inadequately covered because it’s unaffordable.

At a time of made-in-the-USA Main Street Depression with over 25% of working-age Americans jobless, most others way underemployed, the health and well-being of countless millions of households greatly eroded.

Instead of going all-out to stimulate economic growth by jobs creation and other policies to end hard times for most people, US policymakers serve privileged interests at the expense of most others.

The worst of times most likely lie ahead.

As long as US policymakers serve sickness industry interests over wellness, the crisis of chronic diseases is likely to worsen, not improve, including for the nation’s children.

*

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

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

Featured image is from Michigan Medicine

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australia: Can We Challenge Racism Without Challenging Capitalism?
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India’s Cunning De-escalation after Setting Kashmir Alight

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Appointed in the final days of Trump’s presidency to remove all US troops from Afghanistan, Douglas Macgregor tells The Grayzone how military leadership undermined the withdrawal and pressured Trump to capitulate.

In an exclusive interview with The Grayzone, Col. Douglas Macgregor, a former senior advisor to the acting secretary of defense, revealed that President Donald Trump shocked the US military only days after the election last November by signing a presidential order calling for the withdrawal of all remaining US troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year.

As Macgregor explained to The Grayzone, the order to withdraw was met with intense pressure from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), Gen. Mark M. Milley, which caused the president to capitulate. Trump agreed to withdraw only half of the 5,000 remaining troops in the country. Neither Trump’s order nor the pressure from the JCS chairman was reported by the national media at the time.

The president’s surrender represented the Pentagon’s latest victory in a year-long campaign to sabotage the US-Taliban peace agreement signed in February 2020. Military and DOD leaders thus extended the disastrous and unpopular 20-year US war in Afghanistan into the administration of President Joe Biden.

A peace agreement the Pentagon was determined to subvert

The subversion of the peace agreement with the Taliban initiated by the US military leadership in Washington and Afghanistan began almost as soon as Trump’s personal envoy Zalmay Khalilzad negotiated a tentative deal in November 2019. The campaign to undermine presidential authority was actively supported by then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.

In February 2020, under heavy pressure to amend the agreement, Trump ordered Khalilzad to deliver the Taliban an ultimatum: agree to a full ceasefire as a prelude to a broader peace deal, including negotiations with the Afghan government, or the deal was off. The Taliban refused the immediate ceasefire with Kabul, however, offering instead a “reduction in violence” for seven days to establish a conducive atmosphere for implementing the peace agreement that had already been fleshed out in detail. It then gave the US its own ultimatum: if the US refused the offer, its negotiators would walk away from the table.

To salvage the deal, Khalilzad agreed to the Taliban proposal for a one-week “reduction of violence” by both sides. The adversaries reached further understandings on what such a “reduction in violence” would mean: the Taliban agreed there would be no attacks on population centers and Afghan stationary military targets, but reserved the right to attack government convoys if they exploited the reduction to seize control of new areas.

The US-Taliban peace agreement signed on February 29 called for a withdrawal of US troops from the country in two stages. First, the US agreed to reduce its troop levels to 8600 within 4.5 months and remove forces from five military bases ahead of a final withdrawal that would take place in May 2021. Second, the US and its allies pledged to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Afghanistan or intervening in its domestic affairs.”

The Taliban promised in turn that it would “not allow any of its members, other individuals or groups, including al-Qaeda, to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.”

Those two commitments obliged US and Taliban forces not to attack each other. The agreement also specified that the Taliban would enter into “intra-Afghan negotiations on March 10, 2020, after the two Afghan parties were to have exchanged prisoners.”

They also required the Taliban to keep al-Qaeda personnel out of Afghanistan – a pledge the Taliban military commission appeared to implement in February when it issued an order to all commanders forbidding them from “bringing foreign nationals into their ranks or giving them shelter.”

But the pact did not provide for the immediate ceasefire between Taliban and Afghan government forces which the U.S. military and Pentagon demanded. Instead “a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire” was to be negotiated between the two Afghan parties.

With startling swiftness and determination, Pentagon officials and military leadership exploited the open-ended terms of the ceasefire to derail the implementation of the agreement.

Secretary of Defense Esper claimed the peace deal allowed the US military to defend Afghan forces, blatantly contradicting the agreement’s text. He then pledged to come to the defense of the Afghan government if the Taliban began mounting attacks on its forces, setting the stage for American violations on the ground.

Esper’s promise of continued US military support, made public in Congressional testimony days later, gave the Afghan government a clear incentive to refuse any concessions to the Taliban. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani promptly refused to go ahead with a promised prisoner exchange until formal negotiations with the Taliban had begun.

The Taliban responded by initiating a series of attacks on government troops at checkpoints in contested areas. The US military command in Afghanistan responded with an airstrike against Taliban forces engaged in one of those operations in Helmand province. US officials said privately that the airstrike was “a message to the Taliban” to continue what they described as the “reduction in violence commitment they had agreed…”

The combination of Esper’s assurance to the Afghan government and the US airstrike showed the hand of the Pentagon and military leadership. It was clear they had no intention of passively accepting a deal to withdraw the remaining US personnel from Afghanistan, and would do whatever they could to unravel it.

Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the head of Central Command, further highlighted the Pentagon’s opposition to the deal when he declared in congressional testimony that troop withdrawals would be determined by “conditions on the ground.” In other words, it was up to the judgment of military commanders, rather than the terms of the agreement, to determine when U.S. troops would be withdrawn.

Shaping a false narrative on the agreement

The military’s plan to sabotage the agreement hinged on creating the false impression that the Taliban had reneged on its commitments. This ruse was advanced mostly publicly by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Esper.

In an interview with CBS News, Pompeo mentioned “a detailed set of commitments that the Taliban have made about the levels of violence that can occur…” But that was a deliberate obfuscation. Though the Taliban had agreed to the seven-day “reduction in violence,” it did not apply to the peace agreement signed on February 29, 2020.

On March 2, Esper told reporters, “This is a conditions-based agreement…. We’re watching the Taliban’s actions closely to assess whether they are upholding their commitments.” That same day, US commander in Afghanistan Gen. Scott Miller stated through a spokesman on Twitter, “The United States has been very clear about our expectations — the violence must remain low.”

Once again, the Pentagon and the US command were dictating conditions to the Taliban outside the actual written terms of the peace agreement.

The Pentagon and military command’s ploy was advanced through a story leaked to the New York Times and published on March 8. Below the headline, “A Secret Accord With the Taliban: When and How the U.S. Would Leave Afghanistan,” the story referred to two “secret annexes” to deceptively suggest that the agreements reached with the Taliban were not fully reflected in the publicly available text.

The Times’ ploy recalled the national hysteria the paper triggered last summer when it legitimized an Afghan intelligence fraud by publishing a series of lengthy articles claiming Russia had paid Taliban fighters bounties for dead American service members. Indeed, the “secret annexes” story was simply the latest political deception deployed by the Pentagon to torpedo plans for a US withdrawal.

Despite the article’s assertion that the two documents “lay out the specific understandings between the United States and the Taliban,” the only specific reference in the story to any such understanding mentioned “commitments from the Taliban not to attack American forces during a withdrawal.” However, that explicit commitment was missing from the actual terms of the published accord.

As the Times acknowledged in its article, when Esper and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley appeared before the House Armed Services Committee just three days before the agreement was signed, both were asked about any “side deals with the Taliban.” Neither said they were aware of any unpublished agreements. Pompeo, who also denied the existence of any “side deals” with the Taliban, referred to them as “military implementation documents.”

The evidence clearly indicated that the so-called “secret annexes” were, in fact, internal US documents on US policy related to the agreement.

In April 2020, the Taliban accused the United States of flagrantly violating the deal, citing 50 attacks by US and Afghan forces between March 9 and April 10, including 33 drone attacks and eight night raids by Special Operations forces. By the summer, as the Taliban stepped up attacks on government checkpoints in areas bordering territory under their control, US forces in Afghanistan and the Defense Department informed the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) that the orders to Afghan government forces allowed them to preemptively strike Taliban positions.

The war thus returned to the situation that prevailed before the agreement was signed and the peace deal was effectively shattered.

Meanwhile, the US military continued to accuse the Taliban of failing to adhere to the agreement. In July, the US government-run Voice of America reported that McKenzie had “told VOA the Taliban has not kept up their commitments agreed to in the U.S.-Taliban peace deal, leading to one of the ‘most violent’ periods of the war in Afghanistan.”

Reversing a presidential order for withdrawal

Following Trump’s defeat in the November 2020 presidential election, and after fashioning the strategy to sabotage the Afghan peace agreement, Esper, McKenzie, and Miller agreed on a memorandum from the “chain of command” warning Trump against further withdrawal from Afghanistan until “conditions” had been met. These terms included a “reduction in violence” and “progress at the negotiating table.”

Trump reacted to the memo with outrage, swiftly firing Esper on November 9. He replaced him with Christopher Miller, the former head of the US counter-terrorism center who agreed with Trump on withdrawal from Afghanistan.

That same day, Trump asked Col. Douglas Macgregor to serve as Miller’s “senior adviser.” Macgregor was an outspoken advocate of withdrawal from Afghanistan and a harsh critic of other US wars in the Middle East, from Iraq to Syria. During a January 2020 interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News, Macgregor blasted Pentagon leadership for its failure to find a path out of Afghanistan.

Once inside the Pentagon, Macgregor immediately took on the task of enabling a rapid and complete withdrawal from Afghanistan. Just how close Trump came to withdrawing all US troops before leaving office had not been reported until now. Macgregor recounted the episode to The Grayzone.

According to Macgregor, he met Miller on November 10 and told him that a pullout from Afghanistan could only be accomplished by a formal presidential order. Later that day, Macgregor dictated the language of such an order to the White House by phone.

The draft order stated that all uniformed military personnel would be withdrawn from Afghanistan no later than December 31, 2020. Macgregor told the staffer to get a National Security Presidential Memorandum from the White House files to ensure that it was published in the correct format.

Macgregor’s White House contact informed him in the morning of November 11 that Trump had read the memorandum and immediately signed it. On November 12, however, he learned that Trump had met with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, national security adviser Robert O’Brien, and Acting Secretary Miller. Trump was told that the orders he placed in the memorandum could not be executed, according to Macgregor’s White House contact.

Milley argued that a withdrawal would harm the chances of negotiating a final peace settlement and that continued US presence in Afghanistan had “bipartisan support,” Macgregor was informed. Later that night, Macgregor learned that Trump had agreed to withdraw only half of the total: 2500 troops. Trump had once again given in to military pressure, as he did repeatedly on Syria.

The maneuvering by the Pentagon to obstruct the Trump administration’s initiative to end an extremely unpopular war in Afghanistan was just one example in a long-established pattern of undermining presidential authority over matters of war and peace.

When he was vice president, Joe Biden witnessed first-hand the pressures the Pentagon brass imposed on Barack Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan. With the peace agreement’s May 1 deadline for final US withdrawal just weeks away, Biden is certain to face another round of maximum pressure to keep US troops in the quagmire of Afghanistan, supposedly as “leverage” on the Taliban.

*

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

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist who has covered national security policy since 2005 and was the recipient of Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2012.  His most recent book is The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis co-authored with John Kiriakou, just published in February.

Featured image: Retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor (Photo credit: US Army / public domain)

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Policymakers insist that they cannot afford to provide relief to millions of Americans struggling during a pandemic, cannot afford to provide universal health care, and cannot find funds for education. Despite this, the massive National Defense Authorization Act passes each year in an allegedly bipartisan fashion.

As Democratic Representatives Barbara Lee of California, Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, and Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts state in a letter sent to President Biden,

“Our federal budget is a statement of our national values, and part of undoing the damage of the last four years is re-evaluating our spending priorities as a nation. That re-evaluation should begin with the Department of Defense.”

The budget for 2021 clocked in at more than $740 billion. Passed during the throes of the pandemic in mid-2020, Congress awarded $130 billion more than requested for the nuclear-armed Columbia class submarine program. While these same legislators whittled down the second round of stimulus payments to Americans to $600, they simultaneously lined defense contractor’s pockets.

These priorities, putting weapons before citizens, are clearly to the detriment of not just those living in the United States, but to those across the globe. The Pentagon intends to request more funding for nuclear weapons this year as part of a Trump Administration-mandated revival of sea-launched cruise missiles, a program that had been retired more than a decade ago under President Obama.

These weapons would eventually equip the Navy with twenty to thirty nuclear-armed submarines, doubling its current fleet size, while also increasing the risk of a mistake or miscalculation, and aggravating relations with China further.

In addition to sea-launched missiles, the Pentagon is also planning to modernize ground-based strategic defense systems despite compelling evidence that this is unnecessary. Located in states such as Nebraska and Colorado, this system replaces intercontinental ballistic missiles, though both are often referred to as the nuclear sponge, based on a strategy of drawing incoming domestic attacks away from major cities.

In essence, the United States has designated these states as sitting ducks, ready to soak up a nuclear attack. Representatives of these states claim the jobs are worth the risk, yet only 18 percent of Americans agree. Not only does the perpetuation of these weapons put these communities at risk, the contract benefits a single manufacturer: Northrop Grumman.

Small portion of the National Defense Authorization Act funds go toward mitigating the damage these nuclear weapons have already caused, by funding retrospective solutions such as cleanup, health care, and victim compensation. Communities impacted by nuclear weapons see little progress year after year, despite the evidence of ongoing harm.

In 2019, reports emerged that the Runit dome was cracking, allowing radioactive waste to seep into the surrounding Pacific ocean. The Runit dome was constructed in 1977 as a temporary measure to contain thousands of gallons of nuclear waste remaining from tests the United States conducted on atolls in the Pacific Ocean from the 1940s to the 1950s. Few improvements have been made since, and U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly denied responsibility.

Despite agreeing to pay $150 million in restitution in 1986, a 2010 hearing makes it clear only a fraction has so far been paid out, decades later.

As climate change causes the tides to rise, Runit will only deteriorate further, and other nuclear waste storage solutions, many near rising tides as well, are at similar risk. The United States has designated Yucca mountain, a space sacred to the Western Shoshone Nation, as a final resting place for U.S. nuclear waste, but protests at the local and legislative levels have stalled construction. This waste has been shuffled around the country while it waits for a final destination, often spending periods of time stored in lower-income areas where residents’ protests are dismissed.

The treatment of the Marshallese underscores a hard truth about U.S. nuclear policy: the abandonment of its long list of victims, spanning from veterans to Indigenous communities. Groups subjected to nuclear fallout from testing, called downwinders, have faced similar neglect from the government that exposed them.

Nearly every year, amendments are offered to the National Defense Authorization Act that would expand the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, another half-measure offered to victims of nuclear pollution, yet nearly all have failed.

This act, which is set to expire in 2022 unless it’s renewed, currently provides a one-time payment of $50,000 to $100,000 to a select group of victims that does not include New Mexican downwinders. These small payments are a drop in the bucket when one considers the lifetime of various cancers many victims experience. New Mexico, the birthplace of the nuclear age, has documented decades of proof that the nuclear fallout from the Trinity test caused a range of cancers, reproductive issues, and health concerns identical to those of other fallout victims in the included states: Utah, Nevada, and Arizona.

Even if this act is renewed before its expiration next year, it leaves hundreds of thousands of victims and their family members—who are often left to carry the financial burden—behind, including those on the Marshall Islands.

Nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to the climate; they would, if used, rapidly accelerate climate change and cause a nuclear winter. Their very existence and proliferation are a threat to the well-being of the planet. Countless people have already suffered due to the creation of our current arsenal, and expanding it, during a pandemic no less, is a cruel testament to the values of our lawmakers.

Standalone bills have been introduced to solve many of these issues, but they are often championed primarily by representatives from impacted states, or fiercely opposed when money is on the line. The Invest in Cures Before Missiles Act, introduced by Democratic Representatives Ro Khanna of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, shifts funding away from modernizing the ICBM systems and into COVID-19 response. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Representative Joe Courtney of Connecticut have also introduced a bill to halt funding for Trump’s revival of sea-launched cruise missiles.

The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2022 poses a unique opportunity to seize agency over the defense budget and lobby representatives to support amendments such as those that provide compensation for downwinders and move funds away from expensive, redundant weapons programs.

The Biden Administration, in its first defense request, would do well to heed Lee, Pocan, and Auchincloss’s call.

*

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

Tristan Guyette is the National Field Manager for Beyond the Bomb, a people-powered movement to end the threat of nuclear war. Previously, they have worked on reproductive justice and voter rights issues.

Featured image: Protest against nuclear weapons (photo via Creative Commons)

“Vaccines” Are the Keys to World Control

March 18th, 2021 by Prof. Bill Willers

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

“It’s better to die on your feet than to live on your knees”, ascribed to Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, is quoted by many, but few seem willing to live it. In any case, the pharmaceutical industry and its operatives throughout government, media and the medical establishment have terrorized an already infantilized society and brought it to its collective knees. A compelling 6-minute video of a 9/11 Truth march in Brussels in 2007 quotes a marcher: 

“I’m coming back to Europe, because I saw what happened to the American people. They’ve been taken hostage for the last 20 years by a group of people who destroyed them physically, spiritually and intellectually, and now they’re trying to do the same thing in Europe.”

Applying an inferential form of thought — a connecting of dots, so to speak — to draw logical and highly probable conclusions, once valued as critical thinking, is now shunned as conspiracy theorizing.

Consider a NY Times opinion piece covering the judgments of “digital literacy” experts claiming that “overthinking” an issue, or to “use reasoning”, may be counterproductive. Instead, high school and college students are to be coached in a “SIFT” method allowing one to evaluate a report in mere seconds, like “fact checkers” do.

Really! Almost predictably, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., introduced without question as “… a prominent anti-vaccine activist, falsely alleging a link between the human papillomavirus vaccine and cancer…”, is used as an example of how SIFT can rapidly assess and reject an article. “Look how fast this is” says an expert as he uses Google to lead in 15 seconds to … Wikipedia!, both famously hostile to views opposing official narrative. Nevertheless, one is prompted to scroll quickly, check out the last sentence, and “move on”.

Such superficiality as social norm will be fatal, because never has there been greater need at mass level for clear thinking and an unflinching grasp that the vaccine industry has become a weaponized system for taking control of global society, with mandated masking as a social engineering strategy to prepare for mass vaccination by governmental edict. Those who have fathomed the direction of events know that the worst lies ahead. Italian Archbishop C.M. Vigano’, like many others, sees a point at which those refusing injection will be forced into detention centers. The U.S. has many already in place, and there’s plenty of room to spare. Avoiding forced injection would be impossible when imprisoned.

Well before Covid19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), the vaccine industry had mobilized its forces at political levels from national to state to local, in media  —  both print and broadcast —  and in the schools of public health that now yield the “health experts” showcased by mainstream journalists. Trust in public health officials has plummeted and deservedly so. WHO has evolved into essentially THE vaccine industry, funded primarily by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance whose interests, according to a recent WHO director, drive WHO policy. A Swiss scientist and whistleblower with impeccable credentials, Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, who worked for years within WHO, recently exposed the pervasive corruption by Gates and the Vaccine industry, their iron control of WHO and its Member States (i.e., the nations of the world), and the massive death that has resulted from their vaccination programs in India and Africa. Her interview by the Corona Investigative Committee is worth anyone’s 30 minutes. The Corona Investigative Committee itself maintains a bullet-point rundown of its findings.

193 member countries of the United Nations have made themselves “Contracting Parties” of WHO and have agreed to abide by its Constitution which obliges nations (“Members” in caps) to “take action” on rules adopted by the WHO’s Health Assembly. The Assembly has authority to create regulations concerning “quarantine requirements”, “diagnostic procedures” and “labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and other products”. Moreover, the Director-General and his/her representative may “by agreement with Members” gain direct access to national health organizations, both governmental and non-governmental (the latter including medical schools).

Articles 66 and 67 of the Constitution are particularly threatening as they grant that the WHO “shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such legal capacity [and] such privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the fulfillment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.” 

The Constitution provides the WHO absolute immunity and carte blanche control, and the few world leaders who have rejected the WHO’s Covid19 Pandemic demands have placed themselves at grave risk. The “by agreement with Members” clause in the WHO Constitution is toothless, because the governmental and non-governmental entities of Member nations (e.g., CDC, NIH, schools of public health in the U.S.) are, like the WHO itself, awash in foundation/ pharmaceutical industry cash and are so corrupt that a group of CDC scientists complained (maintaining anonymity). Anthony Fauci’s NIAID (an agency of NIH) has been described as an “incubator for the Pharmaceutical Industry”.

The CDC exists as a complex public/private entity with 501(c)(3) status allowing for huge infusions of industrial and foundation money and control. Both CDC and NIAID own patents (here here here). In sum, there exists a grid of powerful interlocking elements that include the WHO, the pharmaceutical industry, national bureaus of health, media, medical schools and organizations, and powerful foundations, all dedicated to a future of routinely and heavily injected humanity.

The PCR test is famous for false positives, as even the World Health Organization now admits. The Nobel laureate creator of PCR stated that it should never be used as a diagnostic tool for infectious diseases. Nevertheless, the WHO says “test, test, test”, so stupidity prevails, PCR continues to be used, and “cha-ching!”, the money rolls in. Philosopher John Lord Griffin, with humorous intent, makes points with brief multiple choice questions to showcase the obvious, e.g.: If PCR tests come up with 97% false positives, identify inoperative fragments of virus, and artificially amplify a minute sample 2 to the 40th times to make it look more impressive, does it make sense to test?

a) Of course, it helps us see what otherwise wouldn’t be noticed

b) Yes, any test is better than no test

c) No

During the “Covid19 Pandemic”, flu drops unexpectedly to virtually nil (Here, here, here). A sampling of 685,243 yields not a single case of flu because of … masks? But wait!, both are viruses and should respond similarly. Epidemiologists willing to speak up state the obvious: Flu is being counted as Covid19. A graduate student at Johns Hopkins posts data showing the inverse relationship between Covid19 and flu, and the school removes it, but not before some good soul saves it. At the same time, the CDC inflates Covid mortality.

Studies by the dozens over decades revealed that masking the public does not prevent viral transmission to any statistically measurable degree. Only in Spring 2020 was the remarkable power of the mask to divide a populace newly appreciated and employed as a psychological weapon to be made a “new normal”, even as prolonged masking was declared by neurologists willing to risk their reputations as unhealthy, particularly in children. We’ve been so psychologically bullied that even when allowed to go maskless, many have come to feel naked and in need of their face covers, like children clutching security blankets.

The mRNA technology in Covid19 “jabs” is not “vaccine” according to standard definition but a form of gene therapy never before tried on humans. Repetitive media reference to “vaccines” is a lie to deceive. Both Moderna and Pfizer have admitted their injectables do not prevent infection or transmission, and that their synthetic mRNA is designed to cause recipients to produce an “S1 spike protein” which itself can produce dangerous side effects (aka “adverse events”). Late health impacts will be coming in years down the road. If in waves they will most certainly be charged to “spikes” or new, more deadly, “variant” forms.

There is no longer excuse for medical practitioners and researchers to be unaware of the massive corruption in the WHO, NIH, CDC, and in the Pharmaceutical/ Bloomberg/ Gates     Foundation “supported” schools of public health. Even a vaccine industry whistleblower – a Pfizer VP no less – sees the “whiff of evil” in mass vaccination of healthy people.

Although there are the Great Barrington Declaration, the Frontline Doctors, and other international medics (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and more) exposing deceit in the Covid19 Pandemic-Lockdown scenario, they are not enough. For doctors to be silent has become a betrayal of “First do no harm”. In connection with this, those who research pre-2020 medical studies find that it was fully understood that mass masking does not hinder viral transmission. Therefore, mask advocacy now by medical practitioners is based on post-Covid19 Pandemic propaganda. This reinforces the suspicion that ongoing relationships with pharmaceutical salespeople have become primary information sources for doctors. In essence, our medical system has been highjacked by the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry.

The current injection offensive is intended as only the first in a future filled with similar campaigns. Elon Musk may be providing insight into where this can lead with Neuralink. His artificial intelligence (AI) technology uses implanted chips for brain-machine interfacing and control.

But it should not be long before chip technology melds with injectables, as nanotechnology is expanding so rapidly that what is being written about it is outdated within months. Technology of control that can be downloaded into the human body appears to have no limits. A clear and critical view reveals that humanity is on a path leading to a world in which injectables going by the name of “vaccines” are to be mandatory for all, and on a continuing basis, essentially forever. That’s the harsh reality we’re facing.

*

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

Featured image is from OffGuardian

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Yesterday Boris Johnson announced a 40% increase in Britain’s nuclear arsenal.

Today the arsenal stands at around 200 nuclear warheads. Each is about 8 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb which killed over 200,000 people. That’s a killing capacity of hundreds of millions. How can Johnson conceivably justify that arsenal, never mind increasing it?

A key question being asked across media and parliament is: Is it legal?

The answer is a resounding No. Increasing Britain’s nuclear arsenal contravenes our legal obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Britain ratified in 1970. The Treaty requires countries that have nuclear weapons to disarm, and those that don’t have them not to get them. There is no way in which increasing a nuclear arsenal is legitimate under the Treaty.

But it’s not just new warheads that are illegal, it’s the whole Trident replacement project as well. When Blair’s government was first pursuing Trident replacement in 2005, Matrix Chambers gave a legal opinion which found that the replacement of Trident would be a material breach of the Treaty because it requires ‘each of the parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.’

So not only are additional warheads illegal, but Trident replacement is illegal, and the failure to disarm our existing nuclear weapons contravenes the Treaty.

Bizarrely, British governments always assert their unflinching commitment to the NPT, and the Integrated Review is no exception. It states: ‘We are strongly committed to full implementation of the NPT in all its aspects, including nuclear disarmament’.

Sadly, that’s just not true. Indeed our government – with all its Review’s talk of the ‘rules-based order’, the super soft power of the BBC, its leadership in diplomacy – completely ignores the Treaty, and its decision this week has fired a Trident missile through any pretence at fulfilling its legal obligations. It has racheted up global tensions, presumably to reinforce Johnson’s image of a ‘global Britain’, punching above its weight and being a force in the world.

Despite its non-compliance with the Treaty, the Review is quick to assert that ‘there is no credible alternative route to nuclear disarmament’ except the NPT. This is a thinly veiled reference to the government’s hostility to the UN’s new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which came into force in January. The government’s decision to increase its nuclear arsenal very clearly demonstrates why so many countries – largely from the global south – have given up hope in the NPT process which has been rendered meaningless by the actions of states such as ours.

Johnson’s decision to increase Britain’s nuclear arsenal is a serious problem. It’s not just that we would rather the money was spent on something more useful; or that this flagrant breach of the NPT may encourage others to pursue nuclear weapons; it’s a question of what kind of world we want to see, what role we want Britain to play and what it actually stands for. Rearming with weapons of mass destruction is not something that we can accept.

We must find it in ourselves to reject the dangerous humbug the government spouts about nuclear weapons, their claim that ‘the UK will continue to work internationally to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict and enhance mutual trust and security’. This is just nonsense and we know it. I urge everyone to join CND and get active: this is getting out of hand.

*

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

Myanmar: Hidden Opposition Violence

March 18th, 2021 by Brian Berletic

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Myanmar: Hidden Opposition Violence

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

“Vaccine Secrets,” an animated video created by parents of vaccine-injured children, fact checks the many statements used to convince parents that vaccines are safe and effective.

When it comes to vaccines, the prevailing narrative is that they are a modern miracle.

But what if that isn’t true? What if vaccines are potentially more dangerous to some people than the diseases they were designed to prevent?

“Vaccine Secrets,” an animated video, explores these questions and more. The video was created by parents who followed the rules. They vaccinated their children according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s schedule.

These parents thought they were doing the right thing, that they were protecting their children. Sadly, they learned they had done just the opposite.

As this video points out, some children can withstand the mercury, aluminum and other industrial chemicals that are in vaccines — but others can’t.

“Vaccine Secrets” fact checks the many statements used to convince parents that vaccines are safe and effective, and dispels many of the myths perpetuated about vaccines, including:

Children’s Health Defense provides links to sources backing up all of the facts outlined in the video.

Watch the video here.

*

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

„Angst essen Seele auf“ ist der Titel eines deutschen Melodrams der Regisseur-Ikone Rainer Werner Fassbinder aus dem Jahr 1974. Jeder ehemalige „Altachtundsechziger“ kennt diesen mehrfach ausgezeichneten Film. Er beeinflusste Filmemacher weltweit. In der gegenwärtigen Situation wird man klammen Herzens an ihn erinnert: Ruchlose Politiker und Mediziner schüren seit über einem Jahr mithilfe der Journaille irrationale Ängste der Bürger vor Krankheit und qualvollem Erstickungs-Tod, um sie zu disziplinieren und zu beherrschen. Ihr Ziel ist die Etablierung einer „Neuen Weltordnung“. Sie betreiben damit das Werk des Teufels und nicht das Werk Gottes.

Der 96jährige Arzt und hochdekorierte Wissenschaftler Professor Karl Hecht aus der ehemaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik (DDR) hat in einem bereits im Dezember 2020 aufgezeichneten Interview von „QS24.tv / Natur-Medizin“ darauf hingewiesen, dass bei „Corona“ die wahren Ursachen übersehen werden. Sie sei eine normale Infektionskrankheit, die durch ein gesundes inneres Milieu, wozu vor allem ein starkes Immunsystem gehöre, gut bewältigt werde.

Wir werden derzeit mit einem „Politikum“ und nicht mit einer Corona-Pandemie konfrontiert, so der weltweit anerkannte Professor für Neurophysiologie. Es handle sich um eine „Luftverschmutzungs- und Elektrosmog-Pandemie“, auf die Corona „aufgepfropft“ wurde. Mit der Verabreichung von Vitamin C (Askorbinsäure) bekäme man die gegenwärtige Infektionserkrankung – wie bereits zu DDR-Zeiten nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg – gut in den Griff. China hat es schon 2020 erfolgreich vorexerziert.

Auch die Angst, die jeden Tag neu geschürt würde, sei ein stark krankmachender Faktor, der zudem eine verzweifelte Hilflosigkeit auslöse. Man müsse sich immer an der Gesundheit orientieren, nicht an der Krankheit. Alle von Politikern auf höhere Anweisung hin ergriffenen Maßnahmen wie Freiheitsbeschränkung, Demonstrationsverbot und soziale Isolierung seien kontraproduktiv und weitere krankmachende Faktoren.

Das Video der „QantiSana.TV Fernseh-, Produktions- und Betriebs AG (QS24.tv) Schweizerisches Gesundheitsfernsehen“, Abteilung Naturmedizin, ist jedem Interessierten nur zu empfehlen. Es ist ausgesprochen aufklärerisch und wirkt beruhigend. Nach Auskunft von QS24.tv kann man auf YouTube jede gewünschte Sprache als Untertitel einstellen.

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler. 

Featured image is from CODEPINK

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Wird bei Corona die Ursache übersehen? “Angst essen Seele auf“

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

“Angst essen Seele auf” (Fear Eats The Soul) is the title of a German melodrama by iconic director Rainer Werner Fassbinder from 1974. Every former “Altachtundsechziger” knows this multi-award-winning film. It influenced filmmakers worldwide. In the current situation, one is reminded of him with a sore heart: For over a year, nefarious politicians and doctors, with the help of the journaille, have been stirring up irrational fears of illness and agonising death by suffocation among the citizens in order to discipline and control them. Their goal is the establishment of a “New World Order”. They are thus doing the work of the devil and not the work of God.

The 96-year-old doctor and highly decorated scientist Professor Karl Hecht from the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) pointed out in an interview by “QS24.tv / Natur-Medizin” already recorded in December 2020 that the true causes are overlooked in “Corona”. It is a normal infectious disease, he said, which is well managed by a healthy internal environment, including above all a strong immune system.

We are currently confronted with a “political issue” and not a Corona pandemic, says the world-renowned professor of neurophysiology. It is an “air pollution and electrosmog pandemic” onto which Corona has been “grafted”. With the administration of vitamin C (ascorbic acid), the current infectious disease could be well controlled – as it was in GDR times after the Second World War. China has already successfully demonstrated this in 2020.

Fear, which is stoked anew every day, is also a strong sickening factor that also triggers a desperate helplessness. One must always orient oneself towards health, not illness. All measures taken by politicians on higher orders, such as restriction of freedom, banning of demonstrations and social isolation, were counterproductive and further pathogenic factors.

The video of the “QantiSana.TV Fernseh-, Produktions- und Betriebs AG (QS24.tv) Schweizerisches Gesundheitsfernsehen”, Department of Natural Medicine, can only be recommended to anyone interested. It is extremely informative and has a calming effect. According to information from QS24.tv, you can set any desired language as subtitles on YouTube, see this.

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a qualified psychologist and educationalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from CODEPINK

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Fear Eats the Soul”: It’s a “Political Issue” not a “Corona Pandemic”. Fear Triggers Helplessness
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

As has become customary in recent weeks, after the relative success of the Axis of Resistance on battlefields across the Middle East, Israel delivered a reminder of its interest in Syria.

On March 16th, Damascus’ air defense repelled a missile barrage, which was heading towards targets surrounding the Syrian capital.

A statement by the Syrian Arab Army said that the missiles had been launched from the direction of the occupied Golan Heights and targeted undisclosed positions around Damascus. Most of the missiles were reportedly intercepted and no casualties were observed. There was minimal damage.

Strikes such as these are commonplace and happen somewhat regularly, especially now in 2021, when Tel Aviv considers its interests under even more threat than usual due to the Biden Administration’s relative passivity towards Iran.

The Israeli strike was not the only attack on Damascus in recent days. On March 15th, Syrian security forces foiled a terrorist attack intended to target unspecified areas in Damascus. As a result, three terrorists were killed and three were arrested. All six were wearing explosive belts.

Separately, in what is likely a positive development for Damascus, Russian forces moved into an oil field and gas field in the northeast Raqqah governorate.

Russian military reinforcements alongside units from the Russian-backed Fifth Armored Division arrived at al-Thawra oil facility which produces around 2,000 bpd.

Earlier, on March 12th, Russian forces entered the Toueinane gas field, also in the same area.

This is a small, but notable shift highlighting a change in the balance of power in northern Syria. Since Russia is allied with Damascus, prior to that most of Syria’s oil went to the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces or various Turkish proxies.  Most of the oil still goes out of Syria, but this is a movement in another direction.

In addition, Russia’s Defense Ministry said that Turkish forces are carry out military movements and acts in Raqqa countryside in violation of a Memorandum of Understanding that Ankara signed with Moscow.

According to a statement, the Russian side is extremely worried about transporting military equipment affiliated to the Turkish armed forces and establishing fortifications and support points in the suburbs of Ain Issa.

This is an attempt at a Turkish response to recent shelling by the Syrian Arab Army in the area surrounding Aleppo, and other positions where Turkish proxies operate. Ankara can’t afford to lose access to all of its cheap oil, and as such needs to provide some semblance of resistance before losing access to it.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Israel Is Back with Airstrikes as Turkey Scrambles to Salvage Some Oil in Syria
  • Tags: , ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The Syrian first lady has been accused by a London based law firm of terrorism and war crimes, which stem from her support of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), through her speeches, meeting with and comforting the mothers of slain soldiers, and meeting with the women’s branch of the SAR.

The crime she is accused of is patriotism, and support of the legitimate armed forces of the government of Syria, who have battled Radical Islamic terrorists, such as groups affiliated with Al Qaeda, and the Islamic State (ISIS).  The SAA has been fighting groups that are recognized by the UN, US, and EU as terrorist groups.  The UN charter states all members must fight terrorism wherever they find it.

The accusations

The British-born wife of Syria’s President, Bashar al-Assad, is facing possible terrorism charges and the loss of her British citizenship after the police opened a preliminary investigation into claims she has incited, aided, and encouraged war crimes by the Syrian government forces.

She is being investigated in response to legal complaints alleging her speeches and public appearances in support of the Syrian army implicate her in its crimes, including the use of chemical weapons.

The London Metropolitan Police war crimes unit began its inquiries into Asma al-Assad earlier this year and is determining if there is enough evidence to launch a full investigation.

The accuser

Legal filings against Asma al-Assad were submitted by Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers, a conflict-focused international justice law firm.

“The evidence compiled, in our view, legally speaking, far exceeds what may be considered reasonable comment or mere propaganda and amount to the incitement, encourage and/or aiding and abetting of war crimes and crimes against humanity,” said Toby Cadman, the joint head of chambers at Guernica 37.

“What she is suspected of doing is having incited acts that have resulted in death in Syria. Meeting with troops, making public statements, glorifying conduct of the army that has resulted in half a million deaths and the use of chemical and other forms of banned weapons. It is not just that she is the wife of the president, our allegations are she has actively campaigned and actively participated in those crimes and so she must face justice,” Cadman said.

The accused

Asma Akhras was born in 1975 in Acton, in west London, and educated in London before becoming Syria’s first lady in 2000.

She was employed by the investment bank JP Morgan and worked in Paris, New York, and London, where she specialized in mergers and acquisitions.  She had been working two years when she resigned to be married.

The Syrian Arab Army

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is the national military force.  The soldiers are drafted from all able-bodied Syrian males who are at least 18 years of age and not enrolled in University.  The fighting force is Syrian exclusively and foreigners or mercenaries are prohibited. Like any national army, they are fighting to defend their land and families. Service is mandatory, and those serving are from every community in Syria: Christians and Muslims.

The forces are protecting the borders from invasion, and civilians from terrorists or foreign occupations.  The civilians of every country on earth are depending on their national army for protection and defense.  A civilian might be able to defend their home and family with a rifle, but they would be defenseless facing a tank confiscated by a terrorist group, or a Turkish military helicopter, like what occurred in Kessab on March 21, 2014.

Kessab, a Christian village in northern Syria, was attacked, invaded, and occupied for three months by the US-sponsored Free Syrian Army (FSA), along with their allies, Al Qaeda foreign terrorists, who used Turkey as their transit point.

It was the SAA who fought the international terrorists for three months and liberated the village, where the terrorists had raped, maimed, kidnapped, and looted.

War crimes of the ‘rebels’

The US-sponsored and supported FSA have committed war crimes and atrocities, which were reported by western media sources as early as 2012. The US tried to portray the FSA as ‘freedom fighters’ and ‘moderate rebels’; however, they beheaded, ate the flesh of humans, and instituted Sharia law (Islamic law) in areas they controlled.  They were never secular, or moderate, as evidenced by their early banner “Christians to Beirut, Alawis to the grave.”

The FSA lacked the support of the majority of the Syrian people.  They had a loyal base, those following the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is based on the same Radical Islamic principles as ISIS. The FSA supporters were a minority in Syria, and this led to their defeat and demise. They were banking on the SAR breaking down and defecting to the FSA, but that never happened.  Once the FSA began to be defeated by the SAR, they called on their allies Al Qaeda, and international terrorists from the four corners of the earth began flooding into Syria from Turkey.

War crimes of terrorists

In 2014, the Islamic State (ISIS) took control of a large portion of Syria. The SAR fought ISIS but became weak due to fighting on several fronts, not only ISIS but the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Jibhat al-Nusra.  In late 2015 the Russian military arrived to fight alongside the SAR to fight ISIS, as well as Jibhat al-Nusra, which is designated as a terrorist group by the UN, US, and EU.

Idlib is the last terrorist-occupied area in Syria, and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham holds about two million people as human shields.  The group had formerly been named Jibhat al-Nusra, but after the UN, US, and EU had designated them a terrorist group, they changed their name since the US had been supporting them as ‘rebels’ in Idlib. The name change was to re-brand them and allow the US and their Arab Gulf allies to continue supporting the terrorists.

Chemical accusations

In May 2013, Carla Del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney-general and prosecutor with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), said evidence points to the ‘rebels’ using sarin gas.  She was a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry.

In April 2018 veteran Middle East war correspondent Robert Fisk went in search of the chemical claims made in Douma.  Fisk had maintained an anti-Assad stance throughout the war, but he went to Douma with open eyes, looking for the truth. What he found there was the other side of the video shown around the world. After interviewing doctors, nurses and bystanders he found the gas video was patients overcome not by gas but by oxygen starvation in the tunnels and basements in which they lived, on a night of wind and heavy shelling that stirred up a dust storm.

The terrorists had everything to gain from using chemicals on civilians, to elicit a military response from the US against the SAR.  Though chemicals were proven to be used, there has never been any proof that it was the SAR who used them.

The war in Syria is over. Refugees and displaced persons have been returning. The battlefields are silent, but the final political negotiations have not been concluded.  Idlib and the northeast will be part of the final political solution.

The accusations against Asma al-Assad are about judging the legality of the SAR.  In any war, there are the innocent who are affected by being caught in the middle.  To judge the actions of the SAR in Syria, the people of Aleppo, Homs, and Damascus must be consulted. The question of who liberated their neighborhoods from armed terrorists will be answered by, “the SAR”.  If the SAR were believed to be gassing civilians, wouldn’t the civilians in Syria be in fear and loathing of the troops? Yet, most civilians remained in Syria, weathering the war, and sending their sons, brothers, and husbands to the SAR.  Some who left Syria were politically opposed to the Syrian government, but the majority left as economic migrants, seeking a safe place free of terrorism, and the opportunity of an income.

The accusations brought by Guernica 37 in London are part of the western pressure on the Syrian government, which began in March 2011 in Deraa.  Syria was never a civil war; it was a foreign-backed project for ‘regime change’ drafted in Washington, DC., Paris, and London.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

At long last, there is a credible challenge from within to the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA), an increasingly autocratic and unpopular body that has a limited administrative function over enclaves in the Israeli occupied territories.

This challenge constitutes a growing hope. As political analyst Mamdouh al-’Iker puts it,

“These [upcoming Palestinian] elections may hold an opportunity to create, even if a tiny crack, in the wall of our current reality, through which we would embark on a change towards… independence and our right to self-determination and return. Saving our national project requires change on more than one level.”

But Mahmoud Abbas seems determined to stamp out constructive, strategic change even within Fatah itself.

In mid-January 2021, Abbas’s office issued a decree that Palestinian legislative (parliamentary) elections will be held on 22 May and presidential elections on 31 July in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

Abbas’s response to an alternative election slate proposed by Nasser al-Qidwa, nephew of Yasser Arafat and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Yasser Arafat Foundation, shows how far he is prepared to go to keep the horrific political status quo.

The slate includes a diverse list of names from inside and outside Fatah and is backed by Hani al-Masri, General Manager of Masarat Center. Al-Qidwa also endorsed imprisoned Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti for president, should the latter decide to run. Abbas responded with two memos on March 11, 2021, one stripping al-Qidwa from his Fatah membership and another, via the General Manager of the PLO Palestine National Fund, halting funding for the Yasser Arafat Foundation. (See What is the Fate of Fatah? [Arabic])

The 85-year-old Abbas is trying to nip in the bud this homegrown challenge to Fatah’s autocratic grip on the West Bank, once again demonstrating how averse the PA’s structure is to a true national liberation project.

Abbas’s announcement of the elections, the first in 15 years, was widely seen in the Western press as “an effort to heal long-standing internal divisions… to try and present a united front [among Palestinian factions] since Israel reached diplomatic agreements last year with four Arab countries” and to reset relations with Joe Biden after Trump had cut off all aid, proposing a Mideast plan that would have allowed Israel to annex parts of the occupied West Bank.

Alaa Tartir, fellow of Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network, tells us what the above means in plain language:

The decision to hold elections is largely due to external — both international and regional — pressure and conditionality… the Palestinian Authority (PA) — and implicitly the leadership of Hamas — wanted to send a clear message to the new US administration that they are “ready for business”, they are ready to return to the “old normal”, and they are ready to receive the US financial “aid” … happy to return to the “negotiation table” … under strong pressure from the donor community (especially the Europeans) to “renew their democratic mandate.”

In other words, as Tartir explains, the legislative and presidential elections announcement is not due to “home-grown, local, people-driven reasons.” Furthermore,

donors are only interested in “nominal democracy”, and they are interested in seeing “the Palestinians going to the ballot box”, as one senior European diplomat told me, adding “we understand this is not real democracy, but it is better than nothing, and we are here to support.”

Both the EU and the US are prepared to act against the will of the Palestinian people by holding back vital aid, as they did in 2006 after Hamas won the last parliamentary elections.

But what Abbas is doing now in the way he is responding to an internal Fatah party challenge does not even have that tenuous logic behind it. He appears to be responding to a power struggle within Fatah for the sake of holding on to a strategy that has long failed in achieving its goals.

Yara Hawari, another fellow of Al-Shabaka, states that

there is much reason to believe the Palestinian elections scheduled for later this year will neither be free nor fair… It is unlikely that any Israeli government would permit Palestinian elections in Jerusalem, as doing so would amount to acknowledging a legitimate Palestinian presence in the city, and therefore challenge the Israeli claim of sovereignty over the entire metropolis. Moreover, the Israeli regime may even try to prevent Palestinian Jerusalemites from taking part in the elections by threatening to revoke their residence permits if they do so.

That prediction is already playing out. Claiming that his activities in Jerusalem undermine its authority, Israel has issued Palestinian Governor of occupied Jerusalem Adnan Ghaith an order banning any communication with President Mahmoud Abbas for seven days, “while renewing the ban on him entering the occupied city for six months.”

The PA, with its corruption and insistence on fearful obedience from its subjects without accountability or oversight, stands shoulder to shoulder with the Israeli authorities in attempting to prevent a viable political alternative from emerging in the Palestinian political arena within the occupied territories.

On March 16, Hani al-Masri blogged about rumors regarding the postponement of the elections, because of the impediments the pandemic poses, because the PA does not have Israel’s approval and the lack of agreed-upon mechanism for holding elections in the city of Jerusalem, because Israel is sending signals regarding its displeasure with Hamas’s participation, because of the

lack of clarity of the American position on the elections, as the matter is still under examination, with concerns that Hamas, which the US classifies as a “terrorist” organization, will win again [as it did in the legislative elections of 2006]… and because of concerns and uncertainty about the new slates…[and] disagreements within the Fatah and Hamas movements, and widespread popular opposition to the Joint List that could be reflected in the ballot boxes, as they were not based on agreements, nor on ending the division [between the two movements]… The election process is nothing more than an attempt to engineer and ensure certain results in a way that achieves containment and reproduction of the status quo, putting individual interests over the national interest.

Al-Masri’s assessment regarding the election process was verified at the meeting (on March 16, 2021) in Cairo of Palestinian factions participating in the upcoming general elections to discuss “key issues linked to the elections.” [Al-Masri, who had been part of the delegations invited to the first meeting in Cairo, was not invited to this one.]

Image on the right: Mustafa Barghouti (March 16, 2021) at the Cairo meeting of Palestinian factions participating in the upcoming general elections

Upon emerging from the meeting in Cairo, Mustafa Barghouti, General Secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative (PNI), expressed his deep regret that no agreement had been reached to amend the election statute (specifically, lowering the age of candidacy, raising the percentage of representation in the Legislative Council elections for women, and reducing the fees for participation in the elections). Agreement was blocked, he explained, under the pretext that it is not permissible to introduce amendments after the issuance of a law, “even though, on previous occasions, the law had, in fact, been amended even while the electoral process was taking place.”

The parties did commit “not to exercise any form of pressure, intimidation, treason, blasphemy, violence, or any form of blackmail against any of the candidates or voters.”

Neither Fatah in the West Bank nor Hamas in Gaza has a popular mandate and both parties are maintaining their limited rule over these two occupied Palestinian territories through authoritarianism and corruption.

*

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

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Left: Dr. Nasser al-Qidwa, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Yasser Arafat Foundation; Right: Hani Almasri, General Manager of Masarat Center — مركز مسارات

Brazil’s Lula in a Wilderness of Mirrors

March 18th, 2021 by Pepe Escobar

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

A surprising Supreme Court decision that, while not definitive, restores Lula’s political rights has hit Brazil like a semiotic bomb and plunged the nation into a reality show being played in a wilderness of shattered mirrors.   

At first, it looked like three key variables would remain immutable. 

  • The Brazilian military run the show – and that would not change. They maintain total veto power over whether Lula may run for president for a third term in 2022 – or be neutralized, again, via whatever juridical maneuver might be deemed necessary, at the time of their choosing.
  • President Bolsonaro – whose popularity was hovering around 44% – would now have free rein to mobilize all strands of the right against Lula, fully supported by the Brazilian ruling class.
  • Pinochetist Economics Minister Paulo Guedes would continue to have free rein to completely destroy the Brazilian state, industry and society on behalf of the 0.001%.

But then, 48 hours later, came the Lula tour de force: a speech and press conference combo lasting a Proustian three hours – starting with a long thank you list on which, significantly, the first two names were Argentina President Alberto Fernandez and Pope Francis, implying a future Brazil-Argentina strategic axis.

During those three hours, Lula operated a masterful pre-emptive strike. Fully aware he’s still not out of the legal woods, far from it, he could not possibly project himself as a revolutionary leader. In the complex Brazilian matrix, only the evolution of social movements will in the distant future create the political conditions for some possibility of radical revolution.

So Lula opted for the next-best play: he completely changed the narrative by drawing a sharp contrast to the dreadful wasteland presided over by Bolsonaro. He emphasized the welfare of Brazilian society; the necessary role of the state, as social provider and development organizer; and the imperative of creating jobs and raising people’s incomes.

“I want the Armed Forces taking care of the nation’s sovereignty,” he stressed. The political message to the Brazilian military – who hold all the cards in the current political charade – was unmistakable.

On the autonomy of the Brazilian Central Bank, he remarked that the only ones who profited from it comprised “the financial system.” And he made it quite clear the main circumstance in which “they should be afraid of me” will be if choice chunks of productive Brazil – as in national energy giant Petrobras – are sold for nothing. So he firmly positioned himself against the ongoing neoliberal privatization drive.

Obama-Biden

Even knowing that Obama-Biden were the (silent) overseers of the slow motion lawfare coup against President Dilma Rousseff from 2013 to 2016, Lula could not afford to be confrontational with Washington.

Refraining from throwing a fragmentation bomb he didn’t mention that then-Vice President Biden spent three days in Brazil in May 2013 and met Dilma – discussing, among other key issues, the fabulous pre-salt oil reserves. One week later, the first installment of a rolling Brazilian color revolution hit the streets.

Lula skirted another potential fragmentation bomb when he said,

“I had the intention to build a strong currency with China and Russia so not to be dependent on the U.S. dollar. Obama knew about it.”

That’s correct: but Lula could have stressed that this was arguably the fundamental motivation for the coup – and for the destruction of an emergent Brazil, then 6th largest economy in the world and accumulating vast political capital across the Global South.

Lula is far from secure enough to take the risk of indicting the whole, elaborate Obama-Biden/FBI/Justice Department operation that created the conditions for the Car Wash investigation racket – now totally unmasked. The US deep state is watching. Watching everything. In real time. And they won’t let their tropical neo-colony slip away without a fight.

Still, the Lula Show was an incantatory, hypnotic invitation to tens of millions of people glued to their smartphones, a society terminally exhausted, appalled and infuriated by a multi-pronged tragedy presided over by Bolsonaro.

Hence the inevitable, subsequent vortex.

What is to be done?

If confirmed as the ultimate comeback kid, Lula faces a Sisyphean task. The unemployment rate is 21.6% nationally, over 30% in the poorer northeastern regions.

It reaches nearly 50% among 18-24-year-olds. The emergency government help in times of pandemic was initially set at a little over $100 – to loud opposition protests. Now that it’s been scaled down to a paltry $64, the opposition is clinging to the previous $100 it rejected.

For 60% of the Brazilian working class monthly wages are less than what was the minimum wage in 2018, at the time valued around $300.

In contrast to relentless impoverishment, a hefty chunk of Brazilian industrialists would like to see the Guedes hardcore neoliberal orchestra keep playing unencumbered. That implies serial super-exploitation of the work force and indiscriminate sell-off of state assets. A large proportion of the pre-salt deposits – in terms of reserves already discovered – is not Brazilian-owned anymore.

The military de facto handed over the nation’s economy to transnational finance. Brazil virtually depends on mercenary agro-business to pay its bills. As soon as China reaches food security, with Russia as a major supplier, this arrangement will vanish – and foreign reserves will dwindle.

To talk about “de-industrialization” in Brazil – as the liberal left does – makes no sense whatsoever, as rapacious industrialists themselves support neoliberalism and rentism.

Add to it a narco-trafficking boom as a direct consequence of the nation’s industrial collapse, coupled with what could be defined as the incremental US-style evangelicalization of social life expressing the predominant anomie, and we have the most graphic case of disaster capitalism ravaging a major Global South economy in the 21st century.

So what is to be done?

No smoking gun

Of course there’s no smoking gun. But all the shadowplay points toward a deal. Now seemingly rallying around him are, with the exception of the military, the same actors who tried to destroy Lula – what is dubbed the “juristocracy,” powerful media interests, the goddess of the market.

After all, Bolsonaro – the incarnation of a military project rolled out since at least 2014 – is not only bad for business: his psychotic inconsequence is downright dangerous.

For instance, if Brasilia cuts off Huawei from 5G in Brazil, sooner rather than later agro-business mercenaries will be eating their own soya beans, as Chinese retaliation will be devastating. China is Brazil’s top trade partner.

Key plot twists remain unanswered. For instance, whether the Supreme Court decision – which may be reverted – was taken only to protect the Car Wash investigation, actually racket, and its crypto Elliott Ness-style superstar, now discredited provincial judge Sergio Moro.

Or whether a new judicial via crucis for Lula may be unleashed if their handlers so decide. After all, the Supreme Court is a cartel. Virtually every one of the 11 justices is compromised to one degree or another.

The paramount variable is what the imperial masters really want. No one inside the Beltway has a conclusive answer. The Pentagon wants a neo-colony – with minimum Russia-China influence, that is, a fractured BRICS. Wall Street wants maximum plunder. As it stands, both the Pentagon and Wall Street never had it so good.

Obama-Biden 3.0 want some continuity: the sophisticated early-to-mid 2010s project of shattering Brazil via Hybrid War developed under their patronage. But now that must proceed under “acceptable” management; for the Dem leadership Bolsonaro, on every level, is irredeemably linked to Trump.

So this is the crucial deal to watch in the long run: Lula/Obama-Biden 3.0.

Brasilia insiders close to the military are spinning that if the deep state/Wall Street consortium gets its new basket of goodies – China out of 5G, increased weapons sales, the privatization of Eletrobras, new Petrobras price policies – the military may discard Lula again anytime.

Always in negotiation mode, Lula had been in action even before the Supreme Court decision. In late 2020, Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Development Investment Fund which financed the Sputnik V vaccine, took a meeting with Lula, after he identified the former president as one of the signatories of a petition by Nobel Economics prize Muhammad Yunus calling for Covid-19 vaccines to be a common good. The meeting was firmly encouraged by Russian President Putin.

This eventually led to tens of millions of doses of Sputnik V being available for a group of Brazilian northeastern states. Lula played a key part in the negotiation. The federal government, initially bowing to heavy American pressure to demonize Sputnik V, but then confronted with a vaccine disaster, was forced to jump on the bandwagon and now is even trying to take the credit for it.

As it stands, this enthralling telenovela political frenzy may be exhibiting all the hallmarks of a psyops crossover between MMA and WWE – starring a few good guys and an abundance of heels.

The (military) house would like to give the impression it is controlling all the bets. But Lula – as the consummate political practitioner of “float like a butterfly, sting like a bee” – should never be underestimated.

As soon as the taming of Covid-19 allows it – to a great extent thanks to Sputnik V – Lula’s best bet will be to hit the road. Unleash the battered working masses in the streets, energize them, talk to them, listen to them. Internationalize the Brazilian drama while trying to bridge the gap between Washington and the BRICS.

And act like the true leader of the Global South he never ceased to be.

*

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

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

According to an article in Database Italia, the complaint lodged last week in the Hague court accusing the Israeli government of violating the Nuremberg code has been confirmed. A decision is now awaited.

A complaint was filed in The Hague Tribunal by lawyers Ruth Makhacholovsky and Aryeh Suchowolski last weekend regarding violations of the Nuremberg Code by the Israeli government and other parties. We recall that the People of Truth organization has filed a complaint against the Israeli government, which is carrying out illegal experiments on Israeli citizens through the Pfizer vaccination.

The organization includes lawyers, doctors, public activists and the general public, who have chosen to exercise their democratic right not to receive experimental medical treatment (Corona vaccine), and feel under great and serious pressure. illegal acts by the Israeli government, parliamentarians and ministers, senior representatives of the public, mayors, etc.”

Therefore, and taking into account the above, they ask:

1. L’immediate cessation of medical experience and administration of vaccines to the Israeli public.

2. Ask the government adopt all legislative procedures that do not violate the principle of informed consent of a person to receive the medical treatment described above, which denies legal status in Israel and in Israeli democracy, including avoiding the creation of a health passport, giving the names of unvaccinated people to local authorities or to any other competent legislator.

3. Take the most severe measures against any public, commercial or employment entity that violates state labor laws or other matters necessary to prevent coercion or solicitation of vaccines, as well as discrimination, against those who choose not to receive the vaccines. innovative medical care mentioned above.

4. Draw your attention to the fact that a copy of this document will also be sent to the media around the world for violating the Nuremberg Code. Relevant in all countries of the free world.

5. And as a final remark, it should be noted that it was only recently that a Council of Europe decision was taken on 27/1/21, in which all authorities are ordered not to exercise pressuring or soliciting people to take the Corona vaccine in any way. Therefore, whatever is good for advanced European countries is certainly also good for Israel – and the balance is obvious ”.

Lawyer Ruth Makhachovsky told Israel News:

Pfizer’s experiment in the State of Israel was carried out in violation of the Nuremberg Code, which is part of international criminal law and is under the jurisdiction of the Hague tribunal. We are now awaiting a decision”.

Link to the cause.

Link to the observations of the European Council.

*

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

Featured image is from Health Impact News

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Changes are taking place on the Brazilian political scene. Former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva recently returned with great political strength, reversing years of popular antipathy. After a controversial judicial decision that extinguished all the prosecutions against him, Lula demonstrated his capacity for political articulation and is making public some maneuvers he had been secretly carrying out until now, the results of which tend to have a great impact in Brazil about a year before of the upcoming presidential elections.

The most notable result of Lula’s articulations is the arrival of the Russian Sputnik V vaccine in Brazil. In the coming weeks, tens of millions of doses of the vaccine will be sent to Brazil, reversing the result of months of the federal government’s campaign against the Russian product. Lula’s role in the arrival of vaccines was fundamental. The ex-president held talks with some of his contacts abroad to try to get around the diplomatic crisis brought about by the Bolsonaro government with his pandemic denialism. Together with the former Health Minister and current deputy Alexandre Padilha, Lula was in contact with the Russian authorities in a parallel diplomacy work.

The work started last year, when Lula, still removed from public life, signed an international manifesto in favor of the classification of vaccines as “common good for humanity” in a campaign for a wide distribution of vaccines for poor countries. The former president was then contacted by the director of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, Kirill Dmitriev, at the request of President Vladimir Putin himself. Putin and Dmitriev’s intention was to show the Russian desire to cooperate with Brazil in medical diplomacy and expand the distribution of Sputnik V. Lula immediately accepted the proposals.

It is curious to note that when Lula started to negotiate with the Russians in November last year, according to information provided by Padilha himself, Brazil had only the Chinese vaccine, whose production center is the Butantan Institute, commanded by the Government of São Paulo. At the same time, the federal government had the ambition to bring the vaccine from Astrazeneca, but there was still no forecast for the arrival of the doses. Across the country, strong pressure was beginning to emerge for Brazil to purchase vaccines from other laboratories, as the death toll grew day by day. Although some local governments tried to negotiate the purchase of Sputnik V with Russian authorities, the federal government was strongly opposed to admitting such a vaccine in its national immunization plan, just as it had done with Coronavac. Lula emerged as a figure parallel to the small-scale negotiations by state governments and Bolsonaro’s anti-vaccine crusade and presented terms favorable to the acquisition of the product, which explains his success.

Lula’s strategy was to create alternatives to non-viable negotiations with the federal government by establishing an alliance between the Russians and a consortium of Brazilian governors allied to him, mainly in the Northeast region, where the former president shows greater political strength. After the meeting between Lula and Dmitriev by videoconference, governors of Lula’s party began to negotiate directly with RDIF. The governor of the State of Bahia, Rui Costa, who is a member of Lula’s party, led the negotiations. As a result, 39 million vaccines were purchased by Brazilians.

This case shows us how the Bolsonaro government’s incompetence in managing the health crisis is leading to the need for a stronger parallel diplomacy – and this will certainly harm the federal government itself. Bolsonaro has so far made two speeches in relation to the pandemic. At first, his posture tended to total denialism. Later, Bolsonaro gradually admitted the seriousness of the virus, but, in return, endorsed an anti-scientific discourse on vaccines and, for reasons of political alliance, started a crusade against Russian and Chinese vaccines – arguably the most efficient so far produced – in favor of the vaccines of Astrazeneca and Pfizer, which represented their international interests in political alliance with Americans and British. Bolsonaro did not consider popular interests and local governments, in addition to underestimating the strength of some of his greatest political opponents, such as Lula.

Lula’s return to political life is very controversial. The Court’s decision that annulled all legal prosecutions against him constitutes nothing more than a political maneuver against Bolsonaro. Lula is far from being a socialist or extreme left politician. He is a great conciliator and has always sought to simultaneously serve the interests of the economic elites and popular classes. Thus, it is likely that some sectors of Brazilian politics will see him as a more stable figure than Bolsonaro and will come to support him as an alternative for the 2022 elections. This is the position of the judiciary class, for example – which led it to cancel the processes. Lula can now run for election again or nominate a candidate and support him more emphatically. And certainly, the fact that he got millions of vaccines and immunized a large part of the population will be his main electoral speech.

However, for 2022, we cannot forget the figure of João Dória, governor of the State of São Paulo who commands the Brazilian production of Coronavac through the Butantan Institute. Dória started a great political polarization against Bolsonaro and, according to several sources, plans to run for president in 2022. Dória has the production of Coronavac – the most widespread vaccine in Brazil so far – as his main discourse and this creates a previous scenario of vaccine-based electoral dispute: Lula will support Sputnik V, Dória will support Coronavac and Bolsonaro will support Pfizer and Astrazeneca’s products. In this scenario, Bolsonaro is visibly the weakest part. Not only was he unable to produce such vaccines on a large scale in Brazil, but he probably will also not be able to because of technical and financial infeasibility. In addition to being the most expensive, the Pfizer vaccine, for example, requires refrigeration to -70 degrees Celsius to keep it conserved. Such a technology does not exist in Brazil, which makes an immunization plan based on this vaccine impossible.

Either Bolsonaro radically changes his stance on vaccines and stops basing his immunization plan on purely ideological issues, or his political future will be the electoral defeat in 2022.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

COVID – Bioethics, Eugenics and “Death Panels”: “A Warning”

By Peter Koenig, March 17 2021

193 UN member countries, in unison and lockstep, closed their borders, economies and live-societies. It marked the beginning of the planet’s economic and societal destruction – all for an invisible enemy, a corona virus that could never have hit the entire globe at the same time. So, what’s the plot?

Upcoming Sino/US Talks in Alaska

By Stephen Lendman, March 17 2021

On Thursday, China’s Central Committee official/Foreign Affairs Director Yang Jiechi and Foreign Minister Wang Yi will meet with Biden regime’s top “diplomat” Tony Blinken and national security advisor Jake Sullivan in Anchorage, Alaska.

Britain’s “Pivots to Asia” to Contain China

By Tom Clifford, March 17 2021

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his admirals are looking at a new horizon stretching through crowded seaways east from India to Japan and south from China to Australia.

Video: The Houthis Continue Their Push, but Is Erdogan Coming to the Saudi Kingdom’s Rescue?

By South Front, March 17 2021

Yemen’s Ansar Allah are unrelenting in their offensive, both on positions inside the country, and in attacks on Saudi Arabia’s infrastructure within the Kingdom.

New High in Americans’ Perceptions of China as “U.S.’s Greatest Enemy”à

By Mohamed Younis, March 17 2021

China is upheld as an Enemy of America. America’s perceptions regarding China are manipulated both by the media and official government statements. This article documents the role of gallup polls in manipulating American perceptions concerning China.

20+ Countries Suspend Use of AstraZeneca Vaccine, but Regulators Insist ‘Benefits Outweigh Risks’

By Megan Redshaw, March 17 2021

More than 20 countries have either suspended or said they will delay Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccinations based on reports of deaths or injuries — in most cases related to blood clots — in healthy people who received the vaccine.

War Crimes: From Bloody Sunday in Derry, Northern Ireland to Croatia, Kosovo and Iraq

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 17 2021

Almost forty years later: The 5000 page Saville Commission Report into the 1972 Bloody Sunday massacre in Derry, Northern Ireland, fails to identify who were the perpetrators, both within H.M government and the British Army.

The Reason Why NATO Demolished Libya Ten Years Ago

By Manlio Dinucci, March 17 2021

Ten years ago, on March 19, 2011, US / NATO forces began the air-naval bombing of Libya. The war was directed by the United States, first through the Africa Command, then through NATO under US command.

Ten Years On, the US Still Promotes Failed Regime-change Policy in Syria

By Scott Ritter, March 17 2021

The US has only one objective in Syria—regime change. The fact that it has been unable to achieve this after ten years of trying does not appear to deter the Biden administration from embracing failure.

Video: Mass Vaccination in a Pandemic: Benefits versus Risks: Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche

By Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche and Dr. Philip McMillan, March 17 2021

Geert Vanden Bossche PhD, is an internationally recognised vaccine developer having worked as the head of the Vaccine Development Office at the German Centre for Infection Research.

Video: Bioethics and the New Eugenics

By The Corbett Report, March 17 2021

Forced vaccination. Immunity passports. The erection of a biosecurity state. For the first time, the eugenics-infused philosophers of bioethics are on the verge of gaining real power. And the public is still largely unaware of the discussions that these academics have been engaged in for decades.

COVID-19 and Girls’ Education in East Asia and Pacific

By UNICEF, March 17 2021

In the East Asia and Pacific region, the pandemic brought education provision in all of the 27 countries supported by UNICEF programmes to a standstill disrupting the lives and affecting the learning of over 325 million children at its peak in April 2020.

Digital Trails: How the FBI Is Identifying, Tracking and Rounding Up Dissidents

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, March 17 2021

With every new smart piece of smart technology we acquire, every new app we download, every new photo or post we share online, we are making it that much easier for the government and its corporate partners to identify, track and eventually round us up.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: COVID – Bioethics, Eugenics and “Death Panels”: “A Warning”

Voices from Syria by Mark Taliano and The Dirty War on Syria by Tim Anderson: Purchase these two essential books on Syria for one low price.

*SPECIAL OFFER: Voices from Syria + The Dirty War on Syria

Author Name: Mark Taliano / Tim Anderson

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-1-6 / 978-0-9737147-8-4

Year: 2017 / 2016 – Pages: 128 / 240

List Price: $41.90

Special Price: $19.95 – Click to purchase

Voices from Syria, by Mark Taliano

Mark Taliano talks and listens to the people of Syria. He reveals the courage and resilience of a Nation and its people in their day to day lives, after more that six years of US-NATO sponsored terrorism.

“Syria is an ancient land with a proud and forward-looking people, to which we sent mercenaries, hatred, bloodshed and destruction.

Syrians welcomed me to their country as one of their own. These are their stories; these are their voices.”

Reviews:

Mark Taliano exposes the barbarity of Washington’s latest regime change aspirations. The West’s political spin is laid bare in the words of the Syrian people.

Felicity Arbuthnot, Veteran Middle East War Correspondent.

Canadian Mark Taliano has brought together an excellent mix of anecdotes and analysis to create a very accessible short book on the terrible Syrian conflict. It should serve as a primer for all those who feel curious, dissatisfied or cheated by the near monolithic war chorus of the western corporate media.

Mark is one of those few westerners who took the trouble to travel to Syria during this war, to talk to Syrians of all ranks and see for himself the human reality of this country which, in 2011, became the latest target of the Washington-led coalition.He deftly mixes stories from soldiers, doctors, politicians, clerics and ordinary citizens with his prior reading. That reading includes the invaluable insights of a new generation of investigative journalists, in particular Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley. Start with Mark’s first chapter ‘In Their Own Voices’ and you won’t put it down. He humanises the Syrian people, their culture and their nation in a way that is normally not permitted at wartime.

Tim Anderson, Distinguished Author and Senior Lecturer of Political Economy, University of Sydney, Australia

 


Also available in PDF format delivered to your e-mail address:

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 


 

Mark Taliano speaks from Syria:

 


The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance, by Tim Anderson

The Dirty War on Syria has relied on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory. In seeking ‘regime change’ the big powers sought to hide their hand, using proxy armies of ‘Islamists’, demonising the Syrian Government and constantly accusing it of atrocities. In this way Syrian President Bashar al Assad, a mild-mannered eye doctor, became the new evil in the world.

As western peoples we have been particularly deceived by this dirty war, reverting to our worst traditions of intervention, racial prejudice and poor reflection on our own histories. This book tries to tell its story while rescuing some of the better western traditions: the use of reason, ethical principle and the search for independent evidence.

Reviews: 

Tim Anderson  has written the best systematic critique of western fabrications justifying the war against the Assad government. No other text brings together all the major accusations and their effective refutation. This text is essential reading for all peace and justice activists.

-James Petras, Bartle Emeritus Professor, University of Binghampton, New York.

Anderson’s excellent book is required reading for those wanting to know the true story of the imperialist proxy war waged on Syria by the U.S. and its Western and Middle Eastern puppet states. This account could also be titled “How to Destroy a Country and Lie About it”. Of course Syria is only one in a long line of countries destroyed by Washington in the Middle East and all over the Global South for more than a century.

Anderson’s analysis is particularly useful for dissecting the propaganda war waged by the U.S. to hide its active support for the vicious Islamic fundamentalists it is using in Syria. In spreading this propaganda the U.S. has been aided not only by the West’s mainstream press but also by its prominent so-called human rights organizations.

-Asad Ismi, International Affairs Correspondent for The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Monitor.

 


Also available in PDF format delivered to your e-mail address:

The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance (PDF) 

Author: Tim Anderson

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-7-7

Year: 2016

Product Type: PDF File

Price: $9.45


 

Tim Anderson interviewed on GRTV:

Click here to order these two important books today

 

  • Posted in English, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on “Voices from Syria” and “The Dirty War on Syria”: Mark Taliano and Tim Anderson Analyze the War on Syria

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The Director of National Intelligence’s latest report about alleged Russian meddling in the US’ 2020 elections consists of a 15-page document which assesses with “high confidence” that President Putin “was aware of and probably directed Russia’s influence operations” aimed at shaping the outcome of America’s democratic process, including by relying on a proxy network of supposedly foreign intelligence-linked US contacts who “denigrat[ed] President Biden and the Democratic Party” in parallel with supporting former President Trump’s suspicions of mail-in ballots and social media censorship among other topics. This shockingly amounts to US spies unprecedentedly attempting to intimidate dissident Americans.

In The Words Of America’s “Intelligence Community”

What follows are pertinent excerpts from the report:

We have high confidence in our assessment; Russian state and proxy actors who all serve the Kremlin’s interests worked to affect US public perceptions in a consistent manner…We assess that President Putin and other senior Russian officials were aware of and probably directed Russia’s influence operations against the 2020 US Presidential election…The primary effort the IC uncovered revolved around a narrative-that Russian actors began spreading as early as 2014-alleging corrupt ties between President Biden, his family, and other US officials and Ukraine. Russian intelligence services relied on Ukraine-linked proxies and these proxies’ networks-including their US contacts-to spread this narrative to give Moscow plausible deniability of their involvement.

Throughout the election, Russia’s online influence actors sought to amplify mistrust in the electoral process by denigrating mail-in ballots, highlighting alleged irregularities, and accusing the Democratic Party of voter fraud…Russian state media, trolls, and online proxies, including those directed by Russian intelligence, published disparaging content about President Biden, his family, and the Democratic Party, and heavily amplified related content circulating in US media, including stories centered on his son. These influence actors frequently sought out US contributors to increase their reach into US audiences. In addition to election-related content, these online influence actors also promoted conspiratorial narratives about the COVID-19 pandemic, made allegations of social media censorship, and highlighted US divisions surrounding protests about racial justice.

Russian online influence actors generally promoted former President Trump and his commentary, including repeating his political messaging on the election results; the presidential campaign; debates; the impeachment inquiry; and, as the election neared, US domestic crises…Moscow’s range of influence actors uniformly worked to denigrate President Biden after his entrance into the race. Throughout the primaries and general election campaign, Russian influence agents repeatedly spread unsubstantiated or misleading claims about President Biden and his family’s alleged wrongdoing related to Ukraine…Even after the election, Russian online influence actors continued to promote narratives questioning the election results and disparaging President Biden and the Democratic Party.”

21st-Century McCarthyism? 

As can be clearly concluded from the above excerpts, America’s own spies openly accused dissident Americans of being Russian intelligence assets – if not outright agents – actively participating in a foreign influence operation aimed at meddling in their country’s elections.

This determination was reached solely as a result of their public criticisms of Biden, the Democrat Party, mail-in ballots, the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic (described by the author as World War C), objectively existing social media censorship policies (including the undeniable example of former President Trump’s deplatforming), Antifa and “Black Lives Matter’s” Hybrid War of Terror on America, and the self-professed regime change “conspiracy” by a “well-connected cabal of powerful people” that Time Magazine proudly bragged about the Democrats successfully executing against Trump.

In other words, dissident Americans’ peaceful and responsible exercise of their constitutionally enshrined freedom of speech – including by repeating what their own president at the time was saying – is being held against them as supposed proof that they were secretly meddling in their elections on behalf of Russia.

This can only be described as 21st-century McCarthyism since the spy faction of America’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) is once again actively denigrating the country’s dissidents and therefore quite literally meddling in their own country’s democratic process despite ironically accusing Moscow of doing the exact same thing.

Not only is this meant to intimidate all those who dare to publicly voice their opposition to the ruling Democrat Party and its proxies (including the RINOs), but it’s also intended to revive the debunked conspiracy theory that Trump was actually a “Russian agent/asset”.

Concluding Thoughts

America is in for dark days ahead as Biden’s “Dark Winter” statement becomes a reality even quicker than some of the most critical voices such as the author himself could have predicted. The US’ spy agencies are sending the clearest signal yet that they’ll politically repress all those who dare to publicly oppose the ruling Democrat Party and its proxies.

This could predictably take the form of first harassing them with their taxes and then perhaps calling them into local FBI field offices to be interrogated, after which they might even have false espionage or other related charges filed against them in order to send a chilling message to all others. This unprecedented attack against American dissidents is arguably much worse than anything that the country ever experienced during the era of traditional McCarthyism, and it won’t improve anytime soon since the Democrats are solidly in control of the “deep state” and eager to snuff out all dissent whenever and wherever it arises.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US Director of National Intelligence (DNI)’ Report on “Russian Meddling” Denigrates “Dissident Americans”
  • Tags: , ,

Today March 17, 2021 marks the tenth anniversary of the US-NATO-Israel war against the people of Syria. Below is a review of Mark Taliano‘s book entitled “Voices from Syria”

Our thoughts are with the People of Syria.

***

Telling the truth about the events taking place in Syria before world public opinion is an uphill battle because the real agenda of the terrorism-backers  who are seeking to destroy the Middle East, must remain unspeakable.

This fact is clarified by Canadian author Mark Taliano, in his book entitled ‘Voices from Syria’ with a view to shedding light on the truth, refuting the lies, with a view to reaching global peace and destroying the cancer of terrorism.

“The ‘Global War on Terrorism’ also known as the ‘war on Terror’ is a fraud. It is literally a global war for terror. Empire creates and uses extremist terrorist proxies, including ISIS (also called by its Arabic acronym, Daesh), to advance its geopolitical goals,” Taliano says in his book, indicating that the neoconservative “West” and its allies want to destroy the Middle East so that they can control it.

Peace activist Janice Kortkamp wrote on her FB in November 2016:

FALSE: The Syrian war began when president Bashar al-Assad brutally put down peaceful protests.

TRUE: The Syrian war was planned in earnest by the US since 2005. The Syrian soldiers and police were not even allowed to carry weapons until the ‘peaceful protesters’ had slaughtered several hundreds of police and soldiers.

Scores of testimonies from Syrians, open-source western documents and historical memory are used by the Canadian author to prove that Syria, which refuses to be a vassal of US-led forces of predatory capitalism, is on the front line against the dictatorship of this globalizing economic ideology that favours the dominance of capital and markets over people and nation-state.

“Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, Israel, and NATO are trying to impose this hidden driver of imperialism, called ‘International Capital’ on Syria,” the author asserts, quoting Robin Mathews as saying

“ A characteristic of imperial globalization is criminal manipulation of people and events for the profit of a few. It includes massive ‘disinformation’ about equality, benefits, social development, law, improved standards of living etc. the disinformation is spread by ‘authoritative’ news sources. In the hands of gigantic, wealthy, private corporations, globalization is a process which works to erase sovereign democracies and replace them with ‘treaties’ sub-states, economic colonies ruled by faceless, offshore, often secret, unaccountable power.”

Taliano says in the preface of his book (composed of 6 chapters) that the secular government of Syria is led by the elected president Bashar al-Assad, who is progressive and forward-looking. President al-Assad has earned the support of most Syrians by providing for them and by protecting them. Healthcare and education, including higher education, are free in Syria. Before the externally orchestrated and perpetrated war on Syria started, Syria was one of the safest countries in the world to visit.

Testimonies

Testimonies from Syrians living in Syria affirm that what is happening in the country is neither revolution nor civil war. Everybody in Syria knows that Washington is the mastermind and the main planner of the war and it supports terrorists by all means.

Those terrorists [ ISIS, al-Qaeda/ al-Nusra Front, White Helmets, Hayet Tahrir al-Sham HTS] are western proxies, none of them are moderate. They perpetrated hundreds of heinous crimes against Syrian civilians and in Syria.

A witness to the massacre at Adra area in Damascus countryside described the scene in these words:

“The ‘rebels’ began to attack the government centers and attacked the police stations- where all the policemen were killed after only a brief clash because of the large number of attackers. They (the attackers) then headed to the checkpoint located on the edge of the city before moving to the clinic where they slaughtered one from the medical staff and put his head in the popular market. They then dragged his body in front of town’s people who gathered to see what is happening. Bakery workers who resisted their machinery being taken away were roasted in their own oven. Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS fighters went from house to house with a list of names and none of those taken away then has been seen since.”

This is just one story out of hundreds of stories narrated by Syrians and obfuscated by Mainstream Media that has created a state of mass political imbecilisation amongst western media consumers.

The western media serves as an agency for imperial war rather than as an agency for truth and justice, according to Taliano, who underlined that voices of truth, justice and peace are suppressed.

Tim Anderson, Australian political economist and author, posted these words in July 2016:

“In my country (Australia) we have seen five years of a near monolithic war narrative on Syria, and associated wartime censorship of dissenting views. Although I have probably written more than any other Australian academic on the conflict in Syria I have been effectively black-listed from the Australian corporate and state media, because what I say does not fit the official line.”

Feigned humanitarianism

Moreover, the Canadian author talked in his book about feigned humanitarianism as a cover for crimes of the highest order and western crimes against law and order. He referred to Canada’s contribution to the cause of the disease metastasizing overseas when it chooses to ally itself with the cancer rather than the cure.

“The cancer is NATO and its allies, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan. We are the countries funding the terrorists, and we are the cancer that wants to illegally impose regime change in Syria,” Taliano stresses, making comparison between Russia’s intervention to cure the terror disease in Syria and NATO countries’ intervention to enable and support terrorism in Syria.

Not only Syria, but also Libya, Iraq and Ukraine have been infested with terrorists to destroy these countries and subjugate the population. For example in Syria, the western terrorists attacked 67 of the country’s 94 national hospitals between 2011 and 2013.

The Canadian author mentioned a list of President al-Assad’ notable accomplishments since 2000. Among them we number: Construction and restoration of 10.000 mosques, 500 churches, 8000 schools, 2000 institutes, 40 universities besides development of tourism, public transportation.

He, in addition, elaborated strategies used by colonizers to achieve their goals in the region. These strategies are starvation, indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations, illegal sanctions, and ‘divide and conquer’.

Taliano underscored that genocidal corporate media presstitutes follow the all-too-familiar script of blaming the victim for the crimes perpetrated by aggressor nations as it creates war propaganda.

He called for the need to build a consensus for truth, justice and peace, instead of building a consensus for war and first-strike nuclear attacks.

“As a first step, we would do well to boycott toxic mainstream media messaging, which favours lies, injustice and war…Mainstream media often uses public-relations-engineered sources for its stories- the ‘White Helmets’ and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) are good examples.”

“Historical memory teaches us that the dirty war against Syria is consistent with previous illegal wars of aggression and western-sourced evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that we are, yet again, the terrorists,” Taliano says.

He concluded by saying in his preface:

“As a visitor I felt shame, but Syrians welcomed me as one of them.”

All in all, “Voices from Syria” is a very interesting documentary book that includes clues about lies and crimes of western media against people in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Iraq and beyond.


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Today March 17, 2021 marks the tenth anniversary of the US-NATO-Israel war against the people of Syria.

Our thoughts are with the People of Syria.

Ten Years Ago: The onset of the The War on Syria

This article was first published on March 14, 2017

***

They lied about Iraq, they lied about Libya, but at least you can learn about what is going on in Syria with the help of people like Mark Taliano.

Mark, a retired Ontario teacher, visited Syria as part of the Third Tour of Peace. Through the contacts he made, he was able to write a booklet about the perspectives of Syrians under siege by the NATO/GCC assault on their country.

He discusses his book, Voices from Syria, and also the news about a team of Swedish doctors refuting the White Helmets’ pretensions of being first responders.

Excerpt from Foreword to Voices from Syria by Michel Chossudovsky:

We bring to the attention of our readers Mark Taliano’s Book entitled Voices from Syria. In contrast to most geopolitical analysts of the Middle East, Mark Taliano focusses on what unites humanity with the people of Syria in their struggle against foreign aggression. Taliano talks and listens to the people of Syria. He reveals the courage and resilience of a Nation and its people in their day to day lives, after more than five years of US-NATO sponsored terrorism and more than two years of US “peacemaking” airstrikes which have largely targeted Syria’s civilian infrastructure.

Taliano refutes the mainstream media. The causes and consequences of the US-led war on Syria, not to mention the extensive war crimes and atrocities committed by the terrorists on behalf the Western military alliance are routinely obfuscated by the media. He is committed to reversing the tide of media disinformation, by reaching out to Western public opinion on behalf of the Syrian people. Voices from Syria provides a carefully documented overview of life in Syria, the day to day struggle of the Syrian people to protect and sustain their national sovereignty.

**New Book: Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on War Crimes and Fake News: Peering into Syria – with Mark Taliano

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Whenever US intelligence community reports claim foreign interference in or threats to federal elections, no credible evidence supports allegations because none exists.

House, Senate, and Mueller probes into alleged Russian US 2016 election interference ended with a collective whimper, not a bang.

Mueller’s much ado about nothing politicized probe notably stood out as a witch hunt fiasco.

His 19-lawyer team, 40 FBI special agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff spent around $25 million.

They issued 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, over 230 orders for communication records, interviewed about 500 individuals, and made 34 politicized indictments on dubious charges unconnected to his mandate.

The Mueller team discovered no evidence of Russian US election meddling, no collusion with Trump to triumph over Hillary, no  obstruction of justice.

Time, energy, and millions of dollars spent amounted to a colossal waste of the above.

Whenever claims or allegations surface about Russian or other foreign interference in US election, they fabricated.

Left unexplained is why would Russia or any other country interfere in America’s one-party rule political process with two right wings?

Whenever farcical US elections are held, dirty business as usual continuity always wins.

Ordinary Americans have no say over how they’re governed or by whom.

Powerful interests decide who holds high office.

The US war party runs things, notably throughout the post-WW II period.

Its ruling authorities serve Wall Street, the military, industrial, security, media complex, and other corporate interests, along with high-net worth individuals — at the expense of ordinary people everywhere.

Americans get the best “democracy” money can buy, a fantasy version, never the real thing.

Yet on Tuesday, an unclassified version of a so-called US intelligence community assessment (ICA) maintained the myth of “foreign threats” to Election 2020.

Despite no evidence suggesting it, the report claimed — with “high confidence” — that Vladimir Putin authorized efforts to undermine Biden’s presidential campaign, saying the following:

“We assess that…Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the (Dem) Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US (sic).”

Whenever claims like the above aren’t corroborated by credible evidence, they’re groundless.

No evidence remotely suggests that Russia or any other nations ever interfered in the US electoral process — or threatened it in any way.

In response to the ICA, Russia’s Washington embassy sharply as follows, saying:

“The document prepared by the US intelligence community is yet another set of groundless accusations against our country of interfering in American internal political processes.”

“The conclusions of the report on the conduct by Russia of influence operations in America are confirmed solely by the confidence of the intelligence services in their correctness.”

“No facts or concrete evidence of such claims (are) provided.”

The March 10-dated ICA said “the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, will impose appropriate sanctions for activities determined to constitute foreign interference in a US election (sic).”

Yet the ICA also said that “(w)e have no indications that any foreign actor attempted to alter any technical aspect of the voting process in the 2020 US elections, including voter registration, casting ballots, vote tabulation, or reporting results,” adding:

“Some foreign actors, such as Iran and Russia, spread false or inflated claims about alleged compromises of voting systems to undermine public confidence in election processes and results (sic).”

The ICA also dubiously claimed that Venezuela and Cuba acted in unspecified ways to “influence” Election 2020 results (sic).

Notably missing from the ICA was credible evidence to corroborate claims made.

The conclusion is self-evident.

Like virtually always before, claims about foreign interference in US elections or threats to undermine them — by Russia or other nations — are politicized rubbish when made.

They’re part of longstanding US war by other means on nations free from its control.

It’s waged by both right wings of the US war party.

Instead of fostering peace, stability, cooperative relations with other countries, and adherence to the rule of law, the US consistently goes the other way.

In so doing, it’s furthering its own decline. History’s dustbin awaits its arrival — where all former empires reside.

*

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

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Geert Vanden Bossche PhD, is an internationally recognised vaccine developer having worked as the head of the Vaccine Development Office at the German Centre for Infection Research.

Coordinated Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation’s Ebola Vaccine Program and contributed to the implementation of an integrated vaccine work plan in collaboration with Global Health Partners (WHO, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, CDC, UNICEF), regulators (FDA) and vaccine manufacturers to enable timely deployment or stockpiling of Ebola vaccine candidates.

Highlighting the principle of using a prophylactic vaccine in the midst of a pandemic. Likely to create more more viral variants in the process.

Sharing his perspective on mass vaccination in COVID-19.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Mass Vaccination in a Pandemic: Benefits versus Risks: Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

“There is a plot in this country to enslave every man, woman and child. Before I leave this high and noble office, I intend to expose this plot.” – John F. Kennedy

On March 11, 2020, a year ago, the worldwide lockdown went into effect. 193 UN member countries, in unison and lockstep, closed their borders, economies and live-societies. It marked the beginning of the planet’s economic and societal destruction – all for an invisible enemy, a corona virus that could never have hit the entire globe at the same time.

So, what’s the plot?

In 1935, 86 years ago, Dr. Arthur Guett, Nazi Director of Public Health, said:

“The ill-conceived `love of thy neighbor’ has to disappear, especially in relation to inferior or asocial creatures. It is the supreme duty of a national state to grant life and livelihood only to the healthy and hereditarily sound portion of the people in order to secure the maintenance of a hereditarily sound and racially pure folk for all eternity….”

These words spoken almost a century ago by Dr. Guett, Adolf Hitler’s Director of Public Health, are sending shivers down the spine. Yet, they are ringing true and right down the alley of today’s Eugenists. Such thinking should be scary for the public at large – except, the public at large is being kept in the dark of what the Globalist Cabal’s real plan is behind the covid fraud.

It is three-fold – taking over total control of humanity, as in One World Order; shifting assets and resources from the middle and the bottom of society to the top few; and – drastically reducing world population.

The Video entitled Bioethics and the New Eugenics (39 min video – 8 March 2021, click below) produced by James Corbett illustrates best what the world’s eugenists have in mind, when they talk about Bioethics, Eugenics and – Death Panels.

Yes – Death Panels would decide who is to live and who is to die. The elderly, who do no longer contribute to civilization, but are rather a (cost) burden on society, should go first.

 

For the Corbett Report Transcript including sources and references click here 

The eugenics people are talking freely about forced “euthanasia” and after-birth abortions, nothing else but infanticide, meaning killing infants, whom doctors or the “Death Panel” decide their life has no future, is not worth living, will not be contributing to society, but is rather a burden for humanity.

The age of 75 is mentioned as a possible “deadline” for people having to die. Whether those who decided this “deadline” included themselves is not known.

To come to grips with the pandemic, better called Plandemic, a massive worldwide vaccination program has been set in motion. According to Bill Gates, the world will not return to “somewhat normal” before at least 7 billion people have been vaccinated. And we are not talking about a normal or traditional vaccination. The predominant inoculations that are being promoted in the west, are mRNA-type injections.

mRNA stands for messenger ribonucleic acid. They’re single-stranded molecules that carry genetic code from DNA in a cell’s nucleus to ribosomes, which make protein in the cells. These molecules are called messenger RNA because they carry instructions for producing proteins from one part of the cell to another. www.nature.com, Nov 19, 2020

These mRNA vaxxes are experimental.

“[mRNA vaccines] prospects have swung billions of dollars on the stock market, made and imperiled scientific careers, and fueled hopes that it could be a breakthrough that allows society to return to normalcy after months living in fear” (See this).

The mRNA vaxxes have numerous serious side effects and have caused premature death, at the rate of a multiple higher than the traditional vaccines. See here and here.

This is not taking into account the potential long-term negative effects, of which there is today no experience available, but disturbing scientific predictions abound. See here Dr. Lee Merritt and more below.

Let it be clear. The push for mRNA-type vaccines only comes from the West. Russia, China, India, Iran and others have distanced themselves from this type of vaccines, which officially are not even allowed to be called vaccines, but were admitted under a special “Emergency Law” on a trial or “experimental” basis only (see this), making humans into guinea pigs.

Russia and China have developed their own tradition-based vaccines, i. e. injection of a weakened virus that will produce antibodies and trigger the immune system when it gets in contact with the real virus. Science has decades of experience with this type of preventive inoculation, but zero experience with the mRNA-type jabs.

They tell us that people in nursing homes or in hospitals with co-morbidities are the most vulnerable ones to catch covid. Therefore, they are given priority to get the jab. Is it a coincidence that these people are also the most vulnerable ones to become victims of serious “side effects” – and disproportionately many die – from the mRNA injections?

The ongoing vaccination programs everywhere in the west focus on the elderly – and the immediate death rate among vaxxed nursing home inmates, is indeed high, as shown in England, Spain and elsewhere. See this and this. It so happens that people in nursing homes are also the least “productive” in term of contributing to societal well-being. They are a cost for society.  Hence, they typically enter the attention of the eugenists.

Doesn’t this look like it’s all planned? Administering so-called vaccines (a misnomer and outright lie used by western governments) that potentially kill in the short and long-run, and that have been observed as including sterilizing and infertility agents – vaxx-injections for which western governments, US, Europe, including Switzerland – literally refuse to offer their population non-RNA alternatives, like the Russian Sputnik V and the Chinese Sinovac and Sinopharm?

One of the most flagrant cases is Switzerland. At the beginning of the “vaccination” campaign, when Switzerland like many other countries claimed a “shortage” of vaccines, Russia offered them Sputnik V. Switzerland apparently did not even have the curtesy to reply. In a recent press conference, the Swiss Health Minister was asked why they would not import Sputnik V. In a slightly arrogant tone, he replied, “we never even considered it.” – One cannot, but wonder why.

By the way, “shortages” are artificially induced. What is in short supply is wanted by the people. In this case, a vaccine in short supply, incites people to want it. Its mind manipulation 101. A method to increase the relatively low willingness to vaccinate.

In Germany, where the public pressure is high, and as a consequence, in the EU Commission and Parliament, the debate about approving Sputnik V has started. This all the while Sputnik V has passed WHO’s litmus test and has been permitted and is currently being used in more than two dozen countries.

The plan, as we know, is to “Reset” the world – according to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) founder and CEO, Klaus Schwab, “Covid-19 – The Great Reset”. The caveat is, resetting the world in line with the methods and objectives of a super-rich financial and Big-Tech platform’s objectives – which include a massive population reduction.

This has been a little-veiled dream of Bill Gates, Rockefeller and a whole bunch of UK and US-American eugenists, who are actively at work – and the instrument to fulfill their diabolical project is the massive covid-vaccination campaign, imposed to various degrees by every one of the 193 UN member countries and by the UN body itself. Those on top of the UN and at the head of these 193 UN member governments know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it.

See this: “Shocking: Former FEMA/HDS Celeste Solum w/David Icke: #Covid Magnetic Tagging; Vaccines for Mass Depopulation & More.

In the meantime, several medical doctors, virologist and immunologists have broken their silence, exited the matrix and are expressing their conscience to the people, the potential victims of this massive vaccination crime.

One of them is Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD. He is a vaccine research expert. He has a long list of companies and organizations he’s worked with on vaccine discovery and preclinical research, including GSK, Novartis, Solvay Biologicals, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dr Vanden Bossche also coordinated the Ebola vaccine program at GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) in Geneva, with office buildings just next to WHO. – A coincidence?

Dr. Vanden Bossche, gave a stunning interview on 6 March 2021 on the Benefits versus Risks of mRNA-type injections.

Dr. Geert Vandem Bossche essentially says that the individual adverse effects and even deaths from the vaccines, do not provide a clue of the far bigger impending Global Catastrophe.

He said that the mRNA-type vaccines are destroying people’s immune system, and they will be utterly unable to cope with the more virulent versions of the virus that will emerge due to the vaccines. The result could result in significant levels of mortality a few months to a few years down the road after vaccination. He also said he could morally no longer remain silent.

This plays exactly into the eugenists agenda.

On March 7, 2021, Dr. Vandem Bossche, also wrote an Open Letter to WHO, calling for an immediate stop of the worldwide vaccination campaign, here. He warns, “We’re Risking Creating a Global, “Uncontrollable Monster.”

In the meantime, western countries are jumping from one wave to the next, from one lockdown to the next. Many European countries have already announced that a third wave may be not far off. Italy just announced their third-wave lockdown, covering at least the period over Easter 2021. Germany and Switzerland also warned their people of a third wave, if restrictions, aka repression, is not obeyed.

What most people do not know is that a virus infection, as is covid, doesn’t come in waves. It starts slow, then peaks, and finally it ebbs off – and is over. Call it herd immunity. This is being witnessed currently in India, whose approach of dealing with covid was and is very different from the west. It is not based on coercion into vaccination, but on treatment of the virus by traditional, inexpensive medication that has a long history of positive results of dealing with viral infections, such as Ivermectin and hydrochloroquine, and others. China also mastered their covid epidemic by medication, not by vaccination.

This is the typical graph of covid-19 in India. It peaks and then declines – and the disease is over. This is also a typical flu curve.

Below is the covid curve in Spain and is representative for many other European countries, as well as for the United States.

It is clear that the figures in the west are very much manipulated with the purpose of coercing people into accepting the vaccine.

People have a hard time understanding and accepting to what extent our western governments are “evil”, deceiving their electorate, those who pay their salaries and benefits. Once people grasp what is going on and accept the treacherous, deceptive and corrupt character of those they believed to be their leaders, the awakening may happen, and, with it, massive civil disobedience may put an end to this diabolical plan.

What has been prepared decades ago and is being played out in full sight since the beginning of 2020, looks like the world’s largest blackmail, coercion, corruption, and outright threats campaign of all times in the history of mankind.

And so far, none of the 193 UN member countries’ so-called leaders (sic) have come forward, have had the courage to follow their conscience – if they have one – and divulge to the globe’s 7.8 billion population what is going on, what is being planned by the Eugenists who raise the issue of “who is destined to die and who may live” – and why. – And who is behind it all? – Why are these heads of state following “Higher Orders” that may lead to a worldwide genocide, unknown in recent history?

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Video: Bioethics and the New Eugenics

March 17th, 2021 by The Corbett Report

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

We bring to the attention of our readers this important report by James Corbett

***

At first glance, bioethics might seem like just another branch of ethical philosophy where academics endlessly debate other academics about how many angels dance on the head of a pin in far-out, science fiction like scenarios.

What many do not know, however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of bioethics has its roots in the dark history of eugenics. With that knowledge, the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the hands of a select few become even more apparent.

For the Corbett Report Transcript including sources and references click here 

***

Concluding Comments of the Corbett Report on Bioethics

From its inception, the field of bioethics has taken its moral cue from the card-carrying eugenicists who founded its core institutions. For these academicians of the eugenics philosophy, the key moral questions raised by modern medical advances are always utilitarian in nature: What is the value that forced vaccination or compulsory sterilization brings to a community? Will putting lithium in the water supply lead to a happier society? Does a family’s relief at killing their newborn baby outweigh that baby’s momentary discomfort as it is murdered?

Implicit in this line of thinking are all of the embedded assumptions about what defines “value” and “happiness” and “relief” and how these abstract ideas are measured and compared. The fundamental utilitarian assumption that the individual’s worth can or should be measured against some arbitrarily defined collective good, meanwhile, is rarely (if ever) considered.

The average person, however—largely unaware that these types of questions are even being asked (let alone answered) by bioethics professors in obscure academic journals—may literally perish for their lack of knowledge about these discussions.

All things being equal, these types of ideas would likely be treated as they always have been: as a meaningless parlor game played by ivory tower academics with no power to enforce their crazy ideas. All things, however, are not equal.

Perhaps taking a page from the notebook of his brother, Rahm, about the utility of crisis in effecting societal change, Ezekiel Emanuel declared in 2011 that “we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest.” He didn’t add “pandemic” to that list of excuses, but he didn’t have to. As the events of the past year have borne out, the public are more than willing to consider the previously unthinkable now that they have been told that there is a crisis taking place.

Forced vaccination. Immunity passports. The erection of a biosecurity state. For the first time, the eugenics-infused philosophers of bioethics are on the verge of gaining real power. And the public is still largely unaware of the discussions that these academics have been engaged in for decades.

At the very least, Bill Gates can relax now: We can finally have the discussion on death panels.

*

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

Britain’s “Pivots to Asia” to Contain China

March 17th, 2021 by Tom Clifford

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Trading places. What took so long?

From east of Suez to up the Yangtze. Customers at the bars in Beijing were celebrating but it wasn’t Britain’s pivot to Asia that had them chatting loudly and back slapping.

St Patrick’s Day, March 17, was the reason for their unmasked jollity in the bars and pubs. More than 50 years after the then Labour defence secretary Denis Healey announced the United Kingdom’s cash-strapped retreat in 1968 from east of Suez, Britain is back. Well, talking about it. 

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his admirals are looking at a new horizon stretching through crowded seaways east from India to Japan and south from China to Australia. Britain, or in reality the Tory high command, believes the European Union stifled the imperial drive, robbing Britain of its true place, a dominating global role. Britain’s decline, some Tories believe, can be traced to the EU, the introduction of comprehensive education and spreadable butter.  Is a Covid-19-weakened but vaccine-rate –buoyed Johnson, in response, wrapping himself in the flag and embarking on an imperial fantasy?

Asia is the new economic center and the UK is lagging behind in its dealings with it. China is the only Asian country in Britain’s top 10 markets. The US, Germany and Ireland are the top 3, according to the Database of British Products & Verified British Exporters.

Clearly something is askew. Ireland, of course, has proximity but it also has a population of approx 5 million. That is about the size of my Beijing neighborhood. And here comes the contradiction. Britain is changing policy primarily not to boost trade with China but to counter it, politically, militarily and economically. Sure, London says, we’ll do business with Beijing if the right opportunity comes along. I wouldn’t count on it.

In a word, Britain wants to contain China. There are legitimate reasons to boost trade with Asia but containing China is ludicrous both in its reasoning and consequences. It is also impossible.

Britain has announced it will send its brand new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, to the South China Sea and give Beijing a shot across the bows in a “that’ll teach ‘em’’ show of weakness. It meant to do so earlier but delays and cost overruns put back the deployment. It dare not go into the South China Sea alone, real politik demands that Washington set the timeline and sends its ships to, um, well, protect it and make sure matters do not get out of hand. No point going up the Yangtze without a paddle. Of course it will be described as allies working together, to send a united message. In truth, China is not worried.

They know how to deal with former 20th century concession holders of its territory.

In February 2019, the then UK defense secretary, Gavin Williamson, now an incredibly unpopular minister of education kept in his post as a lightning rod, announced HMS Elizabeth would travel to the South China Sea and be prepared to use lethal force to defend free and open waterways. China, after enjoying a fit of the giggles, responded by withdrawing its invitation to the chancellor, Phillip Hammond, to visit for trade talks. 

The Chinese are not anti-English. Far from it. Every school in China teaches English or wants to if teachers and resources are available. In England about 13 percent of state schools and 50 percent of independent schools teach Chinese. The fortunes of English soccer teams are passionately followed in China. Who do you support is a common question. Pre-pandemic, students wanted to go to Britain to study. Many did. London and Edinburgh were top destinations for Chinese tourists.

 China aside, Britain should not be under any illusion that its return to Asia will usher in a new age of the Raj.

The region is the powerhouse of the global economy. From the east bank of the Bosphorus to Tokyo Bay, it accounts for half of global economic output and more than half the world’s population. And this is growing. Within its geography it has the world’s two most populous nations, China and India and the second and third largest economies in the world, China and Japan as well as the world’s largest democracy, India. 

The Asia pivot is a tantalizing prospect. But how well has lockdown London thought this through? Asian countries want visas for their nationals to study and work in Britain. Will the UK be prepared to give India and the other Asian countries access to UK markets, as well as tens of thousands of visas?

Asians were victims of rampant saber-led globalization in the age of empire.

They want, and will get, a better deal this time.  

Anchors aweigh!  

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Britain’s “Pivots to Asia” to Contain China
  • Tags: ,

Upcoming Sino/US Talks in Alaska

March 17th, 2021 by Stephen Lendman

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

On Thursday, China’s Central Committee official/Foreign Affairs Director Yang Jiechi and Foreign Minister Wang Yi will meet with Biden regime’s top “diplomat” Tony Blinken and national security advisor Jake Sullivan in Anchorage, Alaska.

It comes at a time of no easing of US war on China by other means, Biden continuing Trump’s hostile agenda toward Beijing.

Ahead of Thursday’s meeting, Blinken and US war secretary Lloyd Austin are visiting Japan and South Korea through Wednesday for discussions focused on China and North Korea — nonbelligerent nations threatening no one.

Last Friday, Biden’s double participated in a virtual summit with leaders of India, Japan and Australia, so-called Quad nations, their meeting discussed in a Monday article.

Their alliance is all about countering China’s growing prominence regionally and worldwide.

The US seeks to undermine Beijing’s political, economic, technological, and military development — what failed so far and is highly unlikely to fare better ahead.

Regional instability, to the extent that it exists, is because of Washington’s imperial presence, its rejection of peace, stability, and cooperative relations with all nations regionally and worldwide.

Thursday’s Sino/US meeting will be the first between officials of both countries since Biden replaced Trump by election theft.

According to Blinken’s spokesman Price, talks will be “difficult.”

“We’ll be frank, and explain how Beijing’s actions and behavior challenge the security, the prosperity, the values of not only the United States, but also our partners and allies (sic).”

The above reinvention of reality is one of many examples of how the US falsely blames other nations for its own hostile actions.

US relations with China and other countries free from its control are more likely to worsen ahead than improve with undemocratic Dems running the White House and Congress.

US politicians and bureaucrats time and again falsely blame China and other independent countries of things they had nothing to do with.

It’s why normal relations between these nations and the US are virtually impossible to achieve — ruling regimes in Washington bearing full responsibility.

Biden’s press secretary Psaki said his geopolitical team will work with regional nations to “pressure” Beijing.

Talks in Anchorage are certain to be tense with no prospect for breakthroughs on issues where significant differences exist between the US and China.

Price noted that there’s “a long litany of (bilateral) disagreements,” adding:

“We will certainly not pull any punches” in discussing them.

“Any follow-up engagements with the Chinese officials after Anchorage have to be based on the proposition that we’re seeing tangible progress and tangible outcomes on the issues of concern.”

“We’re not looking to engage in talks for the sake of talks.”

“We are looking for Beijing, again, to demonstrate that seriousness of purpose (sic).”

According to China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian, both “sides are still deliberating on the agenda items.”

“We hope we can have candid dialogues on issues of mutual concerns. The Chinese side will present our position.”

“Both sides should have an accurate understanding on each other’s policy intention, manage our differences and to bring Sino-US relations back on the right track.”

Chances of achieving this aim are virtually nil. According to Political Science Professor Xiaoyu Pu:

“The Biden (regime) is not eager to significantly improve the bilateral relationship.”

“From the US domestic perspective, it is neither possible nor desirable…”

Heightened tensions between both nations are unlikely to ease because of US hostility toward countries free from its control.

Looking ahead, that dismal state is highly unlikely to change.

A state of war by hot and/or other means exists between the US and nations unwilling to sell their soul to a higher power in Washington.

*

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

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Upcoming Sino/US Talks in Alaska
  • Tags:
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Will Seek to Meddle in Thai Constitutional Referendum

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Yemen’s Ansar Allah are unrelenting in their offensive, both on positions inside the country, and in attacks on Saudi Arabia’s infrastructure within the Kingdom.

The Houthis, as Ansar Allah are more widely known, released a video showing their recent raid on positions of Saudi-backed forces in the area Rashah Al-Gharbia in Najran province. It was purportedly successful, and one of many recent ones.

The battlefield is in flux, a constant back and forth. The Houthis push in one direction, and are pushed back in another. Heavy clashes continue in the Balaq mountain area, as well as on the Ghubari mountain in the Kadha region. These are two locations that are set very far apart, Balaq is near Marib and the battle for the city continues. Ghubari is to the very south, near Taiz. It is safe to say that the fighting is happening all along the contact line, and not at just at a single location.

In what has become a regular event, the Houthis carried out yet another drone strike within Saudi Arabia’s borders. On March 15th, they attacked attacked Abha Airport and King Khalid Airport in Khamis Mushait with 3 Qasef 2k drones. The Houthi spokesman claimed that the strike was successful and hit all of its targets.

Not all, however, is always successful and goes without a hitch, of course. A missile was reportedly launched by the Houthis from the Central Security Camp in the area of Shabban, near the Ibb city center. It malfunctioned and fell on the side of the al-Naqlin Mountian on the outskirts of Ibb city. A large explosion was heard. A similar missile was launched on the previous day, in the same direction. No impact was reported. Still, the Houthi’s successes has caused waves.

There are reports that Turkey, after sending militants to Azerbaijan and Libya, is now priming to send “Syrian mercenaries” to Yemen. They are to fight on behalf of the Saudi-led coalition against Ansar Allah.

In case of emergency, Iran is likely to provide the Houthis with some more support in the form of weapons and hardware, as it has done repeatedly in the past. On March 15th, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps revealed a brand-new advanced missile site, which is essentially an “underground city”.

Iranian state media dubbed it an advanced “missile city” containing cruise and ballistic missiles able to hit targets at “multiple ranges” and with a 360-degree firing radius. As such it can support its allies from the Axis of Resistance all around.

The fighting in Yemen is showing a promise of worsening in the coming weeks and months, and the Houthis will need all the help they can get, especially if Turkey indirectly joins the fray.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

China is upheld as an Enemy of America.

America’s perceptions regarding China are manipulated both by the media and official government statements

This article documents the role of gallup polls in manipulating American perceptions concerning China.

***

Forty-five percent of Americans now say China is the greatest enemy of the U.S., more than double the percentage who said so in 2020. That year, Americans were equally as likely to say either China or Russia was the U.S.’s greatest enemy. The current shift coincided with a period when the global economy and human activity were severely impacted by the coronavirus pandemic, which originated in China.

The Feb. 3-18 poll also finds favorable views of China among U.S. adults falling for the second straight year, putting the figure at a historically low 20%.

The rise in perceptions of China as the United States’ greatest enemy is accompanied by a sharp decline since 2020 in those mentioning Iran (down 15 percentage points to 4%), as well as four-to-five-point declines in mentions of Iraq and North Korea and smaller declines in a handful of other countries.

Perceptions of Russia as the United States’ greatest enemy, now 26%, were essentially unchanged from a year ago when 23% named it. But it is down from 32% who did so in 2019 when it ranked first overall. The 9% of Americans who view North Korea as their country’s greatest enemy is a noticeable turn from previous years when rhetorical tensions, military escalations and missile testing were more elevated. In 2018, 51% named North Korea as the greatest enemy.

Americans’ Perceptions Over Time

Over the past several years, there have been noticeable fluctuations between the country perceived as the nation’s greatest adversary; China last ranked No. 1 in 2014, Russia topped the list in 2020, 2019 and 2014, and North Korea ranked highest in 2018 and 2016.

Prior to China, Russia and North Korea’s top rankings, Americans named Iran (2006-2008, 2011 and 2012) and Iraq (2001 and 2005) as the United States’ greatest enemy.

Enemy_trend

While North Korea continues to hold the overall record high of 51% as the U.S.’s greatest enemy, that focus has now shifted to its ally and primary benefactor, China.

There are noticeable partisan differences in perceptions of the greatest enemy of the U.S, with Republicans naming China as the top country and Democrats citing Russia. While 76% of Republicans name China as the greatest enemy, 43% of independents and 22% of Democrats do so. Conversely, close to half of Democrats name Russia (47%) compared with one in four independents (24%) and just 6% of Republicans.

Who Is the World’s Leading Economic Power?

While Americans perceive China as the country’s top enemy, half also believe that China is the world’s leading economic power. This perception has noticeably increased since 2020, likely because of the COVID-related decline in the U.S. economy in the past year. While China has made strong progress in its overall GDP growth, it remains the world’s second-largest economy to the United States.

Since 2000, Americans have alternated between choosing China or the United States as the leading economic power, often influenced by the current health of the U.S. economy. The 50% of Americans perceiving the U.S. as the top economic power a year ago was the highest in two decades, reflecting the nation’s strong economic performance just before the pandemic.

Far fewer Americans select the European Union (5%), Japan (4%), Russia (2%) or India (1%) for this distinction. Of these, only Japan has been chosen by 10% or more in Gallup’s trend since 2000, with those instances occurring more than a decade ago.

A separate question in the survey asks Americans which country they think will be the leading economic power in 20 years. The public’s views are more evenly split on this question, with 46% choosing China and 40% the United States. Again, this is a switch from last year when the majority (53%) predicted the U.S. would have this role, nearly matching the record high 55% selecting the U.S. in 2000.

No more than 4% foresee the European Union, Japan, India or Russia achieving this distinction in 20 years.

Record High See Chinese Economic Power as Critical U.S. Threat

A new high of 63% of Americans says the economic power of China is a critical threat to the vital interests of the U.S. in the next 10 years. An additional 30% describe it as an important, but not critical, threat.

The 63% who believe China’s economic power is a critical threat is up from 46% the last time the question was asked in 2019 and is more than 10 points above the prior highs of 52% in 2013 and 2014.

EconThreat

Views that China’s economic rise is a critical threat to the vital interests of the United States have climbed among all party groups. Today 81% of Republicans, 59% of independents and 56% of Democrats view China’s economic rise as such a threat. In 2019, fewer in all party groups held that view, including 54% of Republicans, 47% of independents and 37% of Democrats.

Bottom Line

Perceptions of China as the greatest enemy of the U.S. are at a high point in Gallup’s trend at the same time its favorable rating is at a low point. The specific concern some Americans have over China, namely its economic power, is identified as a threat to the vital interests of the U.S. by most Americans. In addition, half of Americans view China as the leading economic power in the world today. These developments make U.S. foreign policy toward China especially important, as the tension between the two nations has only grown over the past decade during both the Barack Obama and Donald Trump administrations.

View complete question responses and trends (PDF download).

*

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

Featured image is from Gallup

The Evolution of the East Asian Eco-Developmental State

March 17th, 2021 by Stevan Harrell

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Evolution of the East Asian Eco-Developmental State

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The US has only one objective in Syria—regime change. The fact that it has been unable to achieve this after ten years of trying does not appear to deter the Biden administration from embracing failure.

Back in 2001, former General Wesley Clark described a memorandum issued by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld which outlined a plan, as General Clark described it, on “how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

Twenty years later, the world bears witness to the detritus of that vision. The US invaded Iraq, a seminal moment which saw a nation which espouses adherence to the so-called “rules-based world order” violate every rule in pursuit of the God-like power to dictate by force of arms the life and death of not only nations, but the millions of people who comprise the human element of what to the architects of these policies are merely lines on a map. Libya, Somalia, and Sudan have all become failed states because of US-led interventions. And, after ten years of incessant fighting, Syria serves as the front line of an ongoing US plan to take down that nation, together with Lebanon and Iran.

It was not supposed to be this hard. While Donald Rumsfeld and his band of merry warmongers avoided the temptation to follow-up the relatively easy defeat of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq by continuing to push into Syria, the Bush administration continued its regime-change fantasy by forming the “Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group” (ISOG), an interagency organization co-chaired by Liz Cheney (daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney) and Elliott Abrams (of Iran-Contra infamy) dedicated to toppling the governments of both nations.

While ISOG was disbanded within a year of its creation, the regime-change policies it espoused continued in the form of the pursuit of less militant “velvet revolutions”, with the US seeking to foment change from within through the empowerment of domestic constituencies through so-called “digital democracy”—in effect weaponizing internet-based social media platforms. These “soft power” policies (as opposed to the “hard power” of military action) were embraced by the administration of President Barack Obama. It used them to promote the failed 2009 “Green Revolution” in Iran and, in the aftermath of the “Arab Spring” revolts of 2010-2011 which saw authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt collapse in the face of popular opposition, to mobilize similar grass-roots opposition to the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.

The Syrian “velvet revolution”, however, was hijacked early on by foreign-backed militant Islamists. By March 2011 heavy fighting broke out between the Syrian regime and Islamist forces. The US, together with its allies in Turkey and the Gulf Arab States, sought to exploit this fighting to destabilize and overthrow the Assad Presidency. By 2015 this plan had nearly succeeded, with more than half of Syria under the control of either al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, or US-backed Kurdish rebels. Only the intervention of Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia prevented the imminent collapse of the Syrian government.

Today, the rejuvenated Syrian armed forces have restored government control over much of its territory, with only Idlib province remaining as a last bastion of the Islamists who once threatened to raise the black flag of their movement over Damascus. But chaos still reins; northeastern Syria remains under Turkish and US occupation, with these two ostensible allies fighting a proxy war of sorts over the future of the Syrian Kurds living there.

The Islamic State, whose dreams of Caliphate were destroyed by the combined efforts of the Syrian government, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and the United States, continues to exist as an ideology capable of motivating tens of thousands of sympathizers to carry out terrorist attacks in support of their cause. And Israel is engaged in an increasingly hot war inside Syria to drive the forces of Iran and Hezbollah out of Syrian territory.

The primary facilitator of this chaos is the United States. Even after the intervention of Russia in September 2015 closed the door on any hope for regime change in Syria, the US continued to push the same failed formula, but this time expanding its scope and scale to include the goal of getting Russia and Iran to cease their support for the Assad government by making the cost of their continued presence in Syria too high.

Jim Jeffrey, the former US Special Representative for Syria Engagement under President Trump, openly bragged about policies designed to bring harm to the Syrian people as well as “inflicting pain” on both Iran and Russia in an effort to compel them to quit their support for Bashar al-Assad.

“We’ve ratcheted up the isolation and sanctions pressure on Assad, we’ve held the line on no reconstruction assistance, and the country’s desperate for it. You see what’s happened to the Syrian pound, you see what’s happened to the entire economy. So, it’s been a very effective strategy,” Jeffrey said in an interview.

This, in a nutshell, is the policy inherited by President Joe Biden today—the continued support of an illegal Turkish occupation of northern Syria, the continued support of an illegal Israeli bombing campaign targeting Iran on Syrian territory, a similar Israeli covert campaign which has targeted Iranian tankers seeking to deliver oil to Syria, and continued covert support to Islamist forces operating inside Syria under both the al-Qaeda and Islamic State banners for the purpose of destabilizing the Syrian government and inflicting losses on both Russia and Iran which the US hopes will become a political liability in both countries.

Any notion of Syria serving as the post-child for the Biden administration’s efforts to re-tool the US as the standard-bearer for a “rules-based international world order” has been quashed by the reality of a US policy which, while ostensibly designed to prevent a resurgence of Islamic State activity and deny the Syrian government access to more than half of Syria’s oil production capacity, is in reality just a continuation of the failed regime change policies of the past.

This point was driven home in classic US diplomatic double speak proffered up by State Department spokesman Ned Price in a press conference held on March 11, 2021. The Biden administration, Price noted, continues to view President Assad as an illegitimate ruler. “He [Assad] has done absolutely nothing to regain the legitimacy that he has lost through the brutal treatment of his own people,” Price said. “There is no question of the US normalizing relations with his government anytime soon,” he added. Price pushed the concept of a “political solution” to the Syrian crisis, noting that any such solution “must address the factors that drive the violence, that drive the instability in Syria”—in short, must address the continued rule of Bashar al-Assad. “We’ll use a variety of tools at our disposal,” Price concluded, “to push for a sustainable end to the Syrian people’s suffering.”

The “tools” Price referred to are the same “tools” used by past administrations—economic sanctions and both overt and covert military action designed to destabilize the Syrian government and make the price for continued support of that government by its allies in Russia and Iran prohibitive. It’s a policy roadmap doomed to fail, but sustaining policy failure over time has become a post 9/11 trademark of the United States.

*

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

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

Featured image is from Syria News

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

There is evidence of competition and confrontation between Big Pharma conglomerates.

This article focusses on acts of sabotage directed against Russia’s and Cuba’s vaccines.

***

As Brazil’s death toll from the Covid-19 pandemic nears 275,000, documents reveal that Washington pressured the Brazilian government not to buy Russia’s “malign” Sputnik V vaccine – a decision which may have costed many thousands of lives.

Malign influences

The US Department of Health and Human Services recently published its Annual Report for 2020.

“2020 was one of the most challenging years in the history of our country and in the history of the Department of Health and Human Services”, former US Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar introduces the report.

“There is an end to the pandemic in sight”, he continues, “with the delivery of safe and effective vaccines through Operation Warp Speed”.

Tucked away on page 48, the report shockingly reveals how the US pressured Brazil to reject Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine.

Under the subheading “Combatting malign influences in the Americas”, the report announces:

OGA used diplomatic relations in the Americas region to mitigate efforts by states, including Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia, who are working to increase their influence in the region to the detriment of US safety and security. OGA coordinated with other U.S. government agencies to strengthen diplomatic ties and offer technical and humanitarian assistance to dissuade countries in the region from accepting aid from these ill intentioned states. Examples include using OGA’s Health Attaché office to persuade Brazil to reject the Russian COVID-19 vaccine, and offering CDC technical assistance in lieu of Panama accepting an offer of Cuban doctors. [emphasis added]

It is also striking that the US dissuaded Panama from accepting Cuban doctors, who have been on the global front line against the pandemic, working in over 40 countries.

As well as Brazil, the US has despatched Health Attachés to China, India, Mexico and South Africa, likely charged with carrying out similar activities.

The documents demonstrate how Washington views global health in strict power terms, willing to sacrifice countless lives in order to deny Official Enemies a soft power victory.

Catastrophic response

Brazil has suffered the world’s second-worst number of Covid-19 death rates, with Bolsonaro’s Covid-19 policy being described as “homicidally negligent”.

Throughout 2020, the Brazilian government consistently refused to pursue any vaccine but AstraZeneca’s, baffling medical experts.

A group of Brazilian mayors urged Health Minister Eduardo Pazuello to resign, writing:

“His leadership did not believe in vaccination as a way out of the crisis and did not carry out the necessary planning for the acquisition of vaccines”.

With deaths soaring, Bolsonaro eventually and belatedly opened discussions for the delivery of Sputnik V vaccines.

Secret documents published by Brasil Wire also revealed that the UK had lobbied Brazil on behalf of AstraZeneca as well as British mining firms, showing that the US is not the only country leveraging power on behalf of pharmaceutical multinationals in Latin America.

This is only the latest scandalous episode in Bolsonaro’s handling of the pandemic, and malign US interference in the region.

*

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

Featured image is from Brasil Wire

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on COVID-19 and Girls’ Education in East Asia and Pacific

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

More than 20 countries have either suspended or said they will delay Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccinations based on reports of deaths or injuries — in most cases related to blood clots — in healthy people who received the vaccine.

Prosecutors in Northern Italy announced Monday they had seized a batch of 393,600 shots of the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine following the death of a 57-year-old man hours after he was vaccinated, reported Reuters.

Meanwhile the World Health Organization (WHO) is standing firm in its support of the vaccine. In a press conference today, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, “This does not necessarily mean these events [deaths and injuries] are linked to the vaccine, but it’s routine practice to investigate them, and it shows that the surveillance system works and effective controls are in place.”

According to news reports, WHO’s vaccine safety experts were meeting today to discuss the vaccine. WHO had previously said that an ongoing analysis by its vaccines advisory committee has not established a causal link between the vaccine and blood clots and countries should keep using it, reported The Telegraph.

Regulators in Europe also defended the vaccine telling news outlets that the “benefits outweigh the risks.” Still, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is investigating reports of blood clots in vaccine recipients and will release its findings Thursday, according to Nasdaq.com.

EMA Executive Director Emer Cooke said today during a news conference that there was no indication the incidents, which she called “very rare,” had been caused by the vaccine, but experts were assessing that possibility.

The AstraZeneca vaccine, not yet approved for emergency use in the U.S., is being distributed under WHO’s COVAX program, funded by Bill Gates. The company plans to file for Emergency Use Authorization with the U.S Food and Drug Administration in the upcoming weeks.

In Italy, Piedmont’s regional government suspended use of AstraZeneca’s batch ABV5811, which is different than the batch of AstraZeneca vaccine seized last week in Sicily after the sudden deaths of two men who had recently been vaccinated.

The Italian government had previously said there was no evidence of a connection between the deaths and the vaccine, and had allowed the AstraZeneca vaccine to continue to be administered even after other countries had suspended use of the vaccine.

In addition to Italy, France, Iceland, Denmark, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Latvia, Estonia and The Netherlands have suspended or delayed the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Other countries that have hit pause on AstraZeneca:

Norway, which is investigating reports of young healthy people who experienced brain hemorrhages and blood clots after being vaccinated. On March 12, the Norwegian Medicines Agency and Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH) reported an unexpected death from a brain haemorrhage after an AstraZeneca vaccine was administered. A day later the agencies received three more reports of severe cases of blood clots or brain haemorrhages in younger people who had been vaccinated and were receiving hospital treatment. All of the patients showed reduced numbers of blood platelets.

Dr. Pal Andre Holme is treating the three health workers at Olso University Hospital. He told Norway’s VG newspaper that it was “very unusual” to see such young patients with such “low levels of blood platelets.” Holme’s said, “These are healthy young people who have not had any kind of disease before, who then get severe blood clots. You have to ask questions whether there is a connection with the vaccine, which I do not consider unlikely.”

In its report, the NIPH called for anyone under the age of 50 who experienced “large or small bruises” after being vaccinated to visit a doctor.

Sweden announced today it was suspending the AstraZeneca vaccine following reports of abnormal blood clotting in recipients, according to NPR. The Swedish Public Health Agency said it would suspend use of the vaccine until the EMA reveals findings from its ongoing investigation.

Bulgaria paused the vaccine as a precautionary measure last week after a woman died of heart failure 15 hours after receiving the shot, reported Reuters.  “Until all doubts are dispelled … we are halting inoculations with this vaccine,” Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borissov said in a statement.

Ireland said on Sunday it was suspending the country’s rollout of the AstraZeneca’s vaccine, The Telegraph reported. Dr Karina Butler, head of the National Immunisation Advisory Committee, told Irish state broadcaster RTÉ that the committee had made the decision after Norway reported a “cluster of four serious, very rare, very serious clotting events” in young healthy people.

Germany suspended the vaccine as a precautionary measure this week after the country’s health minister, Jens Spahn, said seven cases of cerebral vein thrombosis had been reported. Spahn said Germany’s vaccine authority, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, “considers further investigation necessary after new reports of cerebral brain thrombosis in connection with vaccination in Germany and Europe.”

The Paul Ehrlich Institute said the EMA should decide “whether and how the new findings will affect the approval of the vaccine.”

Indonesia Monday suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine saying it was waiting for a full report from the WHO before administering any more of the vaccines.

South Africa, as previously reported by The Defender, suspended plans to distribute the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine in February after a study showed only 10% efficacy at protecting against mild and moderate COVID-19 cases from the new South African variant.

Venezuela decided it will not authorize or license AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine at all due to complications in vaccinated recipients. The country had reserved 1.4 to 2.4 million doses through COVAX.

Some countries still on board:

Despite safety concerns, some countries are moving forward with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Last week, Thailand became the first country outside Europe to temporarily suspend using the vaccine due to safety concerns, according to Associated Press. But Thailand’s health authorities reversed course and decided to move forward. The Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha and members of his cabinet received the first shots.

“There are people who have concerns,” Chan-ocha said after he received the first dose. “But we must believe doctors, believe in our medical professionals.”

In the Philippines, presidential spokesperson Harry Roque said his country would not suspend use of the vaccine because the benefits outweighed any risks.

“There is still no clear data that shows that the blood clotting was caused by AstraZeneca. If such data will come out, maybe we will also stop the use of AstraZeneca,” Roque said. “As of now, our experts are saying again that the benefits we get from using AstraZeneca are larger than the side effects of this vaccine.”

Australia’s Health Minister Greg Hunt said his country “absolutely, clearly and unequivocally” supports the rollout of AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine and would not suspend vaccinations, with plans to import and manufacture 70 million vaccine doses from the vaccine maker. Australia’s chief medical officer, Paul Kelly, said there was no evidence so far that the vaccine causes blood clots.

Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, said Monday Health Canada regulators are “constantly analyzing all the available information about vaccines and have guaranteed those approved in Canada are safe for use.” The government’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization today approved the AstraZeneca vaccine for people 65 and older — it had previously limited the approval for people under age 65 due to “limited information on its efficacy,” MSN reported.

According to Reuters, AstraZeneca reviewed its own safety data and said on Sunday there was no evidence of increased risk of blood clots from its COVID vaccine. A monthly safety report will be made public on the EMA website next week, the company said.

WHO said global distribution of AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine remained undisrupted, though TGR reported investigations into AstraZeneca concerns have triggered far-reaching reactions with thousands of cancellations of AstraZeneca’s vaccine. In Veneto Italy alone, 50% of planned vaccination appointments with AstraZeneca were cancelled since Saturday, reported the president of the region, Luca Zaia.

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The Kremlin on Tuesday called out what’s it’s dubbed the “unprecedented” propaganda war against Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine. The words were issued by spokesman Dmitry Peskov in response to widespread allegations that the Untied States is actively trying to dissuade its allies from purchasing the Russian-produced vaccine. This despite the emerging scientific consensus that’s found it to be at least 91% effective while further preventing inoculated persons from becoming severely ill.

The Kremlin is responding to newly emerged proof that the US intervened with the largest country in South America, Brazil. The Washington Post details that “Buried deep in the dry, 72-page annual report of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lay a startling admission: U.S. health officials under President Donald Trump worked to convince Brazil to reject Russia’s Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine.”

Brazil has long stood as the second highest COVID-19 infected country in the world behind the US, with over 11.5 confirmed infections so far (with the US now approaching the 30 million mark).

Here’s the key controversial section from the 71-page document. The section is entitled “Combatting malignant influence in the Americas”

“Examples include using OGA’s Health Attache office to persuade Brazil to reject the Russian COVID-19 vaccine,” the government report spelled out explicitly.

Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has since claimed it never received directives or “consultations” such as are described in the report from the US, with a statement saying, “the Embassy of Brazil in Washington has not received consultations or actions from United States authorities or companies regarding the possible purchase, by Brazil, of the Russian vaccine against Covid-19.”

Kremlin spokesman Peskov in his comments didn’t name the allegations specifically but only denounced generally that “In many countries the scale of pressure is quite unprecedented… such selfish attempts to force countries to abandon any vaccines have no prospects.”

“We believe that there should be as many doses of vaccines as possible so that all countries, including the poorest, have the opportunity to stop the pandemic,” Peskov added.

Thus far neither the US Embassy in Moscow nor the US Department of State have responded, according to Reuters.

However, the annual HHS report clearly constitutes a “smoking gun” admission which details that Washington does indeed have a covert policy of blocking the Sputnik V vaccine’s spread. This is ironic given one would think Washington would be more focused on combatting the spread of the pandemic itself, regardless of politics or geopolitical maneuvering.

*

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

Cyprus to Purchase Russia’s Sputnik Vaccine

March 17th, 2021 by Sarantis Michalopoulos

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

“It will be a bilateral agreement, which was already approved a couple of weeks ago,” government spokesperson Kyriakos Kousios told state radio.

“This issue is being handled by the minister of health and the relevant officials. Once we have the vaccine approved, we will proceed with the purchase,” Kousios said, explaining that more than 50,000 doses may be purchased, depending on the flows of the other vaccines.

Russia’s Sputnik has been in the EU drugs agency’s rolling review but no official application for authorisation has been made.

EU Commission spokesperson Stefan De Keersmaecker reiterated on Monday (15 March) that there were no official talks between the EU and Moscow.

However, the head of Russia’s Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Kirill Dmitriev, said in a statement on Monday that his organisation had secured agreements with companies from Italy, Spain, France and Germany to produce Sputnik V, AFP reported.

Hungary has already purchased Sputnik while the Czech Republic and Slovakia have made orders. Critics suggest that approving Sputnik would be a “major political defeat” for Europe and respectively, a “major diplomatic victory” for Vladimir Putin.

The issue has so far divided EU member states as some of them remain sceptical about what they think could be Moscow’s hidden agenda.

Poland’s former prime minister Donald Tusk, the current chief of the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), recently called on Europeans not to be “naïve” when it comes to Russian and Chinese vaccines.

“I warn against such a naive approach to these very cynical players. I am talking about the Chinese and Russian authorities. And above all, I would warn the Polish authorities, and also other European countries, against buying and trying to vaccinate their citizens with a vaccine that has not been tested,” Tusk said.

The vast majority of Western Balkan countries have already started vaccinating their citizens with Sputnik while Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić has said the EU had “abandoned” the region when it comes to vaccines.

‘Possible’ to approve Sputnik 

EU sources have told EURACTIV that it is “possible” for the EMA to approve Russia’s Sputnik vaccine. “Negotiations could start if at least four member states ask so,” the sources added.

The same sources explained, though, that with the vaccines approved so far, the EU objective to vaccinate 70% of the EU population by September is “still possible”.

However, the delivery delays of approved vaccines and the new stalemate with AstraZeneca pave the way for reconsidering Sputnik.

“When it comes to public health, there is no room for political considerations. We fully rely on the scientific evaluation of EMA,” the sources added.

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock/vovidzha

UK Nuclear Warhead Increase Media Backgrounder

March 17th, 2021 by International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of ICAN, said about the decision:

“A decision by the United Kingdom to increase its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in the middle of a pandemic is irresponsible, dangerous and violates international law. While the British people are struggling to cope with the pandemic, an economic crisis, violence against women, and racism, the government choses to increase insecurity and threats in the world. This is toxic masculinity on display.”

“While the majority of the world’s nations are leading the way to a safer future without nuclear weapons by joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the United Kingdom is pushing for a dangerous new nuclear arms race.”

Current UK Nuclear Arsenal

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that as of January 2020, the United Kingdom possessed 215 nuclear warheads. UK nuclear warheads are launched from missiles on submarines. The UK has four submarines that can carry nuclear-warhead equipped missiles. When not on patrol, the submarines are docked off the coast of Scotland.

The UK is currently building new nuclear-capable submarines to replace its current fleet, which it states could cost up to £41 billion, although including all associated costs the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament puts the nuclear upgrade at £205 billion. ICAN research released May 2020 showed that the United Kingdom spent $8.9 billion to maintain and modernize its nuclear weapons in 2019 alone. The UK leases its nuclear-capable missiles from the United States and its nuclear warheads are very similar to the U.S. W-76 warheads placed on the same missile.

UK Public Opinion on Nuclear Weapons

More than 60 members of the House of Commons, along with dozens of members of the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly, have pledged to work for the United Kingdom’s signature and ratification of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Many cities across the country, including Manchester, Brighton, Oxford, and Edinburgh, have also called on the government to join the treaty. In July 2020, the first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, wrote that “the Scottish government is firmly opposed to the possession, threat, and use of nuclear weapons” and “I have called on the UK government to sign and ratify the treaty”.

A public opinion poll conducted in January 2021 by Survation on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) found that 59 per cent of Britons believe that their country should join the treaty, with just 19 per cent opposed to joining.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has 191 states-parties, and at its core, prohibits most of the world’s countries from acquiring nuclear weapons and commits five nuclear-armed states, including the United Kingdom, to pursue disarmament negotiations (Article VI).

Every five years, NPT states-parties meet to review progress on commitments and to adopt a consensus final document with additional commitments for treaty implementation. Past Review Conference documents in 2000 and 2010 have been sparsely implemented.

The 2020 NPT Review Conference has been postponed. At this conference, the five nuclear-armed states party to the treaty, including the United Kingdom, will answer to many non-nuclear-weapon states who argue they have not fully implemented the treaty, more than 75 years after its adoption.

Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

The 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which currently has 86 signatories and 54 states parties, includes prohibitions of the use, testing, production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, as well as positive obligations for states parties to provide assistance to victims of nuclear use and testing and environmental remediation for land contaminated by nuclear use and testing. It entered into force on 22 January 2021.

The treaty articulates two pathways for nuclear-armed states to join (Article 4). A nuclear-armed state may either join the treaty and the negotiate a time-bound plan for complete nuclear disarmament, or it may complete nuclear disarmament first and then join the treaty and cooperate with the designated international authorities to verify the “irreversible elimination of its nuclear-weapon programme.”

The United Kingdom has not yet joined the TPNW. States-parties to the treaty will meet late this year or early next year to advance the treaty’s implementation and universalization.

*

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

Featured image is from Pete Linforth/Pixabay

The Reason Why NATO Demolished Libya Ten Years Ago

March 17th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Ten years ago, on March 19, 2011, US / NATO forces began the air-naval bombing of Libya. The war was directed by the United States, first through the Africa Command, then through NATO under US command. In seven months, the US / NATO air force carried out 30,000 missions, 10,000 were attack missions, with over 40,000 bombs and missiles. Italy – with Parliament multipartisan consent (Democratic Party in the front row) – participated in the war with seven air bases (Trapani, Pantelleria (Sicily), Gioia del Colle, Amendola (Puglia) Decimomannu (Sardenia), Aviano (Veneto), and with Tornado fighter-bombers, Eurofighters and others, as well as the Garibaldi aircraft carrier and other warships. Even before the air- naval offensive, tribal sectors, and Islamic groups hostile to the government had been financed and armed in Libya, and special forces, particularly Qatari, had infiltrated to ignite armed clashes inside the country.

In this way, the African State was demolished. As the World Bank documented in 2010, it maintained “high levels of economic growth” with an increase in GDP of 7.5% per year, and recorded “high indicators of human development” including universal access to primary and secondary education schools and, over 40%, to university education. Despite the disparities, the average standard of living in Libya was higher than in other African countries. About two million immigrants, mostly Africans, found work there. The Libyan State, which possessed the largest oil reserves in Africa plus other natural gas reserves, left limited profit margins to foreign companies. Thanks to energy exports, the Libyan trade balance was in surplus of 27 billion dollars a year. With these resources, the Libyan State had invested about 150 billion dollars abroad. Libyan investments in Africa were crucial to the African Union’s plan to create three financial organizations: the African Monetary Fund, based in Yaoundé (Cameroon); the African Central Bank, based in Abuja (Nigeria); the African Investment Bank, based in Tripoli. These bodies would serve to create a common market and a single currency for Africa.

It is no coincidence that NATO’s war for the demolition of the Libyan State began less than two months after the African Union Summit, on January 31, 2011, which started the creation of the African Monetary Fund to be realized within the year. This is proven by emails from the Obama administration’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, brought to light later by WikiLeaks: United States and France wanted to eliminate Gaddafi before he used Libya’s gold reserves to create a pan-African currency, alternative to the dollar and the CFA franc (currency imposed by France on its 14 former colonies). This is proven by the fact that, before the bombers went into action in 2011, the banks went into action: they seized the 150 billion dollars invested abroad by the Libyan State, most of which disappeared. In the great robbery, Goldman Sachs, the most powerful US investment bank of which Mario Draghi had been vice president, stood out.

Today, the revenues from energy exports in Libya are being captured by power groups and multinationals in a chaotic situation of armed clashes. The living standard of the majority of the population has collapsed. African immigrants, accused of being “Gaddafi’s mercenaries,” were even imprisoned in zoo cages, tortured, and murdered. Libya has become the main transit route of a chaotic migratory flow to Europe in the hands of human traffickers that has caused many more victims than the 2011 war. In Tawergha the Misrata Islamic militias supported by NATO (those who assassinated Gaddafi in October 2011) carried out a true ethnic cleansing, forcing almost 50,000 Libyan citizens to flee without being able to return. The Italian Parliament, who was also responsible for all this, on March 18, 2011, committed the Government to “take every initiative (ie Italy’s entry into the war against Libya) to ensure the protection of the populations in the region.”

*

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

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Today, March 17, 2021, we are commemorating the tenth anniversary of the US-NATO sponsored war against Syria.

Several of the articles below were published at the very outset of the War on Syria, now in its tenth year.

.

***

Ten Years Ago: The US-NATO-Israel Sponsored Al Qaeda Insurgency in Syria. Who Was Behind the 2011 “Protest Movement”?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 16 2021

It was not a protest movement, it was an armed insurgency integrated by US-Israeli & allied supported “jihadist” death squads. From Day One, the Islamist “freedom fighters” were supported, trained & equipped by NATO & Turkey’s High Command.

Ten Years Since Beginning of Failed Regime-Change Operation Against Syria

By Paul Antonopoulos, March 16 2021

On this exact day ten years ago, NATO, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Turkey and Israel began a coordinated campaign of regime change against President Bashar al-Assad and the destruction of Syria.

Dangerous Waterways: U.S. Militarization of the South China Sea. US-China Adversarial Relations

By Stephen Lendman, March 16 2021

For the third consecutive year, the Beijing-based South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative (SCSPI) published a report on unacceptable US military activities in the South China Sea. In recent years, they’ve been increasing. The latest SDSPI report discusses US military operations in 2020.

Trump and Biden Playing Politics: The COVID-19 “Experimental Vaccines” which are “Killing and Injuring People”

By Timothy Alexander Guzman, March 16 2021

So which American president is going to take full credit for supporting the rapid development of Big Pharma’s Covid-19 vaccines that are already killing and injuring people?

Cold War Hysteria

By S. Brian Willson, March 16 2021

I cannot stress enough the overwhelming toxic spell that Cold War propaganda cast on the minds of three generations, including some of the most intelligent people, and its influence continues today. Relentless Cold War rhetoric accomplished a near total indoctrination of our entire US culture.

Ten Years Ago, US-NATO Regime Change Operation in Libya

By Shane Quinn, March 16 2021

The United States-NATO invasion of Libya was launched a decade ago this month, as the Western powers engineered the ousting of the country’s leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who had been in power for more than 40 years.

America’s National Humiliation by Eurasia: Uncle Sam Is ‘Sick Man’ of the West

By Max Parry, March 16 2021

As American economic power continues to decline, a division has emerged within the U.S. political establishment as to which of its designated adversaries is to blame for the country’s woes — Russia, or China.

International Alert Message about COVID-19. United Health Professionals

By United Health Professionals, March 16 2021

We are more than 1,500 members (including professors of medicine, intensive care physicians and infectious disease specialists) from more than 30 countries. The lockdown has not only killed people, it has destroyed physical and mental health, economy, education and other aspects of social life.

COVID-19 mRNA “Vaccines” Are “Gene Therapy”

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, March 16 2021

As calls for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination grow around the world, it’s becoming ever more crucial to understand what these injections actually are. The mRNA “vaccines” created by Moderna and Pfizer are in fact gene therapies.

  • Posted in English, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Ten Years Ago: The US-NATO-Israel Sponsored Al Qaeda Insurgency in Syria
First published on GR on November 24, 2020
 .
This is what is happening in Germany. It is a matter of concern to people Worldwide. Freedom of Expression is being brutally suppressed. 
 .
Police break into the home of Dr. Andreas Noack, a renowned Chemist and arrest him while he is engaged in a live stream internet (Webinar) conference. 

“The reasons for the police raid and arrest …  have not yet been officially revealed. However, there are rumors [unconfirmed reports] that Dr. Andreas Noack provided medical assistance to hundreds of protestors during lockdown protests against the German government.

Reports also indicate that Dr. Andreas Noack was under investigation by the authorities for being non-compliant with the COVID-19 lockdown laws enacted by the German government.  … The arrest was made after the German Parliament passed the “Infection Protection Law”.

In the live stream, policemen can be heard banging furiously on the door of the place, where Dr. Andreas Noack was broadcasting. “It’s the police,” a man can be heard saying off-camera in panic. The video then shows police barging into the building forcing Dr. Andreas Noack to the ground. The police then proceed to turn off his live stream.

People who were watching the live stream are currently questioning the reasons for his arrest. “I think the guy is guilty of expressing his opinions,” said one user.

Another report on Twitter said,

“This happened to doctor Andreas Noack in Germany. After the unconstitutional approval of the infection law, police broke into his house while he was having a live transmission on YouTube. Those who cried against fascism have created the most criminal dictatorship in history.”

The arrest was made on a live video stream.  The manner in which the arrest was made is extremely unethical, armed policemen just yell at Dr. Andreas Noack till he settles on the ground.

The police do not state their reasons for arresting him, nor do they show a valid arrest warrant. Arrests such as these are blatant violations of due process. Every citizen has the right to security against arbitrary arrests.

One user tweeted,

“German doctor Andreas Noack raided by armed police during youtube stream and arrested inside his home for breaking Covid laws. Really, he is just anti lockdown and expressing his views. FIGHT BACK PEOPLE. If u don’t now, it will b TOO LATE later!”.  (Source: Insider Paper) 

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Towards A Police State in Germany? Live Video of Police Raid into Home of Dr. Andreas Noak

Confessions of Medical Truth-Tellers

March 16th, 2021 by Stephen Lendman

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Since seasonal flu was renamed covid early last year to kick off the greatest ever public health scam in modern memory, we’ve been lied to and mass deceived by duplicitous politicians, their public health handmaidens, and press agent media.

Virtually everything we’ve been told about covid, experimental drugs for mass-jabbing, lockdowns, quarantines, face masks, PCR tests, and social distancing is harmful to public health, well-being, and our fundamental rights.

Destructive policies instituted in the West and elsewhere flagrantly breached the Nuremberg Code, Hippocratic Oath, and in the US its Constitution.

Orwell explained that “(i)n a time of universal deceit, truth-telling is a revolutionary act.”

Truth-telling medical and scientific experts are explaining what dark forces in the US and West are going all-out to suppress.

Long before what’s going on now was instituted, Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn (1926 – 1988) was called “The People’s Doctor.”

His 1979 bestseller, “Confessions of a Medical Heretic” called vaxxing “a medical time bomb,” adding:

The “greatest threat to childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them.”

He urged parents to reject vaxxing for their children. In many states, they’re mandatory.

He debunked deceptive marketing practices and called pediatricians objecting to their “bread and butter” the equivalent of a priest denying the infallibility of the Pope.

He administered them early in his practice, later stopping “because of the myriad hazards they present.”

Summarizing his concerns, he said the following:

  • No evidence shows that vaccinations eliminate childhood diseases.
  • The Salk and Sabin polio vaccines don’t work.
  • Salk later admitting that mass inoculations for polio caused an epidemic of the disease after 1961.
  • Smallpox vaccinations are “the only source of smallpox-related deaths for three decades after the disease had disappeared” on its own.
  • Inoculation risks are real. Parents should avoid them when possible.
  • Doctors are derelict for not explaining their hazards and for “defend(ing) them to the death.”
  • Mass-inoculations dramatically increase autoimmune and neurological diseases, including leukemia, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, and numerous others ranging from annoying to lethal.

Mendelsohn asked: “Have we traded mumps and measles for cancer and leukemia?”

He blamed mass-vaxxing for causing enormous harm to human health.

“The best way to protect children is make sure they’re not vaccinated,” he said.

Today in the US, children are mass-vaxxed with dozens of drugs that cause diseases they’re supposed to protect against, and are responsible for an explosion of others later in life for countless millions of people.

In 2002, autism specialist Dr. Kenneth Aitken said:

“When I was in training, one in 2,500 (children were autistic). Now it is one in 250.”

“At the moment, the only logical explanation for this is MMR” vaccinations.

Longtime emergency medicine Dr. Mark Trozzi said after hundreds of hours researching so-called covid and his personal experience on the job, he learned that we’re “being deceived and manipulated.”

He called the so-called “first wave” of the “pandemic the quietest time in my career.”

“I have worked very hard and been very busy over the past twenty-five years in ER.”

“However, both in my regular ER and (covid) designated ER, there were almost no patients, and almost no work.”

“I had multiple long ER shifts without a single patient.”

From contacts with doctors and others in the US and Canada, he discovered “empty hospitals, and propaganda saying that they were full of patients dying of covid.”

He learned the effectiveness of “zinc and hydroxychloroquine” in treating flu as well as covid.

He discovered other cold hard facts that showed we’re being lied to and mass deceived.

“I have never seen a patient sick with (covid),” he said.

“I have seen some positive PCR tests in asymptomatic people, and watched people be imprisoned in their own homes and isolated from family and friends.”

“My research into the PCR test has convinced me personally that it is misleading, manipulatable, and” a scam.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration.

It expresses grave concerns about “about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing” covid related policies.

He and co-authors said what’s going on risks “greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden.”

Pre-covid normality should be restored.

Separately he debunked lockdowns, calling them the “biggest public health mistake we’ve ever made…The harm to people is catastrophic.”

They’re the “worst public health mistake in the last 100 years.”

They served no beneficial purpose and caused catastrophic harm to countless millions of people.

Over 13,000 medical, scientific, and public health experts endorse Bhattacharya’s views and others expressing similar ones.

According to founder of Doctors for Truth Dr. Elke De Klerk:

“(W)e do not have a medical pandemic or epidemic.”

“We…should not be on list A for any longer, because we now know that (so-called covid) is a normal flu virus.”

Thousands of other medical and scientific experts in the US and Europe debunked the state-sponsored/media proliferated mother of all public health scams — based on Big Lies and mass deception.

*

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

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

Perché la Nato dieci anni fa demolì la Libia

March 16th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

Dieci anni fa, il 19 marzo 2011, le forze Usa/Nato iniziano il bombardamento aeronavale della Libia. La guerra viene diretta dagli Stati Uniti, prima tramite il Comando Africa, quindi tramite la Nato sotto comando Usa. In sette mesi, l’aviazione Usa/Nato effettua 30 mila missioni, di cui 10 mila di attacco, con oltre 40 mila bombe e missili. L’Italia – con il consenso multipartisan del Parlamento (Pd in prima fila) – partecipa alla guerra con 7 basi aeree (Trapani, Gioia del Colle, Sigonella, Decimomannu, Aviano, Amendola e Pantelleria); con cacciabombardieri Tornado, Eurofighter e altri, con la portaerei Garibaldi e altre navi da guerra. Già prima dell’offensiva aeronavale, erano stati finanziati e armati in Libia settori tribali e gruppi islamici ostili al governo, e infiltrate forze speciali in particolare qatariane, per far divampare gli scontri armati all’interno del Paese.

Viene demolito in tal modo quello Stato africano che, come documentava nel 2010 la Banca Mondiale, manteneva «alti livelli di crescita economica», con un aumento del pil del 7,5% annuo, e registrava «alti indicatori di sviluppo umano» tra cui l’accesso universale all’istruzione primaria e secondaria e, per oltre il 40%, a quella universitaria. Nonostante le disparità, il tenore medio di vita era in Libia più alto che negli altri paesi africani. Vi trovavano lavoro circa due milioni di immigrati, per lo più africani. Lo Stato libico, che possedeva le maggiori riserve petrolifere dell’Africa più altre di gas naturale, lasciava limitati margini di profitto alle compagnie straniere. Grazie all’export energetico, la bilancia commerciale libica era in attivo di 27 miliardi di dollari annui.

Con tali risorse lo Stato libico aveva investito all’estero circa 150 miliardi di dollari. Gli investimenti libici in Africa erano determinanti per il progetto dell’Unione Africana di creare tre organismi finanziari: il Fondo monetario africano, con sede a Yaoundé (Camerun); la Banca centrale africana, con sede ad Abuja (Nigeria); la Banca africana di investimento, con sede a Tripoli. Tali organismi sarebbero serviti a creare un mercato comune e una moneta unica dell’Africa.

Non è un caso che la guerra Nato per la demolizione dello Stato libico inizi nemmeno due mesi dopo il vertice dell’Unione Africana che, il 31 gennaio 2011, aveva dato il via alla creazione entro l’anno del Fondo monetario africano. Lo provano le email della segretaria di Stato dell’Amministrazione Obama, Hillary Clinton, portate alla luce successivamente da WikiLeaks: Stati uniti e Francia volevano eliminare Gheddafi prima che usasse le riserve auree della Libia per creare una moneta pan-africana alternativa al dollaro e al franco Cfa (moneta imposta dalla Francia a 14 ex colonie). Lo prova il fatto che, prima che nel 2011 entrino in azione i bombardieri, entrano in azione le banche: esse sequestrano i 150 miliardi di dollari investiti all’estero dallo Stato libico, di cui sparisce la maggior parte. Nella grande rapina si distingue la Goldman Sachs, la più potente banca d’affari statunitense, di cui Mario Draghi è stato vicepresidente.

Oggi in Libia gli introiti dell’export energetico vengono accaparrati da gruppi di potere e multinazionali, in una caotica situazione di scontri armati. Il tenore di vita della maggioranza della popolazione è crollato. Gli immigrati africani, accusati di essere «mercenari di Gheddafi», sono stati imprigionati perfino in gabbie di zoo, torturati e assassinati. La Libia è divenuta la principale via di transito, in mano a trafficanti di esseri umani, di un caotico flusso migratorio verso l’Europa che ha provocato molte più vittime della guerra del 2011. A Tawergha le milizie islamiche di Misurata sostenute dalla Nato (quelle che hanno assassinato Gheddafi nell’ottobre 2011) hanno compiuto una vera e propria pulizia etnica, costringendo quasi 50 mila cittadini libici a fuggire senza potervi fare ritorno. Di tutto questo è responsabile anche il Parlamento italiano che, il 18 marzo 2011, impegnava il Governo ad «adottare ogni iniziativa (ossia l’entrata in guerra dell’Italia contro la Libia) per assicurare la protezione delle popolazioni della regione».

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Perché la Nato dieci anni fa demolì la Libia

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

US forces are deployed in parts of the world not its own to wage forever wars by hot and/or other means against nonbelligerent nations threatening no one. That’s how its imperial scourge operates, an unparalleled threat to everyone everywhere.

For the third consecutive year, the Beijing-based South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative (SCSPI) published a report on unacceptable US military activities in the South China Sea.

In recent years, they’ve been increasing. The latest SDSPI report discusses US military operations in 2020.

Calling them “intense” last year, they included three carrier strike groups, two amphibious ready groups, strategic bombers, nuclear attack submarines, reconnaissance flights near Chinese territory, and military exercises for what the Pentagon calls “Dynamic Force Employment” to deter China.

According to SCSPI’s director Hu Bo, the high intensity scale, number and duration of US military exercises in South China Sea waters last year were extraordinarily high compared to previous years.

According to Hu, dual US carrier group/warplanes exercises were “combat-oriented.”

“For example, the USS Ronald Reagan carrier repeatedly moved into and out from the South China Sea fast, and coordinated flank attacks with other carrier strike groups.”

“Second, US carriers operated in a wider area.”

“(T)he USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group practiced operational application of expeditionary forces near the Zhongsha Islands for the first time.”

“Third, the dual carrier exercises were also pointed ones, as they were conducted at a sensitive time coinciding with exercises by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) near the Xisha Islands and the Han Kuang exercises by the military on the island of Taiwan.”

P-8A anti-submarine warplanes and EP-3E electronic reconnaissance aircraft were involved.

All of the above and more are unjustifiably justified by so-called Freedom of Navigation pretexts.

They’re all about rehearsing war on China, notably by operating near its Xisha and Nansha islands, Taiwan, and waters near China’s mainland — what the SCSPI’s report called “sensitive areas,” including near PLA military facilities.

Reconnaissance flights used “fake” IDs, disguising themselves as civilian aircraft, what the SCSPI report called “gray operations.”

According to Hu, they increase the risk of “misjudgment” between PLA and Pentagon forces.

In 2020, the Pentagon conducted provocative “high frequency” island or reef-trespassing operations in the South China Sea, including transits through the Taiwan Strait 13 times.

 

Hu called the moves “dangerous signals to Taiwan independence” elements that threaten regional peace and stability.

So-called gunboat diplomacy is a longtime US belligerent practice.

Looking ahead, Hu believes that Biden regime hardliners will maintain hostile political, economic, and saber-rattling actions against China — heightening regional tensions instead of easing them.

While continuing “maximum pressure” on China, “the US is gradually losing such military dominance in the Western Pacific despite its evident military superiority globally, as China has been delivering much more targeted and effective countermeasures,” the SCSPI stressed.

What US hardliners call Chinese “threats and challenges” are invented, not real.

Pushing Beijing politically, economically and militarily risks confrontation by accident or US design.

What’s unthinkable is possible because of US rage to rule the world unchallenged by whatever it takes to achieve its imperial aims.

A Final Comment

Neither China nor Russia — or any other countries on the US target list for regime change — hold provocative military exercises off its east or west coasts or in gulf waters near its southern coastline.

If done, both wings of the US war party would consider them a casus belli and likely respond belligerently.

Separately, Biden regime secretary of state Blinken and national security advisor Sullivan will meet with their Chinese counterparts Yang Jiechi and Wang Yi in Anchorage, Alaska on March 18.

According to Blinken’s spokesman Price on Friday, “(w)e will certainly not pull any punches in discussing our areas of disagreement” — describing bilateral relations as “competitive (and) adversarial.”

*

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

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

After more than half a year of calmness, the situation in Donbass is heating up again – there are more ceasefire violations, Kiev is transporting new troops towards the Line of Contact, and there is increased activity by Turkish-assembled Bayraktar TB2 drones used by the Ukrainian military. Many experts believe there is a high probability of hostilities resuming between the Ukrainian military and the Luhansk and Donetsk militias in Eastern Ukraine, known as Donbass.

There is no doubt that Kiev believes that inciting a conflict can help unite the country as Ukrainians are frustrated and outraged since major internal problems remain unresolved. These issues include increased poverty, a rise in gas prices and a collapsed health system, among many others. But Kiev seems emboldened and believe they can recover Donbass from militia control. It seems that Azerbaijan’s success in assuming control over seven districts surrounding the former Soviet Union’s Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast from Armenian control, partly thanks to Bayraktar drones, has encouraged Ukraine to follow a similar path – this is despite the fact that the Ukrainian army, as in mid-2010, is doomed to military defeat.

Drones have not only been recorded flying near the Line of Contact in Donbass and close to Crimea, but some have already been destroyed by Donbass militias. This is in addition to videos emerging of the Ukrainian military transferring equipment closer to the Line of Contact. In fact, at least two Boeing C-17A Globemaster of the Qatari Air Force delivered cargo from Turkey to Ukraine on Sunday. Turkish media claims there were five transport aircraft of the Qatari Air Force that flew from Istanbul to Kiev.

Although Turkey has ambitious plans to establish a self-reliant arms industry, it has been a catastrophic failure. In fact, even the so-called “indigenous” Bayraktar drones rely on nine foreign companies for parts, with at least four of those companies withdrawing their contracts in protest against the Turkish-sponsored invasion of formerly Armenian-controlled territories. With the struggle for domestic production, Turkey is turning to Ukraine.

It was announced on Sunday that Turkey’s ATAK 2 helicopters will use Ukrainian-made engines. In fact, Ukraine today stands out as Turkey’s main partner in a number of critical military technologies. These include inter alia turbo prop and diesel engine, avionics, drone, anti-ship and cruise missiles, radar and surveillance systems, space and satellite technologies, robotic systems, active and passive shielding systems and rocket engines and guidance systems – there are about 50 joint defense projects between the two countries.

Only last month, whilst addressing a special event on Crimea at the UN Human Rights Council’s 46th session, Turkey’s Deputy Foreign Minister Yavuz Selim Kıran vehemently denounced the so-called “illegal annexation of Crimea” and alleged that Russia persecutes the Crimean Tartars. Although Russia and Turkey have a partnership that includes the sale of the S-400 missile defense system, the construction of Turkey’s first nuclear powerplant that experts believe is the first step towards a nuclear weapon, and coordinate in Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said last October that “We have never considered Turkey as our strategic ally. Turkey is a close partner, that partnership has a strategic nature in many areas.”

Although Russia and Turkey coordinate on a variety of issues, Ankara enjoys a real alliance with Kiev, something it does not have with Moscow. According to recent research, 57% of Ukrainians want their country to join NATO. Erdoğan has also given his strong support for Ukraine to become a NATO member, despite knowing full well that the Atlantic Alliance is an obsolete organization existing only to pressure Moscow, and in more recent times Beijing.

Azerbaijan found success in last year’s war in Nagorno-Karabakh thanks to Turkish-assembled drones and wider support. It appears now that Ukraine has Turkish support, it is emboldened to renew the conflict in Donbass. However, it would be immensely naïve to compare the military capabilities of Armenia and Russia. Whereas Armenia allowed its military to become obsolete in the face of fifth generation warfare, Russia is a leading country in the production of military technology, which is why although the conflict in Donbass has not reached full-scale war yet, the militias are already downing drones.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said only last month that “We will never turn our backs on Donbass, no matter what.” Although the U.S., especially under President Joe Biden, would support Ukraine against the Donbass militias and attempts to invade Crimea, it appears that Turkey is serving as the main encouragement and instigator. The fact is that the international situation is favourable for Ukrainian ambitions as Moscow’s relations with the West are stagnant and many in Europe are actively and purposefully exploiting all opportunities to antagonize Russia.

Although experts believe the resumption of hostilities is imminent, Ukraine is currently experiencing rasputitsa – the melting of snow. That creates unfavourable muddy conditions to begin a war as it severely restricts supply lines and the movement of troops and equipment. None-the-less, with increased drone activity, the mobilization of troops and the transfer of equipment towards the Line of contact, it certainly appears that Ukraine, with Turkish support and encouragement, is gearing up for a resumption of hostilities against Donbass.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukraine with Turkish Support Appears to be Preparing for New Conflict Against Donbass
  • Tags: , ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

For those of us who have no direct experience of drone warfare, popular culture is one of the major ways that we come to understand what is at stake in UAV operations. Movies, novels, TV and other cultural forms can inform our ideas about drone warfare just as much as, if not sometimes more than, traditional news media or academic/NGO reports.

Death TV is a new study that looks in depth at how popular culture informs public understanding of the ethics, politics, and morality of drone operations. It looks at a wide range of popular drone fictions, including Hollywood movies such as Eye in the Sky and Good Kill, prestige TV shows such as Homeland, 24: Live Another Day and Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan, and novels by authors including Dan Fesperman, Dale Brown, Daniel Suarez, and Mike Maden. Death TV looks at these cultural products and gets inside the way they work. It identifies six main themes that can be found across many of them, and examines the ways that they inform and shape the drone debate.

In broad terms, Death TV argues that popular cultural representations often have the effect of normalizing and justifying drone warfare. Enjoyable narrative texts such as films, TV series, novels, and some forms of popular journalism play a role in the process by which drone warfare is made comprehensible to those of us without first-hand experience of it. Importantly, they also do so in a way which has, however critical any individual story may appear to be, the general effect of making drone warfare seem a legitimate, rational and moral use of both cutting edge technology and lethal military force. 

In the first episode of 24: Live Another Day (2014), fictional US President Heller bluntly responds to criticisms of the drone program by remarking that “I’m uncomfortable with the drones also. The ugly truth is, what we’re doing is working.” Statements like this, when repeated often enough with an appropriate dramatic gravity, can feel true.

Just In Time

First of all, like many forms of military fiction, drone fiction engages repeatedly with the ethics of killing in war. The opening chapter of my study, “Just in Time”, shows that very often, films like Eye in the Sky and novels like Richard A Clarke’s Sting of the Drone streamline the ethics of killing into clear yet problematically oversimplified stories that show killing by drone strike as a routinely legitimate way of exerting military force. These stories often take familiar forms, articulating ideas like ‘the ends justify the means’, or showing that drone strikes can ‘avert catastrophe in the nick of time’. Though it is sad, these dramas say, and though tragic choices need to be made, drone warfare is an effective way of achieving necessary and legitimate military goals. Drone fictions repeatedly show drones as an effective military technology that can do good in the world.

Collateral Damage 

Drone stories very often position civilian deaths as a tragic yet inevitable aspect of drone warfare. The second chapter of Death TV, “Collateral Damage”, explores how drone fictions address this important and sensitive issue. In short, drone fictions very often admit that civilian deaths are terrible, but insist that the good achieved by the drone program outweighs its negative impacts. There are many drone novels, for example, in which characters that we are encouraged to admire or agree with dismiss the deaths of innocent people in drone strikes as unfortunate but necessary, or worth it if they can stop the villains. Sometimes these dismissals are grimly glib and racist, demonstrating the way that people living under the gaze of the drone are dehumanized in order to facilitate military drone operations. If the targets of drone operations are not considered human, it is easier both for the pilots to pull the trigger and for us to consider it justified. This aspect of drone fiction is one of its most contentious.

Technophilia 

In chapter three, “Technophilia”, Death TV shows how drone stories emphasize the technical perfection of drone systems. Their surveillance capabilities are routinely exaggerated, and the accuracy of their weapons is routinely overplayed.

Drone feed imagery, which in reality is sometimes so unclear that pilots cannot distinguish between objects and people, is routinely shown in drone films as being unimpeachably unambiguous, as crystal-clear, as high-definition, and as broadcast around the world with no lag, latency, or loss.

Drone weapons, too, are shown as being unfailingly accurate – always hitting the bull’s eye without deviation – and even, in one extraordinary passage from the 2012 novel Collateral Damage, as feeling like “a rush of air. Then nothing. If you were within the fatal range of the explosion, the warhead would kill you before the sound got to you. That would be merciful, if you could consider any death merciful.” Drone weapons are such a technological miracle, in these fictions, that not even their victims suffer.

Hijack and Blowback

But there is, of course, a colossal contradiction between the arguments of chapters two and three. How can drones be perfect machines if collateral damage is also an inevitable aspect of their operations? How can a technology that is precise and intelligent continuously accidentally kill innocents? The fourth chapter of Death TV, “Hijack and Blowback”, reconciles this tension by exploring the ways in which drones are represented as vulnerable to hijack. The espionage genre, of which many drone fictions are a part, is known for convoluted conspiracist storytelling which explains geopolitical mysteries through reference to a shadowy world of infiltration, double agents, and intrigue. There is no collateral damage, there are no accidents: drone strikes which cause civilian casualties are explained as the results of manipulations or secret plots that ordinary people can never understand. This chapter examines how drone fictions – notably Dan Fesperman’s novel Unmannedand the fourth season of Homeland, in which attacks that seem at first glance to be tragic accidents are laboriously explained as the deliberate results of labyrinthine conspiracies – foreclose more substantive criticism of drones by incorporating critical narratives about hijack and blowback into their structure of meaning.

Humanisation

Chapter five of Death TV, “Humanisation”, shows how drone stories sympathetically portray drone operators. By emphasizing the psychological toll that remote warfare exacts upon its participants, drone fictions aim to dispel preconceptions that many people may hold about drone pilots as ‘desk warriors’ or the ‘chair force’ and to show that they are ‘real’ war-fighters with authentic military experience. Drone operators repeatedly suffer doubt, regret, and reluctance in drone fiction, as they struggle to reconcile the experience of warfighting at work and domestic life at home. This has the effect of foregrounding the inner experience of drone operators and allowing us to sympathetically identify with them, to understand that they are not just playing a video game but engaging in life-or-death decisions. This focus on drone pilots, though, further distances us from the lives and feelings of the people watched and targeted by the drone.

Gender and the Drone

Finally, chapter six, “Gender and the Drone”, explores how drone fictions address widespread anxieties about how drone warfare troubles conventional conceptions of gender. Many writers and filmmakers address the preconception that drone warfare makes soldiers less manly or less tough – and they show that this is not true, by emphasizing the battle-hardened masculinity of many drone operator characters who remain tough and manly despite their use of UAVs. Drone warfare is also shown as a newly egalitarian form of warfighting, a method of killing that enables women to be combatants on an equal footing to men. In this way, drone fiction reintegrates drones into the heteronormative system of gender norms.

In sum, these six ideas form a potent normalizing discourse, showing drones as ‘war as usual’ and, importantly, directing audiences away from and downplaying any criticism of the ethics or geopolitics of drone operations. There are, of course, plenty of artworks and pieces of writing that challenge the justification of drone warfare. Death TV draws a conceptual anatomy of the way that popular culture justifies military violence.

  • Join us online at 7pm on Tuesday 30 March to discuss ‘Death TV’ and the presentation of drone warfare in popular culture with its author, Alex Adams and panellists JD Schnepf, Amy Gaeta, and Chris Cole (Chair).  See our Eventbrite page for more details and to register.

*

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The American presence in Afghanistan appears to be far from over. Although Trump initiated the process of withdrawing troops from Afghan soil, recent data reveals that the numbers are still alarming and that the actual number of Americans is considerably greater than the officially reported data. In the midst of this scenario, the new president, Joe Biden, still remains indecisive about the future of American policy towards Afghanistan, but his interventionist posture generates some expectations about this topic.

This week, The New York Times published an article affirming that the actual US military force in Afghanistan is greater than what is officially announced. According to the article, which cites American, European and Afghan officials, there are at least 1,000 Americans in Afghanistan more than the figures reported by Washington. The Pentagon claims that there are currently only 2,500 soldiers in that country, figures that do not include the 1,000 soldiers appointed by the media. So, there is a clash of speeches and most likely a desire by the Pentagon to omit the actual numbers for some reason yet unknown.

Certainly, the American soldiers omitted are those who are part of the special operations forces and, in this sense, the reason for the omission of the data would be for absolutely strategic reasons. According to an anonymous NYT source, these special units deployed on Afghan soil perform secret services that mutually assist the Pentagon and the CIA. This means that, despite official figures indicating a withdrawal process, American intelligence continues to act strongly on Afghan soil. It is clear that such services cannot be stopped suddenly, especially in a danger zone disputed by several militias linked to international terrorism. However, considering that the Americans have open negotiations with the Taliban which is the main terrorist group active in Afghanistan, it is difficult to speculate what activities the special forces would actually be carrying out on Afghan soil.

Still, the number of soldiers is only one factor in a major problem. Regardless of what data is real and the secret services carried out by Americans in Afghanistan, the deadline for the total withdrawal of troops is approaching – May 1, 2021 – and Biden does not have many options to consider about it. Trump initiated the withdrawal of troops against the Pentagon itself, which established a minimum number of 8,600 troops in the country to guarantee American interests. Biden, despite appearing much more interventionist than Trump, during his years as Obama’s vice president, defended the decrease of American troops in Afghanistan – an agenda that at that time did not develop. Now, as president, Biden can choose one of two paths: either follow his old desire, already initiated by Trump, or toughen up an interventionist policy (which he adopted as a speech during the election campaign) and try to manage the deal with the Taliban.

If Biden fails to comply with the agreement, the Taliban will attack with full force. If Biden tries to renegotiate the deadline, the Taliban will refuse to accept. Finally, if Biden complies with the treaty initiated by Trump and totally withdraws troops, the American government will deapen its diplomatic crises with the Afghan government and the Taliban increases its attacks in order to take the power. It is important to note that the Afghan government felt hurt by the direct negotiations between Washington and the Taliban, as it was excluded from the peace process in its own territory.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been trying to manage the diplomatic crisis since he took office. He recently organized a meeting between leaders of the Taliban and the Afghan government, which was protested by both of them. In short, the American desire has not changed with Biden: Washington continues to want to raise the Taliban’s status to that of a formal belligerent group, capable of negotiating with National States, ending the classification as a terrorist organization. But some data on the Taliban’s praxis complicates American plans.

Last week, the Taliban carried out an attack in the Afghan city of Herat that left seven dead and more than 50 injured. The group previously attacked and dominated the central district of Faryab province, forcing the local police to surrender and bringing terror to the population. As we can see, the Taliban has not abdicated from any of its practices. Terrorist activity remains central to the group and this puts Washington in a situation of instability in the face of the Afghan government. In fact, the day after the withdrawal of American troops, the Afghan government will be forced to seek alternative alliances to confront the Taliban. The current situation in Afghanistan, being forced to release prisoners from a terrorist group in order to comply with the terms of an agreement in which it did not even participate, is truly humiliating and this will certainly lead to the breaking of ties with the American government.

An alternative to this scenario would be to return to the US the soldiers whose presence on Afghan soil is officially reported and to keep special agents at the disposal of the Afghan government for cooperation in counterterrorism. But this does not seem to be the interest of Washington, which keeps its agents in the country and yet remains inert in the face of several Taliban attacks and insists on prioritizing this group in negotiations than the Afghan government itself. In the end, the worst-case scenario appears to be the most realistic: the US will not actually end its presence in Afghanistan but will not use it to collaborate with the local government against the Taliban.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Biden’s Retaliatory Cyberattacks Against Russia Are Folly

March 16th, 2021 by Prof. Anatol Lieven

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The Biden administration is reportedly planning a “retaliation” against Russia in the next three weeks or so for last year’s massive “SolarWinds” hack of U.S. cyber infrastructure, for which Russia was allegedly responsible.  

The New York Times has written that U.S. plans include both new sanctions against Russia and U.S. cyber hacking of Russian state institutions. According to the Times, this will include “a series of clandestine actions across Russian networks,” which U.S. intelligence has already prepared. According to National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, the response is intended to show Russia “what (actions) the United States believes are in bounds, and out of bounds.”

We hope that wiser counsels can still prevail, and in particular, that someone in the administration will notice both the logical incompatibility of these two responses, and the fact that they could set a precedent that will be used against America itself in future.

Because, as Sullivan’s remarks indicate, the imposition of sanctions implies a belief that state cyber hacking is illegitimate in what the United States  calls a “rules-based global order.” The threat of U.S. retaliation in kind declares out in the open that the United States also plans to engage in these supposedly illegitimate actions, and is an implicit acknowledgement that Washington has indeed repeatedly engaged in similar actions in recent years.

More importantly, the planned action reflects two very serious errors in judgement, which left unchecked, could increase in scope under the new Biden administration. The first is a tendency, amplified by much of the U.S. media, to attribute blame to Russia for negative developments based on inadequate evidence, which the American public is hardly given a chance to view or assess. Furthermore, there is a proclivity to base U.S. policy on information that may be unclear, exaggerated, or simply untrue.

Concerning the SolarWinds hack, U.S. intelligence services can only say that the Russian state was “most probably” or “very probably” to blame for the hack. The New York Times has reported this as a certainty, but it is in fact extremely difficult to pin down for certain the national origins of such hacks, and even more difficult to determine if they were the work of state forces or independent actors. We may well reasonably assume that Russian intelligence services were responsible, but action of the kind that the Biden administration is contemplating should be based on something more than probability.

The second error, as I pointed out in Responsible Statecraft on January 13, and as has been argued since in a paper by Major Juliet Skingsley  for Chatham House in London, and in Wired by Andy Greenberg, is the use of the phrase “cyberattack,” reflecting an extremely dangerous confusion between cyber espionage and cyber sabotage.

Cyber sabotage is like all forms of sabotage: a deliberate attempt to damage public or private infrastructure. If it leads to deaths, then it can well be considered an act of terrorism or of war. This is indeed action that violates all traditional rules of international behavior in peacetime.

Writing about a “Russian cyberattack” against the U.S. Energy Department and Nuclear Security Administration suggests actual damage to those institutions and the infrastructure they control. Among other hysterical political reactions, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin called the SolarWinds hack (which of course he described as a “cyberattack” and attributed unconditionally to Russia) as “virtually a declaration of war.” This has been echoed by Senator Chris Coons and others.

No such attack happened. Nor is it at all likely that Russia would carry out such sabotage unless Russia and the United States were already on the edge of war. This suggestion is in keeping with the equally absurd warning last year from NATO officials that in time of peace, Russian submarines might attack undersea communications cables — in the process, by the way, doing great damage to Russia itself, and to Russian partners. This analysis appears to have emanated in the first instance from the British Navy, in an absolutely transparent attempt to save itself from budget cuts. As with most of the SolarWinds allegations, these suggestions involved a confusion —whether careless or deliberate — between espionage and sabotage operations

The SolarWinds hack was an act of espionage by contemporary means. As pointed out in the analysis for Chatham House, an interesting (and amusing) feature of the hack is that if it had not been voluntarily reported to the U.S. government by a private security firm, then — as with all the most successful espionage operations — nobody in America would ever have known that it had happened. Believe me, if Russia ever does decide to attack America, we will know about it.

All states conduct espionage, including most notably the United States itself. Edward Snowden revealed the massive scale of electronic and cyber espionage, not only against Russia and other U.S. rivals but against America’s closest allies. In 2015, Wikileaks revealed that for decades, the National Security Agency had been spying on top German government communications, including hacking the phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Moreover, the United States is a global leader in cyber sabotage. As the Times itself has reported, not only has Washington carried out massive cyberattacks on Iran, it has planted malware in much of Russia’s energy infrastructure — though supposedly only to be activated in response to a Russian attack.

Under the new “Defend Forward” cyber-strategy, the Trump administration decided that the United States would itself set out to disrupt any potential cyberattack before it occurred. This is a cyber version of the Bush administration’s disastrous Preventive War strategy, and like that strategy, involves Washington in exactly the sort of aggressive actions that it condemns and seeks to prevent on the part of others.

If the Biden administration does respond to espionage with sabotage it will take national rivalry in cyberspace to a wholly new level of danger, and start a potentially disastrous vicious circle of retaliatory attacks. It will give a green light to all future targets of American cyber-espionage to respond with cyberattacks on the United States.

Furthermore, to retaliate in this way would be a clear break with ancient international conventions and with the longstanding policy of the United States itself. For example in 2014, Russian intelligence was credibly reported to have hacked into the emails of the White House, State and Defense Departments. The Obama administration classified this as traditional espionage and did not retaliate.

The planned response to the SolarWinds hack reflects a much deeper problem in the Washington establishment’s attitudes and policy: the belief that the United States can unilaterally set the rules of the international system, and yet set different rules for itself whenever it feels an urgent need to do so. This was never an approach that was going to be accepted by other powerful states. In the area of cybersecurity it makes even less sense, for the internet really is (in many bad ways, alas) a great leveler. To adapt a famous meme: on the internet nobody knows that you are the only superpower.

*

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

Featured image: Russian President Vladimir Putin (ID1974/Shutterstock) and President Joe Biden (Stratos Brilakis/shutterstock)

India Should Hold the Line on Myanmar

March 16th, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India Should Hold the Line on Myanmar

COVID-19 Vaccine Tested on Babies and Pregnant Women

March 16th, 2021 by National Vaccine Information Centre (NVIC)

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Pharmaceutical and medical device giant Johnson & Johnson, Inc. (J&J) announced on February 28, 2021, plans to test its experimental Ad26.COV2.S vaccine for COVID-19 on infant children (including newborns), pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems.

J&J did not include infants, pregnant women or the immunocompromised in the U.S. population in clinical trials on the experimental COVID-19 vaccine last year.1,2,3 A recent article in New York Magazine noted:4

“The initial clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines didn’t include children, which is standard practice; now, trials for younger children are happening in descending order of age, calibrating the best dosage for each cohort.”

The announcement by J&J came the day after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted J&J subsidiary Janssen Biotech Inc. an emergency use authorization (EUA) to distribute the vaccine in the U.S. for use by individuals 18 years of age and older. Currently, the single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine cannot be given to anyone in the U.S. under 18 years old.5,6,7,8,9

According to a spokesperson for Janssen, which manufactures Ad26.COV2.S, the single-dose vaccine will first be tested on children between 12 and 18 years old. Afterward, J&J will proceed quickly to test the vaccine on infants, pregnant women and immunocompromised people.10

FDA Reviewed J&J Plans to Test COVID-19 Vaccine on Babies

J&J’s move to test its COVID-19 vaccine on very young children, as well as pregnant woman and immunocompromised people, was expected. The plans to perform these clinical trials were reportedly included in J&J’s application to the FDA for EUA and were discussed by members of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed J&J’s data on Ad26.COV2.S.11,12

“They (J&J) did not get into a lot of detail about it but did make it clear they will be pursuing pediatric and maternal coronavirus immunization studies,” said FDA advisory committee member Dr. Ofer Levy, Ph.D., director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Harvard University’s Boston Children’s Hospital.13

Other Companies Testing COVID-19 Vaccines on Older Children

J&J’s planned COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials will be the first to include infants. AstraZeneca plc, which has produced the experimental AZD1222 vaccine for COVID-19 in partnership with Oxford University, has been conducting clinical trials on children as young as 6 years of age, while Moderna Inc. and Pfizer Inc. (in partnership with BioNTech SE) are currently testing their experimental mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines on children as young as 12.14,15

J&J began shipping out 4 million doses of Ad26.COV2.S on March 1, 2021. The company has pledged that it will have 20 million doses of the vaccine ready to distribute by the end of March and 100 million doses by this summer.16

*

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

Notes

1 Farmer B. Johnson & Johnson to test new one-shot Covid-19 vaccine on babies. The Daily Telegraph Mar. 1, 2021

2, 10, 11, 13 Kolata G. Johnson & Johnson has planned trials of its vaccine that will include infants. The New York Times Feb. 28, 2021

3, 4, 16 Rosa-Aquino P. Johnson & Johnson Will Run COVID Vaccine Trials on Infants. New York Magazine Mar. 1, 2021

5 Lovelace B. FDA approves Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot Covid vaccine for emergency use. CNBC Feb. 28, 2021

6 Press release. Johnson & Johnson Feb. 27, 2021

7 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. Mar. 1, 2021

8 FDA authorizes Johnson & Johnson’s one-dose COVID-19 vaccine, doses expected to start rolling next week. USA Today Mar. 2, 2021

9 Coleman K. If You’re This Age, You Can’t Get the Johnson & Johnson Vaccine Yet. Yahoo! Finance Mar. 2, 2021

12 Branswell H, Herper M. FDA advisory panel endorses Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. STAT Feb. 26, 2021

14 Hein A. Oxford-AstraZeneca testing COVID-19 vaccine in children as young as 6. Fox News Feb. 15, 2021

15 Mandavilli A. Covid Vaccines for Kids Are Coming, but Not for Many Months. The New York Times Feb. 12, 2021

Featured image is from Mercola