Global Research

The US hopes that making Syrians even more desperate than they already are could catalyze another Color Revolution at one of the country’s most critical moments in its history, which could then be exploited for regime change purposes.

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North, and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages, and make no resistance, either moral or physical.” – Fredrick Douglass

“A single spark can start a prarie fire”

“Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun:”  Mao Tse Tung

In August, 1997, Abner Louima, an unarmed, defenseless Haitian security guard, with no criminal record whatsoever,  was falsely arrested by Brooklyn police officers, who tortured and horiffically raped him, forced him into a bathroom stall where the police officers sodomized him, forcing a broom handle up Louima’s rectum, near- fatally rupturing his bladder and colon, among other near-fatal injuries necessitating three major surgeries and a three month hospitalization.  The officer who committed this atrocity is currently free, and holding a government job.  One would have expected sustained massive civil protest against this police barbarism.  This sustained protest did not occur.  In November, 1999, Amidou Diallo, an unarmed and defenseless black man was shot to death just outside his home with 21 gun bullets fired at him by police officers.

The police murderers received a slap on the wrist, despite significant public outrage.  Subsequently a seemingly endless series of murders in following years ensued, during which police tortured and murdered the unarmed and defensless Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Botham Jean, Pamela Turner, Ahmaud Arbery, Derrick Scott, and innumerable others.  The police guilty of these atrocities acted with impunity, and were never held accountable for their murderous conduct.  Though there were sporadic protests, and outrage against these murders was expressed, as well as outrage against the impunity with which the police committed these murders, nothing significant happened, nothing improved, and, though the brutal police beating of unarmed and defenseless Rodney King in 1962 sparked riots in California, nothing changed since that time, quite the opposite.  Recently, on the evening before his wedding, the unarmed and innocent Sean Bell was shot and killed by the police with 50 bullets.    The innocent and defenseless Freddy Gray died after his spine was crushed and severed in a police van.  On the night of March 13, 2020, three police officers battered open the door of the home of Breanna Taylor, an emergency medical technican.  Police fraudulently claimed a drug investigation.  Ms. Taylor was in her bed, unarmed and defenseless. The police shot at her at least eight times, killing her.  The police officers who murdered Ms. Taylor have not been charged.

This time it is revealing that outrage against the torture-murder of George Floyd is shared by people of all  races and nationalities: African-American, Asian, European, Latin American – a multi-racial identification with Floyd’s crucifixion, and a global outrage expressed against the gargantuan hypocrisy of the United States’ claim to defend human rights and press freedom, as on camera, working members of even CNN, covering peaceful protests in Minnesota,  are arrested and their work destroyed.  According to The New York Times, June 5, 2020, “A police officer near the White House slams a riot shield into a cameraman’s chest.  The authorities in Minneapolis fire projectiles at a TV crew, prompting a reporter to cry, ‘stop shooting at us.’  A black journalist is encircled by riot police and arrested live on the air.  Attacks against journalists covering demonstrations against racial injustice have prompted foreign governments to call on American authorities to respect press freedom and protect reporters, both local and foreign.”

Image on the right is by Lorie Shaull from St Paul, United States/Wikimedia Commons

Simultaneously with these state terrorist murders of innocent, unarmed black people, the economic inequality within the USA and globally has worsened exponentially with the spread of neoliberal capitalism. Homelessness and starvation is shamelessly evident in the most public areas of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and every major city within the United States;  throughout Western Europe, the majority of citizens’ lives have been devalued and destroyed by “austerity measures” which, according to Philip Alston, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty, has resulted in twenty percent of the British population living below the poverty line.   Since 2010 large riots erupted, driven by dispossessed students and large sections of society in Spain, Italy, Greece, the UK, and last year the mass protest of the “Yellow Vests” began in France.

And simultaneously a massive increase of terrorism has been resorted to by destitute, desperate victims of the colossal global economic inequality which has now reached the obscene proportion at which the 0.01 percent, and eight men control more wealth than more than half the citizens of this planet:  even a casual student of history could have recognized that these economic and social conditions are identical with the conditions preceding and sparking the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Cuban Revolution.  It does not require rocket science to expect that this grossly unjust world verges on a volcanic eruption, culminating in a bloody civil war, or a global burst of rage capable of shattering the neoliberal economic order which has led to such despair, frustration, humiliation and dehumanization that the majority of humanity has nothing to lose and everything to gain in a global revolt to restructure the present criminally unjust social and economic architecture which dominates huge areas of the world.

However, in classic Marxist theory, the highest stage of monopoly capitalism is fascism.  And the question now is, who will ultimately prevail, the majority of dispossessed citizens of this planet, or the police state imposed to crush the majority of humanity and protect the property of that one percent who control more wealth than most citizens on this earth.  Although we cited conditions in the “North,” the USA and Western Europe, the so-called “developed world,” people of color are starving and homeless throughout Southeast Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.  This is a powderkeg which can suddenly explode.

This may explain how, with one horrific video of the bestial, perverted murder of George Floyd, the powderkeg may be finally exploding as the truth of the smashing of democracy and human rights in the United States is finally enraging people throughout the world.

The reality of totalitarianism in the United States, concealed, but covertly pervasive until now,  has been finally exposed overtly with the graphic video revealing the sadistic murder of George Perry Floyd, an unarmed man who threatened no one. This is finally leading to the revulsion and revolt of massive peaceful demonstrators in Tokyo, Germany, Australia, Belgium, France, and elsewhere throughout the world.  The militarized police in the United States operate as a death squad, and the ultimate questions will be whether this finally massive eruption of rage at the gruesome injustice which defines capitalist society can be sustained against the holocaust of police and military force unleashed against civilian resistance, so sudden, so spontaneous, so global.

On June 13, The New York Times headline read: “It’s ‘Nonlethal,’ But It Maims And Also Kills.” “As protesters filled the streets of downtown San Jose, California, recently, the police fired munitions known as rubber bullets into the crowd….. Breanna Contrera’s head jerked back from the impact as a black projectile ‘roughly the size of an extra-jumbo marshmallow’ struck her temple, near her eye.  ‘I instantly felt my head just starting to throb, blood poured down my face,’ Ms. Contreras, a 21 year old student said.  A bystander who used her face mask to help stop the bleeding was also struck.  ‘There were so many rubber bullets being fired, I wanted to think how to protect my eyes,’ said Peter di Donato, 75, a veteran of anti-Vietnam War protests, who was hit in the leg.  Derrick Sanderlin, 29, a community organizer, approached a line of police officers to ask them to stop.  But he got hit too – in the groin – and had to have emergency surgery.

He said his doctors have told him he may not be able to have children as a result of the injury.  Eleven people were taken to the hospital over a four day period after being struck with police-fired beanbag rounds – small fabric pillows filled with lead and fired from shotguns – including Justin Howell, 20 a college student who sustained a skull fracture and brain damage.  Brad Levi Ayala 16, a student who stopped to watch a peaceful protest as he was headed home from his job at a sandwich shop, was shot in the forehead with a beanbag round, an incident that was captured on video and spread widely online.  He was rushed to the hospital where he underwent seven hours of surgery…Doctors told the family the lead filled bag had dented the skull into the brain, damaging the pre-frontal cortex, according to Edwin Sanchez, his brother….  Adam Keup said an officer, without warning, shot him in the eye with a paintball gun loaded with a ball of pepper spray at a protest in Omaha in late May.  Mr. Keup, 23, said doctors told him he would have permanent eye damage and might never be able to see again…In recent years, police have stocked up on more than just paintball guns:  They have added more firepower and military gear, especially in larger cities, where they use federal grant money to buy armored cars and other tactical gear.”

On June 7, the Sunday Review of The New York Times published a major article written by Jamelle Bouie: “Rioting police officers have driven vehicles into crowds, reproducing the assault that killed Heather Heyer in Charlottsville, Va., in 2017.  They have surrounded a car, smashed the windows, tazed the occupants and dragged them out onto the ground.  Clad in paramilitary gear, they have attacked elderly bystanders, pepper-sprayed cooperative protesters and shot ‘nonlethal’ rounds directly at reporters, causing serious injuries.  In Austin, Texas a 20 year old man is in critical condition after being shot in the head with a ‘less-lethal’ round.  Across the country, rioting police officers are using tear gas in quantities that threaten the health and safety of demonstrators, especially in the midst of a respiratory disease pandemic.  None of this quells disorder.  Everything from the militaristic posture to the attacks themselves does more to inflame and agitate protesters than it does to calm the situation and bring order to the streets.  In effect, rioting police officers have done as much to stoke unrest and destabilize the situation as those responsible for damaged buildings and burning cars.  But where rioting protesters can be held to account for destruction and violence, rioting officers have the imprimatur of the state.  What we’ve seen from rioting police officers, in other words is an assertion of power and impunity.  In the face of mass anger over police brutality, they’ve effectively said ‘So What?’”

Although even some among the peaceful protesters deplored the “looting and burning” that sometimes followed the massive peaceful protests, it is probable that without that emphatic expression of rage which culminated in the firebombing of the empty police station in Minneapolis which employed the police murderer of George Floyd, no real impact would be made on the established order and vested interests it represents, and the point may have been reached where people recognize that peaceful protest cannot change the violence of PoliceState USA, and that an actual state of war exists, or is inescapably imminent.  It is also possible that some of the “looting and burning” may have been incited by “agents provocateurs,” intent on discrediting the protesters, and alarming the “establishment.”  Finally, it may have been precisely those chaotic expressions of rage driven to violence that alerted the “established order” that its interests might be threatened, and possibly, ultimately, even their lives.  The more intelligent of the one percent may have recognized the actual threat of revolution.

The savage murder of George Floyd exposes the United States’ brazen violation of the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every Resolution defending human dignity that has been adopted by the United Nations throughout its 75 years of existence, the United States Constitution and The Bill of Rights.  On Sunday, June 7, The New York Times,  page 21 headlined:  “In Turmoil at Home, U.S. Loses Moral Authority Overseas”:  “Chinese officials are using the crises in the United States as ammunition in their rhetorical battles against American diplomats.  After Morgan Ortagus, the State Department spokeswoman, expressed concern over Hong Kong, writing on Twitter that “freedom loving people must stand with the rule of law and hold to account the Chinese Communist Party,” a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman in Beijing taunted her with Mr. Floyd’s final words:  ‘I can’t breathe’”

As the heinous murder of George Floyd violates everything the United Nations theoretically represents and defends, and the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet has condemned the monstrous cruelty of Floyd’s death, it will be interesting and instructive to see how the United Nations responds to Floyd’s family and legal team’s urgent request for its intervention.

*

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.

Carla Stea is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research’s Correspondent at UN headquarters, New York. 

Many industries and service companies are failing or shrinking due to the lockdown and subsequent crisis. Instead, there are those who have gained from all this. Facebook, Google (YouTube owner), Microsoft, Apple and Amazon – writes The New York Times – “are aggressively placing new bets, as the coronavirus pandemic has made them nearessential services.” All these “Tech Giants” are from the United States.

Facebook – no longer called social network but “ecosystem”, which also includes WhatsApp, Instagram and Messenger – has exceeded 3 billion monthly users. It is therefore no wonder that, in the midst of the coronavirus crisis, Facebook launches the project of one of the largest submarine cable networks, 2Africa: 37,000 km long (almost the maximum circumference of the Earth), it will surround the entire African continent, linking it north to Europe and east to the Middle East.

There will initially be 23 interconnected countries. Starting from Great Britain, the network will connect Portugal before starting its circle around Africa through Senegal, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Africa, Mozambique, Madagascar, Tanzania, Kenya, Somalia, Djibouti, Sudan, Egypt. In the latter section, the network will be connected to Oman and Saudi Arabia. Then, across the Mediterranean, it will arrive in Italy and from here to France and Spain.

Source: the author

This large-capacity network – explains Facebook – will be “the pillar of a huge expansion of the Internet in Africa: eco-nomies flourish when there is an Internet widely accessible for businesses. The network will allow hundreds of millions of people to access broadband up to 5G. ” This, in summary, the official motivation of the project. One fact is enough to cast doubt on it: in sub-Saharan Africa about 600 million people, equivalent to more than half the population, do not have access to electricity.

What will the broadband network be used for? African elites, who represent the interests of multinationals in the continent, will be more closely connected to their parent companies.

The network will also serve other purposes. Two years ago, in May 2018, Facebook established a partnership with the Atlantic Council, an influential Washington-based “non-partisan organization” that “galvanizes US leadership and engagement in the world. together with allies”. The specific purpose of the partnership is to guarantee “the correct use of Facebook in elections around the world, monitoring disinformation and foreign interference, helping to educate citizens and civil society”.

What is the reliability of the Atlantic Council, particularly active in Africa, can be deduced from the official list of donors that finance it: the Pentagon and NATO, Lockheed Martin and other war industries (including the Italian Leonardo), ExxonMobil and other multinationals, the Bank of America and other financial groups, the Rockefeller and Soros foundations.

The network, which will connect 16 African countries to 5 European NATO allies under US command and to 2 US allies in the Middle East, can play a role not only in economic terms, but also in political and strategic ones. The “Digital Forensic Research Lab” of the Atlantic Council will be able to communicate every day to African media and politicians which news is “fake” and which “true”. Facebook’s personal information and tracking systems can be used to control and target opposition movements. Broadband, even in 5G, can be used by US and other special forces in their operations in Africa.

In announcing the project, Facebook stresses that Africa is “the least connected continent” and that the problem will be solved by its 37,000 km of cables. They can be used, however, as a modern version of the old colonial chains.

*

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 Il Manifesto. Translated from Italian.

Manlio Dinucci is an award-winning author and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

It turns out that the BBC really does believe that God is an Englishman. When the simple impossibility of the official story on the Skripals finally overwhelmed the dramatists, they resorted to Divine Intervention for an explanation – as propagandists have done for millennia.

This particular piece of script from Episode 2 of The Salisbury Poisonings deserves an induction in the Propaganda Hall of Fame:

Porton Down Man: I’ve got the reports from the Bailey house

Public Health Woman: Tell me, how many hits?

Porton Down Man: It was found in almost every room of the house. Kitchen, bathroom, living room, bedrooms. It was even on the light switches. We found it in the family car too. But his wife and children haven’t been affected. I like to think of myself as a man of science, but the only word for that is a miracle.

Well, it certainly would be a miracle that the family lived for a week in the house without touching a light switch. But miracle is not really the “only word for that”. Nonsense is a good word. Bullshit is a ruder version. Lie is entirely appropriate in these circumstances.

Because that was not the only miracle on display. We were told specifically that the Skripals had trailed novichok all over Zizzis and the Bishops Mill pub, leaving multiple deadly deposits, dozens of them in total, which miraculously nobody had touched. We were told that Detective Bailey was found to have left multiple deadly deposits of novichok on everything he touched in a busy police station, but over several days before it was closed down nobody had touched any of them, which must be an even bigger miracle than the Baileys’ home.

Perhaps even more amazingly, as the Skripals spread novichok all over the restaurant and the pub, nobody who served them had been harmed, nobody who took their payment. The man who went through Sergei’s wallet to learn his identity from his credit cards was not poisoned. The people giving first aid were not poisoned. The ducks Sergei fed were not poisoned. The little boy he fed the ducks with was not poisoned. So many miracles. If God were not an Englishman, Salisbury would have been in real trouble, evidently.

The conclusion of episode two showed Charlie Rowley fishing out the perfume bottle from the charity bin at least two months in the timeline before this really happened, thus neatly sidestepping one of the most glaring impossibilities in the entire official story. I think we can forgive the BBC that lie – there are only so many instances of divine intervention in the story the public can be expected to buy in one episode.

It is fascinating to see that the construction of this edifice of lies was a joint venture between the BBC and the security services’ house journal, the Guardian. Not only is all round pro-war propagandist “Colonel” Hamish De Bretton Gordon credited as Military Advisor, but Guardian journalists Caroline Bannock and Steven Morris are credited as Script Consultants, which I presume means they fed in the raw lies for the scriptwriters to shape into miracles.

Now here is an interesting ethical point for readers of the Guardian. The Guardian published in the last fortnight two articles by Morris and Bannock that purported to be reporting on the production of the drama and its authenticity, without revealing to the readers that these full time Guardian journalists were in fact a part of the BBC project. That is unethical and unprofessional in a number of quite startling ways. But then it is the Guardian.

[Full disclosure. I shared a flat with Caroline at university. She was an honest person in those days.]

Again, rather than pepper this article with links, I urge you to read this comprehensive article, which contains plenty of links and remains entirely unanswered.

*

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.

America’s Own Color Revolution

By F. William Engdahl, June 17, 2020

Color Revolution is the term used to describe a series of remarkably effective CIA-led regime change operations using techniques developed by the RAND Corporation, “democracy” NGOs and other groups since the 1980’s. They were used in crude form to bring down the Polish communist regime in the late 1980s. From there the techniques were refined and used, along with heavy bribes, to topple the Gorbachev regime in the Soviet Union. For anyone who has studied those models closely, it is clear that the protests against police violence led by amorphous organizations with names like Black Lives Matter or Antifa are more than purely spontaneous moral outrage. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans are being used as a battering ram to not only topple a US President, but in the process, the very structures of the US Constitutional order.

Trump Hammers Cuba While Cuba Cures the Sick

By Medea Benjamin, June 17, 2020

A team of 85 Cuban doctors and nurses arrived in Peru on June 3 to help the Andean nation tackle the coronavirus pandemic. That same day, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced another tightening of the sanctions screws. This time he targeted seven Cuban entities, including Fincimex, one of the principal financial institutions handling remittances to the country. Also targeted was Marriott International, which was ordered to cease operations in Cuba, and other companies in the tourism sector, an industry that constitutes 10 percent of Cuba’s GDP and has been devastated globally by the pandemic.

Imperialism, Diamonds and Power: The Plan of Cecil Rhodes Secret Society for Global Control

By Steven MacMillan, June 17, 2020

The question of whether a statue of Cecil Rhodes should be taken down has been raging in Britain in recent weeks, fuelled by the George Floyd protests that have swept the world.  Personally, I am not a fan of people pulling down statues of historical figures, not because I necessarily like these figures, but because destroying a statue doesn’t change history, and people should not forget history. Living in a world where anything that outrages a minority of people is destroyed, or memory-holed as Orwell would put it, is a world where people soon forget the lessons of history. Furthermore, where do you draw the line? What historical figures pass the outrage test, and who fails? Who decides who passes or fails – an angry mob? The whole business of destroying historical statues and removing TV shows that were made decades ago quickly becomes an inconsistent mess. In my opinion, what is more important is to learn the lessons of history, and take this knowledge to inform our actions in the future.

America: An Empire Eating Itself

By Tony Cartalucci, June 17, 2020

The United States finds itself in a less-than-unique position of an empire in terminal decline. With nations around the globe standing up economically, militarily, and politically – closing off once lucrative avenues of exploitation – the US finds itself turning more and more inwardly upon its allies and even its own population – either to wring from it whatever wealth it can or at the very least – to prevent the displacement of America’s current ruling special interests by any sort of alternative.

The System Is Rigged: Qualified Immunity Is How the Police State Stays in Power

By John W. Whitehead, June 17, 2020

Because the system is rigged and the U.S. Supreme Court—the so-called “people’s court”—has exchanged its appointed role as a gatekeeper of justice for its new role as maintainer of the status quo, there will be little if no consequences for the cops who brutalize and no justice for the victims of police brutality.

Controversy over History of World War II. Russia Marks 75 Years, Military Parade

By Kester Kenn Klomegah, June 17, 2020

The world celebrates the year 2020 to mark the 75th anniversary of the Victory over Nazism during the World War II. For the first time in history, Russia postponed its military parade traditionally held on Moscow’s Red Square on May 9 due to the coronavirus pandemic. As the pandemic subsides, Russia will now mark this historical event on June 24 as decreed by President Vladimir Putin.

Israel Increases Secretive Nuclear Stockpile to 90 Warheads: Report

By Middle East Eye, June 17, 2020

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) said in its annual report on Monday that Israel, one of the world’s nine nuclear powers, could be in possession of up to 90 nuclear warheads.

The watchdog said that the true number could be higher as Israel does not officially comment on its nuclear capabilities.

---

Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

Yesterday my wife, a native of Korea, made the arduous trip to her homeland from Toronto in order to help her mother, who had been diagnosed with Stage IV cancer, with the protocols of High-Dose Vitamin C and a natural eating regimen. This hopefully will be an inspiring story in itself as things continue to progress along.

However, the reason I bring it up is because of the difficulties my wife experienced in getting to Korea as a result of COVID-19 regulations, and how this has gotten me thinking even more deeply about the nature of this pandemic.

In order to go to Korea to assist her mother, my wife had to go to the Korean Consulate in Toronto, provide proof that she was not suffering from the Coronavirus, (with the documentation having a 48-hour expiry date), proof that her mother had been diagnosed with cancer, proof that she had enough money to sustain herself while in Korea, and proof that she would have a place to stay in Korea. Eventually satisfying all these conditions, she was given a visitor’s visa and set out to fly to Korea through Vancouver. Before boarding the flight to Korea, she was given a document in which she was asked to agree to finance her own quarantine in a special hotel for 14 days (about $1600) if deemed necessary and agree to abide unconditionally to all government measures including departure from Korea orders if the authorities deemed it appropriate.

Arriving in Korea, she told me she literally had to go through hoops from one counter to the next and get documents sent from her mother’s house certifying her family identity, then agree to pay a taxi over $100 in order to be ushered directly to her mother’s house, where she had to sign off on a strict 14-day quarantine in the house that would be monitored by the government and law enforcement on a daily basis.

What strikes me as odd, from this one experience that is absolutely factual and affects my family personally, is the amount of care, attention, precision, and gravity that was given in the case of a person (my wife) who had no signs of illness and furthermore had a doctor-certified test document saying that she did not have COVID-19. Measures like this worldwide would purport to solely be motivated by the prevention the death of world citizens, would they not? I would argue that, even based on mainstream-accepted ‘dangers’ about COVID-19 (themselves dubious at best), all these measures were useless, a complete waste of time, money, and valuable human resources.

For Saving Human Lives?

This all got me thinking. If that attention and the human and financial resources that have been spent on this ‘pandemic’ had been given to end world hunger, do any of you doubt that world hunger would have been eradicated by now?

The ‘official’ numbers of COVID-19 deaths worldwide, according to the website Worldometers.info, as of May 4th, is 251,421. I will not contest this figure for the moment, but later on will give evidence that this number is inflated. But let’s use this number for now.

Let’s compare it to the number of deaths worldwide from starvation since January 1st, according to the website theworldcounts.com: 3,073,421. Even as I type in this number it has already changed, as it does continuously every two seconds or so. My question is, if our world leaders are so concerned about human mortality, should they not be devoting at least 10 times the amount of financial and human resources that they are giving to this pandemic to ending world hunger? Should they not have come together and done this decades ago?

This is just one example. There are countless, which show us time and again that the true agenda of our political leaders is almost completely antithetical to the actual health and safety of the people of the world. And it should have all of us suspecting that the coordinated worldwide efforts to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 on the global population is not really about public health and safety but rather part of a different agenda.

Inflating Numbers, Maximizing Fear

Now as to that staunch figure of worldwide deaths from COVID-19, which tells us that over a quarter of a million people have died from the virus–not an insignificant number, when it gets stand-alone framing in big bold print on mainstream media 24/7. That, in combination with the ongoing ticker of new cases cropping up, is used strategically to maximize fear, thereby maximizing public compliance.

Evidence is coming out every day that these numbers and the way they are presented are not truthful and are conflating the level of danger (and thus the need for a lockdown).

For example, many of the deaths that are in the official number of COVID-19 deaths are actually co-morbidities, meaning that the person who died had other pre-existing health conditions that contributed to their death. There is no evidence of the extent of the impact, if any, of COVID-19 in the case of these co-morbidities. In fact, in some cases, even where an alternative cause is determined, it is still registered as a COVID-19 death.

This chart below of weekly pneumonia deaths reported shows a precipitous decline in the number of pneumonia deaths in the US which coincides with, you guessed it, the beginning of the reporting of COVID-19 deaths.

In other words, deaths that would have been determined to be caused by pneumonia in previous years are being called COVID-19 deaths, in some cases without that person even being tested for COVID-19! In effect, more and more evidence is pointing to the idea that there is nothing really happening in the world any different from any other year in terms of deaths from infectious flu-like diseases. Yet my wife has to go through all sorts of machinations in order to be permitted to visit her mother?

So much more can be said about particular ways that figures and projections are manipulated to create a perception of fear and danger for this pandemic, but for now let’s look at the larger mechanism at play here.

The Script Followed By Our Leaders

In the interests of having an informed and capable public, are our leaders keeping us updated on these inconsistencies, and helping us get an accurate picture of the true extent of the dangers involved with this particular disease? For the most part, no. Politicians of all stripes come onto the airwaves to make the same announcements everywhere: “Because you have been good boys and girls, we, your authority, has been able to start getting this crisis under control,” combined with “you are warned that you must continue to obey us to prevent a rebound in the number of infections.” Then they might criticize examples of “bad” citizens not complying.

Again, I simply need to reflect on my personal experience here in Ontario, Canada, to reinforce my theory. Most readers could do the same within their locality. With just a cursory glance at the official briefings here, I heard Ontario Premier Doug Ford try to convince viewers how deeply concerned he was about the safety and health of Ontarions. He was quick to rebuke those who protested in front of parliament in Toronto calling for an end to the lockdown as ‘a bunch of Yahoos.’

And on the subject of something that affects me personally with a 6-year old at home, namely the opening of schools, he has done his best to bring  gravitas to his proclamation that schools will continue to stay closed for the forseeable future, citing that ‘my No. 1 concern is protecting our kids out there.’ From stories I’ve heard about Doug Ford, he may be one of the last people I would trust to protect my child. And the notion that keeping kids cooped up at home and not in contact with their friends is keeping them safe ignores the known statistics about COVID-19, where children are in the lowest risk-class for infection and morbidity.

Social Engineering

Many theories floating around out there as to the true origins and purpose of COVID-19, based on evidence that it was man-made and the possibility that it was released intentionally, are certainly worth investigating. However, none of those have to be proven for us to be able to see that the pandemic is being used as a social engineering experiment. Now this is nothing new, as basically everything our leaders do is grounded in their attempts to see how much more power they can amass and how much more of our freedoms can be taken away. “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” as Churchill said.

In the case of COVID-19, we are dealing with a worldwide event, and perhaps the biggest social engineering experiment ever attempted. Those who have the ultimate power in the world, those who control our political leaders, are trying to determine how much the public will comply under the circumstances of a pandemic. You can see everything being said by our leaders is based on affirming that they are in control, that we must follow. When attempts to control things in Ontario went too far and the people pushed back, as when an Aurora mom was fined $880 for standing too long in a park with her baby, Doug Ford said bylaw officers “could have used a little bit different judgment.”

Without ceding his own power, he yielded some ground in order to reinforce his own legitimacy, using a famous Machiavellian political strategy. This type of push and pull has been happening all around the world as this pandemic continues to be employed to erode our freedoms. It is part of a bigger war that is being fought between forces with a dark agenda of control and those who are working to bring out the truth. The sooner we all start to see what is going with this pandemic in this larger context, the sooner the truth will shine for everyone to see, and empower us to restore our freedom.

*

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 Collective Evolution

Police aren’t the problem in the US. They operate as trained and ordered by higher authorities.

They serve and protect privileged interests at the expense of beneficial social change — the real systemic issue vital to address getting no attention, including by establishment media.

Institutionalized racism, inequality, and injustice reflect what America has been all about from inception — ordinary people abused and otherwise exploited to benefit the nation’s wealthy and powerful.

Legislation, Supreme Court rulings, and presidential executive orders are meaningless without transforming today’s unacceptable system into governance of, by, and for everyone equitably.

It won’t come from elections that assure continuity when held — nor from promises by the nation’s executive and congressional leadership.

It’s only possible by grassroots revolutionary activism that requires longterm struggle, staying the course, not quitting until peace, equity and justice are achieved.

On Tuesday, Trump signed a so-called Executive Order on Safe Policing for Safe Communities that amounted to much ado about nothing, a symbolic gesture, nothing more.

Flanked by cops and others for the occasion, the EO made no mention of systemic inequity, injustice, police violence, or enforcement of the rule of law to serve and protect everyone, especially society’s most vulnerable.

The EO is a smokescreen for continuity, ignoring vitally needed systemic change — what Trump, the vast majority in Congress, the courts, and monied interests abhor and won’t tolerate unless pushed by sustained longterm activism nationwide.

What Trump called “the brave men and women in blue who police our streets and keep us safe” exclusively serve as a praetorian guard for the nation’s privileged class at the expense of most others.

While most cops aren’t responsible for violence and other forms of brutality against the nation’s most vulnerable, far more than “tiny” numbers claimed by Trump are involved — tough tactics used, including use of weapons, chokeholds, and other forms of brutality taught during training.

Trump’s EO and whatever congressional legislation that emerges, if any, will amount to no more than tinkering around the edges cosmetic changes — leaving structural racism, inequity and injustice in place.

From inception, the US has been and remains a culture of violence — notably throughout the post-WW II period by waging wars on humanity at home and abroad without letup.

Legislation, EOs, judicial rulings, and other actions at the federal, state, and local levels did nothing to transform the US into a just society.

Police violence and other forms of brutality reflect fundamental US societal inequities that need addressing and correcting.

There’s nothing in prospect legislatively or otherwise for systemic change.

Without it, dirty business as usual will continue as always — no matter which right wing of the one-party state is in power, no matter what laws are enacted or EO’s ceremonially signed.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Implementation of the so-called Caesar Syria Civilian Protection legislation (Caesar Act) is the latest shoe to drop in Washington’s long war of aggression on the country, its legitimate leadership, and 17 million people.

Signed into law by Trump last December, the draconian measure that breaches international law became effective on June 17.

It has nothing to do with protecting Syrian civilians, everything to do with starving and otherwise immiserating them into submission to Washington’s imperial boot.

The measure threatens sanctions on nations, entities and individuals that maintain legitimate economic, financial, military, and intelligence relations with Damascus — their legal right under international law.

Syrian envoy to Russia Riyad Haddad explained that threatened US sanctions under the measure “not only target Syria, they directly or indirectly jeopard(e) all its allies and are also aimed against Persian Gulf countries, so that none of these countries dares to invest in” the Syrian Arab Republic.

“And each party that will say it wants to invest, must get permission from the US.”

Syria’s Foreign Ministry slammed the measure, stressing that it’s “based on false evidence, trumped up by hostile to the Syrian people parties.”

The Caesar Act adds to already imposed “economic blockade and terror” on Syria by the US.

It “imposes new sanctions against any (nation), individual or party that cooperates with the Syrian government or offers financing to it in any sector.”

“Thus, the US undermines three economic sectors, threatening with sanctions, namely foreign trade, local and joint investment supporting the Syrian government, and the financing sector — loans, money transfers.”

The measure “excludes the areas under the control of Kurdish self-administration.”

It’s similar to US state terror and illegal sanctions war on Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and other countries, intending mainly to inflict enormous harm on their people.

A strategy that virtually never works when used by the US, it aims to turn the population of these countries against their governments.

It’s also about wanting their ruling authorities isolated on the world stage, applying maximum pressure to weaken them in flagrant violation of international and US constitutional law under its Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2).

Unilaterally imposed sanctions by nations on others breach the UN Charter.

Security Council members alone may impose them if warranted.

All US sanctions imposed on Syria, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and other nations by Congress or White House executive order have no legal standing.

Governments observing them are complicit by breaching international law.

Both right wings of the US war party use this weapon as part of their war by other means on nations unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to US interests — part of what the scourge of imperialism is all about.

Throughout US hot war on Syria in its 9th year with no resolution in prospect — launched by Obama, escalated by Trump — multiple rounds of illegal sanctions were imposed on the country and its people by Washington.

Their aim is wanting Syria transformed into a US vassal state, legitimate President Assad replaced by puppet leadership subservient to US and Israeli interests.

Syria’s UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari condemned the Caesar Act and other illegal US sanctions on the country, notably its economic blockade and other coercive measures that constitute state terror on the sovereign state and its people.

The US under Obama and now Trump bear “direct responsibility for the suffering of the Syrians,” he stressed.

On Tuesday in Moscow, Russian and Iranian Foreign Ministers Lavrov and Zarif respectively signed a joint declaration of support for upholding international law in the region and worldwide, stating the following:

“1. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation reaffirm their full commitment to the principles of international law codified in the ‘Charter of the United Nations’ and in the ‘Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations’ adopted in 1970.”

“The principles of international law that form the basis of fair and equal international relations contribute to realization of win-win cooperation and create common space for equal and inseparable security and economic cooperation.”

“2. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation share the view that the principle of sovereign equality of states is vital for stability in the international relations.”

“The states enjoy their rights based on independence and equality, and make commitments and take responsibilities on the basis of mutual respect.”

“The states have the right to take part equally in creating and enforcing the international law.”

“They are also committed to observing the international law with goodwill in a consistent and constant manner.”

“3. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation affirm the principle that all states should refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.”

“Accordingly, they condemn the unilateral acts of military intervention.”

“4. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation fully support the principle of non-intervention in the domestic or foreign affairs of the other states, and condemn any intervention by the states in the domestic or foreign affairs of the other states with the purpose of a fake change of legitimate governments that would violate that principle.”

“5. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation consider any measure or effort to undermine or destabilize the states or their institutions in any shape or under any pretext as a violation of the aforementioned principle.”

“6. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation condemn the extraterritorial imposition of national laws of states in contravention of the international law as another example of violation of the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of states.”

“7. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation assert the sovereign and inviolable right of states, as part of principle of non-intervention in the domestic or foreign affairs of the other states, to define their own political, economic, cultural and social systems to promote international relations and exercise permanent sovereignty over their natural resources, in accordance with the will of their people and without foreign interference, intervention, subversion, coercion or threat in any shape.”

“8. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation underline the principle of peaceful settlement of the conflicts and firmly believe that the states must resolve their differences with the means and mechanisms on which they have agreed.”

“Such process contributes to the peaceful settlement of differences according to the imposable international law and, accordingly, could result in the reduction of tensions and enhancement of peaceful cooperation.”

“Obviously, in order to maintain the international legal order, it is essential that all means and mechanism for the settlement of disputes are based upon consent and are employed with goodwill and the spirit of cooperation. The aforementioned purposes must not be undermined with abuse in practice.”

“9. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation share the view that implementation of the general principles and rules recognized by the international law with goodwill will prevent the process of adoption of double standards or the imposition of will of some states on some others.”

“They consider the imposition of unilateral forceful measures – also known as the ‘unilateral sanctions’ — as an example of such approach.”

“The unilateral forceful measures, particularly in the form of economic coercive measures, target the groups in the most vulnerable economic and social conditions.”

“Therefore, all countries must refrain from declaring and imposing any unilateral forceful measure; because such measures prevent the full realization of economic and social development and have negative impacts on the enjoyment of all human rights, including the right to development, trade and investment.”

“10. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation condemn terrorism in any shape and form as a global threat to international peace and security and consider that it undermines the international order based upon international law.”

“They emphasize that terrorism must not be attributed to a specific faith, nationality, and ethnic or civilizational group.”

“The terrorist acts are criminal and unjustifiable measures, irrespective of the motive, the time and the place and no matter who commits them.”

“They also emphasize the need for joint efforts and comprehensive approaches to prevent and fight against terrorism, in accordance with the international law, including the Charter of the United Nations. Moreover, they emphasize that unfounded accusations against the official institutions of other states, which could challenge the international efforts at the fight against terrorism, are unacceptable.”

“Furthermore, they support the uniform and balanced implementation of the United Nations’ strategy for fighting against terrorism.”

“11. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation declare that the international commitments regarding the impunity of states, their assets and their officials must be always respected by the countries.”

“The violation of those commitments run counter to the principle of sovereign equality of states and could escalate tensions.”

“12. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation are determined to counter the unilateral illegal approaches to the settlement of global crises and actively promote the collective and multilateral just approaches based upon the general principles and rules recognized by the international law to resolve the urgent and essential regional and global problems.”

“The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation reject the concepts that seek to undermine the international order based upon international law.”

“13. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation decide to expand their cooperation, in line with the relations based on strategic partnership between the two sides, in order to observe and promote the international law and establish a just international order on the basis of international law.”

Russia and Iran support world peace, stability, the rule of law, and mutual cooperation among nations.

They oppose what the scourge of US imperialism is all about, its rage for unchallenged dominance by brute force, and enormous harm on ordinary people everywhere.

The US is an outlaw state, operating extrajudicially by its own rules exclusively.

Its endless wars on humanity at home and abroad pose the greatest threat to everyone everywhere.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

---

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

It came as a shock to everyone when it was announced yesterday that discussions and negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo will take place at the White House in Washington on June 27. This came as a surprise as it was widely believed that President Donald Trump had no interest in the Kosovo issue and was satisfied to allow the Europeans to mediate it.

Richard Grenell, the U.S. president’s special envoy for Kosovo, believes there is a possibility to reach at least an agreement on economic cooperation. He said on Twitter that he “received the commitment from” both governments to attend the June 27 Washington talks and to “temporarily pause the derecognition campaign and the seeking of international memberships.”

If either side is unsatisfied with the June 27 discussions then they will go back to the status quo after they leave Washington.
As we have consistently said, we must first make progress on growing the economies. This is the focus. I look forward to these discussions. (2/2) https://t.co/r5QLDuC1XI

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) June 15, 2020

Although Kosovo illegally broke off from Serbia in February 2008 and received recognition from a majority of countries around the world, Belgrade has pursued a successful diplomatic push to have states derecognize Kosovo, with the most recent being the West African country of Sierra Leone on March 2 of this year. To date, 15 countries have withdrawn their recognition of an independent Kosovo, making the split between international recognition and non-recognition at about 50% each. Belgrade’s campaigning has also hindered Kosovo’s efforts for membership in international organizations like Interpol and UNESCO.

With a temporary truce in place, Washington is hoping to establish trade relations between Serbia and Kosovo, with Grenell saying “if either side is unsatisfied with the June 27 discussions then they will go back to the status quo after they leave Washington. As we have consistently said, we must first make progress on growing the economies.”

If we look at what Grenell has already said publicly, it appears that he is confident that an agreement can be reached regarding open economic cooperation between Belgrade and Pristina. Such an agreement would help create some momentum before the next round of negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina on finalizing the status of Kosovo.

With the U.S. inundated with domestic issues, like the out of control coronavirus pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement, foreign policy issues, with the exception of perhaps China, will not play a major role in the upcoming presidential election, giving Trump more freedom to pursue certain issues. This is in addition to a mainstream media that are oriented against Trump and will not emphasize any of his successes in the foreign policy field.

This announced meeting comes as only a few days ago Trump said that he would no longer engage in experiments to create new states that are not capable of surviving on their own, such as Kosovo. It is for this reason that we can interpret Grenell’s statement that things will return to the status quo if parties are not satisfied with the results of the upcoming talks as a demonstration of Trump’s loose support for Kosovo’s Albanians as Washington will not put demands against Serbia. This statement is a result of the growing frustration that the White House, the State Department, and even Grenell himself has because of the unstable political situation in Pristina.

Albanian influence in Washington is losing ground, with only minimal support in Congress, especially in the House of Commons, where one of their key allies, Eliot Engel, is also the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He tried to impose the views of previous administrations through testimonies, writing letters and public appearances, criticizing the Trump administration’s policy regarding negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina. However, he has been mostly ignored by the president.

There has been no progress in the negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina in finalizing Kosovo’s status and the U.S. has virtually no trust in Kosovo leader Hashim Thaçi and the entire political elite in Pristina. However, Grenell would not have organized a meeting in the White House if he was not confident that some kind of economic agreement could be reached between the Serbs and Kosovo Albanians.

Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić emphasized yesterday that Serbia will certainly not agree to the recognition of Kosovo’s independence while in Washington. Similar statements also came from Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dačić, who is wary of Pristina’s consent to suspend the campaign for admission to international institutions.

“The problem is, however, that we do not trust the Albanians in Pristina, because they have always lied and made unilateral moves,” Dačić said.

He added that if what Grenell announced on Twitter was true, Belgrade expects Pristina to immediately withdraw the requests for membership that it submitted to international organizations.

It is likely that for Trump it is unimportant whether Serbia continues its campaign to have countries withdraw recognition of an independent Kosovo, but for the Albanians it would be critical as Belgrade has been highly successful. It is for this reason that Kosovo’s biggest opposition party, Vetëvendosje, accused Thaçi of going against Kosovo’s interests by suspending the membership process to join international organizations, especially at a time when more and more countries are withdrawing their recognition of an independent Kosovo.

Even though Vučić has suspicions about the sincerity of Kosovo’s halt on joining international organizations, demonstrating that Serbia does not trust Washington’s assurances, Belgrade is fully prepared to continue its successful campaign of derecognition in the event of Pristina withdrawing on their word.

*

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

Incongruous, deadly, bizarre. Two nuclear powers engaging in a fatal skirmish over a piece of territory with no economic resources, using rocks and clubs with protruding nails. A stone-age fight in the nuclear era.

Einstein said he did not know what exact weapons would be used in a war with nuclear powers. But he knew the weapons of mass destruction that would be used in the one after that. Sticks and stones. Few envisioned nuclear-weapon states using such primitive weapons before launching Armageddon.

India and China dispute the world’s longest unmarked border. There has been conflict. War in 1962, easily won by China, skirmishes since then, no bullets fired since a deadly clash in 1975 when an unofficial agreement not to use firearms in the border area was reached.  It was considered that no large-scale conflict could emerge from a stone-age fight. Scrap that.

The Sino-Indian border is a hotbed of tension. According to the Indian government, the Chinese military went into Indian territory 1,025 times between 2016 and 2018. Trouble is this is easily disputed as the area is not officially marked. So what is India’s or China’s territory?

Most of these clashes apparently emerge from differing assessments of the location of the so-called Line of Actual Control — the de facto international border.

The military superpowers have been arguing, and fighting, for decades over territory in the high-altitude, largely uninhabited region.

Facing off at 4,600 meters high along a 3,440km border could be described as the height of folly.

It comes at a price. On Monday at least 20 Indian soldiers were killed in the Galwan Valley in the disputed Ladakh region.

The loss of life, believed to be the first in 45 years at the border, raises the stakes considerably.

Indian officials spoke of fighting with bare hands, clubs and stones. There were reports of Chinese casualties, but no official confirmation. Both countries accuse the other of building up infrastructure and stoking tension.

There have been agreements. But times have changed.

In 1988 the two countries were roughly equal on the economic stage. According to the World Bank, India’s gross domestic product was about $300 billion compared with China’s $312 billion that year. New Delhi’s defense budget was $10.6 billion. Beijing’s official budget was in the region of $11 billion.

A state of parity. That was then. Now China has risen, so has India, but China to greater heights. China’s GDP, north of $13 trillion, dwarfs India’s $2.7 trillion. Same story on defense spending. Beijing, again according to its official budget, splashed out $261 billion on defense expenditure in 2019. India spent about $71 billion. India has risen as an economy and a global power in the past three decades, but shrunk markedly relative to China.

China has also become more belligerent. Hide your light under a bushel, Deng Xiaoping’s mantra, has been superseded by Xi Jinping’s more aggressive foreign policy.

From island-building in the South China Sea to its shriek post-Covid-19 outbreak diplomacy, Beijing is clearly adopting a different approach.

But that is not the only difference. The Unites States under Trump is shedding its authority. Neither China or India expects or even wants US involvement and the US clearly does not want to be involved. A fatal clash between two nuclear powers and Washington does nothing. No envoys dispatched. No sense of urgency from the White House.  No demand for a cooling-down period. No leadership. Europe too seems to have lost its voice. From the East, the West looks shallow, a busted flush.

It may be that both India and China will settle their dispute amicably and quickly cool tensions. But it would be foolhardy, and dangerous, to dismiss any other alternative as unthinkable.

*

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.

Tom Clifford is a renowned journalist currently based in Beijing.

Color Revolution is the term used to describe a series of remarkably effective CIA-led regime change operations using techniques developed by the RAND Corporation, “democracy” NGOs and other groups since the 1980’s. They were used in crude form to bring down the Polish communist regime in the late 1980s. From there the techniques were refined and used, along with heavy bribes, to topple the Gorbachev regime in the Soviet Union. For anyone who has studied those models closely, it is clear that the protests against police violence led by amorphous organizations with names like Black Lives Matter or Antifa are more than purely spontaneous moral outrage. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans are being used as a battering ram to not only topple a US President, but in the process, the very structures of the US Constitutional order.

If we step back from the immediate issue of videos showing a white Minneapolis policeman pressing his knee on the neck of a black man, George Floyd, and look at what has taken place across the nation since then, it is clear that certain organizations or groups were well-prepared to instrumentalize the horrific event for their own agenda.

The protests since May 25 have often begun peacefully only to be taken over by well-trained violent actors. Two organizations have appeared regularly in connection with the violent protests—Black Lives Matter and Antifa (USA). Videos show well-equipped protesters dressed uniformly in black and masked (not for coronavirus to be sure), vandalizing police cars, burning police stations, smashing store windows with pipes or baseball bats. Use of Twitter and other social media to coordinate “hit-and-run” swarming strikes of protest mobs is evident.

What has unfolded since the Minneapolis trigger event has been compared to the wave of primarily black ghetto protest riots in 1968. I lived through those events in 1968 and what is unfolding today is far different. It is better likened to the Yugoslav color revolution that toppled Milosevic in 2000.

Gene Sharp: Template for Regime Overthrow

In the year 2000 the US State Department, aided by its National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and select CIA operatives, began secretly training a group of Belgrade university students led by a student group that was called Otpor! (Resistance!). The NED and its various offshoots was created in the 1980’s by CIA head Bill Casey as a covert CIA tool to overthrow specific regimes around the world under the cover of a human rights NGO. In fact, they get their money from Congress and from USAID.

In the Serb Otpor! destabilization of 2000, the NED and US Ambassador Richard Miles in Belgrade selected and trained a group of several dozen students, led by Srđa Popović, using the handbook, From Dictatorship to Democracy, translated to Serbian, of the late Gene Sharp and his Albert Einstein Institution. In a post mortem on the Serb events, the Washington Post wrote, “US-funded consultants played a crucial role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-drive, running tracking polls, training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel vote count. US taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint used by student activists to scrawl anti-Milošević graffiti on walls across Serbia.”

Trained squads of activists were deployed in protests to take over city blocks with the aid of ‘intelligence helmet’ video screens that give them an instantaneous overview of their environment. Bands of youth converging on targeted intersections in constant dialogue on cell phones, would then overwhelm police. The US government spent some $41 million on the operation. Student groups were secretly trained in the Sharp handbook techniques of staging protests that mocked the authority of the ruling police, showing them to be clumsy and impotent against the youthful protesters. Professionals from the CIA and US State Department guided them behind the scenes.

The Color Revolution Otpor! model was refined and deployed in 2004 as the Ukraine Orange Revolution with logo and color theme scarves, and in 2003 in Georgia as the Rose Revolution. Later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used the template to launch the Arab Spring. In all cases the NED was involved with other NGOs including the Soros Foundations.

After defeating Milosevic, Popovic went on to establish a global color revolution training center, CANVAS, a kind of for-profit business consultancy for revolution, and was personally present in New York working reportedly with Antifa during the Occupy Wall Street where also Soros money was reported.

Antifa and BLM

The protests, riots, violent and non-violent actions sweeping across the United States since May 25, including an assault on the gates of the White House, begin to make sense when we understand the CIA’s Color Revolution playbook.

The impact of the protests would not be possible were it not for a network of local and state political officials inside the Democratic Party lending support to the protesters, even to the point the Democrat Mayor of Seattle ordered police to abandon several blocks in the heart of downtown to occupation by protesters.

In recent years major portions of the Democratic Party across the US have been quietly taken over by what one could call radical left candidates. Often they win with active backing of organizations such as Democratic Socialists of America or Freedom Road Socialist Organizations. In the US House of Representatives the vocal quarter of new representatives around Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib and Minneapolis Representative Ilhan Omar are all members or close to Democratic Socialists of America. Clearly without sympathetic Democrat local officials in key cities, the street protests of organizations such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa would not have such a dramatic impact.

To get a better grasp how serious the present protest movement is we should look at who has been pouring millions into BLM. The Antifa is more difficult owing to its explicit anonymous organization form. However, their online Handbook openly recommends that local Antifa “cells” join up with BLM chapters.

FRSO: Follow the Money

BLM began in 2013 when three activist friends created the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag to protest the allegations of shooting of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin by a white Hispanic block watchman, George Zimmermann. Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi were all were connected with and financed by front groups tied to something called Freedom Road Socialist Organization, one of the four largest radical left organizations in the United States formed out of something called New Communist Movement that dissolved in the 1980s.

On June 12, 2020 the Freedom Road Socialist Organization webpage states, “The time is now to join a revolutionary organization! Join Freedom Road Socialist Organization…If you have been out in the streets this past few weeks, the odds are good that you’ve been thinking about the difference between the kind of change this system has to offer, and the kind of change this country needs. Capitalism is a failed system that thrives on exploitation, inequality and oppression. The reactionary and racist Trump administration has made the pandemic worse. The unfolding economic crisis we are experiencing is the worst since the 1930s. Monopoly capitalism is a dying system and we need to help finish it off. And that is exactly what Freedom Road Socialist Organization is working for.”

In short the protests over the alleged police killing of a black man in Minnesota are now being used to call for a revolution against capitalism. FRSO is an umbrella for dozens of amorphous groups including Black Lives Matter or BLM. What is interesting about the self-described Marxist-Leninist roots of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) is not so much their left politics as much as their very establishment funding by a group of well-endowed tax-exempt foundations.

Alicia Garza of BLM is also a board member or executive of five different Freedom Road front groups including 2011 Board chair of Right to the City Alliance, Board member of School of Unity and Liberation (SOUL), of People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), Forward Together and Special Projects director of National Domestic Workers Alliance.

The Right to the City Alliance got $6.5 million between 2011 and 2014 from a number of very established tax-exempt foundations including the Ford Foundation ($1.9 million), from both of George Soros’s major tax-exempts–Open Society Foundations, and the Foundation to Promote Open Society for $1.3 million. Also the cornflake-tied Kellogg Foundation $250,000, and curiously, Ben & Jerry’s Foundation (ice cream) for $30,000.

Garza also got major foundation money as Executive Director of the FRSO front, POWER, where Obama former “green jobs czar” Van Jones, a self-described “communist” and “rowdy black nationalist,” now with CNN, was on the board. Alicia Garza also chaired the Right to the City Alliance, a network of activist groups opposing urban gentrification. That front since 2009 received $1.3 million from the Ford Foundation, as well as $600,000 from the Soros foundations and again, Ben & Jerry’s ($50,000). And Garza’s SOUL, which claimed to have trained 712 “organizers” in 2014, when she co-founded Black Lives Matter, got $210,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation and another $255,000 from the Heinz Foundation (ketchup and John Kerry family) among others. With the Forward Together of FRSO, Garza sat on the board of a “multi-racial organization that works with community leaders and organizations to transform culture and policy to catalyze social change.” It officially got $4 million in 2014 revenues and from 2012 and 2014, the organization received a total of $2.9 million from Ford Foundation ($655,000) and other major foundations.

Nigeria-born BLM co-founder Opal Tometi likewise comes from the network of FRSO. Tometi headed the FRSO’s Black Alliance for Just Immigration. Curiously with a “staff” of two it got money from major foundations including the Kellogg Foundation for $75,000 and Soros foundations for $100,000, and, again, Ben & Jerry’s ($10,000). Tometi got $60,000 in 2014 to direct the group.

The Freedom Road Socialist Organization that is now openly calling for a revolution against capitalism in the wake of the Floyd George killing has another arm, The Advancement Project, which describes itself as “a next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization.” Its board includes a former Obama US Department of Education Director of Community Outreach and a former Bill Clinton Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The FRSO Advancement Project in 2013 got millions from major US tax-exempt foundations including Ford ($8.5 million), Kellogg ($3 million), Hewlett Foundation of HP defense industry founder ($2.5 million), Rockefeller Foundation ($2.5 million), and Soros foundations ($8.6 million).

Major Money and ActBlue

By 2016, the presidential election year where Hillary Clinton was challenging Donald Trump, Black Lives Matter had established itself as a well-organized network. That year the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund (BLMF), “a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition” in which BLM was a central part. By then Soros foundations had already given some $33 million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement. This was serious foundation money.

The BLMF identified itself as being created by top foundations including in addition to the Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundations. They described their role: “The BLMF provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to organizations working advance the leadership and vision of young, Black, queer, feminists and immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America.”

The Movement for Black Lives Coalition (M4BL) which includes Black Lives Matter, already in 2016 called for “defunding police departments, race-based reparations, voting rights for illegal immigrants, fossil-fuel divestment, an end to private education and charter schools, a universal basic income, and free college for blacks.”

Notably, when we click on the website of M4BL, under their donate button we learn that the donations will go to something called ActBlue Charities. ActBlue facilitates donations to “democrats and progressives.” As of May 21, ActBlue had given $119 million to the campaign of Joe Biden.

That was before the May 25 BLM worldwide protests. Now major corporations such as Apple, Disney, Nike and hundreds others may be pouring untold and unaccounted millions into ActBlue under the name of Black Lives Matter, funds that in fact can go to fund the election of a Democrat President Biden. Perhaps this is the real reason the Biden campaign has been so confident of support from black voters. What is clear from only this account of the crucial role of big money foundations behind protest groups such as Black lives Matter is that there is a far more complex agenda driving the protests now destabilizing cities across America. The role of tax-exempt foundations tied to the fortunes of the greatest industrial and financial companies such as Rockefeller, Ford, Kellogg, Hewlett and Soros says that there is a far deeper and far more sinister agenda to current disturbances than spontaneous outrage would suggest.

*

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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from NEO

---

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

The world celebrates the year 2020 to mark the 75th anniversary of the Victory over Nazism during the World War II. For the first time in history, Russia postponed its military parade traditionally held on Moscow’s Red Square on May 9 due to the coronavirus pandemic. As the pandemic subsides, Russia will now mark this historical event on June 24 as decreed by President Vladimir Putin.

For Russia, the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in the 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War is unique and has its historical importance and therefore must necessarily to commemorated.

The Head of State explained he had chosen this date because June 24 was the day when in 1945 the legendary historic parade of victors took place, when soldiers, who fought for Moscow and defended Leningrad, who stood their ground for Stalingrad, liberated Europe and stormed Berlin, marched on Red Square, and provincial cities throughout the Russian Federation.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told President Putin’s meeting with permanent members of the National Security Council that 12 leaders had confirmed they would attend the event in Moscow.

“We confirmed that all invitations are still active for all those invited to the parade [initially] planned for May 9. We already received confirmations from 12 heads of state, most of whom are [heads] from the Commonwealth of Independent States [CIS],” Lavrov informed during the video link.

While contributing to the discussion, Putin further noted that the pandemic had made substantial adjustments to preparations for that event, including the work with foreign colleagues.

“We certainly need to ensure the full safety of our guests,” Putin said.

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu assured the meeting with the permanent members of the National Security Council: “Everything is definitely ready for the parade.” During preparations ahead of the parade, “all people were tested and all medical measures taken,” he added.

The Victory Parade on Moscow’s Red Square on June 24 will bring Russian troops for the parade, a mechanized column and flyover of military jet fighters and host military demonstrations of its strength and artillery firework displays. The same form of activities are expected in the regions throughout the Russian Federation.

For the Moscow parade, only part of the details were made public by the Defense Ministry.

“The mechanized column comprised 232 modern and advanced weapon systems, including 20 items of military hardware will take part in the military parade for the first time,” the Defense Ministry said on its website.

Over the years, there has been some controversy about the war history. The evolutionary and development processes of the war are in public reference libraries, and are available for any analytical research. According to Russian officials, Europe and the United States have, in the past, attempted to erase or distort the history of the World War. Understanding the evolution, the concepts and consequences, prompted Putin to pen an article that aims at straightening the historical records.

Russian news agencies reported that President Putin has written an article about World War II, could be published before the Victory Parade on June 24. He first revealed his plans to write this article about the developments of the war during his annual end-of-year news conference in December 2019. His article is based on archive materials. The president has been mentioning these developments, including the so-called Munich Betrayal, or Munich Agreement, and the role of individual European states, Poland in particular, in many of his speeches. Putin has repeatedly stressed the inadmissibility to falsify the history of WW II.

Quite recently, Russia’s State Duma Chairman, Viacheslav Volodin, also noted that denying the role of the USSR in the common Victory in some states is inappropriate and it is important to transfer historical memory and truth to children and grandchildren.

“We should do everything to protect those who are no longer able to protect themselves, but they gave us the opportunity to live,” said the Chairman at the meeting of the CSTO PA Council and added “we should do everything to ensure that the attitude to Victory, to World War II, is based on the principles of honesty and objectivity.”

“We should not stand to see defamation of memory of the victorious soldiers,” said Volodin and stressed that it is necessary to protect those who are no longer able to protect themselves – 27 million people who died: our grandfathers, great-grandfathers, relatives.

“We should ensure that no one undermines the contribution of the Soviet Union to the Great Victory, a country with many nationalities, a country that had united all of us. We should do everything possible to prevent such war, but at the same time to respect history and not let anyone rewrite it,” he concluded.

Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa, Mikhail Bogdanov, gave an interview to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, published on June 9. In this interview, Bogdanov explicitly noted that the current tendencies to revise history are alarming.

“We have been seeing this cynical historical aggression for years, unleashed by certain groups abroad. Undoubtedly, this is done for political and opportunistic purposes – they are launching campaigns to rewrite history and demonize the Soviet Union’s and the Red Army’s actions before World War II, during the war and after it ended. Certain countries’ attacks on the monuments and memorials erected earlier as a tribute to those who fought against Nazism and fascism look especially cynical,” he told the Al-Ahram.

He further said that Russia is confident that all countries, as heirs of the Great Victory, have a duty to preserve the truth about the events of that period of time that happened in the European, Asian and African theatres of war, paying tribute to those who sacrificed their lives for the triumph of the ideals of humanity.

In line with efforts at the United Nations to combat the glorification of Nazism and the distortion of history, Russia annually submits to the UN General Assembly the resolution on combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

An official statement by the Foreign Ministers of the Member States of the Collective Security Treaty Organization on the 75th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War also condemned various attempts to the distortion of history.

“It is with deepest gratitude that we remember the courage and valiance of all those who gave their lives for the freedom of future generations. Any distortion of the historical truth about those events demeans the memory of those who had suffered the cruelty of the war. Any attempts to rewrite history and misinterpretation of the events that had led to the world war are hindering the awareness of and response to the challenges and threats facing all of us and are fraught with a repetition of the tragic mistakes made in the past,” according to a document released on May 26.

The document was signed by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Russia and Tajikistan.

For the CSTO member states, this is a special commemorative date of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War of the peoples of the Soviet Union, whose contribution became decisive in the outcome of the entire World War II. The deed in a war that claimed the lives of more than twenty-seven million will forever remain in memory. Diminishing the significance of their deed is unacceptable.

Being conscious of the enormous debt owed to the fallen in the fight against Nazism and its victims, following on the principles of protecting historical truth, the provisions of international legal acts adopted after World War II, and urged the parliaments of the member states of the Council of Europe to take following measures at the legislative level:

• to counteract the revival and encouragement of Nazism and its manifestations in modern Europe;
• to protect the historical truth about World War II, to combat attempts to revise its results, to diminish the decisive role of the peoples of the Soviet Union in the Victory;
• to prevent the desecration of graves of participants in the fight against Nazism and military burial places, vandalism against monuments to Soviet soldiers-liberators, harassing of veterans, trampling the honor of those who died and were tortured to death in extermination camps;
• to stop any attempt to justify the Nazis and their accomplices who committed the most serious crimes during World War II, the actions of their followers, the denial or distortion of the decisions of the International Military Tribunal in relation to the prosecution and punishment of the main war criminals of the European Axis Alliance.

The consolidation of the entire international community is crucial for counteracting the resurgence of Nazism. It is the common duty to preserve the memory of the Great Victory, that unites all people who defeated Nazism together. It is important to honor the memory of those without whom the Victory would have been impossible, who gave their lives in the name of the freedom of people and for the sake of the future.

*

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.

Kester Kenn Klomegah is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

A team of 85 Cuban doctors and nurses arrived in Peru on June 3 to help the Andean nation tackle the coronavirus pandemic. That same day, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced another tightening of the sanctions screws. This time he targeted seven Cuban entities, including Fincimex, one of the principal financial institutions handling remittances to the country. Also targeted was Marriott International, which was ordered to cease operations in Cuba, and other companies in the tourism sector, an industry that constitutes 10 percent of Cuba’s GDP and has been devastated globally by the pandemic.

It seems that the more Cuba helps the world, the more it gets hammered by the Trump administration. While Cuba has endured a U.S. embargo for nearly 60 years, Trump has revved up the stakes with a “maximum pressure” strategy that includes more than 90 economic measures placed against the nation since January 2019. Josefina Vidal, Cuba’s ambassador to Canada, called the measures “unprecedented in their level of aggression and scope” and designed to “deprive the country of income for the development of the economy.” Since its inception, the embargo has cost Cuba well over $130 billion dollars, according to a 2018 estimate. In 2018-2019 alone, the economic impact was $4 billion, a figure that does not include the impact of a June 2019 Trump administration travel ban aimed at harming the tourist industry.

While the embargo is supposed to have humanitarian exemptions, the health sector has not been spared. Cuba is known worldwide for its universal public healthcare system, but the embargo has led to shortages of medicines and medical supplies, particularly for patients with AIDS and cancer. Doctors at Cuba’s National Institute of Oncology have had to amputate the lower limbs of children with cancer because the American companies that have a monopoly on the technology can’t sell it to Cuba. In the midst of the pandemic, the U.S. blocked a donation of facemasks and COVID-19 diagnostic kits from Chinese billionaire Jack Ma.

Not content to sabotage Cuba’s domestic health sector, the Trump administration has been attacking Cuba’s international medical assistance, from the teams fighting coronavirus today to those who have travelled all over the world since the 1960’s providing services to underserved communities in 164 countries. The U.S. goal is to cut the island’s income now that the provision of these services has surpassed tourism as Cuba’s number one source of revenue. Labeling these volunteer medical teams “victims of human trafficking” because part of their salaries goes to pay for Cuba’s healthcare system, the Trump administration convinced Ecuador, Bolivia and Brazil to end their cooperation agreements with Cuban doctors. Pompeo then applauded the leaders of these countries for refusing “to turn a blind eye” to Cuba’s alleged abuses. The triumphalism was short lived: a month after that quote, the Bolsonaro government in Brazil begged Cuba to resend its doctors amid the pandemic. U.S. allies all over the world, including in Qatar, Kuwait, South Africa, Italy, Honduras and Peru have gratefully accepted this Cuban aid. So great is the admiration for Cuban doctors that a global campaign has sprung up toaward them the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Trump administration is not just libelling doctors, but the whole country.  In May, the State Departmentnamed Cuba as one of five countries “not cooperating fully” in U.S. counterterrorism efforts. The main pretext was the nation’s hosting of members of Colombia’s National Liberation Army (ELN). Yet even the State Department’s own press release notes that ELN members are in Cuba as a result of “peace negotiation protocols.”Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez called the charges dishonest and “facilitated by the ungrateful attitude of the Colombian government” that broke off talks with the ELN in 2019. It should also be noted that Ecuador was the original host of the ELN-Colombia talks, but Cuba was asked to step in after the Moreno government abdicated its responsibilities in 2018.

The classification of Cuba as “not cooperating” with counterterrorism could lead to Cuba being placed on the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list, which carries tougher penalties. This idea was floated by a senior Trump administration official to Reuters last month. Cuba had been on this list from 1982 to 2015, despite that fact that,according to former State Department official Jason Blazakis, “it was legally determined that Cuba was not actively engaged in violence that could be defined as terrorism under any credible definition of the word.”

Of course, the United States is in no position to claim that other countries do not cooperate in counterterrorism. For years, the U.S. harbored Luis Posada Carriles, mastermind of the bombing of a Cuban civilian airplane in 1976 that killed 73 people. More recently, the U.S. has yet to even comment on the April 30 attack on the Cuban Embassy in Washington D.C., when a man fired on the building with an automatic rifle.

While there are certainly right-wing ideologues like Secretary Pompeo and Senator Rubio orchestrating Trump’s maximum pressure campaign, for Trump himself, Cuba is all about the U.S. elections. His hard line against the tiny island nation may have helped swing the Florida gubernatorial campaign during the midterm elections, yet it’s not clear that this will serve him well in a presidential year. According to conventional wisdom and polls, younger Cuban-Americans – who like most young people, don’t tend to vote in midterms – are increasingly skeptical of the U.S. embargo, and overall, Cuba isn’t the overriding issue for Cuban-Americans. Trump won the Cuban-American vote in 2016, but Hillary Clinton took between 41 and 47% percent of that electorate,significantly higher than any Democrat in decades.

As an electoral strategy, these are signs that Trump’s aggression towards Cuba may not pay off. Of course, the strategy might not be just about votes but also about financing and ensuring that the Cuban-American political machinery is firmly behind Trump.

The strategy has certainly not paid off when it comes to achieving the goal of regime change. The Trump administration is arguably farther from achieving regime change in Cuba now than the U.S. has ever been in over 60 years of intervention. During Trump’s tenure, Cuba calmly transitioned from the presidency of Raul Castro to that of Miguel Díaz-Canel. In 2019, Cuban voters overwhelmingly ratified a new constitution. These aren’t signs of a country on the brink of collapse.

All Trump has achieved is making life more difficult for the island’s 11 million inhabitants, who, like people all over the world, have been battered by the economic impact from coronavirus. Tourism has collapsed. Income from remittances has tanked (both because of new U.S. restrictions and less income in the hands of the Cuban diaspora). Venezuela, once a major benefactor, is mired in its own crisis. But Cuba’s economy, which was forecast to contract by 3.7% before the pandemic hit, has been through worse, particularly during the 1991 to 2000 economic crisis known as the “special period” after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

A change in the White House would bring some relief, although Joe Biden has staked a rather ambivalent position, saying he would restore relations as President Obama did, but adding that he was open to using sanctions as punishment for Cuba’s support to the Venezuelan government.

It’s clear that from now until November, and perhaps for four more years, the Trump administration will pummel its island neighbor. Cuba will continue to seek global condemnation on the blockade (the 2019 UN vote was 187 against vs 3 in favor—the U.S., Brazil and Israel) and continue to show what a good neighbor looks like. It responded to these latest provocations in the way that only Cuba does: with more global solidarity, sending Covid-19 healing brigades to Guinea and Kuwait a day after the June 3 round of sanctions. A total of 26 countries now have Cuban medical personnel caring for their sick.

That is the kind of goodwill that money just can’t buy and it greatly presents a stark contrast to the Trump administration’s shameful behavior during the pandemic. Back in March, as Cuban doctors arrived in Italy, former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa tweeted:

“One day we will tell our children that, after decades of movies and propaganda, at the moment of truth, when humanity needed help at a time when the great powers were in hiding, Cuban doctors began to arrive, without asking anything in return.”

*

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.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of the peace group CodePink. Her latest book is Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection (OR Books, September 2016).

The question of whether a statue of Cecil Rhodes should be taken down has been raging in Britain in recent weeks, fuelled by the George Floyd protests that have swept the world.  Personally, I am not a fan of people pulling down statues of historical figures, not because I necessarily like these figures, but because destroying a statue doesn’t change history, and people should not forget history. Living in a world where anything that outrages a minority of people is destroyed, or memory-holed as Orwell would put it, is a world where people soon forget the lessons of history. Furthermore, where do you draw the line? What historical figures pass the outrage test, and who fails? Who decides who passes or fails – an angry mob? The whole business of destroying historical statues and removing TV shows that were made decades ago quickly becomes an inconsistent mess. In my opinion, what is more important is to learn the lessons of history, and take this knowledge to inform our actions in the future.

In saying all this, I am by no means making a case for why Rhodes was great. The exact opposite is true, yet there are two sides of Rhodes, both of them imperialist, but both of them not widely understood. One side of Rhodes is relatively well known: he was an imperialist who was heavily involved in Southern Africa, including serving as the Prime Minister of the Cape Colony between 1890-96; he believed that English people were the master race; he was a diamond magnate who founded the company De Beers, where labourers were racially segregated during his time;  various Rhodesian Africans colonies were named after him; he set-up a Rhodes Scholarship program at Oxford University that the likes of Bill Clinton went through; and Hitler reportedly admired him.

The Cecil Rhodes Secret Society 

Yet, there is another side to Rhodes. This, more esoteric side, is unfortunately not so well understood, yet equally important to understand. Firstly however, it is important to establish that Rhodes had a long-term vision of creating a global system under British rule. In his first will written in 1877, when he was only in his mid-20s, Rhodes stated that he desired:

“The extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting … of colonization by British subjects of all lands wherein the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise … the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the consolidation of the whole Empire … and finally, the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity” (Quigley 1981: 33).

In other words, Rhodes wanted to create a global system so great, and control world affairs so perfectly, that no country or people could escape its domain. In order to achieve these aims, Rhodes, during a meeting on a cold February afternoon in London in 1891, founded a secret society that became known as Cecil Rhodes’ Secret Society (Quigley 1981: 33-34). The secret society was to serve as a form of religious brotherhood based on the Jesuit model, and was to be devoted to the extension of the British Empire across the globe (Quigley 1981: 33-34). Rhodes had long-wanted to create such a society (Shore 1979: 253). He served as the leader of the group, with the two other founding members being the journalist and newspaper editor, William Stead, and the trusted adviser to Queen Victoria and King George V, Reginald Balliol Brett (Quigley 1981: 3). Alfred Milner, an influential British official and banker, who, for the record, was originally born in Germany, was accepted into the group shortly after the meeting (Quigley 1981: 3). Interestingly, the organization of the society was divided into an inner circle, called “The Society of the Elect,” and at least one outer circle, called “The Association of Helpers,” with this organizational structure designed to conceal the workings of the inner circle (Quigley 1981: 3).

Milner Takes Charge 

When Rhodes died in 1902, the leadership of the society passed largely to Milner, who shared the same goal as Rhodes of creating a truly global empire, which would be brought about by “secret political and economic influence behind the scenes and by control of journalistic, educational and propaganda agencies” (Quigley 1981: 49). Until his death in 1925, Milner greatly expanded the influence and aims of this society, in part through the creation of another group, which was known as the Milner Group, or Milner’s Kindergarten. This group was created during Milner’s extensive time in South Africa where he held numerous positions, including serving as the High Commissioner for Southern Africa between 1897 and 1901, with the group comprised of capable officers who served as assistants and colleagues during this period. In fact, Milner played a core role in South Africa for years, including being one of the British officials who tried to cover-up the horrors of concentration camps used by the British during the Second Boer War. Between June 1901 and May 1902, approximately 28,000 people died, 22,000 of which were children, in British concentration camps in Southern Africa, and Milner was brought in to try and clean the mess up, resulting in him trying to find ways to spin the disaster to make it more palatable to the British public back home.

The Round Table Network 

The creation of the Milner group was informed by three older groups that represented some of the most powerful networks at the heart of the British Empire (Quigley 1981: 6). The first was known as the Toynbee Group, which was formed in 1873 at Balliol College and dominated by Milner and the notable historian, Arnold Toynbee. The second group was known as the Cecil Bloc, created by the three-time British Prime Minister, Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, which represented political and social power (Quigley 1981: 6, 15). The third was the Rhodes secret society (Quigley 1981: 6). Over the coming years, prominent members of the Milner group created a network of “semi-secret discussion and lobbying groups” in various countries around the world, known as the Round Table Groups (Quigley 1966: 950). By 1915, there were Round Table Groups in seven countries, including in England, Canada, India, South Africa and New Zealand (Quigley 1966: 950). One of the most notable members of the Round Table network was Lionel Curtis (image on the right), an influential British official and author. Curtis was one of the strongest advocates of the British Empire morphing into a Commonwealth of Nations, and he supported the unification of Europe and the eventual establishment of a form of world government. During this period, the idea of a British-centric Empire ruling the world morphed into the idea of a multinational federation controlling the world. Importantly, Curtis also understood that “bankers and men who trade with countries abroad” have tremendous political value.

Chatham House Founded 

Then, in a May 1919 meeting at the Hotel Majestic during Paris Peace Conference following the First World War, the members of the British delegation – who were largely members of the Milner Group (including Curtis) and the Cecil Bloc – agreed to form the British Institute of International Affairs, also referred to as Chatham House, which laterbecome the Royal Institute of International Affairs, after the Institute was given a Royal Charter by King George V in 1926 (Quigley 1981: 182-184). A few years later, a parallel organization to Chatham House was founded in New York,known as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR grew out of the think tank called ‘The Inquiry’ that prepared President Woodrow Wilson for the Paris Peace Conference, with the CFR having close ties to the banking powerhouse, J.P. Morgan and Company (Quigley 1981: 190-191). In the years after their formations, both organizations went on to attract many more prominent people, including national leaders, with members of Chatham House also being key architects and supporters of the League of Nations and the United Nations (UN), two of the most prominent internationalist organizations ever founded. Additionally, Chatham House received financial support from notable American businessmen and corporations, including the oil magnate, John D. Rockefeller, and the Ford Motor Company (Quigley 1981: 190).

Image below: Chatham House over the Jubilee weekend (Source: Flickr)

Importantly, one of the reasons why we know so much about the workings of this network that created both Chatham House and the CFR, is because Dr Carroll Quigley, a Professor of History at Georgetown University until his death in 1977, who also taught at Harvard and Princeton, “was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records” (Quigley 1966: 950). Quigley went on to state that he had very little aversion to the aims of this network, with the main issue he had being that they wished to “remain unknown,” as Quigley believed that  the role of this network in history was “significant enough to be known” (Quigley 1966: 950).

Fast forward to the present day, and we still find these organizations inspired by Rhodes operating today. Chatham House positions itself as Britain’s premier think-tank, and it is clear that it still holds tremendous power. The currentcorporate membership of Chatham House is truly staggering. Members include: the European Commission, BP, the British Ministry of Defence, Apple, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Royal Dutch Shell, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Barclays, the Bank of England, Lockheed Martin, the BBC, Vodaphone, the Guardian, the Telegraph Media Group, CBS News, the Open Society Foundations and many more. Chatham House also has over 550 donors, with donors from 2018-19 including: the World Health Organization; the Rockefeller Foundation;  Bayer AG; De Beers Group Services UK Ltf; GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited; the European Climate Foundation; the Kuwait Petroleum Foundation; Microsoft Limited; NATO Defense College; Rolls-Royce plc; the UK Labour Party; Google; the Economist; the Scottish Government; and UNICEF.

Furthermore, Chatham House has many academic members, including the University of Notre Dame, the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics, and the United Nations University MERIT, which is a joint research and training centre of the United Nations University and Maastricht University in the Netherlands. Numerous prominent figures in UK and world politics have given speeches at the Institute, including former British Prime Ministers, Sir John Major and Tony Blair, the famous British media presenter, Jon Snow, and the current British Prime Minister, Boris Johnston, who gave a speech in 2016 when he was Britain’s Foreign Secretary.

What is clear from these exhaustive lists is that Chatham House represents a synergy of power that far exceeds what Rhodes even envisaged. One of the saddest parts of this whole epic story, however, is that many of the people who are campaigning to remove Rhodes’ statue from an Oxford College, have never heard of Chatham House, and certainly do not understand its history.

The United States finds itself in a less-than-unique position of an empire in terminal decline. With nations around the globe standing up economically, militarily, and politically – closing off once lucrative avenues of exploitation – the US finds itself turning more and more inwardly upon its allies and even its own population – either to wring from it whatever wealth it can or at the very least – to prevent the displacement of America’s current ruling special interests by any sort of alternative.

Geopolitical expert and analyst F. William Engdahl did an impressive job pointing out how current turmoil in the United States is being driven not by grassroots efforts to confront these special interests but by these special interests themselves.

No matter what people thought they were going into the streets for – for a nation adept at engineering revolutions abroad – there is no way it won’t turn those same tools and techniques inward on unrest at home – ensuring it is channeled in the safest and most profitable way possible.

Cancel Culture’s Deliberate Futility: A Tale of Two Chain-Restaurants 

To point out just how absurd America’s “woke revolution” and its opponents are, consider Domino’s Pizza and Shake Shack. Both find themselves the targets of opposite ends of America’s current turmoil. Domino’s for at one point in the distant past supporting people who now find themselves among US President Donald Trump’s administration, and Shake Shack for its anemic response to allegations its employees poisoned New York City police officers.

Those promising to boycott one and patronize the other to spite their political opponents never bothered to check who actually owns these two large food and beverage businesses. If they did – they’d see that the exact same handful of investment firms own both.

Investors at Blackrock, Vanguard, or State Street Global Advisors – who own significant shares and profit from both Shake Shack and Domino’s – don’t care which restaurant you boycott so long as you patronize another in their portfolio to spite your superficial political opponents. They are deliberately funding both sides of the turmoil to ensure that this is precisely how America’s “woke revolution” plays out.

Notice no one in the spotlight is saying “Wall Street.” Or saying “boycott them all.” Or pointing out that while poisoning cops or supporting President Trump seems “bad,” it pales vastly in the face of the injustice many of these corporations are guilty of.

It is classic divide and conquer – with Americans at each other’s throats – oblivious to the common threat to their peace and prosperity literally right in front of them, consuming their paychecks every month, funneling it from mainstreet and into gargantuan concentrations of wealth and power on Wall Street.

When rebuilding begins – if it begins – it will be Americans paying through taxes, not Blackrock and others on Wall Street.

Despite the apparent chaos in America’s streets, these companies will continue to profit and their investors will continue accumulating wealth and power. America’s political landscape will continue to burn ensuring nothing of any significance can ever be built to change this basic fact.

How the Rest of the World Escaped American Hegemony 

If you watch movies or listen to activists running wild in America’s streets – you’d probably be inclined to believe burning down your own community and endlessly complaining is how to throw off oppression – real or imagined.

In reality, the rest of the world has begun to move out from under the shadow of America’s global-spanning hegemony. They did it not by burning down their own nations or complaining endlessly to the United Nations – they did it by building superior alternatives to what the US offered the world.

China is a perfect example of a nation that offers industry and infrastructure as an alternative to America’s “investments,” overpriced weapons, and political meddling. China builds dams, railways, factories, and affordable weapons with no political strings attached.

Russia has provided nations around the globe with alternatives for everything from weapons and energy to political and economic alliances.

Individually, nations have begun creating alternatives to once unrivaled American monopolies. Huawei’s rise – first out from under Apple – than far above it – is a perfect example. Russia positioning itself as a key partner for Middle Eastern nations exhausted from America’s “stewardship” of the region is another.

Even in smaller nations the idea of creating alternatives to things like social media platforms monopolized by the US is taking hold – empowering these nations, keeping income local, and displacing America’s unwarranted influence within their borders.

America’s problem is that it has long since abandoned building and making things and instead has focused on coercion, exploitation, thievery, schemes, and moving numbers around on ledgers. This only works as long as no one else starts building and making things and as long as no one attempts to insulate themselves from financial trickery by creating alternative systems for investing in tangible progress.

This process – in fact – of doing just that has dominated the topic of geopolitics for years as America declines and lashes out and as nations patiently and systematically create these very sort of alternatives. Collectively it is called the “multipolar world order” and is one built on physical infrastructure like factories and railways – not spreadsheets and ticker symbols.

At Home: Build the Community You Want to Live in

Wall Street has no problem with “woke” activist burning down businesses across the country – even ones they own. They know whatever investments they have that are found to be “offensive” – they have 10 more that the “woke” community will continue paying into.

What Wall Street doesn’t want is for communities to boycott all of the businesses they own and creating local alternatives that keep wealth inside communities. The concentration of wealth on Wall Street and all the power and influence it buys would thus be spread more evenly across the country.

Fake socialism is offered as a solution – something Wall Street can keep in Washington close by and under their control – rather than any genuine distribution of wealth the people themselves control by actually owning businesses, land, and the means of production by building and operating local factories.

If money is power – asking or even demanding it from those who have it to give it back is not the answer. By no longer giving it to them willingly and instead keeping it in communities is the only way to redirect that money and its power to work for the people rather than Wall Street.

If Americans want a better society to live in – they are going to have to build it – not ask for it from those who have nothing to gain by giving it to them. Those who are burning instead of building, complaining instead of collaborating – are either deliberately attempting to obstruct real reform and progress in the US, or have fallen into traps laid by those who are.

Protesting has its place – particularly when used to protect what is being built. But as far as a medium for change in and of itself – history is devoid of a single example where blind violence and loud complaining alone changed anything of significance.

The “woke revolution” will most certainly not be any sort of exception. With many protesters citing things like the “French Revolution” – this is painfully clear. The French Revolution of course ended with one monarchy overthrown, and another – much larger one headed by Napoleon Bonaparte – taking its place.

To this day France remains controlled by immense corporate-financier interests which exist far above the superficial “democracy” and “protests” of the French people. The French military remains deployed in numerous “former” colonies in Africa where it seeks to reassert itself and the wider West alongside its allies on Wall Street and in Washington.

Clearly something of more substance needs to be done than committing to mindless mayhem in the streets and endless complaining across the media. If people want power, they need to possess the means to acquire it – money. To do so they need to stop handing their paychecks over to Wall Street and keep it in their communities. That is how China and Russia and the rest of the multipolar world has changed things globally and it is the only way things will change for Americans domestically.

Abroad: Now is the time to Judo-Throw America’s Hypocrisy 

In Judo, the energy of an attacking enemy is turned against them – generally in the form of a spectacular throw.

For the rest of the world – now is a perfect time to capitalize on the wall-to-wall hypocrisy of a nation that has for decades lectured the world regarding “democracy,” “human rights,” and “free speech” while it now openly crushes all of the above at home.

Fronts funded by the US State Department via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) operating overseas find themselves in the very unenviable position of taking money from a nation being exposed as chronically ill, systemically racist, divided, and increasingly violent.

How are these NED-funded fronts going to claim they are advancing “democracy” or “human rights” abroad for the US and thanks to generous US funding when democracy and human rights in the US is exposed as dysfunctional at best and nonexistent at worst?

Nations plagued by US meddling could easily make a case to sweep from within its borders fronts funded by a divided, racist, violent, and increasingly hypocritical US – that is – if foreign-funded subversion isn’t already a good enough reason to do so.

With US tech-firms hand-in-glove with the government purging thousands of accounts from platforms like Facebook and Twitter for allegedly being involved in “coordinated inauthentic behavior” it is an easy case to make that NED is the king of coordinated inauthentic behavior and should likewise be “purged.”

With all the energy the US has invested in meddling abroad – that energy has never been more vulnerable and likely to be thrown back against the US.

Empire’s End is Inevitable 

But nations could just as easily patiently wait.

The US is an empire eating itself.

As long as the rest of the world remains determined to continue building better alternatives to America’s “international order” it will continue to displace American hegemony around the globe. Most nations desire greatly to work with the American people themselves – 99.999% of whom are likewise victims of Wall Street and Washington – whether they realize it or not. This helps explain the almost endless patience of nations like Russia and China in the face of daily provocations by the West.

For Americans, it is up to them regarding what kind of nation they will live in once the dust settles.

One where power and wealth is still very-much concentrated on Wall Street and the violence sown helps justify an even bigger police state than ever before? Or one in which Americans learn that no one in Washington, on TV, or with blue check marks next to their names on Twitter are on their side and start thinking and acting for themselves?

Only time will tell.

*

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 Land Destroyer Report.

“What’s been most striking to me is just how one-sided the rules are when Americans take on their own government…. It has been dismaying to learn the extent to which rules and laws shield the government from accountability for its abuses—or even lawbreaking…. It’s been a long and frightening lesson…. The rules seem rigged to protect government lawlessness, and the playing field is uneven. Too many processes favor the government. The deck is still stacked.” —  Journalist Sharyl Attkisson

The system is rigged.

The system is rigged, the government is corrupt, and “we the people” continue to waste our strength by fighting each other rather than standing against the tyrant in our midst.

Because the system is rigged, because the government is corrupt, and because “we the people” remain polarized and divided, the police state will keep winning and “we the people” will keep losing.

Because the system is rigged and the U.S. Supreme Court—the so-called “people’s court”—has exchanged its appointed role as a gatekeeper of justice for its new role as maintainer of the status quo, there will be little if no consequences for the cops who brutalize and no justice for the victims of police brutality.

Because the system is rigged, there will be no consequences for police who destroyed a private home by bombarding it with tear gas grenades during a SWAT team raid gone awry, or for the cop who mistakenly shot a 10-year-old boy after aiming for and missing the non-threatening family dog, or for the arresting officer who sicced a police dog on a suspect who had already surrendered.

This is how unarmed Americans keep dying at the hands of militarized police.

By refusing to accept any of the eight or so qualified immunity cases before it this term that strove to hold police accountable for official misconduct, the Supreme Court delivered a chilling reminder that in the American police state, ‘we the people’ are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to ‘serve and protect.”

This is how qualified immunity keeps the police state in power.

Lawyers tend to offer a lot of complicated, convoluted explanations for the doctrine of qualified immunity, which was intended to insulate government officials from frivolous lawsuits, but the real purpose of qualified immunity is to rig the system, ensuring that abusive agents of the government almost always win and the victims of government abuse almost always lose.

How else do you explain a doctrine that requires victims of police violence to prove that their abusers knew their behavior was illegal because it had been deemed so in a nearly identical case at some prior time: it’s a setup for failure.

Do you know how many different ways a cop can kill, maim, torture and abuse someone without being held liable?

The cops know: in large part due to training classes that drill them on the art of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment, which protects us from being bullied, badgered, beaten, broken and spied on by government agents.

This is how “we the people” keep losing.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) that suing government officials for monetary damages is “the only realistic avenue” of holding them accountable for abusing their offices and violating the Constitution, it has ostensibly given the police and other government agents a green light to shoot first and ask questions later, as well as to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

Make no mistake about it: this is what constitutes “law and order” in the American police state.

These are the hallmarks of a police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

Unfortunately, we’ve been traveling this dangerous road for a long time now.

A review of critical court rulings over the past several decades, including rulings affirming qualified immunity protections for government agents by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order, protecting the ruling class, and insulating government agents from charges of wrongdoing than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Indeed, as Reuters reports, qualified immunity “has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.” Worse, as Reuters concluded, “the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police.”

The system is rigged.

Police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless searches. In Anderson v. Creighton, the Supreme Court ruled that FBI and state law enforcement agents were entitled to qualified immunity protections after they were sued for raiding a private home without a warrant and holding family members at gunpoint, all in a search for a suspected bank robber who was not in the house.

Police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless arrests based on mere suspicion. In Hunter v. Bryant, the Court ruled that police acted reasonably in arresting James Bryant without a warrant in order to protect the president. Bryant had allegedly written a letter that referenced a third-party plot to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, but police had no proof that he intended to harm Reagan beyond a mere suspicion. The charges against Bryant were eventually dropped.

Police can claim qualified immunity for using excessive force against protesters. In Saucier v. Katz, the Court ruled in favor of federal law enforcement agents who forcefully tackled a protester as he attempted to unfurl a banner at Vice President Gore’s political rally. The Court reasoned that the officers acted reasonably given the urgency of protecting the vice president.

Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. In Brosseau v. Haugen, the Court dismissed a lawsuit against a police officer who shot Kenneth Haugen in the back as he entered his car in order to flee from police. The Court ruled that in light of existing case law, the cop’s conduct fell in the “hazy border between excessive and acceptable force” and so she did not violate clearly established law.

Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a mentally impaired person. In City of San Francisco v. Sheehan, the Court ruled in favor of police who repeatedly shot Teresa Sheehan during the course of a mental health welfare check. The Court ruled that it was not unreasonable for police to pepper spray and shoot Sheehan multiple times after entering her room without a warrant and encountering her holding a knife.

Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.

Police can stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In a 5-3 ruling in Utah v. Strieff, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively gave police the go-ahead to embark on a fishing expedition of one’s person and property, rendering Americans completely vulnerable to the whims of any cop on the beat.

Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or for “suspicious” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving too carefully. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” can stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. Then in State v. Howard, the Kansas Supreme Court declared that motorists who recline their car seats are guilty of suspicious behavior and can be subject to warrantless searches by police. That ruling, coupled with other court rulings upholding warrantless searches and seizures by police renders one’s car a Constitution-free zone.

Americans have no protection against mandatory breathalyzer tests at a police checkpoint, although mandatory blood draws violate the Fourth Amendment (Birchfield v. North Dakota). Police can also conduct sobriety and “information-seeking” checkpoints (Illinois v. Lidster and Mich. Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz).

Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. In Maryland v. King, a divided U.S. Supreme Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. Once again the Court sided with the guardians of the police state over the defenders of individual liberty in determining that DNA samples may be extracted from people arrested for “serious” offenses. The end result of the ruling paves the way for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling.

Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. Upon arriving on the scene of a nighttime traffic accident, an Alabama police officer shot a driver exiting his car, mistakenly believing the wallet in his hand to be a gun. A report by the Justice Department found that half of the unarmed people shot by one police department over a seven-year span were “shot because the officer saw something (like a cellphone) or some action (like a person pulling at the waist of their pants) and misidentified it as a threat.”

Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes.” In Florida v. Harris, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an extension of the police state, provided the use of a K-9 unit takes place within a reasonable amount of time (Rodriguez v. United States).

Not only are police largely protected by qualified immunity, but police dogs are also off the hook for wrongdoing. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a police officer who allowed a police dog to maul a homeless man innocent of any wrongdoing.

Police can subject Americans to strip searches, no matter the “offense.” A divided U.S. Supreme Court actually prioritized making life easier for overworked jail officials over the basic right of Americans to be free from debasing strip searches. In its 5-4 ruling in Florence v. Burlington, the Court declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials, which involves exposing the genitals and the buttocks. This “license to probe” is now being extended to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches—some involving anal and vaginal probes—without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant.

Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King, the U.S. Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by police.

Police can use knock-and-talk tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment. Aggressive “knock and talk” practices have become thinly veiled, warrantless exercises by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night. Andrew Scott didn’t even get a chance to say no to such a heavy-handed request before he was gunned down by police who pounded aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 a.m., failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed the man when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense.

Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous.Police can perform a “no-knock” raid as long as they have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile or give occupants a chance to destroy evidence of a crime (Richards v. Wisconsin). Legal ownership of a firearm is also enough to justify a no-knock raid by police (Quinn v. Texas). For instance, a Texas man had his home subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household. The homeowner was actually shot by police through his closed bedroom door.

Police can recklessly open fire on anyone that might be “armed.” Philando Castile was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop allegedly over a broken tail light merely for telling police he had a conceal-and-carry permit. That’s all it took for police to shoot Castile four times in the presence of his girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter. A unanimous Supreme Court declared in County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez that police should not be held liable for recklessly firing 15 times into a shack where a homeless couple had been sleeping because the grabbed his BB gun in defense, fearing they were being attacked.

Police can destroy a home during a SWAT raid, even if the owner gives their consent to enter and search it. In West v. Winfield, the Supreme Court provided cover to police after they smashed the windows of Shaniz West’s home, punched holes in her walls and ceilings, and bombed the house with so much tear gas that it was uninhabitable for two months. All of this despite the fact that the suspect they were pursuing was not in the house and West, the homeowner, agreed to allow police to search the home to confirm that.

Police can suffocate someone, deliberately or inadvertently, in the process of subduing them. “I can’t breathe” has become a rallying cry following the deaths of Eric Garner and George Floyd, both of whom died after being placed in a chokehold by police. Dozens more have died in similar circumstances at the hands of police who have faced little repercussions for these deaths.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out with impunity against individuals posing little or no real threat.

So what’s the answer to reforming a system that is clearly self-serving and corrupt?

Abolishing the police is not the answer: that will inevitably lead to outright anarchy, which will give the police state and those law-and-order zealots all the incentive it needs to declare martial law.

Looting and violence are not the answer: As Martin Luther King Jr. recognized, “A riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt.” Using the looting and riots as justification for supporting police brutality is also not the answer:  As King recognized,

“It is not enough … to condemn riots… without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”

Police reform is necessary and unavoidable if we are to have any hope of living in an America in which freedom means something more than the right to stay alive, but how we reform the system is just as important as getting it done.

We don’t need to wait for nine members of a ruling aristocracy who primarily come from privileged backgrounds and who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo to fix what’s broken in America.

Nor do we need to wait for 535 highly paid politicians to do something about these injustices only when it suits their political ambitions

And we certainly don’t need to wait for a president with a taste for totalitarian tactics to throw a few crumbs our way.

This is as much a local problem as it is a national one.

Be fair. Be nonviolent. Be relentless in your pursuit of justice for all.

Let’s get it done.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image: Brutal: A Minnesota police officer sprays protesters with pepper spray at the weekend (Source: Morning Star)

This article was first crossposted in 2018.

George W. Bush installed a bust of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office at the White House. When Barack Obama came to power he had the bust returned to Britain.

Obama’s Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned in one of the concentration camps Churchill and his imperialists had invented.

Churchill was born in 1874 into a Britain that was painting huge areas of the world map bloody red.

Just three years later Victoria crowned herself Empress of India, and the rape and pillage that would mark Britain’s advance across Africa and much more of the globe moved up a gear.

At Harrow School and then Sandhurst the young Winston learnt the simple message: the superior white man was conquering the primitive, dark-skinned natives, and bringing them the benefits of Christian civilisation.

Kenyan leader Jomo Kenyatta and later Archbishop Desmond Tutu would sum it up in a beautiful single paragraph.

“When the British missionaries arrived, we Africans had the land and the minerals and the missionaries had the Bible. They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible.”

As soon as he could, Churchill charged off to take his part in these various barbarous and criminal adventures. He described them as “a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples.”

First came the Swat Valley, now part of Pakistan. Here he judged his enemy were merely “deranged jihadists” whose violence was explained by a “strong aboriginal propensity to kill.”

He gladly took part in raids that laid waste to whole valleys, destroying houses and burning crops.

Next he popped up in Sudan, where he boasted that he personally shot at least three “savages.”

The young Churchill played his part enthusiastically in all kinds of imperial atrocities. When concentration camps were built in South Africa, for white Boers, he said they produced “the minimum of suffering.” The Boer death toll was in fact almost 28,000.

At least 115,000 black Africans were swept into British camps, where 14,000 died. Churchill wrote of his “irritation that kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men.” By now he was an MP and demanding a rolling programme of more imperialist conquests.

“The Aryan stock is bound to triumph,” was his battle cry.

As home secretary in 1911 he brought the artillery on to the streets of east London in a heavy-handed battle to flush out Latvian anarchists in the siege of Sydney Street. Welsh miners have never forgotten his outrages against the Tonypandy miners.

As colonial secretary in the 1920s, he unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland’s Catholic civilians. The Irish have never forgotten this cruelty.

When the Iraqis rebelled against British rule, Churchill said:

“I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.”

Churchill, as we can see, was happy to be spokesman for brutal and brutish British imperialism. It seems Churchill was driven by a deep loathing of democracy for anyone other than God’s chosen race — the British.

This was clearest in his attitude to India. When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that

he “ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new viceroy seated on its back.”

Churchill further announced:

“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

In 1943, a famine broke out in Bengal and up to three million people starved to death. He bluntly refused any aid, raging that it was the Indians’ own fault for “breeding like rabbits.”

In Kenya Churchill believed that the fertile highlands should be the exclusive preserve of the white settlers and approved the clearing out of the local “blackamoors.”

He saw the local Kikuyu as “brutish children.” When they rebelled under Churchill’s post-war premiership, some 150,000 of them were forced at gunpoint into detention camps.

He approved various kinds of torture, including electric shocks. whipping and shootings. Mau Mau suspects were burned and mutilated. Hussein Onyango Obama was just one who never truly recovered from the torture he endured.

As colonial secretary Churchill offered what he called the Holy Land to both the Jews and the Arabs — although he had racist contempt for both.

He jeered at the Palestinians as “barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung,” while he was appalled that the Israelis “take it for granted that the local population will be cleared out to suit their convenience.”

After the war he was quick to invent the iron curtain as he started the cold war against his hated Bolsheviks despite the fact that they had been his greatest ally in defeating Hitler and his nazis.

When he was re-elected prime minister in the 1951 election he rapidly restarted various imperialist adventures. There was the so-called Malayan Emergency, Kenya and of course the Korean war.

Churchill hated communism at home and abroad. He was always a supporter of British intervention in the young Soviet state, declaring that Bolshevism must be “strangled in its cradle.”

He convinced his divided and loosely organised Cabinet to intervene despite strong opposition from Labour.

In the 1926 General Strike Churchill edited the government’s newspaper, the British Gazette, and used it to put forward his anti-union, anti-Labour, anti-socialist rantings.

He even recommended that the food convoys from the docks should be guarded by tanks, armoured cars and hidden machine guns.

There are far too many other reasons why this champion of all things reactionary simply doesn’t deserve the paeans of praise being heaped on him at the moment.

I’m sure our letters page would welcome your own particular favourites, but let me finish with one that really makes me smile.

Even his reputation as an outstanding orator was, it seems, based on a lie. We now know that many of Churchill’s most famous radio speeches of the war were delivered by an actor, Norman Shelley.

Shelley went on to be a big star on BBC Children’s Radio and as Colonel Danby in the Archers.

Israel may have increased its nuclear stockpile from 80 warheads in 2019 to 90 in 2020, according to a new report by a leading global arms watchdog. 

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) said in its annual report on Monday that Israel, one of the world’s nine nuclear powers, could be in possession of up to 90 nuclear warheads.

The watchdog said that the true number could be higher as Israel does not officially comment on its nuclear capabilities.

“There is significant uncertainty about the size of Israel’s nuclear arsenal and its warhead capabilities,” it said.

“Israel continues to maintain its long-standing policy of nuclear opacity: it neither officially confirms nor denies that it possesses nuclear weapons.”

Israel is one of only three countries, along with India and Pakistan, not to sign the 1968 non-proliferation treaty (NPT), and is widely assumed to have the Middle East’s only atomic arsenal.

Sipri said that it believes Israel has around 30 gravity bombs that can be delivered by F-16I aircraft, and up to 50 warheads that can be delivered by land-based ballistic missiles such as the Jericho III – which, according to foreign reports, has a range of 5,500 km.

“It is possible that some of Israel’s F-15 aircraft may also serve a nuclear strike role, but this is unconfirmed,” Sipri said.

The report also said that the locations of the storage sites for Israel’s warheads, “which are thought to be stored partially unassembled,” are also unknown.

Declassified government documents from both Israel and the United States indicate that Israel began building a stockpile of nuclear weapons in the early 1960s, likely with the assistance of the US, Sipri said.

Some groups have estimated that Israel has a higher amount of warheads. In 2015, the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security said that Israel had produced at least 115 nuclear warheads.

More than 13,000 nukes worldwide

Sipri’s latest report documented that the UK, China, India and Pakistan had also increased their nuclear arsenals in the last year, by between 10 and 30 warheads each.

Still, the watchdog noted that there were around 465 less nuclear weapons globally in 2020 when compared to 2019.

“The decrease in the overall number of nuclear weapons in the world in 2019 was largely due to the dismantlement of retired nuclear weapons by Russia and the USA – which together still possess over 90 percent of global nuclear weapons,” the report said.

At the start of 2020, the 9 nuclear-armed states possessed an estimated 13 400 #nuclear weapons:

Russia🇷🇺 6 375
USA🇺🇸 5 800
China🇨🇳 320
France🇫🇷 290
UK🇬🇧 215
Pakistan🇵🇰 160
India🇮🇳 150
Israel🇮🇱 90
North Korea🇰🇵 30–40

Read more in #SIPRIYearbook 2020 ➡️ https://t.co/nSYOHeZpkt pic.twitter.com/5uQ0N6ylRI

— SIPRI (@SIPRIorg) June 15, 2020

Currently, Sipri estimates that the nine nuclear-armed states – the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea – together possessed an estimated 13,400 nuclear weapons.

“Around 3,720 of the nuclear weapons are currently deployed with operational forces and nearly 1,800 of these are kept in a state of high operational alert,” the group said.

The other 9,680 nuclear warheads in the world are believed to be undeployed.

*

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: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers a speech on Iran’s nuclear programme at the defence ministry in Tel Aviv on 30 April 2018 (Source: MEE)

Dear readers,

For the next four weeks we will be asking for your help to reach a fundraising goal of $20,000. Since September 2001, almost 19 years, GlobalResearch.ca has delivered a daily flow of 20+ insightful news articles & analysis on a wide variety of under-reported issues and unspoken truths, free of charge. We want what we publish to be accessible to as many people as possible all over the world and promise to never place a paywall between you and our content. However, we can only do this for as long as those readers who can afford to, pitch in to help us meet our running costs.

The money we raise will be put into the further development and improvement of the Global Research website as well as that of Asia-PacificResearch.com, our French language website, our Spanish language website, and a recently established Chinese language page. We also wish to raise funds in order to expand our GRTV video productions and the Global Research News Hour radio broadcast & podcast.

In supporting us, then, you are also supporting the distribution of important information made freely available and accessible to the general public.

---

CLICK TO DONATE:

---

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER:

---

Your support is essential – We thank you for contributing to independent media!

On Monday, a Moscow court sentenced US spy Paul Whelan to 16 years imprisonment.

Charged with espionage, he was caught red-handed in December 2018 and arrested after accepting a flash drive with sensitive information from an undercover Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) official.

Former US marine Whelan holds citizenship in four countries — Britain, Ireland, Canada and the US.

He was a BorgWarner security chief for its Michigan-based auto components company.

Russia’s FSB accused him of spying on the country, his main reason for being there.

On May 14, Moscow’s First Court of Appeals dismissed his complaint, claiming the case against him was fabricated.

A criminal case against him was opened under Article 276 of Russia’s Criminal Code. He faced  potential imprisonment of up to 20 years.

Russian prosecutors sought an 18-year sentence. The Moscow court ordered him imprisoned for 16 years.

Former FSB official Jan Neumann, now living in the US, said the agency “never busts anyone on espionage charges if there’s no espionage case, especially not foreign citizens,” adding:

Whelan’s arrest means FSB operatives “followed (him) and saw every step of the way and had enough evidence.”

“Each espionage case is a very high-profile investigation. Every step is under control of top-level officials, and everyone is very sensitive about every detail and aspect of such an operation.”

As for the timing of Whelan’s arrest, the FSB “wait(ed) for a perfect moment…something an alleged spy can’t deny.”

A BorgWarner statement said he “oversee(s) security at our facilities in Auburn Hills, Michigan and at other company locations around the world.”

Company spokeswoman Kathy Graham said BW has no facilities in Russia, so Whelan’s trip to the country and earlier ones had nothing to do with his employer.

In 2019, Vladimir Putin said Russian security services discovered and shut down espionage by 53 Russian nationals and 386 foreign agents in 2016,” perhaps similar numbers in other years.

Putin stressed that arrests aren’t made “to exchange them for someone else later on.”

Ignoring wrongfully imprisoned and harshly mistreated Russian political prisoners in the US, Pompeo demanded Whelan’s immediate release earlier, again following his 16-year sentence.

On Monday, Pompeo accused Russia of trying him in secret “with secret evidence, and without appropriate allowances for defense witnesses (sic),” adding:

“(D)uring his detention…his life (was) at risk by ignoring his long-standing medical condition and ke(eping) him isolated from family and friends (sic).”

Last year, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Moscow offered to arrange for representatives of nations he has citizenship in to visit him if he wishes, adding:

“(O)nly representatives from the United States have visited (him) upon a request. The US side has not contacted the Russian side on that matter any more.”

“Other countries (he) has been confirmed to be a citizen of have asked for a permission to visit him.”

“If (he) says that he has no objections against such visits, that he needs them, that he wants them, they will be organized when convenient for all the sides.”

Sputnik International reported that Whelan visited Russia “regularly since 2007…(a)ccording to information provided to the Russian court.”

Zakharova noted that his “spying activities have been properly documented, and, remarkably, (they’ve) never been refuted by US officials during our working contacts.”

Unlike Russian political prisoners in the US, Whelan has been properly treated according to international law, including medical care when needed.

Trump regime envoy to Russia John Sullivan, formerly its deputy secretary of state, warned that Whelan’s arrest, conviction and sentencing will affect bilateral relations.

They can’t get much worse than already short of preemptive US war on its heartland and/or other targets.

On the issue of a possible prisoner exchange, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said “we have offered options many times.”

“We have said which US citizens serving a sentence in the Russian Federation could be exchanged for Russian citizens” unjustly behind bars in the US and mistreated as political prisoners.

Maria Butina (image on the right) was the most recent example. In July 2918, she was arrested and falsely charged with acting as a Russian foreign agent.

She was a student in the US unconnected to Russia’s government, no evidence suggesting otherwise, accusations against her fabricated.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry slammed what it called a US campaign to “stoke Russophobic hysteria.”

During detention from July 2018 – October 2019, she endured brutalizing physical and emotional mistreatment, amounting to torture.

Under a plea bargain deal despite guilty of no wrongdoing, she was released and allowed to return to Russia.

Home and safe, she was able to speak freely about her ordeal for the first time. Other Russian nationals mistreated in similar ways were and remain less fortunate.

Imprisoned by the Obama regime, Russian national Konstantin Yaroshenko remains incarcerated on false charges.

A commercial pilot and businessman, he endured “extreme government misconduct,” he said, including “torture, brutal and inhumane treatment in detention.”

Russian national Viktor Bout was and remains victimized like Yaroshenko, arrested and imprisoned on false charges.

Unjustly called a “merchant of death,” he ran a legitimate air cargo business. Yet he’s wrongfully imprisoned and mistreated, including by denial of proper medical care.

Russia’s embassy in Washington complained about the “endemic” mistreatment of Russian nationals in US prisons – for political reasons, for the “crime” of being a national of country America considers an adversary.

Moscow should demand release of them all in return for convicted spy Whelan and perhaps other legitimate US criminals in Russian prisons.

A Final Comment

Sergey Lavrov stressed that Whelan was caught “red-handed.”

His arrest, prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment had nothing to do with swapping him for Russian nationals behind bars in the US.

Claims otherwise are “completely untrue,” Lavrov stressed.

“We never do things like that. I’ll say it again. He was caught red-handed.”

Unlike harshly treated Russian political prisoners in the US, Whelan and other foreign nationals incarcerated in Russia are treated fairly.

In response to UK officials expressing concern about Whelan’s well-being, Lavrov said no consular requests to see him were received.

He recalled multiple denied requests by Moscow to visit Russian nationals Sergey and Yulia Skripal in Britain, adding:

If its foreign office or consular officials ask to meet with Whelan, Russia “will act in accordance the obligations enshrined in the Convention (on Consular Relations) and diplomatic courtesy.”

Russia will fulfill its obligations in dealings with all other countries — polar opposite how the US, Britain, and their imperial allies operate.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

There may be irony in Morocco now reconsidering and revamping its development model, which is its national guiding frameworks for social and environmental fulfillment. I have long been and remain a believer in Morocco’s existing frameworks for the people’s development. There is, after all, a lot to like. Municipalities are to create development plans made from the participation of all communities and groups. Environmental management is understood to integrate the local people. Agricultural programs seek to achieve the value-chain with communities of small landholders. Morocco is committed to the goals of decentralization, renewable energy, liberation of women and youth from social and economic hindrances, and well-established southern unity. Multicultural preservation is a non-equivocal national choice.

Furthermore, there are a lot more to these initiatives when we consider the innovation within each, and the extra value that can be accomplished when these frameworks operate well in tandem. For example, the Decentralization Roadmap designates the local communities as planners and implementors of development projects, to be buttressed by national level, private, and public support. Decentralization is made even more viable because also part of the Morocco model is its national Municipal Charter, which requires locally elected officials and civil society to plan alongside all community members in the creation of their human development plans. In the model design, this means that the participatory community work of municipalities and their forming of partnerships toward creating projects managed by and for the benefit of the people, contribute to the emergence of a decentralized system. This would have public administrations considerably more aware and directly supportive of the people’s priorities.

For Morocco, these and the other existing frameworks – call them together, model one – are intent upon and could set forward sustainable development initiatives across the countryside. Yet, it is honestly the rare exception when a rural municipality creates development plans genuinely reflective of collective community identification of the needed projects in their area. Rural women and girls are not, for the most part, aware of the Moroccan family code and the human rights that are theirs. Morocco’s unity with its multicultural identity is beautiful and real, but its translation into the critical growth for the populace is insufficient.

This search since 2019 to redefine Morocco’s model was made possible by the poverty-related frustrations at all levels and sectors of Moroccan society. It is commendable that the national dissatisfaction has brought on this reevaluation, with now six months remaining before the anticipated completion by the appointed commission. I hope that the framers of a new Moroccan approach – model two – fully appreciate the good afforded by model one. I would go further and suggest that model two would be visionary and bold by offering programmatic actions to successfully implement model one.

Morocco’s development frustrations stem from insufficient training in participatory development among those responsible for facilitating community dialogue and actions. Achieving success within Morocco’s current model depends on communities being integral to planning and management, and that condition can only be achieved when there are trained facilitators of participatory planning. Members of local councils typically have not experienced capacity-building programs that enhance these necessary applied skills. We cannot forge decentralization from beneficiary-determined community projects when the people in these jurisdictions have never gained the opportunity to learn how.

The projects people most need and want require funding, even when beneficiaries provide some in-kind labor. Therefore, the National Initiative for Human Development, Morocco’s flagship development program for people’s projects, should increase its support of municipal council initiatives once people’s participation in the design has genuinely occurred.

Morocco’s model today, in a nutshell, is to implement community development ideas for change along with public and private partners. A new model cannot escape implementation of the first one. Therefore, I will certainly take more comfort if the basis of model two were to emerge from almond growers in Taroudant, nomadic communities in the south, cumin harvesters in the east, women and girls of mountain communities, artisanal food processors in Azilal, recent high school graduates in Driouch, and youth living in potentially-limiting remote places. I hope it is a model composed by the people for whom it is intended.

Then, we will learn the composite of ways we can align resources with community actions for empowerment, decision-making, implementation, and transformation. After all, worthwhile models are those that reveal the means of securing support for communities to gain control over their livelihoods and future.

*

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 High Atlas Foundation.

Dr. Yossef Ben-Meir is a sociologist living in Marrakech, and president of the High Atlas Foundation, a non-for-profit organization dedicated to sustainable development in Morocco.

Featured image: The Aboghlou women’s cooperative meets outside in Ourika Valley, Morocco.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has achieved a position of global hegemony, acting as a kind of world police. Washington has constructed a new world order and its militaries travel the world in wars and operations to inspect the “correct” functioning of this order and its conformity with American interests. This has been, for decades, the basic guideline of American foreign policy, which has generated constant conflicts involving the US armed forces, with great financial costs and great material wear and tear of the troops, in addition to several constant social damages, mainly of psychological order, with thousands of American families affected by the wars around the world where Washington interferes.

Recently, in a speech at the West Point Military Academy officers’ graduation ceremony, U.S. President Donald Trump stated that the era of endless wars is over and that the American armed forces will no longer be the police of the world. According to Trump, the US is at a crucial moment in its history, after which the government’s attitude must change drastically, no longer adopting the global interventionist policy previously implemented, but avoiding participation in continuous wars and building a new path for the country’s foreign policy.

Trump’s words are truly impressive and reveal both a strategic and humanitarian side of the American president. This same speech had already been part of his several election promises during his campaign for president in 2016. Many critics of the president therefore claim that the Republican is only trying to recover his broken promises to secure a re-election, which is likely. However, the decision to impose a definitive end to American interventionist policy is also quite strategic at the present time, since these guidelines are no longer adequate to the dynamics of the contemporary world, with a strong rise of emerging powers and geopolitical multipolarization.

However, even though Trump, international society and the American people want the end of the interventions, this is not the interest of an even deeper group of American politics: the Deep State. The secret networks of businessmen, bankers, military and intelligence agents, who really govern the U.S., will not allow Trump, in his last months in office, to make such bold decisions and will certainly act strongly to contain him. The American Deep State has an interest in maintaining operations because it is the members of these groups who are the real economically benefited by these interventions, unlike the American people.

In fact, we can even speculate whether Donald Trump’s intentions were not already known to the Deep State before they went public in his address to the military, given that in recent weeks the country has sunk into a wave of violent protests and rebellions, which, while apparently fighting against racism and discrimination, in practice promote widespread attacks against the people and the Trump administration, generating suspicions of being organized demonstrations with much deeper purposes than fighting racism and remembering the memory of George Floyd.

If Trump continues with his plan to end interventionism, the next country to undergo intervention will be the United States, where the “riots” will reach ever greater levels of violence and the country will be on the verge of a racial war. The U.S. will then undergo a colorful internal revolution, organized by the Deep State. Day after day, anti-Trump discourse is gaining more and more aggressive tone by the opposition. Last week, the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, considered the possibility of military intervention against the American president.

On the other hand, if Trump renounces his goals and capitulates to the power of the Deep State, his image will be discredited and the victory of his enemies will be an even closer scenario. Indeed, tensions only tend to increase in the United States, which, amid more than 100,000 killed by the new coronavirus pandemic, has to deal with a major political disruption, causing even more instability, chaos and fear about the uncertain future.

Several points have yet to be verified. What will be, from now on, Trump’s stance on the issue of Venezuela and the legitimate government and Nicolás Maduro? What will Trump do to withdraw his troops from across the Middle East? What will he do to Iran? What will he do to China? Perhaps not even Trump is sure what to do, but just because he proposes to think of something to ease world tensions, the president is already worthy of attention.

Yet, is this also Biden’s wish? The presidential candidate and opponent of Trump seems, on the contrary, much more willing to maintain the interventionism and practice of the world police, which will cause much more world wars and tensions. Perhaps, for the first time in recent history, an American president and Deep State are really facing off.

*

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

Early on June 14, the Russian Aerospace Forces reportedly carried out airstrikes on positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham near the villages of al-Bara and Deir Sunbul in southern Idlib. Since the signing of the new de-escalation agreement with Turkey on March 5, the Russian military has halted active operations in Greater Idlib. Nonetheless, it continued isolated precise strikes on high value terrorist targets.

The June 14 airstrikes followed the creation of a new coalition by several al-Qaeda-linked groups operating in the region: Horas al-Din, Ansar al-Din, Ansar al-Islam, Liwa al-Muqatlin al-Ansar and Tansiqiyat al-Jihad. The coalition, dubbed “Fa Ithbatu”, is in fact an expanded variant of another al-Qaeda-linked coalition, Ghurfat Eamaliat wa-Harid al-Mu’minin. This very faction recently conducted a large attack on Syrian Army positions near Tanjarah and Fattirah killing several soldiers and destroying at least one BMP infantry fighting vehicle.

Therefore, despite the claims of pro-militant propaganda that militant groups are uniting their forces in order to fight back the possible aggression of the ‘bloody Assad regime’, the creation of Fa Ithbatulikely reveals preparations for more aggressive actions against government forces.

The Turkish leadership, which is also committed to pushing propaganda about the ‘evil Assad regime’, clearly understands the real situation on the ground. So, it has continued expanding the network of observation posts along the M4 highway in southern Idlib in an attempt to keep the situation under control. The most recent Turkish observation posts were created near the villages of Farkia, Bsanqul, Kafer Shalaya, Urum al-Jawz and Mareian. Nonetheless, even these extensive efforts did not allow Turkish forces to at least create the image of order in the so-called opposition-held area.

On June 13, fighting erupted between Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and a local armed group in the village of Salqin near the Turkish border. The conflict started after Hayat Tahrir al-Sham members assaulted a displaced civilian from Ma`arat al-Nu`man for setting a food stand near their shop. The fighting stopped only after Hayat Tahrir al-Sham deployed large reinforcements to the village. This was just the most recent incident in a long pattern of violence, which has been ongoing in the militant-held areas.

On June 14 and June 15, warplanes of the Syrian Air Force bombed ISIS hideouts near the town of Uqayribat in southeastern Hama. Last weekend, the Syrian Army, the National Defense Forces and Liwa al-Quds launched an anti-ISIS operation in the very same area. The operation came in response to ISIS attacks near the town on June 11 and June 12. However, it is unlikely that limited security operations in the desert area, which are being conducted by government forces, will fully remove the ISIS threat from 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.

Support South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

When the superseding indictment was returned by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia against Julian Assange on May 23, 2019, there was one glaring omission.  It was an achievement, it might even be said the achievement, that gave the WikiLeaks publisher and the organisation justified notoriety.  Collateral Murder, as the leaked video came to be called, featured the murderous exploits by the crew of Crazy Horse 1-8, an Apache helicopter that slew 11 people on July 12, 2007 in east Baghdad.  Among the dead were Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and a driver and fixer, Saeed Chmagh. 

As WikiLeaks announced at the time,

“Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack.  The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers.  Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.”

It is worth remembering at the time that the current stable of media outlets, including the New York Times, preferred to see something rather different: that the video was purposely edited by WikiLeaks to convey maximum public impact while giving the impression of US venality in battle.  Patriotism, and the blinding of the record, comes first. 

This conveniently sidestepped the vacillations taking place in the Pentagon over the incident and its recording.  Dean Yates, who was Reuters Baghdad chief at the time, recalls in horrid vividness the unfolding events, including the seizure of Namir’s cameras and the US military statement:

“Firefight in New Baghdad.  US, Iraqi forces kill 9 insurgents, detain 13.”   

As Yates, who has been painfully silent over this episode, told the Guardian,

“The US assertions that Namir and Saeed were killed during a firefight was all lies.  But I didn’t know that at the time, so I updated my story to take in the US military’s statement.”   

On the return of the tampered cameras, no evidence of insurgent activity, or clashes with US forces, were evident. Yates and a Reuters colleague subsequently met two US generals responsible for overseeing the investigation, all off record, of course. They were told of the request by Crazy Horse 1-8 to engage “military-aged males” supposedly armed and acting “suspiciously”.  Photographs of AK-47s and an RPG [Rocket-propelled grenade] launcher, where produced.  Yates was left wondering “how much of that meeting was carefully choreographed so we could go away with a certain impression of what happened.”  For a time, he conceded, “it worked” with poisonous effect.   

What niggled was the revealing of some footage from the camera of Crazy Horse 1-8, a miserly three minutes.  Cue the permission sought by the Apache to engage on seeing Namir crouching with his long-lens camera, supposedly mistaken for an RPG.  The appearance of the van later in the scene, ostensibly to assist, was airily dismissed by the generals as an act of aid for insurgents.  Yates, disturbed, was left with the mistaken impression that Namir had somehow been responsible for his own demise and those of his companions.

In the meantime, Reuters persisted in their vain attempts to secure the full video, even as they continued good faith off-the-record meetings with the US military for reasons of safety. Yates wished to break the arrangement on the video; his superiors thought otherwise.  The symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder began to show.  Sleeplessness crept in.  When the video was released on April 5, 2010, Yates was with is family walking in Cradle Mountain national park, Tasmania. 

The video casts a shadow over the indictment, despite being a screaming omission.  It is crude, expressive, and unequivocal in disclosing a war crime and its cold blooded execution. It codifies a form of deliberate, incautious violence.  It reveals breathtaking cruelty at play: “Look at those dead bastards; “Nice”; “Good shoot’n”.  As Christian Christensen remarked, “These particular images were, in many ways, the crystallization of the horrors of war.”   

Barrister Greg Barns, a tireless advisor to the Australian Assange Campaign claimed it to be “very much part of the broader prosecution case [because of what it illustrates about the US rules of engagement] and it is one of the many reasons to oppose what is happening to Assange”. 

Australian politicians otherwise unaccustomed to distract themselves from the teat of the US imperium have also noted the potency of the video, and the act of evading it in the indictment.  “The omission of the leaked Collateral Murder footage from the indictment surprised me,” suggested Australian Greens Senator Peter Whish Wilson of the Parliamentary Friends of the Bring Julian Assange Home Group, “but on reflection of course it’s not in the US government’s interests to highlight their own injustices, deceit and crimes.”  The effort to indict Assange for espionage charges is fatuous but dangerously calculating: to bury a narrative; to make history, at least as it is told by the leakers, disappear.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is by Elekhh – CC BY-SA 3.0

European Left-wing political scientists find difficult to understand that the colonial contradiction is at the heart of our present, they think it’s a conceptual error, something anachronistic, that the joyful postmodernity – the one that delivers their Macs to them at home – has gone beyond all that, and that Trump or Bolsonaro are racist accidents of History, or of the « free world ». It’s just the opposite. Under the advertising varnish of capitalist globalization, the deep History of our world has never disappeared, it has even come back to the surface, even stronger. The revolt that is happening in the United States is the same one that founds the resistance of the Venezuelan people.” – Thierry Deronne, Algeria Resistance Mohsen Abdelmoumen’s blog 2020

“Everyone is a philosopher, though in his own way and unconsciously, since even in the slightest manifestation of any intellectual activity whatever, in ‘language’, there is contained a specific conception of the world, one then moves on to the second level, which is that of awareness and criticism.” – Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks

Three of the four police officers involved in the murder of George Floyd were previously employed as stock boys by TARGET and Home Depot, and two had worked at McDonalds. One stocked for a grocery store. One didn’t graduate high school. In other words these were economically part of that large temp minimum wage workforce that is now increasingly unemployed.

The fourth, officer Kueng, whose file was redacted, was apparently more middle class, from a nice family and who graduated with some distinction from his high school. It’s interesting, first off, why his file was redacted.

But one of them had served in the military, Derek Chauvin, the man now charged with the murder. Chauvin also had 17 complaints filed against him for excessive force before he kneeled on George Floyd’s neck.

There are a couple things to consider here. One is why these men are not on the side of the people they abuse (and murder)? The answer is multifold. One is a culture of machismo and violence that saturates American society. Another is that the United States was a slave owning nation where twelve presidents owned slaves.

Racism and Calvinist and Puritan values have never left this society. And it was founded (and its in the constitution) as an unequal and anti democratic republic. Owners of property were established as privileged. And so it has contiuned. But it also the allure of the uniform. Now its understandable that being a cop and being handed a gun and impunity to harass and abuse the public is preferable to flipping burgers. One job is utter humiliation while the other is validated as heroic by popular culture.

Domestic police departments tend to hire military veterans before those without military service.

Those with special forces training tend to go into Private Security. One in four soldiers in theatre in Afghanistan are private contractors. The wars of empire are increasingly being outsourced.

Couple this to the growing social inequality in the country, where 15% live below the poverty line (in 2015, and which no doubt is closing in on double that post Covid), and where on the heels of the pandemic hysteria and government fear mongering, which resulted in a nation wide (and global) house arrest, the problems with a militarily trained and equipped domestic police force, one drawing its officers from the low end of the educational spectrum, and one that provides at best rudimentary training, is obvious.

A Buddhist friend of mine, was mentioning that at her retreat one of the Tibetan teachers observed that Covid19 and the authoritarian policies it has engendered will unleash cataclysmic dark forces. Spiritual forces, so I take it. Or anti spiritual, actually. And this is how it feels. And this is beyond the clear fascist agenda in play, but extends into realms of psychic transformation for the bourgeoisie in particular.

The anxiety and fear that has grown silently for this privileged class, grown steadily over the last twenty years, is now cracking open and the toxic emotional slag of the atrophied inner lives is spilling out on the rest of society at large. It feels or is felt most deeply, from my anecdotal experience, in the white bourgeoisie’s fear of the other.

And I have not felt this sort of collective confusion, anxiety, and fear since the days of Vietnam. Things surface for people. The psychological effects of this lockdown are being wildly underestimated (especially in the long term for children). The difference from the Vietnam war is five decades of screen damage and an accelerated transference of wealth to the top 1%.

The reality of such profound economic inequality is impossible to deny now, and the staggering numbers of homeless across the country eventually can’t be NOT seen, it finally starts to serve as a psychic wound, a constant silent witness to the crimes of the system.

The ruling class, or certainly at the least one corner of it, launched the ‘Covid19 panic’ as a means to shut down western society. No matter if the virus is man made or accidental or just a naturally occurring zoonotic virus… it served as a prop for their agenda.

The ultimate plan remains a bit opaque but it likely includes a wholesale eradication of what is left of civil liberties, intensification of an already draconian surveillance state, and a transformation and rebranding of the meager welfare state into something fit for 7th century serfs, only far worse actually.

This is the world of Bill Gates and those elite new green capitalists, royal families, and digital billionaires. It should be noted that global health bureaucracies like WHO and the CDC are political organizations first. Both have deep and long standing ties to big Pharma and various other corporate interests.

The WHO is privately funded (Gates essentially owns it and directs policy) and the CDC is actually a part of the Health and Human Services department of government. And the current head of the CDC is a former pharmaceutical company executive and a guy who worked with John Bolton drawing up the National Biodefense Strategy for president Trump. Anthony Fauci is the creepy and slimy little frontman for all the agencies involved in urging governments around the world to shut down (they like the term lockdown for its prison connotations).

Without digressing too much here, what is relevant is that when one starts to wonder how it is allowed for known white nationalists and Klansmen to openly serve as police officers, the answer is not that the decentralized nature of state and city police departments are hard to reform or clean up but rather that the very top officeholders in criminal justice share sympathy with the racists.

We are watching in real time the normalizing of martial law and the suspension of democracy. And these measures have given a bit of a boost to the beleaguered and increasingly brutish police departments across the country. When not even a high school diploma is necessary to be given a badge and gun, when the police recruit from the ranks of malcontent and angry TARGET stock boys and blank McDonald counter people, there must be a logic at work, and I suspect there is.

First, flipping burgers is the only thing many young men and women have open to them. I’ve done that kind of work. And I hated it, too. But the domestic police, those city departments fresh with new military hardware, don’t want empathic or imaginative young men, they want the emotionally dead.

As a side point here, I know martial arts masters who can train you to subdue the wildest suspect without any harm. Adroitly and calmly — but it would require a few months training, not a few hours. But that is not what the departments want. They want crude clumsy tactics, ones that instill fear and which cause pain and suffering and sometimes death.

Those few percent of military trained special force guys, they don’t go the Minneapolis police department, or San Diego, or Toledo or Indianapolis. They go into high-end private security.

This is not even to touch on the widespread use of steroids.

The police today are increasingly used for purposes of optics, as much as any real police work. Most crimes go unsolved and for uniformed cops in their black and white (usually) Cruisers the job description is essentially to function as an occupying force in poor neighborhoods. They carry out parole checks, harass and detain the poor, often on a whim. Most acutely in black inner cities.

They are a new gestapo. They are there to brutalize and frighten what is seen as a surplus population. The essence of America’s slave legacy is found right there, in the grim counter insurgency tactics of domestic police departments on the streets of black inner cities. For important work, for the protection of important persons and prestige property the ruling class have turned to private security.

That leaves the uniformed cops, badly paid, with minimum job security actually, as tools for enforcing racial oppression. And if any more proof were needed, one need only check the hyper incarceration rate in America’s prisons, and further, the results of the Innocence Project. The numbers of falsely convicted men and women is staggering, it is mind numbing and a spiritual stain on this society that can never be washed away.

It is the overriding and ineradicable symbol of a savage culture of strict class separation, a separation enforced with lethality and pointless cruelty. For the hyper incarceration starts right there, on the same streets where Eric Garner was choked, or Tamir Rice was shot, where George Floyd was murdered, and Trayvon Martin and Philando Castile and hundreds of others have suffered and died. One topic not discussed enough is post-arrest custodial deaths.

In properly staffed households throughout the world, the bodyguard is the new nanny, { } fear of terrorism, a volatile political climate and a pervasive sense that the wealth creation of a few has come at the expense of the many have made paranoia the norm.”
Town and Country, Dec 2016

We learned that the contractors in our sample are predominantly white man in their 40s who chose contracting as a second career. Most are veterans with significant military experience. Among those contractors who were previously deployed as service members, many are former officers and about half of them are Special Forces veterans.

They are more likely to have a college degree than their active-duty counterparts, but less likely than their fellow veterans in the general population. They come from parts of the U.S. or United Kingdom with higher unemployment rates and fewer job opportunities—not the areas with the strongest traditions for military service.”
Ori Swed and Thomas Crosbie, Pacific Standard, “The Demographics of America’s Private Military Contractors”. March 2019

In 2009, after Obama was elected, the Department of Homeland Security and FBI jointly wrote an intelligence study on white extremism in domestic police departments. Janet Napolitano, then DHS head, quickly and quietly swept the report under the proverbial rug.

Back in 1991 Los Angeles US District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr found that sheriffs at the Lynwood substation were, were engaged in what he called ‘racial hostility’ and ‘terrorist tactics’ against Latino and Black prisoners. And that the top brass for the Sheriffs department were well aware of this. In 2006 the FBI released a redacted memorandum warning of white nationalists in domestic police departments. Or look up the Joe Burge case in Chicago. In departments in Florida, Texas, and Ohio, there were active Klansmen in police departments.

It is common knowledge that across the country police culture is profoundly racist and reactionary. The educated classes in the U.S. have internalized the Hollywood version of all this. Just think how many hours of cop shows (all them, literally) you have watched and how every single one signs off on a fantasy version of police heroism …the thin blue line metaphor, and how it is only these handsome and beautiful (if slightly flawed, you know, human) public servants are protecting you and your family from the vicious underclass, from drug dealing gangs, all minority, and where all them, literally, portray inner cities are lawless wastelands without culture, brutish and bestial.

This has led to the new narrative archetype of ‘taking the wrong off ramp’. These are openly racist stories but the public has come to digest such pseudo storytelling in a sort of pattern recognition manner. And nearly every single cop show features one or more military veterans. Usually special forces, but not always. Service in the military is a signifier for virtue and honour.

Forward to 2019, and Los Angeles again, this time in the incorporated mostly black city of Compton in south LA. The details of the Ryan Twyman killing, by sheriffs again, is perhaps the most perfect example of American white supremacism and when empowered the violent consequences.

Ryan Twyman was unarmed inside a parked car when two Los Angeles sheriff deputies approached and fired 34 rounds. Video of the entire incident, which happened in roughly 50 seconds, was as shocking as many police brutality cases that have gone viral in the US. But the killing of the 24-year-old father of three barely made the news. On that day, his death was far from unique: officers across LA shot five people in five separate incidents in just over 24 hours. Only one person survived. Families and activists said the bloodshed on 6 June provided a terrifying illustration of the culture of police violence and a system that trains officers to kill – while ensuring they won’t face consequences.”
Sam Levine, Guardian, Aug 2019

This is not what you see on the new FOX cop show Deputy. Watch a few episodes and get back to me. But that is hardly a unique phenomenon, there is SWAT, Chicago PD, the various Law & Order franchises, or Criminal Minds. I could go on and on, obviously. The problem is not the violence depicted, for Shakespeare is violent. It is the naked propaganda and the racism. Anti black racism at the very top but today Islamaphobic narratives abound as well, often with pro-Israeli sub plots. Military shows follow the same blueprint.

The point is that you cannot separate the Imperialist wars of aggression across the planet, which serve as recruitment pools for domestic police and private security and you cannot separate the counter-insurgency tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan, or Syria, not to mention the covert activities against Venezuela and Bolivia both of which involved at least some uniformed military personnel, from the sadistic actions of America’s police. Nor can you separate these aggressions from the jingoistic entertainments (recruitment shows for the military and police) from Hollywood.

These foreign policy actions remain largely accepted and popular. The country may hate Trump, with good reason, but his foreign policy is so far actually less lethal than Obama’s or Bush’s or Clinton’s. In any event every President gets a bump in approval ratings when he kills a dark-skinned foreigner either by drone or my military actions.

The public didn’t much care at all about Fallujah, and the architect of that butchery, Jim ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis, former Sec of State for Trump before being fired, is now a darling of the white educated liberals who are so incensed about the prez’ and his failure to lockdown the country even more, harder, and certainly for longer.

They are quite happy to cheer and identify with the FBI and war criminals like Mattis. That exaggerated hatred of Trump contains a number of contradictions. But for the purposes of this discussion the central one is that of soft or disguised racism vs. overt white sheets MAGA racism.

White paternalism knows no bounds. And the inherent tokenism of the educated white American has sort of reached its own, from their perspective, cultural horizon event. Another way of saying it is truly the death of irony epoch.

That Americans approve of military violence against the poor nations of the world suggests why the police in America are so steadfastly racist and white supremacist. They are hugely supported. Now, there is with the murder of Floyd a lot of discussion of defunding the police. The problem being, as many have pointed out, this would only increase privitization of security. The US spent 100 billion on domestic policing last year, give or take. And around 80 billion on prisons.

The US defense budget is four or almost five times that amount. So it would seem critical to defund the military right along with the police. It is clearly a positive to reallocate cop money to mental health and community infrastructure and education. But this is the nefarious aspect of Covid19 and the lockdown. I

n Philadelphia the proposed budget cuts, do the massive effects of the lockdown include cutting nearly all sanitation workers down to almost nothing, cutting stuff like soap in hospitals and upkeep of school and city buses. The Covid lockdown was a tool of the ruling class.

There is much press now given to polls showing American support for the Floyd protests. Except those polls are misleading.

Its that last sentence, you see.

Whatever grassroots movements achieve is always going to run up against that last sentence. But I’m not cynical about defunding cops. It is a concrete material step in developing alliances in the working class. The movements for prison abolition and defunding are doing the groundwork for alliance formation. It has to start somewhere. And they are the front edges of suggesting property and capitalism are the source of most all of their problems.

Gramsci envisioned the ‘hegemonic’ struggle as two-pronged – one to educate the working class from ideas that chain them to the existing order and their own exploitation, and two, to bring other ‘subaltern’ classes into what he called a ‘bloc’ with the working class.

I only see the average American remains bizarrely ignorant of US foreign policy. How many people know of Hillary Clinton’s coup in Honduras? I suspect not many. The violence against the global south has not abated for sixty years (ok, for three hundred).

From AT&T to United Fruit to Dole pineapple, the business interests of corporate America has stood on the backs of the developing world (sic). What would actually happen if police were defunded? What would massive upticks in privatized security look like? Possibly something out of Robocop. And that is the danger today, that is the situation in which we find ourselves.

Take a look at Alabama, which sits up top in the U.S. alphabetically and in the middle, population-wise: Since 1996, Alabama police departments have received $78,534,297.32 in planes, helicopters, rifles, and mine-resistant vehicles. How is there so much stuff to dole out? After 9/11, U.S. military funding increased 50 percent.

In fact, the average American has paid $23,386 in taxes to support the military and its war efforts since 2001. All that spending has translated to a lot of extra mine-resistant vehicles, which local police now own.”
AC Shilton (Fatherly, 2020)

Over the last thirty years funding for domestic police has grown over 400% according to the Justice Policy Institute. And there are millions of dollars shortfall for public education. The problem there is that public education sucks bad anyway. It is almost worse than no education, frankly (and yes I know there are exceptions). And this takes us back to the shelf stockers at Tesco and TARGET.

The elite Universities and prep schools are available for the rich, and increasingly the very rich only. And which serves as yet another factor in the acute resentment that seems to fuel so much American discourse. And while private schools are better (how could they be worse) the problem is the culture at large.

It’s not only a reflexive and embedded and indelible racism, it is an anti-intellectualism, and fast-eroding literacy. And then there are the screens. The pernicious effects of social media (which really is a machine for creating resentment and/or guilt) and smart phones, aps, algorithms … the entire attention economy, has produced a populace of emotional deadness, of crippling anxiety and insecurity about self, and it has done nothing to even mitigate in the slightest of ways the Imperialist project and what is called American Exceptionalism.

The cops that killed George Floyd, if prosecuted, will be exceptions that change nothing. Most cops serve with impunity. American soldiers shoot at Iraqi civilians as sport, amusement. The vicious IDF, fresh from killing teenagers, comes to the U.S. to teach domestic departments better how to instil terror and pain, nothing more. There is no secret magic Zionist martial art or mind control. Its just brute terrorizing. As it has always been for fascists. And as it has always been for plantations and chain gangs.

*

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

Dear Readers,

We regularly receive feedback from you telling us how important the articles we publish are to you, especially in today’s tumultuous and uncertain times. We thank you, and pledge that we will continue to deliver our daily dose of cutting-edge research and analysis, free of charge, for as long as we can.

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

Click to donate:

Make a one-time or a recurring donation

*     *     *

Annexation of Palestine or “Uneventful Occurrence” — What Do You See?

By Rima Najjar, June 16, 2020

When you visualize it, as I try to, what does Israel’s forthcoming annexation of parts of the West Bank look like to you? I mean, what images do you expect to see when Israel makes its declaration, as is expected, in July? Do you perhaps imagine scenes of violence, terror and incitement to play out on social media and on the few seconds of mainstream TV that will be devoted to the announcement?

Israel’s Illegal Annexation of Palestine

By James J. Zogby, June 16, 2020

With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promising to annex portions of the West Bank, liberal critics here in the US and across Europe are in a tizzy. They have been quick to point fingers blaming this crisis on Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump, since Trump’s “Deal of the Century” allows for Israel to claim at least 30 per cent of the West Bank. The critics, however, are wrong since paternity for this imminent extension of Israeli sovereignty over occupied Palestinian lands goes beyond the current Israeli government or the Trump Administration. There are, in fact, three culprits.

From Occupation to ‘Occupy’: The Israelification of American Domestic Security

By Max Blumenthal, June 16, 2020

Training alongside the American police departments at Urban Shield was the Yamam, an Israeli Border Police unit that claims to specialize in “counter-terror” operations but is better known for its extra-judicial assassinations of Palestinian militant leaders and long record of repression and abuses in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Urban Shield also featured a unit from the military of Bahrain, which had just crushed a largely non-violent democratic uprising by opening fire on protest camps and arresting wounded demonstrators when they attempted to enter hospitals. While the involvement of Bahraini soldiers in the drills was a novel phenomenon, the presence of quasi-military Israeli police – whose participation in Urban Shield was not reported anywhere in US media – reflected a disturbing but all-too-common feature of the post-9/11 American security landscape.

Trump Risks Losing Washington’s Closest Allies to Defend Megacorporations that Support Biden

By Paul Antonopoulos, June 16, 2020

The Wall Street Journal said that the U.S. is preparing tariffs against a range of trading partners unless they back off proposals to impose taxes that would fall heavily on major American internet companies. The threat of tariffs is against many countries, including the entirety of the European Union, India, Indonesia, Turkey, and even Washington’s most loyal allies like the United Kingdom and Brazil.

If Israel Annexes Part of West Bank, Palestine “Will Declare Statehood on 1967 Borders”

By Global Research News, June 15, 2020

Palestinian officials “are stepping up pressure on Israel to cancel its planned annexation of part of the West Bank”.

If Israel proceeds, “they will immediately declare a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

The Palestinian government threatened  “to declare Palestine as a state along the internationally recognized 1967 borders if Israel presses ahead with its plan to annex parts of the West Bank.”

America’s Supernational Sovereignty

By Philip Giraldi, June 15, 2020

The conceit by the United States that it is the acknowledged judge, jury and executioner in policing the international community began in the post-World War 2 environment, when hubristic American presidents began referring to themselves as “leaders of the free world.” This pretense received legislative and judicial backing with passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 (ATA) as amended in 1992 plus subsequent related legislation, to include the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act of 2016 (JASTA). The body of legislation can be used to obtain civil judgments against alleged terrorists for attacks carried out anywhere in the world and can be employed to punish governments, international organizations and even corporations that are perceived to be supportive of terrorists, even indirectly or unknowingly. Plaintiffs are able to sue for injuries to their “person, property, or business” and have ten years to bring a claim.

Trump’s Illegal Use of Military Against Anti-Racist Uprisings Portends Battles Ahead

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, June 15, 2020

The backlash against Donald Trump’s illegal show of military force against anti-racist protesters compelled him to withdraw the troops — for now. But we must continue raising the illegality of this use of the military and pushing for barriers to guard against future such deployments. The threat of a resurgence of this violation still looms because as the protests continue, Trump might change his mind. And if he loses the election, all bets are off.

*

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.

Last week several articles were published in the Swiss, Canadian and US press informing that Nestlé S.A. was considering to sell all its bottled water brands in the US and Canada.  As written in this article:

“Nestlé S.A.’s Board of Directors today approved a new strategic direction for its Water business. The company will sharpen its focus on its iconic international brands, its leading premium mineral water brands, and invest in differentiated healthy hydration, such as functional water products.(…) At the same time, the Board concluded that its regional spring water brands, purified water business and beverage delivery service at its Nestlé Waters North America unit lie outside this focus. As a result, the company has decided to explore strategic options, including a potential sale, for the majority of the Nestlé Waters business in North America (U.S. and Canada), excluding its International brands. This review is expected to be completed by early-2021.”

However, it seems that there is much more to this than just a business decision: rather it is a maneuver to protect the close relationship between Nestlé and the Swiss Government from public awareness.

This strategy was used previously by Nestlé in Brazil in 2018 when Nestlé announced the sale of all its bottled water brands in Brazil to a Brazilian company. For more than 15 years Brazilian citizens’ movements in the region of Circuito das Águas in the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil, had been fighting Nestlé’s water taking and bottling water facility in the city of São Lourenço. In 2006 the Citizens Movement had its first significant victory: Nestlé had to stop the production of “Pure Life” bottled water in São Lourenço. This victory was only possible due to the fact that the citizens’ movement brought their fight to Switzerland where several NGOs gave their support to their campaign. Articles about Nestlé in São Lourenço appeared in the Swiss French, Italian and German press, and the Swiss Italian TV did a short documentary on São Lourenço. This proved to be a decisive factor in the citizens fight against the giant Swiss corporation: the Swiss campaign was too damaging to Nestlé’s image in Switzerland.

In 2018 the World Water Forum took place in Brasilia, capital of Brazil. The WWF is the most important international event on the calendar of private corporations engaged in water privatization. In 2018 for the first time the WWF had the massive sponsorship of the bottled water sector: Coca-Cola, Nestlé and AB InBEV. The ‘message’ of the 2018 WWF to Brazil was: we want your water. Nestlé announced it would sell its Brazilian bottled water brands just a few months after this forum of multi-national companies. Nestle´s decision to sell the brands of water it bottles in Brazil made no sense unless something else was intended.

Nestlé was present at the WWF in Brazil in the official Swiss Pavilion, alongside the Swiss NGOs HELVETAS and Caritas Switzerland and also the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). Although Switzerland has one of the best public water services in the world, the Swiss Government directs the SDC to fully support water privatization abroad and Nestlé is a close partner of SDC. The Water Resources Group (WRG), an  initiative launched by Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Pepsi to lobby worldwide for water privatization was funded by SDC and SDC’s Director has a seat on its ‘Governance Council’ (see this)

More than 20 Brazilian NGOs, trade-unions and social movements aware of this close relationship between SDC and Nestlé,– including Indigenous organizations and the Landless Movement –  sent a public letter to Ambassador Manuel Sager, then director of SDC, demanding that SDC stop its support to Nestlé’s privatization policies and instead engage for Public-Public Partnerships, therefore helping poorer countries to develop their own public water companies following the Swiss model. (The original letter in Portuguese is here).

The Swiss NGO MULTIWATCH translated this letter into German and made it public in its website (see here)

Moreover, Multiwatch asked several Swiss organizations, including political parties, to support the Brazilian demand. (see here).

It was then clear that the Brazilian demand could bring problems to SDC and its partnership with Nestlé. And it was in this context that Nestlé suddenly announced its decision to sell all its Brazilian bottled water brands to a Brazilian company. It was a decision taken in order to protect SDC’s image and to avoid another INTERNATIONAL campaign against Nestlé’s bottled water facilities and water takings in Brazil.

By “selling” the bottled water brands to a Brazilian company, Nestlé put  distance between the citizen’s movements fighting the water takings and bottling facilities. This maneuver removed the ‘stigma’ of the Nestlé brand from the new Brazilian owners and protected SDC’s image inside Switzerland from another international campaign that could damage SDC’s image.

The ‘selling’ of Nestlé brands changed nothing in Brazil. The bottling operations and the environmental damage caused by the bottling water facilities continued after the transfer from Nestlé to the Brazilian company. In fact, the only visible change was in the attention the media paid to the citizens’ movements efforts: they got LESS attention from the press because the fight against a giant transnational corporation like Nestlé has much more appeal than the fight against a locally owned bottling company. It was not possible to confirm if the sale really happened or not, since such transactions are kept secret. There was only the announcement made by Nestlé. And there was no information in the press about the ownerships of the Nestlé sources   – from where the water comes – only about the brands.

The situation is very similar today to what is happening in the US and Canada regarding Nestlé. A short chronology is necessary to understand the story:

In February 2019 a first international meeting between movements fighting Nestlé water grabbing took place in VITTEL, France, attended by Canadians and myself from Switzerland and Brazil. In November 2019 the Canadian grassroots organization Wellington Water Watchers organized the “All Eyes on Nestlé” event, bringing together citizens’ movements from the US, Canada, France and Brazil /Switzerland all engaged in the fight against Nestlé. Another international meeting, planned to take place in March 2020 in Switzerland, was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the meantime, the Swiss Minister for Foreign Affairs Ignazio Cassis pushed a new strategy for SDC: more engagement of the private sector – including Nestlé –with the Swiss Development Aid. An important step in this direction was already taken by SDC in October 2019 when Christian Frutiger – ex- Nestlé Head of Public Affairs – was appointed as Vice-Director of SDC! This nomination would have passed unnoticed by the Swiss public if it were not for an international petition launched in the US by Story of Stuff and addressed to Ignazio Cassis demanding that he revoke the nomination of Christian Frutiger. (See here) The Swiss press took up the issue and several articles were published on this issue.

The Swiss political NGO PUBLIC EYE then published a report (here in French) about the private sector and  Swiss development aid. Public Eye had access to some official documents that were made public in this report, including a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in 2017 between Nestlé and SDC (see it in English here).

In this document the names of the people who signed the MOU on behalf of Nestlé and SDC were censored but a journalist from BLICK published an article on Sunday June 7^th confirming that Christian Frutiger signed it on behalf of Nestlé.

To make it clear: SDC and Nestlé agreed on a MOU where it is written on pg. 3:

“Nestlé is therefore prepared to invest resources and knowledge in communities and the environment through public-private partnerships, provided the investments create long-term business values too”

Less than 2 years later Mr. Christian Frutiger who signed this MOU on behalf of Nestlé is appointed Vice-Director of SDC. Under his direct control are SDCs program on Climate Change and…WATER!!!! The incestuous relationship between Nestlé and SDC is becoming a scandal in Switzerland and the Swiss Minster of Foreign Affairs Ignazio Cassis is under much public criticism.

Some Canadian organizations sent letters to Alliance Sud – a coalition of Swiss NGOs – setting out their worries about the nomination of Christian Frutiger at SDC and informing Alliance Sud about some of the problems with Nestlé in Canada. (These letters can be read here)

It is in this context that Nestlé announced it is considering to sell its bottled water brands in the US and Canada. It is very hard not to see in this announcement a similar strategy to the one employed in Brazil to protect Nestlé and SDC in Switzerland. Otherwise, why Nestlé is considering exactly NOW the selling of the bottled water brands?

If the bottled water brands of the US and Canada are sold to other companies – local or national ones – Nestlé immediately ceases to be the target of the many community groups fighting to keep their waters or to protect their environment – this problem is transferred to the new owners. Even better: an international campaign addressing Nestlé in Switzerland for what is happening in the US and Canada is not any more possible. Nestlé Switzerland can claim it has nothing any more to do with the issue, as it did in Brazil, even if the ‘selling’ is just a maneuver, a fiction built exactly to avoid an international campaign focussed in Switzerland. Such a campaign would also show that there are patterns repeating themselves wherever Nestlé is taking water for its bottling facilities – the problems in the communities in US or Canada or France are basically the same: a consequence of the water policies of Nestlé decided at the higher levels of the corporation.

SDC, the Swiss Government, Swiss political parties – from the right to the left – and NGOs engaged in protecting Nestlé in Switzerland are spared from a very embarrassing situation if Canadian and US citizens’ organizations do not come to Switzerland to denounce what Nestlé is doing in communities  in these countries. Nestlé is very much aware that social movements fighting Nestlé in  Canada and the US have the means and the power to challenge this corporation in its home country  Switzerland. And although SDC of course do not provide ‘development aid’ to northern countries and theoretically SDC has nothing to do with countries such as France, Canada or the US, the fact that in such rich and traditional western democracies communities are fighting against Nestlé to preserve their environment and waters is a clear warning about what  happens when Nestlé – with the support of SDC – is active in poorer countries with much more fragile democratic institutions.

Every possible measure should and will be taken in order to keep Nestlé’s close relationship with the Swiss Government protected from a deeper look by the Swiss citizens. The image of Nestlé in Switzerland is too valuable and the partnership with the Swiss government too important to be risked. This is the main reason why Nestlé is considering to ‘sell’ its bottled water brands in the US and Canada: so that everything can remain the same.

*

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 Pinterest

Although it may not seem this way, Serbia is in fact in a far more fragile condition than visitors may imagine. 

Elections to the parliament will be held in several days, but the outlook of the country is not expected to change. The incumbent president’s party, that is sure to receive over the 126 seats of 250 in total, has been consistent and steadfast in his path towards EU membership, despite the fact that this very membership resulted in untold suffering to the people of Greece, Italy, Spain, and even Croatia.

He has allowed and accepted EU’s dumping of cheap goods into the economy, that inevitably hurt deeply Serbian industries. And he is precisely the type who can bring the Serbs into the EU and seal their serfdom: He is not from the Left, he comes from the nationalist right, he uses nationalist terms to justify his capitulation, he presents the path towards the EU as inevitable, and he is the only candidate who can present sacrificing Kosovo, the heart of Serbian c, as a necessary evil, leading to the much bigger prize, prosperity in the EU. 

The prime minister says Serbs will soon get a 900 Euro salary per month. Talk never cost anything, but he is not entirely in error. There has been a growing strata of professionals in the high-tech and other industries who are making fat checks and seeing their life quality grow. Their reality does not reflect the majority, but they are eager to join the EU. Meanwhile, the EU has been pouring billions into the country with various honey traps of multiple kinds. A European company operating in Serbia receives free money from the government which it can then pocket as it sees fit and move out of the country when it deems appropriate after 2 or 3 years, for instance. The justice system at the top level is quite corrupt, allowing government officials to get away with far more than what meets the eye. This includes, but is not limited to, money laundering and drug trade by some of Belgrade’s inhabitants. But this expanding grey economy will not be what prevents Serbia from joining the EU. As colonial powers of the past, the core of the EU has no problem with outright ugly scenes of corruption as long as they are away from sight and do not take place in the centre  but in the periphery. 

Is Serbia’s Facing Pressure from the United States’ Deep State?

At first, despite having a wife from Slovenia, perhaps because if it, possibly due to a general isolationist tendency, thanks to the need on focusing in rekindling US labour market, or due to bad relations with the German Republic’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and a refocusing on igniting a trade war between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, President Trump refrained from meddling in the Balkans, thereby ending a long standing tradition of the Democratic Party.  

But at least a year ago the bad omens seem to have started.

First, calls  from the White House to pressure Serbia into recognising Kosovo began to be heard about a year ago. They may have quite possibly not been initiated from President Trump personally, but from the all-prevalent Deep State. Then, in March, the Serbian and Kosovar presidents met in the White House. Jared Kushner also attended. The major deal maker was Richard Grenell, the former US ambassador to Germany who fell out of odds with Berlin. There seems to have been intense dialogues behind the scene on how to solve the Kosovo issue. One possible solution proposed may have been to convince Serbia to recognise it, with the carrot being a speedy entry into the European Union.  Most recently, Richard Grenell said that on June 27th, both sides will meet again. There is an attempt, it seems, to take Kosovo off the table. Grenell phrased it nicely: ‘’temporarily pause the derecognition campaign and the seeking of international membership.’’

While there will be parliamentary elections in Serbia in several days, there has been an ongoing campaign to boycott Serbian goods in Kosovo. The campaign knew ups and downs and was supported by various figures in Kosovo, both from the opposition and the government. Such a boycott was probably a move meant to pressure Serbia to reach an agreement that would recognise Kosovo, an area rich in history and meaning for the Serbian people, that has declared independence against international law by with the support of the Clinton administration. But Kosovo is not strong enough to pressure Serbia. 

Serbia remains a stumbling block for the European Union and the NATO alliance. Its military, deeply weakened by the current government as funds have dwindled, is pro-Russia. Its citizenry, backward and primitive in the eyes of some. The Balkans is sure to become one of the next zones of a geopolitical battle between the west and Russia and China. China has been developing good relations with Serbia, to the benefit of both countries. While Serbia was desperate for medical equipment during the coronavirus outbreak, China stepped in to help. The EU did nothing.  But the EU is currently facing a major economic crisis. Coronavirus crippled the German economy, which, though strong, is likely to decline by at least 10% in the next quarter. The EU, a major neoliberal project, is suffering economically. The EU needs to expand to solve its own internal contradictions. Taking Serbia into the EU, is a sure way to both limit Russian and Chinese influence in the region, cut off Serbia from Russia, dump more good into Serbia, suck out its resources and industries, and destroy whatever is left of the Serbian economy. 

Serbia is facing an increasingly complicated geopolitical reality

The current geopolitical arrangement is not the best for those who wish to see a strong and independent Serbia. Trump’s popularity has declined from 49% to 44%. Not that he did not begin to meddle in Serbia, but a Joe Biden presidency may be far worse from Serbia’s perspective, if to judge by the history of the Democratic Party’s engagement with the region. The current ongoing uprising in the United States against police brutality and the murder of African Americans, the coronavirus debacle, and the chaos resulting from different policies being taken regarding a lockdown, placed Trump in a vulnerable position. His re-election is not to be taken for granted.

Russia, Serbia’s long time partner and ally is also in retreat. Oil prices are in historical low. The lockdown decimated the Russian economy, especially its Middle Class. Russia has long hoped for Trump to win the second elections. But now, with chaos engulfing US cities, 116,000 deaths, a mailed in ballots subject to possible manipulation, Trump may well lose to Joe Biden. This would mean that Biden, who played an active role In promoting the war in Iraq, may now decide to go for the Balkans and even start a conflagration with Russia. 

In Montenegro, a major nationalist campaign against Serbs has been taking place. It is somewhat unsafe for Serbs to visit the region. Montenegro is a NATO member.

The possible honey trap

The various liberal think-tanks have had decades to analyse the Serbian society and mentality. They know that most Serbs will not be coerced by force or intimidation. Instead, the honey trap is a far better option, though it requires patience. Serbia could be offered a speedy-track to EU membership, easy lines of credit, and major investments from the EU. But all these would be short-term. In the long run, the economy would be impoverished. The issue of Kosovo could be put off by a few years, it need not be decided now. With enough carrots for the Serbs, Serbia can become a supposedly prosperous EU member if prosperity means growing unemployment, the ability to travel and a higher cost of living. Then, after 10 years, when Serbia is well inside the EU and cannot possibly issue its own money, it will be forced to accept both Kosovo’s independence and entry into the EU. By then, there will be nearly nothing Serbia can do to resist.

Joe Biden, as part of the Obama school of thought, if it can indeed be given that name, and as a follower of Clinton, may have a weak spot for Kosovo and a strong animosity towards the Serbs, perpetuated by the late ambassador, Richard Holbrook. The contours of a potential scenario can already be seen: Biden winning the presidency, and getting a Germany on board. EU needing to expand. Serbia’s government willing to join the EU as it has already allowed EU to dump cheap goods into the market weakening the local industries and its food and cosmetics production. Serbians told that they can be rich and wealthy members of the EU superstate and can go to relocate to Paris and Rome, resulting in an even deeper brain-drain for the country and its loss of young potential. Whatever is left will be looted.

Ever since the NATO attacks, the expulsion of Serbs from Bosnia and Croatia, the severe ecological damage caused to the environment by NATO bombs, the lack of clean water, the promotion of EU postmodernist education, the Serbs have gradually become insecure and lost their touch with their roots and power. Their heart, Kosovo, has been taken from them at gunpoint in contravention of international law. All that is left for them is to join the EU, where they will finally lose their independence.  Now they may face a long and slow death, metaphorically and perhaps even realistically, as they are gradually positioned by EU austerity, adopt an obese lifestyle due to fast food and a loss of agricultural production. As the numbers die out, the proud country that once provoked World War I by daring to assassinate a foreign ruler, may now face slow extinction. 

Who Will come for the Rescue?

Since the dissolution of Yugoslavia egged on by the US and Germany, the NATO bombings, the expulsion of Serbs from Bosnia and Croatia, the severe ecological damage caused to the environment by NATO’s aerial blitzkrieg, the lack of clean water, the promotion of EU postmodernist education, and the demonisation campaign in the western media, the Serbs have gradually but surely lost touch with their roots and power. If they join the EU, they may finally lose whatever is left of their independence.  They may face a long and slow death, metaphorically or not, as they will be gradually poisoned by EU austerity, adopt an obese lifestyle due to fast food and a loss of agricultural production, and an even more extreme neoliberal regime than the one that they are currently facing. As the numbers die out, the proud country that once provoked World War I by daring to assassinate an Austrian ruler, may now face slow extinction. 

If Serbs are looking for allies, they may be wise to turn to Turkey. Russia has too many of its own problems after President Putin decided to opt for a total lockdown, decimating the economy in the process, unlike Belarus whose President Lukashenko wisely kept the economy going and with the Soviet-era vast epidemiological network left in tact.  Turkey, on the other hand, may also not want to see Kosovo join the EU, as this would mean a loss of influence in the Muslim region.  No one likes to be left outside of a party for the entire night, waiting in the cold. But ultimately, as in earlier battles, the Serbs may have to fight for their freedom and independence on their own. 

A graffiti in Belgrade stated that the future is yet to be written. 

*

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.

Joshua Tartakovsky is an independent American journalist residing in Belgrade.

All images in this article are from the author

The 45th president of the United States made his first international appearance on June 14, 1946. According to Donald Trump’s birth certificate, he was born at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York at 10:54 a.m.

Five minutes later, across town at Hunter College in the Bronx, UN Secretary General Trygve Lie called to order the inaugural meeting of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, established by the new UN General Assembly’s first (and understated) resolution “to deal with the problems raised by the discovery of atomic energy and other related matters.” Lie then gave the floor to the US representative, Bernard Baruch, who relayed a brief message from President Truman to the 12 members of the Commission: “Nothing concerns the whole world more than the achievement of the purpose that brings them together.”

Then Baruch presented the United States’ blueprint for taking everything related to nuclear energy, including its own weapons, out of the hands of sovereign states and placing it under  international control.

“We are here to make a choice between the quick and the dead,” he began. “That is our business.”

The notion that the United States would volunteer to give up its entire nuclear arsenal sounds like science fiction, especially these days. In many ways, Bernard Baruch can be considered the antithesis of Donald Trump, even beyond his approach to international nuclear diplomacy. Baruch was a lifelong Democrat; Woodrow Wilson nicknamed him “Dr. Facts”; he was widely respected for his financial acumen; and he enjoyed talking about politics with people gathered near his favorite park bench in Washington D.C.’s Lafayette Park. There were some parallels too: A New York Times review of a Baruch biography suggested that “he knew better than any public figure of his time how to exploit the press’s need for news.” 

But on June 14, 1946, as Trump continued to adjust to life outside the womb, Baruch continued his presentation to the Atomic Energy Commission. “The United States proposes the creation of an International Atomic Energy Development Authority,” he said, “to which should be entrusted all phases of the development and use of atomic energy, starting with the raw material.” This new authority would alone have “control of all potentially dangerous atomic activities” and full power to conduct inspections for violations.

Baruch detailed the terms, including:

When an adequate system for control of atomic energy, including the renunciation of the bomb as a weapon, has been agreed upon and put into effective operation and condign punishments set up for violations of the rules of control which are to be stigmatized as international crimes, we propose that:

1. Manufacture of atomic bombs shall stop;
2. Existing bombs shall be disposed of pursuant to the terms of the treaty, and
3. the authority shall be in possession of full information as to the know-how for the production of atomic knowledge.

Let me repeat, so as to avoid misunderstanding: my country is ready to make its full contribution toward the end we seek, subject, of course, to our constitutional processes, and to an adequate system of control becoming fully effective, as we finally work it out.

More than seven decades later, it has not been worked out.

In the months before and after the June 1946 meeting, the recently launched Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists devoted many pages to discussion of the Baruch plan and the Acheson-Lilienthal report it was based on. An unsigned Bulletin editorial in the July issue stated: “We cannot afford to become angry or impatient, if other nations do not agree immediately with what we consider as a generous and equitable plan proposed in good faith. The establishment of an Atomic Energy Authority of the kind contemplated in the Baruch proposal is for us a matter of enlightened self-interest; we must bend all efforts towards persuading the USSR that it is equally a matter of enlightened self-interest for the Russians.”  

A belated correction: The July 1, 1946 edition of the Bulletin identified the date of the first United Nations Atomic Energy Commission meeting as June 13. The date was June 14.

When the Baruch plan finally came up for a vote at the end of 1946, the Soviet Union abstained, guaranteeing that it would not be approved in the Security Council (where the Soviets had the veto). The underlying cause of the plan’s demise is a matter of some debate. The Soviets were concerned that the United States would take advantage of its stature at the United Nations to simply maintain its monopoly on atomic weapons. Another view is that the Soviet Union would not accept the robust inspection regime that was at the core of Baruch’s scheme. The US proposal to discard the veto power on nuclear-related issues may have been an intentional wrench in the works that the Soviet Union opposed. The truth is likely all of the above, and historians argue that neither Truman nor Stalin were particularly enthusiastic to begin with (cables published and translated online this month from the Russian State Archive reveal some of the deliberation that went on between New York and Moscow at the time).

The arms race dynamic took hold. US presidents publicly advocated for nuclear disarmament at various points throughout the Cold War (a term first used in the US-Soviet context by Baruch himself), but the Baruch plan was as near as a major nuclear power  has come to relinquishing its warheads. In 1951—when Donald Trump was five years old and still living in Queens, just down the street from the United Nations’ temporary offices in Lake Success—Truman gave a radio address ostensibly intended to rekindle elements of the original plan, but at the same time he continued to point the finger at the Soviet Union:

“It is true that we have met rebuffs and refusals from the Soviet government, ever since the day we offered to give up our monopoly of atomic weapons and to prohibit them under a system of International control. Nevertheless, as responsible men and women, we must try for disarmament in spite of all difficulties. We cannot permit the history of our times to record that we failed by default.”

At age 15, Trump might have tuned in again as his future predecessor John F. Kennedy renewed a call for disarmament during his September 1961 address to the United Nations.

“We far prefer world law, in the age of self-determination, to world war, in the age of mass extermination,” Kennedy said. “The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us… And men may no longer pretend that the quest for disarmament is a sign of weakness–for in a spiraling arms race, a nation’s security may well be shrinking even as its arms increase.”

But by the time Donald Trump was old enough not to drink, the United States nuclear arsenal had neared its 1966 peak of more than 31,000 warheads.

Over the next several decades, disarmament efforts were outshined by bilateral arms control and non-proliferation agreements as the primary achievements of nuclear diplomacy. From the 1970 Nonproliferation Treaty to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile and 1987 INF treaties, and from SALT I and II to START and then New START, limits on nuclear weapons have been far more successful than attempts to eliminate them altogether. But nuclear weapons have never been controlled in the ways first proposed by the members of the UN Atomic Energy Commission.

When the Baruch plan turned 40 in 1986, so did Trump. Around that time he reportedly met with another Bernard, Bernard Lown—founder of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize. According to Lown, Trump wanted his help connecting with Mikhail Gorbachev so he could become Ronald Reagan’s indispensable nuclear negotiator.

“[Trump] said he would go to Moscow and he’d sit down with Gorbachev,” Lown told the Hollywood Reporter. “And then he took his thumb and he hit the desk and he said, ‘And within one hour the Cold War would be over!’ I sat there dumbfounded. ‘Who is this self-inflated individual? Is he sane or what?'”

Later that year Gorbachev and Reagan famously contemplated ridding the world of nuclear weapons once and for all at their summit in Reykjavik—but contemplation is as far as it got. Those discussions did, however, give the ambitious goal of total disarmament a new lease on life.

Few could have predicted then that New York’s most notorious real-estate developer would eventually occupy Reagan’s seat and become the world’s most effective nuclear deal breaker. Under Trump’s watch, the United States has subverted most of the major nuclear agreements of the past four decades, beginning with the Iran deal (signed by former secretary of state John Kerry on Trump’s birthday in 2015), the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, and the Open Skies treaty. The New START treaty that limits and provides for inspection of US and Russian nuclear warheads is on its final lap, while the White House gestures toward unlikely new trilateral agreements and mulls resuming nuclear tests.

In fact, Trump has moved in the opposite direction, urging massive expenditures for modernization of the nuclear arsenal and potentially unnecessary plutonium pit production. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review expanded the possibility of nuclear weapons being used to respond to non-nuclear attacks, and opened up a new era of warhead development that led to the deployment late last year of so-called “low-yield” nuclear-tipped missiles on submarines—each with explosive power only marginally less than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a few weeks before Trump was conceived. Born together with the beginnings of international disarmament, he has become one of its greatest enemies, ignoring experts and surrounding himself with opponents of international agreements.

Now, nations of the world are learning to move on as best they can absent the interests outlined by the United States in 1946. The text of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was agreed to by 122 countries in 2017, at the second session of the UN Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, Leading Towards their Total Elimination (which began the day after Trump’s 71st birthday). Last week, Lesotho became the 38th country to ratify the treaty, which will enter into force with 12 more ratifications. 81 states have signed. Although the nine nuclear states show no intention of joining in, the “paper victory” is still seen by the treaty’s proponents as a critical step forward in the long delayed project of eliminating nuclear weapons for good.

Donald Trump turns 74 this Sunday, just a few days before he appears set to ignore the pandemic and take his 2020 reelection campaign back out on the road. While the president may lack similar enthusiasm for international nuclear disarmament, the effort has lasted as many years as he has, ever since Baruch first left his “bench of inspiration” to address the UN in 1946.

***

A timeline of nuclear events on (or around) Donald Trump’s birthday on June 14

*

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.

Thomas Gaulkin is multimedia editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Prior to joining the Bulletin in 2018, he spent the previous decade working in communications at the University of Chicago, first with the centers for International Studies and International Social Science Research, and later as director of News and Online Content for the Division of the Social Sciences. From 1999-2002 and again in 2006 Gaulkin produced Worldview, Chicago Public Radio’s daily global affairs program.

Featured image is by Thomas Gaulkin. (National Museum of the US Air Force photo by Kelly Michals/CC-BY-NC)

With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promising to annex portions of the West Bank, liberal critics here in the US and across Europe are in a tizzy. They have been quick to point fingers blaming this crisis on Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump, since Trump’s “Deal of the Century” allows for Israel to claim at least 30 per cent of the West Bank. The critics, however, are wrong since paternity for this imminent extension of Israeli sovereignty over occupied Palestinian lands goes beyond the current Israeli government or the Trump Administration. There are, in fact, three culprits.

In the first place, blame must be placed squarely on the shoulders of all Israeli governments going back to the beginning of the occupation over one-half century ago. Since then, Israel has repeatedly violated international law by establishing settlements in the occupied territories, initially claiming it was for “security reasons:” to thicken its border, to surround and lay claim to an expanded Jerusalem and to control the Jordan Valley.

In the late 1970s, Likud embraced a plan to both accelerate settlement construction in these areas while also expanding settlements in the interior of the West Bank. The plan also called for building roads to connect these settlements to pre- ‘67 Israel for the expressed purpose of carving up the West Bank making a contiguous Palestinian area impossible.

After signing the Oslo Accords, the pace of settlement expansion in the West Bank intensified with settler population doubling in the first eight years. In the past two decades, the number of settlers doubled once again.

In reality, whether Israel formally extends sovereignty or not, today Israel has virtually annexed much of the West Bank, exercising near complete control over the occupied territories. They have moved over 650,000 of their citizens beyond the internationally recognised border, built roads and infrastructure to connect these settlers to Israel proper, constructed a 466 kilometres wall, much of it on Palestinian land, and set up over 100 checkpoints, denying Palestinians freedom of movement. In the Jordan Valley, they have burned thousands of acres of Palestinian agricultural land and fenced off much more. As a result, the West Bank and what the Israelis call “East Jerusalem” (actually 24 Palestinian villages now termed “neighbourhoods” in the fiction Israelis call “Greater Jerusalem”) are now even further divided without access to land and water.

Fault must also be found with successive American administrations which protested or complained, but ultimately acquiesced to this Israeli colonial conquest. During this half-century, US policy shifted from calling settlements “illegal”, to “obstacles to peace”, to “unhelpful”, to saying “continued settlement expansion is illegitimate”.

Beginning with the Bush Administration and continuing under the Obama Administration, while new settlement expansion was frowned upon, existing settlements were viewed as “realities”. For the Israelis, the lesson was clear, settlement expansion might be frowned upon, but once built, they were accepted, so why not let the US whine while continuing to build? The refusal or inability of the US to act decisively to put the brakes on settlement expansion led to an Israeli sense of impunity. In this context, the approach taken by the Trump Administration in its “Deal of the Century” is the logical extension of 50 years of US acquiescence.

Even liberal US voices who oppose annexation fall short in their criticism. Their critiques are all too often hollow and toothless, since they refuse to couple their warnings with any promise to cut aid to Israel or any other sanctions that might cause an Israeli government to reconsider. Their pious claims of wanting to protect the “two state solution” are, at best, hollow — more of a “two-state absolution” — as if this show of support absolves them of their failures to call for the very measures that might make such a Palestinian state a reality.

Last but not least, Europe must share some of the blame. We are 100 years after the notorious San Remo Conference, which not unlike the Trump “Deal of the Century”, arrogated to itself the right to carve up the region and support the Balfour Declaration without any consultation with or consideration for the rights of the indigenous people of whose lands they were giving away. In the intervening years Europe changed, but only somewhat.

It was 40 years ago this month, that nine major European countries, frustrated with the lack of US leadership, issued the Venice Declaration, in which they called for an end to the occupation in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 224 and 338, the right of the Palestinians to be represented by the PLO, and their right to self-determination.

But in the four decades that have passed, while Europe has passed numerous declarations and voted to condemn Israeli policies on a number of occasions, including a recent statement warning against Israel’s annexation of the territories, they continued to cede control of Israeli-Palestinian peace to US. In addition, European declarations are without teeth, so their warnings have been ignored. And so, while the US has become either Israel’s coat holder or cheerleader, Europe has rendered itself an impotent bystander in a conflict for which they have some paternity and toward which they could have an impact.

If we are to learn any lessons from past failures, on the eve of Israel’s threat to formally annex parts of the West Bank, here’s what must be done:

First, Israel must be called to account not only if it moves forward with annexation, but for its half-century of lawless behaviour. To end impunity, there must be accountability. The response cannot just be recognition of a Palestinian state. Because this state will still not be in control of its territory, economy, and resources, such recognition will be a hollow gesture. Accountability requires sanctions, because if there are no economic and political consequences, then bad behaviour will continue.

In line with this, it is of critical importance that the human rights of the Palestinian people be elevated as a concern by the international community. The Palestinian people cannot remain defenceless as they continue to be victimised by the Israeli occupation and settler violence. Land theft, home demolitions, collective punishment of civilian populations, mass incarceration, abuse of children, the daily humiliation at checkpoints and other forms of repression will continue to scar Palestinians as long as the international community feigns powerlessness.

Exposure of these Israeli crimes is the first step. Accountability and sanctions are the remedy.

Europe, or at the European states who issued the Venice Declaration, should recognise that the factor, the US inability to act as an honest broker, that led them to assert (but then fail to deliver on) their “special role” and responsibility still exists. They should assume a greater role to balance that played by the US. That will, of necessity, require political and economic sanctions, because mere statements of condemnation will continue to be ignored.

*

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.

James J. Zogby is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.

Just a week or so ago the mainstream media and thousands representing the “medical community” told us we must throw out the “stay-at-home” orders and go to the streets to protest the death of George Floyd at the hands of the police. The Covid-19 virus will not bother people who are protesting this injustice, they said. The virus only attacks people leaving their homes to protest the stay-at-home orders.

Now, after thousands of businesses – many of them black-owned – have been reduced to rubble and innocent people in the inner cities no longer have anywhere to shop for the basic necessities of life, the mainstream media has backed off of its non-stop coverage of the protests. Suddenly last week they all simultaneously embraced a new fear story to terrify the masses: a “second wave” of coronavirus was among us. It was targeting those states that dared to “open up” their economies and begin a return to relatively normal lives.

Texas, Florida, and California were singled out to scare the rest of the country into thinking that if you dare leave your homes you will catch coronavirus and die. There was a “spike” in coronavirus “cases” they claimed. Funny, just a month or so ago they were demanding that we massively increase testing, which would produce just that “spike” in coronavirus cases they are now using to scare authorities into reinstating the incredibly destructive stay-at-home orders.

In the county here in Texas that includes Houston, the young judge who somehow seized the power to shut down the third largest city in the United States warns us that she may again shut down Harris County to fight this “second wave” of cases. She even threatened to again pour millions of dollars into a “field hospital” at a Houston football stadium that did not see a single patient in the “first wave” of coronavirus. It’s hard not to wonder which politically-connected companies are reaping millions in contracts for an obviously un-needed hospital. Thousands of hospital beds in Houston are vacant, while cancer patients have been refused their screenings and desperately needed treatments.

As former Congressman David Stockman points out, the actual coronavirus numbers do not in any way support the media assertion that a “second wave” of infection is cresting over Texas. Stockman informs us that in Texas the “reported infected case rate of 256 per 100,000 is just 10 percent  of the real ‘hot spot’ rate of 2,477 per 100,000 in the five boroughs of New York City; and its mortality rate of 6.2 per 100,000 population is just 3 percent of New York City’s 196 per 100,000 rate.”

There are no “hot spots” in Texas. It’s just more media hype.

It’s funny that they don’t dare mention Georgia, which has also opened its economy and has seen no “spike” at all.

The same people who were demanding more testing are now screaming that we must shut the economy down again because these tests – which are notoriously unreliable – are showing more coronavirus cases. This is a disease that 99.9 percent of the people who are infected with survive! But 40 million people out of work and the thousands of lives that will end due to the shutdown are never mentioned.

There is something else going on here and it is in no way related to public health.

*

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

Featured image is from Morning Star

In October, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department turned parts of the campus of the University of California in Berkeley into an urban battlefield. The occasion was Urban Shield 2011, an annual SWAT team exposition organized to promote “mutual response,” collaboration and competition between heavily militarized police strike forces representing law enforcement departments across the United States and foreign nations.

At the time, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department was preparing for an imminent confrontation with the nascent “Occupy” movement that had set up camp in downtown Oakland, and would demonstrate the brunt of its repressive capacity against the demonstrators a month later when it attacked the encampment with teargas and rubber bullet rounds, leaving an Iraq war veteran in critical condition and dozens injured. According to Police Magazine, a law enforcement trade publication, “Law enforcement agencies responding to…Occupy protesters in northern California credit Urban Shield for their effective teamwork.”

Training alongside the American police departments at Urban Shield was the Yamam, an Israeli Border Police unit that claims to specialize in “counter-terror” operations but is better known for its extra-judicial assassinations of Palestinian militant leaders and long record of repression and abuses in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Urban Shield also featured a unit from the military of Bahrain, which had just crushed a largely non-violent democratic uprising by opening fire on protest camps and arresting wounded demonstrators when they attempted to enter hospitals. While the involvement of Bahraini soldiers in the drills was a novel phenomenon, the presence of quasi-military Israeli police – whose participation in Urban Shield was not reported anywhere in US media – reflected a disturbing but all-too-common feature of the post-9/11 American security landscape.

The Israelification of America’s security apparatus, recently unleashed in full force against the Occupy Wall Street Movement, has taken place at every level of law enforcement, and in areas that have yet to be exposed. The phenomenon has been documented in bits and pieces, through occasional news reports that typically highlight Israel’s national security prowess without examining the problematic nature of working with a country accused of grave human rights abuses. But it has never been the subject of a national discussion. And collaboration between American and Israeli cops is just the tip of the iceberg.

Having been schooled in Israeli tactics perfected during a 63 year experience of controlling, dispossessing, and occupying an indigenous population, local police forces have adapted them to monitor Muslim and immigrant neighborhoods in US cities. Meanwhile, former Israeli military officers have been hired to spearhead security operations at American airports and suburban shopping malls, leading to a wave of disturbing incidents of racial profiling, intimidation, and FBI interrogations of innocent, unsuspecting people. The New York Police Department’s disclosure that it deployed “counter-terror” measures against Occupy protesters encamped in downtown Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park raised serious questions about the extent to which Israeli-inspired tactics have been used to suppress the Occupy movement in general.

The process of Israelification began in the immediate wake of 9/11, when national panic led federal and municipal law enforcement officials to beseech Israeli security honchos for advice and training. America’s Israel lobby exploited the climate of hysteria, providing thousands of top cops with all-expenses paid trips to Israel and stateside training sessions with Israeli military and intelligence officials. By now, police chiefs of major American cities who have not been on junkets to Israel are the exception.

“Israel is the Harvard of antiterrorism,” said former US Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer, who now serves as the US Senate Sergeant-at-Arms. Cathy Lanier, the Chief of the Washington DC Metropolitan Police, remarked, “No experience in my life has had more of an impact on doing my job than going to Israel.” “One would say it is the front line,” Barnett Jones, the police chief of Ann Arbor, Michigan, said of Israel. “We’re in a global war.”

Changing the way we do business

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) is at the heart of American-Israeli law enforcement collaboration. JINSA is a Jerusalem and Washington DC-based think tank known for stridently neoconservative policy positions on Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians and its brinkmanship with Iran. The group’s board of directors boasts a Who’s Who of neocon ideologues. Two former JINSA advisers who have also consulted for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, went on to serve in the Department of Defense under President George W. Bush, playing influential roles in the push to invade and occupy Iraq.

Through its Law Enforcement Education Program (LEEP), JINSA claims to have arranged Israeli-led training sessions for over 9000 American law enforcement officials at the federal, state and municipal level. “The Israelis changed the way we do business regarding homeland security in New Jersey,” Richard Fuentes, the NJ State Police Superintendent, said after attending a 2004 JINSA-sponsored Israel trip and a subsequent JINSA conference alongside 435 other law enforcement officers.

During a 2004 LEEP trip, JINSA brought 14 senior American law enforcement officials to Israel to receive instruction from their counterparts. The Americans were trained in “how to secure large venues, such as shopping malls, sporting events and concerts,” JINSA’s website reported. Escorted by Brigadier General Simon Perry, an Israeli police attaché and former Mossad official, the group toured the Israeli separation wall, now a mandatory stop for American cops on junkets to Israel. “American officials learned about the mindset of a suicide bomber and how to spot trouble signs,” according to JINSA. And they were schooled in Israeli killing methods. “Although the police are typically told to aim for the chest when shooting because it is the largest target, the Israelis are teaching [American] officers to aim for a suspect’s head so as not to detonate any explosives that might be strapped to his torso,” the New York Times reported.

Cathy Lanier, now the Chief of Washington DC’s Metropolitan Police Department, was among the law enforcement officials junketed to Israel by JINSA. “I was with the bomb units and the SWAT team and all of those high profile specialized [Israeli] units and I learned a tremendous amount,” Lanier reflected. “I took 82 pages of notes while I was there which I later brought back and used to formulate a lot of what I later used to create and formulate the Homeland Security terrorism bureau in the DC Metropolitan Police department.”

Some of the police chiefs who have taken part in JINSA’s LEEP program have done so under the auspices of the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a private non-governmental group with close ties to the Department of Homeland Security. Chuck Wexler, the executive director of PERF, was so enthusiastic about the program that by 2005 he had begun organizing trips to Israel sponsored by PERF, bringing numerous high-level American police officials to receive instruction from their Israeli counterparts.

PERF gained notoriety when Wexler confirmed that his group coordinated police raids in 16 cities across America against “Occupy” protest encampments. As many as 40 cities have sought PERF advice on suppressing the “Occupy” movement and other mass protest activities. Wexler did not respond to my requests for an interview.

Lessons from Israel to Auschwitz

Besides JINSA, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has positioned itself as an important liaison between American police forces and the Israeli security-intelligence apparatus. Though the ADL promotes itself as a Jewish civil rights group, it has provoked controversy by publishing a blacklist of organizations supporting Palestinian rights, and for condemning a proposal to construct an Islamic community center in downtown New York, several blocks from Ground Zero, on the basis that some opponents of the project were entitled to “positions that others would characterize as irrational or bigoted.”

Through the ADL’s Advanced Training School course on Extremist and Terrorist Threats, over 700 law enforcement personnel from 220 federal and local agencies including the FBI and CIA have been trained by Israeli police and intelligence commanders. This year, the ADL brought 15 high-level American police officials to Israel for instruction from the country’s security apparatus. According to the ADL, over 115 federal, state and local law enforcement executives have undergone ADL-organized training sessions in Israel since the program began in 2003. “I can honestly say that the training offered by ADL is by far the most useful and current training course I have ever attended,” Deputy Commissioner Thomas Wright of the Philadelphia Police Department commented after completing an ADL program this year. The ADL’s relationship with the Washington DC Police Department is so cozy its members are invited to accompany DC cops on “ride along” patrols.

The ADL claims to have trained over 45,000 American law enforcement officials through its Law Enforcement and Society program, which “draws on the history of the Holocaust to provide law enforcement professionals with an increased understanding of…their role as protectors of the Constitution,” the group’s website stated. All new FBI agents and intelligence analysts are required to attend the ADL program, which is incorporated into three FBI training programs. According to officialFBI recruitment material, “all new special agents must visit the US Holocaust Memorial Museum to see firsthand what can happen when law enforcement fails to protect individuals.”

Fighting “crimiterror”

Among the most prominent Israeli government figure to have influenced the practices of American law enforcement officials is Avi Dichter, a former head of Israel’s Shin Bet internal security service and current member of Knesset who recently introduced legislation widely criticized as anti-democratic. During the Second Intifada, Dichter ordered several bombings on densely populated Palestinian civilian areas, including one on the al-Daraj neighborhood of Gaza that resulted in the death of 15 innocent people, including 8 children, and 150 injuries. “After each success, the only thought is, ‘Okay, who’s next?’” Dichter said of the “targeted” assassinations he has ordered.

Despite his dubious human rights record and apparently dim view of democratic values, or perhaps because of them, Dichter has been a key figure in fostering cooperation between Israeli security forces and American law enforcement. In 2006, while Dichter was serving as Israel’s Minister of Public Security, he spoke in Boston, Massachusetts before the annual convention of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Seated beside FBI Director Robert Mueller and then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, Dichter told the 10,000 police officers in the crowd that there was an “intimate connection between fighting criminals and fighting terrorists.” Dichter declared that American cops were actually “fighting crimiterrorists.” The Jerusalem Post reported that Dichter was “greeted by a hail of applause, as he was hugged by Mueller, who described Dichter as his mentor in anti-terror tactics.”

A year after Dichter’s speech, he and then-Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff signed a joint memorandum pledging security collaboration between America and Israel on issues ranging from airport security to emergency planning. In 2010, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano authorized a new joint memorandum with Israeli Transport and Road Safety Minister Israel Katz shoring up cooperation between the US Transportation Security Agency – the agency in charge of day-to-day airport security – and Israel’s Security Department. The recent joint memorandum also consolidated the presence of US Homeland Security law enforcement personnel on Israeli soil. “The bond between the United States and Israel has never been stronger,” Napolitano remarked at a recent summit of AIPAC, the leading outfit of America’s Israel lobby, in Scottsdale, Arizona.

The Demographic Unit

For the New York Police Department, collaboration with Israel’s security and intelligence apparatus became a top priority after 9/11. Just months after the attacks on New York City, the NYPD assigned a permanent, taxpayer-funded liaison officer to Tel Aviv. Under the leadership of Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, ties between the NYPD and Israel have deepened by the day. Kelly embarked on his first trip to Israel in early 2009 to demonstrate his support for Israel’s ongoing assault on the Gaza Strip, a one-sided attack that left over 1400 Gaza residents dead in three weeks and led a United Nations fact-finding mission to conclude that Israeli military and government officials had committed war crimes.

Kelly returned to Israel the following year to speak at the Herziliya Conference, an annual gathering of neoconservative security and government officials who obsess over supposed “demographic threats.” After Kelly appeared on stage, the Herziliya crowd was addressed by the pro-Israel academic Martin Kramer, who claimed that Israel’s blockade of Gaza was helping to reduce the numbers of “superfluous young men of fighting age.” Kramer added, “If a state can’t control these young men, then someone else will.”

Back in New York, the NYPD set up a secret “Demographics Unit” designed to spy on and monitor Muslim communities around the city. The unit was developed with input and intensive involvement by the CIA, which still refuses to name the former Middle East station chief it has posted in the senior ranks of the NYPD’s intelligence division. Since 2002, the NYPD has dispatched undercover agents known as “rakers” and “mosque crawlers” into Pakistani-American bookstores and restaurants to gauge community anger over US drone strikes inside Pakistan, and into Palestinian hookah bars and mosques to search out signs of terror recruitment and clandestine funding. “If a raker noticed a customer looking at radical literature, he might chat up the store owner and see what he could learn,” the Associated Press reported. “The bookstore, or even the customer, might get further scrutiny.”

The Israeli imprimatur on the NYPD’s Demographics Unit is unmistakable. As a former police official told the Associated Press, the Demographics Unit has attempted to “map the city’s human terrain” through a program “modeled in part on how Israeli authorities operate in the West Bank.”

Shop ‘til you’re stopped

At Israel’s Ben Gurion International Airport, security personnel target non-Jewish and non-white passengers, especially Arabs, as a matter of policy. The most routinely harassed passengers are Palestinian citizens of Israel, who must brace themselves for five-hour interrogation sessions and strip searches before flying. Those singled out for extra screening by Shin Bet officers are sent to what many Palestinians from Israel call the “Arab room,” where they are subjected to humiliating questioning sessions (former White House Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala encountered such mistreatment during a visit to Israel last year). Some Palestinians are forbidden from speaking to anyone until takeoff, and may be menaced by Israeli flight attendants during the flight. In one documented case, a six-month-old was awoken for a strip search by Israeli Shin Bet personnel. Instances of discrimination against Arabs at Ben Gurion International are too numerous to detail – several incidents occur each day – but a few of the more egregious instances were outlined in a 2007 petition the Association for Civil Rights in Israel filed with the country’s Supreme Court.

Though the Israeli system of airline security contains dubious benefits and clearly deleterious implications for civil liberties, it is quietly and rapidly migrating into major American airports. Security personnel at Boston’s Logan International Airport have undergone extensive training from Israeli intelligence personnel, learning to apply profiling and behavioral assessment techniques against American citizens that were initially tested on Palestinians. The new procedures began in August, when so-called Behavior Detection Officers were placed in security queues at Logan’s heavily trafficked Terminal A. Though the procedures have added to traveler stress while netting exactly zero terrorists, they are likely to spread to other cities. “I would like to see a lot more profiling” in American airports, said Yossi Sheffi, an Israeli-born risk analyst at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Transportation and Logistics.

Israeli techniques now dictate security procedures at the Mall of America, a gargantuan shopping mall in Bloomington, Minnesota that has become a major tourist attraction. The new methods took hold in 2005 when the mall hired a former Israeli army sergeant named Mike Rozin to lead a special new security unit. Rozin, who once worked with a canine unit at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel, instructed his employees at the Mall of America to visually profile every shopper, examining their expressions for suspicious signs. His security team accosts and interrogates an average of 1200 shoppers a year, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting.

One of the thousands who fell into Rozin’s dragnet was Najam Qureshi, a Pakistani-American mall vendor whose father accidentally left his cell phone on a table in the mall food court. A day after the incident, FBI agents appeared at Qureshi’s doorstep to ask if he knew anyone seeking to harm the United States. An army veteran interrogated for two hours by Rozin’s men for taking video inside the mall sobbed openly about his experience to reporters. Meanwhile, another man, Emile Khalil, was visited by FBI agents after mall security stopped him for taking photographs of the dazzling consumer haven.

“I think that the threat of terrorism in the United States is going to become an unfortunate part of American life,” Rozin remarked to American Jewish World. And as long as the threat persists in the public’s mind, Israeli securitocrats like Rozin will never have to worry about the next paycheck.

“Occupy” meets the occupation

When a riot squad from the New York Police Department destroyed and evicted the “Occupy Wall Street” protest encampment at Zuccotti Park in downtown Manhattan, department leadership drew on the anti-terror tactics they had refined since the 9/11 attacks. According to the New York Times, the NYPD deployed “counterterrorism measures” to mobilize large numbers of cops for the lightning raid on Zuccotti. The use of anti-terror techniques to suppress a civilian protest complemented harsh police measures demonstrated across the country against the nationwide “Occupy” movement, from firing tear gas canisters and rubber bullets into unarmed crowds to blasting demonstrators with the LRAD sound cannon.

Given the amount of training the NYPD and so many other police forces have received from Israel’s military-intelligence apparatus, and the profuse levels of gratitude American police chiefs have expressed to their Israeli mentors, it is worth asking how much Israeli instruction has influenced the way the police have attempted to suppress the Occupy movement, and how much they will inform police repression of future examples of street protest. What can be said for certain is that the Israelification of American law enforcement has intensified police fear and hostility towards the civilian population, blurring the lines between protesters, criminals, and terrorists. As Dichter said, they are all just “crimiterrorists.”

*

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.

Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza. Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America’s state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic repercussions.

Featured image is from The Grayzone

The Wall Street Journal said that the U.S. is preparing tariffs against a range of trading partners unless they back off proposals to impose taxes that would fall heavily on major American internet companies. The threat of tariffs is against many countries, including the entirety of the European Union, India, Indonesia, Turkey, and even Washington’s most loyal allies like the United Kingdom and Brazil.

These countries became the target of U.S. President Donald Trump as they are about to impose taxes on U.S. internet giants accustomed to enjoying special tax privileges – particularly Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple. However, in order to defend their unwritten privileges guaranteed in a neoliberal economic system, Trump is ready to seriously hinder relations with its closest allies to defend the interests of megacorporation’s, making a mockery of his “America First” slogan.

Multinational companies record their income and financial statements in countries with minimum taxation regardless of the country in which they actually provided their services. Theoretically, this system can be used by any company, but historically it has been shown that the main beneficiaries of such systems are American companies. The problem is so acute that the informal international name of this tax is GAFA – Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple.

If we look at France for example, they are requesting only €500 million a year, suggesting that the amount that has to be paid by these companies is not a big issue. The issue for the U.S. is defending the principle of free market neoliberalism. As early as 2019, French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire responded sharply to criticism of this tax by stating that “France is a sovereign country, its decisions on tax matters are sovereign and will remain sovereign.”

The digital tax is a precedent for demonstrating true sovereignty, and it is because of this aspect that even Trump is willing to enter economic conflict with Washington’s closest allies for the interests of companies that are in fact against Trump and support presidential candidate rival Joe Biden. It is a matter of defending American economic hegemony and neoliberalism, which is also to the interest of Trump’s business ventures.

The U.S. has even imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court in The Hague for investigating war crimes against American soldiers. According to Deutsche Welle, Trump has ensured U.S.-based assets belonging to persons who will be participants in the International Criminal Court’s proceedings against American employees will be blocked. Such persons will also be prohibited from setting aside money, and they and their families will be denied entry to the U.S.

In this context, threats against France to introduce prohibitive tariffs on French wine, cheese and luxury goods are quite common. This threat alone was enough to force France to postpone the introduction of the tax, setting the new to date to the end of 2020. But the coronavirus pandemic has drastically changed the situation. The European Union and other countries need money to deal with the economic consequences of the pandemic. In addition, U.S. authority on the international stage has declined. Eventually, Washington may find itself in a situation where protecting American internet giants will require a real economic war with most of the world and could create a huge separation between Washington and its closest allies. If necessary, Trump will most likely do this, but such a policy has a high cost.

The European Union is about to set another precedent for demonstrating its sovereignty – with much more serious financial consequences. According to The Wall Street Journal, the European Commission is preparing to formally charge Amazon with antitrust violations and using its dominant market position to copy successful European-made products and then sell their own cheap copies, depriving European companies of revenue from within their own market.

These are no longer taxes that are being introduced at low rates in anticipation of their future growth, but potential fines in the tens of billions of dollars and perhaps even administrative bans on certain activities in the European Union. In the future, most American information technology giants could easily be exposed to similar antitrust measures, creating a place for European companies in their own markets to prosper and grow.

It is clear that U.S. sanctions, tariffs and threats are still very powerful weapons. But every day, the number of those who want to test the power of this hegemon is increasing, and their attempts are becoming more daring and extensive. For this reason, there is a strong possibility that the American president will impose sanctions against his country’s closest allies to get them back under U.S. economic control, but it is unlikely to be successful.

*

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

Muitas indústrias e empresas de serviços estão a falhar ou a redimensionar-se devido ao ‘lockdown’ e à crise consequente. Ao contrário, existe quem ganhou com tudo isto. O Facebook, Google (proprietário do YouTube), Microsoft, Apple e Amazon – escreve o New York Times – “estão a fazer agressivamente novas apostas, visto que a pandemia do coronavírus os tornou serviços quase essenciais”.

Todos estes “Tech Giants” (Gigantes da Tecnologia) são dos Estados Unidos. O Facebook – não mais definido como rede social, mas como “ecossistema”, do qual fazem parte o WhatsApp, Instagram e Messenger – ultrapassou os 3 biliões de utilizadores mensais. Portanto, não é de admirar que, em plena crise do coronavírus, o Facebook lance o projecto de uma das maiores redes de cabos submarinos, a  2Africa: com 37.000 km de comprimento (quase a circunferência máxima da Terra), que rodeará todo o continente africano, ligando-o a norte à Europa e a leste ao Médio Oriente.

Os países interligados  serão, inicialmente, 23. Partindo da Grã-Bretanha, a rede ligará Portugal antes de iniciar o seu círculo em volta de África através do Senegal, Costa do Marfim, Gana, Nigéria, Gabão, República do Congo, República Democrática do Congo, África do Sul, Moçambique, Madagascar, Tanzânia, Quénia, Somália, Djibuti, Sudão, Egipto. Nesta última secção, a rede será ligada a Omã e à Arábia Saudita. Então, através do Mediterrâneo, chegará a Itália e daqui a França e a Espanha.

Esta rede de grande capacidade – explica o Facebook – será “o pilar de uma enorme expansão da Internet em África: as economias florescerão quando houver uma Internet amplamente acessível para as empresas. A rede permitirá que centenas de milhões de pessoas acedam a banda larga até à 5G”. Esta é, em resumo, a motivação oficial do projecto. Para pô-la em dúvida, basta um facto: na África subsaariana, cerca de 600 milhões de pessoas não têm acesso à elecricidade, o equivalente a mais da metade da população. Então, para que servirá a rede de banda larga?

Para ligar mais estreitamente às empresas-mãe das multinacionais, as elites africanas que representam os seus interesses nos países mais ricos em matérias-primas, enquanto aumenta o confronto com a China, que está a reforçar a sua presença económica em África. A rede também serve outros propósitos.

Há dois anos, em Maio de 2018, o Facebook estabeleceu uma parceria com o Atlantic Council (Conselho Atlânico), uma influente “organização não partidária”,  com sede em Washington, que “promove a liderança e o compromisso USA no mundo, juntamente com os aliados”. O objectivo específico da parceria é garantir “o uso correto do Facebook nas eleições em todo o mundo, monitorando a desinformação e a interferência estrangeira, ajudando a educar os cidadãos e a sociedade civil”.

Qual é a honestidade do Conselho Atlântico, particularmente activo em África, pode ser deduzido da lista oficial de doadores que o financiam: Pentágono e NATO, Lockheed Martin e outras indústrias de guerra (incluindo a italiana Leonardo), ExxonMobil e outras empresas multinacionais, o Bank of America e outros grupos financeiros, as Fundações de Rockefeller e Soros.

A rede, que ligará 16 países africanos a 5 aliados europeus da NATO, sob comando USA e a 2 aliados USA no Médio Oriente, poderá desempenhar um papel não só económico, mas político e estratégico.“Laboratório de Pesquisa Digital Forense” do Conselho Atlântico, através do Facebook, poderá comunicar diariamente à comunicação mediática e aos políticos africanos quais as notícias que são “falsas” e quais as “verdadeiras”. As informações pessoais e os sistemas de rastreio do Facebook podem ser usados ​​para controlar e atingir os movimentos da oposição. A banda larga, mesmo em 5G, pode ser usada pelas forças especiais USA e por outras,  nas suas operações em África.

Ao anunciar o projecto, o Facebook sublinha que África é “o continente menos ligado” e que o problema será resolvido pelos seus 37.000 km de cabos. No entanto, podem ser usados como uma versão moderna das antigas correntes coloniais.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Artigo original em italiano :

Facebook accerchia l’Africa

il manifesto, 16 de Junho de 2020

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

Molte industrie e società di servizi stanno fallendo o ridimensionandosi a causa del lockdown e della conseguente crisi. C’è invece chi ha guadagnato da tutto questo. Facebook, Google (proprietario di YouTube), Microsoft, Apple e Amazon – scrive The New York Times – «stanno facendo aggressivamente nuove scommesse, poiché la pandemia del coronavirus li ha resi servizi quasi essenziali».

Tutti questi «Tech Giants» (Giganti della tecnologia) sono statunitensi. Facebook – definito non più social network ma «ecosistema», di cui fanno parte anche WhatsApp, Instagram e Messenger  – ha superato i 3 miliardi di utenti mensili. Non c’è quindi da stupirsi se, in piena crisi da coronavirus, Facebook lancia il progetto di una delle maggiori reti di cavi sottomarini, la 2Africa: lunga 37.000 km (quasi la massima circonferenza della Terra), circonderà l’intero continente africano, collegandolo a nord all’Europa e ad est al Medioriente.

I paesi interconnessi saranno inizialmente 23. Partendo dalla Gran Bretagna, la rete collegherà il Portogallo prima di iniziare il suo cerchio attorno all’Africa attraverso Senegal, Costa d’Avorio, Ghana, Nigeria, Gabon, Repubblica del Congo, Repubblica Democratica del Congo, Sudafrica, Mozambico, Madagascar, Tanzania, Kenya, Somalia, Gibuti, Sudan, Egitto. In quest’ultimo tratto, la rete sarà collegata a Oman e Arabia Saudita. Quindi, attraverso il Mediterraneo, arriverà in Italia e da qui in Francia e Spagna.

Questa rete a grande capacità – spiega Facebook – costituirà «il pilastro di una enorme espansione di Internet in Africa: le economie fioriscono quando c’è un Internet largamente accessibile per le imprese. La rete permetterà a centinaia di milioni di persone l’accesso alla banda larga fino al 5G». Questa, in sintesi, la motivazione ufficiale del progetto. A metterla in dubbio basta un dato: nell’Africa subsahariana non hanno accesso all’elettricità circa 600 milioni di persone, equivalenti a oltre la metà della popolazione. A cosa servirà allora la rete a banda larga?

A collegare più strettamente alle case madri delle multinazionali quelle élite africane che ne rappresentano gli interessi nei paesi più ricchi di materie prime, mentre cresce il confronto con la Cina che sta rafforzando la sua presenza economica in Africa.La rete servirà anche ad altri scopi.

Due anni fa, nel maggio 2018, Facebook ha stabilito una partnership con l’Atlantic Council (Consiglio Atlantico), influente «organizzazione nopartisan», con sede a Washington, che «promuove la leadership e l’impegno Usa nel mondo, insieme agli alleati». Scopo specifico della partnership è garantire «il corretto uso di Facebook nelle elezioni in tutto il mondo, monitorando la disinformazione e l’interferenza straniera, aiutando a educare i cittadini e la società civile».

Quale sia l’affidabilità dell’Atlantic Council, particolarmente attivo in Africa, lo si deduce dalla lista ufficiale dei donatori che lo finanziano: il Pentagono e la Nato, la Lockheed Martin e altre industrie belliche (compresa l’italiana Leonardo), la ExxonMobil e altre multinazionali, la Bank of America e altri gruppi finanziari, le Fondazioni di Rockefeller e Soros.

La rete, che collegherà 16 paesi africani a 5 alleati europei della Nato sotto comando Usa e a 2 alleati Usa in Medioriente, potrà svolgere un ruolo non solo economico, ma politico e strategico. Il «Laboratorio di ricerca digitale forense» dell’Atlantic Council, attraverso Facebook, potrà comunicare ogni giorno ai media e ai politici africani quali notizie sono «false» e quali «vere». Le informazioni personali e i sistemi di tracciamento di Facebook potranno essere usati per controllare e colpire i movimenti di opposizione. La banda larga, anche in 5G, potrà essere usata dalle forze speciali Usa e altre nelle loro operazioni in Africa.

Nell’annunciare il progetto, Facebook sottolinea che l’Africa è «il continente meno connesso» e che il problema sarà risolto dai suoi 37.000 km di cavi. Essi possono essere usati, però, quale moderna versione delle vecchie catene coloniali.

Manlio Dinucci

 

 

Palestinian officials “are stepping up pressure on Israel to cancel its planned annexation of part of the West Bank”.

If Israel proceeds, “they will immediately declare a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

The Palestinian government threatened  “to declare Palestine as a state along the internationally recognized 1967 borders if Israel presses ahead with its plan to annex parts of the West Bank.”

Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Stayyeh stated at a Press Conference:

“We are waiting and pushing for Israel not to annex. If Israel is going to annex after July 1, we are going to go from the interim period of the Palestinian Authority into a manifestation of a state on the ground. That is where we will be heading in the next phase,”

Palestine views Annexation as an  “existential threat…a total erosion of our national aspirations,”

PM Shtayyeh put forth a plan by the Palestinian Authority for the creation of a “sovereign Palestinian state, independent and demilitarized”. This plan is outlined in a 4 1/2 page proposal which has not been made public. It envisages the possibility of land swaps.

Palestine will not wait for an agreement with Israel if the latter declares annexation of the West Bank lands in July, he warned.

Ishtaye noted that the Palestinians have rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s Middle East peace plan known as the Deal of the Century.

A four-and-a-half page counterproposal to Trump’s plan has been submitted to the quartet of Middle East mediators: the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations, said the Palestinian prime minister.

It proposed a demilitarized Palestinian state with “minor border modification wherever it is needed” and exchanges of land equal “in size and volume and in value” with Israel, he told reporters.

On Monday, Ishtaye said Palestine will stop its recognition of Israel if the Israeli government implements its annexation plan.

On May 19, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared the abolition of all agreements signed with Israel and the United States, including security coordination, in response to the Israeli plan to annex the occupied West Bank territories. (Xinhua)

Germany’s foreign minister “warned Israel that its plan to begin annexing parts of the West Bank would violate international law, but he declined to say how Germany or Europe would respond.”

Speaking at a news conference, Maas said that Germany and the European Union were seeking clarity about the Israeli plan, but he made a point that Europe considers annexation incompatible with international law.

*

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: A graffiti of Naji al-Ali’s Handala on the West Bank separation wall

Martedì 9 giugno è stata issata la bandiera italiana; venerdì 12 l’inaugurazione della nuova sede del Comando delle Forze Speciali dell’Esercito (COMFOSE), presente il ministro della Difesa Lorenzo Guerini. L’area a nord della grande base di Camp Darby, in Toscana, è stata presa in consegna dalle forze armate italiane a seguito della decisione del Pentagono di rivedere le modalità organizzative e di gestione di quello che è il principale hub di stoccaggio di mezzi e sistemi d’arma delle forze terrestri Usa nel sud Europa. Con un investimento infrastrutturale plurimilionario, l’Esercito italiano potrà così coronare il sogno di realizzare in provincia di Pisa un centro strategico dove ospitare le forze d’elite destinate alle guerre “non convenzionali” e alle famigerate operazioni psicologiche.

“Sono particolarmente lieto di incontrare il personale di questo centro nevralgico di integrazione e coordinamento di tutte le attività di formazione, addestramento e approntamento delle Forze Operative Speciali e delle unità PSYOPS dell’Esercito”, ha dichiarato il ministro Guerini in occasione della sua visita al Comprensorio militare “Tenente Dario Vitali” di Pisa. Ad accoglierlo, il Capo di Stato Maggiore dell’Esercito, generale Salvatore Farina e il Comandante di COMFOSE, generale Ivan Caruso. “Il nuovo Comprensorio Militare sorge su una vasta area con superficie di 35 ettari, ex sedime di parte della base militare statunitense di Camp Darby, territorio recentemente rientrato nella disponibilità delle Autorità Italiane; la sua riorganizzazione e l’utilizzo di moderni standard infrastrutturali consentirà di incrementare la capacità operativa dei Reparti che saranno ospitati e accrescere le condizioni di vita e il benessere del personale militare e delle proprie famiglie”, riporta la nota del ministero della Difesa. “Il ministro Guarini ha poi visitato le sedi del Centro Addestramento Operazioni Speciali e del Reparto Supporto Operazioni Speciali, articolazioni di recente costituzione deputate alla formazione degli Operatori Base per Operazioni Speciali, il primo, ed al sostegno logistico delle Forze Speciali in operazioni, il secondo”.

Secondo lo Studio progettuale presentato dallo Stato Maggiore dell’Esercito nel dicembre 2018, nell’ambito del programma European Infrastructure Consolidationimplementato dal Comando Europeo dell’Esercito statunitense (EUCOM), “in data 28 gennaio 2015 è stata formalizzata dall’Office of Defence Cooperation l’intenzione di restituire al Governo Italiano una porzione del sedime in questione della base di Camp Darby, ed al cui interno sono state realizzate dagli Stati Uniti varie infrastrutture con diversa destinazione d’uso (uffici, alloggi, funzioni logistiche e tempo libero) ancora in buone/ottime condizioni”. “In tale quadro – prosegue lo Stato Maggiore – l’Esercito ha formalizzato l’interesse alla ripresa in consegna dell’aliquota che si renderà disponibile a seguito del rilascio da parte degli USA. L’ipotesi progettuale elaborata ha inteso individuare una possibile razionalizzazione degli spazi interni per la ridislocazione del COMFOSE e del dipendente 9° Reggimento Col Moschin. Il costo complessivo di tale ipotesi ammonta a circa 42 milioni di euro ed è stato stimato sulla base di una prima valutazione che prevede, in particolare, la realizzazione presso il sito di ulteriori strutture per le esigenze delle unità”. Nello specifico per l’area logistica di 15.000 mq è prevista una spesa di 13 milioni; per quella sportiva (8.000 mq), 8,3 milioni; per l’area alloggiativa (20.000 mq) 16 milioni di euro. Il piano per il nuovo comprensorio “italiano” a Camp Darby rientra nell’ambito dell’ambizioso programma di rinnovamento del patrimonio immobiliare e di realizzazione di basi militari di nuova generazionedenominato “caserme verdi”, per cui l’Esercito prevede di spendere un miliardo e mezzo di euro da qui ai prossimi dieci anni.

Il Comando di COMFOSE che si è insediato nell’area settentrionale di Camp Darby sovrintende alle attività, all’addestramento e all’acquisizione dei materiali delle unità dell’Esercito assegnate alle cosiddette “operazioni speciali”. Istituito il 19 settembre 2014 all’interno della più ampia riforma dello strumento militare del 2012 voluta dall’allora ministro della Difesa, ammiraglio Giampaolo Di Paola, COMFOSE ha avuto il suo quartier generale prima nella Caserma “Gamerra” a Pisa e poi presso il Centro Interforze Studi e Applicazioni Militari (CISAM) di San Piero a Grado. Come ricorda lo studioso Manlio Dinucci de Il Manifesto, questo Comando italiano “mantiene un collegamento costante con lo U.S. Army Special Operation Command, il più importante comando statunitense per le operazioni speciali formato da circa 30 mila specialisti impiegati soprattutto in Medio Oriente”.

Dal COMFOSE dipende innanzitutto il 9° Reggimento d’Assalto Paracadutisti “Col Moschin”, il reparto di incursori composto da personale addestrato ed equipaggiato per condurre l’intero spettro delle operazioni speciali. Sino ad oggi è stato ospitato nella caserma “Vannucci” di Livorno; quando tutti i suoi uomini saranno trasferiti a Camp Darby, l’immobile sarà riassegnato al Reparto comando supporto tattici della “Folgore” di stanza nella caserma “Rugiadi”, anch’essa a Livorno. Altro reparto delle forze speciali dell’Esercito è il 185° Reggimento Paracadutisti Ricognizione e Acquisizione Obiettivi “Folgore” di Livorno con funzioni spiccatamente d’intelligence, d’ingaggio di “obiettivi a distanza” e di penetrazione e infiltrazione in territorio “nemico”. Ci sono poi il 4° Reggimento Alpini Paracadutisti “Ranger” di Verona, designato per condurre operazioni in ambiente montano e artico e il 28° Reggimento “Pavia”, l’unica unità delle forze armate italiane che si occupa di “comunicazioni operative”, quelle cioè finalizzate “a creare, consolidare o incrementare il consenso della popolazione locale nei confronti dei contingenti militari impiegati in missione di pace all’estero”.

Di stanza nella caserma “Del Monte” di Pesaro, il 28° Reggimento “Pavia” rappresenta la componente di COMFOSE che più interpreta le nuove frontiere della guerra moderna globale. Non è infatti casuale che i militari del “Pavia” siano intervenuti in tutti gli scacchieri bellici internazionali: dall’Iraq all’Afghanistan, dal Kosovo al Libano e in Libia. “Le unità specialistiche del 28° Reggimento usano mezzi di comunicazione di massa per diffondere messaggi alla popolazione: si spazia dai tradizionali volantini e poster, efficaci in aree a elevato tasso di analfabetismo e basso sviluppo tecnologico, fino ai più complessi prodotti multimediali, compresi i new e social media nelle aree più progredite”, riferisce lo Stato Maggiore. “Inoltre il personale studia e analizza la realtà socio-antropologica delle aree di missione in modo da comunicare in modo idoneo ed efficace con la popolazione nel rispetto di usi, costumi e tradizioni locali”.

Quelli che a prima vista potrebbero sembrare interventi di natura meramente politico-diplomatico-sociale s’inquadrano invece nelle cosiddette “guerre psicologiche”, note in ambito militare come “operazioni psicologiche” o “PSYOPS” come le ha invece chiamate in lingua inglese il ministro Guerini all’inaugurazione della nuova sede di COMFOSE a Camp Darby.

Sulle finalità e le modalità delle “operazioni PSYOPS” si è soffermata la ricercatriceFrancesca Angius dell’Archivio Disarmo di Roma. “Si tratta del complesso delle attività psicologiche pianificate in tempo di pace, crisi o guerra, dirette verso gruppi obiettivo nemici, amici o neutrali, al fine di influenzarne gli atteggiamenti ed i comportamenti che incidono sul conseguimento di obiettivi prefissati di natura politica e militare”, spiega Francesca Angius. “Le PSYOPS sono, quindi, finalizzate alla conquista delle menti attraverso la gestione ad arte delle informazioni e delle verità e costituiscono uno strumento di strategia militare (…) il cui scopo principale consiste nell’influenzare le percezioni, gli atteggiamenti ed il comportamento di un determinato gruppo obiettivo. L’esigenza di dotarsi di un’unità PSYOPS è nata, in seno alla NATO, dalla convinzione che l’uso programmato delle comunicazioni di massa possa influenzare, anche in modo decisivo, l’esito di un conflitto. Il dominio delle informazioni è sempre più una dimensione fondamentale del moderno campo di battaglia, dove propaganda, disinformazione e manipolazione delle informazioni ne rappresentano una parte essenziale”.

Nel 2006, l’allora tenente colonnello Luca Fontana (poi generale di brigata e vice capo divisone presso la NATO Rapid Deproyable Corps Italy di Solbiate Olona, Varese”), ha pubblicato per conto dello Stato Maggiore della Difesa un rapporto intitolato significativamente Le Operazioni Psicologiche Militari (PSYOP). La “Conquista” delle menti. “E’ opinione diffusa che l’importanza delle PSYOP stia costantemente crescendo a garanzia del successo di ogni azione che si debba intraprende ovunque nel mondo, sia essa di carattere diplomatico o militare”, affermava l’alto ufficiale. “L’ormai costante e significativa partecipazione di forze occidentali, spesso con preponderanza – almeno iniziale – degli USA, alle operazioni di Peacekeeping, dove l’uso della forza è rigidamente prescritto da dettagliate regole d’ingaggio, ha ulteriormente enfatizzato la necessità di mettere in atto efficaci attività informative. Nell’effettuazione di tali operazioni, le Unità militari di PSYOP possono ragionevolmente pensare di essere chiamate ad operare per un lungo periodo di tempo in un’area dove, talvolta, sussiste la presenza di strumenti mediatici significativi e penetranti, i cui messaggi competono con quelli lanciati dagli operatori militari alleati”.

“Nel futuro, il valore delle PSYOP continuerà ad essere utilizzato al meglio prima e dopo un conflitto”, concludeva profeticamente Luca Fontana. “Le operazioni psicologiche messe in atto prima aiuteranno a preparare il contesto operativo nel quale le truppe si troveranno ad operare e talvolta, se opportunamente combinate con qualche altro tipo di intervento, potranno anche prevenire lo scoppio delle ostilità. Mentre, negli anni a venire, saranno comunque le bombe, i missili e l’occupazione del territorio con truppe di terra a determinare sul piano militare il vincitore ed il perdente, le operazioni psicologiche, in misura sempre maggiore, determineranno la durata dei conflitti e l’impatto dello sforzo militare sugli interessi strategici di lungo termine…”.

Antonio Mazzeo

A century ago, on 13 March 1920, a far-right coup d’etat was implemented against the nascent Weimar Republic, known as the Kapp Putsch, which stood as an early warning signal for the Nazi Party’s rise. The author here had intended to write a piece in March on the exact centenary date, but a certain virus intervened instead.

The Kapp Putsch was an attempt to destroy Social Democratic governance in Germany, and replace it with an outright dictatorship. The new regime would be led, on paper, by Dr Wolfgang Kapp, a reactionary 61-year-old Prussian civil servant and politician. The reality on the ground suggests otherwise, however. Partaking in this coup from the outset were prominent German military men, including General Erich Ludendorff, one of the major figures in 20th century history.

During the First World War, Ludendorff had been the de facto dictator of Germany for a two year period, from the autumn of 1916 until the conclusion of hostilities. In the following years Ludendorff was positioned at separate times on the right, but mostly towards the far-right, of the political spectrum. He disseminated the stab-in-the-back legend and, as he got older, became increasingly militaristic and anti-semitic. Ludendorff strongly criticised the “terrible inroads” and pernicious effects that Roman Catholicism was having on the German people.

Occasionally it has been claimed that Ludendorff was “the first Nazi”, but there is little evidence to provide substance to this assertion. While lauded for his numerous victories in warfare, it can be recalled that in the field of politics he was inexperienced at best; like so many military commanders, Ludendorff would lack the temperament and judgement to make a telling transition to the political arena.

Putschists in Berlin. The banner warns: “Stop! Whoever proceeds will be shot”. (CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

At war’s end, following a three month exile in the southern Swedish town of Hässleholm, Ludendorff returned to Berlin in February 1919. The 53-year-old general continued to don his World War One uniform. As a consequence, Ludendorff was quickly recognised by some of his supporters in Berlin who, astonished to see him walking down the street, began cheering loudly. Richard J. Evans, the veteran English historian, wrote of Ludendorff, “Such was the prestige he had gained in the war, that he quickly became the figurehead of the radical right” (1). Donald J. Goodspeed, Ludendorff’s biographer, acknowledged that he “commanded considerable respect throughout the country”. (2)

In March 1921, Ludendorff was introduced to the little known extremist politician Adolf Hitler, when the latter had by then been a Nazi Party member for about a year (3). Ludendorff and Hitler would be on close terms during the mid-1920s. In late 1924 Ludendorff, largely because of his illustrious name, was elected to the Reichstag as an MP with the pan-Germanic association, the National Socialist Freedom Party (NSFP). Ludendorff co-founded the NSFP with Albrecht von Graefe, a fascist German politician and landowner who was an early associate of Hitler. In February 1925 the NSFP was absorbed into the Nazi Party, two months after Hitler’s release from Landsberg Prison. Ludendorff therefore became a fully-fledged Nazi Party MP, and would remain so until 1928.

By the beginning of the 1930s, Ludendorff was issuing stark public warnings against Hitler (4). Lee McGowan, senior lecturer in European Politics at Queen’s University Belfast, wrote that “Ludendorff, one of Hitler’s initial but temporary rivals, was one of the few individuals to register doubts” about the Nazi leader. McGowan highlighted that Ludendorff’s “concern” regarding Hitler “was ignored” by those who later put him in power. Ludendorff prophetically described Hitler as “one of the greatest demagogues of all time” who would “cast our Reich into the abyss and bring our nation to inconceivable misery”. (5)

In his prime, Ludendorff was possessed with bundles of energy, intelligence and ruthlessness. These character traits, blended with a rare talent for tactical organisation, made him a formidable leader in war. Lieutenant-Colonel Goodspeed, professor emeritus at Brock University in Ontario, called him “the guiding genius of the German Army”. By early 1920 Ludendorff’s ambition, or rather his megalomania, was sky high. Appalled by the Treaty of Versailles signed in late June 1919, Ludendorff’s aim was to reassume the dictatorship of Germany as soon as feasibly possible, restore her lost territories, and thereafter grant his nation the “place in the sun” she deserved. For now, recognising Germany’s unfavourable international position, Ludendorff proceeded with some caution.

The nominal leader of the impending putsch, Wolfgang Kapp, was elected to the Reichstag in January 1919 as a monarchist. In September 1917 Kapp had been a leading founder of the far-right German Fatherland Party (Deutsche Vaterlandspartei). He was a firm backer of Ludendorff’s expansionist programs in the war, including the hawkish strategy of unrestricted U-boat attacks. Goodspeed noted that Kapp was “a portly intriguer who for many years had been a hard-working but obscure civil servant in the East Prussian Lands Offices. During the war, Kapp had won some notoriety as a leader of the opposition to the relatively moderate policies of Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg”. (6)

By August 1919 Kapp sought out General Ludendorff, and became acquainted with him in person. In October 1919 they established the right-wing National Association (Nationale Vereinigung), an organisation considered the “crystallisation core” of the Kapp Putsch. Another key member of the National Association was Captain Waldemar Pabst, a high-ranking German officer who would later make contact with Hitler and Mussolini. Pabst gained infamy for ordering the executions of the revolutionary socialists, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnecht, on 15 January 1919 (7). The loss in particular of Luxemburg, one of the most remarkable women in modern times, was a serious blow to the socialist movement.

In the opening weeks of 1920 the Freikorps, German paramilitary groups comprising ex-World War One soldiers, were openly debating a manoeuvre that would overthrow the Weimar Republic. The 39-year-old Pabst, commander of the Freikorps Guards Cavalry, was one of the first to be drawn into the scheme. He rented an office in central Berlin, and rallied those who were convinced that a coup was needed to save the Fatherland. Colonel Max Bauer joined the plotters. He was a distinguished soldier and Ludendorff’s Chief of Operations from 1916 to 1918.

Kapp still required a mighty sword with which to wield his putsch. He looked inevitably to Ludendorff but Germany’s war icon again advanced with due care, and would not consent to lead it. Kapp had to settle for General Walther von Lüttwitz, a diminutive and fiery Prussian aged in his early 60s, dubbed the “Father of the Freikorps”. Von Lüttwitz, a commander of some note in the First World War, had been scheming since July 1919 to topple the government.

Von Lüttwitz first met Kapp on 21 August 1919, and realised that the civil servant was not really the man to rule Germany. Once the coup succeeded, the German Army would take over as von Lüttwitz and others had planned. The putsch was to be executed with the Freikorps Marine Brigade, a force of 5,000 troops led by the fanatical Lieutenant-Commander Hermann Ehrhardt. His soldiers had an unforgiving reputation. At different times in 1919, they viciously put down a number of leftist developments in Germany, including the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic.

Ehrhardt’s Marine Brigade was photographed, beginning on 12 March 1920, with swastikas emblazoned on their helmets and armoured vehicles. It was with the Marine Brigade that the swastika symbol first experienced widespread notoriety, before it was adopted by the Nazi Party a few months later, in the summer of 1920 (8). One could argue these men were among the first Nazis, and indeed many of them became followers of Hitler. A youthful Hitler initially looked favourably on the Kapp Putsch, and he even belatedly flew to Berlin from Munich so as to meet the conspirators. Kapp had arranged Hitler’s flight. (9)

Under the Versailles Treaty’s conditions, the Freikorps were to be dissolved and the powerful Ehrhardt Brigade was soon up to be axed, on 10 March 1920. On hearing this, a panic-stricken Ehrhardt approached von Lüttwitz, who reassured the younger man by saying, “Don’t do anything and keep quiet. I won’t permit the troops to be disbanded”. The coup was originally expected to take place some time in April 1920 but, mainly because of the above demobilisation order, it was brought back for early or mid-March.

On 9 March 1920, Ludendorff’s right-hand man Colonel Bauer went to see Major-General Neill Malcolm, Chief of the British Military Mission to Berlin. Bauer wanted to know if the English, with their ambivalent attitude towards Germany, would acquiesce to their putsch. Bauer remarked to Malcolm that a resurgent Germany “would be a useful counterpoise to France on the continent”. Malcolm responded that a military coup in Germany would be “sheer madness” (10). Bauer was unperturbed by this frank encounter, and went away telling everyone that the British government had assured the plotters its friendly neutrality.

Image on the right: Walther von Lüttwitz (centre) and Gustav Noske (right), c. 1920 (CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

On 10 March 1920 Gustav Noske, the Weimar Republic’s defence minister, became alarmed when he heard that the Ehrhardt Brigade was not dismantled as scheduled. General Hans von Seeckt, the effective leader of the new German Army (the Reichswehr), told Noske that von Lüttwitz had resisted the demobilisation command. Von Seeckt, a cunning operator, sat on the fence over coming days. It was only late on the 12th of March – within hours of the coup starting – that defence minister Noske discovered by chance the Ehrhardt Brigade was leaving its base at Döberitz, 15 miles from Berlin, and marching on the capital. Noske did his best to nip the coup in the bud, by relaying orders over the telephone, but it was too late.

Noske knew that the German Army would not defend the Weimar Republic against the Freikorps. Von Seeckt informed Noske just before the putsch that German troops do not fire on each other, particularly past comrades in war. To compound matters, Berlin’s Security Police were on the side of the rebels too. Noske informed the government hierarchy, President Friedrich Ebert and Chancellor Gustav Bauer, that they would have to flee Berlin post haste, along with the rest of their cabinet colleagues. At 5am they escaped southwards in a fleet of motor cars, travelling to Dresden and then Stuttgart, declaring that city the temporary capital of the Reich.

Ehrhardt and his battalion, armed with rifles and stick grenades, entered Berlin just before dawn at 6am on Saturday the 13th of March. They rested briefly in the Tiergarten park in central Berlin, adjacent to the Unter den Linden boulevard, and less than a kilometre from the Reich Chancellory. The weather was unusually mild and calm. After a few minutes in the Tiergarten, some members of the Ehrhardt Brigade saw Ludendorff, in full military attire, striding down the Unter den Linden. Ludendorff spotted them also, in fact had expected to see them, and he stopped near the Unter den Linden to talk to von Lüttwitz. A flustered Dr Kapp arrived – the ceremonial dictator was suitably dressed for the occasion in morning coat, top hat, striped trousers and spats.

Ludendorff walked over to greet Ehrhardt and his men, who fell into formation. With the clock fast approaching 7am, the Imperial colours of black, white and red were unfurled. A brass band was organised. Goodspeed wrote that,

“Ludendorff, von Lüttwitz and Kapp took up their positions in front of the troops; the brass band struck up Deutschland über Alles; and away they went, goose-stepping through the great arch of the Brandenburger Tor, up Unter den Linden with the Quadriga of Victory looking down on them, and so on to the Government quarter of Berlin”. (11)

With it being a Saturday some Berliners, up early for grocery shopping and entirely unaware of what was unfolding, stared in amazement as Ludendorff and company marched past them. Other residents of Berlin, awakened by the brass band, gazed out of their windows and from balconies. Kapp, von Lüttwitz and Ludendorff went straight to the Reich Chancellory and entered the main door, but found the place deserted; apart from, that is, the presence of the liberal vice-chancellor Eugen Schiffer, who agreed to stay behind as a representative of the legal government.

Lieutenant-Commander Ehrhardt, on learning that the Weimar leaders and ministers were allowed to escape, reacted angrily. He felt, at the least, that they should have been apprehended and thrown in jail. Von Lüttwitz, believing they were merely a rascally bunch of politicians, was content to let them go. Throughout Saturday, the burgeoning Freikorps paramilitary formations surrounded Berlin and took control with ease. War weary Berliners reacted to the coup, for the most part, with indifference or contempt, but large street demonstrations against the conspirators did not unfold. When news spread across Berlin that Ludendorff was directly involved, and present in the Reich Chancellory, some hundreds of his supporters – monarchists and rightists – gathered outside the building, waving Imperial flags, and hoping to catch a glimpse of him.

The Reich Chancellory was filling up with an assortment of people: From his holiness Gottfried Traub, a Lutheran Pastor and former Court Chaplain to the Kaiser, now to be the Minister of Culture, to Ignaz Trebitsch-Lincoln, jack of all trades and Kapp’s Foreign Press Censor. Colonel Bauer and Captain Pabst were there, jovial and enthusiastic.

It was becoming clear, however, that neither Kapp nor von Lüttwitz had the first notion of how to govern. Kapp was having difficulty in finding a typewriter and typewritist, in order to compose his proclamation to the German public. He remembered at last that his daughter had taken a typing course during the war, and summoned her to the Reich Chancellory at once. To his extreme irritation Kapp could not locate the new Press Chief, Hans Schnitzler, and he shouted down the corridor “Where is Schnitzler? I cannot govern without Schnitzler!” (12). Unknown to Kapp, Schnitzler had earlier been refused entry to the Reich Chancellory by the storm-troopers, who did not know him.

Von Lüttwitz, arguing demonstratively into the telephone, was busy dealing with a case of insubordination from his son-in-law, Colonel Kurt von Hammerstein. The Colonel courageously refused to send his troops into Berlin to bolster the coup. General von Seeckt, upon hearing this, commented drily, “How can you expect von Lüttwitz to run the country, when he can’t control his own son-in-law?”

Come the following day, Sunday evening, the coup was beginning to crack as the trade unions turned against the dictatorship. In Stuttgart the exiled Weimar government signed a proclamation for a nationwide general strike, which was duly obeyed by the workers in Berlin on Monday the 15th of March. No essential services were exempt and the capital ceased to function. Elsewhere the industrial Ruhr was paralysed. Also on Monday some of the locals, discerning the conspirators’ incompetence, were becoming restless and antagonistic. The Freikorps responded with brutality, not for the last time, in opening fire on unarmed civilians. (13)

During Monday evening Kapp was informed that the British High Commissioner, Lord Kilmarnock, said Colonel Bauer’s story of British support was “a damned lie”. Kapp turned pale on hearing this (14). The putsch in reality could not have succeeded under any circumstances, because the Allies would not have allowed it so shortly after the war’s conclusion. It was this factor, and not the general strike as is often claimed, which was truly decisive in the coup’s failure. The ink was barely dry on the Versailles Treaty documents. France especially would have relished a chance to march deeper into a weakened Germany’s territory.

On Tuesday afternoon, Major-General Malcolm officially outlined to von Lüttwitz that the British government, led by David Lloyd George, would not recognise the Kapp regime. That night, the beleaguered putschists convened in the heavily guarded Reich Chancellory. Since they could think of no action to rescue their coup, they started arguing bitterly among themselves. When it was clear that von Lüttwitz was not going to be present, they blamed all of their problems on him. The recriminations continued until dawn. Bauer, with tears streaming down his cheeks, requested that Ludendorff now lead the putsch. Ehrhardt in particular supported this suggestion, but Ludendorff wisely declined the offer, with thanks.

By the morning of Wednesday the 17th of March, Kapp learnt that the Berlin Security Police had reversed their position and were demanding his resignation. With further unrest breaking out through Germany, the writing was on the wall. Badly losing his nerve, Kapp decided it was time to resign and so ended the putsch that bore his name.

*

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.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1 Richard J. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich (Penguin Publishing Group, 25. Jan 2005), p. 176

2 Donald J. Goodspeed, The Conspirators (Macmillan, 1 Jan. 1962), p. 116

3 Michael Kellogg, The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Emigres and the Making of National Socialism (Cambridge University Press; First Edition, 2 Feb. 2001), p. 128

4 Walter Otto Julius Görlitz, “Erich Ludendorff, German General”, Britannica

5 Lee McGowan, The Radical Right in Germany, 1870 to the Present (Routledge, 1 edition, 14 Feb. 2003), p. 64

6 Goodspeed, The Conspirators, p. 116

7 Wolfram Wette, The Wehrmacht, History, Myth, Reality (Harvard University Press, 2 Nov. 2007), p. 44

8 David Luhrssen, Hammer of the Gods: The Thule Society and the Birth of Nazism (Potomac Books, Inc., 26 April 2012), p. 131

9 Kellogg, The Russian Roots of Nazism, p. 105

10 Goodspeed, The Conspirators, p. 120

11 Goodspeed, The Conspirators, p. 127

12 Frank E. Smitha, “Coup Attempts and Violence, 1920-21”, Fsmitha.com

13 Adriana Popa, “German citizens defend democracy against Kapp Putsch, 1920”, Nvdatabase.Swarthmore.edu, 27 November 2011

14 Goodspeed, The Conspirators, p. 134

(As a preface to this column, this writer has been an adherent of the teachings of Paramahansa Yogananda. Thus, I believe wholeheartedly in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and that he was truly ‘Anointed with the Christ spirit’.)

This Sunday morning I decided to drive to the beach and take a walk along the shore. Using our very old Camry (2003) it only had AM/FM radio. As I strolled thru the dial every other station I came to had religious shows, with the name of Jesus repeated continuously.

The preachers, regardless of what church they represented, talked of ‘Serving God’ and ‘Accepting Jesus as savior’. I could agree with that 100%. Disappointedly, none of the preachers touched upon topics like injustice or prejudice, or economic unfairness. No Sir! That is taboo when it comes to what I refer to as ‘ Evangelical Radio and Television’. If ‘God is Love’ as the wise ones always claim, then it goes to reason that Mega Millionaires who keep most of  their fortune cannot practice Love for their fellow man. Since ‘God is Love’ then they are NOT with their God… or any God!

My late friend and Peace Activist Ed Dunphy once was in North Carolina on business back in 2004. Ed was a marathon runner and thought that the campus at North Carolina State was a nice place to work out. As he was running he passed by a bible class that was outdoors on this beautiful afternoon. After he finished his run, Ed walked over to the group. “I heard you  all discussing abortion, and I agree with you about abortion. I am not in favor of it also. Yet, I wonder if you all are opposed to what our government has done to the people of Iraq with our carpet bombing campaign of ‘Shock and Awe’?” They looked at him as if he was an ET that just landed. “What I mean is are you as angry about aborting fetuses as you should be towards our government’s bombing and destroying pregnant women carrying fetuses with what is excused as ‘Collateral Damage’? “The teacher asked Ed to please leave or he would call security.

Imagine all those Sunday morning Bible Thumping preachers and their flocks who gave full support to men like Bush Jr. and now Trump? Of course, since most of them do vote Republican, no need to bring up Obama, another war criminal, who I suppose most ‘Born Again’ Democrats supported. Getting back to the other two war criminals, one wonders how someone can quote scripture and believe in Jesus as the Son of God, and then cheer for those two despicable men? It seems as long as someone comes down hard on abortion and the LBGT community, it matters not what we do to those dark peoples in the Middle East. Can we now make the connection of controlling the desert poor to the poor black and browns in our inner city ghettoes? The hypocrisy is astounding! Imagine the latest news of John Bolton, infamous war-mongerer since the Vietnam era (where, he said he supported that ‘War’ but did not like how it was being handled, so he chose NOT to go) coming out hard against Trump. Imagine! More food for thought about this Military Industrial Empire and its various factions, who all SUCK, but still have differences as to best control the rabble.

When the day comes, and it will, and the very people who blindly support this empire and its minions realize that THEY are next in line to be on that food bank and welfare line. Jesus was correct: No one can serve TWO masters!

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘ It’s the Empire… Stupid ‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

The failure of the NHS to provide adequate protective equipment for its employees—including basic items such as gloves and masks—has been among the many unpleasant shocks of the covid-19 crisis for healthcare professionals. Yet there is a murkier scandal about the procurement of these everyday items that the NHS has yet to face.

“Slavery is prospering in the 21st century—with the NHS turning a blind eye. Economics is all that matters; manufacturers try to sell at maximum profit and purchasers minimise cost,” said Mahmood Bhutta, consultant in ear, nose, and throat surgery at Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust. Bhutta founded the Medical Fair and Ethical Trade Group in 2006. He said he feels “ashamed as a doctor to be wearing gloves manufactured using human exploitation.”

Labour rights violations are widespread in the manufacture of healthcare goods globally, including disposable surgical instruments in Pakistan, surgical masks in Mexico, and healthcare uniforms in India.

Gloves off

More evidence is emerging of the British government developing motivational online media platforms targeted at young women as part of a covert counter-terrorism campaign.

Security officials have acknowledged that a Facebook page and Instagram account entitled Stoosh were created as part of the UK’s controversial Prevent counter-radicalisation programme.

The admission comes nine months after the same officials confirmed that a similar online platform entitled This Is Woke had been created as part of the programme.

Stoosh draws its name from a Jamaican patois term meaning superior, while This Is Woke draws upon the expression “stay woke”, a call – originally African-American – to remain aware of social and racial justice issues.

Stoosh Facebook’s page was created on 20 March 2017, according to Facebook transparency information. Neither the Facebook nor Instagram pages have been updated since 6 March 2018.

Stoosh describes itself on Facebook as a page that “aims to promote a safe online environment for young women to tell their stories, taking ownership of their own narrative”.

Both Stoosh and This is Woke described themselves on Facebook as having been produced by a “media/news company”.

In fact, they were created by a London-based communications company called Breakthrough Media, which was under contract to the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT), a unit within the UK government’s Home Office.

‘Like a cult’

One person who worked on the Stoosh programme at Breakthrough described how a number of people with large social media followings were recruited as influencers, and paid to promote it by using hashtags or retweeting its content.

This person said that extensive research was carried out by examining the social media usage of potential influencers – some of them as young as 16 – before they were approached and asked to assist.

“They weren’t told what was going on, they weren’t told about the Home Office,” this person said.

“And we were warned by managers not to talk about Breakthrough outside the office, or put anything about it on our CVs.

“New arrivals to Breakthrough weren’t told what was going on. They were left to work it out.

“It felt like being in a cult. There was a lot of paranoia around the office. People used to walk to the other side of the Thames to have conversations about what they were doing at work.”

The Stoosh Instagram page was last updated on 6 March 2018 (Screengrab)

Breakthrough’s office in London at the time was located close to the river near Waterloo station, on the opposite bank to parliament and nearby government departments including the Home Office.

One influencer – a fashion and lifestyle blogger with tens of thousands of followers on Instagram and YouTube – told Middle East Eye that she had been told that Stoosh was a women’s empowerment project when she was approached and asked to make a film for it.

“I wasn’t told anything about the government or the Home Office,” she said.

Breakthrough has since rebranded itself as Zinc Network, a change that began in Australia, after the company was caught persuading Muslims and a Christian clergyman to promote Australian government policies, without explicitly informing them that it was working for the government.

Other work that Zinc Network undertakes for the British government includes the monitoring of “fake news” emanating from Russia.

‘Code of ethics’

A spokesman for Zinc Network said the company helps its clients tackle some of the world’s toughest social issues.

“We have always taken seriously our responsibility to operate transparently and act with integrity,” he said. “In 2019 we reviewed all internal processes and have installed a code of ethics that respects the agency of everyone taking part in our projects including influencers.

“Supporting communities, brands and governments to promote positive social change is the driving force of our agency.”

The OSCT confirmed its role in the creation of Stoosh following a request made under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act by Faisal Qureshi, a British film scriptwriter and producer.

After Qureshi asked the Home Office for any information it held on Stoosh, the OSCT replied, confirming that it did hold material but was considering whether it should be withheld on national security grounds.

The unit then said it would cost too much to provide the information. Qureshi is now asking the UK’s Information Commissioner, which oversees compliance with the Act, to order disclosure of the material.

The OSCT also cited national security concerns when refusing to disclose information it held on its This Is Woke platform under the Freedom of Information Act.

Stoosh’s Instagram page featured motivational slogans, videos and images posted by other influencers (Screengrab)

The unit will not explain how it believes its bogus “media/news” platforms protects the UK’s national security.

However, a series of leaks from within the Home Office and its private sector contractors have shown that one purpose of the Prevent programme is to “effect attitudinal and behavioural change” among British Muslims, and to create what one document refers to as “a reconciled British Muslim identity”.

Much of the work is known to be co-ordinated by a secretive propaganda section within the OSCT called the Research, Information and Communications Unit, which has employed behavioural psychologists and anthropologists, as well as marketing and digital media specialists.

Before it was exposed as one of the OSCT’s covert counter-radicalisation initiatives, This Is Woke featured videos with titles such as “A trillion-ton iceberg has broken off Antarctica” and “Millions of pangolins are hunted each year” alongside others with titles such as “It’s time to hold extremism to account for terrorism, not Islam”.

The site also featured short panel discussions, with four young people sitting on a sofa debating subjects such as “What is fake news?” Interspersed among them videos with titles such as “What does wearing a hijab mean to you?”

Much of the Stoosh Instagram and Facebook material focuses on women who are described as “real women” and “empowered”.

Prominent among them is Angela Davis, the Marxist African American activist and academic, who is described on the Stoosh Facebook page as “influential”, “intelligent” and “incredible”. Another woman featured is veteran Egyptian feminist campaigner Nawal El-Sadawi who is described as a “protector”, “powerful” and “tenacious”.

Other unacknowledged OSCT projects have included a film about Muslim athletes, which was filmed in Afghanistan and Pakistan without the director being informed that he was working for the British government; programmes broadcast on local radio stations across Britain during Ramadan; and stalls set up during freshers’ fairs at universities.

*

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: An image posted on the Stoosh Facebook page showing political activist Angela Davis (Facebook)

Private prisons in the United States incarcerated 121,718 people in 2017, representing 8.2% of the total state and federal prison population. Since 2000, the number of people housed in private prisons has increased 39%.

However, the private prison population reached its peak in 2012 with 137,220 people. Declines in private prisons’ use make these latest overall population numbers the lowest since 2006 when the population was 113,791.

States show significant variation in their use of private correctional facilities. Indeed, the New Mexico Department of Corrections reports that 53% of its prison population is housed in private facilities, while 22 states do not employ any for-profit prisons. Data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and interviews with corrections officials find that in 2017, 28 states and the federal government incarcerated people in private facilities run by corporations including GEO Group, Core Civic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America), and Management and Training Corporation.

Eighteen states with private prison contracts incarcerate more than 500 people in for-profit prisons. Texas, the first state to adopt private prisons in 1985, incarcerated the largest number of people under state jurisdiction, 12,728.

Since 2000, the number of people in private prisons has increased 39.3%, compared to an overall rise in the prison population of 7.8%. In six states the private prison population has more than doubled during this time period: Arizona (479%), Indiana (310%), Ohio (277%), Florida (199%), Tennessee (117%), and Georgia (110%).

Proportion of incarcerated population in private prisons, 2017

The Federal Bureau of Prisons maintains the nation’s highest number of people managed by private prison contractors. Since 2000, its use increased 77%, and the number of people in private federal custody — which includes prisons, half-way houses and home confinement — totaled 27,569 in 2017. While a significant historical increase, the population declined 15% since 2016, likely reflecting the continuing decline of the overall federal prison population.

Among the immigrant detention population, 26,249 people – 73% of the detained population – were confined in privately run facilities in 2017. The privately detained immigrant population grew 442% since 2002.

Political influences have been instrumental in determining the growth of for-profit private prisons and continue today. However, if overall prison populations continue the current trend of modest declines, the privatization debate will likely intensify as opportunities for the prison industry dry up and corrections companies seek profit in other areas of criminal justice services and immigration detention.

Overall private prison population numbers

Table 1. Private prison populations

a. Data is for 2019 and was reported by the New Mexico Corrections Department.
b. Data reported by the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
~ Use of private prisons implemented after 2000
* D.C. count incorporated in federal numbers

Sources: Prisoners Series (2017, 2000), Bureau of Justice Statistics. Interviews with North Dakota and New Mexico corrections officials. Overall private prison population total for 2017 differs from Bureau of Justice Statistics report due to the inclusion of data from New Mexico obtained by The Sentencing Project which had not been available to the Bureau. Average daily immigrant detention numbers obtained from Immigration and Custom Enforcement and Removal Operations division by Detention Watch Network and the Center for Constitutional Rights as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

*

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

The current uprising against police violence and racism is just beginning. It is rapidly shifting public consciousness on issues of policing, violence against Black people and others, and systemic racism. The movement is deepening and becoming broader as well as putting forward solutions and making demands.

The confluence of crises including recent police violence, the COVID-19 pandemic, and economic collapse along with the ongoing crises of lack of healthcare, poverty, inequality, homelessness, personal debt, and climate plus awareness of mirage democracy in the United States have created a historic moment full of possibilities. If we continue to organize and build power, the potential for dramatic change is great.

As we wrote last week, there are dangers coming from liberal Democrats and the black misleadership class who are trying to quell the protests with distractions and weak reforms. To achieve changes that will solve the crises we face, demands must address the root causes of them. And, we must understand the dynamics of demands in social movements – what it takes to win and to hold the ruling class accountable for enacting them.

Demands to Defund and Abolish the Police

The demands to defund and abolish police are now part of the national dialogue. This is a major advancement for the movement against police violence. The pushback against these demands is coming from across the mainstream political spectrum from Donald Trump to Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.

When the bi-partisans unite, they are often wrong as they represent two parties funded by the millionaires and billionaires who put their interests first. Bipartisan means the various wings of the ruling class, represented by the two corporate parties, are uniting and that means a united attack on the people. They seek to protect systems that have created horrendous inequality and injustice. The police are the enforcement arm that protects the ruling class from the population impacted by that inequality and injustice.

Christy E. Lopez, a professor at Georgetown Law School who co-directs the Program on Innovative Policing, has worked inside the government on efforts to reform and control police for 25 years. Her conclusion:

“it has become clear to me that ‘reform’ is not enough. Making sure that police follow the rule of law is not enough. Even changing the laws is not enough.”

There is tension within the movement against police violence between those who seek reform and those who want to change the whole system – to abolish policing as it exists and create alternatives. In 2016, activists across the country built encampments to heighten awareness for the demand to abolish the police, provide reparations for victims, and invest in black and brown communities. They demanded “community-based forms of policing in its place that are accountable to residents.”

Advocates of abolition consistently make the point that “abolition requires more than police officers disappearing from the streets. . . Police abolition could mean and require society to decrease and eliminate its reliance on policing.” It also means decriminalizing many activities that result in police abuse, i.e. decriminalizing or legalizing drugs and the untaxed sale of cigarettes that create illegal markets. Police spend more than 90 percent of their time on things people find annoying or social and health issues that police are ill-equipped to handle. These lead to police interactions that result in police violence, especially in black and brown communities.

Kali Akuno of Cooperation Jackson writes that the movement needs to become more radical, not more moderate. He points out that the solutions to the current crisis are deeper than reforming the police, explaining there are “calls to eradicate white supremacy, capitalism, heteropatriarchy, and settler-colonialism that have been on clear display.” The founding of police came out of the most extreme form of capitalism, slavery, where those with money owned other people as unpaid workers. Slave patrols developed into modern-day police so the very root of policing is rotten.

Max Rameau and Netfa Freeman write:

“The core issue is POWER, not racism. We cannot change our reality by ending ‘racism,’ or the attitudes and opinions others hold of us. Our conditions will only change when we shift power into our own hands and exercise self-determination, thereby rendering the opinions of racists irrelevant.”

When it comes to changing the power dynamic, one demand — democratic community control of the police — stands out among the others. Communities being able to hire and fire police officers, review their budgets, impanel a grand jury to investigate crimes, and approve police contracts among other changes, reverse the power dynamic. The people would be in democratic control of how their communities are policed and by whom. This is a long-term demand dating back to the Black Panthers, as Green presidential candidate Howie Hawkins points out. This transition to people-power over police is seen by many as the key transition step to abolition or replacement of the police.

Rameau and Freeman conclude that “the police MUST exist in order to protect property and wealth from those who do not have.” They argue that defunding police without changing that dynamic means the wealthy elites will find other ways to protect themselves, private police who are even less accountable than the public institution.

Akuno urges “the demand for abolition should be raised to heighten the contradictions. But, it must be accompanied by the call for revolution, and the organizing effort to dismantle the entire system.” He adds we “have to resist the elevation of the liberal and Democratic party narratives and positions. We have to assert a counter-narrative in all arenas — one that aims towards transforming the Floyd rebellion into something potentially transformative.”

Building Power for Positive Change

The power structure has started to make some concessions over the past few weeks of protests, but none of these has altered the systems that maintain the current inequalities and injustices.

Some police have been fired and charged for committing violence and murder. It remains to be seen if they will be convicted and kept from policing anywhere in the future. Some cities are talking about defunding or disbanding the police, but it remains to be seen what the details will be. Schools are breaking contracts with police. More segments of the population from the media to athletes to tech companies are challenging racism and oppression in our society. These changes are happening because the people power being displayed has exposed injustice, garnered support and put the elites in a panic. The elites need to give the people something to stop the protests.

The widespread actions of militarized police using extreme violence across the country backfired and resulted in the protests growing. Federal courts in Colorado and Washington ordered governments to stop using chemical warfare against US citizens. Adding 17,000 National Guard troops in 23 states caused the National Guard troops’ morale to plummet in embarrassment over using military force to stop people from exercising their constitutional rights. President Trump’s threat of military force caused divisions in the military as retired and active generals, GI’s and National Guard troops spoke out against it.

Popular power is growing in the United States, but to build enough power to win demands that significantly alter the economic and political systems will require sustained effort. While some reforms are significant because they may meet some needs of those in the movement, we can’t stop there.

As we describe in the second class of the Popular Resistance School, if movements make concessions too early, before they have the power to make sure their demands are met and to hold leaders accountable for their actions, they will fail. The ruling class will often feign concessions to quiet the rebellion knowing all along that they are still in control.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, after signing a police reform bill, exemplified this when he said, “You don’t need to protest, you won. You accomplished your goal.”

When negotiating demands, it is all about power. If the sides coming together to negotiate do not have equal power, then the weaker side will lose. They may be given promises, but they can’t force the power holders to keep them. It is significant that elements in the society are opposed to military attacks on people expressing their First Amendment rights, but we must continue to heighten the conflict until there are real splits within the power structure.

In order to maintain their power, the ruling class requires support from the people.

• They require people to give them authority. That is why the autonomous zone in Seattle is so powerful, it is challenging that legitimacy.
• They require people to do the actual work, from the bureaucrats to city maintenance workers to other essential workers. That is why the call for a general strike is so powerful. If workers slow down or withhold their labor, governments and cities won’t function.
• They require skills and knowledge of people. The ruling elites don’t know how to run the machines or systems on which they depend.
• They require control over material resources such as energy, water and property. Last December, electrical workers in France cut off power to the police stations, big businesses and management and turned the power on for workers and the poor.
• They require the ability to punish people who disobey them. If guards and police refuse to stop people, courts refuse to prosecute and jails refuse to hold people, the power elites lose that control.

The bottom line is that we have the ability to remove power from the ruling class and that must be our goal if we are to win the changes we need in this moment of multiple crises. The seeds of transformation have been planted, now it is our task to nurture them.

We do that by putting out a vision of the changes we require and continuing to protest in support of that vision. We need to build relationships with others in our community to raise awareness of the crises and how to stop them. We need to support each other through mutual aid and building alternative systems to meet basic needs. Through our collective effort, we can stop the destructive machine and create a new world.

*

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.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published. 

It’s all desperately sad to watch, isn’t it? At TruePublica we have consistently warned since David Cameron’s 2015 electoral win that Britain was in grave danger. We warned that Cameron, little more than an over-privileged corporate public relations agent would usher in the decline of Britain leading to a proud nation circling the plughole.

We warned that Brexit would happen, we warned that global Britain would rapidly decline, we warned that Conservatism would die, that a technocrat would bring us a techno-Starsi-state and we warned of economic decline, social breakdown and what the undermining of institutions to uphold civil society would do. We’ve spent five years on the same drum, writing articles and books, investigating, publishing and lobbying politicians.

Take a good look, because this week should give some clue as to what is really happening in Britain today and what our future looks like.

Boris Johnson’s handling and record of leading the country through the Covid-19 crisis speaks volumes. The worst fatality rate in Europe. The world’s worst death rate per million. Public health workers raising funds to sue the government for negligence. Tens of thousands of families have been shattered because of right-wing dogma – who are also gearing up class-action lawsuits to bring justice to loved ones lost.

The economic crisis is soon to follow. April was the worst recessionary month this country has ever witnessed, as it has been all over the world. But in Britain, the OECD predicts it will be the worst recovery of all developed countries across the planet.

In the space of a week, a culture war erupted that started with the Black Lives Matter movement in a country still coming to terms with its own colonial history and ended with a bunch of beer-soaked white nationalists attacking the police and urinating over statues of heroes defending the nation from terrorism that we rightly should be proud of. In true Trumpism, Johnson, a known racist himself condemned the violence as “racist thuggery” in a post on Twitter. That was it.

But Johnson really should have been revelling in his ‘no-extension’ speech that no-one heard because all the other noise of division is much louder. Meanwhile, British business leaders went on the offensive and roundly hit out at Downing Street because they rightly feel that dealing with the pandemic and a hard-Brexit on December 31st is simply too much. So Johnson had to embarrassingly back down and agree to reduce hard border checks with the EU. This was only two weeks after admitting that a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland was both A) a lie and B) an inconvenient truth.

Like Trump, Johnson could only think to lie again and said that “Confidence will return and you will see a bounce back in the UK” – without a shred of evidence that it will. Indeed all the indicators and predictors of economic performance say the opposite – just as the OECD confirmed.

The furlough scheme, which as of last week had seen nearly 9 million jobs supported by the government at a cost of about £20 billion, has been largely responsible for preventing a historic spike in unemployment. Some experts are now forecasting unemployment will approach or even exceed 10 per cent at the year-end, something not seen in the U.K. since the depression years of the 1930s. But if that was bad enough, wait until those beer-bellied yobs lose their jobs and get in a queue at the Job Centre where the Universal Credit computer says no.

In a TruePublica article last year entitled: Cruel Britannia – the Road to Ruin, we said:

“Whilst, on the subject of right-wing nationalists, another social grenade with the pin pulled by the likes of Farage, Johnson and Co, is the rise of white nationalism – or as some like to mistakenly call it ‘Britain’s exceptionalism’ (which is a different failure). The tiniest spark and Britain’s cities could go up in the bi-coloured flames of white versus black. Black people in Britain have many genuine grievances. Windrush is just one awful example of many and they will no doubt air them – but white supremacism/nationalism is a cancer that needs swift surgical targeting. It’s how Hitler convinced a nation to kill millions and leave the world in ruins.”

It’s no coincidence that the pandemic has highlighted the very deep inequalities that exist in Britain when figures also released last week showed people in England’s poorest areas are more than twice as likely to have died from COVID-19 than in the richest areas. And this also happens to be where racial tensions are high.

Imperial College’s epidemic modelling expert Neil Ferguson, who was thrown under a political bus to save the fires burning around Boris Johnson’s feet, did not mince his words by saying that had the U.K. gone into lockdown just one week earlier — a decision that ultimately rested with Johnson – the Covid death toll, estimated by the FT at well over 60,000, could have been halved.

Then, to add more pain, the government plan to get children back to school to release the workforce emphatically failed because teachers no longer trust the government. The ‘trace and track’ app then failed because one-third of the public also doesn’t trust … the government.

Corruption and malfeasance have been uncovered in the heart of this government throughout the last month. In just one incident of several, GCHQ demanded the cyber-security keys to the entire NHS database and within days, Palantir – the American company at the centre of the Cambridge Analytica scandal has taken the personal health records of every man, woman and child in the country to sell to American ‘healthcare’ and insurance giants.

“It’s what they wanted all along and this is what national division looks like – white nationalists pissing over our heroes outside the home of democracy while riot police protect a boarded up statue of Winston Churchill”

Boris Johnson, a man with little interest in either hard work or detail has insisted his government has been “led by the science” and taken the “right decisions at the right time.” Unfortunately, even many of his own team concede it’s all gone a bit ‘Pete Tong.’ Asked last Wednesday to pinpoint his biggest regrets, England’s chief medical officer Chris Whitty said: “there’s a long list of things we need to look at very seriously,” but also conceded that slowness to increase its testing capacity at the start of the outbreak was key.

Then it emerged from the National Audit Office – also last week, that 25,000 elderly patients had been discharged from hospitals into care homes between March 17 and April 15. This was done with no policy in place to test for COVID-19. The outcome of that is still being investigated. Even Jeremy Hunt – a man who despises the ideology of a taxpayer-funded NHS, now chair of the governments’ health committee said it was “extraordinary we did not appear to consider risks of asymptomatic infection.”

Then the former advisor to Boris Johnson, Tim Montgomerie – a Times columnist, came out with an article entitled – “Boris Johnson Isn’t Fit To Lead.” “There is little escaping an obvious reality: this is a prime minister without clothes. The country can see this, even if cabinet ministers and Tory MPs pretend not to. He is what he is and he is not up to the job.

The Spectator, the mouthpiece of centre-right politics concluded that the “prime minister is painfully out of his depth.”

The letters that spell “Cummings” now sends shivers up the national spine. This unelected sociopath is the maniac running the country from Downing Street, which Charlie Cooper at politico describes as – “as a closed shop, running things from the centre under a “reign of terror.”

The Telegraph also withdraws support from the government when it headlines with a piece entitled: Britain is a ship of fools heading for the rocks. “What has become of your country?” one foreign diplomat asked me the other day. “We see only a ship of fools and a plague ship at that.”

The result to all of this is that the newly elected Boris Johnson, who would normally be on his political honeymoon has crashed in all of the poll-ratings bar none. Keir Starmer, the newly elected leader of the Labour party – a man who has the arduous task of repairing a party riven in discord – is now 20 points ahead. An Ipsos MORI published last Friday, saw Starmer at +31 – the best approval rating of any opposition leader since Tony Blair in the 1990s.

In other words, the ideology of the hard left under Corbyn and hard-right under Johnson has almost universally collapsed. For Corbyn, it was about perceived militant economic extremism and for Johnson, its everything he’s screwed up – which is everything he turns his hand to.

The division sowed by the likes of David Cameron who desperately swung the party to the right to appease its flagging popularity and those over 65 who wanted Brexit have led Britain to where we are right now – divided. We now have a fully-fledged binary nation where baby boomers despise millennials, the left hates the right, and we’re all either in or out, black or white and so on. There’s no stopping it. We can’t agree on anything. It’s what Britain is today.

Michael Gove said last week – “On 1 January 2021 we will take back control and regain our political & economic independence.” This was his idea of how brilliant Britain will be by denying her a few months breathing space by allowing for a Brexit extension. Gove lied about the process in the beginning, lied about what would happen throughout, and even lied specifically about the extension option. This is why Britain is literally falling to pieces at the seams – because it’s now built of a raft of lies and division.

Britain is now completely immersed in it and it is no better exemplified than baying white nationalists spoiling for a fight, pissing over heroes outside the home of democracy, while riot police protect a boarded up statue of Winston Churchill.

*

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 images in this article are from TP

One of the most disturbing aspects of American foreign policy since 9/11 has been the assumption that decisions made by the United States are binding on the rest of the world, best exemplified by President George W. Bush’s warning that “there was a new sheriff in town.” Apart from time of war, no other nation has ever sought to prevent other nations from trading with each other, nor has any government sought to punish foreigners using sanctions with the cynical arrogance demonstrated by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The United States uniquely seeks to penalize other sovereign countries for alleged crimes that did not occur in the U.S. and that did not involve American citizens, while also insisting that all nations must comply with whatever penalties are meted out by Washington. At the same time, it demonstrates its own hypocrisy by claiming sovereign immunity whenever foreigners or even American citizens seek to use the courts to hold it accountable for its many crimes.

The conceit by the United States that it is the acknowledged judge, jury and executioner in policing the international community began in the post-World War 2 environment, when hubristic American presidents began referring to themselves as “leaders of the free world.” This pretense received legislative and judicial backing with passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 (ATA) as amended in 1992 plus subsequent related legislation, to include the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act of 2016 (JASTA). The body of legislation can be used to obtain civil judgments against alleged terrorists for attacks carried out anywhere in the world and can be employed to punish governments, international organizations and even corporations that are perceived to be supportive of terrorists, even indirectly or unknowingly. Plaintiffs are able to sue for injuries to their “person, property, or business” and have ten years to bring a claim.

Sometimes the connections and level of proof required by a U.S. court to take action are tenuous, and that is being polite. Suits currently can claim secondary liability for third parties, including banks and large corporations, under “material support” of terrorism statutes. This includes “aiding and abetting” liability as well as providing “services” to any group that the United States considers to be terrorist, even if the terrorist label is dubious and/or if that support is inadvertent.

The ability to sue in American courts for redress of either real or imaginary crimes has led to the creation of a lawfare culture in which lawyers representing a particular cause seek to bankrupt an opponent through both legal expenses and damages. To no one’s surprise, Israel is a major litigator against entities that it disapproves of. The Israeli government has even created and supports an organization called Shurat HaDin, which describes on its website how it uses the law to bankrupt opponents.

The Federal Court for the Southern District of Manhattan has become the clearing house for suing the pants off of any number of foreign governments and individuals with virtually no requirement that the suit have any merit beyond claims of “terrorism.” In February 2015, a lawsuit initiated by Shurat HaDin led to the conviction of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization of liability for terrorist attacks in Israel between 2000 and 2004. The New York Federal jury awarded damages of $218.5 million, but under a special feature of the Anti-Terrorism Act the award was automatically tripled to $655.5 million. Shurat HaDin claimed sanctimoniously that it was “bankrupting terror.”

The most recent legal victory for Israel and its friends occurred in a federal district court in the District of Columbia on June 1^st, where Syria and Iran were held to be liable for the killing of American citizens in Palestinian terrorist attacks that have taken place in Israel. Judge Randolph D. Moss ruled that Americans wounded and killed in seven attacks carried out by Palestinians inside the Jewish state were eligible for damages from Iran and Syria because they provided “material support” to militant groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The court will at a future date determine the amount of the actual damages.

It should be observed that the alleged crime took place in a foreign country, Israel, and the attribution of blame came from Israeli official sources. Also, there was no actual evidence that Syria and Iran were in any way actively involved in planning or directly enabling the claimed attacks, which is why the expression “material support,” which is extremely elastic, was used. In this case, both Damascus and Tehran are definitely guilty as charged in recognizing and having contact with the Palestinian resistance organizations though it has never been credibly asserted that they have any influence over their actions. Syria and Iran were, in fact, not represented in the proceedings, a normal practice as neither country has diplomatic representation in the U.S. and the chances of a fair hearing given the existing legislation have proven to be remote.

And one might well ask if the legislation can be used against Israel, with American citizens killed by the Israelis (Rachel Corrie, Furkan Dogan) being able to sue the Jewish state’s government for compensation and damages. Nope. U.S. courts have ruled in similar cases that Israel’s army and police are not terrorist organizations, nor do they materially support terrorists, so the United States’ judicial system has no jurisdiction to try them. That result should surprise no one as the legislation was designed to specifically target Muslims and Muslim groups.

In any event, the current court ruling which might total hundreds of millions of dollars could prove to be difficult to collect due to the fact that both Syria and Iran have little in the way of remaining assets in the U.S. In previous similar suits, most notably in June 2017, a jury deliberated for one day before delivering a guilty verdict against two Iranian foundations for violation of U.S. sanctions, allowing a federal court to authorize the U.S. government seizure of a skyscraper in Midtown Manhattan. It was the largest terrorism-related civil forfeiture in United States history. The presiding judge decided to distribute proceeds from the building’s sale, nearly $1 billion, to the families of victims of terrorism, including the September 11th attacks. The court ruled that Iran had some culpability for the 9/11 attacks solely based on its status as a State Department listed state sponsor of terrorism, even though the court could not demonstrate that Iran was in any way directly involved.

A second court case involved Syria, ruling that Damascus was liable for the targeting and killing of an American journalist who was in an active war zone covering the shelling of a rebel held area of Homs in 2012. The court awarded $302.5 million to the family of the journalist, Marie Colvin. In her ruling, Judge Amy Berman Jackson cited “Syria’s longstanding policy of violence” seeking “to intimidate journalists” and “suppress dissent.” A so-called human rights group funded by the U.S. and other governments called the Center for Justice and Accountability based its argument, as in the case of Iran, on relying on the designation of Damascus as a state sponsor of terrorism. The judge believed that the evidence presented was “credible and convincing.”

Another American gift to international jurisprudence has been the Magnitsky Act of 2012, a product of the feel-good enthusiasm of the Barack Obama Administration. It was based on a narrative regarding what went on in Russia under the clueless Boris Yeltsin and his nationalist successor Vladimir Putin that was peddled by one Bill Browder, who many believe to have been a major player in the looting of the former Soviet Union. It was claimed by Browder and his accomplices in the media that the Russian government had been complicit in the arrest, torture and killing of one Sergei Magnitsky, an accountant turned whistleblower working for Browder. Almost every aspect of the story has been challenged, but it was completely bought into by the Congress and White House and led to sanctions on the Russians who were allegedly involved despite Moscow’s complaints that the U.S. had no legal right to interfere in its internal affairs relating to a Russian citizen.

Worse still, the Magnitsky Act has been broadened and is now the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act of 2017. It is being used to sanction and otherwise punish alleged “human rights abusers” in other countries and has a very low bar for establishing credibility. It was most recently used in the Jamal Khashoggi case, in which the U.S. sanctioned the alleged killers of the Saudi dissident journalist even though no one had actually been arrested or convicted of any crime.

The long-established principle that Washington should respect the sovereignty of other states even when it disagrees with their internal or foreign policies has effectively been abandoned. And, as if things were not bad enough, some recent legislation virtually guarantees that in the near future the United States will be doing still more to interfere in and destabilize much of the world. Congress passed and President Trump has signed the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, which seeks to improve Washington’s response to mass killings. The prevention of genocide and mass murder is now a part of American national security agenda. There will be a Mass Atrocity Task Force and State Department officers will receive training to sensitize them to impending genocide, though presumably the new program will not apply to the Palestinians as the law’s namesake never was troubled by their suppression and killing by the state of Israel.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

According to American media, U.S. President Donald Trump plans to withdraw 9,500 American soldiers from Germany. U.S. troop numbers in Germany will be reduced to about 25,000 at a time when Warsaw insists on the strengthening of American military presence in Poland.

Germany pays for 35,000 foreign soldiers and 17,000 civilian workers, along with their families, to be in the European country. Between 2012 and 2019, Berlin allocated €480 million to all expenses related to hosting NATO soldiers in Germany. This was almost exclusively for the Americans. For 2019-2030, another €650 million was allocated. The claim that Germany is receiving American defense for free is completely untrue.

Even the withdrawal of nearly 10,000 American soldiers from Germany will not change anything significantly for the European country. This is because the main heart of the U.S. presence in Germany is the Ramstein base. The U.S. will never leave Ramstein as it is effectively an American enclave on German soil and is the center of military logistics and an important point to observe Eastern Europe.

In the end, the deployment of American troops is only part of the U.S.’ long-term plans for Europe, which was once well explained by a Polish-American political scientist and political adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Namely, the U.S. wants to control France, Germany, Poland and Ukraine as they can collectively oppose Russia. Since the presidency of Charles de Gaulle (1959-1969), Washington has never been able to fully control Paris, especially since there are no U.S. military bases in France. Germany however operated according to the American model and is one of its most loyal allies to progress U.S. interests in Europe. Poland under conservative rule is strengthening its historical hostilities towards Russia, and to a lesser extent against Germany, too. This makes Poland an ideal partner for the U.S. in Europe, and today, probably even more so then Germany. Meanwhile, Ukraine is always proving to be a willing agent of Washington against Russia.

Some German politicians in response to the withdrawal of some American soldiers are leading mass hysteria. They want to win or buy Washington’s favor. This is despite the fact that Germany from an economic perspective will benefit from the partial American withdrawal; while on the other hand, Germany does not have its so-called security concerns weakened since the American soldiers will be placed just a few hundred kilometers away in Poland, which of course is to put further pressure against Kaliningrad.

From the point of view of security policy, Germany nevertheless remains dependent on the U.S. military and political establishment and can be caught up in American aggressions that it does not need to be involved in. European emancipation in the field of security policy is only being pushed by the French and the status quo of American dominance is ardently defended by many other European countries, especially Poland.

Russia has already expressed its concerns that the potential relocation of American soldiers is directed against its country. Spokeswoman for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Maria Zakharova said “as for the White House initiative mentioned earlier, it is also worrying because immediately there was a proposal to move American soldiers still stationed in Germany to neighboring Poland. I would like to emphasize that the reconfiguration of the U.S. presence towards Russian borders will not only deepen the already high tension in the sphere of security on the continent, but will further complicate the prospects for the development of constructive dialogue between Russia and NATO in the military and political sphere.”

However, Poland is facing competition for the relocation of these American soldiers. The Atlantic Council of Bulgaria is urging for the Balkan country’s government to not pass up the opportunity and advocates that they should ask the U.S. to relocate American soldiers from Germany to Bulgaria.

In a Facebook post, the Atlantic Council of Bulgaria argues that “The urgent need to strengthen NATO’s southeastern flank, in the context of the violated balance of powers in the Black Sea in favor of the Russian Federation” and “a new generation of people who are permanently oriented towards the values of the Euro-Atlantic family and firmly determined to permanently interrupt Russian dependencies, which are still stumbling the development of the state,” are reasons why the U.S. must relocate its troops to Bulgaria.

Whether these soldiers are relocated to Poland, or potentially even Bulgaria, the purpose is to strengthen countries that are willingly and wanting to oppose Russia. Despite some German concerns that their security will be weakened, Ramstein base will remain the jewel of American military deployments in Europe. Although some commentators believe the American soldiers leaving Germany was a partial U.S. withdrawal from Europe, it is actually an escalation aimed at pressuring Russia.

*

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

Since taking office, the Trump regime upped the stakes in Washington’s long war by other means on Iran.

US hostility toward the Islamic Republic has nothing to do with a national security threat that doesn’t exist.

It’s all about its sovereign independence, wanting Israel’s main regional rival neutralized and returning Iran to US client state status, along with gaining control over its huge hydrocarbon resources, some of the world’s largest.

The Trump regime is waging all-out war on Iran by other means.

In early June, the CIA-connected Washington Post falsely claimed that Tehran might attack US regional positions ahead of its November 3 presidential election.

Separately, recent reports by Fox News and the Times of Israel perpetuated the myth about Iran getting closer to being able to produce nukes.

Unreliable sources for these claims come from Israel and US Iranophobes, no credible evidence supporting them because none exists.

What’s going on is longstanding US/Israeli propaganda war on Iran, pushing the envelope toward possible direct confrontation beyond what already happened.

It’s a dangerous, high-risk game, risking war with a nation able to hit back hard if preemptively attacked.

The latest inflammatory accusation against Iran comes from UN secretary general Antonio Guterres, a figure dismissive of US, NATO, Israeli high crimes of war and against humanity.

Never condemning them, his customary response to naked aggression is urging both sides to “show restraint.”

His latest support for imperial interests over world peace came from a conveniently leaked UN report last week that cites him.

It claimed Iranian missiles were used to attack Saudi oil installations last September, backing Trump regime accusations at the time.

Ignored was longstanding US war on Yemen since October 2001 — launched by Bush/Cheney, escalated by Obama with Saudi involvement, Trump upping the stakes exponentially.

In October 2016, Reuters claimed that Iran was supplying Yemeni Houthis with weapons through neighboring Oman — unnamed US, other “Western” officials its source, along with Saudi Arabia.

In response, Omani Foreign Minister Yousef bin Alwi debunked the accusation, saying:

“There is no truth to this. No weapons have crossed our border and we are ready to clarify any suspicions if they arise.”

Reuters admitted the following:

Yemeni “Houthis gained a trove of weapons when whole divisions allied to former Yemen President Ali Abdullah Saleh sided with them at the start of the war last year,” adding:

“US and (other) Western officials who spoke to Reuters about (access to weapons by Houthi fighters said their claim) was based on intelligence they had seen but did not elaborate on its nature” — its credibility very suspect not explained by the wire service.

According to the leaked UN report, missiles used by the Houthis have Iranian “design characteristics (and/or) bear Farsi markings.”

Left unsaid was if Iran was supplying missiles to Houthis, why would its authorities let them be easily identified, notably by Farsi markings on them?

In response to 2018 accusations of Iran supplying Houthis with missiles, then IRGC commander General Ali Jafari debunked the claim, saying:

“How is it possible to send weapons, especially missiles, to a country which is fully under siege and there is even no possibility to send medical aid and foodstuff?”

“Missiles fired at Saudi Arabia belong to Yemen which have been overhauled and their range has been increased.”

Iranian Defense Minister Amir Hatami denounced a pattern of false US accusations, while ignoring its own imperial high crimes.

On Saturday, Iran’s UN envoy Majid Takht Ravanchi slammed the leaked UN report, saying:

“Iranian origin of arms (to Yemeni Houthis) is a fallacy. The UN secretariat lacks capacity, expertise and knowledge to conduct investigations,” adding:

“It seems the US, with its history of Iran-bashing, sits in the driver’s seat to shape UN assessments.”

On Friday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry dismissed the leaked UN report as unacceptable propaganda, adding:

“The UN Secretariat’s report is clearly under political pressure from the US and Saudi regimes.”

It appears that the report “was prepared under direction of the (Trump regime) to be used…in the Security Council against Iran.”

“Such dictated processes will cause severe damage to the credibility and undermine the integrity of the United Nations.”

“The (Trump regime) is the gravest violator of Security Council Resolution 2231, and no one can clear the name of that State from systematic violations of international rules.”

Iran is the region’s leading proponent of peace, stability, and mutual cooperation with other nations — at war with none, threatening none.

Its military capabilities are solely for defense, its legal right under international law.

Its involvement in Syria is all about aiding government forces combat US supported ISIS and likeminded terrorists, Iranian military advisors in the country, not combat troops.

The US, its key NATO allies, Israel, and the Saudis are aggressor states, waging preemptive regional wars.

Instead of laying blame where it belongs for what’s gone on endlessly in the Middle East, the region transformed into a permanent war theater by the US and its allies, Guterres falsely suggested that Iran breached Security Council Res. 2231, unanimously affirming the JCPOA.

Since adopted in 2015, taking effect in January 2016, Iran has been in full compliance with its provisions — no evidence suggesting otherwise.

In sharp contrast, the US breached the agreement, notably by Trump abandonment of what’s binding international and US constitutional law under its Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2).

Britain, France, Germany, and the EU breached the landmark agreement by failing to observe its provisions.

Iran slammed the new UN report, saying it was prepared and leaked because of “political pressure from the (Trump) and Saudi regimes.”

Its timing comes when Pompeo and other Trump regime hardliners want the expiring UN arms embargo on Iran kept in force permanently, along with UN sanctions ended by the JCPOA reimposed.

The Security Council has final say on these issues. Russia and China firmly oppose reimposition.

The US, no longer part of the JCPOA because of Trump’s unlawful abandonment of the deal, is pushing hard for reimposition.

Which way EU countries intend to go remains uncertain.

Will they uphold the rule of law and save the JCPOA, or let it die by siding with hostile Trump regime policies against nonbelligerent Iran.

What happens will be known as things play out in the weeks and months ahead.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

---

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

The backlash against Donald Trump’s illegal show of military force against anti-racist protesters compelled him to withdraw the troops — for now. But we must continue raising the illegality of this use of the military and pushing for barriers to guard against future such deployments. The threat of a resurgence of this violation still looms because as the protests continue, Trump might change his mind. And if he loses the election, all bets are off.

Government officials, legislators, lawyers and civil society should strenuously oppose the recall of federal troops because it would be deadly as well as illegal.

“Armed forces taking on protesters may cause them to go away, but make no mistake: People would die. And even one more death is too many,” Kelsey Baker, a former Marine who deployed to Kuwait and Iraq, wrote for Newsweek.

Although Trump didn’t invoke the Insurrection Act to justify his deployment of troops against Black people and their allies, he may well do so in the future. A review of how Trump ordered military personnel to Washington, D.C., is instructive and alarming.

As the collective outrage at the police lynching of George Floyd filled streets nationwide, Donald Trump threatened to use the U.S. military against anti-racist protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.

On May 28, Trump warned he would “send in the National Guard & get the job done right,” tweeting,

“….These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”

On June 1, Trump announced he had dispatched federal troops to Washington, D.C., “to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, including your Second Amendment rights.” Trump said he was ordering “thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers” to the nation’s capital.

The U.S. president sees the Movement for Black Lives as the enemy to be vanquished by his military. Trump’s attempt to co-opt Floyd’s memory and his appeal to his gun rights base were shameful.

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us,” former Defense Secretary James Mattis charged.

“All around the country, protests against police violence have been met with more police violence,” Gerry Condon, former president of Veterans For Peace (VFP), told Truthout. “Calling in the Army and the National Guard, however, will make things worse — not better.”

Moreover, it would be illegal.

Trump Threatens Governors and Deploys Troops to Washington

Trump challenged the nation’s governors to deploy large numbers of National Guardsmen in order to “dominate the streets.” Otherwise, he warned, “they’re gonna run over you, you’re gonna look like a bunch of jerks. You have to dominate.” Secretary of Defense Mark Esper echoed Trump, telling the governors, “the sooner that you mass and dominate the battlespace, the quicker this dissipates and we can get back to the right normal.”

Several governors said thanks, but no thanks. “I reject the notion that the federal government can send troops into the state of Illinois,” Illinois Gov. J. B. Pritzker told CNN. “The president has created an incendiary moment here…. His rhetoric is inflaming passions. He should stay out of our business. Every day he has inflamed racial tensions.”

In a joint statement, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and Denver Mayor Michael Hancock noted,

“There is no need for the deployment of U.S. troops to maintain order in our city. The President’s threat to deploy federal troops is counterproductive and will only stoke the potential for worse violence and destruction.”

About 1,600 troops from Fort Bragg and Fort Drum began arriving in Washington on June 1. Trump wanted 10,000 active duty troops dispatched throughout the country, but Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley reportedly talked him out of it.

“The military is not trained in peacekeeping or de-escalation. Soldiers are trained to use lethal force, which is often employed against civilians in faraway lands,” said Condon. “Now they are being ordered to suppress peaceful protesters in this country who are exercising their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.”

Indeed, The New York Times reports the Pentagon used Army National Guard helicopters in Washington “as a show of force usually reserved for combat zones.” On June 1, two helicopters flew low over protesters, sending them running for cover and tearing posters from the sides of buildings. Intended as a “persistent presence,” pilots were given no guidance and were forced to wing it. “The wind speeds created by a low-hovering helicopter can lift objects and cause serious damage, potentially leading to injury or death,” according to a Human Rights Watch report.

On June 7, after his threat to use federal troops against people exercising their constitutional rights drew widespread condemnation from military leaders, defense officials and members of Congress, Trump complied with Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser’s demand and ordered the National Guard to withdraw from Washington, adding, “now that everything is under perfect control.”

But Trump had threatened on June 4 that “all options are on the table” and when he gave the June 7 order, he said the troops “can quickly return if needed.”

Generals and Defense Officials Oppose Using Troops Against Protesters

In a stunning statement, 89 former defense officials said on June 5, “We are alarmed at how the president is betraying [his] oath [to support and defend the Constitution] by threatening to order members of the U.S. military to violate the rights of their fellow Americans.” They wrote that Trump gave governors “a stark choice: either end the protests that continue to demand equal justice under our laws, or expect that he will send active-duty military units into their states.” The defense officials called on Trump “to immediately end his plans to send active-duty military personnel into cities as agents of law enforcement, or to employ them or any another military or police forces in ways that undermine the constitutional rights of Americans.”

Reacting to Esper’s characterization of U.S. streets filled with protesters, retired Army Gen. Tony Thomas, who commanded the U.S. Special Operations Command, said that U.S. soil should not be called a “battlespace” unless a foreign power invades it.

Mattis issued a scathing rebuke of Trump’s reaction to the anti-racist protests. “‘Equal Justice Under Law’ … is precisely what the protesters are rightly demanding,” he wrote in a statement. “Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”

The former defense secretary was describing Trump’s cynical staged appearance in front of a church holding a Bible after his administration used tear gas and flash-bang explosions to disperse a peaceful crowd protesting in front the White House on June 1.

Before the 2018 midterm elections, Trump also deployed active-duty troops to the southern U.S. border as a prop to show how “tough” he was.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, who lost both legs serving as a military helicopter pilot in Iraq, said that Esper’s and Milley’s participation in Trump’s photo op in front of the church “sends a horrifying message to our troops — including our black and brown troops — that our military’s leaders will not protect them from unlawful orders.”

The Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders

Members of the military “will obey lawful orders,” retired Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote for The Atlantic.

“But I am less confident in the soundness of the orders they will be given by this commander in chief, and I am not convinced that the conditions on our streets, as bad as they are, have risen to the level that justifies a heavy reliance on military troops.”

The Uniform Code of Military Justice requires that all military personnel obey lawful orders. Article 92 says, “A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States.” A law that violates the Constitution or a federal statute is an unlawful order. Both the Army Field Manual and the Nuremberg Principles create a duty to disobey unlawful orders.

Using federal troops for civilian law enforcement violates the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA). The Insurrection Act contains an exception to the PCA. But it is reserved for extreme emergencies and has largely been used to enforce, not to violate, civil rights.

There are four ways to trigger the Insurrection Act to deploy the military on U.S. soil:

First, when the legislature or governor of a state asks the president for assistance to put down an insurrection against the government (section 251);

Second, when the president “considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings” (section 252);

Third, when “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” deprives people of a legal right, privilege, immunity, or protection, that results in the denial of Equal Protection (section 253(1)); or

Fourth, where “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy …. opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” (section 253(2)).

Most of the times the Insurrection Act has been invoked have occurred pursuant to section 251. For example, in 1992, California Gov. Pete Wilson asked President George H.W. Bush to deploy federal troops to suppress the uprising after the officers who beat Rodney King were acquitted in their state trial.

Section 252, which is triggered by the president’s subjective belief, requires him to find that it is “impracticable” for the courts and criminal legal system to work properly. That threshold has not been met in the current situation. Although courts would be unlikely to overrule the president’s subjective decision, service members may decide that his order was illegal and refuse to obey it.

Moreover, there has been no violation of the Equal Protection Clause sufficient to trigger the use of section 253, which was enacted after the Civil War to ensure that Southern states enforced the federal rights of Black people. In 1962 and 1963, President John F. Kennedy used this section to send federal troops to Alabama and Mississippi to enforce civil rights laws. And President Lyndon Johnson also used section 253 in 1965 to protect civil rights demonstrators from police violence during the march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama.

But Trump would use federal troops to violate, not protect, the civil rights of anti-racist protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.

Veterans For Peace called on “all current National Guard members to lay down their weapons and refuse to fight against their neighbors and fellow community members” and “refuse to serve violent and racist interests.” VFP cited “a connection between increasing racist violence in the United States and the massive indiscriminate killing of hundreds of thousands of people in other lands. Growing racism against black, brown and Muslim people in the United States is a reflection of the racism that justifies killing non-white people abroad.”

“To their credit, many soldiers and National Guard members know this is wrong,” said VFP’s Condon. “Some have already gone AWOL. Others are contacting the GI Rights Hotline for information about their legal alternatives. They do not want to attack people right here in the United States.”

The National Lawyers Guild’s Military Law Task Force (MLTF) issued a statement strongly condemning the use of National Guard and other active duty troops against anti-racist protesters. The MLTF is urging “anyone who is activated or deployed or might be facing a future deployment to call us for referral to a civilian attorney or counselor to discuss your options.”

Congress Members Oppose Using Troops Against Protesters

Almost two dozen Democratic senators wrote to Esper and Milley, opposing the use of the Insurrection Act to deploy federal troops within the United States. They called it “a significant departure from important historical uses of the law.” The senators “oppose in the strongest terms the use of U.S. military to impede the First Amendment rights of Americans,” who, they said, “are exercising their civil liberties in a call to hold government institutions to a higher standard in the fight for racial justice.” They added, “The military should never be weaponized by the President to limit these expressions for liberty and justice.”

On June 2, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia announced he would propose an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act this week to prevent federal funding for the use of military force against protesters.

When called by Rep. Adam Smith, Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to testify about the role of the military in the protests, Esper and Milley refused.

Although the outcry against Trump’s deployment of federal troops to Washington pressured him into removing them, he could recall them at any time. We must be vigilant and sustain the opposition to Trump’s illegal use of the military against anti-racist protesters.

*

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

Copyright © Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

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

Featured image is from AP Photo/Alex Brandon

There are more people behind bars in the United States than there are living in major American cities[1] such as Phoenix or Philadelphia. According to a 2018 report from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, nearly 2 million adults[2] were being held in America’s prisons and jails. Of these 2 million prisoners, about 128,063[3] were detained in federal or state facilities operated by private prison facilities, a 47 percent increase from the 87,369[4] prisoners in 2000.

In 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) inspector general initiated a review[5] to examine conditions at a number of for-profit prisons that the federal government contracted with from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2014. A report on the findings indicated that private prisons had a 28 percent[6] higher rate of inmate-on-inmate assaults and more than twice as many inmate-on-staff assaults compared with federally run or operated prisons. Furthermore, the report found that for-profit prisons in the United States were more likely to endanger inmates’ security and rights. These problems were so significant that in August 2016, the Obama administration announced that it would begin to phase out private prisons.[7]

As the number of incarcerated individuals in for-profit prisons grew, so did the number of immigrants detained in such facilities. According to a report by the Sentencing Project[8], about 4,841 immigrants were detained in for-profit facilities in 2000. By 2016, that number had soared to 26,249 immigrants—a 442 percent increase.[9] In the wake of the DOJ’s decision to phase out the use of for-profit prisons, the Homeland Security Advisory Council reviewed[10] the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) use of private immigration detention facilities. Immediately after this review was announced, the stock prices of private prison company giants CoreCivic—formerly the Corrections Corporation of America—and the GEO Group Inc. dropped by 9.4 percent and 6 percent, respectively.[11] A majority of the council agreed with the view that DHS should begin to move away from using private prison facilities but recommended that while they were still in use, they “should come with improved and expanded [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] oversight.”[12]

Following the inauguration of President Donald Trump in January 2017, however, the administration immediately shifted course to robustly support private prisons. In February of that year, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions revoked the Obama administration’s initiative,[13] and by April 2017, the DOJ began requesting bids for contracts to house federal inmates in private prison facilities[14] once again. That same month, the GEO Group won a $110 million[15] contract to build the first detention center under the new administration.

The fact that private prisons have serious, documented flaws raises questions as to why the Trump administration is so eager to support them. It is noteworthy that a pro-Trump PAC[16] and the president’s inaugural committee[17] have benefited from the private prison industry’s financial contributions. The Trump family business has benefited from the industry’s patronage as well.[18]

This issue brief details how Trump administration policies have increased the migrant detainee population—and the profits of private prisons—as well as endangered the lives of migrants being held in detention. The brief then illustrates just how much money private prisons have spent in U.S. political campaigns.

Trump administration policies have increased the number of migrants in detention

The Trump administration has implemented policies that have increased the number of migrants in detention. In early 2017, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,”[19] which instituted a massive expansion of immigration enforcement within the United States.[20] It defined enforcement priorities so broadly[21] that all undocumented individuals became subject to deportation orders, regardless of how long they had been in the country. The order represented a radical departure from the Obama administration’s approach, which prioritized the removal of migrants who had been found guilty of crimes. The executive order also directed state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws.

Similarly, in April 2019, current Attorney General William Barr rescinded a decision[22] that enabled eligible asylum-seekers to request bond from immigration judges. This decision effectively instituted indefinite detention[23] due to the fact that some migrants will now be held in detention for months or years before their cases are adjudicated. Moreover, in July 2019, DHS increased its application of expedited removal, a fast-track summary process[24] for deporting noncitizens without a hearing from an immigration judge.

Last week, the Trump administration issued a final rule in a legally questionable attempt to make changes[25] to the 1997 Flores agreement,[26] a long-standing legal agreement specifying basic standards of care for minors in detention. As interpreted, this agreement requires that minors not be held in unlicensed secure detention facilities for more than 20 days. If implemented, the administration’s changes would effectively cause undocumented children and their families to be detained in inadequate, unlicensed facilities indefinitely.[27] According to the president[28] of the American Academy of Pediatrics, “no child should be placed in detention … even short periods of detention can cause psychological trauma and long-term mental health risks.”

As expected, the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration[29] policies have led to a record-high number of immigrant detainees.[30] Currently, there are about 54,344 immigrants[31] detained in about 200 detention centers across the country. In 2017, the last time ICE produced such data, more than three-fourths[32] of the average daily detainee population was being held in a for-profit detention facility. CoreCivic and the GEO Group are recipients of more than one-half of private prison industry contracts.[33] These companies manage the detention[34] of immigrants seeking asylum, those awaiting hearings in immigration courts, and those who have been identified for removal. For every 100 immigrant detainees, 32 are in GEO Group facilities, and 21 are in CoreCivic facilities.[35]

A record number of immigrants have died in detention.[36] Since 2017, 27 immigrants have died in ICE custody, including a transgender woman named Roxsana Hernandez. Johana Medina Leon, also a transgender woman, died shortly after being released from custody.[37] Of these 27 immigrants, 21 have died in facilities[38] that are owned or operated by for-profit prison companies. In June 2019, the government’s own investigators determined that conditions in major private prison facilities were “unsafe and unhealthy”[39] and violated ICE’s own standards.[40] Despite these failures, the industry is benefiting enormously. Trump administration policies around enforcement priorities and detention practices have led to an increase in the demand for detention space, which has resulted in record-high profits for private detention facilities.

Under the Trump administration, ICE has significantly increased its enforcement operations, which has directly contributed to the rise in the migrant detainee population. In order to achieve this, ICE has consistently exceeded its budget. According to reporting from Buzzfeed News, there were 52,398[41] people in ICE custody in May 2019. Congress provided funds for ICE to maintain an average of 45,000 people in detention per day in the latest budget, but with about 54,344 migrants in detention currently, the agency is overspending these funds by more than 15 percent.[42] DHS has also increasingly begun diverting funds that had been earmarked for other agency operations to ICE in order to fund enforcement and detention operations. According to a Roll Call report, DHS intends to divert more than $200 million from other programs—including disaster relief programs—to fund immigration detention. This is the fourth consecutive fiscal year in which DHS has repurposed funds meant for other agency operations toward immigration enforcement.[43]

Significantly increasing the number of immigrants in detention means record-high profits for private prisons

During his 2016 campaign, then-candidate Trump expressed support for expanding the role of private prisons and espoused hard-line immigration policies.[44] The morning after his election, stocks in CoreCivic increased by 34 percent,[45] and those in the GEO Group rose by 18 percent.[46] The two companies have informed their shareholders that federal government contracts are integral to their[47] profitability.[48] In memos to their shareholders, both companies acknowledge that policies with the potential to reduce the U.S. detainee population constitute potential risk[49] factors[50] to their business model.

Table 1 indicates the extent to which both CoreCivic and the GEO Group are dependent on three government agencies—ICE, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Marshals Service—for their business.

In light of the fact that both CoreCivic and the GEO Group have depended on just three agencies charged with enforcement and detention operations for an average of about 48 percent of their revenues over the past two years, these two companies have a vested interest in the Trump administration’s punitive immigration policies to ensure that they remain profitable.

Conditions in private detention facilities endanger immigrants’ lives

In FY 2018, DHS received $3 billion for custody operations.[51] At least 75 percent of the detention facilities for which DHS contracts are privately owned or operated. Despite this level of funding, conditions at these detention centers remain dangerous, and detainees’ rights are routinely violated. A 2019 Office of Inspector General (OIG) report[52] on an investigation of ICE oversight of its contracted detention facilities indicates that the agency routinely waives its own standards, including those meant to ensure the health and safety of detainees. Additionally, ICE often fails to include its quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP)[53]—a key tool for ensuring that facilities meet ICE’s performance standards—in facility contracts and rarely imposes financial consequences for facilities that are noncompliant.

According to the OIG report, only 28 out of the 106[54] contracts reviewed contained a QASP. The report[55] also stated that between October 1, 2015, and June 30, 2018, ICE imposed financial penalties on only two occasions despite documenting thousands of instances in which facilities failed to comply with detention standards. The OIG also investigated three GEO Group facilities[56] and found “egregious violations of detention standards.” All three facilities were found to have expired food, putting detainees’ health at risk. The GEO Group-operated Aurora, Colorado, facility failed to provide recreation and outdoor activities to detainees. At another GEO Group-operated facility in Adelanto, California, the OIG identified detainee bathrooms that “were in poor condition, including mold and peeling paint on the walls, floors, and showers, and unusable toilets.” All of these infractions violate ICE’s standards.[57]

According to a 2018 letter[58] from the Office of Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY) to DHS, “Of the 298 transgender people ICE detained in FY 2017, 13% were placed in solitary confinement.” This not only has adverse effects on detainees’ mental health and well-being but is also against ICE’s rules.[59] While there is existing Obama-era guidance[60] on how to provide care for transgender migrants in ICE custody, the guidance is not mandatory. Due to ICE’s negligence, LGBTQ+ immigrants continue to face a higher risk of sexual violence[61] than the general population. And as for-profit prisons continue to play an outsize role in immigration detention while providing substandard care, the health and safety of vulnerable populations such as LGBTQ+ migrants remain especially at risk.

Private prison companies are major players in political spending

Although private prisons have been ineffective at providing high-quality detention services, they have been effective at supporting political allies. In the 2016 presidential election, for example, the GEO Group and CoreCivic donated $250,000[62] each to President Trump’s inaugural committee. In 2017, the GEO Group moved its annual conference[63] to a Trump-owned resort in Boca Raton, Florida. Additionally, the GEO Group contributed heavily[64] to the campaigns of some members of the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the congressional subcommittee charged with funding DHS.

These companies and their employees also contribute to congressional candidates, donating overwhelmingly to those running as Republicans. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, CoreCivic and its employees have spent about $3 million[65] on campaign contributions to federal candidates and PACs since 1990. Eighty-five percent of CoreCivic’s contributions to federal candidates since 1990 have gone to Republicans, while 13 percent of its contributions have gone to Democrats. Additionally, CoreCivic has spent $26.1 million on lobbying since 1998. The GEO Group and its employees have donated about $4.4 million[66] to federal candidates and PACs since 2004. Since that year, 54 percent of the GEO Group’s campaign contributions went to Republican candidates, while 15 percent went to Democratic candidates.

Conclusion

The Trump administration’s immigration policies as well as existing immigration legislation create structural incentives to increase detention, which has largely been achieved through the use of private prisons. This increased role drives these companies’ profitability while endangering the lives of immigrants through inadequate care and a lack of accountability. Special interests should not profit from immigration enforcement. Congress and the administration should hold private detention facilities that violate ICE’S standards accountable.

*

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.

Hauwa Ahmed is a research assistant for Democracy and Government at the Center for American Progress.

Notes

1. Drew Kann,“5 facts behind America’s high incarceration rate,” CNN, April 21, 2019, available at https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/us/mass-incarceration-five-key-facts/index.html.

2. Danielle Kaeble and Mary Cowhig, “Correctional Populations in the United States, 2016” (Washington: U.S Department of Justice, 2018), available at https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus16.pdf.

3. Kara Gotsch and Vinay Basti, “Capitalizing on Mass Incarceration: U.S Growth in Private Prisons” (Washington: The Sentencing Project, 2018), available at https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/capitalizing-on-mass-incarceration-u-s-growth-in-private-prisons/.

4. Ibid.

5. Office of the Inspector General, “Review of the Bureau of Prisons Monitoring of Contract Prisons”(Washington: U.S Department of Justice, 2016), available at https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/e1606.pdf.

6. Ibid.

7. Matt Zapotosky and Chico Harlan, “Justice Department says it will end use of private prisons,” The Washington Post, August 18, 2019, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/18/justice-department-says-it-will-end-use-of-private-prisons/?postshare=9221471534255226.

8. Gotsch and Basti, “Capitalizing on Mass Incarceration.”

9. Ibid.

10. Homeland Security Advisory Council, “Report on the Subcommittee on Privatized Immigration Detention facilities” (Washington: U.S Department of Homeland Security, 2016), available at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS%20HSAC%20PIDF%20Final%20Report.pdf.

11. Julia Edwards, “U.S to review use of private immigration prisons, shares slide,” Reuters, August 29, 2016, available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-prisons-immigration-idUSKCN1141W7.

12. Homeland Security Advisory Council, “Report on the Subcommittee on Privatized Immigration Detention facilities.”

13. Eric Beech, “U.S reverses Obama-era move to phase out private prisons,” Reuters, February 23, 2017, available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-prisons/u-s-reverses-obama-era-move-to-phase-out-private-prisons-idUSKBN1622NN.

14. Lauren-Brooke Eisen, “Trump’s first year has been the private industry’s best,” Salon, January 14, 2018, available at https://www.salon.com/2018/01/14/trumps-first-year-has-been-the-private-prison-industrys-best/.

15. Ibid.

16. Mirren Gidda, “Private Prison Company GEO Group Gave Generously to Trump and Now Has Lucrative Contract,” Newsweek, May 11, 2017, available at https://www.newsweek.com/geo-group-private-prisons-immigration-detention-trump-596505.

17. Fredreka Schouten, “Private prisons back Trump and could see big pay offs with new policies,” USA Today, February 23, 2017, available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/23/private-prisons-back-trump-and-could-see-big-payoffs-new-policies/98300394/.

18. Avery Anapol, “Private prison company moves annual conference to Trump golf course,” The Hill, October 26, 2017, available at https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/357282-private-prison-company-moves-annual-conference-to-trump-golf-course.

19. Executive Office of the President, “Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” Press release, January 25, 2017, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united-states/.

20. American Immigration Council, “Summary of Executive Order ‘Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” (Washington: 2017), available at https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/immigration-interior-enforcement-executive-order.

21. Ibid.

22. Mica Rosenberg and Kristina Coke, “Trump attorney general’s ruling expands indefinite detention for asylum seekers,” Reuters, April 16, 2019, available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-bond/trump-attorney-generals-ruling-expands-indefinite-detention-for-asylum-seekers-idUSKCN1RT053.

23. Ibid.

24. American Immigration Lawyers Association, “Practice Alert: Trump Administration Expands Application of Expedited Removal,” July 22, 2019, available at https://www.aila.org/advo-media/aila-practice-pointers-and-alerts/trump-administration-expands-expedited-removal.

25. Department of Homeland Security and Department of Health and Human Services, “Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children,” Federal Register 84 (164) (2019): 44393–44535, available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-08-23/pdf/2019-17927.pdf.

26. Elizabeth Elkin and Emily Smith, “What is the Flores settlement?”, CNN, July 10, 2019, available at https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/10/politics/flores-settlement-history/index.html

27. Veronica Stracqualursi, “Trump immigration official says new rule detaining families indefinitely is a ‘deterrent’,” CNN, August 23, 2019, available at https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/politics/ken-cuccinelli-flores-settlement-cnntv/index.html.

28. American Academy of Pediatrics, “Family Separation and Detention,” available at https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/federal-advocacy/Pages/family-separation-and-detention.aspx (last accessed August 2019).

29. John Burnett, ”How the Trump Administration’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ Policy Changed The Immigration Debate,” NPR, June 20, 2019, available at https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734496862/how-the-trump-administrations-zero-tolerance-policy-changed-the-immigration-deba.

30. Isabela Dias, “ICE Detaining More People Than Ever—And For Longer,” Pacific Standard, August 1, 2019, available at https://psmag.com/news/ice-is-detaining-more-people-than-ever-and-for-longer.

31. Hamed Aleazis, “More than 52,000 People Are Now Being Detained By ICE, An Apparent All-Time High,” BuzzFeed News, May 20, 2019, available at https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/ice-detention-record-immigrants-border.

32. Detention Watch Network and Center for Constitutional Rights, “New Information from ICE ERO’s July Facility List” (Washington: 2018), available at https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/files/DWN%20Spreadsheet%20Memo.pdf.

33. Livia Luan, “Profiting from Enforcement: The Role of Private Prisons in U.S Immigration Detention” (Washington: Migration Policy Institute, 2018), available at https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/profiting-enforcement-role-private-prisons-us-immigration-detention.

34. Madison Pauly, “Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Is a Boom Time for Private Prisons,” Mother Jones, May 2018, available at https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/05/trumps-immigration-crackdown-is-a-boom-time-for-private-prisons/.

35. Ibid.

36. American Immigration Lawyers Association, “Deaths at Adult Detention Centers,” July 25, 2019, available at https://www.aila.org/infonet/deaths-at-adult-detention-centers.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid.

39. Office of the Inspector General, “Concerns about ICE Detainee Treatment and Care at Four Detention Facilities” (Washington: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2019), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2019-06/OIG-19-47-Jun19.pdf.

40. Ibid.

41. Aleazis, “More Than 52,000 People Are Now Being Detained by ICE, An Apparent All-Time High.”

42. Dias, “ICE Detaining More People Than Ever—And For Longer.”

43. Tanvi Mirsa, “Trump wants to reprogram DHS money for ICE detention operations,” Roll Call, August 27, 2019, available at http://www.rollcall.com/news/trump-wants-reprogram-dhs-money-ice-detention-operations.

44. Dylan Scott, “Trump is repeating his most explosive immigration rhetoric during the family separation crisis,” Vox, June 19, 2018, available at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/19/17479542/family-separation-trump-mexico-rapists.

45. Hanna Kozlowska and Jason Karaian, “The first big winners of Donald Trump’s victory are private prison companies, whose stocks are soaring,” Quartz, November 9, 2016, available at https://qz.com/832775/election-2016-private-prison-company-stocks-cca-and-geo-group-are-surging.

46. Ibid.

47. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, “Form 10K: The GEO Group, Inc.,” available at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923796/000119312519050054/d663410d10k.htm (last accessed August 2019).

48. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, “Form 10K: CoreCivic, Inc.,” available at http://ir.corecivic.com/static-files/f289bea9-086c-4540-82b2-114dbfb95e4e (last accessed August 2019).

49. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, “Form 10K: The GEO Group, Inc.”

50. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, “Form 10K: Core Civic, Inc.”

51. National Immigration Forum, “The Math of Immigration Detention, 2018 Update: Costs Continue to Multiply” (Washington: 2018), available at https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Math-of-Detention-2018-Update-FINAL.pdf.

52. Office of Inspector General “ICE Does Not Fully Use Contracting Tools to Hold Detention Facility Contractors Accountable for Failing to Meet Performance Standards” (Washington: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2019), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2019-02/OIG-19-18-Jan19.pdf.

53. Ibid.

54. Ibid.

55. Ibid.

56. Office of the Inspector General “Concerns about ICE Detainee Treatment and Care at Four Detention Facilities” (Washington: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2019), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2019-06/OIG-19-47-Jun19.pdf.

57. Ibid.

58. The Office of Rep. Kathleen M. Rice, “Re: Detention of LGBTQ immigrants in ICE detention,” U.S. House of Representatives, May 30, 2018, available at https://kathleenrice.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2018.05.30_lgbt_immigrants_in_ice_detention_letter_to_sec_nielsen.pdf.

59. Department of Homeland Security, “Standards to Prevent, Detect and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities; Final Rule,” Federal Register 79 (45) (2014): 13100–13183, available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2014-03-07/pdf/2014-04675.pdf.

60. Thomas Homan, “Re: Further guidance regarding the care of transgender detainees,” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, June 19, 2015, available at https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2015/TransgenderCareMemorandum.pdf.

61. Sharita Gruberg, “ICE’s Rejection of Its Own Rules Is Placing LGBT Immigrants at Severe Risk of Sexual Abuse,” Center for American Progress, May 30, 2018, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2018/05/30/451294/ices-rejection-rules-placing-lgbt-immigrants-severe-risk-sexual-abuse/.

62. Alex Baumgart, “Companies that funded Trump’s inauguration came up big in 2017,” The Center for Responsive Politics, January 19, 2018, available at https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/01/companies-that-funded-trumps-inauguration/.

63. Steve Contorno, “Why is a Florida for-profit company backing bipartisan criminal justice reform?”, Tampa Bay Times, December 7, 2018, available at https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/12/07/why-is-a-florida-for-profit-prison-company-backing-bipartisan-criminal-justice-reform/.

64. Rachel Cohrs, “Company that runs immigration detention centers is top donor for three Texas congressmen,” Dallas News, June 21, 2018, available at https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2018/06/20/company-runs-immigration-detention-centers-top-donor-two-texas-congressmen.

65. Center for Responsive Politics, “CoreCivic Inc.: Total Contributions by Party of Recipient,” available at https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000021940&cycle=2018 (last accessed June 2019).

66. Open Secrets.org, “GEO Group: Total Contributions by Party of Recipient,” available at https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000022003&cycle=2018 (last accessed June 2019).

Featured image: A prison for male offenders located in Walpole, Massachusetts, June 2011. (Getty/Jessey Dearing/The Boston Globe)

‘Unless you’re able to record some of this data in a way that people can use it’s going to be difficult to go back to anything like a near normal in things like transport,’ said Tony Blair.

***

Former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair has called for the creation of digital IDs to track “disease status” as part of the plans for restarting international travel after the global coronavirus crisis.

Blair, who now leads the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, said in a recorded message digital IDs were a “natural evolution of the way that we’re going to use technology in any event to transact daily life, and this covid crisis gives an additional reason for doing that.”

“I could be wrong about this, but when I can look at for example how you restart some businesses, how you restart international travel…I think people’s disease status, for example have they been tested? What is the result of that test? Have they had the disease? Do they have the disease? I think unless you’re able to record some of this data in a way that people can use it’s going to be difficult to go back to anything like a near normal in things like transport,” Blair said.

An article published in Forbes last month said that future air travel could involve “no cabin bags, no lounges, no automatic upgrades, face masks, surgical gloves, self-check-in, self-bag-drop-off, immunity passports, on-the-spot blood tests and sanitation disinfection tunnels.”

“Digital technologies and automation will play a critical role in the future of air travel,” Forbes predicted.

“The need to reduce ‘touchpoints’ at airports implies mandatory use of biometric boarding that allows passengers to board planes with only their face as a passport.”

The Forbes article noted that a number of airlines including British Airways, Qantas, and EasyJet are already using the technology.

Earlier this week an article published in The Guardian warned that proof of immunity to the coronavirus could be used to create “a new class system.”

“Experts predict that if [coronavirus] survivors are found to be immune, they could perform a range of jobs and services – such as volunteering in hospitals and nursing homes, caring for coronavirus patients and working in shops and food processing plants – risk-free,” journalist Miranda Bryant wrote.

“And, depending on how authorities, business and society at large respond, they could also be entitled to greater freedoms.”

Bryant pointed to Chile issuing “release certificates” to people who “complete quarantine after testing positive” for the coronavirus and comments from Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Ezekiel J Emanuel supporting the idea of immunity “certificates” or “passports.”

Emanuel is advising former Vice President and 2020 candidate Joe Biden. Fauci has been director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for decades and is one of the top people leading President Donald Trump’s coronavirus response.

Even left-wing groups such as The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have cautioned against plans to introduce coronavirus “immunity passports.” In an article published last month, senior members of the ACLU argued that immunity passports could “harm public health, incentivize economically-vulnerable people to risk their health by contracting COVID-19, exacerbate racial and economic disparities, and lead to a new health surveillance infrastructure that endangers privacy rights.”

“An immunity passport system is fundamentally different from a regime whereby employers routinely test workers for COVID-19 or screen for symptoms, to ensure that no one with active infection is entering a workplace. In the latter system, only contagious workers are prevented from going to work and only for the period of time in which they are contagious,” the article continues.

“But an immunity passport system would divide workers into two classes — the immune and the non-immune — and the latter might never be eligible for a given job short of contracting and surviving COVID-19 if an immune worker is available to take the slot.”

*

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

Donald Trump claims to be the law-and-order president of the United States.  There does not seem much sign of this as the stitching of the Republic gets undone.   Protestors have been given a considerable roughing up across several states; police forces are in retreat before proposals of defunding while protocols for arrests are being changed. Police chiefs are resigning and, in the rarest of cases, officers are being charged for police brutality.

What, then, of the empire’s own policing capabilities overseas?  Here, the Trump message is a treat of confusion.  He wishes to be armed for unilateralism.  No more needless policing endeavours in the international arena.  No unnecessary use of US armed forces to intervene in the murky, squalid affairs of international relations.

The interventionist, policing streak in foreign policy reached its height with the 2005 declaration by President George W. Bush in his second inaugural address that it was “the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”  This was ambitiously dangerous, foolhardy and a promise of a global US chokehold to be applied to any regime suspect of not sighing to the sirens of liberty.  (Well, at least the US variant of it.)  “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.  The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

President Barack Obama was not much of an improvement on this doctrine of permanent revolution: the US had to continue remaining the sheriff of exceptionalism, a protector of “dignity”.  In a speech to West Pointers at a military academy commencement ceremony in May 2014 he acknowledged the old warning of George Washington “against foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing” and the interventionists’ assertion “that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril”.  He preferred a middle way hardly different from his predecessors.  The US could not be isolationist; history had imposed upon the Republic solemn burdens.  There was “a real stake, an abiding self-interest, in making sure our children and our grandchildren grow up in a world where schoolgirls are not kidnapped and where individuals are not slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political belief.”

Trump’s language, at least on the subject of meddling in the name of liberty, or policing a form of international morality, seem unsentimental and alien to this strand of thought.  On June 13, in an address to the US Military Academy at a West Point graduation ceremony, he proclaimed, or more appropriately reiterated, his task of “ending the era of endless wars.”  He preferred “a renewed, clear-eyed focus on defending America’s vital interests.”  The ears of traditional isolationists would have pricked up in interest:  “It is not the duty of US troops to solve ancient conflicts in faraway lands that many people have never heard of.  We are not the policemen of the world.” 

The address was filled with the usual fripperies.  “To the 1,107 who today become the newest officers in the most exceptional Army ever to take the field of battle, I am here to offer America’s salute.  Thank you for answering your nation’s call.”  But the reining in of US military forces has not fallen well on an obese establishment with a permanent eye to larger budgets and deeper troughs.  Despite that, Trump did still throw them a vast bone, speaking of “a colossal rebuilding of the American Armed Forces, a record like no other.”  Over $2 trillion had been put into a program of “new ships, bombers, jet fighters, and helicopters by the hundreds; new tanks, military satellites, rockets, and missiles”.  And that fabulous hypersonic missile.

Of interest is how such a speech stirs the critics of Trump.  Peter Bergen, using his CNN pulpit as national security analyst, spent little to no time examining the contents of what was said.  He preferred to focus on the shallow optics of it all, “the growing disconnect between [Trump] and the US military.”  The clumsy exercise of involving the military, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, in a photo op after walking from the Rose Garden at the White House to St. John’s Church, seemed to be of more interest.  Protestors had been violently dispersed for a caricatured still of power: the commander-in-chief, clumsily sporting a Bible, military officialdom nearby.  Defense Secretary Mike Esper’s reluctance to share in the show was also noted.  Suddenly, the military had hopped on the “peace is our business” train, including four former chairmen of the joint chiefs stretching back to the administration of President George H. W. Bush.

Bergen’s refusal to engage the content of the speech conforms to a syndrome across a press corps and commentariat fixated by form and pantomime. This is one of Trump’s remarkable, though not commendable achievements: to convert his critics into one vast persona of his own shallowness, a projection of vulgarity taken with baubles and the show.  The result of this transformation is one of Twitter-sized relevance.  Best focus on the distracting asides: the way, for instance, the president walked down the stairs after his address. 

The president’s bodily movement transfixed Yale University psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee, who claims to be uninvolved in politics until it “invades my area of expertise”.  That, evidently, did not involve scouring the contents of a speech suggesting the sparing of lives US or otherwise in futile and dangerous adventurism.  Far better to focus on Trump’s neurological disposition.  “The uneven gait is something I have remarked at least since his fall visit to Walter Reed, and a forward-leaning posture is associated with the difficulty holding a cup.  Note that there has not been an annual report on his health this year.”

There was even room for Lee to bellyache about treatment (or lack of) from the New York Times “citing only the reporter’s own speculations, and quoting just the president and his former doctor – for a field that arguably needs the MOST expertise”.

The military and Trump might not see eye-to-eye on points, but this is a needlessly flogged horse.  When it comes to matters of shredding international security pillars as the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, he has had support.  At its core, the imperium breeds consensus.  “Treaties stand in the way of freedom of action,” noted Michael Krepon. It is exactly that sort of freedom the US military chiefs, and the commander-in-chief, crave.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri

In mid-June, the US sanctions against Syria will escalate, with the enactment in Congress of “Caesar’s Law“, sanctions designed to “pursue individuals, groups, companies, and countries that deal with the Damascus government.” This law – purportedly named after a Syrian army officer who smuggled out thousands of photos of torture by the Syrian army in prisons – is designed to prevent companies and countries from opening diplomatic channels with Syria, and to prevent them from contributing to reconstruction, investment, and the provision of spare parts for the energy and aviation sectors in Syria. The sanctions also affect the Syrian central bank, freezing the assets of individuals who deal with Syria and invalidating any visa to America. Who will abide by this law, and what are its consequences for Syria, Lebanon, and the countries that stand beside Syria?

Torture is a common practice in many nations around the world. Syria practised torture (the case of Maher Arar) on behalf of the United States of America and the Bush administration. At least 54 countries (Middle Eastern and African nations but also western countries like Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and more) supported US “extraordinary renditions” in 2001 and secret detentions under President Barack Obama. Washington thus lacks any moral authority to claim opposition to torture as a basis for its policies. Over recent decades the US has become notorious for authorising gruesome forms of torture, stripping people of their most basic rights, and generally violating human rights in defiance of the Geneva convention and above all the 1984 UN convention against torture. James Mitchell, a CIA contract psychiatrist who helped draft and apply “enhanced interrogation techniques“, disclosed several methods approved by the US administration to torture prisoners placed in detention in “black sites” outside the US, illegally but with official authorisation. Images of torture in Abu Ghraib prisons showed the world that the US use of torture and illegal methods of interrogation against detainees in Iraq.

Thus, US sanctions on Syria cannot plausibly indicate US concern for human values and opposition to the abuse of power. Moreover, the US administration’s adherence to its own Constitution is in grave doubt, given the reaction of the security forces against demonstrators in America in response to widespread racial discrimination and racially motivated police attacks.

These new US sanctions, under the name of Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, can in no way be ascribed to some moral value, but rather to the failure by the US, Israel and several Western and Arab countries to change the regime in Syria, and their refusal to acknowledge defeat. They keep trying, and in this case, imagine that through harsh sanctions against Syria and its allies they can achieve what they have failed to accomplish through many years of war and destruction. 

In the 1990s, the US imposed sanctions on Iraq (oil-for-food). Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens died as a result of US sanctions on Iraq without Saddam Hussein’s regime and his entourage being affected. Consequently, we can predict that US sanctions in general primarily affect the population and not the leaders.

The US fails to realize that it is no longer the only superpower in the world, and in the Middle East in particular. Russia has done what many thought was impossible and elbowed its way into the Levant to remain in Syria and confront NATO at the borders. China has followed as a rising economic superpower to make its way into the Middle East, mainly Iraq and Syria. Iran has already a strong presence and powerful allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Palestine. These three countries, along with Syria, are playing a leading role in actively eliminating US hegemony in this part of the world.

In Beirut, the government cannot adopt and abide by “Caesar’s Law” and close its gates to Syria. Lebanon’s only land borders are through Syria since Israel is considered an enemy. Any national economic plan to revitalise the abundant local agriculture sector and export to Syria, Iraq or other countries in the Gulf would fail if “Caesar’s Law” were put into effect. Any regenerated industry or import/export from the Middle Eastern countries must go through the “Syrian gate”. Besides, the current Lebanese government risks falling if it implements the US sanctions. Washington is not providing any financial assistance to the Lebanese economy in crisis and clearly has no intention of offering necessary and immediate help to the crippled Lebanese economy. The US, as has become the norm, seeks to impose sanctions and conditions on the nations it targets but offers little in return to affected countries. In the case of Lebanon, its budget deficit is close to 100 billion dollars following decades of corruption and mismanagement.

The government of Prime Minister Hassan Diab is, theoretically, a technocratic and non-political government. It does not consider the US an enemy but neither is it likely to follow US dictates, since it is close to the “March 8 Alliance” whose strongest members are not US friendly. Hence, the only solution for this government or any future government is to go east towards China, Russia and Iran. America will likely lose in Lebanon, with its “March 14 Alliance” allies rendered voiceless and powerless.

There is no doubt that the Christian party within the “March 8” political group will be challenged and affected by US sanctions. These have an international relationship to look after and maintain as well as external bank accounts. Regardless, “Caesar’s Law” cannot be implemented in Lebanon, whatever the consequences of its violation.

As for Iran, it has already been subject to “maximum pressure” and harsh sanctions increasing year after year since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, for daring to reject US hegemony. Hence, it has no consideration whatsoever for the US “Caesar’s Law”. Even more, Iran is certainly not unhappy that the US blocked the return and reopening of Gulf countries’ embassies – who dare not disobey the US wishes – in Syria. Gulf companies are no longer in the field as competitors to divide shares in Iran’s reconstruction contracts related to projects in the field of industry, trade and energy. Iran has already challenged US and EU sanctions on Syria by sending oil tankers to Damascus. Also, Tehran sent five tankers to Venezuela, another country suffering from harsh US sanctions. The Gulf and European countries – US’s allies – are thus losing their opportunity to return to Syria, to be involved in its reconstruction and to regain their foothold in the Levant.

As for Russia, it has just signed a deal with the Syrian government to expand its military airport and naval bases in Tartous, Hasaka and Hmeymim. Furthermore, it is supplying Syria with modern military hardware and fulfilling the Syrian army needs to come up to full strength. It supplied Syria with squadrons of the updated MiG-29 fighters this month in a clear message to the US and its “Caesar Act” sanctions.

As for China, it is now in a “cold war” situation over US accusations that Beijing is responsible for the outbreak of COVID-19. The US is seeking to prevent Beijing from doing business with the European market, and particularly to prevent Europe from embracing China’s 5G network and technology. The US administration is also pushing Israel to curtail trade with China and to call off its billion-dollar contracts signed with China to avoid “hurting the relationship with the US”. Moreover, the Iraqi-US relationship took a severe blow when the former Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi signed off on a $20 billion “oil for reconstruction” agreement with China. Thus China, already involved in different projects in Syria, is not likely to abide by “Caesar’s Law”.

As for Syria, it will never accept starvation nor buckle under the US’s economic siege. President Bashar al-Assad is reconstructing the liberated areas under the government forces’ controls. He is rebuilding infrastructure for the Syrian population present in the homeland, excluding the areas abandoned by refugees who fled the country many of whom will not return. The Syrian government is not suffering from the absence of the five to seven million refugees in Idlib, in refugee camps outside the control of the government or in nearby bordering countries. Those refugees are financed and looked after by the international community and the United Nations. This relieves the central government of a considerable financial burden.

Consequently, Syria does not need to reconstruct the refugees’ homes or provide them with oil, electricity, schools, infrastructure and subsidies for as long as Western countries want them to stay outside Syria. The international community wants these refugees to remain away from the central government’s control and is doing everything in its power to prevent their return so as to be able to reject a future Presidential election- where Bashar al-Assad’s victory is guaranteed.

President Assad will work with Iran, Russia and China to secure his needs. Iran has defied US-European sanctions by sending oil tankers to Syria through the Straits of Gibraltar twice. Iran is building drug and medicine factories in Syria, and is also working on other projects that it shares with Russia and China. Syria is heading toward the east, not the west, since that it is the only remaining option left to it. This is the long-awaited dream of the “Axis of Resistance”. Lebanon, Syria and Iraq are looking to Asia to reverse the US-European sanctions against them and their allies in the Middle East. By imposing further unaffordable sanctions on Syria, the US is helping the Levant come out of the US sphere of influence and presence.

Iran, Russia, China and Syria are uniting as allies with an integrated project against US hegemony. There is no place for the domination of one state over another in this gathering of nations because solidarity is required to help Syria, for example, stand as a healthy and reliable country to confront the US. Their strength grows as the weakness of the US becomes more apparent, at a time when President Donald Trump is struggling domestically and his world influence is weakening. Washington is unilaterally imposing sanctions on nations and populations, forcing some allies to follow but also forcing them to consider seriously future possibilities for detaching from this burdensome “umbilical cord.”

The US “Caesar’s Law” aims to submit and suppress the Syrian nation and people, as Washington has attempted with Iran and Venezuela, so far failing miserably. This policy can no longer be effective because the Russian – Chinese – Iranian alliance has now become important to many countries in the Middle East. The influence of this alliance now extends to the Caribbean Sea. “Caesar’s Law” will turn against its architects: “he who prepared the poison shall end up eating 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.

All images in this article are from EJM

FAO The Rt Hon Robert Buckland QC MP
Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice

CC The Hon Bob Neill MP
UK Commons Justice Committee Chair

Dear Sir,

REQUEST FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE OF JULIAN ASSANGE

As current and former elected representatives in democracies committed to human rights, the presumption of innocence and the rule of law, we wish to support the urgent appeal sent to you by Australian MPs Andrew Wilkie and George Christensen, who wrote:

“We ask that you urgently reconsider providing Mr Assange with release from Belmarsh Prison to monitored home detention, as he fits all of the grounds noted for such early release by leading organisations as the World Health Organisation, the United Nations and the UK Prison Officers Association. These organisations have been unanimous in calling for the release of all non-violent COVID-19 prisoners, and we ask that you give compassionate consideration to the following:

• Mr Assange is a non-violent remand prisoner with no history of harm to the community. He is not convicted and is thus entitled to the presumption of innocence.
• Doctors of Mr Assange warn he is at high risk from dying if he contracts COVID-19 as he has a pre-existing chronic lung condition.
• We are advised that COVID-19 is rapidly spreading throughout UK prisons, and that there are infections [and at least one death] at Belmarsh Prison.
• We understand that the prison is short staffed and normal activity regimes are suspended.
• Mr Assange is in poor mental health due to spending so much time in solitary confinement over recent years, and prison COVID-19 lockdown measures are further undermining his mental health.

We ask that you give further consideration to the very reasonable request by Mr Assange’s lawyers that this non-violent Australian prisoner be released into home detention with a 24-hour ankle monitor.”

With the director of the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention warning of a second wave of coronavirus during influenza season, we stress that even those vulnerable prisoners, such as Julian Assange, who survive the current crisis remain at risk.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, former Member of the Legislative Council of NSW, Australia

Clare Daly, Member of the European Parliament, Republic of Ireland

Andrew Feinstein, former Member of the African National Congress, South Africa

Mike Gravel, former US Senator, United States

Heike Hänsel, Member of the German Bundestag, Germany

Eva Joly, former Member of the European Parliament, France

Ogmundur Jonasson, former Member of the Icelandic Parliament, Iceland

Ron Paul, former US Congressman, United States

Yanis Varoufakis, Member of the Greek Parliament, Greece

Mick Wallace, Member of the European Parliament, Republic of Ireland

Chris Williamson, former Member of Parliament, United Kingdom

*

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 21st Century Wire

NATO has extended yet another in a long line of “incentives” designed to tease Ukraine with the prospects of joining the transatlantic alliance, while stopping short of actual membership.

For two months now, most of America has endured a government-imposed lockdown. I hate to use that word — lockdown — as it connotes locking prisoners into their cells during prison disturbances. But it is the word that the government itself uses when referring to its orders of confinement.

Today, we are the government’s prisoners. Wear your mask. Stay at home. Don’t go to work. Don’t open your business. Don’t go to church. And, for heaven’s sake, don’t gather in any group larger than 25 — unless it is to speak words of which the government approves.

Here is the backstory.

When the United States was founded, the folks who framed the new government shared many political and philosophical views. Some of those views were reprehensible, unnatural and contrary to the others — most notably that the new Constitution would permit the states to enforce a system of human slavery.

That colossal error brought us 75 more years of human degradation, a horrific war, the military occupation of the southern states, Jim Crow, lynching, the advent of the KKK, official segregation and the denigration of blacks by much of the government even today.

When the pre-Civil War Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether a slave who made it to the north could sue his former captors for permanent freedom, the Court ruled that blacks were not persons, as contemplated by the Constitution, and thus did not enjoy the rights of persons that the Constitution protects.

The Dred Scott decision not only triggered the Civil War but also the abuse of blacks, which has followed to this day.

The public torture and murder of George Floyd — a 46-year-old black man — by white Minneapolis cops has crystallized the public awareness of our collective history of looking the other way when these horrors have happened.

The same framers who were willing to compromise on slavery were unwilling to compromise on other issues. Among them were that the purpose of government is to protect rights and that no government is moral or lawful absent the consent of the governed. The latter requires that we have not only consented to the existence of the government but also to the powers that we have given it.

This theory — embraced by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and by James Madison in the Constitution — mandates that human beings are born free, that we have natural rights integral to our humanity, that we are free to surrender a small part of those rights to a government, that the purpose of the government is to protect the rights we have not surrendered, that the government (today) must be colorblind and that the government only has the powers that we have surrendered to it.

Stated differently, if we, as free people, did not consent to giving certain powers to the government — like the powers state governors have exercised to lock us down or the police exercised to murder Floyd — the government, quite simply, lacks those powers and should be removed from office by an angry citizenry when it tries to exercise them.

The stated purpose of the lockdown is to shield us from infection. But this raises very serious questions about our relationship to government. We never authorized the government to shield us from infection. We never authorized it to lock us down. We never authorized the police to enforce anything other than legislatively enacted statutes. We never authorized the police to murder confined prisoners.

Here in New Jersey, the police are handing out summonses that look like parking tickets. In the place where they are supposed to write the statute that the recipient has allegedly violated, they have written “Violation of Governor’s Executive Order…” This is madness. Crimes consist only of behavior properly condemned in writing by a popularly elected representative body. It is not a crime to refuse to comply with the paternalistic wishes of one person.

If the governor of New Jersey can haul you into court for violating his executive orders, can he be hauled into court for violating our basic liberties — which are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights he swore to protect?

When the Black Lives Matter movement manifested its disgust with government failures to restrain the police, huge gatherings of people defied lockdown orders of governors. Most were peaceful. Most were the quintessential exercise of the freedom to travel, to assemble and to tell the government what you think of it.

To paraphrase the poet William Makepeace Thackeray, folks were shaking their fists in the tyrant’s face. A small number of people got arrested for violence, but no one got arrested for violating a gubernatorial lockdown order.

When New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy was asked why he violated his lockdown orders by personally marching in one of those large peaceful assemblies while his police were issuing summonses for participation in other assemblies, he observed that racism is more troubling than closed nail salons. Good for him.

But he cannot use the power of government to support assembly, travel and speech with which he agrees and punish that with which he disagrees. That’s why we have a Constitution.

What a gross misunderstanding of the American ethos he has. He will bar your work. He will permit you to shop for a car but not for a book. You can walk with your family down an aisle at Walmart but not up to an altar to receive Holy Communion.

George Floyd died because the government itself put a knee on his throat. In New Jersey, the governor — without the consent of the governed and thus without any lawful authority — has his knee on the state’s throat, choking the air and lifeblood out of those yearning to be free.

How much longer will free people accept 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.

Featured image is by KCB1805 at Pixabay via Creators Syndicate

Officers from the US police force responsible for the killing of George Floyd received training in restraint techniques and anti-terror tactics from Israeli law-enforcement officers.

Mr Floyd’s death in custody last Monday, the latest in a succession of police killings of African Americans, has sparked continuing protests and rioting in US cities.

At least 100 Minnesota police officers attended a 2012 conference hosted by the Israeli consulate in Chicago, the second time such an event had been held.

There they learned the violent techniques used by Israeli forces as they terrorise the occupied Palestinian territories under the guise of security operations.

The so-called counterterrorism training conference in Minneapolis was jointly hosted by the FBI.

Israeli deputy consul Shahar Arieli claimed that the half-day session brought “top-notch professionals from the Israeli police” to share knowledge with their US counterparts.

It is unclear whether any of the officers involved in the incident in which Mr Floyd was killed attended the conference.

But in a chilling testimony, a Palestinian rights activist said that when she saw the image of Derek Chauvin kneeling on Mr Floyd’s neck, she was reminded of the Israeli forces’ policing of the occupied territories.

Neta Golan, the co-founder of International Solidarity Movement (ISM) said:

“When I saw the picture of killer cop Derek Chauvin murdering George Floyd by leaning in on his neck with his knee as he cried for help and other cops watched, I remembered noticing when many Israeli soldiers began using this technique of leaning in on our chest and necks when we were protesting in the West Bank sometime in 2006.

“They started twisting and breaking fingers in a particular way around the same time. It was clear they had undergone training for this. They continue to use these tactics — two of my friends have had their necks broken but luckily survived — and it is clear that they [Israel] share these methods when they train police forces abroad in ‘crowd control’ in the US and other countries including Sudan and Brazil.”

The training of US police officials by Israeli forces is widespread.

Even Amnesty was compelled to report that hundreds of police from Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California, Arizona, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Georgia, Washington state and Washington DC had been flown to Israeli for training.

Thousands more have been trained by Israeli forces who have come to the US to host similar events to the one held in Minneapolis. According to the somewhat selective rights organisation, many of these trips are taxpayer-funded, while others are privately funded.

Since 2002 the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee’s Project Interchange and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs have paid for police chiefs, assistant chiefs and captains to train in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), it said.

The Minneapolis Police Department was contacted for comment.

*

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: Brutal: A Minnesota police officer sprays protesters with pepper spray at the weekend (Source: Morning Star)

“Revolutions are often seen as spontaneous. It looks like people just went into the street. But it’s the result of months or years of preparation. It is very boring until you reach a certain point, where you can organize mass demonstrations or strikes. If it is carefully planned, by the time they start, everything is over in a matter of weeks.” Foreign Policy Journal

Does anyone believe the nationwide riots and looting are a spontaneous reaction to the killing of George Floyd?

It’s all too coordinated, too widespread, and too much in-sync with the media narrative that applauds the “mainly peaceful protests” while ignoring the vast destruction to cities across the country. What’s that all about? Do the instigators of these demonstrations want to see our cities reduced to urban wastelands where street gangs and Antifa thugs impose their own harsh justice? That’s where this is headed, isn’t it?

Of course there are millions of protesters who honestly believe they’re fighting racial injustice and police brutality. And more power to them. But that certainly doesn’t mean there aren’t hidden agendas driving these outbursts. Quite the contrary. It seems to me that the protest movement is actually the perfect vehicle for affecting dramatic social changes that only serve the interests of elites. For example, who benefits from defunding the police? Not African Americans, that’s for sure. Black neighborhoods need more security not less. And yet, the New York Times lead editorial on Saturday proudly announces, “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police–Because reform won’t happen.” Check it out:

“We can’t reform the police. The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and the police….There is not a single era in United States history in which the police were not a force of violence against black people. Policing in the South emerged from the slave patrols in the 1700 and 1800s that caught and returned runaway slaves. In the North, the first municipal police departments in the mid-1800s helped quash labor strikes and riots against the rich. Everywhere, they have suppressed marginalized populations to protect the status quo.

So when you see a police officer pressing his knee into a black man’s neck until he dies, that’s the logical result of policing in America. When a police officer brutalizes a black person, he is doing what he sees as his job…” (“Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police–Because reform won’t happen”, New York Times)

So, according to the Times, the problem isn’t single parent families, or underfunded education or limited job opportunities or fractured neighborhoods, it’s the cops who have nothing to do with any of these problems. Are we supposed to take this seriously, because the editors of the Times certainly do. They’d like us to believe that there is groundswell support for this loony idea, but there isn’t. In a recent poll, more than 60% of those surveyed, oppose the idea of defunding the police. So why would such an unpopular, wacko idea wind up as the headline op-ed in the Saturday edition? Well, because the Times is doing what it always does, advancing the political agenda of the elites who hold the purse-strings and dictate which ideas are promoted and which end up on the cutting room floor. That’s how the system works. Check out this excerpt from an article by Paul Craig Roberts:

“The extraordinary destruction of white and Asian businesses in many instances wiping out a family’s lifetime work, the looting of national businesses whose dumbshit CEOs support the looters, the merciless gang beatings of whites and Asians who attempted to defend their persons and their property, the egging on of the violence by politicians in both parties and by the entirely of the media including many alternative media websites, shows a country undergoing collapse. This is why it is not shown in national media. Some local media show an indication of the violent destruction in their community, but it is not accumulated and presented to a national audience. Consequently, Americans think the looting and destruction is only a local occurance… I just checked CNN and the BBC and there is nothing about the extraordinary economic destruction and massive thefts.” (“The Real Racists”, Paul Craig Roberts, Unz Review)

Roberts makes a good point, and one that’s worth mulling over. Why has the media failed to show the vast destruction of businesses and private property? Why have they minimized the effects of vandalism, looting and arson? Why have they fanned the flames of social unrest from the very beginning, shrugging off the ruin and devastation while cheerleading the demonstrations as a heroic struggle for racial justice? Is this is the same media that supported every bloody war, every foreign intervention, and every color-revolution for the last 5 decades? Are we really expected to believe that they’ve changed their stripes and become an energized proponent of social justice?

Nonsense. The media’s role in concealing the damage should only convince skeptics that the protests are just one part of a much larger operation. What we’re seeing play out in over 400 cities across the US, has more to do with toppling Trump and sowing racial division than it does with the killing of George Floyd. The scale and coordination alone suggests that elements in the deep state are probably involved. We know from evidence uncovered during the Russiagate probe, that the media works hand-in-glove with the Intel agencies and FBI while–at the same time– serving as a mouthpiece for elites. That hasn’t changed, in fact, it’s gotten even worse. The uniformity of the coverage suggests that that same perception management strategy is being employed here as well. Even at this late date, the determination to remove Trump from office is as strong as ever even though, in the present case, it has been combined with the broader political strategy of inciting fratricidal violence, obliterating urban areas, and spreading anarchy across the country. This isn’t about racial justice or police brutality, it’s about regime change, internal destabilization, and martial law. Take a look at this article at The Herland Report:

“What the Black Lives Matter movement does not understand is that they are being used by the billionaire white capitalists who are fighting to push the working class even lower and end the national sovereignty principles that president Trump stands for in America….

The rightful grievance over racism against blacks is now used to get Trump since Russia Gate, Impeachment, the corona scandal and nothing else has worked. The aim is to end democracy in the United States, control Congress and politics and assemble the power into the hands of the very few…

It is all about who will own the United States and have free access to its revenues: Either the American people under democracy or globalist billionaire individuals.” (“Politicized USA Gene Sharp riots is another attempted coup d’etat – New Left Tyranny” The Herland Report

That sounds about right to me. The protests are merely a fig leaf for a “color revolution” that bears a striking resemblance to the more than 50 CIA-backed coups launched on foreign governments in the last 70 years. Have the chickens have come home to roost? It certainly looks like it. Here’s more from the same article:

“Use a grievance that the local population has against the system, identify and support those who oppose the current government, infiltrate and strengthen opposition movements, fund them with millions of dollars, organize protests that seem legitimate and have paid political instigators dress up in regular clothes to blend in.”

So, yes, the grievances are real, but that doesn’t mean that someone else is not steering the action. And just as the media is shaping the narrative for its own purposes, so too, there are agents within the movement that are inciting the violence. All of this suggests the existence of some form of command-control that provides logistical support and assists in communications. Check out this excerpt from a post at Colonel Pat Lang’s website Sic Semper Tyrannis:

“The logistical capabilities of antifa+ are also impressive. They can move people around the country with ease, position pallet loads of new brick, 55 gallon new trash cans of frozen water bottles and other debris suitable for throwing on gridded patterns around cities in a well thought out distribution pattern. Who pays for this? Who plans this? Who coordinates these plans and gives “execute orders?”

Antifa+ can create massive propaganda campaigns that fit their agenda. These campaigns are fully supported by the MSM and by many in the Congressional Democratic Party. The present meme of “Defund the Police” is an example. This appeared miraculously, and simultaneously across the country. I am impressed. Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis was booed out of a mass meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse abolishing the police force. Gutting the civil police forces has long been a major goal of the far left, but now, they have the ability to create mass hysteria over it when they have an excuse.” (“My take on the present situation”, Sic Semper Tyrannis)

Colonel Lang is not the only one to marvel at Antifa’s “logistical capabilities”. The United States has never experienced two weeks of sustained protests in hundreds of its cities at the same time. It’s beyond suspicious, it points to extensive coordination with groups across the country, a comprehensive media strategy (that probably preceded the killing of George Floyd), a sizable presence on social media (to put people on the street), and agents provocateur whose task is to incite violence, loot and create mayhem.

None of this has anything to do with racial justice or police brutality. America is being destabilized and sacked for other purposes altogether. This a destabilization campaign similar to the CIA’s color revolutions designed to topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet government (Biden), impose “shock therapy” on the economy pushing tens of millions of Americans into homelessness and destitution, and leave behind a broken, smoldering shell of a country easily controlled by Federal shock troops and wealthy globalist mandarins. Here’s a short excerpt from an article by Kurt Nimmo at his excellent blog “Another Day in the Empire”:

“The BLM represents the forefront of an effort to divide Americans along racial and political lines, thus keeping race and identity-based barbarians safely away from more critical issues of importance to the elite, most crucially a free hand to plunder and ransack natural resources, minerals, crude oil, and impoverish billions of people whom the ruling elite consider unproductive useless eaters and a hindrance to the drive to dominate, steal, and murder….

It is sad to say BLM serves the elite by ignoring or remaining ignorant of the main problem—boundless predation by a neoliberal criminal project that considers all—black, white, yellow, brown—as expliotable and dispensable serfs.” (“2 Million Arab Lives Don’t Matter“, Kurt Nimmo, Another Day in the Empire)

The protest movement is the mask that conceals the maneuvering of elites. The real target of this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself. Having succeeded in using the Lockdown to push the economy into severe recession, the globalists are now inciting a fratricidal war that will weaken the opposition and prepare the country for a new authoritarian order.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

The Rockefeller Foundation has presented the “National Covid-19 Testing Action Plan”, indicating the “pragmatic steps to reopen our workplaces and our communities”. However, it is not simply a matter of health measures as it appears from the title.

The Plan – that some of the most prestigious universities have contributed to (Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins and others) – prefigures a real hierarchical and militarized social model.

At the top, the “Pandemic Testing Board (PTB), akin to the War Production Board that the United States created in World War II“. The Pandemic Testing Board would “consist of leaders from business, government and academia” (government representatives would not in the first row, but finance and economic representatives being listed in order of importance).

This Supreme Council would have the power to decide productions and services with an authority similar to that conferred to the President of the United States in wartime by the Defense Production Act.

The plan calls for 3 million US citizens to be Covid-19 tested weekly, and the number should be raised to 30 million per week within six months. The goal is to achieve the ability to Covid-19 test 30 million people a day, which is to be realized within a year.

For each test, “a fair market reimbursement (e.g. $100) for all Covid-19 assays” is expected. Thus, billions of dollars a month of public money will be needed.

The Rockefeller Foundation and its financial partners will help create a network for the provision of credit guarantees and the signing of contracts with suppliers, that is large companies that manufacture drugs and medical equipment.

According to the Plan, the “Pandemic Control Council” is also authorized to create a “Pandemic Response Corps”: a special force (not surprisingly called “Corps” like the Marine Corps) with a staff of 100 to 300 thousand components.

They would be recruited among Peace Corps and Americorps volunteers (officially created by the US government to “help developing countries”) and among National Guard military personnel. The members of the “Pandemic Response Corps” would receive an average gross wage of $40,000 per year, a State expenditure of  $4-12 billion a year is expected for it.

The “pandemic response body” would above all have the task of controlling the population with military-like techniques, through digital tracking and identification systems, in work and study places, in residential areas, in public places and when travelling. Systems of this type – the Rockefeller Foundation recalls – are made by Apple, Google and Facebook.

According to the Plan, information on individuals relating to their state of health and their activities would remain confidential “whenever possible”. However, they would all be centralized in a digital platform co-managed by the Federal State and private companies. According to data provided by the “Pandemic Control Council”, it would be decided from time to time which area should be subject to lockdown and for how long.

This, in summary, is the plan the Rockefeller Foundation wants to implement in the United States and beyond. If it were even partially implemented, there would be further concentration of economic and political power in the hands of an even narrower elite sector to the detriment of a growing majority that would be deprived of fundamental democratic rights.

The operation is carried out in the name of “Covid-19 control”, whose mortality rate has so far been less than 0.03% of the US population according to official data. In the Rockefeller Foundation Plan the virus is used as a real weapon, more dangerous than Covid-19 itself.

*

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 Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense