Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

COVID-19 Coronavirus: A Fake Pandemic? Who’s Behind It? Global Economic, Social and Geopolitical Destabilization

March 1st, 2020 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

The media hype and disinformation campaign regarding the spread of the COVID-19 novel coronavirus have created a Worldwide atmosphere of fear and uncertainty following the launching of a global public health emergency by the WHO on January 30th.

The fear campaign is ongoing. Panic and uncertainty. National governments and the WHO are misleading the public.

“About 84,000 people in at least 56 countries have been infected, and about 2,900 have died” says the New York Times. What they fail to mention is that 98% of those cases of infection are in Mainland China. There are less than 5000 confirmed cases outside China. (WHO, February 28, 2020)

While COVID-19 is a matter of Public Health concern, at the moment, there is no real pandemic outside Mainland China. Look at the figures.

At the time of writing, the number of “confirmed cases” in the US was 64.

A low number and the media is spreading panic.

Meanwhile, there are 15 Million Cases of Influenza in the USA.

The latest FluView surveillance from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that as of January 18, 2020, there have been 15 million cases of flu, 140,000 hospitalizations, and 8200 deaths in the US this influenza season. (emphasis added)

Data on the COVID-19 pandemic:

The World Health Organization (WHO) reported on February 28, 2020 83,652 confirmed cases of COV-19 of which 78,961 are in Mainland China. Outside China, there are 4691 “confirmed cases” (WHO, February 28, 2020, See table on right).

The WHO has also reported 2,791 deaths of which only 67 have occurred outside Mainland China.

These figures confirm that the pandemic is largely limited to Mainland China.

Moreover, recent data suggests that the epidemic in China is firmly under control. On February 21, 2020, China’s National Health Commission reported that 36.157 patients were designated as cured and discharged from hospital. (see graph below).

Chinese reports confirm that people have received treatment and are recovering from the virus infection. Concurrently, the number of infected patients is declining.

According to the National Medical Products Administration of China, hospitals are using Favilavir, an anti-viral drug, “as a treatment for coronavirus with minimal side effects”.

Lets Crunch the Numbers

The World Population is of the order of 7.8 billion.

The population of China is of the order of 1.4 billion.

The World population minus China is of the order of 6.4 billion.

4691 confirmed cases and 67 reported deaths (outside China) out of a population of 6.4 billion does not constitute a pandemic. 4691/6,4oo,ooo,ooo =0.00000073 = 0.000073 %

64 cases in the US which has a population of approximately 330 million is not a pandemic. (Feb 28 data): 64/330,000,000 = 0.00000019 = 0.000019 %

Why the Propaganda? Racism directed against Ethnic Chinese

A campaign against China was launched, a wave of racist sentiment against ethnic Chinese is ongoing largely led by the Western media.

The Economist reports that “The coronavirus spreads racism against—and among—ethnic Chinese”

Fear of covid-19 makes people behave badly, including some Chinese

“Britain’s Chinese community faces racism over coronavirus outbreak” according to the SCMP

“Chinese communities overseas are increasingly facing racist abuse and discrimination amid the coronavirus outbreak. Some ethnic Chinese people living in the UK say they experienced growing hostility because of the deadly virus that originated in China.”

And this phenomenon is happening all over the U.S.

Economic Warfare against China

US strategies consist in using COVID-19 to isolate China, despite the fact that the US economy is heavily dependent upon Chinese imports.

The short-term disruption of the Chinese economy is largely attributable to the (temporary) closing down of the channels of trade and transportation.

The WHO Global Public Health emergency is coupled with media disinformation and the freezing of air travel to China.

Panic on Wall Street

Spearheaded by media disinformation, there is another dimension. Panic in the stock markets.

The Coronavirus fear has triggered the drop of financial markets Worldwide.

According to reports, roughly $6 trillion have been wiped off the value of stock markets Worldwide. The decline in stock market values so far is of the order of “15 percent or more”.

Massive losses of personal savings (e.g. of average Americans) have occurred not to mention corporate failures and bankruptcies.

It’s a bonanza for institutional speculators including corporate hedge funds. The financial meltdown has led to sizeable transfers of money wealth into the pockets of a handful of financial institutions.

In a bitter irony, analysts in chorus have casually linked the market collapse to the escalation of the coronavirus at a time when there was less than 64 confirmed cases in the US.

It’s not surprising that the market went down because … the virus has gotten so expanded. … ‘

Was it Possible to “Predict” the February Financial Crash?

It would be naive to believe that the financial crisis was solely the consequence of spontaneous market forces, responding to the COVID-19 outbreak. The market was carefully manipulated by powerful actors using speculative instruments in the market for derivatives, including “short-selling”. Media disinformation on the “escalation of the COVID-19 pandemic certainly played a role.

The unspoken objective is the concentration of Wealth. It was a financial bonanza for those who had “inside information” or “foreknowledge” leading up to the WHO’s decision to declare a Worldwide public emergency on January 30.

Was there Foreknowledge of the COVID-19 (nCoV-2019) Pandemic? And of its Likely impacts?

On October 18, 2019, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore undertook a carefully designed simulation of a coronavirus epidemic entitled nCoV-2019.

In the Event 201 Simulation of a Coronavirus Pandemic, a 15% collapse of financial markets had been “simulated”. It was not “predicted” according to the organizers and sponsors of the event, which included the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well the World Economic Forum.

Screenshot, 201 A Global Pandemic Exercise

The simulation conducted in October entitled nCoV-2019 was undertaken barely 2 months prior to to the outbreak of COVID-19.

The John Hopkins Pandemic Exercise simulated a stock market decline of “15% or more” (Video section 0.0 – 1’2″) which largely corresponds to the real market decline registered in late February 2020.

(See video below)

Many features of the “simulation exercise” do in fact correspond to what actually happened when the WHO Director General launched a global public health emergency on January 3o, 2020.

What must be understood is that the sponsors of the John Hopkins “simulation exercise” are powerful and knowledgeable actors respectively in the areas of “Global Health” (B. and M. Gates Foundation) and “Global Economy” (WEF).

It is also worth noting that the WHO initially adopted a similar acronym (to designate the coronavirus) to that of the John Hopkins Pandemic Exercise (nCoV-2019) before it was changed to COVID-19.

Corruption and The Role of the WHO

And what motivated WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to declare the coronavirus nCoV-2019 as a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)” on January 30 when the epidemic was largely confined to Mainland China?

The evidence suggests that WHO Director-General Tedros was serving the interests of powerful corporate sponsors.

According to F. William Engdahl, Tedros had established a long lasting relationship with the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation. He had close ties to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Together with the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) The Gates Foundation were the sponsors of the October John Hopkins 2019 nCoV-2019 “simulation exercise”.

As health minister, Tedros would also chair the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria that was co-founded by the Gates Foundation. The Global Fund has been riddled with fraud and corruption scandals.

“During Tedros’ three year campaign to win the WHO post he was charged with having covered up three major epidemics of cholera while health minister in Ethiopia, mislabeling the cases as “acute watery diarrhea” (AWD)—a symptom of cholera—in an attempt to play down the significance of the epidemics, charges he denied.”(Engdahl, op. cit.)

.

A massive vaccine campaign has been ordered by the Director General of the WHO Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Numerous pharmaceutical companies are already working on the development of a vaccine.

In this regard, it is worth recalling the WHO scam during the mandate of his predecessor Dr. Margaret Chan, who stated in relation to the 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic that:

“Vaccine makers could produce 4.9 billion pandemic flu shots per year in the best-case scenario”,Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO), quoted by Reuters, 21 July 2009, emphasis added)

There was no H1N1 pandemic in 2009. It was a money making scam as revealed by the European Parliament.

What’s the Next Phase of COVID-19 Pandemic? Is it Fake or is it Real?

The propaganda campaign against China is not over.
Neither is the “fear pandemic” outside China despite the exceedingly low number of “confirmed cases”.
The financial crisis is ongoing, supported by media disinformation and financial meddling.
If normal US-China trade (and transportation) relations fail to be duly restored, the shipping of “Made in China” consumer goods exported to America could be affected.
This in turn could potentially trigger a major crisis in retail trade in the US, i.e “Made in China” commodities constitute a large share of monthly household consumption.
From a public health point of view, there are favorable prospects for eliminating the COVID-19 in China. Progress has already been reported.
For the rest of the World (which currently has approximately 3000 confirmed cases, 28 February 2020 ) the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing coupled with propaganda in favor of a Worldwide vaccination program.
Without a fear campaign coupled with fake news, the incidence of COVID-19 would not have made the headlines.
From a health/medical standpoint is a Worldwide vaccination required?
43.3 percent of the “confirmed cases” in China are now categorized as “recovered” (See graph above). Western reports do not make the distinction between “confirmed cases” and “confirmed infected cases”. It is the latter which is relevant. The trend is towards recovery and decline of the “confirmed infected cases”.

The massive WHO vaccination campaign (referred to above) was duly confirmed by Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on February 28:

“…work is also progressing on vaccines and therapeutics. More than 20 vaccines are in development globally, and several therapeutics are in clinical trials. We expect the first results in a few weeks” (emphasis added)

Needless to say this WHO decision is another financial windfall for the Big Five Vaccine producers: GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Merck & Co., Sanofi, Pfizer, which control 85% of the vaccine market. According to CNBC: (emphasis added)

These companies have jumped into the race to combat the deadly coronavirus, working on vaccine or drug programs. … Sanofi is teaming up with the U.S. government to develop a vaccine for the new virus, hoping its work on the 2003 SARS outbreak could speed up the process. Merck’s vaccine business generated $8.4 billion of revenues in 2019, the segment has been growing at an annual rate of 9% since 2010, according to Bernstein.

GlaxoSmithKline said this month it is partnering with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations [CEPI] for a vaccine program. … CEPI was founded at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2017.

Of significance, CEPI was founded in Davos in 2017 by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust (A British Multibillion Humanitarian Foundation), and the World Economic Forum (WEF). The governments of Norway and India are members, largely providing funding to CEPI.

Timeline

October 18, 2019: The B. and M. Gates Foundation and the WEF were partners in the John Hopkins National Security October 2019 nCoV-2019 Pandemic “Simulation Exercise”.

December 31, 2019 China alerted WHO to several cases of “unusual pneumonia” in Wuhan, Hubei province.

January 7, 2020 Chinese officials announced they had identified a new virus, The novel virus was named by the WHO 2019-nCoV (exactly the same name as the virus pertaining to the John Hopkins simulation exercise, with the exception of the placement of the date).

January 24, 25, 2020: Meeting at Davos, under the auspices of CEPI which is also a WEF-Gates partnership, the development of a 2019 nCoV vaccine was announced. (2 weeks after the January 7, 2020 announcement, and barely a week prior to the launching of the WHO’s Worldwide Public Health emergency).

January 30th, 2020, WHO Director General announces the “Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

And now a Worldwide vaccination campaign has been launched to curb the COVID-19 under the auspices of CEPI in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline.

Concluding Remarks

While COVID-19 (alias nCoV-2019) constitutes a multi-billion corporate bonanza for Big Pharma, it has also contributed to precipitating humanity into a dangerous and unfolding global process of economic, social and geopolitical destabilization.

Posted in English, Mobile
Comments Off on COVID-19 Coronavirus: A Fake Pandemic? Who’s Behind It? Global Economic, Social and Geopolitical Destabilization

China is Confronting the COVID-19 Epidemic. Was It Man-Made? An Act of of Bio-warfare?

February 29th, 2020 by Peter Koenig

The new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, also called COVID19, has as of this date killed about 3,000 people and infected some 87,000 around the globe, the vast majority of them in China. The virus has spread to at least 56 countries.

The new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, also called COVID-19, has as of this date resulted in more than 3,000 deaths and infected more than 80,000 people Worldwide, the vast majority of them in China

The epidemic is largely confined to Mainland China.

While the virus has spread to at least 56 countries according to the WHO, the numbers of confirmed cases are low: 4691 confirmed cases outside Mainland China. (See table right)

Source: WHO, February 28, 2020. 51 countries according to WHO

What the western media fails to address is that there is the possibility that the virus could have been “man-made” in one or more of the numerous US bio-warfare laboratories.

Western media also are silent about the fact that the virus appears to be largely affecting ethnic Chinese, meaning, it targets specifically Chinese DNA. Almost all of the deaths and confirmed cases in the 51 countries and territories to which the virus has spread, are of Chinese origin.

The virus appears to be strengthening, as it mutates over time, making its control even more difficult. Will it eventually break the “Chinese DNA boundaries” and affect also other DNA types, i.e. western “Caucasian” people.

But the west also expects Chinese scientists and bio-researchers to overcome the epidemic and stop the virus from further mutating, therefore reducing the western infection risk.

Despite early hopes that a vaccine may be found soon – until now there has been little progress in this direction. However, Cuba’s antiviral Recombinant Interferon Alpha 2B (IFNrec) was chosen by Chinese medical and bio-researchers to combat the coronavirus.

Interestingly, Interferon had been discovered in Cuba 39 years ago, at the very onset of Cuba’s biotechnology programme in 1981. But it is not widely used in the world, even though it could save countless lives and cure countless patients (mainly diabetics), simply because of the US boycott that does not allow marketing of medication Made in Cuba.

Nevertheless, the COVID19 infection rate seems to have been gradually declining in the last three weeks. And there is no doubt that China will overcome this epidemic. Yet, the world must wake up to the fact that this could be an act of biological warfare.

Precedents: Bird Flu, African Swine Flu affecting China

In the last two years, since 2018 alone, China was hit by several types of bird flu (H7N4 and H7N9) in 2018 and yet another strain just in January 2020 which was overshadowed by the more serious COVID-2019.

There was also an outbreak of the African swine Flu (2018), killing millions of pigs. And there was a massive food crop destruction (2019 – mostly corn and soybeans) by the so-called “armyworms”.

Compensating for the impacts on the supply of pork, corn and soybean, China resorted to importing theses commodities– and most of the imports came from the US.

Were these ‘outbreaks’ which had destructive impacts on China’s economy coincidental? They have created instability, food price inflation and a dependence on imported agricultural products from the US.

The western media has been playing up the so-called Trump tariff war with China, while hidden from the limelight and in parallel, more serious warfare – bio-warfare – was going on.

In fact, little is known in the west about these previous biological attacks by the US-led west, aiming at damaging massively China’s economy – as well as heightening China’s dependence on imports from the US; in addition to damaging China morally, thereby, they, the west, believe (wrongly), weakening the level of resistance. A real war with bombs and guns, maybe nuclear, aiming at total destruction, cannot be ruled out.

Let’s remember the Big Picture – namely that this is in whatever way you want to turn it, a bio-war against China, and perhaps the first step of an all-out war against China’s rising economic power, and foremost against China’s solid currency, the yuan which may soon take over as the world’s chief reserve currency.

This would mean the fall of the US-dollar hegemony, the only force that keeps the empire alive and kicking, other than its military strength which is non-sustainable, as it aims only at destruction abroad – but leaving behind a rapidly faltering economy at home. Precisely the same pattern brought down the Roman Empire some 2000 years ago.

Too Many “Coincidences”: The October 2019 Simulation of a High Level Pandemic

There are too many “coincidences” to conclude that this strengthened coronavirus – considerably stronger than SARS, the one of the 2002 / 2003 epidemic – ‘escaped’ a Wuhan lab by accident, or as the west would like to present it: by negligence.

First, there were the Military Olympics in October in Wuhan (18 – 27 October 2019), where about 200 American soldiers participated; the first cases of 2019-nCoV fever were discovered about two weeks later – two weeks is the average gestation period from infection to outbreak.

Event 201

Second, there was Event 201, on October 18, 2019, at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, in Baltimore, Maryland, sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum (WEF – the corporatocracy representing Big Weapons, Big Pharma and Big Money), and the John Hopkins Institute.

The theme was simulating a High-Level Pandemic Exercise – and yes, the simulation produced 65 million deaths. Just a couple of weeks before the first COVID-19 victims were identified.

Curiously, in their defense the sponsors of Event 201, now say,

“We are not now predicting that the nCoV-2019 (which was also used as the name of the simulation) outbreak will kill 65 million people. Although our tabletop exercise included a mock novel coronavirus, the inputs we used for modeling the potential impact of that fictional virus are not similar to nCoV-2019.”

One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to conclude that the simulation and actual outbreak is a very strange coincidence. (See below)

To consult the 201 videos, click here

Lunar New Year: The Year of the Rat

And third – the timing, hitting China right on their most important Holiday, the Lunar New Year, when people are traveling, uniting with family and friends, when there are usually huge festivities with lots of people – an event of celebrating happiness – all cut short by the outbreak that put Wuhan and portions of Hubei Province, and a total of about 50 million Chinese in quarantine; and more – no shopping, no exchange of presents, no celebrations – a huge economic loss.

Circumstantial gut-feeling tells me, this is not a series of three coincidences. This could be (yet to be confirmed) a maliciously planned disaster.

Is this a sinister plan (coupled with media propaganda) carried out by a western elite to attack China’s rapidly growing economy, outpacing that of the United States?

Is it an attack on the Yuan which is also gradually replacing the US dollar as a world reserve currency?

When that happens the US-empire which essentially relies on dollarization is doomed.

The build-up to more harm and destruction, possibly a hot war?

In late January, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Director General (DG) said that the new coronavirus, COVID-19, also called 2019-nCoV, was not a pandemic. On January 30, probably on instructions from Washington, he declared the outbreak of a Global Emergency, but added on his own initiative that there were no reasons for countries to ban travel of their citizens to China.

In contradiction to WHO’s recommendation, Washington immediately issued a travel warning for US citizens not to travel to China. Many other countries followed their master, especially Europeans.

Another hit on the Chinese economy. Cruise ships with Chinese on board are not granted docking rights. Merchandise vessels are in many countries not allowed to enter international harbors to unload their goods.

On 28 February 2019, Dr. Tedros, Director General of WHO, said that “more than 20 vaccines are in development globally, and several therapeutics are in clinical trials.” This is more than an insinuation that massive government directed – and possibly forced – vaccination programs will be implemented. In other words, the health predicament, misery and scare imposed on people will translate into a multi-multi-billion (if not trillion) bonanza for the pharma industry. And people innocently will go along with it – and who knows, if they won’t, they may be forced at gun point.

Now, let’s look at this in perspective. Worldwide, as of this date, 87,000 infections were reported (latest figures), the vast majority of them from mainland China. The total death rate is somewhere about 3,000. This corresponds to an infection to death rate of 3.4%. Far from a pandemic. Compare this with the Spanish flu from 1918 to 1920: About 50 million died, corresponding to a death rate of more than 20%, so far, the worst pandemic in the history of humanity.

The Recovery Rate of COVID-19

Another factor, hardly taken into account by the Western media, is the recovery rate of COVID-19. Of the 87,000 infected, 42,500 – almost half – fully recovered and were released from hospital. From these 42,500, the recovery in China alone was 36,000, and rapidly increasing.

China is increasingly on top of the disease and estimates that at the latest by beginning to mid-April is in full control of COVID19. Again, there is no COVID19 pandemic. But there is a panic-making pandemic rushing around the globe – an artificially media-imposed panic (paid for by Big Pharma and Big Finance), that will move again huge amounts of accumulated capital from the common people to the top, to the upper-upper echelon billionaires’ elite.

Media Propaganda

The media propaganda drums proclaim that the virus is spreading fast and will soon engulf the entire world. The culprit is China, where the virus originated. That’s what western propaganda wants you to believe.

Nobody mentions that the COVID-19 virus appears to be focusing on the Chinese genome (yet to be confirmed) and that almost no westerners are affected.

Well, if the media would talk about it, it would become clear for the entire world that the virus could not have been created or originated in China, as China would not infect her own people, and that the virus was most likely man-made and somehow transported into Wuhan. Could it be that it was brought to Wuhan by one or more of the American participants in the military games?

The death to infection rate is about 3% in China, but has been steadily declining in the past week. The ratio is less than 1% in the several countries outside of China, where the virus was detected. Italy and Iran seem to be exceptions. In Italy, as of this date, the official number of infected people has jumped to 400 with 12 confirmed deaths, also a death rate of 3%.

Iran with about 140 cases and 20 deaths, a 14% death rate, the highest in the world. Why? Faulty reporting, or do those who died in Iran have Chinese DNA?

In Italy, a country in the midst of the European flu season, most diseased people are elderly, according to the Health Ministry. But how precise are the tests? This is important since most symptoms of COVID-19 are very similar to those of the common flu, especially for elderly people vulnerable to respiratory diseases and pneumonia. By comparison, US deaths from in the 2019 / 2020 flu season so far are estimated at about 34,200 (CDC). Figures in Europe are probably proportionately similar. But these figures are silenced by the media.

And now Italy is building up the propaganda drama, discussing border closing, but not yet deciding, and so are France, Germany and Switzerland – the discussion is a big media hype – but so far to the question – “Shall we ban entry to travelers from Italy?” – They decided up to now, to leave borders open, as closing them would be bad for business. Though, that’s what they don’t say.

To add spice to the drama, Italy has also canceled the Venice Carnival and other public events, even closed church service and tourist attractions and monuments.

The point is tremendous fear mongering, propagating fear from China. People in fear can easily be manipulated. It’s always been the case. Planting fear into a docile and even placid and peaceful population has always been the precursor to a call for war. Fear, in a first round also helps isolating China, to cause as much economic damage as possible (weakening China to the point of ‘least resistance’).

Public consent for the second round, namely the possibility of a hot war, would be easier. There is not much time, as the Chinese economy is advancing rapidly and along with it – the possible displacement of the dollar system. Which, once recognized by the majority of the world, means the dollar hegemony is broken, and through that the US empire is broken. For sure the US would not shy away from military action, resulting in civilian deaths, just to preserve their dollar hegemony.

Washington also realizes that the east, China, Russia and the rest of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is no longer dependent on the west, but could carry on with an autonomous “eastern” economy – which in itself would be an incentive for other countries in defiance of the US dictate to join the east.

The China – Russia – Iran alliance is one of the strongest “eastern axis” – which also provides full energy self-sufficiency to the eastern countries, i.e. the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or SCO. The association of SCO and the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) comprises today about half of the world’s population and controls about a third of the world’s economic output (GDP).

Economic Damage

Nevertheless, China’s economic damage is considerable – work stoppages, limited consumption at home and in many countries a virtual ban on Chinese imports. The stock market has dropped tremendously due to the Coronavirus outbreak and its economic consequences. The worst may not yet be over, even if it doesn’t come to a ‘hot’ war – which we profoundly trust it will not.

To counteract this economic calamity, the People’s Bank of China (PBC – China’s Central Bank) may consider injecting quickly important amounts of money into China’s economy, especially targeting small and medium size enterprises, both public and private, through China’s public banking system and other means of direct economic support – to cut short losses caused by the western-imposed epidemics. The immediate and medium-term objectives may be reducing the risk of economic stagnation and un- or under-employment – and – to achieve food self-sufficiency, as well as to diversify China’s suppliers and supply-chains away from the US and western US-allies. The accent is on food self-sufficiency.

For international trade and transfer payments, Chinas Interbank Payment System (CIPS) and the crypto-yuan is expected to gradually increase its acceptance around the world and outrank the western transfer system SWIFT and the US-dollar hegemony which are key instruments the United States uses to impose totally illegal economic sanctions upon countries that dare insisting on their sovereignty and refuse to submit to Washington’s pressure. Cases in point are Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Syria, Sudan – and many more.

These US-led western efforts to weaken China’s economy are also meant to send a discouraging message to all those countries that are planning to divest their reserves and international payment methods away from the US-dollar. The west will not succeed.

Even with the massive damage caused by the recent coronavirus, China’s economy is steadier and stronger than that of most western countries, especially the US.

China’s non-confrontational approach to resolve these social – health – and economic issues, will help China to overcome and isolate her aggressive adversaries. That’s part of the 5000-year old Tao philosophy.

As the US is increasing her aggressive stance against China (and Russia) – Washington appears and acts more and more like a dying beast, lashing out around itself, trying to bringing down and destroying as much as possible, while steadily digging itself deeper into its own (economic) grave.

Sanctions left and right and bio-wars on China – threatening China by surrounding her with some 400 military bases and nuke-equipped warships and planes, will not create more confidence in the US, rather the contrary. Countries and people realize that being aligned and allied with the US of A, is dangerous, can be deadly. So, they are driven away and towards the east, rather than being attracted by the western sinking ship.

Amazingly, western aggressions will falter confronting China’s robust social and economic system, and more so, China’s peaceful plan to connect and build bridges between the world’s people, nations and cultures, through the socioeconomic development scheme of the 21^st Century spanning the globe – the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), also called the New Silk Road. A way Towards a Shared Future for Mankind.
—–
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world, including in Palestine, in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press, TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

First published by the New Eastern Outlook – NEO

Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
Comments Off on China is Confronting the COVID-19 Epidemic. Was It Man-Made? An Act of of Bio-warfare?

Further Erosion of American Civil Liberties. Why Renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

February 28th, 2020 by Renee Parsons

As a mid March deadline approaches, the mad scramble is on for Congress to rubber stamp a ‘clean’ renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISC) without amendment.

At every opportunity since 2001, Congress has used the re-authorization process to expand both the Patriot Act and the FISA Court’s authority in a further erosion of American civil liberties.

Over the years, Fourth Amendment protections have been eviscerated allowing government access into every nook and cranny of American life.

Read Part I here:

Why Renew the “Ultra Secret” Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court?

By Renee Parsons, February 21, 2020

Those expansions of authority with bipartisan Congressional support who claim to value liberty and freedom except when it comes to conducting widespread surveillance of Americans. The Court has functioned unscathed as the Dems historically split 50-50 in their support for civil liberty and surveillance votes while almost 100% of Republicans have supported the mass surveillance of the American people under the illusion of a national security threat. It is worth noting that the US is the world’s leader in surveillance of its own citizens.

It might be expected that any politician who wraps themselves in the American flag would find US surveillance repugnant but that has not been the case as the House Freedom Caucus’s avid support for the Surveillance State has demonstrated.

The following are recent Congressional roll-call votes reauthorizing the FISA Court:

2008 Senate vote 32 – 66; House vote 293 – 129
2012 Senate vote 73 – 23; House vote 301-118
2018 Senate vote 65 – 34; House vote 256 – 164

Despite its original intent in 1978 to provide oversight into government surveillance on American citizens, the FISA Court has remained super secret and obscure from public awareness, resistant to meaningful Congressional oversight and largely immune from real accountability while unilateral in its authority. In other words, hands off the Court while the black-robed wizards labor in dark places about mysterious matters delving into the lives of anonymous Americans who remain unaware of the intrusion – and Congress has dutifully obeyed.

As a result of the I G Report on FISA Abuses revealing the FBI’s egregious misconduct and the Court’s unwillingness to protect its jurisdiction, there is a bit of groundswell in Congress demanding ‘significant’ amendments to the Court’s authority. Whether that groundswell materializes or evaporates into obscurity, remains to be seen.

The question remains whether any amount of ‘reform’ can make the FISA Court acceptable from a Constitutional perspective or whether continued existence of the Court is necessary given its unabashed record of facilitating near-unanimous approval to conduct surveillance, in other words, the Court is needed for the mindless approval of surveillance applications to create the false impression for a gullible public that there is an independent Constitutionally-valid process at work.

No matter what changes are made to the Court, the process approving surveillance will always be subservient to the political whim of the day. It is essential to recognize that automatic approvals are indicative of a judicial system complicit with a rigged law enforcement agency more committed to increased surveillance as a means to justify its existence as well as to assure budget and staff increases. The ease with which the Bureau manipulated the moribund Court (FISC) into approving flawed applications suggests that unless profound changes are made to the FBI/DOJ, the current crisis is doomed to repeat itself.

With the Russiagate fiasco and the IG Report on FISA leading to Spygate, an impeachment charge depending on a covert whistleblower of suspect intentions and origin, it might be expected that the upcoming Court re-authorization ought to, especially for House Republicans, be a subject of fierce debate who have learned first hand, in a way that the Dems did not, that surveillance is a nasty business fraught with unintended consequences.

While Attorney General Bill Barr favors a ‘clean’ renewal bill with reforms being enacted at the Department level, Sen Lindsay Graham (R-SC) who is more focused on his re-election, agrees to postpone any substantive changes to some future time. However, on the House side, it is an entirely different scenario with sleeping bi-partisan tigers finally awakened to the implications of how the FISA Court process does not serve the American people and how easily it can be manipulated.

Judiciary Committee member Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif) has five amendments to further strengthen ‘reforms’ to the Committee’s bill, all of which were rebuffed by Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler at the urging of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intel Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif). Scutlebutt says that the House Judiciary bill is more of a Schiff ‘wish list’ with watered down civil liberty tokens.

It is essential to recognize that government surveillance; that is, to secretly spy into another’s private life is never done with good intentions or with the innocence of a harmless outcome. As the American Empire struggles to survive, spying, in all its nefarious forms, is a gross violation of elementary principles of fairness and ethics in a moral, just and civil society. It is ironic that Americans, as the most surveilled people on the planet, also pay for their own surveillance through their tax dollars.

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.

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member in the US House of Representatives in Washington, DC. Renee is also a student of the Quantum Field. She can be reached at #reneedove31. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Posted in English
Comments Off on Further Erosion of American Civil Liberties. Why Renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Tags: fbi, fisa, United States, US surveillance

Video: Fall of Saraqib: Syrian Army Retreat Under Turkish Strikes in Eastern Idlib

February 28th, 2020 by South Front

Members of al-Qaeda-linked groups embedded with Turkish troops have reentered the town of Saraqib in eastern Idlib following the collapse of the Syrian Army defense northwest of the town.

The attack was backed by Turkish artillery strikes on positions of the Syrian Army. Al-Qaeda members were actively using Turkish-supplied armoured vehicles and even MANPADs.

Since the evening of February 26, government troops have lost the villages of Salihiya and Afis and been forced to retreat towards the eastern and southern vicinities of Saraqib. Turkish forces reportedly captured three battle tanks, including a Russian-supplied T-90, in the course of the attack. Several other military vehicles were destroyed. Earlier, Syrian troops withdrew from Nayrab leaving behind 2 battle tanks, 4 amoured vehicles and 2 bulldozers as well as other weapons and equipment.

The Turkish Defense Ministry reported on February 26 that 2 Turkish soldiers were killed and 2 others injured in a Syrian airstrike. This became another official confirmation of the participation of Turkish troops in the fighting.

The fall of Saraqib is a major blow to the plans of the Damascus government to reopen the M5 highway and to threaten Idlib city with a possible offensive operation.

Local sources name the Syrian Army overcommitment to the advance south of the M4 highway as one of the causes of the recent setbacks in Saraqib. According to them, a large number of trained and experienced units, including the 25th Special Forces Division and the 4th Division, were redeployed from Saraqib to southern Idlib. Other issues are the lack of coordination among pro-government units and close-air-support.

According to pro-government sources, on the morning of February 27 army troops regrouped and launched a counter-attack. Clashes are ongoing.

The setbacks of government forces in Saraqib came amid the ongoing army advance in the southern part of the Idlib zone. Syrian troops have cleared another dozen villages of militants and reached the administrative border with the province of Hama. Now, the militant strongholds of Sahn and Barah are the two main obstacles in the way of the Syrian Army towards the M4 highway.

However, if government forces are not able to stabilize the frontline in the area of Saraqib and put an end to advances by Turkish-led forces, the gains in southern Idlib may not be enough to achieve a strategic victory over al-Qaeda in Idlib.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Video: Fall of Saraqib: Syrian Army Retreat Under Turkish Strikes in Eastern Idlib
Tags: Idlib, Saraqib, Syria War, Syrian army, Turkey

Oregon’s Jordan Cove Backers Double Down on Efforts to Push Project Following Federal Permit Delay

February 28th, 2020 by Sharon Kelly

Last Thursday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) took the highly unusual step of declining to move forward on permits for the proposed Jordan Cove LNG export terminal in Coos County, Oregon. If built, the $10 billion Jordan Cove project would become the largest source of global warming pollution in the state.

FERC commissioners voted 2 to 1 to postpone a decision on federal approvals for the project after a string of permit denials from the state of Oregon. Commissioner Bernard McNamee said he needed an additional week to review the latest denial, issued by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) one day prior to FERC’s vote.

In their February 19 letter, sent to Jordan Cove, FERC, the Army Corps of Engineers and others, Oregon’s land conservation officials wrote that approving Jordan Cove would “negatively impact” resources relied on by the state’s coastal tourism, fishing, shipping, and other industries, as well as endangered and threatened wildlife, “among other sectors critical to the state.”

“After long deliberation and review of the record before the department, it is clear that there is no reasonable assurance that the proposed project is or will be consistent with the laws, regulations, and policies that continue to maintain the Oregonian way of life,” the LCDC said in a statement announcing its decision. “Overall, the issuance of this decision protects the interests of the State of Oregon and those who call Oregon home.”

Without the state’s sign off, called a “consistency certification,” federal agencies including FERC and the Army Corps of Engineers “cannot authorize this project,” the Oregon commissioners wrote.

The next day, February 20, one Jordan Cove backer abruptly resigned from the state’s land conservation commission, citing the commission’s February 19 letter. Coos County commissioner Melissa Cribbins — whose contacts with Jordan Cove backers during the time that the project’s county-level permits were pending were at the center of a recent DeSmog investigation — penned a letter to Oregon’s governor.

“I am tendering my resignation from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) effective immediately,” Cribbins, who is currently running for state office, wrote in a letter posted to Facebook by her campaign. She cited the timing of the land conservation permit decision, calling it “purely political.”

“Clearly, this is not the Oregon way,” the letter concludes, “and I will not lend my credibility to this process any longer.”

Cribbins retains her seat as a Coos County commissioner. She was also recently appointed to a federal Environmental Protection Agency advisory committee on local government, which advises Trump-appointee Andrew Wheeler.

The land conservation commission had emphasized the significance of the negative impacts on Oregon and its coast that Jordan Cove construction would have as it issued its state permit denial.

“After careful review of the proposed project, in conjunction with receiving extensive public comment, and coordination with coastal partners, [Department of Land Conservation and Development] has determined that the coastal adverse effects from the project will be significant and undermine the vision set forth by the [Oregon Coastal Management Plan] and its enforceable policies,” the commission wrote in their February 19 letter (emphasis in original). “Coastal effects analyses show that the project will negatively impact Oregon’s coastal scenic and aesthetic resources, a variety of endangered and threatened species, critical habitat and ecosystem services, fisheries resources, commercial and recreational fishing and boating, and commercial shipping and transportation, among other sectors critical to the state.”

The Jordan Cove project would export U.S. and Canadian fossil fuels — enough to fill roughly 120 liquefied natural gas tankers a year.

Project opponents say that without permits from the state of Oregon, the Jordan Cove fossil fuel export project cannot be built. “Oregon has concluded that the Jordan Cove LNG project would have significant adverse effects on the state’s coast and without permits from the state of Oregon, Jordan Cove LNG cannot move forward,” Courtney Johnson, attorney and executive director at Crag Law Center, said in a statement following the LCDC’s permit denial.

Jordan Cove has 30 days from the LCDC’s denial to appeal the state’s decision.

On Monday, Jordan Cove representatives urged FERC to approve the project over Oregon’s rejection. “A [Coastal Zone Management Act] consistency determination ‘is a permit issued under federal law,’ and state [Coastal Zone Management Act] objections are subject to plenary federal administrative override,” David Owens, an attorney representing the Jordan Cove Energy Project and the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline wrote in a February 24 letter to FERC.

The FERC commissioner who cast the deciding vote to delay a decision cited the state’s permit denials at the hearing last week. “I want to see what the State of Oregon said, and I need that information to inform my decision, whether I’m ultimately going to vote for or against Jordan Cove,” McNamee said.

The land conservation permit is not the only permit that the Jordan Cove project currently lacks.

In January, Oregon’s Department of State Lands detailed over a half dozen categories of “critical information” that the Jordan Cove project had not yet provided to state officials after the company’s permit application was first deemed incomplete in November 2017. Days later, Jordan Cove withdrew its application for that permit.

And in May 2019 state officials denied a required Clean Water Act permit for Jordan Cove, citing concerns about the hazards posed to the state’s waters.

State officials predict a legal battle may be on the horizon. “I think the evidence is very clear that the strategy now for this project is to wholly ignore Oregon and its requirements and to have the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approve it, and somehow have the courts rule that that Oregon law, that quite clearly can’t be preempted by the federal government, can be,” State Sen. Jeff Golden said in early February after Jordan Cove withdrew its land permit application. He described a “legal fight that almost certainly is coming, to uphold the law of the land and tell the Trump administration you don’t get to cancel environmental safeguards all over this country on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.”

Oregon’s governor Kate Brown has also said the state “would consider all available options” if FERC attempted to override the state’s permit processes.

It’s not clear when FERC will reconvene to consider the Jordan Cove project. Legal experts have said that the law also allows Jordan Cove to appeal to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, currently Trump appointee Wilbur Ross, to approve the project without the state’s sign off. Ross has previously expressed support for the Jordan Cove project.

Environmentalists called on FERC to reject the permit when it does reconvene.

“Tens of thousands of people across the region have spoken out against this Jordan Cove LNG for over a decade,” Allie Rosenbluth, campaign director of Rogue Climate, said in a February 20 statement. “It’s time to put an end to Jordan Cove LNGfor good this time so our communities can focus on creating local jobs in clean energy instead.”

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: Coos Bay, Oregon, in 2012. The proposed Jordan Cove LNG export terminal site is in the lower left. Credit: RBrittsan, CC BY–SA 3.0

Posted in English
Comments Off on Oregon’s Jordan Cove Backers Double Down on Efforts to Push Project Following Federal Permit Delay
Tags: Jordan Cove, LNG export, United States

Washington Ponders Imposing Sanctions on Serbia for Russian Weapon Purchases

February 28th, 2020 by Paul Antonopoulos

With Russia delivering another round of the Pantsir S1 anti-missile defense system to Serbia on Tuesday, EU and U.S. officials have reacted. Both Brussels and Washington have sent their warnings to Serbia, with Washington even threatening sanctions against the Balkans country. For the U.S., they are hoping to prevent Serbia from acquiring the Russian made S-400 missile defense system as it will severely restrict American hegemony over the Balkans. While Brussels expects Serbia to comply with the commitments it made when it entered the EU’s strategic priority, the U.S. State Department urged countries to abandon purchases from Russia as it could lead to sanctions.

“In discussions with senior government officials, we have repeatedly expressed concern that Serbia is buying Russian military equipment, including the purchase of the Pantsir system,” a State Department spokesman said.

The European Union previously said that in order to progress on the road to European integration, “Serbia needs to align its foreign policy with the EU’s foreign policy, in accordance with the negotiating framework.” Although Brussels is not making threats of sanctions against Serbia, it is leveraging a potential Serbian admission into the EU. This leverage would not be effective however as only 42% of people in Serbia are in favour of EU membership.

However, this is not the first time that U.S. administration officials are threatening to activate Section 231 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017, which deals with the possibility of imposing sanctions on individuals and legal entities having business cooperation with the security and intelligence sectors of Russia, Iran and North Korea. In November last year, Thomas Zarzecki, director of the U.S. State Department’s Task Force 231, arrived in Belgrade immediately after it was announced that Serbia had purchased the Pantsir system. Even before the arrival Zarzecki, it was announced by Matthew Palmer, U.S. Secretary of State’s representative for the Balkans, that sanctions may be imposed against Serbia.

Zarzecki left Belgrade last November and no sanctions were imposed on Serbia. Now, after Serbia acquired the Pantsir and they have begun arriving in the country, the possibility of imposing U.S. sanctions is being activated again. This becomes difficult as there is no doubt that the State Department will be pushing to punish Serbia for acquiring Russian weaponry. However, it is still within easy living memory that the U.S. led a NATO campaign of destruction against Serbia in 1999, killing over 500 civilians and destroying vital civilian infrastructure like bridges, industrial plants and private businesses. This campaign of destruction has left widespread anti-American sentiment that still persists to this day. Paradoxically, most NATO members today, with the exception of the U.S., has a more positive attitude towards Serbia and would accept that the purchase of military equipment from Russia is a national decision of Serbia and that Belgrade is entitled to that decision.

The President of the Foreign Policy Committee of the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress, Eliot Engel, publicly rebuked one of the U.S. generals serving in NATO over the Alliance’s stance on Serbia. Engel criticized the position on Serbia’s military neutrality and intensive cooperation with Russia. As the Pantsir system is arriving in Serbia, interests for the S-400 system will intensify. Other states have received threats of sanctions if they purchase the S-400, such as India, and it can only be expected that Serbia will receive such warnings, too. Therefore, these discussions of sanctions because of the Pantsir system is a preventative warning for Serbia not to purchase the S-400.

However, the Serbia of the 1990’s is drastically different to the Serbia of today. Today, Serbia is making a recovery from the 1990’s and both Russia and China have achieved Great Power status and are willing to oppose Western interventionism and support independent states such as Serbia.

The U.S. State Department’s position certainly has elements of dissatisfaction over Serbia’s co-operation with Russia and China. NATO, on the other hand, praises the level of co-operation with Serbia and is ready, at least in words, to respect military neutrality. With the 1990’s remembered for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the advent of the U.S. dominated unipolar world, things have changed so much in the world that a once weak Russia and China who were, now are capable of maintaining their own positions.

With Russian and Chinese support, Serbia has enough strength to resist U.S.-led pressures that imposed sanctions could have minimal impact on the country, and rather create opportunities to push towards financial independence away from the U.S. dollar. It is for this reason that even Washington will be contemplating whether imposing such sanctions would be worth the risk of pushing another country towards financial independence as has happened in Iran and Venezuela.

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 a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

Posted in English
Comments Off on Washington Ponders Imposing Sanctions on Serbia for Russian Weapon Purchases
Tags: Russia, sanctions, Serbia, United States

Turkey’s Losing Bet in Syria

February 28th, 2020 by Tony Cartalucci

Turkey has allegedly lost another 33 troops in Syria this week amid its refusal to withdraw from Syrian territory amid Syrian government gains in the northern governorate of Idlib.

The BBC in its article, “Syria war: 33 Turkish troops killed in air strike in Idlib,” would report:

At least 33 Turkish soldiers have been killed in an air strike by Syrian “regime forces” in north-western Syria, a senior Turkish official has said.

More were hurt in Idlib province, said Rahmi Dogan, the governor of Turkey’s Hatay province. Other reports put the death toll higher.

Turkey later retaliated against Syrian troops government targets.

The US-led proxy war against Syria is all but over. It is just a matter of time before Damascus and its allies restore control over the entire nation and begin rebuilding.

The US-armed and funded terrorists that have ravaged the country since 2011 have been exposed, depleted, and cornered. So desperate is the state of this proxy war that in recent years the US and its allies including Turkey and Israel have resorted increasingly to direct military action against Damascus itself as their proxies are no longer capable of carrying out sustained military operations themselves.

And despite brazen aggression against Damascus and its forces – the combined military might of the US, Turkey, and Israel have failed to produce any noteworthy or sustainable gains in contrast to Damascus’ imminent victory.

Giving Up a Graceful Exit

Turkey has been a NATO member since the 1950’s and was an eager participant in Washington’s proxy war on Syria allowing its territory and resources to be used to flood Syria with terrorists, weapons, equipment, and money to fuel the destructive 9 year conflict.

Despite Turkey’s integral role in facilitating Washington’s malice and destructive proxy war, Syria’s allies – seeing the conflict as ending in Damascus’ favor – attempted to create a graceful exit for Turkey and the possibility of playing a more constructive role in the region they – not Washington – would now be shaping.

This included economic and military ties with Russia and Iran to help ease pressure from Washington who was attempting to cut both to punish and increasingly uncompliant Ankara.

However, recent events appear to indicate that Turkey has rejected this graceful exit. Turkish forces find themselves increasingly escalating directly against Syrian forces and now even their nuclear-armed Russian allies.

Nothing Turkey can do short of total war in northern Syria will reverse their flagging fortunes.

The occupation of northern Syria through the use of depleted proxies is no longer sustainable. The invasion and occupation of northern Syria by Turkish forces capable of repelling Syrian government forces backed by nuclear-armed Russia is also not a viable policy.

Discovering whatever Ankara is still being promised – or threatened with – by Washington to continue its policy of belligerence and disruption in northern Syria will be key to dissuading Turkish cooperation with the US – or formulating a strategy to frustrate and defeat the lingering machinations of Washington and its two chief partners – Turkey and Israel.

Turkey now finds itself in the unenviable position of having all but abandoned promising ties with the winners of the Syrian conflict and a constructive role in reorganizing the region in the conflict’s aftermath – and now also doubling down on a clearly lost war that will cost Turkey not only blood and treasure, but also its standing in the region in the near to intermediate 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 the author’s blog site, Land Destroyer Report.

Posted in English
Comments Off on Turkey’s Losing Bet in Syria
Tags: Syria, Turkey

Selected Articles: Assad’s Victory in Syria War?

February 28th, 2020 by Global Research News

A future without independent media leaves us with an upside down reality where according to the corporate media “NATO deserves a Nobel Peace Prize”, and where “nuclear weapons and wars make us safer”

If, like us, this is a future you wish to avoid, please help sustain Global Research’s activities by making a donation or taking out a membership now!

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

* * *

Capture of M5 Hama-Aleppo Highway: One of the Most Celebrated Prizes in Damascus’ Campaign to Regain Territory

By Michael Jansen, February 28, 2020

As soon as the Syrian government announced that the north-south highway was open last weekend, my courageous friend Jamil drove from Damascus to Aleppo and back. “The road was fine and very quick,” he told me on the phone on his return to the capital. The Hama-Idlib-Aleppo sector of the highway, the M5, is known as the “international road” because it begins on the Jordanian border and runs to the Turkish border. The highway was closed by conflict for eight years, forcing travellers to take a detour in the desert over rough roads. This route was 90 kilometres longer than the M5 and consumed six hours rather than four and a half, as well as more petrol.

Video: “Fake News”: “The Shining Forces of Idlib Democracy” = Al Qaeda Terrorists backed by Turkish Army

By South Front, February 27, 2020

The shining forces of Idlib democracy are crushing the Assad regime’s brutal aggression in eastern Idlib dealing blow after blow to the pro-government sectarian militias so cynically backed by Teheran and Moscow… at least according to mainstream media.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Turkistan Islamic Party and other peaceful al-Qaeda groups backed by the Turkish Army entered Nayrab on the evening of February 24th and consolidated control over the village on February 25th. Since then, they’ve made hundreds of selfies and proclamations of victory. Pro-Turkish sources even claimed that the rebels advanced towards Saraqib.

Syria: “Moderate Rebels” or “Intelligence Assets”?

By Mark Taliano, February 27, 2020

The fabricated narratives were and are a smokescreen to conceal the fact that the West supports all of the terrorists, covertly and overtly, and always did.

Forget Bana Alabed, an icon of both child abuse and war propaganda, in which innocent children are weaponized to advance imperial projects.

Evidence on Continuing US-NATO Media Lies About the War in Syria

By James ONeill, February 26, 2020

One of the clearest indicators of the legitimacy or otherwise of Western military actions is the coverage that is given to it by the western media. When evidence emerges that the given military action was at best ill-founded and more often blatantly illegal under international law, then the western media is silent as to any criticism. Alternatively, it gives undue prominence to self-serving and frequently blatant falsehoods about the actions in question.

Turkey’s War on Syria: Erdogan Sponsored Terrorists Cut Drinking Water off Al-Hasakah, Two Million People Affected, an Explicit War Crime

By Arabi Souri, February 26, 2020

Terrorists loyal to Erdogan along with Turkish Army forces cut the drinking water off more than 2 million people in the city of Hasakah and its suburbs yesterday.

The terrorists infested the Alouk Water Station, the main source for drinking water for the people of Hasakah city and the towns around it and immediately cut off the water pumps, a war crime by all definitions.

Turkey’s Request for U.S. Patriot Missiles to Pressure Russia in Syria Will Not Work

By Paul Antonopoulos, February 26, 2020

With Turkey supporting and backing jihadists against the Syrian Army in Idlib, the situation in Syria is becoming increasingly hostile as Erdoğan has threatened to directly go to war at the end of the month if Syria does not reverse the gains it made in previous weeks. There is a certain danger for war that could drag Russia as it is the main backer of the Syrian Army. Turkey has not shied away that it is increasingly getting frustrated with Moscow as it has unrelentingly backed its Syrian allies against Turkish-backed forces. This becomes complicated as not only Turkey and Russia have interests in Idlib, but so do the U.S. and Iran, however, Russia and Turkey are not going to war as many have speculated.

The Syrian Arab Army’s Victorious Liberation of Aleppo. Historical Comparisons

By Andrew Korybko, February 23, 2020

While there are certainly some structural similarities between the Syrian Arab Army’s ongoing liberation offensive in Northwestern Syria and Saakashvili’s previous desire to restore Georgia’s full sovereignty over Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008, the international legal and situational differences between the two are much too important to ignore and thus make these two cases morally incomparable, though some significant strategic insight can nevertheless be gained by studying both of them together.

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

Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
Comments Off on Selected Articles: Assad’s Victory in Syria War?

Assange Extradition: Can a French Touch Pierce a Neo-Orwellian Farce?

February 28th, 2020 by Pepe Escobar

It’s quite fitting that the – imperially pre-determined – judicial fate of Julian Assange is being played out in Britain, the home of George Orwell.

As chronicled by the painful, searing reports of Ambassador Craig Murray, what’s taking place in Woolwich Crown Court is a sub-Orwellian farce with Conradian overtones: the horror…the horror…, remixed for the Raging Twenties. The heart of our moral darkness is not in the Congo: it’s in a dingy courtroom attached to a prison, presided by a lowly imperial lackey.

In one of Michel Onfray’s books published last year, “Theorie de la Dictature” (Robert Laffont) – the top dissident, politically incorrect French philosopher starts exactly from Orwell to examine the key features of a new-look dictatorship. He tracks seven paths of destruction: to destroy freedom, impoverish language, abolish truth, suppress history, deny nature, propagate hate, and aspire to empire.

To destroy freedom, Onfray stresses, power needs to assure perpetual surveillance; ruin personal life; suppress solitude; make opinion uniform and denounce thought crimes. That sounds like the road map for the United States government’s persecution of Assange.

Other paths, as in impoverishing language, include practicing newspeak; using double language; destroying words; oralizing language; speaking a single language; and suppressing the classics. That sounds like the modus operandi of the ruling classes in the Hegemon.

To abolish truth, power must teach ideology; instrumentalize the press; propagate fake news; and produce reality. To propagate hate, power, among other instruments, must create an enemy; foment wars; and psychiatrize critical thinking.

There’s no question we are already mired deep inside this neo-Orwellian dystopia.

John “Paradise Lost” Milton, in 1642, could not have been more prophetic, when he wrote “Those that hurt the eyes of the people blame them for being blind.” How not to identify a direct parallel with Le Petit Roi Emmanuel Macron’s army, month after month, willfully blinding protesting Gilets Jaunes/Yellow Vests in the streets of France.

Orwell was more straightforward than Milton, saying that to talk about freedom is meaningless unless it refers to the freedom to tell people what they don’t want to hear. And he put it in context by quoting a line from Milton: “By the known rules of ancient liberty.”

No “known rules of ancient liberty” are allowed to penetrate the heart of darkness of Woolwich Crown Court.

A Spy at the Service of the People

Juan Branco is arguably the most brilliant young French intellectual – heir to a fine Sartre/Foucault/Deleuze tradition. The French establishment detests him, especially because of his best-seller “Crepuscule,” where he dissected Macronism – branded as a thuggish regime – from the inside, and the French president as a creature and instrument of a tiny oligarchy.

He has just published “Assange: L’Antisouverain” (Les Editions du Cerf), an absorbing, erudite study that he defines as “a philosophy book about the figure of the Anti-Sovereign.” The Sovereign is of course the state apparatus.

Here (in French) is an excellent interview with Branco about the book. There’s nothing even remotely comparable to it in the Anglosphere, which has treated Assange essentially as an unpleasant freak, oozing pedestrian slander and piling up sub-ideology tirades disguised as facts.

The book is essentially structured as a seminary for the hyper-selective Ecole Normale Superieure, the august school in the Latin Quarter here that shapes French elites, a privileged nest of power institutions and reproduction of privileges. Branco takes the reader to the heart of this universe just to make him or her discover Assange from the point of view of one of those students.

Branco was privileged to profit from the interaction between the Ecole Normale Superieure and Yale. He met Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in January 2014, “in a state of radical confinement,” and then followed him as a juridical consultant, then lawyer, “day after day,” until meeting him again in September 2016, “getting ready to no less than change the course of the American presidential election and engineer the fall of the one who had sworn to crush him, one Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

Branco is fascinated by Assange’s “scientific journalism,” and his capacity to “intervene in the political space without occupying a determined place.” Assange is painted as a contemporary oracle, a maniac for free access to information, someone who “never looked for a reward, or insertion, or juridical protection,” which is a totally different modus operandi from any media.

Branco shows how WikiLeaks “allowed whistleblowers to act,” by growing an archive parallel to the “production of data related to the mechanism of contemporary power apparatuses.” Under this framework “every citizen is able to become a researcher.”

So, Assange’s work has been about redistributing power. It’s as if Assange had become a “spy at the service of the people.” And that leads Branco to draw the connection with the Gilets Jaunes/Yellow Vests. WikiLeaks releasing the “Macron Leaks” in 2017 legitimized the Yellow Vest struggle for direct democracy.

Branco describes Assange as “a strange figure, a bridge between the pre-history of digital civilization and its definitive penetration as a primordial, structural element of political and social space.”

But arguably his best appraisal is of Assange as “a dissident of his own internal space, mostly interested by the sphere of cultural, economic and social domination in which he was born, that of the American imperium, of which his native Australia is one of the most dedicated allies, and that dominates this cyber-space where he constituted himself as a political actor.”

In what could be construed as the top reason for the United States government’s unbounded thirst for vengeance against Assange, he challenged the fact that “American acts have a natural regulatory function for the rest of the world, a result of their over-dominance of the contemporary geopolitical space.”

It’s All in the Algorithm

And that brings us to the heart of the matter: algorithms. As Branco synthesizes it, the “revelation of raw documents aims at reinvesting in the political space those that have been discarded because of their submission to a word of authority whose algorithms have been masked.”

Onfray had already warned about “destroying words,” “impoverishing language” and clinging to newspeak – but Branco takes it to a new level. Because “the word of power is a word assimilated to the algorithm, in the sense that it benefits from a presumption of truth, it does not reveal, to remain effective, any of its assets, settling to enounce a reality impossible to contest.”

Branco is careful to explain that, “Algorithm would not have become a social power without the support of an ethical presupposition (the consecration of Homo Economicus), a postulation towards scientificism (thus to universality) and a technological rupture (big data).”

Branco breaks it down to the formula “Algorithmization is the foundation of sovereignty.” And that’s exactly what Assange challenged. And that’s why he’s such a divisive, eternally controversial figure, unlike Edward Snowden, who’s basically an average guy – with a sterling IQ – who simply wants to reform a system.

A Chance for Liberty, Equality and Fraternity?

When he worked on behalf of Assange, Branco essentially coordinated a team of lawyers responding to star judge Baltasar Garzon, who was present at Woolwich Crown Court earlier this week. Last week, Assange’s legal team said they would apply for asylum in France. Branco can’t possibly be part of the team because of “Crepuscule” – which eviscerates Macron.

Le Petit Roi, for his part, may now be presented with the ultimate global reach P.R. opportunity. Ending a ghastly neo-Orwellian charade, offering asylum to Assange, and ridiculing Trump and Boris Johnson at the same time would enhance his status in myriad European latitudes and all across the Global South.

Yet there should be no illusions. On July 3, 2015, advised by his legal team, Assange wrote an op-ed for Le Monde asking about the possibility of asylum. Only one hour after publication the Elysee Palace – under Francois Hollande – issued a firm denial. There were no leaks on what kind of pressure was applied by the U.S. Deep State.

Assange lawyer Geoffrey Robertson is under no illusions: “He won’t be pardoned by President Trump, although [a future] President Sanders might do so. I think that’s the objective of the Pentagon — to put him in prison for the rest of his life.”

A measure of the cowardice of all those established newspapers who profited handsomely from the work of Assange and WikiLeaks is this despicable Le Monde editorial that half-heartedly pretends to defend him as a journalist and publisher.

It’s idle to expect from Anglo-American corporate media even a modicum of decency to admit that journalists must not be treated as spies and dangerous criminals. Criminalization of critical thinking – capable of provoking, unmasking and denouncing raw power — is a key plank of the new dictatorship examined by Onfray, and already in effect. Now it comes down to Onfray and Branco not to be lost in translation – and forcefully demonstrate to the Anglosphere that the heart of darkness must not be allowed to prevail.

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 Consortiumnews.

Pepe Escobar, a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong Kong-based Asia Times. His latest book is “2030.” Follow him on Facebook. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Snopes.com

Posted in English
Comments Off on Assange Extradition: Can a French Touch Pierce a Neo-Orwellian Farce?
Tags: Assange extradition, Assange hearing, George Orwell, Julian Assange, Orwellian

Canada’s First Nations: Ottawa Lays Bare the Lie It Calls “Reconciliation”

February 28th, 2020 by Corvin Russell

The Canadian state today is in the throes of a historic crisis of its own making, as it stands off against the Wet’suwet’en Nation, an Indigenous nation in northern British Columbia (BC) that is blocking construction of the Coastal GasLink (CGL)¹ pipeline through their land (called the Yintah). The CGL pipeline would bring fracked gas from northwestern British Columbia to a planned LNG Canada liquid natural gas terminal on the BC coast at Kitimat that is to be built by an international fossil fuel consortium.²Condensate, a byproduct of the fracking, will also be used as diluent needed to send tar sands oil through another planned pipeline, the TransMountain Expansion pipeline.

On February 5, after Canada and BC would not concede on any point, talks with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs broke down, and the following day, heavily armed RCMP were sent in. Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs and their supporters were arrested and violently removed from their lands. In the run-up, the RCMP had imposed an unprecedented and unconstitutional “media exclusion zone” in an attempt to prevent incendiary images of the violent police action from getting out, an attempt that ultimately failed. Solidarity actions erupted across Canada, encompassing road and rail blockades, occupations and sit-ins, and blocking off the BC legislature. Solidarity from the Mohawk nation at Tyendinaga resulted in Canada’s busiest passenger rail corridor being shut down.

In many locations, standing injunctions and preemptive injunctions have been used to clear protests, but these have continued to be organized. Early on February 22, Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) moved in on the Tyendinaga railside encampment, but in response, a number of other blockades and occupations sprouted across the country. The mobilizations show no sign of ending soon.

Seeking to discredit the Wet’suwet’en traditional government and their supporters, the coordinated messaging of colonial governments and ruling class media has centred on disingenuous arguments that the Wet’suwet’en are “divided” – therefore the colonizer must decide! Some Indian Act bands on the pipeline route have consented to the project, but the traditional government of the Wet’suwet’en has not. And while the Ottawa-imposed Indian Act administration of the Wet’suwet’en may support the pipeline, its remit does not run to title and rights, which are the purview of the hereditary chiefs, a fact that Canada and BC know well. Nevertheless, despite lacking consent, the NDP-Green government of the province of British Columbia decided to plough ahead with the project, issuing all permits required and ante-ing up $5.35-billion in direct subsidies alongside a federal tax break of $1-billion. Courts granted injunctions against the Wet’suwet’en, once again deeming resource extraction of greater importance than the well-being and wishes of Indigenous communities.

For fractions of Canada’s ruling class, this carbon extraction project is a matter of economic and political urgency. In elite political circles, Alberta’s perennially offside politics are suddenly being framed as a national unity crisis of the highest importance, allegedly requiring both the federal government and Alberta to desperately expand Alberta’s carbon export capacity at any cost in order to address Alberta’s economic crisis, which is largely the result of collapsing demand for its expensive and dirty petroleum output. Large sums of money, including public pension fund monies and private capital, have already been committed to these heavily subsidized fossil fuel projects.

Canada’s Stubborn Unwillingness to Deal with Indigenous People’s Title and Rights

Yet the deeper challenge to Canada’s wholeness in this crisis lies in the in-built contradictions of the colonial Canadian state that Wet’suwet’en resistance has made concrete and highly visible. Central to Canada’s extractivist political economy is “Crown title,” the claim of jurisdiction over Indigenous lands. The supposed legitimacy of Crown title rests on two half-inconsistent principles. The first is the “doctrine of discovery,” by which European colonizers arrogated to themselves the right to claim as their own any lands where there were no Christian inhabitants. The second is the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which requires the Crown to negotiate treaties with Indigenous Peoples before settling their lands. Into the mix is a growing body of Canadian and international law that recognizes the continuity and priority of Indigenous rights and land title where these have not been truly consensually ceded in Treaty.

The Wet’suwet’en have not signed any treaty with Canada. Their title in the land has never been removed, and this is a fact that will not go away, yet a fact that Canada cannot properly reconcile itself to without fundamentally changing laws on resource and land development and governance, and abandoning its policy toward Indigenous Peoples that goes back 170 years. Far from being caught unawares, the Canadian state apparatus knows what changes need to be made to truly achieve the “reconciliation” it preaches, as can be shown by a brief history of Canada’s refusal to budge on the core issue of recognizing Indigenous title.

In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP)³ as part of its comprehensive recommendations called for an overhaul of government policy on Indigenous land rights and jurisdiction. In particular, they called for an approach that recognized Indigenous title and did not make title claims prohibitively expensive and burdensome for Indigenous Peoples. It also argued for interim relief based on title without this depending on title being proved in court. And it called for policy alternatives that would allow Indigenous Peoples to retain title, and to ensure that any negotiated extinguishment of title would truly involve informed consent and deliver additional benefits – rather than merely the necessary baseline of viability that governments have withheld as a pressure tactic.

In 1997, the Delgamuukw decision of the Supreme Court, specifically in relation to the Wet’suwet’en Nation, recognized that Indigenous Peoples had retained title unless explicitly extinguished. (Bear in mind that in historic as opposed to modern treaties, the validity of cession and surrender clauses is dubious as there is multiple reinforcing evidence – oral tradition, treaty commissioner diaries in Treaty 9, eyewitness testimony, and the Paypom treaty record – across numbered treaties these clauses were not in the oral agreements but were tacked on in Ottawa after signatures had been collected or in some cases forged.)

In 2007, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was passed at the UN. Its bedrock principle is Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for development on Indigenous lands. In subsequent years one federal government has signed on to the treaty, and several provincial governments have passed aspirational motions declaring their respect for the principles of UNDRIP. Most recently, British Columbia passed legislation implementing UNDRIP in law, and the federal government has promised to do the same. Yet none of these has given effect to the core principle of FPIC. BC claims UNDRIP is equivalent to the much weaker “duty to consult” under which Indigenous Peoples do not have a “veto” on development on their lands.

In 2015 the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), formed to address the causes and long-term consequences of Canada’s genocidal residential schools system, released its final report. Among its calls was recognizing Indigenous title by default and reversing the burden of proof onto those who would seek to limit title. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to fully implement the TRC recommendations.

Despite this history, no government has recognized Indigenous title, and Canada’s policy on Indigenous lands has not been changed.⁴ The RCAP recommendations were shelved in toto, UNDRIP’s bedrock principle of FPIC was slipped out of implementing legislation, and the TRC call for default recognition of title and reversing the burden of proof was simply ignored.

De Facto Extinguishment of Indigenous Title, By Hook and By Crook

Instead, the federal government has stuck to its policy which in its modern form dates back to the 1970s, but which is a direct continuation of the approach taken to Indigenous title since the mid-19th century. This contemplates as the only viable policy the de facto extinguishment of Indigenous title everywhere, by hook and by crook. The contemporary incarnation of this policy is the Comprehensive Claims Policy, which is the umbrella framework for modern treaty processes whose core policy goal and non-negotiable precondition for agreement is extinguishment of title, in contravention of UNDRIP and against the calls of RCAP and the TRC.

For Indigenous Peoples who enter it, the modern treaty process is a long drawn-out affair of many-year negotiations, with government providing money to pay Indigenous-side negotiators and consultants who have a vested interest in continuing the process. Despite this, the final agreements all conform to a template – extinguishment of title, the ending of distinct “Indian” status for individuals and communities, the municipalization of communities and their subordination to provincial regimes rather than being recognized as a third order of government, and the retention of a small fraction of their territory (5%) as their municipal land base, with a retained economic interest in an additional small sliver of their original territory. (In the Orwellian language of Indian Affairs bureaucrats, extinguishment today is camouflaged as “modified rights.”)

Out of final settlement monies lawyers (who have a vested interest in the process) take a huge chunk. In the approvals process, government rather than playing a neutral role actively intervenes by funding and supporting the Yes side with intelligence and PR money. If the vote says No this is never final – they push for do-overs until they get a Yes, but there is no do-over allowed on a Yes. At the local level this can involve brutal intimidation campaigns toward those dissenting from a Yes. Yet these agreements are so inherently unappealing that Canada has succeeded in getting a Yes from only very few communities.

The only option that Canada officially contemplates for Indigenous Nations wishing to retain title is litigation. Title cases require years of evidence collection, tens of millions of dollars and a decade or more in court – because the government’s strategy (as most defendants’ – but the government is supposed to have a ‘trust relationship’ toward Indigenous people!) is to appeal everything it can, including procedural issues, and drag it out as long as possible. There are 200 Bands in BC alone. The BC Courts told one community in the pipeline for a title case that the courts can manage at most two simultaneous title cases because of their size and complexity. This means that it would take up to 1000 years for the courts to deal with all title cases in BC. Meanwhile, Bands are not provided with litigation budgets to fight Ottawa (Ottawa sets the budgets for most Bands) except in limited circumstances where government is compelled, and unlike the extinguishment processes, no help is forthcoming for title cases. The government strategy is one of attrition, part of which is literally “waiting for the evidence to die,” that is, elders and their often distinctive knowledge of land use and occupancy. Another part is willfully denying Indigenous communities adequate services, and engineering poverty conditions that are intended as a pressure pump to drive outmigration and encourage bendability to Canada’s will.

Canada and the provinces are not good faith actors. All the words about reconciliation and recognition are fake, for non-Indigenous public consumption. This is not a policy that seriously contemplates Indigenous people retaining title. There has been absolutely no change by any government, Conservative, Liberal, or NDP on this core aspect of Indigenous-Canada relations, which underpins and motivates all other colonial policy and action. Allowing Indigenous Peoples the possibility of a “no” on development is so far anathema to governments that they could not even contemplate the suggestion of alternative pipeline routes from the Office of the Wet’suwet’en. Consent is not consent when “yes” is the only answer allowed. Consent is not “try for consent, otherwise do it anyway.” The possibility of a “no” is essential to informed consent.

Recognizing Indigenous Title and Rights – and upholding FPIC – are Canada’s only way out

Yet despite all Canada’s attempts and its endemically Orwellian rhetoric on Indigenous rights, Indigenous Peoples are still here. Today as a result of the internet and social media, Indigenous people and nations are networked across Canada and North America. Decades of movement building and grassroots education and organization have laid the groundwork for today’s resistance. Indigenous intellectuals and journalists can now disseminate their message through social media and independent media, even while mainstream media continue to reflect the blinkered perspectives of their tiny social world. Younger generations who are cutting their teeth on climate change activism also understand solidarity more fluently, and are very conscious of Indigenous rights and the colonial character of the settler state.

This has resulted in an uprising that is the nightmare of Canada’s security state and political and economic elites, one they cannot get out of until they own up to the choice before them and reckon with what they have so far willfully postponed. There can be no “reconciliation” until Canada “gets over it” and breaks with colonial domination and theft as its core policy toward Indigenous people by recognizing Indigenous title and fully implementing UNDRIP, including the essential principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.

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.

Corvin Russell is a longtime Indigenous solidarity activist, writer, and translator based in Toronto.

Notes

CGL’s major investors are KKR, an American investment firm that has partnered with NPS, a Korean public sector pension fund; and AIMco, which manages public sector funds in the province of Alberta, where the bulk of Canada’s dirty tar sands oil is mined.
Shell (40%), Petronas (25%), PetroChina (15%), Mitsubishi (15%), and KOGAS (5%).
Formed after the Kanehsatake resistance of 1990, and Canada’s militarized response to it.
For more information on this issue, see “150 Years of Canadian Colonization.”

Featured image is from The Bullet

Posted in English
Comments Off on Canada’s First Nations: Ottawa Lays Bare the Lie It Calls “Reconciliation”
Tags: Canada, CGL, Coastal GasLink, Wetsuweten

Brexit: Devastating Impacts on Employment

February 28th, 2020 by True Publica

It seems every day brings news of the crisis of daily life for millions in the sixth wealthiest country on earth. Even if the government was unexpectedly gifted a trillion or two, it would take a decade or more to right the wrongs when it comes to the social policies that has led to such widespread injustice. And more than anything it is injustice that people despise the most.

The number of working-age adults trapped on zero-hours contacts has reached a new record high, with close to one million people aged 16 and over counting a “zero-hour contract” as their main job, official figures reveal.

Figures published by the Office National Statistics (ONS) on Tuesday show a record 970,000 people in employment on a zero-hour contract as their main job between October to December 2019 – up from 896,000 in the previous quarter.

The proportion of working-age adults in zero-hours employment has increased significantly since 2012 when around 252,000 workers were on this type of contract as their main job – equivalent to just 0.8% of the workforce.

By the end of December 2019, this number had increased to 3% of the workforce and looks set to continue rising without action from government and businesses.

This news comes just as we find out that the new daily allowance for the “unelected and unaccountable” House of Lords is set to rise to £323, whereas the monthly allowance for a single person over 25 on Universal Credit is £317.82.

In addition, millions of the UK’s most vulnerable adults are at risk of being locked out from claiming vital welfare support, due to mind-bending complexities surrounding the Government’s new Universal Credit system, a leading charity has warned.

Research by the Salvation Army found that up to two million people suffering from mental health problems or learning difficulties could be left struggling to navigate the new benefits system, despite promises from Government ministers that Universal Credit will simplify the application process. Researchers found that 85% of clients experienced difficulties in making a claim, with around two-thirds of these (60%) citing a lack of computer access or problems in understanding the claims process.

The Salvation Army says there is overwhelming evidence that unless the Government provide more support immediately for people to apply, vulnerable people will struggle to access their benefits.

Millions could be left unable to buy food, pay their rent, and take care of their children, the charity warns.

In the meantime, the proportion of people living in poverty who are in a working family has hit a record high, according to a report that shows rising levels of employment have failed to translate into higher living standards.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that while paid employment reduces the risk of poverty, about 56% of people living in poverty in 2018 were in a household where at least one person had a job, compared with 39% 20 years ago.

The NHS crisis has got worse with waiting times in A&E hitting an all-time record in January with the Society for Acute Medicine saying urgent action was needed, warning the system was “imploding“. The Nuffield Trust said this was “one of the bleakest winters in the NHS’s history”.

From all this news comes the result – the latest report on health in England shows that life expectancy has ‘flatlined’ in the last 10 years with austerity taking ‘a significant toll on equity and health’, according to an expert report. Professor Sir Michael Marmot said worsening health inequalities between the most and least deprived parts of the country have resulted in a ‘lost decade’.

The equation is really quite simple and pretty much sums up where the country is right now. Prof Marmot said: ‘England is faltering. From the beginning of the 20th century, England experienced continuous improvements in life expectancy but from 2011 these improvements slowed dramatically, almost grinding to a halt.’ He added: ‘England has lost a decade. ‘Pretty much – with a few dips and bounces – life expectancy improved about one year every four years from the end of the 19th century until 2010, then it slowed down dramatically. ‘If health has stopped improving, that means society has stopped improving and if health inequalities continue and in fact increase, that means inequalities in society have been increasing.”

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Brexit: Devastating Impacts on Employment
Tags: United Kingdom

Endangered Species in America: “Moose, Western Bumblebee, Venus Flytrap, … Plants and Animals in Desperate Need of Help”

February 28th, 2020 by Center For Biological Diversity

The Center for Biological Diversity sued the Trump administration today for failing to decide whether 241 plants and animals across the country — from the Midwest’s golden-winged warbler to Venus flytraps in the Carolinas — should be protected under the Endangered Species Act.

The lawsuit, filed in district court in Washington, D.C., is one of the largest ever under the Act and seeks to undo years of illegal inaction by the Trump administration.

Among the species in today’s suit are spotted turtles in the Great Lakes and on the Eastern Seaboard, moose in the Midwest, a western bumblebee that has declined by 84%, and a tiny freshwater fish in Chesapeake Bay that flips stones with its nose to find food. (A full list is below. An interactive map here shows which species are living in each state.)

“As moose and golden-winged warblers and hundreds of other species fight the rising tide of the extinction crisis, Trump officials won’t lift a finger to help,” said Noah Greenwald, the Center’s endangered species director. “This administration’s ugly contempt for wildlife and the Endangered Species Act threatens our country’s entire web of life. Every day of delay brings these incredible, irreplaceable plants and animals one step closer to extinction.”

In 2016 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a workplan to address a backlog of more than 500 species awaiting protection decisions, including those in today’s lawsuit, but the Trump administration has kept the agency from completing decisions for dozens of species every year.

Today’s suit seeks to ensure that all the remaining species awaiting protection in the workplan get decisions as soon as possible. Under the Endangered Species Act, decisions about species’ protection are supposed to take no more than two years, but most of the species in today’s lawsuit have been waiting 10 years or more.

So far the Trump administration has protected only 21 species under the Endangered Species Act — the lowest of any administration at this point in the presidential term. By comparison, during the Obama administration, 360 species were protected under the Endangered Species Act. Under Clinton 523 species were protected, while 232 species were protected under George H.W. Bush, 62 species under George W. Bush and 254 under Reagan.

“The extinction crisis gets worse by the day, but Trump officials are twiddling their thumbs as plants and animals fade away,” said Greenwald. “It’s a moral failure of epic proportions. And it’s hurting future generations in ways that can never be undone.”

Earlier this year the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, known as IPBES, warned governments around the world that 1 million species are now at risk of extinction because of human activity. IPBES scientists said that urgent actions are needed to avert mass extinction in the coming decades.

In January the Center released a plan for Saving Life on Earth. The plan calls for the United States to become a global leader in protecting wildlife by declaring the extinction crisis a national emergency, creating new protected areas, and prioritizing wildlife protection over other uses of public lands.

The 241 species occur across the lower 48 states and include birds, amphibians, insects, fish and mammals. All of the species face serious threats to their survival ranging from habitat destruction to climate change to disease.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Endangered Species in America: “Moose, Western Bumblebee, Venus Flytrap, … Plants and Animals in Desperate Need of Help”
Tags: Endangered Species Act, trump, United States

A Week in Tory Britain

February 28th, 2020 by Jack Peat

On 11th May this year it will be ten years since the Conservatives started an administration which has survived three leaders, a shaky coalition and a divorce from the country’s biggest trading power.

A decade may not seem a long time in the grand scheme of things, but few parties have ever managed to leave a mark as big as the Tories over that period – and this week proved to be a stark reminder of that.

Deaths of homeless people sleeping in bins

On Monday a new report found that – in the fifth biggest economy in the world – the number of deaths of homeless people sleeping in bins has soared.

Increasing levels of homelessness in the UK was blamed for the rising number of deaths by crushing and near-misses while containers are being emptied.

At least seven people are known to have been killed in the last five years, according to the Health and Safety executive.

From April to December 2019, Biffa employees also recorded 109 “near-misses” or encounters with people either sleeping in or near its bins.

Life expectancy stalls

With the dust barely settled on the distressing findings, another report was released showing life expectancy had stalled for the first time in more than 100 years and even reversed for some as austerity takes its toll on society.

Sir Michael Marmot’s landmark review shows the gap in health inequalities is growing even wider than it did a decade ago, in large part due to the impact of government cuts.

The public health expert had warned ten years ago that growing inequalities in society would lead to worse health, and his predictions bore out in the latest study.

It shows the government has not taken the opportunity to improve people’s lives and life chances over the last ten years, with average lifespans stalling and people living for more years in poor health.

Rough sleeping five times higher than official figure

And then came new BBC research which suggested rough sleeping is five times higher than the official figure being peddled by the government.

New official figures will be released on Thursday but the data for 2018 showed 4,677 people slept rough in England on the one night the snapshot survey was taken, down 2% on the year before but 165% up on 2010.

However council responses showed nearly 25,000 people were recorded sleeping rough at least once in England during the latest year on record.

Blue Wall

Perhaps the most upsetting trend is that most of these societal ills seem to be happening in places where the Conservatives took seats from Labour in the December election.

Sir Michael’s report certainly found those areas were the hardest hit, yet when flooding blighted many of the same areas the Prime Minister was nowhere to be seen.

Jeremy Corbyn was right to brand Johnson a “part time PM” during PMQs yesterday.

“You can’t give local authorities the clear message you support them and then turn your back on them”, one Conservative Councillor is reported to have said.

Too little too late, unfortunately, and we have five more years to come.

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

Jack is a business and economics journalist and the founder of The London Economic (TLE).He has contributed articles to The Sunday Telegraph, BBC News and writes for The Big Issue on a weekly basis.Jack read History at the University of Wales, Bangor and has a Masters in Journalism from the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Posted in English
Comments Off on A Week in Tory Britain

President Tayyip Erdogan Now Claims Syria’s Idlib Province Belongs to Turkey

February 28th, 2020 by Eric Zuesse

On February 26th, Turkey’s President, told his Islamist political party that Idlib, which is the most heavily jihadist of all of Syria’s provinces and the province where Syria had been sending jihadists who had been defeated but not killed by the Syrian army elsewhere in the Syrian war, is now permanently under Turkey’s protection, and belongs to Turkey — Turkish territory. Russia’s RT news headlined on the 26th, “‘We’re the hosts there’: Erdogan says Turkey won’t pull back from Syria’s sovereign territory, gives Assad ultimatum to retreat”, and reported that,

The Turkish leader has ruled out withdrawal from Idlib, where his forces are backing militants fighting the Syrian Army. He also gave Damascus an ultimatum to retreat beyond Turkey’s observation posts placed on Syrian soil.

“We will not step back in Idlib. We are not the guests in this realm, we are the hosts,” Recep Tayyip Erdogan told a meeting of his AK party on Wednesday. Vowing to bring “the regime’s attacks” to an end, Erdogan said Ankara is giving Damascus time to pull forces back from Turkish observation posts.

The very next day, on the 27th, the Turkish English-language newspaper Yeni Safak bannered “Situation in Syria’s Idlib ‘in favor of Turkey’: Turkish president says Turkey has also reversed situation in Libya, which was previously in favor of Libyan warlord Haftar” and they reported that Erdogan saw signs that Turkey was introducing new international realities in both Syria and Libya.

Later on the 27th, RT headlined “33 Turkish soldiers confirmed killed in Idlib airstrike as Erdogan chairs emergency meeting on Syria” and reported that “Turkish officials attributed the strike to the Syrian military.” However, any Turkish retaliation against Syrian forces would not only be met by Russian defense of Syrian forces but would be clearly a Syrian response to Turkish aggression and therefore any U.S. involvement supporting Turkey in this matter would be America’s participating in Turkey’s blatantly illegal grab for Idlib. Even America’s allies in Europe and elsewhere might then turn away from the U.S., and away from Turkey.

This extraordinarily assertive position by Erdogan results from the sequence of events that will be described here:

U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. allies made unequivocally clear in late August and early September of 2018 that if Syria and Russia would try to restore Syrian Government control over Syria’s Idlib Province, then the U.S. and its allies would greatly escalate their war against Syria’s Government. For example, on 3 September 2018, Trump tweeted, “President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province. The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed.” South Front reported, the following day, that,

Trump’s tweet comes as Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif at the start of his visit to Damascus said that “terrorists must be purged” from the province and Idlib in its entirety must be returned under government control.

“Syria’s territorial integrity should be safeguarded and all tribes and groups, as one society, should start the reconstruction process, and the refugees should return to their homes,” Mr Zarif said.

Zarif met with President Assad and the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem. They mostly discussed the expected September 7th summit, which will happen in Tehran. Russian, Turkish, Syrian and Iranian leaders are supposed to meet and discuss the situation in Idlib.

A statement from Assad’s office said that Iran and Syria “had similar views on the different issues” that are to be discussed.

On 10 September 2018, I wrote that “Unless Syria will simply hand its most heavily pro-jihadist province, Idlib, to adjoining Turkey, which claims to have 30,000 troops there and is planning to add 20,000 more,” there would be a war between NATO member Turkey, which has invaded there, versus Russia, which — at Syria’s request — has been assisting Syria’s Government to conquer all of Syria’s jihadists. Syria’s Army has gradually liberated and retaken most of Syria’s territory from jihadists, but had been using Idlib Province as a collection-area for the ones who were holding Syrian civilians as human shields. Syria was bussing into Idlib the tens of thousands of jihadists that surrendered. This was being done so as to minimize the numbers of civilians who would be killed when Syria’s army would retake an area, under Russian air-cover. This would allow the civilians there to escape to Syrian-Government-held territory, and the armed forces of Syria and Russia then to move in and slaughter the jihadists who remained there, so that Syria would retake that area from the U.S.-backed jihadists.

Then, seven days later, I headlined “Putin and Erdogan Plan Syria-Idlib DMZ as I Recommended”, and reported that,

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan jointly announced on September 17th in Tehran, “We’ve agreed to create a demilitarized zone between the government troops and militants before October 15. The zone will be 15-20km wide,” which compares to the Korean DMZ’s 4-km width.

Though the understanding that Erdogan had reached with Iran’s President Rouhani and with Russia’s President Putin was that this would be only a temporary measure in order to get the U.S. and its allies to cease threatening World War III if Syria and Russia promptly let loose and slaughtered the ‘rebels’ in Idlib (Americas’s previous main fighters to defeat and replace Syria’s Government), Erdogan soon presented clear indications that he actually wanted to seize Syrian territory and to get as much of it as he could — that his goal in Syria included expanding Turkey into Syria. His temporary policing function, as agreed-to by Russia, to isolate and not allow to escape the defeated jihadists who had become trapped there, turned out to be far more than that: it turned out to be Erdogan’s protection of those jihadists.

On September 25th of 2018, I bannered “Turkey Now Controls Syria’s Jihadists”, and presented the historical background behind this. Then, on 14 July 2019, I headlined “Turkey Will Get a Chunk of Syria: An Advantage of Being in NATO”, and explained that because of NATO’s backing of Turkey’s seizure of Syrian territory, Turkey was already committed to the construction of Syrian branches of Turkey’s Gaziantep University and of Turkey’s Harran University, as well as of building supportive infrastructure for those facilities — absorbing portions of northern Syria into Turkey.

So, this has been a gradual process, and now Erdogan, backed by U.S.President Trump and by NATO, will be saving the lives of the tens of thousands of jihadists (plus their families) who had been defeated elsewhere in Syria, and who thus will avoid what the U.S. and its allies had warned would be a ‘humanitarian crisis’ of mass-slaughtering those defeated jihadists (which the U.S. and its allies still call ‘Syrian rebels’ — even though most of them aren’t even Syrian).

As I noted in the 14 July 2019 article:

At that time, just prior to the Tehran conference — and this was actually the reason why the conference was held — the U.S. and its allies, and the U.N., were demanding that an all-out invasion of Idlib, which had been planned by the Governments of Syria and of Russia, must not take place, for ‘humanitarian’ reasons. There was all that ‘humanitarian’ concern (led by the United States) for the world’s biggest concentration of Nusra and Nusra-led jihadists — and for Syria’s most jihadist-supporting civilian population. So much ‘kindness’, such ‘admirable’ ‘humanitarianism’. Furthermore the U.S. Government was threatening to greatly increase its forces against Syria if that invasion by Syria and by Russia into Idlib (which is, after all, part of Syria — so, what business is it, even of the U.N., at all?) were to be carried out. The Tehran conference was meeting in order to resolve that emergency situation (mainly America’s threats of a possible war against Russia), so as to forestall this attack.

Trump’s backing of Turkey’s aggression was taking the United States even deeper into his predecessor, Barack Obama’s, support of jihadists in order to overthrow Syria’s non-sectarian Government and install one that would be acceptable to the fundamentalist-Sunni Saud family who own Saudi Arabia.

And now Erdogan again is threatening Russia with WW III if Russia continues to defend Syria’s sovereignty over Idlib — Syria’s most-jihadist province.

On February 26th, Yeni Safak bannered “Turkey will never compromise on Sochi deal for Syria, says Erdoğan”; so, Erdogan is openly threatening WW III if Russia and Syria resist Turkey’s seizure of Idlib and protection of its many thousands of jihadists.

Although the U.S. has led this apparent victory for jihadists and for international aggression, Turkey’s Erdogan has been its spearhead. Russia and Iran had not agreed to this. Certainly, Syria’s leader, Bashar al-Assad, hadn’t agreed to anything like this outcome.

Turkey, in its 10 September 2018 agreement with Russia and with Iran, had committed itself to separating-out and killing the jihadists; but, instead, Turkey has been protecting them, and now will be absorbing them, and taking Idlib Province from adjoining Syria. As recently as 22 October 2019, Erdogan had promised Putin in Sochi that “The two sides reiterate their commitment to the preservation of the political unity and territorial integrity of Syria,” and that, “They emphasize their determination to combat terrorism in all forms and manifestations and to disrupt separatist agendas in the Syrian territory.” Yeni Safak’s February 26th article opened “Turkey will never compromise on the Sochi deal on embattled Idlib, Syria and it expects the deal to be implemented, said the country’s president on Wednesday.” Turkey “expects the deal to be implemented” while blatantly violating it.

Brett McGurk, a leading neoconservative in the Administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, admitted, on 27 July 2017, that “Idlib Province is the largest Al Qaeda safe-haven since 9/11, tied directly to Ayman al-Zawahiri,” and that “to send in tens of thousands of tons of weapons and looking the other way as these foreign fighters come into Syria, may not have been the best approach,” but yet the U.S. regime continues that approach, and backs Turkey’s grab of Idlib and protection of those jihadists.

Previously, McGurk had been U.S. President Barack Obama’s special envoy for the anti-Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) coalition. He had supported jihadists led by al-Nusra (Syrian branch of Al Qaeda) and supported separatist Kurds in Syria, to overthrow Syria’s Government. Even the liberal (or Democratic Party, pro-Obama) neoconservative Washington Post had not hidden the fact that “The U.S. team, headed by senior White House adviser Robert Malley and State Department envoy Brett McGurk” had informed the newspaper that “Russia was said to have rejected a U.S. proposal to leave Jabhat al-Nusra off-limits to bombing as part of a cease-fire” — the fact that Obama was actually protecting those jihadists (though not protecting ISIS or ‘ISIL’). Obama backed al-Qaeda there, and so does Trump. However, when Trump ran for the Presidency in 2016, he promised to reverse Obama’s obsession to overthrow Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. That, and similar promises he made, were antithetical to the most-basic commitments of the U.S. Establishment. They became his implacable enemies.

Finally, on 10 November 2016, right after Trump’s election, that same newspaper, the WP, bannered “Obama directs Pentagon to target al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, one of the most formidable forces fighting Assad” and, without noting that Obama had supported that “al-Qaeda affiliate” until then, but instead falsely reporting that “the administration had largely ignored until now” it, said: “While Obama, White House national security adviser Susan E. Rice, Secretary of State John F. Kerry and special presidential envoy Brett McGurk agreed with [the super-neoconservative Obama Secretary of Defense Ashton] Carter on the need to keep the focus on the Islamic State, they favored shifting resources to try to prevent al-Nusra from becoming a bigger threat down the road.” That was extreme euphemism, coming from this extremely neoconservative liberal newspaper. Actually, Obama had built his overthrow-Assad operation mainly upon al-Nusra, to train and lead the tens of thousands of foreign jihadists who had been pouring into Syria. The Washington Post was one of the most lying, deceptive, newspapers reporting anywhere in the world about international relations, very heavily slanted neoconservative — in favor of expanding the U.S. mega-corporate empire. Whereas the separatist Kurds were America’s main proxy-army fighting in Syria’s northeast, al-Nusra led America’s proxy-armies everywhere else in Syria. That 10 November 2016 WP article also asserted “But aides say Obama grew frustrated that more wasn’t being done by the Pentagon and the intelligence community to kill al-Nusra leaders given the warnings he had received from top counterterrorism officials about the gathering threat they posed.” That’s another lie, because Secretary of State John Kerry had actually fought inside the Administration against Obama’s policy on that, and the policy came from Obama himself — and NOT from his subordinates (such as Ashton Carter), as that lying newspaper alleged. The article referred to “the expanded push against al-Nusra” — but here is the reality: by no later than December 2012 Obama had settled upon al-Nusra to lead America’s overthrow-Assad campaign inside Syria. And the reason for that has very deep historical roots — all hidden from the American public. Instead of such realism, that propaganda-organ, in its article on 10 November 2016, wrote:

A bitterly divided Obama administration had tried over the summer to cut a deal with Moscow on a joint U.S.-Russian air campaign against al-Nusra, in exchange for a Russian commitment to ground Syrian government warplanes and to allow more humanitarian supplies into besieged areas. But the negotiations broke down in acrimony, with Moscow accusing the United States of failing to separate al-Nusra from more moderate rebel groups and Washington accusing the Russians of war crimes in Aleppo.

‘Humanitarian’. How stupid does the owner of the Washington Post think that the American public is in order for it still to believe that its Government really cares about being “humanitarian” around the world — especially in countries it’s trying to conquer, such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Bolivia …? Really? He thinks it’s that stupid? Or, does he think his newspaper can help to make them so misinformed?

That rabidly anti-Russian newspaper continued there:

Russia had accused the United States of sheltering al-Nusra, a charge repeated Thursday in Moscow by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

“The president doesn’t want this group to be what inherits the country if Assad ever does fall,” a senior U.S. official said. “This cannot be the viable Syrian opposition. It’s al-Qaeda.”

Officials said the administration’s hope is that more-moderate rebel factions will be able to gain ground as both the Islamic State and al-Nusra come under increased military pressure.

The article also featured a headline and link to their 9 November 2016 news-story, “Intelligence community is already feeling a sense of dread about Trump”. Even back then, the Democratic Party’s billionaires were pumping their agents’ allegations which would lead to Russiagate, the Mueller Report, and ultimately to Ukrainegate and Trump’s impeachment for being insufficiently supportive of President Obama’s 2014 coup and conquest of Ukraine, which Obama had started planning by no later than 2011. All of that was a warning to any current or future U.S. President, that to buck the collective will of America’s billionaires is to commit political suicide. It doesn’t make any difference what the President’s Party is — the dictate, from the billionaires, applies to any U.S. President. This ‘restored Cold War’ is nothing of the sort — on the U.S. side, the war secretly continued uninterrupted, even after the Soviet Union ended its communism, and its Warsaw-Pact mirror of America’s NATO military alliance.

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.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on President Tayyip Erdogan Now Claims Syria’s Idlib Province Belongs to Turkey
Tags: Erdogan, Idlib, Syria, Turkey

If Venezuelan Embassy Protectors Are Retried, Jury Should Hear About US Crimes

February 28th, 2020 by Prof. Marjorie Cohn

On February 28, federal prosecutors will announce whether they plan to retry four people who spent 37 days in the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, D.C., in the spring of 2019 to protect it from an illegal invasion by the U.S. government. The first trial of Adrienne Pine, Margaret Flowers, Kevin Zeese and David Paul, who were charged with “interfering with the protective functions” of the State Department, ended in a hung jury on February 14.

The Trump administration has been trying to engineer a coup d’état against the lawfully elected Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro and install the U.S. puppet Juan Guaidó. To that end, Washington continues to impose unlawful, punishing sanctions against Venezuela that have contributed to “the largest economic collapse in a country outside of war since at least the 1970s,” according to The New York Times. The sanctions have led to the deaths of at least 40,000 Venezuelans. On February 13, Venezuela filed a complaint against the United States in the International Criminal Court, claiming that the sanctions constitute crimes against humanity.

Pine, Flowers, Zeese and Paul, who are members of the Embassy Protection Collective, stayed in the embassy with permission of the Venezuelan government until U.S. law enforcement illegally evicted them on May 16, 2019. They were part of a group of 70 people. The rest had left after the U.S. government cut off water and electricity and refused to allow food into the embassy.

The embassy raid violated the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which forbids U.S. agents from entering the Venezuelan embassy without the consent of the Maduro government. The raid also violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), which requires that the U.S. government “respect and protect the consular premises,” including the property therein. The VCCR provides that if diplomatic relations between Venezuela and the United States are broken, they could agree to entrust the custody of the embassy to a third country. Although such a protecting power agreement was being negotiated by the United States, Venezuela, Switzerland and Turkey, the U.S. government opted instead to storm the embassy and arrest the protectors.

At trial, Chief Judge Beryl Howell refused to admit significant relevant evidence. She limited what the jury heard to events that took place between May 13, when a trespass notice was served on the protectors in the embassy, through their May 16 arrest. Flowers spoke to two jurors after the trial — the foreperson who voted to convict and a lawyer who voted to acquit. “They were very curious about the facts of the case. They were totally confused,” Flowers told Truthout. “When I explained that Maduro is the president, not Guaidó, and that this is a failed U.S. coup and the U.S. violated international law by raiding the embassy, the foreperson said she would have voted to acquit us in two minutes if she had known the full story.” The judge excluded that evidence because she thought “it would confuse the jury,” Flowers said. “In the end, it was the absence of those facts that created confusion. The jury said that the case didn’t make sense to them.”

The judge advised the jury that Guaidó was president of Venezuela because of a law that says the U.S. president decides whom to recognize as the leader of a foreign government. For more than a year, Trump has been trying to carry out illegal regime change in Venezuela. In a moment of rare (but shameful) bipartisanship, Trump was given a standing ovation by Democratic as well as Republican members of Congress during his 2020 State of the Union address when he introduced Guaidó as the president of Venezuela.

Trump’s federal prosecutors will in all likelihood retry the four embassy protectors. “A second trial raises the stakes for the Trump administration,” Ajamu Baraka, co-chair of the Venezuelan Embassy Protectors Defense Committee, said in a statement. “The world is seeing the charade of a trial based on the false claim that Guaidó is president when he has not been president for one nanosecond and is no longer even the president of the National Assembly. A second prosecution will look vindictive and a second mistrial or an acquittal will be a blow to the failed coup which is already on its last legs.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. government continues to mount a campaign of aggression against Venezuela. Frustrated with its inability to execute regime change, the Trump administration is reportedly considering a naval blockade to overthrow the Maduro government. A military blockade would violate the United Nations Charter, which forbids the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another country. And the Charter of the Organization of American States prohibits a nation from intervening in the internal or external affairs of another country.

Whether the four protectors are ultimately retried, the Embassy Protection Collective has focused international attention on the Trump administration’s illegal attempts to change Venezuela’s government and punishment of its people with unlawful sanctions. The Embassy Protectors Defense Committee is calling for all charges to be dropped against the four protectors and is seeking support for their legal defense. Both the White House and members of Congress should be confronted over the illegal and immoral aggression that the U.S. is perpetrating against the people of Venezuela.

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. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Posted in English
Comments Off on If Venezuelan Embassy Protectors Are Retried, Jury Should Hear About US Crimes
Tags: Embassy Protection Collective, Juan Guaido, Nicolás Maduro, United States, US Crimes, Venezuela

US Losing Its Naval Supremacy

February 28th, 2020 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

The science of geopolitics commonly makes use of the geographical dualism “land and sea”. The great world powers are thus classified as land-based powers or sea-base powers, according to their attitudes. A country that chooses to develop on land has a focus on regional growth, demarcated by the land borders of the continent, seeking to affirm a zone of influence in a given location. The powers that choose to develop by the sea tend to expand outside their continental zones, creating zones of influence on any continent they reach by sea.

Traditionally, Russia and China are classified as land powers and the United States of America as a sea power. The American nation is a historical heir to England, which for a long time reigned sovereign over the oceans. American geopolitics, therefore, is based on tactics of expansion by the sea, allowing this country to act in areas outside its continent, influencing the whole world and thus guaranteeing its global hegemonic power.

It turns out, however, that the advancement of the Chinese Navy may definitively end this American naval supremacy. This week the Chinese fleet in training returned to its base, ending a long and daring journey of more than 40 days across different regions of the Pacific Ocean, an area over which the United States has for long claimed to maintain supremacy. The mission was a complete and extremely advanced military exercise, with rescue training, cannon fire, missile launch, and ship refueling. In their fleet, the Chinese carried several equipment, such as the guided missile destroyer Hohhot, the Xianning missile frigate, the electronic surveillance vessel Tianshuxing and the refueling vessel Chaganhu.

With the exercise, China crossed the International Date Line, which delimits the West and East zones of the globe. “Crossing the International Date Line means that the Chinese Navy is active not only in the Western Pacific Ocean, but that it will gradually advance in the Central and Eastern Pacific”, said Beijing naval expert Li Jie. According to this expert, China has demonstrated that it has sufficient capacity to end American naval supremacy in the oceans in the coming years, being able to freely sail through any area, including the Atlantic Ocean.

At first, some may think that China is provoking the US with these acts. However, in reality, it is a response. For a long time, American naval supremacy created the false idea that these areas of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans were some kind of “American territory”. This is a myth to be debunked. The oceans have their own legal status, which places them as “international territories” – areas over which no state can claim sovereignty. In addition, Washington’s maritime policies are becoming increasingly aggressive in the last years.

Not long ago, the US launched two MQ-4C Triton reconnaissance drones to the Andersen Air Force base, in Guam. The purpose of the American military with these drones is to publicly spy on the military activities of China and North Korea, capturing surveillance information that is immediately passed on to the Pentagon. “The introduction of the MQ-4C Triton in the area of Seventh Fleet operations increases the scope of maritime patrol and the reconnaissance capabilities of the US Navy in the western Pacific,” said U.S. Navy Commander Peter Garvin. These drones have a range of 13,000 kilometers and can fly for up to 24 hours, according to data from the Military Watch. Its relentless work in the peaceful zone will collect more intelligence information about China and North Korea than any other technology used so far for the same function.

Also this year, the United States sent a warship to the Spratly Islands, a disputed territory in southern China, in response to the installation of Chinese military bases in the region. The Americans call these maneuvers “freedom of navigation operations” and claim they are peaceful maritime movements. However, what would be the “peaceful interest” in sending highly equipped battleships to areas occupied by a regional power in its continental surroundings?

The distinction between a sea-based potency and a land-based potency can be clearly seen here. China claims sovereignty over a series of islands close to its territory, which make up its subcontinent. The USA, however, with its maritime geopolitics, tries to intervene in areas completely outside its continental territory and acts as a global police, monitoring the military operations of any country in the world.

At the end of last year, Beijing officially demanded that the United States cease its “freedom of navigation operations” on islands in the sea of South China, classifying such operations as provocative. Washington has arbitrarily ignored the Chinese requirement and is now dealing with a simple response from the Asian country, which, for the first time, carried out maritime operations of the same content.

What we are witnessing is the change in China’s attitude towards its geopolitics, from a terrestrial program to a program of greater attention to the seas. It is likely that in a short time Beijing will be disputing the sovereignty of the oceans with the USA and this will allow other countries to undertake projects of the same nature, creating a truly multipolar sea.

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.

Posted in English
Comments Off on US Losing Its Naval Supremacy
Tags: China, sea power, United States, US Navy

Punishing the Free Speech of Julian Assange

February 28th, 2020 by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” — First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

In the oral argument of the famous U.S. Supreme Court cases known collectively as the Pentagon Papers Case, the late Justice William O. Douglas asked a government lawyer if the Department of Justice views the “no law” language in the First Amendment to mean literally no law. The setting was an appeal of the Nixon administration’s temporarily successful efforts to bar The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing documents stolen from the Department of Defense by a civilian employee, Daniel Ellsberg.

The documents were a government-written history of the Vietnam War, which revealed that President Lyndon B. Johnson and his secretaries of defense and state and the military’s top brass materially misrepresented the status of the war to the American people. Stated differently, they regularly, consistently and systematically lied to the public and the news media.

Though LBJ was retired, Nixon did not want this unvarnished version of the war he was still fighting to make its way into the public arena. The Nixon DOJ persuaded a federal district court judge to enjoin the publication of the documents because they contained classified materials and they had been stolen.

In a landmark decision, the court ruled that all truthful matters material to the public interest that come into the hands of journalists — no matter how they get there — may lawfully be disseminated. That does not absolve the thief — though the case against Ellsberg was dismissed because the FBI committed crimes against him during his prosecution — but it does insulate the publisher absolutely against civil and criminal liability.

The Pentagon Papers Case is a profound explication of one of the great values underlying the freedom of speech; namely, the government cannot lawfully punish those who publish truths it hates and fears.

After his administration lost the case and the Times and the Post published the documents, Nixon attempted to distinguish his presidency and administration of the War from LBJ’s, but he did not challenge the truthfulness of the publications.

Regrettably, the Trump administration is pretending the Pentagon Papers Case does not exist. It is manifesting that pretense in its criminal pursuit of international gadfly and journalist Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Sometime in 2010, Assange and his colleagues began receiving classified U.S. Department of Defense materials from an Army intelligence officer now known as Chelsea Manning.

Manning committed numerous crimes, for which she pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 45 years in prison. Her sentence was commuted by President Barack Obama, whose Department of Justice publicly declined to prosecute Assange in deference to the once universal acceptance of the Pentagon Papers Case and the numerous court rulings that have followed it.

The Trump DOJ, however, sought and obtained two indictments of Assange, who is now charged with 17 counts of espionage and faces 175 years in prison. Assange is currently being held in a maximum-security prison outside of London. The U.S. has sought his extradition at a proceeding that began in a London courtroom this week.

When lawyers blatantly reject well-accepted law for some political gain, they violate their oaths to uphold the law. When government lawyers do this, they also violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution. For them, there is no escaping the Pentagon Papers Case. While the case turned on the concept of prior restraint of speech, it clearly reflects the views of the court that it matters not how the publisher obtained the secrets that he published.

WikiLeaks revealed — in partnership with major international publications, including the two involved in the Pentagon Papers Case — videos of American troops murdering civilians and celebrating the murders (a war crime) as well as documentary proof of American complicity in torture (also a war crime).

Just as in the Pentagon Papers revelations, neither the Obama nor the Trump administration has questioned the truthfulness of the WikiLeaks publication — even though they revealed murderous wrongdoing, duplicity at the highest levels of government and the names of American intelligence sources (which some mainstream publications declined to make known).

Assange fears that he cannot get a fair trial in the United States. The government says he can and will. When the government suddenly became interested in fair trials remains a mystery. Yet, arguments about fairness miss the point of this lawless prosecution. A journalist is a gatherer and disseminator of facts and opinions. The government’s argument that because he communicated with Manning and helped Manning get the data into WikiLeaks’ hands, Assange somehow crossed the line from protected behavior to criminal activity shows a pitiful antipathy to personal freedom.

Democracy dies in darkness. The press is the eyes and ears of an informed public. And those eyes and ears need a nose, so to speak. They need breathing room. It is the height of naivete to think that Ellsberg just dropped off the Pentagon Papers at the Times and the Post, without some coordination with those publications — coordination that the courts assume exist and implicitly protect.

Might all of this be part of the Trump administration’s efforts to chill the free speech of its press critics — to deny them breathing room? After all, it has referred to them as “sick,” “dishonest,” “crazed,” “unpatriotic,” “unhinged” and “totally corrupt purveyors of fake news.”

Yet the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to assure open, wide, robust debate about the government, free from government interference and threats. How can that debate take place in darkness and ignorance?

If “no law” doesn’t really mean no law, we are deluding ourselves, and freedom is not reality. It is merely a wished for fantasy.

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.

Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written nine books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit creators.com.

Posted in English
Comments Off on Punishing the Free Speech of Julian Assange
Tags: free speech, Julian Assange, United States, WikiLeaks

The Fear Virus Pandemic. “Fake News”? “Look at the Numbers. It’s not a Pandemic”.

February 28th, 2020 by Manlio Dinucci

While they raise the greatest alarm for the coronavirus, they hide the fact that seasonal flu, a much more deadly epidemic, has caused in Italy during the 6th week of 2020 – according to the Higher Institute of Health – an average of 217 deaths per day, also due to pulmonary and cardiovascular complications related to the flu. They hide the fact that -according to the World Health Organization- more than 700 people die in Italy in one year from HIV/Aids (an average of two a day), out of a world total of about 770,000.

Regarding the alarmist campaign on the coronavirus, Maria Rita Gismondo – director of clinical macrobiology, virology and bio-emergency diagnostics at the laboratory of the Sacco Hospital in Milan, where samples of possible contagions are analyzed – says:

“It’s madness. We’ve turned an infection that is little more serious than influenza into a lethal pandemic. Look at the numbers. It’s not a pandemic”.

But her scientific voice does not reach the general public, while every day, from the Rai service, which should be public, to the Mediaset channels, and not only, Italians are spreading fear among Italians about “the deadly virus that is spreading from China to the world”. A campaign in fact corresponding to what US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross said in an interview with Fox Business: “I think that the coronavirus will contribute to the return of jobs from China to the USA. In China there was first SARS, then swine fever and now coronavirus. So, comments the New York Times, “China’s loss could be America’s gain. In other words, the virus could have a destructive impact on the Chinese economy and, in a chain reaction, on the economies of the rest of Asia, Europe and Russia, already affected by the fall in trade and tourism flows, to the benefit of the economically unscathed USA.

Global Research, the research centre on globalization headed by Professor Michel Chossudovsky, is publishing a series of articles by international experts on the origin of the virus. They argue that “it cannot be excluded that the virus was created in a laboratory”. This hypothesis cannot be regarded as “conspiracy” and exorcised as such. Why not? Because the United States, Russia, China and other major powers have laboratories where research is conducted on viruses that, when modified, can be used as biological warfare agents, including on targeted sectors of the population. This is an area surrounded by the greatest secrecy, often under the guise of civilian scientific research.

But some facts are emerging: the presence in Wuhan of a bio-laboratory where Chinese scientists, in collaboration with France, conduct research on lethal viruses, including some sent by the Canadian Microbiology Laboratory. In July 2015, the British government’s Pirbright Institute patented an “attenuated coronavirus” in the USA. In October 2019, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security conducted a coronavirus pandemic simulation in New York City, forecasting a scenario that, if it became a reality, would result in 65 million deaths [1]. But we are not simulating the pandemic of the fear virus, which is spreading with destructive socio-economic effects.

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 was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from EWAO

Posted in English
Comments Off on The Fear Virus Pandemic. “Fake News”? “Look at the Numbers. It’s not a Pandemic”.
Tags: China, coronavirus, seasonal flu

Julian Assange, the Glass Cage and Heaven in a Rage: Day Four of Extradition Hearings

February 28th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Thursday, February 27, Woolwich Crown Court. The first round of extradition hearings regarding Julian Assange’s case concluded a day early, to recommence on May 18^th. It ended on an insensible note very much in keeping with the woolly-headed reasoning of Judge Vanessa Baraitser, who is of the view that a WikiLeaks publisher in a cage does not put all heaven in a rage. On Wednesday, Assange’s defence had requested whether he would be able to leave the confines of his glass cage and join his legal team. As Assange had explained in response to his nodding off during proceedings, “I cannot meaningfully communicate with my lawyers.” There was little point in “asking” if he could follow proceedings without enabling his participation.

This was not a point that fell on reasonable ears. The judge felt it came too close to a bail application, and was initially refused as posing a potential risk to the public. Gibberish was duly thrown at counsel for both sides, with “health and safety”, “risk assessment” and “up to Group 4” featuring as meaningless terms on the obvious: that Assange could pose no threat whatsoever, as he would be in the continuous company of security guards. As former UK diplomat Craig Murray observed, “She started to resemble something worse than a Dalek, a particularly stupid local government officer of a very low grade.”

According to the judge, to permit such a measure of access between Assange and his team effectively constituted a departure from court custody, a striking nonsense of Dickensian dimensions. Not even the prosecution felt it unreasonable, suggesting that one need not be so “technical” in granting such applications.

Thursday’s proceedings reaffirmed Judge Baraitser’s stubborn position. Her first gesture was to permit Assange a pair of headphones to better enable him to hear the proceedings, followed by a brief adjournment to see if his hearing had, in fact, improved. Assange was unimpressed, removing them after 30 minutes.

Her stretched reasoning found Assange sufficiently accessible to his lawyers despite his glassed surrounds; he could still communicate with them via notes passed through the barrier. “It is quite apparent over the past four days that you have had no difficulty communicating with your legal team.” The judge was willing to permit Assange a later start in proceedings to enable a meeting with the legal team and adjourn should the defence wish to meet their client in a holding cell.

That so complex a case as extradition can be reduced to sporadic notes passed to legal counsel and staggered adjournments suggests the continued hobbling of the defence by the authorities. Its invidiousness lies in how seemingly oblivious the judicial mind is to the scope of the case, complexity reduced to a matter of meetings, small points of procedure and law.

The defence team submitted that the process of consultation suggested by the judge unduly prolonged proceedings, rendering them cumbersome and insensible. The court might have to adjourn ever three minutes for a 20-minute break. To constantly take Assange to and from his holding cell was would unnecessarily lengthen proceedings and complicate matters. Judge Baraitser was dismissive of such argument, claiming that the defence was merely exaggerating.

The legal issues discussed on the fourth day centred on quibbling over the issue of espionage and its nexus with political activity. Espionage, suggested James Lewis QC for the US-driven prosecution, need not be political. Nor did it seem that Assange was intent on bringing down the US government. “It can’t possibly be said that there is a political struggle in existence between the American government and opposing factions.”

Lewis, as has been his approach from the start, preferred a more restrictive interpretation about what a “political” offence might be, notably in connection with extradition. “Extradition is based on conduct, it is not anymore based on the names of offences.” In a rather crude, end-of-history line of thought, Lewis argued that political offences were “dated” matters, hardly applicable to modern societies which no longer see dissidents upholding the values of liberal democracy. (It seems that the tree of liberty, according to the US prosecution, no longer needs urgent refreshment.)

Besides, argued Lewis, the court did “not need to resolve these issues, but they demonstrate that any bare assertion that Wikileaks was engaged in a struggle with the US government was in opposition to it or was seeking to bring about a policy change would need to be examined far more closely.”

That is exactly what the defence contended. Assange’s core activities in publishing had been based on altering US policy, with Iraq and Afghanistan being key theatres. “Why was he seeking to publish the rules of engagement?”, posed the defence. “They were published to show that war crimes were being committed, to show they breached their own rules of engagement.” Ditto the publication of the Guantanamo files, an act done to reveal the extent of torture being undertaken during the course of the “war on terror”. All these, contended Edward Fitzgerald QC for the defence, did change government policy. “WikiLeaks didn’t just seek to induce change, it did induce change.”

The documentary record on Assange’s political activity in this regard is thick, much of it from the contentions of US officials themselves. The US State Department preferred to see him, as former spokesman PJ Crowley did in 2010, a “political actor” with “a political agenda”, rather than being a journalist.

Incidentally, Crowley’s link with WikiLeaks has a curious end, with his resignation in 2011 following comments made about the treatment of Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning at the Quantico marine base in Virginia. “What is being done to Bradley Manning,” he claimed at an MIT seminar that March, “is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid on the part of the department of defence.” Not an entirely bad egg, then.

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]

Posted in English
Comments Off on Julian Assange, the Glass Cage and Heaven in a Rage: Day Four of Extradition Hearings
Tags: Assange extradition, Assange hearing, Julian Assange, United Kingdom, United States, WikiLeaks

I Was Meant to Talk About Palestinian Kids at the UN. Israel Forced Me Out

February 28th, 2020 by Brad Parker

Belgium caved into Israeli pressure to disinvite me from the Security Council. In doing so, they helped undermine human rights work for Palestinian children.

***

Last week, the government of Belgium caved in to intense Israeli government pressure and effectively disinvited me from briefing the UN Security Council in New York today.

Ironically, the decision to exclude my voice as a representative of Defense for Children International – Palestine (DCIP), a Palestinian human rights organization, exemplifies and reinforces the message I had prepared to deliver before the Council.

I was invited by Belgium’s Permanent Mission to the UN in late January to brief members of the Security Council on violations of children’s rights in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

Belgium, which holds the rotating Security Council presidency for this month, is a leader of the UN’s global agenda on children and armed conflict, and as such wanted to highlight these specific themes during the Council’s monthly meeting on the Middle East and Palestine Question. The Belgians wrote in their invitation that this focused discussion would help “to enrich the debate” on the Palestinian issue.

I gladly accepted. The fact that Belgium was willing to invite a local Palestinian human rights organization like DCIP to brief the Council was commendable, as civil society space at the UN has been shrinking for years. While they urged me to be “balanced” in my statement (which I had shared with them for feedback), they understood that Palestinian children overwhelmingly and disproportionately bear the brunt of the kinds of violations they sought to highlight.

Then the troubles began.

The UN Security Council, December 18, 2015 (United Nations Photo)

As soon as Israeli diplomats were informed of my attendance, Emmanuel Nahshon, the Israeli Ambassador to Belgium and Luxembourg, reportedly asked the Belgian government in early February to cancel the invitation. The Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry summoned Belgium’s Deputy Ambassador to Israel, Pascal Buffin, on two separate occasions to formally object to the invitation. These requests were initially rejected.

Israeli officials and right-wing organizations, like NGO Monitor, and their affiliates subsequently mounted a well-orchestrated political and media disinformation campaign to press the Belgians to capitulate.

Then, four days ago, I received an early morning phone call informing me that Brussels had decided to change the Security Council event from an open meeting to a closed meeting — meaning that I was no longer a participant.

Targeted defamation campaigns

Belgium’s acquiescence to Israel’s demands is a frustrating and devastating blow. Not only is it a shameful act of censorship, but it also boosts longstanding efforts to delegitimize human rights work and basic tenets of international law when it comes to Palestinians.

Over the past two weeks, I have falsely been called everything from an “extreme anti-Israel activist” and “minor American propogandist,” to a “terror supporter” and “diplomatic terrorist.”

Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, even wrote a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres calling DCIP “an arm of the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) in order to enact diplomatic terror against Israel,” adding, “A place that promotes peace and security in the world has no room for people like Parker.”

DCIP and other civil society organizations in Palestine and Israel have been increasingly targeted and attacked by Israeli officials, government ministries, and a rising network of right-wing and nationalist social forces in Israel, the U.S., the U.K., and across Europe. A key strategy of these forces is to launch targeted and organized defamation campaigns, based on a range of allegations that try to link us to national counter-terrorism legislation in order to undercut our work.

For DCIP specifically, officials like Ambassador Danny Danon, the Israeli Strategic Affairs Ministry, NGO Monitor, and UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) are alleging that we support and further terrorist acts. They amorphously claim that DCIP board and staff members are “affiliated,” “linked,” or have “alleged ties” to the PFLP.

Yet, no evidence is presented on how DCIP’s work — our field research, documentation, legal services, and advocacy — is in any way involved in supporting terrorist acts. Moreover, no trials or indictments have been initiated by Israeli authorities against DCIP board or staff members on such accusations during their time with the organization.

Rather than demand Israeli authorities stop unlawfully killing Palestinian child protesters in Gaza with live ammunition, or end ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian child detainees, or hold perpetrators accountable, these actors are disseminating misinformation aimed at silencing, defunding, and eliminating legitimate human rights work and criticism of illegal Israeli policies toward Palestinians. And unfortunately — wittingly or unwittingly — governments like Belgium are helping them.

Exempted from UN blacklist

So, if Belgium had not crumbled to the pressure, what did the Israeli government not want me to tell the UN Security Council today?

First, using largely UN-verified information, I would have explained how Palestinian children are disproportionately affected by armed conflict at the hands of Israeli forces. Second, I would have highlighted how the persistent failure of the UN Secretary-General to hold Israel accountable has fostered impunity for such grave violations against children.

My planned statement offered a solution. Each year the UN Secretary-General submits a report to the Security Council detailing the situation of children’s rights in specific situations of armed conflict, including Israel and the State of Palestine.

Security Council Resolution 1612, adopted in 2005, formally established a UN-led, evidence-based monitoring and reporting mechanism on grave violations against children during armed conflict. The six violations include killing and maiming; child recruitment; sexual violence; attacks on schools or hospitals; denial of humanitarian access for children; and abduction.

Where armed forces or groups are found to commit such violations against children, the Secretary-General is obligated to list them in the annex of his annual report. This list has become known as the UN’s child rights “blacklist” or “list of shame.”

The mechanism has proven to be a strong tool to bolster protections for children during armed conflict over the past decade. But despite persistent reports by UN agencies like UNICEF and local groups like DCIP, both Guterres and his predecessor Ban Ki-moon refused to include Israeli armed forces on the blacklist.

Secretary-General António Guterres during press conference on the theme on violence against women in conflict. 25 February 2019. (UN Photo/Jean Marc Ferré)

This was despite the fact that Ban Ki-moon, for example, noted in his 2014 report that there had been a “dramatic increase in the number of children killed and injured, especially in Gaza,” with at least 557 Palestinian children and four Israeli children killed, and 4,249 Palestinian children and 22 Israeli children wounded.

While he expressed alarm at the “unprecedented and unacceptable scale” of destruction and harm caused by Israel’s military operation that year, he still omitted Israel’s forces from the annex. Reportedly, he caved in to significant pressure from the U.S. and Israel.

Defending international law

Ban Ki-moon’s decision, and Guterres’ continuation of that decision, has effectively transformed a strong accountability mechanism into a politicized process where powerful governments can exempt themselves from scrutiny and the rules of international law.

As I wrote in my planned statement to the Security Council, Israel’s absence from the blacklist essentially gives it “tacit approval to continue committing grave breaches of international law with impunity. We are still, today, dealing with the impact of this decision.”

Today, I had hoped to reaffirm a message that Hagai El-Ad, Executive Director of the human rights organization B’Tselem, had brought to the Council in 2018: a rules-based international order will not defend itself.

If the UN’s children and armed conflict agenda is to remain relevant and credible, it is imperative that the listing process does not give an exception to Israel for its grave violations. Year after year, Palestinian children must deal with the compounded failures of these policymakers, and without accountability, these violations will continue bleeding from one year to the next.

Given the attacks and campaigns against Palestinian human rights defenders and civil society, Belgium’s actions are entirely irresponsible. When a supposed champion of these values lifts you up, knowing full well that it may place a target on you, it is disheartening to seem them give in to such pressure. This lack of political will all but ensures systemic impunity will remain the norm for Palestinian children.

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

Brad Parker is a Senior Adviser for Policy and Advocacy at Defense for Children International – Palestine. Follow him @baparkr.

Posted in English
Comments Off on I Was Meant to Talk About Palestinian Kids at the UN. Israel Forced Me Out
Tags: israel, Palestine, United Nations

Providing Security in the Sahel: A ‘Traffic Jam’ of Military Interventions, and Al Qaeda Terrorists

February 28th, 2020 by Signe M. Cold-Ravnkilde

Despite the presence of multiple military actors in West Africa’s Sahel region, a steady growth in jihadi activity seems to thrive in the presence of foreign military operations. With their focus on fighting cross-border terrorism and reconstructing ‘failed states’, while failing to adequately address local grievances, these military operations risk producing the danger they aim to abate.

On January 10, 2013, as jihadist factions advanced south and threatened to attack Mali’s capital, Bamako, France launched its ‘relatively small-scale expeditionary operation’ Serval, at the request of Mali’s interim President, Diocounda Traoré . At the peak of Serval’s initial combat operations, close to 4,000 French troops were present in Mali. While the French government declared operation Serval a success, jihadist groups had not in fact been defeated. Thus, to replace Serval, in July 2014 France expanded its presence throughout the region with the deployment of operation Barkhane. Consisting of 4,500 French soldiers with operational headquarters in Chad’s capital, N’Djamena, Barkhane is now operating in the former French colonies of Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger. As jihadist violence is increasing and spreading across the region, with the deployment of Barkhane any immediate exit-strategy for France has evaporated. Thus, to sustain its anticipated long-term regional presence, France has turned to a strategy of alliance-making with regional states as well as other Western security actors. Furthermore, tasks related to addressing the complex set of internal and regional conflict drivers and so-called root causes of instability have been outsourced to other actors in the field.

The framing of the Sahel as a new frontier in the global ‘War on Terror’ predates the deployment of Opération Serval. In fact, both France and the US have been involved in the fight against terrorism in the Sahel for decades. After September 11, 2001, the US introduced new security measures to monitor ‘Al Qaeda in Africa’, which, in addition to surveillance programmes, included security cooperation instruments such as the Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Partnership, initiated in 2005 to train and equip regional security forces, as well as give intelligence and logistical support to US’ allies, such as France. After 2017, US deployment in the Sahel – and Niger in particular – has expanded. According to the US Department of Defense, in 2018 800 US troops were operating in Niger as part of the French-led counterterrorism eﬀorts. In October 2017, the Tongo Tongo ambush, in which four US soldiers were killed, created heated public debates about American ‘secret wars’ in Africa, while the US was granted authority to arm its drones in Niger. Though in late 2018 Pentagon announced that it would step down its engagement in the Sahel, there are still no signs on the ground of American troop withdrawal.

With the deployment of Serval, a broad range of international intervention actors have stepped up their security engagements according to the perception that transnational threats of terrorism, irregular migrations and organized crime, deriving from ungoverned weak Sahelian states, could directly affect Europe’s security. However, in a context of scrutinized budgets, a history of failed interventions in the global South and popular sensitivity to direct military engagements, there are a number of constraints that shape how Western actors can and will deploy. As such, similar to how the US deployed militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq, security and development interventions in the Sahel are increasingly characterized by having limited boots on the ground, using drones and transferring risks to proxy forces while increasing intelligence, financial and political support to regional states, border reinforcement and outsourced aid.

The launch of Serval also accelerated the deployment of the AU-led International Support Mission to Mali (AFISMA) consisting of 6,200 African troops. Until then, both the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and African Union (AU)-led forces had been at a halt due to lack of capabilities and insufficient support. The precarious security situation in Mali called for a counterterror intervention that the UN had, so far, been reluctant to undertake. Regardless of initial hesitation, MINUSMA (United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali) deployed to replace AFISMA in April 2013 alongside a French counterterrorist force authorized to intervene at the request of the Secretary General.

The establishment of MINUSMA in April 2013 also marked the return of Europe to UN peacekeeping. Nevertheless, African countries still provide more than half of the mission’s troops. In January 2019, around 7,000 MINUSMA troops were from Burkina Faso, Chad, Niger, Senegal, Togo, and Guinea. Most of these countries are struggling with deep poverty, state fragility and increasing threats from jihadist groups. The return of European soldiers with highly specialized capabilities and combat experience from Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to a militarization of MINUSMA. However, partly due to caveats regarding where and how European soldiers deploy in the mission, the highly specialized Western military capabilities have not adequately benefitted the African soldiers. Meanwhile, countries like Niger, Guinea and Chad do not have the same restrictions as the European soldiers as to where they can operate and the conditions for their deployment. Consequently they are often posted in the most exposed areas of the mission to carry out the most dangerous tasks without adequate training, equipment and support to meet the dangers they encounter. This observation is reflected in the fact that, in total, African soldiers constitute more than 80% of the 202 UN soldiers who have lost their lives in Mali. MINUSMA’s modest results in peace and conflict resolution have undermined its legitimacy, and neighbouring countries have lost trust in the mission’s ability to impact positively on regional stability.

In response to the precarious security situation in Central Mali, where inter and intra-communal conflicts are fuelling due to the dynamics of terrorism and counter-terrorism, UN renewed the mandate of MINUSMA from June 29, 2019, giving priority to “protect civilians, reduce intercommunal violence and re-establish State authority, State presence and basic social services in Central Mali”. Furthermore, MINUSMA is under pressure to extend its support to the regional G5 Sahel Joint Force (JF-G5S) beyond Mali.

Other actors in the field struggle to fill the gap that both the UN and French counterterror operations have left behind.

Before the 2012 security crisis, the EU’s engagement in the Sahel was mainly focused on development cooperation. In 2011, the launch of a new ‘Sahel Strategy’ accentuated the fact that the EU had been advocating for a ‘Comprehensive Security and Development Approach’ in the region since 2008. Thus, under the auspices of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), the EU deployed its training mission to Mali (EUTM) in 2013 to support the rebuilding of the Malian forces and security sector reform.

The EUTM’s third (2016-2018) and fourth (2018-2020) mandate have included supporting the regional joint force as part of the European regionalized approach in the Sahel. Since the EU only has status of forces agreement (SOFA) with Mali, there are limitations to the operationalization of EUTM’s regional support. Furthermore, its civilian missions, EUCAP Sahel Niger (2012) and EUCAP Sahel Mali (2014), were deployed to sustain internal security forces including the police, the gendarmerie, the national guard, to strengthen their capacity to fight terrorism and organised crime. The mission in Niger has also assisted central and local authorities, as well as security forces in developing measures to better control irregular migration.

A priority, which since the so-called ‘migration crisis’ in 2015 has been a major driver for European security and defence engagements in the Sahel. Despite the strategic importance of the EU showing its ability to provide security in its own backyard, these initiatives have been widely criticised. Mainly for being insufficient, unaligned with local realities and caught up in a frictional relationship with the state, and consequently failing to deliver tangible results for peace and justice.

In addition to the CSDP mission, over the past few years, individual member states have also stepped up their presence in the Sahel to strengthen their partnerships and showing ability to curb migration. Since 2014, Germany has demonstrated increasing political and military engagement in the Sahel through the support to multilateral initiatives, such as MINUSMA (1100 troops) and EUTM (350 troops), the latter which came under German leadership in 2018.

Moreover, German air bases in Niger also provides logistical support to Operation Barkhane. Managing and shaping migration is a core objective of Western actors’ engagement in the region. While the deployment of Italian troops in Niger has been presented as an instrument to support the G5 Sahel initiative, observers find it to be more of a continuation of Italy’s anti-migration policy as the Sahel, and northern Niger in particular, continue to be considered as an important transit hub for mixed-migration flows. Italy has positioned itself as a relevant EU security actor, in order to gain influence on the strengthened EU security and defence agenda.

Since the ‘bold and dramatic’ deployment of operation Serval, the Sahel has turned into an arena for international security actors with different mandates, rules of engagement and conflicting objectives of intervention (fighting terrorism, stemming migration, stabilization, etc.). In their responses to the expanding security threats in the Sahel, international and regional actors often emphasize synergy and cooperation between multidimensional and comprehensive approaches and counterterror operations. However, so far, the focus on rebuilding states and countering cross-border terrorism tends to overlook the complex set of internal and external conflict dynamics. As such, the presence of foreign military operations seems to strengthen the jihadists’ narratives of a neo-colonial occupation by Western powers that they use to win local support. If Western security actors fail to address local grievances and build long-term relationships with local populations, their engagements in the Sahel have few chances of succeeding.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Providing Security in the Sahel: A ‘Traffic Jam’ of Military Interventions, and Al Qaeda Terrorists

Swiss Neutrality ‘Shattered’ as Leading Cryptologic Firm Revealed to be CIA Front

February 28th, 2020 by Joseph Fitsanakis

Switzerland is reeling from the shock caused by revelations last week that Crypto AG, the world’s leading manufacturer or cryptologic equipment during the Cold War, whose clients included over 120 governments around the world, was a front company owned by the United States Central Intelligence Agency.

The revelation, published last Tuesday by The Washington Post and the German public broadcaster ZDF, confirmed rumors that had been circulating since the early 1980s, that Crypto AG had made a secret deal with the US government. It was believed that the Swiss-based company had allowed the US National Security Agency to read the classified messages of dozens of nations that purchased Crypto AG’s encoding equipment. These rumors were further-substantiated in 2015, when a BBC investigation unearthed evidence of a “gentleman’s agreement”, dating to 1955, between a leading NSA official and Boris Hagelin, the Norwegian-born founder and owner of Crypto AG.

But the reality of this alleged secret pact appears to have been even more controversial. According to last week’s revelations, the CIA and West Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND) secretly purchased the Swiss company and paid off most of its senior executives in order to buy their silence. The secret deal allegedly allowed the US and West Germany to spy on the classified government communications of several of their adversaries —and even allies, including Italy, Spain and Greece, as well as Austria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

What is more, the secret CIA/BND partnership with Crypto AG was known to senior British and Israeli officials, and information derived from it was routinely shared with them. Government officials in Switzerland and even Sweden were aware that Crypto AG had been compromised, but remained silent.

American and German authorities have not commented on the revelations. But the story has monopolized Swiss media headlines for several days. Some news outlets have opined that the traditional Swiss concept of political neutrality has been “shattered”. Meanwhile, a Swiss federal judge has opened an investigation into the revelations, as the Swiss parliament is preparing to launch an official inquiry. Switzerland’s Prime Minister, Simonetta Sommaruga, said on Sunday that the government would discuss the issue “when we have the facts”.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Swiss Neutrality ‘Shattered’ as Leading Cryptologic Firm Revealed to be CIA Front
Tags: CIA, Crypto AG, Switzerland

In Defense of Mother Earth: Indigenous Rights Are Human Rights! RCMP Out of Wet’suwet’en!

February 28th, 2020 by Alison Bodine

In the dark early morning on February 6, 2020, the RCMP violently raided Wet’suwet’en territory in Northern British Columbia, Canada.

“They’re invading our people again, starting in the wee hours of the morning, arresting people who have been providing food and medical supplies to our camps, who are camped out along the side of the road doing amazing and righteous work. And right now, they’re being arrested, and they’re being removed,” –Sleydo’ (Molly Wickham), spokesperson for the Gidimt’en land defenders camp, reported through a video on Facebook.

The people arrested that morning are supporters of the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs who are opposed to the construction of the Coastal GasLink (CGL) natural gas pipeline on their territory.

Over the next five days, the RCMP continued to send heavily armed officers, supported by RCMP tactical teams dropped from helicopters, to arrest and forcibly remove peaceful, unarmed land-defenders. This was an armed invasion of unceded, sovereign Wet’suwet’en territory by the Canadian state.

The brutal invasion was an escalation of the ongoing RCMP occupation of Wet’suwet’en territory that intensified at the beginning of January 2020. At that time, the RCMP increased their presence on the territory to attempt to enforce an injunction order against peaceful land defenders who had set up camps along the Morice Forest Service Road. These camps were organized by Wet’suwet’en people and their allies to prevent CGL from access to Wet’suwet’en territory without the permission of the hereditary chiefs, who, under Wet’suwet’en law, have the right to control access to their lands.

With this occupation came continuous harassment and aggression by the RCMP. This includes the imposition of an arbitrary and ever-expanding exclusion zone which the RCMP uses to control the entry of supplies, media, lawyers, doctors, and Wet’suwet’en people into their own territory and the support camps. This RCMP blockade, as well as the brutal raids beginning in February all go far beyond the boundaries of the injunction.

The shamefulness of this attack on the land defenders is further intensified because the CGL pipeline project does not have all the permits that they need to proceed with the project. They are missing one permit from BC’s Environmental Assessment Office. The question is if the project is still delayed, then why the violent urgency?

However, in the face of this violence by the RCMP, Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs and their supporters have continued to oppose the CGL pipeline project and defend their rights and sovereignty – simply put, their right to decide if, how and when the CGL pipeline project can proceed.

Who Defines “Rule of Law”?

The Premier of British Columbia, John Horgan, has justified this continuing RCMP occupation and brutality by claiming the supposed necessity to uphold the “rule of law.” Of course, the “rule of law” that Horgan is referring to is the enforcement of the injunction and the construction of the CGL pipeline without the consent of the Wet’suwet’en heredity chiefs. However, this is not the only law that must be considered in any honest discussion about resource extraction and development projects in Canada.

Wet’suwet’en territory, as with over 95% of land in British Colombia, was never surrendered by Indigenous people to the government of Canada. Therefore, Indigenous nations have rights and title to their traditional territories, as has been proven in the Supreme Court of Canada case of Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa.

In their “Open Letter to Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Horgan Re: Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs’ Opposition to Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project,” 40 lawyers and academics from across Canada explained about this landmark case, which happened in 1997:

“The Hereditary Chiefs, not the band councils, were the plaintiffs in the landmark Delgamuukw Gisday’wa case before the Supreme Court. The Court confirmed that the Wet’suwet’en never surrendered title to their ancestral lands, and accepted extensive evidence outlining their hereditary governance system. The fact that band councils have signed benefit agreements with Coastal GasLink cannot justify the erasure of Indigenous law or negate the Crown’s obligation to meet with the Hereditary Chiefs.”

If the government of Canada’s “rule of law” therefore recognizes the territory of Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, certainly it would be logical for there also to be the understanding that Wet’suwet’en laws are to be followed on Wet’suwet’en territory. Therefore, Anuc’nu’at’en (Wet’suwet’en law) is the law that applies on Wet’suwet’en territory. It is clear that John Horgan does not believe in this law, which existed long before the colonization of Canada.

Another “rule of law” that Horgan and the government of Canada are willfully ignoring is Indigenous rights, which are fundamental human rights. The United Nations has created a framework for these laws with the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP). UNDRIP calls for “free, prior and informed consent” of Indigenous nations regarding development projects on their territories. It also speaks against the forceable removal of Indigenous people from their land. The federal government of Canada claims to be currently working on UNDRIP legislation, while legislation to implement UNDRIP in B.C. passed in 2019.

Fundamental human rights must form the basis of any just law, and it is clear the laws that the federal and provincial governments attempting to impose are trampling all over Indigenous rights. This should not come as too much of a surprise as this is the same “rule of law” that colonial settlers have imposed on Indigenous people for 500 years and especially after the formation of Canada in 1867. This is the same so-called rule of law that facilitated and facilitating stealing Indigenous lands, and their children from their families, installed torture and brainwashing camps called residential schools, and attempting to erase language and culture, as well as exterminating millions of Indigenous people in Canada. This is the “rule of law” that is useless when it comes to the over 100 Indigenous reserves in Canada that don’t have access to clean drinking water, sanitation or basic health care and housing.

As recently uncovered by the Narwhal, this is also the same “rule of law” that tried undermine the Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa decision almost immediately after it was released over 20 years ago. Provincial negotiators for benefit agreements between development projects and Indigenous nations suggested “using federal funds intended for the healing of residential school survivors to advance treaty negotiations,” in desperation to “sweeten the deal” so that Indigenous people wouldn’t be tempted to invoke the Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa decision in defense of their rights.

Indigenous Rights Are Human Rights

According to the Yellowhead Institute, LNG Canada, of which the CGL pipeline is one component, received $5.35 billion in subsidies from the provincial government and an estimated $1 billion from the federal government.

As Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chief Dsta’hyl explained in a press release on January 15, 2020 – “The problem we are faced with is that the Horgan government has invested billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money to subsidize the CGL project. This investment is being used to undermine Wet’suwet’en authority and empower CGL to proceed using the full force of the RCMP and judicial system.”

The struggle of the Wet’suwet’en has once again laid bare the empty claims of “truth and reconciliation,” spoken by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Although the federal government attempted to shuffle the responsibility for the CGL pipeline off to the provincial government, Trudeau can call the RCMP off Wet’suwet’en land and put an end to the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline.

What this comes down to is that once again, the government of Canada is putting the interest of capitalist profits ahead of fundamental Indigenous rights. Chief Dsta’hyl has rightfully placed the responsibility for the current violence, and any economic impacts from ongoing solidarity actions, squarely where it belongs, on the shoulders of the provincial and the federal government of Canada. Trudeau and Horgan alike continue to promote, subsidize and approve mass resource extraction projects with no regard for Indigenous rights and Mother Earth.

Coast to Coast Action is Growing!

In response to the attack on Wet’suwet’en land defenders, there have been hundreds of actions organized calling for RCMP out of Wet’suwet’en and in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs fight for their sovereignty. This struggle is much bigger, and more fundamental to the colonial foundations of the state of Canada then a struggle against a dirty, climate killing pipeline alone.

Across Canada, there have been rallies and marches, street and intersection protests and blockades, rail blockades, occupations in government offices, and fundraisers. Most of these actions have been Indigenous-led solidarity actions, including a strong rail blockade by the Mohawk nation at Tyendinaga.

However, these actions for Wet’suwet’en are as powerful, spontaneous, independent, and continuous as they are because they are not only about Wet’suwet’en rights or the CGL fracked-gas pipeline. This is about 500 years of colonialism, colonial settlement, genocide, and 150 years of repression since 1867 by the settler state of Canada.

As Sleydo’ (Molly Wickham) said in an interview on the Los Angeles-based radio show Sojourner Truth with Margaret Prescod, on January 16, 2020, “We see this fight as bigger than just us as one nation within so-called Canada. This is really a struggle for Indigenous sovereignty and Indigenous rights globally.”

Keep Building the Movement for Indigenous Rights & Climate Justice

In the face of the oppression and racism Indigenous people confront every day, the struggle of the Wet’suwet’en for sovereignty and their rights has reached a critical point, one that threatens “business as usual” in Canada. The climate justice movement must recognize this and join in the struggle for Indigenous rights. Poor, working and oppressed people must unite to demand that the RCMP end their occupation of Wet’suwet’en territory immediately and stand with the Wet’suwet’en nation in its fight to assert its rights against the government of Canada, TC Energy and the Coastal Gaslink Pipeline.

Whether it is the struggle in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en, or the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion (TMX), which is planned to bring toxic tar sands oil from Alberta to the coast of B.C., what the government of Canada is most afraid of is our unity as poor, working and oppressed people.

Mass media, the RCMP and government officials initiated their campaign of lies and manipulations about Wet’suwet’en and the actions to defend Indigenous rights as soon as this struggle began. What they are most afraid of is that Indigenous and non-Indigenous workers, students, and immigrants, will unite in defense of Indigenous rights. The capitalist ruling class in Canada is fully aware that our unity for Indigenous rights is a further expansion of rights for all oppressed people in Canada. This unity has the potential of developing the mass of working class and oppressed people into people who think socially and act politically for change. And this will be a fundamental change, nothing short of dismantling capitalism.

The government of Canada has spent untold millions of tax-payer dollars occupying and invading Wet’suwet’en to try to teach Indigenous people in Canada a lesson about that what will happen if they assert their fundamental human rights. This violence and intimidation are not only used to target Wet’suwet’en land defenders and their allies, but also to try to convince non-Indigenous people in Canada that Indigenous people are against the rest of Canada – that they are against our jobs, against our comfortable life, and they are violent and dangerous and must be suppressed with a great force. The capitalist ruling class in Canada is reinforcing the law of the jungle, which exists only for animals; that means comfort for one must mean inconvenience and an insubordinate life for others. We must remind all these capitalist thinkers and politicians that human rights are based on equality in fundamental rights, law, and life.

To build a movement for Indigenous rights, we need sustained campaigns and mass actions based on the demand for self-determination for all Indigenous nations and Indigenous rights in Canada. All this means constant and consistent coordination and mobilization between Indigenous people and climate justice organizations and activists. Together we are stronger, and we will win.

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.

Originally published: Volume 14, Issue 2 of Fire This Time newspaper (www.firethistime.net)

Alison Bodine is a social justice activist, author and researcher in Vancouver, Canada. She is central organizer with the grassroots climate justice coalition Climate Convergence in Vancouver, Canada. Alison is also on the Editorial Board of the Fire This Time newspaper.

Posted in English
Comments Off on In Defense of Mother Earth: Indigenous Rights Are Human Rights! RCMP Out of Wet’suwet’en!
Tags: Canada, Coastal GasLink, RCMP, Wet’suwet’en territory

Brexit Lie – Johnson Now Looking to Break Agreement with EU on Northern Ireland Checks

February 28th, 2020 by True Publica

The lies are unravelling, aren’t they? We’ve had so many from this government it’s time someone in the UK got a Johnson-lie-tracker online. Unfortunately, Peter Oborne’s effort, which was excellent to start with, has fallen behind having not been updated since the 9th December. Of course, the biggest lie of all is that Johnson will get Brexit done. And here is just one reason.

Boris Johnson’s Brexit team has been “ordered” to come up with plans to “get around” the Northern Ireland protocol in the Brexit withdrawal agreement, the Sunday Times newspaper has reported.

Officials in Taskforce Europe, which is run by David Frost, the prime minister’s European Union negotiator, are seeking to evade Irish Sea checks on goods passing from Britain to Northern Ireland.

The officials believe that Suella Braverman, the new attorney-general, may need to give fresh legal advice to justify the move. Sources told the Sunday Times that Braverman was appointed because her predecessor Geoffrey Cox was not willing to take such action.

Johnson’s cabinet will meet on today to sign off on the proposals, which will then be presented in parliament and published online on Thursday, the report added.

France reiterated once again that it was imperative that negotiations over a future trade relationship between Britain and the EU included customs checks in the Irish Sea. That was the deal Johnson signed up to and sold to everyone.

Johnson struck a divorce deal with the EU last October that leaves the United Kingdom’s province of Northern Ireland inside the UK customs area but all EU procedures will apply to goods arriving there.

It should be noted that the Protocol is an integral part of the Withdrawal Agreement and, as such, has the status of an international treaty. Conformity, under international law, is embodied in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 26), which states: “every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith”. This is the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda, translated as “agreements must be kept”. If the agreement is not kept – then the EU will rightly lose all faith that the UK is capable of sticking to any other agreement it may put its signature to in future.

It’ll be interesting to see what Braverman comes up with, what the Johnson team agree to, how the EU will react and how the newspapers will let everyone know just how awful those EU negotiators are for keeping to their side of the bargain!

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 TP

Posted in English
Comments Off on Brexit Lie – Johnson Now Looking to Break Agreement with EU on Northern Ireland Checks
Tags: Boris Johnson, brexit, EU, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom

Pentagon Papers Case Vindicates Julian Assange

February 28th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

On June 30, 1971, the US Supreme Court ruled that the NYT and Washington Post were legally permitted to publish what’s known as the Pentagon Papers — material leaked by Daniel Ellsberg.

Six justices concurred, a per curiam statement saying the following:

“Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.”

The government “thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.”

A federal district and appeals court held that government did not have just cause to impose restraint.

The Supreme Court agreed, affirming that “Congress shall make no law (that) abridg(es) the freedom of speech, or of the press” — upholding the Constitution’s First Amendment without which all other freedoms are jeopardized.

During oral arguments, Justice William O. Douglas asked a government lawyer if the Department of Justice views the First Amendment’s “no law” language to literally mean no law.

In their majority ruling, the Supreme Court held that the press has a right to publish truthful information in the public interest no matter how it was obtained.

Under the First Amendment, affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Pentagon Papers case, analogous to the Trump regime v. Assange, no one may be lawfully punished for truth-telling — not journalists or anyone else.

In wanting Julian Assange extradited to the US for prosecution under the long ago outdated Espionage Act relating to WW I, the Trump regime aims to reverse the landmark Supreme Court Pentagon Papers ruling.

Arguing to uphold speech and press freedoms when the case was heard by the High Court, Justice Hugo Black said the following:

The government’s injunction to prohibit publication by the NYT and Washington Post “should have been vacated without oral argument when the cases were first presented,” adding:

“(E)very moment’s continuance of the injunctions…amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment.”

“The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government.”

“The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.”

“Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.”

“And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”

“(W)e are asked to hold that…the executive b ranch, the Congress, and the judiciary can make laws…abridging freedom of the press in the name of ‘national security.’ ”

“To find that the president has ‘inherent power’ to halt the publication of news…would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the government hopes to make ‘secure.’ ”

“The word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.”

“The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security.”

“The framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged.”

Justice William O. Douglas concurred, arguing that press freedom is a check on government, constitutionally protected from restraint by the nation’s ruling authorities.

Citing Near v. Minnesota (1931), a landmark case at the time that upheld press freedom against government restraint, Justice William Brennan argued that publication of the Pentagon Papers was a First Amendment right.

Three other justices agreed, notably Thurgood Marshall. He argued that the term “national security” is too broad and ill-defined to be used as justification to restrain publication of information in the public interest.

He also stressed that it’s not the High Court’s right to create laws in cases where Congress has not acted.

The right of speech, press, and academic freedoms are upheld in other Supreme Court decisions.

In USA v. Julian Assange, the Trump regime wants the First Amendment abrogated.

He considers the press “the enemy of the people.” His regime argues that Australian national Assange isn’t entitled to US constitutional protections.

During his extradition hearing in London’s Belmarsh Magistrates Court, prosecutors claimed he’s “not a journalist,” and that material he published endangered the lives of Americans — false on both counts.

Attorney representing Assange Mark Summers explained that he and WikiLeaks “worked tirelessly” with news outlets to redact information that potentially might put US government and other sources at risk, adding:

“The state department was also part of the process. They gave numbers to (the media collaboration to) redact, which WikiLeaks did, knowing the requests were coming from the US government.”

US officials in Washington were and remain fully aware of the above. “The notion that Assange deliberately published unredacted information is knowingly false,” Summers stressed.

The Trump regime’s case against Assange is political, unrelated to wrongdoing.

Asked during day three proceedings if he was well enough to remain in court, Assange said he’s prevented from participating in the hearing nor permitted to communicate privately with his lawyers, adding:

“There is already enough spying on my lawyers as it is. There are a number of unnamed embassy officials here.”

“There are two microphones in here. What’s the point of asking if I can concentrate if I can’t participate?”

Assange committed no crimes, nothing warranting imprisonment in London, extradition to the US, and prosecution.

With ample evidence supporting them, his legal team maintains that Trump regime charges used by prosecutors are “lies, lies, and more lies.”

Truth-telling journalism is on trial in London. The Trump regime’s case against Assange is all about silencing it — ignoring the Constitution’s First Amendment, upheld by the Supreme Court in the Pentagon Papers case and other landmark rulings.

A Final Comment

James Goodale was general counsel for the NYT when the Supreme Court ruled on the Pentagon Papers case.

In April 2019, he said the following:

“If Assange is found guilty of conspiring with (Chelsea) Manning under (his) indictment, which incorporates the Espionage Act, this will be a blow to the First Amendment.”

“It will criminalize the news-gathering process and will be a precedent for future cases concerning leaks.”

“This will be particularly so since substantially all leaks in the future will be computer-generated.”

“And so, while the indictment by itself is bad enough, there still is more to come, such as further indictments of Assange,” other journalists, and others revealing information US authorities want suppressed.

“All we are seeing now is the tip of the legal iceberg.”

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.

Posted in English
Comments Off on Pentagon Papers Case Vindicates Julian Assange
Tags: Julian Assange, Pentagon Papers, United States, WikiLeaks

The Unspoken War against Organic Farming in Africa: Tanzanian Farmers Are Facing Heavy Prison Sentences if They Continue Their Traditional Seed Exchange

February 28th, 2020 by Ebe Daems

This article was originally published in 2016.

In order to receive development assistance, Tanzania has to give Western agribusiness full freedom and give enclosed protection for patented seeds. “Eighty percent of the seeds are being shared and sold in an informal system between neighbors, friends and family. The new law criminalizes the practice in Tanzania,” says Michael Farrelly of TOAM, an organic farming movement in Tanzania.

***

In order to get developmental assistance, Tanzania amended its legislation, which should give commercial investors faster and better access to agricultural land as well as a very strong protection of intellectual property rights.

‘If you buy seeds from Syngenta or Monsanto under the new legislation, they will retain the intellectual property rights. If you save seeds from your first harvest, you can use them only on your own piece of land for non-commercial purposes. You’re not allowed to share them with your neighbors or with your sister-in-law in a different village, and you cannot sell them for sure. But that’s the entire foundation of the seed system in Africa’, says Michael Farrelly.

Under the new law, Tanzanian farmers risk a prison sentence of at least 12 years or a fine of over €205,300, or both, if they sell seeds that are not certified.

‘That’s an amount that a Tanzanian farmer cannot even start to imagine. The average wage is still less than 2 US dollars a day’, says Janet Maro, head of Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania (SAT).

Under pressure of the G8

Tanzania applied the legislation concerning intellectual property rights on seeds as a condition for receiving development assistance through the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (NAFSN). The NAFSN was launched in 2012 by the G8 with the goal to help 50 million people out of poverty and hunger in the ten African partner countries through a public-private partnership. The initiative receives the support of the EU, the US, the UK, the World Bank and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Companies that invest in the NAFSN are expected to pay attention to small-scale farmers and women in their projects, but sometimes little of that is noticed. As a result, the NAFSN receives a lot of criticism from NGOs and civil-society movements. Even the European Parliament issued a very critical report in May this year to urge the European Commission to take action.

With the changes in the legislation, Tanzania became the first least-developed country to join the UPOV 91-convention. All countries that are members of the World Trade Organization must include intellectual property rights on seeds in their legislation, but the least-developed countries are exempt from recognizing any form of intellectual property rights until 2021. After that, the issues would be reviewed.

‘In practice, it means that the fifty million people that the New Alliance wants to help can escape from poverty and hunger only if they buy seeds every year from the companies that are standing behind de G8,” says Michael Farrelly.

‘As a result, the farmers’ seed system will collapse, because they can’t sell their own seeds”, according to Janet Maro. ‘Multinationals will provide our country with seeds and all the farmers will have to buy them from them. That means that we will lose biodiversity, because it is impossible for them to investigate and patent all the seeds we need. We’re going to end up with fewer types of seeds.’

‘I have seeds of my family, because my great-grandmother used them. She gave them to my grandmother, who gave them to my mother and my mother then gave them to me. I’ve planted them here in the demonstration garden in Morogoro and that’s why very rare plants now grow here’, says Janet Maro. ‘Local farmers find it hard to understand the idea that you can patent and own a seed. Seed should simply be something that is easily available”, says Janet Maro.

Ownership for investments

‘Intellectual property rights ensure that farmers have better access to technology’, claims Kinyua M’Mbijjewe, head of Corporate Affairs in Africa for Syngenta. Syngenta is a Swiss company that produces seeds and agrochemicals alongside Yara, one of the two largest players in the private sector in the NAFSN.

‘A company that wants to invest wants to be sure that its technology is protected. African farmers have been sharing, bartering and trading their seeds as a form of tradition. For farmers who want to continue to do so, it is important that they have that choice.’ Kinyua M’Mbijjewe claims not to be aware that the Tanzanian legislation no longer allows that freedom of choice. This is strange, since Syngenta is one of the companies that is part of the leadership council of the NAFSN, meaning that they negotiate directly with the partners about the changes in legislation which must be met in exchange for aid.

Nevertheless, according to the Tanzanian Government, the legislation never intended to penalize small-scale farmers, only to protect their property rights – that is, if they patent their own seeds.

‘But who’s going to sell non-certified seeds? Small-scale farmers do not have the means to get a patent for their seeds’, says Janet Maro.

“The government is working on a revision of the seed legislation. We hope that they will add an exception for small-scale farmers and will expand the Quality Declared Seed System,” says Michael Farrelly.

The Quality Declared Seed System gives quality guarantee for seed. It is a kind of compromise, because quality is cheaper and easier to obtain than a patent.

Currently, a farmer is allowed to sell recognized seeds in only three surrounding villages, but the government says it wants to expand this at the district level with the new legislation. ‘That way, the seeds could be sold in seventy villages, which is economically viable,” says Farrelly.

Removal of trade barriers

An additional problem is that the seeds of foreign companies are not always adapted to the local climate. ‘What works in Utrecht doesn’t necessarily work in Zanzibar,’ says Michael Farrelly. Tanzania alone has five different climate zones. ‘Even the region of Morogoro has different climate zones,” says Janet Maro.

Yet soon it will be easier for seeds from different regions to enter the country, and other African countries are on the way to follow Tanzania’s example. In 2015, eighteen African countries signed the Arusha Protocol for the protection of new plant varieties.

The purpose is that all countries would try to work on eliminating the trade barriers and incorporate intellectual property rights on seeds in their legislation, in order to achieve a harmonized regional system. Among others, the Community Plant Variety Office, an EU agency for the protection of plant varieties as intellectual property, invariably takes part in all meetings related to the Protocol.

Syngenta believes that these measures will help advance Africa: ‘We are pleased that it is finally going in the right direction after years of negotiations,’ says Kinyua M’Mbijjewe. ‘The EU has a harmonized policy regarding the seeds that are allowed to be brought into another country. In Africa this doesn’t exist. You could not bring seeds from Kenya over the border to Tanzania, an area with the same climate zone. Africa’s trade barriers have not pushed forward the farmers and the economy.’

More intensive farming?

In order to feed the world population by 2050, the World Bank and FAO (the UN food agency) state that food production must increase by half. A figurative war is fought regarding the approach to increase production, but there will likely be many victims among the small-scale farmers.

According to the business world, Africa needs more agricultural inputs: fertilizers, hybrid seeds, pesticides… But is the commercial approach best suited to help the poorest segment of the population?

All the development initiatives of the NAFSN in Tanzania focus exclusively on the most fertile part of the country. The Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT) covers much of the southern half of the country. Fertile soil easily attracts investors. But what about the farmers who are located in less-than-ideal regions? Or what about the statement by the World Bank (2008 report) that input subsidies for fertilizer in Zambia were beneficial mainly for relatively rich farmers rather than for the small-scale farmers whom the subsidies were meant to benefit? Another essential fact: this type of intensive farming is one of the biggest causes of global warming.

Syngenta itself has admitted that it is logical that they, as a company, have little concern for the less successful farmers. ‘We are a commercial company and therefore we invest in Africa. We believe that Africa is done with development aid and that it is now all about trade,” concludes Kinyua M’Mbijjewe. ‘The small-scale farmers are not our target. We focus on small-scale farmers trying to grow businesses and we are happy to work with NGOs that have a commercial approach. Farmers who merely try to survive or operate in an unfavorable climate are left out.’

Agro-ecological alternative

Many farmer organizations and FAO have more faith in ecological methods. Particularly the smaller-scale farmers would benefit from it, because they usually cannot afford the expensive inputs for conventional agriculture.

Janet Maro, on the other hand, works in challenging rural areas. Together with SAT, she trains small-scale farmers in agro-ecological farming methods. SAT teaches farmers to do farming with what is available in their surroundings.

‘Our training center is located in the dry areas of Vianze, which most people would claim to be impossible to farm,’ says Janet Maro. ‘If we can do it there, we can do it anywhere. We plant additional trees that hold back the water when it rains, so that it is incorporated into the soil, and we have an irrigation system with water bottles, so we consume less water.’

‘We teach small-scale farmers how to make compost with the plants they cut in their fields. We also teach them to do mixed cropping and to make extracts from plants that grow in their surroundings in order to control crop pests and diseases. The most common pest, for example, is the aphid. You can make an extract of Lantana camara, a shrub that grows in almost every village in Tanzania, to control the aphids,’ says Janet Maro.

‘We also trained farmers in a region where they were given government subsidies to purchase fertilizer. After our training, there were many farmers with good results who questioned why they should still go into town to buy expensive synthetic fertilizer, as they can have a good harvest and can fight pests with resources that are available in their own fields. Those farmers returned their vouchers for subsidized fertilizer to the government. The government has now also come knocking on our door, asking us to train farmers.’

Choosing between grandmother and industry

‘Doing nothing and thinking that you can continue with what your grandmother grew, is a guaranteed catastrophe’, says Kinyua M’Mbijjewe from Syngenta. ‘The reason we have hunger in Africa is that there are insufficient agricultural inputs.’

Abel Lyimo, the CEO of the Tanzanian Rural Urban Development Initiatives, a NGO that focusses on the development of small-scale farmers through the private sector, thinks the same: ‘Tanzania is one of the countries with the lowest use of farm inputs and the lowest productivity in the world. There is a link between proper use of inputs and productivity. Use only half, and you’ll produce only half.’

Janet Maro contradicts that. ‘In the Mlali Region, there were projects in which they gave the farmers parcels of land to grow tomatoes. It went really well for a while and they produced a huge quantity of tomatoes, but this year things went wrong. The price of a bucket of tomatoes ranged between two and three Euros. Nowadays, because of the overproduction, you have to consider yourself lucky if you get 40 cents. Now, the farmers can no longer afford those expensive fertilizers and chemicals.’

‘And I haven’t even started to mention the environmental damage and the deterioration in soil fertility that these projects cause. The government has asked us to train farmers because the quality and quantity of the water from the Mzinga and Ruvu Rivers have considerably worsened because of the government’s agricultural projects. They want to save the situation before it is too late and have seen that the projects of SAT have a much better impact on the environment.’

Even the United Nation’s former Special Rapporteur for the Right for Food, Olivier De Schutter, stresses the importance of more research and investment in agro-ecological methods in a report in 2011.

According to FAO figures, more than 80 percent of the food in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa is produced by small-scale farmers. If they cannot afford commercial inputs, they can still make progress with agro-ecological methods. The methods are not immediately patentable and therefore the industry treats them shabbily. An unfortunate consequence of this is that insufficient research is being done into such methods.

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.

Translation coordinated by Koen Van Troos

All images in this article are from MN

Posted in English
Comments Off on The Unspoken War against Organic Farming in Africa: Tanzanian Farmers Are Facing Heavy Prison Sentences if They Continue Their Traditional Seed Exchange
Tags: Monsanto, Syngenta, tanzania, Tanzanian farmers

Capture of M5 Hama-Aleppo Highway: One of the Most Celebrated Prizes in Damascus’ Campaign to Regain Territory

February 28th, 2020 by Michael Jansen

The return of the M5 should lower costs of shipments of goods between Aleppo and Hama, Homs and Damascus at a time the Syrian economy is in crisis due to nearly nine years of warfare and US and European sanctions. Jamil’s journey shows that travel has been eased for civilians who save time as well as rationed petrol.

The capture of the M5 by the Syrian army is one of the most celebrated prizes in Damascus’ campaign to regain territory lost to takfiris and rebels since unrest erupted in 2011. The 450-kilometre M5 links Syria’s main cities, Deraa, Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, and was the main artery for both commercial and personal travel before the war. The government began to lose control of the highway when diverse rebel and takfiri groups seized different sectors.

Before the war, the highway carried on a daily basis $25-million-worth of commercial traffic to and from Aleppo and Homs, the country’s chief industrial hubs. Syria’s cotton, grain, pharmaceuticals and export goods travelled along this route, which passes through the rich pistachio-growing region north of Hama and the now devastated towns of Khan Shaikhoun, visited by this correspondent in early September, Maarat Al Numan and Saraqeb, where the M5 meets the M4, the main highway from Aleppo to the port of Latakia on the coast. The western sector of the M4 is the next objective of the Syrian army and its Russian ally as it is the main route for raw material imports and exports.

After government forces recaptured takfiri-held Eastern Ghouta and areas in Deraa province in 2018, the army prepared for the long-awaited campaign in Idlib, the final bastion of anti-government takfiri and Turkish-sponsored militias. However, under Turkish and Russian pressure, this was postponed due to the presence of three million civilians, half of them displaced from elsewhere, amongst thousands of anti-government fighters.

Idlib province and adjacent slices of Hama, Aleppo and Latakia provinces were declared a “de-confliction zone”. A ceasefire was meant to be imposed and the M5 and M4 highways were to open and be put under the protection of Russia and Turkey. A 15-20 kilometre buffer zone was to be established around the “deconfliction” area, from which takfiris and heavy arms were to be excluded. Turkey was permitted to plant 12 “observation posts” in the “de-confliction zone” to monitor the ceasefire. Ankara was also tasked with separating takfiris from “rebels” (although there was no real difference) and disarming and isolating the takfiris. Turkish and Russian military police were supposed to patrol the area.

There was no ceasefire because the leading takfiri group, Al Qaeda-affiliated Ha’yat Tahrir Al Sham, and its allies refused to halt anti-government operations. Since they have been branded “terrorists” by the UN, they have been formally excluded from the ceasefire and continued to mount attacks on Syrian soldiers and civilians.

Since Idlib never became a “de-confliction zone”, the Syrian army launched its delayed offensive in 2019, seizing Khan Shaikhoun in late August, pausing to see what would happen, and then in December resuming its advance along the M5 to Aleppo. During the M5 campaign, the Syrian army had the full support of Russian air power and the backing of Iran-deployed Shia militiamen.

It is significant that the Russian military, as well as the Syrian Transport Ministry, simultaneously announced the M5 victory, making it clear that Moscow was prepared to defend the M5 highway and, perhaps, the M4, if and when the Syrian army manages to capture the western sectors of this strategic asset.

Last December, the Syrian army took control of the eastern sector of the M4 which links Aleppo in the north-west to Qamishli in the north-east. The Syrian army’s advance along this route appears to have been agreed between Russia, Turkey, the US and the Syrian Kurds. Since taking up positions, the army has not only regained Syrian territory, but has also acted as a buffer force between Turkish and Kurdish fighters.

Following Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops deployed with the Kurds, the Turkish army and client militiamen seized from the Kurds a 120-kilometre stretch of territory south of the Turkish-Syrian border. This created a casus belli for the Kurds who were determined to recapture territory lost, or granted by Trump, to Turkey.

Although the US declared a troop withdrawal from Syria, up to 600 US soldiers remain in the northeast, allegedly, to protect the oil fields. The US troops, however, have also interfered with Russian military police patrolling the M4 near Qamishli, risking clashes and creating instability in an already unstable region of Syria.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Capture of M5 Hama-Aleppo Highway: One of the Most Celebrated Prizes in Damascus’ Campaign to Regain Territory

The War Scenario Between Israel and Hezbollah

February 28th, 2020 by Elijah J. Magnier

Notwithstanding the increase in power of the “Axis of the Resistance”, with its precision missiles and unrivalled accumulated warfare experience, the possibility of war is still on the table. The “Axis of the Resistance” is increasing its readiness based on the possibility that Israel may not tolerate the presence of such a serious threat on its northern borders and therefore act to remove it. However, in any future war, the “Axis of the Resistance” considers the consequences would be overwhelmingly devastating for both sides and on all levels if the rules of engagement are not respected. Notwithstanding Israel’s superior air firepower, its enemy Hezbollah has established its own tremendous firepower, and its experience in recent wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen is an important asset.

Sources within the “Axis of the Resistance” believe the next battle between Hezbollah and Israel, if ever it takes place, would be “controlled and not sporadic, with a focus on specific military objectives without damaging the infrastructure, on both sides”.

The sources consider Gaza as a precedent. In Gaza Palestinians and Israelis have fought many recent battles that lasted only a few days in which the objectives bombed were purely military. This is a new rule of engagement (ROE) regulating conflict between the belligerents. When Israel hits a non-military target, the Palestinian resistance responds by hitting a similar non-military target in Israel. The lesson extracted from the new ROE between Israel and the Palestinians is that every time exchanges of bombing go out of control, both sides understand they have to bring it back to an acceptable and equitable level, to limit damage and keep such mutual attacks from targeting civilians.

The “Axis of the Resistance” therefore considers that the probability is high that the next battle would be limited to military objectives and kept under control. If one side increases the bombing, the other will follow. Otherwise, both sides have the capability to cause total destruction and go on to uncontrolled bombing. In the case of an out-of-control war, allies on both sides would become involved, which renders this scenario less likely.

Hezbollah in Lebanon is said to have over 150,000 missiles and rockets.

Israel might suppose that a limited attack could destroy tens of thousands of Hezbollah’s missiles. Is it worth it? “From Israel’s view, Israel may think it is worth triggering a battle and destroying thousands of missiles, thinking that Israel has the possibility to prevent Hezbollah from re-arming itself. But even in this case, Israel doesn’t need to destroy villages or cities or the Lebanese infrastructure, instead, it will limit itself to selective targets within its bank of objectives. However, we strongly doubt Israel could succeed in limiting Hezbollah’s supply of missiles and advanced weapons. Many of these missiles no longer need to be close to the borders with Israel, but can be deployed on the Lebanese-Syrian borders in safe silos”, said the sources.

However, Israel should also expect, according to the same sources, that Hezbollah will respond by bombing significant Israeli military targets within its bank of objectives. “There is no need to bomb airports, power stations, chemical industries, harbours or any highly significant target if Israel doesn’t bomb any of these in Lebanon. But if necessary Hezbollah is prepared to imitate Israel by hitting back without hesitation indiscriminately and against high-value targets, at the cost of raising the level of confrontation to its maximum level. Hezbollah and Israel have a common language in warfare. If the bombing is limited, no side interprets the others’ actions as a sign of weakness”, said the sources.

“Hezbollah doesn’t want war and is doing everything to avoid it. This is why it responded in Moawad, in the suburb of Beirut, when Israeli armed drones failed to reach their objectives. By responding, Hezbollah actually prevented a war on a large scale because it is not possible to allow Israel to get away with any act of war in Lebanon, violating the ROE” said the sources.

Last September, Hezbollah targeted an Israeli vehicle in Avivim with a laser-guided missile in daylight after forcing the Israeli Army to hide for a week and retreat all forces behind civilians lines, imposing a new ROE. The Israeli army cleared the 120 km borders with Lebanon (5 km deep) to avoid Hezbollah’s revenge retaliation for violating the 2006 cessation of hostility’s agreement. Israel refrained from responding and swallowed the humiliation due to its awareness of Hezbollah’s readiness to start a devastating war if necessary.

Israeli officials used to threaten Hezbollah and Lebanon to take the country “back to the stone age”. This is indeed within the reach of Israel’s military capability. However, it is also within Hezbollah’s reach to bring Israel back to the stone age, if required. Hezbollah’s precision missiles can hit any bridge, airport, gasoline deposit containers, power stations, Haifa harbour, oil and gas rig platforms, any infrastructure and military and non-military objectives if Israel attempts to target similar objectives in Lebanon first. Hezbollah’s new missile capability is not new to Israel, who is observing the latest technology Iran’s allies are enjoying and “testing,” mainly in Yemen. The recent bombing of Saudi Arabia oil facilities and the downing of a Saudi Tornado in Yemen revealed that Iran’s HOT missiles are capable of downing jets at medium height and any helicopter violating Lebanese airspace.

Hezbollah’s latest version of the Fateh precision missile, the supersonic anti-ship missiles and the anti-air missiles can prevent Israel from using its navy, stopping any civilian ship from docking in Haifa, thwarting the use of Israeli Helicopters and precision bombing attacks- as in Iran’s latest confrontation with the US at Ayn al-Assad base in Iraq.

Hezbollah’s missiles are unlikely to cause simple traumatic brain injuries – as per the Iranian missile at Ayn al Assad – when hitting targets in Israel in case of war. They can avoid missile interception systems. This increase of capability is a game-changer, and Hezbollah believes it is already decreasing the chances of war. Arming itself with precision missiles and armed drones and showing these capabilities to Israel is Hezbollah’s way to avert a war and protect the equation of deterrence.

In its 2020 security assessment, the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate (Aman) unwisely evaluated the assassination of the Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani as a “restraining factor”. Aman’s report, showing astonishing ignorance, stated that Soleimani was responsible for Hezbollah’s missile projects. This lack of understanding of the Hezbollah-Iran relationship and dynamic is quite surprising. Sayyed Ali Khamenei told Hezbollah’s leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah decades ago that he knows what he needs and what to do and doesn’t need to fall back on Iran. The IRGC and Hezbollah have set up a collaboration engine that won’t stop even if half of the IRGC leadership is killed. The possession of the feared Iranian precision missiles is no longer a secret: all Iran’s allies have these deployed, in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Yesterday is unlike today: the power of destruction now belongs to all parties, no longer to Israel alone. War is no longer an option. US/Israeli aggression will be limited to an economic war, so long as the “Axis of the Resistance” continues updating its warfare capability to maintain deterrence parity.

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 the author

Posted in English
Comments Off on The War Scenario Between Israel and Hezbollah
Tags: Hezbollah, israel

Anonymous Sources and “the Guys and Gals” Who Made the Iraq War a Reality Are Now Claiming that the Kremlin Is at it Again!

February 28th, 2020 by Philip Giraldi

Those hapless individuals who run the United States are again slipping into a fantasy world where Americans are besieged by imaginary threats coming from both inside and outside the country. Of course, it is particularly convenient to warn of foreign threats, as it makes the people in government seem relevant and needed, but one might recommend that the tune be changed as it is getting a bit boring. After all, there are only so many hours in the day and Russian President Vladimir Putin must pause occasionally to eat or sleep, so the plotting to destroy American democracy must be on hold at least some of the time.

Yes, anonymous sources and the guys and gals who made the Iraq war a reality are now claiming that the Kremlin is at it again! Hints over the past year that Putin might try to replay 2016 in 2020 only do it better this time have now been confirmed! Per one news report the enemy is already at the gates: “U.S. intelligence officials told lawmakers last week that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election campaign by aiming to cast doubt on the integrity of the vote and boost President Donald Trump’s re-election.”

And there’s more! In a New York Times article headlined “Same Goal, Different Playbook: Why Russia Would Support Trump and Sanders: Vladimir Putin is eager both to take the sheen off U.S. democracy and for a counterpart who is less likely to challenge his territorial and nuclear ambitions,” it was revealed that the Kremlin is intending to also help Bernie Sanders, so whichever way the election goes they win.

According to the Times Bernie has been “warn[ed]… of evidence that he is the Russian president’s favorite Democrat.” The article then goes on to explain, relying on its anonymous sources, that “…to the intelligence analysts and outside experts who have spent the past three years dissecting Russian motives in the 2016 election, and who tried to limit the effect of Moscow’s meddling in the 2018 midterms, what is unfolding in 2020 makes perfect sense. Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders represent the most divergent ends of their respective parties, and both are backed by supporters known more for their passion than their policy rigor, which makes them ripe for exploitation by Russian trolls, disinformation specialists and hackers for hire seeking to widen divisions in American society.”

The Times article was written by David Sanger, the paper’s venerable national security correspondent. He is reliably wedded to Establishment views of the Russian threat, as is his newspaper, and strikes rock bottom in his assessment when he cites none other than “Victoria Nuland, who in a long diplomatic career had served both Republican and Democratic administrations, and had her phone calls intercepted and broadcast by Russian intelligence services.” Nuland, clearly the victim of a nefarious Russian intelligence operation that recorded her saying “fuck the EU,” opined that “Any figures that radicalize politics and do harm to center views and unity in the United States are good for Putin’s Russia.” Nuland is perhaps best known for her role in spending $5 billion in U.S. taxpayer money to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine. She is married to leading neoconservative Robert Kagan, which Sanger fails to mention, and is currently a nonresident fellow at the liberal interventionist Brookings Institution. She also works at former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s consultancy, presumably for the Benjamins. Albright, one might recall, thought that killing 500,000 Iraqi children through U.S. sanctions was “worth it.”

Given the fact that Russia will have very limited resources in their effort to corrupt American democracy, which is, by the way, doing a very good job of self-destruction without any outside help, how exactly will they do it? Sanger explains “As they focus on evading more vigilant government agencies and technology companies trying to identify and counter malicious online activity, the Russians are boring into Iranian cyberoffense units, apparently so that they can initiate attacks that look as if they originate in Iran — which itself has shown interest in messing with the American electoral process… And, in one of the most effective twists, they are feeding disinformation to unsuspecting Americans on Facebook and other social media. By seeding conspiracy theories and baseless claims on the platforms, Russians hope everyday Americans will retransmit those falsehoods from their own accounts. That is an attempt to elude Facebook’s efforts to remove disinformation, which it can do more easily when it flags ‘inauthentic activity,’ like Russians posing as Americans. It is much harder to ban the words of real Americans, who may be parroting a Russian story line, even unintentionally.”

So those wily Russians are making themselves look like Iranians and they are planning on “feeding disinformation” to “unsuspecting Americans” consisting of “conspiracy theories” and “baseless claims.” Sounds like a plan to me as the various occupants of the White House and Congress have been doing exactly that for the past twenty years. That we had a national election in 2016 in which a reality television personality ran against an unindicted criminal would seem to indicate that the effort to brainwash the American people has already been successful.

The usual bottom feeders are also piling on to the Russian interference story. Jane Harman, former congresswoman who once colluded with Israeli intelligence to lobby the Department of Justice to drop criminal charges against two employees of AIPAC in exchange for Israel’s support to make her chair of the House Intelligence Committee, warns “How dangerous it would be if we lose the tip of the spear against those who would destroy us.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan also has something to say. He is “very disturbed”by his conviction that Russia is actively meddling in the 2020 campaign in support of President Trump. He said “We are now in a full-blown national security crisis. By trying to prevent the flow of intelligence to Congress, Trump is abetting a Russian covert operation to keep him in office for Moscow’s interests, not America’s.” Brennan is best known for having orchestrated the illegal campaign to vilify Trump and his associates prior to, during and after the 2016 election. He also participated in a weekly meeting with Barack Obama where he and the president would add and remove names from a “kill list” of U.S. citizens residing overseas. He and his boss should both be in prison, but they are instead fêted as American patriots. Go figure.

Time to take a step back from the developing panic. As usual, the U.S. government intelligence agencies have produced no actual evidence that Moscow is up to anything, and there are already reports that the Office of National Intelligence briefer “overstated” her case against the Kremlin in her briefing of the House Intelligence Committee. Sure, the Russians have an interest in an American election and will favor candidates like Trump and Sanders that are not outright hostile to them, but to claim as the NY Times does that Russia has incompatible “territorial and nuclear interests” is a stretch. And yes, Moscow will definitely use its available intelligence resources to monitor the nomination and election process while also clandestinely doing what it can to improve the chances of those individuals they approve of. That is what intelligence agencies do.

In American Establishment groupthink there is one standard for what Washington does and quite a different standard for everyone else. Does it shock any American to know that the United States has interfered in scores of elections all over the world ever since the Second World War, to include those in places like France and Italy well into the 1980s? And in somewhat more kinetic covert actions, actually removing Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran, Salvador Allende in Chile, Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala and Mohamed Morsi in Egypt just for starters, not even considering the multiple plots to kill Fidel Castro. And it continues to do so today openly in places like Iran and Venezuela while also claiming hypocritically that the U.S. is “exceptional” and also a “force for good.” That anyone should be genuinely worrying about Russian proxies buying and distributing a couple of hundred thousands of dollars’ worth of ads in an election in which many billions of dollars’ worth of propaganda will be on the table is ridiculous. It is time to stop blaming Russia for the failure of America’s ruling class to provide an honest and accountable government and one that does not go around the world looking for trouble. That is what the 2020 election should really be all about.

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 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 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.

Posted in English
Comments Off on Anonymous Sources and “the Guys and Gals” Who Made the Iraq War a Reality Are Now Claiming that the Kremlin Is at it Again!
Tags: Russia, Russian meddling, United States, US elections

Eight Negative Arguments Smearing China’s Virus Fight Must be Refuted

February 28th, 2020 by Wang Wen

The COVID-19 outbreak in China has begun to decline outside Hubei Province, meanwhile in some countries it is on the rise. This fully shows that the epidemic is a challenge faced by all humanity and needs to be addressed by all countries. China’s experience in combating the outbreak shows that timely, accurate and authoritative information disclosure is crucial. However, “negative energy” arguments in the public opinion field, which undermines the solidarity and cooperation between human beings and even creates panic out of nothing, will harm the efforts to fight the epidemic and can be called a “tumor” in the public opinion field during the epidemic.

Here, we summarize eight typical “negative energy” arguments in international public opinion and reveal their absurdities, hoping to provide a “mirror” on the information field in the epidemic.

1. ‘Economic fall’ ignores the complete picture

Under the coronavirus epidemic, the streets in Chinese cities were empty for a time, and there is no doubt the economy will be affected to some extent. However, to claim that the fundamentals of the Chinese economy have changed and that growth will plummet from mid-high speed to zero or negative is an overstatement. For example, the New York Times published an article on February 11 entitled “Like Europe in Medieval Times’: Virus Slows China’s Economy” saying that the epidemic has made China stay in low gear.

This coronavirus epidemic has been widespread, and many industries, such as catering, tourism and film and television, have been severely impacted. However, it should be noted that the impact of the epidemic on China’s economy is mainly reflected in the restriction of the demand side, resulting in a short-term structural imbalance between supply and demand. In the long run, the means of production are still there, and production equipment and technology have not been affected by the outbreak. So the outbreak will not dent the internal dynamics of the Chinese economy. International Monetary Fund (IMF) spokesman Gerry Rice said at a regular press conference on February 13 that “over the medium to long term we remain confident that China’s economy is resilient.” The IMF expects a V-shaped recovery for Chinese economy, in which sharp decline in economic activities would be followed by a rapid recovery. With improvements in containing the epidemic, the supply side will gradually return to normal, and at the same time the potential demand suppressed during the epidemic will be released, and there will be a large rebound in future economic growth.

Structural transformation has given China a strong and resilient economy. First, consumption has become the primary driver of growth. In 2019, consumer spending contributed 57.8 percent to economic growth. Second, the proportion contributed by the service industry keeps rising, and the proportion of value added by the tertiary industry to GDP in 2019 is 53.9 percent. The third is to shift from an excess of savings to an absorption of savings, which has led to a continuous increase in disposable household consumption. Fourth, from the introduction of innovation to independent innovation, the current digitization and intelligent transformation of various industries has led to the rapid development of online business. Although the epidemic outbreak has increased short-term downward pressure on the economy, the long-term positive trend of the Chinese economy has not changed.

2. ‘China-US decoupling’ farfetched

Under the coronavirus epidemic, the resumption of work in many factories in China has been delayed, which has affected the global supply chain. But it may be delusional to talk about “international companies fleeing China” and to think that the US and Chinese economies will “decouple” as a result of the outbreak. For example, US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross told Fox Business Channel on January 31 that the novel coronavirus epidemic helps “accelerate the return of jobs to North America, some to US and probably some to Mexico as well,” adding that factors such as this will prompt US companies to reevaluate risks, such as the supply chain of China-related businesses.

It should be noted that in the face of the epidemic, the Chinese government has demonstrated its firm belief in winning the battle against the epidemic. It is believed that the outbreak will not last long, nor will it cause lasting damage to the economy. Business confidence in the future has not disappeared. The experience of the SARS epidemic in 2003 also shows that after the epidemic, people’s desire for consumption will erupt and the economy will see rapid growth.

Compared with the US, where the tertiary industry accounts for 85 percent of the total economy, China’s tertiary industry only accounts for just over 50 percent. There is still more room for development. Naturally, companies will not lose sight of this, and abandon huge development space to go to a place where competition is fierce.

The US government’s push for the return of manufacturing is not new. It began during the Obama administration, but the real results have been poor. This is because China is the world’s largest manufacturing base with a more complete upstream and downstream industry chain and a large and diversified consumer market. Only by being close to the Chinese market can companies feel the cutting-edge demand, have faster production speed and ensure more reliable product quality.

Of course, China’s industry is in a period of transformation and upgrading, and some enterprises that can no longer adapt to China’s market will leave. This is the natural law of economic development, and it is by no means the exodus that Ross is talking about.

3. ‘China image collapse’ baseless

Under the coronavirus epidemic, some voices in the international public opinion have tarnished the image of China.

For example, on February 6, under the headline “This is not a coronavirus, it is an official virus”, a Deutsche Welle report in Putonghua claimed that China’s governance system is not a modern governance system, so it was vulnerable in the face of the epidemic. On some overseas social media, some people have hyped up argument that “China’s national image has collapsed”, in order to disparage China’s image as a responsible power. They even claimed that China would not be able to build a moderately prosperous society in all respects as planned.

It is clear that the above slander is groundless and based on a play of words. The “China threat theory” is a virus in the field of international public opinion.

After the outbreak of the coronavirus epidemic, the Chinese government quickly set up a special team to deal with the outbreak, deployed them extensively throughout the country, and assisted relevant countries in evacuating personnel. These things could only be achieved by an excellent modern governance system and governance capabilities, and they have been widely praised internationally.

Compared to the performance of some advanced economies, China has also done a much better job of reducing the risk of the disease spreading globally. On February 16, in response to the shortcomings and deficiencies exposed in the response to the epidemic, the Chinese government again made a “two-handed” deployment, including improving the biosafety law, the national emergency management system, and the distribution of production capacity of key materials. China’s epidemic prevention measures have been praised by the international community. French President Macron expressed admiration for China’s effective measures and the country’s openness and transparency in fighting the epidemic. World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus praised China for taking many prevention and containment measures that go far beyond the relevant requirements for responding to emergencies. This has set a new benchmark for epidemic prevention in all countries. The speed, scale and efficiency of China’s actions reflect the strengths of its system.

4. ‘Sick man of Asia’ rekindles century of discrimination

Amid the outbreak of the COVID-19, governments, enterprises and people from dozens of countries have donated humanitarian aid to China to support the country’s fight against the epidemic. Meanwhile, some people have maliciously taken the opportunity to spread discrimination against China – the Wall Street Journal published an article under title “China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia” on February 3, hurting Chinese people’s feelings. We should not only refute such absurdity with a comprehensive win over the epidemic but also continue increasing China’s public health services and national capabilities, throwing the discriminatory tone into the junk heap of history for good.

China was once weak due to its seclusion and was taken advantage of by Western powers, which derogatorily called China the “sick man of Asia.” Such contemptuous words have been a scar on Chinese people’s mind. With unremitting efforts of more than 100 years, China is much stronger than it was, with people’s general health status reaching a new high.

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the country has been improving its public health status, eliminating malignant infectious diseases such as smallpox and cholera, and developing a cure for schistosomiasis which once threatened Chinese people for a long time.

A comprehensive medical system has been established in China, covering all rural areas. China has also sent medical teams to help African countries battle against epidemics such as Ebola. As China is completing the building of a moderately prosperous society, the country is rapidly increasing the budget for medical treatment and public health, assuring residents in cities and towns have basic medical insurance.

Currently, Chinese people’s average life expectancy, which continues to grow, has surpassed that of Americans. Through international medical and health cooperation including the building of a Health Silk Road, China’s experience in medical treatment and public health has been widely recognized and accepted.

5. Yellow Peril hysteria pure racism

On February 1, German weekly magazine Der Spiegel had a cover headline saying the novel coronavirus was “Made in China.” At a crucial time when the world is jointly fighting the epidemic, the German magazine inhumanly spread the Yellow Peril hysteria, the core of which is the West’s fear of the East.

The Western world regards the Eastern world as a threat, and fears itself will lag behind the latter, and thus refuses to accept the fact that the Eastern world has become more developed and much stronger than it once was. The West wants to safeguard its dominance in the world.

With this being the case, some nationalists in the West have taken advantage of the COVID-19 epidemic to spread this hysteria.

In the era of globalization, human civilization should no longer engage in zero-sum games between the East and West and between races, but rather in building a community of shared future, where people can co-exist and jointly develop. In the face of this public health emergency, no one can really escape and remain isolated. Only cooperation, solidarity and mutual help can help people win the fight against the virus.

It is high time to put an end to the farce of Yellow Peril hysteria that encourages people to play a “hunger game.”

6. 1984 metaphor obscures reality

To fight against the COVID-19, China has adopted various high-tech measures, such as Big Data and artificial intelligence, to control population flow and reduce cross-infection risks. However, some Western media outlets seem to have been frightened by China’s governance capability. Real Clear Politics published an article on Thursday saying, “China’s government is like something out of ‘1984.'” There are two reasons such viewpoint can echo in the West.

First, people are more likely to believe stories they are familiar with. George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 is well known, but not many people know the real China. Therefore, Chinese people find it hard to persuade their Western friends that China is not something out of 1984. This is like giving a friend, who has never seen a real panda, a toy of panda, the next time you mention panda, this friend would probably call to mind the toy rather than a real panda.

Second, the media always caters its subscribers with reports that draw attention, even though their viewpoints are abnormal. For those media outlets, a frightening China is obviously more effective than a normal China at attracting an audience.

Using 1984 as a metaphor, those Western media outlets can spread fear of China among Westerners and thus make more profit. This is why a very ordinary story with an eye-catching headline can be forged into something that is scary and strange about China. As many Western media outlets are driven by business interests, it is not hard to understand Western people’s stereotype of China.

What 1984 describes can happen anywhere people live. The novel was supposed to be a warning not an instruction manual. George Orwell’s masterpiece is not banned in China. Instead, his books have been among the best sellers in China since the country’s reform and opening-up. China is moving forward in a broad way using Chinese people’s accumulated experience rather than something out of a novel.

7. ‘Biochemical weapon’ conspiracy pure fantasy

Conspiracy theories are a constant reality in the international public opinion field. Once there is a disturbance, they will surface.

On January 31, US senator Tom Cotton tweeted that “it’s more urgent than ever to stop travel between China and US,” and sent a “MESSAGE TO ALL AMERICANS IN CHINA: Get out – now.” He also claimed that the virus might have originated in a “super laboratory” in Wuhan.

The Ministry of Heath of Russian Federation on January 29 published a guidance for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of new coronavirus infection. According to this document, COVID-19 was found to be recombined from a bat coronavirus and another coronavirus from unknown origin, triggering speculation that the virus had been developed by the US as a biological weapon.

Although such arguments have been prevalent, but even in the mainstream Western public opinion, there are few experts who agree.

The Washington Post on January 29 published an article entitled “Experts debunk fringe theory linking China’s coronavirus to weapons research,” with interviews from five experts from prestigious US universities and research institutes. All of them “rejected the idea that the virus could be man-made.”

An expert on chemical weapons said he and other analysts around the world “had discussed the possibility that weapons development at the Wuhan lab could have led to the coronavirus outbreak in a private email chain,” but none of them “had found convincing evidence to support the theory.”

A professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also pointed out that “a good bioweapon in theory has high lethality but low, not [high], communicability,” and spreading such “misinformation” is “incredibly irresponsible.”

The Lancet, the world’s leading general medical journal, released on February 19 a “Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19” signed by 27 top public health scientists around the world.

The statement “strongly condemn[s] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” and shows that scientists from multiple countries “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.” It also calls on the World Health Organization (WHO) “to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture.”

8. Questioning WHO’s impartiality destructive

China’s efforts and achievements in fighting the epidemic are obvious to all. Everyone with a realistic attitude will make a fair evaluation. However, some in the international community have been looking at China through colored spectacles, and even slander those entities and individuals who have praised China.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ affirmation of China’s performance has been described by certain media outlets as “skewed in China’s favor.”

Tedros was asked on February 12, if “Chinese government approached the WHO to ask it to stand up and say that China is doing a good job? Was there pressure put on this organization to say those sorts of things… because I know how important it is saving face in China.” He refuted, “China doesn’t need to ask to be praised… because we have seen these concrete things that should be appreciated.”

He has seen clearly China’s tremendous efforts to stop the virus from spreading to the rest of the world, including notifying other countries of those confirmed cases with outbound travel history.

State leaders and public health experts of various countries have applauded China’s efforts and transparency. Tedros has also called on the international community to stop “stigmatizing a country” and stand “in solidarity in fighting against the common enemy, COVID-19.”

Similarly, former WHO director-general Margaret Chan Fung Fu-chun was also criticized in 2015 for “taking sides” with South Korea in combating MERS.

WHO’s remarks and actions are all based on information reported by the government at the epicenter, latest data generated by the organization, and suggestions given by the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee. Clarifying and dispelling rumors and misinformation is also part of its job.

Along with China, the Singaporean government is also urging citizens to stop spreading rumors. Moreover, the WHO has already taken action to prevent the coronavirus epidemic from triggering “a dangerous social media ‘infodemic’ fueled by false information,” and appealed for the curbing of rumors, lies and misinformation.

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 article is written by Wang Wen, Jia Jinjing, Bian Yongzu, Cao Mingdi, Liu Ying, Liu Yushu, Yang Fanxin, Guan Zhaoyu, Wang Peng, Liu Dian, Chen Zhiheng, Zhang Tingting, Zhang Yang from Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. [email protected]

Posted in English
Comments Off on Eight Negative Arguments Smearing China’s Virus Fight Must be Refuted
Tags: China, Chinese economy, coronavirus, COVID-19

Your Man in the Public Gallery – The Assange Hearing Day 3

February 28th, 2020 by Craig Murray

In yesterday’s proceedings in court, the prosecution adopted arguments so stark and apparently unreasonable I have been fretting on how to write them up in a way that does not seem like caricature or unfair exaggeration on my part. What has been happening in this court has long moved beyond caricature. All I can do is give you my personal assurance that what I recount actually is what happened.

As usual, I shall deal with procedural matters and Julian’s treatment first, before getting in to a clear account of the legal arguments made.

Vanessa Baraitser is under a clear instruction to mimic concern by asking, near the end of every session just before we break anyway, if Julian is feeling well and whether he would like a break. She then routinely ignores his response. Yesterday he replied at some length he could not hear properly in his glass box and could not communicate with his lawyers (at some point yesterday they had started preventing him passing notes to his counsel, which I learn was the background to the aggressive prevention of his shaking Garzon’s hand goodbye).

Baraitser insisted he might only be heard through his counsel, which given he was prevented from instructing them was a bit rich. This being pointed out, we had a ten minute adjournment while Julian and his counsel were allowed to talk down in the cells – presumably where they could be more conveniently bugged yet again.

On return, Edward Fitzgerald made a formal application for Julian to be allowed to sit beside his lawyers in the court. Julian was “a gentle, intellectual man” and not a terrorist. Baraitser replied that releasing Assange from the dock into the body of the court would mean he was released from custody. To achieve that would require an application for bail.

Again, the prosecution counsel James Lewis intervened on the side of the defence to try to make Julian’s treatment less extreme. He was not, he suggested diffidently, quite sure that it was correct that it required bail for Julian to be in the body of the court, or that being in the body of the court accompanied by security officers meant that a prisoner was no longer in custody. Prisoners, even the most dangerous of terrorists, gave evidence from the witness box in the body of the court nest to the lawyers and magistrate. In the High Court prisoners frequently sat with their lawyers in extradition hearings, in extreme cases of violent criminals handcuffed to a security officer.

Baraitser replied that Assange might pose a danger to the public. It was a question of health and safety. How did Fitzgerald and Lewis think that she had the ability to carry out the necessary risk assessment? It would have to be up to Group 4 to decide if this was possible.

Yes, she really did say that. Group 4 would have to decide.

Baraitser started to throw out jargon like a Dalek when it spins out of control. “Risk assessment” and “health and safety” featured a lot. She started to resemble something worse than a Dalek, a particularly stupid local government officer of a very low grade. “No jurisdiction” – “Up to Group 4”. Recovering slightly, she stated firmly that delivery to custody can only mean delivery to the dock of the court, nowhere else in the room. If the defence wanted him in the courtroom where he could hear proceedings better, they could only apply for bail and his release from custody in general. She then peered at both barristers in the hope this would have sat them down, but both were still on their feet.

In his diffident manner (which I confess is growing on me) Lewis said “the prosecution is neutral on this request, of course but, err, I really don’t think that’s right”. He looked at her like a kindly uncle whose favourite niece has just started drinking tequila from the bottle at a family party.

Baraitser concluded the matter by stating that the Defence should submit written arguments by 10am tomorrow on this point, and she would then hold a separate hearing into the question of Julian’s position in the court.

The day had begun with a very angry Magistrate Baraitser addressing the public gallery. Yesterday, she said, a photo had been taken inside the courtroom. It was a criminal offence to take or attempt to take photographs inside the courtroom. Vanessa Baraitser looked at this point very keen to lock someone up. She also seemed in her anger to be making the unfounded assumption that whoever took the photo from the public gallery on Tuesday was still there on Wednesday; I suspect not. Being angry at the public at random must be very stressful for her. I suspect she shouts a lot on trains.

Ms Baraitser is not fond of photography – she appears to be the only public figure in Western Europe with no photo on the internet. Indeed the average proprietor of a rural car wash has left more evidence of their existence and life history on the internet than Vanessa Baraitser. Which is no crime on her part, but I suspect the expunging is not achieved without considerable effort. Somebody suggested to me she might be a hologram, but I think not. Holograms have more empathy.

I was amused by the criminal offence of attempting to take photos in the courtroom. How incompetent would you need to be to attempt to take a photo and fail to do so? And if no photo was taken, how do they prove you were attempting to take one, as opposed to texting your mum? I suppose “attempting to take a photo” is a crime that could catch somebody arriving with a large SLR, tripod and several mounted lighting boxes, but none of those appeared to have made it into the public gallery.

Baraitser did not state whether it was a criminal offence to publish a photograph taken in a courtroom (or indeed to attempt to publish a photograph taken in a courtroom). I suspect it is. Anyway Le Grand Soir has published a translation of my report yesterday, and there you can see a photo of Julian in his bulletproof glass anti-terrorist cage. Not, I hasten to add, taken by me.

We now come to the consideration of yesterday’s legal arguments on the extradition request itself. Fortunately, these are basically fairly simple to summarise, because although we had five hours of legal disquisition, it largely consisted of both sides competing in citing scores of “authorities”, e.g. dead judges, to endorse their point of view, and thus repeating the same points continually with little value from exegesis of the innumerable quotes.

As prefigured yesterday by magistrate Baraitser, the prosecution is arguing that Article 4.1 of the UK/US extradition treaty has no force in law.

The UK and US Governments say that the court enforces domestic law, not international law, and therefore the treaty has no standing. This argument has been made to the court in written form to which I do not have access. But from discussion in court it was plain that the prosecution argue that the Extradition Act of 2003, under which the court is operating, makes no exception for political offences. All previous Extradition Acts had excluded extradition for political offences, so it must be the intention of the sovereign parliament that political offenders can now be extradited.

Opening his argument, Edward Fitzgerald QC argued that the Extradition Act of 2003 alone is not enough to make an actual extradition. The extradition requires two things in place; the general Extradition Act and the Extradition Treaty with the country or countries concerned. “No Treaty, No Extradition” was an unbreakable rule. The Treaty was the very basis of the request. So to say that the extradition was not governed by the terms of the very treaty under which it was made, was to create a legal absurdity and thus an abuse of process. He cited examples of judgements made by the House of Lords and Privy Council where treaty rights were deemed enforceable despite the lack of incorporation into domestic legislation, particularly in order to stop people being extradited to potential execution from British colonies.

Fitzgerald pointed out that while the Extradition Act of 2003 did not contain a bar on extraditions for political offences, it did not state there could not be such a bar in extradition treaties. And the extradition treaty of 2007 was ratified after the 2003 extradition act.

At this stage Baraitser interrupted that it was plain the intention of parliament was that there could be extradition for political offences. Otherwise they would not have removed the bar in previous legislation. Fitzgerald declined to agree, saying the Act did not say extradition for political offences could not be banned by the treaty enabling extradition.

Fitzgerald then continued to say that international jurisprudence had accepted for a century or more that you did not extradite political offenders. No political extradition was in the European Convention on Extradition, the Model United Nations Extradition Treaty and the Interpol Convention on Extradition. It was in every single one of the United States’ extradition treaties with other countries, and had been for over a century, at the insistence of the United States. For both the UK and US Governments to say it did not apply was astonishing and would set a terrible precedent that would endanger dissidents and potential political prisoners from China, Russia and regimes all over the world who had escaped to third countries.

Fitzgerald stated that all major authorities agreed there were two types of political offence. The pure political offence and the relative political offence. A “pure” political offence was defined as treason, espionage or sedition. A “relative” political offence was an act which was normally criminal, like assault or vandalism, conducted with a political motive. Every one of the charges against Assange was a “pure” political offence. All but one were espionage charges, and the computer misuse charge had been compared by the prosecution to breach of the official secrets act to meet the dual criminality test. The overriding accusation that Assange was seeking to harm the political and military interests of the United States was in the very definition of a political offence in all the authorities.

In reply Lewis stated that a treaty could not be binding in English law unless specifically incorporated in English law by Parliament. This was a necessary democratic defence. Treaties were made by the executive which could not make law. This went to the sovereignty of Parliament. Lewis quoted many judgements stating that international treaties signed and ratified by the UK could not be enforced in British courts. “It may come as a surprise to other countries that their treaties with the British government can have no legal force” he joked.

Lewis said there was no abuse of process here and thus no rights were invoked under the European Convention. It was just the normal operation of the law that the treaty provision on no extradition for political offences had no legal standing.

Lewis said that the US government disputes that Assange’s offences are political. In the UK/Australia/US there was a different definition of political offence to the rest of the world. We viewed the “pure” political offences of treason, espionage and sedition as not political offences. Only “relative” political offences – ordinary crimes committed with a political motive – were viewed as political offences in our tradition. In this tradition, the definition of “political” was also limited to supporting a contending political party in a state. Lewis will continue with this argument tomorrow.

That concludes my account of proceedings. I have some important commentary to make on this and will try to do another posting later today. Now rushing to court.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Your Man in the Public Gallery – The Assange Hearing Day 3
Tags: Assange extradition, Assange hearing, extradition hearing, Julian Assange, United Kingdom, United States, WikiLeaks

Video: “Fake News”: “The Shining Forces of Idlib Democracy” = Al Qaeda Terrorists backed by Turkish Army

February 27th, 2020 by South Front

However, no gains were made in this direction. Multiple reports of brutal Assad strikes on schools and hospitals also appeared. It remains somewhat unclear how the Syrian Air Force is capable of striking so precisely such targets in an area, where, according to the same sources, these had already been destroyed. In all likelihood, Turkish-led forces employ some kind of self-propelled civilian targets that they bring to the combat zone together with their own media teams.

On the morning of February 26th, fighting between Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and government forces erupted near the villages of Jubas and Turunbah.

However, something went unnoticed by the cameras of both Turkish and Western media. In southern Idlib, Syrian troops took control of Hass, Kafr Nabl, Bisaqla, Ba’rabu, Qiratah, Sahab, Qa’uri and Deir Sunbol. Kafr Nabl was the main strong point of Turkish-backed forces on this part of the frontline. Its fall marks the collapse of the group’s defences in the area.

According to pro-government sources, in the coming days Syrian troops are planning to clear the area of Zawiyah Mountain and to shorten the frontline on the administrative border between the provinces of Idlib and Lattakia. When this is done, the Syrian Army and its allies will be able to advance further towards the M4 highway.

The Syrian Army also shot down an unmanned combat aerial vehicle belonging to the Turkish Air Force over the Dadikh area. The downed drone was identified as a TAI Anka. This is a family of unmanned aerial vehicles developed for the Turkish Armed Forces. Pro-Assad sources brazenly claimed that the drone was used to support members of al-Qaeda. However, all Turkish outlets clearly knew that it was there to deliver humanitarian aid.

Meanwhile, Turkish state media has finally come up with an explanation for how Turkish military equipment could appear in the hands of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. So, now we know that Turkey does not deliver equipment to the terrorist group. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham members just accidentally “jump in” to it prior to battle.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Video: “Fake News”: “The Shining Forces of Idlib Democracy” = Al Qaeda Terrorists backed by Turkish Army
Tags: Idlib, Syria, Syria War

UK: Google Data Transfer to USA Just the Start – “Possibilities for Abuse Are Enormous”

February 27th, 2020 by True Publica

Google is planning to move its British users’ accounts out of the control of European Union privacy regulators, placing them under US jurisdiction instead, the company confirmed on 19 February. The shift, prompted by Britain’s exit from the EU, will leave the sensitive personal information of tens of millions with less protection and within easier reach of British law enforcement. But it won’t end there.

Alphabet Inc’s Google intends to require its British users to acknowledge new terms of service including the new jurisdiction.

“Nothing about our services or our approach to privacy will change, including how we collect or process data, and how we respond to law enforcement demands for users’ information,” Google said in an emailed statement. “The protections of the UK GDPR will still apply to these users.” If that was true, they would leave it where it was and not go to the expense. This is just the start of much more to come.

Unsurprisingly, a spokesman declined to answer questions.

Mission creep

The British state is the West’s worst offender for breaches of privacy, mass surveillance and using its secretive 360-degree architecture of civilian supervision and control. For the government, more surveillance and gathered data is better, not worse. But Google’s announcement will be followed by the other big tech firms and digital startups will look upon the UK as an increased opportunity to make money from fewer safeguards.

It was only a two months ago that the Times reported that a leading British trade economist had warned that NHS patient data will be exploited by US technology companies under a trade deal with America. Alan Winters, director of the Trade Policy Observatory at Sussex University, said clauses on data sharing and algorithms that US negotiators want inserted into a deal will be used to capture the value in NHS patient records, estimated at £10 billion a year.

Last month, it was reported that the Department of Health and Social Care has been selling the medical data of millions of NHS patients to American and other international drugs companies having misled the public into believing the information would be “anonymous.”

Then just a few days ago it was reported that a US healthcare firm (praised by Donald Trump) has been handed £millions of taxpayers money to help the NHS identify its most “expensive” patients. The programme will rank people according to their risk of illness and has rightly sparked fears more could be turned down for operations because of a myriad of factors like age or weight. And, of course, it raises yet more fears the NHS could be on the table in a trade deal despite PM Boris Johnson’s claims it is not for sale.

The contract was agreed between NHS England and Optum – which assesses patients for America’s privatised insurance-led system. It divides NHS patients into high, medium and low risk groups and identifies “rising risk groups” such as those at risk of Type 2 diabetes.

Crimes

Optum is part of the United Healthcare Group who was fined just last month for defrauding its insured customers. It was also fined $2.5m for ‘insurance violations.‘ So bad is United Healthcare’s fine record they have their own ‘violations tracker‘ that shows it has been fined over $200million in 35 cases it lost, just in the USA. Their crimes include false claims, consumer protection violations, price-fixing, insurance fraud, pension violations, employee discrimination to name just a few.

The company is ranked 6th on the 2019 Fortune 500.

Anything goes policy

Moving UK users’ data to the USA makes bulk surveillance easier, and data protection much harder. The US and UK have an agreement on data, whereby the UK uses the US to use data in such a way as would be illegal in the UK. In addition, it makes it much harder to locate those breaches and then prosecute them.

Jim Killock, Executive Director of Open Rights Group, said:

“Moving people’s personal information to the USA makes it easier for mass surveillance programmes to access it. There is nearly no privacy protection for non-US citizens.

“We have no reason to trust a Donald Trump government with information about UK citizens. The possibilities for abuse are enormous, from US immigration programmes through to attempts to politically and racially profile people for alleged extremist links.

“Data protection rights will also become more fragile, and are likely to be attacked in trade agreements pushing ‘data flows’.

“Google’s decision should worry everyone who think tech companies are too powerful and know too much about us. The UK must commit to European data protection standards, or we are likely to see our rights being swiftly undermined by ‘anything goes’ US privacy practices.”

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 TP

Posted in English
Comments Off on UK: Google Data Transfer to USA Just the Start – “Possibilities for Abuse Are Enormous”
Tags: Google data, United Kingdom, United States

India’s Waging a State-on-Citizen Hybrid War to Build Modi’s Hindu Rashtra

February 27th, 2020 by Andrew Korybko

New Delhi, the capital of the self-professed “World’s Largest Democracy”, has turned into a dystopia after anti-government protests during the time of Trump’s geostrategically pivotal visit quickly descended into Islamophobic attacks and a state-backed killing spree as a direct result of the latest iteration of Prime Minister Modi’s infamous “Gujarat model” of state-on-citizen Hybrid War.

Dystopia In The Capital Of The Self-Professed “World’s Largest Democracy”

“The Self-Professed ‘World’s Largest Democracy’ Is Experiencing A Real Uprising” as the author wrote late last year in response to the nationwide protests that erupted there against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which expedites the granting of this political privilege to religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who moved to India in order to supposedly flee persecution for their beliefs but which adds an overtly religious element to what’s constitutionally supposed to be the secular nature of the Indian state. Last month’s “Jawaharlal Nehru University Attack Showed Just How Fascist The ‘Modi Mob’ Is“, with the author using the neologism “Modi Mob” to describe the nationwide network of BJP supporters that actively works to intimidate all who are opposed to them on social media and increasingly in the streets. Seeing as how “India’s Building A ‘Hindu Rashtra’ Through Large-Scale ‘Demographic Engineering’“, it’s conceivable that a large-scale massacre against the Muslim minority had been planned for some time, especially since “India’s Doing Everything That Israel Wishes It Could Do, But Few Seem To Care” following its de-facto annexation of Kashmir last August. That’s exactly what’s happening in New Delhi nowadays after anti-government protests during the time of Trump’s geostrategically pivotal visit quickly descended into Islamophobic attacks and a state-backed killing spree as a result of the latest iteration of Prime Minister Modi’s infamous “Gujarat model” of siccing Hindutva paramilitary death squads against Indian Muslims for political-religious purposes.

The Modi Mob Might Be Planning A Massive Anti-Muslim Massacre

The capital of the self-professed “world’s largest democracy” is in such a state of dystopia at the moment that a so-called “prohibitory order” has just been imposed by the police. According to Sputnik, “Carrying weapons or any incendiary material is prohibited. Printing, circulation or dissemination of communally sensitive, provocative material even on social media is prohibited. Assembly of more than four persons and any kind of demonstration without any permission of competent authority is prohibited.” Upping the ante to unprecedentedly dangerous levels, the police have been ordered to shoot on sight in one of New Delhi’s districts, with the city’s Chief Minister calling for a military intervention and a citywide curfew. For all intents and purposes, that would amount to martial law and the possible imposition of the feared “Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act” (AFSPA) that’s been abused to carry out arbitrary detentions and even extrajudicial killings for over the past half-century. The state might predictably “justify” this move on the basis of its unproven claims that “the violence in some parts of Delhi appears to be orchestrated so that those involved in it get wide publicity” during Trump’s visit, something that new RT contributor and senior Indian journalist Ashish Shukla speculatively claimed beyond all reason is proof of a “time-tested Western modus operandi” in spite of India nowadays being one of the US’ main military-strategic (“junior”) partners anywhere in the world whose stability is central to achieving America’s grand strategic objectives in the New Cold War.

Tricky Infowar Tactics

The narrative that the Indian government, its Mainstream & Alternative Media supporters like Shukla, and the Modi Mob are propagating is heavy with innuendo that the latest events might part of a “terrorist conspiracy” that might have even been “plotted in Pakistan” (given their propensity to paint their neighboring rival as the bogeyman anytime anything whatsoever at all goes wrong inside their country), hoping that this will earn them the “international community’s” sympathy which could then be exploited as a “carte blanche’ for carrying out a massive anti-Muslim massacre. Should any criticism arise during the course of that killing campaign, then it can be expected that India will simply blame “liberals” like new RT contributor Sanjay Patrakar preemptively did last month in his op-ed titled “Protests over citizenship law in India prove liberal elites only like democracy if they agree with the results“. Shukla, for his part, titled his previously cited article “Sorry, Western Media: Delhi violence is unlikely to upset Trump or Modi”, confirming that there’s indeed a visible trend of pro-government commentators using publicly financed Russian international media as a means for covering their government’s tracks in advance of what the author strongly suspects is a preplanned massacre, taking advantage of RT’s editorial policy of criticizing liberalism and the Western media to trick this globally respected and extremely reputable outlet into publishing their discredited infowar pieces.

Debunking The Modi Mob’s Narrative

The problem, however, is that there’s credible evidence that the “official narrative” of implying a “terrorist conspiracy” is entirely fraudulent. A mosque was set ablaze by the Modi Mob and members of this death squad even torched the homes of several Muslim families according to the online Indian media outlet Scroll.in. “The Caravan”, an Indian magazine, also published a piece headlined “Delhi violence: Cops shouted “Jai Shri Ram” with armed Hindu mob, charged at Muslims“. It’s for this reason why Udit Raj, a politician from the Congress opposition party, told India’s ANI that “The Police, RSS and BJP have orchestrated the riots in Maujpur, Jaffrabad and Karawal Nagar”. The three aforementioned news reports are from Indian media, not the foreign press, and ANI is known to be close to the BJP. This “politically inconvenient” fact immediately discredits Shukla’s completely unsubstantiated infowar claim that there’s an “international conspiracy” brewing against India since the dystopia that’s taken over New Delhi in the past few days is a natural outcome of the country’s preexisting identity differences that were deliberately exacerbated by the ruling party per its unstated but heavily implied envisaged goal of creating a “Hindu Rashtra” (Hindu fundamentalist state) at the expense of the hundreds of millions of its non-Hindu people.

State-On-Citizen Hybrid Warfare

Pakistani Prime Minister Khan tweeted that “Today in India we are seeing the Nazi-inspired RSS ideology take over a nuclear-armed state of over a billion people. Whenever a racist ideology based on hatred takes over, it leads to bloodshed. As I had predicted in my address to UN GA last yr, once the genie is out of the bottle the bloodshed will get worse. IOJK was the beginning. Now 200 million Muslims in India are being targeted. The world community must act now.” Truth be told, he’s absolutely correct, having presciently predicted this development last September during his keynote speech at the UN General Assembly that the author analyzed at the time in his piece about how “Pakistan Just Warned The World About The 21st Century’s Munich Moment“. Going even further, considering that the author is literally an internationally recognized expert on Hybrid Warfare (having even been cited twice by the NATO Defence College on page 2 of their November 2015 research paper on “Russia’s Renewed Military Thinking: Non-Linear Warfare and Reflexive Control” and page 10 of their December 2015 book about “NATO’s Response To Hybrid Threats“), he can confidently assert that the latest events in New Delhi bear all the hallmarks of state-on-citizen Hybrid Warfare per a variation of the model that he elaborated on in his August 2015 book titled “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” (available on Kindle here and as a free PDF here) and its follow-up e-book “The Law Of Hybrid Warfare” (available in full on Kindle here and for free on a chapter-by-chapter basis here).

Concluding Thoughts

As it stands, the capital of the self-professed “world’s largest democracy” is sliding faster than ever into dystopia, with Modi Mob violence completely out of control as the state sits back, stokes the flames, and signals to its death squads that an anti-Muslim massacre might be the most “patriotic” thing that any “true believer” in Hindutva could do at the moment to show their support for India’s goal of transforming into a “Hindu Rashtra”. The situation is extremely disturbing but wasn’t at all unpredictable since it was only a matter of time before Modi’s “Gujurat model” of state-on-citizen Hybrid Warfare spread to New Delhi, having been inspired by his forerunners’ killing campaign against the Sikhs of Punjab in 1984 and then recently “perfected” by the man himself against the Muslims of Kashmir in 2019 like the author wrote in his analysis last September about how “1984 Punjab Was The Template For 2019 Kashmir“. Prime Minister Khan made an important point in saying that “the world community must act now” because the scale and scope of the potentially imminent massacre that might take place in New Delhi could set the entire subcontinent of over 1,5 billion people ablaze, though it’s entirely foreseeable that the Modi Mob will disingenously rebuke this principled call for a diplomatic intervention as nothing more “Western” and “liberal” meddling despite it being an issue of serious concern for the whole 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.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on India’s Waging a State-on-Citizen Hybrid War to Build Modi’s Hindu Rashtra
Tags: hybrid war, India, modi

The Fix Is In: Overseeing the Payouts to Boeing Crash Victims’ Families

February 27th, 2020 by Bryan Dyne

Boeing’s appointment last week of Kenneth Feinberg to administer the aerospace giant’s $50 million Community Investment Fund to compensate the communities affected by the two 737 Max 8 crashes and the resulting 346 deaths leaves little doubt that the account will be used to defend the airplane manufacturer’s multi-billion-dollar profits.

Feinberg played a similar role when he was selected in July 2019 to head the $50 million Boeing Financial Assistance Fund. In that role, he oversaw payments of a mere $144,500 to each family that lost a loved one on either the crash of Lion Air Flight 610 in October 2018 outside of Jakarta, Indonesia or Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in March 2019 near Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

In total, Boeing has pledged only $100 million to compensate the crash victims’ families and neighborhoods for putting their friends and relatives on the deadly Max 8 jets. For comparison, the company reported revenues of $76.6 billion in 2019 and has pledged to pay airlines at least $5 billion for their lost profits resulting from the two crashes. To date, no executives at the company or regulators at the Federal Aviation Administration, which were all aware of the deadly flaws in the Max 8, have been prosecuted or even charged for the murder of the 346 men, women and children who were killed.

The selection of Feinberg to oversee both funds was approved by Boeing’s executives with good reason. As Wall Street’s preeminent corporate “fixer,” he has repeatedly been called upon to protect the interests of the country’s corporate and political elite. In recent times, he has chaired an escrow account to minimize compensation to victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the US. He was also chosen by the Obama administration as its “pay czar” to ensure that the heads of bailed-out Wall Street banks received multi-million-dollar bonuses in the wake of the 2008 financial crash.

Feinberg’s chief responsibility will be to ensure that whatever money Boeing does eventually pay out is vetted in such a way that the corporation will ultimately be absolved for manufacturing lethal airplanes. While Tim Keating, the Boeing executive who is overseeing the funds, has stated that Boeing is “empower[ing] the [crash victims’] families to decide how to allocate these funds,” a press release on the Community Investment Fund makes clear that “governments and other interested parties” will have the final say.

This is not the first time Feinberg’s services have been employed to minimize damage to major manufacturers in the wake of their criminal negligence. He was hired by General Motors in 2015 after it was exposed that the automaker hid an ignition switch fault in low-end GM vehicles that killed at least 169 people. Under rules set by the Obama administration, Feinberg rejected 90 percent of the claims submitted against GM for the company’s criminal negligence, saving GM several billion dollars in liability costs.

The fixer is playing a similar role for Boeing. The payouts that Boeing gave directly to its victims’ families amounted to less than what ex-CEO Dennis Muilenburg averaged in a month. The company is also using the fund, and Feinberg’s skills, in an attempt to stave off other lawsuits. So far only 50 families have come forward with additional claims, which Boeing has settled out of court for $1.2 million for each life lost. If Feinberg is able to convince the other 296 families that they should accept Boeing’s payout and not seek further damages, it will save Boeing an estimated $355.2 million.

Other cases in which Feinberg has saved giant corporations or the federal government hundreds of millions or billions of dollars include suits by Vietnam citizens and US soldiers against Dow and Monsanto for supplying Agent Orange to the American military, and ensuring that BP paid only a quarter of what it originally claimed it would pay to people devastated by the ecological catastrophe caused by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion.

Feinberg, who emerged as a political figure as chief of staff for Senator Ted Kennedy in the late 1970s, was also appointed trustee of the victim compensation fund for the notoriously dangerous Dalkon Shield, a birth control device made by A.H. Robins. It was established that Robins knew of the dangers the device posed to women’s health, including causing death, and suppressed and destroyed such information where and whenever it could.

The Dalkon Shield ultimately caused life-threatening pelvic infections in more than 200,000 women, with side effects including complete hysterectomy, chronic pelvic pain and/or permanent infertility. Feinberg ensured that each woman injured would receive money from the fund only if she forfeited her right to sue outside of the settlement. Those who accepted the deal received an average of $725.

Boeing is eager to receive similar windfalls. Over the past year, Boeing’s total stock value has fallen more than $72 billion. It has been forced to pay nearly $19 billion as a result of the grounding of its 737 Max fleet, including compensation to airlines for canceled flights and maintenance costs.

Feinberg is being used to minimize the money going to the company’s victims and to silence criticism so the aerospace giant can get back to business as usual as soon as possible.

It is still unclear, however, when or even if the Max 8 will ever fly again. Since its grounding last March, a steady stream of internal leaks, news reports, interviews with former employees and congressional hearings have provided a mountain of evidence that the plane is fundamentally unsafe and should remain grounded indefinitely.

Just last week, in a report to the FAA, Boeing revealed that it found trash and debris in the fuel tanks of 35 of 50 inspected Max 8s that were being reviewed in preparation for the plane’s reintroduction into service. Objects that were discovered in the fuel tanks included tools, rags, shoe covers and other detritus, all of which can cause fires, block fuel lines and trigger other potentially catastrophic problems.

The planes that were reviewed are among the nearly 400 Max 8s that were made after the jets’ grounding, which are all now being inspected. According to company spokesman Bernard Choi, “It’s still undecided,” if Boeing will mandate the inspection of the other 385 jets that have been delivered to customers. He claimed, despite the past year’s evidence to the contrary, that, “Obviously, we’ll do what’s right for safety.”

Both Boeing and the FAA also missed a fault in the electrical wiring related to the aircraft’s horizontal wing, which can create a short and cause an unrecoverable, uncontrolled dive similar to the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes. Boeing argues that because the same wiring configuration was authorized for use on the older 737 NG model, it shouldn’t need to inspect the wiring for the Max 8, basing itself on safety regulations from the early 1990s.

It is likely, however, that the FAA will force Boeing to resolve the fault, pushing back the relaunch of the Max 8 by months, in order to relieve pressure from other regulatory agencies, particularly the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Even if the FAA approves the Max 8 to fly, it is now a given that other countries will not allow the Max 8 to fly unless also approved by the EASA, meaning that the Max 8 must satisfy two sets of regulators if Boeing is to have any hope of pushing its flagship aircraft into international aviation markets.

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 Miller Center

Posted in English
Comments Off on The Fix Is In: Overseeing the Payouts to Boeing Crash Victims’ Families
Tags: Boeing, Kenneth Feinberg

The Slander Sanders Shout-Fest: The South Carolina Democratic Primary Debate

February 27th, 2020 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

Tonight, February 25, 2020 the Democrats held their 10th debate on the eve of the South Carolina primary this coming weekend. It’s also the last debate before next week’s Super Tuesday string of primaries held in 14 states.

A lot was riding for several candidates on stage tonight in South Carolina. Some of them will not be around for the debates to follow Super Tuesday, when 37% of the 1,991 delegates to the Democratic Party nominating convention will have been chosen. That 1,991 does not count, of course, the more than 500 special delegates the party’s leadership are holding in their back pocket until the convention. That number will decide the outcome and the party’s nominee for president—not all the trappings of democracy in the primaries—i.e. the debates, the primary voting, the multi-millions spent on ads, etc. That’s how democracy is and will be determined in the Democratic Party: the leaders will decide at the convention when they play their ‘special delegates’ card—none of whom will have been voted on by the party rank and file members in the primaries. Most of the 500 are Congressional Democrats and we know how they’ll vote when Pelosi and Shumer tell them.

Tonight’s debate showed the desperation of several of the candidates, especially Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Steyer. All will be gone, I predict, and drop out of the race before the convention in June in Milwaukee.

So too may Biden implode, should he under-perform against Sanders in the South Carolina primary this weekend. And that looks increasingly likely to happen, as Sanders’ support continues to grow amongst under-40 year old African-American voter group. Everything rides for Biden on the black vote in South Carolina, which comprises 60% of the eligible democrat voters. A close second by Sanders will spell the end of Biden’s campaign.

The eventual, and inevitable, departure of Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Steyer from the race by April will leave Sanders, Bloomberg, Warren (and maybe Biden) still in the race, up until the convention.

Buttigieg-Klobuchar Contra Sanders

So it wasn’t a surprise to watch Buttigieg-Klobucher (plus Bloomberg) go after Sanders with repeated slanders about his being a ‘Democratic Socialist’. The real emphasis was on Socialist, of course. Buttigieg and Klobuchar led the attack, especially the boy mayor from small town Indiana.

Buttigieg’s attack centered on the party leadership’s main talking point—now being spread wide and far in the party’s media wing (MSNBC, etc.): i.e. that a Sanders ticket would mean the loss of swing districts in the swing states in the House of Representatives and seats in the Senate. Without a Congress, even if Sanders won, he couldn’t achieve anything, Buttigieg argued.

This is an argument to bypass the fact that Sanders is polling ahead of Trump in 47 polls to date, and is clearly the strongest debater to take on Trump. Buttigieg may have had another motive in mind by making the defend Democrats in Congress point. He may have been pandering to the 500 special delegates, most of whom are seated House Reps and Senators. Or, maybe even laying some groundwork for a future run for a House seat. He and his billionaire backers certainly know that a 38 year old white boy mayor from Indiana could never become president! He’ll be well rewarded by the party in 2022 for leading the attack on Sanders.

In the post-debate CNN political commentary by so-called expert ‘talking heads’, even Van Jones, a black Democrat party activist and one of the more savvy and intelligent in the crowd, admitted Sanders would likely be the only candidate tough enough to debate toe to toe with Trump. Jones knows what’s going on in the grass roots in South Carolina. While he wouldn’t say it outright, he implied at times that the Sanders candidacy is the only one backed by a social movement and that shouldn’t be underestimated.

And can one even imagine a Bloomberg vs. Trump, or Biden vs. Trump, and, even more so a Buttigieg v. Trump debate before the election? Trump would eat the two ‘oldsters’ for lunch, given their timid debating skills. And Buttigieg? He’d have a field day, as they say, belittling and lecturing the kid from Indiana. It would look like a stern dad chastising his errant boy. Or how about Klobuchar debate going head to head with Trump? Really?

After raising the ‘down ballot’ talking point, Buttigieg then moved on to a standard red-baiting attack on Sanders. He accused Sanders of praising Fidel Castro and Cuba. Then ridiculed Sanders as being stuck in the past of ‘revolutionary politics of the 1960s’, of not being a real Democrat, and an extremist choice voters would reject. When the moderator then gave Sanders the opportunity to answer, Buttigieg continued to talk over him during Bernie’s entire response in an obvious cheap attempt to drown him out.

Klobuchar’s red-baiting of Sanders was more direct. She just flat out said that a socialist on the ticket would mean no choice for the ‘real’ Democrats in the middle. She repeated the socialist charge on several occasions. And attacked his Medicare for All plan which she grossly misrepresented by saying it would cost $60 trillion and thus three times the size of the entire US GDP.

Not to be outdone, Bloomberg early chimed in repeating the past week’s media message that Russia was again interfering in the election and undermining Democracy in America by supporting Sanders, since they (Russians) believed he, Sanders, would be the preferred candidate for Trump. That’s the line floated by an unknown ‘intelligence expert’ in the US bureaucracy, for which there was absolutely no evidence provided to back up the claim. Even the bureaucracy backed off from the line last week. But Bloomberg led with it.

It was disappointing that not one of the candidates, even Sanders, bothered to raise the point that the real threat to democracy in the US in recent years and today isn’t coming from abroad. It’s not the Russians or Putin. It’s not Xi and China. And certainly not Cuba. It’s home grown. It’s the massive and spreading voter suppression and gerrymandering going on at the state level, especially in Trump’s ‘red states’ political base. It’s what’s going on in Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, Ohio, Texas and elsewhere. And no one said a thing about it, drowned out by the media pushing more of the Russia and Putin somehow fooling us to vote for Trump!

Biden: Raises His Voice if Not His Chances

It wasn’t the only example of four candidates refusing to follow the time limits to comment, raising their voices, and talking over each other. There were similar shouting matches. For example Biden v. Steyer, when two old white men argued over who did more for imprisoned blacks.

Joe Biden’s performance was an improvement over his past dismal efforts, in volume of voice if not content. Joe talked it up, not saying much he hadn’t but perhaps saying it more loudly. How could he not do better? The bar of prior performance was quite low. At one point he complained to the moderator he wasn’t being called upon enough and perhaps he should be more aggressive in demanding time. But, he added, he was a gentleman, the only one on the stage. Yeah Joe, just what we need: a gentleman in the White House! That’ll make everything right.

Bloomberg: Warren’s Punching Bag (Again)

And what about Bloomberg’s performance, in his second debate? The bar was so low after his disastrous effort in his first debate last week that it wouldn’t take much to have ‘done better’. Some commentators thought he did marginally better, but still poorly. It was like a guy who got knocked out in the first round (last debate) and, this time, gets knocked around the ring several times but manages to stagger back from the ropes.

The slugger who pummeled Bloomberg was again Elizabeth Warren. She leveled a devastating ‘one-two’ punch by telling everyone how Bloomberg funded right wing Senator, Lindsay Graham’s (of South Carolina) last election; then how he helped elect the infamous governor of Michigan, who did nothing about lead poisoned drinking water in his state. Bloomberg gave him a $3 million donation. Warren added how Bloomberg had repeatedly financed other Republicans and right wingers. The message was clear: if anyone on the debate stage was not a Democrat, it wasn’t Sanders; it was Bloomberg.

If Bloomberg himself was a bad joke in his first debate, in this his second he was the repeated maker of bad jokes. What the hell did he mean about ‘naked cowboys’ in New York? I still don’t understand that one.

Bloomberg tried his best to explain his case in a repeated shout fest with Warren over his non-disclosure agreements with abused women in the past, reporting his tax returns (the only candidate not having done so yet), and his views on housing red-lining in New York. But what we got to hear, several times, was that he ran New York, which was bigger than most countries in the world; therefore he could run the USA. It was like an automaton: pushed the button and out came his New York mayor history and how New York was bigger than most of the world (an arrogance shared by many New Yorkers, by the way, including the Donald). His answer to Warren’s new charges was simply to brush them off as a “side show” and irrelevant. The only thing that mattered was he, Bloomberg, was the only candidate that could be Trump. And by implication, the rest of them were there as ‘show’—perhaps indirectly suggesting he knows something we don’t about eventual outcomes!

Warren Attacks Sanders’ Medicare Plan

When not attacking Bloomberg or Sanders, Warren once again tried to tug at our ‘heart strings’ with her constant stump story of her modest up-bringing, her family’s difficult fortunes, her three brothers in the military, and how she was discriminated against as a women in getting employment.

But her new ammunition was leveled at Sanders this time around, not just Bloomberg. She declared she had a better Medicare plan than Sanders since he has not explained how he would pay for it, which of course is not true.

(Admittedly, in the debate Bernie did not have sufficient time to explain. What he therefore needs is a more simple, 3 or 4 point financing explanation that can be delivered in one minute). As others had done repeatedly during the debate, Warren kept talking way over her time limit and attempting to drown out Sanders’ attempt to explain. The moderators let her go on, to Sanders’ disadvantage.

Thus Warren, Klobuchar and Buttigieg thus now appear to have closed ranks attacking Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal.

If Buttigieg & Klobuchar appeared desperate and led the charge against Sanders’ socialism (with Bloomberg tagging along), Warren tacked left and right against Bloomberg then Sanders just as desperately trying to differentiate herself. But none of them will likely do well in South Carolina. Steyer was mostly the odd man out, except for his exchange with Biden, and his indirect plea that neither Bloomberg or Sanders can win. Like the other ‘centrists’ he wistfully suggested the extremes were not really ‘Democrats’ but he was. In that he echoed the centrist position, a position which none of those in the center understand is sliding away like loose sand beneath their feet. For the ranks of Democrat voters no longer want a ‘center’

Why Sanders is Leading the Race

Sanders understands this ‘disappearing center’ dynamic better than did the others on the stage. He held his ground. Like a slugger in a boxing ring, he took some hits but continued to punch away, left and right, at his long standing positions: tax the billionaires, ensure health care for all that only Medicare can deliver, free public college tuition, relieve student debt, raise minimum wages, pay living salaries to teachers, and so on.

He acknowledged his past comments on Cuba as only defending its obvious gains in literacy and healthcare, which was no more than Obama did, he argued. He did not back off from them or deny them. Even as he took swipes at China and Russia, arguing in effect he was more ‘democratic’ than ‘socialist’.

But there was no desperation in his delivery, unlike some. He did not shout out, trying to look tougher (like Biden). He did not talk over others (like Buttigieg, Klobuchar). He did not attack Warren in response. He did express his positions with feeling (unlike Bloomberg). He presented the picture of ‘what you see is what you get. I’m not backing off my positions’. And he repeated several times what the others still don’t understand: there’s a movement building. If we can organize and turn out more of the vote of the more than half of eligible voters in America who don’t vote because they see nothing in it for them—then he can win!

Sanders is the candidate that voters know what he stands for. He’s the candidate of programs and proposals. That’s his great, differentiating appeal. He’s not the candidate of critiquing and picking apart others’ proposals. Anyone having watched the debates sees that. In contrast, other candidates in the debate(s) spent more time talking about either what they had done in the past or directly attacking Sanders’ proposals. But what they stand FOR in the future is not always clear.

Except for Warren’s wealth tax and program for Medicare, it’s hard to recall from the debate what the other candidates actually propose for the future—apart from platitudes and ‘look what I did in the past’! Look what I did in New York (Bloomberg). What I did as VP under Obama (Biden). What I did as mayor (in Indianapolis). What I did as Senator from Wisconsin (Klobuchar). What I did while a businessman (Steyer). But that doesn’t cut it any more with voters—especially youth, millennials, GenZ and even GenXers, with minority youth, and underpaid and nearly hopeless young workers.

American voters in this election cycle appear to want to know ‘what are you going to do for me’, now and in the future. Spell it out in detail. Millennials want to know how they can get out of low paying, dead end jobs and pay for their mountain of student debt; black and latino youth how to get the police and La Migra off their backs; all young people how they can afford an education; suburban moms whether their kids will come home safely from school ever again; the homeless where can they live besides on the streets; the retirees whether their social security and pensions will be taken away; the middle class why their incomes are not rising when the 1% are getting so rich; why they can’t afford prescription drugs and housing any more; and everyone is worried about the costs of hospitals, doctors, and dental care.

Sanders appears as the candidate most focused on these issues. Not on ‘what I did when’. Not on tearing down the (few) proposals of other candidates. Not on slandering them. Not on resurrecting what are, in fact, Trump-traditional Republican talking points—i.e. red-baiting, Cold war (Russians are coming) hysteria, and

While the Buttigiegs and Klobuchars turn to centrist Democrat party themes of the past; while Biden sleep walks in the present; and while Bloomberg resurrects Republican solutions for the future, Sanders appears authentic. Some may not want that authenticity—especially billionaires, corporations, and their media. But apparently youth, students, growing ranks of black and latino voters, and more and more rank and file union workers do. And that’s Sanders’ appeal and why they are flocking to him and creating a movement.

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Jack Rasmus.

Dr. Rasmus is author of the recently published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, January 2020. He blogs at jackrasmus.com and hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio Network. His twitter handle is @drjackrasmus and website: http://kyklosproductions.com

Posted in English
Comments Off on The Slander Sanders Shout-Fest: The South Carolina Democratic Primary Debate
Tags: South Carolina Democratic Primary Debate

Bernie Sanders and the Military Industrial Complex. Bernie 2.0

February 27th, 2020 by Ann Garrison

No one on the left was more critical of Bernie Sanders during his 2016 presidential run than late Black Agenda Report Editor Bruce Dixon. However, after Bernie’s speech announcing that he planned to run again this year, Bruce asked me, “Did you see that?” I said, “No, not yet.” Then he said, “This is a whole new Bernie. Bernie 2.0. This is a Bernie who’s learned how to talk to Black people.”

I of course said, “But you don’t think he could defeat the DNC apparatus, do you?” He said, “I don’t know,” and no one was more astute about electoral politics than Bruce Dixon, who could count campaigns that defeated the Daley machine in Chicago among his accomplishments.

Other weekly Black Agenda writers have predicted that the DNC will manage to steal the nomination out from under Sanders again and that the youthful army of volunteers behind him may then finally leave the Democratic Party. Or that the right-wing Democrats who have been ascendant since Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory will leave instead.

That’s still quite possible, but after Bernie’s stunning victory in multicultural, Nevada, where white people are a 47% minority, it no longer seems out of the question that he will win the 51% of pledged delegates required to clinch the nomination. Or that he will head into the Democratic Convention with so many more delegates than any other candidate that it will be awkward for the superdelegates to deny him the nomination on the second round.

How many more meltdowns like the Iowa Caucuses can the DNC stage and survive? There’s a limit to how many ghost votes can be cast and how many more suppressed without obvious fraud, so electronic voting fraud seems most likely to be deployed to defeat him. We do have to consider that Republicans will be every bit as determined to stop Bernie as corporate Democrats, and that Republicans own most, if not all, the electronic voting machinery. They resist examining its workings by claiming that it’s their private property, so they might as well padlock Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court unless Americans finally stop putting up with them.

Many claim that the delegate-rich California primary was stolen from Bernie in 2016. Psychologists Rodolfo Cortes Barragan and Axel Geijsel studied results nationwide and concluded that Bernie won 51% of the vote in states with paper ballots but only 35% in states with electronic ballots.

However, this time around, Bernie seems to have a team prepared to stay behind to challenge results in states where they seem anomalous. In 2016 the Iowa results seemed tainted by coin tosses disproportionately favoring Hillary Clinton, but Bernie moved on to the next primary, as all candidates must.

Bernie and the Bombs

All that was to explain why I might even talk about the possibility of a President Bernie and whether he and his political base could stand up to the military industrial complex. I say “Bernie and his political base” because we all know that’s the measure of what he could accomplish. If his army of volunteers pack up and go home instead of staying organized, he won’t be able to accomplish the goals he declares in his stump speech.

In that stump speech, Bernie says over and over, “We are putting the prison industrial complex on notice! We are putting the military industrial complex on notice!”

I can’t think of a viable candidate saying anything so bold since George McGovern promised to end the Vietnam War, and he was of course clobbered by Richard Nixon.

Corporate Democrats claim to fear a repeat of his defeat in 1972, but idealistic, anti-war (and draft eligible) students led McGovern’s campaign. Sanders’s base is among people who are suffering here at home, not overseas—people suffering because of ICE raids, home foreclosures, medical debt, college debt, child care costs, stagnant or declining wages, and environmental injustice like the water in Flint, the pipelines surrounding Plains Indians, and the sea levels threatening coastal populations in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida. That’s a much broader political base, especially after so many decades of austerity and war. Bernie’s fiery claims that we’re going to put the prison industrial complex and the military industrial complex on notice are met with huge applause from the huge crowds who pack into his rallies. They seem to understand not only the injustice of mass incarceration and perpetual war but also its cost to American infrastructure and their own lives.

Bernie has consistently voted against the war budget, also known by the misnomer “National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).” It’s difficult to assert that his commitment to redirecting military and industrial dollars to human needs isn’t sincere.

However, if he keeps allowing himself to be pushed into defending himself against allegations that “the Russians” and Vladimir Putin are supporting his campaign, he will not be able to actualize his agenda even if elected. To institute Medicare4All, the Green New Deal, free public college, universal free child care, and all his other eminently reasonable programs, he will have to radically cut the grotesquely bloated US military budget.

A newly daunting challenge may be Trump’s request for a 49% increase in Department of Energy funds to manufacture nuclear weapons. (That’s the main thing the Department of Energy does.) Would he be able to turn that back if the warmongering bipartisan Congress approved it before he took office?

If Bernie is elected, but the war machine has him boxed him into a corner about demon Russians and Vladimir Putin, his agenda will go the way of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society domestic programs, which were drained by the cost of the Vietnam War.

If the war machine can’t stop him at the polls, they’ll certainly try to stop him in office. We’ll hear that we’re in grave danger from Russia, that Russia might turn off our heat in the winter, that Russia is moving troops to its own borders with NATO, and more. And that Bernie is trying to cut the military budget because he’s soft on Russia, because Russia backed his campaign, because he honeymooned in Russia, because he’s in Putin’s pocket, etc. ad nauseum. The corporate media will lead the way with Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews on the front lines. (The Democratic Party just sent me a survey that began: “Do you think Rachel Maddow would make a good vice president?” I answered no from the email address [email protected].)

Just before the Nevada caucuses, the Washington Post suddenly reported that intelligence sources have determined that Russia is supporting Bernie’s campaign as well as Trump’s. They claimed that they had informed him weeks earlier, but that he’d kept it a secret. Of course I know that Bernie has succumbed to the Russian election interference propaganda since 2016, but I still felt like I’d been kicked in the head when he responded that Vladimir Putin’s a thug and he’d keep Russia out of our elections just as he seemed to be heading into a big win in Nevada.

I had re-registered to vote for Bernie in the California primary, planning to re-register Green before the general election (in which Californians have already decided that any blue will boogaloo). I briefly considered re-re-registering but it was past the deadline for any sort of registering without crossing Berkeley and Oakland to get to the Alameda County Department of Elections, so I’m still in.

Some people asked me, “Why are you bringing this up now, when everyone’s still feeling so good, just two days after Nevada?”

On Facebook, a friend responded, “You can support Bernie Sanders and, like the members of Pussy Riot, believe that Putin is a thug. What’s wrong with that comment?” I replied, “Escalating tensions on NATO’s border with Russia, cancellation of arms treaties, particularly nuclear arms treaties, that sort of thing. Calling Putin a thug doesn’t augur well for diplomacy and de-escalation.”

Another Facebook friend responded, “I am kind of amazed at what you write here. You are doing just what the Demons want you to do. Scare people with Negativity.”

I replied, “I was glad Bernie won so big in Nevada. It demonstrates that there is some humanity left in this most violent of nations. And I know that at this point inside a campaign it’s all about winning, but we have to talk about it because the spook state will push Bernie harder and harder about Russia as the July Democratic convention, and perhaps even the November election, draw nigh. The New York Times, Washington Post, etc., will be talking about it plenty, and if Bernie’s base isn’t asking him to face them down and say that we have real problems to deal with here, he’s likely to become more and more defensive instead.”

Another friend of mine responded, “Yes, the war was draining the flood of justice that followed the riots and so many citizens burning their own cities (during the 1960s). Yes, the Russian ‘threat’ is a hoax for the same ends. What are the limits of ‘thought,’ within the propaganda system? Could Bernie speak the truth and be electable?”

Maybe so, maybe not, but for now it looks like he won’t unless, perhaps, his army of volunteers and supporters demand it. If they don’t, then his election—should it actually happen—is likely to be a hollow victory.

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.

Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at [email protected]. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Posted in English
Comments Off on Bernie Sanders and the Military Industrial Complex. Bernie 2.0
Tags: bernie sanders, United States, US elections

Don’t Equate Russia’s Purely Speculative Preference for US President with “Election Meddling”

February 27th, 2020 by Andrew Korybko

Democrats and Republicans alike are weaponizing purely speculative reports about Russia’s supposed preference for President by deceptively equating them with imagined so-called “meddling” in support of their opponent, which amounts to nothing more than the American elite waging a sophisticated form of Hybrid War on voters’ minds as the country’s two main factions wrestle with one another for control of the country.

There’s no doubt that the American political class has been in a state of “civil war” since the moment that Trump started rising in the polls during the 2016 Republican primaries, but this elite conflict is intensifying in the aftermath of the Democrats’ failed “Russiagate” witch hunt against the President after both parties accused one of another of relying on Russian support ahead of the November election. It was reported late last week that security officials briefed Bernie Sanders about supposed Russian efforts to help him in the Democrat primaries, following which the Vermont Senator angrily condemned President Putin as “an autocratic thug who is attempting to destroy democracy and crush dissent in Russia.”

Trump, meanwhile, claimed that he hadn’t previously been aware of this report and blamed his nemesis Adam Schiff for “leaking” it to the public, sarcastically calling on the Democrats to launch an investigation into this matter. His National Security Advisor, however, had a much more serious reaction and doubled down on the “deep state’s” assertion that Sanders is being backed by Russia.

Robert O’Brien told CBS News in an interview that

“They’d probably like him to be president, understandably, because he wants to- to spend money on social programs and probably would have to take it out of the military, so that would make sense.”

This is terribly ironic since the Democrats earlier claimed that Russia supported Trump during the 2016 election precisely because of his promises of brokering a “New Detente” between the two rival Great Powers which would have been akin in practice to what Sanders might prospectively do by disinvesting from the military and thus likely reducing the US’ military presence in Central & Eastern Europe in the event that he’s elected. In other words, the pot is calling the kettle black simply because it’s “politically convenient” to do so in this case even though O’Brien’s boss was accused of also being the recipient of unsolicited Russian support. It turns out, however, that the intelligence briefer tasked with informing Congress about Russia’s speculative preference for Trump’s re-election earlier this month might have “overstated” their assessment, according to CNN of all sources, but the narrative that Sanders is “Russian-backed” still persists.

What’s happening here might appear confusing upon first glance but is relatively straight-forward upon pondering it for a moment. Both the Democrats and Republicans alike are weaponizing Russia’s purely speculative preference for different candidates based on totally different criteria in order to deceptively equate this with imagined so-called “meddling” in support of their opponent, which amounts to nothing more than the American elite waging a sophisticated form of Hybrid Waron voters’ minds. Each party is appealing to the preexisting bias of their supporters to convince them that the other is a “Russian puppet”, the lingering suspicion of which they hope will be powerful enough to sway on-the-fence voters against them and to the side of their candidate instead. The Democrats are convinced that Trump is a corrupt oligarch that’s secretly in debt to President Putin or possibly even being blackmailed to do his bidding, while the Republicans are now beginning to wonder whether Sanders’ socialist ideology both binds him to the USSR’s successor state out of “geopolitical loyalty” and might also be the vehicle for advancing Russian strategic gains vis-a-vis dismantling the American military that Trump invested trillions of dollars into rebuilding since the Obama era.

These narratives are all the more sinister when considering that the Democrat National Committee (DNC) and its “deep state” allies stand to gain from both of them.

The DNC hates Trump for ideological reasons, the same reason as they fear Sanders, and they’re afraid that the powerful “old guard” will be relegated into political obscurity if the President is re-elected, Sanders wins the nomination, or the latter emerges victorious in November.

Most of their “deep state” allies also dislike both of them for the same reason, though those most closely connected with the military-industrial complex obviously have sympathy for Trump’s military-driven “America First” policy and would accordingly prefer for him to remain in office. Nevertheless, they don’t have much influence in shaping the outcome of events so they shouldn’t be regarded as all that pivotal of a factor in this case. With all of this in mind, it’s extremely intriguing that Trump’s National Security Advisor would piggyback on the DNC’s narrative and actually propagate it even further for self-interested political gains, which represents an “unholy alliance” if there ever was one when considering how much that false narrative interfered with his boss’ ability to get his job done over the past three years.

The reason why the claims of “Russian meddling” are so effective is because they’re vague enough to sow the seeds of doubt in an already suspicious public’s mind without ever having to be conclusively proven. In fact, because Russia is wrongly regarded by many Americans as a “KGB-ruled dictatorship” due to a prior decade-long infowar against the country, it’s easy for them to imagine that “those cunning Russians” are “much too clever” to ever be “caught red-handed”, but that “all rumors stem from some truth” so there’s “probably” something “true” about these accusations. In reality, however, they’re nothing more than speculative assessments about Russian strategic intentions under various scenarios, meaning that they’re by their very nature pretty nebulous and inconclusive. They can’t ever be confirmed one way or another short of a “smoking gun” such as an authenticated recording of President Putin or influential decision makers just below him openly stating their country’s preferred candidate and admitting to detailed plans to “meddle” in American elections so as to bring him to power. Failing that, all that one can do is speculate about “Russia’s choice”, but deceptively equating that with imagined “meddling” transforms such “chatter” into a Hybrid War weapon of manipulation.

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Posted in English
Comments Off on Don’t Equate Russia’s Purely Speculative Preference for US President with “Election Meddling”
Tags: elections meddling, putin, Russia, United States

The Afghanistan ‘Peace Deal’ Riddle

February 27th, 2020 by Pepe Escobar

As far as realpolitik Afghanistan is concerned, with or without a deal, the US military want to stay in what is a priceless Greater Middle East base to deploy hybrid war techniques

***

Nearly two decades after the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan post-9/11, and after an interminable war costing over $ 2 trillion, there’s hardly anything “historic” about a possible peace deal that may be signed in Doha this coming Saturday between Washington and the Taliban.

We should start by stressing three points.

1- The Taliban wanted all US troops out. Washington refused.

2- The possible deal only reduces US troops from 13,000 to 8,600. That’s the same number already deployed before the Trump administration.

3- The reduction will only happen a year and a half from now – assuming what’s being described as a truce holds.

So there would be no misunderstanding, Taliban Deputy Leader Sirajuddin Haqqani, in an op-ed certainly read by everyone inside the Beltway, detailed their straightforward red line: total US withdrawal.

And Haqqani is adamant: there’s no peace deal if US troops stay.

Still, a deal looms. How come? Simple: enter a series of secret “annexes.”

The top US negotiator, the seemingly eternal Zalmay Khalilzad, a remnant of the Clinton and Bush eras, has spent months codifying these annexes – as confirmed by a source in Kabul currently not in government but familiar with the negotiations.

Let’s break them down to four points.

1- US counter-terror forces would be allowed to stay. Even if approved by the Taliban leadership, this would be anathema to the masses of Taliban fighters.

2- The Taliban would have to denounce terrorism and violent extremism. That’s rhetorical, not a problem.

3- There will be a scheme to monitor the so-called truce while different warring Afghan factions discuss the future, what the US State Dept. describes as “intra-Afghan negotiations.” Culturally, as we’ll see later, Afghans of different ethnic backgrounds will have a tremendously hard time monitoring their own warring.

4- The CIA would be allowed to do business in Taliban-controlled areas. That’s an even more hardcore anathema. Everyone familiar with post-9/11 Afghanistan knows that the prime reason for CIA business is the heroin rat line that finances Langley’s black ops, as I exposed in 2017.

Otherwise, everything about this “historic” deal remains quite vague.

Even Secretary of Defense Mark Esper was forced to admit the war in Afghanistan is “still” in “a state of strategic stalemate.”

As for the far from strategic financial disaster, one just needs to peruse the latest SIGAR report. SIGAR stands for Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. In fact virtually nothing in Afghanistan has been “reconstructed.”

No real deal without Iran

The “intra-Afghan” mess starts with the fact that Ashraf Ghani eventually was declared the winner of the presidential elections held in September last year. But virtually no one recognizes him.

The Taliban don’t talk to Ghani. Only to some people that are part of the government in Kabul. And they describe these talks at best as between “ordinary Afghans.”

Everyone familiar with Taliban strategy knows US/NATO troops will never be allowed to stay. What could happen is the Taliban allowing some sort of face-saving contingent to remain for a few months, and then a very small contingent stays to protect the US embassy in Kabul.

Washington will obviously reject this possibility. The alleged “truce” will be broken. Trump, pressured by the Pentagon, will send more troops. And the infernal spiral will be back on track.

Another major hole in the possible deal is that the Americans completely ignored Iran in their negotiations in Doha.

That’s patently absurd. Teheran is a key strategic partner to its neighbor Kabul. Apart from the millenary historical/cultural/social connections, there are at least 3.5 million Afghan refugees in Iran.

Post 9-11, Tehran slowly but surely started cultivating relations with the Taliban – but not at a military/weaponizing level, according to Iranian diplomats. In Beirut last September, and then in Nur-Sultan in November, I was provided a clear picture of where discussions about Afghanistan stand.

The Russian connection to the Taliban goes through Tehran. Taliban leaders have frequent contacts with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Only last year, Russia held two conferences in Moscow between Taliban political leaders and mujahideen. The Russians were engaged into bringing Uzbeks into the negotiations. At the same time, some Taliban leaders met with Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) operatives four times in Tehran, in secret.

The gist of all these discussions was “to find a conflict resolution outside of Western patterns”, according to an Iranian diplomat. They were aiming at some sort of federalism: the Taliban plus the mujahideen in charge of the administration of some vilayets.

The bottom line is that Iran has better connections in Afghanistan than Russia and China. And this all plays within the much larger scope of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The Russia-China strategic partnership wants an Afghan solution coming from inside the SCO, of which both Iran and Afghanistan are observers. Iran may become a full SCO member if it holds on to the nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, until October – thus still not subjected to UN sanctions.

All these actors want US troops out – for good. So the solution always points towards a decentralized federation. According to an Afghan diplomat, the Taliban seem ready to share power with the Northern Alliance. The spanner in the works is the Hezb-e-Islami, with one Jome Khan Hamdard, a commander allied with notorious mujahid Gulbudiin Hekmatyar, based in Mazar-i-Sharif and supported by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, more interested in restarting a civil war.

Understanding Pashtunistan

Here’s a blast from the past, reliving the context of the Taliban visit to Houston, and showing how things have not changed much since the first Clinton administration. It’s always a matter of the Taliban getting their cut – at the time related to Pipelineistan business, now to their reaffirmation of what can be described as Pashtunistan.

Not every Pashtun is a Taliban, but the overwhelming majority of Taliban are Pashtuns.

The Washington establishment never did their “know your enemy” homework, trying to understand how Pashtuns from extremely diverse groups are linked by a common system of values establishing their ethnic foundation and necessary social rules. That’s the essence of their code of conduct – the fascinating, complex Pashtunwali. Although it incorporates numerous Islamic elements, Pashtunwali is in total contradiction with Islamic law on many points.

Islam did introduce key moral elements to Pashtun society. But there are also juridical norms, imposed by a hereditary nobility, that support the whole edifice and that came from the Turko-Mongols.

Pashtuns – a tribal society – have a deep aversion to the Western concept of the state. Central power can only expect to neutralize them with – to put it bluntly – bribes. That’s what passes as a sort of system of government in Afghanistan. Which brings the question of how much – and with what – the US is now bribing the Taliban.

Afghan political life, in practice, works out from actors that are factions, sub-tribes, “Islamic coalitions” or regional groups.

Since 1996, and up to 9/11, the Taliban incarnated the legitimate return of Pashtuns as the dominant element in Afghanistan. That’s why they instituted an emirate and not a republic, more appropriate for a Muslim community ruled only by religious legislation. The diffidence towards cities, particularly Kabul, also expresses the sentiment of Pashtun superiority over other Afghan ethnic groups.

The Taliban do represent a process of overcoming tribal identity and the affirmation of Pashtunistan. The Beltway never understood this powerful dynamic – and that’s one of the key reasons for the American debacle.

Lapis Lazuli corridor

Afghanistan is at the center of the new American strategy for Central Asia, as in “expand and maintain support for stability in Afghanistan” coupled with an emphasis to “encourage connectivity between Central Asia and Afghanistan.”

In practice, the Trump administration wants the five Central Asian “stans” to bet on integration projects such as the CASA-1000 electricity project and the Lapis Lazuli trade corridor, which is in fact a reboot of the Ancient Silk Road, connecting Afghanistan to Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Georgia before crossing the Black Sea to Turkey and then all the way to the EU.

But the thing is Lapis Lazuli is already bound to integrate with Turkey’s Middle Corridor, which is part of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative, as well as with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Plus, also part of Belt and Road. Beijing planned this integration way before Washington.

The Trump administration is just stressing the obvious: a peaceful Afghanistan is essential for the integration process.

Andrew Korybko correctly argues that “Russia and China could make more progress on building the Golden Ring between themselves, Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey by that time, thus ‘embracing’ Central Asia with potentially limitless opportunities that far surpass those that the US is offering or ‘encircling’ the region from a zero-sum American strategic perspective and ‘forcing’ it out.”

The late Zbigniew “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski’s wishful thinking “Eurasian Balkans” scenario may be dead, but the myriad US divide-and-rule gambits imposed on the heartland have now mutated into hybrid war explicitly directed against China, Russia and Iran – the three major nodes of Eurasia integration.

And that means that as far as realpolitik Afghanistan is concerned, with or without a deal, the US military have no intention to go anywhere. They want to stay – whatever it takes. Afghanistan is a priceless Greater Middle East base to deploy hybrid war techniques.

Pashtuns are certainly getting the message from key Shanghai Cooperation Organization players. The question is how they plan to run rings around Team Trump.

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

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Posted in English
Comments Off on The Afghanistan ‘Peace Deal’ Riddle
Tags: Afghanistan, United States

Toxic Agriculture and the Gates Foundation

February 27th, 2020 by Colin Todhunter

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was launched in 2000 and has $46.8 billion in assets (December 2018). It is the largest charitable foundation in the world and distributes more aid for global health than any government. One of the foundation’s stated goals is to globally enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty.

The Gates Foundation is a major funder of the CGIAR system (formerly the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) – a global partnership whose stated aim is to strive for a food-secured future. Its research is aimed at reducing rural poverty, increasing food security, improving human health and nutrition and ensuring sustainable management of natural resources.

In 2016, the Gates Foundation was accused of dangerously and unaccountably distorting the direction of international development. The charges were laid out in a report by Global Justice Now: ‘Gated Development – Is the Gates Foundation always a force for good? According to the report, the foundation’s strategy is based on deepening the role of multinational companies in the Global South.

On release of the report, Polly Jones, the head of campaigns and policy at Global Justice Now, said:

“The Gates Foundation has rapidly become the most influential actor in the world of global health and agricultural policies, but there’s no oversight or accountability in how that influence is managed.”

She added that this concentration of power and influence is even more problematic when you consider that the philanthropic vision of the Gates Foundation seems to be largely based on the values of ‘corporate America’:

“The foundation is relentlessly promoting big business-based initiatives such as industrial agriculture, private health care and education. But these are all potentially exacerbating the problems of poverty and lack of access to basic resources that the foundation is supposed to be alleviating.”

The report’s author, Mark Curtis, outlines the foundation’s promotion of industrial agriculture across Africa, which would undermine existing sustainable, small-scale farming that is providing the vast majority of food across the continent.

Curtis describes how the foundation is working with US agri-commodity trader Cargill in an $8 million project to “develop the soya value chain” in southern Africa. Cargill is the biggest global player in the production of and trade in soya with heavy investments in South America where GM soya monocrops (and associated agrochemicals) have displaced rural populations and caused health problems and environmental damage.

According to Curtis, the Gates-funded project will likely enable Cargill to capture a hitherto untapped African soya market and eventually introduce GM soya onto the continent. The Gates foundation is also supporting projects involving other chemical and seed corporations, including DuPont, Syngenta and Bayer. It is effectively promoting a model of industrial agriculture, the increasing use of agrochemicals and patented seeds, the privatisation of extension services and a very large focus on genetically modified crops.

What the Gates Foundation is doing is part of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) initiative, which is based on the premise that hunger and malnutrition in Africa are mainly the result of a lack of technology and functioning markets. Curtis says AGRA has been intervening directly in the formulation of African governments’ agricultural policies on issues like seeds and land, opening up African markets to US agribusiness.

More than 80% of Africa’s seed supply comes from millions of small-scale farmers recycling and exchanging seed from year to year. But AGRA is promoting the commercial production of seed and is thus supporting the introduction of commercial (chemical-dependent) seed systems, which risk enabling a few large companies to control seed research and development, production and distribution.

The report notes that over the past two decades a long and slow process of national seed law reviews, sponsored by USAID and the G8 along with Bill Gates and others, has opened the door to multinational corporations’ involvement in seed production, including the acquisition of every sizeable seed enterprise on the African continent.

Gates, pesticides and global health

The Gates Foundation is also very active in the area of health, which is ironic given its promotion of industrial agriculture and its reliance on health-damaging agrochemicals. This is something that has not been lost on environmentalist Dr Rosemary Mason.

Mason notes that the Gates Foundation is a heavy pusher of agrochemicals and patented seeds. She adds that the Gates Foundation is also reported to be collaborating in Bayer’s promotion of “new chemical approaches” and “biological crop protection” (i.e. encouraging agrochemical sales and GM crops) in the Global South.

After having read the recent ‘A Future for the World’s Children? A WHO-UNICEF-Lancet Commission’, Mason noticed that pesticides were conspicuous by their absence and therefore decided to write to Professor Anthony Costello, director of the UCL Institute for Global Health, who is the lead author of the report.

In her open 19-page letter, ‘Why Don’t Pesticides Feature in the WHO-UNICEF-Lancet Commission?’, she notes in the Costello-led report that there is much talk about greater regulation of marketing of tobacco, alcohol, formula milk and sugar-sweetened beverages but no mention of pesticides.

But perhaps this should come as little surprise: some 42 authors names are attached to the report and Mason says that in one way or another via the organisations they belong to, many (if not most) have received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation is a prominent funder of the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Gates has been the largest or second largest contributor to the WHO’s budget in recent years. His foundation provided 11% of the WHO’s entire budget in 2015, which is 14 times greater than the UK government’s contribution.

Perhaps this sheds some light onto why a major report on child health would omit the effects of pesticides. Mason implies this is a serious omission given what the UN expert on toxics Baskut Tuncak said in a November 2017 article in the Guardian:

“Our children are growing up exposed to a toxic cocktail of weedkillers, insecticides, and fungicides. It’s on their food and in their water, and it’s even doused over their parks and playgrounds. Many governments insist that our standards of protection from these pesticides are strong enough. But as a scientist and a lawyer who specialises in chemicals and their potential impact on people’s fundamental rights, I beg to differ. Last month it was revealed that in recommending that glyphosate – the world’s most widely-used pesticide – was safe, the EU’s food safety watchdog copied and pasted pages of a report directly from Monsanto , the pesticide’s manufacturer. Revelations like these are simply shocking.”

Mason notes that in February 2020, Tuncak rejected the idea that the risks posed by highly hazardous pesticides could be managed safely. He told Unearthed (GreenPeace UK’s journalism website) that there is nothing sustainable about the widespread use of highly hazardous pesticides for agriculture. Whether they poison workers, extinguish biodiversity, persist in the environment or accumulate in a mother’s breast milk, Tuncak argued that these are unsustainable, cannot be used safely and should have been phased out of use long ago.

In his 2017 article, he stated:

“The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most ratified international human rights treaty in the world (only the US is not a party), makes it clear that states have an explicit obligation to protect children from exposure to toxic chemicals, from contaminated food and polluted water, and to ensure that every child can realise their right to the highest attainable standard of health. These and many other rights of the child are abused by the current pesticide regime. These chemicals are everywhere and they are invisible.”

Tuncak added that paediatricians have referred to childhood exposure to pesticides as creating a “silent pandemic” of disease and disability. He noted that exposure in pregnancy and childhood is linked to birth defects, diabetes, and cancer and stated that children are particularly vulnerable to these toxic chemicals: increasing evidence shows that even at ‘low’ doses of childhood exposure, irreversible health impacts can result.

He concluded that the overwhelming reliance of regulators on industry-funded studies, the exclusion of independent science from assessments and the confidentiality of studies relied upon by authorities must change.

However, it seems that the profits of agrochemical manufacturers trump the rights of children and the public at large: a joint investigation by Unearthed and the NGO Public Eye has found the world’s five biggest pesticide manufacturers are making more than a third of their income from leading products, chemicals that pose serious hazards to human health and the environment.

Mason refers to an analysis of a huge database of 2018’s top-selling ‘crop protection products’ which revealed the world’s leading agrochemical companies made more than 35% of their sales from pesticides classed as “highly hazardous” to people, animals or ecosystems. The investigation identified billions of dollars of income for agrochemical giants BASF, Bayer, Corteva, FMC and Syngenta from chemicals found by regulatory authorities to pose health hazards like cancer or reproductive failure.

This investigation is based on an analysis of a huge dataset of pesticide sales from the agribusiness intelligence company Phillips McDougall. This firm conducts detailed market research all over the world and sells databases and intelligence to pesticide companies. The data covers around 40% of the $57.6bn global market for agricultural pesticides in 2018. It focuses on 43 countries, which between them represent more than 90% of the global pesticide market by value.

While Bill Gates promotes a chemical-intensive model of agriculture that dovetails with the needs and value chains of agri-food conglomerates, Mason outlines the spiraling rates of disease in the UK and the US and lays the blame at the door of the agrochemical corporations that Gates has opted to get into bed with. She focuses on the impact of glyphosate-based herbicides as well as the cocktail of chemicals sprayed on crops.

Mason has discussed the health-related impacts of glyphosate in numerous previous reports and in her open letter to Costello again refers to peer-reviewed studies and official statistics which indicate that glyphosate affects the gut microbiome and is responsible for a global metabolic health crisis provoked by an obesity epidemic. Moreover, she presents evidence that glyphosate causes epigenetic changes in humans and animals – diseases skip a generation then appear.

However, the mainstream narrative is to blame individuals for their ailments and conditions which are said to result from ‘lifestyle choices’. Yet Monsanto’s German owner Bayer has confirmed that more than 42,700 people have filed suits against Monsanto alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto covered up the risks.

Mason says that each year there are steady increases in the numbers of new cancers and increases in deaths from the same cancers, with no treatments making any difference to the numbers; at the same time, she argues, these treatments maximise the bottom line of the drug companies while the impacts of agrochemicals remains conspicuously absent from the disease narrative.

She states that we are exposed to a lifetime’s exposure to thousands of synthetic chemicals that contaminate the blood and urine of nearly every person tested – “a global mass poisoning.”

Gates Foundation in perspective

As part of its hegemonic strategy, the Gates Foundation says it wants to ensure global food security and optimise health and nutrition.

However, Rosemary Mason alludes to the fact that the Gates Foundation seems happy to ignore the deleterious health impacts of agrochemicals while promoting the interests of the firms that produce them, but it facilitates many health programmes that help boost the bottom line of drug companies. Health and health programmes seem only to be defined with certain parameters which facilitate the selling of the products of the major pharmaceutical companies which the foundation partners with. Indeed, researcher Jacob Levich argues that the Gates Foundation not merely facilitates unethical low-cost clinical trials (with often devastating effects for participants) in the Global South but also assists in the creating new markets for the “dubious” products of pharmaceuticals corporations.

As for food security, the foundation would do better by supporting agroecological (agrochemical-free) approaches to agriculture, which various high-level UN reports have advocated for ensuring equitable global food security. But this would leave smallholder agriculture both intact and independent from Western agro-capital, something which runs counter to the underlying aims of the corporations that the foundation supports – dispossession and market dependency.

And these aims have been part of a decades-long strategy where we have seen the strengthening of an emerging global food regime based on agro-export mono-cropping linked to sovereign debt repayment and World Bank/IMF ‘structural adjustment’ directives. The outcomes have included a displacement of a food-producing peasantry, the consolidation of Western agri-food oligopolies and the transformation of many countries from food self-sufficiency into food deficit areas.

While Bill Gates is busy supporting the consolidation of Western agro-capital in Africa under the guise of ensuring ‘food security’, it is very convenient for him to ignore the fact that at the time of decolonisation in the 1960s Africa was not just self-sufficient in food but was actually a net food exporter with exports averaging 1.3 million tons a year between 1966-70. The continent now imports 25% of its food, with almost every country being a net food importer. More generally, developing countries produced a billion-dollar yearly surplus in the 1970s but by 2004 were importing US$ 11 billion a year.

The Gates Foundation promotes a (heavily subsidised and inefficient – certainly when the externalised health, social and environment costs are factored in) corporate-industrial farming system and the strengthening of a global neoliberal, fossil-fuel-dependent food regime that by its very nature fuels and thrives on, among other things, unjust trade policies, population displacement and land dispossession (something which the Gates Foundation once called for but euphemistically termed “land mobility”), commodity monocropping, soil and environmental degradation, illness, nutrient-deficient diets, a narrowing of the range of food crops, water shortages, pollution and the eradication of biodiversity.

At the same time, the foundation is helping powerful corporate interests to appropriate and commodify knowledge. For instance, since 2003, CGIAR (mentioned at the start of this article) and its 15 centres have received more than $720 million from the Gates Foundation. In a June 2016 article in The Asian Age, Vandana Shiva says the centres are accelerating the transfer of research and seeds to corporations, facilitating intellectual property piracy and seed monopolies created through IP laws and seed regulations.

Besides taking control of the seeds of farmers in CGIAR seed banks, Shiva adds that the Gates Foundation (along with the Rockefeller Foundation) is investing heavily in collecting seeds from across the world and storing them in a facility in Svalbard in the Arctic — the ‘doomsday vault’.

The foundation is also funding Diversity Seek (DivSeek), a global initiative to take patents on the seed collections through genomic mapping. Seven million crop accessions are in public seed banks.

Shiva says that DivSeek could allow five corporations to own this diversity and argues:

“Today, biopiracy is carried out through the convergence of information technology and biotechnology. It is done by taking patents by ‘mapping’ genomes and genome sequences… DivSeek is a global project launched in 2015 to map the genetic data of the peasant diversity of seeds held in gene banks. It robs the peasants of their seeds and knowledge, it robs the seed of its integrity and diversity, its evolutionary history, its link to the soil and reduces it to ‘code’. It is an extractive project to ‘mine’ the data in the seed to ‘censor’ out the commons.”

She notes that the peasants who evolved this diversity have no place in DivSeek – their knowledge is being mined and not recognised, honoured or conserved: an enclosure of the genetic commons.

This process is the very foundation of capitalism – appropriation of the commons (seeds, water, knowledge, land, etc.), which are then made artificially scarce and transformed into marketable commodities.

The Gates Foundation talks about health but facilitates the roll-out of a toxic form of agriculture whose agrochemicals cause immense damage. It talks of alleviating poverty and malnutrition and tackling food insecurity but it bolsters an inherently unjust global food regime which is responsible for perpetuating food insecurity, population displacement, land dispossession, privatisation of the commons and neoliberal policies that remove support from the vulnerable and marginalised, while providing lavish subsidies to corporations.

The Gates Foundation is part of the problem, not the solution. To more fully appreciate this, let us turn to a February 2020 article in the journal Globalizations. Its author, Ashok Kumbamu, argues that the ultimate aim of promoting new technologies – whether GM seeds, agrochemicals or commodified knowledge – on a colossal scale is to make agricultural inputs and outputs essential commodities, create dependency and bring all farming operations into the capitalist fold.

To properly understand Bill Gates’s ‘philanthropy’ is not to take stated goals and objectives at face value but to regard his ideology as an attempt to manufacture consent and prevent and marginalise more radical agrarian change that would challenge prevailing power structures and act as impediments to capitalist interests. The foundation’s activities must be located within the hegemonic and dispossessive strategies of imperialism: displacement of the peasantry and subjugating those who remain in agriculture to the needs of global distribution and supply chains dominated by the Western agri-food conglomerates whose interests the Gates Foundation facilitates and legitimises.

The full text of Rosemary Mason’s 19-page document (with relevant references) – ‘Why Don’t Pesticides Feature in the WHO-UNICEF-Lancet Commission?’ – can be accessed via the academia.edu website)

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.

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

Posted in English, Mobile
Comments Off on Toxic Agriculture and the Gates Foundation
Tags: agriculture, Gates Foundation

Julian Assange, Political Offences and Legal Restraints: Day Three of Extradition Hearings

February 27th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Wednesday, February 26, Woolwich Crown Court. Today, the focus shifted to the protagonist himself and the nature of the US-UK Extradition Treaty of 2003, a contentious document that shines all too favourably for US citizens.

Julian Assange, whose deteriorating condition has been noted for months by psychologists, doctors and UN Special Rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer, has been making a fist of it in the dock, despite being in Kafkaesque isolation. Exhaustion, however, is manifest. Judge Vanessa Baraitser has been keeping an eye on Assange’s demeanour, prodding his lawyers at one point to inspect him. His eyes had closed, his attention seemingly wavering. A point of permanent frustration for the WikiLeaks founder has been the din the hearings are causing and the distance, physical and symbolic, from his legal team. “I am as much a participant in these proceedings I am at Wimbledon.”

The structural impediments he has had to face have been profound, a point he was keen to make to the bench. “I cannot meaningfully communicate with my lawyers. There are unnamed embassy officials in this court room. I cannot communicate with my lawyers to ask them for clarifications without the other side seeing.”

The singular nature of Assange’s case has not struck the judge as sufficient grounds to accept special measures. The defence team insists, not unreasonably, that legal advice given to him be kept privileged. This is a particularly sore point, given the surveillance efforts conducted by UC Global SC in Assange’s place of abode for some seven years, London’s Ecuadorean embassy. This involved audio and film footage on lawyers visiting and discussing case matters with Assange relayed to servers accessible to the Central Intelligence Agency. “There has been enough spying on my lawyers already. The other side has about 100 times more contact with their lawyers per day. What is the point of asking if I can concentrate if I cannot participate?”

To these points the judge remained dismissive, annoyed at his intervention in the absence of testifying. “I can’t make an exception in your case.” A brief recess did follow, permitting Assange to leave the dock for a backroom consultation with his legal team. True to form in this entire charade, security officers were in their company.

The defence team then attempted to convince the bench to adjust future seating arrangements which would permit Assange to sit with them. This led to a technical lunacy: Did the request, pondered the judge, constitute a bail application in which Assange would technically be out of the court’s custody? The legal team representing the United States did not object, as security officers would be present on either side of him. “I’m not sure it’s so technical as that,” came the assessment from James Lewis QC. The judge, torn by convention and legal minutiae, was tart in response. “I’m not you’re right Mr Lewis.” An application will be heard to that effect on Thursday, though Lewis did make it clear that any bail application would be opposed.

As for the extradition treaty itself, Article 4 stipulates that, “Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which the extradition is requested is a political offense.” The team representing the US government suggested that the judge have recourse to substantive UK domestic law, not the Treaty itself. Whether Assange was wanted for political reasons or not was irrelevant as he was “not entitled to derive any rights from the [US-UK Extradition] Treaty”.

The prosecution effectively relied on a peculiarity of the Westminster system: the Treaty, ratified in 2007, had not been incorporated into UK domestic law. That domestic law can be found in the Extradition Act 2003, which does not feature political offenses as a bar to extradition. “There’s no such thing as a political offense in ordinary English law”, something that only arose in the context of extradition.

Assange’s team took issue with the contention: the Extradition Treaty as ratified in the US in 2007, in not removing the political offense provision, was intended to have legal effect. “It is an essential protection,” argued Edward Fitzgerald QC, “which the US puts in every single one of its extradition treaties.” It followed that, “Both governments must therefore have regarded Article 4 as a protection for the liberty of the individual whose necessity continues (at least in relations between the USA and the UK).” While the 2003 Extradition Act did not include a political offence bar, “authority establishes that it is the duty of the court, not the executive, to ensure the legality of extradition under the terms of the Treaty.” This placed an onus on the judge, submitted Fitzgerald, to follow a practice set by over a century of extradition treaties which consider the political offence exemption.

Resort should also be had to the Magna Carta and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the “right to liberty and security” provision) to reach a conclusion that extraditing an individual for a political offence would constitute an abuse of process.

The defence also turned to the issue of espionage itself, arguing that there was little doubt that it was political in nature, or, as Fitzgerald contended, “a pure political offence” within the meaning of the US-UK Extradition Treaty and relevant case law. The conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, the 18^th charge being levelled at Assange, also suggested that it be treated as an espionage offence. In fact, the entire case and effort against Assange had been political from the start, with US politicians, commentators and members of the media branding him “hostile” and “treasonous” despite not being a US citizen.

Fitzgerald also furthered the legal principle – “virtually universal”, he contended – that non-violent individuals should not be extradited for political offences. “If it is not a terrorist case, a violence offence, you should not be extradited for a political offence.” More in keeping with the work of non-governmental organisations, extraditing Assange would embolden other powers to consider this pathway to seek those responsible for “disclosures that are uncomfortable or threatening.” Governments of all political hues will be taking heed from 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.

Posted in English
Comments Off on Julian Assange, Political Offences and Legal Restraints: Day Three of Extradition Hearings
Tags: Assange extradition, extradition hearing, Julian Assange, United Kingdom, United States

Syria: “Moderate Rebels” or “Intelligence Assets”?

February 27th, 2020 by Mark Taliano

“Moderates” never existed except as an “intelligence” agency narrative to protect and arm all the terrorists. “Rebels” never existed except as an “intelligence” agency ploy to falsely portray a Regime Change war as a “revolution” or a “civil war”.

Prof. Tim Anderson explains that the “moderate rebel” myth was part of a Story B (1) in which non-existent “moderate al Qaeda” were said to be fighting extremist (al Qaeda/ISIS). According to this intelligence agency myth, the former therefore deserved to be fortified and rescued and protected and armed with weapons of mass destruction.

The fabricated narratives were and are a smokescreen to conceal the fact that the West supports all of the terrorists, covertly and overtly, and always did.

Forget Bana Alabed, an icon of both child abuse and war propaganda, in which innocent children are weaponized to advance imperial projects.

Bana’s parents had close affiliations with al Qaeda and tweets such as, “I am talking to the world now live from east #Aleppo. This is my last moment to either live or die.” (2) were designed to fabricate consent for the West to yet again come to the rescue of al Qaeda and affiliated terrorists.

All of the intelligence agency narratives, the stories within stories, have been proven false. They amount to criminal war propaganda.

The stark reality that is self-evident once the smokescreens are swept away is that Syria and Syrians are fighting for freedom and democracy.

Their opponents in the West are actively waging war to destroy freedom and democracy. At times such as these, where more and more areas are liberated, the truth of these statements is increasingly obvious, even to the most jaded of minds.

Consider the messaging on roadways that were previously occupied and controlled by Western-supported terrorists.

Video by Hadi Nasrallah

NOTES

(1) Prof. Tim Anderson, “The Dirty War on Syria: Professor Anderson Reveals the ‘Unspoken Truth’ ” Global Research, 13 June 2017. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-dirty-war-on-syria/5491859) Accessed 26 February, 2020.

(2) Eva Bartlett, “Exploitation of Bana al-Abed: Parents use child to whitewash terrorists in Aleppo” RT, 24 July, 2017. (https://www.rt.com/op-ed/397339-bana-abed-syria-aleppo-twitter/ ) Accessed 26 February, 2020.

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.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.

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

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

Voices from Syria

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

~~List Price: $17.95~~

Special Price: $9.95

Click to order

Posted in English
Comments Off on Syria: “Moderate Rebels” or “Intelligence Assets”?
Tags: propaganda, Syria

Video: Erdogan Forces Recaptured Nayrab but Lost Another Dozen of Villages to Syrian Army

February 26th, 2020 by South Front

On February 24 morning, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other Idlib groups supported by the Turkish Army launched a new attempt to capture the village of Nayrab from the Syrian Army. Turkish-backed rebels bedecked with ISIS insignias once again reached the vicinity of the village, but were forced to retreat under strikes from the Syrian Army and the Russian Aerospace Forces. Pro-Turkish sources complained that ‘regime troops’ are using mines, road blocks, fortifications and even trenches to protect their positions. The devilry of the Assad regime has no bounds.

In the evening, Turkish-led forces carried out a second attack on Nayrab entering its eastern part and engaging army troops in a series of clashes. The fighting in the area continued overnight and by February 25 Idlib groups have established control of at least a half of the town. Pro-Turkish sources claim that entire Nayrab is in the hands of Turkish-led forces. Pro-government sources say that the lashes are ongoing.

The attack on Nayrab took place amid the ongoing Syrian Army advance in southern Idlib, south of the M4 highway. Government forces have cleared over a dozen of settlements from Turkish-led forces since the resumption of the offensive in the area on February 23. In the course of this effort, Syrian soldiers captured 3 vehicles and eliminated up to 10 militants. The advance is ongoing.

On the same day reports appeared that 13 Turkish soldiers were killed in airstrikes in the area of the Syrian Army operation in southern Idlib. According to pro-Turkish sources and Russian media, the incident happened somewhere near the villages of Kafr Nabl, Bara and Kansafra. According to Turkish authorities, 21 Turkish service member had died in the Greater Idlib operation so far. If the February 24 incident is confirmed, the number of casualties of Turkish forces in their Idlib adventurism will overcome 30.

The developments on the ground demonstrate that even with a direct Turkish involvement Idlib groups have not enough resources to oppose the Syrian Army advance across the region. So, while they were concentrating their efforts on Nayrab, their defense collapsed on another chunk of the frontline.

Meanwhile, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan confirmed his intention to meet with the leaders of Russia, France and Germany, on March 5 in Istanbul to discuss the situation in Idlib. This strange format, excluding Iran, another backer of the Damascus government and key player in the conflict, is likely seen by the Turkish leadership as a useful tool to make a ‘collective effort’ to pressure Russia over its strong support to the Syrian Army actions against terrorists. It also reveals that despite the recent decline of the EU involvement in the conflict, key EU states remain at least diplomatic supporters of terrorist factions operating in the country. At the same time, the initiative of the meeting itself demonstrates that Turkey is not so determined to turn its military threats against Syria into reality as it wants to demonstrate.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Video: Erdogan Forces Recaptured Nayrab but Lost Another Dozen of Villages to Syrian Army

The Pentagon’s New Map: How to Know if America Is Your Enemy

February 26th, 2020 by Eric Zuesse

If your country is friendly toward Russia, China, or Iran, then today’s American Government is probably applying subversion, economic sanctions, or maybe even planning a coup, or (if none of those will succeed) probably is war-gaming now for a possible military invasion and permanent military occupation, of your country. These things have been done to Russia, Iran, China, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Ukraine, Georgia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and some other countries.

However, after the 9/11 attacks in America, the U.S. Government has added another system for selecting countries to immiserate, and those are mainly the countries that already suffer the most misery — some of them are countries that were listed above, but others (many others) are not, and are selected instead largely because they are already in misery, and also because America — that is, the Deep State which controls it, America’s hundreds of billionaires, who control international corporations and the press in America, and not just control the politicians who win public offices — wants to control the given target country in order to extract its natural resources or simply in order to place some of U.S. military bases there so as to be better able to invade other countries.

This relatively new category of America’s targeted enemies was invented, mainly, in 2003 and 2004, by Thomas P. M. Barnett, a Professor at the U.S. Naval College and columnist and writer for various popular magazines, as well as of best-selling books. His 2004 book The Pentagon’s New Map, presents that map, to show the areas, mainly around the Equator and including all of Central America; plus all of South America except Chile, Argentina, and Brazil; plus all of Africa except South Africa, all countries of which are supposedly not connected to globalization — i.e., they are Third World instead of First World — and he says that they are unstable and therefore need to be policed by the world’s policeman, which is the U.S. Government, to serve there as the judge, jury, and executioner, of anyone who lives there and who resists that judge, jury, and executioner. His key statement is on page 227, “A country’s potential to warrant a U.S. military response is inversely related to its globalization connectivity.”

Here is the map, which shows which countries are supposedly high globalization connectivity and therefore inappropriate for America to sanction, coup, or invade and occupy; and which countries are supposedly low globalization connectivity and therefore appropriate for America to sanction, coup, or invade and occupy:

http://archive.is/2Pjqp

As can be seen there, the following countries are not to be policed by the U.S. Government: Canada, U.S., Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, UK, Greenland, Iceland, EU, Switzerland, Ukraine, Georgia, South Africa, Russia, Mongolia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, N.Z.

He calls those the “Globalized Functioning Core.” All others are “the Non-Integrated Gap” countries, America’s virtual free-fire zones, to control so as to ‘prevent terrorism’.

Instead of international law being what the United Nations says it is, this “new map” theory says that international law in the “Non-Integrated Gap” countries should be what the U.S. Government says it is.

According to Barnett’s theory, as he expressed it in its original version in an Esquire magazine article titled “Why the Pentagon Changes Its Maps: And why we’ll keep going to war,” he listed these countries as “THE GAP” or third-world countries, “My list of real trouble for the world in the 1990s, today, and tomorrow, starting in our own backyard” (and these are listed here by the names that he gave to them): Haiti, Colombia, Brazil and Argentina, Former Yugoslavia, Congo and Rwanda/Burundi, Angola, South Africa, Israel-Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Somalia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Indonesia. Then he listed “CORE MEMBERS I WORRY WE MAY LOSE:” China, Russia, India.

So, if you live in any of those countries, then Barnett, and the many U.S. generals who respect his theory, and the U.S. billionaires, who want the resources in those countries or else just want military bases there, view you as an enemy, not as a citizen of a sovereign foreign country. His Esquire article says, “it is always possible to fall off this bandwagon called globalization. And when you do, bloodshed will follow. If you are lucky, so will American troops.” He assumes that you need a “policeman” from America because what your own country provides is too primitive. And, “Conversely, if a country is largely functioning within globalization, we tend not to have to send our forces there to restore order or eradicate threats.”

On 22 August 2017, Thierry Meyssan at Voltairenet headlined “The US military project for the world” and gave his progressive critical interpretation of Barnett’s theory by placing it into the long-term evolution of U.S. geostrategy. On 26 September 2004, Razib Khan gave his admiring racist-fascist or ideologically nazi interpretation of it, under the headline “IQ And The Non-Integrating Gap”. He assumed there that lower-income countries are “lower IQ” and therefore need to be directed according to the master’s whip, not as sovereign countries.

The book’s publisher places online an informative excerpt from the work. under the headline “An Operating Theory of the World” and Barnett says there:

As the “vision guy,” my job was to generate and deliver a compelling brief that would mobilize the Defense Department toward generating the future fighting force demanded by the post-9/11 strategic environment. Over the next two years I gave that brief well over a hundred times to several thousand Defense Department officials. Through this intense give-and-take, my material grew far beyond my original inputs to include the insider logic driving all of the major policy decisions promulgated by the department’s senior leadership. Over time, senior military officials began citing the brief as a Rosetta stone for the Bush Administration’s new national security strategy.

The strategy remains in force, though there now is a return to focusing on the main enemies being Russia, China, and Iran. The “gap” countries are currently viewed not only according to the “gap” but also according to their relationships to Russia, China, and Iran.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on The Pentagon’s New Map: How to Know if America Is Your Enemy
Tags: United States, US troops

The Movement to Protect Grand Canyon from Uranium Mining.Threat to People, Land, Water and Wildlife

February 26th, 2020 by Center For Biological Diversity

The National Congress of American Indians and conservation groups today urged Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) to cosponsor the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act, which permanently bans new uranium mining across 1 million acres of public land around Grand Canyon National Park.

McSally has not said whether she supports the bill, introduced in December by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.). In a letter to McSally, the groups said the region must be protected from new uranium mining because of the “risks that mining poses to the Grand Canyon and the people and economies that depend upon its health.”

In October a companion bill led by Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Tom O’Halleran (D-Ariz.) passed the House with bipartisan support. It followed an effort led by tribal leaders from the Havasupai Tribe with the support of the Hualapai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, National Congress of American Indians and Intertribal Council of Arizona. A broad coalition of business owners, local government leaders, Arizona Trail users, river runners, conservation groups and others who oppose uranium mining in the Grand Canyon region also endorsed the House bill.

Today’s letter explains the threats from uranium mining to the Grand Canyon’s waters and wildlife, natural landscape connections, tribal nations, communities and sacred sites. The letter also rebuts false claims from the mining industry and emphasizes that mining contamination risks thousands of jobs and the Grand Canyon’s billion-dollar tourism economy.

Quotes From Groups’ Representatives

“The National Congress of American Indians strongly opposes any actions that would potentially harm the vital water resources in and around the Grand Canyon,” said NCAI CEO Kevin Allis. “Tribal nations have relied on the surface water and groundwater resources in the Upper Colorado River Basin for millennia, way before the United States granted the Grand Canyon federal protections as a National Park, and the protection of those vital resources is why our membership passed Resolution REN-19-001, ‘Opposing Mining on Public Land and Around the Grand Canyon Without Tribal Nations’ Free Prior and Informed Consent.’ Tribal homelands were intended to provide a permanent homeland for present and future generations, and this necessarily includes protecting our natural and cultural heritage resources from the unnecessary contamination often associated with mining activities.”

“Arizona is ‘the Grand Canyon State.’ It’s also the home of extensive, deadly uranium mining contamination that, after decades, continues to destroy the lives and health of Arizona residents, particularly on the Navajo Nation,” said Amber Reimondo, energy program director for the Grand Canyon Trust. “Uranium contamination is forever and it’s a gamble this state has no business making again, let alone in the Grand Canyon region. This should not be a difficult call for a senator from Arizona to make.”

“This legislation is about the protection of one of the places Arizonans value most, the Grand Canyon,” stated Laura Dent, executive director of Chispa Arizona. “If there is ever a time to stand up for Arizona and defend our air, water, and sacred lands, it is through supporting one of the wonders of the world from destructive uranium mining. It is a no-brainer that ARIZONA Senator McSally should protect and defend the Grand Canyon State’s greatest treasure.”

“The Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act is key to preventing more toxic pollution and the harm it will cause to public, Navajo, Havasupai and Hopi lands. This legislation is urgently needed to protect the waters, wildlife, and people who live and work in the Grand Canyon region from further harm. It’s time for Sen. McSally to act,” said Sandy Bahr, chapter director for Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter.

“Protecting the Grand Canyon from deadly uranium mining should be a priority for both of the Grand Canyon state’s senators,” said Taylor McKinnon, a public lands campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Grand Canyon region is under new threats from the Trump administration despite the uranium industry’s toxic legacy. This bill will ensure that the life-giving waters of the planet’s most spectacular canyon are permanently protected from uranium mining’s devastation.”

“Uranium mining threatens the Grand Canyon’s water supply, including that of the native Havasupai people,” said Kevin Dahl, senior Arizona program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association. “Nearly identical legislation passed the House in a bipartisan vote that demonstrated overwhelming support, proving that Americans share a common goal in defending and preserving the Grand Canyon’s fragile and limited water supply. The Senate now has the unique opportunity to create a lasting conservation legacy for this beloved national treasure, and we urge Senator McSally to permanently protect the Grand Canyon from uranium mining by passing the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act.”

“Grand Canyon’s awe-inspiring landscapes, its wild and human communities, its great wealth of tribal nations, and Arizona’s outdoor recreation economy, need this protection now,” admonishes Kelly Burke, executive director of Wild Arizona. In supporting this bill, Arizona Senator McSally has a powerful and forward-looking opportunity to forever secure the Canyon’s magnificent rimlands and the iconic Arizona Trail against new uranium mining industrialization and the irreversible contamination of water sources.”

“It should be easy for Sen. McSally to take a stand for an iconic American landmark,” said Heidi McIntosh, managing attorney of the Earthjustice Rocky Mountain regional office. “Leaders in both parties across the country have already done so. We hope she will do the right thing and put the health of essential water sources and public lands before polluters’ profits.”

“The Grand Canyon is a treasured landscape that Arizonans value and respect. Protecting the integrity of Grand Canyon and the health of neighboring communities from uranium mining has enormous support in Arizona and across the country,” said Mike Quigley, Arizona state director for the Wilderness Society. “We look for Senator McSally to act on behalf of her constituents and cosponsor the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act.”

“Some places are so sacred that they should be off limits to extraction for all time,” said Sharon Buccino, senior director of the land division of the Nature Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We can’t afford to subject the Grand Canyon to dangerous uranium mining that puts local communities and waters at risk. Senator McSally can do the right thing on behalf of Arizonans — and all of us that value this treasured landscape — by signing on to this legislation.”

Background

Mining in the Grand Canyon region is a threat to the people, land, water and wildlife that make this place so extraordinary. Uranium mining has left a legacy of toxic pollution and chronic health problems on the Navajo Nation. The Orphan Mine in Grand Canyon National Park has already cost taxpayers more than $15 million to clean up. There is no economic or national security benefit that outweighs the risk uranium mining poses to the Grand Canyon and the people and economies that depend on the region and the water resources it supplies.

In 2012 the Department of Interior temporarily withdrew more than 1 million acres of public lands around Grand Canyon National Park from new mining claims under the 1872 Mining Law. This banned new mining claims and the development of all but a handful of pre-existing mines for 20 years, the maximum period allowed administratively. That ban has been unsuccessfully challenged by mining interests. In 2017 President Donald Trump issued an executive order that resulted in the U.S. Forest Service identifying the Grand Canyon mining ban as an action for review to enhance domestic energy development.

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 Flickr

Posted in English
Comments Off on The Movement to Protect Grand Canyon from Uranium Mining.Threat to People, Land, Water and Wildlife
Tags: Arizona, Grand Canyon, Martha McSally, United States, Uranium mining

Quebec Politics and the Rise of Québec Solidaire (QS)

February 26th, 2020 by André Frappier

The 2018 national assembly election in Québec marked a breakthrough for the Left. While a right-wing coalition won the most votes, the election’s biggest surprise was the unprecedented success of the left-wing, pro-independence party Québec solidaire (Solidarity Québec, QS). It broke out of its traditional base in Montréal, doubled its share of the popular vote, and tripled its seat count. With 16% of the vote and 10 seats in the Québec parliament, this was the best result for the party since its establishment in 2006.The party’s 2018 platform was wide-ranging and radical. It included, among other things, an aggressive program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to renewable energy; massive investments in public transportation and infrastructure spending; free public education from preschool through university; strengthening and expanding the universal health program, particularly the creation of a universal drug insurance plan; a universal legal aid plan; an expansion of workers’ rights and union power; the replacement of first-past-the-post elections with proportional representation; and the eventual establishment of an independent Québec.

At the 2017 party convention, the party voted against co-operation with the Parti Québécois (Quebecer Party, PQ), traditionally the leading party of the sovereigntist center-left, and agreed to begin talks with the centre-left sovereignist Option nationale (National Option, ON) party. In the 2018 provincial election, QS gained 7 more seats, bringing them to a total of 10 and tying the PQ in seats. In 2019, QS was officially recognized as the second opposition party in the Québec national assembly, behind the Parti libéral du Québec (Québec Liberal Party, PLQ) and ahead of the PQ. The 2019 QS party convention completed the merger process with ON through the adoption of a fusion agreement, which entailed the alignment of the QS and ON party programs.

While it is often overlooked on the U.S. left, Québec has been the scene of some of the biggest and most successful movements against neoliberalism since the 2008 financial crisis, including the massive student strikes of 2012. Nearly 40% of Québec workers are unionized, and the province has an extensive social economy composed of a wide array of non-profit organizations and cooperative institutions. And of course, it has an active sovereignty movement that nearly won independence from the rest of Canada in 1995 and has recently experienced a resurgence in Québec and Canadian politics.

Here, former QS co-spokesperson André Frappier speaks with DSA National Political Committee member Megan Svoboda about the state of Québécois politics, the prospects for QS and the broader Québécois left, and the importance of international solidarity today.

***

Megan Svoboda: Can you give a brief description of the overall state of Québécois politics right now?

André Frappier: There comes a time when the parties that have dominated the political stage no longer meet the demands of the moment or are unable to stem the tide of social forces. This is what happened to the PQ, which lost all credibility, and to the corrupt PLQ.

Like the Liberals, the Coalition Avenir Québec (Coalition for Québec’s Future, CAQ) is a federalist party beholden to capital and committed to a neoliberal economic agenda, but it demarcates itself by its pandering to ethnic nationalism and xenophobia. Where the Liberals have long been the electoral choice of immigrants, the CAQ deliberately appealed to anti-immigrant sentiment, promising to reduce immigration levels, subject new immigrants to draconian values and language tests, and forbid public service employees from wearing visible religious symbols — a measure understood to target veiled Muslim women in particular. This demagogic catering to fear of “the other” is also part of what sets the CAQ apart from Doug Ford’s right-wing populism in Ontario.

The election of the CAQ represents a break with the historical pattern of the Liberals and the PQ alternating control of the reins of government. And that is not by chance. From the start, the idea was to marginalize the PQ and the sovereignist option by creating a party based on ethnic nationalism ready to prey on the fear of immigration. And that was the aim of former PQ cabinet minister François Legault, former PQ leader Lucien Bouchard, businessman Charles Sirois, and the Desmarais clan in founding the CAQ in 2011.

What made the CAQ’s task easier was the abandonment of the fight for social justice and sovereignty by successive PQ leaderships over several decades. In fact, the PQ’s only objective was to maintain its place as a provincial manager in a globalized world with all the consequences that flow from that ambition: support for free trade, privatization, fees for public services, a tax system that favours the rich, and fossil fuel development. As a new party that had never held power, the CAQ was able to depict itself as a force for change.

MS: What is Québec solidaire, and what are its political and ideological roots?

AF: QS was founded in 2006 in Montréal by the merger of the left-wing party Union des forces progressistes (Union of Progressive Forces, UFP) and the alter-globalization political movement Option citoyenne (Citizen Option), led by Françoise David. It was formed around a number of activists and politicians who had written Manifeste pour un Québec solidaire, a left-wing response to Pour un Québec lucide.

In its founding objectives and values, QS declares that it clearly rejects neoliberalism and proposes a political alternative based on democracy, popular sovereignty, the independence of Québec and progressive values such as: social justice and an equitable sharing of wealth, equality between women and men, sustainable development, the elimination of racism, pacifism and solidarity between peoples. It is pluralist, that is to say, it allows plural participation and expression of people, groups, different points of view and sensitivities in a spirit of unity. It is feminist, egalitarian, and aims for equal representation of women and men at all levels.

QS takes into account the diversity of needs, realities and identities, including regional ones. It is inclusive and promotes the presence of young people, cultural communities and people with disabilities. QS is active in the electoral field and in the field of social struggles. It is inspired by the demands of progressive social and environmental movements, while recognizing the respective independence of the party and these movements.

After an important debate among our ranks, in March 2019 QS adopted a position against the proposed legislation 21 from CAQ government [this law bans public employees from wearing religious symbols, and requires that people’s faces be uncovered when giving or receiving public services – ed.] that was to be adopted at the Québec parliament a month later.

Our position was: “Considering that the duty of reserve applies to the actions and decisions of people and not their appearance; No particular rule on religious symbols should apply to certain professions rather than others, including those who exercise coercive power.”

MS: What factors do you think lead to its recent growth in membership and representation in the Parliament?

AF: The success of QS in more than doubling its seats from three to 10, including four seats outside Montréal, was a real victory that opens a new chapter for the Left. In a way, QS also benefited from the desire for change, but it had a much tougher hill to climb given the mudslinging against the Left.

At the same time support for the PQ has declined steadily since 2003, because of their neoliberal policies but also because of their dead end strategy concerning Québec’s sovereignty. For the older generation PQ was more and more a party of power, and the former PQ leader Jean-François Lisée made his electoral campaign with the promise to only speak of a referendum in a second term. And for the young generation PQ’s vision of sovereignty is seen as a neoliberal and anti-environment project. The secular charter proposed by the PQ government in 2014 also had a big impact on the population. Part of it supported CAQ in the 2018 election but another part was worried.

The decision not to make alliances with PQ made at the May 2017 QS convention was a turning point. Contrary to mainstream thinking, QS has started a rise in polls. There was a lot of pressure on QS during that period, led by Jean-François Lisée, for an alliance of sovereigntists against the Liberal Party. His goal was to hang QS on the PQ’s flagship. At the end of the road you better vote for the ones who can really beat the Liberals, when it is time to vote that’s the choice you have to make, especially if the alternatives seem similar.

After that convention Lisée showed his real face and accused QS of being run by a Soviet-style “politburo.” In the final days of the campaign he insinuated that QS co-spokesperson Manon Massé was not the real leader of the party and that QS had a hidden agenda.

The arrival of Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois in early 2017 had also an important impact on the rise of membership.

MS: Why do you think the fight for Québéc independence is important to the broader fight for international socialism?

AF: The Québec social movement is unique in Canada because of the national question. The history of national oppression, the fight for French language and the reality of economic differences between the Anglo establishment and the francophone majority working class shaped Québec more as a nation than as a province. Combined with the fact that under the federal legislation, education and health are under provincial responsibility, fights with the labor movement or the student movement become national fights. That situation does not exist in what we call the Rest of Canada (ROC). For example, there couldn’t be a student strike in Canada like the one in Québec in 2012.

That’s why independence brings social change that challenges the Canadian imperialist state itself. To achieve that goal, only a broad social movement can lead the struggle for Québec sovereignty, because the people of Québec will not undertake such an important struggle as gaining independence unless the aim is to improve their lives and obtain control of their resources. That movement will lead to a change in the relationship of forces in favor of the working class and a social change that will shake the foundations of the Canadian state.

Of course, the Canadian establishment will fight this tooth and nail. The Gomery commission highlighted the illegal operation and the huge sum of money invested during the 1995 referendum to influence the vote of Quebecers. That gives us an indication of how far they might go in the event of real social change. Neither the PQ nor the Bloc Québécois (Quebecer Bloc, BQ) will ever support such a mobilization, which would work in opposition to their neoliberal policies. And without a social project real sovereignty is not possible. By changing the relationship of forces, Québec’s social struggle can help the labor and social movements in Canada in their own struggle for social emancipation.

From this perspective, the solidarity of the Canadian labor movement with Québec’s struggle for sovereignty is not only essential to the fight for social justice in Canada, but crucial because by it will also involve fighting Canadian reaction against the Québec social movement.

This is what we learn from international solidarity. There is no place for struggle isolated from the rest of the world, especially in this period of globalization where multinational corporations impose their control over our planet, making it a polluted waste dump and creating poverty, both of which put the well-being and the very survival of future generations at risk. Our struggle combines with those of other progressive movements. The support of each is crucial to the victory of all.

MS: What advice do you have for people, especially young people, who are socialist organizers in the United States?

AF: Your struggle is very important, even though you don’t see the benefit right now. The fact is you are fighting back, you are organizing people and giving hope. Your work shines beyond your borders and makes it possible for us in Québec and for the Left in Canada to develop an internationalist perspective in North America. Such a goal is very important and couldn’t be done without the work of socialist organizers in the United States.

A Left organization is always under pressure of all kinds. It is important to give an important place to political debates and political training to strengthen the organization as well as to implement democratic structures and democratic functioning. It is also a good way to counter the influence of the dominant financial and political establishment among the working class.

As far as I can see, this is something you are already doing. So I will just say that we have to develop our internationalist perspective. This is crucial to fight back [against] imperialism in the U.S. and Canada.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Quebec Politics and the Rise of Québec Solidaire (QS)
Tags: Canada, Neoliberalism, United States

Solidarity with Palestine: ‘If They Suppress BDS, No Other Movement Is Safe’

February 26th, 2020 by Omar Barghouti

As alarming, anti-democratic measures are aimed at Palestine solidarity activists in the UK and beyond, Husna Rizvi speaks to Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement.

***

‘We are armed only with our rights, and our dignity.’ Speaking earnestly to a crowd at a recent anti-racist event in King’s College London, Omar Barghouti repeats the words he said to Israeli Defence Force soldiers during a raid on his family’s home during the second Intifada.

Omar has been targeted by the Israeli military and interior ministry for several years as a result of his human rights activism. As a student at Columbia University in New York he began organizing within the South African anti-apartheid movement as well as the General Union of Palestinian Students and went on to co-found the Boycott, Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement in 2005, after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled Israel’s wall an ‘illegal situation’.

The ICJ ruling stated that the 700km barrier in the West Bank contravened rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories set out by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – namely, ‘liberty of movement’, ‘the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living’. It also concluded that all nation states were ‘not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction’.

The failure of the international community to make good on those obligations directly motivated the BDS call, Omar tells me. ‘We felt this was the time to go global with our message of resistance, with our message of liberation. And to ask supporters of Palestinian rights the world over to end the complicity of their institutions, corporations and governments, which are enabling Israel’s system of oppression.’

One year after the ICJ ruling, the newly-formed BDS movement issued three core demands: end the occupation, end Israel’s system of apartheid (the UN defines this as ‘inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group’) and respect the rights of Palestinian refugees who were expelled from their homes in 1948, and now constitute 68 per cent of the Palestinian population – often described as ‘the right of return’.

This, he tells me, ‘formed a consensus among nearly all Palestinian society – among civil society, trade unions, women’s unions, farmers, academics, students, and so on.’

Ending Complicity

On a geopolitical level, things don’t look positive, he acknowledges. ‘Far-right white supremacists, Christian Zionists and all sorts of very fanatical groups are today in the White House,’ but this hasn’t stopped inspiring action from being taken on the grassroots level.

‘We’ve managed to win support even in the liberal mainstream. So today in the United States – where it matters the most – the American Civil Liberties Union, a massive organization defending constitutional rights of American citizens, is at the forefront of opposing anti-BDS legislation, whether in Congress or in state legislatures.’

He also reports a steady shift across progressive movements and social movements in Europe towards supporting Palestinian rights; in 2018, Leeds University became the first higher education institution to divest from corporations trading military equipment with Israel.

‘BDS has been successful at continuous growth: winning over social movements, churches, pension funds, and impacting large complicit corporations,’ he says. ‘The trade union movement in the UK, Norway, increasingly in France, the Netherlands and Belgium have all called for serious accountability measures along the lines of BDS.’

Support has also stemmed from less traditional allies: ‘When Israel hosted Eurovision last year, instead of receiving around 50,000 tourists, they got only 5,000. More than a hundred LGBTQ+ groups in Europe came out in support of the BDS campaign against Eurovision in apartheid Tel Aviv.’

Despite Trump’s widely criticized proposal for a ‘peace’ plan – for which the Palestinian Authority was not consulted – and what Omar called a ‘cash for rights’ deal on Novara Media’s radio show, Tysky Sour – he says there’s still some cause for conditional optimism. ‘Presidential candidates in the Democratic Party – for the first time in US history – are calling for making aid to Israel conditional. A presidential candidate in the US has never dared to question aid to Israel – until now.’

Discrediting Dissent

Image on the right: Omar was awarded the Gandhi Peace Award in 2017 for his work as the co-founder of Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions.

But BDS’s movement work is under attack from both Israeli and Western security establishments, which seek to discredit and delegitimize its activism. ‘Israel has been fighting the BDS movement since 2014 as “a strategic threat”. That’s their term, not ours,’ explains Omar. ‘[It] has formed a whole government ministry to fight the BDS movement. It has outsourced its McCarthyism, its antidemocratic repression to those Western governments – especially the US, France and the UK.

‘The UK government has been fighting the BDS movement for Palestinian rights head on: interfering with trade unions and city councils; trying to suppress events on campuses; government ministers making calls against the BDS movement.

‘This is unparalleled. Even the US government – until Trump – had not fought the BDS movement with the same passion as the UK government, believe it or not. It is undermining British democracy, not just free speech on Palestine,’ he adds.

All of what Omar describes, is consistent with the UK government’s broader ‘counter-terror’ strategy Prevent, a widely condemned surveillance operation largely affecting Muslim citizens and civil society groups. Under the programme, one schoolboy was labelled ‘extremist’ and referred to the government’s deradicalization program for wearing a ‘Free Palestine’ badge. An information pamphlet produced by Palestine solidarity group Friends of Al-Aqsa was also used by the police as evidence of ‘terrorist-like’ views.

Heightened surveillance, targeted harassment and shutting down activist events isn’t unfamiliar to Omar, who himself has been threatened with arrest, assault, and was the subject of a campaign calling for his expulsion while studying for a PhD in Ethics at Tel Aviv University.

The King’s College lecture theatre in London where Omar spoke in January was itself openly monitored by management. Several contract security staff hovered throughout the venue, and attendees’ names were checked multiple times.

Heavy surveillance tactics are likely to put off impassioned young activists pursuing ethical divestment policies. I ask, how much energy goes into protecting the right to campaign compared to the more positive, coalition-building work?

‘There’s always a golden balance,’ he replies. ‘Yes, we’ve got to defend our space and the space is shrinking for human rights defenders active on Palestine. But never fall into the trap of defence at the expense of building and growing the movement.’

A New McCarthyism

But a recent development in the UK troubles Omar. ‘We’re working with a broad tent of civil society organizations, human rights organizations that are all extremely alarmed at Boris Johnson’s government’s attempt to pass legislation that basically demonizes, or even criminalizes, support for BDS.’

The legislation Omar refers to is Boris Johnson’s plan to pass an anti-boycott bill, banning public institutions from engaging in trades boycotts, a move that harks back to Margaret Thatcher’s ban on councils refusing to trade with apartheid South Africa. Johnson, this time, plans to implement harsh financial penalties on already cash-strapped councils that pursue ethical divestment policies.

Omar is also concerned about developments in Europe, where the French and German parliaments have chosen to adopt the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism, which he describes as a bogus framing designed to ‘shield Israel from criticism and accountability’.

‘Everyone is alarmed,’ he says. ‘Because if they succeed in suppressing freedom of expression on Palestine then no one is safe. The LGBTQ+ movement is not safe. The black justice movement is not safe, immigrant justice and climate justice…. Who knows who will be next.’

More worryingly for the BDS movement, these plans come at a time when France, Germany and the US – where prominent CNN anchor Marc Lamont Hill was fired in 2018 for promoting Palestinian rights – are simultaneously cracking down on BDS.

Asked – blue skies style – about what a Bernie Sanders presidency could mean for the US-Israel relationship, Omar admits he’s hopeful. ‘The US has never had a progressive president like Sanders. If Bernie Sanders is elected, it will change the world, not just a US relations vis-a-vis Israel and the Palestinians.’

‘Of course, we’re not naive to think that a progressive president can with a magic wand alter decades of policies by an imperialist, neoliberal, very aggressive establishment that serves the one per cent. But I think the absolute majority of Palestinians – just like the majority of progressives in the world – are rooting for Bernie Sanders to be the first Jewish president of the US – the first social democratic president,’ he adds.

Regarding the claim that BDS alienates Jewish communities, or even promotes antisemitism, Omar tells me that the movement targets complicity, not identity. ‘It is not anti-Jewish to engage in a non-violent movement’ to support Palestinians, he says.

In fact, he believes that it’s the rise of Trump and his far-right Zionist and white supremacist base that has led Israel to drop its ‘very thin[ly] worn warn mask of democracy’ has actually increased support for BDS among a young Jewish demographic.

‘We’re seeing Jewish millennials in the United States and elsewhere become antagonistic towards Israel’s current regime. We’re noticing that across US campuses for example, where many Jewish activists are joining the BDS movement.’

He adds: ‘Israeli injustice against Palestinians is one of the longest living actually, and one of the least accountable. Israel really gets away with murder – literally murdering Palestinian youth protesting in Gaza for the right of return and for ending the siege on Gaza – on television. And it’s getting away with it. So there’s a sense of urgency. We cannot wait. And I think more and more people across the world can see that.’

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.

Husna Rizvi is a New Internationalist staff writer covering global affairs and has previously written for Prospect Magazine.

Featured image is from Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Posted in English
Comments Off on Solidarity with Palestine: ‘If They Suppress BDS, No Other Movement Is Safe’
Tags: BDS, israel, Palestine

“Fake Gods”: Tackling the Illegality of the 5G Roll-Out. The Explosive Truth of 5G Wireless Transmission

February 26th, 2020 by Julian Rose

Our planet is in the hands of false gods. Fake gods. So that everything over which they preside is tainted by falsity. It is a position which underscores institutions, industries and political agendas from one end of the planet to the other.

So when one arranges to meet with local, regional or central government authorities and officials, in order to press home a deep concern which is not being recognised or respected by those whose responsibility it is to investigate and take action, nine times out of ten one simply finds oneself confronting a handed-down clone of the fake god sitting on the top of the pile.

This, unfortunately, is the true nature of 21^stcentury ‘democracy’ in action. Question the lack of genuine people representation on display and one is told one is fortunate to have been offered a meeting at all, never mind an outcome.

It is within the stiffling parameters of this type of reception that many of us engaged in actions to Stop 5G, are attempting to press our local/regional authorities into taking a responsible position concerning the health and welfare of their constituents – and finding ourselves essentially stymied.

At the top of the pile the fake god has already made up his/her mind that ‘the buck must be passed’ and no responsibility will be taken – full stop. And on the specific matter of 5G “Well, you can’t turn-down a good deal when it’s placed right in your lap, can you? I mean, the telecoms are dripping in money – and we’re always short of funds – not to mention my own earnings” says the false god, privately.

In the meeting room below where the false god sits on his throne, two or three institutionalised clerks dutifully await the end of the plaintif’s explanation of why 5G is far more dangerous than any of us might at first have thought. How its pulsed millimetre microwave transmissions have been recognised by over 10,000 scientists as constituting a direct- and indeed lethal – threat to human health; and how empirical evidence has indeed proved this to be the case. Not only this – the plaintif persists – but the natural environment, animals, birds and insects are equally in the toxic firing-line of microwave radiation coming from multiple numbers of untested and unrequested transmitters.. “therefore we must be alert to this unprecedented threat to our community, at least until a thorough examination of the matter is carried out”.

Silence. Some feeble shuffling of papers. A sideways glance or two – then the fake boss-god’s fake under boss undertakes to clear the air “Any telecom communication’s technology that we choose to accept in our constituency will be in line with the legal norms of the INCIRP”. Pause. “We do not have the authority to questions the pros and cons of such systems, that is a matter for those who set the standards and publish the guidelines.”

Not surprisingly, one sees the false god’s values being regurgitated in those who simply ape the fakery at all levels of the pyramid. It is ‘standard procedure’ and is rarely transgressed.

However, just occasionally one does find a chink of light in the clerical armour; a secret sympathiser perhaps – that offers the opportunity of penetrating a little further into the fortress of falsification of facts. On rare occasions one even gets to the top floor, whereupon the glass bottles of spring water appear, tea and coffee are offered and a ‘charming’ senior assistant is sent out to deal with the essentially unwlecome guest. He/she smiles benignly, feigning an act of sympathetic understanding for the weary activist.

“We have read your letter and accompanying material carefully and recognise your concerns” is the initial response, briefly raising hopes that the contents might have actually penetrated the surface and lodged in the neocortex “however, we have no jurisdiction over the placing of transmitters or over the matter of any public health concerns that might arise in certain instances. We might suggest that you write to the Minister of Digitalisation and Sport should you require any further clarification in these matters. We do appreciate you showing concern and can assure you that your remarks have been carefully noted by the relevant officer.”

You see, the false gods know their stuff. In many respects they are true masters of deception. Well trained. A bit clumsy at the local level perhaps, but more and more sophisticated as one gets closer to the inner sanctum of government and industry. Behind the veil at the top end are some very hard nosed crooks indeed who, while switching on the charm, mean exactly the opposite of what they say. The British variety are masters in this!

So, how to get beyond this wall of denial?

For those of us working on various levels of Stop 5G activism, this is a key question. Confronted by a barrage of stone-walling at the regulatory level, we are faced with the challenge of finding just enough of a chink in the state armoury to get a proper litigation case together; one that would prize open the current obstructions and put the perpetrators of the essentially illegal 5G roll-out in the dock. There are now a plethora of such challenges nearing a state of readiness in a number of European countries and in the USA.

While activities on this level are intensifying, one cannot rely on a break-through taking place in the near future. The false gods also run the justice system. Almost all legal judgements apart from those emenating from Common Law, are top-down weighted. So, while one (quite rightly) pursues the litigation path of action, there is an equal necessity to work relentlessly on one’s own local community, raising awareness – while steadily collecting a small army of Stop 5G supporters ready to stand firm in their commitment – to prevent predatory telecoms gaining access to their territory.

This is the true battle ground of a more profound change. Because in explaining and sharing the explosive truth of what 5G actually is, one cannot avoid touching on what 2,3and 4G also are. In reality they are all secret weapons whose dangers have been known to their inventors fom the outset. 5G is simply the ‘crown jewels’ of covert killer technologies, with an indiscriminate breadth of fire-power that takes-in not just human beings, but the natural environment, animals, birds and insects, as well as the ability to corrupt the very DNA of life itself.

Gaining recognition that all forms of wireless microwave transmissions, including – and in particular – WiFi, have a deletarious effect on the health and welfare of those who use them (and on those who don’t) can be the key breakthrough to ushering in a major reevaluation – of not just one’s choice of communication medium, but also the potential of a major life-style change. It can mean the difference between implicitly placing one’s trust in the false gods who run the show around which our lives revolve, to grasping the necessity of taking control of our destinies and thereby breaking the chains of slavery to the system.

Those working ‘on the ground’ to prevent 5G from becoming established in their surrounding neighbourhoods, are faced by the often daunting task of needing to explain to their neighbours that to purchase the latest and fastest electromagnetic gismo is not in their best interests, nor those of their family. That ‘smart phones’ aren’t smart and that the nearest mobile phone tower is not a friendly icon of the age of convenience – but a continuous purveyor of toxic electro smog. And of course, that 5G is quite simply a permanent huge red light.

The only way to do this without appearing to be a typical hypocrit, is to show that one believes one’s own words and has acted upon this belief. This translates as ditching one’s mobile phone. Stop 5G activists who have achieved this status are the true pioneers of a future freed from the perpetual and ubiquitous spread of a toxic blanket of deeply intrusive microwave pollution.

Those who haven’t yet taken this step, but whose developing knowledge makes them aware of the need, form the main army of active Stop 5G proponents at this time. Although compromised by establishing an unrealistic cut-off point between 5G and 4/3G, their efforts to stop 5G are vital in the overall scheme of things.

If the 5G roll-out can be blocked by the will of local communities and the success of one community bolsters the chance of success in others, and this knock-on process starts to roll across the land with increasing momentum, then we are in with a very real chance of securing at least one deeply meaningful victory for this planet’s pro-life forces of responsibility and sanity – over the anti-life forces of irresponsibility and insanity.

If this should be coupled with a famous court victory, leading to the start of a dominoes effect here too, we may well start to sense that we are on the cusp of a more far reaching turning point in the affairs of man.

False gods – beware.

Nota bene: 5G in space is not treated here – but will be tackled separately in the near 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.

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of organic farming, writer, holistic practitioner, broadcaster and international campaigner. His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ has been described by readers and critics as ‘very prescient’. Go to www.julianrose.info for more information.

Posted in English
Comments Off on “Fake Gods”: Tackling the Illegality of the 5G Roll-Out. The Explosive Truth of 5G Wireless Transmission
Tags: 5G

Musical Chairs in the White House

February 26th, 2020 by Philip Giraldi

Here in the Land of Oz, otherwise known as Washington, one continues to run into people who should know better who insist that they have a friend in the White House who confirms that President Donald Trump is really a man of peace being obstructed as he seeks to withdraw the United States from senseless wars in Asia. They argue that the Deep State or Establishment, to include the media, are so blinded by Trump Derangement Syndrome that they cannot get behind his policies even when they would be good for Americans.

The problem with that argument is that there have been clear instances when the president could have followed through on pledges to reduce troop levels or withdraw completely from war zones before reversing himself and doubling down rather than doing the right thing. One need only cite the increases in numbers of combatants in both the Middle East and Afghanistan and the reversal of an initial decision to stage a complete withdrawal from Syria which instead turned into a move to occupy the country’s oil fields.

Others might argue that Trump reveals himself through his quixotic decision making and his willingness to play brinksmanship with powerful opponents as if he were upping the ante over a real estate transaction. Withdrawing with the JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran was a major blunder, recognized as such by nearly every country in the world with the usual exception of Israel, while Trump’s repeated offers to talk with the Ayatollah reflect willful ignorance of Iranian political dynamics. The White House apparently considered the assassination of an Iranian Major General to be an inducement to the Persians to come to the table to discuss a broad range of disagreements.

To be sure, there has been a concerted effort to destroy the Trump administration which started even before it came into being, a conspiracy that has included a number of key players in the national security structure, to include the Directors of both CIA and the FBI. And Trump has a right to be angered by the ridiculous impeachment “process,” initiated by a Democratic Party that has still not figured out why the unspeakable Hillary Clinton lost in 2016.

But Donald Trump has also been his own worst enemy, playing into the hands of his critics, with his divisive tweets, his constant search for subversion within and outside his own party’s ranks, and his highly offensive language and demeanor. It is hard to imagine that anyone can take pleasure from such an overly-sensitive and essentially ignorant snake oil salesman actually being president of the United States, but there you have it.

And Trump will long be remembered as a president who could not put his own house in order, presiding over a musical chairs arrangement whereby senior officers in his administration were appointed and removed at a whim, often based on “loyalty.” In such an arrangement, the sycophants inevitably rise to the top. Even John Bolton, protégé of party funder Sheldon Adelson, apparently did not suck up enough and was replaced by Robert O’Brien, who did not have any relevant experience qualifying for the job. Prior to his becoming National Security Advisor O’Brien featured in a taxpayer funded trip to Stockholm to obtain the release of rapper ASAP Rocky, who had been arrested after getting involved in a fist fight. O’Brien had orders to threaten unspecified retaliation against the Swedish government if it did not accede to White House demands. That exercise in international bullying means that O’Brien is quintessentially Trump’s kind of guy. He has written a book entitled While America Slept: Restoring American Leadership to a World in Crisis, calling on the United States to end any “appeasement and retreat,” and has described the basically defunct nuclear agreement with Iran, in predictable neocon fashion, as a repeat of 1938, Hitler and Munich.

And there is always Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who, like his boss, has discovered that there is no lie, no matter how preposterous, that is not worth repeating. Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels promoted a similar approach back in 1939, saying

“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”

Donald Trump’s latest appointment, guided purely by malevolence, is, however, in another category completely, even in an administration where bullheaded ignorance is considered a virtue. Rick Grenell, currently the United States Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany, is completely unqualified to be Director of National Intelligence (DNI), where he would be the nominal head of the entire intelligence community (IC), 17 organizations including the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and National Reconnaissance Office. Just as Grenell had no qualification beyond loyalty to become an ambassador, he will undoubtedly continue in that vein as DNI. Among the Office of National Intelligence (ONI) responsibilities is the briefing of the president on national security related issues.

The appointment of Grenell is as an interim “acting” director for a term of six months because even Trump knows that he could never be approved by the Senate in the normal fashion. Even though Grenell has limited access to intelligence product as a consumer while ambassador, he has no experience as an intelligence officer at any level, nor has he ever been in charge of any large government bureaucracy. He was the communications director for the American ambassador to the U.N. under George W. Bush, and, since May 2018, has served as ambassador to Germany. Given his lack of experience, Grenell will be unable to provide objective intelligence and will instead emphasize briefing on information that supports the president’s policies while also cheerleading for those very policies. That is precisely what Trump would expect from a DNI.

In truth, Richard Grenell has been a ghastly ambassador, even by the low standards set by the Trump State Department. Reportedly inclined to ignore the advice of his professional Foreign Service staff, he is a non-German speaking protégé of National Security Adviser John Bolton who would seem to have enough on his plate defending the unpopular Trump Administration decisions on climate change, the Iran nuclear deal, NATO spending, the Nord Stream-2 Russian gas pipeline project and on tariffs directed against European Union exports, but he has apparently gone out of his way to make the bilateral relationship with a key ally even worse. After the White House withdrew from the Iran agreement, Grenell tweeted that German businesses should “wind down operations immediately” in Iran. The ineptly worded advice was inevitably taken by the Germans as a threat.

Nils Schmid, a German Social Democratic Party foreign policy spokesman, goes so far as to say that

“He does not understand what the role of an ambassador should be. An ambassador is a bridge-builder who explains how American politics works, how the American government works, and at the same time explains to America how Germany sees things.”

Grenell has, however, “defined his role for himself, and it is not the traditional role of an ambassador. … He [works] as a propagandist [for Donald Trump]”

The New York Times is reporting that Grenell will continue to be Ambassador to Germany while he is simultaneously serving as DNI, an arrangement that is as absurd as it sounds if only due to the distance between Washington and Berlin. He is reportedly already assembling his ONI staff and is “cleaning house,” which has included the firing last Friday of Maguire as well as ONI number two Andrew Hallman. It was also reported that even though a number of senior Republicans had privately advised Trump to appoint an intelligence professional for the DNI position, the president is keen to punish a “disloyal” IC.

The appointment of Grenell appears to be connected to an incident two weeks agoin which briefers of the ONI told members of the Democratic Party dominated House Intelligence Committee that Russia is planning to interfere in the 2020 presidential election to help Trump. The evidence for such a sweeping conclusion was not made public, but Trump was apparently enraged that ex-Navy Seal at-that-time DNI Joseph Maguire had allowed the briefing to take place and rebuked him sharply in an Oval Office meeting. Trump was particularly angry because committee chairman Congressman Adam Schiff was present at the Intelligence Committee briefing. Trump claimed that Schiff will “weaponize” the intelligence information to use against him. For what it’s worth, the office of the DNI is required to brief appropriate congressional committees on intelligence matters and national security.

Grenell is also active in promoting worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality, an agenda that has Donald Trump’s blessing but which has not please some administration religious fundamentalists like Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence. Grenell objected to Pompeo’s decision not to support the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, and was also critical of Pompeo’s blocking of a proposal to fly the gay pride flag from the same flagpole as the American flag at embassies across the world. During the recent Pompeo visit to the Munich Security Conference, Grenell brought his partner Matt Lashey to the airport to meet the Secretary of State. The irony is that up until a few years ago homosexuality was grounds for denial of a security clearance to perform certain IC jobs, based on the presumption that homosexuals might be vulnerable to blackmail by hostile intelligence agencies. Currently, two of the top positions in the IC, Director of National Intelligence and Director of Central Intelligence are homosexual.

Trump is taking both deserved and undeserved lumps over the new appointment. Former head of the U.S. Special Operations Command retired Navy admiral William McRaven has decried the dismissal of Joe Maguire because Maguire was “only doing his job.” He wrote an op-ed which might be regarded to a certain extent as special pleading on behalf of a former fellow Seal: “As Americans, we should be frightened — deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security — then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan, who is an open Trump enemy with close ties to the Clintons and Obama, and who should be in prison for his attempt to frame the Trump campaign, declared himself “disturbed.” He inevitably invoked the Russians, demonstrating that he has not learned anything since he left office at the end of 2017. He said that “We are now in a full-blown national security crisis… By trying to prevent the flow of intelligence to Congress, Trump is abetting a Russian covert operation to keep him in office for Moscow’s interests, not America’s.”

By all means Donald Trump should have a free hand in cleaning out the Augean stables of top national security officials like Brennan who have been politicized and corrupted, but it should not be carried out by replacing some agency directors with ignorant cronies who will filter and spin the information that winds up being shared with congressional intelligence committees and with the president. There are plenty of honest people in the IC that could have been called on and who would have done a good job in serving national interests. Grenell is a solution from hell which will only make it even more likely that the poor decision making on foreign and national security policies that has characterized the past two decades will continue unabated and indefinitely into 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.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Featured image is from Flickr

Posted in English
Comments Off on Musical Chairs in the White House
Tags: Rick Grenell, trump, United States

Will Media Support or Oppose Sanders if He Maintains Momentum?

February 26th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

It’s early in the race for the White House with a long way to go, Sanders the current frontrunner to become Dem standard bearer — after being way behind months earlier.

Momentum is in his favor if able to keep it. Early frontrunner Biden is greatly weakened after doing poorly in the first three contests.

A mid-February ABC News/Washington Post poll was stunning — showing Sanders ahead of Biden by 16 points, Bloomberg by 18, Warren by 20, Buttigieg by 24, and Klobuchar by 25 points.

Reporting on the results, WaPo said “Sanders (before Nevada caucuses) surged nationally and now holds a sizable lead over all of his rivals.”

If he matches Biden in Friday’s South Carolina primary, a state the former vice president was projected to win handily months earlier, and Sanders emerges the clear March 3 Super Tuesday winner, a real possibility, added momentum would make him the clear favorite in the Dem race, along with likely knocking Biden and perhaps other Dems out of contention.

Establishment media haven’t been supporters of Sanders so far. Is that changing given his surge and their hostility toward Trump for defeating media darling Hillary?

What DJT achieved in 2016 surprised most observers, notably the NYT.

In its November 8, 2016 edition, the Times said she had “an 85% chance to win,” virtually counting Trump out of the race, adding:

Hillary’s “chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an NFL kicker misses a 37-yard field goal.”

She and supporters had balloons ready to be released and champagne on ice to be uncorked as soon as her triumph was announced. They’re still waiting.

Throughout the 2016 race to now, the Times and most other establishment media have been militantly hostile toward Trump, cool toward Sanders until possible signs of warming up occurred. See below.

In spite of media hostility, DJT won in 2016 and is favored to be reelected.

Because of antipathy toward him by the Times and most other establishment media, will they support Sanders despite favoring almost any other Dem over him in this year’s race for the White House?

Media support most often is key to gaining an edge over political opponents. Establishment figures are virtually always backed to assure continuity.

If Sanders keeps doing well in upcoming primary races and gets media bosses on his side, he could become Dem standard bearer without a brokered convention.

If things turn out this way, one thing is certain. A regime led by Sanders would assure continuity, no change in dirty business as usual domestically and abroad — other than perhaps minor tinkering around the edges too little to matter.

He’ll have guaranteed continuity to party bosses who’d likely grant him marginal wiggle room to throw crumbs at supporters, short of brass ring policies like universal healthcare, a minimum living wage, elimination of neoliberal harshness, and prioritizing social justice over lavish Pentagon funding and tax cuts for the rich.

Rest assured, none of the above would become the law of the land with Sanders as president, far from it, notably because most congressional members oppose progressive policies.

To become GOP and Dem standard bearers requires aspirants to sell their souls to the system, clearly the price for becoming president.

Has Sanders won over the self-styled newspaper of record NYT? On Monday it said “Sanders looks to knock out Biden” from contention…”to all but extinguish his candidacy (by) amass(ing) an insurmountable delegate lead” after next week’s Super Tuesday primaries.

On Monday, the Washington Post said he “seized a commanding position in the (Dem) presidential race, building a diverse coalition that is driving (him) toward the cusp of a takeover of a major political party…hungry to defeat” Trump.

On the same day, even hard right Wall Street Journal editors said “Bernie’s rout in Nevada makes him the favorite for the nomination.”

“It ain’t over till it’s over,” baseball great Yogi Berra long ago said. He and movie mogul Samuel Goldwyn once remarked about the hazards of making predictions — “especially about the future,” they said.

It’s Trump’s election to lose, Sanders a long shot to defeat him, things perhaps a little tougher by tweeting:

“The Israeli people have the right to live in peace and security. So do the Palestinian people.”

“I remain concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights. For that reason I will not attend their conference.”

Operating illegally as an unregistered foreign agent, AIPAC responded:

Sanders “never attended our conference and that is evident from his outrageous comment (sic).”

“(M)any of his own Senate and House Democratic colleagues and leaders speak from our platform” — to their shame, the organization supporting Israeli apartheid rule omitted, adding:

“By engaging in such an odious attack on this mainstream, bipartisan American political event (sic), Senator Sanders is insulting his very own colleagues and the millions of Americans who stand with Israel.”

US political supporters and high-net-worth donors to the Jewish state are complicit with its high crimes to their shame.

If elected president, Sanders will surely support Israel as he has throughout many years in Congress.

What he tweeted and how he operates are world’s apart, true as well about most of what he says and does.

He been a card-carrying dirty business as usual politician for nearly 40 years, going along to get along, based on his voting record, largely along party lines.

If elevated to the nation’s highest office in November, he’ll likely operate as he did in the House and Senate — supporting continuity like most often before.

His most redeeming feature is he’s not Trump, a plus in his favor — whether with most voters remains to be seen if he and DJT meet in November.

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.

Posted in English
Comments Off on Will Media Support or Oppose Sanders if He Maintains Momentum?
Tags: bernie sanders, United States, US elections

Evidence on Continuing US-NATO Media Lies About the War in Syria

February 26th, 2020 by James ONeill

This proposition has been amply illustrated in the past fortnight or so with evidence emerging about the circumstances surrounding the explanations given by the Organisation for the Prevention of Criminal Weapons (OPCW) as to the circumstances relating to an alleged chemical attack by Syrian government forces in the urban district of Douma on 7 April 2018.

On that date the Syrian Armed Forces were alleged to have used banned chemical weapons upon the civilian population of Douma, causing multiple deaths. The evidence to support these allegations came from terrorist groups and their supporters, including the misnamed independent group the White Helmets whose British leader James Le Mesurier recently died in unclear circumstances at home in Istanbul.

Three western nations, the United States, United Kingdom and France, immediately seized upon the allegations and a week later mounted approximately 100 air attacks upon Syrian targets in retaliation for the alleged atrocity of a week earlier.

That these attacks were themselves a gross violation of international law was a detail that appeared to elude western media reports. That such an attack occurred furthermore, before there had been even the beginnings of an investigation, let alone a report setting out the facts, was another detail that the western media overlooked.

Since then, a substantial number of relevant details have emerged, although the reporting of them again does no credit to the western media. The historical details and the relevant conclusions are set out in two detailed reports in the alternative media which people interested in determining the facts are encouraged to read. These two reports are an editorial “More Damning Evidence of a PCW Cover-up in Syria” and an article by Aaron Mate` “New Leaks Shatter OPCW’s Attacks on Douma Whistle Blowers.”

Two reports produced by the OPCW in July 2018 and March 2019 appeared to confirm the allegations made by the western nations, in justifying their illegal bombing raids, that chemical weapons had been used by Syrian government forces. The essence of the OPCW claim was that the Syrian government had used reactive chlorine dropped on civilians from the air. That was the version widely reported in the western media and never corrected.

The WikiLeaks organisation was the first to disclose that this essential claim was in fact false. Rather than an air attack, the gas cylinders displayed by the rebel groups as evidence of an air attack were in fact placed where they were photographed to support the allegation of Syrian government illegality. Evidence as to what had actually happened was provided to the OPCW by their highly qualified and experienced inspectors who investigated on the scene, and produced detailed reports for OPCW headquarters.

It is one of the great scandals of this whole episode, that not only were the reports of the on the scene OPCW experts suppressed, but that a manifestly false version of their findings was used by the OPCW in its reports.

A total of three 0PCW whistle blowers have now come forward to rebut the organisations official findings. The evidence, released in a variety of formats, but perhaps most conclusively in evidence given to the United Nations Security Council by Ian Henderson, a highly qualified and vastly experienced long time OPCW employee.

Mr Henderson’s testimony made it abundantly clear that the OPCW had not only suppressed the evidence obtained by its on the ground experts, those experts were threatened in a variety of ways if they dared to contradict the official OPCW version.

Insight into the motives of the OPCW to publish manifestly false details can be seen in the visit to the headquarters in The Hague by three United States officials. The purpose of their visit was to implore the three experts to accept the official version that it was the Syrian government that was responsible for the chemical attack. They all refused to be a party to this manifold falsehood.

On 6 February 2020 in what Strategic Culture accurately describes as an extraordinary statement the Director-General of the OPCW (Fernando Arias) issued a statement alleging the members of his staff who investigated the alleged attack and provided unanimous conclusions that the reported attack details, were manifestly false, including but not limited to, the alleged chemicals used, and the circumstances of the deceased persons cause of death.

The Inspector General’s statement contained a number of manifestly false allegations, the details of which are set out in Mr Mate’s article. Suffice to note here that it is extraordinary that a presumably independent organisation should be a party to manifest falsehoods. Further, that the management should mount a clearly false set of allegations against highly qualified and undoubtably independent witnesses.

One of those independent witnesses, identified only as “Alex” gave an interview to the United Kingdom reporter Jonathan Steel. “Alex” told Mr Steel that “most of the Douma team felt the two reports on the incident, the interim and final reports, were scientifically impoverished, procedurally irregular and possibly fraudulent.”

The evidence that has emerged, despite the efforts of OPCW management and members of their staff, confirms “Alex’s” criticism. To the Syrian victims of this appalling story must therefore be added another victim, the OPCW itself. This may well prove the longer term victim, that a previously respected and believed to be independent organisation, has now compromised itself in response to undoubted pressure from at least one western government.

The OPCW future as an independent investigator is thus inevitably compromised. The world is a poorer place as a consequence.

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 O’Neill is an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Posted in English
Comments Off on Evidence on Continuing US-NATO Media Lies About the War in Syria
Tags: chemical weapons, OPCW, Syria, Syria War

Trump’s India Visit Was Aimed Against China but Produced No Results

February 26th, 2020 by Paul Antonopoulos

During U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to India on Monday and Tuesday, he was led to a packed cricket stadium with about 100,000 people in Ahmedabad, the capital of Gujarat, the home of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Although many viewed this visit from the trade perspective, we cannot overlook that this visit is also part of Trump’s hostilities with China. Due to the complex situation in Sino-U.S. relations, Trump went to India with intentions of encouraging the country’s leadership to participate in certain projects to undermine China. Although India is a potential competitor of China, India says it is adhering to a balanced policy despite its friction with China. With these frictions existing, it is still not enough to consider India an opponent of China.

Trump has not swayed India to be openly adversarial to China, however his intentions would have been to at least demonstrate that he has identified India into his umbrella of states to oppose China. The president’s visit took place in the hope of signing a trade agreement with India. In the end, both leaders did not agree on a much talked-about trade agreement where Trump was hoping to sign a deal that would help bridge the $25.2 billion trade deficit with India. Therefore, the U.S. still has aspirations and needs in this regard, but Washington is clearly unable to meet its needs.

This comes as the U.S. is currently facing the problem of a large number of job backflows and too many imports of Indian products will conflict with the domestic problems of the U.S. Although its domestic economy is facing difficulties, it is unlikely that India would want to become adversarial with China as the East Asian country is its second largest trading partner. India has to maintain its balanced policy with Beijing and Washington as it announced only days ago that the U.S. was once against India’s largest trading partner.

China’s growing influence is prompting the U.S. to more actively build its own Indo-Pacific strategy. Essentially, Washington is seeking partners to more actively restrict China as it rises in economic and military stature. But in the eyes of Trump, India is just a useful tool to implement this strategy and pressure China and its Belt and Road Initiative. India’s participation in the Indo-Pacific strategy was initially essential to oppose the Belt and Road Initiative. However, New Delhi hopes the Indo-Pacific strategy is an alternative to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and an opportunity for its own economic development independent of China in the hope of fulfilling its potential of becoming a Great Power on its own terms.

Initially India was enthusiastic for the U.S. strategy, this enthusiasm has now waned. India found that although it has common interests with the U.S. in balancing China, there were too many differences, especially revolving around trade. India’s current concern is not to curb China and other issues, but how to improve its domestic economy. Washington wants India to be a bridgehead in the region, however, India is currently governed by Hindutva nationalists, and they are very cautious with foreign ideologies, particularly those with an Anglo basis. In addition, the Indo-Pacific strategy does not have a known economic policy and structure as rather it is aimed at pressurizing China – a stark difference with the Belt and Road Initiative.

The constant threat of closing their markets and forcing India to buy something is not the best strategy to achieve results. In the political field, this is not the basis for long-term cooperation, especially if Trump wants India to be a bulwark against China. Trump did not sign any large-scale trade agreements during his visit while India needs a mutually beneficial trading partner like China. The problem remains unresolved, and there are too many trade gaps, making it difficult to make up for even with the expected use of military transactions. Although Trump did not explicitly mention China during his trip to India, he did indirectly mention China.

“During our visit we discussed the importance of a secure 5G wireless network and the need for this emerging technology to be a tool for freedom, progress, prosperity, not to do anything with where it could be even conceived as a conduit for suppression and censorship,” Trump said in a press briefing after his meeting with Modi. Trump has been urging countries not to use 5G equipment from China’s Huawei telecommunications company on the unfounded allegations that it could be used to spy on other countries, something that Huawei has repeatedly denied.

So, there is little doubt that Trump visited India hoping to consolidate and strengthen the country as part of his anti-China bloc, something that never eventuated in India’s approaching significantly closer to the U.S.

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 a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

Posted in English
Comments Off on Trump’s India Visit Was Aimed Against China but Produced No Results
Tags: China, India, trump

Selected Articles: The Wuhan Virus Outbreak, COVID-19

February 26th, 2020 by Global Research News

Online independent analysis of US-led wars, rampant corruption, corporate greed, civil rights and fraudulent monetary transactions is invariably relegated to the bottom rung of search engine results.

As a result we presently do not cover our monthly running costs which could eventually jeopardize our activities.

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis provided by Global Research on a daily basis?

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

* * *

How Globalization and China’s Economic Crisis Might Jeopardize Our Precarious Medical Supply Chains

By F. William Engdahl, February 26, 2020

The grave risks and dangers in the process of worldwide out-sourcing and so-called globalization of the past 30 years or so are becoming starkly clear as the ongoing health emergency across China threatens vital world supply chains from China to the rest of the world. While much attention is focused on the risks to smartphone components or auto manufacture via supplies of key parts from China or to the breakdown of oil deliveries in the last weeks, there is a danger that will soon become alarmingly clear in terms of global health care system.

Harvard Genetic Research Team Collected and Transferred China Blood and DNA Samples Back to the US

By Zhao Yandong, Zhang Wenxia, and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 25, 2020

The underlying purpose of collecting Chinese DNA samples was not mentioned, nor was the relationship of Harvard University to several entities of the US government.

As documented by the authors, the Harvard study and “theft” of Chinese DNA (biopiracy) was also supported by Big Pharma. In this regard, the blood and DNA samples of Anhui province constitute a potential goldmine for the pharmaceutical companies which provided financial support to the Harvard team.

The New Coronavirus Outbreak, COVID-19, Sounds Menacing and Is

By Tom Clifford, February 25, 2020

COVID-19 has, since December, led to more than 75,000 illnesses and 2,000 deaths, primarily in mainland China. But, statistically the flu is more menacing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta says that in the United States alone, the flu caused an estimated 26 million illnesses, 250,000 hospitalizations and 14,000 deaths this season.

But seasonal flu is expected, it is known about. It is a clear and present danger. COVID-19 is new and the fear it is spreading is more reminiscent of a plague.

Covid-19 Triggers Global Luxury Bust

By Zero Hedge, February 24, 2020

The impact of Covid-19 on supply chains has been tremendous. Uncertainty across the global economy is building as China remains in economic paralysis. The luxury fashion industry is suffering its most significant “shock” since the 2008 financial crisis, reported the Financial Times.

Our angle in this piece is to asses which luxury brand companies are most exposed/dependent on China. Many of these firms have complex operations in the country, from manufacturing facilities to brick and mortar stores to e-commerce platforms. Chinese consumers accounted for 40% of $303 billion spent on luxury goods globally last year.

No Weapon Left Behind: The American Hybrid War on China

By Pepe Escobar, February 23, 2020

There’s no question coronavirus, so far, has been a Heaven-sent politically useful tool, reaching, with minimum investment, the desired targets of maximized U.S. global power – even if fleetingly, enhanced by a non-stop propaganda offensive – and China relatively isolated with its economy semi paralyzed.

Yet perspective is in order. The CDC estimated that up to 42.9 million people got sick during the 2018-2019 flu season in the U.S. No less than 647,000 people were hospitalized. And 61,200 died.

Coronavirus Tests China, Temps America: Devastating Economic Consequences

By Joseph Thomas, February 21, 2020

Biology has done what malicious US foreign policy aimed at China has failed to do for years; complicate China’s relations along its peripheries (and the rest of the world for that matter), particularly in Southeast Asia.

In Thailand, contrary to popular belief, Chinese tourists make up the vast majority of those visiting the Kingdom. Approximately ten times more Chinese tourists arrive in Thailand each year than tourists from all other Western nations combined. With China’s government putting travel bans in place to curb the spread of the recent coronavirus outbreak, Thai resort areas have seen a marked decrease in business.

China’s New Coronavirus: An Examination of the Facts

By Larry Romanoff, January 25, 2020

The Western mass media have discussed the new corona virus that began in the city of Wuhan in Central China but, apart from repetitive small details and the inevitable China-bashing, not much light has been shed on the circumstances. My initial commentary here is composed from a medley of nearly 100 Western news reports, primarily ABC, CBS, CNN, AFP, and from some Chinese media. Officially called the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), the contagion is a respiratory illness, a new type of viral pneumonia, in the same family of infections as SARS and MERS.

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

Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Wuhan Virus Outbreak, COVID-19

Turkey’s War on Syria: Erdogan Sponsored Terrorists Cut Drinking Water off Al-Hasakah, Two Million People Affected, an Explicit War Crime

February 26th, 2020 by Arabi Souri

Terrorists loyal to Erdogan along with Turkish Army forces cut the drinking water off more than 2 million people in the city of Hasakah and its suburbs yesterday.

Empowered by the failure of the so-called ‘international community’ in condemning what Al-Qaeda terrorists did end of 2016 when they first polluted the main water source for the Syrian Capital Damascus then cut off the water for 40 days, Damascus is inhabited by 8 million people.

US and UK sponsored terrorists took over the Tabqa dam 4 years ago, the main water station and hydroelectric dam in Syria. International Community, the United Nations and other usually very ‘concerned’ international organizations suddenly become deaf, blind, and mute when war crimes of such levels are committed, they are only shouting and flooding the world with their crocodile tears over alleged and staged crimes they can temporarily attribute to the Syrian state before it’s exposed.

Turkey has a history of using water supplies in its hegemonic and demonic policies, it built a number of dams over the Euphrates, not to benefit from the water for any good, it was just to exert pressure against Syria and Iraq.

The Alouk water station is located near the Turkish borders, the station was targeted numerous times since the beginning of the Turkish invasion to the region with the help of al-Qaeda, the USA, the separatist Kurds and some deal with Russia.

Turkish forces bombed Alouk Water Plant in early October 2019

Seems the banana offered by Russia to Erdogan isn’t big enough for him, he’s asking for a bigger one in order to come down the tree he climbed fast over Idlib. It’s better he doesn’t accept the banana and stick to the delusional US carrots, this will free the Syrian Arab Army from any pressure by their Russian allies and allows them to clean and restore more of the country from the terrorists and their sponsors.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Turkey’s War on Syria: Erdogan Sponsored Terrorists Cut Drinking Water off Al-Hasakah, Two Million People Affected, an Explicit War Crime
Tags: Erdogan, Syria, Turkey

The US-India Strategic Partnership: Geopolitical Pivot In Favor of US After Trump’s Delhi Visit

February 26th, 2020 by Andrew Korybko

India’s gradual geopolitical pivot towards the US — hitherto deceptively disguised as “multi-aligning” between Great Powers — is complete after Trump’s successful visit, during which time the two countries agreed to a $3 billion arms deal and a memorandum of understanding on boosting energy ties, prompting Prime Minister Modi to proudly declare that they had just established a “comprehensive global strategic partnership”.

“Comprehensive Global Strategic Partners”

The “comprehensive global strategic partnership” between India and the US that Prime Minister Modi proudly announced on Tuesday during the last day of Trump’s trip to the South Asian state conclusively debunks the claim that India’s years-long policy of supposedly “multi-aligning” between Great Powers was ever anything other than a deceptive cover for disguising its geopolitical pivot towards the American-envisaged world order. This outcome should have been predictable enough for any objective observers who were aware of the powerful trends influencing their bilateral relations in recent years. India’s import of Russian weapons dropped a whopping 42% over the past decade only to be replaced by a combination of American, “Israeli“, and French ones instead according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), so it wasn’t surprising that they just inked a $3 billion military deal during Trump’s visit. The American President boasted during their jointstatement that his country’s exports to India surged by nearly 60% since he entered into office, which was greatly assisted by a staggering 500% increase in energy exports, thus explaining the progress that the two leaders said that they’re making on clinching a free trade deal and the memorandum of understanding that they signed for increasing their energy cooperation even further.

Energy Geopolitics

It deserves to be mentioned that Indian media reported prior to Trump’s trip that the US wants to double its oil exports to India, and Reuters also announced just last week that India’s two Venezuelan-oil-importing companies (which together make India the Bolivarian Republic’s top energy customer) declared that they’ll comply with American sanctions against the South American state’s Russian intermediary. The author analyzed this in detail in his piece earlier in the week titled “Venezuela’s Next Economic Shock Might Come From India’s Compliance With US Sanctions“, which compared India’s sell-out of Venezuela to what it had done to Iran less than a year prior in order to court further favor with the US and prevent coming under its so-called “secondary sanctions”. If the trend of US-Indian energy cooperation continues along its current trajectory, then America will soon supply its South Asian partner with approximately five times as much oil as Russia is slated to do after its latest deal earlier this month that the author also analyzed at the time in his piece titled “The Russian-Indian Oil Deal Is An ‘Unpleasant Surprise’ For Iran, Not The US“. Considering the aforementioned military and energy developments as well as India’s leading position in the US’ “Indo-Pacific Strategy” for “containing” China, it’s little wonder that they decided to go public with their “comprehensive global strategic partnership”.

Warning After Warning Was Ignored

The author has been warning about this destabilizing inevitability for nearly the past four years, having first published a two-part article series at The Duran in May 2016 rhetorically asking “Is India Now A US Ally” and subsequently analyzing “The Threat To Russia And China From India’s New Pro-US Realignment” following reports that it was discussing a “Logistics Exchange Memorandum Of Agreement” (LEMOA) with the US which would allow the latter’s military forces the right to receive so-called “logistical assistance” at certain Indian bases on a case-by-case basis. India not only agreed to LEMOA later that year, but it also signed a “Communications, Compatibility, Security Agreement” (COMCASA) with the US in 2018 after becoming its first-ever “Major Defense Partner” on par with so-called “Major Non-NATO Allies”. As the proverbial “icing on the cake”, the US even renamed its Pacific Command the “Indo-Pacific Command” to emphasize the leading role that India is envisaged to play as the Pentagon’s “Lead From Behind” partner all across the broad swath of Southern, Southeastern, and Eastern Eurasia throughout the 21st century. Against this geostrategic backdrop, Trump predictably declared in his joint statement with Modi that the two countries “are revitalizing the Quad Initiative” in spite of India recently renewing its strategic partnership with Russia, which is extremely suspicious of this trans-hemispheric military project. Even though the Indian Ambassador to Russia regards his host country as being one of India’s “global partners” and the Eurasian Great Power is indeed strengthening relations with its South Asian counterpart in order to “balance” China, Moscow will always be second to Washington for New Delhi due to these aforementioned reasons.

RT Is Almost Always Wrong About India Nowadays

As explained above, the “comprehensive global strategic partnership” that Modi just proudly declared between India and the US was an obvious inevitability that was timed to coincide with Trump’s recent visit to the country, though two of RT’s new op-ed contributors surprisingly didn’t see it coming. Abhijit Majumder and Ashish Shukla, both senior Indian journalists, were extremely skeptical about the outcome of this trip in their two recent pieces titled “Beyond Modi-Trump hugs and promises: Why India must play hardball over US president’s Delhi visit” and “Forget substance, Trump gets the optics he craved in India“, respectively. The first-mentioned believed that India would play ‘hard to get’ with Trump while the latter thought that nothing of substance would result from his visit, and both were totally wrong. India folded on Venezuela in the run-up to the summit and also banned Chinese tech companies from participating in government tenders, after which Modi eagerly gave Trump a $3 billion military deal, an energy agreement, and a “comprehensive global strategic partnership” that he can tout during the campaign trail as proof of his success in “prying India away from Putin” and making substantial progress in “containing” China. For all intents and purposes, India has now become the US’ “junior partner” in the “Indo-Pacific”, which should be incorporated into all forthcoming analyses by those two RT contributors if they hope to remain credible after their latest articles were so dramatically discredited.

Concluding Thoughts

India’s geopolitical pivot into one of the US’ most globally important military-strategic partners is now complete following Trump’s very successful trip to the South Asian state. The over-hyped slogan of “multi-alignment” has been thoroughly exposed as fraudulent though it’ll probably continue to be repeated from time to time in a last-ditch attempt to mislead India’s “fellow” Russian and Chinese BRICS & SCO “partners”. The new (but not unpredictable) reality of India as America’s newest “junior partner” doesn’t mean that its relations with those two Great Powers will be irreconcilably damaged, however, since each of them have their own interests for maintaining strategic ties with the country and even improving them along various trajectories. This includes Russia’s military and energy interests, China’s commercial ones, and their joint desire to cooperate with India to shape new international financial architecture. Nevertheless, this inevitable development adds yet another layer of complexity to the already complicated geopolitics of the New Cold War, reducing Russia and China’s strategic maneuverability and limiting their overall options. As a result, both of them might come even closer together to improve their collective potential, though this scenario might be offset if Russian strategists continue to bet on “balancing” China with India despite the latter nowadays being the US’ “junior partner”.

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Posted in English
Comments Off on The US-India Strategic Partnership: Geopolitical Pivot In Favor of US After Trump’s Delhi Visit
Tags: India, United States

The Looming Financial Nightmare: So Much for Living the American Dream

February 26th, 2020 by John W. Whitehead

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” ― Frédéric Bastiat, French economist

Let’s talk numbers, shall we?

The national debt (the amount the federal government has borrowed over the years and must pay back) is $23 trillion and growing.

The amount this country owes is now greater than its gross national product (all the products and services produced in one year by labor and property supplied by the citizens). We’re paying more than $270 billion just in interest on that public debt annually. And the top two foreign countries who “own” our debt are China and Japan.

The national deficit (the difference between what the government spends and the revenue it takes in) is projected to surpass $1 trillion every year for the next 10 years.

The United States spends more on foreign aid than any other nation ($50 billion in 2017 alone). More than 150 countries around the world receive U.S. taxpayer-funded assistance, with most of the funds going to the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

Meanwhile, almost 60% of Americans are so financially strapped that they don’t have even $500 in savings and nothing whatsoever put away for retirement, and yet they are being forced to pay for government programs that do little to enhance or advance their lives.

Folks, if you haven’t figured it out yet, we’re not living the American dream.

We’re living a financial nightmare.

The U.S. government—and that includes the current administration—is spending money it doesn’t have on programs it can’t afford, and “we the taxpayers” are the ones who will pay for it.

As financial analyst Kristin Tate explains, “When the government has its debt bill come due, all of us will be on the hook.” It’s happened before: during the European debt crisis, Cypress seized private funds from its citizens’ bank accounts to cover its debts, with those who had been careful to save their pennies forced to relinquish between 40% to 60% of their assets.

Could it happen here? Could the government actually seize private funds for its own gain?

Look around you. It’s already happening.

In the eyes of the government, “we the people, the voters, the consumers, and the taxpayers” are little more than pocketbooks waiting to be picked.

Consider: The government can seize your home and your car (which you’ve bought and paid for) over nonpayment of taxes. Government agents can freeze and seize your bank accounts and other valuables if they merely “suspect” wrongdoing. And the IRS insists on getting the first cut of your salary to pay for government programs over which you have no say.

We have no real say in how the government runs, or how our taxpayer funds are used, but we’re being forced to pay through the nose, anyhow.

We have no real say, but that doesn’t prevent the government from fleecing us at every turn and forcing us to pay for endless wars that do more to fund the military industrial complex than protect us, pork barrel projects that produce little to nothing, and a police state that serves only to imprison us within its walls.

If you have no choice, no voice, and no real options when it comes to the government’s claims on your property and your money, you’re not free.

It wasn’t always this way, of course.

Early Americans went to war over the inalienable rights described by philosopher John Locke as the natural rights of life, liberty and property.

It didn’t take long, however—a hundred years, in fact—before the American government was laying claim to the citizenry’s property by levying taxes to pay for the Civil War. As the New York Times reports, “Widespread resistance led to its repeal in 1872.”

Determined to claim some of the citizenry’s wealth for its own uses, the government reinstituted the income tax in 1894. Charles Pollock challenged the tax as unconstitutional, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor. Pollock’s victory was relatively short-lived. Members of Congress—united in their determination to tax the American people’s income—worked together to adopt a constitutional amendment to overrule the Pollock decision.

On the eve of World War I, in 1913, Congress instituted a permanent income tax by way of the 16^thAmendment to the Constitution and the Revenue Act of 1913. Under the Revenue Act, individuals with income exceeding $3,000 could be taxed starting at 1% up to 7% for incomes exceeding $500,000.

It’s all gone downhill from there.

Unsurprisingly, the government has used its tax powers to advance its own imperialistic agendas and the courts have repeatedly upheld the government’s power to penalize or jail those who refused to pay their taxes.

Irwin A. Schiff was one of the nation’s most vocal tax protesters. He spent a good portion of his life arguing that the income tax was unconstitutional, and he put his wallet where his conscience was: Schiff stopped paying federal taxes in 1974.

Schiff paid the price for his resistance, too: he served three separate prison terms (more than 10 years in all) over his refusal to pay taxes. He died at the age of 87 serving a 14-year prison term. As constitutional activist Robert L. Schulz noted in Schiff’s obituary, “In a society where there is so much fear of government, and in particular of the I.R.S., [Schiff] was probably the most influential educator regarding the illegal and unconstitutional operation and enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code. It’s very hard to speak to power, but he did, and he paid a very heavy price.”

It’s still hard to speak to power, and those who do are still paying a very heavy price.

All the while the government continues to do whatever it likes—levy taxes, rack up debt, spend outrageously and irresponsibly—with little thought for the plight of its citizens.

To top it all off, all of those wars the U.S. is so eager to fight abroad are being waged with borrowed funds. As The Atlantic reports, “For 15 years now, the United States has been putting these wars on a credit card… U.S. leaders are essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan.”

If Americans managed their personal finances the way the government mismanages the nation’s finances, we’d all be in debtors’ prison by now.

Still, the government remains unrepentant, unfazed and undeterred in its money grabs.

While we’re struggling to get by, and making tough decisions about how to spend what little money actually makes it into our pockets after the federal, state and local governments take their share (this doesn’t include the stealth taxes imposed through tolls, fines and other fiscal penalties), the police state is spending our hard-earned tax dollars to further entrench its powers and entrap its citizens.

For instance, American taxpayers have been forced to shell out more than $5.6 trillion since 9/11 for the military industrial complex’s costly, endless so-called “war on terrorism.”

That translates to roughly $23,000 per taxpayer to wage wars abroad, occupy foreign countries, provide financial aid to foreign allies, and fill the pockets of defense contractors and grease the hands of corrupt foreign dignitaries.

Mind you, that staggering $6 trillion is only a portion of what the Pentagon spends on America’s military empire.

That price tag keeps growing, too.

In this way, the military industrial complex will get even richer, and the American taxpayer will be forced to shell out even more funds for programs that do little to enhance our lives, ensure our happiness and well-being, or secure our freedoms.

As Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in a 1953 speech:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live?

This is still no way of life.

Yet it’s not just the government’s endless wars that are bleeding us dry.

We’re also being forced to shell out money for surveillance systems to track our movements, money to further militarize our already militarized police, money to allow the government to raid our homes and bank accounts, money to fund schools where our kids learn nothing about freedom and everything about how to comply, and on and on.

Are you getting the picture yet?

The government isn’t taking our money to make our lives better. Just take a look at the nation’s failing infrastructure, and you’ll see how little is being spent on programs that advance the common good.

We’re being robbed blind so the governmental elite can get richer.

This is nothing less than financial tyranny.

“We the people” have become the new, permanent underclass in America.

It’s tempting to say that there’s little we can do about it, except that’s not quite accurate.

There are a few things we can do (demand transparency, reject cronyism and graft, insist on fair pricing and honest accounting methods, call a halt to incentive-driven government programs that prioritize profits over people), but it will require that “we the people” stop playing politics and stand united against the politicians and corporate interests who have turned our government and economy into a pay-to-play exercise in fascism.

We’ve become so invested in identity politics that label us based on our political leanings that we’ve lost sight of the one label that unites us: we’re all Americans.

The powers-that-be want to pit us against one another. They want us to adopt an “us versus them” mindset that keeps us powerless and divided.

Trust me, the only “us versus them” that matters anymore is “we the people” against the police state.

We’re all in the same boat, folks, and there’s only one real life preserver: that’s the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution starts with those three powerful words: “We the people.”

The message is this: there is power in our numbers.

That remains our greatest strength in the face of a governmental elite that continues to ride roughshod over the populace. It remains our greatest defense against a government that has claimed for itself unlimited power over the purse (taxpayer funds) and the sword (military might).

This holds true whether you’re talking about health care, war spending, or the American police state.

While we’re on the subject, do me a favor and don’t let yourself be fooled into believing that the next crop of political saviors will be any different from their predecessors. They all talk big when they’re running for office, and when they get elected, they spend big at our expense.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is how the middle classes, who fuel the nation’s economy and fund the government’s programs, get screwed repeatedly.

George Harrison, who would have been 77 this year, summed up this outrageous state of affairs in his song Taxman:

If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,

If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.

If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,

If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.

Don’t ask me what I want it for

If you don’t want to pay some more

‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman.

Now my advice for those who die

Declare the pennies on your eyes

‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

And you’re working for no one but me.

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].

Posted in English
Comments Off on The Looming Financial Nightmare: So Much for Living the American Dream
Tags: United States, US economy

Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 2

February 26th, 2020 by Craig Murray

This afternoon Julian’s Spanish lawyer, Baltasar Garzon, left court to return to Madrid. On the way out he naturally stopped to shake hands with his client, proffering his fingers through the narrow slit in the bulletproof glass cage. Assange half stood to take his lawyer’s hand. The two security guards in the cage with Assange immediately sprang up, putting hands on Julian and forcing him to sit down, preventing the handshake.

That was not by any means the worst thing today, but it is a striking image of the senseless brute force continually used against a man accused of publishing documents. That a man cannot even shake his lawyer’s hand goodbye is against the entire spirit in which the members of the legal system like to pretend the law is practised. I offer that startling moment as encapsulating yesterday’s events in court.

Day 2 proceedings had started with a statement from Edward Fitzgerald, Assange’s QC, that shook us rudely into life. He stated that yesterday, on the first day of trial, Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings.

Magistrate Baraitser looked at Fitzgerald and stated, in a voice laced with disdain, that he had raised such matters before and she had always replied that she had no jurisdiction over the prison estate. He should take it up with the prison authorities. Fitzgerald remained on his feet, which drew a very definite scowl from Baraitser, and replied that of course they would do that again, but this repeated behaviour by the prison authorities threatened the ability of the defence to prepare. He added that regardless of jurisdiction, in his experience it was common practice for magistrates and judges to pass on comments and requests to the prison service where the conduct of the trial was affected, and that jails normally listened to magistrates sympathetically.

Baraitser flat-out denied any knowledge of such a practice, and stated that Fitzgerald should present her with written arguments setting out the case law on jurisdiction over prison conditions. This was too much even for prosecution counsel James Lewis, who stood up to say the prosecution would also want Assange to have a fair hearing, and that he could confirm that what the defence were suggesting was normal practice. Even then, Baraitser still refused to intervene with the prison. She stated that if the prison conditions were so bad as to reach the very high bar of making a fair hearing impossible, the defence should bring a motion to dismiss the charges on those grounds. Otherwise they should drop it.

Both prosecution and defence seemed surprised by Baraitser’s claim that she had not heard of what they both referred to as common practice. Lewis may have been genuinely concerned at the shocking description of Assange’s prison treatment yesterday; or he may have just had warning klaxons going off in his head screaming “mistrial”. But the net result is Baraitser will attempt to do nothing to prevent Julian’s physical and mental abuse in jail nor to try to give him the ability to participate in his defence. The only realistic explanation that occurs to me is that Baraitser has been warned off, because this continual mistreatment and confiscation of documents is on senior government authority.

A last small incident for me to recount: having queued again from the early hours, I was at the final queue before the entrance to the public gallery, when the name was called out of Kristin Hrnafsson, editor of Wikileaks, with whom I was talking at the time. Kristin identified himself, and was told by the court official he was barred from the public gallery.

Now I was with Kristin throughout the entire proceedings the previous day, and he had done absolutely nothing amiss – he is rather a quiet gentleman. When he was called for, it was by name and by job description – they were specifically banning the editor of Wikileaks from the trial. Kristin asked why and was told it was a decision of the Court.

At this stage John Shipton, Julian’s father, announced that in this case the family members would all leave too, and they did so, walking out of the building. They and others then started tweeting the news of the family walkout. This appeared to cause some consternation among court officials, and fifteen minutes later Kristin was re-admitted. We still have no idea what lay behind this. Later in the day journalists were being briefed by officials it was simply over queue-jumping, but that seems improbable as he was removed by staff who called him by name and title, rather than had spotted him as a queue-jumper.

None of the above goes to the official matter of the case. All of the above tells you more about the draconian nature of the political show-trial which is taking place than does the charade being enacted in the body of the court. There were moments today when I got drawn in to the court process and achieved the suspension of disbelief you might do in theatre, and began thinking “Wow, this case is going well for Assange”. Then an event such as those recounted above kicks in, a coldness grips your heart, and you recall there is no jury here to be convinced. I simply do not believe that anything said or proved in the courtroom can have an impact on the final verdict of this court.

So to the actual proceedings in the case.

For the defence, Mark Summers QC stated that the USA charges were entirely dependent on three factual accusations of Assange behviour:

1) Assange helped Manning to decode a hash key to access classified material.
Summers stated this was a provably false allegation from the evidence of the Manning court-martial.

2) Assange solicited the material from Manning
Summers stated this was provably wrong from information available to the public

3) Assange knowingly put lives at risk
Summers stated this was provably wrong both from publicly available information and from specific involvement of the US government.

In summary, Summers stated the US government knew that the allegations being made were false as to fact, and they were demonstrably made in bad faith. This was therefore an abuse of process which should lead to dismissal of the extradition request. He described the above three counts as “rubbish, rubbish and rubbish”.

Summers then walked through the facts of the case. He said the charges from the USA divide the materials leaked by Manning to Wikileaks into three categories:

a) Diplomatic Cables
b) Guantanamo detainee assessment briefs
c) Iraq War rules of engagement
d) Afghan and Iraqi war logs

Summers then methodically went through a), b), c) and d) relating each in turn to alleged behaviours 1), 2) and 3), making twelve counts of explanation and exposition in all. This comprehensive account took some four hours and I shall not attempt to capture it here. I will rather give highlights, but will relate occasionally to the alleged behaviour number and/or the alleged materials letter. I hope you follow that – it took me some time to do so!

On 1) Summers at great length demonstrated conclusively that Manning had access to each material a) b) c) d) provided to Wikileaks without needing any code from Assange, and had that access before ever contacting Assange. Nor had Manning needed a code to conceal her identity as the prosecution alleged – the database for intelligence analysts Manning could access – as could thousands of others – did not require a username or password to access it from a work military computer. Summers quoted testimony of several officers from Manning’s court-martial to confirm this. Nor would breaking the systems admin code on the system give Manning access to any additional classified databases. Summers quoted evidence from the Manning court-martial, where this had been accepted, that the reason Manning wanted to get in to systems admin was to allow soldiers to put their video-games and movies on their government laptops, which in fact happened frequently.

Magistrate Baraitser twice made major interruptions. She observed that if Chelsea Manning did not know she could not be traced as the user who downloaded the databases, she might have sought Assange’s assistance to crack a code to conceal her identity from ignorance she did not need to do that, and to assist would still be an offence by Assange.

Summers pointed out that Manning knew that she did not need a username and password, because she actually accessed all the materials without one. Baraitser replied that this did not constitute proof she knew she could not be traced. Summers said in logic it made no sense to argue that she was seeking a code to conceal her user ID and password, where there was no user ID and password. Baraitser replied again he could not prove that. At this point Summers became somewhat testy and short with Baraitser, and took her through the court martial evidence again. Of which more…

Baraitser also made the point that even if Assange were helping Manning to crack an admin code, even if it did not enable Manning to access any more databases, that still was unauthorised use and would constitute the crime of aiding and abetting computer misuse, even if for an innocent purpose.

After a brief break, Baraitser came back with a real zinger. She told Summers that he had presented the findings of the US court martial of Chelsea Manning as fact. But she did not agree that her court had to treat evidence at a US court martial, even agreed or uncontested evidence or prosecution evidence, as fact. Summers replied that agreed evidence or prosecution evidence at the US court martial clearly was agreed by the US government as fact, and what was at issue at the moment was whether the US government was charging contrary to the facts it knew. Baraitser said she would return to her point once witnesses were heard.

Baraitser was no making no attempt to conceal a hostility to the defence argument, and seemed irritated they had the temerity to make it. This burst out when discussing c), the Iraq war rules of engagement. Summers argued that these had not been solicited from Manning, but had rather been provided by Manning in an accompanying file along with the Collateral Murder video that showed the murder of Reuters journalists and children. Manning’s purpose, as she stated at her court martial, was to show that the Collateral Murder actions breached the rules of engagement, even though the Department of Defense claimed otherwise. Summers stated that by not including this context, the US extradition request was deliberately misleading as it did not even mention the Collateral Murder video at all.

At this point Baraitser could not conceal her contempt. Try to imagine Lady Bracknell saying “A Handbag” or “the Brighton line”, or if your education didn’t run that way try to imagine Pritti Patel spotting a disabled immigrant. This is a literal quote:

“Are you suggesting, Mr Summers, that the authorities, the Government, should have to provide context for its charges?”

An unfazed Summers replied in the affirmative and then went on to show where the Supreme Court had said so in other extradition cases. Baraitser was showing utter confusion that anybody could claim a significant distinction between the Government and God.

The bulk of Summers’ argument went to refuting behaviour 3), putting lives at risk. This was only claimed in relation to materials a) and d). Summers described at great length the efforts of Wikileaks with media partners over more than a year to set up a massive redaction campaign on the cables. He explained that the unredacted cables only became available after Luke Harding and David Leigh of the Guardian published the password to the cache as the heading to Chapter XI of their book Wikileaks, published in February 2011.

Nobody had put 2 and 2 together on this password until the German publication Die Freitag had done so and announced it had the unredacted cables in August 2011. Summers then gave the most powerful arguments of the day.

The US government had been actively participating in the redaction exercise on the cables. They therefore knew the allegations of reckless publication to be untrue.

Once Die Freitag announced they had the unredacted materials, Julian Assange and Sara Harrison instantly telephoned the White House, State Department and US Embassy to warn them named sources may be put at risk. Summers read from the transcripts of telephone conversations as Assange and Harrison attempted to convince US officials of the urgency of enabling source protection procedures – and expressed their bafflement as officials stonewalled them. This evidence utterly undermined the US government’s case and proved bad faith in omitting extremely relevant fact. It was a very striking moment.

With relation to the same behaviour 3) on materials d), Summers showed that the Manning court martial had accepted these materials contained no endangered source names, but showed that Wikileaks had activated a redaction exercise anyway as a “belt and braces” approach.

There was much more from the defence. For the prosecution, James Lewis indicated he would reply in depth later in proceedings, but wished to state that the prosecution does not accept the court martial evidence as fact, and particularly does not accept any of the “self-serving” testimony of Chelsea Manning, whom he portrayed as a convicted criminal falsely claiming noble motives. The prosecution generally rejected any notion that this court should consider the truth or otherwise of any of the facts; those could only be decided at trial in the USA.

Then, to wrap up proceedings, Baraitser dropped a massive bombshell. She stated that although Article 4.1 of the US/UK Extradition Treaty forbade political extraditions, this was only in the Treaty. That exemption does not appear in the UK Extradition Act. On the face of it therefore political extradition is not illegal in the UK, as the Treaty has no legal force on the Court. She invited the defence to address this argument in the morning.

It is now 06.35am and I am late to start queuing…

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 2
Tags: Assange extradition, Assange hearing, extradition hearing, Julian Assange

Police State US/UK v. Julian Assange

February 26th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Tuesday was day two of Assange’s Orwellian extradition hearing — a scripted extrajudicial show trial.

Like virtually always in the modern era, Britain is in cahoots with the Trump regime to crucify Assange for the “crime” of truth-telling journalism — revealing US high crimes of war and against humanity both right wings of its war party want suppressed.

Last week, John Pilger stressed that “if there is any sense of justice left in the land of Magna Carta, the travesty that is the case against this heroic Australian must be thrown out. Or beware, all of us,” he added.

Of course, “in the land of” UK complicity with US high crimes, Assange has already been judged guilty as charged, evidence of innocence inadmissible.

Incarcerated since last April after being brutally dragged from Ecuador’s London embassy to maximum-security Belmarsh prison, Assange has been tortured and otherwise abused to kill him slowly — including on days one and two of his show trial only a despotic regime could love.

According to Sputnik News analyst/producer Walter Smolarek, Assange is being “treated terribly throughout this whole process.”

Separated from and unable to communicate with his legal team behind bulletproof glass in the courtroom, he’s also been “badly harassed by prison authorities inside of Belmarsh Prison” before and during extradition proceedings to “make him incapable of truly defending himself in court,” adding:

“This is an unbelievable abuse of a detainee – somebody who should have the presumption of innocence – but obviously that’s not being followed in this case.”

Pronounced guilty by accusation long before proceedings began, there is no chance for Assange to receive due process and judicial fairness, no chance for abuse against him to cease, perhaps no chance that he’ll ever see the light of day again as a free man.

He’s being “psychologically abused and tortured, said UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer.

If he dies in Britain, “he will effectively have been tortured to death,” said 117 doctors from 18 countries in an open letter.

According to his legal team, he was stripped naked twice, handcuffed 11 times, forced to stand isolated in court, and had his case files confiscated on day one of the extradition proceedings.

In cahoots with the US and UK regimes, magistrate Vanessa Baraitser falsely claimed no authority to rule on Assange’s mistreatment.

His lawyer Edward Fitzgerald explained that US intelligence operatives and Spanish detectives plotted to kidnap and poison him when confined in Ecuador’s London embassy — intending to make his death appear accidental, adding:

He was surveilled and his conversations recorded inside the embassy by the UC Global Spanish firm, material handed over to US intelligence operatives, including audio and video recordings of meetings with his legal team, a flagrant breach of attorney/client confidentiality.

On Monday, WikiLeaks tweeted the following:

“Replying to

@wikileaks

Fitzgerald: (Assange) was the obvious symbol of all that Trump condemned. He had brought American war crimes to the attention of the world.

Fitzgerald: ‘political motivation fuels this prosecution’ and cites comments from the US government that Assange and Wikileaks are a ‘non-state hostile intelligence agency.’

Fitzgerald: Julian Assange was subjected to surveillance on the instructions of US intelligence while in the Ecuadorian embassy.

A witness (unnamed) has provided detail including how they collected sound recordings from microphones every 14 days.

Witness #2 will testify that: ‘extreme measures’ such as kidnapping or poisoning Assange were discussed among personnel involved in the espionage operation, (calling US intelligence) ‘desperate.’ ”

In magistrate’s court on day two, Craig Murray explained Assange’s continued mistreatment during trial proceedings, no harshness spared to deny him his fundamental rights.

He was prevented from communicating with his legal team, prevented from participating in presenting a defense.

He wasn’t even allowed to “shake his lawyer’s hand…and (was) five times locked up in different holding cells,” said Murray — along with being abusively stripped searched and handcuffed multiple times.

Assange’s attorney Mark Summers said Trump regime charges against Assange were “false (and) demonstrably made in bad faith,” Murray explained.

Summers called Trump regime charges dependent on three contrived accusations against Assange “rubbish, rubbish, and rubbish.”

As for Baraitser throughout two days of proceedings with more of the same sure to follow, she made “no attempt to conceal a hostility to” factual evidence presented by the defense, said Murray, adding:

She “dropped a massive bombshell,” saying that although the US/UK Extradition Treaty forbids political extraditions, this prohibition is not included in the UK Extradition Act, she claimed.

This issue will be discussed in day three of proceedings.

Assange’s defense team will surely contest this argument to no avail given Baraitser’s anti-Assange bias — following orders from a higher authority.

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.

Posted in English
Comments Off on Police State US/UK v. Julian Assange
Tags: Assange extradition, Assange hearing, extradition hearing, Julian Assange, United Kingdom, United States

Arguments About Bloomberg’s “Electability” Overlook His Racism and Misogyny

February 26th, 2020 by Prof. Marjorie Cohn

As billionaire Michael Bloomberg endeavors to buy his way to the presidency, some pundits continue to speculate that he has the best chance of defeating Donald Trump, even after his abysmal debate performance in Nevada. Bloomberg’s campaign says Bernie Sanders is the only candidate standing in the way of Bloomberg winning the nomination and beating Trump.

Bloomberg plans to mount a “multipronged attack” on Sanders in the lead-up to Super Tuesday. It will be a “media onslaught” with expensive digital attack ads and may feature opposition research, the use of surrogates on TV and op-eds attacking Sanders.

Politico reports that Bloomberg is lobbying the Democratic establishment and “donors allied with his moderate opponents [such as Joe Biden] to flip their allegiance to him – and block Bernie Sanders” if the Democratic nomination goes to a brokered convention in July.

This means that even if Sanders has the most delegates going into the convention, he wouldn’t win the nomination on the first ballot if he doesn’t have 1,991 delegates. The superdelegates could then choose whomever they want on the second ballot.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) — which ensured that Hillary Clinton and not Sanders was the nominee in 2016 — would love to appoint the centrist plutocrat Bloomberg as the Democratic standard bearer. Just before Bloomberg entered the race, he gave $325,000 to the DNC and directs his high-dollar donors to give money directly to the DNC and not his campaign.

But in light of Bloomberg’s dismal debate performance in Las Vegas and Sanders’s clean sweep in the first three primaries, Bloomberg’s millions may not be enough to catapult him to the Democratic nomination and ultimately to the White House.

Bloomberg’s Support Fell After the Las Vegas Debate

After the February 19 debate, Bloomberg’s first-choice support fell 3 points nationally to 17 percent, behind Biden. Bloomberg’s net favorability dropped 20 points in general and it dropped 30 points with moderate Democrats who had supported his candidacy before the debate. That decline was the only significant movement among any of the Democratic candidates. But at the moment, Bloomberg still occupies third place after Sanders and Biden.

Bloomberg was the lightning rod at the debate. The other candidates came ready to confront him on his record — and confront him they did. He appeared woefully unprepared, although he reportedly underwent extensive mock debate preparation.

A “billionaire unaccustomed to having conversations on anyone else’s terms,” according to The New York Times, Bloomberg floundered, unable to withstand the attacks on his record. “And if that’s what happened in a Democratic debate,” Sanders toldCNN’s Anderson Cooper, “I think it’s quite likely that Trump will chew him up and spit him out.”

The eighth-richest person in the United States, Bloomberg is worth around $64 billion. At the debate, Bloomberg said he got “very lucky” and “worked very hard” for his wealth. Sanders countered that it “wasn’t you who made all that money, maybe your workers played some role in that as well,” suggesting that the workers “share the benefits” and “sit on corporate boards.” Bloomberg was unmoved.

“Mike Bloomberg owns more wealth than the bottom 125 million Americans,” Sanders stated, while “half a million people [are] sleeping out on the street … we have kids who cannot afford to go to college … we have 45 million people dealing with student debt.”

Meanwhile Elizabeth Warren confronted Bloomberg over his misogyny, now famously saying: “I’d like to talk about who we’re running against: A billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians… And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.”

Warren also challenged Bloomberg over the nondisclosure agreements he has secured from unknown numbers of women for “sexual harassment and for gender discrimination in the workplace.” Indeed, The Washington Post reported that sexual harassment complaints have been filed against Bloomberg for many years, including allegations of crude sexual language.

Bloomberg refused to promise Warren that he would “release all of those women from these non-disclosure agreements.” Two days after the debate, he announced that he would release three women from their nondisclosure agreements regarding “complaints about comments they said I had made.”

Bloomberg’s Disturbing Record Will Surely Hurt Him

Moreover, Bloomberg’s disturbing record during the 11 years he served as mayor of New York City may be a deal breaker, especially for voters in Sanders’s progressive, anti-Wall Street cohort.

Bloomberg has called for cuts to Social Security, including raising the retirement age; opposed an increase in the minimum wage; opposed paid sick leave; opposed the Affordable Care Act; opposed the Iran nuclear deal; supported private charter schools and favored fracking. He endorsed both of George W. Bush’s presidential candidacies and heartily supported the Iraq War.

Advocating blanket surveillance, Bloomberg declared that “we should hope” the National Security Agency was “reading every email.” While he was mayor, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) used undercover informants to spy on Occupy Wall Street.

And extensive surveillance of the Muslim community for six years failed to provide even one lead for a terrorism investigation. “Michael Bloomberg oversaw the mass warrantless, suspicionless surveillance of Muslim New Yorkers, as the NYPD ‘mapped’ where they prayed, ate, studied, and worked,” Mehdi Hasan wrote at The Intercept.

Bloomberg’s Racist “Stop-and Frisk” Program

Bloomberg was New York City mayor from 2002 to 2013. He presided over the notorious, illegal “stop-and-frisk” program. The NYPD conducted more than 5 million stops and interrogations. “Black and Latinx communities continue to be the overwhelming target of these tactics,” the New York Civil Liberties Union said. “Nearly nine out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent,” the group reported.

The Fourth Amendment allows law enforcement to stop a person if the officer has “reasonable suspicion” that the suspect committed or is about to commit a crime. Police can then frisk the suspect if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and presently dangerous.

Officers cannot act on a hunch or engage in racial profiling. But that is just what the NYPD did routinely.

At the debate, Bloomberg claimed that he made the decision to end the stop-and-frisk program. The federal judge who oversaw the stop-and-frisk litigation for 10 years, however, said that Bloomberg was forced to discontinue the program after she ruled it unconstitutional.

Sanders stated, “In order to beat Donald Trump we’re going to need the largest voter turnout in the history of the United States.” But Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk program, which “went after African-American and Latino people in an outrageous way,” would discourage voter turnout, he said.

“What Bloomberg did as mayor amounted to a police occupation of minority neighborhoods, a terroristic pressure campaign, with little evidence that it was accomplishing the goal of sustained, long-term crime reduction,” Charles Blow wrote in The New York Times. “Nearly 90% of the people stopped were completely innocent. He knew that. They were the collateral damage in his crusade, black and brown bodies up against walls and down on the ground, groped in the middle of the city by strange men with guns, a vast expanse of human psychological wreckage about which he couldn’t care less.”

Bloomberg has made a litany of racist comments. For example, in 2011, he said Black and Latino men “don’t know how to behave in the workplace.” Bloomberg also alleged, “If you look at where crime takes place, it’s in minority neighborhoods.” He apparently doesn’t classify crime in white neighborhoods, including white-collar crime, as “crime.”

Helping the GOP Maintain Control of the Senate

Often changing his party affiliation, Bloomberg contributed millions of dollars to gain and maintain Republican control of the Senate.

Over a period of several decades through the end of 2018, Bloomberg donated more than $900,000 to Republican candidates, GOP federal PACs and national committees. One of Bloomberg’s super PACs gave more than $10 million to federal GOP candidates from 2012-2016.

In the last decade alone, “Bloomberg helped Republicans take and maintain control of the U.S. Senate, which, in the Trump era and under Mitch McConnell’s (R-Kentucky) leadership, has confirmed scores of right-wing judges, blocked liberal legislation passed by the House, and shielded the president from any repercussions after seeking foreign election assistance, tampering with witnesses and defying congressional subpoenas,” Alex Kotch wrote at the Center for Media and Democracy.

Sanders Is the Putative Front-Runner

At the Nevada caucus, Sanders won all age demographics except the over-65 voters. As William Rivers Pitt reported at Truthout, “Sanders captured a majority of votes from Nevada’s Latinx voters, white voters, union households, non-union households, voters with college degrees, voters without college degrees, Democrats, Independents, women and men.”

Sanders is a force to be reckoned with. He is the first candidate — Democrat or Republican — to win the popular vote in the first three primary contests.

Sanders has demonstrated that he appeals to moderates, not just progressives. In the Nevada caucus, he won 22 percent of moderate voters, which nearly tied Biden’s 23 percent. Barack Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe endeavored to reassure moderates in the Democratic Party, and indeed, the DNC, that Sanders is electable. Plouffe called the idea of a contested convention “preposterous,” saying, “Right now there’s no evidence that would suggest that Bernie Sanders is so much less electable than the rest.” Plouffe cited Sanders’s strong support from Black and Latinx voters in Nevada and deep backing of the young voters, saying they are “the future of the party.”

Bloomberg, who didn’t compete in the early voting states, is not yet battle-tested. He is holding his fire for the March 3 Super Tuesday primaries in 14 states, which will award 40 percent of the pledged delegate votes.

It remains to be seen whether Bloomberg’s vast wealth can overcome his documented record of racism and misogyny.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Arguments About Bloomberg’s “Electability” Overlook His Racism and Misogyny
Tags: Michael Bloomberg, United States, US elections

Julian Assange Against the Imperium: Day Two of Extradition Hearings

February 26th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The second day of extradition hearings against Julian Assange and by virtue of that, WikiLeaks, saw Mark Summers QC deliver a formidable serve for the defence at Woolwich Crown Court. “It’s difficult to conceive of a clearer example of an extradition request that boldly and blatantly misstates the facts as they are known to be to the US government.” The targets were, respectively, allegations by the US Department of Justice that Assange attempted to conceal Chelsea Manning’s identity for nefarious purposes and second, that WikiLeaks was reckless as to the potential consequences of harm in releasing unredacted State Department cables in 2011.

The position WikiLeaks has taken on the latter position goes back to the problematic, rocky relationship it has had with The Guardian over the years. In November last year, the paper took the position that Assange had to “be defended against extradition to the United States in a case that digs at the foundations of freedom of democracy in both Britain and the US, and could see him sentenced to a total of 175 years.” History, however, shows a more fair-weather friend disposition, especially amongst a few of the paper’s journalists.

The Guardian was one of a select number of international outlets WikiLeaks had partnered with in what was intended to be, according to Summers, a harm minimisation process of release. Initial cable publications in November 2010 heeded the principle of redaction, so much so that John Goetz of Der Spiegel considered them “extreme”. Goetz’s statement was duly read by Summers: “These were more extreme measures than I had ever previously observed as a journalist to secure the data and ensure they could not be accessed by anyone who was not a journalist.”

To the claim of reckless publication, it was submitted that journalists Luke Harding and David Leigh revealed the relevant password in their book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy that led inexorably to the indiscriminate release of the cables. The password granted access to the encrypted file with the full trove of unredacted cables, though this fact was only picked up by the German publication Der Freitag in August 2011. James Lewis QC, representing the Crown Prosecution Service, scoffed at the notion, leading to the defence referencing the index of Harding and Leigh’s work.

The account submitted by Summers did not lack thriller appeal. On August 25, the day Der Freitag started getting busy, Assange and Sarah Harrison, his WikiLeaks counterpart, got on the phone to both the US State Department and the US ambassador in the UK. An emergency regarding the publication of unredacted State Department files, they warned, was imminent. WikiLeaks, they stressed, would not be responsible for it. The picture presented about Assange was one of concern. “We don’t understand,” he claimed at the time, “why you don’t see the urgency of this. Unless we do something about it, people’s lives are being put at risk.”

The 18^th count of the indictment charging that Assange aided and abetted Manning’s 2010 disclosures as part of a “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion” was given similar, withering treatment. Underpinning the argument is the claim that Assange assisted Manning adopt an anonymous identity via a cracked US military password. That identity, argue the prosecution, would have permitted the obtaining and dissemination of classified material without her exposure.

This, countered Summers, lay in the realm of gross misunderstanding. The US military would hardly have concerned itself with login details initiated by an anonymous user. Far better to focus on the relevant IP address, a true sign of a user’s individuality. Again, the stress by the defence has been on Manning’s individual conscience and initiative, making her a more traditional whistleblower than a malicious co-conspirator in computer hacking. In her 2013 court martial, Manning insisted that “no one associated with the WLO [WikiLeaks] pressured me into giving me more information. The decisions I made to send documents and information to the WLO and the website were my own decisions, and I take full responsibility for my actions.”

Nor could her motives for disclosing such documents be impugned; she had disclosed the US Army’s 2007 Rules of Engagement to enable those viewing the Collateral Murder video to contextualise the attack by the Apache helicopter that killed over a dozen people, including two Reuters news staff, in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad.

Also worth nothing here is the level of discrimination shown: Manning did not provide the rules of engagement files from Afghanistan, despite having access to them. The superseding indictment would have you think otherwise, alleging that, “Between in or around January 2010 and May 2010, consistent with WikiLeaks’s ‘Most Wanted Leaks’ solicitation of bulk databases and military and intelligence categories, Manning downloaded four nearly complete databases from departments and agencies of the United States.”

The demolition by Summers was impressively devastating. While the “Most Wanted Leaks” list did seek “bulk databases”, the diplomatic cables did not form part of them. Evidence that Manning had ever seen the list was also scant, a point that could be adduced from material cited in her court martial. Lewis weakly contended that the “Most Wanted Leaks” list was a “general allegation”, and more attention should be paid to the WikiLeaks website itself, which had the “solicitation” posted on it. Sloppiness is often the métier of the desperate.

Lewis was also far from convinced about Manning’s motives, following a crude syllogistic line of reasoning that proved clumsy and laboured. The statement made by Manning to show her wounded moral compass was “self-serving” in nature; but it was merely self-serving because it was made by a conspirator. Conspirators, it followed, have no morals. “You can’t rely on a self-serving statement without qualification whatsoever. It’s the self-serving statement of a co-conspirator.”

What the defence had shown on the second day of extradition hearings was the increasingly hollow nature of much in the prosecution’s case, one increasingly reliant on what Summers described as “lies, lies, and more lies.”

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Julian Assange Against the Imperium: Day Two of Extradition Hearings
Tags: Assange extradition, extradition hearing, Julian Assange, United Kingdom, United States, WikiLeaks

Global Research Publishers

Books Available From Clarity Press

Global Research E-Books

Global Research Authors